RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (356) < ... 112 113 114 115 116 [117] 118 119 120 121 122 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 4, Fostering a Greater Understanding of IDC< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Robin



Posts: 1427
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2012,09:15   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 27 2012,18:44)
Barry Arrington:  pain is always bad. in fact bad is defined by pain.

Yeah...because surgery and child birth are bad things...

What a maroon!

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
DiEb



Posts: 228
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2012,09:20   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 28 2012,08:15)
that sounds like the lamest conference EVAR.  casey and sal making out to an empty room while three or four sunday school teacher stuffed suits shout down echoes

i bet craigslist was OFF THE HOOK that week!

Sal? as in Scordova? What happened to him? Does he still exist?

   
REC



Posts: 550
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2012,09:43   

After Barry's lectures on civil treatment towards him, calling the very religious Stephen M Barr-a physicist and editor of first things "one of the most useful of all of the useful idiots so valuable to the materialist enemies of Christianity" probably didn't help those posts clear.

  
Freddie



Posts: 365
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2012,10:14   

I see both John West and Batshit have also posted at First Things, after Elizabeth's post.  Batshit, of course, brings his quantum woo baggage together with the obligatory video link.

Re: Barry, the cognitive dissonance is strong in this one.

--------------
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.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2012,10:17   

nah it aint cognitive dissonance he is just a brazen two faced liar.  and he knows it.

hi barry!  you pussy

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2012,10:19   

Quote (DiEb @ Feb. 28 2012,10:20)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 28 2012,08:15)
that sounds like the lamest conference EVAR.  casey and sal making out to an empty room while three or four sunday school teacher stuffed suits shout down echoes

i bet craigslist was OFF THE HOOK that week!

Sal? as in Scordova? What happened to him? Does he still exist?

he has been hiding from the EAC while he arms himself with some sort of shitty advanced degree to fight for creationism

i would say to look under the table, probably doing "research"

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

  
sparc



Posts: 1672
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2012,13:05   

Has anybody a copy of EN&V's take on the reaction to their Biological Information: New Perspectives conference charade? I found only some remaining traces in Google  
Quote
How Do You Silence Science? A National Center for Science ...
www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/how_do_you_sile056791.html
17 hours ago – ... Springer, for planning to publish a volume of essays with a design theme: Biological Information: New Perspectives. We haven't seen a copy ...
Thus, I assume they removed it.

ETA: I've just learned about the cache operator.
You will find the cached Klinghofer article here.

Edited by sparc on Feb. 28 2012,13:16

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

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2012,13:33   


image hosting jpeg

It'll expire otherwise.

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

  
Patrick



Posts: 549
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2012,13:34   

Quote (sparc @ Feb. 28 2012,14:05)
Has anybody a copy of EN&V's take on the reaction to their Biological Information: New Perspectives conference charade? I found only some remaining traces in Google    
Quote
How Do You Silence Science? A National Center for Science ...
www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/how_do_you_sile056791.html
17 hours ago – ... Springer, for planning to publish a volume of essays with a design theme: Biological Information: New Perspectives. We haven't seen a copy ...
Thus, I assume they removed it.

ETA: I've just learned about the cache operator.
You will find the cached Klinghofer article here.

I'd hate to disappoint the wannabe martyrs at the DI, so I dropped a line to Springer explaining the background and history of the authors and material listed in the contents for this book.

In the comments to Nick Matzke's article over at The Panda's Thumb, Allen MacNeil notes that he can find no mention of this conference being hosted by Cornell.


  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1463
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2012,14:45   

Quote (Patrick @ Feb. 28 2012,13:34)
In the comments to Nick Matzke's article over at The Panda's Thumb, Allen MacNeil notes that he can find no mention of this conference being hosted by Cornell.

That's because the conference wasn't hosted by or in any way associated with Cornell University.  The IDiots merely rented some publicly available hall space on campus, then dropped the "Cornell" name everywhere to give their little freak show an air of legitimacy.

