RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < ... 199 200 201 202 203 [204] 205 206 207 208 209 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2006,12:15   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 30 2006,16:50)
Evolution == Atheism, take #283971

includes the following gem:

 
Quote

Leo1787 writes: “this semantic sleight of hand on the part of ID’ers will fail just as every other attempt to introduce the supernatural as a viable scientific explanation of the origin of life into public school curricula has failed.”

Leo, let’s see how you respond to the familiar Mount Rushmore test.

Assume that a Stephen King super virus wipes out all human life next year. 500 years later an alien visits earth and observes Mount Rushmore. The alien has two and only two choices to account for his observation:

1. He could infer from the specified complexity of the sculpture that it is not the result of the random erosion of the mountain, and based on this inference he could conclude that the sculpture is the result of design by an intelligent agent.

2. He could appeal to chance erosion of the mountain to account for the sculpture.

If he chooses theory 1, would it be fair to accuse him of trying to inject the “supernatural” into the debate when the theory says nothing about the nature or purpose of the intelligent agent who designed the sculpture?

If the answer to this question is “No, it’s not fair” why is it fair for you to make the same accusation against ID proponents when they are attempting to account for specified complexity several orders of magnitude greater than that seen at Mount Rushmore?

My prediction: Leo will ignore these two questions altogether or he will try to dodge them.

Comment by BarryA — August 30, 2006 @ 4:19 pm

Mount Rushmore – close examination shows the work of tools. Analysis shows jackhammers, drills, hammers were used. There are still metal pins where swing-seats were installed – telling us about the weight of the designer. Examining the weathering and erosion of the ‘faces’ against the rest of the rock, we can estimate a time period.

:D

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2006,12:21   

Quote

1. He could infer from the specified complexity of the sculpture that it is not the result of the random erosion of the mountain, and based on this inference he could conclude that the sculpture is the result of design by an intelligent agent.


Isn't it amazing that until Dembski published The Design Inference in 1998, nobody could tell if Mount Rushmore was created by humans instead of being a naturally occuring phenomenon?

Hmm. The aliens might not be able to figure out Mt. Rushmore. Being from another planet, they might not have read The Design Inference.

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2006,13:08   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 30 2006,17:21)
Quote

1. He could infer from the specified complexity of the sculpture that it is not the result of the random erosion of the mountain, and based on this inference he could conclude that the sculpture is the result of design by an intelligent agent.


Isn't it amazing that until Dembski published The Design Inference in 1998, nobody could tell if Mount Rushmore was created by humans instead of being a naturally occuring phenomenon?

Hmm. The aliens might not be able to figure out Mt. Rushmore. Being from another planet, they might not have read The Design Inference.

'Canals' on Mars. the Oklo nuclear reactor..

--------------
"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

  
Darth Robo



Posts: 148
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2006,15:14   

"Leo, let’s see how you respond to the familiar Mount Rushmore test."

Oh no!  How will Leo ever pass the 'Mount Rushmore Test' ?!?  It's obvious anyway that said alien would completely ignore Mount Rushmore itself and be amazed at the complex specified information inherent in all the other rocks nearby (the cracks, crags and lumpy bits) and MARVEL at the incredible design-work of the Intelligent Designer!

Or maybe not.   ???

"My prediction: Leo will ignore these two questions altogether or he will try to dodge them. "

My prediction: Leo will probably just think...  "What a plonker!"   ???

"It has now been over two hours since I posted my response. This means Leo has almost certainly seen the questions I asked, and my prediction was right on. He chose to ignore the questions. He knows a no win situation when he sees one.

Are there any materialists out there braver than Leo who want to take a shot at a response?"

Come on, any takers?  I dare ya!   :p

--------------
"Commentary: How would you like to be the wholly-owned servant to an organic meatbag? It's demeaning! If, uh, you weren't one yourself, I mean..."

