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) < ... 358 359 360 361 362 [363] 364 365 366 367 368 ... >

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2018,17:12    Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 16 2018,14:03) Quote Darwinian biologist Jerry Coyne denounces Michael Behe’s forthcoming book unread November 16, 2018 Posted by News under Books of interest, Cell biology, Darwinism, Intelligent Design $10 says this thing sucks donkey balls. The 21st Century Hal Lindsay. -------------- "[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

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2018,19:19    Critiquing someone for speculating on the content of a *Behe* volume unread should threaten irony meters everywhere. Behe called on his bluff -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2018,20:52    The finch is still a bird!!11!!!

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2018,21:59    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 16 2018,17:19) Critiquing someone for speculating on the content of a *Behe* volume unread should threaten irony meters everywhere. Behe called on his bluff Yes but is his book heavy? -------------- "[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

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2018,13:07    Quote 7 Seversky November 16, 2018 at 6:00 pm Quote A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy . . . The greatest threat to a democracy is an uninformed electorate whose ignorance and fear can be exploited by whatever populist demagogue – whether left or right – most effectively says whatever they think they want to hear. The left will promise a package of financial, health and social security benefits which would cripple the economy; the right – forgetting their principles of fiscal prudence – slash taxes which makes the wealthy and big corporations even richer and sends the national debt through the roof – like from $18tn-$22tn since 2016. Sadly, the traditional Republican Party has ceased to exist. It has been mutated into the Trump Nationalist Party, basically a herd of RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) who go lumbering after their would-be Fuhrer in whatever direction pops into his narcissistic head at any given moment. I suspect the only thing that is stopping him renaming it the Trump National Socialist Party is that anything “socialist” is anathema to his base and he knows it. Given his predilection for Twitter, though, I suppose he could call it the Trump National Social Media Party. Instead of Nazis they would be Tweetzis. More seriously, it was said Donald Trump was a measure of how much Hilary Clinton was disliked and distrusted by a large part of the electorate and I think there is a lot of truth in that. Polls had been showing – and continue to show – that Congress and the Washington establishment are held in abysmally low regard. But it didn’t seemed to worry them at all and apparently still doesn’t. They still seem to think they can safely ignore it. Trump’s election proved them wrong although it doesn’t look like the older generation have learned the lesson. Not that it matters since that older generation will become increasingly irrelevant as it falls to the next generation to cope with their inheritance of climate change and a burgeoning national debt which has to be paid off somehow or other. The worrying thing is that we have a president who’s one real skill seems to be wriggling out of bankruptcies relatively unscathed, meaning others are left bearing the losses. Not a good precedent – or president. Is UD going to turn into 2% Mother Jones, 98% Gateway Pundit?

Jkrebs Posts: 590 Joined: Sep. 2004 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2018,18:24    StephenB writes, Quote I would not consider God’s decision to create a finite number of souls a restriction. Several billion human souls (not to mention billions of angels) is a lot of creating. Angels! And we're supposed to take him as the paradigm of reason! :-) Link

Jkrebs Posts: 590 Joined: Sep. 2004 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2018,18:40    StephenB writes, Quote If the mind is immaterial, as I define it, then it cannot die. It isn’t a matter of evidence; it is a matter of logic. By definition, a non-material thing that doesn’t have any parts cannot die. Only physical things can die. The heart of their arguments: they define things a certain way, and then obviously it is logical that things are that way, because that is how they are defined. No evidence needed. Thanks for clearing that up, Stephen.

Acartia_Bogart Posts: 2927 Joined: Sep. 2014 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2018,10:05    Did this guy just ask the UD geniuses a serious science question? Quote Ed George—-On a totally different subject, I would be interested in what people here think about the redefinition of the kilogram. Up until a couple days ago, all of our measurements of mass were traced to a lump of platinum stored in a vault in France. It is now traceable to the Planck constant, not to a physical artifact. I can just picture some of the responses: Mullings—-just another step in civilization’s headlong five over the cliff to the rocks at the bottom. ET—-buy a vowel faggot. Your position can’t even get from prokaryotes to eukaryotes. Batshitcrazy77—you are obviously a troll. I will have to report you to the administrator of this site and request that you be removed. Barry—-who cares. No civilized country uses the metric system. And anyone who suggests otherwise is a pathetic snivelling liar. Link

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2018,10:56    Just a couple of days ago? I thought they did that quite a while back. Never mind; I just looked it up.

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2018,11:04    Re "Your position can’t even get from prokaryotes to eukaryotes. " Our position can't do that? As I understand it, the scientific position has lots of intermediate steps, with generally only a small change at each step. Their position, OTOH, is from nothing to, well, everything. Have they done that yet? (But at least they knew how to spell prokaryotes and eukaryotes! )

Acartia_Bogart Posts: 2927 Joined: Sep. 2014 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2018,11:15    Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Nov. 18 2018,10:05) Did this guy just ask the UD geniuses a serious science question? Quote Ed George—-On a totally different subject, I would be interested in what people here think about the redefinition of the kilogram. Up until a couple days ago, all of our measurements of mass were traced to a lump of platinum stored in a vault in France. It is now traceable to the Planck constant, not to a physical artifact. I can just picture some of the responses: Mullings—-just another step in civilization’s headlong five over the cliff to the rocks at the bottom. ET—-buy a vowel faggot. Your position can’t even get from prokaryotes to eukaryotes. Batshitcrazy77—you are obviously a troll. I will have to report you to the administrator of this site and request that you be removed. Barry—-who cares. No civilized country uses the metric system. And anyone who suggests otherwise is a pathetic snivelling liar. Link Barry’s real response was even better that the one I proposed. Quote I am all for it. Anything associated with France has to be suspect. How do we know, for instance, whether over the years the brie munching, wine guzzling Gauls have transferred micrograms of cheese and booze from their fingers to the object every time they handled it? Or perhaps they deleted micrograms when they dropped it in their haste to surrender to the Germans. Who knows. Far better to go the route distance and time measurements went long ago. You just can’t make this shit up.

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2018,12:44    Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Nov. 18 2018,08:05) Did this guy just ask the UD geniuses a serious science question? Quote Ed George—-On a totally different subject, I would be interested in what people here think about the redefinition of the kilogram. Up until a couple days ago, all of our measurements of mass were traced to a lump of platinum stored in a vault in France. It is now traceable to the Planck constant, not to a physical artifact. I can just picture some of the responses: Mullings—-just another step in civilization’s headlong five over the cliff to the rocks at the bottom. ET—-buy a vowel faggot. Your position can’t even get from prokaryotes to eukaryotes. Batshitcrazy77—you are obviously a troll. I will have to report you to the administrator of this site and request that you be removed. Barry—-who cares. No civilized country uses the metric system. And anyone who suggests otherwise is a pathetic snivelling liar. Link Then there's the total-quantum-denier loons... who was in the vanguard of that? Movement isn't possible and so on... -------------- "[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: Nov. 18 2018,12:47    Re "Movement isn't possible and so on... " That's what laxatives are for...

Bob O'H Posts: 2564 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2018,06:55    Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 18 2018,12:47) Re "Movement isn't possible and so on... " That's what laxatives are for... Damn. I've just acted as an editor for a paper on modelling movement. I should have passed this observation on to the authors. -------------- 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: Nov. 20 2018,00:28    Barry’s latest argument against the material nature of consciousness. Quote What is the mass of your thoughts Andrew? What is their specific gravity? What are their height, length and width? I wonder if anyone who has read his comments at UD has ever hired him as a lawyer. Stink

KevinB Posts: 525 Joined: April 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2018,09:33    Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Nov. 20 2018,00:28) Barry’s latest argument against the material nature of consciousness.   Quote What is the mass of your thoughts Andrew? What is their specific gravity? What are their height, length and width? I wonder if anyone who has read his comments at UD has ever hired him as a lawyer. Stink If your case is based on a position that is completely divorced from reality, it might help if your lawyer is as well.

Jkrebs Posts: 590 Joined: Sep. 2004 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2018,11:03    I'm blocked/banned at UD (which is a good thing), but I'm still following the thread, and OldAndrew, who left in disgust, has come back. For the record, I liked this exchange. When Stephen wrote, Quote Here are three reasons why thoughts must be immaterial: (there are more) [a] A particular material thing or things cannot also be a universal idea. [b] Changing matter cannot constitute an unchanging concept. [c] There is nothing in the cause (matter composed of molecules) that could possibly produce the effect (thoughts which contain no molecules). OldAndrew wrote, Quote A and B are simply meaningless hand-waving. C is a reassertion of your conclusion. We know how we perceive thoughts. We have absolutely no idea how they are generated. To say that they don’t “contain” molecules is irrelevant. How are they formed? Are molecules the medium in which they exist? I’m 100% certain that you don’t know the answer. The questions I posed offer strong evidence that the brain is the medium in which thoughts exist. Unless you have something persuasive to the contrary I don’t know why anyone should think otherwise.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2018,14:44    Quote 91 OldAndrewNovember 20, 2018 at 2:10 pm Barry, Quote What? You can’t answer any of these questions? You are the one who said thoughts are material things. Material things can be measured Andrew. You seem to be asserting that in order for me to argue that the brain is the physical medium for thoughts, that I must be able to specify exactly how the brain generates them. Is that correct? I’ll counter: tell me exactly how the immaterial mind stores thoughts. I’m 100% certain that you cannot. It’s amazing how similar this is to fallacious anti-ID arguments. For example, the anti-ID argument says that until you can explain exactly how a thing was designed and created, ID itself is invalid. Similarly, you’re arguing that unless I can specify exactly how the brain generates thoughts, which chemicals, which neurons, and their exact physical properties, then they can’t originate with the brain. (Meanwhile you have no idea how the “immaterial” mind does those things, but you’re okay with that.) You can spot the faulty logic when it’s used against something you believe, but then you turn around and employ the same faulty logic if it supports your beliefs. My assertion: I don’t have to know how the brain generates thoughts or what their chemical composition is to conclude, based on available evidence, that it does. Quote How much does that unicorn you are thinking about weigh Andrew? What is its height, length and width? You are the one who is saying it is material. Surely you can answer simple questions. Your questions just don’t make any sense. How do you come to this bizarre conclusion that an abstract representation of something cannot exist materially? There’s just no evidence that you’re thinking this through. I can draw a picture of a unicorn. I can write the word “unicorn.” Both are material while the idea is abstract. How much does the unicorn weigh? It doesn’t have any weight. There is no unicorn. Obviously a thought about a unicorn is much more complex than a picture or a word. But if the abstract concept can exist in other physical forms, then it can exist in the chemicals and neurons of my brain. I don’t have to know how, any more than you know how they supposedly exist an immaterial mind. I don’t know why I bother with this. You’re just going to start deleting comments again. When you can’t win you take your ball and go home. link until barry deletes it

Jkrebs Posts: 590 Joined: Sep. 2004 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2018,14:49    And this: Stephen: "Anyway, if you don’t find my arguments persuasive, then it would seem that you do not yet comprehend them." OldAndrew: "That’s a delightful insight into how you view reality."

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2018,09:42    Quote 95 OldAndrewNovember 21, 2018 at 8:03 am SB Old Andrew, I am going to make this easy: Quote It was already easy. You’ve just said the same thing again (!) and inserted the word “infallibly” for Jedi mind-trick effect. You can keep repeating it, but the problem isn’t that I don’t understand it. I do. It’s not that complicated. It’s just awful logic that doesn’t hold up under the slightest scrutiny. Quote [a] Concepts are intellectual formations about universals, classes, or kinds of things. They are not about particular or individual things. Really? Because I just imagined a unicorn. Then I imagined another unicorn. Then I thought about the first unicorn again. That’s how long it took to disprove your infallible assertion that a thought represents a universal kind of thing. (I do not think that word means what you think it means.) Think about your computer keyboard. Too late! Now you did it too. Thank you for participating. Quote Nothing that exists physically is a universal or a kind of thing. It is always a particular or this individual thing. I think I see where you’re getting lost. You’re confusing a thought, which is a representation of an abstract concept (something that may or may not exist) with the abstract concept of a thought. In other words, you don’t understand the difference between a thought and what the thought is about. I know, it’s tricky, but I’ll try to slow it down for you. (Personally I like this better when we just exchange ideas instead of talking trash like children.) The unicorn doesn’t exist. It’s an immaterial abstraction. As far as anyone knows, the thought about the unicorn is generated and exists in the neurons of my brain. You see, the thought is not the same as the abstract concept which it is about. The word “unicorn” is material. It exists as a printed or spoken word, or as the thought of the word “unicorn” which is materially generated within my material mind. The word is an abstraction in a material medium. No unicorn required. A picture of a unicorn is material. It exists on paper. I can also generate a picture of a unicorn using my material mind. The process within my material brain which I perceive as a thought about a unicorn (and another unicorn) is material. It’s [i]about]/i] an immaterial abstraction. Case blah blah blah. link

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2018,10:02    If unicorns did exist, how would somebody childproof that horn?

Texas Teach Posts: 2084 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2018,11:49    Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 21 2018,10:02) If unicorns did exist, how would somebody childproof that horn? Pool noodle. -------------- "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: Nov. 21 2018,12:03    Quote 3 Ed GeorgeNovember 21, 2018 at 11:01 am Quote He adds, “I didn’t use to believe it, but I’ve come to see that the single most powerful force for dissolving religious faith in the West was, and still is, Darwinism.” I tend to agree with DaveS. I don’t think that there is a significant decline in the belief in God, or at lest in some higher power. What has declined is the following of various organized religions. And, frankly, the people most responsible for this are the hierarchy in the various organized religions. Whether it’s the outright racism and homophobia of groups like the Westboro church, the pedophilia cover-ups of the Catholic church, or the blind literal interpretation and judgmental attitude of many of the evangelical groups, many people see the corruption, racism and homophobia that can creep into organized religion. Barry and the Homophobes probly aren't going to like this.

