RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < ... 826 827 828 829 830 [831] 832 833 834 835 836 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
J. O'Donnell



Posts: 98
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2008,10:07   

If they do whine though, I will figure it will be Casey to do it. Primarily because it's not like he does anything anyway.

--------------
My blog: Animacules

   
ninewands



Posts: 1
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2008,10:24   

Many thanks for preserving that CeilingCat.  The comments are truly GOLDEN.  It could not have been pleasant watching that, though.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2008,10:44   

That thread will haunt them for years to come. Bwhahahah.

And some of the commenter's put such effort into their deleted epics.

Who is censoring ID? Darwinists? I don't think so....

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

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2008,11:24   

I have had to stop the audio several times so that I could hear over my laughter.  Simmons is a wonderful example of an educated nitwit.

His interest in a new career as a creationist flack could be motivated by his utter inability to think clearly.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
J. O'Donnell



Posts: 98
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2008,11:28   

I am quite impressed that Dr. Simmons didn't break down entirely during that debate. I did enjoy at one point, where he claimed no transitions with a blow hole have been found and (I think, it was hard to hear) immediately one was bought up. If I have the time, I might go back through the Scientific American articles published in the last six months on whale evolution and see what they've said.

Would anyone like to bet it wouldn't be at all like the version of reality that Dr. Simmons  gave?

--------------
My blog: Animacules

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2008,11:31   

Part of the "Explore Evolution" museum exhibit is devoted to whale evolution, and points out the change in position of the bony nares with successive intermediate species.

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

    
J. O'Donnell



Posts: 98
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2008,11:50   

Surprise surprise, I cannot seem to find any evidence from Scientific American they published anything on Whale Evolution in 2007.

Edit: Do creationists even bother maintaining a current knowledge of anything anyway? For example, Behe doesn't seem to regard knowing anything about current immunology research before making blanket statements about it.

--------------
My blog: Animacules

   
Bob O'H



Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2008,12:13   

Bugger

Bugger

Bugger

Bum

I've only just got it (I'll write it down later).  Simmons is an NCSE sock-puppet, isn't he?

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

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2008,12:24   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 01 2008,10:13)
Simmons is an NCSE sock-puppet, isn't he?

I just had the notion that Simmons is a luskin clone with a md instead of a jd. They have the same whinny reaction when they are caught lying, "He is being mean to me to call me names, wha wha whaaa."  Maybe this is part of the dicko institute seceret training program for senior fellows.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
sparc



Posts: 2089
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2008,12:28   

DaveScot
Quote
I have a challenge for Ian Musgrave. The sequences provided code for 80 amino acids. That’s almost certainly not a whole protein and not enough information to determine design/non-design. Indeed, none of the six sequences begin with a start codon which means we aren’t given enough information to even frame the sequence into codons.
I wonder how ID-creationist can claim any "junk DNA" has  some function if they need an initiation codon to analyze a sequence.
In addition, it escaped Daves notice that there are noncoding DNAs which can not be analyzed under his premise.
But OK, as I mentioned earlier Dave has a kind of creative understanding of molecular biology.
Quote
To refresh his or her memory explain that DNA is a long string of nucleic acids adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine (ACGT). These are further organized into groups of three called codons. Strings of hundreds to thousands of codons are further organized into genes where a gene is coded representation of a protein.


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

   
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2008,12:39   

Some UD drone writes:

Quote

“PZ easily won the debate.”
Thankfully “winning” a debate does not the truth make.


Funny - they seem to think debates are the bvest way to get to the truth when they perceive THEIR guy to have won...

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2008,12:44   

Computer programmer creationist and, apparently, brain expert, bfast wrote:

Quote
I suspect that the differences between human and chimp brains are vastly more significant than PZ makes them out to be. I note, for instance, the HAR1F gene that is rock stable throughout mammals, yet is different in 18 bps in humans. I find the HAR1F to be inexplicable within a neo-Darwinan framework.



