RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (500) < ... 489 490 491 492 493 [494] 495 496 497 498 499 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 2, general discussion of Dembski's site< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Zachriel



Posts: 2598
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2009,08:00   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 30 2009,04:26)
It seems likely that Dawkins used a different set of parameters between the results from 1986 and those from 1987. But there's no evidence at all for the assertions that any version of "weasel" used by Dawkins had any form of "partitioned search" going.

From a cursory look, it appears in Dawkins' video that he is showing each of the mutant offspring, as in Attitude Weasel.

--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2009,08:48   

for a sampling of that good tardy flavor, in it's entirety <sorry, suckah>

note that he is shaking his head and sighing BEFORE VERBAGE BOMBING

by the way, don't actually read this horseshit.  just an example of how you can say much while saying little

Quote
183
kairosfocus
08/30/2009
4:41 am
Onlookers:

Shaking my head . . . sigh.

It is sadly evident from the above that we have much of straining at gnats while swallowing camels, as well as barking up wrong trees. Etc, etc.

But first, let’s go back a moment to where I left off, on minor issues.

I: More on Q

One of the peculiarities of Weasel algors, is that they halt when they hit home; of course halting being a key property of algorithms. As a result, if they hit home before a generation number G, they do not get to G. Thus, if Q means number of mutants to date, then if size of generation is S, Q = G*S.

Immediately, if a run completes [all L letters correct] at gen G, it cannot have been complete before G.

So, the paper’s p.1055 discussion would on this reading of Q would be of a ratcheted run that shows a march of champions with latching up to G, when it halts: completion AT G. (In an explicitly latched Weasel this would be automatic, in a version that on being tuned and giving a good run latches — as observed [our first swallowed camel . . . ] — this implies that when metric falls to distance to target = 0, there is a latching action imposed.)

And there is also the second camel: debates over the meaning of Q do not affect the OBSERVED FACT of latching (regardless of other runs that may not do so — remember, we are accounting not for typical or overall behaviour but for runs that are showcased c. 1986 that were showcased because of their cumulative progress to target).

And that is camel no 3: implicit latching is an observed phenomenon, one that answers to CRD’s enthusiastic description and showcased printoffs. (The description and printoffs that the objectors above are ever so eager to direct our attention away from.)

2: Camel no 4: distractions over code and algorithms

The primary fact is that Weasel is a confessed, targetted search which makes cumulative progress to target, even through generations championed by “nonsense phrases.” Something which by CRD’s confession is “misleading” due to the long term targetting and associated artificial selection.

Indeed, CRD also highlights that the targetting and artificial selection make a big difference to time to target: tha tis we have a case of active informaiton in action.

This, we can see form BW, and it is apparently necessary to give it again, as last cited at 161:

__

As such, Weasel c 1986 as presented is “fair game” for an analysis as-is, on the implications of the active information manifested by such cumulative, evidently ratcheted and latched search on mere proximity not relevant complex functionality.

And, since the analysis of ratcheted progress to target does not depend on whether the latching is or is not implicit or explicit — these are mechanisms to get to the observations of evident latched, cumulative, ratcheting progress to target c. 1986 — then, how that latching is achieved is irrelevant to the point that active information is a key reason for the performance above unassisted random search, and to quantify the injected active information.

[ . . . ]


184
kairosfocus
08/30/2009
4:42 am
3: Selected bloopers (too many to address one by one . . . :

a: BB@ 168: An explicit, required, latching mechanism is the same as non-explicit, non-required, not-always-latching behaviour

–> Not at all: Strawman. (This, buy one who has already stepped outside the pale of civil discourse.)

–> For the purposes of the M & D analysis, how latching is achieved for showcased runs is irrelevant. (remember, the issue is to account for the SHOWCASED runs, which will not necessarily be typical. [THAT IS PART OF WHY CRD'S CODE C. 1986 WOULD BE HELPFUL.])

–> Once latching evidently exists, the analysis applies.

–> And, let us recall: CRD in 1986 inadvertently admitted that the speedup was due to the targetting on proximity. That is, active information.

b: A mutation rate that has to be between zero and one hundred percent is the same as a mutation rate that has to be either zero or one hundred percent

–> Strawman, again. A caricature loaded with ad hominems is being set up.

–> How latching is achieved is — for the purposes of the actual analysis — irrelevant to that it is achieved.

