Author Topic: The Impossibility Argument  (Read 28349 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #928 on: October 28, 2013, 11:12:17 PM »
Foxy

You appear to memorize every little throwaway quip that I make while ignoring my substantive posts on here.   Yet you are the Guardian of Science TM?   

You are starting to remind me of my wife, always trying to prove I am wrong about something trivial or told a "white lie". 
« Last Edit: October 28, 2013, 11:22:59 PM by DrTesla »
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2729
  • Darwins +222/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #929 on: October 28, 2013, 11:15:34 PM »
What is an example of a positive random mutation in your view?   My microbio class was over 8 years ago and I don't remember much of the stuff.

A positive mutation on a virus is just a slight tweak to a surface binding protein that makes it bind to another site on a host cell which can accommodate the virus.

A positive mutation on the HIV mutation is to make it LESS virulent, so the host stays alive longer, and spreads it more.

Viruses mutate very rapidly, because there are bazillions of them in each host, with a life cycle of a few hours. They get masses of opportunities to try random experiments, like a safe cracker with 1 trillion friends helping him try every combination.

They don't care if they die, trying stupid experiments.


Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #930 on: October 28, 2013, 11:16:08 PM »

The observation of IC in lifeforms is an attempt to falsify evolution.  If something is IC, then Darwin evolution cannot account for it.

WRONG. You don't understand the science and are talking out of your ass (pure ignorance).

Some Darwins deny there is IC in lifeforms. 

Yet others argue that Darwin evolution can account for IC in lifeforms.

So it looks to me like they just using various arguments even if they contradict and hoping one sounds convincing. 


That's because you have 1) utter ignorance of the science and 2) and precommitment to your ignorance and irrationally based assumptions

My thesis on this website has been IC systems disprove Darwin evolution b/c Darwin cannot account for them.    That is what I sought to prove.   Not design itself although that is an obvious implication of what I sought to prove and I think in fact I did prove.

No, you didn't prove it. You ASSERTED it. Don't get it twisted.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #931 on: October 28, 2013, 11:19:50 PM »
@Add Homonym

You said:  "Climate deniers have 'healthy skepticism', but they never present any sane evidence for what they say. They just harp on about their belief, and ridicule scientists, political correctness, communists, etc.

Ian Plimer, a geologist, in Australia, wrote a climate denier book, and in it, he said that undersea volcanoes caused all the increase in CO2. So, what was the rest of the book about? About denying that anthropogenic carbon was a threat, after saying it came from volcanoes."

Is it argument from increduality to point that temperatures have been decreasing since 1998 while carbon levels in the atmosphere has been the same or increasing?

It is unfair to point out that back during the industrial revolution carbon dioxide increased exponentionally yet there was a global cooling phase that Time magazine and other media blew up into a big deal like they do global warming today? 

The climate is too complex to be the function of one variable as Climate fearmongers argue.   The weather where I live is the exact same as it was when I was growing up. 
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3016
  • Darwins +266/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #932 on: October 28, 2013, 11:20:26 PM »
As I have pointed out,  your beliefs on evolution and origin of life are irrelevant to success in life and an understanding of science that can be applied for something useful to society.

You're quite wrong about that, Doctor.  Solid knowledge of evolutionary biology is a vital component in modern-day pharmacology, immunology and infectious disease control, and cancer research -- All very useful things indeed.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #933 on: October 28, 2013, 11:21:15 PM »
Dr T, I think you really should consider moseying along now. I'm sure you're enjoying yourself and everything, but you can't seriously be left with any illusions that your POV might be accepted here?

lol. (Leave, Oh, Leave.)
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1469
  • Darwins +99/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #934 on: October 28, 2013, 11:22:16 PM »

There is a difference b/t a lie and a white lie.   I just did that to see if you guys were paying attention because sometimes it seems like you aren't reading my posts. 

I don't get why you think I am lying or that for some reason that I need to lie.  As I have pointed out,  your beliefs on evolution and origin of life are irrelevant to success in life and an understanding of science that can be applied for something useful to society.    I'm not sure what we do with the "fact" that we spontenously evolved from random mutations.   It is what it is, there is no application.

Excuses like that show you for what you are. You are just stringing people along for your own pleasure by typing junk.

