|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 10/30/2004 : 20:34:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
******But, by your own logic, your theory predicts a supernatural designer. IF your argument/evidence about CSI were correct anyway.******
Why?
You are a moron, that's why.
You state that it's impossible for CSI to occur randomly in nature.
You state that CSI "must" be designed.
Therefore, you state that no designer can naturally occur.
Therefore, you state that the designer is of supernatural origin.
quote:
While the sun is a source of energy for phototrophs via photosynthesis, SLOT will always catch them as these organisms will still age and die.
So.... thermodynamics is now responsible for aging?
Evidence? Oh, wait.... nevermind. You don't have any evidence, and you'll just ignore my request for evidence or create some straw-man to kill anyway.
quote:
Finally, if you believe the sun could provide the energy necessary to overcome the decay of SLOT in mammals, get naked, go stand out in the sun for a month and report back to tell us how much younger you got (If you're still alive).
By ingesting the products of photosynthesis..... wait, there you go AGAIN claiming, without evidence, that SLOT causes aging and decay in living organisms....
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2004 : 20:40:19 [Permalink]
|
******DUDE: But, by your own logic, your theory predicts a supernatural designer. IF your argument/evidence about CSI were correct anyway.
JERRY: Why?
DUDE: You are a moron, that's why.*******
ROFLMAO...You guys do make for an evening of entertainment. 
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2004 : 20:59:05 [Permalink]
|
Once again you fail to address the content of a post that exposes the lie you are preaching.
THAT's why I consider you a moron.
Just admit that your own reasoning states that the "designer" your theory says exists must be of supernatural origin.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2004 : 21:03:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JerryB
******DUDE: But, by your own logic, your theory predicts a supernatural designer. IF your argument/evidence about CSI were correct anyway.
JERRY: Why?
DUDE: You are a moron, that's why.*******
ROFLMAO...You guys do make for an evening of entertainment.
Delighted that we amuse you. It is always a good day when we can bring joy into another's life.
Now then, debunk the apparently, easily debunkable Theory of Evolution in favor of your version of ID. Thus far, as far as I can see, you've not even scratched it. I'd also like to see some emperical evidence for the existance of this 'designer' beyond loosely hypothetical math. Who dat be's, huh?
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2004 : 21:33:31 [Permalink]
|
JerryB is obviuosly intelligent. I find this sad in that he spends all of his brain power defending a belief instead of using that intelligence to find truth. He can even delude himself into misrepresenting the second law of thermodynamics. I'll just say this once more and then ignore you - Nothing in evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. The entropy of the universe still increases with micro, macro or mega evolution. There is only a local decrease in entropy for life in general because of the earth is an open system.
Have a great life and
Intelligent Designer bless you.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2004 : 21:35:13 [Permalink]
|
Since no response has been forthcoming from Jerry to repeated requests for a definition of "complex macroevolution" (and just like with math, if we can't agree on a definition, all discussion is pointless), I took it upon myself to go find one. A Google search for the phrase "complex macroevolution" returns 44 results, summarized below (not all 44 appear, as many are duplicates) for your convenience, Jerry:
Chronos, at ISCID, uses the phrase as you do, and so does Jep.
Someone named Jeptha on ChristianForums uses it, too, along with people quoting Jeptha.
Someone mentions Jeptha on EvC, as well, quoting his/her writings at ARN. And Jeptha makes an appearance on EvC, also.
And, of course, PvM mentions you and the term at Panda's Thumb, but only to say that what you say is wrong.
On the other hand, George Christoakos uses the term as an adjective, not as a noun, in a 1990 doctoral dissertation on the random field concept in environmental science. This has little, if any, relevance.
No, in reality, ARN is the center of the "complex macroevolution" universe:Now, I did find Jeptha giving a definition here. Jeptha wrote:The terms were introduced by a Russian entomologist in the early 1900s. Not by a creationist. Micro means random change in an organi |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2004 : 21:53:33 [Permalink]
|
******Have a great life and Intelligent Designer bless you.*****
Thanks for the kind words. Obviously if brains were handed out in 50 gallon drums some of the collective IQs on this forum wouldn't fill a thimble to float on the ether of their imaginary pseudo-utopias. But there is some intelligence on here, one just has to sort through the debris to find it, so to speak.
As a person who has searched all my life for truth, I'm thoroughly convinced via the influence of math, logic and science that I have found it.
But actually, I wouldn't really know what to do with the blessings of an astronaut. Sorry, totally into science.
Thanks for your posts.  |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2004 : 23:07:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JerryB
I wish you would change your name to something I can spell.
Right. How about I just call myself 'A'?
quote:
I have nothing to do with that group as they seem more religionists than scientists to me. However, I have never heard before that they are attempting to destroy science and replace it with something called theistic science. You probably just made that up, did you not? If not some cites, quotes, references, please?
An idea-- go to the fucking link I cited, and read the goddamned quote. No, you lazy fuck, I didn't "make this up." Instead, I acutally read it from this link, which I noted in my original post.
So clarify, in case you're too worked up to figure it out: in an earlier post, I said that some IDers were ready to "[destroy] science as it is currently done and [replace] it with 'theistic science'." I linked the site. If you're too fucking lazy to look it up, then don't fucking accuse me of making shit up. Instead, why not look up the fucking references I linked?
I know I'm stupid and all, so I'll quote it here, so smart people like you can get it:
http://www.antievolution.org/features/
If you go about half-way down (it's hard if you're dumb like me), you'll read:
"The 1998 manifesto of the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture lays out their plans for destroying science as it is currently done and replacing it with "theistic science."
That would be, as near as I can tell, a quote or reference. |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 10/30/2004 23:15:30 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2004 : 23:08:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
What it demonstrates, I think, is that the numbers don't really mean much. There is a solution to Rubik's Cube and there's nothing magical about it. Once that solution is known, a ramdom example of the puzzle can be solved in minutes in spite of the great odds against it.
This is it almost exactly, filthy. You have to think of it as a lottery. The odds of you winning before a drawing is astronomical, yet people win the lottery every week. The error is one of time. Before a drawing your odds might be 1 in 3 billion. Pretty remote. After you've already won, however, your odds of winning are 100%, since you've already won. The mistake comes in taking something that's already happened and then trying to extrapolate the odds back from that.
Here's a good article on the Intelligent Design from the Skeptics Dictionary. In it he quotes:
quote:
"... rarity by itself shouldn't necessarily be evidence of anything. When one is dealt a bridge hand of thirteen cards, the probability of being dealt that particular hand is less than one in 600 billion. Still, it would be absurd for someone to be dealt a hand, examine it carefully, calculate that the probability of getting it is less than one in 600 billion, and then conclude that he must not have been dealt that very hand because it is so very improbable." --John Allen Paulos
This is essentially all Dembski is doing. He's taking a current organism, extrapolating backward all of the things which must have occured for it to be here, and concluding that the odds are too overwhelming for this organism to have been created by chance. It's pure statistical manipulation.
For instance, when two people have sex, there is a chance they may conceive a child. When a child is conceived, it isn't really a shock. But if one were to take any one particular individual and try to extrapolate the odds of this particular person coming into existence backward from the moment of conception, it quickly reaches such improbabilty as to appear impossible.
For instance, from a a reader's letter
quote:
Let us assume for the sake of argument that the Earth is about 6,000 years old. Let us further assume that a human generation is about 20 years. In that case, we are some 300 generations from Adam and Eve. Now, each of our parents has two copies of each gene, but we get only one copy from each parent, so the odds of getting a particular gene from our parents is one in four (that's a big assumption--there might be thousands of variants of any given gene, but the principle is the same). Our mothers typically have about 400-500 fertile eggs over a lifetime. Our fathers produce some 60 million sperm cells in each ejaculation, of which American marrieds have perhaps 120 per year. Of those cells, only one can fertilize an egg. Given a female fertile period of about five days a month, that means that only about 25 ejaculations per year even have a chance of resulting in pregnancy. About half of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortions. So, here's what the odds of your existing as a result of your parents' sexual relationship are:
Particular gene 1:4
Total genes: 1:30,000
Eggs: 1:400
Sperm: 1:60,000,000
Intercourse 1:25
Ejaculations 1:120
Fertile sex life 1:40
Female fertile days: 1:6
Abortion: 1:2
I think that covers it--I get 4,147,200,000,000,000,000,000 (a bit over 4 septillion):1, but it should be multiplied by the number of variants in the average gene.
But wait, what if our parents had married others, or our mothers had been raped, or our fathers had an extramarital liaison? Conservatively, I'd guess we each have at least 100 different potential fathers and 100 potential mothers (but Mary broke up with Bill in 1957, or Sam moved to Moosejaw the year before Judy moved to Sacramento), so add four more zeroes. And the same problem obtains for each of our parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, and so on. So we have 41,472,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (41 octillion and change) times 2 to the 300th power (2.4 X 10 to the 90th). My HP scientific calculator can't handle a number so big as this final calculation. Obviously, then, none of us exist. -John Renish
And that was generously using the biblical dates of creation. So as you can see, the argument for design from improbabilty, as Jerry has been arguing, is pure codswallop. Yes, it's perfectly correct "math," but it's still horseshit reasoning.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/30/2004 23:41:59 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2004 : 23:08:48 [Permalink]
|
Jerry wrote:quote:
Obviously if brains were handed out in 50 gallon drums some of the collective IQs on this forum wouldn't fill a thimble to float on the ether of their imaginary pseudo-utopias.
