RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (303) < ... 281 282 283 284 285 [286] 287 288 289 290 291 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 5, Return To Teh Dingbat Buffet< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
stevestory



Posts: 10391
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 16 2017,17:21   

Quote
46
J-MacJuly 16, 2017 at 9:07 am
I think that Ecclesiastes 1:9 has to be looked at in the context of what Solomon was writing about-the lack of purpose and meaning of life without God, that he came to realize after exploring the countless pursuits…

New things were being invented and built during his life and he was the leader of that…and yet none of his projects or pursuits brought him lasting satisfaction…”…everything is vanity…”-he often reflected.

From the prospect of quantum information conservation, no quantum information is created or lost…so if no quantum information is created or lost…quantum states of subparticles are just being re-arranged due to the laws of quantum mechanics…

So in that sense, one can say that “…there is nothing new under the sun…”..

Everything is just a re-arrangements of the ever existing stuff thanks to the existence of physical laws that allow for that..


if only i'd read ecclesiastes, I might have done better in Quantum 402 :-(

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2588
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 16 2017,18:35   

But I bet he's never really, you know, looked at his hand. Whoa.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
clamboy



Posts: 220
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 16 2017,20:34   

In that very thread which he started, gpuccio has written over 5,300 words in reply. Dude, why couldn't you have said all that in the first place?

  
Henry J



Posts: 4783
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 16 2017,21:40   

Not to mention that all of it is just rearrangements of pixels on the screen, and so nothing new in any of it.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10391
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 17 2017,11:30   

prepare for the stupidest thing you'll read all day:

Quote
1
bill coleJuly 17, 2017 at 10:05 am
The base assumption here is that the mutation rate is understood. I think this is a faulty assumption because even though you can measure mutation it can be repaired later. If the mutation rate was so high as to create all this junk in our genome why would you see so many repeating sequences. Mutations should break down repeating sequences. Ironically these repeating sequences are what Graur considers junk.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10391
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 17 2017,11:32   

I stand corrected:
Quote
8
Mung July 15, 2017 at 7:16 pm
scientific truth is an oxymoron

   
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 1120
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: July 17 2017,13:18   

Quote (stevestory @ July 17 2017,11:30)
prepare for the stupidest thing:

Quote
1
bill cole

There. I have fixed it for you.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10391
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 17 2017,19:34   

Quote
7
Phinehas July 17, 2017 at 4:20 pm
Quote
If the cosmos had us as a plan, it surely hasn’t told anyone so far.

Maybe you weren’t listening?

For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.


that's weird. What's the KJV of the bible doing on an ID site? ID is all about the Science.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10391
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 17 2017,19:36   

Quote
4
rvb8July 17, 2017 at 6:04 pm
I do believe johnnyb, is the new BA77.

I’ve started following links here at UD, and I followed most of johnnyb’s links.

Many are ‘self refferential’, not in th kairosfocus way, in some vaguely defined psychobabble way, but actually, ‘self referrential’.

They refer to his articles, posts, or other articles andposts here at UD.

Or they lead us to youtube, that satndard barer of good science, every scientist is proud to point to.

There was one interesting link to something called researchgate. But it appears this site, although set up as an open forum, instead pesters scientists with endless e-mails to publish. In 2014 it sent out 297 invitations to 38 people. (The usual way a good science journal works is that it peruses 297 submissions, and then a board of peers, selects the 38 most original.)

It’s ‘criticisms’ from the likes of Nature, seem to point to catchall, we’ll publish anything forum.

And still, since the publication of the ‘Wedge’ (which I still re-read occasionally, just for a laugh), we have seen zero ‘paradigm shift’.

Now despite all the name calling, conspiracy theories, and feelings of being locked out of the argument, I have a suggestion.

Theorise, Experiment, write a paper, get it published and discussed, and join the debate. (Oh, and try not to use Christian legislatures, and the courts.) All of these links to youtube, UD, and dodgy science sites, harms your cause rather than bolsters it.
LOL

   
Henry J



Posts: 4783
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 17 2017,22:21   

Have they been taking lessons from somebody on this forum, or vice versa?

