RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (527) < ... 159 160 161 162 163 [164] 165 166 167 168 169 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 5, Return To Teh Dingbat Buffet< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
BillB



Posts: 388
Joined: Aug. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 13 2015,07:40   

kairosfocus:  
Quote
how — in sufficient detail to show the soundness — do you get a self-aware, conscious, responsibly free and warranting thus knowing unified “I” from a collection of particles interacting under quantum laws etc


how — in sufficient detail to show the soundness — do you get a self-aware, conscious, responsibly free and warranting thus knowing unified “I” ... from anything?

It doesn't matter if the 'I' whose origins you manage to explain is us as a consequence of the laws of physics, or an intelligent designer who could create us - Both require explanation.

Its a bit of a cheat to demand that we explain the origin of intelligent and conscious agents when your own explanation requires an intelligent conscious agent as a part of the explanation!

How to bake a cake:
Step 1 - Get a cake.

  
sparc



Posts: 2088
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 13 2015,08:00   

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 13 2015,05:43)
Speaking of batshitcrazy77, have you guys and gals seen this?

Now you have an impression how it looks inside from where BA77 pulls all his bullshit.

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

- William Dembski -

   
Bob O'H



Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2015,06:17   

Another kairosfocus gem:
Quote
PS: Americans need to wake up to the global geostrategic responsibilities implicit in displacing the Royal Navy and British Empire as leading Oceanic power, in a 500 year old global age critically dependent on sea borne trade and ME oil.


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

   
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2015,08:07   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Nov. 14 2015,06:17)
Another kairosfocus gem:
 
Quote
PS: Americans need to wake up to the global geostrategic responsibilities implicit in displacing the Royal Navy and British Empire as leading Oceanic power, in a 500 year old global age critically dependent on sea borne trade and ME oil.

If only British battleships had been allowed to fight Japanese aircraft carriers in WWII, think of how quickly that whole problem would have ended.

Who stopped them from doing so?  Probably Darwinists.

Glen Davidson

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

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

   
Leftfield



Posts: 107
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2015,08:19   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Nov. 14 2015,06:17)
Another kairosfocus gem:
 
Quote
PS: Americans need to wake up to the global geostrategic responsibilities implicit in displacing the Royal Navy and British Empire as leading Oceanic power, in a 500 year old global age critically dependent on sea borne trade and ME oil.

Sounds like he wants the US to man up and take over as Montserrat's sugar daddy.

I see Gordon E Mullings, Internet wackadoodle is missing from wikipedia's list of notable Montserratians. How long will this travesty be allowed to stand? Bydand!

--------------
Speaking for myself, I have long been confused . . .-Denyse O'Leary

  
Seversky



Posts: 442
Joined: June 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2015,08:26   

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Nov. 14 2015,08:07)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Nov. 14 2015,06:17)
Another kairosfocus gem:
   
Quote
PS: Americans need to wake up to the global geostrategic responsibilities implicit in displacing the Royal Navy and British Empire as leading Oceanic power, in a 500 year old global age critically dependent on sea borne trade and ME oil.

If only British battleships had been allowed to fight Japanese aircraft carriers in WWII, think of how quickly that whole problem would have ended.

They were.  HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse in December 1941.  Didn't work out so well.

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2015,10:39   

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Nov. 14 2015,16:07)
 
Quote (Bob O'H @ Nov. 14 2015,06:17)
Another kairosfocus gem:
   
Quote
PS: Americans need to wake up to the global geostrategic responsibilities implicit in displacing the Royal Navy and British Empire as leading Oceanic power, in a 500 year old global age critically dependent on sea borne trade and ME oil.

If only British battleships had been allowed to fight Japanese aircraft carriers in WWII, think of how quickly that whole problem would have ended.

Who stopped them from doing so?  Probably Darwinists.

Glen Davidson

Well, actually it was the Japanese that put a very quick end to that type of naval engagement. On the 10th of December 1941 with the sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse in the SCS. One British Lord Sempill had a hand  in passing on British naval air power secrets to the Japanese for 20 years between WW1 and WW2 which wouldn'nt have helped. Then there's the Yamato. The Yamato museum in Kure has a haunting display of recovered Tantō. Gordon's anglophillia should stick to growing sugar and picking cotton.

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

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2015,10:50   

From abortion to teh gays to climate change to "Liberal Fascism".
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-myself



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

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

   
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2015,11:21   

Quote (k.e.. @ Nov. 14 2015,10:39)
     
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Nov. 14 2015,16:07)
         
Quote (Bob O'H @ Nov. 14 2015,06:17)
Another kairosfocus gem:
           
Quote
PS: Americans need to wake up to the global geostrategic responsibilities implicit in displacing the Royal Navy and British Empire as leading Oceanic power, in a 500 year old global age critically dependent on sea borne trade and ME oil.

If only British battleships had been allowed to fight Japanese aircraft carriers in WWII, think of how quickly that whole problem would have ended.

Who stopped them from doing so?  Probably Darwinists.

Glen Davidson

Well, actually it was the Japanese that put a very quick end to that type of naval engagement. On the 10th of December 1941 with the sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse in the SCS. One British Lord Sempill had a hand  in passing on British naval air power secrets to the Japanese for 20 years between WW1 and WW2 which wouldn'nt have helped. Then there's the Yamato. The Yamato museum in Kure has a haunting display of recovered Tantō. Gordon's anglophillia should stick to growing sugar and picking cotton.

Sort of the point.  I wrote as if the British totally lacked carriers, when they had a few, as in, it was carrier planes that crippled the Bismarck (which was then sunk by ships).  But that was the Atlantic, and I don't think they had any carriers in the Pacific, and if they did they didn't help much, if at all.

Japanese carriers did follow the British plans, including having double or triple decks.  Fortunately for the Japanese, they figured out how bad that was and turned their carriers into single deck ships before WWII.  So how helpful passing secrets was to the Japanese is something of which I am not so sure.

Being low on carriers after Midway certainly hampered the Japanese, but really, they had impressive battleships that perhaps could have been used at night against US amphibious landings.  I thought it was a given that battleships against carriers was absolutely a losing deal for battleships (due to range, but also because carriers moved faster, so battleships could never get close enough to hit) during the day, but no one was very good at using carriers at night then, so battleships might have had some chance at night, despite radar.  It's bizarre how little the Japanese Navy fought outside of a few battles/campaigns, not sinking US supply ships with subs, and letting amphibious landings repeatedly occur without any trouble.

Yamato might have been useful, had it been used (not Leyte Gulf (war was already lost) nor the last pathetic attempt to count).  But the Japanese seemed to be spooked by radar*, and how two of their battleships were sunk at Guadalcanal (one by using radar a great deal, the other not).  So even though they sank two US carriers at Guadalcanal, damaging at least another, while the US only damaged one of theirs (that I recall) and sank none, they seemed to be quite bothered that the US sank two of their battleships, which clearly mattered less.  Then they sat on their battleships, carriers, and their subs, waiting for the big battle (sure, there was Rabaul and a few other skirmishes--not much).  When that came in the Philippine Sea, both their subs and battleships were pretty useless.

Glen Davidson

*They had radar at least by Midway, but lagged in the technology and use, while the US caught up quickly due to British help.

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

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

   
Seversky



Posts: 442
Joined: June 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2015,17:10   

Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 14 2015,10:50)
From abortion to teh gays to climate change to "Liberal Fascism".
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-myself


Alinskyite tactics at their finest.   I love the smell of strawmen fried in oil of <i>ad hominem</i> first thing in the morning.

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2015,22:44   

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Nov. 14 2015,19:21)
Quote (k.e.. @ Nov. 14 2015,10:39)
       
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Nov. 14 2015,16:07)
         
Quote (Bob O'H @ Nov. 14 2015,06:17)
Another kairosfocus gem:
             
Quote
PS: Americans need to wake up to the global geostrategic responsibilities implicit in displacing the Royal Navy and British Empire as leading Oceanic power, in a 500 year old global age critically dependent on sea borne trade and ME oil.

If only British battleships had been allowed to fight Japanese aircraft carriers in WWII, think of how quickly that whole problem would have ended.

Who stopped them from doing so?  Probably Darwinists.

Glen Davidson

Well, actually it was the Japanese that put a very quick end to that type of naval engagement. On the 10th of December 1941 with the sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse in the SCS. One British Lord Sempill had a hand  in passing on British naval air power secrets to the Japanese for 20 years between WW1 and WW2 which wouldn'nt have helped. Then there's the Yamato. The Yamato museum in Kure has a haunting display of recovered Tantō. Gordon's anglophillia should stick to growing sugar and picking cotton.

Sort of the point.  I wrote as if the British totally lacked carriers, when they had a few, as in, it was carrier planes that crippled the Bismarck (which was then sunk by ships).  But that was the Atlantic, and I don't think they had any carriers in the Pacific, and if they did they didn't help much, if at all.

Japanese carriers did follow the British plans, including having double or triple decks.  Fortunately for the Japanese, they figured out how bad that was and turned their carriers into single deck ships before WWII.  So how helpful passing secrets was to the Japanese is something of which I am not so sure.

Being low on carriers after Midway certainly hampered the Japanese, but really, they had impressive battleships that perhaps could have been used at night against US amphibious landings.  I thought it was a given that battleships against carriers was absolutely a losing deal for battleships (due to range, but also because carriers moved faster, so battleships could never get close enough to hit) during the day, but no one was very good at using carriers at night then, so battleships might have had some chance at night, despite radar.  It's bizarre how little the Japanese Navy fought outside of a few battles/campaigns, not sinking US supply ships with subs, and letting amphibious landings repeatedly occur without any trouble.

Yamato might have been useful, had it been used (not Leyte Gulf (war was already lost) nor the last pathetic attempt to count).  But the Japanese seemed to be spooked by radar*, and how two of their battleships were sunk at Guadalcanal (one by using radar a great deal, the other not).  So even though they sank two US carriers at Guadalcanal, damaging at least another, while the US only damaged one of theirs (that I recall) and sank none, they seemed to be quite bothered that the US sank two of their battleships, which clearly mattered less.  Then they sat on their battleships, carriers, and their subs, waiting for the big battle (sure, there was Rabaul and a few other skirmishes--not much).  When that came in the Philippine Sea, both their subs and battleships were pretty useless.

Glen Davidson

*They had radar at least by Midway, but lagged in the technology and use, while the US caught up quickly due to British help.

I agree with your analysis Glen. Strangely the British carrier HMS Indomitable was supposed to be with Prince of Wales and Repulse ran aground in the Caribbean! Gordon's knowledge of naval history is as poor as his science. Kure is less than an hour by train from Hiroshima if you happen to be in the area.

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

  
Seversky



Posts: 442
Joined: June 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2015,01:24   

Quote (k.e.. @ Nov. 14 2015,22:44)
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Nov. 14 2015,19:21)
Quote (k.e.. @ Nov. 14 2015,10:39)
       
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Nov. 14 2015,16:07)
           
Quote (Bob O'H @ Nov. 14 2015,06:17)
Another kairosfocus gem:
             
Quote
PS: Americans need to wake up to the global geostrategic responsibilities implicit in displacing the Royal Navy and British Empire as leading Oceanic power, in a 500 year old global age critically dependent on sea borne trade and ME oil.

If only British battleships had been allowed to fight Japanese aircraft carriers in WWII, think of how quickly that whole problem would have ended.

Who stopped them from doing so?  Probably Darwinists.

