Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Uncommonly Dense Thread 4

Pages: (356) < ... 189 190 191 192 193 [194] 195 196 197 198 199 ... >

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 10 2012,16:46    shorter version:   Quote we are totally unfamiliar with...anything like...understanding -------------- "[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory "Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 10 2012,17:39    Propelling photons toward their targets has got to be the most boring job in the afterlife. The angelic equivalent of the graveyard shift. I can only hope that people get the afterlife they imagine. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 10 2012,17:47    Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 10 2012,15:39) Propelling photons toward their targets has got to be the most boring job in the afterlife. The angelic equivalent of the graveyard shift. I can only hope that people get the afterlife they imagine. If they're paid by the hour, what's the reference frame? -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 10 2012,18:14    Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 10 2012,17:47) Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 10 2012,15:39) Propelling photons toward their targets has got to be the most boring job in the afterlife. The angelic equivalent of the graveyard shift. I can only hope that people get the afterlife they imagine. If they're paid by the hour, what's the reference frame? One way or round trip? -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 11 2012,05:22    Sal: Quote UD’s format is a blog and not a forum like ISCID and ARN. To that end, if I ever started a forum, would you be interested in participating? It will have a forum that is an invitation-only forum, plus one open to the public. The format will be like ARN. It will be a place to have better and more detailed technical discussions. Now, to help you out, google “thermodynamics uncommondescent” and it should take you right to that post. Honestly, that’s how I get to the thread too! Is there a venue you’d like to pursue this in. I started a thread at ARN, but it devolved quickly. But perhaps if you’d like to talk there we can. Here is the old thread. http://www.arn.org/ubbthre....0362422 It will link you back to the UD thread. If you want to continue on that thread or start a new one at ARN we can. Or anywhere else. I’m seriously thinking of posting on the concept of entropy as it is deeply central. UD is not a good place to carrying sufficiently detailed discussions on the topic. Feel free to let me know if you want to discuss this topic more and in what venue. If you wait a few weeks, I hope I’ll have the new venue up for technical discussion to be explored in an academic, troll-free venue. Hmm, technical discussion in a troll-free venue? That'd be "publishing" wouldn't it? But roll it on Sal, I can't wait. Really. If it's anything like your last YEC forum then laughs will be a-plenty. Tard. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 11 2012,14:51    at least slimy sal is publicly acknowledging that UD is a non-technical non-academic place for trolls. and that is before any skeptics even show up -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 11 2012,15:43    Apparently the way to fix ID is to make it nomadic. Pull up stakes and move when the counterarguments overwhelm you. It was fun to see the puffed up bunch of nothingness that evolved in the science god thread, where everyone was serious and polite. Edited by midwifetoad on Aug. 11 2012,15:44 -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Quack Posts: 1961 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2012,03:23    Quote I’m seriously thinking of posting on the concept of entropy as it is deeply central. I can't wait to see Sal going "serious" on the "deeply central concept of entropy." OMG, I don't have words for what I really think. He hasn't learned squat over maybe ten years of propagating his skewed and wrinkled way of thinking. Maybe I rather should say "There isn't enough time in the universe for me to wait for Sal." It upsets me to observe a mind like that in action. I'll have to keep well out of his way. OTOH, I can bear any amount of the crap Ray Martinez lays on the table. That's the way that it is. I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream -------------- Rocks have no biology.               Robert Byers.

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2012,05:26    Quote (Quack @ Aug. 12 2012,11:23) Quote I’m seriously thinking of posting on the concept of entropy as it is deeply central. I can't wait to see Sal going "serious" on the "deeply central concept of entropy." OMG, I don't have words for what I really think. He hasn't learned squat over maybe ten years of propagating his skewed and wrinkled way of thinking. Maybe I rather should say "There isn't enough time in the universe for me to wait for Sal." It upsets me to observe a mind like that in action. I'll have to keep well out of his way. OTOH, I can bear any amount of the crap Ray Martinez lays on the table. That's the way that it is. I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream If Sal waits long enough his IQ entropy will approach 1/infinity about the same absolute number as the detectable level of the CBM radiation around -270 (degrees C). He could well be on his way to a igNobel Prize for discovering the vacuity of ID. -------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

