RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < ... 434 435 436 437 438 [439] 440 441 442 443 444 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2007,11:40   

Quote
huh? I was under the impression it was an actual news story based upon “Scientist Admits Faking Stem Cell Data,” New York Times, July 5, 2006.

As if the usage of quotation marks and section headers doesn't make that blatantly obvious...but to make it even more obvious I'll edit the post to include the original source.

WTF? That doesn't square with his "needing to return it to the library" excuse. He probably got forwarded the quote from Dembski, and like any good toady, reproduced it without checking sources.

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1399
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2007,11:43   

Quote
Au contrraire, those are precisely the ones we NEED to confront, since the theocrat-wanna-be's are by far the most dangerous parts of the ID movement.


Lenny, you possibly misunderstand me. I certainly agree with you that those with political agendas are the dangerous ones and need to be opposed on a political level.

I am trying to distinguish those who are honestly misguided or who genuinely have been indoctrinated by their culture from the dangerous ones who will exploit any convenient vehicle for political power. Stephen Elliot springs to mind as an example of someone who was originally persuaded by the idea of ID but who saw the emperor had no clothes. There are certainly others who may be open to reason.

This is complementary to political considerations.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2007,11:59   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 10 2007,11:20)
Quote
So, does anybody have any idea of what Patrick thought he was posting in the first place now that he's "clarified" things, and what his actual excuse is for it now that he's been caught out? Or did the designer control his hands at a molecular level and telogically force him to "channel" it into his post at OW? I'm confused :) But enjoying it so !


Email exchange:

From: Patrick
To: Alan Fox
Subject: Re: Plagiarism
Date: Sat, 2007-03-10 15:02

Yep. I failed to doublecheck the Bibliography as throughly as I should have. Oh well.

> Hi Patrick
>
> Seems the allegation is quite specific. See here


From: Patrick
To: Alan Fox
Subject: Re: Plagiariem
Date: Sat, 2007-03-10 15:01

huh? I was under the impression it was an actual news story based upon “Scientist Admits Faking Stem Cell Data,” New York Times, July 5, 2006.

As if the usage of quotation marks and section headers doesn't make that blatantly obvious...but to make it even more obvious I'll edit the post to include the original source.

> Hi Patrick
>
> Thought you should know that it is being suggested that you have plagiarised your story "Big Science" from Michael Crighton's "Next".
>
> Regards
> Alan Fox

So, Patrick, what was your original source?

Thanks for posting that Alan, very interesting.

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

  
2ndclass



Posts: 182
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2007,12:46   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 10 2007,11:08)
Also congratulations to Secondclass for pointing it out originally. (And for service above and beyond the call of duty at ISCID :) )

Actually it was oldmanintheskydidntdoit who pointed it out originally, but thanks.

--------------
"I wasn't aware that classical physics had established a position on whether intelligent agents exercising free were constrained by 2LOT into increasing entropy." -DaveScot

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2007,12:53   

Aw, cheers, but you found that it was from a Sci-Fi Novel, which is the cherry on the cake here :)

Patrick copying from somebody else's report, as I first thought, is par for the course for ID! Quote mining taken to the next level you might say in this case.

To find them copying from Sci-Fi? It's priceless.

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

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1399
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2007,13:05   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 10 2007,07:53)
Aw, cheers, but you found that it was from a Sci-Fi Novel, which is the cherry on the cake here :)

Patrick copying from somebody else's report, as I first thought, is par for the course for ID! Quote mining taken to the next level you might say in this case.

To find them copying from Sci-Fi? It's priceless.

Kudos to you too, Old man.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2007,13:33   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 10 2007,11:43)
Quote
Au contrraire, those are precisely the ones we NEED to confront, since the theocrat-wanna-be's are by far the most dangerous parts of the ID movement.


Lenny, you possibly misunderstand me. I certainly agree with you that those with political agendas are the dangerous ones and need to be opposed on a political level.

I am trying to distinguish those who are honestly misguided or who genuinely have been indoctrinated by their culture from the dangerous ones who will exploit any convenient vehicle for political power. Stephen Elliot springs to mind as an example of someone who was originally persuaded by the idea of ID but who saw the emperor had no clothes. There are certainly others who may be open to reason.

This is complementary to political considerations.

Yes, I see.

It's never been much of an intention of mine, though, to "convert" any of the rank and file creationist/IDers.  My goal has always been instead to destroy the IDers, utterly, as an effective political movement.  If some of the rank and filers get "converted" as a result, that is, to me, just a happy side effect.  No political movement has ever been beaten by converting all its members to another point of view.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1399
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2007,14:07   

Quote
My goal has always been instead to destroy the IDers, utterly, as an effective political movement.


And you pursue it with vigour.

 
Quote
No political movement has ever been beaten by converting all its members to another point of view.


No, but often political activists, having lost with a particular ideology, can move seamlessly into a new guise. I previously referred to ex communist apparatchiks adopting a nationalist or "democratic" cloak to retain power in liberated Eastern bloc countries. This also happened in France with ex-Vichy politicians having long, comfortable post-war careers in government. Only one was eventually convicted (after he retired) of authorising deportations to concentration camps.

There is no effective political movement without unscrupulous activists. They do not merit consideration, but the rank-and-file sometimes should get the benefit of the doubt. (Luke 15:7)

  
great_ape



Posts: 1
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2007,14:14   

It's been quite a while since I've glanced at this thread.

Just a quick note on my materialism/anti-materialism UD post referenced earlier.

I was having a sort of metaphysical moment. It happens.  The point was that the materialism vs. nonmaterialism debate seems rather misguided to me since it is predicated on the idea of 'material' which, when you get right down to it, translates roughly to 'stuff', and we really don't have a firm grasp on the meaning of 'stuff'. Modern physics' conception of 'stuff' is based on models concerning particles, waves, information, processes, etc, all of which bear very little resemblance to what we classically think of as 'stuff'. So the traditional notion of material 'stuff' being different from spiritual 'stuff' in much the same way that bricks are different from swamp gas is ultimately incoherent, regardless of your position concerning the existence of spiritual 'stuff'. So one has to wonder just what all the fuss is about. My guess is it's a battle over epistemological issues (i.e. how we come to know/believe things about the world, are some ways of knowing superior to others, and are some ways utterly misguided)

Now normally I won't respond to or even read Ms. Oleary's posts because her writing generally leaves me in a sort of stupefied daze, but this whole materialist/anti-materialist war thing is, I think, a misnomer that makes it seem as if the scientific worldview is out to eliminate mom, puppy love, and apple pie.  It's rocks vs. love, folks. Whose side will you be on?

  
Henry J



Posts: 4652
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2007,16:32   

Quote
Wow, how wrong could he be? A molecule is incapable of decay, generation, or destruction? Wrong-o.

Maybe what he meant was atoms? And even then he's still wrong.


Destruction maybe, but what would "decay" or "generation" even mean with regard to molecules? Or was "generation" being used to mean the formation of a molecule from other molecules or atoms?

And I certainly don't know what "growth" might mean in regard to a molecule. Sure it might combine with other atoms to make a larger molecule, but it'd be a different molecule (i.e., different chemical substance), not a larger version of the same one.

(Otoh, why am I asking what something from over there might mean?)

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

Quote
when the sun burned chemically


Or collapsed gravitationally. Though I don't know which of those hypotheses came or went first. Though either of them puts a rather limited time frame (relative to billions of years, that is) on the sun's operational timespan.

Henry

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10759
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2007,19:09   

Dembski:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evoluti....contest

Well parody and farting flash is easier then science, I guess. when that fella posted "IDers do something", I think he was hoping for science.

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

  
someotherguy



Posts: 398
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2007,19:23   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 10 2007,19:09)
Dembski:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evoluti....contest

Well parody and farting flash is easier then science, I guess. when that fella posted "IDers do something", I think he was hoping for science.

It really is amazing what a bitter person Dembski is.  "Sucking up to the 'Big D?'"  C'mon, that's just pathetic.  It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
. . .

Okay, it's kind of funny. ;)

--------------
Evolander in training

  
phonon



Posts: 396
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2007,21:33   

Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 10 2007,16:32)
 
Quote
Wow, how wrong could he be? A molecule is incapable of decay, generation, or destruction? Wrong-o.

Maybe what he meant was atoms? And even then he's still wrong.


Destruction maybe, but what would "decay" or "generation" even mean with regard to molecules? Or was "generation" being used to mean the formation of a molecule from other molecules or atoms?

And I certainly don't know what "growth" might mean in regard to a molecule. Sure it might combine with other atoms to make a larger molecule, but it'd be a different molecule (i.e., different chemical substance), not a larger version of the same one.

(Otoh, why am I asking what something from over there might mean?)

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

   
Quote
when the sun burned chemically


Or collapsed gravitationally. Though I don't know which of those hypotheses came or went first. Though either of them puts a rather limited time frame (relative to billions of years, that is) on the sun's operational timespan.

Henry

Hmm. Maybe this is a matter of semantics. When I read "decay" of a molecule I take that to mean that there is an unstable molecule (e.g. ozone) that can decay into two or more different molecules. I don't know how else it could decay, unless the nuclei within the molecule radioactively decays. When I read "generation" of a molecule, I take that to mean its synthesis from different molecules.

I guess molecules don't "grow" per se.


And the sun is constantly collapsing gravitationally. It just happens to be constantly exploding radiatively to balance it out.
:)

--------------
With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

To do just the opposite is also a form of imitation. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

  
phonon



Posts: 396
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2007,21:42   

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....t-97834
Joseph:
Quote
“Designed to evolve”- That is a phrase that every IDist should use regularly.

Good idea. That way no matter how much evidence for evolution mounts up, you can always say, "Duh, it was designed to do that." That's like a kid who falls on his face and says, "Meant to do that." Sure, kid, sure.

Quote
That one simple phrase makes it clear that ID is NOT anti-evolution, along with demonstrating the debate is all about mechanisms- culled genetic accidents vs. design.
Sure, ID isn't anti-evolution. In fact, you could call ID intelligent evolution.

Why didn't that catch on?

Quote
And by design it is meant that there is, at a minimum, a goal/ target, ie purpose to the evolutionary process.
Which is.....?

--------------
With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

To do just the opposite is also a form of imitation. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2007,22:48   

An innocent funny by our friend Joe Gallien

Yikes:    
Quote
many of us who are sure that is just plain nonsensical, scientifically unsupported and totally goes against all intuition.


How can you possibly have a discussion with someone who doesn't know the difference between "science" and "intuition"?

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2007,00:15   

Quote (blipey @ Mar. 11 2007,06:48)
An innocent funny by our friend Joe Gallien

Yikes:    
Quote
many of us who are sure that is just plain nonsensical, scientifically unsupported and totally goes against all intuition.


How can you possibly have a discussion with someone who doesn't know the difference between "science" and "intuition"?

Here's something else that goes against intuition

The Apollo 15 Hammer-Feather Drop

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2007,01:08   

Quote
Dembski:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evoluti....contest

Well parody and farting flash is easier then science, I guess. when that fella posted "IDers do something", I think he was hoping for science.

Question: WHO IS HE TO TELL THEM TO GET TO WORK? :angry:

Oh, but he was working, I see, on the sucky contest. (You know, I didn't even read the thing he wrote, whatever it is. I have work to do, and there was a friggin' fire in the library this afternoon! *I'm still raw, heh - sorry, UDudes* So if someone could boil it down to a haiku, I would sure appreciate it.)  :)

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

AtBC Poet Laureate

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

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

  
phonon



Posts: 396
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2007,01:30   

Quote (k.e @ Mar. 11 2007,00:15)
Quote (blipey @ Mar. 11 2007,06:48)
An innocent funny by our friend Joe Gallien

Yikes:      
Quote
many of us who are sure that is just plain nonsensical, scientifically unsupported and totally goes against all intuition.


How can you possibly have a discussion with someone who doesn't know the difference between "science" and "intuition"?

Here's something else that goes against intuition

The Apollo 15 Hammer-Feather Drop

Obviously that was done on a sound stage under a bell jar with a huge vacuum pump.

--------------
With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

To do just the opposite is also a form of imitation. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2007,01:53   

Quote
It really is amazing what a bitter person Dembski is.

Thanks for the heads-up; I won't bite him. You really are brave. :p
Quote
"Sucking up to the 'Big D?'"  C'mon, that's just pathetic.  It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

No kidding. I've never written a poem to Charles Darwin in my life. They jest at scars that never felt a wound.

And why don't they pick on Mendel, too? Didn't he, an Austrian monk fer chrissakes, remove God from heredity?

What are these people so angry about?

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

AtBC Poet Laureate

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

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

  
Wonderpants



Posts: 115
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2007,06:08   

Quote
What are these people so angry about?


Beats me.

After all, Dembski makes a living creating farting flash animations     writing books    putting Darwinist heads in vices destroying evolutionary theory!! *snigger*
You'd think he could show a little gratitude to Darwin for keeping him fed and clothed!

--------------
Fundamentalism in a nutshell:
"There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."

  
Bebbo



Posts: 161
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2007,07:02   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 10 2007,19:09)
Dembski:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evoluti....contest

Well parody and farting flash is easier then science, I guess. when that fella posted "IDers do something", I think he was hoping for science.

Well, Dembski has experience at sucking up to old men. It's not that long ago he was editor of "Darwin's Nemesis" - a tribute to the well known scientific genius Phil Johnson.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2007,08:42   

Quote (phonon @ Mar. 11 2007,09:30)
Quote (k.e @ Mar. 11 2007,00:15)
Quote (blipey @ Mar. 11 2007,06:48)
An innocent funny by our friend Joe Gallien

Yikes:      
Quote
many of us who are sure that is just plain nonsensical, scientifically unsupported and totally goes against all intuition.


How can you possibly have a discussion with someone who doesn't know the difference between "science" and "intuition"?

Here's something else that goes against intuition

The Apollo 15 Hammer-Feather Drop

Obviously that was done on a sound stage under a bell jar with a huge vacuum pump.

or the hammer was made out of feathers.

Which would be easily provable with non-materialistic 'science'.

As in.

HEY ALL YOU CHANCE WORSHIPPERS, THAT HAMMER IS A LIBRUL CONSPIRACY YOU CAN'T TELL IT ISN'T MADE OUT OF FEATHERS.
TICKLE MY ASS WITH THAT HOMOS-DT

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2007,09:52   

Quote
UD’s First “Suck up to Darwin” Contest
William Dembski

What I find interesting about Dembski's parody is that, his best efforts at hyperbole notwithstanding, most of it is accurate.  It is difficult overstate Darwin's accomplishment, and the significance of that accomplishment for our understanding of our place in the natural world.

That and the fact that WAD's post reeks of bitterness and jealousy, after a very bad year for ID.  You just know that WAD briefly dreamed of becoming "The Big D" himself, but it's clear that isn't going to happen.

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

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

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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2007,10:14   

This post is a test of Zachriel's observation that his first rollover post did not appear until a second post was made.

EDIT: That worked.  I had posted the above, but it did not appear for 5-10 minutes.  I added this post and the above immediately appeared in the re-load of the page following this post. We have captured a Wordpress bug.

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

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

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

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2007,10:16   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 11 2007,16:52)
Quote
UD’s First “Suck up to Darwin” Contest
William Dembski

What I find interesting about Dembski's parody is that, his best efforts at hyperbole notwithstanding, most of it is accurate.  It is difficult overstate Darwin's accomplishment, and the significance of that accomplishment for our understanding of our place in the natural world.

That and the fact that it reeks with bitterness and jealousy, after a very bad year for ID.  You just know that WAD briefly dreamed of becoming "The Big D" himself, but it's clear that isn't going to happen.

What?

What happened to the dream?

And now a pedestrian and boring homage? ...yawn.

The vision appears to have morphed into an imprisoning nightmare.

Let’s go back to the beginning to a more heroic era.

As someone once said the story remains the same only the names change.

Our schemer realizing the land and sea were controlled by an earthly reality seized on the idea of constructing an ethereal reality.

An airy and vigorous waving of the hands transformed to a wildly successful take off of a carefully crafted textual paper plane.

Our winged wonder flew too close to heaven’s door  Dover only to have his oily feathers melted off.

Passed into irrelevance Icarus/Dembski now turns into his father... Daedalus builder of the Minoan Labyrinth Undecent Commons Labyrinth in order to imprison the dreaded Minotaur –DT. The child of the inhuman coupling of his own design between the mistreated gift from GOP and Minos's sexually unsatisfied wife. ( well it could be..it is Myth after all)

Minos a GOP patriarch was shamed by the birth of this horrible creature and resolved to imprison the Minotaur in the Labyrinth where it fed on humans. Which were taken as "tribute" by Minos and sacrificed to the Minotaur in memory of his fallen son Androgenos( a homo).

…….Boy those Greeks got up to some stuff.  It’s almost as though they never died but just re-inhabited new generations.

Come on WMaD give us some of your attitude don’t let us down….down….down <snicker>.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2007,10:38   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 11 2007,10:14)
This post is a test of Zachriel's observation that his first rollover post did not appear until a second post was made.

EDIT: That worked.  I had posted the above, but it did not appear for 5-10 minutes.  I added this post and the above immediately appeared in the re-load of the page following this post. We have captured a Wordpress bug.

Actually, this problem has been around for a while.  I thought it had been taken care of, but I guess I was wrong.

One way to view the message is to go into the address bar and index the number at the end by 30.  IOW, increase the number at the end of the address by 30 and it will display the next page.  I agree it should do that anyway, but you will at least be able to see it now.

  
steve_h



Posts: 533
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2007,10:43   

[quote=Kristine,Mar. 11 2007,08:08]  
Quote
Dembski:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evoluti....contest
....
Oh, but he was working, I see, on the sucky contest. (You know, I didn't even read the thing he wrote, whatever it is. I have work to do, and there was a friggin' fire in the library this afternoon! *I'm still raw, heh - sorry, UDudes* So if someone could boil it down to a haiku, I would sure appreciate it.)  :)

He sold lots of books,
invented CSI (*) and
farted like a god.

(High praise Dembski-style)

edit: (*) independantly of course.

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2709
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2007,10:46   

Quote (blipey @ Mar. 10 2007,22:48)
An innocent funny by our friend Joe Gallien

Yikes:        
Quote
many of us who are sure that is just plain nonsensical, scientifically unsupported and totally goes against all intuition.

How can you possibly have a discussion with someone who doesn't know the difference between "science" and "intuition"?

Over at Teleologist Blog, I have repeatedly asked Joe to provide a definition of "random," a concept he keeps mangling. Finally, at Uncommon Descent, Joseph provided this (though, it's not an actual definition, but provided as synonyms):

Merriam-Webster              
Quote
RANDOM, HAPHAZARD, CASUAL mean determined by accident rather than design.

Joe thinks when scientists use the word "random", they mean "casual"? (Casual Random dress Fridays at the Lab! Dress with your eyes closed.) Interestingly, Joe had to read past the statistical definition.

Merriam-Webster      
Quote
2 a : relating to, having, or being elements or events with definite probability of occurrence <random processes> b : being or relating to a set or to an element of a set each of whose elements has equal probability of occurrence <a random sample>; also : characterized by procedures designed to obtain such sets or elements <random sampling>


--------------
Proudly banned three four five times by Uncommon Descent.
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
Bob O'H



Posts: 2164
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2007,11:05   

hblavatsky provides run-of-the-mill irony over at OE

Quote
Who could be better to provide an authoritative criticism of neo-darwinism than a fully-qualified neurosurgeon who also majored in biochemistry?


Answers on a postcard...

Bob

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
Zachriel



Posts: 2709
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2007,11:19   

Joseph      
Quote
IDist: “Evolution by random chance is highly unlikely and puts the onus on the claimant because it is outside the unverisal probability bound.”

Darwinist: “No it isn’t, see the probability of finding these RNA structures is quite good.”

IDist: “Demonstration please.”

Darwinist: “Can’t do that because eveyone knows it would take eons of time.”

IDists: “You just admitted your inference is outside of science.”

The thread concerns Robustness and Evolvability in Living Systems by Andreas Wagner, who cites a variety of evidence to support an evolutionary explanation for organic robustness. The assertion concerning RNA sequence space is supported by a wide variety of studies, including exhaustive enumeration.

Joseph      
Quote
IDists: "Thank you.”

You're welcome.

--------------
Proudly banned three four five times by Uncommon Descent.
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < ... 434 435 436 437 438 [439] 440 441 442 443 444 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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