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) < ... 221 222 223 224 225 [226] 227 228 229 230 231 ... >

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,13:31    Quote (argystokes @ Sep. 27 2006,18:17) Dern, that thread just keeps getting better.  From the constantly silly Mike1962: Quote I’ve never seen him invoke the Rev Moon in any of his arguments. Have you? I don’t give a rat’s rear what his motivations are. All that matters is the products of the research. Either it stands up to rational scrutiny or it doesn’t. So we've gone from "we don't need no stinkin research" to "the research is all that matters.  Soon to be followed by complaining that no one understands what ID is. Does anyone understand? Seems to me that ID is just about anything anyone who claims to be an ID supporter claims. From different ID suporters I get the impression that ID is, 1) Religious apologetics. 2) A political movement. 3) An atempt to get religion snuck into science lessons. 4) A money making scam. 5) A reason to post on blogs using long and/or obscure words to claim that Darwinism/Evolution is a theory in crisis, another religion and that evolution requires more blind faith than religion. There is probably more but I can't think what right now.

Bing Posts: 144 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,14:48    Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 27 2006,17:53) Please! We're making no claims as to the identity of whoever it is that will ban him! It could be space aliens. It could be, just for argument's sake.  But I recall something from Dembski about banning being the logos of John's gospel in the idiom of booting theory. So even if he invokes powerful space aliens or time travellers from our future it's all just "nudge-nudge wink-wink say-no-more it's G*d".   The sacrament of booting is more akin to an exorcism.

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,15:17    And the hits just keep on coming. Quote 30. William Dembski // Sep 27th 2006 at 7:59 pm David H.: It’s a pain to remove people by hand, so I instructed my research assistant to do it. Since he hasn’t gotten around to it yet, I went ahead and did it myself. Oh, boy. I wouldn't want to be Joel when it comes time for the annual performance appraisal.       Quote I’m frankly surprised that you have problems with my time management inasmuch as you’ve never given any evidence of having read or understood my technical work. Beyond that, what I do in the way of public lecturing and popular work is aimed at recruiting talent to the ID movement. For the record, it’s working! Indeed, I understand that they have a whole research center at Baylor now.  Pretty sweet. -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,19:13    Carl Sachs' irony is apparently undetectable to the UD flunkies:   Quote   Quote 37. scordova // Sep 27th 2006 at 11:23 pm My view is that labels of apologetic or science distract from the fundamental issue, namely, whether ID is true. I personally think ID science, but if it doesn’t fit someone’s definition, I respect that. At the end of the day, the question of Design still remains indpendent of what label is affixed to. The question isn’t so much whether ID is science, so much as whether it is true. Comment by scordova — September 27, 2006 @ 11:23 pm 38. Carl Sachs // Sep 28th 2006 at 12:01 am Which in turn raises the question as to whether or not we have access to truth through means other than science. For it could turn out, as I read 37, that ID is true but that science could never find this out. Comment by Carl Sachs — September 28, 2006 @ 12:01 am AND, I see Jpark is continuing to kick ass and take names: Quote Quote As somebody who is a bit of an outsider here - I would offer my opinion that, yes, IDers do have a responsibility here. If you are so adamant that Darwinism is a failed theory then you not only have to show why, but provide at least the beginnings of a plausible framework to replace it. The problem I have is that the current set of hypotheses (e.g., specified complexity et al) beg more questions than they currently answer unless they can be understood in the context of a larger holistic cosmology. I do have a framework, [and I’m not being sarcastic here] its called Christianity. What could I POSSIBLY say to improve on that? So, apparently Jpark is one of those 'bright students' Dembski has 'recruited': Quote Quote I am one of those Dr. Dembski “recruited” ID and he has the best foundational statement for an ID framework that I can find: Christ is indispensible to any scientific theory , even if its practitioners don’t have a clue about him. The pragmatics of a scientific theory can, to be sure, be pursued without recourse to Christ. But the conceptual soundness of the theory can in the end only be located in Christ. Christ, as the completion of our scientific theories, maintains the conceptual soundness of those theories even as real numbers maintain the conceptual soundness of the applied mathematician’s calcuations. Christ has assumed the fullness of our humanity and entered every aspect of our reality. He thereby renders all our studies the study of himself. “Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology” pg. 210 ...I feel better already. -------------- "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

mcc Posts: 110 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,19:14    So was the mystery Google delisting of UD ever explained?

