Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

Posted: Mar. 09 2019,00:07

Excellent spot checking, Texas Teach.

Edited by Dr.GH on Mar. 08 2019,22:08

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Mar. 12 2019,17:52

UD has been boring as shit lately so I was perusing old stuff, like this Barry excerpt from 2008:

Quote

We live in exciting times. The Darwinist/materialist hegemony over our culture has definitely peaked, and we are privileged to watch the initial tremors that are shaking the Darwinist house of cards. These are only the beginning of woes for St. Charles’ disciples, and I look forward to one day watching the entire rotten edifice come crashing down. I am persuaded that just as when the Soviet Union went seemingly overnight from “menacing colossus astride the globe” to “non-existent,” the final crash of the House of Darwin will happen with astonishing suddenness. You can be sure that we at UD will be there not only reporting on events, but also lending our intellectual pry bars to the effort.

Best regards to all,

Barry Arrington

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Mar. 12 2019,22:31

Quote

91
Brother Brian March 12, 2019 at 5:06 pm
Hazel

Quote

And Brian, my remark about “parochial” was addressed to kf:

I knew that. I was just being a dick. I apologize.

But i agree that there are some broad stroke ideas of beauty that most of us would agree on. But the bigger question is if our anscestors would agree with us. In previous ages pasty white skin was the ideal. And women who were more “pudgy”? And this is just European norms. I’m sure that African ideals of beauty, and Indian, East Indian, Australian aborigiginal, etc were completely different than our modern ideal.

I am hoping that late middle age, beer bellied men become the epitome of male beauty. I won’t hold my breath. (ET, feel free to hold your breath).

linky

Edited to fix link because this was the UD link:

Code Sample

https://uncommondescent.com/culture/logic-first-principles-14-are-beauty-truth-knowledge-goodness-and-justice-merely-matters-o
f-subjective-opinions-preliminary-thoughts/#comment-674226

Edited by stevestory on Mar. 12 2019,23:35

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Mar. 12 2019,22:46

Yes, you read that correctly, post #14 in his First Principles series involves 'preliminary thoughts' :-)

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Mar. 13 2019,08:38

And some jerk had to censor BB's comment. It now reads

Quote

91
Brother Brian March 12, 2019 at 5:06 pm
Hazel

Quote

And Brian, my remark about “parochial” was addressed to kf:

I knew that. I was just being a [SNIP — Ed]. I apologize.

But i agree that there are some broad stroke ideas of beauty that most of us would agree on. But the bigger question is if our anscestors would agree with us. In previous ages pasty white skin was the ideal. And women who were more “pudgy”? And this is just European norms. I’m sure that African ideals of beauty, and Indian, East Indian, Australian aborigiginal, etc were completely different than our modern ideal.

I am hoping that late middle age, beer bellied men become the epitome of male beauty. I won’t hold my breath. (ET, feel free to hold your breath).

What a dick.

JohnW

Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

Posted: Mar. 13 2019,11:58

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 13 2019,06:38)

And some jerk had to censor BB's comment. It now reads

Quote

91
Brother Brian March 12, 2019 at 5:06 pm
Hazel

Quote

And Brian, my remark about “parochial” was addressed to kf:

I knew that. I was just being a [SNIP — Ed]. I apologize.

But i agree that there are some broad stroke ideas of beauty that most of us would agree on. But the bigger question is if our anscestors would agree with us. In previous ages pasty white skin was the ideal. And women who were more “pudgy”? And this is just European norms. I’m sure that African ideals of beauty, and Indian, East Indian, Australian aborigiginal, etc were completely different than our modern ideal.

I am hoping that late middle age, beer bellied men become the epitome of male beauty. I won’t hold my breath. (ET, feel free to hold your breath).

What a dick.

The very next comment:

Quote

92 ET March 12, 2019 at 5:23 pm
Thankfully clever, humorous conversation, broad shoulders and a chest that fills out the shirt, still work

ET: famed for clever, humorous conversation.

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

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Mar. 13 2019,14:29

Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 13 2019,12:58)

Quote

92 ET March 12, 2019 at 5:23 pm
Thankfully clever, humorous conversation, broad shoulders and a chest that fills out the shirt, still work

ET: famed for clever, humorous conversation.

