RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (527) < ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 5, Return To Teh Dingbat Buffet< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2014,07:16   

Does your mother smell of elderberries?

ETA: unfortunate page break.

Edited by midwifetoad on Jan. 31 2014,07:18

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2014,10:23   

Quote
In the near decade that I’ve been watching the Intelligent Design movement, one thing has consistently amazed me: the pathological inability of many ID critics to accurately represent what ID actually is, what claims and assumptions are made on the part of the most noteworthy ID proponents, and so on.


Yes, it amazes Delearious* (I assume it's she) that we're not fooled, not fools.

But we can't all be like her.  

Glen Davidson

*edited to  note that apparently it's nullasalus.  One IDiot or another, such a difference...

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2014,10:49   

Quote
In the near decade that I’ve been watching the Intelligent Design movement, one thing has consistently amazed me: the pathological inability of many ID critics advocates to accurately represent what ID actually is, what claims and assumptions are made on the part of the most noteworthy ID proponents, and so on.


--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2014,11:05   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 31 2014,01:42)
Totally off-topic but this morning as I was walking into work a police van with a tannoy attached to the roof drew up outside the maths department and counted up to five. Was this some bizarre mathematical taunt?

It's Joe, with a Largest Known Number progress report.

--------------
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

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2014,11:23   

Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 31 2014,19:05)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 31 2014,01:42)
Totally off-topic but this morning as I was walking into work a police van with a tannoy attached to the roof drew up outside the maths department and counted up to five. Was this some bizarre mathematical taunt?

It's Joe, with a Largest Known Number progress report.

I suspect it's a recruiting drive anyone that rushes out to tell them the next number is six is rejected.

--------------
"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

  
Driver



Posts: 649
Joined: June 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2014,11:46   

Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 31 2014,17:05)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 31 2014,01:42)
Totally off-topic but this morning as I was walking into work a police van with a tannoy attached to the roof drew up outside the maths department and counted up to five. Was this some bizarre mathematical taunt?

It's Joe, with a Largest Known Number progress report.

Haha.

--------------
Why would I concern myself with evidence, when IMO "evidence" is only the mind arranging thought and matter to support what one already wishes to believe? - William J Murray

[A]t this time a forum like this one is nothing less than a national security risk. - Gary Gaulin

  
Driver



Posts: 649
Joined: June 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2014,12:06   

The phonically apt KRock:

Quote
When you read the findings of Dr Richard Gallagher’s case study from 2008, specifically on how this unseen force, demonic entity or what ever you want to call it, showed utter contempt for anything Holy, ie the name of Jesus, Holy water, etc… I think it speaks volumes as to what we’re truly dealing with. Why is it that when you envoke the name of Jesus, there seems to be such a negative and hostile reaction? As Christians, I think we know why, :-).


"You are either for me or against me."

The influence of Voldemort runs through the veins of the unbelievers!

--------------
Why would I concern myself with evidence, when IMO "evidence" is only the mind arranging thought and matter to support what one already wishes to believe? - William J Murray

[A]t this time a forum like this one is nothing less than a national security risk. - Gary Gaulin

  
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1036
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2014,12:23   

Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 31 2014,11:05)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 31 2014,01:42)
Totally off-topic but this morning as I was walking into work a police van with a tannoy attached to the roof drew up outside the maths department and counted up to five. Was this some bizarre mathematical taunt?

It's Joe, with a Largest Known Number progress report.

I think it means they lost the instructions to the holy hand grenade of Antioch and are about to snuff it.

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
KevinB



Posts: 525
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2014,14:15   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 31 2014,10:49)
 
Quote
In the near decade that I’ve been watching the Intelligent Design movement, one thing has consistently amazed me: the pathological inability of many ID critics advocates to accurately represent what ID actually is, what claims and assumptions are made on the part of the most noteworthy ID proponents, and so on.

Very, very apt!

It is notable that though the quiz explicitly [purports to] define "evolution", "common descent", etc, it merely asserts  
Quote
the bare and basic essentials of Intelligent Design arguments, as offered by Dembski, Behe and others.

So can we use Dembski's "Logos Theology" definition?

