RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (6) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 >   
  Topic: Thread 2 for Kris< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,11:29   

Quote
I'm still willing to bet he cannot find even ONE single example to support the claims he made.


except that we can't parse this from "doesn't give a fuck about even trying to do so"

I'm still willing to bet he cannot swallow even ONE entire gallon of diesel fuel.  May he prove me wrong.

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

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,11:31   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 24 2011,17:29)
Quote
I'm still willing to bet he cannot find even ONE single example to support the claims he made.


except that we can't parse this from "doesn't give a fuck about even trying to do so"

I'm still willing to bet he cannot swallow even ONE entire gallon of diesel fuel.  May he prove me wrong.

If he does swallow at least one gallon of diesel fuel, I'm promising to offer him a nice cigar right afterward!

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4244
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,13:47   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 24 2011,09:41)
Well, I've never said that ID or creation is science or scientific.

What I am saying is a bit stronger than that. I'm saying that ID as currently conceived generates no testable hypotheses, and can generate no testable hypotheses, and therefore is inherently incapable of meaningful scientific verfication or guiding future empirical research. Do you also agree with that? You come very close to asserting same when you say "Science cannot prove that intelligent design or creation, of the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks, are or were impossible."

If so, as I said before, I'll bow out of further discussion of ID with you, as you and I would be in substantial agreement on that point, and I have no interest in the further topics of religion, peer review, scientific fraud and other peripheral issues you've raised, at least not given the eristic way in which you raise them.  

If not, it is incumbent upon you to propose (sketch) a conceptual framework and empirical approach by means of which ID may be subject to empirical test.
   
Quote
In the meantime, science and scientists should be silent about them.

What scientists and others cannot ignore are attempts to wedge ID into the science curricula of public schools, as was the case here in Ohio five years ago. What we also choose not to ignore is the persistent, deliberate distortion of the current state of evolutionary science promulgated by the DI, UD, and other advocates of ID.  
   
Quote
For example, scientists should not claim that abiogenesis is well established, or proven, or provable, or an alternative to creation or design, or a fact, or parsimonious, or any other way of asserting or implying that it's a done deal until and unless it can be shown to be a done deal without speculation, inferences, and assumptions. They should just say we're working on figuring out how life came about on this planet and we don't have all the answers yet, and may never.

Most scientists would agree with aspects of this. However, abiogenesis is inherently an alternative to creation or design, and can't be represented as otherwise. Further, among those alternatives, theories of the origins of life within a naturalistic framework are the only theories that are, and can be, amenable to empirical investigation. Lastly, because all successful scientific theories rest upon a measure of assumption and rely upon inference, I would strike that portion. That said, no one should represent abiogenesis as a done deal, as you say, and I'm not aware of anyone who has. It is one of the great unsolved scientific questions of our lifetimes.
   
Quote
Even a quick look around this site will show that most people here assert that ID and creation are impossible.

Please quote one person at AtBC stating that ID is impossible. I've certainly never said that, or anything resembling that, as I don't believe that.

What I do believe is that ID as currently formulated is inherently incapable of being cashed out scientifically. That is quite a different thing than being inherently impossible.

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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3350
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,14:20   

Hey Kris, just out of curiosity, are you aware that there are several predictions that arise out of String Theory and that there is at least one recorded observation that could be indicative of a cosmic string?

Just curious...

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

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

   
Robin



Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,16:08   

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 24 2011,06:50)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 24 2011,11:59)
Thanks Louis, new signature...

THAT is the best thing I wrote there? THAT?

Dammit I am off to start drinking heavily. ;-)

Louis


Hardly. The other stuff was sheer brilliance, but waaaaaaaay to long to use as a sig quote.

:p

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,16:18   

Quote (Robin @ Jan. 24 2011,22:08)
 
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 24 2011,06:50)
 
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 24 2011,11:59)
Thanks Louis, new signature...

THAT is the best thing I wrote there? THAT?

