RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (100) < ... 92 93 94 95 96 [97] 98 99 100 >   
  Topic: FL "Debate Thread", READ FIRST POST BEFORE PARTICIPATING PLZ< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
dheddle



Posts: 530
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,17:03   

To Albatrossity2 and all:

I retract the "hair trigger" comment. That was cheap shot, uncalled for, and insulting.

I apologize.

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

   
JohnW



Posts: 2226
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,17:13   

I'm enjoying the grown-up conversation now that Floyd has gone.

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4046
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,17:18   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 04 2009,10:44)
If the universe is designed for life where do we only find it in one single place?

Maybe cause we've hardly been to any other places? (At least not any further than our own moon.)

Henry

  
Henry J



Posts: 4046
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,17:42   

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 04 2009,09:51)
Hardly.  We humans ARE astonishingly well-placed for the huge astronomical discoveries we make.  That's not ignorance, that's what we know scientifically.  Taken together with all the other fine tuning facts, one could rationally infer design instead of accident.

Um. Name one discovery that humans have made that we aren't "well-placed" to make.

Or to put that another way, we've no idea what all we haven't discovered because of not being "well-placed" to make those discoveries.

Henry

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,18:37   

Playing along for fun, wouldn't being in an open star cluster be better than being part of a spiral arm?

How about a Lone Star?  Even better?

Just think, instead of the Lone Star state we could be the Lone Star solar system!  By Jove I like that idea.

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,18:47   

Quote
To Albatrossity2 and all:

I retract the "hair trigger" comment. That was cheap shot, uncalled for, and insulting.

I apologize.


On behalf of the Darwinian Pressure Group, Delta Pi Gamma, I hereby give you, Dr. D. Heddle, a Cheap Shots Pass for Life for not only surviving but flourishing after a kick to the balls by Dr. Dr. D*mbski for actually trying to help that moron be less of a moron.

Furthermore, I hereby grant you Honorary Membership into Delta Pi Gamma the perks of which include, but are not limited to, unlimited "seconds" of Mac & Cheese at the Baylor Cafeteria, 10% off at the bar and the privilege of driving the fraternity's BMW* once a year.

Congratulations!

*after we collect enough dues to buy it.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,19:21   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 04 2009,18:47)
[snip]

I hereby grant you Honorary Membership into Delta Pi Gamma the perks of which include, but are not limited to, unlimited "seconds" of Mac & Cheese at the Baylor Cafeteria, 10% off at the bar and the privilege of driving the fraternity's BMW* once a year.

Congratulations!

*after we collect enough dues to buy it.

The CBEB's already have a Ford Pinto AND an AMC Gremlin in our sumptuous collection.

This leaves Mr. Heddle something to aspire to.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5377
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,19:23   

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 04 2009,18:13)
I'm enjoying the grown-up conversation now that Floyd has gone.

Agreed.

But I have to ask, what about the inhabitants of Planet Mirth, in the Snickers galaxy? Those poor fuckers got wiped out by a comet 8,000,000,000 years ago, while they were still bacteria-like critters.

They might disagree about that whole "fine-tuned" thing.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Dan



Posts: 77
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,19:33   

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 04 2009,11:30)
Quote
We are merely an an unintended consequence of a universe designed to be hospitable for rocks.

Goodness, what a dreary bummer hypothesis!!  Why not sign up with Gonzalez and Richards instead???

Notice, yet again.

FL is not looking for facts or evidence.  He doesn't want to live in a "bummer" universe, so he selects a different one instead.  He thinks it's all just a matter of "signing up".

I choose to sign up for what I want!  Evidence has nothing to do with it!  It's just a matter of opinion!

  
Dan



Posts: 77
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,19:37   

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 04 2009,10:56)
Quote
Then, FL, you agree with Gonzalez that the universe is 13.7 billion years old.

Yes?

Nope.  Not at all.   Fortunately, his cosmological ID hypothesis does not require agreement with old-age.  The fine-tuning appears whether you like "Old" or "Young."

It is quite false that "fine-tuning" applies to both old and young universes.

For example, one prong of the "fine-tuning" argument says that if gravity were weaker, galaxies would not form in the first billion years, whereas if gravity were stronger, galaxies would collapse after about three billion years.

Of course, this argument is just nonsense in the young universe picture, because the universe is just 6000 years old.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3282
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,19:44   

I would like to point out that humanity is a 'ahppy accident' at least from our perspective.  If not for a rather large chunk of space debris, we might be descendants of velociraptors having this conversation.

If the universe is designed for a 'higher life form', then surely it was designed for dinosaurs that went an unprecedented 60+ million years.

No, they were not 'intelligent' (we think)... at least they weren't obviously tool users, but then neither are dolphins.

Personally I agree with those that count a well-designed universe as merely humanity projecting its own desires into the universe.

I still say that there it is not science, because there is no way to determine the difference between the results of design vs. luck in our universe.  

If you can think of a way to test it, I'll be happy to help.

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

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

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5377
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,19:51   

For a universe that's "fine tuned" for us, it sure is trying awful hard to kill us.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2778
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,20:02   

Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 04 2009,17:03)
To Albatrossity2 and all:

I retract the "hair trigger" comment. That was cheap shot, uncalled for, and insulting.

I apologize.

Thanks, Dave. I also appreciate the opportunity to converse with grownups, and the opportunity to disagree in a cordial scientific manner.

Trivially, re the correlation between observability and habitability, is the atmosphere on Mars amenable to observability? According to Wikipedia, it's mostly CO2, nitrogen and argon. If it is an atmosphere that lends itself to observability, and yet Mars is not considered habitable, how does this affect the claimed correlation between observability and habitability?

Secondly, the fact that we can "do cosmology" is wonderful, especially for physicists, but is it really something that is necessarily correlated with life? Could organisms exist in situations where they couldn't "do cosmology"? I think that they could, so what does that "common sense" postulate do for the argument that there exists a correlation between observability and habitability?

Bottom line - I'd think that physicists, of all people, should understand that the universe can hold things that are surprising, non-intuitive or even counter-intuitive, and that our observations of our own private planet might (just might) be parochial. What is wrong with the argument that says other forms of biology might not exist, or even other universes?

And if you acknowledge those as possibilities, I think that the PP arguments of Gonzalez and Richards degenerate into apologetics.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
jupiter



Posts: 97
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,20:28   

Quote (Amadan @ Nov. 04 2009,15:30)
     
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 04 2009,15:02)
what if "bollocks" are a form of life that doesn't require heavy metals?  

Well, I dunno, BUT

Heavy Metal is a form of life that requires this bollocks:


Bollocks? WHAT bollocks? None are visible—and no wonder. Just look at the fit of the man's jeans. Before you look away...

...think of those helpless 'nads, driven into whatever yeasty refuge they found, only to be immobilized like veal... itchy, sweaty veal with extremely poor impulse control. And then, once the strangulating jeans were peeled off, try to imagine the heroic efforts required to retrieve and restore those traumatized man-tonsils. A flathead screwdriver, a widemouth groupie, plenty of powder (Bolivian Marching and Gold Bond)—just the beginning.

Yet, despite the horrors of the not-so-distant past, skinny jeans for men are once again rearing their ugly heads, pushing the boundaries of their cramped pup tents.

Won't you consider joining HUEVOS (Honoring Unfettered Emergence of Vas-deferential Orbs and Scrota)? We need your help to fight the global threat to free-range testicles.

NB: In a truly fine-tuned universe, our struggle would be unnecessary.

  
didymos



Posts: 1822
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,20:50   

Quote (jupiter @ Nov. 04 2009,18:28)
Won't you consider joining HUEVOS (Honoring Unfettered Emergence of Vas-deferential Orbs and Scrota)? We need your help to fight the global threat to free-range testicles.

I should suppose it goes without saying that HUEVOS has a paramilitary, fully commando wing.

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,21:59   

bwaaaaaaahahahaha

huevos and all good lord

hahahahhaa

PP is macro-ID without the added assurance that macro level processes are a function of micro level.  pfffft

fuck until we get a list of all the possible life forms and their stat sheets like some kinda D&D guide that Louis keeps under his couch cushions then all this crap about what is best suited for life or visibility etc etc etc is jibber jabber best reserved for sunday school and acid trips.  i just don't get the appeal.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Henry J



Posts: 4046
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,23:06   

Quote
Albatrossity2
And based on a sample size of 1, I find it remarkable that you would buy the argument that habitability and observability are correlated. Look up the roots of that verb "correlate". Don't you need more than one observation to correlate with another?


Quote
dheddle
Not a sample size of 1 is sufficient. Correlated means mutually or reciprocally related. In that sense it doesn't require statistics.


Perhaps it's more of a subset relation than a two way correlation?

After all, we launch observational equipment into places that are distinctly uninhabitable by us, simply because those places offer much better observability than the surface of our planet. So there are definitely places that have observability but not habitability.

