RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (500) < ... 129 130 131 132 133 [134] 135 136 137 138 139 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 2, general discussion of Dembski's site< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
sledgehammer



Posts: 533
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2008,17:16   

[quote=JLT,Dec. 13 2008,12:23][/quote]
Quote
Peter:
I think religious motivation is definitely one reason why Darwinists IDjits stick to a theory that science shows to be nonsense.


Works better this way.

--------------
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

  
bystander



Posts: 301
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2008,17:25   

Quote (George @ Dec. 14 2008,06:46)
Borne said:  
Quote
Bio-informatics, semantic biology, systems biology…
These are all sounding the death knell of Darwinism.

What is this?  The biology of making meaningless shit up?

So I guess that everybody in these fields would say that they believe in ID?

  
Maya



Posts: 702
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2008,11:22   

No new material in hours?  How about something new -- honesty from UD:

Jerry writes:
Quote
I am certainly no expert and know nothing about what is called information theory.

Of course, he then goes on to make very strong claims about a topic he admittedly knows nothing about:
Quote
No where in nature except in life is there what we call FCSI.

To be fair, no one seems to know how to define FCSI rigorously.  That would allow it to be measured, and no ID proponent wants that!

  
stevestory



Posts: 10217
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2008,12:05   

The RSS feed of the UD comments hasn't worked for days. For a group of supposed computer programmers, they have more trouble than anybody getting their website to work.

   
sparc



Posts: 1961
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2008,12:06   

Quote
To be fair, no one seems to know how to define FCSI rigorously.
I rather had the impression that even at UD nobody cares about FSCI  
Quote
 
Quote
85

sparc

08/02/2008

11:22 pm

KF, FSCI (functionally specified, complex information) is not

       
Quote
stoutly resisted


here at UD but rather ignored. I am aware that FSCI is regularly mentioned by KF. However, only very few people here took the bait. According to the results of the UD search pages only 14 comments contain replies to FSCI statements (6 by Atom, 2 by Phineas, 2 by Carl Sachs, 2 by aiguy and 2 by Megan.Alavi) while FSCI to my best knowledge has never considered in the posts of Dr. Demski or any other UD contributor. I don’t know if this is the reason but as I understand FSCI it goes beyond Dembskian CSI and is defining some kind of The Edge of Intelligent Design by leaving the realm of ID as defined by the leading heads of the ID movement.


 
Quote
86

sparc

08/02/2008

11:42 pm

It won’t change much but my FSCI numbers were wrong: I’ve missed 2 comments on KF’s FSCI by Frost122585 and JunkyardTornado. So we now have a total of 16 opinions on FSCI at UD. Actually, I haven’t looked for those entries omitted by the search engine because they are

       
Quote
very similar to the 55 already displayed



   
Quote
87

bFast

08/02/2008

11:43 pm

GEM of TKI, as you know I am another regular on this site, but somehow FSCI has slipped under my rader until now.

Could you clearly define the difference betwee CSI and FSCI. It would appear that CSI is information that specifies something complex where FSCI is information that specifies something that is both complex and functional. Is that about it?

As I see it CSI includes some pretty non-functional concepts. For instance, the value of pi seems to be CSI. Certainly the value is complex. It specifies something — the relationship between the radius and the circomference of a circle. As such it would qualify as CSI but not as FSCI, have I got this or am I barking up a different tree?


   
Quote
88

sparc

08/03/2008

12:35 am

bfast

       
Quote
GEM of TKI, as you know I am another regular on this site, but somehow FSCI has slipped under my rader until now.


If you use the search link on the upper right corner of UD to look for FSCI you will find seven result pages (each with 10 results). Considering the 55 omitted search results FSCI has been mentioned about 120 times at UD only. Thus, it is not surprising that you have missed it.


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

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1774
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2008,16:13   

The liars at UD are at it again.

Mario Lopez quotes a recent article from Nature as

     
Quote

Molecular biology: The Bloom's complex mousetrap
Robert M. Brosh, Jr
Nature 456, 453-454 (27 November 2008)

2. “The BLM protein complex consists of several components, much like a mousetrap. With all the parts properly assembled, the mousetrap will operate efficiently and catch the mouse. In this case, a DNA structure called a double Holliday junction is caught in the BLM complex. Xu et al. and Singh et al. report the discovery of a component of this complex, RMI2, which stabilizes and orchestrates the action of the BLM complex, ensuring resolution of the double Holliday junction, and so promoting chromosomal stability.”