Dammit I am off to start drinking heavily. ;-)

Louis


Hardly. The other stuff was sheer brilliance, but waaaaaaaay to long to use as a sig quote.

:p

This! With added emphasis! And sprinklers on top!

ETA: louis, just once again take a look at my top sig. Just sayin'... :)

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,17:22   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 24 2011,22:18)
Quote (Robin @ Jan. 24 2011,22:08)
 
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 24 2011,06:50)
   
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 24 2011,11:59)
Thanks Louis, new signature...

THAT is the best thing I wrote there? THAT?

Dammit I am off to start drinking heavily. ;-)

Louis


Hardly. The other stuff was sheer brilliance, but waaaaaaaay to long to use as a sig quote.

:p

This! With added emphasis! And sprinklers on top!

ETA: louis, just once again take a look at my top sig. Just sayin'... :)

Jesus loves you all. Just remember that.

The fact that Jesus is a large Mexican gentleman with a penchant for unwilling buggery is something that should perhaps concern you, other than that, you're all good.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1071
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,18:16   

Quote (Robin @ Jan. 24 2011,16:08)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 24 2011,06:50)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 24 2011,11:59)
Thanks Louis, new signature...

THAT is the best thing I wrote there? THAT?

Dammit I am off to start drinking heavily. ;-)

Louis


Hardly. The other stuff was sheer brilliance, but waaaaaaaay to long to use as a sig quote.

:p

A PotW would be appropriate though.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

  
Dale_Husband



Posts: 118
Joined: April 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,19:41   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 24 2011,05:03)
Dale, your responses are so far off track and so irrelevant to what I said that they're not worth responding to, except by saying this:

You're a moron.

Are you off your meds again Dale? You're foaming at the mouth.

Calling Dale a shithead would be an insult to shit.

You could have just said nothing at all and been just as meaningful. Clearly, you cannot answer me properly once I have dissected and blown away your bogus arguments.

--------------
If you need a man-made book to beleive in a God who is said to have created the universe, of what value is your faith? You might as well worship an idol.

   
Dale_Husband



Posts: 118
Joined: April 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,20:05   

Kris said
Quote
It seems to me that if science were strong enough and popular enough, religious zealots wouldn't be much of a problem. I think that pushy religious zealots should be fought in court or in the media or politics, in the most effective way possible, but I also think that science should and could do a lot more to make itself trustworthy, accessible, interesting, understandable, honest, and popular.


What a delusion that is! Just like some (perhaps all) of religion itself is a delusion! Delusions by definition cannot be overcome by facts alone, but only by a  transformation of a human mind.

Science does well enough as it is. Concern trolls like Kris are liars, period.

--------------
If you need a man-made book to beleive in a God who is said to have created the universe, of what value is your faith? You might as well worship an idol.

   
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,00:43   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 24 2011,12:20)
Hey Kris, just out of curiosity, are you aware that there are several predictions that arise out of String Theory and that there is at least one recorded observation that could be indicative of a cosmic string?

Just curious...

Predictions? Could be indicative..?  Show me a String.

There 'could' be a creator and/or designer, and many people would swear that they've observed evidence or proof of such. Is that enough to convince you?  It doesn't convince me, and neither do a lot of claims in science.

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,00:56   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,00:43)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 24 2011,12:20)
Hey Kris, just out of curiosity, are you aware that there are several predictions that arise out of String Theory and that there is at least one recorded observation that could be indicative of a cosmic string?

Just curious...

Predictions? Could be indicative..?  Show me a String.

There 'could' be a creator and/or designer, and many people would swear that they've observed evidence or proof of such. Is that enough to convince you?  It doesn't convince me, and neither do a lot of claims in science.

Okay, if you don't find a lot of claims in science convincing, what else have you got that's worth the time and trouble of using to figure out the world around you?

I'd go further and note that "a lot of claims" is a bit vague.  Which bodies of theory do you find unconvincing, please?  Be specific.  More importantly, are you familiar with the evidence underlying those theories, or are you going off of the (very poor quality) media coverage of them instead?


The MadPanda, FCD

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,01:34   

Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 24 2011,18:05)
Kris said
 
Quote
It seems to me that if science were strong enough and popular enough, religious zealots wouldn't be much of a problem. I think that pushy religious zealots should be fought in court or in the media or politics, in the most effective way possible, but I also think that science should and could do a lot more to make itself trustworthy, accessible, interesting, understandable, honest, and popular.


What a delusion that is! Just like some (perhaps all) of religion itself is a delusion! Delusions by definition cannot be overcome by facts alone, but only by a  transformation of a human mind.

Science does well enough as it is. Concern trolls like Kris are liars, period.

If science is doing so well, in the context of what I said, why is this site here, and why do you (and others) put so much effort into bitching about religion? And, if science is doing so well, why do way more people believe religious myths than science?

"Delusions by definition cannot be overcome by facts alone, but only by a  transformation of a human mind."

I see that it hasn't occurred to you that facts, if presented effectively, could cause or at least encourage the transformation of a human mind. Of course in your case, it's a lost cause.


You're dumber than a dog turd. And speaking of delusional....

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
Dale_Husband



Posts: 118
Joined: April 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,01:45   

[quote=Kris,Jan. 25 2011,01:34][/quote]
Quote
If science is doing so well, in the context of what I said, why is this site here, and why do you (and others) put so much effort into bitching about religion? And, if science is doing so well, why do way more people believe religious myths than science?

The political battles that swirl around the conflict between religious extremism and science are just that, political. They are not battles about how well science is doing.

As to your second question, it is baseless. Most people in modern industrial society support science AND believe in at least some religious myths. It doesn't have to be an either/or thing.

Quote

I see that it hasn't occurred to you that facts, if presented effectively, could cause or at least encourage the transformation of a human mind.


To those who are open-minded and not delusional, yes. But many people are not like that.

Got any more stupid questions?

--------------
If you need a man-made book to beleive in a God who is said to have created the universe, of what value is your faith? You might as well worship an idol.

   
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,01:50   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Jan. 23 2011,22:45)
I've got a bone for Kris to chew on.

(That's what ... never mind.)

Assume no fossil record.  All you've got are biological samples from thousands of organisms.  You have DNA sequences and protein sequences and you have figured out how DNA relates to proteins.  

Let's make it even worse.  You don't know anything about the organisms - no pictures, no nothing.  Just the molecular info.

With this information alone is it possible to derive a theory of evolution?

With this information alone, what can you figure out?

(To coin a phrase, I would call this the Venter Conjecture.  Mugs and t-shirts available on-line soon.)

Yes, it's possible to derive a theory of evolution. Anyone can derive a theory about anything. Would it be convincing to me? No, or at least not very.

At this time, little could be figured out in regard to proving evolution.

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,01:55   

Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 24 2011,17:41)
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 24 2011,05:03)
Dale, your responses are so far off track and so irrelevant to what I said that they're not worth responding to, except by saying this:

You're a moron.

Are you off your meds again Dale? You're foaming at the mouth.

Calling Dale a shithead would be an insult to shit.

You could have just said nothing at all and been just as meaningful. Clearly, you cannot answer me properly once I have dissected and blown away your bogus arguments.

Well, if anyone knows about blowing things, it's you.

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,02:23   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 24 2011,11:47)
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 24 2011,09:41)
Well, I've never said that ID or creation is science or scientific.

What I am saying is a bit stronger than that. I'm saying that ID as currently conceived generates no testable hypotheses, and can generate no testable hypotheses, and therefore is inherently incapable of meaningful scientific verfication or guiding future empirical research. Do you also agree with that? You come very close to asserting same when you say "Science cannot prove that intelligent design or creation, of the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks, are or were impossible."

