TIKTAALIK is part of ToE??? Are you kidding me??? -

buttershug · 09-07-2015, 10:52 AM

Mr. ID every living thing is part of TOE.

Purpose, intention, goals, etc. are not part of TOE.
That means there is no "M,N,O". Those concepts are meaningless in TOE.
What happened is what happened.

Have you tried the blind spot test yet?

Are you still saying that an eye with no blind spot is just as good as an eye without a blind spot?

Maybe there is a creator, maybe there isn't.
How do you get past that statement?

buttershug · 09-07-2015, 10:57 AM

:

Pity reply.

Also, ToE = Theory of Elpistostegids.

You did not even knew what you are talking.

Do you know who Per is?

Isn't he the scourge of Sweden, or something like that?

Mr. ID that is an inside joke, making fun of someone, who like you, also refuses to learn.

uncool · 09-07-2015, 11:06 AM

:

To all of you here...PLEASE, read carefully and think sharply.

I think that I need to reply to all of you for your ignorance of both my video, science and biological world. PLEASE, THINK!

All good and scientific theories have always good predictions. BUT, are all predictions good?

1. Let us make an example of prediction: Let us use the Gravitational Theory (GT)

If we drop any object above the ground anywhere on earth, in an open field, it is predicted that that object will surely fall down to the ground.

Or IF GT is true, I can drop object, and that object will surely fall down.

All of us believe and accept GT. OK, no problem...

2. OK, let us make another prediction: FOR FLAT EARTH

If flat earth is true, we can build a 20-storeys, 18.20 m apartment.

or

If flat earth is true, we can climb Mt Fuji by walking.

3. NOW, let us use another prediction,

IF ToE is true, I can find Chinese bones (and I call it TIKTAALIK) in mainland China, therefore, ToE is true.

But look, if I use Creationism and old ID, the prediction that

IF Creationism (or old ID) is true, I can find Chinese bones (and I call it TIKTAALIK) in mainland China, therefore, Creationism (or old ID) is true.

(WHY? Since a Creator will never place any living things in the wrong place and an IA will surely do the same) IA = Intelligent Agent

As you can see, anybody can make predictions. But there is always a realistic predictions and a fantasy prediction.

ToE is a fantasy prediction since ToE is like flat earth in where ToE had neglected the possibility that an intelligence agent by using intelligent process can place any living things in the right place, in the right time and in the right condition..

AND the worst case for ToE is that ToE has no idea if life is intelligently designed (intellen) or not (naturen)...since if life is intellen, then, it will appear that all living things and their movement and placement, locations and appearance on earth, are all intellen...

thus, ToE has no place in science nor reality..

THUS, ToE is wrong since ToE has a wrong predictions like flat earth...

ToE has nothing to do with gravity. Second, science is not about reality, it is about studying natural phenomena. Learn the difference! Science is not philosophical naturalism, it is about methodological naturalism. Your theory is pure ideological super-naturalism. [ie bollocks].

Woof, try reading. The incoherent babbler is making a coherent point here - that if two theories have the same predictions, then that prediction is useless for distinguishing between them.

Unfortunately for the incoherent babbler, he hasn't shown that "Creationism" predicts Tiktaalik.

buttershug · 09-07-2015, 11:13 AM

:

To all of you here...PLEASE, read carefully and think sharply.

I think that I need to reply to all of you for your ignorance of both my video, science and biological world. PLEASE, THINK!

All good and scientific theories have always good predictions. BUT, are all predictions good?

1. Let us make an example of prediction: Let us use the Gravitational Theory (GT)

If we drop any object above the ground anywhere on earth, in an open field, it is predicted that that object will surely fall down to the ground.

Or IF GT is true, I can drop object, and that object will surely fall down.

All of us believe and accept GT. OK, no problem...

2. OK, let us make another prediction: FOR FLAT EARTH

If flat earth is true, we can build a 20-storeys, 18.20 m apartment.

or

If flat earth is true, we can climb Mt Fuji by walking.

3. NOW, let us use another prediction,

IF ToE is true, I can find Chinese bones (and I call it TIKTAALIK) in mainland China, therefore, ToE is true.

But look, if I use Creationism and old ID, the prediction that

IF Creationism (or old ID) is true, I can find Chinese bones (and I call it TIKTAALIK) in mainland China, therefore, Creationism (or old ID) is true.

(WHY? Since a Creator will never place any living things in the wrong place and an IA will surely do the same) IA = Intelligent Agent

As you can see, anybody can make predictions. But there is always a realistic predictions and a fantasy prediction.

ToE is a fantasy prediction since ToE is like flat earth in where ToE had neglected the possibility that an intelligence agent by using intelligent process can place any living things in the right place, in the right time and in the right condition..

AND the worst case for ToE is that ToE has no idea if life is intelligently designed (intellen) or not (naturen)...since if life is intellen, then, it will appear that all living things and their movement and placement, locations and appearance on earth, are all intellen...

thus, ToE has no place in science nor reality..

THUS, ToE is wrong since ToE has a wrong predictions like flat earth...

ToE has nothing to do with gravity. Second, science is not about reality, it is about studying natural phenomena. Learn the difference! Science is not philosophical naturalism, it is about methodological naturalism. Your theory is pure ideological super-naturalism. [ie bollocks].

Woof, try reading. The incoherent babbler is making a coherent point here - that if two theories have the same predictions, then that prediction is useless for distinguishing between them.

Unfortunately for the incoherent babbler, he hasn't shown that "Creationism" predicts Tiktaalik.

If he was willing to work with people, people would probably help him reword his stuff so it was more easily understood.

gib · 09-07-2015, 11:25 AM

Staff Notemoved from LSD

Jet Black · 09-07-2015, 11:47 AM

If Sweden is so good at Evolution, then how come all they're famous for is IKEA and the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo?

checkmate, with a 1000% scientific argument that I have done proper experiments on.

Skeeve · 09-07-2015, 11:50 AM

:

Pity reply.

Also, ToE = Theory of Elpistostegids.

You did not even knew what you are talking.

There's a video of him too. Unfortunately its in Swedish. He doesn't seem to spend the first five minutes babbling on about books though...

---DOXXING VIDEO REMOVED---

Doxxing reported!

Doobie Keebler · 09-07-2015, 01:09 PM

:

If Sweden is so good at Evolution, then how come all they're famous for is IKEA and the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo?

checkmate, with a 1000% scientific argument that I have done proper experiments on.

Daniel Craig totally fucked up. He passed on the hawt Rooney Mara which would have gotten him lotsa laundered cash and gobs of kinky sex. Not to mention one badass leather jacket.

Doobie Keebler · 09-07-2015, 01:19 PM

:

Pity reply.

Also, ToE = Theory of Elpistostegids.

You did not even knew what you are talking.

There's a video of him too. Unfortunately its in Swedish. He doesn't seem to spend the first five minutes babbling on about books though...

Pffft.... Even MrIntelligentDesign knows that real science is done in American.

teeth! · 09-07-2015, 01:37 PM

What is this dumb shit

JonF · 09-07-2015, 01:49 PM

:

To all of you here...PLEASE, read carefully and think sharply.

I think that I need to reply to all of you for your ignorance of both my video, science and biological world. PLEASE, THINK!

All good and scientific theories have always good predictions. BUT, are all predictions good?

1. Let us make an example of prediction: Let us use the Gravitational Theory (GT)

If we drop any object above the ground anywhere on earth, in an open field, it is predicted that that object will surely fall down to the ground.

Or IF GT is true, I can drop object, and that object will surely fall down.

All of us believe and accept GT. OK, no problem...

2. OK, let us make another prediction: FOR FLAT EARTH

If flat earth is true, we can build a 20-storeys, 18.20 m apartment.

or

If flat earth is true, we can climb Mt Fuji by walking.

3. NOW, let us use another prediction,

IF ToE is true, I can find Chinese bones (and I call it TIKTAALIK) in mainland China, therefore, ToE is true.

But look, if I use Creationism and old ID, the prediction that

IF Creationism (or old ID) is true, I can find Chinese bones (and I call it TIKTAALIK) in mainland China, therefore, Creationism (or old ID) is true.

(WHY? Since a Creator will never place any living things in the wrong place and an IA will surely do the same) IA = Intelligent Agent

As you can see, anybody can make predictions. But there is always a realistic predictions and a fantasy prediction.

ToE is a fantasy prediction since ToE is like flat earth in where ToE had neglected the possibility that an intelligence agent by using intelligent process can place any living things in the right place, in the right time and in the right condition..

AND the worst case for ToE is that ToE has no idea if life is intelligently designed (intellen) or not (naturen)...since if life is intellen, then, it will appear that all living things and their movement and placement, locations and appearance on earth, are all intellen...

thus, ToE has no place in science nor reality..

THUS, ToE is wrong since ToE has a wrong predictions like flat earth...

ToE has nothing to do with gravity. Second, science is not about reality, it is about studying natural phenomena. Learn the difference! Science is not philosophical naturalism, it is about methodological naturalism. Your theory is pure ideological super-naturalism. [ie bollocks].

Woof, try reading. The incoherent babbler is making a coherent point here - that if two theories have the same predictions, then that prediction is useless for distinguishing between them.

Unfortunately for the incoherent babbler, he hasn't shown that "Creationism" predicts Tiktaalik.

Yeah, he doesn't see any difference between a prediction derived from a theory and a randomly chosen assertion.

borealis · 09-07-2015, 03:58 PM

:

MID, it's almost a certainty that no one here has the time or inclination to watch your 37 minute video. If you have a point to make, try stating it clearly in text so that people can respond to it.

Good luck.

Thank you for your repky but in real science, a scientist must have patience to study all sides, in every angles so that his/her concluson is valid scientific and universal and realistic.

If a person is not willing to watch a probably boring 37 mins video, that person is probably not a scientist. I've been watching many videos for ToE and I almost watched all those videos in YouTube to study their arguments.

Thus, I can say that I have the best science...

No, you cannot say any such thing. As has been mentioned, you begin by trying to sell your books, ineptly at that.

Youtube is famous for terrible crackpot videos which are a waste of time and also boring. Why would a person seeking scientific information bother to deal with such an annoying format when reading a scientific paper or book, where one can easily go forward and backward to check on various points, is so much better?

Chances are good that at least some of the ToE videos you watched were poorly done simplifications created by inadequately educated if earnest laypersons. Citations were sparse and probably not well sourced. You'd have been far better informed by reading some good texts and following up by reading any papers they cited.

Videos are a lazy and educationally impoverished method of learning science.

buttershug · 09-07-2015, 04:03 PM

:

What is this dumb shit

We're not entirely sure.
We get bored before we get to the point (if there is one) where he actually says something.

but if you every have a daughter then buy her a toy car because that would experimentally prove that she was intelligently designed.

DaveGodfrey · 09-07-2015, 04:12 PM

I'd say that a well-done video can be a good way of learning the basics of a subject that is not in your area of expertise, especially if done well. The Crash Course channel on youtube is very good at what it sets out to do- give an introductory course in various subjects aimed at about GCSE to A level (and occasionally up to first year undergrad). Its not a substitute for reading the big thick textbooks that go into more detail, or going to the primary literature where the results were published, and the arguments hashed out. But it isn't trying to be. Its a revision aid, entertainment to get you thinking about things, or a jumping off point for teachers to use in their lessons.

The problem is you have to have a reasonable grounding in the subject to know which videos are worth watching, and which are not. Ones that begin by ineptly trying to sell books are usually not worth watching. If I spoke Swedish I'd say that the video of Per's lecture probably was. I'm not sure when it was made, so it might be out of date, and there's probably a decent amount he's left out or simplified that I'd find in the papers he's written. And for that you'll still have to go to the primary literature.

MrIntelligentDesign · 09-07-2015, 08:50 PM

:

Woof, try reading. The incoherent babbler is making a coherent point here - that if two theories have the same predictions, then that prediction is useless for distinguishing between them.

Unfortunately for the incoherent babbler, he hasn't shown that "Creationism" predicts Tiktaalik.

Actually, you are right that I have the coherent arguments but since most of the posters here are either not serious in their science, then, they will just ignore my new discoveries. I call it "ARGUMERNT OF IGNORANCE".

Actually, in a good scientific theory, it must have a GOOD prediction. I had given you the GT as an example.

But when ToE made a prediction for Tiktaalik, that is NOT the right/good prediction for ToE. Why?

ToE assumes that

1. Life has originated probably through natural process alone (naturen), thus, all species were guided by nature. But there is no test/experiment for that...

Thus, that assumption is wrong.

(What if life is created with purpose? Then, the locations and timing of all living things like Tiktaalik also has purpose, thus the prediction that

we can find Tiktaalik in M,N.O conditions is also applicable to Creationism. You said it right that I am logical. BUT the Creationists had never dug that place, only the ToE supporters. But whoever dug Tiktaalik, Creationism too could be applied)

2. There is no intelligence in nature and in science, that is, intelligence = 0. But that assumption too has no experiment or test from ToE.

(What if life is intelligently designed or intellen with purpose? Then, the locations and timing of all living things like Tiktaalik also has purpose, thus the prediction that

we can find Tiktaalik in M,N.O conditions is also applicable to Intelligent Design or Biological Interrelation , BiTs.

You said it right that I am logical. BUT the ID supporters had never dug that place, only the ToE supporters. But whoever dug Tiktaalik, ID supporters too could be applied)

Thus, ToE failed miserably in two most important assumptions that should be cleared FIRST before ToE could make any conclusions and predictions.

Thus, I urged you to think before you post...

Alfonso Bivouac · 09-07-2015, 08:56 PM

:

Woof, try reading. The incoherent babbler is making a coherent point here - that if two theories have the same predictions, then that prediction is useless for distinguishing between them.

Unfortunately for the incoherent babbler, he hasn't shown that "Creationism" predicts Tiktaalik.

Actually, you are right that I have the coherent arguments but since most of the posters here are either not serious in their science, then, they will just ignore my new discoveries. I call it "ARGUMERNT OF IGNORANCE".

Actually, in a good scientific theory, it must have a GOOD prediction. I had given you the GT as an example.

But when ToE made a prediction for Tiktaalik, that is NOT the right/good prediction for ToE. Why?

ToE assumes that

1. Life has originated probably through natural process alone (naturen), thus, all species were guided by nature. But there is no test/experiment for that...

Thus, that assumption is wrong.

(What if life is created with purpose? Then, the locations and timing of all living things like Tiktaalik also has purpose, thus the prediction that

we can find Tiktaalik in M,N.O conditions is also applicable to Creationism. You said it right that I am logical. BUT the Creationists had never dig that place, only the ToE supporters. But whoever dug Tiktaalik, Creationism too could be applied)

2. There is no intelligence in nature and in science, that is, intelligence = 0. But that assumption too has no experiment or test from ToE.

(What if life is intelligently designed or intellen with purpose? Then, the locations and timing of all living things like Tiktaalik also has purpose, thus the prediction that

we can find Tiktaalik in M,N.O conditions is also applicable to Intelligent Design or Biological Interrelation , BiTs.

You said it right that I am logical. BUT the ID supporters had never dig that place, only the ToE supporters. But whoever dug Tiktaalik, ID supporters too could be applied)

Thus, ToE failed miserably in two most important assumptions that should be cleared FIRST before ToE could make any conclusions and predictions.

Thus, I urged you to think before you post...

Ah, you're back. Good.

Now, about those 'real' experiments you've done. It's been a couple of days now, people have answered you questions about toy cars, but there are still no experiments shown.

Where ARE the experiments you said you've done?

MrIntelligentDesign · 09-07-2015, 09:02 PM

:

MID, it's almost a certainty that no one here has the time or inclination to watch your 37 minute video. If you have a point to make, try stating it clearly in text so that people can respond to it.

Good luck.

Thank you for your repky but in real science, a scientist must have patience to study all sides, in every angles so that his/her concluson is valid scientific and universal and realistic.

If a person is not willing to watch a probably boring 37 mins video, that person is probably not a scientist. I've been watching many videos for ToE and I almost watched all those videos in YouTube to study their arguments.

Thus, I can say that I have the best science...

No, you cannot say any such thing. As has been mentioned, you begin by trying to sell your books, ineptly at that.

Youtube is famous for terrible crackpot videos which are a waste of time and also boring. Why would a person seeking scientific information bother to deal with such an annoying format when reading a scientific paper or book, where one can easily go forward and backward to check on various points, is so much better?

Chances are good that at least some of the ToE videos you watched were poorly done simplifications created by inadequately educated if earnest laypersons. Citations were sparse and probably not well sourced. You'd have been far better informed by reading some good texts and following up by reading any papers they cited.

Videos are a lazy and educationally impoverished method of learning science.

Thank you for your reply but I don't sell my science books. I am juts informing you here that your science are old and obsolete, thus you are all wrong.

The reason why you are afraid to watch some videos anywhere about science because you probably don't know which is right and bad science..for if you knew how to distinguish it, you could probably understand it and easily smash it by the power of ToE of its 160 years existence.

But I think, ToE cannot beat the Biological Interrelation (BiTs) as replacement for ToE, in a fair science debate. That is for sure that is why you are probably afraid to hear or learn more about the replacement..

Well, that is your life.

OHSU · 09-07-2015, 09:03 PM

"TIKTAALIK is part of ToE???"

Yes. It is. And so is every other species. Science doesn't pick and choose those examples it likes. It provides explanations that account for all the evidence. All of it.

Linus · 09-07-2015, 09:03 PM

:

Woof, try reading. The incoherent babbler is making a coherent point here - that if two theories have the same predictions, then that prediction is useless for distinguishing between them.

Unfortunately for the incoherent babbler, he hasn't shown that "Creationism" predicts Tiktaalik.

Actually, you are right that I have the coherent arguments but since most of the posters here are either not serious in their science, then, they will just ignore my new discoveries. I call it "ARGUMERNT OF IGNORANCE".

Actually, in a good scientific theory, it must have a GOOD prediction. I had given you the GT as an example.

But when ToE made a prediction for Tiktaalik, that is NOT the right/good prediction for ToE. Why?

ToE assumes that

1. Life has originated probably through natural process alone (naturen), thus, all species were guided by nature. But there is no test/experiment for that...

Thus, that assumption is wrong.

(What if life is created with purpose? Then, the locations and timing of all living things like Tiktaalik also has purpose, thus the prediction that

we can find Tiktaalik in M,N.O conditions is also applicable to Creationism. You said it right that I am logical. BUT the Creationists had never dug that place, only the ToE supporters. But whoever dug Tiktaalik, Creationism too could be applied)

2. There is no intelligence in nature and in science, that is, intelligence = 0. But that assumption too has no experiment or test from ToE.

(What if life is intelligently designed or intellen with purpose? Then, the locations and timing of all living things like Tiktaalik also has purpose, thus the prediction that

we can find Tiktaalik in M,N.O conditions is also applicable to Intelligent Design or Biological Interrelation , BiTs.

You said it right that I am logical. BUT the ID supporters had never dug that place, only the ToE supporters. But whoever dug Tiktaalik, ID supporters too could be applied)

Thus, ToE failed miserably in two most important assumptions that should be cleared FIRST before ToE could make any conclusions and predictions.

Thus, I urged you to think before you post...

Can you predict something about future fossil discoveries? Is there something you're sure will be found? Or will never be found because it doesn't exist?

buttershug · 09-07-2015, 09:07 PM

:

Woof, try reading. The incoherent babbler is making a coherent point here - that if two theories have the same predictions, then that prediction is useless for distinguishing between them.

Unfortunately for the incoherent babbler, he hasn't shown that "Creationism" predicts Tiktaalik.

Actually, you are right that I have the coherent arguments but since most of the posters here are either not serious in their science, then, they will just ignore my new discoveries. I call it "ARGUMERNT OF IGNORANCE".

Actually, in a good scientific theory, it must have a GOOD prediction. I had given you the GT as an example.

But when ToE made a prediction for Tiktaalik, that is NOT the right/good prediction for ToE. Why?

ToE assumes that

1. Life has originated probably through natural process alone (naturen), thus, all species were guided by nature. But there is no test/experiment for that...

Thus, that assumption is wrong.

(What if life is created with purpose? Then, the locations and timing of all living things like Tiktaalik also has purpose, thus the prediction that

we can find Tiktaalik in M,N.O conditions is also applicable to Creationism. You said it right that I am logical. BUT the Creationists had never dug that place, only the ToE supporters. But whoever dug Tiktaalik, Creationism too could be applied)

2. There is no intelligence in nature and in science, that is, intelligence = 0. But that assumption too has no experiment or test from ToE.

(What if life is intelligently designed or intellen with purpose? Then, the locations and timing of all living things like Tiktaalik also has purpose, thus the prediction that

we can find Tiktaalik in M,N.O conditions is also applicable to Intelligent Design or Biological Interrelation , BiTs.

You said it right that I am logical. BUT the ID supporters had never dug that place, only the ToE supporters. But whoever dug Tiktaalik, ID supporters too could be applied)

Thus, ToE failed miserably in two most important assumptions that should be cleared FIRST before ToE could make any conclusions and predictions.

Thus, I urged you to think before you post...

There is no guidance.
You must learn not to assume that there is.

Alfonso Bivouac · 09-07-2015, 10:14 PM

:

MID, it's almost a certainty that no one here has the time or inclination to watch your 37 minute video. If you have a point to make, try stating it clearly in text so that people can respond to it.

Good luck.

Thank you for your repky but in real science, a scientist must have patience to study all sides, in every angles so that his/her concluson is valid scientific and universal and realistic.

If a person is not willing to watch a probably boring 37 mins video, that person is probably not a scientist. I've been watching many videos for ToE and I almost watched all those videos in YouTube to study their arguments.

Thus, I can say that I have the best science...

No, you cannot say any such thing. As has been mentioned, you begin by trying to sell your books, ineptly at that.

Youtube is famous for terrible crackpot videos which are a waste of time and also boring. Why would a person seeking scientific information bother to deal with such an annoying format when reading a scientific paper or book, where one can easily go forward and backward to check on various points, is so much better?

Chances are good that at least some of the ToE videos you watched were poorly done simplifications created by inadequately educated if earnest laypersons. Citations were sparse and probably not well sourced. You'd have been far better informed by reading some good texts and following up by reading any papers they cited.

Videos are a lazy and educationally impoverished method of learning science.

Thank you for your reply but I don't sell my science books. I am juts informing you here that your science are old and obsolete, thus you are all wrong.

The reason why you are afraid to watch some videos anywhere about science because you probably don't know which is right and bad science..for if you knew how to distinguish it, you could probably understand it and easily smash it by the power of ToE of its 160 years existence.

But I think, ToE cannot beat the Biological Interrelation (BiTs) as replacement for ToE, in a fair science debate. That is for sure that is why you are probably afraid to hear or learn more about the replacement..

Well, that is your life.

I want to know more about this replacement! This is my life!

Let us start with the 'real' experiments you have told us that you have performed. That would be a good starting point.

Spode · 09-07-2015, 11:03 PM

:

Pity reply.

Also, ToE = Theory of Elpistostegids.

You did not even knew what you are talking.

Just an fyi for you, Per and his swedish/darwinist cabal invented Tapatalk.

Tiptoe · 09-07-2015, 11:28 PM

As far as I can tell MrIntelligentdesigns idea is that if something is intelligently designed it will have features that support its continued survival. All life has features that support it's survival therefore all life is intelligently designed, since everything is intelligently designed he is able to categories between natural processes (which he calls 'naturen' for no discernible reason) and those that are the result of intelligence which includes everything!

Additionally he makes incredibly bizarre comments such that organisms would die without noses and that a tailbone can be used as a third hand.

The basic idea is possibly the single dumbest TR theory I know of.

Theropod · 09-07-2015, 11:37 PM

Did someone clone Sockrateeze, or maybe Gary Gaulin? A world leader in tetrapod evolution comments and the reply is he doesn't know science?

Fuck off troll boy. Take your video and shove it where the sun never shines (highlighting the empirical evidence supporting ID or what the hell ever you want to call this version of tea leaf reading).

Ta

buttershug · 09-07-2015, 11:46 PM

:

As far as I can tell MrIntelligentdesigns idea is that if something is intelligently designed it will have features that support its continued survival. All life has features that support it's survival therefore all life is intelligently designed, since everything is intelligently designed he is able to categories between natural processes (which he calls 'naturen' for no discernible reason) and those that are the result of intelligence which includes everything!

Additionally he makes incredibly bizarre comments such that organisms would die without noses and that a tailbone can be used as a third hand.

The basic idea is possibly the single dumbest TR theory I know of.

And he takes it as a given that cells are intelligently designed.

how does he know that?

If you give a girl a toy car, she and toy car could be designed with same definition of intelligence.

09-07-2015, 11:47 AM	#2557118 / #31
Jet Black Finding Things Out Mod: ASS, LSD, Phys Sci : Dec 1969 : 31,476	If Sweden is so good at Evolution, then how come all they're famous for is IKEA and the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo? checkmate, with a 1000% scientific argument that I have done proper experiments on. __________________ The Feynmann Algorithm: (1) Write down the problem (2) Think real hard (3) Write down the solution

09-07-2015, 04:12 PM	#2557201 / #39
DaveGodfrey Demoderated : Jan 2010 : 10,613	I'd say that a well-done video can be a good way of learning the basics of a subject that is not in your area of expertise, especially if done well. The Crash Course channel on youtube is very good at what it sets out to do- give an introductory course in various subjects aimed at about GCSE to A level (and occasionally up to first year undergrad). Its not a substitute for reading the big thick textbooks that go into more detail, or going to the primary literature where the results were published, and the arguments hashed out. But it isn't trying to be. Its a revision aid, entertainment to get you thinking about things, or a jumping off point for teachers to use in their lessons. The problem is you have to have a reasonable grounding in the subject to know which videos are worth watching, and which are not. Ones that begin by ineptly trying to sell books are usually not worth watching. If I spoke Swedish I'd say that the video of Per's lecture probably was. I'm not sure when it was made, so it might be out of date, and there's probably a decent amount he's left out or simplified that I'd find in the papers he's written. And for that you'll still have to go to the primary literature. __________________ Why do I bother?

09-07-2015, 09:03 PM	#2557326 / #43
OHSU Senior Member : Apr 2009 : 6,265	"TIKTAALIK is part of ToE???" Yes. It is. And so is every other species. Science doesn't pick and choose those examples it likes. It provides explanations that account for all the evidence. All of it. __________________ I think that probably [aquatic apes] were about aquatic to the same degree as an otter. So, they would spend large amounts of time in the water but come ashore to sleep and to breed. -- Elaine Morgan

09-07-2015, 11:37 PM	#2557378 / #49
Theropod Ex-Mesozoic IRA Advisor : Mar 2008 : N. central Arkansas, USA : 849	Did someone clone Sockrateeze, or maybe Gary Gaulin? A world leader in tetrapod evolution comments and the reply is he doesn't know science? Fuck off troll boy. Take your video and shove it where the sun never shines (highlighting the empirical evidence supporting ID or what the hell ever you want to call this version of tea leaf reading). Ta __________________ 14 years off-grid and counting Sleeping in the hen house doesn't make you a chicken. Last edited by Theropod; 09-07-2015 at 11:37 PM. : missing punctuation

X vBulletin 3.8.6 Debug Information
Page Generation 0.31948 seconds Memory Usage 4,861KB Queries Executed 79 (?)
More Information
Template Usage: (1)SHOWTHREAD (1)ad_footer_end (1)ad_footer_start (1)ad_header_end (1)ad_header_logo (1)ad_navbar_below (1)ad_showthread_beforeqr (1)ad_showthread_firstpost (1)ad_showthread_firstpost_sig (1)ad_showthread_firstpost_start (25)add_ignore_user_to_postbit (38)bbcode_quote (1)footer (1)forumjump (1)forumrules (1)gobutton (1)header (1)headinclude (65)mysmilies_imagebit (1)navbar (3)navbar_link (1)navbar_mini (1)navbar_noticebit (55)option (1)pagenav (1)pagenav_curpage (3)pagenav_pagelink (25)postbit_legacy (25)postbit_onlinestatus (25)postbit_reputation (25)postbit_wrapper (1)spacer_close (1)spacer_open (1)tagbit (1)tagbit_wrapper (37)v3arcade_award_bit (7)v3arcade_postbit_userid_popup_menu (7)v3arcade_postbit_userid_trophy Phrase Groups Available: global inlinemod postbit posting reputationlevel showthread	Included Files: ./showthread.php ./global.php ./includes/init.php ./includes/class_core.php ./includes/config.php ./includes/functions.php ./includes/class_hook.php ./includes/functions_notice.php ./mobiquo/smartbanner.php ./mobiquo/smartbanner/head.inc.php ./includes/functions_bigthree.php ./includes/class_postbit.php ./includes/class_bbcode.php ./includes/functions_reputation.php Hooks Called: init_startup cache_permissions fetch_threadinfo_query fetch_threadinfo fetch_foruminfo style_fetch cache_templates global_start parse_templates fetch_musername notices_check_start notices_noticebit global_setup_complete showthread_start showthread_getinfo forumjump showthread_post_start showthread_query_postids showthread_query bbcode_fetch_tags bbcode_create showthread_postbit_create postbit_factory postbit_display_start reputation_image bbcode_parse_start postbit_imicons fetch_userinfo_query fetch_userinfo bbcode_parse_complete_precache bbcode_parse_complete postbit_display_complete pagenav_page pagenav_complete tag_fetchbit tag_fetchbit_complete forumrules navbits navbits_complete showthread_complete
Messages:

09-07-2015, 11:28 PM	#2557374 / #48
Tiptoe Senior Member : Jan 2012 : 783	As far as I can tell MrIntelligentdesigns idea is that if something is intelligently designed it will have features that support its continued survival. All life has features that support it's survival therefore all life is intelligently designed, since everything is intelligently designed he is able to categories between natural processes (which he calls 'naturen' for no discernible reason) and those that are the result of intelligence which includes everything! Additionally he makes incredibly bizarre comments such that organisms would die without noses and that a tailbone can be used as a third hand. The basic idea is possibly the single dumbest TR theory I know of.