RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (500) < ... 361 362 363 364 365 [366] 367 368 369 370 371 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 2, general discussion of Dembski's site< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2009,20:33   

Quote (steve_h @ June 09 2009,18:14)
Gil Dodgen:      
Quote
Gil Has Never Grasped the Nature of a Simulation Model
Correction:    
Quote
Gil will Never Grasp the Nature of a Simulation Model.

And:
Quote
Gil Will Never Grasp that He Doesn't Grasp the Nature of a Simulation Model.


--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2595
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2009,20:54   

Quote (keiths @ June 09 2009,20:33)
Quote (steve_h @ June 09 2009,18:14)
Gil Dodgen:        
Quote
Gil Has Never Grasped the Nature of a Simulation Model
Correction:      
Quote
Gil will Never Grasp the Nature of a Simulation Model.

And:
 
Quote
Gil Will Never Grasp that He Doesn't Grasp the Nature of a Simulation Model.

I can sympathize with GilDodgen. When constructing a version of Dawkins' simulator, the weasels made a heck of a racket when we put them in the mainframe.

--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2009,21:06   

Nakashima goes for the nuclear option AKA The Sound Of Phillip Johnson's Head Assploding
 
Quote
Any population capable of heritable variation and selection experiences evolution. There is nothing necessarily biological about that, it applies to GAs. There is also nothing naturalistic about it. You can read the story of Joseph and the goats in Genesis as an evolutionary episode. Evolution is Scriptural!!


This should be good for 10K words from KairosBlabbermouth.

--------------
I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
I’m not an evolutionist, I’m a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1954
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2009,21:30   

Quote (Zachriel @ June 09 2009,18:54)
Quote (keiths @ June 09 2009,20:33)
 
Quote (steve_h @ June 09 2009,18:14)
Gil Dodgen:        
Quote
Gil Has Never Grasped the Nature of a Simulation Model
Correction:        
Quote
Gil will Never Grasp the Nature of a Simulation Model.

And:
   
Quote
Gil Will Never Grasp that He Doesn't Grasp the Nature of a Simulation Model.

I can sympathize with GilDodgen. When constructing a version of Dawkins' simulator, the weasels made a heck of a racket when we put them in the mainframe.

Slightly of topic from UD, but on topic of Bull Shit Creationist programs "simulating" evolution, there is a program called "Mendel's Accountant." Is anyone familiar with it?

It is being discussed on TWeb.

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

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

   
utidjian



Posts: 185
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2009,21:40   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ June 09 2009,19:56)
Quote (keiths @ June 09 2009,18:02)
The tard keeps on flowing. Clive Hayden:
     
Quote
In my own opinion, all of nature could be considered supernatural

Gotta love it. And, somehow, this comports with Gil's mutating hardware.

Why... that is almost .sig-worthy.

Good job Clive!

-DU-

--------------
Being laughed at doesn't mean you're progressing along some line. It probably just means you're saying some stupid shit -stevestory

  
Freelurker



Posts: 80
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2009,22:36   

Quote
107
Freelurker_
06/09/2009
6:33 pm

Gil @68
 
Quote
I never said that “engineers are in a better position to judge biology than biologists.” I’ve claimed that when evolutionary biologists make claims about the creative power of their proposed mechanism of random variation and natural selection to produce systems that give every indication of being highly engineered technology, they should be required to produce at least some empirical evidence — not declarations of consensus within their incestuous group — that the proposed mechanism is actually capable of producing the technology we observe.

   In no other area of real, hard science would the extravagant, untested, and unverified claims of Darwinists be accepted without challenge.

Meanwhile, the National Academy of Engineering is Celebrating the Achievements of Charles Darwin

Gil, since you feel so strongly about this, you really should contact the NAE and straighten them out. Please let us know what they say.

Link

--------------
Invoking intelligent design in science is like invoking gremlins in engineering. [after Mark Isaak.]
All models are wrong, some models are useful. - George E. P. Box

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2009,00:05   

Quote (utidjian @ June 09 2009,22:40)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ June 09 2009,19:56)
 
Quote (keiths @ June 09 2009,18:02)
The tard keeps on flowing. Clive Hayden:
     
Quote
In my own opinion, all of nature could be considered supernatural

Gotta love it. And, somehow, this comports with Gil's mutating hardware.

