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) < ... 75 76 77 78 79 [80] 81 82 83 84 85 ... >

The whole truth Posts: 1554 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 23 2014,19:21    Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 23 2014,06:09) Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 22 2014,15:48) Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 22 2014,13:40) I've heard that there's 10 types of people - those that understand binary, and those who don't. There are two types of people: everyone else, and Joe. Not joey. -------------- Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

timothya Posts: 280 Joined: April 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 23 2014,23:18    BA77 argues for the efficacy of prayer:   Quote The first question that needs to be asked in answering this question is, “Is reality ‘set up’ for prayer to possibly be effective?”. In other words, is reality structured in such a way that we may expect prayer might be effective? The answer to that question is yes. Reality, far from being materialistic in its basis as the atheist imagines it to be, is actually found to be information theoretic in its basis. And since prayer is basically just a ‘communication of information’, then that means effective prayer is indeed possible as far as the structure of reality itself is concerned. Say what? Is communication with no feedback effective in "structuring reality"? Where does this bafflepoop come from? The solipsism, it burns! -------------- "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

sparc Posts: 2088 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 24 2014,00:46    Quote (timothya @ Dec. 23 2014,23:18) BA77 argues for the efficacy of prayer:   Quote The first question that needs to be asked in answering this question is, “Is reality ‘set up’ for prayer to possibly be effective?”. In other words, is reality structured in such a way that we may expect prayer might be effective? The answer to that question is yes. Reality, far from being materialistic in its basis as the atheist imagines it to be, is actually found to be information theoretic in its basis. And since prayer is basically just a ‘communication of information’, then that means effective prayer is indeed possible as far as the structure of reality itself is concerned. Say what? Is communication with no feedback effective in "structuring reality"? Where does this bafflepoop come from? The solipsism, it burns! Which deity do we have to pray to to stop BA77 from bullshit carpet bombing? -------------- "[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God." - William Dembski -

paragwinn Posts: 539 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 24 2014,12:46    Quote (timothya @ Dec. 23 2014,21:18) BA77 argues for the efficacy of prayer:     Quote The first question that needs to be asked in answering this question is, “Is reality ‘set up’ for prayer to possibly be effective?”. In other words, is reality structured in such a way that we may expect prayer might be effective? The answer to that question is yes. Reality, far from being materialistic in its basis as the atheist imagines it to be, is actually found to be information theoretic in its basis. And since prayer is basically just a ‘communication of information’, then that means effective prayer is indeed possible as far as the structure of reality itself is concerned. Say what? Is communication with no feedback effective in "structuring reality"? Where does this bafflepoop come from? The solipsism, it burns! That explains why I just saw some beggars riding horses! Now if I could just have a big hot fudge sundae....HOLY CRAP! -------------- All women build up a resistance [to male condescension]. Apparently, ID did not predict that. -Kristine 4-19-11 F/Ns to F/Ns to F/Ns etc. The whole thing is F/N ridiculous -Seversky on KF footnote fetish 8-20-11 Sigh. Really Bill? - Barry Arrington

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 24 2014,13:58    Quote "Actually the fact is I have proven that his one-to-one correspondence is contrived,rather than derived, with respect to infinite sets in which one set is a proper subset of the other. That means his one-to-one correspondence is not what it appears as obviously there isn’t one and only one match between the two sets." i had a physics class where every test featured a bonus section: a claim from an alt-energy whacko, and points for explaining what was wrong. If i were teaching basic set theory I'd do the same with this bit from Joe. linky

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 24 2014,14:01    Quote 8 MapouDecember 20, 2014 at 12:53 pm If you believe in infinity, you are a crackpot. Sorry. and yet, somehow, calculus still works. Funny, that. linky that thread is a goldmine.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 24 2014,14:05    mapou delivers the most UD comment perhaps of all time: Quote Mathematicians can kiss my asteroid because they have a lame pony in this race. They’re already on the record for claiming that infinity exists and they will look bad if the opposite is shown to be true. Mathematicians are political/religious animals just like Darwinists, therefore they are not to be trusted. My peers are the public. If a concept cannot be explained in simple terms that the average intelligent layperson can understand, it’s crap, IMO. linky

paragwinn Posts: 539 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 24 2014,14:15    Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 24 2014,12:01)   Quote 8 MapouDecember 20, 2014 at 12:53 pm If you believe in infinity, you are a crackpot. Sorry. and yet, somehow, calculus still works. Funny, that. linky that thread is a goldmine. on top of a platinum mine, a uranium mine, and all the gemstones you could want. -------------- All women build up a resistance [to male condescension]. Apparently, ID did not predict that. -Kristine 4-19-11 F/Ns to F/Ns to F/Ns etc. The whole thing is F/N ridiculous -Seversky on KF footnote fetish 8-20-11 Sigh. Really Bill? - Barry Arrington

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 24 2014,14:29    i just read that entire thread. what's that old saying about wrestling pigs?

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 24 2014,15:33    Quote If i were teaching basic set theory I'd do the same with this bit from Joe. Should be simply enough for somebody that read a book about transfinite set theory several years ago. Of course the one-to-one correspondence doesn't have to be the same correspondence; the theorem in question is asserting existence, not uniqueness. As for "existence" of infinite quantities: in the sense of physical existence, real numbers don't "exist", either (or even integers for that matter). Let alone imaginary, or worse, irredicibly complex numbers. Some years ago, I saw an "argument" against existence of infinity that went something like this: "an infinite universe would exhibit a property that is inconsistent with what's expected of something that is finite. Therefore infinity can't exist". (Or more specifically, what he said was equivalent to "an infinite universe would have the same cardinality (i.e., size), as some proper subsets of itself" - the very property that mathematicians use to define infinity.) Henry

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 24 2014,22:59    Quote (sparc @ Dec. 24 2014,00:46)   Quote (timothya @ Dec. 23 2014,23:18) BA77 argues for the efficacy of prayer:       Quote The first question that needs to be asked in answering this question is, “Is reality ‘set up’ for prayer to possibly be effective?”. In other words, is reality structured in such a way that we may expect prayer might be effective? The answer to that question is yes. Reality, far from being materialistic in its basis as the atheist imagines it to be, is actually found to be information theoretic in its basis. And since prayer is basically just a ‘communication of information’, then that means effective prayer is indeed possible as far as the structure of reality itself is concerned. Say what? Is communication with no feedback effective in "structuring reality"? Where does this bafflepoop come from? The solipsism, it burns! Which deity do we have to pray to to stop BA77 from bullshit carpet bombing? Any god will do.  They're all equally effective.

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 24 2014,23:16    Mapou vies for the Nobel "Most Modest Man in the World" prize: Somebody in the thread:         Quote To claim that Euclid, Newton, and Einstein were engaging in “crackpottery”, as Mapou does, is not supportable. Mapou:         Quote They were all crackpots in the things they did not understand. Pathetic crackpots, in fact. I revere only the truth, not some mortal beings who are long dead and buried. If they were so hot and mighty, where are they? Humans die but the truth remains. Link

Bob O'H Posts: 2564 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 25 2014,03:36    I think this is a mathematical ad hominem argument from phoodoo. Not often you see that Quote Me_thinks, You claim that philosophy is useless, and yet you have no counter to my argument about how using Cantors method for pairing objects in two infinite sets is completely arbitrary and therefore solves nothing. Once I change the names of different kinds of numbers (rational, real, whole, integers, etc…) to one name, which includes any kind of number, Cantors arguments becomes meaningless. If I no longer have names for all the different kinds of numbers, then one infinite set simply contains varying numbers, and another infinite set also contains varying numbers. I have no reason to say one set is bigger than another, if I have no separate names for different types of numbers, they are all just numbers. Why would I use his method of bijection, if the names for numbers is just numbers, rather than some man made category for different kinds( There are lots of other ways of categorizing numbers if I insisted on giving them the name one wants, why didn’t he match numbers with zeros to numbers without zeros, its just as arbitrary). Cantor’s argument thus fails. Philosophy beats math. You, and Zacheriel, and Jerad have no defense for that. -------------- 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)

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 25 2014,08:16    Quote (CeilingCat @ Dec. 25 2014,07:16) Mapou vies for the Nobel "Most Modest Man in the World" prize: Somebody in the thread:         Quote To claim that Euclid, Newton, and Einstein were engaging in “crackpottery”, as Mapou does, is not supportable. Mapou:           Quote They were all crackpots in the things they did not understand. Pathetic crackpots, in fact. I revere only the truth, not some mortal beings who are long dead and buried. If they were so hot and mighty, where are they? Humans die but the truth remains. Link At the risk of stating 'look what the ceiling' dragged in, I must say that if mapou said that then the rational world has nothing to be worried about. Other than the usual suspects such as fundies burning offerings not themselves unfortunately. In that poor bastards case nothing is available for a quick and immediate cure unless you count preemptive mortality. I hope he meets his maker at the earliest opportunity. -------------- "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

timothya Posts: 280 Joined: April 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 25 2014,12:10    From UD comes the official line on how to conduct yourself in a democracy. How foolish of me. I always thought you used argument to try to build a majority. -------------- "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

