Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::The limits of darwinism.

Posted: Feb. 10 2010,12:07

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 09 2010,23:35)

qetzal:

Quote

Note: I'm not claiming this as evidence against a purpose to life. Only that it's not evidence for a purpose.

That's why I qualified the statement to "this end of the scale." While all life forms we know of act/react to stimulus (process information) and display some signs of volition - jury's still out on viruses as life forms - not all life forms are 'conscious'. According to the Hameroff-Penrose model, there is a numerical quantification for the appearance of that phenomenon.

I'd argue in favor of all conscious life forms having 'purpose' (to include self-purpose), even if it seems trivial to us.

So only conscious life necessarily has a purpose, but that purpose might be nothing more than 'survive and reproduce.' Is that what you're saying? If so, how does that support your belief that life is intentional? As I already noted, the 'purpose' of surviving and reproducing can be readily explained without supposing that the first life arose through intentional agency.

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 10 2010,10:02)

Just have to chuckle sometimes at the stubborn refusal of biologists to credit anything to physics.

Weren't you the one arguing that life requires more than just a specific arrangement of atoms? Seems to me that's the ultimate refusal to credit physics.

But I'll guess that you're referring more to stuff like Penrose-Hameroff, right? The thing is, biologists are more than happy to credit physics when the empirical evidence supports it. Last I knew, Penrose, Hameroff, and others like them were still at the hand-wavy speculation stage, with their ideas about quantum consciousness, Orch-OR, et al. I'm not aware that they've developed any significant evidence to support such ideas.* If they ever do, I'm confident that biologists will take more notice.

Might still take a while, of course, due to differences between disciplines, inertia, etc. But saying that biologists refuse to credit physics strikes me as either ignorant or disingenuous.

+++++
*If you think otherwise, feel free to provide a link. But please, no links about how microtubules might do this or might collapse that. If there's evidence that they really do that, and that it is related to consciousness, great - let's see it. Otherwise it's still hand-wavy speculation, and isn't (yet) deserving of significant credit from anyone.

Joy

Posts: 188
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Feb. 10 2010,12:25

Albatrossity2:

Quote

And you just have to guffaw at physicist wannabes who refuse to learn enough biology to comment on it sensibly.

I haven't seen too many of those, but then, I don't hang out around here much. I find biophysics theory and applications quite fascinating. But that's hardly surprising, since my field was applied biophysics. Discovered rather quickly that I have little patience for scientific 'orthodoxies' and no patience at all for corporate hijackings, political smoke and mirrors, dangerous lies or premeditated 'random' murder.

My guess is that one of these days you guys may want to graduate from Dueling Metaphysics on the midway, see if they'll let you into the main arena to face real lions. But you're gonna need more sensible arguments, fewer juvenile insults.

Good luck with that. Judging from the number of dumb assumptions and inane assertions I've seen so far in this thread, you're going to need it if you ever hope to be more than mere shills for the Freak Show.

qetzal

Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

Posted: Feb. 10 2010,14:22

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 10 2010,12:25)

Judging from the number of dumb assumptions and inane assertions I've seen so far in this thread....

Joy, are you familiar with the parable of the mote and the beam?

Albatrossity2

Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Feb. 10 2010,14:44

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 10 2010,12:25)

Albatrossity2:

Quote

And you just have to guffaw at physicist wannabes who refuse to learn enough biology to comment on it sensibly.

I haven't seen too many of those, but then, I don't hang out around here much. I find biophysics theory and applications quite fascinating. But that's hardly surprising, since my field was applied biophysics. Discovered rather quickly that I have little patience for scientific 'orthodoxies' and no patience at all for corporate hijackings, political smoke and mirrors, dangerous lies or premeditated 'random' murder.

My guess is that one of these days you guys may want to graduate from Dueling Metaphysics on the midway, see if they'll let you into the main arena to face real lions. But you're gonna need more sensible arguments, fewer juvenile insults.

You definitely have mastered the red herring.

