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 3

Pages: (501) < ... 376 377 378 379 380 [381] 382 383 384 385 386 ... >

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2011,19:55    Wait! So, across various threads, in one evening we have: 1) Mathgrrl politely disembowelling all of UD. 2) Mathgrrl politely retiring. 3) The UD Memory Hole magically swallowing a whole thread. 4) Joe trying to hunt down Ogre and Real Life ID him in order to....? 5) 'Ras admitting to having Teh Gai Secks with Joe/ID Guy in a bathroom (we all know but were too polite to say). Best evening of IDCist hilarity (with bonus 'Ras activities) EVAR? Louis -------------- Bye.

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2011,20:22    it wasn't really "with" it was more like "to" -------------- 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

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2011,20:30    Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 30 2011,12:08) MathGrrl: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-375666 Quote 421 MathGrrl 03/30/2011 9:54 am Everyone, We are now over the 400 comment mark and I haven’t seen any reason to change the provisional conclusions that I reached in my post now numbered 201, namely: 1) There is no agreed definition of CSI. I have asked from the original post onward for a rigorous mathematical definition of CSI and have yet to see one. Worse, the comments here show that a number of ID proponents have definitions that are not consistent with each other or with Dembski’s published work. 2) There is no agreement on the usefulness of CSI. This may be related to the lack of an agreed definition, but several variants, that are incompatible with Dembski’s description, and alternative metrics have been proposed in this thread alone. 3) There are no calculations of CSI that provide enough detail to allow it be objectively calculated for other systems. The only example of a calculation for a biological system is Dembski’s estimate for a bacterial flagellum, but no one has managed to apply the same technique to other systems. 4) There is no proof that CSI is a reliable indicator of intelligent agency. This is not surprising, given the lack of a rigorous mathematical definition and examples of how to calculate it, but it does mean that the claims of many ID proponents are unfounded. Even after all of the effort expended by numerous participants, no one has directly addressed the five straightforward questions I asked, no one has provided a rigorous mathematical definition of CSI, and no one has provided detailed examples of how to objectively calculate it. I will continue to monitor this thread on the chance that someone chooses to address my original post, but I’m going to step back from addressing the majority of the comments that do not do so. Despite my disappointment and occasional frustration that I have not come away from this exercise with a sufficient understanding of CSI to be able to test the assertion that it cannot be generated by evolutionary mechanisms, I do believe that this has been a valuable discussion. It certainly provides a good reference for future threads here at UD. Thank you all for your participation. It’s been interesting. That's an interesting turn of phrase I've bolded in Mathgrrl's quote. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Ptaylor Posts: 1180 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2011,21:17    In other news OhDeary has a thread up complaining about Spiegel Online describing Richard Dawkins as a scientist. In the comments DonaldM shows the rigour typical of ID scientists:     Quote What actual science has Dawkins performed in the past 25 years or so? Good question. I haven’t checked on this lately, but if I recall, someone searched for Dawkins’s name to come up as an author of a peer reviewed scientific article on places like Pub Med and came up empty for anything recent. Might be worth checking that out again. Wouldn’t surprise me in the least if there is zip, zero, nada! So it's "I don't know, and I don't have any inclination to find out, but I heard from a friend of a friend that some guy checked it out once and they couldn't find anything. If I could be arsed to find out (which I am not) I am quite certain of the outcome". -------------- We no longer say: “Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.” We now say: “Another day since the time Darwinism was disproved.” -PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

