RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (500) < ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 2, general discussion of Dembski's site< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4234
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 26 2008,08:13   

Quote
ID award recipient not named for own protection …
O'Leary

It's sort of a witless protection program.

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

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1237
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 26 2008,10:29   

Quote
A big public-relations problem for ID theory in the scientific community is that leading theorists have associated themselves with the ID movement.

No s*%#, you think a new set of ideas that attempt to explain what we observe around us is just going to magically gain acceptance without a need for a movement???


Tell us all about the relativity movement, and the quantum mechanics movement, F2XL.  Inquiring minds want to know.  ID minds don't.

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 8838
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 26 2008,16:16   

Quote
Atticus Finch
Quote

Denyse O’Leary, a quote from a quote in your article of yesterday:
Quote
[Steve Fuller, witness for the defense in Kitzmiller,] provides interesting examples of how religiously inspired ID views have driven the work of many eminent biologists, and suggests that ID should be promoted as “an openly religious viewpoint with scientific aspirations.”

I agree with Fuller, and in the context of this thread recall immediately what the pseudonymous Mike Gene has written (as quoted here by William Dembski):
Quote
I should make it explicitly clear from the start that I did not write this book to help those seeking to change the way we teach science to our kids. I do not argue that design deserves to be known as science. At best, Intelligent Design may only be a nascent proto-science and thus does not belong in the public school curriculum. Nor does this book argue that evolution is false and deserves to be criticized in the public school curriculum. If the truth is to be told, I oppose such actions.

A big public-relations problem for ID theory in the scientific community is that leading theorists have associated themselves with the ID movement. And the ID movement is all about proclaiming ID theory science — already.
Fuller, as a sociology professor, knows very well that the “ground rules” of science are part of an evolving culture. There is nothing wrong with working openly to show that the ground rules should be changed to permit explanations of nature that are presently excluded.
If all ID theorists were like “Mike Gene,” there would be no reason for them to hide their identities. The problem for people legitimately pursuing change in what constitutes science is those illegitimately declaring, without doing the hard work to achieve change, that ID is science and that the scientific establishment opposes ID because of ideological commitment to materialism, if not atheism.
It is ironic that Casey Luskin, as a paid political activist in the intelligent design movement, has done a great deal to make it unsafe for grad students to express openly their interest in ID theory.
Quote


2

O'Leary

07/25/2008

1:48 pm

Tard Alert!

Atticus Finch, thanks for being part of the problem.

Now, would you please give your real name, if it is not Atticus Finch.

No one is likely to persecute you. That usually happens to people who know evidence against materialist proclamations, not people who split hairs about how the evidence should be advanced, by whom, and what words should be used.

Yes, my real name is Denyse O’Leary, and almost everything that is of any importance about me is public record. Who are YOU?
Quote


3

William Dembski

07/25/2008

2:07 pm

Tard Alert!

Denyse, You’re too kind (to Atticus that is). I’ve booted him/her off the forum.


more here

Edited by stevestory on July 26 2008,17:17

   
stevestory



Posts: 8838
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 26 2008,20:26   

Is Salvador back on UD? According to the blogczar years thread he was suspended at some point.

   
Zachriel



Posts: 2594
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 26 2008,20:27   

Wm. Dembski, Proprietor, reaches a new scientific milestone.  
Quote
Daniel King: Hello?

Anybody home?




--------------
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5375
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 26 2008,22:23   

Quote (stevestory @ July 26 2008,21:26)
Is Salvador back on UD? According to the blogczar years thread he was suspended at some point.

Yeah, not too long ago, but I don't think anyone believed it would be permanent.

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

   
sparc



Posts: 1676
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2008,00:17   

Quote
Is Salvador back on UD?
He always was and still is on their about pages. Maybe they didn't want to loose their only (kind of) Nature author.

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

   
Aardvark



Posts: 134
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2008,02:52   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 26 2008,08:13)
 
Quote
ID award recipient not named for own protection …
O'Leary

It's sort of a witless protection program.