Well, I smell the distinctive odor of bridges being burned, in a rather juvenile fashion. This adds a whole new meaning to "going down in flames," Jerry. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2004 : 23:30:02 [Permalink]
|
| LOL...I ain't going anywhere, dudeman. Believe it or not there are some intelligent posts ourstanding that I will be glad to respond to when they come in. Just because I'm ignoring the trolls does not translate into therefore I'm out of here. You will eat those words, I'm afraid. You're used to bulldozing your way through an argument hiding your blatant ignorance in math, logic and science. Those days are over in this thread. Stay tuned. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2004 : 23:52:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JerryB
Believe it or not there are some intelligent posts ourstanding that I will be glad to respond to when they come in.
Ooh! Ooh! Am I an intelligent poster? I need your validation. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2004 : 00:05:01 [Permalink]
|
Jerry wrote:quote:
LOL...
Several other people have suggested that when you post "LOL," it really means "the person I'm responding to is correct, I'm just to a-twitter to admit it, and laugh nervously." The more I interact with you personally, the more I'm inclined to believe it.quote:
I ain't going anywhere, dudeman. Believe it or not there are some intelligent posts ourstanding that I will be glad to respond to when they come in.
I have a choice here: to assume that "ourstanding" is simply a typo of "outstanding," in which case you're telling me that there are intelligent posts in this thread you just haven't replied to yet, or to assume that "ourstanding" is a brand new word you've invented (like "complex macroevolution") in order to confuse people. Sheesh, what to do...?quote:
Just because I'm ignoring the trolls does not translate into therefore I'm out of here.
No, but painting an unnamed portion of this forum as being stupid or as being trolls doesn't sit well with this administrator. I suggest you start behaving by your own stated standards, if you want to stay, since nobody invitied you. You suggested guidelines for intelligent discourse, but have abandoned them rather quickly.quote:
You will eat those words, I'm afraid.
Not at all. You are busy trying to ensure that some people here will never discuss things peaceably with you ("burning bridges"), as well as ensuring that fewer and fewer "intelligent" posts will be forthcoming ("going down"), and doing both by insulting people ("in flames"). Your behaviour in this regard is transparent. The only way I will "eat those words" is if you stick around to be the next forum punching-bag in some sort of messianic "I'm being persecuted, so therefore I'm right" delusion.quote:
You're used to bulldozing your way through an argument hiding your blatant ignorance in math, logic and science.
Not at all. I'm used to people correcting my mistakes. All you've done is told me I'm wrong, without showing me why or how. In that regard, your denials of my arguments are not compelling at all. I'm quite interested in how my latest attack against your ideas about common descent violating the SLOT will be refuted, but simply ignoring it or calling it unintelligent is the least-compelling rebuttal of all.quote:
Those days are over in this thread.
Well, I could just lock the thread, and thus prove you wrong.quote:
Stay tuned.
Oh, I await your next post with an anticipation you wouldn't believe. [/sarcasm] |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2004 : 00:15:39 [Permalink]
|
"Well, I could just lock the thread, and thus prove you wrong."
AHHH....It comes out..... and this is the reason this forum is so unbalanced as far as debating the issues. There are no issues to debate:
"The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise."
The truth is you welcome no dissent at all in critical thinking, science or logic. And if anyone comes in here with any other ideas other than your pre-conceived conclusions, you'll just lock the dang thread.
The moderator is also the chief troll. LOL..Lock the thread and obviously lose the debate, Dufus.
ROFLMAO..... |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2004 : 00:28:51 [Permalink]
|
Jerry wrote:quote:
AHHH....It comes out..... and this is the reason this forum is so unbalanced as far as debating the issues. There are no issues to debate:
"The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise."
The truth is you welcome no dissent at all in critical thinking, science or logic. And if anyone comes in here with any other ideas other than your pre-conceived conclusions, you'll just lock the dang thread.
No, this is completely illogical and unscientific. You didn't bother to find a single thread I've locked due to people having different ideas from me, did you? Of course not. You just made a rash assumption, without any evidence whatsoever, and ran with it.
Science is based in evidence, Jerry. That's what you've been saying for eleven pages now. Yet even for something even this simple, you've failed to come up with any evidence at all. You're no better than the people you denigrate at the NAS in this regard.quote:
The moderator is also the chief troll.
Another insult. Direct this time. It seems that when you're backed into a corner with the fact that you act in a completely different manner than you espouse, you'll lash out at anyone.quote:
LOL..Lock the thread and obviously lose the debate, Dufus.
Another direct insult.
Here's the deal: keep insulting me in this fashion, and I'll just ban you, but leave the thread open. I won't lose the debate, simply because I won't be banning you for the ideas you present, but for the fact that you're a complete hypocrite and an obnoxious ass. You won't have any evidence that I've banned you for disagreeing with the orthodoxy, because I'll have stated my reasons for banning you in no uncertain terms, and they won't include your scientific, logical, or mathematical ideas.
Now, you can sit here and discuss the real issues, or you can continue as you've been headed. Since this is the first exposition of your extremely poor social behaviour, we'll start out with zero strikes against you. Deal? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
