IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

IWETHEY Home / IWETHEY Board / Religion, Philosophy, Metaphysics Forum / look, if some mook wants to look at dna
Post #237,045
by boxley
12/4/05 8:10:25 PM
Reply
New look, if some mook wants to look at dna
and crossref that to a off planet origin its okay by me. On the other hand Dr.'s of Psychology/Psychiatry change the quackery yearly to match the normalization trends of a shifting global society and are hailed great scientists. One has about as much chance of being right as the other. Its not bafflegab to be constantly pattern gazing, lately iffen you notice yourself you see neocons behind even the butcher dance:-)
thanx,
bill
"the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli

Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #237,054
by Ashton
12/4/05 9:09:38 PM
Reply
New Quite right-enough
In a place where the language forms the jelloware and vice-versa.
Or, in the words of another psych-'scientist', one Fritz Perls:

there's bullshit and then the much more subtle level - - elephant shit.




(Full disclosure, then: Perhaps all the foribuses should be subbed under, Entertainment.)

Neocons? just Paleocons with an Armani
Butcher dance was about shaggy dogs, donchaknow?
     If you think being anti-OOP is controversial.... - (tablizer) - (113) - Dec. 3, 2005, 11:19:25 PM EST
         well that pretty much sinks ID :-) - (boxley) - (100) - Dec. 3, 2005, 11:34:40 PM EST
             No, it is not a "soft" science - (ben_tilly) - (74) - Dec. 4, 2005, 05:05:19 AM EST
                 it is a philosophy, noted soft science much like psychology - (boxley) - (73) - Dec. 4, 2005, 10:06:58 AM EST
                     how about theology. -NT - (bepatient) - (1) - Dec. 4, 2005, 10:27:23 AM EST
                         subscience of philosophy -NT - (boxley) - Dec. 4, 2005, 10:28:26 AM EST
                     No, it isn't. - (pwhysall) - (20) - Dec. 4, 2005, 10:40:23 AM EST
                         Is sociology a science? -NT - (bepatient) - (2) - Dec. 4, 2005, 10:56:23 AM EST
                             In places, yes. - (pwhysall) - (1) - Dec. 4, 2005, 11:01:31 AM EST
                                 In part it is the same methodology - (bepatient) - Dec. 4, 2005, 01:31:50 PM EST
                         point out differences between the examples - (boxley) - (16) - Dec. 4, 2005, 01:33:57 PM EST
                             ID starts with a creator. - (pwhysall) - (15) - Dec. 4, 2005, 01:58:25 PM EST
                                 Not really - (bepatient) - (14) - Dec. 4, 2005, 07:44:12 PM EST
                                     And how is that not creationism? - (pwhysall) - (13) - Dec. 5, 2005, 01:26:12 AM EST
                                         No. Well, sorta. - (drewk) - (4) - Dec. 5, 2005, 09:22:03 AM EST
                                             How is a designer not a creator? -NT - (pwhysall) - (2) - Dec. 7, 2005, 03:33:23 PM EST
                                                 If the universe designed itself in a fit of recursion -NT - (ChrisR) - Dec. 7, 2005, 03:52:40 PM EST
                                                 That's what ID people say, and why I didn't say it - (drewk) - Dec. 7, 2005, 07:13:54 PM EST
                                             Re: No. Well, sorta. - (danreck) - Dec. 8, 2005, 05:11:29 PM EST
                                         Minor difference - (bepatient) - (7) - Dec. 5, 2005, 03:52:31 PM EST
                                             Same difference - (Silverlock) - (6) - Dec. 5, 2005, 04:44:56 PM EST
                                                 No again - (bepatient) - (5) - Dec. 5, 2005, 09:02:50 PM EST
                                                     No again - (ben_tilly) - (4) - Dec. 5, 2005, 10:08:02 PM EST
                                                         Sturgeon? -NT - (jake123) - Dec. 5, 2005, 11:13:40 PM EST
                                                         (Could be fun - with chromosomes.) -NT - (Ashton) - Dec. 5, 2005, 11:36:47 PM EST
                                                         If there is significance to the variable names, then - (jbrabeck) - (1) - Dec. 7, 2005, 03:57:54 PM EST
                                                             It's fun seeing people guess but... - (ben_tilly) - Dec. 7, 2005, 04:19:28 PM EST
                     I feel that the other examples are not sciences either - (ben_tilly) - (48) - Dec. 4, 2005, 09:39:09 PM EST
                         Agreed, social science might be a better descriptive - (boxley) - (47) - Dec. 5, 2005, 01:22:41 PM EST
                             You are right that those are missing... - (ben_tilly) - (46) - Dec. 5, 2005, 10:03:44 PM EST
                                 Not interested enough to read the literature :-) - (boxley) - (45) - Dec. 6, 2005, 09:38:58 AM EST
                                     Thats the issue - (bepatient) - (44) - Dec. 6, 2005, 11:34:33 AM EST
                                         Can ID be experimentally disproven? - (imric) - (43) - Dec. 6, 2005, 12:02:26 PM EST
                                             disagree - (boxley) - (31) - Dec. 6, 2005, 12:05:20 PM EST
                                                 Don't think so. - (imric) - (30) - Dec. 6, 2005, 12:15:29 PM EST
                                                     if you can predict results from the patterns then - (boxley) - (29) - Dec. 6, 2005, 12:48:17 PM EST
                                                         Nope. That's just genetics. ID is not genetics. - (imric) - (28) - Dec. 6, 2005, 12:57:23 PM EST
                                                             Q for ID-ers: How I is the D of, say, flightless birds? -NT - (Meerkat) - (27) - Dec. 6, 2005, 03:54:07 PM EST
                                                                 I always use hemroids. - (Andrew Grygus) - Dec. 6, 2005, 04:13:35 PM EST
                                                                 gotta have something easy to catch and consume - (boxley) - Dec. 6, 2005, 05:51:33 PM EST
                                                                 Intelligent Design is a dead give away... - (ChrisR) - (2) - Dec. 6, 2005, 08:46:36 PM EST
                                                                     Don't forget the other moral of the example you are quoting - (ben_tilly) - (1) - Dec. 6, 2005, 10:23:29 PM EST
                                                                         Or even - - (Ashton) - Dec. 7, 2005, 07:44:29 PM EST
                                                                 HD - Halfwit Design - (tablizer) - (21) - Dec. 10, 2005, 11:07:56 PM EST
                                                                     ID is supernatural by definition - (pwhysall) - (20) - Dec. 11, 2005, 02:08:17 AM EST
                                                                         That's just a fortunate side effect. -NT - (drewk) - (6) - Dec. 11, 2005, 02:10:43 AM EST
                                                                             Not it's not. - (jake123) - (5) - Dec. 11, 2005, 08:11:12 AM EST
                                                                                 I see I need to expand my Ministry. - (pwhysall) - (4) - Dec. 11, 2005, 10:39:16 AM EST
                                                                                     I beleive he did, parts stamped made in mexico -NT - (boxley) - (2) - Dec. 11, 2005, 10:40:35 AM EST
                                                                                         That would be where every third guy is named Jesus? - (hnick) - Dec. 11, 2005, 10:44:34 AM EST
                                                                                         Philistine. -NT - (pwhysall) - Dec. 11, 2005, 10:59:30 AM EST
                                                                                     Damn! You mean Janis Joplin was RIGHT?!? -NT - (jb4) - Dec. 12, 2005, 01:37:23 PM EST
                                                                         Creator need not be supernatural. May be ultra-tech aliens. -NT - (warmachine) - (11) - Dec. 11, 2005, 09:48:38 AM EST
                                                                             And they were 'designed' to produce us, of course... -NT - (imric) - (10) - Dec. 11, 2005, 09:51:18 AM EST
                                                                                 ID makes no assertian of the designer, designed or not. - (warmachine) - (9) - Dec. 11, 2005, 01:56:48 PM EST
                                                                                     Except it's basic tenet . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (1) - Dec. 11, 2005, 02:08:28 PM EST
                                                                                         That's an extrapolation of ID itself, not a basic tenet. - (warmachine) - Dec. 11, 2005, 05:26:30 PM EST
                                                                                     Here's you task for today, grasshopper: - (jb4) - (6) - Dec. 12, 2005, 01:41:33 PM EST
                                                                                         You forgot: bring a bodyguard - - (Ashton) - (5) - Dec. 12, 2005, 06:18:23 PM EST
                                                                                             What does the Prince of Peace have to do with ID? - (jb4) - (4) - Dec. 12, 2005, 06:27:24 PM EST
                                                                                                 Nothing at all - we're talking GOD here . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (3) - Dec. 12, 2005, 06:32:10 PM EST
                                                                                                     Heard a lengthy discussion re Yahweh - - (Ashton) - (2) - Dec. 12, 2005, 08:17:17 PM EST
                                                                                                         look it doesnt apply to you gentiles, its a realestate - (boxley) - (1) - Dec. 12, 2005, 08:52:42 PM EST
                                                                                                             DPRLCI (new thread) - (Another Scott) - Dec. 12, 2005, 08:57:01 PM EST
                                                                         Nothing wrong with a creator - (hnick) - Dec. 11, 2005, 10:05:27 AM EST
                                             Post of the Week (and it's only Tuesday...)! - (jb4) - Dec. 6, 2005, 02:27:07 PM EST
                                             Falsifiable, Trueifiable - (tablizer) - (9) - Dec. 10, 2005, 11:03:20 PM EST
                                                 Patterns... Pattern institute? - (imric) - (8) - Dec. 11, 2005, 01:47:07 AM EST
                                                     fairies exist, saw one once - (boxley) - (7) - Dec. 11, 2005, 10:23:01 AM EST
                                                         heh, knew where that was going -NT - (bepatient) - Dec. 11, 2005, 10:23:59 AM EST
                                                         So the teacher asks the kid - (hnick) - Dec. 11, 2005, 10:31:25 AM EST
                                                         They wear boots - ya gotta believe... -NT - (imric) - (3) - Dec. 11, 2005, 04:22:52 PM EST
                                                             I saw it I saw it with my own two eyes -NT - (jake123) - (1) - Dec. 11, 2005, 04:52:11 PM EST
                                                                 Well all right now! -NT - (imric) - Dec. 11, 2005, 05:02:00 PM EST
                                                             And around here they ride Harleys. -NT - (Andrew Grygus) - Dec. 11, 2005, 04:56:43 PM EST
                                                         Me too...I watch Bravo.... -NT - (jb4) - Dec. 12, 2005, 01:43:15 PM EST
                     What's in a name? - (ChrisR) - Dec. 5, 2005, 10:03:50 AM EST
             Google 'ontological proof of god' for some pithy links - (Ashton) - (4) - Dec. 4, 2005, 05:52:22 AM EST
                 see my answer to Ben, -NT - (boxley) - (3) - Dec. 4, 2005, 10:08:16 AM EST
                     Unsatisfying, just word/def'n pandering. - (Ashton) - (2) - Dec. 4, 2005, 07:12:30 PM EST
                         look, if some mook wants to look at dna - (boxley) - (1) - Dec. 4, 2005, 08:10:25 PM EST
                             Quite right-enough - (Ashton) - Dec. 4, 2005, 09:09:38 PM EST
             Sep. of church/state laws don't govern philosophy - (tablizer) - (19) - Dec. 10, 2005, 10:56:12 PM EST
                 It's FRAUD if you call it science instead of philosophy. -NT - (imric) - (18) - Dec. 11, 2005, 01:48:21 AM EST
                     then psychology is fraud -NT - (boxley) - (17) - Dec. 11, 2005, 10:37:53 AM EST
                         This is news? -NT - (ben_tilly) - Dec. 11, 2005, 12:43:21 PM EST
                         Soft science. - (imric) - Dec. 11, 2005, 04:59:52 PM EST
                         That would be "Psychology is FREUD" - (imqwerky) - (14) - Dec. 11, 2005, 09:30:36 PM EST
                             accuse me? - (boxley) - (12) - Dec. 11, 2005, 11:00:42 PM EST
                                 No, he didn't - (Ashton) - Dec. 12, 2005, 06:33:13 AM EST
                                 I'm still not getting the connection... - (pwhysall) - (9) - Dec. 12, 2005, 06:36:57 AM EST
                                     Negative. - (imric) - (8) - Dec. 12, 2005, 07:07:51 AM EST
                                         OK... - (pwhysall) - (7) - Dec. 12, 2005, 07:10:47 AM EST
                                             OT branch - (imric) - (5) - Dec. 12, 2005, 07:13:28 AM EST
                                                 Damn Scientologists - (pwhysall) - (4) - Dec. 12, 2005, 07:17:11 AM EST
                                                     ROFL! -NT - (imric) - Dec. 12, 2005, 07:25:59 AM EST
                                                     Anyone catch "Last Laugh 2005" over the weekend? - (drewk) - (2) - Dec. 12, 2005, 10:01:12 AM EST
                                                         Yep. - (bepatient) - (1) - Dec. 12, 2005, 10:10:54 AM EST
                                                             Ronnie, walking around, would scare me too... - (hnick) - Dec. 12, 2005, 10:43:53 AM EST
                                             ICLRPD (new thread) - (ben_tilly) - Dec. 12, 2005, 11:44:56 AM EST
                                 Not accusing you. - (imqwerky) - Dec. 12, 2005, 05:43:18 PM EST
                             More like: Freud (pronounced: "fraud") - (jb4) - Dec. 12, 2005, 01:32:36 PM EST
         Just saying "I think it's science"... - (pwhysall) - (2) - Dec. 4, 2005, 02:59:26 AM EST
             ID ain't Physics. It's Meta-Physics. - (ChrisR) - (1) - Dec. 12, 2005, 06:31:15 PM EST
                 \ufffdPrecisam\ufffdnte! - and before you start in that field - (Ashton) - Dec. 12, 2005, 08:24:44 PM EST
         intelligent design: the agenda - (rcareaga) - (5) - Dec. 5, 2005, 09:22:50 PM EST
             And around and around.. - (Ashton) - Dec. 5, 2005, 10:02:40 PM EST
             300 years after the Enlightenment and we still get this. -NT - (warmachine) - Dec. 6, 2005, 02:43:04 AM EST
             This crap pisses me off - (Silverlock) - (2) - Dec. 6, 2005, 02:03:15 PM EST
                 religion is an opiate for the sociopaths? probably -NT - (boxley) - (1) - Dec. 6, 2005, 03:31:32 PM EST
                     Not just sociopaths, everybody ;0) - (mmoffitt) - Dec. 7, 2005, 08:47:01 AM EST
         I'm not persuaded. 47 kB .img - (Another Scott) - Dec. 6, 2005, 03:45:09 PM EST
         God-Man\ufffd explains finally.. how it works - (Ashton) - (1) - Dec. 8, 2005, 03:39:26 AM EST
             I like the non sequitor version better - (boxley) - Dec. 8, 2005, 05:49:48 PM EST

It was the internet of the day. It was delivered by Fiber Coptics.
172 ms