Bob O'H Posts: 2564 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,19:31    Quote (Bing @ Sep. 27 2006,19:48) So even if he invokes powerful space aliens or time travellers from our future it's all just "nudge-nudge wink-wink say-no-more it's G*d". No, no.  It's DaveScot.  He is the Intelligent Designer.  You can tell by the way he breaks the SLoT at will. 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)

Altabin Posts: 308 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,20:13    Quote (mcc @ Sep. 28 2006,00:14) So was the mystery Google delisting of UD ever explained? A good friend of mine - who, for obvious reasons, wishes to remain anonymous - has informed me that the ACLU did it. --------------

mcc Posts: 110 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,21:59    Quote (Altabin @ Sep. 28 2006,01:13) Quote (mcc @ Sep. 28 2006,00:14) So was the mystery Google delisting of UD ever explained? A good friend of mine - who, for obvious reasons, wishes to remain anonymous - has informed me that the ACLU did it. I'm afraid I won't be able to believe it until I hear it from a trusted source, like wikipedia.

guthrie Posts: 696 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2006,02:09    Quote Christ is indispensible to any scientific theory , even if its practitioners don’t have a clue about him. The pragmatics of a scientific theory can, to be sure, be pursued without recourse to Christ. But the conceptual soundness of the theory can in the end only be located in Christ. Christ, as the completion of our scientific theories, maintains the conceptual soundness of those theories even as real numbers maintain the conceptual soundness of the applied mathematician’s calcuations. Christ has assumed the fullness of our humanity and entered every aspect of our reality. He thereby renders all our studies the study of himself. “Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology” pg. 210 Isnt that just a long winded way of saying that god is in everything, and around everything, was responsible for setting up the universe etc etc? So once again it proves that ID supporters have a religious agenda.

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2006,03:35    Quote   Quote ...Blah goddunit Blah blah blah....Christ has assumed the fullness of our humanity and entered every aspect of our reality. He thereby renders all our studies the study of himself. “Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology” pg. 210 Isn't that just a long winded way of saying that god is in everything, and around everything, was responsible for setting up the universe etc etc? So once again it proves that ID supporters have a religious agenda. Indeed that scion of the Enlightenment... Spinoza said something like that. If god actually existed ...it would have to be in everything or not exist at all. But once they get rid of Darwinism, that world view will have to be modified...god is everywhere .....except that bit over there and that other bit. ....One thing that puzzles me though,  they seem to talk about this Jesus fellow as if he were alive. Does he have his own TV show or something?....maybe he is on talk back radio ......we don't get all that stuff down under. Can someone direct me to his Blog. Any merchandise? You know a cool long white robe and sandals outfit with a neat logo with black stripes or checkers would go over well , when I go for a drink at my local pub I want people to know what team I support. The wine would have to be Kosher of course but I know some chicks really go for the Jesus sandals 'look' and if any of the hard men take offense to me pulling their chicks I can give 'em a quick 'sermon on the mount' and tell them off for being materialists. If that doesn't work then there is always the jump over the bar and grab the cash trays and spill them on the floor and rant on about how they offend god by charging for one of god's gifts...the water of life. Normally by that time the bouncers appear and I seem to leave without my feet touching the floor...which further strengthens my case for being the son of god. Walking on water...pfffft...a simple optical illusion on a hot day in the desert...but leaving a bar 1 foot above the ground ? That takes talent. ....Oh where was I now? Being the one true son of god has it's dangers, please don't mention Easter, whenever I head down to the hardware store and ask for a hammer and a nail I get the strangest looks, other than that the people at the unemployment office just don't 'get it'; When I say my talents include turning water in to wine the same thing always happens..they call the supervisor and he ALWAYS makes the smart remark "And I suppose you do the loaves and fishes number as well?". At that point I have tell them god doesn't like sarcasm and they tell me to F***k off. ..Excuse me I'm getting a call from 'upstairs' ...hasta la vista. -------------- 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

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2006,09:04    Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 27 2006,17:56) Heddle is swiftly punished for pointing out the emperor's lack of clothing:   Quote 23. William Dembski // Sep 27th 2006 at 4:51 pm David Heddle: I don’t like your attitude. I recently booted you off a listserve that I moderate. I’m now booting you from this blog. Goodbye. Comment by William Dembski — September 27, 2006 @ 4:51 pm Dang, maybe we should invite him HERE? He's certainly brighter than GoP or ROB. He was here (PT, actually) for two years. For two years he repeated the same broken ID argument: 1) Physical Constants have certain values 2) ?????? 3) Design! We're only enjoying him at the moment because he still has enough scientist in him to see the fraud and deception of the ID leadership.

