RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (638) < ... 350 351 352 353 354 [355] 356 357 358 359 360 ... >   
  Topic: The Bathroom Wall, A PT tradition< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2009,14:55   

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 13 2009,11:39)
My ego isn't so tiny and vulnerable that I need the reassurance of fake victories and people (and I use the term advisedly) like Carlson and Arden.

Only the tried and true response is appropriate here:

HA HA THIS IS LOUIS:



--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
huwp



Posts: 172
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2009,15:47   

In the space of just three posts we have had a mother joke, some sour grapes AND a lolcat.  Now if only we could have a vintage RTH Tardologue and an ftk flounce out, that would be really something.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2009,17:25   

Quote (huwp @ Jan. 13 2009,21:47)
In the space of just three posts we have had a mother joke, some sour grapes AND a lolcat.  Now if only we could have a vintage RTH Tardologue and an ftk flounce out, that would be really something.

We are indeed going for a positive plethora of puerility. I'm proud of us.

Louis

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

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2009,14:08   

Let's focus on this:
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 13 2009,04:33)
What I do have a problem with is that you and yours consistently and woefully misrepresent the current state of evolutionary biology. You not only assert that certain phenomena (those you believe were authored by God) will never be amenable to scientific explication (fair enough), you deny and dismiss many scientific assertions that are in fact well in hand and beyond reasonable dispute. You also prefer armchair profundity (e.g. Denton on protein folding) over actual hard work, and have repeated the falsehood that there is a conspiracy among professional scientists to evade conclusions and misrepresent the current state of knowledge.
...

Were your faith as confident as you portray it to be, you would have no need to consistently distort, ignore and misrepresent the actual science. And were you as interested as you say you are in learning God's characteristics by means of inference from the natural world, you would avidly follow the natural sciences to see where they lead and what they say, rather than starting with your preferred conclusions and embracing only those few outlier findings that can be tortured into an interpretation that supports your view.

In short, you claim to be interested in the "truth," yet misrepresent the current state of knowledge. In fact, this is where I came into the discussion: to express a sense of nausea that one of your many dismissals aroused. I'm not very friendly to that.

Why don't you try being more specific?  If you feel I'm "misrepresenting" the findings of science, please give specific examples as to how.  Show me where I "deny and dismiss many scientific assertions that are in fact well in hand and beyond reasonable dispute".  If you feel that arguing for front-loading means I've somehow "only" embraced the "outlier findings", please show where the "main" findings contradict what I've said.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Henry J



Posts: 4059
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2009,14:28   

Current knowledge of genetics says that the DNA of a species will accumulate mutations in any sequence that isn't needed in the current environment. "Front-loading" contradicts that.

  
jeffox



Posts: 531
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2009,15:07   

Louis wrote:

Quote
Shhh, don't tell everyone the rules. Arden and Carlson think it's some kind of "gay code", but this is only because they are a) bitter, b) twisted, c) envious because they don't get it, d) so far back in the closet of denial and projection as to be in Narnia.

;-)

Louis


Gotcha.  And I'm game.  I'll start with Monument awaiting a gap.  But I'm the underdog!

  
jeffox



Posts: 531
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2009,15:11   

Actually, Daniel Smith, why don't you focus on this photo of TARDavison:



I'm sure even YOU can make the connection.

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4362
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2009,15:23   

Quote (jeffox @ Jan. 14 2009,15:11)
Actually, Daniel Smith, why don't you focus on this photo of TARDavison:



I'm sure even YOU can make the connection.

Daniel just sent me a PM* - He wants to know what Chapter and verse of the Bible it's in so he can look it up... :)


*I'm lying but work with me here for the fun, ok?

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2009,15:26   

Quote (jeffox @ Jan. 14 2009,13:07)
But I'm the underdog!

Louis should be glad to hear that.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2009,15:39   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 14 2009,14:08)
Show me where I "deny and dismiss many scientific assertions that are in fact well in hand and beyond reasonable dispute".


