RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (4) < 1 2 3 [4] >   
  Topic: Just One Argument is Sufficient, Helium Gas to the Human Brain< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
snaxalotl



Posts: 9
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2005,20:22   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 18 2005,08:19)
Snaxalot,

Nice diatribe, very intellectual, added a lot to the discussion.. sure sign of a critical thinker.

missing the point, evopeac. SOP in psychotherapy (just to remind those others who are not expert) is that when some crazy can't be reasoned with because he refuses to follow the usual rules of discourse is that you stop discussing /content/ in favor of /process/. For example, you don't try to patiently explain why it's unlikely that NASA planted a recording device in his teeth, and you try instead to find out why he won't stick to a more important topic of conversation. your (repeated) inability to back down from a simple matter of fact and logic means that people are wasting their time grappling with the content of what you are saying, and should be either discussing the way you say it or ignoring you altogether.

--------------
Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,01:19   

Evopeach,
Quote
About 300 thousand years after the Big Bang, the Universe had cooled enough for electrons to be captured by protons and alpha particles to form atoms.

Still want to try and say that Helium atoms formed in the first three minutes?

Quote
In one post you say helium atoms or nuclei... no matter.. now you attempt to differentiate dramatically, yet apparently you can't tell the difference between 10**6 and 300,000 years, the generally accepted figure. I will take this as a measure of your scientific knowledge and integrity.. off about a factor of three.. at least.

Except I got the 10^6 figure from your source.

So, are you admitting that you can't answer my NY to LA example?

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,03:27   

Snaxalot,

And when people have a decided inability to express their views in terms of critical thinking skills I simply assume that sophistry tending to self-elevation, egomania and a general lack of intellectual capacity to discuss an issue in meaningful terms is the best they have to offer.

Now I am sure that these little attemps to insult me are standard fare for those who hold tendentiously to the mast of a sinking ship but I assure you that the only people impressed are your pathetic peers. You have zero impact on me as I am sure you do with most people you associate with or more likely report to.

You see rising from a oil field camp rent house ($25.00 a month) to the 32nd floor of a major energy company as an Exec. V.P. with two earned degrees in engineering and a very healthy six figure income did not happen by accident.

The only difference between the 420 people that reported to me during my active career and the wireheads on this forum is that they had the common sense to listen closely, agree and say yes sir.

Now go wash out some test tubes, write a ridalin perscription, polish some apes teeth or whatever trivialities you engage in to fill the meaningless time you call a life.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,04:57   

Quote
And when people have a decided inability to express their views in terms of critical thinking skills I simply assume that sophistry tending to self-elevation, egomania and a general lack of intellectual capacity to discuss an issue in meaningful terms is the best they have to offer.

Pot calling the kettle black?

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,10:17   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 19 2005,08:27)
The only difference between the 420 people that reported to me during my active career and the wireheads on this forum is that they had the common sense to listen closely, agree and say yes sir.

Ah ha!! All is explained.  You surrounded yourself during your career with people of no intellectual ability and insufficient guts to tell the truth (AKA "Yes Men").  No wonder you are unable to make cogent arguments in these fora.

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,10:23   

Yes that's logical considering that my org was in 1988 named as one of the best managed and performing in the MIS/IT area among the Fortune 500 by Computer World based on a vote by consultants and peer company managers. The award ceremony was in NYC, a black tie affair and held at the Morgan Library.

Now tell me about your three direct reports and the cat doesn't count.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,10:44   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 19 2005,15:23)
Yes that's logical

Glad we agree on your intellectual skills.  Nice to see you admit your fear of intelligent and capable employees.  :D

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,11:06   

Midnight your dishonesty is more in evidence with every post... keep it up its laughable.

By the way have you people put Lenny under suicide watch because if you  think Dover is not going our way in spades you are blinder than bats.

After that any appeal will go forward to the Supreme Court which by then will be firmly in our camp no doubt.

The comes the ruling on the pit bull protection case where all of my team will be permitted to turn a pit bull loose on one liberal atheist evo without suffering any criminal or civil penalties.

  
FishyFred



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,15:40   

evopeach: How sure are you that the court is in your camp? Let's go down the list (and I'm making the assumption that Miers will be on the court if this gets there):

John Paul Stevens - Voted in the majority in Edwards v. Aguillard. A vote against Dover.
Antonin Scalia - Along with Rehnquist, dissented in Edwards v. Aguillard. You can probably consider his vote a vote for Dover, but I'm not 100% sure. Just... something. He'll probably vote for Dover.

That takes care of the justices who voted on Edwards v. Aguillard. Now lets take a look at the post-1987 justices.

