RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (501) < ... 393 394 395 396 397 [398] 399 400 401 402 403 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 3, The Beast Marches On...< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10305
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2011,14:29   

More Barry

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10305
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2011,14:31   

Barry has stalker post 3 up:

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

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10305
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2011,14:33   

gah - pageturn bug?

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

  
Kristine



Posts: 3046
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2011,14:49   

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 13 2011,14:31)
Barry has stalker post 3 up:

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

This is bringing back bad memories...even for an archivist.
Quote
My prediction: More dancing, evasion and obfuscation.

Yes, from the Barry (un)Mani-low of ID (t)heory.  :angry:

By all means, don't retract a thing you say, Barry - but don't ever shred your documents in the future, either.

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10305
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2011,15:23   

Not going well for Barry:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-377148

Quote
4

QuiteID

04/13/2011

2:22 pm
Oh, wow — now the post which MathGrrl asked Mr. Arrington to retract (because it made a false representation against MathGrrl) is deleted without comment or notice. Instead we have this rather petulant follow-up. No wonder the earlier post was not linked: it disappeared!

Redaction = retraction?
Who is evading and obfuscating again?



*edited - new content*

5

Quote

QuiteID

04/13/2011

2:25 pm
My apologies to Mr. Arrington: an error in my link. In fact, the earlier article is here.

I retract the claim that the earlier discussion was deleted.

See how easy that is?


To err is human, to forgive is design Divine.

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

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2011,15:28   

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 13 2011,15:23)
Not goign well for Barry:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-377148

 
Quote
4

QuiteID

04/13/2011

2:22 pm
Oh, wow — now the post which MathGrrl asked Mr. Arrington to retract (because it made a false representation against MathGrrl) is deleted without comment or notice. Instead we have this rather petulant follow-up. No wonder the earlier post was not linked: it disappeared!

Redaction = retraction?
Who is evading and obfuscating again?


Huh?  That post wasn't retracted, it just rolled onto page 2.

ETA: Since QuiteID corrected his error, this post is superfluous. However, since I am inching closer to 3000 posts and haven't even started work on the JoeBot 5000, I thought I would point out something odd. If you look at the front page, Barry's Arthur Murray post indicates that there are 6 comments.  But, when you click to the post, only 5 show.  Does that mean there is one held in moderation?  Or does the website have the same innumeracy problems that most of it's commenters have?

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Freddie



Posts: 366
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2011,16:17   

What with all the MG mania do not overlook tragic mishap's desperate attempt to wrest the steering wheel from KF, Batshit, Ted Davis, Robert Sheldon and others and to put the clown car that is UD firmly back onto the racetrack of pretence ...

   
Quote

tragic mishap
04/13/2011
1:12 pm
8

What is all this BS about? ID is not claiming to identify which God, much less which member of the Trinity is the designer.

Nor is ID claiming to be a replacement for religion, or claiming the basis of religion is natural science. This all complete BS.

It’s about academic freedom to pursue truth and knowledge.


Did he not get the memo?  Maybe he's not part of the "circle of trust" over there.

--------------
Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy.
Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people.
Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.

  
Learned Hand



Posts: 109
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2011,16:54   

In Arrington's April 11 post, he writes:

   
Quote
Mathgirl wrote in a comment to my last post:  “My conclusion is that, without a rigorous mathematical definition and examples of how to calculate [CSI], the metric is literally meaningless.  Without such a definition and examples, it isn’t possible even in principle to associate the term with a real world referent.”


I have learned in my practice that when an untrustworthy person employs brackets, it is often an attempt to conceal and mislead the reader.  Accordingly, I went looking for what Arrington replaced with those brackets.  My suspicion was unsurprisingly well-founded.  

The comment Arrington refers to actually says:

   
Quote
My conclusion is that, without a rigorous mathematical defintion and examples of how to calculate it, the metric is literally meaningless.


The word "it" Arrington replaced can refer, grammatically, only to the phrase "the metric."  (It cannot reasonably be read as a reference to "CSI," because the sentence contains no other referent.  The previous sentence does refer to CSI, but in light of her specific statement that the definition and examples she seeks are in relation to "the metric described by Dembski," there is no good-faith basis for arguing that she is referring here to a qualitative concept of "CSI.")

Arrington's edited citation distorts the commenter's words and meaning.  He uses the conflation of "CSI" and a metric for CSI to imply that Mathgrrl's position with regard to Orgel, etc., is incoherent, when she has in fact stated it plainly and clearly.  She criticized the impossibly quantification of "CSI," without regard to the validity of the qualitative concept.  This is consistent with her specific statement that the qualitative concepts described by Orgel et al are dissimilar to the metric Dembski claims exists.

The error has been picked up by further commenters.  William J. Murray repeats it unquestioningly here, for example, in the latest post.  I cannot see how this confusion is anything other than Arrington's goal, given his decision to rewrite Mathgrrl's post.

Arrington is carefully building a reputation not only as a sneering bully, but one who is unable to carry a cogent point without manipulating the record.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1373
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2011,16:59   

Quote
Arrington is carefully building a reputation not only as a sneering bully, but one who is unable to carry a cogent point without manipulating the record.


Well, he is a lawyer, after all. Plus he runs UD. How else was it ever going to end?

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1373
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2011,17:16   

Arrington sounds like he might be talking to an empty chair. Barry, does integrity have a  metric? Can it have a negative value?

  
didymos



Posts: 1825
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2011,18:21   

Bannination:
Quote
Barry Arrington

04/13/2011

5:18 pm

Muramasa is no longer with us.


Well, of course. That's what you get for demonstrating intellectual honesty.

[crossposted to Blogczar thread]

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
didymos



Posts: 1825
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2011,18:34   

Oh, BTW, here's what got Muramasa banninated:
Quote
Barry, maybe you could demonstrate an ethical backbone and admit that you have mischaracterized MathGrrl’s statement.

I do realize that you are well acquainted with “dancing, evasion and obfuscation”. Your side demonstrated those quite well in the original MathGrrl thread. The arguments from ID supporters veritably reeked of flop sweat and desperation.

And Joseph, your reply is an assertion and not an argument. Have Orgel and Wicken agreed that Dembski has “modernized” their work? I doubt it. The abstract I cited is from February, 2011. You have failed to convince me that “specified complexity” as a qualitative construct is equivalent to the alleged quantitative metric.


A good way to go out, at least.

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
dochocson



Posts: 62
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2011,18:39   

Quote (didymos @ April 13 2011,16:34)
Oh, BTW, here's what got Muramasa banninated:  
Quote
Barry, maybe you could demonstrate an ethical backbone and admit that you have mischaracterized MathGrrl’s statement.

I do realize that you are well acquainted with “dancing, evasion and obfuscation”. Your side demonstrated those quite well in the original MathGrrl thread. The arguments from ID supporters veritably reeked of flop sweat and desperation.

And Joseph, your reply is an assertion and not an argument. Have Orgel and Wicken agreed that Dembski has “modernized” their work? I doubt it. The abstract I cited is from February, 2011. You have failed to convince me that “specified complexity” as a qualitative construct is equivalent to the alleged quantitative metric.


A good way to go out, at least.

Kinda figured that one would bet me tossed out on my ear. I wonder if it was my impugning Barry's ethics or the "reeking of flop sweat and desperation" part? Both, probably.

--------------
All bleeding stops...eventually.

  
SoonerintheBluegrass



Posts: 39
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2011,21:22   

In any event, well done.  And accurate, to boot.

--------------
"And heaven will smell like the airport
But I may not get there to prove it
So let's not waste our time thinking how that ain't fair."

Neko Case

  
Ptaylor



Posts: 893
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2011,22:33   

Gil's latest comment:
Quote
I continue to be mystified by the Darwinian community concerning the creative powers of natural selection.

Natural selection is differential death. Natural selection by definition has no creative powers. Differential death cannot create anything new. This should be taught in every Logic 101 course at every institution of higher learning.
(bolding mine)
Gil - for all of your original input into UD why do you ever bother going past those first five words?

Extra! - Matteo brings some lulz to the conversation:
Quote
Darwinism seems to be quite literally the worship of death.

That one literally killed me.

--------------
To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today. - Isaac Asimov

"Grow up, assface" - Joe G., grown up ID spokesperson, Sandwalk, April 2014

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3590
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2011,23:14   

Not to be posted on UD:

Quote
The lower jaws of modern mammals have just one bone: the tooth-bearing dentary. Reptiles, by contrast, also sport smaller bones where the jaw meets the skull. Biologists have long postulated that as mammals evolved, the smaller, post-dentary bones shrank to form the tiny bones of the middle ear.

Fossils of ancient mammals such as Morganucodon hint at this: the post-dentary bones are still attached to the dentary, and are used for both hearing and feeding. What happened next had been left to best guesses.

Now Liaoconodon hui, discovered in China by Jin Meng of the American Museum of Natural History in New York, has filled the gap. "It is the first unambiguous evidence showing that transitional stage," says Meng. The 120-million-year-old mammal, about the size of a large rat, was a close relative of early mammals. Of interest is a bridge called Meckel's cartilage, which connects the small bones to the jaw


http://www.newscientist.com/article....ne-news

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 1680
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2011,23:19   

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ April 12 2011,16:26)
 
Quote (Ptaylor @ April 12 2011,15:21)
PaV 'Go away little girl' has waded in, complaining about liberals and presenting this bizarre challenge:      
Quote
MathGrrl:

I have a challenge for you. Scientists assert the “Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum”. I say that it has not been rigorously demonstrated.

For scientists—and you in particular—to convince me of this supposed “law”, please apply this “law” to the destruction of the World Trade Centers. Unless you can demonstrate clearly that it applies to that event, then the “Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum” is just hyperbole. I await your proof.

And when you “prove” that, then I’ll show you how to calculate CSI for any one of your four scenarios.

Anyone here know what he is on about?

PaV is on about 70 on the IQ scale.

He got up to double digits?

Thank goodness!  I can stop watering him.

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2011,23:23   

Quote (dochocson @ April 13 2011,19:39)
Quote (didymos @ April 13 2011,16:34)
Oh, BTW, here's what got Muramasa banninated:  
Quote
Barry, maybe you could demonstrate an ethical backbone and admit that you have mischaracterized MathGrrl’s statement.

I do realize that you are well acquainted with “dancing, evasion and obfuscation”. Your side demonstrated those quite well in the original MathGrrl thread. The arguments from ID supporters veritably reeked of flop sweat and desperation.

And Joseph, your reply is an assertion and not an argument. Have Orgel and Wicken agreed that Dembski has “modernized” their work? I doubt it. The abstract I cited is from February, 2011. You have failed to convince me that “specified complexity” as a qualitative construct is equivalent to the alleged quantitative metric.


A good way to go out, at least.

Kinda figured that one would bet me tossed out on my ear. I wonder if it was my impugning Barry's ethics or the "reeking of flop sweat and desperation" part? Both, probably.

i've enjoyed Muramasa.  nice job.  why the name?

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

  
dochocson



Posts: 62
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2011,00:08   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,April 13 2011,21:23)
Quote (dochocson @ April 13 2011,19:39)
 
Quote (didymos @ April 13 2011,16:34)
Oh, BTW, here's what got Muramasa banninated:    
Quote
Barry, maybe you could demonstrate an ethical backbone and admit that you have mischaracterized MathGrrl’s statement.

I do realize that you are well acquainted with “dancing, evasion and obfuscation”. Your side demonstrated those quite well in the original MathGrrl thread. The arguments from ID supporters veritably reeked of flop sweat and desperation.

And Joseph, your reply is an assertion and not an argument. Have Orgel and Wicken agreed that Dembski has “modernized” their work? I doubt it. The abstract I cited is from February, 2011. You have failed to convince me that “specified complexity” as a qualitative construct is equivalent to the alleged quantitative metric.


A good way to go out, at least.

Kinda figured that one would bet me tossed out on my ear. I wonder if it was my impugning Barry's ethics or the "reeking of flop sweat and desperation" part? Both, probably.

i've enjoyed Muramasa.  nice job.  why the name?

Couple of reasons for the name. One is that I have Japanese ancestry on my dad's side. Another is that Nakashima was the inspiration for creating this sock.

Muramasa was a Japanese swordsmith, and legend has it he created cursed blades.

--------------
All bleeding stops...eventually.

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2011,02:07   

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ April 13 2011,11:18)
News again:

Quote
They said it: Why did two materialist atheists write a book against Darwinism?


Because they don't know what they are talking about, and you don't have the knowledge to recognize it because you are an IDiot.

This is news?

(or were you referring to the quoted bit ?) :D

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
paragwinn



Posts: 409
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2011,03:38   

Joe makes a suggestionto Mathgrrl:
Quote
If you really wanted to know about CSI you would read “No Free Lunch”.

Mathgrrl responds:
Quote
I did.

Joes retorts:
Quote
Methinks you are lying.

Well, Mr. "550 Main St, Keene, NH", I guess you would know something about that, wouldn't you?

--------------
All women build up a resistance [to male condescension]. Apparently, ID did not predict that. -Kristine 4-19-11
F/Ns to F/Ns to F/Ns etc. The whole thing is F/N ridiculous -Seversky on KF footnote fetish 8-20-11
Sigh. Really Bill? - Barry Arrington

  
paragwinn



Posts: 409
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2011,03:40   

oops, bolding in my previous comment in original

--------------
All women build up a resistance [to male condescension]. Apparently, ID did not predict that. -Kristine 4-19-11
F/Ns to F/Ns to F/Ns etc. The whole thing is F/N ridiculous -Seversky on KF footnote fetish 8-20-11
Sigh. Really Bill? - Barry Arrington

  
paragwinn



Posts: 409
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2011,04:05   

After following the non-O'Dreary UD posts for the past month, I'm experiencing an overpowering urge to commit sock suicide over there. I'm experiencing a tremendous buildup of snark and have tried to restrain myself from peppering this thread with wall-to-wall mockery (yeah, right). Is this a normal reaction from tard over-exposure? Is sock suicide the answer? What would be proper attire: solid, stripes, or plaid?

Signed,
Seeing an Opportunity and Willing to Take it

--------------
All women build up a resistance [to male condescension]. Apparently, ID did not predict that. -Kristine 4-19-11
F/Ns to F/Ns to F/Ns etc. The whole thing is F/N ridiculous -Seversky on KF footnote fetish 8-20-11
Sigh. Really Bill? - Barry Arrington

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1373
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2011,04:30   

Quote
Is sock suicide the answer?
Absolutely!

See if you can fill the recent comments list (unsocial hours is good) and make sure to take a screen shot. Good luck!

  
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2011,06:23   

Lewontin again!  What's the total?

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

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2011,06:37   

haha you are reading goron

Quote
Sine you want to appeal to the consensus of the scientists who dominate the key institutions, it is necessary to show the bias and its impact. (Apparently, you refused to go to the linked quotes that show the truth beyond reasonable doubt. So, we have to cite it in extenso here.)


since when did this dipshit care what real scientists think?  Goron real scientists think you need to keep climbing the banana tree or spearing some fish instead of hallelujahing up the mass balance

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2011,07:00   

Quote (paragwinn @ April 14 2011,10:05)
[SNIP]

I'm experiencing a tremendous buildup of snark and have tried to restrain myself from peppering this thread with wall-to-wall mockery (yeah, right). Is this a normal reaction from tard over-exposure?

[SNIP]

I lack the relevant experience to advise you on sockery, but I can help you with snark build up. This is perfectly natural and the only cure is to get up from the computer, turn it off, walk outside, go for a walk in the countryside, take in a relaxing view or pleasant vista, perhaps listen to a babbling brook or even indulge in hallucinogenic drugs whilst marvelling at a double rainbow. This will help you feel the snark naturally drift from you, unburdening you.

Alternatively you could link Tim Minchin's "Fuck the Pope" song in every comment you make on UD, post a series of expletive filled posts where every other word is either "fuck" or "fucktard" or some cognate thereof, sign up the entire UD posterati to a variety of animal porn mailing lists, and generally troll the living fuck out of the place. Troll them. Troll them hard, so hard they bleed.

I'd opt for the former, but whatever takes your fancy is good.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1373
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2011,07:32   

Quote
Are you paid every time you mention Lewontin?
asks idcurious!

  
Seversky



Posts: 416
Joined: June 2010

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2011,07:45   

Joseph:
Quote
Craig Venter created DNA and there isn’t any evidence that nature, operatin freely, can do the same.

"Venter" created DNA?  World of Warcraft!  I had no idea it was that much of a breakthrough.  Quick, somebody get this man a Nobel Prize!

  
Learned Hand



Posts: 109
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2011,08:41   

Arrington substitutes bluster for logic.  In his latest fiasco, he writes:

Quote
Sorry RObb. That dog won’t hunt.

In “Intelligent Design” Dembski describes the “complexity” criterion as follows: “Complexity ensures that the object is not so SIMPLE that it can readily be explained by chance.”

Dembski: Complexity means “not simple.”
Orgel: Complexity means “not simple.”


The statement that "X ensures Y is not Z" is not the same, or a functional equivalent of, "X means not Z."  That is especially true for the given language, where "simple" is used specifically with regard to probability rather than as the antonym of "complex."

R0bb's response points this out, and further observers that Dembski's specific examples are not consistent with Orgel's use of the term "complexity."  Rather than engaging these arguments, Arrington rewrites R0bb's statement, insults him, and declares by fiat that the rewritten argument is insane.  Can bannination be far behind?

(R0bb is not a sock of mine; I don't use them.)

  
  15001 replies since Sep. 04 2009,16:20 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (501) < ... 393 394 395 396 397 [398] 399 400 401 402 403 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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