RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (356) < ... 56 57 58 59 60 [61] 62 63 64 65 66 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 4, Fostering a Greater Understanding of IDC< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
fnxtr



Posts: 2124
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2012,19:52   

Quote (didymos @ Jan. 12 2012,11:24)
Dippy Joe dips into botany, with the expected results:

Quote
Plants are conscious- they respond to stimuli…

Yes, well, if termites are intelligent...

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Henry J



Posts: 4069
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2012,20:47   

But what the heck does the hypothetical evolution of words have to do with evolution of biological species?

Words in a language have to be in the already determined vocabulary, that being the criteria stated above.

Biological genomes don't have a predetermined vocabulary in which they have to fit.

case closed.

Henry

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2012,20:49   

Quote (khan @ Jan. 12 2012,17:35)
Quote
As for the next decade, with luck, we are reaching the point where it’s safe to test design hypotheses, in the sense that many might fail and a few succeed. That’s the usual way with any endeavour in science, of course. But in a corrupt environment, success means hewing the party line and failure means departing from it. So rational analysis will remain impossible in many venues.


Pedant almost English Major: that should be "hewing to"

Denyse can't even spell 'mammoth' right after two tries.  The correct usage of 'hew' is way beyond her pay grade.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Seversky



Posts: 415
Joined: June 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2012,21:44   

Quote (khan @ Jan. 12 2012,19:35)
Quote
As for the next decade, with luck, we are reaching the point where it’s safe to test design hypotheses, in the sense that many might fail and a few succeed. That’s the usual way with any endeavour in science, of course. But in a corrupt environment, success means hewing the party line and failure means departing from it. So rational analysis will remain impossible in many venues.


Pedant almost English Major: that should be "hewing to"

For DeNews, 'hie' would be more appropriate, as in "Hie thee to a nunnery!"

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2012,21:52   

Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 12 2012,19:52)
Quote (didymos @ Jan. 12 2012,11:24)
Dippy Joe dips into botany, with the expected results:

 
Quote
Plants are conscious- they respond to stimuli…

Yes, well, if termites are intelligent...

...and ticks eat watermelons...

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

  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1255
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2012,02:17   

DeNews isn't the only one who has problems with vocabulary. The other day, wordsmith extraordinaire kairosfocus coined a phrase that went somehow like that:
"I don't bow to the suzerainty of mainstream science."
Not wanting to be a vocabulary Nazi, I let it slip. A day later, his post was gone.

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
paragwinn



Posts: 388
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2012,05:52   

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Jan. 13 2012,00:17)
DeNews isn't the only one who has problems with vocabulary. The other day, wordsmith extraordinaire kairosfocus coined a phrase that went somehow like that:
"I don't bow to the suzerainty of mainstream science."
Not wanting to be a vocabulary Nazi, I let it slip. A day later, his post was gone.

and i don't kneel to the antidisestablishmentarianism of how-things-work science (especially magnetism)!

eta: F/N re: spelling corrective with warrant unagainst interest as predicted by Plato

--------------
All women build up a resistance [to male condescension]. Apparently, ID did not predict that. -Kristine 4-19-11
F/Ns to F/Ns to F/Ns etc. The whole thing is F/N ridiculous -Seversky on KF footnote fetish 8-20-11
Sigh. Really Bill? - Barry Arrington

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2596
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2012,07:19   

Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 12 2012,20:47)
But what the heck does the hypothetical evolution of words have to do with evolution of biological species?

Words in a language have to be in the already determined vocabulary, that being the criteria stated above.

Biological genomes don't have a predetermined vocabulary in which they have to fit.

case closed.

Henry

As for word evolution, Petrushka makes a good point.

 
Quote
Petrushka: Analogies are actually pretty useless, because there is nothing really analogous to chemistry...

As for words, it is quite easy to navigate to words using a GA. The interesting thing is that the ease differs from one language to another, which demonstrates that you can’t characterize the difficulty of evolution without actually testing sequence space. You can’t decide the spareness using intuition.

While word evolution demonstrates that genetic algorithms can navigate certain complex landscapes, and further shows that IDers don't know what the heck they're talking about with regards to evolution, it doesn't show us whether biological space is such a landscape. That requires, well, biology.

--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1238
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2012,09:52   

Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 12 2012,19:46)
Quote (khan @ Jan. 12 2012,17:35)
Quote
As for the next decade, with luck, we are reaching the point where it’s safe to test design hypotheses, in the sense that many might fail and a few succeed. That’s the usual way with any endeavour in science, of course. But in a corrupt environment, success means hewing the party line and failure means departing from it. So rational analysis will remain impossible in many venues.


Pedant almost English Major: that should be "hewing to"

Toe-ing.

Or as Densye would say: towing.

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4069
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2012,10:25   

Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 13 2012,06:19)
As for word evolution, Petrushka makes a good point.

While word evolution demonstrates that genetic algorithms can navigate certain complex landscapes, and further shows that IDers don't know what the heck they're talking about with regards to evolution, it doesn't show us whether biological space is such a landscape. That requires, well, biology.

What, you mean actually learn something about a technical subject before lecturing about it? Surely you jest!

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2596
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2012,10:47   

Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 12 2012,10:26)
We posted this above, but as we can't comment on Uncommon Descent, and as kairosfocus has asked us not to email him, we have decided to answer him here, then send the message to denizens at Uncommon Descent for forwarding.

Quote
kairosfocus: For instance, of course it is easy to go cat –> rat –> ran –> man –> mat, etc. But, once we add significant complexity — say about seven letters for English words, the gaps between words will be all but impossible to consistently bridge (the islands of function issue emerges . . . ).


Interesting that he picks the same limit as Sean Pitman did in days of yore.

 
Quote
Hi kairosfocus,

Saw your very interesting comment on Uncommon Descent.

kairosfocus: For instance, of course it is easy to go cat –> rat –> ran –> man –> mat, etc. But, once we add significant complexity — say about seven letters for English words, the gaps between words will be all but impossible to consistently bridge (the islands of function issue emerges . . . ). And that has been pointed out over and over, just ignored.

What you are saying is that if we have a population of short words, and they are subjected to mutatation and recombination, and only those offspring that form perfectly spelled words are allowed to enter the next generation, that you will not see words of more than six or seven letters? This, because they are isolated on islands, and there is no way to cross between them?

Zachriel

Member AMF, Angelic Motive Force:
Pushing planets on celestial spheres — one epoch at a time.
zachriel.blogspot.com


Just to clarify, by mutation we mean a single random letter change, insertion or deletion. By recombination, we mean a random part of one sequence, in whole or in part, replacing a random part of another, in whole or in part. In any case, after each such change, if it doesn't form a perfectly spelled word, it is discarded.

So, you're saying that given the scenario of a population of small words that evolve through mutation and recombination, there is no pathway to words longer than seven letters. Let's try. We'll start our population with just a single-letter word:

O

Consider this lineage:

o, a, an, ant, cant

With another lineage that descends from the same ancestor like this:

o, or, our, out, pout

Our population now includes ten nine species of word. By recombination the ou from pout replaces the a in cant for count.

Meanwhile, another lineage descends like this:

o, a, la, lea, lee, lees, less

By recombination of the ess from less and count, we have countess.

Finally, by recombination of es from less and countess, we have countesses. That's ten letters. The chance of that exact word occurring in a random sequence of letters is less than one in a hundred trillion.

There clearly is a single-step pathway to at least one longer word, countesses. Do you think this is an exception? Or are there many such pathways to longer words?

Now, you might argue that these paths were intelligently discovered, but your original claim was that such pathways didn't exist. If there are no such pathways, then intelligence or no, nonexistent pathways can't be found. Now, if you want to argue that *random* mutation and recombination would not be able to find this pathway in a reasonable period, then you should make that argument instead of saying there are no such pathways whatsoever. Is that your new claim?

Kairosfocus has refused to defend his position unless we first apologize for our comment above. Our experiment of directly addressing kairosfocus without the glare of public exposure has not been, um, entirely successful.

Per his request, we are not quoting kairosfocus' remarks.

--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
Patrick



Posts: 549
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2012,11:42   

Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 13 2012,11:47)
Kairosfocus has refused to defend his position unless we first apologize for our comment above.

Apologize for what, exactly?  I read through your whole post and didn't see anything at which one might take umbrage, even given the least possibly generous reading.

Quote
Per his request, we are not quoting kairosfocus' remarks.


For which I thank you as well.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2012,11:45   

Quote (Patrick @ Jan. 13 2012,11:42)
 
Quote
Per his request, we are not quoting kairosfocus' remarks.


For which I thank you as well.

Seconded!

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

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2012,12:20   

Gordon, comment editing coward, says:
Quote
Dr Liddle:

I am sorry. The false accusation is so outrageously incendiary and unwarranted, that just walking away from it is not good enough.

You need to explain and do something to set things right, pardon.

KF

Link. What happens next I wonder?

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

  
BillB



Posts: 358
Joined: Aug. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2012,13:10   

Quote (Patrick @ Jan. 13 2012,17:42)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 13 2012,11:47)
Kairosfocus has refused to defend his position unless we first apologize for our comment above.

Apologize for what, exactly?  I read through your whole post and didn't see anything at which one might take umbrage, even given the least possibly generous reading.

 
Quote
Per his request, we are not quoting kairosfocus' remarks.


For which I thank you as well.

Standard KF tactic, when you get uncomfortably close to being proven wrong, have a hissy fit about something else and demand apologies before continuing.

Which, funnily enough is exactly what he is doing with EL right now, as already posted:
Quote
Dr Liddle:

I am sorry. The false accusation is so outrageously incendiary and unwarranted, that just walking away from it is not good enough.

You need to explain and do something to set things right, pardon.

KF

  
Patrick



Posts: 549
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2012,14:06   

Apparently kairosfocus' reading comprehension issues include not only find offense where none is present, but in missing it where it is.  GCUGreyArea writes:
Quote
KF, I’ve seen, in my view, you slandering misrepresenting and in some cases just plain lying about plenty of others on this forum, yet I ain’t never seen you apologize for nothing.

To which kairosfocus replies:
Quote
You are very close to calling me a liar

No, I think he actually called you a liar there, dude.

  
Seversky



Posts: 415
Joined: June 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2012,18:18   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 13 2012,12:20)
Gordon, comment editing coward, says:
 
Quote
Dr Liddle:

I am sorry. The false accusation is so outrageously incendiary and unwarranted, that just walking away from it is not good enough.

You need to explain and do something to set things right, pardon.

KF

Link. What happens next I wonder?

"Incendiary"?

Are they barbecuing strawmen over there again?  I like mine sauteed in oil of ad hominem and served with fava beans and a nice chianti.

  
sledgehammer



Posts: 531
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2012,23:23   

And don't forget the side of smoked red herring!

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

  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1255
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2012,05:15   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 13 2012,12:20)
Gordon, comment editing coward, says:
   
Quote
Dr Liddle:

I am sorry. The false accusation is so outrageously incendiary and unwarranted, that just walking away from it is not good enough.

You need to explain and do something to set things right, pardon.

KF

Link. What happens next I wonder?



I think the elegance of this apology goes way over kairosfocus' head.  
Quote
I didn’t “walk away”, kf, but I should have apologised, and I do now.

I made three errors – one was to misunderstand you, the next was to forget that I had misunderstood you, and the third was to claim that I hadn’t.

I had, and I apologise.

And I am glad that you do not consider that atrocities have been committed in the name of atheism.

Edit: This is Elizabeth Liddle, of course.

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
BillB



Posts: 358
Joined: Aug. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2012,05:20   

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Jan. 14 2012,11:15)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 13 2012,12:20)
Gordon, comment editing coward, says:
   
Quote
Dr Liddle:

I am sorry. The false accusation is so outrageously incendiary and unwarranted, that just walking away from it is not good enough.

You need to explain and do something to set things right, pardon.

KF

Link. What happens next I wonder?


Edit: This is Elizabeth Liddle, of course.
I think the elegance of this apology goes way over kairosfocus' head.    
Quote
I didn’t “walk away”, kf, but I should have apologised, and I do now.

I made three errors – one was to misunderstand you, the next was to forget that I had misunderstood you, and the third was to claim that I hadn’t.

I had, and I apologise.

And I am glad that you do not consider that atrocities have been committed in the name of atheism.

KF responds with this gem:
Quote
Marxism-Leninism and Maoism etc DID slaughter well over 100 millions in aggregate in the name of atheism

which EL spots:
Quote
kairosfocus!!!!!!!

First of all you take umbrage because I accuse you of saying that atrocities were committed in the name of atheism.

I (wrongly) say that I wasn’t accusing you of that (because in fact I did).

I then apologise for wrongly reading you, forgetting that I had done so, and saying that I had not.

I say I am reassured that you do not, in fact, believe that atrocities were committed in the name of atheism.

You now say, in response to me, of all people, that atrocities were committted in the name of atheism!!!!!!!

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1238
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2012,08:03   

Quote (BillB @ Jan. 14 2012,05:20)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Jan. 14 2012,11:15)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 13 2012,12:20)
Gordon, comment editing coward, says:
     
Quote
Dr Liddle:

I am sorry. The false accusation is so outrageously incendiary and unwarranted, that just walking away from it is not good enough.

You need to explain and do something to set things right, pardon.

KF

Link. What happens next I wonder?


Edit: This is Elizabeth Liddle, of course.
I think the elegance of this apology goes way over kairosfocus' head.    
Quote
I didn’t “walk away”, kf, but I should have apologised, and I do now.

I made three errors – one was to misunderstand you, the next was to forget that I had misunderstood you, and the third was to claim that I hadn’t.

I had, and I apologise.

And I am glad that you do not consider that atrocities have been committed in the name of atheism.

KF responds with this gem:  
Quote
Marxism-Leninism and Maoism etc DID slaughter well over 100 millions in aggregate in the name of atheism

which EL spots:
 
Quote
kairosfocus!!!!!!!

First of all you take umbrage because I accuse you of saying that atrocities were committed in the name of atheism.

I (wrongly) say that I wasn’t accusing you of that (because in fact I did).

I then apologise for wrongly reading you, forgetting that I had done so, and saying that I had not.

I say I am reassured that you do not, in fact, believe that atrocities were committed in the name of atheism.

You now say, in response to me, of all people, that atrocities were committted in the name of atheism!!!!!!!

There she goes again, misrepresenting kairosfocus.    I hope he is up to taking time out of his busy schedule to type a short response to this cold smoked red herring served with tu quoque croquets sauteed in straw infused oil of ad hominem.

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

  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1255
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2012,09:13   

kf's triggerfinger is itching:
Quote
Dr Liddle,

Pardon, but you have now knowingly crossed a serious line. ...
If you insist on spreading poisonous falsehoods while refusing to seriously address the long since objectively established inherent amorality of the evolutionary materialism you have chosen to embrace, I can do but little about that. ... This is a sad day, to have to now draw a line with you, but you know what you will need to do to unweave the rhetorical spell you have now cast.

Of course, he can't ban mildmannered Dr Liddle, but wouldn't he love to ...

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4241
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2012,09:20   

Gordon presses the attack by driving a 2" nail into his own forehead:
 
Quote
Perhaps, Hawthorne explains best:
 
Quote
Assume (per impossibile) that atheistic naturalism [[= evolutionary materialism] is true. Assume, furthermore, that one can’t infer an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’ [[the 'is' being in this context physicalist: matter-energy, space- time, chance and mechanical forces]. (Richard Dawkins and many other atheists should grant both of these assumptions.)

Given our second assumption, there is no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer an ‘ought’.

Liz takes note:
Quote
That is logical nonsense. First I am to assume that “one can’t infer an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’”. Then, based on this “assumption”, I am supposed to conclude – that I can’t infer an ought from what is.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a more blatant case of assuming your consequent.

This is UD. I'd have to think about that. But it's up there.

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

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2596
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2012,09:57   

Quote
kairosfocus:  So also, those who wish to assert an “exception” for biological functions like the avian flow-through lung, will need to  empirically warrant their claims.

Kairosfocus has been going on about the avian lung for some time now. As with most IDers, he confuses his ignorance or inability to imagine a pathway as evidence that such a pathway cannot exist. There is ample evidence of the evolution of birds, and of evolution generally, yet there will always be mysteries concerning the exact sequence of events.

In this case, all it takes is a valve to convert bidirectional flow, as in a mammal's lung, to unidirectional flow, as in a bird's lung. Take a look at this highly simplified schematic:



Notice the valve that controls unidirectional flow. Simply remove the valve, and you have a bidirectional system.* In birds, though, valving is thought to be aerodynamic, not mechanical.

As for the pumping system itself, the most primitive system is buccal, where the mouth pushes air into the lungs, while elastic pressure pushes it back out. However, among amniotes, costal breathing, muscles associated with the ribs, is the primitive condition. Birds aspirate costosternally, by rotating the ribs and depressing the end of the sternum. Nor is bird respiration completely unidirectional as flow through the neopulmonic bronchi is bidirectional (though not fully developed or absent in some birds).

As for exactly how and when the bird lung evolved, that is still not known with any certainty—lungs don't normally fossilize—; however, it appears that air sacs and costosternal pumping predate birds.

Sereno, et al., Evidence for Avian Intrathoracic Air Sacs in a New Predatory Dinosaur from Argentina. PLoS ONE, 2008.

* Addendum: Even if the valving is not perfect, it will increase the efficiency of respiration. In other words, the valve can easily evolve incrementally.

--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
Seversky



Posts: 415
Joined: June 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2012,12:49   

Kairosfocus on the God of the Old Testament:

     
Quote
This boils down to: If I am sufficiently clever, or powerful or persuasive to get away with it, I can do as I please.


Not really, I know, but that does come pretty close to characterizing the apparent behavior of the OT God which, in turn, makes nonsense of this claim:

     
Quote
Put in another way [please do follow the steps of thought there], the only worldviews that are morally coherent are those that have in them a foundational IS that grounds OUGHT. The best candidate for that, is the inherently good and inherently reasonable Creator God, who is such that IS and OUGHT are inseparably foundational to reality.


Clearly, this is what kf wishes his God to be but the evidence of the OT and what we observe of this universe is against him.  And wishes are not an "is" that can ground an "ought" with any kind of sufficient "warrant", not when observations of the universe actually "warrant" a very different conclusion.

Besides, in promoting his version of evangelical Christianity as a cure for the Caribbean's - and, by extension, the world's - ills, he is committing the error of failing to learn from history identified by George Santayana.

The lesson is simple: whenever an individual or group believes they have discovered some absolute and unassailable Truth it has invariably been found to be flawed.  The danger lies in it falling into the hands of powerful and ruthless individuals and their followers where it can have catastrophic consequences for those who do not accept it unconditionally.  This was the case with Nazism, communism as practiced in the Soviet Union and Red China and the many religious conflicts that have plagued humanity throughout history.

If kf really believes his version of Christian theology could bring about a golden era of peace and goodwill if applied universally, he needs to look at the history of previous attempts to bring that about.  The record of conflicts between the various faiths of the world as well as internal struggles, such as the long-running feud between Protestantism and Catholicism within Christianity, should be enough to give anyone pause for thought who might be contemplating trying something like that again.

It isn't surprising that people crave certainty when faced with a dangerous, unpredictable and mostly uncontrollable universe, nor that there are people who claim to be able to provide it.  

Unfortunately, as Marx pointed out, there are obvious parallels between religion and drug abuse.  At their mildest they can just induce a sense of well-being and benevolence but stronger doses can lead to beliefs that are dangerously false to fact like someone under the influence of a hallucinogen who becomes convinced that they can fly only to fall to their death when they jump out of a tall building or the devout family who believed that prayer could cure their daughter of untreated diabetes even as she died on the floor in front of them.