Henry

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10094
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,23:32   

Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 04 2009,15:14)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 04 2009,15:08)
 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 04 2009,12:57)
I should apologize to Mr. Heddle for poking at him at Pharyngula long ago -- I wasn't sure it was him, anyway, if he even recalls. Mr. Heddle appears reasonable in most of his arguments, except for Nascar and such. By the way, Mr. Heddle, I ran across a hot nascar babe for your delectation:  

I didn't know Sarah Palin had tattoos.

She's a Jeff Gordon fan. What do you expect? I'm pretty sure she is an, um, associate of Mr. Richard Hughes.

HEDDLE, HAS I NOT BEAN NICE TO YOU LATELY? THAT KIEFS HAS CORRUPTED YOU AND YOUR INN WITH A BAD CROWD NOW. HE MESSES WITH RAVENS AND BANANANASAS.

SHE'S TWO SKINNY FOR ME ANYWAY. AND I BET SHE HAS A TINY PEANUS.

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10094
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,23:38   

Crossposted from "Sciencebreaks":

Kicking the privileged planet

http://media4.obspm.fr/exoplanets/base/carte3d.php

(see how many are in habitable zones)

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

  
Constant Mews



Posts: 323
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,23:57   

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 04 2009,06:57)
Quote
Christianity is not based on Biblical literalism.

Quick question CM:  in the Bible, was Jesus'sResurrection literal or non-literal?

Answer my question, Floyd.

  
MichaelJ



Posts: 455
Joined: June 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2009,00:09   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 05 2009,09:37)
Playing along for fun, wouldn't being in an open star cluster be better than being part of a spiral arm?

How about a Lone Star?  Even better?

Just think, instead of the Lone Star state we could be the Lone Star solar system!  By Jove I like that idea.

Imagine being above the galactic core or travelling at 0.99c

  
JohnW



Posts: 2226
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2009,01:12   

Quote (Dan @ Nov. 04 2009,17:33)
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 04 2009,11:30)
Quote
We are merely an an unintended consequence of a universe designed to be hospitable for rocks.

Goodness, what a dreary bummer hypothesis!!  Why not sign up with Gonzalez and Richards instead???

Notice, yet again.

FL is not looking for facts or evidence.  He doesn't want to live in a "bummer" universe, so he selects a different one instead.  He thinks it's all just a matter of "signing up".

I choose to sign up for what I want!  Evidence has nothing to do with it!  It's just a matter of opinion!

Universe full of rocks: Dreary bummer.
Eternal torture for those not following the orders of Floyd's "loving" god: Not dreary bummer.

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

  
Chayanov



Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2009,02:05   

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2009,01:12)
Universe full of rocks: Dreary bummer.
Eternal torture for those not following the orders of Floyd's "loving" god: Not dreary bummer.

Not a bummer for FL, at any rate. Which rather says something about him.

--------------
Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2009,03:08   

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 04 2009,17:18)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 04 2009,10:44)
If the universe is designed for life where do we only find it in one single place?

Maybe cause we've hardly been to any other places? (At least not any further than our own moon.)

Henry

True, however if the universe is "designed for life" I'd expect to see evidence of it elsewhere in the universe right now, given how old it is. In a "designed for life" universe there would be innumerable species that would have come and gone before we made it into the scene and I'm sure we'd see the evidence in the sky at some level. Dyson spheres all over the place, that sort of thing.

But we don't. So if we can say one thing it's that the universe may well be designed for life but it's not life as we know it.

And anyway, if the universe was designed for human type life then why are all the other planets in the solar system unsuitable for human life? Sure, they may be outside of the "goldilocks" zone but I'd expect a designer capable of creating the universe to be able to get around such small details.

Due to the expansion of the universe at some point we'll look up and see almost no stars at all. Would a designed for life universe be doing it's best to separate for eternity from each other the reason the universe was designed? Probably not...

And so on.

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

  
dheddle



Posts: 530
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2009,04:17   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 04 2009,20:02)
Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 04 2009,17:03)
To Albatrossity2 and all:

I retract the "hair trigger" comment. That was cheap shot, uncalled for, and insulting.

I apologize.

Thanks, Dave. I also appreciate the opportunity to converse with grownups, and the opportunity to disagree in a cordial scientific manner.

Trivially, re the correlation between observability and habitability, is the atmosphere on Mars amenable to observability? According to Wikipedia, it's mostly CO2, nitrogen and argon. If it is an atmosphere that lends itself to observability, and yet Mars is not considered habitable, how does this affect the claimed correlation between observability and habitability?

Secondly, the fact that we can "do cosmology" is wonderful, especially for physicists, but is it really something that is necessarily correlated with life? Could organisms exist in situations where they couldn't "do cosmology"? I think that they could, so what does that "common sense" postulate do for the argument that there exists a correlation between observability and habitability?

Bottom line - I'd think that physicists, of all people, should understand that the universe can hold things that are surprising, non-intuitive or even counter-intuitive, and that our observations of our own private planet might (just might) be parochial. What is wrong with the argument that says other forms of biology might not exist, or even other universes?

And if you acknowledge those as possibilities, I think that the PP arguments of Gonzalez and Richards degenerate into apologetics.

Well maybe correlation isn't the right word--but at any rate the answer to the Mars question is that the claim is not "observability implies habitability" but the other way around.

Similarly, the claim is not that "doing cosmology" is necessary for life, but rather the opportunity for doing cosmology (the ability to see deep space, assuming you can see) is simply a byproduct of the planet's habitability.

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

   
Quack



Posts: 1751
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2009,04:40   

Quote
And anyway, if the universe was designed for human type life then why are all the other planets in the solar system unsuitable for human life? Sure, they may be outside of the "goldilocks" zone but I'd expect a designer capable of creating the universe to be able to get around such small details.

We know we are not allowed (according to types like FL) to ask questions about the mind of God; it is unfathomable, i.e. irrational. So whether chopping down an entire forest to make a matchstick or creating a vast universe when he needs only a tiny solar system, that's just the way he works, 'in mysterious ways'.

'You' can explain anything, i.e. nothing by using the Bible as 'your' vademecum.

I have another question too: Why did he go to all that trouble, creating so much misery when he could have created his heaven right away, with all of us pre-installed ready to play the harp and sing His praise? That's his goal, isn't it? What a roundabout way of doing things. But fully in accord with what to expect from the psychopathic tyrant  of the OT.

--------------
YEC creationists denigrate science without an inkling of what their lives would be without it. YEC creationism is an enrageous, abominable insult to the the human intellect.
                                                         Me.

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2009,07:01   

Quote (Quack @ Nov. 05 2009,04:40)
Quote
And anyway, if the universe was designed for human type life then why are all the other planets in the solar system unsuitable for human life? Sure, they may be outside of the "goldilocks" zone but I'd expect a designer capable of creating the universe to be able to get around such small details.

We know we are not allowed (according to types like FL) to ask questions about the mind of God; it is unfathomable, i.e. irrational. So whether chopping down an entire forest to make a matchstick or creating a vast universe when he needs only a tiny solar system, that's just the way he works, 'in mysterious ways'.

'You' can explain anything, i.e. nothing by using the Bible as 'your' vademecum.

I have another question too: Why did he go to all that trouble, creating so much misery when he could have created his heaven right away, with all of us pre-installed ready to play the harp and sing His praise? That's his goal, isn't it? What a roundabout way of doing things. But fully in accord with what to expect from the psychopathic tyrant  of the OT.

Ooh - ooh!  I know.  Free will.  It is so important for some reason for us to choose to enslave ourselves to this tyrant who needs our love, like an abusive husband, that we have to have free will and not be in heaven immediately.  If we were in heaven (which lacks free will, according to most Christians), then we wouldn't be choosing to be tortured forever.

How's that?

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2009,07:59   

I have request for a little help here.  One thing I've noted is how YEC, even OECs love to quote from books.  Doesn't matter that these books are 15 years old, already refuted and have refs to even old creation books to "support it".

No, I can go to the Geological Society to read a few of the research papers there.  I would like to know if there is a better depository not just for geology, but evolution, astronomy, etc., that is search-able.

Where are these on the web?

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
JonF



Posts: 571
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2009,08:21   

Quote (Quack @ Nov. 05 2009,05:40)
We know we are not allowed (according to types like FL) to ask questions about the mind of God; it is unfathomable, i.e. irrational.

Somewhere a few pages back FL claimed to know the Mind of God not in the sense of acquaintance, but in the sense of full understanding and ability to predict what He would do in any circumstance.

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2009,08:48   

Quote
I'm enjoying the grown-up conversation now that Floyd has gone

a)  I'm not gone

b)  grown-ups don't do childish insults like that, Johnny---work on it

  
  2975 replies since Sep. 12 2009,22:15 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (100) < ... 92 93 94 95 96 [97] 98 99 100 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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