3. “As for the significance of RMI2 to the BLM complex, for analogy let’s imagine a mousetrap. It contains several components, including a spring, a platform, a hammer, a hold-down bar and a catch. Omit certain components of the trap, and the device may still operate, albeit less efficiently. With all of the components in place – including those with primarily structural roles such as the hold-down bar and the platform – the trap is most likely to catch the mouse. Returning to the BLM complex: through its interaction with RMI1, RMI2 allows the ‘BLM–Topo-3alpha device’ to assume optimal stability and configuration so that it can efficiently catalyse the splitting of the double Holliday junction, and so prevent the escape of deleterious DNA structures that would lead to crossovers (Fig. 1). RMI2 therefore seems to have an integral structural role in the BLM–Topo-3alpha device by orchestrating its action.”

4. “Darwinian scenarios, either for building mousetraps or biochemical systems, are very easy to believe if we aren’t willing or able to scrutinize the smallest details, or to ask for experimental evidence. They invite us to admire the intelligence of natural selection. But the intelligence we are admiring is our own.”


The big problem is - only paragraphs 2 and 3 are from the paper.  Paragraph 4 is an addition by Lopez taken from a 2000 Behe article at the Disco 'tute, set up to look like Lopez is quoting the same paper.  The actual concluding paragraphs are:

     
Quote
What are the implications of these observations? Mutations in the gene encoding RMI2 are likely to occur in hereditary diseases characterized by chromosomal instability and cancer. It is provocative, therefore, that there is a connection between the BLM complex and proteins mutated in another genetic disorder called Fanconi's anaemia, which also carries a high risk of cancer.

The core protein complex affected in Fanconi's anaemia (FA) and the BLM complex associate together in a supercomplex known as BRAFT (BLM, RPA, FA and Topo 3alpha)6. Singh and colleagues4 identify FA proteins in complexes containing RMI2 and BLM, consistent with previous findings that BLM and its associated factors collaborate with FA proteins in response to replicational stress7, 8. So an emerging theme from these studies is that a complex network of proteins that work through overlapping and interacting pathways confers genomic integrity. To understand the functional mechanism of these protein complexes, every 'mousetrap device' must be dissected one by one. Understanding how the trap catches the mouse will allow us to grasp the consequences of chromosomal instability associated with cancer and other diseases.


These IDiots can't go a single day without posting some sort of lies and deception.  Baby Jesus is gonna bawl his eyes out tonight.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
stevestory



Posts: 10217
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2008,16:34   

Wow. That's just a straight up fabrication. I don't even think Salvador has been that dishonest.

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2008,16:53   

I'm shocked, shocked I say!!!!

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

  
khan



Posts: 1526
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2008,17:14   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Dec. 14 2008,17:53)
I'm shocked, shocked I say!!!!

I am amazed that I am amazed at every escalation of dishonesty.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
Chayanov



Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2008,17:14   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 14 2008,16:53)
I'm shocked, shocked I say!!!!

Well, not that shocked.

--------------
Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

  
Maya



Posts: 702
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2008,17:17   

Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 14 2008,16:34)
Wow. That's just a straight up fabrication. I don't even think Salvador has been that dishonest.

I did an experiment.  I only know about Sal Cordova from this board.  My hypothesis was that being a creationist and an ID proponent, he was likely to be dishonest.  I googled for 10 minutes and got these links:

Sal Cordova's Rank Dishonesty
ERV Eats Sal's Soul
Sal Cordova:  Quotemining Liar

Hypothesis confirmed!

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2008,17:18   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 14 2008,14:53)
I'm shocked, shocked I say!!!!



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

  
Ptaylor



Posts: 1015
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2008,17:21   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Dec. 14 2008,16:13)
The liars at UD are at it again.

Pretty egregious, and relying on the fact that most regulars would be too incurious to check (let alone pay for access to) the article.

This needs wider coverage.

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

  
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2008,19:00   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Dec. 14 2008,14:13)
These IDiots can't go a single day without posting some sort of lies and deception.  Baby Jesus is gonna bawl his eyes out tonight.

