11 Feb 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOh ye mean "when it can be subject to the model that in MY opinion is scientific", I am sure!
when it can be subject to the scientific model my trusty fear!
P.S. your opponent in Sicilian played very passive 12.f3 trying for Yugoslav setup as against the dragon, better was 12.f4 immediately challenging the center, but never the less you played a beautiful game beetle, very clear in objectives and being able to realize your aims. i must ...[text shortened]... at me, alas a triumph of science and logic over the power of the Gods, but they will be avenged!
Your analysis is correct, congrats!
Hamilton will beat you, but he works not in order to sharpen his tactics and therefore soon you will have the chance to taste his haggis (if you give up hangin Bishops) 😵
11 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetlelol yes as we speak, he is savoring the taste of victory, but no more closed games for Robbie, i will play Benoni against his wan dot d four hoping to open the game immediately, with fianchettoed bishop, hoping to transpose into dragon type position! the Gods will look on my bravery as an example and despite you assertion that they take no interest in the affairs of men, i hope to stir them into action by this boldness!😉
Oh ye mean "when it can be subject to the model that in MY opinion is scientific", I am sure!
Your analysis is correct, congrats!
Hamilton will beat you, but he works not in order to sharpen his tactics and therefore soon you will have the chance to taste his haggis (if you give up hangin Bishops) 😵
11 Feb 09
Originally posted by KellyJay….You are suggesting evolutionary change is only good and improving?
You are suggesting evolutionary change is only good and improving?
Even if that were true, which I do not believe is, who is to say over
time the human eye would get as good as the octopuses? Are you
suggesting all eyes had to have improved at the same rate over time?
What are you suggesting?
Kelly
.…
In the very narrow sense of “good and improving” meaning becoming better adapted to the environment -yes.
….who is to say over time the human eye would get as good as the octopuses?
..…
Nobody is saying that it would. What is your point?
The theory of evolution doesn’t imply that perfection will be achieves over time ( if that is what you are implying? ) -it just says there would occasionally be a better adaptation to the environment and all these better adaptation to the environment can add up to a significant change.
…Are you suggesting all eyes had to have improved at the SAME rate over time?
.… (my emphasis)
No.
11 Feb 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAnd why Benoni? Are ye afraid to cut yer way through it dark mysterious tangled forest, the noble KID???
lol yes as we speak, he is savoring the taste of victory, but no more closed games for Robbie, i will play Benoni against his wan dot d four hoping to open the game immediately, with fianchettoed bishop, hoping to transpose into dragon type position! the Gods will look on my bravery as an example and despite you assertion that they take no interest in the affairs of men, i hope to stir them into action by this boldness!😉
11 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleyes i am afraid!, it is a plan for masters, not patzers like me, i normally play the KID or have done almost exclusively in the past, but its like you say beetle a forest that has many unwary pitfalls for the uninitiated, plus i need space for my pieces, Hammy likes closed games where he can manoeuvre his pawns, he will have no such luxury if i can help it, so rather than fight in the forest, we shall fight on the open plains of Marathon, in full view of mount Olympus should the Gods wish to intervene!
And why Benoni? Are ye afraid to cut yer way through it dark mysterious tangled forest, the noble KID???
11 Feb 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOK then😵
yes i am afraid!, it is a plan for masters, not patzers like me, i normally play the KID or have done almost exclusively in the past, but its like you say beetle a forest that has many unwary pitfalls for the uninitiated, plus i need space for my pieces, Hammy likes closed games where he can manoeuvre his pawns, he will have no such luxury if i can h ...[text shortened]... on the open plains of Marathon, in full view of mount Olympus should the Gods wish to intervene!
11 Feb 09
Originally posted by KellyJay in the “All eyes evolved from a common ancestor!” thread in the science forum…....You suggested design had nothing to do with science I quoted you,
I don't care if you put a thousand smiley faces on your posts, it was
not funny!
You suggested design had nothing to do with science I quoted you,
you either back up your agrument or go away, I've had about I can
take from you this morning to really care one wit what you think about
anything to tell you the truth. Maybe later I will, now, no so much.
