RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (500) < ... 151 152 153 154 155 [156] 157 158 159 160 161 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 2, general discussion of Dembski's site< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3550
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2009,14:25   

Looks good to me. I've always wondered, however, what keeps the real wheel attached to the frame.

Is there a hidden ID metaphor in that drawing?

--------------
Ēletís not make a joke of ourselves.Ē

Pat Robertson

  
dnmlthr



Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2009,14:27   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 05 2009,20:25)
Is there a hidden ID metaphor in that drawing?

Ask Ken Ham.

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

  
sparc



Posts: 1675
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2009,14:31   

Bob †
Quote
The next exciting instalment of The Steve Fuller Show is up!
Maybe it's because I am continental and don't have this fine insular appreciation for entertainment but for me Fuller's posts are as exciting as KF's comments. Actually I am so bored that I am considering to read his posts backwords. They may contain hidden messages in that direction.

BTW, one of his first posts has evolved to nearly 100 comments and the question
Quote
How have all these different gods evolved?
Maybe my answer to this question will show up:
Quote
You kid us not? Evolved gods?
No, no no.
Not even micro-evolved gods.
Because they are indeed irreducibly complex: Take away one of their characteristics, e.g. immortality, and they are no gods no more. Thus, they are designed, indeed intelligently design. And this time we indeed know the designers.


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

   
RupertG



Posts: 80
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2009,14:32   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 05 2009,14:04)
They agree with him, but they see the next Dover trial going down the tubes.

I don't think they do agree with him. He's positing a fallible creator who has to consciously design. Design is, after all, proof that creation takes work and logic to get right and thus that it can be wrong.  A truly omnipotent god wouldn't 'design':  there would be no distinction between command and creation.

That doesn't fit well with mainstream Christian creation theology, which has to retreat to "This what God does. We cannot hope to understand why he chooses to do it this way", even when its being liberal and accepting of evolution. Neither does ID, but Christians are very good at forgiving the sins of their friends.

Often wondered what "design" actually means to the IDers.

R

--------------
Uncle Joe and Aunty Mabel
Fainted at the breakfast table
Children, let this be a warning
Never do it in the morning -- Ralph Vaughan Williams

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4465
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2009,14:39   

"Intelligent design" is spoken, but "agent creation" is heard.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
keiths



Posts: 2040
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2009,15:01   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 05 2009,12:25)
Looks good to me. I've always wondered, however, what keeps the real wheel attached to the frame.

Or how the steering works.

--------------
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 donít belong there and thoughts into my mind that donít belong there. -- KF

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4360
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2009,15:14   

Quote (keiths @ Jan. 05 2009,15:01)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 05 2009,12:25)
Looks good to me. I've always wondered, however, what keeps the real wheel attached to the frame.

Or how the steering works.

Clearly you materialists are just not ready to accept Teh Intelligent Designer into your hearts....

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2009,19:56   

Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 05 2009,15:15)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 05 2009,12:29)
Human designed objects like bicycles do not begin with a vision of the perfect final form, and the fact that removal of a piece makes the product significantly less functional says nothing about the history of the invention.

The Intelligent Design argument stands or falls on what it can say about the history of an object, and so far it can say nothing.

EDIT: I suppose this belongs on the Luskin thread.

Is this kind of what you had in mind for Casey to use as his bicycle prequel?


I forget, is Casey one of those "Flintstones = documentary" types or not?

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 1651
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2009,20:56   

Wikipedia on Dr. Jerry Bergman, author of "Slaughter of the Dissidents": † † † †
Quote
Dr Gerald R. "Jerry" Bergman is an American young earth creationist. He is an active supporter of the anti-cult movement (ACM). He is also known for his stance against Jehovah's Witnesses.
Quote
In 1992 Bergman received his Ph.D. in human biology from Columbia Pacific University, a now-defunct nonaccredited distance learning school. Columbia Pacific University lost its state approval to operate in 1995 and was ordered to close permanently in October 2000 by the State of California. A court invalidated all degrees awarded after 1997 and ordered the student fees refunded.
Quote
Bergman's opinions on creationism are often published by Answers In Genesis. In the 1990s he was also known for his Usenet postings to the talk.origins newsgroup. Many of his views are highly controversial, such as implying a causal relationship between Darwinism, Nazism, and the Holocaust.
Quote
Bergman was hired in the 1973-74 school year by Bowling Green State University. He was initially employed as an assistant professor but was reduced to the rank of instructor later for not receiving his Ph.D. as soon as he had expected. His employment was continued until 1976 when the university recommended that he receive a terminal contract for 1976-1977. Bergman's contract for 1976-77 year was changed from terminal to temporary while studying for his Ph.D at Wayne State. In 1978 Bergman was denied tenure. Bergman believed this was due to his involvement in the creation movement and his religious beliefs and subsequently filed with both the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Ohio Civil Rights Commission on the grounds that he had been discriminated against on the basis of religion, with both agencies ultimately ruling that he was not let go due to his religious beliefs, but because his peers voted to terminate him.

Bergman filed suit against Bowling Green State University in federal district court in 1980, alleging that his due process rights had been violated and that he had been denied tenure on the basis of his religious views. The due process claim arose from his allegation that he never received annual written evaluations as required by the University charter. The case was dismissed in 1985. Bergman appealed but the appeal was turned down in 1987. The court ruled that the reason he was let go was because of ethics, namely that he claimed to have credentials in psychology when, in fact, he "had no psychological credentials."[2]
†  
Quote
Jerry Bergman was reared by an atheist father and a religiously indifferent mother who became a follower of Jehovahís Witnesses when he was 8 years old. Some time later, he was disillusioned with all religion and followed his father into atheism. As an atheist he knew many of the leading atheists (including Gordon Stein; Garry De Young; and, Madalyn Murray O'Hair), and published scores of articles in their various journals.

Presently, he teaches Sunday school at a Mennonite church in West Unity, Ohio, and is also a lay speaker at St. Paulís United Methodist Church in Montpelier, Ohio. Today he has an active share in publishing articles against Jehovah's Witnesses.

Let's see ... YEC, PhD from a diploma mill, hates Jehovah's Witnesses, writes for Answers in Genesis, is a Hitler-Darwin crank, fails to get a legitimate PhD, but a secular college keeps him on the payroll for four more years while he tried and failed to get one, sues that employer claiming religious discrimination, the court finds that his colleagues just couldn't stand him, sues his next academic employer claiming religious discrimination, loses the case and the appeal, "The court ruled that the reason he was let go was because of ethics, namely that he claimed to have credentials in psychology when, in fact, he 'had no psychological credentials.'"

He then writes a book on the terrible discrimination Christians face in today's academia.

This man is perfect for UD!

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

ĎAnything is a ďreal possibilityĒ in the mind of one seeking to deny the obvious.í Ė William J Murray

  
Bebbo



Posts: 161
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2009,05:47   

Turn off your irony meters. Davey on why he turned down a debate invitation:

"I declined the invitation because I thought it would simply be a rehash of all the old arguments and nobody ever really wins.   The argument from design, unlike what some people here have claimed, is as old as Plato and Aristotle."

I guess he only wants to rehash OLD arguments as long as it's not in a fair debate.

here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....re-4427

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 1956
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2009,05:58   

The comments in the latest Steve Fuller thread are really heating up (this is the entertainment, sparc - not so much Fuller's post, but the reaction to it).  Sal Gal is standing up for Fuller's approach, but the regulars aren't having any of it: I'm sure if Dave still had his bannination button, Sal Gal would have been long gone.  Dave (*waves*) has stepped in to tell everyone what science is, and how we just follow the evidence without needing any pre-conceptions.  Fuller, of course, knows enough philosophy and sociology of science that he must be feeling the full force of the tard.  But I guess he has to be polite in return, as he's still more or less a guest.

There's more there too.  Too much for me to go through and give you all the titbits.

--------------
ID theorists donít postulate a designer for their arguments. - Crandaddy
There is no connection between a peppered moth, natural selection, and religion that I can see. - FtK

   
Maya



Posts: 702
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2009,06:45   

Quote (Bebbo @ Jan. 06 2009,05:47)
Turn off your irony meters. Davey on why he turned down a debate invitation:

"I declined the invitation because I thought it would simply be a rehash of all the old arguments and nobody ever really wins.

Actually, Davey, the ID side loses the debate every single time.  It's what happens when you bring a rubber chicken to a gun fight.

  
KenGee



Posts: 53
Joined: Oct. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2009,07:49   

Quote
Quote (Bebbo @ Jan. 06 2009,05:47)
Turn off your irony meters. Davey on why he turned down a debate invitation:

"I declined the invitation because I thought it would simply be a rehash of all the old arguments and nobody ever really wins.

Actually, Davey, the ID side loses the debate every single time. †It's what happens when you bring a rubber chicken to a gun fight.

If your screen has enough res you can have Davetard's and Steve fullofshit's latest post on the same screen it's great.
Dave: ID is not about God.
Steve: ID is about God.

--------------
"Proteins are not produced by a chemical reaction, they are manufactured by machinery that is programmed through a base-four digital code. " Frilly Gilly on LIfe

  
Bebbo



Posts: 161
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2009,09:32   

Quote (Maya @ Jan. 06 2009,06:45)
Quote (Bebbo @ Jan. 06 2009,05:47)
Turn off your irony meters. Davey on why he turned down a debate invitation:

"I declined the invitation because I thought it would simply be a rehash of all the old arguments and nobody ever really wins.

Actually, Davey, the ID side loses the debate every single time.  It's what happens when you bring a rubber chicken to a gun fight.

Yes, and according to Davey the chicken has been festering for over 2000 years. You'd think that in all that time they'd come up with a better design explanation than an unknown designer, using unknown methods, at unknown times, for unknown purposes.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3550
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2009,10:20   

Behe testified under oath that the Designer is God.

So if ID comes to court again, what other expert can the cdesign proponentsists put on the stand?

--------------
Ēletís not make a joke of ourselves.Ē

Pat Robertson

  
keiths



Posts: 2040
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2009,10:48   

Denyse O'Leary, master of self-awareness:
Quote
A couple of years ago, after I had been following the controversy for several years, I found myself listening to a long lecture by a Darwinist, replete with bafflegab and pretty lame examples. Finally, sensing (correctly) that I was unconvinced, he proclaimed to me, ďYou just donít understand how natural selection works, do you?Ē

And suddenly, the penny dropped. What he meant was that I just donít believe in magic. I canít make myself believe in magic; I havenít been able to since I was a child. And I was no longer going to give the matter any attention. What I really wanted to know then and now is †- how magic became so important a principle in science?


--------------
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 donít belong there and thoughts into my mind that donít belong there. -- KF

  
someotherguy



Posts: 367
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2009,10:48   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 06 2009,05:58)
The comments in the latest Steve Fuller thread are really heating up (this is the entertainment, sparc - not so much Fuller's post, but the reaction to it). †Sal Gal is standing up for Fuller's approach, but the regulars aren't having any of it: I'm sure if Dave still had his bannination button, Sal Gal would have been long gone. †

A world in which DT's cheesy poof-encrusted finger is not twitching nervously a half inch above the bannination button is simply not a world I want to live in!

Oh how far the mighty have fallen! †*sob*

--------------
Evolander in training

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1950
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2009,10:48   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 05 2009,12:11)
Yes. Once again Fuller is doing us a favour.

During the Dover trial, I was urging that Fuller be encouraged to talk as much as possible since he clearly knew very little about ID or evolution.

This really might be his first real experience with the ID "public." Since he is so committed to the notion that any grubby twit is as intellectually significant as "so-called experts," I expect his brains to start dripping out his ears. This melting, I will call "Resonant Cognitive Dissonance."

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

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

   
someotherguy



Posts: 367
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2009,10:53   

Quote (keiths @ Jan. 06 2009,10:48)
Denyse O'Leary, the master of self-awareness:
Quote
A couple of years ago, after I had been following the controversy for several years, I found myself listening to a long lecture by a Darwinist, replete with bafflegab and pretty lame examples. Finally, sensing (correctly) that I was unconvinced, he proclaimed to me, ďYou just donít understand how natural selection works, do you?Ē

And suddenly, the penny dropped. What he meant was that I just donít believe in magic. I canít make myself believe in magic; I havenít been able to since I was a child. And I was no longer going to give the matter any attention. What I really wanted to know then and now is †- how magic became so important a principle in science?

Apparently Denyse is unfamiliar with Michael Behe's much-celebrated "Poof" theory of life's origins and history.

--------------
Evolander in training

  
KCdgw



Posts: 367
Joined: Sep. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2009,11:03   

Quote (keiths @ Jan. 06 2009,10:48)
Denyse O'Leary, master of self-awareness:
 
Quote
A couple of years ago, after I had been following the controversy for several years, I found myself listening to a long lecture by a Darwinist, replete with bafflegab and pretty lame examples. Finally, sensing (correctly) that I was unconvinced, he proclaimed to me, ďYou just donít understand how natural selection works, do you?Ē

And suddenly, the penny dropped. What he meant was that I just donít believe in magic. I canít make myself believe in magic; I havenít been able to since I was a child. And I was no longer going to give the matter any attention. What I really wanted to know then and now is †- how magic became so important a principle in science?

And she's a Judith Hooper fan. Enough said.

KC

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

  
dmso74



Posts: 110
Joined: Aug. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2009,11:12   

Jerry issues a throwdown:

Quote
So I suggested to Sal Gal (and to anyone else) to go through the OV site and bring the best arguments here to debate.

Is there any anti ID advocate that is willing to take up this challenge? My guess is that none will be forthcoming. For all those who claim that ID is bogus, give it a shot or as they say ďforever hold your peace.Ē


very brave, offering to duel in an arena where the opposing side is consistently banned or held up in moderation for hours/days so that their statements get buried. has anyone ever seen jerry comment anywhere but in the UD womb?

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2009,11:17   

Quote (someotherguy @ Jan. 06 2009,10:53)
†  
Quote (keiths @ Jan. 06 2009,10:48)
Denyse O'Leary, the master of self-awareness:
† †  
Quote
A couple of years ago, after I had been following the controversy for several years, I found myself listening to a long lecture by a Darwinist, replete with bafflegab and pretty lame examples. Finally, sensing (correctly) that I was unconvinced, he proclaimed to me, ďYou just donít understand how natural selection works, do you?Ē

And suddenly, the penny dropped. What he meant was that I just donít believe in magic. I canít make myself believe in magic; I havenít been able to since I was a child. And I was no longer going to give the matter any attention. What I really wanted to know then and now is †- how magic became so important a principle in science?

Apparently Denyse is unfamiliar with Michael Behe's much-celebrated "Poof" theory of life's origins and history.

Gil clarifies his level of understanding


Linky

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4360
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2009,11:17   

Quote (dmso74 @ Jan. 06 2009,11:12)
.... has anyone ever seen jerry comment anywhere but in the UD womb?

Is this gonna turn into one of those deep philosophical discussions about how many IDists can dance on the head of a pin?

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2009,11:25   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Jan. 06 2009,10:48)
 
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 05 2009,12:11)
Yes. Once again Fuller is doing us a favour.

During the Dover trial, I was urging that Fuller be encouraged to talk as much as possible since he clearly knew very little about ID or evolution.

This really might be his first real experience with the ID "public." Since he is so committed to the notion that any grubby twit is as intellectually significant as "so-called experts," I expect his brains to start dripping out his ears. This melting, I will call "Resonant Cognitive Dissonance."

Is it possible that he is ignorant about the US Constitution, which makes it impossible to spread religious doctrine via the public school system? †Since he's a Brit, and since that sort of religious indoctrination happens in the UK (and other former colonies like Australia), maybe he thinks it's OK to admit that the designer=Yahweh!

If so, he's even dumber than he seems, and that is a boatload of dumb.

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

   
stevestory



Posts: 8825
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2009,11:30   

gil says:

Quote
I understand how it works. It throws stuff out so it doesnít get perpetuated. How throwing stuff out creates new stuff is what I donít understand.



   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4465
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2009,11:35   

Fuller was born in and spent most of his first 35 years in the United States. One would hope someone mentioned the US Constitution to him during that period.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
stevestory



Posts: 8825
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2009,11:43   

I do recommend people use the Index to Creationist Claims. There are about 500 different arguments in the tangled net of creationist reasoning, and the creationists are hopelessly lost in them, and there's no point retyping why they're wrong each time.

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 1950
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2009,12:09   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 06 2009,09:25)
Is it possible that he is ignorant about the US Constitution, which makes it impossible to spread religious doctrine via the public school system? †Since he's a Brit, and since that sort of religious indoctrination happens in the UK (and other former colonies like Australia), maybe he thinks it's OK to admit that the designer=Yahweh!

If so, he's even dumber than he seems, and that is a boatload of dumb.

Fuller is from the USA.

--------------
"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: Jan. 06 2009,12:23   



[Elizabeth II voice]

My husband and I am very glad others have pointed out Fuller's American nature.

We here in Great Britain don't want him, however pleasant he may be to have a beer with.

Kindly take your religious whackaloons and assorted crazy postmodernist apologists for mindnumbingly circumlocutary drivel back.

We sent the convicts and excessively religious to the colonies years ago for a reason. Cease and desist your returning of them forthwith, if not, indeed, fifthwith or I'll set the corgis on you and have Phillip made the Ambassador to the USA.

Yours sincerely

Auntie Liz, HM Queen, et al.

P.S. Where's my 250 odd years of back taxes, bitches? Don't make me send Charles over. He'll bring his wife.

[/Elizabeth II voice]

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

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 1956
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2009,12:54   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 06 2009,11:25)
 Is it possible that he is ignorant about the US Constitution, which makes it impossible to spread religious doctrine via the public school system? †Since he's a Brit, and since that sort of religious indoctrination happens in the UK (and other former colonies like Australia), maybe he thinks it's OK to admit that the designer=Yahweh!

If so, he's even dumber than he seems, and that is a boatload of dumb.

You've already been told off about Fuller's nationality, but he does know about the constitution - he alluded to it in a previous post.

My interpretation of Fuller is that he's an academic, and he sees what he's doing as an academic exercise. †So how this would play out in the real, political, world isn't so interesting to him. †He wants to show how ID an advance as a science.  Which is fine, and very funny to see how it's being resisted.

--------------
ID theorists donít postulate a designer for their arguments. - Crandaddy
There is no connection between a peppered moth, natural selection, and religion that I can see. - FtK

   
  14997 replies since July 17 2008,19:00 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (500) < ... 151 152 153 154 155 [156] 157 158 159 160 161 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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