SMBC offers this crossover between two TO favourites, the origin of the universe and the miracle of reproduction
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/theory-2
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 5:00:34 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:
SMBC offers this crossover between two TO favourites, the origin of the universe and the miracle of reproductionIf fine-tuning could be covered here, it would clear up everything.
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/theory-2
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 3:10:37 PM UTC, erik simpson wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 5:00:34 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:not exactly fine tuning, but a stab at related concepts https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/the-dimension-store
SMBC offers this crossover between two TO favourites, the origin of the universe and the miracle of reproductionIf fine-tuning could be covered here, it would clear up everything.
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/theory-2
and they may not be THAT fine tuned either https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/fundamental
SMBC offers this crossover between two TO favourites, the origin of the universe and the miracle of reproduction
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/theory-2
On 21/03/2023 11:58, Burkhard wrote:
SMBC offers this crossover between two TO favourites, the origin of the
universe and the miracle of reproduction
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/theory-2
Combine spontaneous generation (of the simplest organisms) with
Lamarck's "great chain of being", and you have a steady state model of biology.
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 3:10:37?PM UTC, erik simpson wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 5:00:34?AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:
SMBC offers this crossover between two TO favourites, the origin of the universe and the miracle of reproductionIf fine-tuning could be covered here, it would clear up everything.
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/theory-2
not exactly fine tuning, but a stab at related concepts >https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/the-dimension-store
and they may not be THAT fine tuned either >https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/fundamental
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 5:00:34 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:
SMBC offers this crossover between two TO favourites, the origin of the universe and the miracle of reproduction
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/theory-2If fine-tuning could be covered here, it would clear up everything.
Combine spontaneous generation (of the simplest organisms) with
Lamarck's "great chain of being", and you have a steady state model of biology.
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 11:10:37 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 5:00:34 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:Has talk.origins come to this, that pure farce, instantly recognized as such by anyone here
SMBC offers this crossover between two TO favourites, the origin of the universe and the miracle of reproduction
who takes the bother to click on the link [1] can see, is the topic of an OP by such a
well-entrenched regular as Burkhard??
Fine-tuning HAS been covered here MANY times. [2] You should remember:https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/theory-2If fine-tuning could be covered here, it would clear up everything.
you entered a long running thread on it starring Steve Carlip after he
did his swan song. [3]
[1] Over a decade of exposure to links by Ron O that almost never live up to what is
claimed for them, and of nasty joke links like that of Hemidactylus
to exploding heads, many regulars here seem to have an aversion to clicking on urls.
[2] Did you mean to write "steady state theory" instead? That DOES make sense.
For one thing, it is used in the Subject of this thread; for another, it is explicitly
used in the caption of the comic.
[3] I say "swan song" because Carlip has not returned to talk.origins since shortly
before you did that post.
Peter Nyikos
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 7:00:37?AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 11:10:37?AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 5:00:34?AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:Has talk.origins come to this, that pure farce, instantly recognized as such by anyone here
SMBC offers this crossover between two TO favourites, the origin of the universe and the miracle of reproduction
who takes the bother to click on the link [1] can see, is the topic of an OP by such a
well-entrenched regular as Burkhard??
Fine-tuning HAS been covered here MANY times. [2] You should remember:https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/theory-2If fine-tuning could be covered here, it would clear up everything.
you entered a long running thread on it starring Steve Carlip after he
did his swan song. [3]
[1] Over a decade of exposure to links by Ron O that almost never live up to what is
claimed for them, and of nasty joke links like that of Hemidactylus
to exploding heads, many regulars here seem to have an aversion to clicking on urls.
[2] Did you mean to write "steady state theory" instead? That DOES make sense.
For one thing, it is used in the Subject of this thread; for another, it is explicitly
used in the caption of the comic.
[3] I say "swan song" because Carlip has not returned to talk.origins since shortly
before you did that post.
You're missing the point.
Burkhard provided the on topic response:--
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/fundamental
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 10:10:34 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 3:10:37 PM UTC, erik simpson wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 5:00:34 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:not exactly fine tuning, but a stab at related concepts
SMBC offers this crossover between two TO favourites, the origin of the universe and the miracle of reproductionIf fine-tuning could be covered here, it would clear up everything.
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/theory-2
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/the-dimension-store
and they may not be THAT fine tuned either
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/fundamental
Outstanding! That's one of the reasons I stick to pancakes for Saturday morning breakfast.
On 2023-03-21 12:19 PM, erik simpson wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 10:10:34 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 3:10:37 PM UTC, erik simpson wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 5:00:34 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:not exactly fine tuning, but a stab at related concepts
SMBC offers this crossover between two TO favourites, the origin of the universe and the miracle of reproductionIf fine-tuning could be covered here, it would clear up everything.
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/theory-2
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/the-dimension-store
and they may not be THAT fine tuned either
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/fundamental
Outstanding! That's one of the reasons I stick to pancakes for Saturday morning breakfast.
I hope you were familiar enough with SMBC to click on the red button.
--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)
--I hate Mouuntain Dew! Tastes like antifreeze.
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com
On Monday, March 27, 2023 at 9:30:41 AM UTC-7, Don Cates wrote:
On 2023-03-21 12:19 PM, erik simpson wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 10:10:34 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 3:10:37 PM UTC, erik simpson wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 5:00:34 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:not exactly fine tuning, but a stab at related concepts
SMBC offers this crossover between two TO favourites, the origin of the universe and the miracle of reproductionIf fine-tuning could be covered here, it would clear up everything.
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/theory-2
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/the-dimension-store
and they may not be THAT fine tuned either
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/fundamental
Outstanding! That's one of the reasons I stick to pancakes for Saturday morning breakfast.
I hope you were familiar enough with SMBC to click on the red button.
--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)
--I hate Mouuntain Dew! Tastes like antifreeze.
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 7:00:37 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 11:10:37 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 5:00:34 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:Has talk.origins come to this, that pure farce, instantly recognized as such by anyone here
SMBC offers this crossover between two TO favourites, the origin of the universe and the miracle of reproduction
who takes the bother to click on the link [1] can see, is the topic of an OP by such a
well-entrenched regular as Burkhard??
Fine-tuning HAS been covered here MANY times. [2] You should remember:https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/theory-2If fine-tuning could be covered here, it would clear up everything.
you entered a long running thread on it starring Steve Carlip after he
did his swan song. [3]
[1] Over a decade of exposure to links by Ron O that almost never live up to what is
claimed for them, and of nasty joke links like that of Hemidactylus
to exploding heads, many regulars here seem to have an aversion to clicking on urls.
[2] Did you mean to write "steady state theory" instead? That DOES make sense.
For one thing, it is used in the Subject of this thread; for another, it is explicitly
used in the caption of the comic.
[3] I say "swan song" because Carlip has not returned to talk.origins since shortly
before you did that post.
Peter NyikosYou're missing the point.
Burkhard provided the on topic response:
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/fundamental
On Fri, 24 Mar 2023 11:07:49 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com>:
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 7:00:37?AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 11:10:37?AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 5:00:34?AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:Has talk.origins come to this, that pure farce, instantly recognized as such by anyone here
SMBC offers this crossover between two TO favourites, the origin of the universe and the miracle of reproduction
who takes the bother to click on the link [1] can see, is the topic of an OP by such a
well-entrenched regular as Burkhard??
Fine-tuning HAS been covered here MANY times. [2] You should remember:https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/theory-2If fine-tuning could be covered here, it would clear up everything.
you entered a long running thread on it starring Steve Carlip after he
did his swan song. [3]
[1] Over a decade of exposure to links by Ron O that almost never live up to what is
claimed for them, and of nasty joke links like that of Hemidactylus
to exploding heads, many regulars here seem to have an aversion to clicking on urls.
[2] Did you mean to write "steady state theory" instead? That DOES make sense.
For one thing, it is used in the Subject of this thread; for another, it is explicitly
used in the caption of the comic.
[3] I say "swan song" because Carlip has not returned to talk.origins since shortly
before you did that post.
You're missing the point.
Quelle surprise...
I hate Mouuntain Dew! Tastes like antifreeze.
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 2:10:37 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 7:00:37 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 11:10:37 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 5:00:34 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:Has talk.origins come to this, that pure farce, instantly recognized as such by anyone here
SMBC offers this crossover between two TO favourites, the origin of the universe and the miracle of reproduction
who takes the bother to click on the link [1] can see, is the topic of an OP by such a
well-entrenched regular as Burkhard??
Fine-tuning HAS been covered here MANY times. [2] You should remember: you entered a long running thread on it starring Steve Carlip after he did his swan song. [3]https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/theory-2If fine-tuning could be covered here, it would clear up everything.
[1] Over a decade of exposure to links by Ron O that almost never live up to what is
claimed for them, and of nasty joke links like that of Hemidactylus
to exploding heads, many regulars here seem to have an aversion to clicking on urls.
[2] Did you mean to write "steady state theory" instead? That DOES make sense.
For one thing, it is used in the Subject of this thread; for another, it is explicitly
used in the caption of the comic.
[3] I say "swan song" because Carlip has not returned to talk.origins since shortly
before you did that post.
The point being, I suppose, that "here" was a typo for "there."Peter NyikosYou're missing the point.
Or is it that I should have read your mind and known that "here" really meant "there"?
Burkhard provided the on topic response:Only superficially on topic: the author of the strip got it wrong:
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/fundamental
gravity is NOT one of the fundamental constants.
It depends on the units one uses for mass and acceleration.
The fundamental constants are pure numbers, because they are ratios.
Gravity is involved in the number N which compares the gravitational attraction between two protons and the electrical force of repulsion between them.
The latter is about 10^36 times greater than the other.
The author of the comic was nothing like the influential atheists
who speculate that the fundamental constants HAD to be what they
are and could not have been anything else. In this he had more common
sense than they, but on the other hand, he depicted God as a bumbler
who obviously did NOT design the universe.
But that only added to the appeal of the strip for you, didn't it?.
You are like your faithful decade-long buddy Harshman, who thinks the idea of an intelligent creator
of our universe is a fairy tale adults need to grow out of.
CORRECT?
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 12:25:40 AM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 2:10:37 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 7:00:37 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 11:10:37 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 5:00:34 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:Has talk.origins come to this, that pure farce, instantly recognized as such by anyone here
SMBC offers this crossover between two TO favourites, the origin of the universe and the miracle of reproduction
who takes the bother to click on the link [1] can see, is the topic of an OP by such a
well-entrenched regular as Burkhard??
Fine-tuning HAS been covered here MANY times. [2] You should remember: you entered a long running thread on it starring Steve Carlip after he did his swan song. [3]https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/theory-2If fine-tuning could be covered here, it would clear up everything.
[1] Over a decade of exposure to links by Ron O that almost never live up to what is
claimed for them, and of nasty joke links like that of Hemidactylus
to exploding heads, many regulars here seem to have an aversion to clicking on urls.
[2] Did you mean to write "steady state theory" instead? That DOES make sense.
For one thing, it is used in the Subject of this thread; for another, it is explicitly
used in the caption of the comic.
[3] I say "swan song" because Carlip has not returned to talk.origins since shortly
before you did that post.
