In Louisana The Government Teaches Your Kid Religion

[sandorski]

So when did you stop beating your wife? That question is basically of the same quality and fairness of yours.

Not even close. What is unfair about it? Is the answer inconvenient for you?

 

[mikeymikec]

nvm

 

[Darwin333]

I would say that the pattern is a result of the designed laws of gravity, so by extension, yes.

Then it should be a repeatable experiment. Same exact type of glass, same amount of milk and dropped by the same height should reproduce the same exact puddle every time, right?

 

[buckshot24]

Then it should be a repeatable experiment. Same exact type of glass, same amount of milk and dropped by the same height should reproduce the same exact puddle every time, right?

Good luck in reproducing all of those things.

This comment here shows how clueless you actually are.

 

[sandorski]

Good luck in reproducing all of those things.

This comment here shows how clueless you actually are.

This comment pretty much says it all very succinctly as to where your thinking is at.

 

[Darwin333]

Good luck in reproducing all of those things.

This comment here shows how clueless you actually are.

He said the law of gravity. Any law must be able to be repeatably tested with the same results over and over again.

 

[buckshot24]

He said the law of gravity. Any law must be able to be repeatably tested with the same results over and over again.

The part I'm talking about is being able to reproduce all of those conditions. This is simply impossible and if you knew anything about uncertainty in any measurement you wouldn't make these ridiculous statements.

Go to any lab and tell them that you need EXACTLY this or that amount of milk and see what happens. I'd like to hear your conversation with the glass makers as well when you tell them that you need this exact same glass reproduced.

But lets pretend you could get the exact glass with the exact same amount of milk in it. You'd need the exact same milk. Different types of liquid act differently.

But lets pretend that you could do all of these things. You'd have to make sure there is nothing of sufficient mass interfering with the pull of gravity. The moon is going to have to be accounted for.

 

[realibrad]

The part I'm talking about is being able to reproduce all of those conditions. This is simply impossible and if you knew anything about uncertainty in any measurement you wouldn't make these ridiculous statements.

Go to any lab and tell them that you need EXACTLY this or that amount of milk and see what happens. I'd like to hear your conversation with the glass makers as well when you tell them that you need this exact same glass reproduced.

But lets pretend you could get the exact glass with the exact same amount of milk in it. You'd need the exact same milk. Different types of liquid act differently.

But lets pretend that you could do all of these things. You'd have to make sure there is nothing of sufficient mass interfering with the pull of gravity. The moon is going to have to be accounted for.

That is his point fyi. Rob is saying that the outcome is due to the way god set things up. Yet, we see different outcomes from the same system. Rob is saying that the drop of milk is thus designed because god set up the system that defined how the milk would respond. The problem with that is every time you do it you will get different results. Thus, Rob is saying you can see design in everything, and everything is different thus design. How then would you be able to tell design vs non-design? The answer is you cannot, because everything that is has to thus be from design.

Thus, god created all things we see and it is obvious. Ill not go too far into the implications, but that has some sad ideas like murder and rape going to god.

 

[buckshot24]

That is his point fyi. Rob is saying that the outcome is due to the way god set things up. Yet, we see different outcomes from the same system. Rob is saying that the drop of milk is thus designed because god set up the system that defined how the milk would respond. The problem with that is every time you do it you will get different results. Thus, Rob is saying you can see design in everything, and everything is different thus design. How then would you be able to tell design vs non-design? The answer is you cannot, because everything that is has to thus be from design.

Thus, god created all things we see and it is obvious. Ill not go too far into the implications, but that has some sad ideas like murder and rape going to god.

So you're clueless too? You can't run an experiment like Darwin outlined. It is impossible. Have you ever been in a lab?

 

[FelixDeCat]

So you're clueless too? You can't run an experiment like Darwin outlined. It is impossible. Have you ever been in a lab?

Exactly. Most atheists are clueless and have never set foot in a lab, much less owned a lab. Except maybe Certain Text - he is a lab experiment gone wrong!

 

[MongGrel]

Exactly. Most atheists are clueless and have never set foot in a lab, much less owned a lab. Except maybe Certain Text - he is a lab experiment gone wrong!

I usually like your posts, but that one is just too bizarre.

 

[MongGrel]

The part I'm talking about is being able to reproduce all of those conditions. This is simply impossible and if you knew anything about uncertainty in any measurement you wouldn't make these ridiculous statements.

Go to any lab and tell them that you need EXACTLY this or that amount of milk and see what happens. I'd like to hear your conversation with the glass makers as well when you tell them that you need this exact same glass reproduced.

But lets pretend you could get the exact glass with the exact same amount of milk in it. You'd need the exact same milk. Different types of liquid act differently.

But lets pretend that you could do all of these things. You'd have to make sure there is nothing of sufficient mass interfering with the pull of gravity. The moon is going to have to be accounted for.

That is his point fyi. Rob is saying that the outcome is due to the way god set things up. Yet, we see different outcomes from the same system. Rob is saying that the drop of milk is thus designed because god set up the system that defined how the milk would respond. The problem with that is every time you do it you will get different results. Thus, Rob is saying you can see design in everything, and everything is different thus design. How then would you be able to tell design vs non-design? The answer is you cannot, because everything that is has to thus be from design.

Thus, god created all things we see and it is obvious. Ill not go too far into the implications, but that has some sad ideas like murder and rape going to god.

He seems to be missing the point.

Per usual.

Chaos Theory, Quantum Mechanics, etc.

He still seems to think on a molecular level.

I'd almost bet money I have worked in tighter constrained laboratory conditions at various times than many.

 

[IronWing]

I'd almost bet money I have worked in tighter constrained laboratory conditions at various times than many.

Lab audits are fun. I see you reported 17ppm for Pb on page 37 with a J qualifier. Show me the paper trail from field sample to this report.

 

[realibrad]

So you're clueless too? You can't run an experiment like Darwin outlined. It is impossible. Have you ever been in a lab?

Still missing it I'm afraid. Rob is saying that you can tell it's designed just looking at the outcomes. The problem is that the outcomes of the milk are all different, so how is design apparent?

 

[MongGrel]

Lab audits are fun. I see you reported 17ppm for Pb on page 37 with a J qualifier. Show me the paper trail from field sample to this report.

Yeah, even when I was performing machining work in a Beryllium lab we had to monitor and keep things below 2 ppm in the air, and were measured and controlled.

 

[IronWing]

Yeah, even when I was doing machining work in a Beryllium controlled lab we had to monitor and keep things below 2 ppm in the air, and were measured and controlled.

Did any of your co-workers turn out to have the beryllium gene?

 

[MongGrel]

Did any of your co-workers turn out to have the beryllium gene?

No, actually there were even tests done for that.

The blood tests even for that are odd and had to be sent to Utah I believe.

Have had one myself in the past, there weren't many people even allowed to walk into that lab.

The whole thing was kept negative pressure.

 

[FelixDeCat]

I usually like your posts, but that one is just too bizarre.

Thanks. Sorry that one missed the mark, I was under the influence of a few jelly beans and white zinfandel.

 

[buckshot24]

Still missing it I'm afraid. Rob is saying that you can tell it's designed just looking at the outcomes. The problem is that the outcomes of the milk are all different, so how is design apparent?

The point is that we cannot do the things Darwin was saying. There would be no way for us to verify the results. If you've ever been in a lab you would know this.

 

[buckshot24]

He seems to be missing the point.

Per usual.

Chaos Theory, Quantum Mechanics, etc.

He still seems to think on a molecular level.

I'd almost bet money I have worked in tighter constrained laboratory conditions at various times than many.

You can't run the experiments like Darwin said, that was and is my only point.

 

[realibrad]

The point is that we cannot do the things Darwin was saying. There would be no way for us to verify the results. If you've ever been in a lab you would know this.

That was not the point though. Rob was saying that design was apparent because of how we see things turn out.

 

[buckshot24]

That was not the point though. Rob was saying that design was apparent because of how we see things turn out.

So what? The experiment outlined by Darwin is simply impossible, period.

 

[realibrad]

So what? The experiment outlined by Darwin is simply impossible, period.

What experiment are you talking about, and what does that have to do with what Rob said?

Do you believe it is correct to say that design is apparent if nothing is non-designed? Rob does. He clearly thinks everything is designed and its apparent. That to me is confusing because you have nothing to judge things to. If god is apparent because all things look to be designed, and all things look to be designed because god, then its just a illogical loop.

So, I dont know why you keep bring up an experiment, but what does that have to do with what Rob said?

 

[Strk]

What experiment are you talking about, and what does that have to do with what Rob said?

Do you believe it is correct to say that design is apparent if nothing is non-designed? Rob does. He clearly thinks everything is designed and its apparent. That to me is confusing because you have nothing to judge things to. If god is apparent because all things look to be designed, and all things look to be designed because god, then its just a illogical loop.

So, I dont know why you keep bring up an experiment, but what does that have to do with what Rob said?

I'd say it is because one isn't trying to hide his faith, while the other is trying to sound technical/scientific by trying to act like it is something that it is not without saying it outright. Basically, he's trying to avoid the 'but god did it' argument.

 

[buckshot24]

What experiment are you talking about, and what does that have to do with what Rob said?

If you'd simply read the post I quoted where I first brought this up you'd find this information for yourself. Bottom line, you can't run the experiment with to verify or disprove what Rob said.

Then it should be a repeatable experiment. Same exact type of glass, same amount of milk and dropped by the same height should reproduce the same exact puddle every time, right?

Clear enough?