PDA

View Full Version : APP - Hypothetical Scenario for Thinkers



Pages : [1] 2

Dixie - In Memoriam
07-30-2009, 03:59 PM
It is 500 years in the future. Man has perfected a way to travel to distant galaxies, and has discovered a planet much like Earth. In fact, it is ecologically just like Earth, with slightly less water and oxygen. However, after our initial explorations, it appears there is very little life on the planet. No advanced life whatsoever, only some simple vegetation in certain areas. We've explored the oceans and find nothing living there either. No signs of any kind of civilization, no intelligent life has been found, in spite of our advanced equipment which is designed to detect any kind of life as we know it. Aside from the rare and sparse vegetation, there is no sign of any life on the planet.

What we have discovered, is puzzling. The planet is full of mechanical devices of all kinds. Machines are running everywhere, producing things, computing things, making other machines. Some machines, we simply don't know what they are for, or what they are doing. There are buildings, but they are very simple structures, seemingly designed to just keep out the elements and protect the running machines. No bathrooms or running water, except where water is needed for the machines to produce. We've scratched our heads over this for a decade, and science is still baffled. Where are the people? Who made the machines? How did they get there? The questions are endless, as we grapple with the details of this new world.

The question posed by this hypothetical scenario... what is your conclusion? Did machines "evolve" into existence? Did some source of intelligence we can't detect or which no longer exist, make the machines? Is this some project erected by another civilization on another planet?

FUCK THE POLICE
07-30-2009, 04:06 PM
Is this some fancy new version of the watchmaker analogy?

DamnYankee
07-30-2009, 04:10 PM
Doood- that's basically the last chapter of The Terminator.

ib1yysguy
07-30-2009, 05:24 PM
Watches aren't subject to natural selection. They don't reproduce. The watchmaker analogy is completely stupid.

Though, some scientists have said that there are basically two possible forms for life. One is carbon based like our own, and the only other element that possesses the potential for replicating itself is a lifelike way is silicon. So it's not completely impossible for machine life to evolve. It would take a fantastic coincidence/chance (read: lots and lots of time) for it to happen, but it can happen theoretically.

BRUTALITOPS
07-30-2009, 05:43 PM
Watches aren't subject to natural selection. They don't reproduce. The watchmaker analogy is completely stupid.

Though, some scientists have said that there are basically two possible forms for life. One is carbon based like our own, and the only other element that possesses the potential for replicating itself is a lifelike way is silicon. So it's not completely impossible for machine life to evolve. It would take a fantastic coincidence/chance (read: lots and lots of time) for it to happen, but it can happen theoretically.

i dont' think that was the answer dixie was looking for

Dixie - In Memoriam
07-30-2009, 06:02 PM
i dont' think that was the answer dixie was looking for

Not really "looking for" an answer. Just curious as to what you would conclude or what theories you would find to explain such a discovery.

ib1yysguy
07-30-2009, 06:05 PM
Not really "looking for" an answer. Just curious as to what you would conclude or what theories you would find to explain such a discovery.

... clearly you're going to make some retarded argument spun off of the watchmaker theory against evolution as soon as someone says they had to be designed.

Minister of Truth
07-30-2009, 06:18 PM
Watches aren't subject to natural selection. They don't reproduce. The watchmaker analogy is completely stupid.

Though, some scientists have said that there are basically two possible forms for life. One is carbon based like our own, and the only other element that possesses the potential for replicating itself is a lifelike way is silicon. So it's not completely impossible for machine life to evolve. It would take a fantastic coincidence/chance (read: lots and lots of time) for it to happen, but it can happen theoretically.

Dude, if silicon did that, the women that evolved from it would be SUUUUUPER HOTTTTT!!! :cool:

ib1yysguy
07-30-2009, 06:20 PM
Dude, if silicon did that, the women that evolved from it would be SUUUUUPER HOTTTTT!!! :cool:

http://www.ugo.com/movies/top-50-hottest-sci-fi-girls/images/entries/the-terminatrix.jpg

FUCK THE POLICE
07-30-2009, 06:26 PM
Watches aren't subject to natural selection. They don't reproduce. The watchmaker analogy is completely stupid.

Though, some scientists have said that there are basically two possible forms for life. One is carbon based like our own, and the only other element that possesses the potential for replicating itself is a lifelike way is silicon. So it's not completely impossible for machine life to evolve. It would take a fantastic coincidence/chance (read: lots and lots of time) for it to happen, but it can happen theoretically.

Actually there are several theoretical alternatives to carbon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_biochemistry#Silicon_biochemistry

There's silicon, nitrogen/phosphorous, arsenic, chlorine, and sulfur. But it's unlikely there are a lot of alien animals that don't use carbon. Think about it a second - there is a LOT more silicon on earth than carbon, but life evolved through carbon just because it's so much easier.

And silicon based life wouldn't resemble a machine.

ib1yysguy
07-30-2009, 06:28 PM
Actually there are several theoretical alternatives to carbon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_biochemistry#Silicon_biochemistry

There's silicon, nitrogen/phosphorous, arsenic, chlorine, and sulfur. But it's unlikely there are a lot of alien animals that don't use carbon. Think about it a second - there is a LOT more silicon on earth than carbon, but life evolved through carbon just because it's so much easier.

And silicon based life wouldn't resemble a machine.

Yeah, I googled it out of curiosity after I wrote it. The only one I had ever heard as an alternative was silicon. I heard a scientist even say that was the only likely alternative. Turns out there are some other, even less likely alternatives.

The point, I think, is that the point Dixie is itching to make here is absolutely retarded. If I went to a desert and found a refrigerator sitting there I'd have to be retarded to think it evolved and wasn't made by man. Machines aren't subject to evolutionary forces. They have to be designed. That's not true for biological systems.

FUCK THE POLICE
07-30-2009, 06:29 PM
Not really "looking for" an answer. Just curious as to what you would conclude or what theories you would find to explain such a discovery.

Dixie, we all know your purpose for making this thread, and it is not a good argument at all. Your essentially saying that if we went to a planet that had all machine life it would prove the existence of God - but there is no such planet so it's really useless for you to argue this and doesn't support your point.

FUCK THE POLICE
07-30-2009, 06:30 PM
Yeah, I googled it out of curiosity after I wrote it. The only one I had ever heard as an alternative was silicon. I heard a scientist even say that was the only likely alternative. Turns out there are some other, even less likely alternatives.

It'd be fucking awesome if they really existed, though.

FUCK THE POLICE
07-30-2009, 06:41 PM
(7:39:01 PM) ib1yysguy: here's what he wants someone to say
(7:39:11 PM) ib1yysguy: that we would have to conclude they were made by some species who left them there
(7:39:18 PM) ib1yysguy: then he'll say something retarded about intelligent designer
(7:39:36 PM) ib1yysguy: call biology a machine and say it had to be an intelligent designer that left us here because biology is no different than a watch
(7:40:02 PM) Watermark: Yeah that's where he's going
(7:40:15 PM) Watermark: I'm just going to post that
(7:40:22 PM) ib1yysguy: lol
(7:40:22 PM) Watermark: He think he's being clever, but we all see through him

Minister of Truth
07-30-2009, 06:49 PM
http://www.ugo.com/movies/top-50-hottest-sci-fi-girls/images/entries/the-terminatrix.jpg

:1up:

Yes, that is what I'm talkin' about! :woot:

midcan5
07-30-2009, 06:52 PM
Lewis Mumford's insight is proven in its extreme, climate kills ?????kind; life will be left to the cockroach and the machine.

"Western society has accepted as unquestionable a technological imperative that is quite as arbitrary as the most primitive taboo: not merely the duty to foster invention and constantly to create technological novelties, but equally the duty to surrender to these novelties unconditionally, just because they are offered, without respect to their human consequences." Lewis Mumford

Amazon.com: Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology (9780679745402): Neil Postman: Books
Amazon.com: Myth of the Machine : Technics and Human Development (9780156623414): Lewis Mumford: Books

Minister of Truth
07-30-2009, 07:16 PM
Sigh.

Midcan, we have been this way since the Enlightenment. But I guess you would prefer we just got back to the Middle Ages...

uscitizen
07-30-2009, 07:30 PM
So obviously god made thoe machines and do they have souls and will go to heaven?

Minister of Truth
07-30-2009, 07:47 PM
So obviously god made thoe machines and do they have souls and will go to heaven?

No, they won't. But they sure are fun, whooooieee!!

PostmodernProphet
07-30-2009, 08:11 PM
(7:39:01 PM) ib1yysguy: here's what he wants someone to say
(7:39:11 PM) ib1yysguy: that we would have to conclude they were made by some species who left them there
(7:39:18 PM) ib1yysguy: then he'll say something retarded about intelligent designer
(7:39:36 PM) ib1yysguy: call biology a machine and say it had to be an intelligent designer that left us here because biology is no different than a watch
(7:40:02 PM) Watermark: Yeah that's where he's going
(7:40:15 PM) Watermark: I'm just going to post that
(7:40:22 PM) ib1yysguy: lol
(7:40:22 PM) Watermark: He think he's being clever, but we all see through him

I'm glad we all recognized his logic....

FUCK THE POLICE
07-30-2009, 08:52 PM
It is 500 years in the future. Man has perfected a way to travel to distant galaxies, and has discovered a planet much like Earth.

The nearest star system is 2 million light years away. It's impossible to get there in less than 2 million years.

BRUTALITOPS
07-30-2009, 09:00 PM
The nearest star system is 2 million light years away. It's impossible to get there in less than 2 million years.

nearest star though is only 4 light years away. who says it has to be 2 million light years away?

Dixie - In Memoriam
07-30-2009, 09:35 PM
... clearly you're going to make some retarded argument spun off of the watchmaker theory against evolution as soon as someone says they had to be designed.

The point, I think, is that the point Dixie is itching to make here is absolutely retarded. If I went to a desert and found a refrigerator sitting there I'd have to be retarded to think it evolved and wasn't made by man. Machines aren't subject to evolutionary forces. They have to be designed. That's not true for biological systems.

Dixie, we all know your purpose for making this thread, and it is not a good argument at all. Your essentially saying that if we went to a planet that had all machine life it would prove the existence of God - but there is no such planet so it's really useless for you to argue this and doesn't support your point.

So obviously god made thoe machines and do they have souls and will go to heaven?


First of all, this is posted on the APP board, so I would appreciate it if you would stop calling me names like "retard" and saying I am "retarded" because that is offensive to me and a violation of this boards policies. If you can't debate this in a civilized manner, I am sure a ban can be arranged. Thanks

Next, I would like to point out, I have presented NO argument. I posed a hypothetical scenario with a series of questions, and I objectively asked for answers. There are no right or wrong answers here, it is merely an examination of thought. I have not mentioned God or a Creator, I have not mentioned a Watchmaker or any analogy of the sort. Let's please stick to what I posted and the presentation as it was made, and stop trying to infer intent and meaning that isn't there. if you have an opinion, present it, but leave your insults and indignation at the door, and remember which forum you are in.

Dixie - In Memoriam
07-30-2009, 09:37 PM
Machines aren't subject to evolutionary forces. They have to be designed. That's not true for biological systems.

Please present your unequivocal proof that biological systems can not be products of design.

Dixie - In Memoriam
07-30-2009, 09:39 PM
but there is no such planet so it's really useless for you to argue this and doesn't support your point.

Please present your proof that no such planet exists in the universe. Also, let's clarify once more, this is not an "argument" it is a hypothetical scenario, and there is no relative "point" inferred by the scenario presented.

Dixie - In Memoriam
07-30-2009, 09:42 PM
The nearest star system is 2 million light years away. It's impossible to get there in less than 2 million years.

Remember, this is a hypothetical scenario 500 years in the future.

I have one word for you.... Wormholes!

Onceler
07-30-2009, 09:55 PM
It's hard to draw a conclusion based on the limited data provided, but if they were machines by our current definitions of "machine," sure, you could say that something created them.

Is this the "a ha!" moment, where we find out that this is exactly like organic life on earth?

BRUTALITOPS
07-30-2009, 09:57 PM
maybe it's the moment he tells us that humans are infinitely more complex than machines, and if we are to say that something less complex than us must have had a creator, than we too must have had a creator.

Dixie - In Memoriam
07-30-2009, 09:57 PM
It's hard to draw a conclusion based on the limited data provided, but if they were machines by our current definitions of "machine," sure, you could say that something created them.

Is this the "a ha!" moment, where we find out that this is exactly like organic life on earth?

How did you determine they were created?

Onceler
07-30-2009, 10:02 PM
How did you determine they were created?

Like I said, it's pretty limited data you're presenting. Our current definition of "machine" implies something that was built or put together in some way, and is made of inorganic parts.

Are the "machines" we find made of organic material? In a sense, the human body can be viewed as a machine of sorts; do you mean something organic, or made of inorganic materials?

Dixie - In Memoriam
07-30-2009, 10:15 PM
Like I said, it's pretty limited data you're presenting. Our current definition of "machine" implies something that was built or put together in some way, and is made of inorganic parts.

Are the "machines" we find made of organic material? In a sense, the human body can be viewed as a machine of sorts; do you mean something organic, or made of inorganic materials?

Both. The machines consist of what we recognize as "organic" materials, but also what we recognize as "inorganic" material, as well as some materials we are not familiar with at all. Keep in mind, this is a different planet which may contain elements we have not discovered on Earth or even in our own solar system yet. There is also the possibility of physics we don't yet comprehend or understand in play. Yes, there is limited data, that is why this is so perplexing and problematic.

Dixie - In Memoriam
07-30-2009, 10:17 PM
Our current definition of "machine" implies something that was built or put together in some way...

Not necessarily, remember you just said the human body could be considered a machine. A machine is any device that uses energy to perform some activity.

Onceler
07-30-2009, 10:19 PM
Both. The machines consist of what we recognize as "organic" materials, but also what we recognize as "inorganic" material, as well as some materials we are not familiar with at all. Keep in mind, this is a different planet which may contain elements we have not discovered on Earth or even in our own solar system yet. There is also the possibility of physics we don't yet comprehend or understand in play. Yes, there is limited data, that is why this is so perplexing and problematic.

With so many variables at play, it would be impossible to draw anything conclusive from your scenario. When you said "machines" originally, it didn't really conjure up organic material; once you add that to the mix, virtually anything is possible, and evolution could certainly be in the mix.

I'd love to conclude something, but there is not enough information. Scientists could study the machine/organisms for months or years, on that planet, and still possibly not be able to draw any reasonable conclusions.

FUCK THE POLICE
07-30-2009, 10:23 PM
Remember, this is a hypothetical scenario 500 years in the future.

I have one word for you.... Wormholes!

There are some theoretical systems that allow travel faster than the speed of light, but most physicists doubt that it works, because FTL travel basically = time travel, which would seriously muck the universe up. If it is possible, then wormholes would definitely be one of the greatest engineering feats of all time, and I think it'd take a little bit more than 500 years.

People want FTL travel because it would be so awesome, but it's simply a lot muckier than most people think.

FUCK THE POLICE
07-30-2009, 10:25 PM
nearest star though is only 4 light years away. who says it has to be 2 million light years away?

He said galaxy; I meant to put galaxy.

Interstellar travel is definitely possible within 500 years; we could have interstellar travelers within our lifetime if we really wanted it.

Dixie - In Memoriam
07-30-2009, 10:28 PM
There are some theoretical systems that allow travel faster than the speed of light, but most physicists doubt that it works, because FTL travel basically = time travel, which would seriously muck the universe up. If it is possible, then wormholes would definitely be one of the greatest engineering feats of all time, and I think it'd take a little bit more than 500 years.

People want FTL travel because it would be so awesome, but it's simply a lot muckier than most people think.

I don't know, look at the advancements in travel technology just over the past 100 years... 1/5 the time I am talking... I don't think ANYTHING is impossible. But of course, if physicists doubt it works, that means it has been proven impossible already, correct?

FUCK THE POLICE
07-30-2009, 10:30 PM
I don't know, look at the advancements in travel technology just over the past 100 years... 1/5 the time I am talking... I don't think ANYTHING is impossible. But of course, if physicists doubt it works, that means it has been proven impossible already, correct?

What would is more likely to happen, dixie: FTL travel, or building solar panels around the entire sun to collect all the energy in the star system?

The second one. And I don't think anyone would suggest that the second one is going to happen in 500 years, but everyone seems to think that FTL is a natural advancement that is bound to happen. It's not.

The mere fact that technology advances doesn't mean we'll have FTL in 500 years. Technology hits brick walls and reaches limits that are impossible to cross. FTL is probably never going to happen.

Dixie - In Memoriam
07-30-2009, 10:56 PM
What would is more likely to happen, dixie: FTL travel, or building solar panels around the entire sun to collect all the energy in the star system?

The second one. And I don't think anyone would suggest that the second one is going to happen in 500 years, but everyone seems to think that FTL is a natural advancement that is bound to happen. It's not.

The mere fact that technology advances doesn't mean we'll have FTL in 500 years. Technology hits brick walls and reaches limits that are impossible to cross. FTL is probably never going to happen.

LOL... They once said the same thing about space travel.

uscitizen
07-30-2009, 11:01 PM
According to some predictions of 40 years ago we should be living in a jetsonesque society today. auto driving cars, jetpacks to go shopping. Colony on the moon, on mars, etc. With nuclear power so plentiful it would be practically free.

ib1yysguy
07-30-2009, 11:02 PM
First of all, this is posted on the APP board, so I would appreciate it if you would stop calling me names like "retard" and saying I am "retarded" because that is offensive to me and a violation of this boards policies. If you can't debate this in a civilized manner, I am sure a ban can be arranged. Thanks

Next, I would like to point out, I have presented NO argument. I posed a hypothetical scenario with a series of questions, and I objectively asked for answers. There are no right or wrong answers here, it is merely an examination of thought. I have not mentioned God or a Creator, I have not mentioned a Watchmaker or any analogy of the sort. Let's please stick to what I posted and the presentation as it was made, and stop trying to infer intent and meaning that isn't there. if you have an opinion, present it, but leave your insults and indignation at the door, and remember which forum you are in.

No, name calling is still very much within the rules. [badword O_O]

ib1yysguy
07-30-2009, 11:03 PM
Please present your unequivocal proof that biological systems can not be products of design.

Sorry, that's not how logic works. I have no burden of proof when you present me with a challenge to prove a negative. It's up to you to supply evidence in the affirmative.

uscitizen
07-30-2009, 11:04 PM
Well I sure do not want to be trimmed :shock:

FUCK THE POLICE
07-30-2009, 11:05 PM
LOL... They once said the same thing about space travel.

Space travel was very difficult, but it did not violate the laws of physics.

The only reason most people think that this is so much more of a natural advancement than it really is is because they don't have an understanding of general relativity.

ib1yysguy
07-30-2009, 11:09 PM
Space travel was very difficult, but it did not violate the laws of physics.

The only reason most people think that this is so much more of a natural advancement than it really is is because they don't have an understanding of general relativity.

For a full run down of Dixie's knowledge of how the universe works, please read my signature.

Dixie - In Memoriam
07-30-2009, 11:12 PM
No, name calling is still very much within the rules. Retard.

I suggest you read the rules again. You have been reported.

FUCK THE POLICE
07-30-2009, 11:16 PM
I suggest you read the rules again. You have been reported.

You just made Grind and damo roll their eyes so hard they fell out of their heads.

Dixie - In Memoriam
07-30-2009, 11:18 PM
Sorry, that's not how logic works. I have no burden of proof when you present me with a challenge to prove a negative. It's up to you to supply evidence in the affirmative.

Here is your statement: "Machines aren't subject to evolutionary forces. They have to be designed. That's not true for biological systems."

I am challenging you to support your statement with facts. If you can't, then your statement isn't supported and is irrelevant. There is no "logic" involved, other than the fact that you can't make definitive statements without backing them up, and have them be considered fact. If you have proof that biological systems can not be designed, present it. Otherwise, what you stated was false.

ib1yysguy
07-30-2009, 11:18 PM
I suggest you read the rules again. You have been reported.

I suggest YOU read the rules again, [ bad word O_O ]. I've confirmed it personally with Grind. I have every right to call you a [ bad word O_O ].

ib1yysguy
07-30-2009, 11:22 PM
Here is your statement: "Machines aren't subject to evolutionary forces. They have to be designed. That's not true for biological systems."

I am challenging you to support your statement with facts. If you can't, then your statement isn't supported and is irrelevant. There is no "logic" involved, other than the fact that you can't make definitive statements without backing them up, and have them be considered fact. If you have proof that biological systems can not be designed, present it. Otherwise, what you stated was false.

No you're not challenging me to support my statements. You challenged me to prove that biological systems couldn't be designed.


Please present your unequivocal proof that biological systems can not be products of design.

That's not what I said. What I said was this:


Machines aren't subject to evolutionary forces. They have to be designed. That's not true for biological systems.

How hard is that, really? It's not. Biological systems do not have to be designed (they COULD potentially be designed in a lab, I supposed, but it's not a prerequisite). That is not true for machines. That's what I said.

learn2honest

Dixie - In Memoriam
07-30-2009, 11:23 PM
This subforum has been created to encourage a higher level of conversation and debate. This subforum inherits all site wide rules, and has some additional caveats:

1) No slurs directed at an individual based on race, ethnicity, sex, or sexual orientation

2) No Personal Information

3) No harassment or intimidation of other members
- This is to be defined as hostility and abuse that is clearly bothersome and uninvited by the receiving party.

Penalty for all of the above is a month ban from the APP Forum. NO EXCEPTIONS. Repeated violations may result in a PERMANENT ban from APP.

Additionally:

Repeat posts, excessive use of marquee tags, trolling, posts spammed with a multitude of smileys, or posts that contain little to no valuable content may or may not be pruned, modified, or deleted through the discretion of the admins. However, it will not result in the banning of the offender.

Petty name calling is still technically allowed, as long as it is not to excess, and is made in jest and it's known to not truly bother the other individual. Keeping in mind however, that seeing as this could be subjective, such posts may be pruned, modified, or deleted.

I politely informed you that it offended me to be called names, and I asked you nicely to not do so. I don't care if Grind and Damo roll their eyes or whatever, as long as this rule is enforced as per board policy. Furthermore, you have contributed nothing substantial to the thread, so you are technically in violation of another rule. Please be advised, your name calling will not be tolerated here. We'll see how much credibility the administrators have, or if this was just a big joke. My understanding was, this forum would be conducted in a more civil manner than the other. If this sort of thing is allowed, what is the difference?

ib1yysguy
07-30-2009, 11:26 PM
You have been reported for obnoxious dishonesty.

Dixie - In Memoriam
07-30-2009, 11:26 PM
No you're not challenging me to support my statements. You challenged me to prove that biological systems couldn't be designed.



That's not what I said. What I said was this:



How hard is that, really? It's not. Biological systems do not have to be designed (they COULD potentially be designed in a lab, I supposed, but it's not a prerequisite). That is not true for machines. That's what I said.

learn2honest

Nope, that's not what appears on my screen at all. I posted your exact words.

Dixie - In Memoriam
07-30-2009, 11:29 PM
Yeah, I googled it out of curiosity after I wrote it. The only one I had ever heard as an alternative was silicon. I heard a scientist even say that was the only likely alternative. Turns out there are some other, even less likely alternatives.

The point, I think, is that the point Dixie is itching to make here is absolutely retarded. If I went to a desert and found a refrigerator sitting there I'd have to be retarded to think it evolved and wasn't made by man. Machines aren't subject to evolutionary forces. They have to be designed. That's not true for biological systems.

Post #11

Back up your statement or retract it.

ib1yysguy
07-30-2009, 11:30 PM
Post #11

Back up your statement or retract it.

[ bad word O_O ], I just told you that's not what you asked me. Want to admit that you asked me a totally unrelated question?

Biological systems CAN be the product of design, theoretically. That wasn't my contention.

ib1yysguy
07-30-2009, 11:31 PM
This subforum has been created to encourage a higher level of conversation and debate. This subforum inherits all site wide rules, and has some additional caveats:

1) No slurs directed at an individual based on race, ethnicity, sex, or sexual orientation

2) No Personal Information

3) No harassment or intimidation of other members
- This is to be defined as hostility and abuse that is clearly bothersome and uninvited by the receiving party.

Penalty for all of the above is a month ban from the APP Forum. NO EXCEPTIONS. Repeated violations may result in a PERMANENT ban from APP.

Additionally:

Repeat posts, excessive use of marquee tags, trolling, posts spammed with a multitude of smileys, or posts that contain little to no valuable content may or may not be pruned, modified, or deleted through the discretion of the admins. However, it will not result in the banning of the offender.

Petty name calling is still technically allowed, as long as it is not to excess, and is made in jest and it's known to not truly bother the other individual. Keeping in mind however, that seeing as this could be subjective, such posts may be pruned, modified, or deleted.

I politely informed you that it offended me to be called names, and I asked you nicely to not do so. I don't care if Grind and Damo roll their eyes or whatever, as long as this rule is enforced as per board policy. Furthermore, you have contributed nothing substantial to the thread, so you are technically in violation of another rule. Please be advised, your name calling will not be tolerated here. We'll see how much credibility the administrators have, or if this was just a big joke. My understanding was, this forum would be conducted in a more civil manner than the other. If this sort of thing is allowed, what is the difference?

Is it possible Dixie is the biggest [badword O_O] on the internet?

ib1yysguy
07-30-2009, 11:32 PM
Here it is all over again, since you missed it or didn't understand it


Here is your statement: "Machines aren't subject to evolutionary forces. They have to be designed. That's not true for biological systems."

I am challenging you to support your statement with facts. If you can't, then your statement isn't supported and is irrelevant. There is no "logic" involved, other than the fact that you can't make definitive statements without backing them up, and have them be considered fact. If you have proof that biological systems can not be designed, present it. Otherwise, what you stated was false.

No you're not challenging me to support my statements. You challenged me to prove that biological systems couldn't be designed.


Please present your unequivocal proof that biological systems can not be products of design.

That's not what I said. What I said was this:


Machines aren't subject to evolutionary forces. They have to be designed. That's not true for biological systems.

How hard is that, really? It's not. Biological systems do not have to be designed (they COULD potentially be designed in a lab, I supposed, but it's not a prerequisite). That is not true for machines. That's what I said.

learn2honest

Dixie - In Memoriam
07-30-2009, 11:33 PM
"They (machines) have to be designed. That's not true for biological systems."

This is your direct quote. Support this statement or retract it. You claim that biological systems do not have to be designed and machines do. Either you can prove this or you can't.

I'm waiting.

Dixie - In Memoriam
07-30-2009, 11:35 PM
Is it possible Dixie is the biggest crybaby on the internet?

So now you have called me "retarded," "idiot," and "crybaby," all in the course of several posts. I think you qualify for that one month ban.

ib1yysguy
07-30-2009, 11:35 PM
"They (machines) have to be designed. That's not true for biological systems."

This is your direct quote. Support this statement or retract it. You claim that biological systems do not have to be designed and machines do. Either you can prove this or you can't.

I'm waiting.

Yes, biological systems do not HAVE to be designed. We've gone over evolution a million times. You lose that debate.

That's NOT what you asked me the first time. I assume since you're changing your question you're admitting you were dishonest.

ib1yysguy
07-30-2009, 11:36 PM
So now you have called me "retarded," "idiot," and "crybaby," all in the course of several posts. I think you qualify for that one month ban.

Fortunately, the people in charge know you're not really offended.

Dixie - In Memoriam
07-30-2009, 11:38 PM
Yes, biological systems do not HAVE to be designed. We've gone over evolution a million times. You lose that debate.

That's NOT what you asked me the first time. I assume since you're changing your question you're admitting you were dishonest.

Can you prove evolution is not a product of design?

...thanks for the new signature quote, btw! :cof1:

ib1yysguy
07-30-2009, 11:40 PM
Can you prove evolution is not a product of design?

...thanks for the new signature quote, btw! :cof1:

I don't need to to prove it wasn't the product of design. That's the fallacy of special allowances. It may have been designed, but it's not necessary. Evolution works as a theory perfectly fine without divine intervention. You've seen the evidence.

Dixie - In Memoriam
07-30-2009, 11:41 PM
Fortunately, the people in charge know you're not really offended.

Yes, I am really offended. I posted on this forum to avoid such insults, and I expect the administrators to do their job and ban you for a month for violating the rules. They are clearly posted, and clearly understood, and I asked politely for you to refrain, which only caused you to insult me further. Either this board is here for the reason stated, or it's just a big joke, we are about to see which one is the case.

Dixie - In Memoriam
07-30-2009, 11:41 PM
I don't need to to prove it wasn't the product of design. That's the fallacy of special allowances. It may have been designed, but it's not necessary. Evolution works as a theory perfectly fine without divine intervention. You've seen the evidence.

So you can't support your statement. Thanks!

ib1yysguy
07-30-2009, 11:44 PM
Yes, I am really offended. I posted on this forum to avoid such insults, and I expect the administrators to do their job and ban you for a month for violating the rules. They are clearly posted, and clearly understood, and I asked politely for you to refrain, which only caused you to insult me further. Either this board is here for the reason stated, or it's just a big joke, we are about to see which one is the case.

Boo frikkin hooo.

ib1yysguy
07-30-2009, 11:46 PM
So you can't support your statement. Thanks!

Again, what I said was machines have to be designed, biological systems don't require it. If anyone here thinks that needs any explanation besides you, I'd be surprised.

Dixie - In Memoriam
07-30-2009, 11:53 PM
Again, what I said was machines have to be designed, biological systems don't require it. If anyone here thinks that needs any explanation besides you, I'd be surprised.

You've not offered proof for either statement.

BRUTALITOPS
07-30-2009, 11:55 PM
petty insults are not a bannable offense. Bannable offenses are personal information, racial etc slurs, and extreme harassment. being called a retard is not extreme harassment.

Dixie, it would be nice if you would just man up. I think you have thicker skin than this and that you are trying to exploit something that is in place to protect those (and there are some members on this forum) that for whatever reason get offended over petty things. It's actually a compliment I am giving you. So take that for what it's worth.

Nevertheless, I can only take you at your word right now that you are indeed bothered by what others are saying to you. For that, ib1 if you could go a little easier on dixie, that would be swell.

And as a general notice to everyone else, this board is a two way street. It would be nice if, even if someone is bothering you, for you guys to try and not play gotcha games, if it can be avoided. (dixie not saying this applies to you).

Dixie - In Memoriam
07-31-2009, 12:03 AM
petty insults are not a bannable offense. Bannable offenses are personal information, racial etc slurs, and extreme harassment. being called a retard is not extreme harassment.

Dixie, it would be nice if you would just man up. I think you have thicker skin than this and that you are trying to exploit something that is in place to protect those (and there are some members on this forum) that for whatever reason get offended over petty things. It's actually a compliment I am giving you. So take that for what it's worth.

Nevertheless, I can only take you at your word right now that you are indeed bothered by what others are saying to you. For that, ib1 if you could go a little easier on dixie, that would be swell.

And as a general notice to everyone else, this board is a two way street. It would be nice if, even if someone is bothering you, for you guys to try and not play gotcha games, if it can be avoided. (dixie not saying this applies to you).

Either enforce your damn rules or take down this stupid farce of a board. This is ridiculous. The purpose, spirit, and intent, as I derived from Damo's introduction, was this board would be free of this kind of crap. If this board isn't any different than the other board, why did you bother? I asked politely not to be called names here, and that should be all that is required of me. I can't believe you are going to allow this to slide, after going to all the trouble to repeatedly post your stupid rules and guidelines and make such a big deal about this NEW AND IMPROVED forum! You and Damo are both a JOKE if that is that case.

FUCK THE POLICE
07-31-2009, 12:08 AM
Either enforce your damn rules or take down this stupid farce of a board. This is ridiculous. The purpose, spirit, and intent, as I derived from Damo's introduction, was this board would be free of this kind of crap. If this board isn't any different than the other board, why did you bother? I asked politely not to be called names here, and that should be all that is required of me. I can't believe you are going to allow this to slide, after going to all the trouble to repeatedly post your stupid rules and guidelines and make such a big deal about this NEW AND IMPROVED forum! You and Damo are both a JOKE if that is that case.
[badword O_O]

ib1yysguy
07-31-2009, 12:10 AM
Retard.

LOL

BRUTALITOPS
07-31-2009, 12:15 AM
Either enforce your damn rules or take down this stupid farce of a board. This is ridiculous. The purpose, spirit, and intent, as I derived from Damo's introduction, was this board would be free of this kind of crap. If this board isn't any different than the other board, why did you bother? I asked politely not to be called names here, and that should be all that is required of me. I can't believe you are going to allow this to slide, after going to all the trouble to repeatedly post your stupid rules and guidelines and make such a big deal about this NEW AND IMPROVED forum! You and Damo are both a JOKE if that is that case.

petty name calling is allowed. there were only 3 listed bannable offenses. Being called a retard is not one of them. It's actually very clear in the rules. This forum is meant to cut down on some of the more vile language, and also we hope to ENCOURAGE a better environment. That said, watermark and ib1, if you could refrain from insulting dixie it would be appreciated.

BRUTALITOPS
07-31-2009, 12:18 AM
dixie I will also be happy to edit any offending posts. let me know where they are .

Minister of Truth
07-31-2009, 12:35 AM
How did we get so off topic?

Anyway, does everyone agree that if silicon evolved, it would eventually produce the hottest women, EVER?!!?

Dixie - In Memoriam
07-31-2009, 01:13 AM
petty name calling is allowed. there were only 3 listed bannable offenses. Being called a retard is not one of them. It's actually very clear in the rules. This forum is meant to cut down on some of the more vile language, and also we hope to ENCOURAGE a better environment. That said, watermark and ib1, if you could refrain from insulting dixie it would be appreciated.

Basically, what you are saying is, this forum is exactly like the other forum, except you can arbitrarily ban people for a month when you feel like it. I've read the "rules" for both forums, and personal information hasn't been allowed here since Day 1! That's nothing new! The only thing I see different is the "racial insults" thing, which could technically be a violation of the regular forum, if you wanted to make it that.

Beneath the APP forum title, it says "Above the fray discussions" So what exactly does that mean, Grind? I posted a civil topic, I have not called anyone names, I have not insulted anyone, and all I've gotten is one insult after another hurled at me, just like in the other forum. So what is the fucking BIG difference here?

It's like I said, this forum is a fucking JOKE... YOU are a fucking JOKE! Damo is a fucking JOKE! You have ZERO credibility, and this place is about to go down the tubes like SR's site did when he pulled this same kind of 'authoritarian' bullshit! First it was the stupid rep points and letting you get away with acting like a 7th grader with your authority, then it was making Lady T a moderator, and now it's this stupid shit. This place just gets more bizarre and ridiculous every day!

FUCK THE POLICE
07-31-2009, 01:17 AM
Basically, what you are saying is, this forum is exactly like the other forum, except you can arbitrarily ban people for a month when you feel like it. I've read the "rules" for both forums, and personal information hasn't been allowed here since Day 1! That's nothing new! The only thing I see different is the "racial insults" thing, which could technically be a violation of the regular forum, if you wanted to make it that.

Beneath the APP forum title, it says "Above the fray discussions" So what exactly does that mean, Grind? I posted a civil topic, I have not called anyone names, I have not insulted anyone, and all I've gotten is one insult after another hurled at me, just like in the other forum. So what is the fucking BIG difference here?

It's like I said, this forum is a fucking JOKE... YOU are a fucking JOKE! Damo is a fucking JOKE! You have ZERO credibility, and this place is about to go down the tubes like SR's site did when he pulled this same kind of 'authoritarian' bullshit! First it was the stupid rep points and letting you get away with acting like a 7th grader with your authority, then it was making Lady T a moderator, and now it's this stupid shit. This place just gets more bizarre and ridiculous every day!
[badword O_O]

FUCK THE POLICE
07-31-2009, 01:18 AM
How did we get so off topic?

Anyway, does everyone agree that if silicon evolved, it would eventually produce the hottest women, EVER?!!?

I think it would produce something that looks like this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/Silicon-based_lifeform.jpg

BRUTALITOPS
07-31-2009, 01:20 AM
dixie, it's up to you and the rest to have above the fray discussions. The rules clearly outlined what a bannable offense is. what ib1 and watermark did was not it. I'm not going to hold everyone's hand and make sure they play nice in the sandbox. That's up to you guys. If you don't like it, you can ignore the forum and everything is the same as it was yesterday.

Also ladyt was never a moderator, you are just too easily fooled by status titles. have a good night dixie

grind

FUCK THE POLICE
07-31-2009, 01:26 AM
Dixie, have you considered growing some nads? I think it might help out with your problem.

Dixie - In Memoriam
07-31-2009, 01:30 AM
dixie, it's up to you and the rest to have above the fray discussions. The rules clearly outlined what a bannable offense is. what ib1 and watermark did was not it. I'm not going to hold everyone's hand and make sure they play nice in the sandbox. That's up to you guys. If you don't like it, you can ignore the forum and everything is the same as it was yesterday.

Also ladyt was never a moderator, you are just too easily fooled by status titles. have a good night dixie

grind

No, I can do a helluva lot more than ignore the forum if I don't like it. What ib1 did was OFFENSIVE to me, and the rules are clear about that not being allowed and being a bannable offense, you just don't want to enforce the rules on your friends. I understand! That's why I am making such a big stink about it. You have about as much business being a moderator or admin as AssClown!

I'm not going to hold everyone's hand and make sure they play nice in the sandbox. That's up to you guys.

Then why are you here? Why do we have rules here? What you are basically telling everyone is, you will enforce the rules when you want to and you will interpret them how you wish, and just like the rep points, we are totally at your mercy. That must make you feel like a big man! YOU ARE A JOKE! THIS WHOLE PLACE IS A JOKE! You've just lost any credibility you may have had.

Minister of Truth
07-31-2009, 01:30 AM
I think it would produce something that looks like this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/Silicon-based_lifeform.jpg

:(

FUCK THE POLICE
07-31-2009, 01:33 AM
No, I can do a helluva lot more than ignore the forum if I don't like it. What ib1 did was OFFENSIVE to me, and the rules are clear about that not being allowed and being a bannable offense, you just don't want to enforce the rules on your friends.

Actually it says that the mods may edit the post in question,[ bad word O_O ]

BRUTALITOPS
07-31-2009, 01:37 AM
dixie, again, I know things are hard for you to grasp, petty name calling was clearly inferred to be different from harrassment, that's why an entire paragraph was dedicated to it, the paragraph in question, i might add, starts off with "petty insults are allowed"

For those that are bothered, I mentioned they would be pruned, edited, or deleted. This is abundantly clear to everyone but you, because well... we know why.

BRUTALITOPS
07-31-2009, 01:41 AM
dixie i edited all the offending posts I could find. Let me know if there are any others.

Canceled2
07-31-2009, 01:48 AM
dixie, again, I know things are hard for you to grasp, petty name calling was clearly inferred to be different from harrassment, that's why an entire paragraph was dedicated to it, the paragraph in question, i might add, starts off with "petty insults are allowed"

For those that are bothered, I mentioned they would be pruned, edited, or deleted. This is abundantly clear to everyone but you, because well... we know why.

And seeking out posters just to take a piss on their threads and posts is what? Something that should not be in this particular forum perhaps?

This forum is worth less than the rest of the forum if there are no more objective rules then what appears to be left up to your less than neutral judgement.

BRUTALITOPS
07-31-2009, 01:50 AM
it's clear to all those with an iq over 70.

It clearly lists what a bannable offense is.

everything else gets edited, deleted or pruned.

FUCK THE POLICE
07-31-2009, 02:15 AM
You didn't edit it when I called Dixie a cockmongler, Grind, only when I called him a retard and a dumbass. Also, you didn't edit the "retard" response to the moron that was posted in IB1's quote.

Dixie - In Memoriam
07-31-2009, 02:16 AM
it's clear to all those with an iq over 70.

It clearly lists what a bannable offense is.

everything else gets edited, deleted or pruned.

Ah... so now the "rules enforcer" is going to violate the rules too?

Petty name calling is still technically allowed, as long as it is not to excess, and is made in jest and it's known to not truly bother the other individual.

...as long as it is not to excess, and is made in jest and it's known to not truly bother the other individual.

...and it's known to not truly bother the other individual.

...not truly bother the other individual.

IS THAT NOT CLEAR TO ANYONE WITH AN IQ OVER 70????

FUCK THE POLICE
07-31-2009, 02:22 AM
[ bad word O_O ]

cancel2 2022
07-31-2009, 02:25 AM
The nearest star system is 2 million light years away. It's impossible to get there in less than 2 million years.

Actually Proxima Centauri is only 4.2 light years away from Earth and is part of the Alpha Centauri star system.

Cancel7
07-31-2009, 04:25 AM
LOL This is a great thread. Thanks guys!

ib1yysguy
07-31-2009, 04:26 AM
Ah... so now the "rules enforcer" is going to violate the rules too?

Petty name calling is still technically allowed, as long as it is not to excess, and is made in jest and it's known to not truly bother the other individual.

...as long as it is not to excess, and is made in jest and it's known to not truly bother the other individual.

...and it's known to not truly bother the other individual.

...not truly bother the other individual.

IS THAT NOT CLEAR TO ANYONE WITH AN IQ OVER 70????

we can safely conclude three things from this thread:

1) Dixie has the
widest pussy in the universe
2) Dixie who has always claimed that insults don't bother him and never thought to mention that such things wounded him so deeply until now and
3) Dixie really needs attention and is being the worlds largest dick while simultaneously having the worlds widest vagina to receive it.

WinterBorn
07-31-2009, 04:48 AM
There are some theoretical systems that allow travel faster than the speed of light, but most physicists doubt that it works, because FTL travel basically = time travel, which would seriously muck the universe up. If it is possible, then wormholes would definitely be one of the greatest engineering feats of all time, and I think it'd take a little bit more than 500 years.

People want FTL travel because it would be so awesome, but it's simply a lot muckier than most people think.

I think Dixie has a good point about the possibility of huge advancements in 500 years.

Read Future Shock by Alvin Toffler (I think that was his name, its been a while).

One of the things that stuck in my mind was his time line idea. That is, if you made a timeline of the technological advances made by humanity, and used the advances as the marker instead of time, the mid-point in thetimeline would be around 1900. (And the book was written in the 1960s)

My grandmother was born in 1906. The world she was born in more closely resembled ancient Rome than it did our modern world.

Virtually everything you use or have contact with was invented or designed in the last 100 years.

500 years is impossible to predict accurately.

cancel2 2022
07-31-2009, 04:54 AM
Actually Proxima Centauri is only 4.2 light years away from Earth and is part of the Alpha Centauri star system.

WM, I think you are referring to the Andromeda galaxy which is the nearest spiral galaxy to our own Milky Way.

Onceler
07-31-2009, 06:37 AM
Dixie, I'm just curious: why did you stop calling yourself a Christian, after years of lecturing other posters on scripture & the Christian God?

And why is it still so important to you that people accept the presence of a Christian God, and his/her/its influence on evolution?

DigitalDave
07-31-2009, 07:33 AM
we can safely conclude three things from this thread:

1) Dixie has the
widest pussy in the universe
2) Dixie who has always claimed that insults don't bother him and never thought to mention that such things wounded him so deeply until now and
3) Dixie really needs attention and is being the worlds largest dick while simultaneously having the worlds widest vagina to receive it.

I would say you calling him a retard every other thread you post was in excess. At that point, it shouldn't matter if he's offended or not, because it's useless and doesn't help towards the theme of this forum.

DigitalDave
07-31-2009, 07:41 AM
dixie, it's up to you and the rest to have above the fray discussions. The rules clearly outlined what a bannable offense is. what ib1 and watermark did was not it. I'm not going to hold everyone's hand and make sure they play nice in the sandbox. That's up to you guys. If you don't like it, you can ignore the forum and everything is the same as it was yesterday.

Also ladyt was never a moderator, you are just too easily fooled by status titles. have a good night dixie

grind

Grind, I'm going to have to take issue with this, because we already know you can't ask everyone here to have 'above the fray' discussions without some serious monitoring. There are too many attention seekers. Your rules need to evolve to make this work, otherwise you've already failed at your attempt.

Cypress
07-31-2009, 08:17 AM
It is 500 years in the future. Man has perfected a way to travel to distant galaxies, and has discovered a planet much like Earth. In fact, it is ecologically just like Earth, with slightly less water and oxygen. However, after our initial explorations, it appears there is very little life on the planet. No advanced life whatsoever, only some simple vegetation in certain areas. We've explored the oceans and find nothing living there either. No signs of any kind of civilization, no intelligent life has been found, in spite of our advanced equipment which is designed to detect any kind of life as we know it. Aside from the rare and sparse vegetation, there is no sign of any life on the planet.

What we have discovered, is puzzling. The planet is full of mechanical devices of all kinds. Machines are running everywhere, producing things, computing things, making other machines. Some machines, we simply don't know what they are for, or what they are doing. There are buildings, but they are very simple structures, seemingly designed to just keep out the elements and protect the running machines. No bathrooms or running water, except where water is needed for the machines to produce. We've scratched our heads over this for a decade, and science is still baffled. Where are the people? Who made the machines? How did they get there? The questions are endless, as we grapple with the details of this new world.

The question posed by this hypothetical scenario... what is your conclusion? Did machines "evolve" into existence? Did some source of intelligence we can't detect or which no longer exist, make the machines? Is this some project erected by another civilization on another planet?


Man, this is an inauspicious start to this forum.

Dixie, if you post a thinly-veiled and disingenuous post, designed in your mind to “cleverly” trap Libtards into proving your point about creation science, you should expect to be mocked.


Now, on your post: Your brain tease really isn’t that impressive.

The most plausible explanation for a planet with a bunch of machines, is that someone (read: biological life) built them and left them there.

Any other explanation stretches the boundaries of credulity, and would be in fact, retarded.

Canceled2
07-31-2009, 08:37 AM
it's clear to all those with an iq over 70.

It clearly lists what a bannable offense is.

everything else gets edited, deleted or pruned.

This is supposed to be "above" the fray?

BRUTALITOPS
07-31-2009, 08:41 AM
this forum isn't going to be about nitpicking. It was never intended to be so, or we would not have allowed petty name calling. It's not meant to be uppity or stuffy. It's a place where some more egregious things are not allowed.

additionally my comment was general and not directed to anyone in particular.

However, if you do not enjoy this forum icedancer, you don't have to post here, and everything is the same as it was before.

Dixie - In Memoriam
07-31-2009, 10:17 AM
When I first created JPP.com my first thought was to create three interlocking boards, one where normal messageboard play took place, one "above" plain politics board and one "below" plain politics board where all the muckraking and flaming took place. This turned out to be a bit of a stretch. So instead we're looking to create an area on this board where flaming, etc. is not welcome (although the rest of the board remains unchanged).

My first thought on "Above" plain politics would be that we could speak here about strategy and higher-level politics without the detriment of political affiliation, but I realize that is not likely to happen. We have our bias. So the goal is now that this place will be set aside for conversations without trash-talk and trolls.

I hope you will enjoy this new addition, as well as use the newly redacted "War Zone" where the Flame Wars can take place.

Enjoy the board folks, we're here for fun and get to know and learn the opinions of others!

LIARS!

Damocles
07-31-2009, 11:33 AM
The nearest star system is 2 million light years away. It's impossible to get there in less than 2 million years.
This is not true. The nearest star system to us is much closer than Millions of light years away.

http://www.closeststars.com/

Here, and with 3D maps too.

0.00 Sun Sol
4.24 - Proxima Centauri - Alpha Centauri C, GJ 551
4.36 - Alpha Centauri (A&B) - Rigil Kentaurus, Toliman
5.96 - Barnard's Star - Proxima Ophiuchi, GJ 699
7.78 - Proxima Leonis - Wolf 359, CN Leonis, GJ 406
8.29 - Proxima Ursae Majoris - Lalande 21185, GJ 411
8.58 - Sirius (A,B) - Alpha/Proxima Canis Majoris
8.73 - Proxima Ceti (A,B) - Luyten 726-8, UV & BL Ceti, GJ 65
9.68 - Proxima Sagittarii - Ross 154, V1216 Sagittarii, GJ 729
10.32 - Proxima Andromedae - Ross 248 , HH Andromedae, GJ905
10.52 - Epsilon Eridani - Proxima Eridani, GJ 144
10.74 - Proxima Piscis Austrini - Lacaille 9352, GJ 887
10.92 - Proxima Virginis Ross 128, FI Virginis, GJ 447
11.27 - Proxima Aquarii (A,B,C) - EZ Aquarii, GJ 866
11.37 - Proxima Cygni (A,B) - 61 Cygni, GJ 820
11.40 - Procyon (A,B) Alpha/Proxima Canis Minoris
11.52 - Proxima Draconis (A,B) - Struve 2398, GJ 725
11.62 - Groombridge 34 (A,B) - GX/GQ Andromedae, GJ 15, 2nd in Andromeda
11.82 - Epsilon Indi (A,Ba,Bb) - Proxima Indi, GJ 845
11.83 - Proxima Cancri - DX Cancri, GJ 1111
11.89 - Tau Ceti - GJ 71, 2nd in Cetus
11.99 - Proxima Horologii - GJ 1061, LHS 1565
12.10 - YZ Ceti - LHS 138, GJ 54.1, 3rd in Cetus

Hermes Thoth
07-31-2009, 11:38 AM
If the planet consisted of all metal and there was a record showing a generally progressive level of adaptive sophistication of machines over time with no indication of another actor redesigning the bots, I would assume they evolved into their current state.

FUCK THE POLICE
07-31-2009, 11:40 AM
This is not true. The nearest star system to us is much closer than Millions of light years away.

http://www.closeststars.com/

Here, and with 3D maps too.

0.00 Sun Sol
4.24 - Proxima Centauri - Alpha Centauri C, GJ 551
4.36 - Alpha Centauri (A&B) - Rigil Kentaurus, Toliman
5.96 - Barnard's Star - Proxima Ophiuchi, GJ 699
7.78 - Proxima Leonis - Wolf 359, CN Leonis, GJ 406
8.29 - Proxima Ursae Majoris - Lalande 21185, GJ 411
8.58 - Sirius (A,B) - Alpha/Proxima Canis Majoris
8.73 - Proxima Ceti (A,B) - Luyten 726-8, UV & BL Ceti, GJ 65
9.68 - Proxima Sagittarii - Ross 154, V1216 Sagittarii, GJ 729
10.32 - Proxima Andromedae - Ross 248 , HH Andromedae, GJ905
10.52 - Epsilon Eridani - Proxima Eridani, GJ 144
10.74 - Proxima Piscis Austrini - Lacaille 9352, GJ 887
10.92 - Proxima Virginis Ross 128, FI Virginis, GJ 447
11.27 - Proxima Aquarii (A,B,C) - EZ Aquarii, GJ 866
11.37 - Proxima Cygni (A,B) - 61 Cygni, GJ 820
11.40 - Procyon (A,B) Alpha/Proxima Canis Minoris
11.52 - Proxima Draconis (A,B) - Struve 2398, GJ 725
11.62 - Groombridge 34 (A,B) - GX/GQ Andromedae, GJ 15, 2nd in Andromeda
11.82 - Epsilon Indi (A,Ba,Bb) - Proxima Indi, GJ 845
11.83 - Proxima Cancri - DX Cancri, GJ 1111
11.89 - Tau Ceti - GJ 71, 2nd in Cetus
11.99 - Proxima Horologii - GJ 1061, LHS 1565
12.10 - YZ Ceti - LHS 138, GJ 54.1, 3rd in Cetus

Sorry, Damo, I misspoke. I meant to say "galaxy" because Dixie was specifically talking about an intergalactic mission.

Damocles
07-31-2009, 11:48 AM
Sorry, Damo, I misspoke. I meant to say "galaxy" because Dixie was specifically talking about an intergalactic mission.
Ah. I understand.

Onceler
07-31-2009, 11:57 AM
To speak directly to the intent of this thread, there are 2 things that I think most can agree that our current scientific knowledge have absolutely no explanation for:

1) How a subatomic anomoly came out of essentially nowhere and spewed out all of the matter that is in the known universe
2) How a free floating "cell" (which have been formed in laboraties using the same conditions that existed on the primordial earth) started to self-replicate.

Once the latter started self-replication, it is fairly easy to explain how it eventually evolved into all of the lifeforms we see around us today, and that have existed throughout natural history. The key question is the initiation of that first self-replication, but some argue that time is the key factor there, which is why it cannot be re-created in a laboratory.

However, the fact that we can't currently explain these things scientifically, does not equal the idea that there is no scientific explanation.

Cancel7
07-31-2009, 11:58 AM
To speak directly to the intent of this thread, there are 2 things that I think most can agree that our current scientific knowledge have absolutely no explanation for:

1) How a subatomic anomoly came out of essentially nowhere and spewed out all of the matter that is in the known universe
2) How a free floating "cell" (which have been formed in laboraties using the same conditions that existed on the primordial earth) started to self-replicate.

Once the latter started self-replication, it is fairly easy to explain how it eventually evolved into all of the lifeforms we see around us today, and that have existed throughout natural history. The key question is the initiation of that first self-replication, but some argue that time is the key factor there, which is why it cannot be re-created in a laboratory.

However, the fact that we can't currently explain these things scientifically, does not equal the idea that there is no scientific explanation.


OMG. You have never seemed more Spock-like.

I hope that is okay to say in this forum.

BRUTALITOPS
07-31-2009, 12:01 PM
OMG. You have never seemed more Spock-like.

I hope that is okay to say in this forum.

hehe

Thorn
07-31-2009, 12:03 PM
OMG. You have never seemed more Spock-like.

I hope that is okay to say in this forum.

I expect that it is. Besides, he's absolutely right. :)

Onceler
07-31-2009, 12:05 PM
OMG. You have never seemed more Spock-like.

I hope that is okay to say in this forum.

This is a highly logical forum in which to make such an observation.

Well done. Live long and....well, you know the rest...

Cancel7
07-31-2009, 12:20 PM
I expect that it is. Besides, he's absolutely right. :)

Isn't Spock always right!

Cancel7
07-31-2009, 12:21 PM
This is a highly logical forum in which to make such an observation.

Well done. Live long and....well, you know the rest...

I really think that even Dixie won't be able to help finding this charming.

LadyT
07-31-2009, 12:29 PM
Basically, what you are saying is, this forum is exactly like the other forum, except you can arbitrarily ban people for a month when you feel like it. I've read the "rules" for both forums, and personal information hasn't been allowed here since Day 1! That's nothing new! The only thing I see different is the "racial insults" thing, which could technically be a violation of the regular forum, if you wanted to make it that.

Beneath the APP forum title, it says "Above the fray discussions" So what exactly does that mean, Grind? I posted a civil topic, I have not called anyone names, I have not insulted anyone, and all I've gotten is one insult after another hurled at me, just like in the other forum. So what is the fucking BIG difference here?

It's like I said, this forum is a fucking JOKE... YOU are a fucking JOKE! Damo is a fucking JOKE! You have ZERO credibility, and this place is about to go down the tubes like SR's site did when he pulled this same kind of 'authoritarian' bullshit! First it was the stupid rep points and letting you get away with acting like a 7th grader with your authority, then it was making Lady T a moderator, and now it's this stupid shit. This place just gets more bizarre and ridiculous every day!


:cof1:

What the fuck did I ever do to you? ......Besides pwn you hard on the fact that you're tolerant of nazism.

Hermes Thoth
07-31-2009, 12:40 PM
:cof1:

What the fuck did I ever do to you? ......Besides pwn you hard on the fact that you're tolerant of nazism.

So. You believe in race/gender discrimination against white males. You're no better.

LadyT
07-31-2009, 12:49 PM
So. You believe in race/gender discrimination against white males. You're no better.

Well, you support pedophelia (sp?), so I'm better than you.

Hermes Thoth
07-31-2009, 12:54 PM
Well, you support pedophelia (sp?), so I'm better than you.

Except I'm telling the truth, and you're just making stuff up. so.... there ya go.

LadyT
07-31-2009, 12:56 PM
I'm making stuff up and you're making stuff up too so.... there ya go.

fixed for accuracy

Hermes Thoth
07-31-2009, 12:59 PM
fixed for accuracy

It's sad you have to resort to such revisionism.

Mott the Hoople
07-31-2009, 02:49 PM
Is this some fancy new version of the watchmaker analogy?That's exactly what it is.

Dixie's argument, as Watermark has correctly pointed out is a rehashing of William Paley's argument from design. For the uninitiated Sir. William Paley was a British Anglican Theologian of the 18th century.

Dixie's argument is really not so much a real argument as it is an analogy. As an analogy it is quite persuasive with lay persons but both the analogy and its underlying argument suffer from serious flaws.

Dixie is making a distinction between natural objects and objects that are the product of design and that when one would observe the difference between "Dixie's Machines" and natural objects one would immediately recognize that his machines stand out from their natural surroundings and that one would draw the conclusion based on these differences that Dixie's machines were designed.

The flaw with this is that then Dixie (or his analogy) is leaping to the conclusion then that all natural objects bear evidence of a design or designer. Thus Dixie's analogy is self contradictory even on a most basic level. It is the difference between natural objects and his machines that leads him to the conclusion that his machines were designed. How then could one draw the conclusion that all of nature was designed too?

Another flaw in his analogy is the simplicity of form. We would recognize Dixie's machines on his planet not because of their complexity but because of their simplicity. Compared to any natural living organism based on carbon Dixie's machines, even the most complex of his machines, are quite simple. In design simple geometric forms, circles, arcs, lines, etc, are used when a design is created. These are forms which are very rare in nature and in fact when simple naturally formed geometric forms do occur they are often erroneously concluded to have been designed because they are simple forms. So that is another basic contradiction in Dixie's analogy.

Another major flaw of Dixie's analogy is that it totally ignores the whole apparatus of explanation that modern science has provided. For example, the theory of evolution by natural selection provides a powerful explanation of the complexities in life. His argument from design does not.

Canceled2
07-31-2009, 02:55 PM
That's exactly what it is.

Dixie's argument, as Watermark has correctly pointed out is a rehashing of William Paley's argument from design. For the uninitiated Sir. William Paley was a British Anglican Theologian of the 18th century.

Dixie's argument is really not so much a real argument as it is an analogy. As an analogy it is quite persuasive with lay persons but both the analogy and its underlying argument suffer from serious flaws.

Dixie is making a distinction between natural objects and objects that are the product of design and that when one would observe the difference between "Dixie's Machines" and natural objects one would immediately recognize that his machines stand out from their natural surroundings and that one would draw the conclusion based on these differences that Dixie's machines were designed.

The flaw with this is that then Dixie (or his analogy) is leaping to the conclusion then that all natural objects bear evidence of a design or designer. Thus Dixie's analogy is self contradictory even on a most basic level. It is the difference between natural objects and his machines that leads him to the conclusion that his machines were designed. How then could one draw the conclusion that all of nature was designed too?

Another flaw in his analogy is the simplicity of form. We would recognize Dixie's machines on his planet not because of their complexity but because of their simplicity. Compared to any natural living organism based on carbon Dixie's machines, even the most complex of his machines, are quite simple. In design simple geometric forms, circles, arcs, lines, etc, are used when a design is created. These are forms which are very rare in nature and in fact when simple naturally formed geometric forms do occur they are often erroneously concluded to have been designed because they are simple forms. So that is another basic contradiction in Dixie's analogy.

Another major flaw of Dixie's analogy is that it totally ignores the whole apparatus of explanation that modern science has provided. For example, the theory of evolution by natural selection provides a powerful explanation of the complexities in life. His argument from design does not.

Just becuse you have parsed already published material to "look like your own" does not make it so.

http://blogs.salon.com/0001561/stories/2002/11/18/refutationOfThebyDesignArgumentForTheism.html

Mott the Hoople
07-31-2009, 03:02 PM
Just becuse you have parsed already published material to "look like your own" does not make it so.

http://blogs.salon.com/0001561/stories/2002/11/18/refutationOfThebyDesignArgumentForTheism.htmlexcep t were not playing "Gotcha" here. I've simply provided evidence to the flawed nature of Dixie's analogy by using this little known tool called research.

Canceled2
07-31-2009, 03:05 PM
except were not playing "Gotcha" here. I've simply provided evidence to the flawed nature of Dixie's analogy by using this little known tool called research.

Not playing gottcha Mott. It just seems if I was gonna use someone elses argument, no matter how much I parsed it, it would be dishonest not to cite it as someone elses.

cancel2 2022
07-31-2009, 03:08 PM
it's clear to all those with an iq over 70.

It clearly lists what a bannable offense is.

everything else gets edited, deleted or pruned.

Shouldn't that be IQ?

Dixie - In Memoriam
07-31-2009, 03:51 PM
That's exactly what it is.

Dixie's argument, as Watermark has correctly pointed out is a rehashing of William Paley's argument from design. For the uninitiated Sir. William Paley was a British Anglican Theologian of the 18th century.

Dixie's argument is really not so much a real argument as it is an analogy. As an analogy it is quite persuasive with lay persons but both the analogy and its underlying argument suffer from serious flaws.

Dixie is making a distinction between natural objects and objects that are the product of design and that when one would observe the difference between "Dixie's Machines" and natural objects one would immediately recognize that his machines stand out from their natural surroundings and that one would draw the conclusion based on these differences that Dixie's machines were designed.

The flaw with this is that then Dixie (or his analogy) is leaping to the conclusion then that all natural objects bear evidence of a design or designer. Thus Dixie's analogy is self contradictory even on a most basic level. It is the difference between natural objects and his machines that leads him to the conclusion that his machines were designed. How then could one draw the conclusion that all of nature was designed too?

Another flaw in his analogy is the simplicity of form. We would recognize Dixie's machines on his planet not because of their complexity but because of their simplicity. Compared to any natural living organism based on carbon Dixie's machines, even the most complex of his machines, are quite simple. In design simple geometric forms, circles, arcs, lines, etc, are used when a design is created. These are forms which are very rare in nature and in fact when simple naturally formed geometric forms do occur they are often erroneously concluded to have been designed because they are simple forms. So that is another basic contradiction in Dixie's analogy.

Another major flaw of Dixie's analogy is that it totally ignores the whole apparatus of explanation that modern science has provided. For example, the theory of evolution by natural selection provides a powerful explanation of the complexities in life. His argument from design does not.


I did not present an argument or analogy. Nowhere have I articulated an argumentative point or made any analogy in this thread, regarding the hypothetical scenario, and I even went as far as to say, there is no "right" answer, and I am not "looking" for one.

That said, it is very compelling that you atheist single-cell origin believers continue to try to infer things into what I presented... so you are making the arguments and analogies yourself. This is fascinating to me, because it does illustrate how you know deep down inside your minds, that the ID argument is indeed valid, whether true or not.

cancel2 2022
07-31-2009, 03:55 PM
This is not true. The nearest star system to us is much closer than Millions of light years away.

http://www.closeststars.com/

Here, and with 3D maps too.

0.00 Sun Sol
4.24 - Proxima Centauri - Alpha Centauri C, GJ 551
4.36 - Alpha Centauri (A&B) - Rigil Kentaurus, Toliman
5.96 - Barnard's Star - Proxima Ophiuchi, GJ 699
7.78 - Proxima Leonis - Wolf 359, CN Leonis, GJ 406
8.29 - Proxima Ursae Majoris - Lalande 21185, GJ 411
8.58 - Sirius (A,B) - Alpha/Proxima Canis Majoris
8.73 - Proxima Ceti (A,B) - Luyten 726-8, UV & BL Ceti, GJ 65
9.68 - Proxima Sagittarii - Ross 154, V1216 Sagittarii, GJ 729
10.32 - Proxima Andromedae - Ross 248 , HH Andromedae, GJ905
10.52 - Epsilon Eridani - Proxima Eridani, GJ 144
10.74 - Proxima Piscis Austrini - Lacaille 9352, GJ 887
10.92 - Proxima Virginis Ross 128, FI Virginis, GJ 447
11.27 - Proxima Aquarii (A,B,C) - EZ Aquarii, GJ 866
11.37 - Proxima Cygni (A,B) - 61 Cygni, GJ 820
11.40 - Procyon (A,B) Alpha/Proxima Canis Minoris
11.52 - Proxima Draconis (A,B) - Struve 2398, GJ 725
11.62 - Groombridge 34 (A,B) - GX/GQ Andromedae, GJ 15, 2nd in Andromeda
11.82 - Epsilon Indi (A,Ba,Bb) - Proxima Indi, GJ 845
11.83 - Proxima Cancri - DX Cancri, GJ 1111
11.89 - Tau Ceti - GJ 71, 2nd in Cetus
11.99 - Proxima Horologii - GJ 1061, LHS 1565
12.10 - YZ Ceti - LHS 138, GJ 54.1, 3rd in Cetus

I have already pointed this out, see post #94

Hermes Thoth
07-31-2009, 04:10 PM
I did not present an argument or analogy. Nowhere have I articulated an argumentative point or made any analogy in this thread, regarding the hypothetical scenario, and I even went as far as to say, there is no "right" answer, and I am not "looking" for one.

That said, it is very compelling that you atheist single-cell origin believers continue to try to infer things into what I presented... so you are making the arguments and analogies yourself. This is fascinating to me, because it does illustrate how you know deep down inside your minds, that the ID argument is indeed valid, whether true or not.

Yes. Readers try to project some kind of sense into what people write. But at least you cop to your own pointlessness. That seems kind of nihilistic though.:cool:

Mott the Hoople
07-31-2009, 06:22 PM
Not playing gottcha Mott. It just seems if I was gonna use someone elses argument, no matter how much I parsed it, it would be dishonest not to cite it as someone elses.Point well taken. Though this is an informal setting and my approach of summarization was more concise and to the point (not to mention not as time consuming) then pasting a link. Though you are correct, I should have noted the reference. I concede the point. That does not in anyway, however, negate the flaws of Dixie's analogy that were pointed out.

Mott the Hoople
07-31-2009, 06:30 PM
I did not present an argument or analogy. Nowhere have I articulated an argumentative point or made any analogy in this thread, regarding the hypothetical scenario, and I even went as far as to say, there is no "right" answer, and I am not "looking" for one.

That said, it is very compelling that you atheist single-cell origin believers continue to try to infer things into what I presented... so you are making the arguments and analogies yourself. This is fascinating to me, because it does illustrate how you know deep down inside your minds, that the ID argument is indeed valid, whether true or not.Dixie, what do you think an analogy is but a comparison which is what your hypothetical was? As I pointed out your hypothetical (analogy) was based on Paley's argument from design.

Analogy; Logic. a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/analogy

Mott the Hoople
07-31-2009, 06:32 PM
I did not present an argument or analogy. Nowhere have I articulated an argumentative point or made any analogy in this thread, regarding the hypothetical scenario, and I even went as far as to say, there is no "right" answer, and I am not "looking" for one.

That said, it is very compelling that you atheist single-cell origin believers continue to try to infer things into what I presented... so you are making the arguments and analogies yourself. This is fascinating to me, because it does illustrate how you know deep down inside your minds, that the ID argument is indeed valid, whether true or not.By the way, I think I actually prefer to be called a "Pin Head" then a "atheist single-cell origin believer". "Pin Head" has more literary style to it.

BTW, did you receive my apology for the accidental neg-rep? Sorry bout that dude.

midcan5
08-01-2009, 08:01 AM
Midcan, we have been this way since the Enlightenment. But I guess you would prefer we just got back to the Middle Ages...

We've (humans) done worst for much longer! Is that your only thought. And it is hypothetical - well pretend hypothetical.

Since you quote me out of context, please check out this book about freedom. You may learn something. [remove space]

h ttp://www.amazon.com/Burning-All-Illusions-Personal-Political/dp/0896085317/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249135158&sr=1-1


"The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do." Eric Hoffer

Onceler
08-01-2009, 09:39 AM
What's the scoop with ID?

It's implausible that a single cell started replicating on it's own, but it makes perfect sense that an all-knowing, timeless being who apparently arose out of nowhere was around to do the design?

PostmodernProphet
08-01-2009, 11:29 AM
What's the scoop with ID?

It's implausible that a single cell started replicating on it's own, but it makes perfect sense that an all-knowing, timeless being who apparently arose out of nowhere was around to do the design?

shit happens versus shit was made to happen......the latter seems more plausible to me....

Mott the Hoople
08-01-2009, 12:37 PM
shit happens versus shit was made to happen......the latter seems more plausible to me....Ok, please explain in detail how things were made to happen, through what mechanism(s) and why your explanations are more plausible then established science? Keeping in mind that ID is in no way, shape, or form, science.

Onceler
08-01-2009, 01:25 PM
Dixie's whole logic on ID - with this thread being the latest installment - is "this is too complex to have not had a designer."

However, any logical explanation for a "designer" would involve a being or set of beings who would be as complex, and likely much more so, than anything that was "designed."

Ergo, the logic in favor of design works against the idea of an actual designer.

Mott the Hoople
08-01-2009, 01:53 PM
Dixie's whole logic on ID - with this thread being the latest installment - is "this is too complex to have not had a designer."

However, any logical explanation for a "designer" would involve a being or set of beings who would be as complex, and likely much more so, than anything that was "designed."

Ergo, the logic in favor of design works against the idea of an actual designer.
True. The whole argument from design is based on a contradictory and illogical paradox. If complex life was designed by an Intelligent Designer then who/what is this Intelligent Designer and who/what designed this Intelligent Designer and who/what designed the Intelligent Designers Designer, ad nauseam?

ib1yysguy
08-01-2009, 03:44 PM
True. The whole argument from design is based on a contradictory and illogical paradox. If complex life was designed by an Intelligent Designer then who/what is this Intelligent Designer and who/what designed this Intelligent Designer and who/what designed the Intelligent Designers Designer, ad nauseam?

That's precisely why anyone who espouses intelligent design and says God isn't necessarily involved, the only way this paradox can be avoided is to have God as the designer because they can say God is exempt from logic/first original rules they impose on everything else.

PostmodernProphet
08-01-2009, 04:25 PM
Ok, please explain in detail how things were made to happen, through what mechanism(s) and why your explanations are more plausible then established science? Keeping in mind that ID is in no way, shape, or form, science.
what established science?.....if we're going to be comparing, I would like to know which apple I am balancing my orange against.....are we dealing with the origin of the universe, the origin of life?.....what is your thesis?.....I don't want to get half way through this and have you pretend you were debating something else again.....

state what it is that you intend to prove.....

PostmodernProphet
08-01-2009, 04:39 PM
That's precisely why anyone who espouses intelligent design and says God isn't necessarily involved, the only way this paradox can be avoided is to have God as the designer because they can say God is exempt from logic/first original rules they impose on everything else.

also, it would be rather illogical to consider there is a designer out there who wouldn't qualify for the title "god"........

ib1yysguy
08-01-2009, 04:53 PM
also, it would be rather illogical to consider there is a designer out there who wouldn't qualify for the title "god"........

We've gone over this 100 times. And in light of the fact that there's no evidence for such a being, yes it's illogical.

Epicurus
08-01-2009, 05:42 PM
I agree with DivingDW. Enforce your rules or get rid of this forum.

Personally a little namecalling doesn't bother me at all and I think Dixie should grow some thicker skin, but it's ridiculous of you to have this subforum and allow 1by to harass him.

PostmodernProphet
08-01-2009, 06:26 PM
We've gone over this 100 times. And in light of the fact that there's no evidence for such a being, yes it's illogical.

you weren't convincing the other 99 either....

DamnYankee
08-01-2009, 06:29 PM
We've gone over this 100 times. And in light of the fact that there's no evidence for such a being, yes it's illogical. Frankly I'm glad that you think this way. :burn:

ib1yysguy
08-01-2009, 06:37 PM
Frankly I'm glad that you think this way. :burn:

Your mother may have been able to scare you into believing bullshit, but I'm not that stupid.

DamnYankee
08-01-2009, 06:40 PM
Your mother may have been able to scare you into believing bullshit, but I'm not that stupid. Frankly, I'm glad that you think that you're so intelligent and evolved from apes. *shrug*

DamnYankee
08-01-2009, 06:48 PM
http://media3.picsearch.com/is?NUqvCJf0cUWF6m3XCAsAttJ4rzCPnwWGY4W3n1Gt4e4

http://photos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v1210/102/105/15906951/n15906951_40688043_5033.jpg

Although there is a family resemblance. *shrug*

Beefy
08-01-2009, 06:50 PM
Frankly, I'm glad that you think that you're so intelligent and evolved from apes. *shrug*

Do you believe in Adam and Eve? Is the bible an accurate historical account of the creation of the world? I anticipate tap dancing. Surprise me.

DamnYankee
08-01-2009, 06:52 PM
Do you believe in Adam and Eve? Is the bible an accurate historical account of the creation of the world? I anticipate tap dancing. Surprise me.Jesus spoke in parables; why not His Father?

Beefy
08-01-2009, 06:54 PM
Jesus spoke in parables; why not His Father?

Tap tap tap.

Adam and Eve - True story, or parable?

DamnYankee
08-01-2009, 06:58 PM
[1]Tap tap tap.

[2]Adam and Eve - True story, or parable?

1. Logical fallacy: appeal to ridicule.
2. True.

Beefy
08-01-2009, 06:59 PM
1. Logical fallacy: appeal to ridicule.
2. True.

Trip out.

How about the rest of the bible?

PostmodernProphet
08-01-2009, 07:12 PM
Is the bible an accurate historical account of the creation of the world?

which account?....there are three in Genesis and a fourth (my personal favorite) in the book of Job....

the first, complete in Genesis 1:1 is in a variation of Hebrew imperative....the sense would be "Remember this! In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth!".....

the second begins at Genesis 1:2 and continues to Genesis 2:3.....it is in the form of Hebrew poetry, the type of narrative that would have been told around the campfires by the eldest of the tribal unit on special occasions....this is signaled by the beginning word translated into English as "Now"....it is frequently used in the OT.....

personally, I think this version is amazing in it's revelation of some pretty basic understandings of science, given the fact that it comes from a nomad tribe of sheepherders....consider the sequence of creation.....first, time....second, the laws governing nature....third, matter....fourth, the planets and stars, followed by life which becomes more and more complex, ending with humanity.....

the third, which is a simple narrative, comprises the balance of Genesis 2.

Beefy
08-01-2009, 07:15 PM
So, its a parable and not a parable at the same time.

Okay then.

PostmodernProphet
08-01-2009, 07:21 PM
However, the fact that we can't currently explain these things scientifically, does not equal the idea that there is no scientific explanation.

it doesn't?....are you simply speaking of your faith in science to perform in the future, because otherwise, the fact there is no scientific explanation certainly means there is no scientific explanation.....

FUCK THE POLICE
08-01-2009, 07:23 PM
I agree with DivingDW. Enforce your rules or get rid of this forum.

Personally a little namecalling doesn't bother me at all and I think Dixie should grow some thicker skin, but it's ridiculous of you to have this subforum and allow 1by to harass him.

Moron.

PostmodernProphet
08-01-2009, 07:23 PM
2) How a free floating "cell" (which have been formed in laboraties using the same conditions that existed on the primordial earth) started to self-replicate.

actually, to the best of my knowledge there have never been any lab experiments which resulted in the formation of cells.....

PostmodernProphet
08-01-2009, 07:24 PM
So, its a parable and not a parable at the same time.

Okay then.

if that was responsive to me, it made no sense....parables are a completely different genre....

Beefy
08-01-2009, 07:28 PM
if that was responsive to me, it made no sense....parables are a completely different genre....

Is the bible a history book? I'm just curious.

PostmodernProphet
08-01-2009, 07:29 PM
Is the bible a history book? I'm just curious.

no, why?.....it's a compilation of many books and many genres of writing.....there are some historical narratives....for example the Chronicles are excerpts from official court documents maintained by the scribes of the kings of Israel....

and Luke wrote his epistle and Acts specifically because he believed Matthew and Mark had not paid sufficient attention to chronological historical detail.....

Beefy
08-01-2009, 07:32 PM
no, why?.....it's a compilation of many books and many genres of writing.....there are some historical narratives....for example the Chronicles are excerpts from official court documents maintained by the scribes of the kings of Israel....

How do you determine what is narrative and what is factual history?

PostmodernProphet
08-01-2009, 07:36 PM
How do you determine what is narrative and what is factual history?

narrative is normally considered factual history....that would be opposed to poetry, for example, which like poetry today may communicate factual history but not necessarily in an obvious way.....

Beefy
08-01-2009, 07:42 PM
narrative is normally considered factual history....that would be opposed to poetry, for example, which like poetry today may communicate factual history but not necessarily in an obvious way.....

Okay, let me rephrase. How do you determine what is a parable, or symbolic, and what is factual history. If Adam and Eve are factual history, then how do you know what is parable, or symbolism. Whatever, you get the picture.

PostmodernProphet
08-01-2009, 07:44 PM
Okay, let me rephrase. How do you determine what is a parable, or symbolic, and what is factual history. If Adam and Eve are factual history, then how do you know what is parable, or symbolism. Whatever, you get the picture.

you have to examine the genre....for example, I mentioned the presence of the word translated as "now" as signaling Hebrew poetry....Revelation is another symbolic genre, apocalyptic literature....it was a popular way of communicating anti-government sentiment during the era of persecution in the first and second century AD....

PostmodernProphet
08-01-2009, 07:57 PM
for example, you ask about Adam and Eve....look at Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty....

then look at Genesis 4
1 Adam [a] lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, "With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man." 2 Later she gave birth to his brother Abel.
then it is followed by
[B]Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil.

you see?.....the bible says things about Adam and Eve which are narrative and things about Adam and Eve which are poetry....you cannot treat them as the same....it doesn't mean any of the things said aren't true, it simply means you have to examine it in a different way....

for example, when Carl Sandberg wrote "the fog crept in on little cat feet" he was communicating something understandable about fog.....but it had nothing to do with fur and claws.....

apple0154
08-01-2009, 08:36 PM
It is 500 years in the future. Man has perfected a way to travel to distant galaxies, and has discovered a planet much like Earth. In fact, it is ecologically just like Earth, with slightly less water and oxygen. However, after our initial explorations, it appears there is very little life on the planet. No advanced life whatsoever, only some simple vegetation in certain areas. We've explored the oceans and find nothing living there either. No signs of any kind of civilization, no intelligent life has been found, in spite of our advanced equipment which is designed to detect any kind of life as we know it. Aside from the rare and sparse vegetation, there is no sign of any life on the planet.

What we have discovered, is puzzling. The planet is full of mechanical devices of all kinds. Machines are running everywhere, producing things, computing things, making other machines. Some machines, we simply don't know what they are for, or what they are doing. There are buildings, but they are very simple structures, seemingly designed to just keep out the elements and protect the running machines. No bathrooms or running water, except where water is needed for the machines to produce. We've scratched our heads over this for a decade, and science is still baffled. Where are the people? Who made the machines? How did they get there? The questions are endless, as we grapple with the details of this new world.

The question posed by this hypothetical scenario... what is your conclusion? Did machines "evolve" into existence? Did some source of intelligence we can't detect or which no longer exist, make the machines? Is this some project erected by another civilization on another planet?

Interesting scenario. I didn't read the previous replies so I hope I'm not accused of plagiarism.

Considering it's been a decade I'd say some source of intelligence we can't detect or which no longer exists made the machines. As for the machines being built by another civilization currently living on another planet I'd say we best be prepared the worst ass-kicking we ever had if we interfered in their production. :D

Onceler
08-01-2009, 09:16 PM
it doesn't?....are you simply speaking of your faith in science to perform in the future, because otherwise, the fact there is no scientific explanation certainly means there is no scientific explanation.....

No, it doesn't. I'm not saying that science will definitely explain it in the future, but that the possibility certainly exists.

ib1yysguy
08-01-2009, 11:10 PM
Is the bible a history book? I'm just curious.

I'm replying to this without reading his response first: Yes. He thinks this is the case. He said so explicitly in another thread and was belittling me for having "faith" in real history books and not the bible as though they were perfectly equal.

Edit: Turns out it was Spurt that said it:


the bible is a history book as well as religious texts....and you're dead wrong, there are "real" history books (as you call them) that support the bible...

but i'm sure you'll continuing your famous debate style of declaring everything you dont' agree with "retarded" as if that word makes you right....i guess you saying retarded enough times does make you right

if god can create the earth, surely jonah surviving in a whale is no big deal...

FUCK THE POLICE
08-01-2009, 11:29 PM
Cracked reviewed the bible and gave it seven out of ten boners.

FUCK THE POLICE
08-01-2009, 11:30 PM
The bible is definitely one of the most important books in studying ancient history in and around the middle east - most of the others ones describing the area were burned because they were heretical.

But you have to study it to figure out what you are willing to accept and what is clearly bunk.

PostmodernProphet
08-02-2009, 05:20 AM
No, it doesn't. I'm not saying that science will definitely explain it in the future, but that the possibility certainly exists.

so it was simply a faith statement....okay....

PostmodernProphet
08-02-2009, 05:22 AM
I'm replying to this without reading his response first: Yes. He thinks this is the case.
looking for new and novel ways to make yourself look like an idiot?.....ingenious!....

next time, instead of trying to "predict" what I say, maybe you could try a new approach.....like reading what I say and responding to it......some people do that, you know.....

DamnYankee
08-02-2009, 06:19 AM
Trip out.

How about the rest of the bible?
1. I'm curious as to what you mean by that.
2. Depends on which section- sometimes both. PMP gave you an excellent answer that I can't improve upon.

The bottom line is that you have to read the Bible yourself instead of relying on others to do it for you.

DamnYankee
08-02-2009, 06:20 AM
looking for new and novel ways to make yourself look like an idiot?.....ingenious!....

next time, instead of trying to "predict" what I say, maybe you could try a new approach.....like reading what I say and responding to it......some people do that, you know.....
LOL And they claim liberals are open minded. *shrug*

Mott the Hoople
08-02-2009, 06:45 AM
what established science?.....if we're going to be comparing, I would like to know which apple I am balancing my orange against.....are we dealing with the origin of the universe, the origin of life?.....what is your thesis?.....I don't want to get half way through this and have you pretend you were debating something else again.....

state what it is that you intend to prove.....Hey you choose your poison. I'm just asking you to, for once, back up what you stated with some facts. If you wish to discuss speciation, then do so, but I'd advise you not to bring up discredited pseudo-sciences, such as, Intelligent Design.

So once again, please explain in detail how things were made to happen, through what mechanism(s) and why your explanations are more plausible then established science (The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena using methodological naturalism.)?

Mott the Hoople
08-02-2009, 06:54 AM
also, it would be rather illogical to consider there is a designer out there who wouldn't qualify for the title "god"........
Well that's assumed.

Intelligent design cannot be distanced from its creationist antecedents. Anyone with any understanding what so ever of the history of the creationist movement knows that the term "Intelligent Design" is a code word for "God" and is used as a breath taking inane attempt to do an end around the Lemon Test. An attempt, it should be pointed out, that unsurprisingly failed.

Mott the Hoople
08-02-2009, 06:57 AM
Frankly, I'm glad that you think that you're so intelligent and evolved from apes. *shrug*SM. I thought you were a man of science? You should know that evolutionary theory makes no such claim. I'm surprised with you.

Mott the Hoople
08-02-2009, 06:59 AM
it doesn't?....are you simply speaking of your faith in science to perform in the future, because otherwise, the fact there is no scientific explanation certainly means there is no scientific explanation.....Circular argument again.

Mott the Hoople
08-02-2009, 07:00 AM
which account?....there are three in Genesis and a fourth (my personal favorite) in the book of Job....

the first, complete in Genesis 1:1 is in a variation of Hebrew imperative....the sense would be "Remember this! In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth!".....

the second begins at Genesis 1:2 and continues to Genesis 2:3.....it is in the form of Hebrew poetry, the type of narrative that would have been told around the campfires by the eldest of the tribal unit on special occasions....this is signaled by the beginning word translated into English as "Now"....it is frequently used in the OT.....

personally, I think this version is amazing in it's revelation of some pretty basic understandings of science, given the fact that it comes from a nomad tribe of sheepherders....consider the sequence of creation.....first, time....second, the laws governing nature....third, matter....fourth, the planets and stars, followed by life which becomes more and more complex, ending with humanity.....

the third, which is a simple narrative, comprises the balance of Genesis 2.Does it matter? Why can't you just answer his question?

Mott the Hoople
08-02-2009, 07:04 AM
1. I'm curious as to what you mean by that.
2. Depends on which section- sometimes both. PMP gave you an excellent answer that I can't improve upon.

The bottom line is that you have to read the Bible yourself instead of relying on others to do it for you.What are you talking about. He didn't answer Beefy's question. "Read the Bible and decide for yourself."? That's not an answer to Beefy's question. It was, in fact, a complete evasion of Beefy's question.

PostmodernProphet
08-02-2009, 07:43 AM
are more plausible then established science

I repeat, which "established science".....I have no intention of beginning another debate with you, only to have you pretend we weren't having it.....do you claim there is established science explaining the origin of the universe?....established science explaining the origin of life....we can't begin a debate until we both know what we are debating about.....

Onceler
08-02-2009, 08:40 AM
so it was simply a faith statement....okay....

That's a silly attempt to equate my view with yours.

There is vast historical precedent for science eventually explaining the unexplainable.

We used to worship the sun as a god, remember?

DamnYankee
08-02-2009, 09:27 AM
What are you talking about. He didn't answer Beefy's question. "Read the Bible and decide for yourself."? That's not an answer to Beefy's question. It was, in fact, a complete evasion of Beefy's question. You have no idea what his question was, do you? *shrug*

DamnYankee
08-02-2009, 09:28 AM
SM. I thought you were a man of science? You should know that evolutionary theory makes no such claim. I'm surprised with you. So you evolved from primordial soup. Not I. :)

apple0154
08-02-2009, 10:04 AM
So you evolved from primordial soup. Not I. :)

I like to think of it more as a goulash or a hearty, well-seasoned stew. :D

Mott the Hoople
08-02-2009, 10:17 AM
So you evolved from primordial soup. Not I. :)
I'm really shocked SM. You don't know evolutionary theory!

Mott the Hoople
08-02-2009, 10:24 AM
You have no idea what his question was, do you? *shrug*Apparetnly you don't.

Beefy "How do you determine what is narrative and what is factual history?"

PMP, in what is becoming his trademark not only evaded Beefy's question he didn't even so much as try to answer it.

Mott the Hoople
08-02-2009, 10:30 AM
I repeat, which "established science".....I have no intention of beginning another debate with you, only to have you pretend we weren't having it.....do you claim there is established science explaining the origin of the universe?....established science explaining the origin of life....we can't begin a debate until we both know what we are debating about.....

Since you ignored my response defining established science and evaded the question (again), I'll ask it again. Please try to answer it this time and again I will provide you the definition of what established science is. Don't change the subject, don't evade the question by posing an irrelevant question, don't state an illogical circular argument, just answer the question. If you do not, I will just repeat my question to you until I get an honest answer.

Please explain in detail how things were made to happen, through what mechanism(s) and why your explanations are more plausible then established science (The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena using methodological naturalism.)?

DamnYankee
08-02-2009, 10:42 AM
I'm really shocked SM. You don't know evolutionary theory! Has it evolved since I learned it? lol

DamnYankee
08-02-2009, 10:43 AM
Apparetnly you don't.

Beefy "How do you determine what is narrative and what is factual history?"

PMP, in what is becoming his trademark not only evaded Beefy's question he didn't even so much as try to answer it. Not what I read. He answered it over about three posts. *shrug*

PostmodernProphet
08-02-2009, 10:58 AM
I'm really shocked SM. You don't know evolutionary theory!

I thought you wanted to discuss origins.....evolutionary theory is not involved in origins....

PostmodernProphet
08-02-2009, 10:59 AM
Apparetnly you don't.

Beefy "How do you determine what is narrative and what is factual history?"

PMP, in what is becoming his trademark not only evaded Beefy's question he didn't even so much as try to answer it.

it isn't a question that can be answered in moments.....it requires study to understand.....I guess the proper answer would be that those who have no desire to learn, never will.....

PostmodernProphet
08-02-2009, 11:03 AM
Please explain in detail how things were made to happen, through what mechanism(s) and why your explanations are more plausible then established science

is this real difficult for you?....it's a simple question.....which established science.....the only statement I made on this thread before you jumped in was "shit happens versus shit was made to happen......the latter seems more plausible to me".....now, unless you simply want me to prove that it is more plausible to me, we need to have a specific topic....either pick one or stop wasting our time.....I'm not going to leave you weasel room this time....are you avoiding picking a topic because you're afraid you might have to defend something?.....

PostmodernProphet
08-02-2009, 11:14 AM
the problem we have is the way you have altered what I said......I have no problem with established science.....I suspect, however, you are ignorant of what actually is established.....do I have to argue against science or your knowledge of it?.....the latter would certainly be easier.....

do you think there is established science regarding the origin of the universe that contradicts intelligent design?.....personally, I believe the Big Bang, if anyone had been around to hear it, would have sounded like "Let there be!" in Hebrew....

Mott the Hoople
08-02-2009, 04:39 PM
Has it evolved since I learned it? lol
How could it? Apparently you never learned it.

Mott the Hoople
08-02-2009, 04:41 PM
I thought you wanted to discuss origins.....evolutionary theory is not involved in origins....No. I didn't want to discuss either origins or evolution. I wanted you, for once, to back up what you claimed. So far you keep evading the question that was asked of you.

Mott the Hoople
08-02-2009, 04:42 PM
is this real difficult for you?....it's a simple question.....which established science.....the only statement I made on this thread before you jumped in was "shit happens versus shit was made to happen......the latter seems more plausible to me".....now, unless you simply want me to prove that it is more plausible to me, we need to have a specific topic....either pick one or stop wasting our time.....I'm not going to leave you weasel room this time....are you avoiding picking a topic because you're afraid you might have to defend something?.....
Yes and I asked you to back that statement up and so far you've evaded answering the question. Just as you are doing here.

Mott the Hoople
08-02-2009, 04:46 PM
the problem we have is the way you have altered what I said......I have no problem with established science.....I suspect, however, you are ignorant of what actually is established.....do I have to argue against science or your knowledge of it?.....the latter would certainly be easier.....

do you think there is established science regarding the origin of the universe that contradicts intelligent design?.....personally, I believe the Big Bang, if anyone had been around to hear it, would have sounded like "Let there be!" in Hebrew....You can tell me what your view of established science is. I've asked you before on other threads and you evaded that question over and over again so I doubt you'll make a comment in that respect. Be that as it may, you're still evading my question and not giving an honest answer so I will ask you a third time.

Please explain in detail how things were made to happen, through what mechanism(s) and why your explanations are more plausible then established science (The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena using methodological naturalism.)?

PostmodernProphet
08-02-2009, 05:19 PM
Please explain in detail how things were made to happen, through what mechanism(s) and why your explanations are more plausible then established science (The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena using methodological naturalism.)?

I don't have any views which are different than established science, therefore I cannot answer the question you have posed.....now, would you like to debate the statement I actually made?....this whole farce is occurring, only because you altered what I stated.....now, if you kindly oblige by identifying that which you call "established science" which is contradictory to the concept of intelligent design I would be happy to oblige....until you do so, it is impossible.....

I am more than ready to debate you, if you will only identify that which you want to debate......if you continue to refuse, I will chalk this up as another runaway by you.....

DamnYankee
08-02-2009, 05:20 PM
How could it? Apparently you never learned it.
They keep evolving the "story".

PostmodernProphet
08-02-2009, 05:26 PM
No. I didn't want to discuss either origins or evolution. I wanted you, for once, to back up what you claimed.
if you want to discuss what I claimed you have to discuss origins....

DamnYankee
08-02-2009, 05:29 PM
"Evolvers" don't want to discuss that. LOL

PostmodernProphet
08-02-2009, 05:42 PM
since you don't want to identify which element of "established science" you want to discuss and we were talking about origins when you stepped into the conversation shall we discuss the origin of the universe?.....

so do we at least agree that there is no "established science" prior to the point of the Big Bang?.....my views do not diverge from established science on the issue of the origin of the universe......

however between the competing theories that the origin of the universe was intentionally caused (intelligent design a/k/a shit was made to happen) versus the theory that it simply happened (shit happens), I find the former more plausible.....

is that the proper framework for the debate?.....

ib1yysguy
08-02-2009, 05:43 PM
I don't have any views which are different than established science, therefore I cannot answer the question you have posed.....now, would you like to debate the statement I actually made?....this whole farce is occurring, only because you altered what I stated.....now, if you kindly oblige by identifying that which you call "established science" which is contradictory to the concept of intelligent design I would be happy to oblige....until you do so, it is impossible.....

I am more than ready to debate you, if you will only identify that which you want to debate......if you continue to refuse, I will chalk this up as another runaway by you.....

I can name one right now that proves your a liar.


most seculars are completely ignorant of what evolution actually teaches.....micro-evolution is observable, macro-evolution is a joke.

PostmodernProphet
08-02-2009, 05:53 PM
I can name one right now that proves your a liar.

/shrugs.....surprisingly, when we had that debate, you didn't prove me a liar....why do you suddenly think you can do so now?.....

macro evolution is not established science.....

ib1yysguy
08-02-2009, 06:00 PM
/shrugs.....surprisingly, when we had that debate, you didn't prove me a liar....why do you suddenly think you can do so now?.....

macro evolution is not established science.....

That's right. The idea of "macro" evolution isn't science at all. Biology doesn't distinguish between micro and macro evolution since there is no mechanism that limits change over time.

Evolution, speciation, common ancestry ARE very much established science. Take it up with Mott, our resident biology masters degree holder.

TuTu Monroe
08-02-2009, 06:27 PM
Frankly, I'm glad that you think that you're so intelligent and evolved from apes. *shrug*

Since he acts like a total jerk, I would say he resembles a baboon.

ib1yysguy
08-02-2009, 06:31 PM
Since he acts like a total jerk, I would say he resembles a baboon.

Still don't want to say if you participate in Medicare or Medicare Plus?

TuTu Monroe
08-02-2009, 06:41 PM
Still don't want to say if you participate in Medicare or Medicare Plus?

I have BC/BS and I love it. You must be on welfare.

PostmodernProphet
08-02-2009, 06:50 PM
Take it up with Mott, our resident biology masters degree holder.

lol, you mean Ringer?.....

ib1yysguy
08-02-2009, 06:56 PM
I have BC/BS and I love it. You must be on welfare.

You're not old enough to take Medicare, are you?

Canceled2
08-02-2009, 06:56 PM
I don't have any views which are different than established science, therefore I cannot answer the question you have posed.....now, would you like to debate the statement I actually made?....this whole farce is occurring, only because you altered what I stated.....now, if you kindly oblige by identifying that which you call "established science" which is contradictory to the concept of intelligent design I would be happy to oblige....until you do so, it is impossible.....

I am more than ready to debate you, if you will only identify that which you want to debate......if you continue to refuse, I will chalk this up as another runaway by you.....



http://executableoutlines.com/cc/cc_07.htm

ib1yysguy
08-02-2009, 07:01 PM
http://executableoutlines.com/cc/cc_07.htm

LOL

Canceled2
08-02-2009, 07:32 PM
LOL

And of course you laugh at all those facts you disproved.

http://executableoutlines.com/cc/cc_07.htm

The List Of Scientists (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660)
-- Scientific Dissent From Darwinism

ib1yysguy
08-02-2009, 07:37 PM
And of course you laugh at all those facts you disproved.

http://executableoutlines.com/cc/cc_07.htm

The List Of Scientists (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660)
-- Scientific Dissent From Darwinism

Yeah, I laugh because we have mitochondrial DNA, we have plenty of transitional forms (a fact your little "paper" got completely wrong), we have all sorts of evidence for speciation, common descent through evolution and natural selection. Because of this, it's up to you to show us the mechanism that limits change over time (preventing "MACRO" evolution). The fact is, you can't show such a mechanism and we have all sorts of evidence for a mechanism that isn't limited over time called natural selection.

The burden of proof is upon you. It's not enough to claim it can't be observed. A simple analogy goes like this:

If you see a dead chicken, there's teeth marks in the chicken that match the pattern left by a dog you own. There are dog prints all around in the mud surrounding the chicken's body that match your dog's prints. Your dog had escaped the night before and wasn't found until the next afternoon, a few hours after you found your dead chicken. All the evidence points toward your dog as the guilty party, yet you didn't observe it directly. What do you rationally conclude about what killed your chicken?

ib1yysguy
08-02-2009, 07:39 PM
By the way, if you can show us a mechanism that limits evolution to "micro" evolution you're in the running for a nobel prize.

(By the way, we have observed speciation in the lab.)

Canceled2
08-02-2009, 08:07 PM
Yeah, I laugh because we have mitochondrial DNA, we have plenty of transitional forms (a fact your little "paper" got completely wrong), we have all sorts of evidence for speciation, common descent through evolution and natural selection. Because of this, it's up to you to show us the mechanism that limits change over time (preventing "MACRO" evolution). The fact is, you can't show such a mechanism and we have all sorts of evidence for a mechanism that isn't limited over time called natural selection.

The burden of proof is upon you. It's not enough to claim it can't be observed. A simple analogy goes like this:

If you see a dead chicken, there's teeth marks in the chicken that match the pattern left by a dog you own. There are dog prints all around in the mud surrounding the chicken's body that match your dog's prints. Your dog had escaped the night before and wasn't found until the next afternoon, a few hours after you found your dead chicken. All the evidence points toward your dog as the guilty party, yet you didn't observe it directly. What do you rationally conclude about what killed your chicken?


It's not up to me to prove Macro evolution does not happen when evolutionists have failed to prove it does!

PostmodernProphet
08-02-2009, 08:16 PM
common descent through evolution

I'm still waiting for someone to provide scientific evidence supporting the theory of common descent....what is the documentation for transition?.....

ib1yysguy
08-02-2009, 08:37 PM
It's not up to me to prove Macro evolution does not happen when evolutionists have failed to prove it does!

OH please. We have all sorts of very convincing evidence. Ask Mottley for a rundown or review any number of the threads we've done about it in the past. There is overwhelming evidence for it. Your challenge is to furnish us with evidence that there is a mechanism that limits change over time (evolution through natural selection).

ib1yysguy
08-02-2009, 08:37 PM
I'm still waiting for someone to provide scientific evidence supporting the theory of common descent....what is the documentation for transition?.....

Tell me, do you believe what Ice's paper claimed about lack of transitional forms?

ib1yysguy
08-02-2009, 08:39 PM
Start here. Let me know when you've finished.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_descent#Evidence_of_universal_common_descen t

ib1yysguy
08-02-2009, 08:41 PM
Here's an article linked to from wikipedia that has a good run down as well

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Canceled2
08-02-2009, 08:45 PM
OH please. We have all sorts of very convincing evidence. Ask Mottley for a rundown or review any number of the threads we've done about it in the past. There is overwhelming evidence for it. Your challenge is to furnish us with evidence that there is a mechanism that limits change over time (evolution through natural selection).

What a bunk response. If macro evolution were a proven theory i.e. the evidence existed, we would not even be having this conversation.

ib1yysguy
08-02-2009, 08:50 PM
What a bunk response. If macro evolution were a proven theory i.e. the evidence existed, we would not even be having this conversation.

No, the reason we're having this conversation is because you're ignorant of the mountains of evidence that does exist. This conversation does not happen in scientific circles because they're not as ignorant as your ass. You'll be unable to produce a single peer reviewed (read, vetted by the scientific community) paper falsifying the ESTABLISHED science of common descent. Please, just go read the wiki page. You look retarded.

ib1yysguy
08-02-2009, 08:52 PM
By the way, you win the award for circular reasoning of the day.

"If I were wrong, I wouldn't have asked the question! Since we're having this conversation, I must be right about saying the evidence doesn't exist!"

FUCK THE POLICE
08-02-2009, 09:06 PM
Dixie has stated on numerous occasiosn that biology says that evolution is impossible.

Which is kind of funny when you consider the fact that about 99% of biology is based on evolution these days, and every paper issued in biology is issued under the assumption that evolution is correct. EVERY ONE. It's kind of strange for a discipline that contradicts evolution to essentially be the study of it, no? Not to dixie.

Cancel 2018. 3
08-02-2009, 09:16 PM
Dixie has stated on numerous occasiosn that biology says that evolution is impossible.

Which is kind of funny when you consider the fact that about 99% of biology is based on evolution these days, and every paper issued in biology is issued under the assumption that evolution is correct. EVERY ONE. It's kind of strange for a discipline that contradicts evolution to essentially be the study of it, no? Not to dixie.

logical fallacy...appeal to popular....i guess a billion china men defense works for you huh

FUCK THE POLICE
08-02-2009, 09:48 PM
logical fallacy...appeal to popular....i guess a billion china men defense works for you huh

Popularity cannot be the sole basis of an argument, but it can improve it. Unanimity improves it further. Especially when Dixie's argument that 'biology contradicts evolution' rests on biology supporting him, which it does not.

Our position on this issue has been stated several times, so I didn't think it's necessary to repeat it for you.

Canceled2
08-03-2009, 12:45 AM
No, the reason we're having this conversation is because you're ignorant of the mountains of evidence that does exist. This conversation does not happen in scientific circles because they're not as ignorant as your ass. You'll be unable to produce a single peer reviewed (read, vetted by the scientific community) paper falsifying the ESTABLISHED science of common descent. Please, just go read the wiki page. You look retarded.

A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

This was last publicly updated August 2008. Scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position. (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660)

ib1yysguy
08-03-2009, 02:21 AM
A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

This was last publicly updated August 2008. Scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position. (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660)

Go ahead and show me a single published paper any of those scientists have produced that falsifies the established science of Darwinian evolution and I'll give you $100,000,000.

These scientists aren't biologists (for the most part, if any actually are) and the ones that are represent a fraction of a percent of the total scientific community. On top of that, NONE of them have produced any research that does anything to call Darwinian evolution into question.

PostmodernProphet
08-03-2009, 04:52 AM
Ask Mottley for a rundown

ROFL....yes, ask him for days and days and days....

PostmodernProphet
08-03-2009, 04:54 AM
Tell me, do you believe what Ice's paper claimed about lack of transitional forms?

I haven't read Ice's paper, but the mere existence of a fossil does not scientifically prove transition, it merely proves existence.....the same creature could have been created or designed.....thus, what you call "transitional" forms is not evidence of evolution.....

PostmodernProphet
08-03-2009, 04:58 AM
Start here. Let me know when you've finished.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_descent#Evidence_of_universal_common_descen t


The universality of this code is generally regarded by biologists as definitive evidence in favor of the theory of universal common descent.

from the first paragraph......it is illogical to use this as "proof" of common descent, when it also could be evidence of intelligent design.....

Mott the Hoople
08-03-2009, 05:01 AM
A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

This was last publicly updated August 2008. Scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position. (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660)LOL You're not aware of Project Steve, are you? BTW, virtually none of the scientist on your list are either life scientist or biologist.

http://ncseweb.org/taking-action/project-steve

Mott the Hoople
08-03-2009, 05:07 AM
I don't have any views which are different than established science, therefore I cannot answer the question you have posed.....now, would you like to debate the statement I actually made?....this whole farce is occurring, only because you altered what I stated.....now, if you kindly oblige by identifying that which you call "established science" which is contradictory to the concept of intelligent design I would be happy to oblige....until you do so, it is impossible.....

I am more than ready to debate you, if you will only identify that which you want to debate......if you continue to refuse, I will chalk this up as another runaway by you.....Finally, you admit that you cannot back your claim up. It took three times asking you that question to get you to give an honest answer.

As for for the definition of established science. What are you? Blind? Here I'll post if for you again. I'll bold it so that maybe this time you don't miss it.

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena using methodological naturalism.

As for Intelligent Design. It is in no way shape or form science and again, I defy you to support that claim. I can easily refute ID as science.

As for running away. The only one who has a history of running away, evading answering questions, using irrational arguments and just plain utterly ignoring facts when they are presented to you has been you.

Mott the Hoople
08-03-2009, 05:12 AM
They keep evolving the "story".Un huh. Let me ask you. What is the modern definition of evolutionary theory? Do you know?

PostmodernProphet
08-03-2009, 05:15 AM
Here's an article linked to from wikipedia that has a good run down as well

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

from that article we can quickly determine the error....


The worldwide scientific research community from over the past 140 years has discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life.

yet I can give one immediately.....they were created that way....

in short, he reaches his conclusions because he rejects any argument which does not meet his belief system's standards......

PostmodernProphet
08-03-2009, 05:18 AM
EVERY ONE.

no, just everyone who insists the only answer is one which meets the standards of Secular Science.....

PostmodernProphet
08-03-2009, 05:19 AM
Popularity cannot be the sole basis of an argument, but it can improve it.

so we can count the 1.5 billion Catholics as an improvement of our odds?.....

Mott the Hoople
08-03-2009, 05:23 AM
That's right. The idea of "macro" evolution isn't science at all. Biology doesn't distinguish between micro and macro evolution since there is no mechanism that limits change over time.

Evolution, speciation, common ancestry ARE very much established science. Take it up with Mott, our resident biology masters degree holder.Actually, for the sake of honesty, my BA is in human biology and I did do graduate work in human biology but eventually earned a masters in EH&S management. I'm also a CHMM. That's really not that relevent for two reasons.

The topics were discussing are high school level biology. Second, I'm not about to waste my time with PMP as with Dixie, he's an intellectually dishonest debater. He doesn't answer direct questions, he doesn't know what science or theory is and repeatedly ignores demonstrating a basic knowldege when requested. He evades questions, he completely ignores facts when presented to him and he spins circular arguments that make little or no sense at all.

With that being the case, unless there is an audience here that wishes me to write a technical discussion on the evidence supporting evolutionary theory I can't see wasting the considerable amount of time it would take to write such information just for the purpose of educating PMP who would just ignore it anyways.

I would refer PMP to go an peruse talk origins and study the topic there and then come back when he can discuss it with out sounding foolish.

http://www.talkorigins.org/

PostmodernProphet
08-03-2009, 05:23 AM
Finally, you admit that you cannot back your claim up.

no dimwit, I admit I can't back up YOUR claim....




As for for the definition of established science. What are you? Blind? Here I'll post if for you again. I'll bold it so that maybe this time you don't miss it.

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena using methodological naturalism.

I'm not asking you for a definition of established science....I am asking you to identify the established science you believe I am denying.....



As for running away. The only one who has a history of running away, evading answering questions, using irrational arguments and just plain utterly ignoring facts when they are presented to you has been you.

except, you've just posted and done it again....keep coming back....maybe you will eventually develop enough nerve to actually debate.....in the meantime, maybe ibbie will carry your balls for you.....

PostmodernProphet
08-03-2009, 05:26 AM
Second, I'm not about to waste my time with PMP as with Dixie, he's an intellectually dishonest debater. He doesn't answer direct questions, he doesn't know what science or theory is and repeatedly ignores demonstrating a basic knowldege when requested. He evades questions, he completely ignores facts when presented to him and he spins circular arguments that make little or no sense at all.


don't even pretend to be a debater......you haven't got the balls to answer a single question.....it isn't a matter of time, it's a matter of fear.....(nannernannernanner)

Mott the Hoople
08-03-2009, 05:27 AM
It's not up to me to prove Macro evolution does not happen when evolutionists have failed to prove it does!That's simply not true. There's vast amounts of data demonstrating evolution above the species level of phylogony. BTW, there is no such thing as an "evolutionist". We are called biologist. Evolutionary theory is a foundational theory to all of biology. To discredit evolutionary theory would be to discredit all of biology.

PostmodernProphet
08-03-2009, 05:31 AM
That's simply not true. There's vast amounts of data demonstrating evolution above the species level of phylogony. BTW, there is no such thing as an "evolutionist". We are called biologist. Evolutionary theory is a foundational theory to all of biology. To discredit evolutionary theory would be to discredit all of biology.

not if you stick to what biology has proved (established science).....that still leaves you with micro evolution.........I would say an "evolutionist" is an accurate description of a biologist who chooses on faith to believe that macro evolution has been "proven"......

DamnYankee
08-03-2009, 05:44 AM
Un huh. Let me ask you. What is the modern definition of evolutionary theory? Do you know? It all depends on who you ask, I suppose. *shrug*

PostmodernProphet
08-03-2009, 08:05 AM
Un huh. Let me ask you. What is the modern definition of evolutionary theory? Do you know?

ev·o·lu·tion (v-lshn, v-)
n.
1. A continuing process of change from one state or condition to another or from one form to another.
2. The theory that groups of organisms change with passage of time, mainly as a result of natural selection, so that descendants differ morphologically and physiologically from their ancestors.
The American Heritage® Medical Dictionary Copyright © 2007, 2004 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Jarod
08-03-2009, 09:59 AM
It is 500 years in the future. Man has perfected a way to travel to distant galaxies, and has discovered a planet much like Earth. In fact, it is ecologically just like Earth, with slightly less water and oxygen. However, after our initial explorations, it appears there is very little life on the planet. No advanced life whatsoever, only some simple vegetation in certain areas. We've explored the oceans and find nothing living there either. No signs of any kind of civilization, no intelligent life has been found, in spite of our advanced equipment which is designed to detect any kind of life as we know it. Aside from the rare and sparse vegetation, there is no sign of any life on the planet.

What we have discovered, is puzzling. The planet is full of mechanical devices of all kinds. Machines are running everywhere, producing things, computing things, making other machines. Some machines, we simply don't know what they are for, or what they are doing. There are buildings, but they are very simple structures, seemingly designed to just keep out the elements and protect the running machines. No bathrooms or running water, except where water is needed for the machines to produce. We've scratched our heads over this for a decade, and science is still baffled. Where are the people? Who made the machines? How did they get there? The questions are endless, as we grapple with the details of this new world.

The question posed by this hypothetical scenario... what is your conclusion? Did machines "evolve" into existence? Did some source of intelligence we can't detect or which no longer exist, make the machines? Is this some project erected by another civilization on another planet?


If they are truely machines, not animal they did not evolve (at least not in a way scientists use the word), because as far as we know now... Only animals mutate such to allow for scientific evolution.

They may have "evolved" in the way others use the word, as they might have been created to "think" and make improvements in the next "generation" of machines that they create, thus a sort of non-biological evolution.

Mott the Hoople
08-03-2009, 11:00 AM
not if you stick to what biology has proved (established science).....that still leaves you with micro evolution.........I would say an "evolutionist" is an accurate description of a biologist who chooses on faith to believe that macro evolution has been "proven"......If you believe that then you are uninformed and ignorant about biology and science. You're comment about macroevolution demonstrates both. First, in science nothing is absolutely proven. All of science is tentative. If you were well educated in science you should understand this most basic principle. Apparently you don't. You also don't understand the difference between science and faith. Thirdly, your the one sticking your head in the sand and just simply ignoring data and evidence when it is presented to you. Until you can learn what science and evolutionary theory are and until you can enter into an intellecutally honest discussion, there's no point in even discussing this with you. You're worse then profoundly ignorant on this subject, your willfully ignorant.

Mott the Hoople
08-03-2009, 11:02 AM
It all depends on who you ask, I suppose. *shrug*I'm asking you. There is a standard modern definition for evolutionary theory used in biology. Just like there is for gravity in physics. Do you know what it is?

Mott the Hoople
08-03-2009, 11:05 AM
ev·o·lu·tion (v-lshn, v-)
n.
1. A continuing process of change from one state or condition to another or from one form to another.
2. The theory that groups of organisms change with passage of time, mainly as a result of natural selection, so that descendants differ morphologically and physiologically from their ancestors.
The American Heritage® Medical Dictionary Copyright © 2007, 2004 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.Well this is a step in the right direction. #1 is a general definition and not the biological one (obviously). #2 is an adequate definintion and is technically correct.

The modern biological definition of evolutionary theory is stated as "A shift in allele frequency within a population over time.".

Damocles
08-03-2009, 11:10 AM
And of course you laugh at all those facts you disproved.

http://executableoutlines.com/cc/cc_07.htm

The List Of Scientists (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660)
-- Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
Um. This starts from a false premise and continues to get worse. This is absolutely written by somebody who has no idea what a Theory is in science, it is written by somebody who doesn't understand the difference between Evolutionary Theory and Origin Theory, and uses that very ignorance in their argument. The entire thing is a fallacy because it is predicated and based on a false premise.

It's like building a foundation of water for your house.

PostmodernProphet
08-03-2009, 11:18 AM
If you believe that then you are uninformed and ignorant about biology and science. You're comment about macroevolution demonstrates both. First, in science nothing is absolutely proven. All of science is tentative. If you were well educated in science you should understand this most basic principle. Apparently you don't. You also don't understand the difference between science and faith. Thirdly, your the one sticking your head in the sand and just simply ignoring data and evidence when it is presented to you. Until you can learn what science and evolutionary theory are and until you can enter into an intellecutally honest discussion, there's no point in even discussing this with you. You're worse then profoundly ignorant on this subject, your willfully ignorant.
Mott The Hopeless: "I'm a chicken and I don't dare debate issues. So I just holler a lot about how much smarter I am and hope nobody notices that I don't actually debate"........