RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (356) < ... 147 148 149 150 151 [152] 153 154 155 156 157 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 4, Fostering a Greater Understanding of IDC< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1247
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2012,09:46   

Denyse is huffing and puffing really hard at the Tree of Life. And this time it will fall because Tuataras have an elaborated chewing mechanism .

And besides:
Quote
Best of all, have a look at one new proposed tree, a circle.
Her ID friends must really hate her, or they would have shown pity and given her a hint when she embarrassed herself last time.

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

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2037
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2012,09:49   

Quote (Amadan @ June 07 2012,14:49)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ June 07 2012,18:15)
Renaissance Man
(snip snip snippety snip snip)

Bravo, K98.

I'm glad you didn't do poor Casey in the style of Arcimboldo.
(snip snip turn snip snip snip turn snippety snip turn snippasnippasnip turn snip snip)
Casey is most definitely not a fruit. Almost certainly.

You're right. He's nuts.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
NormOlsen



Posts: 104
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2012,10:23   

Quote (Kattarina98 @ June 08 2012,08:49)
Quote (Patrick @ June 08 2012,08:21)
 
Quote (REC @ June 07 2012,15:42)
UD is barely clearing a dozen comments a day.

Unfortunately, a few of these are from the reality-based community.

Can we try to extract them?

We recovering tardicts definitely need to hold an intervention for Jared.

Definitely. I keep suspecting that all the time she/he is grinning diabolically.

It won't be long before KF loses his patience with Jared's continued refusal to bow down before his magnificence.  KF will eventually blow with something along the lines:

"J: Pardon but your inability to acknowledge the self-evident correctness on matters relating to first principles of right reason. .. blah, blah, blah, bling, bling, bling, blah, ... amply demonstrated ... yadda, yadda, ... ad hominem ... bliz blaz ... strawman laced with contempt ...
good day.
END."

Dude is such an insufferable wanker.

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1232
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2012,15:11   

Quote (REC @ June 07 2012,14:42)
UD is barely clearing a dozen comments a day.

Unfortunately, a few of these are from the reality-based community.

Can we try to extract them?

Graphs, we need graphs!  We need to see how Delta Pi Gamma's evil plan is proceeding...

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

  
didymos



Posts: 1706
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2012,16:32   

Quote (Kattarina98 @ June 08 2012,07:46)
Denyse is huffing and puffing really hard at the Tree of Life. And this time it will fall because Tuataras have an elaborated chewing mechanism .

And besides:  
Quote
Best of all, have a look at one new proposed tree, a circle.
Her ID friends must really hate her, or they would have shown pity and given her a hint when she embarrassed herself last time.

WTF?  What in the hell does this have to do with the Tree of Life? It's not like the tuatara has a mammalian jaw grafted onto it or whatever.  I mean, all you have to do is pay attention to what the article actually says...oh, right, nevermind.

Here's an interesting question though: Of Dense and JoeG, who's dumber?

--------------
I wouldn’t be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again “how much”. I don’t think that’s a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
DaveH



Posts: 45
Joined: July 2009

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2012,17:31   

Quote (didymos @ June 08 2012,16:32)
Here's an interesting question though: Of Dense and JoeG, who's dumber?

Ha! You can't fool me! Trick question...

Bag of rocks = sack of shit

  
Quack



Posts: 1715
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2012,02:58   

Quote

Ha! You can't fool me! Trick question...

What? That reply belongs to JoeG!

ETA: G

Edited by Quack on June 09 2012,02:59

--------------
Waiting for Gary to reply to the question: Show us at least one person alive that understand his diagram and theory.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2012,05:21   

Anybody got any cheese to go with Gil's latest whine?
Quote
Something that continues to frustrate me is that Darwinists would like people to believe that their “science” is in the same category as mine and that of my colleagues who are working on the development of hypersonic inflatable aerodynamic decelerators. We must get stuff right. There is accountability.

