RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (527) < ... 210 211 212 213 214 [215] 216 217 218 219 220 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 5, Return To Teh Dingbat Buffet< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: June 04 2016,17:10   

Quote (stevestory @ June 04 2016,17:04)
I have half a mind to sock up, but it's a pain, and wouldn't last much longer than it would take me to say, "Looking at UD and the comments, it's very, very clear that you guys like discussing gay sex WAY more than you like to talk about science. Why is that?"

:p

Jump in. The water's warm. As it always is close to the pool bar. :D

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: June 04 2016,17:14   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ June 04 2016,17:10)
Quote (stevestory @ June 04 2016,17:04)
I have half a mind to sock up, but it's a pain, and wouldn't last much longer than it would take me to say, "Looking at UD and the comments, it's very, very clear that you guys like discussing gay sex WAY more than you like to talk about science. Why is that?"

:p

Jump in. The water's warm. As it always is close to the pool bar. :D

Besides, if an admitted serial hermaphrodite (ie., transsexual) such as Clown Fish can draw this much attention, just think what a heterosexual could do.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 04 2016,17:40   

Quote
46
clown fishJune 4, 2016 at 4:26 pm
HeKS: “you’re simply assuming that those who did Hitler’s bidding 1) believed in the existence of objective morality, 2) cared about doing what was objectively good, and 3) thought that killing millions of Jews and others belonging to other groups was objectively good.”

No, actually I think that most were just trying to preserve their own lives. The big question is, if you were a German soldier in one of those camps, would you turn the gas valve? I can’t honestly say, one way or the other. And I don’t think you could either. That is what is so scary about subjective morality. But not liking the possible implications of a scary situation doesn’t change it. Even KairosFocus, in the same situation, would probably turn on the showers. He would like to think that he wouldn’t (as we all would) but he would be a damned liar if he categorically said he wouldn’t.
lol

   
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: June 04 2016,17:47   

Quote (stevestory @ June 04 2016,17:40)
Quote
46
clown fishJune 4, 2016 at 4:26 pm
HeKS: “you’re simply assuming that those who did Hitler’s bidding 1) believed in the existence of objective morality, 2) cared about doing what was objectively good, and 3) thought that killing millions of Jews and others belonging to other groups was objectively good.”

No, actually I think that most were just trying to preserve their own lives. The big question is, if you were a German soldier in one of those camps, would you turn the gas valve? I can’t honestly say, one way or the other. And I don’t think you could either. That is what is so scary about subjective morality. But not liking the possible implications of a scary situation doesn’t change it. Even KairosFocus, in the same situation, would probably turn on the showers. He would like to think that he wouldn’t (as we all would) but he would be a damned liar if he categorically said he wouldn’t.
lol

Clown Fish just bought a cleaner shrimp and a peppermint shrimp for his tank. Completely off topic, but it is still of more import than whether Mullings thinks I am a nhialist. Actually, it is of more import than what Mullings thinks about anything.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 05 2016,16:52   

Quote
26
kairosfocusJune 5, 2016 at 11:42 am
CF, the real issue is, is God real, and one of the strongest lines of evidence pointing to that is precisely the cluster of ontological and moral issues surrounding our being as responsibly free, rational individuals. Your implicit assertion of atheism (e.g. sin is a theistic construct and is not real) pivots on denial of our being a part of a creation, and in fact it is the atheistical, especially evolutionary materialist scientistic, view that is lacking in foundations. For, it is inherently self referentially incoherent and irretrievably amoral, which factors work to undermine the responsible, rational freedom necessary to even have a serious discussion. I suggest for the one willing to examine worldview foundations, the 101 here on. However, we do not need to go there to see that there is a well understood core moral domain readily perceived with conscience and which serves to guide us in moral government (on pain of descent into absurdity); so much so that this domain is one of the lines of evidence we need to reckon with. KF

KF, for the millionth time, confuses stupid assertions with rational argument.

Edited by stevestory on June 05 2016,17:52

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 05 2016,16:54   

Quote
29
goodusernameJune 5, 2016 at 2:19 pm
StephenB,
Quote

You have not explained why you think that murderers and robbers are immoral. You have not explained why society should be made to work.

I believe morality is the result of certain desires (the desire to live, etc) and empathy. That is why it is widely viewed as immoral to kill, rob, etc.

I can’t imagine a scenario where a group of sentient, intelligent, emotional beings, which have generally similar desires (the desire to live, to not be robbed, to not be beaten, etc), and which have empathy (and therefore its painful seeing others murdered, robbed, or beaten) would not develop a system of morality.

I’m not sure what it means to say that “society should be made to work,” but people, in general, want society to work.


linky

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 05 2016,16:57   

goodusername has more patience than me. At this point I'm incapable of responding to nonsense like "You have not explained why society should be made to work." with anything other than "just how stupid are you?"

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 05 2016,17:07   

Quote
31
goodusernameJune 5, 2016 at 3:38 pm
StephenB, How would you decide the morality of abortion based on the criteria that you just provided?
Quote

Well, at the point that one believes it would be murder, it would also be immoral.

My question was not about just anyone, it was about you. What is your decision? (Based on your criteria, of course). Is abortion moral or immoral?
Quote

Why would it be any different than how you decide the morality of abortion?

Because subjective morality provides many different answers and many different criteria. Objective morality provides only on answer and one criteria.


I kinda wanna know where goodusername is going with this. It could be very good. Not for StephenB, though.   :p

   
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 05 2016,17:40   

WJM:

Quote
People don’t believe in evolution because the know, at least intuitively, that one cannot build Sagrada Família by haphazardly collecting nearby materials and combining them together via a series of engineering and construction accidents.


If by that he means that people don't believe in evolution because of thinking stupidly and making ridiculous analogies, I suspect he's reasonably right.  

Not completely right, since one has to consider why they do that even when they often have been corrected and are intelligent enough to understand.  Death, mainly, but not only.

I also don't believe the Sagrada Familia comes from a long line of churches imperfectly reproducing themselves in competition with other buildings, and thus open to evolutionary pressures.  Kind of an important difference (plus Sagrada Familia actually has a manifest purpose, hippos do not).  But maybe it's just a coincidence that reproducing organisms reveal the sort of heredity expected of, well, reproducing organisms, while churches have much more the mix and match characteristics possible with intelligence.

Yup, it's just ignore the telling details every time in order to make the same lame "analogy" of organisms with designed objects.

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
CeilingCat



Posts: 2363
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2016,03:46   

Quote (stevestory @ June 05 2016,16:57)
goodusername has more patience than me. At this point I'm incapable of responding to nonsense like "You have not explained why society should be made to work." with anything other than "just how stupid are you?"

Really.  I remember reading a G. K. Chesterton piece once where he marveled that people universally! wrote laws against murder and theft and actually presented that fact as evidence of a universal God bestowing His Sacred Morality on the human race.

I wanted to grab him by the lapels and shout into his porcine face, "You fat fuck!  Are you so stupid that you are actually surprised that people every where around the world want to keep their lives and their livings intact and take steps to protect them?"

I don't know what he would have replied, but if you've ever read The Invisible Man, you know the honest answer would have been, "Yes."

Needless to say, he's held in awe by that portion of the UD crowd that doesn't move their lips when they read.

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2016,09:22   

[QUOTE]kairosfocusJune 6, 2016 at 7:37 am: CF, in some ways even worse is the ongoing corruption of logic, or moral principle and embedding of falsity in the yardsticks for truth and knowledge through imposing self referentially incoherent and amoral evolutionary materialism on science, education and the general intellectual life of our culture that are driving so much that is going wrong with our civilisation. Plato’s Socrates has somewhat to say to us about such things, things that we need to heed. KF
From:
Another Sermon by Mullings

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2016,10:52   

Quote
45
goodusernameJune 6, 2016 at 9:41 am
Andre,
Quote

Time to take you to task… a person freely donating their organs when they are brain dead is not an issue, it was a freely made choice.

So if you walk into a hospital and say “I’d like to donate my organs right now,” do you think they’d take them (and I don’t mean just a kidney)?


LINKY

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2016,12:46   

Quote
9
PaVJune 6, 2016 at 11:41 am
I’ve read about half of Barbara McClintock’s seminal paper on transposons. And she makes clear that the occurence of the movement and placement of transposons is non-random.

I personally believe that the organism/cell uses transposons to turn on, and to turn off, certain coding regions of the genome, and that it does so in accordance with its needs. How this happens, exactly, I don’t suppose to know; but, of course, this is worthy of examination, and, I suppose, is happening as we speak.

My view is, naturally, in accordance with a theory of intelligent design. I say “theory” here because should enough information about transposons be obtained that indicates intelligent action on the part of organisms, then ID would be more than a hypothesis.

Unless there is a reason for me to change my thinking about transposons, and their presumed mode of action, this, IMO, severely undermines the entire neo-Darwinian structure.

Your thoughts.


Do I even have to make a snarky comment about this?

   
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2016,12:56   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ June 06 2016,09:22)
[QUOTE]kairosfocusJune 6, 2016 at 7:37 am: [i]CF, in some ways even worse is the ongoing corruption of logic, or moral principle and embedding of falsity in the yardsticks for truth and knowledge through imposing self referentially incoherent and amoral evolutionary materialism on science, education and the general intellectual life of our culture that are driving so much that is going wrong with our civilisation.

I said exactly the same thing a few days ago.

It just rolls off the tongue.

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2016,14:01   

Quote
2
PaVJune 6, 2016 at 12:03 pm
vjt:

You fail to distinguish between “common descent” and “common ancestry.” IOW, Darwinian theory is a theory of gradual change; whereas, ID is a theory of “jumps.” The “jumps” can be so significant that “common descent” becomes a misnomer.

When there are saltational “jumps,” then we don’t know what goes ‘in-between.’ Personally, I don’t think this ‘gap’ will ever be closed. I don’t see how it can be.

In the absence of this ‘gap’ being closed, we cannot definitely affirm “common descent.”
PaV the crack-brained.

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2016,14:31   

Quote (stevestory @ June 06 2016,14:01)
Quote
2
PaVJune 6, 2016 at 12:03 pm
vjt:

You fail to distinguish between “common descent” and “common ancestry.” IOW, Darwinian theory is a theory of gradual change; whereas, ID is a theory of “jumps.” The “jumps” can be so significant that “common descent” becomes a misnomer.

When there are saltational “jumps,” then we don’t know what goes ‘in-between.’ Personally, I don’t think this ‘gap’ will ever be closed. I don’t see how it can be.

In the absence of this ‘gap’ being closed, we cannot definitely affirm “common descent.”
PaV the crack-brained.

They are admitting to having a god of the gaps argument?

They continue to say things without thinking them through.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2016,15:08   

they're creationists. Thinking is not their strong suit.

   
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2016,15:14   

Quote (OgreMkV @ June 06 2016,14:31)
Quote (stevestory @ June 06 2016,14:01)
Quote
2
PaVJune 6, 2016 at 12:03 pm
vjt:

You fail to distinguish between “common descent” and “common ancestry.” IOW, Darwinian theory is a theory of gradual change; whereas, ID is a theory of “jumps.” The “jumps” can be so significant that “common descent” becomes a misnomer.

When there are saltational “jumps,” then we don’t know what goes ‘in-between.’ Personally, I don’t think this ‘gap’ will ever be closed. I don’t see how it can be.

In the absence of this ‘gap’ being closed, we cannot definitely affirm “common descent.”
PaV the crack-brained.

They are admitting to having a god of the gaps argument?

They continue to say things without thinking them through.

On occasion, I will post a comment at UD which is self-contradictory to see if they notice it.

They never do.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2016,16:21   

Or maybe they're so used to it from each other that it isn't noteworthy?

