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... > Uncommonly Dense Thread 2

Pages: (500) < ... 239 240 241 242 243 [244] 245 246 247 248 249 ... >

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2009,14:19    Quote Green ideas sleep furiously The first two now agree because of the equivocation of 'green'. Evilution at work, I guess. -------------- "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

Amadan Posts: 1337 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2009,14:24    I think the contributors to this board did Ddrr Bill a great service in pointing out the mistaken view of Weasel that he was about publish, saving him much embarassment. I wonder if he's grateful? -------------- "People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011 JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2009,14:29    I wasn't thinking the sentences had to be "true" in the sense of conforming to reality. Just well formed sentences, like Mad Libs. http://www.google.com/search?....ad+libs Living things form a small subset of all the ways atoms and molecules can be arranged. (There are more ways of being dead than of being alive.) So the output of a program that models evolution must be filtered by some set of rules. But there is no practical limit to the number of well formed English sentences. And presumably, there is no knowable limit to the variety of possible living things. The question is whether we can make a demonstration of how a broad selection rule (grammar and vocabulary) can evolve a population of sentences that conform to a simple grammar, without specifying the target. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2009,14:32    Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 17 2009,14:19) Quote Green ideas sleep furiously The first two now agree because of the equivocation of 'green'. Evilution at work, I guess. Is that the output of a program that simple fills in blanks of a pre-formed sentence, or is it evolved like Weasel? Is it even reasonable, given real world limitations to computing power,  to try making sentences from dirt, so to speak? -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2009,14:44    Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 17 2009,14:32) Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 17 2009,14:19) Quote Green ideas sleep furiously The first two now agree because of the equivocation of 'green'. Evilution at work, I guess. Is that the output of a program that simple fills in blanks of a pre-formed sentence, or is it evolved like Weasel? Is it even reasonable, given real world limitations to computing power,  to try making sentences from dirt, so to speak? What about inventing a program that allows O'Leary to write with clarity and purpose, so that it is possible to make some sense out of her ramblings? OK.  Sorry.  What was I thinking?!! -------------- 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

Marion Delgado Posts: 89 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2009,14:44    Behaviorists were not and may not to this day be committed to science as a fixed methodology and were instead interested in reducing scientific behavior to behavior - a descriptive, not prescriptive analysis - closer to a Paul Feyerabend or even Steve Fuller than a Richard Feynman, e.g. To give them the mantle of "science" and dismiss Chomsky as being like Behe is rank ignorance of virtually everything involved here. My main involvement with Chomskian stuff was through computer-related research, especially on regexes and parsing and lexing and natural language and so on. Chomsky's "school" - which owed a lot to earlier French linguists in particular - should be described like a Linux kernel, IMO. You inherit the uniquely homo sap. kernel and that determines the underlying rules, whereas the higher language tasks depend on what's installed by the environment. And in terms of things like a chimp's sign language or a parrot's use of sounds, the difference is that the language parts "forked" a long time back for humans vs. other animals. First of all, the construction over a kernel theory is just that, a theory. It can be tested, and it can rise or fall. It certainly has shown a lot of utility, as has a purely behavioral model of the scientific process, but I am not sure how much you can hang on either.

FrankH Posts: 525 Joined: Feb. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2009,14:44    Isn't trying to define a language in modern terms a lot like trying to say that life evolved directly into modern life forms. I'm trying to do this in between getting asked why a x6745 line card doesn't work in a 6504E so forgive me if I seem rushed or I don't explain it as well as I should. "Sounds" represented by letters, make communication possible.  It is only when we started formalizing these sounds into words and then words into sentences that the "rules of grammar" apply.  So the first "sounds" could have just been: "Ugh" To another caveman, this could have meant, "Crap".   The sound, "ugh" could later turn into "uh oh" but the meaning could have changed.  The new meaning is "Danger". I will try to explain it more later.  Am I making any sense here? -------------- Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

Marion Delgado Posts: 89 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2009,14:51    Chomsky's work is not, by the way, on the evolutionary development of an irreducibly complex kernel - it's almost entirely on trying to first abstract out what that commonality is that (a) people have and (b) non-people don't seem to have, which is by definition irreducible - as a greatest common factor in arithmetic is, for example. And yeah, to say that evolution has to account for progress once the language faculty introduces a new means of transmission or else you're an ID quack is to take the meme analogy to a ridiculous extreme not justified by any evidence or systematic thought. Whether Chomskian linguistics will continue to be as relatively useful as it has been is one question, but it should be understood for what it is, first of all, and its usefulness in the past acknowledged.

Marion Delgado Posts: 89 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2009,14:51    FrankH: Your two topics of attention are not unrelated :)

Hermagoras Posts: 1260 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2009,14:52    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Mar. 17 2009,13:15) I suspect his comment is a general critique of the 'adaptationist programme'.  There is lots to agree with there, in particular "not every trait must specifically be selected for" that is in line with current thinking. this is what i was looking for, and it's not chomsky  still might be constipating www.rci.rutgers.edu/~mabaker/CALU&nonbio-nativism.pdf Even worse is this, by some poor graduate student in love with ID crap. -------------- "I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2009,14:56    I'd say Chomsky has been at least as useful to the understanding of human language as Behe and Dembski have been to understanding biology. Quote what that commonality is that (a) people have and (b) non-people don't seem to have, which is by definition irreducible ORLY? EDIT to add: http://web.gc.cuny.edu/SpeechandHearing/labs/dnl/sli.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_language_impairment I'm thinking here that we have living evidence that the "innate" language ability in humans differs from person to person, and there likely isn't a single, irreducible  ability. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2009,15:00    Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 17 2009,14:32) Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 17 2009,14:19) Quote Green ideas sleep furiously The first two now agree because of the equivocation of 'green'. Evilution at work, I guess. Is that the output of a program that simple fills in blanks of a pre-formed sentence, or is it evolved like Weasel? Is it even reasonable, given real world limitations to computing power,  to try making sentences from dirt, so to speak? It now has a better environmental fit, due to environmental, not genetic change. -------------- "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

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2009,15:22    anyone pick this up? Quote If you want to get technical the program does lock in letters because of the probability thingy and the target. Joe G goes from 'not locked in', thwarting KF, to 'technically, locked in' just because David Kellogg points out his vast incompetence and complete lack of relevant experience, not to mention inability to participate in honest good faith discussions. bwaaa the probability thingy see? Quote JT:     Quote Someone made statements previously to the effect that the reason that English is amenable to this type of incremental search (i.e. an efficient imcremental cumulative search that hits intermediary islands of functionality ) is because English is intelligently designed. Well then if you say biology is intelligently designed, then you are forced to to admit that it also is amenable to the same type of search. Wrong. Not all that is intelligently designed has to amendable in the same way. However with ID biology does have a target and the resources to help reach that target. don't use those big words with Joe.  he doesn't like big words.  and doesn't know wtf you are talking about, David. rofl comment 62 (just a few comments after he said something dumb to the contrary) Quote The locking is a byproduct of the program. comment 64 Quote Oops- the locking is a consequence of the programming. IOW it is an inevitable outcome- relatively speaking input to output- given the proper parameters. There isn’t any need for a specific coding sequence to lock in any letters. Shorter Joe G:  I don't know what the fuck I am talking about. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2009,15:28    Quote Shorter Joe G:  I don't know what the fuck I am talking about am just plain wrong and won't admit it. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2009,15:35    Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 17 2009,15:28) Quote Shorter Joe G:  I don't know what the fuck I am talking about am just plain wrong and won't admit it. I vote for the original comment.   he doesn't even know what he said is wrong.  he has absolutely no comprehension of the issue. and i wouldn't have it any other way.  what a great Tard.  he has provided endless hours of hilarity. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2009,15:41    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Mar. 17 2009,13:35) Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 17 2009,15:28) Quote Shorter Joe G:  I don't know what the fuck I am talking about am just plain wrong and won't admit it. I vote for the original comment.   he doesn't even know what he said is wrong.  he has absolutely no comprehension of the issue. and i wouldn't have it any other way.  what a great Tard.  he has provided endless hours of hilarity. Jesus told him he's right, but not why he's right.  So Joe has to wing it. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Zachriel Posts: 2723 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2009,15:43    Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 17 2009,14:19)           Quote Green ideas sleep furiously The first two now agree because of the equivocation of 'green'. Evilution at work, I guess. What do colourless green ideas do? They sleep, furiously. — John Wilkins Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 17 2009,14:29) The question is whether we can make a demonstration of how a broad selection rule (grammar and vocabulary) can evolve a population of sentences that conform to a simple grammar, without specifying the target. Phrasomatic! Why let Shakespeare have all the fun? Here are a few sample phrases: Quote  "a rainy land"  "for our bad pet"  "any fast zany cab"  "pain of a rat, pray!"  "a beast may warn"  "what hot red breast"  "our fat years best go"  "any old good best do"  "a man prays nor eats"  "a fast arson might sear"  "a cold God soon berates"  "what fat agent may stare far"  "what hot and fat beast bears far"  "what hot and fat breast bears far" I never published the program. I needed a decent dictionary in a suitable format that included grammatical relationship, rhyme and scansion. That problem could probably be overcome. The real problem was that it spit out lots of silly stuff. The silly stuff could be thought of as 'drift' due to relaxed selection. But consider that over at Uncommon Descent, they even wave away "apple" as being more fit than random letters. Grammar, alliteration, rhyming and scansion are not a significant problem for such an algorithm. (Word Mutagenation could select for Scrabble® Score.) I'll post a screenshot of Phrasomatic later. I think that if I had continued the project, I could have worked up to rhyming couplets or even quatrains. — Note: This has nothing to do with Chomsky or the evolution of language in humans. -------------- You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2009,15:44    Maybe both things are happening at the same time. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Hermagoras Posts: 1260 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2009,15:48    This is fun.  David Kellogg says CSI is an incoherent concept.  jerry says FCSI (or FSCI) is better.   Kellogg responds: Quote jerry [127], FCSI or FSCI (it can’t even decide!) is even more woolly than CSI. Its main proponent seems to be kairosfocus, whose writing is impenetrable. I’m not aware of the concept being used in the scientific literature. If I type FCSI in Google Scholar, I get “flavor changing scalar interactions” and other non-related terms. If I type FSCI, I get “freehand subcoronary implantation” and other terms. A Google Scholar search for “functional specified complex information” “functional complex specified information” “specified complex functional information” and “complex specified functional information” (all in quotes, so as to get the phrase as a term) yields 0 results in in every case. -------------- "I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2009,15:50    Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 17 2009,15:41) Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 17 2009,13:35) Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 17 2009,15:28)   Quote Shorter Joe G:  I don't know what the fuck I am talking about am just plain wrong and won't admit it. I vote for the original comment.   he doesn't even know what he said is wrong.  he has absolutely no comprehension of the issue. and i wouldn't have it any other way.  what a great Tard.  he has provided endless hours of hilarity. Jesus told him he's right, but not why he's right.  So Joe has to wing it. I thought Joe was Muslim?  Or does he just play one on the internet? -------------- 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: Mar. 17 2009,15:55    Quote (Hermagoras @ Mar. 17 2009,12:52)   Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 17 2009,13:15) I suspect his comment is a general critique of the 'adaptationist programme'.  There is lots to agree with there, in particular "not every trait must specifically be selected for" that is in line with current thinking. this is what i was looking for, and it's not chomsky  still might be constipating www.rci.rutgers.edu/~mabaker/CALU&nonbio-nativism.pdf Even worse is this, by some poor graduate student in love with ID crap. Oh goodie, it's that merger of ID & linguistics that I knew would come some day:   Quote Some of Neo-Darwinism’s recent, high-profile challenges have come from those who hold to the theory of Intelligent Design. As something of a philosophy of science ‘think tank,’ I.D.’s people do not conduct laboratory experiments in pursuit of hard data to support a competing theory; rather, they apply accepted principles of science, math and logic to highlight areas in which Neo-Darwinism has more work to do before it can claim to represent unassailable, demonstrable fact. While mainstream media claim or imply that I.D. people are fundamentalist Christian Creationists, little research is needed to learn that numerous prominent adherents do not fit that description. Mustafa Akyol, Michael Behe, Gertrude Himmelfarb, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Gerald Schroeder, and Vladimir Voeikov may be amused or troubled by such a simplistic caricature, by being dismissed with little more than a transparent ad hominem. Unsurprisingly, he has several Summer Institute of Linguistics missionaries in his Facebook friends list. Provided he somehow manages to finish a dissertation, look for UD to start whining religious discrimination in a few years when no one wants to hire him. -------------- "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

Hermagoras Posts: 1260 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2009,16:00    Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 17 2009,15:55) Quote (Hermagoras @ Mar. 17 2009,12:52)     Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 17 2009,13:15) I suspect his comment is a general critique of the 'adaptationist programme'.  There is lots to agree with there, in particular "not every trait must specifically be selected for" that is in line with current thinking. this is what i was looking for, and it's not chomsky  still might be constipating www.rci.rutgers.edu/~mabaker/CALU&nonbio-nativism.pdf Even worse is this, by some poor graduate student in love with ID crap. Oh goodie, it's that merger of ID & linguistics that I knew would come some day:     Quote Some of Neo-Darwinism’s recent, high-profile challenges have come from those who hold to the theory of Intelligent Design. As something of a philosophy of science ‘think tank,’ I.D.’s people do not conduct laboratory experiments in pursuit of hard data to support a competing theory; rather, they apply accepted principles of science, math and logic to highlight areas in which Neo-Darwinism has more work to do before it can claim to represent unassailable, demonstrable fact. While mainstream media claim or imply that I.D. people are fundamentalist Christian Creationists, little research is needed to learn that numerous prominent adherents do not fit that description. Mustafa Akyol, Michael Behe, Gertrude Himmelfarb, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Gerald Schroeder, and Vladimir Voeikov may be amused or troubled by such a simplistic caricature, by being dismissed with little more than a transparent ad hominem. Unsurprisingly, he has several Summer Institute of Linguistics missionaries in his Facebook friends list. Provided he somehow manages to finish a dissertation, look for UD to start whining religious discrimination in a few years when no one wants to hire him. That paper reminds me of Craig Ferguson's comment about neck tattoos: A neck tattoo says I don't really want this job. -------------- "I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2009,16:01    mining another vein on that thread Quote Remember that ID’s main ‘beef’ with darwinism is its claim that new species can be produced from chance/time. Common descent does not contribute to this. what a tard Quote Does this illustrate? (using an old example)-> 1) Look at mt. Rushmore. 2) Materialism says that it was made purely from erosion. 3) “Design Exists” acknowledges that erosion can wear away at rock (microevolution), but states that this is insufficient to create mt. Rushmore and other stone works (macroevolution) e.t.c. Some part must have been designed. you silly materialists... -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2009,16:04    Quote (Hermagoras @ Mar. 17 2009,14:00)   Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 17 2009,15:55)     Quote (Hermagoras @ Mar. 17 2009,12:52)       Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 17 2009,13:15) I suspect his comment is a general critique of the 'adaptationist programme'.  There is lots to agree with there, in particular "not every trait must specifically be selected for" that is in line with current thinking. this is what i was looking for, and it's not chomsky  still might be constipating www.rci.rutgers.edu/~mabaker/CALU&nonbio-nativism.pdf Even worse is this, by some poor graduate student in love with ID crap. Oh goodie, it's that merger of ID & linguistics that I knew would come some day:       Quote Some of Neo-Darwinism’s recent, high-profile challenges have come from those who hold to the theory of Intelligent Design. As something of a philosophy of science ‘think tank,’ I.D.’s people do not conduct laboratory experiments in pursuit of hard data to support a competing theory; rather, they apply accepted principles of science, math and logic to highlight areas in which Neo-Darwinism has more work to do before it can claim to represent unassailable, demonstrable fact. While mainstream media claim or imply that I.D. people are fundamentalist Christian Creationists, little research is needed to learn that numerous prominent adherents do not fit that description. Mustafa Akyol, Michael Behe, Gertrude Himmelfarb, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Gerald Schroeder, and Vladimir Voeikov may be amused or troubled by such a simplistic caricature, by being dismissed with little more than a transparent ad hominem. Unsurprisingly, he has several Summer Institute of Linguistics missionaries in his Facebook friends list. Provided he somehow manages to finish a dissertation, look for UD to start whining religious discrimination in a few years when no one wants to hire him. That paper reminds me of Craig Ferguson's comment about neck tattoos: A neck tattoo says I don't really want this job. Stebbins is taken apart here. Um, yeah. Unless he plans to pull a Gonzalez, I kinda don't think he much cares if he gets a professorship after filing, unless Liberty is looking to start offering ling classes. -------------- "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

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2009,16:07    Go Arthur Smith   Quote So is (Functional)Complex Specified Information something concrete, observable, measurable? How do you detect it? What units is it measured in? Link I'm sure KF is warming up his copy and paste buttons right now! -------------- 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

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2009,16:14    Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 16 2009,21:57) Quote jerry: Not one person in the science community would say I wasn’t doing science. And yet we should all agree that I was doing ID science too. Hi jerry, I'm not a scientist (yet), but I would say I'm in "the science community", and I would most certainly say you're not doing science. Mostly, you're doing what I like to call "making shit up" (that's the technical scientific terminology). -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2009,16:23    Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 17 2009,14:44) Isn't trying to define a language in modern terms a lot like trying to say that life evolved directly into modern life forms. I'm trying to do this in between getting asked why a x6745 line card doesn't work in a 6504E so forgive me if I seem rushed or I don't explain it as well as I should. "Sounds" represented by letters, make communication possible.  It is only when we started formalizing these sounds into words and then words into sentences that the "rules of grammar" apply.  So the first "sounds" could have just been: "Ugh" To another caveman, this could have meant, "Crap".   The sound, "ugh" could later turn into "uh oh" but the meaning could have changed.  The new meaning is "Danger". I will try to explain it more later.  Am I making any sense here? Ugh! (Sorry, couldn't resist. Yes.) -------------- 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: Mar. 17 2009,16:27    Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 17 2009,16:01) mining another vein on that thread     Quote Remember that ID’s main ‘beef’ with darwinism is its claim that new species can be produced from chance/time. Common descent does not contribute to this. what a tard     Quote Does this illustrate? (using an old example)-> 1) Look at mt. Rushmore. 2) Materialism says that it was made purely from erosion. 3) “Design Exists” acknowledges that erosion can wear away at rock (microevolution), but states that this is insufficient to create mt. Rushmore and other stone works (macroevolution) e.t.c. Some part must have been designed. you silly materialists... So, were Georgia O'Keeffe paintings of eroded rock designed, or natural? I'm starting to get mixed up... Bwaha. -------------- 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: Mar. 17 2009,16:35    She's not the one. She's the not-It Girl. She's noughtta have it. No. "Go here for more." (Oh, goodie.) Oh, and did people know that Britain is becoming a haven for "libel tourism" Quote with predictable results - all sorts of nonsense is advanced on behalf of people living or dead by those with enough money to shop for a jurisdiction. Enough, please! Reform! Reform! O'Leary, just renounce all your libel against Charles Darwin, and then get back to me. It would be so EASY to do! -------------- 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

AmandaHuginKiss Posts: 150 Joined: Dec. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2009,17:02    I'm surprised that Chomsky was so far out there. As a non-scientist, I had always thought it was a nature/nuture thing. His theory was the there was a basic grammar that had evolved into the hardware of the brain. This enables us to pick up languages quickly. This is opposed to the idea that our brains are totally plastic as far as languages are concerned. The implication was that if we met aliens, we may never be able to understand them as we do not share the same base grammar.

Pages: (500) < ... 239 240 241 242 243 [244] 245 246 247 248 249 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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