Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Uncommonly Dense Thread 4

Pages: (356) < ... 341 342 343 344 345 [346] 347 348 349 350 351 ... >

timothya Posts: 280 Joined: April 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2013,00:57    What caused this eruption of ahistorical nonsense? Is it Hug a Bigot Day among the IDiota? -------------- "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

Driver Posts: 649 Joined: June 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2013,01:49    Quote (REC @ Nov. 25 2013,02:10) Quote (khan @ Nov. 24 2013,17:55) They're quoting Barton as the source of all knowledge. Ooh-If they're quoting Barton, then.... Quote �In the 1930s, British anthropologist J.D. Unwin studied 86 cultures that stretched across 5,000 years. He found, without exception, when they restricted sex to marriage, they thrived. Yep, they're citing Unwin--favorite of nutjob patriarchs. Unwin on what makes and breaks great societies: Quote In my survey of the facts the points I wish to make are that 1. when they began to display great social energy the societies had reduced their sexual opportunity by the adoption of absolute monogamy 2. that in each case the society was dominated by the group which displayed the greatest. relative energy; 3. that as soon as the sexual opportunity of the society, or of a group within the society, was extended, the energy of the society, or of the group within it, decreased and finally disappeared; And what is his version of traditional marriage: Quote When absolute monogamy is the rule, marriage is a means whereby a man secures domestic labour and heirs of his blood. A wife and her children are under the domination of her husband; in the eyes of the law he alone is an entity. The wife is taught to submit to her husband in all things ; it is her duty to serve him and to obey him. No woman may have sexual relations with any other man than with him whom she marries as a virgin. When she is married, she is not permitted to withhold conjugal rights. In an absolutely monogamous society female chastity becomes desirable for its own sake, for after a while the women accept as a point of honour the restraint imposed upon them by their lords. Ha. Wonderful nonsense. What cultures are these that have adopted absolute monogamy anyway? -------------- 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

Quack Posts: 1961 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2013,02:46    Quote (REC @ Nov. 24 2013,20:10) Quote (khan @ Nov. 24 2013,17:55) They're quoting Barton as the source of all knowledge. Ooh-If they're quoting Barton, then.... Quote �In the 1930s, British anthropologist J.D. Unwin studied 86 cultures that stretched across 5,000 years. He found, without exception, when they restricted sex to marriage, they thrived. Yep, they're citing Unwin--favorite of nutjob patriarchs. Unwin on what makes and breaks great societies: Quote In my survey of the facts the points I wish to make are that 1. when they began to display great social energy the societies had reduced their sexual opportunity by the adoption of absolute monogamy 2. that in each case the society was dominated by the group which displayed the greatest. relative energy; 3. that as soon as the sexual opportunity of the society, or of a group within the society, was extended, the energy of the society, or of the group within it, decreased and finally disappeared; And what is his version of traditional marriage: Quote When absolute monogamy is the rule, marriage is a means whereby a man secures domestic labour and heirs of his blood. A wife and her children are under the domination of her husband; in the eyes of the law he alone is an entity. The wife is taught to submit to her husband in all things ; it is her duty to serve him and to obey him. No woman may have sexual relations with any other man than with him whom she marries as a virgin. When she is married, she is not permitted to withhold conjugal rights. In an absolutely monogamous society female chastity becomes desirable for its own sake, for after a while the women accept as a point of honour the restraint imposed upon them by their lords. The next logical step is inbreeding, cousin marriages and the evolution of clans. Heavenly harmony in the making? -------------- Rocks have no biology.               Robert Byers.

timothya Posts: 280 Joined: April 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2013,03:54    Unwin's morality: � Quote When absolute monogamy is the rule, marriage is a means whereby a man secures domestic labour and heirs of his blood. A wife and her children are under the domination of her husband; in the eyes of the law he alone is an entity. The wife is taught to submit to her husband in all things ; it is her duty to serve him and to obey him. No woman may have sexual relations with any other man than with him whom she marries as a virgin. When she is married, she is not permitted to withhold conjugal rights. In an absolutely monogamous society female chastity becomes desirable for its own sake, for after a while the women accept as a point of honour the restraint imposed upon them by their lords. Now think about that statement for a moment. Consider one of the most successful social organisations of the 19th Century: the slave society of the Confederacy. 1. Was monogamy the rule of sexual relations among inhabitants of the slave states? Or were the slavemasters granted the (whip-granted) right of sexual congress with any woman under their control? 2. Were women and their children in an evidently successful slave society under the "domination of their husbands"? Or were they under the domination of the slavemaster who could divide their families and sell them off et seriatim for a profit? 3. Was a wife in an evidently successful slave society "taught to submit to her husband in all things ; it is her duty to serve him and to obey him"? Or was she taught to submit to the person holding the whip? 4. "No woman may have sexual relations with any other man than with him whom she marries as a virgin." In an evidently successful slave society, how could a slave woman deny the slavemaster control of who she had sexual congress with? By what means? How can this be stated as a general rule? 5. "When she is married, she is not permitted to withhold conjugal rights." What a convenient definitional inexactitude. Were slave women "married" in anything like the modern sense of a free contract between a man and a woman? Does this filthy, racist, mysoginistic dipstick really believe that a woman signs away all her future when she signs on the dotted line? 6. "In an absolutely monogamous society female chastity becomes desirable for its own sake, for after a while the women accept as a point of honour the restraint imposed upon them by their lords." OK, since an "absolutely monogomous [sic] society" has evidently never existed, any conclusions you draw from from that assumption are invalid. You may not have realised you have jumped from an invalid assumption to a false conclusion, but it is our job to point out that your chain of reasoning is, how should I put this politely . . . brain dead. -------------- "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

timothya Posts: 280 Joined: April 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2013,05:39    What is this "wolf pack" behaviour that His Moral Amplitude has decided to hang his argument upon? Surely he can't be relying on USA Today. Tell me it ain't so. -------------- "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

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2013,08:46    Deep Philosophy: � � Quote Think of it this way. If you�re trying to follow a particular path in the woods, then there�s only one possible way in which you can go along the path. But there are an infinite number of ways in which you can go off the path. The same applies to the sun. There are countless ways in which it could conceivably fail to rise at the expected time tomorrow. (Here, I�m describing the sun�s motion from an earth-centered perspective.) For instance, it could soar up into the sky and disappear, or it could do a loop-the-loop, or it could jump suddenly from one place to another in the sky, or it could turn into a green dragon, or it could just disappear in a puff of smoke. Putting it another way: there are infinitely many ways we can draw a mathematical curve showing the sun�s path going off-course, but there�s only one way in which we can draw a curve showing the sun staying on-course. On the basis of that fact alone, we should rationally conclude that the sun�s staying on course consistently in the future is prima facie extremely improbable. vjtorley, of course. On a similar note, there are infinitely many ways a person can get any part of philosophy wrong and (at the most) only one way to get it right. �On the basis of that fact alone, we should rationally conclude that vjtorley's chance of getting any part of philosophy right is prima facie extremely improbable. Edited to add: Moar from the same post. Quote Hence I am at a loss to understand why Dr. Sean Carroll and John Loftus believe that simpler theories have a higher prior probability of being correct, or are more likely to be true. Try this: more complex theories have more ways to go wrong. Perhaps it's impolite to point out that Occam's razor is more of an observation than a theory. Edited by CeilingCat on Nov. 25 2013,08:52

Bob O'H Posts: 2564 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2013,09:18    CLAVDIVS wins the internet for today Quote StephenB @ 159 Quote �In the 1930s, British anthropologist J.D. Unwin studied 86 cultures that stretched across 5,000 years. He found, without exception, when they restricted sex to marriage, they thrived. � �Strong families headed by faithful spouses made for bold, prosperous societies. But not one culture survived more than three generations after turning sexually permissive. � �Noted Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin found no culture surviving once it ceased to support marriage and monogamy. None.� Sounds like a great argument in favour of gay marriage. -------------- 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)

REC Posts: 638 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2013,10:35    Quote (sparc @ Nov. 24 2013,22:41) Maybe he should consider proof of concept starting with WWII. Surely the Nazis were as gay as they were Darwinists. That ship, sadly, has sailed: Quote Scott Lively....perhaps best-known for co-writing the thoroughly discredited, Holocaust revisionist book The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party (1995), which claims that the Nazi party was full of gay men who, because of their "savagery," were able to carry out the Holocaust. http://www.splcenter.org/get-inf....-lively Wingnuts be crazy. KF's version of Roman history is only slightly less nuts. Rome collapsed for moral failures. Rome's foundation (myth): The Rape of the Sabine women. Slavery? Check. War/genocide. Yep. Hits its maximum extent 100 years after Nero/Caligula. Recedes, crisis. Adopts Christianity, bans homosexuality, bans much education (liberal arts are not good for the young). Game over in the West. � But, but...the gays!!! Edited by REC on Nov. 25 2013,10:54

Quack Posts: 1961 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2013,11:32    Quote (CeilingCat @ Nov. 25 2013,08:46) Deep Philosophy: � � � �   Quote Think of it this way. If you�re trying to follow a particular path in the woods, then there�s only one possible way in which you can go along the path. But there are an infinite number of ways in which you can go off the path. The same applies to the sun. There are countless ways in which it could conceivably fail to rise at the expected time tomorrow. (Here, I�m describing the sun�s motion from an earth-centered perspective.) For instance, it could soar up into the sky and disappear, or it could do a loop-the-loop, or it could jump suddenly from one place to another in the sky, or it could turn into a green dragon, or it could just disappear in a puff of smoke. Putting it another way: there are infinitely many ways we can draw a mathematical curve showing the sun�s path going off-course, but there�s only one way in which we can draw a curve showing the sun staying on-course. On the basis of that fact alone, we should rationally conclude that the sun�s staying on course consistently in the future is prima facie extremely improbable. vjtorley, of course. A landmark achievment! Wouldn't a 'facsimile' look good here? -------------- Rocks have no biology.               Robert Byers.

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2013,12:40    Quote But there are an infinite number of ways in which you can go off the path. The same applies to the sun. Have they not heard of inertia?

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2013,15:17    Good old sleeper agent shit stain Sal. He's turning UD into Sal Cordova's Young Cosmos - and we know what that does to readership. Say "hi" to Telic thoughts when you get to the other side, guys. -------------- "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

sparc Posts: 2088 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2013,21:36    Where is Gordon E. Mullings when Kairosfocus needs him: �   Quote 4 Alan Fox November 25, 2013 at 11:21 am �   Quote In order to calculate CSI, we need to calculate probabilities and if there is an intelligent agent in the system, the probabilities will not exist. Thus, intelligent agents are always external to the system, and thus have the capability of inserting CSI into the system. Does Winston Ewert mean to say he can produce a meaningful CSI calculation? Maybe even give us an example of a calculation applied to some biological entity or system? Jerry is quite correct when he says: �   Quote People have been discussing CSI on this site for several years and the consensus is that no one can explain just what it is. I believe that is still true. Unfortunately Jerry is also correct here: �   Quote Now FCSI or however kairosfocus labels it is easy to understand. because GEM�s calculation is trivial and useless as an exercise, merely a log transformation of a number simply based on the count of residues in a protein sequence. (emphasis mine) edited for spelling Edited by sparc on Nov. 25 2013,22:50 -------------- "[...] 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 -

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2013,21:57    Quote and we know what that does to readership. It crosses the streams?

Learned Hand Posts: 214 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2013,23:06    Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 25 2013,21:57)   Quote and we know what that does to readership. It crosses the streams? It puts the lotion on its skin, or else it gets the kairosfocus wordhose again.

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2013,02:17    Mapou Quote PS. bornagain77, I realize that you and I don�t see eye to eye on certain aspects of the brain and the mind but, as one Christian to another, here is something for you to file away in your database for future reference. The spirit, i.e., the �me� that is in all of us, are the seven lamps or �the seven eyes of the Lord, which run to and fro through the whole earth.� The whole earth is just a metaphor for memory. See Zechariah (Yahweh remembers), chapter 4. This is the reason that our short-term or working memory holds up to seven items, something that psychologists discovered many decades ago. Cheers. All science so far.

Driver Posts: 649 Joined: June 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2013,08:06    To some, creation must be unique. Can't have more than one Jesus, saving the Antareans, Frolixians, and Pelorians* too. This perhaps explains the skepticism of News regarding life on other planets. Most inane of the "searching" questions: Quote if fertile Earth is just an average planet, why isn�t barren Mars? An ET version of "If humans came from monkeys why are there still monkeys?". *A most symmetrical race. -------------- 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

Driver Posts: 649 Joined: June 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2013,08:15    The moon has turned blood red and the stars have fallen to Earth like figs from the tree, for bornagain77 has, for once, declined to comment! Quote Well I certainly don�t want to take up any more space on Dr. Torley�s thread. Thus as tempting as it is, I�ll leave your comment be. -------------- 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

tsig Posts: 339 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2013,18:11    Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 25 2013,15:17) Good old sleeper agent shit stain Sal. He's turning UD into Sal Cordova's Young Cosmos - and we know what that does to readership. Say "hi" to Telic thoughts when you get to the other side, guys. Slimy lives down to his name.

