After getting back to the Lab software I unexpectedly got busy at my day job, which helped set me behind schedule but the good news is the new more modular code is all working together. It's much nicer now. Just needs cleaning up, and add a few things back in.
I'll let you know when the coding is finished.
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.
Quote (tsig @ Nov. 26 2013,10:18) Quote (raguel @ Jan. 02 2010,11:21)Your concern troll is concerned. :p
That was in reference to "Jack Scrapper" having responded to my original post on the Hannity Forums site.
Copying my responses here has saved them from going to the great bit-bucket in the sky, as the Hannity Forum seems to have developed complete amnesia concerning that thread.
After giving Barry a verbal spanking, Pro Hac Vice gets the boot:
36 Barry Arrington November 26, 2013 at 12:15 pm
Pro Hac Vice, I notice that you dodged the questions in my 24. Into the moderation que with you demonstrate you are willing to argue in good faith by answering them.
Quite sad. PHV deserves a round of applause.
I count some 8 or so independent questions in Barry's 24. Some are questions, others just declarations with a "?": Agree with me? Now or later?
Others are just too puerile to deserve a response:
You say it is possible for every proposition to be wrong. Is it possible for that proposition to be wrong?
PHV even announces in his post that he can't address them all immediately:
Quote BA, I have to prioritize work today, so I may not be able to respond in my customary great length. Let me focus on what I think is the most important failure in your “argument” – it’s circular.
[/QUOTE]The set ‘self-evident moral truths’ is not empty if there is at least one self-evident moral truth. There is at least one-self-evident moral truth. Therefore, the set ‘self-evident moral truths’ is not empty.
This is circular because, as you’ve admitted there’s no component argument for the existence of X1, you just assume it a priori. (This is despite your strange attempt to use absurdity as such an argument, which you seem to have abandoned.)
In other words, you’re assuming a priori that a self-evident moral truth exists, and using it as proof that self-evident moral truths exist. That’s circular. ....
Nothing in your post above is really an argument, though, is it? It all just rests on your personal assertions. This is the Grand Sez Who 2013 Edition. Self-evident moral truths exist. Sez who? Barry Arrington. This is one of them. Sez who? Barry Arrington. It’s impossible for Barry Arrington to be wrong about that. Sez who? Barry Arrington. It’s impossible for Barry Arrington to be wrong about being wrong. Sez who? Barry Arrington. It’s impossible for anyone to disagree with Barry Arrington. Sez who? Barry Arrington. Nothing ever resolves out to an argument that exists outside your own head, making it all ultimately a subjective assertion of truth.
Your assertions are not arguments. They’re impervious to reasoning or logic, being founded ultimately only on your say-so. I think that makes them impossible to refute or to prove. But since they’re founded ultimately on your perceptions and feelings, we’re still in a subjective and error-prone world. (Identifying truths about which it’s impossible to be wrong (assuming arguendo that you’ve done so) does not establish that your assertions fit within that set. And the one such truth you identified is actually self-evident in that denying it is self-refuting. “Barry Arrington can’t be wrong about this” is not self-evident in that way, as there’s nothing self-refuting about the statement, “Barry Arrington has mistakenly assumed his personal beliefs are self-evident objective moral truths.”)[QUOTE]
Italics are BA's
Ya ya, maybe he'll think this is paradise. We could provide dashboard lights or something, too. . . .
THEN HE COULD REALLY HOOT!!!!!!!!!!
Quote (raguel @ Jan. 02 2010,11:21)Your concern troll is concerned. :p
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 26 2013,09:08)Robin IDed the rest of those birds, but I'm gonna have to go with Anna's Hummingbird (female) for the hummer. That is far and away the most common hummer in that part of California (where I spent 5 years during graduate school), and the bill is just too short for the other small hummer there, Black-chinned. A female Rufous would look sturdier, and would have at least some rufous coloration on the flanks, and this one is just gray. The dark spot on the center of the throat is also a good field mark for Anna's.
I will happily concede to Alby's identification. I have seen Anna's hummers and thought that might be a possibility too, but I'm not as familiar with them and thus not sure how to be sure (as it were... )
Robin IDed the rest of those birds, but I'm gonna have to go with Anna's Hummingbird (female) for the hummer. That is far and away the most common hummer in that part of California (where I spent 5 years during graduate school), and the bill is just too short for the other small hummer there, Black-chinned. A female Rufous would look sturdier, and would have at least some rufous coloration on the flanks, and this one is just gray. The dark spot on the center of the throat is also a good field mark for Anna's.
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 26 2013,10:35)May this be part of the problem?
So the longer he says here the more hidebound he'll become? But he likes cheeseburgers right? So show the sucker a cheeseburger and then ask him if evolution is true.
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=bornagain77]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.[/quote]
"Old wine in new bottles" (PDF), a review of Jeffrey P. Moran's American Genesis by NCSE's Glenn Branch, was just published in Evolution: Education and Outreach.