Re: Intelligent Falling

Rich wrote:

\ And since he parades as an 'MIT-educated' spokesperson for
his viewpoint, his education can surely stand a little scrutiny?

Well sure.... as can yours. It's just; why the heck are you so angry?


Angry? I'm not angry.

Parades? I post an article, with some data, and now you've got him cross dressing?
But you're not angry?? 


About what?  You didn't speak to his data, and you pulled out your
pistol- and I'm not even sure why.



I spoke to his data, I said they were an updated blind watchmaker
argument.

That- is not discussing his data, that's reviewing what you consider it... which was simply subjective.

I pointed out that he was untrained in biology.
Look- I started off with the article about how bogus the bit was by the atheist professor who headed the religion dept, and who was essentially lying to students so he could peddle his views. Now- that was demonstrative of conditioning, not education, nor learning.

And it was meant to be thematic of the problem.
Now- I happened, to dig up an article by Schroeder, who's interesting facts I brought up in response to kris's assertion "... But honestly, I'm not sure how any semi-rational person could actually reject evolution based on the "evidence" that "supports" intelligent design."


To which I replied, "I don't reject evolution. I don't think.... that it answers the question as to the creation of life, but it does answer enormous questions about how life evolves once created." Which is quite enough a task, and if anyone disagrees with my thoughts, fine, I was simply pointing out that I found it enormously interesting, and in fact, my bias is that evolution, is a field of research and endeavor worthy in and of itself.



Back up, Marky; we're long past that. We were talking about Schroeder's
proteins, not some fruitcake head of Divinity. Do try and keep up when
you fly off the handle.

No, actually, I responded to the problem of bias, and since it happened at the institution of the original article, it was meaningful. Especially since the fruitcake was in fact, an atheist, which is fine, and a liar about his purposes to his students, which is not. Now- the point of the thread was creating a limitation upon information, and distorting bias, by the religious, and in fact, the funny news was that it wasn't them at that university, that week, who were doing that. And that is and was important. The point of the thread, was bigotry limiting learning. And that was important, but not to you- because for all your pretense about your biology training, the ethics of the problem as it was stated, didn't interest you. Ethics.





And then, the discussion about proteins and such after Bhagawan shri shri gimmeacoldone del norte opined about the vast beginnings of biology just now being understood, to which I thought he was merely goofing, and I suggested that lot's of people are considering the wonders of science and biology, hell, the religious ones too, and brought out an example, using Schroeders essay. One essay of data, for some interesting views and points. That was it.




On one hand you ask me to speak to the data, on the other you drag some
other discussion into it? You're getting very confused in your old age.
This had nothing to do with brainwashing - Schroeder, remember?
Schroeder.

Yeah... the data within the article 

Let me remind you:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.martial-arts/browse_frm/thread/237e8cd93b8681ec/503a6ddccb3ceedb?lnk=arm#503a6ddccb3ceedb

Uh huh.... why not post the article?
That was what we were referring too, not your 'just another blind watchmaker blah blah.
The point was, you didn't but make a personal comment upon what you thought it was worth. Good.
You dismissed it. And you ignored the point about the post which was on bias preventing any other knowledge being examined. As well as the rest of his data.


You brought his credentials in; you go read his website and take pride
in the man you adore.

What a joke. One article- as a point about how complex some of the data is, and ain't that interesting.
Listen nitwit- the point of the thread was how bias prevents info from even being looked at. You were a fine example of just how that occurs. You and you bull*** pretense and chicken*** hatreds.


If you can't keep track of a discussion, don't have the spine to stand
up for your own thoughts and actions and can't shake that chip on your
shoulder, I suggest we don't correspond any more. Deal?


You got it.

Mark
.

Loading