Glen Davidson

Well, actually it was the Japanese that put a very quick end to that type of naval engagement. On the 10th of December 1941 with the sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse in the SCS. One British Lord Sempill had a hand  in passing on British naval air power secrets to the Japanese for 20 years between WW1 and WW2 which wouldn'nt have helped. Then there's the Yamato. The Yamato museum in Kure has a haunting display of recovered Tantō. Gordon's anglophillia should stick to growing sugar and picking cotton.

Sort of the point.  I wrote as if the British totally lacked carriers, when they had a few, as in, it was carrier planes that crippled the Bismarck (which was then sunk by ships).  But that was the Atlantic, and I don't think they had any carriers in the Pacific, and if they did they didn't help much, if at all.

Japanese carriers did follow the British plans, including having double or triple decks.  Fortunately for the Japanese, they figured out how bad that was and turned their carriers into single deck ships before WWII.  So how helpful passing secrets was to the Japanese is something of which I am not so sure.

Being low on carriers after Midway certainly hampered the Japanese, but really, they had impressive battleships that perhaps could have been used at night against US amphibious landings.  I thought it was a given that battleships against carriers was absolutely a losing deal for battleships (due to range, but also because carriers moved faster, so battleships could never get close enough to hit) during the day, but no one was very good at using carriers at night then, so battleships might have had some chance at night, despite radar.  It's bizarre how little the Japanese Navy fought outside of a few battles/campaigns, not sinking US supply ships with subs, and letting amphibious landings repeatedly occur without any trouble.

Yamato might have been useful, had it been used (not Leyte Gulf (war was already lost) nor the last pathetic attempt to count).  But the Japanese seemed to be spooked by radar*, and how two of their battleships were sunk at Guadalcanal (one by using radar a great deal, the other not).  So even though they sank two US carriers at Guadalcanal, damaging at least another, while the US only damaged one of theirs (that I recall) and sank none, they seemed to be quite bothered that the US sank two of their battleships, which clearly mattered less.  Then they sat on their battleships, carriers, and their subs, waiting for the big battle (sure, there was Rabaul and a few other skirmishes--not much).  When that came in the Philippine Sea, both their subs and battleships were pretty useless.

Glen Davidson

*They had radar at least by Midway, but lagged in the technology and use, while the US caught up quickly due to British help.

I agree with your analysis Glen. Strangely the British carrier HMS Indomitable was supposed to be with Prince of Wales and Repulse ran aground in the Caribbean! Gordon's knowledge of naval history is as poor as his science. Kure is less than an hour by train from Hiroshima if you happen to be in the area.

In point of fact, Repulse and Prince of Wales were sunk by land-based torpedo and medium-altitude bombers not carrier-based planes.  They were also offered land-based fighter cover but, for some reason, the offer was never taken up and no attempt was made to co-ordinate air and sea operations.  Either way, it helped to drive home how vulnerable to air power surface units were, even when able to maneuver at speed in open sea.

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2015,20:34   

Quote (Seversky @ Nov. 15 2015,09:24)
Quote (k.e.. @ Nov. 14 2015,22:44)
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Nov. 14 2015,19:21)
 
Quote (k.e.. @ Nov. 14 2015,10:39)
         
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Nov. 14 2015,16:07)
           
Quote (Bob O'H @ Nov. 14 2015,06:17)
Another kairosfocus gem:
               
Quote
PS: Americans need to wake up to the global geostrategic responsibilities implicit in displacing the Royal Navy and British Empire as leading Oceanic power, in a 500 year old global age critically dependent on sea borne trade and ME oil.

If only British battleships had been allowed to fight Japanese aircraft carriers in WWII, think of how quickly that whole problem would have ended.

Who stopped them from doing so?  Probably Darwinists.

