RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (500) < ... 133 134 135 136 137 [138] 139 140 141 142 143 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 2, general discussion of Dembski's site< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
J-Dog



Posts: 4360
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2008,19:25   

Quote (bystander @ Dec. 16 2008,19:03)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 17 2008,10:11)
I think they are realising that if they let the light in just a little bit it still makes them look like fools as even a little, moderated light still exposes their often idiotic and undefendable positions. Exposing the shallowness of their reading and thinking by input from outside their little circle jerk they got going on just makes them look fools on a daily basis. As documented here ;)

How long till UncommonDescent goes "comments off" like almost every other ID blog out there.

Ever wonder why http://www.evolutionnews.org/ is read only Barry? I think you are finding out why.

Davescot appeared to have the right idea, at least as far as protecting the public image of ID on UD goes.  Let the harmless lunatics like BA77 and KF witter on, shielded from rational thought. Keep everybody else on a tight leash, lots of bannations. Allow a token evilutionist or two to make their case. As the Dr Dr never really engaged in dialogue with his critics, even on his own blog, it mattered not.

They bring DaveScot back with his old rules (hi Dave!) 20/1
They just turn comments off 15/1
The close the whole thing down 100/1
Barry has a nervous breakdown 10/1

I don't think they will close it down as it might sell odd book or two still. And at this point it's basically about $$$.

1/1 As the interesting contributors get banned, interest in UD will disappear and we'll be back to bad Mother jokes.


If we keep making jokes about Louis' and his mother, someone is going to notice, and then we'll all really be in trouble...




--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1468
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2008,21:32   

Apollo230 brings the tard.

 
Quote
Pasteur researched the origin of life. His research question was: did life come from inert matter, or from prior life? His answer was the latter.

Now origin-of-life researchers come along and say, that life did indeed come from dead matter. Something about Pasteur’s blunt and clear verdict seems to elude them.


Gee, Pasteur came to his conclusion in 1864.  It's now almost 2009.  Do you think there's any chance science has made any progress on understanding the issue in the last 145 years?  :p

--------------
JoeG: And by eating the cake you are consuming the information- some stays with you and the rest is waste.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1468
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2008,21:44   

Man, UD has been a veritable volcano of stupidity the last week.  First we had beavers, then we had Lopez' dishonest misquote, then we had multiple banninations.  Now we've got Fundy wingnut Ray "rayray" Martinez going at it hammer and tong with IDiot refrigerator repairman Joe Gallien.

Quote
Joseph:

“It is very rude to come to a discussion with only red herrings and strawmen to offer.”

You are ignorant, unable to refute. This explains your angry comment, gross misrepresentation of my message. Anyone can scroll back and see that my post was quality.

Ray


Quote
Joseph:

“Again the debate is NOT ‘natural’ vs ’supernatural’, it is ‘undirected’ vs ‘directed’.

“Directed” implies and corresponds to Director (= supernatural, God).

“Undirected” implies and corresponds to unguided material forces (= Materialism, Atheism, non-existence of God, supernatural). This is why all Atheists are Darwinists.

But you have admitted ignorance concerning Philosophy, upthread.

Ray


TARD FIGHT!

Good times!  
:D

--------------
JoeG: And by eating the cake you are consuming the information- some stays with you and the rest is waste.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2008,21:47   

Quote (bystander @ Dec. 16 2008,17:03)
As the interesting contributors get banned, interest in UD will disappear and we'll be back to bad Mother jokes.

You say that like it's a bad thing...