The whole truth Posts: 1554 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2012,05:48    Quote (Quack @ Aug. 12 2012,01:23) Quote I’m seriously thinking of posting on the concept of entropy as it is deeply central. I can't wait to see Sal going "serious" on the "deeply central concept of entropy." OMG, I don't have words for what I really think. He hasn't learned squat over maybe ten years of propagating his skewed and wrinkled way of thinking. Maybe I rather should say "There isn't enough time in the universe for me to wait for Sal." It upsets me to observe a mind like that in action. I'll have to keep well out of his way. OTOH, I can bear any amount of the crap Ray Martinez lays on the table. That's the way that it is. I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream To an IDiot creationist "entropy" is just another way of saying THE END OF THE WORLD IS NEAR! REPENT NOW ALL YOU SINNERS AND BE SAVED! -------------- Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2012,07:49    It appears that Gordon E Mullings is planning a terrorist outrage: Quote three Iranian EMP bombs — 100 mi or so up over Ohio, France and Moscow, I guess — will be enough to draw down the curtains on the madness. Yet another religious terrorist. Unlike Iran, Gordon E Mullings does not want a society based on religion. Oh, wait now. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2012,08:40    Quote (The whole truth @ Aug. 12 2012,13:48) Quote (Quack @ Aug. 12 2012,01:23) Quote I’m seriously thinking of posting on the concept of entropy as it is deeply central. I can't wait to see Sal going "serious" on the "deeply central concept of entropy." OMG, I don't have words for what I really think. He hasn't learned squat over maybe ten years of propagating his skewed and wrinkled way of thinking. Maybe I rather should say "There isn't enough time in the universe for me to wait for Sal." It upsets me to observe a mind like that in action. I'll have to keep well out of his way. OTOH, I can bear any amount of the crap Ray Martinez lays on the table. That's the way that it is. I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream To an IDiot creationist "entropy" is just another way of saying THE END OF THE WORLD IS NEAR! REPENT NOW ALL YOU SINNERS AND BE SAVED! Wouldn't that break the SLOT? If Jesus is on his way back (from beyond 2000 light years away presuming he is travelling at the speed of light) when will he arrive? How much energy will he need to make the return journey, if he say weighed around 160lbs? (assuming since HE is god HE can stand the interstellar chilly vacuum of space and therefore doesn't need a spacecraft, oxygen, food, water and air traffic control) ID re-inventing tropes: Dues ex machina -------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2012,11:13    skinny long haired sissy aint it 160 lbs my dear sainted mammaw could whupped that little communist ass -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2012,16:56    Deprived of sensory input, UD seems to be hallucinating. It's pretty much all Jesus all the time. With heated debate over how many pinheads fit. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 12 2012,17:21    The atmosphere inside the big tent is starting to get a little thick... Gregory to StephenB:   Quote Thank you for proving the point Judas, end of conversation. StephenB "wins" again. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 13 2012,15:05    StephenB: Quote This takes us back to another claim– that “design cannot be measured.” No one has ever said that the design itself can be measured. That is just a silly strawman. ID argues that, in some cases, the probability that design exists can be measured, as in the case of a sand castle (the number of formed grains) or a written paragraph (the number of formed characters) or a monkey typing the works of Shakespeare, or with the arrangement of nucleotides in a DNA molecule. Do these self-described Thomists know what they mean when they say design CANNOT be measured? It appears that they do not. Do they even know what ID is measuring or how they do it? It appears that they do not. Hmm. Go on then, measure me some design in a sandcastle. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-429935 -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 13 2012,15:13    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 13 2012,15:05) StephenB: Quote This takes us back to another claim– that “design cannot be measured.” No one has ever said that the design itself can be measured. That is just a silly strawman. ID argues that, in some cases, the probability that design exists can be measured, as in the case of a sand castle (the number of formed grains) or a written paragraph (the number of formed characters) or a monkey typing the works of Shakespeare, or with the arrangement of nucleotides in a DNA molecule. Do these self-described Thomists know what they mean when they say design CANNOT be measured? It appears that they do not. Do they even know what ID is measuring or how they do it? It appears that they do not. Hmm. Go on then, measure me some design in a sandcastle. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-429935 So, if you can't measure the one thing that your notions depend on... why are y'all blathering about this all the time? Oh yeah, Theocracy. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 13 2012,15:54    Did anyone else see that they were claiming ID is about the "process" of design, or should be? Not that's a claim I'd like to see realized. This is just my personal bit of crank, but I doubt that biology can be designed except through evolution. That, and by an omniscient being, of course. At any rate, I'd like to see them try to explain an alternative process. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 13 2012,18:15    ... ok, so... how do you measure the probability of design when you don't have the slightest clue about how natural processes actually work? -------------- "[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory "Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

