RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (527) < ... 138 139 140 141 142 [143] 144 145 146 147 148 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 5, Return To Teh Dingbat Buffet< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Kantian Naturalist



Posts: 72
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2015,15:20   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Aug. 19 2015,17:11)
Possibly the stupidest thing that. Barry has ever said.

 
Quote
The self-evident is untestable.


But I have faith that he will shortly say something even more stupid.

It's not stupid; it's a tautology. As such it is completely true, though (unfortunately for Arrington) trivially true and thus quite uninteresting.

The more interesting question, I think, is whether there is anything that is really "self-evident". Arrington, StephenB, and Kairosfocus have gone to extraordinary lengths to argue that there are some "self-evident truths".  But all of their efforts come to naught in light of the following ambiguity:

(1) Is X a 'self-evident truth' because one does not engage in any process of reasoning to arrive at it? (Call this "non-inferential knowledge".)

or

(2) Is X a 'self-evident truth' because one does not require any other knowledge of any kind in order to know that X is a self-evident truth?  (Call this "presuppositionless knowledge".)

They give plenty of fine examples of non-inferential knowledge, but unless they can make explicit the inference from non-inferential to presuppositionless, none of their examples of non-inferential knowledge entail that there is any presuppositionless knowledge.  

Needless to say, one tires of pointing this out to them.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2015,18:02   

Can someone fire up a sock called "AllScienceSoFar" and critique the science content of each post on the the well know science blog 'Uncommon Descent' that is not religious at all?

--------------
"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: Aug. 26 2015,00:27   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 25 2015,18:02)
Can someone fire up a sock called "AllScienceSoFar" and critique the science content of each post on the the well know science blog 'Uncommon Descent' that is not religious at all?

It will require no effort.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2015,08:09   

This is a math problem for Joe. Can one critique a null set of propositions?

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2015,10:45   

Critique a null set? Sets have members, so a thing with no members is not a set!!1111!!!!eleven!!!!!

(Wait, did I forget to misspell something?)

  
franky172



Posts: 160
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2015,11:32   

Popperian brings up that God used to command all sorts of evil things.  Barry, in his infinite wisdom responds with a link to Reasonable Faith which includes a long discussion about  divine command morality, which, amongst other things, basically says "whatever god says to do is objectively right" - so Barry, when God said "how blessed will be the one who bashes your babies against the rock", was that objectively a morally good thing to do?

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2015,12:41   

I'm so tempted to write a post comparing the "scientific nature" of ID with the post frequency of religion, but it'd just be petty.

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

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

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2015,15:47   

Quote
25
AxelAugust 26, 2015 at 9:41 am
‘But in what way do humans have “intrinsic value” under Christianity but not under materialism?’

gun: The touchstone of all truth, of all reality, is God, the Creator and Sustainer of the universe. What He says, goes. You see everything as intrinsically-homogeneous agglomerations of atoms in flux, He sees what they constitute: a living shell/’tent’ for his Spirit to enliven, together with all the rest of his Creation.

To believe that we and, indeed, the whole of Creation, are not intelligently designed, even without the benefit of the physicists’ latest findings, has always been a preposterous notion to the vast majority of mankind, surely, inconceivable, from the time we first start trying to make sense of the world, as babies. What would be the sense in it – yet it is perhaps driven by our most primordial instinct, which eventually settles into common sense. We don’t think, ‘Oh I must think; our autonomic intelligence takes charge without conscious prompting. A bit of a digression there. Sorry about that.

By divine election we are his children, good and bad, each of us, unique and personal in the same way that He is, as the Incarnate son of the Father, insofar as we can know God, can understand the paradoxical mystery of the Most Holy Trinity.

God defines meaning, in the same way – although absolutely definitively in his case – as we define the meanings of worlds. People can assign different meanings to a word, not accepted by others. Our words do not have intrinsic meanings.

We can choose to repudiate our adoptive sonship of God in favour of choosing the devil as our father, but that will not render God’s fatherhood of us null. Our sonship will always be intrinsic because God is the sovereign reality and source/maker of reality.

God’s fatherhood of us is ‘intrinsic’, a relationship proper to Himself by his own choice, and to us, again by his volition. It is a matter of our possessing an intrinsic, proper Name, and non-living matter being intrinsically nonentity, not invested by God with the gift of partaking of his own eternal life.

All very abstruse, I realise, but a random mass of atoms lacks, jointly and severally, a certain something, a certain ‘identity’. Each of us has a very proper intrinsic identity given us by God and cherished by Him.


totally not creationists.

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2015,15:58   

Quote
24
sean samisAugust 26, 2015 at 9:37 am
Barry @3
Quote

I quoted Provine and Eigenstate. How is that putting words in their mouth?

You preceded your quote with
Quote
If a person believes materialism is true he must also believe certain corollaries that logically follow. Materialist Will Provine sums these up nicely:…

And right after your quote, you wrote that
Quote
The materialist must necessarily believe that …

These two comments by you attempt to put Provine and Eigenstate’s words into the mouths of other materialists.