If so, as I said before, I'll bow out of further discussion of ID with you, as you and I would be in substantial agreement on that point, and I have no interest in the further topics of religion, peer review, scientific fraud and other peripheral issues you've raised, at least not given the eristic way in which you raise them.  

If not, it is incumbent upon you to propose (sketch) a conceptual framework and empirical approach by means of which ID may be subject to empirical test.
     
Quote
In the meantime, science and scientists should be silent about them.

What scientists and others cannot ignore are attempts to wedge ID into the science curricula of public schools, as was the case here in Ohio five years ago. What we also choose not to ignore is the persistent, deliberate distortion of the current state of evolutionary science promulgated by the DI, UD, and other advocates of ID.  
     
Quote
For example, scientists should not claim that abiogenesis is well established, or proven, or provable, or an alternative to creation or design, or a fact, or parsimonious, or any other way of asserting or implying that it's a done deal until and unless it can be shown to be a done deal without speculation, inferences, and assumptions. They should just say we're working on figuring out how life came about on this planet and we don't have all the answers yet, and may never.

Most scientists would agree with aspects of this. However, abiogenesis is inherently an alternative to creation or design, and can't be represented as otherwise. Further, among those alternatives, theories of the origins of life within a naturalistic framework are the only theories that are, and can be, amenable to empirical investigation. Lastly, because all successful scientific theories rest upon a measure of assumption and rely upon inference, I would strike that portion. That said, no one should represent abiogenesis as a done deal, as you say, and I'm not aware of anyone who has. It is one of the great unsolved scientific questions of our lifetimes.
     
Quote
Even a quick look around this site will show that most people here assert that ID and creation are impossible.

Please quote one person at AtBC stating that ID is impossible. I've certainly never said that, or anything resembling that, as I don't believe that.

What I do believe is that ID as currently formulated is inherently incapable of being cashed out scientifically. That is quite a different thing than being inherently impossible.

Like I've said, I don't condone the teaching of ID or creation in public schools, but I don't necessarily agree with some of your contentions, such as: "and can generate no testable hypotheses, and therefore is inherently incapable of meaningful scientific verfication or guiding future empirical research". Who knows what the future holds?

Also, like I've said before, many people here and on other sites speak as though creation and/or ID are impossible, even if they don't use the word "impossible". Just look at the reception I get when I simply suggest that they are possible, or that a creator/designer is possible in some form, at some level, even when I suggest that it could have nothing to do with any religious beliefs the world has ever known and that it could be 'naturalistic'.  

For all any of us know, a creator and/or designer of our universe or life or some aspects of them could be discovered someday that is naturalistic. Then, the next question would be; Where did that creator/designer come from?

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,02:56   

Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 24 2011,23:45)
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,01:34)

   
Quote
If science is doing so well, in the context of what I said, why is this site here, and why do you (and others) put so much effort into bitching about religion? And, if science is doing so well, why do way more people believe religious myths than science?

The political battles that swirl around the conflict between religious extremism and science are just that, political. They are not battles about how well science is doing.

As to your second question, it is baseless. Most people in modern industrial society support science AND believe in at least some religious myths. It doesn't have to be an either/or thing.

   
Quote

I see that it hasn't occurred to you that facts, if presented effectively, could cause or at least encourage the transformation of a human mind.


To those who are open-minded and not delusional, yes. But many people are not like that.

Got any more stupid questions?

"The political battles that swirl around the conflict between religious extremism and science are just that, political. They are not battles about how well science is doing."

Hogwash. Even if science were perfect in every way it wouldn't mean much if few people know about it, care about it, or trust it. The more the masses know about, care about, and trust science, the less effective religious zealots would be in politics, the education system, or any other aspect of life.

Why aren't you trying to promote Coca-Cola Dale-boi? Is it because Coca-Cola doesn't need any help from people like you to convince anyone that it's a desirable product? Coca-Cola does just fine without your help, right? How do you think it got to be so popular and remains that way, even though there's a lot of competition? It is because the company that makes it just bottled up a bunch of it, stacked it in a warehouse, and hoped people would come and find it? Does the company think that variable, inconsistent quality is good enough to be successful? Does the company think that they don't need to advertise/promote their products? Is Coca-Cola a field of dreams? How about science?

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,02:57   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,02:23)
Like I've said, I don't condone the teaching of ID or creation in public schools, but I don't necessarily agree with some of your contentions, such as: "and can generate no testable hypotheses, and therefore is inherently incapable of meaningful scientific verfication or guiding future empirical research". Who knows what the future holds?

Also, like I've said before, many people here and on other sites speak as though creation and/or ID are impossible, even if they don't use the word "impossible". Just look at the reception I get when I simply suggest that they are possible, or that a creator/designer is possible in some form, at some level, even when I suggest that it could have nothing to do with any religious beliefs the world has ever known and that it could be 'naturalistic'.  

For all any of us know, a creator and/or designer of our universe or life or some aspects of them could be discovered someday that is naturalistic. Then, the next question would be; Where did that creator/designer come from?



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

  
Dale_Husband



Posts: 118
Joined: April 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,03:22   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,02:56)
 
"The political battles that swirl around the conflict between religious extremism and science are just that, political. They are not battles about how well science is doing."

Hogwash. Even if science were perfect in every way it wouldn't mean much if few people know about it, care about it, or trust it. The more the masses know about, care about, and trust science, the less effective religious zealots would be in politics, the education system, or any other aspect of life.
Exactly. Strange, that you state the blatantly obvious and think that's an argument against what we are doing here and at PT. Not at all.  
Quote


Why aren't you trying to promote Coca-Cola Dale-boi? Is it because Coca-Cola doesn't need any help from people like you to convince anyone that it's a desirable product? Coca-Cola does just fine without your help, right? How do you think it got to be so popular and remains that way, even though there's a lot of competition? It is because the company that makes it just bottled up a bunch of it, stacked it in a warehouse, and hoped people would come and find it? Does the company think that variable, inconsistent quality is good enough to be successful? Does the company think that they don't need to advertise/promote their products? Is Coca-Cola a field of dreams? How about science?

Well, I DID ask for more stupid questions! Science is the foundation of our modern civilization, so we are surrounded by its products, including Coca-Cola.

Come back when you can organize your thoughts better.

--------------
If you need a man-made book to beleive in a God who is said to have created the universe, of what value is your faith? You might as well worship an idol.

   
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,06:01   

Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 25 2011,01:22)
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,02:56)
 
"The political battles that swirl around the conflict between religious extremism and science are just that, political. They are not battles about how well science is doing."

Hogwash. Even if science were perfect in every way it wouldn't mean much if few people know about it, care about it, or trust it. The more the masses know about, care about, and trust science, the less effective religious zealots would be in politics, the education system, or any other aspect of life.
Exactly. Strange, that you state the blatantly obvious and think that's an argument against what we are doing here and at PT. Not at all.    
Quote


Why aren't you trying to promote Coca-Cola Dale-boi? Is it because Coca-Cola doesn't need any help from people like you to convince anyone that it's a desirable product? Coca-Cola does just fine without your help, right? How do you think it got to be so popular and remains that way, even though there's a lot of competition? It is because the company that makes it just bottled up a bunch of it, stacked it in a warehouse, and hoped people would come and find it? Does the company think that variable, inconsistent quality is good enough to be successful? Does the company think that they don't need to advertise/promote their products? Is Coca-Cola a field of dreams? How about science?

Well, I DID ask for more stupid questions! Science is the foundation of our modern civilization, so we are surrounded by its products, including Coca-Cola.

Come back when you can organize your thoughts better.

You wouldn't last five minutes in the field of marketing Dale-boi. Do you really think that preaching to the choir here is going help make science more popular, and religion less popular?

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,06:04   

You wouldn't last five minutes in the field of hog hunting boy.  Do you really think that being a glory hole all-star is going to make Dale love you like you need him to and take away that icky sticky guilty feeling you get when you think about him?

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,06:18   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,12:01)
[SNIP]

You wouldn't last five minutes in the field of marketing Dale-boi.

[SNIP]

BWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

{breathes}

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HA

{chokes, breathes, vomits, breathes}

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA  BWa BWa BWA BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

A marketing stooge? Who the fuck wants to be a marketing stooge? Oh this explains so much about you, Kris.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,06:26   

Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 24 2011,22:56)
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,00:43)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 24 2011,12:20)
Hey Kris, just out of curiosity, are you aware that there are several predictions that arise out of String Theory and that there is at least one recorded observation that could be indicative of a cosmic string?

Just curious...

Predictions? Could be indicative..?  Show me a String.

There 'could' be a creator and/or designer, and many people would swear that they've observed evidence or proof of such. Is that enough to convince you?  It doesn't convince me, and neither do a lot of claims in science.

Okay, if you don't find a lot of claims in science convincing, what else have you got that's worth the time and trouble of using to figure out the world around you?

I'd go further and note that "a lot of claims" is a bit vague.  Which bodies of theory do you find unconvincing, please?  Be specific.  More importantly, are you familiar with the evidence underlying those theories, or are you going off of the (very poor quality) media coverage of them instead?


The MadPanda, FCD

Hmm, I wonder if there's one of those fancy schmancy, high falootin' Latin terms for what's going on in your sentence below? Hey, I know, it's argumentum bullshitum!

"Okay, if you don't find a lot of claims in science convincing, what else have you got that's worth the time and trouble of using to figure out the world around you?"

You assume that since I said there are a lot of claims in science that I don't find convincing, I must think that all science is useless and should be dispensed with, and that I must think there's a better way of figuring out the world. That's quite a leap you mistakenly took there.

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
rhmc



Posts: 340
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,06:36   

krissy needs to read her signature line.

  
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,06:52   

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 25 2011,04:18)
 
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,12:01)
[SNIP]

You wouldn't last five minutes in the field of marketing Dale-boi.

[SNIP]

BWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

{breathes}

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA



HA

{chokes, breathes, vomits, breathes}

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA  BWa BWa BWA BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

A marketing stooge? Who the fuck wants to be a marketing stooge? Oh this explains so much about you, Kris.

Louis

No wonder religion is far more popular than science.

By the way, you are a "marketing stooge" and you're not even being paid for it. You're on a public website that can potentially be accessed by a lot of people. Every time you promote science or bash religion you are doing marketing, and it doesn't matter if anyone is actually looking at what you say. Lots of people ignore TV commercials or signs but those are still marketing.

Why do you come here and make comments in defense of science and to denigrate religion? Do you just want to preach to the choir and be part of a gang, or do you hope that visitors to this site will or might be swayed toward science and away from religion by what you say here? Do you really think that you're going to win the so-called 'war' against religious zealots by believing that science doesn't need to be popular to the masses, like religion is?

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,07:16   

Kris, why do you come here at all?

Nobody gives a shit about your antics, you are unable to correctly answer the simplest of questions, and are spewing more bullshit than a Texas ranch.

So I will finaly give you what you crave for: nobody here likes you, nobody here gives a fuck about your concern trolling, and the sooner you die, the better for the world.

There! now you can copy/paste this as much as you want on creosites to show how those evil science proponents are big meanies.

Go fuck yourself with a chainsam! You're not even funny anymore.

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,07:25   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,12:52)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 25 2011,04:18)
 
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,12:01)
[SNIP]

You wouldn't last five minutes in the field of marketing Dale-boi.

[SNIP]

BWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

{breathes}

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA




HA

{chokes, breathes, vomits, breathes}

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA  BWa BWa BWA BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

A marketing stooge? Who the fuck wants to be a marketing stooge? Oh this explains so much about you, Kris.

Louis

No wonder religion is far more popular than science.

By the way, you are a "marketing stooge" and you're not even being paid for it. You're on a public website that can potentially be accessed by a lot of people. Every time you promote science or bash religion you are doing marketing, and it doesn't matter if anyone is actually looking at what you say. Lots of people ignore TV commercials or signs but those are still marketing.

Why do you come here and make comments in defense of science and to denigrate religion? Do you just want to preach to the choir and be part of a gang, or do you hope that visitors to this site will or might be swayed toward science and away from religion by what you say here? Do you really think that you're going to win the so-called 'war' against religious zealots by believing that science doesn't need to be popular to the masses, like religion is?

Denigrate religion? Please.

You haven't even established this is occuring, you've merely asserted it without basis in fact. And even if you do manage to dredge up a quote or two you are ignoring two key things a) Not all the views expressed at, say, Pharyngula or PT or here or wherever are binding on all commenters (I, for example, disagree strongly with a couple of regulars here about the reach and remit of rational enquiry, one of the few genuinely thought provoking conversations I've found on the web), b) you are assuming motivations exist and a particular conflict exists in the way you claim it does. You are framing things the way you want to frame them, not necessarily how they demonstrably are. Clarity will not result.

You haven't a clue what you are talking about, and as previously suspected, you're trolling for kicks. Do you seriously think that "science" is less "popular" than "religion" because of some MARKETING strategy? You haven't even defined those terms or even demonstrated that this is the case (and let's be blunt, it isn't the case. You're effectively ignoring the social environment entirely). Not only that, you're setting up a false dichotomy. It's like I said, Kris, you're demonstrably too ignorant of the subject matter and you're just pulling things out of your arse. THIS is why you get mocked btw.

I'm not in any "war" against religious zealots, in fact I think that's the wrong way to view the whole situation. The contention that exists is a philosophical one, it's about epistemology, the fact that religious ideas tend to fall to one end of a particular epistemological continuum is no more significant than the fact that ideas about homeopathy do.

Kris you are projecting your ignorance and views about the world onto others. You are making baseless assertions because you are butthurt about Teh Scientists Being Mean On Teh Intarwebz. No one cares. What might work to help YOU might not work for someone else. Let a thousand flowers bloom, let a thousand techniques for talking to others about any topic exist. I don't scream and rant at Grammaw because it won't work, I migth scream at rant at someone else for whom it might work (although thinking about this, it is rare), and I'll take the piss out of people like you because they are beyond rational engagement. You've been given umpteen opportunities to demonstrate your point now, and you have yet to take them, focussing instead on the butthurtedness you feel inside. Awww poor marketing fuckwit.

And no, not every conversation is a marketing opportunity, sorry. Your ability to define and divine the purpose of anyone else's actions is severly attenuated. Our motives, my motives and your motives may be different. Think about that.

Why not, instead of whining about your butthurtedness, actually try to have a conversation about your claims in which you support them with something other than assertion. Let me guess, it's because you can't, right?

So nice try troll, but every time you poke your head out it gets taken off. Isn't that an effective image to send? People might complain about the method, but they still get the image of you flailing about headless every time you try to make an argument. Tchoh, it almost seems like you know fuck all about marketing as well as, well, everything else.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4244
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,07:27   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,03:23)
I don't necessarily agree with some of your contentions, such as: "and can generate no testable hypotheses, and therefore is inherently incapable of meaningful scientific verfication or guiding future empirical research". Who knows what the future holds?

So far as I can discern, your position is "I've never said ID/creation is science or scientific, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I agree that it isn't science or scientific." IOW, you don't have a position, or if you do, you don't wish to disclose it, and instead prefer to equivocate.  
   
Quote
I don't necessarily agree with some of your contentions

With which contentions do you agree, with which do you disagree, and vis which do you have no opinion?
   
Quote
Also, like I've said before, many people here and on other sites speak as though creation and/or ID are impossible, even if they don't use the word "impossible".