Hey, maybe the way to shift those paradigms is to move some goal posts?

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1203
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2017,05:20   

Quote (stevestory @ July 16 2017,23:21)
If only i'd read ecclesiastes, I might have done better in Quantum 402 :-(

ahem....

 
Quote
Quantum tunneling

Quantum tunneling is the ability of particles to move through energy barriers even though ostensibly impossible based on classical laws of mechanical physics. This was not discovered by scientists until the 20th century.

Jesus proved this was possible in John 20:26, when he appeared before the Apostles in a closed room with completely shut doors.


http://www.conservapedia.com/Biblica....owledge

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2588
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2017,08:57   

Quote (Woodbine @ July 18 2017,03:20)
Quote (stevestory @ July 16 2017,23:21)
If only i'd read ecclesiastes, I might have done better in Quantum 402 :-(

ahem....

 
Quote
Quantum tunneling

Quantum tunneling is the ability of particles to move through energy barriers even though ostensibly impossible based on classical laws of mechanical physics. This was not discovered by scientists until the 20th century.

Jesus proved this was possible in John 20:26, when he appeared before the Apostles in a closed room with completely shut doors.


http://www.conservapedia.com/Biblica....owledge

Praise tunneling Jesus!

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
Henry J



Posts: 4783
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2017,11:33   

Nah, He was probably hiding behind the couch the whole time before he appeared to them.

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 1120
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2017,12:24   

Quote (Henry J @ July 18 2017,11:33)
Nah, He was probably hiding behind the couch the whole time before he appeared to them.

He thought it was a surprise party for Judas.

  
JohnW



Posts: 2833
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2017,12:58   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ July 18 2017,10:24)
Quote (Henry J @ July 18 2017,11:33)
Nah, He was probably hiding behind the couch the whole time before he appeared to them.

He thought it was a surprise party for Judas.

He moved in mysterious ways.

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

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 1120
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2017,13:57   

Quote (JohnW @ July 18 2017,12:58)
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ July 18 2017,10:24)
Quote (Henry J @ July 18 2017,11:33)
Nah, He was probably hiding behind the couch the whole time before he appeared to them.

He thought it was a surprise party for Judas.

He moved in mysterious ways.

You should see him do the chicken dance at a wedding.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4783
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2017,14:14   

Or mop up the floor with Jim Carrey.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10391
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2017,20:54   

Quote
1
Dionisio July 18, 2017 at 2:08 pm
Coffee!! Coffee!! Coffee!!
Quote

Drinking coffee could lead to a longer life, scientist says

Whether it’s caffeinated or decaffeinated, coffee is associated with lower mortality, which suggests the association is not tied to caffeine
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release....118.htm

Encouraging news for those who look for extending their lives in this world a little longer.

Since I don’t drink coffee, it has no effect on me. 🙂

Better keep this in mind:
Quote

Matthew 16:25
For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

Mark 8:35
For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it.

Luke 9:24
For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it.
i think dionisio's substance of choice is probly stronger than coffee

Edited by stevestory on July 18 2017,21:55

   
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 1120
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2017,20:58   

Quote (stevestory @ July 18 2017,20:54)
Quote
1
Dionisio July 18, 2017 at 2:08 pm
Coffee!! Coffee!! Coffee!!
Quote

Drinking coffee could lead to a longer life, scientist says

Whether it’s caffeinated or decaffeinated, coffee is associated with lower mortality, which suggests the association is not tied to caffeine
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release....118.htm

Encouraging news for those who look for extending their lives in this world a little longer.

Since I don’t drink coffee, it has no effect on me. 🙂

Better keep this in mind:
 
Quote

Matthew 16:25
For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

Mark 8:35
For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it.

Luke 9:24
For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it.
i think dionisio's substance of choice is probly stronger than coffee

Whenever I am talking to someone at the pub and the repeat the same thing over and over, I know that it is time to stop listening. For some, however, it is a signal to start worshipping.

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2588
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2017,21:54   

What I tell you three times is true.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
rossum



Posts: 237
Joined: Dec. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 19 2017,03:09   

Quote (fnxtr @ July 18 2017,21:54)
What I tell you three times is true.