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2008,21:48   

these idiots persistently fail to ignore the nuances of the english language, scientific epistemology, argument from analogy and the semantics of functional explanation.  

for instance, Pasteur did not ask "Does life come from prior life".  He asked "do i get shit growing in this flask that might be seeded from the air?  Hmmm fuck I'll try boiling it too, that might kill what is in there so i have a control".  

then what does this idiot do but run out and claim that showing that bacteria fly around in the air like little fucking spaceships (how is that for analogy Mr Creationist do you prefer tiny angels with lasers on their heads) DISPROVES EVILUTION

that's the good shit O.A.  thanks for the lift

ETA rofl anyone can look and see that my post was quality.  oh man

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 2840
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2008,23:07   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Dec. 17 2008,05:44)
Man, UD has been a veritable volcano of stupidity the last week.  First we had beavers, then we had Lopez' dishonest misquote, then we had multiple banninations.  Now we've got Fundy wingnut Ray "rayray" Martinez going at it hammer and tong with IDiot refrigerator repairman Joe Gallien.

     
Quote
Joseph:

“It is very rude to come to a discussion with only red herrings and strawmen to offer.”

You are ignorant, unable to refute. This explains your angry comment, gross misrepresentation of my message. Anyone can scroll back and see that my post was quality.

Ray


     
Quote
Joseph:

“Again the debate is NOT ‘natural’ vs ’supernatural’, it is ‘undirected’ vs ‘directed’.

“Directed” implies and corresponds to Director (= supernatural, God).

“Undirected” implies and corresponds to unguided material forces (= Materialism, Atheism, non-existence of God, supernatural). This is why all Atheists are Darwinists.

But you have admitted ignorance concerning Philosophy, upthread.

Ray


TARD FIGHT!

Good times!  
:D

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The word "Supernatural" used around 54 x in 25 posts by 15 avatars.

ALL SCIENCE SO FAR.


....and they can't all decide what is/isn't g$d ...ooops ...er designer

...now where was I?

...Oh that's right they can't all decide what is/isn't SUPERNATURAL!!!

One thing they are all sure of though GODDIDIT ....or hrmmm super secret Aliens...do we still have to say that?

...NO,.... YOU DON'T HAVE TO SAY ALIENS ANYMORE CREOTARDS BECOZ THAT LOST IN DOVER....REMEMBER?


Just how thick is DonaldM?



   
Quote
The January issue of Scientific American is focused entirely on the Evolution of Evolution.
<blah ><blah>
.... the article laments the fact that Science still has to deal with “creationism”…the favored term over Intelligent Design for purely pejorative reasons.



WELL FUCK ME "Intelligent Design" IS NOT Creationism?????

I'm stunned ...

Let me check what THE LEGAL DEFINITION IN THE USofA  for "Intelligent Design" ACTUALLY IS?

From the wiki KvD page On 20 December 2005, Judge Jones found for the plaintiffs and issued a 139 page decision, in which he wrote:


   
Quote
"For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child" (page 24)
 
Quote

"A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants’ protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." (page 26)
 
Quote

"The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism" (page 31)
 
Quote

"The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." (page 43)
 
Quote

"Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not “teaching” ID but instead is merely “making students aware of it.” In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members’ testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree." (footnote 7 on page 46)
 
Quote

"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community." (page 64)
 
Quote

"[T]he one textbook [Pandas] to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case." (pages 86–87)
 
Quote

"ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID." (page 89)
 
Quote

"Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause." (page 132)


YES THAT'S RIGHT Supernatural (...or not if you so choose) ID Creationist dickwads THE LEGAL DEFINITION is thus  "The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism"

All you Supernatural (...or not if you so choose) ID, Creationist ,dickwads have to do is get up another scopes trial to get the LEGAL DEFINITION CHANGED or APPEAL ....please ...please .....please appeal .....make my day.

It's obvious to any adult or child.....guffaw

ETA ..and if you dumb UD bastards, Barry in particular ran an open shop I could post ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; will have to be tested in a court OF LAW to have that FACT changed.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2008,23:22   

Clive sounds like some other idiot we know...

Quote
Yes, the mind is magical, but so is the brain. Everything is magical, and a scientific description of the parts doesn’t persuade us that the magic is gone or that it never existed in the first place. Something out of nothing is magical, and that is exactly what modern cosmology would have us believe. This is no different than the rabbit from the hat. The fact that the cosmos exists at all is magical.


then he regurgitates whole chunk undigested GK Chesterton.  which is pure tard.

