RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (20) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: DI EN&V, Open comments and archive< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4474
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2011,10:32   

The Discovery Institute's "Evolution News and Views" blog is taking a step into uncharted territory. They are permitting comments. Moderated, of course.

Quote

In order to maintain a higher level of discourse, we will
not publish comments that use foul language, ad hominem attacks, threats, or are otherwise uncivil.


This thread should be used to cache copies of comments left at EN&V, so that we can calibrate just how much dissent the DI is willing to publish.

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

    
olegt



Posts: 1387
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2011,10:38   

Quote
Of course, you might want to discuss it with the scientists and scholars themselves. To that end, comments will be allowed on selected articles. All comments are held for moderation. The debate over evolution and intelligent design attracts all kinds, including those who detract from the conversation by their obnoxious behavior. In order to maintain a higher level of discourse, we will not publish comments that use foul language, ad hominem attacks, threats, or are otherwise uncivil.


Emphasis in the original.

Having looked through the top 5 articles, I have not found one with comments allowed. We shall see.

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

  
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2011,10:45   

(reads)

(breaks out into sarcastic sniggering)

If I had an irony meter, it might have hit elevenses on that one.  Can these yoiks possibly manage to avoid an own-goal with this stuff?  Or are the deafened by the sound of so many points whizzing over their heads?


The MadPanda, FCD

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3285
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2011,10:49   

uncivil = questions

ad hominim = asking for evidence of assertions

foul language = saying something is illogical or a strawman

threats = posting as anything but a crebot

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

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

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2011,09:44   

The simple fact of Kris being here attacking AtBC about its horrible moderation policy and not being moderated for doing so is ample evidence that his arguments are flawed.

And he's been offered a thread of his own, where he could go and discuss in a civilized way.

1 post from him there so far...

Kris; as long as you don't actually spam (look at Mabuse for a "how not to do it" chart), you won't be moderated. Restricted to the BW for a while if you start being really insulting, at worst.

But no one will ever silence you here for your opinions. Hell, I've had a few harsh disagreements with some folks here, and was never, ever silenced.

or Expelled©...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4474
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2011,09:47   

I've split out the concern trolling to its own thread. Please try to keep this topical to the DI EN&V comment experiment.

The "split" function apparently doesn't actually move comments, it copies them. So I'll be deleting from here till the move operation is finished.

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

    
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2011,09:49   

Moved to appropriate thread

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2011,09:51   

Quote
Unless the question is one of identifying European wildlife


Are you referring to swallows, here?

:)

And Wes: yes, good idea, thanks.

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
olegt



Posts: 1387
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2011,09:55   

[Squashing the pagination bug.]

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

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2011,10:01   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 21 2011,04:51)
 
Quote
Unless the question is one of identifying European wildlife


Are you referring to swallows, here?

:)

And Wes: yes, good idea, thanks.


No, missed that one. It was Lampyris noctiluca!

ETA Oops Sorry Wesley. Feel free to move to correct thread.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4474
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 26 2011,00:50   

Casey Luskin doesn't like it that the Elsberry and Shallit 2003 essay got edited and published in Synthese. Casey says it is "extremely out-of-date". Casey has evidence! Follow his link to a list of "peer-reviewed papers [published] in recent years", Casey says!

I'd like to leave a comment for Casey. But EN&V hasn't seen fit to open comments on Casey's rant.

Here's an interesting fact: every single one of the papers at the link Casey gave was published after we submitted our essay to Synthese. Ooops. Will Casey admit error in claiming that we were "out-of-date"?

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

    
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 26 2011,00:54   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 26 2011,00:50)
Casey Luskin doesn't like it that the Elsberry and Shallit 2003 essay got edited and published in Synthese. Casey says it is "extremely out-of-date". Casey has evidence! Follow his link to a list of "peer-reviewed papers [published] in recent years", Casey says!

I'd like to leave a comment for Casey. But EN&V hasn't seen fit to open comments on Casey's rant.

Here's an interesting fact: every single one of the papers at the link Casey gave was published after we submitted our essay to Synthese. Ooops. Will Casey admit error in claiming that we were "out-of-date"?

No?  Or is this a trick question?

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4474
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2011,23:29   

At this point, just finding a thread at EN&V with open comments will have to count for something. It looks like nobody wants to go first.

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

    
sparc



Posts: 1692
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2011,00:32   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 28 2011,23:29)
At this point, just finding a thread at EN&V with open comments will have to count for something. It looks like nobody wants to go first.

You can comment on the the post on Flannery's book on Wallace (currently 16 comments, two by Luskin, another two by O'Leary). Comments are moderated. Other threads including the one on Synthese still don't allow comments.

ETA ENV's comment policy:
Quote
Comment Policy

All comments are held for moderation. The debate over evolution and intelligent design attracts all kinds, including those who detract from the conversation by their obnoxious behavior. In order to maintain a higher level of discourse, we will not publish comments that use foul language, ad hominem attacks, threats, or are otherwise uncivil.


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

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2011,04:29   

Quote (sparc @ Jan. 29 2011,01:32)
You can comment on the the post on Flannery's book on Wallace (currently 16 comments, two by Luskin, another two by O'Leary). Comments are moderated. Other threads including the one on Synthese still don't allow comments.

ETA ENV's comment policy:    
Quote
Comment Policy

All comments are held for moderation. The debate over evolution and intelligent design attracts all kinds, including those who detract from the conversation by their obnoxious behavior. In order to maintain a higher level of discourse, we will not publish comments that use foul language, ad hominem attacks, threats, or are otherwise uncivil.

I have posted the following. Let's see if it appears:
 
Quote
"It all sounds impressive until Pinker tries to actually make a case for any of this. The narrative quickly degenerates into a trivial recounting of what humans currently do and then into a collection of speculative scenarios about how certain primordial hominids "might have" done this or "perhaps" did that."

Wallace's claim too may be characterized as a recounting of what humans currently do coupled with the assertion that these capabilities cannot have arisen by gradations. The argument for this assertion inheres in characterizations of these activities, e.g. their level of abstraction, and the follow-on claim that lesser forms of such capabilities cannot have been useful to our hominid ancestors, and therefore cannot have arisen step-wise. This is a conceptual argument, not an empirical one - which is why it is characterized as a "paradox."  

When a conceptual claim is made, a conceptual response may be sufficient to dispute that claim. Wallace - and now ID proponents - argue not that these things did not happen (broadly an empirical claim), but that they cannot have happened  - that to assert otherwise is to invoke a paradox (a conceptual claim). To refute an argument of this kind all one need only show that such events can have happened - that the claim is not in fact paradoxical. That is the level of Pinker's argument (as you summarize it here). Qualifiers such as "may have been," "may serve as," "perhaps," "may connect" are appropriate when mounting a conceptual response to a conceptual claim.  

That response alone does not amount to science (nor is Wallace's claim science), nor does it follow from the argument that events can have happened that they did indeed happen. The science lies in the very hard work of formulating hypotheses regarding human cognitive evolution that are testable - a difficult proposition given that the hypothesized cognitive attainments occurred tens of thousands to millions of years in the past, and by their very nature can have left no physical traces other than cultural artifacts. The most interesting work in this field, which is far from new, draws not just upon characterizations of the skills in question but also upon predictions arising from a "triangulation" between findings in cognitive science, primatology, and human developmental psychology (ie. the unfolding of cognitive abilities in individual children). Perhaps we can never attain a high level of confidence regarding particular hypotheses. But a conceptual response alone can refute the bare conceptual claim that such hypotheses cannot be correct.


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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4361
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2011,08:13   

RB:  My Spidey Sense says your comment will not see the light of day at EN & V:  

Quote
we will not publish comments that use foul language, ad hominem attacks, threats, or are otherwise uncivil.


Your comment is intelligent, to the point, makes sense, and therefore is a threat to ID...

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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2011,16:35   

My comment has appeared. I'm not sure when, as I was looking for it at the end of the comment list until I noticed that the most recent comments appear just under the OP.

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2011,16:53   

Bwahaha!!!

Egnor chimes in:

Quote
By the way, this comment section is great! I'm sure that it's labor intensive to filter out the inevitable Darwinist venom, but for people interested in civil discussion it's wonderful.


I didn't take the worst of his comment, don't want to break the internet...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
sledgehammer



Posts: 531
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2011,18:13   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 29 2011,14:53)
Bwahaha!!!

Egnor chimes in:

   
Quote
By the way, this comment section is great! I'm sure that it's labor intensive to filter out the inevitable Darwinist venom, but for people interested in civil discussion it's wonderful.


I didn't take the worst of his comment, don't want to break the internet...

Of course this comment by Egnor follows his venom-laced rant on how the pejorative use of "Darwinist" is justified because it pisses off the atheistic biologists.
 I don't suppose "IDiot" would be likewise justified?

--------------
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

  
Sol3a1



Posts: 110
Joined: July 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2011,07:29   

Why is it the more I read of the tactics and personal of the DI the more I want to punch something?

Oh yes, really, really hard.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2011,09:08   

Quote (sledgehammer @ Jan. 29 2011,18:13)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 29 2011,14:53)
Bwahaha!!!

Egnor chimes in:

   
Quote
By the way, this comment section is great! I'm sure that it's labor intensive to filter out the inevitable Darwinist venom, but for people interested in civil discussion it's wonderful.


I didn't take the worst of his comment, don't want to break the internet...

Of course this comment by Egnor follows his venom-laced rant on how the pejorative use of "Darwinist" is justified because it pisses off the atheistic biologists.
 I don't suppose "IDiot" would be likewise justified?

From their comment policy
Quote

In order to maintain a higher level of discourse, we will
not publish comments that use foul language, ad hominem attacks, threats, or are otherwise uncivil.


I guess the egnoramus comments are considered civil, and not ad hominem. But I imagine that if someone opined that ID proponentsist comments contained "venom", such a comment would never be allowed.

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

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2011,10:46   

Egnor was the guy that said the brain was like a cell phone and God was ATT, or something along those lines.

He flounced away screaming like a little girl about "ad hominem, uncivil, viewpoint discrimination" when it was pointed out that his analogy was STUPID.

I mean, not even fucking STUPID, just regular STUPID.  What a Nancy.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4048
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2011,16:48   

Quote
But I imagine that if someone opined that ID proponentsist comments contained "venom", such a comment would never be allowed.

What if the venom is merely evolved saliva?

Henry

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2011,17:56   

The time has come to examine EN&V's initial foray into the wilds of open comments.

Following a flurry of pro-ID regulars discussing a point irrelevant to the OP, I posted a comment. Flannery responded by counting the ways in which my argument miscarried (4). I responded...

And that's it. Flannery didn't seem to have much stomach for defending his thesis once challenged, never responded further, and now the thread is closed.

And regretted, one expects, as I don't see any other threads in which comments are open.

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2011,18:57   

Second comment, cached:
Quote
Reciprocating Bill | January 30, 2011 7:11 PM
Flannery -

Thank you for your response. I'll address your points in turn.

"Pinker is invoking the “cognitive niche” as an explanatory mechanism for the human mind, and as such it is surely reasonable to expect some empirical evidence on its behalf"

I agree. As I stated below, "That response alone does not amount to science (nor is Wallace's claim science), nor does it follow from the argument that events can have happened that they did indeed happen. The science lies in the very hard work of formulating hypotheses regarding human cognitive evolution that are testable."

As I also stated below, some extremely interesting work is being done on these very difficult questions, for example at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, and by researchers such as Tomasello, Call, Povinelli, Hare, and many others. Hard won specific, testable hypotheses regarding the nature and evolution of primate theory of mind (a pillar in the foundation of human cognition) are being addressed through thoroughly experimental means (see Brian Hare's elegant work on the distribution among primates of an understanding that one's conspecifics 'see' and act upon what they have seen). The results have unmistakeable importance for the evolution of social-cognitive intelligence and the foundations of many of the human capabilities we both admire. Further, the cross-fertilized work in developmental psychology stimulated by this perspective has yielded significant, unexpected discoveries regarding the unfolding of human cognition in infants, empirical findings that have unmistakable relevance to our understanding of human cognitive evolution. Whether or not you find that work "convincing," a large community of primatologists, developmental psychologists and cognitive scientists find it a fertile, productive and progressive area of empirical research, a framework that guides research in a way that has yielded important discoveries and posed additional researchable questions. I find it wholly inaccurate to characterize this work as "hand waving and hedges."
Any reader who wishes may begin to judge for themselves by visiting

http://www.eva.mpg.de/english/index.htm

"Wallace never argued that humans couldn’t acquire higher mental attributes by means of natural selection, he simply said that such an argument lacked evidence"

At the outset you quote, approvingly I gather, Wallace as characterizing the distance between human beings and other species as "unbridgeable," and that "nothing in evolution can account for the soul of man" (my emphasis). That statement precisely is a claim that human beings can't have acquired higher mental attributes by means of evolutionary mechanisms, and not an assertion regarding the evidence.

"Wallace pointed out that the uniquely human attributes of abstract reasoning, humor, mathematical ability, musical aptitude, artistic talent, etc. are inexplicable in terms of ordinary survival needs."

Of course, this again is a wholly conceptual claim, one that assumes it's conclusion. And, once again, it is a claim that "humans couldn’t acquire higher mental attributes by means of natural selection," a argument you say Wallace never made.

Moreover, these abilities are at bottom elaborations of the powerful human capacity for representation, both as displayed by individuals and as deployed through the shared "distributed cognition" that characterizes our way of making a living. The capacious representational abilities that characterize human cognition have everything to do with the "survival needs" associated with the way human beings have made their living throughout their history. To say otherwise is tantamount to asserting that flight can't have evolved in birds because flight has nothing to do with basic survival needs.

That said, all of these skills have been hugely elaborated by means of cultural rather than biological evolution over the past several tens of thousands of years, and therefore do have many elaborate characteristics that are traceable to processes other than natural selection.

"The observational and experiential power of Wallace’s position is underestimated."

Ultimately, again, the science lies in the very hard work of generating testable hypotheses concerning the origins of these abilities and devising empirical research (both experimental and field) capable of answering the questions posed. It is the experimental power of Wallace's ideas - or rather the lack of same - that should concern its advocates.


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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2011,20:25   

David Klinghoffer at EN&V sustains a higher level of discourse in a post on Richard Dawkins entitled, Richard Dawkins, Worthless Bully. Some excerpts:

"What's really contemptible about Dawkins's article…"

"Nothing could be more shoddy and dishonest…"

"Dawkins showed his own blind cowardice in his most recent book…"

"The man is just a pathetic and worthless bully, nothing more."

Then we have the comment policy:
     
Quote
... In order to maintain a higher level of discourse, we will not publish comments that use foul language, ad hominem attacks, threats, or are otherwise uncivil.

My emphasis.

Doesn't apply to OPs, or to Klinghoffer, apparently.

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Quack



Posts: 1751
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2011,16:18   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 02 2011,17:56)
The time has come to examine EN&V's initial foray into the wilds of open comments.

Following a flurry of pro-ID regulars discussing a point irrelevant to the OP, I posted a comment. Flannery responded by counting the ways in which my argument miscarried (4). I responded...

And that's it. Flannery didn't seem to have much stomach for defending his thesis once challenged, never responded further, and now the thread is closed.

And regretted, one expects, as I don't see any other threads in which comments are open.

Ah, the wonderful world of facts! Speaks louder than the most vociferous creationist.

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

  
Ptaylor



Posts: 883
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2011,18:07   

Hmm... Casey Luskin has put a new post up criticising the DI's latest favourite bogeyman, Stephen Hawking. (He complains about Hawking using fallacious logic - oh the ironing.) It ends with a question...
   
