Awwwww poor little whiner coming for his daily whine.

The word "laugh" doesn't even have a 'w' in it, or an 'e'!

It's also quite possible spank does't know what "whine" means.

You have whined so much about spank it is like an enhanced example of the word's definition.

Lol at a question being cherry picking or trolling. Or do you mean my pointing out your overuse of the word "inherent"? Because that's just an example of you using pointlessly convoluted language. "inherent solution" was a silly phrase.

Ok, this might actually go somewhere. So again, what is it about me imagining something that make it real spontaneity while the product of an RNG isn't?

Both are the products of some existing system; one of a mind, the other a machine. Both come from some set of processes, the outcome of which is unpredictable.

I don't see any meaningful distinction insofar as their relation to spontaneity.

You didn't ask why the word inherent was chosen. You cherry picked that part out and jump to your own conclusion. I told you I can't be responsible for your misunderstanding.

You keep asking me a question rooted in the assumption I don't think that simulated spontaneity is real. I point you back to the description I made of that concept in reality. A constructed object which executes processes. Do you believe the universe is a constructed object which executes process?

What reasons do we have to narrow spontaneity down to equal the results of a random number generator rather than just include it with the other spontaneous elements around the universe?

Spank bashing dominating threads and ruining conversations in Unchained? That's definitely not a thing that's been happening for months on end!

I didn't need to ask in order to know how painful it was to read.

I keep asking you a question about what you think the ****ing difference is.

But remember back when you said:

It's you that drew this distinction. I'm asking you wtf you're talking about. It's not a trap. It's an attempt at a conversation.


Constructed here is ambiguous. I don't believe the universe was constructed by an outside intelligence. I wouldn't object to a statement saying that the universe was a construct or constructed of X.

I genuinely don't understand the question.

I'm not narrowing anything. I'm trying to figure out why you have a problem with my example of something spontaneous from something designed. By any measure I'm being broader than you.

I assure you I find the ideas involved all around this topic more interesting than stale ad hominems about my screen name. We do have a few bad poster threads and a spank thread already in the forum just waiting for posting processes about spank to be executed, perhaps spontaneously.

You're the one who says I have a problem. So I leave you with your own premise to work out as I don't have an answer for that at the moment.

There's a lot to object to about Dawkins, but putting aside ad hominems...


"Any engineer would naturally assume that the photocells [of the optical device, or eye] would point towards the light, with their wires leading backwards towards the brain. He would laugh at any suggestion that the photocells might point away from the light, with their wires departing on the side nearest the light.

Yet this is exactly what happens in all vertebrate retinas. Each photocell is, in effect, wired in backwards, with its wire sticking out on the side nearest the light. The wire has to travel over the surface of the retina, to a point where it dives through a hole in the retina (the so-called 'blind spot') to join the optic nerve.

This means that the light, instead of being granted an unrestricted passage to the photocells, has to pass through a forest of connecting wires, presumably suffering at least some attenuation and distortion (actually probably not much but, still, it is the principle of the thing that would offend any tidy-minded engineer!)." ("The Blind Watchmaker")

There is more mystery around the universe than there is around a random number generator. I have no problem with that at present.

The conversation was never about RNGs being mysterious.

Since it is not about your opinion of linguistic output either, it must be about educating the 'mysteries' of the knowledge and information that humans have accumulated about the events of the universe in schools. Should the kids be allowed to discuss free will and pre-determination? Explore the imagery of ancient creation stories? While learning and practicing scientific theory?

Yeah, this is another example of spew.

Exactly how does one educate a mystery? Can mysteries learn?

And phrases like "linguistic output". Nobody uses this tortured, redundant crap when they're actually trying to be understood.

Awww poor whiny whiner with a foul opinion.

Can you explain how pointing out how you don't know how to write sentences that can be understood by other people is whining?

Oh yea, you can't can you...

Hey whiny liar, I bet you can't stop whiny and lying, you whiny liar.

I'm not whining or lying when I say that "it must be about educating the 'mysteries' of the knowledge and information that humans have accumulated about the events of the universe in schools" doesn't make much sense to me.

Not my fault you are a stupid whiny liar.

Hey, there is spank thread available for you and your vulgar gang to spread your foul opinion about spank's language use capability. Are you too stupid to use it?

We know you are proud of having your own thread and all, but what is the point of trying to get clarification of points you make in this thread in some other thread?

Oh, I know you won't answer there either because I'm a big meanie or some other spank based bull****, but at least here there is the chance that someone you don't think is out to get you will ask you for clarification and you might actually answer.

To be honest, I'm getting fed up with your saying something and then refusing to answer any questions about it claiming people are trying to play "gotcha!" or are liars or are whining. Your naked hostility towards anyone you perceive as in any way against you is detracting from every thread you participate in. It would be nice if you would stop it without us having to go through the whole dance of threats and name calling.

Spank, I've been repeatedly asking you questions in an attempt to understand what your thoughts are.

And then I've ended up getting frustrated because I can't figure out if you even want me to understand you're opinion.

I genuinely don't know what it means to educate a mystery.

It's not my fault you are hyper focused on that word and it's not my fault you repeatedly ask questions about the information available. Why are you torturing your self over a 'word'?

Hey- did you know that information that has not been learned maybe be mysterious to a person who has not yet learned it?

Do you even mystery bro?

You are emotional and irrational about me, but your posts are your's to own. I am pleased with my posts and reject your opinion of them because it is emotional and irrational and non-informative. Nothing personal.

Oh I also am better at ad hominems than you. Deal with it.

Question for the thread:

Should a science teacher be able to criticize intelligent design in the public classroom?