Joe bragging about his big manly chest to the other Incels on UD is pretty humorous

Bob O'H

Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Mar. 14 2019,03:18

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 13 2019,14:29)

Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 13 2019,12:58)

Quote

92 ET March 12, 2019 at 5:23 pm
Thankfully clever, humorous conversation, broad shoulders and a chest that fills out the shirt, still work

ET: famed for clever, humorous conversation.

Joe bragging about his big manly chest to the other Incels on UD is pretty humorous :D :) :p

I'm not sure it's his chest that's filling out his shirt, though.

--------------
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)

fnxtr

Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

Posted: Mar. 14 2019,09:01

Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 14 2019,01:18)

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 13 2019,14:29)

Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 13 2019,12:58)

Quote

92 ET March 12, 2019 at 5:23 pm
Thankfully clever, humorous conversation, broad shoulders and a chest that fills out the shirt, still work

ET: famed for clever, humorous conversation.

Joe bragging about his big manly chest to the other Incels on UD is pretty humorous :D :) :p

I'm not sure it's his chest that's filling out his shirt, though.

Moobs by any other name...

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

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Mar. 14 2019,13:39

Holy shit UD just got even stupider than usual:

Quote

6
Johnnyfarmer March 14, 2019 at 11:07 am
Well I never post here but always lurking.
Some of the issues …. where did the penta sugar backbone come from? The sugar carbohydrates to assemble the backbone …where did these sugars originate ? Were they the product of photosynthesis? (obviously not !) And RNA being even less stable than DNA …were there repair mechanisms and if not then what would be the consequences. And finally how would RNA be replicated? Magic I guess !! Otherwise just another common self replicating molecule ???

The most ever read thread here at UD by James Tour:

https://uncommondescent.com/origin-....o-his-c

https://uncommondescent.com/intelli....-674297

Edited by stevestory on Mar. 14 2019,14:41

Acartia_Bogart

Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

Posted: Mar. 14 2019,15:44

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 14 2019,13:39)

Holy shit UD just got even stupider than usual:

Quote

6
Johnnyfarmer March 14, 2019 at 11:07 am
Well I never post here but always lurking.
Some of the issues …. where did the penta sugar backbone come from? The sugar carbohydrates to assemble the backbone …where did these sugars originate ? Were they the product of photosynthesis? (obviously not !) And RNA being even less stable than DNA …were there repair mechanisms and if not then what would be the consequences. And finally how would RNA be replicated? Magic I guess !! Otherwise just another common self replicating molecule ???

The most ever read thread here at UD by James Tour:

https://uncommondescent.com/origin-....o-his-c

Joe is a regular contributor over there. Is it possible for them to get any stupider?

JohnW

Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

Posted: Mar. 14 2019,16:09

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Mar. 14 2019,13:44)

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 14 2019,13:39)

Holy shit UD just got even stupider than usual:

Quote

6
Johnnyfarmer March 14, 2019 at 11:07 am
Well I never post here but always lurking.
Some of the issues …. where did the penta sugar backbone come from? The sugar carbohydrates to assemble the backbone …where did these sugars originate ? Were they the product of photosynthesis? (obviously not !) And RNA being even less stable than DNA …were there repair mechanisms and if not then what would be the consequences. And finally how would RNA be replicated? Magic I guess !! Otherwise just another common self replicating molecule ???

The most ever read thread here at UD by James Tour:

https://uncommondescent.com/origin-....o-his-c

Joe is a regular contributor over there. Is it possible for them to get any stupider?

While Joe's still a regular, I don't think maximum stupidity is going to change. But average stupidity could still go up.

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

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Mar. 14 2019,16:50

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Mar. 14 2019,16:44)

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 14 2019,13:39)

Holy shit UD just got even stupider than usual:

Quote

6
Johnnyfarmer March 14, 2019 at 11:07 am
Well I never post here but always lurking.
Some of the issues …. where did the penta sugar backbone come from? The sugar carbohydrates to assemble the backbone …where did these sugars originate ? Were they the product of photosynthesis? (obviously not !) And RNA being even less stable than DNA …were there repair mechanisms and if not then what would be the consequences. And finally how would RNA be replicated? Magic I guess !! Otherwise just another common self replicating molecule ???

