RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (356) < ... 340 341 342 343 344 [345] 346 347 348 349 350 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 4, Fostering a Greater Understanding of IDC< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2013,06:19   

You will know what it is to be roasted in the depths of the slor that day.

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2013,11:22   

MF is taking KF to thinking school:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-480468

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

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2013,16:14   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Nov. 19 2013,06:19)
You will know what it is to be roasted in the depths of the slor that day.

REC'd for the Ghostbusters Reference!




Edited by J-Dog on Nov. 19 2013,16:24

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2013,00:24   

Lest anyone was concerned about IDiocy's image as that of magic-obsessed woomeisters, Denyse (apparently) decided to confirm that it is:

 
Quote
New Age medic Deepak Chopra responds to Darwin’s man Jerry Coyne in The New Republic. Warning: Messy


Because telepathy is real, just junky and unreliable:

 
Quote
Actually, if you look into it, you will soon discover that people like Coyne and his wikitroll buddies simply insist, beyond the reach of evidence, that telepathy is false. Not so, it exists as a low level effect greater than chance but not nearly enough to justify the claims of typical psychics (see The Spiritual Brain)


Buy my book.  Coyne needs evidence against (where'd GinGo get that idea?)*, Denyse doesn't need evidence beyond wishful "studies" by psychics.

Stay with your classy bunch, Denyse.  Maybe Chopra can testify at the next IDiot trial.

Glen Davidson

*Yes, I realize that idea occurs to most cranks, so he didn't necessarily need to get it from other cranks, but still he bizarrely trots their garbage out as authoritative, so it's plausible.

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

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

   
Learned Hand



Posts: 214
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2013,09:28   

When was the last time Dembski posted on UD himself?

  
DiEb



Posts: 312
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2013,10:19   

Quote (Learned Hand @ Nov. 20 2013,15:28)
When was the last time Dembski posted on UD himself?

Last post: Design Inference vs. Design Hypothesis (October 1, 2012)

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2013,10:45   

Dr Dr Dr himself posted there yesterday Nov 19th.

--------------
"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.

  
Learned Hand



Posts: 214
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2013,11:30   

Yeah, that's the comment that made me wonder. Seems like a pretty quotidian topic to get him out in public again.

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2013,12:07   

You know how we keep on pointing out that IDists can't calculate CSI for anything realistically biologically? Well, now Sal can't even work out how to calculate CSI for coin tosses.

--------------
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)

   
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2013,12:09   

Quote
Seems like a pretty quotidian topic to get him out in public again.

Well he's no longer cooking at the SES meth-lab so he's got some time on his hands.

Edited by Woodbine on Nov. 20 2013,18:10

  
REC



Posts: 638
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2013,12:35   

Quote (Learned Hand @ Nov. 20 2013,11:30)
Yeah, that's the comment that made me wonder. Seems like a pretty quotidian topic to get him out in public again.

Especially with Sal undoing his work. Maybe that isn't Sal's intent, but in one post he was discussing the "quality" of CSI (I guess confessing quantitation was impossible) and now the coin flip thread.

I'm interested if this leads to a KF/Sal showdown. KF seems to steer clear of Sal's threads, for now.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2013,12:44   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 20 2013,10:45)
Dr Dr Dr himself posted there yesterday Nov 19th.

Evolvability is the Tiktaalik of molecular biology.

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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2013,15:23   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Nov. 20 2013,12:44)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 20 2013,10:45)
Dr Dr Dr himself posted there yesterday Nov 19th.

Evolvability is the Tiktaalik of molecular biology.

This is exactly what the link in the Science News I posted talks about.

I guess Dr. Dr. doesn't read science journals.

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

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

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2013,17:00   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 20 2013,15:23)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Nov. 20 2013,12:44)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 20 2013,10:45)
Dr Dr Dr himself posted there yesterday Nov 19th.

Evolvability is the Tiktaalik of molecular biology.

This is exactly what the link in the Science News I posted talks about.

I guess Dr. Dr. doesn't read science journals.

We already knew Behe doesn't.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2013,18:59   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Nov. 20 2013,12:07)
You know how we keep on pointing out that IDists can't calculate CSI for anything realistically biologically? Well, now Sal can't even work out how to calculate CSI for coin tosses.

As Mark Frank points out, the only way to determine a probability is to make some assumptions about how the objects came to be in alignment. Using scordova's method of counting the alignment of many objects, lodestone, diamonds, even the rays of the Sun would have CSI.

