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... > Cornelius Hunter Thread

Pages: (18) < ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... >

Kattarina98 Posts: 1267 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: July 16 2010,04:47    Ooops - just in case you want to read it: http://tinyurl.com/3ymy93r -------------- Barry Arrington is a bitch.

Doc Bill Posts: 1039 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 16 2010,08:02    I've often wondered if Corny and Cordova are the same person. On the thread "Peter" is discussing the Nature of Science because that's what creationists do.  I must say, his closing argument is irrefutable.  Why didn't we see this before?? Quote No evidence so you have to resort to ad hominens. How typical of a person who's words are hollow. Yell louder and maybe you can drown out the truth. Face it, your secular worldview is unsupportable. Try as you might, you can not successfully argue that there is no God because in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Last one out turn off the lights and lock the lab door!  We're done.

Ptaylor Posts: 1180 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 25 2010,17:34    From over at the UD thread: Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 26 2010,09:37) The Explanatory Filter in action, used by Bilbo:     Quote We rule out pseudogenes as designed largely because they don't look designed. So we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. http://tinyurl.com/33f2tak Troy takes him/her up on this and Bilbo replies, with uncharacteristic candour: Quote If we define "design" as the purposeful arrangement of parts, there appears to be no purpose to the arrangement of parts in pseudogenes. So they don't look designed. OTOH, there appears to be purpose to the arrangement of parts in flagellum and cilium. So they look designed. Objective? If we define objective as what most people would perceive if shown the same thing, then I think most people would think flagella and cilia look designed. Therefore it would be objective. If we define objective as having a quantifiably measurable value, then no, it's not objective. If we define science as the study of what is quantifiably measurable, then studying intelligent design probably isn't science. But I would argue that not all empirical knowledge is science. -------------- We no longer say: “Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.” We now say: “Another day since the time Darwinism was disproved.” -PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

Kattarina98 Posts: 1267 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: July 26 2010,04:19    Would this creationist troll who confesses to use the moniker Bilbo (among others) be the one we were talking about? http://tinyurl.com/3xkzmul -------------- Barry Arrington is a bitch.

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 26 2010,17:50    LOL! Besides UD, Casey Luskin and the Discovery Institute are now letting Corny Hunter post his nonsense as a lead story at their Evolution News & Views blog. linky thing Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel.   -------------- "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.

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 28 2010,15:18    http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/816 -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: July 28 2010,15:35    Quote (Richardthughes @ July 28 2010,15:18) http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/816 Quote 8. An infinite regress is required only when one assumes there is no God. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

REC Posts: 638 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 28 2010,16:33    Wow....I'll have to use that one.....the FAQs there is a goldmine of circular logic, 'metaphysics,' and all the sorts of things Cornelius tries to fault scientists for. Knowing he's contributed to it makes it even sweeter...

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 28 2010,16:35    Quote (REC @ July 28 2010,16:33) Wow....I'll have to use that one.....the FAQs there is a goldmine of circular logic, 'metaphysics,' and all the sorts of things Cornelius tries to fault scientists for. Knowing he's contributed to it makes it even sweeter... Quote Intelligent Design through the Scientific Method: i. Observation: The ways that intelligent agents act can be observed in the natural world and described. When intelligent agents act, it is observed that they produce high levels of "complex-specified information" (CSI). CSI is basically a scenario which is unlikely to happen (making it complex), and conforms to a pattern (making it specified). Language and machines are good examples of things with much CSI. From our understanding of the world, high levels of CSI are always the product of intelligent design. ii. Hypothesis: If an object in the natural world was designed, then we should be able to examine that object and find the same high levels of CSI in the natural world as we find in human-designed objects. iii. Experiment: We can examine biological structures to test if high CSI exists. When we look at natural objects in biology, we find many machine-like structures which are specified, because they have a particular arrangement of parts which is necessary for them to function, and complex because they have an unlikely arrangement of many interacting parts. These biological machines are "irreducibly complex," for any change in the nature or arrangement of these parts would destroy their function. Irreducibly complex structures cannot be built up through an alternative theory, such as Darwinian evolution, because Darwinian evolution requires that a biological structure be functional along every small-step of its evolution. "Reverse engineering" of these structures shows that they cease to function if changed even slightly. iv. Conclusion: Because they exhibit high levels of CSI, a quality known to be produced only by intelligent design, and because there is no other known mechanism to explain the origin of these "irreducibly complex" biological structures, we conclude that they were intelligently designed. Experimentation! WTF!!!!11111one -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

REC Posts: 638 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 28 2010,16:50    q: "ID is asking us to accept the existence of an intelligent designer. Where is there evidence for the intelligent designer?" a: "The answer is that intelligent design theory itself is the evidence for the intelligent designer." I almost peed.