Foxy

You appear to memorize every little throwaway quip that I make while ignoring my substantive posts on here.   Yet you are the Guardian of Science?   

You are starting to remind me of my wife, always trying to prove I am wrong about something trivial or told a "white lie".  lol

So am I paying attention to your posts or not? Make up your mind.

As for your substantive posts, I am still waiting.
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2135
  • Darwins +385/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #935 on: October 28, 2013, 11:23:29 PM »
Foxy

You appear to memorize every little throwaway quip that I make while ignoring my substantive posts on here.   Yet you are the Guardian of Science?   

You are starting to remind me of my wife, always trying to prove I am wrong about something trivial or told a "white lie".  lol
Big talk from an idiotic dumbfuck that has ignored every substantial post and response to him.

You, sir, should readily FUCK OFF.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #936 on: October 28, 2013, 11:24:53 PM »
As I have pointed out,  your beliefs on evolution and origin of life are irrelevant to success in life and an understanding of science that can be applied for something useful to society.

You're quite wrong about that, Doctor.  Solid knowledge of evolutionary biology is a vital component in modern-day pharmacology, immunology and infectious disease control, and cancer research -- All very useful things indeed.

You are thinking about natural selection and variation with species.  Not cross species evolution,  the "arrival of the fittest", so to speak. 

Nobody denies natural selection is a mechanism in nature but it just leads to variation in a species.
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #937 on: October 28, 2013, 11:26:07 PM »

Big talk from an idiotic dumbfuck that has ignored every substantial post and response to him.

You, sir, should readily FUCK OFF.

Dude, calm down.  Why is this so personal for you?  Geez.  You act like the world is going to blow up or something if I argue Darwin evolution  theory isn't legit.
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #938 on: October 28, 2013, 11:28:55 PM »
Dr T, I think you really should consider moseying along now. I'm sure you're enjoying yourself and everything, but you can't seriously be left with any illusions that your POV might be accepted here?

lol. (Leave, Oh, Leave.)

some of them are coming around.  the seed of doubt spreads like wildfire.  lol

I have received numerous positive accolades in my private message box.  I cherish every one.

I'm not trying to prove anything here, as I am not a Scientist.  I am just telling you what I think based on various readings that I have done of the literature on this topic.
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #939 on: October 28, 2013, 11:34:23 PM »
Well, if you think so. But damn son, 50 negative karmas in a few weeks, its taken me nearly 2 years of disagreeing with everybody to get that many.
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #940 on: October 28, 2013, 11:34:30 PM »
What is an example of a positive random mutation in your view?   My microbio class was over 8 years ago and I don't remember much of the stuff.

A positive mutation on a virus is just a slight tweak to a surface binding protein that makes it bind to another site on a host cell which can accommodate the virus.

A positive mutation on the HIV mutation is to make it LESS virulent, so the host stays alive longer, and spreads it more.

Viruses mutate very rapidly, because there are bazillions of them in each host, with a life cycle of a few hours. They get masses of opportunities to try random experiments, like a safe cracker with 1 trillion friends helping him try every combination.

They don't care if they die, trying stupid experiments.

Interesting, I'd like to take a class just on viruses if I could. I doubt they offer those where I live but you never know. 

A lot of what you are talking about sounds more like natural selection leading to variation in a species.  A virus that is less virulent than another can still be the same one, right?

But Dr. Behe was saying that there are random mutations in viruses and they are medically important but the actually DNA of them doesn't change so it can't be a mechanism of evolution.   

But I would still like to uncover why the virus knows to invade a host's cells and how it knows how to take over the cell's molecular machinery.
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1469
  • Darwins +99/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #941 on: October 28, 2013, 11:35:43 PM »
Dr T, I think you really should consider moseying along now. I'm sure you're enjoying yourself and everything, but you can't seriously be left with any illusions that your POV might be accepted here?

lol. (Leave, Oh, Leave.)

some of them are coming around.  the seed of doubt spreads like wildfire.  lol

I have received numerous positive accolades in my private message box.  I cherish every one.

I'm not trying to prove anything here, as I am not a Scientist.  I am just telling you what I think based on various readings that I have done of the literature on this topic.

Should a moderator check the truth of that? Or do you want to tell everyone exactly how many you have had?
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #942 on: October 28, 2013, 11:35:58 PM »
Well, if you think so. But damn son, 50 negative karmas in a few weeks, its taken me nearly 2 years of disagreeing with everybody to get that many.

well I talk about science, while you are just talking about me or not posting much at all, that I have seen.   Henpecking stuff is really clutter on here.  I don't tell you what to do so why you want to tell me what to do.
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2135
  • Darwins +385/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #943 on: October 28, 2013, 11:36:27 PM »

Big talk from an idiotic dumbfuck that has ignored every substantial post and response to him.

You, sir, should readily FUCK OFF.

Dude, calm down.  Why is this so personal for you?  Geez.  You act like the world is going to blow up or something if I argue Darwin evolution  theory isn't legit.
Arguing logically didn't seem to elicit any sort of response from you.

Me telling you to FUCK OFF apparently did.

You're a fucking idiotic troll content in your own stupidity.  It's incredibly sad.  I'm going with the angry emotional response because your thick-headed willful ignorance is insulting to the human race.  I'm not acting like the world is blowing up - I'm calling you a FUCKING IDIOT, that's all.  Your head is shoved way too far up your ass.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2729
  • Darwins +222/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #944 on: October 28, 2013, 11:37:20 PM »
So intelligent design supporters are supposed to prove a negative?  That evolution didn't happen?  Rather than Darwins prove it did?   

I have explained how it is improbable random muttaions lead to irreducible complexity and I'd rather not beat that drum anymore.

It's impossible for random mutations to lead to IC, because the theory doesn't allow for a God to come along and insert IC, because the theory says there isn't any. You shouldn't ever have been beating that drum, yet you did incessantly.

Quote
So intelligent design supporters are supposed to prove a negative?  That evolution didn't happen?  Rather than Darwins prove it did?   

You are supposed to show how God inserted IC into an enzyme sequence (or something), with photo journal evidence. Not our fault that you set yourself such an impossible task, to show that a random god exists.

The objective of Evolution is not to delete God, but your agenda is to create a god, by using guesswork.

Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #945 on: October 28, 2013, 11:39:57 PM »
Dr T, I think you really should consider moseying along now. I'm sure you're enjoying yourself and everything, but you can't seriously be left with any illusions that your POV might be accepted here?

lol. (Leave, Oh, Leave.)

some of them are coming around.  the seed of doubt spreads like wildfire.  lol

I have received numerous positive accolades in my private message box.  I cherish every one.

I'm not trying to prove anything here, as I am not a Scientist.  I am just telling you what I think based on various readings that I have done of the literature on this topic.

Should a moderator check the truth of that? Or do you want to tell everyone exactly how many you have had?

So moderators on here try to determine who is lying and who isn't?  lol 

What if I was lying, why do you want to talk about this kind of stuff at all.  I want to talk about Science.

Zankuu and junebug72  gave me positive accolades.  I thought Magic Mike did too but maybe that was just a reponse to one of my posts.   So I have 2. 
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3016
  • Darwins +266/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #946 on: October 28, 2013, 11:40:55 PM »
You are thinking about natural selection and variation with species.  Not cross species evolution,  the "arrival of the fittest", so to speak.

No; I'm thinking about evolution.  AFAIK, the only people who compartmentalize it into "macro-" and "micro-" are people who prefer the "Intelligent Design" hypothesis.  It's all one process.

Chromosomes sometimes split.  Sometimes they fuse.  Whenever this happens, if the offspring survive and are fertile, a new species has appeared.

Occasionally natural selection causes a rift between two lines of what was originally the same organism.  Over time the two species can grow so far apart that they become incompatible for reproductive purposes.

Always keep in mind that the story of evolution is written by the winners, the organisms that do have what it takes to survive and thrive... And, given enough time, life can do amazing things.

Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3016
  • Darwins +266/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #947 on: October 28, 2013, 11:43:57 PM »
But Dr. Behe was saying that there are random mutations in viruses and they are medically important but the actually DNA of them doesn't change so it can't be a mechanism of evolution.

But a mutation is a change in DNA or RNA!  That's the very definition of what a mutation is.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #948 on: October 28, 2013, 11:45:39 PM »
It's impossible for random mutations to lead to IC, because the theory doesn't allow for a God to come along and insert IC, because the theory says there isn't any. You shouldn't ever have been beating that drum, yet you did incessantly.