If the thing burns up, is aerodynamically or structurally deficient, and falls apart and goes down in flames, we are proven to be wrong and incompetent.


There is an amusing comment in the thread:
Quote
You seem to be comparing science with engineering. They are not the same, and they have different aims.

Seems Gil thinks of himself as a scientist!

Gil, why don't you just design a better 'Darwinism' which will overturn 'Darwinism' as we know it? If you know what everybody else is doing wrong, do it right and show the way!

IDiot

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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4222
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2012,05:58   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 09 2012,06:21)
Anybody got any cheese to go with Gil's latest whine?
 
Quote
If the thing burns up, is aerodynamically or structurally deficient, and falls apart and goes down in flames, we are proven to be wrong and incompetent.


There is an amusing comment in the thread:
 
Quote
You seem to be comparing science with engineering. They are not the same, and they have different aims.

Seems Gil thinks of himself as a scientist!

Gil, why don't you just design a better 'Darwinism' which will overturn 'Darwinism' as we know it? If you know what everybody else is doing wrong, do it right and show the way!

IDiot

Well, ID burned up and its advocates were proven to be wrong and incompetent.

He wants Darwinism to emulate ID.

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

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3323
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2012,07:41   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 09 2012,05:21)
Anybody got any cheese to go with Gil's latest whine?
   
Quote
Something that continues to frustrate me is that Darwinists would like people to believe that their “science” is in the same category as mine and that of my colleagues who are working on the development of hypersonic inflatable aerodynamic decelerators. We must get stuff right. There is accountability.

If the thing burns up, is aerodynamically or structurally deficient, and falls apart and goes down in flames, we are proven to be wrong and incompetent.



It is my understand that Gil's project is, just now, entering the testing phase.


--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1247
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2012,09:38   

David Tyler lies and quote-mines for Jesus in "Design perspectives and the physiology of walking".
   
Quote
The authors recognise that the morphology and action they are studying is unusual among cursors, and this leads them to make a design inference. The hypothesis is that there are physiological reasons for the design of the human foot (rather than the structure being a spandrel and a witness to evolutionary tinkering).

His quote from the paper:    
Quote
Any inference of function from a single evolutionary origin must be treated with caution. However, the mechanical form of the human foot, based on the interpretation of function presented here, suggests adaptation for economical walking from both the whole body mechanics and muscle physiology perspectives.

Should I trust him - no way! I went to the paper. And that's the original text:
   
Quote
Any inference of function from a single evolutionary origin must be treated with caution. However, the mechanical form of the human foot, based on the interpretation of function presented here, suggests adaptation for economical walking from both the whole body mechanics and muscle physiology perspectives. This economical form of walking may have arisen in the hominin lineage as far back as Australopithecus afarensis (approx. 3.6 Ma). This is supported by the presence of a transverse and longitudinal arch [42] and evidence of a fully extended bipedal gait [43], together with early stance heel-strike [4,44] in A. afarensis.

Of course, there is no design inference throughout the text. I guess Jesus is not amused, David - lying is a sin.

Bolding added by me.

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

  
afarensis



Posts: 1001
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2012,10:35   

Quote
The authors recognise that the morphology and action they are studying is unusual among cursors, and this leads them to make a design inference. The hypothesis is that there are physiological reasons for the design of the human foot (rather than the structure being a spandrel and a witness to evolutionary tinkering).


Well, if you compare the above quote with the introduction it is readily apparent that Tyler is being disingenuous. This is from the introduction:

Quote
The morphology and action of the human foot with— during walking—a grounded ‘heel’ behind a relatively distal ankle joint loaded early in stance, and ‘toes’ pushing off at the end of stance (i.e. a the heel–sole–toe stance or ‘plantigrade’ foot) is very unusual outside the hominoidea (apes including humans) [1–4]. It is absent in the majority of cursors, whether bipedal (e.g. ostrich, emu, etc.) or quadrupedal.


