The Ur-Quan Masters Home Page Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 12, 2019, 12:49:47 pm
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Paul & Fred have reached a settlement with Stardock!

+  The Ur-Quan Masters Discussion Forum
|-+  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release
| |-+  Starbase Café (Moderator: Death 999)
| | |-+  Cool Comic Booklets.
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 20 Print
Author Topic: Cool Comic Booklets.  (Read 63339 times)
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491



View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #180 on: August 08, 2006, 12:29:33 am »

Luki you win by sheer volume..Smiley I'll respond to some of the points later..

Cronos: Hey, nice link..I espically enjoyed this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFtp8zw8QSI&mode=related&search=

This is a 3 minute clip from a DVD video entitled "Unlocking the Mysteries of Life" offered over at the Discovery Institute (Of which I own a copy). The video has many more scientific arguments for design which this small clip doesn't ..

The clip shows some of the  Processes inside the cell that I spoke of. A simple wiki article description of what a cell is might not cover these processes.

« Last Edit: August 08, 2006, 12:50:49 am by RTyp06 » Logged
Baltar
*Many bubbles*
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 109



View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #181 on: August 08, 2006, 03:45:05 am »

RType...Cronos posts a two hour vid (did you even watch it?)...and your come back is a five minute ad featuring a guy that just flatly dismisses 'chemical evolution' with an argument from astonishment, and otherwise just gives an overview of the process by which proteins are created.  The constant reuse of the word 'machine' was particularly amusing (See!  See!  *Design*!! ZOMG!!1)  Grin
Logged
Cronos
*Many bubbles*
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170


Shofixti Scoutmaster


View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #182 on: August 08, 2006, 07:30:00 am »

It is a nice link isnt it RTyp? Perhaps you should click it and watch the entire thing.

In video, Ken Miller casually thrashes

Irreducable complexity
Intelligent Design as a valid scientific theory
The Motivations of the proponents of ID
The Origins of ID as a theory
The Future of Id as a theory

Now forgive me if I miss a few things here and there, I dont exactly have the bandwidth to watch the video a second time but he provides evidence that IC and ID is so much junk used to push a political agenda.

The bacterial flagellum, for instance, can have 40 of it's protiens removed outright and still have functional parts.

Blood clotting in humans is a 4 step process. Certain species, such as reptiles (I think) have a 3 step process, the blowfish has a 2 step process and their blood clots perfectly.

For Irreducable complexity to have any grounding whatsoever, not one part of any "Designed" system can be removed and still remain functional. The Bacterial flagellum is still functional with 40 of it's proteins removed. The Blood clotting process STILL works with 2 "Critical" steps removed outright.

In actual fact, you find that when you break apart this "Machinery" into their individualistic parts and portions, they carry out their own little functions on their own! It is in fact when they all group up do they perform a new or novel function.

This is all in the video I linked to. Kindly watch it this time instead of providing a 5 minute video that simply denies all chemical evolution with no real evidence to back it up whatsoever and simply passes off the internal chemical soup of the internal cell as mere machinery.

Finally, before I head off to partake of a lunch-based nourishing snack, consider that proponents of ID want to extend the definition of science to include Astrology.

I'll leave you with that little thought.
Logged
Lukipela
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3619


The Ancient One


View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #183 on: August 08, 2006, 01:13:56 pm »

Luki you win by sheer volume..Smiley I'll respond to some of the points later..

If you wish. We could also just agree to diasagree before the entire internet floods over with out mecha-posts.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2006, 06:46:59 am by Lukipela » Logged

What's up doc?
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491



View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #184 on: August 09, 2006, 12:55:26 am »

RType...Cronos posts a two hour vid (did you even watch it?)...and your come back is a five minute ad featuring a guy that just flatly dismisses 'chemical evolution' with an argument from astonishment, and otherwise just gives an overview of the process by which proteins are created.  The constant reuse of the word 'machine' was particularly amusing (See!  See!  *Design*!! ZOMG!!1)  Grin

A) I am VERY familiar with Ken Miller and his evolutionary arguments. And yes I have wathced this video before and watched about 15 minutes of it this time again. I've read more from Ken Miller than probably anyone here!

