RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (356) < ... 232 233 234 235 236 [237] 238 239 240 241 242 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 4, Fostering a Greater Understanding of IDC< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
JohnW



Posts: 2226
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2012,12:09   

Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 26 2012,00:15)
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 25 2012,21:31)
Don't miss the questions Dembski used in the exams of his courses:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

I couldn't get past number 3. By then my brain cells were begging me to stop lest they all commit suicide so as not to be subjected to more of dumbski's tard. Man oh man, is he a lunatic or what?

And to think that people willingly go to a so-called 'college' and pay a lot of money to be brainwashed with that shit. Is that what's called 'higher learning'?

I got as far as #10.  Either my brain cells are stronger or I'm stupider than you now.

What struck me was the recurring fantasy of being given a huge amount of money with which to create a theocracy.  There are half a dozen versions of "You have a budget of ten billion dollars to turn all universities into seminaries.  What colour upholstery will your yacht have?"

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

  
Patrick



Posts: 549
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2012,14:35   

Quote (sparc @ Oct. 26 2012,00:31)
Don't miss the questions Dembski used in the exams of his courses:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

I skipped to number 19 for the lulz.

Quote
2. You are an expert witness in the Dover case. You’ve been asked to summarize why you think intelligent design is a fully scientific theory. Do so here. Sketch out ID’s method of design detection and then show how it applies (or could apply) to biological systems. Further, indicate how ID is testable: what evidence would confirm ID and what evidence would disconfirm ID? Explain how you would run away with your tail between your legs while still collecting your expert witness fee.


Fixed that for him.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3553
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2012,14:41   

Quote (Patrick @ Oct. 26 2012,14:35)
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 26 2012,00:31)
Don't miss the questions Dembski used in the exams of his courses:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

I skipped to number 19 for the lulz.

Quote
2. You are an expert witness in the Dover case. You’ve been asked to summarize why you think intelligent design is a fully scientific theory. Do so here. Sketch out ID’s method of design detection and then show how it applies (or could apply) to biological systems. Further, indicate how ID is testable: what evidence would confirm ID and what evidence would disconfirm ID? Explain how you would run away with your tail between your legs while still collecting your expert witness fee.


Fixed that for him.

A voice from a burning bush that appears in front of the White House and in front of cameras from all major networks, proclaiming the inerrancy of the Bibble and the special creation of species would be srong evidence for ID.

Particularly if the talking bush offered an explanation of why the evidence points to evolution.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
Henry J



Posts: 4046
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2012,17:38   

When it comes to talking shrubbery one should hedge their bets.

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2110
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2012,18:32   

Quote (Patrick @ Oct. 26 2012,12:35)
 
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 26 2012,00:31)
Don't miss the questions Dembski used in the exams of his courses:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

I skipped to number 19 for the lulz.

 
Quote
2. You are an expert witness in the Dover case. You’ve been asked to summarize why you think intelligent design is a fully scientific theory. Do so here. Sketch out ID’s method of design detection and then show how it applies (or could apply) to biological systems. Further, indicate how ID is testable: what evidence would confirm ID and what evidence would disconfirm ID? Explain how you would run away with your tail between your legs while still collecting your expert witness fee.


Fixed that for him.

It's the undergrads' job to do all the prof's work for him, innit?

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 2873
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2012,21:24   

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 27 2012,01:38)
When it comes to talking shrubbery one should hedge their bets.

Either that or smoke some of it for inspiration.

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

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 752
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2012,23:03   

From #6:

Quote
What is specified complexity? Give two examples. How does it provide a reliable method for
detecting design? ...


Uh, yeah, how?  Presuppositionalism?  Actually, judging by the rot Dembski teaches, presuppositionalism would seem to be it, although I suspect that he'd never admit it.

I guess what I wanted to say is that, however absurd the questions, I'm having trouble imagining acceptable answers.  Just the same tripe that appears at UD, or are they at least pretending to do something less stupid?

If only we had some of the "outstanding responses" that Dembski elicited...  Probably more depressing than humorous, though.

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
CeilingCat



Posts: 1661
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2012,23:13   

Wow!  Again I say Wow!! Dembski has just started one of the weirdest threads I've ever seen on UD.  I'm posting this from an iPad so I'm not going to post any URLs, but the title is "The Promise and (under) performance of green technologies--and the lesson for us".

It's a weird graphic showing the hopeless ineffiencies of green technology and how we face certain ruin if we continue to invest in them, use of compact fluorescent light bulbs has doubled in two years, but that's bad because they have mercury in them and recycling isn't convenient enough and besides, they'll never replace incandescents anyway and Eco-engineering won't work for at least decades and it costs too much to beam energy from space and the green jobs debacle has been a debacle and Obamas green jobs initiative was an expensive failure and --- well it doesn't really come to any conclusion except we're obviously all fucked.

This is all presented as a warning to IDiots of how easily ideology subverts science.

OK Dr. Dr., you obviously have a lot on your mind.

But none of the above is the weird part.  That's found in the replies where KF warns us that new technologies are often ineffective at first, as happened with cars, airplanes and computers and a similar chart made at the right time would have made them look bad too and we really need alternative energy sources and he lists a few.

Then Jerad chimes in, agreeing with KF and warning us not to use non-renewables and "ignore the hype, look to the science" and finally Tembow writes, "agree with above posts. Not time to start bashing them yet. Early days"

DocDoc, do you realize that your tard has gotten so smelly that you have  actually lost KF!?!?  The wind of the carribean is now defending science against your blather!  You've just intellectually cluster fucked yourself!  I didn't even know it was possible to blow it so ignominiously as you have just done.

And of course, it's a Friday.  Classic meltdown!

--------------
Like every other academic field, philosophy of religion has its share of hacks and mediocrities.  Edward Feser

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2012,23:36   

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Oct. 27 2012,00:03)
From #6:

 
Quote
What is specified complexity? Give two examples. How does it provide a reliable method for
detecting design? ...


Uh, yeah, how?  Presuppositionalism?  Actually, judging by the rot Dembski teaches, presuppositionalism would seem to be it, although I suspect that he'd never admit it.

I guess what I wanted to say is that, however absurd the questions, I'm having trouble imagining acceptable answers.  Just the same tripe that appears at UD, or are they at least pretending to do something less stupid?

If only we had some of the "outstanding responses" that Dembski elicited...  Probably more depressing than humorous, though.

Glen Davidson

The shittiness of intelligent design blog content is a direct testimony to the shittiness of dumpski's courses

for fucks sake he invests all that butthurt dipshittery into a class of fresh fishes faces and the most he gets out of it is maybe a fucking dozen halftarded flamebait on an atheist science bukakke blog

waterloo all science so far and shit

look at this way baylor cafeteria was probably freaking FANTASTIC but in union county north cackilacky i know for a damned certain fact that you can cheaply dine like a redneck emperor on many different varieties and flavors of roast swine that are on a whole notha' level of pork cuisine...  so who cares he kissed the ring but BBQ bitches and oh yeah also NASCAR.  



every way you look at it getting the fuck out of texas is a good idea

Edited by Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 27 2012,00:38

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

  
N.Wells



Posts: 794
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 27 2012,00:36   

From the good Dr. Dr.'s exams:

 
Quote
4. No amputees are recorded as having been healed in the New Testament (i.e., no one with a missing
limb is said to have grown back the limb in response to a prayer by Jesus or one of the Apostles).  Indeed, throughout Church history it appears that no such miracle has occurred (if you know of a well-confirmed case, please cite it). Atheists therefore argue that if miracles really happened and gave evidence of God, God would have performed a healing like growing back the limb of an amputee. Do atheists have a point here? How do you maintain that miracles are real in the face of such criticism?


Clearly, the only logical conclusion is that starfish and salamanders have gods that are greater than ours.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....h6swPp8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....wVx3GvA


 
Quote
12. You are the head of a large public relations firm in New York. A consortium of Christian businessmen and foundations is fed up with the godlessness of our society and approaches you to run a “rhetorical campaign” to make Christianity and its moral values credible again to the wider culture. You have $200,000,000 a year for five years to make the campaign work (i.e., a billion dollars total over five years). What programs are you going to institute and how are you going to allocate that money to restore Christianity as a credible world view? What objectives could you realistically hope to accomplish? [Example of a zero-credit answer: give all the money to the ACLU or to the UN.]


My recommended answer: "Clearly such blessed generosity must have been inspired by God himself, and I am far too undeserving to make such a momentous and important decision on my own, so I prayed and prayed to learn God's Will in such a matter.  He told me to give it all to Dr. Dembski, because (as He said and as my experience in this wonderful class must lead me to humbly agree) only Dr. Dembski has the wisdom and humility to put such an inspired gift to its very best of all possible uses."

 
Quote
5. Imagine that the world’s richest man has become an evangelical Christian. He wants to give $10
billion dollars (yes, $10,000,000,000) on a single plan to transform American society for Christ. You think all that money should go toward reforming the American university system. Write an executive summary about why all this money should be given to redress American higher education and make concrete recommendations on how you would use that money and why these recommendations, if implemented, are likely to be effective. Would you start a new Christian university? Would you try to rekindle Charles Malik’s “Institute”? With all that money in the bank, how, specifically, would you proceed? [20 points/no more than 1,250 words]


Clearly a measly $1 billion won't make much headway against such a godless and soulless immoral world as ours, so we have to up the ante. However, wouldn't you think that a god who is greater than infinity could afford to tack on an extra 0 and go for a decent 100 billion bucks and get the job done properly, with a comfortable little bit left over to provide for the security and well-being of such a deserving servant as yourself?  And yet, for some reason He stubbornly refuses to do that.

And for the next exam: "You have been fighting the good fight against godless evolution for decades and have written several books of sheer genius, but the world has refused to recognize your greatness, and has even hurled insulting nicknames at you like "the fig newton of information theory".  Worse yet, you have been hounded by the forces of Satan from one job to the next, and have ended up at a bottom-feeding hell-hole of a college where the rubes in charge are insisting that you take a vow that makes a mockery of your claims to be pursuing scientific arguments against evolution, and which moreover risks future sales of your books.  As a measure of your desperation, you even have recurring temptations to drop indirect hints about guaranteeing great grades for any student with a rich relative who would be willing to endow a permanent chair, although that would of course be entirely inappropriate, even though it could work out just fine as long as no one actually said anything explicit.  What would be your best next move? (Note: This question is worth 25%, but a truly insightful and inspiring answer may be awarded extra credit.)"

  
Quack



Posts: 1751
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 27 2012,01:34   

My head is at risk of becoming unhinged after all my headshaking over this guy. Not just today or last week, but increasingly over several years.

Lost marbles comes to mind.

One thing I know: When the saints go marchin' in, Bill won't be in their number!

The title of a s-f short story, "Misbegotten Missionary", also seems appropriate...

Edit: wording.

Edited by Quack on Oct. 27 2012,01:42

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

  
The whole truth



Posts: 979
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 27 2012,06:52   

Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 26 2012,10:09)
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 26 2012,00:15)
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 25 2012,21:31)
Don't miss the questions Dembski used in the exams of his courses:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

I couldn't get past number 3. By then my brain cells were begging me to stop lest they all commit suicide so as not to be subjected to more of dumbski's tard. Man oh man, is he a lunatic or what?

And to think that people willingly go to a so-called 'college' and pay a lot of money to be brainwashed with that shit. Is that what's called 'higher learning'?

I got as far as #10.  Either my brain cells are stronger or I'm stupider than you now.

What struck me was the recurring fantasy of being given a huge amount of money with which to create a theocracy.  There are half a dozen versions of "You have a budget of ten billion dollars to turn all universities into seminaries.  What colour upholstery will your yacht have?"

"I got as far as #10.  Either my brain cells are stronger or I'm stupider than you now."

I bow to your obviously stronger brain cells. :)

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
k.e..



Posts: 2873
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 27 2012,07:36   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Oct. 27 2012,07:13)
Wow!  Again I say Wow!! Dembski has just started one of the weirdest threads I've ever seen on UD.  I'm posting this from an iPad so I'm not going to post any URLs, but the title is "The Promise and (under) performance of green technologies--and the lesson for us".

It's a weird graphic showing the hopeless ineffiencies of green technology and how we face certain ruin if we continue to invest in them, use of compact fluorescent light bulbs has doubled in two years, but that's bad because they have mercury in them and recycling isn't convenient enough and besides, they'll never replace incandescents anyway and Eco-engineering won't work for at least decades and it costs too much to beam energy from space and the green jobs debacle has been a debacle and Obamas green jobs initiative was an expensive failure and --- well it doesn't really come to any conclusion except we're obviously all fucked.

This is all presented as a warning to IDiots of how easily ideology subverts science.

OK Dr. Dr., you obviously have a lot on your mind.

But none of the above is the weird part.  That's found in the replies where KF warns us that new technologies are often ineffective at first, as happened with cars, airplanes and computers and a similar chart made at the right time would have made them look bad too and we really need alternative energy sources and he lists a few.

Then Jerad chimes in, agreeing with KF and warning us not to use non-renewables and "ignore the hype, look to the science" and finally Tembow writes, "agree with above posts. Not time to start bashing them yet. Early days"

DocDoc, do you realize that your tard has gotten so smelly that you have  actually lost KF!?!?  The wind of the carribean is now defending science against your blather!  You've just intellectually cluster fucked yourself!  I didn't even know it was possible to blow it so ignominiously as you have just done.

And of course, it's a Friday.  Classic meltdown!

Ahhhhh just like teh old days....

Dr^^2 Billybob can't get over Dover.

Apologies to Bruce Springsteen

I had a friend was a big math star
back in high school
He could do that conceptual speedjump by you
Make you look like a fool boy
Saw him the other night at this roadside bar
I was walking in, he was walking out
We went back inside sat down had a few drinks
but all he kept talking about was


Glory days well they'll pass you by
Glory days in the wink of a young girl's eye
Glory days, glory days


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

  
Quack



Posts: 1751
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 27 2012,09:09   

May I suggest his is a case of the victim himself being the last (if ever) to realize what has happened/is going on?

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 8877
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 27 2012,11:32   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Oct. 27 2012,00:13)
Wow!  Again I say Wow!! Dembski has just started one of the weirdest threads I've ever seen on UD.  I'm posting this from an iPad so I'm not going to post any URLs, but the title is "The Promise and (under) performance of green technologies--and the lesson for us".

It's a weird graphic showing the hopeless ineffiencies of green technology and how we face certain ruin if we continue to invest in them, use of compact fluorescent light bulbs has doubled in two years, but that's bad because they have mercury in them and recycling isn't convenient enough and besides, they'll never replace incandescents anyway and Eco-engineering won't work for at least decades and it costs too much to beam energy from space and the green jobs debacle has been a debacle and Obamas green jobs initiative was an expensive failure and --- well it doesn't really come to any conclusion except we're obviously all fucked.

This is all presented as a warning to IDiots of how easily ideology subverts science.

OK Dr. Dr., you obviously have a lot on your mind.

But none of the above is the weird part.  That's found in the replies where KF warns us that new technologies are often ineffective at first, as happened with cars, airplanes and computers and a similar chart made at the right time would have made them look bad too and we really need alternative energy sources and he lists a few.

Then Jerad chimes in, agreeing with KF and warning us not to use non-renewables and "ignore the hype, look to the science" and finally Tembow writes, "agree with above posts. Not time to start bashing them yet. Early days"

DocDoc, do you realize that your tard has gotten so smelly that you have  actually lost KF!?!?  The wind of the carribean is now defending science against your blather!  You've just intellectually cluster fucked yourself!  I didn't even know it was possible to blow it so ignominiously as you have just done.

And of course, it's a Friday.  Classic meltdown!

Wow. Dembski posts a bunch of misleading anti-green crap, like GM losing $49,000 for every volt sold which is a comically bad misunderstanding of money and numbers, in a post warning about letting ideology interfere with science. How's that for irony?

Then his commenters take him to school:



   1
   kairosfocusOctober 26, 2012 at 12:32 pm

   Quick note, in a rush: promising technologies often have teething troubles, and commercial success is never a given in early days. The same happened with aircraft, cars and computers — a similar chart made at the right time would have made these look v bad, too. Alternative energy technologies are needed [the ongoing annual energy purchases subsidy to Jihad alone is a decisive consideration, much less the issues that traditional energy technologies are unsustainable . . . ], and I think a serious look at geothermal energy, modern nukes (pebble bed modular reactors and molten salt reactors have looked good to me), OTEC, and good old fashioned hydro are well worth a look. Wind has limited utility and so far, solar PV. We need fuels, and I think algae, butanol [a gasoline substitute], biodiesel and long run hydrogen are well worth a look. KF


   2
   JeradOctober 26, 2012 at 3:21 pm

   I quite agree with KF, at the very least it make sense to NOT use up non-renewable energy sources if possible. It’s always a good idea not to pollute if you can avoid it. And you never want to put all your eggs in one basket as the saying goes.

   Ignore the hype, look to the science. Many ‘green’ things are faddish and not viable. But it’s always worth looking.


   3
   tembewOctober 26, 2012 at 8:50 pm

   agree with above posts. Not time to start bashing them yet. Early days


***

Kairosfocus, your notions on ID are complete junk, but that comment above is pretty much 100% correct.

Re: solar, btw, the way to go is  Solar Thermal Energy Years ago I either calculated or read that you could switch the entire US electrical system from coal/nuclear to Solar Thermal for roughly the cost of the Iraq War. Sad that we have a public that doesn't understand, value, and demand that.

   
steve_h



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 27 2012,15:07   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Oct. 27 2012,06:13)
Wow!  Again I say Wow!! Dembski has just started one of the weirdest threads I've ever seen on UD.  I'm posting this from an iPad so I'm not going to post any URLs, but the title is "The Promise and (under) performance of green technologies--and the lesson for us".

I grabbed the whole site using wget --recursive.

It found a total of 12 pages, none of which references the page Dembski linked to.  

So how did Demsbki (or Marks) get to it?  Was this page written with the full knowledge of the web site owners or is someone about to lose cafetaria rights?   -- again.

(Actually I think the whole site is just there to give an appearance of legitimacy to the green-bashing page. There are similar sites whose owners are not hidden behind anonymous registration schemes available)

  
sparc



Posts: 1691
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2012,03:59   

Did you realize that Dembski put Harvard/XVIVO's Inner Life of the Cell on the top of his web page. As if he didn't have some history with that animation. However, this time he omitted the voiceover narration he used in his talks back in 2007.

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

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5377
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2012,07:58   

The UD TARD has all but dried up.


WHY IS ALL THE TARD GONE???

Edited by Lou FCD on Oct. 28 2012,08:58

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3282
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2012,09:18   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 28 2012,07:58)
The UD TARD has all but dried up.


WHY IS ALL THE TARD GONE???

It's probably an elaborate ploy to make AtBC go away.  If the TARD is non-existent, then what will we do?

After AtBC starves, then UD can come back.

On the other hand, that would require thought, effort, planning, and coordination... something that the denizens of UD are not known for.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
stevestory



Posts: 8877
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2012,09:24   

http://www.discovery.org/csc....csc

Latest update I see is from June.

The money probably dried up after Dover. ID is barren as a scientific paradigm, as Behe, Axe, Dembski, Luskin, Nelson, PCID, et al. have demonstrated over the past 20 years, and worthless as a legal strategy, as Dover revealed.

Kinda hard to keep the troops enthused these days.

I look at the current state of ID much like I look at the site of an historical chemical spill. It's good that it's cleaned up and inert and not damaging anymore, but man, remember that day when those sulfuric acid tankers collided? That was exciting....

They apparently keep this page up as a kind of digital memorial to how worthless ID was.

   
stevestory



Posts: 8877
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2012,09:55   

if ID technique applied to other sciences...

ID Heliocentrism

IDH proponent: I have examined the so-called Telescope and found it wanting.

Scientist: Nobody gives a shit. It works. We all see the same shit.

IDH: What you call Common Viewing could equally be explained by Common Delusion by an Intelligent Deluder.

Scientist: (looks at friend, suppresses chuckle)

IDH: Also, Galileo was a heretic. You're all out to turn people away from Jesus with your materialism which I'm sure will result in great tragedies in East Asia in about 350-400 years. Direct. Result.

Scientist: Got anything else?

IDH: um...Tycho Brahe had a funny nose. And Copernicus didn't have much data.

Scientist: So have you used your notion to produce any new data?

IDH: Yes, we have several books where we calculate the probability that you're right. Turns out you aren't!

Scientist: No I mean research...what new stuff have you figured out?

IDH: Um...Ontorevolving Depth. It's a measurement that shows the earth can't go around the sun.

Scientist: Fantastic! How do you do this calculation?

IDH: Give me a minute. I have to get it right.

(nine years pass)

IDH: Well, it's more a concept really. We don't actually have any numbers at this point in time...

Scientist: (looks at watch) okay, I've got to get back to the lab. Ooh, look, retrograde motion in mars.

IDH: Just what ID predicted! Boy, you Heliocentrists are really out to lunch, aren't you?



Edited by Lou FCD on Oct. 29 2012,08:07

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2012,09:59   



last one hit the lights i'll be watching anthony watts say new things dumber than the last things

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

  
Soapy Sam



Posts: 501
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2012,10:55   

UBP pounces upon another passing victim:      
Quote
Darwinian evolution cannot be the source of these conditions, because it (itself) is entirely dependent upon them. To say otherwise is to say that a thing that does not exist can cause something to happen.

Let me ask you a question: Do you think a thing that does not exist can cause something to happen?

You need semiosis to establish a semiotic state ...! "Take this small explosive device, Jerad. It is of a kind commonly termed a petard, coarsely named from the middle French term meaning to break wind. It will blow your argument to smithereens. I will now retire to a safe distance with my fingers in my ears, and ... what, nothing? Oh, give it here, it just needs a ..." {KABOOM!}

--------------
Evolutionists trust entropy for creation of life but are like men who horse a crocodile to get across a river - niwrad.

The organism could already metabolize citrus. Joe G

  
Patrick



Posts: 549
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2012,13:04   

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 28 2012,10:55)
if ID technique applied to other sciences...

ID Heliocentrism

IDH proponent: I have examined the so-called Telescope and found it wanting.

Scientist: Nobody gives a shit. It works. We all see the same shit.

IDH: What you call Common Viewing could equally be explained by Common Delusion by an Intelligent Deluder.

Scientist: (looks at friend, suppresses chuckle)

IDH: Also, Galileo was a heretic. You're all out to turn people away from Jesus with your materialism which I'm sure will result in great tragedies in East Asia in about 350-400 years. Direct. Result.

Scientist: Got anything else?

IDH: um...Tycho Brahe had a funny nose. And Copernicus didn't have much data.

Scientist: So have you used your notion to produce any new data?

IDH: Yes, we have several books where we calculate the probability that you're right. Turns out you aren't!

Scientist: No I mean research...what new stuff have you figured out?

IDH: Um...Ontorevolving Depth. It's a measurement that shows the earth can't go around the sun.

Scientist: Fantastic! How do you do this calculation?

IDH: Give me a minute. I have to get it right.

(nine years pass)

IDH: Well, it's more a concept really. We don't actually have any numbers at this point in time...

Scientist: (looks at watch) okay, I've got to get back to the lab. Ooh, look, retrograde motion in mars.

IDH: Just what ID predicted! Boy, you Heliocentrists are really out to lunch, aren't you?

POTW worthy.

  
stevestory



Posts: 8877
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2012,14:01   

I like the post, but I was distracted by too many things. Should have called it ID vs Heliocentrism. I would be interested to see peoples' takes on how ID's technique could be applied to other sciences.

Paul Nelson is the only IDer I've seen who seems to understand that ID would have to create a rich enough structure about who designed and produced what when where before it could have a shot at displacing evolution. Useful paradigms, which most IDers admit evolution is, if only in some minor way, are never just abandoned until a more useful replacement comes along. Which ID doesn't have.

Which is to say, even if their gibberish math/philosophy did prove evolution couldn't do x, ID would still not have anything to contribute, and evolution wouldn't go away.

   
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2012,16:08   

Robert Byers:
Quote
No. People think like God and animals don’t.
Animals are very dumb and memory maintains any semblance of intelligence in them I think.
They the memory but still can’t reflect.


If God thinks like you, Bobby, we're in deep shit.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
MichaelJ



Posts: 455
Joined: June 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2012,16:42   

Quote (keiths @ Oct. 29 2012,07:08)
Robert Byers:
Quote
No. People think like God and animals don’t.
Animals are very dumb and memory maintains any semblance of intelligence in them I think.
They the memory but still can’t reflect.


If God thinks like you, Bobby, we're in deep shit.

But it would explain a lot.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4046
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2012,18:11   

Quote
I would be interested to see peoples' takes on how ID's technique could be applied to other sciences.

You mean, besides flood geology, intelligent falling, and varying speed of light? Not to mention variability of other constants in physics?

Henry

  
The whole truth



Posts: 979
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2012,22:01   

Quote
Darwinian evolution cannot be the source of these conditions, because it (itself) is entirely dependent upon them. To say otherwise is to say that a thing that does not exist can cause something to happen.

Let me ask you a question: Do you think a thing that does not exist can cause something to happen?


Hey uptightbiped, did your alleged designer-creator-god cause itself? If so, how exactly? If not, where did it come from and who or what caused it, and who or what caused that causer?

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 3553
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2012,22:18   

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 28 2012,09:55)
if ID technique applied to other sciences...

ID Heliocentrism

IDH proponent: I have examined the so-called Telescope and found it wanting.

Scientist: Nobody gives a shit. It works. We all see the same shit.

IDH: What you call Common Viewing could equally be explained by Common Delusion by an Intelligent Deluder.

Scientist: (looks at friend, suppresses chuckle)

IDH: Also, Galileo was a heretic. You're all out to turn people away from Jesus with your materialism which I'm sure will result in great tragedies in East Asia in about 350-400 years. Direct. Result.

Scientist: Got anything else?

IDH: um...Tycho Brahe had a funny nose. And Copernicus didn't have much data.

Scientist: So have you used your notion to produce any new data?

IDH: Yes, we have several books where we calculate the probability that you're right. Turns out you aren't!

Scientist: No I mean research...what new stuff have you figured out?

IDH: Um...Ontorevolving Depth. It's a measurement that shows the earth can't go around the sun.

Scientist: Fantastic! How do you do this calculation?

IDH: Give me a minute. I have to get it right.

(nine years pass)

IDH: Well, it's more a concept really. We don't actually have any numbers at this point in time...

Scientist: (looks at watch) okay, I've got to get back to the lab. Ooh, look, retrograde motion in mars.

IDH: Just what ID predicted! Boy, you Heliocentrists are really out to lunch, aren't you?

POTW

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

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

Pages: (356) < ... 232 233 234 235 236 [237] 238 239 240 241 242 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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