Glen Davidson

Well, actually it was the Japanese that put a very quick end to that type of naval engagement. On the 10th of December 1941 with the sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse in the SCS. One British Lord Sempill had a hand  in passing on British naval air power secrets to the Japanese for 20 years between WW1 and WW2 which wouldn'nt have helped. Then there's the Yamato. The Yamato museum in Kure has a haunting display of recovered Tantō. Gordon's anglophillia should stick to growing sugar and picking cotton.

Sort of the point.  I wrote as if the British totally lacked carriers, when they had a few, as in, it was carrier planes that crippled the Bismarck (which was then sunk by ships).  But that was the Atlantic, and I don't think they had any carriers in the Pacific, and if they did they didn't help much, if at all.

Japanese carriers did follow the British plans, including having double or triple decks.  Fortunately for the Japanese, they figured out how bad that was and turned their carriers into single deck ships before WWII.  So how helpful passing secrets was to the Japanese is something of which I am not so sure.

Being low on carriers after Midway certainly hampered the Japanese, but really, they had impressive battleships that perhaps could have been used at night against US amphibious landings.  I thought it was a given that battleships against carriers was absolutely a losing deal for battleships (due to range, but also because carriers moved faster, so battleships could never get close enough to hit) during the day, but no one was very good at using carriers at night then, so battleships might have had some chance at night, despite radar.  It's bizarre how little the Japanese Navy fought outside of a few battles/campaigns, not sinking US supply ships with subs, and letting amphibious landings repeatedly occur without any trouble.

Yamato might have been useful, had it been used (not Leyte Gulf (war was already lost) nor the last pathetic attempt to count).  But the Japanese seemed to be spooked by radar*, and how two of their battleships were sunk at Guadalcanal (one by using radar a great deal, the other not).  So even though they sank two US carriers at Guadalcanal, damaging at least another, while the US only damaged one of theirs (that I recall) and sank none, they seemed to be quite bothered that the US sank two of their battleships, which clearly mattered less.  Then they sat on their battleships, carriers, and their subs, waiting for the big battle (sure, there was Rabaul and a few other skirmishes--not much).  When that came in the Philippine Sea, both their subs and battleships were pretty useless.

Glen Davidson

*They had radar at least by Midway, but lagged in the technology and use, while the US caught up quickly due to British help.

I agree with your analysis Glen. Strangely the British carrier HMS Indomitable was supposed to be with Prince of Wales and Repulse ran aground in the Caribbean! Gordon's knowledge of naval history is as poor as his science. Kure is less than an hour by train from Hiroshima if you happen to be in the area.

In point of fact, Repulse and Prince of Wales were sunk by land-based torpedo and medium-altitude bombers not carrier-based planes.  They were also offered land-based fighter cover but, for some reason, the offer was never taken up and no attempt was made to co-ordinate air and sea operations.  Either way, it helped to drive home how vulnerable to air power surface units were, even when able to maneuver at speed in open sea.

Gordon's bleating doesn't take account of those facts. He lives  by his magical reality where his crackpot imagination tells us what he thinks the world ought to be. If his God really existed Mr leathers wouldn't have let the Japanese sink those ships.

PS Next week Gordon laments the failure of the crusades.

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

  
Patrick



Posts: 666
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2015,11:42   

Quote (Leftfield @ Nov. 14 2015,09:19)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Nov. 14 2015,06:17)
Another kairosfocus gem:
   
Quote
PS: Americans need to wake up to the global geostrategic responsibilities implicit in displacing the Royal Navy and British Empire as leading Oceanic power, in a 500 year old global age critically dependent on sea borne trade and ME oil.

Sounds like he wants the US to man up and take over as Montserrat's sugar daddy.

I see Gordon E Mullings, Internet wackadoodle is missing from wikipedia's list of notable Montserratians. How long will this travesty be allowed to stand? Bydand!

I understand they let just about anyone edit that site....

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2363
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2015,12:24   

KF isn't the only nut in that thread.  Here's the next message after the one above:    
Quote
8 mohammadnursyamsu

What the West should have done is after conquering Iraq, slap a one size fits all set of laws and constitution unto Iraq same as Afghanistan. There is / was, too much multi-cultural sensitivity in regards to Afghanistan and Iraq.

Creationism is actually also central to democracy, because creationism is the underlaying philosophical support for freedom of opinion which is central to democracy. Creationism provides a philosophical validation of subjectivity, explaining it in terms of agency of decisions.

I think it would make a difference in terms of peace, if you educated people in terms of that freedom is in fact real as a matter of physics, and that subjectivity is valid. Provide proper intellectual room for people’s emotions, acknowledging their emotions, that’s all important.

Remember, your subjective opinion is equal to any old scientific fact.

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2363
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2015,12:32   

And Andrew points out the real threat just below that message:  
Quote
asauberNovember 14, 2015 at 8:10 am

I think some scientists need to be prosecuted for lying to us about the risks of Global Warming Driven Islamic Militancy.

Andrew

Call them the GWDIMs for short.

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2363
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2015,12:47   

And Jack Jones finishes the thread off (so far).        
Quote

Jack Jones November 15, 2015 at 4:30 pm

Because of the traitor leaders determined to turn European countries into Islamic hell holes, then we can fear more of these evil acts.

Wasn't there someone who advocated helping those in need of refuge and protection a couple of thousand years ago?  I remember he had a saying.  Something about "Whatever you do onto the least of them, you do onto me."  Wonder what happened to him.  I guess he was one of the traitors.

Of course, I think it was Paul who had a reply to that.  "Always have a ready answer to those who proclaim your inconvenient religious beliefs."  Something like that.

  
KCdgw



Posts: 376
Joined: Sep. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2015,13:18   

Quote
Sort of the point.  I wrote as if the British totally lacked carriers, when they had a few, as in, it was carrier planes that crippled the Bismarck (which was then sunk by ships).  But that was the Atlantic, and I don't think they had any carriers in the Pacific, and if they did they didn't help much, if at all.


The British Pacific Fleet included:  

6 Fleet carriers
4 light carriers
9 escort carriers
2 aircraft maintenance carriers

The BPF saw action at Operation Meridian and supported the Okinawa campaign by suppressing Japanese air activity at kamikaze staging airfields. The carriers  endured heavy kamikaze attacks, but because they had armored flight decks, returned to action very quickly. As one US Naval liason officer wrote:

" "When a kamikaze hits a US carrier it means 6 months of repair at Pearl. When a kamikaze hits a Limey carrier it's just a case of 'Sweepers, man your brooms.'"    



British Pacific Fleet

Edited by KCdgw on Nov. 16 2015,13:19

--------------
Those who know the truth are not equal to those who love it-- Confucius

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2363
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2015,17:47   

A self referential question from Dense?
Woman Better Off When Half Her Brain Was Removed

  
Lethean



Posts: 292
Joined: Jan. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2015,18:24   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Nov. 16 2015,12:32)
And Andrew points out the real threat just below that message:          
Quote
asauberNovember 14, 2015 at 8:10 am

I think some scientists need to be prosecuted for lying to us about the risks of Global Warming Driven Islamic Militancy.

Andrew

Call them the GWDIMs for short.


I would never say there are no scientists that have commented on the issue but I am aware that the Pentagon, as well as other western nation military/intelligence groups, have been studying what climate change means in respect to global conflicts and it's not pretty.

Regardless of whether or not you think the warming has a human caused component, it is indeed warming which is leading us into a scarcity of resources like fresh water that will drive more conflict, particularly in more arid areas like the middle east. The desperate will become more desperate.

Andrew's beef is not with the scientists, but the very institutions charged with keeping our nations safe. But when did reality ever enter into anything when there are Darwinists to scapegoat?

--------------
"So I'm a pretty unusual guy and it's not stupidity that has gotten me where I am. It's brilliance."

"My brain is one of the very few independent thinking brains that you've ever met. And that's a thing of wonder to you and since you don't understand it you criticize it."


~Dave Hawkins~

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2015,18:43   

I can't think of a precedent for those in charge keeping people safe. Unless it was a byproduct of holding on to power.

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

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2015,06:17   

In case you missed it, Barry has already had a Friday Meltdown on Monday, which continues in the comments thread.

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

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2015,10:01   

Repeating the dumb DDT nonsense. What a maroon.

   
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2015,11:24   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Nov. 17 2015,14:17)
In case you missed it, Barry has already had a Friday Meltdown on Monday, which continues in the comments thread.

That's not just a meltdown it's a full blown grand dummy spit. One of the problems with malaria in Africa is that the actual parasite is resistant to all but Artemisinin Combination Therapies(ACT). However there is concern the parasite is EVOLVING resistance to ACT as well.

If anyone is planning to travel there make sure you read the US Navy Blue Book on malaria, everyone except Barry.

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

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2015,13:59   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Nov. 17 2015,04:17)
In case you missed it, Barry has already had a Friday Meltdown on Monday, which continues in the comments thread.

He is an ignorant fuckhead.

But we know that.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2015,16:58   

STOP THE PRESSES!  STOP THE PRESSES!

That intellectual fountain of Creationist knowledge Bio-Complexity finally published its first article of 2105!

Bio-Complexity 2015

Of course it's the usual hand waving, this time from junior IDiot in training Winston Ewert.  Ewert has once again "disproved evolution" by making his own custom computer simulations of evolution and watching the population crash when he runs them.  Can anyone say John Sanford / Mendel's Accountant?  :D

--------------
"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.

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2015,17:27   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 17 2015,14:58)
STOP THE PRESSES!  STOP THE PRESSES!

That seems a little unfair.  They've only just started them.

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

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2363
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2015,19:26   

Wikipedia on DDT and malaria:

 
Quote
John Quiggin and Tim Lambert have written that "the most striking feature of the claim against Carson is the ease with which it can be refuted." DDT was never banned for anti-malarial use,[93] (its ban for agricultural use in the United States in 1972 did not apply outside the US or to anti-malaria spraying;[94] the international treaty that banned most uses of DDT and other organochlorine pesticides — the 2001 Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants — included an exemption for DDT for the use of malaria control until affordable substitutes could be found.)[87] Mass outdoor spraying of DDT was abandoned in poor countries subject to malaria, such as Sri Lanka, in the 1970s and 1980s, not because of government prohibitions, but because the DDT had lost its ability to kill the mosquitoes[87] (because of insects' very short breeding cycle and large number of offspring, the most resistant insects that survive and pass on their genetic traits to their offspring replace the pesticide-slain insects relatively rapidly. Agricultural spraying of pesticides produces resistance to the pesticide in seven to ten years).

Consequently, some experts have argued that restrictions placed on the agricultural use of DDT have increased its effectiveness as a tool for battling malaria. According to pro-DDT advocate Amir Attaran the result of the 2004 Stockholm Convention banning DDT's use in agriculture "is arguably better than the status quo ... For the first time, there is now an insecticide which is restricted to vector control only, meaning that the selection of resistant mosquitoes will be slower than before."

Link

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2015,20:36   

Apparently I have committed Berra's blunder. Whatever the fuck that is. Whatever crap Barry spews must be gospel

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2015,21:28   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Nov. 17 2015,20:36)
Apparently I have committed Berra's blunder. Whatever the fuck that is. Whatever crap Barry spews must be gospel

Apparently "Berra's blunder" is committing the crime of using automobiles in an analogy to explain an evolutionary concept.  IDiots like Barry are too stupid to understand analogies and can only focus on "But it's a CAR!!  That means it was DESIGNED!!!"

No one ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of your average UD Creationist.   :D

--------------
"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.

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

Pages: (527) < ... 159 160 161 162 163 [164] 165 166 167 168 169 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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