Posted on November 28th, 2008 by admin.
Categories: Ranting.
On Nov 28, 1:52 pm, grr.h…@gmail.com wrote:
> Jesus hates the stupid newfies…
Jesus hates you!
He told me!
There was a secretly coded message in the smell in the last public
bathroom I went to!
A miracle!
For the first time ever, a divine message was transmitted olfactorily
(sic)!
___________________________________
All children are atheists — they have no idea of God.
Posted on November 28th, 2008 by admin.
Categories: Ranting.
On Nov 25, 6:15 pm, Neil Kelsey wrote:
> On Nov 25, 5:07 pm, Chris wrote:
>
> > Neil…you friggin buttnuggett. “Hopelessly complex” may indeed be
> > correct. Cay you prove we’ll ever tap the seemingly exhaustive
> > storehouses of knowledge?
>
> “Seemingly exhaustive?” Do you by any chance mean “inexhaustive?”
yeah thanks
> …and you called me a “buttnugget.”
yes I do
> > Even concerning *simple* things like
> > subatomic structures?
>
> We’ve already “tapped” subatomic structures to a great degree. Close
> to the origins of the universe.
O please. Physicists don’t agree on that by any stretch.
> > No you can’t.
>
> I think how profoundly far we’ve come in this regard is proof that
> we’ll go profoundly farther. Proof enough for me, anyway.
That’s fine. But who knows where the *bottom* lay?
> > But I was just using a term. Prove
> > that “hopelessly complex” automatically equates to “don’t bother”.
>
> Sure. It’s just standard English anyway:
Maybe in Canada. Hoser.
> hopeless (from dictionary.com):
>
> 1. providing no hope; beyond optimism or hope; desperate: a hopeless
> case of cancer.
> 2. without hope; despairing: hopeless grief.
> 3. impossible to accomplish, solve, resolve, etc.: Balancing my budget
> is hopeless.
> 4. not able to learn or act, perform, or work as desired; inadequate
> for the purpose: As a bridge player, you’re hopeless.
>
> I’d say #3 is the most applicable. Using that definition,
> “hopelessly,” when used as in the adjectival phrase “hopelessly
> compex,” means “impossible to accomplish.” If you know something is
> “impossible to accomplish,” why would you bother doing it?
It was just an expression. Here’s another: you’re a buttnugget
> > Are
> > these 2 phrases automatically interchangeable in every instance of
> > their usage? In any usage? No they’re not.
>
> Oh. You must be using the Super Secret Christian English Dictionary.
> Brock was using it earlier. Being an atheist I don’t get to have the
> Blessed Decoder Ring so I am stuck with having to take English for
> what it means. Maybe you could have mercy on us poor saps and say what
> you mean.
Problem is you exercised considerable license. To the point of
delusions.
> > Now go to bed.
>
> Too early for that.
Then go dog sledding. I really could care less.
> > Comparing the complexity of artificial contraptions w/natural
> > contraptions seems pretty meaningless to me, this I maintain.
>
> Why? At some level artificial contraptions are constructed from
> natural materials.
At all levels they are. But that’s besides the point. Buttnuggett.
> > When
> > considering an artificial mechanism, the underlying structure or even
> > composition isn’t considered.
>
> Disagree. If I want a container (artificial mechanism) for hydrogen
> sulfide, for instance, knowing the properties of the natural materials
> to construct the container from is critical. Or if I’m building a
> bridge (artificial mechanism) to drive cars over I’m not going to
> weave it out of grass.
You can disagree all you want. It didn’t pertain to the conversation.
That’s all I was saying.
> > It’s man made - we consider what duh man
> > has made of it. But when considering naturally occurring phenomena,
> > everything is brought to bear.
>
> All your base are belong to us.
Unclear. Goodbye.
> > On Nov 25, 4:59 pm, Neil Kelsey wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 25, 4:47 pm, Chris wrote:
>
> > > > Neil, kindly freaking tell me and the group where I said that these
> > > > things shouldn’t be studied.
>
> > > Then kindly freaking tell me what you mean by “anything that occurs in
> > > nature is hopelessly complex.” In standard English, I take that to
> > > mean “don’t bother.”
>
> > > > KINDLY TELL ME WHERE I HAVE _EVER_ EVEN
> > > > ONCE SAID THIS DURING THE 1.5 YEARS I’VE PARTICIPATED IN THESE
> > > > DISCUSSIONS. You’re barking up the wrong tree as usual. There’s
> > > > nothing saying complexity can’t be analyzed and explained.
>
> > > Sure there is - you for instance. You said it was “hopeless” and
> > > “meaningless.”
>
> > > > Something
> > > > doesn’t become inherently non-complex once you understand it. But
> > > > needless to say there are still a great number of things that we can’t
> > > > analyze sufficiently, and it’ll be a long time before we can.
>
> > > So now you’ve changed your mind? Because “it’ll be a long time before
> > > we can” is a far cry from “hopeless.” If this is the case, I now agree
> > > with you.
>
> > > > I was trying to contrast artificial complexity w/natural complexity.
> > > > The human mind is probably thousands of times more complex then the
> > > > most powerful computer on the planet.
>
> > > Right. You said “speaking of complexity in terms of natural
> > > occurrences in meaningless.” The human mind is seated in the brain.
> > > The brain is a natural occurance. We have broken the brain down into
> > > it’s components, like neurons and DNA, and we have come a long way
> > > towards understanding the chemistry and circuitry of the brain. So, I
> > > disagree with you that “speaking of complexity in terms of natural
> > > occurances is meaningless.” I think it is useful.
>
> > > > On Nov 25, 4:40 pm, Neil Kelsey wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 25, 4:11 pm, Chris wrote:
>
> > > > > > here’s the kicker - anything that occurs in nature is hopelessly
> > > > > > complex.
>
> > > > > Then how come we continue to progress in breaking nature down into its
> > > > > components? Just because you toss up your hands and call it hopeless
> > > > > doesn’t mean the rest of us do too. Irreducible complexity is a
> > > > > fallacy of the intellectually lazy.
>
> > > > > > We can grade the complexity of man made devices, but speaking
> > > > > > of complexity in terms of natural occurrences in meaningless.
>
> > > > > We’ve looked at the complexity of matter all the way down to the level
> > > > > of quarks and you’re calling it meaningless? You’re missing out on a
> > > > > fabulous reality…
>
> > > > > > On Nov 25, 2:06 pm, Saint Onan wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Nov 26, 8:55 am, Chris wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > omg is not something complex by virtue of it’s characteristics?
> > > > > > > > Complexity is easy to spot, wouldn’t you say?
>
> > > > > > > Simple question, then. Is a snowflake simple, or complex?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text — Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text — Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
Posted on November 28th, 2008 by admin.
Categories: Ranting.
On Nov 28, 1:37 pm, hucktunes wrote:
> The Beatles were the greatest rock band ever. I don’t imagine any band
> will ever have such an impact on popular music or make such great
> recordings. I never cared for Led Zeppelin. The high pitched screaming
> vocals, the distortion driven guitar. Not my cup of tea. One of my all-
High-pitched screaming? From the singer who gave us one of the best
rock ballads ever?
Distortion-driven? From the band that gave us so many riffs, today’s
bands are still copying them?
You do not know much about music, don’t you?
> time favorite songs was written by Mike Nesmith of The Monkees, Some
Ah, I guess I was right!
___________________________________
All children are atheists — they have no idea of God.