As reported by the Creationist site Good Sheppard Initiative

 
Quote
Biological Information New Perspectives Symposium

The following Bio-Info conference was an inspiring example of truly critical, logikos thinking in the scientific community. The symposium was not sponsored by Cornell, though Dr. John Sanford, Cornell geneticist and inventor of the Gene Gun was a principle coordinator.


link

It's wouldn't be a day without a Creationist telling a lie somewhere.

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

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1234
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2012,14:47   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 27 2012,10:56)
Quote (DiEb @ Feb. 27 2012,10:42)
That's the only description of the Cornell Symposium which I could find:

http://www.soulcare.org/gsinew_....ce.html

Hmm, I wonder who gave Presentation 2. And 5:
 
Quote
Session One May 31:  INFORMATION THEORY & BIOLOGY
Presentation 1 - Biological information: what is it?
Presentation 2 - A second look at the second law of thermodynamics
Presentation 3 - Biological information and thermodynamics
Presentation 4 - Multiple overlapping codes profoundly reduce the probability of beneficial mutation
Presentation 5 - A General theory of information cost incurred by successful search
Presentation 6 - Pragmatic information
Presentation 7 - Limits of chaos and progress in evolutionary dynamics
Presentation 8 - Tierra: the character of adaptation

Session Two June 1:  BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION & GENETIC THEORY
(Each presentation was followed by a time of Questions and Answers)
Presentation   9 - Not Junk after all: non-protein-coding DNA carries extensive biological information
Presentation 10 - Can biological information be sustained by purifying natural selection?
Presentation 11 - Selection threshold severely constrains capture of beneficial mutations
Presentation 12 - Computational evolution experiments reveal a net loss of  information despite selection
Presentation 13 - Using numerical simulation to test the "mutation-count" hypothesis
Presentation 14 - Can synergistic epistasis halt mutation accumulation?  Results from numerical simulation
Presentation 15 - Striking architectural similarities between higher genomes and computer executable code
Presentation 16 - Biocybernetics and biosemiosis
Presentation 17 - Computer-like systems in the cell

Session Three June 2:  THEORETICAL MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
(Each presentation was followed by a time of Questions and Answers)
Presentation 18 - Can genetic information be traced to a last universal common ancestor?
Presentation 19 - A new model of intracellular communication based on coherent, high-frequency vibrations in biomolecules
Presentation 20 - A multiplicity of memories: the semiotics of evolutionary adaptation
Presentation 21 - The cost of substitution during concurrent substitutions and the Absent-Optimal Effect
Presentation 22 - The membrane code: a carrier of essential information that is not specified by DNA and is inherited apart from it
Presentation 23 - Measuring and analyzing functional information in proteins
Presentation 24 - Getting there first: an evolutionary rate advantage for adaptive loss-of-function mutations

My guesses:

1. Werner Gitt
2. Granville Sewell - too easy!
3. McIntosh
4. Lee Spetner
5. DrDr Dembski
6. Johnnyb
7. Hartnett
8. Baumgardner
9. Jonathan Wells
10. Sanford
11. Behe
12. Lee Spetner
13. Menton
14. Nevin
15. Winston
16. Galapgos Finch
17. Ray Damadian
18. DeNews O'Leary
19. Abel
20. Angus Menuge
21. Axe
22. Gauger
23. Durston
24. Pope Ratzinger

Edited by Tracy P. Hamilton on Feb. 28 2012,14:50

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
sparc



Posts: 1672
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2012,15:07   

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Feb. 28 2012,14:47)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 27 2012,10:56)
 
Quote (DiEb @ Feb. 27 2012,10:42)
That's the only description of the Cornell Symposium which I could find:

http://www.soulcare.org/gsinew_....ce.html

Hmm, I wonder who gave Presentation 2. And 5:
 
Quote
Session One May 31:  INFORMATION THEORY & BIOLOGY
Presentation 1 - Biological information: what is it?
Presentation 2 - A second look at the second law of thermodynamics
Presentation 3 - Biological information and thermodynamics
Presentation 4 - Multiple overlapping codes profoundly reduce the probability of beneficial mutation
Presentation 5 - A General theory of information cost incurred by successful search
Presentation 6 - Pragmatic information
Presentation 7 - Limits of chaos and progress in evolutionary dynamics
Presentation 8 - Tierra: the character of adaptation

Session Two June 1:  BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION & GENETIC THEORY
(Each presentation was followed by a time of Questions and Answers)
Presentation   9 - Not Junk after all: non-protein-coding DNA carries extensive biological information
Presentation 10 - Can biological information be sustained by purifying natural selection?
Presentation 11 - Selection threshold severely constrains capture of beneficial mutations
Presentation 12 - Computational evolution experiments reveal a net loss of  information despite selection
Presentation 13 - Using numerical simulation to test the "mutation-count" hypothesis
Presentation 14 - Can synergistic epistasis halt mutation accumulation?  Results from numerical simulation
Presentation 15 - Striking architectural similarities between higher genomes and computer executable code
Presentation 16 - Biocybernetics and biosemiosis
Presentation 17 - Computer-like systems in the cell

Session Three June 2:  THEORETICAL MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
(Each presentation was followed by a time of Questions and Answers)
Presentation 18 - Can genetic information be traced to a last universal common ancestor?
Presentation 19 - A new model of intracellular communication based on coherent, high-frequency vibrations in biomolecules
Presentation 20 - A multiplicity of memories: the semiotics of evolutionary adaptation
Presentation 21 - The cost of substitution during concurrent substitutions and the Absent-Optimal Effect
Presentation 22 - The membrane code: a carrier of essential information that is not specified by DNA and is inherited apart from it
Presentation 23 - Measuring and analyzing functional information in proteins
Presentation 24 - Getting there first: an evolutionary rate advantage for adaptive loss-of-function mutations

My guesses:

1. Werner Gitt
2. Granville Sewell - too easy!
3. McIntosh
4. Lee Spetner
5. DrDr Dembski
6. Johnnyb
7. Hartnett
8. Baumgardner
9. Jonathan Wells
10. Sanford
11. Behe
12. Lee Spetner
13. Menton
14. Nevin
15. Winston
16. Galapgos Finch
17. Ray Damadian
18. DeNews O'Leary
19. Abel
20. Angus Menuge
21. Axe
22. Gauger
23. Durston
24. Pope Ratzinger

Meyer?
Nelson?
Sternberg?
Lönnig (travelling expenses may have been to high)?

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

   
sparc



Posts: 1672
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2012,15:12   

BTW, the same guys had another super secret conference around the same time. Some participants have been interviewed by Berlinski's daughter afterwards.
link

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

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 3545
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2012,21:20   

Animal Assisted Apologetics. Sounds kinky. The lion lies down with the sheep, and all that.

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

Pat Robertson

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 986
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2012,21:37   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 28 2012,21:20)
Animal Assisted Apologetics. Sounds kinky. The lion lies down with the sheep, and all that.

An infinite number of monkeys typing up reasons why Genesis isn't impossible?  Sounds just like UD.

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

  
sledgehammer



Posts: 530
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 29 2012,00:09   

Dr1/2 Dodgen weighs in on Barry's butthurt thread:                
Quote
As an engineer in multiple engineering disciplines (software, aeronautical, mechanical) I just try to use simple logic to figure out if stuff can work. The notion that “there is no way to compute the probabilities of evolution” may be true, but one can easily recognize when a proposed engineering solution makes absolutely no sense.

First of all, Gil, you have no formal training as an engineer, only music and language, which is fine, until you start trying to get mathy, and show the world how little formal training you actually have.  Like when you say:      
Quote
I don’t need to provide a detailed probabilistic analysis in defense of my proposition. I can just use simple logic in two steps:

1) Converting a Hello World computer program into a word processor is a far less daunting project than converting a bacterium into a person who can write Hello World computer program and convert it into a word processor.

2) I’ve demonstrated with simple mathematical calculations that even with the entire probabilistic resources of the universe available, and even with intelligent, purpose-driven selection with a goal in mind, the goal of converting a Hello World computer program into a word processor could not possibly be achieved through random errors filtered by purposeful selection.

So why wouldn't you demonstrate this simple mathematical calculation on Lizzie's blog for everyone to see and criticize?
 Because it's bullshit, and you might actually realize this.
Here's a simple mathematical calculation that shows it's bullshit:
I start with your "Hello World" program and duplicate it until I get 100Mbytes, or the size of a given  word processor source code, (or I could just as well start with 100M of random ASCII characters). Using KF's latching weasel algorithm, I compare that random code to the actual WP code, and surprise, surprise, 1/64th of the (6-bit ASCII) characters match! I keep those and randomize the remainder.  Again 1/64th of that random remainder matches the target, so I keep those as well.  How many times do I have to do this until all the characters match and I have a WP program?
 Simple math.   T, the starting 100Mbytes times 63/64 is the unmatched remainder after 1 generation, and 63/64 raised to the power of N, the number of generations, is the unmatched fraction of the original 100MBytes after N generations. When this fraction is less than 1/T, all the characters match. Even an engineer with a little training in engineering math could tell you that this series converges for r<T, and happens when N exceeds:

    ln(T)/ln(r/(r-1)),

        where r is the alphabet size, and T is the target size.

 For T=1e8, r=64, N~1170, so the computer that runs the word processor could find the match in a few microseconds, which is a little less than the ~1e17 seconds you allow, and the universe is spared.  Praise the Lord.

Now I know that you will probably try to move the goalposts and claim that it was my intelligence that solved the problem, even though yours was obviously not up to the task, but you should be relieved that your error of 1e23 is a few orders of magnitude less than 1 Dembski (1e27).
And finally, you say:                
Quote
In my view, Darwinists are living in a fantasy world, completely disconnected from reality, evidence, and logic concerning the creative powers of their proposed mechanism...
As a final note: I was influenced to a great extent by Phillip Johnson, an attorney. One might ask, What does an attorney have to contribute to the design debate? What a good attorney has to offer is cutting through the fluff, getting to the logic of the argumentation, and pointing out rational inconsistencies.

The most obvious rational inconsistency to me is the proposition that a by-definition purposeless process was purposed.

But then, I’m just an engineer, who tries to use simple logic.

Well, we've done enough damage to the already poor reputation of engineers, so maybe your logic is a little too "simple"?  NB I might have been a little nicer on Lizzie's blog, but you made your choice.

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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4465
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 29 2012,00:26   

Stephen Barr asked Barry Arrington over on "First Things" whether Dembski had ever responded to the essay on CSI by me and Jeff Shallit. Interestingly, Arrington's statement on UD about the exchange bypasses that question and simply says that our 2003 article can't be considered a response to a 2009 article by Dembski and Marks.

The DI's John West put an oar in, saying that, yes, a response existed. He linked to a rant by Casey Luskin on the DI site.

So I put up a response in the comments over there.

Quote

John West refers readers to a rant by Casey Luskin as a response to the essay by Jeff Shallit and me. Casey Luskin is nothing if not prolific, but he rarely backs up his prolixity with careful comprehension of the subject matter. Luskin’s eagerness to seize upon imaginary faults in the work he critiques is a well-known failing of his.

For an example that may be simply explained in this format, consider section “III” of Luskin’s rant.

Quote


In the previous section, we saw that Elsberry and Shallit prematurely allowed their own preconceptions to dictate what ought to be designed. They claimed that ID is “unfalsifiable,” and then claimed an overall naturalistic paradigm of origins is treated as falsifiable, stating, “Contrary to Dembski’s assertions, design is not arbitrarily ruled out as an element of scientific investigation.”

This is an odd claim because there are many examples of ID critics trying to dismiss ID by defining it as outside of science. These critics arbitrarily refuse to even consider ID. In fact, Dr. Elsberry’s former employer, the NCSE, convinced Judge Jones to do just that in the Dover ruling. It’s difficult for me to accept Elsberry and Shallit’s claim given that evolutionists have said things like these:

[quotes used by Luskin deleted -- WRE]

It’s hard to take Elsberry and Shallit seriously when they claim that many evolutionary scientists don’t reject ID as unscientific by definition. [...]



Unfortunately, Luskin’s entire argument here is simply equivocation, as may be confirmed by reference to just a bit more of what we actually wrote.

Quote


Dembski pleads for more consideration of design as a scientific explanation, but he seems to be of two minds concerning this. On the one hand, he claims “science has largely dispensed with design” and science “repudiates design” [19, p. 3]; on the other hand, just three pages later he cites archaeology [19, p. 6] as an example of a science that is based in part on inferring design. Contrary to Dembski’s assertions, design is not arbitrarily ruled out as an element of scientific explanation, even in biology.

Scientists, however, are reluctant to infer “rarefied” design, a design inference based on ignorance of both the nature of the designer and regularities that might explain the observed phenomenon. But this reluctance is well-grounded. Empirically gained knowledge of designers and the artifacts which they create permit us to recognize regularities of outcomes, leading us to make an “ordinary” design inference in such cases. With an “ordinary” design inference, a designer becomes just another causal regularity. This is not so with a “rarefied” design inference, which Dembski urges us to make in ignorance of the properties of any putative designer and also of other causal regularities which may be operative. For more details, see [94].



We were at pains to distinguish the kind of design that is welcome in scientific inquiry from the invalid and unsupported sort that Luskin and his colleagues insist be treated as if it were the same thing. Luskin treats the rejection of invalid and unsupported rarefied design claims as a counter to our statement, when it is nothing of the sort.

None of the rest of Luskin’s screed rises above the poor showing he made in this part.

Contrary to West’s assertion, the 2003 essay is not outdated: Dembski has neither retracted nor even amended most of the concepts that we discuss and critique there. In fact, it stands without substantive (from Dembski) or competent (Luskin, for reasons outlined and exemplified above) response as of yet.


Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 29 2012,00:27

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

    
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1463
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 29 2012,00:30   

Quote (sledgehammer @ Feb. 29 2012,00:09)
Now I know that you will probably try to move the goalposts and claim that it was my intelligence that solved the problem, even though yours was obviously not up to the task, but you should be relieved that your error of 1e23 is a few orders of magnitude less than 1 Dembski (1e27).

Slight correction.  A Dembski is an error of 1x10e65, or 65 orders of magnitude.

Give Dr.Dr.Dr. credit where credit is due

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

  
DiEb



Posts: 228
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 29 2012,00:46   

Barry overwrote a part of my comment with his question:  
Quote
UD Editor: Nope, not until you answer mine.
. His question:  
Quote
Why on materialist grounds are human women privileged to rule their own bodies and not chimp females? After all, materialists insist they are 98% the same; what in that 2% makes the difference?
I answered:  
Quote


 
Quote
Barry, perhaps you could answer my question:

UD Editor: Nope, not until you answer mine.


Did you read the part which you overwrote with your Tannoy message? It was an answer to your question (phrased as a question itself).

We don't judge a toddler the same way we judge his parents, though the DNA is very similar - even more similar than the DNA of a chimp compared with some human being.

We judge behaviour and capabilities.

Somehow this comment went missing, so I reposted it - it's now in the moderation queue.

   
DiEb



Posts: 228
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 29 2012,01:12   

I may have entered the file of the silently banned - as my comment can't be seen as in moderation. But perhaps I'm just instantaneously moderated...

   
sledgehammer



Posts: 530
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 29 2012,01:14   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 28 2012,22:30)
Quote (sledgehammer @ Feb. 29 2012,00:09)
Now I know that you will probably try to move the goalposts and claim that it was my intelligence that solved the problem, even though yours was obviously not up to the task, but you should be relieved that your error of 1e23 is a few orders of magnitude less than 1 Dembski (1e27).

Slight correction.  A Dembski is an error of 1x10e65, or 65 orders of magnitude.

Give Dr.Dr.Dr. credit where credit is due

Thanks. I stand corrected! I really thought about checking w/ Wesley first, but I figured if my error (of 1e42 it turns out) was still less than 1Dmb, I was good. and the Dr3 would be vindicated.

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

  
The whole truth



Posts: 971
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 29 2012,01:55   

Just showing arrington the respect he deserves:



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

   
k.e..



Posts: 2835
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 29 2012,05:53   

Quote (sledgehammer @ Feb. 29 2012,09:14)
       
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 28 2012,22:30)
         
Quote (sledgehammer @ Feb. 29 2012,00:09)
Now I know that you will probably try to move the goalposts and claim that it was my intelligence that solved the problem, even though yours was obviously not up to the task, but you should be relieved that your error of 1e23 is a few orders of magnitude less than 1 Dembski (1e27).

Slight correction.  A Dembski is an error of 1x10e65, or 65 orders of magnitude.

Give Dr.Dr.Dr. credit where credit is due

Thanks. I stand corrected! I really thought about checking w/ Wesley first, but I figured if my error (of 1e42 it turns out) was still less than 1Dmb, I was good. and the Dr3 would be vindicated.

Jeez that Dr turd/u Dumb smells more shitty than the Heddle cosmic constant (c3)

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

  
DiEb



Posts: 228
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 29 2012,11:30   

Quote
DiEb
February 29,
2012 at 11:24 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Barry, I tried to answer your question, but my comment keeps disappearing! So, here it is again:

Quote
Barry, perhaps you could answer my question:

UD Editor: Nope, not until you answer mine.

Why on materialist grounds are human women privileged to rule their own bodies and not chimp females? After all, materialists insist they are 98% the same; what in that 2% makes the difference?



Quote
Did you read the part which you overwrote with your Tannoy message? It was an answer to your question (phrased as a question itself).

We don't judge a toddler the same way we judge his parents, though the DNA is very similar - even more similar than the DNA of a chimp compared with some human being.

We judge behaviour and capabilities.


What problem do you have with my comment?

   
DiEb



Posts: 228
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 29 2012,11:34   

Wow, my comment appeared, even promptly - though in a quite edited version!

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4465
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2012,08:16   

Inside Higher Ed has an article on the Springer book flap.

A comment there compared this to censorship in communist countries. I replied in a comment (under moderation):

Quote

Hmmm? In the USSR, espousing the "bourgeois biology of the west" could get you house arrest, imprisonment in Siberia, or simply a date in front of the firing squad.

This isn't a free speech issue. If Intervarsity were the publisher of the proposed volume, nobody would give a rip.

This is a scamming issue. The pretense that old, tired religious antievolution arguments are actually science is a common fiction ever since 1968's "Epperson v. Arkansas" SCOTUS decision. The legal term of art used for this in 1987's "Edwards v. Aguillard" decision is "sham". It's about people using whatever means of deception they can pull to influence the political sphere to inject their view of biology into science.


Drat! I thought I had copied the whole thing, but I'm missing about three paragraphs and some edits of what I've got here. Here's hoping they post the whole thing.

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

    
DiEb



Posts: 228
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2012,08:30   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 01 2012,08:16)
Drat! I thought I had copied the whole thing, but I'm missing about three paragraphs and some edits of what I've got here. Here's hoping they post the whole thing.

Your comment is up - and it seems to be complete! Thanks for the link!

   
Patrick



Posts: 549
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2012,08:35   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 01 2012,09:16)
Inside Higher Ed has an article on the Springer book flap.

A comment there compared this to censorship in communist countries. I replied in a comment (under moderation):

 
Quote

Hmmm? In the USSR, espousing the "bourgeois biology of the west" could get you house arrest, imprisonment in Siberia, or simply a date in front of the firing squad.

This isn't a free speech issue. If Intervarsity were the publisher of the proposed volume, nobody would give a rip.

This is a scamming issue. The pretense that old, tired religious antievolution arguments are actually science is a common fiction ever since 1968's "Epperson v. Arkansas" SCOTUS decision. The legal term of art used for this in 1987's "Edwards v. Aguillard" decision is "sham". It's about people using whatever means of deception they can pull to influence the political sphere to inject their view of biology into science.


Drat! I thought I had copied the whole thing, but I'm missing about three paragraphs and some edits of what I've got here. Here's hoping they post the whole thing.

I love this excerpt from the article:
Quote
Douglas Theobald, an assistant professor of biochemistry at Brandeis University and a Springer author, and some other colleagues who have been published with the company, are drafting a letter of protest to editors because, Theobald said, they have a vested interest in the quality of books published by Springer. “Our default take on this is that Springer has been duped and that the senior editors are unaware that this is a quack group of anti-evolution creationists,” he said.

Theobald said that neither he nor his colleagues have read the book, but did have an idea of the content because of the blurb and the names of the editors. He called the book another effort “in a long sordid history here of trying to get pseudoscientific, anti-evolution papers published in journals to raise the respectability of ID with non-scientists” and according to him, the Springer book was the latest in a list of “devious attempts.”

  
DiEb



Posts: 228
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2012,08:41   

Just an idea for Marks, Dembski, etc. :  You wanted to create the impression that the symposium was held by the Cornell University - that's why you used the carefully crafted abstract:  
Quote
In the spring of 2011, a diverse group of scientists gathered at Cornell University to discuss their research into the nature and origin of biological information. This symposium brought together experts in information theory, computer science, numerical simulation, thermodynamics, evolutionary theory, whole organism biology, developmental biology, molecular biology, genetics, physics, biophysics, mathematics, and linguistics. This volume presents new research by those invited to speak at the conference.
Perhaps it is enough to create the impression that Springer Verlage  published the proceedings? You could try to get the interest of the Axel Springer Verlag - perhaps a short article in the Bild-Zeitung? Then you could still claim that you were published by Springer, and that's what this is all about....

   
afarensis



Posts: 1002
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2012,10:04   

Quote (DiEb @ Mar. 01 2012,08:41)
Just an idea for Marks, Dembski, etc. :  You wanted to create the impression that the symposium was held by the Cornell University - that's why you used the carefully crafted abstract:    
Quote
In the spring of 2011, a diverse group of scientists gathered at Cornell University to discuss their research into the nature and origin of biological information. This symposium brought together experts in information theory, computer science, numerical simulation, thermodynamics, evolutionary theory, whole organism biology, developmental biology, molecular biology, genetics, physics, biophysics, mathematics, and linguistics. This volume presents new research by those invited to speak at the conference.
Perhaps it is enough to create the impression that Springer Verlage  published the proceedings? You could try to get the interest of the Axel Springer Verlag - perhaps a short article in the Bild-Zeitung? Then you could still claim that you were published by Springer, and that's what this is all about....


Apparently it was cosponsored by Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity

 
Quote
Recently Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity (PSSI) co-sponsored an international symposium entitled "Biological Information - New Perspectives" that was attended by many PhD scientists to address the question: "What is biological information and where docs it come from?"

The symposium was held at the Slater Hotel on the Cornell University Campus.


--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

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

Pages: (356) < ... 112 113 114 115 116 [117] 118 119 120 121 122 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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