RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (501) < ... 472 473 474 475 476 [477] 478 479 480 481 482 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 3, The Beast Marches On...< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2011,10:00   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 05 2011,14:15)
   
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 05 2011,09:09)
   
Quote
OTOH, the emails that were sent to KF really saddened me. I would've thought we're better than that. If anyone sent me an email in this context with greetings to my wife and kids, that'd make me feel uncomfortable, too. (Well, not really, because I don't have neither, but if I had.) What do they have to do with anything?
IMO, that was despicable.


Got to be honest, I didn't notice it. And I agree with you (reading back), it's despicable. These are on line arguments and mockery sessions for the large part. Let's keep it that way.

For the rare few, like Wes, who do genuine work and activism off line, then yeah, it's not just a joke/debate. But they certainly would not be harassing people by mail or IRL in any way (I sincerely hope!).

Louis

I don't believe anything that neo-shaman says.  Gordon Mullings would stand neck deep in shit and tell you it was sunshine, so why should anyone believe or even care about his claims of mafioso style stalking?  I'll have sympathy for him when he admits that he is a liar and seeks diagnosis and treatment, until then I hope he gets eaten alive by pubic lice.

The person who wrote that specific comment responded here, and I think it is legit.
I don't have any sympathy for KF, either. But that doesn't make it acceptable to involve his family in this in any way.

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

  
Patrick



Posts: 610
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2011,10:02   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 05 2011,00:56)
 
Quote (Patrick @ Aug. 04 2011,22:24)
   
Quote (Ptaylor @ Aug. 04 2011,20:55)
In a thread headed 'To Save Time Barry Argues Both Sides' Bully has an imaginary argument with Elizabeth Liddle. Guess who wins?

Hey Barry (yes, it's obvious you read here):  I'm smarter than you, bigger than you, meaner than you, and at the moment drunker than you.  When I'm sober, I'll still be willing to kick your ass.  Fuck you and your abusive behavior.

you aren't the only drunk lol

Hmm, there seems to have been some attitude in the bottom of that snifter of calvados.  It couldn't have been the effeminate white wine beforehand.

In any case, my apologies for the vulgarity, although I stand by the sentiment.  I manage to have polite and constructive discussions in every other online forum, despite the strongest political disagreements (Hi, Hermagoras!).  Even when flaming, I try to remember that the words I'm replying to come from actual people and write as I would speak.  The UD crew get right up my nose in large part due to their cowardice -- they'd never dare be so rude face to face as they are routinely in their echo chamber (I can only hope they were raised better than to treat women in real life the way they do Elizabeth Liddle online).

Then again, perhaps I'm applying the wrong set of societal norms on that anti-intellectual cesspit.  Maybe they act so obnoxiously there because they don't take their claims any more seriously than does the reality based community.  Is UD pure street theater?

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2011,10:38   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 05 2011,07:58)
Joseph:
 
Quote
I am an information technologist informal theologist and no one in my industry would confuse what you posted for information.


Bwhahahahahaha.

FT4J.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
socle



Posts: 322
Joined: July 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2011,11:14   

material.infantacy:
Quote
And if you [Ilion] want to have a contest to see who can be the biggest prick about this, and turn it in to an unholy flame war, I might just be up for it.

(from the "Barry argues both sides" thread).  Looks like an epic tardfight is imminent.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1788
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2011,11:18   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 05 2011,10:38)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 05 2011,07:58)
Joseph:
   
Quote
I am an information technologist informal theologist toaster repairman and no one in my industry would confuse what you posted for information.


Bwhahahahahaha.

Amended for more accuracy.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2011,12:06   

Quote (socle @ Aug. 05 2011,11:14)
material.infantacy:  
Quote
And if you [Ilion] want to have a contest to see who can be the biggest prick about this, and turn it in to an unholy flame war, I might just be up for it.

(from the "Barry argues both sides" thread).  Looks like an epic tardfight is imminent.

If they're going to be measuring pricks, dear Dog I hope they don't start posting pictures.  Where's the vomiting smiley when you need it?

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2011,12:23   

Might be the first time I'm seen a flame war between true believers.

The mod is no doubt trying to decide who to ban or moderate, based on which is the closet Darwinist.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2011,12:27   

Denews joins David Tyler in a daisy chain behind Robert (not James) Shapiro in an attack on the RNA Wold, via Shapiro's review of David Deamer's new book, "First Life".

http://www.uncommondescent.com/origin-....robable

First thing to note is that Shapiro has an academic axe to grind, since he is pushing an alternate OOL theory of metabolism first. (But not pushing very hard, you don't see a lot of publications supporting his ideas. More like the carping "Birds aren't dinosaurs" comments from the Oregon State University professor who is a diehard on that subject.) So Tyler, a YEC, is just playing 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' by getting in line behind Shapiro. If Shapiro even noticed him back there, he'd laugh.

Deamer is pushing a pretty standard RNA World scenario for OOL, with the twist that he thinks that containing vesicles were a prerequisite for OOL. Vesicles that let in small molecules, but trap larger ones inside can raise the  concentration of active RNA polymers and protect them from a number of environmental effects. All good for surface of the Earth OOL, though the hydrothermal vent OOL theories have their own ideas about tiny cracks in the structure of black smokers that serve the same function of concentrating chemicals.

Shapiro can't actually criticize Deamer's own work on the self assembly of vesicles from abiotically produced hydrocarbons. Deamer has taken material from meteorites, mixed it in water, and seen vesicles form. Instead, he attacks the RNA World hypothesis in general, as Tyler does, through quoting a story of Deamer's about trying to start life in a volcanic puddle. The 'in the wild' experiment fails, since most of the pre-biotic material winds up sticking to the clays at the boundaries of the puddle.

Anyone thinking this through will see that Deamer's experiment has more pedagogic or editorial function than it has scientific value. The clay is buffering the system, and until he adds more material than the buffer will absorb, nothing interesting is going to happen. He knows that. This 'designed to fail' experiment is meant to push the reader in the direction of his own preferred hypothesis that you need pre-existing vesicles to protect the reactions from too much interaction with the environment.

Of course, there is a lot of other research that the interactions with clays a good thing for OOL, tethering the RNA, protecting it from UV, etc. Jack Szostak's lab has combined the best of both worlds with bits of clay inside the vesicles. There is even a version in which water drops pick up a clay shell while floating in the air, an idea that lets OOL start even before the oceans have formed (or when they boil away).

But the message that Shapiro chooses to take away from all of this is that lab results don't necessarily mean anything in the real world. Why take this conclusion? Because he is trying to criticise the work of Sutherland, et al. in synthesizing RNA bases.

With Sutherland 2009, we finally saw how there was a workable path from small molecules to the RNA bases. Life works with polymers of hydrocarbons, amino acids, and nucleosides to make lipids, proteins and R/DNA. So now we have a much better understanding of how to build the building blocks, and hook the building blocks together, in all three major areas.

This success is a real downer for Shapiro's alternate theory, so Shapiro is left to carp from the sidelines. His opinion that what is done in the lab can't be transferred to the real world would of course evaporate if it was _his_ lab that produced some results... Tyler would also make an about face if Jonathan Wells ever produced something in his lab at the secret DI research facility on Volcano Island.

DeNews is clueless to all this subtext. As a model post-modern Christian culture warrior, poo flinging is fine no matter who was taking a poop on what or why. She's happy to pick it up and start tossing.

--------------
I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
I’m not an evolutionist, I’m a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2011,12:42   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 05 2011,18:23)
Might be the first time I'm seen a flame war between true believers.

The mod is no doubt trying to decide who to ban or moderate, based on which is the closet Darwinist.

Just imagine what would happen if an evil materialist would write anything like this, directed at StephenB:
 
Quote
22

Ilion

08/04/2011

11:34 pm

an obvious waste of bandwidth @ 20 “[clearly refusing to *think* about what he wishes to dispute]“


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

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1204
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2011,12:53   

Ah, but they are allowed to be 'righteously angry', you see. So said Clive (Hi!) a while back. Or was it Bary Aaringten, I forget.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2011,13:04   

I suspect the inability to deal with Patrick and Elizabeth has taken a toll.

The smarter designizens of UD might have noticed the utter vacuity of their position, and have started pointing fingers at their comrades.

It's pretty difficult to keep everyone in lockstep when half are trying to say that religion is irrelevant, and the other half are saying you can't do science without Jesus.

Half the ID movement sucks up to Harun Yahya, and the other half is ready for another Christian crusade.

Half says that calculating CSI is easy, and the other half says the question is just materialism run amok.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2011,13:25   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 05 2011,13:04)
I suspect the inability to deal with Patrick and Elizabeth has taken a toll.

The smarter designizens of UD might have noticed the utter vacuity of their position, and have started pointing fingers at their comrades.

It's pretty difficult to keep everyone in lockstep when half are trying to say that religion is irrelevant, and the other half are saying you can't do science without Jesus.

Half the ID movement sucks up to Harun Yahya, and the other half is ready for another Christian crusade.

Half says that calculating CSI is easy, and the other half says the question is just materialism run amok.

Uncommon Descent is 90% vacuous and the other half is apologetics.



--------------
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!)

  
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2011,14:03   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 05 2011,19:25)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 05 2011,13:04)
I suspect the inability to deal with Patrick and Elizabeth has taken a toll.

The smarter designizens of UD might have noticed the utter vacuity of their position, and have started pointing fingers at their comrades.

It's pretty difficult to keep everyone in lockstep when half are trying to say that religion is irrelevant, and the other half are saying you can't do science without Jesus.

Half the ID movement sucks up to Harun Yahya, and the other half is ready for another Christian crusade.

Half says that calculating CSI is easy, and the other half says the question is just materialism run amok.

Uncommon Descent is 90% vacuous and the other half is apologetics.


And that doesn't even include DO'L who is 100 % stupid:
Quote
The rat applies the deadly stuff on its flanks, thus killing dogs. Now, how did it learn to do this?

Are the selfish genes God or is Darwin wrong?


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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2011,14:52   

Quote (Badger3k @ Aug. 05 2011,18:06)
Quote (socle @ Aug. 05 2011,11:14)
material.infantacy:  
Quote
And if you [Ilion] want to have a contest to see who can be the biggest prick about this, and turn it in to an unholy flame war, I might just be up for it.

(from the "Barry argues both sides" thread).  Looks like an epic tardfight is imminent.

If they're going to be measuring pricks, dear Dog I hope they don't start posting pictures.  Where's the vomiting smiley when you need it?

They won't be able to post pics. None of them have access to a scanning tunnelling electron microscope.

Louis

P.S. Week. All. Here. Waitress. Veal. Thankyewangnite.

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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2011,15:14   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 05 2011,14:52)
Quote (Badger3k @ Aug. 05 2011,18:06)
Quote (socle @ Aug. 05 2011,11:14)
material.infantacy:    
Quote
And if you [Ilion] want to have a contest to see who can be the biggest prick about this, and turn it in to an unholy flame war, I might just be up for it.

(from the "Barry argues both sides" thread).  Looks like an epic tardfight is imminent.

If they're going to be measuring pricks, dear Dog I hope they don't start posting pictures.  Where's the vomiting smiley when you need it?

They won't be able to post pics. None of them have access to a scanning tunnelling electron microscope.

Louis

P.S. Week. All. Here. Waitress. Veal. Thankyewangnite.

Now that was harsh!

Well done.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2011,15:31   

Like this?



--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2011,16:22   



StephenB:
 
Quote
There is a third category of things that are both immaterial, mind related, and yet function independently from minds.


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

  
Seversky



Posts: 441
Joined: June 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2011,20:26   

I don't know how Barry can handle both sides of an argument when he can't get even one side right:

   
Quote
The “Who Designed the Designer” Argument Demolished in Three Easy Steps
Barry Arrington

Step 1:  Assume that Craig Venter succeeds in developing an artificial life form and releases it into the wild.

Step 2:  Assume that a researcher (let’s call him John) later finds one of Venter’s life forms, examines it, and concludes that it was designed by an intelligent designer.

Step 3:  John’s design inference is obviously correct.  Note that John’s design inference is not any less correct if he (a) does not know who Craig Venter is; and (b) is unable to say who designed Craig Venter.

Now that was easy.  Does it say anything about our the paucity and/or weakness of our opponents’ arguments that they think the “Who designed the designer” argument is one of their best?


I will keep this simple (hi, Clive!) for Barry and any other onlookers from UD.

The question "Who designed the Designer?" is a variant of "Who created the Creator".  

It does not challenge the claim that there are designers or creators in the Universe.  

We know there are.  

We are.  

What it challenges is the claim the the Designer or God is the Uncaused First Cause that is the only way to stop an infinite regress.  

Way to slay a strawman, Barry.

As a follow on,  I'm surprised they make such a big deal of Lennox given this passage from the debate with Dawkins, quoted in the comments:

 
Quote
‘It’s the old schoolboy question, ‘Who created God?’, I’m actually very surprised to find it as a central argument in your book because it assumes that God is created. And I’m not surprised therefore that you call the book “The God Delusion” because created gods are by definition a delusion. And if you say, ‘if there is a God you have to ask, ‘Who created God?’, that means you are reduced to thinking about created gods. Well none of us believe in created gods, and I think that argument is entirely beside the point and perhaps you should put it on your shelf marked celestial teapots, where it belongs.”


Really?

That's the best you can do?

That's an example of the sophisticated theological argument that atheists are accused of failing to engage?

Just airily brushing the question aside as if it is beneath the dignity of such an eminent academic to bother with such a trivial question.  

Dismissing it with condescending references to "schoolboy" questions and "celestial teapots".

At once contemptuous and contemptible?

If this is the best that modern theology has to offer then atheism really has little to worry about.

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2011,20:37   

Quote (Seversky @ Aug. 05 2011,20:26)
I will keep this simple (hi, Clive!) for Barry and any other onlookers from UD.

The question "Who designed the Designer?" is a variant of "Who created the Creator".  

It does not challenge the claim that there are designers or creators in the Universe.  

We know there are.  

We are.  

What it challenges is the claim the the Designer or God is the Uncaused First Cause that is the only way to stop an infinite regress.  

Way to slay a strawman, Barry.

As a follow on,  I'm surprised they make such a big deal of Lennox given this passage from the debate with Dawkins, quoted in the comments:

   
Quote
‘It’s the old schoolboy question, ‘Who created God?’, I’m actually very surprised to find it as a central argument in your book because it assumes that God is created. And I’m not surprised therefore that you call the book “The God Delusion” because created gods are by definition a delusion. And if you say, ‘if there is a God you have to ask, ‘Who created God?’, that means you are reduced to thinking about created gods. Well none of us believe in created gods, and I think that argument is entirely beside the point and perhaps you should put it on your shelf marked celestial teapots, where it belongs.”


Really?

That's the best you can do?

That's an example of the sophisticated theological argument that atheists are accused of failing to engage?

Just airily brushing the question aside as if it is beneath the dignity of such an eminent academic to bother with such a trivial question.  

Dismissing it with condescending references to "schoolboy" questions and "celestial teapots".

At once contemptuous and contemptible?

If this is the best that modern theology has to offer then atheism really has little to worry about.

Put Lennox's argument on a shelf labeled Sophistry and Rhetoric, next to CS Lewis.

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

  
sparc



Posts: 1985
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2011,21:51   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 05 2011,15:31)
Like this?


Homosexual actions!
Displayed publically!
In detail!

This is exactly what Kairosfocus once described as the  
Quote
rising flood of free -- much of it amateur [or pseudo-amateur] -- Internet pornography, just a simple Google search away. All you have to do is make a simple mistake in a search and the links to the most graphic, "hard core" porn sites will start to come up.

Thus, we are being lured into a world of graphical, aural and verbal stimulation, designed to pull us into an addiction to not only watching but participating in anything-goes action, and to eventually join the fun by (a) taking and posting public pictures of your "equipment" or adventures, or even (b) advertising in pop-ups on the same sites. And, since it is fairly easy to identify the location of a given PC on the net, even in very small territories, © invites will pop up for LOCALLY available, willing "partners."


--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
sledgehammer



Posts: 533
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2011,23:03   

Quote (sparc @ Aug. 05 2011,19:51)
This is exactly what Kairosfocus once described as the        
Quote
rising flood of free -- much of it amateur [or pseudo-amateur] -- Internet pornography, just a simple Google search away. All you have to do is make a simple mistake in a search and the links to the most graphic, "hard core" porn sites will start to come up.

Thus, we are being lured into a world of graphical, aural and verbal stimulation, designed to pull us into an addiction to not only watching but participating in anything-goes action, and to eventually join the fun by (a) taking and posting public pictures of your "equipment" or adventures, or even (b) advertising in pop-ups on the same sites. And, since it is fairly easy to identify the location of a given PC on the net, even in very small territories, © invites will pop up for LOCALLY available, willing "partners."

Sure sounds like Gordie has been doing some in-depth research on internet porn,  especially w/ regards to targeted porn ads appearing on personal PCs that have been flagged as likely consumers of said product/service.

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

  
sparc



Posts: 1985
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2011,23:28   

I must admit that conjugation between F+ and F- E. coli may rather be considered a heterosexual activity.

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2011,00:53   

Quote (sledgehammer @ Aug. 05 2011,23:03)
Quote (sparc @ Aug. 05 2011,19:51)
This is exactly what Kairosfocus once described as the        
Quote
rising flood of free -- much of it amateur [or pseudo-amateur] -- Internet pornography, just a simple Google search away. All you have to do is make a simple mistake in a search and the links to the most graphic, "hard core" porn sites will start to come up.

Thus, we are being lured into a world of graphical, aural and verbal stimulation, designed to pull us into an addiction to not only watching but participating in anything-goes action, and to eventually join the fun by (a) taking and posting public pictures of your "equipment" or adventures, or even (b) advertising in pop-ups on the same sites. And, since it is fairly easy to identify the location of a given PC on the net, even in very small territories, © invites will pop up for LOCALLY available, willing "partners."

Sure sounds like Gordie has been doing some in-depth research on internet porn,  especially w/ regards to targeted porn ads appearing on personal PCs that have been flagged as likely consumers of said product/service.

You have to admit that the attitude he describes is the same one that fundies talk about.  When confronted with porn, people just cannot refuse and must go look (or in the case of teh gay, they must participate in such an attractive and enjoyable activity - their own words, more or less).  Funny thing, with all the porn ads that I see (or get in email), I have no problem ignoring them.  I guess Gordo is just a guy who can't say no.

I hope he's not a shapoopie.

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Henry J



Posts: 4811
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2011,00:54   

Quote
I must admit that conjugation between F<sup>+</sup> and F<sup>-</sup> E. coli may rather be considered a heterosexual activity.

But which is which? :p

Henry

  
socle



Posts: 322
Joined: July 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2011,01:16   

Gil:
 
Quote
Concerning cosmological ID I’ve always wondered why it is almost never pointed out that the “who designed the designer” challenge is completely irrelevant, for the simple reason that even the most secular scientists now agree that time (along with space, matter, and energy) came into being at the birth of the universe.

Assuming the universe was designed (evidence from fine tuning), the origin of time at the birth of the universe means that the designer has no past (present or future, for that matter) since he/she/it created* time.

That which has no past has no origin or history, and therefore no designer by definition.




Hmmm.  Time came into being at the birth of the universe.  At its birth, the universe had no past.  Therefore the universe has no designer.

  
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2011,03:32   

Quote (Seversky @ Aug. 06 2011,02:26)
I don't know how Barry can handle both sides of an argument when he can't get even one side right:

       
Quote
The “Who Designed the Designer” Argument Demolished in Three Easy Steps
Barry Arrington

Step 1:  Assume that Craig Venter succeeds in developing an artificial life form and releases it into the wild.

Step 2:  Assume that a researcher (let’s call him John) later finds one of Venter’s life forms, examines it, and concludes that it was designed by an intelligent designer.

Step 3:  John’s design inference is obviously correct.  Note that John’s design inference is not any less correct if he (a) does not know who Craig Venter is; and (b) is unable to say who designed Craig Venter.

Now that was easy.  Does it say anything about our the paucity and/or weakness of our opponents’ arguments that they think the “Who designed the designer” argument is one of their best?


I will keep this simple (hi, Clive!) for Barry and any other onlookers from UD.

The question "Who designed the Designer?" is a variant of "Who created the Creator".  

It does not challenge the claim that there are designers or creators in the Universe.  

We know there are.  

We are.  

What it challenges is the claim the the Designer or God is the Uncaused First Cause that is the only way to stop an infinite regress.  

Way to slay a strawman, Barry.

The question they should really be thinking about is how John would find out that that life form was designed.
If Craig Venter did it, you'd probably look for some vanity messages in the genome first, but depending on how it was put together there should be some other hints as well.

Funny, tho, none of the methods I can come up with would have anything to do with calculating the probability that all those nucleotides assembled themselves all at once by chance.

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

  
didymos



Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2011,07:20   

I'll just leave this here:

Quote
Bantay

08/06/2011

6:14 am

Who is Carl Sagan?


--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2011,09:28   

English gene discovered!

Quote
   … Assuming a Darwinist tries to be self-consistent: why should we believe anything a Darwinist tells us?

   Since the Darwinist has simply evolved so that the genes and molecular chemistry cause certain sounds to erupt from the Darwinian mouth, and since if we also have likewise evolved due to random mutations in our past, then any reaction from us is similarly caused by our evolutionary heritage and nothing else.


So News thinks that Darwinists claim English comes from genes and molecular chemistry.  Damage to an English gene would explain her lack of ability with that language, if only it existed.  I guess we must chalk it down to native stupidity and learned ignorance.

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

  
khan



Posts: 1528
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2011,09:29   

Quote (didymos @ Aug. 06 2011,08:20)
I'll just leave this here:

Quote
Bantay

08/06/2011

6:14 am

Who is Carl Sagan?

And he's too stupid to do a search.

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

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

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

  
Seversky



Posts: 441
Joined: June 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2011,11:27   

Kairosfocus disgorges yet another rehoboam of rhetoric (complete with Lewontin reference) in defense of Barry Arrington's sophomoric Demolition of a Strawman.  It fails just as dismally but at mind-numbingly greater length.

  
  15001 replies since Sep. 04 2009,16:20 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (501) < ... 472 473 474 475 476 [477] 478 479 480 481 482 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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