RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (501) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 3, The Beast Marches On...< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2009,22:46   

preserved in entirety because it is too stupid to cut

Quote
4
Mario A. Lopez
09/07/2009
8:14 pm
Lenoxus,

I am not sure where you get the idea that ID proponents claim or predict that there will be absolutely no “junk” DNA.

Stephen Meyer, who has spoken out against Darwinian predictions concerning junk DNA, has made it pretty clear that ID proponents do NOT deny the degradation of an aboriginal design or even that “mutational processes might have degraded or ‘broken’ some previously functional DNA.” (see Signature in the Cell pgs 406-407)

BTW–I don’t know of anyone that does not believe evolution to be degrading. The article is not telling us anything we didn’t already know about evolution.

I wish someone would publish something with a little more than simple “variation” or “resistance” or the ability to “digest” something new. None of these minor changes get us anywhere in the grand evolutionary story as told by Darwinists!

If you could provide even one example of an increase of CSI in the genome of any organism, I’d love to see it.

Note: An example of CSI should exhibit functional divergence.

I should point out that functional divergence does not require an increase of information; however, information increase does require functional divergence. Make sense?

For example, in gene duplication the “free” duplicate may only be considered an increase of info. if it acquires a novel function (one that diverges from the original). However, The original must also maintain its function, otherwise, you just gained one function to lose another.

As you know, vertical evolution requires an increase of biological information and organization. In other words, If you could show how adaptations lead to morphological innovations, I will embrace Darwinism like the fanatics at Pharyngula! No kidding!


Quote
BTW–I don’t know of anyone that does not believe evolution to be degrading. The article is not telling us anything we didn’t already know about evolution


you should get out of that sunday school class more often Mario.  maybe get Screech to show you how he parties.  you are certainly keeping company with some world class demented fuckwits, by your own testimony.  that or you are a hermit.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
sparc



Posts: 1676
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2009,23:18   

dvunkannon
Quote
I am considering writing to the Museum to see if they have more specific information on which passages those might be.
I guess much of what you are looking for is included in this article by Daniel J. Fairbanks and Bryce Rytting and in the Mendel Marginalia they published as supplemental material.

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

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,02:49   

According to KF the EF is "easy to apply"
     
Quote
And, for FSCI, when the specification involved is functional — as just discussed, the filter is very simple and practically effective to apply.

And then
     
Quote
Now for the outright deceptive falsehood: the claim that the EF improperly rules “design” in many cases (false positives):

Now, I agree it's true that the EF does not improperly rule "design". I agree it because it's not possible to use it and therefore it has not ruled anything either way ever.

I think an example is called for. Anyone care to ask KF for one?

Link

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

  
damitall



Posts: 322
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,04:09   

Well, I seem to have precipitated a TardTorrent from kf, by asking politely-framed questions at UD not specifically addressed to him.

Do I get a small prize?

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,06:12   

ha.  Gordon Mullings' "weak argument corrective" hahahahahaha

fucking 30 pages?

wow.  

barret brown you are missing a huge opportunity buddy

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Maya



Posts: 702
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,07:05   

Joseph brings the pure TARD:
Quote
PaulBurnett:
Quote
Would anybody suggest that the whales’ distant tetrapod ancestral line that moved from the sea to the land had “devolved” when they later went back to the sea?

Anyone who thinks such a transformation is even possible is living in fantasy-land anyway so what does it matter?

Past experience shows that providing Joseph with overwhelming evidence is futile.  Some of the IDiots seem ignorant of basic biology and blinded by religion, but Joseph appears monumentally stupid.  Please tell me he's someone's sock.

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2594
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,08:05   

The Greek alphabet didn't format correctly. Nevermind.

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

   
Advocatus Diaboli



Posts: 197
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,08:08   

Quote (Maya @ Sep. 08 2009,07:05)
Joseph brings the pure TARD:
   
Quote
PaulBurnett:
   
Quote
Would anybody suggest that the whales’ distant tetrapod ancestral line that moved from the sea to the land had “devolved” when they later went back to the sea?

