Intelligent Design: Coming To A State Legislature Near You

[polymath257]

Easter Bunny wrote:

<quoted text>
I should add that I think the joke is that mathemeticians in a conversation might be prone to asking questions like "Under what topology?" a little too readily. Could be mistaken about that.

Well, yes, that would definitely fit.

OK,
Q:What's yellow and equivalent to the Axiom of Choice?
A: Zorn's Lemon

[LWsciencejunkie]

StopTheInsanity wrote:

<quoted text>
That is what I am interested in understanding. Immunity is a good word for it.

I gave you what I believe is the only "immunization" we could attempt, as individuals or as a society against UNreason. I think that by the time we are in the classroom, boardroom, or courtroom or Topix debating science with the superstitious it is far, far too late. Kids have to learn how to run their brains starting as early as they enter the school system. Even if they are culturally or genetically religious, they will be better able to manage their lives. Admittedly, some much more than others. The overall trend would be positive, I am certain. Go ahead...call it a "belief"! heeheehee.

[LWsciencejunkie]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, yes, that would definitely fit.
OK,
Q:What's yellow and equivalent to the Axiom of Choice?
A: Zorn's Lemon

Q: What is Avacado's number used to measure?

[Cvvl]

Easter Bunny wrote:

<quoted text>
These are all the same questions that I'm interested in. It sure seems that some of us are, how shall we say, blessed with immunity to some kinds of cognitive virus.

3 possible explanations:
- Epistemophibic
- Hadephobic
- Hereiophobic

I'm thinking #1 covars most of 'em.

[LWsciencejunkie]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
Not ludicrous. Just not supported by the facts.

Is too ludicrous...ludicrous, Ludicrous, LUDICROUS! As in "Luddite".

[chipfle]

adrian wrote:

<quoted text>To make an arguement from random chance is at BEST 50% probable. Even if evolution proceeds EXACTLY how it is hypothesized, there is no certainty beyond 50% that it was either directed or random. If it was directed then there has to be an outside intelligence.
I think we all are getting really good at saying the same things in different words, and of course quite often the same things in the same words, but whatever.

Now there is some serious pulling numbers out of your ass! Why do all creIDiots have such a dismal understanding of probability,.... biology,... physics,... well everything.

[polymath257]

MichiganGEL wrote:

<quoted text>
Since I am positing a "Designer/Creator" why would the requirement for a "mechanism" still hold (or even be meaningful)?

If I claimed that a certain building was designed and built by a certain civilization, the mechanism of that construction is a highly relevant aspect of my proposal. If I said that this civilization just said 'let that building be' and it just was, you would probably want a bit more evidence than my simple assertion. You might even be inclined to ask how they were able to create buildings by fiat in that way, what the mechanism for that was, etc. Same for your designer.

[polymath257]

LWsciencejunkie wrote:

<quoted text>
Q: What is Avacado's number used to measure?

Probably something to do with mole'.

[John]

Zeke wrote:

<quoted text>
Isn't that for sleep apnea?

Sorry to hear about your sleep problems. Being self-employed is a life saver as I used to kind of burn out, then sleep the whole weekend. Afterward it was okay for about a month. I suspect a lot of people share your sleep cycle.

Know any good climate web sites? I am going to call a buddy who works as a meteorologist for the Navy this weekend also.

[Cvvl]

LWsciencejunkie wrote:

<quoted text>
I most certainly would find Topix an excellent place to study stupidity if it weren't so overwhelmingly ubiquitous and I needed another source of subject matter.
I wish I did not also find petty attacks on inoffensive, gentle and perhaps knowledge-seeking people that you might find less brilliant than yourselves. I take the pointy-end of my trusty multi-purpose (virtual) rock hammer to the rude, the crude and the ugly among the fundies, and great fun it is, too. However, being mean to people like Tinka does NOT represent the intelligentsia in a way that, by association, I appreciate. Why do you do it? Without really trying to be a jerk, here, those last two statements of yours sounded juvenile.
But, you probably have a low opinion of me too.

I knew you had it in you.

[John]

LWsciencejunkie wrote:

<quoted text>
I most certainly would find Topix an excellent place to study stupidity if it weren't so overwhelmingly ubiquitous and I needed another source of subject matter.
I wish I did not also find petty attacks on inoffensive, gentle and perhaps knowledge-seeking people that you might find less brilliant than yourselves. I take the pointy-end of my trusty multi-purpose (virtual) rock hammer to the rude, the crude and the ugly among the fundies, and great fun it is, too. However, being mean to people like Tinka does NOT represent the intelligentsia in a way that, by association, I appreciate. Why do you do it? Without really trying to be a jerk, here, those last two statements of yours sounded juvenile.
But, you probably have a low opinion of me too.

Where can laypersons and scientists respectfully ask questions and receive intelligent answers from each other? I am tired of reading through the flames and insults to get to people like Zeke, Fossil Bob and Primewonk.

[LWsciencejunkie]

Cvvl wrote:

<quoted text>
Can you tell me how to get my wife to stop snoring?

Quit boring her to death.

Just messin' with ya!

[LWsciencejunkie]

StopTheInsanity wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks. Great stuff. There is also a tremendous amount of nurture (vs. nature) data on learned biases, IQ levels, political/religious/social orientations from influences in extremely young childhood. Linguistic/semantic structure of language and profound differences (e.g., between english vs. asian languages) is another area of cognitive development research. I've read Surowiecki extensively..... love his stuff. Interesting thoughts on structure/discipline/religion. I may have to ask for your permission to cite you in my article.

No prob.

But, seriously...didn't you find "Wisdom of Crowds" a little....freaky?

[LWsciencejunkie]

Cvvl wrote:

<quoted text>
I knew you had it in you.

Had what? sssSSSMMMOOOooooooTCH!!!

We still haven't heard anything from Ossuary. I am so worried. Do let us know if you hear anything, and I will too.

[shinningelectr0n]

GatorBUILT wrote:

<quoted text>
Still got diarrhea of the mouth I see...I don't know what Lounge Lizard is, but you seem well-versed, so I'll assume it drains one's intelligence- I'l pass, whatever it is, thanks...still got nothing to add, is see...

Keep passing ... we can't hear you.

[shinningelectr0n]

StopTheInsanity wrote:

<quoted text>
I have a serious question for you.

Ahem,

[adrian]

MichiganGEL wrote:

<quoted text>
If all science teachers shared this philosophy, I believe that much of the controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution would subside.
It is only when teachers give the impression that only evolution, not creation, can explain the appearance and development of life that they overstep their teaching privileges (and fiduciary responsibilities).
Teachers should admit up front that evolution does not and cannot explain abiogenesis. They should not make any student feel like a shmuck if for believing that God created that first life form.
It would seem that many parents fear that the teaching of evolution is being presented in such a way as to discourage a belief in a creator.
If they could be persuaded otherwise, I believe much of the dispute die down.

I'll second that.
I still don't care what anyone says, evolution could proceed the same way whether it was directed or random. The Disco Inst has labs sitting idle? What a bunch of nonsense if true. There is no SEPARATE science to research, it is the same science. The more they discover, the better they can decide if evolution is possible as a random process or not. Same with abiogenesis. Why does it have to be a separate science? I don't have any direct experience trying to create a replicator spontaneously, but I do have extensive experience in high level polymer research, I explained in depth on other threads why the chemical laws seem to make it impossible for a spontaneous process in both protein synthesis longer than a decamer polypeptide, and DNA or RNA synthesis, and they sure havn't found anything close yet, so eventually they are going to have to give in and admit that a higher power has to be involved, say in another millenium?

[Tinka]

chipfle wrote:

<quoted text>Everything is easier if you just "believe" everything is magik and everything that happens is skydaddies will. Of course, that would still have us living in caves and dieing at 28. Everything about the modern technological world is the result of rejecting dark ages mysticalism and persueing rationalism. And no, I never felt that learning woud make my "head explode". Quite the contrary, while learning can be hard work, everything I learned, every question I answered, and asked, I found mind expanding.

Well just hope your head doesn't explode..
Maybe that's why the Universe is expanding...it can't hold so much knowledge...

[Cvvl]

LWsciencejunkie wrote:

<quoted text>
Quit boring her to death.
Just messin' with ya!

If I had bored her to death I would not have the problem that I do. Yet another example of me being unable to finish what I start.

[Zeke]

LWsciencejunkie wrote:

Take two stout G&Ts along with 50-150mgs of Trazedone and just SLEEP.

Once in a while I will self-medicate if I have something really important during the morning hours and can't afford to be bleary-eyed or incoherent. But I try not to make a habit of it ;-)