"why do eggs turn into chickens?  M-A-G-I-C-K"

Quote
All the terms used in the science books, “law,” “necessity,” “order,” “tendency,” and so on, are really unintellectual, because they assume an inner synthesis, which we do not possess. The only words that ever satisfied me as describing Nature are the terms used in the fairy books, “charm,” “spell,” “enchantment.” They express the arbitrariness of the fact and its mystery.

I deny altogether that this is fantastic or even mystical.


of course you do of course you do.  antirealist twat.

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 2840
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2008,23:40   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Dec. 17 2008,07:22)
Clive sounds like some other idiot we know...

 
Quote
Yes, the mind is magical, but so is the brain. Everything is magical, and a scientific description of the parts doesn’t persuade us that the magic is gone or that it never existed in the first place. Something out of nothing is magical, and that is exactly what modern cosmology would have us believe. This is no different than the rabbit from the hat. The fact that the cosmos exists at all is magical.


then he regurgitates whole chunk undigested GK Chesterton.  which is pure tard.

"why do eggs turn into chickens?  M-A-G-I-C-K"

Quote
All the terms used in the science books, “law,” “necessity,” “order,” “tendency,” and so on, are really unintellectual, because they assume an inner synthesis, which we do not possess. The only words that ever satisfied me as describing Nature are the terms used in the fairy books, “charm,” “spell,” “enchantment.” They express the arbitrariness of the fact and its mystery.

I deny altogether that this is fantastic or even mystical.


of course you do of course you do.  antirealist twat.

pffffft....M-A-J-I-K?

turn this into an egg science boy!






--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2008,00:07   

well ok but i require a tube of vaseline a weedeater and a small jar of peach preserves.  you might say it's part of the 'spell'.

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

  
keiths



Posts: 2040
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2008,02:06   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 16 2008,21:22)
Clive sounds like some other idiot we know...
then he regurgitates whole chunk undigested GK Chesterton.  which is pure tard.

Clive belongs to that smarmy subclass of believers who go around quoting Chesterton and C.S. Lewis like Holy Writ.

Extreme illness calls for extreme treatment.  I prescribe solitary confinement with a forced diet of Burroughs and Bukowski.  Once that has had the desired effect, we can begin to introduce him gradually to the reality-based world.

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

  
keiths



Posts: 2040
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2008,02:34   

I replied to KF's claims for his pet concept of "FSCI":
Quote
kairosfocus,

If FSCI is a subset of CSI, as you say, then it suffers from the same fatal flaws as CSI:

1. To say that physical causes (which you mischaracterize as "lucky noise") could not produce something containing CSI or FSCI is a mere tautology, since they are defined in terms of the improbability of their production by physical means.

2. Even if the logic weren't inherently circular, you'd still have the problem of being unable to compute (or even accurately estimate) CSI and FSCI for biological structures, as you showed by failing to answer Mike's question.

Narrowing the focus to a subset of CSI does nothing to address the flaws that pervade the concept of CSI in the first place.


ETA: My comment was deleted, of course.

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

  
olegt



Posts: 1378
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2008,06:10   

gpuccio expounds the generation of CSI by mind:
Quote
I believe that there is a “mental” step where CSI is already formed as mental, formal processes. Maybe that level is already material (brain processes), maybe not. That’s not the important point.

The important point is that even that “mental” CSI is certainly formal and complex, so it demands some explanation in terms of causality, even if that explanation may well go beyond what we presently understand about the physical world.

But in the end, we always come to the main question: where does the complexity, the form, come from? Is Dawkins right in speaking of infinite causal regress?

No, he isn’t. Because we can find here an “uncaused cause”, and that is consciousness itself: the undeniable existence of a transcendental I who perceives, wills, and is essentially simple. Indeed, that “I” is the unifying simplicity underlying all human conscious processes.