I don't understand.  Surely, if 'Darwinism' is collapsing as we speak (as DoL has repeatedly claimed) then being 'exposed' now shouldn't really make much difference?  If anything, coming out in support of ID as soon as possible would raise you to the top of the ID heap once 'Darwinism' is vanquished.

:p

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2008,03:08   

DaveScot might be coming close to the truth  
Quote
If ID won’t stand up to critical examination then why all the fuss about it? There’s no big controversy over any other bits of “science” other than mud to man evolution and global warming. Why?


Yeah, keep asking "why" DS and you might get an answer. You might not like the answer that the morons at UD will give you but you'll get an answer.....

Tard

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

  
dnmlthr



Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2008,03:20   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 27 2008,09:08)
DaveScot might be coming close to the truth    
Quote
If ID won’t stand up to critical examination then why all the fuss about it? There’s no big controversy over any other bits of “science” other than mud to man evolution and global warming. Why?


Yeah, keep asking "why" DS and you might get an answer. You might not like the answer that the morons at UD will give you but you'll get an answer.....

Tard

Is there no woo that's too stupid for Larry Fafarman?

Doesn't seem that way

 
Quote

There is a big controversy over string theory — a lot of physicists are doing research on it but a lot of other physicists consider it to be unscientific. There is a big controversy over whether thimerosal, a preservative used in vaccines, is a factor in autism. There must be a lot of little scientific controversies that are not in the news.


The Huffington Post, David Kirby and Jim Carrey vs the medical community. My my Larry, that's quite a scientific controversy.

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

  
Advocatus Diaboli



Posts: 197
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2008,05:51   

Hmm. When more than one crank magnetic man assembles to a single webpage, the crank magnetism factor inreaces exponentially. Thus, UD is reaching critical mass with each new member. It already has pretty much every "scientific controversy", now that vaccines are on the table. Add the UFO stories & biblical prophecy discussions to the mix and the end is in sight.



--------------
I once thought that I made a mistake, but I was wrong.

"I freely admit I’m a sociopath" - DaveScot

"Most importanly, the facts are on the side of ID." - scordova

"UD is the greatest website of all time." stevestory

   
Quack



Posts: 1748
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2008,07:17   

Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ July 27 2008,05:51)
Hmm. When more than one crank magnetic man assembles to a single webpage, the crank magnetism factor inreaces exponentially. Thus, UD is reaching critical mass with each new member. It already has pretty much every "scientific controversy", now that vaccines are on the table. Add the UFO stories & biblical prophecy discussions to the mix and the end is in sight.


With oral galvanism and anal magnetism the list should be complete.

--------------
YEC creationists denigrate science without an inkling of what their lives would be without it. YEC creationism is an enrageous, abominable insult to the the human intellect.
                                                         Me.

  
Maya



Posts: 702
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2008,08:58   

F2XL says that there is no censorship at UD:
Quote
Quote
I’m removing your feed from my newsreader since you censor postings. There is no free discourse.

Gee, wonder how your comment showed up in the first place, and why Bob’Oh still has posting privileges if that was really true.

Except when there is:
Quote
Quote
That’s why you censor readers postings, because you believe you always have the best answer.

No, postings are censored so people who are sympathetic of ID can have an oasis for free discussion that isn’t polluted by random trolls.

But really there isn't:
Quote
Quote
I suppose I could extrapolate that to the ID movement not being able to stand up to critical examination.

No you can’t since it was false to begin with, and even if it were true cannot automatically apply to every last person in the ID movement in such a different context.

F2XL, if you are reading this, here is the post that got me banned from UD.  Please point out the random trolling.

By the way, my challenge to DaveScot stands.  He's too much of an intellectual coward to take me up on it, though.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4234
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2008,09:44   

Quote (Maya @ July 27 2008,09:58)
F2XL, if you are reading this, here is the post that got me banned from UD.  Please point out the random trolling.