No need to get Snarky.

--------------
The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10391
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 19 2017,07:23   

Quote
34
DonJohnsonDD682July 19, 2017 at 4:14 am
MatSpirit:
Thanks for your response.

That evolution is not ‘goal directed’ seems to be a major plank in the Darwinian world view, supported by another major plank, that of ‘Deep Time.’ I believe it was Dawkins that said ‘given enough time and enough chances, anything is possible.’

But I ask again — why does this mindless, non goal directed process of evolution result in the consistent construction of something having close to 100% purposeful, goal directed functionality?


imagine, after spending years talking about something, still being this clueless about it.

   
JohnW



Posts: 2833
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 19 2017,11:07   

Quote (stevestory @ July 19 2017,05:23)
Quote
34
DonJohnsonDD682July 19, 2017 at 4:14 am
MatSpirit:
Thanks for your response.

That evolution is not ‘goal directed’ seems to be a major plank in the Darwinian world view, supported by another major plank, that of ‘Deep Time.’ I believe it was Dawkins that said ‘given enough time and enough chances, anything is possible.’

But I ask again — why does this mindless, non goal directed process of evolution result in the consistent construction of something having close to 100% purposeful, goal directed functionality?


imagine, after spending years talking about something, still being this clueless about it.

It's almost as though he's assuming his conclusion.  But on a science site like UD?  Surely not!

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 10391
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 19 2017,11:52   

outta the 20 Recent Comments, 15 are Dionisio. He really junks the site up.

   
JohnW



Posts: 2833
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 19 2017,12:09   

Quote (stevestory @ July 19 2017,09:52)
outta the 20 Recent Comments, 15 are Dionisio. He really junks the site up.

Yeah, he's really diluting the quality over there. :)

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

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1045
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 19 2017,13:59   

Quote (JohnW @ July 19 2017,12:09)
Quote (stevestory @ July 19 2017,09:52)
outta the 20 Recent Comments, 15 are Dionisio. He really junks the site up.

Yeah, he's really diluting the quality over there. :)

Quantity of UD's BS is the concern.  Always.

Glen Davidson

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

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

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 1499
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 19 2017,17:27   

Quote (Glen Davidson @ July 19 2017,13:59)
Quote (JohnW @ July 19 2017,12:09)
Quote (stevestory @ July 19 2017,09:52)
outta the 20 Recent Comments, 15 are Dionisio. He really junks the site up.

Yeah, he's really diluting the quality over there. :)

Quantity of UD's BS is the concern.  Always.

Glen Davidson

TARD diversity is key to a healthy TARD ecosystem.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
stevestory



Posts: 10391
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2017,12:03   

Quote
1
DionisioJuly 18, 2017 at 3:57 pm
Well, there’s no free lunch.

In case they finally find it and agree on it, let them know it has to pass the evo-devo test to answer the most important question: where’s the beef?

Here’s a brief summary of the test:

Given any case of known macro-evolutionary divergence, it could be described as:
Dev(d1) = Dev(ca) + Delta(d1)
Dev(d2) = Dev(ca) + Delta(d2)
Where
Dev(x) is the developmental process of any given biological system x
Delta(x) is the whole set of spatiotemporal procedural differences required to produce Dev(x).
d1 and d2 are two descendants of their common ancestor (ca).
Assuming the Dev(x) are well known, what hypothetical Delta(d1) and Delta(d2) could be suggested for their missing link case?

Just point to the literature that explains this in details.
The explanation must be comprehensive, logically coherent and it must hold water under any kind of thorough examination.

This test was suggested @1026 & 1090 in the thread “A third way of evolution?”


Quote
2
rvb8July 18, 2017 at 6:57 pm
Dio,

this equation looks positively scientific. Can you tell me where you got it from? I’d like to examine the original author’s thoughts on the various factors, and his/her take on them.

Please don’t self-referrance to comment 1296.66 on thread BB-GT.

I want the original creators of this equation please!

Thanks:)

The Last Common Ancestor is theorised to be the one where we diverged from chimps, 6 to 7 million years ago.

