RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (297) < ... 288 289 290 291 292 [293] 294 295 296 297 >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 5, Return To Teh Dingbat Buffet< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
stevestory



Posts: 10370
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2017,13:46   

Quote
34
William J MurrayAugust 19, 2017 at 10:57 am
CR said:
Quote

Furthermore, it’s a bad explanation. So I discard it.

Do you really not realize that everything you write is written in a syntax that presupposes justificationism? “Bad explanation”? We would all have to agree on some sort of assumed, arbiting basis for such a judgement to carry any interpersonal weight other than pure rhetoric. You rely on accessing the very thing you deny as valid (justificationism) in order for the terms you use, and how you arrange them, to carry any weight.

Sort of like how atheists rely upon magic for their worldview even while denying it exists, and say things and make arguments as if the magic of supernatural free will exists, even while denying it does.

You’re just another biological automaton spitting out nonsense as if it had the capacity for reason.
Quote

35
ichisanAugust 19, 2017 at 11:54 am
rvb8 @20:

I’m not a demon as I place demons in the same category as God; divine, above nature, non-corporeal.

Because I don’t accept anything can exist beyond the ‘natural’ universe then ‘demons’ also fall into the fictional world of the supernatural.

All demons love to talk about the natural universe even though they have no clue what that universe really is. What you see is not all there is. Whoever created the physical universe is more natural than the universe. The beauty and order of the universe are not physical properties. They are abstract or spiritual properties.


Uncommon Descent™ - Powered by Crack!

Edited by stevestory on Aug. 19 2017,14:47

   
Woodbine



Posts: 1196
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2017,17:28   

Quote
You’re just another biological automaton spitting out nonsense as if it had the capacity for reason.


Signed - William J. Pizzagate

  
stevestory



Posts: 10370
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2017,08:36   

Quote
47
rvb8August 19, 2017 at 11:06 pm
Barry @41,

what is the point of a ‘science’ blog that never introduces new science, or science related topics?

“On The Magical Thinking Inherent In The New Atheism.”

Really?

Judge Jones said ID would be perfectly acceptable as a subject for study in Public Schools, so long as it was confined to the Humanities; Social Studies, History etc.

This blog would make a lot more sense if it had a title like;

‘Uncommon Descent: A Philosophical Journey Through Creation.’

the Firehose of Derp replies:
Quote

48
kairosfocusAugust 20, 2017 at 5:09 am
RVB8, again, kindly provide a credibly empirically observed case where functionally specific complex organisation and/or associated information (especially text but also that implied by coherent, functional configuration) comes about by blind chance and mechanical necessity. Similarly, kindly show us how intelligence reduces to mechanical configurations originating by such blind chance and necessity, while preserving the credibility of knowing, reasoning and responsibly deciding. Further, kindly show us that scientific inference, theorising and explaining can be implicitly confined to a physicalist, evolutionary materialistic circle without begging questions regarding the goal of science as seeking truth about our world warranted by empirical evidence obtained via observation. And the like. If you look at that seriously, you will see that ID is about a major new issue in science: studying signs of intelligence and where they point regarding the objects, processes and phenomena of our world. Also, that such issues raise questions about ideologies embedded in science and education, the media, policy-making circles and more, requiring an effort to also address underlying worldviews and cultural agenda questions. KF

PS: Have you been able to acknowledge as yet that many dozens of ID-supporting contributions are now part of the corpus of peer reviewed, scientifically oriented literature? (Your attempt to push ID into “humanities” strongly suggests, no. Even, as it points to your support for self-refuting scientism. FWIW, the notion that “Science” effectively monopolises knowledge is a self-undermining philosophical claim. This illustrates the too often unacknowledged value of philosophical considerations in doing sound science. I suggest that a pondering of Newton, Opticks, Query 31, will do some good. Likewise, the General Scholium to his Principia.)
Quote

49
kairosfocusAugust 20, 2017 at 5:15 am
Mung, is a necessary being caused? Is there any possibility of a world without distinct identity, thus two-ness? Can utter non-being give rise to anything by exerting causal influence? Were there ever only true nothing, then, would that not forever obtain? Thus, do we not face the futility of proposed transfinite causal sucession to now or else a finitely remote necessary being world root? One, sufficient to account for rational, responsible, morally governed creatures . . . us? Is it then even up to the level of the high achievement, error, to imagine that everything has a cause? (Instead of merely manifesting utter — and too often, willfully insistent — ignorance and failure to understand, acknowledge and respect as significant what is meant when serious thinkers speak of God.) KF
Quote