The most ever read thread here at UD by James Tour:

https://uncommondescent.com/origin-....o-his-c

Joe is a regular contributor over there. Is it possible for them to get any stupider?

Joe does usually bring down the mean IQ wherever he goes, but he can generally punctuate correctly, unlike Batshit77 and johnnyfarmer.

Texas Teach

Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

Posted: Mar. 14 2019,17:23

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 14 2019,16:50)

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Mar. 14 2019,16:44)

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 14 2019,13:39)

Holy shit UD just got even stupider than usual:

Quote

6
Johnnyfarmer March 14, 2019 at 11:07 am
Well I never post here but always lurking.
Some of the issues …. where did the penta sugar backbone come from? The sugar carbohydrates to assemble the backbone …where did these sugars originate ? Were they the product of photosynthesis? (obviously not !) And RNA being even less stable than DNA …were there repair mechanisms and if not then what would be the consequences. And finally how would RNA be replicated? Magic I guess !! Otherwise just another common self replicating molecule ???

The most ever read thread here at UD by James Tour:

https://uncommondescent.com/origin-....o-his-c

Joe is a regular contributor over there. Is it possible for them to get any stupider?

Joe does usually bring down the mean IQ wherever he goes, but he can generally punctuate correctly, unlike Batshit77 and johnnyfarmer.

Except when he gets wound up and starts typing “tat”. Which is just weird.

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

Acartia_Bogart

Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

Posted: Mar. 14 2019,17:34

Quote (Texas Teach @ Mar. 14 2019,17:23)

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 14 2019,16:50)

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Mar. 14 2019,16:44)

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 14 2019,13:39)

Holy shit UD just got even stupider than usual:

Quote

6
Johnnyfarmer March 14, 2019 at 11:07 am
Well I never post here but always lurking.
Some of the issues …. where did the penta sugar backbone come from? The sugar carbohydrates to assemble the backbone …where did these sugars originate ? Were they the product of photosynthesis? (obviously not !) And RNA being even less stable than DNA …were there repair mechanisms and if not then what would be the consequences. And finally how would RNA be replicated? Magic I guess !! Otherwise just another common self replicating molecule ???

The most ever read thread here at UD by James Tour:

https://uncommondescent.com/origin-....o-his-c

Joe is a regular contributor over there. Is it possible for them to get any stupider?

Joe does usually bring down the mean IQ wherever he goes, but he can generally punctuate correctly, unlike Batshit77 and johnnyfarmer.

Except when he gets wound up and starts typing “tat”. Which is just weird.

Weird? I’m not sure. I can picture him spending long hours making lace.

Occam's Aftershave

Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

Posted: Mar. 14 2019,17:46

Quote (Texas Teach @ Mar. 14 2019,17:23)

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 14 2019,16:50)

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Mar. 14 2019,16:44)

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 14 2019,13:39)

Holy shit UD just got even stupider than usual:

Quote

6
Johnnyfarmer March 14, 2019 at 11:07 am
Well I never post here but always lurking.
Some of the issues …. where did the penta sugar backbone come from? The sugar carbohydrates to assemble the backbone …where did these sugars originate ? Were they the product of photosynthesis? (obviously not !

And RNA being even less stable than DNA …were there repair mechanisms and if not then what would be the consequences. And finally how would RNA be replicated? Magic I guess !! Otherwise just another common self replicating molecule

The most ever read thread here at UD by James Tour:

https://uncommondescent.com/origin-....o-his-c

Joe is a regular contributor over there. Is it possible for them to get any stupider?

Joe does usually bring down the mean IQ wherever he goes, but he can generally punctuate correctly, unlike Batshit77 and johnnyfarmer.

Except when he gets wound up and starts typing “tat”. Which is just weird.

"tat" is Joe's classic meltdown tell. He's been doing it for decades.

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Mar. 14 2019,18:06

Quote

Hugh Ross: The fine-tuning that enabled our life-friendly moon creates discomfort

Astronomer Robin Canup has spent fifteen years developing models that seem to demonstrate that, whether it is a desired finding or not: Such fine-tuning was not lost on Canup, who remarked in a recent Nature review article, “Current theories on the formation of the Moon owe too much to cosmic coincidences.”4 Indeed, the required “coincidences” […]

Posted on March 14, 2019 AuthorNews Comment(0)

Hugh Ross? Elderly creationist Hugh Ross?

Surely not relevant, Denyse. Creationism has nothing to do with ID. Perish the thought!

fnxtr

Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

Posted: Mar. 14 2019,20:48

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 14 2019,16:06)

Quote

Hugh Ross: The fine-tuning that enabled our life-friendly moon creates discomfort

Astronomer Robin Canup has spent fifteen years developing models that seem to demonstrate that, whether it is a desired finding or not: Such fine-tuning was not lost on Canup, who remarked in a recent Nature review article, “Current theories on the formation of the Moon owe too much to cosmic coincidences.”4 Indeed, the required “coincidences” […]

Posted on March 14, 2019 AuthorNews Comment(0)

Hugh Ross? Elderly creationist Hugh Ross?

Surely not relevant, Denyse. Creationism has nothing to do with ID. Perish the thought! :D :) :p

Calling out ID bullshit is religious persecution, but ID is totally not religious.

ETA : RTFA, densey. It doesn't say what you and Huey want it to.

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

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Mar. 14 2019,22:58

The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy does a good job of explaining the basics of why fine-tuning arguments are garbage. There is no way to determine any probability range of any constant or law of physics. Therefore it's impossible to know if this set of parameters is incredibly improbable, incredibly probable, or anything in between.

there are numerous other fatal problems with the idea of fine-tuning, but that basic one will suffice. There's no benefit to shooting someone who's already been decapitated.

Too many good physicists are bad amateur philosophers.

CeilingCat

Posts: 2363
Joined: Dec. 2007

Posted: Mar. 14 2019,23:59

Quote

Created the moon with the just-right diameter and the just-right distance relative to the earth so that, at the narrow epoch in solar-system history when human life would be possible, humans on earth would witness perfect solar eclipses, which would help them make important discoveries about the solar system and universe.

What utter BS. I'm 71 years old and I had to drive 600 miles round trip to see one solar eclipse. But in my lifetime I've seen a half dozen partial eclipses from my back yard. If the moon was bigger then its supposedly "fine tuned" diameter or a little closer than its "fine tuned" distance, every one of them would have been a total eclipse. We'd have seen the sun's corona, the background stars and every thing else we'd see in any other total eclipse.

What a bunch of ID BS!

timothya

Posts: 280
Joined: April 2013

Posted: Mar. 15 2019,03:25

Quote (CeilingCat @ Mar. 14 2019,23:59)

Quote

Created the moon with the just-right diameter and the just-right distance relative to the earth so that, at the narrow epoch in solar-system history when human life would be possible, humans on earth would witness perfect solar eclipses, which would help them make important discoveries about the solar system and universe.

What utter BS. I'm 71 years old and I had to drive 600 miles round trip to see one solar eclipse. But in my lifetime I've seen a half dozen partial eclipses from my back yard. If the moon was bigger then its supposedly "fine tuned" diameter or a little closer than its "fine tuned" distance, every one of them would have been a total eclipse. We'd have seen the sun's corona, the background stars and every thing else we'd see in any other total eclipse.

What a bunch of ID BS!

What happens to the "fine-tuning" argument for the Moon's position when it **inevitably** moves further away from the Earth (because that is what happens in mutually orbiting, gravitationally bound pairs of objects).

The ID argument can only be made at this particular moment in the history of the solar system. I guess the argument is one form of fine-tuning, albeit a cretinous one.

--------------
"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." Anatole France

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Mar. 17 2019,23:13

Quote

9
SmartAZ March 17, 2019 at 6:33 pm
The scientific method:
1. Observe something.
2. Formulate a hypothesis.
3. Devise a test.
4. If the test fails, go to #2.
5. If the test passes and is confirmed, the hypothesis might be promoted to a theory and used to prove other hypotheses. And it might not.

Since the multiverse has not been observed, it is not scientific. It is fiction.

I'm so glad the creationists are around, to explain the scientific method to us. What would we do without them? :D

The general theory of relativity predicted black holes in 1915. The first observational evidence of a black hole didn't happen until 1971. According to this dumbass, black holes must have been unscientific fiction for that 56 years.

linky

Texas Teach

Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

Posted: Mar. 17 2019,23:16

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 17 2019,23:13)

Quote

9
SmartAZ March 17, 2019 at 6:33 pm
The scientific method:
1. Observe something.
2. Formulate a hypothesis.
3. Devise a test.
4. If the test fails, go to #2.
5. If the test passes and is confirmed, the hypothesis might be promoted to a theory and used to prove other hypotheses. And it might not.

Since the multiverse has not been observed, it is not scientific. It is fiction.

I'm so glad the creationists are around, to explain the scientific method to us. What would we do without them? :D

The general theory of relativity predicted black holes in 1915. The first observational evidence of a black hole didn't happen until 1971. According to this dumbass, black holes must have been unscientific fiction for that 56 years.

linky

On the other hand, the Designer is totally scientific because reasons.

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

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Mar. 17 2019,23:42

Quote (Texas Teach @ Mar. 18 2019,00:16)

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 17 2019,23:13)

Quote

9
SmartAZ March 17, 2019 at 6:33 pm
The scientific method:
1. Observe something.
2. Formulate a hypothesis.
3. Devise a test.
4. If the test fails, go to #2.
5. If the test passes and is confirmed, the hypothesis might be promoted to a theory and used to prove other hypotheses. And it might not.

Since the multiverse has not been observed, it is not scientific. It is fiction.

I'm so glad the creationists are around, to explain the scientific method to us. What would we do without them? :D

The general theory of relativity predicted black holes in 1915. The first observational evidence of a black hole didn't happen until 1971. According to this dumbass, black holes must have been unscientific fiction for that 56 years.

linky

On the other hand, the Designer is totally scientific because reasons.

Stoichiometry provided good indirect evidence for the existence of atoms back in the 1700s. From that time, especially in the 1800's on, chemists used the idea of discrete atoms to advance the science of chemistry.

Despite the fact that atoms weren't "observed" until arguably the early 1980's. And one could argue they can't be directly observed at all.

So I guess dumbAZ would say chemists were just playing with fictions for 200 years.

Mr. Garrison comments on smartAZ

Cubist

Posts: 558
Joined: Oct. 2007

Posted: Mar. 18 2019,05:11

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 17 2019,23:13)

The general theory of relativity predicted black holes in 1915.

Arguably, black holes were predicted back in the latter part of the 18th Century. Once you realize that light has a finite speed, it makes sense to think that there might be an object whose escape velocity is greater than light speed—and LaPlace did think so. From his Le Système du Monde: "[It] is therefore possible that the largest luminous bodies in the universe may, through this cause, be invisible."

rossum

Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2008

Posted: Mar. 18 2019,08:07

Quote (Cubist @ Mar. 18 2019,05:11)

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 17 2019,23:13)

The general theory of relativity predicted black holes in 1915.

Arguably, black holes were predicted back in the latter part of the 18th Century. Once you realize that light has a finite speed, it makes sense to think that there might be an object whose escape velocity is greater than light speed—and LaPlace did think so. From his Le Système du Monde: "[It] is therefore possible that the largest luminous bodies in the universe may, through this cause, be invisible."

Laplace's paper is included as appendix A of Hawking's "The large scale structure of space-time".

As you say, a classical physics approach to a black hole.

--------------
The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

Henry J

Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

Posted: Mar. 18 2019,09:13

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 17 2019,22:42)

Stoichiometry provided good indirect evidence for the existence of atoms back in the 1700s. From that time, especially in the 1800's on, chemists used the idea of discrete atoms to advance the science of chemistry.

Despite the fact that atoms weren't "observed" until arguably the early 1980's. And one could argue they can't be directly observed at all.

It's elementary!

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Mar. 19 2019,09:00

There are currently no bills in the US to push ID into public schools. KF and MathGuy are over at UD just babbling about whether math exist in some kind of platonic sense. Denyse's four daily paid posts are bordering on random.

Creationism barely has a pulse at the moment.

Alan Fox

Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

Posted: Mar. 19 2019,09:57

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 19 2019,04:00)

There are currently no bills in the US to push ID into public schools. KF and MathGuy are over at UD just babbling about whether math exist in some kind of platonic sense. Denyse's four daily paid posts are bordering on random.

Creationism barely has a pulse at the moment.

Creationism? Not so sure. Pence has a pulse, I think. Betsy de Vos too. They just don't need ID as a fig-leaf anymore.

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005