And my field, coincidentally, was biophysics as well. And I've never been a fan of corporate hijackings or premeditated murder either. Another coincidence, I suppose.

In what I have read here that you have written, I've found no "sensible argument" for your notion that your consciousness exists independent of your body. I have seen plenty of wishful thinking and general woo that might pass for "sensible argument" in your world, but it won't get you much more than derision here. Sorry, but I save my sensible arguments for those who seem sensible.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
- Pattiann Rogers

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Feb. 10 2010,15:02

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 10 2010,12:25)

But you're gonna need more sensible arguments, fewer juvenile insults.

Quote

Brave Sir Robin ran away
Bravely ran away, away - I didn't!
When danger reared its ugly head
He bravely turned his tail and fled
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin

Quote

Good luck with that. Judging from the number of dumb assumptions and inane assertions I've seen so far in this thread, you're going to need it if you ever hope to be more than mere shills for the Freak Show.

I retract my apology to Joy. I doubt her baggage would fit on a army transport plane. It's just camouflaged better them most. I suspect she's bitter because she never found "god wuz here" when she was looking at DNA down the microscope.

I guess we won't be seeing Joy about any more soon then, from the tone of her last few messages.

It's amazing how people like Joy make grand claims but claim to be so insulted by a few petty comments and then use it as an excuse to avoid answering pertinent questions asked by others about those grand claims.

How easy. So much easer to cut and run then address getzal and RB's specific points. Boo hoo, some random people on the internet were mean to me. What an excuse. What a con artist.

Quote

My guess is that one of these days you guys may want to graduate from Dueling Metaphysics on the midway, see if they'll let you into the main arena to face real lions. But you're gonna need more sensible arguments, fewer juvenile insults.

Says a voice from TT.

Quote

I participated at TT because Mike Gene asked me to participate at TT. It was quite a fun pastime before he moved on to other things and it became Bradford's personal political blog. I still follow on occasion if there is an interesting subject.

Let's look at some of the other things Joy has said about TT in the past.

Quote

TT is a privately owned blog that doesn't have to let you participate at all, and may make decisions about moderation without consulting you.

Quote

. Yes, most at TT are 'creationists' in that they do view biology and evolution as creations instead of accidents (with some caveats), with deity running the show.

Quote

The assumption is that those past life forms 'evolved' over millions of generations to become the life forms we see now.

Creationist evolution denier.

Quote

What's it evolving into? A drug resistant strain of bacteria isn't a new species of life, it's an adaptive development in an existing species of life. It's still Plasmodium falciparum the protozoa that causes malignant malaria.

Yep, creationist for sure with a DaveScot tint. Evolution had it's chance, it produced nothing new. Blah blah blah.

Quote

Just trying for a psych profile on the last hold-outs, denizens of The [infamous] Swamp. To round out the research. That's all.

How did that work out I wonder.

Link

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Louis

Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Feb. 10 2010,16:00

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 10 2010,19:44)

[SNIP]

Sorry, but I save my sensible arguments for those who seem sensible.

It occurs to me that this is possibly the most intelligent thing I have ever seen written by anyone anywhere.

I shudder to think at the time I've wasted on morons.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

Joy

Posts: 188
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Feb. 10 2010,16:05

qetzal:

Quote

As I already noted, the 'purpose' of surviving and reproducing can be readily explained without supposing that the first life arose through intentional agency.

Survival and reproduction are trivial considerations of 'purpose' beyond any given individual's ability to contribute to the gene pool (intentionally or not). Possibly pertinent to the process of evolution, not necessarily pertinent to the 'purpose' of life itself.

Once more, I don't know how "first life" arose and honestly don't give a shit because it affects my life not at all. In fact, that unanswerable question affects no one's life in the here and now (except a handful of abiogenesis researchers). So I sure don't know why any of you believe it's some sort of effective religion-slayer. Mere Dueling Metaphysics. Ho, hum.

Quote

Weren't you the one arguing that life requires more than just a specific arrangement of atoms? Seems to me that's the ultimate refusal to credit physics.

There is more to physics than the specific arrangement of atoms. I admit to a form of natural vitalism. I don't think either biology or physics are in possession of all the pieces to the puzzle. I can say with some confidence that science won't be approaching completion of the picture during my lifetime. Or my grandchildren's lifetimes. There will still be work for researchers as far into the future as any of us cares to look.

Quote

I'm not aware that they've developed any significant evidence to support such ideas.* If they ever do, I'm confident that biologists will take more notice.

Since you're uninterested in research on PCCs [MTs/MAPs*] I guess you'll just have to wait on something that grabs your attention. And much of the active research is in the proprietary realm these days anyway. Guess Big Pharma knows a promising direction when it sees one. Lord knows we've all been waiting on the "Really Good Drugs" all our adult lives... §;o)
___

* i.e., Gravitational symmetry breaking leads to polar liquid crystal phase of microtubules in vitro

Transitions in Microtubule C-termini Conformations as a Possible Dendritic Signaling Phenomenon

Joy

Posts: 188
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Feb. 10 2010,16:33

Albatrossity2:

Quote

In what I have read here that you have written, I've found no "sensible argument" for your notion that your consciousness exists independent of your body. I have seen plenty of wishful thinking and general woo that might pass for "sensible argument" in your world, but it won't get you much more than derision here. Sorry, but I save my sensible arguments for those who seem sensible.

It's not surprising that you haven't seen a "sensible argument" in favor of consciousness being separable from matter. I haven't offered an argument on that and don't plan to. I have merely mentioned in passing that I have encountered some evidence in that direction. I find it intriguing, but certainly know better than to offer it here as some kind of "argument." So I didn't bother. I was asked a personal question, answered the question honestly and without elaboration. That is ALL I did.

If you wish to see something "sensible" you'll need to work a bit on your reading comprehension skills so you'll be able to recognize the difference between an argument and a simple response to a personal question.

Doc Bill

Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

Posted: Feb. 10 2010,16:44

I don't see how the same brain that produces this insight

Quote

Once more, I don't know how "first life" arose and honestly don't give a shit because it affects my life not at all.

not two seconds later produces bullshit like this

Quote

There is more to physics than the specific arrangement of atoms. I admit to a form of natural vitalism.

Now, I've been accused (or blessed as the case may be) of possessing unnaturally powerful animal magnetism (the stories I could tell you about delivering pizzas ... ) but "natural vitalism?"

Can you get that in a pill?

Richardthughes

Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Feb. 10 2010,16:46

Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 10 2010,16:44)

Now, I've been accused (or blessed as the case may be) of possessing unnaturally powerful animal magnetism...

Was that when we couldn't separate that monkey from your person due to some strange attractive force?

--------------
"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

Albatrossity2

Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Feb. 10 2010,17:01

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 10 2010,16:33)

It's not surprising that you haven't seen a "sensible argument" in favor of consciousness being separable from matter. I haven't offered an argument on that and don't plan to. I have merely mentioned in passing that I have encountered some evidence in that direction. I find it intriguing, but certainly know better than to offer it here as some kind of "argument." So I didn't bother. I was asked a personal question, answered the question honestly and without elaboration. That is ALL I did.

If you wish to see something "sensible" you'll need to work a bit on your reading comprehension skills so you'll be able to recognize the difference between an argument and a simple response to a personal question.

Ah, isn't semantics fun?

"Evidence" is usually what one uses for an "argument". By mentioning "evidence" that you have "encountered", a rational person might be led to believe that you would be able to use it in an argument. But you can't/won't do that, and thus are able to slough off my criticism that you have offered exactly nothing to support the notion.

You simply have faith in the notion that consciousness (whatever that is) is separable from matter, and that's good enough for you. But you're right; I can't argue against evidence that you haven't provided. So I will stick with mockery.

