User talk:CarlSfromMN

Hello Carl. Welcome to the rational wiki. -- 18:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the welcome. As I said, I probably won't be contributing, but at least it doesn't look like you'll block the whole U. CarlSfromMN (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If this block was yours, it did actually catch one of us; my ISP uses USFamily.Net as one of its gateways. I went to Conservapedia yesterday to get diffs and saw in huge letters,  Your IP address has been blocked.  19:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hehehehe, gotta love TK. So, if you don't mind my asking, what about this site do you dislike? If it's a good answer, I'll make you a sysop.  00:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, good thing the wiki e-mails you when your talk page is modified, or I would have missed this. Anyway: this place (from what I have seen of it) has that disrespectful, quibbling tone you get a lot from the atheist talking heads. You ought to consider how people react when you insult their beliefs. CarlSfromMN (talk) 05:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are correct (though, being one of the non-atheists here, I wouldn't know). I think I resolved long ago to not focus on religion here and, rather, focus on more obvious pseudosciences like the law of attraction.  05:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * CarlS, I disagree. In consideration of people who push demonstrable untruths, such as creationists, one has to hit them where it hurts; the damage to the ethos is more than made up for by actually using logos rather than forgoing it lest one offend somebody. 17:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No matter how "demonstrably untrue" something is, you are not going to convince anybody of that by calling them crazy. And as far as creationism goes, you can't just dismiss it out of hand like that. God is capable of anything. If that messes up scientists' theories, the scientists are the ones who have to deal with it. CarlSfromMN (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We should worry about hurting the feelings of idiots? Creationism can be dismissed out of hand. There is no god to be capable of anything. Scientists don't have a problem, it's the cretinists who have the problem trying to wriggle their rank stupidity into science. Makes me despair for the human race! 18:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree partially with both of you. CarlS, I have found that creationists accept all the premises that scientists need to debunk creationism (or at least young-earth creationism); creationists are thus denying an undeniable logical progression. Toast, you do not know that about any Gods — especially the ones said to operate completely in conformance with natural law. 19:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflicted with ListenerX) That's exactly what I'm talking about! Calling creationists idiots and then making a groundless assertion about God that creationists (and a lot of other people, too) don't accept.
 * ListenerX, I'm no expert on the creation/evolution controversy, so I can't say anything to what you said about creationists, but I agree about God. CarlSfromMN (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * @LX: Any "god" that works in conformance with natural law is not the "god" of the creationists and wouldn't really be a "god" anyhow.
 * @CSMN: Why should the fact that a load of idiots people accept something be any criterion for respecting it. The number of people who believe something has nothing to do with its veracity. Give me some grounds for the assertion that God or god(s) exist and I'll listen. 19:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, let's see. First off, if God made natural law then He is certainly working through it, so that's no reason to say He isn't God. Secondly, it doesn't matter how many people accept something -- if you're talking to someone who does, then if you call them names they'll just shut their ears. Thirdly, the argument from design still works, even with evolution. Look at what evolution theory says. Every life form in the world is descended from shapeless goo, just by natural law? No way in the world God didn't write that law! CarlSfromMN (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Not worth conversing with you! 19:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So much for you listening... CarlSfromMN (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Some grounds, not a rehash of meaningless crapola. Every way that god didn't write that: it all works from science! (ex Toast) 17:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're seriously suggesting that if every life form in the world is descended from bacteria, and if natural law caused that all to happen, that's no evidence natural law was designed? What are the chances of that happening by itself? CarlSfromMN (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what she is suggesting. See our article on Common descent. 18:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A boggling mind does not disprove science. Also: what he said. 18:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflicted with SusanG) I think you're missing my point. I'm assuming there, for the sake of argument, that evolution/common descent did happen, with no supernatural interventions to help it along. CarlSfromMN (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (unindent) Susan's point is that it did happen, "with no supernatural interventions to help it along." That's what the common descent article shows. Can you elaborate on your point a bit more? I'm not sure I understand it. 18:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You'd rather posit some all-powerful, omnipotent, omniscient being than accept a logical progression from bacteria &rarr; mammals? ??? 19:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflicted with SusanG) I'll try — this is mostly based on a lecture on the controversy I heard from a pastor a while back.
