RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (500) < ... 140 141 142 143 144 [145] 146 147 148 149 150 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 2, general discussion of Dembski's site< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2008,06:07   

Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ Dec. 21 2008,05:07)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 20 2008,23:02)
 
Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ Dec. 20 2008,20:37)
Although, is that your real photo Louis? Nice hmmm.

No, it was ascertained a while ago that this is the real Louis:


Here is my picture if you want to meet up

How would we have sex? Lift our guts and run at each other hoping for the best?

Louis

P.S. Tony, filthy enough for ya?

ETA P.P.S. That photo, it is not exactly representative. I haven't worn a hanky hat in years...

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

  
keiths



Posts: 2022
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2008,06:41   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 20 2008,20:26)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 20 2008,22:24)
You'll be awaiting moderation at UD, but your comment will easily go through here. That's how we roll.


RichTard,

Your protest has been noted.  Now give us more tardalogues, dammit!

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

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5356
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2008,07:47   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Dec. 21 2008,04:26)
Update on PaV
 
Quote


7

PaV

12/20/2008

9:47 am

Update on “microevolution”:

Wouldn’t you expect that base transitions would be of equal probability if “chance” is involved?


No, PaV, I wouldn't.

In very simple terms (because let's face it, I'm just learning the basics and perhaps completely misunderstand the question):

In the coding part of the DNA, the nucleotides code for amino acids. The amino acids form a chain called a protein. The protein forms a crazy shape due to hydrogen bonding amongst the amino acids. That shape is imperative to its function. Those functions can be vital to the survival of the organism.

If you change the nucleotide sequence, you might change the amino acid that the sequence codes for. Or you might not, depending on what substitution occurs, and exactly where it occurs.

If you change the amino acid, some of which are non-polar, some of which are polar, and some of which have positive or negative charges, you could produce drastic changes in the shape of the protein, causing it to no longer function, or function partially, or function differently.

If you do that to a protein the organism needs to survive, um... the organism doesn't survive.

Even in the non-coding part of the DNA, I would still not expect an equal probability of all the different possible base pair substitutions, because all that crap coded for something at one time.

So no, PaV. Even with the minuscule, teeny, tiny, itty bitty bit of biology I learned in Bio 111,  when I looked at base pair substitutions in an organism I would not expect to find there to be equal numbers of each kind of substitution. In fact, I'd be rather surprised to find that to be the case.

I would certainly not expect to find equal probabilities across phyla, given that different organisms use different proteins to do different things.

But as I said, I'm just learning the very basics of biology. It's stuff I probably would have learned in high school, had I taken my fingers out of my ears and stopped screaming 'Get thee behind me Darwin! lalalalalala'.

And again, perhaps I have misunderstood the question or the point (was there one?).

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

   
Bob O'H



Posts: 1948
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2008,08:05   

Granny Spice is making as much sense as usual.  She reports that:

1. Some scientists are suggesting that a paper in Cell is dodgy,
2. A paper in Journal of Experimental Biology is being retracted, because of fraud,
3. Nature is going to retract a study because the results couldn't be reproduced,
4. A Texas stem cell researcher has been found to have falsified their data with Photoshop,
5. Enrollment for research has been stopped at one hospital because the admin was crappy,
6. John Ioannidis has been showing that a lot of research findings are false.  And people are investigating why.

Her conclusion?

Quote
The wonderful thing about science is that it is self-correcting? Oh, come on!
...
My own sense is that too many people today are invested in proving stuff they are sure is true, and not enough in finding out what is really going on.


It's posts like this that keep on drawing us back.  Eh, Richard?

--------------
ID theorists don’t postulate a designer for their arguments. - Crandaddy
There is no connection between a peppered moth, natural selection, and religion that I can see. - FtK

   
CeilingCat



Posts: 1634
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2008,08:17   

Granny Spice:
Quote
My own sense is that too many people today are invested in proving stuff they are sure is true, and not enough in finding out what is really going on.

I think she meant to say:
Quote
My own sense is that too many people in the ID community are invested in proving stuff they are sure is true, and not enough in finding out what is really going on.


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

‘Anything is a “real possibility” in the mind of one seeking to deny the obvious.’ – William J Murray

  
Tony M Nyphot



Posts: 212
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2008,08:23   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Dec. 21 2008,04:31)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 20 2008,22:26)
       
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 20 2008,22:24)
You'll be awaiting moderation at UD, but your comment will easily go through here. That's how we roll.


I thought we were about to get something u^mber and ma^lodorous. But, alas, this is Richard (HA HA):


Not sure if I'm bowing or only doubling over in laughter, but I give praise to the master of coffee-on-keyboard lolcats...

--------------
"I, OTOH, am an underachiever...I either pee my pants or faint dead away..." FTK

  
keiths



Posts: 2022
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2008,08:30   

There was a brief thaw after my appearance on Barry's radio show, but now my comments are being deleted again -- even on a thread that was inspired by a comment of mine.

This comment from Clive might be a clue:
Quote
For anyone who wants to know, here is what ribczynski really thinks of me, his name is keiths on this thread:

http://www.antievolution.org/c.....ntry130780

he said “Clive belongs to that smarmy subclass of believers who go around quoting Chesterton and C.S. Lewis like Holy Writ.

Extreme illness calls for extreme treatment. I prescribe solitary confinement with a forced diet of Burroughs and Bukowski. Once that has had the desired effect, we can begin to introduce him gradually to the reality-based world.”

I live in the reality-based world partner. I am a patient moderator with you rib, I expect some decency in return. When I first started moderating you complained that there was a double standard of moderation, so I apologized on behalf of all who gave you any undue disrespect, I expect an apology in return for your undue disrespect to me.


I just posted this reply to Clive:
Quote
48

ribczynski

12/21/2008

9:11 am

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Clive Hayden wrote:
Quote
I live in the reality-based world partner. I am a patient moderator with you rib, I expect some decency in return. When I first started moderating you complained that there was a double standard of moderation, so I apologized on behalf of all who gave you any undue disrespect, I expect an apology in return for your undue disrespect to me.

Clive,

I didn't ask for an apology.  I asked for a single standard to be applied to ID supporters and critics alike at UD.

Here are some suggestions:

1. Polite, on-topic comments from ID supporters don't languish in the moderation queue for hours, and they certainly aren't deleted.  Stop doing it to polite, on-topic comments from ID critics.

2. ID supporters regularly insult critics with impunity at UD, so don't object when a critic calls you 'smarmy', particularly when...

3. ...it happens outside of UD.  You don't police the off-blog activities of ID supporters, so don't do it to ID critics.  

4. Apologies aren't demanded from ID supporters, so don't demand them from critics.

One standard for all commenters.  Is that so hard to understand?


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

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5356
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2008,08:35   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Dec. 21 2008,09:17)
Granny Spice:    
Quote
My own sense is that too many people today are invested in proving stuff they are sure is true, and not enough in finding out what is really going on.

I think she meant to say:    
Quote
My own sense is that too many people in the ID community are is invested in proving stuff they are sure is true fleecing the rubes, and not enough at all in finding out what is really going on.

You're welcome, Granny. Happy Holidays.

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

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5356
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2008,08:39   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 21 2008,09:35)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Dec. 21 2008,09:17)
Granny Spice:      
Quote
My own sense is ...

Myth, same as the rest of the IDCH.

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

   
keiths



Posts: 2022
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2008,08:42   

My favorite part of Clive's comment:
Quote
I live in the reality-based world partner.


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

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 1948
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2008,08:54   

Quote (keiths @ Dec. 21 2008,08:42)
My favorite part of Clive's comment:
Quote
I live in the reality-based world partner.

I guess Second Life was intelligently designed.

--------------
ID theorists don’t postulate a designer for their arguments. - Crandaddy
There is no connection between a peppered moth, natural selection, and religion that I can see. - FtK

   
olegt



Posts: 1375
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2008,09:48   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Dec. 21 2008,08:05)
Granny Spice is making as much sense as usual.  She reports that:

1. Some scientists are suggesting that a paper in Cell is dodgy,
2. A paper in Journal of Experimental Biology is being retracted, because of fraud,
3. Nature is going to retract a study because the results couldn't be reproduced,
4. A Texas stem cell researcher has been found to have falsified their data with Photoshop,
5. Enrollment for research has been stopped at one hospital because the admin was crappy,
6. John Ioannidis has been showing that a lot of research findings are false.  And people are investigating why.

Her conclusion?

 
Quote
The wonderful thing about science is that it is self-correcting? Oh, come on!
...
My own sense is that too many people today are invested in proving stuff they are sure is true, and not enough in finding out what is really going on.


It's posts like this that keep on drawing us back.  Eh, Richard?

Denyse lecturing scientists on ethics?  O the irony!  