This is just another example of how materialism is undermining the moral fabric of society. If it weren't for those damn Darwinists, decent Christians totally scientific cdesign proponentists wouldn't have to lie all the time.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10217
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2008,19:21   

Quote
4 Responses

1

ribczynski

12/14/2008

5:48 pm

Mario,

Where does quote #4 come from? I couldn’t find it in the article.

2

RoyK

12/14/2008

7:54 pm

Rib [1], Neither could I. Please attribute properly.

3

RoyK

12/14/2008

7:57 pm

My second sentence above is of course directed not at Rib but at Mr. Lopez.

4

RoyK

12/14/2008

8:01 pm

I’m curious where Mr. Lopez got the last quote from. It’s not from the article, as should be obvious. But most readers would have to pay for access to the full article. Why should I be generous and not simply call this post a flat-out falsehood?


Link ( functional for a limited time, I'm sure)

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2008,19:23   

Quote (Ptaylor @ Dec. 14 2008,17:21)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Dec. 14 2008,16:13)
The liars at UD are at it again.

Pretty egregious, and relying on the fact that most regulars would be too incurious to check (let alone pay for access to) the article.

This needs wider coverage.



--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2015
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2008,19:52   

Did somebody already spot this steaming bowl of tard?      
Quote
22

Mapou

12/11/2008

1:38 pm

I think that, if one were to apply Dr. Dembski’s explanatory filter to the universe itself, the latter would be seen as having been designed. Here’s my take on it:

1. Is there a law that requires huge numbers of particles (e.g., electrons) to have the exact same properties (e.g., mass, charge, spin orientations)? Answer: No.

2. Given that the number of possible properties that particles can have is infinite, is it likely that huge numbers of particles would have the exact same properties, if one assumed that the universe is a chance occurrence? Answer: No.

3. Are the properties of the particles that comprise the universe specified? Answer: Yes.

Corrollary: If the universe was designed, how plausible is it that the same intelligent agency that designed it could have just as easily designed complex lifeforms? Answer: Extremely plausible.

What are the odds?  I mean, just what are the odds that EVERY SINGLE electron IN THE UNIVERSE just happens to have EXACTLY THE SAME mass, charge, spin, etc?  How many electrons are there?  And protons and neutrons do it too!  What are the odds?  They have got to be huge!  

I'd say the odds have gotta be at least a Dembski* to 1 against.  Maybe two.  Waterloo!!!  Waterloo!!!

I just hope you unfulfilled atheists are satisfied now!  If you live west of the Mississippi, you can still make it to evening church services if you drop everything and leave right now.  Drive like your souls depended on it!  You eastern atheists, sorry, but you're just going to hell.

* In Evangelical and Reformed math, one Dembski is defined as the odds calculated against something by someone who doesn't understand the subject he's calculating.  It's a very big number, so big that its exact magnitude doesn't really matter.  For historical reasons, the term "Waterloo!!" is usually appended to the results.

--------------
...after reviewing the arguments, I’m inclined to believe that the critics of ENCODE’s bold claim were mostly right, and that the proportion of our genome which is functional is probably between 10 and 20%.  --Vincent Torley, uncommondescent.com 1/1/2016

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2008,19:57   

I believe a post like that wins you ten extra lives at UD.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
k.e..



Posts: 3824
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2008,20:27   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Dec. 15 2008,03:52)
Did somebody already spot this steaming bowl of tard?      
Quote
22

Mapou

12/11/2008

1:38 pm

I think that, if one were to apply Dr. Dembski’s explanatory filter to the universe itself, the latter would be seen as having been designed. Here’s my take on it:

1. Is there a law that requires huge numbers of particles (e.g., electrons) to have the exact same properties (e.g., mass, charge, spin orientations)? Answer: No.

2. Given that the number of possible properties that particles can have is infinite, is it likely that huge numbers of particles would have the exact same properties, if one assumed that the universe is a chance occurrence? Answer: No.

3. Are the properties of the particles that comprise the universe specified? Answer: Yes.

Corrollary: If the universe was designed, how plausible is it that the same intelligent agency that designed it could have just as easily designed complex lifeforms? Answer: Extremely plausible.

What are the odds?  I mean, just what are the odds that EVERY SINGLE electron IN THE UNIVERSE just happens to have EXACTLY THE SAME mass, charge, spin, etc?  How many electrons are there?  And protons and neutrons do it too!  What are the odds?  They have got to be huge!  

I'd say the odds have gotta be at least a Dembski* to 1 against.  Maybe two.  Waterloo!!!  Waterloo!!!

I just hope you unfulfilled atheists are satisfied now!  If you live west of the Mississippi, you can still make it to evening church services if you drop everything and leave right now.  Drive like your souls depended on it!  You eastern atheists, sorry, but you're just going to hell.

* In Evangelical and Reformed math, one Dembski is defined as the odds calculated against something by someone who doesn't understand the subject he's calculating.  It's a very big number, so big that its exact magnitude doesn't really matter.  For historical reasons, the term "Waterloo!!" is usually appended to the results.

......phffffft


“Hell is empty and all the devils are here.” William Shakespeare

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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4821
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2008,20:55   

OK, I've noted the Lopez misquote.

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

    
stevestory



Posts: 10217
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2008,21:18   

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-299979

Quote


6

AussieID

12/14/2008

9:33 pm

Mario, the way this post has been written is probably a little confusing. I concur with your throughline, but Point 4. does look as though it has been written by the author of the article, where in fact it was written by Michael Behe in an article I knew and have used in the past: “A Mousetrap Defended:
Response to Critics”. It’s online at: http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/m.....fended.htm

An addendum would suffice, I believe, to make a connection between the author of the article - Brosh - and how you hoped to entwine Behe’s summation from the article.

Just a thought for purposes of clarity …


Yes. Just a little dishonestly confusingly written is all.

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2008,21:20   

Quote (Maya @ Dec. 14 2008,18:17)
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 14 2008,16:34)
Wow. That's just a straight up fabrication. I don't even think Salvador has been that dishonest.

I did an experiment.  I only know about Sal Cordova from this board.  My hypothesis was that being a creationist and an ID proponent, he was likely to be dishonest.  I googled for 10 minutes and got these links:

Sal Cordova's Rank Dishonesty
ERV Eats Sal's Soul
Sal Cordova:  Quotemining Liar

Hypothesis confirmed!

Allow me:

Salvador Cordova, Asshole of the Year

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 1447
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2008,23:00   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 14 2008,21:20)
Quote (Maya @ Dec. 14 2008,18:17)
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 14 2008,16:34)
Wow. That's just a straight up fabrication. I don't even think Salvador has been that dishonest.

I did an experiment.  I only know about Sal Cordova from this board.  My hypothesis was that being a creationist and an ID proponent, he was likely to be dishonest.  I googled for 10 minutes and got these links:

Sal Cordova's Rank Dishonesty
ERV Eats Sal's Soul
Sal Cordova:  Quotemining Liar

Hypothesis confirmed!

Allow me:

Salvador Cordova, Asshole of the Year

Any hints at who's in contention this year?

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2008,23:16   

Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 14 2008,19:18)
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-299979

Quote


6

AussieID

12/14/2008

9:33 pm

Mario, the way this post has been written is probably a little confusing. I concur with your throughline, but Point 4. does look as though it has been written by the author of the article, where in fact it was written by Michael Behe in an article I knew and have used in the past: “A Mousetrap Defended:
Response to Critics”. It’s online at: http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/m.....fended.htm

An addendum would suffice, I believe, to make a connection between the author of the article - Brosh - and how you hoped to entwine Behe’s summation from the article.

Just a thought for purposes of clarity …


Yes. Just a little dishonestly confusingly written is all.

That's right -- Behe's quote got accidentally "entwined" in there without attribution, somehow.

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

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2154
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2008,01:05   

This reminds me of something I spotted a couple of weeks ago.  I have wandered along to ARN (can't remember why now), and about half-way down the front page saw an O'Leary Buy My Course ad:

 
Quote
A Study Course in the Intelligent Design Controversy:
By Design or by Chance?
Denyse O'Leary


By Design or by Chance? Study Guide is a lively ten-lesson study course on the growing intelligent design controversy that introduces students to a wide range of scientific topics such as biology and cosmology in the context of history and current events. The course was developed by Access Research Network (ARN) and author Denyse O’Leary based on her recent book By Design or by Chance? (ARN #B088), which has been widely praised for its clarity, even-handedness, high interest level, and use of teaching elements. As both a journalist and a textbook editor, O’Leary offers a unique background that is well suited for a course of study in intelligent design. The Study Guide is available separately, or as part of four different study kits.

Endorsements
Thanks for sending me the By Design or by Chance? Study Course.  Eye-opening quotations, impressive resource lists,engaging activities...it's a homeschooler's dream!  No wonder my 14-year-old son Leo has been unable to put thebook down (even when threatened with "no dessert")! His review? "This book is very absorbing!"  

Celeste Behe, Homeschool Teacher

(I've kept the formatting of the original).

Now, lots of fun and amusement there, but note who gives the endorsement.  Behe isn't a common name, and The Font of All Truth that is Wikipedia confirms that Michael Behe's wife is called Celeste.

(Edits: square brackets now proper, like)

--------------
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: 3824
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2008,02:40   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Dec. 15 2008,09:05)
This reminds me of something I spotted a couple of weeks ago.  I have wandered along to ARN (can't remember why now), and about half-way down the front page saw an O'Leary Buy My Course ad:

 
Quote
A Study Course in the Intelligent Design Controversy:
By Design or by Chance?
Denyse O'Leary


By Design or by Chance? Study Guide is a lively ten-lesson study course on the growing intelligent design controversy that introduces students to a wide range of scientific topics such as biology and cosmology in the context of history and current events. The course was developed by Access Research Network (ARN) and author Denyse O’Leary based on her recent book By Design or by Chance? (ARN #B088), which has been widely praised for its clarity, even-handedness, high interest level, and use of teaching elements. As both a journalist and a textbook editor, O’Leary offers a unique background that is well suited for a course of study in intelligent design. The Study Guide is available separately, or as part of four different study kits.

Endorsements
Thanks for sending me the By Design or by Chance? Study Course.  Eye-opening quotations, impressive resource lists,engaging activities...it's a homeschooler's dream!  No wonder my 14-year-old son Leo has been unable to put thebook down (even when threatened with "no dessert")! His review? "This book is very absorbing!"  

Celeste Behe, Homeschool Teacher

(I've kept the formatting of the original).

Now, lots of fun and amusement there, but note who gives the endorsement.  Behe isn't a common name, and The Font of All Truth that is Wikipedia confirms that [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe[Michael Behe's wife is called Celeste[/url].

....poor bastard.

When I was 14 I had "Monty Python's Flying Circus" in between Orwell and Huxley. And something called The Perfumed Garden a 15th century Islamic sex manual, similar to the Hindu Kama Sutra.

I hope clan Behe get to eat all the dessert they want.

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2008,06:32   

Quote (keiths @ Dec. 14 2008,23:16)
That's right -- Behe's quote got accidentally "entwined" in there without attribution, somehow.

At least they are consistent. They don't properly cite Harvard's videographers, and they don't properly cite their own village IDiot Behe.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2008,07:28   

Just me, or is UD having more technical difficulties?

EDIT: apparently just me.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Maya



Posts: 702
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2008,07:28   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 14 2008,21:20)
Quote (Maya @ Dec. 14 2008,18:17)
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 14 2008,16:34)
Wow. That's just a straight up fabrication. I don't even think Salvador has been that dishonest.

I did an experiment.  I only know about Sal Cordova from this board.  My hypothesis was that being a creationist and an ID proponent, he was likely to be dishonest.  I googled for 10 minutes and got these links:

Sal Cordova's Rank Dishonesty
ERV Eats Sal's Soul
Sal Cordova:  Quotemining Liar

Hypothesis confirmed!

Allow me:

Salvador Cordova, Asshole of the Year

After seeing me laughing while trying not to throw up after reading ERV's "cottage cheese" comment and catching me viewing Janie Belle, my roommate seems to have decided that the radius of her personal space is now double what it was before.  The sidling around on the walls is bad enough, but the jumping out of her skin every time I speak is getting to me.

Then again, it's probably just the stress of finals.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2008,08:41   

Quote
The thing is, Gil, the trad media are usually out of their depth.

That is why the blogosphere became so powerful so suddenly. For example, recently, a freelancer in the Middle East was found to have been doctoring photos for Reuters. The editor, not a photo expert, probably didn’t notice.

But the bloggers who were photoshop experts DID notice. It was their job to notice stuff like that. So they started writing about it.


http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-299989

Word on the street is that a well known ID blog was caught fabricating a quotation.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

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

Pages: (500) < ... 129 130 131 132 133 [134] 135 136 137 138 139 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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