Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

Pages: (527) < ... 314 315 316 317 318 [319] 320 321 322 323 324 ... >

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2018,17:54    Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Feb. 03 2018,10:57) Batshitcrazy77 was absent for several months. Do they not have internet access in the sanitarium? That was apparently the result of a righteous snit on ba77's part.  He kept posting to facebook.

Acartia_Bogart Posts: 2927 Joined: Sep. 2014 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2018,18:20    Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 03 2018,17:54) Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Feb. 03 2018,10:57) Batshitcrazy77 was absent for several months. Do they not have internet access in the sanitarium? That was apparently the result of a righteous snit on ba77's part.  He kept posting to facebook. Maybe Barry gave him a time-out for sucking up bandwidth.

Acartia_Bogart Posts: 2927 Joined: Sep. 2014 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2018,18:26    Quote Molson Bleu February 3, 2018 at 5:31 pm “MB, what people do and what they should do on warrant are categorically different things. This is one reason why subjectivism and relativism fail.” You won’t hear me disagree with you about this. But how does arguing about the nature of morality, or what end of the political spectrum Nazis fall, or the abortion issue, or homosexuality, or some of the other subjects repeatedly discussed here, advance the acceptance of ID? From the little I have seen on this site, it is almost always an ID opponent who first brings up these subjects. And, far too predictably, we fall right into their trap and get drawn into long winded discussions, often covering multiple threads, about things that have more to do with religious views than the science of ID. I just wish that we would stop falling for this obvious ploy. Damn. This guy is giving away all of our secrets. Link

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2018,23:04    Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Feb. 03 2018,17:26) Damn. This guy is giving away all of our secrets. Get better security?

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2018,00:10    Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Feb. 03 2018,19:26) Quote Molson Bleu You won’t hear me disagree with you about this. But how does arguing about the nature of morality, or what end of the political spectrum Nazis fall, or the abortion issue, or homosexuality, or some of the other subjects repeatedly discussed here, advance the acceptance of ID? From the little I have seen on this site, it is almost always an ID opponent who first brings up these subjects. And, far too predictably, we fall right into their trap and get drawn into long winded discussions, often covering multiple threads, about things that have more to do with religious views than the science of ID. I just wish that we would stop falling for this obvious ploy.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2018,01:00    Quote TFebruary 3, 2018 at 8:55 pm Molson Bleu- How many times can we talk about flagella, cilia, ATP synthase, spliceosomes, ribosomes, the genetic code, etc.? You do realize that the evidence for ID is finite and has been discussed to death. So to fill in the gaps there has to be other topics that are of interest and also pertain to the overall argument/ culture war.

Acartia_Bogart Posts: 2927 Joined: Sep. 2014 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2018,09:45    Mullings: Quote PS: Mere links are not substantial, a money shot excerpt is advisable. Who wants to go over to UD and let him know what the money shot term refers to? Link

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2018,19:03    Quote 49 Molson BleuFebruary 4, 2018 at 10:02 am “However, KF is certainly one who often debates fundamental ID topics, and not only more general issues.” Very true. And I commend him for that. But he is also one of the first to be led off on hundred comment tangents by ID opponents. I have gone back over many of the recent long threads and he has been drawn into long arguments over things like abortion, pedophile rings, subjective morality, radical Islam, homosexuality, to just name a few. I’m sure that I am not the only one to have noticed this. I am certain that our opponents have. My friendly advice to him would simply be to refrain from taking the bait. And I don’t want to centre KF out because there are several others also guilty of readily taking the bait. “It’s not clear why our more valid interlocutors should be so shy as soon as important biological ID topics are discussed, while they are often so ready to intervene about religion, morals, politics, and so on.” I think that it is obvious. They take pleasure in seeing what types of non ID discussions they can draw ID proponents into. And given the fact that the majority of ID proponents are religious, they stick to the tried and true religious hot button topics. Things like abortion, morality, homosexuality, and the like. The solution to this problem is simple. Don’t participate in every tangent or every provocation instigated by our opponents. Make them address ID on its merits rather than play into their distraction tactics. Sadly, I am not confident that this advice will be heeded. heh

Texas Teach Posts: 2084 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2018,19:23    Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 04 2018,19:03) Quote 49 Molson BleuFebruary 4, 2018 at 10:02 am “However, KF is certainly one who often debates fundamental ID topics, and not only more general issues.” Very true. And I commend him for that. But he is also one of the first to be led off on hundred comment tangents by ID opponents. I have gone back over many of the recent long threads and he has been drawn into long arguments over things like abortion, pedophile rings, subjective morality, radical Islam, homosexuality, to just name a few. I’m sure that I am not the only one to have noticed this. I am certain that our opponents have. My friendly advice to him would simply be to refrain from taking the bait. And I don’t want to centre KF out because there are several others also guilty of readily taking the bait. “It’s not clear why our more valid interlocutors should be so shy as soon as important biological ID topics are discussed, while they are often so ready to intervene about religion, morals, politics, and so on.” I think that it is obvious. They take pleasure in seeing what types of non ID discussions they can draw ID proponents into. And given the fact that the majority of ID proponents are religious, they stick to the tried and true religious hot button topics. Things like abortion, morality, homosexuality, and the like. The solution to this problem is simple. Don’t participate in every tangent or every provocation instigated by our opponents. Make them address ID on its merits rather than play into their distraction tactics. Sadly, I am not confident that this advice will be heeded. heh I am confident that Gordo will lose his mind over being told what to do. -------------- "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

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2018,21:18    I'm tempted to ask if that would be a big loss, but never mind...

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2018,21:49    Quote “It’s not clear why our more valid interlocutors should be so shy as soon as important biological ID topics are discussed, while they are often so ready to intervene about religion, morals, politics, and so on.” Pretty clear to most of us. As to KF's mind... -------------- "[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory "Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2018,22:11    Let me guess ... when he uses the word "shy", to most people it doesn't mean what he thinks it means?

Lethean Posts: 292 Joined: Jan. 2014 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2018,11:13    Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 04 2018,19:03)         Quote 49 Molson BleuFebruary 4, 2018 at 10:02 am “However, KF is certainly one who often debates fundamental ID topics, and not only more general issues.” Very true. And I commend him for that. But he is also one of the first to be led off on hundred comment tangents by ID opponents. I have gone back over many of the recent long threads and he has been drawn into long arguments over things like abortion, pedophile rings, subjective morality, radical Islam, homosexuality, to just name a few. I’m sure that I am not the only one to have noticed this. I am certain that our opponents have. My friendly advice to him would simply be to refrain from taking the bait. And I don’t want to centre KF out because there are several others also guilty of readily taking the bait. “It’s not clear why our more valid interlocutors should be so shy as soon as important biological ID topics are discussed, while they are often so ready to intervene about religion, morals, politics, and so on.” I think that it is obvious. They take pleasure in seeing what types of non ID discussions they can draw ID proponents into. And given the fact that the majority of ID proponents are religious, they stick to the tried and true religious hot button topics. Things like abortion, morality, homosexuality, and the like. The solution to this problem is simple. Don’t participate in every tangent or every provocation instigated by our opponents. Make them address ID on its merits rather than play into their distraction tactics. Sadly, I am not confident that this advice will be heeded. heh IOW, UD would be ever so much more sciencey if it weren't for those meddling kids who make Barry and Gordo write up all those distracting OPs and tags. If it weren't for them, we'd be talking about all the new advances in ID Science from the ground breaking pioneers Dembski and Behe. Or the latest recycled-third-book-whining about evolution from Wells or Meyer. Or Sewell's stunning new take on thermodynamics that demonstrates grass cannot grow. Or any of the other explosive research coming out of science journal number two, or three, or was it four? #assf -------------- "So I'm a pretty unusual guy and it's not stupidity that has gotten me where I am. It's brilliance." "My brain is one of the very few independent thinking brains that you've ever met. And that's a thing of wonder to you and since you don't understand it you criticize it." ~Dave Hawkins~

Bob O'H Posts: 2564 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2018,15:59    Barry's back! And he's on form! Quote J-Mac Quote However, my problem with this is that if thoughts are generated by the immortal soul, why did we need a brain in the first place? It is astonishing that you think the fact that you have a “problem” with the truth should matter to anyone other than yourself. Perhaps you find that an argument from personal incredulity is effective. Most people do not. Help me out here J. Unless you can tell us why your personal incredulity matters, why should we respond to it other than by saying it does not matter? Wait a moment. Quote Perhaps you find that an argument from personal incredulity is effective. Most people do not. And thus was Intelligent Design condemned. -------------- 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)

Acartia_Bogart Posts: 2927 Joined: Sep. 2014 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2018,16:24    Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 05 2018,15:59) Barry's back! And he's on form! Quote J-Mac Quote However, my problem with this is that if thoughts are generated by the immortal soul, why did we need a brain in the first place? It is astonishing that you think the fact that you have a “problem” with the truth should matter to anyone other than yourself. Perhaps you find that an argument from personal incredulity is effective. Most people do not. Help me out here J. Unless you can tell us why your personal incredulity matters, why should we respond to it other than by saying it does not matter? Wait a moment. Quote Perhaps you find that an argument from personal incredulity is effective. Most people do not. And thus was Intelligent Design condemned. That you would say such a thing is totally incredulous.

Glen Davidson Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2018,16:59    Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 05 2018,15:59) Barry's back! And he's on form!   Quote J-Mac   Quote However, my problem with this is that if thoughts are generated by the immortal soul, why did we need a brain in the first place? It is astonishing that you think the fact that you have a “problem” with the truth should matter to anyone other than yourself. Perhaps you find that an argument from personal incredulity is effective. Most people do not. Help me out here J. Unless you can tell us why your personal incredulity matters, why should we respond to it other than by saying it does not matter? Wait a moment.   Quote Perhaps you find that an argument from personal incredulity is effective. Most people do not. And thus was Intelligent Design condemned. Quote We often hear that ID is an argument from incredulity. At this point I would tend to agree. That said, arguments from incredulity aren’t necessarily wrong but in fact are rather reliable and employed constantly and consistently by everyone every day. Let’s take the example that Granville Sewell offered in his most recent post here. He described Schrodinger’s equation and showed us that it’s theoretically possible for a pitched baseball to stop and hover in mid-air. A commenter who appeared to have a reasonable understanding of Schrodinger’s equation at first protested then ended up agreeing that it’s possible but the odds against it are long and for all practical purposes incalculable. They went on to agree that the quantum uncertainty is tractible in the analysis of a single electron orbiting a single proton (a hydrogen atom) but that the math is intractible for a pitched baseball because such a large number of particles are involved. So how do we “know” that a pitched baseball won’t stop and hover in mid-air? Incredulity is how. We can’t precisely calculate the odds against it due to the system being so complex but we know it is (literally) incredibly improbable. It’s the same thing with ID. Although we can’t calculate the odds precisely we do know enough to see that self-organization of atoms into structures as complex as the machinery found in living cells is incredibly improbable. We couple this with the sure knowledge that intelligent agency routinely produces organizations of matter that, absent the intelligent agent’s intervention, are incredibly unlikely. Here’s a good example. In principle it is possible for two cows to mate and give birth to a chimpanzee. The reason we don’t ever expect to see such a thing is we know (now) that the genetic differences between a cow and a chimp are so complex and specified that the odds against it actually happening in a single generation are nearly impossible. We can’t calculate the odds precisely but we know it is incredibly improbable. The argument that two cows won’t mate and produce a chimpanzee is an argument from incredulity. Likewise, is it possible that a bacteria can, through RM+NS, change into a baboon over a billion years and trillions of generations? Sure it’s possible but when you actually get down to assessing the sequence of changes that must have occurred, analyzing the probability in a finite number of years and a finite number of generations, using everything we know about the mutation and selection mechanism, it quickly becomes an incredible proposition. It grows more incredible every day as new knowledge of the underlying physical mechanics is discovered. So the next time someone tells you that ID is an argument from incredulity you can simply respond by saying “Yeah, so what? Arguments from incredulity are common and quite reliable in all aspects of life from the physics of baseball to the physics of biology.” Plenty in the comments, too. Not that J-Mac was actually using an argument from incredulity--Barry's a dumbfuck--it was a simple argument from evidence, not bad, but not especially telling (booze, drugs, being knocked unconsciousness are better arguments that it's just brain)  Way better than his usual moronic cant at TSZ.   Still, I love watching Sewell and others falling all over themselves to embrace the argument from incredulity.  And Barry the hypocrite who also uses the argument from incredulity blithering about how useless such arguments are in response to J-Mac. Glen Davidson -------------- http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2018,21:00    Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Feb. 05 2018,15:24) That you would say such a thing is totally incredulous. Or inconceivable, even.

Lethean Posts: 292 Joined: Jan. 2014 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2018,05:54    Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 05 2018,21:00)     Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Feb. 05 2018,15:24) That you would say such a thing is totally incredulous. Or inconceivable, even. Quickly! To the Cliffs of Insanity! -------------- "So I'm a pretty unusual guy and it's not stupidity that has gotten me where I am. It's brilliance." "My brain is one of the very few independent thinking brains that you've ever met. And that's a thing of wonder to you and since you don't understand it you criticize it." ~Dave Hawkins~

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2018,06:56    Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 04 2018,07:04) Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Feb. 03 2018,17:26) Damn. This guy is giving away all of our secrets. Get better security? Wet blankets are tbeir go to. -------------- "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

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2018,06:59    Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Feb. 04 2018,17:45) Mullings:   Quote PS: Mere links are not substantial, a money shot excerpt is advisable. Who wants to go over to UD and let him know what the money shot term refers to? Link Steady there young Jedi he's dreaming about the Sunday collection plate and who's behind on their donations. -------------- "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: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2018,13:07    Quote Quote of the Day February 6, 2018 Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design 16 Comments “Everybody knows there’s something wrong with them.”  Rust Cohle, True Detective, Season 1. True or False:  Powerful evidence that materialism is false. Explain your answer. Quote 3 Bob O'HFebruary 6, 2018 at 12:20 pm False. A fictional character saying something about some undefined people isn’t really strong evidence for very much. FWIW, I think Them is a great book. Quote 10 Barry ArringtonFebruary 6, 2018 at 2:10 pm Bob O’H Quote A fictional character saying something about some undefined people isn’t really strong evidence for very much. You don’t think fiction ever illuminates truth? Shakespeare, Milton, Dante, Cervantes, just words on a page? What a stunningly anti-intellectual Philistine you are Bob. Wait, didn’t you say you are a teacher? God help us. Wow. A-Mats are incurious folks. Quote 13 Bob O'HFebruary 7, 2018 at 2:39 am Barry @ 10 – had you bothered to ask, you would have found that I do believe fiction can illuminate truth. In this case, the quote you gave is so contextless that it’s meaningless as evidence of anything: we have a fictional character making a sweeping generalisation about what (fictional) people think about some other fictional people. There is no context to explain what the quote is about. Quote 14 Barry ArringtonFebruary 7, 2018 at 7:47 am Bob @ 13, Pretty much everyone else who commented was able to figure out what Cohle was getting at and address it. You say you can’t. OK. I believe you. Is it true you are a teacher? Quote 15 Bob O'HFebruary 7, 2018 at 8:57 am Yes, Barry. I’ve just spent the last two hours lecturing on linear models. One thing I have to be careful about is being clear and unambiguous. Seriously, how can the “them” not be ambiguous without any further context? The comment is probably hyperbolic (unless the “everyone” has been clarified by the context), and the “them” could refer to pretty much any group of people (including university professors and lawyers). barry probly thinks he looks smart.

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2018,14:19    johnnyb:   Quote Several years ago, we held a conference on the interaction between engineering, science, philosophy, and theology. The result of this was a book titled “Engineering and the Ultimate: An Interdisciplinary Investigation of Order and Design in Nature and Craft”. It is now available for half price at Amazon if anyone wants to pick up a copy! The horrible truth about I.D. starts to sink in.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2018,15:32    Quote 20 Bob O'HFebruary 7, 2018 at 1:33 pm ET @ 19 – English 101 would say that “themselves” is correct, because “them” is too ambiguous at best. It may be that the character is using informal dialect, but again there is no context. Quote 21 ETFebruary 7, 2018 at 1:42 pm Right and without any other context we have to go with what we have. Or we can complain that we don’t have enough to go by. But only one of those is the correct way. But yes, for the sake of clarity, especially knowing the audience, Barry should have posted: “Everybody knows there’s something wrong with them[selves].” Quote 22 Barry ArringtonFebruary 7, 2018 at 1:47 pm ET, Give it a rest. Bob’s imagination is far too stunted to do the work you are asking it to do. Leave him be. Quote 23 Bob O'HFebruary 7, 2018 at 2:01 pm ET @ 21 – indeed. That would have been clearer.

KevinB Posts: 525 Joined: April 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2018,16:25    Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 07 2018,13:07)   Quote Quote of the Day February 6, 2018 Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design 16 Comments “Everybody knows there’s something wrong with them.”  Rust Cohle, True Detective, Season 1. True or False:  Powerful evidence that materialism is false. Explain your answer.   Quote 3 Bob O'HFebruary 6, 2018 at 12:20 pm False. A fictional character saying something about some undefined people isn’t really strong evidence for very much. FWIW, I think Them is a great book.   Quote 10 Barry ArringtonFebruary 6, 2018 at 2:10 pm Bob O’H   Quote A fictional character saying something about some undefined people isn’t really strong evidence for very much. You don’t think fiction ever illuminates truth? Shakespeare, Milton, Dante, Cervantes, just words on a page? What a stunningly anti-intellectual Philistine you are Bob. Wait, didn’t you say you are a teacher? God help us. Wow. A-Mats are incurious folks.   Quote 13 Bob O'HFebruary 7, 2018 at 2:39 am Barry @ 10 – had you bothered to ask, you would have found that I do believe fiction can illuminate truth. In this case, the quote you gave is so contextless that it’s meaningless as evidence of anything: we have a fictional character making a sweeping generalisation about what (fictional) people think about some other fictional people. There is no context to explain what the quote is about.   Quote 14 Barry ArringtonFebruary 7, 2018 at 7:47 am Bob @ 13, Pretty much everyone else who commented was able to figure out what Cohle was getting at and address it. You say you can’t. OK. I believe you. Is it true you are a teacher?   Quote 15 Bob O'HFebruary 7, 2018 at 8:57 am Yes, Barry. I’ve just spent the last two hours lecturing on linear models. One thing I have to be careful about is being clear and unambiguous. Seriously, how can the “them” not be ambiguous without any further context? The comment is probably hyperbolic (unless the “everyone” has been clarified by the context), and the “them” could refer to pretty much any group of people (including university professors and lawyers). barry probly thinks he looks smart. A cheap tuxedo does not cut the mustard in the Royal Enclosure at Ascot.

Lethean Posts: 292 Joined: Jan. 2014 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2018,16:56    Looks like Barry is once again being stifled from discussing cutting edge ID science by the A-Mats. Won't someone save him from having to quote television? -------------- "So I'm a pretty unusual guy and it's not stupidity that has gotten me where I am. It's brilliance." "My brain is one of the very few independent thinking brains that you've ever met. And that's a thing of wonder to you and since you don't understand it you criticize it." ~Dave Hawkins~

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2018,18:24    Quote (Lethean @ Feb. 07 2018,14:56) Looks like Barry is once again being stifled from discussing cutting edge ID science by the A-Mats. Won't someone save him from having to quote television? Once he's finished overthrowing biology, he's going to show that the Earth is flat, using an out-of-context line from Dragnet. -------------- 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

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2018,11:58    Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 07 2018,12:19) johnnyb:   Quote Several years ago, we held a conference on the interaction between engineering, science, philosophy, and theology. The result of this was a book titled “Engineering and the Ultimate: An Interdisciplinary Investigation of Order and Design in Nature and Craft”. It is now available for half price at Amazon if anyone wants to pick up a copy! The horrible truth about I.D. starts to sink in. Quote Eric AndersonFebruary 7, 2018 at 3:13 pm Jonathan: Thanks for the info. Has it gone on sale yet? The original list price shows as $35. Then (as is common), there is a discount of a few $, down to $26. Is is supposed to be on sale for $17.50 or for $13? Fourpence, if you throw in an Expelled DVD and half a dozen indulgences.  And that's my final offer. -------------- 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

KevinB Posts: 525 Joined: April 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2018,14:54    Quote (JohnW @ Feb. 07 2018,18:24)   Quote (Lethean @ Feb. 07 2018,14:56) Looks like Barry is once again being stifled from discussing cutting edge ID science by the A-Mats. Won't someone save him from having to quote television? Once he's finished overthrowing biology, he's going to show that the Earth is flat, using an out-of-context line from Dragnet. He could go upmarket and use Puck's quote about putting a "girdle round the Earth" from A Midsummer's Night's Dream to prove that the Earth is fat... In any case, I thought that Ken Ham pioneered this mode of argument by proving his Flood Chronology by citing The Flintstones

Texas Teach Posts: 2084 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2018,17:38    The entirety of ID is based on a work of fiction.  At least they finally went with something more recent than a few thousand years old. -------------- "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: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2018,13:37    Quote More on memristors in action — including, crossbar networks and solving linear equation arrays February 9, 2018 Posted by kairosfocus I'm sure that's a high quality lecture right there, buddy. Edited by stevestory on Feb. 09 2018,14:44

Pages: (527) < ... 314 315 316 317 318 [319] 320 321 322 323 324 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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