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 2

Pages: (500) < ... 110 111 112 113 114 [115] 116 117 118 119 120 ... >

Mark Frank Posts: 46 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2008,07:18    Quote Don’t they see the difference? They didn’t compare chance and cheating, they compared chance + non-random mechanism (called “playing poker”) and cheating. I tried to point this out with a comment on UD (see below). Of course it is stuck in moderation. It will be interesting to see if it ever gets published. Quote Barry I am surprised you offer this as an example of design. 1) The two alternatives are The player tried as hard as possible to win but could not see the other players’ hands. 2) The player tried as hard as possible to win but could see the other players’ hands. Both of these involve a hefty dose of intelligence. The difference is just one of capabilities. It is comparable to two hypotheses about how God created the earth - one of which puts some constraints on his powers. Also your description of the design inference process is strange. In step 2 you propose a design hypothesis including something about the motivation and capabilities of the designer. I thought this was exactly what ID avoided? Most ID opponents have no issue with exploring a design hypothesis where the motivation and capabilities of the designer are specified. Despite what you say, in step 3 you don’t actually test this hypothesis. You test the hypothesis that the player was no more likely to win that an average (or possibly very good) player. This is very reasonably rejected. Because you posited the cheating hypothesis first it is easy to the conclusion jump to “therefore he was cheating”. In fact it is reasonable given the circumstances but it was by no means proven by the statistics. It required the investigation as well. Perhaps he was just a freak with an extraordinary ability to read minds over the internet. Perhaps God was whispering advice in his ear.

Amadan Posts: 1337 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2008,07:49    Quote (JLT @ Dec. 01 2008,05:37) @ Amadan: Actually, I can see a church (well, its tower) from my home, although not the cathedral (I'm living in Ireland; probably everyone here can see a church from his home... ;) Oh God. Now we'll have to play that awful Two* Degrees of Separation thing that everyone in Ireland has to do. D'ya know me cousin Ultan McClafferty in Termonfeckin? *As opposed to six: It's a bloody small country. -------------- "People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011 JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2008,07:53    Quote (Amadan @ Dec. 01 2008,07:49) Quote (JLT @ Dec. 01 2008,05:37) @ Amadan: Actually, I can see a church (well, its tower) from my home, although not the cathedral (I'm living in Ireland; probably everyone here can see a church from his home... ;) Oh God. Now we'll have to play that awful Two* Degrees of Separation thing that everyone in Ireland has to do. D'ya know me cousin Ultan McClafferty in Termonfeckin? *As opposed to six: It's a bloody small country. What are the odds?  We'd better run it through the Nixplanatory Filter - My best friend growing up was John McLafferty - but I think he was from East Termonfeckin. -------------- 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

JLT Posts: 740 Joined: Jan. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2008,09:35    Quote (J-Dog @ Dec. 01 2008,13:53)     Quote (Amadan @ Dec. 01 2008,07:49)     Quote (JLT @ Dec. 01 2008,05:37) @ Amadan: Actually, I can see a church (well, its tower) from my home, although not the cathedral (I'm living in Ireland; probably everyone here can see a church from his home... ;) Oh God. Now we'll have to play that awful Two* Degrees of Separation thing that everyone in Ireland has to do. D'ya know me cousin Ultan McClafferty in Termonfeckin? *As opposed to six: It's a bloody small country. What are the odds?  We'd better run it through the Nixplanatory Filter - My best friend growing up was John McLafferty - but I think he was from East Termonfeckin. If one of you knows someone who is working with adult stem cells or is an immunologist than the odds are pretty high that I know him or her (it IS a small country). Otherwise, not so much. Can't say that I know a lot of people outside of work. The hard life of a scientist abroad... -------------- "Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...] Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

