login

Author Topic: The Science Thread  (Read 100372 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jewishcarpenter

  • Climbed El Capitan
  • *******
  • Posts: 5486
  • Liked: 543
  • I grow flowers so pretty they'll make you throw up
Re: The Science Thread
« Reply #15 on: December 27, 2007, 10:59:25 AM »
Every thread valeyard posts in makes me not want to read it. You're smug, pompous, here with an agenda and so far I haven't found any redeeming qualities you've brought to the forums and I'm surprised you're still here. You're making the forum more and more unpleasant on a daily basis. I'm sure quite a few people would agree with me on that.


Offline James of LinHood

  • The FBI Pays Me to Surf
  • *
  • Posts: 2352
  • Liked: 2
  • Romans 12:2
    • The Facebookz
Re: The Science Thread
« Reply #16 on: December 27, 2007, 11:01:41 AM »
Every thread valeyard posts in makes me not want to read it. You're smug, pompous, here with an agenda and so far I haven't found any redeeming qualities you've brought to the forums and I'm surprised you're still here. You're making the forum more and more unpleasant on a daily basis. I'm sure quite a few people would agree with me on that.

Amen-I mean-Right on.
Imrahil: Don't care about Riding with Death.

Bob: Turkey.

Action Batch:  Woah, let's all mellow out and rap about this.


Offline Reductio_ad_absurdum

  • Big Montana
  • *****
  • Posts: 578
  • Liked: 1
    • A Singular Way
Re: The Science Thread
« Reply #17 on: December 27, 2007, 11:02:43 AM »
Every thread valeyard posts in makes me not want to read it. You're smug, pompous, here with an agenda and so far I haven't found any redeeming qualities you've brought to the forums and I'm surprised you're still here. You're making the forum more and more unpleasant on a daily basis. I'm sure quite a few people would agree with me on that.

Lets not have a gang up on her please.  Just ignore her?

If White Holes exist, where does the stuff go?  Is it all just shot out the other side of the universe like a huge vacuum nozzle?


Offline valeyard

  • Magneto-cent Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 389
  • Liked: 0
Re: The Science Thread
« Reply #18 on: December 27, 2007, 11:03:05 AM »
Every thread valeyard posts in makes me not want to read it. You're smug, pompous, here with an agenda and so far I haven't found any redeeming qualities you've brought to the forums and I'm surprised you're still here. You're making the forum more and more unpleasant on a daily basis. I'm sure quite a few people would agree with me on that.

So, when evidence to refute my point is in short supply, change the subject to one about me?  How does that prove what you are saying?  I have attacked no one.  Who is being smug and pompous?  I have simply asked a few salient questions, and made a few points.  IF, I am just being pompous, and I'm full of hot air, then by all means, REFUTE.  If you can't, then attacking me, just proves what I'm saying about zealotry, heretical hysteria, and shunning.
Are you my virgins?  I hope not!


Offline valeyard

  • Magneto-cent Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 389
  • Liked: 0
Re: The Science Thread
« Reply #19 on: December 27, 2007, 11:05:21 AM »
Every thread valeyard posts in makes me not want to read it. You're smug, pompous, here with an agenda and so far I haven't found any redeeming qualities you've brought to the forums and I'm surprised you're still here. You're making the forum more and more unpleasant on a daily basis. I'm sure quite a few people would agree with me on that.

Lets not have a gang up on her please.  Just ignore her?

If White Holes exist, where does the stuff go?  Is it all just shot out the other side of the universe like a huge vacuum tube?

Why ignore me, unless what I'm saying is true, and you just can't stand the fact it is?  If what I'm saying is full of it, simply prove where I'm wrong. 

By all means gang up on me.  You only prove what I'm saying to be true, whether you know it or not. 

I have attacked no one.  I have asked some questions.  I can't help if those questions go the heart of some people's religious beliefs.  Isn't that what science is supposed to do? Then why get angry with me in a science thread for asking such questions?
Are you my virgins?  I hope not!


Offline torgosPizza

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7733
  • Liked: 247
  • Heaven is nowhere, just look to the stars.
    • RiffTrax
Re: The Science Thread
« Reply #20 on: December 27, 2007, 11:10:45 AM »
ROFL, so the answer to a scienctific debate is close your eyes and ears and pretend it will go away?  What have I asked that is so unreasonable?  What have I pointed out that is so unreasonable?

