|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 4, 2017 0:40:43 GMT
What the Board wants: We want a fat guy in a gimp mask? Well maybe that's what Blade wants.
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Jun 4, 2017 19:22:27 GMT
The problem with intelligent design is the same problem as that for those who believe humans evolved from other primates. Both rely on the same fallacy.
That human beings are an intelligent design.
There is absolutely no possible scenario outside of a Hollywood concoction in which Homo Sapiens could have made it as a species competing with physically superior primates and other life forms that leap better, run better, see better, smell things better, hear better, well they do everything better but use a can opener and open a door.
The can opener and door had to be invented later. Oops. All tools designed for humans came about long after humans came about, unless one wants to believe God gave Adam a can opener (and can) after creating him, or Nature gave Adam a can opener (and can) after coming up with him.
You guys can throw big words around all day long, but it doesn't change the facts. It just means you're all flailing in desperation and trying to wish something true.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2017 20:36:10 GMT
The problem with intelligent design is the same problem as that for those who believe humans evolved from other primates. Both rely on the same fallacy.
That human beings are an intelligent design.
There is absolutely no possible scenario outside of a Hollywood concoction in which Homo Sapiens could have made it as a species competing with physically superior primates and other life forms that leap better, run better, see better, smell things better, hear better, well they do everything better but use a can opener and open a door.
The can opener and door had to be invented later. Oops. All tools designed for humans came about long after humans came about, unless one wants to believe God gave Adam a can opener (and can) after creating him, or Nature gave Adam a can opener (and can) after coming up with him.
You guys can throw big words around all day long, but it doesn't change the facts. It just means you're all flailing in desperation and trying to wish something true.
You've made the common mistake of assuming that evolutionary fitness is the same thing as regular fitness. It isn't.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 4, 2017 21:04:26 GMT
The problem with intelligent design is the same problem as that for those who believe humans evolved from other primates. Both rely on the same fallacy.
That human beings are an intelligent design.
There is absolutely no possible scenario outside of a Hollywood concoction in which Homo Sapiens could have made it as a species competing with physically superior primates and other life forms that leap better, run better, see better, smell things better, hear better, well they do everything better but use a can opener and open a door.
The can opener and door had to be invented later. Oops. All tools designed for humans came about long after humans came about, unless one wants to believe God gave Adam a can opener (and can) after creating him, or Nature gave Adam a can opener (and can) after coming up with him.
You guys can throw big words around all day long, but it doesn't change the facts. It just means you're all flailing in desperation and trying to wish something true.
"All tools designed for humans came about long after humans came about" Well obviously tools designed for humans were designed...by humans. Not sure what you're getting at, but primitive pre-human apes did use tools if that's what you're getting at. Chimps make primitive tools so we know it's not impossible for prehistoric hominids to have done the same. "There is absolutely no possible scenario outside of a Hollywood concoction in which Homo Sapiens could have made it as a species competing with physically superior primates and other life forms that leap better, run better, see better, smell things better, hear better" You're going about is the wrong way, ancient primates didn't just turn into humans all of a sudden and had to compete with nature. They once had the same physical advantages we see with primates today. As they lost more and more of those traits, they compensated with increasing intelligence to survive (hunting and tool crafting was a huge factor in this).
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Jun 4, 2017 22:32:12 GMT
The problem with intelligent design is the same problem as that for those who believe humans evolved from other primates. Both rely on the same fallacy.
That human beings are an intelligent design.
There is absolutely no possible scenario outside of a Hollywood concoction in which Homo Sapiens could have made it as a species competing with physically superior primates and other life forms that leap better, run better, see better, smell things better, hear better, well they do everything better but use a can opener and open a door.
The can opener and door had to be invented later. Oops. All tools designed for humans came about long after humans came about, unless one wants to believe God gave Adam a can opener (and can) after creating him, or Nature gave Adam a can opener (and can) after coming up with him.
You guys can throw big words around all day long, but it doesn't change the facts. It just means you're all flailing in desperation and trying to wish something true.
"All tools designed for humans came about long after humans came about" Well obviously tools designed for humans were designed...by humans. Not sure what you're getting at, but primitive pre-human apes did use tools if that's what you're getting at. Chimps make primitive tools so we know it's not impossible for prehistoric hominids to have done the same. "There is absolutely no possible scenario outside of a Hollywood concoction in which Homo Sapiens could have made it as a species competing with physically superior primates and other life forms that leap better, run better, see better, smell things better, hear better" You're going about is the wrong way, ancient primates didn't just turn into humans all of a sudden and had to compete with nature. They once had the same physical advantages we see with primates today. As they lost more and more of those traits, they compensated with increasing intelligence to survive (hunting and tool crafting was a huge factor in this). No, you are going about it in the incorrect way, not me. Of course I do seem a bit arrogant because of my mathematical superiority to the rest of you, and I only do that because of the self righteousness that your establishment has regarding its own delusion and ignorance.