B) My "comeback" wasn't a response to cronos but posted for Luki's benefit relating cellular processes to manufacturing processes.

C) That "astonished guy" is Dean H. Kenyon a very prominent origins scientist who dedicated his career to origins of life. He is very well known and respected in the scientific community!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_H._Kenyon

"In 1969, Kenyon and coauthor Gary Steinman published Biochemical Predestination, a book on the origins of life advocating a theory of natural chemical evolution."

Biochemical Predestination was a widely accepted and dominate, molecular evolutionary theory in the 70's. For this "guy" to be astonished is not somthing to lightly dismiss. Furthermore you really need to watch the whole video not just the clip!

Luki, very well. .I was going to say somthing about you taking my words out of context and using them as ammo against me. I never posted "LoL that isn't true" and left it at that.. I always followed up and explained myself.

Thanx for the discussion and what I really want from this thread is for people to think. Don't just accept things. Look into what is being said and draw your own conclusions. I don't expect anyone to be swayed but instead to show that evolution isn't cut-n-dry fact as it's made out to be.

Logged
Lance_Vader
Frungy champion
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 74



View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #185 on: August 09, 2006, 05:24:44 am »

The reason you're not coming to a conclusion is because your arguments are in completely different areas.

RType is talking about ID, which is a PHILOSOPHY.  We should expect most, if not all his arguments to be philosophical.  There is nothing bad about philosophy.  In fact, I think we neglect it too much in Western Civilization.

Luki and Cronos are talking about Evolutionary Theory, in the realm of BIOLOGY, which is a SCIENCE.  We should expect most of their arguments to be SCIENTIFIC.

The problem is that philosophical and scientific arguments can't prove each other wrong, much like two cars on different, non-intersecting roads will never crash.  The question isn't "Is ID good science?"  ID isn't science at all, what a silly question that is!  ID is philosophy, so the correct question is "Is ID good philosophy?"  I think it is.
Logged
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3830


We did. You did. Yes we can. No.


View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #186 on: August 09, 2006, 07:11:02 pm »

If ID were a philosophical position, it would be okay as you say. The problem is, it maintains a position which is not philosophical in nature.
Logged
Lukipela
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3619


The Ancient One


View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #187 on: August 10, 2006, 09:44:26 am »



A) I am VERY familiar with Ken Miller and his evolutionary arguments. And yes I have wathced this video before and watched about 15 minutes of it this time again. I've read more from Ken Miller than probably anyone here!

On what do you base this deduction? This is a rather nasty trend that follows you through all of your posts as it is. You constantly point out how much you've read, how many Ph.D books you've studied, and how unbiased you are in the discussion of Evolution vs. Id argument.  Now in itself, this does little more than to give off an image of someone who enjoyes blowing their own trumpet, and announcing to the world who smart and good and bright they are. That doesn't necessarily inflict any harm, but it does come off as a bit pompous.

However, the problem arises when you then proceed to tell everyone how fundamentalist everyone opposing ID is. Time after time, you tell anyone who opposes your view to "think outside the box", "open their mind" and ask them"what are you afraid of?". This, perhaps unintentional, bashing of anyone who takes an opposing standpoint to yours (which incidentally doesn't come off as very neutral, despite your claims to be so) does not further the debate in any way. Rather, it simply gives off an aura of hypocrisy, where only you are allowed to be neutral and openminded, whilst your opponents are obviously less knowledgable, fundamentalist kooks.

This isn't written with the intent of criticising you (though looking back I suppose it does that as well), but rather to point out the flaws in debating technique you might want to work on for the next round of this, at some other forum, some other time. I find debates are more fruitful if you don't (un?)intentionally go out of your way to annoy people with implicit ad hoc attacks.

Quote
B) My "comeback" wasn't a response to cronos but posted for Luki's benefit relating cellular processes to manufacturing processes.

And as such, it was weak. You claimed that just looking up the definition of factory and cell would prove your point. It did not. So then, you simply claim that the sources used weren't good enough. If you want to argue this simile, it really is your job to provide evidence, rather than telling people to "go look it up". I know how protein synthesis works. I know about protein folding, and the dazzingly beautiful mechanics behind them. It is a incredibly complex system. Many proteins around today could not be efficently constructed without certain mechanics. This in no way implies that these mechanics must necessarily be designed.