How it looked would be something similar to a chimp. How it acted can only be guessed at. But by looking at primate behaviour today, some informed guesses can be made.

This is all speculation you say, and you are right. Here’s a question; What’s the alternative? Throw up our hands as the ID community and creationists do?

No thank you.


Quote
4
DionisioJuly 18, 2017 at 7:50 pm
Apparently the message was not received clearly… maybe there’s noise in the surrounding environment… 🙂

Ok, let’s reiterate it:
Quote
Well, there’s no free lunch.

In case they finally find it and agree on it, let them know it has to pass the evo-devo test to answer the most important question: where’s the beef?

Here’s a brief summary of the test:

Given any case of known macro-evolutionary divergence, it could be described as:
Dev(d1) = Dev(ca) + Delta(d1)
Dev(d2) = Dev(ca) + Delta(d2)
Where
Dev(x) is the developmental process of any given biological system x
Delta(x) is the whole set of spatiotemporal procedural differences required to produce Dev(x).
d1 and d2 are two descendants of their common ancestor (ca).
Assuming the Dev(x) are well known, what hypothetical Delta(d1) and Delta(d2) could be suggested for their missing link case?

Just point to the literature that explains this in details.
The explanation must be comprehensive, logically coherent and it must hold water under any kind of thorough examination.

This test was suggested @1026 & 1090 in the thread “A third way of evolution?”
Maybe this time the message will get through…

🙂


Quote
5
rvb8July 18, 2017 at 9:05 pm
Dionisio,

the problem in comprehension is not mine.

Who created this series of psudo-mathemamatical notation; Dev(d1), Dev(ca), Dev(x), Delta(x) etc?

I want to be able to read the source not your second hand interpretation of this mathematical like, notation;

The source please, the author, the origins.


Quote
8
rvb8July 18, 2017 at 11:36 pm
Local and Dio;

RM+NS=Evo. This is really basic, common stuff. So much so even the most ardent creationist will recognise and sneer.

But this, Dev(d1)=Dev(ca)+Delta(d1)
Dev(d2)=Dev(ca)+Delta(d2)

I submit is less, ‘really common stuff.’

Local says; “hence s/he is not aware of the source.”
‘He’, actually.

Is it, ‘really common stuff’? Where exactly can I find these exact same equations please?

I don’t mind apologising if I’m wrong, I will readily do so. I would like to know the source however, if you would be so kind.

Thanks:)


Quote
9
Jon GarveyJuly 19, 2017 at 2:26 am
Dear me – I’m not a mathematician nor an analytic philosopher, but a little logical examination showed me that Dionisio has simply expressed an obvious problem symbolically. One doesn’t need an “exact source” for that: it’s as valid to make up a symbol sequence as to write a sentence.

Let me translate into cumbersome prose. A common ancestor produces two different outcomes. The start point in both cases being the same, it must be the process in each case that is different. But it’s trivial and completely non-explanatory to say “Things would be the same if only they weren’t different”, so what are the actual differences that produce the different outcomes, so that one can understand and predict anything?

A parallel would be a twin study in which one separated identical twin becomes a Nobel Peace Prize Winner, and the other a serial child molester. A theory that probably the first did some luckier things and lived in some different place would at best be considered, shall we say, “provisional”, and at worst a waste of words.


Quote
13
rvb8July 19, 2017 at 8:00 pm
Jon,

thanks for the condescension.

This waffle intrigues: ‘A common ancestor produces two different outcomes.’ Aha.

Do you mean that random mutation in the genome produces, ‘two different phenotypes’? I agree, we are in agreemnet.

Then you do the famous ID ‘Gish gallop’, with;

‘The start point in both cases being the same, (parents?), it must be the process (process? random mutation) that is different.’ Sorry, the ‘process’ is the same, and can even be seen, we can actually see mutation from parent to offspring, these mutations produce the silly convoluted Dio’s (d1), (d2)

The ‘process’, must be ‘different’? ‘So what are the actual differences that produce the different outcomes?’

Well, random muttion produces Dio’s silly (Dev1) and (Dev2), and selection by the environment produces the rest.

Jon,

In answer to you Nobel twin versus Nutbag twin; Parents died, they were adopted, one by nutbags, other by, geniuses; different environments is indeed the answer.

Jon,

you and ID generally should refrain from patronizing language, because of the state of ID research at the moment; it does not exist.

Dio,

if you have an idea and want to invent your own ‘scientific’ notation try not to use the simpleton’s x+y=z. Where ‘x’ can be anything the hell I like, ‘y’ can be anything the hell like, and therefore the outcome ‘z’ cofirms that, ‘whatever the hell I like’, is the answer.

Dear me Jon, next time get the equations confirmed, and don’t pretend they are obvious, because Dios endless posts are almost invariably the ramblings of a wannabe.

Dio has been caught mid gallop. Dio please admit these silly contortions are your own effort at sciency stuff, and that they exist nowhere else but in your electro/chemical meat package.


Quote
14
DionisioJuly 19, 2017 at 9:59 pm
It seems like some politely dissenting interlocutors didn’t get the memo or didn’t read it… 🙂

Ok, let’s say it again:
Quote
Well, there’s no free lunch.

In case they finally find it and agree on it, let them know it has to pass the evo-devo test to answer the most important question: where’s the beef?

Here’s a brief summary of the test:

Given any case of known macro-evolutionary divergence, it could be described as:
Dev(d1) = Dev(ca) + Delta(d1)
Dev(d2) = Dev(ca) + Delta(d2)
Where
Dev(x) is the entire developmental process of any given biological system x
Delta(x) is the whole set of detailed spatiotemporal procedural differences –compared to Dev(ca)– required to produce Dev(x).
d1 and d2 are two descendants of their common ancestor (ca).
Assuming the Dev(x) are well known, what hypothetical (theoretical) Delta(d1) and Delta(d2) could be suggested for their missing link case?

Just point to the literature that explains this in details.
The explanation must be comprehensive, logically coherent and it must hold water under any kind of thorough examination.

This test was suggested @1026 & 1090 in the thread “A third way of evolution?”
Perhaps now they’ll get it right… 🙂


Quote
15
rvb8July 19, 2017 at 11:34 pm
Dio,

I have read of a particular definition, of a particular ailement that is charachterised by, ‘saying/doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result.’

The particular ailement’s name escapes me for the moment. Perhaps you could repeat your profound mathematical insight several more times (Heh:), and the illness’s name will spring to mind.
Heh:)


Dionisio goes full retard. Never go full retard.

Edited by stevestory on July 20 2017,13:06

   
CeilingCat



Posts: 2075
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2017,16:22   

Dionisio:    
Quote
Assuming the Dev(x) are well known, what hypothetical Delta(d1) and Delta(d2) could be suggested for their missing link case?

Since the common ancestor (ca) is extinct, how the hell can anybody know Dev(ca)?

This guy is training for the Dunning-Kruger Olympics.

Edited by CeilingCat on July 20 2017,16:22

--------------
...after reviewing the arguments, I’m inclined to believe that the critics of ENCODE’s bold claim were mostly right, and that the proportion of our genome which is functional is probably between 10 and 20%.  --Vincent Torley, uncommondescent.com 1/1/2016

  
stevestory



Posts: 10391
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2017,07:11   

Quote
16
ETJuly 20, 2017 at 7:28 am
rvB8- What is the state of evolutionary research? No one knows how any flagella evolved via natural selection or drift. The same goes for any and all multi-protein machines.

So what, exactly, does evolutionism have? I ask because if your position actually had something then ID would be a non-starter. Yet ID is stronger than ever thanks to the consilience of clues and evidence.


Quote
21
rvb8July 20, 2017 at 9:30 pm
ET @16,

there is a vast ammount of literature, and original experimentation on the origins of the flagella, blood clottng and the immune system, all you have to do is click.

What there isn’t is any ID lab, scientist, research avenues, articles, or any other solid evidence pointing to Design, other than the Bible.

That’s fine. If your faith says God achieved these systems, good. Unfortunately, many of us believe this to be poppycock.




linky

   
  9087 replies since Dec. 29 2013,11:01 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (303) < ... 281 282 283 284 285 [286] 287 288 289 290 291 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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