Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@farmerman,

Quote:

He was hardly even a notable geologist of the age, let alone popish.

He was only the President of the British Geological Society in the full pride of Empire. And very distinguished in other roles. An experienced writer too.

Quote:

As far as speculation, that what you're here for. Sometime you even come up with something worth considering.

You don't want to be around when I get really speculating.

So I'll just sit in my front desk taking a bow to the rest of the class and shooting my cuffs at the Big Cheese offering words of comfort and encouragement. Shucks!!

Would you like me to paste your 3 separate attempts to deal with the Portlock question? Setanta and ros and some others have avoided such risks. Farmers are not foppish like that.

It's not as if rocks and sedimentary deposits have changed much since his day. Tools and instrumentation devices have but geologists don't make them like painters don't make brushes.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Im gonna use that.

I am not sure what is your understanding of 'Yo-Yo' (written ignorantly as 'woo-woo'), but the classical meaning is 'someone who is not willing to share information by various reasons'.
I am telling you this just in case you think that it means something ... and it actually means something else.

2 Replies

@Herald,

Once again, your English sucks.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

He was only the President of the British Geological Society in the full pride of Empire

Good thing I told you about him so you could look im up. He was never a geologist of repute. HE was more an "administrator type", (unlike guys like "Strata" Smith , or Hutton, or even Henslow), who added significantly to our store of knowledge.

1 Reply

@Herald,

FROM THE URBAN DICTIONARY

Quote:

1. woo woo

Unfounded or ludicrouse beliefs

Belief in talking to the dead, belief in telikenesis, in fact any belief not founded on good evidence, the poorer the evidence the more Woo Woo the belief.



2. woo woo

extraordinary beliefs for which it is felt there is insufficient extraordinary evidence, and people who hold those beliefs.

The date was going fine, then she started to talk about taking her cat to her Pet Psychic for an aura adjustment. Just a bit woo woo for me.

A YO_YO[/} Is a zen instrument consisting of two balanced cylinders (usually made of wood) . These two cylinders are connected by a short dowel of another kind of wood, onto which is wound a string. The person takes the Yo-Yo and is able to do tricks that enchant an audience, thus enabling the operator to achieve a state of "YO"

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Good thing I told you about him so you could look im up.

I had already looked him up. I was the one who introduced the name here. You're on the flannel again. You don't love the book at all. You're just saying it as a gambit. And anybody who doesn't know what the purpose of such a naff gambit is must be a bit slow on the uptake.

What do you think he meant by "fatal error"?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Farmerman wrote:

Quote:

FROM THE URBAN DICTIONARY
Quote:

1. woo woo

Unfounded or ludicrouse beliefs

Belief in talking to the dead, belief in telikenesis, in fact any belief not founded on good evidence, the poorer the evidence the more Woo Woo the belief.



2. woo woo

extraordinary beliefs for which it is felt there is insufficient extraordinary evidence, and people who hold those beliefs.

The date was going fine, then she started to talk about taking her cat to her Pet Psychic for an aura adjustment. Just a bit woo woo for me.

A YO_YO[/} Is a zen instrument consisting of two balanced cylinders (usually made of wood) . These two cylinders are connected by a short dowel of another kind of wood, onto which is wound a string. The person takes the Yo-Yo and is able to do tricks that enchant an audience, thus enabling the operator to achieve a state of "YO" [/quote]

Actually a "YO" is the piece without the dowel when a yoyo breaks apart.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

What do you think he meant by "fatal error"?

I imagine that It was a term used for dramatic phraeology. Just like when you **** with your computer and get a "BLUE SCREEN OF DEATH" which states that you've commited a "Fatal ERROR". Do you believe that you will die?
Are you really that obtuse?

Im thinking that youre out of material for the week so you just playing with phrases. Have fun, Im going to leave you wanking off in a corner.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I have already dismissed that explanation as a cop out and a non starter. In a address of such a nature there is no chance it was used "for effect". He wasn't on children's television.

He might have been biting his tounge not wanting to restrain the "young bloods" but feeling a cautionary note needed expressing.

One might easily go much further than a cliche like "fatal error" if a dramatic effect was sought. You're underestimating the man on your own terms. Which is, of course, a settled habit with you and all your ilk. And no wonder. Humility does not impinge on an atheistic mindset. It would be contradicting evolution if it did.