     
Quote
I believe in the flood, but only because I haven't seen the evidence against it.  My main reason for believing it (other than the bible), is that the landscape looks like the aftermath of massive flood runoff when viewed from the air.   (insert joke here)

     
Quote
d) Did man and dinosaur share the planet at the same time?
It's possible, but again I don't know.

     
Quote
It's not how old things are; it's their chronological order that matters.

     
Quote
OTOH, a monkey cannot design anything beyond his level of understanding.  Neither can a man.  So if the universe was designed by a monkey, we'd be able to easily figure it out. If it was designed by a man, a monkey would never be able to figure it out.  If it was designed by God, neither man nor monkeys would ever be able to.

I remember reading about a GA connected up to a real circuit board and components that was tasked with evolving some mechanism or other. What it came up with was totally unexpected and they could not figure out how it worked initially (if at all) as it used properties of the components that would not normally be considered when designing such a circuit.
Modern CPUs are literally millions of components packed into tiny volumes. Did somebody "design" it and by your measure fully "understand" it?
No, computer programs helped out. Yes we know how it works and why it works but the sum totality of every connection and pathway is not present in simply human understanding. So we have a GA that evolves (and there are other examples) things that work but where it is not clear how they work and that software is running on hardware getting faster and more complex every day.

And Daniel. It's not possible man and dinosaur shared the earth. That would be one of those scientific assertions that are in fact well in hand and beyond reasonable dispute you mentioned.
Quote
If it was designed by God, neither man nor monkeys would ever be able to.

Perhaps some of the electricity you are using to type with was generated in a nuclear power plant. Seems like man is doing a fair job of understanding the universe so far, given that it's only been a short time since the industrial revolution. What will you be arguing against in 50 years time Daniel?

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2009,15:40   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 14 2009,14:08)
If you feel I'm "misrepresenting" the findings of science, please give specific examples as to how.

Was this a trick question by the way? Are you finally coming out as a troll?

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

  
jeffox



Posts: 531
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2009,15:41   

Arden wrote:

Quote
Quote
(jeffox @ Jan. 14 2009,13:07)
But I'm the underdog!


Louis should be glad to hear that.


I figure that'll really confuse everyone as to my next move - shhhhhh!    :)

  
jeffox



Posts: 531
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2009,15:45   

J-Dog wrote:
Quote
Daniel just sent me a PM* - He wants to know what Chapter and verse of the Bible it's in so he can look it up... :)


*I'm lying but work with me here for the fun, ok?


Somewhere in the Old Tardament, I think.   :)

  
huwp



Posts: 172
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2009,16:26   

Quote (jeffox @ Jan. 14 2009,15:07)
Gotcha.  And I'm game.  I'll start with Monument awaiting a gap.  But I'm the underdog!

Enjoy the game but do be careful; Louis is a really, really bad loser.  

Oh, and Arden might call you a smelly hippie.  And there's almost bound to be a mother joke.  And a lolcat.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2009,16:39   

Quote (Smelly hippie @ Jan. 14 2009,14:26)
   
Quote (jeffox @ Jan. 14 2009,15:07)
Gotcha.  And I'm game.  I'll start with Monument awaiting a gap.  But I'm the underdog!

Enjoy the game but do be careful; Louis is a really, really bad loser.  

Oh, and Arden might call you a smelly hippie.  And there's almost bound to be a mother joke.  And a lolcat.

   
Quote
Louis is a really, really bad loser.  


Fixed it for you.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
JonF



Posts: 571
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2009,17:46   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 14 2009,16:39)
I remember reading about a GA connected up to a real circuit board and components that was tasked with evolving some mechanism or other. What it came up with was totally unexpected and they could not figure out how it worked initially (if at all) as it used properties of the components that would not normally be considered when designing such a circuit.

One of my faves.