IC isn't a theory, it is an observation of the state of a system.  All it means if a system were to lose one part, it would immediately become non-functional.   So God doesn't have anything to do with simply determining is it IC or not.   IC could not have been done by Darwin evol because nature needs a function to select along a continuum in a gradual incremental way and given an IC fails when one part is removed, we know that there is nothing for nature to select until the entire system is together performing the function.

Quote
So intelligent design supporters are supposed to prove a negative?  That evolution didn't happen?  Rather than Darwins prove it did?   

Quote
You are supposed to show how God inserted IC into an enzyme sequence (or something), with photo journal evidence. Not our fault that you set yourself such an impossible task, to show that a random god exists.

The objective of Evolution is not to delete God, but your agenda is to create a god, by using guesswork.

No the point is to prove that the complex molecular machinery in cells and various biological systems had to be designed because random mutations coupled with natural selection do not account for them.    You could argue that random freaks of nature lead to the IC systems but we would be challenging laws of probability again.

Again, I think you let your disbelief in God become a constraint on being open minded on this.   An implication of an observation that you don't like does not mean the observation is not legit. 
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12527
  • Darwins +324/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #949 on: October 28, 2013, 11:46:04 PM »
Oh, and by the by DT, it was years before I stated anything personal about myself here. See, unlike you, I've been a member on this website since 2008, the old website since 2007. You've been here how long? And, how long will you be here? I'm pretty sure, though my Watched level is at 25%, I'll still be here when you're gone.

Doesn't say much about you, does it?

-Nam

It says that they favor hostile people, like you, who hold the "right" opinion in line with the website's beliefs, and they punish affable people who hold the "wrong" or "stupid" opinion.

I shan't self censor myself simply to post on this website or any website.  There are always other places to post if they find me a horrible monster of some sort. 

If I were to do a "Best of Nam"  quotes on this thread, we will see in no uncertain terms that you don't talk about evolution,  you use rhetoric and ad hominem and then get up on your soapbox about what ScienceTM is and what it isn't even though you've told us about 10 times you didn't finish high school.   I have a degree in mechanical engineering so maybe it is possible that I am a bright guy.   Yet you've called me stupid a million times and I don't mind that but at some point it becomes clutter on the thread.  Stop henpecking me bro.  I don't like doing tit for tat.

You're right, I rarely talk about Evolution. Why? Because I don't know much about it, and nor do I care. All I know is: some imaginary being, especially the Biblegod, didn't do it. What I do know I have spoken about.

You, on the other hand, rattle on and on as if you know what you're talking about and even a person like me, with the lack of knowledge, knows you don't know anything about it but what is spewed to you by your religion, and fellow Christians.

Compared to me, the High School dropout: YOU'RE AN IDIOT!

-Nam
« Last Edit: October 28, 2013, 11:47:43 PM by Nam »
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1469
  • Darwins +99/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #950 on: October 28, 2013, 11:46:41 PM »
Dr T, I think you really should consider moseying along now. I'm sure you're enjoying yourself and everything, but you can't seriously be left with any illusions that your POV might be accepted here?

lol. (Leave, Oh, Leave.)

some of them are coming around.  the seed of doubt spreads like wildfire.  lol

I have received numerous positive accolades in my private message box.  I cherish every one.

I'm not trying to prove anything here, as I am not a Scientist.  I am just telling you what I think based on various readings that I have done of the literature on this topic.

Should a moderator check the truth of that? Or do you want to tell everyone exactly how many you have had?

So moderators on here try to determine who is lying and who isn't?  lol 

What if I was lying, why do you want to talk about this kind of stuff at all.  I want to talk about Science.

Zankuu and junebug72  gave me positive accolades.  I thought Magic Mike did too but maybe that was just a reponse to one of my posts.   So I have 2.

2 is not numerous. So that was a lie too. Why was this so predictable?

Do you understand "lack of credibility"?
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #951 on: October 28, 2013, 11:48:41 PM »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2729
  • Darwins +222/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #952 on: October 28, 2013, 11:51:12 PM »

Is it argument from increduality to point that temperatures have been decreasing since 1998 while carbon levels in the atmosphere has been the same or increasing?


http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global

You can point to it, but you are making a bet that the surge in temps since 1950 are not due to CO2, due to.... what evidence, exactly. As I said, I would like it not to be true, but the trend is up. It doesn't matter if there is a slight pause. You are betting a downward trend... but it's a bet, not a fact.

