RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (17) < ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... >   
  Topic: Cornelius Hunter Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Henry J



Posts: 3998
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2010,10:47   

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Oct. 19 2010,20:26)
Oleg: "According to your model, we should observe a lot of oxygen in the universe:"

Define "a lot". ;)

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1234
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2010,11:04   

Quote (didymos @ Oct. 20 2010,04:09)
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Oct. 19 2010,19:26)
Oleg: "According to your model, we should observe a lot of oxygen in the universe:"

Joe G:"Duh, Oleg, all our observations are obviously wrong then. How about a hard question next time?"

:p

Edited to add: I wanted to do something special for post 666, but I just had to post this precious comment from JoeG!

That wasn't Joe.  That was Derick Childress, in this comment, making fun of people like Joe.

Dammit, I've Poe'd myself ( or Joe'd - same difference).

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

  
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2010,16:07   

Paging Cornelius Hunter!

New Analysis Groups Lampreys and Hagfish

Corn bait:

A scientist expresses suprise.

The common ancestor of all vertebrates may be more complex than previously thought.

Therefore Jebus.

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

  
didymos



Posts: 1775
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2010,17:14   

Quote (dvunkannon @ Oct. 20 2010,14:07)
Paging Cornelius Hunter!

New Analysis Groups Lampreys and Hagfish

Corn bait:

A scientist expresses suprise.

The common ancestor of all vertebrates may be more complex than previously thought.

Therefore Jebus.

The irony of course being that the expressed surprise is how a real scientist behaves (bolding mine):
Quote
"I was staggered by this paper," said Philippe Janvier, a paleontologist at the Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris, France, and a long time supporter of the idea that lampreys were more closely related to jawed vertebrates. "It's very hard for me to recognize that I've been wrong in my assumption," said Janvier, who did not participate in the research, but this paper provides "very, very strong support for the monophyly -- the common origin of lampreys and hagfishes apart from the origin of the jawed vertebrates."


And one of the co-authors was also surprised, because he too started out believing the opposite of what the new molecular data was saying. His response?  Go back to the morphological data and re-analyze it.  All of it.  Turns out it didn't support his previously held position. But I'm sure it was just religiously motivated and nothing to do with intellectual honesty or anything ridiculous like that.

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10059
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2010,15:25   

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatc....218.php

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

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2593
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2010,10:07   

Sometimes, it hurts just to look. But look we must.

Quote
Neal Tedford: We just don't see outboard motors on minivans either, so your example is meaningless.

Quote
Derick Childress: Really?



Neal, you really have made Zachriel's point several times already. It's getting embarrassing to read your posts.

{You ain't seen nuttin' yet.}

Quote
Zachriel: Heh. Those crazy humans. Next thing you know they'll be putting maps in phones and computers in ovens.

Quote
Neal Tedford: I enjoyed your link, but that's not a minivan with an outboard motor.

See evolutionists stretch the data to support their worldview, but minimize contradictory evidence... your link just proves the point.

Quote
Derick Childress:

Neal, does it hurt to be that stupid?

I posted the first picture I found of an amphibious automobile to show what a ridiculous point you were making. As soon as I posted it, the thought flashed through my mind: "Hmm. I wonder if Neal is going to say something about it 'not being a minivan.'" But then I thought "Nah, no one could be dumb enough to miss the point to that degree."

Apparently, I was wrong.
















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

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10059
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2010,10:55   

Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 12 2010,10:07)
Sometimes, it hurts just to look. But look we must.

Quote
Neal Tedford: We just don't see outboard motors on minivans either, so your example is meaningless.

Quote
Derick Childress: Really?



Neal, you really have made Zachriel's point several times already. It's getting embarrassing to read your posts.

{You ain't seen nuttin' yet.}

Quote
Zachriel: Heh. Those crazy humans. Next thing you know they'll be putting maps in phones and computers in ovens.

Quote
Neal Tedford: I enjoyed your link, but that's not a minivan with an outboard motor.

See evolutionists stretch the data to support their worldview, but minimize contradictory evidence... your link just proves the point.

Quote
Derick Childress:

Neal, does it hurt to be that stupid?

I posted the first picture I found of an amphibious automobile to show what a ridiculous point you were making. As soon as I posted it, the thought flashed through my mind: "Hmm. I wonder if Neal is going to say something about it 'not being a minivan.'" But then I thought "Nah, no one could be dumb enough to miss the point to that degree."

Apparently, I was wrong.















Weapons grade PWNage.

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

  
sledgehammer



Posts: 530
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2010,20:17   

But, but,...not a single one of them is a mini-van.  So there.