Egypt in theLeaving aside the issue that discussing the scientific accuracy of a cartoon that makes a humorous point about the human (or divine) condition is about as meaningful as criticising AIDA for misrepresenting the power structures between Ethiopia andThe point being, I suppose, that "here" was a typo for "there."Peter NyikosYou're missing the point.
Or is it that I should have read your mind and known that "here" really meant "there"?
Burkhard provided the on topic response:Only superficially on topic: the author of the strip got it wrong:
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/fundamental
gravity is NOT one of the fundamental constants.
It depends on the units one uses for mass and acceleration.
Old Kingdom, I'd say you are also parsing the strip wrong. It starts with an informal notion of "Fundamental things in nature" and when asked to be more precise, gives a list of things roughly in the ballpark ("like"), the fundamental constants justone among them. So from the POV of the speaker, adding gravity is perfectly correct, after all, "sexual attraction:" turns out to be another and nobody is claiming that that's a fundamental constant either. So if you have to be inappropriately pedantic,
The fundamental constants are pure numbers, because they are ratios. Gravity is involved in the number N which compares the gravitational attraction between two protons and the electrical force of repulsion between them.
The latter is about 10^36 times greater than the other.
The author of the comic was nothing like the influential atheistsWell yes, that's part of the point - an accurate depiction of the God of the creationists/IDlers.
who speculate that the fundamental constants HAD to be what they
are and could not have been anything else. In this he had more common sense than they, but on the other hand, he depicted God as a bumbler
who obviously did NOT design the universe.
And here is another one by him , this one especially for you https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/dunno
But that only added to the appeal of the strip for you, didn't it?.
You are like your faithful decade-long buddy Harshman, who thinks the idea of an intelligent creator
of our universe is a fairy tale adults need to grow out of.
CORRECT?
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 2:10:37 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 7:00:37 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 11:10:37 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 5:00:34 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:Has talk.origins come to this, that pure farce, instantly recognized as such by anyone here
SMBC offers this crossover between two TO favourites, the origin of the universe and the miracle of reproduction
who takes the bother to click on the link [1] can see, is the topic of an OP by such a
well-entrenched regular as Burkhard??
Fine-tuning HAS been covered here MANY times. [2] You should remember: you entered a long running thread on it starring Steve Carlip after he did his swan song. [3]https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/theory-2If fine-tuning could be covered here, it would clear up everything.
[1] Over a decade of exposure to links by Ron O that almost never live up to what is
claimed for them, and of nasty joke links like that of Hemidactylus
to exploding heads, many regulars here seem to have an aversion to clicking on urls.
[2] Did you mean to write "steady state theory" instead? That DOES make sense.
For one thing, it is used in the Subject of this thread; for another, it is explicitly
used in the caption of the comic.
[3] I say "swan song" because Carlip has not returned to talk.origins since shortly
before you did that post.
The point being, I suppose, that "here" was a typo for "there."Peter NyikosYou're missing the point.
Or is it that I should have read your mind and known that "here" really meant "there"?
Burkhard provided the on topic response:Only superficially on topic: the author of the strip got it wrong:
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/fundamental
gravity is NOT one of the fundamental constants.
It depends on the units one uses for mass and acceleration.
The fundamental constants are pure numbers, because they are ratios.
Gravity is involved in the number N which compares the gravitational attraction between two protons and the electrical force of repulsion between them.
The latter is about 10^36 times greater than the other.
The author of the comic was nothing like the influential atheists
who speculate that the fundamental constants HAD to be what they
are and could not have been anything else. In this he had more common
sense than they, but on the other hand, he depicted God as a bumbler
who obviously did NOT design the universe.
But that only added to the appeal of the strip for you, didn't it?.
You are like your faithful decade-long buddy Harshman, who thinks the idea of an intelligent creator
of our universe is a fairy tale adults need to grow out of.
CORRECT?
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 09:38:31 -0700 (PDT), erik simpson ><eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
I hate Mouuntain Dew! Tastes like antifreeze.
My understanding is many people and other animals like the taste of >anti-freeze. This is a problem, as anti-freeze is poisonous to most
animals.
On Monday, March 27, 2023 at 4:25:40 PM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 2:10:37 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 7:00:37 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 11:10:37 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 5:00:34 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:Has talk.origins come to this, that pure farce, instantly recognized as such by anyone here
SMBC offers this crossover between two TO favourites, the origin of the universe and the miracle of reproduction
who takes the bother to click on the link [1] can see, is the topic of an OP by such a
well-entrenched regular as Burkhard??
Fine-tuning HAS been covered here MANY times. [2] You should remember: you entered a long running thread on it starring Steve Carlip after he did his swan song. [3]https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/theory-2If fine-tuning could be covered here, it would clear up everything.
[1] Over a decade of exposure to links by Ron O that almost never live up to what is
claimed for them, and of nasty joke links like that of Hemidactylus
to exploding heads, many regulars here seem to have an aversion to clicking on urls.
[2] Did you mean to write "steady state theory" instead? That DOES make sense.
For one thing, it is used in the Subject of this thread; for another, it is explicitly
used in the caption of the comic.
[3] I say "swan song" because Carlip has not returned to talk.origins since shortly
before you did that post.
The point being, I suppose, that "here" was a typo for "there."Peter NyikosYou're missing the point.
Or is it that I should have read your mind and known that "here" really meant "there"?
Burkhard provided the on topic response:Only superficially on topic: the author of the strip got it wrong:
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/fundamental
gravity is NOT one of the fundamental constants.
It depends on the units one uses for mass and acceleration.
The fundamental constants are pure numbers, because they are ratios. Gravity is involved in the number N which compares the gravitational attraction between two protons and the electrical force of repulsion between them.
The latter is about 10^36 times greater than the other.
The author of the comic was nothing like the influential atheists
who speculate that the fundamental constants HAD to be what they
are and could not have been anything else. In this he had more common sense than they, but on the other hand, he depicted God as a bumbler
who obviously did NOT design the universe.
But that only added to the appeal of the strip for you, didn't it?.
You are like your faithful decade-long buddy Harshman, who thinks the idea of an intelligent creator
of our universe is a fairy tale adults need to grow out of.
CORRECT?
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
No. It's hard to tell; are you being serious here?
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/theory-2If fine-tuning could be covered here, it would clear up everything.
Burkhard provided the on topic response:
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/fundamental
On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 12:25:40 AM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 2:10:37 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 7:00:37 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 11:10:37 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 5:00:34 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:Has talk.origins come to this, that pure farce, instantly recognized as such by anyone here
SMBC offers this crossover between two TO favourites, the origin of the universe and the miracle of reproduction
who takes the bother to click on the link [1] can see, is the topic of an OP by such a
well-entrenched regular as Burkhard??
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/theory-2
If fine-tuning could be covered here, it would clear up everything.Fine-tuning HAS been covered here MANY times. [2] You should remember: you entered a long running thread on it starring Steve Carlip after he did his swan song. [3]
[1] Over a decade of exposure to links by Ron O that almost never live up to what is
claimed for them, and of nasty joke links like that of Hemidactylus
to exploding heads, many regulars here seem to have an aversion to clicking on urls.
[2] Did you mean to write "steady state theory" instead? That DOES make sense.
For one thing, it is used in the Subject of this thread; for another, it is explicitly
used in the caption of the comic.
[3] I say "swan song" because Carlip has not returned to talk.origins since shortly
before you did that post.
Egypt in theThe point being, I suppose, that "here" was a typo for "there."Peter NyikosYou're missing the point.
Or is it that I should have read your mind and known that "here" really meant "there"?
Burkhard provided the on topic response:Only superficially on topic: the author of the strip got it wrong:
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/fundamental
gravity is NOT one of the fundamental constants.
It depends on the units one uses for mass and acceleration.
Leaving aside the issue that discussing the scientific accuracy of a cartoon that makes a humorous point about the human (or divine) condition is about as meaningful as criticising AIDA for misrepresenting the power structures between Ethiopia and
Old Kingdom,
I'd say you are also parsing the strip wrong. It starts with an informal notion of "Fundamental things in nature"
and when asked to be more precise, gives a list of things roughly in the ballpark ("like"),
the fundamental constants just one among them. So from the POV of the speaker, adding gravity is perfectly correct,
after all, "sexual attraction:" turns out to be another
and nobody is claiming that that's a fundamental constant either. So if you have to be inappropriately pedantic, you should at least get it right.
The fundamental constants are pure numbers, because they are ratios. Gravity is involved in the number N which compares the gravitational attraction between two protons and the electrical force of repulsion between them.
The latter is about 10^36 times greater than the other.
It is possible to make such humorous points in a much better way. Gary Larson's "The Far Side" and Bill Amend's "Foxtrot"
had some great examples. There is also a long-running strip with stick figure characters that is at least as good as these.
The one in the OP is not in the same league, nor is the one you linked later and Erik inaccurately identified.
On 4/4/23 1:07 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
It is possible to make such humorous points in a much better way. Gary
Larson's "The Far Side" and Bill Amend's "Foxtrot"
had some great examples. There is also a long-running strip with stick
figure characters that is at least as good as these.
The one in the OP is not in the same league, nor is the one you linked
later and Erik inaccurately identified.
Hold it! Without getting into the relative merits of SMBC vs xkcd, I
must note that any list purporting to include the best cartoons is
woefully incomplete--no, just plain wrong--if it does not include
Calvin & Hobbes.
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 4:30:11 PM UTC+1, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/4/23 1:07 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:> [...]
It is possible to make such humorous points in a much better way. GaryHold it! Without getting into the relative merits of SMBC vs xkcd, I>
Larson's "The Far Side" and Bill Amend's "Foxtrot"> > had some great
examples. There is also a long-running strip with stick figure
characters that is at least as good as these.> > The one in the OP is
not in the same league, nor is the one you linked later and Erik
inaccurately identified.
must note that any list purporting to include the best cartoons is>
woefully incomplete--no, just plain wrong--if it does not include
Calvin> & Hobbes.>> --> Mark Isaak> "Wisdom begins when you discover
the difference between 'That> doesn't make sense' and 'I don't
understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
to raise the quality of the discussion, I'd suggest existentialcomics https://existentialcomics.com/
On 4/4/23 1:07 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
It is possible to make such humorous points in a much better way. Gary Larson's "The Far Side" and Bill Amend's "Foxtrot"Hold it! Without getting into the relative merits of SMBC vs xkcd, I
had some great examples. There is also a long-running strip with stick figure characters that is at least as good as these.
The one in the OP is not in the same league, nor is the one you linked later and Erik inaccurately identified.
must note that any list purporting to include the best cartoons is
woefully incomplete--no, just plain wrong--if it does not include Calvin
& Hobbes.
--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
On 2023-04-05 16:35:47 +0000, Burkhard said:
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 4:30:11?PM UTC+1, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/4/23 1:07 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:> [...]
