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) < ... 504 505 506 507 508 [509] 510 511 512 513 514 ... >

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 23 2007,12:17    Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 23 2007,10:20) Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 22 2007,07:04) DT boggles. "At first glance, it seems like a clear-cut case of discrimination" turns into, "The Chronicle says of Gonzalez 'a clear case of discrimination'":       Quote The Chronicle says of Gonzalez “a clear case of discrimination” DaveScot The Chronicle of Higher Education has a balanced article on Iowa State’s refusal to tenure Guillermo Gonzalez. "Advocate of Intelligent Design Who Was Denied Tenure Has Strong Publications Record By RICHARD MONASTERSKY At first glance, it seems like a clear-cut case of discrimination. As an assistant professor of physics and astronomy at Iowa State University, Guillermo Gonzalez has a better publication record than any other member of the astronomy faculty. He also happens to publicly support the concept of intelligent design. Last month he was denied tenure." Two lines later, a statement that summarizes the thrust of the article:       Quote But a closer look at Mr. Gonzalez's case raises some questions about his recent scholarship and whether he has lived up to his early promise. One thing is clear: Dave Springer should be denied tenure. On the contrary; DT should be the beneficiary of an endowed chair in Applied Tardology at the Southwestern Babble Seminary. But would he be threatened if it were a well-endowed chair? I'm thinking "Yes." -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

C.J.O'Brien Posts: 395 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 23 2007,12:33    Quote This is the advantge of the second law, or “Sewell’s Law”, or specified complexity, argument: evolutionary biologists have a long complicated argument, with virtually no experimental confirmation, which claims to prove that natural forces created all the order we see on Earth today, but there is an extremely simple, direct proof that it couldn’t have. As a mathematician, I prefer the simple, clear proof, and thus frankly don’t believe you need to know much biology to reject the long complicated argument. Backwards, Granville. You need to not know any biology to swallow this kind of pap. I'm amazed (how? how can these idiots amaze me after all these years!?). They're on about the 2nd Law again! How do you convince yourself that a century and a half of productive research went on even though it's supposedly impossible? Are biologists supposed to be: 1. Stupid? 2. Deluded? 3. Evil? The stupid really, actually burns. DaveTard: Quote Subjective information, or specified complexity, appears to be subject to 2LoT but mind (intelligence) can violate 2LoT by routinely choosing to do what is almost impossible for nature such as making a gold watch from a gold nugget. I am helpless in the clutches of uber-tard. I just don't know what to say. -------------- The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand. --Joe G

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 23 2007,13:26    Falwell Dead - Gonzalez Gone - Dembski Next? Advanced stages of paranoia snuff out once promising career http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-campus Dateline Seattle (and heaven) The Discovery Institute sorrows, and The Baby Jesus Weeps as the paranoia that Dr. Dr. Demsbski has been suffering from for years, finally reaches an advanced stage.  "Shhh!  They're everywhere!  They'll hear you!", whispered Dr. Dr. Dembski to this reporter as he was allowed to briefly talk (in hushed tones) to the emaciated sallow-complected Demsbksi by his seminarian and DI handlers. Plans are currently being designed that will call for  DaveScot's jeans to be worn at half-wedgie, once a truly critical level of tard is reached.  Most veteran watchers of the scene predict it will not be long before that happens.  And another once proud IDist is reduced to pitiful sputtering of inane thoughts and outdated ideas. -------------- 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

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 23 2007,13:26    DS. King of All Tardom Quote It’s already well established that intelligent agency can impose any physically possible order regardless of the improbability by chance alone. DS, please make me a mile high diamond tower covered in neutronium. Or a light year long sheet of paper. etc etc. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 23 2007,13:45    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 23 2007,12:26) DS. King of All Tardom Quote It’s already well established that intelligent agency can impose any physically possible order regardless of the improbability by chance alone. DS, please make me a mile high diamond tower covered in neutronium. Or a light year long sheet of paper. etc etc. I just want a house-sized mousetrap for a genetically designed house-sized mouse. I'm a simple gal. I don't ask much. Defy the problems of exponential growth and get a shimmy. -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 23 2007,14:59    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 23 2007,08:37) These people are grade A tards! pk4_paul:   Quote are you able to suggest an approach that could be used to experimentally advance your 2LT case? Granville Sewell:   Quote Sure, here’s the experiment: do a computer simulation which starts with the initial (before life appeared) positions and velocities of every fundamental particle in our solar system (I think we can ignore the effects of other stars) and models the effects of the four known forces of physics (gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the strong and weak nuclear forces) on these particles, run the simulation out to the current date, and see if humans and computers and spaceships and the Internet form. WOW.

