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 4

Pages: (356) < ... 101 102 103 104 105 [106] 107 108 109 110 111 ... >

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2012,16:20    Quote (dvunkannon @ Feb. 16 2012,14:02) Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 16 2012,15:54) Quote Of course I understand that Barry wasn’t after a mathematical or physical answer to the question, but after a logical one. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-420680 Of course not. He was looking for an excuse to ban undesirables. Hence the fact that KF and ScottAndrews were not banned, even though they gave answers that were not the single word, No. When Barry Arrington's lips are not moving, is he still lying? Yes or no. KF had a disability waiver on using only one word to answer the question. The man has Tourette's Syndrome by proxy. (His verbal tics cause cursing in others.) First the purges, then the schisms.  Now they've carted off the heretics, how long before they turn on each other?   I predict at most a week or two before the first batch of creationists go up against the wall.  By the summer, we'll be down to Barry, Gordshite and Denyse, and by the end of the year they'll have banned each other. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

iconofid Posts: 32 Joined: July 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2012,16:21    Quote (eigenstate @ Feb. 16 2012,15:44)   Quote (iconofid @ Feb. 16 2012,15:16)     Quote (Ptaylor @ Feb. 14 2012,14:51) Barry's latest (emphasis added):               Quote The law of non-contradiction (“LNC”) states that for any proposition “A,” A cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same formal relation. The existence of the LNC is the very basis of all argumentation, and anyone who denies it also denies meaning, order, truth and logic. For obvious reasons, therefore, it is not only useless but also affirmatively harmful to the search for truth to argue with someone who refuses to admit unambiguously the LNC. Arguing with a person who denies the basis for argument is self-defeating and can lead only to confusion. Only a fool or a charlatan denies the LNC, and this site will not be a platform from which fools and charlatans will be allowed to spew their noxious inanities. For that reason, I am today announcing a new moderation policy at UD. At any time the moderator reserves the right to ask the following question to any person who would comment or continue to comment on this site: “Can the moon exist and not exist at the same time and in the same formal relation?” The answer to this question is either “yes” or “no.” If the person gives any answer other than the single word “no,” he or she will immediately be deemed not worth arguing with and therefore banned from this site. We will start with Petrushka to demonstrate the application of the policy. Petrushka, can the moon exist and not exist at the same time and in the same formal relation? My opinion: bizarre. I don't know if anyone has pointed this out yet because I'm replying to a post on page 98 of the thread, but Barry has just denied the existence of an omnipotent God. He has also effectively banned anyone who believes in such a God from defending its ability to make the moon simultaneously existent and non-existent. I'm banned from U.D., but had I been Petrushka, I'd have relished pointing this out. Ignoring the physics for a moment, the knife could be stuck in this way: "Only someone who believes in an omnipotent god could answer yes to that. And who believes in miracles these days?" I wonder if this has occurred to any of the god squad at U.D. Does anyone with a surviving sock want to make the point? Hi iconofid, Orthodox Christianity doesn't conceive of "omnipotent" in ways that allow self-contradictory propositions.  They just laugh, and with some warrant, when you ask if "God can create a rock so heavy he can't lift it", or "make a square circle". Even (especially) God is not potent in that way, because it's not a potency at all, but instead a conceptual error in the asking of the question. An omnipotent God would not be able to make a moon exist and not-exist at the same time, and in the same (classical, we must note) sense. That's a contradiction in terms, rather than an ability or a potency. "No be able" is a bit of a language trick we play on our selves there,  because "make a square circle" does not resolve against "able" or "unable". Is it a contradiction in a non-classical world?

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2012,16:40    A tautology is a form of deductive argument. "Survival of the fittest" is an oversimplified description of the theory; it isn't in itself part of a deductive argument. Therefore, it's not a tautology.