Kelly
you either back up your argument or go away,
..… (You where talking to FabianFnas here)
Creationist’s intelligent design hypotheses has nothing to do with science because it is not a scientific hypothesis. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis it must be either derived from evidence or reason.
Also, for a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, there has to be some way of proving it false if it is false -and to do that, the hypothesis must make a prediction that can be tested and for this test to be able to show that this prediction can be proved right if the hypothesis is right and, more importantly, wrong if the hypothesis is wrong.
So what prediction does the Creationist’s intelligent design hypotheses make that can be tested and proved wrong if the hypothesis is wrong?
-answer, none. Therefore the Creationist’s intelligent design hypotheses is not a scientific hypothesis and therefore Creationist’s intelligent design hypotheses has nothing to do with science -your claim here has been debunked.
13 Feb 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton=======================================
[b]…....You suggested design had nothing to do with science I quoted you,
you either back up your argument or go away,
..… (You where talking to FabianFnas here)
Creationist’s intelligent design hypotheses has nothing to do with science because it is not a scientific hypothesis. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis it must be eith ...[text shortened]... intelligent design hypotheses has nothing to do with science -your claim here has been debunked.[/b]
Creationist’s intelligent design hypotheses has nothing to do with science because it is not a scientific hypothesis. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis it must be either derived from evidence or reason.
=======================================
You run away from your own problem as an Evolutionist. When the problem of the origin of life is presented to you your escape hatch is:
1.) The origin of life has nothing to do with Evolution
2.) The evidence for this first simpliest life has disappeared.
So "we don't talk about it" is an unreasonable excuse. And you only have a faith that the once existing evidence of Evolution's first biological step is forever unrecoverable. We just have to take it on faith.
We have to trust the new high priests of a new secular religious dogma.
You don't come here to argue science really. You come here to defend your religion which declares there is no need for Divine Intelligence, atheism.
13 Feb 09
2 edits
People saying that the origin of life has nothing to do with Evolution are really saying this:
"A weakness in the Theory of the Evolution of Life has nothing to do with the Theory of the Evolution of Life."
Let's see now how elagantly Mr. Hamiliton or someone will defend this grand dodge.
13 Feb 09
Originally posted by jaywillThe origin of life is related to evolution. However, it is not a requirement for the Theory of Evolution to explain the origin or life any more than it should explain the chemistry behind DNA which is similarly related.
You run away from your own problem as an Evolutionist. When the problem of the origin of life is presented to you your escape hatch is:
1.) The origin of life has nothing to do with Evolution
2.) The evidence for this first simpliest life has disappeared.
So "we don't talk about it" is an unreasonable excuse. And you only have a faith that the once existing evidence of Evolution's first biological step is forever unrecoverable. We just have to take it on faith.
I don't believe that all the evidence for the first life forms has disappeared, we simply haven't much yet. But in no way does this affect the Theory of Evolution.
We have to trust the new high priests of a new secular religious dogma.
No you don't. If you are willing, you can learn all about it and understand it for yourself.
With religion that is not the case. Whenever I ask for a detailed explanation for something from a theist it invariably gets to the point where I am expected to go through some self delusion process.[/b]
13 Feb 09
Originally posted by jaywillIt is you that is trying desperately to tie them together. Can you explain why you claim the origin of life is a 'weakness in the Theory of the Evolution of Life'?
People saying that the origin of life has nothing to do with Evolution are really saying this:
"A weakness in the Theory of the Evolution of Life has nothing to do with the Theory of the Evolution of Life."
Let's see now how elagantly Mr. Hamiliton or someone will defend this grand dodge.
Do you know what Jesus did as a teenager? Is that a weakness of the telling of his life story in the gospels?
13 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieReligion is a touchy subject. In fact, you can safely discuss pretty much anything with most people anywhere EXCEPT religion. Then when you do they get that look in their eye that lets you know you better shut up or else!! 😠
is this a free public forum or not? we hear time and again 'scientific', reasons why we should discontinue with the advancement of our faith, in the spirituality forum, it is extremely hypocritical therefore to ask someone to refrain from posting in the science forum religious ideas if it challenges some 'scientifically', held beliefs, live and let live!