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

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2013,20:06   

Quote (DiEb @ Nov. 20 2013,10:19)
Quote (Learned Hand @ Nov. 20 2013,15:28)
When was the last time Dembski posted on UD himself?

Last post: Design Inference vs. Design Hypothesis (October 1, 2012)

But Dembski is on record that design hypotheses are already part of his design inference.

http://www.antievolution.org/cs....e....ectures

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

    
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2013,20:24   

Denyse intellectually self-harms again:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....houghts

Quote
Come to think of it, the only time I ever encountered the Bible code in relation to ID was when I met an ID-sympathetic computational physicist at a conference. I had reviewed his book on the subject, which I quite liked.

As it happens,—using information theory—he had demonstrated that there is no Bible code. Chunkdz surely can’t mean him (?)....


Whoops:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archive....he.html

--------------
"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: Nov. 21 2013,22:38   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 21 2013,20:24)
Denyse intellectually self-harms again:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....houghts

 
Quote
Come to think of it, the only time I ever encountered the Bible code in relation to ID was when I met an ID-sympathetic computational physicist at a conference. I had reviewed his book on the subject, which I quite liked.

As it happens,—using information theory—he had demonstrated that there is no Bible code. Chunkdz surely can’t mean him (?)....


Whoops:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archive....he.html

It must be encouraging for Dembski to work with somebody like Denyse. Didn't she claim to have proof read Dembski's books?

BTW, what about his Christian Darwinism: Why Theistic Evolution Fails As Science and Theology she co-authored and announced back in August 2010? According to O'Leary it should have been published in November 2011. Dembski still lists it as in preparation. Didn't Denyse even take a break to finalize it?

--------------
"[...] 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 -

   
BillB



Posts: 388
Joined: Aug. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2013,03:21   

Scordova:  
Quote
Behe’s rule vindicated again –paper shows adaptive evolution in the near term is maladaptive for the future:

Natural Selection does not have foresight, and this lack of foresight destroys complex capabilities, it does not build them. Behe’s first rule of adaptive evolution is again vindicated. Behe’s rule states that adaptation is usually loss of function, not acquisition of function.

In contrast, Darwin envisioned that ever increasing complexity would be selected by nature. That new functions would emerge to enable adaptation. Not so. Nature selects for simplicity, if not out right extinction. Behe was right, Darwin was wrong.


From the paper in question:
 
Quote
We performed whole-genome, whole-population Illumina sequencing on replicate evolution experiments and find the major theme of adaptive evolution in a constant environment is the disruption of signaling networks responsible for regulating the response to environmental perturbations. Over half of all identified mutations occurred in three major signaling networks that regulate growth control: glucose signaling, Ras/cAMP/PKA and HOG. This results in a loss of environmental sensitivity that is reproducible across experiments. However, adaptive clones show reduced viability under starvation conditions, demonstrating an evolutionary tradeoff.


The constant environment may be an important factor here ...

  
REC



Posts: 638
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2013,10:17   

I'll give Sal and UD credit for finding interesting papers fast. Its one of the reasons I look over there from time to time.

The interpretations are amazingly wrong.

The interesting thing about their fascination with loss of function in environments not selecting for, or even selecting against that function (in this case, regulation of growth, in an environment where constant, unrestricted growth is favored) is that it absolutely kills frontloading.

How can genetic information be preserved for a billion years before it is needed, under no or negative selection?

Quote
It’s a bit like throwing out the spare tire and the jerry can to save weight. Works as long as you’re only driving in the city…


Yep--and a mutation to the vitamin-C synthetic pathway worked great for some fruit-chowing ancestor of ours, but not so great for sailors and soldiers.

Nature is myopic. Therefore, it is designed?

  
Freelurker



Posts: 82
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2013,18:14   

Quote (DiEb @ Nov. 20 2013,11:19)
           
Quote (Learned Hand @ Nov. 20 2013,15:28)
When was the last time Dembski posted on UD himself?

Last post: Design Inference vs. Design Hypothesis (October 1, 2012)

Dembski's reference to design hypotheses in the engineering sciences illustrates something I observed long ago: the relationship between the ID movement and the engineering profession is the same as the relationship between the ID movement and the science profession. IDists equivocate and make stuff up about engineering just as they do about science.

As I read it, Dembski suggests that engineers should, in the course of doing engineering, assume that things in nature are the products of an intelligence. A less charitable reading is that he claims that engineers already do this and that scientists should be like engineers in this way.

In either case, Dembski runs the risk of irritating the general population of engineers, thereby opening up a "second front" on which the ID movement would need to fight.

But the risk is actually low because engineers can so far afford to ignore the IDists, that is, we can afford it more than scientists can. (I've even noticed over the years that not even IDist engineers rally behind Dembski when he tries to associate the claims of IDists with the work of engineers.)

--------------
Invoking intelligent design in science is like invoking gremlins in engineering. [after Mark Isaak.]
All models are wrong, some models are useful. - George E. P. Box

  
tsig



Posts: 339
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2013,18:55   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 12 2013,23:49)
I thought that Wes made a very cogent observation. Wtihout Dembski, ID creationism has nothing.

How delightful that the YECs have broken him down to slag.

Even after he crawled on his knees to them they still kicked him out.

How crooked do you have to be when even Christians can't abide you.

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2013,23:43   

Quote (tsig @ Nov. 22 2013,18:55)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 12 2013,23:49)
I thought that Wes made a very cogent observation. Wtihout Dembski, ID creationism has nothing.

How delightful that the YECs have broken him down to slag.

Even after he crawled on his knees to them they still kicked him out.

How crooked do you have to be when even Christians can't abide you.

It's ok to lie to people outside the group if you're doing it to lead them to the Truth.  But it's not ok to lie to people inside the group, especially if it concerns your ideological purity.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
Kantian Naturalist



Posts: 72
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2013,13:22   

And here StephenB's full-blown homophobia, stupidity, and ignorance shows why he is properly regarded as one of the leading intellectuals of the intelligent design movement.

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2013,13:46   

Quote (Kantian Naturalist @ Nov. 24 2013,19:22)
And here StephenB's full-blown homophobia, stupidity, and ignorance shows why he is properly regarded as one of the leading intellectuals of the intelligent design movement.

That's worth archiving.


  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2363
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2013,15:20   

Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 24 2013,13:46)
 
Quote (Kantian Naturalist @ Nov. 24 2013,19:22)
And here StephenB's full-blown homophobia, stupidity, and ignorance shows why he is properly regarded as one of the leading intellectuals of the intelligent design movement.

That's worth archiving.


That's all right, Stevie boy, you just go ahead and be as homosexual as you want.  I'll be happy to come over and get (at least the comely portion of) your women pregnant for you.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2013,15:24   

Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 24 2013,14:46)
Quote (Kantian Naturalist @ Nov. 24 2013,19:22)
And here StephenB's full-blown homophobia, stupidity, and ignorance shows why he is properly regarded as one of the leading intellectuals of the intelligent design movement.

That's worth archiving.


wow. The romans get a little gay influence from Greece around 150 BC, and The Roman Empire falls in 476 AD.

CLEAR cause and effect! America is doomed! At that rate our superpower status will be totally wrecked by the year 2650!

Curse you Neal Patrick Harris!

   
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2013,17:55   

They're quoting Barton as the source of all knowledge.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
REC



Posts: 638
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2013,20:10   

Quote (khan @ Nov. 24 2013,17:55)
They're quoting Barton as the source of all knowledge.

Ooh-If they're quoting Barton, then....

Quote
“In the 1930s, British anthropologist J.D. Unwin studied 86 cultures that stretched across 5,000 years. He found, without exception, when they restricted sex to marriage, they thrived.


Yep, they're citing Unwin--favorite of nutjob patriarchs.

Unwin on what makes and breaks great societies:
Quote

In my survey of the facts the points I wish to make are that
1. when they began to display great social energy the societies had reduced their sexual opportunity by the adoption of absolute monogamy
2. that in each case the society was dominated by the group which displayed the greatest. relative energy;
3. that as soon as the sexual opportunity of the society, or of a group within the society, was extended, the energy of the society, or of the group within it, decreased and finally disappeared;


And what is his version of traditional marriage:
Quote
When absolute monogamy is the rule, marriage is a means whereby a man secures domestic labour and heirs of his blood. A wife and her children are under the domination of her husband; in the eyes of the law he alone is an entity. The wife is taught to submit to her husband in all things ; it is her duty to serve him and to obey him. No woman may have sexual relations with any other man than with him whom she marries as a virgin. When she is married, she is not permitted to withhold conjugal rights. In an absolutely monogamous society female chastity becomes desirable for its own sake, for after a while the women accept as a point of honour the restraint imposed upon them by their lords.

  
sparc



Posts: 2089
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2013,22:41   

Maybe he should consider proof of concept starting with WWII. Surely the Nazis were as gay as they were Darwinists.

--------------
"[...] 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 -

   
  10669 replies since Aug. 31 2011,21:06 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (356) < ... 340 341 342 343 344 [345] 346 347 348 349 350 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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