Is that simple “I” the origin of CSI? I do believe that. I do believe that the origin of CSI is intuitive, and not rational. It is a direct perception, and not a deduction or inference. Or at least, let’s say that the “seed” of CSI is intuitive. There is certainly a “processing” of CSI which is mental, but that is probably more a reshuffling than a true ex novo generation.

So, in my view, CSI is the product of the mental reshuffling of continuous transcendental intuitions of the conscious I. That’s what makes humans capable of generating new CSI, while computers are not. Computers are simply not conscious. They have no transcendental I. They are merely objects, and not subjects.

I suppose TARD is a form of CSI.

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 2840
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2008,06:29   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 17 2008,08:07)
well ok but i require a tube of vaseline a weedeater and a small jar of peach preserves.  you might say it's part of the 'spell'.

You're a slippery character.

Nothin up ur sleeves huh?

A friggin weedeater?

OK I'll buy it...... but preserved peaches ...hrmmm a small can...... grrrrr bastard!!!, ok I'll buy that too. <snifF>

I'm working on it... OK?

Jeez, what does a guy have 2 do?

ALRIGHTY THEN OUTA MY WAY HOMO, I'm off to Cameroon (true) SUCK THAT DOWN!

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
JonF



Posts: 571
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2008,06:50   

Quote (k.e.. @ Dec. 17 2008,00:07)
Let me check what THE LEGAL DEFINITION IN THE USofA  for "Intelligent Design" ACTUALLY IS?

Er ... that's the legal definition in Pennsylvania.

  
k.e..



Posts: 2840
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2008,07:06   

Quote (JonF @ Dec. 17 2008,14:50)
Quote (k.e.. @ Dec. 17 2008,00:07)
Let me check what THE LEGAL DEFINITION IN THE USofA  for "Intelligent Design" ACTUALLY IS?

Er ... that's the legal definition in Pennsylvania.

Oh....ooops!

..ke.. checks wall of case law .      .ffffaaaaarrrrrrkkkk IT"S DE U S of A.



fcuk aren't u glad I'm as good as the Thomas Moore Law Centre.

Where no monkey ever practised......?

Thanks for that fact.

So not admissable in say Texas?

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
Lowell



Posts: 101
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2008,10:07   

Quote (k.e.. @ Dec. 17 2008,00:07)

So not admissable in say Texas?

Well, it's not a matter of admissibility (that has to do with rules of evidence). It's that the Kitzmiller decision is technically not controlling anywhere outside of the middle district of Pennsylvania. No other court is bound to follow it.

That said, any court dealing with ID in the future would have to at least consider the Kitzmiller decision. A court that wants to disagree with it would have to come up with some damn good reasons not to follow it in order to avoid reversal on appeal.

--------------
The resurrection of Jesus Christ is one of the most well documented events of antiquity. Barry Arrington, Jan 17, 2012.

  
keiths



Posts: 2040
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2008,10:35   

Dembski supplies today's ethics meltdown.  On the Scientific American thread, he repeats a lie from over eight years ago:
Quote
When Dan Dennett talked about quarantining parents who prevent their children from properly learning evolution, he wasn’t kidding. A free society demands that we be quarantined!

My response, which is stuck in moderation, of course:
Quote
I'm surprised to see Bill Dembski repeating his false claim about Dan Dennett, considering the trouble it caused him last time, and considering that Dennett himself wrote to Dembski, correcting him:
Quote
As Dennett in a private communication has made clear to me, he does not recommend quarantining parents who teach their children to doubt Darwin's theory and takes exception to anyone who attributes as much to him.

What Dennett actually wrote:
Quote
There is certainly a treasury of ill-appreciated truths embedded in the endangered cultures of the modern world, designs that have accumulated details over eons of idiosyncratic history, and we should take steps to record it, and study it, before it disappears, for, like dinosaur genomes, once it is gone, it will be virtually impossible to recover.

We should not expect this variety of respect to be satisfactory to those who wholeheartedly embody the memes we honor with our attentive -- but not worshipful -- scholarship.  On the contrary, many of them will view anything other than enthusiastic conversion to their own views as a threat, even an intolerable threat.  We must not underestimate the suffering such confrontations cause.  To watch, to have to participate in, the contraction or evaporation of beloved features of one's heritage is a pain only our species can experience, and surely few pains could be more terrible.  But we have no reasonable alternative, and those whose visions dictate that they cannot peacefully coexist with the rest of us we will have to quarantine as best we can, minimizing the pain and damage, trying always to leave open a path or two that may come to seem acceptable.

If you want to teach your children that they are the tools of God, you had better not teach them that they are God's rifles, or we will have to stand firmly opposed to you:  your doctrine has no glory, no special rights, no intrinsic and inalienable merit.  If you insist on teaching your children falsehoods -- that the Earth is flat, that "Man" is not a product of evolution by natural selection -- then you must expect, at the very least, that those of us who have freedom of speech will feel free to describe your teachings as the spreading of falsehoods, and will attempt to demonstrate this to your children at our earliest opportunity.  Our future well-being -- the well-being of all of us on the planet -- depends on the education of our descendants.


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

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1468
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2008,10:48   

Andrew Sibley keeps the stupidity flowing

 
Quote
"An interesting book by Peter Harrison, (The Bible Protestantism and Natural Science) has shown that science developed in the west because of a commitment to truth as a result of the Protestant Reformation. Christians are thus the guardians of truth in science, not enemies of science."




 
Quote
"Evolution needs challenging on logical grounds, for the sake of science, and should not be accepted on the basis of blind trust."


Agreed.  That's why your IDiot illogical religion base challenges keep getting ignored, and why ToE is accepted not on blind trust but on the millions of pieces of consilient scientific evidence.

--------------
JoeG: And by eating the cake you are consuming the information- some stays with you and the rest is waste.

  
Skullboy



Posts: 24
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2008,10:50   

Reciprocating Bill should enjoy this one:

Quote

Those of us who have bothered to look at evolution in depth and noted the scientific problems, paradoxes and oxymoron’s...

From here

The guy has two other plurals in the very same list, but by the third one, the dumb is just too strong and he just has to throw in an apostrophe.

What is a scientific oxymoron anyway?

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4360
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2008,11:00   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Dec. 17 2008,10:48)
Andrew Sibley keeps the stupidity flowing

   
Quote
"An interesting book by Peter Harrison, (The Bible Protestantism and Natural Science) has shown that science developed in the west because of a commitment to truth as a result of the Protestant Reformation. Christians are thus the guardians of truth in science, not enemies of science."




   
Quote
"Evolution needs challenging on logical grounds, for the sake of science, and should not be accepted on the basis of blind trust."


Agreed.  That's why your IDiot illogical religion base challenges keep getting ignored, and why ToE is accepted not on blind trust but on the millions of pieces of consilient scientific evidence.

That's a great picture of DaveScot defendin' our motor pool.

I like the Andrew Sibley link in the comments section to the other idiot poster on the thread - nice name btw - recommending they go to the a creation website on how to deal with teaching ID!

That will look very nice in court - even in TX!

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2008,11:19   

JackInhofe wants parenting advice from WmAD:  
Quote

Dr. Dembski,
Yes, I agree 1,000%, but what are we to do then?
My wife and I do not have the ability to home-school our kids, and sending them to public school virtually guarantees that they become indoctrinated into Darwinism. What do you recommend for those of us that see thing differently, and with a good Christian world-view?
Should we try to locate ID advocates to teach our kids after Sunday School? What are YOU doing to make sure your kids are brought up right?
I am rather new here, although I have been trying to read back to earlier posts, so I would be extremely interested in hearing about what some of you regular contributors are doing about this?

In other, strangely related news, I'm really enjoying Frank Schaffer's Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back.