Also, you have no argument for woody thickening and coral death, due to the direct effect of CO2. You skipped that one.

Quote
It is unfair to point out that back during the industrial revolution carbon dioxide increased exponentionally yet there was a global cooling phase that Time magazine and other media blew up into a big deal like they do global warming today? 

Yep. Past scientific mistakes are not evidence that current science is wrong. It's another bet, based on your bias.


Quote
The climate is too complex to be the function of one variable as Climate fearmongers argue.   The weather where I live is the exact same as it was when I was growing up.

May be complex, but the general proposition that CO2 is an insulator, acidifier, and plant food, and that the pole is also melting, is strong.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #953 on: October 28, 2013, 11:51:17 PM »
[You, on the other hand, rattle on and on as if you know what you're talking about and even a person like me, with the lack of knowledge, knows you don't know anything about it but what is spoofed to you by your religion, and fellow Christians.

Compared yo me, the High School dropout: YOU'RE AN IDIOT!

-Nam

You are actually a slave to Christians and by default their God that you claim you don't believe in,  because they live in your head rent free.   

I don't understand atheists who feel like they have to attack Christians.  They have a belief about our origin and the afterlife that you don't. So what?   How does that impact your life.   Seems like more interesting things to think about then  ridiculing Christians. 

I've already said that I'm not a Christian but that I believe in an "intelligent designer" but I don't believe there is a heaven or hell or anything that I am supposed to do or not do to make the designer happy.    So I am a half Christian half atheist.   I am a complex kid.  lol

Why do you care so much if we evolved randomly or we designed to the point you get angry about it.  We are here either way.   I just like talking about it,  this isn't some vast conspiracy to "brainwash" people into agreeing with me. 
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #954 on: October 28, 2013, 11:53:32 PM »

IC isn't a theory, it is an observation of the state of a system.  All it means if a system were to lose one part, it would immediately become non-functional.   So God doesn't have anything to do with simply determining is it IC or not.   IC could not have been done by Darwin evol because nature needs a function to select along a continuum in a gradual incremental way and given an IC fails when one part is removed, we know that there is nothing for nature to select until the entire system is together performing the function.

This demonstrates right here that you know nothing about evolutionary science. You are ignorant. Plain and simple.

No the point is to prove that the complex molecular machinery in cells and various biological systems had to be designed because random mutations coupled with natural selection do not account for them.    You could argue that random freaks of nature lead to the IC systems but we would be challenging laws of probability again.

This is an Argument from Incredulity fallacy. STILL FAILS REGARDLESS OF HOW MANY TIMES YOU DON'T LIKE IT TO.


p.s - you can't even spell it (this is how ignorant you are):


Quote
Is it argument from increduality


« Last Edit: October 28, 2013, 11:55:12 PM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12527
  • Darwins +324/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #955 on: October 28, 2013, 11:53:40 PM »
Well, if you think so. But damn son, 50 negative karmas in a few weeks, its taken me nearly 2 years of disagreeing with everybody to get that many.

It may have taken me longer, and I've been banned at least once (though I wasn't here for that)

;)

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #956 on: October 28, 2013, 11:54:57 PM »

That Mann professor at Penn state,  his hockey stick thing was exposed as a fraud.  Do you not know anything about the ClimateGate scandal?   Nobody believes global warming is legit in the States anymore after that.   I don't know where you live but that issue is dead here.

I think if you are going to argue that CO2 leads to global warming and we look at the temperature data vs the CO2  data and it does not correlate and sometimes one is going up while the other is going down,  then we are logical in our conclusion there is no direct impact on the environment by CO2.   

The funny thing is the global warming doomsday scenarios are essentially the same thing as various religios people's predictions forever that The End of The World is coming.    It is manufactured hysteria and Democrats in America do it because they don't like corporations and they want more regulations on them, and taxes for their domestic pet projects.  It is rooted in anti-capitalism because it is only liberals who believe it is true.   Some Republicans like Mccain like to pander on it because they think it is a good way to get the young vote.  lol
« Last Edit: October 28, 2013, 11:58:46 PM by DrTesla »
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla