RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (356) < ... 103 104 105 106 107 [108] 109 110 111 112 113 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 4, Fostering a Greater Understanding of IDC< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
noncarborundum



Posts: 320
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2012,21:11   

Quote (JohnW @ Feb. 18 2012,18:55)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 18 2012,13:49)
This looks like a job for the Dodgenator 3000!

It looks like a combination A1/E3.

Frill:
 
Quote
If I punch 87 x 53 into my calculator and get 46,481 I immediately know something is wrong (in this case I hit the 7 key twice by accident) even if I don’t know exactly what is wrong, because the result should be somewhere in the hundreds, not thousands. I don’t need to know exactly what the problem is in order to recognize that the result makes no sense.

You couldn't make this shit up.

But an omnipotent and omniscient being could.  Therefore god.

--------------
"The . . . um . . . okay, I was genetically selected for blue eyes.  I know there are brown eyes, because I've observed them, but I can't do it.  Okay?  So . . . um . . . coz that's real genetic selection, not the nonsense Giberson and the others are talking about." - DO'L

  
eigenstate



Posts: 76
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2012,21:38   

Pathetic is WAY too charitable to describe GilDodgen's "doubts" of his doubts of evolutionary theory:
Quote
The history of evolutionary theory has included quite a number of skeptics (the Wistar dudes were no dummies, and even Gould had reservations, until he was forced to recant), including Charles Darwin himself, who observed that the fossil record did not comport with his assumption that nature makes no jumps, but speculated that future investigation would reveal that the fossil record really was infested with the transitional intermediates his theory required.

Finally, I propose what I call the trajectory of the evidence. When a scientific theory is correct, the more we learn, the more the theory should have explanatory power, but the opposite has occurred concerning orthodox evolutionary theory. The more we learn about the incredible engineering sophistication found in even the simplest living cell, the more I’m inclined to be skeptical that the probabilistic resources could have been available to accomplish such a task through the proposed evolutionary mechanisms.

I thus defend the rationality of my skepticism.

He's been invited over and over to maybe just scratch the surface regarding his doubts about "probabilistic resources". No dice. Just a bunch of handwaving hoping everyone is too stupid to notice he won't even try a little bit to defend his doubts.

Doesn't rise to 'pathetic', even. This is how a fraud gives the audience and his critics the middle finger, by typing up hundreds of words that purposely avoid and evade what he claims to defend. Maybe you could just start with some of the probabilities you're concerned about, asks olegt, politely.

Fuck you, olegt, says Gil, and thanks for letting me defend my doubts by tell you all to fuck off.

  
MichaelJ



Posts: 455
Joined: June 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2012,22:30   

Quote (eigenstate @ Feb. 19 2012,12:38)
Pathetic is WAY too charitable to describe GilDodgen's "doubts" of his doubts of evolutionary theory:
 
Quote
The history of evolutionary theory has included quite a number of skeptics (the Wistar dudes were no dummies, and even Gould had reservations, until he was forced to recant), including Charles Darwin himself, who observed that the fossil record did not comport with his assumption that nature makes no jumps, but speculated that future investigation would reveal that the fossil record really was infested with the transitional intermediates his theory required.

Finally, I propose what I call the trajectory of the evidence. When a scientific theory is correct, the more we learn, the more the theory should have explanatory power, but the opposite has occurred concerning orthodox evolutionary theory. The more we learn about the incredible engineering sophistication found in even the simplest living cell, the more I’m inclined to be skeptical that the probabilistic resources could have been available to accomplish such a task through the proposed evolutionary mechanisms.

I thus defend the rationality of my skepticism.

He's been invited over and over to maybe just scratch the surface regarding his doubts about "probabilistic resources". No dice. Just a bunch of handwaving hoping everyone is too stupid to notice he won't even try a little bit to defend his doubts.

Doesn't rise to 'pathetic', even. This is how a fraud gives the audience and his critics the middle finger, by typing up hundreds of words that purposely avoid and evade what he claims to defend. Maybe you could just start with some of the probabilities you're concerned about, asks olegt, politely.

Fuck you, olegt, says Gil, and thanks for letting me defend my doubts by tell you all to fuck off.

Gil's argument is always only ever personal incredularity. I admit that I was taken in by his "Look at how smart I am" posts and was surprised by the pathetic responses that could have come from Hovind.

  
The whole truth



Posts: 985
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2012,22:36   

Quote (eigenstate @ Feb. 18 2012,19:38)
Pathetic is WAY too charitable to describe GilDodgen's "doubts" of his doubts of evolutionary theory:
 
Quote
The history of evolutionary theory has included quite a number of skeptics (the Wistar dudes were no dummies, and even Gould had reservations, until he was forced to recant), including Charles Darwin himself, who observed that the fossil record did not comport with his assumption that nature makes no jumps, but speculated that future investigation would reveal that the fossil record really was infested with the transitional intermediates his theory required.

Finally, I propose what I call the trajectory of the evidence. When a scientific theory is correct, the more we learn, the more the theory should have explanatory power, but the opposite has occurred concerning orthodox evolutionary theory. The more we learn about the incredible engineering sophistication found in even the simplest living cell, the more I’m inclined to be skeptical that the probabilistic resources could have been available to accomplish such a task through the proposed evolutionary mechanisms.

I thus defend the rationality of my skepticism.

He's been invited over and over to maybe just scratch the surface regarding his doubts about "probabilistic resources". No dice. Just a bunch of handwaving hoping everyone is too stupid to notice he won't even try a little bit to defend his doubts.

Doesn't rise to 'pathetic', even. This is how a fraud gives the audience and his critics the middle finger, by typing up hundreds of words that purposely avoid and evade what he claims to defend. Maybe you could just start with some of the probabilities you're concerned about, asks olegt, politely.

Fuck you, olegt, says Gil, and thanks for letting me defend my doubts by tell you all to fuck off.

The "probabilistic resources" thing drives me nuts. For one thing, by whose estimation (guess) are the "probabilistic resources" determined? Yeah, I've seen the crap by gordon mullings and others about the number of atoms or whatever in the "observable universe", but what does the number of atoms in the "observable universe" have to do with the 'probability' of evolution?

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2012,23:30   

ID supporter kuartus:
Quote
I would like to see dembski address some of the critisms of his law of conservation which were raised here on UD and other places like scienceblog and rationalwiki.

Kuartus, here's what you need to know about the Law of Conservation of Information:

1) It's not a law;
2) The quantity in question is not conserved; and
3) The quantity in question is not information.

In other words, pure Dembski.

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

  
Woodbine



Posts: 782
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2012,23:41   

Quote (eigenstate @ Feb. 19 2012,03:38)
Pathetic is WAY too charitable to describe GilDodgen's doubts of evolutionary theory.

He's been invited over and over to maybe just scratch the surface regarding his doubts about "probabilistic resources". No dice. Just a bunch of handwaving hoping everyone is too stupid to notice he won't even try a little bit to defend his doubts.

Doesn't rise to 'pathetic', even. This is how a fraud gives the audience and his critics the middle finger, by typing up hundreds of words that purposely avoid and evade what he claims to defend. Maybe you could just start with some of the probabilities you're concerned about, asks olegt, politely.

Fuck you, olegt, says Gil, and thanks for letting me defend my doubts by tell you all to fuck off.

This was my response to Gildo's opening "let's talk about me" post at Lizzie's place....
   
Quote
   
Quote
Someone is wrong and someone is right. I just want to know the truth.


No you don't.

You already know the truth; you had an "extraordinary encounter with Jesus Christ" if you remember?

All you've ever wanted ,Gil, in your posts at UD and elsewhere is to talk about yourself. And this post is no exception. Your entire shtick is to assert that Darwinism is transparently in its logical, evidential and cultural death-throes. You happen to know this because you used to be a militant atheist, you work with computer simulations and are in fact a "proper scientist" not like that Dawkins swine!!

Yet invariably whenever you're challenged to actually back up your assertions with, you know, an argument, you disappear in the blink of an eye.....only to re-appear a few weeks later with yet another post declaring the imminent collapse....blah....pianos....my dad, great physicist.....blah.....LS-DYNA....blah.....transparent nonsense.....blah....blah....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.


Lizzie cast my post into the Guano pit....well, she's every right to but I think it's fair comment.

Gil's only goal in posting anything is to remind people of his fantasy life as a 'militant Dawkins style atheist'; to witness his dissent from Darwin; to highlight his piano playing skills; to mention en passant his mastery of the French language; and to bask in the reflected glory of his nuclear physicist father.

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2012,00:25   

Quote (Woodbine @ Feb. 18 2012,21:41)
Quote (eigenstate @ Feb. 19 2012,03:38)
Pathetic is WAY too charitable to describe GilDodgen's doubts of evolutionary theory.

He's been invited over and over to maybe just scratch the surface regarding his doubts about "probabilistic resources". No dice. Just a bunch of handwaving hoping everyone is too stupid to notice he won't even try a little bit to defend his doubts.

Doesn't rise to 'pathetic', even. This is how a fraud gives the audience and his critics the middle finger, by typing up hundreds of words that purposely avoid and evade what he claims to defend. Maybe you could just start with some of the probabilities you're concerned about, asks olegt, politely.

Fuck you, olegt, says Gil, and thanks for letting me defend my doubts by tell you all to fuck off.

This was my response to Gildo's opening "let's talk about me" post at Lizzie's place....
     
Quote
     
Quote
Someone is wrong and someone is right. I just want to know the truth.


No you don't.

You already know the truth; you had an "extraordinary encounter with Jesus Christ" if you remember?

All you've ever wanted ,Gil, in your posts at UD and elsewhere is to talk about yourself. And this post is no exception. Your entire shtick is to assert that Darwinism is transparently in its logical, evidential and cultural death-throes. You happen to know this because you used to be a militant atheist, you work with computer simulations and are in fact a "proper scientist" not like that Dawkins swine!!

Yet invariably whenever you're challenged to actually back up your assertions with, you know, an argument, you disappear in the blink of an eye.....only to re-appear a few weeks later with yet another post declaring the imminent collapse....blah....pianos....my dad, great physicist.....blah.....LS-DYNA....blah.....transparent nonsense.....blah....blah....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.


Lizzie cast my post into the Guano pit....well, she's every right to but I think it's fair comment.

Gil's only goal in posting anything is to remind people of his fantasy life as a 'militant Dawkins style atheist'; to witness his dissent from Darwin; to highlight his piano playing skills; to mention en passant his mastery of the French language; and to bask in the reflected glory of his nuclear physicist father.

You forgot the checkers!  How could you forget the checkers??

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

  
The whole truth



Posts: 985
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2012,01:24   

Quote (Woodbine @ Feb. 18 2012,21:41)
Quote (eigenstate @ Feb. 19 2012,03:38)
Pathetic is WAY too charitable to describe GilDodgen's doubts of evolutionary theory.

