Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   When does design become intelligent? (AS OF 8/2/10 - CLOSING COMMENTS ONLY)
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 61 of 702 (569281)
07-21-2010 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Dr Adequate
07-21-2010 9:32 AM


Re: Turtles and Tigers and Monkeys... Oh My!
So ignorant is not lacking in intelligence? I see. And dumb is not lacking knowledge? Ok.
And so what word do I use to describe you, imbecilic?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2010 9:32 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Huntard, posted 07-21-2010 9:45 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 63 by jar, posted 07-21-2010 9:51 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 67 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2010 10:06 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 62 of 702 (569282)
07-21-2010 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Bolder-dash
07-21-2010 9:42 AM


Re: Turtles and Tigers and Monkeys... Oh My!
Bolder-dash writes:
And so what word do I use to describe you, imbecilic?
Don't confuse yourself with other people, please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-21-2010 9:42 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 63 of 702 (569283)
07-21-2010 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Bolder-dash
07-21-2010 9:42 AM


Re: Turtles and Tigers and Monkeys... Oh My!
Is there any chance that you might actually respond to any of the issues that others have raised relating to the topic, or will you simply continue to try to change the subject?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-21-2010 9:42 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Huntard, posted 07-21-2010 9:59 AM jar has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 64 of 702 (569284)
07-21-2010 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Bolder-dash
07-21-2010 8:30 AM


Re: When its intelligent
Please support this with evidence, as per the rules of the forum.
Whenever we are in a position to find out how something happened, it always turns out to have happened in accordance with the laws of nature, rather than by magic.
That's empirical evidence, and that's why non-magical explanations are the default position. Anyone who claims that some particular thing did happen by magic is lumbered with the burden of proof.
Or just stay out of the discussion entirely....or is Granny too old to fight her own battles?
Actually since you can't adhere to the first rule, adhere to the second.
That little bit of gibberish ranged from the nonsensical to the puerile to the dishonest in a mere two sentences.
Ah yes ... creationism.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-21-2010 8:30 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 65 of 702 (569285)
07-21-2010 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by jar
07-21-2010 9:51 AM


Re: Turtles and Tigers and Monkeys... Oh My!
I'm guessing he's trying to get banned here, so he can go cry to some creationist website or some such about how "unfair" and "biased" people are here. He's been calling us that since his latest stint here.
Of course, the fact he will get banned because he's a dick that doesn't do constructive debate (apparently), will be lied about, but hey, as long as you can feel persecuted, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by jar, posted 07-21-2010 9:51 AM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-21-2010 12:15 PM Huntard has replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 66 of 702 (569286)
07-21-2010 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Bolder-dash
07-21-2010 3:48 AM


Re: When its intelligent
Well in the words of Miracle Max's wife Valerie.
"Liar, Liar, Liar"
Why cannot you argue actually points that are made instead of making out lies about what people are saying.
The only thing I can figure is that you are very insecure in your validity of your beliefs.
Why do you continue to lie?

Facts don\'t lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-21-2010 3:48 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 67 of 702 (569287)
07-21-2010 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Bolder-dash
07-21-2010 9:42 AM


Re: Turtles and Tigers and Monkeys... Oh My!
So ignorant is not lacking in intelligence?
No. A bright child, for example, might be highly intelligent but would be generally ignorant.
And dumb is not lacking knowledge?
No. An autistic savant, for example, might memorize an encyclopedia (thus having much knowledge) but still have a subnormal IQ (thus having little intelligence).
And so what word do I use to describe you, imbecilic?
Well, you could describe me as the person who is educating you in the meanings of commonplace English words. But that would require personal qualities (such as honesty) of which you have given scant indication.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-21-2010 9:42 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 702 (569288)
07-21-2010 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Dr Adequate
07-21-2010 8:53 AM


Re: Logical Answer
Dr Adequate writes:
You can, if you don't mind being wrong.
If I told you that 2 + 2 = 4, would you reply "Cool. Well then by that token I can allege that 9 + 3 = 4"?
Now you're being inadequately irrational, Doc. You now need to explain how your allegation of "by definition" as applied by you is more scientifically adequate than mine.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2010 8:53 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2010 11:25 AM Buzsaw has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 69 of 702 (569320)
07-21-2010 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Buzsaw
07-21-2010 10:18 AM


Re: Logical Answer
Now you're being inadequately irrational, Doc.
I'm not being irrational enough?
You now need to explain how your allegation of "by definition" as applied by you is more scientifically adequate than mine.
If you just have a glob of chemical gunk without any chemical self-replication going on, in what sense could it be called alive?
Various definitions have been given of life (depending on whether or not one wishes to exclude things like viruses) but they all seem to include some form of replication.
---
You haven't answered my question. Who the heck "alleged" "a relatively long period of life having not yet developed a means of reproducing itself".
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Buzsaw, posted 07-21-2010 10:18 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Buzsaw, posted 07-21-2010 3:01 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 70 of 702 (569330)
07-21-2010 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Huntard
07-21-2010 9:59 AM


Re: Turtles and Tigers and Monkeys... Oh My!
The topic is about when do we decide that something that appears to have design and to be intelligence is derived from an intelligent source.
Now, as many of you say that its silly to subscribe an intelligent source for something if you can't see that intelligent source, I submitted that it is no more silly than attributing all of life to a materialistic source, when you have no more proof of that then the ones who feel the source is intelligent. In fact, I would argue you have even less proof, because things are indeed intelligent, in the way we understand intelligence, so saying that this came from absolute un-intelligence is less logical than the belief in a designed world.
Now, after making these observations, and condensing the basic tenets of your theory down to its essence, that turtles, and tigers and monkeys and Richard Feynman all come from the same source, and an unintelligent one at that-I have to first listen to GM say that is fucking stupid I have to then listen to her claim that the empirical proof for the ToE exits in books without her giving any evidence to support that. I then have to listen to Dr. A repeat the same banal, meaningless crap.
I then have to listen to Ringo say nothing other than it takes intelligence to understand the explanation. And that's his entire contribution to the discussion.
I then have to listen to Dr. A AGAIN vomit his same tired lines-"Your abject ignorance of the theory is not a weakness of the theory" as his entire contribution.
I then have to listen to Jumped Up Chimpanzee add his all important contribution to the subject "Why don't you read some books on the subject (written by evolutionary biologists who have constructed the theory, and not by creationists) and then come back with some intelligent questions about anything you may not understand?" Gee read a book-great debate stuff! You guys sure do know how to make an argument.
I then have to endure Dr. A again saying "If you were suffering from bubonic plague, would you throw a temper tantrum every time someone advocated the use of antibiotics?" without his acknowledging that modern medicine NEVER uses the ToE to achieve its medical advances-besides of which what the heck does it have to do with this discussion?
Dr. A's next contribution is to blatantly proclaim that there is empirical evidence for ToE again without providing a shred of evidence to back that statement. Is this the point when I should begin to respond to the argument that they have presented (because there isn't one yet).?
Or should I wait for this gem, "Halfwitted religious bigots who don't know science from a hole in the ground consider it unscientific." No I can start debating the subject?
But it gets better, you chime in with the oh so valuable contribution, "They never claimed that." Now is the time for rebuttal to nothing?
So now, after GM and Dr. A BOTH refuse to show any evidence in a book for their claims that the evidence is there, I get to read, "You know, if you told fewer really stupid lies, people would be less inclined to think of you as a really stupid liar. " Is this the point where I should begin the intelligent discourse with the enlightened?
But it gets better, if not even more vacuous. Dr. A: 'I sometimes wonder whether people like Bolder-dash tell lies in the hope of actually deceiving someone, or whether it is merely a compulsion akin to Tourette's syndrome." The intelligent dialogue has begun?
Now so far, what is your contribution to this discussion? Oh, here it is: "Yes, they're quite the enigma, aren't they? " Powerful stuff I realize, but not much grist for discussion yet, now is it?
But of course we can't skip Parasomnium's valuable input: "Do they actually have to make you read it?"
Next we get to wade through Granny's spelling lesson, as she misspells "from" and "so'.
This is the debate I should engage? Oh, but there's more great stuff here to mull over:
Dr. A: "Why are you pretending that Richard Dawkins said that we are "descended from flecks of silicon"
Because that's what he says! Is that a good enough reply?
So should I take Theodore's advice to argue the points that were made? Whose points is he referring to? Who has addressed my initial point up til now with any intelligence at all? I suppose I could answer Blue jays points, if I could somehow summarize what they are-but I must do so while reading all this other horseshit first?
So you are going to tell me there is rational material here worth replying to? There is a discussion worth having here? With who? Ok, Bluejay at least gave an answer, that's the only one I have seen so far.
So should I respond to you, since your responses lack as much substance as any?
Ok, then my response to you is, fuck you too, dick! When do your contributions start?
Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Huntard, posted 07-21-2010 9:59 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Huntard, posted 07-21-2010 12:49 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 73 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 07-21-2010 1:20 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 74 by Granny Magda, posted 07-21-2010 1:23 PM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 75 by Blue Jay, posted 07-21-2010 2:03 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 71 of 702 (569336)
07-21-2010 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Bolder-dash
07-21-2010 12:15 PM


