RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (356) < ... 59 60 61 62 63 [64] 65 66 67 68 69 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 4, Fostering a Greater Understanding of IDC< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Ptaylor



Posts: 868
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2012,20:41   

Quote (Freddie @ Jan. 18 2012,09:56)
Another avenue with a tremendous opportunity for new laughs opens up ...

It seems that for Joe, the fact that Google throws up some suggestions when you enter "evidence for ancient astronauts" this is, well, evidence for ancient astronauts:
 
Quote
Geez given what you accept as evidence for your position- but I will help you.

Link
Psst - Joe, there is evidence for invisible pink unicorns, too - try it!

--------------
“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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3221
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2012,20:44   

Quote (Patrick @ Jan. 17 2012,14:19)
Joe keeps up the civil tone at UD:
Quote
Nice move jerk

I'm sure kairosfocus will swoop in and have the vapors all over that thread real soon now.

Prediction confirmed.  We're batting 1.000 today.

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

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

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3221
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2012,21:13   

My reply to Gordon,  because it'll get nuked no question about it.

Quote
Ah well, since Joe is doing the same thing to me in this very thread and you didn't jump on him, I assumed that was acceptable behavior.

I will refrain if you will also censure JoeG.  Thanks.

From your link:
<blockquote>xxiii: And, this raises the controversial question that biological examples such as DNA -- which in a living cell is much more complex than 500 bits -- may be designed to carry out particular functions in the cell and the wider organism.</blockquote>

That "may" is a pretty big qualifier there.  But that's not really important here.  The important bit is that le's say we have a piece of totally random bits (1s and 0s) that totals to exactly 500.  Then, let's say that we have a phrase about 90 words long.  Let's further say that we specifically design that phrase to have exactly 500 bits and then convert it to binary.

If we run ANY calculations on those two strings of bits.  We will get exactly the same answer (+- 2% for sampling, it's not a very big sample).

So, the implication here is that anything over 500 bits is designed, even if it is pure randomness.

I'll just continue using the solar system example from your link...

I quote
<blockquote>But 10^150 possibilities is 10^48 times as much as that, so our solar system could not search out more than a negligible fraction of 10^150 possibilities. Where, we can see that a string of 500 bits has 2^ 500 = 3.27*10^150 possible configurations. For just 500 bits [[~ 72 ASCII characters], on the gamut of our solar system, there is just too much haystack to reasonably expect to find the proverbial lost needle.</blockquote>

This makes way too many poor assumptions.  The first, and obviously wrong is that each atom is equivalent to one bit of information.  That's totally bogus.  I'm willing to bet you couldn't adequately describe a single atom in less than 500 bits.  You would need to describe present position in three dimensions (with additional figures for uncertainty), reference frame, motion in three dimensions (with additional figures for uncertainty, type of atom, state of atom (ionization, excited electrons, etc) and you're still leaving a lot out.

All that isn't even considering that information is not comparable to atoms.  

So, we have basically a false equivalency which is pretty meaningless to the real world.

But let's take it a step further, because there is another fundamental mistake made on in that link.

It's very simple.  The things being described ARE NOT RANDOMLY ASSEMBLED.  That's a major problem.

Sure, you could easily designate a protein sequence of more than 500 bits and throw a bunch of aminos into a vat and wait for the sequence you designated to appear.  I don't think that there is a scientist on the planet that would disagree that it is effectively impossible.  Heck, it's even very likely that your designated sequence is impossible.  There are a variety of chemical and physical restrictions on amino acid assembly.

But what about the protein sequence that makes the A blood antigen in my blood cells?  Did that just randomly assemble from a vat of amino acids?  Of course, not.  That protein was assembled by several molecular systems, the instructions for both the assembly systems and the protein came from my DNA which is, except for a miniscule percentage of random mutations, exactly the same as my parent who also had the 'A' allele.

That all being said, those miniscule mutations can have dramatic effects on expressed traits as can be shown by any number of peer-reviewed articles.

In conclusion:
1) You need to hold all visitors to the same standards.
2) The details of the linked article do not hold up to the simplest scrutiny.
3) It's all based on a fundamental mistake anyway.

Tell me GEM (or Joe), what is the shortest RNA strand that is known to have catalytic functions?


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

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

   
Kattarina98



Posts: 1249
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2012,03:18   

Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 17 2012,15:37)
Elizabeth promptly  squashes the slimy bastard.
May I say that it is also simply a pleasure to read her? She writes very well. For all of the UDudes purported purpose and design, their sentences do not sing. Their sentences mumble; their arguments slouch. Kaplan consultants could not save those guys.