Quote
Furthermore you really need to watch the whole video not just the clip!

And how do you propse we do this?

Quote
Luki, very well. .I was going to say somthing about you taking my words out of context and using them as ammo against me. I never posted "LoL that isn't true" and left it at that.. I always followed up and explained myself.

The use of a term such as "Lo"l has no place in a debate such as this under any circumstance. Especially not while you're using it to imply that your opponents are incorrect. Tthat you followed up with other material is irrelevant to that. Also, if you really want to discuss things taken out of context, go back through the thread and try to count how many times people have complained about you either 1. Not replying to/ignoring a part of their argument. or 2. Replying to something completely different.

Quote
Thanx for the discussion and what I really want from this thread is for people to think. Don't just accept things. Look into what is being said and draw your own conclusions.

Indeed. We should think, and not just accept things. But apparently, only if we propagated the wrong things. Those of us who have read a lot and know this stuff obviously already know that ID is much more probable, and don't need to think at all.

Quote
I don't expect anyone to be swayed but instead to show that evolution isn't cut-n-dry fact as it's made out to be.

Which is presumably, why it is still called the THEORY of evolution.
Logged

What's up doc?
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491



View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #188 on: August 11, 2006, 01:58:11 am »

Quote
However, the problem arises when you then proceed to tell everyone how fundamentalist everyone opposing ID is. Time after time, you tell anyone who opposes your view to "think outside the box", "open their mind" and ask them"what are you afraid of?".

Everyone? I enjoyed Novus, Drax, Meep and even Arne (and some of your comments) because you people seem to think about what you are saying and add personal insight rather than just regurgitating something they read on a Talk origins page or watched in a kenneth miller video.. That I do appreciate, very much.


This, perhaps unintentional, bashing of anyone who takes an opposing standpoint to yours (which incidentally doesn't come off as very neutral, despite your claims to be so) does not further the debate in any way. Rather, it simply gives off an aura of hypocrisy, where only you are allowed to be neutral and openminded, whilst your opponents are obviously less knowledgable, fundamentalist kooks.


? Where did I "bash" anyone? Once again you are attempting to put me into a defensive posture for somthing irrealevant to the issues rather than addressing them directly. This seems to me more indicative of a weak scientific position and a lame attempt to draw attention away from that fact.

Quote
This isn't written with the intent of criticising you (though looking back I suppose it does that as well), but rather to point out the flaws in debating technique you might want to work on for the next round of this, at some other forum, some other time. I find debates are more fruitful if you don't (un?)intentionally go out of your way to annoy people with implicit ad hoc attacks.

That's almost ALL you have been doing for several pages of this thread. You attack how I present my posts and exaggerate everything I've said. Also, thank you ,oh great one for pointing out my flaws, And in the future, I'll be sure to go out of my way to debate in a manner you find more fruitful...(And you talk about me coming across as arrogant?)

Quote
And as such, it was weak. You claimed that just looking up the definition of factory and cell would prove your point. It did not. So then, you simply claim that the sources used weren't good enough. If you want to argue this simile, it really is your job to provide evidence, rather than telling people to "go look it up". I know how protein synthesis works. I know about protein folding, and the dazzingly beautiful mechanics behind them. It is a incredibly complex system. Many proteins around today could not be efficently constructed without certain mechanics. This in no way implies that these mechanics must necessarily be designed.

You are perhaps correct when I used the word factory. However:

"facˇtoˇry    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (fkt-r)
n. pl. facˇtoˇries

A) building or group of buildings in which goods are manufactured; a plant. "



Perhaps manufacture may have been more appropriate:

manˇuˇfacˇture    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (mny-fkchr)
v. manˇuˇfacˇtured, manˇuˇfacˇturˇing, manˇuˇfacˇtures
v. tr.

To make or process (a raw material) into a finished product, especially by means of a large-scale industrial operation.
To make or process (a product), especially with the use of industrial machines.