–> This is now willful obtuseness, as well. [One who is involved in a civil discussion has a duty of care to seek to understand an interlocutor, not to twist words taken out of context to suit one's self. But then, sadly, BillB has long since demonstrated want of civility and a habit of twisting words self-servingly to accuse falsely.]

c: A population of one, where no selection can occur is the same as a population of many from which one is selected

–> Again, it is quite evident from p. 1055 as already analysed, that M & D gave a simplistic pedagogical example of what partitioning looks like. (Of course they did not reckon with the sort of word twisting rhetoric we are seeing in this thread and doubtless elsewhere. I am sure the IEEE engineers looking on are beginning to see what is wrong in the state of Darwinland.)

–> A simple scrollup to 162 will suffice to show that a mutation of five letters going correct at once would only be plausible for a very large population indeed, with an aggressive selection filter. So, the notion of a population of one is read into the example, not drawn out of it and its context.

–> And, the other half of this objection, that Q is number of mutants to date, then runs into the point that as discussed above, we would then have Q = G* S.

–> the rest of BillB’s analysis collapses due to strawman premises.

d: WEASEL is an algorithm defined by Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker. Many people have written software based on it, and others have made software inspired by it, but which employs different strategies. There is only one WEASEL though and it is described quite clearly by Dawkins.

–> from the above, it is clear that there are many legitimate ALGORITHMS for Weasel that will fit with Dawkins’ description c 1986.

–> In short, this is mere caricature.

e: Rob @ 170:That’s a nice theory, but it’s belied by the fact that both Dembski and Marks have stated that this algorithm is, in fact, Dawkins’ WEASEL algorithm. Dembski has been saying it for years, even after correction. The EIL website still says it.

This is what The EIL page linked by Rob says: First, let’s look at partitioned search used by Dr. Dawkins. Assuming uniformity, the probability of successfully identifying a specified letter with sample replacement at least once in Q queries is . . . [leading up to the same summarised math as appears in p. 1055 of the IEEE paper]

–> Of course, the “belying” is based on forcing the observation of partitioning — i.e evident cumulative, ratcheted search that advances to a target on proximity as showcased c 1986 — into a particular algorithm that implements it; and algorithm that does not appear in the IEEE paper, nor for that matter in the EIL page as linked.

–> AND, we note that it is demonstrated that implicit latching is possible, which will produce the same run of champions effect as seen in the 1986 showcased run excerpts. [And if the 1986 run excerpts were ATYPICAL BEHAVIOUR (which is what some above suggest, while claiming that he program did not explicitly latch), then, that raises questions on the integrity of the Weasel program as presented at that time; questions that should be answered by opening to public inspection credible code. Recall, Joseph and I have been trying to account for the observed behaviour c 1986, on the claim that CRD did not explicitly latch his program c 1986. If implicit latching is possible but atypical, that itself raises questions about what was going on in the showcased 1986 runs. ]

–> In short, more word twisting and strawmanising. With some troubling possible implicaitons that call for credible code c 1986.

f: mb, 171: In the Blind Watchmaker video… you do realize that you can see the “correct” letters briefly change, right? . . . Say what you will about the applicability or accuracy of Dawkin’s program, but it obviously doesn’t lock the letters once they’re right.

–> this of course raises the issue of the apparent gap between the showcased runs c 1986 and the video c 1987.

–> the first serious option is that the 1987 video is a detuned run of Weasel that shows unlatched behaviour due to the detuning from the matched pop size, mutation rate and filter in 1986.

–> the second [suggested by an objector to the idea of implicit latching], which does account for the winking effect, is that we are looking not at generation champions, but at the raw members of the population. (This runs into the problem that if MB’s observations are accurate, then mutation per letter rate is rather high — known to lead to one form of detuning and non-latched behaviour.)

g: OS, 176:You seem to think there’s huge value in the cultural war in presenting Dembski as an inerrant genius

–> Where have I ever said or implied such? [I think I am on record that we are all finite, fallible, and indeed fallen.]

–> I happen to think that in this case, the M 7 D analysis — as opposed tot he caricatures presented above — is reasonable, and have given my reasons.

–> And, pardon my suspicions when I see talking points of the now all too familiar form “I am a supporter of X, but I think the supporters of X are idiots or worse . . . “

–> BTW, Weasel c 1986 is admittedly targetted search that rewards mere proximity.

h: Indium, 174: an algorithm that doesn´t protect correct letters in a search is the same as one that does (the famous implicit latching!)

–> Notice how this strawman distortion [cf bloopers a - c supra] has now become a repeated mantra, to be taken as gospel truth on the power of sheer brassy repetition in the teeth of the facts. [I shudder to think of what is going on in Darwinland echo chambers on this . . . ]

–> Indium, in case you don’t recognise the tactic, this one is called the big lie, adn I need not list its well-known exponents — who BTW, projected it unto their intended victims, instead of telling the truth that they were the ones using it [in short, turnabout tactics].

–> Please, don’t be taken in by it.

–> And as for the “lost in the laugh” remark above, that too is a well-known agit-prop tactic. Stop laughing and start reading more carefully to UNDERSTAND before you criticise, please.

[ . . . ]


185
kairosfocus
08/30/2009
4:45 am
i: you have redefined “query” to mean the determination of the next parent string. Everybody can look at Atoms GUI to see that you are wrong of course.

–> The problem at root is in the absurdities thrown out by trying to read the didactic example as an algorithm.

–> Where I do have what I think on further thought overnight is an error, is that I have taken Q to be number of generations at the first, in that context. Q is — on second thought — number of generations multiplied by size of generations.

–> And, that makes no difference to the evident pattern of ratcheting from generation to generation in the line of champions [which is what the printoffs c 1986 show; and what it therefore the empirical foundation of all discussion] that is a key part of the analysis, or tot he comparison of effect of active information based vs random search, as Q is in any case consistent across the two.

j: Somehow the paragraph/pictures/formulas in the D+M paper are only a pedagogical something that not criticizes Weasel directly but is somehow relevant anyway

–> Utter misrepresentation, laced with ad hominems. (Advice: If you do not understand, ask, don’t assert. Please.)

–> A reading of 161 ff, for instance [not to mention all the way back to the always linked app 7] will easily and clearly show that I have said that the didactic example presented of what partitioning of a search looks like, is not a realistic representation of an algorithm, but a simple illustration of a behaviour of observed outputs: in ratcheted searches, once letters go correct they are preserved correct, and more and more letters go correct and are preserved until the target phrase is complete. [And, M & D say just about as much in pretty close words to what I have just said.]

–> once that is seen, we can see the relevance and accuracy of the basic analysis of what such a ratcheted search looks like probabilistically, on the mere fact of ratcheting. (Which raises no commitments on what the ratcheting comes from, whether explicit or implicit.)

–> And, I have said precisely nothing about the onward analysis in the IEEE paper, as this has not come up, i.e you are putting words in my mouth above, words that simply do not belong there.

k: TA, 175: How about this then: Latching occurs when the probability of moving “up” the gradient is greater than the probability of moving down. This would again seem to include any search other than a blind random walk.

–> Remember, we are starting form observing an evident o/p pattern, per showcased examples of “cumulative selection” in action.

–> in those examples, for 200 cases were letters go correct, and can revert, the excerpts never show a reversion. And since listing every 10th generation’s champion is unlikely to correlate with the search process, then we can infer that the description and the showcased runs coincide: there is ratcheted progress to target.

–> After that, we look a the “occasional slips” case; one that is also observed on producing a program capable with certain parameters being matched, of latching. this makes sense,a s probabilistic barriers are not absolute. [All the oxygen molecules in the room where you sit can conceivably rush to one end, leaving you choking; no physical barrier absolutely forbids that. But, that is rather unlikely, and unobserved.]

–> And a third case is possible, where there is no evident ratcheting.

l: YD, 179: RD says he no longer has the original program but that it did not “latch”. Not that latching vs. nonlatching is that important in the grand scheme of things, but it’s helpful to get confirmation of this detail from the source.

–> And how did CRD explain the showcased runs and gushing remarks on the wonderful power of cumulative selection c 1986?

–> Other than, that he is claiming that he did not EXPLICITLY latch the program, which would be the same thing he is reported to have said c 2000. [In short, the issue of implicit latching is still very much on the table, and recall, such behaviour on "good runs" is DEMONSTRATED. If CRD's actual o/p's on the showcased runs did not latch, implicitly or explicitly, then to present them as if they did while gushing on the power of cumulative selection will require a bit of explaining on how the results and remarks were not presented in a misleading manner.]

–> In any case we have it that no credible code will be forthcoming. Contest over, unless someone can dig up a credible copy from somewhere that has a reasonable chain of custody.

m: OS, 180:Dembski, observing that something possible in execution of the algorithm was not evidenced in the sample, inferred that the program did not implement the stated algorithm

–> Bold denial of stated facts on the record.

–> the claim by Dawkins p 48 ff of BW, was that Weasel exhibited “cumulative [and targetted] selection,” based on proximity to target, which conferred a major advantage over “single step selection.” Where, cumulative NORMALLY means: Increasing or enlarging by successive addition. [1st meaning AmHD.]

–> in support of this, he produced listings c 1986 in BW and NewScientist, that showed over 200 cases of letters going correct and then open to reversion, without a single reversion in evidence; on two runs, one of 40+ and one of 60+ generations. [That OS thinks there was only one published run shows that he has not investigated carefully before commenting adversely.]

–> On such — multiplying the two lines of evidence together — it is evident beyond reasonable dispute that Weasel c 1986 generational champions ratcheted to target with associated latching of successful to date letters on “good” runs.

–> on “forensically” reconstructing the algorithm to do that, two main approaches are possible: explicit latching and implicit where the pop per gen, mut per letter rate and filter interact to at least some of the time give runs that ratchet. Both have been demonstrated and are legitimate readings on the evidence of 1986.

–> on subsequent statements (and possibly the 1987 video] the latter is the — on balance of evidence — best explanation for the observed published runs and descriptions c 1986.

–> the rest of OS’s case foes downhill from there, repeating a now familiar line of talking points.

+++++++++++++

After taking time to go through the above, I am still shaking my head.

GEM of TKI


186
kairosfocus
08/30/2009
5:52 am
PS: OS, If you rake time to look at my characteristic thought on ID [e.g through the always linked] in terms of functionally specific, complex information and its roots in thermodynamical and informational thinking (which trace back through Thaxton et al, not Dembski), as well as my related look at the Caputo case, you will see that my thought is significantly independent from that of Mr Dembski. I happen to think that Mr Dembski — though finite, fallible and fallen as we all are — has got some things right, things that are too often caricatured and wrenched by objectors to improperly dismiss them through strawman fallacies. And the habit of such strawmannising by denizens of Darwinland is I believe abundantly evident above.


187
kairosfocus
08/30/2009
6:08 am
PPS: I also happen to think his partnership with Dr Marks has enriched his work. And, that on a topic known for months to be controversial, there would have been significant cross-checking before publication. Now, compare that with the sort of srtrawmannising above, and it should be evident why I draw the conclusions I do on who is more likely to be correct in this case. then, multiply by the obvious didactic example context of the alleged algorithm that they are being castigated for. And mix in the fact that explicitly AND implicitly latched weasel programs have been demonstrated on actual runs — programs sponsored on the web by the same EIL. After such factors are in evidence, what makes the best overall explanation? On what grounds?


I am getting a humongous kick out of his contorting shucking and jiving.  Gordon Mullings is getting that ass KICKED, because there is finally a quorum and the empty chairs keep getting replaced.  Tranmaw and Clive,baby can't get rid of them all at once.  

lolololololl

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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4504
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2009,08:53   

Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 30 2009,08:00)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 30 2009,04:26)
It seems likely that Dawkins used a different set of parameters between the results from 1986 and those from 1987. But there's no evidence at all for the assertions that any version of "weasel" used by Dawkins had any form of "partitioned search" going.

From a cursory look, it appears in Dawkins' video that he is showing each of the mutant offspring, as in Attitude Weasel.

What I meant is that it is likely that different values of population size and mutation rate were used for the results in the 1986 book as opposed to what is seen in the 1987 video. The form of output presented is not a parameter in that sense.

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

    
Zachriel



Posts: 2598
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2009,09:27   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 30 2009,08:53)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 30 2009,08:00)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 30 2009,04:26)
It seems likely that Dawkins used a different set of parameters between the results from 1986 and those from 1987. But there's no evidence at all for the assertions that any version of "weasel" used by Dawkins had any form of "partitioned search" going.

From a cursory look, it appears in Dawkins' video that he is showing each of the mutant offspring, as in Attitude Weasel.

What I meant is that it is likely that different values of population size and mutation rate were used for the results in the 1986 book as opposed to what is seen in the 1987 video. The form of output presented is not a parameter in that sense.

Of course. Dawkins is certainly not using a partitioned search. It's not what he's trying to show, it doesn't match his description, and it's clearly not his implementation.

We've seen your excellent analysis before. We were just cursorily curious.

--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
k.e..



Posts: 2922
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2009,10:16   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 29 2009,02:23)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 28 2009,11:07)
Well, that McWhorter-Behe thread is still producing the TARD.

A poster named "Rage" burbles;
   
Quote
Well, so that’s John McWhorter the linguist!
Linguistics should have been in the forefront of the war on materialism...Chomsky liberated linguistics from the constraints of materialism by granting that human language issues from a creative source for which we haven’t the foggiest of a materialist theory...

it remains for a future generation of linguists sympathetic to Intelligent Design to rescue the field from the radical left and an encroaching postmodernism.


"rescue ID  from an encroaching post-modernism?"

Hell, it's wallowing in it. Ask StephenB and Clive. Without it, they'd be lost.

I think the dipshit in question here means that someone needs to save linguistics from 'encroaching postmodernism'.