UD has become a fascinating read since she started participating.


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

  
Febble



Posts: 310
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2012,04:56   

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Jan. 18 2012,03:18)
Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 17 2012,15:37)
Elizabeth promptly  squashes the slimy bastard.
May I say that it is also simply a pleasure to read her? She writes very well. For all of the UDudes purported purpose and design, their sentences do not sing. Their sentences mumble; their arguments slouch. Kaplan consultants could not save those guys.

UD has become a fascinating read since she started participating.

*blushes*

thanks :)

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2012,05:11   

PaV:
Quote
As I’ve pointed out at this blog before, I’ve stopped studying population genetics since it is obvious that it is all so passe.


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

  
Raevmo



Posts: 235
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2012,06:16   

Peter Griffin wipes the floor with GPooch' "dFSCI".

Enjoy!

--------------
After much reflection I finally realized that the best way to describe the cause of the universe is: the great I AM.

--GilDodgen

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2581
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2012,09:31   

Quote (Raevmo @ Jan. 18 2012,06:16)
Peter Griffin wipes the floor with GPooch' "dFSCI".

Enjoy!

Quote
Peter Griffin: So what is the function of Hamlet?

To sell theater tickets?

--------------
The struggle against ignorance is to the end of time. But it is said that if you die in tard, you will be reborn in Tardhalla.

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2040
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2012,09:49   

Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 17 2012,17:15)
Quote
According to the rules of ID sciencey speak that passage constitutes clear evidence that outweighs yours.  So we win.  Or something.  errrrr .... ALL HAIL DARWIN!!

I don't think anyone who pushes intelligent design really wants to go the "ancient astronaut" route, with little green men mating with chimpanzees to "create the human race." ;) Obviously, Von Daniken really did not understand evolution, but he was also no believer in God. No, I don't think they want to go there, any more than their brief dalliance with the Pleasurians helped their cause.

Veronical Cartright's hippy character: "Well, why not a space flower? Why do we always expect...metal ships?"
Jeff Goldblum's skeptical character: "I have never expected metal ships."

And if theses ancient astronauts were atheists...what then? ;)


(Muldoon)

Clever girl.

(/Muldoon)

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

  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1249
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2012,09:54   

Quote (Raevmo @ Jan. 18 2012,06:16)
Peter Griffin wipes the floor with GPooch' "dFSCI".

Enjoy!

Oh my god - gpuccio begins to sound like Joe the cake baker!

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2012,11:27   

Joe, internet tough guy:
Quote
DLH I am sick of false accusations


hahahahaha.

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

  
Raevmo



Posts: 235
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2012,11:43   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 18 2012,11:27)
Joe, internet tough guy:
   
Quote
DLH I am sick of false accusations


hahahahaha.

Hahahahaha indeed.

He's begging DLH to banninate Peter Griffin because he knows he is being humiliated. Yet he calls Griffin a coward. What a pathetic loser.

--------------
After much reflection I finally realized that the best way to describe the cause of the universe is: the great I AM.

--GilDodgen

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3221
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2012,12:39   

Meh, that got old real fast.  These guys aren't even fun to argue against...

"Nuh uh!"

"I know you are, but what am I."

"Don't call me Gordon, Kevin."

"I don't have to show you because you can't support your position."

Blah.  Someone copy it when the ID Guy says "neener, neener, neener"

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

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

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2040
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2012,13:31   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 18 2012,10:39)
"Don't call me Gordon, Kevin."

I never knew Chorus-Of-Flatus was in Sly and the Family Stone.

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

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 1948
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2012,15:20   

Oh poo - UD seems to be down
Quote
The most likely causes are the server is down for maintenance, there may be a network problem, or the site may be experiencing excessive load.

Excessive load?

--------------
ID theorists don’t postulate a designer for their arguments. - Crandaddy
There is no connection between a peppered moth, natural selection, and religion that I can see. - FtK

   
Trubble



Posts: 18
Joined: May 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2012,15:33   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 18 2012,15:20)
Excessive load?


Clearly a typo. It should have read "excessive pant load."

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1232
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2012,16:04   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 18 2012,15:20)
Oh poo - UD seems to be down
Quote
The most likely causes are the server is down for maintenance, there may be a network problem, or the site may be experiencing excessive load.

Excessive load?

Too many F/N comments by Gum of Talky.

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

  
Freddie



Posts: 362
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2012,16:23   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 18 2012,15:20)
Oh poo - UD seems to be down
Quote
The most likely causes are the server is down for maintenance, there may be a network problem, or the site may be experiencing excessive load.

Excessive load?

They're blocking the UD site for a while to demonstrate their displeasure at SOPA/PIPA.

They don't think it goes far enough.

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

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4354
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2012,17:56   

Quote (Freddie @ Jan. 18 2012,16:23)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 18 2012,15:20)
Oh poo - UD seems to be down
 
Quote
The most likely causes are the server is down for maintenance, there may be a network problem, or the site may be experiencing excessive load.

Excessive load?

They're blocking the UD site for a while to demonstrate their displeasure at SOPA/PIPA.

They don't think it goes far enough.

Dembski's explanation: Evil Darwinists, or Saint Hitchens.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
sparc



Posts: 1651
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2012,22:58   

Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 18 2012,17:56)
Quote (Freddie @ Jan. 18 2012,16:23)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 18 2012,15:20)
Oh poo - UD seems to be down
 
Quote
The most likely causes are the server is down for maintenance, there may be a network problem, or the site may be experiencing excessive load.

Excessive load?

They're blocking the UD site for a while to demonstrate their displeasure at SOPA/PIPA.

They don't think it goes far enough.

Dembski's explanation: Evil Darwinists, or Saint Hitchens.

UD never had problems with other people's copyright. However, IIRC Dembski considered their material and even the content of comments posted by his opponents as something special. Didn't he even threaten to sue ATBC because of alleged copyright infringement.?

--------------
"[...] 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 -

   
DiEb



Posts: 227
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2012,23:29   

Quote (sparc @ Jan. 18 2012,22:58)
Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 18 2012,17:56)
Quote (Freddie @ Jan. 18 2012,16:23)
 
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 18 2012,15:20)
Oh poo - UD seems to be down
   
Quote
The most likely causes are the server is down for maintenance, there may be a network problem, or the site may be experiencing excessive load.

Excessive load?

They're blocking the UD site for a while to demonstrate their displeasure at SOPA/PIPA.

They don't think it goes far enough.

Dembski's explanation: Evil Darwinists, or Saint Hitchens.

UD never had problems with other people's copyright. However, IIRC Dembski considered their material and even the content of comments posted by his opponents as something special. Didn't he even threaten to sue ATBC because of alleged copyright infringement.?

http://www.uncommondescent.com/legal....ngement

   
CeilingCat



Posts: 1634
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2012,00:06   

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

They're actually very similar.  Word evolution programs work by generating strings of random letters.  These strings are compared to the contents of a dictionary of real words and they're kept if they're in the dictionary and rejected if they're not.  We have to use a dictionary because words are man made.  They don't exist in nature outside of mankind, but humans are nice enough to put them all into books called dictionaries so we use them.

Darwinian evolution generates strings of random DNA base pairs.  Nature doesn't have a book containing all workable DNA strings so evolution does the next best thing: it builds the new DNA into an organism and gets it running on its own.  If the new DNA sequence is one of the ones that will support life in that particular organism in that particular environment, the organism will thrive and reproduce and the DNA string will be passed on to further generations.  If not, it won't.

In both cases, random strings are generated and then tested and kept if they're legitimate and discarded if they're not.

Don't bother trying to explain that to any of the UD crew.

--------------
Like every other academic field, philosophy of religion has its share of hacks and mediocrities.   Edward Feser

‘Anything is a “real possibility” in the mind of one seeking to deny the obvious.’ – William J Murray

  
Ptaylor



Posts: 868
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2012,00:19   

tjguy:
 
Quote
Dr. Matzke,

You are not going to try and discredit everything that is written in the Acts & Facts publication simply because it is a creationist publication are you? It doesn’t work like that. Show us where this particular article is wrong – don’t just try and totally discredit it because it is a creationist publication. That is foolish and unscholarly.

Besides, when it comes the the human pelvis, it may very well be that the original design of the pelvis was changed when God judged Adam and Eve for their sin. God’s original world was perfect, but was cursed along with God’s judgment on Adam. Plus, thanks to mutations and devolution(evolution in the wrong direction), many design issues probably have creeped into the world of living creatures.

“The Designer didn’t have to square a circle, he just had to put the freakin’ birth canal somewhere other than right through a tiny hole in the pelvis. Why put it through the skeleton at all? A portal a few inches higher up in the lower belly would do nicely. No tearing and incontinence, no jamming the baby’s head through the pelvis, no problem with breach births, etc. etc.”

OK, Dr. Matzke, why don’t you go ahead and design a human the way you are saying and see how well it goes for you, if you think it is so easy. Saying it is possible and showing us it is possible is a very different thing. We don’t know but perhaps there is very good reason for the current design. However, my take on the issue is more along the lines of a punishment for sin, like Genesis says.