You also wrote:
Quote
And if you are a materialist who believes that a human has no more intrinsic value than an egg, the sentiment makes perfect sense.

Oddly enough, there are LOTS of materialists who believe humans have much greater value than eggs. But your comments assert that they have to agree with your assessment of them; again trying to misrepresent what your “opponents” actually believe.

If this kind of fraud is consistent with your “objective morality” then it is objectively broken.

sean s.


linky

   
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2015,16:41   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 26 2015,21:47)
Quote
25
AxelAugust 26, 2015 at 9:41 am
‘But in what way do humans have “intrinsic value” under Christianity but not under materialism?’

gun: The touchstone of all truth, of all reality, is God, the Creator and Sustainer of the universe. What He says, goes. You see everything as intrinsically-homogeneous agglomerations of atoms in flux, He sees what they constitute: a living shell/’tent’ for his Spirit to enliven, together with all the rest of his Creation.

To believe that we and, indeed, the whole of Creation, are not intelligently designed, even without the benefit of the physicists’ latest findings, has always been a preposterous notion to the vast majority of mankind, surely, inconceivable, from the time we first start trying to make sense of the world, as babies. What would be the sense in it – yet it is perhaps driven by our most primordial instinct, which eventually settles into common sense. We don’t think, ‘Oh I must think; our autonomic intelligence takes charge without conscious prompting. A bit of a digression there. Sorry about that.

By divine election we are his children, good and bad, each of us, unique and personal in the same way that He is, as the Incarnate son of the Father, insofar as we can know God, can understand the paradoxical mystery of the Most Holy Trinity.

God defines meaning, in the same way – although absolutely definitively in his case – as we define the meanings of worlds. People can assign different meanings to a word, not accepted by others. Our words do not have intrinsic meanings.

We can choose to repudiate our adoptive sonship of God in favour of choosing the devil as our father, but that will not render God’s fatherhood of us null. Our sonship will always be intrinsic because God is the sovereign reality and source/maker of reality.

God’s fatherhood of us is ‘intrinsic’, a relationship proper to Himself by his own choice, and to us, again by his volition. It is a matter of our possessing an intrinsic, proper Name, and non-living matter being intrinsically nonentity, not invested by God with the gift of partaking of his own eternal life.

All very abstruse, I realise, but a random mass of atoms lacks, jointly and severally, a certain something, a certain ‘identity’. Each of us has a very proper intrinsic identity given us by God and cherished by Him.


totally not creationists.

That's Alistair McGrath grade waffle that is.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2015,17:06   

He used the word "inconceivable". I do not think it means what he thinks it means.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2015,17:43   

Amusing that he thinks calling something 'preposterous' is some kinda valid argument.

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2015,17:46   

Quote
1
Robert Byers    

August 25, 2015 at 7:44 pm

You gotta love wine but it was always against common sense that a liquid could aid the heart.


linky

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2015,14:03   

Quote
75
MapouAugust 26, 2015 at 6:59 pm
The average size of the nucleotide search space for a single human gene is:
Quote

4^23000 !!!!!


I claim that this kills Darwinism dead, period. Can any Darwinist here gather enough gonads to refute this claim? Or are you all a bunch of wussies? And BTW, materialist abiogenesis never even made it to the gates.

ahahaha…


mapou is dumb even by ID standards

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2015,14:26   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 27 2015,14:03)
Quote
75
MapouAugust 26, 2015 at 6:59 pm
The average size of the nucleotide search space for a single human gene is:
Quote

4^23000 !!!!!


I claim that this kills Darwinism dead, period. Can any Darwinist here gather enough gonads to refute this claim? Or are you all a bunch of wussies? And BTW, materialist abiogenesis never even made it to the gates.

ahahaha…


mapou is dumb even by ID standards

That's almost enough to make me sock up. But I'm busy trimming my toenails.

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

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

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2015,18:24   

EPIC disassembly of a Kairosfocus post by Sean Samis.

   
REC



Posts: 638
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2015,21:09   

We're supposed to take UD very seriously on science....but their "News" desk seems shocked by bacterial conjugation.

Discovered 1946.
Nobel 1958.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/news....ial-sex

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2015,23:17   

But were those bacteria using their flagella for this conjugation thing?

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2015,01:07   

Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 28 2015,21:17)
But were those bacteria using their flagella for this conjugation thing?

Conjugation? Without benefit of clergy?

Those bacteria are going straight to Hell.

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
Soapy Sam



Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2015,07:28   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 27 2015,20:03)
 
Quote
75
MapouAugust 26, 2015 at 6:59 pm
The average size of the nucleotide search space for a single human gene is:
 
Quote

4^23000 !!!!!


I claim that this kills Darwinism dead, period. Can any Darwinist here gather enough gonads to refute this claim? Or are you all a bunch of wussies? And BTW, materialist abiogenesis never even made it to the gates.

ahahaha…


mapou is dumb even by ID standards

Number of possible permutations of Mapou's parental genomes given 1 crossover per chromosome is ... Ah, sod it, I can't be arsed working it out. But it's big. Mapou does not exist, then. That, or there's a flaw in assuming 1 target per space. Maybe Mapou has a sibling with a view on the matter.

Edited by Soapy Sam on Aug. 29 2015,13:32

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

  
REC



Posts: 638
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2015,08:51   

Discussing an article that mentions paleontologist E.C Olson, News:

 
Quote
Hope Olson (1910–1993) lived and died a hopeful person, neither victim nor perpetrator of Darwinblather


Who Hope Olson is, I don't know. Google returns Miss October 1976.

E.C. Olson, for his part, wrote "The Evolution of Life"

http://www.amazon.com/The-Evo....1M0BRN6

Edited to add the front cover:
Quote
The story of the development of life on this planet, from its origins to the emergence of man, with a special emphasis on the illuminating contributions made by modern science to the theory of evolution.


Edited by REC on Aug. 29 2015,12:11

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2015,12:24   

Quote
1
Mung
August 29, 2015 at 11:08 am

The moon landing was a hoax. None of you actually witnessed it. There were more witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus than there were witnesses to the moon landing.


can't decide if sarcasm...eta linky

Edited by stevestory on Aug. 29 2015,13:24

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2015,15:23   

Off by three. There were at least two eyewitnesses to the moon landing.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2015,18:01   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 29 2015,12:24)
Quote
1
Mung
August 29, 2015 at 11:08 am

The moon landing was a hoax. None of you actually witnessed it. There were more witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus than there were witnesses to the moon landing.


can't decide if sarcasm...eta linky

He probably has never read the Bible. There were no witnesses to the resurrection. The myth claims that some people saw Jesus after he resurrected, but that's totally different.

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

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

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2015,02:12   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 29 2015,18:01)
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 29 2015,12:24)
Quote
1
Mung
August 29, 2015 at 11:08 am

The moon landing was a hoax. None of you actually witnessed it. There were more witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus than there were witnesses to the moon landing.


can't decide if sarcasm...eta linky

He probably has never read the Bible. There were no witnesses to the resurrection. The myth claims that some people saw Jesus after he resurrected, but that's totally different.

Mung is quite butthurt at the moment because he is unable to give a coherent defense of the accounts of the birth of Jesus at TSZ.

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

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2015,07:54   

On Barry's latest post, WJM expresses himself poorly (I hope):
Quote
I also want to again point out that I am an example of someone who read these kinds of posts on this very site and was still open to reasoned argument. You guys helped to change my life completely.


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

   
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2015,12:12   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 30 2015,07:54)
On Barry's latest post, WJM expresses himself poorly (I hope):
 
Quote
I also want to again point out that I am an example of someone who read these kinds of posts on this very site and was still open to reasoned argument. You guys helped to change my life completely.

Last week Barry was "winning" his arguments by declaring all of his opponents "evil". This week he will be "winning" them by declaring his opponents "insane".

Question: can a person be both evil and insane? Doesn't evil require intent? And isn't one of the requirements of insane the lack of this intent? I just want to know what label to apply to myself.  I guess that Barry could cover his bases and announce victory by declaring his opponents schizophrenic. Then we could be both evil and insane.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2015,12:23   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Aug. 30 2015,12:12)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 30 2015,07:54)
On Barry's latest post, WJM expresses himself poorly (I hope):
 
Quote
I also want to again point out that I am an example of someone who read these kinds of posts on this very site and was still open to reasoned argument. You guys helped to change my life completely.

Last week Barry was "winning" his arguments by declaring all of his opponents "evil". This week he will be "winning" them by declaring his opponents "insane".

Question: can a person be both evil and insane? Doesn't evil require intent? And isn't one of the requirements of insane the lack of this intent? I just want to know what label to apply to myself.  I guess that Barry could cover his bases and announce victory by declaring his opponents schizophrenic. Then we could be both evil and insane.

Evil is a religious concept.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2015,15:30   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Aug. 30 2015,12:23)
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Aug. 30 2015,12:12)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 30 2015,07:54)
On Barry's latest post, WJM expresses himself poorly (I hope):
   
Quote
I also want to again point out that I am an example of someone who read these kinds of posts on this very site and was still open to reasoned argument. You guys helped to change my life completely.

Last week Barry was "winning" his arguments by declaring all of his opponents "evil". This week he will be "winning" them by declaring his opponents "insane".

Question: can a person be both evil and insane? Doesn't evil require intent? And isn't one of the requirements of insane the lack of this intent? I just want to know what label to apply to myself.  I guess that Barry could cover his bases and announce victory by declaring his opponents schizophrenic. Then we could be both evil and insane.

Evil is a religious concept.

And I always thought that religion was an evil concept.

  
REC



Posts: 638
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2015,15:40   

How kooky can UD get? Mapou is denying space and relativity and substituting his own reality. BA77 is countering with a combo of science, woo and religion.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-578047

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

Pages: (527) < ... 138 139 140 141 142 [143] 144 145 146 147 148 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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