You're not pointing anything out. You start every "point" of yours with ROFL, like you somehow have all the answers and the rest of us are just TOO STUPID to agree with you. Creationism and Intelligent Design ARE NOT SCIENCE.

You keep telling us "Come on! Refute me with some evidence! You don't have it! Nyah nyah!" but we're not here in this thread to debate science vs. religion, it's been done to death here already. We've kept asking you to stay on topic, and you haven't. You've so far dragged every reasonable discussion you've come into contact with through the mud of creationist debate.

We get it. You're a religious person, and that's fine. But since you're unable to be reasonable, one more outburst and I'm sending you to the Time Out Couch.


Offline Nunyerbiz

  • Mayor of Nilbog
  • *****
  • Posts: 3400
  • Liked: 953
Re: The Science Thread
« Reply #21 on: December 27, 2007, 11:10:56 AM »
Somebody told me we're having a good old fashioned heretic shunning?!?!?

Is that true?!? I've been jonezing since Utah banned witch burnings back in the 70's....


Offline torgosPizza

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7733
  • Liked: 247
  • Heaven is nowhere, just look to the stars.
    • RiffTrax
Re: The Science Thread
« Reply #22 on: December 27, 2007, 11:20:03 AM »
Indeed.

Reductio, I'm sorry your thread got hijacked. If this thread gets derailed again I'll be sure to take care of it.

Are there other recent, similar examples where you think science has done a lot of deductive reasoning, or over-reaching? I'm trying to find something to compare this new discovery to but I'm drawing blanks.


Offline Reductio_ad_absurdum

  • Big Montana
  • *****
  • Posts: 578
  • Liked: 1
    • A Singular Way
Re: The Science Thread
« Reply #23 on: December 27, 2007, 11:28:40 AM »
Indeed.

Reductio, I'm sorry your thread got hijacked. If this thread gets derailed again I'll be sure to take care of it.

Are there other recent, similar examples where you think science has done a lot of deductive reasoning, or over-reaching? I'm trying to find something to compare this new discovery to but I'm drawing blanks.

Thanks, but before I get to that, I have a question... I don't want to drudge it up, but I want to understand the mindset.  You probably don't have a lot of information on biochemistry, but that is the crux of Behe's theory of Intelligent Design.  His theory pins on things like the flagellum being irreducibly complex which means that though the parts can come from somewhere else, they have to be in the system at the beginning of the system for it to work.  Is this not credible scientific thought?  Is not Behe a credible biochemist?  What makes ID pseudo-science if it follows scientific principles?


Offline valeyard

  • Magneto-cent Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 389
  • Liked: 0
Re: The Science Thread
« Reply #24 on: December 27, 2007, 11:32:08 AM »
ROFL, so the answer to a scienctific debate is close your eyes and ears and pretend it will go away?  What have I asked that is so unreasonable?  What have I pointed out that is so unreasonable?

You're not pointing anything out. You start every "point" of yours with ROFL, like you somehow have all the answers and the rest of us are just TOO STUPID to agree with you. Creationism and Intelligent Design ARE NOT SCIENCE.

You keep telling us "Come on! Refute me with some evidence! You don't have it! Nyah nyah!" but we're not here in this thread to debate science vs. religion, it's been done to death here already. We've kept asking you to stay on topic, and you haven't. You've so far dragged every reasonable discussion you've come into contact with through the mud of creationist debate.

We get it. You're a religious person, and that's fine. But since you're unable to be reasonable, one more outburst and I'm sending you to the Time Out Couch.

I'm not debating science vs. religion.  I'm debating theory vs. theory.  Name the religion I've brought up?  I'm simply pointing out there is no evidence to establish one theory over another, and that seems to be sending all of you into hysterics.  If you guys are insisting one theory be considered science, while another be dismissed without any evidence, then who is arguing religion? 

Who is being the religious person?  Seriously, you are just using "religion" as a screen, because you don't want to admit I might have a point.

In short, science is not, "well, it's true because we all say so."  That's all the Catholic Church had against Galileo.  So, who is being religiious?
Are you my virgins?  I hope not!


Offline Nunyerbiz

  • Mayor of Nilbog
  • *****
  • Posts: 3400
  • Liked: 953
Re: The Science Thread
« Reply #25 on: December 27, 2007, 11:35:35 AM »
BURN THE WITCH!!!!!!


Offline jewishcarpenter

  • Climbed El Capitan
  • *******
  • Posts: 5486
  • Liked: 543
  • I grow flowers so pretty they'll make you throw up
Re: The Science Thread
« Reply #26 on: December 27, 2007, 11:35:55 AM »
Thanks, but before I get to that, I have a question... I don't want to drudge it up, but I want to understand the mindset.  You probably don't have a lot of information on biochemistry, but that is the crux of Behe's theory of Intelligent Design.  His theory pins on things like the flagellum being irreducibly complex which means that though the parts can come from somewhere else, they have to be in the system at the beginning of the system for it to work.  Is this not credible scientific thought?  Is not Behe a credible biochemist?  What makes ID pseudo-science if it follows scientific principles?
Here's a pretty interesting video that actually covers that in one part, I think it's in Chapter 6..
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html
« Last Edit: December 27, 2007, 11:38:10 AM by jewishcarpenter »


Offline valeyard

  • Magneto-cent Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 389
  • Liked: 0
Re: The Science Thread
« Reply #27 on: December 27, 2007, 11:53:36 AM »
Indeed.

Reductio, I'm sorry your thread got hijacked. If this thread gets derailed again I'll be sure to take care of it.

Are there other recent, similar examples where you think science has done a lot of deductive reasoning, or over-reaching? I'm trying to find something to compare this new discovery to but I'm drawing blanks.

Thanks, but before I get to that, I have a question... I don't want to drudge it up, but I want to understand the mindset.  You probably don't have a lot of information on biochemistry, but that is the crux of Behe's theory of Intelligent Design.  His theory pins on things like the flagellum being irreducibly complex which means that though the parts can come from somewhere else, they have to be in the system at the beginning of the system for it to work.  Is this not credible scientific thought?  Is not Behe a credible biochemist?  What makes ID pseudo-science if it follows scientific principles?

Ann Coulter's wonderful book "Godless" devotes an entire section to Behe in her substantive chapter, disputing Darwinism.  I quote in part:

Quote
Nevertheless Behe disproved evolution--unless evolution is simply a nondisprovable pseudoscience like astrology.  Behe produced various "irreducibly complex" mechanisms, of which there are thousands--complex cellular structures, blood-clotting mechanisms, and the eye among others.  A bacterial motor, called a flagellum depends on the coordinated interaction of 30-40 complex protein parts.  The absence of almost any one of the parts would render the flagellum useless.  An animal cell's whiplike oar, called a cilium, is composed of about 200 protein parts.  Behe compared these cell parts to a simple mousetrap, all of them have to be working together at one time for the contraption to serve any function whatsoever.  If one of the parts is missing, Behe says, you don't get a mousetrap that catches only half as many mice: you don't get a mousetrap at all.  Behe then demonstrated that it is a mathematical impossibility for all 30 parts of the flagellum (or 200 parts of the cilium) to have been brought together by the "numerous, successive, slight modifications," of natural selection.  Life at the molecular level, he concluded, "is a loud, clear piercing cry of design."

And with the word design again, remember the first defintion of design in the dictionary is create.  

« Last Edit: December 27, 2007, 11:56:10 AM by valeyard »
Are you my virgins?  I hope not!


Offline valeyard

  • Magneto-cent Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 389
  • Liked: 0
Re: The Science Thread
« Reply #28 on: December 27, 2007, 11:54:35 AM »
BURN THE WITCH!!!!!!

Exactly.  Only it always seems those who seek to end one fantacism, become exactly what they seek to end. 
Are you my virgins?  I hope not!


Offline SaucyRossy

  • The FBI Pays Me to Surf
  • *
  • Posts: 2637
  • Liked: 0
Re: The Science Thread
« Reply #29 on: December 27, 2007, 11:56:53 AM »
I hate to pile on but yes Valeyard I have noticed numerous threads that you seem to take over with endless debates and pointless well points really.

It's not like the board is a hippie commune but we have all gotten a long pretty swell until all of these political debates..


With that said let me get back on topic.

If i read that right the only basis for the whole believed scientific existence of a line of human ancestors is some teeth? So if some big foot teeth were found would it be scientific fact that big foot was real?

www.rifftraxfan.com - Check out Gammers RiffTrax Fan page!