RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < ... 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 26 27 28 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2006,01:07   

Quote
nothing in evolution make sense except in light of prescribed evolution from complex stem cell common ancestor...then everything fall neatly in place
I think Davsions had a stroke.

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2006,03:36   

Actually, I think it's JAD's attempt to be 'funny'.  'though I admit that he needs some serious medical help.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2006,03:39   

I seem to see this front loading argument quite often, yet nobody suggests a way to test it.  It just seems to be assumed to be correct.

So JAD, how have you tested your hypothesis?

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2006,04:19   

DaveScot babbled about Panda's Thumb
Quote
Every article there has ZERO trackbacks.


Except the ones which don't, of course.

   
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2006,06:54   

So, this 'debate' challenge by whoever, seems to me they're itchin' to give TurboGoalposts v.3:16 a field-test.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2006,07:01   

Turbo goalposts!  Very funny!

So are turbo goalposts a software application, or are they powered by a 2 litre turbo engine taken from a car?

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2006,07:53   

Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Feb. 15 2006,12:54)
So, this 'debate' challenge by whoever, seems to me they're itchin' to give TurboGoalposts v.3:16 a field-test.

v.3:16...priceless.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2006,10:58   

Steverstory,

Quote
The front page of Uncommon Descent is therefore a micromutated creationist argument from 30 years ago.

Nobody should suppose that creation scientists have no good arguments on their side, or that their every argument against evolution theory, (which I believe have been proposed since about 1860 and were not necessarily strongly religious in nature) must be different from ones an IDist might accept.

What matters is, can such questions be answered, and if they have not been answered in 30 years, does that somehow make the question irrelevant?

So no, this does not mean that ID = creationism.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2006,11:39   

William the Theologian is now crying about Ohio and calling "evolutionary theory" a racket because scientists continue to work to keep intelligent design creationism from being taught in our public schools.  

I used to think evolutionary theory was just a bad idea. It’s looking increasingly like a racket.

Yeah Al Capone is keeping your theology out of public schools, he and Kenneth Lay that is.  It's all about McCarthyism, dude.  Keeping Jesus out of science class.

One thing that can be said about the intelligent designer, he either could care less about what is taught in American public schools or he is impotent to do anything about it.  The current score is thus:

Science - 3
Intelligent design creationism - 0

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2006,11:43   

All their arguments are old creationist arguments, occasionally with technical jargon added to make it seem more scientific.

Ken Ham says, "mutations do not add information", and William Dembski tarts it up into "the NFL theorems demonstrate that algorithms cannot produce Complex Specified Information blah blah blah".

Don't be fooled by the fake math.

Quote
If we take seriously the word-flesh Christology of Chalcedon (i.e. the doctrine that Christ is fully human and fully divine) and view Christ as the telos toward which God is drawing the whole of creation, then any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient.

--William Dembski
Sounds like creationism to me.
Quote
Nobody should suppose that creation scientists have no good arguments on their side
Actually, I think that's a pretty good supposition. Arguing against evolution was reasonable in 1860, unreasonable by the late 1940s, and a sign of ignorance and/or stubbornness in 2006.

   
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2006,11:52   

Steve just because Dembski says God and religion are behind intelligent design (creationism) doesn't mean God and religion are behind intelligent design(creationism).  Take these Dembski comments for example:

Quote
"The job of apologetics is to clear the ground, to clear obstacles that prevent people from coming to the knowledge of Christ," Dembski said. "And if there's anything that I think has blocked the growth of Christ [and] the free reign of the Spirit and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view.... It's important that we understand the world. God has created it; Jesus is incarnate in the world." – National Religious Broadcasters, 2000

Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of us being created in the image of a benevolent God." - Science Test, Church & State Magazine, July/August 2000.

"The world is a mirror representing the divine life..." "The mechanical philosophy was ever blind to this fact. Intelligent design, on the other hand, readily embraces the sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." - with A., Kushiner, James M., (editors), Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design, Brazos Press, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2001.

"I think the opportunity to deal with students and getting them properly oriented on science and theology and the relation between those is going to be important because science has been such an instrument used by the materialists to undermine the Christian faith and religious belief generally." "This is really an opportunity," Dembski added, "to mobilize a new generation of scholars and pastors not just to equip the saints but also to engage the culture and reclaim it for Christ. That's really what is driving me." – Dembski to head seminary's new science & theology center, 2004

"If we take seriously the word-flesh Christology of Chalcedon (i.e. the doctrine that Christ is fully human and fully divine) and view Christ as the telos toward which God is drawing the whole of creation, then any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient."


Gosh how the heck could anyone think IDC has anything to do with God and religion or Christ for that matter?  What a nutty idea.  ID is science, science I tell you!  Afterall, I mean, it could be a space alien or time traveler, no?  

And it's frontloaded, baby!

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2006,11:54   

ditto on the pricelessness of TurboGoalposts v3:16

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2006,12:03   

Quote


Gosh how the heck could anyone think IDC has anything to do with God and religion or Christ for that matter?
Dude, Casey Luskin literally asked me that very question, while his Intelligent Design club required officers to be Christian.

   
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2006,12:14   

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 15 2006,18:03)
Quote


Gosh how the heck could anyone think IDC has anything to do with God and religion or Christ for that matter?
Dude, Casey Luskin literally asked me that very question, while his Intelligent Design club required officers to be Christian.

What a bunch of lying turd nuggets.  It is as if they think everyone is as dumb as their own followers and they honestly believe that saying stupid moronic things like "we aint sayin' it is god, it could be a space alien or time traveler" somehow makes IDC scientific and not religious.  How insulting.  

Luskin et al are nothing but con men for Jesus.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
brauer



Posts: 9
Joined: Sep. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2006,12:29   

About that "Apologetics": is there any aspect to the practice that differentiates it from "propaganda"?

(I mean that as a serious question.)

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2006,12:48   

Also, IIRC Luskin in a minister of some kind. However, I'm not sure Casey is lying, if you demand people have certain religious beliefs, and then maintain that religion is irrelevant to what you're doing, it strikes me less as lying, and more like some kind of Oliver-Sachs-patient dysfunction like being unable to see things which are blue.

   
PicoFarad



Posts: 24
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2006,16:56   

Quote (Chris Hyland @ Feb. 15 2006,07:07)
Quote
nothing in evolution make sense except in light of prescribed evolution from complex stem cell common ancestor...then everything fall neatly in place
I think Davsions had a stroke.

I can't find who is being quoted here.  Can someone point me to it?  tia

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2006,01:01   

It was from a troll named "phishyphred" (JAD or Dave Scott?), whose posts have been deleted. ???

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2006,03:13   

Quote
I can't find who is being quoted here.  Can someone point me to it?
It was someone called 'moderatordingleberry', since he makes reference to prescribed evolution, and Davison has referred to Wesley as dingleberry before (Im not American what does dingleberry even mean?), I assumed it was him. That was before i saw that it was a quote from a DaveScott post on UD, so its probably just some random troll. The quote is in this thread somewhere i think.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2006,04:44   

Quote (Chris Hyland @ Feb. 16 2006,09:13)
It was someone called 'moderatordingleberry', since he makes reference to prescribed evolution, and Davison has referred to Wesley as dingleberry before (Im not American what does dingleberry even mean?),

Um, you don't want to know...   ???

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2006,05:45   

Quote (avocationist @ Feb. 15 2006,16:58)
Nobody should suppose that creation scientists have no good arguments on their side, or that their every argument against evolution theory, (which I believe have been proposed since about 1860 and were not necessarily strongly religious in nature) must be different from ones an IDist might accept.

What matters is, can such questions be answered, and if they have not been answered in 30 years, does that somehow make the question irrelevant?

So no, this does not mean that ID = creationism.

Actually, it does.  If ID uses the same arguments as Creationists, then where is the separation?  All the Creationist arguments were born from the Bible, so I guess we know where ID gets its arguments from now, huh?

Oh, and all those arguments have been answered.  You might want to check out this page:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2006,11:46   

I must be a big player in the creationism/ evolution debate, I'm getting mail from JAD.  He's seen me ask how he tests his hypothesis, and seems to want to take issue with me.  

Now, although it will be quoted out of context, I would like to say that in other historical periods, I would have challenged JAD to a duel.  However, this being today, and what with him being old enough to be my grandfather, and me being a nice quiet peaceful chap, I shall not do that.
Furthermore, unlike the various sock puppets of JAD, and several anti-evolution people, this is my real name.  Blame my great grandmother.  

Instead, behold, we have his PEH.  So far, as far as I can understand, he is saying that no new information is created, rather it is "released" by changes in the genome.  What I dont understand is how then the higher animals evolved, since them doing so seems to involve increasing the size of their genome, does it not?  DAvison seems to agree that evolution happened in the past anyhow.  

Also, he has said before that evolution is finished.  How does he know that?  Have we completely exhausted the potential rearrangements in our genetic code?  That seems unlikely in the least.  Can he suggest the potential number of such re-arrangements?  I doubt it.

The problem also with his idea, is that he suggests no way in which to distinguish between rearrangments that might happen of their own accord, and re-arrangements that have been pre-programmed, or else where the "designer" might have interfered.  

Although it also looks like he is suggesting that it is all happening according to the laws of nature.  Which, ummm, is the whole point.  So maybe he is on our side after all?

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2006,11:58   

By the sound of it he is saying that all rearrangements are preprogrammed, based on the fact that particular sites in the genome are more likely to be involved in rearrangements than others. My main problem with frontloading, assuming that it was specifically designed to produce current species, is that the frontloader would have to have complete foreknowledge of all the random mutations and environmental conditions that would occur. Apparently the first bird hatched from the egg of a reptile this way. Also in comparing phylogeny with ontogeny he says that the environment is in no way involved with evolution as it isnt involved with development, and i think developmental biologists would have something to say about that.

Many lower species actually have genomes much larger than ours, but genome size has more to do with cell size and cell division rate than complexity. Plus, as far as Im aware, gene expression play just as much if not more of a role in evolution that chromosome rearragements.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2006,13:45   

If you want to have an interminable fight with JAD, consider the following things: 1 I'd rather you didn't clog up this thread with his senile nonsense, and 2 he's supposed to be banned from here anyway.

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2006,13:51   

enough with JAD and pant-loading, please!

I've seen this drivel interminably from JAD, then Dave Scott (who has become his biggest fan), then Blast from the past.

one does get weary of hearing the same old pant-load over and over again.

this is where JAD's PEH/pant-loading belongs:

http://www.crank.net/evolution.html

his "evolutionary manifesto" earned the title Crankiest, as soon as it was posted there.

it's crank, that's all it is, and all it ever will be.

It's an argument as old as genetics itself, has had that much time to gain support, and never has.

Isn't anybody else as tired of hearing it as I?

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2006,14:25   

Yes. So here's something else to talk about. Just when you think you've seen the most pitiful ID dimbulb, a new one comes along, worse than him:

Quote
#

We need a college to offer a minor in design theory as a branch of mathematics. Does Dr. D have any opinions on which courses a math PhD student might find useful in assisting the cause?

Comment by jaredl — February 16, 2006 @ 6:25 pm

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2006,14:43   

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 16 2006,20:25)
We need a college to offer a minor in design theory as a branch of mathematics. Does Dr. D have any opinions on which courses a math PhD student might find useful in assisting the cause?

Comment by jaredl — February 16, 2006 @ 6:25 pm

Good god.

So, what, since the whole biology thing didn't work out, is their new strategy to parasitize mathematics, like a remora on a shark?

This guy seems quite unaware that there isn't even enough ID theory to fill a single class in 'design theory', far less a whole minor...

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2006,14:46   

hmm,

for starters, how 'bout:

pseudo-statistics 101:  the course where you learn how to take surveys using front-loaded questions, and that correlation DOES equal causation.

Advanced recti-linear algebra:  Learn how to put any idea in a box of your own making!

I'll stop there... let's make a list!

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2006,14:58   

"Speaking of dogs, would someone here who is still allowed to post at “After The Bar Closes” please inform those sons of bitches that I am responding to their comments about me at the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis thread on the side bar."

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2006,15:31   

ID201--Theory of Imaginary Numbers. And Imaginary Theorems. Groundbreaking, Imaginary Theorems.

   
  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < ... 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 26 27 28 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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