Quack Posts: 1961 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 26 2014,05:16    Quote (Bob O'H @ Dec. 25 2014,03:36) I think this is a mathematical ad hominem argument from phoodoo. Not often you see that     Quote Me_thinks, You claim that philosophy is useless, and yet you have no counter to my argument about how using Cantors method for pairing objects in two infinite sets is completely arbitrary and therefore solves nothing. Once I change the names of different kinds of numbers (rational, real, whole, integers, etc…) to one name, which includes any kind of number, Cantors arguments becomes meaningless. If I no longer have names for all the different kinds of numbers, then one infinite set simply contains varying numbers, and another infinite set also contains varying numbers. I have no reason to say one set is bigger than another, if I have no separate names for different types of numbers, they are all just numbers. Why would I use his method of bijection, if the names for numbers is just numbers, rather than some man made category for different kinds( There are lots of other ways of categorizing numbers if I insisted on giving them the name one wants, why didn’t he match numbers with zeros to numbers without zeros, its just as arbitrary). Cantor’s argument thus fails. Philosophy beats math. You, and Zacheriel, and Jerad have no defense for that. Life is wondeful. You don't even have to know more than the My Dear Aunt Sally formula (it's been helpful to me) to recognize crap when you smell it. -------------- Rocks have no biology.               Robert Byers.

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 26 2014,10:57    There's a whole lot of A<>A going on over there. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 26 2014,11:47    Quote (timothya @ Dec. 25 2014,13:10) From UD comes the official line on how to conduct yourself in a democracy. How foolish of me. I always thought you used argument to try to build a majority. Quote Truth Rests With the Minority December 25, 2014 Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design 10 Comments    Truth always rests with the minority, and the minority is always stronger than the majority, because the minority is generally formed by those who really have an opinion, while the strength of a majority is illusory, formed by the gangs who have no opinion — and who, therefore, in the next instant (when it is evident that the minority is the stronger) assume its opinion… while truth again reverts to a new minority. Soren Kierkegaard, The Diary of Soren Kierkegaard, pt. 5, sct. 3, no 128 (1850) Quote 1 SeverskyDecember 25, 2014 at 11:40 am So, by Kierkegaard’s argument, in the US truth rests with atheists since they are a minority according to the polls? suck it barry.

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 26 2014,12:44    Hmm. I suppose there will sometimes be cases where a minority has a more accurate assessment of something that the majority at that point in time. BUT. That doesn't mean that any particular minority has "the truth". Especially not one that's been thoroughly refuted over and over again.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 26 2014,13:08    it's just barry being A Idiot. Like dense with her "If you have to write a book called 'why ____ matters' then it doesn't". they're too dumb to check things out before it blows up in they face.

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2014,01:18    Barry has never forgiven the majority of voters for not electing him.

Quack Posts: 1961 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2014,01:58    The example of Fred Hoyle and his opinion about Archeopteryx properly demonstrate that it isn't enough to be of a minority opinion; you need to be right as well. But right or wrong is not a issue to creationists, what counts is to be in opposition to science in general and evolution in particular. Being wrong as a YEC is "fair trade", being wrong as an ID-ist believing in the chimera created by Phillip Johnson, Dembski and Behe represent loss of intellectual integrity. -------------- Rocks have no biology.               Robert Byers.

Driver Posts: 649 Joined: June 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2014,06:40    The 'Is Zero Even' thread continues to be great fun. Joe, Mapou, and phoodoo doing a great three stooges act. This especially made me laugh, from Mapou: Quote Someone should defecate on Cantor's grave -------------- Why would I concern myself with evidence, when IMO "evidence" is only the mind arranging thought and matter to support what one already wishes to believe? - William J Murray [A]t this time a forum like this one is nothing less than a national security risk. - Gary Gaulin

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2014,07:24    Quote (Driver @ Dec. 27 2014,14:40) The 'Is Zero Even' thread continues to be great fun. Joe, Mapou, and phoodoo doing a great three stooges act. This especially made me laugh, from Mapou: Quote Someone should defecate on Cantor's grave He wouldn't be a Calvinist by any chance? -------------- "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

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2014,07:59    Quote (CeilingCat @ Dec. 27 2014,02:18) Barry has never forgiven the majority of voters for not electing him. Got to give him points for a kind of consistency: ID:Science::Michele Bachmann:Presidential Candidates.

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2014,11:01    Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 24 2014,14:05) mapou delivers the most UD comment perhaps of all time: Quote Mathematicians can kiss my asteroid because they have a lame pony in this race. They’re already on the record for claiming that infinity exists and they will look bad if the opposite is shown to be true. Mathematicians are political/religious animals just like Darwinists, therefore they are not to be trusted. My peers are the public. If a concept cannot be explained in simple terms that the average intelligent layperson can understand, it’s crap, IMO. linky I wonder if they have asked Dr. Dr. Dembski (isn't one of his degrees in math?) about any of this. Seems funny that they are arguing against an entire class of scholar... the group of which seems to provide an above average number of the ID proponents. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Zachriel Posts: 2723 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2014,12:03    Quote (CeilingCat @ Dec. 24 2014,23:16) Mapou vies for the Nobel "Most Modest Man in the World" prize: Somebody in the thread:               Quote To claim that Euclid, Newton, and Einstein were engaging in “crackpottery”, as Mapou does, is not supportable. Zachriel breaks out into song!   Quote Ode to Tard Some say the tard today is not The treasured tard of yesteryears, That the golden age of tard is past, Like the music of the spheres. But tard lives on. And on. And on. Tis the fancy of the dim, The hope and light of ignorance, The eternal tardilicious hymn. Aye! Unwitting, you think that tard is dead, And yet it festers by and by. Then out it bounds from fools and knaves, So the tard will never never die. Along with those other crackpots; Euclid, Newton, and Einstein; please add Hilbert. Com'on guys! We've hit a main vein!" -------------- You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

sparc Posts: 2088 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2014,12:46    Quote (Quack @ Dec. 27 2014,01:58) The example of Fred Hoyle and his opinion about Archeopteryx properly demonstrate that it isn't enough to be of a minority opinion; you need to be right as well. But right or wrong is not a issue to creationists, what counts is to be in opposition to science in general and evolution in particular. Being wrong as a YEC is "fair trade", being wrong as an ID-ist believing in the chimera created by Phillip Johnson, Dembski and Behe represent loss of intellectual integrity. Talking about Archeopteryx. I am quite happy that I had the chance to see the original at the Museum für Naturkunde Berlin during my summer holidays: (sorry for the bad quality) -------------- "[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God." - William Dembski -

Zachriel Posts: 2723 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2014,14:30    Quote (sparc @ Dec. 27 2014,12:46) Quote (Quack @ Dec. 27 2014,01:58) The example of Fred Hoyle and his opinion about Archeopteryx properly demonstrate that it isn't enough to be of a minority opinion; you need to be right as well. But right or wrong is not a issue to creationists, what counts is to be in opposition to science in general and evolution in particular. Being wrong as a YEC is "fair trade", being wrong as an ID-ist believing in the chimera created by Phillip Johnson, Dembski and Behe represent loss of intellectual integrity. Talking about Archeopteryx. I am quite happy that I had the chance to see the original at the Museum für Naturkunde Berlin during my summer holidays: (sorry for the bad quality) Very cool. -------------- You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2014,05:28    Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 27 2014,20:03) Quote (CeilingCat @ Dec. 24 2014,23:16) Mapou vies for the Nobel "Most Modest Man in the World" prize: Somebody in the thread:                 Quote To claim that Euclid, Newton, and Einstein were engaging in “crackpottery”, as Mapou does, is not supportable. Zachriel breaks out into song!   Quote Ode to Tard Some say the tard today is not The treasured tard of yesteryears, That the golden age of tard is past, Like the music of the spheres. But tard lives on. And on. And on. Tis the fancy of the dim, The hope and light of ignorance, The eternal tardilicious hymn. Aye! Unwitting, you think that tard is dead, And yet it festers by and by. Then out it bounds from fools and knaves, So the tard will never never die. Along with those other crackpots; Euclid, Newton, and Einstein; please add Hilbert. Com'on guys! We've hit a main vein!" Drain.....moar like. I waded through a short stretch looking for the Hilbert ( who has to be one of the pure geniuses of the last century) reference and the stench was overwhelming. It's like a kindergarten where every kid is pushing to the front to show you their afternoon crayon masterpiece. Do their moms know they have a computer? -------------- "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

Pages: (527) < ... 75 76 77 78 79 [80] 81 82 83 84 85 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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