Jim_Wynne Posts: 1208 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 23 2007,16:28    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 23 2007,13:26) DS. King of All Tardom   Quote It’s already well established that intelligent agency can impose any physically possible order regardless of the improbability by chance alone. DS, please make me a mile high diamond tower covered in neutronium. Or a light year long sheet of paper. etc etc. You're asking the wrong guy--he said intelligent agency. -------------- Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 23 2007,16:51    Quote As a mathematician, I prefer the simple, clear proof, and thus frankly don’t believe you need to know much biology to reject the long complicated argument. As a biologist, I can simply reject calculus as way too complicated to be necessary to add 2+2. I don't think I've ever heard a lamer argument from an adult. -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 23 2007,18:29    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 23 2007,08:37) Granville Sewell:   Quote Sure, here’s the experiment: do a computer simulation which starts with the initial (before life appeared) positions and velocities of every fundamental particle in our solar system (I think we can ignore the effects of other stars) and models the effects of the four known forces of physics (gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the strong and weak nuclear forces) on these particles, run the simulation out to the current date, and see if humans and computers and spaceships and the Internet form. 1)  Would he model gravity as the strongest force? 2)  Isn't the computer itself designed?  So, therefore, this is really a test of ID.  So, if the internet, et. al. don't arrive, isn't this just showing us that ID didn't produce those things?  Or, are they tacitly admitting that one can make a GA that is not a demonstrator of ID? What a tard.

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 23 2007,18:48    Quote (GCT @ May 23 2007,18:29) 2)  Isn't the computer itself designed?  So, therefore, this is really a test of ID.  So, if the internet, et. al. don't arrive, isn't this just showing us that ID didn't produce those things?  Or, are they tacitly admitting that one can make a GA that is not a demonstrator of ID? What a tard. My head hurts now. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

jva Posts: 5 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2007,04:57    I just read through the "Sewell's Law" thread, and at least a dozen different times, I thought to myself that it was obviously satire. I've almost never thought that before when reading that site, but even DaveScot was in on it this time, right? "subjective information" Wow! Really?! I wish I had come up with such a cleverly mocking phrase for "CSI". Not only have they failed to recognize their flawed assumption -- despite blindly tripping over it -- they are now enthusiastically dry-humping it.

phonon Posts: 396 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2007,08:30    Frontloading Frontloading!!! Darwinism is dead!! http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN2324412220070523 Quote Primitive fish had genetic wiring for limbs By Will Dunham WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Primitive fish already may have possessed the genetic wiring needed to grow hands and feet well before the appearance of the first animals with limbs roughly 365 million years ago, scientists said on Wednesday. I guess that wraps it all up then. -------------- With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg To do just the opposite is also a form of imitation. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

franky172 Posts: 160 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2007,09:34    DaveScot forgets that ID explicitly excludes inquiring as to the motivations and intents of the designer, in fact ID explicitly states that the intent and motivations of the designer are immaterial to the question of design.  He makes analogy to forensic sciences: Quote Just imagine how useful it would be in criminal investigations if intent could be determined by a mathematical formula But forensic sciences only work because we know a significant amount about the motivations and intents of the actors under consideration. Plus, I'm not the first to notice this, but are IDists now admitting that CSI is a subjective measure?  Wasn't the whole point of the design inference that there was no subjective aspect to the "explanatory filter"?!

