[_ Old Earth _] This one's for you, Bob.

[lordkalvan]

Way to go on evading every relevant question I posed and point I made, Bob. I think the 'objective unbiased reader' of this thread can conclude very easily where it is you are coming from and your inability to admit of any interpretation being possible but your own. The 'obvious' is obvious to you only because you choose to view it through the distorting spectacles of creationism. You are oblivious to anything but your own prejudiced view of the world. Ignoring others' points and repeating the same facile and specious arguments again and again does not make them any more convincing. Which is more devastating? An imagined 11 second flummox or an actual 11 day flummox?

One more time: do you think it at all possible that your interpretation of the sequence in question may not be the only plausible interpretation possible? If you are unwilling to answer this question - as you evidently are as I have asked it several times and you have ignored it several times - perhaps you would like to tell us why you are unwilling to answer it? Do you think that nobody has noticed?

 

[BobRyan]

Way to go on evading every relevant question I posed and point I made, Bob.

So far all you did is make a few wild unsubstantiated claims as IF a wild idea alone is its own proof.

It is not.


I think the 'objective unbiased reader' of this thread can see that -- don't you?

This is why I keep pointing out that I am more than happy to have the reader view the link and SEE for THEMSELVES.

Let the viewing begin?

click and follow the points/links.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33123&p=397631#p397419

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Way to go on evading every relevant question I posed and point I made, Bob.

So far all you did is make a few wild unsubstantiated claims as IF a wild idea alone is its own proof.

Just illustrating my point for me again, Bob.

 

[BobRyan]

One more time: do you think it at all possible that your interpretation of the sequence in question may not be the only plausible interpretation possible? If you are unwilling to answer this question - as you evidently are as I have asked it several times and you have ignored it several times - perhaps you would like to tell us why you are unwilling to answer it? Do you think that nobody has noticed?

Hint - your attempts to equivocate between your position of no-facts at all and my position of having all the facts BOTH in the Video AND in Dawkins' own rambling efforts to get out of the whole he dug for himsef... are noted but not compelling.

Why is it that you find this so surprising? You first have to MAKE a compelling case to actually HAVE one! So far I HAVE done it -- and you are still casting about you looking for a good way to start one. But now you want to argue that I should innexplicably suppose that your yet-to-be-started argument is on par with the DEMONSTRATED points I have shown in BOTH the video ANd the online Dawkins' response?

Where is the logic i nthat L.K?

It would only appeal to someone who was not paying attention to the thread.

And that is not me.

Anyone who clicks this link and follows it through would see the point INSTANTLY!

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33123&p=397982#p397676


Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

One more time: do you think it at all possible that your interpretation of the sequence in question may not be the only plausible interpretation possible? If you are unwilling to answer this question - as you evidently are as I have asked it several times and you have ignored it several times - perhaps you would like to tell us why you are unwilling to answer it? Do you think that nobody has noticed?

Hint - your attempts to equivocate between your position of no-facts at all and my position of having all the facts BOTH in the Video AND in Dawkins' own rambling efforts to get out of the whole he dug for himsef... are noted but not compelling.

Bob, I doubt you would recognize a fact if it came up and bit you on your fundament. You have fewer facts than I do: what you have is an opinion based on a subjective viewing of a piece of film presented to lead you towards a particular conclusion, a conclusion that you have gone after with all the eagerness of a seal after a piece of fish. Richard Dawkins' explanation of the way in which he was misled about the intentions of the film-makers and the reasons for the pause are simple, cogent and straightforward and your only reason for describing them as 'rambling' is because of your obvious deep antipathy towards him. Your unwillingness to consider or even acknowledge interpretations other than your own attests to your closed-mindedness, something that I think is obvious to everyone reading this thread.

 

[BobRyan]

Hint - your attempts to equivocate between your position of no-facts at all and my position of having all the facts BOTH in the Video AND in Dawkins' own rambling efforts to get out of the whole he dug for himsef... are noted but not compelling.

Why is it that you find this so surprising? You first have to MAKE a compelling case to actually HAVE one! So far I HAVE done it -- and you are still casting about you looking for a good way to start one. But now you want to argue that I should innexplicably suppose that your yet-to-be-started argument is on par with the DEMONSTRATED points I have shown in BOTH the video ANd the online Dawkins' response?

Where is the logic i nthat L.K?

It would only appeal to someone who was not paying attention to the thread.

And that is not me.

Anyone who clicks this link and follows it through would see the point INSTANTLY!

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33123&p=397982#p397676

Bob, I doubt you would recognize a fact if it came up and bit you

Interesting retort -- but factless as usual. Less imagination - more fact please.

You have fewer facts than I do:

Another unsupported claim. By contrast my "click on the link and SEE for yourself" argument RELIES on the fact that all of the salient points in my argument are clearly SEEN by the unbiased objective reader who SEE's Dawkins' 11 second flummoxed response to the SAME QUESTION you asked here and then SEE's Dawkins call YOUR QUESTION "truculent" and also SEES that Dawkins AFFIRMS the real life event SEQUENCE that they SEE in the video as the correct sequence.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33123&p=397631#p397419

See?


If that were not bad enough Dawkins FURTHER buries his own argument by boldly whining that anyone but kool-aid drinking darwinist devotee cheerleaders should EVER be ALLOWED to ask him such a "truculent" question!!

You on the other hand are simply left "imagining" some way out of that dilema.

what you have is an opinion based on a subjective viewing

Hardly.

As I have said to the viewer repeatedly -- "click on the link" and "see for yourself".

You have never been able to take that solution in your argument because yours solution is 99% imagination 1% fact.

I simply seal-the-deal when I also point to the huge CONTRAST between the junk-science methods employed in Dawkins' own whining and flummized "turn the tape off" response vs the more EXPECTED response of a REAL science discussion on some REAL science issue like "gravity".

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33123&p=397982#p397676

The contrast was also "instructive" to the unbiased objective reader -- as it turns out.

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

^ Again you make my points for me perfectly, Bob. Thanks.

 

[BobRyan]

If you have changed your argument to "Bob asks that the viewer simply click on the links ans SEE FOR THEMSELVES the 11 second flummoxed response of Dawkins and then also follow the link's Bob gives to SEE that Dawkins is complaining that the question asked of him was truculent" -- then you are right -- I keep making your case for you.

As I did with your failed argument about Patterson who admits that "Stories about how one thing came from another .. are stories easy enough to make up but they are not science" and your failed argument about Osborne and "Nebraska man", I am simply "pointing to the inconvenient details" in what Dawkins' says about his own 11 second flummoxed response.

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Bob, you have a very idiosyncratic and warped view of what constitutes failure. An argument does not fail simply because you choose to ignore it, or because you refuse to admit of even the possibility of an opinion with any value other than your own if that opinion happens to be at variance with yours, or because you refuse to answer questions that imply error on your own part. Your adamant insistence that only your understanding about the Richard Dawkins' 'flummox' can possibly be right illustrates perfectly your inability to consider anything other than your side of any argument or the validity of another viewpoint.

 

[turnorburn]

You'll have to excuse me but what's your agenda, is this a private debate or can anyone join in?

Btw, where's Dunzo... :smt018

 

[Dunzo]

Just enjoying the view.

 

[lordkalvan]

You'll have to excuse me but what's your agenda, is this a private debate or can anyone join in?

The more the merrier! I'm just interested in a free exchange of views with anyone who posts something that catches my interest. If the debate appears to be private, it's only because no one else has contributed significantly to it; a change of direction would be welcome, but for my part I cannot let Bob's dogmatic insistence that his interpretation of the infamous Richard Dawkins' 'pause' is the only one worthy of consideration and any other opinion can be contemptuously dismissed as a worthless piece of 'wild imagining'.

 

[Gabe]

I wouldn't worry. Bob's interpretation of the '11 second flummox' are no more convincing on this page than they were on any other page. But I do sympathise, Bob would no doubt take your silence (through the frustration of repeating yourself and having your points continually ignored) as victory on his part. Bob, I find your 'just say nay' method of debating.....'instructive'

God bless

 

[turnorburn]

What can I say but repeat what Gabriel is saying here, any personal comments from lordvanhalen I'll answer separately.

I wouldn't worry. Bob's interpretation of the '11 second flummox' are no more convincing on this page than they were on any other page. But i do sympathise, Bob would no doubt take your silence (through the frustration of repeating yourself and having your points continually ignored) as victory on his part. Bob, i find your 'just say nay' method of debating.....'instructive'

God bless

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, you have a very idiosyncratic and warped view of what constitutes failure. An argument does not fail simply because you choose to ignore it,

That was my point.

Also If you click on this link you see that my solution has been to let the reader -- view the details and conclude the facts for themselves.

You keep arguing that I should not do that -- and I think that is "instructive".

=====================================================
General reader audience

So for those who have joined recently ---

Please click this link

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33123&p=397631#p397419



1. Did you VIEW the video?

2. Did you see my quote of the link where Dawkins explains his own 11 second flummoxed response?

Did you go to the "Skeptics link" included there and find that my quote was in error or that Dawkins did not whine about the lack of cheerleaders - or that he did not do what I claimed?

3. What did you notice his "enlightened position" about not "allowing" anyone but his own cheerleaders to interview him. Is that what you would expect from a scientist questioned about good science (like gravity) or is it the reaction you would expect from a somewhat dogmatic and narrow-minded priest in some religious group?

What say you?

4. Did you notice his identifying the question as "truculent" and then notice that this turns out to be the SAME question that our Darwinist believing friend L.K has asked here (shown in that link above)?

5. Did you find the summary points offerred at this link (below) to reflect the details of what you actually saw and read at that firs link above?

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33123&start=105#p398041

What say you?

6. In that link just given above - there is a reference link to a comparison of the religionist antics of Dawkins as opposed to what one might have expected in discussion of an actual science topic with an actual scientist (for example on the subject of gravity)

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33123&p=397982#p397676

How do the antics of Dawkins fare when doing that comparison?


Bob

 

[turnorburn]

You'll have to excuse me but what's your agenda, is this a private debate or can anyone join in?

The more the merrier! I'm just interested in a free exchange of views with anyone who posts something that catches my interest. If the debate appears to be private, it's only because no one else has contributed significantly to it; a change of direction would be welcome, but for my part I cannot let Bob's dogmatic insistence that his interpretation of the infamous Richard Dawkins' 'pause' is the only one worthy of consideration and any other opinion can be contemptuously dismissed as a worthless piece of 'wild imagining'.

I came pretty close to making a post unfitting to your seemingly high I.Q. My I.Q. was damaged when suffering a head on collision with a bottle of Pancho Villa Tequila. Says here your interested in subject matter that appeals to your senses, well this may be a day that will go down in infamy and its all about protein, something that sounds so simple and yet is so unfathomable in my neck of the woods. It will take me a wee bit of time to retrieve it once I do I'm sure you'll approve.

 

[turnorburn]

Well I made it without a scratch, your welcome to view the video as well as a picture of the protein that he's talking about..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_e4zgJXPpI4

 

[lordkalvan]

Well I made it without a scratch, your welcome to view the video as well as a picture of the protein that he's talking about..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_e4zgJXPpI4

Thanks for that link. I found the YouTube video rhetorically and emotionally powerful, but largely unpersuasive intellectually. The form of the cross can be found in many places in nature. Does this mean that each such place is a hidden message from God? It is also interesting to view some images of laminin, in which it becomes quickly apparent that the form of the cross is far from the idealized representation used to illustrate the protein graphically:

Source: http://xb7.xanga.com/23ed202754c33103923287/z73390486.jpg

One bears a resemblance to a cross, the other much less so (to the extent of not at all, in my opinion). Some images of the porin protein supposedly bear a resemblance to the triquetra (aka triqueta) of Celtic paganism; what message should we take from this?

You may also find this commentary on what can be taken from the representation of laminin interesting:

http://www.snopes.com/glurge/laminin.asp

 

[turnorburn]

I apologize for not meeting up to your intellectual standards, I used to be in your shoes but as the years ebbed away so did my brains blood cells, all no thanks to my inability to control myself. But God in his mercy had better things in mind for me, things I wouldn't have dreamed possible, a place to rest these weary bones after fighting my way through the gauntlet of life. Would you like to try something I'm more suited for, or would you rather
not

Thanks,
turnorburn

 

[lordkalvan]

I apologize for not meeting up to your intellectual standards, I used to be in your shoes but as the years ebbed away so did my brains blood cells, all no thanks to my inability to control myself. But God in his mercy had better things in mind for me, things I wouldn't have dreamed possible, a place to rest these weary bones after fighting my way through the gauntlet of life. Would you like to try something I'm more suited for, or would you rather
not

Thanks,
turnorburn

You flatter me unduly, but thanks for the compliment.

Many may see God's work reflected indirectly in the laminin protein without the necssity of invoking one-to-one symbolism with the Christian cross. From what I have read, we are hard-wired to interpret apparently meaningless shapes and patterns as particular objects as a survival trait, false positives being potentially much less harmful than false negatives: thinking we see a non-existent tiger in the dappled shades of the forest is a far less serious consequnce than failing to see a real one. Hence we tend to imbue random or accidental assemblies with a meaning associated with something else that we are already familiar with.

As I said before, I am happy to discuss anything that catches my interest.