Until kf is able to address these issues his precious "warrant" counts for little.

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2124
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2012,15:51   

Quote
Put in another way [please do follow the steps of thought there], the only worldviews that are morally coherent are those that have in them a foundational IS that grounds OUGHT. The best candidate for that, is the inherently good and inherently reasonable Creator God, who is such that IS and OUGHT are inseparably foundational to reality.


What a load of horseshit, Gordon E. Mullings of Montserrat.  

Your Creator God is a malignant monster*.  Jesus had some great ideas, Matt. 7:12 for example, but then that megalomaniac Paul got a hold of them and fucked them up royally.


And really, "foundational to reality"? Foundational to your authoritarian wet dreams, more like.


* and you're just like him. Isn't that what you wanted?

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1956
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2012,19:12   

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Jan. 14 2012,06:03)
Edit: This is Elizabeth Liddle, of course.
I think the elegance of this apology goes way over kairosfocus' head.      
Quote
I didn’t “walk away”, kf, but I should have apologised, and I do now.

I made three errors – one was to misunderstand you, the next was to forget that I had misunderstood you, and the third was to claim that I hadn’t.

I had, and I apologise.

And I am glad that you do not consider that atrocities have been committed in the name of atheism.
[/quote]
KF responds with this gem:  
Quote
Marxism-Leninism and Maoism etc DID slaughter well over 100 millions in aggregate in the name of atheism

which EL spots:
 
Quote
kairosfocus!!!!!!!

First of all you take umbrage because I accuse you of saying that atrocities were committed in the name of atheism.

I (wrongly) say that I wasn’t accusing you of that (because in fact I did).

I then apologise for wrongly reading you, forgetting that I had done so, and saying that I had not.

I say I am reassured that you do not, in fact, believe that atrocities were committed in the name of atheism.

You now say, in response to me, of all people, that atrocities were committted in the name of atheism!!!!!!!
[/quote]
There she goes again, misrepresenting kairosfocus.    I hope he is up to taking time out of his busy schedule to type a short response to this cold smoked red herring served with tu quoque croquets sauteed in straw infused oil of ad hominem.

What a fucking nitwit this guy is!eleven!

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Kattarina98



Posts: 1255
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2012,13:09   

kf is so fickle!
Quote
I wish to publicly commend UD commenters ellazimm and Dr Elizabeth Liddle for their seriousness, civility, responsiveness in dialogue, and general positive tone.

We need more objectors like these ladies. And, I hope that, increasingly, we will have them.

Ladies, well done.


--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2012,13:22   

New Dembski interview.

Link.

Mentions of the global flood he had to accept as real in order to keep his job: Zero.

Quote
Ultimately, I think ID will win. A few years ago, I thought I’d be around to see its victory. Now, I’m not so sure. The Bible actually gives me great comfort in this regard, because one sees in it that God’s purposes are not generally carried out by the flamboyant, well-placed, and powerful. But in the end, the false prophets are always clearly identified, and those who were true are vindicated. ID, in my view, plays a prophetic role for our culture.


But what's ID got to do with the Bible Dembski?

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

  
Patrick



Posts: 549
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2012,14:00   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 15 2012,14:22)
New Dembski interview.

Link.

Mentions of the global flood he had to accept as real in order to keep his job: Zero.

 
Quote
Ultimately, I think ID will win. A few years ago, I thought I’d be around to see its victory. Now, I’m not so sure. The Bible actually gives me great comfort in this regard, because one sees in it that God’s purposes are not generally carried out by the flamboyant, well-placed, and powerful. But in the end, the false prophets are always clearly identified, and those who were true are vindicated. ID, in my view, plays a prophetic role for our culture.


But what's ID got to do with the Bible Dembski?

And, quelle surprise, comments are not allowed.

  
  10669 replies since Aug. 31 2011,21:06 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (356) < ... 56 57 58 59 60 [61] 62 63 64 65 66 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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