Posts: 18544
Threads: 145
Joined: March 18, 2015
Reputation:
100
RE: Intelligent Design
January 15, 2016 at 10:19 am
(January 15, 2016 at 10:06 am)Delicate Wrote: I'm being candid and sincere and this assmunch tries to provoke me to troll.
You don't need to be provoked to troll. You do a great enough job of trolling all on your own.
If it's one thing you don't need help with - it's trolling.
Disclaimer: I am only responsible for what I say, not what you choose to understand.
(November 14, 2018 at 8:57 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: Have a good day at work. If we ever meet in a professional setting, let me answer your question now. Yes, I DO want fries with that.
Posts: 606
Threads: 8
Joined: March 19, 2015
Reputation:
3
RE: Intelligent Design
January 15, 2016 at 10:23 am
(January 15, 2016 at 10:13 am)Stimbo Wrote: PRATT = Points Refuted A Thousand Times.
Rubberduck arguments = from Richard Dawkins' coinage of "unsinkable rubber ducks" to describe the situation when one fundie is torpedoed, only to have another pop up in its place. What's the refutation of specified complexity?
Posts: 606
Threads: 8
Joined: March 19, 2015
Reputation:
3
RE: Intelligent Design
January 15, 2016 at 10:24 am
(January 15, 2016 at 10:19 am)Judi Lynn Wrote: (January 15, 2016 at 10:06 am)Delicate Wrote: I'm being candid and sincere and this assmunch tries to provoke me to troll.
You don't need to be provoked to troll. You do a great enough job of trolling all on your own.
If it's one thing you don't need help with - it's trolling. Why are you still so uncharitable towards me? Is it just bias?
Posts: 18544
Threads: 145
Joined: March 18, 2015
Reputation:
100
RE: Intelligent Design
January 15, 2016 at 10:26 am
(January 15, 2016 at 10:24 am)Delicate Wrote: (January 15, 2016 at 10:19 am)Judi Lynn Wrote: You don't need to be provoked to troll. You do a great enough job of trolling all on your own.
If it's one thing you don't need help with - it's trolling. Why are you still so uncharitable towards me? Is it just bias?
You want kindness from someone who you've deliberately set out to insult over numerous threads? Wanna know what started all this? My post specifically addressing TC, that, honestly, I didn't need your smart-assed remarks on.
Get this: A majority of regular posters on here, don't like you. I'll let you figure out why that seems to be.
Disclaimer: I am only responsible for what I say, not what you choose to understand.
(November 14, 2018 at 8:57 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: Have a good day at work. If we ever meet in a professional setting, let me answer your question now. Yes, I DO want fries with that.
Posts: 28284
Threads: 522
Joined: June 16, 2015
Reputation:
90
RE: Intelligent Design
January 15, 2016 at 10:28 am
(January 15, 2016 at 12:00 am)AAA Wrote: (January 14, 2016 at 11:50 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: I don't need to understand it, or understand all of it. I don't need to have all the answers. New discoveries are happening every day. I'm comfortable with we're working on it and coming up with more and more answers. Again, I don't need make believe creature to make myself comfortable. If you need it, you're welcome to it. Just remember, you can't argue it into existence.
BTW, you don't need RNA to make peptides/proteins. Read up on abiogenesis. Start with WIKI and it's references.
Well, you DO need mRNA to make proteins. Unless you think amino acids form and combine themselves into functional structures by themselves. Sure a few amino acids form in nature rarely, but they don't bind to each other, especially not in forms nearly as elaborate as a protein.
Do you not have the ability to think outside the box? Maybe fantasy is the best thing for you.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental.
Posts: 606
Threads: 8
Joined: March 19, 2015
Reputation:
3
RE: Intelligent Design
January 15, 2016 at 10:30 am
(January 15, 2016 at 10:26 am)Judi Lynn Wrote: (January 15, 2016 at 10:24 am)Delicate Wrote: Why are you still so uncharitable towards me? Is it just bias?
You want kindness from someone who you've deliberately set out to insult over numerous threads? Wanna know what started all this? My post specifically addressing TC, that, honestly, I didn't need your smart-assed remarks on.
Get this: A majority of regular posters on here, don't like you. I'll let you figure out why that seems to be. But your remark was uncharitable and irrational. Gotta expect to get called out on it.
Posts: 3101
Threads: 10
Joined: September 7, 2015
Reputation:
49
RE: Intelligent Design
January 15, 2016 at 10:43 am
(January 15, 2016 at 10:23 am)Delicate Wrote: (January 15, 2016 at 10:13 am)Stimbo Wrote: PRATT = Points Refuted A Thousand Times.
Rubberduck arguments = from Richard Dawkins' coinage of "unsinkable rubber ducks" to describe the situation when one fundie is torpedoed, only to have another pop up in its place. What's the refutation of specified complexity?
How many do you want? It fails, like most ID, at the most basic, "you're not allowed to define a thing into existence" level:
https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/~shallit/nflr3.txt
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/newmath.cfm
http://goodmath.blogspot.com/2006/04/one...sness.html
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Complex_Spe...nformation
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
Posts: 606
Threads: 8
Joined: March 19, 2015
Reputation:
3
RE: Intelligent Design
January 15, 2016 at 10:45 am
(January 15, 2016 at 10:43 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: (January 15, 2016 at 10:23 am)Delicate Wrote: What's the refutation of specified complexity?
How many do you want? It fails, like most ID, at the most basic, "you're not allowed to define a thing into existence" level:
https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/~shallit/nflr3.txt
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/newmath.cfm
http://goodmath.blogspot.com/2006/04/one...sness.html
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Complex_Spe...nformation I want to have a conversation not linkspam. Can you tell me what you think is the best point of the bunch?
Posts: 3101
Threads: 10
Joined: September 7, 2015
Reputation:
49
RE: Intelligent Design
January 15, 2016 at 10:46 am
Here. You seem more like a video kind of person:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5HMArXVjns
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
Posts: 606
Threads: 8
Joined: March 19, 2015
Reputation:
3
RE: Intelligent Design
January 15, 2016 at 10:47 am
Or, you know, your understanding. As in normal conversation.
|