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2012,16:53    1.  species are not individuals and cannot be selected.  theories of multiple levels of selection, that operate on higher levels of organization than individuals (species selection) are merely the consequences of reproduction (birth/death) of individuals 2.  if you survive and do not reproduce then you still have zero fitness.  selection is the differential reproductive success of individuals of varying genotypes or phenotypes (or locus in the alternate formulation) Scott's discussion of species that survive are selected is a glimpse into essentialism.  For him, a species is a thing, an individual of sorts, and not the aggregate of breeding populations consisting of individuals ETA a friend says that most people think like creationists and don't know it.  I think he is right, the tendency to treat species as a class and to use species names as predicates is hard to purge.  children are taught to use this concept from an early age, and it is a useful way to view the world (i.e. generalizations made as if species were individuals remain robust along the temporal scales of our lives... poison ivy is poisonous, Boletus bicolor is tasty, red squirrels live in northern hardwood forests, etc...  but they are not fixed relations as required by essentialism) Edited by Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 16 2012,17:57 -------------- 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

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2012,17:00    that whole thread is fucking hilarious.  it's like these morons are living in 1911 -------------- 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

eigenstate Posts: 78 Joined: Nov. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2012,17:00    Quote (iconofid @ Feb. 16 2012,16:21)   Quote (eigenstate @ Feb. 16 2012,15:44) An omnipotent God would not be able to make a moon exist and not-exist at the same time, and in the same (classical, we must note) sense. That's a contradiction in terms, rather than an ability or a potency. "No be able" is a bit of a language trick we play on our selves there,  because "make a square circle" does not resolve against "able" or "unable". Is it a contradiction in a non-classical world? I don't think the formulation is such that you have established meaning for "contradiction" yet. I may be wrong, I think your two states "exist" and "non-exist" for God are not operationally defined and so, there isn't any clear semantics underwriting the term "contradiction" there. An example may be helpful. If, in an experiment, a supercooled membrane of some kind is set into superposition such that the membrane is simultaneously, "vibrating and not vibrating at the same time, and in the same sense", that is a contradiction only insofar as we can establish what "vibrating" and "not vibrating" mean, and tie both of those meanings to our observations. To the extent we can empirically identify both states (with the grounded meanings involved for "vibrating" and "not vibrating), at the same time, for the same membrane, you have at least an apparent contradiction, or a physical phenomenon that is not well modeled with the classical understanding of "vibrating" and "not vibration" being logical (exclusive) negations of each other. With God "existing and not-existing at the same time, and same sense", you're pretty much hosed from the get go. The existence of God is a non-starter -- what does that mean? It isn't amenable to descriptions in natural, observable characteristics like "vibrating membrane". As far as I can see, it's not meaningful at all, a term used all the time that conceptually signifies nothing. Until your terms you use as the predicate for any putative contradiction (or not) are more clearly defined, and grounded in meanings and concepts that can actually support one value negating the other, I think you just don't have anything to work with. "Not even true/false",  one might say.

Soapy Sam Posts: 659 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2012,17:30    Quote (eigenstate @ Feb. 16 2012,16:13) Maybe it helps to put it this way. The process, in principle, is non-tautological. But in practice, whatever survives we label as "most fit". In that sense, constrained to the dynamics of fitness as the outworking of differential survival via variable heritable traits, we do apply a tautology, or at least we say that whatever survived is the most fit. Well, we shouldn't label whatever survives as 'most fit', in principle or in practice. Even if we had a population of functionally identical entities (but could label the types), we would see differential survival, due to sampling alone. No individual need be inherently any fitter, nor any allele offer any boost to its bearers, for this differential to arise. Natural selection applies as a bias within this fundamental process - differential survival causally linked to the effects of alternative alleles upon mean fitness of carriers.     It remains possible that the least fit allele becomes fixed - if we ran a series of replicates, it would happen in fewer than 1/N of them (the neutral probability), but in the single replicates that we run in the 'real world', there is plenty of opportunity for fixation against the selective 'wind'. On the average and over the long run, populations adapt, because you can't buck the odds for ever - alleles contributing more to fitness will prevail. But any one individual just survived, and any gains made by a particular allele may likewise be uninformative about whether it was 'truly' beneficial to the individuals that bore it (ie it raised mean fitness relative to rivals). There are many who argue that neutrality should be the null hypothesis. -------------- 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

