RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (500) < ... 149 150 151 152 153 [154] 155 156 157 158 159 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 2, general discussion of Dembski's site< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
lkeithlu



Posts: 321
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2009,19:36   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 02 2009,14:25)
[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/brownian-motion-reynolds-number-supersonic-flight-and-the-danger-of-mindless-extrapolation


/#comment-301221]bFast[/URL]  
Quote
The    fundimental    challenge that the ID community offers is that we are requiring a paradyme change. The closest that physics has come to needing a paradyme change has been with the big bang. The bang faced fierce resistance until a couple of naturalistic theories (big crunch, and multiverse) allowed the big bang to be viewed within a naturalistic context — who cares how poorly.

I guess physicists had to make do with paradigm shifts.  Poor dears, if only they'd known they had been doing it wrong all these years.



...fundimental?

fundi  mental?

Freudian slip?

  
Amadan



Posts: 1240
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2009,19:44   

Quote (jeffox @ Jan. 02 2009,19:20)
Don't forget:

5.  Thou shalt make a joyous noise unto the tard!

:)   :p

That is not a valid premise as it assumes its conclusions.

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
steve_h



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2009,20:17   

Quote
The ID movement is ‘dying’ if you view it as, say, an attempt to get specific ID ideas taught in public schools. If you view it as the development of a broad variety of ideas about illustrating design or the activity of intelligence within/behind nature, then it’s only growing and diversifying.
Nowhere is this more apparent than at UD itself.  First, it was about Dembski trying to sell his books, then it grew to Dembski and friends trying to sell Dembski's books and now it's an entire community of like-minded engineers, all trying to sell Dembski's books as a non-profit (with maybe one exception) organisation.

  
jeffox



Posts: 528
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2009,23:12   

Amadan wrote:

Quote
Quote
(jeffox @ Jan. 02 2009,19:20)
Don't forget:

5.  Thou shalt make a joyous noise unto the tard!

:)   :p

That is not a valid premise as it assumes its conclusions.


(Looks both ways)  Well, ummm, uhhhh, yeah!   ;)   :)   :)

  
Aardvark



Posts: 134
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2009,03:28   

From O'Leary's latest.

Quote
Neuroplasticity makes way more sense if your immaterial mind is real and directs your brain.


How?  Can anyone explain this?

  
keiths



Posts: 2040
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2009,04:08   

Quote (Aardvark @ Jan. 03 2009,01:28)
From O'Leary's latest.
Quote
Neuroplasticity makes way more sense if your immaterial mind is real and directs your brain.

How?  Can anyone explain this?

Who knows?  This is Denyse we're talking about, after all. My best guess is that she thinks that a purely physical brain would be inflexible, with a permanent, fixed mapping of functions to neurons.  For her, there has to be something outside the brain telling it to remap a function to a different set of neurons.

I think she's so entrenched in her dualism that she literally cannot understand materialist arguments.  They make no sense to her because she approaches them (unwittingly) with dualist assumptions that she cannot suspend, even for a moment, for the sake of understanding the materialist position.

--------------
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: Jan. 03 2009,04:14   

Looks like AtBC has gotten under Matteo's skin:
Quote
6

Matteo

01/02/2009

10:19 pm

But extrapolation is so easy and fun!

Let’s call the evident flatness of a table top or a farmer’s field microflatearthism. Isn’t it then just a simple extrapolation (and also self-evident to anyone who isn’t a moron) that macroflatearthism must also trivially be the case?

Why, yes, I think it is! In fact, the whole bogus distinction between microflatearthism and macroflatearthism is just something invented by the roundtards and spheridiots! [emphasis mine]


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

  
Ignatious



Posts: 5
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2009,06:21   

I admit it. I'm totally a roundtard.

It's like a weight has been lifted...

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2594
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2009,08:13   

Quote
GilDodgen: The “evolutionary strategies” to which you refer are simple trial-and-error algorithms that have a well-defined goal, and carefully crafted code that supplies well-defined heuristics which ensure that successive approximations to the goal can be reached with the computational resources in a reasonable amount of time.

This is the exact antithesis of the Darwinian mechanism in biology at every step:

1) The algorithm is designed with foreknowledge of a goal.

Not all evolutionary algorithms have a singular goal. Evolutionary algorithms are quite adept at traversing complex and multivariate landscapes, with diverging populations exploring different areas of the landscape.

