Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

Pages: (527) < ... 24 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 34 ... >

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 24 2014,00:12    Quote (Lou FCD @ April 23 2014,18:12) I don't think a guy who believes in an Invisible Haploid Zombie who Lives in the Sky and Watches Us Masturbate really should involve "neurodegenerative pathologies" in the discussion. ETA spelling -------------- "[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory "Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

Glen Davidson Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 24 2014,00:59    Quote (fnxtr @ April 24 2014,00:12)   Quote (Lou FCD @ April 23 2014,18:12) I don't think a guy who believes in an Invisible Haploid Zombie who Lives in the Sky and Watches Us Masturbate really should involve "neurodegenerative pathologies" in the discussion. ETA spelling My selfless task of preventing the feline destruction of bird populations continues... Glen Davidson -------------- http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: April 24 2014,12:18    more selfie than selfless. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Soapy Sam Posts: 659 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: April 24 2014,14:13    If God had wanted us not to masturbate, he'd have organised things such that we couldn't. I can't tickle myself, so that's obviously something He has put beyond the pale. -------------- SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: April 24 2014,14:33    Quote (Soapy Sam @ April 24 2014,14:13) If God had wanted us not to masturbate, he'd have organised things such that we couldn't. I can't tickle myself, so that's obviously something He has put beyond the pale. But if you don't record it, you're an undocumented wanker. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 25 2014,17:21    Everybody hold this thought: Denyse in a bikini. That oughta put a stop to this masturbation epidemic.

Glen Davidson Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 25 2014,18:11    Quote (CeilingCat @ April 25 2014,17:21) Everybody hold this thought: Denyse in a bikini. That oughta put a stop to this masturbation epidemic. Eating too, though. Glen Davidson -------------- http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

Glen Davidson Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 25 2014,18:16    Quote Psychologists show how to brainwash kids into Darwinism Next up, psychologists show how to brainwash kids into giving up their intuition that monsters routinely reside under their beds. Damn these people who think kids should do anything but reinforce their prejudices.  After all, the IDiots have never done anything else, and look at how well they turned out. Glen Davidson -------------- http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 27 2014,15:23    Paul Giem writes:   Quote I have seen some claim, with some plausibility, that LINE elements may have something to do with original sin. Mr. Giem is the author of Scientific Theology.

timothya Posts: 280 Joined: April 2013 (Permalink) Posted: April 28 2014,03:17    Sal Cordova embraces numerology as a scientific discipline: Quote If the mathematical/musical patterns Perez has found in DNA are improbable relative to laws of physics and chemistry, then he may have found yet another design feature of DNA, and this feature is found by combining coding DNA with non-coding DNA and viewing it holistically. Well if we can find Jebus in a pancake, we sure can find numerical structure in a repeating code. Kabbalah, anyone? -------------- "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." Anatole France

timothya Posts: 280 Joined: April 2013 (Permalink) Posted: April 28 2014,05:14    This person, quark1, �definitely has the irony thing nailed:   Quote 1) Take subtraction diagonal like A = (TCT)-(TTC) = 251604556 � 225669775 = 25934781 B = (TAT)-(TTA) = 234734484 � 260313647 = -25579163 C = (TGT)-(TTG) = 229405484 � 190719226 = 38686258 D = (TAC)-(TCA) = 169023944 � 202932695 = -33908751 E = (TGC)-(TCG) = 96112792 � 91988158 = 4124634 F = (TGA)-(TAG) = 202932695 � 149333215 = 53599480 2) Alright, thereafter do a summation like A + B + C + D + E + F = 62857239 3) Divide with 10.000.000 and thereafter (1/10.000.000)(A + B + C + D + E + F) = 6,2857239 This is approximately 2pi = 2*3,14159 = 6,283185 Do the same for the other three intervall: The second one: I get -6pi The third one: I get 3pi The fourd one: I get pi -------------- "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." Anatole France

