RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (527) < ... 62 63 64 65 66 [67] 68 69 70 71 72 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 5, Return To Teh Dingbat Buffet< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2014,10:36   

That's sort of the point WT.

The entire field of encryption just blows IDs claims out of the water. Encryption and scrambling are designed to make a designed piece of information look totally random.

Since the information was designed (the thing being said) and the encryption algorithm was designed, and the results of the encryption are purely deterministic (they have to be or it can't be decrypted), then ID should easily be able to determine whether a string is random noise or intelligently designed encryption.

That they can't (and have refused to even attempt it on no fewer than 20 attempts over the last few years), is very telling.

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

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

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2014,10:42   

They (Dembski) were sort of closer when they started talking about exogenous information. *This* is only specified IF YOU KNOW ENGLISH. The whole construct of specificity in ID.. lacks specificity

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

  
rossum



Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2014,11:11   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 06 2014,10:42)
They (Dembski) were sort of closer when they started talking about exogenous information. *This* is only specified IF YOU KNOW ENGLISH. The whole construct of specificity in ID.. lacks specificity

Defining what is, and what is not, a valid specification is a big problem for ID.  My favourite is: "A design for a working perpetual motion machine."

Since nothing can meet that specification, then all CSI in the universe is instantly reduced to zero, and the entire ID edifice disappears.

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

  
rossum



Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2014,11:15   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 06 2014,10:36)
ID should easily be able to determine whether a string is random noise or intelligently designed encryption.

That would be worth a lot of money to the NSA.  A lot of secure Military communications systems send random noise to fill in the gaps between the real messages.  That prevents traffic analysis.

Being able to separate the random from the encrypted would allow the NSA to do much better traffic analysis, even if they couldn't decrypt the messages.

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

  
KevinB



Posts: 525
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2014,11:41   

Quote (rossum @ Nov. 05 2014,16:04)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 05 2014,10:59)
With with a one time pad, we can arbitrarily map anything to anything?

OH DEAR. He's failed before he's started.

Correct.  Given a 600 character string, we can map it to any other 600 character string with a particular key.  It is that property which makes the OTP unbreakable without the key.  You cannot separate the real message from all the other possible messages of that same length.

One of the engineers who maintained equipment at Bletchley Park during the war had a test configuration for the "Tunny" machines (which emulated the German Lorenz cipher machine) which decrypted "Now is the time for all good men..." to "I wandered lonely as a cloud...."

Link

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2014,13:13   

Quote (KevinB @ Nov. 06 2014,11:41)
One of the engineers who maintained equipment at Bletchley Park during the war had a test configuration for the "Tunny" machines (which emulated the German Lorenz cipher machine) which decrypted "Now is the time for all good men..." to "I wandered lonely as a cloud...."

Link

An early example of cloud computing?

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

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2014,13:41   

ID BREAKTHROUGH: "Broken window Theory"

Quote
Mapou, sigh. Language. Think, broken window theory, please. A broken window not repaired invites a down spiral. KF


Broken Window Theory (BWT):  A broken window not repaired invites a down spiral

It makes as much sense as the rest of it.

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2014,14:11   

To keep a post from stretching the screen, try inserting spaces or line breaks in any long strings that are in it.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2014,14:39   

Quote (rossum @ Nov. 06 2014,11:15)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 06 2014,10:36)
ID should easily be able to determine whether a string is random noise or intelligently designed encryption.

That would be worth a lot of money to the NSA.  A lot of secure Military communications systems send random noise to fill in the gaps between the real messages.  That prevents traffic analysis.

Being able to separate the random from the encrypted would allow the NSA to do much better traffic analysis, even if they couldn't decrypt the messages.

That was the case in 1968 when I worked in a comm center. The machines were ancient and pretty much obsolete already. Cores and vacuum tubes.

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

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2014,16:49   

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 06 2014,12:11)
To keep a post from stretching the screen, try inserting spaces or line breaks in any long strings that are in it.

I thought about doing that but I wanted to keep the string intact. Is there any other way to deal with the stretching problem?

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

   
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2014,17:12   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 06 2014,08:36)
That's sort of the point WT.

The entire field of encryption just blows IDs claims out of the water. Encryption and scrambling are designed to make a designed piece of information look totally random.

Since the information was designed (the thing being said) and the encryption algorithm was designed, and the results of the encryption are purely deterministic (they have to be or it can't be decrypted), then ID should easily be able to determine whether a string is random noise or intelligently designed encryption.

That they can't (and have refused to even attempt it on no fewer than 20 attempts over the last few years), is very telling.

That's what I figured but I wasn't sure if my example is a good one or not. If I weren't banned I'd post that whole comment of mine at UD just to watch the evasive tirades that would surely be spewed by the IDiots.

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

   
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2014,18:53   

gordo the lying maniac barfed:  

114 kairosfocus November 6, 2014 at 4:10 am

"BTW, KS, do you think that whatever personal views and rhetoric you may put up, that suffices to rewrite the history [--> note, my always linked] of trying to redefine science as evolutionary materialist ideology in a lab coat and the ugly intimidation tactics used to push that on Boards of Education etc? Or, to change the fact that in a strawman ntactic, a 2350 year long history of inference between natural and ART-ificial has been transmuted by ruthless agit prop tactics into a caricature of how dare you inject the — shudder — irrational and superstitious supernatural into our Temple of Science? Please. KF"


In the next comment (115) gordo goes on a looooooooooong Gish gallop and even quotes some creationist fulfillment crap by Gish.  

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....p-squib

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

   
Driver



Posts: 649
Joined: June 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2014,19:21   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 06 2014,18:41)
ID BREAKTHROUGH: "Broken window Theory"

 
Quote
Mapou, sigh. Language. Think, broken window theory, please. A broken window not repaired invites a down spiral. KF


Broken Window Theory (BWT):  A broken window not repaired invites a down spiral

It makes as much sense as the rest of it.

Broken Window: Come to tea
Spiral: I'm too miserable to lift the saucer
KF: This is the sort of evomat turnabout of tea time advocated by Alinsky and which Plato warned us about 2500 years ago in The Laws, book-
Spiral: - Imma kill myself.

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2014,22:02   

Quote
Gary S. Gaulin
November 6, 2014 at 9:58 pm
I honestly sense that all in the Darwinian camp are heading towards the most epic “oops” moment there ever was, in all of science history.




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

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2014,08:35   

nullasalus says:

"Now, I’m waiting for the science – the peer reviewed scientific experiment – that tested for not just God, but intelligent design, guidance, period in nature.

Why aren’t you delivering?"


Uh, nullasalus, the existence and the effects or causes of those things are claims by you IDiots so it's you IDiots who should deliver your "peer reviewed scientific experiment  – that tested for not just God, but intelligent design, guidance, period in nature". Why aren't you IDiots delivering?

Oh, and which "God" should be tested for and what sort of peer reviewed scientific experiment-test do you propose?  


Comment 331 in this thread:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/ddd....omments

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

   
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2014,09:07   

keith said:

"It’s not circular. As Theobald’s examples show, you do get an ONH when microevolution is in operation. Microevolution does not require Designer intervention."

wj murray, the IDiot who never argues against Evolutionary Theory but
constantly argues against Evolutionary Theory, said:

"Who said anything about designer “intervention”? IDists assert that microevolution only exists within the framework of a highly designed supersystem; IOW, even if part of microevolution proceeds according to natural forces, it was set up within a designed context, a designed set of parameters, operating system, internal regulatory system, organizational infrastructure, etc. that uses natural laws and molecular tendencies in order to achieve a goal. It is entirely another matter to assert that the entire supersystem that enables the development of a biological ONH is unguided and was constructed via unguided processes."

In other words, IDiots assert that everything is designed and only exists within the framework of a highly designed supersystem (i.e. this 'fine tuned' universe).

And shouldn't the IDiots be the ones who test and verify their ID assertions?  

Keep in mind what "IDists assert" when you see IDiots asserting something different, such as joey's claim that diseases and deformities are caused by "unguided evolution".


Comment 334 in this thread:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/ddd........omments


ETA: I want to add that joey and other IDiots have claimed many times that a non-designed (unguided) result cannot come from something that was/is designed, such as computer programs that use evolutionary algorithms.

Remember too that joey and other IDiots claim that their 'designer' designed and front loaded the algorithms that make, well, everything occur, except diseases, deformities and other destructive/degenerative things that they obviously blame on 'the curse' because of 'the fall', even if or when they won't admit their 'curse' beliefs. They conveniently ignore that their 'designer' (i.e. their chosen so-called 'God') is the one that (according to their 'holy books') is the one and only 'creator God' (aka 'designer') of everything, and the one that put the destructive 'curse' on everything.

Edited by The whole truth on Nov. 07 2014,08:02

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

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2014,09:27   

Ah yes, the "pre-built' DNA.

Of course, IDists can't predict what future DNA will look like using only current DNA... which makes that claim moot.

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

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

   
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2014,10:59   

"344 mjazzguitar November 6, 2014 at 10:08 am

Evolutionists claim that bats come from rodents, or, rodent like animals. Try breeding mice, or any other rodent- selectively, without any genetic manipulation, and I guarantee that you will never be able to breed a flying mammal. How could natural selection do what intelligent, guided selection, can’t? The genetic blueprint for wings capable of aviation just isn’t there, and neither natural selection nor selective breeding will ever be able to create it."


ROFLMAO! These are the morons who claim to know more than every evolutionary scientist on Earth.


http://www.uncommondescent.com/ddd....omments

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

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2014,10:59   

notstevestory just tried to comment on WJM's latest thread, and the comments never appeared. Not awaiting moderation, just gone.

What scardey-cats!

   
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2014,11:04   

Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 07 2014,08:59)
notstevestory just tried to comment on WJM's latest thread, and the comments never appeared. Not awaiting moderation, just gone.

What scardey-cats!

Did you try registering as notnotstevestory?

--------------
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: Nov. 07 2014,11:11   

I can't bring myself to spend that much energy harassing our less-intellectually-fortunate brethren.  :p

   
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2014,11:18   

Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 07 2014,09:11)
I can't bring myself to spend that much energy harassing our less-intellectually-fortunate brethren.  :p

...said the man with eleventy-nine posts on the Gary Gaulin thread.

--------------
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: Nov. 07 2014,11:51   

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 07 2014,12:18)
...said the man with eleventy-nine posts on the Gary Gaulin thread.

you'll notice i'm mostly not talking to Gary in those posts. :-D

   
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1036
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2014,16:38   

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 07 2014,10:59)
"344 mjazzguitar November 6, 2014 at 10:08 am

Evolutionists claim that bats come from rodents, or, rodent like animals. Try breeding mice, or any other rodent- selectively, without any genetic manipulation, and I guarantee that you will never be able to breed a flying mammal. How could natural selection do what intelligent, guided selection, can’t? The genetic blueprint for wings capable of aviation just isn’t there, and neither natural selection nor selective breeding will ever be able to create it."


ROFLMAO! These are the morons who claim to know more than every evolutionary scientist on Earth.


http://www.uncommondescent.com/ddd........omments

It always amazes me the way the shoot off their mouth without knowing didly squat about a subject. A simple google search would have revealed how wrong mjazzguitar was.   :O

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2014,17:15   

Quote (Timothy McDougald @ Nov. 07 2014,14:38)
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 07 2014,10:59)
"344 mjazzguitar November 6, 2014 at 10:08 am

Evolutionists claim that bats come from rodents, or, rodent like animals. Try breeding mice, or any other rodent- selectively, without any genetic manipulation, and I guarantee that you will never be able to breed a flying mammal. How could natural selection do what intelligent, guided selection, can’t? The genetic blueprint for wings capable of aviation just isn’t there, and neither natural selection nor selective breeding will ever be able to create it."


ROFLMAO! These are the morons who claim to know more than every evolutionary scientist on Earth.


http://www.uncommondescent.com/ddd........omments

It always amazes me the way the shoot off their mouth without knowing didly squat about a subject. A simple google search would have revealed how wrong mjazzguitar was.   :O

It looks to me that they don't want to know how wrong they are.  :)

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

   
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2014,20:19   

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 07 2014,19:18)
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 07 2014,09:11)
I can't bring myself to spend that much energy harassing our less-intellectually-fortunate brethren.  :p

...said the man with eleventy-nine posts on the Gary Gaulin thread.

YEAH WHATEVA HOMO! AS I GAZE OFF THE REAR DECK OF MY FLOATING COMMAND CENTER TO MY HAND CARVED DUCK DYNASTY ....DUCKS ....QUIETLY IMMITATING...erm...DUCKS. A THOUGHT CROSSED MY MIND. WHAT IF DUCKS COULD RECOGNISE DESIGNS? WOULDN'T THAT PROVE ID? THEY BOTH HAVE THE SAME SPELLING AFTERALL DON'T THEY?

© davetard™

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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2014,20:51   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 06 2014,22:02)
Quote
Gary S. Gaulin
November 6, 2014 at 9:58 pm
I honestly sense that all in the Darwinian camp are heading towards the most epic “oops” moment there ever was, in all of science history.



That's an impressive misspelling of "ignorantly".

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2014,14:24   

This is a chunk of gordo's latest Comments Off sermon at UD:


Newton was able to show that laws of motion such as Kepler’s three laws (including the elliptical orbit of the planets) logically followed from Newtonian Gravitation and his laws of motion, with the aid of some mathematics and basic observations. Later, he would write in his General Scholium to the famous Principia:

. . . This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets [--> notice, his focus on the system of forces and objects, not on the caricature of angels pushing planets around . . . ], could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those systems at immense distances one from another . . . . We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final cause [i.e from his designs]: we admire him for his perfections; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion: for we adore him as his servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature. Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and every where, could produce no variety of things. [i.e necessity does not produce contingency] All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing. [That is, implicitly rejects chance, Plato's third alternative and explicitly infers to the Designer of the Cosmos.] But, by way of allegory, God is said to see, to speak, to laugh, to love, to hate, to desire, to give, to receive, to rejoice, to be angry, to fight, to frame, to work, to build; for all our notions of God are taken from. the ways of mankind by a certain similitude, which, though not perfect, has some likeness, however. And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearances of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy.

Of course, after he had a headache on trying to figure our multiple body interactions and possibilities for perturbations and destabilisation, he suggested that occasionally God might adjust the system to keep it in order. But after the concept of perturbations was introduced, this was seen as a classic case of God of the gaps reasoning closed off by later progress of science. Though, actually, we do not even have general solutions to the three body problem, and after the impact of the butterfly effect and chaos in the past generation, we still have an active problem of the long term stability of solar systems, and indeed it seems that it is hard, very hard to get a stable one.

But we can easily see the point that Newton actually made a cosmological design inference, much along the lines of Plato before him:

Ath. . . . when one thing changes another, and that another, of such will there be any primary changing element? How can a thing which is moved by another ever be the beginning of change?Impossible. But when the self-moved changes other, and that again other, and thus thousands upon tens of thousands of bodies are set in motion, must not the beginning of all this motion be the change of the self-moving principle? . . . . self-motion being the origin of all motions, and the first which arises among things at rest as well as among things in motion, is the eldest and mightiest principle of change, and that which is changed by another and yet moves other is second.


[[ . . . .]Ath. If we were to see this power existing in any earthy, watery, or fiery substance, simple or compound-how should we describe it?Cle. You mean to ask whether we should call such a self-moving power life?Ath. I do.

Cle. Certainly we should.

Ath. And when we see soul in anything, must we not do the same-must we not admit that this is life?

[[ . . . . ]

Cle. You mean to say that the essence which is defined as the self-moved is the same with that which has the name soul?

Ath. Yes; and if this is true, do we still maintain that there is anything wanting in the proof that the soul is the first origin and moving power of all that is, or has become, or will be, and their contraries, when she has been clearly shown to be the source of change and motion in all things?

Cle. Certainly not; the soul as being the source of motion, has been most satisfactorily shown to be the oldest of all things.

[[ . . . . ]

Ath.If, my friend, we say that the whole path and movement of heaven, and of all that is therein, is by nature akin to the movement and revolution and calculation of mind, and proceeds by kindred laws, then, as is plain, we must say that the best soul takes care of the world and guides it along the good path.[[Plato here explicitly sets up an inference to design (by a good soul) from the intelligible order of the cosmos.]

. . . and, Paul:

Ac 17:24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. 26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, 28 for

“‘In him we live and move and have our being’;

as even some of your own poets have said,

“‘For we are indeed his offspring.’

__

Col 1: 16 For by him [the Eternal Son] all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. [ESV]


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

My responses:

1. All science so far!

2. In NO way do Newton's scientific discoveries verify Newton's or gordo's or anyone else's religious beliefs and claims.  

3. gordo, like other creobots, loves to make appeals to authority. gordo's numerous attempts to substantiate his, Newton's, or anyone else's religious beliefs by trying to make it look as though Newton's scientific discoveries made (and still make) Newton an indisputable authority on 'God', creation, evolution, and how science should be defined and practiced are really lame.

4. The Plato stuff is another lame appeal to authority.

5. His promotion of the Plato stuff shows that gordo is claiming that all living things have souls. Such a claim contradicts the christian claim (which gordo holds dear) that ONLY 'specially created' humans have souls. Baby jesus is crying because of gordo's blasphemy.  

6. The bible crap is yet another lame appeal to authority, and it is more proof that gordo's and ID's agenda is religious (and political as a means of pushing their agenda).

7. I'm sure that gordo 'the god-wannabe' mullings LOVES the words thrones, dominions, rulers, and authorities, and what they stand for.

8. gordo and other creobots sure do love to dig up dead people (often including some that never existed) in their deluded attempts to support their bronze age (and is some ways even further back) religious fairy tale beliefs.

9. And again, All science so far!

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

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2014,13:07   

GPuccio is looking ridiculous right now at UD and has been shredded. He looks at things he knows are designed and them infers design if they're long enough. All science so far!

The whole open commentary thing destroyed them and they were too slow to ban and censor - the damage was done quickly. I suspect a round of post spamming soon to push it all off the front page and out if short term memory.

Barry, having been exposed as not knowing the very basics of ID, is back to his more comfortable territory of apologetics.

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2014,13:19   

Joe is unbanned:

Quote
22
Barry Arrington
November 9, 2014 at 1:13 pm
The criticisms in 16 and 18 are fair. My apologies to Joe. He is unbanned but still warned.


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

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

Pages: (527) < ... 62 63 64 65 66 [67] 68 69 70 71 72 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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