Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::The Bathroom Wall

Posted: Jan. 15 2009,09:17

Quote (Daniel Smith @ 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?

Do these protection in place have names? Have you searched to see if all organisms have these protections?

If there is a protection to prevent mutation, isn't that proof that mutations happen? What is the rate of mutations that get prevented, and the rate that slips through?

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.

There goes the ark story!

--------------
"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

Posts: 5356
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Jan. 15 2009,13:04

So, of course Mr. Murphy rears his ugly head, and just before the Science Online conference I have come down with the cold from hell.

Has anyone ever tried using a pipette through the ear canal to remove vast quantities of head stopping snot? Is it necessarily fatal, or just highly probable? What if I just use a micropipette? Does that improve the odds at all?

I'd like to apply Dr. Dr. D's super secret ID odds calculator thing to this problem, but a search of the literature seems to come up empty on the exact calculations. Is there a slide rule or something I have to buy? Decoder ring?

--------------
~~Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok~~ -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

Rrr

Posts: 146
Joined: Nov. 2008

Posted: Jan. 15 2009,13:40

Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 15 2009,13:04)

So, of course Mr. Murphy rears his ugly head, and just before the Science Online conference I have come down with the cold from hell.

Has anyone ever tried using a pipette through the ear canal to remove vast quantities of head stopping snot? Is it necessarily fatal, or just highly probable? What if I just use a micropipette? Does that improve the odds at all?

I'd like to apply Dr. Dr. D's super secret ID odds calculator thing to this problem, but a search of the literature seems to come up empty on the exact calculations. Is there a slide rule or something I have to buy? Decoder ring?

Soddy to hear aboud Br Burphy.

Maybe see a ('single') doctor (of medicine)?

I think there are some OTC drugs in the US that may give some relief, like Theraflu, Sudafed and the usual anti-inflammatories. (Theraflu is IIRC simply a ready-made mix of such.) And plenty of warm stuff to drink, like a hot toddy of OJ, honey and ginger. Sometimes eating stuff with chili pepper or similar seems to loosen up my sinuses. Avoid having cold feet. If you must apply onion or garlic earally, DO NOT CRUSH THEM FIRST! Makes the stuff Very Difficult to get rid of. And it hurts.

Hot brandy with butter is supposed to help against cough -- it's so horrid you'd rather get well in a hurry!

But, again, don't listen to me at all -- other than to get advice from a Real Doc!

Gesundheit!

Posts: 1478
Joined: May 2007

Posted: Jan. 15 2009,13:57

Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 15 2009,14:04)

So, of course Mr. Murphy rears his ugly head, and just before the Science Online conference I have come down with the cold from hell.

Has anyone ever tried using a pipette through the ear canal to remove vast quantities of head stopping snot? Is it necessarily fatal, or just highly probable? What if I just use a micropipette? Does that improve the odds at all?

I'd like to apply Dr. Dr. D's super secret ID odds calculator thing to this problem, but a search of the literature seems to come up empty on the exact calculations. Is there a slide rule or something I have to buy? Decoder ring?

I don't think this is quackery:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/03/fashion/03skin.html

Anecdote: my grandfather did this.

--------------
"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

stevestory

Posts: 8749
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Jan. 15 2009,14:50

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 15 2009,05:55)

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.

I don't know actually. I think I may have just gotten exhausted. And realized that the hundreds of hours I'd spent arguing with such people had accomplished nothing except waste my time and put me in a bad mood. I'm not sure exactly what happened. Also, I'm a math tutor, and I realized that people will only learn something when they want to learn it. If they don't want to learn it, it's hard to teach them anything, and when they actively resist learning, like your typical creationist, it's completely impossible. So why waste my time.

midwifetoad

Posts: 3512
Joined: Mar. 2008

Posted: Jan. 15 2009,14:55

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess118_2009-2010/bills/56.htm

Quote

TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 16-15-370 SO AS TO MAKE IT UNLAWFUL TO COMMUNICATE PROFANITY IN A PUBLIC FORUM OR PLACE OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION; BY ADDING SECTION 16-15-430 SO AS TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF DISSEMINATING PROFANITY TO A MINOR AND PROVIDE A PENALTY FOR THE OFFENSE; TO AMEND SECTION 16-15-305, RELATING TO DISSEMINATING OBSCENITY, SO AS TO SPECIFY BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN PUBLICATIONS; AND TO AMEND SECTION 16-15-375, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS FOR PURPOSES OF MORALITY AND DECENCY OFFENSES AGAINST MINORS, SO AS TO INCLUDE THE OFFENSE OF DISSEMINATING PROFANITY TO A MINOR.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

Posts: 1478
Joined: May 2007

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess118_2009-2010/bills/56.htm

Posted: Jan. 15 2009,14:57

Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 15 2009,15:55)

Quote

TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 16-15-370 SO AS TO MAKE IT UNLAWFUL TO COMMUNICATE PROFANITY IN A PUBLIC FORUM OR PLACE OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION; BY ADDING SECTION 16-15-430 SO AS TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF DISSEMINATING PROFANITY TO A MINOR AND PROVIDE A PENALTY FOR THE OFFENSE; TO AMEND SECTION 16-15-305, RELATING TO DISSEMINATING OBSCENITY, SO AS TO SPECIFY BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN PUBLICATIONS; AND TO AMEND SECTION 16-15-375, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS FOR PURPOSES OF MORALITY AND DECENCY OFFENSES AGAINST MINORS, SO AS TO INCLUDE THE OFFENSE OF DISSEMINATING PROFANITY TO A MINOR.

No shit?

--------------
"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

Henry J

Posts: 3964
Joined: Mar. 2005

Posted: Jan. 15 2009,14:58

IOW, thou shalt not disseminate?

Henry J

Posts: 3964
Joined: Mar. 2005

Posted: Jan. 15 2009,15:14

Quote

Because God can not be considered, (no matter how mind-boggling the organization), they always end up at the "I don't know" roadblock.

Roadblock? Realizing that they don't know something is why scientists do research in the first place - it's the primary motivation. Without that there would be no advances in science.

Henry

J-Dog

Posts: 4354
Joined: Dec. 2006

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess118_2009-2010/bills/56.htm

Posted: Jan. 15 2009,15:32

Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 15 2009,14:55)

Quote

TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 16-15-370 SO AS TO MAKE IT UNLAWFUL TO COMMUNICATE PROFANITY IN A PUBLIC FORUM OR PLACE OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION; BY ADDING SECTION 16-15-430 SO AS TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF DISSEMINATING PROFANITY TO A MINOR AND PROVIDE A PENALTY FOR THE OFFENSE; TO AMEND SECTION 16-15-305, RELATING TO DISSEMINATING OBSCENITY, SO AS TO SPECIFY BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN PUBLICATIONS; AND TO AMEND SECTION 16-15-375, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS FOR PURPOSES OF MORALITY AND DECENCY OFFENSES AGAINST MINORS, SO AS TO INCLUDE THE OFFENSE OF DISSEMINATING PROFANITY TO A MINOR.

This guy is an amoral jack-ass fuckwad and deserves all the scorn and abuse we can heap upon him.

If you see him, please flip him off. If not for, or yourself, WON'T YOU PLEASE DO IT FOR THE KIDZ!

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

Posts: 1478
Joined: May 2007

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess118_2009-2010/bills/56.htm

Posted: Jan. 15 2009,15:34

Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 15 2009,15:55)

Quote

TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 16-15-370 SO AS TO MAKE IT UNLAWFUL TO COMMUNICATE PROFANITY IN A PUBLIC FORUM OR PLACE OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION; BY ADDING SECTION 16-15-430 SO AS TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF DISSEMINATING PROFANITY TO A MINOR AND PROVIDE A PENALTY FOR THE OFFENSE; TO AMEND SECTION 16-15-305, RELATING TO DISSEMINATING OBSCENITY, SO AS TO SPECIFY BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN PUBLICATIONS; AND TO AMEND SECTION 16-15-375, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS FOR PURPOSES OF MORALITY AND DECENCY OFFENSES AGAINST MINORS, SO AS TO INCLUDE THE OFFENSE OF DISSEMINATING PROFANITY TO A MINOR.

And what if the fucking minor swears at you first?

--------------
"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

Posts: 5356
Joined: Jan. 2006

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess118_2009-2010/bills/56.htm

Posted: Jan. 15 2009,16:19

Quote (khan @ Jan. 15 2009,16:34)

Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 15 2009,15:55)

Quote

TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 16-15-370 SO AS TO MAKE IT UNLAWFUL TO COMMUNICATE PROFANITY IN A PUBLIC FORUM OR PLACE OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION; BY ADDING SECTION 16-15-430 SO AS TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF DISSEMINATING PROFANITY TO A MINOR AND PROVIDE A PENALTY FOR THE OFFENSE; TO AMEND SECTION 16-15-305, RELATING TO DISSEMINATING OBSCENITY, SO AS TO SPECIFY BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN PUBLICATIONS; AND TO AMEND SECTION 16-15-375, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS FOR PURPOSES OF MORALITY AND DECENCY OFFENSES AGAINST MINORS, SO AS TO INCLUDE THE OFFENSE OF DISSEMINATING PROFANITY TO A MINOR.