EVEN THE FRAMING OF THAT STATEMENT.. HOMO....
MAKES A GRID OF MATERIALISTIC ASSUMPTIONS AND REVEALS A SLAVISH DEVOTION TO DARWINIST IDEAS-

SUCH AS, SCIENTIFIC ACCOMPLISHMENT HAS INHERENT VALUE, KNOWLEDGE CAN BE ATTAINED AND QUALITIES OF MEANING CAN BE DETERMINED EMPERIRICALLY, ALL OF WHICH MAKES A DISCOURSE WHICH FURTHER MARGINALIZES THE ALREADY DISENFRANCHISED FOLLOWERS OF ID.

NEVER LET IT BE SAID THAT POSTMODERNISM HELPED ID
....erm.....WE'RE STILL WAITING FOR THE PAYOFF
d.t.

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

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 1670
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2009,10:19   

WASTE of BREATH (above):  
Quote

After taking time to go through the above, I am still shaking my head.
So am I Gordon, so am I.



Anybody know why he's referring to Richard Dawkins as "CRD"?

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 2922
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2009,10:24   

Quote (sparc @ Aug. 29 2009,06:50)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 28 2009,15:20)
     
Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 28 2009,14:14)
       
Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 28 2009,12:41)
We also have "JLT" posting from Germany, you can always pm her.

sparc also posts from over there.  And I will be soon as well.

Darwin --> Nazi's proved again!

German --> Nazi?
Calculate the FCSI/FSCI  for a male catholic, non-drinking, non-smoking, occasionally home- and job-less, Wagner loving, former austrian non-scientist.

I must admit though that I've quit smoking recently and that I've worked in Braunschweig where the guy mentioned above became German.

An Austrian client once told me the two greatest things Austria did for the world were to make Hitler a German and Bethoven an Austrian. But then he though having sex with donkeys was OK.

He also told me the funniest T-Shirt available there was "There are no Kangaroos in Austria"

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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4504
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2009,10:30   

From my final comment on my blog thread:

Quote

The video demonstrates that the “weasel” program used by Dawkins was not latching, no source code is needed to confirm that. The religious antievolutionists have themselves latched onto the utterly demented notion that Dawkins used a different “latching” program for “weasel” output in “The Blind Watchmaker” and “New Scientist” in 1986 than in the 1987 video. Why is it demented? First, because “latching” is completely unlike the biology, and Dawkins is an accomplished biologist. Second, because the program Dawkins obviously did use in the video documentary about his book “The Blind Watchmaker” obviously doesn’t use latching. Third, because the math says that for reasonable population sizes and mutation rates, one doesn’t expect to see the best candidates from successive generations lose correct characters. Fourth, because Dawkins himself has said that he didn’t do anything of the sort.


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

    
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2009,10:35   

always calm cool and collected wes.  but you know that it's not about any of those things, it's about flaming oily straw homos.  

BillB's summary at the "contest" thread is worth preserving, it says about the same thing but is specifically directed at Gordon Mullings, the Donald Ray White of Intelligent Design

Quote

205
BillB
08/30/2009
10:10 am
Its worth repeating this:

D&M’s process:

With each programme loop you check each letter against the target, if it matches you do nothing, if it doesn’t you pick a letter at random to replace it.

Repeat.


Dawkins method:

With each programme loop copy each letter of the previous winning phrase, with each letter copied having a probability (P) of being randomly replaced. Now add up the number of complete letters to get the fitness score. Perform this G times (where G is the number of generations). Now look through the list of scores and pick the highest, or any one of the highest if there are more than one.

Repeat.


So should we consider these two processes to be the same? They can’t be written the same way as code, they don’t function the same way and they don’t produce the same results.

Can they be considered the same for D&M’s purposes (according to KF). Well I don’t see how – the question about the amount of active info is very pertinent here – but this is also irrelevant to the main topic under debate, one which it is easy to loose sight of what with KF’s army of oily burning sixty foot straw men marching across these pages. D&M describe a different process than Dawkins does, the differences are not trivial, particularly to anyone familiar to the topic of search algorithms. Because of this their reference to Dawkins work is incorrect and inappropriate; it should be corrected – and this will have no impact, as far as I can see, on the content of their paper.

The surreal and farcical attempts to avoid this quite simple issue begs the question – is this really about search algorithms at all or is it about poking Dawkins with a stick.


bold mine

of course it is all about the poking with the stick.  "CRD" hurt Gordon Mulling's fragile orchid-like ego when he called him "stupid, ignorant wicked or insane".  why did that hurt?  because it struck a bullseye!

I would like to see Gordon Mullings fight a black hole

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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4504
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2009,10:36   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 30 2009,10:19)
WASTE of BREATH (above):  
Quote

After taking time to go through the above, I am still shaking my head.
So am I Gordon, so am I.



Anybody know why he's referring to Richard Dawkins as "CRD"?

Dawkins' full name is Clinton Richard Dawkins.

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

    
KCdgw



Posts: 368
Joined: Sep. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2009,10:36   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 30 2009,10:19)
WASTE of BREATH (above):  
Quote

After taking time to go through the above, I am still shaking my head.
So am I Gordon, so am I.



Anybody know why he's referring to Richard Dawkins as "CRD"?

Dawkins's legal name is Clinton Richard Dawkins.

--------------
Those who know the truth are not equal to those who love it-- Confucius

  
Maya



Posts: 702
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2009,10:38   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 30 2009,10:19)
WASTE of BREATH (above):  
Quote

After taking time to go through the above, I am still shaking my head.
So am I Gordon, so am I.

Anybody know why he's referring to Richard Dawkins as "CRD"?

Dr. Dawkins' first name is Clinton.  That's apparently a brush to tar him with in Gordon's social circle.

  
Maya



Posts: 702
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2009,10:41   

Dave Wisker gets blunt with Joseph:
Quote
Quote
I never said the illustration was an example of telomeric fusion.

It is dishonest to illustrate one thing when talking about something else.
Only if it is used to deceive. And only deeply stupid people would think what I wrote was deceptive in nature.

I used to think that Joseph was a sock, but now I'm pretty sure he has the lowest intelligence of anyone I've encountered on the interwebs.

  
BillB



Posts: 359
Joined: Aug. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2009,10:50   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 30 2009,16:35)
I would like to see Gordon Mullings fight a black hole

From the perspective of evidence and reason, KF IS a black hole.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2009,11:15   

Quote (Maya @ Aug. 30 2009,10:41)
Dave Wisker gets blunt with Joseph:  
Quote
 
Quote
I never said the illustration was an example of telomeric fusion.

It is dishonest to illustrate one thing when talking about something else.
Only if it is used to deceive. And only deeply stupid people would think what I wrote was deceptive in nature.

I used to think that Joseph was a sock, but now I'm pretty sure he has the lowest intelligence of anyone I've encountered on the interwebs.

Joseph asks for X, is handed X and then complains that "X" is behind a paywall or "X" is too technical, please summarise it.

Joseph does not have the level of edumacation required to understand the answers to the questions he's asking and blames the world for that. Better to go read a book and get a clue Joseph the put your utter ignorance on display for all to see.

Still, he acts as a proxy for the creationists by asking the stupid questions on their behalf and he shows anybody who cares to look that dishonestly pretending no answers have been given is the only way he can continue to take the position he's taken.

So, Joseph, keep up the good work!

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

  
sledgehammer



Posts: 531
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2009,12:27   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 30 2009,08:19)
Anybody know why he's referring to Richard Dawkins as "CRD"?

Because he's GEM of Tard-Kovered-Idiocy?

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

  
Indiumas



Posts: 11
Joined: Aug. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2009,13:18   

I think I´m stepping over a few lines at UD now, so it is probably better to save a few things here:

Indium
 
Quote

So, may I ask again: Instead of waiting for Dawkins to show up here, which is very unlikely, why doesn´t Dr. Dembski explain the issue on his own blog? Can somebody ask him for a clarification? On the other hand he closed comments on the thread where he announced the paper. Thanks Clive and O´Leary for opening new ones, btw!


   
Quote

BillB, as far as I can see only kf continues with this marathon of distractions. I am quite sure that Dr. Dembski will of course correct his misrepresentatiojn soon, it´s easy enough! For a man with his integrity it will only take a few days or 1-2 weeks to prepare a correction. I would bet a (very small) amount of money that he has so far not been made aware of these problems.


   
Quote

nephmon,
observing how kf tries to defend some truly obvious errors with more and more distractions/obfuscations provides a certain amount of amusement to some people.


   
Quote

The only one left on the sinking ship is kf, so who cares except for people interested in the argument regarding design?


Let´s see how long these things stay online. Clive seems to avoid the Weasel threads lately. I wonder why?  :D

  
socle



Posts: 271
Joined: July 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2009,13:22   

Learned Hand destroys ID's "crime scene analogy":
   
Quote

The murder of one human being by another with a knife is a known phenomenon, unlike the proposed phenomenon of design.

Not only the act itself, but also the various methods by which the act was accomplished. MEs don’t ask just “was a murder committed,” but rather, “how did this person die?” An ME’s report that could not connect the cause of death with the proposed method of murder would not be credible in court, or otherwise. This makes it a poor analogy to ID, which rejects any attempt to analyze the methods and techniques of design.

A more analogous situation, although still strained, would be a mathematician or computer scientist arriving at an incident scene that has already been thoroughly studied and well-documented by trained professionals, who unanimously concluded that death was by natural causes. Having given the scene a cursory examination, the new arrival declares that the death could not possibly have occurred by natural causes, but that she has no idea how the murder was committed, and she will not attempt to find out. Moreover, she announces, the investigators who preceded her are moral monsters whose materialism caused the Holocaust. Few professionals would take this conclusion seriously.

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 1979
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2009,13:45   

Quote (Indiumas @ Aug. 30 2009,13:18)
I think I´m stepping over a few lines at UD now, so it is probably better to save a few things here:
....
       
Quote

The only one left on the sinking ship is kf, so who cares except for people interested in the argument regarding design?


Ah, you have been lurking here for some time.

--------------
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)

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5378
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2009,13:47   

Quote (socle @ Aug. 30 2009,14:22)
Learned Hand destroys ID's "crime scene analogy":
   
Quote

The murder of one human being by another with a knife is a known phenomenon, unlike the proposed phenomenon of design.

Not only the act itself, but also the various methods by which the act was accomplished. MEs don’t ask just “was a murder committed,” but rather, “how did this person die?” An ME’s report that could not connect the cause of death with the proposed method of murder would not be credible in court, or otherwise. This makes it a poor analogy to ID, which rejects any attempt to analyze the methods and techniques of design.

A more analogous situation, although still strained, would be a mathematician or computer scientist arriving at an incident scene that has already been thoroughly studied and well-documented by trained professionals, who unanimously concluded that death was by natural causes. Having given the scene a cursory examination, the new arrival declares that the death could not possibly have occurred by natural causes, but that she has no idea how the murder was committed, and she will not attempt to find out. Moreover, she announces, the investigators who preceded her are moral monsters whose materialism caused the Holocaust. Few professionals would take this conclusion seriously.

lurve it.

Also Barry Airhead:

Quote


2

Barry Arrington

08/30/2009

11:35 am

Dawkins has slipped badly here by inviting his readers to consider the crime scene analogy. That analogy plays right into the hands of ID. The police detective’s essential task it to detect the presence or absence of design.


Yeah, and they show up at the scene, look around for a second and say, "Yup, murder" and go to the pub and have a brew.

Oh wait, that's what they'd do if they were IDC cops, not actual cops. Actual cops would probably, y'know, look at the evidence in a bit more detail, base their conclusions on that evidence, and if the evidence supports the idea that there was in fact a murder, they'd then figure out how and by whom the murder occurred.

Y'know, all those things that cdesign proponentsists refuse to do.

IDCists are masters of shooting themselves in the dick with lousy analogies.

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

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2009,14:47   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 30 2009,14:45)
Quote (Indiumas @ Aug. 30 2009,13:18)
I think I´m stepping over a few lines at UD now, so it is probably better to save a few things here:
....
       
Quote

The only one left on the sinking ship is kf, so who cares except for people interested in the argument regarding design?


Ah, you have been lurking here for some time.

color me impressed as well.  bravo!

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

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1956
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2009,16:12   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Aug. 30 2009,11:47)
Quote (socle @ Aug. 30 2009,14:22)
Learned Hand destroys ID's "crime scene analogy":
     
Quote

The murder of one human being by another with a knife is a known phenomenon, unlike the proposed phenomenon of design.

Not only the act itself, but also the various methods by which the act was accomplished. MEs don’t ask just “was a murder committed,” but rather, “how did this person die?” An ME’s report that could not connect the cause of death with the proposed method of murder would not be credible in court, or otherwise. This makes it a poor analogy to ID, which rejects any attempt to analyze the methods and techniques of design.

A more analogous situation, although still strained, would be a mathematician or computer scientist arriving at an incident scene that has already been thoroughly studied and well-documented by trained professionals, who unanimously concluded that death was by natural causes. Having given the scene a cursory examination, the new arrival declares that the death could not possibly have occurred by natural causes, but that she has no idea how the murder was committed, and she will not attempt to find out. Moreover, she announces, the investigators who preceded her are moral monsters whose materialism caused the Holocaust. Few professionals would take this conclusion seriously.

lurve it.

Also Barry Airhead:

Quote


2

Barry Arrington

08/30/2009

11:35 am

Dawkins has slipped badly here by inviting his readers to consider the crime scene analogy. That analogy plays right into the hands of ID. The police detective’s essential task it to detect the presence or absence of design.


Yeah, and they show up at the scene, look around for a second and say, "Yup, murder" and go to the pub and have a brew.

Oh wait, that's what they'd do if they were IDC cops, not actual cops. Actual cops would probably, y'know, look at the evidence in a bit more detail, base their conclusions on that evidence, and if the evidence supports the idea that there was in fact a murder, they'd then figure out how and by whom the murder occurred.

Y'know, all those things that cdesign proponentsists refuse to do.

IDCists are masters of shooting themselves in the dick with lousy analogies.

I was excavating a recent body in rural Orange County, Ca as part of an OC Sheriff's investigation. We were frequently reminded by one of the investigators that we were obligated to collect all available evidence- confirming or excluding homicide.

I have seen two other murder investigations fail because the investigators could not remember that simple rule.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
CeilingCat



Posts: 1670
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2009,16:41   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 30 2009,10:36)
 
Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 30 2009,10:19)
WASTE of BREATH (above):      
Quote

After taking time to go through the above, I am still shaking my head.
So am I Gordon, so am I.



Anybody know why he's referring to Richard Dawkins as "CRD"?

Dawkins' full name is Clinton Richard Dawkins.

I think I'll start referring to Flaming Gordon Mullings as FGM of TIKI.

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

  
Ptaylor



Posts: 888
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2009,16:58   

Clive,baby:        
Quote
IRQ Conflict,
           
Quote
Mario, some people simply have a bone to pick with science (ID specifically) they see it as a threat to their worldview and stop just short of trolling in order to appear honest.

   While still trying to chip away at the proponents character. Sad, but true.


I see it all the time. It’s a thin appearance of honesty, veiling their contempt. Many times you can just head on over to those uncommonly dense people’s thread (and I mean that literally), and see the contempt in plain daylight from these same commentors. It is sad, indeed.


Hi Clive! (and I mean that quite literally)

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

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2009,17:01   

i will be clive,baby's Osama.

mean, nasty, ugly, all those things FtK said.

I might be.  It's possible.  I'll even grant you that.  

But you are still wrong.

doesn't that suck?

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4078
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2009,17:30   

Quote
He also told me the funniest T-Shirt available there was "There are no Kangaroos in Austria"

Not even in zoos?

Henry

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2009,18:03   

Quote (Ptaylor @ Aug. 30 2009,16:58)
Clive,baby:              
Quote
IRQ Conflict,
                 
Quote
Mario, some people simply have a bone to pick with science (ID specifically) they see it as a threat to their worldview and stop just short of trolling in order to appear honest.

   While still trying to chip away at the proponents character. Sad, but true.


I see it all the time. It’s a thin appearance of honesty, veiling their contempt. Many times you can just head on over to those uncommonly dense people’s thread (and I mean that literally), and see the contempt in plain daylight from these same commentors. It is sad, indeed.


Hi Clive! (and I mean that quite literally)


And nice projection, Clive,baby.

The last time that I visited UD under my own name, the evident dishonesty was on your part;  
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y151034

As a UD lackey, you use standard biased-moderator tactics to maintain a fiction of "honesty" while remaining the ethics-challenged sack of shit that you are. However, it's true -- so long as you cower only at UD -- that you'll be capable of polishing that veneer.

Still, people everywhere see right through it -- just as Dembski's actions (faking his own book review on Amazon, among many other things) exposed his innate dishonesty.

You're no different, Clive,baby.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2009,18:47   

really

UD as a "contempt-free zone"  lolololol yeah right

read any one of Gordon Mulling's tardises or StephenB's incoherent rants or Upright Bi-tard's culture war screeds and tell me that with a straight face

oh thats right, Clive-tard, you won't be telling me shit.  because you can't get out of the ward either (hint:  try ditching the sweater, sugar, no one will recognize you on the outside)

it's amazing how hateful the tards can be without using profanity.  Were their rhetoric to escape from under Barryhole's dress and from under the thumb of D-d-d-d-d-d-dr Dembski's bearded thunderer, imagine how bilious!


my profanity and blasphemy is melodious and metered.  i don't hide my contempt for dishonest culture warriors.  act like a human being, instead of a Redeemed murderer-rapist-homersexual-kiddy-fiddler-arsonist-extortionist-contortionist-but-for-the-
grace-of-Gawd and you might be surprised.

but i am not counting on it, asshole

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

  
Ptaylor



Posts: 888
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2009,19:30   

DO'L:
 
Quote
It all sounds a bit hysterical to me, and well below Dawkins’s usual standard of writing.

Words (almost) fail me.

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

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

  
Barrett Brown



Posts: 7
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2009,20:39   

Howdy, guys-

I just wanted to note that I've written another article attacking Uncommon Descent, particularly Clive Hayden's strange rant regarding the Wired article. It may be found here. Hail Satan, etc.

Thanks,

Barrett Brown

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

Pages: (500) < ... 489 490 491 492 493 [494] 495 496 497 498 499 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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