Joined: Dec. 2007
That thread is just bursting with tard. Here are some examples. They're not taken out of context as much as you might think.
News: "Those who want to be in the know, whether or not there is anything to know, will not know enough not to ask about evidence."
Axel: "Aren’t these the people who speak dismissively – if ever so gently so – at QM as woo-woo?"
Mapou: "How did an obvious crackpot/con-man like Stephen Hawking ever acquire such fame? This is a sad commentary on the status of modern science."
Dr. Dr. William Dembski (quoted by BA77): “In mathematics there are two ways to go to infinity. One is to grow large without measure. The other is to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity.”
Unknown (quoted by BA77): "Scientists say Turin Shroud is supernatural"
Mapou (comment 11): "Compared to the infinitely large, everything is infinitely small. And compared to the infinitely small, everything is infinitely large. So, if infinity existed, everything would be infinitely large and infinitely small while also being finite at the same time. This is absurd on the face of it."
Mapou (to BA77): "Your reply to my comment @11 is exactly what I expected from you. You would rather believe in lies than change your doctrine. Your doctrine IS your God. You worship your idea of God more than you worship God. That makes you an idolater in my book. Good luck with that."
Mapou: "Please, don’t circumvent my proof against infinity @11 above with other arguments. Either prove me wrong (if you do, I’ll bow down to your superior understanding and apologize for my foolishness) or accept that I am right (in which case, you must bow down to my superior understanding and make amends). Anything else is just useless talk."
[CeilingCat (here and now): "I'm 175 cm tall. Compared to the Eiffel Tower I'm 175 cm tall. Compared to Mt. Everest I'm 175 cm tall. Compared to infinity, I'm 175 cm tall. Compared to a fireplug I'm 175 cm tall. Compared to a mouse I'm 175 cm tall. Compared to a bacteria I'm 175 cm tall. Compared to an infinitely small thing I'm 175 cm tall.
Your argument fails in both directions. Bow down and start apologizing, tard-boy!
Ok, back to the Mathematician wonders about ... thread.]
BA77: "Jaceli123, sorry I’m not watching any of your off topic rabbit trail videos anymore. You have to do your own homework!"
Mapou (to BA77): "Unless you are prepared refute my argument @11 against infinity, everything you write from now on is unimportant to me. In fact, my respect for you has taken a precipitous dive. See you around."
Mapou (to BA77): "Your self-deception is as bold and in-your-face as that of a Jerry Coyne or a Richard Dawkins. But it does not fool me. Why should anybody try to understand something that does not exist? The non-existence of infinity has absolutely nothing to do with materialism of naturalism.
Another thing that bothers me about you is your constant use of this world’s pathological science to prove your Christian faith. Don’t you know that Yahweh’s science makes a mockery of human science? Yahweh and the host of his angels laughs at the stuff you bring up to defend your doctrine. I, too, join them in poking fun at it. Don’t you know that this world’s science is carefully designed to deny God and his glory? But those of you who truly have faith in Yahweh will not have long to wait to see His science manifested in this world and crush the science of this world like one crushes a bug underfoot."
BA77: About a page of Bible quotations skipped because ID is a scientific theory.
Mapou to BA77: "You are indeed a deceiver and you are not to be trusted.
News (to anyone who will help stop this thread from making a laughingstock of ID): "Enough theology in this one thread for a divinity school. Anyone noted how Tegmark’s philosophizing (with a clearly religious turn) can be advanced in science publications (SciAm comes to mind)? Odd that it bothers so few.
Stephen Hawking/No Black Holes, by the way, reached 76 m on Google search."
Chalciss: '“And the truth shall set you free”, that is exactly why reading posts from BA77, Q, KF, VJT and others like them makes us die-hard fans of them and makes us want to read more and more. Kudos!'
Joe: "Querius, I agree with you. Cantor never proved anything wrt infinite sets and he is not God. Not only that there isn’t any utility in saying all countable and infinite sets have the same cardinality.
Cantor’s is more dogma than mathematics."
Mapou: "By the way, those of you who are under the false impression that calculus uses infinity, consider that digital computers routinely solve calculus problems and yet, nothing is more discrete and finite than a computer."
Mapou: "Everything that occurs in the physical universe is being recorded in what I call “the lattice”. It’s a finite universe and a finite lattice."
BA77 (quoted by Mapou): "Perhaps you should call Gregory Chaitin up with your insight that infinity should be stricken from math?"
Mapou (replying to quote above): "I don’t give a rat’s posterior about Gregory Chaitin’s opinion or the world of mathematics and their preeminent mathematicians. I know my priorities. I always write for the simple man or woman. Those are my peers."
BA77 (replying to the "rats posterior" comment): "And yet you expect us to ‘yield to the infinite superiority of your arguments’, and indeed you act like a spoiled child when no one takes your strawman argument seriously, when you yourself don’t take the entire field of mathematics seriously. Someone has an seriously hyper-inflated opinion of their own infallibility on this matter!"
Mapou (to BA77): "Maybe I have a hyper-inflated opinion of my infallibility in this matter but the same can be said about you."
BA77 (to Mapou): "
Mapou, you want a ‘logical refutation’ of your ahem ‘argument’ when you have rejected the entire logical world of mathematics as to having any purchase over your own self-exalted infallible thinking in this matter in the first place? i.e. cart before horse!
To shine a light in a darkened room it is first necessary to, at least, open a window!
There’s none so blind as those who will not see.
Prov. You cannot make someone pay attention to something that he or she does not want to notice."
Mapou (to BA77): " I am not trying to help you at all. I have very little respect for you, especially after this exchange. You’re a typical doctrinairian and I don’t like doctrinairians. I don’t think you’re less fortunate. You have access to the same knowledge sources as I do. That’s the way I feel. And I tell it like I see it."
Mapou: "Cantor was a self-important crackpot and a con artist, IMO. His contribution to society amounts to a disaster, considering the enormous amount of time wasted by the world’s acceptance of infinity as a logical concept. Even after Planck discovered that the universe was discrete, physicists still continue to act as if infinity is a valid concept. It’s painful just to think about it."
KF (to Mapou) "PPS: Your ad hom on one of the most significant mathematicians in history — who, similar to several others suffered bipolar depression — is unworthy and verges on being offensive."
Mapou (all in same comment): "I’m sorry but anybody who legitimizes infinity as a viable concept in science is a crackpot in my view."
"So I don’t care how great a contribution Cantor has made to set theory. His obsession with the legitimacy of infinity and his ability to captivate and deceive the minds of so many generations of thinkers with his crackpottery is unforgivable, IMO."
"PS. The veneration that some people (mostly Catholics, I think) have for the Angelic Doctor (Thomas Aquinas) borders on the idolatrous, IMO. Talk about worshiping doctrine."
[vjtorley thinks: "That's aimed directly at me!"]
KF (striking a blow for Tommy: "PS: I am about as Protestant as they come, and the angelic doctor is one of the greatest minds in the history of Christendom, with Paul, Augustine, Calvin and Wesley up there too in that league — warts and all."
Mapou (to Barb): "I no longer want to discuss this topic. Thanks for the comments."
More tomorrow, I'm sure.
...after reviewing the arguments, Iâ€™m inclined to believe that the critics of ENCODEâ€™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