RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (527) < ... 125 126 127 128 129 [130] 131 132 133 134 135 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 5, Return To Teh Dingbat Buffet< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2015,18:13   

since he lives in japan he can afford the shipping: they're taking it to his house via flatbed.

   
CeilingCat



Posts: 2363
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2015,22:49   

Quote (stevestory @ June 21 2015,18:10)
Quote
Is the Pope making the same mistake that the Church did in the Galileo controversy?


Pope Francis and science: Fast backward to dark ages?

Quote
4
vjtorleyJune 20, 2015 at 9:09 pm
Hi News. Thanks for reposting the very interesting commentary from City Journal. I’ll have more to say on the subject in my next two posts, which should be available within the next 24 hours.



presumably vjt would have replied sooner, but he was waiting on amazon to deliver his new keyboard. The springs in the last one failed from metal fatigue. His new one's a bespoke model made by the same division of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries that outfits Stephen King.

At 19 in that thread, Jerry makes a fine defense of Pope Urban in the Galileo affair.

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2363
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2015,22:57   

And in 20, Mapou does a fine job dissing Catholics.  Such as O'Leary.
 
Quote
Pope Francis should stop preaching to the world. The church of Rome has not had anything interesting to say in at least a millennium. Rather, the Pope should relegate his duties to preserve the Church’s heritage, architecture and history. The world is grateful for all those amazing cathedrals, monasteries and such. The Vatican itself is a beautiful place.

I say, turn them all into tourist attractions. Even the funny looking garbs that you wear in public can become tourist attractions. And, by all means, open the Vatican archives. All of them. Let the whole world see all the hideous but precious skeletons in every Vatican closet, even those dating back to the first few centuries of the Christian era. They, too, can become tourist attractions. 😀

I wonder if she's used the ban hammer yet.

  
KevinB



Posts: 525
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: June 22 2015,04:23   

Quote (CeilingCat @ June 21 2015,22:57)
And in 20, Mapou does a fine job dissing Catholics.  Such as O'Leary.
     
Quote
Pope Francis should stop preaching to the world. The church of Rome has not had anything interesting to say in at least a millennium. Rather, the Pope should relegate his duties to preserve the Church’s heritage, architecture and history. The world is grateful for all those amazing cathedrals, monasteries and such. The Vatican itself is a beautiful place.

I say, turn them all into tourist attractions. Even the funny looking garbs that you wear in public can become tourist attractions. And, by all means, open the Vatican archives. All of them. Let the whole world see all the hideous but precious skeletons in every Vatican closet, even those dating back to the first few centuries of the Christian era. They, too, can become tourist attractions. 😀

I wonder if she's used the ban hammer yet.

She's probably read the comment with the same attention to detail that she employs for the "News" items she posts about.

  
KevinB



Posts: 525
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: June 22 2015,04:24   

Quote (stevestory @ June 21 2015,18:13)
since he lives in japan he can afford the shipping: they're taking it to his house via flatbed.

Does Amazon Japan use futons rather than drones?

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 22 2015,09:44   

Quote (KevinB @ June 22 2015,12:24)
Quote (stevestory @ June 21 2015,18:13)
since he lives in japan he can afford the shipping: they're taking it to his house via flatbed.

Does Amazon Japan use futons rather than drones?

Haha that had me rolling on the tatami.

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 22 2015,14:50   

Denyse oh Newsy makes a sophisticated case for teaching the bible:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....omments

Quote
But the Bible makes no such claims for itself. What can the Bible tell us about electrons or amphibians that we would not more practically learn elsewhere?

The real problem with not teaching the Bible anywhere in publicly funded schools is that much of our cultural background is only comprehensible in the light of the Bible, as well as the history of our country(ies).

So we pay a lot of money to turn out illiterates, who morph into low information voters, and then we wonder why they seem so dumb and things go so badly.


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

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: June 22 2015,15:17   

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 22 2015,14:50)
Denyse oh Newsy makes a sophisticated case for teaching the bible:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....omments

Quote
But the Bible makes no such claims for itself. What can the Bible tell us about electrons or amphibians that we would not more practically learn elsewhere?

The real problem with not teaching the Bible anywhere in publicly funded schools is that much of our cultural background is only comprehensible in the light of the Bible, as well as the history of our country(ies).

So we pay a lot of money to turn out illiterates, who morph into low information voters, and then we wonder why they seem so dumb and things go so badly.

I assume that she is speaking about herself.

  
KevinB



Posts: 525
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: June 22 2015,16:05   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ June 22 2015,15:17)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 22 2015,14:50)
Denyse oh Newsy makes a sophisticated case for teaching the bible:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....omments

   
Quote
But the Bible makes no such claims for itself. What can the Bible tell us about electrons or amphibians that we would not more practically learn elsewhere?

The real problem with not teaching the Bible anywhere in publicly funded schools is that much of our cultural background is only comprehensible in the light of the Bible, as well as the history of our country(ies).

So we pay a lot of money to turn out illiterates, who morph into low information voters, and then we wonder why they seem so dumb and things go so badly.

I assume that she is speaking about herself.

It would be fun to save up the bit about morphing into "low information voters" and use it as an argument against Conservation of Information.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 22 2015,17:41   

it's funny when anyone working at UD sneers at anyone else for being low-information. It's like when one of the girls on Cathouse calls another one a 'whore'.

   
sparc



Posts: 2088
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2015,14:45   

Quote (Kattarina98 @ June 20 2015,02:30)
Quote (Learned Hand @ June 20 2015,04:31)
What's all this? I was told EVERY anniversary would be precious stones or metals!

By whom - your in-law?  :D



And now for something completely different: In before "Charleston killer is a Darwinist/product of atheism/materialism" by Banny Arrogant

It did take some time and Klinghoffer was faster but this doesn't make much of a difference. link

--------------
"[...] 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 -

   
KevinB



Posts: 525
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: June 24 2015,14:51   

Quote (sparc @ June 24 2015,14:45)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ June 20 2015,02:30)
Quote (Learned Hand @ June 20 2015,04:31)
What's all this? I was told EVERY anniversary would be precious stones or metals!

By whom - your in-law?  :D



And now for something completely different: In before "Charleston killer is a Darwinist/product of atheism/materialism" by Banny Arrogant

It did take some time and Klinghoffer was faster but this doesn't make much of a difference. link

Klinghoffer probably has a pro-forma article set up and just has to run it through Mailmerge.

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 25 2015,03:06   

Quote (KevinB @ June 24 2015,14:51)
Quote (sparc @ June 24 2015,14:45)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ June 20 2015,02:30)
 
Quote (Learned Hand @ June 20 2015,04:31)
What's all this? I was told EVERY anniversary would be precious stones or metals!

By whom - your in-law?  :D



And now for something completely different: In before "Charleston killer is a Darwinist/product of atheism/materialism" by Banny Arrogant

It did take some time and Klinghoffer was faster but this doesn't make much of a difference. link

Klinghoffer probably has a pro-forma article set up and just has to run it through Mailmerge.

This time he let the following sneak in:
Quote
Guilt by association is a nasty business. It's often very selective, too. It leaves things out that don't fit the desired narrative.


--------------
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)

   
KevinB



Posts: 525
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: June 25 2015,03:55   

Quote (Bob O'H @ June 25 2015,03:06)
Quote (KevinB @ June 24 2015,14:51)
Quote (sparc @ June 24 2015,14:45)
 
Quote (Kattarina98 @ June 20 2015,02:30)
 
Quote (Learned Hand @ June 20 2015,04:31)
What's all this? I was told EVERY anniversary would be precious stones or metals!

