- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
| Favorite team: | Georgia Tech  |
| Location: | |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 27273 |
| Registered on: | 7/12/2019 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: Impressive support for Intelligent Design
Posted by Flats on 2/25/26 at 7:48 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
When you say “how do you know,” what specifically do you mean?
How do you know that a mutation is random? To even get an educated guess you'd need to know some sort of odds, would you not?
quote:
Random in the statistical sense, or random in the sense of “uncaused” or “patternless”?
Over time those should look exactly the same.
1
re: Impressive support for Intelligent Design
Posted by Flats on 2/25/26 at 7:34 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
Well, as you said, I've never made those claims, can't speak for anyone that thinks that, nor am I familiar with them.
They can generally be found in places like NABT, AAAS, etc. Some are so blatant they've taken them down but there's still plenty of pseudo-science. I don't think it's an accident that the pseudo-science occurs in the two areas that people have strong worldviews about: evolution and climate.
In any event, when "experts" regurgitate dogma it's not good for anybody.
re: Impressive support for Intelligent Design
Posted by Flats on 2/25/26 at 7:24 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
So at its core: does common ancestry with unguided modification best explain the genetic, fossil, and anatomical evidence we actually observe?
I think that's really what you're saying, aren't you? The word changes a lot.
re: Impressive support for Intelligent Design
Posted by Flats on 2/25/26 at 7:21 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
Mutations are random
How do you know if you don't know anything about how frequently a specific mutation happens?
I prefer watching debates to learn about this topic because you can't bullshite someone like you can in a textbook. The other person gets to respond. I'll never forget Lewis Wolpert in a debate claim that there was nothing to be learned by figuring out how often mutations actually happen. I doubt he believe that, but that's the corner his dogma backed him into, which is my point. There is dogma on both sides of this discussion, not just one.
re: Impressive support for Intelligent Design
Posted by Flats on 2/25/26 at 7:10 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
Ok. While I'm answering that could you clarify 'theory of everything?'
I was referring to the common claim of evolution: it's not a mechanism, it's THE mechanism no matter how big the gaps in knowledge are. There have been claims from the "evolution as dogma" crowd that tried to equate biological evolution with the fact that rocks erode and the universe changes and that's all "evolution". You didn't make them so I wasn't really referring to that.
re: Impressive support for Intelligent Design
Posted by Flats on 2/25/26 at 6:56 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
Falsifiability in science does not mean “rerun the entire history of life in a lab.”
I know that, it means "falsifiable". We're all carbon-based, we have the same building blocks. I think our DNA has 30% in common with a dandelion. It's technically possible that materialistic evolution can produce anything from anything given the severity of the mutations. So yes, when you extrapolate that out something merely theoretically possible is being touted as a theory, implying that it's done with the same scientific rigor as observable science. It's not. It's technically possible that Paul Pelosi is just really gifted when it comes to picking stocks, but I don't believe that and I doubt you do either.
This also brings into question the meaning of "science". Is it scientism? Is it looking for actual truth about how the world works or does it only want to address topics that you can reduce to a materialistic formula?
re: Impressive support for Intelligent Design
Posted by Flats on 2/25/26 at 6:45 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
huh?
I'm happy to clarify if you'll take a swing at addressing my questions.
re: Impressive support for Intelligent Design
Posted by Flats on 2/25/26 at 6:41 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
How could a scientific definition include the study of something untestable by science?
How does it do so for evolution? We have an observable mechanism, no question. Is it sufficient as a blanket theory of everything? It looks very questionable for explaining all of the life that ever existed descending from one cell that hit the cosmic jackpot. But that's not falsifiable nor can you put it in a lab and do a controlled experiment.
re: Impressive support for Intelligent Design
Posted by Flats on 2/25/26 at 5:01 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
Whether macroevolution contradicts the Bible is a question about interpretation and authority.
It also depends on how one defines "evolution". Some definitions exclude any intentional design aspect whatsoever, others don't.
re: For those who claim tariffs are cost passed onto the consumer....
Posted by Flats on 2/25/26 at 4:53 pm to BTROleMisser
quote:
A biased Never Trumper SCOTUS majority said they were, so... That's all he needs to know.
From a legal perspective that is all he needs to know.
quote:
I understand that thought but I think there have to be ways to protect them.
Epstein was the highest profile prisoner on the planet and he didn't survive official, state-run custody. What the hell does some 23 year old Ukrainian nobody do with that object lesson?
re: Nancy Pelosi's Stock Market Returns vs Warren Buffet
Posted by Flats on 2/25/26 at 7:42 am to lake chuck fan
quote:
I would love to see her attempt to explain the above graph. Surely, a reporter has asked her this question at some point (like when reporters catch folks walking down a hall or leaving a building)
She doesn't care. I'm sure someone asked Hillary about cattle futures; it doesn't matter. They're immune and they know it.
quote:
What could possibly be the motive for keeping him alive
Future ops. Not necessarily with him, but others they may want to recruit.
I'm not saying he's alive, but there is a rationale for it. I personally think he was small enough to be expendable and Maxwell wasn't.
re: Nancy Pelosi's Stock Market Returns vs Warren Buffet
Posted by Flats on 2/25/26 at 7:17 am to lake chuck fan
There is no credible, direct evidence that she or her husband has broken any laws.
Sincerely,
SFP
Sincerely,
SFP
re: Reuters: China preparing to sell Supersonic Anti-Ship missiles to target US Naval vessels
Posted by Flats on 2/25/26 at 7:04 am to trinidadtiger
quote:
I chuckle with ya. The V2 was launched over 80 years ago, the first supersonic missile. Somehow the media has convinced the public its a "new" technology and the US has no answer.
The new ones are hypersonic, not supersonic, and it is relatively new tech, mainly the advances of heat resistant materials.
We have answers, but it doesn't sound like we'll make an A+ if the test is tomorrow.
ETA I was wrong, the model I saw mentioned was supersonic, not hypersonic. Still an issue depending on numbers but not nearly the threat the new stuff is.
re: Can you imagine being this miserable?
Posted by Flats on 2/24/26 at 4:25 pm to theballguy
I thought this would be about the grouchy old codger from Arkansas.
quote:
Eating the cost.
Only for tariffs, apparently. Post a topic about raising the wage of a fast food worker and they immediately grasp the consequences.
quote:
I really wish people would be as disgusted with the income tax as much as they are with with tariffs.
A decent chunk of this forum is a repossessed center console away from printing their own "eat the rich" signs. There has been support here for increased taxes coming from rich, whether that's "greedy" corporations or wealthy individuals.
re: Who pays the tariffs?
Posted by Flats on 2/24/26 at 3:33 pm to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
but you still push the "there is no good from tariffs" narrative.
You've never seen me make that claim or anything close to it.
re: Who pays the tariffs?
Posted by Flats on 2/24/26 at 12:12 pm to JiminyCricket
quote:
There are tradeoffs that come with tariffs
Most of the disagreements about tariffs here stem from the fact that a large number of people can't or won't grasp that.
re: More Epstein fallout
Posted by Flats on 2/24/26 at 10:21 am to Aubie Spr96
quote:
This is the weirdest Epstein hit out of all of them so far.
Yeah, from what little I've seen/read those emails could have been to anybody. They just showed that Peter Attia is a massive douche and a shitty excuse for a man, and they would have revealed that no matter who the emails were addressed to.
Popular
22