It is possible to make such humorous points in a much better way. Gary >>>> Larson's "The Far Side" and Bill Amend's "Foxtrot"> > had some greatHold it! Without getting into the relative merits of SMBC vs xkcd, I>
examples. There is also a long-running strip with stick figure
characters that is at least as good as these.> > The one in the OP is
not in the same league, nor is the one you linked later and Erik
inaccurately identified.
must note that any list purporting to include the best cartoons is>
woefully incomplete--no, just plain wrong--if it does not include
Calvin> & Hobbes.>> --> Mark Isaak> "Wisdom begins when you discover
the difference between 'That> doesn't make sense' and 'I don't
understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
to raise the quality of the discussion, I'd suggest existentialcomics
https://existentialcomics.com/
Thank you. I hadn't seen these before. They beat Calvin & Hobbes into a >cocked hat.
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 18:47:25 +0200, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com>:
On 2023-04-05 16:35:47 +0000, Burkhard said:...in your opinion. Which is of course valid. For you.
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 4:30:11?PM UTC+1, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/4/23 1:07 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:> [...]
It is possible to make such humorous points in a much better way. Gary >>>>> Larson's "The Far Side" and Bill Amend's "Foxtrot"> > had some great >>>>> examples. There is also a long-running strip with stick figureHold it! Without getting into the relative merits of SMBC vs xkcd, I>
characters that is at least as good as these.> > The one in the OP is >>>>> not in the same league, nor is the one you linked later and Erik
inaccurately identified.
must note that any list purporting to include the best cartoons is>
woefully incomplete--no, just plain wrong--if it does not include
Calvin> & Hobbes.>> --> Mark Isaak> "Wisdom begins when you discover
the difference between 'That> doesn't make sense' and 'I don't
understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
to raise the quality of the discussion, I'd suggest existentialcomics
https://existentialcomics.com/
Thank you. I hadn't seen these before. They beat Calvin & Hobbes into a
cocked hat.
On 2023-04-05 21:54:29 +0000, Bob Casanova said:
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 18:47:25 +0200, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com>:
On 2023-04-05 16:35:47 +0000, Burkhard said:...in your opinion. Which is of course valid. For you.
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 4:30:11?PM UTC+1, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/4/23 1:07 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:> [...]
It is possible to make such humorous points in a much better way. Gary >>>>>> Larson's "The Far Side" and Bill Amend's "Foxtrot"> > had some great >>>>>> examples. There is also a long-running strip with stick figureHold it! Without getting into the relative merits of SMBC vs xkcd, I> >>>>> must note that any list purporting to include the best cartoons is>
characters that is at least as good as these.> > The one in the OP is >>>>>> not in the same league, nor is the one you linked later and Erik
inaccurately identified.
woefully incomplete--no, just plain wrong--if it does not include
Calvin> & Hobbes.>> --> Mark Isaak> "Wisdom begins when you discover >>>>> the difference between 'That> doesn't make sense' and 'I don't
understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
to raise the quality of the discussion, I'd suggest existentialcomics
https://existentialcomics.com/
Thank you. I hadn't seen these before. They beat Calvin & Hobbes into a
cocked hat.
Well of course. The opinions I express here are my opinions. I don't
speak for Jillery or JTEM or Nando etc.
On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 10:35:24 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-04-05 21:54:29 +0000, Bob Casanova said:
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 18:47:25 +0200, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athe...@gmail.com>:
On 2023-04-05 16:35:47 +0000, Burkhard said:...in your opinion. Which is of course valid. For you.
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 4:30:11?PM UTC+1, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>> On 4/4/23 1:07 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:> [...]
It is possible to make such humorous points in a much better way. GaryHold it! Without getting into the relative merits of SMBC vs xkcd, I> >>>>> must note that any list purporting to include the best cartoons is> >>>>> woefully incomplete--no, just plain wrong--if it does not include >>>>> Calvin> & Hobbes.>> --> Mark Isaak> "Wisdom begins when you discover >>>>> the difference between 'That> doesn't make sense' and 'I don't
Larson's "The Far Side" and Bill Amend's "Foxtrot"> > had some great >>>>>> examples. There is also a long-running strip with stick figure
characters that is at least as good as these.> > The one in the OP is >>>>>> not in the same league, nor is the one you linked later and Erik >>>>>> inaccurately identified.
understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
to raise the quality of the discussion, I'd suggest existentialcomics >>>> https://existentialcomics.com/
Thank you. I hadn't seen these before. They beat Calvin & Hobbes into a >>> cocked hat.
Well of course. The opinions I express here are my opinions. I don't... or Casanova or Burkhard or Isaak etc.
speak for Jillery or JTEM or Nando etc.
--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.
On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 10:25:13?AM UTC+1, jillery wrote:arguably by the Far side gallery) that is it will speak most to those readers whose childhood memories are most similar to it. And that means a suburban/exurban professional-managerial class upbringing in the US and its school system.
On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 10:35:24 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-04-05 21:54:29 +0000, Bob Casanova said:... or Casanova or Burkhard or Isaak etc.
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 18:47:25 +0200, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athe...@gmail.com>:
On 2023-04-05 16:35:47 +0000, Burkhard said:...in your opinion. Which is of course valid. For you.
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 4:30:11?PM UTC+1, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/4/23 1:07 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:> [...]
It is possible to make such humorous points in a much better way. GaryHold it! Without getting into the relative merits of SMBC vs xkcd, I> >> >>>>> must note that any list purporting to include the best cartoons is>
Larson's "The Far Side" and Bill Amend's "Foxtrot"> > had some great >> >>>>>> examples. There is also a long-running strip with stick figure
characters that is at least as good as these.> > The one in the OP is >> >>>>>> not in the same league, nor is the one you linked later and Erik
inaccurately identified.
woefully incomplete--no, just plain wrong--if it does not include
Calvin> & Hobbes.>> --> Mark Isaak> "Wisdom begins when you discover >> >>>>> the difference between 'That> doesn't make sense' and 'I don't
understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
to raise the quality of the discussion, I'd suggest existentialcomics >> >>>> https://existentialcomics.com/
Thank you. I hadn't seen these before. They beat Calvin & Hobbes into a >> >>> cocked hat.
Well of course. The opinions I express here are my opinions. I don't
speak for Jillery or JTEM or Nando etc.
--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.
I quite liked Calvin and Hobbes, and they are for sure very popular in both my country of birth and my country of residence, so definitely not just a US thing. Having said that, of the list so far C&H is probably the most "local" in character (followed
The further you get away from this, culturally, the more allusions, inside jokes and "sentimental recognition" you'll loose, would be at least my hypothesis. My Japanese colleague e.g. find it extremely funny, but in an orientalist sort of way ("look atthese foreigners and their weird and incomprehensible ways that us cosmopolitan sophisticates can still appreciate" - same way as we read Mangas") and for us growing up, it definitely had an aspect of "news from a strange and foreign country" too (first
By contrast I'd say, XKCD and SMBC are very clearly located "in time" (and may not appeal to the next generation as much as ours) but less "in space"
On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 10:25:13?AM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 10:35:24 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-04-05 21:54:29 +0000, Bob Casanova said:... or Casanova or Burkhard or Isaak etc.
On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 18:47:25 +0200, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athe...@gmail.com>:
On 2023-04-05 16:35:47 +0000, Burkhard said:...in your opinion. Which is of course valid. For you.
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 4:30:11?PM UTC+1, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/4/23 1:07 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:> [...]
It is possible to make such humorous points in a much better way. GaryHold it! Without getting into the relative merits of SMBC vs xkcd, I> >> >>>>> must note that any list purporting to include the best cartoons is> >> >>>>> woefully incomplete--no, just plain wrong--if it does not include
Larson's "The Far Side" and Bill Amend's "Foxtrot"> > had some great >> >>>>>> examples. There is also a long-running strip with stick figure
characters that is at least as good as these.> > The one in the OP is
not in the same league, nor is the one you linked later and Erik
inaccurately identified.
Calvin> & Hobbes.>> --> Mark Isaak> "Wisdom begins when you discover >> >>>>> the difference between 'That> doesn't make sense' and 'I don't
understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
to raise the quality of the discussion, I'd suggest existentialcomics >> >>>> https://existentialcomics.com/
Thank you. I hadn't seen these before. They beat Calvin & Hobbes into a >> >>> cocked hat.
Well of course. The opinions I express here are my opinions. I don't
speak for Jillery or JTEM or Nando etc.
I quite liked Calvin and Hobbes,
and they are for sure very popular in both my country of birth and my country of residence, so definitely not just a US thing. Having said that, of the list so far C&H is probably the most "local" in character (followed arguably by the Far side gallery)that is it will speak most to those readers whose childhood memories are most similar to it. And that means a suburban/exurban professional-managerial class upbringing in the US and its school system.
The further you get away from this, culturally, the more allusions, inside jokes and "sentimental recognition" you'll loose, would be at least my hypothesis. My Japanese colleague e.g. find it extremely funny, but in an orientalist sort of way ("look atthese foreigners and their weird and incomprehensible ways that us cosmopolitan sophisticates can still appreciate" - same way as we read Mangas") and for us growing up, it definitely had an aspect of "news from a strange and foreign country" too (first
By contrast I'd say, XKCD and SMBC are very clearly located "in time" (and may not appeal to the next generation as much as ours) but less "in space"
On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 12:25:40 AM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 2:10:37 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 7:00:37 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 11:10:37 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 5:00:34 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:Has talk.origins come to this, that pure farce, instantly recognized as such by anyone here
SMBC offers this crossover between two TO favourites, the origin of the universe and the miracle of reproduction
who takes the bother to click on the link [1] can see, is the topic of an OP by such a
well-entrenched regular as Burkhard??
Fine-tuning HAS been covered here MANY times. [2] You should remember: you entered a long running thread on it starring Steve Carlip after he did his swan song. [3]https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/theory-2If fine-tuning could be covered here, it would clear up everything.
[1] Over a decade of exposure to links by Ron O that almost never live up to what is
claimed for them, and of nasty joke links like that of Hemidactylus
to exploding heads, many regulars here seem to have an aversion to clicking on urls.
[2] Did you mean to write "steady state theory" instead? That DOES make sense.
For one thing, it is used in the Subject of this thread; for another, it is explicitly
used in the caption of the comic.
[3] I say "swan song" because Carlip has not returned to talk.origins since shortly
before you did that post.
The point being, I suppose, that "here" was a typo for "there."Peter NyikosYou're missing the point.
Or is it that I should have read your mind and known that "here" really meant "there"?
Burkhard provided the on topic response:Only superficially on topic: the author of the strip got it wrong:
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/fundamental
gravity is NOT one of the fundamental constants.
It depends on the units one uses for mass and acceleration.
... I'd say you are also parsing the strip wrong. It starts with an informal notion of "Fundamental things in nature" ...
So from the POV of the speaker, adding gravity is perfectly correct,
The fundamental constants are pure numbers, because they are ratios. Gravity is involved in the number N which compares the gravitational attraction between two protons and the electrical force of repulsion between them.
The latter is about 10^36 times greater than the other.
The author of the comic was nothing like the influential atheists
who speculate that the fundamental constants HAD to be what they
are and could not have been anything else. In this he had more common sense than they, but on the other hand, he depicted God as a bumbler
who obviously did NOT design the universe.
Well yes, that's part of the point - an accurate depiction of the God of the creationists/IDlers.
And here is another one by him , this one especially for you https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/dunno
On 4/4/23 1:07 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
It is possible to make such humorous points in a much better way. Gary Larson's "The Far Side" and Bill Amend's "Foxtrot"
had some great examples. There is also a long-running strip with stick figure characters that is at least as good as these.
The one in the OP is not in the same league, nor is the one you linked later and Erik inaccurately identified.
Hold it! Without getting into the relative merits of SMBC vs xkcd, I
must note that any list purporting to include the best cartoons is
woefully incomplete--no, just plain wrong--if it does not include Calvin
& Hobbes.
Again delayed by various forms of controversy in other threads (mostly in sci.bio.paleontology),
I am returning to do my second reply to you, Burkhard.
On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 4:30:40 AM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 12:25:40 AM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 2:10:37 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 7:00:37 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 11:10:37 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 5:00:34 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:Has talk.origins come to this, that pure farce, instantly recognized as such by anyone here
SMBC offers this crossover between two TO favourites, the origin of the universe and the miracle of reproduction
who takes the bother to click on the link [1] can see, is the topic of an OP by such a
well-entrenched regular as Burkhard??
Fine-tuning HAS been covered here MANY times. [2] You should remember:https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/theory-2If fine-tuning could be covered here, it would clear up everything.
you entered a long running thread on it starring Steve Carlip after he
did his swan song. [3]
[1] Over a decade of exposure to links by Ron O that almost never live up to what is
claimed for them, and of nasty joke links like that of Hemidactylus to exploding heads, many regulars here seem to have an aversion to clicking on urls.
[2] Did you mean to write "steady state theory" instead? That DOES make sense.
For one thing, it is used in the Subject of this thread; for another, it is explicitly
used in the caption of the comic.
[3] I say "swan song" because Carlip has not returned to talk.origins since shortly
before you did that post.
I was a bit too stuck on what Erik had written that I didn't do justice to whatThe point being, I suppose, that "here" was a typo for "there."Peter NyikosYou're missing the point.
Or is it that I should have read your mind and known that "here" really meant "there"?
Burkhard provided the on topic response:Only superficially on topic: the author of the strip got it wrong:
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/fundamental
you had written about gravity, Burk.
Yes, gravity is one of the most fundamental things in nature. Come Monday, I hope to havegravity is NOT one of the fundamental constants.... I'd say you are also parsing the strip wrong. It starts with an informal notion of "Fundamental things in nature" ...
It depends on the units one uses for mass and acceleration.
So from the POV of the speaker, adding gravity is perfectly correct,
time to go to detail about this.
I first learned about this from a book, _Just_Six_Numbers_, by the renowned British astronomer Martin Rees. It is a great, highly readable book about the fine tuning of the fundamental physical constants.The fundamental constants are pure numbers, because they are ratios. Gravity is involved in the number N which compares the gravitational attraction between two protons and the electrical force of repulsion between them.
The latter is about 10^36 times greater than the other.
But now I am reading parts of it for the first time, and am learning things about gravity and its influence on everyday things that I never suspected before.
The author of the comic was nothing like the influential atheists
who speculate that the fundamental constants HAD to be what they
are and could not have been anything else. In this he had more common sense than they, but on the other hand, he depicted God as a bumbler
who obviously did NOT design the universe.
Well yes, that's part of the point - an accurate depiction of the God of the creationists/IDlers.Of the YEC creationists, I grant you. But ID theory is based on science, not scripture,
and the fundamental constants play a big role in it. See below.
And here is another one by him , this one especially for you https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/dunnoNow THAT is a great one, utterly unlike the one you linked in your OP and much better than the "fine tuning" one. I was so taken by it that
I made the first comment ever on it. Here is what I wrote:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Excellent! What immediately came to mind when I read it was the argument for the existence of a designer of the universe due to the "fine tuning" of the physical constants.
By this is meant the incredibly low tolerance for varying these constants in a way compatible with the existence of life anywhere in the universe.all over the place, and we find ourselves in one of the incredibly unlikely universes where they are just right.
Carl Sagan's "The cosmos is all there is or was or ever will be" is untenable if by "the cosmos" he meant our universe with these constants determining so much of the structure of what is in the universe.
There are only two theories that are tenable: (1) a designer to make the stuff of our universe conform to these constants and (2) a multiverse with an incredibly large number (perhaps an infinite number) of individual universes, where the numbers vary
I lean towards (2) as does the great astronomer and physicist Martin Rees, who wrote a wonderful book on this subject, Just Six Numbers. But I would be very happy if (1) turned out to be true, if the designer's goodness matched its superhumanintelligence.
======================================================================================================
Actually, (2) is compatible with (1) if one abandons the idea of God being omnipotent, etc. and its nature followed
the pattern of my last sentence in what I've quoted. But I'll leave the explanation for Monday.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of So. Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
all over the place, and we find ourselves in one of the incredibly unlikely universes where they are just right.There are only two theories that are tenable: (1) a designer to make the stuff of our universe conform to these constants and (2) a multiverse with an incredibly large number (perhaps an infinite number) of individual universes, where the numbers vary
I can't see why these should be the only alternatives
On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 3:05:14 AM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:[...]
Again delayed by various forms of controversy in other threads (mostly in sci.bio.paleontology),
I am returning to do my second reply to you, Burkhard.
On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 4:30:40 AM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 12:25:40 AM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 2:10:37 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 7:00:37 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 11:10:37 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 5:00:34 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:
SMBC offers this crossover between two TO favourites, the origin of the universe and the miracle of reproduction
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/theory-2
If fine-tuning could be covered here, it would clear up everything.
metaphors to religion, i.e. creationism and ID.Burkhard provided the on topic response:
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/fundamental
PN > > Only superficially on topic: the author of the strip got it wrong:
PN > I was a bit too stuck on what Erik had written that I didn't do justice to what you had written about gravity, Burk.
PN > > gravity is NOT one of the fundamental constants. It depends on the units one uses for mass and acceleration.
... I'd say you are also parsing the strip wrong. It starts with an informal notion of "Fundamental things in nature" ...Yes, gravity is one of the most fundamental things in nature. Come Monday, I hope to have
So from the POV of the speaker, adding gravity is perfectly correct,
time to go to detail about this.
I'd say you are still genre confused. It's a funny comic, not an illustration for a science book, the punchline is not about the nature of the basic constants, but about inadequate conceptions of the godhead that come from misapplied engineering
he depicted God as a bumbler who obviously did NOT design the universe.
Well yes, that's part of the point - an accurate depiction of the God of the creationists/IDlers.
Of the YEC creationists, I grant you. But ID theory is based on science, not scripture,
and the fundamental constants play a big role in it. See below.
Even if one were to accept that there is a secular ID theory, which I don't do for a second,
the statement would still be true as written. As far as I can see, all of these ID advocates also believe in a creator deity
But even if one were to grant this, not a single one of them categorically claims that the designer from their day job is definitely not also the deity from their private religious beliefs
- and that means their religious-belief-deity inherits the properties of the "day-job-designer" (just not the other way round)
So you get a god with a dashboard and big nobs.
ID either leads to a real odd conception of god, or to an affirmative claim that god is not the designer, but responsible for other things,
(as an aside, nothing in the comic mentions a young universe, so I don't see where the "YEC" in your reply comes from)
And here is another one by him , this one especially for you https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/dunnoNow THAT is a great one, utterly unlike the one you linked in your OP and much better than the "fine tuning" one. I was so taken by it that
I made the first comment ever on it. Here is what I wrote:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Excellent! What immediately came to mind when I read it was the argument for the existence of a designer of the universe due to the "fine tuning" of the physical constants.
I honestly don't know at this point if you are taking the piss in an extremely elaborate and consistent way, in which case, well done - or that you massively misread the comic in which case, OMG (or if you insist even OMD)
vary all over the place, and we find ourselves in one of the incredibly unlikely universes where they are just right.By this is meant the incredibly low tolerance for varying these constants in a way compatible with the existence of life anywhere in the universe.
Carl Sagan's "The cosmos is all there is or was or ever will be" is untenable if by "the cosmos" he meant our universe with these constants determining so much of the structure of what is in the universe.
There are only two theories that are tenable: (1) a designer to make the stuff of our universe conform to these constants and (2) a multiverse with an incredibly large number (perhaps an infinite number) of individual universes, where the numbers
I can't see why these should be the only alternatives
intelligence.I lean towards (2) as does the great astronomer and physicist Martin Rees, who wrote a wonderful book on this subject, Just Six Numbers. But I would be very happy if (1) turned out to be true, if the designer's goodness matched its superhuman
======================================================================================================
Actually, (2) is compatible with (1) if one abandons the idea of God being omnipotent, etc. and its nature followed
the pattern of my last sentence in what I've quoted. But I'll leave the explanation for Monday.
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 00:46:02 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
<snip for focus>
[end of restoration]Carl Sagan's "The cosmos is all there is or was or ever will be" is untenable
if by "the cosmos" he meant our universe with these constants determining so much of the structure of what is in the universe.
vary all over the place, and we find ourselves in one of the incredibly unlikely universes where they are just right.There are only two theories that are tenable: (1) a designer to make the stuff of our universe conform to these constants and (2) a multiverse with an incredibly large number (perhaps an infinite number) of individual universes, where the numbers
I can't see why these should be the only alternatives
Neither can I.
This false dichotomy is a common PRATT among cdesign
proponentsists.
On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 3:50:17 AM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:metaphors to religion, i.e. creationism and ID.
On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 3:05:14 AM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:[...]
Again delayed by various forms of controversy in other threads (mostly in sci.bio.paleontology),
I am returning to do my second reply to you, Burkhard.
On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 4:30:40 AM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 12:25:40 AM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 2:10:37 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 7:00:37 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 11:10:37 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 5:00:34 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:
SMBC offers this crossover between two TO favourites, the origin of the universe and the miracle of reproduction
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/theory-2
[...]If fine-tuning could be covered here, it would clear up everything.
Burkhard provided the on topic response:
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/fundamental
PN > > Only superficially on topic: the author of the strip got it wrong:
PN > I was a bit too stuck on what Erik had written that I didn't do justice to what you had written about gravity, Burk.
PN > > gravity is NOT one of the fundamental constants. It depends on the units one uses for mass and acceleration.I'd say you are still genre confused. It's a funny comic, not an illustration for a science book, the punchline is not about the nature of the basic constants, but about inadequate conceptions of the godhead that come from misapplied engineering
... I'd say you are also parsing the strip wrong. It starts with an informal notion of "Fundamental things in nature" ...time to go to detail about this.
So from the POV of the speaker, adding gravity is perfectly correct, Yes, gravity is one of the most fundamental things in nature. Come Monday, I hope to have
You should have deleted "and ID" after seeing what I wrote later, Burk, but I
see you are having trouble believing what I wrote, so I'm addressing your objections below.
[...]
he depicted God as a bumbler who obviously did NOT design the universe.
Well yes, that's part of the point - an accurate depiction of the God of the creationists/IDlers.
Of the YEC creationists, I grant you. But ID theory is based on science, not scripture,
and the fundamental constants play a big role in it. See below.
Even if one were to accept that there is a secular ID theory, which I don't do for a second,...because of a massive disinformation campaign against it by scientists, ACLU, Sandwalk, etc.
who sense that, unlike YEC creationism, science-based ID [especially fine-tuning arguments]
cannot be refuted in a way convincing to university-educated people. They can go on believing
that there is no multiverse and no designer [1] but the arguments of NAS, ACLU sharpies, Moran fans, etc.
give them no ammunition against the combination of these alternatives.