And what if the fucking minor swears at you first?

It doesn't mention anything about beating the crap out of the little shit.

--------------
~~Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok~~ -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

rhmc

Posts: 340
Joined: Dec. 2007

Posted: Jan. 15 2009,16:23

profanity is merely the crutch of all inarticulate motherfuckers.

Posts: 1478
Joined: May 2007

Posted: Jan. 15 2009,16:26

Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 15 2009,17:19)

Quote (khan @ Jan. 15 2009,16:34)

Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 15 2009,15:55)

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess118_2009-2010/bills/56.htm

Quote

TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 16-15-370 SO AS TO MAKE IT UNLAWFUL TO COMMUNICATE PROFANITY IN A PUBLIC FORUM OR PLACE OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION; BY ADDING SECTION 16-15-430 SO AS TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF DISSEMINATING PROFANITY TO A MINOR AND PROVIDE A PENALTY FOR THE OFFENSE; TO AMEND SECTION 16-15-305, RELATING TO DISSEMINATING OBSCENITY, SO AS TO SPECIFY BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN PUBLICATIONS; AND TO AMEND SECTION 16-15-375, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS FOR PURPOSES OF MORALITY AND DECENCY OFFENSES AGAINST MINORS, SO AS TO INCLUDE THE OFFENSE OF DISSEMINATING PROFANITY TO A MINOR.

And what if the fucking minor swears at you first?

It doesn't mention anything about beating the crap out of the little shit.

Several years ago there was a teenass skateboarding on the road. He had that 'you can't touch me' smirk. I briefly considered that it might be worth the trouble of running over him, just to change the look on his face.

--------------
"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

Posts: 1478
Joined: May 2007

Posted: Jan. 15 2009,17:36

Ricardo Montalban (November 25, 1920 – January 14, 2009)

The great Khan is no longer with us.

--------------
"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

Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Jan. 15 2009,18:14

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 14 2009,18:40)

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.

All I'm asking for is one workable natural pathway for one organized biological system. That's it. Just one. As far as I know, (and as far as anyone here has been able to point me), none exist. They all end in "I don't know". Yet I'm accused of distorting scientific findings for merely asking the question!

Quote

It is also the point at which God is most often inserted by the most naive of her advocates (including you).

So God is inserted at the beginning of virtually every living system? Sounds about right to me. But I'm more naive than you.

Quote

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.

That's the only way to research it scientifically. There are other (subjective) modes of research that can also verify the "God hypothesis" for us individually.

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.

You've got to be kidding me! You blatantly accuse me of purposefully misrepresenting the findings of science, then, when pressed for an example, you cite the subject I've probably talked about the least; one I never brought up; and one for which I specifically said I'd done little to no research!!!
Please.
I expected better that that from you Bill.

Quote

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."

I admit that that was very poorly worded. I was not attempting to call the majority of scientists "empty headed sheep", I was referring to majorities in general, more as in "the masses". The majority chose VHS over beta, PCs over Macs, etc.

--------------
"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

Posts: 5356
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Jan. 15 2009,18:21

Quote (khan @ Jan. 15 2009,18:36)

Ricardo Montalban (November 25, 1920 – January 14, 2009)

The great Khan is no longer with us.

KHAAAAAAANNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Much suckage.

--------------
~~Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok~~ -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

carlsonjok

Posts: 3323
Joined: May 2006

Posted: Jan. 15 2009,18:30

Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 15 2009,18:21)

Quote (khan @ Jan. 15 2009,18:36)

Ricardo Montalban (November 25, 1920 – January 14, 2009)

The great Khan is no longer with us.

KHAAAAAAANNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Much suckage.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Jan. 15 2009,18:33

Quote (jeffox @ Jan. 14 2009,19:09)

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.

"NOTHING"?
Really?
What world do you live in?
List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

--------------
"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

Reciprocating Bill

Posts: 4223
Joined: Oct. 2006

Posted: Jan. 15 2009,18:38

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 15 2009,19:14)

You've got to be kidding me! You blatantly accuse me of purposefully misrepresenting the findings of science, then, when pressed for an example, you cite the subject I've probably talked about the least; one I never brought up; and one for which I specifically said I'd done little to no research!!!

I selected those examples because they starkly exemplify your irrational rejection of settled science, your denials notwithstanding. Oldman's cite of your willingness to entertain the notion that dinosaurs and humans lived together falls into the same class.

You said what you said. And I don't see a denial of those beliefs, or of your credulity, in your response.

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

Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Jan. 15 2009,18:39

Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 15 2009,13:14)

Quote

Because God can not be considered, (no matter how mind-boggling the organization), they always end up at the "I don't know" roadblock.

Roadblock? Realizing that they don't know something is why scientists do research in the first place - it's the primary motivation. Without that there would be no advances in science.

Henry

It's a "roadblock" if you can't get past it.

--------------
"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

Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Jan. 15 2009,18:59

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 15 2009,16:38)

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 15 2009,19:14)

You've got to be kidding me! You blatantly accuse me of purposefully misrepresenting the findings of science, then, when pressed for an example, you cite the subject I've probably talked about the least; one I never brought up; and one for which I specifically said I'd done little to no research!!!

I selected those examples because they starkly exemplify your irrational rejection of settled science, your denials notwithstanding. Oldman's cite of your willingness to entertain the notion that dinosaurs and humans lived together falls into the same class.

You said what you said. And I don't see a denial of those beliefs in your response.

That explains it... you're citing oldmanintheskydidit.

I don't read his posts anymore so I don't know what he's filling your head with. All I know is that he has taken to personally trolling me.

When I used to read his posts, they were just confrontation for the purpose of confrontation. He quite literally challenged everything I said. It got quite ridiculous. Many of his posted "quotes" of mine are blatantly out of context - so if you really want to know what I think about something either go back and read the original in context or ask me.

As for the flood, I'll tell you what I told him: I don't know enough about the current state of research to make up my mind one way or another. I haven't concerned myself with it, it's not central to my beliefs, I don't have a problem with the currently accepted time frame.

I've said all those things to him, but with oldmanintheskydidit it just falls on deaf ears and he continues on - like a little yapping dog - berating me at every turn.

Try going back and reading his responses, then put yourself in my shoes and tell me how long you'd take it.

--------------
"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

bystander

Posts: 301
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Jan. 15 2009,19:05

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 16 2009,11:39)

Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 15 2009,13:14)

Quote

Because God can not be considered, (no matter how mind-boggling the organization), they always end up at the "I don't know" roadblock.

Roadblock? Realizing that they don't know something is why scientists do research in the first place - it's the primary motivation. Without that there would be no advances in science.

Henry

It's a "roadblock" if you can't get past it.

What haven't they gotten past? Science as far as I can see is making leaps and bounds, especially in biology.

Daniel in the Bathroom Wall reminds me of the crazy guy in the toilet at a bar. I am sure that I am not the only person that peeks in to see if he is still here.

Reciprocating Bill

Posts: 4223
Joined: Oct. 2006

Posted: Jan. 15 2009,19:05

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 15 2009,19:59)

As for the flood: I don't know enough about the current state of research to make up my mind one way or another.

A profound rejection of science generally - in essence a rejection of the contemporary "background world picture" against which our more recent debates must take place - is required to sustain such a position.

And your thoughts on the age of the earth? Perhaps an even more crucial component of settled scientific world view.

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

Posts: 5356
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Jan. 15 2009,19:14

Wow. Was just listening to the trained chimp giving his farewell address.

He really has no relationship whatever with reality, does he?

--------------
~~Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok~~ -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Jan. 15 2009,19:21

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 15 2009,19:59)

As for the flood: I don't know enough about the current state of research to make up my mind one way or another.

Translated:

"I believe in Noah's Flood, but I haven't yet cobbled together an 'argument' for it that won't get shredded in three minutes."

--------------
"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

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Jan. 15 2009,19:24

Quote (khan @ Jan. 12 2009,17:50)

Quote

I came here to challenge and to have my views challenged and so far, it's been productive for me. I've brought my own philosophy into sharper focus through our exchanges here. You have been one of the few to actually engage in debate. And, although I think you sometimes reject anything that might force you to consider God, I feel as though you have at least tried to consider my arguments.

Which god?

Incidentally, Daniel, I don't think you ever answered this question.

--------------
"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

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Jan. 15 2009,19:33

Quote (khan @ Jan. 15 2009,14:26)

Several years ago there was a teenass skateboarding on the road. He had that 'you can't touch me' smirk. I briefly considered that it might be worth the trouble of running over him, just to change the look on his face.

HA HA THIS IS KHAN:

--------------
"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

Richard Simons

Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

Posted: Jan. 15 2009,19:55

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 15 2009,18:33)

Quote (jeffox @ Jan. 14 2009,19:09)

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.

"NOTHING"?
Really?
What world do you live in?
List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

If you said that a liking for cold tea has not contributed to engineering, and I responded by giving a list of engineers who like cold tea, would you decide that yes, indeed, cold tea has made an important contribution to engineering? As it stands, your argument makes little more sense.

The claim was not that Christians have contributed nothing productive, but that your philosophy has contributed nothing.

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

Posts: 1478
Joined: May 2007