RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (527) < ... 39 40 41 42 43 [44] 45 46 47 48 49 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 5, Return To Teh Dingbat Buffet< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2014,07:23   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 01 2014,01:36)
Quote (keiths @ July 31 2014,14:08)
Unbelievable. VJ Torley's latest clocks in at 20,515 words.

It's gotten longer!  Edward Feser (pronounced like "phaser" in Star Trek) has replied and Torley has added another page to his original post answering back.

Feser's reply, entitled "Logorrhea in the Cell", is worth quoting at length:          
Quote
In a recent post I commented on a remark made in one of the comboxes by a reader sympathetic to “Intelligent Design” (ID) theory.  At the ID website Uncommon Descent, Vincent Torley has responded, in a post with the title “Hyper-skepticism and ‘My way or the highway’: Feser’s extraordinary post.”  The title, and past experience with Torley, led me to expect that his latest piece would be short on dispassionate and accurate analysis and long on overheated rhetoric and misrepresentation.  Past experience with Torley also led me to expect that it would simply be long, period, indeed of gargantuan length.

Both expectations were confirmed.  Having cut and pasted Torley’s post into MS Word, I find that it comes to 42 pages, single-spaced.  I envy Torley that he has time to write up a 42-page single-spaced commentary on a blog post written in reply to a reader’s combox remark.  Why he thinks I (or other people with jobs, families, hobbies, etc.) would have time to read such a thing, I have no idea.  As to the content, well, since Torley thinks you can infer quite a lot even from brief phrases, he’ll be happy to know that I agree with him to this extent: Having read the first section and quickly scanned a couple of other passages of his opus -- and seen how badly he there distorts what I wrote -- I infer that it would be a waste of time (time I don’t have in any case) to read the rest.
                              ...
Note that by “left me speechless” Torley apparently means “led me to churn out 42 single-spaced pages in reply.”
                              ...
I find that this modus operandi is evident in many of the responses ID sympathizers make to my criticisms: First, egregiously misrepresent what I have said, at such prodigious length that the resulting cloud of squid ink completely obscures the unwary reader’s view of what I actually wrote or what the dispute is really about; second, evince befuddlement and outrage that I could say the silly and horrible things wrongly attributed to me; third, sanctimoniously express regret that ID sympathizers and Thomists aren’t on more “friendly” terms (as Torley puts it).
                               ...
Could such a pattern -- albeit it is a pattern of cluelessness -- itself be a mark of intelligent design?  Indeed it could be, in the sense that you have to be a rational animal in the first place in order to exhibit the kind of irrationality that some ID folks do.  

Apparently never having heard the expression, "When you're in a hole, quit digging", Torley responds to this on Feser's blog and makes things worse.  The whole exchange is worth reading and don't forget to click on Past experience with Torley for Torley's sorry history with Feser.

Feser, by the way, is a Serious Theologian™ and a Thomist - as in Saint Thomas Aquinas, pride of medieval theology.  Torley's a Thomist too and he tries enthusiastically to convince Feser that ID is true.  Feser rejects ID, but for Thomistic reasons that are only of interest to another Thomist.
 
As you can see above, he likes to be rude, but when he's dealing with a non-Torley he often makes a prat of himself.  I fully intend to purchase his book, "The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism" as soon as I finish digesting (and excreting) Mrs. O'Leary's "By Design or by Chance".

Philosophy, especially of religion, is just a way for insane people to say or type a lot of gobbledegook that has nothing to do with reality. If any sort of philosophy ever had any credibility, that credibility has been buried under a humongous pile of bullshit. Frankly, I'm astounded that anyone in their right mind would pay to take a philosophy class or pay someone to 'teach' that crap. I can't help but wonder how many people with a degree in philosophy are flipping burgers or sweeping floors for a living.

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2014,07:32   

Quote (The whole truth @ Aug. 03 2014,13:23)
Philosophy, especially of religion, is just a way for insane people to say or type a lot of gobbledegook that has nothing to do with reality. If any sort of philosophy ever had any credibility, that credibility has been buried under a humongous pile of bullshit. Frankly, I'm astounded that anyone in their right mind would pay to take a philosophy class or pay someone to 'teach' that crap. I can't help but wonder how many people with a degree in philosophy are flipping burgers or sweeping floors for a living.

Byers lives!

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2014,13:12   

I have to disagree. I had a very, very good Philosophy of Science class. I walked in thinking I knew the difference between science and pseudoscience, and walked out after the first week realizing I had been very naive and simple-minded. The prof was very good. Whatever position you took, he could rapidly disassemble. Very eye-opening about how to think more carefully.

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2014,13:14   

as far as there being a lot of BS in philosophy, I merely refer you to this: Sturgeon's Law

   
Driver



Posts: 649
Joined: June 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2014,17:29   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 01 2014,18:32)
Quote

Note that by “left me speechless” Torley apparently means “led me to churn out 42 single-spaced pages in reply.”


