Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9181 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,282 Year: 5,539/9,624 Month: 564/323 Week: 61/143 Day: 4/19 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What exactly is ID?
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8616
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 1119 of 1273 (548757)
03-01-2010 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1118 by slevesque
03-01-2010 3:19 PM


Re: What Has ID Done for Me?
Do you have a cell phone? When was the last time you went to a Doctor? In another thread you were talking about the work of the ENCODE project. These a just small samples of what Science has done for you.
Can anyone show us anything ID has given us? Other than headaches, laughs and a barometer with which to gauge how stupid some people can be?
Edited by AZPaul3, : the usual culprits.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1118 by slevesque, posted 03-01-2010 3:19 PM slevesque has not replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8616
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 1209 of 1273 (551090)
03-20-2010 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1202 by Smooth Operator
03-19-2010 10:52 PM


Hovering Woolifs
This is a PICTURE! DO you understand that? Does your brain realize that? Can you realize that? It's a PICTURE made on a COMPUTER! Animals are not arranged like that in real life. They don't hover one over the other in real life. It's a PICTURE made on a COMPUTER!
Are you sure about this SO? What would keep the animals from hovering over each other just as shown? You haven't been everywhere and seen everything, have you. You don't know if there is a tower of wolfs wondering around out there, do you. Can you PROVE this type of juxtaposition cannot happen in the real world?
What makes you think this is a PICTURE instead of, maybe, a drawing. Can you PROVE it was done on a computer and not, maybe, a litho-type unit? Can you tell us what type of COMPUTER this was supposedly done on? Was it an Intel or an AMD, maybe a Motorola processor? What speed was it running?
You cannot know with certainty, can you. Therefore it could be true, couldn't it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1202 by Smooth Operator, posted 03-19-2010 10:52 PM Smooth Operator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1211 by Wounded King, posted 03-21-2010 7:02 AM AZPaul3 has replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8616
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 1212 of 1273 (551142)
03-21-2010 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1211 by Wounded King
03-21-2010 7:02 AM


Re: Hovering Woolifs
An excellent alternate explanation.
The lines had me bothered. I could not come to a viable explanation for the lines. How did they get there if this is a PICTURE and not a drawing? If this is a stack of hovering woolifs walking around the lines would be invisible except under specific lighting and chemical conditions only brought out by photo processing. I found this rather weak. However, given the new Wounded King hypothesis I think we may have a reason for the lines. They are the path in the snow the woolifs left on their way to their designated positions.
Since the numbers make no sense whatsoever we can just ignore them thus requiring no explanation.
I like it. Thanks WK.
Ain't science wonderful!
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1211 by Wounded King, posted 03-21-2010 7:02 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1213 by RAZD, posted 03-21-2010 2:00 PM AZPaul3 has replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8616
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 1215 of 1273 (551146)
03-21-2010 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1213 by RAZD
03-21-2010 2:00 PM


Re: Hovering Woolifs
they peed in the snow
This is just wrong. You're assuming the pee. You have no proof this is anything like woolif pee.
Without any research, without any resources you make these fantastic assumptions. You just pull them out of your butt and expect us to buy into them.
Show me one post of yours, just ONE, where you have ever backed your silly assumptions with any kind of evidence, some lengthy, comprehensive, scholarly treatment of a serious subject. And the first couple hundred you could point to, just on this board alone, don't count.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1213 by RAZD, posted 03-21-2010 2:00 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1216 by RAZD, posted 03-21-2010 5:45 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8616
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 1240 of 1273 (552099)
03-26-2010 2:33 PM


The Big Lie
ID is a religious/political subterfuge masquerading as a science wanna-be.
It is nothing more than the usual creationist attempt to gain school access in order to acculturate the nation’s children into one specific religious cult. The history from the creation movement through creation science to ID clearly shows the deception this faction practices.
We know the ID movement’s claim that no specific deity is identified is an attempt to negate the judgment of the courts and thus skirt the constitutional separation of church and state.
SO is a shill for the creationist indoctrination movement.
ID proponents understand the working of propaganda. The big lie repeated often enough, loud enough, will sway the gullible, and they hope, erode the resistance to their not-so hidden agenda.
ID is a scam. SO is one of its practicing charlatans.
Edited by AZPaul3, : correction

Replies to this message:
 Message 1245 by Coyote, posted 03-26-2010 6:40 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8616
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 1271 of 1273 (628526)
08-10-2011 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1269 by Portillo
08-10-2011 5:54 AM


Re: Explanatory Filter for Design
The first and second possibilities are in fact the same thing. Random chance is both driven and constrained by natural laws (which I take to mean F=ma, relativity, fine structure constant, QFT, etc.)
Also note that "multiplicity of possible consequences" (which is precisely the same as "number of possible outcomes") is left undefined and will vary depending upon what it takes to achieve the pre-determined result. It's bogus.
This "Specified events of small probability do not occur by chance" is also bogus. Someone won the lotto last Wednesday against 500,000,000 to 1 odds. Events of small probability happen naturally all the time. Look in the mirror. Considering the numbers of eggs, sperm and timing, against the remote possibility that your parents even met, multiplied by those same factors for your grandparents, great grandparents and back through the hundreds (actually tens of thousands and beyond) of generations and the probability of YOU is staggeringly small and yet here you naturally be naturally achieved.
Take a million decks of shuffled cards. Randomly take one card from each deck and record its value. What are the possibilities that you will re-draw all 1 million cards in the same sequence precisely as you did the first round? Staggeringly small. And yet you managed to do it quite easily the first round. All million of them. Staggeringly small possibilities happen naturally in this universe all day long.
Your rendition of Demski's "filter" is bull.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1269 by Portillo, posted 08-10-2011 5:54 AM Portillo 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