RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (639) < ... 343 344 345 346 347 [348] 349 350 351 352 353 ... >   
  Topic: The Bathroom Wall, A PT tradition< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 08 2009,13:53   

Quote
OK, lets say the consequences sufficiently resemble those of agents with which we are already familiar and that said consequences are not potentially causable by known agents or natural processes - then what?


We already have examples of that in genetically engineered food crops. We know that when humans design living things they walk all over the nested hierarchy, leaving giant boot prints in the genome.

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

Pat Robertson

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 08 2009,13:54   

And...

How do we ever eliminate this?  
Quote
if said consequences are potentially causable by natural processes without an agent doing it deliberately.


--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Henry J



Posts: 4076
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 08 2009,14:11   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 08 2009,12:53)
We know that when humans design living things they walk all over the nested hierarchy, leaving giant boot prints in the genome.

Well, if the boot shoe fits...

  
Henry J



Posts: 4076
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 08 2009,14:15   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 08 2009,12:54)
And...

How do we ever eliminate this?    
Quote
if said consequences are potentially causable by natural processes without an agent doing it deliberately.

I expect that it can't be absolutely eliminated. That's why establishing deliberate causation requires some knowledge of the one that did the causing - one or more (preferably several) of methods, limitations, motivations, opportunity, time table, etc.

Henry

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 08 2009,14:15   

The point is that when you know something about an agent, you can detect instances of the agent.

We know something about human designers and can detect instances of engineered genomes.

We also know something about natural selection acting as an agent, and we can say with considerable assurance that gneomes not known to be engineered by humans fit the M.O. of natural selection.

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

Pat Robertson

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 08 2009,19:04   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 07 2009,19:03)
                         
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 07 2009,19:36)
Let me ask you this:  What cognitive processes led you to the conclusion that "the only agent capable of "front loading" that responds to this description would be God"? Was it deductive reasoning?  The process of elimination?  Logic?  What line of thinking led you to eliminate all other forces - including all known intelligent agents - from contention?

Hmmm, let's see. Frontloading would require an agent who is either omniscient or omnipotent. Who could that be?
                                 
Quote
I find this interesting because you were able to do this with no causal history for said "God".

C'mon, Daniel. I'm working from the a rudimentary English definition of the word "God" as typically characterized in Christianity and other monotheistic traditions. And I offered the original post, IIRC, because you were momentarily denying that frontloading necessarily entailed supernatural causation. You've since come to your senses.
                                 
Quote
So let me also ask you this:  Can intelligent activity be discovered purely from its consequences, without a causal history of the agent?

Can the level of intelligence or the abilities of an agent be deduced from the consequences of that agents actions?

...Because - by example - you have just answered "Yes" to both of those questions.  (Notice also, that I am not asking whether such reasoning is scientific, only if it is valid)

Don't be ridiculous. My comments flow from a rudimentary command of English as above. It would be a strange world indeed if the ability to attribute properties to an imagined object, and then reason from those attributions, would compel it to exist.


You don't know that God is "an imagined object" Bill, now do you?  Science (which you rely on) cannot consider God, so it - by definition - cannot eliminate him.  Claiming he is "imagined" is personal bias and completely unscientific.  Frankly I'm surprised at you.

This is beside the point though.  My main point in all this is that it is possible to come to the conclusion, very quickly sometimes, that certain circumstances would require God.  You have illustrated my point when you say that if front-loading "would require an agent who is either omniscient or omnipotent", then it would require God.  You made a mental checklist and quickly eliminated all other non-omniscient, non-omnipotent options and settled on God when the need arose (when it suited your argument I should add).  The other interesting thing here is that - by your own admission - you used the teachings of Christianity and other religions as a substitute for a causal history of God.  You did this all on your own Bill - so you probably should not be so adamant that it can't be done!