--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4234
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2008,11:20   

Quote (keiths @ Dec. 17 2008,11:35)
Dembski supplies today's ethics meltdown.  On the Scientific American thread, he repeats a lie from over eight years ago:
 
Quote
When Dan Dennett talked about quarantining parents who prevent their children from properly learning evolution, he wasn’t kidding. A free society demands that we be quarantined!

This damn thing again! Jesus.

My comment from the original UD thread, posted on 7/21/07:

WAD, quoted by Wesley:
Quote
The public need feel no shame at disbelieving and openly criticizing Darwinism...Daniel Dennett even recommends "quarantining" parents who teach their children to doubt Darwinism (see the end of his Darwin's Dangerous Idea).

Is WAD's report accurate?  Did Daniel Dennett recommend, in Darwin's Dangerous Idea, that we quarantine parents who teach their children to doubt Darwinism?  Let's go to the original, and you can decide for yourself.

The passage to which he refers is found on page 519. In a discussion that continues from the bottom of page 518, Dennett acknowledges that religions have brought "comfort and belonging and companionship" to many people, and that "at their best, religions have drawn attention to love, and made it real for people who could not otherwise see it, and ennobled the attitudes and refreshed the spirits of the world-beset." He further observed that there is a "treasury of ill-appreciated truths embedded in the endangered cultures of the modern world," truths that should be recorded, studied, and respected.  He continues:
         
 
Quote
We should not expect this variety of respect to be satisfactory to those who wholeheartedly embody the memes we honor with our attentive - but not worshipful - scholarship. On the contrary, many of them will view anything other than enthusiastic conversion to their own views as a threat, even an intolerable threat. We must not underestimate the suffering such confrontations cause.  To watch, to have to participate in, the contraction or evaporation of beloved feature of one's heritage is a pain only our species can experience, and surely few pains could be more terrible.  But we have no reasonable alternative, and those whose visions dictate that they cannot peacefully coexist with the rest of us we will have to quarantine as best we can, minimizing the pain and damage, trying always to leave open a path or two that may come to seem acceptable.


Those who cannot peacefully coexist as science evaporates the factual claims of particular religious views, and hence (by implication) become violent, will need to be "quarantined" in a manner that minimizes pain and damage and leaves pathways for compromise. He continues:
         
 
Quote
If you want to teach your children that they are the tools of God, you had better not teach them that they are God's rifles, or we will have to stand firmly opposed to you: your doctrine has no glory, no special rights, no intrinsic and inalienable merit. If you insist on teaching your children falsehoods - that the earth is flat, that "Man" is not a product of evolution by natural selection - then you must expect, at the very least, that those of us who have freedom of speech will feel free to describe your teachings as the spreading of falsehoods, and will attempt to demonstrate this to your children at our earliest opportunity.  Our future well-being - the well-being of all of us on the planet - depends upon the education of our descendants.


Parents who teach their children falsehoods about the world should expect those falsehoods to be exposed as such, and expect that their children will be informed that they are falsehoods.

WAD dishonest? Nah. Couldn't be.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1468
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2008,11:34   

Quote (J-Dog @ Dec. 17 2008,11:00)
I like the Andrew Sibley link in the comments section to the other idiot poster on the thread - nice name btw - recommending they go to the a creation website on how to deal with teaching ID!

That will look very nice in court - even in TX!


LOL!  Yeah, it needs to be reproduced here

   
Quote
There are some useful resources on the web from both the ID and creation community, including the excellent CMI Journal (JoC) and Creation magazine from [URL=http://www.creationontheweb.com"]


Even though we know ID has nothing to do with Creationism or religion  ;)  the IDiots try and try, but they just can't help talking about their OdGay.

--------------
JoeG: And by eating the cake you are consuming the information- some stays with you and the rest is waste.