I see the relevance even if you do not. And apparently I'm not alone in this line of thinking.


 Also:
Quote
Many proteins around today could not be efficently constructed without certain mechanics.

Please show me ANY protien that can be constructed without "certain mechanics". Thank you in advance.

Quote
And how do you propse we do this?

Give me a P.O. Box and I'll buy you a copy...

Quote
Luki, very well. .I was going to say somthing about you taking my words out of context and using them as ammo against me. I never posted "LoL that isn't true" and left it at that.. I always followed up and explained myself.

Quote
The use of a term such as "Lo"l has no place in a debate such as this under any circumstance. Especially not while you're using it to imply that your opponents are incorrect. Tthat you followed up with other material is irrelevant to that.

Apologies.. I didn't realize this was a professional debate forum. Perhaps I'm out of my league discussing anything with sombody as perfected and evolved as you?

Quote
Also, if you really want to discuss things taken out of context, go back through the thread and try to count how many times people have complained about you either 1. Not replying to/ignoring a part of their argument. or 2. Replying to something completely different.

I did just that and the only person complaining seems to be you. I've invited you to point out any important points you feel I've negelected. Once again this seems more of a under-handed tactic to put me into a defensive posture rather than face any issues I may have raised. I would never criticize you in such a manner, especially on an informal discussion board such as this. To me this diversionary tactic is completely disrespectful and lame.

Quote
Indeed. We should think, and not just accept things. But apparently, only if we propagated the wrong things. Those of us who have read a lot and know this stuff obviously already know that ID is much more probable, and don't need to think at all.

This was geared toward people such as cronos who posted a Keneth Miller video link, ordered us to watch it all and claimed the debate was over. He is obviously just regurgitating Ken Miller's arguments without a single shred of insight or research on his behalf. Besides, I had already discussed Ken Miller's arguments against Behe in detail previously in this thread. I would also suggest he read up on the blood clotting cascade (Coagulation)of mammals before claiming it's a simple 4 part process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coagulation
« Last Edit: August 11, 2006, 03:30:06 am by RTyp06 » Logged
Draxas
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1044



View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #189 on: August 11, 2006, 09:47:28 pm »

I did just that and the only person complaining seems to be you.

I think that's because the rest of us have given up on this thread. I know a lost cause when I see it.

For the record, you have ignored a great many arguments from all of us. But it's OK, please don't respond; this is going to be my last comment in this thread (unless it dramatically shifts topics again).
Logged
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491



View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #190 on: August 11, 2006, 11:54:50 pm »

Quote
I know a lost cause when I see it.

..and yet you believe the genetic code essential to building protiens happened by chance, random chemicals accidentally coming togther in a primordial soup?

Good luck with that... Smiley

Logged
Arne
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 520


Yak!


View Profile WWW
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #191 on: August 12, 2006, 02:43:31 am »

I've already explained my position about 'argument from astonishment', so I won't go into that.

There is some hypothesis about basic life stuff coming from space, which would increase the amount of time and locations available for life to form (Panspermia | abiogenesis). Some billion years on a planet as large as the Earth is not too shabby though. Basically what it boils down to is how often mother nature was allowed to save the progress... if there were any plateaus for our Sisyphus to rest on.

Edit, It occured to me, that if you're saying that Abiogenesis is impossible, you're saying that it's impossible that it'll ever happen, not just on Earth, but in the entire universe, in every nebula, on every planet, in every sea and lake, under every pebble, for 13 billion years. Also, every kind of life has to be impossible, not just 'our' protein/rna/dna stuff. I'm sure, on planet Xvillivid 4b, the Kvaar are pondering the likelyhood of silicate life arising, after all, Xvillivid 4b is ideal for just that kind of life, tumbling around the gas giant with perfect timing for the reproductory orbital festivals. On planet Morgonflaesk, the Svoels are pondering how amazing it is that their hands are perfectly adapted for holding a long yellow bent fruit.

Edit, I suppose this is my little astonishent to counter the astonishment of life appearing. It's like... Astonishment of life appearing / Astonishment of universe size and age ...or something... now I'm confusing myself. Better go to bed.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2006, 03:32:37 am by Arne » Logged
Baltar
*Many bubbles*
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 109



View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #192 on: August 12, 2006, 07:50:28 pm »

A) I am VERY familiar with Ken Miller and his evolutionary arguments. And yes I have wathced this video before and watched about 15 minutes of it this time again. I've read more from Ken Miller than probably anyone here!

Uh huh.  And yet you aren't really responding to any of his points.  You do definitely not make a very convincing case for ID.

Quote
B) My "comeback" wasn't a response to cronos but posted for Luki's benefit relating cellular processes to manufacturing processes.

Well it isn't a counterargument.  It is a sermon.  All it does is repeat the same mantra ad-nauseum.  Did you think Luki had no idea who the cell replicates proteins?  How is this in any way different from your earlier arguments about the 'design' in nature?

Quote
C) That "astonished guy" is Dean H. Kenyon a very prominent origins scientist who dedicated his career to origins of life. He is very well known and respected in the scientific community!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_H._Kenyon

How...does *anything* in the wiki article you linked indicate that he is respected in the scientific community?  His only 'accomplishment' is his association with Creationism/ID.  Incidentally, in Ken Miller's presentation he mentions that that organization produces no research.

Quote
Biochemical Predestination was a widely accepted and dominate, molecular evolutionary theory in the 70's. For this "guy" to be astonished is not somthing to lightly dismiss. Furthermore you really need to watch the whole video not just the clip!

Which isn't going to happen.  To take you up on your offer I'd have to get a PO Box, and even then I'd be encouraging you to give that organization money, which is something I definitely don't feel like doing.


Quote
Thanx for the discussion and what I really want from this thread is for people to think. Don't just accept things. Look into what is being said and draw your own conclusions. I don't expect anyone to be swayed but instead to show that evolution isn't cut-n-dry fact as it's made out to be.

This is immensely arrogant.  You go so far as to imply that anyone in the evolution camp is 'just accepting things'.  As with alot of other ID rhetoric, you present a false dichotomy.  I don't 'accept' evolution as a 'cut-n-dry fact', and that you would claim that it is 'made out to be' as such is entirely the fabrication of the ID camp.  Because the scientific community at large rejects ID doesn't mean that evolution is accepted as a matter of faith.  It just means it is the best thing available at this point.  With the number of arguments I've seen you flatly ignore in this thread it is pretty clear to me you are the one blindly accepting things.

Quote
Everyone? I enjoyed Novus, Drax, Meep and even Arne (and some of your comments) because you people seem to think about what you are saying and add personal insight rather than just regurgitating something they read on a Talk origins page or watched in a kenneth miller video.. That I do appreciate, very much.

And you aren't 'regurgitating' anything?  You are doing your own research and presenting your findings right here for us on this board?  It doesn't matter where the argument comes from, all that matters is the argument.

Quote
? Where did I "bash" anyone? Once again you are attempting to put me into a defensive posture for somthing irrealevant to the issues rather than addressing them directly. This seems to me more indicative of a weak scientific position and a lame attempt to draw attention away from that fact.

Repeated 'LOL's.  Repeated ignored arguments (very rude).  Typifying evolutionists as being dogmatic fundamentalists over and over again.  Telling people to 'open their minds', implying that before they weren't.  I could go on.

Quote
That's almost ALL you have been doing for several pages of this thread. You attack how I present my posts and exaggerate everything I've said. Also, thank you ,oh great one for pointing out my flaws, And in the future, I'll be sure to go out of my way to debate in a manner you find more fruitful...(And you talk about me coming across as arrogant?)

So he's arrogant for calling you on *being* arrogant?  How could he not call you on your behavior repeatedly?  You are just shy of extremely obnoxious.  That's also incredibly unfair to Luki as that is far from 'all' he's done;  he's actually addressed your arguments which is alot more than can be said for what you've done for your opponents here.  And when he's addressed your behavior he's done so in a fairly respectful fashion.

Tell me:  is there any criticism of your conduct that you actually will accept without resorting to dropping all sorts of bitter statements and excuses?

Quote
You are perhaps correct when I used the word factory. However:

....

I see the relevance even if you do not. And apparently I'm not alone in this line of thinking.

