News and Politics Forum

Holy crap.  Now you're even stealing my putdowns!

http://www.npboards.com/thread/12642/th … 47#p233347

Way to think for yourself there, nak. 

Qwinn

P.S.  Thank you for giving me cause to revisit that thread.  It was fun reliving my absolute favoritest of all the times you've displayed your complete miserableness as a human being and the most enjoyable time I've ever spent smacking your pissant self into the ground.

Last edited by Qwinn (07-08-2008 03:46 AM)

Oh, my, God

I don't have to do anything.  All I need to do is sit here and laugh my ass off knowing you think you're winning.

Everything you said in that last post contradicts everything you said before.  You claimed like 10 times that my purpose in asking someone else was because it would somehow - magically - protect my quivering self from the humiliation I would feel at not answering you - because I just -can't-, because I can't -think- for myself.

You really believe -anyone- buys that but you?

I challenged you to find one single person who did.  You couldn't.  You still can't.  And as long as you're the only person with that opinion of me, I could care the fuck less, because -you- don't even believe it, you're lying for the sake of trolling anyway - that's obvious to everyone.  You keep harping on it because you -think- it somehow rankles me any more than the rest of your bullshit does.  It doesn't, in the least (though it might if it were from someone less contemptible or more honest).  The only reason it keeps coming up is because you keep sucking away at it like Michael Jackson on a preteen boy's dick, cause you -think- it matters to me.  The fact that I won't answer is what demonstrates that I -really- don't give a fuck what you think.

Here's a clue, genius.  The reason I didn't answer those questions the -first- time you asked them?  Is because of that thread I just linked.  Check the dates.  I'd just gotten done annihilating you in that thread, and you'd proved what a completely dishonest cretin you were beyond the capacity of -anyone- besides yourself to deny it, and you actually were so repugnant that even mocking you wasn't worth my time for a while. 

If you're failing to remember exactly when that was, it was during that two weeks where you were so desperate and craving for my attention that, because I was completely ignoring you on the boards, you hit the smite button on me over and over for almost two weeks, whether I posted or not.  It was pathetic, like the annoying ex-girlfriend that keeps phoning you and hanging up weeks after you dumped her in no uncertain terms, only a thousand times sadder.

Some time has passed.  I can enjoy mocking you again.  Which is what I'm doing.

Except that you keep stealing the fun away from me, because everything you say is so idiotic that you essentially mock yourself beyond redemption before I can get to it

Could you please just wait a -little- while before making a complete ass of yourself with every post, so I can have some fun doing it?

I can't believe you're stealing my putdowns now, and when caught out calling it a "homage".  All while trying to prove that -I- can't think for myself.  ROTFL.  You may make this thread surpass that last one as the most idiotic display I've ever seen on the internets.  I dunno though.  You'd have to try hard.  Your bullshit was -extraordinary- in that other thread.  Like nothing I've ever seen before or since.

That "dance, monkey, dance" was SO unexpected.  Naturally, you'd have said the exact same thing if I -did- answer your questions - did you think it was tough to figure out that you were -inevitably- going to retreat to that lame ass taunt, no matter what?  Of course, if there were even a smidgeon of truth in that comparison, it's still not exactly "dancing", it's more like "demonstrate to everyone what a fucking tool I am, monkey, demonstrate it again!".  Apparently, the "monkey" is supposed to be the embarrassed one in that scenario.  Heh.  Face it, nak, if you could manipulate me, I'd have answered your questions by now.  Hilarious that you're trying to claim that my not answering them after your unceasing insistence that I do so - droning on about it for fucking weeks - is proof that you can make me "dance".  Too fucking funny.  No, nak, I'm not dancing for you.  I'm laughing at your feeble, pathetic attempts to -make- me dance for you, and I don't need to be manipulated to do that one bit.

You know what the saddest thing about you is, nak?  The way you -always-, in every argument, in every conflict you come into, you desperately try to create all these "heads I win, tails you lose" scenarios.  I suppose I can understand it, since in any case where it's a possibility for you to lose (which is always, everywhere except in your own mind), you invariably do.  Doesn't make it any less pathetic though.

Qwinn

P.S.  And this is where you will give an extremely short reply along the lines of "I'm not going to read all that" to cover the fact that you're a laughing stock again and can't think of any other reply that won't make you look like an even bigger loser.  Seen it a dozen times from you nak, no doubt we'll see it again.

Last edited by Qwinn (07-08-2008 06:18 AM)

glfredrick wrote:

MC Escher wrote:

Fine. Put up or shut up.

This is YOUR moment. Either back your claim or forever hold your peace.

Ok,  here is one example, just for you...

http://www.yale.edu/rosenbaum/rosen_research.html

As I said before, I'm not going to carry your water...

The only water you're expected to carry, Gunga Douche; is your own. And you have yet to do that.

The link you provided...?

In what way does that link provide an example of CS/ID make a testable prediction?


Do you HAVE an English language dictionary? Do you KNOW what the words "Testable" and "Prediction" mean?

MC Escher wrote:

glfredrick wrote:

MC Escher wrote:

Fine. Put up or shut up.

This is YOUR moment. Either back your claim or forever hold your peace.

Ok,  here is one example, just for you...

http://www.yale.edu/rosenbaum/rosen_research.html

As I said before, I'm not going to carry your water...

The only water you're expected to carry, Gunga Douche; is your own. And you have yet to do that.

The link you provided...?

In what way does that link provide an example of CS/ID make a testable prediction?


Do you HAVE an English language dictionary? Do you KNOW what the words "Testable" and "Prediction" mean?

Thanks for making my point so concisely...  No matter WHAT I post, it will/would NEVER be enough.

I'll tell you what...  Ever heard of SETI?  What exactly are they looking for?

Next, which of the now common branches of science are you ready to discard, based on your narrow (and self-serving) definition?  I'll let you stew about that a bit before responding with additional info.

Last edited by glfredrick (07-08-2008 05:38 PM)

glfredrick wrote:

MC Escher wrote:

glfredrick wrote:

Ok,  here is one example, just for you...

http://www.yale.edu/rosenbaum/rosen_research.html

As I said before, I'm not going to carry your water...

The only water you're expected to carry, Gunga Douche; is your own. And you have yet to do that.

The link you provided...?

In what way does that link provide an example of CS/ID make a testable prediction?


Do you HAVE an English language dictionary? Do you KNOW what the words "Testable" and "Prediction" mean?

Thanks for making my point so concisely...  No matter WHAT I post, it will/would NEVER be enough.

Don't blame ME for what YOU lack.

Your ignorance and your grim determination to embrace non-science AS science is not my fault.

http://www.idthefuture.com/2006/10/does … aurea.html

Smoot describes the evidence for purposeful fine tuning in greater detail: (Wrinkles in Time: The Imprint of Creation)
“In order to make a universe as big and wonderful as it is, lasting as long as it is—we’re talking fifteen billion years and we’re talking huge distances here—in order for it to be that big, you have to make it perfectly. Otherwise, imperfections would mount up and the universe would either collapse on itself or fly apart, and so it’s actually quite a precise job. And I don’t know if you’ve had discussions with people about how critical it is that the density of the universe come out so close to the density that decides whether it’s going to keep expanding forever or collapse back, but we know it’s within one percent.” (p. 168)

Philosophical materialists insist that matter and energy are all there is. How do they respond to the testimony of such scientists? They hope no one will notice. One tactic of philosophical materialists (who represent roughly 10 percent of the American population as well as a small minority of the global population) is to try to present those who see physical evidence for design in nature as marginal crackpots or as purely motivated by religious faith. This tactic becomes increasingly difficult when respected scientists stand up and notice in public the plain evidence of nature. Here are a few more relevant quotations from the Veritas Forum web page:

Paul Davies has moved from promoting atheism to conceding that "the laws [of physics] ... seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design." (Superforce, p. 243) He further testifies, "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all ... it seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe ... The impression of design is overwhelming." (The Cosmic Blueprint, p. 203)

Paul Davies
Superforce, p. 243
The Cosmic Blueprint, p. 203

“The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming.”

Freeman Dyson
Disturbing the Universe
New York: Harper & Row, 1979, p. 250

"The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation ... His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."

Albert Einstein

"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

Sir Fred Hoyle

“If we accept the big bang theory, and most cosmologists now do, then a ‘creation’ of some sort is forced upon us.”

Barry Parker
Creation—the Story of the Origin and Evolution of the Universe
New York & London: Plenum Press, 1988, p. 202

Compared to the alternative of supposing that matter and energy somehow always existed, British physicist Edmund Whittaker says, “It is simpler to postulate creation ex nihilo—Divine will constituting Nature from nothingness.”

Edmund Whittaker cited in

Fred Heeren
Show Me God: What the Message from Space Is Telling Us About God
Day Star Publications, 2000, pp. 121

“We do, of course, have an alternative. We could say that there was no creation, and that the universe has always been here. But this is even more difficult to accept than creation.”

Barry Parker
Creation—the Story of the Origin and Evolution of the Universe
New York & London: Plenum Press, 1988, pp. 201-202

Einstein later chided himself for introducing his famous fudge factor in order to make his theory fit. He called the addition of his cosmological constant “the greatest blunder of my life.” (cited by Richard Morris, The Fate of the Universe, New York: Playboy Press, 1982, p. 28) He wrote: “The mathematician Friedmann found a way out of the dilemma. His results then found a surprising confirmation by Hubble’s discovery of the expansion (of the universe).” (cited by Barry Parker, Creation—the Story of the Origin and Evolution of the Universe, New York & London: Plenum Press, 1988, pp. 53-54). After this Einstein wrote not only of the necessity for a beginning, but of his desire “to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thought, the rest are details.” (cited by Nick Herbert, Quantum Reality—Beyond the New Physics, Garden City, New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1985, p. 177).

Fred Heeren
Show Me God: What the Message from Space Is Telling Us About God
Day Star Publications, 2000, pp. 135

“Certainly there was something that set it all off. Certainly, if you are religious, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match with Genesis.”

Robert Wilson
An interview with Fred Heeren
Show Me God: What the Message from Space Is Telling Us About God
Day Star Publications, 2000, p. 157

“How is it that common elements such as carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen happened to have just the kind of atomic structure that they needed to combine to make the molecules upon which life depends? It is almost as though the universe had been consciously designed…”

Richard Morris
The Fate of the Universe
New York: Playboy Press, 1982, p. 28

"Every one of these forces must have just the right strength if there is to be any possibility of life. For example, if electrical forces were much stronger than they are, then no element heavier than hydrogen could form ... But electrical repulsion cannot be too weak. if it were, protons would combine too easily, and the sun ...(assuming that it had somehow managed to exist up to now) would explode like a thermonuclear bomb."

Richard Morris
The Fate of the Universe
New York: Playboy Press, 1982, p. 153

"Stronger (nuclear) forces would cause all of the primordial hydrogen -- not just 25% of it -- to be synthesized into helium early in the history of the universe. And without hydrogen, the stars could never begin to shine."

Richard Morris
The Fate of the Universe
New York: Playboy Press, 1982, p. 153

“To make sense of this view (design as opposed to accident), one must accept the idea of transcendence: that the Designer exists in a totally different order of reality or being, not restrained within the bounds of the Universe itself.”

George F. R. Ellis
Before the Beginning – Cosmology Explained
London and New York: Boyars/Bowerdean, 1993, 1994, p. 97

And here is one more they could add to their page, this from Nobel Laureate Arno Penzias:

In summary, therefore, astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say "supernatural"), plan.

(from The New York Times, Jan. 2, 1979)

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB … amp;id=200

Yet developments in philosophy of science and the information sciences provide the grounds for a decisive refutation of both these objections. First, contemporary design theory does not constitute an argument from ignorance. Design theorists infer design not just because natural processes cannot explain the origin of biological systems, but because these systems manifest the distinctive hallmarks of intelligently designed systems--that is, they possess features that in any other realm of experience would trigger the recognition of an intelligent cause. For example, in his book Darwin’s Black Box (1996), Michael Behe has inferred design not only because the gradualistic mechanism of natural selection cannot produce "irreducibly complex" systems, but also because in our experience "irreducible complexity" is a feature of systems known to have been intelligently designed. That is, whenever we see systems that have the feature of irreducible complexity and we know the causal story about how such systems originated, invariably "intelligent design" played a role in the origin of such systems. Thus, Behe infers intelligent design as the best explanation for the origin of irreducible complexity in cellular molecular motors, for example, based upon what we know, not what we don’t know, about the causal powers of nature and intelligent agents, respectively.

Similarly, the "sequence specificity" or "specificity and complexity" or "information content" of DNA suggests a prior intelligent cause, again because "specificity and complexity" or "high information content" constitutes a distinctive hallmark (or signature) of intelligence. Indeed, in all cases where we know the causal origin of "high information content," experience has shown that intelligent design played a causal role.

Design theorists infer a past intelligent cause based upon present knowledge of cause and effect relationships. Inferences to design thus employ the standard uniformitarian method of reasoning used in all historical sciences, many of which routinely detect intelligent causes. We would not say, for example, that an archeologist had committed a "scribe of the gaps" fallacy simply because he inferred that an intelligent agent had produced an ancient hieroglyphic inscription. Instead, we recognize that the archeologist has made an inference based upon the presence of a feature (namely, "high information content") that invariably implicates an intelligent cause, not (solely) upon the absence of evidence for a suitably efficacious natural cause.

http://www.idthefuture.com/2006/11/budd.html

A friend who works at a national biomedical facility told me recently that he now finds it impossible to keep up with all the scientific literature challenging neo-Darwinism (i.e., textbook evolutionary theory). "The stuff just piles up in my office," he said. "I glance at the abstracts, download the pdfs, but can't read it all." We agreed that during 2005-2006, while the intelligent design controversy has been soaking up headlines and media scrutiny, leading evolutionary theoreticians themselves have been quietly uttering heresy in the halls of Darwin. It's easier to misbehave, you know, when someone else (ID) is really acting up and drawing off all the attention.

Here's an example, from the heap of hundreds (no kidding). Graham Budd is a theoretician at the University of Uppsala who thinks hard about the problem of macroevolution. In his new paper, "On the origin and evolution of major morphological characters," Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 81 (2006):609-28, Budd begins by arguing that standard microevolutionary theory doesn't work for the origin of higher-level (body plan) characters, or what he calls "compound characters":

It should already be clear that the corpus of microevolutionary theory is not sufficient (although normally considered necessary) to explain this type of evolution because it is concentrated on simple character set evolution, i.e. selective and other forces acting on populations. So the first important conclusion to draw is that population biology cannot explain change in compound character sets, only in simple ones. (p. 612)

glfredrick wrote:

For instance, a purely naturalistic evolutionary scheme must ALSO include some means for life to have arisen from non-organic matter, some means for the basic molecules that formed organic matter to further assemble, become more complex (rather than less), and eventually form what we actually DO observe -- highly complex, tightly regulated life systems, with operating cellular machines that are seemingly irreducible, one needing the other in a synthesis package (often called symbiotic by naturalists in order to explain what they cannot currently explain) that works together to ever increase in complexity until we have thinking beings that can rationally reason all this information.

Who says it doesn't?  This sort of research has been done since the Miller-Urey experiments back in the 50's.  I personally know several people working on it.  Admittedly, it's not a complete and coherent theory yet, and it will always be a model - as fossils of the first ribozyme will of course never be found, and the closest anybody will be able to get is an indication that chemical processes could have fired up, say, an RNA world.  Which is not implausible, at least for this biogeochemist.

Also, none of the above is really related to evolution.  Chemical biogenesis is a related theory, but it's quite separate from evolution.  One implies the other, to some extent, but the study of the process and mechanism of evolution can occur without knowing how, exactly, that process started.

Turbiodiesel! wrote:

Who says it doesn't?  This sort of research has been done since the Miller-Urey experiments back in the 50's.  I personally know several people working on it.  Admittedly, it's not a complete and coherent theory yet, and it will always be a model - as fossils of the first ribozyme will of course never be found, and the closest anybody will be able to get is an indication that chemical processes could have fired up, say, an RNA world.  Which is not implausible, at least for this biogeochemist.

Also, none of the above is really related to evolution.  Chemical biogenesis is a related theory, but it's quite separate from evolution.  One implies the other, to some extent, but the study of the process and mechanism of evolution can occur without knowing how, exactly, that process started.

So, is the idea that life would generate spontaneously from inorganic material?

zukiphile wrote:

So, is the idea that life would generate spontaneously from inorganic material?

Not quite.  It's not my field, but as far as I understand it, most of the people attacking this question are going at it assuming baby steps.  Dissipative chemical structures gaining stability until they can gain complexity, basic biomolecules synthesized by catalysis on the faces of clay particles and mineral faces, self-catalyzing reactions, the like.  Nobody's quite saying that all of a sudden a bacterium popped into being, but rather that chemical processes slowly gained complexity until they started performing the basic functions of life. 

The distinction between simple life and nonlife is a hazy and semantic one, as anybody who's investigated viruses knows - I suspect that that hazy distinction was the rule for the first eons of life.  Is a self-catalyzing nucleic acid creating copies of itself in a lipid bubble in a clay particle a living thing?  Depends.  Is a ribozyme living?  No, but they reproduce - self-catalyze - and retain information, so....yes? 

More info here - Lazcano and Miller 1996.  http://www.georgealozano.com/teach/evol … no1996.pdf  Interestingly, they come to the conclusion that it only took 10 million years to form cyanobacteria, and they go into that in some detail.

Last edited by Turbiodiesel! (07-08-2008 09:30 PM)

MC Escher wrote:

Gunga Douche -

Nobody doubts you ability to copy and past vast tracts of material that don't actually do or say anything useful.


What's in doubt is the precise extent to which you are detached from reality.

What is it that you are REALLY after?

Me to simply go away?

If so, just say the word and I'm gone.

glfredrick wrote:

MC Escher wrote:

Gunga Douche -

Nobody doubts you ability to copy and past vast tracts of material that don't actually do or say anything useful.


What's in doubt is the precise extent to which you are detached from reality.

What is it that you are REALLY after?

For you to pull your head out of your ass.

MC Escher wrote:

glfredrick wrote:

MC Escher wrote:

Gunga Douche -

Nobody doubts you ability to copy and past vast tracts of material that don't actually do or say anything useful.


What's in doubt is the precise extent to which you are detached from reality.

What is it that you are REALLY after?

For you to pull your head out of your ass.

Sorry, I don't know your physical address...