RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (501) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 3, The Beast Marches On...< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
djmullen



Posts: 327
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2009,01:27   

I seem to have been silently banninated from Uncommon Descent.  Two messages disappeared without ever coming out of moderation and the last two messages I wrote vanished as soon as I hit return.  Long experience at UD has taught me to keep copies of every message I post, so here are the two that disappeared without coming out of moderation.

The first was for niwraD's "How to become an IDer in two weeks" thread:

   
Quote
1
djmullen
10/05/2009
6:41 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.


The big problem here is that computer architectures and the languages that run on them are DESIGNED. One of the goals of DESIGNING any computer language is to make it run as fast as possible and use as little memory as possible. This means that every last bit of redundancy is DESIGNED out of the language. This in turn means that these DESIGNED languages are incredibly brittle. Changing a single bit can often radically alter the operation of the program or make it crash spectacularly.

Life, on the other hand, is NOT DESIGNED and neither is the “language” of DNA. This means that changing a base-pair in most stretches of DNA makes no change in the organism’s operation at all. I think somebody (Clive maybe?) once stated on this blog that 1/2 of all mutations have no effect at all, 1/4 are deleterious and 1/4 are actually beneficial.

This means that fooling around with a DESIGNED language, such as a computer program is very bad training for fooling around with an UNDESIGNED organism and its DNA.

I do wish that people would continue to bash IDers over the head with this whenever they compare errors in DESIGNED languages, like computer languages with errors in UNDESIGNED languages, such as the "language" of DNA.  They really shouldn't have the free shot we're letting them have with this.

The second message was in the "Simply Not Credible" thread started by Gil Dodgem.  It was to tgpeeler, with whom I had been having a long discussion on what is and is not information:    
Quote
212
djmullen
10/06/2009
6:04 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.


tgpeeler, I spent last night and tonight reading some new threads on this blog and I really have to ask myself, is it even worth my time, indeed, is it even moral to engage any IDCer in conversation?

I say this after reading the slanderfest of a thread that Barry Arrington has opened on a perfectly moral comment by Seversky (”Hatred of Religion By Materialists More Virulent Than Previously Thought Possible”).

Reading that thread, where Arrington takes Seversky’s perfectly moral and innocuous statement (… I would prefer to give to those that do not include proselytization [sic] as part of their program.) and twists it into “… would rather see a young woman live in sexual slavery if that’s what it takes to insulate her from the influence of Christians who would try to help her.” positively turns my stomach. No, it makes me so $#%^#@ angry I want to punch some sense into that fool’s head – and I am not by nature a violent person.

Then I see DonaldM’s vacuous “Materialism and Moral Clarity” on the same topic, filled with O’Leary’s drivel like “My obstetrician friend who cashed in her possibly lucrative and well-respected career in Canada to go teach midwives in Africa – using modern techniques – would not likely have done that if she were not a devout Christian, who wanted to serve her Lord by saving mothers and babies, via teaching midwives scientific medicine.” as if she’s never even heard of Doctors Without Borders and other secular groups.

Then I write a short response to niwraD’s “How to become an IDer in two weeks” which mentions that computer languages are intelligently designed to use as little memory as possible and operate as quickly as possible, which makes them incredibly brittle and prone to crash, unlike the evolved and very fault tolerant DNA system and it goes straight into the bit bucket without a trace and I have to seriously ask myself, is it worth the time to talk to you people?

None of you have attained your beliefs through reason and you’re all incredibly ignorant about evolution and full of false “knowledge” about it. Most of you are convinced that if evolution is true, your God is dead and there is no heaven. The rest know that if evolution is true then IDers have made mighty big jackasses of themselves and in public.

Now what chance do I have against that? I’ve thought of a few new ways to illustrate my points, but I don’t have the kind of emotional arguments that would have a chance against ID’s emotion based beliefs. And I know, from bitter experience, that if I make an argument that really puts intelligent design on the spot, my posts will join the hundreds of other posts that I and a host of others have made that disappeared right down the bit bucket and never even saw the light of day.

That censoring and especially Arrington’s thread have pretty well disgusted me on ID.

That last message pretty well sums up my attitude towards the moral midgets of creationism and ID creationism.  No logical argument or set of facts is ever going to budge any of them one inch.  They did not reason themselves into their current beliefs and no amount of reason will reason them out of them.  Better to use the ID technique of pure Madison Avenue P.R. and go for an emotional attack, which I am not well equipped to mount.  So screw them.

  
  15001 replies since Sep. 04 2009,16:20 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (501) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]