Soapy Sam Posts: 659 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2012,03:12    Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 13 2012,15:13)     Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 13 2012,15:05) StephenB:       Quote This takes us back to another claim– that “design cannot be measured.” No one has ever said that the design itself can be measured. That is just a silly strawman. ID argues that, in some cases, the probability that design exists can be measured, as in the case of a sand castle (the number of formed grains) or a written paragraph (the number of formed characters) or a monkey typing the works of Shakespeare, or with the arrangement of nucleotides in a DNA molecule. Do these self-described Thomists know what they mean when they say design CANNOT be measured? It appears that they do not. Do they even know what ID is measuring or how they do it? It appears that they do not. Hmm. Go on then, measure me some design in a sandcastle. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-429935 So, if you can't measure the one thing that your notions depend on... why are y'all blathering about this all the time? Oh yeah, Theocracy. Well, obviously you quantify the number of microstates in a sandcastle and compare it to the microstates available to an 'unordered' pile of sand. If the first is much, much fewer, then you can reliably infer that the sandcastle was designed, since this is the only way you can violate the second law of thermodynamics. Well, one of the only ways. OK, not that second law of thermodynamics ... but you'd be dead surprised, and entropy is a measure of surprise, units eyebrow-micrometers per gram. Edited by Soapy Sam on Aug. 14 2012,03:13 -------------- SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2012,07:09    Quote (Soapy Sam @ Aug. 14 2012,03:12) Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 13 2012,15:13)     Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 13 2012,15:05) StephenB:       Quote This takes us back to another claim– that “design cannot be measured.” No one has ever said that the design itself can be measured. That is just a silly strawman. ID argues that, in some cases, the probability that design exists can be measured, as in the case of a sand castle (the number of formed grains) or a written paragraph (the number of formed characters) or a monkey typing the works of Shakespeare, or with the arrangement of nucleotides in a DNA molecule. Do these self-described Thomists know what they mean when they say design CANNOT be measured? It appears that they do not. Do they even know what ID is measuring or how they do it? It appears that they do not. Hmm. Go on then, measure me some design in a sandcastle. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-429935 So, if you can't measure the one thing that your notions depend on... why are y'all blathering about this all the time? Oh yeah, Theocracy. Well, obviously you quantify the number of microstates in a sandcastle and compare it to the microstates available to an 'unordered' pile of sand. If the first is much, much fewer, then you can reliably infer that the sandcastle was designed, since this is the only way you can violate the second law of thermodynamics. Well, one of the only ways. OK, not that second law of thermodynamics ... but you'd be dead surprised, and entropy is a measure of surprise, units eyebrow-micrometers per gram. define 'sandcastle' -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

BillB Posts: 388 Joined: Aug. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2012,09:42    Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 14 2012,13:09) Quote (Soapy Sam @ Aug. 14 2012,03:12) Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 13 2012,15:13)       Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 13 2012,15:05) StephenB:         Quote This takes us back to another claim– that “design cannot be measured.” No one has ever said that the design itself can be measured. That is just a silly strawman. ID argues that, in some cases, the probability that design exists can be measured, as in the case of a sand castle (the number of formed grains) or a written paragraph (the number of formed characters) or a monkey typing the works of Shakespeare, or with the arrangement of nucleotides in a DNA molecule. Do these self-described Thomists know what they mean when they say design CANNOT be measured? It appears that they do not. Do they even know what ID is measuring or how they do it? It appears that they do not. Hmm. Go on then, measure me some design in a sandcastle. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-429935 So, if you can't measure the one thing that your notions depend on... why are y'all blathering about this all the time? Oh yeah, Theocracy. Well, obviously you quantify the number of microstates in a sandcastle and compare it to the microstates available to an 'unordered' pile of sand. If the first is much, much fewer, then you can reliably infer that the sandcastle was designed, since this is the only way you can violate the second law of thermodynamics. Well, one of the only ways. OK, not that second law of thermodynamics ... but you'd be dead surprised, and entropy is a measure of surprise, units eyebrow-micrometers per gram. define 'sandcastle' What if it was built by ants? How would they fit in with this idea of 'design' - is an individual ant the designer?, or do they get treated as a collective entity? How did they go about designing the ant nest ...?

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2012,09:49    get your own ants, darwinist Sincerely the designer, aka yhwh -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2012,09:58    Quote (BillB @ Aug. 14 2012,09:42) Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 14 2012,13:09) Quote (Soapy Sam @ Aug. 14 2012,03:12)   Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 13 2012,15:13)       Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 13 2012,15:05) StephenB:         Quote This takes us back to another claim– that “design cannot be measured.” No one has ever said that the design itself can be measured. That is just a silly strawman. ID argues that, in some cases, the probability that design exists can be measured, as in the case of a sand castle (the number of formed grains) or a written paragraph (the number of formed characters) or a monkey typing the works of Shakespeare, or with the arrangement of nucleotides in a DNA molecule. Do these self-described Thomists know what they mean when they say design CANNOT be measured? It appears that they do not. Do they even know what ID is measuring or how they do it? It appears that they do not. Hmm. Go on then, measure me some design in a sandcastle. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-429935 So, if you can't measure the one thing that your notions depend on... why are y'all blathering about this all the time? Oh yeah, Theocracy. Well, obviously you quantify the number of microstates in a sandcastle and compare it to the microstates available to an 'unordered' pile of sand. If the first is much, much fewer, then you can reliably infer that the sandcastle was designed, since this is the only way you can violate the second law of thermodynamics. Well, one of the only ways. OK, not that second law of thermodynamics ... but you'd be dead surprised, and entropy is a measure of surprise, units eyebrow-micrometers per gram. define 'sandcastle' What if it was built by ants? How would they fit in with this idea of 'design' - is an individual ant the designer?, or do they get treated as a collective entity? How did they go about designing the ant nest ...? Well, JoeG thinks that termites are intelligent designers... I'm not sure if that says more about termites or joe... -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2012,12:01    Regarding Dawkins: Quote He’s a salesman. He’s also the product. Want to be rid of him? Don’t buy the product. Don’t even acknowledge it. The older he gets the more obvious his foolishness becomes to everyone on both sides of the debate. http://www.uncommondescent.com/atheism....-429981 Perhaps we should look at sales trends at Amazon  for Dawkins and the gurus of ID: selfish gene #2,645 blind watchmaker #11,066 extended phenotype #60,707 ancestor's tale #48,583 God delusion #865 darwin's  black box #20,006 Darwin on Trial #31,775 edge of evolution #107,584 Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology #229,437 end of chriasianity #231,495 Nature's destiny #739,113 ETA: God Delusion has sold ten times as many copies as Darwin's Black Box. Selfish Gene, more than four times as many. It seems likely that Selfish gene has sold more copies than all the ID and creationism books together. But the trend is interesting. UD is trying to portray Dawkins as increasingly irrelevant. Edited by midwifetoad on Aug. 14 2012,12:38 -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Soapy Sam Posts: 659 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2012,14:33    Quote (BillB @ Aug. 14 2012,09:42)   Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 14 2012,13:09)     Quote (Soapy Sam @ Aug. 14 2012,03:12)     Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 13 2012,15:13)           Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 13 2012,15:05) StephenB:             Quote This takes us back to another claim– that “design cannot be measured.” No one has ever said that the design itself can be measured. That is just a silly strawman. ID argues that, in some cases, the probability that design exists can be measured, as in the case of a sand castle (the number of formed grains) or a written paragraph (the number of formed characters) or a monkey typing the works of Shakespeare, or with the arrangement of nucleotides in a DNA molecule. Do these self-described Thomists know what they mean when they say design CANNOT be measured? It appears that they do not. Do they even know what ID is measuring or how they do it? It appears that they do not. Hmm. Go on then, measure me some design in a sandcastle. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-429935 So, if you can't measure the one thing that your notions depend on... why are y'all blathering about this all the time? Oh yeah, Theocracy. Well, obviously you quantify the number of microstates in a sandcastle and compare it to the microstates available to an 'unordered' pile of sand. If the first is much, much fewer, then you can reliably infer that the sandcastle was designed, since this is the only way you can violate the second law of thermodynamics. Well, one of the only ways. OK, not that second law of thermodynamics ... but you'd be dead surprised, and entropy is a measure of surprise, units eyebrow-micrometers per gram. define 'sandcastle' What if it was built by ants? It wasn't. Ants aren't surprising enough. Next! -------------- SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2012,16:32    Oh Yeah?  Well what if they're  frozen, what then? Joe G Jr.... -------------- Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10 Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08 UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2012,17:05    Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 14 2012,16:32) Joe G Jr.... Please Cthulhu no -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2012,18:18    Over at the Tard farm Barry Arrogant scores another own goal on the concept of CSI     Quote Barry Arrington:  Let me now coin a new term – the “beaut-L.”  Like the economists’ util, a beaut-L is a unit of beauty. Now that we have a unit by which we may quantify beauty, can anyone tell me precisely how much more beautiful the Săo Paulo Cathedral is than the dilapidated shack?  Does the cathedral have beaut-Ls while the shack has only 20 (or negative 20) beaut-Ls? The answer, of course, is that the question is meaningless.  Any attempt to assign precise mathematical quantities to beauty is facile.  Nevertheless, beauty exists and some objects are more beautiful than other objects. We can conclude from these examples that our Darwinist friends’ are wrong when they insist that a concept must always be precisely mathematically quantifiable in order for it to be meaningful.  And I further conclude that my inability to assign a quantity of CSI* to Mount Rushmore does not mean that the sculpture does not nevertheless exhibit CSI. linky I bet to a poor peasant who could live in the shack but not in the cathedral, the shack would be way more beautiful. Seems like Barry has admitted the amount of CSI, like the quantity of beauty, is a completely subjective determination and therefore not useful for any objective scientific judgments. Thank goodness we have idiots for enemies. -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2012,18:48    are they really so quick, now, to admit that they can't measure CSI?  I really really really doubt it.   Given how hilarious THAT shit was -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Pages: (356) < ... 189 190 191 192 193 [194] 195 196 197 198 199 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard