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... > Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread

Pages: (1000) < ... 45 46 47 48 49 [50] 51 52 53 54 55 ... >

keiths Posts: 2195 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2006,06:27    DaveTard reaches the pinnacle of blissful self-unawareness: Quote If you can’t concede a point you are hereby invited to leave this blog. -ds -------------- And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

Stranger than fiction Posts: 22 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2006,06:43    Quote (keiths @ Mar. 16 2006,12:11) There were two thermo threads.  DaveTard's humiliation occurs on this one: http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/886#comments Whoops.  I humbly apologize to Dave for my accusation of rewriting history, and will confine my snide remarks to his practice of editing history before it's written.

steve_h Posts: 544 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2006,06:52    Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 16 2006,11:36) A bunch of really retarded ones like where he says that his typing this sentence violates the 2nd Law? Yeah, where are those? I’m guilty of taking it for granted that people in a discussion such as this know that the energy in photons is measured by degrees Kelvin. And of course degrees Kelvin is a measure of temperature and temperature is synonymous with heat. Next time you decide to be argumentative I suggest you do a better job of it. -ds I'll tell you where they are. They're on my harddrive. Anybody who wants a copy of the page, send an email. They are still on the original 'Thermodynamics fo^W by Dummies' thread (886 not 884) Confusion about 2LoT in regard to heat and information

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2006,06:54    sweet. it's still there. nevertheless, it's a good idea to save the pages. Quote Whoops.  I humbly apologize to Dave for my accusation of rewriting history, and will confine my snide remarks to his practice of editing history before it's written. And often deleting history later.

steve_h Posts: 544 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2006,06:59    Oops. It's been pointed out already. Sorry.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2006,08:43    At Panda's Thumb basically anyone can comment, anonymously, with little or no oversight. Banning is extremely rare. At Uncommonly Dense, basically no one can comment. You can't comment if you haven't registered, or you've said anything unpleasant about ID in the past, or just for existing on certain other sites (like PT). How healthy are the comment boards as a result? Panda's Thumb front page: Those IDists can’t get no respect… Posted by Tara Smith on March 16, 2006 | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) Kitzmiller: the movie — Pick your favorite actors now… Posted by Nick Matzke on March 15, 2006 | Comments (54) | TrackBack (0) Tangled Bank #49 Posted by PZ Myers on March 15, 2006 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) Life on Mars? The real lesson from Lowell Posted by Andrea Bottaro on March 14, 2006 | Comments (94) | TrackBack (0) Caldwell’s Latest Nuisance Suit Dismissed Posted by Ed Brayton on March 14, 2006 | TrackBack (0) Edenomics 101 Posted by Tara Smith on March 14, 2006 | Comments (29) | TrackBack (0) AAAS—-some new resources for teachers (and other interested folk) Posted by Tara Smith on March 13, 2006 | Comments (17) | TrackBack (0) Brits to teach controversy (or are they?) Posted by PvM on March 11, 2006 | Comments (120) | TrackBack (0) David Berlinski interviews self, calls self “crank” Posted by Nick Matzke on March 10, 2006 | Comments (86) | TrackBack (0) Laonastes/ Diatomys/ kha-nyou/ rat-squirrel Posted by PZ Myers on March 10, 2006 | Comments (34) | TrackBack (0) New Law Review Article Posted by Timothy Sandefur on March 10, 2006 | TrackBack (0) Update on the Michigan Bill Posted by Ed Brayton on March 09, 2006 | TrackBack (0) Update on Alabama SB45/HB106 Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on March 08, 2006 | Comments (19) | TrackBack (0) The South Carolina Friends List Posted by Steve Reuland on March 08, 2006 | Comments (43) | TrackBack (0) The South Carolina Enemies List Posted by Steve Reuland on March 08, 2006 | Comments (69) | TrackBack (0) Uncommonly Dense: Paramount to make movie about Dover Comments (0) Australian Reply to Hubert Yockey’s Critique of ID Comments (0) Barrow wins 2006 Templeton Prize Comments (7) “IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security” Comments (4) Rosenhouse praises Discovery Institute Fellow John Angus Campbell Comments (6) March 14, 2006 The Trouble with Methodological Naturalism Comments (10) March Madnesss Comments (4) Nasty feelings in the OOL community toward Hubert Yockey? Comments (11) March 13, 2006 Chronicle of Higher Ed on ID Comments (10) Orthodox Darwinists Spanked in New U.S. Poll Comments (28) March 12, 2006 Is Russia ready for ID? Comments (9) Dembski to speak at UC Berkeley, March 17th and 18th Comments (3) March 11, 2006 Polanyi Quote Comments (4) Grassroots America Speaks Out (again) Comments (4) [quote mine] Ken Miller: “much of the problem lies with atheists” Comments (28) ID as “dead science” Comments (9) Anthropology and ID — fast friends in the making Comments (9) March 10, 2006 C’est la Avida Comments (6) Brits to Teach the Controversy Comments (10) March 9, 2006 Nelson vs. Sarkar debate tonight at UTAustin Comments (7) Panda's Thumb: 37.87 comments per post (counting Tim Sandefur posts as zeroes) Uncommonly Dense: 8.45 comments per post.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2006,08:50    Quote Panda's Thumb: 37.87 comments per post (counting Tim Sandefur posts as zeroes) Uncommonly Dense: 8.45 comments per post. No, make that 7.45 because YOU'RE gone.-dt -------------- "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