What I'm most interested in though is the cutoff point.  You'll agree that if a certain action requires omniscience or omnipotence, then it requires God.  But what about something that does not require omniscience or omnipotence, but rather only extreme skill and knowledge?  What about something such as say - the designing of a ribosome?  We know, (and you have pointed out many times), that God can do anything.  So we know that God could design a ribosome.  But what else can?  Could a being like man do it?  Could natural forces?  If you go through your same mental checklist and apply the process of elimination, what are you left with?

If you say "natural forces", you really have to make some attempt at an explanation as to how.  Otherwise you're just guessing.  Now I know that science can't consider anything but natural forces, (which is precisely why science says "I don't know" a lot when it comes to explaining how natural forces built things like ribosomes), but you can only say "I don't know" for so long.  At some point you either have to come up with a workable natural explanation or conclude there isn't one.  Whenever that point is reached, science will discover the reality of God.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
khan



Posts: 1483
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 08 2009,19:15   

Quote
What I'm most interested in though is the cutoff point.  You'll agree that if a certain action requires omniscience or omnipotence, then it requires God.  But what about something that does not require omniscience or omnipotence, but rather only extreme skill and knowledge?  What about something such as say - the designing of a ribosome?  We know, (and you have pointed out many times), that God can do anything.  So we know that God could design a ribosome.  But what else can?  Could a being like man do it?  Could natural forces?  If you go through your same mental checklist and apply the process of elimination, what are you left with?


Which god?

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

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

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 08 2009,19:16   

Quote (Quack @ Jan. 08 2009,02:36)
In all editions of Origins after the third, Darwin wrote:          
Quote
The periods during which species have been undergoing modification, though very long as measured by years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which the same species remained without undergoing any change.


So Darwin was for natural selection before he was against it?

Just out of curiosity, what is the explanation as to why natural selection normally works against evolution - resulting in long periods of stasis; then suddenly works for evolution - "punctuating the equilibrium" with speciation events for short periods?

(Disclaimer: "suddenly" and "short periods" are recognized to be in geological timescale and in no way reflect an ignorance of that concept.)

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
khan



Posts: 1483
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 08 2009,19:21   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 08 2009,20:16)
Quote (Quack @ Jan. 08 2009,02:36)
In all editions of Origins after the third, Darwin wrote:          
Quote
The periods during which species have been undergoing modification, though very long as measured by years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which the same species remained without undergoing any change.


So Darwin was for natural selection before he was against it?

Just out of curiosity, what is the explanation as to why natural selection normally works against evolution - resulting in long periods of stasis; then suddenly works for evolution - "punctuating the equilibrium" with speciation events for short periods?

(Disclaimer: "suddenly" and "short periods" are recognized to be in geological timescale and in no way reflect an ignorance of that concept.)

Stuff happens, and it does not happen in ways that confirm the existence of your bogyman.

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

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

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 08 2009,19:25   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 07 2009,17:03)
An evening in the Wood's Hole MBL Library. That's from my visit in 1993.

I get the impression that you just browsed Goldschmidt's book.  Is that true?

Of these, which have you read cover to cover (if any) Wesley?

Schindewolf's Basic Questions in Paleontology
Berg's Nomogeneis
Grasse's Evolution of Living Organisms
Bateson's Problems of Genetics
Goldschmidt's The Material Basis of Evolution

I'm just curious.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 08 2009,19:29   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 08 2009,12:15)
The point is that when you know something about an agent, you can detect instances of the agent.

We know something about human designers and can detect instances of engineered genomes.

We also know something about natural selection acting as an agent, and we can say with considerable assurance that gneomes not known to be engineered by humans fit the M.O. of natural selection.

I've asked repeatedly for someone here to explain how the E. coli amino acid synthesis biochemical pathway arose via natural selection, but no one can come up with an "M.O." for that.

Can you?

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
khan



Posts: 1483
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 08 2009,19:30   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 08 2009,20:25)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 07 2009,17:03)
An evening in the Wood's Hole MBL Library. That's from my visit in 1993.