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2006,09:10    Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 28 2006,14:04) Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 27 2006,17:56) Heddle is swiftly punished for pointing out the emperor's lack of clothing:     Quote 23. William Dembski // Sep 27th 2006 at 4:51 pm David Heddle: I don’t like your attitude. I recently booted you off a listserve that I moderate. I’m now booting you from this blog. Goodbye. Comment by William Dembski — September 27, 2006 @ 4:51 pm Dang, maybe we should invite him HERE? He's certainly brighter than GoP or ROB. He was here (PT, actually) for two years. For two years he repeated the same broken ID argument: 1) Physical Constants have certain values 2) ??? 3) Design! We're only enjoying him at the moment because he still has enough scientist in him to see the fraud and deception of the ID leadership. It reminds me of the underpants gnomes on South Park. From wiki Quote The gnomes The Underpants Gnomes are a community of underground gnomes who steal underpants, notably from Tweek. The Underpants Gnomes have a three-phase business plan, consisting of: 1.  Collect underpants 2.  ? 3.  Profit! None of the gnomes actually know what the second phase is, and all of them assume that someone else within the organization does. This mocks the lack of solid business plans within many Dot-com bubble companies founded during the period before this episode aired. The three-step business plan has become a recurring joke on websites like Slashdot, Fark, Genmay and 4chan, with various things substituted for the first step. The Underpants Gnomes also appear in another episode, "Red Sleigh Down"; in it, they appear as Santa's elves; it is explained that they work on their own for most of the year, but assist Santa during the Christmas season.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2006,09:24    that was exactly the point. A halfway decent fine-tuning argument would be something like 1 the value of the CC is x 2 the odds of randomly getting x is y (y is very tiny) 3 therefore it was deliberately set to x. That argument is still broken ten ways to sunday, but it's better than Heddle. Heddle admits he doesn't have 2, but doesn't care. He argues that the fact that CC isn't something it's not means design. I've turned his words over and over in hopes of finding at least a logical, if wrong, argument, but there's not one.

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2006,09:36    Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 28 2006,14:24) that was exactly the point. A halfway decent fine-tuning argument would be something like 1 the value of the CC is x 2 the odds of randomly getting x is y (y is very tiny) 3 therefore it was deliberately set to x. That argument is still broken ten ways to sunday, but it's better than Heddle. Heddle admits he doesn't have 2, but doesn't care. He argues that the fact that CC isn't something it's not means design. I've turned his words over and over in hopes of finding at least a logical, if wrong, argument, but there's not one. Ah, but remember it's not god of the gaps.  It's god of the details.  That's another of his. Oh yeah, and let's not forget the "sensitivity" argument. Good fun.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2006,09:51    Quote (GCT @ Sep. 28 2006,15:36) Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 28 2006,14:24) that was exactly the point. A halfway decent fine-tuning argument would be something like 1 the value of the CC is x 2 the odds of randomly getting x is y (y is very tiny) 3 therefore it was deliberately set to x. That argument is still broken ten ways to sunday, but it's better than Heddle. Heddle admits he doesn't have 2, but doesn't care. He argues that the fact that CC isn't something it's not means design. I've turned his words over and over in hopes of finding at least a logical, if wrong, argument, but there's not one. Ah, but remember it's not god of the gaps.  It's god of the details.  That's another of his. Oh yeah, and let's not forget the "sensitivity" argument. Good fun. that sensitivity argument was also close to being an actual argument, but wasn't. He was trying to sneak a gut feeling about probability in through that door. If you change it "a hair" or "just a little bit" this form of life would be impossible. But what is a hair for the cosmological constant? If you're weighing a spoonful of sugar, an actual hair would be a hair. If you're weighing the sun, the Earth would be a hair. What's a hair supposed to be for the CC? Can't say, because nobody knows what the CC actually is. Even if you had an appropriate size of the hair, so what? Nobody in their right mind would believe that the particular set of laws and values we have, is the only possible set which could have interesting things like life. Now I'm going to forswear saying anything more about Heddle's non-ID-leader-bashing beliefs, lest I encourage him to come here and repeat them even more.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2006,10:34    Quote Over at Uncommon Descent, DaveScot says something stupid about atheism and science. (In other news, Dog Bites Man, Pope Still Catholic, Bear Arrested for Indecent Exposure in National Forest, and Ocean Wet and Salty.) http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2006/09/atheists_and_politics.php

Ved Posts: 398 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2006,10:38    Quote Christ, as the completion of our scientific theories, maintains the conceptual soundness of those theories Man, I just love that one. Though I must confess I'm never quite sure where to add/carry the Jesus. Is it something like this? While 1+1=2 may be true, 1+1+Jesus=2+Jesus is True!

steve_h Posts: 544 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2006,12:32    EDIT: Update. Apologies to DaveScot. My post showed up with an apology. I just posted this to UD - it didn't show up. I don't consider it a serious mistake on DS's part, but it is a factual error, and he was just using 'irksome' 'factual errors' as an excuse to threaten Carl Sachs with bannification.  I guess I've been identified as a spammer since I pointed out light-heartedly a few days ago that Denyse O'Leary had explained what the point of her post was twice with two conflicting explanations. DaveScot http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1657#comments :     Quote Note that the title of the article has "Intelligent Design" in it. Note that the body of the article does not. From the body of the article:     Quote The standards also clearly state that they do not endorse teaching intelligent design. and     Quote ..., none included questions about intelligent design in their high school science state tests. I'll get me coat.

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,05:50    More Tard: http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1662 Couple of things - linking to Stop the ACLU is worse than WND. Drunkhobo.com would be more reputable. Check out Dispatches from the culture wars for Ed Braytons funny interactions with them. Second - the Senate is going to look at the bill, laugh at the Fundies and send it back. Tick tock Fundies, time is running out, changes are a comming. -------------- "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

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,07:12    Rich said: Quote Second - the Senate is going to look at the bill, laugh at the Fundies and send it back. Tick tock Fundies, time is running out, changes are a comming. OK I know you are a seer and and all round good guy, in fact I was going to suggest you just call yourself "WhatAGuy" ....is there a basis for your confidence besides the toothpaste you use? -------------- 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: Sep. 29 2006,07:17    Quote (k.e @ Sep. 29 2006,12:12) Rich said:   Quote Second - the Senate is going to look at the bill, laugh at the Fundies and send it back. Tick tock Fundies, time is running out, changes are a comming. OK I know you are a seer and and all round good guy, in fact I was going to suggest you just call yourself "WhatAGuy" ....is there a basis for your confidence besides the toothpaste you use? The evidence is everywhere, it's self evident, can't you see it? I have this concept called the Congress-Senate Index (CSI) and this is just full of it. I think the Rights inability to divorce themselves from the not-very-popular Mr. Bush will have a large baring on things. You check check the polls, public sentiment, 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

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,07:33    Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 29 2006,13:17) The evidence is everywhere, it's self evident, can't you see it? I have this concept called the Congress-Senate Index (CSI) and this is just full of it. LOL

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,08:51    From Underwhelming Evidence (which btw is showing very little activity): Quote I'm a software engineer with specialties in artificial intelligence and GNC (guidance, navigation, and control) software. I work for an aerospace research and development firm. I used to be a Dawkins-style militant atheist and devout Darwinist, but then I began to think and critically analyze what I believed, and figured out that I was dead wrong about almost everything that ultimately matters. The intelligent-design movement is very exciting, and it is going to rock the entrenched establishment, which has demonstrated its desperation by resorting to attempts to suppress dissent by any means available. Of course, this won't work in the long run, because reality always has a way of making itself evident in the end. The reality is that the universe and living systems were designed, and the evidence for this is mounting almost daily within a wide variety of scientific disciplines. Welcome to the most exciting scientific revolution of the last century! I SAID TOLEDO, ARE YOU READY TO ROCK!?!?!?!?!?!