Quote
GilDodgen: 2) The code is designed and optimized by computer programmers.

Of course a computer model is designed by programmers. That's the whole point! Scientists carefully collect data and determine their interactions in order to simulate them with the computer.

GilDodgen is still having troubles with understanding the distinction between a model or abstract interpretation, and the thing being modeled. Considering how he was embarrassed by this previously, it would behoove him to try and grasp the concept.

Quote
GilDodgen: 3) The hardware on which the code runs is designed.

A computer modeling weather doesn't have to be out in the snow to accurately simulate a winter storm.



Quote
GilDodgen: 4) The intermediate goals are predefined and contrived to be within the reach of the search strategy at every step. The intermediate goals are also given scores to evaluate the closeness to the goal numerically.

If the intermediate scores were related to some future goal and not to current fitness, then this is a valid objection. But evolutionary algorithms do not require this sort of foresighted intervention.

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

   
Zachriel



Posts: 2594
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2009,08:53   

Quote
O'Leary: do not feed the trolls. Trolls grow and multiply when we feed them, so we don’t do that.

O'Leary then proceeds to feed the trolls.

Quote
O'Leary: Message to would-be troll: There are worse people out there than you. Better you don’t meet them. No one can be responsible for what happens after that.

Vain threats are tasty treats for trolls.

Quote
O'Leary: We welcome serious discussion with people who disagree with us

No you don't.

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

   
RupertG



Posts: 80
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2009,09:05   

GilDodgen hasn't actually replied to any of the comments in UD that point out his misunderstanding of how modelling works, has he? It's as if they just don't exist... perhaps they don't fit his model. Certainly, everything he's written subsequently confirms the analysis someone made earlier that he's completely missed the point - and, perhaps, belongs in that class of people who are unable to work with that sort of abstraction.

I've always wanted a straight answer (hah) to the observation that, if the creationists are right and no computer model of evolution can do anything other than prove intelligence is needed, what the successful weather and ecological modelling systems prove? Seems to me that if they had the confidence of their arguments, they'd be saying how this proves that only God knows from whence the wind comes, and counts the fall of each sparrow.

--------------
Uncle Joe and Aunty Mabel
Fainted at the breakfast table
Children, let this be a warning
Never do it in the morning -- Ralph Vaughan Williams

  
steve_h



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2009,09:10   

Quote (Aardvark @ Jan. 03 2009,09:28)
From O'Leary's latest.

     
Quote
Neuroplasticity makes way more sense if your immaterial mind is real and directs your brain.


How?  Can anyone explain this?

It's quite simple.  Your brain can't know everything about itself, that would create a paradox: it would also have to know how it can know that.  

When you learn a new fact, your brain would have to know which new connections to forge in order to encode that fact.  That would entail your brain being aware of all of its own wiring, which it can't even see.

Obviously, some outside agency is required. Your mind skilfully observes your brain and knows exactly how to manipulate it to achieve any desired effect. And it does this without you being aware that it knows it.

Er, yes, that's it. There's a hind-mind which knows all about brain circuitry but isn't part of your consciousness, and a fore-mind which is your consciousness but  knows sod all about brains (Unless you watched "The Man with Two Brains", in which case it may know that they are incredibly slimy).

Read about it in my new book "The Spatula Fore-Mind"

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4234
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2009,09:43   

Quote (keiths @ Jan. 03 2009,05:08)
           
Quote (Aardvark @ Jan. 03 2009,01:28)
From O'Leary's latest.
           
Quote
Neuroplasticity makes way more sense if your immaterial mind is real and directs your brain.

How?  Can anyone explain this?

Who knows?  This is Denyse we're talking about, after all. My best guess is that she thinks that a purely physical brain would be inflexible, with a permanent, fixed mapping of functions to neurons.  For her, there has to be something outside the brain telling it to remap a function to a different set of neurons.

I think she's so entrenched in her dualism that she literally cannot understand materialist arguments.  They make no sense to her because she approaches them (unwittingly) with dualist assumptions that she cannot suspend, even for a moment, for the sake of understanding the materialist position.

Denyse's treatment in The Spatula Brain is brief and provides no guidance on this question:
           
Quote
A central dogma of early neuroscience was that the neurons of the adult brain do not change. However, modern neuroscience now recognizes that the brain can reorganize (this reorganization is called "neuroplasticity") throughout life, not only in early childhood. Our brains rewire to create new connections, set out on new paths, and assume new roles.