YA BURNT

There's more. A whole new post. Not cruel enough to link to it.

--------------
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: Aug. 03 2014,17:43   

Quote (Driver @ Aug. 03 2014,18:29)
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 01 2014,18:32)
Quote

Note that by “left me speechless” Torley apparently means “led me to churn out 42 single-spaced pages in reply.”


YA BURNT

There's more. A whole new post. Not cruel enough to link to it.

i am

on the plus side, this response to Feser is only 6,822 words, which in torley's world is like a postcard.

   
sparc



Posts: 2088
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2014,22:58   

Larry Moran on KF:
Quote
He quotes BA77 (really!) ...


--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
BillB



Posts: 388
Joined: Aug. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2014,02:07   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 03 2014,19:12)
I have to disagree. I had a very, very good Philosophy of Science class. I walked in thinking I knew the difference between science and pseudoscience, and walked out after the first week realizing I had been very naive and simple-minded. The prof was very good. Whatever position you took, he could rapidly disassemble. Very eye-opening about how to think more carefully.

I agree - I studied AI and philosophy played a very valuable part when trying to study the nebula of topics in that field: intelligence, emotion, creativity, brains, the mind, computation.... ... evolution ...

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2014,10:20   

Quote (sparc @ Aug. 04 2014,20:58)
Larry Moran on KF:
 
Quote
He quotes BA77 (really!) ...

... in which we learn that batshit77 spent a few years banging his head on a wall.  I'm sure you're all as surprised as I was.

--------------
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: Aug. 05 2014,14:25   

Quote
Why, exactly, should we believe that humans are descended from simpler forms of life?

August 4, 2014 Posted by News under Human evolution, News
25 Comments

Current explanations of the human mind, vs. the chimpanzee mind, absolutely do not make sense. And that’s the money shot.


gross.

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2014,14:28   

mark frank shows up to comment:

Quote
Quote
But I also clearly see that current explanations of the human mind, vs. the chimpanzee mind, absolutely do not make sense. And that’s the money shot.
It is absolutely  not the money shot. Biologists are not proposing that people are descended from chimpanzees!  They are only proposing we have a fairly recent common ancestor. The only implication is that we have changed a lot since then.


linky

Edited by stevestory on Aug. 05 2014,15:29

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2014,15:48   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 05 2014,14:25)
Quote
Why, exactly, should we believe that humans are descended from simpler forms of life?

August 4, 2014 Posted by News under Human evolution, News
25 Comments

Current explanations of the human mind, vs. the chimpanzee mind, absolutely do not make sense. And that’s the money shot.


gross.

UD's firing squad does seem like a viscous circle.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2014,17:06   

A viscous circle? It doesn't flow as fast as other circles? ;)

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2014,17:10   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 05 2014,16:48)
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 05 2014,14:25)
 
Quote
Why, exactly, should we believe that humans are descended from simpler forms of life?

August 4, 2014 Posted by News under Human evolution, News
25 Comments

Current explanations of the human mind, vs. the chimpanzee mind, absolutely do not make sense. And that’s the money shot.


gross.

UD's firing squad does seem like a viscous circle.

A sticky whack-it.

Edited by Reciprocating Bill on Aug. 05 2014,18:11

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2014,18:44   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 05 2014,17:10)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 05 2014,16:48)
   
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 05 2014,14:25)
   
Quote
Why, exactly, should we believe that humans are descended from simpler forms of life?

August 4, 2014 Posted by News under Human evolution, News
25 Comments

Current explanations of the human mind, vs. the chimpanzee mind, absolutely do not make sense. And that’s the money shot.


gross.

UD's firing squad does seem like a viscous circle.

A sticky whack-it.

It's a load of hooey.

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

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2014,18:50   

Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 05 2014,16:44)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 05 2014,17:10)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 05 2014,16:48)
   
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 05 2014,14:25)
     
Quote
Why, exactly, should we believe that humans are descended from simpler forms of life?

August 4, 2014 Posted by News under Human evolution, News
25 Comments

Current explanations of the human mind, vs. the chimpanzee mind, absolutely do not make sense. And that’s the money shot.


gross.

UD's firing squad does seem like a viscous circle.

A sticky whack-it.

It's a load of hooey.

A load. Of jerks.

--------------
"[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

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2363
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2014,21:28   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 05 2014,14:25)
   
Quote
Why, exactly, should we believe that humans are descended from simpler forms of life?

August 4, 2014 Posted by News under Human evolution, News
25 Comments

Current explanations of the human mind, vs. the chimpanzee mind, absolutely do not make sense. And that’s the money shot.


gross.

From the same OP:    
Quote
PS: Common ancestry and evolution are different concepts. Picture a far-off galaxy in which there are two solar systems, in each of which life originated and evolved independently. Both systems have been evolving but they have no common ancestor.

I wonder if they'll ever identify the selfish gene.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2014,10:46   

Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 05 2014,17:44)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 05 2014,17:10)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 05 2014,16:48)
   
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 05 2014,14:25)
     
Quote
Why, exactly, should we believe that humans are descended from simpler forms of life?

August 4, 2014 Posted by News under Human evolution, News
25 Comments

Current explanations of the human mind, vs. the chimpanzee mind, absolutely do not make sense. And that’s the money shot.


gross.

UD's firing squad does seem like a viscous circle.

A sticky whack-it.

It's a load of hooey.

Is that viscous hooey?

  
Ptaylor



Posts: 1180
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2014,00:24   

johnnyb's latest post: "Do Darwinists Think that Women are Closer to Chimps than Men?"
1. Colossally dumb question, even given your rationale for asking it. Possibly the stupidest thing I have seen there for, well, three days.
2. Jonathan, if you really want to know what 'Darwinists' think, why are you asking a group of creationists who have a track record of misunderstanding them?
UD link

--------------
We no longer say: “Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.” We now say: “Another day since the time Darwinism was disproved.”
-PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

  
Driver



Posts: 649
Joined: June 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2014,01:12   

Quote (Ptaylor @ Aug. 07 2014,05:24)
johnnyb's latest post: "Do Darwinists Think that Women are Closer to Chimps than Men?"
1. Colossally dumb question, even given your rationale for asking it. Possibly the stupidest thing I have seen there for, well, three days.
2. Jonathan, if you really want to know what 'Darwinists' think, why are you asking a group of creationists who have a track record of misunderstanding them?
UD link



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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2014,06:43   

Quote (Ptaylor @ Aug. 07 2014,01:24)
johnnyb's latest post: "Do Darwinists Think that Women are Closer to Chimps than Men?"

It's personal experience that motivates the question.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
KevinB



Posts: 525
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2014,07:05   

Quote (Ptaylor @ Aug. 07 2014,00:24)
johnnyb's latest post: "Do Darwinists Think that Women are Closer to Chimps than Men?"
1. Colossally dumb question, even given your rationale for asking it. Possibly the stupidest thing I have seen there for, well, three days.
2. Jonathan, if you really want to know what 'Darwinists' think, why are you asking a group of creationists who have a track record of misunderstanding them?
UD link

Someone ought to ask "johnnyb" whether he thinks Creationists are closer to God than Darwinists.

Based on any number of police reality TV programs, it's clear that men are closer to chimps after a night out on the booze.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2014,08:00   

Quote (KevinB @ Aug. 07 2014,08:05)
Based on any number of police reality TV programs, it's clear that men are closer to chimps after a night out on the booze.

Particularly Drunk Guy with No Shirt.

He's my favorite.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2363
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2014,08:38   

johnnyb explains his reasoning:  
Quote
The reason I think the differences don’t matter is that DNA is not a major source for organismal form—that form and biochemistry have fairly different sources. One creation biologist, for instance, has suggested that humans and chimps originally started at 100% identical DNA. Why? Because he doesn’t think that DNA contributes that much to form.

Write that down.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2014,09:40   

Well of course DNA doesn't contribute to form. After all, a DNA molecule is microscopic, much smaller than a cell. Sure some genes tell parts when to start growing, how fast to grow, and when to stop growing, but what's that got to do with form?

Or am I confused?

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2014,10:40   

Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 07 2014,17:40)
Well of course DNA doesn't contribute to form. After all, a DNA molecule is microscopic, much smaller than a cell. Sure some genes tell parts when to start growing, how fast to grow, and when to stop growing, but what's that got to do with form?

Or am I confused?

Only if you married a chimp.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2014,11:30   

Quote (k.e.. @ Aug. 07 2014,10:40)
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 07 2014,17:40)
Well of course DNA doesn't contribute to form. After all, a DNA molecule is microscopic, much smaller than a cell. Sure some genes tell parts when to start growing, how fast to grow, and when to stop growing, but what's that got to do with form?

Or am I confused?

Only if you married a chimp.

What if you're just living in sin with a chimp?

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2014,12:25   

Why, that would be like monkey business!  :p

  
Driver



Posts: 649
Joined: June 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2014,15:06   

Silver Asiatic forgets that ID is a scientific theory:

 
Quote
True, once we reduce human beings to a biological perspective alone, then humans are apes.


Perhaps we can look forward to reading binning the UD magnum opus On The Theology Of Phylogenetics, weighing in at an impressive 3 million words of equivocation and irrelevance.

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

  
KevinB



Posts: 525
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2014,15:28   

Quote (Driver @ Aug. 07 2014,15:06)
Silver Asiatic forgets that ID is a scientific theory:

 
Quote
True, once we reduce human beings to a biological perspective alone, then humans are apes.


Perhaps we can look forward to reading binning the UD magnum opus On The Theology Of Phylogenetics, weighing in at an impressive 3 million words of equivocation and irrelevance.

If BA77 and KF are writing it, 3 million words would barely get them past the contents page.

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

Pages: (527) < ... 39 40 41 42 43 [44] 45 46 47 48 49 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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