• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

In Louisana The Government Teaches Your Kid Religion

Page 41 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Strk 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.
Click to expand...
I believe God did it, obviously. I'm not trying to avoid anything. Darwin333 made a reference to a "possible" experiment that isn't possible. None of the parameters of a glass of milk dropping from a table can be exactly reproduced. To even suggest it, to me, shows that he's never been in a lab.
 
buckshot24 said:
I believe God did it, obviously. I'm not trying to avoid anything. Darwin333 made a reference to a "possible" experiment that isn't possible. None of the parameters of a glass of milk dropping from a table can be exactly reproduced. To even suggest it, to me, shows that he's never been in a lab.
Click to expand...

XZOJho5.jpg
 
buckshot24 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.

Clear enough?
Click to expand...

OK, so you can't run that experiment.

How is design apparent which is the point?
 
mikeymikec said:
That's a one way trip to the Valhalla that is buckshot24's ignore list 😛

I wonder if it has free wifi.
Click to expand...
He made the list last night for some other troll comment. I'm not asking anybody to prove God doesn't exist. But the flying spaghetti monster is easy to prove doesn't exist at least beyond any reasonable doubt.
 
buckshot24 said:
He made the list last night for some other troll comment. I'm not asking anybody to prove God doesn't exist. But the flying spaghetti monster is easy to prove doesn't exist at least beyond any reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

By all means, please prove the FSM doesn't exist beyond any reasonable doubt then.
 
buckshot24 said:
I didn't say it was. To even bring that "experiment" shows complete incompetence and lack of any experience in a lab. That's the point and that's the only point.
Click to expand...

Fine.

What does that have to do with what I have been saying this whole time? I point out the flaw in Rob's argument.

You then respond with this...

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

I have been explaining how Rob's argument that design is apparent just by looking at things, when we have nothing to compare it to is stupid. You have been stuck on a point I was not making this entire time.

Why respond to my posts defending something that I was not talking about? Why insult me when I did not insult you? You seem to be doing the same crap that others did that justified you ignoring them. You seem to be sinking or are already at their level.
 
buckshot24 said:
He made the list last night for some other troll comment. I'm not asking anybody to prove God doesn't exist. But the flying spaghetti monster is easy to prove doesn't exist at least beyond any reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

You made a positive statement now back up your claim.
 
realibrad said:
You can do anything you want. I still don't get the responses you gave for what I was saying.

Also, I would enjoy you disproving the spaghetti monster. That should be fun.
Click to expand...
You got right on that experiment claim, saying...

Yet, we see different outcomes from the same system.
Click to expand...
We haven't observed a single event with the same system, not a single one. This is why I called both of you incompetent. You not understanding this doesn't help you at all, it makes it more obvious.
 
buckshot24 said:
You got right on that experiment claim, saying...

We haven't observed a single event with the same system, not a single one. This is why I called both of you incompetent. You not understanding this doesn't help you at all, it makes it more obvious.
Click to expand...

Oh, we dont live in the same system? Electrons dont orbit the same atom?
 
buckshot24 said:
Quit compounding your incompetence.

You can't replicate two events to be exactly the same in every regard. Therefore you can't confirm or refute the idea you're trying to refute.
Click to expand...

Sure seems random them. Weird to say that you can observe design when everything is changing and different then right?
 
realibrad said:
Sure seems random them. Weird to say that you can observe design when everything is changing and different then right?
Click to expand...
Random has nothing to do with it. You can't verify or refute your assertions by dropping a glass of milk because you can't reproduce the drops.
 
buckshot24 said:
Random has nothing to do with it. You can't verify or refute your assertions by dropping a glass of milk because you can't reproduce the drops.
Click to expand...

Who cares about that? I dont.

What I care about, and what I have been talking about is the logic that design is obvious because everything appears designed. what would an evolved thing look like vs a designed thing? If everything is designed, and we have no reference for nondesigned, then how can he say that everything appears designed?
 
realibrad said:
Who cares about that? I dont.

What I care about, and what I have been talking about is the logic that design is obvious because everything appears designed. what would an evolved thing look like vs a designed thing? If everything is designed, and we have no reference for nondesigned, then how can he say that everything appears designed?
Click to expand...
You're a real trooper aren't you. You make idiotic statements then instead of owning them you say you don't care.

You can't reproduce milk glass drops to confirm or refute anything Brad said. That is all I said.
 
buckshot24 said:
You're a real trooper aren't you. You make idiotic statements then instead of owning them you say you don't care.

You can't reproduce milk glass drops to confirm or refute anything Brad said. That is all I said.
Click to expand...

He asked you a pretty direct question and you avoided it.

You also made a claim and have been asked by multiple people to back it up and you have yet to acknowledge the question let alone answer the question.

Here is a reminder of the forum rules:

1. No thread-crapping, thread-derailment, off-topic posting, trolling, the intentional posting of logical fallacies or misinformation.
Click to expand...

Guess which ones you are in violation of?
 
buckshot24 said:
You're a real trooper aren't you. You make idiotic statements then instead of owning them you say you don't care.

You can't reproduce milk glass drops to confirm or refute anything Brad said. That is all I said.
Click to expand...

Do you agree then that its dumb to say that design is evident from the context that there is nothing to judge it from?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top