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... > Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread

Pages: (1000) < ... 244 245 246 247 248 [249] 250 251 252 253 254 ... >

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2006,06:59    Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 23 2006,10:49)   Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 23 2006,10:38)     Quote (2ndclass @ Oct. 23 2006,11:27) Another one bites the dust for trying to talk some sense into Dave.  When will we ever learn? What voices of reason are left there?  Chris Hyland, Carlos, ... anyone else? That might be the first time in history someone has been banned for his opinion on snowflakes. Ahh, I say he had it coming.  You should know better than question King Sh*t while visiting Turd Island. Yeah, well this Marine stormed your mama's beach last night, homo - dt Seventeen thousand scientists agree with me about your mother, homo.-dt -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Thank Dog Posts: 31 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2006,10:46    Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 23 2006,10:38)   Quote (2ndclass @ Oct. 23 2006,11:27) Another one bites the dust for trying to talk some sense into Dave.  When will we ever learn? What voices of reason are left there?  Chris Hyland, Carlos, ... anyone else? That might be the first time in history someone has been banned for his opinion on snowflakes. DharmaBum told Daveless Wonder his comments about specification were not in keeping with Dembski's current formulation. Daveless denied that, tried to bluff his way along, and got caught. No, Daveless, specification is not a quantity. No, Daveless, zero specificity occurs rarely in practice. No, Daveless, zero specificity implies negative CSI, not zero CSI. So Hummer Dave unleashed his full intellect, and linked to a picture of a snow face. After DharmaBum responded, Daveless deleted the response and decreed:   Quote Due to his refusing to recognize that snowflake patterns derived from looking at snowflakes is self-referential DharmaBum is no longer with us. He’s done wasting our time here. Now I have it from a good source that what DharmaBum pointed out was that the 35 snowflake patterns are named in terms of concepts that have nothing to do with snowflakes. For instance, there are hollow columns, 12-branched stars, and fernlike stellar dendrites. Combine these partial descriptions with the term "ice" and descriptions of size and mass, and you have snowflake descriptions. There is nothing the least self-referential in such description, and Daveless no doubt p*ssed in his pants when he saw the similarity to "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller." As I... oops, DharmaBum pointed out to His Davelessness, the snowflake patterns serve perfectly well as prospective specifications (now that presprecification is distinct from specification), and the way to avoid a presumably false design inference is to come up with a "chance" hypothesis under which the probability of a snowflake of a particular pattern arising is non-low. Daveless no doubt sh*t his pants at this point, knowing that no one understands how snowflakes take the forms they do. In other words, the design inference is laid bare as a god-of-the-gaps argument. The upshot is that if IDists want biologists to give a detailed account of the evolution of the bacterial flagellum, they had best get to cracking on formation of snow crystals. With their dearth of biologists and plenitude of physicists, the IDists are much better equipped to research crystals than biota. This is the end of my Thank Dog incarnation. See you in the next life.

ScaryFacts Posts: 337 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2006,10:53    Quote (Thank Dog @ Oct. 23 2006,16:46) This is the end of my Thank Dog incarnation. See you in the next life. 31 posts?  That's 217 in dog posts.

Altabin Posts: 308 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2006,11:52    From their God is the only thing stopping me from raping my grandmother thread: Quote 49. Mark Frank // Oct 23rd 2006 at 2:48 am Quote Wrong. Moral relativism is a truth claim about the nature of morality, which says that no truth claim about the nature of morality is valid. . Gil - I am struggling to understand this statement. I am not sure how a “truth claim” differs from an ordinary claim. Are they the same thing? Also I am not sure what you mean by “valid”. Do you mean true? Assuming both these things we end up with: Moral relativism is a claim about the nature of morality, which says that no claim about the nature of morality is true. This is indeed a paradox! It highlights the need to distinguish between moral statements and statements about morality. As a software guy you must be aware of the distinction between languages and meta-languages. It is the same thing. heh heh heh --------------

2ndclass Posts: 182 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2006,16:40    jerry:   Quote The God of the Gaps argument is really a clever way of saying God does not exist. It is atheism dressed up in a cheap tuxedo to use a cliché. Science that evokes this argument is essentially endorsing atheism. It assumes there is no God or if One exists, then the God never intervened at all in our universe. Which essentially eliminates this God from having anything to do with us. Otherwise, if the God existed and did intervene in just one little thing, then that intervention would mean that there was something that could not possibly be explained by naturalistic causes and would refute the objections of those who use this argument. Hence, uses of it is tantamount to proposing atheism as the truth. Every single sentence above is fallacious.  That has to be some kind of record. Quote Is this argument any different than the “argument from ignorance” claims that many evolutionists use to attack those who object to some aspects of evolution? This is the one thing jerry gets right.  "God of the gaps" is, in fact, an argument from ignorance.  Too bad he doesn't realize it's a fallacy. -------------- "I wasn't aware that classical physics had established a position on whether intelligent agents exercising free were constrained by 2LOT into increasing entropy." -DaveScot

2ndclass Posts: 182 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2006,17:53    Denyse   Quote The intelligent design (ID) theorists speak the language of information theory , and information is not a material concept. That drives materialists crazy. Their main response from the materialist majority so far has been hostility and suppression. - Can Denyse name one ID theorist who "speaks the language of information theory"?  Dembski certainly doesn't. - Denyse apparently thinks that materialists hate info theory since information isn't material.  By the same logic, materialists must hate all branches of math, philosophy, economics, law, politics, etc.  I wonder if she actually knows any "materialists"? -------------- "I wasn't aware that classical physics had established a position on whether intelligent agents exercising free were constrained by 2LOT into increasing entropy." -DaveScot

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2006,18:09    Quote (2ndclass @ Oct. 23 2006,22:53) Denyse     Quote The intelligent design (ID) theorists speak the language of information theory , and information is not a material concept. That drives materialists crazy. Their main response from the materialist majority so far has been hostility and suppression. - Can Denyse name one ID theorist who "speaks the language of information theory"?  Dembski certainly doesn't. - Denyse apparently thinks that materialists hate info theory since information isn't material.  By the same logic, materialists must hate all branches of math, philosophy, economics, law, politics, etc.  I wonder if she actually knows any "materialists"? ID theorists 'speak the language of information theory'? Gee, all I ever hear them do is bitch and moan about Judge Jones and Richard Dawkins... I'm sure Denyse has never known any 'materialists' but by gum, she knows she wouldn't like them if she ever met one. I am a linguist. I study language, which (I think) is pretty darn 'non-material'. At the same time, Denyse would no doubt call me a 'materialist'. Therefore, according to Denyse, I must hate language. Yeesh, I sure picked the wrong field, eh? Let's face it: Denyse ain't the sharpest knife in the drawer. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2006,18:48    Quote (Thank Dog @ Oct. 23 2006,15:46) Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 23 2006,10:38)     Quote (2ndclass @ Oct. 23 2006,11:27) Another one bites the dust for trying to talk some sense into Dave.  When will we ever learn? What voices of reason are left there?  Chris Hyland, Carlos, ... anyone else? That might be the first time in history someone has been banned for his opinion on snowflakes. DharmaBum told Daveless Wonder his comments about specification were not in keeping with Dembski's current formulation. Daveless denied that, tried to bluff his way along, and got caught. No, Daveless, specification is not a quantity. No, Daveless, zero specificity occurs rarely in practice. No, Daveless, zero specificity implies negative CSI, not zero CSI. So Hummer Dave unleashed his full intellect, and linked to a picture of a snow face. After DharmaBum responded, Daveless deleted the response and decreed:     Quote Due to his refusing to recognize that snowflake patterns derived from looking at snowflakes is self-referential DharmaBum is no longer with us. He’s done wasting our time here. Now I have it from a good source that what DharmaBum pointed out was that the 35 snowflake patterns are named in terms of concepts that have nothing to do with snowflakes. For instance, there are hollow columns, 12-branched stars, and fernlike stellar dendrites. Combine these partial descriptions with the term "ice" and descriptions of size and mass, and you have snowflake descriptions. There is nothing the least self-referential in such description, and Daveless no doubt p*ssed in his pants when he saw the similarity to "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller." As I... oops, DharmaBum pointed out to His Davelessness, the snowflake patterns serve perfectly well as prospective specifications (now that presprecification is distinct from specification), and the way to avoid a presumably false design inference is to come up with a "chance" hypothesis under which the probability of a snowflake of a particular pattern arising is non-low. Daveless no doubt sh*t his pants at this point, knowing that no one understands how snowflakes take the forms they do. In other words, the design inference is laid bare as a god-of-the-gaps argument. The upshot is that if IDists want biologists to give a detailed account of the evolution of the bacterial flagellum, they had best get to cracking on formation of snow crystals. With their dearth of biologists and plenitude of physicists, the IDists are much better equipped to research crystals than biota. This is the end of my Thank Dog incarnation. See you in the next life. Good work though. Dave sh*tting his pants and going into delete mode in nothing new. ID deserves him. -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

hereoisreal Posts: 745 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2006,03:35    Quote (2ndclass @ Oct. 23 2006,21:40) jerry:     Quote The God of the Gaps argument is really a clever way of saying God does not exist. It is atheism dressed up in a cheap tuxedo to use a cliché. Science that evokes this argument is essentially endorsing atheism. It assumes there is no God or if One exists, then the God never intervened at all in our universe. Which essentially eliminates this God from having anything to do with us. Otherwise, if the God existed and did intervene in just one little thing, then that intervention would mean that there was something that could not possibly be explained by naturalistic causes and would refute the objections of those who use this argument. Hence, uses of it is tantamount to proposing atheism as the truth. Every single sentence above is fallacious.  That has to be some kind of record.   Quote Is this argument any different than the “argument from ignorance” claims that many evolutionists use to attack those who object to some aspects of evolution? This is the one thing jerry gets right.  "God of the gaps" is, in fact, an argument from ignorance.  Too bad he doesn't realize it's a fallacy. The God of the gaps Empirical evidence...as plain as the nose on your face: Eze 22:30 And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none. Mathematically, "gap" = 24.  "None" =  48 between A & Z , beginning and end, is 24. Between G & D is O Jhn 14:30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me. Rev 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. -------------- 360  miracles and more at: http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5) It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2006,03:53    Quote (2ndclass @ Oct. 23 2006,21:40) jerry:   Quote The God of the Gaps argument is really a clever way of saying God does not exist. It is atheism dressed up in a cheap tuxedo to use a cliché. Science that evokes this argument is essentially endorsing atheism. It assumes there is no God or if One exists, then the God never intervened at all in our universe. Which essentially eliminates this God from having anything to do with us. Otherwise, if the God existed and did intervene in just one little thing, then that intervention would mean that there was something that could not possibly be explained by naturalistic causes and would refute the objections of those who use this argument. Hence, uses of it is tantamount to proposing atheism as the truth. Every single sentence above is fallacious.  That has to be some kind of record. Quote Is this argument any different than the “argument from ignorance” claims that many evolutionists use to attack those who object to some aspects of evolution? This is the one thing jerry gets right.  "God of the gaps" is, in fact, an argument from ignorance.  Too bad he doesn't realize it's a fallacy. Evidently, Jerry doesn't even know what 'God of the gaps' means. Bless his heart, tho, that doesn't stop him from bloviating about it. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2006,04:06    1 Denyse O'Leary is just plain dumb. 2 Kudos to whoever wiped the floor with Davetard on specified snowflakes. Davetard is a lot smarter than the rest of the idiots over there (IQ probably around 105, while the UD average is in the 80's) and you know he's probably getting the message. The horse he backed didn't come up lame, it came up quadrapeligic.

Occam's Toothbrush Posts: 555 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2006,04:27    Quote The God of the gaps Empirical evidence...as plain as the nose on your face: Eze 22:30 And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none. Mathematically, "gap" = 24.  "None" =  48 between A & Z , beginning and end, is 24. Between G & D is O Jhn 14:30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me. Rev 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. What, exactly, is your point?  That if you calculate the (completely meaningless) number value of words, you can find bible-related coincidences between those numbers and virtually anything you want?  Who cares? -------- I found myself saying, "hereoisreal" is so full of sh*t I think he's about to pop."  hereoisreal = 115.  I opened the nearest book, "Supervisors' Safety Manual," and found that the caption at the top of page 115 is "Atmospheric Pressures."  Pressure, pop, get it?  Wow. "Wow, have you ever looked at your hand, I mean really looked at it," I thought.  Then I realized that the only picture on page 115 was of a person with eczematous dermatitis--on his hand!  I kept the book (because it doesn't belong to me). -------------- "Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers ------ "You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2006,04:27    Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 24 2006,09:06) 1 Denyse O'Leary is just plain dumb. 2 Kudos to whoever wiped the floor with Davetard on specified snowflakes. Davetard is a lot smarter than the rest of the idiots over there (IQ probably around 105, while the UD average is in the 80's) and you know he's probably getting the message. The horse he backed didn't come up lame, it came up quadrapeligic. I've often wondered how DT feels about the fact that since he's eventually forced to ban anyone at all intelligent there, the blog he polices is now top heavy with obvious dimwits, most of whom are indeed dumber than he is. I suspect he understands this situation perfectly well and continually wonders why he doesn't get a smarter class of wingnut at UD. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2006,04:36    Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 24 2006,09:27) Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 24 2006,09:06) 1 Denyse O'Leary is just plain dumb. 2 Kudos to whoever wiped the floor with Davetard on specified snowflakes. Davetard is a lot smarter than the rest of the idiots over there (IQ probably around 105, while the UD average is in the 80's) and you know he's probably getting the message. The horse he backed didn't come up lame, it came up quadrapeligic. I've often wondered how DT feels about the fact that since he's eventually forced to ban anyone at all intelligent there, the blog he polices is now top heavy with obvious dimwits, most of whom are indeed dumber than he is. I suspect he understands this situation perfectly well and continually wonders why he doesn't get a smarter class of wingnut at UD. Funny how ID, creationism and theism all have antintellectualism as common threads, isn't it. Davescott's response to a quite robust mathemeatical critique? He posts a picture of a snowman and bans someone. That's because he's got snowballs. PS: Heros is real please don't reply to this.* *Just kidding. We love you. Materialism might not stop me kicking grandma, but you make me smile. SMILE MILES SLIME LIMES er.. ITEMS TIMES EMITS MITES SMITE Hopefully this will keep you busy for a while. -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

hereoisreal Posts: 745 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2006,05:26    Quote (hereoisreal @ Oct. 24 2006,08:35) Quote (2ndclass @ Oct. 23 2006,21:40) jerry:     Quote The God of the Gaps argument is really a clever way of saying God does not exist. It is atheism dressed up in a cheap tuxedo to use a cliché. Science that evokes this argument is essentially endorsing atheism. It assumes there is no God or if One exists, then the God never intervened at all in our universe. Which essentially eliminates this God from having anything to do with us. Otherwise, if the God existed and did intervene in just one little thing, then that intervention would mean that there was something that could not possibly be explained by naturalistic causes and would refute the objections of those who use this argument. Hence, uses of it is tantamount to proposing atheism as the truth. Every single sentence above is fallacious.  That has to be some kind of record.   Quote Is this argument any different than the “argument from ignorance” claims that many evolutionists use to attack those who object to some aspects of evolution? This is the one thing jerry gets right.  "God of the gaps" is, in fact, an argument from ignorance.  Too bad he doesn't realize it's a fallacy. The God of the gaps Empirical evidence...as plain as the nose on your face: Eze 22:30 And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none. Mathematically, "gap" = 24.  "None" =  48 between A & Z , beginning and end, is 24. Between G & D is O Jhn 14:30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me. Rev 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. I and N are the first and last letters in the bible. The beginning is I ( 9) The end is N  (14)  ( Z turned 90 degrees ) The word 'GOD' = 26 (Z) I x N = 126  ( AZ) 3 infinities turned 90 degrees = 888 (12 x Jesus ) "I have chosen you 12." 8 + 8 + 8 = 24 ( gap ) 88 x 8 = 704 (God ) (Eve x 22) The word 'GOD' says: 7 circles folded once. (1260) Zero -------------- 360  miracles and more at: http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5) It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

Jim_Wynne Posts: 1208 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2006,05:30    Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 24 2006,09:27) I've often wondered how DT feels about the fact that since he's eventually forced to ban anyone at all intelligent there, the blog he polices is now top heavy with obvious dimwits, most of whom are indeed dumber than he is. I suspect he understands this situation perfectly well and continually wonders why he doesn't get a smarter class of wingnut at UD. It's very simple, really. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king, and  DT needs to be the king of something. -------------- Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

Occam's Toothbrush Posts: 555 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2006,05:46    Quote I and N are the first and last letters in the bible To the extent that the bible is written in any particular language, isn't that language Hebrew, which has neither an I nor an N?  Would you agree that the significance of all these moronic bible number coincidences is dependent on a particular english translation of the bible?  Does that mean that non-english speakers are irrelevant to the truths supposedly embedded in these coincidences?  Do we find the same supposedly significant coincidences in other languages, where not just the text of the bible would be different, but where you would generate different numbers from given words, based on different alphabets?  Or are the coincidences different? What if coincidences in other languages contradict the content of the ones you find?  Does that make yours wrong?  What if I post a slew of similar coincidences, based on the same translation that you are using, and they seem to say that you should jump off the roof of a tall building?  Will you do it?  Could you please just do it anyway? -------------- "Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers ------ "You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2006,05:50    1 hereoisreal, you've got your own thread for that kind of stuff. 2 Quote It's very simple, really. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king, and  DT needs to be the king of something. Exactly. He'll be at UD long after he stops believing, simply because where else does he have any power over others?

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2006,05:54    Actually Hereoisreal, I see that your post was relevant. Mibad.

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2006,06:02    Quote (Thank Dog @ Oct. 23 2006,15:46) Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 23 2006,10:38)     Quote (2ndclass @ Oct. 23 2006,11:27) Another one bites the dust for trying to talk some sense into Dave.  When will we ever learn? What voices of reason are left there?  Chris Hyland, Carlos, ... anyone else? That might be the first time in history someone has been banned for his opinion on snowflakes. DharmaBum told Daveless Wonder his comments about specification were not in keeping with Dembski's current formulation. Daveless denied that, tried to bluff his way along, and got caught. No, Daveless, specification is not a quantity. No, Daveless, zero specificity occurs rarely in practice. No, Daveless, zero specificity implies negative CSI, not zero CSI. So Hummer Dave unleashed his full intellect, and linked to a picture of a snow face. After DharmaBum responded, Daveless deleted the response and decreed:     Quote Due to his refusing to recognize that snowflake patterns derived from looking at snowflakes is self-referential DharmaBum is no longer with us. He’s done wasting our time here. Now I have it from a good source that what DharmaBum pointed out was that the 35 snowflake patterns are named in terms of concepts that have nothing to do with snowflakes. For instance, there are hollow columns, 12-branched stars, and fernlike stellar dendrites. Combine these partial descriptions with the term "ice" and descriptions of size and mass, and you have snowflake descriptions. There is nothing the least self-referential in such description, and Daveless no doubt p*ssed in his pants when he saw the similarity to "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller." As I... oops, DharmaBum pointed out to His Davelessness, the snowflake patterns serve perfectly well as prospective specifications (now that presprecification is distinct from specification), and the way to avoid a presumably false design inference is to come up with a "chance" hypothesis under which the probability of a snowflake of a particular pattern arising is non-low. Daveless no doubt sh*t his pants at this point, knowing that no one understands how snowflakes take the forms they do. In other words, the design inference is laid bare as a god-of-the-gaps argument. The upshot is that if IDists want biologists to give a detailed account of the evolution of the bacterial flagellum, they had best get to cracking on formation of snow crystals. With their dearth of biologists and plenitude of physicists, the IDists are much better equipped to research crystals than biota. This is the end of my Thank Dog incarnation. See you in the next life. Well you look at the evidence and tell me which is begging for a "design inference"? I mean those snow flakes look awful designed to me... -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2006,06:06    Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 24 2006,10:54) Actually Hereoisreal, I see that your post was relevant. Mibad. *cough* Full of CSI, anyway. -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

hereoisreal Posts: 745 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2006,06:09    Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 24 2006,10:54) Actually Hereoisreal, I see that your post was relevant. Mibad. Thank you Steve Since I'm banned from UD, I really would like to see someone post my 10:26 there. The numbers do add up. As Sal said figures don't lie. Zero -------------- 360  miracles and more at: http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5) It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2006,06:13    Quote (hereoisreal @ Oct. 24 2006,11:09) Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 24 2006,10:54) Actually Hereoisreal, I see that your post was relevant. Mibad. Thank you Steve Since I'm banned from UD, I really would like to see someone post my 10:26 there. The numbers do add up. As Sal said figures don't lie. Zero Keep in mind Sal is deceptive liar.  Just another helpful  FYI from yours truly. -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

hereoisreal Posts: 745 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2006,06:24    Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Oct. 24 2006,11:13) Quote (hereoisreal @ Oct. 24 2006,11:09)   Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 24 2006,10:54) Actually Hereoisreal, I see that your post was relevant. Mibad. Thank you Steve Since I'm banned from UD, I really would like to see someone post my 10:26 there. The numbers do add up. As Sal said figures don't lie. Zero Keep in mind Sal is deceptive liar.  Just another helpful  FYI from yours truly. I have his quote on my thread: "Math is the #1 proof in science reasoning." The smart money was on Golieth. Zero -------------- 360  miracles and more at: http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5) It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

Shirley Knott Posts: 148 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2006,06:33    Keep in mind as well that numbers surely do lie -- as soon as they are attached to 'real existents'. Conclusive proof: 2 + 2 = 4 2liters (water) + 2liters (alcohol) ~= 4liters of solution. QED But of course neither Sal nor zero understand squat about logic, argument, evidence, or numbers, so this is for the benefit of those with more than 2 brain cells to rub together... no hugs for thugs, Shirley Knott

Bebbo Posts: 161 Joined: Dec. 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2006,09:28    Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 24 2006,10:30) Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 24 2006,09:27) I've often wondered how DT feels about the fact that since he's eventually forced to ban anyone at all intelligent there, the blog he polices is now top heavy with obvious dimwits, most of whom are indeed dumber than he is. I suspect he understands this situation perfectly well and continually wonders why he doesn't get a smarter class of wingnut at UD. It's very simple, really. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king, and  DT needs to be the king of something. DaveScot would make an interesting psychological case study. He's set himself up as the arbiter of truth, banning people who he deems to be wrong and is fed up of correcting. He's a sad pathetic man acting as acolyte to another sad pathetic man. Those people deserve each other.

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2006,09:58    Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 24 2006,09:27) I've often wondered how DT feels about the fact that since he's eventually forced to ban anyone at all intelligent there, the blog he polices is now top heavy with obvious dimwits, most of whom are indeed dumber than he is. I suspect he understands this situation perfectly well and continually wonders why he doesn't get a smarter class of wingnut at UD. I can't remember.  How did Sargeant Carter feel about having to deal with Gomer for 6 years? -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2006,10:12    Wahl, gah-ah-ahhhhh-lee! Shazam.

Altabin Posts: 308 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2006,11:06    From Sal the Wonder Dog's post on Richard Smalley, quoting Hugh Ross's eulogy.     Quote Others had asked me about God’s purpose in creating the universe. Rick already had perceived that if God exists He must have more than one purpose in creating. So, we talked about God’s seven different purposes in creating the universe. In light of these seven purposes, Rick wanted to know exactly what we humans are supposed to do. He wanted to know why God would grant us free will. He had already concluded that no resolution of human free will and divine predetermination was possible within the dimensions of length, width, height, and time. He asked if the extra dimensions implied by string theory and general relativity provided possible resolutions. (By the way, they do.) "By the way, they do."  Would it be at all churlish to ask for, like, some details?  Because that would be quite interesting.  After all, the problem of reconciling free will and divine foreknowledge has plagued Christian theology since, well, the beginning - and you claim to have some equations to resolve it for good.  You'll have theologians and physicists lined up around the block, Nobel prizes, cover of Time magazine - surely it's worth expanding on it a little more than "By the way, they do"! Honestly, UD seems to have hit rock-bottom.  They hardly bother even pretending not to be creationists there any more.  One of the comments to this thread:   Quote “The burden of proof, he said, is on those who don’t believe that “‘Genesis’ was right, and there was a creation, and that Creator is still involved.” Awesome! Because our science is an awesome science. --------------

hereoisreal Posts: 745 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2006,14:29    Quote (Shirley Knott @ Oct. 24 2006,11:33) Keep in mind as well that numbers surely do lie -- as soon as they are attached to 'real existents'. Conclusive proof: 2 + 2 = 4 2liters (water) + 2liters (alcohol) ~= 4liters of solution. QED But of course neither Sal nor zero understand squat about logic, argument, evidence, or numbers, so this is for the benefit of those with more than 2 brain cells to rub together... no hugs for thugs, Shirley Knott Shirley, I do too. I know that two apples make a pair. -------------- 360  miracles and more at: http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5) It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

Pages: (1000) < ... 244 245 246 247 248 [249] 250 251 252 253 254 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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