In the same post she links to her 2006 ARN piece Peer Review: Gold standard or gold in them thar hills?.  It borrowed liberally from an editorial Rethinking Peer Review published in the  New Atlantis.  Here are a few examples:

Quote
New Atlantis: Also known as refereeing, the peer review process is used by journal editors to aid in deciding which papers are worth publishing.
O’Leary: Peer review, also called refereeing, is a decision-making process by which science journals decide which papers are worth the investment of resources to publish.

New Atlantis: Eventually—especially following the post-World War II research boom—the deluge of manuscripts and their increasing specialization made it difficult for even an editorial board of a dozen or so experts to handle the load... Journal editors began to seek out experts capable of commenting on manuscriptsnot only researchers in the same general field, but researchers familiar with the specific techniques and even laboratory materials described in the papers under consideration. The transition from the editorial board model to the peer review model was eased by technological advances, like the Xerox copier in 1959, that reduced the hassles of sending manuscripts to experts scattered around the globe.
O’Leary: After World War II, specialized science research boomed. Researchers followed up on a number of useful discoveries made during the war (for example, antibiotics and nuclear technology). The subsequent Cold War, and then the space race, kept alive the
drive for further military advances as well. But only specialists could assess the specialized papers that resulted, so editors increasingly deferred to them. The development of the Xerox copier in 1959 made the new system practical, so all the major journals adopted peer review.

New Atlantis: The Cochrane Collaboration, an international healthcare analysis group based in the U.K., published a report in 2003 concluding that there is “little empirical evidence to support the use of editorial peer review as a mechanism to ensure quality of biomedical research, despite its widespread use and costs.” The Royal Society has also studied the effects of peer review.
O’Leary: Major bodies such as the Cochrane Collaboration and the Royal Society, as well as others have added volume to the dissatisfaction with peer review.

New Atlantis: Perhaps the most powerful criticism of peer review is that it fails to achieve its core ob jective: quality control.
O’Leary: Generally, the two most common complaints are that peer review fails to safeguard quality, which was its original purpose and that it punishes new ideas, regardless of merit.

None of the paraphrased passages were attributed to the New Atlantis piece, although there was one attributed direct quote.  

I wrote to Denyse at the time, pointing out the questionable practice.  She wrote back saying she had done nothing wrong.  She nonetheless amended her post, inserting more direct quotes from the New Atlantis editorial with attribution.  

Keep up the good work, Denyse.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2008,11:10   

Quote (Louis @ Dec. 21 2008,04:07)
   
Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ Dec. 21 2008,05:07)
     
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 20 2008,23:02)
       
Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ Dec. 20 2008,20:37)
Although, is that your real photo Louis? Nice hmmm.

No, it was ascertained a while ago that this is the real Louis:


Here is my picture if you want to meet up

How would we have sex? Lift our guts and run at each other hoping for the best?

Probably you could just roll each other in flour and look for the wet spots

I'm sorry. I'll sit in the corner and think about what I've done.  :(



--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2008,11:27   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 21 2008,17:10)
[SNIP]

Probably you could just roll each other in flour and look for the wet spots

I'm sorry. I'll sit in the corner and think about what I've done.  :(

[SNIMAGE]

I KNEW that would be too juicy for you to resist. Bad Arden, bad, bad Arden. Bad, bad, naughty Arden.

There will have to be no spanking for you. None whatsoever.

Louis

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

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2581
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2008,12:24   

Quote
gpuccio: I am really intrigued about how those imaginary RNA beings would have acquired “independently” (whatever it means) the DNA molecule “from viruses”. Maybe I should read the article. But I can appreciate creativity when I see it...

Am I a clever darwinist now?

Actually, gpuccio, it is considered de rigeur among 'darwinists' to familiarize yourself with a subject before expressing an opinion. Kind of old-fashioned, I know. But maybe you should read the article first.

Quote
tribune7: LOL. Great summation, gpuccio.


--------------
The struggle against ignorance is to the end of time. But it is said that if you die in tard, you will be reborn in Tardhalla.

   
keiths



Posts: 2022
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2008,12:48   

To my surprise, my critical comment actually got posted at UD.

TCS responded:
Quote
53

TCS

12/21/2008

12:21 pm

Rib @48.

Your response shows that you have absolutely no interest in advancing the discussion of ID vs. materialism. Clive has shown much patience to you, but you do not reciprocate. Your comments on the “Uncommonly Dense” thread had shades of 1984 or Animal Farm. Perhaps your unique history has resulted in deterministic factors, which allowed you to respond in no other way. Or perhaps you are materialist fundamentalist. My vote is for the latter.

If you had only called him “smarmy,” that would be one thing, but you said:
Quote
Extreme illness calls for extreme treatment. I prescribe solitary confinement with a forced diet of Burroughs and Bukowski. Once that has had the desired effect, we can begin to introduce him gradually to the reality-based world.

So, Rib…are you interested in advancing the discussion, treating Clive like a fellow human being, and are open to alternative arguments, or are your responses completely determined by your previous experiences?


My reply, which is in moderation:
Quote
To the moderator(s) who allowed my critical comment (#48) through:  thank you.  I appreciate your willingness to permit public criticism, and I hope that you'll allow this comment through as well.

TCS,

The "Uncommonly Dense" thread, as its name makes obvious, was not  created to praise UD.  It is a place for people to marvel at, mock, satirize, and protest the goings-on at UD.  Many -- perhaps even most -- of the commenters ended up there after being arbitrarily banned from UD.  There is an entire thread at AtBC documenting the dozens of threats and bannings that have occurred at UD since January of 2006.  

As with any website, you're free to frequent AtBC if you find it to your liking or to avoid it if you find it to be distasteful.  You're also free to start your own site mocking us at AtBC if you so desire. I would not object.

I should also mention that you and other ID supporters are welcome to comment at AtBC (DaveScot is one exception, having been banned, if I recall correctly, for issuing threats at the parent site, Panda's Thumb).

I called Clive "smarmy" in the "Uncommonly Dense" thread, where it is appropriate (and rather mild). I have not done so here, where it would only serve to derail the discussion.  If you examine my comments here at UD, I think you'll find that they compare favorably to those of ID supporters in terms of constructiveness.

Last, you accuse me of having "absolutely no interest" in advancing the discussion.  Take a look at the following comment, which I tried to post to this thread yesterday, and ask yourself who was more interested in advancing the discussion:  I, or the moderator who deleted my comment?  

Quote

Barry,

Your opening post indicates that you find compatibilism self-contradictory, tantamount to claiming that your existence is compatible with your non-existence. That's a common reaction, but in my opinion it is mistaken.

In past discussions I've had on the topic, people have expressed their objections to compatibilism like this, more or less: "If the universe is deterministic, then I'm not really deciding anything.  It's all predetermined, and I'm just along for the ride."

Implicit in that view is the proto-dualist intuition that we -- our core selves, including our wills -- are separate from our bodies.  If that were true, then we truly would be "just along for the ride" in a deterministic universe.  Our bodies would act out their predetermined dance, and our separate selves -- our souls -- would be unable to control them in any way.

Now look at the problem from the materialist perspective, and you'll see that the problem disappears.  In a materialist world, you are no longer a "passenger" in your body, merely along for the ride.  You are your body (including your brain, of course).  When your brain makes a decision and executes it via the body, it is you making the decision and performing the action.

Keeping that in mind, look what happens when you make a decision under a materialistic, deterministic scenario:

1. You gather information according to your habits and inclinations.

2. You evaluate the information using your own intellect, taking into account your own experiences, your own learning, and your own memories.

3. You mull over alternatives, weighing them against each other, predicting future possible outcomes, and gauging your emotional reactions to them.

4. You make a decision based on your own personality and temperament, choosing the outcome that you prefer.

5. You act accordingly.

To me, that sounds like the perfect description of a free choice.  At every stage you do exactly what you want to do, based on your own personality, temperament, intellect, emotions, memories and learning.  You can even decide, on a lark, to flip a coin instead of deliberating, if that's what you want to do.  The outcome utterly depends on you, as a person, and could have been vastly different if someone else had been in your place.

In what significant way does this fall short of "free will"?


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

  
stevestory



Posts: 8749
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2008,13:02   

Quote (keiths @ Dec. 21 2008,13:48)
Your response shows that you have absolutely no interest in advancing the discussion of ID vs. materialism. Clive has shown much patience to you, but you do not reciprocate.

Why do you make me beat you? I don't want to, but you make me. Why do you do this to yourself?

   
keiths



Posts: 2022
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2008,13:17   

Clive's pure soul becomes corrupted by the power of bannination:
Quote
54

Clive Hayden

12/21/2008

1:17 pm

rib said,

“I didn’t ask for an apology. I asked for a single standard to be applied to ID supporters and critics alike at UD.”

I am applying that standard, and we may need to get something straight first, the standard is not whether one asks for an apology, it is whether someone is decent enough to give it. You aren’t. I am. That’s a double standard, even by your estimation, and I won’t allow it. Either you realize that you don’t have autonomy to treat UD folks however vile and disrespectfully you want on that other site and expect for us to grant you privileges on this site–That’s a double standard too–or you will no longer post here. I don’t need any suggestions from you. Either you apologize for your insults, or you will be gone. Understand?

Quote
58

Clive Hayden

12/21/2008

1:58 pm
“rib” is no longer with us. we should refer to him in the future as “r.i.p.” instead   :)


Odd thing is, he didn't even wait for my apology.  :p

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

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5356
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2008,14:40   

Quote (keiths @ Dec. 21 2008,13:48)
Quote
53

TCS

12/21/2008

12:21 pm

Rib @48.

Your response shows that you have absolutely no interest in advancing the discussion of ID vs. materialism. Clive has shown much patience to you, but you do not reciprocate. Your comments on the “Uncommonly Dense” thread had shades of 1984 or Animal Farm.

Wow. This from the Kool-Aid guzzlers at UD.

"We have NEVER been at war with Eurasia, and claiming we have is ssssooooooo Orwellian...."

dude.

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

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3092
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2008,14:44   

Quote (olegt @ Dec. 21 2008,09:48)
Denyse lecturing scientists on ethics?  O the irony!  

In the same post she links to her 2006 ARN piece Peer Review: Gold standard or gold in them thar hills?.  It borrowed liberally from an editorial Rethinking Peer Review published in the  New Atlantis.  Here are a few examples:

 
Quote
New Atlantis: Also known as refereeing, the peer review process is used by journal editors to aid in deciding which papers are worth publishing.
O’Leary: Peer review, also called refereeing, is a decision-making process by which science journals decide which papers are worth the investment of resources to publish.

New Atlantis: Eventually—especially following the post-World War II research boom—the deluge of manuscripts and their increasing specialization made it difficult for even an editorial board of a dozen or so experts to handle the load... Journal editors began to seek out experts capable of commenting on manuscriptsnot only researchers in the same general field, but researchers familiar with the specific techniques and even laboratory materials described in the papers under consideration. The transition from the editorial board model to the peer review model was eased by technological advances, like the Xerox copier in 1959, that reduced the hassles of sending manuscripts to experts scattered around the globe.
O’Leary: After World War II, specialized science research boomed. Researchers followed up on a number of useful discoveries made during the war (for example, antibiotics and nuclear technology). The subsequent Cold War, and then the space race, kept alive the
drive for further military advances as well. But only specialists could assess the specialized papers that resulted, so editors increasingly deferred to them. The development of the Xerox copier in 1959 made the new system practical, so all the major journals adopted peer review.

New Atlantis: The Cochrane Collaboration, an international healthcare analysis group based in the U.K., published a report in 2003 concluding that there is “little empirical evidence to support the use of editorial peer review as a mechanism to ensure quality of biomedical research, despite its widespread use and costs.” The Royal Society has also studied the effects of peer review.
O’Leary: Major bodies such as the Cochrane Collaboration and the Royal Society, as well as others have added volume to the dissatisfaction with peer review.

New Atlantis: Perhaps the most powerful criticism of peer review is that it fails to achieve its core ob jective: quality control.
O’Leary: Generally, the two most common complaints are that peer review fails to safeguard quality, which was its original purpose and that it punishes new ideas, regardless of merit.

None of the paraphrased passages were attributed to the New Atlantis piece, although there was one attributed direct quote.  

I wrote to Denyse at the time, pointing out the questionable practice.  She wrote back saying she had done nothing wrong.  She nonetheless amended her post, inserting more direct quotes from the New Atlantis editorial with attribution.  

Keep up the good work, Denyse.

"Hack"

(n) 1. A writer hired to produce routine or commercial writing; a mediocre and disdained writer

(adj.) By, characteristic of, or designating routine or commercial writing: hack prose.

Hack writer; a writer who is paid to write low-quality, quickly put-together articles or books. http://www.answers.com/topic/hack-writer-1

See: Densey O'Leary, plagiarist. Here she is squatting out another "article."


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

  
1of63



Posts: 126
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2008,16:12   

Quote (keiths @ Dec. 21 2008,13:17)
Clive's pure soul becomes corrupted by the power of bannination:
 
Quote
54

Clive Hayden

12/21/2008

1:17 pm

rib said,

“I didn’t ask for an apology. I asked for a single standard to be applied to ID supporters and critics alike at UD.”

I am applying that standard, and we may need to get something straight first, the standard is not whether one asks for an apology, it is whether someone is decent enough to give it. You aren’t. I am. That’s a double standard, even by your estimation, and I won’t allow it. Either you realize that you don’t have autonomy to treat UD folks however vile and disrespectfully you want on that other site and expect for us to grant you privileges on this site–That’s a double standard too–or you will no longer post here. I don’t need any suggestions from you. Either you apologize for your insults, or you will be gone. Understand?

 
Quote
58

Clive Hayden

12/21/2008

1:58 pm
“rib” is no longer with us. we should refer to him in the future as “r.i.p.” instead   :)


Odd thing is, he didn't even wait for my apology.  :p

Nothing odd about it.  

Continually accusing "Darwinists" of being scientific fraudsters, amoral, all in the service of a vast conspiracy to corrupt and demoralize the nation's children and bring down Western civilization started by a racist "Brit toff" in the 19th century is polite and objective commentary.

Calling one of the saintly Paleyists of UD "smarmy" - on another blog - is not.  

It's obvious isn't it.

You did a good job on UD but you must have known it would end this way.

--------------
I set expectations at zero, and FL limbos right under them. - Tracy P. Hamilton

  
keiths



Posts: 2022
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2008,16:29   

I can't say I was surprised.  As banninations go, mine was actually pretty satisfying, because the whole affair accomplished the following:

1. It informed (or reminded) UDers of this thread's existence.  You can bet that many UDers have been over here already to see if they are mentioned in our hallowed pages.  They will return. (KF, for one, was deeply disturbed to see his name mentioned here).

2. It made them aware of the long, well-documented history of banninations at UD, including my own original banning.

3. It made them aware of the double-standards at UD, including the practice of keeping the comments of ID critics in moderation for hours or deleting them entirely.

4. It provided yet another demonstration of a UD moderator (guess who, Clive) jettisoning principle for the sake of his own fragile ego.

5. And last, but certainly not least, it provided some entertainment for you folks here at AtBC.

Not bad.  

And ribczynski lasted a while -- his first comment was way back on November 18.

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

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5356
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2008,16:35   

Quote (keiths @ Dec. 21 2008,17:29)
And ribczynski lasted a while -- his first comment was way back on November 18.

And actually, that's pretty epic length, for a UD critic to last over there.

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

   
1of63



Posts: 126
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2008,16:38   

And on UD we also have Granular Sewage quoting modern-day Renaissance man David Berlinski.  

The hired pen of ID demolishes contemporary physics and cosmology with a few well-chosen superficialities.  Unfortunately, it is marred by a metaphysical speculation concerning a mythical "social pact" forged by Isaac Newton with the rest of society.  

Nice strawman.  Shame about the truth,

--------------
I set expectations at zero, and FL limbos right under them. - Tracy P. Hamilton

  
Amadan



Posts: 1230
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2008,19:00   

I have just struggled through Densye's latest. I had to wipe my eyes and check the screen when I read the bit about helping those poor inarticulate scientists.

I was going to say something to the effect that she is to science writing what Florence Foster Jenkins was to bel canto, but I can't help suspecting that dear Florence was having even more fun then her adoring audience.

In contrast, can anyone who reads Densye's 'prose' (Sweet Jeebus, talk about a new depth to the word 'prosaic'!) not help but feel the pain, the strain, the quivering purple-faced vein-bulging gruntingness of the lower-abdominal pressure it must require to produce it?

--------------
"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.

   
bystander



Posts: 301
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2008,19:29   

Quote (keiths @ Dec. 22 2008,09:29)
I can't say I was surprised.  As banninations go, mine was actually pretty satisfying, because the whole affair accomplished the following:

1. It informed (or reminded) UDers of this thread's existence.  You can bet that many UDers have been over here already to see if they are mentioned in our hallowed pages.  They will return. (KF, for one, was deeply disturbed to see his name mentioned here).

2. It made them aware of the long, well-documented history of banninations at UD, including my own original banning.

3. It made them aware of the double-standards at UD, including the practice of keeping the comments of ID critics in moderation for hours or deleting them entirely.

4. It provided yet another demonstration of a UD moderator (guess who, Clive) jettisoning principle for the sake of his own fragile ego.

5. And last, but certainly not least, it provided some entertainment for you folks here at AtBC.

Not bad.  

And ribczynski lasted a while -- his first comment was way back on November 18.

UD is like the Simpsons, nothing ever changes. Within a week:

1. they will have stopped looking here.
2. Within a week one of them will state that darwinists leave UD because they are defeated by their superior intellects.
3. wonder why it has gone quiet.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4223
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2008,20:32   

Uncommonly Denyse:
 
Quote
On false knowledge …
O'Leary

Bruce S. Thornton of the Classics department at Fresno State University in California , author of Plagues of the Mind: The New Epidemic of False Knowledge (ISI Books, 1999), certainly spoke for me when he said,
 
Quote
...For every dog that howls over the body of its dead master there is another that, if necessary, will happily eat his corpse.

Ah yes, … happily eat his corpse.

What I want to know is who there is gonna eat UD's corpse. It can't quiver like this for long.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 1634
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 22 2008,00:44   

The tard flows freely tonight!  On the On False Knowledge thread, Granny Spice dips deep into the Classics department at Fresno State University to ask Professor Bruce Thornton for his thoughts on ... science.  In the responses to that thread, Borne shows a rather unhealthy, but probably typical, interest in beastiality.  Apparently Hugh Hefner says it's ok, so go ahead, Borne, you have my permission to bonk any beast that catches your fancy, so long as it's voluntary for both of you.  And I'd get it in writing, just to be safe.

In comment 4 on the same thread, vividbleau returns from whatever institution has been keeping him and drops this gem of logic on us:          
Quote
I did not start questioning Darwinism until I read “Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds”
I wish to state here that I did not begin doubting vb's sanity until I read at least his second or third post.

Well, ok, his first post.  But I gave him the benefit of the doubt until at least his second post.

Granville Sewell then offers us a Tard Cornucopia, giving us the "thoughts" of David Berlinski in the David Berlinski on Physics and Metaphysics thread.  Dr. B. is very concerned with "...the calculated or careless erasure of the line separating disciplined physical inquiry from speculative metaphysics."  Apparently, some of the "modern" physicists are behaving in ways that would not please Newton.  According to Dr. B., some of the real parvenus of physics, drek like Steven Hawkins, "...feel free to say anything that pops into their heads."  The Shame!

In the responses, russ also decries falling standards and notes that, "If the Internal Revenue Service disappeared tomorrow, a great many Americans would no longer pay their taxes."  Since there would be nowhere to pay their taxes to, russ is probably right.  Score a magnificent victory for UD-Thought.

Mapou, however, makes russ look like an amateur with his response:            
Quote
Interesting. Physics is the only field of science where the experts routinely come up with the most outrageous conclusions, conclusions that would be considered crackpottery in any other discipline. For example, famous physicists (e.g., Stephen Hawking, Kip Thorne, Carl Sagan, David Deutsch) feel free to claim, without any fear of criticism, that Einstein’s general theory of relativity does not forbid time travel (sources: Nova Online and hawking.org.uk).
Mr. Mapou cries "Foul!" and who can blame him.  The truth is that          
Quote
The hard undeniable reality is that nothing can move in spacetime, by definition!!
 Furthermore,            
Quote
The fact that nothing can move in spacetime is known to many physicists but it is rarely discussed in universities and physics circles because it refutes the claim repeatedly made in the last century by relativists (including Einstein himself) that gravity is due to the curvature of spacetime and to bodies following their geodesics in curved spacetime. In the words of Wolfgang Pauli, this stuff is not even wrong.
 Further furthermore, Mapou is onto Big Physics:          
Quote
The above only scratches the surface of the deep crackpottery that permeates the physics community. It seems that the overriding concern of physicists is to deny the possibility that the universe was designed and created. In so doing, they have built an absurd paradigm that can only be described as a type of voodoo science. Star-trek physics at its worst!


In a later response, he clarifies his thoughts:        
Quote
I am simply saying that a physical time dimension makes motion impossible because movement in time is self-referential. Thus time is abstract. This is the reason that nothing can move/change in spacetime. And this is the reason that any physicist (Hawking, etc.) who claims that GR does not forbid time travel is a crackpot in my book. Heck, if we were living in an honest world, he/she would be a crackpot in everybody’s book.

That such claims are routinely made by world-famous physicists without any outcry from the physics community is a sad commentary on the state of physics as a science.


Now a lot of johnny-come-lately parvenu so-called physicists might think that the tard-pits have been emptied by that last statement, but connoisseurs of Tard know that we can expect lots more than this from UD and once again, they're right.  Frost122585 blows Mapou right out of the water with a reply that is so Tardilicious it must be quoted in full:        
Quote
7

Frost122585

12/21/2008

9:16 pm
The deal with multiverse is simply to avoid the ultimate question that troubles the entirty of all things from philosophy, to physics, to theology, to life experiences of all kinds; what is it that determines form?

As Johannes Keplar use put it in his seminal writing on the movement of Heavenly Bodies “why do things happen one way as opposed to another?”

In physics we call this the “first cause“. materialist physicists like Stephen Hawkins will have you believe that asking what “caused the first cause” is an incoherent question. Hawking has likened it to the question “what is north of north?“ He says this I meaningless and he is right - but we are not asking what is north of north- no we are asking “why should their be a north at all?” Why is it a north and not say simply a 3 directional world of only south, east and west? There is no way to answer this question except to point to the moment of paradox- that is the point of physical question can be measured. We can set up the real scenario and put it o0t the physicists to explain.

How can a cause happen uncaused and what determined the nature- shape- form of that first cause?

They answer:

Nothing.

So to the physicist the only thing that exists- that even can exist- is matter, that is physical objects- yet all thing owe their existence to nothing.

It is hard to argue with this interpretation because the speculation is observational and empirically based - yet it sounds like creationism. That is the problem for the materialists. If an entire universe can just pop out of nowhere why cant a person or a miracle? Quantum physics actually says miracles (or what you and I would consider one, such as a person jumping out of a plane and living) to be not only possible but probable - that is all events have a certain probability attached to them. This is not the universe that the dogmatic materialist wants to live in- it is not the truth that he wants to bow down to.

So they come up with “ideas” like multiverse. That is given enough universe every kind is not only possible, not only probable, but MUST exist. So therefore ours is just one of many and that is why it is as it is.

This however only defers the question of the origin of form to “probabilities”- that is, this is a stupid mind trick- because now we not only have one universe to deal with but we need to explain the origin of an infinite number of universe. The question them becomes why are there infinite universes and not simply one? This seems to go against Occam’s raze… don’t you think! This is actually the ultimate insult to Occam’s razor- not only does it fail to describe the mechanism whereby the universe can appear out of nothing- but it inflates the problem by infinite resources-

Well perhaps “infinite” as all evidence seem to point to a finite universe- that is if our universe is finite then you wouldn’t need an infinite amount just a huge number bigger than we an comprehend.

Also there is no possible evidence of multiple universes - so therefore this theory is not testable or empirically based- not to mention no falsifiable- so I guess in the words of the holly Darwinists

ITS NOT SCIENCE!

Happy holidays yall.

And happy holidays to you too, Frostie!  There's lots more Tard to be mined at UD today, but this holly Darwinist is now fully satiated and only wishes to sleep peacefully and dream of worlds stuck in space-time, unable to move.

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

‘Anything is a “real possibility” in the mind of one seeking to deny the obvious.’ – William J Murray

  
keiths



Posts: 2022
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 22 2008,01:03   

Quote
70

crater

12/21/2008

4:12 pm

Quote
“rib” is no longer with us.

Congratulations on your first banning, Clive. You are going to fit in nicely around here. I guess you are not a pollywog anymore.

Quote
79

Domoman

12/21/2008

7:30 pm

I just read Clive Hayden’s point about “Rib” getting the boot. Does anybody here think we’re being a little strict by banning so many people? I mean, maybe we aren’t, but I’d like to keep the discussions fair. I just don’t want this sweet blog to come across as a place that is intolerant of other’s views.

Heh.

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

  
Maya



Posts: 702
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 22 2008,05:53   

Quote (keiths @ Dec. 22 2008,01:03)
Quote


12/21/2008

7:30 pm

I just read Clive Hayden’s point about “Rib” getting the boot. Does anybody here think we’re being a little strict by banning so many people? I mean,maybe we aren’t, but I’d like to keep the discussions fair. I just don’t want this sweet blog to come across as a place that is intolerant of other’s views.

That is so delusional it's hard to read.  The words keep sliding around on the screen.

Domoman, if you can't see that UD is utterly intolerant of any criticism, see the list of Arguments UD Can Never Refute So Refuses To Discuss in the sidebar.

I see that gpuccio and kf are already defending Clive, without ever addressing any of rib's points.

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

Pages: (500) < ... 140 141 142 143 144 [145] 146 147 148 149 150 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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