Maya, your demise was sorely in need of memorialificationating. But that's been remedied.

ETA: link to entire thread,

Maya's first comment, and

Maya's boinking.

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

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2008,10:21   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 27 2008,04:44)
Quote (Maya @ July 27 2008,09:58)
F2XL, if you are reading this, here is the post that got me banned from UD.  Please point out the random trolling.

Maya, your demise was sorely in need of memorialificationating. But that's been remedied.

Belated congrats to Maya. The thread is well worth a re-read as an encapsulation of the moral degeneracy of UD.

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 1956
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2008,13:01   

Eh?  

Denyse O'Leary, 24th July
Quote
The Bob Marks Evo Info Lab web site takedown? It demonstrates how anxious some were to expunge any idea that Baylor would challenge the status quo anywhere. This month there was a big meet at Altenberg to demo what - if anything -”evolution” now means.
Well, choosing to shut Marks down just months before that event sends a message that Baylor would purchase its acceptance into the elite at the price of not contributing to the ongoing meltdown over “evolution”, but only to the spin that no meltdown is happening.


Denyse O'Leary, 27th July
Quote
Apparently, some fans of the ruins of neo-Darwinism think that President John Lilley’s departure from Baylor relates to intelligent design. So Rack Jite:

Quote
   Though matters of tenure and logo design (believe it or not) are reported as the reasons, it was about no such thing. Rather it is the revenge of Baptist fundamentalists over encroaching secularism regards Intelligent Design. Ever since ID guru William Dembski resigned in 2000 because Baylor closed the door on his Intelligent Design department room (as it had became the laughing stock of World academia) the Taliban wing at Baylor has been festering to make its move.


and the  Prophet likewise preaches on Rack Jite’s text.

It gives one pause for thought that anyone could believe such foolishness, in view of the fact that
...

Make up your mind, lass.

--------------
ID theorists don’t postulate a designer for their arguments. - Crandaddy
There is no connection between a peppered moth, natural selection, and religion that I can see. - FtK

   
sparc



Posts: 1676
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2008,13:15   

Seems as if D'OL doesn't have banination rights.

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

   
Maya



Posts: 702
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2008,15:12   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 27 2008,09:44)
Quote (Maya @ July 27 2008,09:58)
F2XL, if you are reading this, here is the post that got me banned from UD.  Please point out the random trolling.

Maya, your demise was sorely in need of memorialificationating. But that's been remedied.

ETA: link to entire thread,

Maya's first comment, and

Maya's boinking.

*blush*  Thanks!

PS:  As a rule I don't boink in public.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4234
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2008,15:30   

Quote (Maya @ July 27 2008,16:12)
PS: As a rule I don't boink in public.

I'll tell you, UD does. Left and right. They need a private beach or something.

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 8838
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2008,16:39   

As quoted above from Denyse:
Quote
The Bob Marks Evo Info Lab web site takedown? It demonstrates how anxious some were to expunge any idea that Baylor would challenge the status quo anywhere.

Wrong.
Quote
This month there was a big meet at Altenberg to demo what - if anything -”evolution” now means.

Wrong.
Quote

Well, choosing to shut Marks down just months before that event sends a message that Baylor would purchase its acceptance into the elite at the price of not contributing to the ongoing meltdown over “evolution”, but only to the spin that no meltdown is happening.

Wrong.

Worst. "Journalist". Evar.

   
stevestory



Posts: 8838
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2008,16:49   

I think what makes UD so fascinating is watching people hold multiple obviously wrong ideas.

1 ID is not a scientific hypothesis from which you can derive predictions.
2 Including Front Loading, which is stupid by itself.
3 Evolution research is chugging along quite well.
4 ID research has gone nowhere.
5 Engineers and laymen don't do biology as well as biologists.
6 The scientific community is not engaging in a global conspiracy against ID.
7 Baylor is not part of that nonexistent conspiracy.
8 Nobody timed the firing of Lilly with Altenberg in mind.

