| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Budikka666" |
| Date: |
11 Mar 2006 06:56:00 AM |
| Object: |
A God Designed this Arch Directly? |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4790238.stm
is an article discussing the global warming of which George Bush
so-called leader of the free world, lives in denial (he gets his
environmental advice from Michael Crichton, apparently). But look at
the picture. Did a god design that arch and bridge, or can apparent
design actually arise naturally?
Budikka
.
|
|
| User: "Mindfucked" |
|
| Title: Re: A God Designed this Arch Directly? |
11 Mar 2006 07:24:53 AM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1142081760.939251.276690@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4790238.stm
is an article discussing the global warming of which George Bush
so-called leader of the free world, lives in denial (he gets his
environmental advice from Michael Crichton, apparently). But look at
the picture. Did a god design that arch and bridge, or can apparent
design actually arise naturally?
If the 'arch and bridge' occurred as a result of global warming (regarded by
some scientists as junk science), which in turn is (allegedly) a result of
human activitiy, then the 'design' did not occur 'naturally' - there is an
established causal relationship at work. How does this support your
argument?
.
|
|
|
| User: "DH" |
|
| Title: Re: A God Designed this Arch Directly? |
14 Mar 2006 08:21:59 AM |
|
|
"Mindfucked" <mindfuck@bulldoghome.com> wrote in message
news:duuj3f$s60$2@emma.aioe.org...
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1142081760.939251.276690@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4790238.stm
is an article discussing the global warming of which George Bush
so-called leader of the free world, lives in denial (he gets his
environmental advice from Michael Crichton, apparently). But look at
the picture. Did a god design that arch and bridge, or can apparent
design actually arise naturally?
If the 'arch and bridge' occurred as a result of global warming (regarded
by
some scientists as junk science), which in turn is (allegedly) a result of
human activitiy, then the 'design' did not occur 'naturally' - there is an
established causal relationship at work. How does this support your
argument?
"Design" can only be realized in light of "intended effect." The effects of
global warming are not intended effects, we have not raised the temperature
of the planet to increase the number of arches, and, therefore, not
"Design."
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mindfucked" |
|
| Title: Re: A God Designed this Arch Directly? |
14 Mar 2006 05:28:50 PM |
|
|
"DH" <dh@stargate.com> wrote in message
news:4416d314$0$17703$6d36acad@titian.nntpserver.com...
"Mindfucked" <mindfuck@bulldoghome.com> wrote in message
news:duuj3f$s60$2@emma.aioe.org...
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1142081760.939251.276690@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4790238.stm
is an article discussing the global warming of which George Bush
so-called leader of the free world, lives in denial (he gets his
environmental advice from Michael Crichton, apparently). But look at
the picture. Did a god design that arch and bridge, or can apparent
design actually arise naturally?
If the 'arch and bridge' occurred as a result of global warming (regarded
by
some scientists as junk science), which in turn is (allegedly) a result
of
human activitiy, then the 'design' did not occur 'naturally' - there is
an
established causal relationship at work. How does this support your
argument?
"Design" can only be realized in light of "intended effect." The effects
of
global warming are not intended effects, we have not raised the
temperature
of the planet to increase the number of arches, and, therefore, not
"Design."
I would not argue with that.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alan LeHun" |
|
| Title: Re: A God Designed this Arch Directly? |
11 Mar 2006 07:41:32 AM |
|
|
In article <duuj3f$s60$2@emma.aioe.org>,
says...
If the 'arch and bridge' occurred as a result of global warming (regarded by
some scientists as junk science), which in turn is (allegedly) a result of
human activitiy, then the 'design' did not occur 'naturally'
What about these? Global warming?
http://www.enlightphoto.com/webpages/cachan/chan1018.jpg
http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/corps/images/corp1234.jpg
http://www.sleeping-out.co.za/ftp/Pictures/3011-D-10542.jpg
--
Alan LeHun
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mindfucked" |
|
| Title: Re: A God Designed this Arch Directly? |
11 Mar 2006 07:56:22 AM |
|
|
"Alan LeHun" <try@reply.to> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e7ce3e4b34a73ad9898cb@news.clara.net...
In article <duuj3f$s60$2@emma.aioe.org>,
says...
If the 'arch and bridge' occurred as a result of global warming (regarded
by
some scientists as junk science), which in turn is (allegedly) a result
of
human activitiy, then the 'design' did not occur 'naturally'
What about these? Global warming?
http://www.enlightphoto.com/webpages/cachan/chan1018.jpg
http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/corps/images/corp1234.jpg
http://www.sleeping-out.co.za/ftp/Pictures/3011-D-10542.jpg
--
No - cause and effect - Want to talk about 'first cause' arguments?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan LeHun" |
|
| Title: Re: A God Designed this Arch Directly? |
11 Mar 2006 08:11:02 AM |
|
|
In article <duukuc$ck3$1@emma.aioe.org>,
says...
What about these? Global warming?
http://www.enlightphoto.com/webpages/cachan/chan1018.jpg
http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/corps/images/corp1234.jpg
http://www.sleeping-out.co.za/ftp/Pictures/3011-D-10542.jpg
--
No - cause and effect - Want to talk about 'first cause' arguments?
Are they natural or designed?
--
Alan LeHun
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mindfucked" |
|
| Title: Re: A God Designed this Arch Directly? |
11 Mar 2006 08:32:14 AM |
|
|
"Alan LeHun" <try@reply.to> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e7cead4cf6cf3e19898cc@news.clara.net...
In article <duukuc$ck3$1@emma.aioe.org>,
says...
What about these? Global warming?
http://www.enlightphoto.com/webpages/cachan/chan1018.jpg
http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/corps/images/corp1234.jpg
http://www.sleeping-out.co.za/ftp/Pictures/3011-D-10542.jpg
--
No - cause and effect - Want to talk about 'first cause' arguments?
Are they natural or designed?
--
Natural - has anyone said they are not?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: A God Designed this Arch Directly? |
11 Mar 2006 11:23:38 AM |
|
|
"Mindfucked" <> wrote in message
news:duun1l$ia1$1@emma.aioe.org...
"Alan LeHun" <try@reply.to> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e7cead4cf6cf3e19898cc@news.clara.net...
In article <duukuc$ck3$1@emma.aioe.org>,
says...
What about these? Global warming?
http://www.enlightphoto.com/webpages/cachan/chan1018.jpg
http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/corps/images/corp1234.jpg
http://www.sleeping-out.co.za/ftp/Pictures/3011-D-10542.jpg
--
No - cause and effect - Want to talk about 'first cause' arguments?
Are they natural or designed?
--
Natural - has anyone said they are not?
Yes, you did:
"If the 'arch and bridge' occurred as a result of global warming (regarded
by
some scientists as junk science), which in turn is (allegedly) a result of
human activitiy, then the 'design' did not occur 'naturally' - there is an
established causal relationship at work. How does this support your
argument?"
Clearly you think things can be designed by accident, and so are not
natural.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mindfucked" |
|
| Title: Re: A God Designed this Arch Directly? |
11 Mar 2006 01:03:09 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:mKOdnSZDkocHmo7ZnZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@io.com...
"Mindfucked" < > wrote in message
news:duun1l$ia1$1@emma.aioe.org...
"Alan LeHun" <try@reply.to> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e7cead4cf6cf3e19898cc@news.clara.net...
In article <duukuc$ck3$1@emma.aioe.org>,
says...
What about these? Global warming?
http://www.enlightphoto.com/webpages/cachan/chan1018.jpg
http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/corps/images/corp1234.jpg
http://www.sleeping-out.co.za/ftp/Pictures/3011-D-10542.jpg
--
No - cause and effect - Want to talk about 'first cause' arguments?
Are they natural or designed?
--
Natural - has anyone said they are not?
Yes, you did:
"If the 'arch and bridge' occurred as a result of global warming (regarded
by
some scientists as junk science), which in turn is (allegedly) a result of
human activitiy, then the 'design' did not occur 'naturally' - there is an
established causal relationship at work. How does this support your
argument?"
Clearly you think things can be designed by accident, and so are not
natural.
--
Clearly you do not understand the meaning of the word 'if'.