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2006,08:51    You AND math are gone. -dt

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2006,08:54    the word Gone is gone. -dt

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2006,08:57    Did you know I used to work for Dell?-dt -------------- "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

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2006,09:07    Dell is gone -dt

Seven Popes Posts: 190 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2006,09:27    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/delldude1.html Since when does a job with Dell confer knighthood?   -------------- Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

keiths Posts: 2195 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2006,12:00    Quote March 16, 2006 Double Helix Nebula http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0603/15doublehelix Filed under: Intelligent Design — William Dembski @ 4:04 pm Are we supposed to infer that the Designer put the double helix there?  Dembski is wisely silent on this, though I note that he filed this under "Intelligent Design", not "science". -------------- And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

keiths Posts: 2195 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2006,12:06    Oops, forgot to threaten/ban myself... You'd be wise to be silent, too, or you may need to find another blog in the galactic center. -ds -------------- And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2006,12:18    Quote Are we supposed to infer that the Designer put the double helix there?  Dembski is wisely silent on this, though I note that he filed this under "Intelligent Design", not "science". They do that frequently. They highlight a topic, but don't say anything about it themselves. Their followers will infer the typical argument "Irrelevant fact x, therefore Intelligent Design." but the poster doesn't have to come out and say it, which would give us ammunition.

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2006,13:26    To be fair, thats ussualy because they highlight a topic that completely disagrees with their theories. Thats the main reason I keep going, all the interesting papers that support evolution. That and the comedy. Go disagree somewhere else. Whos laughing now? -ds

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2006,19:56    Quote Did anyone read the comments being posted on that blog? Apparently those propagandists believe that anything that is fiercely pro-Darwin is not slanted at all. Personally I find the most annoying people are those that tell me to “shut up” whenever I make a good point. Maybe the propagandists were bullied when they were kids and now they’re pouring out their hate onto the “fundamentalist boogeymen” that we all surely are. Comment by jasonng — March 16, 2006 @ 11:50 pm From this thread. The only poster at PT being told to shut up on a regular basis was Larry F. Ergo jasonng must be Larry. (Sorry if this has been mentioned before.) Nice to know we're getting at them. Who's being got at now, buddy, mention your crap elsewhere. you're outa here. -dt

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2006,20:30    This thread has a few worrying comments Seems some creo folks aren't too happy with Dave2lot. I wonder if Uri Bill will lower the boom on him at last. I guess we should enjoy it while it lasts as all good things come to an end. The end is nigh for you, buddy. You're toast. -dt

hehe Posts: 59 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2006,02:44    50 pages... Congratulations! Yeah, I'll try just a little bit more... AND BAN YOU ALL!!!11 -ds

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2006,02:47    This thread is going to go on forever. The Uncommonly Dense crowd will never stop saying absurd things: Quote March 16, 2006 Biologists Are Not Design Experts Biologists are not design experts. In fact no scientists are design experts. Engineers are design experts. The crew at Panda’s Thumb ought to follow their own advice and step aside where they have no expertise. Complex specified information is digitally encoded along the spine of the DNA molecule. Are biologists information experts? Nope. Information science is a branch of mathematics. Evolutionary biologists should stick to putting the phylogenetic tree in the proper order. Lord knows they still have their work cut out for them with just that. Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 10:52 pm

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2006,03:12    He keeps going on about this I wonder how many engineers he has spoken to who study biological systems. In my experience they certainly have a different take on the whole thing.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2006,03:20    You know how we said earlier Quote They do that frequently. They highlight a topic, but don't say anything about it themselves. Their followers will infer the typical argument "Irrelevant fact x, therefore Intelligent Design." but the poster doesn't have to come out and say it, which would give us ammunition. Well, they resorted to exactly that when one of the scientists involved in the Astronomical double-helix shape showed up to chastise them: Quote # The nebula we have found with NASA’s Spitzer Space Telescope is a remarkable example of something that can be accomodated by the scientific enterprise as readily as we can account for hurricanes. Although there is much to be learned yet about the nebula, what we do know can be well explained in terms of existing and well-supported scientific hypotheses about the Galaxy and its contents. Consequently, I am dismayed that it has been brought up in an ID blog. Logically fitting natural phenomena that display order and/or beauty into the scientific superstructure of self-consistent ideas about the universe about us are what makes science so satisfying, and so meaningful. Not everything is a God-induced miracle. Comment by MRMorris — March 16, 2006 @ 10:50 pm # Quote MRMorris As readily as hurricanes, eh. Wow. I didn’t know you were able to fly aircraft into these double helix nebulas 50 times a year from start to finish measuring the forces and effects. So the article was wrong about this being the only one ever observed. It isn’t really a one-time event that happened millions of years ago when no one was there to witness it. You have an eyewitness account of it just like hurricane Katrina. You’re not just making up stories like someone died and gave you the exclusive right to tell this nebula’s story. Thanks for the tip, Morris. It’s been duly noted. Comment by DaveScot — March 16, 2006 @ 11:15 pm # Quote Professor Morris, Thank you for taking the time to comment here, although I am sorry you feel that your work is being tainted simply by being mentioned on this blog. Contrary to the image that is portrayed by opponents of ID, we do not suggest that something is ’so complex, it must have been a miracle’. Correct me if I am wrong, but I would imagine the formation of the double helix structure you have observed is analogous to the path traced out by an aeroplane’s propellor tips as it passes through the air - no miracles involved! As you will surely note, there was no suggestion that this intriguing formation is ‘designed’ or that current science cannot adequately explain it. In his writings on design inferences, Wm Dembski has been at pains to point out the difference between the results of regularities (as we see here) and design. Finally, if you are willing to answer, I an very curious as to how you found out that your work was mentioned on this blog. Did you get an email from a ‘defender of science’ warning that your work is being used for ‘creationist propoganda’ or something along those lines? I ask because there is a long history of certain people (no names mentioned) going to a lot of effort to do just this… Comment by antg — March 17, 2006 @ 4:50 am Davetard is showing his ignorance here, it's way more easy to understand how helix structures come about than hurricanes. a helix is just rotation plus translation. Hurricanes are complicated.

steve_h Posts: 544 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2006,03:21    Quote (keiths @ Mar. 16 2006,18) Quote March 16, 2006 Double Helix Nebula http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0603/15doublehelix Filed under: Intelligent Design — William Dembski @ 4<!--emo&4 pm Are we supposed to infer that the Designer put the double helix there?  Dembski is wisely silent on this, though I note that he filed this under "Intelligent Design", not "science". There's comment by someone named MRMorris which just happens to be the same name as the Prof. quoted in the article. It says this nebula can be explained by current physics.  Scrot, noted for knowing who the experts in any given field are, immediately notes that he is making up stories (but curiously doesn't ban him). I wonder if it's the same M. Morris - Commenter #4 certainly seems to think so. Has Dembski set a trap for Scrot?

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2006,03:32    A trap by Dembski? Absolutely not. This is a perfectly ordinary occurrence at Uncommonly Dense. An expert shows up and talks about his expertise, and dummies like Davetard insult him. It was ever thus.

Tim Hague Posts: 32 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2006,03:33    Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 17 2006,08:47) This thread is going to go on forever. The Uncommonly Dense crowd will never stop saying absurd things: Quote March 16, 2006 Biologists Are Not Design Experts Biologists are not design experts. In fact no scientists are design experts. Engineers are design experts. The crew at Panda’s Thumb ought to follow their own advice and step aside where they have no expertise. Complex specified information is digitally encoded along the spine of the DNA molecule. Are biologists information experts? Nope. Information science is a branch of mathematics. Evolutionary biologists should stick to putting the phylogenetic tree in the proper order. Lord knows they still have their work cut out for them with just that. Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 10:52 pm Some of us biologists are design experts anyway - I've a bio sciences background and design software for a living.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2006,03:37    Quote Some of us biologists are design experts anyway - I've a bio sciences background and design software for a living. My degree is in physics, but my job is as a research engineer. I find Davetard's commentary on the difference between science and engineering to be expecially idiotic.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2006,04:39    Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 17 2006,02:30) This thread has a few worrying comments Seems some creo folks aren't too happy with Dave2lot. I wonder if Uri Bill will lower the boom on him at last. I guess we should enjoy it while it lasts as all good things come to an end. The end is nigh for you, buddy. You're toast. -dt Here's the money quote from there: Quote It seems that DaveScot is trying his best to alienate everyone who disagrees with him in order to be liked better by Darwinists, whom he doesn't like. In order to be liked better by Darwinists? What the Fvck? ? ? I think this poor befuddled soul means to say something like 'in order to look more like a scientist'. Which isn't working either. Somehow this reminds me of a comment I read at Davison's asylum the other day, where he'd written sth. like "I think Dembski is a closet fundamentalist". Oh really? ? -------------- "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

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2006,06:03    Quote What is it that prevents tried & true design detection methodology from being used in biology? Tried & true eh? The design inference has been applied to mount rushmore, lottery results, election fixing, Shakespearian sonnets and many other examples that are applicable to complex biological systems.

Stranger than fiction Posts: 22 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2006,06:35    I find UD fascinating from a psychological perspective.  I'm not so fascinated with the fact that Dave is an insufferable jerk - we've all known people like him - but I find it very interesting that other IDers at UD don't see him as such.  Dembski in particular should be worried, but he blissfully allows Dave to remain in the driver's seat while he plows through people's yards and houses, shouting insults as he goes.  How do we account for Dembski's blindness to the PR nightmare that is Dave? I'll show you a nightmare.  Here's the answer to your question.  Start reading. -ds

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2006,06:37    Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 17 2006,02:30) This thread has a few worrying comments Seems some creo folks aren't too happy with Dave2lot. I wonder if Uri Bill will lower the boom on him at last. I guess we should enjoy it while it lasts as all good things come to an end. The end is nigh for you, buddy. You're toast. -dt From that link I loved this comment. Quote It seems to be centering around Davison's Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. I think Davison's Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis is fascinating, but I think that the ID community did a much better job when it wasn't about a specific view of origins. Multiple hypotheses were part of ID, including Davison's and also including OEC and YEC. If it now becomes about a specific view of origins, I think it is headed back to the dustbin.   So is that where it came from?

Pages: (1000) < ... 45 46 47 48 49 [50] 51 52 53 54 55 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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