The man said that there was a serious danger in "connecting the results of scientific enquiry with the articles of religious belief". He moved in circles where the danger was more obvious. Conspicuous consumption was impossible in the lower circles. Now it isn't. And the debts mount.

Veblen was aware of the danger as have been others. Jane Austen. Augustus. Madame de Pompadour, like you, was oblivious.

Wasn't being taxed to supply luxuries in London a prime motive in your revolution.

Once Portlock used "unbiased" he could only have had one meaning. If that was bullshit too then science is with the clerics. They have "got a room" as you might say. Foolishly of course.

Your attempts to trivialise the matter are for primary school classes.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

I have already dismissed that explanation as a cop out and a non starter

The authority by which you determine something as a "cop out"s hould be discussed by a minyan of the devout . Outside of that I think you are caught in a continuous. feedback loop. Perhaps you should seek out someone who actually gives a ****.

Quote:

The man said that there was a serious danger in "connecting the results of scientific enquiry with the articles of religious belief".

So like, you've never heard that before? The real danger occurs when some IDiot tries to make believe that science can underpin their worldview and when it doesn't happen, they, like gungasnake, start trying to ridicule science.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

You obviously do give a ****. Why do you keep trying to deny it when everybody knows it's true?

Of course I am in a feedback loop. It's a loop you seemingly have no knowledge of.

Quote:

The authority by which you determine something as a "cop out"s hould be discussed by a minyan of the devout .

You would do well to bear that in mind yourself. At least I have given reasons for my assertion.

Quote:

So like, you've never heard that before?

Quite often but what struck me that this was an instance of the President of an august scientific society saying it. Would Dawkins say it?

He meant that the bone rattlers and vestment ballets in the Anglican/Christian establishment had some mysterious and necessary function which his "young bloods" had no notion of and which they should beware of. That Science had its limitations. As Churchill had said.

Science can't be ridiculed. gunga has no chance with that. You invented a strawman there. The feedback loop is scientific.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

RE: woo woo

Honestly speaking this
wo wo wo wo ... ah ah ah ah
reminds me of 'By the Rivers of Babylon'.
BTW do you know what Babylon is symbolizing: the absolute degradation and greed without limits and lack of scruples ... incl. misrepresentation of information of any kind.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Babylon didn't have the Internet Herald. What they did in Babylon is pretty tame stuff compared to what will happen now if the brakes come off. And atheists have not one iota of theology to even design brakes let alone apply them. Men can't design such brakes because they would have to use them themselves. Unless they had a two-tier social structure of course. Party members and plebs.

That is why there is such an enormous row going on here over a toff in the Cabinet allegedly calling a policeman a "pleb".

Babylon is already happening. It's in its February snowdrop phase. As was once the Sumerian Babylon. Dogging is still thought a bit distasteful as one might expect of cute little snowdrops. Come the October phase dogging will be mandatory, licenced and £2.99 a minute. Possibly in shops on the High Street such is the nature of capitalist enterprise.

Nice word is "enterprise". fm is trying valiantly, using very sub-standard tools, to prise open the door to the Citadel and enter leading an army of illiterate malcontents and curmudgeons with a space in their noddles where a sense of humour is supposed to be and shouting a large number of contradictory slogans.

At £2.99 a minute premature ejaculators will be recognisable by the amount and quality of their accoutrements.

First strong wind and all the leaves fall off. Judging from the ruins which are what's left of Babylon it must have happened there.

They have failed to consider the boredom that inevitably accompanies depravity and degredation when it ceases to be naughty. A future Jane Austen would be able to do nothing with that.

Won't homosexuals get a shock when they find themselves as ordinary and nondescript and as accepted as people who wear tinted spectacles are now. No longer of interest.

Every heresy must have had its roll-out attractions otherwise it could never have reached the dignity of being a heresy.

What makes me laugh is that they do fondly believe they are not misogynists. Despite the TV ratings for period pieces in the bonnet and bodice-ripping genre interlarded with the appropriate commercial fantasies.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

And atheists have not one iota of theology to even design brakes let alone apply them.

You don't understand something - the whole structure of atheism has been designed & developed to provide feasibility to drive without brakes. They may claim that atheism is evolutionary, but it is man-made and created especially for the purpose of sidestepping the morality.
The problem of atheism is not the creation (of the world, of life ... or of the diesel truck of FM or whatever). The problem of atheism is: 'Do not lie', 'Do not steal', 'Do not exploit other people to infinity', 'Do not devote to greed', 'Do not self-pronounce as God' - that is the greatest problem, how to self-pronounce yourself above the ethics and morality ... and above the things. How to conceal dangerous (to the easy profits and to unclouded scientific career) information ... or at least misrepresenting it beyond recognition? How to distort the data from clinical trials about side effects and unproved therapeutic effectiveness of medications in order to snuggle the big money? How to surround the scruples from detecting Hg in the production of high fructose corn syrup?
Babylon is not created in one day - this is an evolutionary process ... driven by casino way of thinking and casino understanding of the world.

1 Reply

Quote:

. . . the absolute degradation and greed without limits and lack of scruples ... incl. misrepresentation of information of any kind.

That sounds just like religious fanatics when they're out to make a buck. (There is no "woo-woo" line in the lyrics of "The Rivers of Babylon." You are just making more sh*t up.)

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

You don't understand something

I understand the rest of your post Herald.

I said that Babylon had its snowdrop time and its fall.

Atheism has no structure. It is a negative. It wants to not be something without saying what replaces it because it knows that there are only two possibilities: totalitarianism or anarchy.

What does Setanta's last post say beyond nothing? The religious fanatics he offers up are out to make a buck because they are men and not because they are religious.

Marx had to invent the withering away of the State to gloss that over. He didn't say what the withering away of the State would entail but how could it not be anarchy? Or depopulation.

There are no easy answers.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

It wants to not be something without saying what replaces it ...

So far so good ... but there are a lot of alternatives when somebody is not something.
Virtually he can be everybody else. Any psychtronics, money-changer, military or non-military criminal, or whoever with similar views, can present himself as being non-theist (or atheist) so far he has some personal reasons to avoid the constrainsts of the morality.

2 Replies

@Herald,

So it all boils down to some worldview basd on a super intelligence (insert "GOD").
You could have avoided all this faux "interest in science" cause you really are ill equipped to argue in that arena.
Your worldview is to proselytize and give you a sense of "chain of command'. It must be really boring always knowing and never having to do any extra home-work.

2 Replies

@Herald,

He also has a very personal reason to persuade others to avoid the constraints of morality and if he is persuasive enough he can persuade everybody to avoid those constraints. Then what?

Once embarked on that course, probably shortly after the onset of puberty, possibly in the back seat of a car, pride comes into play to defend it and there are always people ready to feed that pride. It doesn't take long for the original spark to be forgotten and the matter to take on a life of its own without reference to the "then what?"

It represents, imo, a failure to mature when continued with after the original enthusiasm in youth has faded. That enthusiasm is perfectly understandable. So much so that it is the very reason for the necessity of moral inhibitions to prevent a degeneration into general promiscuity and barbarism.

Christianity is a mission seeking to avoid the "fall". It is evergreen. Its precepts are good for all time and all circumstances and our culture's evolutionary success is solid proof of their validity.

Darwin told everybody that he was "dreadfully ashamed of my extravagance" on his £4,000 a year as an absentee owner. An amount somewhere near equivalent today of £4 to 6 million a year.

D&M accused him of "mock modesty" but I think they were wrong. I think he was actually ashamed but could not stop himself. Just as he could not stop himself from rendering his "dear wife" almost permanently pregnant despite him believing there was an inheritable flaw in their constitutions which put their offspring at great risk. One might easily imagine that in the full flowering of his "science" the authorities would have the bugger sterilised.

What he preferred to being "an idle Earl" doesn't bear thinking about.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

So it all boils down to some worldview basd on a super intelligence (insert "GOD").

No, it's about humility, sincerity, and modesty.
When somebody claims that life has originated from the exhaust tube of his diesel truck maybe he should be a little bit more modet and restrained to claim 'cause you really are ill equipped to argue in that arena'.
... and which is 'that arena', which is the science?
Even if we assume that you are the greatest scientist in the field of 'the rocks of the right type' there is no way for you to be at that mind-blowing level in all the other sciences ... in order to claim that you are representative of (any) science.
Besides, if you are such a great scientist, as you are trying to convince us, you will not deal at that petty level with your personal perceptions and the cognitive standing of the opponents ... unless you are some doctor in philosophy of perceptions.

1 Reply

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know