Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: The energy upon the mass

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Faid

1
Quote
Canada is monitoring the impact of U.S. President Donald Trump's "zero-tolerance" migrant policy -- which has led to the forcible detention of thousands of children -- to determine if the U.S. remains a safe country for asylum seekers.
Global outrage is growing over Trump's hardline approach to people crossing illegally into the U.S. from Mexico -- a policy that puts adults through the criminal justice system while sending their children to detention camps. The Trump administration also has eliminated the option of citing a risk of domestic or gang violence as grounds to seek protection.

Critics are calling on Canada to urgently respond by suspending the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) with the United States, but Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen said the government will analyze the situation to determine the impact of the Trump administration's policy on due process, appeals rights and migrants' ability to make asylum claims.

...


NDP immigration critic Jenny Kwan said the developments south of the border underscore the fact that the U.S. is no longer a 'safe third country'.
She called it "astounding" that the Liberal government would consider keeping Canada in an agreement with a country that is flagrantly flouting international law on the rights of refugees and children.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-trump-border-immigration-crackdown-1.4711030
as if to underscore Canada's point, today is the day we chose to announce our withdrawal from the UN human rights commission.
Most appropriate and consistent thing this administration has done so far.
2
Nothing in the wiki reference you provided refers to the origin of species (and higher levels).

Care to try again?
Worth repeating.
3
A Global Flood model is the only reasonable conclusion when examining ALL the data!

So you have a Global Flood model? Let's hear it.

Hey, not so fast! It's not THAT easy to try and model a Global Flood using ALL that data!
4
Nothing in the wiki reference you provided refers to the origin of species (and higher levels).

Care to try again?
5
I must say that you folks are a laugh. You speak so arrogantly but do not support your posts with references. But no doubt you will have some insult or distraction.
Another post without quotes. If it didn't talk about "us folks" I would be really worried.
6
Consistency had never been dave's forte. Well, except being consistently wrong.
7
On a side note...
I had the keys to a supersonic AF jet for almost 10 years, remember?  I could fly anywhere I wanted for free.
Wow.
I had no idea the Air Force handed over the keys to supersonic jets to pilots, and told them to go ahead and fly anywhere they wanted to go.
Sounds like something Scott Pruitt might want to look into should the stench of his corruption get too stifling for even the trumpublicans.
Hahahahaha!
8
Hey Dave,

Is this thread "evidence for the global flood", or "evidence against the mainstream"?
Exactly.



He doesn't understand the difference.
I've got Pingu on ignore so I just now clicked "show me this post" ... AFTER I posted my response to Uncool.

And I laughed.

Come on, Pingu, engage that good brain God gave you.  Stop the groupthink.
You don't have Pingu on ignore.
9
Hey Dave,

Is this thread "evidence for the global flood", or "evidence against the mainstream"?
Finally, some evidence that someone is using their brain.

Yes, I would agree that the latter is more appropriate. 

There really are two parts to this topic ...

1) Show the inadequacy of the standard model
2) Come up with a better model

And I will grant you, Item 2 is tough.  Very tough.  It's no small job to model a global flood.  Creationists have done some good work, but there's lots to go.
Lol. So you admit that creos are TRYING to model a global flood.

I bet you don't even understand why that's a problem.
10
Dave, the subterranean oceans on other solar system bodies are basically their mantles. Nothing like Brown' idiotic model. Venus' resurfacing was with lava. And when pray did that happen?

Random bullshit is not evidence Dave.
You've never heard of igneous rock on earth?

Lol

Come on guys.  At least give me something hard.  I can overcome these objections with half my brain tied behind my back.
So far, you've "overcome" them with "LOOSE SAND OMG" and "there's lava on Earth too". ::)

Nice try. Maybe if you untied your brain? It's challenged enough as it is.
11
We have discussed EVERY SINGLE ONE of those PRATTS to death, dave. In EVERY SINGLE TIME, you eventually covered your ears, shouted "LALALALA" and ran away.
Yes you've raised the same stupid ass bullshit objections every time.  And they are just as stupid every time.
Is that why you run away from them every time? Because they're too 'stupid' for you to bother addressing? Every single time?

You poor deluded soul.

Quote
Quote
Why do you think we'd expect anything else from you this time?
Hope springs eternal that the titanium helmets will one day crack.
Bluff and bluster away, dave. It's all you ever had.
12
We have discussed EVERY SINGLE ONE of those PRATTS to death, dave. In EVERY SINGLE TIME, you eventually covered your ears, shouted "LALALALA" and ran away.

Why do you think we'd expect anything else from you this time?
13
What is that you're smokin'?  Maybe I should try some.
I suggest lithium. Don't smoke it though.
14
As long as people think that some form of evolution theory explains the evidence, you will not be particularly interested in the idea of the intelligence of Nature infusing the organic world.
As I said:
As long as people think that some form of evolution theory explains the evidence, you will not be particularly interested in the idea of the intelligence of Nature infusing the organic world.
Phew. I was worried there for a moment. Hi Doug.
15
As long as people think that some form of evolution theory explains the evidence, you will not be particularly interested in the idea of the intelligence of Nature infusing the organic world. But when you look in detail at the evidence you see that evolution theory is not even close to explaining it. I have presented the evidence. You folks really have nothing.
The fuck is this? A post WITHOUT QUOTES?

Who are you and what have you done with "socrates"?
16
My understanding, based on various sources, is that both Bush and Obama administrations were faced with the possibility of family separation (of parents and children that arrived together) and both decided it would be awful and did not do it.  However, they did detain children that arrived without parents.
And got hell for doing so.
17


BTW, is that the same Sahara that you're "not sure" whether it was a desert in 1 AD?
18
The emerging picture from actual evidence as opposed to Alice in Wonderland stories is that...

1. There was a global flood
2. Which made things very wet indeed
3. Including North Africa
4. When things dried out the land greened up and there were many  lakes and rivers across what is now the Sahara Desert
5. Empires flourished
6. They probably destroyed their land just like we are doing today.
7. Ergo ... Sahara desert
8. As more and more people like Paul Ehrlich are now saying
This is not preaching by the way ... it's an outline of my hypothesis ...

Preaching is different.

Here's the hypothesis version:

1. If there was a global flood
2. It would have made things very wet indeed
3. Including North Africa
4. When things dried out the land would have greened up and there would have been many  lakes and rivers across what is now the Sahara Desert
5. This would have allowed Empires to flourish.
6. If they did, their activities may have eventually destroyed their land just like we are doing today.
7. In which case that one outcome might have been the Sahara desert
8. In the manner that Paul Ehrlich once proposed.

Which you would then compare with at least one alternative hypothesis, e.g.:

1. If there was an ice age that peaked around 21,000 years ago, as copious evidence indicates
2. As the earth warmed up again, rainfall throughout the world would have increased
3. Including North Africa
4. The land would have greened up and there would have been many  lakes and rivers across what is now the Sahara Desert
5. This would have allowed Empires to flourish.
6. However, as the earth continued to warm, rainfall would have reduced.
7. Expanding the desert once more
8. In the manner that is recorded in cyclical changes in dust deposits in the Mediterranean Sea.

How would you decide which of these two hypotheses better accounts for the same observations, namely, evidence that the Sahara was greener a few thousand years ago than it is today?

And which better accounts for the observation (e.g. from ice cores and Mediterranean deposits) that the Sahara has gone through multiple humid/dry cycles over many hundreds of millennia?
Hardly any difference, but ok. 

"How would you decide ...?"

By considering ALL the data ... not just some of it ... i.e. don't ignore data we don't like ... that's apparently what Old Earthers are doing and it leads to absurdities.

So what data do you think are consistent with the first and not with the second?

ETA: There are of course copious amounts of data consistent with the second but not with the first, including the ice core and sediment data I mentioned.  But I'm interested to know what data YOU think are consistent with the first but not the second.
I've discussed it many times but you don't seem interested. You can read old threads if you like or read creationist materials.
Third Law. Never fails.
What I AM interested in is learning more about the ancient history of the area we now call the Sahara Desert.
Neither does the Eighth.
20
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeotic_gene
Quote
Much research has been done on homeotic genes in different organisms, ranging from basic understanding of how the molecules work to mutations to how homeotic genes affect the human body. Changing the expression levels of homeotic genes can negatively impact the organism. For example, in one study, a pathogenic phytoplasma caused homeotic genes in a flowering plant to either be significantly upregulated or downregulated. This led to severe phenotypic changes including dwarfing, defects in the pistils, hypopigmentation, and the development of leaf-like structures on most floral organs.[13] In another study, it was found that the homeotic gene Cdx2 acts as a tumor suppressor. In normal expression levels, the gene prevents tumorgenesis and colorectal cancer when exposed to carcinogens; however, when Cdx2 was not well expressed, carcinogens caused tumor development.[14] These studies, along with many others, show the importance of homeotic genes even after development.
This only stands to reason.
Note that this is only reporting on homeotic genes. That is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of regulatory genes.
One can see from these examples that if not lethal then it reduces survivabilty.
So that is the dilemma. Changes to development regulatory genes can create new species and even higher levels but random changes will not do it.
Where is that mentioned in ANY of the quotes you parroted?
Quote
From this we can conclude that if changes to development regulatory genes did create new species it was directed by some form of intelligence.   

Nice try. See above.
21
"Awww look what you made me do, I just had to kick yet another puppy. When are you going to change your cruel laws and policies? Do I have to start shooting them? Cause I will you know"
23
Is there a "point" in there somewhere?
24
The emerging picture from actual evidence as opposed to Alice in Wonderland stories is that...

1. There was a global flood
2. Which made things very wet indeed
3. Including North Africa
4. When things dried out the land greened up and there were many  lakes and rivers across what is now the Sahara Desert
5. Empires flourished
6. They probably destroyed their land just like we are doing today.
7. Ergo ... Sahara desert
8. As more and more people like Paul Ehrlich are now saying
This is not preaching by the way ... it's an outline of my hypothesis ...

Preaching is different.

Here's the hypothesis version:

1. If there was a global flood
2. It would have made things very wet indeed
3. Including North Africa
4. When things dried out the land would have greened up and there would have been many  lakes and rivers across what is now the Sahara Desert
5. This would have allowed Empires to flourish.
6. If they did, their activities may have eventually destroyed their land just like we are doing today.
7. In which case that one outcome might have been the Sahara desert
8. In the manner that Paul Ehrlich once proposed.

Which you would then compare with at least one alternative hypothesis, e.g.:

1. If there was an ice age that peaked around 21,000 years ago, as copious evidence indicates
2. As the earth warmed up again, rainfall throughout the world would have increased
3. Including North Africa
4. The land would have greened up and there would have been many  lakes and rivers across what is now the Sahara Desert
5. This would have allowed Empires to flourish.
6. However, as the earth continued to warm, rainfall would have reduced.
7. Expanding the desert once more
8. In the manner that is recorded in cyclical changes in dust deposits in the Mediterranean Sea.

How would you decide which of these two hypotheses better accounts for the same observations, namely, evidence that the Sahara was greener a few thousand years ago than it is today?

And which better accounts for the observation (e.g. from ice cores and Mediterranean deposits) that the Sahara has gone through multiple humid/dry cycles over many hundreds of millennia?
Hardly any difference, but ok. 

"How would you decide ...?"

By considering ALL the data ... not just some of it ... i.e. don't ignore data we don't like ... that's apparently what Old Earthers are doing and it leads to absurdities.
"apparently"

:rofl:

:no:
25
Bullshit.
You stated that was the "emerging picture".
You did not state it as a "hypothesis"

And statements of hypotheses do not include bullshit cheerleading bravado about anything contradicting them being "Alice in Wonderland".

Who says?
Non-Assholes.