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2018,12:26    Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 21 2018,10:03) Quote 3 Ed GeorgeNovember 21, 2018 at 11:01 am   Quote He adds, “I didn’t use to believe it, but I’ve come to see that the single most powerful force for dissolving religious faith in the West was, and still is, Darwinism.” I tend to agree with DaveS. I don’t think that there is a significant decline in the belief in God, or at lest in some higher power. What has declined is the following of various organized religions. And, frankly, the people most responsible for this are the hierarchy in the various organized religions. Whether it’s the outright racism and homophobia of groups like the Westboro church, the pedophilia cover-ups of the Catholic church, or the blind literal interpretation and judgmental attitude of many of the evangelical groups, many people see the corruption, racism and homophobia that can creep into organized religion. Barry and the Homophobes probly aren't going to like this. Worst. Band. Name. Ever. Edited by stevestory on Nov. 21 2018,13:44 -------------- "[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

Jkrebs Posts: 590 Joined: Sep. 2004 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2018,12:27    Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 21 2018,12:26) Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 21 2018,10:03) Quote 3 Ed GeorgeNovember 21, 2018 at 11:01 am   Quote He adds, “I didn’t use to believe it, but I’ve come to see that the single most powerful force for dissolving religious faith in the West was, and still is, Darwinism.” I tend to agree with DaveS. I don’t think that there is a significant decline in the belief in God, or at lest in some higher power. What has declined is the following of various organized religions. And, frankly, the people most responsible for this are the hierarchy in the various organized religions. Whether it’s the outright racism and homophobia of groups like the Westboro church, the pedophilia cover-ups of the Catholic church, or the blind literal interpretation and judgmental attitude of many of the evangelical groups, many people see the corruption, racism and homophobia that can creep into organized religion. Barry and the Homophobes probly aren't going to like this. Worst. Band. Name. Ever. fnxtr gets some kind of award for today: one of those "win the internet" things.

Cubist Posts: 558 Joined: Oct. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2018,13:10    Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 21 2018,10:02) If unicorns did exist, how would somebody childproof that horn? Like so.

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2018,15:01    Quote (Jkrebs @ Nov. 21 2018,10:27) Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 21 2018,12:26) Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 21 2018,10:03)   Quote 3 Ed GeorgeNovember 21, 2018 at 11:01 am   Quote He adds, “I didn’t use to believe it, but I’ve come to see that the single most powerful force for dissolving religious faith in the West was, and still is, Darwinism.” I tend to agree with DaveS. I don’t think that there is a significant decline in the belief in God, or at lest in some higher power. What has declined is the following of various organized religions. And, frankly, the people most responsible for this are the hierarchy in the various organized religions. Whether it’s the outright racism and homophobia of groups like the Westboro church, the pedophilia cover-ups of the Catholic church, or the blind literal interpretation and judgmental attitude of many of the evangelical groups, many people see the corruption, racism and homophobia that can creep into organized religion. Barry and the Homophobes probly aren't going to like this. Worst. Band. Name. Ever. fnxtr gets some kind of award for today: one of those "win the internet" things. Points to stevestory for the assist/setup. -------------- "[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

Acartia_Bogart Posts: 2927 Joined: Sep. 2014 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2018,15:05    Batshitcrazy77 <blockquote>I plan to falsely defend the reality of fluffy pink unicorns dancing on rainbows someday.  🙂</blockquote> Ed George <blockquote>It is always best practice to stick with your strengths. 🙂</blockquote>

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2018,15:21    Quote 97 OldAndrewNovember 21, 2018 at 1:59 pm SB Quote A concept is a universal, by definition. Now you’re saying the exact same things, yet again (!!) using different words, as if it changes something. I previously explained that you are confusing a thought with the abstract concept of a thought. Apparently you didn’t catch that. A thought is not a concept. A thought is my brain firing neurons. The thought is about a concept. It’s about justice. It’s about a unicorn. A concept is immaterial. A thought about a concept is not. It’s brain activity. A physical medium can contain a representation of abstract concepts. If it could not, communication of abstract concepts would be impossible unless our supposed immaterial minds communicated with one another via some immaterial medium. What you don’t seem to grasp is that A and B do not establish C – not infallibly (what a word) or otherwise. A concept is immaterial. A physical thing cannot be a concept. Those are both true statements. Here’s where you keep getting tripped up: A thought about justice is not justice. It is a material representation of the abstract concept of justice, formed in the neurons of a brain. If a thought had to actually be the thing that the thought was about, then a thought would have to be immaterial. But a thought is not the same as the concept the thought is about. It is a representation. A representation can be material. A thought is not the same thing as the concept the thought is about. If you disagree, why? If you agree, then why do you repeatedly insist that the logic by which you establish that the concept is immaterial applies to the thought? linky

Patrick Posts: 666 Joined: July 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2018,15:42    Quote (Texas Teach @ Nov. 21 2018,12:49) Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 21 2018,10:02) If unicorns did exist, how would somebody childproof that horn? Pool noodle. Faster children.

Pages: (527) < ... 358 359 360 361 362 [363] 364 365 366 367 368 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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