14-10-2011, 15:17   #6106
robindch
Moderator

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 15,366
Quote:
 Originally Posted by [-0-] it is a crying shame that people like this exist.
Wright's views, and those of her supporters, might be moronic, but they have a right to hold them. And while both sets of people are unlikely to the point of certainty, never to make a positive or useful contribution to the sum total of human knowledge or human honesty, that's the way they have chosen to spend their limited time alive. It's a crying shame that they've made this choice, but it's not a crying shame that they exist -- that judgement is one that they can only make for themselves.

14-10-2011, 15:19   #6107
robindch
Moderator

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 15,366
Quote:
 Originally Posted by oldrnwisr No, JC, you still don't seem to understand
oldrnwisr -- I'd have stopped writing at that point

 (2) thanks from:
 (3) thanks from:
14-10-2011, 17:56   #6109
robindch
Moderator

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 15,366
Quote:
 Originally Posted by oldrnwisr I've just realised that this is not going to be possible on boards because of the level of mathematical operators required.
Boards supports LaTeX. For example, to produce this:

...you enter this:
HTML Code:
$x=\frac{-b + \sqrt {b^2-4ac}}{2a}$
Though I wouldn't bother wasting time doing while refuting Dumbski, since he's still at "pushing colored beads around in the sand" stage.

 (2) thanks from:
14-10-2011, 18:00   #6110
oldrnwisr
Registered User

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Limerick, Ireland
Posts: 884
Quote:
 Originally Posted by robindch Boards supports LaTeX. For example, to produce this: ...you enter this: HTML Code: $x=\frac{-b + \sqrt {b^2-4ac}}{2a}$ Though I wouldn't bother wasting time doing while refuting Dumbski, since he's still at "pushing colored beads around in the sand" stage.
Thanks, for that Robin. For the moment, though, Tellgren's essay serves my purposes well enough although it might be necessary if the essay proves too challenging.

14-10-2011, 19:13   #6111
J C
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 9,062
Quote:
 Originally Posted by robindch Wendy Wright is perhaps the stupidest human being I've seen. She is a walking, bleating warning concerning the dangers of stupidity. She produces and revels in the vast clouds of stupid which exude from her every stupid pore and with every stupid syllable. And the wall of stupid she has erected around her stupid views is as stupidly impenetrable as it is stupidly high. In fact, she takes the concept of stupid to a whole new level -- her stupid views are so eye-rollingly, forehead-slappingly, arse-sphincter-clenchingly, thigh-wallopingly stupid that the word "stupid" don't even begin to convey how stupid they are. I have eaten pancakes with more common sense than her views, while sitting on stones which are not as stupid. I have absolutely no idea how Dawkins managed to remain unfazed in the face of such a continual barrage of, well, stupid.
You are very fond of the word 'stupid', Robin ... are you 'compensating' for something????

Here one of the world's leading Atheists claims that many churchmen believe that Evolution could be for the greater glory of God ... even though he freely admits that a Darwinian Society would be a thoroughly nasty place!!!!:

... anyway Wendy metaphorically 'sliced and diced' the good professor ... he just kept bringing up points ... and Wendy knocked them all down ... as quick as you could say "Miriam O'Callaghan"!!!

... this is what actually happened:-

Last edited by J C; 14-10-2011 at 23:14.

14-10-2011, 19:28   #6112
koth
Formerly Micky Dolenz

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Ballina, Co.Tipperary
Posts: 26,588
Quote:
 Originally Posted by J C Here one of the world's leading Atheists claims that Evolution could be for the greater glory of God!!!!:
Do you have some sort of quota for misrepresenting what people say.

He said, "I know evolutionists colleagues who are devout Christians that think it is to the greater glory of God to study the way science is."

I've bolded the part of the sentence that you left out.

14-10-2011, 21:09   #6113
Jernal
Moderator

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Pale Blue Dot.
Posts: 10,454
Quote:
 Originally Posted by robindch Boards supports LaTeX. For example, to produce this: ...you enter this: HTML Code: $\displaystyle x=\frac{-b \pm \sqrt {b^2-4ac}}{2a}$ Though I wouldn't bother wasting time doing while refuting Dumbski, since he's still at "pushing colored beads around in the sand" stage.
Improved it for ya.
*I <3 LaTeX.*

Last edited by Jernal; 14-10-2011 at 21:11.

14-10-2011, 21:32   #6114
Moderator

Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,635
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Genghiz Cohen I am disappoint with the pitiful number of thanks oldrnwisr has for that post. I learned from it. And learning is cool! /nerd Herd some cats in here and get the number up!
Partly I think it's due to the fact that only gluttons for punishment are still reading this train wreck of a thread.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by robindch Wendy Wright is perhaps the stupidest human being I've seen. She is a walking, bleating warning concerning the dangers of stupidity. She produces and revels in the vast clouds of stupid which exude from her every stupid pore and with every stupid syllable. And the wall of stupid she has erected around her stupid views is as stupidly impenetrable as it is stupidly high. In fact, she takes the concept of stupid to a whole new level -- her stupid views are so eye-rollingly, forehead-slappingly, arse-sphincter-clenchingly, thigh-wallopingly stupid that the word "stupid" don't even begin to convey how stupid they are. I have eaten pancakes with more common sense than her views, while sitting on stones which are not as stupid. I have absolutely no idea how Dawkins managed to remain unfazed in the face of such a continual barrage of, well, stupid.
Crea-TORRR.

 Thanks from:
14-10-2011, 23:07   #6115
J C
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 9,062
Quote:
 Originally Posted by koth Do you have some sort of quota for misrepresenting what people say. He said, "I know evolutionists colleagues who are devout Christians that think it is to the greater glory of God to study the way science is." I've bolded the part of the sentence that you left out.
... he also said ... in part 7 "you would think that these fossil histories are to the greater glory of God" ... and then promptly denounced the Darwinian process that supposedly produced these fossil histories as a thoroughly unpleasant process that would create a horrific society that he wouldn't want to live in ... so Darwinian Evolution, if it existed, would actually be to the greater shame of God ... and not to His glory!!!!

Last edited by J C; 14-10-2011 at 23:12.

14-10-2011, 23:11   #6116
J C
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 9,062
Quote:
 Originally Posted by The Mad Hatter Crea-TORRR.
I just love the way Wendy purrs ...just before she metaphorically 'moves in for the (debating) kill'!!!

Last edited by J C; 15-10-2011 at 09:22.

14-10-2011, 23:21   #6117
koth
Formerly Micky Dolenz

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Ballina, Co.Tipperary
Posts: 26,588
Quote:
 Originally Posted by J C ... he also said ... in part 7 "you would think that these fossil histories are to the greater glory of God" ... and then promptly denounced the Darwinian process that supposedly produced these fossil histories as a thoroughly unpleasant process that would create a horrific society that he wouldn't want to live in ... so Darwinian Evolution, if it existed, would actually be to the greater shame of God ... and not to His glory!!!!
That's twice in a row you've distorted/lied about what was said in the videos.

Dawkins was commenting on a society that existed on the priniciple of "survival of the fittest". It had nothing to do with evolution, he was talking about a type of society.

14-10-2011, 23:34   #6118
J C
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 9,062
Quote:
 Originally Posted by koth That's twice in a row you've distorted/lied about what was said in the videos. Dawkins was commenting on a society that existed on the priniciple of "survival of the fittest". It had nothing to do with evolution, he was talking about a type of society.
I distorted nothing ... there is an inherent contradiction in Prof Dawkins claim that if Darwinian Evolution happened, that this would be to the Glory of God ... and then denouncing a Darwinian Society (based on Evolutionary Principles) as a thoroughly nasty place!!!!
Prof Dawkins point in the interview was that Evolution and 'survival of the fittest' is a nasty competitive system involving death and disease in nature ... but that this doesn't alter the fact that if it exists we should accept that it does ... but we shouldn't construct our societies along its nasty principles.

Prof Dawkins logic is correct that if Evolution exists, the fact that it is nasty shouldn't stop us accepting that it exists and doing all within our power to not model our societies on it ... where his logic fails is when he recommends that Theists should consider a nasty system like Darwinian Evolution to be to the glory of a loving God.

Last edited by J C; 15-10-2011 at 14:48.

14-10-2011, 23:43   #6119
koth
Formerly Micky Dolenz

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Ballina, Co.Tipperary
Posts: 26,588
Quote:
 Originally Posted by J C I distorted nothing ... there is an inherent contradiction in a claim that if Darwinian Evolution happened, that this would be to the Glory of God ... and then promptly denouncing a Darwinian Society (based on Evolutionary Principles) as a thoroughly nasty place!!!!
There is no contradiction. You are deliberately distorting the nature of the conversation in attempt to gain a point for your side of the discussion.

15-10-2011, 00:13   #6120
J C
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 9,062
Quote:
 Originally Posted by koth There is no contradiction. You are deliberately distorting the nature of the conversation in attempt to gain a point for your side of the discussion.
There may be no contradiction if you believe that God is nasty ... but remember that Prof Dawkins is recommending Darwinian Evolution as the glory of God to Christians ... while simultaneously accepting that Darwinian Evolution is a such nasty system ... that he personally wouldn't apply it to any society that he would want to live in.

Last edited by J C; 15-10-2011 at 09:07.