He's been invited over and over to maybe just scratch the surface regarding his doubts about "probabilistic resources". No dice. Just a bunch of handwaving hoping everyone is too stupid to notice he won't even try a little bit to defend his doubts.

Doesn't rise to 'pathetic', even. This is how a fraud gives the audience and his critics the middle finger, by typing up hundreds of words that purposely avoid and evade what he claims to defend. Maybe you could just start with some of the probabilities you're concerned about, asks olegt, politely.

Fuck you, olegt, says Gil, and thanks for letting me defend my doubts by tell you all to fuck off.

This was my response to Gildo's opening "let's talk about me" post at Lizzie's place....
     
Quote
     
Quote
Someone is wrong and someone is right. I just want to know the truth.


No you don't.

You already know the truth; you had an "extraordinary encounter with Jesus Christ" if you remember?

All you've ever wanted ,Gil, in your posts at UD and elsewhere is to talk about yourself. And this post is no exception. Your entire shtick is to assert that Darwinism is transparently in its logical, evidential and cultural death-throes. You happen to know this because you used to be a militant atheist, you work with computer simulations and are in fact a "proper scientist" not like that Dawkins swine!!

Yet invariably whenever you're challenged to actually back up your assertions with, you know, an argument, you disappear in the blink of an eye.....only to re-appear a few weeks later with yet another post declaring the imminent collapse....blah....pianos....my dad, great physicist.....blah.....LS-DYNA....blah.....transparent nonsense.....blah....blah....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.


Lizzie cast my post into the Guano pit....well, she's every right to but I think it's fair comment.

Gil's only goal in posting anything is to remind people of his fantasy life as a 'militant Dawkins style atheist'; to witness his dissent from Darwin; to highlight his piano playing skills; to mention en passant his mastery of the French language; and to bask in the reflected glory of his nuclear physicist father.

I'd say that your comment is not only fair, but lenient. gildo is a self-serving, self-righteous blowhard, just like the rest of the IDiots.

I think it stinks that EL moved your comment to "Guano". By doing so she's saying that your comment is shit. Frankly, I wonder about her motives, and standards (or lack thereof). She's more protective of and submissive to the IDiots than she is with the people who speak the truth to or about them.

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
sparc



Posts: 1698
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2012,02:42   

Quote (keiths @ Feb. 19 2012,00:25)
 
Quote (Woodbine @ Feb. 18 2012,21:41)
 
Quote (eigenstate @ Feb. 19 2012,03:38)
Pathetic is WAY too charitable to describe GilDodgen's doubts of evolutionary theory.

He's been invited over and over to maybe just scratch the surface regarding his doubts about "probabilistic resources". No dice. Just a bunch of handwaving hoping everyone is too stupid to notice he won't even try a little bit to defend his doubts.

Doesn't rise to 'pathetic', even. This is how a fraud gives the audience and his critics the middle finger, by typing up hundreds of words that purposely avoid and evade what he claims to defend. Maybe you could just start with some of the probabilities you're concerned about, asks olegt, politely.

Fuck you, olegt, says Gil, and thanks for letting me defend my doubts by tell you all to fuck off.

This was my response to Gildo's opening "let's talk about me" post at Lizzie's place....
       
Quote
       
Quote
Someone is wrong and someone is right. I just want to know the truth.


No you don't.

You already know the truth; you had an "extraordinary encounter with Jesus Christ" if you remember?

All you've ever wanted ,Gil, in your posts at UD and elsewhere is to talk about yourself. And this post is no exception. Your entire shtick is to assert that Darwinism is transparently in its logical, evidential and cultural death-throes. You happen to know this because you used to be a militant atheist, you work with computer simulations and are in fact a "proper scientist" not like that Dawkins swine!!

Yet invariably whenever you're challenged to actually back up your assertions with, you know, an argument, you disappear in the blink of an eye.....only to re-appear a few weeks later with yet another post declaring the imminent collapse....blah....pianos....my dad, great physicist.....blah.....LS-DYNA....blah.....transparent nonsense.....blah....blah....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.


Lizzie cast my post into the Guano pit....well, she's every right to but I think it's fair comment.

Gil's only goal in posting anything is to remind people of his fantasy life as a 'militant Dawkins style atheist'; to witness his dissent from Darwin; to highlight his piano playing skills; to mention en passant his mastery of the French language; and to bask in the reflected glory of his nuclear physicist father.

You forgot the checkers!  How could you forget the checkers??

May I remind you of hanggliding, precision air drop systems, “The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe” , his claims that his father and the rest of the Dogden family are atheist, his piano teacher Istvan Nadas who was a Hungarian concert pianist, a student of Bela Bartok and a miraculous survivor of one of Hitler’s death camps.
In case I forgot anything I would appreciate if you would complete the list of Gildo's buzzwords.

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
Febble



Posts: 310
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2012,03:09   

Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 19 2012,01:24)
I think it stinks that EL moved your comment to "Guano". By doing so she's saying that your comment is shit. Frankly, I wonder about her motives, and standards (or lack thereof). She's more protective of and submissive to the IDiots than she is with the people who speak the truth to or about them.

Only in the sense that "shit" (especially penguin shit) is useful stuff, but is a bit stinky to have hanging around the bar.

Note that I do not delete comments; I do not hide comments; I do not ban people; and I make it absolutely clear that moving a post to "guano" is not a moral indictment of either comment or commenter but merely an indication that it violates the rules of the "game" played at TSZ which is that people post on the assumption (whether justified or not) that people are posting in good faith.