Zachriel Posts: 2723 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2008,11:18    Quote (JLT @ Dec. 01 2008,05:40) TARD Don’t they see the difference? They didn’t compare chance and cheating, they compared chance + non-random mechanism (called “playing poker”) and cheating. They knew how often you can win by relying on chance + mechanism because they knew the frequencies by which poker players win exactly - they had a massive database with statistics and just needed to look. If they just compared the odds of winning of a machine that played completely random against real poker players, they’d ALL turn up as cheating because they win more often than pure chance allows. Hey, that’s sounds just like ID. IDists look at the probability that something turns up by pure chance and ignore mechanism. They’d convict every poker player in the world for cheating. I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!   Quote wdt: Searching for the designer came 2nd. First, they applied an empirical analysis that detected design—the pattern of wins vastly exceeded chance. That detection of design motivated them to subsequently search for a designer—the cheating employee. They already knew all the players were Designers. They detected bad design, a poor player that struts and frets wins anyway. -------------- 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. 01 2008,11:48    Quote (JLT @ Dec. 01 2008,13:40) TARD Don’t they see the difference? They didn’t compare chance and cheating, they compared chance + non-random mechanism (called “playing poker”) and cheating. They knew how often you can win by relying on chance + mechanism because they knew the frequencies by which poker players win exactly - they had a massive database with statistics and just needed to look. If they just compared the odds of winning of a machine that played completely random against real poker players, they’d ALL turn up as cheating because they win more often than pure chance allows. Hey, that’s sounds just like ID. IDists look at the probability that something turns up by pure chance and ignore mechanism. They’d convict every poker player in the world for cheating. Monte Carlo Creationism -------------- "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

bfish Posts: 267 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2008,13:41    Very interesting. Professor Olofsson is wading into UD to try to set the inhabitants straight.   Quote 64 Prof_P.Olofsson 11/30/2008 1:02 pm I’d like to respond to the criticism offered by gpuccio and others but first I need to make sure that I can post. If this comment is posted, I’ll go ahead. P.Olofsson ETA: I can't wait until DT tells Olofsson that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Bob O'H Posts: 2564 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2008,13:51    w00t!  Prof. Olofsson scores in the tard mines (the paragraph in italics is a quote of Olofsson): Quote 69 tribune7 12/01/2008 2:05 pm I may not know much about biology but I dare say that such a mechanism has never been proposed by any biologist. If something is IC what other mechanism is there? I mean other than (cough cough) you know, the “d” word? Granted, evolutionary biologists claim the flagellum is not IC which leads us to consider the reasonableness of the evolutionary pathways they claim are possible albeit they insist that demonstrations of such pathways are not necessary. -------------- 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)

Zachriel Posts: 2723 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2008,14:18    Quote (bfish @ Dec. 01 2008,13:41) I can't wait until DT tells Olofsson that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Uncommon Descent, meet your doom. Okay. So he's a lot scarier wielding statistics. -------------- You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2008,14:20    Quote (Bob O'H @ Dec. 01 2008,11:51) w00t!  Prof. Olofsson scores in the tard mines (the paragraph in italics is a quote of Olofsson): Quote 69 tribune7 12/01/2008 2:05 pm I may not know much about biology but I dare say that such a mechanism has never been proposed by any biologist. If something is IC what other mechanism is there? I mean other than (cough cough) you know, the “d” word? Granted, evolutionary biologists claim the flagellum is not IC which leads us to consider the reasonableness of the evolutionary pathways they claim are possible albeit they insist that demonstrations of such pathways are not necessary. I hope someone is saving this thread.  Olofsson is handing them their goolies on a plate.  The airbrush looms... -------------- 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

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2008,14:30    Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 01 2008,13:18) Quote (bfish @ Dec. 01 2008,13:41) I can't wait until DT tells Olofsson that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Uncommon Descent, meet your doom. Okay. So he's a lot scarier wielding statistics. Is that like the proverbial weapons of math instruction?

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2008,14:32    sometimes you wonder if Patrick doesn't get it. I mean really Quote Prof Olfsson, I’ll leave the debate to others like gpuccio since I’m short on time. But I’ll ask one question. In your opinion, what should be done if other chance hypotheses (indirect stepwise pathways in biological terms) are unknown? As in, when would you personally consider a design inference to be validated by the available data? Short on time? bwahaha.  not that.  short on the courage fueled by ignorance and a curious insistence on Revelation that many other UDers are long long long long on.   What should be done when the 'chance hypothesis' is a canard? Hmm? Onlookers, merits, always linked.  The honest thing to do is to admit that the 'chance hypothesis' is a pile of steaming manure.   But tribune can't help himself, because he really is that stupid. Quote He tests the only chance hypothesis and falsifies it. The only way to show that the flagellum is something that evolved is to mix necessity in. The only necessity offered by evolutionary biologists is natural selection. No details are provided as to the pathway using this necessity to allow us to consider the probability of it happening. ahh necessity.  would that the cacophony of the spheres would drop a mighty mighty barrage of tritones upon the chorus of fundamental harmonics that is UD. -------------- 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

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2008,14:36    Quote upon the chorus of fundamental harmonics that is UD. As long as they aren't off key...

Zachriel Posts: 2723 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2008,14:42    Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 01 2008,14:36)   Quote upon the chorus of fundamental harmonics that is UD. As long as they aren't off key... No doubt they'll sing in tune after the revolution. -------------- You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2008,16:06    gpuccio:   Quote I am a medical doctor with some experience in medical statistics, but you certainly are more qualified in discussing statistical issue in themselves. G.Puccio? Frothing at the mouth gpuccio a doctor? I don't believe it for a second. And as to Patrick, as already quoted at 2:38pm he said this   Quote 12/01/2008 2:38 pm I’ll leave the debate to others like gpuccio since I’m short on time. Yet somehow, for this "short on time" person he manages to post a big load of blah only ten minutes earlier in a different thread.   Quote 12/01/2008 2:28 pm By Step 4 the investigator is forming an ID-compatible hypothesis by which they proceed to look for a mechanism for the detected design (cheating). Technically this is outside the scope of ID theory proper, but I still commend Barry for including it. The funny thing about the post Patrick made is that he must know it off by heart by now, it's certainly within his comfort zone. The same old blah from him as posted multiple times before. Yet given the chance to debate a professor he runs. Still, there's always tomorrow. Will Patrick be "short on time" until the day that thread dies? -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2008,16:59    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 01 2008,14:06) gpuccio:   Quote I am a medical doctor with some experience in medical statistics, but you certainly are more qualified in discussing statistical issue in themselves. G.Puccio? Frothing at the mouth gpuccio a doctor? I don't believe it for a second. Why not?  Egnor is. -------------- 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

bystander Posts: 301 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2008,22:40    Olofsson is a good writer and the discussion so far has cleared something up for me. I was reading the earlier thread and thought that the idiots were saying something jaw droppingly stupid but thought that I misunderstood the jargon. But with Olofsson there I realised that it was true, they are jaw droppingly stupid they are basically saying: To calculate the probability of a protein or what ever evolving you use the probability of all of the pieces falling together at once. You are allowed to do this because the darwinists cannot give the exact probability of the actual evolution of the structure. So until you hand us the entire worked example we will use the worst possible probability number. That is amazing. It even ignores the fact that other proteins could be used and if it is a structure like the flagellum, The bugs could have found other modes to move around like a jet pump of a "back and forth" rowing motion.

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2008,23:03    The shaved ass speaks, in reverse troglodyke:   Quote *And no, eco-nuts, don’t write to tell me that humans cause ecological destruction worldwide. Quite the contrary. Humans have greatly increased the diversity of species,subspecies, and varieties worldwide (for good or ill), and in any event are the only species that has ever attempted to prevent other species from extinction. I wonder what it means by diversity? I wonder what it means by species? I would give my copy of Duh I Shat You A Brain to know what it means by subspecies. And varieties, what is that? What a stupid nearly human-like creature. -------------- 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

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2008,23:30    Suggested search phrases for Denyse: "habitat loss" "island biogeography" -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2008,23:36    DaveTard phones one in from retirement.  This thread is frikkin great.  First there is the kickoff, in which logic and reason are murdered... and immediately some dimwit repeats the same nonsense from the previous thread (of course this is probably a puppet) Quote 5 the wonderer 12/01/2008 10:53 am Darkell you missed the question. Stay on task.. DNA as specified information requires either incredible amounts of luck to just come together or it required someone to order the molecules in an informed way. The limitation of probablistic resources would lead one to the design hypothesis as being a better inference. I have always thought that the need for a very old planet was one that was driven by this probablistic resource problem. I forsee the 4.3 billion number being pushed back again because of this need. God we sooooo need an old planet.  So we made up some numbers.  but it's pretty much because we deny Jesus design. then tragicmishap must be a puppet.  good one though, I enjoy reading you. chapman55k (is that bruce chapman?) proves he belongs at UD Quote Hello Barry - “Is your mind able to violate the laws of physics or chemistry? That is Dave’s question.” How and whether brain chemistry is controlled by the mind is the question that must be answered. If, in fact, we have free will, then I believe the mind qualifies. Egnor and O’Leary talk about this regularly. Ahh free will.  Gaze Deeply Into Thy Navel O Tard tragically... Quote That is a great point chapman. The mind, and possibly certain forms of intelligence itself, could very well be supernatural without being omnipotent and omniscient as the Christian God. In fact, a true materialist’s logic forces him to reject that intelligence and even emotion actually exists, because intelligence by it’s very nature must entail free will and therefore be supernatural in some sense. They are just specific brain states with purely naturalistic, mechanistic causes. http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/about_intelligence/ There are a lot of materialist philosophers who make this point, but I don’t have any references on hand. Except, you know, Dilbert.  I'll leave the puppets alone but they are more interesting you know. Barry Quote The point of Dave’s post is that the creation of life by an intelligent agent (including humans when our technology matures sufficiently) is not, in principle, different from the creation of the house by the builder. Neither requires supernatural intervention. Yeah whatever Barry.  Get your own god dam dirt. Borne proves puppets are more interesting Quote Rocks, for example, are not “logical”, they don’t conceptualize using the absolute principles of logic. Reason requires logic, therefore mind. Atheism cannot account for logical absolutes. Only the postulation of a super mind can. Therefore there has (or had) to be an absolute mind not dependent on matter & energy. OK you have heard that bullshit before.  How would this tard know anything about super minds?  Rocks, he might know.   Daniel Smith, you boring dolt, are you listening?  Barry thinks you are full of shit.  THAT'S gotta sting. Quote OK, at least you are being consistent when you say that building a house may be a supernatural event. Of course, by your definition, every volitional act of every human in the history of the world was a supernatural event, which, of course, swallows up the category “supernatural” and makes it all but meaningless. See?  No you probly don't see.   then it gets into a tardfest.  left handed amino acids require the holy spirit, etc.  So screw it my job is done here. But anyone else think Dave Tard is lying here? Quote tragicmishap I have to agree with you that no IDist I can think of has pointed to something specific about organic life on this planet and categorically claimed it could not be created by a sufficiently advanced but wholly material means. -------------- 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: Dec. 01 2008,23:40    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 01 2008,23:30) Suggested search phrases for Denyse: "habitat loss" "island biogeography" add those to the list. ahh hell i don't think these mechanical reductionist tard thumpers would wish to deal with all that contingency in ecology.   on the other hand perhaps they could finally precipitate those perfect crystals that have eluded detection for so long. naah -------------- 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

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2008,01:10    Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 01 2008,15:20) I hope someone is saving this thread.  Olofsson is handing them their goolies on a plate.  The airbrush looms... I hope you're saving the thread. I'm saving the thread, but everybody should make backups every day just to get total coverage.

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2008,02:59    Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 01 2008,16:59) Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 01 2008,14:06) gpuccio:     Quote I am a medical doctor with some experience in medical statistics, but you certainly are more qualified in discussing statistical issue in themselves. G.Puccio? Frothing at the mouth gpuccio a doctor? I don't believe it for a second. Why not?  Egnor is. I've just seen him froth at the mouth (I've prodded him into a misspelt frenzy of froth before) and it's horrifying to me that he might be responsible for making decisions about other peoples health. While Egnor may be a ignorant SOB he can string a sentence together. OK, my standards are low but I always considered gpuccio just a know nothing loudmouth but to find he's had to pass exams, well hard to believe. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2008,03:44    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 02 2008,10:59) Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 01 2008,16:59)   Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 01 2008,14:06) gpuccio:       Quote I am a medical doctor with some experience in medical statistics, but you certainly are more qualified in discussing statistical issue in themselves. G.Puccio? Frothing at the mouth gpuccio a doctor? I don't believe it for a second. Why not?  Egnor is. I've just seen him froth at the mouth (I've prodded him into a misspelt frenzy of froth before) and it's horrifying to me that he might be responsible for making decisions about other peoples health. While Egnor may be a ignorant SOB he can string a sentence together. OK, my standards are low but I always considered gpuccio just a know nothing loudmouth but to find he's had to pass exams, well hard to believe. I suspect he lernd doktoring in the same place GWB lernd fli-ing. Here boy..... just put your finger on that hole where the blood is spurting from. YES SIR! Have you washed your hands? YES SIR! Good I'm sure the goat ....er Private First Class will be glad to know that -------------- "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

JLT Posts: 740 Joined: Jan. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2008,05:19    Quote All it proves, of course, is that God is not one to break an ancient promise made to the human race: that the progeny of the first human beings, who were endowed supernaturally with non-bodily intellectual powers, will forever after be endowed with the same non-bodily powers, from the moment of conception. Vjtorley must have got a much more detailed bible than the ones that I've seen so far. -------------- "Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...] Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

Amadan Posts: 1337 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2008,06:14    Densye Quote Darwinian evolution would likely only work well in a living system or ecology if it is governed by an underlying mechanism that determines the desired end state (or, possibly, an acceptable range of end states). Like, just hypothetically, a life-support system coupled with a reproductive system where the desired end-state is survival until successful reproduction? Darn it Denyse! Where on Earth am I going to find that? 'Fraid I won't be able to consider this properly until after I've picked up the kids and cooked their lunch. -------------- "People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011 JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2008,06:58    tragicmishap is confused about free will:     Quote In fact, a true materialist’s logic forces him to reject that intelligence and even emotion actually exists, because intelligence by it’s very nature must entail free will and therefore be supernatural in some sense. No, tm, free will is impossible if you have an omniscient creator/designer.  Look at it this way: Does God know what you will think next Thursday?  If you're a Christian, the answer is, "Of course!" So, if God says you will think of a pumpkin at 9:35 CST next Thursday, is there any possible way you can NOT think of a pumpkin at that time?  Of course not!  If you could, then God would be mistaken and hence not omniscient. In fact, since an omniscient God knew the teensiest nuance of your every thought ten thousand years before you were born and you can't deviate from those pre-ordained thoughts by one iota without making God non-omniscient, you have no free will. Meanwhile, us atheists are free to think for ourselves.

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2008,07:30    Quote (CeilingCat @ Dec. 02 2008,14:58) tragicmishap is confused about free will:         Quote In fact, a true materialist’s logic forces him to reject that intelligence and even emotion actually exists, because intelligence by it’s very nature must entail free will and therefore be supernatural in some sense. No, tm, free will is impossible if you have an omniscient creator/designer.  Look at it this way: Does God know what you will think next Thursday?  If you're a Christian, the answer is, "Of course!" So, if God says you will think of a pumpkin at 9:35 CST next Thursday, is there any possible way you can NOT think of a pumpkin at that time?  Of course not!  If you could, then God would be mistaken and hence not omniscient. In fact, since an omniscient God knew the teensiest nuance of your every thought ten thousand years before you were born and you can't deviate from those pre-ordained thoughts by one iota without making God non-omniscient, you have no free will. Meanwhile, us atheists are free to think for ourselves. LET THE TASKS OF JOB BE YOURS BEFORE BREAKFAST MERE WOMAN! FOR THE LOVE OF *any preternaturaly innydowed /outydowed male  homophobic designer* DO YOU REALIZE THE DAMAGE THAT COULD DO TO THE COZMOZ? GIT BACK IN THE FRIGGIN KITCHEN AND BAKE A FRIGGIN CAKE WOMAN! PUMKIIN? I'LL GIVE U PUMKIN *ques Erasmus for the graphic details* OK? GOT THAT? WRITE THAT DOWN!!!!! ......wipes forehead with scrap bit of adhesive backed 20% cotton 80% nylon desert digital camoflague tape available from ebay same as used in Iraq...phew... -------------- "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

dogdidit Posts: 315 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2008,08:10    Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 01 2008,23:03) The shaved ass speaks, in reverse troglodyke: Quote *And no, eco-nuts, don’t write to tell me that humans cause ecological destruction worldwide. Quite the contrary. Humans have greatly increased the diversity of species,subspecies, and varieties worldwide (for good or ill), and in any event are the only species that has ever attempted to prevent other species from extinction. I wonder what it means by diversity? I wonder what it means by species? I would give my copy of Duh I Shat You A Brain to know what it means by subspecies. And varieties, what is that? What a stupid nearly human-like creature. And she answers! In reverse troglodyke: Quote Humans also breed a vast number of varieties of species, by taking advantage of existing natural genomes (dog = bulldog, chihuahua, pekinese … ) These breeds do not, of course, become separate species because, left to themselves, they would either die or breed back into the feral wolfhound type of dog that does nt need any human help. But the many dog breeds are certainly biodiversity, if you go by difference in appearance. Does that include their appearance when taught to walk backwards with a shaved ass? Quote There are certainly more species alive in North America today than there were ten thousand years ago, when the vast ice sheet was melting. We probably have examples of every important species in the world, tended by a large conservation-minded population. It is safe to say that if we do not have an example of a given species here, someone is trying to acquire it - or will try to acquire it when he learns of its existence. ZOMG she thinks zoos increase biodiversity!!!!!11111 Quote Humans carry plants and animals all over the globe, thus introducing them to places they could never have reached on their own. That certainly increases biodiversity. Un. Buh. Lievable. Even the UDenizens (and sockpuppets) are not swallowing this stuff. -------------- "Humans carry plants and animals all over the globe, thus introducing them to places they could never have reached on their own. That certainly increases biodiversity." - D'OL

lkeithlu Posts: 321 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2008,09:35    I tried to point out that dog breeds are NOT species and humans drove a third of mammals extinct in Madagascar. Appears I am still banned.

Pages: (500) < ... 110 111 112 113 114 [115] 116 117 118 119 120 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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