It is a conditional statement; not a pronouncement of fact.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: A God Designed this Arch Directly? |
11 Mar 2006 06:03:56 PM |
|
|
"Mindfucked" <> wrote in message
news:duv6tj$i4a$1@emma.aioe.org...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:mKOdnSZDkocHmo7ZnZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@io.com...
"Mindfucked" < > wrote in message
news:duun1l$ia1$1@emma.aioe.org...
"Alan LeHun" <try@reply.to> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e7cead4cf6cf3e19898cc@news.clara.net...
In article <duukuc$ck3$1@emma.aioe.org>,
says...
What about these? Global warming?
http://www.enlightphoto.com/webpages/cachan/chan1018.jpg
http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/corps/images/corp1234.jpg
http://www.sleeping-out.co.za/ftp/Pictures/3011-D-10542.jpg
--
No - cause and effect - Want to talk about 'first cause' arguments?
Are they natural or designed?
--
Natural - has anyone said they are not?
Yes, you did:
"If the 'arch and bridge' occurred as a result of global warming
(regarded by
some scientists as junk science), which in turn is (allegedly) a result
of
human activitiy, then the 'design' did not occur 'naturally' - there is
an
established causal relationship at work. How does this support your
argument?"
Clearly you think things can be designed by accident, and so are not
natural.
--
Clearly you do not understand the meaning of the word 'if'.
It is a conditional statement; not a pronouncement of fact.
Boggle! But your conditional "if" indicates that you clearly think things
can be designed by accident. You clearly indicate that "if" global warming
(an accident), results in an arch, then the arch is designed.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mindfucked" |
|
| Title: Re: A God Designed this Arch Directly? |
11 Mar 2006 06:31:10 PM |
|
|
What about these? Global warming?
http://www.enlightphoto.com/webpages/cachan/chan1018.jpg
http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/corps/images/corp1234.jpg
http://www.sleeping-out.co.za/ftp/Pictures/3011-D-10542.jpg
--
No - cause and effect - Want to talk about 'first cause' arguments?
Are they natural or designed?
--
Natural - has anyone said they are not?
Yes, you did:
"If the 'arch and bridge' occurred as a result of global warming
(regarded by
some scientists as junk science), which in turn is (allegedly) a result
of
human activitiy, then the 'design' did not occur 'naturally' - there is
an
established causal relationship at work. How does this support your
argument?"
Clearly you think things can be designed by accident, and so are not
natural.
--
Clearly you do not understand the meaning of the word 'if'.
It is a conditional statement; not a pronouncement of fact.
Boggle! But your conditional "if" indicates that you clearly think things
can be designed by accident. You clearly indicate that "if" global warming
(an accident), results in an arch, then the arch is designed.
Nor do you apparently understand the usage of single quote marks such as
those around the word 'design' - they are intended to inform the reader that
I am quoting from the original user of the word and using the context he
used. It does not in any way imply agreement..
"Quotation marks are often used to alert readers that a term is used in a
nonstandard, ironic, or other special sense. Nicknamed 'scare quotes,' they
imply 'This is not my term' or 'This is not how the term is usually
applied.' Like any such device, scare quotes lose their force and irritate
readers if overused" (Chicago Manual of Style, 2003, p. 291, sec. 7.58).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: A God Designed this Arch Directly? |
11 Mar 2006 11:39:08 PM |
|
|
"Mindfucked" <mindfuck@bulldoghome.com> wrote in message
news:duvq4k$ii2$1@emma.aioe.org...
What about these? Global warming?
http://www.enlightphoto.com/webpages/cachan/chan1018.jpg
http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/corps/images/corp1234.jpg
http://www.sleeping-out.co.za/ftp/Pictures/3011-D-10542.jpg
--
No - cause and effect - Want to talk about 'first cause' arguments?
Are they natural or designed?
--
Natural - has anyone said they are not?
Yes, you did:
"If the 'arch and bridge' occurred as a result of global warming
(regarded by
some scientists as junk science), which in turn is (allegedly) a result
of
human activitiy, then the 'design' did not occur 'naturally' - there is
an
established causal relationship at work. How does this support your
argument?"
Clearly you think things can be designed by accident, and so are not
natural.
--
Clearly you do not understand the meaning of the word 'if'.