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2007,10:46    [Dembksi On] Is this an ID paper? http://claudescommentary.com/special/chilbolton/ [Dembski Off] -------------- "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

C.J.O'Brien Posts: 395 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2007,11:49    Quote "subjective information" Wow! Really?! I wish I had come up with such a cleverly mocking phrase for "CSI". Not only have they failed to recognize their flawed assumption -- despite blindly tripping over it -- they are now enthusiastically dry-humping it. LOL I know, I can't believe that they don't see what a huge concession that is. 10 years of Dembskian mumbo-jumbo about made-up formalisms --devised specifically to ward off the very notion that "information" could ever be "subjective"-- down the drain in a mere few 2LoT-defeating keystrokes. So, if all this spooky information that we can't explain via evolution is now subjective, then it conforms to the ordinary informal understanding everyone has of information, which is, roughly "aboutness." Information informs, right? When we are in possession of information, we are informed about something. So now IDers, armed with their new understanding, are ready for the answer to the puzzle that's been bedevilling them all this time. Because now the two questions, "where did the information come from?" and "what is the information about?" are equivalent. And what is the information in the genome about? Holy crap! They discovered evolution! Took you awhile, guys, but good too see you climb on board, however belatedly. -------------- The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand. --Joe G

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2007,12:08    Quote (Ichthyic @ May 23 2007,16:51) Quote As a mathematician, I prefer the simple, clear proof, and thus frankly don’t believe you need to know much biology to reject the long complicated argument. As a biologist, I can simply reject calculus as way too complicated to be necessary to add 2+2. I don't think I've ever heard a lamer argument from an adult. That can't be true.  I hate to ask you to look over any previous threads at UD, Joe's Place, or anything AFDave has ever said because it may kill you, but I m never amazed at anything these people say.  They have taken away my sense of disbelief. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2007,12:11    Quote (Richardthughes @ May 24 2007,10:46) [Dembksi On] Is this an ID paper? http://claudescommentary.com/special/chilbolton/ [Dembski Off] Man, you just gotta love that guy's deft use of Okkam's Razor.  I'm convinced. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2007,15:02    Quote That can't be true.  I hate to ask you to look over any previous threads at UD, Joe's Place, or anything AFDave has ever said because it may kill you sorry, I wasn't classifying Joe or most of the other lUDdites as adults. I should have been more clear. -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

phonon Posts: 396 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2007,17:48    These people are retards. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....isnt-so PaV links to an article about the discovery of Hox genes that are responsible for limb development, but in a paddlefish. An excerpt reads:   Quote Tiktaalik provided a missing evolutionary link between fish and tetrapods and was among the first creatures that walked out of water onto land. So Pav writes:   Quote Poor old Tiktaalik roseae! It’s fifteen minutes of fame is over. So much for “a missing evolutionary link”. I mean, now that's just retarded. -------------- With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg To do just the opposite is also a form of imitation. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

silverspoon Posts: 123 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2007,21:31    We all saw when Dembski posted on his Uncommon Descent blog that Richard Dawkins only has three publications in science journals. That post disappeared within a day or two when he was called on his claim. Now his blog has this disclaimer:   Quote One colleague recently claimed that Dawkins’s record of peer-reviewed publications leaves something to be desired. The confusion in this case was due to Dawkins early in his career using his first name “Clinton.” In fact, Dawkins has a respectable publication record. –WmAD It is on the right of his main page near the top but not a major topic.  This all sounds like Dembski is adding a lie to his backtracking to me. Every cite I can find by Dawkins’ refers to ‘Dawkins R.’ as his publishing identity. If Dawkins didn’t use ‘Dawkins C’ or ‘Dawkins C.R’, or something similar in his early published research then I believe Dembski should be exposed on this. -------------- Grand Poobah of the nuclear mafia

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2007,21:55    wait, Dembski is blaming this on "our collegue"? uh, WD40 hisself has oft made that claim. or has he become fond of speaking of himself in the third person now? more signs of dementia. Quote If Dawkins didn’t use ‘Dawkins C’ or ‘Dawkins C.R’, or something similar in his early published research then I believe Dembski should be exposed on this. there's little point. if WD had any clue as to the extent of literature published in Dawkin's field, he would have already known how to look it up properly, or already known about RD's published articles directly. the people who matter already know this, and the lUDdites at UD simply don't care. -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

silverspoon Posts: 123 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2007,22:07    Quote (Ichthyic @ May 24 2007,21:55)   Quote the people who matter already know this, and the lUDdites at UD simply don't care. I know. It’s just that I’ve always been a ‘nail another nail in the coffin’ sort of guy. -------------- Grand Poobah of the nuclear mafia