[1] see far below about what I wrote in response to the "dunno" comic, and our subsequent discussion.
the statement would still be true as written. As far as I can see, all of these ID advocates also believe in a creator deityThat's like saying, "As far as I can see, all who argue against ID are atheists." Even if the claim holds, it is
a pure ad hominem fallacy.
- they just argue that this belief should be separated from their scientific day job,
AND, RELEVANTLY, from what they actually write about ID. Behe goes out of his way in _The_Edge_of_Evolution_
and _Darwin_Devolves_ to argue FOR common descent, thereby risking a big drop in sales by
creationists while the general public, including yourself, keeps having the wool pulled over their eyes.
It's a win-win situation for anti-Behe zealots.
But even if one were to grant this, not a single one of them categorically claims that the designer from their day job is definitely not also the deity from their private religious beliefsBecause they do not know that, and neither do you. But also, they do not know that it IS that deity, and Behe explicitly
makes that clear.
- and that means their religious-belief-deity inherits the properties of the "day-job-designer" (just not the other way round)Wrong. The two could actually be separate beings, with the designer given free play by their God to
design our universe, just as Adam was given the job in the Garden of Eden to till its soil, according to Genesis 2:15,
and humans in general were told, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over
the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.."
So you get a god with a dashboard and big nobs.Misleading metaphor for the ability to design a universe out of primordial raw material
which is very different from the stuff of our universe which the designer produces from the raw material.
The knobs and dashboard can only mean the internal substance of the designer, like our nervous
system producing our thoughts and actions.
ID either leads to a real odd conception of god, or to an affirmative claim that god is not the designer, but responsible for other things,I think you would have a more difficult time defending this dichotomy
than I would have defending the one I talk about below, and which you "can't see".
(as an aside, nothing in the comic mentions a young universe, so I don't see where the "YEC" in your reply comes from)YECs have a bigger illusion of what God did than OECs. Both deny evolution on a sizable scale,
but YECs are skirting close to omphalism, while OECs believe in a God who poofs new species
into existence that are only a little different from "last day's model"-- "day" being a figure of speech for thousands of years, usually hundreds of thousands.
It's a more organized system than random playing around with knobs thatvary all over the place, and we find ourselves in one of the incredibly unlikely universes where they are just right.
the "god" of the comic was oblivious of a short while before.
And here is another one by him , this one especially for you https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/dunnoNow THAT is a great one, utterly unlike the one you linked in your OP and
much better than the "fine tuning" one. I was so taken by it that
I made the first comment ever on it. Here is what I wrote:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Excellent! What immediately came to mind when I read it was the argument for the existence of a designer of the universe due to the "fine tuning" of the physical constants.
I honestly don't know at this point if you are taking the piss in an extremely elaborate and consistent way, in which case, well done - or that you massively misread the comic in which case, OMG (or if you insist even OMD)I was thinking about the middle panel, but you seem to be more in tune here with the last panel.
By this is meant the incredibly low tolerance for varying these constants in a way compatible with the existence of life anywhere in the universe.
Carl Sagan's "The cosmos is all there is or was or ever will be" is untenable if by "the cosmos" he meant our universe with these constants determining so much of the structure of what is in the universe.
There are only two theories that are tenable: (1) a designer to make the stuff of our universe conform to these constants and (2) a multiverse with an incredibly large number (perhaps an infinite number) of individual universes, where the numbers
I can't see why these should be the only alternativesUnless you can come up with a fourth alternative that is significantly different from these three,
you are just confessing to ignorance here.
And I don't mean scientifically absurd "alternatives" like YEC Biblical literalism or Last Tuesdayism.intelligence.
I lean towards (2) as does the great astronomer and physicist Martin Rees, who wrote a wonderful book on this subject, Just Six Numbers. But I would be very happy if (1) turned out to be true, if the designer's goodness matched its superhuman
======================================================================================================
Well, it will have to wait until tomorrow, because I see that you need time to absorb what I've written here;Actually, (2) is compatible with (1) if one abandons the idea of God being omnipotent, etc. and its nature followed
the pattern of my last sentence in what I've quoted. But I'll leave the explanation for Monday.
and I need time to see how to take your misconceptions, and those of Bill Rogers on the "Darwin...Jesus..." thread, into account.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of So. Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 3:10:18 AM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:metaphors to religion, i.e. creationism and ID.
On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 3:50:17 AM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 3:05:14 AM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:[...]
Again delayed by various forms of controversy in other threads (mostly in sci.bio.paleontology),
I am returning to do my second reply to you, Burkhard.
On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 4:30:40 AM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 12:25:40 AM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 2:10:37 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 7:00:37 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 11:10:37 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 5:00:34 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:
SMBC offers this crossover between two TO favourites, the origin of the universe and the miracle of reproduction
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/theory-2
[...]If fine-tuning could be covered here, it would clear up everything.
Burkhard provided the on topic response:
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/fundamental
PN > > Only superficially on topic: the author of the strip got it wrong:
PN > I was a bit too stuck on what Erik had written that I didn't do justice to what you had written about gravity, Burk.
PN > > gravity is NOT one of the fundamental constants. It depends on the units one uses for mass and acceleration.I'd say you are still genre confused. It's a funny comic, not an illustration for a science book, the punchline is not about the nature of the basic constants, but about inadequate conceptions of the godhead that come from misapplied engineering
... I'd say you are also parsing the strip wrong. It starts with an informal notion of "Fundamental things in nature" ...time to go to detail about this.
So from the POV of the speaker, adding gravity is perfectly correct, Yes, gravity is one of the most fundamental things in nature. Come Monday, I hope to have
You should have deleted "and ID" after seeing what I wrote later, Burk, but I
see you are having trouble believing what I wrote, so I'm addressing your objections below.
Why yes indeed Petey, I did indeed not act on your bare assertion, and nothing you write below makes much of a difference as you'll see.
[...]
he depicted God as a bumbler who obviously did NOT design the universe.
Well yes, that's part of the point - an accurate depiction of the God of the creationists/IDlers.
Of the YEC creationists, I grant you. But ID theory is based on science, not scripture,
and the fundamental constants play a big role in it. See below.
Even if one were to accept that there is a secular ID theory, which I don't do for a second,...because of a massive disinformation campaign against it by scientists, ACLU, Sandwalk, etc.
who sense that, unlike YEC creationism, science-based ID [especially fine-tuning arguments]
Nope, simply based on their own written output, nothing else is needed.
We've been over this before.
There is no ID theory, for any reasonable value of "theory".
To the extent that they do naturalistic research, they are firmly stuck, in terms of the comic, on panel 1, coming up with new reasons why they doubt that a non-design solution is possible, but they never even attempt to move to panel 2 and a competingtheory.
And as they don't have "any" ID theory, they also don't have a secular ID theory, by the simple application of logic.
Again we went over this before.
We have pretty good ideas how what a design theory looks like, anthropologists, forensic scientists and historians produce them all the time.
And these in turn are mere instantiations of the general nomologic-deductive way of theory formation that all sciences are using
- it's fine to stipulate a new causal entity, but only if you then make statements about the properties of this entity, which then allows testing, refining and learning new things about it.
ID, by contrast, is never going beyond word magic, in ways that the proponents of Moliere's "virtus dormitiva" would have found so embarrassing that they'd have insisted to not getting lumped in with them.
On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 8:35:19 AM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
Why yes indeed Petey, I did indeed not act on your bare assertion, and nothing you write below makes much of a difference as you'll see.
Not to you, Burkie. But a disinterested reader would take into account the fact that the truth of
something in a contentious dispute in talk.origins may take many iterations of back-and-forth before
the arguments of one of the disputants begins to devolve into broken record routines,
personal insults, and exits punctuated with "It is impossible to argue rationally with you."
Astute, disinterested readers (but keenly interested in the truth of the matter) will then be able, going over the whole argument,
to discern whether (or not) the last sentence requires amendment to "It is impossible for me to argue rationally with you."
On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 10:20:17?AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:vary all over the place, and we find ourselves in one of the incredibly unlikely universes where they are just right.
On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 00:46:02 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
<snip for focus>
The snip included the attribution line to me.
More importantly, the snip included a theory I consider to be untenable: >[restoration]
[end of restoration]Carl Sagan's "The cosmos is all there is or was or ever will be" is untenable
if by "the cosmos" he meant our universe with these constants determining so much of the structure of what is in the universe.
There are only two theories that are tenable: (1) a designer to make the stuff of our universe conform to these constants and (2) a multiverse with an incredibly large number (perhaps an infinite number) of individual universes, where the numbers
I can't see why these should be the only alternatives
Neither can I.
And so, what I told jillery's fan Burkhard yesterday also applies to jillery:
"Unless you can come up with a fourth alternative that is significantly different from these three,
you are just confessing to ignorance here."
-- https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/aEWcwKdnhaY/m/iMh6j_zDAQAJ
Apr 11, 2023, 10:10:18?PM
These are alternative explanations for the exquisite sensitivity of the fundamental constants
of our universe to tiny perturbations of their values that would make intelligent life impossible.
This is commonly referred to as the "fine tuning" of the constants.
The aforementioned snip enabled jillery to use the term "false dichotomy" >without causing cognitive dissonance in those reading jillery's post:
This false dichotomy is a common PRATT among cdesign
proponentsists.
In this case, PRATT means "a theory that jillery fervently hopes to have been refuted by someone, somewhere."
And to give voice to that hope, jillery uses the anachronism "cdesign proponentsists." This was a typo that
slipped into a draft of a book [1] that had nothing to do with the fine tuning problem. [2]
In fact, I think the Discovery Institute only started talking about fine tuning after the book was published.
[1] _Pandas and People_, not to be confused with the book _The Panda's Thumb_,
by the atheist Stephen Jay Gould. I've read Gould's book several times, making lots of marginal notes.
I have several other books by Gould; he is a great expositor on a wide range of biology and geology.
[2] It was a book about the unfolding of life on earth. AFAIK there wasn't even any mention of exoplanets.
I get the impression there was none from the things I've read about the book. I've never looked
at a copy myself.
On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 8:35:19 AM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
- it's fine to stipulate a new causal entity, but only if you then make statements about the properties of this entity, which then allows testing, refining and learning new things about it.
I've given you two hypothetical examples already where this has been done.
Here is a third, in spades: directed panspermia.
On 4/13/23 12:48 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 8:35:19?AM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
[re there being no ID theory worth being called a theory]
- it's fine to stipulate a new causal entity, but only if you then make statements about the properties of this entity, which then allows testing, refining and learning new things about it.
I've given you two hypothetical examples already where this has been done.
Somehow I missed them among your frequent distracting comments. Could
you please repeat those two (and nothing else)?
Here is a third, in spades: directed panspermia.
I'll grant you that, but you forgot to mention that the spades are all
100 or more light years away, which makes testing difficult with current >technology.
On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 3:50:20 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 8:35:19 AM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
Why yes indeed Petey, I did indeed not act on your bare assertion, and nothing you write below makes much of a difference as you'll see.