So, Tyler is saying that the human foot is different from bipedal cursors like ostriches and quadrupedal cursors like cheetahs, and similar to the plantigrade foot seen in apes, therefore design.

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

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

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

   
k.e..



Posts: 2814
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2012,10:40   

Quote (Kattarina98 @ June 09 2012,17:38)
David Tyler lies and quote-mines for Jesus in "Design perspectives and the physiology of walking".
   
Quote
The authors recognise that the morphology and action they are studying is unusual among cursors, and this leads them to make a design inference. The hypothesis is that there are physiological reasons for the design of the human foot (rather than the structure being a spandrel and a witness to evolutionary tinkering).

His quote from the paper:    
Quote
Any inference of function from a single evolutionary origin must be treated with caution. However, the mechanical form of the human foot, based on the interpretation of function presented here, suggests adaptation for economical walking from both the whole body mechanics and muscle physiology perspectives.

Should I trust him - no way! I went to the paper. And that's the original text:
   
Quote
Any inference of function from a single evolutionary origin must be treated with caution. However, the mechanical form of the human foot, based on the interpretation of function presented here, suggests adaptation for economical walking from both the whole body mechanics and muscle physiology perspectives. This economical form of walking may have arisen in the hominin lineage as far back as Australopithecus afarensis (approx. 3.6 Ma). This is supported by the presence of a transverse and longitudinal arch [42] and evidence of a fully extended bipedal gait [43], together with early stance heel-strike [4,44] in A. afarensis.

Of course, there is no design inference throughout the text. I guess Jesus is not amused, David - lying is a sin.

Bolding added by me.

Oh yeah?

A question for the ID scientific establishment bible interpreters.

If God designed the human foot.

Then why do we have podiatrists?

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 2814
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2012,10:45   

Quote (afarensis @ June 09 2012,18:35)
Quote
The authors recognise that the morphology and action they are studying is unusual among cursors, and this leads them to make a design inference. The hypothesis is that there are physiological reasons for the design of the human foot (rather than the structure being a spandrel and a witness to evolutionary tinkering).


Well, if you compare the above quote with the introduction it is readily apparent that Tyler is being disingenuous. This is from the introduction:

Quote
The morphology and action of the human foot with— during walking—a grounded ‘heel’ behind a relatively distal ankle joint loaded early in stance, and ‘toes’ pushing off at the end of stance (i.e. a the heel–sole–toe stance or ‘plantigrade’ foot) is very unusual outside the hominoidea (apes including humans) [1–4]. It is absent in the majority of cursors, whether bipedal (e.g. ostrich, emu, etc.) or quadrupedal.


So, Tyler is saying that the human foot is different from bipedal cursors like ostriches and quadrupedal cursors like cheetahs, and similar to the plantigrade foot seen in apes, therefore design.

No ....Tyler is talking out of his arse because he has his foot in his mouth.

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

  
afarensis



Posts: 1001
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2012,12:03   

Quote (k.e.. @ June 09 2012,10:45)
Quote (afarensis @ June 09 2012,18:35)
Quote
The authors recognise that the morphology and action they are studying is unusual among cursors, and this leads them to make a design inference. The hypothesis is that there are physiological reasons for the design of the human foot (rather than the structure being a spandrel and a witness to evolutionary tinkering).


Well, if you compare the above quote with the introduction it is readily apparent that Tyler is being disingenuous. This is from the introduction:

 
Quote
The morphology and action of the human foot with— during walking—a grounded ‘heel’ behind a relatively distal ankle joint loaded early in stance, and ‘toes’ pushing off at the end of stance (i.e. a the heel–sole–toe stance or ‘plantigrade’ foot) is very unusual outside the hominoidea (apes including humans) [1–4]. It is absent in the majority of cursors, whether bipedal (e.g. ostrich, emu, etc.) or quadrupedal.


