RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (638) < ... 324 325 326 327 328 [329] 330 331 332 333 334 ... >   
  Topic: The Bathroom Wall, A PT tradition< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4241
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2008,17:39   

Ok, then one of us is gonna have to create a new charactard and play it to the hilt here at AtBC.

Maybe I'll fake a conversion experience and make my stand.

'Cause Daniel's repetitive bullshit has become a bore.

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2008,17:53   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 05 2008,23:39)
Ok, then one of us is gonna have to create a new charactard and play it to the hilt here at AtBC.

Maybe I'll fake a conversion experience and make my stand.

'Cause Daniel's repetitive bullshit has become a bore.

That sounds way too much like hard work.

Why struggle for tard when nature supplies us with a bountiful supply?

Granted we get the occasional drought, but nature's providence when it comes to tards is almost unlimited. When Danny has jumped the shark, I believe the vacuum of his tard-presence will be filled.

Anyway, people can always trot on over to Skeptic's blog.*

Louis

*Titter, giggle. There is no force on earth sufficient to make me do so.

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

  
khan



Posts: 1482
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2008,18:20   

Quote (Richard Simons @ Dec. 05 2008,13:50)
Quote (khan @ Dec. 05 2008,10:08)
 
Quote (khan @ Dec. 04 2008,21:48)
   
Quote (Richard Simons @ Dec. 04 2008,21:29)
   
Quote (khan @ Dec. 04 2008,20:20)
       
Quote (Richard Simons @ Dec. 04 2008,20:55)

SNIP

I think that about covers the basics, but I did not check all of this and I'm quite willing to be corrected by someone who knows better.

Well that would be a first.

Is this directed at me or just a general comment? If at me, I don't know what I've done to deserve it.

Are you really that oblivious, or is your appearance here some sort of performance art?

I sincerely apologize for these posts.

I got the individuals confused.

Apology accepted., but I was puzzled for a while.



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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4241
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2008,19:02   

Quote (Louis @ Dec. 05 2008,18:53)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 05 2008,23:39)
Ok, then one of us is gonna have to create a new charactard and play it to the hilt here at AtBC.

Maybe I'll fake a conversion experience and make my stand.

'Cause Daniel's repetitive bullshit has become a bore.

That sounds way too much like hard work.

Why struggle for tard when nature supplies us with a bountiful supply?

Granted we get the occasional drought, but nature's providence when it comes to tards is almost unlimited. When Danny has jumped the shark, I believe the vacuum of his tard-presence will be filled.

Anyway, people can always trot on over to Skeptic's blog.*

Louis

*Titter, giggle. There is no force on earth sufficient to make me do so.

RB wipes a tear, lifts his chin and can't help a half smile.

"Well, there is this dumb fucker!"
 
Quote
Sometimes one must make short term sacrifice for long term gain. Painful surgery might be life saving versus the immediate benefit of doing nothing. The supposed intermediate stages from one body form to another would prevent natural selection from evolving a one body plan to another. The short term disadvantage in intermediate body forms would preclude Darwinism from working. The same is true in protein evolution.

As Stephen Gould argued, “what good is half an arm”, and as Walter Brown argued so well, “an arm will be a bad arm first before it becomes a good wing.” Darwinism cannot possibly be true.
 
"Gee, there IS still good Tard in the world, by golly!"

(Sound of Gould spinning in his grave.)

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2008,19:19   

Quote
Anyway, people can always trot on over to Skeptic's blog.*

*Titter, giggle. There is no force on earth sufficient to make me do so.


apparently no force sufficient to make anyone else do so either.

skeptic you have to post if you want comments.  of course i am never sure what exactly it was you had to say anyway so perhaps in the spirit of parsimony silence is the best option.  

hell i dunno.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1009
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2008,20:13   

Quote (Louis @ Dec. 05 2008,17:16)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 05 2008,14:56)
Quote (Louis @ Dec. 05 2008,08:25)
 
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 05 2008,12:34)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 04 2008,19:37)
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 04 2008,20:12)
To anyone not in your insulated bubble, God is obvious.  I feel sorry for you all.

I'm thinking that Daniel has jumped the shark. It's probably time to move on.

Somebody donate a laptop to Ftk, wouldya?

Agree totally with the first one; he's chasing his tail now.

Disagree with the second one, however...

Seconded Thirded Fourthed Googolplexed.

Louis

Aw, you guys aren't being honest with yourselves. Poking Ftk was a guilty pleasure. The tizzy here was everyone's, not just hers.

True enough, but I second Alba's "was". Intellectual engagement was rendered impossible by virtue of FTK's nature, ergo mockery and induction of flounce outs became de rigeur.

It would have been almost impossible for FTK meltdown by herself. I stress the "almost".

;-)

Louis

Poking Ftk? Louis, you sick bastard, isn't Arden's mom enough for you :D  Teased, mocked, derided, and laughed at sure. Poked? Blech.

Say, has anybody mentioned that Dembski has given up on the explanatory filter to the folks at UD? It might almost be worth creating a sock puppet just to see their heads explode...

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
sledgehammer



Posts: 531
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2008,20:32   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 04 2008,11:09)
... no adequate causal explanations are forthcoming.  "I don't know, but I know it's not God", becomes the mantra.  It's a lie.  It's the BIG LIE.  And you all have believed it.

There.  I fixed your double standard for you.

--------------
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

  
khan



Posts: 1482
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2008,20:38   

Totally off topic: rock & roll

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erJc4dzZ3IA&feature=related

Who is the guy way stage right, and why is he only seen long distance?

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

  
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2008,21:05   

Quote (Nerull @ Dec. 05 2008,09:08)
How about this? Every time throughout history someone has tried to explains something not fully understood with "Goddidit", they've been wrong. What makes you special?

"special" is another name for The Argument Regarding Design ;)

  
stevestory



Posts: 8911
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2008,21:34   

Quote (afarensis @ Dec. 05 2008,21:13)
Say, has anybody mentioned that Dembski has given up on the explanatory filter to the folks at UD? It might almost be worth creating a sock puppet just to see their heads explode...

dembski's comment that the EF isn't exactly correct was made in a comment thread at UD.

   
bfish



Posts: 267
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2008,21:44   

Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 05 2008,19:34)
Quote (afarensis @ Dec. 05 2008,21:13)
Say, has anybody mentioned that Dembski has given up on the explanatory filter to the folks at UD? It might almost be worth creating a sock puppet just to see their heads explode...

dembski's comment that the EF isn't exactly correct was made in a comment thread at UD.

And so far as I can tell, no one there has said a word on this admission, save for DT in the comment immediately following.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2008,22:21   

and you can't tell Him nuffin'....  He was just keeping it to himself just in case he ever got a shot at some Baylor Cafeteria corn dogs.  One to hold over ol Wet Willy's head... insurance you see.

HAR HAR I KNEW THAT ALL LONG BILL.  I ALSO KNEW THAT TRANNY TARD WAS REALLY AN INIUIT IN A BACKWARDS DOG SUIT BUT YOU WERE SO HAPPY <sniff> I COULD HAVE SAVED YOU SOME TROUBEL BILL BUT I TRUSTED YOU WOULD FIGURE IT OUT SOME DAY.  WE CAN'T ALL BE POLYMORPH AUTODIDDLER REDACTOMATHS BUT I AM HERE FOR YOU AND GOD AND GUNS AND COUNTRY.

JUST KEEP THE GODDAM CLOWN OUT OF HERE AND I'LL TELL EVERYONE YOU KNEW IT ALL ALONG BILL.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2008,22:50   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 05 2008,08:49)
       
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 05 2008,08:27)
Maybe I can help you all understand my perspective better with a theoretical question.

If God really did create life, and science cannot consider any supernatural mechanisms, what would the state of biological science be?

I'd argue that it would be exactly in the state we find it in today - with no plausible explanations for the origins of any living system.

It's like you are charged with coming up with a theory that explains the manufacturing of automobiles - but you're not allowed to consider human intervention.

Your theory would offer inexplicable conclusions based on real observations:  "Here's a little red wagon - it has four wheels and a steering mechanism", "Here's a lawnmower - it also has four wheels but it has an engine", "These are obvious precursors to automobiles, therefore automobiles assemble themselves", etc.

Instead of more babbling, can you tell us what it means for an enzyme to be 'rational'?

It means they make sense.  They function as if designed rationally.  They behave as if they were put there by someone who knew what they were doing.  Do you need more?

When an enzyme attaches itself to a substrate in six places, and five of the six are a perfect fit while the sixth is not, it may seem as if that sixth active site is a mistake.  But when that "imperfect" site just happens to twist the substrate in such a manner that it allows the molecules on the sides of the enzyme to perform the exact interactions required to weaken the substrate so that the "imperfect" twist now causes it to break at that precise point - with the resulting product being exactly what is needed for the next step in a biochemical pathway - that's no mistake.  The enzyme is acting as if it was designed by a rational being.  The design is rational.

How, pray tell, would natural selection build such a thing?  

Fools!

Believing in accidental, arbitrary mechanisms is like working on a car but, instead of choosing the correct tools from your toolbox, you let a small child hand you the tools randomly until he just happens to hand you the right one.  You then use that tool and wait.  You continue the process until the job is done (if ever).  Such a process may seem feasible, but what happens when the tool you need is a 3/8" drive ratchet, with a 6" extension, and a 12mm socket?  How long will you be there waiting for him to hand you that combination?

Of course, you could just do what God did and choose the correct tool out of the toolbox yourself.  Of course that'd be too simple for you - wouldn't 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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2008,22:58   

Quote
t means they make sense.  They function as if designed rationally.  They behave as if they were put there by someone who knew what they were doing.  Do you need more?

When an enzyme attaches itself to a substrate in six places, and five of the six are a perfect fit while the sixth is not, it may seem as if that sixth active site is a mistake.  But when that "imperfect" site just happens to twist the substrate in such a manner that it allows the molecules on the sides of the enzyme to perform the exact interactions required to weaken the substrate so that the "imperfect" twist now causes it to break at that precise point - with the resulting product being exactly what is needed for the next step in a biochemical pathway - that's no mistake.  The enzyme is acting as if it was designed by a rational being.  The design is rational.

How, pray tell, would natural selection build such a thing?  

Fools!

Believing in accidental, arbitrary mechanisms is like working on a car but, instead of choosing the correct tools from your toolbox, you let a small child hand you the tools randomly until he just happens to hand you the right one.  You then use that tool and wait.  You continue the process until the job is done (if ever).  Such a process may seem feasible, but what happens when the tool you need is a 3/8" drive ratchet, with a 6" extension, and a 12mm socket?  How long will you be there waiting for him to hand you that combination?

Of course, you could just do what God did and choose the correct tool out of the toolbox yourself.  Of course that'd be too simple for you - wouldn't it?


Dude have you ever really really looked at your hand?

I mean REAAAAALLLLLY.  WHOA!!!!



--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
k.e..



Posts: 2898
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2008,23:05   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 06 2008,06:50)
....
Fools!

Believing in accidental, arbitrary mechanisms is like working on a car but, instead of choosing the correct tools from your toolbox, you let a small child hand you the tools randomly until he just happens to hand you the right one.  You then use that tool and wait.  You continue the process until the job is done (if ever).  Such a process may seem feasible, but what happens when the tool you need is a 3/8" drive ratchet, with a 6" extension, and a 12mm socket?  How long will you be there waiting for him to hand you that combination?

Of course, you could just do what God did and choose the correct tool out of the toolbox yourself.  Of course that'd be too simple for you - wouldn't it?

Oh dear Zues and Shiva (who were/are probably very nice gods once you get to know them ...if you really care)

G$d's Daniel is a friggen mech shop grease monkey.

Case closed.

ETS '

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2008,23:12   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 05 2008,23:50)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 05 2008,08:49)
         
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 05 2008,08:27)
Maybe I can help you all understand my perspective better with a theoretical question.

If God really did create life, and science cannot consider any supernatural mechanisms, what would the state of biological science be?

I'd argue that it would be exactly in the state we find it in today - with no plausible explanations for the origins of any living system.

It's like you are charged with coming up with a theory that explains the manufacturing of automobiles - but you're not allowed to consider human intervention.

Your theory would offer inexplicable conclusions based on real observations:  "Here's a little red wagon - it has four wheels and a steering mechanism", "Here's a lawnmower - it also has four wheels but it has an engine", "These are obvious precursors to automobiles, therefore automobiles assemble themselves", etc.

Instead of more babbling, can you tell us what it means for an enzyme to be 'rational'?

It means they make sense.  They function as if designed rationally.  They behave as if they were put there by someone who knew what they were doing.  Do you need more?

When an enzyme attaches itself to a substrate in six places, and five of the six are a perfect fit while the sixth is not, it may seem as if that sixth active site is a mistake.  But when that "imperfect" site just happens to twist the substrate in such a manner that it allows the molecules on the sides of the enzyme to perform the exact interactions required to weaken the substrate so that the "imperfect" twist now causes it to break at that precise point - with the resulting product being exactly what is needed for the next step in a biochemical pathway - that's no mistake.  The enzyme is acting as if it was designed by a rational being.  The design is rational.

How, pray tell, would natural selection build such a thing?  

Fools!

Believing in accidental, arbitrary mechanisms is like working on a car but, instead of choosing the correct tools from your toolbox, you let a small child hand you the tools randomly until he just happens to hand you the right one.  You then use that tool and wait.  You continue the process until the job is done (if ever).  Such a process may seem feasible, but what happens when the tool you need is a 3/8" drive ratchet, with a 6" extension, and a 12mm socket?  How long will you be there waiting for him to hand you that combination?

Of course, you could just do what God did and choose the correct tool out of the toolbox yourself.  Of course that'd be too simple for you - wouldn't it?

So your argument, essentially, is that god is a really shitty mechanic who takes spends a few billion years working on a car, and even then it still breaks down regularly, with parts that barely work and are prone to breaking?

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

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 1025
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2008,23:20   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 05 2008,22:50)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 05 2008,08:49)
         
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 05 2008,08:27)
Maybe I can help you all understand my perspective better with a theoretical question.

If God really did create life, and science cannot consider any supernatural mechanisms, what would the state of biological science be?

I'd argue that it would be exactly in the state we find it in today - with no plausible explanations for the origins of any living system.

It's like you are charged with coming up with a theory that explains the manufacturing of automobiles - but you're not allowed to consider human intervention.

Your theory would offer inexplicable conclusions based on real observations:  "Here's a little red wagon - it has four wheels and a steering mechanism", "Here's a lawnmower - it also has four wheels but it has an engine", "These are obvious precursors to automobiles, therefore automobiles assemble themselves", etc.

Instead of more babbling, can you tell us what it means for an enzyme to be 'rational'?

It means they make sense.  They function as if designed rationally.  They behave as if they were put there by someone who knew what they were doing.  Do you need more?

When an enzyme attaches itself to a substrate in six places, and five of the six are a perfect fit while the sixth is not, it may seem as if that sixth active site is a mistake.  But when that "imperfect" site just happens to twist the substrate in such a manner that it allows the molecules on the sides of the enzyme to perform the exact interactions required to weaken the substrate so that the "imperfect" twist now causes it to break at that precise point - with the resulting product being exactly what is needed for the next step in a biochemical pathway - that's no mistake.  The enzyme is acting as if it was designed by a rational being.  The design is rational.

How, pray tell, would natural selection build such a thing?  

Fools!

Believing in accidental, arbitrary mechanisms is like working on a car but, instead of choosing the correct tools from your toolbox, you let a small child hand you the tools randomly until he just happens to hand you the right one.  You then use that tool and wait.  You continue the process until the job is done (if ever).  Such a process may seem feasible, but what happens when the tool you need is a 3/8" drive ratchet, with a 6" extension, and a 12mm socket?  How long will you be there waiting for him to hand you that combination?

Of course, you could just do what God did and choose the correct tool out of the toolbox yourself.  Of course that'd be too simple for you - wouldn't it?

Have you ever looked at a benzene molecule and thought, "All those hydrogens are a mistake"?  But those imperfect hydrogens just happen, by chance!, to balance out the number of electrons to make the molecule do just what it needs to do to be stable.  That's by design!  God wanted there to be benzene so we could synthesize stuff and for organic chemists to be able to wash their hands in it and get cancer cause they're all atheists.  Many on a daily basis.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

  
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2008,23:26   

Which reminds me, these links are great:

http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/things_i_wont_work_with/

http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/how_not_to_do_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

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 1025
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2008,00:38   

Quote (Nerull @ Dec. 05 2008,23:26)
Which reminds me, these links are great:

http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/things_i_wont_work_with/

http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/how_not_to_do_it/

Small world.  I went to the public university on the other side of the small college town from where he went to school (though several years later).

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2008,00:52   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 05 2008,20:50)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 05 2008,08:49)
           
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 05 2008,08:27)
Maybe I can help you all understand my perspective better with a theoretical question.

If God really did create life, and science cannot consider any supernatural mechanisms, what would the state of biological science be?

I'd argue that it would be exactly in the state we find it in today - with no plausible explanations for the origins of any living system.

It's like you are charged with coming up with a theory that explains the manufacturing of automobiles - but you're not allowed to consider human intervention.

Your theory would offer inexplicable conclusions based on real observations:  "Here's a little red wagon - it has four wheels and a steering mechanism", "Here's a lawnmower - it also has four wheels but it has an engine", "These are obvious precursors to automobiles, therefore automobiles assemble themselves", etc.

Instead of more babbling, can you tell us what it means for an enzyme to be 'rational'?

It means they make sense.  They function as if designed rationally.  They behave as if they were put there by someone who knew what they were doing.  Do you need more?

When an enzyme attaches itself to a substrate in six places, and five of the six are a perfect fit while the sixth is not, it may seem as if that sixth active site is a mistake.  But when that "imperfect" site just happens to twist the substrate in such a manner that it allows the molecules on the sides of the enzyme to perform the exact interactions required to weaken the substrate so that the "imperfect" twist now causes it to break at that precise point - with the resulting product being exactly what is needed for the next step in a biochemical pathway - that's no mistake.  The enzyme is acting as if it was designed by a rational being.  The design is rational.

So.... what you're saying is... it looks like someone designed it, so therefore God designed it.

It's all complicated-like, and you can't understand how it evolved, so it didn't evolve.

Bravo.

Please, don't quit your day job at the garage.

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2008,02:30   

Quote (afarensis @ Dec. 06 2008,02:13)
Quote (Louis @ Dec. 05 2008,17:16)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 05 2008,14:56)
 
Quote (Louis @ Dec. 05 2008,08:25)
 
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 05 2008,12:34)
   
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 04 2008,19:37)
     
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 04 2008,20:12)
To anyone not in your insulated bubble, God is obvious.  I feel sorry for you all.

I'm thinking that Daniel has jumped the shark. It's probably time to move on.

Somebody donate a laptop to Ftk, wouldya?

Agree totally with the first one; he's chasing his tail now.

Disagree with the second one, however...

Seconded Thirded Fourthed Googolplexed.

Louis

Aw, you guys aren't being honest with yourselves. Poking Ftk was a guilty pleasure. The tizzy here was everyone's, not just hers.

True enough, but I second Alba's "was". Intellectual engagement was rendered impossible by virtue of FTK's nature, ergo mockery and induction of flounce outs became de rigeur.

It would have been almost impossible for FTK meltdown by herself. I stress the "almost".

;-)

Louis

Poking Ftk? Louis, you sick bastard, isn't Arden's mom enough for you :D  Teased, mocked, derided, and laughed at sure. Poked? Blech.

Say, has anybody mentioned that Dembski has given up on the explanatory filter to the folks at UD? It might almost be worth creating a sock puppet just to see their heads explode...

I would like to point out that I am innocent. I never used the phrase "poking FTK". My fingers simply wouldn't type it.

I blame that Bill fellow.

Louis

P.S. The abandonment of the EF has been duly noted. There was much rejoicing.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2008,05:06   

Daniel,
Find a new tune, everybody is bored of your current blah
Quote
The enzyme is acting as if it was designed by a rational being.  The design is rational.

The trouble is that HIV has an even more improbable sequence of events it has to perform to infect new cells. Therefore it was designed by a rational being. Therefore your god is a cunt.
Quote

How, pray tell, would natural selection build such a thing?  

So, your god is not clever enough to create a universe where such things could come into existence via "evolution" then? Bit of a thicko is it? By the way, trillions of gods or just one, and how do you know?
Quote

Fools!

Whatever.
Quote

Believing in accidental, arbitrary mechanisms is like working on a car but, instead of choosing the correct tools from your toolbox

Analogy is not your strong point

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

  
mitschlag



Posts: 235
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2008,05:36   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 06 2008,05:06)
Analogy is not your strong point

Analogy is all he has.

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

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4362
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2008,07:07   

Quote (mitschlag @ Dec. 06 2008,05:36)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 06 2008,05:06)
Analogy is not your strong point

Analogy is all he has.

Maybe Jesus Santa will bring him a better toolbox for Christmas Winter Solstice Gifting!

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

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5378
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2008,07:23   

Santa's GMail account exposed

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

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4241
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2008,07:44   

Time to tally Daniel's further concessions:

- Daniel concedes that each of his responses here are refuted.

- Daniel concedes that he has no empirical way of deciding if there is one designer, or a quadrillion designers.

- Daniel concedes that it doesn't follow that if we don't know the history of something, that "something" must have miraculous origins - yet this is exactly the argument he is making.

- Daniel repeatedly concedes that any observation can be reconciled with the actions of an all powerful supernatural intelligence. Therefore no observation can empirically confirm or disconfirm the hypothesis of supernatural design. Supernatural design is therefore beyond the reach of the scientific method.

- Daniel concedes these points on the naturalism and supernatural agency.

- Daniel concedes that experimental studies such as Lenski's flatly contradict his assertion that no observation can empirically confirm or disconfirm the hypothesis of natural selection.

- Daniel concedes that he does not understand the relationship of functional integration and design.

- Daniel concedes that biological science would look the same regardless of the God's activity, demonstrating the inherent irrelevance of "God theory."

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2008,07:48   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 06 2008,13:44)
Time to tally Daniel's further concessions:

[SNIP]

Yeah but what you forget is that you are an atheist on a daily basis. Everyone can see god except you. Therefore you are a fool.*

Louis

* See, I've read my bible, just like Danny has.

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

  
Thom  Denick

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2008,08:23   

From Vindication:

Noted Scholar is a dedicated science troll.  Check his site.  Ignore him please.

the_truth

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2008,08:23   

From Vindication:

<blockquote>
<strong>DS said:</strong>

Look who's criticizing others for not using their real name, the fifty seventh reincarnation of bobby the boob, goff the goof, hand jobby, corn cobby, SFB, etc. etc. etc.

Clean up on isle four please.
</blockquote>

Well you are using more than one handle. Admit it. Dont be a liar

notedscholar

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2008,08:23   

From Vindication:

<blockquote>
<strong>Stanton said:</strong>

We've seen Noted Scholar's response to our response to his abominably shoddy scholarship: we tried to fact-check present counter-claims to his drek, and he assumed that we were attacking him as though we were a gaggle of children, and he being a hapless pinata.

Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents don't participate in peer review because they are incapable of understanding it, one major reason being that they have no desire to understand it.
</blockquote>


Ugh. I am not a creationist or an intelligent designist. And I'm getting sick of saying so.

  19137 replies since Jan. 17 2006,08:38 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (638) < ... 324 325 326 327 328 [329] 330 331 332 333 334 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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