32
   

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

 
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2014 07:04 am
@spendius,
Ignornce is often incurable. Bob Jones Uni is only interested in training Shaman in a world full of high tech medicine.

Tiger Woods makes a handsome secondary income from providing "Tiger Woods" gear to weekend douche bag golfers
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2014 07:31 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
and how has "Creation Science" forged the path that has led to discoveries in even those areas of "Sociological interests"


Doesn't that depend on what Creation Science means? Your parochial definition is neither here nor there. The US is not even a blip in the universe. And the Creation Science you are defining is hardly a blip in US history.

And asking that question is not a decent excuse for evading my questions. It is a red herring and your fans should be aware of that. If they choose otherwise it is an entirely subjective decision and nothing to do with me.

I offered answers to your questions.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2014 07:37 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Bob Jones Uni is only interested in training Shaman in a world full of high tech medicine.


Maybe so but high tech medicine has dangers which I know you need to Ignore. It is not doubleplusgood exclusively.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2014 07:40 am
@spendius,
A new research project is underway here to determine the long term effects of various treatments. Counting them as successes when a patient is cured of one symptom is under scrutiny.
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2014 07:43 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
You are still a bit mixed up , even those people who wish to do harm with a technology need to have a good knowledge of that technology.

Not necessarily. In order to break a glass window with a stone one does not need to have any knowledge in the technology of the production of glass.

further wrote:
I wonder what technologies or sciences you support.

Obviously the technologies & sciences of the right type, incl. biology. Everything however depends on the personal definition of 'the right type'.

further wrote:
When humans aren't at the "center" of your worldview, does that become the crux of your denials of biology in general and evolution in particular?

How did you come to know that the humans are not 'in the center' of my worldview? Perhaps you have in mind your own personal worldview or s.th.
Besides that if you are so curious to know I also don't deny biology, and I don't exclude evolution as plausible interpretation, but I don't accept this as exclusive explanation ... unlike you.
FM, people like you are very dangerous to tap the communications on the net and to write reports to their commandants, and do you know why? Because they make no distinction between objective reality and personal bias opinion.

further wrote:
What do you think about Copernicus?

Irrelevant to the theme.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2014 08:06 am
@Herald,
you weren't talking about "breaking glass" by a vandal, you made the example of constructing malware(by someone obviously familiar enough with the workings of a network). Stop being dishonest in your silly attempts at logic


SO HERALD SUPPORTS
Quote:

Obviously the technologies & sciences of the right type, incl. biology. Everything however depends on the personal definition of 'the right type'.


Yet, you've attempted to make a joke about rocks of "the right type and age". Kind of a two faced little guy aren't you?

I wonder how you determine what "right type" actually signifies? Does genetics encompass your test of "right type"?


I brought up Copernicus because the "Copernican Revolution" has been only added to by Darwin. Copernicus , as you know, discovered that the EARTH is not the center of the Solar System, as Darwin suggested that all of life is a"web or a bush " of ascendancy


I do suggest that, if you
Quote:
don't exclude evolution as plausible interpretation,
You should really LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Your own previous statemenst have been fraught with error and misunderstandings and downright lies that its not difficult to see that your generous "Acceptance" of evolution as a "plausible explantion" is bullshit. You are a commited Creationists who's admitted as such in your past statements.


Quote:
Because they(meaning people like me) make no distinction between objective reality and personal bias . opinion.

Show me where Ive done so. I pride myself in only supporting stuff that I can readily evidence. I admit to a personal bias .My bias is to only accept that which can be objectively evidenced.
You cant say the same.

How and the hell do you only accept the science that you decide is "The right type". You sound like a wannabe despot who would declare himself the final arbiter of everything. Science doesn't operate that way. SOmetimes new laws and evidence interfere with old theories and the old theories must be disposed or modified.





Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2014 08:34 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Ignornce is often incurable. Bob Jones Uni is only interested in training Shaman in a world full of high tech medicine.

Tiger Woods makes a handsome secondary income from providing "Tiger Woods" gear to weekend douche bag golfers


Actually, he doesn't. He makes a handsome secondary income representing a company making inferior ball-striking equipment to all kinds of golfers. But I suspect you were not actually aiming for accuracy with that pathetic comment.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2014 09:17 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Darwin suggested that all of life is a"web or a bush " of ascendancy


If he did it would be wrong.

If dinosaurs evolved from smaller organisms. which you accept they must have done, then they could appear again if the sort of conditions which selected for them were to return.

In which case they are not extinct. Except maybe to a taxonomist. They are inchoate in life form itself. As is a statue in a block of marble. To say that the statue exists because it was chipped out of marble is as useless as saying opium induces sleep or a trance because it is a soporific or a narcotic.

How did animate life ,elan vital. an evolutionist's term, arise from inanimate matter, if it was not inchoate in it. Animism justified for want of any other explanation.

And don't say we will find the explanation if sufficient funds were to be allocated because we won't. And it would be no good to the consumers of the funds if they did find the explanation because further funds, that most joyous of prospects which induce sweet dreams, would be cut off.

And the more people who swallow the science pill entire the more likely funds will be allocated for what is nothing but a delightful wild goose chase. And all the more so if we seem to be getting nearer under the bludgeonings of long-word bullshit.

Beware taxpayers!!!!! There are some shifty looking carpetbaggers about with glib and greasy tongues who intend showing priests how pick-pocketing should be done. There's no using the fingers to hide the dime being placed next to the silver dollar on the velvet-lined collection plate with this team. A battery of accountants are necessary.

They have anybody interested in how life on earth began by the short and curlies and are intent on applying a nit-comb to them.

One can easily see, forgetting any re-cycling of value or value in kind, the latter being the only value in the priesthood, which one didn't ought to do except in the emergency of trying to keep it simple, ....one can easily see why the question of the origins of all this **** is so important to them and it being necessarry to persuade the hard pressed gumps from sea to shining sea that it is justly so.

Science can defend itself on the better mousetrap principle and needs no justification from weavers of the winds. The guys who perfected the pull-top beer can never gave the origin of life a moment's thought. And they were scientists. And jolly good ones. Even though it took a few years to iron out the very serious flaws of the early versions. As with motor cars. Spacecraft. Every bloody thing.

Motor cars are now designed psychologically. For equipment fetishists/ control freaks. Comfort went out of the window when bench seats in the front disappeared. It became necessary to imitate a fighter pilot's arrangement and, from what I have seen, a space captain's console.

I have seen a chap with one of those contraptions, with his wife in the front seat, drive over to pick up another couple for a night out and it be axiomatic that the wife gets herself into the back seat with the other lady because, I assume, it is demeaning to a man to ride in the back. Unless it is four chaps heading for a bank heist.

Old customs die hard don't they Meestah Misogynist. (Closet version.)





farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2014 10:02 am
@spendius,
your confusing genotype and phenotype again. A genotype "MAY" have a close construction among various classes and subclasses. SO, far, phenotypes have not "recreated" dinosaurs . Would it be possible?
Maybe with applied genomic technology and several generations of hybridization. WHO KNOWS? Weve already managed to create ex nihilo all the nucleotides including uracil.
Recreating "life" may be an applied benefit sometime. First we have to understand how it happened in the first place.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2014 10:11 am
@Frank Apisa,
Are any of his "inferior clubs" laser signed or do they sport any thing that could identify them with Tiger Woods?

If your answer is NO, then would I agree that I m inaccurate about his connection to douche bag golfers.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2014 10:20 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Are any of his "inferior clubs" laser signed or do they sport any thing that could identify them with Tiger Woods?


Actually...no. But he is so closely associated with Nike...that the mention of one brings visions of the other to any regular golfer. And while Nike makes some reasonable golf balls...their other equipment is decidedly second class compared with Callaway or Titleist. (Some pros have actually wondered how much better Tiger would have done if he had not taken the Nike endorsement offer...and played with decent clubs.)

The Nike "swoosh" is very closely identified with Woods...at least among golfers.

Quote:

If your answer is NO, then would I agree that I m inaccurate about his connection to douche bag golfers.


I certainly did not take offense to that remark, because you used "weekend" in the insult. I play four to five days a week...but never on weekends. The courses are way too crowded on Saturday, Sunday, or holidays.

We douche bag weekday golfers are hard to insult...and actually enjoy the attempts by non-golfers to do so.
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2014 11:37 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
... you weren't talking about "breaking glass" by a vandal ...

What is the difference? The behavior of a vandal on the net is not very much different ... and the people writing malware are not IT geniouses, but rather absolute retards that are writhing to present themselaves as geniouses, which is different. Anyway.

further wrote:
Yet, you've attempted to make a joke about rocks of "the right type and age". Kind of a two faced little guy aren't you?