And here you are restating yourself.  And then you cap it off with an argument from authority.  Brilliant!

Quote
Please show me ANY protien that can be constructed without "certain mechanics". Thank you in advance.

Please show me how your point here helps your cause in any way, without simply restating the whole 'design' thing.  Thanks in advance.

Quote
Apologies.. I didn't realize this was a professional debate forum. Perhaps I'm out of my league discussing anything with sombody as perfected and evolved as you?

I didn't realize there were different levels of accepted rigors of logic in different venues.  Again, trying to figure out how it is that Luki is arrogant when he is just pointing out problems in your methods of argumentation.  Does it just not bother you that you use red herrings and ad hominem attacks all over the place?

But ultimately you are right.  You aren't in Luki's league.

Quote
I did just that and the only person complaining seems to be you. I've invited you to point out any important points you feel I've negelected. Once again this seems more of a under-handed tactic to put me into a defensive posture rather than face any issues I may have raised. I would never criticize you in such a manner, especially on an informal discussion board such as this. To me this diversionary tactic is completely disrespectful and lame.

No, what is 'under handed' is the fact that you have ignored arguments and repeated yourself constantly, and when someone calls you on this you put the burden of evidence on them to dig through page after page of this thread to look for evidence.  I'd think that with several people pointing this out and the simple fact that you have been repeating yourself over and over, page after page, you would have figured this out by now, but then as Draxas said--'lost cause'.

Quote
This was geared toward people such as cronos who posted a Keneth Miller video link, ordered us to watch it all and claimed the debate was over. He is obviously just regurgitating Ken Miller's arguments without a single shred of insight or research on his behalf. Besides, I had already discussed Ken Miller's arguments against Behe in detail previously in this thread. I would also suggest he read up on the blood clotting cascade (Coagulation)of mammals before claiming it's a simple 4 part process.

Again, everyone is 'regurgitating' here, you included.  That you would paint the posting of the video in such a light is blatant hypocrisy.  You even posted your own vid hours later.

And a nice straw man as well.  Ken never said blood clotting was a 4 part process.  How about actually refuting Ken's argument rather than linking to a general article on clotting, mistating his point, and labelling all those who bring it up as regurgitating?

Quote
..and yet you believe the genetic code essential to building protiens happened by chance, random chemicals accidentally coming togther in a primordial soup?

Good luck with that... Smiley

*Whew*!  Good thing he put in the lost cause statement so that you could focus on that and ignore the main point:  you have routinely ignored what your opponenets have said here.

Oh, and as Arne said...argument from astonishment.
Logged
Lukipela
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3619


The Ancient One


View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #193 on: August 12, 2006, 08:00:10 pm »

Everyone? I enjoyed Novus, Drax, Meep and even Arne (and some of your comments) because you people seem to think about what you are saying and add personal insight rather than just regurgitating something they read on a Talk origins page or watched in a kenneth miller video.. That I do appreciate, very much.

I may have formulated me less than clearly. With everyone, I mean everyone in general, not everyone in this thread. You speak about scientific dogma and how people should dare think outside the box, impliying that those who do not agree with you are doing so because they are not as scientific as you. To those present in the thread, you pose the direct question of why we are so "afraid" of ID, again implying that our opinions have an emotional gorund, rather than a scientifc one. I am in no way claiming that you are the only one who does this, nor that it is more acceptable in anyone else. But most others who resort to name calling only participate in the thread with a post or two. This means that I take their opinions into less consideration than yours.

Quote
? Where did I "bash" anyone?

As I explained above, your posts do come across that way sometime. As I also posted, it might be unintentional, in which case I'd think you'd be happy to know about it, to prevent further misunderstandings in future debates. Of course, the possibility exists that I am the only one who reacts to these things, in which case you need only be aware that more sensitive pople can misinterpret your posts .Smiley

Quote
Once again you are attempting to put me into a defensive posture for somthing irrealevant to the issues rather than addressing them directly. This seems to me more indicative of a weak scientific position and a lame attempt to draw attention away from that fact.

This is highly ilogical. Why would my critique of your debating skills have anything to do with the subject at hand? You've either misunderstood the purpose of bringing this up completely, or you are once again making up your own arguments. Nowhere have I stated that ID becomes any less (or more) believable because of the way you formulate yourself. I'm merely pointing out that the way you formulate your posts may sometimes hinder the message in them.

If it helps, I'll gladly give an example of a more extreme parallell to yuor case, a_stupid_box. Before he mellowed out as Sedodes, he had a very sharp tongue. I've seldom seen posts as vitriolic as his. This however, didn't mean that his ideas were stupid, or that he never had any point. However, often he would fail to bring his point across, because those he debated considered his posts so offensive that they discarded the content because of the delivery. Obviously, you aren't even near the level he used to produce, but the principle I'm trying to bring forth here is the same.  The form of the message can strongly affect it's reception, regardless of content.

Quote
That's almost ALL you have been doing for several pages of this thread. You attack how I present my posts and exaggerate everything I've said.

And this isn't an exaggeration?

Quote
Also, thank you ,oh great one for pointing out my flaws, And in the future, I'll be sure to go out of my way to debate in a manner you find more fruitful...(And you talk about me coming across as arrogant?)

As I've explained above, there is a reason for pointing out flaws. So that you can bring your point further in a better way. Of course, if you are not interested, noone is forcing you to take the advice. However, as you started your post off with critizing my debating technique, I thought you would be interested in hearing a response to your technique. Obviously I was wrong. It is alright for you to use these methods to point out my flaws (be it minor ones such as arguing about LoL), but not for me to share my opinions?

Quote
"facˇtoˇry    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (fkt-r)
n. pl. facˇtoˇries

A) building or group of buildings in which goods are manufactured; a plant. "


Please tell me you don't think that means plant as in a living organism. 

Quote
Perhaps manufacture may have been more appropriate:

manˇuˇfacˇture    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (mny-fkchr)
v. manˇuˇfacˇtured, manˇuˇfacˇturˇing, manˇuˇfacˇtures
v. tr.

To make or process (a raw material) into a finished product, especially by means of a large-scale industrial operation.
To make or process (a product), especially with the use of industrial machines.


I see the relevance even if you do not. And apparently I'm not alone in this line of thinking.

Are you talking about prokaryote or eukaryote cells here? Prokaryotes most definetly do not manufacture any goods, a better analogy would be a spaceship. And even for eukaryotes, production of extracellular substances is a very small part of their life. Also, I fail to see the relevance in that you are not alone in believing it. How does that make it more true? Or is it an argument i nthe vein of "I've read lots by PhD's", atempting only to prove your superior knowledge?

Quote
Please show me ANY protien that can be constructed without "certain mechanics". Thank you in advance.

I was thinking of the post translational phase. Most proteins cannot be folded correctly inside a cell, if they do not have access to a endoplasmic reticulum and a golgi apparatus. However, that does not mean all of them cannot fold in vitro without any trouble, or in a less complex cell. I'll assume you were instead thinking of tRNA and mRNA and such. My apologies for the confusion. I was merely trying to show that many of the things that are now indispensable in the cell, may once have been merely advantageous.

Quote
Give me a P.O. Box and I'll buy you a copy...

Keep in mind that I live in europe, which means you'll have to pay quite a bit of money to get it here. If you're serious, then send me a PM

Quote
Apologies.. I didn't realize this was a professional debate forum. Perhaps I'm out of my league discussing anything with sombody as perfected and evolved as you?

If you wish for a debate to remain serious, it would do well to keep a serious tone. Or do I need to remind you of what happened during your attempt at the SCDB when some folks didn't take it seriously? While a moderated forum wouldn't have any trouble with that, I've far too often seen these debates fall into pieces because people are more concerned with being witty and putting eachother down than debating the actual subject. I think one of the reasons (beside the obvious) that this place can get away with most any debate is that people thke them seriosuly. Still, I'll (grudingly and gnashing my teeth) admit that I may take these things a bit too seriosuly at times.

Quote
I did just that and the only person complaining seems to be you. I've invited you to point out any important points you feel I've negelected.

Really? Most of Novus posts seem to contain one complaint or another to you ignoring his points or sources and meep dropped out with "You're just ignoring remarks you don't want to hear".

Quote
Once again this seems more of a under-handed tactic to put me into a defensive posture rather than face any issues I may have raised.

I am once again confused by why any criticism of your style of debating would have anything to with the subject at hand. I'd also like to know how I do this to defend myself from issues we have raised, when we had booth agreed that the debate between us was over, and a draw. This is especially relevant seeing as I wrote the last bauta post, meaning that there were very few issues left unanswered (from my point of view). If we had been fencing, and I after a draw criticized your posture, would your reply then be "You are only trying to distract me by words because you cannot face my sword!"?

Quote
I would never criticize you in such a manner, especially on an informal discussion board such as this. To me this diversionary tactic is completely disrespectful and lame.

Then you are doing me a great disservice. How am I to better myself if my peers do not criticize me when I slip up, or do something stupid. That is why Deus is so good to have around. He has an uncanny knack for pointing out my flaws to me. I would expect the same from you, and this post has delivered such. It certainly gives me things to ponder and evaluate.

Quote
This was geared toward people such as cronos who posted a Keneth Miller video link, ordered us to watch it all and claimed the debate was over.

My apologies. Without an adress, I simply assumed it was a general statement.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2006, 08:10:12 pm by Lukipela » Logged

What's up doc?
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1387



View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #194 on: August 13, 2006, 12:28:08 am »

Wow this is a long thread, I'm glad I got out really early (much faster to read than to type.)

BTW, RType06, you said something along the lines of how you didn't believe in a "god" (in quotes because the definition of this word can be vague) having created Terran life, but something else did like another (biologicaly simpler?) lifeform, or did I misunderstand? Can you explain why you think this Intelligient Designer is not too complex to have existed without being created itself, and yet could have created lifeforms like us that are irreducibly complex?


Quote
That is why Deus is so good to have around. He has an uncanny knack for pointing out my flaws to me.

Yes, I knew I was good at something! Grin

I was only joking earlier by the way, people taking what you've said too seriously does not necessarily equal you having some flaw that provoked it. But that's why we have alcohol, to subdue our egos long enough that we can't understand what we're hearing anyway, and thus opinions can be freely expressed within the confines of a bar or meade hall. And because of alcohol, we have a thread devoted to it, to absorb our opinions of it, as well as toilets, to absorb it directly, when you've had more than enough of it.


And so that brings us back to the truth of how life started:

There was a god (who evolved from a race of plasmoid aliens, on the sun of Tyuki) who was alone in the universe, and very bored. . .How was he alone if he evolved from a race of ion balls you ask? Well how did adam and eve find themselves surrounded by cities and peoples right after genesis, if they were the first people themselves, and their kids hadn't even had kids of their own yet? Through a chronological temporal unexplained anomally, of course (I don't see why more religions don't use this loop hole, everything on the scifi channel does.)

So anyway, god was really bored and so he created alcohol, and was entertained for 6 days. But on the seventh day, he realized that drinking is not as fun when you're sitting around in a vacuum, alone. So he created plants, but they coundn't drink, so then he created scandinavians, and they more than made up for the plants. But then came a game that ripped-off starflight, and so all of them flocked to that and its internet fan forums, along with israelis, who had been god's previous chosen people until they complained about his honey-waffer recipe (this was before god created the french, who in turn created irreducibly tasty yet biologically destructive dessert pastries.) To punish the penisulas of scandinavia for forsaking god and his liquid ambosia, he had loki send down his agents to create unnecessarily long philosophical threads, which no one could resist getting sucked into (apparently not even quick witted creations of the great cat god beezer, like the teller of this recounting, yours truly.) But so sober had the people of the heathen forum become, so far from the light of drunkiness and the things you do while bathed in its power (with the exception of those guys on spike tv,) that they almost enjoyed wading knee-deep in posts whose factlessness came hand-in-hand with its endlessness.

So god sent a comet to blow away humanity, and it'll be here in a few days. Cheers!


That's not just me talking though, that is all backed up by lots of PHDs, SBDs, ICBMs, and the bible (which I haven't read in a while, but I think it went something like that.)
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 20 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!