Re: Turtles and Tigers and Monkeys... Oh My!
Bolder-dash writes:
The topic is about when do we decide that something that appears to have design and to be intelligence is derived from an intelligent source.
No. Being intelligent has nothing to do with the topic
Now, as many of you say that its silly to subscribe an intelligent source for something if you can't see that intelligent source, I submitted that it is no more silly than attributing all of life to a materialistic source, when you have no more proof of that then the ones who feel the source is intelligent.
Since we can see this unintelligent source all around us (it's called nature), I'd say this statement isn't true.
In fact, I would argue you have even less proof, because things are indeed intelligent, in the way we understand intelligence, so saying that this came from absolute un-intelligence is less logical than the belief in a designed world.
What does the existence of intelligent things have to do withs omething being able to originate from a non-intelligent thing?
Now, after making these observations, and condensing the basic tenets of your theory down to its essence, that turtles, and tigers and monkeys and Richard Feynman all come from the same source, and an unintelligent one at that...
You never said that. Can't you even remember your own words? You said that tigers came from turtles and that Dickie came from tigers. And that, dear sir, is nonsense.
...I have to first listen to GM say that is fucking stupid I have to then listen to her claim that the empirical proof for the ToE exits in books without her giving any evidence to support that.
Don't tell me you've never heard of biology books? Also, you claimed she said more than that, which she didn't.
I then have to listen to Dr. A repeat the same banal, meaningless crap.
He never said such a thing.
I then have to listen to Ringo say nothing other than it takes intelligence to understand the explanation. And that's his entire contribution to the discussion.
And a quite true one at that.
I then have to listen to Dr. A AGAIN vomit his same tired lines-"Your abject ignorance of the theory is not a weakness of the theory" as his entire contribution.
And again, one that rings very true to the ear.
I then have to listen to Jumped Up Chimpanzee add his all important contribution to the subject "Why don't you read some books on the subject (written by evolutionary biologists who have constructed the theory, and not by creationists) and then come back with some intelligent questions about anything you may not understand?" Gee read a book-great debate stuff! You guys sure do know how to make an argument.
It's not our fault you know next to nothing about the ToE. There's little debate to be had if the opponent knows absolutely nothing about the subject you are debating.
I then have to endure Dr. A again saying "If you were suffering from bubonic plague, would you throw a temper tantrum every time someone advocated the use of antibiotics?" without his acknowledging that modern medicine NEVER uses the ToE to achieve its medical advances-besides of which what the heck does it have to do with this discussion?
See, it's sentences like "without his acknowledging that modern medicine NEVER uses the ToE to achieve its medical advances" that makes it painfully clear you know nothing about ToE and science in general, it seems.
Dr. A's next contribution is to blatantly proclaim that there is empirical evidence for ToE again without providing a shred of evidence to back that statement.
Not true, he said there was empirical evidence that a natural explanation is more likely. With reading comprehension like this, I find it no wonder you seem to know little about ToE.
But it gets better, you chime in with the oh so valuable contribution, "They never claimed that." Now is the time for rebuttal to nothing?
That's a rebuttal of your statement. The fact you can't point to the sentences in which they said what you claimed they said is rather to my advantage.
So now, after GM and Dr. A BOTH refuse to show any evidence in a book for their claims that the evidence is there, I get to read, "You know, if you told fewer really stupid lies, people would be less inclined to think of you as a really stupid liar. " Is this the point where I should begin the intelligent discourse with the enlightened?
That's because that is not what you said they claimed. We can read your posts back you know, no point in trying to alter what you said. That's why people are saying you are telling lies.
But it gets better, if not even more vacuous. Dr. A: 'I sometimes wonder whether people like Bolder-dash tell lies in the hope of actually deceiving someone, or whether it is merely a compulsion akin to Tourette's syndrome." The intelligent dialogue has begun?
Quite, for it would make a very interesting case study, I think. Also don't forget, it was you who stared off the "being an asshole" bit, so don't point fingers if people respond in kind.
Now so far, what is your contribution to this discussion? Oh, here it is: "Yes, they're quite the enigma, aren't they? " Powerful stuff I realize, but not much grist for discussion yet, now is it?
Since you're not providing anything of worth either, I don't see your particular gripe.
But of course we can't skip Parasomnium's valuable input: "Do they actually have to make you read it?"
Well seeing as how you've been acting throughout this thread, I thought that was a legitimate question.
Next we get to wade through Granny's spelling lesson, as she misspells "from" and "so'.
Like you never make spelling errors... Oh wait a minute, why in this very post you write "The topic is about when do we decide that something that appears to have design and to be intelligence is derived from an intelligent source." It's your first fucking sentence mate. Not only did you get the topic wrong, you said intelligence, not intelligent.
Dr. A: "Why are you pretending that Richard Dawkins said that we are "descended from flecks of silicon"
Because that's what he says! Is that a good enough reply?
Since it's not what he says (come on, produce a source then), no, it's not, actually.
So should I take Theodore's advice to argue the points that were made? Whose points is he referring to? Who has addressed my initial point up til now with any intelligence at all?
What initial point? The point where you were completely wrong about what the ToE says?
I suppose I could answer Blue jays points, if I could somehow summarize what they are-but I must do so while reading all this other horseshit first?
No one is making you read this "horse shit" let alone making you reply to it.
So you are going to tell me there is rational material here worth replying to? There is a discussion worth having here? With who?
Not with you apparently. The slightest resistance to your views makes you fly into a ft.
So should I respond to you, since your responses lack as much substance as any?
You can certainly try, but please try and represent my views accurately, I'd hate to tell you that you've misrepresented someone again.
Ok, then my response to you is, fuck you too, dick! When do your contributions start?
You might want to try and check out Message 4. Yes, that's right the second reply to the OP. Is that good enough of a contribution for you, or would you like to continue to foam at the mouth and rave some more?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-21-2010 12:15 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 72 of 702 (569339)
07-21-2010 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Bolder-dash
07-21-2010 2:45 AM