All science so far!

--------------
“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

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3512
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2012,00:38   

New, non dictionary words can be evolved by a GA. My program does it. I suspect something similar is used to create new trade names.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 1634
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2012,00:39   

Quote
In 1999, I could still get a job in the mainstream academy on the basis of my work in The Design Inference. By the fall of 2000, my career was toast.

Dembski's "Confessions"

Dembski is BSing here.  When he finally left graduate school after 19 years of farting around in three different fields while making no reputation and no contacts in acadamia, no college would hire him.  Professional students tend to have that problem when they leave the ivory tower and go out into the cruel world.

Wikipedia puts it thusly: "After completing graduate school in 1996, Dembski was unable to secure a university position; from then until 1999 he received what he calls "a standard academic salary" of $40,000 a year as a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (CSC)."

His big academic break came when he taught Robert Sloan's daughter at a Christian summer camp.  Sloan was the president of Baylor at the time.  His daughter was so enthused by Dembski (talk about a sheltered life!) that she introduced his ideas to her father and her father was so enthused (talk about an idiot) that he hired Dembski on his own recognizance and installed him in the newly created Michael Polanyi Center at Baylor.  This move eventually cost Sloan his job.  

On the other hand, he also earned Dembski's eternal hatred, so it wasn't a total loss for him.

--------------
Like every other academic field, philosophy of religion has its share of hacks and mediocrities.   Edward Feser

‘Anything is a “real possibility” in the mind of one seeking to deny the obvious.’ – William J Murray

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 1634
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2012,00:43   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 19 2012,00:38)
New, non dictionary words can be evolved by a GA. My program does it. I suspect something similar is used to create new trade names.

Right, but a human has to look at them and say, "Hmm, that looks trademarky."  The GA/Evolution comparison breaks down because there's no way for a GA to add a new word to the dictionary and a dictionary is only a list of all words that currently exist.  It doesn't include words that might exist or should exist.  Darwinian evolution can find new DNA strings that are useful and also get them into the "dictionary".

--------------
Like every other academic field, philosophy of religion has its share of hacks and mediocrities.   Edward Feser

‘Anything is a “real possibility” in the mind of one seeking to deny the obvious.’ – William J Murray

  
Quack



Posts: 1718
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2012,03:05   

A word directory match is a straight yes/no decision; changes to DNA may survive or they may not; it all depends. That's what natural selection is about, isn't it?

--------------
The fundamental choice to be made, given the available information, is not whether chance provides a better explanation than design, but whether natural laws provide a better explanation than a design.

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 1634
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2012,05:13   

Quote (Quack @ Jan. 19 2012,03:05)
A word directory match is a straight yes/no decision; changes to DNA may survive or they may not; it all depends. That's what natural selection is about, isn't it?

True, but the word generator is a model.  It shows the main points of evolution, but it's not perfectly accurate.  Unless evolution hands you genes which cripple some vital enzyme in which case the outcome is just like the model.

--------------
Like every other academic field, philosophy of religion has its share of hacks and mediocrities.   Edward Feser

‘Anything is a “real possibility” in the mind of one seeking to deny the obvious.’ – William J Murray

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 1634
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2012,06:15   

In all the excitement last week, we missed a really great vjtorley posting.  In No evidence, you say? A reply to Eric MacDonald., he goes after Eric MacDonald, a former clergyman, for calling Dr. John Polkinghorne a liar.  Doc Polkinghorne's lie?  He thinks Polkinghorne should know better than to say that prayer might work.

And he has "evidence" to call forth on the efficiency of prayer.  First he remarks on how little prayer has been studying, without ever seeming to wonder why it's not studied.  If prayer really worked, wouldn't you expect all sorts of churches to be sponsoring all sorts of research on it and bombarding us with the results?  Yet they don't, so maybe it's because ... better not go there.

Then he goes after the 2006 Benson study - the one that found prayer to be almost totally ineffective.  But wait!  Looky here: "... patients who received intercessory prayer demonstrated significant improvement compared to those who received standard treatment devoid of prayer in 7 of the 17 studies."  Of course if prayer had no effect at all, you'd expect half of the patients to get a little better and half to get a little worse - and 7 is less than half of 17.  Hmmm...

After some more words on prayer studies, he gets to the real evidence:  "One person who had quite a lot to say on the power of prayer was C. S. Lewis..." who was actually "... highly doubtful of the worth of intercessory prayer studies, but who had personal experiences which led him to affirm that prayer actually works."

One of those experiences: He woke up, intending to get a haircut before going into London, then the London appointment was called off, but he bravely decided to get the haircut anyway.  "... there began the most unaccountable little nagging in my mind, almost like a voice saying, 'Get it cut all the same. Go and get it cut.'”   And sure enough, when he got to the barber shop, the barber, who he had helped before, had problems again, needed to talk to him and had been praying for him to come!  The power of prayer.

Having settled the prayer issue, vj raises another point: "Eric MacDonald also asserts in his review that “there isn’t a shred of evidence to show that religion is true.  I have to say he’s flat wrong on this point. If MacDonald wants evidence, I can show him some: the evidence from miracles."

And here's where things get good.  "Eric MacDonald will want to see good evidence of miracles, so I’ll confine myself to one case: the 17th century Italian saint, Joseph of Cupertino, who was seen levitating well above the ground and even flying for some distance through the air, on literally thousands of occasions, by believers and skeptics alike. The saint was the phenomenon of the 17th century. Those who are curious might like to have a look at his biography by D. Bernini (Vita Del Giuseppe da Copertino, 1752, Roma: Ludovico Tinassi and Girolamo Mainardi)."

This is a case that apparently scares the dickens out of atheists:  "The philosopher David Hume, who was notoriously skeptical of miracle claims, never even mentions St. Joseph of Cupertino in his writings. Funny, that."

Hmm, the patron saint of Apple owners?  Let's see what Wikipedia says about St. Joe:

"He was said to have been remarkably unclever, but prone to miraculous levitation and intense ecstatic visions that left him gaping.  In turn, he is recognized as the patron saint of air travelers, aviators, astronauts, people with a mental handicap, test takers, and poor students."

"As a child, Joseph was remarkably slow-witted."

"He was given the pejorative nickname "the Gaper," due to his habit of staring blankly into space. He was also said to have had a violent temper."

"When he was 17, Joseph attempted to join the Friars Minor Conventuals, but his lack of education prevented him from gaining admittance[citation needed]. He was soon after admitted as a Capuchin, but dimissed from the Order shortly thereafter, when his constant fits of ecstasy proved him unsuitable. Eventually, in his early twenties, he was admitted into a Conventual Franciscan friary near Copertino. At first he was assigned to care for the friary mule."

"On October 4, 1630, the town of Cupertino held a procession on the feast day of Saint Francis of Assisi. Joseph was assisting in the procession when he suddenly soared into the sky, where he remained hovering over the crowd. When he descended and realized what had happened, he became so embarrassed that he fled to his mother's house and hid. This was the first of many flights, which soon earned him the nickname "The Flying Saint"."

After reports of numerous flights, he was questioned by the inquisition and released.  He was then sent to the Sacro Convento in Assisi.  Strangely, they wouldn't let him out much.  Pope Innocent X sent him to a friary with strict orders to avoid writing letters, but he kept attracting people, so he was moved to Fossombrone.

"The ordeal finally ended when Pope Innocent X died, and the Conventual friars asked the newly elected Pope Alexander VII to release Joseph from his exile and return him to Assisi. Alexander declined, and instead released Joseph to the friary in Osimo, where the Pope's nephew was the local bishop. There, Joseph was ordered to live in seclusion and not speak to anyone except the Bishop, the Vicar General of the Order, his fellow friars, and, in case of a health crisis, a doctor."

Strangely, it never seems to occur to vj to ask why the church kept him in seclusion.  After all, he could fly!  You'd think that if somebody could hover in air, just about any church would be proud to show him off.  What better way to convert the heathens?  I know if I saw someone floating in air, I'd start to question my beliefs pronto.  Yet they kept him hidden away.  

Most people wouldn't even care if he was an idiot.  Just show someone levitating and people are going to believe!

Yet, here we are 300+ years later with nothing to memorialize St. Joe's miracles but some collections of hearsay told by various religious officials.  If there are any secular tales of St. Joe of Cupertino, vjtorley and the editors of Wikipedia apparently can't find them.  Too bad, I was all ready to believe.

F/N According to the Catholic Encylopedia, he was also born in a manger.

--------------
Like every other academic field, philosophy of religion has its share of hacks and mediocrities.   Edward Feser

‘Anything is a “real possibility” in the mind of one seeking to deny the obvious.’ – William J Murray

  
damitall



Posts: 315
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2012,07:23   

How long will it be before BatShit77 posts a screed showing how saint-soaring is all quantum?

With irrelevant videos.

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

Pages: (356) < ... 59 60 61 62 63 [64] 65 66 67 68 69 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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