An evolved circuit,
intrinsic in silicon,
entwined with physics


The process created an IC system (by Behe's original definition) over ten years ago. Not only could the researchers not figure out how it worked, critical sections were not even connected to the rest by any known link. Evolution found some parasitic capacitive and/or inductive coupling and used it productively.

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2009,18:20   

Quote (Cubist @ Jan. 13 2009,06:00)

One: Mutations. The problem here is, front loading cannot work unless the front-loaded genetic material has been perfectly, 100% shielded from any and all mutations. Without that kind of anti-mutation protection, the odds of front-loaded genetic material managing to avoid getting zapped by mutations are small enough to make Creationist estimates of the probability of abiogenesis look like a sure thing.

1) There are already protections in place aimed at preventing mutations.  Who's to say they haven't always been there?
2) Natural selection is very good at weeding out mutations in genes that code for useful proteins.  If these overly complex genomes were coopted for simple functions, they would be conserved.  As the Trichoplax genome has shown us, it's possible that similar genes have multiple uses and are thus conserved.
3) Some variation can be tolerated - even encouraged - as can be seen plainly from existing populations.  Healthy populations tend to have more variation rather than less (within limits obviously).
         
Quote
Two: Genetic variance. Specifically, there's just too much genetic variance for it all to have ever existed in any 1 (one) critter.

1) We don't know if it was just one critter, it could have been hundreds.
2) How much of that variation is due to genetic loss?
             
Quote
If you care about whether or not your ideas are true, you really ought to be testing your ideas, not just assuming them to be true. Who do you think is more concerned about the truth of their ideas: John Doe, who says "I think X is true because [insert list of evidence which supports the proposition that X is true]" or Richard Roe, who says "I think X is true, just because"?

Obviously, the former.  There is a large cache of evidence in support of my argument.
             
Quote
That's nice. Do any of these "brilliant scientists" have a way to overcome the mutations happen and too much variety objections to front loading? If they don't, it doesn't matter how smart they are -- they're just wrong, end of discussion.

That's nice, Again: Do any of these "brilliant scientists" have a way to overcome the mutations happen and too much variety objections to front loading? Science does not care how smart you are; science only cares whether your ideas (a) can be tested or not, and (b) pass the tests. Everything else is just window dressing.

You should try reading their words for yourself before you blindly assume they are wrong.  It may serve you well to apply this principle in other areas of your life as well.
             
Quote
Wrong. It's philosophical naturalism which actively rejects the God hypothesis. Methodological naturalism merely ignores the God hypothesis as an idea which isn't testable, and therefore isn't useful, however true it may happen to be.
You think the God hypothesis is testable? Groovy. How!? In specific, how do you propose to go about testing the hypothesis "an Entity whose motivations are utterly beyond human comprehension, with powers utterly without limit, is responsible for such-and-such"?
If you see no need to test the God hypothesis, fine. But if you don't see any need to test the God hypothesis, are you really concerned with whether or not your ideas are true? Or are you, instead, only concerned with whether or not your ideas make you feel good?

I am willing to look at any and all evidence to see whether or not it supports the notion that life, and the universe that supports it, are indeed the product of a rational mind.  If God created intelligent agents such as us, it stands to reason that he is also an agent similar to us.  Therefore, we can look for markers of engineering and design principles that are similar to our own.  The evidence is heavily in favor of such a proposition.  

Philosophical naturalism will often exclusively appeal to methodological naturalism in its quest to show that no deity is required.  The problem with that is that - since no deity can be considered within the parameters of methodological naturalism - the question is moot.

The BIG problem for a naturalist (of any kind) comes when they try to explain exactly how something of sufficiently complex organization was constructed by unguided forces.  Because God can not be considered, (no matter how mind-boggling the organization), they always end up at the "I don't know" roadblock.  This is a big problem - one that you are all well prepared to ignore.  It's a nice little insulated world!

