Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discontinuing research about ID
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 142 of 393 (755690)
04-10-2015 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Dubreuil
04-10-2015 1:00 PM


The reference about a triune God was mentioned a few times by me: Message 39, Message 90, Message 111 but until now "Dr Adequate" was the only one who disagreed, because he literally can't image that it would be something God would do ...
This is, of course, not true. It is wildly and bizarrely untrue.
I never said that I couldn't imagine God doing such a thing. I said that I have no expectation that God would do such a thing.
If you find that you need to defend your opinions with flat and egregious falsehoods, then this is kind of a hint that your opinions are not all that good.
---
I may come back to your other shifty equivocations later. Right now I am frankly too annoyed by your flagrant dishonesty to keep my temper.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Dubreuil, posted 04-10-2015 1:00 PM Dubreuil has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Dubreuil, posted 04-13-2015 11:40 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(5)
Message 149 of 393 (755945)
04-13-2015 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Dubreuil
04-13-2015 11:40 AM


Wow. Really? We are now discussing only about theological arguments? No one else who wants to disagree with any part of the paper? I expected that because all other person (partly acquaintances, partly a few id proponents) who have looked at the paper also wasn't able to refute the paper. But I didn't expected that to happen that fast here. Well, if someone still have question, then I still will answer them.
Well, you didn't answered the questions. I asked you about one person, but you only responded about two or more persons. You might apologise that I wasn't able to understand you correctly. If you would answer the questions I asked you, then I could more easily understand your theological argument.
That's kind of ironic. You already sound like an young earth creationist who wants to refute evolution because there might be shifty equivocations in it. I would like to hear what you claim to have found. But you should be aware that the pattern has a residual uncertainty of 1:10^7. If you actually are able to name a few shifty equivocations, then there would be still a high residual uncertainty with for example 1:10^5. However, I would like to hear what you claim to have found. I really don't need discussions about this paper, it's content was already verified, but not yet in a peer-review. I won't try to force anyone to join this discussion, if there are no more comments about it, then it's alright for me too.
I cannot find anything in this gibberish that is either a justification of your dishonesty or an apology for it. Indeed, in so far as this incoherent trash has any meaning at all, it almost seems like you're doubling down --- and, indeed, inventing newer and stupider lies.
And then you wonder why you can't get published.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : I said some things that I think were way too savage and which I regret and apologize for.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Dubreuil, posted 04-13-2015 11:40 AM Dubreuil has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 151 of 393 (755975)
04-14-2015 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Dubreuil
04-14-2015 11:57 AM


I wonder why I ever had the idea to post here. If you would spend less time with offending other people, then I actually could imagine to discuss with you. But you don't want that. I wonder, can I ask someone to banish you for calling me "dishonest filth"?
You certainly can. Send a private message to "Admin".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Dubreuil, posted 04-14-2015 11:57 AM Dubreuil has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 169 of 393 (756255)
04-17-2015 1:55 AM



Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Larni, posted 04-17-2015 6:18 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 173 of 393 (756314)
04-17-2015 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Dubreuil
04-17-2015 11:53 AM


Dr Adequate: The only thing you did here was to present your sarcasm and to offend me.
I also presented you with an unanswerable critique of your massive and ridiculous failure. Perhaps you missed it, it was mixed in with the sarcasm.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Dubreuil, posted 04-17-2015 11:53 AM Dubreuil has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 208 of 393 (756485)
04-21-2015 9:58 AM



Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Admin, posted 04-21-2015 10:20 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 211 of 393 (756494)
04-21-2015 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by Admin
04-21-2015 10:20 AM


I'm going to allow posts like this until Dubreuil responds to my request in Message 186 that he be very clear about what portions of his paper we should be ignoring.
I don't think he knows which portions of his paper we should be ignoring.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Admin, posted 04-21-2015 10:20 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Coyote, posted 04-21-2015 11:35 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 225 of 393 (756528)
04-21-2015 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by NoNukes
04-21-2015 6:00 PM


Content hidden - Adminnemooseus
{Non-topic sniping material hidden. - Adminnemooseus}
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Non-topic sniping material hidden.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Change subtitle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by NoNukes, posted 04-21-2015 6:00 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by NoNukes, posted 04-22-2015 1:05 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 267 of 393 (756825)
04-27-2015 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Dubreuil
04-27-2015 12:34 PM


"Dr Adequate" and "Cat Sci" are not a good reference. If I would still discuss with "Dr Adequate", then he would still insult me.
Worse yet, I'd point out clear errors in your reasoning in a way that you apparently still find unanswerable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Dubreuil, posted 04-27-2015 12:34 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 362 of 393 (759821)
06-15-2015 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 359 by mindspawn
06-15-2015 11:57 AM


Re: my problem with intelligent design
Hi mikechell, the problem is the nature of the current source code of life (DNA). Its just too damn complicated to create itself ...
I guess that's why no-one says it "created itself".
Just the fact that scientist's are currently battling just to copy the process even though the blueprint and the ingredients are already known, is testimony to the impossibility of nature not just copying DNA, but DESIGNING it spontaneously.
So the fact that it is difficult to produce something by design proves that that's how it was produced? If no-one can make a tree, that proves that someone did?
The concept requires intelligent life.
Whereas life complex enough to conceive, design and create DNA apparently doesn't require anything ... it "created itself", I suppose?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 359 by mindspawn, posted 06-15-2015 11:57 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 363 by mindspawn, posted 06-15-2015 1:04 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 368 of 393 (759831)
06-15-2015 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 363 by mindspawn
06-15-2015 1:04 PM


Re: my problem with intelligent design
The possibility of DNA self generating is too far -fetched to be a plausible scientific argument for the appearance of matter. Could it be termed a hypothesis?
Not unless you can find someone who believes it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by mindspawn, posted 06-15-2015 1:04 PM mindspawn has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 369 of 393 (759834)
06-15-2015 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 367 by mindspawn
06-15-2015 1:40 PM


Re: my problem with intelligent design
I wasn't suggesting we slam on any brakes regarding trying to replicate DNA. I was merely pointing out the unlikelihood of the original design occurring spontaneously if intelligent minds battle to replicate it.
Whereas biochemical processes replicate DNA all the time. So, we have something that you say can't be done by intelligent minds, but which we know can be done by unintelligent natural processes. And on this basis, we're meant to conclude that it was done by an intelligent mind?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by mindspawn, posted 06-15-2015 1:40 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 371 by mindspawn, posted 06-15-2015 2:00 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 372 of 393 (759838)
06-15-2015 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 371 by mindspawn
06-15-2015 2:00 PM


Re: my problem with intelligent design
Firstly, I never said it cant be done by intelligent minds.
Then what was your point?
Secondly, natural biochemical processes do not "replicate DNA". Please show me your evidence for your statement.
Start here. DNA replication - Wikipedia
Edited by Admin, : Fix typo, "The" => "Then".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by mindspawn, posted 06-15-2015 2:00 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 373 by mindspawn, posted 06-15-2015 2:16 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024