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4360
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2008,11:35   

Quote (Hermagoras @ Dec. 17 2008,11:19)
JackInhofe wants parenting advice from WmAD:  
Quote

Dr. Dembski,
Yes, I agree 1,000%, but what are we to do then?
My wife and I do not have the ability to home-school our kids, and sending them to public school virtually guarantees that they become indoctrinated into Darwinism. What do you recommend for those of us that see thing differently, and with a good Christian world-view?
Should we try to locate ID advocates to teach our kids after Sunday School? What are YOU doing to make sure your kids are brought up right?
I am rather new here, although I have been trying to read back to earlier posts, so I would be extremely interested in hearing about what some of you regular contributors are doing about this?

In other, strangely related news, I'm really enjoying Frank Schaffer's Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back.

It could be very interesting if new poster and god-speaker Jack ever reads that book that you recommended. :)

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Maya



Posts: 702
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2008,11:57   

Quote (Hermagoras @ Dec. 17 2008,11:19)
JackInhofe wants parenting advice from WmAD:

Borne writes:
Quote
JackInhofe: Totally understand where you’re coming from.

Is there a Michael Hunt here?  Has anyone seen Mike . . . .

Best nym ever.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2008,11:59   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Dec. 17 2008,11:34)
 
Even though we know ID has nothing to do with Creationism or religion  ;)  the IDiots try and try, but they just can't help talking about their OdGay.

Even their designated political rubes have not been able to disguise their roots. TX State Board of Education member Ken Mercer, in an opinion piece in the San Antonio Express News, tells us that "scientific weaknesses" in evolution need to be discussed. What "scientific" reason does he give? Here 'tis (emphasis added)    
Quote
Most people of faith agree with what is commonly referred to as “micro” evolution,” small changes that are clearly visible. We see this in new vaccines and new strains of flu. You can witness evidence of microevolution downtown in any city via the thousands of varieties of stray dogs and cats.


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

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4360
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2008,12:01   

Quote (Maya @ Dec. 17 2008,11:57)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Dec. 17 2008,11:19)
JackInhofe wants parenting advice from WmAD:

Borne writes:  
Quote
JackInhofe: Totally understand where you’re coming from.

Is there a Michael Hunt here?  Has anyone seen Mike . . . .

Best nym ever.

Mike Hunt?  Yeah - He just went shopping for a new Bible with his best friend Haywood Jablowme.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Maya



Posts: 702
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2008,12:05   

Quote (J-Dog @ Dec. 17 2008,12:01)

Something about understanding where Jack Inhofe was coming from tickled my inner pervert.

  
keiths



Posts: 2040
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2008,12:17   

Quote (Maya @ Dec. 17 2008,09:57)
 
Quote (Hermagoras @ Dec. 17 2008,11:19)
JackInhofe wants parenting advice from WmAD:

Borne writes:    
Quote
JackInhofe: Totally understand where you’re coming from.

Is there a Michael Hunt here?  Has anyone seen Mike . . . .

Best nym ever.

I'm waiting for JackInhofe to start working on Mike Kratch.

I especially enjoyed seeing Granville Sewell earnestly addressing his Kratch:
Quote
Mike Kratch,

I wasn’t thinking of political ads, I’m talking about what makes the “news” broadcasts, and (especially) what doesn’t make it because it doesn’t support the broadcaster’s view.


--------------
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: 2594
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2008,12:18   

Quote
gpuccio: The fact is that the causal engine in darwinian theory is, by definition, a process of random variation. It is not so important to know exactly which probability distribution we apply. We assume the uniform distribution because it is the most reasonable approximation. But, whatever distribution we assume, the search remains a random search.

No, an evolutionary search is not a random search of the entire landscape, but a random search of spaces nearby to existing sequences. This highly constrains the possible trajectories.

But perhaps we are misunderstanding what gpuccio means. He resolves the confusion.

Quote
gpuccio: Here you make a lot of confusion. First of all, again, here the problem is not the distribution. A uniform distribution in the search space of a protein just means that all sequences have a similar probability to occur.

That is exactly wrong. With an evolutionary algorithm, the vast majority of sequences will never be tested. They have near-zero probability.

--------------
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

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

Pages: (500) < ... 133 134 135 136 137 [138] 139 140 141 142 143 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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