What I am protective of is communication.  I am not submissive to anyone or anything.

hth.

Edited by Febble on Feb. 19 2012,03:10

  
DiEb



Posts: 235
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2012,04:38   

I'm not banned at the moment, but my comments over there tend to stay in the moderation queue for two or more days. Amusingly, this period is often shortened when I repost my comments here - so please bear with me.

Bill Dembski on the Evolutionary Informatics Lab – the one a Baylor dean tried to shut down

Quote
DiEb
February 19, 2012 at 4:26 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Robert Marks III is a renowned scientists who is used to publish his research in peer-reviewed journals where it will be discussed properly, too.

Unfortunately that doesn't hold for his collaborations with William Dembski: AFAIK there has been no discussion of these papers in peer-reviewed journals - it's all but ignored. Frankly I think that most mathematicians believe it is to much on the fringe to be taken seriously.

That leaves places like ScienceBlog and RationalWiki the only venues where Dembski & Marks's work is addressed. But Dembski & Marks chose not to answer to critics over there (although they may incorporate some of the points made there in their work.)

Summary: Dembski & Marks don't get the attention they want in the journals, and they ignore unwanted attention (as Robert Marks wrote once: "<i>I have a policy not to engage in correspondence with anyone publically critical of me or my work.</i>")

What's left is an eerie silence...

   
Soapy Sam



Posts: 514
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2012,04:39   

Quote (Febble @ Feb. 19 2012,03:09)
     
Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 19 2012,01:24)
I think it stinks that EL moved your comment to "Guano". By doing so she's saying that your comment is shit. Frankly, I wonder about her motives, and standards (or lack thereof). She's more protective of and submissive to the IDiots than she is with the people who speak the truth to or about them.

Only in the sense that "shit" (especially penguin shit) is useful stuff, but is a bit stinky to have hanging around the bar.

Note that I do not delete comments; I do not hide comments; I do not ban people; and I make it absolutely clear that moving a post to "guano" is not a moral indictment of either comment or commenter but merely an indication that it violates the rules of the "game" played at TSZ which is that people post on the assumption (whether justified or not) that people are posting in good faith.

What I am protective of is communication.  I am not submissive to anyone or anything.

hth.

Personally, I think it was fair. I can see why woodbine might resent editing, but threads that sideline with personal grumbles based on past history and assumptions of bad faith litter UD, for example, and I think a little housekeeping is in order.  'The whole truth' seems to focus very strongly on personality, which is OK, but not everyone does or wants to. Perhaps "Fertiliser" rather than "Guano" ... but hell, it's the penguin theme, don't be so sensitive!

I give Gil credit for stepping outside the confines. Sure, his arguments are twaddle, and his self-aggrandisement can grate, but ... he's just a bloke, with whom I happen to disagree in a very fundamental way on a topic. I play music with Creationists. I would probably dislike them online, but in person, we get along just fine.

--------------
Evolutionists trust entropy for creation of life but are like men who horse a crocodile to get across a river - niwrad.

The organism could already metabolize citrus. Joe G

  
tsig



Posts: 321
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2012,08:03   

Quote (eigenstate @ Feb. 16 2012,15:44)
Quote (iconofid @ Feb. 16 2012,15:16)
 
Quote (Ptaylor @ Feb. 14 2012,14:51)
Barry's latest (emphasis added):
           
Quote
The law of non-contradiction (“LNC”) states that for any proposition “A,” A cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same formal relation.

The existence of the LNC is the very basis of all argumentation, and anyone who denies it also denies meaning, order, truth and logic. For obvious reasons, therefore, it is not only useless but also affirmatively harmful to the search for truth to argue with someone who refuses to admit unambiguously the LNC. Arguing with a person who denies the basis for argument is self-defeating and can lead only to confusion. Only a fool or a charlatan denies the LNC, and this site will not be a platform from which fools and charlatans will be allowed to spew their noxious inanities.

For that reason, I am today announcing a new moderation policy at UD. At any time the moderator reserves the right to ask the following question to any person who would comment or continue to comment on this site: “Can the moon exist and not exist at the same time and in the same formal relation?” The answer to this question is either “yes” or “no.” If the person gives any answer other than the single word “no,” he or she will immediately be deemed not worth arguing with and therefore banned from this site.

We will start with Petrushka to demonstrate the application of the policy. Petrushka, can the moon exist and not exist at the same time and in the same formal relation?

My opinion: bizarre.


I don't know if anyone has pointed this out yet because I'm replying to a post on page 98 of the thread, but Barry has just denied the existence of an omnipotent God. He has also effectively banned anyone who believes in such a God from defending its ability to make the moon simultaneously existent and non-existent.

I'm banned from U.D., but had I been Petrushka, I'd have relished pointing this out.

Ignoring the physics for a moment, the knife could be stuck in this way:

"Only someone who believes in an omnipotent god could answer yes to that. And who believes in miracles these days?"

I wonder if this has occurred to any of the god squad at U.D.

Does anyone with a surviving sock want to make the point?

Hi iconofid,

Orthodox Christianity doesn't conceive of "omnipotent" in ways that allow self-contradictory propositions.  They just laugh, and with some warrant, when you ask if "God can create a rock so heavy he can't lift it", or "make a square circle". Even (especially) God is not potent in that way, because it's not a potency at all, but instead a conceptual error in the asking of the question.

An omnipotent God would not be able to make a moon exist and not-exist at the same time, and in the same (classical, we must note) sense. That's a contradiction in terms, rather than an ability or a potency. "No be able" is a bit of a language trick we play on our selves there,  because "make a square circle" does not resolve against "able" or "unable".

If we follow that line of logic then all miracles are impossible.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5378
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2012,08:38   

Quote (tsig @ Feb. 19 2012,09:03)
Quote (eigenstate @ Feb. 16 2012,15:44)
 
Quote (iconofid @ Feb. 16 2012,15:16)
   
Quote (Ptaylor @ Feb. 14 2012,14:51)
Barry's latest (emphasis added):
             
Quote
The law of non-contradiction (“LNC”) states that for any proposition “A,” A cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same formal relation.

The existence of the LNC is the very basis of all argumentation, and anyone who denies it also denies meaning, order, truth and logic. For obvious reasons, therefore, it is not only useless but also affirmatively harmful to the search for truth to argue with someone who refuses to admit unambiguously the LNC. Arguing with a person who denies the basis for argument is self-defeating and can lead only to confusion. Only a fool or a charlatan denies the LNC, and this site will not be a platform from which fools and charlatans will be allowed to spew their noxious inanities.

For that reason, I am today announcing a new moderation policy at UD. At any time the moderator reserves the right to ask the following question to any person who would comment or continue to comment on this site: “Can the moon exist and not exist at the same time and in the same formal relation?” The answer to this question is either “yes” or “no.” If the person gives any answer other than the single word “no,” he or she will immediately be deemed not worth arguing with and therefore banned from this site.

We will start with Petrushka to demonstrate the application of the policy. Petrushka, can the moon exist and not exist at the same time and in the same formal relation?

My opinion: bizarre.


I don't know if anyone has pointed this out yet because I'm replying to a post on page 98 of the thread, but Barry has just denied the existence of an omnipotent God. He has also effectively banned anyone who believes in such a God from defending its ability to make the moon simultaneously existent and non-existent.

I'm banned from U.D., but had I been Petrushka, I'd have relished pointing this out.

Ignoring the physics for a moment, the knife could be stuck in this way:

"Only someone who believes in an omnipotent god could answer yes to that. And who believes in miracles these days?"

I wonder if this has occurred to any of the god squad at U.D.

Does anyone with a surviving sock want to make the point?

Hi iconofid,

Orthodox Christianity doesn't conceive of "omnipotent" in ways that allow self-contradictory propositions.  They just laugh, and with some warrant, when you ask if "God can create a rock so heavy he can't lift it", or "make a square circle". Even (especially) God is not potent in that way, because it's not a potency at all, but instead a conceptual error in the asking of the question.

An omnipotent God would not be able to make a moon exist and not-exist at the same time, and in the same (classical, we must note) sense. That's a contradiction in terms, rather than an ability or a potency. "No be able" is a bit of a language trick we play on our selves there,  because "make a square circle" does not resolve against "able" or "unable".

If we follow that line of logic then all miracles are impossible.

Indeed. Someone is playing language games, but it isn't iconofid.

If Yahweh (or any other god) "...is not potent in that way", then he is not in fact omnipotent.

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

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2012,09:54   

Quote
Our Gil Dodgen now contributes at Elizabeth Liddle’s Skeptical Zone

Yes, Denyse.  And Elizabeth's status at UD is?

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

  
Woodbine



Posts: 782
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2012,09:56   

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Feb. 19 2012,10:39)
Personally, I think it was fair. I can see why woodbine might resent editing, but threads that sideline with personal grumbles based on past history and assumptions of bad faith litter UD, for example, and I think a little housekeeping is in order.

There's no assumption of bad faith from myself when I see the likes of Gildo, Mullings, Arrrington etc putting up 'articles'. No, there's really no need to assume anything at all.....their names are a guarantee of bad faith.

Here's Gil from 7 years ago....



....and he's been bleating the exact same thing ever since.

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2012,10:08   

Quote (sparc @ Feb. 19 2012,00:42)
Quote (keiths @ Feb. 19 2012,00:25)
 
Quote (Woodbine @ Feb. 18 2012,21:41)
   
Quote (eigenstate @ Feb. 19 2012,03:38)
Pathetic is WAY too charitable to describe GilDodgen's doubts of evolutionary theory.

He's been invited over and over to maybe just scratch the surface regarding his doubts about "probabilistic resources". No dice. Just a bunch of handwaving hoping everyone is too stupid to notice he won't even try a little bit to defend his doubts.

Doesn't rise to 'pathetic', even. This is how a fraud gives the audience and his critics the middle finger, by typing up hundreds of words that purposely avoid and evade what he claims to defend. Maybe you could just start with some of the probabilities you're concerned about, asks olegt, politely.

Fuck you, olegt, says Gil, and thanks for letting me defend my doubts by tell you all to fuck off.

This was my response to Gildo's opening "let's talk about me" post at Lizzie's place....
         
Quote
         
Quote
Someone is wrong and someone is right. I just want to know the truth.


No you don't.

You already know the truth; you had an "extraordinary encounter with Jesus Christ" if you remember?

All you've ever wanted ,Gil, in your posts at UD and elsewhere is to talk about yourself. And this post is no exception. Your entire shtick is to assert that Darwinism is transparently in its logical, evidential and cultural death-throes. You happen to know this because you used to be a militant atheist, you work with computer simulations and are in fact a "proper scientist" not like that Dawkins swine!!

Yet invariably whenever you're challenged to actually back up your assertions with, you know, an argument, you disappear in the blink of an eye.....only to re-appear a few weeks later with yet another post declaring the imminent collapse....blah....pianos....my dad, great physicist.....blah.....LS-DYNA....blah.....transparent nonsense.....blah....blah....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.


Lizzie cast my post into the Guano pit....well, she's every right to but I think it's fair comment.

Gil's only goal in posting anything is to remind people of his fantasy life as a 'militant Dawkins style atheist'; to witness his dissent from Darwin; to highlight his piano playing skills; to mention en passant his mastery of the French language; and to bask in the reflected glory of his nuclear physicist father.

You forgot the checkers!  How could you forget the checkers??

May I remind you of hanggliding, precision air drop systems, “The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe” , his claims that his father and the rest of the Dogden family are atheist, his piano teacher Istvan Nadas who was a Hungarian concert pianist, a student of Bela Bartok and a miraculous survivor of one of Hitler’s death camps.
In case I forgot anything I would appreciate if you would complete the list of Gildo's buzzwords.

I like the 'what I do is basically rocket science' Gildoism.  'I am Dawkins' worst nightmare' is pretty good too.

--------------
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: Feb. 19 2012,10:22   

Can anyone remember exactly what Gil's original connection to ID is? Why is what he's got to say worth giving him OP posting at UD? It can't be because of it's content...

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

  
damitall



Posts: 323
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2012,10:32   

Quote (keiths @ Feb. 19 2012,09:54)
Quote
Our Gil Dodgen now contributes at Elizabeth Liddle’s Skeptical Zone

Yes, Denyse.  And Elizabeth's status at UD is?

Not quite, I think, a "contribution".

He posted, yes.

But he has been invited, politely, to support certain assertions. He has so far failed to even try.

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2012,11:02   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 19 2012,08:22)
Can anyone remember exactly what Gil's original connection to ID is? Why is what he's got to say worth giving him OP posting at UD? It can't be because of it's content...

He got posting privileges shortly after UD was shut down and resurrected.  At that time, you could pretty much become a UD contributor as long as you were a) pro-ID, b) breathing, and c) not Josh Bozeman.

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

  
eigenstate



Posts: 76
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2012,11:04   

Quote (Febble @ Feb. 19 2012,03:09)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 19 2012,01:24)
I think it stinks that EL moved your comment to "Guano". By doing so she's saying that your comment is shit. Frankly, I wonder about her motives, and standards (or lack thereof). She's more protective of and submissive to the IDiots than she is with the people who speak the truth to or about them.

Only in the sense that "shit" (especially penguin shit) is useful stuff, but is a bit stinky to have hanging around the bar.

Note that I do not delete comments; I do not hide comments; I do not ban people; and I make it absolutely clear that moving a post to "guano" is not a moral indictment of either comment or commenter but merely an indication that it violates the rules of the "game" played at TSZ which is that people post on the assumption (whether justified or not) that people are posting in good faith.

What I am protective of is communication.  I am not submissive to anyone or anything.

hth.

I understand this distinction, and appreciate its value in these contexts. That's why I posted my complaint about Gil's response here rather than on your thread; clearly, I am questioning Gil's good faith in posting what he did, and would be overtly violating your policy over there.

But for all the nobility of that policy (and I do think it is a noble policy), it's very easily gamed. Woodbine's comment is moved, and on the merits per your rules, but Gil's "fuck you" stands. I get the algebra, but you end up getting trolled by Gil and whoever has no reservations about actually posting in bad faith as "survivors" of the thread.

Posting accusations of bad faith on the part of others is toxic to discussion (rule 1). I totally get that -- been there, done that, over and over in places where I have to host/admin. But posting in bad faith on one's own part is similarly problematic. There isn't any remedy, though, for posting in bad faith, because you/we have to violate rule 1 to address it.

The best response to these problems, I've learned, is just to be persistent in focusing in on the merits of the argument, or the weakpoints of the argument that need to be challenged, and hope for the best. If Gil is gonna be weasel, he's gonna be a weasel. You won't get anything more than the middle finger he just posted, but readers who are paying attention will come to the appropriate conclusion.

I do note, in passing, that the policy seems to working well already toward one good end -- TSZ is sucking discussion out of UD, and developing it there (see recent participation by UD regulars like Maus, Aleta, et al). That just shrinks the amount of thought and time investment Barry and Friends have control over, and that's a good thing.

I also know that you have to be well aware of getting a "fuck you" poorly disguised in smarmy, biographical hand-waving prose when you get one. So it's not like this is a revelation to you. You know exactly what you're doing, here.

  
Patrick



Posts: 549
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2012,11:05   

From /r/Atheism on Reddit today:


  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1255
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2012,11:25   

Quote (keiths @ Feb. 19 2012,09:54)
Quote
Our Gil Dodgen now contributes at Elizabeth Liddle’s Skeptical Zone

Yes, Denyse.  And Elizabeth's status at UD is?

They are desperately trying to get Elizabeth Liddle to post again at UD. Bully Bannington already publicly invited her to come back - see our Blog Tsar Thread. Currently they are witnessing a lively discussion going on at Dr Liddle's blog, with some UD heavies participating. So they want to get that traffic back. I hope that's not going to happen.

I'd love to know what's going on behind the scenes at UD - are they tearing Bully Bannington to pieces for killing off UD?

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
Patrick



Posts: 549
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2012,11:27   

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Feb. 19 2012,12:25)
Quote (keiths @ Feb. 19 2012,09:54)
 
Quote
Our Gil Dodgen now contributes at Elizabeth Liddle’s Skeptical Zone

Yes, Denyse.  And Elizabeth's status at UD is?