Re: When its intelligent
Even if there is no empirical evidence for this, and even if it does nothing to explain the precise fine tuning necessary for the stars and the planets and for life to exist.
There most certainly is empirical evidence for the natural formation of stars and planets. And as for living organisms, well, there is evidence for the natural emergence of the elements that all living organisms are formed from and how these elements came to be on a terrestrial planet.
The point is that the position of an invisible creator with magical powers need not ever be proposed so long as science can be done on the natural world. Why limit any of it?
explain the precise fine tuning
Fine tuned as compared to what? Can you show me another universe that isn't fine tuned, or is this type of universe the only one you know of?
Is it reasonable to say that this intelligence which enables us to ponder the origins of our path to existence, is derived entirely from un-intelligence
Intelligent as compared to what? It is your own ego that calls you an intelligent species. We are just another species with a trait that happens to be cognitively advanced as compared to other sentient species. Its origin is the same as any other trait, like wood pecking.
No matter how absurd the idea of intelligence spontaneously arising from un-intelligence is
No such claim has ever been made. You need to get more familiar with the evolutionary theory, which would clear up your complete misunderstanding.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-21-2010 2:45 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 73 of 702 (569344)
07-21-2010 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Bolder-dash
07-21-2010 12:15 PM


Re: Turtles and Tigers and Monkeys... Oh My!
I then have to listen to Jumped Up Chimpanzee add his all important contribution to the subject "Why don't you read some books on the subject (written by evolutionary biologists who have constructed the theory, and not by creationists) and then come back with some intelligent questions about anything you may not understand?" Gee read a book-great debate stuff! You guys sure do know how to make an argument.
The reason why you need to read a book on the theory of evolution (written by someone who has helped construct or support the theory) is because up to now, you have been trying to debate against your own theory of evolution and not one that the rest of us are familiar with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-21-2010 12:15 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 74 of 702 (569345)
07-21-2010 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Bolder-dash
07-21-2010 12:15 PM


Re: Turtles and Tigers and Monkeys... Oh My!
Okay BD, three messages condensed into one reply here. I'll leave the best for last.
But yes you are right about one thing, {English is} not my first language, its my fourth.
Fair enough. I won't give you a hard time over it then. I do wonder though if your grasp of English might not be contributing to your apparent lack of understanding here.
Again, we are using English, so I realize the challenges you also face; but yes, I agree, that is "fucking stupid" as you like to put it, but then many things Richard Dawkins says is stupid, so its no real surprise is it?
You have been asked to show us where Dawkins says any such thing. Of course you can't, because he hasn't.
You were the one who claimed that evolutionists think we are descended "from flecks of sand ". That is a misrepresentation, or more charitably, a misapprehension. Whatever it is, it's wrong. No-one thinks that.
So, BTW, which chemical element are you claiming life arose from, since you also think Dawkins is so fucking stupid?
We're composed of many elements, but principally carbon. Obviously. And when I say obviously, I mean painfully, painfully obviously. As in the phrase "carbon-based life".
Did you mean dumb and redundant?
I think Dr A has already dealt with this, but I meant what I said.
Now, as many of you say that its silly to subscribe an intelligent source for something if you can't see that intelligent source, I submitted that it is no more silly than attributing all of life to a materialistic source, when you have no more proof of that then the ones who feel the source is intelligent.
First, it's not about proof. No-one can ever prove anything about the origin of life beyond all possible doubt. Besides, science doesn't operate that way. Science uses evidence, not proof; the two concepts are quite distinct.
Also, I have to say that materialistic explanations have a pretty good track record. After all, every single phenomenon that is currently understood has a material explanation. Strange that you should be so quick to give up on any materialistic explanation for abiogenesis.
In fact, I would argue you have even less proof, because things are indeed intelligent, in the way we understand intelligence, so saying that this came from absolute un-intelligence is less logical than the belief in a designed world.
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to communicate here. Are you saying that because intelligence exists, it must have been created by intelligence? That no more follows than claiming that something that is pink must have been created by something pink.
Now, after making these observations, and condensing the basic tenets of your theory down to its essence, that turtles, and tigers and monkeys and Richard Feynman all come from the same source
That is not what you said. You mentioned;
Bolder-dash writes:
just so stories about how a turtle turned into a Tiger then turned into a monkey, then turned into Richard Feynman...
which is something quite different.
Turtles, tigers, monkeys and Richard Feynman sharing a common ancestor, yes.
Richard Feynman is descended from monkeys, which are descended from tigers, which are descended from turtles, no. No, no, no, no, no.
This is what I'm trying to get at here; when you characterise the position taken by your evolutionist opponents, please try and get it right. Your repeated failure to manage this both insults others and undermines your own credibility.
I have to first listen to GM say that is fucking stupid
No, I didn't say that. I said that your turtles-tigers-monkeys-humans scenario was "fucking stupid", which it most certainly is.
I have to then listen to her claim that the empirical proof for the ToE exits in books without her giving any evidence to support that.
Again, that's not what I said. I said that you could find the real Theory of Evolution (as opposed to your insipid strawman version of it) in books. Which you can. Any high-school biology text for example. Or I heartily recommend Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne. If you are genuinely interested in hearing what your evo opponents really think that is.
So now, after GM and Dr. A BOTH refuse to show any evidence in a book for their claims that the evidence is there
I really don't think you understand what I said. I said that the theory can be found, not the evidence for its reality.
Next we get to wade through Granny's spelling lesson, as she misspells "from" and "so'.
Yes, well, that's Skitt's Law for you. There is a difference between a misspelling and a typo though.
Oh, but there's more great stuff here to mull over:
Dr. A: "Why are you pretending that Richard Dawkins said that we are "descended from flecks of silicon"
Because that's what he says! Is that a good enough reply?
Again, Dawkins has never said that we are descended from silicon or sand or any such thing. You just pulled that one out of nowhere.
But if "that's what he says!", I guess you'll be able to show us where he says it, right? Of course again, you won't be able to show us that, because it's nonsense, but I am curious to see you try...
Oh and, like I said... best for last...
Did you mean by the evidence of do do? Sorry, you are right I can't understand your English, but it sure does smell of do do.
Nice work there BD, very nice.
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-21-2010 12:15 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-22-2010 6:35 AM Granny Magda has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 75 of 702 (569354)
07-21-2010 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Bolder-dash
07-21-2010 12:15 PM


Re: Turtles and Tigers and Monkeys... Oh My!
Hi, Bolder-dash.
Bolder-dash writes:
Who has addressed my initial point up til now with any intelligence at all? I suppose I could answer Blue jays points, if I could somehow summarize what they are-but I must do so while reading all this other horseshit first?
I have a few simple suggestions to make.
  1. If you think my points merit some sort of response, but don't understand what I'm talking about, you are always welcome to ask me to clarify them.
    I will do my best to not be offended if you misinterpret me (although I am only human). I would prefer you to be at least somewhat specific about what you would like me to clarify, however.
  2. If you think my comments merit some sort of response, while others’ comments don’t, why did you respond to the others, and not to me?
    Your tendency to get caught up in substanceless banter that is as much your own making as the making of the people you blame for it belies your insistence that you would rather talk about stuff with substance. If you don't think it's worth responding to, just let it go.
  3. Assert yourself, Dash.
    Your approach is entirely reactionary: you seem to think that you can't discuss things unless somebody gives you something to discuss. If there is substance to your side of the debate, then put it forward, and force us to respond to what you say! That’s how you can control the direction of the discussion, and prevent this silly back-and-forth crap that you detest so much.
Edited by Bluejay, : Altered wording of second point.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-21-2010 12:15 PM Bolder-dash 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