So, Tyler is saying that the human foot is different from bipedal cursors like ostriches and quadrupedal cursors like cheetahs, and similar to the plantigrade foot seen in apes, therefore design.

No ....Tyler is talking out of his arse because he has his foot in his mouth.

So is that called foot and arse disease?

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

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

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

   
Henry J



Posts: 3964
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2012,18:50   

Quote
Oh yeah?

A question for the ID scientific establishment bible interpreters.

If God designed the human foot.

Then why do we have podiatrists?

To help us toe the line?

Quote
No ....Tyler is talking out of his arse because he has his foot in his mouth.

Oh. Never mind previous paragraph - this is why podiatrists! Or something.

---

Quote
The chimp looks like it's thinking.. "There is no way I am related to that IDiotic dufus."??And, "How does he get those caterpillars to hold still over his eyes like that?"

Is it a peppered moth caterpillar?

Henry

  
NormOlsen



Posts: 104
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2012,21:17   

Tyler:
 
Quote
Yet, each of these traits requires a set of inter-related components and information processing machinery.


It just struck me that IDers are gradually turning God into a lab geek / programming nerd / mechanic.  Not very romantic or inspiring.  They will turn him from magical father figure, to a lab coat-wearing technician, laboriously assembling components and programming subroutines.  Even if they win, they will sow the seeds of their own demise.

  
k.e..



Posts: 2814
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2012,23:28   

Quote (NormOlsen @ June 10 2012,05:17)
Tyler:
 
Quote
Yet, each of these traits requires a set of inter-related components and information processing machinery.


It just struck me that IDers are gradually turning God into a lab geek / programming nerd / mechanic.  Not very romantic or inspiring.  They will turn him from magical father figure, to a lab coat-wearing technician, laboriously assembling components and programming subroutines.  Even if they win, they will sow the seeds of their own demise.

A geek in a lab coat is no match for the Grand Old Incompetant Designer.

Task Brief: From Human Foot Requirements As per Bible Design Human Foot.

Requirements.

1. Shall reach mouth.
2. Shall not be same as bird type.
3. Shall not have opposable thumb.
3. Shall look good in Manolo Blahnik's
4. Shall have a right one and a left one.
5. Shall have the toe bone connected to the heel bone,
6. Shall have the heel bone connected to the foot bone,
7. Shall have the foot bone connected to the leg bone.
8. Shall degrade after the fall.

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

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 1947
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2012,04:01   

Quote (k.e.. @ June 09 2012,10:40)
A question for the ID scientific establishment bible interpreters.

If God designed the human foot.

Then why do we have podiatrists?

The retroactive effects of The Fall?

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

   
Bob O'H



Posts: 1947
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2012,04:05   

Quote (Kattarina98 @ June 09 2012,09:38)
David Tyler lies and quote-mines for Jesus in "Design perspectives and the physiology of walking".

BTW, that's "physicist" David Tyler. Or "clothing technologist" David Tyler to anyone but Denyse.

--------------
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: 1650
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2012,14:50   

Quote (Kattarina98 @ June 09 2012,09:38)
David Tyler lies and quote-mines for Jesus in "Design perspectives and the physiology of walking".
       
Quote
The authors recognise that the morphology and action they are studying is unusual among cursors, and this leads them to make a design inference. The hypothesis is that there are physiological reasons for the design of the human foot (rather than the structure being a spandrel and a witness to evolutionary tinkering).

His quote from the paper:        
Quote
Any inference of function from a single evolutionary origin must be treated with caution. However, the mechanical form of the human foot, based on the interpretation of function presented here, suggests adaptation for economical walking from both the whole body mechanics and muscle physiology perspectives.