Not to you, Burkie. But a disinterested reader would take into account the fact that the truth of
something in a contentious dispute in talk.origins may take many iterations of back-and-forth before
the arguments of one of the disputants begins to devolve into broken record routines,
personal insults, and exits punctuated with "It is impossible to argue rationally with you."
Astute, disinterested readers (but keenly interested in the truth of the matter) will then be able, going over the whole argument,Is the guy who calls Burkard "Burk" upset that he now
to discern whether (or not) the last sentence requires amendment to "It is impossible for me to argue rationally with you."
called you "Petey"? Nobody but Ray used Burk. He doesn't
use it for himself as far as I have seen. Don't tell me your
level of social dysfunction was unaware of what you were
doing?
And I would read what he's doing as more of a minor venting,
with a heavy sigh and a silent questioning "why do I bother?",
followed by a well considered response. But I don't think I
qualify as "disinterested".
On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 8:35:19 AM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:metaphors to religion, i.e. creationism and ID.
On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 3:10:18 AM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 3:50:17 AM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 3:05:14 AM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:[...]
Again delayed by various forms of controversy in other threads (mostly in sci.bio.paleontology),
I am returning to do my second reply to you, Burkhard.
On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 4:30:40 AM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 12:25:40 AM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 2:10:37 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 7:00:37 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 11:10:37 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 5:00:34 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:
SMBC offers this crossover between two TO favourites, the origin of the universe and the miracle of reproduction
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/theory-2
[...]If fine-tuning could be covered here, it would clear up everything.
Burkhard provided the on topic response:
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/fundamental
PN > > Only superficially on topic: the author of the strip got it wrong:
PN > I was a bit too stuck on what Erik had written that I didn't do justice to what you had written about gravity, Burk.
PN > > gravity is NOT one of the fundamental constants. It depends on the units one uses for mass and acceleration.I'd say you are still genre confused. It's a funny comic, not an illustration for a science book, the punchline is not about the nature of the basic constants, but about inadequate conceptions of the godhead that come from misapplied engineering
... I'd say you are also parsing the strip wrong. It starts with an informal notion of "Fundamental things in nature" ...Yes, gravity is one of the most fundamental things in nature. Come Monday, I hope to have
So from the POV of the speaker, adding gravity is perfectly correct,
time to go to detail about this.
You should have deleted "and ID" after seeing what I wrote later, Burk, but IWhy yes indeed Petey, I did indeed not act on your bare assertion, and nothing you write below makes much of a difference as you'll see.
see you are having trouble believing what I wrote, so I'm addressing your objections below.
Not to you, Burkie. But a disinterested reader would take into account the fact that the truth of
something in a contentious dispute in talk.origins may take many iterations of back-and-forth before
the arguments of one of the disputants begins to devolve into broken record routines,
personal insults, and exits punctuated with "It is impossible to argue rationally with you."
Astute, disinterested readers (but keenly interested in the truth of the matter) will then be able, going over the whole argument,
to discern whether (or not) the last sentence requires amendment to "It is impossible for me to argue rationally with you."
[...]
he depicted God as a bumbler who obviously did NOT design the universe.
Well yes, that's part of the point - an accurate depiction of the God of the creationists/IDlers.
Of the YEC creationists, I grant you. But ID theory is based on science, not scripture,
and the fundamental constants play a big role in it. See below.
Even if one were to accept that there is a secular ID theory, which I don't do for a second,...because of a massive disinformation campaign against it by scientists, ACLU, Sandwalk, etc.
who sense that, unlike YEC creationism, science-based ID [especially fine-tuning arguments]
Nope, simply based on their own written output, nothing else is needed.Did you consult with someone (say, Bill Rogers) who is competent to judge Behe's
_The_Edge_of_Evolution_ as to whether what you just now wrote is the usual polemical
retort without evidential basis?
We've been over this before.Not you and I. We've been over the legal aspects of the Dover ruling,
I recall nothing like that between you and me, inasmuch as you have shown
no understanding of science beyond that of a middle school graduate
who got a good grade by just comprehending what the textbook says.
[Middle school typically runs from 11 through 13 year olds, with outliers on both ends.]
There is no ID theory, for any reasonable value of "theory".I don't doubt that you've read this factoid a hundred or more times, but did the
source ever support this with refutations of the arguments of ID theorists like Behe
to the opposite effect?
competing theory.To the extent that they do naturalistic research, they are firmly stuck, in terms of the comic, on panel 1, coming up with new reasons why they doubt that a non-design solution is possible, but they never even attempt to move to panel 2 and a
If you are talking about the "dunno" comic, you must mean two non-overlapping theories.
What do you imagine the two viable alternatives I've told you about to be?
By the way, you are insulting the intelligence of the best of them by imagining that they
doubt that a non-design solution is POSSIBLE. They know that the current secular versions of
a multiverse are *possible* solutions. However, their arguments against it do not yet
have a secular "higher synthesis" between "no designer" and "yes, designer".
That may change as I flesh out the hypothesis that I introduced yesterday evening
(your early AM) on the thread, "Designer of Our Universe by the Back Door?" [https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/QflrDHqlDD0/m/1p6NjO4TAgAJ]
And as they don't have "any" ID theory, they also don't have a secular ID theory, by the simple application of logic.You've got it backwards. The ONLY excuse for saying they don't have any
ID theory is that they don't have a secular one. But, as I said just now, that could change.
Again we went over this before.There you go again. Perhaps you should tack on "in your absence" at the end.
Oh, wait, you are changing the subject to design theories that YOU
are familiar with, but those fail to exhaust the subject by far.
Pure scientists [1] and mathematicians have a different take on this.
See my next comment.
[1] including exobiologists, as in an example I gave you a year ago.
We have pretty good ideas how what a design theory looks like, anthropologists, forensic scientists and historians produce them all the time.The movie "Contact" has an utterly different one from the ones these people use in their line of work.
By the way, "archaeologists" is more appropriate than "anthropologists." You would be lost in
the vast majority of arguments in sci.anthropology.paleo.
And these in turn are mere instantiations of the general nomologic-deductive way of theory formation that all sciences are usingSpoken like a jack of all trades and master of none where pure science
and mathematics are concerned.
- it's fine to stipulate a new causal entity, but only if you then make statements about the properties of this entity, which then allows testing, refining and learning new things about it.I've given you two hypothetical examples already where this has been done.
Here is a third, in spades: directed panspermia.
ID, by contrast, is never going beyond word magic, in ways that the proponents of Moliere's "virtus dormitiva" would have found so embarrassing that they'd have insisted to not getting lumped in with them.Confronted with this unsupported piece of condescending polemic, I postpone discussion of the rest of your post
to later today, perhaps tomorrow, with some of it postponed to next week. My top priority this week is the thread I referenced above.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 8:50:20 PM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:engineering metaphors to religion, i.e. creationism and ID.
On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 8:35:19 AM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 3:10:18 AM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 3:50:17 AM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 3:05:14 AM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:[...]
Again delayed by various forms of controversy in other threads (mostly in sci.bio.paleontology),
I am returning to do my second reply to you, Burkhard.
On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 4:30:40 AM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 12:25:40 AM UTC+1, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 2:10:37 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 7:00:37 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 11:10:37 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 5:00:34 AM UTC-7, Burkhard wrote:
SMBC offers this crossover between two TO favourites, the origin of the universe and the miracle of reproduction
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/theory-2
[...]If fine-tuning could be covered here, it would clear up everything.
Burkhard provided the on topic response:
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/fundamental
PN > > Only superficially on topic: the author of the strip got it wrong:
PN > I was a bit too stuck on what Erik had written that I didn't do justice to what you had written about gravity, Burk.
PN > > gravity is NOT one of the fundamental constants. It depends on the units one uses for mass and acceleration.I'd say you are still genre confused. It's a funny comic, not an illustration for a science book, the punchline is not about the nature of the basic constants, but about inadequate conceptions of the godhead that come from misapplied
... I'd say you are also parsing the strip wrong. It starts with an informal notion of "Fundamental things in nature" ...Yes, gravity is one of the most fundamental things in nature. Come Monday, I hope to have
So from the POV of the speaker, adding gravity is perfectly correct,
time to go to detail about this.
intelligent beings" _ I mean, please...) is a theory of ID even attempted.You should have deleted "and ID" after seeing what I wrote later, Burk, but IWhy yes indeed Petey, I did indeed not act on your bare assertion, and nothing you write below makes much of a difference as you'll see.
see you are having trouble believing what I wrote, so I'm addressing your objections below.
Not to you, Burkie. But a disinterested reader would take into account the fact that the truth of
something in a contentious dispute in talk.origins may take many iterations of back-and-forth before
the arguments of one of the disputants begins to devolve into broken record routines,
personal insults, and exits punctuated with "It is impossible to argue rationally with you."
Astute, disinterested readers (but keenly interested in the truth of the matter) will then be able, going over the whole argument,
to discern whether (or not) the last sentence requires amendment to "It is impossible for me to argue rationally with you."
[...]
he depicted God as a bumbler who obviously did NOT design the universe.
Well yes, that's part of the point - an accurate depiction of the God of the creationists/IDlers.
Of the YEC creationists, I grant you. But ID theory is based on science, not scripture,
and the fundamental constants play a big role in it. See below.
Even if one were to accept that there is a secular ID theory, which I don't do for a second,...because of a massive disinformation campaign against it by scientists, ACLU, Sandwalk, etc.
who sense that, unlike YEC creationism, science-based ID [especially fine-tuning arguments]
Nope, simply based on their own written output, nothing else is needed.
Did you consult with someone (say, Bill Rogers) who is competent to judge Behe's
_The_Edge_of_Evolution_ as to whether what you just now wrote is the usual polemical
retort without evidential basis?
The "Evidential Basis" is his book. Nowhere in the book, with the possible exception of a few throwaway lines in the last chapter (and these of truly sophomoric quality - "I am intelligent, therefore the motive of the designer must have been to create
I don't need Bill Rogers for this, though I'm pretty certain he'd come to the same conclusion.
We've been over this before.Not you and I. We've been over the legal aspects of the Dover ruling,
That's worrying! Consult a doctor, in your age sudden memory loss can be a sign for something bad!
[end of repetition]Oh, wait, you are changing the subject to design theories that YOU
are familiar with, but those fail to exhaust the subject by far.
Here a few examples:
Here one just from January: https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/WATJ1V2lWcI/m/SRHgWNS8BQAJ
or here https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/nmTq1MCK3hg/m/yvkGPiU6AQAJ
and here the one you seem at least to remember, which did start with Dover ruling, but the issue by then was not one of law, but "Is there a theory of ID":
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/XbEsTouIR3g/m/h-e_UQkLAQAJ https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/XbEsTouIR3g/m/UlnK7joGAgAJ
and the ensuing debate allowed you to demonstrate your profound ignorance of a whole range of disciplines, from history to epistemology to cryptology to literary studies etc etc etc
he fails to even attempt making the relevant sort of argument, for building an ID theory.but I recall nothing like that between you and me, inasmuch as you have shown
no understanding of science beyond that of a middle school graduate
who got a good grade by just comprehending what the textbook says.
[Middle school typically runs from 11 through 13 year olds, with outliers on both ends.]
There is no ID theory, for any reasonable value of "theory".
I don't doubt that you've read this factoid a hundred or more times, but did the
source ever support this with refutations of the arguments of ID theorists like Behe
to the opposite effect?
I don't need a source for this, I only need to read what Behe does and apply the standard understanding of the concept of "theory" in the mainstream theory of science to it. It's not about "refuting" any argument he makes, it's about pointing out that
competing theory.To the extent that they do naturalistic research, they are firmly stuck, in terms of the comic, on panel 1, coming up with new reasons why they doubt that a non-design solution is possible, but they never even attempt to move to panel 2 and a
There is no "alternative ID theory, nobody has ever tried to even develop one for a very long time now.If you are talking about the "dunno" comic, you must mean two non-overlapping theories.
What do you imagine the two viable alternatives I've told you about to be?
You seem to interpret one of them as a "design theory", but that is just your strange misreading of the comic. No, that is not the competing theory the author has in mind, design theories are all strictly panel 3 territory ("Alien Ghost Jesus did it").
would lead him, theologically. Paley had already more or less given up on the project, nothing that came afterwards even attempted one. For good reasons too, both scientific and theological.By the way, you are insulting the intelligence of the best of them by imagining that theyno idea what that's supposed to mean
doubt that a non-design solution is POSSIBLE. They know that the current secular versions of
a multiverse are *possible* solutions. However, their arguments against it do not yet
have a secular "higher synthesis" between "no designer" and "yes, designer".
That may change as I flesh out the hypothesis that I introduced yesterday evening
(your early AM) on the thread, "Designer of Our Universe by the Back Door?"
[https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/QflrDHqlDD0/m/1p6NjO4TAgAJ]
Nope, that is your persistent misreading of the argument. They do not have a theory, full stop. Of any kind. The last person who seriously tried to develop a intelligent design theory of biology was John Ray, and he dropped it when he realised where itAnd as they don't have "any" ID theory, they also don't have a secular ID theory, by the simple application of logic.You've got it backwards. The ONLY excuse for saying they don't have any
ID theory is that they don't have a secular one. But, as I said just now, that could change.
creation of the transfinite"Again we went over this before.There you go again. Perhaps you should tack on "in your absence" at the end.
Oh, wait, you are changing the subject to design theories that YOUInteresting. Yes, in the history of mathematics there have been occasional attempts to use design arguments, though I'd say none of them was successful or stood the test of time.
are familiar with, but those fail to exhaust the subject by far.
Pure scientists [1] and mathematicians have a different take on this.
Cantor arguably the most famous one:
"One proof [of the reality of the transfinite] proceeds from the concept of God and infers from the greatest perfection of God’s essence the possibility of the creation of a transfinite order, from his supreme goodness to the necessity of the
and even closer to a design argument:unitary form, by which this thing exists and is known, there must in God’s intellect be a determinate cardinal number available, which relates itself to the collection or totality of all finite cardinals in the same way as the number 7 relates itself
"They (The cardinal numbers) build in their totality a manifold, unified, and from the other contents of God’s Intellect separated thing in itself, that itself forms an object of God’s Knowledge. But since the knowledge of a thing presupposes a
For this, which can be shown to be the smallest transfinite cardinal number, I have chosen the sign ω."of their generality and besides will remark, that in them thought is completely pure, so that there is not even the least scope for the imagination to play a role. This is not altered in the least by the images, to which I, like all metaphysicians, from
Though he himself would not have included what he did under the "Mathematics" header, for the very same reason:
"The general theory of manifolds … belongs entirely to metaphysics. You can easily convince yourself from this, when you examine the categories of cardinal number and ordinal type, these fundamental concepts of set theory, with respect to the degree
Some of the responses to this were in a similar vein, but not that obviously leading to a design argument, especially the famous response byoh, I din't know, say the question if "every proximal space weak shrinking" and you start by saying that you don't intent to give any formal proof for your conjecture, but instead proceed to show that they must be because in comparison to God who made
Leopold Kronecker
"Die ganzen Zahlen hat der liebe Gott gemacht, alles andere ist Menschenwerk" ( "our benevolent God made integers, all else is the work of man";
Now, two things on this. First, these and similar examples seem to be historical outliers, I haven't seen that type of design argument in in any modern mathematical papers, and I'm pretty certain that if you were to submit a paper to a math journal, on,
But apart from that, Cantor in particular is doing here a proper design theory, in just the sense that I asked for, and not in yours. That is he commits firmly and explicit to the designer, states as lemma some of the designer's properties, and theninfers on the basis of these properties the properties of the cardinal numbers. At this point, the talk of the designer gets proper explanatory value as opposed to merely a pretentious way of saying "we don't know", and in theory at least also leads to
So I'd say that to the limited extend that mathematics has historically used a design theory, it confirms my reading of the poverty of ID not yours.Research 47.2 (1991): 129-151.
See my next comment.
[1] including exobiologists, as in an example I gave you a year ago.Ahh, that explains a lt. Yes, if you get your science from Hollywood movies, it's clear that you struggle with proper scientific arguments. Not sure what I can do about this tbh, apart from recommending maybe some good science books?
We have pretty good ideas how what a design theory looks like, anthropologists, forensic scientists and historians produce them all the time.The movie "Contact" has an utterly different one from the ones these people use in their line of work.
By the way, "archaeologists" is more appropriate than "anthropologists." You would be lost inAnthropologists do the type of proper ID theory that I'm arguing for all the time, a typical example is here: Susman, Randall L. "Who made the Oldowan tools? Fossil evidence for tool behavior in Plio-Pleistocene hominids." Journal of Anthropological
the vast majority of arguments in sci.anthropology.paleo.
There you can see quite nicely how after from starting point of properties of the tools, not only a number of candidates for the designer are hypothesised, but because all of these have different attributes, then tested against the hypothesis. And thatmakes it proper scientific research" stipulate explanation, specific attributes of the explanation, indicate what else we should expect to find if hypothesis is true, test, and then as needed refine your theory about the designer's attributes and
Forensic anthropology is of course a sub-discipline of anthropology, which is why Ive co-supervised PhDs in anthropology and archeology alike, I also led research projects with anthropologists, one particular informed the way FIAG (Forensic ImageryAnalysis Group) of which I was a member then evaluates digital face reconstructions from bones, published in the relevant journals, and occasional teach on our joint undergraduate program in law and anthropology. "Making myself look foolish in dying
for a recent overview see Psillos, S. (2021). The deductive-nomological model of explanation. In The Routledge Handbook of Logical Empiricism (pp. 185-193). Routledge.We can of course debate the status of mathematics as a science. But pure science too follows the general methodology that I outlined above, and which the relevant literature has indeed identified as the most basic structure of all scientific theories.And these in turn are mere instantiations of the general nomologic-deductive way of theory formation that all sciences are usingSpoken like a jack of all trades and master of none where pure science
and mathematics are concerned.
typically because what you proposed as evidence is incapable of differentiating between DP and non-DP explanations and therefore fails to do its job. Once that happens, you tend to flee from that discussion double quick rather than defending yournot really no- it's fine to stipulate a new causal entity, but only if you then make statements about the properties of this entity, which then allows testing, refining and learning new things about it.I've given you two hypothetical examples already where this has been done.
Here is a third, in spades: directed panspermia.It's true that DP in theory could be developed into a proper theory, just nobody ever tried. Well, to be fair, once in a while you post something you claim is a test for that hypothesis. Problem is these suggestions immediately get shot down -
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/eAG4chRavZk/m/I7eDbOfAAQAJeventually gives us a theory of who they are, what they can do, how they did it and why.
So again, the ask for a scientific theory of DOP would be: Given the stipulated properties of the Panspermist, what are we likely to see that we would not see without panspermists. That provides a test of the properties we ascribe to them, which
ID, by contrast, is never going beyond word magic, in ways that the proponents of Moliere's "virtus dormitiva" would have found so embarrassing that they'd have insisted to not getting lumped in with them.Confronted with this unsupported piece of condescending polemic, I postpone discussion of the rest of your post
to later today, perhaps tomorrow, with some of it postponed to next week. My top priority this week is the thread I referenced above.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 8:20:20?AM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
he fails to even attempt making the relevant sort of argument, for building an ID theory.There is no ID theory, for any reasonable value of "theory".
I don't doubt that you've read this factoid a hundred or more times, but did the
source ever support this with refutations of the arguments of ID theorists like Behe
to the opposite effect?
I don't need a source for this, I only need to read what Behe does and apply the standard understanding of the concept of "theory" in the mainstream theory of science to it. It's not about "refuting" any argument he makes, it's about pointing out that
I wonder how much recall of Chapter 3 you had when you wrote this. I'd like to see your
reaction to the rest of p.52 and the first ten lines of page 53.
On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 19:18:42 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com" <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 8:20:20?AM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
<snip for focus>
There is no ID theory, for any reasonable value of "theory".
I don't doubt that you've read this factoid a hundred or more times, but did the
source ever support this with refutations of the arguments of ID theorists like Behe
to the opposite effect?
that he fails to even attempt making the relevant sort of argument, for building an ID theory.I don't need a source for this, I only need to read what Behe does and apply the standard understanding of the concept of "theory" in the mainstream theory of science to it. It's not about "refuting" any argument he makes, it's about pointing out
..) is a theory of ID even attempted.Did you consult with someone (say, Bill Rogers) who is competent to judge Behe's
_The_Edge_of_Evolution_ [...]
Nowhere in the book, with the possible exception of a few throwaway lines in the last chapter (and these of truly sophomoric quality - "I am intelligent, therefore the motive of the designer must have been to create intelligent beings" _ I mean, please.
I wonder how much recall of Chapter 3 you had when you wrote this. I'd like to see your
reaction to the rest of p.52 and the first ten lines of page 53.
The above isn't the first time you demand petty details from a
specific edition of a specific book.
You also have done this
semi-regularly with "Darwin's Black Box".
I can imagine the scorn
heaped upon you if you put such questions to your students.
Unable to deal fair and square with what I wrote in reply to Burkhard, >jillery snipped out almost all of it, and capitalized on its
absence to create a thoroughly deceitful picture of what ID is all about.
It has always been necessary, not just for jillery, but for all the anti-ID people,
to avoid dealing with the most substantive parts of ID theory. What sets >jillery apart from all others is that no one else has the nerve to descend to the
depths to which jillery will descend.
On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 10::25?AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 19:18:42 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 8:20:20?AM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
<snip for focus>
The "focus" is three earlier comments, two by Burkhard, after a long, snipped explanation by me,
THIS TIME AROUND, of how baseless these comments by Burkhard had been.
I wonder how much recall of Chapter 3 you had when you wrote this. I'd like to see your
reaction to the rest of p.52 and the first ten lines of page 53.
The above isn't the first time you demand petty details from a
specific edition of a specific book.
As can be seen, this was no "demand," it was a continuation of a suggestion >that jillery snipped, and was meant to recall Behe's thesis that I had stated a few lines earlier.
You also have done this
semi-regularly with "Darwin's Black Box".
"this" is about a few lines on page 40 that anti-ID regulars regularly sweep under the
rug with blatant falsehoods to the effect that "Behe claims IC (Irreducibly Complex) systems
can't evolve." Those few lines explicitly refute the falsehood.
You, jillery, who know better, are aiding and abetting this falsehood here and now,
as you have done many times in the past.
I can imagine the scorn
heaped upon you if you put such questions to your students.
You can and often do imagine such outlandish things.
In fact, your agenda forces you to do it, as I explained in the preamble.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
PS The post to which you, jillery, are replying was just the first installment of
my overall response to a long post by Burkhard. Since he hasn't shown awareness of this first
installment, I am postponing the next installment to tomorrow.
On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 19:20:49 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com" <peter2...@gmail.com> trolled:
Unable to deal fair and square with what I wrote in reply to Burkhard, >jillery snipped out almost all of it, and capitalized on its
absence to create a thoroughly deceitful picture of what ID is all about.
It has always been necessary, not just for jillery, but for all the anti-ID people,
to avoid dealing with the most substantive parts of ID theory. What sets >jillery apart from all others is that no one else has the nerve to descend to the
depths to which jillery will descend.
Let your descent into making T.O. a Hellhole continue.
On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 10::25?AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 19:18:42 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 8:20:20?AM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
<snip for focus>
The "focus" is three earlier comments, two by Burkhard, after a long, snipped explanation by me,
THIS TIME AROUND, of how baseless these comments by Burkhard had been.
The "focus" has utterly nothing to do with your "explanation".
The "focus" has to do with your "expectation" for Burkhard and other
readers to refer to the same edition of the same book to which you
allude.
My deletion of approximately 400 lines of commentary which
have utterly nothing to do this "focus", reasonably can be described
as a mercy snip.
Too bad my expressed purpose utterly failed to get
you to "focus" on your petty parlor tricks.
<snip your spam not relevant to this "focus">
I wonder how much recall of Chapter 3 you had when you wrote this. I'd like to see your
reaction to the rest of p.52 and the first ten lines of page 53.
The above isn't the first time you demand petty details from a
specific edition of a specific book.
As can be seen, this was no "demand," it was a continuation of a suggestion >that jillery snipped, and was meant to recall Behe's thesis that I had stated a few lines earlier.
Po TAY to, Po TAH to. My point remains unchallenged.
On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 2:15:27?AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 19:20:49 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> trolled:
Unable to deal fair and square with what I wrote in reply to Burkhard,
jillery snipped out almost all of it, and capitalized on its
absence to create a thoroughly deceitful picture of what ID is all about. >> >
It has always been necessary, not just for jillery, but for all the anti-ID people,
to avoid dealing with the most substantive parts of ID theory. What sets >> >jillery apart from all others is that no one else has the nerve to descend to the
depths to which jillery will descend.
Let your descent into making T.O. a Hellhole continue.
Dishonest blame-the-victim tactic noted.
On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 10::25?AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 19:18:42 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 8:20:20?AM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
<snip for focus>
The "focus" is three earlier comments, two by Burkhard, after a long, snipped explanation by me,
THIS TIME AROUND, of how baseless these comments by Burkhard had been.
The "focus" has utterly nothing to do with your "explanation".
The "focus" has to do with your "expectation" for Burkhard and other
readers to refer to the same edition of the same book to which you
allude.
My deletion of approximately 400 lines of commentary which
have utterly nothing to do this "focus", reasonably can be described
as a mercy snip.
"approximately 400" is less than 40 in the World According to Jillery.
On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 07:20:12 -0700 (PDT), PeeWee Peter trolled:
On Friday, April 21, 2023 at 2:15:27?AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 19:20:49 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> trolled:
Unable to deal fair and square with what I wrote in reply to Burkhard, >> >jillery snipped out almost all of it, and capitalized on its
absence to create a thoroughly deceitful picture of what ID is all about.
It has always been necessary, not just for jillery, but for all the anti-ID people,
to avoid dealing with the most substantive parts of ID theory. What sets >> >jillery apart from all others is that no one else has the nerve to descend to the
depths to which jillery will descend.
Let your descent into making T.O. a Hellhole continue.
Dishonest blame-the-victim tactic noted.Dishonest PeeWee Peterism noted. His baseless preamble above is him exercising his compulsion to post pointless personal attacks.
<Remaining PeeWee Peterisms deleted without notation>
On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 10::25?AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 19:18:42 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 8:20:20?AM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
<snip for focus>
The "focus" is three earlier comments, two by Burkhard, after a long, snipped explanation by me,
THIS TIME AROUND, of how baseless these comments by Burkhard had been.
The "focus" has utterly nothing to do with your "explanation".
The "focus" has to do with your "expectation" for Burkhard and other
readers to refer to the same edition of the same book to which you
allude.
My deletion of approximately 400 lines of commentary which
have utterly nothing to do this "focus", reasonably can be described
as a mercy snip.
"approximately 400" is less than 40 in the World According to Jillery.The above comment goes beyond mere Peterisms into transparently
willful stupidity.
The following is from the headers to PeeWee Peter's post: *******************************
From: "peter2...@gmail.com" <peter2...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: steady state theory of biological origin
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2023 19:18:42 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <ccce4cef-fd6a-45d1...@googlegroups.com> *******************************
The following is from the headers to my post: *******************************
From: jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: steady state theory of biological origin
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 10:50:35 -0400
Message-ID: <esvv3iho1d131rncc...@4ax.com>
********************************
My newsreader shows PeeWee Peter's post has 459 lines. This doesn't
include the additional lines it would have counted if line-wrap was
enabled. My post has 37 lines.
In the "World According to Jillery", 459-37 is approximately 400
lines.
In the world according to PeeWee Peter, this is an excuse to accuse me
of doing what he does even as he's doing it.
Only a willfully stupid troll would post something so trivial and
irrelevant and easily proved false.
--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.
With the addition of the post below, I think jillery has provided Burkhard with enough entertainment to
last him the whole weekend. Of course, to get the full benefit of the entertainment, he will need to compare it
with the post to which jillery is replying:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/aEWcwKdnhaY/m/I2nYK75gAQAJ
Re: steady state theory of biological origin
Perhaps by Monday he'll return to active posting on this thread,
and then it would make more sense for me to resume my replies to him.
Until then, my usual weekend posting break takes effect, starting now.
On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 19:28:06 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com" <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
With the addition of the post below, I think jillery has provided Burkhard with enough entertainment to
last him the whole weekend. Of course, to get the full benefit of the entertainment, he will need to compare it
with the post to which jillery is replying:
Yes, it's always and only about you.
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/aEWcwKdnhaY/m/I2nYK75gAQAJ
Re: steady state theory of biological origin
Perhaps by Monday he'll return to active posting on this thread,
and then it would make more sense for me to resume my replies to him. >Until then, my usual weekend posting break takes effect, starting now.
Praise DOG.
On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 2:50:28?AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 19:28:06 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
With the addition of the post below, I think jillery has provided Burkhard with enough entertainment to
last him the whole weekend. Of course, to get the full benefit of the entertainment, he will need to compare it
with the post to which jillery is replying:
Yes, it's always and only about you.
That's certainly true of the entertainment you've provided in every post you've done to
this thread since you mangled my message in the April 18 post. The one to which
I am replying is the fourth so far.
I wish you had NOT done so, and this illustrates how your snarky comment is more literally true
than you intended it to be.
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/aEWcwKdnhaY/m/I2nYK75gAQAJ
Re: steady state theory of biological origin
Perhaps by Monday he'll return to active posting on this thread,
and then it would make more sense for me to resume my replies to him.
Until then, my usual weekend posting break takes effect, starting now.
Praise DOG.
He still hasn't returned to this thread, and so I am giving a post by Mark Isaak on
the "Charles Darwin still dead. Jesus Christ still alive." thread priority; and that reply will
probably be the last post I do today.
Peter Nyikos
He still hasn't returned to this thread, and so I am giving a post by Mark Isaak on
the "Charles Darwin still dead. Jesus Christ still alive." thread priority; and that reply will
probably be the last post I do today.
Peter Nyikos
Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 9:30:31 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
He still hasn't returned to this thread, and so I am giving a post by Mark Isaak on
the "Charles Darwin still dead. Jesus Christ still alive." thread
priority; and that reply will
probably be the last post I do today.
Peter Nyikos
Might I suggest you search that thread for "Corfu".
Will he be wearing a kilt while hiking?
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 9:30:31 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
He still hasn't returned to this thread, and so I am giving a post by Mark Isaak on
the "Charles Darwin still dead. Jesus Christ still alive." thread
priority; and that reply will
probably be the last post I do today.
Peter Nyikos
Might I suggest you search that thread for "Corfu".
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 8:15:32 AM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 9:30:31 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
I doubt kilts have a pocket for anything. It's a pretty basic garment.He still hasn't returned to this thread, and so I am giving a post by Mark Isaak on
the "Charles Darwin still dead. Jesus Christ still alive." thread
priority; and that reply will
probably be the last post I do today.
Peter Nyikos
Might I suggest you search that thread for "Corfu".
Will he be wearing a kilt while hiking?If it were me I'd want something with a pocket for my Gerald Durrell paperbacks.
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 5:35:32 AM UTC-7, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 8:15:32 AM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote: >>> Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:I doubt kilts have a pocket for anything. It's a pretty basic garment.
If it were me I'd want something with a pocket for my Gerald DurrellOn Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 9:30:31 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:Will he be wearing a kilt while hiking?
He still hasn't returned to this thread, and so I am giving a post by Mark Isaak on
the "Charles Darwin still dead. Jesus Christ still alive." thread
priority; and that reply will
probably be the last post I do today.
Peter Nyikos
Might I suggest you search that thread for "Corfu".
paperbacks.
On 2023-04-26 2:31 PM, erik simpson wrote:Exactly. And Burk's a true Scotsman.
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 5:35:32 AM UTC-7, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 8:15:32 AM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote: >>> Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:I doubt kilts have a pocket for anything. It's a pretty basic garment.
If it were me I'd want something with a pocket for my Gerald DurrellOn Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 9:30:31 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:Will he be wearing a kilt while hiking?
He still hasn't returned to this thread, and so I am giving a post by Mark Isaak on
the "Charles Darwin still dead. Jesus Christ still alive." thread >>>>> priority; and that reply will
probably be the last post I do today.
Peter Nyikos
Might I suggest you search that thread for "Corfu".
paperbacks.
That's what the sporran's for Laddie.
--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 3:30:32 PM UTC-7, DB Cates wrote:
On 2023-04-26 2:31 PM, erik simpson wrote:
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 5:35:32 AM UTC-7, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 8:15:32 AM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:I doubt kilts have a pocket for anything. It's a pretty basic garment.
Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:If it were me I'd want something with a pocket for my Gerald Durrell
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 9:30:31 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:Will he be wearing a kilt while hiking?
He still hasn't returned to this thread, and so I am giving a post by Mark Isaak on
the "Charles Darwin still dead. Jesus Christ still alive." thread >>>>> priority; and that reply will
probably be the last post I do today.
Peter Nyikos
Might I suggest you search that thread for "Corfu".
paperbacks.
That's what the sporran's for Laddie.Exactly. And Burk's a true Scotsman.
--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 08:56:41 |
| Calls: | 10,387 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,060 |
| Messages: | 6,416,667 |