Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@Frank Apisa,

Well--the two photos Romeo posted showed a minuscule snapshot of the world wide experience of such things. It is hardly a guess that the totality is having an effect considering how many years of it there has been.

I have not seen any convincing argument that it is having no effect.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

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.

He won't do that but you are not only prepared to jump into the unknown but you are also trying to persuade us to jump with you.

The consequences of what you're proposing you are not even prepared to think about.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

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

In the general case no one can base this statements on things that he does not believe in. If somebody does not believe in God he cannot base his (emotional standing in this case) on non-existing beliefs ... it has no logical interpretation.
As you don't believe in God, you cannot say 'goddam it' (for this is invalid statement in your understanding of the world) ... if you want to express displeasure, frustration, anger or surprise you may use something more valid (to your understanding of the world), like for example 'big bang damn it' ... or 'thousands thunderstrikes'.
If you want to express surprise or admiration you should use valid to your understanding of the world concepts, like for example 'this is A mf, A man, as the evolution of the stars!'.
Basing emotions on God related statements makes no sense to an agnosticist ... as you have already claimed that mentioning this 'does not even worth the efforts'.
Saying such things may only spoil your consistent image of logical thinker ... and as A mf of logic.
Otherwise if you use expressions like 'Oh, my dear God', 'Goddman it' etc. you implicitely acknowledge the existence of God.

2 Replies

@Herald,

That is quite possibly the most ridiculous thing ever said on this thread.

(and don't take that lightly, because Romeo has posted here)

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

Tell us again how, in a few centuries time, the surface temperature of our planet will exceed 2000 C. Clown.

The surface temperature of the Earth will exceed 2000 deg C when the Sun becomes a red giant and starts engulfing the inner planets of the SS one by one ... but this is your least problem, for it will become in several BN years.
If you are curious to know an increase of 5 deg would be enough for the things you are asking.
As far as the concentration (of whatever) is concerned, by definition: 'concentration is the abundance of a constituent divided by the total volume of a mixture'. When the concentration is increased it is due to the increase of the mass per unit volume ... of the constituent.
BTW I am not obliged to fill gaps in elementary knowledge.

0 Replies

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
... are you saying a person has to "believe" a god exists in order to use expressions like "goddam it?"

In the general case no one can base this statements on things that he does not believe in. If somebody does not believe in God he cannot base his (emotional standing in this case) on non-existing beliefs ... it has no logical interpretation.
As you don't believe in God, you cannot say 'goddam it' (for this is invalid statement in your understanding of the world) ... if you want to express displeasure, frustration, anger or surprise you may use something more valid (to your understanding of the world), like for example 'big bang damn it' ... or 'thousands thunderstrikes'.
If you want to express surprise or admiration you should use valid to your understanding of the world concepts, like for example 'this is A mf, A man, as the evolution of the stars!'.Basing emotions on God related statements makes no sense to an agnosticist ... as you have already claimed that mentioning this 'does not even worth the efforts'.
Saying such things may only spoil your consistent image of logical thinker ... and as A mf of logic.
Otherwise if you use expressions like 'Oh, my dear God', 'Goddman it' etc. you implicitely acknowledge the existence of God.

Jesus H. Christ, Herald...lighten up! Take the tie off...and open up the top button.

Are you always this anal...or where you just doing this to entertain us?

I use "goddam it" whenever I want to...and I do not have to do any "believing" in order to do so. I feel confident that most people can use the expression...whether they are theists or not.

(You oughtta hear me when I miss a putt of less than two feet!)

Anyway...

Quote:

Basing emotions on God related statements makes no sense to an agnosticist ... as you have already claimed that mentioning this 'does not even worth the efforts'.

I have no idea of what an "agnosticist" is...but if you meant "agnostic", I would have to question why you think it makes no sense for an agnostic to use an expression like "goddamit." When an agnostic or atheist uses it, I doubt they are intending to ask some deity to actually condemn someone to Hell. I doubt many theists who use it have that intention either.

And as for me claiming that "mentioning this does not even worth the effort" (sic)...I was not the person claiming that, I was the person disputing that.

C'mon, get your head back out...and make some sense if you are going to post.

0 Replies

@JimmyJ,

JimmyJ wrote:

That is quite possibly the most ridiculous thing ever said on this thread.

(and don't take that lightly, because Romeo has posted here)

Ahhh...finally something on which I can agree with you, Jimmy.

Well said!

0 Replies

@JimmyJ,

JimmyJ wrote:

... the most ridiculous thing ever said on this thread.

Before claiming 'most ridiculous', you have to prove that it is 'stupid' in the first place, and after that 'the most stupid' ... along all the indicators.
So, can you prove that the statement:
'One cannot base his claims on things that he does not believe in'
is stupid:
1) does not have any logical interpretation
2) is incomprehensible & hard to understand
3) there is no reason to justify it as a statement
... after that to prove that there is no statement here on this blog that has less logical interpretation, is harder to understand, and is more unjustified.
Hardly after that, and not before, one can claim 'most ridiculous' ... otherwise it is some phrase thrown at random into the air.

2 Replies

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

JimmyJ wrote:
... the most ridiculous thing ever said on this thread.

Before claiming 'most ridiculous', you have to prove that it is 'stupid' in the first place, and after that 'the most stupid' ... along all the indicators.
So, can you prove that the statement:
'One cannot base his claims on things that he does not believe in'
is stupid:
1) does not have any logical interpretation
2) is incomprehensible & hard to understand
3) there is no reason to justify it as a statement
... after that to prove that there is no statement here on this blog that has less logical interpretation, is harder to understand, and is more unjustified.
Hardly after that, and not before, one can claim 'most ridiculous' ... otherwise it is some phrase thrown at random into the air.

Whew, Herald...this one almost beat out that last one for the most ridiculous thing said in this thread.

At least we see you are trying!

0 Replies

@Herald,

/facepalm

You can't be serious?

1 Reply

@JimmyJ,

JimmyJ wrote:

/facepalm You can't be serious?

It doesn't matter how you present the statement. What matters is the statement itself.
Why don't you compare my claim with the last claim of Set, for example: 'Clown.' What is the logical interpretation of this statement?
The logical interpretation is that notwithstanding that Set does not know how the exponent works, he claims that it is safe to drive along it (with having no idea neither how far will we go, nor what we may come across in-between ... nor how will we come back).
What about you? Do you have any idea how the exponent works - the linear of 1 through 15 is 10 to 150, and the exponent of this being 10 to 1 quadrillion - and what does it mean?

3 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

with the last claim of Set, for example

If this is the same S. as I think it might be, Her., you must be very careful abbreviating as he might launch into a tirade

"Why should I care" you respond and indeed that was my own reaction. Thoughtful being I am however, I'm wondering whether it's the best policy in the long run to bait these fellows apparently terribly angry at all times about nearly everything

Besides I suppose a neutral reply enrages them even more

0 Replies

@Herald,

It means that the Saints are leading the Panthers exponentially by 130 to 100 in the 40th quarter with 31.7 minutes cleft on the rock.

Is that right?

1 Reply

@spendius,

Correction--

It means that the Saints are leading the Panthers exponentially by 130 to 100 in the 40th quadragintath with 31.7 deciminutes cleft on the rock.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Thanks, that's exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for and thanks for going to the trouble of correcting your obvious error.

2 Replies

@igm,

I always think that it is never any good to get things right the first time.

Apisa is a very good example of what I mean.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Only in calculus quizzes and books on the Origin of Species

1 Reply

@farmerman,

May I refer you, fm, to pages 602-3 of D&M. From "It poohpoohed prayer" to "beyond the scope of man's intellect."

Such is the intrepid fearlessness of scientific tyros.

1 Reply

@spendius,

not tonite. Im reading about the Ohio "Mingo" tribes

0 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

Thanks, that's exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for and thanks for going to the trouble of correcting your obvious error.

You are speaking as if you know what is the dispute around the CO2 & the ID here all about. Aside from the 'obvious error' of Spendi - do you know what is the dispute about the CO2 here ... in the context of ID?
Big bang is driving along the least resistance (all over the universe) - in the direction of wasting the energy resources (of our planet in this case ... not without the help of the people of the right type).
Driving along the least resistance ?! - yes, but not.
In the pre-history record of the Earth if you track & trace the CO2 in the mya/CO2 diagram all of a sudden and by reason unknown, observed on this planet only, during the period from 530mya through 300 mya the big bang starts driving along the greatest (potential energy) resistance ... in the direction of reducing the CO2 in the air from 7000 ppm to 150 ppm. How does that happen ... without ID interference?

1 Reply

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know