I've no delusions about whether I will get an argument, or evidence, or anything I would recognize as sensible from you. I've read enough here, and at Telic Twats, to have figured that out, even with my marginal reading comprehension skills.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
- Pattiann Rogers

Doc Bill

Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

Posted: Feb. 10 2010,17:11

Hey, the monkey told me she was an adult.

What was I supposed to do, card her?

Anyway, it was a long time ago and most of the charges were dropped.

Your point?

qetzal

Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

Posted: Feb. 10 2010,17:14

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 10 2010,16:05)

qetzal:

Quote

As I already noted, the 'purpose' of surviving and reproducing can be readily explained without supposing that the first life arose through intentional agency.

Survival and reproduction are trivial considerations of 'purpose' beyond any given individual's ability to contribute to the gene pool (intentionally or not). Possibly pertinent to the process of evolution, not necessarily pertinent to the 'purpose' of life itself.

My question was whether "survive and reproduce" was sufficient to constitute "purpose" as you define it. Your failure to actually answer is duly noted.

Quote

Once more, I don't know how "first life" arose and honestly don't give a shit because it affects my life not at all. In fact, that unanswerable question affects no one's life in the here and now (except a handful of abiogenesis researchers). So I sure don't know why any of you believe it's some sort of effective religion-slayer. Mere Dueling Metaphysics. Ho, hum.

I never said anything about abiogenesis being a religion-slayer. Also, weren't you just admonishing us about making dumb assumptions? Your double standard is duly noted.

In any case, I only raised the question because you said:

Quote

I would like to believe life is intentional rather than accidental.

If you no longer give a shit, that's fine with me.

Quote

Since you're uninterested in research on PCCs [MTs/MAPs*] I guess you'll just have to wait on something that grabs your attention. And much of the active research is in the proprietary realm these days anyway. Guess Big Pharma knows a promising direction when it sees one. Lord knows we've all been waiting on the "Really Good Drugs" all our adult lives... §;o)

When did I ever say I was uninterested in any of that? More dumb assumptions, I guess.

As for your links, are you actually suggesting that they support Orch-OR or any other quantum consciousness type claims? Guffaw!

The first one attempts to explain the effects of gravity on assembly of microtubules. The second is a computer model of how the C-terminus of tubulin might behave. Neither one provides any test of its ideas. More importantly, neither one provides evidence to support Orch-OR or anything similar. That you offer them as such suggests you really don't understand what you're talking about. Either that, or you're just hoping I'll be cowed by a couple of random papers about microtubules.

Also, if you think pharma is pursuing microtubules because they believe in quantum consciousness, you're seriously deluded.

Feel free to continue with your buffoonery. I've had enough.

Texas Teach

Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

Posted: Feb. 10 2010,17:59

Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 10 2010,16:44)

Now, I've been accused (or blessed as the case may be) of possessing unnaturally powerful animal magnetism (the stories I could tell you about delivering pizzas ... ) but "natural vitalism?"

Were you Lenny Flank's delivery boy? If so, do you have any special insights into theology?

--------------
"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

Badger3k

Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

Posted: Feb. 10 2010,19:59

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 09 2010,22:27)

Badger3k:

Quote

So Joy, if Love is the Answer (good song, by the way, even if that may not be the title, I forget, forgive my digression), does that apply between consenting adults of the same sex? What about between species? Between kingdoms (animal and vegetable, for example)?

Love is not just about sex. There seem to be increasing numbers of ambivigendered folks these days, and it does not appear to be a choice (for those I know) as much as it is nature. Something the haters don't want to consider, but may have to accept one of these days. Given intersex epidemics in fish and amphibians from agricultural pollution - ALL the fish examined in a surprising number of systems - it could be yet another thing we've visited upon our children through unbridled greed, apathy, and/or endless stupidity. There are enough humans in the world, it is not important on any level for anyone to be forced to reproduce, nor is it reasonable to enforce lifelong celibacy because someone else doesn't 'approve' of who a person loves. Interspecies crosses a relative power and consent line, but if you're into loufas you and Bill O'Reilly would have something in common.

Quote

Why pick a philosophy that gives advice on how to live here and now if it includes (or you include) things about some other life for which there is no evidence?

No evidence you would consider, obviously. But it would be a mistake to extrapolate and project your own beliefs (or lack thereof) universally. I have encountered some evidence that consciousness is separable from body and may survive death. Enough to lend hope, for what it's worth - to me. Others have no power to eliminate my experiences or to dictate what I must believe about them. So I couldn't imagine why in the world anybody'd bother to try.

Quote

Why not do that and leave the non-evidence based crap behind?

Because I don't have any desire to reject what I don't consider to be "crap." You of course can believe or not believe whatever you like.

Thanks for the replies. It's interesting to see what others believe and why. This probably isn't the place for it, but I'd be interested to know (or see) what you consider evidence for a consciousness that survives brain death. I've done a bit of research into it and can find nothing with anything solid behind it. Speculative, perhaps, but nothing that would give me cause to believe in it.

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

Badger3k

Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

Posted: Feb. 10 2010,20:08

Oldman+, the line you said

Quote

"It seems that you want to be an Atheist Joy but don't have the guts (boom boom) to go the whole way. Instead we get this wishy washy "I believe what I believe and nobody can make me chance my mind".

reminded me of when I was doing my own research into religions and the basis for their beliefs. I eventually came down to deism, but I had to stop and ask what justification did I have for that belief, and all I could say is that I wanted to believe it. That wasn't enough for me to be honest and respect evidence and truth, and I had to admit that I really was an atheist. It was a bit of a knock, but I had to respect myself and my decision to base my beliefs on rational thinking and evidence, as opposed to just emotions.

This whole thing is a bit funny since one of my new students found out I was an atheist, and I had to be really, really careful of what I said (I teach in a public high school). Trying to be honest while not trying to "preach" can be difficult, but I try to be honest and instead encourage a critical examination of evidence and the students beliefs (in everything). I try to teach critical thinking in just about everything, though it may not be appreciated now.

Sorry for the digression, just wanted to toss that out.

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

Badger3k

Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

Posted: Feb. 10 2010,20:12

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 10 2010,12:25)

Discovered rather quickly that I have little patience for scientific 'orthodoxies' and no patience at all for corporate hijackings, political smoke and mirrors, dangerous lies or premeditated 'random' murder.

Now this seriously sounds like you're in Illuminati territory. Reptoids? Grays? Men in Black? Templars? CIA?

Why not tell us of one of these "premeditated 'random' murders" in the field of orthodox and/or corporate biophysics. Such a tale would be fascinating.

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

Doc Bill

Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

Posted: Feb. 10 2010,20:15

No, I wasn't Lenny's pizza boy although I heard he was a good tipper. At least that's what SHE said.

However regarding theology, it's all bullshit. Seriously. Total bullshit from stem to stern.

Theology without beer is like sex without sheep to give you a hint.

There is no difference between the Bible and the book by Henderson about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. No difference, other than we know who wrote the FSM and we don't know who wrote the Bible.

Oh, philosophy is all bullshit, too. I learned that, and got an A, from a course in philosophy. The other thing I learned was that all philosophers are alcoholics but if played correctly will buy you beer.

Badger3k

Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

Posted: Feb. 10 2010,20:16

Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 10 2010,17:11)

Hey, the monkey told me she was an adult.

What was I supposed to do, card her?

Anyway, it was a long time ago and most of the charges were dropped.

Your point?

Was Glenn Back involved? Back in '90?

More to the point, did you keep the negatives?

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

fnxtr

Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

Posted: Feb. 10 2010,20:26

Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 10 2010,18:15)

The other thing I learned was that all philosophers are alcoholics but if played correctly will buy you beer.

"I drink therefore I am" -- Descartes, according to Idle.

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

Joy

Posts: 188
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Feb. 10 2010,22:02

Badger3k:

Quote

Thanks for the replies. It's interesting to see what others believe and why. This probably isn't the place for it, but I'd be interested to know (or see) what you consider evidence for a consciousness that survives brain death. I've done a bit of research into it and can find nothing with anything solid behind it. Speculative, perhaps, but nothing that would give me cause to believe in it.

Thanks for being forthright and not insulting. Always a rarity around here.

This isn't the place for a discussion of consciousness. But note I qualified my response. The evidence I find intriguing is for separability - the extrapolation to anything beyond death is much shakier. The only evidence that is compiled and documented is NDE. Which is of course ultimately subjective no matter how much commonality they describe. NDE is usually waved away by simply claiming the experiencer was hallucinating. It never convinces the experiencer, but it makes insecure nay-sayers feel good about themselves. Everybody else gets to decide for themselves what to believe or hope for about that.

In something like this it is necessary to make a distinction between belief in something and direct experience of that thing. Those who subscribe to religions, philosophies or metaphysical systems promising an afterlife can be said to "believe in" the continuation of consciousness beyond death. Accounts I have seen from people who have experienced NDE share a different quality, one of 'knowing'. I used the word hope in my response to you for a reason. I am intrigued, I'd sure like to know. But I don't expect to know unless I "wake up dead," and if that happens you're not likely to get a report from me.

Quote

Why not tell us of one of these "premeditated 'random' murders" in the field of orthodox and/or corporate biophysics. Such a tale would be fascinating.

Oh, it's it's a very old tale about things no one ever really wanted to know. Any more than they want to know what's happening now or how such things become inevitable. It's a genuine Sacred Cow that has always owed its soul to lies (not to mention the Zombie that fathered it).

Besides, "everybody knows" that Templars and the CIA are one and the same... §;o)

Richardthughes

Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Feb. 10 2010,23:45

Quote

Thanks for being forthright and not insulting. Always a rarity around here.

Oh Joy, you nearly rose above, but you had to have a cheap shot.

Quote

This isn't the place for a discussion of consciousness

I'd be happy to start a thread for you if you can't.

--------------
"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

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Feb. 11 2010,02:42

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 10 2010,22:02)

Thanks for being forthright and not insulting. Always a rarity around here.

Yet Joy still hangs around here. Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

Perhaps "insults" are better then the ignorance over at TT.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

Posted: Feb. 11 2010,08:26

Hi Joy,

Not to change the subject, but I was wondering what your opinion is on the works of Behe specifically, and also on Dembski and Meyers?

I'd be interested to know what you think about these guys?

Cheers,
Ut

Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

Posted: Feb. 11 2010,08:29

Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 10 2010,20:15)

No, I wasn't Lenny's pizza boy although I heard he was a good tipper. At least that's what SHE said.

However regarding theology, it's all bullshit. Seriously. Total bullshit from stem to stern.

Theology without beer is like sex without sheep to give you a hint.

There is no difference between the Bible and the book by Henderson about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. No difference, other than we know who wrote the FSM and we don't know who wrote the Bible.

Oh, philosophy is all bullshit, too. I learned that, and got an A, from a course in philosophy. The other thing I learned was that all philosophers are alcoholics but if played correctly will buy you beer.

Hi Bill,

You shouldn't knock good theology. Its the application of reason to revealled truth. The more reason applied to revelation, the less Jihads and holy wars we will have.

The same thing goes for philosophy. Whether you like philosophy or not, applied philosophy is everywhere. It is at the root of politics, psychology, and law to name only a few instances.

I agree though. There are a lot of bad theologians and philosophers out there, but I would also say there is a lot of bad science out there as well.

Cheers,
Ut

Schroedinger's Dog

Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

Posted: Feb. 11 2010,08:38

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,14:29)

Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 10 2010,20:15)

No, I wasn't Lenny's pizza boy although I heard he was a good tipper. At least that's what SHE said.

However regarding theology, it's all bullshit. Seriously. Total bullshit from stem to stern.

