Comments by "upabittoolate" (@upabittoolate) on "Obama at Notre Dame and Gingrich's Outrage" video.

  1. occam was a friar; a monk. that's not the exact same thing as a priest. either way, in those days, the intelligentsia was the clergy; they were the elite. the proliteriate don't come up with theory because they're busy surviving; they haven't the time. the ruling class is too busy ruling. the burgoise (sorry if i misspelled) is too busy trying to join the ruling class. therefore it's elementary the the bookholders make up the theory. your 'point' is irrelevant
    1
  2. you play music right? is every plunker a bad thing or is it just a plunker? is a variation on a theme anyhting but a different piece; a syncopatic, modal or stylistic change? i don't think so. neither do you
    1
  3. no, they fly at a very similar orbit but not exact. if they did, you'd have subatomic collisions within bodies of matter. that's not always a catastrophe. but it's usually not very good now is it? intelligent design is based on YOUR perception. ie, it makes sense because your mind is designed to make sense of it. if an alien or someone from another dimension came to this plane of existence, they might not make sense. whuy? beause their minds aren't ordred that way.
    1
  4. i already said the piece about subatomic collisions. no need to be redundant mate. but intelligent design has a fundamental problem: it fails at answering the question of "would this look so inteligent if i weren't seeing it?" science doesn't 'create' mythology. the scientific method is simple a means of asking astute questions. it's a means of problem solving. if you have a bolt that's loose, science is a boxhead wrench as opposed to visegrips. mythology? that's a bullshit cop-out
    1
  5. ooh member of the french academy. that must make it true... right? AGAIN, this is irrefutable: order is based on OUR ability to make patterns & order. here's an example. i LOVE the taste of root beer. some people find it gross. why? because of how my senses are ordered. you can't declare root beer as quintessentially tasty based on YOUR own taste buds. therefore, you can't declare order because YOU see the order. don't you get that?
    1
  6. no mate, those are living molds by the scientific sense. you don't have to inhale & exhale to be considered ailve. you mere have to respire. mold does. also, pH level doesn't dictate ability to live. c'mon, it's LITERALLY another planet. but if you find the story of immaulate conception & noah's ark to be 'sound' i pity you. in addition, you've lost any respect i had for your ability to assess things scientifically. occam & descartes would have a field day with you
    1
  7. you're assuming that mutation is bad. it's not elicitly bad. mutation only means change. you need to work on your stuy skills if that's all you can distill my friend.
    1
  8. condescending answers like "look it up" aren't the way for us to gain any understanding. in facrt, i might take inference that you know it's a weak premise so you won't shown the sources on which you base that premise because you know i'll shred it. but i won't be so presumptutous. i'll just ask you again. show me. please
    1
  9. i neevr said there wasn't a higher being. i said that creation is horseshit along with the greater majority of your bible. here's a semantical problem with much your rhetoric. "scientists don't fully understand the fucntioning...". that's not exactly true but more than that, you assume that "function" & "purpose" are the same thing. an opposing thumb gives you an advantage but that's what it does not a result of some cosmic intent.
    1
  10. no they don't completely understand it. but damned if we don't know this much: our mind is ordered to see patterns & sequences. that's how memory is developed. that's how our senses work; in frequencies, modes & constructs. yes, there is life on mars; it's mold but it's alive. the bible is generally a set of mother goose tales, not anything close to referenceable. i could point out a ton of incontinuities but it's not to any end in my opinion. my point is that creation holds no water
    1
  11. no. law IS invented by the mind. it's our way of processing things. the periodic table is merely a way of taking account for ourselves. since you know about chemistry, you know that not all particles spin at an exact same speed or fly in an exact same orbit. there's minute variance in ALL cases. again, the only constant is the inconsistence. everything lese is relative. does al acetic acid have the exact same ph level? no. molartity & molality are theoretical concepts; abstractions
    1
  12. believe me, i came across eisely long before the internet. i've had a love affair with all things scientific from the day i laid my eyes on a ranger rick magazine in 1979, at age 4. what i'm saying is that you can't lend him a reputation that he doesn't deserve. he wrote a dissertation that challenged the methodology and analytical tools. you shold read it instead cherrypicking a quote.