John Roberts - Can't go either way on him yet.
Harriet Miers - I'm guessing she's on your side. If she isn't confirmed and O'Connor is in her place, you will not get this vote. She voted in the majority in Edwards v. Aguillard.
Anthony Kennedy - Slightly difficult to read, but he's tended toward the left. He'll vote against Dover.
David Souter - Not a chance in ####. He's voting against Dover.
Clarence Thomas - Arguable. I'm guessing he'd vote against Dover, but you can have his vote.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - A sure bet to vote against Dover.
Stephen Breyer - Also a sure bet against Dover.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt evopeach, you lose 5-4.

For more info on the Supreme Court justices, see the Wikipedia page.

    
TheMissingLink



Posts: 19
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,20:17   

Quote (FishyFred @ Oct. 19 2005,20:40)
evopeach: How sure are you that the court is in your camp? Let's go down the list (and I'm making the assumption that Miers will be on the court if this gets there):

John Paul Stevens - Voted in the majority in Edwards v. Aguillard. A vote against Dover.
Antonin Scalia - Along with Rehnquist, dissented in Edwards v. Aguillard. You can probably consider his vote a vote for Dover, but I'm not 100% sure. Just... something. He'll probably vote for Dover.

That takes care of the justices who voted on Edwards v. Aguillard. Now lets take a look at the post-1987 justices.

John Roberts - Can't go either way on him yet.
Harriet Miers - I'm guessing she's on your side. If she isn't confirmed and O'Connor is in her place, you will not get this vote. She voted in the majority in Edwards v. Aguillard.
Anthony Kennedy - Slightly difficult to read, but he's tended toward the left. He'll vote against Dover.
David Souter - Not a chance in ####. He's voting against Dover.
Clarence Thomas - Arguable. I'm guessing he'd vote against Dover, but you can have his vote.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - A sure bet to vote against Dover.
Stephen Breyer - Also a sure bet against Dover.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt evopeach, you lose 5-4.

For more info on the Supreme Court justices, see the Wikipedia page.

Personally, I doubt Dover would do that well. But I don't think it will end up in the surpreme court anyway.

Of course, Dover is going to lose here - it's only a matter of how bad. The case is so weak that even the Discovery Institute pulled their witnesses when they heard about all the bible thumping that went on during board meetings. Behe has essentially made an idiot of himself - the gallery was openly laughing at him. And Astrology? Ha ha. And he's their STAR witness. So there's no way the ID guys are going to want to bring this stinking barge to Washington because nothing good can happen. More likely, we'll have to wait for a while until the ID guys find a better case. And the mathematical probably of that happening is like a protien chain... uh, nevermind...

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2005,03:21   

Link,

I doubt that a person who can't add has much credibility in predicting outcomes. See if you can't go with Roberts either way then the vote can't be put in the against column.

I think I can help you with his vote ....99% for Dover... he's a person of faith and a strict constructionist.

5-4 I win.

  
Swoosh



Posts: 42
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2005,03:51   

Reading Evopeaches burbling posts is like when you have an aching tooth that you keep probing with your tongue.  It hurts, but you can't help yourself.  Someone, please, make it stop!

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2005,04:02   

Swoosh,

Please change your name.. that's the NIKE emblem and the title of a book about Phil Knight. I think its disrespectful for a moron to use a name that's normally associated with a very smart business person like Knight.

Obviously you didn't read the subject posts or you you can't add either.

What a clown!

  
Swoosh



Posts: 42
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2005,04:14   

Not to change the subject, but since you brought it up I believe that corporations and to a large extent private property are evil.  Phil Knight might be an interesting guy in the context of multinational industry, but mostly he is just another schmuck caught up in the game.  My "name" has nothing to do with Nike.  

Now back to Evopeaches regularly scheduled alcoholic, neomedieval soapbox.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2005,04:53   

Oh I see another socialist red diaper baby maquerading as a person of value and intellect.

Got it!!  Your credibility just went into negative imaginary numbers.

How are things in Cuba these days?

  
Swoosh



Posts: 42
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2005,05:06   

Socialist?  I'm not so sure.  Hunter/gatherer wannabe is more like it.  I don't get the red diaper thing.  No sweat, though, your intent is pretty clear. Unfortunately for your ego I don't feel insulted, although I'm sure if you keep trying you might actually make me cry.  Maybe if you call me enough names I will sincerely question my world view, value systems and ultimate value as a human being.


WRT to Cuba, I don't really know how they are doing.  By what criteria do we determine?  Depends on how you look at it, I guess.  They seem to be doing alright for themselves even considering the American remnants of cold-war hostility.  But they could be doing better, like any country.  Oh, and I hear You-Know-Who sent a MAJOR hurricane that way.  But it looks like his aim was off.  Or maybe he was really aiming for the American south, and just used Cuba as a  deflection point?  Kinda like a meteorological bumper-bowling. :D

  
FishyFred



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2005,07:23   

evopeach: I gave you Roberts, Miers, Scalia, and Thomas. You still lose. Maybe you should reread your posts before you make them. You'd probably save yourself a lot of spelling errors and mathematical errors.

    
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2005,07:59   

Fishy,


"So Roberts can't go either way on him yet" .... in evo logic means he in your corner with Dover.

got it unusually clear LOL

  
FishyFred



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2005,08:17   

Evo: Clearly, your "superior critical mind" can't grasp simple addition. Maybe I should have been clearer in my original post, but I conceded Roberts to Dover.

By my estimation (and if you think differently, please supply your own breakdown):

For Dover (the defendant) - Roberts, Miers, Scalia, Thomas.

For Kitzmiller (the plaintiff) - Stevens, Kennedy, Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter.

Did I miss something? Perhaps John Roberts cloned himself and replaced Breyer with a John Roberts #2?

    
TheMissingLink



Posts: 19
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2005,08:26   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 20 2005,08:21)
Link,

I doubt that a person who can't add has much credibility in predicting outcomes. See if you can't go with Roberts either way then the vote can't be put in the against column.

I think I can help you with his vote ....99% for Dover... he's a person of faith and a strict constructionist.

5-4 I win.

Evo, if you'd like to read in great detail how and why Intelligent Design in it's current form will fail in virtually any court you can read this:

http://law.wustl.edu/WULQ....ges.pdf

Warning, though. It might tax your ability to generate delusional fantasies at the rate you're used to. But then, I might be under estimating you :)

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2005,09:10   

Link,

You want me to read a propaganda piece written in part by Barbara Forrester , the lead witness, against Dover as an objective convincing analysis.

Most people would agree that the way you know when a trial is decided is when its over and the verdict is rendered.

I see it as a separation of church and state issue and since the supreme court has agreed that the teaching of altenative scientific theories is acceptable the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that ID is not scientific.

The detection of design like Mt. Rushmore or the monoliths on Easter Island are pretty comprehensible by average people.

The question seems to be is there any impact on science by the detection of design or is it ... so what.

In ETSI the entire idea was to detect the difference between random white or colored noise and a correlated signal, a code, a message. If such a message was detected and decoded would it have an impact on science in  the USA?

1) We would act on the message because it would likely be some universally important scientific information.

2) We would approach additional messages with a scientifically schooled filtering scheme to enhance further understanding, tightly focused.

So the detection of design would be a scientific endeaver
which would very likely have impact on science itself.

If the messages were repeated over and over and when decoded was universally agreed to say......."In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.." would that make all of the work performed to get to that point a waste of time and unscientific?

  
TheMissingLink



Posts: 19
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2005,09:56   

Quote (evopeach @ Oct. 20 2005,14:10)
Link,

You want me to read a propaganda piece written in part by Barbara Forrester , the lead witness, against Dover as an objective convincing analysis.

Most people would agree that the way you know when a trial is decided is when its over and the verdict is rendered.

I see it as a separation of church and state issue and since the supreme court has agreed that the teaching of altenative scientific theories is acceptable the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that ID is not scientific.

The detection of design like Mt. Rushmore or the monoliths on Easter Island are pretty comprehensible by average people.

The question seems to be is there any impact on science by the detection of design or is it ... so what.

In ETSI the entire idea was to detect the difference between random white or colored noise and a correlated signal, a code, a message. If such a message was detected and decoded would it have an impact on science in  the USA?

1) We would act on the message because it would likely be some universally important scientific information.

2) We would approach additional messages with a scientifically schooled filtering scheme to enhance further understanding, tightly focused.

So the detection of design would be a scientific endeaver
which would very likely have impact on science itself.

If the messages were repeated over and over and when decoded was universally agreed to say......."In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.." would that make all of the work performed to get to that point a waste of time and unscientific?

Yeah, I know, that article is does poke some fun at ID, but it also has some very careful analysis about the Lemon and Edwards cases.

As for your assertion that the burden of proof lies with the plaintiffs isn't not EXACTLY correct. One thing we learned from Edwards is that ideas like creationism, even beyond their religion implications, aren't worthy of special protection in a science class. The court ruled that the science community is very robust and anything worthy of being taught would have risen on it's own out of the free marketplace of ideas.

With ONE scientist for ID, and thousands against, the court is unlikely to find that the defense passes the first prong of the Lemon test: that ID has a secular benefit. Clearly it does not, or it would have succeeded in the peer-reviewed science community.

