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 4

Pages: (356) < ... 348 349 350 351 352 [353] 354 355 356 >

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2013,14:53    Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Dec. 16 2013,12:23) Dumbass Bully still doesn't get it.           Quote Bully Arrogant: If you came across a table on which was set 500 coins (no tossing involved) and all 500 coins displayed the “heads” side of the coin, would you reject “chance” as a hypothesis to explain this particular configuration of coins on a table? Bully, suppose before you arrived there was a bored kid playing a game with the coins that involved iterative steps with feedback.  Unknown to you (so you have seen no tossing involved) he started by flipping all 500 coins.  Coins that came up "heads" were dead - out of the game - and left on the table.  Coins that came up "tails" were re-tossed.  The step was repeated until there were no "tails" anymore.  When that happened the kid left all 500 "heads" coins on the table. It only took a few dozen rounds to get the result yet in every step each "head" was the result of random chance. If he played the game again what is the probability all the coins would eventually end up heads?  The answer depends on how long he played.  The more rounds played the probability asymptotically approaches 1.0 Once again for the IDiots - you can't compute the probability of an iterative feedback process just from examining the end results.  You have to take into account the effect of the feedback itself, especially one that builds on previous positive results like evolution does. Thanks, Barry!  All scientists know that evolution happens by poofing organisms out of stuff that's lying around, and there's no such thing as descent with modification, or environmental selection.  Now that you've shown that   random crap -> poof! -> hippopotamus is unlikely to have happened, we can all pack it in and take holy orders. -------------- 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

Soapy Sam Posts: 659 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2013,15:49    Or ... Suppose your coins were sticky on the 'tails' side. A thousand were scattered and the board inverted briefly. In the dark. Or... Suppose you just had two coins, both heads, that reproduced, and the new generation tacked itself onto the end of the row. This set reproduced and end-joined again. and again and ... in short order, you'd have a string of 500. In neither scenario would ruling out 'chance' be justified. Unless you can't have 'sticky' or 'reproducing' coins other than By Design. Which is begging the question. -------------- SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

Glen Davidson Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2013,16:14    Quote Isn’t it amazing how “random forces” can make distinguishable frogs ‘indistinguishable’? It's especially amazing that anyone could distinguish between indistinguishable frogs. Yes, I recognize the (oddly singular) scare quotes, they just don't relate to any honest understanding that the frogs are quite distinguishable, especially on the genetic level (like you'd expect of convergent evolution). Glen Davidson -------------- http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2013,16:44    Quote (Glen Davidson @ Dec. 16 2013,14:14) Quote Isn’t it amazing how “random forces” can make distinguishable frogs ‘indistinguishable’? It's especially amazing that anyone could distinguish between indistinguishable frogs. Yes, I recognize the (oddly singular) scare quotes, they just don't relate to any honest understanding that the frogs are quite distinguishable, especially on the genetic level (like you'd expect of convergent evolution). Glen Davidson PaV seems to think biology has a Pauli exclusion principle.  If one population of frogs becomes arboreal, populations of frogs elsewhere aren't allowed to do so. -------------- 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

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2013,17:11    When do we get to look at the mechanisms of design? They like scrutinizing evolution so much, why aren't they curious about their own thing? -------------- "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

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2013,17:54    Not that I want to give the UD cesspool any more traffic but Dr. Matzke is putting quite the beatdown on Slimy Sal in Slimy's "A Statistics Question for Nick Matzke" thread. Of course Sal is too dumb to realize it.   -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

REC Posts: 638 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2013,21:53    Sal's already trying to make the giant leap from "fair coins" to biology, and wonders why people resist his poorly defined scenarios: Quote Amino acids in a prebiotic soup, as far as their chirality, will obey the law of independent trials and also a simple distribution analogous to fair coins. Quote where like coins the amino acids and DNAs would be heterochiral and not homochiral, would you reject chance as a mechanism for homochirality Which, is uhh....wrong. Samples with non-terrestrial origins have been found with enantiomeric excesses. Lets do an experiment: You and I will select 10^18 molecules from a solution with a precisely 50-50 mix of D- and L- enantiomers (non-superimposable mirror images). You'll do it by plucking a 10 mg crystal from the saturated solution. I'll do it by taking a liquid sample of the solution. How many possible combinations of D- and L- is that? I think enough. Will this obey the "law" of large numbers and result in a "simple distribution analogous to fair coins?" Answer: NO for the crystals. ~Yes for the liquid. Mechanism matters! Some chemicals crystallize only as enantiopure crystals, so each crystal you pick will be 100% one or the other. All 10^18 molecules! Some chemicals will crystalize precisely 50:50--with NO distribution (excess one way or the other would break the crystals organization/pattern.) Some chemicals have isomers with different solubilities (or crystals can be seeded by adding a tiny crystal of one), such that all the crystals, no matter how many you pick, will be one and only one enantiomer. Soo....even with this simple, abiotic example, you can't leap from "coin flips" to the real world without cluing into mechanism. BTW, since dehydration of tartrate (which I suppose Sal might call a "chance" mechanism-no intelligent designer required, just a warm day) reduces the number of possible combination of isomers per unit volume from waay past 500 "heads or tails" (D- and L-, where some distributions are more probable than others, resulting in a distribution of probabilities that will look like coin-flipping) to 1. What are the odds?!? 2nd Law? Fsciso-Bits? Edited by REC on Dec. 16 2013,22:29

olegt Posts: 1405 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2013,22:24    There is a well-studied example in statistical physics where a chance hypothesis can lead either to an equal distribution of heads and tails or to a spontaneous prevalence of heads over tails (or vice versa). It's known as the Ising model of a ferromagnet. Put the coins in a square array and stipulate that any configuration with a given energy is equally likely. The energy is computed as follows: two adjacent coins with the same orientation (both heads or both tails) reduce the energy by one unit. This is the formulation of the Ising model in the microcanonical ensemble (fixed energy). One can also work in the canonical ensemble (fixed temperature). The results will be the same in a large system. From extensive studies of this simple model system we know that it can be in one of two phases. When the energy is higher than a critical value (high temperature), the system has equal numbers of heads and tails. However, when the energy goes below the known threshold (temperature below the critical value) there will be more heads or tails (or vice versa). We even know the exact formula for the imbalance. So this is a chance hypothesis that is perfectly able to generate reliably more heads than tails (or vice versa). -------------- If you are not: Galapagos Finch please Logout »

Soapy Sam Posts: 659 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2013,02:58    Quote (REC @ Dec. 17 2013,03:53) Sal's already trying to make the giant leap from "fair coins" to biology, and wonders why people resist his poorly defined scenarios:         Quote Amino acids in a prebiotic soup, as far as their chirality, will obey the law of independent trials and also a simple distribution analogous to fair coins. Not one of them gets the fact that the isomer of an acid is just as different from it as glycine is at the point of side chain attachment. The 'side chain' for ALL D alpha-acids is -H, as far as any repeatable assembly mechanism is concerned. The fact that L & D isomers would travel together in some fractionating apparatus that distinguished on charge or hydrophobicity or molecular weight is neither here nor there - these are not available at the molecular level, which is sensitive to atom/charge position. Any mechanism with any specificity at all would not toss a metaphorical coin every time it came across an isomer, any more than you walk out the house with your gloves reversed half the time. If your peptide assembly mechanism can distinguish one acid from another (and alpha from beta and gamma), it sure as hell can exclude isomers. -------------- SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2013,04:05    Over at UD, ID's premier science blog, KF is crying because a reference to God was removed from a sign at a Museum of Natural History. ASSF! Don't let it keep you from the lab, gents. -------------- "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

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2013,08:01    Another point is that the random chance scenario presumes that all amino acids have an equal affinity for all other amino acids, which AFAIK is not true. Even a small difference in affinity will result in massive changes after several hundred combination events. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

dheddle Posts: 545 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2013,09:13    Quote (olegt @ Dec. 16 2013,22:24) There is a well-studied example in statistical physics where a chance hypothesis can lead either to an equal distribution of heads and tails or to a spontaneous prevalence of heads over tails (or vice versa). It's known as the Ising model of a ferromagnet. Put the coins in a square array and stipulate that any configuration with a given energy is equally likely. The energy is computed as follows: two adjacent coins with the same orientation (both heads or both tails) reduce the energy by one unit. This is the formulation of the Ising model in the microcanonical ensemble (fixed energy). One can also work in the canonical ensemble (fixed temperature). The results will be the same in a large system. From extensive studies of this simple model system we know that it can be in one of two phases. When the energy is higher than a critical value (high temperature), the system has equal numbers of heads and tails. However, when the energy goes below the known threshold (temperature below the critical value) there will be more heads or tails (or vice versa). We even know the exact formula for the imbalance. So this is a chance hypothesis that is perfectly able to generate reliably more heads than tails (or vice versa). And, more generally, see spontaneous symmetry breaking. -------------- Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

Bob O'H Posts: 2564 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2013,10:17    Quote (dheddle @ Dec. 17 2013,09:13) Quote (olegt @ Dec. 16 2013,22:24) There is a well-studied example in statistical physics where a chance hypothesis can lead either to an equal distribution of heads and tails or to a spontaneous prevalence of heads over tails (or vice versa). It's known as the Ising model of a ferromagnet. Put the coins in a square array and stipulate that any configuration with a given energy is equally likely. The energy is computed as follows: two adjacent coins with the same orientation (both heads or both tails) reduce the energy by one unit. This is the formulation of the Ising model in the microcanonical ensemble (fixed energy). One can also work in the canonical ensemble (fixed temperature). The results will be the same in a large system. From extensive studies of this simple model system we know that it can be in one of two phases. When the energy is higher than a critical value (high temperature), the system has equal numbers of heads and tails. However, when the energy goes below the known threshold (temperature below the critical value) there will be more heads or tails (or vice versa). We even know the exact formula for the imbalance. So this is a chance hypothesis that is perfectly able to generate reliably more heads than tails (or vice versa). And, more generally, see spontaneous symmetry breaking. Mark Frank is doing an excellent job of keeping his cool. If he wants a nice example where the arrangement of coins could come about through a chance process, he could look at the Mabinogion sheep problem: Quote At time t = 0 there is a herd of sheep each of which is black or white. At each time t = 1, 2, ... a sheep is selected at random, and a sheep of the opposite color (if one exists) is changed to be the same color as the selected sheep. If we don't remove any sheep, we have a random process that will lead to all coins being either heads or tails (or equivalently, all sheep being the same colour). Which, I suppose, just reinforces Mark and Nick's point that the problem wasn't specified well enough. -------------- 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)

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2013,11:49    Quote (Bob O'H @ Dec. 17 2013,10:17)   Quote (dheddle @ Dec. 17 2013,09:13)   Quote (olegt @ Dec. 16 2013,22:24) There is a well-studied example in statistical physics where a chance hypothesis can lead either to an equal distribution of heads and tails or to a spontaneous prevalence of heads over tails (or vice versa). It's known as the Ising model of a ferromagnet. Put the coins in a square array and stipulate that any configuration with a given energy is equally likely. The energy is computed as follows: two adjacent coins with the same orientation (both heads or both tails) reduce the energy by one unit. This is the formulation of the Ising model in the microcanonical ensemble (fixed energy). One can also work in the canonical ensemble (fixed temperature). The results will be the same in a large system. From extensive studies of this simple model system we know that it can be in one of two phases. When the energy is higher than a critical value (high temperature), the system has equal numbers of heads and tails. However, when the energy goes below the known threshold (temperature below the critical value) there will be more heads or tails (or vice versa). We even know the exact formula for the imbalance. So this is a chance hypothesis that is perfectly able to generate reliably more heads than tails (or vice versa). And, more generally, see spontaneous symmetry breaking. Mark Frank is doing an excellent job of keeping his cool. If he wants a nice example where the arrangement of coins could come about through a chance process, he could look at the Mabinogion sheep problem:   Quote At time t = 0 there is a herd of sheep each of which is black or white. At each time t = 1, 2, ... a sheep is selected at random, and a sheep of the opposite color (if one exists) is changed to be the same color as the selected sheep. If we don't remove any sheep, we have a random process that will lead to all coins being either heads or tails (or equivalently, all sheep being the same colour). Which, I suppose, just reinforces Mark and Nick's point that the problem wasn't specified well enough. It's the same ol' same ol' for the IDiots. Bully is still trying to 'win' by insults and intimidation while ignoring all the salient points presented. Sal is still kissing Bully's ass so hard he looks like a remora sucking on a shark. The rest of the IDiots are busy with their usual name calling and hurling feces. None of them are interested in learning or even discussing. It's attack the "evil evos" all the time. -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2013,12:45    Oh that whole thread is great. Barry is trying to get a rise be being confrontational, but no-one is biting. Sal is trying to be Barry,along with fabricated dialogues of how things will go. KF is looking to join Fox News' 'war on Christmas' assault group. Mindpowers Murray: "That’s why I consider a kind of psychosis. It’s more along the lines of a mental disease than it is ego." Don't let it keep you from your ID labs, guys. -------------- "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

