Shame on you Michael - I never suspected: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/01/cockfighting-the-last-hidden-link-to-balis-warlike-past/
But now we all know better.
Most British scientists: Richard Dawkins' work misrepresents science
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
But now we all know better.
Speaking of Abrahamic monotheistic ID only:
None of the serious issues still facing abiogenesis have been raised in the first place by ID proponents, and none of the issues raised by ID proponents specifically are serious.
All the serious issues were first raised, and are still raised (and being worked on), by scientific researchers and theorists.
Abrahamic monotheistic ID proponents have no theory of their own, and no research program, and no body of evidence or reasoning not already present within the scientific community that is interested in this and working on it. From a scientific perspective, A-ID is entirely parasitic.
There is an ID approach that has made a scientific contribution - the Gaia hypothesis has led to fruitful and informative research in element cycling - but its tenets and approaches are unlike the Abrahamic monotheistic folks.
I have no interest in endlessly contesting such assertions that contain some grains of truth amidst the disingenuous. But, once again the materialist faithful will nod in approval.
Bingo.
Can I expand your knowledge base?
Hello Kitty sticky notes are about 50mm square notes much same as yellow Post Its.
Normal colour is white with a carton character print
In fact thinking about my sending you a Hello Kitty sticky note.
A blank note will make more sense then any published research on ID.
No
(Poe) I mean it.
Since it's degenerated further into trivia mode, might as well get into swing and ask you to explain what Poe means exactly. Assuming it does have a meaning. Hope it's not too nasty - I'm a pretty delicate character. Web search throws up too many possibilities.Damn and bother.
Forgot to put Poe on last post.
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/S/smiley.html
From the link
A smiley is often used in text communications to convey an emotion with a message. Smilies are used in text messages in the same way voice changes and facial expressions are used in face-to-face or telephone conversation. For example, if you were joking with someone and send a text message of "Idiot!" the person receiving your message may think you are making a rude comment to them. If you send the same message with a "happy smiley" : ) following, the person would then understand you were "smiling" - or joking when you said that, and not misinterpret your intent.
Can't find the link where a gentleman named Poe used
to indicate his posts should not be taken seriously when he found some (to many for his liking) were taking his (and him) to seriously.Very semi-interesting. Better put in an application here: http://www.webopedia.com/quick_ref/textmessageabbreviations.asp#Phttp://www.webopedia.com/TERM/S/smiley.html
From the link
A smiley is often used in text communications to convey an emotion with a message. Smilies are used in text messages in the same way voice changes and facial expressions are used in face-to-face or telephone conversation. For example, if you were joking with someone and send a text message of "Idiot!" the person receiving your message may think you are making a rude comment to them. If you send the same message with a "happy smiley" : ) following, the person would then understand you were "smiling" - or joking when you said that, and not misinterpret your intent.
Can't find the link where a gentleman named Poe used
Your 'invention' is sadly missing. But trust me, I instinctively never took your posts too seriously - even the serious ones.
As you have nodded in approval of the video by Peltzer?
Assertions are assertions and scientific assertions are pretty close to fact in this thread. That is the fact that we exist is evidence for Abiogenisis, and of course the reasoning in more then 2 dozen odd papers I have posted.
Second assertion of course being that ID is simply a non scientific mythical god of the gaps explanation by those that accept it.
Pardon! What invention?
You have hurt my fragile feelings by not taking my post to serious. Worse even the serious ones?????
Sob sob.
Seems I really have upset you dear Michael. Judging by the diction there anyway. So sorry.Pardon! What invention?
You have hurt my fragile feelings by not taking my post to serious. Worse even the serious ones?????
Sob sob.
I can only wonder how the nearest and dearest takes all that righteous indignation against her kind. Must be dammed awful to endure.As you have nodded in approval of the video by Peltzer?
Assertions are assertions and scientific assertions are pretty close to fact in this thread. That is the fact that we exist is evidence for Abiogenisis, and of course the reasoning in more then 2 dozen odd papers I have posted.
Second assertion of course being that ID is simply a non scientific mythical god of the gaps explanation by those that accept it.
Not really...she is tolerant of my views and of science, and is certainly no god botherer...remembering that my definition of a god botherer isn't just anyone that finds comfort in religion...that's there perogative....my definition of a god botherer are the fools that come to science forums [the only outlet they have] preaching their anti GR or anti abiogenisis nonsense, and doing the bidding of their mythical overlords. You have a good day, and please don't try on any hats, OK?
missed this one:
It's an obviously invalid argument, debunked in all its previous incarnations - the bishops watch, the eyeball, the wing, the blood clotting mechanism, etc. As Alex put it:
Side note: one way to see immediately where you have gone wrong is by noticing this: "biological usefulness" of molecules is an irrelevant concept in abiogenesis - we are talking about the evolution of nonliving chemical complexes, and their future "usefulness" is completely beside the point. As soon as you use the term, you are going wrong.
Side side note: one obvious counter to "showing complexity does not establish a designer" would be "intelligent design does not require a designer" - but that never occurred to you, did it? That's because you're an Abrahamic monotheist.
Exactly. They are arguing that the biological systems we have now are too irreducibly complex to have evolved from undifferentiated chemical mixtures and structures, therefore abiogenesis was essentially impossible - the tornado in a junkyard scenario.
It's an obviously invalid argument, debunked in all its previous incarnations - the bishops watch, the eyeball, the wing, the blood clotting mechanism, etc. As Alex put it:
Side note: one way to see immediately where you have gone wrong is by noticing this: "biological usefulness" of molecules is an irrelevant concept in abiogenesis - we are talking about the evolution of nonliving chemical complexes, and their future "usefulness" is completely beside the point. As soon as you use the term, you are going wrong.
Side side note: one obvious counter to "showing complexity does not establish a designer" would be "intelligent design does not require a designer" - but that never occurred to you, did it? That's because you're an Abrahamic monotheist.
Last edited:
You are into rave mode worse than usual. Someone who has an issue with GR (and many theorists that you would not be worthy to lick their boots qualify) is a god botherer? So I assume AE is a god to you - that's the logic. As for 'doing the bidding of their mythical overlords' - who do you SAY not insinuate - is here at SF into that sort of thing?
You have a good day, and please don't try on any hats, OK?
OK bating Troll. This should be a good test of this forum's worth.
The topic being Dawkins, I forgot to bring it around in 715:
The influence of Abrahamic monotheism on the common ID arguments in these English language forums - and by influence one means of course "crippling" - was illustrated there - four mentions of other kinds of ID approach is insufficient hint, the rut of the religion-railed thinking is too deep to get out of without something like an "enlightenment". This is part of what Dawkins is talking about, when he disparages religion (with his focus on the Abrahamic monotheisms) - they do damage to a kind of thinking and imagination that is important to Dawkins.