RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (117) < ... 104 105 106 107 108 [109] 110 111 112 113 114 ... >   
  Topic: Telic Thoughts Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1373
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2010,15:22   

Quote
I'd hate to think that I am the reason no one can comment on art at TT.


LOL </delurk

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2010,22:47   

Oleg,

Giving you a heads up.

Time will tell if Bradford will react to the OOL paper I pointed him to.

Magnetism, FeS colloids, and Origins of Life

I'm still trying to work my way through understanding it, but it looks like the authors are arguing life's complexity started out as frustrated magnets before moving to the RNA world.

I thought the frustrated magnets part would be of interest to you, if for no other reason than to provide a chuckle.

  
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2010,19:57   

What happened to Daniel Smith?  Didn't he used to be on the science side?  Or am I confusing him with someone else?

--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 1056
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2010,20:57   

Quote (Hermagoras @ Dec. 06 2010,19:57)
What happened to Daniel Smith? †Didn't he used to be on the science side? †Or am I confusing him with someone else?

You're thinking of someone else. Here's Daniel's Introductory thread

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

  
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2010,23:16   

Quote (Texas Teach @ Dec. 06 2010,20:57)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Dec. 06 2010,19:57)
What happened to Daniel Smith? †Didn't he used to be on the science side? †Or am I confusing him with someone else?

You're thinking of someone else. Here's Daniel's Introductory thread

OK, I'm thinking of someone else.  Another Daniel, or another Smith, who posted sensible stuff on UD (and may have been banned there).

--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 1966
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2010,23:29   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Dec. 05 2010,20:47)
Magnetism, FeS colloids, and Origins of Life

Interesting ideas. Ten pages of references makes me think the authors are more than a little insecure. But the basic notion seems OK. I actually like the magnetism idea.

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

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

   
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2010,10:28   

Dr. GH,

I spent a couple of minutes searching the internet for your background.  From what I found, I very much appreciate your input.

I am presuming this is a rather radical idea; therefore I wasn't surprised by the significant reliance on references to other authors.

I too am being cautious as to accepting this as a plausible scenario.  I don't know enough about frustrated magnets.

I am hoping Oleg will comment on it.

Thanks

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2010,11:37   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Dec. 07 2010,10:28)
I am hoping Oleg will comment on it.

Hey, why not ask world renowned scientist "ID guy"?  He's so class that he knows the content of Behe's latest publication despite the fact it's not even available yet!

--------------
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 Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2010,13:31   

Yes, I noticed that too.

Apparently Behe has shared his paper with at least one DI fellow, Luskin.

Could it be possible JoeG is a covert operative employed by DI?

"If you make a fool of yourself we will disavow any knowledge of your actions. †This tape will self-destruct in five seconds. Good luck, Joe."

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 554
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2010,16:33   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Dec. 07 2010,14:31)
Could it be possible JoeG is a covert operative employed by DI?

I think it's way more likely he's a covert FCD trying to make ID look bad.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2010,10:30   

olegt:
Quote
Once you understand that, you should be able to determine whether Newton's theory of gravity is better than the angel theory of planetary motion. One of these theories can be used to predict the existence of Neptune and the other cannot. Does that metric make sense?

Daniel Smith: †
Quote

Nope, because the "theory of angels" is also based on the predictable motion of angels pushing the planets around. (They apparently do this as if constrained by laws of some type.)

Either way Ė angels or gravity Ė the theories are based on the predictable movements of nature. If you replace the word "angels" with the word "gravity", you're still in the same place scientifically. Both forces (from a scientific standpoint) DO the same thing. In fact, we don't know that it's not angels doing the work, we just know that the work being done predictably follows certain laws.

duh. Funny how Denial Smith failed to address the point that one formulation can predict the existence of Neptune and the other cannot, despite the fact it was the very point he was answering.

--------------
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 Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
olegt



Posts: 1387
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2010,14:13   

I have asked Daniel Smith to fill in the details. Should be interesting.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2010,16:02   

FMM:
Quote
There are lots of ways this could be done but the easiest way would be to substitute the word angelic for the word gravitational in your explanation


He shows how it's done:

Two astronomers, Le Verier and Adams, proposed that these deviations were due to a non-negligible angelic attraction from another planet unknown at the time.

duh. These people are operating on a different plane of reality. Their mental models are, well, different. To say the least.

--------------
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 Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10305
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2010,10:38   

Bilbo gets upset at outing dippy Joe:

Quote
Bilbo Says:
December 16th, 2010 at 6:15 pm Hi TP,

I already warned ID Guy and Oleg(t) about playing the "I know your name game." Now I will warn you. No more Joe G stuff. And try not to get sand in your computer.


Comment by Bilbo ó December 16, 2010 @ 6:15 pm


The trouble is the actual comment from TP is:

Quote
So, frankly, JoeG-like assertions will effect me even less than usual.



JoeG-like assertions <> You are Joe G.

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

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2010,12:08   

Hi Richard,

Good of you to notice. †It's no secret. And, on cue, ID Guy stepped up with one of his usual comments.

Meanwhile, I'm sitting at an open Kiki bar reading about all the flights cancelled by snow storms. †Here, it's about 75 F (22 C) with a nice breeze, clear blue ocean and pretty sailboats. †And, oh yea, 60's songs playing in the background like Eleanor Rigby.

In short... †who cares? :D

Oooh, good Neil Young song is playing now...

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2599
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 18 2010,09:53   

Quote
fifth monarchy man: My point is that in Darwinís there were no scientifically observed instances of natural selection that he could point to. This is not opinion itís fact that you have granted.

Yes, it's quite amazing. Darwin *inferred* natural selection from the patterns of macroevolution. Since then, microevolution and natural selection have been directly observed, verifying a crucial prediction of the theory.

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

   
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2010,16:14   

Dr. GH,

Thank you for posting a link to your OOL summary.

I hope you don't mind I did a copy and paste of a large section of it and posted it to Telic Thoughts.

link

We will see what happens.

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2599
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2010,14:26   

Quote
chunkdz: These agenda driven crackwhores prefer to use science as a bludgeon to attack religion rather than use it as a tool for understanding.


Quote
Pez: Very thought provoking, Chunkdz.


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

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10305
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2010,00:21   

Chunkdz has some thoughts and mean words to say about us:

http://telicthoughts.com/new-bio-complexity-paper/#comment-264687

Quote
My thought was "I wonder why Thought Provoker thought it was a good idea to link to the website of some drunken-douchebag-ideologue-culture-warrior-demagogue-bigot-who-is-such-a-loud-mouthed-cra
zed-alcoholic-jackass-that-even-the-Pandas-Thumb-can't-stand-him-and-who-is-such-a-whackaloon-paranoid-ultra-uber-liberal-that-he-actually-t
hinks-Ed-Brayton-is-a-supporter-of-the-religious-right."


Oh Chunk, you phoned that in. Where is your homoerotic panache? You could have thrown in "engorged-man-mean" or "metronomically-relentless-piston-like-thrusts", actually, that second one is a bit too good for you. But keep it thooper-ghay, we'll be supportive when you come out.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2010,02:10   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Dec. 19 2010,16:14)
We will see what happens.

C'mon TP, you already *know* exactly what will happen!

The only thing that remains to be seen is why you waste your time over at TT at all!

--------------
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 Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2010,09:49   

It looks like comment number 264687 has been "disappeared".

Actually, I hadn't expected the reaction I got from Chunkdz.  Is there some history there?

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10305
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2010,10:02   

Boo. Methinks chickenshit Chunk beleted it because it's not in the memory hole (but some fine work by OlegT is..)

http://telicthoughts.com/57/

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

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2010,10:20   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 21 2010,00:21)
Chunkdz has some thoughts and mean words to say about us:

http://telicthoughts.com/new-bio-complexity-paper/#comment-264687

Quote
My thought was "I wonder why Thought Provoker thought it was a good idea to link to the website of some drunken-douchebag-ideologue-culture-warrior-demagogue-bigot-who-is-such-a-loud-mouthed-cra

zed-alcoholic-jackass-that-even-the-Pandas-Thumb-can't-stand-him-and-who-is-such-a-whackaloon-paranoid-ultra-uber-liberal-that-he-actually-t

hinks-Ed-Brayton-is-a-supporter-of-the-religious-right."


Oh Chunk, you phoned that in. Where is your homoerotic panache? You could have thrown in "engorged-man-mean" or "metronomically-relentless-piston-like-thrusts", actually, that second one is a bit too good for you. But keep it thooper-ghay, we'll be supportive when you come out.

Just remember Chunkdz, we like our beer cold and our homosexuals FLAMING!

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, youíre 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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10305
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 23 2010,00:00   

Geez, every time they get slapped down with a zinger, they memory hole it!

http://telicthoughts.com/57/

Quote
olegt Says:

December 22nd, 2010 at 7:45 am Bradford wrote:


We're witnessing an existing problem being exacerbated by an expansion of regulatory powers unless Olegt does not see the expansion as problematic. Is that it Olegt? More regulation is a good thing?


You have no clue where I stand on the question of government regulation in this (or any other) cases, Bradford, so don't put words in my mouth.

All I did in this thread was object to your over-the-top characterization of the FCC regulating the net as "a tyrannical act." You ain't seen nothin resembling a tyrannical act in your life, chicken hawk.


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

  
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 23 2010,00:11   

Ooooo, I bet that left a mark!

:D


The MadPanda, FCD

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2599
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2010,08:58   

Quote
fifth monarchy man: Saying that his biases affected his paper and were overlooked by per review borders on slander.

Oh, boy. Let's take a look.

Quote
Behe: This reasoning can be concisely stated as what I call ďThe First Rule of Adaptive EvolutionĒ:
Quote
Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.

It is called a ďruleĒ in the sense of being a rule of thumb. It is a heuristic, useful generalization, rather than a strict law; other circumstances being equal, this is what is usually to be expected in adaptive evolution.

Why call it a Rule, then?