sparc Posts: 2088 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2013,23:03    Quote 29 Winston Ewert November 26, 2013 at 8:05 pm Alan Fox, You�ve asked for a CSI calculation. Dembski�s CSI is not about determining the probabilities, but about the consequence of those probabilities. It argues that if evolution is an improbable account of life, we are justified in dismissing it. It provides absolutely nothing to attempt to establish that life is, in fact, improbable under Darwinian mechanisms. However, almost every single argument put forward by intelligent design whether irreducible complexity, protein folding, no free lunch, etc. seek to establish that the probability is very low. Those arguments we will point to in order to establish that the probability of life is low. We will argue that those argument show that the probability of life is far too low to accept Darwinism as an account for it. In other words: Quote � it�s not ID�s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. -------------- "[...] 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 -

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2013,00:12    Victor gives us episode #352 of "The Annals of TLDR"

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2013,00:43    It's not ID's job to build castles in the sky. It's ID's job to live in them. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2013,10:10    "Mindpowers" Murray is now creating his own definition of "banning". -------------- "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

BillB Posts: 388 Joined: Aug. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2013,11:13    Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 27 2013,16:10) "Mindpowers" Murray is now creating his own definition of "banning". Worse, he has kicked the ball straight past goalkeeper Barry and into their own net: Quote Since �banning� means that one cannot even visit the place they have been banned from, nobody has ever been banned from UD. They have only had their posting privileges suspended for the time being.See how that works, Neil? Alan? Which would mean thay Barrys claim to jave been banned from TSZ is a lie.

Quack Posts: 1961 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2013,11:47    Isn't it lovely; banning is always an issue with creationist (and apologetic) forums but hardly ever with science-friendly forums? -------------- Rocks have no biology.               Robert Byers.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2013,14:23    Quote (Driver @ Nov. 26 2013,09:06) To some, creation must be unique. Can't have more than one Jesus, saving the Antareans, Frolixians, and Pelorians* too. This perhaps explains the skepticism of News regarding life on other planets. Most inane of the "searching" questions: Quote if fertile Earth is just an average planet, why isn�t barren Mars? An ET version of "If humans came from monkeys why are there still monkeys?". *A most symmetrical race. Mars's magnetic field stopped existing a long time ago. Without that protection, and with less gravity than earth, the solar wind blew away most of its atmosphere. To get nitpicky, I wouldn't call Earth an average planet, I'd say it's not an unusual planet. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that 1%, or 10%, of planets are earthlike. Which would mean billions of earths are in the Milky Way alone.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2013,14:30    Quote (CeilingCat @ Nov. 27 2013,01:12) Victor gives us episode #352 of "The Annals of TLDR" Holy shit that thing is 12,230 words long. Fuck That.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2013,14:37    Quote (Quack @ Nov. 27 2013,12:47) Isn't it lovely; banning is always an issue with creationist (and apologetic) forums but hardly ever with science-friendly forums? There have been individual AtBC commenters who have been banned from UD more times than the number of commenters we've banned here, total.

Quack Posts: 1961 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2013,16:32    Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 28 2013,14:37)   Quote (Quack @ Nov. 27 2013,12:47) Isn't it lovely; banning is always an issue with creationist (and apologetic) forums but hardly ever with science-friendly forums? There have been individual AtBC commenters who have been banned from UD more times than the number of commenters we've banned here, total. I mentioned apologetics but I really don't know much about them, maybe except for evolutionfairytale. They had a moderator IIRC "ikester" - I got banned before I had made maybe my third post. The reason? I had not answered all the quesions he'd asked after my first post. The numbers may not be 100% right, maybe closer to 99.9% And they keep track of URL's, once banned, you are gone forever. I've got new URL's a number of times since then but I won't go near a place as mad as that. Anyone else with an experience of them? ETA 's' to 'time' Edited by Quack on Nov. 29 2013,03:48 -------------- Rocks have no biology.               Robert Byers.

Soapy Sam Posts: 659 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2013,03:12    Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 28 2013,20:30)   Quote (CeilingCat @ Nov. 27 2013,01:12) Victor gives us episode #352 of "The Annals of TLDR" Holy shit that thing is 12,230 words long. Fuck That. Part 1 was only 6,600 words. But fuck that as well. There will also be a Part 3. -------------- SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2013,11:17    vjtorley presents "The Further Adventures of TLDR" � 16 pages long this time. �I've given up on word counts.

Pages: (356) < ... 341 342 343 344 345 [346] 347 348 349 350 351 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard