Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread

GCT

Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: June 01 2006,02:47

Breaking news!!!!11111

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1173#comments

Quote

...And a note to JohnnyB - I gave you the ability to publish articles just now. Something I’ve been meaning to do for a while now. Go to the meta-link for admins on the sidebar and all should be clear. I look forward to seeing your first article here.

Comment by DaveScot — June 1, 2006 @ 6:25 am

Wow, UD is getting another contributor. What marvelous feats of stupidity will this new contributor bring to the table? I'm all excited now.

Aardvark

Posts: 134
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: June 01 2006,03:30

Quote (keiths @ May 31 2006,20:58)

keiths,

Quote

Mr Dembski has every right to run his blog as he wishes and I imagine that teaching ID to our youth will work in much the same fashion.

Comment by Jeffahn — December 1, 2005 @ 10:55 am

Believe it or not...that's me! I knew pretty much how things worked at UD and my comment was intended to imply that WD would teach ID as science in a similar fashion to the way he runs his blog i.e. mercilessly crushing dissent and objective enquiry. I was banned a few comments later. I didn't expect that comment to last but somehow it has.

Since then, I've managed to successfully 'play the fool' at UD on a number of occassions. At one stage they were making whole threads about my apparently naive questioning of ID. DS actually ended up 'courting' one of my personas as an ally, but of course it all ended in tears when I turned on him

. Who knows, I may still be playing the fool there right now?!?

GCT

Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: June 01 2006,03:34

Quote (Aardvark @ June 01 2006,08:30)

Who knows, I may still be playing the fool there right now?!?

Why? Do they need help looking foolish?

k.e

Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: June 01 2006,04:18

Ah...GCT he may make them look intelligent!!!!!!
BWHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA
hehehehhehhehehehehehehehehehe
hrm.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

Chris Hyland

Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: June 01 2006,04:29

Quote

Wow, UD is getting another contributor. What marvelous feats of stupidity will this new contributor bring to the table? I'm all excited now.

Well he's definately a young earth creationist, although I don't think he has mentioned it on UD yet.

Quote

The age of the Earth and common descent are parlor games. Entertaining and interesting but nothing to take so seriously that one should upon it base a system of values or replace another system of values.

Comment by tribune7 — June 1, 2006 @ 7:06 am

I don't think some of the people over there are up on this whole "science" thing.

GCT

Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: June 01 2006,07:09

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1175

Wait, did I just read this right? Dumbski (and no, it's not clever, but it's definitely descriptive in this case) complains about how he wants ID to be compared to SETI. Then, he says that Michael Crichton hits the nail on the head when he talks about SETI. So, what does Crichton say about SETI, well Dumbski has a link. What does the link say you ask yourself...well, here is an excerpt...

Quote

As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science. I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable hypotheses. The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion. Faith is defined as the firm belief in something for which there is no proof. The belief that the Koran is the word of God is a matter of faith. The belief that God created the universe in seven days is a matter of faith. The belief that there are other life forms in the universe is a matter of faith. There is not a single shred of evidence for any other life forms, and in forty years of searching, none has been discovered. There is absolutely no evidentiary reason to maintain this belief. SETI is a religion.

D'oh.

Bob O'H

Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: June 01 2006,07:22

great_ape, kindly remove your tongue from your cheek.

Bob

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

guthrie

Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: June 01 2006,08:01

Just to make it more fun, the Crichton quote also seems to doom SETI forever as a non science endeavour, which as those of us who read the PT seem to broadly agree, it is. They just dont use the Drake equation for anything. Doesnt Crichton know anything about publicity and jumping to the wrong conclusions?

GCT

Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: June 01 2006,08:28

Quote (guthrie @ June 01 2006,13:01)

Just to make it more fun, the Crichton quote also seems to doom SETI forever as a non science endeavour, which as those of us who read the PT seem to broadly agree, it is. They just dont use the Drake equation for anything. Doesnt Crichton know anything about publicity and jumping to the wrong conclusions?

Hey, Crichton wrote "State of Fear" which you should know finally debunks this whole global warming thing. Well, you would know that if it wasn't for the cabal of scientists trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes.

Of course, that does seem to point to the reason why Dembski might associate with Crichton. I mean, both are fighting the lying scientists that are misleading the public afterall.

djmullen

Posts: 327
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: June 01 2006,19:40

Quote (GCT @ June 01 2006,13:28)

Hey, Crichton wrote "State of Fear" which you should know finally debunks this whole global warming thing. Well, you would know that if it wasn't for the cabal of scientists trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes.

But before they gagged him, he revealed that it was environmentalists that caused the Christmas Tsunami. Unfortunately, he didn't get a chance to tell us how they did it. They're probably in league with Satan.

Ichthyic

Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: June 01 2006,20:33

Crichton and global warming...

sorry, he really kinda flunked that course.

check out what the folks who actually do the research had to say about Crichton:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74

They were pretty disappointed, especially since Crichton apparently spent a significant amount of time getting background info. on the subject from them.

I guess Crichton figured the "scientists as radical terrorists" position would sell more books.

hmm, I wonder if BeerVolcano liked that book?

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

k.e

Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: June 02 2006,03:22

Hey Hardvark...... hehehehe

Nice bit of ID tickling there ......give me a Borat "high five (followed by a huge Kazakhstanian mustachiod cheesy grin).

How about coming up with a 10 point plan on how to make them so paranoid they spend the rest of their lives examining every post for signs it may be 'from the enemy'.

Its time we got up to some serious skulduggery.

We could forewarn them that we are planning a raid and tell them we have captured one of their operatives(AF Dave) and keep septic (secret code floating turd) up our sleeves...uuugh. Anyway, now that we have broken their secret code ....god=Linus' blanket...we can play them like a wonky church organ. Their enigma code is now in the public domain and a simple word mangler wil fly right under their seti/id radar. An EF (explainitory formator) would CSI (compose stupidity indicators) to undo their IC (itchy carbuncles) thus giving a mind rash similar to Darwian Denial.

We could call it Capture and Skin the Foreskinners.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

Bob O'H

Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: June 02 2006,05:31

Oops

Bob

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

k.e

Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: June 02 2006,05:55

Speaking of Salva-Dorian Gray mutations; Is it possible, for that in a lifetime ,they never age and only their painted/projected Satanic image decrepits?

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

Richardthughes

Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: June 02 2006,09:29

Fallacy Bingo:

Quote

So you’re saying you can’t tell a machine running under digital program control from a pile of rocks? Or are you saying you can tell the difference but you think that absent confirmation of an intelligent agent you can’t tell if the machine was built on purpose or its parts just piled up by accident like the rocks? Forgive me for saying this but I think anyone who seriously makes the argument you do, while understanding just how complex the machinery in question is, needs to have their head examined. Digitally programmed machines of almost unfathomable complexity don’t just materialize out of thin air. The burden of proof should be on the purveyors of the ludicrous notion that machines like that assemble themselves without help and until proven otherwise the only sane assumption is that these machines were designed by an intelligence of some sort. I can forgive Darwin. He didn’t have a clue of what was going on inside even the simplest living cell. You have no excuse. -ds

almost unfathomable complexity - argument from ignorance
materialize out of thin air - spontaneous generation (Puff of smoke)

The burden of proof should be on... - Least Plausible Hypothesis

until proven otherwise the only sane assumption is that these machines were designed by an intelligence of some sort - The Holmesian Fallacy?

I'm new at this.. any more?

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

Rilke's Granddaughter

Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: June 02 2006,10:58

Quote

the ludicrous notion that machines like that assemble themselves without help

This demonstrates why Dave "Springer-spaniel" Scot really is a closet theist.

Every single biological organism on the planet - his 'machines like that' assembled itself without help.

Unless, of course, Dave "I'm a loser 'cause I've hitched myself to this ludicrously stupid concept" Scot believes that intelligence is performing every single biochemical reaction in the birth and development process.

"It is not that they are stupid. It is that they are stupid like sheep."

guthrie

Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: June 02 2006,11:19

Quote (Bob O'H @ June 02 2006,10:31)

Oops

Bob

Dammit, I wish you would explain these things in your post, it saves my brain. So Salvatore doesnt read beyond the title of the article he links to- a classic ID error. Then I read up the page, and found DS saying:

Quote

It’s true that the ocean environment does change but it is undeniably far more stable than land. It takes a very long time for the ocean to change while the air can change almost instantly.

Um, sure DAve, but its a lot more complex than that.

stevestory

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: June 02 2006,13:18

Quote

Digitally programmed machines of almost unfathomable complexity don’t just materialize out of thin air.

According to Michael Behe, that's exactly what they do.

Richardthughes

Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: June 02 2006,17:01

How long before UD Jumps on this.

Using the ID co-option filter...

Does it contain "Design"?

Does it contain "science"?

It must be evidence for ID..

http://www.sciam.com/print_v....B7F0000

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

Ichthyic

Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: June 02 2006,17:47

hey Richard, you said it just a few posts up:

Fallacy Bingo

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

Richardthughes

Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: June 02 2006,17:54

Please, call me "Rich".
someone else owns "Rich"..

Fallacy Bingo adds another dimension of fun to crash landing, er, uncommon descent. If only we could randomly generate fallacy bingo sheets.

Anyhoo, nice to meet you all.

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

Ichthyic

Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: June 02 2006,18:05

welcome, Rich.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

Aardvark

Posts: 134
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: June 03 2006,11:38

BarryA:

Quote

Can someone help me out here?

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1177#more-1177

Something tells me BarryA doesn't really want to be helped.

dhogaza

Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: June 03 2006,15:05

Quote

No paleontologists reported finding any transitional forms today – yet another stunning confirmation of the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

Seriously, I hope some of our Darwinists friends who post comments on this site can help me understand how evolutionary theorists deal with their cognitive dissonance when they consider the issue of gradualism and the general absence of transitional forms from the fossil record.

Of course he doesn't want to be helped.

What I want to know, though, is why aren't there engineering prototypes in the fossil record?

Ichthyic

Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: June 03 2006,15:40

Quote

Seriously, I hope some of our Darwinists friends who post comments on this site can help me understand how evolutionary theorists deal with their cognitive dissonance...

I think I struck a nerve.

However, this is just another example of projection. On the positive side, some of them are apparently starting to research their problem; on the negative side, I doubt it will result in anything other than the projection noted above.

Most of these folks, Dave Scott Springerbot included, won't be able to adress their maladies with self-help programs.

If you're reading this (we know you are...), seek professional help gentlemen.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

Faid

Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: June 03 2006,16:19

Well Barry (since you are reading this too), if you really have questions, you know better than us that UD is not the place to have them answered- not with your friend the Banninator deleting posts and making everyone "go in peace but go".
Why not post your questions in this forum, where people can actually discuss, and just maybe find out the real answers?
If you want to, that is.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome. And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

stevestory

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: June 03 2006,16:25

Speaking of banning, PvM wrote a related post on Panda's Thumb, and set a trackback to Barry's post on UncommonlyDense.

Aardvark

Posts: 134
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: June 03 2006,17:15

BarryA, being either plain dumb or plain dishonest:

Quote

Also, look again at what Darwin predicts: “the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly ENORMOUS . . .” The handful of [proposed transitionals] that have been put forward in the last few years will never, ever come close to what the theory predicts should be there. It really is a closed case. — BA

Darwin said that the number of intermediate varieties must be enormous, NOT THE NUMBER OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS. He goes on to propose why this is so: "The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.".

Wesley R. Elsberry

Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink)

Posted: June 03 2006,20:12

Quote (Aardvark @ June 03 2006,22:15)

Darwin said that the number of intermediate varieties must be enormous, NOT THE NUMBER OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS. He goes on to propose why this is so: "The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.".

I've pointed out that Darwin's reasons for the "extreme imperfection" of the fossil record include both geological and biological reasons. That makes the explicit claim in the 1972 Eldredge and Gould article that Darwin did not supply biological reasons very odd, at the least.

Link

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Aardvark

Posts: 134
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: June 04 2006,07:30

Mung, from the transitionals thread at UD:

Quote

jonnyb,

Yesterday you pointed me to where creationists accept fast evolution. Today you point me to a creationist site that denies evolution ever took place. What’s up with that?

Yes jonnyb, please expain exactly why you're confusing poor Mung?

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