Author Topic: The Impossibility Argument  (Read 27229 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12463
  • Darwins +323/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1160 on: November 01, 2013, 05:42:38 AM »
^stupidity?

-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 jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4935
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1161 on: November 01, 2013, 08:57:21 AM »
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.
First off, mutations aren't "defective genes" in general, so your argument would fail even if mutations were the primary cause of genetic change.  But you're forgetting about errors while replicating or repairing DNA.  Those are actually quite common, and so they drive evolution as well.

Quote from: DrTesla
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.
What makes you think that it doesn't take hundreds of generations for a beneficial mutation to spread through a gene pool, or that you have to have beneficial mutation on top of beneficial mutation, generation after generation?  What you put above about 'Darwin' requiring that most of them must have the exact same beneficial mutation, and then have another different beneficial mutation in the very next generation (and presumably, so on and so forth), that's nothing but creationist propaganda.

Mutations happen all the time, but most of them don't make any noticeable difference.  So it usually takes a while (hundreds of generations) for those mutations to layer themselves to the point where they do have some effect.  It also takes hundreds of generations for mutations to spread themselves through the gene pool, even under the best of circumstances.  In other words, you're not understanding something that's not actually part of the theory of evolution, but made-up propaganda from those who oppose it.

Quote from: DrTesla
i think we are challenging the laws of probablity once again.  lol
You never did answer my questions about probability.  For that matter, you didn't even acknowledge that I'd asked them.  Until you demonstrate that you understand how probability works, you claiming that something goes against the laws of probability is silly.

Here's an easy pair of questions for you.  How many people do you need in a room to reach a 50% chance that two of them will have the same birthday?  And how many people do you need in a room to reach a 99% chance?
« Last Edit: November 01, 2013, 09:45:18 AM by jaimehlers »

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1790
  • Darwins +191/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1162 on: November 01, 2013, 09:59:45 AM »
Until you demonstrate that you understand how probability works, you claiming that something goes against the laws of probability is silly.

Can I take the liberty of pointing out that you are giving him more credit than he has earned? Until he can demonstrate that he understands how anything works, everything he claims is silly.
"It's hard to, but I'm starting to believe some of you actually believe these things.  That is completely beyond my ability to understand if that is really the case, but things never cease to amaze me."

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4935
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1163 on: November 01, 2013, 10:13:02 AM »
Can I take the liberty of pointing out that you are giving him more credit than he has earned? Until he can demonstrate that he understands how anything works, everything he claims is silly.
One thing at a time, Jag.

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1790
  • Darwins +191/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1164 on: November 01, 2013, 10:39:45 AM »
Can I take the liberty of pointing out that you are giving him more credit than he has earned? Until he can demonstrate that he understands how anything works, everything he claims is silly.
One thing at a time, Jag.
Fair enough. The longer the trip, the more preparation needed for the first steps.  ;)
"It's hard to, but I'm starting to believe some of you actually believe these things.  That is completely beyond my ability to understand if that is really the case, but things never cease to amaze me."

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1790
  • Darwins +191/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1165 on: November 01, 2013, 11:34:05 AM »
Ok, I need to get my beauty sleep.
Tonight will you please try to get some smart sleep instead? That really would be more beneficial - there's simply no way you can be as unattractive as you are foolish.
"It's hard to, but I'm starting to believe some of you actually believe these things.  That is completely beyond my ability to understand if that is really the case, but things never cease to amaze me."

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1166 on: November 01, 2013, 11:40:05 AM »
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

close-mind·ed (klsmndd, klz-) or closed-mind·ed (klzd-)
adj.
Intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others; stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas.

Wrong sir. YOU are the closed-minded one. It is YOU has refused to open your mind to the possibility that you are ignorant. It is YOU who refuses to admit your confirmation bias and using logical fallacies. And it is YOU who is (as you admitted) ignorant of the science and unwilling to challenge your own presuppositions. Your closed-mindedness here is clear for all to see. It is only YOU who refuses to admit your error in irrational argumentation.

p.s. - Don't talk to me about "basic logic" b/c you clearly don't practice it. "Do not fight the truth..." that your arguments irrational. "You are letting your ego get in the way..." of admitting your errors in thinking and admitting ignorance of subjects for which you have not studied.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1167 on: November 01, 2013, 11:57:10 AM »
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.

^^^ IGNORANCE AND INCREDULITY
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4935
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1168 on: November 01, 2013, 12:15:33 PM »
If you comment on here,  are you Silent?  The question answers itself.
The fact of the matter is that he didn't comment here before he registered, so he was part of the "silent majority" you claim to speak for.  In fact, he registered because the thought of you speaking for him was too insulting to bear.  In fact, I'll bet the majority of the 'guests' here are either members who don't have their username and password information saved (thus the forum software sees them as guests initially) or spend their time in other sections of the messageboard.