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2016,12:10   

Quote
30
Barry ArringtonJune 7, 2016 at 10:14 am
ellazimm @ 24. You really are quite shameless, as WJM as already demonstrated at 27.

I am of two minds about whether to ban you.

I am tempted to do so, because your bad faith attempts to deflect and dissemble are really annoying to the grownups trying to discuss these matters.

OTOH, it is always handy to have a foil, someone from the other side who comes in and makes really stupid comments that can then be contrasted with the logical and reasonable arguments from the ID side.

For now, I am leaning toward “foil.” Ain’t it good to know that you serve a purpose, even if that purpose is “bad example of how to argue.”


Dunning K Arrington, Esq.

   
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2016,12:53   

Quote (stevestory @ June 07 2016,10:10)
Quote
30
Barry ArringtonJune 7, 2016 at 10:14 am
ellazimm @ 24. You really are quite shameless, as WJM as already demonstrated at 27.

I am of two minds about whether to ban you.

I am tempted to do so, because your bad faith attempts to deflect and dissemble are really annoying to the grownups trying to discuss these matters.

OTOH, it is always handy to have a foil, someone from the other side who comes in and makes really stupid comments that can then be contrasted with the logical and reasonable arguments from the ID side.

For now, I am leaning toward “foil.” Ain’t it good to know that you serve a purpose, even if that purpose is “bad example of how to argue.”


Dunning K Arrington, Esq.

You have to admit he has a point.  ellazimm's comments can indeed be contrasted with the logical and reasonable arguments from the ID side.

--------------
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

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2016,13:06   

sharply contrasted  :p

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2016,14:35   

Quote
53
aapJune 7, 2016 at 11:22 am
As a multiyear watcher on UD I have appreciated the discussions and the willingness of ID scientists, computer programmers, philosophers, engineers, lawyers and others who enjoy thinking for themselves and are willing to take the flak in challenging methodological naturalistic evolutionary orthodoxy. I believe that theistic evolution is bad science and very bad theology. I won’t get into the bad theology part, which is nothing more than a poisonous liberal recipe of Esau’s bowl of pottage which has been slowly and painfully destroying the mainline churches and is now invading the evangelical churches. Forget the theology for now, the science is wanting. For over the past 45 or so years since becoming interested in the evolution-creation debate I have heard a lot of huffing and bluffing on the part of evolutionists, theistic or otherwise, of “we are going to blow your creationist house down with all of the overwhelming evidence for common descent via the materialistic evolutionary process”. The present issue on this thread regarding vestigial genetic markers and the “God wouldn’t do it this way” comments are, as others have pointed out, just a regurgitating of the older vestigial organ arguments which didn’t turn out very well for the evolutionary believers. Like many others I have been waiting and watching for some real hard evidence that actually supports the evolutionary beliefs. I think it is time for evolutionists, theistic or otherwise, to either put up or shut up. My challenge for Drs. Venema and Swamidass and other evolutionists is to show us the goods, let us see “the money”. Most biological evolutionists, theistic or otherwise, give the impression that they are experts in their understanding of the evolutionary mutational and natural selection process. In their superior knowledge they tell us that they understand and can see how common descent works. So I say, show us what you can do with your evolutionary knowledge. How about something simple like creating a new cellular life form from non-life. If they believe that life happened by accidental processes, why don’t they give us a demonstration or least an explanation of how those kind of accidents can happen, and why they don’t keep happening. Or, is it just part of their belief system? Despite all of the hype in OOL research, they are light years away from understanding what life actually is, let alone being able to manufacture it from non-life. Today, through real scientific disciplines we know that all life forms are information rich with irreducibly complex and integrated miniature computerized type systems. Real science teaches us that life doesn’t come from non-life, but all life comes from the “Word”- the information created by the Creator. Why don’t the evolutionary biologists use their “superior knowledge” and give us a demonstration of the power of the evolutionary process. Where are all of the peer reviewed papers explaining to us “duffusses” exactly which mutations have to take place in order to transform one kind of creature into another and how those mutations were caused. How about changing a unicellular life form into a different kind of viable multicellular life form through the application of directed mutations and natural selection. That shouldn’t be too hard with all of their expertize. No, all they have managed to do with their extensive knowledge of evolution and years of experimentation and wasted government funding of evolutionary biology is to produce either deformed or dead bacteria or houseflies. Where would evolutionary biology be without government welfare? Who is going to waste their own money on research that doesn’t produce any concrete results? How about something a little more challenging like transforming an asexual lifeform into a sexually reproducing life form. Let them show us how it happens. Now if they really are smart they will also be able to create sentient life through accidental mutations. I am waiting, and so are many others. True science can create some amazing technological contraptions which are almost miraculous, but only GOD can do what is truly miraculous, which is the creation of our universe and every kind of life, including human life.
It is time to end the huffing and bluffing and just-so stories and speculations about vestigial organs or genetics and give us the real deal. Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist and one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology, wrote this very revealing statement that highlights the implicit a priori bias against GOD that he and many other methodological naturalistic scientists hold:
‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’

Yes, the Divine Foot feared by Richard Lewontin and other materialistic minded scientists is not only in the door but is trampling on their cherished evolutionary religious beliefs that they are nothing more than mutated and mutating creatures who are free from the Divine will.
Lastly, it is tragic that theistic evolutionists in their insistence on methodological naturalism usually take the side of the scientific establishment in the ostracizing and persecution of other scientists who do not believe the evidence supports evolutionary common descent, but instead points to an Intelligent Designer or Creator GOD. It is understandable why atheistic believers would hold to evolutionary beliefs and not be able to see the power and wisdom of GOD revealed in His Creation, for they have nothing else but evolution to believe in, but it is lamentable that those who express theism should be so blind as not to see GOD’S hand in His absolutely incredible handiwork in the universe and in life, particularly human life. It is time for all scientists to humble themselves and give GOD the glory He deserves for His miraculous creations. ID is a good start.
linky

   
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2016,14:40   

Made it through 8 or 9 lines of that...

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2016,15:24   

Quote (Henry J @ June 07 2016,14:40)
Made it through 8 or 9 lines of that...

The paragraph is your friend.

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2016,15:34   

Quote (Henry J @ June 07 2016,12:40)
Made it through 8 or 9 lines of that...

Fear the Divine Foot!


--------------
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

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2016,15:49   

Quote
55
PaVJune 7, 2016 at 2:24 pm
Prof. S. Joshua Swamidass:

I’ve already asked this question:
Where did the first bird feather come from?

No one, but Mung, has answered. This simple question demolishes your entire argument unless you have an apt answer for it. I’d ask you to make some attempt to address this issue.

{snip}


Demolishes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111

   
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2016,16:19   

Quote (stevestory @ June 07 2016,13:49)
Quote
55
PaVJune 7, 2016 at 2:24 pm
Prof. S. Joshua Swamidass:

I’ve already asked this question:
Where did the first bird feather come from?

No one, but Mung, has answered. This simple question demolishes your entire argument unless you have an apt answer for it. I’d ask you to make some attempt to address this issue.

{snip}


Demolishes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111

Well fuck it.  That settles it - we've lost.  Why did no-one ever ask this before?

I'm off to church.

--------------
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

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2016,16:52   

Because PaV is smarter than all those so-called "scientists" with all their fancy book-larnin', duh.

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2016,17:00   

Quote
29
clown fishJune 7, 2016 at 3:25 pm
Bornagain77: “Denial is NOT a river in Egypt.”

No, but it is apparently is a tool in your toolkit when you are presented with an error in your claims.

“Moreover clown troll, are you not the infamous William Spearshake who has been banned numerous times, under numerous alias, for trolling?”

Now, that’s just crazy talk. I am no more William Spearshake than KairosFocus is Gordon Mullings. But I think I like him.
linky

   
  15792 replies since Dec. 29 2013,11:01 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (527) < ... 210 211 212 213 214 [215] 216 217 218 219 220 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]