I just checked to be certain--the author of this tripe didn't last past page one. His entire argument was that a code must have had an author. Small wonder he didn't last long.
Since then, "real life" has been the only source of entertainment for this witless contention.
Have you only just realised that it's a witless contention Settin'?
Sheesh!
Avoid jaywalking is my advice.
rosborne979 wrote:
He's only interested in challenging the veracity of scientific knowledge and procedure in an attempt to imply that it is on "equal footing" with poofism.
'The veracity of scientific knowledge' -- now that's quite a phrase. Why don't you clarify for us whether you are referring to data or to the interpretation of that data?
It seems you would like to blur the distinction between them so that you may substitute one for the other whenever you wish.
Setanta wrote:
I didn't start this thread,
I didn't either.
Setanta wrote: and i'm not responsible for the burden of the thread.
Apparently then, I'm not either.
real life wrote:rosborne979 wrote:
He's only interested in challenging the veracity of scientific knowledge and procedure in an attempt to imply that it is on "equal footing" with poofism.
'The veracity of scientific knowledge' -- now that's quite a phrase. Why don't you clarify for us whether you are referring to data or to the interpretation of that data?
What part of "knowledge and procedure" was too difficult for you to understand?
Quote:
It seems you would like to blur the distinction between them so that you may substitute one for the other whenever you wish.
It seems you like to accuse of that but can't really provide anything to back it up. It is you that substitutes the meanings of "supernatural" as you wish.
Setanta wrote:rosborne979 wrote:He's only interested in challenging the veracity of scientific knowledge and procedure in an attempt to imply that it is on "equal footing" with poofism. This is his pattern on every thread. I'm resigned to it.
This bears repeating.
I never knew bears stuttered, as to the thread, I've seen nothing to support a belief in magic.
Well Chum--Henry Ford said you all had to have a black car because at the time the mass market couldn't afford the extras for the magic and you couldn't get mass production efficiences without the mass market.
In some circles your post would signify a lack of imagination.
real life wrote:Setanta wrote:I didn't start this thread,
I didn't either.
Setanta wrote: and i'm not responsible for the burden of the thread./quote]
Apparently then, I'm not either.
You've still been running your mouth for more than 80 pages. You
are responsible for that, and in the process you haven't produced a shred of evidence to support the thesis.
spendius wrote:Well Chum--Henry Ford said you all had to have a black car because at the time the mass market couldn't afford the extras for the magic and you couldn't get mass production efficiences without the mass market.
In some circles your post would signify a lack of imagination.
A good imagination is not a harbinger of ignorance, rather the opposite. That still does not mean bears can speak, let alone stutter!
so what happens after handbags have been drawn and used?
seems like nothing has been acheived here but waste A2K server space.
You want achievement........look to yourself for it.
who do you
think designed DNA?
Answers:
If you believe that GOD created everything then God
could have designed DNA.
If you Do Not believe that GOD created everything then GOD probably did not design DNA.
Which answer you choose depends on your preference.
Who:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_%28pronoun%29
Think:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think
Nope, the answer depends on your abitity to logically assess the given circumstances vis-a-vis plausibly.
so the question cannot be answered because no plausible evidence exists at this time?
loony wrote-
Quote:seems like nothing has been acheived here but waste A2K server space.
Don't be so daft.
This is what it takes to keep the balls in the air.
Can you not get up for your share? Have you got "principles"?
Spendi-humor, your saving grace.
ffs , intelligence is inevitable.
dna is the first form of intelligence... IMO
its almost like an algorithm to me, like picking a lock. it just takes time.
1 pin at a time.
even someone with no skill can pick a lock, if they try long enough.
it's a debate about who designed DNA.
When I read the whole thread, it seems to me to get lost in she said/he said lack of intelligence slagging match.
'who do you think designed DNA?'
we dont know if 'who' exists in the first place, so lacking evidence?
principles? none that matter here.
have you just got back from the pub spendius?
So loony, since there is "lacking evidence" a giant turtle is carrying the world on its back, you must believe such a claim has merit.