 * Assuming: Everything that happens in the universe happens according to natural law (and that's being generous).
 * Assuming: This means that evolution/common descent happened.
 * Therefore: A massively diverse, complex biosphere is entirely descended from goohttp://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/Main_Page.
 * I think you say the same, so far.
 * Question: Was natural law designed or was it not? Are pi or the gravity constants or the chemical reaction constants the result of chance, or were they specifically set where they are?
 * Suggestion: If it were by chance only, a massively diverse, complex biosphere would not have descended from goo. There probably wouldn't even have been any goo in the first place.
 * Therefore: Natural law was designed.
 * SusanG, I'll "posit" God whether that progression is logical or not. CarlSfromMN (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Suggest you go toaSK you'll be right at home with the nutters there. Google Anthropic principle and evolution. The only reason we see the constants as they are is because we are here, seriously look @ Anthropic principle. Chance is a very minor part of evolution by natural selection. Personally I'd rather believe in a few constants being as they are without intervention than some being hanging around creating them. 19:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Now now, Susan. We do welcome points-of-view different than our own here. 19:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know, but I can't go through all that crap again with a gODbotherer. He obviously thinks we've just fallen off the tree & haven't heard his "arguments" so I suggested that he might as well go to somewhere he'll be appreciated. No objection to his staying here as long as he doesn't pull up those tired old statements time after time. 19:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is why you might not like me refactoring your articles. CarlSfromMN (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You go wrong at the second to last point. You can't assume that this is the only set of natural laws that allows for life, and even if you could that doesn't necessarily imply a designer. 19:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Now we seem to be going outside the limits of my knowledge of the subject. Tetronian, I didn't say that our specific natural law was the "only" one -- only that the law we do have shows such structure as to evidence design. SusanG, you're showing liberal logic there (point 11) — what you prefer is irrelevant. And isn't natural selection supposed to be a restricting factor — it weeds out bad mutations but all the evolutionary changes are ultimately caused by mutations (which I don't think are random, but you do)? CarlSfromMN (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I possibly mis-spoke: I should have said "Occam's razor" leads me to choose which I'd believe. A god would have to be more complex than anything he created so where did it come from? There's been BILLIONS of years for evolution to happen - not (say) 6000 years. (Quoting CP is a good source of humour btw) 19:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * God is eternal and didn't "come from" anywhere. And please don't keep implying that anything I'm arguing means evolution didn't happen. I'm assuming it did. CarlSfromMN (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * God is eternal and didn't "come from" anywhere. You just removed yourself from sensible discourse. 20:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like we aren't going to find any common ground whatsoever on this, so I'm going to have to call a truce. CarlSfromMN (talk) 04:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Sysop
As promised, I have made you a sysop for answering my inquiry. Should you choose to stick around, you may want to read this here instruction manual. By the way, which MN university do you go to, if you don't mind my asking (I just live here in the TC, so it piqued my interest)? 05:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh! I thought you were kidding. Do you usually make sysops out of people who haven't made any edits to articles?
 * I go to the U — University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. It keeps me busy. CarlSfromMN (talk) 05:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, anybody can be an admin here, so long as they meet our incredibly low standards of "mostly harmless." Besides, we need more people from Dinkytown to be sysops. It makes things around here more interesting. 06:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to try and remove the disagreeable "tone" from articles. We will not permaban you capriciously, like at Conservapedia, but do not be surprised if your edits get reverted. 17:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They probably would be, but maybe I'll give it a try sometime. (And the ban wasn't totally capricious -- it seems some of these vandals have gone to ridiculous lengths and they have to be careful.) CarlSfromMN (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You know, TK has an account here, and you are more than welcome to block him all you want, so long as you do not permaban him. Revenge can be great fun that way.  18:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, thank you. I am not much for pointless revenge. CarlSfromMN (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)