Would you please quote a participant at AtBC speaking "as though" creation and/or ID are impossible? In my experience, most here have argued not that ID is impossible, but that ID/creation are incapable of scientific investigation, and are therefore not science, a distinction to which you don't seem prepared to address yourself. That is certainly my position. Moreover, it is my position that ID won't be repaired by time or further discoveries due to conceptual flaws inherent to the position.
   
Quote
I don't condone the teaching of ID or creation in public schools...

Your assertion was that scientists should remain silent on ID/creation. Given that you don't condone the teaching of ID in public school science classes, do you maintain that scientists should remain silent when attempts are made to insert ID into public science classrooms? Or do you now agree that it is appropriate for scientists to vocally oppose attempts to insert ID into public school curricula?

My position, and that of most participants here, is that ID is not science, and therefore should not be taught in public school science classrooms. It follows that when efforts are made to do same, they are rightly vigorously opposed.
   
Quote
For all any of us know, a creator and/or designer of our universe or life or some aspects of them could be discovered someday that is naturalistic. Then, the next question would be; Where did that creator/designer come from?

You have no idea whether a creator/designer exists ("for all any of us know"). Having established that, you are now going to embark on an investigation into where it came from. There may be aspects that could someday be "naturalistic," but you are unwilling to take a stand on whether and how the conceptual and empirical tools of science can be brought to bear on the question.

Good luck with that.

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2011,07:47   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 25 2011,13:16)
Kris, why do you come here at all?

Nobody gives a shit about your antics, you are unable to correctly answer the simplest of questions, and are spewing more bullshit than a Texas ranch.

So I will finaly give you what you crave for: nobody here likes you, nobody here gives a fuck about your concern trolling, and the sooner you die, the better for the world.

There! now you can copy/paste this as much as you want on creosites to show how those evil science proponents are big meanies.

Go fuck yourself with a chainsam! You're not even funny anymore.

I don't dislike Kris, I don't know him. He's just a rectal itch on the internet, worth nothing more than the time I wish to waste on replying to his inanities. I certainly don't wish him (or anyone) harm or death and I know for a fact you don't either (hence why I know you are exaggerating for comedy effect).

Kris is an internet troll at best (this way at least he knows what he is doing and has some potential for intellectual redemption) and is a moron at worst (hopeless). I bear the cat no ill will but I reserve the right to mock the living shit out of him for prancing merrily into the room and acting like a total dough-heed. But I am not going to wish him harm or a rapid exit from this world, however humorously.

Kris is VERY VERY CONCERNED and VERY VERY BUTTHURT about TEH MEANNESS. So much so that his confused little spiels are merely endless repetitions of the same assertions and creationist tropes. "I'm all about Teh Scienz" sez Kwis....yeah, right. Course you are mate. Whatever you say (insert eyeroll here). The muppet can barely spell the word, let alone understand it. Kris is a troll of very little brain. How do I know? He hasn't managed to understand that IF he wants to have a serious conversation (a thing he claims to desire, after all he is laying on his fainting couch with the smelling salts DEMANDING people be nice, oh if only they'd be nice then we could all have such nice conversations) then all he has to do is have one.

But you see he doesn't want one, he wants to whine and chuck kiddy fits because people are MEAN to him. HIM! The Chosen One! The One Who Has Come To Speak Truth To The Meanies! We should all bow before him and his Magnificent Marketing Strategy because being rude and fucking obnoxious to people never convinces them. This is why he is being so rude and obnoxious, he thinks it will convince us....oh wait....is there something wrong with Kris's claims and methods? Oh why yes there is.

The kid's a moron. This is AtBC's Tom Johnson of the moment. If Kris wants to discuss strategy, tactics, science communication, the apparent "conflict" between science and religion etc etc then he is welcome to do so. Like I said though, he doesn't want that and it's manifestly obvious he doesn't. He wants to vent and project his motives and his ignorance. He'll go away after a while.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
  174 replies since Jan. 21 2011,05:52 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (6) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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