Author Topic: The Impossibility Argument  (Read 18899 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 460
  • Darwins +18/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1131 on: October 31, 2013, 11:07:28 PM »
^^ He also claimed that the "silent majority" agreed with him.  You'd be one of the "silent majority" who was watching, eh?  Was he right?  ;D

the silent majority never comment on here.  so this guy can't claim he is one of them. 

I am the Silent Majority's gladiator, and you collectively are the evil Roman emperor.   

I am the Darwin Slayer.

Boom.

Very very slick job moving the goal post (not), as soon as I say something I don't count?

You can't slay someone whose already dead.

If you comment on here,  are you Silent?  The question answers itself.

The way you worded it implied that the moment I spoke up, I ceased being part of the "silent majority" retroactively, do you deny that?
If so, then you have some really backward logic, and that only cements the opinions that the forum goers here have established about you, which I gather isn't that great.
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1132 on: October 31, 2013, 11:08:37 PM »
lol

A Freshman wants to challenge a Graduate.   You have much to learn.

I think it is a logical assumption that given you are the only former member of the Silent Majority that you are the exception to the rule because surely others would have started commenting if they were not comfortable with me speaking for them.    I give these timid souls a voice and I don't apologize to you or anybody for that.
"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 Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 460
  • Darwins +18/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1133 on: October 31, 2013, 11:09:44 PM »
lol

A Freshman wants to challenge a Graduate.   You have much to learn.
"Graduate" is only a position based on post count, you haven't earned that position intellectually.

I think it is a logical assumption that given you are the only former member of the Silent Majority that you are the exception to the rule because surely others would have started commenting if they were not comfortable with me speaking for them.    I give these timid souls a voice and I don't apologize to you or anybody for that.

That made absolutely no sense.
It also doesn't answer my question
« Last Edit: October 31, 2013, 11:13:49 PM by Antidote »
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1850
  • Darwins +320/-6
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1134 on: October 31, 2013, 11:14:36 PM »
You know, it's occurred to me that this may very well be the longest thread that is accidentally directly on-topic.

This literally is the impossible argument.  DrTesla is displaying[1] a degree of ignorance, stubbornness, arrogance, stupidity, vapidity, irritability, and childishness so massive that it makes it impossible to argue with him.

Kudos!
 1. faking?
"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

Offline Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 460
  • Darwins +18/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1135 on: October 31, 2013, 11:16:41 PM »
You know, it's occurred to me that this may very well be the longest thread that is accidentally directly on-topic.

This literally is the impossible argument.  DrTesla is displaying[1] a degree of ignorance, stubbornness, arrogance, stupidity, vapidity, irritability, and childishness so massive that it makes it impossible to argue with him.

Kudos!
 1. faking?

Faking or an extreme case of the Dunning-Kruger and/or cognitive dissonance.
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1136 on: October 31, 2013, 11:17:48 PM »
You know, it's occurred to me that this may very well be the longest thread that is accidentally directly on-topic.

This literally is the impossible argument.  DrTesla is displaying[1] a degree of ignorance, stubbornness, arrogance, stupidity, vapidity, irritability, and childishness so massive that it makes it impossible to argue with him.

Kudos!
 1. faking?

You guys are close minded.   Random mutations cannot result in complexity in lifeforms.  It is basic logic.   Random mutations can only result in randomness as there is no goal beforehand.   Do not fight the truth because you recognize the truth when you see it.  You are letting your ego get in the way of accepting a self evident truth.   

I won't mock you if you admit that I am right...much.   lol
"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 #1137 on: October 31, 2013, 11:19:20 PM »
You know, it's occurred to me that this may very well be the longest thread that is accidentally directly on-topic.

This literally is the impossible argument.  DrTesla is displaying[1] a degree of ignorance, stubbornness, arrogance, stupidity, vapidity, irritability, and childishness so massive that it makes it impossible to argue with him.

Kudos!
 1. faking?

Faking or an extreme case of the Dunning-Kruger and/or cognitive dissonance.

lol, you just cutting and pasting from a list of debate tricks on the internet and accusing me of every one and hoping something sticks but unfortunately for you, nothing ever does.   

Median and jaime and jdawg are horrible that too. 
"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 Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 460
  • Darwins +18/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1138 on: October 31, 2013, 11:19:52 PM »
You know, it's occurred to me that this may very well be the longest thread that is accidentally directly on-topic.

This literally is the impossible argument.  DrTesla is displaying[1] a degree of ignorance, stubbornness, arrogance, stupidity, vapidity, irritability, and childishness so massive that it makes it impossible to argue with him.

Kudos!
 1. faking?

You guys are close minded.   Random mutations cannot result in complexity in lifeforms.  It is basic logic.   Random mutations can only result in randomness as there is no goal beforehand.   Do not fight the truth because you recognize the truth when you see it.  You are letting your ego get in the way of accepting a self evident truth.   

I won't mock you if you admit that I am right...much.   lol

I would admit that you were right, except for the minor fact of, you're dead wrong, you can't be any further from reality than you have been since you began posting in this thread, Yes random mutations can't result in the complexity in lifeforms BY THEMSELVES, which is why mutations are not the primary cause of evolution.
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Offline Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 460
  • Darwins +18/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1139 on: October 31, 2013, 11:21:55 PM »
You know, it's occurred to me that this may very well be the longest thread that is accidentally directly on-topic.

This literally is the impossible argument.  DrTesla is displaying[1] a degree of ignorance, stubbornness, arrogance, stupidity, vapidity, irritability, and childishness so massive that it makes it impossible to argue with him.

Kudos!
 1. faking?

Faking or an extreme case of the Dunning-Kruger and/or cognitive dissonance.

lol, you just cutting and pasting from a list of debate tricks on the internet and accusing me of every one and hoping something sticks but unfortunately for you, nothing ever does.   

Median and jaime and jdawg are horrible that too.

I haven't used Copy+Paste at all, I prefer to write my own responses rather than use a catalog like you have a tendency to do.
If you can't answer my question, please don't resort to attempting to insult/bash me, it's transparent and frankly childish.

EDIT:
Please work on your grammar, it's painfully bad.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2013, 11:26:14 PM by Antidote »
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1140 on: October 31, 2013, 11:26:29 PM »
You know, it's occurred to me that this may very well be the longest thread that is accidentally directly on-topic.

This literally is the impossible argument.  DrTesla is displaying[1] a degree of ignorance, stubbornness, arrogance, stupidity, vapidity, irritability, and childishness so massive that it makes it impossible to argue with him.

Kudos!
 1. faking?

You guys are close minded.   Random mutations cannot result in complexity in lifeforms.  It is basic logic.   Random mutations can only result in randomness as there is no goal beforehand.   Do not fight the truth because you recognize the truth when you see it.  You are letting your ego get in the way of accepting a self evident truth.   

I won't mock you if you admit that I am right...much.   lol

I would admit that you were right, except for the minor fact of, you're dead wrong, you can't be any further from reality than you have been since you began posting in this thread, Yes random mutations can't result in the complexity in lifeforms BY THEMSELVES, which is why mutations are not the primary cause of evolution.

actually random mutations are the primary cause.  without them, you only have variation within the species due to natural selection.   You basically are relying on defective genes to provide some kind of benefit that gets passed on. 

what I never understood is it doesn't seem like many lifeforms of a species would have the same exact beneficial random mutation,  if they are truly random.   It seems like Darwin argues that a large percentage of them have the exact same beneficial mutation, and then in the next generation, they all have another beneficial random mutation that builds on the previous random mutations.  You have to think they could go severla generations without a random mutation in the ones that had a random mutation in the first generation. 

i think we are challenging the laws of probablity once again.  lol
"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 Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 460
  • Darwins +18/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1141 on: October 31, 2013, 11:28:18 PM »
actually random mutations are the primary cause.  without them, you only have variation within the species due to natural selection.   You basically are relying on defective genes to provide some kind of benefit that gets passed on. 

what I never understood is it doesn't seem like many lifeforms of a species would have the same exact beneficial random mutation,  if they are truly random.   It seems like Darwin argues that a large percentage of them have the exact same beneficial mutation, and then in the next generation, they all have another beneficial random mutation that builds on the previous random mutations.  You have to think they could go severla generations without a random mutation in the ones that had a random mutation in the first generation. 

i think we are challenging the laws of probablity once again.  lol
Actually no it's not, you can't really claim that any one mechanism is the "primary" cause, it's really an intricate combination of all of them.
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1142 on: October 31, 2013, 11:29:47 PM »
actually random mutations are the primary cause.  without them, you only have variation within the species due to natural selection.   You basically are relying on defective genes to provide some kind of benefit that gets passed on. 

what I never understood is it doesn't seem like many lifeforms of a species would have the same exact beneficial random mutation,  if they are truly random.   It seems like Darwin argues that a large percentage of them have the exact same beneficial mutation, and then in the next generation, they all have another beneficial random mutation that builds on the previous random mutations.  You have to think they could go severla generations without a random mutation in the ones that had a random mutation in the first generation. 

i think we are challenging the laws of probablity once again.  lol
Actually no it's not, you can't really claim that any one mechanism is the "primary" cause, it's really an intricate combination of all of them.

it is the primary cause otherwise natural selection has nothing new to select and build up to something more complex. 
"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: 1850
  • Darwins +320/-6
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1143 on: October 31, 2013, 11:31:29 PM »
You guys are close minded.   Random mutations cannot result in complexity in lifeforms.  It is basic logic.   Random mutations can only result in randomness as there is no goal beforehand.
You don't know what the word 'random' means, do you?
Quote
Do not fight the truth because you recognize the truth when you see it.  You are letting your ego get in the way of accepting a self evident truth.   
I'll...keep this in mind.  Or something.  What?
Quote
I won't mock you if you admit that I am right...much.   lol
Oh by all means mock away.  I look forward to the banality of your insults and the lack of thought that will be behind them.

It'll be a blast!

Median and jaime and jdawg are horrible that too. 
Wait - what did I copy/paste?

edit: un-sucking my grammar
« Last Edit: October 31, 2013, 11:34:24 PM by jdawg70 »
"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

Offline Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 460
  • Darwins +18/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1144 on: October 31, 2013, 11:33:03 PM »
Genetic mutations do happen at a regular rate, however you can't really claim it's the primary cause of evolution, yes it has a major role (one of the biggest), but there are a whole host of other causes, many of which scientists are still actively researching.
In layman, yes you could consider mutations as being the "primary" cause, but it's much more complicated than that.
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1145 on: October 31, 2013, 11:34:47 PM »
lol,  Darwins always move the goalposts on what the theory proposes. 

This is the theory as I see it:  random mutations + natural selection = cross species evolution + IC systems in lifeforms
"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 Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 460
  • Darwins +18/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1146 on: October 31, 2013, 11:36:19 PM »
When was the goal post moved, and in what way?
Please post a research paper claiming that "Random mutations" are the primary cause.
A major cause yes, primary? I don't think so, but I'm no biologist.
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1147 on: October 31, 2013, 11:39:23 PM »
When was the goal post moved?
Please post a research paper claiming that "Random mutations" are the primary cause.
A major cause yes, primary? I don't think so, but I'm no biologist.

That is what Dr. Behe says, he is the Godfather of ID.

He talks about the fact that random mutations are essentiall broke or blown up genes, even if they lead to some positive traits from a survival standpoint although most don't. 
So Darwins are proposing that complexity comes from a random combination of defective genes across the generations.

lol  this is harder to understand than the Trinity thing in Christianity. 
"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 Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 460
  • Darwins +18/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1148 on: October 31, 2013, 11:40:25 PM »
When was the goal post moved?
Please post a research paper claiming that "Random mutations" are the primary cause.
A major cause yes, primary? I don't think so, but I'm no biologist.

That is what Dr. Behe says
I stopped there,
Please stop spouting something from a discredited "scientist", even AiG is against him now.
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1149 on: October 31, 2013, 11:42:54 PM »
When was the goal post moved?
Please post a research paper claiming that "Random mutations" are the primary cause.
A major cause yes, primary? I don't think so, but I'm no biologist.

That is what Dr. Behe says
I stopped there,
Please stop spouting something from a discredited "scientist", even AiG is against him now.

who is AiG?

Watch Behe's presentiaton at university of Toronto on Youtube.

You will become a believer. 

Ok, I need to get my beauty sleep.  I am going to ask that you guys review my posts, absorb the information like a sponge,  and then be prepared to ask followup questions tomorrow.   
"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 Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 460
  • Darwins +18/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1150 on: October 31, 2013, 11:45:58 PM »
When was the goal post moved?
Please post a research paper claiming that "Random mutations" are the primary cause.
A major cause yes, primary? I don't think so, but I'm no biologist.

That is what Dr. Behe says
I stopped there,
Please stop spouting something from a discredited "scientist", even AiG is against him now.

who is AiG?

Watch Behe's presentiaton at university of Toronto on Youtube.

You will become a believer. 

Ok, I need to get my beauty sleep.  I am going to ask that you guys review my posts, absorb the information like a sponge,  and then be prepared to ask followup questions tomorrow.

I've read a lot of his writings, and watched a lot of videos, both supporting, and debunking IC, and I have to say, I'm not impressed.

Asserting that I'll become a believer is like claiming a monkey will become a Llama, if they believe a banana is a pineapple hard enough.

EDIT:
AiG is Answers in Genesis, and they've pretty much demanded that people stop using the complexity argument.
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12210
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1151 on: October 31, 2013, 11:59:31 PM »
It's about on-par with the exalted Banana argument.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 460
  • Darwins +18/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1152 on: November 01, 2013, 12:10:47 AM »
It's about on-par with the exalted Banana argument.
That's what I was going for, it's just as ridiculous for him to claim that someone with an appreciation for critical thinking will be swayed by that video.
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Offline William

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3564
  • Darwins +92/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1153 on: November 01, 2013, 12:36:51 AM »
Darwin was a fool, and by God, I will make you own it.

Haha  ;D amazing that a long dead man is still getting up the noses of God botherers on a daily basis. 
Git mit uns

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4629
  • Darwins +511/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1154 on: November 01, 2013, 12:55:27 AM »
Writing computer software isn't engineering.   It is computer "science",  at best.
I take it you've never heard of software engineering.  Which doesn't surprise me, given how ignorant you've shown yourself to be.

Quote from: DrTesla
I have not used my engineering expertise as proof,  I have used IC as proof.
Except irreducible complexity isn't proof of anything.  It's nothing more than logic, and fallacious logic at that.  Logic doesn't work when you try to use it to disprove things that really exist.

Quote from: DrTesla
So you guys think the cardiovascular system was able to evolve in gradual incremental steps via random mutations.  the heart wouldn't do much good without the veins and arteries,  the viens and arteries wouldn't do much good without a heart,  and half a heart would do much good.   Not to mention you have the interface with the respiratory system via the lungs so the cardiovascular system wouldn't be much good without the lungs.   lol
Which just goes to show how little you understand biology.  I keep telling you to do yourself a favor and actually learn something about it, but I guess you're content to keep making a fool of yourself.

Biological organs and systems aren't made of Lego blocks, and incremental evolution doesn't involve adding or removing 'pieces'.  So talking about only having "half a heart", for example, is just plain silly, or having a heart without veins and arteries for that matter.  That isn't how evolution works in the first place, no matter what you might think.  A less-evolved form of the heart still works, and a less-evolved cardiovascular wouldn't be missing arteries or veins.  You just make your position look ridiculous by using such strawmen.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4629
  • Darwins +511/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1155 on: November 01, 2013, 12:59:08 AM »
the silent majority never comment on here.  so this guy can't claim he is one of them.
Except he isn't claiming he is one, he's claiming he was one.  Duh.

Quote from: DrTesla
I am the Silent Majority's gladiator, and you collectively are the evil Roman emperor.
Except, didn't the Roman emperor have the right to decide if a gladiator died?  Maybe you should rethink this example.

Quote from: DrTesla
I am the Darwin Slayer.
Don't quit your day job.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4629
  • Darwins +511/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1156 on: November 01, 2013, 01:06:27 AM »
One last response for tonight.

engineer can be in your job title but you did not study engineering at the academy.
Certainly true.  I take it you speak from experience?

Quote from: DrTesla
you can train a blind monkey how to program.  lol
And it works about as well as trying to teach a group of monkeys to write Shakespeare.

Quote from: DrTesla
I don't have to prove, IC is a state of a system find in life and non-life.  A simple system like a mousetrap is IC,  therefore,  many systems of the body are IC.    Got to have all the parts to work.  To deny there are IC systems in the body is to underscore the lack of reason in Darwins.   If I force you to deny IC to defend Darwin, then I have won the debate.
Actually, you do have to prove that biological systems are irreducibly complex.  If you try to claim that you don't have to, you've effectively lost, because there's no point in considering a single word you say unless you come up with evidence to support it.  Given that irreducible complexity forms the basis of your entire argument, trying to pretend that you don't have to show that it actually exists in nature makes your whole argument wobbly and easy to topple, much like trying to make a brick building without mortar to secure the bricks to one another.

Quote from: DrTesla
Darwin was a fool, and by God, I will make you own it.
You're welcome to your opinion, but you are the only one who owns it.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2554
  • Darwins +206/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I did haz jeezusburgerâ„¢
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1157 on: November 01, 2013, 04:50:13 AM »
I think it is a logical assumption that given you are the only former member of the Silent Majority that you are the exception to the rule because surely others would have started commenting if they were not comfortable with me speaking for them.    I give these timid souls a voice and I don't apologize to you or anybody for that.

I did actually laugh out loud at that one. I think most of the lurkers are Google and other web bots.

Ok, I need to get my beauty sleep.  I am going to ask that you guys review my posts, absorb the information like a sponge,  and then be prepared to ask followup questions tomorrow.

Fucking troll.

Something you might like to know, is that Kayne and Kim are getting married, and Kayne wants to buy Kim a wedding dress that will show off her arse. If it pleases you, I will admit that Kim's arse is actually irreducibly complex, ... or at least more complex than anything you've said.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2013, 05:16:24 AM by Add Homonym »
I strive for clarity, but aim for confusion.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11680
  • Darwins +290/-80
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1158 on: November 01, 2013, 05:26:04 AM »
Ten more smites he'll be at 100. I think we should throw him a party but not invite him.

-Nam
This is my signature "Nam", don't I have nice typing skills?

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2442
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1159 on: November 01, 2013, 05:39:12 AM »
A mousetrap is Irreducibly Complex is it? Come on Dr T look st the video and the explain your reasoning.

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)