One outcome of the discovery of neuroplasticity was a reasonable explanation for the puzzling "phantom limb" syndrome. From the mid-nineteenth century onward, physicians have written - very cautiously to be sure - about the fact that amputees sometimes feel pain in a limb that no longer exists. The conventional suspicion was that either the doctor misinterpreted the symptoms or the amputee was seeking attention. However, V. S. Ramachandran showed that neurons that once received input from a vanished hand could rewire themselves to report input from the face. If an amputee's brain has not changed its mental map of the body after the amputation, she will experience those feelings as if they cam from her vanished hand (p. 103).

That is her entire treatment of neuroplasticity in The Spatula Brain. She provides no hint why it follows from the discovery that adult brains change more than originally believed - in response to other physical changes such as deafferentiation due to an amputation - that brain tissue is being pushed around by a detachable ghost as it functionally reorganizes. The actual rhetorical intent of this brief passage is instead to paint "materialist neuroscience" with the brush of "dogmatism":
           
Quote
Overall, the few traditional simplicities in neuroscience are vanishing. The brain turns out to be more like an ocean than a clockwork (p. 103).


It is always interesting to return to the literature when considering Denyse's writing. Ramachandran has posted his 1998 review from Brain, "The perception of phantom limbs: The D.O. Hebb lecture."

Denyse: "From the mid-nineteenth century onward, physicians have written - very cautiously to be sure - about the fact that amputees sometimes feel pain in a limb that no longer exists." (Note the specious insertion of the "persecution" theme so essential to her worldview.)

Ramachandran: "Phantom limbs were probably known since antiquity and, not surprisingly, there is an elaborate folklore surrounding them. After Lord Nelson lost his right arm during an unsuccessful attack on Santa Cruz de Tenerife, he experienced compelling phantom limb pains, including the sensation of fingers digging into his phantom palm. The emergence of these ghostly sensations led the sea lord to proclaim that his phantom was a 'direct proof of the existence of the soul.' If an arm can survive physical annihilation, why not the entire person?

Since the time of Mitchell's (1872) original description, there have been literally hundreds of fascinating clinical case reports of phantom limbs. However, there has been a tendency to regard the syndrome as a clinical curiosity, and very little experimental work has been done on it."

Denyse: "neurons that once received input from a vanished hand could rewire themselves to report input from the face."

Ramachandran: "We suggest that the phantom limb experience depends on integrating experiences from at least five different sources: (i) from the stump neurons, as taught by the old textbooks; (ii) from remapping, e.g. the spontaneous activity from the face is ascribed to the phantom: (iii) the monitoring of corollary discharge from motor commands to the the limb; (iv) a primordial, genetically determined, internal 'image' of one's body; and (v) vivid somatic memories of painful sensations or posture of the original limb being 'carried' over the the phantom. Ordinarily these five factors conspire to reinforce each other but in individual patients there may be discrepancies that modify the clinical picture."

Denyse's position hasn't moved much beyond that proclaimed by Lord Nelson after loosing a limb in 1797. So for much attending to the medical and experimental work done since then. And judge for yourselves who is trading in "simplicities."

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

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2594
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2009,10:27   

Quote (RupertG @ Jan. 03 2009,09:05)
GilDodgen hasn't actually replied to any of the comments in UD that point out his misunderstanding of how modelling works, has he? It's as if they just don't exist... perhaps they don't fit his model. Certainly, everything he's written subsequently confirms the analysis someone made earlier that he's completely missed the point - and, perhaps, belongs in that class of people who are unable to work with that sort of abstraction.

In a later blog post, GilDodgen does try to explain away his gross error.  

Quote
GilDodgen: In my original post about mutating the CPU instruction set, the OS, etc., I was being somewhat sarcastic. Obviously, this would be silly, and I wouldn’t expect anyone to take such an experiment seriously. My point was that if mutations are genuinely random, we should expect that in a biological system (e.g., a cell) they would interfere with or modify all aspects of a cell’s basic functioning, which would affect the ability of the cell to survive and reproduce. If random mutations killed off a significantly large percentage of cells or made them sterile before they had a chance to reproduce, pass on their genetic information, and for natural selection to work its magic, the rest of the simulation would be rendered invalid.

(We observe mutations. It's not a secret. And sometimes they are deleterious. I have no idea why he brings up extreme mutation rates, but that can certainly be modeled. Too high a mutation rate, such as in a highly radioactive environment, and reproduction slows or ceases. This has nothing to do with mutating the computer OS or causing errors in the CPU.)

Quote
GilDodgen: One other obvious point: A simulation must accurately depict the system being modeled. The computational machinery and information content of biological systems is inherent in, and quintessentially critical to, the function of the system being modeled, and therefore cannot be excluded from the effects of mutations, without the simulation being rendered completely meaningless.

Yes, of the "biological systems", but the electronic computer is not "inherent in, quintessentially critical to, the function of the system being modeled". The simulation is an abstraction which is *independent* of the substrate on which it is being modeled. Of course, the 'organic computer' must be subject to mutation, but not the electronic computer being used to model the 'organic computer'.  And of course, that's exactly what an evolutionary algorithm does.

Later on, GilDodgen takes on Word Mutagenation, but confuses the dictionary lookup (the blackbox fitness function) with the evolutionary algorithm. Of course, I was blocked from responding on Uncommon Descent.

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

   
Zachriel



Posts: 2594
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2009,11:38   

Quote
StephenB: These days, however, the most dangerous and destructive among the hard atheists are the quiet ones. Loud atheists, like Dawkins, Hitchens, and Dennett beat their chests and yell like Tarzan. Quiet atheists seek to create a society in their own image and likeness by promoting public policy around their materialism. It isn’t the drum beating that threatens our survival, it is the quite, stealth atheism that poses as “education” and “compassion.”

A "dangerous and destructive" threat to "our survival" because those people (atheists, communists, Jews, same thing) are trying to change public policy by promoting their views non-violently.



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

   
Chayanov



Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2009,12:03   

Quote
Let’s call the evident flatness of a table top or a farmer’s field microflatearthism. Isn’t it then just a simple extrapolation (and also self-evident to anyone who isn’t a moron) that macroflatearthism must also trivially be the case?

Why, yes, I think it is! In fact, the whole bogus distinction between microflatearthism and macroflatearthism is just something invented by the roundtards and spheridiots!


Once again, a creationist fails at analogy. A field may look flat, but if you put all those supposedly flat pieces together, you get a rounded form -- just like how microevolutionary changes add up over time. The tabletop analogy is just stupid. Now who's the moron? Oh yeah, the creationist.

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

  
bystander



Posts: 301
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2009,14:39   

Quote (Chayanov @ Jan. 04 2009,05:03)
Quote
Let’s call the evident flatness of a table top or a farmer’s field microflatearthism. Isn’t it then just a simple extrapolation (and also self-evident to anyone who isn’t a moron) that macroflatearthism must also trivially be the case?

Why, yes, I think it is! In fact, the whole bogus distinction between microflatearthism and macroflatearthism is just something invented by the roundtards and spheridiots!


Once again, a creationist fails at analogy. A field may look flat, but if you put all those supposedly flat pieces together, you get a rounded form -- just like how microevolutionary changes add up over time. The tabletop analogy is just stupid. Now who's the moron? Oh yeah, the creationist.

Looking outside the flat table, there is a lot of evidence to prove that the entire world is not flat.

For evolution looking to the horizon is examining the fossil record, which seems to confirm evolution.

  
khan



Posts: 1479
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2009,17:54   

Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 03 2009,12:38)
Quote
StephenB: These days, however, the most dangerous and destructive among the hard atheists are the quiet ones. Loud atheists, like Dawkins, Hitchens, and Dennett beat their chests and yell like Tarzan. Quiet atheists seek to create a society in their own image and likeness by promoting public policy around their materialism. It isn’t the drum beating that threatens our survival, it is the quite, stealth atheism that poses as “education” and “compassion.”

A "dangerous and destructive" threat to "our survival" because those people (atheists, communists, Jews, same thing) are trying to change public policy by promoting their views non-violently.


Quote
1996: It becomes impossible to determine whether one is communicating by keyboard with a human or a chimpanzee or O'Leary.


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

  
steve_h



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2009,20:39   

I made a design inference!    
Quote
Housekeeping note ...Our Webmaster Jack Cole kindly alerted me to his philosophy regarding trolls, as in - do not feed the trolls.

   
Quote
Bring out your inner lab rat: Take this test to find out if you are truly an intelligent design type - or not Clinical psychologist Jack Cole offers a simple perceptual test to differentiate between intelligent design types and atheistic naturalists.


Following the link on offers:
http://intelldesign.wordpress.com/2008....-design

and from the "about" page, onward to  
http://www.thecountryshrink.com/, which contains so many  links to O'bleary that it could be considered to be part of the link farm.

and from the Comment policy link:
 
Quote
I generally approve all comments that are constructive and informative; however, I do not feed trolls.


This could all be a coincidence but the chances of it happening are less than one in a BIGNUMBER * something I can't be arsed to calculate * something I can't possibly know. Therefore design inference!!One

(somebody mentioned bignumber here earlier, which I nicked)

  
RupertG



Posts: 80
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2009,21:46   

Ah, now bignumber - or bignum - I can help you with. It's shorthand for computational maths that can cope with very big numbers indeed. There is no actual 'bignum' - if you like, you can think of it as infinity expressed in binary, but I may be wrong on that. I'm not that good at clever computational woggins, and this is very clever.

It's also the name of a road. From the New Hacker's Dictionary (somewhat, but not unduly, younger than me):

" The road mundanely called El Camino Real, running along San Francisco peninsula. It originally extended all the way down to Mexico City; many portions of the old road are still intact. Navigation on the San Francisco peninsula is usually done relative to El Camino Real, which defines logical north and south even though it isn't really north-south in many places. El Camino Real runs right past Stanford University and so is familiar to hackers.

The Spanish word `real' (which has two syllables: /ray-ahl'/) means `royal'; El Camino Real is `the royal road'. In the FORTRAN language, a `real' quantity is a number typically precise to seven significant digits, and a `double precision' quantity is a larger floating-point number, precise to perhaps fourteen significant digits (other languages have similar `real' types).

When a hacker from MIT visited Stanford in 1976, he remarked what a long road El Camino Real was. Making a pun on `real', he started calling it `El Camino Double Precision' -- but when the hacker was told that the road was hundreds of miles long, he renamed it `El Camino Bignum', and that name has stuck.  In recent years, the synonym `El Camino Virtual' has been reported as an alternate at IBM and Amdahl sites in the Valley. "

R

--------------
Uncle Joe and Aunty Mabel
Fainted at the breakfast table
Children, let this be a warning
Never do it in the morning -- Ralph Vaughan Williams

  
khan



Posts: 1479
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2009,21:48   

From FSM thread:

Quote
The research would not be identified as ID research or else it would not be published but the research is ID research even if the researchers say they are anti ID. They are just doing ID research without knowing it or saying it.


Edited for formatting.

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

  
keiths



Posts: 2040
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2009,04:22   

Mark Frank throws in the towel on kairosfocus:
Quote
KF

I give up. I am sorry but I find your writing almost unintelligible. I can understand Dembski, Plantinga and Reppert. I was brought up on reading Kant and Wittgenstein. But try as I might, I continue to flounder when I read your comments.

Passages such as:

“what is plausible on chance conditions, per available search resources in the context of an inference to best explanation argument,”

Or

“physical cause-effect chains rooted in chance and necessity may (with significant search resources hurdles) in principle get so far as an apparent message, but will run into a categorical wall when we need to transfer to the world of logical ground-consequent and best explanation modelling/ reasoning etc.”

Make me want to go and read The Critique of Pure Reason for light relief.

I am going to stop this debate. I can never see it moving beyond the point where I am trying to clarify what you are saying. Thanks for all the time and effort you have clearly put into this and I am sorry it is wasted.

Mark


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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2009,05:24   

From reading the little I could bear of that "debate" it seems that KF was insisting that Mark agreed with everything KF said before KF would agree to debate.

Of course, as it's almost impossible to work out what KF is saying in the first place.......

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
1of63



Posts: 126
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2009,07:04   

I've been trying to follow KF's ramblings as well but they're damned near post-modern in their obfuscatory impenetrability.

As far as I can tell it all boils down to the usual God-of-the-gaps whine: "evo-mat" hasn't yet provided a complete and detailed account of how the immaterial mind arises from the activity of the physical brain so it must be wrong and Plantinga is right.

He also doesn't seem to realize that the lack of answers to his arguments at UD is because his opponents have been banned not baffled.

--------------
I set expectations at zero, and FL limbos right under them. - Tracy P. Hamilton

  
Cedric Katesby



Posts: 55
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2009,14:22   

Off topic.
I got me a live one over at Heddle's blog!
Mike Godfrey has crawled out from under a rock and is going to finally give an explanation of how ID really and truely is a scientific theory.
Or not.
:)

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/dheddle/4948866844926873454/

  
dmso74



Posts: 110
Joined: Aug. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2009,14:33   

[quote=khan,Jan. 03 2009,21:48]From FSM thread:

     
Quote
The research would not be identified as ID research or else it would not be published but the research is ID research even if the researchers say they are anti ID. They are just doing ID research without knowing it or saying it.


And with this, jerry wins the Donald Rumsfeld poetry award, inscribed with Rumsfeld's masterpiece, The Unknown:

   
Quote
As we know,
There are known knowns. There are things we know we know.
We also know There are known unknowns.
That is to say We know there are some things
We do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know We don't know.


Today, we are all ID researchers.

  
dmso74



Posts: 110
Joined: Aug. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2009,14:40   

3 noteworthy posts in a row here:
FSM thread

critter responds to jerry's poetard w a nicely understated reply, DaveScot bashes impotently at the now-disconnected bannination button and the yellowshark sees blood in the water..

  
bystander



Posts: 301
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2009,17:53   

It's strange that none of them actually went to the FSM site to actually read what it means.

The are against the openly creationist school board members who want to sneak creationism into the classroom.

  
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2009,18:09   

Quote (bystander @ Jan. 03 2009,14:39)
[quote=Chayanov,Jan. 04 2009,05:03]
For evolution looking to the horizon is examining the fossil record, which seems to confirm evolution.

But then again I've seen IDists say that there is no proof that (macro, as usual) evolution is even possible, so the fossil record is meaningless. At least, according to them.

  
sledgehammer



Posts: 530
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2009,19:18   

Atom tries to refute Gremlin's jab that " ID research seems to consist of combing pro-evolution articles for perceived gaps."  Here's what Atom comes up with:

As we all know, Dr. Dembski has been extending information theory using the concept of CSI for a few years.
translation: "Information- Nature can't make it".

Dr. Marks has been working with Dr. Dembski as well to formalize the concept of Active Information and its application to evolutionary algorithms.
translation: "Active information - GA's can't make it, they can only smuggle it".

Dr. Behe’s EoE remains a profound literature survey on the limitations of undirected variation and selection, even with fast replicators.
translation: "Natural selection is impotent. It can't possibly create anything new".

Dr. Axe, working with the Biologic Institute, has developed Stylus, a software environment using Chinese characters as a means of studying the emergence of hierarchical function in systems.
translation: "We have no idea how this relates to ID, but we're sure it's anti-Darwin, and he's spending a lot of the DI's $$, so it must be good".

A friend of mine is extendeding the concept of complexity classes to biology (and any loop based system such as gene regulation circuits.)
translation:"anything that extendedes complexity to biology is a problem for NDE".

Walter ReMine has extended and simplified Haldane’s Dilemma in population genetics
translation: "Natural selection can't possibly work.  Math proves it!'

Scott Minnich has done work on IC and the Bacterial Flagellum.
translation: "IC is impossible to create without intelligence"

Dr. Sanford has developed the model of Genetic Entropy relating to population genetics,
translation: "NDE violates SLOT!!!"

Dr. Gonzalez has been doing work on the Privileged Planet Hypothesis and Dr. Lee Spetner has developed his NREH (Non-random Evolutionary Hypothesis) over the past couple of decades
translation:"No way in hell could all this have happened by accident"

This isn’t even taking into account the work done by YECs
translation: "There's no way that evolution could have done all this in only 6000 years, especially with that flood stirring everything up and all"

There is more, but I’m not 1) all-knowing and 2) can’t share private research I am privy to, without asking the researchers themselves.
translation: "Only God and a privileged few know about the Super-Secret ID Research Program that's going to produce a Positive, Testable Design Hypothesis any day now"!

So yeah, lots of ID research is being done at moment.
translation:  So there! See, it's not all negative, anti-evo after all"

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

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

Pages: (500) < ... 149 150 151 152 153 [154] 155 156 157 158 159 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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