I get the impression that you just browsed Goldschmidt's book.  Is that true?

Of these, which have you read cover to cover (if any) Wesley?

Schindewolf's Basic Questions in Paleontology
Berg's Nomogeneis
Grasse's Evolution of Living Organisms
Bateson's Problems of Genetics
Goldschmidt's The Material Basis of Evolution

I'm just curious.

Why do you assume that everyone here is more ignorant than you?

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

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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4244
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 08 2009,20:09   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 08 2009,20:04)
You don't know that God is "an imagined object" Bill, now do you?  Science (which you rely on) cannot consider God, so it - by definition - cannot eliminate him.  Claiming he is "imagined" is personal bias and completely unscientific.  Frankly I'm surprised at you.

Why would you expect that I am devoid of personal biases and beliefs, particularly in an area where there is, indeed, no possibility of a scientific conclusion?
               
Quote
This is beside the point though.  My main point in all this is that it is possible to come to the conclusion, very quickly sometimes, that certain circumstances would require God.  You have illustrated my point when you say that if front-loading "would require an agent who is either omniscient or omnipotent", then it would require God.

It is also possible to come to the conclusion, very quickly sometimes, that certain circumstances would require a triangle. I illustrate this point by observing that if circumstances require a plane figure with three straight sides and three angles, then they require a triangle. But this isn't an inference or deduction, nor does it follow from (or even require) experience with actual three sided figures. It follows from definitions.
               
Quote
The other interesting thing here is that - by your own admission - you used the teachings of Christianity and other religions as a substitute for a causal history of God.  You did this all on your own Bill - so you probably should not be so adamant that it can't be done!

You sure can be silly. No "causal history of God" (or substitute) was required. Just the definitions of English words, perhaps some general notions common in our culture.  
               
Quote
What I'm most interested in though is the cutoff point.  You'll agree that if a certain action requires omniscience or omnipotence, then it requires God.  But what about something that does not require omniscience or omnipotence, but rather only extreme skill and knowledge?  What about something such as say - the designing of a ribosome?  We know, (and you have pointed out many times), that God can do anything.  So we know that God could design a ribosome.

Again, you're just moving verbal furniture around. It follows by definition that if we define an agent as omnipotent, we are asserting that it can "do anything," including design a ribosome. Which is tantamount to saying that if there were an omnipotent agent, it would be omnipotent. So what?
               
Quote
But what else can?  Could a being like man do it?  Could natural forces?  If you go through your same mental checklist and apply the process of elimination, what are you left with?

Beats me. No tautologies, definitions or mental checklists will help us here. The only way to investigate that question is by scientific means, within the empirical framework of methodological naturalism. My hope and expectation is that a natural explantion will someday be attained. Whether that occurs in my lifetime remains to be seen.
               
Quote
If you say "natural forces", you really have to make some attempt at an explanation as to how.  Otherwise you're just guessing.

Who, me? I can tell you right now there is zero probability that I will come up with that explanation. I do hope and expect that biology will. Perhaps not in my lifetime. But I'm not greedy; we're learning so much, so fast, and it is a very thrilling time to be an observer of science.
               
Quote
Now I know that science can't consider anything but natural forces, (which is precisely why science says "I don't know" a lot when it comes to explaining how natural forces built things like ribosomes), but you can only say "I don't know" for so long.

I can wait. There is no alternative.
               
Quote
At some point you either have to come up with a workable natural explanation or conclude there isn't one.  Whenever that point is reached, science will discover the reality of God.

You've lapsed into the expectation that science can demonstrate God, and that the place it can look is at the OOL and/or the origination of complex structures. But as you correctly indicated at the outset of this post, God is beyond the reach of science. You're gonna have to decide if you really understand and accept that or not. This statement suggests you don't.

Again, I find it very strange that you embrace a position that hopes for the failure of science. But to each his own.

(Edits for piquancy)

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 8936
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 08 2009,21:25   

roll over, damned page!

   
stevestory



Posts: 8936
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 08 2009,21:26   

oh man it's been one of those days. As some of you know, I'm a private tutor. I lately have been doing what I do 80% of the time, which is tutoring high school kids Algebra I&II. Well, one of my kids was having a bad day today.

This kid is a good kid. Even calls me 'sir', which I actually don't like, being 32 and all, but the point is he's not a behavior problem. In the world of private tutoring behavior problems are rare anyway. When the parents are paying cash money, their kids generally know better than to misbehave. He's a good kid. The only annoying thing about him is he's in a phase where he has amped up his redneckness to about 11. Those of you in the south will recognize this as common. His belt buckle is the size of your face, his boots are extra-pointy, and he lays the drawl on so thick I can barely understand him, and I'm originally from here.

So anyway this kid had a bad day and just wasn't going to turn his brain on, and I swear to god, if you'd given him an IQ test today, it would have come back in the 'severely retarded--be prepared to teach him how to breathe' category. And we're supposed to be working on FCAT stuff, like systems of inequalities. You know,

x+3>-17
2x<-82

solve for the x region.


But he's sub-Forrest Gump today, he's operating with roughly the intelligence of a Coke machine, and we're having to go back and do some really remedial stuff. The coup d'grace of this came in the second hour we were working on stuff, this really painfully remedial stuff with him, and at some point the following exchange happens:

me: "okay, so you've got this equation. y=x. x is 2. What is y?"
him: (pauses for 20 seconds.) "EyeWreckonI'maGonnaHaffaThankOnThisUhBee-yut."
me: (tries to control fist of death) "uh............

uh.....


um....

(resists urge to grab him by the throat and yell "No YOU FUCKING DON'T!!! yOU DON'T HAVE TO THINK ON THIS AT ALL. YOU JUST HAVE TO SAY FUCKING TWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

so yeah there's now a bottle of gin on the kitchen table.

Edited by stevestory on Jan. 08 2009,22:29

   
stevestory



Posts: 8936
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 08 2009,21:37   

another gem from Hour 2. And keep in mind I'm talking Reeeeeeeaaaalllllll Slooooowwwwwww:

Me: "Y=2x+1. What is y, when x=2?"
"Uh....4."
"okay, when x is 2, 2x is 4, but then you have to add the 1."
"Ain't none a my math teachers ever told me you got to do all that extra stuff."

i had to resist the urge to just smack him in the mouth :-)

   
stevestory



Posts: 8936
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 08 2009,21:40   

LOL. Maybe I should have said "Stop acting like a retard. You wanna end up at Uncommon Descent?"

   
Henry J



Posts: 4076
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 08 2009,22:28   

Quote
Just out of curiosity, what is the explanation as to why natural
selection normally works against evolution - resulting in long periods of stasis; then suddenly works for evolution - "punctuating the equilibrium" with speciation events for short periods?


My take on that is that once the species has spent a while adapting to its current environment, it seems likely that it has already acquired the majority of simple mutations that would be beneficial in that environment, so the rate of new beneficial changes goes way down, until such time as the environment changes again (or a subpopulation migrates into a different area).

Henry

  
stevestory



Posts: 8936
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 08 2009,23:26   

LOL. Something else came up today.

Cultural things can be funny. The thing that I run into on a regular basis, living here in the South, is the crossed legs thing. I cross my legs at the knees. Not 'like a guy' where i put one ankle on the other knee. The reason I do this is simple. My hip muscles aren't very flexible and doing that hurts. And here in the Deep South, I'll cross them at the knees and get some weird looks from guys on a regular basis. "You cross your legs like a girl" or "You cross your legs like a faggit." or something.

I've been in the military.

I can bench press 250 lbs.

I've smoked everything Camel ever made, and drank everything Mr. Jack Daniels ever distilled. I'm gay because I don't cross my legs correctly? It's weird the cultural signifiers people put so much trust in. I find it kinda funny.

Eventually I'll move away again, but it's weird being back 'home'.

   
stevestory



Posts: 8936
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 08 2009,23:28   

Of course, when Arden does it, it is because he's extremely gay, but that's a different thing.

   
sledgehammer



Posts: 531
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 08 2009,23:57   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 08 2009,21:26)
So anyway this kid had a bad day and just wasn't going to turn his brain on, and I swear to god, if you'd given him an IQ test today, it would have come back in the 'severely retarded--be prepared to teach him how to breathe' category.

Have you considered that your kid may have a drug/alcohol issue? 11's not too young for that. Hell, I started at 10, and look how f'd I ended up.

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 8936
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2009,00:01   

He might. But it's somewhat rare for someone to develop a problem while I'm tutoring them. It's not like he shows up hungover frequently. I might be the world's #1 expert in recognizing withdrawal symptoms :-) I think he just had a bad day. If it starts happening more often, I'll definitely think about that.

   
stevestory



Posts: 8936
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2009,00:04   

"Ah, I see your hands are shaking down to your elbows. I call that 'May 2007'"

:p

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2009,03:13   

Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 08 2009,22:28)
   
Quote
Just out of curiosity, what is the explanation as to why natural
selection normally works against evolution - resulting in long periods of stasis; then suddenly works for evolution - "punctuating the equilibrium" with speciation events for short periods?


My take on that is that once the species has spent a while adapting to its current environment, it seems likely that it has already acquired the majority of simple mutations that would be beneficial in that environment, so the rate of new beneficial changes goes way down, until such time as the environment changes again (or a subpopulation migrates into a different area).

Henry

Do you think you are the first person, Daniel, to ask this question?
Gould 1977:
   
Quote
   "A new species can arise when a small segment of the ancestral population is isolated at the periphery of the ancestral range. Large, stable central populations exert a strong homogenizing influence. New and favorable mutations are diluted by the sheer bulk of the population through which they must spread. They may build slowly in frequency, but changing environments usually cancel their selective value long before they reach fixation. Thus, phyletic transformation in large populations should be very rare—as the fossil record proclaims. But small, peripherally isolated groups are cut off from their parental stock. They live as tiny populations in geographic corners of the ancestral range. Selective pressures are usually intense because peripheries mark the edge of ecological tolerance for ancestral forms. Favorable variations spread quickly. Small peripheral isolates are a laboratory of evolutionary change.

   "What should the fossil record include if most evolution occurs by speciation in peripheral isolates? Species should be static through their range because our fossils are the remains of large central populations. In any local area inhabited by ancestors, a descendant species should appear suddenly by migration from the peripheral region in which it evolved. In the peripheral region itself, we might find direct evidence of speciation, but such good fortune would be rare indeed because the event occurs so rapidly in such a small population. Thus, the fossil record is a faithful rendering of what evolutionary theory predicts, not a pitiful vestige of a once bountiful tale."


The fact you say "for" and "against" evolution is telling. Evolution does not have a direction.

 
Quote
(Disclaimer: "suddenly" and "short periods" are recognized to be in geological timescale and in no way reflect an ignorance of that concept.)


hahahahahahah.

The question is Daniel, now that you are aware of the "concept" of geological timescales will you rule out a 6000 year old earth and a global flood?
Link
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 12 2008,14:16)
I'll just say this and be done with it:
I'm perfectly content with a 4.5 billion year old earth, and I wouldn't cry if it turned out to be only 10,000 years old either.  IOW, it's not really an issue for me.

It's not how old things are; it's their chronological order that matters.

Will you now say "On the basis of the evidence that I have been studying, I can now 100% rule out a 10,000 year old earth"?

As I believe, now that you have been "studying" the area for so long, you should be able to come to a conclusion regarding this by now.

--------------
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. 09 2009,03:16   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 09 2008,18:24)
     
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 09 2008,05:15)
Hey Daniel,
Seeing as things have taken a turn for the off-topic, perhaps you could answer a few simple questions that'll allow the lurkers to decide if you are sincere?

a) How old is the earth?
b) How old is the solar system?
c) How old is the universe?

I don't know.  I haven't really studied both sides of the whole "age of the earth" debate, so I'm not prepared to give an answer on those.
         
Quote
d) Did man and dinosaur share the planet at the same time?

It's possible, but again I don't know.
         
Quote
e) Did every human but 8 die in a global flood?

I believe in the flood, but only because I haven't seen the evidence against it.  My main reason for believing it (other than the bible), is that the landscape looks like the aftermath of massive flood runoff when viewed from the air.  Not very scientific, I know but that's where I'm at.  (insert joke here)
         
Quote
f) Does the "designer" actively "interfere" with the day to day running of the universe?
g) If "yes" to f) then how come we've not noticed?

Again it's possible, although it is equally possible that he planned everything out in advance, and it is just unfolding accordingly.
I definitely don't have all the answers and my opinions are in a constant state of flux.

Link
So come on Danny boy

a) How old is the earth?
b) How old is the solar system?
c) How old is the universe?
d) Did man and dinosaur share the planet at the same time?
e) Did every human but 8 die in a global flood?
Quote
I believe in the flood, but only because I haven't seen the evidence against it.

That's so very funny. I believe in invisible pink unicorns because I haven't seen the evidence against them.

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

  
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2009,04:02   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 08 2009,21:37)
another gem from Hour 2. And keep in mind I'm talking Reeeeeeeaaaalllllll Slooooowwwwwww:

Me: "Y=2x+1. What is y, when x=2?"
"Uh....4."
"okay, when x is 2, 2x is 4, but then you have to add the 1."
"Ain't none a my math teachers ever told me you got to do all that extra stuff."

i had to resist the urge to just smack him in the mouth :-)

As you may know, I get co-opted to help out in a middle school now and then. Up to last week, my involvement has been limited to designing and helping run a few science lessons here and there and a literature circle where I read books with a small group of kids.

Last week, I was asked to help two students with their algebra.

They are learning factoring. x2+2x+1 kind of stuff. Graphing stuff that you can do on paper.

Only,

Have you ever heard the song "new math" by Tom Lehrer? Nowadays, they use graphing calculators right from the get go. And they use something called 'equation mats'.

I asked one of them if they knew what the distributive property was. She said, our teacher doesn't teach the old fashioned way.

Oh, I said. I guess I need your book for a minute.
???

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
American Saddlebred



Posts: 111
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2009,06:26   

I used to get high with my tutor.

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4244
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2009,06:40   

Quote (American Saddlebred @ Jan. 09 2009,07:26)
I used to get high with my tutor.

I quit decades ago when I realized that my IQ dropped 30 points for the duration due to impaired attention span and working memory.

I had taught myself assembly language on my first computer. But my own programming was way out of reach when stoned.

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

  
American Saddlebred



Posts: 111
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2009,07:03   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 09 2009,06:40)
Quote (American Saddlebred @ Jan. 09 2009,07:26)
I used to get high with my tutor.

I quit decades ago when I realized that my IQ dropped 30 points for the duration due to impaired attention span and working memory.

I had taught myself assembly language on my first computer. But my own programming was way out of reach when stoned.

.......wait....what?




I quit rocking the ganj a few years back.  =P

   
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2009,07:59   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 09 2009,06:40)
Quote (American Saddlebred @ Jan. 09 2009,07:26)
I used to get high with my tutor.

I quit decades ago when I realized that my IQ dropped 30 points for the duration due to impaired attention span and working memory.

I had taught myself assembly language on my first computer. But my own programming was way out of reach when stoned.

Yeah. Me too. Every time I got high with my tutor I realized he was imaginary. :) Really sucked.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
  19142 replies since Jan. 17 2006,08:38 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (639) < ... 343 344 345 346 347 [348] 349 350 351 352 353 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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