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2006,17:21   

Over at UD BarryA issues the "Mt. Rushmore test"

 
Quote
Assume that a Stephen King super virus wipes out all human life next year. 500 years later an alien visits earth and observes Mount Rushmore. The alien has two and only two choices to account for his observation:

1. He could infer from the specified complexity of the sculpture that it is not the result of the random erosion of the mountain, and based on this inference he could conclude that the sculpture is the result of design by an intelligent agent.

2. He could appeal to chance erosion of the mountain to account for the sculpture.

If he chooses theory 1, would it be fair to accuse him of trying to inject the “supernatural” into the debate when the theory says nothing about the nature or purpose of the intelligent agent who designed the sculpture?


I responded with this:

"By the way Barry, just what is the specified complexity of Mt. Rushmore?  Has anyone ever actually calculated it?  How would you calculate it?  What SC threshold value would the sculpture have to exceed before the alien decides the carving was intelligently designed?

Of course there is a third choice that you don’t offer – if these aliens are smart enough to master interstellar travel, they are smart enough to study and analyze the rest of the artifacts left on Earth.  They find millions of similarly shaped objects made of non-natural occurring materials – metal alloys, plastics, etc.  They find studios with many of these objects in the process of being manufactured.  They then have enough information to pattern match Mt. Rushmore with other similar objects made by the previous inhabitants.

Or a fourth choice – the aliens are an energy-based, non material life form who make no distinction between the shape of different physical objects, only the material. To them Mt. Rushmore is just another lump of granite.

My point is, hypothesizing about oddball, unbounded science fiction scenarios doesn't add much value to scientific discussion about present time and place issues.  I can get any answer I want depending on what attributes I assign to the aliens.  

If you still want to do SF - what would the space aliens think if they found a meteor in deep space with a flagellum-bearing single celled animal on it, and had never seen anything human before, including the cute 'artist's conception' poster depicting the flagellum as a human-like rotary motor? In fact, these space aliens never invented the wheel or the rotary motor.  How would they conclude the flagellum was designed?"

He then challenges anyone to answer him:

 
Quote
Are there any materialists out there braver than Leo who want to take a shot at a response?


I responded

"I have done so.  Are you brave enough to allow my response to be posted?"

It's been over two hours now and my post hasn't seen the light of day.  Guess I can now claim

"It has now been over two hours since I posted my response. This means BarryA has almost certainly seen the questions I asked, and my prediction was right on. He chose to ignore the questions. He knows a no win situation when he sees one."

Not too tough to 'win' when you censor out the opponents' responses, now is it?

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
snoeman



Posts: 109
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2006,19:12   

OA wrote:

   
Quote

I responded

"I have done so.  Are you brave enough to allow my response to be posted?"

It's been over two hours now and my post hasn't seen the light of day.  Guess I can now claim

"It has now been over two hours since I posted my response. This means BarryA has almost certainly seen the questions I asked, and my prediction was right on. He chose to ignore the questions. He knows a no win situation when he sees one."

Not too tough to 'win' when you censor out the opponents' responses, now is it?


It's this kind of thing that causes my irony meter to blow a fuse, even though it's stored well away from the computer while reading UD.

DaveTard: "PT censorship!!!" (No examples provided by DT)

BarryA: "Are there any materialists out there braver than Leo who want to take a shot at a response?"

... frantic sounds of response posts being ignored or deleted ...

BarryA: "No? You materialist cowards!"

  
Ptaylor



Posts: 1180
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2006,20:48   

This from the philosophy, not science thread http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1521
   
Quote
#

Richard Dawkins is either congenitally deranged or was molested as an altar boy by an Anglican priest. I can conceive of no other explanations for his writings, each book more bizarre than its predecessor. God only knows what he will come up with next. I shudder to think.

It is hard to believe isn’t it?

“Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics and it stems from the same source…They are creatures that can’t hear the music of the spheres.”
Alice Calaprice, The New Quotable Einstein, page 204

“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison

Comment by John A. Davison — August 30, 2006 @ 3:58 pm
#

Flippantly talking about priests molesting altar boys is over the top, John.

Yer outta here. Again.

Comment by DaveScot — August 30, 2006 @ 8:51 pm

Long time, first time etc

Has DT had his bannination powers given back to him, is this wishful thinking, or is he expecting moderators to do the deed for him?