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2007,22:14    fair enough. suggest you compile the history of this little feux pax with all the gory details and make a thread here when you are finished. someone on PT might decide to run with it as a contribution, or even ask you to be a guest contributor if you make it detailed enough. go for it. -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 25 2007,06:32    WAD made a fool of himself in his attack on Dawkins' publication record by failing to check the facts before posting on the basis of his petulant resentment. Now he repeats his error with an attack on Avalos.  He accuses Avalos of doctoring the name of a publication (Mercury: The Journal of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific) to enhance its perceived status.               Quote A couple of points about Avalos’s article. First, he misstates the name of the journal. It is actually called “Mercury Magazine,” and is not the ASP’s academic journal...This way he can fudge on the article’s status but have plausible deniability. This is also evident by his placing in the magazine’s subtitle “The Journal of…” even though it is not there in the actual publication... A quick Google search of the entire phrase "Mercury: The Journal of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific " turns up many older (1990s) references to that publication title. Obviously, Mercury Magazine carried the title cited by Avalos at the time the article in question appeared in print, and therefore Avalos' citation is correct.   Sad to say, this indicates that the even the crack UD/ID Google research team has been disbanded. -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

Bob O'H Posts: 2564 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 25 2007,08:47    Achilles25 isn't too long for the UD world: http://www.uncommondescent.com/evoluti....-122832 Quote Maybe Avalos was just engaging in a little street theater. -------------- 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)

franky172 Posts: 160 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: May 25 2007,09:14    Besides Dembski being evidently unable to perform a simple Google search (per Reciprocating Bill's post above), I had no idea that the design revolution would happen so quitely! You see, it seems that when someone says that biological organs are "devices" they are actually design theorists!  Now I'm a design theorist: eyes are devices for seeing!  Lungs are devices for breathing! It's amazing that I didn't have to even calculate the (subjective) CSI of these objects to make these determinations!  No evolution/darwinist would ever think that eyes were "for something"!   The revolution will, evidently, be far too quiet to be televised.

C.J.O'Brien Posts: 395 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 25 2007,11:39    Oh, Dennis! There's some lovely tard over here! bFast: Quote Consider the following link: http://www.physorg.com/news99235788.html It discusses the natural abilities babies have with language. I’ve been puzzling the necessity of all of this. Why should babies retain the ability to hear sounds that their language group does not use? Did our ancestors share babies between diverse laguage groups sufficiently to warrant this ability? Let's see, genius. What would we expect to see if the capacity for language in humans was an evolved adaptation, a general-purpose language organ that, in order to work, needs to be able to assess the local linguistic environment and start picking up the language(s) Mom and Pop are going to be using? Why, I think we would see that babies are extremely sensitive to linguistic cues! We would expect them to have broad-spectrum sensitivity early, being winnowed down with age to the sounds of the local language. We might even see that they were pretty good at telling different languages apart! What in Falwell is bFast's point? Can anybody tell? -------------- The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand. --Joe G

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 25 2007,13:22    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 25 2007,07:32) Sad to say, this indicates that the even the crack UD/ID Google research team has been disbanded. you left off "-head"

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 25 2007,15:25    Quote (stevestory @ May 25 2007,12:22) [/quote] Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 25 2007,07:32) Sad to say, this indicates that the even the crack UD/ID Google research team has been disbanded. you left off "-head" Sorry. -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 25 2007,15:35    Quote (silverspoon @ May 24 2007,20:31) We all saw when Dembski posted on his Uncommon Descent blog that Richard Dawkins only has three publications in science journals. That post disappeared within a day or two when he was called on his claim. Now his blog has this disclaimer:   Quote One colleague recently claimed that Dawkins’s record of peer-reviewed publications leaves something to be desired. The confusion in this case was due to Dawkins early in his career using his first name “Clinton.” In fact, Dawkins has a respectable publication record. –WmAD It is on the right of his main page near the top but not a major topic.  This all sounds like Dembski is adding a lie to his backtracking to me. Every cite I can find by Dawkins’ refers to ‘Dawkins R.’ as his publishing identity. If Dawkins didn’t use ‘Dawkins C’ or ‘Dawkins C.R’, or something similar in his early published research then I believe Dembski should be exposed on this. Oh for pity's sake Dr. Dr WAD, pull yer pants up! Maybe another of his "colleagues" had control of the body. (Remember Sybil, who had 16 "colleagues?" She was from Minnesota.) -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

Pages: (1000) < ... 504 505 506 507 508 [509] 510 511 512 513 514 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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