RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (308) < ... 24 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 34 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 5, Return To Teh Dingbat Buffet< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
fnxtr



Posts: 2602
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2014,00:12   

Quote (Lou FCD @ April 23 2014,18:12)
I don't think a guy who believes in an Invisible Haploid Zombie who Lives in the Sky and Watches Us Masturbate really should involve "neurodegenerative pathologies" in the discussion.

ETA spelling



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

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1047
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2014,00:59   

Quote (fnxtr @ April 24 2014,00:12)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ April 23 2014,18:12)
I don't think a guy who believes in an Invisible Haploid Zombie who Lives in the Sky and Watches Us Masturbate really should involve "neurodegenerative pathologies" in the discussion.

ETA spelling


My selfless task of preventing the feline destruction of bird populations continues...

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2014,12:18   

more selfie than selfless.

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

  
Soapy Sam



Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2014,14:13   

If God had wanted us not to masturbate, he'd have organised things such that we couldn't. I can't tickle myself, so that's obviously something He has put beyond the pale.

--------------
SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G

BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2014,14:33   

Quote (Soapy Sam @ April 24 2014,14:13)
If God had wanted us not to masturbate, he'd have organised things such that we couldn't. I can't tickle myself, so that's obviously something He has put beyond the pale.

But if you don't record it, you're an undocumented wanker.

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

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2087
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2014,17:21   

Everybody hold this thought: Denyse in a bikini.





That oughta put a stop to this masturbation epidemic.

--------------
...after reviewing the arguments, I’m inclined to believe that the critics of ENCODE’s bold claim were mostly right, and that the proportion of our genome which is functional is probably between 10 and 20%.  --Vincent Torley, uncommondescent.com 1/1/2016

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1047
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2014,18:11   

Quote (CeilingCat @ April 25 2014,17:21)
Everybody hold this thought: Denyse in a bikini.





That oughta put a stop to this masturbation epidemic.

Eating too, though.

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1047
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2014,18:16   

Quote
Psychologists show how to brainwash kids into Darwinism


Next up, psychologists show how to brainwash kids into giving up their intuition that monsters routinely reside under their beds.

Damn these people who think kids should do anything but reinforce their prejudices.  After all, the IDiots have never done anything else, and look at how well they turned out.

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
CeilingCat



Posts: 2087
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2014,15:23   

Paul Giem writes:  
Quote
I have seen some claim, with some plausibility, that LINE elements may have something to do with original sin.

Mr. Giem is the author of Scientific Theology.

--------------
...after reviewing the arguments, I’m inclined to believe that the critics of ENCODE’s bold claim were mostly right, and that the proportion of our genome which is functional is probably between 10 and 20%.  --Vincent Torley, uncommondescent.com 1/1/2016

  
timothya



Posts: 259
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2014,03:17   

Sal Cordova embraces numerology as a scientific discipline:
Quote
If the mathematical/musical patterns Perez has found in DNA are improbable relative to laws of physics and chemistry, then he may have found yet another design feature of DNA, and this feature is found by combining coding DNA with non-coding DNA and viewing it holistically.

Well if we can find Jebus in a pancake, we sure can find numerical structure in a repeating code. Kabbalah, anyone?

  
timothya



Posts: 259
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2014,05:14   

This person, quark1, definitely has the irony thing nailed:
 
Quote
1) Take subtraction diagonal like

A = (TCT)-(TTC) = 251604556 225669775 = 25934781
B = (TAT)-(TTA) = 234734484 260313647 = -25579163
C = (TGT)-(TTG) = 229405484 190719226 = 38686258
D = (TAC)-(TCA) = 169023944 202932695 = -33908751
E = (TGC)-(TCG) = 96112792 91988158 = 4124634
F = (TGA)-(TAG) = 202932695 149333215 = 53599480

2) Alright, thereafter do a summation like

A + B + C + D + E + F = 62857239

3) Divide with 10.000.000 and thereafter

(1/10.000.000)(A + B + C + D + E + F) = 6,2857239

This is approximately 2pi = 2*3,14159 = 6,283185

Do the same for the other three intervall:

The second one: I get -6pi
The third one: I get 3pi
The fourd one: I get pi

  
KCdgw



Posts: 376
Joined: Sep. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2014,11:23   

Quote (timothya @ April 28 2014,03:17)
Quote
If the mathematical/musical patterns Perez has found in DNA are improbable relative to laws of physics and chemistry, then he may have found yet another design feature of DNA, and this feature is found by combining coding DNA with non-coding DNA and viewing it holistically.

Perez Hilton, maybe.

--------------
Those who know the truth are not equal to those who love it-- Confucius

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1788
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2014,20:10   

Mung brings teh stoopid.

Quote
Mung April 28, 2014 at 6:54 pm

If natural selection existed, children would not die of cancer.

Children do die of cancer.

Therefore natural selection does not exist.


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

  
Ptaylor



Posts: 1040
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2014,23:09   

Both PZ Myers and Jerry Coyne have commented on this recently:

Does this mean we can now expect to be treated to a video of Granville Sewell re-reading aloud his paper whythat he is right and everyone else is wrong about evolution and SLoT?

(I'm not sure how to credit images here; it's from Zach Weiner at SMBC-Comics, linkie)
ETA snark


Edited by Ptaylor on April 29 2014,18:35

--------------
We no longer say: “Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.” We now say: “Another day since the time Darwinism was disproved.”
-PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2014,23:28   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ April 28 2014,20:10)
Mung brings teh stoopid.

 
Quote
Mung April 28, 2014 at 6:54 pm

If natural selection existed, children would not die of cancer.

Children do die of cancer.

Therefore natural selection does not exist.

FFS. They're angry with evolution before even understanding it.

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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4907
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2014,02:32   

Quote (CeilingCat @ April 27 2014,15:23)
Paul Giem writes:
Quote
I have seen some claim, with some plausibility, that LINE elements may have something to do with original sin.

Mr. Giem is the author of Scientific Theology.

Giem is an M.D., perhaps most famous for opining that Barbara Forrest could use some Haldol or something while complaining about incivility on the part of pro-science advocates.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2014,02:38   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 29 2014,02:32)
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 27 2014,15:23)
Paul Giem writes:  
Quote
I have seen some claim, with some plausibility, that LINE elements may have something to do with original sin.

Mr. Giem is the author of Scientific Theology.

Giem is an M.D., perhaps most famous for opining that Barbara Forrest could use some Haldol or something while complaining about incivility on the part of pro-science advocates.

Better link to video:
https://archive.org/details....0110416

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

  
Soapy Sam



Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2014,06:08   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ April 29 2014,02:10)
Mung brings teh stoopid.

Quote
Mung April 28, 2014 at 6:54 pm

If natural selection existed, children would not die of cancer.

Children do die of cancer.

Therefore natural selection does not exist.

If God existed ...

--------------
SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G

BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

  
k.e..



Posts: 3898
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2014,21:21   

Quote (Soapy Sam @ April 29 2014,14:08)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ April 29 2014,02:10)
Mung brings teh stoopid.

 
Quote
Mung April 28, 2014 at 6:54 pm

If natural selection existed, children would not die of cancer.

Children do die of cancer.

Therefore natural selection does not exist.

If God existed ...

Yeah, for them children dying of cancer IS proof God exists.
Its all the sinning not from themselves who are the most guilty of liars, schemers, scammers, flim flam artists and guilt peddlers but the children dying as the result of some sin committed elsewhere by someone who must be punished by their great fascist in the sky. If God really existed there wouldn't be any creationists.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Henry J



Posts: 4815
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2014,21:43   

Quote (Soapy Sam @ April 29 2014,05:08)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ April 29 2014,02:10)
Mung brings teh stoopid.

 
Quote
Mung April 28, 2014 at 6:54 pm

If natural selection existed, children would not die of cancer.

Children do die of cancer.

Therefore natural selection does not exist.

If God existed ...

She'd have sued the authors of the Bible for libel by now? (Or do I mean slander?)

Henry

  
tsig



Posts: 339
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2014,11:33   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 29 2014,02:32)
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 27 2014,15:23)
Paul Giem writes:  
Quote
I have seen some claim, with some plausibility, that LINE elements may have something to do with original sin.

Mr. Giem is the author of Scientific Theology.

Giem is an M.D., perhaps most famous for opining that Barbara Forrest could use some Haldol or something while complaining about incivility on the part of pro-science advocates.

Nothing like assuming what you're going to prove:


The fact is that the existence of science argues strongly for an [33] ordering principle in the universe, which we may call God,and which we may at least partly comprehend. To argue otherwise is, quite frankly, absurd, and those who do so do not believe their own rhetoric. You dont catch them fasting for prolonged periods in the belief that this time nature will not require food as usual, or chaining themselves to the ground in case they should no longer be attracted to the earth. I find the case against the existence of God very weak indeed. The first thing we can learn from nature is that the universe is orderly, and requires an ordering principle.

  
NoName



Posts: 2721
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2014,11:42   

Quote (tsig @ May 01 2014,12:33)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 29 2014,02:32)
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 27 2014,15:23)
Paul Giem writes:
Quote
I have seen some claim, with some plausibility, that LINE elements may have something to do with original sin.

Mr. Giem is the author of Scientific Theology.

Giem is an M.D., perhaps most famous for opining that Barbara Forrest could use some Haldol or something while complaining about incivility on the part of pro-science advocates.

Nothing like assuming what you're going to prove:


The fact is that the existence of science argues strongly for an [33] ordering principle in the universe, which we may call God,and which we may at least partly comprehend. To argue otherwise is, quite frankly, absurd, and those who do so do not believe their own rhetoric. You dont catch them fasting for prolonged periods in the belief that this time nature will not require food as usual, or chaining themselves to the ground in case they should no longer be attracted to the earth. I find the case against the existence of God very weak indeed. The first thing we can learn from nature is that the universe is orderly, and requires an ordering principle.

This is very nearly the weakest of all possible arguments for the existence of god(s).
It also has a sting in its tail that theists are unlikely care for.
We can logically deduce that the ordering principle is itself orderly, and thus requires an ordering principle for itself.
The conditions under which an ordering principle can be applied are inherently orderly and thus require an ordering principle prior to the ordering principle being asserted in the theological claim.
If they care to reject the applicability of the 'argument'  when directed towards their deity of choice, the identical grounds suffice for rejecting its applicability to the universe.

Of course, there is no need to argue against the existence of god(s) until and unless a successful argument for their existence is produced.  Despite millennia of efforts, no such argument has been produced.

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1047
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2014,13:00   

Quote (tsig @ May 01 2014,11:33)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 29 2014,02:32)
 
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 27 2014,15:23)
Paul Giem writes:  
Quote
I have seen some claim, with some plausibility, that LINE elements may have something to do with original sin.

Mr. Giem is the author of Scientific Theology.

Giem is an M.D., perhaps most famous for opining that Barbara Forrest could use some Haldol or something while complaining about incivility on the part of pro-science advocates.

Nothing like assuming what you're going to prove:


The fact is that the existence of science argues strongly for an [33] ordering principle in the universe, which we may call God,and which we may at least partly comprehend. To argue otherwise is, quite frankly, absurd, and those who do so do not believe their own rhetoric. You dont catch them fasting for prolonged periods in the belief that this time nature will not require food as usual, or chaining themselves to the ground in case they should no longer be attracted to the earth. I find the case against the existence of God very weak indeed. The first thing we can learn from nature is that the universe is orderly, and requires an ordering principle.

I guess that explains why creationists rarely expect miracles, because clearly an ordering principle means no exceptions.

Or wait, maybe it doesn't?

No, I figured it out, if "laws of nature" hold, it's evidence for God, and if "laws of nature" do not hold and a miracle occurs, it's evidence for God. Because only God can flout God's laws. So, um, why aren't creationists chaining themselves to the ground, since they realize that God can flippantly ignore his own laws (like ordering genocides, nice stuff like that)?

Oh those evilutionists, always illogical.

Say, biology appears to be ordered as well. Evolutionary, hereditary order, but order nonetheless. So Jesus. Ha ha. You thought that order would need to be design order? No, order is due to God. Short step to theistic evolution (in case baby Jesus thinks the cosmos should actually make sense, rather than sending people to hell for thinking from cause to effect), but don't go there.

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2014,15:54   

Quote (Glen Davidson @ May 01 2014,13:00)
Quote (tsig @ May 01 2014,11:33)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 29 2014,02:32)
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 27 2014,15:23)
Paul Giem writes:
Quote
I have seen some claim, with some plausibility, that LINE elements may have something to do with original sin.

Mr. Giem is the author of Scientific Theology.

Giem is an M.D., perhaps most famous for opining that Barbara Forrest could use some Haldol or something while complaining about incivility on the part of pro-science advocates.

Nothing like assuming what you're going to prove:


The fact is that the existence of science argues strongly for an [33] ordering principle in the universe, which we may call God,and which we may at least partly comprehend. To argue otherwise is, quite frankly, absurd, and those who do so do not believe their own rhetoric. You dont catch them fasting for prolonged periods in the belief that this time nature will not require food as usual, or chaining themselves to the ground in case they should no longer be attracted to the earth. I find the case against the existence of God very weak indeed. The first thing we can learn from nature is that the universe is orderly, and requires an ordering principle.

I guess that explains why creationists rarely expect miracles, because clearly an ordering principle means no exceptions.

Or wait, maybe it doesn't?

No, I figured it out, if "laws of nature" hold, it's evidence for God, and if "laws of nature" do not hold and a miracle occurs, it's evidence for God. Because only God can flout God's laws. So, um, why aren't creationists chaining themselves to the ground, since they realize that God can flippantly ignore his own laws (like ordering genocides, nice stuff like that)?

Oh those evilutionists, always illogical.

Say, biology appears to be ordered as well. Evolutionary, hereditary order, but order nonetheless. So Jesus. Ha ha. You thought that order would need to be design order? No, order is due to God. Short step to theistic evolution (in case baby Jesus thinks the cosmos should actually make sense, rather than sending people to hell for thinking from cause to effect), but don't go there.

Glen Davidson

The ultimate front-loading.

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

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

   
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1047
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2014,21:12   

Quote
Steve Meyer speaks up for Lynn Margulis


Professional crank courtesy.

Crank magnetism is alive and well.  Yay!

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
timothya



Posts: 259
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2014,05:50   

News at UD has this to say:
Quote
The main problem is that the people who use Wikipedia do not care whether it is false or true.

Since that is a claim of truth, a reasonable person might ask what evidence exists to support the claim.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2014,08:09   

Quote (Glen Davidson @ May 01 2014,21:12)
Quote
Steve Meyer speaks up for Lynn Margulis


Professional crank courtesy.

Crank magnetism is alive and well. Yay!

Glen Davidson

Guy commenting on my blog is all over this one.

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

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

   
stevestory



Posts: 10402
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2014,11:05   

Quote (Glen Davidson @ May 01 2014,22:12)
Quote
Steve Meyer speaks up for Lynn Margulis


Professional crank courtesy.

Crank magnetism is alive and well. Yay!

Glen Davidson

Margulis is a great example of how tenacity is a double-edged sword. She aggressively fought the prevailing opinion for years on endosymbiosis, and was vindicated in the end.

She aggressively fought against the HIV->AIDS link for years, and....

   
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1047
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2014,18:08   

Quote
Would-be mass shooter idolized Columbine Darwin shooters


Damned Darwin shooters.

The Columbine terrorists must have been IDiots or something, unless the author of that headline is an IDiot.

Does creationism cause these people not only to think wretchedly about science, but also to write stupidly, or does it just attract the dimwitted? That's probably the most important question in ID, I think.

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
stevestory



Posts: 10402
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2014,18:34   

Quote

Does creationism cause these people not only to think wretchedly about science, but also to write stupidly, or does it just attract the dimwitted?  That's probably the most important question in ID, I think.



Years ago I had a private email exchange with DaveTard (I had set up a yahoo email account under some UD dimwit's name), and he said "I don't know if Demski's math proves ID or not, but nature is obviously intelligently designed, so I don't care."

I think a lot of people are a) scared of the consequences of darwinism b) full of cognitive biases and c) just can't make the mental leap of abstract thinking evolution requires.

   
  9214 replies since Dec. 29 2013,11:01 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (308) < ... 24 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 34 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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