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... > The Bathroom Wall

Pages: (666) < ... 352 353 354 355 356 [357] 358 359 360 361 362 ... >

khan Posts: 1554 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2009,20:13    Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 15 2009,20:14) Wow. Was just listening to the trained chimp giving his farewell address. He really has no relationship whatever with reality, does he? None whatsoever. -------------- "It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad Frequency is just the plural of wavelength... -JoeG

Reed Posts: 274 Joined: Feb. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2009,22:56    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 15 2009,16:33) Really? What world do you live in? List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science Just because some great scientists are Christian, does not imply that their Christian philosophy contributed to their scientific discoveries. If you read the list, you might notice that quite the opposite is true: Their great contributions were frequently due to preferring empiricism over dogma, despite living societies steeped in dogma. This is the kind of error that would get you an F in high school logic class. Even more embarrassing, you've had this error pointed out to you several times before. Not good for a guy who's claiming the last 200 years of biology is all wrong. Repeating clueless garbage like this is one of the reasons people here don't take you seriously. edit: Clarity and speeelink, not that it will help.

Badger3k Posts: 861 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2009,23:34    Quote (Reed @ Jan. 15 2009,22:56) Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 15 2009,16:33) Really? What world do you live in? List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science Just because some great scientists are Christian, does not imply that their Christian philosophy contributed to their scientific discoveries. If you read the list, you might notice that quite the opposite is true: Their great contributions were frequently due to preferring empiricism over dogma, despite living societies steeped in dogma. This is the kind of error that would get you an F in high school logic class. Even more embarrassing, you've had this error pointed out to you several times before. Not good for a guy who's claiming the last 200 years of biology is all wrong. Repeating clueless garbage like this is one of the reasons people here don't take you seriously. edit: Clarity and speeelink, not that it will help. It's funny, given the Flood Myth getting tossed around, along with scientists who are Christians, that the scientists who destroyed the flood mythology were Christians.  Irony? I do like how Daniel has precognition, as he knows that scientific inquiry will never be able to solve some of these "roadblocks".  Pretty sad, since we are passing these roadblocks every day.  It's also pathetic that he has to refer to the crappy (subjective) "other ways of knowing" woo to attempt to defend his beliefs from empirical investigation.  I would be very interested to see his (objective) evidence that his (subjective) knowing is true and other people's knowledge, especially those that are in diametrical opposition to his, are false?  Or is Daniel one of those post-modern Christians who believe that everyone's ideas are true at the same time? -------------- "Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

Reed Posts: 274 Joined: Feb. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2009,00:27    Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 15 2009,21:34) Or is Daniel one of those post-modern Christians who believe that everyone's ideas are true at the same time? No, he may apply post-modernist standards to theories that accord with his own world view, but he is very sure that evolution could not possibly be true!

jeffox Posts: 671 Joined: Oct. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2009,01:56    Khan wrote about Khan: Quote Ricardo Montalban (November 25, 1920 – January 14, 2009) The great Khan is no longer with us. "From death's door I stab at thee. . . ." A great loss, indeed.

jeffox Posts: 671 Joined: Oct. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2009,02:08    Lou wrote: Quote Wow. Was just listening to the trained chimp giving his farewell address. He really has no relationship whatever with reality, does he? History will not be kind to the W Bush administration.  It will be objective, however.   He'll be known as the TARD president.  And the worst we've ever had.  My 2c.

jeffox Posts: 671 Joined: Oct. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2009,02:18    Richard Simons wrote (responding to Daniel Smith): Quote Quote "NOTHING"? Really? What world do you live in? List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science - snip - The claim was not that Christians have contributed nothing productive, but that your philosophy has contributed nothing. Exactly.  Daniel, it's no wonder that you don't understand modern science.  You have a major reading comprehension problem.  Work on solving that, then come back in here with your "philosophy", if you haven't learned your way out of it by then. Oh, and BTW, just what has JADavison written that isn't crackpot?  You've been avoiding that question of late.  Like I wrote before, tard in equals tard out.  Pay attention.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2009,02:24    Quote (jeffox @ Jan. 16 2009,03:08) He'll be known as the TARD president.  And the worst we've ever had.  My 2c. It's between him and Buchanan, at this point.

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2009,02:58    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 15 2009,18:59)  Many of his posted "quotes" of mine are blatantly out of context - so if you really want to know what I think about something either go back and read the original in context or ask me.   Quote d) Did man and dinosaur share the planet at the same time? It's possible, but again I don't know. Yes, the "context" is all important there in your "quotes". I can see why you are complaining. Terrible misrepresentation. Why did you put "quotes" in "scare quotes". Are you trying to say that they are not really what you wrote or something? -------------- 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

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2009,03:02    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 15 2009,18:59) I've said all those things to him, but with oldmanintheskydidit it just falls on deaf ears and he continues on - like a little yapping dog - berating me at every turn.   Yes, you may have said all those things to me but the important point is that the follow up questions I and others have asked that follow naturally from your answers you have simply ignored. Why is that Daniel? Will you now rule out the possibility of a young earth, if only on the basis of the work of the scientists you quote, Berg etc? Both cannot be true. C'mon Danny boy, find out what it feels like to be a scientist. Rule something out because of the evidence. -------------- 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

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2009,03:05    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 09 2008,18:24)     Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 09 2008,05:15) Hey Daniel, Seeing as things have taken a turn for the off-topic, perhaps you could answer a few simple questions that'll allow the lurkers to decide if you are sincere? a) How old is the earth? b) How old is the solar system? c) How old is the universe? I don't know.  I haven't really studied both sides of the whole "age of the earth" debate, so I'm not prepared to give an answer on those.           Quote d) Did man and dinosaur share the planet at the same time? It's possible, but again I don't know.           Quote e) Did every human but 8 die in a global flood? I believe in the flood, but only because I haven't seen the evidence against it.  My main reason for believing it (other than the bible), is that the landscape looks like the aftermath of massive flood runoff when viewed from the air.  Not very scientific, I know but that's where I'm at.  (insert joke here)           Quote f) Does the "designer" actively "interfere" with the day to day running of the universe? g) If "yes" to f) then how come we've not noticed? Again it's possible, although it is equally possible that he planned everything out in advance, and it is just unfolding accordingly. I definitely don't have all the answers and my opinions are in a constant state of flux. Context. There are not "two sides" to the "age of the earth debate" Daniel and you know it. There might be two viewpoints but only one actually has evidence to support it. Be a man, admit it. -------------- 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

Quack Posts: 1961 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2009,05:09    Quote The majority are usually just empty headed sheep anyway. The majority just loves pablum. Always has, always will. You said it, you eat it; US majority have chosen creationism. -------------- Rocks have no biology.               Robert Byers.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2009,06:05    Quote (Rrr @ Jan. 15 2009,13:48) Bill & Louis: I don't really wish to defend Daniel on any count, but I do not parse that particular quote the same way as you seem to do. (Alas, I fail to find the original myself, the search reports two results but refers me to the whole board index page itself. So I can't reference Danny's context. I even thumbed back ten days and ten pages...)   Quote (Louis @ Jan. 15 2009,04:55) When confronted with something like Danny's     Quote I like scientists who are laughed at and shunned by the majority. The majority are usually just empty headed sheep anyway. The majority just loves pablum. Always has, always will. I'm honestly at a loss. Anyway, in the part shown here I'm not sure he means the majority of scientists (which would indeed be slanderous). Perhaps he is talking of as well as to himself? :-) Srry. No worries, anything's possible! ;-) I can see that one could parse Danny's sentence another way, and to be frank you could be right. However, I'm not sure that makes it better. One comma could make all the difference, as in "I like scientists, who are....". tee hee. Anyway, if Danny is commenting on the majority of people (rather than that subset of people, scientists) then his illogic is even more stupid, not less so, since he is championing his admittedly ignorant (majority) view over that of less ignorant people (scientists) that he would normally shun and thus his plaint is self defeatingly recursive. A point I'm sure you note! However, given Danny's obvious and frequently expressed antiscience biases, I think what he means, taken in context, is quite clear. Louis -------------- Bye.

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2009,07:25    In Context then, Daniel believes that every person bar 8 or so perished in a global flood a few thousand years ago. Oddly, IIRC, Cheetahs had a population crisis about 10,000 years ago. The evidence for that is in their genes and their gene pool is apparently very "shallow". Check for yourself Daniel. Now, you would think that if humans went through a similar crisis much more recently that the evidence for that would be in the genes also. It's not. Daniel, why do you suppose that is? As Daniel is not reading my posts :) perhaps one of you other BW denziens could ask for me? -------------- 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

Rrr Posts: 146 Joined: Nov. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2009,07:42    It has become increasingly clear to me that Daniel is proud to be a minority of one and has little but disdain for a majority which for example deprecates the use of rare and proscribed ivory as building material for high-rise abodes such as his own. Now, if he could at least stay put in there... But no, he has to come out regularly and holler from his minaret. Like it were some Swiss clock or something. And then he has the temerity to demand respect, on top of all that! I'll just try and stop winding him up.

