Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@Setanta,

wow a classicisist

@farmerman,

A little Choicer is always good to practice our language skills

Quote:

Here bygynneth the Book of the Tales of Caunterbury

Whan that Aprill, with his shoures soote
The droghte of March hath perced to the roote
And bathed every veyne in swich licour,
Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
5 Whan Zephirus eek with his sweete breeth
Inspired hath in every holt and heeth
The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne
Hath in the Ram his halfe cours yronne,
And smale foweles maken melodye,
10 That slepen al the nyght with open eye-
(So priketh hem Nature in hir corages);
Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimages

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Chaucer was the kind of guy that loved to have a choice bit of calico around..

1 Reply

@JimmyJ,

JimmyJ wrote:

A lot wrong with it, Frank.

Nope...nothing at all. Wink

0 Replies

@timur,

His great ancestor was the Chauceratops.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

. but poutine on the side would be a great idea.

Not if an experienced gentleman was being decanted and there was no microwave handy.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/1923/ee9r.jpg

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

It (the scientific theory) always has a reference to evidence that supports it.

'Theory is rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking.' Where do you see evidences here ... let alone 'always'.
If you can find some evidences (different from the facts and circumstances on the grounds of which it is derived), it is called plausible. If it passes the pragmatic verification and validation tests it is called feasible, but in any case scenario there isn't any 'always'.

2 Replies

@JimmyJ,

JimmyJ wrote:

Oh dear...

This is invalid exclamation for an atheist, for it comes from 'Oh (my) dear God'. If you don't believe in the existence of God you cannot use it as an argument in a discussion, no matter whether it is intended to express emotions - in this case of surprise and wonder maybe - or something else. Otherwise in terms of indicator 'slapstick' some day you may outperform FM and Set under common denominator.

3 Replies

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

JimmyJ wrote:
Oh dear...

This is invalid exclamation for an atheist, for it comes from 'Oh (my) dear God'. If you don't believe in the existence of God you cannot use it as an argument in a discussion, no matter whether it is intended to express emotions - in this case of surprise and wonder maybe - or something else. Otherwise in terms of indicator 'slapstick' some day you may outperform FM and Set under common denominator.

Jesus H. Christ, Herald, are you saying a person has to "believe" a god exists in order to use expressions like "goddam it?"

C'mon!

1 Reply

@Herald,

if evidence does not support a theory, the theory must be modified or dropped. There are many definitions in science, two of my favorites are ,

A THEORY IS AN EXPLANATION FOR A PHENOMENON OF RELATED PHENOMENA IN WHICH ALL THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THAT
EXPLANATION AND NO EVIDENCE REFUTES IT.-- (CRS ENCYCLOPEDIA OF CHEMISTRY)

"An explanatory system of propositions,general principles and laws, inferred FROM THE PHENOMENA and linking the known facts and observations(EVIDENCE); A theory is held to be true until contradicted or amended by new facts or observations(EVIDENCE). Examples are Quantum Theory, Theory of Plate Tectonics, Germ Theory, Atomic Theory. (AGI-Glossary of Geology vol 5. p666)

Im not sure where you got your definition from but it wasnt a science book.

YES Sir the word is ALWAYS. otherwise the theory fails and must be changed or removed. Youre using a type of definition that , in effect states that a theory is a "good guess". That's not the case in science. A theory links all the working evidence about a phenom

Quote:

If you can find some evidences (different from the facts and circumstances on the grounds of which it is derived), it is called plausible. If it passes the pragmatic verification and validation tests it is called feasible, but in any case scenario there isn't any 'always'.

Im sorry but this doesn't even make sense. You are basically agreeing with me but you state that something is "plausible" or "feasible". We don't deal with "beliefs" whether you believe Natural Selection doesn't mean that its not fact. Its just you who's being rigidly dogmatic and intractable in your thought processes

0 Replies

@farmerman,

It's not the first time I've seen someone losing an argument point out a spelling/grammar error to try and gain some ground (though the real intellectuals in the group can see through it in most cases).

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

This is invalid exclamation for an atheist, for it comes from 'Oh (my) dear God'. If you don't believe in the existence of God you cannot use it as an argument in a discussion, no matter whether it is intended to express emotions - in this case of surprise and wonder maybe - or something else. Otherwise in terms of indicator 'slapstick' some day you may outperform FM and Set under common denominator.

Oh my dear Thor.
Oh my dear Zeus.
Oh my dear Shiva.

Oh my dear holy noodliness.

What is your point here, Herald? Are you some kind of buffoon?

1 Reply

@JimmyJ,

Quote:

Oh my dear holy noodliness

Sauce be upon him.

0 Replies

@Herald,

Keep my name out of it, you witless piece of christian ****. You blather about what you claim is science all the time, and you don't have a clue about it. Tell us again how when CO2 goes into the atmosphere, it just stays there. Tell us again how, in a few centuries time, the surface temperature of our planet will exceed 2000 C. Clown.

1 Reply

How did global warming get into this thread?
Incidentally earlier this year I asked Dr Mike Stroud (the polar-trekking companion of Ranulph Fiennes) whether global warming was just a myth, and he simply replied "the glaciers are melting", but he didn't go into details of WHY.
Perhaps he's not sure if it's just the earth's natural cycle or whether humans are to blame with their emissions from factories and millions of cars, I dunno.

1 Reply

@Romeo Fabulini,

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

How did global warming get into this thread?
Incidentally earlier this year I asked Dr Mike Stroud (the polar-trekking companion of Ranulph Fiennes) whether global warming was just a myth, and he simply replied "the glaciers are melting", but he didn't go into details of WHY.
Perhaps he's not sure if it's just the earth's natural cycle or whether humans are to blame with their emissions from factories and millions of cars, I dunno.

I just read Michael Crichton's State of Fear. It is fiction, of course, but some of the matters he raises he documents...and it makes for some interesting reading on the questions posed re: Global warming and its impact. I recommend it highly.

0 Replies

Do we really need to wade through books to try to find the answer to the simple question- "Is global warming a natural cycle or is it man-made?".
One book says one thing, another book says another thing (yawn).
If scientists are so clever why do they disagree about it among themselves?
Personally I think all the worlds's factories and cars and airliners spewing out muck into the atmosphere might be having something to do with it.

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/factory.jpg

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/stink.jpg

1 Reply

@Romeo Fabulini,

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

Do we really need to wade through books to try to find the answer to the simple question- "Is global warming a natural cycle or is it man-made?".
One book says one thing, another book says another thing (yawn).
If scientists are so clever why do they disagree about it among themselves?
Personally I think all the worlds's factories and cars and airliners spewing out muck into the atmosphere might be having something to do with it.

There are lots of things we don't "have to do", Romeo.

But the book was interesting and there is a line in it that runs just like the one you wrote...and I though I would recommend it. I acknowledge it is fiction...but it touches on the issue.

In any case, the answer to your question is that we do NOT have to wade through books to try to find the answer to the simple question- "Is global warming a natural cycle or is it man-made?".

We can simply make a blind guess like you did...and consider that to be a reasonable way to handle the situation.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

farmerman wrote:
It (the scientific theory) always has a reference to evidence that supports it.

'Theory is rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking.' Where do you see evidences here ... let alone 'always'.
If you can find some evidences (different from the facts and circumstances on the grounds of which it is derived), it is called plausible. If it passes the pragmatic verification and validation tests it is called feasible, but in any case scenario there isn't any 'always'.

I'm still waiting for you to doubt the theory of gravity and jump off a 20 story building because it's just a theory.

1 Reply

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know