On 23/04/2011 05:44 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Maybe if we screw up everyone's science here enough, we won't have
> enough smart people to build the weapons we tend to use to invade
> foreign countries.

Perhaps. But I doubt it. :-S

OG claims that he used to be in the UK's armed forces, in their signals 
division, working with classified cryptography and such. He told us how 
the UK has one way running the entire telecomms truck, while the USA 
army has basically one guy for every individual piece of equipment, and 
each guy only knows how to operate that one item of kit, and basically 
has no clue WTF it does or why it's important. They just know how to set 
it up and fix it if it breaks. Apparently they were blown away that in 
the UK one person can understand more than one thing.

Then again, this is the same OG who tells us that all Americans are 
dicks. And the same OG who claims to have designed classified military 
hardware that he can't tell us about becuase them he'd have to kill us, 
but at the same time seems to be ignorant of basic cryptographic 
principles, so.......

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 4/22/2011 10:03 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 15:32:11 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> So, sure, using the layman's "theory" might be legitimate, its ***not***
>> legitimate if the thing being discussed is scientific evidence, since
>> doing so is not going to help you find out which is which
>
> Except that we're talking about laypeople talking about science - people
> who *think* they're using the term correctly.  People who are *convinced*
> they know what they're talking about.
>
> People who *believe* that there is only one meaning for the word.
>
> Jim
And, it would be just so "strident", or something, to point out that the 
world is no in fact flat to such people... lol

Post a reply to this message

On 4/22/2011 10:05 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 15:47:38 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Strictly speaking, its only a violation if it only covers "one" creation
>> theory, from a single religion.
>
> If they're doing a comparative religions course, sure.  Not if they're
> calling it 'science'.  Another case of laypeople using a term in a way
> that is not appropriate.
>
Yes, well.. The only people on their side really "calling" it science 
also tend to think praying over your kid, who is bleeding to death 
internally, constitutes "science" too, since you know, in the Babble, 
doing that heals people. Most of the people pushing for ID to be used as 
an alternative are not making that argument. The argument they are 
making is, "I don't know a damn thing about the science, so I am going 
to assume there isn't anything too it, and if their isn't, I don't see 
why my mythology shouldn't trump secular mythology." They very clearly 
think this is an argument between whether or not Yahweh or Darwin 
created the world in 6 days. In short, its ignorance trying to replace 
knowledge, because the people involved think a 2,000 year old copy of 
Grimm's Fairy Tales is, being old, a better description of what is going 
on than 200 years of people taking the thing apart and figuring out how 
it actually does.

Post a reply to this message

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2223#comic

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 23-4-2011 0:03, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 4/21/2011 3:35 PM, andrel wrote:
>>> ID's central premise, sadly, is that it just "poofed" into being. Hell,
>>> even the ones arguing "front loading", fail to grasp that any such
>>> "master genetic code", to avoid breaking the organism fatally, while
>>> inserting new features, has to take clear steps, in which it replaces
>>> parts of the system, only as possible, before reaching and end result.
>>
>> I know it would be hard to find a sensible way to construct something in
>> such a way that it could not have been evolved. Precisely because your
>> bridge example is a known pitfall (and the paragraphs above therefore
>> effectively a strawman argument). But simply the fact that you believe
>> it is not possible does not mean you have in any way proven it to be so.
>> Man and nature are often more inventive than either of them would have
>> though.
>
> Which then brings up Russel's Teapot. Its that a strawman argument, but
> an accurate description of the problem. There is no logically
> conceivable way that you can construct something in genetics where it
> just appears, any more than with a bridge, so trying to find one that
> did is like chasing invisible teapots. Its a useless pursuit of
> something that you can't be 100% sure doesn't exist, but for which there
> are lots, and lots, of evidence to suggest that its simply an
> unnecessary complication to go hunting for it.
>
> The first step, if you want to hunt for such a thing, is to come up with
> a plausible description of what, and where, it will be found. Given a
> few thousands years, some idiot is bound to find a teapot (if for no
> other reason that that by then some other idiot will have accidentally
> left one in an airlock, before someone else went EVA). By the same
> token, if some clown keeps hunting long enough, they are bound to find
> something "designed", but not because DNA was designed, but because
> someone actually inserts some designed DNA in someone/something, then
> dies, or something, without telling anyone.
>
> Its the only conceivable condition where you can spend your time looking
> for the genetic equivalent of Bigfoot, and actually find something that
> isn't a man in a gorilla suit.

