tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764946987133813099.post5878072516775184390..comments2024-01-29T01:22:14.621-08:00Comments on Makarios: "Prove My Point Much?"Thesauroshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13305052511095551483noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764946987133813099.post-37364676629819935222009-12-15T12:56:04.072-08:002009-12-15T12:56:04.072-08:00Prove My Point Much?
That’s what’s actually happen...<i>Prove My Point Much?<br />That’s what’s actually happening, you know</i>.<br /><br />Dunning/Kruger effect. Well, let's get this over with quickly...<br /><br /><i>What I’m looking for is the origin of specified complexity as it’s found in DNA, RNA and Proteins. That’s all. Nothing more. Nothing less.</i>.<br /><br />First, "specified complexity"? <br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity#Criticisms<br />http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI111_1.html<br /><br />And second. No. You are not just looking for the origin of this, you are looking for gaps to put your god in. When one gap is filled, you will move onto another gap. <br /><br /><i>Laws of nature (or biochemistry), which denote regular patterns, produce the opposite of specified complexity</i>. <br />"specified complexity"?<br /><br /><i>The Chance hypothesis fails because, as we saw, there is simply not enough time nor resources in the whole universe since BB to have brought about the known outcome - specified complexity</i>.<br />You do not understand statistics and truly large numbers.<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Truly_Large_NumbersGorth Satanahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03778005789604262673noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764946987133813099.post-81301758254483340532009-12-15T12:54:55.102-08:002009-12-15T12:54:55.102-08:00I haven't read the post yet but before I do I ...I haven't read the post yet but before I do I want to relate to you two conversations I have witnessed.<br /><br />The first is the time a group of missionaries from USA came on a boat. They found what must be the only Jehovah's Witness in the entire country. One of the group and the JW started having a "discussion". The missionary started listing all the bad things about Joseph Smith. The J.W. told him that JWs have nothing to do with Joseph Smith. The missionary continued attacking Joseph Smith. The JW told him that Joseph Smith started the Mormons not the Jehovah's Witnesses. He continued attacking Smith and the JW walked away. The missionary went back to the group (which I was at a table near) and triumphantly told the group (in English now) about how he'd gave the JW something to think about. He actually thought he'd "won" the conversation.<br />This reminds me of Rod. <br />Dunning/Kruger effect. <br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effectGorth Satanahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03778005789604262673noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764946987133813099.post-56454714675602586572009-12-15T11:44:48.318-08:002009-12-15T11:44:48.318-08:00Yes, Makarios, you proved your point.
I now belie...Yes, Makarios, you proved your point.<br /><br />I now believe that the fundamental building blocks for all lifeforms cannot have evolved naturally because they are examples of specified complexity.<br /><br />These building blocks are examples of "specified complexity" because the information require for them to evolve came from an intelligent mind that designed them.<br /><br />In other words, the building blocks could not have evolved because they are specified complexity designed by a mind, and we know they are specified complexity because they could not have evolved. Oh wait...World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764946987133813099.post-79823243713654919802009-12-15T09:39:09.558-08:002009-12-15T09:39:09.558-08:00Maybe it because I'm hungry, but, you weren...Maybe it because I'm hungry, but, you weren't quite as funny this time. <br /><br />Still, you avoided the topic just as well as any other time you comment. Stability is the key - right?Thesauroshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13305052511095551483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4764946987133813099.post-10604595247505049312009-12-15T08:58:17.256-08:002009-12-15T08:58:17.256-08:00What I’m looking for is the origin of specified co...<i>What I’m looking for is the origin of specified complexity as it’s found in DNA, RNA and Proteins. That’s all. Nothing more. Nothing less.</i><br /><br />Wrong, what you're looking for is attention, and we foolishly give it to you.<br /><br /><i>Laws of nature (or biochemistry), which denote regular patters, produce the opposite of specified complexity.</i><br /><br />Wrong, and your spelling makes it difficult to take any of this seriously.<br /><br /><i>The Chance hypothesis fails because, as we saw, there is simply not enough time nor resources in the whole universe since BB to have brought about the known outcome - specified complexity.</i><br /><br />Wrong. You "proved" no such thing. You glibly wrote numbers down and told us your interpretation is clearly more accurate than that of people who study this for a living, many of whom are theists and would be offended by your implication that this is "atheist" propaganda. <br /><br />If you took your nose out of twenty year old Creationist rhetoric, you might leave your home and meet someone with a cross around their neck who is working on this very thing, and they would be happy to explain to you that you can still believe in talking snakes and zombie carpenters while still acknowledging the laws of biochemistry.<br /><br /><i>This is especially true for the computer models which I did not spend much time on. In computer models, the input of information (by Intelligence) always exceeds the output UNLESS an Intelligent Agent has intervened. </i><br /><br />Wrong, and I'm not doing the homework of finding them for you. You may view them yourself in the scientific journals, "Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres" or "Journal of Molecular Evolution." If you cared so much, you would actually do the research. I already did the grunt work, I got graded on it, and I passed. I can't help the fact that you remain willfully ignorant. A free education awaits at your local library [stay in school, kids].<br /><br /><i>information that simply would not have been there in the conditions atheists tell us existed at the primordial earth.</i><br /><br />I have no fucking clue what information you're talking about. This sentence is just so epically stupid that I feel dumber for having read it. The fact that you don't know the difference between scientists and atheists shows me:<br /><br />1. You aren't even reading my responses.<br />2. You have no ability to tell the difference between people who are different than you, ergo anyone who disagrees with you is part of some unclean, unsaved mass.<br />3. None of this has anything to do with science, it has to do with your perceived war on Christianity waged by evil atheists who lie about the world and call it "science."<br /><br />There is such a thing as "intellectual integrity." When someone makes repeated mistakes which are glaringly stupid, it is almost expected that people ignore them for what they are: uninformed idiots with time on their hands. There's really only a certain threshold of tolerance someone can take when it comes to dealing with it.<br /><br />Go ahead and post on my blog if you ever decide to talk about something besides your Creation fetish.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02504734487692109101noreply@blogger.com