Theology without beer is like sex without sheep to give you a hint.

There is no difference between the Bible and the book by Henderson about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. No difference, other than we know who wrote the FSM and we don't know who wrote the Bible.

Oh, philosophy is all bullshit, too. I learned that, and got an A, from a course in philosophy. The other thing I learned was that all philosophers are alcoholics but if played correctly will buy you beer.

Hi Bill,

You shouldn't knock good theology. Its the application of reason to revealled truth. The more reason applied to revelation, the less Jihads and holy wars we will have.

The same thing goes for philosophy. Whether you like philosophy or not, applied philosophy is everywhere. It is at the root of politics, psychology, and law to name only a few instances.

I agree though. There are a lot of bad theologians and philosophers out there, but I would also say there is a lot of bad science out there as well.

Cheers,
Ut

Ohoh.

Am I allowed to say this? Then: OhOH!

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Feb. 11 2010,09:01

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,08:29)

You shouldn't knock good theology. Its the application of reason to revealled truth. The more reason applied to revelation, the less Jihads and holy wars we will have.

What rot. Your lot have had since time immemorial to sort it out, to apply reason to revelation. And holy wars a-plenty have ensued. And religions are no closer to reconciliation then they ever were.

You think another 50 years of the application of reason to revealed truth will fix anything? You are deluded.

Nobody can dispute the veracity of "revealed truth". I claim that a voice in my head is telling me the truth, nobody can dispute that. If that voice disagrees with what you claim your voice is telling you, well it's WAR! JIHAD! CRUSADES!

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

Posted: Feb. 11 2010,09:09

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Feb. 11 2010,08:38)

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,14:29)

Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 10 2010,20:15)

No, I wasn't Lenny's pizza boy although I heard he was a good tipper. At least that's what SHE said.

However regarding theology, it's all bullshit. Seriously. Total bullshit from stem to stern.

Theology without beer is like sex without sheep to give you a hint.

There is no difference between the Bible and the book by Henderson about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. No difference, other than we know who wrote the FSM and we don't know who wrote the Bible.

Oh, philosophy is all bullshit, too. I learned that, and got an A, from a course in philosophy. The other thing I learned was that all philosophers are alcoholics but if played correctly will buy you beer.

Hi Bill,

You shouldn't knock good theology. Its the application of reason to revealled truth. The more reason applied to revelation, the less Jihads and holy wars we will have.

The same thing goes for philosophy. Whether you like philosophy or not, applied philosophy is everywhere. It is at the root of politics, psychology, and law to name only a few instances.

I agree though. There are a lot of bad theologians and philosophers out there, but I would also say there is a lot of bad science out there as well.

Cheers,
Ut

Ohoh.

Am I allowed to say this? Then: OhOH!

OhOh is right. I wasn't planning on getting into this kind of debate. Bad me. :)

Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

Posted: Feb. 11 2010,09:14

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 11 2010,09:01)

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,08:29)

You shouldn't knock good theology. Its the application of reason to revealled truth. The more reason applied to revelation, the less Jihads and holy wars we will have.

Quote

What rot. Your lot have had since time immemorial to sort it out, to apply reason to revelation. And holy wars a-plenty have ensued. And religions are no closer to reconciliation then they ever were.

It was the Catholic church that gave us universities, and the laid the foundation for western tought. I think you should bone up on your history.

Quote

You think another 50 years of the application of reason to revealed truth will fix anything? You are deluded.

Exactly what do you want religion to fix?

Quote

Nobody can dispute the veracity of "revealed truth". I claim that a voice in my head is telling me the truth, nobody can dispute that. If that voice disagrees with what you claim your voice is telling you, well it's WAR! JIHAD! CRUSADES!

I'd like to point out that the crusades were wages against the muslims because they were waging a jihad on westerners.

You want to go another round? You're pretty good when it comes to science, but you're on my turf now. :)

Cheers,
Ut

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006