And on an O'Leary thread too!

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2006,20:59   

no.

what's going on is about every other month, somebody at UD wants to work some idea related to frontloading into an argument of theirs.

so, they invite JAD back "into the fold", tell him how wonderful he is, let him post his PEH drivel.  then they cherry pick what supports whatever argument they want to make from that pile of crap, and summarily dismiss him as soon as he says something belligerant or stupid, which for JAD is a daily event.

this pattern has repeated itself several times now, and likely will be repeated again in another month or so.

I just can't figure out who is more pathetic, the three stooges at UD, or the mad hatter.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
bourgeois_rage



Posts: 117
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,03:01   

Again in the Mount Rushmore Thread:

Quote
#

Tom English

“Even we earthlings, familiar as we are with natural processes on earth, do not know how to come up with a reasonable estimate of the probability.”

Yes, we earthlings have. In the case of Mt. Rushmore forming by natural processes we do indeed know how to come up with a reasonable estimate of the probability. The reasonable estimate is zero and it’s arrived at by way of elimination. If you think of a reasonable reason it should be non-zero to a significant degree please give those reasons otherwise through the process of elimination you must agree that a reasonable estimate is zero. What we earthlings don’t know how to do is arrive at a precise probability. There is some exceedingly small chance Mt. Rushmore could be a natural phenomenon but it’s so small there’s no way to give a precise number. Duh.

Comment by DaveScot — August 31, 2006 @ 3:00 am


Thanks for clearing that up Dave. What's the chance of Mount Rushmore being natural? I don't know, but it must be so small that it is not worth calculating. Of course the Aliens would use CSI to figure it out, but we'd be idiots to even try.

Has anyone ever seen anybody give the CSI for anything? I've never looked at Dumbski's books, does he even calculate the CSI for anything? Who else wants to see a double blind for CSI's effectiveness?

Double Blinds are for materialists, that's over the top. You're outta here. -dt

--------------
Overwhelming Evidence: Apply directly to the forehead.

   
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,03:14   

Quote
does he even calculate the CSI for anything?
He does for the flagellum in NFL. He calculates the probabilty of the formation of the flagellum by multiplying several probabilities together, one of which is the probability that all of the proteins form spontaneously out of random amino acids. This is below the UPB so he concludes CSI.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,03:36   

Back on the Mt Rushmore Test at UD, poster Tom English took BarryA to task for only allowing Leo only two hours before BarryA declared victory.  BarryA's response?

 
Quote
I have two answers to that question. As I pointed out above, it was Leo, not I, who implied he would be coming back to see if anyone had responded to him. Secondly, now it’s the next day. No one (including you) has answered my questions. Your point has no force.


He again claims that no one has answered his questions, even though I know of at least one answer (mine) that was censored out.  Guess we know what the 'A' in BarryA stands for, eh?

What a manly bunch of he-men they have there at UD. ;) Make a challenge, delete all answers that rebut your claims, then claim no one has answered.

And Dembski et al still wonder why so many people consider him and the IDiots to be such lying hypocrites.

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,04:32   

It's a shame, really.

When BarryA came to UD, he seemed a reasonable, debatable person, if somewhat deluded. He was willing to accept arguments and even make corrections to other poster's claims (and I'm sure that caused a strain between him and then-Ultrabanninator Davetard at some point).

And now, he's reduced to... to that. Shame.

What is this choleric essense that permeates UD, and eventually defiles and corrupts the behavior and actions of all who post there? It's uncanny.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,04:44   

Ye Tarde Spaeke:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1530#comment-57619

Quote
Tom English

“Even we earthlings, familiar as we are with natural processes on earth, do not know how to come up with a reasonable estimate of the probability.”

Yes, we earthlings have. In the case of Mt. Rushmore forming by natural processes we do indeed know how to come up with a reasonable estimate of the probability. The reasonable estimate is zero and it’s arrived at by way of elimination. If you think of a reasonable reason it should be non-zero to a significant degree please give those reasons otherwise through the process of elimination you must agree that a reasonable estimate is zero. What we earthlings don’t know how to do is arrive at a precise probability. There is some exceedingly small chance Mt. Rushmore could be a natural phenomenon but it’s so small there’s no way to give a precise number. Duh.

Comment by DaveScot — August 31, 2006 @ 3:00 am



http://www.frankston.com/Public....Fallacy

Ye Tard claims omniscience.

--------------
"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

  
2ndclass



Posts: 182
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,05:21   

BarryA:
Quote
The fact that I may not be able to hang a precise number on the CSI does not mean that the CSI is not obvious.

"We don't need to calculate no stinking CSI.  It's obvious that it has CSI because it looks designed.  And we know it's designed because it has CSI."


WRT the CSI of a bacterial flagellum, Dembski's most recent take is: "The precise calculation of P(T|H) has yet to be done. But some methods for decomposing this probability into a product of more manageable probabilities as well as some initial estimates for these probabilities are now in place."

IOW, the check's in the mail.

--------------
"I wasn't aware that classical physics had established a position on whether intelligent agents exercising free were constrained by 2LOT into increasing entropy." -DaveScot

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,05:41   

Yeah, like we said before... It's a unit that has two measurable values: "Zero" and "Lots".

Man, even Reich did a better job with orgone.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,05:49   

Quote (Faid @ Aug. 31 2006,10:41)
Yeah, like we said before... It's a unit that has two measurable values: "Zero" and "Lots".

Man, even Reich did a better job with orgone.

BUT IT LOOKS DESIGNED!!!

*stamps feet*

How about, "it DOESN'T look undesigned" ???

--------------
"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

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,05:54   

And DaveTard gives us a daily double!

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1528#comment-57447

Quote
63.  DaveScot: “For brevity I use the phrase novel cell types, tissue types, organs, and body plans.”

Zachriel: “You would consider then that humans and chimpanzees are only differing as to microevolution, as they have the same cell, tissue, organs and general body plans.”

No. I see human/chimp difference as a gray area. Novel cell types, tissue types, organs, and body plans are large milestones that evolution somehow obtained. Why bother with lesser steps when the big steps are easily delineated and in need of explanation? In other words, if you can demonstrate that RM+NS has the capacity to generate novel cell types, tissue types, organs, and body plans then I will concede it can do lesser things.

In actuality I want it demonstrated to me how RM+NS created the DNA/ribosome combination and if that can be done I’ll concede RM+NS’ creative power to accomplish everything that followed. But since DNA/ribosome is subject to the but that’s not part of Darwinian evolution I instead pick the milestone events that followed to avoid the argument over what “evolution” entails.

Comment by DaveScot — August 30, 2006 @ 12:22 pm

64.  Zach

It seems that what you ask is that by demonstrating the theoretical ability of RM+NS to generate small beneficial changes that I then accept a huge extrapolation that many small things add up to big things. I do not accept that extrapolation. It’s too large a leap. You can make high pile of rocks one rock at a time but you can’t pile them so high that they reach the moon. Small things don’t always add up to big things.

So I make the very reasonable request that the big things be demonstrated. If it can’t be done then it can’t be done and as honest inquirers into the nature of things we need to admit the limits of our knowledge and not make up narratives out of whole cloth and treat those narratives as axioms in a grand pretense that the limit doesn’t exist. I don’t know that what I ask cannot be demonstrated. All I ask is that until it IS demonstrated we don’t teach our children that sole narrative explanation in a vacuum devoid of criticism or alternative explanations.

Comment by DaveScot — August 30, 2006 @ 12:34 pm

"Show me abiogenesis or show me something that evolution doesn't actually say.  Until then I will continue to appeal to incredulity."

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,05:58   

I've been offering to teach him a bit of AI over at UDOJ. He's not too keen on the idea, for some reason.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,06:00   

"Aliens would know it's designed because of all the CSI"
"How much CSI?"
"Some, apparently. Just look at it. It looks all designey."

The fundamental problem with moderating this board is, how can a reasonable person not start cursing and spitting the 500th time they see that?

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,06:09   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 31 2006,11:00)
"Aliens would know it's designed because of all the CSI"
"How much CSI?"
"Some, apparently. Just look at it. It looks all designey."

The fundamental problem with moderating this board is, how can a reasonable person not start cursing and spitting the 500th time they see that?

Of course, the next step is to add another pseudo-science phrase that is another proxy for designed. NFE (non-randomly formed enitites) = CSI = designed, But we can spot design through NFE. We can spot NFE through CSI. And I can spot a shell game.

--------------
"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

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,06:18   

BarryA tries to pull himself out of the swamp by his own hair, and of course just sinks deeper:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1530#comment-57643
Quote
Here is where my predicted dodge comes in. You attempt to answer the question by turning it into a different question, i.e. whether aliens would know what humans look like. OK, let’s change it back. Assume, the aliens look like humans.


Barry, Barry... If the aliens look like humans, they can infer tons of info for the nature of the designer. So, where does that leave your 'reasoning' against point (1):

Quote
If he chooses theory 1, would it be fair to accuse him of trying to inject the “supernatural” into the debate when the theory says nothing about the nature or purpose of the intelligent agent who designed the sculpture?


Oh well... Look at me, trying to see reason to the rants of someone who deletes answers to his posts, then gloats for being unchallenged... Not to mention locking a thread where he was cornered, saying that he has lost interest in it, and soon after starts an identical one... Remember that?

I should know better by now.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,06:21   

Quote
Tom English

“Even we earthlings, familiar as we are with natural processes on earth, do not know how to come up with a reasonable estimate of the probability.”

Yes, we earthlings have. In the case of Mt. Rushmore forming by natural processes we do indeed know how to come up with a reasonable estimate of the probability. The reasonable estimate is zero and it’s arrived at by way of elimination. If you think of a reasonable reason it should be non-zero to a significant degree please give those reasons otherwise through the process of elimination you must agree that a reasonable estimate is zero. What we earthlings don’t know how to do is arrive at a precise probability. There is some exceedingly small chance Mt. Rushmore could be a natural phenomenon but it’s so small there’s no way to give a precise number. Duh.

Comment by DaveScot — August 31, 2006 @ 3:00 am


What he is describing is actually pretty close to how we actually do design detection in our everyday life. We look at an event, and we come up with plausible scenarios, and we try to guestimate how likely each one is, and believe the most likely one. That's our day to day heuristic for thinking like that. Newton's laws are kind of like that. They make a gut sense on an everyday basis. And those designey heuristics fail when presented with a selective process of millions of years, just as newton's laws fail when dealing with millions of miles per hour. People in science learn that evidence has to take precedence over the gut. Apparently a lot of engineers don't learn that.

   
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,06:29   

Quote
Ye Tard claims omniscience.

Evil grin :>

Sung to The Major General's Song from Gilbert and Sullivan's The Pirates of Penzance


I am the very model of a dopey Design-o General
I've calculated vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I know the probability of every possibility
from fallacy to outcome, I am quite delusional
I 'm very well acquainted too with matters scientifical,
I understand creations, both the simple and complexical,
About Mt Rushmore I'm teeming with a lot o' news
­With many cheerful facts about the usefulness of creo views.

With many cheerful facts about the usefulness of creo views;
With many cheerful facts about the usefulness of creo views;
With many cheerful facts about the  usefulness of
creosote spews


I'm very good at banning and dissing all the rest of you,
I know the scientific names of magazines american;
In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a dopey Design-o General


In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
He is the very model of a dopey Design-o General


I know our constitution and Judge D'over Activists
I ditactically dally in fundamental politics
I quote unknown authors of fictional stupidty
I give lessons growing mushrooms in basements very rapidly
In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a dopey Design-o General.


In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
He is the very model of a dopey Design-o General


In fact, when I know what is meant by 'RNA' and 'DNA,'
When I can tell at sight a Mountain from a Statue-a,
When such affairs as genes and springing them willy-nilly,
And when I know precisely what is meant by 'biology,'
When I have learnt what progress has been made in modern skulduggery
When I know more of tactics than a novice in thuggery;
In short, when I've a smattering of genetical humbuggery
You'll say a better dopey Design-o General had never sat a  
blog-gery.. -

corus

For my biology knowledge, though I'm sucky and abdury,
Has only been brought down to the beginning of last century;
But still, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a dopey Design-o General.


But still, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
He is the very model of a dopey Design-o General!

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
ScaryFacts



Posts: 337
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,06:34   

Cordova quoting Jerry Coyne at UD:
Quote
if truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits


I suspect from what I have read here this isn't accurate.  Can someone give me some examples of the practical or commercial benefits of the science?

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,06:38   

Quote (k.e @ Aug. 31 2006,11:29)
Quote
Ye Tard claims omniscience.

Evil grin :>

Sung to The Major General's Song from Gilbert and Sullivan's The Pirates of Penzance


I am the very model of a dopey Design-o General
I've calculated vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I know the probability of every possibility
from fallacy to outcome, I am quite delusional
I 'm very well acquainted too with matters scientifical,
I understand creations, both the simple and complexical,
About Mt Rushmore I'm teeming with a lot o' news
­With many cheerful facts about the usefulness of creo views.

With many cheerful facts about the usefulness of creo views;
With many cheerful facts about the usefulness of creo views;
With many cheerful facts about the  usefulness of
creosote spews


I'm very good at banning and dissing all the rest of you,
I know the scientific names of magazines american;
In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a dopey Design-o General


In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
He is the very model of a dopey Design-o General


I know our constitution and Judge D'over Activists
I ditactically dally in fundamental politics
I quote unknown authors of fictional stupidty
I give lessons growing mushrooms in basements very rapidly
In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a dopey Design-o General.


In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
He is the very model of a dopey Design-o General


In fact, when I know what is meant by 'RNA' and 'DNA,'
When I can tell at sight a Mountain from a Statue-a,
When such affairs as genes and springing them willy-nilly,
And when I know precisely what is meant by 'biology,'
When I have learnt what progress has been made in modern skulduggery
When I know more of tactics than a novice in thuggery;
In short, when I've a smattering of genetical humbuggery
You'll say a better dopey Design-o General had never sat a  
blog-gery.. -

corus

For my biology knowledge, though I'm sucky and abdury,
Has only been brought down to the beginning of last century;
But still, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a dopey Design-o General.


But still, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
He is the very model of a dopey Design-o General!

*stands and applauds* :)

--------------
"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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,06:49   

In the no-big-fucking-surprise department, Davison apparently finally bit it at Uncommon Descent.

We love it so!

--------------
"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

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,06:51   

I wonder if one can study virology in Finnish jails.

Bob

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,06:57   

Snicker....Thank you Richard ....I thought since I was awarded the AtBC Poet Poet Laureate  prize I'd better do some! ....since YOU WON the Comedy Prize..bastard ...meant in the fondest Aussie sense ;)...oh and congratulations ...very original.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,06:58   

somebody clue me in on what the Fin story has to do with Uncommonly Dense.

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2006,07:01   

Thanks to Falan Ox for pointing me to this, but this is the precise moment where Davison went over the high side:

 
Quote
Richard Dawkins is either congenitally deranged or was molested as an altar boy by an Anglican priest. I can conceive of no other explanations for his writings, each book more bizarre than its predecessor. God only knows what he will come up with next. I shudder to think.

It is hard to believe isn’t it?

“Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics and it stems from the same source…They are creatures that can’t hear the music of the spheres.”
Alice Calaprice, The New Quotable Einstein, page 204

“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison

Comment by John A. Davison — August 30, 2006 @ 3:58 pm

Flippantly talking about priests molesting altar boys is over the top, John.

Yer outta here. Again.

Comment by DaveScot — August 30, 2006 @ 8:51 pm


I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire

--------------
"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

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

Pages: (1000) < ... 199 200 201 202 203 [204] 205 206 207 208 209 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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