50
kairosfocusAugust 20, 2017 at 6:07 am
F/N: One aspect of being with distinct identity is that it has characteristics which must all obtain at once of the same thing for it to be that thing. This implies that such must be mutually consistent, thus why a square circle is impossible of being: core characteristics for one half cannot hold while those for the other half also hold. So, a serious candidate being must be internally coherent in its core, defining characteristics. Of such [for all we know] possible beings, we have contingent and necessary beings. The first obtain in at least one but not in all possible worlds, reflecting that they are causally dependent on prior, external, enabling on/off factors, cf a fire and need for heat, fuel, oxidiser as well as a viable chain reaction. necessary beings are tied to the framework for any world to exist and so are present in all worlds, we see two-ness as a case in point. This then leads to the point that a serious candidate necessary being must either be impossible of being or else it will exist in any world. In this context the atheist cannot simply quip about believing in one fewer god-candidate than monotheists, but need to address being, existence of a world and existence of us as rational, responsible, morally governed creatures in it. As God is the most serious candidate necessary being, they also need to show cause as to why they imply that such a being is impossible. And, logic of being is rational evidence. Where also, understanding being, cause etc provide ground work for scientific thought on actual beings, causes, dynamics, etc. This includes that structure and quantity are characteristics of beings, thus we see the relevance of Mathematics and its power in Science and life. Again and again, philosophical considerations are key to understanding and undergirding science. KF
Quote

51
kairosfocusAugust 20, 2017 at 6:36 am
PS: One of the consistent patterns we have found over the years is that the errors of evolutionary materialism trace to worldview issues and/or to problems of conception tied to fundamental principles of reasoning. Such are so dominant that it would be irresponsible for this blog’s main contributors not to address such. Accordingly, we reject the sort of framing being imposed by RVB8 et al, that would try to block us from addressing the roots of their many errors.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10370
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2017,09:20   

Quote
5
tjguyAugust 20, 2017 at 6:44 am
From creation.com April 2012

Genomic monkey business—estimates of nearly identical human–chimp DNA similarity re-evaluated using omitted data

by Jeffrey Tomkins and Jerry Bergman
Quote

A review of the common claim that the human and chimpanzee (chimp) genomes are nearly identical was found to be highly questionable solely by an analysis of the methodology and data outlined in an assortment of key research publications. Reported high DNA sequence similarity estimates are primarily based on prescreened biological samples and/or data.

….

Several recent research reports confirm the conclusions noted above.

While the recent Y-chromosome comparison between human and chimp does not lend itself to a genome-wide similarity estimate, the extreme dissimilarity discovered is an insurmountable paradox for common ancestry in primate evolution because it is by far the least variable chromosome in the human genome.

“While the recent Y-chromosome comparison between human and chimp does not lend itself to a genome-wide similarity estimate, the extreme dissimilarity discovered is an insurmountable paradox for common ancestry in primate evolution because it is by far the least variable chromosome in the human genome.”

Old news, but was mostly ignored when it came out.

Opinions?


My opinion is "You're a great big dumbass"

   
Henry J



Posts: 4723
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2017,11:15   

Re "by blind chance and mechanical necessity."

Neither of those phrases is particularly applicable to the science.

  
sparc



Posts: 1973
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2017,06:30   

Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 20 2017,11:15)
Re "by blind chance and mechanical necessity."

Neither of those phrases is particularly applicable to the science.

but obviously to KF's thinking: randomly picked pro evolution arguments i.e., blind chance gets him going until mechanical necessity lets him ease off

ETA: provided that red herings and strawmen posess any FiaSCO/I

Edited by sparc on Aug. 21 2017,06:33

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

   
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 1084
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2017,12:12   

WJM:
Quote
Good lord … you biological automatons are so pitifully inept at grappling with conceptual matters. It’s almost like you all suffer from Aspergers.

What an insufferable jerk.
Comment 68

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2184
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2017,12:14   

Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 20 2017,11:15)
Re "by blind chance and mechanical necessity."

Neither of those phrases is particularly applicable to the science.

You obviously haven't applied for many research grants.