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

  
fusilier



Posts: 207
Joined: Feb. 2003

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2010,08:24   

Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 12 2010,21:17)
But, but,...not a single one of them is a mini-van.  So there.

Check out the last pic.

Waterloo!!!11

--------------
fusilier
James 2:24

  
sledgehammer



Posts: 530
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2010,16:22   

Quote (fusilier @ Nov. 15 2010,06:24)
 
Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 12 2010,21:17)
But, but,...not a single one of them is a mini-van.  So there.

Check out the last pic.

Waterloo!!!11

Curses. Goalpost transport foiled again.

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 3998
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2010,16:53   

But can any of them go under water like that thing James Bond had in one of his movies?

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 984
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2010,17:21   

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 16 2010,16:53)
But can any of them go under water like that thing James Bond had in one of his movies?

I think all mini-vans can go under water.

The trouble is getting them back up.*


*Also a frequent complaint from Arden's mom

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

  
REC



Posts: 548
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2010,07:58   

Joke, or most ignorant comment ever?

Paper: "Profiling by image registration reveals common origin of annelid mushroom bodies and vertebrate pallium."

Quote
I've heard the mushroom story before. Why not put up an image of a head of Cauliflower and insist that this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that humans are the descendant of the Kohl(cabbage) family ???"


Link

He even included a link to a pic of cauliflower, in case I was confused. Guess I should have lead with the wikipedia entry on worm anatomy, less this fool think "annelid mushroom bodies" = fungus!

  
BillB



Posts: 353
Joined: Aug. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2010,11:37   

From Darwins God:
Quote
Eocene said...

   Bill bigge:

   "To sum up. You claim that information exists independantly of matter, I ask for evidence, and a way of incorporating this substrate free information into experiments "
   =====

   Once again I already gave you an example to understand a simple example to illustrate the point that even a child would get. I told you to THINK about it. You obviously knew what I meant , but predictably skirted around the edges of true rational logic using a "What Is Truth?" arguement about what is "immaterial thought". The problem continues to be your problem with the experiemnt and that is the point.
   -----

   Bille Bigge:

   "(one way might be to explain how this type of information interacts with matter, and give some experimental evidence of this happening.)"
   =====

   Wow, this is Kindergarten stuff. Bill, first think(immaterial) about something, then take an ink pen and write those thoughts down on paper(material). That's about as grade school experimenting as you're going to get.
   *eyes rolling*
   -----

   Bill Bigge:

   "I think you may have misunderstood how this whole science thing works."
   =====

   Really. Science is about physical and naturalistic proofs. You have done neither and neither has the Darwin gang without telling predictable myths and fables found only in a parallel universe of some online gaming site.
   -----

   Bill Bigge:

   "You said "Goal orientated replication" - Why do we need to demonstrate that chemical replicators have goals? Why is that useful?"
   =====

   Because chemicals reacting to a catalyst making crytal-like patterns are not LIFE, Bill. We are talking about LIFE Bill, not some unilateral agenda to appease atheists so they'll promise to be your friend. The genetic codes do have goals for renewal and replication, but they also have at their disposal a bounty of error correction mechanisms and other resources to prevent birth defects. These were all present at the very beginning. Why ??? Because if not, then life never gets of the ground billions of years ago, let alone continuing to the present from last year. Once again you are proving this is more about religious faith, than science. Thanks for illustrating that for us.

I just can't find the words ...

  
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2010,16:58   

Wait...what?

He's not even doing it wrong.  That there is some weapons-grade ignorance.

If you'd like a few words, I doubt the Bard would mind if you borrowed his seven classic four-letter list...   :)


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: 2593
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2010,09:01   

This concerns Neal Tedford's claim that iPods can be arranged into a single, objective nested hierarchy. Despite our own best efforts, Neal Tedford's position flitted from tree branch to tree branch.



However, Derick Childress has apparently found a true rarity, an isolated and concise bit of tard, a tardicle.

Quote
Derick Childress: (shuffle, nano) ? (shuffle, nano, touch) ? (shuffle, nano, touch, classic). Am I right in that interpretation? ... Can you confirm that I've understood you correctly?

Neal Tedford: Yes.

Beautiful, isn't it?

Look quickly, because it probably won't last long. Normally, a tardicle can't be found in this state, but as with quintessence, disappears as soon as you look at it. With this phenomenal find, perhaps we can finally answer the question, what is the half-life of a tardicle?

Quote
Derick Childress: Super, Neal. Glad that's finally over with. Now that you've actually presented what you think is a single, objective, best fit nested hierarchy based on a panoply of traits, we get to the fun part: Determining if you're right.

Congratulations to Derick Childress, and a special thanks to Neal Tedford, who, absent his providing a constant stream of tardicles for study, this discovery may never have occurred.

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

   
Zachriel



Posts: 2593
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2010,09:18   

Derick Childress's images won't embed, so you'll have to click through.

http://www.derickchildress.com/ipodexample1.jpg
http://www.derickchildress.com/ipodexample2.jpg
http://www.derickchildress.com/ipodexample3.jpg
http://www.derickchildress.com/ipodexample4.jpg
http://www.derickchildress.com/ipodexample5.jpg
http://www.derickchildress.com/ipodexample6.jpg

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

   
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1234
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2010,10:15   

Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 21 2010,09:18)
Derick Childress's images won't embed, so you'll have to click through.


http://www.derickchildress.com/ipodexample6.jpg

Clearly example 6, which is the Paul Nelson model.  Steve Jobs said:"Let there be profit" and it was good.

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

  
olegt



Posts: 1376
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2010,22:15   

Hunter on common descent:
 
Quote

Hunter: There is evidence in favor of evolution and common descent, but the fact is there are substantial scientific problems with evolution and common descent.

me: Let's see what those scientific problems are. What are your specific objections to common descent?

Hunter: Well it depends on what you mean by common descent. Even many IDs and creationists accept certain types of common descent, but I suspect you don't mean that. If you mean common descent via evolution, then you could look at the many failed predictions.

me: Umm, common descent is common descent. You know, the tree of life. DO you accept it or not? That isn't a trick question, unless you want to make it so.

Hunter: OK, the tree of life. That has been falsified many times over. There are mismatches at all levels. Only a precommittment to CD could overlook these many contradictions.

me: Can you be a little more specific, Cornelius?


Prediction: in his reply, Hunter will cite Woese, Doolittle, or both.

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

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1000
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2010,22:35   

Ha, Corny Hunter!  You're talking about a guy who suffocated in his own bullshit decades ago.

The guy couldn't order a Big Mac without screwing it up.

Pitiful.

  
didymos



Posts: 1775
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 01 2011,02:29   

Quote (olegt @ Dec. 31 2010,20:15)
Prediction: in his reply, Hunter will cite Woese, Doolittle, or both.

You win, though technically, he didn't cite them by name.  He just rambled on about Archaea and Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes and how we don't know everything yet, etc.

You gotta love this bit, though:

 
Quote
Another example are the many significant similarities between distant branches in the tree of life. Both morphological as well as molecular comparisons show extremely high similarities that don't make sense on the common descent model.


Stuff on distant branches has too many similarities, therefore they can't possibly be related via common descent.  

OK, now get ready for the best part. Right before that he said this:
 
Quote
Another example are the many significant differences between nearby branches in the tree of life. Everything from the genomes (completely different proteins for as much as a fifth of the proteome) to development (different embryonic development pathways).


Got that?  Nearby branches are too different.  Distant branches are too similiar. Thus, Common Descent is clearly wrong.  

How Corny has decided stuff is distantly or closely related when, apparently, both morphological and molecular data are useless in making these determinations, I don't know.  Probably something to do with thylacines and Jesus.

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

  
REC



Posts: 548
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 01 2011,15:49   

Quote (didymos @ Jan. 01 2011,02:29)
Quote (olegt @ Dec. 31 2010,20:15)
Prediction: in his reply, Hunter will cite Woese, Doolittle, or both.

You win, though technically, he didn't cite them by name.  He just rambled on about Archaea and Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes and how we don't know everything yet, etc.

You gotta love this bit, though:

 
Quote
Another example are the many significant similarities between distant branches in the tree of life. Both morphological as well as molecular comparisons show extremely high similarities that don't make sense on the common descent model.


Stuff on distant branches has too many similarities, therefore they can't possibly be related via common descent.  

OK, now get ready for the best part. Right before that he said this:
 
Quote
Another example are the many significant differences between nearby branches in the tree of life. Everything from the genomes (completely different proteins for as much as a fifth of the proteome) to development (different embryonic development pathways).


Got that?  Nearby branches are too different.  Distant branches are too similiar. Thus, Common Descent is clearly wrong.  

How Corny has decided stuff is distantly or closely related when, apparently, both morphological and molecular data are useless in making these determinations, I don't know.  Probably something to do with thylacines and Jesus.

Metaphysics!!! Religion! I winz!

  
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 01 2011,22:46   

Would it be too harsh to suggest that perhaps the esteemed Mister Hunter might benefit from a little less enthusiastic consumption of recreational pharmaceuticals before setting fingers to keyboard?

His powers of analysis beggar description without recourse to some particularly coarse and ribald language and less than kind speculations concerning his sanity.


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

  
Quack



Posts: 1746
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2011,00:00   

Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 01 2011,22:46)
Would it be too harsh to suggest that perhaps the esteemed Mister Hunter might benefit from a little less enthusiastic consumption of recreational pharmaceuticals before setting fingers to keyboard?

His powers of analysis beggar description without recourse to some particularly coarse and ribald language and less than kind speculations concerning his sanity.


The MadPanda, FCD

Tears come to my eyes when I see your comment so nicely wrapped in cellophane.
Corny deserves our best!

--------------
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.

  
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2011,11:38   

I confess a tendency to wax Vancian (if not Shakespearean) when I am not pressed for time in responding to the incoherent inanities that result from these persons of prodigious ignorance.  My goal is to one day present a blow so cunningly disguised as to seem a pleasantry to the recipient but boldly recognizable by all onlookers for a harsh ego-lacerating stroke of the virtual pen.

Alas, I shall never in all likelihood achieve this, as it takes so very little to tempt me to go all JoeyKris on persons of this sort.


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

  
paragwinn



Posts: 376
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 08 2011,00:17   

"JoeyKris"? Is that anything similiar to going all GlennBeck on someone?

--------------
All women build up a resistance [to male condescension]. Apparently, ID did not predict that. -Kristine 4-19-11
F/Ns to F/Ns to F/Ns etc. The whole thing is F/N ridiculous -Seversky on KF footnote fetish 8-20-11
The geological maps that realist use to make money are all surface maps. -forastero

  
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 08 2011,11:50   

No.  Going GlennBeck involves public weeping, spit spraying, and paranoid delusions.  JoeyKris manifests something more like a severe case of Tourette's Syndrome.


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

  
Leftfield



Posts: 98
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2011,17:33   

Neal Tedford on scientific procedures:

 
Quote
As a comparison Mythbusters on the Discovery Channel are usually careful to perform their tests by setting up their experiments as equal to the original claim as possible. They then test their experiment quite thoroughly. Evolutionary theory would not stand up to this kind of scrutiny.


Waterloo!!!!!

--------------
Speaking for myself, I have long been confused . . .-Denyse O'Leary

  
noncarborundum



Posts: 320
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2011,01:25   

Quote (Leftfield @ April 05 2011,17:33)
Neal Tedford on scientific procedures:

     
Quote
As a comparison Mythbusters on the Discovery Channel are usually careful to perform their tests by setting up their experiments as equal to the original claim as possible. They then test their experiment quite thoroughly. Evolutionary theory would not stand up to this kind of scrutiny.


Waterloo!!!!!

I think this would make an excellent Mythbusters episode.  First, the build team constructs a duplicate prehistoric earth (probably they'd do a scale model first, just for proof of concept, before scaling up to a full-size replica).  Then, after a perhaps a billion years, rendered in dramatic time-lapse photography, we get to see whether the development of life is confirmed, plausible, or totally busted.  After which Jamie and Adam find some pretext for blowing the whole thing to smitheens, which is always the best part.

--------------
"The . . . um . . . okay, I was genetically selected for blue eyes.  I know there are brown eyes, because I've observed them, but I can't do it.  Okay?  So . . . um . . . coz that's real genetic selection, not the nonsense Giberson and the others are talking about." - DO'L

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2011,01:33   

Quote (noncarborundum @ April 06 2011,01:25)
Quote (Leftfield @ April 05 2011,17:33)
Neal Tedford on scientific procedures:

     
Quote
As a comparison Mythbusters on the Discovery Channel are usually careful to perform their tests by setting up their experiments as equal to the original claim as possible. They then test their experiment quite thoroughly. Evolutionary theory would not stand up to this kind of scrutiny.


Waterloo!!!!!

I think this would make an excellent Mythbusters episode.  First, the build team constructs a duplicate prehistoric earth (probably they'd do a scale model first, just for proof of concept, before scaling up to a full-size replica).  Then, after a perhaps a billion years, rendered in dramatic time-lapse photography, we get to see whether the development of life is confirmed, plausible, or totally busted.  After which Jamie and Adam find some pretext for blowing the whole thing to smitheens, which is always the best part.

Maybe they already did it, and the final filming is set for 2012?  If the Mythbusters crew gets into a spaceship, we'll know we're in for it!  The reapture is when the mythbusters fans get taken up into the space ark before they push the handle and blow up the planet!  It's all so clear!

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
  506 replies since Jan. 26 2007,15:35 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (17) < ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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