With ID we get to watch a community that denies those 8 obvious correct statements, and several others. It's fascinating to watch them try support that delusional worldview.

   
olegt



Posts: 1379
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2008,20:58   

Speaking of UFOs, Denyse tackles that controversy at Underwhelming Evidence.  
Quote

Increase in UFO sitings in Canada ... ?

Tiffany Crawford (Canwest News Service July 18, 2008) reports,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Canadians in four provinces reported seeing a record number of unidentified flying objects in 2007, according to an annual report released by a Winnipeg-based non-profit organization that has recorded UFO sightings since 1989.

The UFOlogy Research Institute, which compiles data from sources including Transport Canada and the Department of National Defence, said researchers examined 836 alleged UFO sightings in 2007, an increase of almost 12 per cent over 2006.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Does this prove Canucks are Ca-nuts? Well, maybe. But not necessarily.
In the wake of National Geographic's Extraterrestrial and increased funding for pursuit of extraterrestrial life, no doubt many more amateurs are anxious to help. And the more people look up at the night sky, the more strange things will be discovered - or anyway believed in.


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

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1237
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2008,21:24   

Quote
A Simpleton Gene Origination Calculation
PaV

In this month’s Nature Genetics, there is an article by Zhou, et. al., dealing with the generation of new genes in Drosophila melanogaster—the fruit fly. While only having access to the abstract, I nonetheless was struck by one of their findings: the rate of new functional gene generation. As finding number 6 in the abstract, the authors write: “the rate of the origin of new functional genes is estimated to be 5 to 11 genes per million years in the D. melanogaster subgroup.”

Noting that Drosophila melanogaster has 14,000 genes (a very low gene number), the simply calculation is this: 14,000 genes/8 new functional genes per million years= 1.75 billiion years for the formation of the fly genome. This, of course, assumes that somehow the fly is ‘alive, and reproducing’ the entire 1.75 billion years—-this, without the aid of a full-blown genome. If we apply this to the monkey/human difference which, IIRC, is about a 1000 genes, then using this same rate, it would take 200 million years for man to have evolved from the monkey. This published rate for new functional gene generation cannot be good news for Darwinists.


That would be lovely, but the 1000 gene difference between man and chimpanzee is not new genes for the most part.

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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4465
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2008,21:24   

One of the cable channels had a show on UFOs and how the US Air Force in the cold war actually did its best to foster UFO-mania. A populace seeing "flying saucers" left and right made it that much harder for Soviet intelligence to collect accurate information on the classified aviation projects the Air Force had on. Having the UFO craze spread to the Soviet population as well was just icing on the cake.

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

    
Henry J



Posts: 4015
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2008,21:55   

Quote
That would be lovely, but the 1000 gene difference between man and chimpanzee is not new genes for the most part.


Thou shalt not confuse them with facts!!1111!!!one!!

Henry

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4465
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2008,22:11   

Denyse O'Leary capping a bunch of ad hoc-ery:

Quote

It narrows the mind and prevents complex thinking tasks.


Uh, inconsistency is not what most people mean by "complex".

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

    
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2008,22:11   

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ July 27 2008,22:24)
Quote
A Simpleton Gene Origination Calculation
PaV

In this month’s Nature Genetics, there is an article by Zhou, et. al., dealing with the generation of new genes in Drosophila melanogaster—the fruit fly. While only having access to the abstract, I nonetheless was struck by one of their findings: the rate of new functional gene generation. As finding number 6 in the abstract, the authors write: “the rate of the origin of new functional genes is estimated to be 5 to 11 genes per million years in the D. melanogaster subgroup.”

Noting that Drosophila melanogaster has 14,000 genes (a very low gene number), the simply calculation is this: 14,000 genes/8 new functional genes per million years= 1.75 billiion years for the formation of the fly genome. This, of course, assumes that somehow the fly is ‘alive, and reproducing’ the entire 1.75 billion years—-this, without the aid of a full-blown genome. If we apply this to the monkey/human difference which, IIRC, is about a 1000 genes, then using this same rate, it would take 200 million years for man to have evolved from the monkey. This published rate for new functional gene generation cannot be good news for Darwinists.


That would be lovely, but the 1000 gene difference between man and chimpanzee is not new genes for the most part.

It would be even lovelier if the number was close to 1000. Instead, it seems to be closer to 154.

Additional bonus tard for free: PaV thinks the rate of uptake of new genes is constant at the fly's rate. That might work in baraminology, where a fly has always been a fly. So PaV has shown that according to baraminology, it has been 1.75 billion years since Noah's Ark and the Great Flood. Of course, if flies spent most of their developmental history as single celled creatures with faster changes to their genomes, then the rate isn't constant and PaV's calculation fails.

ID prediction: the first comments to this post will hail the calulation as a breakthrough, there will be a brief period of riducule by DS which will not be preserved by the fossil record, and subsequent comments will ignore it in favor of analogies to Expelled.

--------------
I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
I’m not an evolutionist, I’m a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
Art



Posts: 69
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2008,23:04   

Quote (dvunkannon @ July 27 2008,22:11)
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ July 27 2008,22:24)
 
Quote
A Simpleton Gene Origination Calculation
PaV

In this month’s Nature Genetics, there is an article by Zhou, et. al., dealing with the generation of new genes in Drosophila melanogaster—the fruit fly. While only having access to the abstract, I nonetheless was struck by one of their findings: the rate of new functional gene generation. As finding number 6 in the abstract, the authors write: “the rate of the origin of new functional genes is estimated to be 5 to 11 genes per million years in the D. melanogaster subgroup.”

Noting that Drosophila melanogaster has 14,000 genes (a very low gene number), the simply calculation is this: 14,000 genes/8 new functional genes per million years= 1.75 billiion years for the formation of the fly genome. This, of course, assumes that somehow the fly is ‘alive, and reproducing’ the entire 1.75 billion years—-this, without the aid of a full-blown genome. If we apply this to the monkey/human difference which, IIRC, is about a 1000 genes, then using this same rate, it would take 200 million years for man to have evolved from the monkey. This published rate for new functional gene generation cannot be good news for Darwinists.


That would be lovely, but the 1000 gene difference between man and chimpanzee is not new genes for the most part.

It would be even lovelier if the number was close to 1000. Instead, it seems to be closer to 154.

Additional bonus tard for free: PaV thinks the rate of uptake of new genes is constant at the fly's rate. That might work in baraminology, where a fly has always been a fly. So PaV has shown that according to baraminology, it has been 1.75 billion years since Noah's Ark and the Great Flood. Of course, if flies spent most of their developmental history as single celled creatures with faster changes to their genomes, then the rate isn't constant and PaV's calculation fails.

ID prediction: the first comments to this post will hail the calulation as a breakthrough, there will be a brief period of riducule by DS which will not be preserved by the fossil record, and subsequent comments will ignore it in favor of analogies to Expelled.

1.  As indicated above, PaV totally screws up the matter of differences between humans and chimps.

2.  The paper PaV cites is talking only about what Paul Nelson calls ORFans.  Most Drosophila genes arose via duplication and rearrangement of existing genes and exons, not by de novo creation of totally new genes.  Duplication etc. are frequent enough to easily account for the totality of the Drosophila proteome.  

3.  The paper PaV discusses is actually very damaging to the ID case.  I've explained it here and here.

   
stevestory



Posts: 8838
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2008,23:12   

I love AtBC.

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 1950
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 28 2008,01:08   

Quote (Maya @ July 27 2008,13:12)
*blush*  Thanks!

PS:  As a rule I don't boink in public.

Hey! Public boinking will either make you rich, satisfied, or arrested. Or some combination of all three.

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

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

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

Pages: (500) < ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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