The only reason for this "silent majority" nonsense is so you can try to get a rise out of people.

A Freshman wants to challenge a Graduate.   You have much to learn.
His forum title is based on his post count.  As is yours.  And mine.  So maybe you could stop making foolish assumptions based on things which you're ignorant of.  Maybe then you might actually say things that have some meaning, rather than repeating the same tiresome old circular arguments over and over again.

Quote from: DrTesla
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.
No, the only assumption you can safely make is that he's the only non-user who, upon reading this topic, was so offended by you presuming to speak for him that he registered to make sure he could speak for himself.  Neither you, nor anyone, knows what topics the guests look at, or even if they end up looking at any.  So claiming that you speak for them is silly, given that you don't even know if any of them are looking at this topic.  Just another assumption, from someone who's made dozens.  If Occam's razor were effective against humans, you'd be sliced into very thin ribbons by now.

You guys are close minded.
For an example of close-mindedness, continue reading.

Quote
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.
See?  Very close-minded.  Unwilling to admit that he might not actually know, claiming that "basic logic" supports his arguments, making declarations of what can and cannot be without actually having spent any real time studying biology, declaring that his opinion is 'Truth', and declaring that other people's egos are getting in the way of them recognizing just how self-evident his 'Truth' is.

Quote from: DrTesla
I won't mock you if you admit that I am right...much.
Not unless you come up with some real evidence to support these otherwise baseless assertions you keep making.  You see, science works by gathering evidence to support contentions.  So by refusing to gather evidence, you are undercutting the foundation of your entire argument.

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.
This might come as a shock to you, but those aren't "debate tricks", except maybe on the part of the people actually using them.  They're real rhetological fallacies that people use every day in support of their arguments, despite the fact that they're superficial at best and tend to weaken an argument much more than they could possibly strengthen it.  Such arguments are the equivalent of pounding the table in the hopes that people won't notice that you don't actually have any basis for your position.

lol,  Darwins always move the goalposts on what the theory proposes.
Trying to correct your misunderstandings (usually bad misunderstandings) about evolutionary theory is not moving the goalposts.

Quote from: DrTesla
This is the theory as I see it:  random mutations + natural selection = cross species evolution + IC systems in lifeforms
That isn't it at all.  You're so far off-base that it isn't even funny.  Look, you really need to spend some time reviewing what evolutionary theory actually says, instead of trying to puzzle it out for yourself, because clearly you don't understand it well enough to even get in the same ballpark.

Evolution is, simply, descent with modification[1].  The modifications come from mutations, from DNA replication/replacement errors, and from meiosis (the shuffling of chromosomes in gametes), and probably others that I'm not aware of.  Descent in the case of evolution is basically speciation events, where a the population of a parent species gets split up and then diverges to the point where it's a different species.  This happens over, and over, and over again.  We don't have cats 'evolving' into dogs, for example; we have an ancient parent species that diverged into different species (say, one that resembled felines, and one that resembled canines), and then continued evolving from there.  So there is no "cross-species evolution".

There is also no "irreducible complexity".  Organs and systems don't evolve by magically adding or subtracting anatomical parts where they don't function unless all the parts happen to be in place, they evolve through the same process that animals evolve, a gene at a time, and sometimes (really, more like rarely, at least on human terms) those genes combine in such a way that they make a beneficial change in an organ.  Then the change tends to spread, especially if it enhances survivability or reproductive capability.  To put it another way, the precursor to the heart and cardiovascular system was fully functional and did the job of oxygenating body tissues, but the current one works better and ultimately replaced the precursor, at least in species that have a four-chambered heart and other signatures of our cardiovascular system.

That is what Dr. Behe says, he is the Godfather of ID.
Aside from the fact that intelligent design has been around for centuries, even millennia, the fact that Behe is a strong proponent of ID does not relieve him of the responsibility of presenting real evidence to support his position.  Indeed, it makes it all the more important.  If even one of the staunchest proponents of ID can't produce any solid evidence which shows it, why should it be taken seriously?

Quote from: DrTesla
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.
No, random mutations are changes in genes, not "broke or blown up" ones.  Most mutations are not detrimental to the organism; of the ones that are, most prevent it from being viable to begin with (which means that the mutations are gone from the gene pool).  In other words, most of the detrimental mutations wipe themselves out, leaving only the disadvantageous ones.  And, of course, the neutral ones, and any beneficial ones.

Quote from: DrTesla
So Darwins are proposing that complexity comes from a random combination of defective genes across the generations.
No, proponents of evolutionary theory have shown that complexity comes from descent with modification over a lengthy span of generations.  Modification meaning mutations, errors in DNA transcription, replication, and repair, and meiosis.

Quote from: DrTesla
lol  this is harder to understand than the Trinity thing in Christianity.
We are all well aware of your inability to understand evolutionary theory by now.  Why do you think you've been so soundly criticized for your continued attempts to 'disprove' something that you don't understand in the first place?  Simply repeating Behe's arguments isn't enough, because you don't understand the subject well enough to deal with objections and rebuttals to those arguments.

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

You will become a believer.
Just because Behe understands the intelligent design argument better than you (which, to be blunt, isn't hard to see at this point) doesn't mean his argument is actually convincing.  So no, I'll wager that if I watched it, I would be at least as skeptical of intelligent design and irreducible complexity as I am right now.  Behe's argument is not about presenting evidence for intelligent design or anything like that, it's about trying to refute evolutionary theory by raising questions and concerns about it.

Though in all honesty, I don't mind that.  Even though I think his arguments are dead wrong, it isn't a bad thing for him to present them.  As they're refuted, they strengthen evolutionary science even more than it already is.  If nothing else, Behe's efforts should help us get things straight for when we start designing organisms of our own - if only by helping us eliminate bad ideas like irreducible complexity in biology.

Quote from: DrTesla
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.
Overconfident much?  You've admitted repeatedly that you don't really understand evolutionary theory, and your arguments are basically copied from Behe and repeated mostly verbatim.  Not the kind of thing that's going to convince anyone who isn't already halfway there.
 1. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6463
  • Darwins +769/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1169 on: November 01, 2013, 12:41:48 PM »
Random mutations can only result in randomness as there is no goal beforehand.   

The laryngeal nerve in mammals goes from the brain to the throat. But first it travels around the heart. Because it evolved in fish, which don't have necks. When mammal necks formed, the nerve merely lengthened at both ends as the neck evolved. In the giraffe, said nerve, which only has to go a few inches, is 15 feet long. Which sounds about as frickin' random and goal-less as possible.

http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2010/06/22/the-laryngeal-nerve-of-the-gir/

Don't read what I just wrote, though, DrT. Your mind can reject just a certain amount of information. I wouldn't want to underload it.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6463
  • Darwins +769/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1170 on: November 01, 2013, 12:49:09 PM »
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

My bold.

Man, DrT, you sure don't know how to spell the word "anything". Which you were apparently trying to do when you accidently spit out that strange series of words.

Of course you meant that sentence to say "what I never understood is anything", and we all know that. But I thought I would point out the latest in your long series of blunders.

Oh, and by the way, welcome Antidote. But it saddens me that you are contributing to the conversation, and thereby flustering the good Dr.. Your insensitivity to DrT's various mental defects is sad to watch. As is mine  ;D
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4935
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1171 on: November 01, 2013, 01:05:04 PM »
I enjoyed reading the comments, ParkingPlaces.  I especially enjoyed the one about having ear surgery, and having it maybe affect taste due to the nerve running through the ear.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6463
  • Darwins +769/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1172 on: November 01, 2013, 01:14:09 PM »
Note to DrT.

I won't be giving up on you. I had a girlfriend who was clearly your twin. She thought she was so important, and so smart, that she just couldn't quite figure out why there were other people on the planet. They weren't necessary, and they interfered with her high opinion of herself. And you are the same way.

I ended up paying her well over 100K in child support, because, like you, she lied when it was convenient. Like about birth control. And the minute she found out she was pregnant, she broke up with me and went to her lawyers office.  So I'm taking my revenge out on you. This is about as personal as an anonymous web interaction can get. People like her, and you, are what makes life about at trillion times more miserable than it has to be.

By the way, all she could do is repeat herself too. The last original thought she ever had was "Gee, its kinda light that direction. Guess I slide out that way." After that, she was on an auto-importance trip and all she could say was "me me me me me me me". Just like you.

So hang around. You're frickin' cathartic.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6685
  • Darwins +891/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1173 on: November 01, 2013, 03:00:54 PM »
Ok, I need to get my beauty sleep.
Tonight will you please try to get some smart sleep instead? That really would be more beneficial - there's simply no way you can be as unattractive as you are foolish.

Dayum!
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12463
  • Darwins +323/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1174 on: November 01, 2013, 03:22:51 PM »
I can't believe some of you are still calling him "Dr".

;)

-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 nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6685
  • Darwins +891/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1175 on: November 01, 2013, 05:32:00 PM »
You know, it's an honorific. You got yer Dr. Phil, Dr. Seuss, Dr. Frankenstein, Dr. Jekyll, Dr. Phibes...
 


I am a doctor, too. But like Bruce Banner, I'm not that kind of a doctor. But I am willing to play doctor if you give me enough incentive. ;)


Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12463
  • Darwins +323/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1176 on: November 01, 2013, 05:44:44 PM »
Hey, I just watched the Abominable Dr. Phibes an hour ago, and I can prove it:

http://imdb.com/user/ur1345280/?ref_nb_usr_prof -- listed in my "recently rated".

:)

-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 Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Darwins +23/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • non-cdesign-proponentsist
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1177 on: November 01, 2013, 06:48:48 PM »
This...

Wrong sir.

...made me think of this...

No day in which you learn something is wasted.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6685
  • Darwins +891/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1178 on: November 01, 2013, 07:06:59 PM »
^^^Nobody can do a crazy kiss-off like Mean Gene. When he tells you off, you been done told and you stay told.  ;D
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 484
  • Darwins +19/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1179 on: November 01, 2013, 07:13:07 PM »
There is an interesting lack of DT today, wonder if he fell out of bed and hit a Bio book.
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 ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6463
  • Darwins +769/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1180 on: November 01, 2013, 07:32:37 PM »
I can't believe some of you are still calling him "Dr".

;)

-Nam

I guess we should start addressing him as EngineerT. It's probably no more accurate but you're right, we do need to change his name to something else. Just DT?

Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12463
  • Darwins +323/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1181 on: November 01, 2013, 07:43:43 PM »
I can't believe some of you are still calling him "Dr".

;)

-Nam

I guess we should start addressing him as EngineerT. It's probably no more accurate but you're right, we do need to change his name to something else. Just DT?



DT = Dumb Twit

;)

-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 ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6463
  • Darwins +769/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1182 on: November 01, 2013, 09:04:56 PM »
I can't believe some of you are still calling him "Dr".

;)

-Nam

I guess we should start addressing him as EngineerT. It's probably no more accurate but you're right, we do need to change his name to something else. Just DT?



DT = Dumb Twit

;)

-Nam

I've got a lisp. I was thinking DipThit.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12338
  • Darwins +677/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1183 on: November 01, 2013, 11:21:22 PM »
^^^Nobody can do a crazy kiss-off like Mean Gene. When he tells you off, you been done told and you stay told.  ;D

This is actually a sound effect on my computer.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1184 on: November 01, 2013, 11:32:44 PM »


I think he relates to Oliver.
Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1185 on: November 01, 2013, 11:56:49 PM »
LISTEN TO THE MAN TESLA HIMSELF!!

Quote
...science is opposed to theological dogmas because science is founded on fact. To me, the universe is simply a great machine which never came into being and never will end. The human being is no exception to the natural order. Man, like the universe, is a machine. Nothing enters our minds or determines our actions which is not directly or indirectly a response to stimuli beating upon our sense organs from without. Owing to the similarity of our construction and the sameness of our environment, we respond in like manner to similar stimuli, and from the concordance of our reactions, understanding is born. In the course of ages, mechanisms of infinite complexity are developed, but what we call "soul " or "spirit," is nothing more than the sum of the functionings of the body. When this functioning ceases, the "soul" or the "spirit" ceases likewise." - by Nikola Tesla - 1937
[1]

Nikola Tesla was an Agnostic Atheist


"Tesla insisted until his death that he was materialistic, rationalistic, and agnostic."[2]

 1. as told to George Sylvester Viereck, "A Machine to End War"
 2.  Philip S. Callahan (1977). Tuning in to Nature: Solar Energy, Infrared Radiation, and the Insect Communication System. Taylor & Francis. p. 32. ISBN 9780710086945.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2013, 12:29:23 AM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6463
  • Darwins +769/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1186 on: November 02, 2013, 12:28:08 AM »
Angus and Alexis, the only problem with that Monty Python thingy was that I saw it when it originally aired in England about 43 years ago. Thanks for reminding me what an old twit I am!

But I'm no good at it. I have yet to figure out how to shoot myself in the head. I keep hitting the neighbor I just woke up!
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1187 on: November 02, 2013, 01:08:47 AM »
I know how you feel.

Today i ran myself over after missing a rabbit that was staked to the ground...
Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3013
  • Darwins +265/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1188 on: November 02, 2013, 02:13:54 AM »
we do need to change his name to something else. Just DT?

DT as in 'delirium tremens.'  Because when I read some of his posts, I start shaking all over and crave CH3CH2OH. :P
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles