Junk DNA means no God.

God, the FSM, and everything else.
User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:55 am

Nikki Nyx wrote:
xouper wrote:Also, and I assume this goes without saying, be careful not to argue that your argument is correct merely by virtue of my failure to provide a counter-example. That would be this fallacy.
Incorrect. You've failed to provide a counter-example of an element of my premise.


So what. :P

I am not required to provide a counter-example.

You claimed your premise is true, and thus — I assume it goes without saying — since it is your claim, then it is not my burden to prove it false.

However, sometimes it saves a lot of time to simply provide a counter-example even though I am not required to do so. And I reserve the option to do so in the future.

Since it is your claim we are talking about here, it is your burden to show that no such counter-examples exist. I assume that goes without saying, but I just wanted to be clear here why my failure to provide a counter-example does not mean your claim has been proven. You must still prove your claim.


Nikki Nyx wrote: Attacks on my hypothetical premise are not attacks on the conclusion I've derived from it.


I agree that a conclusion (of a syllogism) can be true even of one of the premises is false. Merely falsifying a premise does not falsify the conclusion. I assume that went without saying.

But if you are claiming the conclusion is true BECAUSE of the premise, and if that premise if false, you cannot use that premise to support your conclusion. You will need to provide other premises.


Nikki Nyx wrote: . . . you're misrepresenting the hypothetical creator I've constructed, then attacking my conclusion on the basis of your misrepresentation.

Case in point:
xouper wrote:since it is not possible for any being to be omnipotent, that renders your claim moot. You are then left with trying to show that a mostly-potent being can create a perfect material. ;)


It was not my intent to misrepresent your hypothetical creator. What I was attempting to show was that your hypothetical creator does not and cannot exist. Anything you might claim on behalf of such a creator becomes irrelevant merely by fact that such a creator does not exist.

I attacked your syllogism by showing that one of your premises is false. Your conclusion might still be correct, but your syllogism is false. You must justify your conclusion some other way.

Does that help explain where I was coming from?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9876
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Aug 05, 2017 9:14 am

Xouper

Describing you as a cerebral sclerosist is not an ad hom. It is simply a realisation that you are incapable of changing an opinion. Since I have never seen you waver even by one micrometer from an opinion, then reality shows it to be correct. Even after being presented by hard data. Even if the data comes from Harvard. You just claim the Harvard researchers are wrong. Definitely sclerosis.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Sat Aug 05, 2017 9:27 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper

Describing you as a cerebral sclerosist is not an ad hom.


It was a comment about my person and it was an attempt to discredit my position by commenting on (attacking) my person. That is the very definition of an ad hom.


Lance Kennedy wrote: It is simply a realisation that you are incapable of changing an opinion.


And a false attack at that. I am very much capable of changing my opinion. I do it now and then in real life as the situation warrants it.


Lance Kennedy wrote: Since I have never seen you waver even by one micrometer from an opinion, then reality shows it to be correct.


:roll: Your failure to have seen the evidence is not evidence that such evidence does not exist.

Sheesh.


Lance Kennedy wrote: Even after being presented by hard data. Even if the data comes from Harvard. You just claim the Harvard researchers are wrong.


I did not merely claim it, I also justified my claim by citing studies and experts that discredited the Harvard study.

If anyone is unwilling to accept facts, it is you, in your failure to acknowledge that other experts dispute your precious Haahhvard study.


Lance Kennedy wrote:Definitely sclerosis.


Let the record show that Lance continues to behave like an asshat instead of preferring to have a civil discussion.

By his own admission, that means it is likely he feels he is losing the argument.

Well done, Lance. :thumbsup:

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Sat Aug 05, 2017 9:52 am

Nikki Nyx wrote:
xouper wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
xouper wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:Unfortunately, that leaves us with an unanswerable philosophical question: Why are we here?


Bingo.

That has been my point all along.

Since no human knows what the (hypothetical) creator's intended purpose was (i.e. why we are here), you have just refuted your entire argument because without that knowledge, it is not possible to evaluate the merits of the design.

You seem to be saying it is possible to deduce what our intended purpose is without knowing why we are here, so as I asked above, please justify that assertion.
And...you completely ignored the rest of my post, which nicely addressed how inadequate the human body's design is for its native planet. Which completely supports my argument.


No it doesn't. That's why I did not respond to it. None of that stuff is relevant to question of why we are here.
However, it absolutely relates to my conclusion that the human body is inadequate for the purpose of surviving long enough to reproduce and care for its genetic successors until they are old enough to reproduce.


I agree that all that stuff (that I did not respond to) is, as you say, relevant to your point about "surviving long enough to reproduce".

My point was that "surviving long enough to reproduce" is not relevant to the point I was making about "why are we here"?

If humans were created (see footnote), then it is logical to infer that the creator had a purpose in mind.

(Aside: If there was no purpose, then the design cannot be called incompetent, since any design at all would have sufficed to satisfy the creator's "purpose". Reminds me of that old joke, if you don't have a destination in mind, then any road will take you there, and it cannot be claimed you were on the wrong road.)

If humans were created, then to answer the question "why are we here", we need to know what the creator's purpose was.

If you are claiming that the creator's purpose was merely to create beings that "survive long enough to reproduce", then I will ask, how do you know that was the creator's purpose.

In any case, even if that was the creator's purpose, it cannot be said the design fails to meet that purpose.

On the other hand, if we don't know what that purpose was (what the intended destination was), then it is not logical to declare that the creator was on the wrong road, so to speak.

Does that help explain what I was trying to say?



_________________________________________________________
Footnote: I assume you already know all this, but I include the following so we can confirm a common understanding.

One kind of formal argument in logic is called a proof by contradiction. Let's say you want to prove statement X is false. A proof by contradiction starts with the assumption that statement X is true, and then shows (through a series of logical steps) that the assumption leads to a logical contradiction, thus proving that the staring assumption must be false. As we intended to do.

The argument in the opening post is such a proof by contradiction, although it was not formally stated that way. One of the unstated premises in the opening post is the starting assumption that humans were created. Working backwards from that assumption, Lance tries to show that the starting assumption is false. A noble objective, to be sure. But there is a fatal flaw in how he constructed that argument. His later revision did not remove that defect from the argument.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sat Aug 05, 2017 5:02 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
xouper wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:And...you completely ignored the rest of my post, which nicely addressed how inadequate the human body's design is for its native planet. Which completely supports my argument.
No it doesn't. That's why I did not respond to it. None of that stuff is relevant to question of why we are here.
However, it absolutely relates to my conclusion that the human body is inadequate for the purpose of surviving long enough to reproduce and care for its genetic successors until they are old enough to reproduce.
There are more than 7,000,000,000 of us. Only r-selection strategists have a higher population. And bacteria.
There are more than 7,000,000,000 of us thanks to evolution. Over time, we've evolved larger, more complex brains to compensate for our inadequate bodies, and it's really only the last hundred years or so that we've been able to be our own creators*, successfully compensating for the body's inadequacies through our advancements in science. It wasn't that long ago we were still building the privies next to the wells.

*though certainly not omniscient, omnipotent, or omni-benevolent
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sat Aug 05, 2017 5:10 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:BTW, according to Genesis, physical human frailties and aging are a punishment for eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Humans were perfect before that.

So There!

What a set-up that was! Not having eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Eve didn't know the difference between good and bad. She wasn't immoral; she was amoral. Yahweh set up her and Adam for a test they couldn't possibly pass, then cursed the entire species based on their "failure." And based on his fear that they would eat from the tree of life and become gods. Yahweh wasn't omni-anything; just an insecure jerk.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sat Aug 05, 2017 6:05 pm

xouper wrote:Does that help explain what I was trying to say?
No.

I'm not going to address your multiple posts.

I presented a premise, then derived a conclusion from it. I repeated stated that the concepts presented in my premise were hypothetical, but accepted conditions solely for the purpose of the argument. It's obvious that my creator with its three attributes is an impossible construct. Nevertheless, that was the given premise of the debate. It's customary to argue two different conclusions based on a debate's premise, not to change the elements of the premise with which one disagrees.

Example: Given the premise that abortion is legal nationwide up to 24 weeks, do you agree or disagree that we should make long-term birth control cheap and freely available? At that point, you would either agree or disagree about the birth control aspect. You would not begin to argue the legality of abortion, because that's the accepted premise, not the subject of the debate.

However, you misrepresented or redefined my premise a number of times, then attacked my initial conclusion based on the revised premise you had formulated. Imagine I asked you to enumerate Nikola Tesla's contributions to modern life then, after you wrote a factually-correct essay, I change "Nikola Tesla" to "Thomas Edison" and point out all the ways in which your essay is wrong. That's basically what you've been doing.

If you're uninterested in arguing a premise that includes an imaginary construct with impossible attributes, when I have stated that was the game, just say so. But deeming my premise impossible when that was the whole bloody point of it, then attacking my original conclusion based on a more realistic premise you yourself have devised is disingenuous. I'm not playing, xouper.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9876
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Aug 05, 2017 7:49 pm

Xouper

Re sclerosis.

You began with an argument.
I made a concession, and changed my argument from any old creator to just one that was omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. You changed your argument not at all. Even though it was no longer valid.

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4129
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby gorgeous » Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:23 pm

according to nde's and Seth teachings some souls choose a physical body with defects for a learning experience or challenge,....to force them to use other abilities or talents, sometimes for the growth of the family.--------.." A soul places obstacles in it's path so that in removing them it will become strong"---Rudolf Steiner...as we have many physical lives one spent with limits will expand the experience...living dozens of healthy , happy lives to old age is repetitive and limiting....
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

Aztexan
King of the Limericks
King of the Limericks
Posts: 7847
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:39 pm

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Aztexan » Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:38 pm

So our souls only use us? They can decide on who to enter without our permission? I feel violated.
This is a sentence. tHi5 iz a seN+3nce oN drUgs!!!

"When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty"--sign seen at Occupy Wall St. protest.

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4129
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby gorgeous » Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:51 pm

you are the soul., your higher self --consciousness-- makes the big decisions with advice from higher beings......you choose your body and parents.....as for entering a body...sometimes happens when people are traveling out of body...sometimes a higher evolved being will speak through the body when it's vacant or other being will try it out....some protect hostile beings from entering the body...
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

Aztexan
King of the Limericks
King of the Limericks
Posts: 7847
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:39 pm

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Aztexan » Sat Aug 05, 2017 9:01 pm

The mind dies with us. The soul is the mind trying to find immortality. The soul dies with the mind. It cannot exist outside the body.
This is a sentence. tHi5 iz a seN+3nce oN drUgs!!!

"When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty"--sign seen at Occupy Wall St. protest.

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4129
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby gorgeous » Sat Aug 05, 2017 9:02 pm

wrong...the mind is not physical...
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Sun Aug 06, 2017 12:38 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper

Re sclerosis.

You began with an argument.
I made a concession, and changed my argument from any old creator to just one that was omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. You changed your argument not at all. Even though it was no longer valid.


That's an interesting misrepresentation of what happened.

This thread began with your argument, not mine.

I pointed out some flaws in your argument.

You made one revision.

But that revision did not remove the flaws I pointed out.

Your revised argument has all the same flaws as your original argument.

And you have still not answered any of my questions where I asked for justification of your premises.

Calling me names or disparaging my character changes none of that.

By your own admission, lowering yourself to that level is a sign that you are likely losing the argument. Those are your words, not mine.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Sun Aug 06, 2017 1:21 am

Nikki Nyx wrote:
xouper wrote:Does that help explain what I was trying to say?
No.


What can I do to better explain what I am trying to say?


Nikki Nyx wrote:I'm not going to address your multiple posts.


If I may ask, why not? Does that mean you accept the various points I made? For example, do you concede that you misunderestimated* my skill and ability to imagine and work with concepts of infinity?


  • Footnote: Yes I know that's not a word. I was trying to inject some humor in a discussion that seems to be going off the rails. I also thought it might be fun to put a footnote in the middle of the page rather than at the foot.


Nikki Nyx wrote:I presented a premise, then derived a conclusion from it. I repeated stated that the concepts presented in my premise were hypothetical, but accepted conditions solely for the purpose of the argument.


Yes. Agreed.


Nikki Nyx wrote:It's obvious that my creator with its three attributes is an impossible construct.


I do not recall you had said that before, which is why I felt the need to make that observation.


Nikki Nyx wrote: Nevertheless, that was the given premise of the debate. It's customary to argue two different conclusions based on a debate's premise, not to change the elements of the premise with which one disagrees.


I did not change your premise. My intent was to suggest an alternate premise that you might like to use instead. But I did not insist that you use it, nor did I criticize your syllogism or conclusion on the basis of that alternate premise.


Nikki Nyx wrote:However, you misrepresented or redefined my premise a number of times, then attacked my initial conclusion based on the revised premise you had formulated.


I did no such thing. It was never my intention to misrepresent your premise.

Nor did I attack your conclusion.

I attacked the syllogism as being flawed, which is not the same thing as attacking the conclusion.

Several times I stated that a flawed syllogism does not falsify the conclusion. I merely pointed out that the conclusion is not supported by the syllogism. Perhaps try a different syllogism (or premise).


Nikki Nyx wrote:If you're uninterested in arguing a premise that includes an imaginary construct with impossible attributes, when I have stated that was the game, just say so.


Fair enough. I am not interested in discussing a syllogism that has a premise with an imaginary construct with impossible attributes.


Nikki Nyx wrote: But deeming my premise impossible when that was the whole bloody point of it, then attacking my original conclusion based on a more realistic premise you yourself have devised is disingenuous. I'm not playing, xouper.


I did not attack your conclusion. Nor did I replace any of your premises with something else. I merely pointed out the flaw in your premise and then declared that the syllogism is flawed because it is based on a false premise.

Your accusation of disingenuousness is based on false narrative.

Aztexan
King of the Limericks
King of the Limericks
Posts: 7847
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:39 pm

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Aztexan » Sun Aug 06, 2017 9:08 am

gorgeous wrote:wrong...the mind is not physical...


The mind is real, my dear lass
Strong as steel yet as fragile as glass
It breaks and it bends
It stays shattered or mends
But it does more than my lazy ass
This is a sentence. tHi5 iz a seN+3nce oN drUgs!!!

"When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty"--sign seen at Occupy Wall St. protest.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Mon Aug 07, 2017 5:53 am

Nikki Nyx wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:Yes, of course, but my argument specifically excludes evolution. Just an omni-everything creator, Garden of Eden style.


Oh, so you ARE talking about Yahweh after all! In that case you might want to go read Genesis again, because the God depicted in the Garden of Eden story is definitely not omniscient or omni-benevolent.

"Style" being the operative word in that sentence.


And an omni-benevolent omniscient God is not a "Garden of Eden style" God.
*sigh* The reference was intended to mean "created the human body from scratch." Is that clear enough, or do I need to use words of one syllable?


It's clear enough but it's not good enough. It is a non-sequitur to suggest that a God who creates humans from scratch is therefore omniscient and omnibenevolent, as the Biblical example of Yahweh demonstrates.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Mon Aug 07, 2017 12:39 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:VKTW: You are in need of a quality dictionary, a course in basic logic, and therapy.
See, this is what an ad-hominem looks like.
Wrong again. My comment is solely based on the content of your posts to me, not gratuitous or superfluous to their content.


:roll: Looks like some more mansplaining is in order. When you say that I lack basic logic and need therapy, these are ad hominems because you are attacking me as a person rather than the arguments I am making.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:An ad hominem attack, by definition, attacks the arguer independent of her argument. You have done that repeatedly without a great deal of intelligence.
Examples?
Feminazi. Spelling and grammar Nazi. (So, "Nazi" twice.)


Had you not made a petty asinine criticism that had nothing to do with the matter under discussion, then I would not have called you a grammar Nazi or a Feminazi. If you're going to dish it out, then you better be prepared to take it.

An accusation that I'm working toward "active extermination a religious population."


You were the one who brought this up. I explained how it actually is the case, but you couldn't refute my explanation so instead you decided to take the easy way out and whine about it being an ad hominem.

An accusation of "thought-policing," whatever the {!#%@} that is. A statement that one of my remarks was "butt-hurt sanctimonious ad hominem drivel."


It is not ad hominem to call out the fallaciousness and lack of substance in your arguments.

Femimarxist.


Again, I explained why I use this term and you offered nothing whatsoever in the way of a substantive refutation (i.e. because you can't).

You know what? I have the perfect solution to your repeated insecure ad hominem attacks, which you indulge in whenever you're failing in an argument, which describes just about every argument in which you involve yourself.


Sure it does, keep telling yourself that sweetie...

Frankly, I feel nothing but pity for your blow-up doll, so give her a break and go {!#%@} yourself.


You know, if you could stop yourself from thinking about my dick for five minutes then maybe - just maybe - you might see that your use of sexually charged invective against me completely demolishes the Femimarxist notion that Western women are being oppressed by a misogynistic patriarchy. If I hurled similar invective at you I would be pilloried and very likely suspended or even banned, but when you do it no one bats an eyelash. Yep, you womenfolk are so marginalized and hard done by!
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Aztexan
King of the Limericks
King of the Limericks
Posts: 7847
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:39 pm

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Aztexan » Mon Aug 07, 2017 4:43 pm

Nikki Nyx sed:
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
"Give your blowup doll a break and go {!#%@} yourself"
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Man, you gotta admit. That was funny.
This is a sentence. tHi5 iz a seN+3nce oN drUgs!!!

"When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty"--sign seen at Occupy Wall St. protest.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Mon Aug 07, 2017 11:25 pm

Aztexan wrote:Nikki Nyx sed:
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
"Give your blowup doll a break and go {!#%@} yourself"
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Man, you gotta admit. That was funny.


Yeah, it is pretty funny how she obsesses about my tallywhacker! :lol:
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19636
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Junk means no God.

Postby scrmbldggs » Tue Aug 08, 2017 1:08 am

Maybe you shouldn't let it all hang out... :-P
Hi, Io the lurker.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Tue Aug 08, 2017 4:21 am

Aztexan wrote:Nikki Nyx sed:
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
"Give your blowup doll a break and go {!#%@} yourself"
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Man, you gotta admit. That was funny.
:roses:
It's pretty rare for me to bite back, but multiple misogynistic ad homs seemed to call for a kick in the two veg. I'm quite enjoying not being subjected to his hatred of everything, and highly recommend the "foes' list" function of this forum.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Junk means no God.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Tue Aug 08, 2017 4:28 am

scrmbldggs wrote:Maybe you shouldn't let it all hang out... :-P

Wait, don't tell me; let me guess.
Image
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

Aztexan
King of the Limericks
King of the Limericks
Posts: 7847
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:39 pm

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Aztexan » Tue Aug 08, 2017 5:12 am

Every internet forum has that one guy everybody hates. He oozes ignorance peppered with moronic almost laughable stupidity.
Well this forum has that guy too, unfortunately. And even that guy thinks venerable kwan tam woo is a prick, too.
This is a sentence. tHi5 iz a seN+3nce oN drUgs!!!

"When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty"--sign seen at Occupy Wall St. protest.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Junk means no God.

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Tue Aug 08, 2017 5:45 am

scrmbldggs wrote:Maybe you shouldn't let it all hang out... :-P


Where would be the fun in that? 8-)
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Tue Aug 08, 2017 5:54 am

Nikki Nyx wrote:It's pretty rare for me to bite back, but multiple misogynistic ad homs seemed to call for a kick in the two veg.


Don't know about these supposed misogynistic ad homs, but it seems you've gotten off scot-free for those vulgar misandristic ad homs you directed my way. Ain't that Patriarchy just an awful, awful thing?!

I'm quite enjoying not being subjected to his hatred of everything, and highly recommend the "foes' list" function of this forum.


Ignoring people whose views you disagree with - the hallmark of a true skeptic! ;)
Last edited by Venerable Kwan Tam Woo on Tue Aug 08, 2017 5:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Tue Aug 08, 2017 5:56 am

Aztexan wrote:Every internet forum has that one guy everybody hates. He oozes ignorance peppered with moronic almost laughable stupidity.
Well this forum has that guy too, unfortunately. And even that guy thinks venerable kwan tam woo is a prick, too.


Well if that guy thinks I'm a prick then I must be doing something right! :D
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Tue Aug 08, 2017 6:02 am

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:Ignoring people whose views you disagree with - the hallmark of a true skeptic! ;)


Wrong.

Ignoring trolls is valid thing to do on internet forums.

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Venerable Kwan Tam Woo » Tue Aug 08, 2017 6:11 am

xouper wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:Ignoring people whose views you disagree with - the hallmark of a true skeptic! ;)


Wrong.

Ignoring trolls is valid thing to do on internet forums.


Not if your definition of "troll" effectively amounts to "a person whose views I disagree with".
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
- Mark Twain

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby xouper » Tue Aug 08, 2017 6:32 am

Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
xouper wrote:
Venerable Kwan Tam Woo wrote:Ignoring people whose views you disagree with - the hallmark of a true skeptic! ;)


Wrong.

Ignoring trolls is valid thing to do on internet forums.


Not if your definition of "troll" effectively amounts to "a person whose views I disagree with".


You might be right if I were using that definition, but I'm not.

I'm using definition 2a: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/troll

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Tue Aug 08, 2017 4:45 pm

xouper wrote:I'm using definition 2a: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/troll
That's the definition I use, too. And I'm not ignoring someone with whose views I disagree; I've blocked a repeatedly abusive misogynist whose ad homs deliberately targeted my gender...in violation of forum rules, I might add.

Level 3
  • Harassment by means of continual, off-topic personal attacks
  • Defamatory, dehumanizing content directed at ethnic groups, racial groups, gender, heterosexuals or homosexuals
Level 4
  • Repeated, off-topic personal attacks that continue beyond a single page in a given topic
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Junk DNA means no God.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Tue Aug 08, 2017 7:32 pm

This article appears to be relevant to the OP and ensuing discussion of legacy DNA.
Researchers investigating why some people suffer from motor disabilities report they may have dialed back evolution's clock a few ticks by blocking molecular pruning of sophisticated brain-to-limb nerve connections in maturing mice. The result was mice with enhanced manual dexterity that grab and eat food much faster than regular wild-type mice, according to a study published July 28 in the journal Science. LINK
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein


Return to “Belief, Nonbelief, and Philosophy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest