Joined: Sep. 2002
|Quote (keiths @ Jan. 05 2009,02:46)|
|Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 04 2009,21:53)|
|Quote (khan @ Jan. 04 2009,21:38)|
|Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 04 2009,21:30)|
|Quote (khan @ Jan. 04 2009,20:54)|
|Is that supposed to mean something?|
I was referencing the last bit of entardument Zachriel quotes here.
Can't tell the actual from the mocking thereof.
No, you can't. There's no real difference between those two examples. Gil doesn't seem to understand the nature of simulation itself. You can simulate wind flows without putting the computer in a wind tunnel. You can simulate volcanic activity without exposing the circuitry to magma. The whole point of simulation is that you can use a layer of abstraction instead of the thing itself. You don't have to throw actual water on a computer to simulate a flood. It's a simulation, not a recreation. Gil's misunderstanding the very notion of simulation, true to form. IDers misunderstand every scientific field they babble about.
Those two threads -- the [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-realistic-computational-simulation-of-random-mutation-filtered-by-natural-selection-in-b
iology/]original[/URL] and the follow-on -- are the perfect introduction to the trainwreck that is UD.
1) GilDo and DaveTard displaying utter ignorance of a field in which they both claim expertise;
2) an almost universal inability among the ID supporters to think abstractly;
3) their repeated refusal to listen to commenters who actually know what they're talking about;
4) several John A. Davison rants;
5) an actual prayer, followed by a theological debate;
6) deleted comments;
7) a pathetic attempt by Gil, three days after the fact, to pretend that his original post was just a joke;
8) some bold-font moderator chest-thumping (by Scott);
9) DaveTard misunderstanding the concept of irreducible complexity, and being corrected by an ID critic;
10) banninations of Tom English, Reciprocating Bill and me (posting as Karl Pfluger) for exposing DaveTard's chumpitude; and
11) DaveTard frantically defending himself as he is mocked by the good folks at AtBC.
It is a true tard extravaganza, lacking only a WAD meltdown and some O'Learian pseudoprose.
Some have begun to question the nutritional content of recent tard lately. As keiths has shown, nutritional tard is still being generated. However, even fossilized tard can be surprisingly satisfying. Consider this find on ARN, gloriously preserved in amber, and still savory after repeated rumination. TT regulars Vividbleau and Joy figure prominently.
Those who know the truth are not equal to those who love it-- Confucius