Anyone who thinks such a transformation is even possible is living in fantasy-land anyway so what does it matter?

Past experience shows that providing Joseph with overwhelming evidence is futile.  Some of the IDiots seem ignorant of basic biology and blinded by religion, but Joseph appears monumentally stupid.  Please tell me he's someone's sock.


Someone should remind them that Michael Behe lives in such a fantasy-land.

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

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,08:21   

Just FYI I did something I almost never do, I read a thread at UD. The thread in question is the one about Dawkins' new book (which I am currently reading*).

I came away from reading that thread stupider than I went in. Renounce the TARD, people. I am more and more convinced that Steve Story was right and that interacting with TARD of this magnitude is bad for one's mental health. Encountering that level of stupid always leaves me with a feeling of almost overwhelming hopelessness and the immense and imponderable question of "Where does one even start?".

Ah well, the journey of a thousand miles begins with just one step.

Louis

*It is, so far, the usual stuff, very watered down for the populist market. The question "Is this the best that RD can do?" is daft as a bag of poked weasels. It's a popular book, hardly a scholastic treatise. It's nice to see the level of criticism from the IDCists et al has not raised above that levied at The God Delusion. I.e. inaccurate, littered with straw men, ineffective and ultmately based on the fact that they haven't read the book.

--------------
Bye.

  
Maya



Posts: 702
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,08:55   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 08 2009,08:21)
Renounce the TARD, people. I am more and more convinced that Steve Story was right and that interacting with TARD of this magnitude is bad for one's mental health. Encountering that level of stupid always leaves me with a feeling of almost overwhelming hopelessness and the immense and imponderable question of "Where does one even start?".

When I ponder why I find UD weirdly fascinating, I sometimes think that I half expect to see them one day admit that it was all a big practical joke (and that most of you long time tardaholics were in on it from the beginning).

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,09:18   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 08 2009,08:21)
Just FYI I did something I almost never do, I read a thread at UD. The thread in question is the one about Dawkins' new book (which I am currently reading*).

I came away from reading that thread stupider than I went in. Renounce the TARD, people. I am more and more convinced that Steve Story was right and that interacting with TARD of this magnitude is bad for one's mental health. Encountering that level of stupid always leaves me with a feeling of almost overwhelming hopelessness and the immense and imponderable question of "Where does one even start?".

Ah well, the journey of a thousand miles begins with just one step.

Louis

*It is, so far, the usual stuff, very watered down for the populist market. The question "Is this the best that RD can do?" is daft as a bag of poked weasels. It's a popular book, hardly a scholastic treatise. It's nice to see the level of criticism from the IDCists et al has not raised above that levied at The God Delusion. I.e. inaccurate, littered with straw men, ineffective and ultmately based on the fact that they haven't read the book.

Louis may be right. I read a UD thread -- the one on Dinesh D'Wooza (hat tip to Maya) and this is what I now look like:

In that thread,  both Clive, baby and Wee Billy Dembski point to C.S. Lewis' correspondence as evidence that Lewis was privately rejecting evolution in the 1950's while publicly embracing it.

I'd like to make another suggestion -- based on some evidence about the correspondence and the person C.S. Lewis was writing to -- that Lewis was merely humoring an increasingly irrational man who wasn't merely unstable, but also likely a fraud.

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

Clivebaby and  Dembski point to this article by Ferngren and Numbers, originally from the American Scientific Affiliation's ("A Fellowship of Christians in Science" )  Perspectives on Science & Christian Faith,  here

Ferngren and Numbers say that they present  "in their entirety"  responses of Lewis to letters from one Bernard Acworth.

So, who was Acworth? Well, he was an interesting figure, but before I deal with him, I'd like to post some quotes from Ferngren and Numbers' own article:

     
Quote
Nothing in his [C.S. Lewis'] published writings suggests, however, that he gave up his long-held view that biological evolution was compatible with Christianity.


     
Quote
It is doubtful that Lewis would have felt comfortable espousing the views of present-day creationists. He always carefully indicated that he opposed evolutionism as a philosophy, not evolution as a biological theory.

--------------------------------------
Okay, so who was Acworth? Acworth was a nutty creationist who helped start the "Evolution Protest Movement." As Ferngren and Numbers point out, he was also  
     
Quote
A staunch opponent of socialism, air power, and imported oil, he twice stood unsuccessfully for Parliament, in 1931 and again in 1942.

His outspoken opposition to the policies of Winston Churchill during World War II and his calls for peace with Japan prompted the prime minister to urge electors to vote against Acworth and moved the London Daily Mirror to demand his arrest.


Oh, but he was far more than that.

I'm kinda tired out from staying up far too late, but there's lots more info here:

(1) http://airminded.org/2008/04/28/who-was-neon/
(2) http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/28jan/neon.htm
(3) http://fretmarks.blogspot.com/2005_11_01_archive.html

Acworth didn't just dislike "socialism, air power, and imported oil." He also disliked psychoanalysis (okay, not so nutty) , birth control and communism. Basically, he linked all  of those things to the immorality of evolution.

-- But he also railed against General Relativity (Einstein).

-- He also thought that cuckoos are hybrids between male cuckoos and female birds of other species.

-- He also thought that "Birds [and butterflies,etc.] don't migrate on purpose; they're passively carried around the globe by prevailing winds. This explains other phenomena too, such as birds deserting their nests (winds blow them away). " See site 3 above.

-- He also thought that seaplanes could never, NEVER achieve regular intercontinental flights.

-- He was also a literalist YEC that thought "magnetic " flips led to frozen mammoths in Siberia.  

-- And he may well have been the author of work by "Marion Acworth," (AKA "Neon")  fraudulently presented as other than his own.  See site 1 above.

---------------------------------
Clive and Dembski want to believe that C.S. Lewis was publically embracing evolution while secretly embracing anti-evo in private. In short, they prefer to beleve that he was publically lying/dissembling about his true beliefs.

Remember what Ferngren and Numbers admitted: "Nothing in his published writings suggests, however, that he gave up his long-held view that biological evolution was compatible with Christianity." But they prefer to believe he was *dishonestly* privately holding to what was in direct contradiction to that? Based on letters to a religious nutcase? Uh-huh.

What makes more sense is that in private letters, C.S. Lewis was humoring that religious nutcase named Bernard Acworth .

Ferngren and Numbers' evidence OTHER than Acworth ...are lines like "I see we have a Darwinist among us" which may have merely been joking or anything else, because no real elaboration of that statement is found in Ferngren and Numbers' citation of it in their article.

Oh, and  they cite a totally ambiguous poem in "support" of their claim.

THAT'S IT.

All in all, that's what makes Louis right about these assholes. They force-fit, discard, cherry-pick, lie, misdirect, or anything else necessary -- by whatever means necessary.

I regard C.S. Lewis as a less-than-middling figure in phil. or logic, and as a mediocre author and apologist. But I hold scumbags like Clive,baby and Dembski with far more scorn.

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,09:39   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 08 2009,09:18)
Clive and Dembski want to believe that C.S. Lewis was publically embracing evolution while secretly embracing anti-evo in private. In short, they prefer to beleve that he was publically lying/dissembling about his true beliefs.

Why not? They do it all the time!

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
k.e..



Posts: 2841
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,10:43   

DM notes:
Quote
All in all, that's what makes Louis right about these assholes. They force-fit, discard, cherry-pick, lie, misdirect, or anything else necessary -- by whatever means necessary.


AIN'T IT GREAT?
HOMO!
YUP NEVER GIVE A CHANCE WORSHIPPER AN EVEN BREAK.
WE GET TO SELL SWAMPS AS PRIME TURF TO BELIEVERS
STOCKS SET TO FAIL TO MA AND PA
DEATH THREATS TO JUDGES
CHEAP BIBLE MERCHANDISE TO ONE AND ALL
ENDLESS PREACHIN ON TV AND RADIO
KILL ABORTIONISTS
EXPORT JESUS SOLDIERS ON CRUSADES
PIMP CRANK CANCER CURES
RAIL AGAINST VACINATION
DENY THE HOLOCAUST
LOVE GLOBAL WARMING
PREVENT AIDS PREVENTION
WHAT'S NOT TO LIKE? d.t.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1950
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,11:15   

I started reading the UD thread linked by Deadman and was amused by the notion that Dembski's new book will be hyped as "a counterblast to the neo-atheist literature." So, now he is reading about it to prepare for interviews.

I would have thought that he would have known what his book was about already.  :p

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

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

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,11:16   

Quote (Maya @ Sep. 08 2009,14:55)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 08 2009,08:21)
Renounce the TARD, people. I am more and more convinced that Steve Story was right and that interacting with TARD of this magnitude is bad for one's mental health. Encountering that level of stupid always leaves me with a feeling of almost overwhelming hopelessness and the immense and imponderable question of "Where does one even start?".

When I ponder why I find UD weirdly fascinating, I sometimes think that I half expect to see them one day admit that it was all a big practical joke (and that most of you long time tardaholics were in on it from the beginning).

I sincerely hope so!

It would eradicate much of my cynicism regarding the human species.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Quack



Posts: 1748
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,11:50   

Quote
It would eradicate much of my cynicism regarding the human species.

Arthur Koestler didn't see much hope, I am afraid I don't either.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,11:52   

Clive, the ID expert, speaks:
Quote
As noted, either the “experts” can or cannot defend their position. If they cannot, it doesn’t follow that those who ask them to are kooks. I think you are right in saying that Dinesh will not be swayed unless the experts tell him to be, which is a failing of Dinesh’s point of view. ID does sway folks who actually look into the matter, like Antony Flew, a well respected philosopher, contrary to those who just take their ques from “what a lot of folks are saying in a field at a given time.”

Link

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

  
Amadan



Posts: 1240
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,12:27   

Quote (damitall @ Sep. 08 2009,04:09)
Well, I seem to have precipitated a TardTorrent from kf, by asking politely-framed questions at UD not specifically addressed to him.

Do I get a small prize?

This is what is known in rhetoric as the Montgolfier Principle:

 
Quote
The deeper the hole you dig yourself into, the more hot air you need to get out.

1st corollary: If hot air alone can't do it, throw logic, principles etc overboard


--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,13:23   

Quote (Quack @ Sep. 08 2009,17:50)
Quote
It would eradicate much of my cynicism regarding the human species.

Arthur Koestler didn't see much hope, I am afraid I don't either.

Oh I don't know. I'm an optimistic cynic. After all I could be wrong. In fact it's quite likely I am.

Mind you, if I'm right then it really is advisable to start drinking heavily.......soon.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,14:17   

Gordon Mullings breaks it down for us
 
Quote
–> partitioned seqarches, P are a subset of latched searches, L

–> but, suppressed context: due to the involved dynamics, we can also see that Latched searches L, are a subset of partitioned searches P

Er
 
Quote
–> That is, the two sets are equivalent, due to the dynamics of ratceting

There's more at the link, of course. Plenty more. But if you just want to skip to the conclusion here we are
 
Quote
–> In short the imagined fallacy is begging the question of the relationship between sets L and P. And, we have reason to see that L is not a proper subset of P but an equivalent set to P.

–> And, see how thinking in terms of sets untangles the complexities of syllogistic reasoning? [Thank you, Irving Copi!]

So, er, Dembski's imagined Weasel = Actual Weasel. Somehow.

That's about as clear as how to determine FSCI.

Link

--------------
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: Sep. 08 2009,14:41   

Jerry:
Quote


“If you want to know how biologists defend their positions, ask a biologist.”

I have and they have punted. We have regular biologist and evolutionary biologists here and none would even step up to the plate. On a couple occasions they did and they struck out immediately so they then knew they better than to try again.

What is the big mystery that they are keeping from us. And you just admitted you understand nothing and all you are doing is accepting the words of biologists. So I suggest you excuse yourself from any further discussion and let the rest of us who understand the essence of the debate comment without having to answer your ignorance which you just admitted.

Whereas Jerry does not have to admit his ignorance as he simply shows it with every comment. If "Jerry" exists anyway.

I can't believe Clive allows Jerry to continue, he's practically the main spokesperson for the UD/ID - few of the mods join in the "debate", certainly Dembski steers clear.
Link
So it falls to Jerry.

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

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,15:06   

Quote (socle @ Sep. 06 2009,12:26)
Clive:
   
Quote

Gil is right, Blue Lotus also goes by David v. Squatney. So, Blue, which name would you like to use? To make it easier to follow and for the sake of continuity, just stick with your David v. Squatney handle, and Blue Lotus will now be retired by me.

Just for the record, I know with absolute certainty that David v. Squatney and Blue Lotus are not the same person.  I've made a post to that effect, but DvS is now under moderation.

Clive is on a design inference roll.

DeLurker = JayM

Oatmeal Stout = Sal Gal

So, can anyone comment if his mad inference skillz have improved since he got a false positive on Blue Lotus = Squatney?

--------------
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!)

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10080
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,15:21   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 08 2009,15:06)
Quote (socle @ Sep. 06 2009,12:26)
Clive:
     
Quote

Gil is right, Blue Lotus also goes by David v. Squatney. So, Blue, which name would you like to use? To make it easier to follow and for the sake of continuity, just stick with your David v. Squatney handle, and Blue Lotus will now be retired by me.

Just for the record, I know with absolute certainty that David v. Squatney and Blue Lotus are not the same person.  I've made a post to that effect, but DvS is now under moderation.

Clive is on a design inference roll.

[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/education/blown-away-dan-peterson-reviews-dr-stephen-meyers-book-the-signature-in-the-cell-at-the-am

erican-spectator/#comment-333486]DeLurker = JayM[/URL]

Oatmeal Stout = Sal Gal

So, can anyone comment if his mad inference skillz have improved since he got a false positive on Blue Lotus = Squatney?

Maybe he's getting cute with IP adresses?

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

  
BillB



Posts: 354
Joined: Aug. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,15:23   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 08 2009,21:06)
Quote (socle @ Sep. 06 2009,12:26)
Clive:
     
Quote

Gil is right, Blue Lotus also goes by David v. Squatney. So, Blue, which name would you like to use? To make it easier to follow and for the sake of continuity, just stick with your David v. Squatney handle, and Blue Lotus will now be retired by me.

Just for the record, I know with absolute certainty that David v. Squatney and Blue Lotus are not the same person.  I've made a post to that effect, but DvS is now under moderation.

Clive is on a design inference roll.

[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/education/blown-away-dan-peterson-reviews-dr-stephen-meyers-book-the-signature-in-the-cell-at-the-am


erican-spectator/#comment-333486]DeLurker = JayM[/URL]

Oatmeal Stout = Sal Gal

So, can anyone comment if his mad inference skillz have improved since he got a false positive on Blue Lotus = Squatney?

I'm sure Clive would be very surprised to discover that I am actually Joseph.  Unfortunately I don't think his design detector is capable of anything more that "if it looks a bit like X then it must be X" so I guess my ubersocktard is safe for a while (unless he is watching? ... Clive?)

  
BillB



Posts: 354
Joined: Aug. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,15:26   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 08 2009,21:21)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 08 2009,15:06)
Quote (socle @ Sep. 06 2009,12:26)
Clive:
     
Quote

Gil is right, Blue Lotus also goes by David v. Squatney. So, Blue, which name would you like to use? To make it easier to follow and for the sake of continuity, just stick with your David v. Squatney handle, and Blue Lotus will now be retired by me.

Just for the record, I know with absolute certainty that David v. Squatney and Blue Lotus are not the same person.  I've made a post to that effect, but DvS is now under moderation.

Clive is on a design inference roll.

[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/education/blown-away-dan-peterson-reviews-dr-stephen-meyers-book-the-signature-in-the-cell-at-the-am


erican-spectator/#comment-333486]DeLurker = JayM[/URL]

Oatmeal Stout = Sal Gal

So, can anyone comment if his mad inference skillz have improved since he got a false positive on Blue Lotus = Squatney?

Maybe he's getting cute with IP adresses?

Ha, I have at least two proxies!

  
JohnW



Posts: 2206
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,15:27   

Quote (BillB @ Sep. 08 2009,13:23)
I'm sure Clive would be very surprised to discover that I am actually Joseph.  Unfortunately I don't think his design detector is capable of anything more that "if it looks a bit like X then it must be X" so I guess my ubersocktard is safe for a while (unless he is watching? ... Clive?)

Just wait until he finds out that Louis is Denyse O'Leary.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,15:31   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 08 2009,13:23)
 
Quote (Quack @ Sep. 08 2009,17:50)
   
Quote
It would eradicate much of my cynicism regarding the human species.

Arthur Koestler didn't see much hope, I am afraid I don't either.

Oh I don't know. I'm an optimistic cynic. After all I could be wrong. In fact it's quite likely I am.

Mind you, if I'm right then it really is advisable to start drinking heavily.......soon.

Louis

"Start?" Who stopped? Damn slackers. That's the problem with young people nowadays: no stick-to-it-ivness. Why, when I was a kid, I never gave consideration to such trivial things as neurons or so-called "hepatocytes." In fact, when I was a kid we had to carry our...onions...belt...ZzzzZZz *snork*

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

  
khan



Posts: 1479
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,15:40   

Quote
In that thread,  both Clive, baby and Wee Billy Dembski point to C.S. Lewis' correspondence as evidence that Lewis was privately rejecting evolution in the 1950's while publicly embracing it.


In my 'net travels, I have observed that one sign of a crank is the belief that people (online, on TV,...) are communicating with said crank in code.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

  
Ptaylor



Posts: 879
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,15:43   

Delurker not only gets a thread about him*, but apparently gets banninated in it as well:
   
Quote
DeLurker used to go by the name JayM, who claimed to be, if you remember, an ID supporter, even though everything he wrote was against ID. He justified this by saying that he was just trying to help ID to gain credibility. This was, of course, not true. It was, in reality, an underhanded way to critique ID. These folks, they’ll go to any length to argue against ID, even by being disingenuous. So, no, JayM, I’m not going to re-instate you under a sock-puppet name, so stop emailing Denyse about it. Your insincerity is, quite honestly, bothersome.

Link.*Assuming the masculine here, I may be wrong.

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

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

  
JohnW



Posts: 2206
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,15:49   

Quote (khan @ Sep. 08 2009,13:40)
Quote
In that thread,  both Clive, baby and Wee Billy Dembski point to C.S. Lewis' correspondence as evidence that Lewis was privately rejecting evolution in the 1950's while publicly embracing it.


In my 'net travels, I have observed that one sign of a crank is the belief that people (online, on TV,...) are communicating with said crank in code.

Creationists do this all the time, at UD and elsewhere.  "In their heart of hearts, scientists know goddidit, but won't admit it because of their career / fear of the International Scientist Conspiracy / Satan."  It's why they spend so much time looking for hidden pro-ID messages in the scientific literature.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
  15001 replies since Sep. 04 2009,16:20 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (501) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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