A British Open Double Bogey
in [Golf]
|
Prev: Ping Alan Baker
Next: Where is the old boy today?
From: William Clark on 3 Aug 2010 08:49 In article <8bpekuFbbgU1(a)mid.individual.net>, "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > I never made it a secret that I believe in ID, dumbass. > > -Greg > > "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message > news:wclark2-62E26D.20503502082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > In article <8bp2edFhjdU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > > "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > > > "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message > > > news:4c574338$0$4964$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > > > > On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 11:14:24 -0700, dene wrote: > > > > > "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in > > > > > message > > > > > news:clark-50F88F.09230702082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > > > >> In article <8bmuc6F11gU1(a)mid.individual.net>, "dene" > > > > >> <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > > >>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message > > > > >>> news:alangbaker-27495F.05365101082010(a)news.shawcable.com... > > > > >>>> In article <MPG.26bf2ff0ab24ec6798a174(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR > > > > >>>> <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Evolution is a theory. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Correct. I'd say at this point it is a theory that is a close to > > > > >>>> proven as any theory can ever be, but it is still a theory. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> However, it is neither atheistic nor theistic. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> There are those who believe in God and evolution. > > > > >> > > > > >> Which entirely proves Alan's point. Duh. > > > > > > > > > > I used the words atheistic evolution vs. deistic evolution, to > > > > > illustrate that the former requires more faith than those who > believe > > > > > in pig guts and astrology. Duh. > > > > > > > > > > Deistic evolution is a more reasoned approach to the origin and > > > > > development of life. > > > > > > > > Or not. To me non-magical explanations are inherently more reasonable. > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Something from nothing, randomly colliding into life, surviving, and > then > > > becoming more complex sans design, is more magical thinking than a > supreme > > > creative being. > > > > In other words, than ID. Thanks for making your intellectual foundations > > so clear to the rest of us. > > > > > > Why 10 fingers instead of 8? Why do we have hair? Why not eyes in the > back > > > of our heads? If survival is the basis for evolutionary change, then it > > > would seem we should have the eyesight of a fly. > > > > Evolution, evolution, evolution. We have what we need. We don't need a > > fly's eye because we don't have to see that well. Seems to work, since I > > would say we have dominance over the fly, wouldn't you? > > > > > > Thousands of design questions but no answers within the laboratory or > the > > > fossil record. Just theory with a lot of magical assumptions. > > > > Ah, that word "design" again. It's getting clearer and clearer on which > > side of this discussion "magic" resides, and it is not that of science. If you do, it is you who is the dumbass. Top poster, too :-)
From: William Clark on 3 Aug 2010 08:50 In article <8bpf2hFd4sU1(a)mid.individual.net>, "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message > news:wclark2-2D1A4D.20355902082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > > > > Yes, well there is your problem. If you seriously think that God is an > > intelligent designer, > > You're the obvious exception. > > -Greg I evolved, I was not "designed" ;-)
From: William Clark on 3 Aug 2010 08:53 In article <MPG.26c1c672c9074b6d98a1b2(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <wclark2-41C9D5.20415302082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says... > > > Regardless....there are a plethora of species who are captured in time > > > via > > > the fossil record. But why are there few, if any, mutated transitional > > > species. You know...Ape to Baker mutations, or better yet, ?? to ape to > > > Baker. Shouldn't these mutated, transitional species far outweigh > > > existing > > > species? > > > > > > -Greg > > > > That is what was said about the transition of fish to amphibians. Then, > > guess what, in 2004 they found Tiktaalik Rosae, a classic example of a > > transitional form, that fitted right in the middle. Oops. > > > > "that fitted right in the middle?" Your problem with that is . . ?
From: William Clark on 3 Aug 2010 08:55 In article <MPG.26c1c58bbd4e349098a1b1(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <wclark2-EFE60F.20312702082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says... > > OK, then let us discuss the Penrose-Hawking singularity, and its > > implications for the origins of the universe. > > > > Go ahead, after you. > > > > > > There are quite a few assumptions in thos theroms and some conditions > too. I don't see a single answer for the cause of the Big Bang. Well, since you are so well versed in this, why don't you explain these shortcomings to us all? At the moment, all you are producing is a smokescreen, pretending that you understand, or even know, about "thos theroms".
From: William Clark on 3 Aug 2010 08:58
In article <8bpf17FcsgU1(a)mid.individual.net>, "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message > news:wclark2-EFE60F.20312702082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > In article <8bogjpF8v3U1(a)mid.individual.net>, > > "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > > > "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message > > > news:wclark2-B8DAC2.21294701082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > > > In article <MPG.26bfbd93c85a419c98a197(a)news.giganews.com>, > > > > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > In article <5kqb56diek5m92djb6v60r1ilcpl82im5u(a)4ax.com>, donsno2 > > > > > @charter.net says... > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 13:58:09 -0600, Howard Brazee > <howard(a)brazee.net> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 12:56:46 -0400, William Clark > > > > > > ><wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >>Oh, and it is not necessary to be an atheist to believe in > > > evolution. > > > > > > >>That's just another creationist crock. > > > > > > > > > > > > >The big objection isn't in evolution - some evolution was obvious > > > long > > > > > > >before Darwin. > > > > > > > > > > > > >The objection is in natural selection, as long as "natural" means > > > "not > > > > > > >done by God or by Man". And of course, the idea that humans > evolved > > > > > > >from something else. > > > > > > > > > > > > It's easier to find physical evidence that mankind (and every > other > > > > > > living thing) evolved from gobs of protoplasm than it is to find > > > > > > evidence that there is a creative mind behind it all. It's in > the > > > > > > DNA. > > > > > > > > > > Where did the DNA come from? > > > > > > > > > > I am not a propoent of intelligent design, never have been and never > > > > > will be. But, someone is going to have to come up with an > explanation of > > > > > what caused the Big Bang. Chaos theory can be used to describe DNA > > > > > oringination on Earth but, if we start finding DNA in other parts of > he > > > > > Solar systme, Galaxy or Universe there will have to be some > re-Sciencing > > > > > going on. > > > > > > > > The explanations are all out there for the big bang. Problem is, it is > > > > not simple enough for those of your ilk, and requires some stretching > of > > > > the mind that is clearly out of your reach. You know, special > > > > relativity, and all that. > > > > > > That is a stupid answer, professor. Hopefully my 18 year old will not > run > > > into your ilk on the university level. > > > > > > -Greg > > > > OK, then let us discuss the Penrose-Hawking singularity, and its > > implications for the origins of the universe. > > > > Go ahead, after you. > > Thus proving my point why you psuedo-intellectual, silver spoon, over > educated pricks like yourself have zero worth to society. Your entire self > image is wrapped around what other people have taught you. The brightest > people I've met are humble. You're the opposite. No, my outlook is based on evidence. When confronted with that, all you can do is lapse into a puerile ad hominem tirade. Sorry, but that doesn't answer the question, so you lose. > > At U of Portland, every professor is judged by their ability to convey > concepts to every student they encounter. If they fail, they teach > somewhere else. You wouldn't last two seconds in that enviroment. You don't think the same criteria apply here? Then you are really dumber than you appear. > > Enjoy your tenure, Richard Cranium. I will - you enjoy your ignorance. > > -Greg |