I have had great teachers ... in your face for example.

further wrote:
... your generous "Acceptance" of evolution as a "plausible explantion" is bullshit. You are a committed Creationists who's admitted as such in your past statements.

As you say it.
FM, you have been told what you wanted to know. Your misinterpretation of my understanding of the world is not interesting to me ... at all.

further wrote:
Show me where Ive done so.

All the time, like for example in the statement above: 'You are a committed Creationist'.
You have some opinion a priory about something or somebody (accepted as truth of the last resort without any verification and validation), and it doesn't matter who says what your bias opinion (based on nothing objective) remains unchanged and firmly fixed like reinforced concrete structure. No argument, whatsoever, can change it, until you change it by yourself .... by some pseudo- justification (if any at all).

further wrote:
How and the hell do you only accept the science that you decide is "The right type".

... and 'How and the hell do you only accept the evidences that you decide are "from the rocks of the right type ... and age" '.
Why don't you accept any evidences, like for example the complexity of the bio-structures or the backtrack of the DNA on the computer?
If you are biased towards cherry-picking of evidences, why should I not be biased towards cherry picking the sciences that I would like to use? What is the difference?
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2014 12:12 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Recreating "life" may be an applied benefit sometime. First we have to understand how it happened in the first place.


I wasn't talking about "re-creating" life, fm, using applied genomic technology. And had I been I would not have used "several". I was talking about a similar class of animals as dinosaurs just happening again. Not necessarily exactly like the dinosaurs of old but they were not exactly alike among themselves.

You're being arrogantly anthropomorphic again as you were with "ascendency". That's what Christianity is based upon. The special nature of humans as exhibited in a geology technician in Penn. who owns a dude ranch and is fond of whale spotting and shaping the world around with power tools.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2014 12:20 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
The courses are way too crowded on Saturday, Sunday, or holidays.


Which means that membership is not very exclusive and that is a bit inconsistent with the aloof nature of the game. Tossing second-hand horseshoes at a peg is more proper to such classes of persons. And a damn sight cheaper and with bar facilities adjacent to the playing area.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2014 02:35 pm
@Herald,
Quote:

All the time, like for example in the statement above: 'You are a committed Creationist'
Sty with the topi . My assessment of you is fact based from your silly assertions. What I really wanted from you is to run our some area of science you feel that Ive misrepresented??
You are unable to do that since your worldview is one of religious tatements and misreresentations of actual evidence.
Whether you Care what I feel or not, I will jump down your gullet when you come up with these scientific inconsistencies that your attempt to blow by everyone.

Quote:
'How and the hell do you only accept the evidences that you decide are "from the rocks of the right type ... and age"
Theres where we differ. I haven't made up anything about the rocks. Im telling you clear evidenced FACTS that have resulted from many field expiditions and lab tests. DONE, by the way by hundreds , probably thousands of scientists at unrelated research centers. Im an applied science guy who USES THESE TOOLS IN MY EVERYDAY WORK. Ive made a very nice living doing so and hd I bet my wads on Creation "Science" I nd my clients would be broke .
You, on the other hnd pull your worldview out of your own ass and parade it like you even understand what the hell your saying. Like this last line Im hanging out for us all to consider

Quote:
Why don't you accept any evidences, like for example the complexity of the bio-structures or the backtrack of the DNA on the computer?
If you are biased towards cherry-picking of evidences, why should I not be biased towards cherry picking the sciences that I would like to use? What is the difference?
You hve no idea even what youre saying here do you?? mit it.

We can only study DN or ostteocalcin from as far bck as these substances hve NOT degraded (GET IT?) How would you find any DNA from the Cambrian

we can infer from similar organisms how theyre descendency transpired by homology among descendent structures (from the fossil record this is an amazing tool -you should learn something about it before you keep sticking your fet into your mouth)

Your "Cherry picking" is not science until you can show me you even understand what you are asking for and HOW.

DNA mapping and stat analyses of hologous LIVING organism is part of a paleontology grad program at most universities. Paleo is an important tool in oil drilling. Its as critical as trtigrphic and basin analyses. Certain fossil ptterns unique to oil and gs beds of widely different ges need to be assessed first by test drilling that applied paleo scientists get pieces of an help decide whether we spend 10 to 100 million dollars into inking large production wells. The age of "spit nd drill" is 75 years past.
If you wish to understand what the paleo scientists and pleobiologis have to offer to your oblivious existence, turn the key to your car. We at the APG have bumper stickers that say
Like to drive?
Kiss a geologist.

Quote:
the people writing malware are not IT geniouses, but rather absolute retards that are writhing to present themselaves as geniouses, which is different


Your rgument here is based upon a feeling that everyone is challenged save you?
Shall I abase myself before your intellectual mastery of all things considered?
Abase this.


spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2014 04:27 pm
@farmerman,
It's too long, fm, for anyone sensible to be bothered debasing.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2014 05:47 pm
@spendius,
As a matter of fact it was something in the manner of a begging bowl being shaken under our noses. A plaintive wail that somebody else is collecting our money under false pretenses.
0 Replies
 
JimmyJ
 
  0  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2014 07:27 pm
@Herald,
Quote:
I don't doubt, but maybe I would not be fond for a 'basic biology class' to explain this to me - much more interesting it would be for some advanced class to try to explain it ... not as simple axiomatic statements with assigned a priori truth value, but as serious justification (at least), if there are no evidences (for the processes driving the evolution, and for the existence of the evolution itself).


That sounds like a personal problem to me.
If you lack the education, I advise you to attend a class or two.

Quote:
Smarter does not exclude beliefs ... and lack of scruples, and talking different things from what you are thinking ... and having assistants that are developing malware when they lack actual arguments.

Besides you don't have a single piece of verifiable and reliable evidence that most of the scientific theories are not made because they are convenient, but are exclusively made for the sake of the truth. When there are a lot of various other considerations, the truth value and the seeking for the truth become very relative ... and it has nothing to do with intelligence.


You did not answer the question, so I'll repeat it. Are you smarter than the worlds Biologists??
JimmyJ
 
  0  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2014 07:28 pm
@Herald,
Quote:
Devoting life could not be any argument ... for whatsoever. A lot of people devote their lives to develop malware, for example, there are some other people devoting their lives to develop fake financial system (to cheat the population of the world), there are even some other people that devote their lives to develop psychotronic projects in order to make cloudless professional career (by avoiding the Hippocratic Oath in the use of medical knowledge for 'strategic purposes'), etc.


/facepalm

You're hopeless.
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  2  
Reply Sun 19 Jan, 2014 11:33 pm
@JimmyJ,
JimmyJ wrote:
Are you smarter than the worlds Biologists??

This question is invalid.
Because you will hardly be able to make any interpretation of this for life ... and to avoid hearing general talk about stupidity, personal problems and others of the kind, I will make an interpretation for you.
Invalid question means: 1. Irrelevant to the topic; 2. Unnecessary for the discussion; 3. Based on incorrect assumptions.
To be invalid for a question it is enough to have at least one of the three, but your question is triple invalid as it covers all the three.

RE: Irrelevant to the topic
O.K. most of the biologists are medical doctors, and by statistics they are within the top 5% of the IQ test assessment, and there are most of the IT as well. There are astro-biologists of NASA that are within the top 1% of IQ ... and you for sure are not within that 1% ... no matter how many satellites of the psychotronics you may have at your disposal and control.
All this is obviously irrelevant to the topic of ID vs Evolition.

RE: Unnecessary for the discussion
It doesn't matter what I think about myself and about my IQ and its relation to the IQ of some other people. What matters is what you think about your ego ... that very soon will need a 5 m high gate to pass through.

RE: Incorrect assumption
- Your assumption that all the biologists unanimously agree on evolution is not true.
- Your assumption that you and your opinion are representing all the biologists on Earth is definitely not true.
- Your assumption that somebody should be more clever than all the biologists on Earth in order to make a verification and validation test of any theory (the theory of evolution in this case) is not true.
- Your assumption that you can misuse to infinity with the powers provided to you by the taxpayers is also not entirely true.

Conclusion: You don't need this answer for the discussion, unless you need it for some other purposes.
When a given question is invalid, the answer to it is objectless.

In case of some personal problems why don't you go to some elementary course in logic before presenting yourself as top 1% IQ?
 

Related Topics

Intelligent Design - Question by giujohn
What is Intelligent Design? - Discussion by RexRed
Do *ANY* creationists understand evolution? - Discussion by rosborne979
The Bed Bug/Parasite Plant Theory - Question by TeePee38
dna worlds - Discussion by Syamsu
DD VERSUS EVOLUTION - Discussion by Setanta
The Evil of god - Discussion by giujohn
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/19/2024 at 08:48:53