It is a conditional statement; not a pronouncement of fact.
Boggle! But your conditional "if" indicates that you clearly think things
can be designed by accident. You clearly indicate that "if" global
warming (an accident), results in an arch, then the arch is designed.
Nor do you apparently understand the usage of single quote marks such as
those around the word 'design' - they are intended to inform the reader
that I am quoting from the original user of the word and using the context
he used. It does not in any way imply agreement..
"Quotation marks are often used to alert readers that a term is used in a
nonstandard, ironic, or other special sense. Nicknamed 'scare quotes,'
they imply 'This is not my term' or 'This is not how the term is usually
applied.' Like any such device, scare quotes lose their force and irritate
readers if overused" (Chicago Manual of Style, 2003, p. 291, sec. 7.58).
Ok...Color me hooked-like-a-trout.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mindfucked" |
|
| Title: Re: A God Designed this Arch Directly? |
12 Mar 2006 06:32:56 AM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:-6CdnbWlNuJhLo7ZRVn-vA@io.com...
Boggle! But your conditional "if" indicates that you clearly think
things can be designed by accident. You clearly indicate that "if"
global warming (an accident), results in an arch, then the arch is
designed.
Nor do you apparently understand the usage of single quote marks such as
those around the word 'design' - they are intended to inform the reader
that I am quoting from the original user of the word and using the
context he used. It does not in any way imply agreement..
"Quotation marks are often used to alert readers that a term is used in a
nonstandard, ironic, or other special sense. Nicknamed 'scare quotes,'
they imply 'This is not my term' or 'This is not how the term is usually
applied.' Like any such device, scare quotes lose their force and
irritate readers if overused" (Chicago Manual of Style, 2003, p. 291,
sec. 7.58).
Ok...Color me hooked-like-a-trout.
Presumably the above is an obscure Americanism?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: A God Designed this Arch Directly? |
12 Mar 2006 06:03:46 PM |
|
|
"Mindfucked" <mindfuck@bulldoghome.com> wrote in message
news:dv14dv$q42$1@emma.aioe.org...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:-6CdnbWlNuJhLo7ZRVn-vA@io.com...
Boggle! But your conditional "if" indicates that you clearly think
things can be designed by accident. You clearly indicate that "if"
global warming (an accident), results in an arch, then the arch is
designed.
Nor do you apparently understand the usage of single quote marks such as
those around the word 'design' - they are intended to inform the reader
that I am quoting from the original user of the word and using the
context he used. It does not in any way imply agreement..
"Quotation marks are often used to alert readers that a term is used in
a
nonstandard, ironic, or other special sense. Nicknamed 'scare quotes,'
they imply 'This is not my term' or 'This is not how the term is usually
applied.' Like any such device, scare quotes lose their force and
irritate readers if overused" (Chicago Manual of Style, 2003, p. 291,
sec. 7.58).
Ok...Color me hooked-like-a-trout.
Presumably the above is an obscure Americanism?
Yes, I presume you've heard the phrase "hook, line, and sinker" used to
describe someone who has been taken in by a hoax or scam? I have, as far as
I can tell, been taken in completely by your parody of a creationist
response. I thus nod my head in respect to your leg-pulling skills.
At least I think that's the case.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mindfucked" |
|
| Title: Re: A God Designed this Arch Directly? |
12 Mar 2006 08:11:18 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:YMGdnejPNdR8K4nZRVn-rQ@io.com...
"Mindfucked" <mindfuck@bulldoghome.com> wrote in message
news:dv14dv$q42$1@emma.aioe.org...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:-6CdnbWlNuJhLo7ZRVn-vA@io.com...
Boggle! But your conditional "if" indicates that you clearly think
things can be designed by accident. You clearly indicate that "if"
global warming (an accident), results in an arch, then the arch is
designed.
Nor do you apparently understand the usage of single quote marks such
as
those around the word 'design' - they are intended to inform the reader
that I am quoting from the original user of the word and using the
context he used. It does not in any way imply agreement..
"Quotation marks are often used to alert readers that a term is used in
a
nonstandard, ironic, or other special sense. Nicknamed 'scare quotes,'
they imply 'This is not my term' or 'This is not how the term is
usually
applied.' Like any such device, scare quotes lose their force and
irritate readers if overused" (Chicago Manual of Style, 2003, p. 291,
sec. 7.58).
Ok...Color me hooked-like-a-trout.
Presumably the above is an obscure Americanism?
Yes, I presume you've heard the phrase "hook, line, and sinker" used to
describe someone who has been taken in by a hoax or scam? I have, as far
as I can tell, been taken in completely by your parody of a creationist
response. I thus nod my head in respect to your leg-pulling skills.
At least I think that's the case.
I suppose you could say you were 'mindfucked'?
;-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: A God Designed this Arch Directly? |
13 Mar 2006 04:07:29 PM |
|
|
"Mindfucked" <mindfuck@bulldoghome.com> wrote in message
news:dv2kce$h27$1@emma.aioe.org...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:YMGdnejPNdR8K4nZRVn-rQ@io.com...
"Mindfucked" <mindfuck@bulldoghome.com> wrote in message
news:dv14dv$q42$1@emma.aioe.org...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:-6CdnbWlNuJhLo7ZRVn-vA@io.com...
Boggle! But your conditional "if" indicates that you clearly think
things can be designed by accident. You clearly indicate that "if"
global warming (an accident), results in an arch, then the arch is
designed.
Nor do you apparently understand the usage of single quote marks such
as
those around the word 'design' - they are intended to inform the
reader
that I am quoting from the original user of the word and using the
context he used. It does not in any way imply agreement..
"Quotation marks are often used to alert readers that a term is used
in a
nonstandard, ironic, or other special sense. Nicknamed 'scare quotes,'
they imply 'This is not my term' or 'This is not how the term is
usually
applied.' Like any such device, scare quotes lose their force and
irritate readers if overused" (Chicago Manual of Style, 2003, p. 291,
sec. 7.58).
Ok...Color me hooked-like-a-trout.
Presumably the above is an obscure Americanism?
Yes, I presume you've heard the phrase "hook, line, and sinker" used to
describe someone who has been taken in by a hoax or scam? I have, as far
as I can tell, been taken in completely by your parody of a creationist
response. I thus nod my head in respect to your leg-pulling skills.
At least I think that's the case.
I suppose you could say you were 'mindfucked'?
Ouch, you do your handle proud!
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: A God Designed this Arch Directly? |
14 Mar 2006 05:33:34 AM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Mindfucked" < > wrote in message
news:duv6tj$i4a$1@emma.aioe.org...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:mKOdnSZDkocHmo7ZnZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@io.com...
"Mindfucked" < > wrote in message
news:duun1l$ia1$1@emma.aioe.org...
"Alan LeHun" <try@reply.to> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e7cead4cf6cf3e19898cc@news.clara.net...
In article <duukuc$ck3$1@emma.aioe.org>,
says...
What about these? Global warming?
http://www.enlightphoto.com/webpages/cachan/chan1018.jpg
http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/corps/images/corp1234.jpg
http://www.sleeping-out.co.za/ftp/Pictures/3011-D-10542.jpg
--
No - cause and effect - Want to talk about 'first cause' arguments?
Are they natural or designed?
--
Natural - has anyone said they are not?
Yes, you did:
"If the 'arch and bridge' occurred as a result of global warming
(regarded by
some scientists as junk science), which in turn is (allegedly) a result
of
human activitiy, then the 'design' did not occur 'naturally' - there is
an
established causal relationship at work. How does this support your
argument?"
Clearly you think things can be designed by accident, and so are not
natural.
--
Clearly you do not understand the meaning of the word 'if'.
It is a conditional statement; not a pronouncement of fact.
Boggle! But your conditional "if" indicates that you clearly think things
can be designed by accident. You clearly indicate that "if" global warming
(an accident), results in an arch, then the arch is designed.
Dennis, mindfucked really is mind-fucked. S/He will make a statement
and then haggle ad nauseam over the meaning of the tiniest of words in
it while ignoring the actual topic to which it was addressed
completely. Don't *ever* imagine that s/he actually wants a meaningful
exchange.
Until s/he can actually explain how global warming might have caused
this particular arch as opposed to simple natural action - which is the
case in all of Alan's examples, which s/he avoided like the plague -
the comment is a waste of electrons and not worth a serious response.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mindfucked" |
|
| Title: Re: A God Designed this Arch Directly? |
14 Mar 2006 05:05:51 PM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1142336014.823001.34250@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
Dennis, mindfucked really is mind-fucked. S/He will make a statement
and then haggle ad nauseam over the meaning of the tiniest of words in
it while ignoring the actual topic to which it was addressed
completely. Don't *ever* imagine that s/he actually wants a meaningful
exchange.
What Budikka refers to is my challenging her substitution of a universal
quantifier for a simple plural in order to misrepresent something I said,
and subsequent refusal to acknowledge that 'more than one' is not the same
as saying 'all'.
I will credit Dennis with the intelligence to make his own decisions as to
who is worth conversing with.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: A God Designed this Arch Directly? |
18 Mar 2006 07:26:58 AM |
|
|
Mindfucked wrote:
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1142336014.823001.34250@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
Dennis, mindfucked really is mind-fucked. S/He will make a statement
and then haggle ad nauseam over the meaning of the tiniest of words in
it while ignoring the actual topic to which it was addressed
completely. Don't *ever* imagine that s/he actually wants a meaningful
exchange.
What Budikka refers to is my challenging her substitution of a universal
quantifier for a simple plural in order to misrepresent something I said,
and subsequent refusal to acknowledge that 'more than one' is not the same
as saying 'all'.
Still can't find the intellectual honesty to admit that you posted
without thinking. No surprises there.
I will credit Dennis with the intelligence to make his own decisions as to
who is worth conversing with.
Of course he is. But he's also smart enough to listen. You, as
evidence demonstrates admirably, are not.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mindfucked" |
|
| Title: Re: A God Designed this Arch Directly? |
18 Mar 2006 02:05:30 PM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1142688418.898062.104980@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Dennis, mindfucked really is mind-fucked. S/He will make a statement
and then haggle ad nauseam over the meaning of the tiniest of words in
it while ignoring the actual topic to which it was addressed
completely. Don't *ever* imagine that s/he actually wants a meaningful
exchange.
What Budikka refers to is my challenging her substitution of a universal
quantifier for a simple plural in order to misrepresent something I said,
and subsequent refusal to acknowledge that 'more than one' is not the
same
as saying 'all'.
Still can't find the intellectual honesty to admit that you posted
without thinking. No surprises there.
Still running from the question! - no surprises there...
I will credit Dennis with the intelligence to make his own decisions as
to
who is worth conversing with.
Of course he is. But he's also smart enough to listen. You, as
evidence demonstrates admirably, are not.
The inherent presupposition being that smart people listen to Budikka
because Budikka is smarter and therefore worth listening to.
Her inability to distinguish between simple plurals and universal
quantifiers, reference to 'meaningless semantics' (an oxymoron in itself),
and inability to justify the assertion that saying:
"How is standing next to a nuclear missile about to detonate like
refusing to take the perceptual leap required to believe that because
something concievably or demonstrably could have occurred a certain
way, it did happen that way?"
is inconsistent with saying:
"evolution (which is an abstract noun) is a provisional
understanding, subject to revision if and when a more cogent understanding
is arrived at."?
proves that the presupposition is counterfeit.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: A God Designed this Arch Directly? |
19 Mar 2006 06:33:41 AM |
|
|
Mindfucked wrote:
Nothing! And he wrote it twice. How fucked in the mind is that?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mindfucked" |
|
| Title: Re: A God Designed this Arch Directly? |
18 Mar 2006 01:49:16 PM |
|
|
The inherent presupposition being that smart people listen to Budikka
because Budikka is smarter and therefore worth listening to.
Her inability to distinguish between simple plurals and universal
quantifiers, reference to 'meaningless semantics' (an oxymoron in
itself),
and inability to justify the assertion that saying:
"How is standing next to a nuclear missile about to detonate like
refusing to take the perceptual leap required to believe that because
something concievably or demonstrably could have occurred a certain
way, it did happen that way?"
is inconsistent with saying:
"evolution (which is an abstract noun) is a provisional
understanding, subject to revision if and when a more cogent
understanding
is arrived at."?
proves that the presupposition is counterfeit.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: A God Designed this Arch Directly? |
19 Mar 2006 06:32:39 AM |
|
|
Mindfucked wrote:
The inherent presupposition being that smart people listen to Budikka
because Budikka is smarter and therefore worth listening to.
Her inability to distinguish between simple plurals and universal
quantifiers, reference to 'meaningless semantics' (an oxymoron in
itself),
and inability to justify the assertion that saying:
"How is standing next to a nuclear missile about to detonate like
refusing to take the perceptual leap required to believe that because
something concievably or demonstrably could have occurred a certain
way, it did happen that way?"
is inconsistent with saying:
"evolution (which is an abstract noun) is a provisional
understanding, subject to revision if and when a more cogent
understanding
is arrived at."?
proves that the presupposition is counterfeit.
Your analysis sucks because there's too much anal and notg enough "Why,
Sis?". When your testes have dropped, perhaps we can talk some more.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mindfucked" |
|
| Title: Re: A God Designed this Arch Directly? |
19 Mar 2006 06:22:30 PM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1142771559.378101.113630@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Mindfucked wrote:
The inherent presupposition being that smart people listen to Budikka
because Budikka is smarter and therefore worth listening to.
Her inability to distinguish between simple plurals and universal
quantifiers, reference to 'meaningless semantics' (an oxymoron in
itself),
and inability to justify the assertion that saying:
"How is standing next to a nuclear missile about to detonate like
refusing to take the perceptual leap required to believe that because
something concievably or demonstrably could have occurred a certain
way, it did happen that way?"
is inconsistent with saying:
"evolution (which is an abstract noun) is a provisional
understanding, subject to revision if and when a more cogent
understanding
is arrived at."?
proves that the presupposition is counterfeit.
Your analysis sucks because there's too much anal and notg enough "Why,
Sis?". When your testes have dropped, perhaps we can talk some more.
Okay:
Why, Sis, can't you point out the inconsistency you suggested existed
between the two sentences above?
Why, Sis, do you avoid the question by resorting to a futile and childish ad
hominem comment relating to testes?
Why, Sis, do you predict that someone will run away, and then run away
yourself within two to three followups?
Why, Sis, can you not differentiate between a simple plural (meaning 'in
excess of one) and a universal quantifier?
Why, Sis, are you eminently capable of pointing out that people are wrong,
but totally incapable of justifying your assertion; instead engaging in
childish ad hominem and foot-stamping?
Why, Sis?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alan LeHun" |
|
| Title: Re: A God Designed this Arch Directly? |
11 Mar 2006 06:05:24 PM |
|
|
In article <duv6tj$i4a$1@emma.aioe.org>,
says...
Clearly you do not understand the meaning of the word 'if'.
It is a conditional statement; not a pronouncement of fact.
I understand the use of the word "if". As a result of your use of the
word "if" I produced some examples whereby anthropogenic influences
could not be blamed. In order that you don't get too lost, I shall
reproduce Budikka666's post, altering it as required to take account of
my images. Your reply is eagerly awaited.
"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4790238.stm
is an article discussing the global warming of which George Bush
so-called leader of the free world, lives in denial (he gets his
environmental advice from Michael Crichton, apparently). But look at
the picture. The forces that created that feature are the same that
created
http://www.enlightphoto.com/webpages/cachan/chan1018.jpg
http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/corps/images/corp1234.jpg
http://www.sleeping-out.co.za/ftp/Pictures/3011-D-10542.jpg
Did a god design these arches and bridges, or can apparent
design actually arise naturally?
"
--
Alan LeHun
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mindfucked" |
|
| Title: Re: A God Designed this Arch Directly? |
11 Mar 2006 06:59:52 PM |
|
|
"Alan LeHun" <try@reply.to> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e7d761b7efd2aec9898cd@news.clara.net...
In article <duv6tj$i4a$1@emma.aioe.org>,
says...
Clearly you do not understand the meaning of the word 'if'.
It is a conditional statement; not a pronouncement of fact.
I understand the use of the word "if". As a result of your use of the
word "if" I produced some examples whereby anthropogenic influences
could not be blamed. In order that you don't get too lost, I shall
reproduce Budikka666's post, altering it as required to take account of
my images. Your reply is eagerly awaited.
"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4790238.stm
is an article discussing the global warming of which George Bush
so-called leader of the free world, lives in denial (he gets his
environmental advice from Michael Crichton, apparently). But look at
the picture. The forces that created that feature are the same that
created
'The same', or 'similar'?
http://www.enlightphoto.com/webpages/cachan/chan1018.jpg
http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/corps/images/corp1234.jpg
http://www.sleeping-out.co.za/ftp/Pictures/3011-D-10542.jpg
Did a god design these arches and bridges, or can apparent
design actually arise naturally?
The arches and bridges developed due to cause and effect relationships that
were in turn the product of other cause and effect relationships. There is
a big difference between 'apparent design' and 'design' in that the former
has the superficial characteristics of being designed, the latter has the
benefit of having been designed.
I suspect that 'god' had no part in their having the superficial
characteristics of being designed, assuming that any 'god' exists. I have
no evidence that a god exists yet cannot discount the conceptual possibility
that a 'godlike' being exists at some unfathomable and inviolable level of
existence. A computer cannot operate outside it's own programmable
parameters - it cannot violate it's own instructions at the highest levels
of operating capability. I cannot see why the same cannot be true of human
beings and therefore there always exists the possibility of an existence
beyond the level of our comprehension.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: A God Designed this Arch Directly? |
14 Mar 2006 05:36:30 AM |
|
|
Mindfucked wrote:
No - cause and effect - Want to talk about 'first cause' arguments?
I'll take that debate right here and now as long as you **DEBATE THE
TOPIC** and avoid meandering into a meaningless morass of semantics
like you typically do in a hopelessly transparent attempt to
desperately hide your losing position.
Post your best first cause argument in this thread and I'll be
delighted to knock it flat.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mindfucked" |
|
| Title: Re: A God Designed this Arch Directly? |
14 Mar 2006 05:25:29 PM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1142336190.910904.10030@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Mindfucked wrote:
No - cause and effect - Want to talk about 'first cause' arguments?
I'll take that debate right here and now as long as you **DEBATE THE
TOPIC** and avoid meandering into a meaningless morass of semantics
like you typically do in a hopelessly transparent attempt to
desperately hide your losing position.
Sorry, but this one is priceless: 'meaningless [...] semantics'
= meaningless language meaning!
LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
Post your best first cause argument in this thread and I'll be
delighted to knock it flat.
It's nice to see that you have apparently stopped running - (remember when
you predicted that I would run away and then within 3 follow-ups you ran
away - LOL! - what a lark...)
I am perfectly willing to debate first cause arguments with you as soon as
you have answered the question that you originally ran away from and have
been running from since:
Why, specifically, is saying:
"How is standing next to a nuclear missile about to detonate like
refusing to take the perceptual leap required to believe that because
something concievably or demonstrably could have occurred a certain
way, it did happen that way?"
Inconsistent with saying:
"evolution (which is an abstract noun) is a provisional
understanding, subject to revision if and when a more cogent understanding
is arrived at."?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: A God Designed this Arch Directly? |
18 Mar 2006 07:28:00 AM |
|
|
Congratulations. You've just been mindfucked.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "SJAB1958" |
|
| Title: Re: A God Designed this Arch Directly? |
13 Mar 2006 04:58:47 AM |
|
|
Mindfucked wrote:
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1142081760.939251.276690@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4790238.stm
is an article discussing the global warming of which George Bush
so-called leader of the free world, lives in denial (he gets his
environmental advice from Michael Crichton, apparently). But look at
the picture. Did a god design that arch and bridge, or can apparent
design actually arise naturally?
If the 'arch and bridge' occurred as a result of global warming (regarded by
some scientists as junk science), which in turn is (allegedly) a result of
human activitiy, then the 'design' did not occur 'naturally' - there is an
established causal relationship at work. How does this support your
argument?
So human activity by your reasoning is unnatural, how odd. If
everything living either evolved or was created then anything those
living things do is natural. Still I guess with a handle such as yours
such reasoning as mine is flawed.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
