welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Socrates was a Christian III
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 205, 206, 207
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Casual Chat
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ShadowCell



Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Posts: 6080
Location: California

PostPosted: Sun Jun 29, 2014 9:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
See, you donít follow.

This hammer was discovered in rock that is 75 million years old.

Several of these spheres are found on Earth. Dated to be 3 billion years old. Explain that.

We donít know jack about our history.


me wrote:
ďThe hammer in question was probably dropped or discarded by a local miner or craftsman within the last few hundred years, after which dissolved limy sediment hardened into a nodule around it.Ē

As for the spheres, those are Klerksdorp spheres, and they occur naturally.


Quote:
You can believe the cover-up if you want. Itís their duty to hide things from you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Arc Tempest



Joined: 28 Jan 2007
Posts: 4904
Location: Oregon

PostPosted: Sun Jun 29, 2014 10:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The only thing more amusing than massive (impossible) cover-ups is massive (impossible) cover-ups that no one would benefit from.
_________________
The older I get, the more certain I become of one thing. True and abiding cynicism is simply a form of cowardice.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9556

PostPosted: Sun Jun 29, 2014 10:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like the obvious benefit of all these findings, which is that we now know you can cook your food by standing in front of it and chanting Satan.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10800
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 9:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's a slow process. Today I took some eggs out of the fridge and decided to cook them using this process, because it seems more natural than my electric oven (and I don't think that's healthy). It took about twenty or thirty minutes, but I did manage to heat them up to room temperature. Then I got hoarse from all the chanting and had to switch to boiling. Maybe if I chant louder next time?
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Samsally



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 6508

PostPosted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Clearly you need to get more than one person on it. Who heard of demonic chanting working outside a cult? I mean really be logical about this.
_________________
Samsally the GrayAce
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Echo



Joined: 18 Jul 2013
Posts: 652

PostPosted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 5:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Does it work the other way, in that exposing water to positive energy will cool it down? Because that's going to play merry hell with Church coffee mornings...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
WheelsOfConfusion



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 12256
Location: Unknown Kaddath

PostPosted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 5:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hell is exothermic.
Hell is the opposite of Heaven.
Therefore, Heaven is endothermic.*
Refrigerators are endothermic.
Therefore, Heaven is where God keeps his snacks.
Good people go to Heaven when they die.
Good ingredients go in the refrigerator before being used in a meal.
Therefore, God devours your souls (or at least nibbles on them when He doesn't feel like cooking, storing the rest for a week or two and then throwing them out).



*In the chemical sense, not the metabolic sense.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
stripeypants



Joined: 24 Feb 2013
Posts: 3429
Location: Land of the Grumpuses

PostPosted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 11:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Stuff to Blow Your Mind did a great podcast on the weather in Hell (According to Dante's Inferno) - http://www.stufftoblowyourmind.com/podcasts/science-hell/
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
WheelsOfConfusion



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 12256
Location: Unknown Kaddath

PostPosted: Wed Aug 20, 2014 3:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

How bizarre! Over 3 pages of comment thread, we had a guy barge in and tell us that DNA is binary (it isn't) and that we should be grateful for having a smart computer programmer and Mensa member like him come in to learn us some new things. Despite being corrected from the start by a handful of cellular biologists and other actual smarty pantses who know how DNA actually works. Some quotes from early on, before things got too repetitious:

BioTurboNick wrote:
Clay Ferguson wrote:
Most people don't realize DNA is just Binary information and therefore easily manipulated by chance and nature. Here's a debate between myself and a fool creationist which is one of the few times I've explained perfectly IMO:

http://meta64.com/?link=binary_evolution

The reason people like Dawkins don't focus on this aspect of evolutionary science is only because they are not computer scientists, and people like him are as illiterate about computers as creationists are about DNA.


DNA can't be binary (0 or 1) because there are four choices for a base at each position, so it isn't clear what you mean. Can you explain in text without referring to a link that I had to close after several seconds of "caching for the first time"?

Dr. Jay wrote:
Clay Ferguson wrote:
This reply is for BioTurboNik. The commenting engine on this site is jank and I can't even tell if my reply is going directly to you or not. but here goes: Since in DNA the AT is always as a pair and the GC is always paired, there are really two options, either AT or GC. That's binary. If you take random mutations where only the end of the chain is adding a new rung to the DNA ladder therefore you have a 50/50 chance of the mutation being BENIFICIAL v.s. DETRIMENTAL to survival of the organism. So half of the endpoint mutations will be beneficial and half detrimental. It makes perfect mathematical, and evolutionary sense too. Now lets see where this damn text posts to when I hit submit. Smile

Wrong in several instances. First, any position could be A, T, G, or C. Even though A and T always pair, you only have one of them at a given position. So, not binary.

This throws your calculation of beneficial vs. detrimental off.

But that's wrong anyway. The protein coding regions of DNA use degenerate triplets, allowing a mixture of silent and significant changes depending on exactly which base is altered and what it's changed to. Plus not every amino acid is essential - many can be changed with no effect on the protein. Then there is regulatory DNA, where mutations have completely different rules. Then there's the fact that many mutations affect multiple bases....

In short, context is everything when it comes to a mutation.


BioTurboNick wrote:
Clay Ferguson wrote:
Dr. Jay wrote:
Clay Ferguson wrote:
This reply is for BioTurboNik. The commenting engine on this site is jank and I can't even tell if my reply is going directly to you or not. but here goes: Since in DNA the AT is always as a pair and the GC is always paired, there are really two options, either AT or GC. That's binary. If you take random mutations where only the end of the chain is adding a new rung to the DNA ladder therefore you have a 50/50 chance of the mutation being BENIFICIAL v.s. DETRIMENTAL to survival of the organism. So half of the endpoint mutations will be beneficial and half detrimental. It makes perfect mathematical, and evolutionary sense too. Now lets see where this damn text posts to when I hit submit. Smile

Wrong in several instances. First, any position could be A, T, G, or C. Even though A and T always pair, you only have one of them at a given position. So, not binary.

This throws your calculation of beneficial vs. detrimental off.

But that's wrong anyway. The protein coding regions of DNA use degenerate triplets, allowing a mixture of silent and significant changes depending on exactly which base is altered and what it's changed to. Plus not every amino acid is essential - many can be changed with no effect on the protein. Then there is regulatory DNA, where mutations have completely different rules. Then there's the fact that many mutations affect multiple bases....

In short, context is everything when it comes to a mutation.


You're trying to narrowly define a "Straw Man" so you can disagree with him. I realize protein encoding is a complex process, and didn't address that so you are arguing against yourself there. My point is only that DNA is built of ladder rungs only of two different types of "base pairs". You have either AT or GC. Usually evolution happens by moving contiguous multi-base-pair units around, that had already evolved, but as a general rule when the original replicator molecules formed they were definitely not millions of rungs on the ladder, and grew gradually in length. My interesting insight, which you never knew before, is that this is ultimately digital information. Just admit you learned something, and thank me.


Whoa, look at that ego!

What straw man are you discussing? A:T is distinct from T:A. They are not equivalent in any way, shape, or form. Nothing gets added to the "end" of a DNA, and whether something is beneficial or detrimental is not directly related to the base itself, but the context it is found in, as John Timmer correctly points out.

BioTurboNick wrote:
Clay Ferguson wrote:
BioTurboNick wrote:
Clay Ferguson wrote:
Dr. Jay wrote:
Clay Ferguson wrote:
This reply is for BioTurboNik. The commenting engine on this site is jank and I can't even tell if my reply is going directly to you or not. but here goes: Since in DNA the AT is always as a pair and the GC is always paired, there are really two options, either AT or GC. That's binary. If you take random mutations where only the end of the chain is adding a new rung to the DNA ladder therefore you have a 50/50 chance of the mutation being BENIFICIAL v.s. DETRIMENTAL to survival of the organism. So half of the endpoint mutations will be beneficial and half detrimental. It makes perfect mathematical, and evolutionary sense too. Now lets see where this damn text posts to when I hit submit. Smile

Wrong in several instances. First, any position could be A, T, G, or C. Even though A and T always pair, you only have one of them at a given position. So, not binary.

This throws your calculation of beneficial vs. detrimental off.

But that's wrong anyway. The protein coding regions of DNA use degenerate triplets, allowing a mixture of silent and significant changes depending on exactly which base is altered and what it's changed to. Plus not every amino acid is essential - many can be changed with no effect on the protein. Then there is regulatory DNA, where mutations have completely different rules. Then there's the fact that many mutations affect multiple bases....

In short, context is everything when it comes to a mutation.


You're trying to narrowly define a "Straw Man" so you can disagree with him. I realize protein encoding is a complex process, and didn't address that so you are arguing against yourself there. My point is only that DNA is built of ladder rungs only of two different types of "base pairs". You have either AT or GC. Usually evolution happens by moving contiguous multi-base-pair units around, that had already evolved, but as a general rule when the original replicator molecules formed they were definitely not millions of rungs on the ladder, and grew gradually in length. My interesting insight, which you never knew before, is that this is ultimately digital information. Just admit you learned something, and thank me.


Whoa, look at that ego!

What straw man are you discussing? A:T is distinct from T:A. They are not equivalent in any way, shape, or form. Nothing gets added to the "end" of a DNA, and whether something is beneficial or detrimental is not directly related to the base itself, but the context it is found in, as John Timmer correctly points out.


I would argue that AT is identical to TA. When you snap it into the molecule it can go in either way. The point is not that it's literally a digital computer, but the point is that nature has chosen the simplest type of information storage possible, which is to have a long molecule with only two types of units that make it up. Computer programmers like myself are literally astounded and stupefied by this fact, but people who are illiterate about number theory (computational theory), don't "get it" about how astounding this fact is. BTW it's ok to have the Ego, as long as you have the Mensa test results to back it up, bro.


Your argument is wrong. It is based on a faulty premise. A single base is inserted in one strand at one time. It is never added as a pair, nor is it ever used as a pair. The pairing only matters because it allows it to be read. I never said you claimed it is "literally a digital computer"--you failed to define your terms when requested, and specifically said "binary".

And there are actually more than 4 units if you start counting modified bases.

Assuming your claim about Mensa is true, this conversation is a great example of how IQ doesn't measure everything useful. You seem to be confusing "smarter" with "infinitely smart, knows more than anyone else about everything, can never make a mistake, and other people who know something about a topic aren't worth listening to." You also seem to do a bit more poorly in figuring out how to communicate your ideas to other people. So take it down a notch.


Finally, after having it explained to a bajillion different ways over 3 pages, he suddenly went back and baleeted all his posts (which is a violation of the board's TOS and got him a moderator warning). Fortunately, as you see, we can reconstruct almost the entire exchange from the quotes of his stupidity left behind. He was even nice enough to use his real name and personal photo for a Gravatar, plus he linked to his own website. Sure hope Google doesn't tie all that together with any professional profiles, or anything!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Mr Gary



Joined: 30 Apr 2009
Posts: 6259
Location: Some pub in England

PostPosted: Wed Aug 20, 2014 7:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dogen wrote:
It's a slow process. Today I took some eggs out of the fridge and decided to cook them using this process, because it seems more natural than my electric oven (and I don't think that's healthy). It took about twenty or thirty minutes, but I did manage to heat them up to room temperature. Then I got hoarse from all the chanting and had to switch to boiling. Maybe if I chant louder next time?


If you hadn't begun with chilled eggs you'd have been reet. Eggs don't need fridgeration - they come from hot chicken pussy to begin with man.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Casual Chat All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 205, 206, 207
Page 207 of 207

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group