And I agree with you 100% when you say that you know the trial is decided when it's over. I know I won't change your mind, and I'm really not trying to. I'm just writing this so that when Dover is shot full of holes, you'll think to yourself: "####, maybe those evolutionists aren't as dumb as I think they are!". And for just ONE second, your delusions will vanish, a beam of light will shine down from the heavens, and God's voice will say with a booming reverberating echo: "He Told You So!"

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2005,06:42   

Thats teh funny part about evos they think that Dover is an anomoly and that 68% public opinion and the court's rapidly coming swing in our favor will not result in a win for ID.

AS to Behe's appearance he did quite well actually but the larger point is the comment herein cheering the demise of his fortunes, the end of his career and the disgrace he is and will suffer at the habds of the evos.

That should be published for everyone in America to see so they know the vicious and vindictive nature nature of the evo community.

You see I never worry about ultimate outcomes when the other side is dead wrong on teh facts, condused on their own position and wish the worst to happen personally top anyone who opposes, even people in their own community.

I recognize them as mentally sick and an abberation of true humanity.

  
FishyFred



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2005,09:36   

Quote
You see I never worry about ultimate outcomes when the other side is dead wrong on teh facts, condused on their own position and wish the worst to happen personally top anyone who opposes, even people in their own community.

I recognize them as mentally sick and an abberation of true humanity.
Ahem. Nudge nudge wink wink say no more.
Quote
the court's rapidly coming swing in our favor will not result in a win for ID.
I already gave you a breakdown of the Supreme Court and showed how, at best, you will lose in the Supreme Court 5-4. I am reiterating my request for you to provide your own breakdown of how the SCOTUS would vote on this issue.

    
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2005,10:28   

Fishy,

I suggest that Roberts, Miers (OR ANYONE bUSH PICKS),
Scalia,Thomas are all 0.99 for Dover

I agree Bryer , Ginsberg, Souter are 0.99 against Dover

Your own data support Kennedy as 0.7 against Dover and Stephens O.7 against Dover

Essentially you have to add two people to your sure three and I have to get one to add to my sure four.

So I win is about 0.51 and you win is about 0.49 a toss up unless you lose another person before the trial comes up and before Bush leaves... thats in my favor for sure because whomever it is will be in my camp and you're dead meat. My four aren't leaving how about  yours... he he

  
FishyFred



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2005,17:25   

Stevens voted in the majority of Edwards v. Aguillard. He will definitely vote against Dover.

Here's a quote from the Wikipedia entry on Anthony Kennedy (emphasis mine):

"Born in Sacramento, California, Kennedy, a devout Roman Catholic, married Mary Davis, with whom he has three children. He has no relation to the famous Kennedy family of American politics."

Catholics are traditionally a reasonable and tolerant bunch and have long been okay with evolution.

And by the way, wouldn't the probability of two events occurring with a probability of 70% each only be 35%? In your scenario, the mathematical chance of you winning would be 65%.

    
Henry J



Posts: 4079
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2005,19:16   

Re "wouldn't the probability of two events occurring with a probability of 70% each only be 35%?"

I'd think it'd be 70% * 70% = 49%.

--

Re "Two protons, two neutrons combine to make a Helium nuicleus."

Or sometimes two protons and one neutron, but that's only a little over one part per million.
I sometimes wonder why neutrons are necessary in a multi-particle nucleus - they don't neutralize the electrical repulsion, the strong force (aka quark color force) counteracts it. I wonder if there has to be some balance between the number of up quarks and down quarks as a whole.
(Oh, and sorry to be taking this, um, "discussion" off topic. :) )

Henry

  
FishyFred



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2005,20:05   

Ah, thanks Henry. I must be freakin' tired to have made that mistake.

    
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2005,20:52   

"Catholics are traditionally a reasonable and tolerant bunch "

lol.  well, at least when compared to folks of the 'peach's bent.

then they look like the most reasonable folks imaginable.

I guess 'peach's constant spouting of public opinion polls means his parents never gave him the "..and if your friend's all jumped off a bridge.." speech.

I'm sure all the Catholics out there are thanking you for your constant irrationality, peach, I'm sure you have swelled their ranks all by yourself.

btw, i got lost in all your drivel; several folks accepted your "wager" regarding the outcome of the court case and even upped the ante.  are you willing to accept the new wager?  

just so we're clear, a "loss" for you simply means that the judge rules in favor of the plaintiffs on the primary complaint, while a "loss" for us would be that the judge dismisses the plaintiffs action in its entirety, and rules  in favor of the defense.  Is this correct?  any other stipulations you wish to place on it?

do so now or forever hold your peace.

oh, and do remember that the <i>overwhelming</i> majority of the american public was against legalizing abortion when roe v wade came down the pike.

  
  118 replies since Sep. 21 2005,10:16 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (4) < 1 2 3 [4] >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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