sparc Posts: 2089 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2011,22:25    Quote (Ptaylor @ Mar. 30 2011,21:17) In other news OhDeary has a thread up complaining about Spiegel Online describing Richard Dawkins as a scientist. In the comments DonaldM shows the rigour typical of ID scientists:           Quote What actual science has Dawkins performed in the past 25 years or so? Good question. I haven’t checked on this lately, but if I recall, someone searched for Dawkins’s name to come up as an author of a peer reviewed scientific article on places like Pub Med and came up empty for anything recent. Might be worth checking that out again. Wouldn’t surprise me in the least if there is zip, zero, nada! So it's "I don't know, and I don't have any inclination to find out, but I heard from a friend of a friend that some guy checked it out once and they couldn't find anything. If I could be arsed to find out (which I am not) I am quite certain of the outcome". (emphasis added) From Wikipedia     Quote List of publications by Richard Dawkins From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The following list of publications by Richard Dawkins is a chronological list of papers, articles, essays and books published by British ethologist and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins. Contents [hide]    1 Books    2 Popular articles    3 Academic papers        3.1 1960s        3.2 1970s        3.3 1980s        3.4 1990s        3.5 2000s Books    Dawkins, R. (1976). The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-286092-5.    Dawkins, R. (1982). The Extended Phenotype. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-288051-9.    Dawkins, R. (1986). The Blind Watchmaker. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 0-393-31570-3.    Dawkins, R. (1995). River Out of Eden. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-06990-8.    Dawkins, R. (1996). Climbing Mount Improbable. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 0-393-31682-3.    Dawkins, R. (1998). Unweaving the Rainbow. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-618-05673-4.    Dawkins, R. (2003). A Devil's Chaplain. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-618-33540-4.    Dawkins, R. (2004). The Ancestor's Tale. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-618-00583-8.    Dawkins, R. (2006). The God Delusion. New York: Bantam Books. ISBN 0-618-68000-4.    Various (2008). Richard Dawkins. ed. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-199-21680-0.    Dawkins, R. (2009). The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. Free Press (United States), Transworld (United Kingdom and Commonwealth). ISBN 0-593-06173-X. Popular articles    Dawkins, R. (December 1992). "Is god a computer virus?". New Statesman 5 (233): 42–45.    Dawkins, R. (June 1993). "Meet my cousin, the chimpanzee". New Scientist 138 (1876): 36–38.    Dawkins, R. (1993). "Viruses of the Mind". Free Inquiry: 34–41.[dead link]    Dawkins, R. (September 1995). "The Evolved Imagination". Natural History 104 (9): 8.    Dawkins, R. (November 1995). "God's Utility Function". Scientific American 273 (5): 80–85. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1195-80.    Dawkins, R. (10 April 1999). "Snake Oil and Holy Water". Forbes: 235+.    Dawkins, R. (2 October 2000). "Hall of Mirrors". Forbes: 273.    Dawkins, R. (January 2001). "What is science good for?". Harvard Business Review 79 (1): 159–63, 178. PMID 11189460.    Dawkins, R. (2005-02-19). "The Giant Tortoise's Tale". The Guardian (London).    Dawkins, R. (2005-02-26). "The Turtle's Tale". The Guardian (London).    Dawkins, R. (2005-05-21). "God's Gift to Kansas". The Times (London).    Dawkins, R.. "The Lava Lizard's Tale". The Guardian (London).    Dawkins, R.; Dawkins, R; Noble, D; Yudkin, M (2007). "Genes still central". New Scientist 196 (2634): 18. doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(07)63136-4.    Krauss, L.M.; Dawkins, R. (2007). "Should science speak to faith?". Scientific American 297 (1): 88–91. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0707-88. PMID 17695847.    Dawkins, R. (2008). "The group delusion". New Scientist 197 (2638): 17.    Dawkins, R. (2008). "The evolution of altruism – what matters is gene selection". New Scientist 197 (2638): 17. doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(08)60086-X. Academic papers 1960s    Dawkins, R. (1968). "The ontogeny of a pecking preference in domestic chicks". Z Tierpsychol 25 (2): 170–86. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.1968.tb00011.x. PMID 5684149.    Dawkins, R. (1969). "Bees Are Easily Distracted". Science 165 (3895): 751. doi:10.1126/science.165.3895.751. PMID 17742255. 1970s    Dawkins, R. (1971). "Selective neurone death as a possible memory mechanism". Nature 229 (5280): 118–119. doi:10.1038/229118a0.    Dawkins, R. (1976). "Growing points in ethology". In Bateson, P.P.G. and Hinde, R.A.. Hierarchical organization: A candidate principle for ethology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.    Dawkins, R.; Carlisle, T.R. (1976). "Parental investment, mate desertion and a fallacy". Nature 262 (5564): 131–133. doi:10.1038/262131a0.    Treisman, M.; Dawkins, R. (1976). "The “cost of meiosis”: is there any?". Journal of Theoretical Biology (London: Academic Press) 63 (2): 479–484. doi:10.1016/0022-5193(76)90047-3. PMID 1011857.    Dawkins, R. (1976). "Universal Darwinism". In Bendall, D.S.. Evolution from Molecules to Men. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 403–425.    Dawkins R (1978). "Replicator selection and the extended phenotype". Z Tierpsychol 47 (1): 61–76. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.1978.tb01823.x. PMID 696023.    Dawkins, R.; Krebs, J.R. (1978). "Animal signals: information or manipulation". Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications. pp. 282–309.    Dawkins, R. (1979). "Twelve Misunderstandings of Kin Selection". Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 51: 184–200. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.1979.tb00682.x.    Dawkins R, Krebs JR (1979). "Arms races between and within species". Proc. R. Soc. Lond., B, Biol. Sci. 205 (1161): 489–511. doi:10.1098/rspb.1979.0081. PMID 42057.    Brockmann, H.J.; Dawkins, R.; Grafen A. (1979). "Joint nesting in a digger wasp as an evolutionarily stable preadaptation to social life". Behaviour (London: Academic Press) 71 (3): 203–244. doi:10.1163/156853979X00179.    Dawkins, Richard; Brockmann, H.J., Grafen, A. (1979). "Evolutionarily stable nesting strategy in a digger wasp". Journal of Theoretical Biology 77 (4): 473–496. doi:10.1016/0022-5193(79)90021-3. PMID 491692. 1980s    Dawkins, R. (1980). "Good strategy or evolutionarily stable strategy". In Barlow, G.W. and Silverberg, J.. Sociobiology: Beyond Nature/Nurture?. Colorado: Westview Press. pp. 331–337. ISBN 0-89-158960-0.    Dawkins, Richard; Brockmann, H.J. (1980). "Do digger wasps commit the concorde fallacy?". Animal Behaviour 28 (3): 892–896. doi:10.1016/S0003-3472(80)80149-7.    Dawkins, Richard (1981). "In defence of selfish genes". Philosophy 56 (218): 556–573. doi:10.1017/S0031819100050580.    Krebs, J.R.; Dawkins, R. (1984). "Animal signals: mind-reading and manipulation". In Krebs, J. R. and Davies, N.B.. Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications. pp. 380–402. ISBN 0632027029. 1990s    Dawkins, R. (1990). "Parasites, desiderata lists and the paradox of the organism". Parasitology. 100 Suppl: S63–73. PMID 2235064.    Dawkins, R. (June 1991). "Evolution on the Mind". Nature 351 (6329): 686. doi:10.1038/351686c0.    Hurst, L.D.; Dawkins, R. (May 1992). "Evolutionary Chemistry: Life in a Test Tube". Nature 357 (6375): 198–199. doi:10.1038/357198a0. PMID 1375346.    Dawkins, R. (1994). "Evolutionary biology. The eye in a twinkling". Nature 368 (6473): 690–1. doi:10.1038/368690a0. PMID 8152479.    Dawkins, R. (September 1995). "The Evolved Imagination". Natural History 104 (9): 8.    Dawkins, R. (December 1994). "Burying The Vehicle". Behavioral and Brain Sciences 17 (4): 616–617. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00036207.[dead link]    Dawkins, R.; Holliday, Robin (August 1997). "Religion and Science". BioEssays 19 (8): 743. doi:10.1002/bies.950190817.    Dawkins, R. (1997). "The Pope's message on evolution: Obscurantism to the rescue". The Quarterly Review of Biology 72 (4): 397–399.    Dawkins, R. (1998). "Intellectual Imposters". Nature 394 (6689): 141–143.    Dawkins, R. (1998). "Arresting evidence". Sciences (New York) 38 (6): 20–25. PMID 11657757. 2000s    Dawkins, R. (2000). "W. D. Hamilton memorial". Nature 405 (6788): 733.    Dawkins, R. (2002). "Should doctors be Darwinian?". Transactions of the Medical Society of London 119: 15–30. PMID 17184029.    Blakemore C, Dawkins R, Noble D, Yudkin M (2003). "Is a scientific boycott ever justified?". Nature 421 (6921): 314. doi:10.1038/421314b. PMID 12540875.    Dawkins, R. (2003). "The evolution of evolvability". On Growth, Form and Computers. London: Academic Press.    Dawkins, R. (2004). "Viruses of the mind". In Warburton, N.. Philosophy: Basic Readings. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-41-533798-4.    Dawkins, R. (June 2004). "Extended phenotype - But not too extended. A reply to Laland, Turner and Jablonka". Biology & Physiology 19 (3): 377–396. doi:10.1023/B:BIPH.0000036180.14904.96. emphasis mine BTW, PMID = PubMed unique identifier. Compare this to the traces the Dembski family left in PubMed: One single article by W. Dembski. But wait it's not our own WMAD but his father William J. Dembski. -------------- "[...] 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 -

paragwinn Posts: 539 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2011,22:47    Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 30 2011,20:30)   Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 30 2011,12:08) MathGrrl: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-375666     Quote 421 MathGrrl 03/30/2011 9:54 am [SNIP] my post now numbered 201, namely: [SNIP] That's an interesting turn of phrase I've bolded in Mathgrrl's quote. As much as I would like to report some memory hole occurrence, it seems it's the opposite (shocking, I know). Comments are being inserted between existing entries, causing numerical reference discrepancies. To start, M. Holcumbrink @ 67 and markf @ 74 refer to Upright Biped @ 31, which is correct. But when O'Leary @ 54 and Spiny Norman @ 69 refer to Niwrad @ 37, Niwrad is actually at 40. By comment 192, niwrad refers to Noesis @ 176 but Noesis is now at 184. I did notice adjoining  comments with the same time stamps, so maybe a database/display update timing problem, causing a delay in displaying time-conflicted entries? -------------- All women build up a resistance [to male condescension]. Apparently, ID did not predict that. -Kristine 4-19-11 F/Ns to F/Ns to F/Ns etc. The whole thing is F/N ridiculous -Seversky on KF footnote fetish 8-20-11 Sigh. Really Bill? - Barry Arrington

Art Posts: 69 Joined: Dec. 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2011,23:36    Quote (paragwinn @ Mar. 30 2011,22:47) Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 30 2011,20:30)     Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 30 2011,12:08) MathGrrl: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-375666       Quote 421 MathGrrl 03/30/2011 9:54 am [SNIP] my post now numbered 201, namely: [SNIP] That's an interesting turn of phrase I've bolded in Mathgrrl's quote. As much as I would like to report some memory hole occurrence, it seems it's the opposite (shocking, I know). Comments are being inserted between existing entries, causing numerical reference discrepancies. To start, M. Holcumbrink @ 67 and markf @ 74 refer to Upright Biped @ 31, which is correct. But when O'Leary @ 54 and Spiny Norman @ 69 refer to Niwrad @ 37, Niwrad is actually at 40. By comment 192, niwrad refers to Noesis @ 176 but Noesis is now at 184. I did notice adjoining  comments with the same time stamps, so maybe a database/display update timing problem, causing a delay in displaying time-conflicted entries? A "moderated" comment may not appear in the thread for hours (or longer), but when it does, it gets inserted in the place where it would have been if it had not gone into the moderation queue.  Any comments made after the moderated comment get re-numbered.

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2011,23:52    why would wikipedia publish something so against their interests? see Gordon I said that in 9 words.  Still stupid, but much more specification -------------- 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

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2011,00:00    Quote (Ptaylor @ Mar. 30 2011,21:17) In other news OhDeary has a thread up complaining about Spiegel Online describing Richard Dawkins as a scientist. In the comments DonaldM shows the rigour typical of ID scientists:               Quote What actual science has Dawkins performed in the past 25 years or so? Good question. I haven’t checked on this lately, but if I recall, someone searched for Dawkins’s name to come up as an author of a peer reviewed scientific article on places like Pub Med and came up empty for anything recent. Might be worth checking that out again. Wouldn’t surprise me in the least if there is zip, zero, nada! So it's "I don't know, and I don't have any inclination to find out, but I heard from a friend of a friend that some guy checked it out once and they couldn't find anything. If I could be arsed to find out (which I am not) I am quite certain of the outcome". Continuing in the ID tradition, I'm too lazy /incompetent /drunk /high /busy searching for free porn to actually look this up, but if I remember correctly, that "someone" who searched PubMed for Dawkins and came up empty was none other than Dr. Dr. William A. Dembski.   If I also remember this correctly, he had his head handed to him by someone who actually knew how to look for this type of information and provided him with a list similar to the one that Sparc has just provided us about two messages later. I further seem to remember that Dr. Dr. W.A.D. then provided one of his patented notpologies and flounced off. Anybody want to try their Google-fu and find out?  I'd do it myself, but I recently stumbled onto a Canadian Grandmother Porn site and I'm too busy with a very important and highly scientific projectile vomiting research project to do anything else just now.

didymos Posts: 1828 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2011,02:06    Quote (CeilingCat @ Mar. 30 2011,22:00) Continuing in the ID tradition, I'm too lazy /incompetent /drunk /high /busy searching for free porn to actually look this up, but if I remember correctly, that "someone" who searched PubMed for Dawkins and came up empty was none other than Dr. Dr. William A. Dembski.   Dembski didn't realize Dawkins used his full name (Clinton Richard) on a lot of his earlier scientific publications.   He later 404ed the thread.  The Wayback Machine holds traces of the incident: http://web.archive.org/web....ttp Namely, the aforementioned notpology: 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 I've tried finding the archive of the original post where WAD gloated over his "discovery" before, but haven't had much luck. I suspect it was vanished before the Internet Archive had the chance to grab a copy. -------------- I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2011,03:22    Ah, the Google is strong with young Didymos.  Thank you for that!   Does anybody remember if Dembski did the original search (which is my memory of it) or just gloated over some other IDiot's search as his notpology claims?

Freddie Posts: 371 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2011,06:22    Speaking of Dawkins reminds me that when critics of weasel at UD were arguing (interminably and with much bloviate) about the concept of whether the program ratchets or not, they demanded that RD show up and bring his code with him to show his work.  The counter was that if he didn't show up, they would take the first piece of code that someone (anyone!) produced and assume it was the original.  This they duly did - and proved themselves to be the highly dishonest cowards we all knew them to be. Now, with this latest (highly amusing) controversy, none of the IDiots appears to gave asked the good Dr Dr to show up and bring his math to the table for all to inspect. The chances of this happening would seem to me to be inversely proportional to the probability that the IDiots commenting in that thread really do believe his working to be anything other than a disingenuous smokescreen.   Otherwise they would have made the plea already. -------------- Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy. Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people. Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2011,06:37    John A. Davison is alive and well and spamming ISCID, which is also alive, but isn't doing nearly as well.  In fact, JAD seems to be the only one who has posted there since 2010.   He's trying to sell his book.  The title of the book is "Unpublished Evolution Papers of John A. Davison". Except that now they're published, so the title is no longer accurate. I love it so! P.S. Lulu is a "book on demand" vanity publisher.  Anybody with a few hundred bucks in his pocket can become a published author at Lulu.  If you want to buy a copy, they print one for you on the spot and mail it to you.  They've actually published some books worth buying.

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2011,06:47    Quote (Freddie @ Mar. 31 2011,06:22) Speaking of Dawkins reminds me that when critics of weasel at UD were arguing (interminably and with much bloviate) about the concept of whether the program ratchets or not, they demanded that RD show up and bring his code with him to show his work.  The counter was that if he didn't show up, they would take the first piece of code that someone (anyone!) produced and assume it was the original.  This they duly did - and proved themselves to be the highly dishonest cowards we all knew them to be. Now, with this latest (highly amusing) controversy, none of the IDiots appears to gave asked the good Dr Dr to show up and bring his math to the table for all to inspect. The chances of this happening would seem to me to be inversely proportional to the probability that the IDiots commenting in that thread really do believe his working to be anything other than a disingenuous smokescreen.   Otherwise they would have made the plea already. A good point except that nobody could take the first fully worked out example of a CSI calculation submitted as being the original because none has ever been produced.

Freddie Posts: 371 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2011,07:28    Good point, in that case he could perhaps take his almost-Japanese apprentice's example and show him where he went wrong in his attempt to produce his masters goods - so to speak! -------------- Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy. Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people. Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2011,07:52    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Mar. 31 2011,02:17) would you rather read Gordon Mullings' posts or Batshit's posts?  If you *had* to pick one. BA77 nobody reads Gordon Mullings and as far as poking GEM of TIKI phhht poking Louis is far better value He's Welsh after all -------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2011,08:06    Gordon reveals the real reason they didn't calculate CSI:   Quote Had MG simply asked the question the right [straight] way around, we would have had a very different and much more productive discussion. Shorter GEM of Talky: It is all her fault that we didn't calculate CSI. Oh, and apparently Google isn't available in Monserrat: Quote I suspect she does not have a physics-mathematics-physical chemistry background, and has not done much of statistical thermodynamics, the underlying field for all of the issues on the table. Laziest group of self-described revolutionaries ever. -------------- 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!)

utidjian Posts: 185 Joined: Oct. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2011,08:17    I bought a few copies of the "Digital Cuttlefish Vol. 1" by the Digital Cuttlefish as presents for friends from lulu. Perhaps some day we can get all our ID reading materials from lulu. -DU- -------------- Being laughed at doesn't mean you're progressing along some line. It probably just means you're saying some stupid shit -stevestory

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2011,08:22    She's back!  And she really twists the knife into poor, old PaV (bolding added):   Quote 137 MathGrrl 03/31/2011 7:13 am PaV,   Quote she wants us to do her dirty work. I don’t find math to be dirty, but that’s a personal aesthetic. What I want is for ID proponents to show the work behind their claims. That’s not an unreasonable request in scientific circles.   Quote Can you please tell me how I can give a rigorous mathematical definition of CSI for the ev program? The pattern under consideration is the bit string that serves as a genome for the digital organism. You don’t need to analyze ev, just what ev is modeling.   Quote    So, if you’re interested in how a “chance hypothesis” works, let’s take a look at those two strings:    String #1:    1001110111010101111101001    1011000110110011101111011    0110111111001101010000110    1100111110100010100001101    1001111100110101000011010    0010101000011110111110101    0111010001111100111101010    11101110001011110    String #2:    1001001101101000101011111    1111110101000101111101001    0110010100101100101110101    0110010111100000001010101    0111110101001000110110011    0110100111110100110101011    0010001111110111111011010    00001110100100111    Now, MathGrrl, which is which? If only there were a metric I could apply to each of these strings to determine, without any knowledge of their history, whether or not either of them is the result of intelligent agency. Do you know of such a metric? If so, could you please provide a rigorous mathematical definition for it and some examples of how to calculate it? If such a metric existed, I’d be happy to apply it to your two strings. Expect more pouting and peevishness. -------------- 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!)

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2011,08:31    Quote (didymos @ Mar. 31 2011,02:06)   Quote (CeilingCat @ Mar. 30 2011,22:00) Continuing in the ID tradition, I'm too lazy /incompetent /drunk /high /busy searching for free porn to actually look this up, but if I remember correctly, that "someone" who searched PubMed for Dawkins and came up empty was none other than Dr. Dr. William A. Dembski.   Dembski didn't realize Dawkins used his full name (Clinton Richard) on a lot of his earlier scientific publications.   He later 404ed the thread.  . Well, that explains why I couldn't find it this morning.  However, I did come across a post that surely is the (still) high water mark for Uncommon Descent. Behold!  Dembski at his finest! -------------- 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!)

utidjian Posts: 185 Joined: Oct. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2011,08:46    Heh Carlsonjok I just skimmed that thread at  UD you (tiny)linked to. None of the commenters there 5 years ago are still active. We know what happened to d'Tard but what about the rest of them? -DU- -------------- Being laughed at doesn't mean you're progressing along some line. It probably just means you're saying some stupid shit -stevestory

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2011,08:52    Quote (utidjian @ Mar. 31 2011,08:46) Heh Carlsonjok I just skimmed that thread at  UD you (tiny)linked to. None of the commenters there 5 years ago are still active. We know what happened to d'Tard but what about the rest of them? -DU- They probably left because of too much science and not enough Jesus. Oh Noes!  I am approaching 3000 comments!  I need to do something special for that arbitrarily numbered post.   After the success of the Dodgenator 3000, I probably should dust of my blueprints for the Joebot 5000 and get going on a prototype. -------------- 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!)

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2011,08:52    Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 31 2011,16:22) She's back!  And she really twists the knife into poor, old PaV (bolding added):   Quote 137 MathGrrl 03/31/2011 7:13 am PaV,   Quote she wants us to do her dirty work. I don’t find math to be dirty, but that’s a personal aesthetic. What I want is for ID proponents to show the work behind their claims. That’s not an unreasonable request in scientific circles.   Quote Can you please tell me how I can give a rigorous mathematical definition of CSI for the ev program? The pattern under consideration is the bit string that serves as a genome for the digital organism. You don’t need to analyze ev, just what ev is modeling.   Quote    So, if you’re interested in how a “chance hypothesis” works, let’s take a look at those two strings:    String #1:    1001110111010101111101001    1011000110110011101111011    0110111111001101010000110    1100111110100010100001101    1001111100110101000011010    0010101000011110111110101    0111010001111100111101010    11101110001011110    String #2:    1001001101101000101011111    1111110101000101111101001    0110010100101100101110101    0110010111100000001010101    0111110101001000110110011    0110100111110100110101011    0010001111110111111011010    00001110100100111    Now, MathGrrl, which is which? If only there were a metric I could apply to each of these strings to determine, without any knowledge of their history, whether or not either of them is the result of intelligent agency. Do you know of such a metric? If so, could you please provide a rigorous mathematical definition for it and some examples of how to calculate it? If such a metric existed, I’d be happy to apply it to your two strings. Expect more pouting and peevishness. YEAH HOMOS! DON'T EXPECT A NOTPOLOGY FROM BILL HE'S WORKING ON HIS NEXT ENDEVOUR TEH LOGOS OF JOHN ON INTERIOR MONOLOGUE I SAID SO WHAT ABOUT UD? AND HE SAID ARE YOU SERIOUS? THEN TEH USELESS FUCKER HUNG UP d.t. -------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2011,08:55    Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 31 2011,16:52) Quote (utidjian @ Mar. 31 2011,08:46) Heh Carlsonjok I just skimmed that thread at  UD you (tiny)linked to. None of the commenters there 5 years ago are still active. We know what happened to d'Tard but what about the rest of them? -DU- They probably left because of too much science and not enough Jesus. Oh Noes!  I am approaching 3000 comments!  I need to do something special for that arbitrarily numbered post.   After the success of the Dodgenator 3000, I probably should dust of my blueprints for the Joebot 5000 and get going on a prototype. PICK TEH LOW HANGING FRUIT FIRST HOMO CONCATENATE A KF POST INTO 9 WORDS SHOULD BE EASY -------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2011,08:56    Quote If only there were a metric I could apply to each of these strings to determine, without any knowledge of their history, whether or not either of them is the result of intelligent agency. Do you know of such a metric? Own goal in the World Cup. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2011,09:08    This is interesting. Quote MathGrrl March 30, 2011 at 3:58 pm eric, [snip] By the way, it has come to my attention that there is another person using the MathGrrl pseudonym, and her use actually predates mine. I am not the MathGrrl that comes up first in a Google search (I’m leaving her name out deliberately so as not to associate us in the search engines). Please don’t harass her because of anything I’ve said. Perhaps we were wrong about her identity. -------------- 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!)

Robin Posts: 1431 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2011,09:23    Quote (sparc @ Mar. 30 2011,22:25) List of publications by Richard Dawkins From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Well, to be fair, it appears that Dawkins hasn't done anything scientifically rigorous that's noted in PubMed in nearly 10 years. I'm sure *that's* what DonaldM meant... -------------- we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2011,09:29    Dunno is anyone has brought this up but, presumably an apple on a tree has less CSI than an apple in space? How does that factor into calculations? Oh, wait.. -------------- "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: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2011,09:43    Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 31 2011,17:29) Dunno is anyone has brought this up but, presumably an apple on a tree has less CSI than an apple in space? How does that factor into calculations? Oh, wait.. Wrong metric try Complete Stupidy Index Couple Snake Issue Corporate Slow Intake Caught Sliding Interstate -------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2011,10:29    Cock Sniff Increments -------------- 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

Pages: (501) < ... 376 377 378 379 380 [381] 382 383 384 385 386 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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