    1
  13. your 'order' is a function of how you see it. but since you know science, you know that your perception isn't really how it 'exists'. as far as telling me, "google it" when i asked you to render some proof, that's pretty ambiguous considering the fact you've trird to point to some ethereal exactness of the universe. come better mate
    1
  14. your 'attack' under which the theory is besieged is the attack about the methods on which matter is dated. there's not a reputable scientist that'd claim that the earth is 6000yrs old or that we lived with dinosaurs and keep a straight face. if you believe that there were 2 of every animal on noah's ark, which means that it was animals AND their natural preadators but they didn't get preyed on, then i'm selling you the brooklyn bridge & i'll give you my paypal
    1
  15. btw, eiseley was NOT an evolutionist. he's an anthropolist & an anatomy teacher. parsing language & mischaracterizing your source weakens your argument
    1
  16. assuming that it was 'set' is absurd primarily because the only preciseness is in the randomness. there's plenty of valid evidence that gravity had a bigger part than anything else. since you studied science, how's about we reflect on newton's law which states that all matter is attracted to all matter. this 'precisness' is a function of YOUR preception. ie, the human mind has a predilection for 'order' & 'patterns'. the world isn't perfectly for you. you are perfectly designed for IT
    1
  17. eisely huh? it's interesting that you quoted him. he died of a diesease whose bacteria evolved. they used to treat it with gentamyicn but the strain now has thicker endospores. they had to change the therapeutic approach. do you think he'd want isoniazid or gentamycin?
    1
  18. i love the vagueness of "some archeologists" & "in ancient writings" & "this points to biblical stories". that leads me to return to my thesis. you won't show me your source because you know it's not a strong one. the last time i checked, when you put a body denser than water into water, it sinks. that was part of the law of gravity right? i could be wrong lemme know if i am. lookit, i don't want to call you stupid my brother but you're leaving me very little choice. SHOW ME. PLEASE
    1
  19. i sincerely want to understand your point of view. i don't get off on insulting people but i hate having my own intelligence insulted. i presented some evidence that's a little stronger than anecdotal by pointing to some facts in chemistry. is avagadro's number exact? yes but it's an expression things that are approximate at best. you have yet to do anyhting close to that. c'mon bruh. i wanna "get" what you're saying but there's way too many flaws & i think maybe you need to reformulate
    1
  20. i said "show me". you can tell that i've done my share of research & reflection on a few things. i would like to see YOUR source so i can understand YOUR reasoning. again, i'm dubious of those typrs of answers because it's like you do that to insulate it from examination. in court, defense has as much access to the presented evidence as the plaintiff
    1
  21. but again, you're disregarding MY premise in that 'intelligent' is based on HUMAN perception. IT makes sense to US because WE are designed to make sense of IT. if you take the US variable out of the equation, the intelligent design equation doesn't function. feel me?
    1
  22. whatever you do, travel safely brother
    1
  23. there's plenty of divergence among scientists. that's natural. but you can't point to a disagreement about theory & use that to discount the overall shcemata. that's be tantamount to the offensive line arguing the defensive line to the extent that the game gets lost. but that's not the case here. some scientists challenge darwin, sure. but there's much more confirmation of darwin's outlook than any biblical bullshit
    1
  24. now i used that anecdote about his loss to tuberculosis because it's ironic as hell. he never refuted evolution. but you're saying that evolution happens because "god made it that way". when in actuality, it's shotgun-approach based chance. if you have enough organisms, eventually one will have a mutation that aids survival under certain conditions. that organism is the strongest. that organism eclipses the others. do you think he'd chose the evolved treatment? would you? if yes, we're done
    1
  25. really? what's been validated? show me
    1
  26. i never said evolution occured from simple to complex. i said it was random & when, by chance, a stronger being comes into existence, it overtakes all others. but this is a fluid process.
    1
  27. the place it landed was random, like everything else. c'mon dude, really. how big is a SEA. can i deny that a war happened? nope. i wouldn't try to deny history; it happened. but citing the bible, as if it's primary reference material, is sheer stupidity on your part.
    1
  28. so because he was characterized as a evolutionist in the 60s, he's an evolutionist? okay then, fidel castro is a pitcher, hitler is lithogrpaher & farrakhan is a singer. right?
    1