KCdgw Posts: 376 Joined: Sep. 2002 (Permalink) Posted: April 28 2014,11:23    Quote (timothya @ April 28 2014,03:17) Quote If the mathematical/musical patterns Perez has found in DNA are improbable relative to laws of physics and chemistry, then he may have found yet another design feature of DNA, and this feature is found by combining coding DNA with non-coding DNA and viewing it holistically. Perez Hilton, maybe. -------------- Those who know the truth are not equal to those who love it-- Confucius

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 28 2014,20:10    Mung brings teh stoopid. Quote Mung April 28, 2014 at 6:54 pm If natural selection existed, children would not die of cancer. Children do die of cancer. Therefore natural selection does not exist. -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

Ptaylor Posts: 1180 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 28 2014,23:09    Both PZ Myers and Jerry Coyne have commented on this recently: Does this mean we can now expect to be treated to a video of Granville Sewell re-reading aloud his paper whythat he is right and everyone else is wrong about evolution and SLoT? (I'm not sure how to credit images here; it's from Zach Weiner at SMBC-Comics, linkie) ETA snark Edited by Ptaylor on April 29 2014,18:35 -------------- We no longer say: “Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.” We now say: “Another day since the time Darwinism was disproved.” -PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 28 2014,23:28    Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ April 28 2014,20:10) Mung brings teh stoopid.   Quote Mung April 28, 2014 at 6:54 pm If natural selection existed, children would not die of cancer. Children do die of cancer. Therefore natural selection does not exist. FFS. They're angry with evolution before even understanding it. -------------- "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

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: April 29 2014,02:32    Quote (CeilingCat @ April 27 2014,15:23) Paul Giem writes: � Quote I have seen some claim, with some plausibility, that LINE elements may have something to do with original sin. Mr. Giem is the author of Scientific Theology. Giem is an M.D., perhaps most famous for opining that Barbara Forrest could use some Haldol or something while complaining about incivility on the part of pro-science advocates. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 29 2014,02:38    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 29 2014,02:32) Quote (CeilingCat @ April 27 2014,15:23) Paul Giem writes: �   Quote I have seen some claim, with some plausibility, that LINE elements may have something to do with original sin. Mr. Giem is the author of Scientific Theology. Giem is an M.D., perhaps most famous for opining that Barbara Forrest could use some Haldol or something while complaining about incivility on the part of pro-science advocates. Better link to video: https://archive.org/details....0110416 -------------- "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

Soapy Sam Posts: 659 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: April 29 2014,06:08    Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ April 29 2014,02:10) Mung brings teh stoopid. � Quote Mung April 28, 2014 at 6:54 pm If natural selection existed, children would not die of cancer. Children do die of cancer. Therefore natural selection does not exist. If God existed ... -------------- SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 30 2014,21:21    Quote (Soapy Sam @ April 29 2014,14:08) Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ April 29 2014,02:10) Mung brings teh stoopid. �   Quote Mung April 28, 2014 at 6:54 pm If natural selection existed, children would not die of cancer. Children do die of cancer. Therefore natural selection does not exist. If God existed ... Yeah, for them children dying of cancer IS proof God exists. Its all the sinning not from themselves who are the most guilty of liars, schemers, scammers, flim flam artists and guilt peddlers but the children dying as the result of some sin committed elsewhere by someone who must be punished by their great fascist in the sky. If God really existed there wouldn't be any creationists. -------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 30 2014,21:43    Quote (Soapy Sam @ April 29 2014,05:08) Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ April 29 2014,02:10) Mung brings teh stoopid. �   Quote Mung April 28, 2014 at 6:54 pm If natural selection existed, children would not die of cancer. Children do die of cancer. Therefore natural selection does not exist. If God existed ... She'd have sued the authors of the Bible for libel by now? (Or do I mean slander?) Henry

tsig Posts: 339 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 01 2014,11:33    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 29 2014,02:32) Quote (CeilingCat @ April 27 2014,15:23) Paul Giem writes: �   Quote I have seen some claim, with some plausibility, that LINE elements may have something to do with original sin. Mr. Giem is the author of Scientific Theology. Giem is an M.D., perhaps most famous for opining that Barbara Forrest could use some Haldol or something while complaining about incivility on the part of pro-science advocates. Nothing like assuming what you're going to prove: The fact is that the existence of science argues strongly for an [33] ordering principle in the universe, which we may call God,and which we may at least partly comprehend. To argue otherwise is, quite frankly, absurd, and those who do so do not believe their own rhetoric. You don�t catch them fasting for prolonged periods in the belief that this time nature will not require food as usual, or chaining themselves to the ground in case they should no longer be attracted to the earth. I find the case against the existence of God very weak indeed. The first thing we can learn from nature is that the universe is orderly, and requires an ordering principle.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: May 01 2014,11:42    Quote (tsig @ May 01 2014,12:33) Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 29 2014,02:32) Quote (CeilingCat @ April 27 2014,15:23) Paul Giem writes: � � Quote I have seen some claim, with some plausibility, that LINE elements may have something to do with original sin. Mr. Giem is the author of Scientific Theology. Giem is an M.D., perhaps most famous for opining that Barbara Forrest could use some Haldol or something while complaining about incivility on the part of pro-science advocates. Nothing like assuming what you're going to prove: The fact is that the existence of science argues strongly for an [33] ordering principle in the universe, which we may call God,and which we may at least partly comprehend. To argue otherwise is, quite frankly, absurd, and those who do so do not believe their own rhetoric. You don�t catch them fasting for prolonged periods in the belief that this time nature will not require food as usual, or chaining themselves to the ground in case they should no longer be attracted to the earth. I find the case against the existence of God very weak indeed. The first thing we can learn from nature is that the universe is orderly, and requires an ordering principle. This is very nearly the weakest of all possible arguments for the existence of god(s). It also has a sting in its tail that theists are unlikely care for. We can logically deduce that the ordering principle is itself orderly, and thus requires an ordering principle for itself. The conditions under which an ordering principle can be applied are inherently orderly and thus require an ordering principle prior to the ordering principle being asserted in the theological claim. If they care to reject the applicability of the 'argument'  when directed towards their deity of choice, the identical grounds suffice for rejecting its applicability to the universe. Of course, there is no need to argue against the existence of god(s) until and unless a successful argument for their existence is produced.  Despite millennia of efforts, no such argument has been produced.

Glen Davidson Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 01 2014,13:00    Quote (tsig @ May 01 2014,11:33) Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 29 2014,02:32)   Quote (CeilingCat @ April 27 2014,15:23) Paul Giem writes: � �   Quote I have seen some claim, with some plausibility, that LINE elements may have something to do with original sin. Mr. Giem is the author of Scientific Theology. Giem is an M.D., perhaps most famous for opining that Barbara Forrest could use some Haldol or something while complaining about incivility on the part of pro-science advocates. Nothing like assuming what you're going to prove: The fact is that the existence of science argues strongly for an [33] ordering principle in the universe, which we may call God,and which we may at least partly comprehend. To argue otherwise is, quite frankly, absurd, and those who do so do not believe their own rhetoric. You don�t catch them fasting for prolonged periods in the belief that this time nature will not require food as usual, or chaining themselves to the ground in case they should no longer be attracted to the earth. I find the case against the existence of God very weak indeed. The first thing we can learn from nature is that the universe is orderly, and requires an ordering principle. I guess that explains why creationists rarely expect miracles, because clearly an ordering principle means no exceptions. Or wait, maybe it doesn't? No, I figured it out, if "laws of nature" hold, it's evidence for God, and if "laws of nature" do not hold and a miracle occurs, it's evidence for God. �Because only God can flout God's laws. �So, um, why aren't creationists chaining themselves to the ground, since they realize that God can flippantly ignore his own laws (like ordering genocides, nice stuff like that)? Oh those evilutionists, always illogical. Say, biology appears to be ordered as well. �Evolutionary, hereditary order, but order nonetheless. �So Jesus. �Ha ha. �You thought that order would need to be design order? �No, order is due to God. �Short step to theistic evolution (in case baby Jesus thinks the cosmos should actually make sense, rather than sending people to hell for thinking from cause to effect), but don't go there. Glen Davidson -------------- http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: May 01 2014,15:54    Quote (Glen Davidson @ May 01 2014,13:00) Quote (tsig @ May 01 2014,11:33)   Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 29 2014,02:32) � Quote (CeilingCat @ April 27 2014,15:23) Paul Giem writes: � � � Quote I have seen some claim, with some plausibility, that LINE elements may have something to do with original sin. Mr. Giem is the author of Scientific Theology. Giem is an M.D., perhaps most famous for opining that Barbara Forrest could use some Haldol or something while complaining about incivility on the part of pro-science advocates. Nothing like assuming what you're going to prove: The fact is that the existence of science argues strongly for an [33] ordering principle in the universe, which we may call God,and which we may at least partly comprehend. To argue otherwise is, quite frankly, absurd, and those who do so do not believe their own rhetoric. You don�t catch them fasting for prolonged periods in the belief that this time nature will not require food as usual, or chaining themselves to the ground in case they should no longer be attracted to the earth. I find the case against the existence of God very weak indeed. The first thing we can learn from nature is that the universe is orderly, and requires an ordering principle. I guess that explains why creationists rarely expect miracles, because clearly an ordering principle means no exceptions. Or wait, maybe it doesn't? No, I figured it out, if "laws of nature" hold, it's evidence for God, and if "laws of nature" do not hold and a miracle occurs, it's evidence for God. �Because only God can flout God's laws. �So, um, why aren't creationists chaining themselves to the ground, since they realize that God can flippantly ignore his own laws (like ordering genocides, nice stuff like that)? Oh those evilutionists, always illogical. Say, biology appears to be ordered as well. �Evolutionary, hereditary order, but order nonetheless. �So Jesus. �Ha ha. �You thought that order would need to be design order? �No, order is due to God. �Short step to theistic evolution (in case baby Jesus thinks the cosmos should actually make sense, rather than sending people to hell for thinking from cause to effect), but don't go there. Glen Davidson The ultimate front-loading. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Glen Davidson Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 01 2014,21:12    Quote Steve Meyer speaks up for Lynn Margulis Professional crank courtesy. Crank magnetism is alive and well.  Yay! Glen Davidson -------------- http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

timothya Posts: 280 Joined: April 2013 (Permalink) Posted: May 02 2014,05:50    News at UD has this to say: Quote The main problem is that the people who use Wikipedia do not care whether it is false or true. Since that is a claim of truth, a reasonable person might ask what evidence exists to support the claim. -------------- "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." Anatole France

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: May 02 2014,08:09    Quote (Glen Davidson @ May 01 2014,21:12) Quote Steve Meyer speaks up for Lynn Margulis Professional crank courtesy. Crank magnetism is alive and well. �Yay! Glen Davidson Guy commenting on my blog is all over this one. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 02 2014,11:05    Quote (Glen Davidson @ May 01 2014,22:12) Quote Steve Meyer speaks up for Lynn Margulis Professional crank courtesy. Crank magnetism is alive and well. �Yay! Glen Davidson Margulis is a great example of how tenacity is a double-edged sword. She aggressively fought the prevailing opinion for years on endosymbiosis, and was vindicated in the end. She aggressively fought against the HIV->AIDS link for years, and....

Glen Davidson Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 02 2014,18:08    Quote Would-be mass shooter idolized Columbine Darwin shooters Damned Darwin shooters. � The Columbine terrorists must have been IDiots or something, unless the author of that headline is an IDiot. Does creationism cause these people not only to think wretchedly about science, but also to write stupidly, or does it just attract the dimwitted? �That's probably the most important question in ID, I think. Glen Davidson -------------- http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 02 2014,18:34    Quote Does creationism cause these people not only to think wretchedly about science, but also to write stupidly, or does it just attract the dimwitted?  That's probably the most important question in ID, I think. Years ago I had a private email exchange with DaveTard (I had set up a yahoo email account under some UD dimwit's name), and he said "I don't know if Demski's math proves ID or not, but nature is obviously intelligently designed, so I don't care." I think a lot of people are a) scared of the consequences of darwinism b) full of cognitive biases and c) just can't make the mental leap of abstract thinking evolution requires.

Pages: (527) < ... 24 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 34 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard