|
Author
|
Topic: All about Brad McFall.
|
berberry
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 196 of 300 (182199)
02-01-2005 2:48 AM
|
|
|
Trying to out-Brad Brad
Tranquility Base did it best in the Brad McFall thread from a couple years ago. Start at post 20 and read through 23. Then jump to post 29 and read through post 33. Priceless!
Keep America Safe AND Free!
|
TrueCreation
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 197 of 300 (182202)
02-01-2005 3:18 AM
|
Reply to: Message 194 by berberry
02-01-2005 2:27 AM
|
|
Re: 2nd verse same mov as first,little softer
quote:
What I'm most interested in hearing you discuss on tape is your view on creationism and evolution. I've read a number of your posts on those topics but I still don't have a clear idea of where you stand.
--I believe mike the wiz, or someone else may have gotten a direct answer out of Brad. As I recall he directly asserted that he is a YEC--followed by an endless discourse of him pondering the mysteries of infinity--but a direct answer was there, nonetheless. -Chris
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 194 by berberry, posted 02-01-2005 2:27 AM | | berberry has not replied |
|
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5054 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: 12-20-2001
|
Re: 2nd verse same mov as first,little softer
Ok, I did 21/2 hours of TV with 1 hour live call ins on it. I can mail a copy to berberry if he wishes. I will do something in this vein, I guess, in the audio format latter. Thanks for the specification. The quality was worse on that one he heard becuase it was over the phone and I had only my ears not eyes to preview it. This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-01-2005 09:21 AM
|
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5054 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: 12-20-2001
|
Re ont worry be happy know
and you see there still was one more post below Mutation is the ultimate source of the genetic variation in a population. But it is important to recognize that, even in the absence of mutations, new genotypes are constantly being formed, yielding new material on which natural selection can act. Page 14 ABUSING SCIENCE by Phillip Kitcher Is photon a different grade of material than an electron in this respect? Are you saying Feynman mistaken to exclude gravity or gravitons say, from this material? The what does one make of the words ‘ultimate’ and ‘importan’t given that I could go most likely through the rest of the quotes in Abusing Science to show that source is a ‘code’ word only. I would if not with Kitcher be able to show that all this lingos such goes only to purport the state of nonequilibrium in life, less my own conversation (on death etc) does and did restrict the difference of Dawkins’ and Goulds’ conceptual sieves regardless of changes to the blueprint in the language used univocally among all the community. I am not interested in the plurivocalizations that cant change the writing of evolutionary theory in better line with the history of physics, ie biophysics not biochemistry.
|
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5054 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: 12-20-2001
|
|
Message 200 of 300 (182341)
02-01-2005 12:56 PM
|
Reply to: Message 194 by berberry
02-01-2005 2:27 AM
|
|
Re: 2nd verse same mov as first,little softer
In the book "But Is It Science? The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy" edited by Michael Ruse, the LAst part fouR is called "The Philosophical Aftermath". That is all the math you actually will need to consider from my side. In the intro to this part, you can find
"First we have a general discussion by Larry Lauden, in which he aruges both that all attempts to seperate science from nonscience have failed and that there is not much hope of a satifactory resolution to the problem in the future. Then, in the next article, Lauden criticizes Overton's claims about the nature of science, arguing that although creationism should be rejected, such rejection should be on the basis of its being bad science rather than nonscience. I defend Overton (and by implication myself), pointing out that, apart from anything else, it is not bad science that the First Ammendment bans from classrooms, but nonscience in the form of religion." My brother was on very good speaking terms with Larry Lauden at VPI and it thus through this LEGAL analysis that I myself trod. I hold it an error to argue the 1st ammendment philosophically here (one simply need bear the drugged psychiatric arm in the second(joke  ), but making it legislative, what is the only legal theory to me there (where ACLU refused to help me on an employment not c/e issue), is not the work of any one individual. I have not given an extensive veiw of Lauden's philosophy if only because I have no need to address the pure math after the fact as I can very easily deal with the calculations I THINK underpin ANY cultural tension if that was but one in my family. I see little room since 911 for anything more. This is how it is that ID comes down to today. It has existence as long as the arguments go against creation science vs scientific creationism in terms of NONscience(&)not bad science. My brother's point IS ONLY to ask what SCIENCE did creation do? It is not hard to infer that the RATE project of ICR is a response in that pathway. The next question is how much science is enough. I am to have guessed that ID and the math involved (being a bit more probablistic than I myself prefer) will not outlast the biblical creationism underpinning rate and such like constancies in the history of creation and science. There are others here who have not made this thread the snake's rattle and concluded with me that SOME SCIENCE since the 60s exists due to interest in Christian Science but let me not make too much heavy metal out of it as I have not discussed the movie that makes it all thus disappear on the couch. I can email a nonphone copy of the sound with moving pictures from STEAMLOAD if you want to offer out your email else you will have to wait till this evening till the other host perhaps has the picture version with less sound available. This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-01-2005 15:53 AM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 194 by berberry, posted 02-01-2005 2:27 AM | | berberry has replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
Re: 2nd verse same mov as first,little softer
Brad writes: I have not given an extensive veiw of Lauden's philosophy if only because I have no need to address the pure math after the fact as I can very easily deal with the calculations I THINK underpin ANY cultural tension if that was but one in my family. I see little room since 911 for anything more. Brad, Quantum Philosophy makes a mishmash of a non-math aftermath. The universe meaning YOU me your brother my uncle with his Hollywood HARLOT as well as the rest of the known world is FORMALISTIC in nature and anytime there is an ad hoc brawl between the rabbits of common sense and/or sense impressions and the ravens of formalism we all know who is going to win that ubiquitous war. My uncle was on speaking terms with Chomsky until one day at a LINGO LIMBO party he got drunk and denied inborn linguistic TRAITS and moveover came it was a costume party as an AI entity. Chomsky quite naturally threw him out. Derrida drove me out of graduate school I went to a farm in TEXAS and tried to recover what was left of my sanity. Peace, RR This message has been edited by robinrohan, 02-01-2005 23:44 AM This message has been edited by robinrohan, 02-01-2005 23:54 AM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 200 by Brad McFall, posted 02-01-2005 12:56 PM | | Brad McFall has not replied |
|
berberry
Inactive Member
|
Heavy Metal
I think I'm following you fairly well, Brad. Your writing is much better than it used to be. From your quote:
Lauden criticizes Overton's claims about the nature of science, arguing that although creationism should be rejected, such rejection should be on the basis of its being bad science rather than nonscience. I don't understand the distinction. Creation "science" doesn't follow the scientific method. It isn't science, so I would lean toward calling it nonscience. Nothing wrong with creationism, mind you, I just prefer to think of it as religion and not science. If creationism were not being promoted as though it were science there probably would be no need for this message board.
quote:
There are others here who have not made this thread the snake's rattle and concluded with me that SOME SCIENCE since the 60s exists due to interest in Christian Science but let me not make too much heavy metal out of it as I have not discussed the movie that makes it all thus disappear on the couch.
Loc-Nar!!! You're kidding me! Heavy Metal is one of your favorite movies? God I haven't seen that picture in years. I remember Loc-Nar, though. Some of the sequences were quite good, and I can see why the film would appeal to someone who seems to love philosophy as much as you apparently do. EDITED to add subtitle. This message has been edited by berberry, 02-02-2005 01:09 AM
Keep America Safe AND Free!
|
berberry
Inactive Member
|
Re: 2nd verse same mov as first,little softer
Wow, Brad, I was so excited about the previous paragraph that I forgot about this one:
quote:
I can email a nonphone copy of the sound with moving pictures from STEAMLOAD if you want to offer out your email else you will have to wait till this evening till the other host perhaps has the picture version with less sound available.
I changed my profile to allow email (I didn't realize that I had it disallowed).
Keep America Safe AND Free!
|
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5054 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: 12-20-2001
|
|
|
Message 204 of 300 (182501)
02-02-2005 6:51 AM
|
Reply to: Message 203 by berberry
02-02-2005 3:34 AM
|
|
new picture show
knowitallvideo.com now I dont need to email it. IT is available. I cant seem to get your email off EVC. I dont know why. This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-02-2005 12:27 AM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 203 by berberry, posted 02-02-2005 3:34 AM | | berberry has not replied |
|
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5054 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: 12-20-2001
|
|
|
Message 205 of 300 (182503)
02-02-2005 7:01 AM
|
Reply to: Message 202 by berberry
02-02-2005 2:08 AM
|
|
Re: Heavy Metal
It was revealed by Henry Morris though the Psalms etc in BACK TO GENESIS no.194 that IDers have made a boolean decision that ID IS distinguished between BOTH creation science and scientific creationism. I agree with Dr. Morris this strategic move was a mistake. I am near to conclude that the scientists behind ID are betting on something like Dyson's view that modern science has no longer the universive of Einstein. I think it a mistake to decidedly move against the classics of Netwon and Einstein and thier GODS even if I can but still express this a bit idolic. I have two long posts already ready. which explain this. but I also have to work not only modern physics but some things in cellular change so my plate has filled up and I will have to back off the rate of posting for now and slow down. I think we FOUND NEMO. The point is that as long as the criticism IS NONSCIENCE and this IS NEEDED to NOT do what the lousiana legislature already did, (add information) ID WILL find political USE but I think it must be in terms of bad science on which I would agree again with Dr H that ID is unconvincing to evos, as is clear by reading posts here at evc and that the reason IT IS NOT new is because they NEED still to distance the discipline FROM physicotheology but if I have guessed where the "science" part goes with it they will not because they will not be able to divide the creationism of America Derrida mentioned in four times around painting from biologists turn against teleology. Biology is not going to look back and I suggest ID do so else it will fall as soon as nanotech makes its first ecological disaster. please read Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Researchatleas open it!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 202 by berberry, posted 02-02-2005 2:08 AM | | berberry has replied |
|
Juhrahnimo
Inactive Member
|
hey,
Phil, uh, I mean McFall, Check your email, dude. You're sleepin' on me again.... 
|
Arkansas Banana Boy
Inactive Member
|
Glossolalia of jargon
I thought it important to read this thread through to be fair. I'm new here so its my first exposure to Mc Fallisms. I only got by a few dozen posts when my head started to hurt and my beer ran out. I found that my potential reply was already stated almost word for word by Wounded King in message 23. Brad reminds me of a photographer friend of mine who when presented with a few drafts and the discussion point '3x5 format cameras' will bury you in technicalese...but its just one subject at least. Oh don't ever ban him...he makes Kant sound simple. To slighly turn Yaro's phrase..he's local Technicolor. Banana Boy.... streaming my consciousness since 1960...
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 23 by Wounded King, posted 07-30-2004 12:34 PM | | Wounded King has not replied |
|
Arkansas Banana Boy
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 208 of 300 (183010)
02-04-2005 2:05 AM
|
Reply to: Message 196 by berberry
02-01-2005 2:48 AM
|
|
Re: Trying to out-Brad Brad
Thanks berberry... TB succeeded. I shall now go alternately cry and laugh myself to sleep. ABB
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 196 by berberry, posted 02-01-2005 2:48 AM | | berberry has replied |
|
berberry
Inactive Member
|
Re: Heavy Metal
Brad writes:
quote:
I have two long posts already ready.
Brad, if you can find a way to reduce those to a fairly short paragraph or two you'll be doing yourself and everyone else a favor. You are much easier to understand when you condense something into a few words.
quote:
I think we FOUND NEMO.
Haven't seen Finding Nemo, but since you mention it perhaps I should check it out.
quote:
please read
Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research
atleas open it!
I opened and read it. Interesting in that it criticizes some aspects of ID from a creo perspective, but I'm not sure why you wanted me to read it.
Keep America Safe AND Free!
|
berberry
Inactive Member
|
Re: Trying to out-Brad Brad
Arkansas Banana Boy writes me:
quote:
Thanks berberry... TB succeeded. I shall now go alternately cry and laugh myself to sleep.
It had me in stitches the first time I read through it. TB was funny, but Brad's sense of humor came through loud and clear as well. He has an incredibly dry wit that no doubt usually goes right over our heads. When it's accessible it's wonderful.
Keep America Safe AND Free!
|
™ Version 4.2