The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Profile: will
About
User Name: will
Forum Rank: Advanced Member
Occupation:
Interests:
Gender: None Specified
Home Page
Statistics
Joined: Monday, June 29, 2009
Last Visit: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 11:26:34 AM
Number of Posts: 975
[0.12% of all post / 0.34 posts per day]
Avatar
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: So Sorry Russia!
Posted: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 11:25:39 AM
Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1 wrote:
The perpetrator is believed to be a Russian citizen who came recently from Kirgizstan. Another reason to think about not letting Muslims in.

Or another reason to stop perpetuating cultures of fear for political gain.


.
Topic: Scientific Answers From A Creationist Perspective
Posted: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 11:21:58 AM
I do hope the delay here is due to Dreamy being distracted by a saucer of salt water... Pray



.
Topic: What does "Politically Correct" mean? (for fair-minded readers)
Posted: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 11:16:47 AM
Jyrkkä Jätkä wrote:
Urban dictionary:

politically correct

A way that we speak in America so we don't offend whining pussies.

Only pathetically weak people that don't have the balls to say what they feel and mean are politically correct pussies.

I think I may have over-compensated. It was the ‘pussy’ bit that I was keen to distance myself from, in case I get grabbed by the vulgarian Commander in Chief when he visits the UK. Speak to the hand



.
Topic: What is a SANCTUARY CITY? (for fair-minded readers)
Posted: Monday, April 03, 2017 3:16:42 PM
TheParser wrote:

My library friends suggest ...


tunaafi wrote:
I suggest that your friends join the forum. It would be interesting to hear their opinions, rather than your report of their opinions. You have said, elsewhere, (inaccurately) that 98% of the members here are 'liberals'. Why don't you persuade some of them to come here and even up the situation?

I suggest, if you are sincerely trying to reach the minds of fair-minded readers, that you have the guts to state your own opinions openly and frankly instead of hiding behind 'my friends', 'some people' 'the members who are too frightened to speak out', etc.

My friends at my local Vegetable Orchestra have been following TheParsers posts very closely, between whittling penny-whistles out of parsnips.

My musical marrow manipulators and blowers of tuber tubas all think his friends are make believe. Liar

1. My fennel friends and carrot chums are fair-minded guests on TFD, but they are too terrified to post.

2. I’m not a teacher

b. I’m also not a plumber

Have a nice weekend!


.
Topic: What does "Politically Correct" mean? (for fair-minded readers)
Posted: Monday, April 03, 2017 3:13:37 PM
hedy mmm wrote:
Politically Correct
"A term used for whiney overly-sensitive pansies who need everything sugar-coated for them." (Source: TNFIV)
Definetly synonomous with liberals!


Thanks again TheParser, great thread!
hedy Applause


Ah! I thought those random, excessive baseline dots between your emotional outbursts, lazy stereotyping, name calling and old testament threats of eternal damnation were supposed to be ellipses. I’d simply associated their incorrect use as a symptom of being educationally challen... wait, you don’t want it sugar-coated; I’d simply associated their incorrect use as a symptom of being retarded, as highlighted by your belief that the Earth is six thousand years old.

But now...... it’s clear!...... They weren’t ellipses.......They.........were candy sprinkles!...........................

Bless you. Your Christian charity is a lesson to us all. Pray


.
Topic: April Fool's Day (for fair-minded readers)
Posted: Monday, April 03, 2017 2:58:51 PM
Wow! Just wow. Eh?


.
Topic: Is Angling a Bloodsport?
Posted: Sunday, April 02, 2017 1:07:10 PM
I only eat vegetarian animals. Whistle



.
Topic: Scientific Answers From A Creationist Perspective
Posted: Sunday, April 02, 2017 1:04:48 PM
Well, if that doesn't disprove the reliability of science in favour of wishful thinking, I don't know what does... Eh?


.
Topic: Scientific Answers From A Creationist Perspective
Posted: Sunday, April 02, 2017 12:51:11 PM
jacobusmaximus wrote:
The breadth and depth of knowledge here is impressive and commands respect from all, whatever their view.

Dreamy’s ‘thermodynamics refutes evolution’ argument is so demonstrably absurd that ignoring or denying it’s refutation is dishonest. If Dreamy has the integrity to address his patently false claim, then he may command some respect… let’s see what happens. Think

jacobusmaximus wrote:
Yet knowledge changes with learning and what we knew yesterday is shown to be wrong by what we understand today. Yet yesterday's mistaken beliefs are regarded by science as trustworthy stepping stones to a fuller knowledge of the truth (about such things as evolution v. creation). In time, today's knowledge will be supplanted by new theories.

So far, so good...

jacobusmaximus wrote:
It has always been that way because knowledge is horizontal; wisdom, on the other hand, is vertical and points us to God in Christ, who's resurrection proves the Creation story.

But no cigar. d'oh!

Theist sure do rely heavily on assertion and supposition without reason, don't they. How is knowledge is horizontal? Why is wisdom vertical? How does knowledge differ from wisdom? Which interpretation of God in Christ? Why the Christian God god at all? Resurrection on what evidence? How does an anecdotal resurrection prove a creation story? Which creation story… etc. etc. ad nauseam.


.
Topic: Scientific Answers From A Creationist Perspective
Posted: Sunday, April 02, 2017 12:45:50 PM
Epiphileon wrote:
I would like to request that we attempt to maintain more of a direct dialog,

Been there; done that. I admire your optimism. Good luck. Eh?

In this thread, just a few weeks ago, I wrote:

Creationist have one modus operandi: you'll ignore anything that challenges your religious beliefs, give it some time, maybe slightly adapt the wording, and return with exactly the same pseudo-science at some point in the future. I’m reminded of the time you posited – complete with scientific sounding jargon – a variable speed of light, along with ‘adaptations’ to just about every other observed physical law, to support a more biblically acceptable age of the universe... I think it was you that butchered, at least once, the second law of thermodynamics as well.


Now, in this thread Dreamy wrote:
The idea that the Theory of Evolution has been proved is inconsistent. It exists in spite of the fact that evolutionary theory violates two fundamental laws of nature, these being the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. Evolution requires a general increase in order extending through geological time, but these two laws state firstly that "no matter what changes take place, nuclear, chemical, or physical, the sum total of energy and matter remains constant; so that nothing is created or destroyed in transformations";
and secondly that "every change that takes place naturally and spontaneously tends to go from a state of order to one of disorder, from the complex to the simple, from a higher energy state to a lower energy state; so that the total amount of randomness or disorder in the universe, with entropy being the measure of this randomness, is constantly and inevitably increasing."

For a start you are still ignoring and repeating a distorted description of how science works… which is why no one is taking you seriously (that and the fact that your position is absurd). Speak to the hand

Secondly your acceptance, and use as evidence, of these particular fundamental laws of nature contradicts your central argument (based on your misrepresentation of how science works) that science is unreliable due to personal interpretation of the facts. Again, you are apparently happy to hijack the credibility of science when you think it can be twisted to fit your supernatural beliefs, but inevitably need to butcher the specifics because the science, in reality, clearly doesn’t fit. Shame on you

And thirdly, as has been explained to you before, your ignorance of thermodynamics is on a par with your ignorance of evolutionary theory. *

The Earth is NOT a closed system. Your selective quoting even makes this point clear, where it says “in the universe”. The Earth is bombarded with a constant input of energy from the Sun – something like 1.5kWh,per hour per square meter – which is more than enough to fuel the process of evolution and a great many other processes that we experience on a daily basis.

I know your mythology states that plants were magically wished into existence before the Sun, but are you seriously claiming that photosynthesis is not an empirically supported process?

If your AiG version of Thermodynamics is accurate then every aspect of the food chain (every chemical and biological process) is wrong; every ‘ordered’ man-made thing and task – every building, every spaceship, every religious book, every field of wheat and every humanitarian effort – would have to have been fuelled and constructed not with energy derived from the food we consume but from some other unexplained magical process.

If your AiG version of Thermodynamics is accurate then every aspect of meteorology is wrong; weather systems, wind, rain, the entire atmosphere, simply couldn’t exist or must be fuelled and driven by some other unexplained magical process

If your AiG version of Thermodynamics is accurate then the energy we extract from coal, oil and gas was not in fact converted and locked into matter over millions of years, but rather exists by some other unexplained magical process.

If your AiG version of Thermodynamics is accurate then all of Physics and all of Chemistry, and everything in between is wrong… on the plus side for you, your fantasy would be correct, biology and evolution would also be wrong. Unfortunately, even that would still not automatically validate your preferred supernatural creation myth.

Put a saucer of salt water on a sunny window sill and the resulting crystals will prove that your ‘AiG Thermodynamics hypothesis’ is fatally flawed. The ‘interpretation of facts’ that are central to your argument boil down to a simple choice: you can believe that the ordered state of the salt crystals in your experiment have meaning and have provided a less ignorant insight into reality, or you can choose to believe they are a result of some unexplained magical process.

Being ignorant of something is nothing to be ashamed of, it is something we all live with in certain areas, to varying degrees.

Repeating something from a source, that you must at least suspect may be biased, without taking any measures to check for yourself, is at best gullible or lazy

Choosing to simply repeat from a source that you must at least suspect may be biased, having also chosen to ignore evidence that refutes that claim, is intellectually dishonest. Liar


* I’ve noticed lately that even AiG and associated pedlars of Woo have begun to distance themselves from this bastardised argument of thermodynamics; it seems even your apologetics is out of date.


.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines. Copyright © 2008-2017 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.