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2013,13:20    Sal's Dogmatic problem, in his own words: Quote scordovaDecember 17, 2013 at 1:06 pm Jbarron, I hope indeed you are a creationist. Sometimes when I air my doubts about ID, it comes a across as me being unfairly critical of ID, but really, at the heart I’m asking “are you guys really really sure about this, this means a lot to me personally, and I don’t want to be wrong, I have too much at stake..” -------------- "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

Quack Posts: 1961 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2013,16:49    Haw haw, he doesn't want to be wrong. "What if" comes uninvited to my mind. Here's the solution to the Scylla and Charybdis syndrome: Make sure you are not wrong. At least make a honest attempt. God is not unreasonable. -------------- Rocks have no biology.               Robert Byers.

REC Posts: 638 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2013,17:32    Barry, operating as always, without evidence or decency: Quote I know nothing about Karl Pierson, the Arapahoe High School shooter..... That said, I am going to go out on a limb and make a prediction.  I predict that if he did leave behind writings, those writings will indicate that he was a committed Darwinist.  I will predict further that in those writings he will muse about the ethical implications of atheistic materialism and/or Darwinism.

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2013,18:12    Quote (REC @ Dec. 17 2013,17:32) Barry, operating as always, without evidence or decency: Quote I know nothing about Karl Pierson, the Arapahoe High School shooter..... That said, I am going to go out on a limb and make a prediction.  I predict that if he did leave behind writings, those writings will indicate that he was a committed Darwinist.  I will predict further that in those writings he will muse about the ethical implications of atheistic materialism and/or Darwinism. Maybe this was in his subconscious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....Pearson Barry will get over his rant soon enough. Then it's back to not doing science! -------------- "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

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2013,18:16    Quote (REC @ Dec. 17 2013,17:32) Barry, operating as always, without evidence or decency:   Quote I know nothing about Karl Pierson, the Arapahoe High School shooter..... That said, I am going to go out on a limb and make a prediction.  I predict that if he did leave behind writings, those writings will indicate that he was a committed Darwinist.  I will predict further that in those writings he will muse about the ethical implications of atheistic materialism and/or Darwinism. There's no gutter too low for an IDiot like Bully to wallow in. -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2013,18:21    Do you think turning comments off is cowardly? -------------- "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

Soapy Sam Posts: 659 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2013,18:53    Quote (REC @ Dec. 17 2013,23:32) Barry, operating as always, without evidence or decency:   Quote I know nothing about Karl Pierson, the Arapahoe High School shooter..... That said, I am going to go out on a limb and make a prediction.  I predict that if he did leave behind writings, those writings will indicate that he was a committed Darwinist.  I will predict further that in those writings he will muse about the ethical implications of atheistic materialism and/or Darwinism. What a slimeball. -------------- SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

Driver Posts: 649 Joined: June 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2013,19:44    Best thread since Mathgrrl, or the one where we got the one of the authors of a paper (which the UD denizens were of course abusing) to post. -------------- Why would I concern myself with evidence, when IMO "evidence" is only the mind arranging thought and matter to support what one already wishes to believe? - William J Murray [A]t this time a forum like this one is nothing less than a national security risk. - Gary Gaulin

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2013,19:51    Barry, we'd all like to say a word of thanks. Telic Thoughts shut down a while back, Dembski and co shut down their fake ID research journal the moment Dover was over, every year we have less Intelligent Design gibberish to entertain us. Yet you're keeping it going, with daily posts, and that entertaining collection of mental patients like BornAgain, mapou, GEM.... Keep on keepin' on!

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2013,20:26    Quote (Soapy Sam @ Dec. 17 2013,18:53) Quote (REC @ Dec. 17 2013,23:32) Barry, operating as always, without evidence or decency:   Quote I know nothing about Karl Pierson, the Arapahoe High School shooter..... That said, I am going to go out on a limb and make a prediction.  I predict that if he did leave behind writings, those writings will indicate that he was a committed Darwinist.  I will predict further that in those writings he will muse about the ethical implications of atheistic materialism and/or Darwinism. What a slimeball. Apparently he had the Latin phrase "Alea iacta est" written on his arm. That bastard Darwin got to the Romans too.. -------------- "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

hotshoe Posts: 42 Joined: Nov. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2013,21:43    Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 17 2013,20:26) Quote (Soapy Sam @ Dec. 17 2013,18:53) Quote (REC @ Dec. 17 2013,23:32) Barry, operating as always, without evidence or decency:     Quote I know nothing about Karl Pierson, the Arapahoe High School shooter..... That said, I am going to go out on a limb and make a prediction.  I predict that if he did leave behind writings, those writings will indicate that he was a committed Darwinist.  I will predict further that in those writings he will muse about the ethical implications of atheistic materialism and/or Darwinism. What a slimeball. Apparently he had the Latin phrase "Alea iacta est" written on his arm. That bastard Darwin got to the Romans too.. A fitting conjunction between the coin-toss and the Pierson threads.  Now what I want to know is which of the UDers think Pierson became a murderer by chance and which think by design eg god's will aka god's mysterious plan (its plan both for the dead victims and for the surviving onlookers)   What I really want to know is how they reconcile thinking it was all part of god's plan with reviling Pierson -- if it were actually god's plan, then Pierson was its chosen agent  They should thank Pierson for lending his body as a tool to carry out god's plan.  Hell, without Pierson, god might have had to pick one of the UDers at random to suddenly travel to Colorado and start murdering.  Else how was god going to arrange for one person to be killed, one critically injured, multiple witnesses traumatized ... that kind of thing doesn't just happen by chance, you know! But no, of course, it was neither chance nor god behind Pierson's actions.  It was "Darwinism".  Yep, religion poisons everything.  It even poisons their reasonable sadness about this recurring nightmare of teenage shooters in the US.   Thanks, Barry, for being your usual poisonous self!

BillB Posts: 388 Joined: Aug. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 18 2013,05:53    Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 18 2013,02:26) Quote (Soapy Sam @ Dec. 17 2013,18:53) Quote (REC @ Dec. 17 2013,23:32) Barry, operating as always, without evidence or decency:     Quote I know nothing about Karl Pierson, the Arapahoe High School shooter..... That said, I am going to go out on a limb and make a prediction.  I predict that if he did leave behind writings, those writings will indicate that he was a committed Darwinist.  I will predict further that in those writings he will muse about the ethical implications of atheistic materialism and/or Darwinism. What a slimeball. Apparently he had the Latin phrase "Alea iacta est" written on his arm. That bastard Darwin got to the Romans too.. From the same post: Quote I could be very wrong.  It might turn out that he was a fundamentalist young earth creationist, and if that is the case our Darwinist friends will have a field day. So Baz decided to get in there first ... That popping sound was my irony meter blowing again.

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 18 2013,11:56    Irony meters off: Quote In my opinion, the formalism I suggested is unneeded if one wishes to grant a charitable reading of the points trying to be conveyed. Charitable readings, Sal? Like Darwin and Puppies, I suppose? -------------- "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

REC Posts: 638 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 18 2013,14:20    Wow, I mis-entered a search for UD, and ran across this blast from the past. I'd forgotten. http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwina....ium.swf

REC Posts: 638 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 18 2013,14:38    ETA: double post, but while I'm here---- Sal's again: Quote When a process like a biotic soup maximizes uncertainty about possible polymer sequences that can evolve, it gives us near certainty life will not evolve by chance. Maximizes uncertainty? Strong claim..... Edited by REC on Dec. 18 2013,14:41

Pages: (356) < ... 348 349 350 351 352 [353] 354 355 356 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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