By whom - your in-law?  :D



And now for something completely different: In before "Charleston killer is a Darwinist/product of atheism/materialism" by Banny Arrogant

It did take some time and Klinghoffer was faster but this doesn't make much of a difference. link

Klinghoffer probably has a pro-forma article set up and just has to run it through Mailmerge.

This time he let the following sneak in:
Quote
Guilt by association is a nasty business. It's often very selective, too. It leaves things out that don't fit the desired narrative.

Well, he should know.

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 26 2015,00:38   




http://strangeherring.com/2011.......al-joke


Hey evangelical christian barry arrington, past president of the Rocky Mountain Family Council and the Colorado Coalition for Children and Families, what would 'jesus' say about your intolerance of "mewling brats [aka children] in expensive restaurants" and in churches? And are you thinking of murdering the parents of "mewling brats" in expensive restaurants and churches?

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

   
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 26 2015,03:15   

banny arrington, jesus's enforcer:

http://www.coloradoindependent.com/153733.....1324590

http://www.coloradoindependent.com/153706.....amp-jab


An internet search will turn up more on this situation, if you're interested.


ETA: In case any of you aren't aware of these:

http://extras.denverpost.com/news....29f.htm

http://www.westword.com/news....5054461


And from arrington's bankruptcy website:

Barry’s Personal Statement

I had the great good fortune of being raised in a Christian household, and I gave my heart to Christ at an early age. His gospel is the greatest message in the history of the world. The gospel message in its simplest form is that:

1. We are separated from God due to our disobedience of Him, which is also called “sin”;

2. Jesus is God’s son who came and died to pay the price for our sins,

3. And, if we accept the free gift of Jesus’ sacrifice, we can be reunited with God our Father. Once we accept this gift, we can be assured that life can have purpose and we can be assured of going to heaven to live with God. We enter into the relationship for which we were created.

I am now a Colorado Christian bankruptcy lawyer / attorney in Centennial, Littleton and Aurora, seeking excellence in all I do. To some, being a Christian might seem like having a divided mind, being passive or lacking focus. To me, it means having insight into how people think and behave, and having a standard of integrity far beyond what the world requires. While serving my clients, I am also serving God as a Christian lawyer / attorney.

Being a Christian gives me a standard of integrity far beyond what the world requires.

Christian Perspective on Bankruptcy in Centennial, Littleton and Aurora

My Christian perspective has particular relevance for my bankruptcy practice. Some of my Christian clients feel like they are doing something wrong by taking advantage of the protections of the Bankruptcy Code. But they needn’t feel that way, because our bankruptcy laws are based firmly on Biblical principles.

The Bible and the Forgiveness of Debt

Did you know that the Bible has a lot to say about the forgiveness of debt? Yes it does. For example, until recently under U.S. law a debtor could receive a discharge of debts in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy once every seven years (it is now eight years). That original seven year period is based on – you guessed it – the Bible: “At the end of every seven years you shall grant a release of debts. And this is the form of the release: Every creditor who has lent anything to his neighbor shall release it; he shall not require it of his neighbor or his brother, because it is called the LORD’s release” (Deuteronomy 15:1-2).

Debt is Bondage

The Bible also refers to debt as a type of bondage: “. . .the borrower is a slave to the lender” (Proverbs 22:7). Interestingly, the Bible declares: “. . . in the seventh year you shall let [your Hebrew slave] go free from you. And when you send him away free from you, you shall not let him go away empty-handed; but you shall supply him liberally from your flock…” (Deuteronomy 15:12-14).

Bankruptcy in Centennial, Littleton and Aurora Gives You a Fresh Start

Modern bankruptcy laws, like the Biblical provision above, allow debtors to keep certain property when they file bankruptcy. This gives debtors a fresh start and discourages debtors from going into debt-bondage again after the bankruptcy is over, in order to survive.

As a Christian bankruptcy lawyer in Centennial, Littleton and Aurora, Colorado, I have affiliated myself with a network of other believers through the Alliance Defending Freedom, where I have donated over 1,100 hours of my time primarily in the defense of religious liberty. I consider my Christian faith to be an asset in all I do as a Christian lawyer. Please feel free to call me if you would like to work with a Christian bankruptcy lawyer or feel like your values can best be protected by a Centennial, Littleton and Aurora Christian lawyer.

http://www.bankruptcylawyer4denver.com/bankrup....atement

Edited by The whole truth on June 26 2015,01:36

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

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: June 26 2015,11:38   

I had an argument with a kid who thought that debt slavery was OK based on the Bible. He never got it either.

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

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

   
Learned Hand



Posts: 214
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: June 26 2015,15:50   

Please remember that a lawyer should never be criticized for representing a loathsome client. The price of having 300 million neighbors is a judicial system that's too complicated for most people to navigate on their own; most of the time, you can't get justice in court without legal representation. And without an arbiter of objective morality (oh, the irony) it's unsafe to disincentivize lawyers from representing bad people.

If the fact of representation is sacrosanct, though, the quality of it is fair game. And that letter is bonkers. It's like Barry's UD persona took over in real life, and he chose to scratch his fighting itch rather than serve his clients' interests.

Lawyers represent their clients. Picking a pointless fight with influential politicians doesn't seem to do anything but hurt the school  he's supposedly representing. Picking (or exacerbating) a fight buys them trouble, focuses attention and criticism on them, and will make it more difficult for them to de-escalate later when it's time to go back about their business. It also aggrandizes Barry and lets him posture as a champion of the gay-hatin' little guy. In other words, the benefit is all Barry's and the cost is all the client's.

I used to work with a partner who was a vicious litigator. He took his clients hunting with him so they could literally see him with blood on his hands; he felt it set the right expectations. He's extremely talented--the kind of guy whose results earned a multimillion dollar book of business even in the great recession, despite his abrasive personality. I recall a case that had become pretty ugly, with a lot of ill-will on both sides among both clients and counsel. After we won a significant motion, one that embarrassed the other side in court a little bit, the local business press came around looking for a quote. He flatly refused to talk to them. He would have /loved/ to sling mud at the other side and rub their face in the issue, but I doubt he stopped to think about that for more than a second. It wasn't in the client's best interests, and that's what a good lawyer is there to serve.

Now having said all that, we don't know what the client in this case wants. It's possible they said, "Barry, write us a letter that makes us look like intemperate raging assholes!" And it's possible he responded, "Gentlemen, I recommend against it--it's uncharitable and unwise, and hardly the kind of behavior that would endear us to Christ and his saints. But if you demand it of me, I will sacrifice my gentler nature to your greater temporal authority." But I think what probably happened is a few intemperate and short-sighted people got together and egged each other on, with predictable results.

  
Learned Hand



Posts: 214
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: June 26 2015,15:57   

The personal statement about bankruptcy doesn't seem like a big deal to me. It's pompous and goofy, and the crowing about his own character is not only self-defeating but sharply at odds with his behavior, but those aren't such great sins.

An attorney who wants to reach out to a particular community needs to explain to them that he speaks their language and understands their particular issues. That's all he's really doing. It's basically an elaborate, puffed-up "se habla español."

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 26 2015,17:09   

Quote (Learned Hand @ June 26 2015,13:50)
Please remember that a lawyer should never be criticized for representing a loathsome client. The price of having 300 million neighbors is a judicial system that's too complicated for most people to navigate on their own; most of the time, you can't get justice in court without legal representation. And without an arbiter of objective morality (oh, the irony) it's unsafe to disincentivize lawyers from representing bad people.

If the fact of representation is sacrosanct, though, the quality of it is fair game. And that letter is bonkers. It's like Barry's UD persona took over in real life, and he chose to scratch his fighting itch rather than serve his clients' interests.

Lawyers represent their clients. Picking a pointless fight with influential politicians doesn't seem to do anything but hurt the school  he's supposedly representing. Picking (or exacerbating) a fight buys them trouble, focuses attention and criticism on them, and will make it more difficult for them to de-escalate later when it's time to go back about their business. It also aggrandizes Barry and lets him posture as a champion of the gay-hatin' little guy. In other words, the benefit is all Barry's and the cost is all the client's.

I used to work with a partner who was a vicious litigator. He took his clients hunting with him so they could literally see him with blood on his hands; he felt it set the right expectations. He's extremely talented--the kind of guy whose results earned a multimillion dollar book of business even in the great recession, despite his abrasive personality. I recall a case that had become pretty ugly, with a lot of ill-will on both sides among both clients and counsel. After we won a significant motion, one that embarrassed the other side in court a little bit, the local business press came around looking for a quote. He flatly refused to talk to them. He would have /loved/ to sling mud at the other side and rub their face in the issue, but I doubt he stopped to think about that for more than a second. It wasn't in the client's best interests, and that's what a good lawyer is there to serve.

Now having said all that, we don't know what the client in this case wants. It's possible they said, "Barry, write us a letter that makes us look like intemperate raging assholes!" And it's possible he responded, "Gentlemen, I recommend against it--it's uncharitable and unwise, and hardly the kind of behavior that would endear us to Christ and his saints. But if you demand it of me, I will sacrifice my gentler nature to your greater temporal authority." But I think what probably happened is a few intemperate and short-sighted people got together and egged each other on, with predictable results.

"Please remember that a lawyer should never be criticized for representing a loathsome client."

Well, no one can force a lawyer to represent a loathsome client in a civil case, and even an 'appointed' lawyer in a criminal case can get out of it if they really want to. And no one can force anyone to become a lawyer in the first place.

Aren't you curious about why arrington, out of all the lawyers available, is the lawyer in this particular case (regarding the gay student at a charter school)?

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

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 26 2015,19:59   

From http://extras.denverpost.com/news....29f.htm

Quote
References by parents and staff about the school being Christian-based led the district to suspect that the U.S. Constitution clause separating church and state is being violated.
Who could possibly suspect that of Dear Barry?

Quote
"I come to you as a humble man." Arrington told the board

That's about as likely as:
Mullings of Montserrat being brief and comprehensible
Gaulin actually explaining something (or being comprehensible)
Behe being up to date on the literature
O'Leary comprehending the science behind her news items
Dembski being the hero in a court case
etc.

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: June 26 2015,20:35   

Quote (N.Wells @ June 26 2015,19:59)
From http://extras.denverpost.com/news.......29f.htm

Quote
References by parents and staff about the school being Christian-based led the district to suspect that the U.S. Constitution clause separating church and state is being violated.
Who could possibly suspect that of Dear Barry?

Quote
"I come to you as a humble man." Arrington told the board

That's about as likely as:
Mullings of Montserrat being brief and comprehensible
Gaulin actually explaining something (or being comprehensible)
Behe being up to date on the literature
O'Leary comprehending the science behind her news items
Dembski being the hero in a court case
etc.

Or Joe not resorting to name calling

  
timothya



Posts: 280
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: June 26 2015,21:54   

Via UD:
   
Quote
An essential, falsifiable prediction of Darwinian theory, therefore, is that functional information must, on average, increase over time.

Eh? Why is it an "essential" prediction from evolutionary theory that the amount of information in a genome must increase.  I'm pretty sure it will change in makeup over time via drift, but why must it increase? And does anyone know of evolutionary theorists who think that it does?

Even the "therefore", which points to a previous paragraph doesn't support the statement as far as I can see - except in the trivial sense that early life probably had simpler genomes than any found today. But why is it necessary within any lineage for genome information quantity to increase (or decrease for that matter)?

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 26 2015,22:12   

I'd think that out of millions of species each evolving in its own way, it's probable that a few of them would increase the amount of detail in their genomes. And a few would decrease it. But to predict that a particular lineage would do one or the other? Or have a branch that does so? I certainly wouldn't know how to predict that.

  
BillB



Posts: 388
Joined: Aug. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2015,04:38   

Quote (The whole truth @ June 26 2015,23:09)
Quote (Learned Hand @ June 26 2015,13:50)
Please remember that a lawyer should never be criticized for representing a loathsome client. The price of having 300 million neighbors is a judicial system that's too complicated for most people to navigate on their own; most of the time, you can't get justice in court without legal representation. And without an arbiter of objective morality (oh, the irony) it's unsafe to disincentivize lawyers from representing bad people.

If the fact of representation is sacrosanct, though, the quality of it is fair game. And that letter is bonkers. It's like Barry's UD persona took over in real life, and he chose to scratch his fighting itch rather than serve his clients' interests.

Lawyers represent their clients. Picking a pointless fight with influential politicians doesn't seem to do anything but hurt the school  he's supposedly representing. Picking (or exacerbating) a fight buys them trouble, focuses attention and criticism on them, and will make it more difficult for them to de-escalate later when it's time to go back about their business. It also aggrandizes Barry and lets him posture as a champion of the gay-hatin' little guy. In other words, the benefit is all Barry's and the cost is all the client's.

I used to work with a partner who was a vicious litigator. He took his clients hunting with him so they could literally see him with blood on his hands; he felt it set the right expectations. He's extremely talented--the kind of guy whose results earned a multimillion dollar book of business even in the great recession, despite his abrasive personality. I recall a case that had become pretty ugly, with a lot of ill-will on both sides among both clients and counsel. After we won a significant motion, one that embarrassed the other side in court a little bit, the local business press came around looking for a quote. He flatly refused to talk to them. He would have /loved/ to sling mud at the other side and rub their face in the issue, but I doubt he stopped to think about that for more than a second. It wasn't in the client's best interests, and that's what a good lawyer is there to serve.

Now having said all that, we don't know what the client in this case wants. It's possible they said, "Barry, write us a letter that makes us look like intemperate raging assholes!" And it's possible he responded, "Gentlemen, I recommend against it--it's uncharitable and unwise, and hardly the kind of behavior that would endear us to Christ and his saints. But if you demand it of me, I will sacrifice my gentler nature to your greater temporal authority." But I think what probably happened is a few intemperate and short-sighted people got together and egged each other on, with predictable results.

"Please remember that a lawyer should never be criticized for representing a loathsome client."

Well, no one can force a lawyer to represent a loathsome client in a civil case, and even an 'appointed' lawyer in a criminal case can get out of it if they really want to. And no one can force anyone to become a lawyer in the first place.

Aren't you curious about why arrington, out of all the lawyers available, is the lawyer in this particular case (regarding the gay student at a charter school)?

I'm very glad that there are lawyers out there who will practice law without prejudice, particuarly these days where trial by media often occurs before trial by jury has even begun.

Not too long ago a significant majority of people might have regarded a gay client as 'loathsome' because of their sexuality. Some of them would have also condemned any lawyer representing such a person for not refusing to represent such a loathsome client.

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2015,04:07   

Quote (timothya @ June 26 2015,21:54)
Via UD:
     
Quote
An essential, falsifiable prediction of Darwinian theory, therefore, is that functional information must, on average, increase over time.

Eh? Why is it an "essential" prediction from evolutionary theory that the amount of information in a genome must increase.  I'm pretty sure it will change in makeup over time via drift, but why must it increase? And does anyone know of evolutionary theorists who think that it does?

Even the "therefore", which points to a previous paragraph doesn't support the statement as far as I can see - except in the trivial sense that early life probably had simpler genomes than any found today. But why is it necessary within any lineage for genome information quantity to increase (or decrease for that matter)?

That need to be read in context with the previous quoted paragraph:
 
Quote
   In the neo-Darwinian scenario for the origin and diversity of life, the digital functional information for life would have had to begin at zero, increase over time to eventually encode the first simple life form, and continue to increase via natural processes to encode the digital information for the full diversity of life.

So one would have to infer that functional information must, on average, have increased over time, but it doesn't say a lot about how the information is changing now.

It's difficult to see how one could falsify that 'prediction of Darwinian theory', without access to either ancient genomes or a functional definition of functional information. OTOH the weaker version of the 'prediction' is that there was a period of time when biological organisms became more complex (on average). I think the fossil record is pretty clear on that score.

--------------
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)

   
timothya



Posts: 280
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2015,05:56   

Quote (Bob O'H @ June 28 2015,04:07)
 
Quote (timothya @ June 26 2015,21:54)
Via UD:
         
Quote
An essential, falsifiable prediction of Darwinian theory, therefore, is that functional information must, on average, increase over time.

Eh? Why is it an "essential" prediction from evolutionary theory that the amount of information in a genome must increase.  I'm pretty sure it will change in makeup over time via drift, but why must it increase? And does anyone know of evolutionary theorists who think that it does?

Even the "therefore", which points to a previous paragraph doesn't support the statement as far as I can see - except in the trivial sense that early life probably had simpler genomes than any found today. But why is it necessary within any lineage for genome information quantity to increase (or decrease for that matter)?

That need to be read in context with the previous quoted paragraph:
   
Quote
   In the neo-Darwinian scenario for the origin and diversity of life, the digital functional information for life would have had to begin at zero, increase over time to eventually encode the first simple life form, and continue to increase via natural processes to encode the digital information for the full diversity of life.

So one would have to infer that functional information must, on average, have increased over time, but it doesn't say a lot about how the information is changing now.

It's difficult to see how one could falsify that 'prediction of Darwinian theory', without access to either ancient genomes or a functional definition of functional information. OTOH the weaker version of the 'prediction' is that there was a period of time when biological organisms became more complex (on average). I think the fossil record is pretty clear on that score.

The last sentence in my post might have been more coherently stated as:
"But why is it necessary that genome information quantity within any currently living lineage increase (or decrease for that matter)?

--------------
"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: June 28 2015,09:17   

Quote (sparc @ June 24 2015,14:45)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ June 20 2015,02:30)
Quote (Learned Hand @ June 20 2015,04:31)
What's all this? I was told EVERY anniversary would be precious stones or metals!

By whom - your in-law?  :D



And now for something completely different: In before "Charleston killer is a Darwinist/product of atheism/materialism" by Banny Arrogant

It did take some time and Klinghoffer was faster but this doesn't make much of a difference. link

Finally, O'Leary brought it up at UD.
link

--------------
"[...] 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 -

   
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2015,10:40   

Quote (sparc @ June 28 2015,09:17)
Quote (sparc @ June 24 2015,14:45)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ June 20 2015,02:30)
 
Quote (Learned Hand @ June 20 2015,04:31)
What's all this? I was told EVERY anniversary would be precious stones or metals!

By whom - your in-law?  :D



And now for something completely different: In before "Charleston killer is a Darwinist/product of atheism/materialism" by Banny Arrogant

It did take some time and Klinghoffer was faster but this doesn't make much of a difference. link

Finally, O'Leary brought it up at UD.
link

Dylann Roof doesn't sound "Darwinist," any more than Mein Kampf does.  Roof:

Quote
A horse and a donkey can breed and make a mule, but they are still two completely different animals. Just because we can breed with the other races doesnt make us the same.


If anything, that sounds rather creationist, "completely different animals."  What Roof thought about these things I don't know, and I suspect he knew about as much about evolution as Harris and Klebold did, but remarks like those aren't the spawn of either Darwin or of modern evolutionary thought.

Not that Klinghoffer or O'Leary would bother with truth.

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2015,13:32   

KF is getting *mauled* by REC at UD right now. That'll teach him to leave comments open.

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

  
  15792 replies since Dec. 29 2013,11:01 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (527) < ... 125 126 127 128 129 [130] 131 132 133 134 135 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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