Quote
KC: My comment on his rule is that it's premature, based entirely on a review of short-term laboratory studies (with Lenski's as the exception), and only on prokaryotes. I don't think that's even close to enough to justify coming up with a general "first rule" of adaptation, which Behe specifically believes can be extended to eukaryotes and natural populations as well. For one thing, a lot of factors (budgetary, what research questions are being addressed by the study, etc) contribute to why certain studies are done, and what organisms are chosen. This can skew the results for someone from the outside looking at something that the studies themselves were not specifically addressing. It's a major concern for researchers doing "meta-analyses" of data from numerous studiesĖ they have to take great pains to analyze the conditions and methods of the studies to ensure that unseen biases are not influencing the "meta-picture" of the data.

In other words, there are a variety of reasons data can be skewed. We tend to look for the keys where the light is best.



Quote
fifth monarchy man: Claiming that there is secret data is the stuff of conspiracy theorists not science. Saying that his biases affected his paper and were overlooked by per review borders on slander. †

Quite an accusation. Even though his comments concerned the data, KC clarifies further ó just to make sure there is no misunderstanding.

Quote
KC: I didnít mean to imply that; instead, I should have said it was only the data Behe thought was relevant. And another thingówhen I talk about bias in the data, Iím not talking about Beheís personal biases. I took special pains earlier in this thread to point out that lots of factors can influence the results when doing meta-analysis. These have nothing to do with personal bias. Yet still you assume I was impugning Beheís motives.

Of course he does.

Quote
KC: You were the one who said my calling Beheís conclusions premature was slanderous.

fifth monarchy man: Again I never said anything of the sort. Here is my exact quote: †
Quote
Saying that his biases affected his paper and were overlooked by per review borders on slander.

Parsing pretty fine there, fifth monarchy man. The comments weren't slanderous, never bordered on slander, had nothing to do with Behe or professional reputation, but with his paper.

Quote
fifth monarchy man: If you think Behe cherry picked data and his reviewers did not catch itÖÖ prove it.

Fifth monarchy man still doesn't understand the bit about how data can be skewed without any purposeful intention by the researcher.

Quote
fifth monarchy man: So in KCís world claiming the peer reviewers did not bother to properly investigate the bias of a known IDer is pretty much the same thing saying a paper is premature?

Fifth monarchy man reiterates his ignorance of peer review.

By the way, KC didn't say that the paper was premature, but that "The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution" may be premature. Fifth monarchy man keeps confusing the point. The paper does, perhaps, add a bit to the body of scientific knowledge, however, that doesn't mean it isn't subject to criticism.

Quote
fifth monarchy man: So if we donít suspect fraud in this case are you saying its ok to trust the peer review process?

Peer review just helps ensure that papers reach a *minimum* level of professional standard while advancing the goals of the publication.

Quote
KC: Peer review only goes so far. Itís not the last wordóhow can it be?

A scientist hopes publication is the *first* word of a conversation. If it's the last word, it means the paper is being {gasp} ignored.

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

   
Quack



Posts: 1784
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2010,09:19   

Interesting comment by Zachriel. As just an outside lurker (mostly), am I right in assuming that a scientist who wants to be and remain a respected scientist have to be careful with his words, and that critics have to be careful that they do not read anything into them that isn't there? (Besides making sure they have a proper understanding of what they criticize, something I think I see demonstrated that they do not more often than we ought to be comfortable with.)




ETA italicized

--------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself ‚ÄĒ and you are the easiest person to fool.
¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬†¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬†         Richard Feynman

  
KCdgw



Posts: 368
Joined: Sep. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 01 2011,20:57   

IDers just can't stand it when you tell them that sometimes they just don't have the expertise to evaluate a scientific claim.

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

  
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 01 2011,22:49   

They also take it poorly when their expertise in theological matters is questioned, and the more qualified the questioner the less they seem to like it.

I, for one, would be overjoyed to hear an ID advocate whose underlying presupposition concerning the designer was drawn from something other than the usual Abrahamic background. Surely there must be someone out there who cleaves instead to the primacy of, say, the Popul Vuh...


The MadPanda, FCD

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2599
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2011,08:38   

Since they banned most all their critics, Telic Thoughts is like watching amateur tennis. They just can't seem to get a decent rally going. Last post over a day ago.

chunkdz: January 4, 2011 @ 1:52 pm
kornbelt888: January 4, 2011 @ 2:33 pm
Guts: January 4, 2011 @ 4:18 pm
johnnyb: January 4, 2011 @ 4:34 pm
Bilbo: January 4, 2011 @ 8:01 pm
Daniel Smith: January 4, 2011 @ 8:21 pm
Bradford: January 4, 2011 @ 10:46 pm
nullasalus: January 5, 2011 @ 12:47 am
ID guy: January 5, 2011 @ 8:35 am
ID guy: January 5, 2011 @ 8:36 am
ID guy: January 5, 2011 @ 8:40 am
ID guy: January 5, 2011 @ 8:54 am

Without arguing against 'evolutionism', it seems Telic Thoughts has nothing to say. It's rather sad ó like a kid who has no one to play with because he chased off all his friends.



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

   
  3492 replies since Sep. 22 2007,13:50 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (117) < ... 104 105 106 107 108 [109] 110 111 112 113 114 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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