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 28 2010,19:01    iii), translated, means "Nature is full of a bunch of weird shit that actually works. Therefore Jesus." edit: formatting. -------------- "[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

didymos Posts: 1828 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: July 30 2010,19:21    LOL @ JAD's latest "contribution" to the discussion at Cornhole's place: Quote When are you clowns going to wake up and realize that evolution is finished and has been for quite some time? Now delete this you cowardly blowhards. What the hell? -------------- I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

MichaelJ Posts: 462 Joined: June 2009 (Permalink) Posted: July 31 2010,00:52    Is it just me of is Cornelius Hunter getting crankier. Quoth Corny "David: === 'And so there is no excuse for lying in the guise of science. But lie they do.' To “lie” is to knowingly state a falsehood. So, Dr Hunter believes that Johnson and Losos know that their claims are false, but are promulgating them anyway. He’s not saying that they are mistaken, but that they are deliberately bearing false witness, which is a heinous sin. I wonder how Dr Hunter can know this. What power has enabled him to see into the souls of Drs Johnson and Losos and discern their cognitions and motivations? === Good point, maybe they're just insane. " I can imagine the spittle dribbling through his beard when he wrote that. Linky

iconofid Posts: 32 Joined: July 2009 (Permalink) Posted: July 31 2010,04:48    Quote (MichaelJ @ July 31 2010,00:52) Is it just me of is Cornelius Hunter getting crankier. Quoth Corny "Good point, maybe they're just insane." I can imagine the spittle dribbling through his beard when he wrote that. Linky Bornagain77 actually disagrees with Cornelius, and gives us some hard scientific analysis: "Dr. Hunter, I don't think the authors are intentionally lying, or that they are insane, but as the title of your post "Blind Guides" says, I believe they may be truly blind to even a small glimpse of "The Greatness of Our God",,, The Greatness of Our God - Hillsong Live http://www.tangle.com/view_video?viewkey=02bf2dc3145ca1d885bd The Greatness of Our God - Lyrics Give me eyes to see More of who You are May what I behold Still my anxious heart Take what I have known And break it all apart You my God are greater still No sky contains No doubt restrains All You are The greatness of our God I spend my life to know And I'm far from home To all You are The greatness of our God Give me grace to see Beyond this moment here To believe that there Is nothing left to fear That You alone are high above it all You my God are greater still And there is nothing That can ever separate us There is nothing that can ever Separate if from Your love No life no death of this I am convinced You my God are greater still http://www.songlyrics.com/hillson...."." So, that explains why the authors think a series of fossils is evidence for the fact of macro-evolution. Metaphysics, as Cornelius would say, combined with their failure to listen to corny, crappy religious songs.

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 31 2010,12:19    a.s.s.f. -------------- "[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

REC Posts: 638 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 31 2010,14:34    jadavison said... Cornelius Will you please remove my weblog from your links. I find your behavior and tactics embarrassing and I want nothing more to do with you or your clientele. If you don't remove it, I will alert the world that you refused me! jadavison.wordpress.com Thanks. I love it so!!!

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 31 2010,15:19    Quote (REC @ July 31 2010,12:34) jadavison said... Cornelius Will you please remove my weblog from your links. I find your behavior and tactics embarrassing and I want nothing more to do with you or your clientele. If you don't remove it, I will alert the world that you refused me! jadavison.wordpress.com Thanks. I love it so!!! ... and boy, won't the world be pissed off about that! Yawn. -------------- "[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

MichaelJ Posts: 462 Joined: June 2009 (Permalink) Posted: July 31 2010,17:41    Quote (REC @ Aug. 01 2010,05:34) jadavison said... Cornelius Will you please remove my weblog from your links. I find your behavior and tactics embarrassing and I want nothing more to do with you or your clientele. If you don't remove it, I will alert the world that you refused me! jadavison.wordpress.com Thanks. I love it so!!! Wow JAD ejecting himself from a blog. Is this the first sign of the apocalypse?

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2010,19:08    Corny jumped the shark today, claiming that "And Miller did not explain the great number (more than a thousand) genes unique to the human genome." What a liar! http://tinyurl.com/2aa67zk

paragwinn Posts: 539 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2010,21:58    Quote (MichaelJ @ July 31 2010,00:52) Is it just me of is Cornelius Hunter getting crankier. Quoth Corny "David: === 'And so there is no excuse for lying in the guise of science. But lie they do.' To “lie” is to knowingly state a falsehood. So, Dr Hunter believes that Johnson and Losos know that their claims are false, but are promulgating them anyway. He’s not saying that they are mistaken, but that they are deliberately bearing false witness, which is a heinous sin. I wonder how Dr Hunter can know this. What power has enabled him to see into the souls of Drs Johnson and Losos and discern their cognitions and motivations? === Good point, maybe they're just insane. " I can imagine the spittle dribbling through his beard when he wrote that. Linky Apparently Corny has had a change of heart. The last statement of his OP has been modified without annotation in the OP or in the comments as to having done so; 'lying' becomes 'misinformation' and 'But lie they do' is no more. Microevolution at work. -------------- All women build up a resistance [to male condescension]. Apparently, ID did not predict that. -Kristine 4-19-11 F/Ns to F/Ns to F/Ns etc. The whole thing is F/N ridiculous -Seversky on KF footnote fetish 8-20-11 Sigh. Really Bill? - Barry Arrington

MichaelJ Posts: 462 Joined: June 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2010,02:25    Quote (JAM @ Oct. 13 2010,10:08) Corny jumped the shark today, claiming that "And Miller did not explain the great number (more than a thousand) genes unique to the human genome." What a liar! http://tinyurl.com/2aa67zk Corny jumps the shark so often that the shark is getting head spins

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2010,09:27    Corny's latest shark arial excursion:  The evil evos may have won Kitzmiller v. Dover, but they had to give up their souls to do it.           Quote Corny:  As I discussed here, here, here and here, evolutionists won the day in the Kitzmiller case. But their victory came at a cost. There were substantial legal costs, but evolutionists paid a far greater cost which can’t be measured in dollars. They gave up their soul. ..and of course Joe G has to rush in to defend this stupidity.  There's just not enough rings for all the clowns in the circus over there. -------------- "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.

olegt Posts: 1405 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2010,14:25    One of young earthers offers his theory of the origin of the Universe: Quote My position is that the universe originally began in the form of water and that that water was located in one location. At some point gravity was applied. The water would have assumed the shape of a sphere and there would have been tremendous force applied to the water near the center of the sphere (let's call it "CW" for "Center Water") due to pressure from the water above it. The force would have been sufficient to break chemical bonds and overcome the nuclear forces for the atoms in CW, which would have released a tremendous amount of energy and led to the formation of new elements by fusion in other parts of the watery mass. Some hydrogen and helium would also have been produced. Let's assume that a torque was applied to the watery mass and it began spinning. The H and He would have been located at the outer regions as an atmosphere of the watery mass. At some point let's assume that the hydrogen and helium and possibly some of the watery mass were separated from the original watery mass and formed stars. The key question here is, "What would have been the composition of the stars when they would have been formed in this scenario?" Clearly, it would not have been that of the main sequence stars as astronomers suppose them to have been composed at their beginning. This is just so freaking awesome! -------------- If you are not: Galapagos Finch please Logout »

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2010,14:40    Quote (olegt @ Oct. 19 2010,12:25) One of young earthers offers his theory of the origin of the Universe:   Quote My position is that the universe originally began in the form of water and that that water was located in one location. At some point gravity was applied. The water would have assumed the shape of a sphere and there would have been tremendous force applied to the water near the center of the sphere (let's call it "CW" for "Center Water") due to pressure from the water above it. The force would have been sufficient to break chemical bonds and overcome the nuclear forces for the atoms in CW, which would have released a tremendous amount of energy and led to the formation of new elements by fusion in other parts of the watery mass. Some hydrogen and helium would also have been produced. Let's assume that a torque was applied to the watery mass and it began spinning. The H and He would have been located at the outer regions as an atmosphere of the watery mass. At some point let's assume that the hydrogen and helium and possibly some of the watery mass were separated from the original watery mass and formed stars. The key question here is, "What would have been the composition of the stars when they would have been formed in this scenario?" Clearly, it would not have been that of the main sequence stars as astronomers suppose them to have been composed at their beginning. This is just so freaking awesome! Actually, the key question here is "Huh?" -------------- 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

olegt Posts: 1405 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2010,15:46    Our friend Joe participates in the development of the model: Quote Let's say that the universe's initial conditions were a large 3-D space and within it a ball of liquid water. The ball is >2 light-years across, large enough to contain all the mass in the universe. Because of this concentration of matter this ball of water is deep inside a black hole whose EH is more than .5 billion light-years away. Gravity starts to take over compressing this ball of water toward the center making it extremely hot and dense. The heat then rips apart the water molecules, atoms, even the nuclei into elementary particles. Are you with me so far? Thermonuclear reactions begin, forming heavier nuclei from lighter ones and liberating huge amounts of energy. There is rotation that speeds up as the compresion continues. Then we have the universe stretching out, the black hole becomes a white hole. The EH shrinks towards the Earth and as the EH reaches the earth, an ordinary day on Earth would be equal to billions of years worth of processes taking place in the distant cosmos. Now you are aware of a thought experiment involving two people- one going towards a black hole and one observing that person? The person going towards the black hole seems to stop- that is from the other person's PoV- as he/ she reaches the EH. P.S. Joe's writing style is insufferable. His paragraphs are one-sentence long. I took the liberty to impose some structure on the excerpt. -------------- If you are not: Galapagos Finch please Logout »

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2010,15:50    Quote (olegt @ Oct. 19 2010,16:46) Our friend Joe participates in the development of the model:     Quote Let's say that the universe's initial conditions were a large 3-D space and within it a ball of liquid water. The ball is >2 light-years across, large enough to contain all the mass in the universe. Because of this concentration of matter this ball of water is deep inside a black hole whose EH is more than .5 billion light-years away. Gravity starts to take over compressing this ball of water toward the center making it extremely hot and dense. The heat then rips apart the water molecules, atoms, even the nuclei into elementary particles. Are you with me so far? Thermonuclear reactions begin, forming heavier nuclei from lighter ones and liberating huge amounts of energy. There is rotation that speeds up as the compresion continues. Then we have the universe stretching out, the black hole becomes a white hole. The EH shrinks towards the Earth and as the EH reaches the earth, an ordinary day on Earth would be equal to billions of years worth of processes taking place in the distant cosmos. Now you are aware of a thought experiment involving two people- one going towards a black hole and one observing that person? The person going towards the black hole seems to stop- that is from the other person's PoV- as he/ she reaches the EH. P.S. Joe's writing style is insufferable. His paragraphs are one-sentence long. I took the liberty to impose some structure on the excerpt. But when was ice formed? And steam? -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

Ptaylor Posts: 1180 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2010,16:26    Joe is humble: Quote Joe G said...    Derick:     Quote Joe, I don't know what's worse: that you think you're intelligent,    My IQ is only 150.    There are people with higher IQs. I think we know who that would be. -------------- We no longer say: “Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.” We now say: “Another day since the time Darwinism was disproved.” -PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

olegt Posts: 1405 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2010,16:58    After I point out that Joe's scenario violates the no-hair theorem, Joe pouts: Quote oleg, Read "Starlight and Time" and get back to me. OR you can write to Dr Humphreys and discuss it with him. OR you can keep arguing from ignorance. Your choice. Mwahahaha! -------------- If you are not: Galapagos Finch please Logout »

Tracy P. Hamilton Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2010,21:26    Oleg: "According to your model, we should observe a lot of oxygen in the universe:" Joe G:"Duh, Oleg, all our observations are obviously wrong then. How about a hard question next time?" Edited to add: I wanted to do something special for post 666, but I just had to post this precious comment from JoeG! -------------- "Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV "The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen "We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

didymos Posts: 1828 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2010,04:09    Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Oct. 19 2010,19:26) Oleg: "According to your model, we should observe a lot of oxygen in the universe:" Joe G:"Duh, Oleg, all our observations are obviously wrong then. How about a hard question next time?" :p Edited to add: I wanted to do something special for post 666, but I just had to post this precious comment from JoeG! That wasn't Joe.  That was Derick Childress, in this comment, making fun of people like Joe. -------------- I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

Pages: (18) < ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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