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Wolfhound



Posts: 468
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2009,19:24   

I have to give Daniel some credit; he just keeps trucking along, blathering away, heedless of the vacuousness of his position.  Like the Little Engine That Shouldn't.

What is the saddest/funniest thing about his woo is how he criticizes "materialists" (fundie speak for "those who don't believe in woo") for saying "I don't know" but utterly fails to acknowledge that admitting you don't yet know the answer to something is infinitely more honest than Making Shit Up.  Because the godbotherer cannot accept natural explanations for things nor consider the fact that there is no evidence for a magic man in the sky, he ignores the "I don't know roadblock" and pretends that he does know the answer.  Which, necessarily, is his own magic man in the gaps for which there is no evidence beyond his Bronze Age Book O' Bullshit and personal feelings of warm n' fuzziness.  

What a nice little insulated world, indeed, Projection Boy!

--------------
I've found my personality to be an effective form of birth control.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2009,20:40   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 14 2009,19:20)
Because God can not be considered, (no matter how mind-boggling the organization), they always end up at the "I don't know" roadblock.  This is a big problem - one that you are all well prepared to ignore.  It's a nice little insulated world!

"We don't know" delineates the leading edge of scientific knowledge, which is where the most talented scientists want to be and want to work. So, indeed the best science is "always" working at that boundary. That is its strength, not an indication of failure. Perhaps your representation that things are otherwise is your most persistent distortion.

It is also the point at which God is most often inserted by the most naive of her advocates (including you). Yet the fact remains that the God hypothesis is of no help whatsoever in the hard work of moving down that open road, and moving the leading edge forward.

Indeed, within your own framework the God hypothesis is of no help whatsoever in determining its own truth value. You have stated many times that the only empirical test you can conceive prescribes nothing more than the further pursuit of scientific research within the framework of methodological naturalism.
                         
Quote
If you feel I'm "misrepresenting" the findings of science, please give specific examples as to how.  Show me where I "deny and dismiss many scientific assertions that are in fact well in hand and beyond reasonable dispute".

An obvious example is your "agnosticism" regarding the age of the earth.  You said, "I have not made my mind up in regard to the age of the earth/cosmos as I have not seen all the evidence and probably do not have the expertise to rightly interpret it." In the context of this discussion such a statement inescapably leaves the door open for YEC. Yet the age of the earth is settled science, and beyond rational dispute. Yours is not an open-minded statement; it's an empty-minded one.

Similarly, you've stated "I believe in the flood, but only because I haven't seen the evidence against it." Yet the fictional status of "the flood" (which in this context inescapably denotes the worldwide Genesis flood) is also beyond rational dispute.

More impressionistic is your claim about the majority of scientists themselves:
           
Quote
I like scientists who are laughed at and shunned by the majority. The majority are usually just empty headed sheep anyway. The majority just loves pablum. Always has, always will.

Which aroused a first reaction of "fuck you, ignoranus" when you posted it. You don't know enough shit from shinola to "make up your mind" to accept settled science like that specifying the age of the earth, yet feel qualified to dismiss the majority of working scientists as "empty headed sheep."

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

  
jeffox



Posts: 531
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2009,21:09   

Ya ya, as empty as a cracked pot.

Keep in mind, Daniel, that not only do scientists (and people who use the scientific method) have an EXCELLENT track record, throughout history, of finding answers to unknowns, YOUR philosophy has provided NOTHING productive to modern civilization.

Tard in equals tard out.  ;)  'Nuff writ.

  
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2009,00:05   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 14 2009,16:20)
1) There are already protections in place aimed at preventing mutations.  Who's to say they haven't always been there?

Gee, maybe if you actually studied the subject, you could figure out whether the evidence supports this idea!

One of the most entertaining things about you is how you think whatever random bullshit happens to pop into your head is just as likely to be valid as real science that has thousands of person years of careful study behind it.
Quote

The BIG problem for a naturalist (of any kind) comes when they try to explain exactly how something of sufficiently complex organization was constructed by unguided forces.

Example of you just Making Shit UP.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4484
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2009,00:20   

Quote

One of the most entertaining things about you is how you think whatever random bullshit happens to pop into your head is just as likely to be valid as real science that has thousands of person years of careful study behind it.


That attitude happens when someone figures that they know what the answer is supposed to look like, even if they have not the faintest clue of how to actually arrive at it.

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

    
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2009,02:49   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 14 2009,15:39)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 14 2009,14:08)
Show me where I "deny and dismiss many scientific assertions that are in fact well in hand and beyond reasonable dispute".


         
Quote
I believe in the flood, but only because I haven't seen the evidence against it.  My main reason for believing it (other than the bible), is that the landscape looks like the aftermath of massive flood runoff when viewed from the air.   (insert joke here)

         
Quote
d) Did man and dinosaur share the planet at the same time?
It's possible, but again I don't know.

         
Quote
It's not how old things are; it's their chronological order that matters.

   
And Daniel. It's not possible man and dinosaur shared the earth. That would be one of those scientific assertions that are in fact well in hand and beyond reasonable dispute you mentioned.

I'm sorry, did you miss this?
You just said
 
Quote
The evidence is heavily in favor of such a proposition.  

I'll think you'll find that the evidence for an old earth compared to a young earth is heavily in favour of an old earth.

Why do you insist on one thing being true with hardly any evidence to support it and yet cannot bring yourself to admit that something like the age of the earth that does have massive amounts of evidence supporting it is true?

Oh, right.....

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 8896
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2009,03:59   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 15 2009,01:20)
Quote

One of the most entertaining things about you is how you think whatever random bullshit happens to pop into your head is just as likely to be valid as real science that has thousands of person years of careful study behind it.


That attitude happens when someone figures that they know what the answer is supposed to look like, even if they have not the faintest clue of how to actually arrive at it.

I wouldn't put this in a normal thread, because of the general rule against insulting other commenters, but this is the BW, and Dan reminded me of something.

I'm a pretty easy going guy in real life. I try to avoid controversy and steer conversations in productive directions and away from things that get my blood up. For instance, my girlfriend hates unions. She's pretty moderate to liberal, has an art degree, etc, she just happened to pick that up from her GOP dad. I don't hate unions any more than I hate any other collective organization, like McDonalds, or FFA. Some are good, some are mediocre, some are bad. Whatever. So when I'm emailing friends an interesting link, if it's about unions, I leave her name off the list. It's a cost/benefit thing. I try to find ways to have productive conversations with whoever I happen to be dealing with, rather than just respond to the circumstances. It's something I learned after years of flying off the handle and getting into disputes that didn't benefit me at all. Nowadays, I could chat with the horoscope booth operator at a Young Earth Creationist convention and my blood pressure wouldn't rise a bit.

That said, there's one person in my life I can't do that with. This person brings the stupid so relentlessly that I can't have a decent conversation with them. Everything, everything instantly turns down Idiot Lane.

Me: You wanted bread. Here's some bread.
Them: This has High Fructose Corn Syrup in it.
Me: So?
Them: High Fructose Corn syrup causes obesity and diabetes and health problems. It's the real reason for the Castro embargo. Find something with regular sugar instead.
Me: Ugh, it's basically the same as regular sugar. About 50% fructose, 50% glucose.
Them: Why are you always trying to prove how smart you are?
Me: What? I was just trying to tell you something.
Them: You think you know everything in the world.
Me: When did I ever say that?
Them: You condescend to everyone in the world.
Me: uh...what? Huh?
Them: You must think everything you read on the internet is true. You probably even believe in the moon landings.
Me: (usually walking away at this point)

Every conversation goes like that. Usually winds up with allegations about how I'm not living in the real world because I'm programmed over "the internet" by the New York Times and/or the Clintons. Etc. You get the picture.