The problem here is that every argument you use assumes that everything 
evolved in a natural way. If you assume that (or even if you know that 
it is a fact,) then everything is entirely clear. But it all falls apart 
if you start from the other assumption.
Somewhere in my library is a book I inherited from my father. It gives a 
number of arguments that proof that God does exist. Very convincing,... 
if you believe God does exist. I found most of them amusing and/or 
interesting but none was convincing.

So unless you have a proof of evolution that convinces even the die hard 
creationists then we better leave it at that. You don't have to convince me.


-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 01:09:37 +0200, Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom>  
wrote:

> On 4/22/2011 3:49 PM, Nekar Xenos wrote:
>>> One may reasonably be confused about what something unclear means, but
>>> one cannot be reasonably confused about which instructions are
>>> applicable and which aren't. Unlike, say, the Bible, where some people
>>> think what Paul (and later popes) wrote supersedes what Jesus said,
>>> and others don't.
>>>
>>
>> It's all Point Of View...

Just a little tongue in the cheeck off-off-topic playing with words...

>>
> Hmm. Maybe its just my liberal bias showing, but one commentator put it  
> like this, "You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own  
> facts." Unfortunately, among the religious, they often make up facts,  
> based on their desired opinion. Something that can be seen every time  
> you deal with arguments about everything from evidence for a real Jesus,  
> to even things like, "god helps those that help themselves". Which, I  
> understand may have been first stated "officially" by Joan of Arc,  
> according to translation of the notes taken by her personal secretary,  
> but which was probably a common fiction even before she stated it.
>
> Point Of View = "Putting a bag over your head, with a picture drawn on  
> it, because you don't like the existing view out your real window." ;)

I couldn't agree with you more. Some say that there is no such thing as  
truth - each person has his own reality. I wonder how that would stand in  
court...

-- 
-Nekar Xenos-
"The spoon is not real"

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 11:05:09 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> And, it would be just so "strident", or something, to point out that the
> world is no in fact flat to such people... lol

I have to admit that I agree with Dawkins about how strange it is that we 
afford religion some kind of 'special protection' from questioning when 
we don't afford the same protection to other topics.

If I tell you that the world is flat, you can scientifically dispute that 
(and prove that I'm wrong) and everything's fine.  If I tell you that my 
religious holy book says that the world is flat, though, then somehow 
it's offensive to argue with me about that.

It's quite ridiculous.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 21:22:46 +0200, andrel wrote:

> So unless you have a proof of evolution that convinces even the die hard
> creationists then we better leave it at that.

No matter what proof is there, the die-hard creationists will reject it 
because it means abandoning their belief.

That's the problem.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

PS: now listening to a life radio broadcast of the St Matthew Passion. 
That I don't believe in a God does not prevent me from appreciating the 
music of those who did.

-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

On 23-4-2011 21:47, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 21:22:46 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>> So unless you have a proof of evolution that convinces even the die hard
>> creationists then we better leave it at that.
>
> No matter what proof is there, the die-hard creationists will reject it
> because it means abandoning their belief.

That is the evolutionists interpretation. They will actually reject it 
because they know some of the assumptions are wrong.

> That's the problem.

Not really. Or at least not a bigger problem than trying to convince me 
God does exist.

It only becomes a problem when they try to prevent teaching real science 
and research.


-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message