I've heard what you said, time and again, and yet you people still don't realize how much you reach to try to prove this simply because you want it to be true, instead of having an open mind. That's the difference between you and I. I have an open mind and a geometric training that makes me realize what the information shows.
First, the difference between Evolution and the natural selection you suggest for Evolution. Natural selection is a fact by definition. It is what it is. Natural selection Evolution calls for more, which can be rationalized clearly on some levels, but clearly not with mammals, because it calls for a ridiculous amount of miracles.
But even with these miracles, two genetic mutations that produce a male and female in the same location, the same time, with no outside interference, you still have the fact that the tools were not in use.
As for your idea of slowly evolving, it still calls for too many miracles, and a god would truly be needed.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 4, 2017 22:46:09 GMT
"All tools designed for humans came about long after humans came about" Well obviously tools designed for humans were designed...by humans. Not sure what you're getting at, but primitive pre-human apes did use tools if that's what you're getting at. Chimps make primitive tools so we know it's not impossible for prehistoric hominids to have done the same. "There is absolutely no possible scenario outside of a Hollywood concoction in which Homo Sapiens could have made it as a species competing with physically superior primates and other life forms that leap better, run better, see better, smell things better, hear better" You're going about is the wrong way, ancient primates didn't just turn into humans all of a sudden and had to compete with nature. They once had the same physical advantages we see with primates today. As they lost more and more of those traits, they compensated with increasing intelligence to survive (hunting and tool crafting was a huge factor in this). No, you are going about it in the incorrect way, not me. Of course I do seem a bit arrogant because of my mathematical superiority to the rest of you, and I only do that because of the self righteousness that your establishment has regarding its own delusion and ignorance.
I've heard what you said, time and again, and yet you people still don't realize how much you reach to try to prove this simply because you want it to be true, instead of having an open mind. That's the difference between you and I. I have an open mind and a geometric training that makes me realize what the information shows.
First, the difference between Evolution and the natural selection you suggest for Evolution. Natural selection is a fact by definition. It is what it is. Natural selection Evolution calls for more, which can be rationalized clearly on some levels, but clearly not with mammals, because it calls for a ridiculous amount of miracles.
But even with these miracles, two genetic mutations that produce a male and female in the same location, the same time, with no outside interference, you still have the fact that the tools were not in use.
As for your idea of slowly evolving, it still calls for too many miracles, and a god would truly be needed.
OK, so your response is basically an Insane Clown Posse song. Fucking magnets, how do they work?
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Jun 4, 2017 23:00:55 GMT
No, you are going about it in the incorrect way, not me. Of course I do seem a bit arrogant because of my mathematical superiority to the rest of you, and I only do that because of the self righteousness that your establishment has regarding its own delusion and ignorance.
I've heard what you said, time and again, and yet you people still don't realize how much you reach to try to prove this simply because you want it to be true, instead of having an open mind. That's the difference between you and I. I have an open mind and a geometric training that makes me realize what the information shows.
First, the difference between Evolution and the natural selection you suggest for Evolution. Natural selection is a fact by definition. It is what it is. Natural selection Evolution calls for more, which can be rationalized clearly on some levels, but clearly not with mammals, because it calls for a ridiculous amount of miracles.
But even with these miracles, two genetic mutations that produce a male and female in the same location, the same time, with no outside interference, you still have the fact that the tools were not in use.
As for your idea of slowly evolving, it still calls for too many miracles, and a god would truly be needed.
OK, so your response is basically an Insane Clown Posse song. Fucking magnets, how do they work? My only mistake was in trying to be civil to you, when you clearly are a troll who wants to wish everything nice and ordered in your world, and can't handle the truth. Talk about insane? You've got that nailed, and it won't matter if ten other maniacs agree with you, because if maniacs weren't the established accepted mode, there would be a much safer and ordered world.
No offense.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 5, 2017 9:57:13 GMT
Dean H. Kenyon - Biophysicist Guillermo Gonzalez - Astrophysicist Steve Fuller - Sociologist Marcos Nogueira Eberlin - Chemist James Dobson - Psychologist Paul Chien - Biologist Jason Lisle (Astrophysicist) Andrew Snelling (Geologist) Danny Faulkner (Astrologist) David A. DeWitt (Biologist) Jeffrey Tomkins (Biologist) Hugh Ross (Astrophysicist) Nathaniel Jeanson (Biologist) Russell Humphreys (Physicist) Michael Behe (Biochemist) Ralph Seelke (Microbiologist) Scott Minnich (Microbiologist) Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig (Geneticist) Stephen C. Meyer (PhD in Philosophy of science) Douglas D. Axe (Biologist) List goes on
And the list of scientists who have published a peer-reviewed paper in an authoritative journal proving that Creationism, er, intelligent design is scientific fact is.... ,
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 5, 2017 10:06:47 GMT
Dean H. Kenyon - Biophysicist Guillermo Gonzalez - Astrophysicist Steve Fuller - Sociologist Marcos Nogueira Eberlin - Chemist James Dobson - Psychologist Paul Chien - Biologist Jason Lisle (Astrophysicist) Andrew Snelling (Geologist) Danny Faulkner (Astrologist) David A. DeWitt (Biologist) Jeffrey Tomkins (Biologist) Hugh Ross (Astrophysicist) Nathaniel Jeanson (Biologist) Russell Humphreys (Physicist) Michael Behe (Biochemist) Ralph Seelke (Microbiologist) Scott Minnich (Microbiologist) Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig (Geneticist) Stephen C. Meyer (PhD in Philosophy of science) Douglas D. Axe (Biologist) List goes on
And the list of scientists who have published a peer-reviewed paper in an authoritative journal proving that Creationism, er, intelligent design is scientific fact is.... ,
And the purpose of "peer-review" is....
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 5, 2017 10:08:52 GMT
And the list of scientists who have published a peer-reviewed paper in an authoritative journal proving that Creationism, er, intelligent design is scientific fact is.... ,
And the purpose of "peer-review" is.... Never taken an examination then, eh?
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 5, 2017 10:23:22 GMT
And the purpose of "peer-review" is.... Never taken an examination then, eh? Can't answer the question then, eh?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 5, 2017 10:34:35 GMT
Never taken an examination then, eh? Can't answer the question then, eh? Sorry, I thought I was answering best by asking you to think for yourself. Exams, especially professional ones, are arguably a form of peer review. No-one, after all, would want to be treated by a doctor not reviewed and passed by his or her peers first. But, since you ask: Peer reviewing allows a diversity of opinions to be brought to the table, theoretically removing any personal biases and pre-set ideas from the equation. The peer review process stops a lot of substandard and poor science from reaching publication. In addition, the reviewers are generally experts in their field, well acquainted with the latest developments. They can, therefore, reject duplicate research and plagiarized papers. Because editors can use the process to remove poor quality work, it saves a lot of wasted time and money, especially if the work is plagiarized. Without referees, a journal would have to employ a team of editors with expertise in every field, and this would make the cost of the production prohibitive. Traditionally, the journals that use peer review enjoy an excellent reputation and are trusted by experts in the field. This also helps them to attract the best researchers and scientists to submit papers. The reviewers are experts in their field, and peer reviewing often brings innovative research to their attention, where it may be buried amongst a flurry of papers. Peer reviewing is not only used for journals but for grant applications and University standard textbooks. This helps to ensure that money is diverted only towards viable research proposals. The peer review of textbooks ensures that students are taught correctly and are provided with excellent information. To answer my own question, since you did not, in the case of Creationism, er, intelligent design, I cannot immediately think of any peer-reviewed papers proving this theory in any reputable scientific journal. (there may be some fringe sites which find the content hosted there to their own satisfaction, but that is not the same.) This is not surprising since Creationism, er, intelligent design is not a scientific theory - instead something indeed ultimately admitted under cross examination at the famous Dover trial (for instance) by its proponents as being akin to astrology. There is no doubt that the peer review process is not perfect, but it does at least allow the reader to make some judgment about the relative quality and merit of the research based on a widely understood quality control process. Of course,alternatively it could just be a world-wide conspiracy by the Illuminatii, or something... I hope this helps.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 5, 2017 10:44:05 GMT
Can't answer the question then, eh? Sorry, I thought I was answering best by asking you to think for yourself. Exams, especially professional ones, are arguably a form of peer review. No-one, after all, would want to be treated by a doctor not reviewed and passed by his or her peers first. But, since you ask: Peer reviewing allows a diversity of opinions to be brought to the table, theoretically removing any personal biases and pre-set ideas from the equation. The peer review process stops a lot of substandard and poor science from reaching publication. In addition, the reviewers are generally experts in their field, well acquainted with the latest developments. They can, therefore, reject duplicate research and plagiarized papers. Because editors can use the process to remove poor quality work, it saves a lot of wasted time and money, especially if the work is plagiarized. Without referees, a journal would have to employ a team of editors with expertise in every field, and this would make the cost of the production prohibitive. Traditionally, the journals that use peer review enjoy an excellent reputation and are trusted by experts in the field. This also helps them to attract the best researchers and scientists to submit papers. The reviewers are experts in their field, and peer reviewing often brings innovative research to their attention, where it may be buried amongst a flurry of papers. Peer reviewing is not only used for journals but for grant applications and University standard textbooks. This helps to ensure that money is diverted only towards viable research proposals. The peer review of textbooks ensures that students are taught correctly and are provided with excellent information. To answer my own question, since you did not, in the case of Creationism, er, intelligent design, I cannot immediately think of any peer-reviewed papers proving this theory in any reputable scientific journal. (there may be some fringe sites which find the content hosted there to their own satisfaction, but that is not the same.) This is not surprising since Creationism, er, intelligent design is not a scientific theory - instead something indeed ultimately admitted under cross examination at the famous Dover trial (for instance) by its proponents as being akin to astrology. There is no doubt that the peer review process is not perfect, but it does at least allow the reader to make some judgment about the relative quality and merit of the research based on a widely understood quality control process. Of course,alternatively it could just be a world-wide conspiracy by the Illuminatii, or something... I hope this helps. So, if the peers reach a consensus that the world is flat and the sun moves around it, then it become scientific fact, right?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 5, 2017 10:58:29 GMT
You will need to address my original request, vis-à-vis Creationism, er, intelligent design, and its place in the peer-reviewed literature, before we proceed with such hypotheticals or it might seem that you are just being evasive now. It is only fair after all, since I answered your first question. I hope that will not be a problem. But, good try.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 5, 2017 11:04:50 GMT
Can't answer the question then, eh? Sorry, I thought I was answering best by asking you to think for yourself. Exams, especially professional ones, are arguably a form of peer review. No-one, after all, would want to be treated by a doctor not reviewed and passed by his or her peers first. How it works for me is a doctor has to convince me there is a problem and what the solution is. It really doesn't matter who else is convinced. It only matters that I am. Others who are obviously incapable of making choices without dependence on some outside authority do things your way. The obvious and tragic result is that many more people are incapable of making choices than ever in history.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 5, 2017 11:06:51 GMT
You will need to address my original request, vis-à-vis Creationism, er, intelligent design, and its place in the peer-reviewed literature, before we proceed with such hypotheticals or it might seem that you are just being evasive now. It is only fair after all, since I answered your first question. I hope that will not be a problem. But, good try. How obscenely comical it is when an unclean spirit like you accuses someone of being evasive.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 5, 2017 11:19:29 GMT
You will need to address my original request, vis-à-vis Creationism, er, intelligent design, and its place in the peer-reviewed literature, before we proceed with such hypotheticals or it might seem that you are just being evasive now. It is only fair after all, since I answered your first question. I hope that will not be a problem. But, good try. How obscenely comical it is when an unclean spirit like you accuses someone of being evasive. So no list available of scientists who have published peer-reviewed papers in support of Creationism, er, intelligent design then? That seems odd. Perhaps you ought to check again? Personal insults instead of a real answer just suggest you are growing annoyed since you are obliged to be defensive. But I forgive you.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 5, 2017 11:20:01 GMT
tpfkar Man, your melodrama really peaks after an all-night juicer. They are not people. They are vermin, like yourself.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 5, 2017 11:22:24 GMT
How obscenely comical it is when an unclean spirit like you accuses someone of being evasive. So no list available of scientists who have published peer-reviewed papers in support of Creationism, er, intelligent design then? That seems odd. Perhaps you ought to check again? Personal insults instead of a real answer just suggest you are growing annoyed since you are obliged to be defensive. But I forgive you. So if a "peer-reviewed" paper is published in an "authoritative journal" which says the earth is flat and the sun moves around it, then it becomes scientific fact, right?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 5, 2017 11:27:02 GMT
How it works for me is a doctor has to convince me there is a problem and what the solution is. It really doesn't matter who else is convinced. It only matters that I am. But, never the less, I am sure you would like to be convinced by someone who has ultimately been examined and found competent by peers. I would argue the opposite - at least in the modern world, where everyone it seems can be a blogger, listen to fake news and cherish 'alternative facts', with the common assertion that we don't need experts: that there is too much choice which is bad.
|
|