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2009,08:43    Thanks Wes for being relatively sane. I just wanted to drop in a say that. Bye. :) -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2009,12:10    Quote (BWE @ Jan. 16 2009,14:43) Thanks Wes for being relatively sane. I just wanted to drop in a say that. Bye. :) Enquiring minds want to know: What the hell's this about? Louis P.S. I never knew Wes' sanity was in doubt! -------------- Bye.

Amadan Posts: 1337 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2009,13:58    The Resistance strikes its first blow! Now everyone hold hands and pray for the success of our atheist friends. -------------- "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: Jan. 16 2009,14:02    Oops -------------- 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

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2009,14:05    Quote (Amadan @ Jan. 16 2009,13:58) The Resistance strikes its first blow! Now everyone hold hands and pray for the success of our atheist friends. Those crazy Brits!  There has got to be a Benny Hill in here somewhere.... If only God would create a miracle and allow him to drive his bus over the Atlantic to the Flintstone Museum! -------------- 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

Rrr Posts: 146 Joined: Nov. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2009,15:04    Quote (Louis @ Jan. 16 2009,12:10) Quote (BWE @ Jan. 16 2009,14:43) Thanks Wes for being relatively sane. I just wanted to drop in a say that. Bye. :) Enquiring minds want to know: What the hell's this about? Louis P.S. I never knew Wes' sanity was in doubt! Might have been in reference to this. Though ISTR somebody claiming to have stopped worrying about the more blazing idiots for hir bloodpressure's sake. May have been someone completely different OTOH. Anyhow. Where's the harm in agreeing with BWE on Wes' relative sanity? We thank you for it, Wes! There you go. Any other takers...?

Rrr Posts: 146 Joined: Nov. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2009,15:11    Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 16 2009,14:05) Quote (Amadan @ Jan. 16 2009,13:58) The Resistance strikes its first blow! Now everyone hold hands and pray for the success of our atheist friends. Those crazy Brits!  There has got to be a Benny Hill in here somewhere.... If only God would create a miracle and allow him to drive his bus over the Atlantic to the Flintstone Museum! If God were in a really miraculous mode He might inspire Ron to leave the bus at the depo and just leg it across instead. It's been reported before, right? From other comments I gather many passengers are enough frustrated as it is with the bus service and might take further offence if they were to be shanghaied to a place so far from their destination.

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2009,18:06    I want to congratulate you all.  I came here with an argument, and, while none of you have managed to counter that argument (or any of the many forms it has taken since then), you have managed to successfully counter an argument I never made (the flood/age of the earth).  You've defeated a position I never researched, never pursued, and never disputed.  (I did, however, express my indifference to the subject.) So a hearty congratulations to you all!  That's quite an achievement! What's next? Candy from babies?  Rolling geriatrics? -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

jeffox Posts: 671 Joined: Oct. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2009,18:27    Danny the Troll-boy wrote: Quote I want to congratulate you all.  I came here with an argument, and, while none of you have managed to counter that argument (or any of the many forms it has taken since then), you have managed to successfully counter an argument I never made (the flood/age of the earth).  You've defeated a position I never researched, never pursued, and never disputed.  (I did, however, express my indifference to the subject.) So a hearty congratulations to you all!  That's quite an achievement! What's next? Candy from babies?  Rolling geriatrics? Translated from tardspeak:  WATERLOO!!! Coming from someone with as poor reading comprehension skills as yourself, Daniel. . . .

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2009,18:30    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 16 2009,19:06) I want to congratulate you all.  I came here with an argument, and, while none of you have managed to counter that argument (or any of the many forms it has taken since then), you have managed to successfully counter an argument I never made (the flood/age of the earth).  You've defeated a position I never researched, never pursued, and never disputed.  (I did, however, express my indifference to the subject.) So a hearty congratulations to you all!  That's quite an achievement! What's next? Candy from babies?  Rolling geriatrics? Daniel, where is it written that you alone are to introduce facets of this debate? You asked that I show where you deny and dismiss scientific assertions that are in fact well in hand and beyond reasonable dispute. We've just showed you several instance of exactly that (your statements regarding the flood, dinosaurs coexisting with human beings, and the age of the earth). Were I to ask you if you whether the earth orbits the sun, or the sun the earth, would you beg off by stating that is "possible" that the sun orbits the earth, but you need to research the topic? Rejection of our current understanding of this relationship entails the rejection of the entirety of hundreds of years of the natural sciences. Rejection of the current understanding of the age of the earth requires a similar rejection of somewhat more recent, but no less settled, science. So what ARE your beliefs regarding that question? -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2009,18:42    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 16 2009,18:06) I want to congratulate you all.  I came here with an argument, and, while none of you have managed to counter that argument (or any of the many forms it has taken since then), you have managed to successfully counter an argument I never made (the flood/age of the earth).  You've defeated a position I never researched, never pursued, and never disputed.  (I did, however, express my indifference to the subject.) So a hearty congratulations to you all!  That's quite an achievement! What's next? Candy from babies?  Rolling geriatrics? No, Danny. You came here with a strawman argument - "Tell me exactly how an extremely complicated pathway originated, from the abiotic beginning to the current complicated pathway. If you can't tell me that, evolution must be wrong." You have had lots of people point out to you the problems with that approach, ranging from "this is a strawman" to "science always has lots of unanswered questions" to "why is your explanation automatically right even if this one is wrong or incomplete" through "do you have a better explanation". You have failed to adequately address any of these objections to your "argument". You have nothing constructive to offer to scientists or even philosophers. But if you think you've won; you have an interesting relationship with reality. Carry on. -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

Reed Posts: 274 Joined: Feb. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2009,19:09    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 16 2009,16:06) You've defeated a position I never researched, never pursued, and never disputed.  (I did, however, express my indifference to the subject.) Once again, you miss the point. Your "indifference" to the flood shows that you are utterly clueless. Moreover, your "indifference" wasn't that indifferent. You claimed that you had never researched the subject, but you hadn't seen any evidence against it. You don't have to research: Simple geometry should tell you that a global flood is nonsense. Volume of water to reach > 8 km over current sea level, where did it come from, where did it go ? This may not be relevant to your argument, but it certainly highlights your failure to think critically. Much like the error I pointed out in my previous post. If you can't recognize elementary problems like this, it's no surprise you haven't been able to see the problems with your argument, despite having them pointed out to you many times. But do feel free to declare victory

Texas Teach Posts: 2084 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2009,22:57    Quote (Reed @ Jan. 16 2009,19:09) You don't have to research: Simple geometry should tell you that a global flood is nonsense. Volume of water to reach > 8 km over current sea level, where did it come from, where did it go ? [FTK] If you would just call Walt yourself.  Or agree to debate him in a series of novels... [/FTK] -------------- "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

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2009,05:29    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 16 2009,18:06) I want to congratulate you all.  I came here with an argument, and, while none of you have managed to counter that argument (or any of the many forms it has taken since then), you have managed to successfully counter an argument I never made (the flood/age of the earth).  You've defeated a position I never researched, never pursued, and never disputed.  (I did, however, express my indifference to the subject.) So a hearty congratulations to you all!  That's quite an achievement! What's next? Candy from babies?  Rolling geriatrics? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience       Quote The word consilience was apparently coined by William Whewell, in The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, 1840. In this synthesis Whewell explained that, "The Consilience of Inductions takes place when an Induction, obtained from one class of facts, coincides with an Induction obtained from another different class. Thus Consilience is a test of the truth of the Theory in which it occurs." Modern views understand that each branch of knowledge studies a subset of reality that depends on factors studied in other branches. Atomic physics underlies the workings of chemistry, which studies emergent properties that in turn are the basis of biology. Psychology can no longer be separated from the study of properties emergent from the interaction of neurons and synapses. Sociology, economics, and anthropology are each, in turn, studies of properties emergent from the interaction of countless individual humans. The fact that all these different areas of research are studying one real, existing universe is an apparent explanation of why generalizations arrived at in one area have often helped in understanding other areas. Consilience is thus often used as an argument for scientific realism by philosophers of science. Everything is connected in one way or another Danny boy. If we had a global flood then many aspects of current scientific understanding are totally wrong. Age of the earth, how canyons formed, how fossil fuels formed, understanding of the solar system (where did the water go?), genetics (no evidence for a 8 person bottleneck) and so on and on. If you can't rule it out and say as much then it's obvious that evidence plays no part in your opinion forming process.   Daniel, here lies your future http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ I imagine Walt Brown started out just like you. Perhaps you should get in touch with him to discuss the world wide fludde. And Danny boy, how's it working out ignoring my posts? I seem to be getting my point across anyway......I guess that did not work out as you thought it would eh? Still, sticking your fingers in your ears "la la la" only works when you are a 5 year old. Oh, I see........ -------------- 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

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2009,05:53    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 16 2009,18:06) none of you have managed to counter that argument -------------- 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

Pages: (666) < ... 352 353 354 355 356 [357] 358 359 360 361 362 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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