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2014,17:04   

Quote (KevinB @ Jan. 31 2014,12:15)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 31 2014,10:49)
 
Quote
In the near decade that I’ve been watching the Intelligent Design movement, one thing has consistently amazed me: the pathological inability of many ID critics advocates to accurately represent what ID actually is, what claims and assumptions are made on the part of the most noteworthy ID proponents, and so on.

Very, very apt!

It is notable that though the quiz explicitly [purports to] define "evolution", "common descent", etc, it merely asserts    
Quote
the bare and basic essentials of Intelligent Design arguments, as offered by Dembski, Behe and others.

So can we use Dembski's "Logos Theology" definition?

It's impled, but not explicitly stated, that they mean the ID they talk about when not in church - an unknown designer did unknown things by unknown means for unknown purposes.  Which is, of course, compatible with anything (the modern synthesis, Lamarckism, biblical literalism, last-Tuesdayism, turtles all the way down...), and makes no testable predictions.

--------------
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

  
didymos



Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2014,21:04   

Quote (Driver @ Jan. 31 2014,10:06)
The phonically apt KRock:

Quote
When you read the findings of Dr Richard Gallagher’s case study from 2008, specifically on how this unseen force, demonic entity or what ever you want to call it, showed utter contempt for anything Holy, ie the name of Jesus, Holy water, etc… I think it speaks volumes as to what we’re truly dealing with. Why is it that when you envoke the name of Jesus, there seems to be such a negative and hostile reaction? As Christians, I think we know why, :-).


"You are either for me or against me."

The influence of Voldemort runs through the veins of the unbelievers!

I actually had someone use the fact that people say stuff like "Jesus!" and "Goddamnit!" as "proof" that Christianity was true, because why else would people swear using those names?  I tried pointing out that that was entirely cultural, but was greeted with only incomprehension for my efforts.

--------------
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

  
Henry J



Posts: 5787
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2014,22:12   

Quote
I actually had someone use the fact that people say stuff like "Jesus!" and "Goddamnit!" as "proof" that Christianity was true, because why else would people swear using those names???I tried pointing out that that was entirely cultural, but was greeted with only incomprehension for my efforts.

So if lots of people said "shazbot", that would be proof that Mork is really from Ork, but just lives in Boulder?

(Along with analogous comments about "oh my stars". )

Henry

  
Henry J



Posts: 5787
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2014,22:12   

Quote
The influence of Voldemort runs through the veins of the unbelievers!

That name is not to be used!!!!!!

(Or at least they said that a lot in the earlier parts of that series, even if later on they forgot about that rule. )

  
Henry J



Posts: 5787
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2014,22:13   

Quote
Pi is not an empirically derived value, is it?

I think he means the ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter is different if space cannot be described by Euclidean geometry. Yes?

Is circumference divided by diameter even a constant in those other two geometries?

I expect that the limit of that ratio would approach pi as the size of the circle approaches zero, from above in one case, from below in the other.

Henry

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2014,22:35   

Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 31 2014,22:12)
Quote
The influence of Voldemort runs through the veins of the unbelievers!

That name is not to be used!!!!!!

(Or at least they said that a lot in the earlier parts of that series, even if later on they forgot about that rule. )

They never forgot. It became a plot point.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
socle



Posts: 322
Joined: July 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2014,22:59   

Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 31 2014,22:13)
 
Quote
Pi is not an empirically derived value, is it?

I think he means the ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter is different if space cannot be described by Euclidean geometry. Yes?

Is circumference divided by diameter even a constant in those other two geometries?

I expect that the limit of that ratio would approach pi as the size of the circle approaches zero, from above in one case, from below in the other.

Henry

Is R^2 with the taxicab metric allowed?  

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2014,01:18   

An interesting exchange:

Quote

MapouJanuary 31, 2014 at 11:54 pm

   2. Is Intelligent Design compatible with common descent, with common descent defined as the claim that all living organisms share a common biological ancestor?

In my opinion, in a truly comprehensive ID theory, the answer should be NO. As an advanced intelligent designer, I would find common descent to be a tremendous limitation to my design freedom. I would want to be free to reuse designs across distant branches of the hierarchy.

When I write object oriented software using a language like Java or C# that does not allow multiple inheritance, I find myself having to copy code (as opposed to inheriting code) from one branch of the class hierarchy to another because the single inheritance mechanism (analogous to common descent) is way too restrictive.

I propose that the intelligent designers who designed life on earth also used multiple inheritance (so-called lateral gene transfers), a fact that is becoming more and more evident as we unravel the genomes of various species.
29
nullasalusFebruary 1, 2014 at 12:49 am

Mapou,

   In my opinion, in a truly comprehensive ID theory, the answer should be NO. As an advanced intelligent designer, I would find common descent to be a tremendous limitation to my design freedom. I would want to be free to reuse designs across distant branches of the hierarchy.

Sure, but some designers intentionally work within artificial limitations. More than that, this is back to ID as the most prominent proponents put it – and that’s going to include Behe, who flat out accepts common descent.


So Mapou wants ID to predict what it obviously should predict, that the designer will act like a designer, without idiotic limitations--or the ad hoc BS that IDiots bring in to justify the lack of design elements that we'd expect (engineers aren't going to just decide to mimic inheritance limitations for the hell of it when designing a jet engine--but the Supreme Intelligence will).

Never mind all that, though, Behe and others have written it, therefore that is what ID is.  "Fortunately," this avoids Mapou's objection, which is fatal to any intellectually honest ID--he's just too ignorant to know that, or he'd not have brought it up.  

So yeah, we're not talking about science or evidence, it's all about authority,  and "Darwinists" get ID wrong because they don't accept the mindless drivel of their "authorities."

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Patrick



Posts: 666
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2014,08:00   

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Feb. 01 2014,02:18)
An interesting exchange:

 
Quote

MapouJanuary 31, 2014 at 11:54 pm

. . .

When I write object oriented software using a language like Java or C# that does not allow multiple inheritance, I find myself having to copy code (as opposed to inheriting code) from one branch of the class hierarchy to another because the single inheritance mechanism (analogous to common descent) is way too restrictive.

. . . .



Interesting.  Not only is Mapou ignorant about evolutionary biology, he's a poor programmer as well.

Edited by Patrick on Feb. 01 2014,09:03

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2014,08:06   

Years ago, when the big OO language battle was between Smalltalk and C++, one of the luminaries of the OO design world insisted you simply had to have multiple inheritance.
Otherwise, how could you model an apple pie?  It has to inherit from flour and butter and fruit and spice.
Yeah, right ;-)

  
REC



Posts: 638
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2014,11:27   

This is awesome:

Mark Frank:

Quote

Here’s quiz on ID for you ID proponents:

On page 21 of Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence William Dembksi defines the context dependent specified complexity of T given H as –log2[M·N·?S(T)·P(T|H)]

Consider the context of the bacterial flagellum.

1. What is T?
2. What is the function ?S ?
3. How is ?S(T) estimated?
4. What is H?
5. How is P(T|H) estimated?
6. M·N·?S(T)·P(T|H) is meant to be a probability. Under what conditions might the answer exceed 1?


Nullasalus*, in reply:
Quote
Most ID proponents – in the sense of ‘people in comboxes, non-professional supporters of ID’ could not answer that question.


I don't think any 'professional' supporters of ID have answered it either. And can't your non-professional genius computer programmers and engineers and mathematicians work that equation? Why not?

Quote
And most ID *critics* in the same vein could not answer that question, and answers related to that question are absolutely not the basis on which ID is typically criticized. Could you imagine Richard Dawkins being made to answer that question in the middle of his denouncing ID? Or better yet, Zack Kopplin? It would be comedy.


Your detractors' inability to meaningfully work an equation that they think is meaningless is comedy gold? No, actually, I could see this as a Monty Python style sketch. Sadly nullasalus doesn't see the joke is on him.

* isn't that the Catholic doctrine that for those outside the Church, it is hellfire for eternity? Surprised the Protestants put up with that.

Edited by REC on Feb. 01 2014,11:27

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2014,11:44   

And all this time I thought it was a  Miyazaki film.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
socle



Posts: 322
Joined: July 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2014,12:09   

Quote (REC @ Feb. 01 2014,11:27)
I don't think any 'professional' supporters of ID have answered it either. And can't your non-professional genius computer programmers and engineers and mathematicians work that equation? Why not?

Time for KF to post an epically long response in which he elides the critical steps.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2014,12:49   

http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....?p=4045

--------------
"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

  
DiEb



Posts: 312
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2014,15:03   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 31 2014,09:42)

Totally off-topic but this morning as I was walking into work a police van with a tannoy attached to the roof drew up outside the maths department and counted up to five. Was this some bizarre mathematical taunt?

Wahrscheinlich im Zuge der Vorbereitungen zur Sprengung des Pädagogenturms...

   
Henry J



Posts: 5787
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2014,17:58   

Quote
So Mapou wants ID to predict what it obviously should predict, that the designer will act like a designer, without idiotic limitations...

And he thinks that the known examples of genetic crossover are of the frequency that would be expected if some entity or entities had engineered all the new species?

Henry

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2014,18:40   

Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 01 2014,17:58)
Quote
So Mapou wants ID to predict what it obviously should predict, that the designer will act like a designer, without idiotic limitations...

And he thinks that the known examples of genetic crossover are of the frequency that would be expected if some entity or entities had engineered all the new species?

Henry

It's a great argument. I wish him luck pursuing it.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2014,22:23   

Roy destroys KirosFocus. And rightly too:

Quote
Kairosfocus (post #97):
If you want to accuse me sight unseen of misquoting or quoting out of context, I think on fair comment the ball is in your court to show that my citation is inaccurate.
I have still not been able to locate my copy of Gould’s The Panda’s Thumb, but I have found some-one else who owns one. I’ve also checked several reliable on-line sources, including one with a copy of the full text of the essay concerned.

In Return of the Hopeful Monster, Gould wrote this:
All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.
But in post #53, you quoted Gould – italics yours, bolding mine – thus:

All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between the major groups are characteristically abrupt.

You misquoted Gould.

It may only be a minor misquote, but it is unquestionably a misquote.

Does that additional “the” matter? You lost any chance you ever had of arguing that it doesn’t matter in post #75 when you wrote this:

Where — notice Roy, when a world class paleontologist speaks of a scarcity of transitional forms among “THE major groups” [all caps emphasis added], the direct, normal import of his meaning is quite plain and obvious…

Well, it might have been obvious if Gould had actually written that, but he didn’t.

Putting emphasis on a word that isn’t even in the text is a novel way of preserving the meaning. Still, it’s just possible that by “major groups” Gould did indeed mean, as you wrote in post #53, “the top level classifications at levels where major body plan features and functions are manifest, including phyla, subphyla, class and order.” Luckily Gould included a couple of examples of the transitions, and hence major groups, that he was referring to:

On the isolated island of Mauritius, former home of the dodo, two genera of boid snakes (a large group that includes pythons and boa constrictors) share a feature present in no other terrestrial vertebrate: the maxillary bone of the upperjaw is split into front and rear halves, connected by a movable joint.
Many rodents have check pouches for storing food. These internal pouches connect to the pharynx and may have evolved gradually under selective pressure for holding more and more food in the mouth. But the Geomyidae (pocket gophers) and Heteromyidae (kangaroo rats and pocket mice) have invaginated their cheeks to form external fur-lined pouches with no connection to the mouth or pharynx.


It takes just a couple of minutes to discover that the two snake genera – Casarea and Bolyeria – are in one of about a dozen families in the infraorder Alethinophidia, and the two families of rodents lie within the suborder Castorimorpha along with the family Castoridae (beavers). Thus the types of direct, fossil-less transition that Gould was referring to are those that lead to animals being classified as belonging to new families – not to new phyla, subphyla, classes or orders. By claiming Gould was referring to the latter, when the examples Gould provided suggest otherwise, you have taken Gould’s words out of context.

And since Gould wasn’t referring to phyla, subphyla etc, by emphasising that non-existent “the” and claiming that Gould was referring to “THE major groups“, rather than any old major groups, you have distorted Gould’s meaning.

You provided a handy checklist of what quote-mining typically means at post #90:

misquoting or out of context, distorting quoting
Misquoting: check.
Out of context: check.
Distorting: check.

WJM also provided a definition:
Quote mining is using quotes in order to make it appear the person being quoted meant something other than what they actually meant.

Yous used a (mis)quote to make it appear that Gould meant the higher taxonomic orders, including phyla and subphyla, when both the examples in Gould’s essay and Gould’s own later clarification show that he actually meant lower taxonomic orders. By both WJM’s definition and your own, you are a quote-miner.

You could try claim to be a victim of some-one’s error here – after all, it probably wasn’t you that inserted that additional “the”. But nobody forced you to copy the misquote from whatever dubious site you obtained it from. Nobody forced you to cite Gould directly rather than via a secondary source. Nobody forced you to continue to conceal your actual source, despite hints in posts #91 and #93 and being directly asked in posts #86 and #95. Then, after I say that “I am being as careful as I can to make sure that everything I say is justifiable“, you can’t even be bothered to wonder why I’m asking or how I knew you didn’t get that quote from a legitimate source, but instead accuse me of making unjustified and groundless accusations and false insinuations. You aren’t a victim, you’re culpably negligent.

Nor are you innocent of the distortion. Your comments about quote-mining in post #53 indicate that you knew when you posted the quote from “Return of the Hopeful Monster” that it had been described as being out-of-context. Yet despite that knowledge, you made no attempt to confirm the context before posting. Culpable negligence again.

That is the basis for my criticism. It is possible that Gould produced multiple versions of his essay, and that your misquote is actually genuine, but I really, really doubt it. It’s far more likely that you misquoted Gould out-of-context, distorted his intended meaning, and became a quote-miner.

Despite the facts provided here and your exhortation for me to “acknowledge wrongdoing,accept correction and turn from what has been done” I suffer no illusion that you will do anything of the sort. Instead I expect you to either to twist and turn in false indignation and slander me, or to ignore this post completely. But if you do reply, remember that unless your response starts with either an acknowledgment that you misquoted Gould (or very strong evidence that he did produce two versions of his text) it will not be worth reading.

Roy


--------------
"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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2014,22:29   

Quote (socle @ Feb. 01 2014,12:09)
Quote (REC @ Feb. 01 2014,11:27)
I don't think any 'professional' supporters of ID have answered it either. And can't your non-professional genius computer programmers and engineers and mathematicians work that equation? Why not?

Time for KF to post an epically long response in which he elides the critical steps.

I know KFs response... he used the same thing on me.

Quote
Any simple protein exceeds the probability bound, therefore anything made of proteins automatically is much larger than the probability bound.  Therefore, everything made of proteins is complex.


Of course, the mathematical rigor is not present, but I'm not sure that Gordon (or Joe or any contributor to UD) can do math.

For example, if they could do simple math, then they would realize that there exists a condition by which the DNA that codes for a protein is NOT complex (according to their definition) while the protein IS complex.  

Isn't that interesting Gordon, the thing that makes the protein isn't complex, yet the resulting thing is complex.  Where does the complexity come from.  It's almost as if it appears out of nowhere... mathematically speaking. Which is only one reason the entire math discussion is a waste of time.  

Figure don't lie... but liars can figure.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2014,22:31   

And some more KF hypocrisy in the a above:



Quote
M,

I understand how you feel but sorta think you should slide the tone/language intensity down a bit.

...

Let’s give it an official name, just like viruses, trojans and worms get names form antivirus software people:

The Darwinist 1984-style Orwellian doubletalk definition slip-slide trojan horse.



Bolding his.  Just as well you didn't want to ratchet up the rhetoric, eh KF?

Tragic. Must do better in the jaws of correction etc.

--------------
"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

  
sparc



Posts: 2089
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2014,23:33   

Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 01 2014,17:58)
Quote
So Mapou wants ID to predict what it obviously should predict, that the designer will act like a designer, without idiotic limitations...

And he thinks that the known examples of genetic crossover are of the frequency that would be expected if some entity or entities had engineered all the new species?

Henry

I wonder if the number of neurons such an entity would need to calculate all the possible setups of all possible genomes wouldn't exceed the number of atoms in all possible universes. More importantly, though: Why would such an entity make all these efforts? Just to be praised by guys like JoeG, KF, etc. while being ingored by those one can have interesting conversation with?

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
  15792 replies since Dec. 29 2013,11:01 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (527) < ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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