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,09:05    Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 29 2006,14:51) From Underwhelming Evidence (which btw is showing very little activity): Quote I'm a software engineer with specialties in artificial intelligence and GNC (guidance, navigation, and control) software. I work for an aerospace research and development firm. I used to be a Dawkins-style militant atheist and devout Darwinist, but then I began to think and critically analyze what I believed, and figured out that I was dead wrong about almost everything that ultimately matters. Dear Uncommon DescentHouse, I never did believe anything I ever read on your website until just the other night... -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,09:29    Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 29 2006,14:51) From Underwhelming Evidence (which btw is showing very little activity): Quote I'm a software engineer with specialties in artificial intelligence and GNC (guidance, navigation, and control) software. I work for an aerospace research and development firm. I used to be a Dawkins-style militant atheist and devout Darwinist, but then I began to think and critically analyze what I believed, and figured out that I was dead wrong about almost everything that ultimately matters. The intelligent-design movement is very exciting, and it is going to rock the entrenched establishment, which has demonstrated its desperation by resorting to attempts to suppress dissent by any means available. Of course, this won't work in the long run, because reality always has a way of making itself evident in the end. The reality is that the universe and living systems were designed, and the evidence for this is mounting almost daily within a wide variety of scientific disciplines. Welcome to the most exciting scientific revolution of the last century! I SAID TOLEDO, ARE YOU READY TO ROCK!?!?!?!?!?! An engineer with no scientific training sees a political movement composed of engineers, laymen, lawyers, philosophers, which is pretending to do science, has spent $20,000,000 over 15 years and hasn't a single hypothesis, experiment, theory, or peer-reviewed paper to show for it, and which nevertheless tried to insert itself into science classes, and has lost every legal battle that resulted, and gotten school boards thrown out by angry voters, and whose arguments have been ripped apart by dozens of actual, real scientists in the relevant fields, and what's this guy's response? I'm so exited! Victory will be ours! This movement will never stop providing me with comedy.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,09:40    Quote A Realistic Computational Simulation of Random Mutation Filtered by Natural Selection in Biology by GilDodgen on September 28th, 2006 · 23 Comments All computational evolutionary algorithms artificially isolate the effects of random mutation on the underlying machinery: the CPU instruction set, operating system, and algorithmic processes responsible for the replication process. If the blind-watchmaker thesis is correct for biological evolution, all of these artificial constraints must be eliminated. Every aspect of the simulation, both hardware and software, must be subject to random errors. Of course, this would result in immediate disaster and the extinction of the CPU, OS, simulation program, and the programmer, who would never get funding for further realistic simulation experiments. If tard were basball, Gil would be Nolan Ryan. That dude throws some heat.

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,09:42    Prediction: Kiddy fiddling scandal to rock the ID youth cult movement. I'm about 40% serious. -------------- "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

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,09:48    I keep looking at Gil's post. It's just sooooooo stupid. It's like saying a black hole simulation is only valid if you subjected the supercomputer to crushing gravitational tides. A volcano simulation is only valid if you threw the computer into the lava.

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,09:53    Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 29 2006,14:40)   Quote A Realistic Computational Simulation of Random Mutation Filtered by Natural Selection in Biology by GilDodgen on September 28th, 2006 · 23 Comments All computational evolutionary algorithms artificially isolate the effects of random mutation on the underlying machinery: the CPU instruction set, operating system, and algorithmic processes responsible for the replication process. If the blind-watchmaker thesis is correct for biological evolution, all of these artificial constraints must be eliminated. Every aspect of the simulation, both hardware and software, must be subject to random errors. Of course, this would result in immediate disaster and the extinction of the CPU, OS, simulation program, and the programmer, who would never get funding for further realistic simulation experiments. If tard were basball, Gil would be Nolan Ryan. That dude throws some heat. When I read this epistle of his earlier, I had this image in my mind of him attending a demonstration of a simulation package like Avida and pulling the plug out of the wall and claiming victory ("See, Evolution is a failed theory!!") because the computer and software didn't continue running.   -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,09:53    Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 29 2006,15:48) I keep looking at Gil's post. It's just sooooooo stupid. It's like saying a black hole simulation is only valid if you subjected the supercomputer to crushing gravitational tides. A volcano simulation is only valid if you threw the computer into the lava. Steve, I think you may have inadvertently stumbled upon the latest ID research methodologies. -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Pages: (1000) < ... 221 222 223 224 225 [226] 227 228 229 230 231 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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