RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (356) < ... 105 106 107 108 109 [110] 111 112 113 114 115 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 4, Fostering a Greater Understanding of IDC< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
The whole truth



Posts: 973
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2012,17:28   

I've been reading some older UD threads and I came across this little gem by batshit77:

"Theism postulates that the DNA of man is complete and ANY mutations to it will be detrimental in some nature, This is exactly what the evidence of exhaustive experimentation is pointing too. Evolution is left wanting for a mechanism of novelty and all presumptions to arise from the evolutionary scenario are meaningless until evolutionists can clearly demonstrate a gain in genetic information that would violate the entropy of information!
This is not some minor point I point out, this one point is the very crux of the battle between ID and evolution!"

It's part of comment 15 in this thread:

IDiot

Hmm, and I wonder why joe g (Joseph) didn't assert to batshit (in that thread) that ID isn't anti-evolution?  :p

Also see comment number 32, which is a response to comment 14.

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
Ptaylor



Posts: 879
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2012,20:29   

This could become interesting. Aleta and StephenB have been exchanging comments for a while on Kf's Law of non-Contradiction post. I haven't really been following the argument, other than to note Stephen's rather, erm, unique form of civility. Aleta's latest (last?) comment at UD:
     
Quote
Reply at http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....t.....t-3841 including an explanation of why I’m responding there, not here.

...and the response at TSZ begins:
     
Quote
Over at UD, Stephen makes a point worth responding to. However, I'm going to respond here, not there, because the environment here is, shall we say, more conducive to constructive discussion, with more and different people able to join in.
...

That's right Stephen, many people at UD have been banned lately, simply for displaying, well, thoughtfulness, and to my eyes the flow of thought there has definitely slowed down. Will Stephen rise to the occasion and venture beyond UD waters?
OK, since starting this I have hit refresh and there are two new comments from SB. The answer would be No:
     
Quote
Aleta, I feel sorry for you because I don’t believe that you are not capable of rational thought. Let me know if I can ever help you.

Psst - Stephen, you fucked that up. So he adds:
     
Quote
Oops, I mean, I don’t believe that you are capable of rational thought. My offer for help still goes, however.

Link
Edited to fix a link and to attempt to fix the <br> tag in another.
And again to finally fix both. Thanks to keiths for the advice.


Edited by Ptaylor on Feb. 21 2012,14:53

--------------
“To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today.” - Isaac Asimov

"Grow up, assface" - Joe G., grown up ID spokesperson, Sandwalk, April 2014

  
keiths



Posts: 2040
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2012,21:30   

Ptaylor, there's a comma at the end of the Skeptical Zone link, and for the UD link, I think you'll have to use bit.ly or another link shortener.

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

  
The whole truth



Posts: 973
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2012,22:37   

A tiny url extension (plugin) can be added to Firefox. I've been using it for a few days and it works just fine. It's much faster and easier than going to the tiny url site, and it's free (a small donation is requested).

Look here

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
sledgehammer



Posts: 530
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2012,22:54   

Moar from the Dr.Dr's  TBS interwiew, posted on UD:
 
Quote
We’re not saying that evolution doesn’t happen. We’re saying that even if it happens, it requires an information source beyond the reach of conventional evolutionary mechanisms.

So when did the environment become "beyond the reach of conventional evolutionary mechanisms"?
Given that he's already admitted,on UD no less, that the environment is the source of "active information" in biological evo, he seems to have conveniently omitted that little fact in the interest of making  a grandiose, unsupported generalization ( otherwise known as "lying for Jesus" ).

As I recall, he was backed into that particular corner after claiming that the  "active info" in GA's was "sneaked in" via the fitness function. When it was pointed out that obviously the environment provided that function in biological evo, his comeback was,  "and where did the information in the environment come from? (wink, nudge)" and then launched into his "search for a search" smokescreen, and immediately shut off comments.
I pretty sure that was the last time he allowed comments on any of his OPs on UD.

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

  
iconofid



Posts: 32
Joined: July 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2012,06:11   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 19 2012,08:38)
 
Quote (tsig @ Feb. 19 2012,09:03)
   
Quote (eigenstate @ Feb. 16 2012,15:44)
   
Quote (iconofid @ Feb. 16 2012,15:16)
       
Quote (Ptaylor @ Feb. 14 2012,14:51)
Barry's latest (emphasis added):
               
Quote
The law of non-contradiction (“LNC”) states that for any proposition “A,” A cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same formal relation.

The existence of the LNC is the very basis of all argumentation, and anyone who denies it also denies meaning, order, truth and logic. For obvious reasons, therefore, it is not only useless but also affirmatively harmful to the search for truth to argue with someone who refuses to admit unambiguously the LNC. Arguing with a person who denies the basis for argument is self-defeating and can lead only to confusion. Only a fool or a charlatan denies the LNC, and this site will not be a platform from which fools and charlatans will be allowed to spew their noxious inanities.

For that reason, I am today announcing a new moderation policy at UD. At any time the moderator reserves the right to ask the following question to any person who would comment or continue to comment on this site: “Can the moon exist and not exist at the same time and in the same formal relation?” The answer to this question is either “yes” or “no.” If the person gives any answer other than the single word “no,” he or she will immediately be deemed not worth arguing with and therefore banned from this site.

We will start with Petrushka to demonstrate the application of the policy. Petrushka, can the moon exist and not exist at the same time and in the same formal relation?

My opinion: bizarre.


I don't know if anyone has pointed this out yet because I'm replying to a post on page 98 of the thread, but Barry has just denied the existence of an omnipotent God. He has also effectively banned anyone who believes in such a God from defending its ability to make the moon simultaneously existent and non-existent.

I'm banned from U.D., but had I been Petrushka, I'd have relished pointing this out.

Ignoring the physics for a moment, the knife could be stuck in this way:

"Only someone who believes in an omnipotent god could answer yes to that. And who believes in miracles these days?"

I wonder if this has occurred to any of the god squad at U.D.

Does anyone with a surviving sock want to make the point?

Hi iconofid,

Orthodox Christianity doesn't conceive of "omnipotent" in ways that allow self-contradictory propositions.  They just laugh, and with some warrant, when you ask if "God can create a rock so heavy he can't lift it", or "make a square circle". Even (especially) God is not potent in that way, because it's not a potency at all, but instead a conceptual error in the asking of the question.

An omnipotent God would not be able to make a moon exist and not-exist at the same time, and in the same (classical, we must note) sense. That's a contradiction in terms, rather than an ability or a potency. "No be able" is a bit of a language trick we play on our selves there,  because "make a square circle" does not resolve against "able" or "unable".

If we follow that line of logic then all miracles are impossible.

Indeed. Someone is playing language games, but it isn't iconofid.

If Yahweh (or any other god) "...is not potent in that way", then he is not in fact omnipotent.

If Barry's (and StephenB's) God is the uncaused cause of everything, that should include the reality in which the law of non-contradiction applies. He should only be constrained by the law if it is part of a greater reality that he did not create and does not control.

Barry cannot claim that it is impossible for the moon to both exist and not exist at the same time without placing limitations on his God's omnipotent miraculous capabilities.

This is not on quite the same level as questioning God's omnipotence by asking if he himself could both exist and not exist at the same time, or whether he could create a rock too heavy for himself to lift. I'ts just asking whether or not he can miraculously alter the reality he has created.

Can Barry claim to know that the moon scenario is beyond the capabilities of his god, and therefore impossible? Is Barry omniscient?

Shouldn't this be discussed at U.D., where there might be people who believe that God can do whatever he wills, and isn't constrained by a reality greater than himself?

That last is, I think, a commonly held belief amongst Christians.

  
k.e..



Posts: 2841
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2012,06:33   

Quote (sledgehammer @ Feb. 21 2012,06:54)
Moar from the Dr.Dr's  TBS interwiew, posted on UD:
   
Quote
We’re not saying that evolution doesn’t happen. We’re saying that even if it happens, it requires an information source beyond the reach of conventional evolutionary mechanisms.

So when did the environment become "beyond the reach of conventional evolutionary mechanisms"?
Given that he's already admitted,on UD no less, that the environment is the source of "active information" in biological evo, he seems to have conveniently omitted that little fact in the interest of making  a grandiose, unsupported generalization ( otherwise known as "lying for Jesus" ).

As I recall, he was backed into that particular corner after claiming that the  "active info" in GA's was "sneaked in" via the fitness function. When it was pointed out that obviously the environment provided that function in biological evo, his comeback was,  "and where did the information in the environment come from? (wink, nudge)" and then launched into his "search for a search" smokescreen, and immediately shut off comments.
I pretty sure that was the last time he allowed comments on any of his OPs on UD.

IT'S A SLIPPERY SLOPE, HOMO!

AS SOON AS YOU LET YOUR OPs BE DPed IN THE PUBLIC SQUARE, BE PREPARED FOR A LONGER WAIT AT THE END OF A LONGER QUE FOR THE NOBLE PRIZE.

THE 7TH CIRCLE OF HELL WAS RESERVED FOR THE MONEY CHANGERS AND DEMBSKI WILL GET INTO THERE A LOT SOONER THAN THE HALLOWED HALLS OF STOCKHOLM.

HIS ASSERTION THAT GOD's STEM CELLS FROM BEYOND THE BIG BANG WILL AT SOME TIME FIND THEIR WAY INTO THE NEXT BIG THING FIRST REPORTED ON TEXAS DRIVE TIME EVANGELICAL FM IS BREATH TAKING TO SAY THE LEAST.

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 2841
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2012,06:36   

Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 19 2012,23:54)
Can an unintelligible statement simultaneously exist and not exist?

yes and no

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2012,07:10   

Quote
AS SOON AS YOU LET YOUR OPs BE DPed IN THE PUBLIC SQUARE, BE PREPARED FOR A LONGER WAIT AT THE END OF A LONGER QUE FOR THE NOBLE PRIZE.


oh yeah

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

  
Woodbine



Posts: 755
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2012,07:26   

Frill.....



No Way!!! Who'da thunk it?

  
Woodbine



Posts: 755
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2012,08:14   

Meanwhile at Lizzie's pad.....


:D

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2012,08:45   

I am sure that is a multipart technical post in which he calculates the probability that X is designed, justifies a particular specification parameter for generalized protein topology and defends Abel's characterization of information.  

right?

Quote
Joe G on February 21, 2012 at 2:32 pm said:

 Well Lynn didn't demonstrate anything. All she did was say "Hey these organelles look like bacteria" and she did not account for the nucleus.

BTW there would have been more than one phenomenon- *dumbass*


Quote
 
Quote
Patrick: You seem to have left out the actual testable hypothesis in your response, Joe.Please do provide it.


It is the same as for archaeology and forensics- namely that when agencies act they tend to leave traces of their involvement behind. Traces that we can then detect. CSI and IC are examples of such traces.

And to refute the design inferece given CSI and/ or IC all one has to do is demonstrate that blind and undirected processes can account for it.

That said your position doesn't have anything- how can we test the premise taht blind and undirected processes constructed the bacterial flagellum?


Quote

Elizabeth,

Humans do not have gills at any point in development- what is your degree in?


Quote
Joe G on February 21, 2012 at 1:48 pm said:

  Your position relies on imagination as there isn't any evidence that a prokaryote can "evolve" into something other than a prokaryote. And you can't even test the claim that a prokaryote can evolve into something other than a prokaryote.


Quote
Ian,

Chimps and humans- stay focused.


Quote
Neil,

As you have been told "intelligence" just refers to agency. Now if you cannot grasp that simple fact then perhaps you should discuss something else.

Intelligent Design is different than apparent design on one side and optimum design on the other.

You guys are pathetic.




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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2012,08:46   

So, Joe gets a free pass on being an obtuse autistic prick on yet another blog.  Is there some kind of affirmative action for creationist retards that i have not heard about?

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

  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1254
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2012,08:53   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 21 2012,08:46)
So, Joe gets a free pass on being an obtuse autistic prick on yet another blog.  Is there some kind of affirmative action for creationist retards that i have not heard about?

He's the comical relief.

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

  
Freddie



Posts: 365
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2012,08:56   

Well, I got my fix for the day, how about you guys?

My emphasis.
     
Quote

Bilbo I

Robert @ 8: I’m willing to bet that you are not a linguist. I’m not either, but I’ve read enough to know that there’s at least one school of thought among linguists that would say that human languages are the output of an innate human structure involving various rules about how to form a language. I’m not sure how much of this idea is accepted among linguists. I’m pretty sure that no linguist thinks that there are any “primitive” languages.

   
Quote
Robert Byers
February 21, 2012 at 5:25 am
Bilbo I.
i’m not a linguist.
I don’t think they do think there are primitive languages or at least its not acceptable to say so because of the racial stuff.
There is indeed no inferior but there is atrophy from primitive segregated people just as in nOrth america the backwards folks twist English into almost another language like in Tom Sawyer or something.

There is no need ti invoke innate structures.
They just miss the point that people are very intelligent , including children, with very complex thoughts from the start.
There could not be a time where we only grunted.
Quickly did sound combinations become agreed upon.
I say this was in Eden and the in babel there was a sudden unnatural disagreement.
Evolutionary thought corrupts understanding what language is.
In fact its just what writing is.
Sounds = agreed meaning=language and written symbols = for agreed sounds.
Thats all it is.

That's cleared that up, then!  I didn't highlight the obvious racism.  Obvious racism is obvious.

--------------
Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy.
Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people.
Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2012,09:11   

if booby just grunted he would make more sense.

which one of you guys is robert byers again?  fucking excellent deep cover sock, i suspect k.e..

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

  
Febble



Posts: 310
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2012,09:27   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 21 2012,08:46)
So, Joe gets a free pass on being an obtuse autistic prick on yet another blog.  Is there some kind of affirmative action for creationist retards that i have not heard about?

Everybody gets a free pass, but some posts don't.

However violations of site rules aimed at me tend to get a pass, because they don't bother me.

Also he was right, and I was wrong.

Joe is quite often right, actually.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2012,09:33   

Quote (Febble @ Feb. 21 2012,10:27)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 21 2012,08:46)
So, Joe gets a free pass on being an obtuse autistic prick on yet another blog.  Is there some kind of affirmative action for creationist retards that i have not heard about?

Everybody gets a free pass, but some posts don't.

However violations of site rules aimed at me tend to get a pass, because they don't bother me.

Also he was right, and I was wrong.

Joe is quite often right, actually.

yes the gill thing.  it's not like *he* knew anything about it either.  i bet the only thing joey has looked at under a microscope is the shit under his fingernails

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2012,09:34   

this is why one can't have nice things

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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2012,10:30   

Quote (Febble @ Feb. 21 2012,09:27)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 21 2012,08:46)
So, Joe gets a free pass on being an obtuse autistic prick on yet another blog.  Is there some kind of affirmative action for creationist retards that i have not heard about?

Everybody gets a free pass, but some posts don't.

However violations of site rules aimed at me tend to get a pass, because they don't bother me.

Also he was right, and I was wrong.

Joe is quite often right, actually.

Joe is occasionally technically correct.  however, he is always wrong with the conclusions he draws from his technically correct information.

He is also very, very careful, never to say anything that can be used against him.

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

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

   
Patrick



Posts: 549
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2012,10:44   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 21 2012,11:30)
Joe is occasionally technically correct.  however, he is always wrong with the conclusions he draws from his technically correct information.

He is also very, very careful, never to say anything that can be used against him.

He just informed me at Lizzie's blog that CSI is rigorously defined.  Are you suggesting that he won't provide any example calculations to support that claim?

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2012,10:53   

i've poked that moron for years and i've never seen him do anything other than regurgitate some shit he heard someone else say.  the gills thing is a perfect example of that.

oh, yeah he does do one other thing and that is get made, get mad then hurl poo.  and that he sucks at too because his vocabulary really isn't that large and his rhetorical flourishes are flaccid.  and that is entertaining

ogre gets under his skin but it takes rich to really make him pound the keyboard.  good times.  but in all honesty he should be barred from the innernets he is a danger to electrons, makes them dumber

ETA:  oldman i think is probably the undisputed champion of fucking with joe.  but joe is too stupid to understand that most of the time.  thats why i love this place

Edited by Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 21 2012,13:02

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

  
The whole truth



Posts: 973
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2012,11:56   

Quote (Febble @ Feb. 21 2012,07:27)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 21 2012,08:46)
So, Joe gets a free pass on being an obtuse autistic prick on yet another blog.  Is there some kind of affirmative action for creationist retards that i have not heard about?

Everybody gets a free pass, but some posts don't.

However violations of site rules aimed at me tend to get a pass, because they don't bother me.

Also he was right, and I was wrong.

Joe is quite often right, actually.

NONE of joe's posts are in "Guano", even though joe is regularly rude and insulting to other people. Several posts by other people in "Guano" aren't the least bit rude or insulting.

And joe is rude and insulting just for the sake of being rude and insulting, but blunt responses to joe aren't. They're 'right'.

You're not protecting 'communication', you're protecting the IDiots and their bad faith.

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2012,12:20   

Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 21 2012,06:56)
 
Quote (Febble @ Feb. 21 2012,07:27)
   
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 21 2012,08:46)
So, Joe gets a free pass on being an obtuse autistic prick on yet another blog.  Is there some kind of affirmative action for creationist retards that i have not heard about?

Everybody gets a free pass, but some posts don't.

However violations of site rules aimed at me tend to get a pass, because they don't bother me.

Also he was right, and I was wrong.

Joe is quite often right, actually.

NONE of joe's posts are in "Guano", even though joe is regularly rude and insulting to other people. Several posts by other people in "Guano" aren't the least bit rude or insulting.

And joe is rude and insulting just for the sake of being rude and insulting, but blunt responses to joe aren't. They're 'right'.

You're not protecting 'communication', you're protecting the IDiots and their bad faith.

Come on TWT, watching Joe Gallien winding himself up (and maybe helping a little) is harmless fun. What beats me is what Joe gets out of it

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1237
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2012,12:24   

Guess who "wrote" this:

Quote
Paper Niles Eldredge needs to write: “Given past and current findings, why in hoo-haw am I still a Darwinist?”


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

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1237
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2012,12:41   

Jon Garvey, soopergenius:
Quote
SCheesman

You’ll have to get rid of the architecture, I’m afraid. Dictionary definition: “science of building”. Etymology: “that which is panned and made by an arch builder.”

Sorry – you don’t get to turn down the Nobel.


Quote

ar·chi·tec·ture
? ?/??rk??t?kt??r/ Show Spelled[ahr-ki-tek-cher]
noun

7.
the structure of anything: the architecture of a novel.


Sorry, you're a dumbass.  Dictionaries (and words) have more than one definition.

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

  
JohnW



Posts: 2207
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2012,13:31   

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Feb. 21 2012,10:24)
Guess who "wrote" this:

Quote
Paper Niles Eldredge needs to write: “Given past and current findings, why in hoo-haw am I still a Darwinist?”

Slang no-one outside a small corner of Toronto has used for fifty years?  Too easy.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2012,13:55   

Quote (JohnW @ Feb. 21 2012,13:31)
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Feb. 21 2012,10:24)
Guess who "wrote" this:

 
Quote
Paper Niles Eldredge needs to write: “Given past and current findings, why in hoo-haw am I still a Darwinist?”

Slang no-one outside a small corner of Toronto has used for fifty years?  Too easy.

Don't be so sure of yourself. I am pretty sure Joel Borofsky wrote quite a bit about hoo-haws.

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

  
afarensis



Posts: 1002
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2012,14:29   

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Feb. 21 2012,12:24)
Guess who "wrote" this:

Quote
Paper Niles Eldredge needs to write: “Given past and current findings, why in hoo-haw am I still a Darwinist?”

Granny Spice is a bit late on this, I downloaded most of these papers at least a year and a half ago. I suppose the intertube net dealie was jammed with attack gerbils so she just now got the memo...

--------------
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.

   
Soapy Sam



Posts: 495
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2012,14:32   

Quote (Febble @ Feb. 21 2012,09:27)
   
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 21 2012,08:46)
So, Joe gets a free pass on being an obtuse autistic prick on yet another blog.  Is there some kind of affirmative action for creationist retards that i have not heard about?

Everybody gets a free pass, but some posts don't.

However violations of site rules aimed at me tend to get a pass, because they don't bother me.

Also he was right, and I was wrong.

Joe is quite often right, actually.

Quite often?

That endosymbiosis theory relies on "looks like" for evidence of bacterial origin?
That molecular evidence of common descent is better explained by common design? Or, if he's feeling frisky, convergence?
That there is an 'essence' to species that resides somewhere other than the genome?
That ID (as practised) is not anti-evolution?
That common descent does not predict a nested hierarchy?
That life violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?
That neutral sequences cannot remain identifiable for long enough to be markers of common descent?

I realise this is all a reverse argument from authority - just because he's wrong on just about everything does not make him wrong on everything. I also understand you have an open house policy, so whichever netkook happens to latch onto your site has to be tolerated within broad limits of civility (Atheistoclast and "Socrates" may start homing in any time soon!).

But quite often right? Sorry ... just no. I have already wasted far too much life time reading that bozo's arguments. It's like arguing with a particularly stubborn 10 year old. He has nothing to offer, and apparently limitless time in which to offer it.

--------------
Evolutionists trust entropy for creation of life but are like men who horse a crocodile to get across a river - niwrad.

The organism could already metabolize citrus. Joe G

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

Pages: (356) < ... 105 106 107 108 109 [110] 111 112 113 114 115 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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