No explanation why it is inexplicable, and doubtless, personal incredultiy will be his 'evidence.'

bfast is a douchebag.

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2008,12:45   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 01 2008,02:16)
FtK will no doubt cry "censorship!"

*Rolls eyes*

And surely, SHE, with your scientific brilliance, will be able to point out and explain all of PZ's "atheist lies", right?

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2008,12:47   

Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Feb. 01 2008,11:50)
Surprise surprise, I cannot seem to find any evidence from Scientific American they published anything on Whale Evolution in 2007.

Edit: Do creationists even bother maintaining a current knowledge of anything anyway? For example, Behe doesn't seem to regard knowing anything about current immunology research before making blanket statements about it.

Could that be a documented lie from the creationist/IDist Simmons?

  
olegt



Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2008,13:07   

bFast tells us what ID-Day would look like:
Quote
if a UFO came down, and little green men popped off. If they went on to claim that they are the designer of life on earth. If they then sat down with the scientists and showed them how they did it. This would be a solid victory for ID.

Feel free to use the quote in your signature.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2008,13:10   

Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Feb. 01 2008,09:50)
Surprise surprise, I cannot seem to find any evidence from Scientific American they published anything on Whale Evolution in 2007.

Edit: Do creationists even bother maintaining a current knowledge of anything anyway? For example, Behe doesn't seem to regard knowing anything about current immunology research before making blanket statements about it.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=closest-whale-cousin

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2008,14:05   

Quote (olegt @ Feb. 01 2008,13:07)
bFast tells us what ID-Day would look like:
   
Quote
if a UFO came down, and little green men popped off. If they went on to claim that they are the designer of life on earth. If they then sat down with the scientists and showed them how they did it. This would be a solid victory for ID.

Feel free to use the quote in your signature.

Oleg,

Dammit, I would like to use this,but I think bfast must have signed up for the "Denyse O'Leary Writin' School, for Those Who Don't Write So Well."

The concept is simply beautiful tard, but it is waaay too poorly expressed for a Sig Line.  Maybe a puppet could ask bfast to repost his last pile of turd?

You could even ask bfast if he meant to say:  "It would be a solid victory for ID if little green men popped out of a UFO, and were then able to prove that they were the designer of life on earth. "

Then his Argumnetum ad Albinus Hominum would be so much more effective.

Thanks in advance for your help.

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

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2008,14:22   

bFast:
Quote
if a UFO came down, and little green men popped off. If they went on to claim that they are the designer of life on earth. If they then sat down with the scientists and showed them how they did it. This would be a solid victory for ID.


Too Funny.
I was just thinking about a scenario like this. (The inimitable DaveTard got me thinking about it via his recent tirade against "Who designed the Designer" arguments.) Because how solid a victory for ID would it be really, if the aliens could prove they were indeed the designer of life on Earth, but steadfastly maintained that our conception of Evolution was perfectly correct and furthermore that our designers were convinced beyond a doubt that their own origins were the result of organic, contingent processes -- Dreaded Chance + Necessity? How many IDers are still on board the lead float in the victory parade? One suspects not very many.

It's a perfect opportunity to highlight the real interests of your average Creationist. Do they want to prove anything specific about life on Earth, or do they simply want the imprimatur of science on their religious beliefs? The average cdesign proponentist no doubt believes the two ends are perfectly consonant, but bFast, "unwittingly," natch, illustrates the beginnings of a proof that it just ain't so.

I'm going to extend bFast's cute little counterfactual a little, and show just how disastrous such a scenario would actually be for ID's target audience.

Let's say that not only do our super-high-tech aliens show that they designed life on Earth, but intervened significantly in human history as well. Specifically, they are able to show via extensive documentation and beyond doubt that they are responsible for the origin and perpetuation of monotheistic religion. Abraham's YHWH, the burning bush, Noah's boat trip, complete with unnatural flood, alien android miracle-working prophets, the works. Let us say, furthermore, that Jesus was also an alien android, the "miracles" were Clarke's Law-type sufficiently advanced technology, and the early Christians were the beneficiary of significant interventions bolstering the cult and ensuring that the beliefs would persist into the modern era. How is ID faring now?

Scientists would be extremely surprised to find out that they had been fooled regarding the evolution of life, of course. But remember that the aliens agree with Evolutionary Theory, and indeed believe it was instrumental on their own planet. They simply show convincingly that they circumvented it via intervention on Earth, all the while rigging the evidence to be indistinguishable from a natural origin. While shocking, this would sink in and become acceptable to scientists.

And atheists would say, well, there's your God, then. But most theists wouldn’t be happy at all, would they? “That’s not God! That’s trickster aliens. God is Transcendent and Immanent and all that stuff. And they say THEY evolved. They must be wrong. There IS a God, and he designed them, so they could design us.” The scenario, when you really look at it, is a complete non-starter for creationists –when you ignore what they say they want and focus on what they’re really after.

Methinks bFast’s victory parade is going to encounter some afternoon showers.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
steve_h



Posts: 544
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2008,14:38   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 01 2008,19:10)
   
Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Feb. 01 2008,09:50)
Surprise surprise, I cannot seem to find any evidence from Scientific American they published anything on Whale Evolution in 2007.

Edit: Do creationists even bother maintaining a current knowledge of anything anyway? For example, Behe doesn't seem to regard knowing anything about current immunology research before making blanket statements about it.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=closest-whale-cousin

From the article:
 
Quote
Over the past 15 years, researchers have uncovered a series of fossils intermediate between whales and land animals, but were still missing a link to landlubbing beasts, which Thewissen says Indohyus now provides.
Oops.

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2008,15:18   

Quote (olegt @ Feb. 01 2008,12:07)
bFast tells us what ID-Day would look like:
 
Quote
if a UFO came down, and little green men [excuuuuse meeee?] popped off. If they went on to claim that they are the designer of life on earth. If they then sat down with the scientists and showed them how they did it. This would be a solid victory for ID.

*Ahem.*


 
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 01 2008,12:07)
Feel free to use the quote in your signature.

I think I already do. :)

We co-evolved with the shimmy, I hate to break it to ya, bSLOW.

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

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2363
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2008,15:55   

Quote (Mister DNA @ Feb. 01 2008,02:16)
 
Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 01 2008,02:04)
The buggers just 404'd the entire debate thread!  Luckily, I saved it:

Excellent work, Ceiling Cat. You ARE watching, apparently...

The other debate thread is still there, but it doesn't have any of the "We just got pwned" comments.

Omniscience is a wonderful thing, but it has a dark side.  For instance, I know exactly what Ann Coulter looks like nude.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2008,16:00   

Somehow the Coulter ref put me in mind of this video.

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

    
CeilingCat



Posts: 2363
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2008,16:26   

Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 01 2008,15:18)
 
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 01 2008,12:07)
bFast tells us what ID-Day would look like:
   
Quote
if a UFO came down, and little green men [excuuuuse meeee?] popped off. If they went on to claim that they are the designer of life on earth. If they then sat down with the scientists and showed them how they did it. This would be a solid victory for ID.

*Ahem.*


   
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 01 2008,12:07)
Feel free to use the quote in your signature.

I think I already do. :)

We co-evolved with the shimmy, I hate to break it to ya, bSLOW.

Dejah Thoris.  I'd like to think she blew the earth a kiss four point five billion years ago.

  
J. O'Donnell



Posts: 98
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2008,17:35   

Thanks for the link Gary. My searches on Pubmed and on their site didn't uncover that link at all for some reason.

It's still funny how he doesn't bother even reading the article carefully that he cites as support however. It's hardly a detailed article on whale evolution, it's just a news story and he seemingly ignored the part where it talks about transitionals.

--------------
My blog: Animacules

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2008,21:09   

Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Feb. 01 2008,15:35)
Thanks for the link Gary. My searches on Pubmed and on their site didn't uncover that link at all for some reason.

It's still funny how he doesn't bother even reading the article carefully that he cites as support however. It's hardly a detailed article on whale evolution, it's just a news story and he seemingly ignored the part where it talks about transitionals.

I am far from certain that Simmons ever read the item.  I think that if he looked at it he could not understand what he read.  I think that it is more likely that he was lying.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Troy Britain



Posts: 4
Joined: Sep. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2008,21:40   

Quote
That's what they did for the June 17th, 2001 Haverford Conference when Bill Dembski, Michael Behe, and Warren Nord were paired off with me, Ken Miller, and Genie Scott for presentations. And there's even video of that online.


Wesley,

Could you please maybe/possibly post a link to said video?

Thanks.

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2008,22:01   

Hey Troy,

What is the origin of your avatar? I have very similar cast statue of a chimpanzee sitting on an identical pile of books, in exactly the same posture, although he is holding and contemplating an open book rather than a skull. Also, your image is reversed relative to my little statue. The statue is about 7" high and the unpainted interior is a bronze color (the exterior is black and brown). There is a small sticker inside that says "Made in Thailand." I picked it up at a craft store. It was my dissertation muse:



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

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2008,22:19   

That's the danger of relying on Scientific American.  Thewissen's linkage of whale ancestry to Khirtharia and Indohyus is extremely interesting, but Thewissen's own earlier discoveries of relatively complete Pakicetus fossil material shows that organism to have been a very terrestrial-looking animal (see http://skywalker.cochise.edu/wellerr....005.jpg  ).

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2008,22:20   

My little statue appears to be a knock off of this



Darwin's Mistake (Monkey Holding Skull Statue) by Ramo

"Sculpted by Francisco Ramo in the 20th century, this sculpture both amuses and intrigues. As the chimpanzee contemplates a human skull, he rests on a pile of books--one of which is by Darwin, the scientist whose theory about evolution is legendary. This is a fine example of the Spanish artist, Ramo's, calculated irony who grew up during one of Spain's most turbulent periods."

(My chimps books aren't titled.)

But then there is this:



"OUR COVER: Not long ago a member of Ward's staff, while visiting at the home of a resident of Rochester, noticed the piece of statuary shown on the cover. Feeling that our readers would enjoy this witty and provocative statuette, he obtained the owner's permission to have it photographed, and this picture is the result. Unfortunately, we do not know the name of the sculptor or the date of the work. Neither do we offer any interpretations or profundities, preferring to let our readers provide their own captions. Our intention is only that this work of the (at present) unknown sculptor will afford entertainment, and perhaps a few moments' quiet reflection for those so constituted. We hope for the former, and the latter is by no means compulsory."

[edit] But then we find this:



"Since starting this web site some five years ago,  I have learned that numerous individuals share my interest in the late-19th century German sculptor Hugo (Wolfgang) Rheinhold and his works, particularly his "Philosophizing Monkey Statuette."  This bronze, entitled "Affe einen Schädel betrachtend" (monkey viewing/contemplating a skull), was first exhibited at the Gro?e Berliner Kunstaustellung (Great Berlin Art Exhibition) in 1893. Shortly thereafter, the foundry Gladenbeck included this bronze in their production line..."

[another edit]: And a page of variations on the theme here, including mine, which appears to have been one of two bookends:



[another edit to add] (This is more interesting than intelligent design creationism)

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

  
Troy Britain



Posts: 4
Joined: Sep. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2008,22:59   

Quote
Reciprocating Bill: What is the origin of your avatar? I have very similar cast statue of a chimpanzee sitting on an identical pile of books, in exactly the same posture, although he is holding and contemplating an open book rather than a skull.


I snagged that particular image from somewhere on the net, don't remember where exactly. I may have modified it a bit (flipped it right to left etc.)

I also own three different versions of the statue, ranging from fairly good quality to not so good. Sorry no photos of them on hand.

   
  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < ... 826 827 828 829 830 [831] 832 833 834 835 836 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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