They are desperately trying to get Elizabeth Liddle to post again at UD. Bully Bannington already publicly invited her to come back - see our Blog Tsar Thread. Currently they are witnessing a lively discussion going on at Dr Liddle's blog, with some UD heavies participating. So they want to get that traffic back. I hope that's not going to happen.

I'd love to know what's going on behind the scenes at UD - are they tearing Bully Bannington to pieces for killing off UD?

Resist, Lizzie!  They don't deserve you!

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2012,11:39   

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Feb. 19 2012,09:25)
They are desperately trying to get Elizabeth Liddle to post again at UD. Bully Bannington already publicly invited her to come back - see our Blog Tsar Thread.

Actually, no.  That BarryA quote is from August of last year.

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

  
Febble



Posts: 310
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2012,12:27   

tbh I don't see anything "noble" in the policy, especially.  As I keep trying to emphasise the rules are not moral rules, merely rules intended to try to keep discussion focussed on the actual arguments, rather than on the motivations.

If people make bad arguments because they are more interested in an answer that supports their preconceptions, then it should be possible to demonstrate the badness of the argument without discussing the preconceptions, and in my experience, focussing on the alleged preconceptions merely distracts from the badness of the arguments.

For instance Abel is clearly much more interested in concluding "ID" than he is in making a reasoned argument.  But I don't need to hypothesise why he is making a bad argument in order to demonstrate that he is, and by putting the why to one side it clears the decks of any counter-accusation that I just don't like his argument because it supports ID.

I don't like his argument because his argument makes no sense.

  
olegt



Posts: 1387
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2012,12:47   

I am with Liz on this one. There is no point in making it personal. TSZ is a venue where we can evaluate arguments on their merits. ID supporters generally don't understand the ID literature all that well.

For instance, William J Murray asked us to explain what is wrong with one of Abel's papers. Several of us have been reading this sorry paper and blogging about it. So far William hasn't set foot in that thread, but I am looking forward to his next appearance. Keep in mind that Abel's papers constitute 25 percent of ID's vaunted list of peer-reviewed publications!

Likewise, Gil has been huffing and puffing, but so far has not reproduced any of those "simple probability calculations." I think he will eventually give up and return to the safe confines of UD, but I may be wrong.

So let's behave and concentrate on the actual arguments. It's fun and you might learn something new in the process. All the bitching can be done here.

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

  
eigenstate



Posts: 76
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2012,13:08   

Quote (Febble @ Feb. 19 2012,12:27)
tbh I don't see anything "noble" in the policy, especially.  As I keep trying to emphasise the rules are not moral rules, merely rules intended to try to keep discussion focussed on the actual arguments, rather than on the motivations.

OK, I guess it's a semantic difference, only, then. That's quite a noble goal, I say. If you read some of my more tiring jeremiads at UD and elsewhere, it basically reduces to "why can't we keep focused on the actual substance"?

This is where Gil Dodgen put himself in the kill zone. If the discussion were to focus on the actual arguments, on the "simple math" that he claims is untenable, he's toast. And he knows it. He had to sit there, intimidated by olegt simple and straightforward request and think: <i>how to respond?</i>

One one hand, he could just not respond at all. Given that he'd perhaps like to keep posting at TSZ, simply not responding is likely to haunt him, as members who got left hanging are likely to remind him that he never responded as he'd said he would.

On the other hand, if he did try to respond on the merits, and make some noises about the odds of this happening or that, and olegt is just waiting, next time he check in from real life, to see Gil's nonsense, and unceremoniously dismantle it as the bullshit it is. A dozen more, including you (politely, of course), are ready and waiting to do the same, and Gil knows that course only brings discredit and humiliation on the merits.

Gil resents both of these options, and so goes with the "fuck you, I'll give you a non-answer that I will pretend is a solid answer, and you can't call me on it, because my motives are protected by the policies of this place". I again approve of that policy, and enjoy such protections (even if I expect more of myself than to have to hide behind them constantly by answer in ways that others understand me to be posting in bad faith).

Gil's resentment and animus, not just for the people he's talking to, but for the process, the kind of debate and analysis that threaten his superstitions, and more importantly, his narcissistic life narrative, are such that you and we will get the middle finger. Every time.
Quote

If people make bad arguments because they are more interested in an answer that supports their preconceptions, then it should be possible to demonstrate the badness of the argument without discussing the preconceptions, and in my experience, focussing on the alleged preconceptions merely distracts from the badness of the arguments.

I don't dispute this. But the problem I'm looking at with Gil's response is far more basic than that. He's a good Christian boy who's not going to say "fuck off, Liz" in those words, but as a former Christian yourself like me (right?), you know as well as I do that Christians are as capable as anyone at saying "fuck off", just without using those words.

Woodbine's post went to the guano section, for reasons I understand and agree with. But there was nothing approaching the kind of "fuck you" Gil deposited on your thread, and which stayed there.

I get that, not trying to re-argue that. What I'm saying is that you can't show the badness of arguments that aren't given in the first place. Gil doesn't argue. He just opines about his magical mystery tour through life, toward his God. ID is just a prop, not something he's arguing for, just something he dresses up in.

So you are confronted with banal faith testimonies. What do you think you can do with that? Can you take that apart and show the badness of the argument? I suggest you cannot. All you can do, is get sucked into the fluff, disputing Gil's "trajectory of the evidence" and other hand-waving nonsense. There's not any badness there to show, it's just an empty vessel, a wild goose chase to see who will follow.

That's fine, and your patience with all that is admirable. And I note you did, and you do work patiently and persistently to funnel your interlocutors back to the real substantive questions.

 
Quote

For instance Abel is clearly much more interested in concluding "ID" than he is in making a reasoned argument.  But I don't need to hypothesise why he is making a bad argument in order to demonstrate that he is, and by putting the why to one side it clears the decks of any counter-accusation that I just don't like his argument because it supports ID.

Fair enough. I'm just started to read through his paper, but will likely just skip to the parts olegt suggested were at the core, so painful is the document to read.

 
Quote

I don't like his argument because his argument makes no sense.

Yes, but just in the little way I've made into the Abel paper, he's at least wrong. Gil's not even wrong, because Gil has too much much contempt for you, olegt, and everyone else who wants to focus on the merits of his claims to even put anything out there that you can evaluate.  He won't deign to put his ideas at risk in front of you -- fuck off, olegt, I'm not about to stoop to you pathetic level of detail..., etc.

Abel is highly confused, clearly, but at least he is saying things we could take apart and show to be wrong, against the available evidence, inconsistent, etc.

  
The whole truth



Posts: 985
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2012,13:15   

Quote (Febble @ Feb. 19 2012,01:09)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 19 2012,01:24)
I think it stinks that EL moved your comment to "Guano". By doing so she's saying that your comment is shit. Frankly, I wonder about her motives, and standards (or lack thereof). She's more protective of and submissive to the IDiots than she is with the people who speak the truth to or about them.

Only in the sense that "shit" (especially penguin shit) is useful stuff, but is a bit stinky to have hanging around the bar.

Note that I do not delete comments; I do not hide comments; I do not ban people; and I make it absolutely clear that moving a post to "guano" is not a moral indictment of either comment or commenter but merely an indication that it violates the rules of the "game" played at TSZ which is that people post on the assumption (whether justified or not) that people are posting in good faith.

What I am protective of is communication.  I am not submissive to anyone or anything.

hth.

The "rules" are determined by you, and I think it's fair to say that your 'morals' are the factor in that determination. Of course you can do whatever you want on your site but I think that you're being disingenuous when you say that it's not a moral indictment of the comment or commenter when you move a comment to "Guano". And useful or otherwise, shit is still shit.

I don't see anything "stinky" about Woodbine's comment. It's the truth, and it's not just based on opinion. gildo's history is what Woodbine said it is. If anything or anyone is stinky shit, it's gildo and the rest of the IDiots and their drumbeat repetitive rhetorical talking points, red herrings, and strawmen, laced with oil of incendiary ad hominems that are lit on fire to cloud and poison the atmosphere and all that jazz, AND their lies and false accusations. Where's the "good faith" in any or all of that? Where's the good faith in the blocking of comments/commenters and in the bannings at UD, and in the support those blockings and bannings get from the IDiot gang at UD? Where's the good faith in the constant malicious attacks on atheists/evolutionary materialists/methodological naturalists/scientists/science supporters/evolutionists/"Darwinists"/theistic evolutionists, and many others, a lot of whom are regularly mentioned by name?

I am fed up with the lies, false accusations, and other 'bad faith' shit the IDiots constantly spew. I'm fed up with their sanctimonious bloviating about how moral they are and how "inherently" amoral/immoral and evil anyone else is who doesn't kiss their lying, pompous asses. Their motives are thoroughly selfish and their agenda (the so-called ID movement) is a pack of creationist/Dominionist lies. There's no "good faith" in the people involved in a religious/political agenda that seeks to destroy and replace science, and indoctrinate or force children and adults into a totalitarian Dominionist cult through legislation and other means.

And just because the IDiots believe that they are authorized by their imaginary god does not mean that they are acting in good faith. As adults and self-proclaimed 'moral' christians they have the responsibility to be honest, and to show at least ordinary respect to and for the hard working scientists who are trying to figure out how nature works, and to show at least ordinary respect to and for the people who aren't willing to submit to their insane, controlling, dictatorial demands. Anything less than complete condemnation and mockery of their rotten, destructive motives, actions, and agenda enables them, and undermines all the time and effort many people have put into showing just how phony and despicable their behavior is.

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
olegt



Posts: 1387
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2012,13:19   

Quote (eigenstate @ Feb. 19 2012,13:08)
Yes, but just in the little way I've made into the Abel paper, he's at least wrong. Gil's not even wrong, because Gil has too much much contempt for you, olegt, and everyone else who wants to focus on the merits of his claims to even put anything out there that you can evaluate.  He won't deign to put his ideas at risk in front of you -- fuck off, olegt, I'm not about to stoop to you pathetic level of detail..., etc.

Abel is highly confused, clearly, but at least he is saying things we could take apart and show to be wrong, against the available evidence, inconsistent, etc.

They're both not even wrong. Just bluffing their way through. That's the astonishing truth about the ID movement. Its "scholars" are not that far ahead of their fan base. They just know more technical jargon.

And it's not just Abel. I've had a few conversations with Paul Nelson at Telic Thoughts. He couldn't make a coherent argument against common descent, even though he has a PhD in philosophy from U Chicago! He eventually vanished into thin air.

That's what they all do. At UD, they ban you. They run away from other, more public venues and communicate via a loudspeaker.

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

  
  10669 replies since Aug. 31 2011,21:06 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (356) < ... 103 104 105 106 107 [108] 109 110 111 112 113 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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