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

   
LarTanner



Posts: 22
Joined: Dec. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2017,14:23   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Aug. 21 2017,12:12)
WJM:
 
Quote
Good lord … you biological automatons are so pitifully inept at grappling with conceptual matters. It’s almost like you all suffer from Aspergers.

What an insufferable jerk.
Comment 68

To be slightly charitable, I did provoke him in an earlier comment. Not him by name, but he must have felt he was being referred to. So he's only a 9.93-level prick.

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 1084
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2017,14:46   

Quote (LarTanner @ Aug. 21 2017,14:23)
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Aug. 21 2017,12:12)
WJM:
 
Quote
Good lord … you biological automatons are so pitifully inept at grappling with conceptual matters. It’s almost like you all suffer from Aspergers.

What an insufferable jerk.
Comment 68

To be slightly charitable, I did provoke him in an earlier comment. Not him by name, but he must have felt he was being referred to. So he's only a 9.93-level prick.

You are more charitable than I. I have had a few "debates" with him over the years and he has a long history of resorting to name calling when his logic is backed into a corner that he can't get out of. He must have had the same teacher as Barry, KF, Louis and Joe.

  
LarTanner



Posts: 22
Joined: Dec. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2017,15:10   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Aug. 21 2017,14:46)
Quote (LarTanner @ Aug. 21 2017,14:23)
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Aug. 21 2017,12:12)
WJM:
   
Quote
Good lord … you biological automatons are so pitifully inept at grappling with conceptual matters. It’s almost like you all suffer from Aspergers.

What an insufferable jerk.
Comment 68

To be slightly charitable, I did provoke him in an earlier comment. Not him by name, but he must have felt he was being referred to. So he's only a 9.93-level prick.

You are more charitable than I. I have had a few "debates" with him over the years and he has a long history of resorting to name calling when his logic is backed into a corner that he can't get out of. He must have had the same teacher as Barry, KF, Louis and Joe.

He's persisted in his nastiness. So I returned volley.

Link

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 1084
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2017,16:20   

Quote (LarTanner @ Aug. 21 2017,15:10)
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Aug. 21 2017,14:46)
Quote (LarTanner @ Aug. 21 2017,14:23)
 
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Aug. 21 2017,12:12)
WJM:
   
Quote
Good lord … you biological automatons are so pitifully inept at grappling with conceptual matters. It’s almost like you all suffer from Aspergers.

What an insufferable jerk.
Comment 68

To be slightly charitable, I did provoke him in an earlier comment. Not him by name, but he must have felt he was being referred to. So he's only a 9.93-level prick.

You are more charitable than I. I have had a few "debates" with him over the years and he has a long history of resorting to name calling when his logic is backed into a corner that he can't get out of. He must have had the same teacher as Barry, KF, Louis and Joe.

He's persisted in his nastiness. So I returned volley.

Link

Ask William the Wonderful what the difference would be between a being that can perform real magic and a god. Not the Christian god but a run-o-the-mill god.

  
JohnW



Posts: 2825
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2017,17:13   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Aug. 21 2017,14:20)
Quote (LarTanner @ Aug. 21 2017,15:10)
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Aug. 21 2017,14:46)
 
Quote (LarTanner @ Aug. 21 2017,14:23)
 
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Aug. 21 2017,12:12)
WJM:
     
Quote
Good lord … you biological automatons are so pitifully inept at grappling with conceptual matters. It’s almost like you all suffer from Aspergers.

What an insufferable jerk.
Comment 68

To be slightly charitable, I did provoke him in an earlier comment. Not him by name, but he must have felt he was being referred to. So he's only a 9.93-level prick.

You are more charitable than I. I have had a few "debates" with him over the years and he has a long history of resorting to name calling when his logic is backed into a corner that he can't get out of. He must have had the same teacher as Barry, KF, Louis and Joe.

He's persisted in his nastiness. So I returned volley.

Link

Ask William the Wonderful what the difference would be between a being that can perform real magic and a god. Not the Christian god but a run-o-the-mill god.

If he turns you into a newt, you had it coming.

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

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1786
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2017,18:19   

Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 21 2017,17:13)
 
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Aug. 21 2017,14:20)
 
Quote (LarTanner @ Aug. 21 2017,15:10)
   
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Aug. 21 2017,14:46)
   
Quote (LarTanner @ Aug. 21 2017,14:23)
     
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Aug. 21 2017,12:12)
WJM:
       
Quote
Good lord … you biological automatons are so pitifully inept at grappling with conceptual matters. It’s almost like you all suffer from Aspergers.

What an insufferable jerk.
Comment 68

To be slightly charitable, I did provoke him in an earlier comment. Not him by name, but he must have felt he was being referred to. So he's only a 9.93-level prick.

You are more charitable than I. I have had a few "debates" with him over the years and he has a long history of resorting to name calling when his logic is backed into a corner that he can't get out of. He must have had the same teacher as Barry, KF, Louis and Joe.

He's persisted in his nastiness. So I returned volley.

Link

Ask William the Wonderful what the difference would be between a being that can perform real magic and a god. Not the Christian god but a run-o-the-mill god.

If he turns you into a newt, you had it coming.

You'll get better.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
k.e..



Posts: 3853
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2017,21:20   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 19 2017,21:46)
Quote
34
William J MurrayAugust 19, 2017 at 10:57 am
CR said:
 
Quote

Furthermore, it’s a bad explanation. So I discard it.

Do you really not realize that everything you write is written in a syntax that presupposes justificationism? “Bad explanation”? We would all have to agree on some sort of assumed, arbiting basis for such a judgement to carry any interpersonal weight other than pure rhetoric. You rely on accessing the very thing you deny as valid (justificationism) in order for the terms you use, and how you arrange them, to carry any weight.

Sort of like how atheists rely upon magic for their worldview even while denying it exists, and say things and make arguments as if the magic of supernatural free will exists, even while denying it does.

You’re just another biological automaton spitting out nonsense as if it had the capacity for reason.
 
Quote

35
ichisanAugust 19, 2017 at 11:54 am
rvb8 @20:

I’m not a demon as I place demons in the same category as God; divine, above nature, non-corporeal.

Because I don’t accept anything can exist beyond the ‘natural’ universe then ‘demons’ also fall into the fictional world of the supernatural.

All demons love to talk about the natural universe even though they have no clue what that universe really is. What you see is not all there is. Whoever created the physical universe is more natural than the universe. The beauty and order of the universe are not physical properties. They are abstract or spiritual properties.


Uncommon Descent™ - Powered by Crack!



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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4723
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2017,21:51   

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4723
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2017,21:51   

Re "The beauty and order of the universe are not physical properties. "

Nope. Beauty is a subjective judgments being made by an observer of some part of that universe. Order depends on what some observer has decided to measure, which makes it somewhat subjective as well.

  
timothya



Posts: 257
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2017,02:20   

Looks like Louis/Mapou is back as Ichisan (good nickname):

Derp

  
stevestory



Posts: 10370
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2017,08:17   

[quote=LarTanner,Aug. 21 2017,16:10][/quote]
BTW, "third-rate philisophical detritus" is a nice way of describing WJM's babble.  :p

I always wonder, do they think a handful of half-wits babbling "nuh-uh" about evolution on a backwater blog amounts to a scientific enterprise? Do any of them have any sense of how pathetic their Glorious Revolution is? They started out with the grand designs of the Wedge Document, and 20 years later, all they're left with is a Wedgie.

Edited by stevestory on Aug. 22 2017,09:18

   
LarTanner



Posts: 22
Joined: Dec. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2017,10:38   

In the thread, "On the Magical Thinking Inherent in the New Atheism," Dean from Ohio weighs in:
 
Quote
Mike 1962 @ 86:
 
Quote
Death. I’m coming for you. Yeah you. Period. Theists do what they do because of it. Atheists do what they do because of it. But make no mistake. You’re living on borrowed time. Love, Death

Nope, it’s you, Death, who’s living on borrowed time. Your power has been destroyed forever by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. You are going to lose EVERYTHING of value that you ever claimed. At the end of all things, God is going to throw you into the lake of fire.

Paul the Apostle wrote this almost 2,000 years ago, and we’ve been singing about it since then:
Quote
I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:
Quote
Death is swallowed up in victory.
O death, where is your victory?
O death, where is your sting?

The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
— Paul’s second letter to the church at Corinth, chapter 15, verses 50-57

You, Death, are the biggest loser!

I am starting to see their point about the magical thinking inherent in the New Atheism.  :)

  
k.e..



Posts: 3853
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2017,10:47   

Quote (LarTanner @ Aug. 22 2017,18:38)
In the thread, "On the Magical Thinking Inherent in the New Atheism," Dean from Ohio weighs in:
 
Quote
Mike 1962 @ 86:
 
Quote
Death. I’m coming for you. Yeah you. Period. Theists do what they do because of it. Atheists do what they do because of it. But make no mistake. You’re living on borrowed time. Love, Death

Nope, it’s you, Death, who’s living on borrowed time. Your power has been destroyed forever by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. You are going to lose EVERYTHING of value that you ever claimed. At the end of all things, God is going to throw you into the lake of fire.

Paul the Apostle wrote this almost 2,000 years ago, and we’ve been singing about it since then:
 
Quote
I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:
 
Quote
Death is swallowed up in victory.
O death, where is your victory?
O death, where is your sting?

The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
— Paul’s second letter to the church at Corinth, chapter 15, verses 50-57

You, Death, are the biggest loser!

I am starting to see their point about the magical thinking inherent in the New Atheism.  :)

If they change religion they can have 72 virgins when they die. Although lately those virgins will be a bit worn out.

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 10370
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2017,10:59   

Quote (LarTanner @ Aug. 22 2017,11:38)
In the thread, "On the Magical Thinking Inherent in the New Atheism," Dean from Ohio weighs in:
 
Quote
Mike 1962 @ 86:
 
Quote
Death. I’m coming for you. Yeah you. Period. Theists do what they do because of it. Atheists do what they do because of it. But make no mistake. You’re living on borrowed time. Love, Death

Nope, it’s you, Death, who’s living on borrowed time. Your power has been destroyed forever by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. You are going to lose EVERYTHING of value that you ever claimed. At the end of all things, God is going to throw you into the lake of fire.

Paul the Apostle wrote this almost 2,000 years ago, and we’ve been singing about it since then:
 
Quote
I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:
 
Quote
Death is swallowed up in victory.
O death, where is your victory?
O death, where is your sting?

The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
— Paul’s second letter to the church at Corinth, chapter 15, verses 50-57

You, Death, are the biggest loser!

I am starting to see their point about the magical thinking inherent in the New Atheism.  :)

I struggle to keep up with all their scientific discoveries.

   
JohnW



Posts: 2825
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2017,11:18   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 22 2017,06:17)
[quote=LarTanner,Aug. 21 2017,16:10][/quote]
BTW, "third-rate philisophical detritus" is a nice way of describing WJM's babble.  :p

I always wonder, do they think a handful of half-wits babbling "nuh-uh" about evolution on a backwater blog amounts to a scientific enterprise? Do any of them have any sense of how pathetic their Glorious Revolution is? They started out with the grand designs of the Wedge Document, and 20 years later, all they're left with is a Wedgie.

A lot of them seem to think that some people somewhere are working on Serious ID Science, and any day now the revolution will start.  It's not yet clear whether this will happen in the Ann Gauger File Photo Institute, JoeG's shed, or Gaulin's basement.

--------------
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: 1084
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2017,12:15   

Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 22 2017,11:18)
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 22 2017,06:17)
Quote (LarTanner @ Aug. 21 2017,16:10)

BTW, "third-rate philisophical detritus" is a nice way of describing WJM's babble.  :p

I always wonder, do they think a handful of half-wits babbling "nuh-uh" about evolution on a backwater blog amounts to a scientific enterprise? Do any of them have any sense of how pathetic their Glorious Revolution is? They started out with the grand designs of the Wedge Document, and 20 years later, all they're left with is a Wedgie.

A lot of them seem to think that some people somewhere are working on Serious ID Science, and any day now the revolution will start.  It's not yet clear whether this will happen in the Ann Gauger File Photo Institute, JoeG's shed, or Gaulin's basement.

Or Mullings' island lair.

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1041
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2017,12:24   

Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 22 2017,11:18)
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 22 2017,06:17)
Quote (LarTanner @ Aug. 21 2017,16:10)

BTW, "third-rate philisophical detritus" is a nice way of describing WJM's babble.  :p

I always wonder, do they think a handful of half-wits babbling "nuh-uh" about evolution on a backwater blog amounts to a scientific enterprise? Do any of them have any sense of how pathetic their Glorious Revolution is? They started out with the grand designs of the Wedge Document, and 20 years later, all they're left with is a Wedgie.

A lot of them seem to think that some people somewhere are working on Serious ID Science, and any day now the revolution will start.  It's not yet clear whether this will happen in the Ann Gauger File Photo Institute, JoeG's shed, or Gaulin's basement.

The Designer will cause ID science to happen at the right time.

They're always thrilled with what the future will bring.  Soon.  In 10 years.  It's getting closer!  

They just have to wait and triumph.

Glen Davidson

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

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

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2563
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2017,14:38   

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Aug. 22 2017,10:24)
Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 22 2017,11:18)
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 22 2017,06:17)
Quote (LarTanner @ Aug. 21 2017,16:10)

BTW, "third-rate philisophical detritus" is a nice way of describing WJM's babble.  :p

I always wonder, do they think a handful of half-wits babbling "nuh-uh" about evolution on a backwater blog amounts to a scientific enterprise? Do any of them have any sense of how pathetic their Glorious Revolution is? They started out with the grand designs of the Wedge Document, and 20 years later, all they're left with is a Wedgie.

A lot of them seem to think that some people somewhere are working on Serious ID Science, and any day now the revolution will start.  It's not yet clear whether this will happen in the Ann Gauger File Photo Institute, JoeG's shed, or Gaulin's basement.

The Designer will cause ID science to happen at the right time.

They're always thrilled with what the future will bring.  Soon.  In 10 years.  It's getting closer!  

They just have to wait and triumph.

Glen Davidson

"Two thousand years and he ain't shown yet.
We kept his seat warm and the table set..."

10cc

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

  
Ptaylor



Posts: 1033
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2017,21:02   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 23 2017,01:17)
 
Quote (LarTanner @ Aug. 21 2017,16:10)

BTW, "third-rate philisophical detritus" is a nice way of describing WJM's babble.  :p

I always wonder, do they think a handful of half-wits babbling "nuh-uh" about evolution on a backwater blog amounts to a scientific enterprise? Do any of them have any sense of how pathetic their Glorious Revolution is? They started out with the grand designs of the Wedge Document, and 20 years later, all they're left with is a Wedgie.

Heh - one of the things I find amusing about the Wedge doc is that they did achieve one of their five year goals, although a little late, and not quite in the way they had intended. From the document under FIVE YEAR OBJECTIVES:
 
Quote
4. Significant coverage in national media:

    * Cover story on major news magazine such as Time or Newsweek
    * PBS show such as Nova treating design theory fairly

They got their NOVA documentary on PBS, it was called Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial. It was a fair treatment, at least in the eyes of various scientific organisations, but the DI weren't happy with it at all, according to the Wiki article.
I guess it's a case of careful what you wish for...

--------------
We no longer say: “Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.” We now say: “Another day since the time Darwinism was disproved.”
-PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

  
Henry J



Posts: 4723
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2017,22:19   

LOL

  
JohnW



Posts: 2825
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2017,22:49   

Quote (Ptaylor @ Aug. 22 2017,19:02)
Heh - one of the things I find amusing about the Wedge doc is that they did achieve one of their five year goals, although a little late, and not quite in the way they had intended. From the document under FIVE YEAR OBJECTIVES:
   
Quote
4. Significant coverage in national media:

    * Cover story on major news magazine such as Time or Newsweek
    * PBS show such as Nova treating design theory fairly

They got their NOVA documentary on PBS, it was called Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial. It was a fair treatment, at least in the eyes of various scientific organisations, but the DI weren't happy with it at all, according to the Wiki article.
I guess it's a case of careful what you wish for...

They've achieved a couple of the other goals in the five-year plan:

Quote
1. A major public debate between design theorists and Darwinists (by 2003)

OK, it was a year late, but Kitzmiller vs. Dover.  I believe the Smithsonian now has the serving platter on which their arses were handed to them.

Quote
2. Thirty published books on design and its cultural implications (sex, gender issues, medicine, law, and religion)

Only thirty?  There must be well over thirty if we just count the ones by Jack Chick.

Quote
7. Scientific achievements:
...
Two universities where design theory has become the dominant view

Must be at least two, if we count Billy-Bob's Backwoods Bible School & BBQ, and that place that almost fired Dembski for not being loony enough.

--------------
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: 10370
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2017,10:22   

asauber is one dumb son of a bitch.

   
  8903 replies since Dec. 29 2013,11:01 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (297) < ... 288 289 290 291 292 [293] 294 295 296 297 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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