Funny thing about this person, and what really pegs their intellect level, is The Dumb Lie. The Dumb Lie is a lie that you could conceivably get away with, under different circumstances, which these aren't. So this person whips out The Dumb Lie on me. In the example above, it was 'you believe every word on the internet is true.' Now, that's a lie you could conceivably get away with under different circumstances. If this person was talking to someone else, who didn't know me much, and said, "Steve believes every word on the internet is true.", they'd have a chance of getting away with it. But what makes this not a lie, but a Dumb Lie, is the person is telling me, the world's foremost expert in what Steve Story believes about things on the internet, something that's not just wrong but ridiculously wrong about me.  And that tells me this person's rhetoric is completely detached from any intelligent thought processes.

So where I see Daniel do this, one of many examples of where Daniel pulls out The Dumb Lie, is when he says something like "Most scientists are empty headed sheep."* We know that Daniel doesn't know any scientists. We know there's several dozen people here with science degrees, who collectively know hundreds of scientists. So a guy who doesn't know anything about scientists, is trying to tell people who do, something obviously wrong about scientists. And that makes it not just a lie, but a Dumb Lie.

(* FWIW, it's so dumb I suspect Dan is deliberately trolling for reactions)

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2009,04:55   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 15 2009,09:59)
[SNIP]

That said, there's one person in my life I can't do that with. This person brings the stupid so relentlessly that I can't have a decent conversation with them. Everything, everything instantly turns down Idiot Lane.

Me: You wanted bread. Here's some bread.
Them: This has High Fructose Corn Syrup in it.
Me: So?
Them: High Fructose Corn syrup causes obesity and diabetes and health problems. It's the real reason for the Castro embargo. Find something with regular sugar instead.
Me: Ugh, it's basically the same as regular sugar. About 50% fructose, 50% glucose.
Them: Why are you always trying to prove how smart you are?
Me: What? I was just trying to tell you something.
Them: You think you know everything in the world.
Me: When did I ever say that?
Them: You condescend to everyone in the world.
Me: uh...what? Huh?
Them: You must think everything you read on the internet is true. You probably even believe in the moon landings.
Me: (usually walking away at this point)

Every conversation goes like that. Usually winds up with allegations about how I'm not living in the real world because I'm programmed over "the internet" by the New York Times and/or the Clintons. Etc. You get the picture.

Funny thing about this person, and what really pegs their intellect level, is The Dumb Lie. The Dumb Lie is a lie that you could conceivably get away with, under different circumstances, which these aren't. So this person whips out The Dumb Lie on me. In the example above, it was 'you believe every word on the internet is true.' Now, that's a lie you could conceivably get away with under different circumstances. If this person was talking to someone else, who didn't know me much, and said, "Steve believes every word on the internet is true.", they'd have a chance of getting away with it. But what makes this not a lie, but a Dumb Lie, is the person is telling me, the world's foremost expert in what Steve Story believes about things on the internet, something that's not just wrong but ridiculously wrong about me.  And that tells me this person's rhetoric is completely detached from any intelligent thought processes.

[SNIP]

I have a similar issue with talking to some (happily very few) members of my family. Any form of knowledge, however innocuously expressed, is a threat/insult. A major cause of this specific reaction is insecurity+projection for what it's worth. They are insecure about their own knowledge/intellectual ability and project their own personal dissatisfaction with this onto others, thus assuming that any expression of intellect/knowledge is a critique of their (perceived) lack of intellect/knowledge when nothing could be further from the truth. In its extreme form simply having qualifications is sufficient "nauseating arrogance*" to be viewed as an attack.

I'd also love to know how you manage to control your, formerly volcanic, temper when confronted with this type of dumb. Personally I still find it epically annoying to the point of proper anger.

When confronted with something like Danny's

Quote
I like scientists who are laughed at and shunned by the majority. The majority are usually just empty headed sheep anyway. The majority just loves pablum. Always has, always will.


I'm honestly at a loss. It's not that it's offensive, I'm a big enough boy to rise above that. It's not that it's merely grossly inaccurate, that at least is correctable. It's that it is an explicit demonstration of a specific psychological issue: the profound desire to avoid rational dissection of pre-existing ideas in an attempt to preserve them against valid critique. It is fundamentally a dishonest stance to adopt. Now THAT (plus the arrogant presumption contained in such expressions of ignorance) is what annoys me. It is a simple case of being unreachable by reason that frustrates me to the point of unreason! LOL Irony: I has it.

Louis

*I use FTK's unwarranted insult hurled at Albatrossity for good reason, it's a classic example of this type of idiocy.

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

  
Rrr



Posts: 146
Joined: Nov. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2009,07:48   

Bill & Louis:
I don't really wish to defend Daniel on any count, but I do not parse that particular quote the same way as you seem to do. (Alas, I fail to find the original myself, the search reports two results but refers me to the whole board index page itself. So I can't reference Danny's context. I even thumbed back ten days and ten pages...)

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 15 2009,04:55)
When confronted with something like Danny's

   
Quote
I like scientists who are laughed at and shunned by the majority. The majority are usually just empty headed sheep anyway. The majority just loves pablum. Always has, always will.


I'm honestly at a loss.

Anyway, in the part shown here I'm not sure he means the majority of scientists (which would indeed be slanderous). Perhaps he is talking of as well as to himself? :-)

Srry.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2009,08:25   

If you click on the user names on each post it opens up every post they ever made

Daniel Smith  - Can you take this level of tard

Then it's a Ctrl+F to search for such items as "6000 years old" etc :)

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

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4362
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2009,08:26   

re:  Daniel / Steve / Louis

Daniel and his ilk (like's Steve's Big Lier), remind me of G.W. Bush and his administration, Palin, Televangelists and Faux News talking heads like Hannity and O'Reilly.  They are all dumb, and unaware.

And we all know how successful this strategy has been.

I think the only answer is education and optimism.

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

  
Rrr



Posts: 146
Joined: Nov. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2009,08:34   

Thanks, Oldman! I never thought to go back quite that far :-) Ten days seemed long enough for my poor ctrl-F-inger, let alone 6000 years or all the way back to 2007/09/27 05:30:39

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2009,08:35   

Quote (Rrr @ Jan. 15 2009,08:48)
Bill & Louis:
I don't really wish to defend Daniel on any count, but I do not parse that particular quote the same way as you seem to do. (Alas, I fail to find the original myself, the search reports two results but refers me to the whole board index page itself. So I can't reference Danny's context. I even thumbed back ten days and ten pages...)

             
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 15 2009,04:55)
When confronted with something like Danny's

               
Quote
I like scientists who are laughed at and shunned by the majority. The majority are usually just empty headed sheep anyway. The majority just loves pablum. Always has, always will.


I'm honestly at a loss.

Anyway, in the part shown here I'm not sure he means the majority of scientists (which would indeed be slanderous). Perhaps he is talking of as well as to himself? :-)

Srry.

I saw the ambiguity to which you refer. Here is the original post, in which he sloshes around from the particular to the general and back again. He does indeed intend to characterize majorities generally as "mindless sheep" (although he is actually describing his own mindless bias), but it is also clear from the context of this discussion that the majority he most wished to characterize in this way is that of mainstream scientists. The minority he prefers? "Guys like Schindewolf, Berg, Davison, Bateson, Goldshmidt, Denton, Spetner - all of them." These names had been the focus of the discussion, these names are the minority he was actively embracing, and I think it is fair to say that he intended to include working scientists who hold majority views among the "sheep."

But perhaps Daniel would like to retract or clarify his statement. He meant ABBA fans, not working scientists.

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

  
  19135 replies since Jan. 17 2006,08:38 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (638) < ... 350 351 352 353 354 [355] 356 357 358 359 360 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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