Why... that is almost .sig-worthy.

Good job Clive!

-DU-

clive will wear that like the maid of honor's pantyhose.  he thinks "the natural is supernatural" is the value added portion of the great comission.

stupid dishonest wicked is one way of parsing it i am not so sure if that is enough.

--------------
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: 1659
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2009,00:09   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 09 2009,07:27)
Denyse O'Leary:

     
Quote

But if I asked an evolutionary psychologist about marriage in prehistoric times, he would tell me some popular culture lore dressed up in “let’s play cave people” animal skins.


What a time-saver it is to simply know how people would answer questions if given the opportunity. Interviewing people is apparently a journalistic practice that only the non-omniscient need resort to.

As Denyse has said, if they don't deny it, you can print it as a fact.  And if you don't interview them, they can't deny it.

Makes life a lot easier for a hack.

--------------
Like every other academic field, philosophy of religion has its share of hacks and mediocrities.   Edward Feser

‘Anything is a “real possibility” in the mind of one seeking to deny the obvious.’ – William J Murray

  
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2009,03:45   

Lamarck:
 
Quote
If biologists want to confirm that natselec/ranmut’s cause net info increase and large changes, speciation etc, they should start by realizing there’s no evidence for either of these points. So if they have a computer simulation confirming current neodarwinism, it’s automatically wrong.

Anything that contradicts my opinion is automatically wrong.

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 1659
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2009,05:34   

I ran into this by Pascal Boyer while surfing the net.  The article is titled, "How I found glaring errors in Einstein's calculations" and it's about the mail physicists get from nuts.  This rang a bell:  
Quote
Features of crackpot science

2    Most physics crackpots are engineers. More than 95% of my sample boast engineering degrees, or combine an undergraduate maths/physics degree followed by an engineering PhD or equivalent. This is not too surprising, as this may be the only kind of cursus that provides one with enough math background to understand the equations and formulae in the textbooks without actually studying maths and physics - which would show the crackpot why he’s misguided.
It's not just physics, Pascal.

Boyer is the author of, "Religion Explained", still the best book I've read on how religions get started.

--------------
Like every other academic field, philosophy of religion has its share of hacks and mediocrities.   Edward Feser

‘Anything is a “real possibility” in the mind of one seeking to deny the obvious.’ – William J Murray

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2595
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2009,07:04   

Quote (Dr.GH @ June 09 2009,21:30)
     
Quote (Zachriel @ June 09 2009,18:54)
     
Quote (keiths @ June 09 2009,20:33)
       
Quote (steve_h @ June 09 2009,18:14)
Gil Dodgen:                
Quote
Gil Has Never Grasped the Nature of a Simulation Model
Correction:              
Quote
Gil will Never Grasp the Nature of a Simulation Model.

And:
   
Quote
Gil Will Never Grasp that He Doesn't Grasp the Nature of a Simulation Model.

I can sympathize with GilDodgen. When constructing a version of Dawkins' simulator, the weasels made a heck of a racket when we put them in the mainframe.

Slightly of topic from UD, but on topic of Bull Shit Creationist programs "simulating" evolution, there is a program called "Mendel's Accountant." Is anyone familiar with it?

It is being discussed on TWeb.

I've been taking a look just recently. The user interface doesn't provide enough information to see exactly how it works, or if it is doing what it purports to do.

But you never see a significant increase in fitness above one even when using a beneficial-to-detrimental ratio of 1 or even 100. {From the manual it seems 1 should be certainty, but it accepts 100.} That means fitness can only decrease, which will always happen sooner or later in finite populations.

It's broke.


-

Where I wrote beneficial-to-detrimental ratio it should be "ratio of beneficial versus total mutations". Skip the business about 100{%?}.


--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
Zachriel



Posts: 2595
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2009,07:40   

Quote (Zachriel @ June 10 2009,07:04)
I've been taking a look just recently. The user interface doesn't provide enough information to see exactly how it works, or if it is doing what it purports to do.

But you never see a significant increase in fitness above one even when using a beneficial-to-detrimental ratio of 1 or even 100. {From the manual it seems 1 should be certainty, but it accepts 100.} That means fitness can only decrease, which will always happen sooner or later in finite populations.

It's broke.

Hmm. If you look at the advanced settings, it is set up so that beneficial mutations *never* have a significant effect. It is set by default to a *maximum* effect of 0.001. But in nature, this is not the case. A small change can sometimes mean the difference between survival and death (e.g. antibiotic resistance) or attracting a mate. Entire populations can be replaced due to a single mutation. But even changing this parameter to 0.1 or more doesn't seem to make the fitness budge much above 1.

{It also doesn't seem to use computer resources very well. It seems it need only track the fitness of a few thousand alleles rather than every base.}

This is just some preliminary thoughts. I haven't had a chance to study it in detail yet.

  1.0000000    frac_fav_mutn
  1.0000000    max_fav_fitness_gain


--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
Zachriel



Posts: 2595
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2009,09:01   

Quote
Mendel Accountant User Manual: Maximal beneficial mutation effects – A realistic upper limit must be placed upon beneficial mutations. This is because a single nucleotide change can expand total biological functionality of an organism only to a limited degree.

The phrase "total biological functionality" is confusing in this context and it leads him to the erroneous belief that beneficial mutations are *necessarily* limited in effect, that they never exceed a very small value. This is contrary to known counterexamples (e.g. antibiotic resistance). Selection is defined in terms of *differential* reproduction due to heritable traits, and not some notion of "total biological functionality". A slight change can have profound effects on comparative reproductive success, and can even reduce "functionality" (i.e. through optimization).

Quote
Niels Bohr is hurriedly putting on his tennis shoes to escape a bear, and his hiking companion Albert Einstein says, “Dear Niels, you can’t outrun the bear!” to which Niels replies, “Ja, ja, Albert, but all what I need to outrun is you.”

A beneficial mutation might just be a slightly higher foot arch or a slightly more sensitive ear that allows an organism to escape predation. Predation amplifies selection.

--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4468
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2009,09:17   

In other words, Mendel's Accountant cooks the books. Nice.

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

    
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1237
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2009,09:18   

Quote (Zachriel @ June 10 2009,07:04)
Quote (Dr.GH @ June 09 2009,21:30)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ June 09 2009,18:54)
   
Quote (keiths @ June 09 2009,20:33)
     
Quote (steve_h @ June 09 2009,18:14)
Gil Dodgen:            
Quote
Gil Has Never Grasped the Nature of a Simulation Model
Correction:            
Quote
Gil will Never Grasp the Nature of a Simulation Model.

And:
 
Quote
Gil Will Never Grasp that He Doesn't Grasp the Nature of a Simulation Model.

I can sympathize with GilDodgen. When constructing a version of Dawkins' simulator, the weasels made a heck of a racket when we put them in the mainframe.

Slightly of topic from UD, but on topic of Bull Shit Creationist programs "simulating" evolution, there is a program called "Mendel's Accountant." Is anyone familiar with it?

It is being discussed on TWeb.

I've been taking a look just recently. The user interface doesn't provide enough information to see exactly how it works, or if it is doing what it purports to do.

But you never see a significant increase in fitness above one even when using a beneficial-to-detrimental ratio of 1 or even 100. {From the manual it seems 1 should be certainty, but it accepts 100.} That means fitness can only decrease, which will always happen sooner or later in finite populations.

It's broke.

Are you saying the program should be renamed Enron's Accountant?

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1237
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2009,09:22   

Quote (Hermagoras @ June 09 2009,14:42)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,June 09 2009,14:11)
ahhh suicide sock.  it's hard to flame a bunch of flamers

Legendary's post should have been followed by a cry of Banzai! just before the fireball.

A suicide sock should have the handle "Leeeeroy Jenkins!"

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2595
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2009,09:25   

Quote (Zachriel @ June 10 2009,07:04)
But you never see a significant increase in fitness above one even when using a beneficial-to-detrimental ratio of 1 or even 100. {From the manual it seems 1 should be certainty, but it accepts 100.} That means fitness can only decrease, which will always happen sooner or later in finite populations.

Where I wrote beneficial-to-detrimental ratio it should be "ratio of beneficial versus total mutations". Skip the business about 100{%?}. Also edited it above for clarity.

--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2009,09:37   

Mark Frank comments on vjtorley's latest, entitled The Conspiracy:
Quote
Re #35, #36 and #37

Wow! I am not sure whether you are serious. I hope not. You seem such a nice, rational chap - albeit mistaken about some things. If you really believe this lot then you must incredibly stressed and unhappy.


--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2595
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2009,09:48   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 10 2009,09:17)
In other words, Mendel's Accountant cooks the books. Nice.

It definitely seems broken. Has anyone done a more thorough analysis?

--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 1954
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2009,09:50   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 10 2009,07:17)
In other words, Mendel's Accountant cooks the books. Nice.

That was my conclusion. John Baumgardner lies behind the program as a "principle contributer" IIRC.

Later in the TWeb thread, starting about here, Sam AKA: Ansgar Seraph posted a number of runs with various parameters.

Edited to change the pointer.

Edited by Dr.GH on June 10 2009,07:58

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

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

   
Zachriel



Posts: 2595
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2009,10:28   

Quote (Dr.GH @ June 10 2009,09:50)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 10 2009,07:17)
In other words, Mendel's Accountant cooks the books. Nice.

That was my conclusion. John Baumgardner lies behind the program as a "principle contributer" IIRC.

Later in the TWeb thread, starting about here, Sam AKA: Ansgar Seraph posted a number of runs with various parameters.

Edited to change the pointer.

I couldn't view Ansgar Seraph's screenshots, but we share many of the same results. I'm curious how Mendel's Accountant is calculating Fitness. Even with 100% beneficial mutations and 100% maximal allowable beneficial effects, it still doesn't work as expected.

   1.0000000    frac_fav_mutn
   1.0000000    max_fav_fitness_gain


--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4468
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2009,10:31   

There is a large body of work on population genetics with equations. Any program that cannot deliver results consistent with that empirically-tested body of work can't lay claim to being an accurate model of biological evolution.

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

    
Dr.GH



Posts: 1954
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2009,10:35   

Youse guys should pull together a TO FAQ article. Wes has kindly started with the title, "Mendel's Accountant cooks the books."

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

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

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4468
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2009,10:59   

I don't have time to do much toward an FAQ, but it seems to me that the effort could be split. Someone could look to see what actual values are in the literature for various of the parameters that the MA people seem to conjure out of thin air. Someone could look up the various simple popgen equations to set up experiments with. And several people could each run MA with the indicated parameters to test it against the popgen equations to get the results. How far this can go would depend on how many people would volunteer to contribute and how well this can be coordinated. We could use the evolutionary computation thread for coordination of effort.

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

    
utidjian



Posts: 185
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2009,11:51   

Just looked at the Mendel's Accountant website:
http://mendelsaccountant.info
and the sourceforge page... seems that a.) there is no longer a Linux version and b.) there is no source. Which leads me to wonder why it is on sourceforge to begin with. I am not aware of a requirement that source also be posted but... just seems strange to post it without the source on sourceforge.

-DU-

--------------
Being laughed at doesn't mean you're progressing along some line. It probably just means you're saying some stupid shit -stevestory

  
sparc



Posts: 1688
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2009,11:57   

Since it didn't show up at UD I'll repeat it here:
If GilDodgen is serious about his broken computer analogy he will also have to claim that it is impossible to develop any new pro ID argument without prior brain surgery by Dr. Egnor.



Edited by Lou FCD on June 10 2009,15:20

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

   
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2009,12:46   

Quote (keiths @ June 10 2009,15:37)
Mark Frank comments on vjtorley's latest, entitled The Conspiracy:
     
Quote
Re #35, #36 and #37

Wow! I am not sure whether you are serious. I hope not. You seem such a nice, rational chap - albeit mistaken about some things. If you really believe this lot then you must incredibly stressed and unhappy.

Wow. I'm speechless.
   
Quote
Vjtorley:

Thus the ultimate aim of the conspiracy is to create a world which is no longer governed by human decision-making processes, but by artificial intelligence. The leading lights of the conspiracy honestly believe that humanity, left to itself, will probably destroy the world in the next 200 years; rather than let that happen, they would prefer to create a more rational society, in which the key decisions are made by computers, not people. Humans are just too erratic and irrational to be entrusted with the governance of the planet, in the long term. Our brains, after all, are (according to the Darwinistic way of thinking) nothing but an assorted “kludge” of loosely integrated modules which evolved on an ad hoc basis to suit our immediate biological needs, but which can no longer evolve fast enough to cope with the demands of today’s ever-changing world. In other words, the human brain is far too unreliable to make it through the 22nd century. We need new masters.

In such a world, human wants, which are potentially limitless, will have to be strictly regulated, lest we end up destroying the planet (and ourselves) with our infinite greed. Or so the thinking goes. But a little-noticed corollary of this line of thinking is that any talk of human rights will therefore have to be jettisoned, as a right is basically a human want which society is bound to respect, no matter what.

In this “hyper-rational” society of the future, there can be no talk of people having a right to life, for in practical terms that would seem to legitimize an unlimited demand for the resources that people need to live. It could, for instance, translate into hospitals overflowing with so-called “bed blockers” - people receiving scarce medical resources which might be better allocated elsewhere, on a purely utilitarian basis.


And that's the real reason people are in favour of euthanasia or assisted suicide: They want to destroy human rights and install our new robot overlords.



(Say Hi to our new master!)

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1954
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2009,12:47   

Quote (utidjian @ June 10 2009,09:51)
Just looked at the Mendel's Accountant website:
http://mendelsaccountant.info
and the sourceforge page... seems that a.) there is no longer a Linux version and b.) there is no source. Which leads me to wonder why it is on sourceforge to begin with. I am not aware of a requirement that source also be posted but... just seems strange to post it without the source on sourceforge.

-DU-

Sam, AKA Ansgar Seraph writes,

Quote
I'd be more than happy to run experiments for people and provide full outputs and plots. Let me know if it gets off the ground and I'll join the thread over there to see what's needed.

You might want to let the person who asked about source code know that it's included in the installer on SourceForge. Dumb way to package source code but I don't think they're really trying to be terribly transparent, anyhow.

Thanks for the invitation to help! I like the title a lot.


I suggest moving the discussion to a differnt thread. What was the thread you had in mind, Wes?

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

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

   
utidjian



Posts: 185
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2009,14:10   

Quote (Dr.GH @ June 10 2009,12:47)
Quote

Sam, AKA Ansgar Seraph writes,

 
Quote
I'd be more than happy to run experiments for people and provide full outputs and plots. Let me know if it gets off the ground and I'll join the thread over there to see what's needed.

You might want to let the person who asked about source code know that it's included in the installer on SourceForge. Dumb way to package source code but I don't think they're really trying to be terribly transparent, anyhow.

Thanks for the invitation to help! I like the title a lot.


I suggest moving the discussion to a differnt thread. What was the thread you had in mind, Wes?

Dr. GH,

Where did you read that (the Sam thing)?

-DU-

and thanks... but now I gotta boot to Windows :( Ithink there used to be a linux util for unpacking Windows installers but I forget what it is called. Perhaps I will try it in Wine.

--------------
Being laughed at doesn't mean you're progressing along some line. It probably just means you're saying some stupid shit -stevestory

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 1964
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2009,14:16   

Quote (sparc @ June 10 2009,11:57)
Since it didn't show up at UD I'll repeat it here:
If GilDodgen is serious about his broken computer analogy he will also have to claim that it is impossible to develop any new pro ID argument without prior brain surgery by Dr. Egnor.

POTW?

--------------
ID theorists don’t postulate a designer for their arguments. - Crandaddy
There is no connection between a peppered moth, natural selection, and religion that I can see. - FtK

   
  14997 replies since July 17 2008,19:00 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (500) < ... 361 362 363 364 365 [366] 367 368 369 370 371 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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