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2012,17:42    UD branches out: physics FAIL.  Shocking, I know. Quote 108 kuartus February 16, 2012 at 5:07 pm Virtual particles are just mathematical formalisms and do not need to be interpreted realistically. There is no physical evidence for them and indeed cant be any evidence for them. I think its safe to say thet dont exist at all. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

iconofid Posts: 32 Joined: July 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2012,18:13    Quote (eigenstate @ Feb. 16 2012,17:00)   Quote (iconofid @ Feb. 16 2012,16:21)       Quote (eigenstate @ Feb. 16 2012,15:44) An omnipotent God would not be able to make a moon exist and not-exist at the same time, and in the same (classical, we must note) sense. That's a contradiction in terms, rather than an ability or a potency. "No be able" is a bit of a language trick we play on our selves there,  because "make a square circle" does not resolve against "able" or "unable". Is it a contradiction in a non-classical world? I don't think the formulation is such that you have established meaning for "contradiction" yet. I may be wrong, I think your two states "exist" and "non-exist" for God are not operationally defined and so, there isn't any clear semantics underwriting the term "contradiction" there. An example may be helpful. If, in an experiment, a supercooled membrane of some kind is set into superposition such that the membrane is simultaneously, "vibrating and not vibrating at the same time, and in the same sense", that is a contradiction only insofar as we can establish what "vibrating" and "not vibrating" mean, and tie both of those meanings to our observations. To the extent we can empirically identify both states (with the grounded meanings involved for "vibrating" and "not vibrating), at the same time, for the same membrane, you have at least an apparent contradiction, or a physical phenomenon that is not well modeled with the classical understanding of "vibrating" and "not vibration" being logical (exclusive) negations of each other. With God "existing and not-existing at the same time, and same sense", you're pretty much hosed from the get go. The existence of God is a non-starter -- what does that mean? It isn't amenable to descriptions in natural, observable characteristics like "vibrating membrane". As far as I can see, it's not meaningful at all, a term used all the time that conceptually signifies nothing. Until your terms you use as the predicate for any putative contradiction (or not) are more clearly defined, and grounded in meanings and concepts that can actually support one value negating the other, I think you just don't have anything to work with. "Not even true/false",  one might say. We seem to have gone from god making the moon both exist and not exist at the same time, to god both existing and not existing at the same time (which is an interesting idea). I'm not suggesting that a god can exist myself, but looking at the suggestion that god could play around with the state of the moon from the POV of believers. Let's look at your analogy. Why, from the point of view of Christians, can't their god make the moon both vibrate and not vibrate at the same time? That would seem to be sufficient to drive our Barry crazy, because he would certainly see it as incompatible with the LNC. Can it be argued that there are laws that override god's choices about the nature of the physical world he has created? I certainly think it might be worth someone suggesting it on U.D. just to see what happens (I'm banned, as I mentioned above, and I see you've now joined the club - welcome).

keiths Posts: 2195 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2012,19:11    More sleazebaggery from Barry: Quote (David W. Gibson @ Feb 16, 2012 17:54) Quote I won’t even bother to address Gibson’s assertion that “language is so inherently ambiguous that it is all but impossible to convey meaning” other than to note that he conveyed that thought in, yes, language. It always astounds me that people who say things like that (1) don’t seem to recognize the irony of their statement; and (2) hypocritically insist on an unspoken exception for their statements. I was quite startled to discover this quote of my words in Barry’s post, since I never said it. And indeed, it would have been a stupid thing to say, since it’s not true. Certainly it’s not what I intended. So I actually went back to see what I had actually written. To my surprise, it’s still there. Here is what I actually wrote: Quote Part of this problem is the inherent ambiguity of language itself. Nearly every word in the language has multiple meanings, and most common words are encumbered with connotations, implications, and suggestions. I went on to give an example. I notice that 1) My point was completely misrepresented 2) My example is carefully omitted 3) Barry mocks me for something not said and not intended. No wonder he “won’t even bother to address” the false quote he attributes to me. And incidentally, I entirely agree with Barry’s dismissal of the claim he falsely attributes to me, and for the very reasons he gives. It’s basically for those reasons that I made no such claim. -------------- And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2012,19:31    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 16 2012,17:00) that whole thread is fucking hilarious.  it's like these morons are living in 1911 FIXED THAT FOR YOU!!! Quote it's like these morons are living in 1911 191 -------------- Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10 Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08 UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

noncarborundum Posts: 320 Joined: Jan. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2012,19:33    Quote (keiths @ Feb. 16 2012,19:11) More sleazebaggery from Barry:   Quote (David W. Gibson @ Feb 16, 2012 17:54)   Quote I won’t even bother to address Gibson’s assertion that “language is so inherently ambiguous that it is all but impossible to convey meaning” other than to note that he conveyed that thought in, yes, language. It always astounds me that people who say things like that (1) don’t seem to recognize the irony of their statement; and (2) hypocritically insist on an unspoken exception for their statements. I was quite startled to discover this quote of my words in Barry’s post, since I never said it. And indeed, it would have been a stupid thing to say, since it’s not true. Certainly it’s not what I intended. So I actually went back to see what I had actually written. To my surprise, it’s still there. Here is what I actually wrote:   Quote Part of this problem is the inherent ambiguity of language itself. Nearly every word in the language has multiple meanings, and most common words are encumbered with connotations, implications, and suggestions. I went on to give an example. I notice that 1) My point was completely misrepresented 2) My example is carefully omitted 3) Barry mocks me for something not said and not intended. No wonder he “won’t even bother to address” the false quote he attributes to me. And incidentally, I entirely agree with Barry’s dismissal of the claim he falsely attributes to me, and for the very reasons he gives. It’s basically for those reasons that I made no such claim. Unfortunately you were using language at the time you didn't make the claim, so Barry found it impossible to understand what you weren't saying.  This may be less a reflection on the inherent ability of language to convey meaning than on the inherent ability of Barry to discern it. -------------- "The . . . um . . . okay, I was genetically selected for blue eyes.  I know there are brown eyes, because I've observed them, but I can't do it.  Okay?  So . . . um . . . coz that's real genetic selection, not the nonsense Giberson and the others are talking about." - DO'L

keiths Posts: 2195 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2012,19:57    Quote (noncarborundum @ Feb. 16 2012,17:33) Quote (keiths @ Feb. 16 2012,19:11) More sleazebaggery from Barry: Quote (David W. Gibson @ Feb 16, 2012 17:54)   Quote I won’t even bother to address Gibson’s assertion that “language is so inherently ambiguous that it is all but impossible to convey meaning” other than to note that he conveyed that thought in, yes, language. It always astounds me that people who say things like that (1) don’t seem to recognize the irony of their statement; and (2) hypocritically insist on an unspoken exception for their statements. I was quite startled to discover this quote of my words in Barry’s post, since I never said it. And indeed, it would have been a stupid thing to say, since it’s not true. Certainly it’s not what I intended. So I actually went back to see what I had actually written. To my surprise, it’s still there. Here is what I actually wrote: Quote Part of this problem is the inherent ambiguity of language itself. Nearly every word in the language has multiple meanings, and most common words are encumbered with connotations, implications, and suggestions. I went on to give an example. I notice that 1) My point was completely misrepresented 2) My example is carefully omitted 3) Barry mocks me for something not said and not intended. No wonder he “won’t even bother to address” the false quote he attributes to me. And incidentally, I entirely agree with Barry’s dismissal of the claim he falsely attributes to me, and for the very reasons he gives. It’s basically for those reasons that I made no such claim. Unfortunately you were using language at the time you didn't make the claim, so Barry found it impossible to understand what you weren't saying.  This may be less a reflection on the inherent ability of language to convey meaning than on the inherent ability of Barry to discern it. For the record, David is not my sock.  I don't think he's one of us (yet), since he actually seems surprised by Barry's shitty, dishonest behavior. -------------- And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

noncarborundum Posts: 320 Joined: Jan. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2012,20:21    Quote (keiths @ Feb. 16 2012,19:57) Quote (noncarborundum @ Feb. 16 2012,17:33)   Quote (keiths @ Feb. 16 2012,19:11) More sleazebaggery from Barry:   Quote (David W. Gibson @ Feb 16, 2012 17:54)     Quote I won’t even bother to address Gibson’s assertion that “language is so inherently ambiguous that it is all but impossible to convey meaning” other than to note that he conveyed that thought in, yes, language. It always astounds me that people who say things like that (1) don’t seem to recognize the irony of their statement; and (2) hypocritically insist on an unspoken exception for their statements. I was quite startled to discover this quote of my words in Barry’s post, since I never said it. And indeed, it would have been a stupid thing to say, since it’s not true. Certainly it’s not what I intended. So I actually went back to see what I had actually written. To my surprise, it’s still there. Here is what I actually wrote:   Quote Part of this problem is the inherent ambiguity of language itself. Nearly every word in the language has multiple meanings, and most common words are encumbered with connotations, implications, and suggestions. I went on to give an example. I notice that 1) My point was completely misrepresented 2) My example is carefully omitted 3) Barry mocks me for something not said and not intended. No wonder he “won’t even bother to address” the false quote he attributes to me. And incidentally, I entirely agree with Barry’s dismissal of the claim he falsely attributes to me, and for the very reasons he gives. It’s basically for those reasons that I made no such claim. Unfortunately you were using language at the time you didn't make the claim, so Barry found it impossible to understand what you weren't saying.  This may be less a reflection on the inherent ability of language to convey meaning than on the inherent ability of Barry to discern it. For the record, David is not my sock.  I don't think he's one of us (yet), since he actually seems surprised by Barry's shitty, dishonest behavior. Sorry, I misunderstood.  Too much language. -------------- "The . . . um . . . okay, I was genetically selected for blue eyes.  I know there are brown eyes, because I've observed them, but I can't do it.  Okay?  So . . . um . . . coz that's real genetic selection, not the nonsense Giberson and the others are talking about." - DO'L

eigenstate Posts: 78 Joined: Nov. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2012,21:14    Quote (iconofid @ Feb. 16 2012,18:13) We seem to have gone from god making the moon both exist and not exist at the same time, to god both existing and not existing at the same time (which is an interesting idea). I'm not suggesting that a god can exist myself, but looking at the suggestion that god could play around with the state of the moon from the POV of believers. Let's look at your analogy. Why, from the point of view of Christians, can't their god make the moon both vibrate and not vibrate at the same time? That would seem to be sufficient to drive our Barry crazy, because he would certainly see it as incompatible with the LNC. Can it be argued that there are laws that override god's choices about the nature of the physical world he has created? I certainly think it might be worth someone suggesting it on U.D. just to see what happens (I'm banned, as I mentioned above, and I see you've now joined the club - welcome). I can see your point here. I guess I think that once you buy into the whole God thing, all the restraints are off in this area, anyway, and "contradiction" really doesn't pose much of an issue, because you are trafficking in a whole domain where everything is made, fabulous, and unattached to our real-world, objective experience. But even so, I see how your posing something like that would highlight difficulties with ideas about God's power. In terms of God playing around with human experience, well, again, anything goes, there. An omnipotent trickster God can mess with people's heads in all sorts of exotic ways. I just don't see any of that kind of exchange as a serious or thoughtful exercise. Not saying you don't have a point to be made in there, but I think if you are talking about God's existence, on their terms, the terms and concepts are all pretty much empty to begin with. As someone raised in a devout Christian home, and one in regular dialog about this kind of thing with the Christians I am surrounded by in my family, extended family and community, I will predict these kinds of challenges will fall on deaf ears. God is exempt from any of that, in any case. God's ways are mysterious, and the "mysteries" of ideas like the Trinity (as has been pointed out) are really not problems, just pointers to how much higher God is than we, etc.

keiths Posts: 2195 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2012,21:30    Quote (JohnW @ Feb. 16 2012,15:42) UD branches out: physics FAIL. Shocking, I know. Quote 108 kuartus February 16, 2012 at 5:07 pm Virtual particles are just mathematical formalisms and do not need to be interpreted realistically. There is no physical evidence for them and indeed cant be any evidence for them. I think its safe to say thet dont exist at all. Hours later, and none of the resident doofi have corrected kuartus. I guess you have to be a shameless reason denier in order to understand physics. -------------- And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

Dr.GH Posts: 2333 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2012,23:03    I have wondered why the Abrahamic god would bother to create a universe and then wipe-out the other gods, and then trifurcate, wrecking omniscience. My answer is Divine boredom, and is resolved by the RPG model of reality. The "holy spirit" is the operating system and the video engine, the "father" are programmers writing text and 'skins,' and the "son" is the player's game data base. There is an actual beginning and an end that are known to the "father" but which can be messed with by the "son" within the limits allowed by the "spirit." Got it. The Universe is just a game. -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2012,00:08    Quote (JohnW @ Feb. 16 2012,17:42) UD branches out: physics FAIL.  Shocking, I know.     Quote 108 kuartus February 16, 2012 at 5:07 pm Virtual particles are just mathematical formalisms and do not need to be interpreted realistically. There is no physical evidence for them and indeed cant be any evidence for them. I think its safe to say thet dont exist at all. kuartus, Doctor Casimir might disagree.  Ditto for those who have actually measured the attraction between two very closely spaced parallel plates caused by virtual particles that Doc C. predicted.

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2012,00:26    Quote (k.e.. @ Feb. 16 2012,06:08)   Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 16 2012,13:16) Link             Quote 89 dmullenix February 16, 2012 at 5:06 am Can the moon exist and not exist at the same time and in the same formal relation? Well, according to logic, the answer is “No.” But according to quantum mechanics the answer is, “If you can get all of the atoms of the moon to stop jostling each other for a moment, then it can.” Of course, that’s not good enough for Barry, but then Barry is the guy who once sued two political rivals for calling him a bully, thus proving conclusively that he IS a bully. http://www.westword.com/1997-0.....0.....2 I’ve been reading this blog since Dr. Dr. Dembski founded it, usually just lurking, occasionally commenting under my own name. I’ve had a lot of laughs, a very few good arguments (thank you vjtorley) and an awful lot of WTF? moments. But recently, under the leadership of Bully Arrington, I’ve mostly just been getting a sick-to-my-stomach feeling. This sick feeling really kicked into high gear last Friday when Bully gave us the absolutely best Friday Meltdown ever, except maybe for the time Dr. Dr. Dembski published the names, home addresses, home phone numbers and private email addresses of the entire Baylor Board of Directors. (Sorry, Barry, but not even you could top that one!) Anyhow, I’ve read enough and I will now leave you all to stew in your own juices. So Bully, the answer to your question is, “Yes.” I don't want to rain on muls ..er Ceilings Cats parade or anything but the whole point of Bullie's...erm point is, does Jupiter/teh Moon or God exist? .....plainly the answer is no.. you fuckers just don't get it. Jesus, I can still log in!  My last post disappeared, but this is what it was:   Quote dmullenix February 17, 9451 at 1:29 pm Bully, you flaming asshole, the answer is “Yes"! Now ban me, damn it! I'm feeling seriously unclean still being able to log in! By the way, I have no idea where that year and time came from.  It's 12:23 am CDT, 2012 right now.

Soapy Sam Posts: 659 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2012,03:20    Quote Jesus, I can still log in!  My last post disappeared, but this is what it was:         Quote dmullenix February 17, 9451 at 1:29 pm Bully, you flaming asshole, the answer is “Yes"! Now ban me, damn it! I'm feeling seriously unclean still being able to log in! By the way, I have no idea where that year and time came from.  It's 12:23 am CDT, 2012 right now. Ah yes. One can log in. One can even post comments. But they bounce against the teflon hull of Starship UD without so much as a tremor, let alone the occupants staggering from one side of the set to the other. The only evidence of bannination is that nothing has a "Reply" button any more. -------------- 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: Feb. 17 2012,03:32    Quote (JohnW @ Feb. 17 2012,01:42) UD branches out: physics FAIL.  Shocking, I know.   Quote 108 kuartus February 16, 2012 at 5:07 pm Virtual particles are just mathematical formalisms and do not need to be interpreted realistically. There is no physical evidence for them and indeed cant be any evidence for them. I think its safe to say thet dont exist at all. i miss teh old days of afdave and imaginary numbers...they don't exist they're imaginary...<snikker> -------------- "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

Soapy Sam Posts: 659 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2012,03:43    Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 16 2012,16:53) 1.  species are not individuals and cannot be selected.  theories of multiple levels of selection, that operate on higher levels of organization than individuals (species selection) are merely the consequences of reproduction (birth/death) of individuals 2.  if you survive and do not reproduce then you still have zero fitness.  selection is the differential reproductive success of individuals of varying genotypes or phenotypes (or locus in the alternate formulation) Scott's discussion of species that survive are selected is a glimpse into essentialism.  For him, a species is a thing, an individual of sorts, and not the aggregate of breeding populations consisting of individuals ETA a friend says that most people think like creationists and don't know it.  I think he is right, the tendency to treat species as a class and to use species names as predicates is hard to purge.  children are taught to use this concept from an early age, and it is a useful way to view the world (i.e. generalizations made as if species were individuals remain robust along the temporal scales of our lives... poison ivy is poisonous, Boletus bicolor is tasty, red squirrels live in northern hardwood forests, etc...  but they are not fixed relations as required by essentialism) Yes - looking from 'inside' particular avenues of generational gene flow, it's clear that many/most on the creationist side see themselves as looking from inside a bubble. They can see other bubbles, but in both the forward and backward directions, there exists some kind of terminus (the onus being upon the "evo" to prove that there is not). But evos reckon they are just sitting in a pipe, connected in the past to other pipes. 'Species' is just a temporal illusion due to the inability to see very far up or down the 'pipe'. But organisms looking for mates, and taxonomists looking to classify, do so at a moment in time, fixed enough for practical purposes. -------------- 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: Feb. 17 2012,04:15    Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 17 2012,07:03) I have wondered why the Abrahamic god would bother to create a universe and then wipe-out the other gods, and then trifurcate, wrecking omniscience. My answer is Divine boredom, and is resolved by the RPG model of reality. The "holy spirit" is the operating system and the video engine, the "father" are programmers writing text and 'skins,' and the "son" is the player's game data base. There is an actual beginning and an end that are known to the "father" but which can be messed with by the "son" within the limits allowed by the "spirit." Got it. The Universe is just a game. ...erm..didn't Abraham have 2 sons, Shem and Shaun? Abraham his realtionship with Noah and Adam and that tart Eve, it's all a literary construct. When prehistoric humans developed a way of counting and writing down who owned what and how much the king got, that tool became useful to the foreskin collectors. ...such as recording the various creation stories and why when your child  died for a small fee you could join them when your time came. Why did Adam's creator create his world? His daddy and his daddy and..so on, told him to. Jesus Fucking Christ if I was God I would just create a whole bunch of other gods for fun and a lot more goddesses for company and the best damn IPA beer known to man or god, any damn god... What do creationists give us? A pretty damn decent communal piss pot. -------------- "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

Bob O'H Posts: 2564 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2012,06:01    Quote What do creationists give us? A pretty damn decent communal piss pot. The Designer moves in mysterious ways. -------------- It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

Kattarina98 Posts: 1267 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2012,06:01    I'm seriously miffed: Bully Bannington waited for me to go away for one week to let you have all the fun. -------------- Barry Arrington is a bitch.

Zachriel Posts: 2723 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2012,06:04    Quote (keiths @ Feb. 16 2012,19:57) I don't think he's one of us (yet), since he actually seems surprised by Barry's shitty, dishonest behavior. He's surprised alright, though not by "shitty, dishonest behavior".  Quite the contrary. Quote (David W. Gibson @ Feb 16, 2012 17:54) So I actually went back to see what I had actually written. To my surprise, it’s still there. -------------- You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2012,06:09    Quote (Soapy Sam @ Feb. 17 2012,03:20)     Quote Jesus, I can still log in!  My last post disappeared, but this is what it was:               Quote dmullenix February 17, 9451 at 1:29 pm Bully, you flaming asshole, the answer is “Yes"! Now ban me, damn it! I'm feeling seriously unclean still being able to log in! By the way, I have no idea where that year and time came from.  It's 12:23 am CDT, 2012 right now. Ah yes. One can log in. One can even post comments. But they bounce against the teflon hull of Starship UD without so much as a tremor, let alone the occupants staggering from one side of the set to the other. The only evidence of bannination is that nothing has a "Reply" button any more. Well, that's a relief then.  Between that news and the three showers I took yesterday, I feel faintly clean again. I do have to admit though that the time I spent reading UD wasn't completely worthless.  Looking through my Kindle, I see that I've gotten some pretty good book tips from Uncommon Descent negative reviews: "The Atheist's Guide to Reality" by Alex Rosenberg "Nonsense of a High Order" by the Right Hip Rabbi M.Averick  * "A Univere from Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss "The Beginning of Infinity" by David Deutsch "The Better Angels of our Nature" by Steve Pinker (actually bought this one before reading about it on UD) And probably a few others in paperback.  A negative review by Denyse is the Gold Standard for science books. * I recommend this one to anybody who can steal a copy, but don't put money in his coffers.  Seriously, don't read it Joe G., you will suffer from priapism for the rest of your life, but you will never get off.  It's the ultimate ID book.  I think I posted the paragraph he wrote on the religious devotees who worship their god by shitting in front of his altar.  That is seriously how the Rabbi argues - and it's supposed to be a criticism of atheists! Typical line: "The burden of proof is not on me to prove an intelligent creator; that is blindingly obvious; the burden of proof is on those who claims that their is a naturalistic explanation." Sort of a combination of The Frill and Bully Arrington.

Zachriel Posts: 2723 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2012,06:34    Quote Eric Anderson: Darwin’s whole idea of slight successive changes leading to fitness and survival is really between a logical rock and a hard spot. The idea is that the changes are extremely slight, almost imperceptible at times (Darwin referred to the “slightest differences of structure or constitution”). And yet, at the very same time, the changes have to be large enough to actually confer a survival advantage that is significant enough to statistically overcome all the other vagaries of the species and its environment in order to become fixed in the population. We’re talking real survival advantages here, not minor fluctuations and variations that are typical in a population. Eric, see that pimple on your nose? That's all that stands between you and the girl. You don't have to be the prettiest boy on campus, just prettier than your competition. - Cue Einstein Bohr story: Niels Bohr and Albert Einsten were taking a walk in the woods, vigorously debating the philosophical underpinnings of quantum theory, when a gigantic bear suddenly burst out of the underbrush and raced toward them. Bohr immediately whipped out his fine running shoes and began lacing them up. Einstein, furrowing his brow at Bohr, said: "Niels, there's no way you can outrun that bear." "That's true, my dear Albert" Bohr calmly replied, "but I don't need to outrun the bear. I only need to outrun you." -------------- You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

Zachriel Posts: 2723 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2012,06:40    Quote ScottAndrews2: Look at any just-so narrative – the mammalian ear, for example. It pays lip service to natural selection by reminding us that the variation between one fossil and the next would have been beneficial and therefore was selected, which is tautological because every living thing ever observed is comprised almost entirely of features which are beneficial for it. But in reality they sidestep and thereby assume natural selection by ignoring it on the level at which it is supposed to actually operate, selection of genes, as opposed to visible changes from one fossil to the next which consist of an unknown number of unknown genetic differences. We can demonstrate that each step provides an incremental improvement in hearing. In other words, natural selection is relative reproductive success *due to* an adaptation. Edited by Zachriel on Feb. 17 2012,06:42 -------------- You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2012,06:51    Their blind spot is due to being unable to accept the fact that the variation that gave the advantage was produced blindly. My own metaphor is the blind watchmaker who  can feel. He cannot see further than he can feel, but he can still explore the vicinity. Liz added the concept of plant intelligence. Plants cannot walk, but they can send out runners and seeds which land nearby. Evolution proceeds by testing the nearby vicinity. It is wasteful because it must try many things to find one improvement. Many changes are just sideways steps, offering no great improvement, but they change the location. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Pages: (356) < ... 101 102 103 104 105 [106] 107 108 109 110 111 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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