Should I trust him - no way! I went to the paper. And that's the original text:
       
Quote
Any inference of function from a single evolutionary origin must be treated with caution. However, the mechanical form of the human foot, based on the interpretation of function presented here, suggests adaptation for economical walking from both the whole body mechanics and muscle physiology perspectives. This economical form of walking may have arisen in the hominin lineage as far back as Australopithecus afarensis (approx. 3.6 Ma). This is supported by the presence of a transverse and longitudinal arch [42] and evidence of a fully extended bipedal gait [43], together with early stance heel-strike [4,44] in A. afarensis.

Of course, there is no design inference throughout the text. I guess Jesus is not amused, David - lying is a sin.

Bolding added by me.

With 50% IDiots/creationists this country will never understand football.

ETA: I mean football not this strange game where something remotely resembling a ball is mostly carried and thrown.

Edited by sparc on June 10 2012,14:53

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

   
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2012,16:12   

scordova
Quote
Quote
In science’s pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics.

   – Jerry Coyne

Engineering is applied science. For example at Cornell University there is the school of The School of Applied and Engineering Physics. At another other schools Applied Physics is taught from the Engineering school. If Science is defined as :

1. Observation
2. Hypothesis
3. Testing

Then, engineering does that. Consider what was needed to make major engineering achievements. Measurements (observations) of the physical nature of things must be made, a hypothesis (a design) is put forward, and then an object (the product) is test by creating it and using it. If it fails, the idea is modified until it works or is rejected entirely. A few engineers (like Eugene Wigner) have received Nobel prizes in science.

Darwinism by contrast:

1. ignore contrary observations
2. concoct self-contradictory, poorly defined, and indefensible ideas
3. substitute speculation for empirical results

Think I’m being too harsh?
In Sciences Pecking Order…
Quote
Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science [sic]… Laws and experiments are inappropriate…
   ….
   Instead one constructs a … narrative

   Ernst Mayer

In otherwords, tell stories rather than do experiments. And when experiments are done, be sure to spin the results like Lenski.

Liar.

Ernst Mayr
Quote
Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science - the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.

For example, three different scenarios have been proposed for the sudden extinction of the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous: a devastating epidemic; a catastrophic change of climate; and the impact of an asteroid, known as the Alvarez theory. The first two narratives were ultimately refuted by evidence incompatible with them. All the known facts, however, fit the Alvarez theory, which is now widely accepted. The testing of historical narratives implies that the wide gap between science and the humanities that so troubled physicist C. P. Snow is actually nonexistent - by virtue of its methodology and its acceptance of the time factor that makes change possible, evolutionary biology serves as a bridge.


--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
k.e..



Posts: 2814
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2012,00:03   

Sal ought to get a grip

 
Quote
Darwinism Creationism by contrast:

1. ignore contrary observations
           ...Literal reading of Bible Flud vs reality, Literal reading of Bible genealogy back to Adam and Eve (guffaw) gives a 6000 year old earth vs reality

2. concoct self-contradictory, poorly defined, and indefensible ideas
             ...Flud 'science', 6000 year old earth 'geology', etc

3. substitute speculation Creationist social realism for empirical results
            .... Creationist social realism says The Flud of the Bible is true despite reality. The Earth is 6000 years old becuase some Bible reading preacher made it up and is true, despite reality.




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

  
sparc



Posts: 1650
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2012,00:05   

Mr. Leathers strikes again. Just wondering if this is the crisis he refers to.

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

   
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2012,04:50   

Quote
Yes, Darwinists have heard about replication …

In “‘Darwin Fail’ Entries Add Up” (June 8, 2012), Creation-Evolution Headlines offers this fail, among a number of others:
 
Quote
Bird stripes: Some evolutionists thought that sexual selection led to color bands in zebra finches. “One of the most replicated experiments in behavioral ecology is the presumed manipulation of male attractiveness in zebra finches by adding red or green color bands,” authors in PLoS ONE said ( Seguin A, Forstmeier W (2012) No Band Color Effects on Male Courtship Rate or Body Mass in the Zebra Finch: Four Experiments and a Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE 7(6): e37785. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037785). Well, Seguin and Forstmeier replicated the experiment and couldn’t confirm any evidence for evolution. “Combining this new experimental data with all the published evidence in a meta-analysis shows that color bands seem to affect neither male courtship rate (average effect size d = 0.02) nor male body mass (d = -0.07),” they said. “…The present case is a reminder that replication of experiments lies at the heart of distinguishing between real effects and false positive findings.

Darwinists have heard about replication, which is why they don’t do it very often.

And it doesn’t matter whether they do or not. The pop science media believe and rave, and the journals swallow anything that comes out of the Darwinator, until a whole bunch of people gag.

DO'L

How do you do it? How do you read an article about "one of the most replicated experiments" that is replicated once more and come away with the impression that "Darwinists" don't do replications?

Btw, Creation-Evolution Headlines is maintained by David Coppedge who claims that he was wrongfully demoted and later laid off by Jet Propulsion Lab because he promoted ID on the job.

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2012,05:29   

Gordon is watching!
Quote
F/N 3: In looking briefly at the Anti-Evo thread, I see where there is a continued insistence on conflation of design thought with biblical creationism — cf sparc quoting and approving Katerina98 here on accusing Tyler of “lying for Jesus” and KE here in attempted rebuttal to Sal C by trying to turn about a comment he made on common errors of evolutionary materialism promoters into remarks on creationism. This is incorrect, and as it has been repeatedly corrected on warrant, it is a disregard for duties of care to truth and fairness reflective of precisely the sort of nihilistic ruthless factionalism that I point to above. This gives examples of and underscores the concerns I have pointed to J above. Concerns that trace as far back as Plato.


Hey, Gordo, are you *sure* you want to climb into bed with Sal? Really? I guess you are both YEC so it makes sense....

IDiot.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2012,07:02   

Seems Gordo don't like it much when we talk about hiM!

Quote
(And for sparc and others at Anti-Evo indulging in sneer, suggest and smear tactics, the “crisis” I am referring to, is about this matter and several linked policy issues, not the minor note I made here in response to questions I was asked, cf. footnote there.)


Don't cry gordo. But you could create an account here and defend yourself, no? Or don't you want to talk to actual scientists instead of pretend scientists?

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2012,07:27   

I've found further evidence of Gordos ability to make decisions based on sound empirical data:

Quote
Have the authors carefully evaluated the failure rate of so-called 'safer sex'? Have they reviewed the mounting evidence that abstinence-based sex education is working, precisely by helping teens to reject the kind of pressure their articles exemplify?

he also notes:
Quote
Just so, sound civilisation is based on restraint of our natural appetites: your right requires my duty, whether to life, liberty, reputation, property or whatever. That is, moral restraint is central to our having a community worth living in.

One has to wonder what natural appetite Gordon is suppressing!

http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner....rs.html

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2012,07:34   

And lastly, and I think this says much about how Gordo "thinks":

Quote
The accounts that speak of one angel do not deny that a second may have been present.


No, Gordo, that's not how it works. If there were two I'm quite sure "there were two angels" was just as easy to write as "there was one angel".

As it's Gordo he has to say:
Quote
Thus, the column reveals a lack of attention to the text, disregard for the inevitable diversity in eyewitness reports, and gaps in Deacon Espeut's logic - rather than "a mature Christianity born of deep understanding of the Scriptures." Perhaps, it is time for mutually respectful dialogue rather than contemptuous dismissal with an epithetical lance - "fundamentalist"-backed up by specious arguments.


Or in other words, I'm right and you are wrong. It's apparently a specious argument to just disagree with Gordo or point out well known inconsistencies in the bible.

And he calls an error rate of 50% (1/2 angels) a "inevitable diversity in eyewitness reports" and dismisses any possibility there is any error. Gordo, if there was a court case and the witness could not decide if there was one or two people beating a person on the floor up, do you think that witness would be credible?

Gordo, you are a true scientist, in bizzaro world.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2012,07:41   

Ok, one last one!

I've found where Gordo actually gives *answers* to all the basic ID questions!

 
Quote
"1)Who is the Designer?

--> Of what? Of DNA and the associated FSCI-rich nanotechnology of cellular level life? In short, detecting credible evidence that points t life as showing signs pointing to design, and being willing to entertain the implications of FSCI, are prior to any such inference to identity of proposed designers.

--> Of a given code detected through say cryptanalysis? Why, that may be the precise point of an intellligence investigation. [And BTW, can you identify a single case where, knowing the source of a code independent of speculative theories, we see codes that are not artifacts of minds, i.e. intelligent agency?]

--> Of the massively fine-tuned, contingent observed cosmos that has in it a common system of laws and unimaginably large energy and scale, and as of my last check was dated as originating in a cosmic singualrity some 13.7 BYA? Why, if we see a world of contingent beings then that implies a necessary being as their sufficient reason – by plain logic. And since necessity acts whenever sufficient conditions are met, origination of the cosmos at a finite point in time implies necessity is not the root cause. Finetuning implies that chance is maximally unlikely – unless you resort tot he infinite array of randomly distributed sub-cosmi. And that is unobservable so it is metaphysical speculation. Suppression of the concept that an extracosmic designer of vast power and intelligence is the source then becomes worldview level censorship. .

2)Where did s/he/it come from?

--> Cf discussion at 1 supra.

3)Is there just one designer or are there many?

--> At cosmic scale we see evidence of one system of laws, and that the many contingencies are so finely set that we see evident setting up of parameters supportive of the emergence of life. Thus, it is by Occam most reasonable to infer to one designer, as we need no more than one to achieve this.

4)How did the Designer do the designing?

--> That is what science as a programme of investigation is about here: reverse-engineering the cosmos so we see the underlying structures and systems: describe, explain, predict, influence/control. In short, the designer acted in accordance with certain laws, which we as other agents can discover, correlate and apply to our own advantage.

5)When did the Designer do the designing?

--> Since time as we know it begins for the observed cosmos some 13.7 BYA, then the cosmological design is outside of the reference of our space-time system.

--> Life on earth is generally held to date to something like 3.5 – 8 BYA or whatever latest date is put forth. Before that is a trivial and satisfactory answer.

--> In the case of say steganography hiding an Al Qaeda instruction, the timing may be a bit harder to pin down [save for: in the rather recent past] but can with correlation to other phenomena be used in some cases to help catch the terrs before they act.

6)Is the Designer still designing or has s/he/it retired?"

--> WHICH designer? Al Qaeda's notorious Mr Usama Bin Laden? [We can only hope that hehas retired, in that case . . .]

--> Of the cosmos and/or life? For that we have no direct scientific evidence to report in either direction. But, if there is in fact an extracosmic designer who is a necessary being, then we have no reason to believe that such is capable of retirement – but that is a matter for philosophy not physics etc. And, note the distinction made here between science and a wider universe of discourse that as Lakatos and many others point out, may lie at the core of praxis in any given era.
__


"no direct scientific evidence to report in either direction" eh Gordo? So your position is not science and you admit it yourself huh?

http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group..........410

And what do you make of this?  
Quote
Suppression of the concept that an extracosmic designer of vast power and intelligence is the source then becomes worldview level censorship

No, actually I think that the idea of "god" is quite well disseminated by now Gordo.

What a sorry bastard he is.

Let me paraphrase his answers:

1) Goddidit.
2) Don't know.
3) Don't know.
4) Don't know.
5) In the distant past or today. Don't know.
6) Don't know.

So what Gordo does know is that his particular godiddit (a.k.a extracosmic designer of vast power and intelligence) but fuck all else. And he manages to spin his fuck all into tens of thousands of words at the drop of a hat.

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

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

Pages: (356) < ... 147 148 149 150 151 [152] 153 154 155 156 157 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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