Quote
What else would you expect from the guy that said "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing"?

...but, oddly, Casey has not enabled comments to allow for any answers. Didn't he once say the no comments policy was not his idea? What to make of this?

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

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4048
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2011,22:28   

Quote
...but, oddly, Casey has not enabled comments to allow for any answers. Didn't he once say the no comments policy was not his idea? What to make of this?

No comment!!111!!eleven!!

  
paragwinn



Posts: 377
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2011,08:51   

I forgot to crosspost a comment I submitted to Nelson's OD II post which has been in moderation going on 24 hours now. (I guess nobody scans submissions on the weekends). I asked why Nelson decided to use "natural selection" as shorthand for the theory of [neo-Darwinian] evolution. I pointed out that such use makes it difficult to determine whether each of his arguments is referring to the process of NS or to the theory of evolution as a whole. I asked for clarification. Maybe I should have added "please with sugar on top"

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

  
Sealawr



Posts: 54
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2011,18:14   

Anybody hear anything about this?

Que pasa?

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011....21.html

--------------
DS: "The explantory filter is as robust as the data that is used with it."
David Klinghoffer: ""I'm an IDiot"

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4474
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2011,22:13   

Casey invokes my name:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011....61.html

I was pleased that AML was responsive to David's letter. I have been less pleased that AML chose to issue an apology over a manuscript that is substantially a re-publication of stuff Sewell has done elsewhere. It's an issue that Casey (wisely) fails to take notice of, since it is hard to argue that re-publication is a good thing and the fact that Sewell had already published his stuff elsewhere would make it tougher to push the "censoring Darwinists" line like he does.

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4474
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2011,22:15   

Oh, yeah, and comments are not open on Casey's post. What's the matter, Casey?

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

    
olegt



Posts: 1387
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2011,22:26   

After some huffing and puffing, Casey gets to the point of contention:

Quote
Dr. Sewell is fully aware of objections made to the classical version of the second law of thermodynamics argument, and that's why he is not offering the classical (unsophisticated) version of the argument. In particular, Sewell accepts as true the observation that entropy/disorder can decrease when energy is input from outside the system is true--but he argues that this fact is only relevant when the what is being input tends to create the type of order we're seeking to increase.

In the peer-reviewed article he wrote for Applied Mathematics Letters, Sewell argued that the basic principles underlying the second law of thermodynamics, when properly applied, might be a bar to Darwinian evolution after all. I'll further discuss Sewell's thesis in a second article later this week.


I look forward to the next installment. Casey does physics. This should be fun.

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

  
Seversky



Posts: 413
Joined: June 2010

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2011,22:31   

The DI owes me a new irony meter for allowing Luskin to write

Quote
I already know that Sewell would love to have this debate in the journals. But having a real scientific debate is the last thing the Darwin lobby wants.


in an article for which comments are disabled.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4474
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2011,22:46   

Casey Luskin, expert on everything:

 
Quote

There's an old unsophisticated argument against Darwinian evolution that goes something like this: The second law of thermodynamics holds that entropy/disorder always decreases. Darwinian evolution holds that entropy/disorder has increased. Therefore, Darwinian evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.


Emphasis added.

Say what you will about Duane Gish, but at least Gish knew which way the 2LoT went.

But Casey inadvertently said something correct, which I highlighted in italics. Evolution means that entropy increases, as Brooks and Wiley discussed in their book, "Evolution As Entropy".

Casey does get the direction right in the next paragraph.

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

    
sparc



Posts: 1692
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2011,23:36   

The UTEP handbook of operating procedures doesn't list re-publications as scientific misconduct. However, plagiarism, though not self-plagiarism, is listed.

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

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4474
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2011,06:01   

The journal's listed standards puts self-plagiarism into a maybe-it-is, maybe-it-isn't light. If Sewell informed them up front that, oh, yeah, this manuscript is substantially the same thing that I published before, then it is up to editorial discretion as to whether they accept it on those terms. If he didn't inform them of that fact, though, that would be against the journal's policy.

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

    
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2011,06:48   

My response:

http://dvunkannon.blogspot.com/2011....ie.html

--------------
I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
I’m not an evolutionist, I’m a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 1968
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2011,08:56   

Has anyone heard from the journal about this?

Ironic that Casey is complaining that the news of the retraction was broken by people her before the author was notified, if EN&V is now breaking this news before giving the journal a chance to put out its public statement.

I've tweeted Ivan Oransky of Retraction Watch (and Reuters), hopefully he'll follow up.

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

   
Sealawr



Posts: 54
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2011,11:45   

Quote (Bob O'H @ June 08 2011,08:56)
Has anyone heard from the journal about this?

Ironic that Casey is complaining that the news of the retraction was broken by people her before the author was notified, if EN&V is now breaking this news before giving the journal a chance to put out its public statement.

I've tweeted Ivan Oransky of Retraction Watch (and Reuters), hopefully he'll follow up.

I stumbled across this yesterday when my Google Alert for "Intelligent Design" activated.

There was no other mention of this on the internet and the publication itself seems silent.  Of course, I believe nothing from EN&V without independent verification from knowledgable and honest sources, but I've heard nothing so far.

I'm wondering if there had been a "nuisance settlement" and the DI let confidential terms out of the bag.  Often such settlements are limited to a public announcement of "Neither side admits libaility, we did nothing wrong and we won't do it again."

It won't be the first time that the DI suffered a self inflicted gunshot wound, requiring a podiatrist's attention, in legal proceedings.

Still, it should be news that a journal rescinding an article would be sued and then pay $10,000 to the aggrieved author.  There are significant First Amendment issues at play that should have attracted attention.

--------------
DS: "The explantory filter is as robust as the data that is used with it."
David Klinghoffer: ""I'm an IDiot"

  
olegt



Posts: 1387
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2011,11:52   

Quote (Sealawr @ June 08 2011,11:45)
It won't be the first time that the DI suffered a self inflicted gunshot wound, requiring a podiatrist's attention, in legal proceedings.

Still, it should be news that a journal rescinding an article would be sued and then pay $10,000 to the aggrieved author.  There are significant First Amendment issues at play that should have attracted attention.

Once again, the $10k did not go to Sewell. The journal paid his attorney's fees. Sewell got nothing.

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

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2011,12:10   

Quote (olegt @ June 08 2011,11:52)
Quote (Sealawr @ June 08 2011,11:45)
It won't be the first time that the DI suffered a self inflicted gunshot wound, requiring a podiatrist's attention, in legal proceedings.

Still, it should be news that a journal rescinding an article would be sued and then pay $10,000 to the aggrieved author.  There are significant First Amendment issues at play that should have attracted attention.

Once again, the $10k did not go to Sewell. The journal paid his attorney's fees. Sewell got nothing.

Granville got something better than money.  He got Expelled! That kinda street cred cannot be underestimated.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4361
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2011,13:02   

Quote (carlsonjok @ June 08 2011,12:10)
Quote (olegt @ June 08 2011,11:52)
 
Quote (Sealawr @ June 08 2011,11:45)
It won't be the first time that the DI suffered a self inflicted gunshot wound, requiring a podiatrist's attention, in legal proceedings.

Still, it should be news that a journal rescinding an article would be sued and then pay $10,000 to the aggrieved author.  There are significant First Amendment issues at play that should have attracted attention.

Once again, the $10k did not go to Sewell. The journal paid his attorney's fees. Sewell got nothing.

Granville got something better than money.  He got Expelled! That kinda street cred cannot be underestimated.

Quote
Granville got something better than money.  He got Expelled! That kinda street cred cannot be underestimated.


I think you are right.  He should be in line for a lot of extra book / dvd sales, bad cookies and worse lemonade in church basements all over the USA.

And since ID is All About The Science, this could even move him up on the Rapture Scale!



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

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2011,18:21   

I'm a stupid son-of-a-bitch for missing a chance to snag a beautiful line written by that moron of morons, John West, on the DI site.

In his blather about Granville, West wrote something to the effect that "Smithsonian journal editor Richard Sternberg lost his job because he published Meyer's paper."  I'm quoting what I remember not the actual text which I should have snagged, but didn't because I'm a StUpiD SoB!

I'm sure that's the way the DI views Sternberg but it was so wrong in all aspects that I spit my coffee OVER my screen.

It's been changed, now, and the original is probably lost to history.  It was sweet while it lasted.

  
olegt



Posts: 1387
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2011,10:40   

As promised, Casey takes up the defense of Sewell's argument from the second law. Behold! Digging Into Granville Sewell's Peer-Reviewed Paper Challenging Darwinian Evolution.

     
Quote
As I noted in a previous article, many have argued that the second law of thermodynamics is not a valid argument against Darwinian evolution since the law holds that order can increase in an open system, and the earth and its biosphere do not comprise a closed system.  While that is correct, Granville Sewell, author of In the Beginning: And Other Essays on Intelligent Design, argues there is more to the story.  Sewell's article written for Applied Mathematics Letters argues that the second law of thermodynamics may be a problem for Darwinian evolution after all.


Casey makes some statements distancing himself from the second-law argument:

     
Quote
Now I am not personally convinced that the second law of thermodynamics is the right way to challenge neo-Darwinian evolution, and I prefer Dembski's formulation.  But I think that Sewell's article makes interesting points that contribute to this discussion, and it certainly did not deserve to be withdrawn just because some Darwin lobbyists didn't like its conclusion.


He defends Sewell nonetheless. (Why would a tenured professor of applied math need defending by a lawyer whose knowledge of physics ended with Physics 102?) Anyway, Casey does not advance any new arguments, just quotes a few passages from Sewell's manuscript. Here is the gist of it (emphasis mine):

     
Quote
Sewell observes that materialists claim that a reduction in entropy in a part of the universe can occur if it is compensated by an increase in another part. As he quotes Peter Urone: "it is always possible for the entropy of one part of the universe to decrease, provided the total change in entropy of the universe increases." Sewell then argues that this "compensation" rejoinder fails:
     
Quote

Of course the whole idea of compensation, whether by distant or nearby events, makes no sense logically: an extremely improbable event is not rendered less improbable simply by the occurrence of "compensating" events elsewhere. According to this reasoning, the second law does not prevent scrap metal from reorganizing itself into a computer in one room, as long as two computers in the next room are rusting into scrap metal--and the door is open.



This is totally, completely wrong. It shows that Sewell does not understand thermodynamics. (Neither does Luskin, but that is hardly a surprise.)

Here is a simple counter example. Pour a glass of water and drop a cube of ice into it. The water will get colder. The motion of water molecules will slow down and its entropy will decrease. We can even calculate by how much. Suppose the temperature of water drops by 1 degree centigrade. 200 g of water gives off about Q = 0.8 joules of heat. That flow of heat takes away entropy S_w = -Q/T_w, where T_w is the absolute temperature of water. Let's say it is 27 degrees centigrade, or 300 K. Let's also convert the entropy to bits by dividing it by the Boltzmann constant k and the natural logarithm of 2:

S_w = -Q/(kT ln(2)) = -2.9 x 10^20 bits.

This is an enormously large decrease in entropy. The probability of that happening spontaneously is 2 to the power S_w, roughly one in 10^(88 000 000 000 000 000 000). This is very, very improbable. What gives?

Of course, the decrease in the entropy of water is more than compensated by an increase in the entropy of ice. Ice receives the same amount of heat but does so at a lower temperature T_i, 0 centigrade, or 273 K. Its entropy increase is S_i = +Q/T_i = 3.2 x 10^20 bits.

The total entropy change,

S_w + S_i = Q(1/T_i - 1/T_w) = 3 x 10^19 bits,

is positive because ice is colder than water, T_i < T_w.

So in this example, water goes into an incredibly less probable state as a result of cooling. That probability decrease is compensated, and then some, by the heating of ice. In fact, the full system (water + ice) ends up in a much more probable state as a result of the overcompensation.

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

  
olegt



Posts: 1387
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2011,11:03   

Here is Sewell's silly paragraph again:
Quote
Of course the whole idea of compensation, whether by distant or nearby events, makes no sense logically: an extremely improbable event is not rendered less improbable simply by the occurrence of "compensating" events elsewhere.


The premise is wrong. An extremely improbable event can be made less improbable if a compensating event happens nearby. The cooling of water by ice is an everyday example.

Quote
According to this reasoning, the second law does not prevent scrap metal from reorganizing itself into a computer in one room, as long as two computers in the next room are rusting into scrap metal--and the door is open.


Of course. The second law of thermodynamics does NOT prevent scrap metal from reorganizing itself into a computer in one room, period. The second law of thermodynamics has nothing to say on the subject. It deals with a total amount of entropy in a system, of which the configurational entropy of a computer is a minuscule part.

Garbage in, garbage out.

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4048
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2011,11:07   

But that explanation of the physics doesn't really have anything to do with evolution. Evolution is after all a side effect of the reproductive process, which is observed, so T D can't prevent evolution without preventing reproduction, which even they know it doesn't do.

Henry

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2011,11:21   

Quote (olegt @ June 09 2011,11:03)

Quote
Quote
According to this reasoning, the second law does not prevent scrap metal from reorganizing itself into a computer in one room, as long as two computers in the next room are rusting into scrap metal--and the door is open.


Of course. The second law of thermodynamics does NOT prevent scrap metal from reorganizing itself into a computer in one room, period. The second law of thermodynamics has nothing to say on the subject. It deals with a total amount of entropy in a system, of which the configurational entropy of a computer is a minuscule part.

Garbage in, garbage out.


It seems to me that underlying Sewell's (and so many creationist 2LoT) argument is an equivocation of the microscopic state of molecular distribution (disorder) in a give system and the macroscopic properties associated with the system. In effect, he's trying to imply that disorder as used to describe energy and molecular distribution is the same thing as disorder of a broken vase.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3553
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2011,12:31   

Quote
It seems to me that underlying Sewell's (and so many creationist 2LoT) argument is an equivocation ...


It seems to me that all of neoPaleyism is equivocation. It's all they have.

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

Pat Robertson

  
Henry J



Posts: 4048
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2011,13:24   

So they aren't beyond the Paley?

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1237
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2011,13:29   

Quote (Henry J @ June 09 2011,13:24)
So they aren't beyond the Paley?

That is a nice play on words - succinct and truer than any fact would ever be.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2011,16:39   

http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://www.discovery.org/

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

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

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2011,08:25   

Quote (midwifetoad @ June 09 2011,12:31)

Quote
Quote
It seems to me that underlying Sewell's (and so many creationist 2LoT) argument is an equivocation ...


It seems to me that all of neoPaleyism is equivocation. It's all they have.


Good point.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
sparc



Posts: 1692
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2011,15:41   

A visualization of Sewell's self-plagiarism generated with
WCopyfind.
Identities are displayed in red

left = American spectator
right = Applied Mathematics letter

left = Mathematical Intelligencer
right = American Spectator

left = Mathematical Intelligencer
right = Applied Mathematics letter



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

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2011,16:02   

Sparc, I think you have way too much time on your hands...

Still, delicious!

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2011,18:05   

Have you noticed on the EN&V site since they opened up comments (restrictedly) that  

1.  There are few comments.
2.  What comments there are sounds like UD or Joe G's site or Ham's AIG.

No real commentary, just cheerleading from the socks.

Pathetic level of detail if you ask me.

  
sparc



Posts: 1692
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 10 2011,22:59   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ June 10 2011,16:02)
Sparc, I think you have way too much time on your hands...

Still, delicious!

Actually, I was trying the program anyway becasue I am tired of getting protocols with only minor changes or verbatim quotes from Wikipedia from our students again and again. In the future I will check their writings before reading. In contrast to Dr. Sewell students caught red-handed will have to face consequences, though.

ETA pm me if you need the same with a higher resolution or pdfs.

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

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2011,10:00   

Quote (Doc Bill @ June 10 2011,19:05)
Have you noticed on the EN&V site since they opened up comments (restrictedly) that  

1.  There are few comments.
2.  What comments there are sounds like UD or Joe G's site or Ham's AIG.

No real commentary, just cheerleading from the socks.

Pathetic level of detail if you ask me.

I see ~five or six threads that allow comments, out of the hundreds posted since January.

ENV, if so timid, why bother at all?

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1237
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2011,10:19   

Casey Luskin, science kibbutzer:

Quote
Despite the high levels of skepticism of claims of arsenophilic bacteria, Nature reports that few scientists have taken the initiative to attempt to experimentally reproduce the claims made in the original paper:

   However, most labs seem too busy to spend time replicating work that they feel is fundamentally flawed and is not likely to be published in high-impact journals. So principal investigators are reluctant to spend their resources, and their students' time, replicating the work. "If you extended the results to show there is no detectable arsenic, where could you publish that?" asks Simon Silver of the University of Illinois at Chicago, who critiqued the work in FEMS Microbiology Letters in January and on 24 May at the annual meeting of the American Society for Microbiology in New Orleans. "How could the young person who was asked to do that work ever get a job?" Refuting another scientist's work also takes time that scientists could be spending on their own research. For instance, Helmann says he is installing a highly sensitive mass spectrometer that can measure trace amounts of elements. But, he says, "I've got my own science to do."

Such admissions do not bode well for those who blindly believe in the perfectly objective, self-correcting nature of science. Indeed, in this case, it seems safe to experimentally critique these claims since so many respected scientists have already expressed vocal skepticism. Yet experiments are apparently not yet forthcoming.


Actually it bodes very well for science.  Nobody is stopping Wolfe-Simon from further supporting their argument with more experiments (that is how you answer arguments, not with a verbal nuh-uh!).  What this means is that the original paper was, how should I put it, lame.

Quote

What about areas of science where scientists are not able to express their dissent freely?


Translation: fields where we IDiots can't get unsupported crap published very easily.  Help, help, we're being expelled!

Quote
For example, who would take time to experimentally critique claims that are central to neo-Darwinian theory, especially if doing so could be dangerous to one's career?


Someone who wants to make a big splash, like Wolfe-Simon?  Jeez, an example on hand, yet Luskin ignores it with his IDiotic rhetorical question.

Quote
One hopes that science will become more self-correcting when it comes to claims made in support of materialism.


Actually, one hopes that Wolfe-Simon either backs up her claim, or admits the obvious - she is inadequate to the task.  Like IDiots have already proven to be over how many years now?

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2011,18:16   

Yea, DI, more Hitler!

My son:  Who's Hitler?

  
noncarborundum



Posts: 320
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2011,18:23   

Quote (Doc Bill @ June 13 2011,18:16)
Yea, DI, more Hitler!

My son:  Who's Hitler?

You say that like it's a good thing.  It's not, you know, unless he's very young.

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

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2011,18:48   

Well, you know, my son knows "Hitler" as an historical figure, although vaguely, but I know of Hitler from all the b/w war movies I saw as a child.

The DI is appealing to me and my parents, dead or shortly dead, as a "bad thing."  Boomers like me remember the Hitler influence although we didn't experience it first hand.  The Hitler hook grows less and less important with each generation.

The likelihood that my son will contribute to the DI because of "Hitler" is zero.  Hitler who?

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2110
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2011,20:43   

I'm still flabbergasted when I meet someone who's never heard of The Dark Side of the Moon, but that's getting more and more common, too.

edit slash & typo

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4048
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2011,21:57   

Quote
My son:??Who's Hitler?

He hasn't seen Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade? ;)

Henry

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1237
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2011,22:07   

Tell your son that he was a Darwinist.  

Be prepared for the next question: What is a Darwinist?

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
noncarborundum



Posts: 320
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2011,22:12   

Quote (Doc Bill @ June 13 2011,18:48)
The Hitler hook grows less and less important with each generation.

Well, you couldn't prove it by my daughter.  She's 15, and she's fascinated by the question of why people do evil things, to the point where she's taking an elective next year in school called "Facing History and Ourselves", one of the main topics of which is the Holocaust.  I remember discussing Hitler and the Holocaust with her when she was maybe 8 or 9, and she read "The Boy in the Striped Pajamas" in (I think) 6th grade.  Hitler really does remain relevant.

(And not just because Nazis make great action movie heavies.)

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

  
sparc



Posts: 1692
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 13 2011,23:34   

According to retraction watch Applied Mathematics Letters has published an apology for retracting Granville Sewell's article "A second look at the second law".
Judge yourself if Elsevier's move is in accordance with their ethical guidelines for author's.

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

   
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 14 2011,16:01   

For those of you willing to sit through to the end of
http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/articles/secondlaw.htm

you can see a screen shot of Dr Rodin's letter to Dr Sewell, informing him of the decision to rescind the paper. That last sentence says it all.

--------------
I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
I’m not an evolutionist, I’m a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1237
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 14 2011,16:12   

Quote (dvunkannon @ June 14 2011,16:01)
For those of you willing to sit through to the end of
http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/articles/secondlaw.htm

you can see a screen shot of Dr Rodin's letter to Dr Sewell, informing him of the decision to rescind the paper. That last sentence says it all.

He sounds like George W. Bush!

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
csadams



Posts: 124
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2011,16:44   

Oh, see.

Oh, see Casey.

Funny, funny Casey.

See funny Casey run.

Run, Casey, run.

See Casey running away from the evidence.

--------------
Stand Up For REAL Science!

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 17 2011,07:54   

Looks like Casey and Steve Matheson are mixing it up on the same thread.

Hey, DI, is Luskin the Gerbil the best you have to explain "intelligent design" creationism?  I hope the little boy gets paid by the word!

Luskin at bat.

  
Amadan



Posts: 1244
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 17 2011,19:06   

Casey preaches to the converted:



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

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4361
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 17 2011,20:31   

Quote (Amadan @ June 17 2011,19:06)
Casey preaches to the converted:


I think I'm afraid to ask how you obtained a photo of Casey in his Favorite Dress...

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

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2110
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 17 2011,23:32   

Quote (J-Dog @ June 17 2011,18:31)
Quote (Amadan @ June 17 2011,19:06)
Casey preaches to the converted:


I think I'm afraid to ask how you obtained a photo of Casey in his Favorite Dress...

`twas probably in the craigslist personals.

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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4474
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2011,07:33   

Quote (fnxtr @ June 17 2011,23:32)
Quote (J-Dog @ June 17 2011,18:31)
Quote (Amadan @ June 17 2011,19:06)
Casey preaches to the converted:


I think I'm afraid to ask how you obtained a photo of Casey in his Favorite Dress...

`twas probably in the craigslist personals.

Where's "chunkdz" when he could make himself useful?

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

    
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2011,11:15   

Continuing to poke Granville with a stick -

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=416514

--------------
I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
I’m not an evolutionist, I’m a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10094
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2011,11:18   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 18 2011,07:33)
Quote (fnxtr @ June 17 2011,23:32)
Quote (J-Dog @ June 17 2011,18:31)
 
Quote (Amadan @ June 17 2011,19:06)
Casey preaches to the converted:


I think I'm afraid to ask how you obtained a photo of Casey in his Favorite Dress...

`twas probably in the craigslist personals.

Where's "chunkdz" when he could make himself useful?

He's in the picture.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2110
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2011,20:11   

Quote (Richardthughes @ June 20 2011,09:18)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 18 2011,07:33)
Quote (fnxtr @ June 17 2011,23:32)
 
Quote (J-Dog @ June 17 2011,18:31)
 
Quote (Amadan @ June 17 2011,19:06)
Casey preaches to the converted:


I think I'm afraid to ask how you obtained a photo of Casey in his Favorite Dress...

`twas probably in the craigslist personals.

Where's "chunkdz" when he could make himself useful?

He's in the picture.

On the far right (of course), in blue.
This is like a fairy version of the cover of "Satanic Majesty's Request" or "Sgt. Pepper".

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

  
olegt



Posts: 1387
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2011,07:55   

Michael Egnor has rolled out a shiny new blog Egnorance. Srsly.

Quote
Welcome!

This is a new blog, but I'm not new to blogging.

I began blogging four years ago for Evolution News and Views, a blog associated with the Discovery Institute, an organization for which I have deep respect and gratitude. My primary interest has been in the scientific and cultural implications of Darwinism and in the impact of militant atheism on our culture. I engaged in blog debates with quite a few atheists, Darwinists, and materialists. My interlocutors were upset with my vigorous defense of the traditional inference to design in science and with my defense of Judeo-Christian culture, and they dubbed my views "Egnorance- the statistical combination of ignorance and arrogance".

My ignorance I freely admit; I have very much to learn. My arrogance I try to keep tame. And it may not really be arrogance; those at the vanguard of New Atheism deem arrogant anyone who unapologetically challenges their views.

This new blog gives me an opportunity to discuss issues that extend beyond that which is appropriate to Evolution News and Views.

Welcome.


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

  
Quack



Posts: 1751
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2011,08:36   

Quote (olegt @ June 21 2011,07:55)
Michael Egnor has rolled out a shiny new blog Egnorance. Srsly.

 
Quote
Welcome!

This is a new blog, but I'm not new to blogging.

I began blogging four years ago for Evolution News and Views, a blog associated with the Discovery Institute, an organization for which I have deep respect and gratitude. My primary interest has been in the scientific and cultural implications of Darwinism and in the impact of militant atheism on our culture. I engaged in blog debates with quite a few atheists, Darwinists, and materialists. My interlocutors were upset with my vigorous defense of the traditional inference to design in science and with my defense of Judeo-Christian culture, and they dubbed my views "Egnorance- the statistical combination of ignorance and arrogance".

My ignorance I freely admit; I have very much to learn. My arrogance I try to keep tame. And it may not really be arrogance; those at the vanguard of New Atheism deem arrogant anyone who unapologetically challenges their views.

This new blog gives me an opportunity to discuss issues that extend beyond that which is appropriate to Evolution News and Views.

Welcome.

The least they could do would be to understand that whatever questions they think may be raised because there is a scientific, well founded theory of evolution, it is completely irrelevant WRT what they think and claim are secondary effects of the existence of the theory.

That is, the question of whether evolution is true or not is a different question from questions about whatever influence the theory may have on people and society.

If the theory is true, maybe our approach should comprise some reorientation among the religiously overconfident people?

But the theory is obviously true, the belief that something did something somewhere sometimes (in addition to the obvious  effects of natural forces at play as we are able to show that they really are even today) , until now has not generated any evidence to support that faith.  

The fact that Egnor doesn't know or doesn't want to acknowledge that acceptance of the ToE does not equate with atheism reflects rather unfavourably on his integrity.

His religion is not everybody's religion, far from it. It just confirms what we already know, ID is religious creationism.

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

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1237
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2011,13:28   

Quote (olegt @ June 21 2011,07:55)
Michael Egnor has rolled out a shiny new blog Egnorance. Srsly.

   
Quote
Welcome!

This is a new blog, but I'm not new to blogging.

I began blogging four years ago for Evolution News and Views, a blog associated with the Discovery Institute, an organization for which I have deep respect and gratitude. My primary interest has been in the scientific and cultural implications of Darwinism and in the impact of militant atheism on our culture. I engaged in blog debates with quite a few atheists, Darwinists, and materialists. My interlocutors were upset with my vigorous defense of the traditional inference to design in science and with my defense of Judeo-Christian culture, and they dubbed my views "Egnorance- the statistical combination of ignorance and arrogance".

My ignorance I freely admit; I have very much to learn. My arrogance I try to keep tame. And it may not really be arrogance; those at the vanguard of New Atheism deem arrogant anyone who unapologetically challenges their views.

This new blog gives me an opportunity to discuss issues that extend beyond that which is appropriate to Evolution News and Views.

Welcome.

Let me guess:  Faux News talking points!

ETA: Checked and sure enough I was right!

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2011,18:12   

I checked out Egnor's site and he has nothing to say.

The guy's another opinionated moron of which the Blogosphere is full.

I do like the unimaginative title of his blog, though, Egnorance.  Geeze Louise, maybe Louis could start a business naming theocrat blogs.  Behe could be Weasel Words and Dembski could be Coward's Corner.  The Gerbil Tube for Luskin.  The mind boggles.

I'll wager 100 quatloos that Egnor doesn't get even a snarky comment in a year, and 200 quatloos that his site is moribund in 3 months.

Unless ... unless he starts blogging about food.  Who knows, he might corner the Blogosphere with tripe recipes.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2011,19:43   

Quote
I do like the unimaginative title of his blog, though, Egnorance.  Geeze Louise, maybe Louis could start a business naming theocrat blogs.


Thanks....wait.....is that actually a compliment?

Louis

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

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2011,22:13   

My kind of compliment goes like this:

"The flesh of your buttocks ripples nicely to the tip of my whip."

Like the French say, no grain no pain.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2011,10:04   

Quote (Doc Bill @ June 21 2011,23:13)
My kind of compliment goes like this:

"The flesh of your buttocks ripples nicely to the tip of my whip."

Like the French say, no grain no pain.

whoa that is seriously focked.  i dig it

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

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3553
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2011,09:50   

Jonathan M on OOL

Quote
Since information is a phenomenon uniformly associated with intelligent causes, it follows inductively that intelligent design constitutes the best -- most causally sufficient -- explanation for the information-content of the hereditary molecules DNA and RNA.


*Edited to complete the quote

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

Pat Robertson

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2110
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2011,09:55   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 17 2011,07:50)
Jonathan M on OOL

Quote
Since information is a phenomenon uniformly associated with intelligent causes, it follows inductively that intelligent design constitutes the best

Well, that settles it, then. Everybody go home.

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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3285
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2011,10:15   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 17 2011,09:50)
Jonathan M on OOL

 
Quote
Since information is a phenomenon uniformly associated with intelligent causes, it follows inductively that intelligent design constitutes the best -- most causally sufficient -- explanation for the information-content of the hereditary molecules DNA and RNA.


*Edited to complete the quote

Their information is uniformly associated with intelligent causes.

However, the rest of the world is perfectly capable of showing their intelligence to be somewhat less than that of termites (Hi Joe!).

It's truly amazing that these people can't even see that information does not equal meaning and that information can come from random events.

Morton's demon indeed.

I won't even bother trying to correct him.  The evidence is persuasive enough, ID proponents will never see it.

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

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

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 3553
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2011,10:30   

I would think it followed deductively rather than inductively.

1. Information is solely caused by intelligence.
2. A is information.
3. Therefore intelligence is the cause of A.

I think my wording is a bit clearer.

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

Pat Robertson

  
Henry J



Posts: 4048
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2011,10:35   

Information is data that has been collected by an intelligence.

The phenomena that is the subject of that data isn't affected by whether some intelligence has collected information about it.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10094
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2011,10:37   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 17 2011,10:30)
I would think it followed deductively rather than inductively.

1. Information is solely caused by intelligence.
2. A is information.
3. Therefore intelligence is the cause of A.

I think my wording is a bit clearer.

Problem of induction and all that.

1. Information is solely caused by intelligence. (In our very limited experience). And for the level of information required (does not the sound of the wind whistling through the trees tell me its windy?) we can safely replace 'Intelligence" with "man", which is both more honest and precise, but removes their opportunity for analogy wankery.

If they were to try and robustly define 'information' and 'intelligence', one suspects there are a flock of black swans waiting to pounce.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3553
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2011,10:50   

The problem is one of equivocation.

First you abstract biochemistry as "information."

(Isn't that reductionism? I get so confused.)

Then you reason backward, assigning limits to chemistry based on the formal properties of "information."

(Isn't that some form of circular reasoning? I get so confused.)

It's a bit like asserting that people have two eyes showing in profile because Picasso painted people.

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

Pat Robertson

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10094
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2011,11:14   



--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3285
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2011,11:42   

Of course, in ALL of that and ID and UD (and similar groups)

Information is equal to meaning

Which is, of course, 100% incorrect.

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

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

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 3553
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2011,12:11   

Quote
Information is equal to meaning


That's kind of the point of CSI, isn't it?

Meanwhile, Elizabeth hit them with:

1. The production of CSI requires an intelligent designer
2. Evolution produces CSI
3. Therefore evolution is an intelligent designer.

This was moments before the shit hit the fan and the spew of liable and defamation began.

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

Pat Robertson

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3285
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2011,12:15   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 17 2011,12:11)
Quote
Information is equal to meaning


That's kind of the point of CSI, isn't it?

Meanwhile, Elizabeth hit them with:

1. The production of CSI requires an intelligent designer
2. Evolution produces CSI
3. Therefore evolution is an intelligent designer.

This was moments before the shit hit the fan and the spew of liable and defamation began.

Oh yeah, I've been saying for months.

Joe just doesn't understand the concept.  Which is odd...

the ID types refuse to speculate on the designer, but they KNOW the designer isn't a natural process.

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

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

   
Henry J



Posts: 4048
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2011,12:58   

I guess circular reasoning is their way of avoiding going off on a tangent?

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3553
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2011,09:19   

ENV  seems to have returned to the policy of blocking comments.

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

Pat Robertson

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3553
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2011,19:20   

Casey goes to bat again:

Quote
Venema's latter posts in the series discuss evidence that could count as weak, or circumstantial, evidence for common descent -- evidence such as high levels of human / ape genetic similarities. At most, however, this evidence shows circumstantial evidence for common ancestry. It says nothing about the information-generative abilities of random mutation and natural selection. Venema would have done well to heed Behe's advice in The Edge of Evolution that "modern Darwinists point to evidence of common descent and erroneously assume it to be evidence of the power of random mutation." In fact, if we factor into the analysis the possibility of common design of functional genetic programs, Venema's evidence doesn't even strongly point to common descent. But Venema ignores the possibility of common design.


Amusing that Casey, the lawyer, cites Behe, the molecular biologist on the power of random Mutation, then promptly sidesteps the inconvenient fact that Behe accepts common descent.

Good thing you turned off cross examination, eh Casey?

Link

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

Pat Robertson

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2110
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2011,22:45   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 08 2011,17:20)
Casey goes to bat again:

Quote
Venema's latter posts in the series discuss evidence that could count as weak, or circumstantial, evidence for common descent -- evidence such as high levels of human / ape genetic similarities. At most, however, this evidence shows circumstantial evidence for common ancestry. It says nothing about the information-generative abilities of random mutation and natural selection. Venema would have done well to heed Behe's advice in The Edge of Evolution that "modern Darwinists point to evidence of common descent and erroneously assume it to be evidence of the power of random mutation." In fact, if we factor into the analysis the possibility of common design of functional genetic programs, Venema's evidence doesn't even strongly point to common descent. But Venema ignores the possibility of common design.


Amusing that Casey, the lawyer, cites Behe, the molecular biologist on the power of random Mutation, then promptly sidesteps the inconvenient fact that Behe accepts common descent.

Good thing you turned off cross examination, eh Casey?

Link

Mighty Casey has struck out. Again.

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

  
rossum



Posts: 178
Joined: Dec. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2011,06:35   

Quote (fnxtr @ Sep. 08 2011,22:45)
Mighty Casey has struck out. Again.

A hit, a hit, my kingdom for a hit!

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uzl6LEfouEE">Shakespearian Baseball</a>

rossum

--------------
The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

  
Lowell



Posts: 101
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2011,10:38   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 08 2011,19:20)
Casey goes to bat again:

 
Quote
Venema's latter posts in the series discuss evidence that could count as weak, or circumstantial, evidence for common descent -- evidence such as high levels of human / ape genetic similarities. At most, however, this evidence shows circumstantial evidence for common ancestry. It says nothing about the information-generative abilities of random mutation and natural selection. Venema would have done well to heed Behe's advice in The Edge of Evolution that "modern Darwinists point to evidence of common descent and erroneously assume it to be evidence of the power of random mutation." In fact, if we factor into the analysis the possibility of common design of functional genetic programs, Venema's evidence doesn't even strongly point to common descent. But Venema ignores the possibility of common design.


Amusing that Casey, the lawyer, cites Behe, the molecular biologist on the power of random Mutation, then promptly sidesteps the inconvenient fact that Behe accepts common descent.

Good thing you turned off cross examination, eh Casey?

Link

Also amusing that Casey, the lawyer, doesn't understand what circumstantial evidence is. "Circumstantial" is not synonymous with "weak." Cases can, and very often are, proven beyond a reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence. It's basically any evidence other than witness testimony.

E.g., the bloody knife with the defendant's fingerprints on it is circumstantial evidence that he stabbed the victim. It may not prove the case in itself ("a brick is not a wall"), but you add enough similar circumstantial evidence to the mix and you manage to convince the jury. This is basic law-school stuff.

If we're talking about piecing together the evolution of a species, such as humans, in the distant past, I don't see how you could have anything but circumstantial evidence.

--------------
The resurrection of Jesus Christ is one of the most well documented events of antiquity. Barry Arrington, Jan 17, 2012.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3553
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2011,11:37   

Casey is a lawyer. He's a professional deceiver. He knows what circumstantial evidence is, and he also knows it's commonly regarded as weak.

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

Pat Robertson

  
Lowell



Posts: 101
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2011,14:01   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 09 2011,11:37)
Casey is a lawyer. He's a professional deceiver. He knows what circumstantial evidence is, and he also knows it's commonly regarded as weak.

Oh, I know Casey wouldn't hesitate to intentionally misuse a term to score points (at least in his own mind). I'm just not sure he's doing that here. He wouldn't be the first attorney I've seen equate circumstantial with weak. (And you have to keep in mind that he is pretty stupid.) I guess one of us is giving him too much credit one way or the other.

--------------
The resurrection of Jesus Christ is one of the most well documented events of antiquity. Barry Arrington, Jan 17, 2012.

  
noncarborundum



Posts: 320
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2011,14:08   

Quote (Lowell @ Sep. 09 2011,10:38)
 
Also amusing that Casey, the lawyer, doesn't understand what circumstantial evidence is. "Circumstantial" is not synonymous with "weak." Cases can, and very often are, proven beyond a reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence. It's basically any evidence other than witness testimony.

E.g., the bloody knife with the defendant's fingerprints on it is circumstantial evidence that he stabbed the victim. It may not prove the case in itself ("a brick is not a wall"), but you add enough similar circumstantial evidence to the mix and you manage to convince the jury. This is basic law-school stuff.

If we're talking about piecing together the evolution of a species, such as humans, in the distant past, I don't see how you could have anything but circumstantial evidence.

Genesis.  God's eyewitness testimony, dictated to Moses.

Cross-examination's going to be a bit of a problem, I'll admit.

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

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3553
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2011,14:10   

Attorneys that are not stupid know that eyewitness testimony is the weakest, and that circumstantial evidence can be irrefutable.

Say DNA evidence in a rape case, as opposed to identification in  a lineup.

Casey is not stupid. He avoided the Dover case, where a win would have been significant.

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

Pat Robertson

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2011,16:34   

Quote (fnxtr @ Sep. 08 2011,23:45)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 08 2011,17:20)
Casey goes to bat again:

 
Quote
Venema's latter posts in the series discuss evidence that could count as weak, or circumstantial, evidence for common descent -- evidence such as high levels of human / ape genetic similarities. At most, however, this evidence shows circumstantial evidence for common ancestry. It says nothing about the information-generative abilities of random mutation and natural selection. Venema would have done well to heed Behe's advice in The Edge of Evolution that "modern Darwinists point to evidence of common descent and erroneously assume it to be evidence of the power of random mutation." In fact, if we factor into the analysis the possibility of common design of functional genetic programs, Venema's evidence doesn't even strongly point to common descent. But Venema ignores the possibility of common design.


Amusing that Casey, the lawyer, cites Behe, the molecular biologist on the power of random Mutation, then promptly sidesteps the inconvenient fact that Behe accepts common descent.

Good thing you turned off cross examination, eh Casey?

Link

Mighty Casey has struck out. Again.

Alas, no joy in Udville.

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2011,18:11   

Quote
Casey is not stupid.


No way, José!  Luskin the Attack Gerbil is quite stupid, quite possibly mentally deficient.  I'm sure he's paid in nickels because he's been told that they're bigger than dimes.

Although he managed to pass the low bar in California and possibly Washington, which is like the Arkansas of the northwest, Luskin has never "worked" as a lawyer, does not represent the DI or anyone as counsel and demonstrates the barest understanding of, well, anything.

If it weren't for the DI paying him in nickels his most frequently uttered phrase would be "May I take your order, please."

Not stupid?  Casey?????  Please, pull the other one!

p.s.  That said, I've never known Luskin to be vicious like some of the other denizens of the DI.  But, that's because viciousness requires cunning which Luskin lacks in spades.  He's just a poor, dumb foot soldier.  I wonder how many times in staff meetings Luskin blurts out, "I like bowling!"

  
Amadan



Posts: 1244
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2011,18:44   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 09 2011,22:34)
 
Quote (fnxtr @ Sep. 08 2011,23:45)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 08 2011,17:20)
Casey goes to bat again:

   
Quote
Venema's latter posts in the series discuss evidence that could count as weak, or circumstantial, evidence for common descent -- evidence such as high levels of human / ape genetic similarities. At most, however, this evidence shows circumstantial evidence for common ancestry. It says nothing about the information-generative abilities of random mutation and natural selection. Venema would have done well to heed Behe's advice in The Edge of Evolution that "modern Darwinists point to evidence of common descent and erroneously assume it to be evidence of the power of random mutation." In fact, if we factor into the analysis the possibility of common design of functional genetic programs, Venema's evidence doesn't even strongly point to common descent. But Venema ignores the possibility of common design.


Amusing that Casey, the lawyer, cites Behe, the molecular biologist on the power of random Mutation, then promptly sidesteps the inconvenient fact that Behe accepts common descent.

Good thing you turned off cross examination, eh Casey?

Link

Mighty Casey has struck out. Again.

Alas, no joy in Udville.

Fexache Bill!

Courtesy of this discussion I had just discovered the gem of Americana that is Thayer's opus major, and was about to spend my evening writing a parody of it featuring monobrows and unresolved sexuality, the whole pivoting on a witty pun on 'Mudville'.

And you stole first base, so to speak.

Bitch.

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

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4474
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2011,19:23   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 09 2011,14:10)
Attorneys that are not stupid know that eyewitness testimony is the weakest, and that circumstantial evidence can be irrefutable.

Say DNA evidence in a rape case, as opposed to identification in  a lineup.

Casey is not stupid. He avoided the Dover case, where a win would have been significant.

Casey was at the Dover trial, basically as a PR shill for the DI. I don't recall him being consulted by the Thomas More Law Center people, though he may have had some casual conversations with them. Mind you, I didn't develop a high regard for the TMLC crew, and they apparently weren't going to Casey for advice.

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

    
MichaelJ



Posts: 455
Joined: June 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2011,19:43   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 10 2011,10:23)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 09 2011,14:10)
Attorneys that are not stupid know that eyewitness testimony is the weakest, and that circumstantial evidence can be irrefutable.

Say DNA evidence in a rape case, as opposed to identification in  a lineup.

Casey is not stupid. He avoided the Dover case, where a win would have been significant.

Casey was at the Dover trial, basically as a PR shill for the DI. I don't recall him being consulted by the Thomas More Law Center people, though he may have had some casual conversations with them. Mind you, I didn't develop a high regard for the TMLC crew, and they apparently weren't going to Casey for advice.

My take is that Casey is the only true believer in the DI crowd. The rest of the them seem to be in it for the bucks or the culture war and know that their evidence is not that strong.

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1954
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2011,22:06   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 09 2011,17:23)
Casey was at the Dover trial, basically as a PR shill for the DI. I don't recall him being consulted by the Thomas More Law Center people, though he may have had some casual conversations with them. Mind you, I didn't develop a high regard for the TMLC crew, and they apparently weren't going to Casey for advice.

I recall the first (and only) time I met Casey was at UC San Diego when Jon Wells was giving a talk Casey's shadow ID club sponsored. That was also the first time I met you.

Casey was desperate to 1) have a copy of our anti-ID handout, and 2) learn the real-life identity of Nick Matzke. I provided the latter, but I don't remember who gave Casey the handout that we all were handing out to anyone who walked by.

He thought it was a real 'score.'

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

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

   
MichaelJ



Posts: 455
Joined: June 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2011,18:17   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 10 2011,13:06)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 09 2011,17:23)
Casey was at the Dover trial, basically as a PR shill for the DI. I don't recall him being consulted by the Thomas More Law Center people, though he may have had some casual conversations with them. Mind you, I didn't develop a high regard for the TMLC crew, and they apparently weren't going to Casey for advice.

I recall the first (and only) time I met Casey was at UC San Diego when Jon Wells was giving a talk Casey's shadow ID club sponsored. That was also the first time I met you.

Casey was desperate to 1) have a copy of our anti-ID handout, and 2) learn the real-life identity of Nick Matzke. I provided the latter, but I don't remember who gave Casey the handout that we all were handing out to anyone who walked by.

He thought it was a real 'score.'

That sneaky Nick Matzke hiding his identity by using his real name.

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2011,22:01   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Sep. 09 2011,16:11)
That said, I've never known Luskin to be vicious like some of the other denizens of the DI.

Oh yeah?  Wait until he starts forgiving you.

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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4474
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2011,01:25   

Quote (MichaelJ @ Sep. 10 2011,18:17)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 10 2011,13:06)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 09 2011,17:23)
Casey was at the Dover trial, basically as a PR shill for the DI. I don't recall him being consulted by the Thomas More Law Center people, though he may have had some casual conversations with them. Mind you, I didn't develop a high regard for the TMLC crew, and they apparently weren't going to Casey for advice.

I recall the first (and only) time I met Casey was at UC San Diego when Jon Wells was giving a talk Casey's shadow ID club sponsored. That was also the first time I met you.

Casey was desperate to 1) have a copy of our anti-ID handout, and 2) learn the real-life identity of Nick Matzke. I provided the latter, but I don't remember who gave Casey the handout that we all were handing out to anyone who walked by.

He thought it was a real 'score.'

That sneaky Nick Matzke hiding his identity by using his real name.

Actually, the handout in response to Wells was authored by Nick as "Nic Tamzek". Nick stopped using the pseudonym shortly after that, IIRC.

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4474
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2011,21:13   

Educating Casey Luskin on Publishing

He doesn't allow comments on his original, so I'll just have to blog my response.

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

    
olegt



Posts: 1387
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 17 2011,08:18   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 16 2011,21:13)
Educating Casey Luskin on Publishing

He doesn't allow comments on his original, so I'll just have to blog my response.

Casey is unfamiliar with the concept of a preprint. In the good old days, preprints were circulated by mail prior to publication. More recently, they are put on the web for people to comment.

Here is a case where the preprint and the published paper were 6 years apart. Both are highly cited and no one complains of self-plagiarism.

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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4474
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2011,11:25   

I left a link to my blog via the Discovery Institute Facebook page.

Should we have a pool concerning when a DI flunky will turn up to delete it?

Given that it is Sunday, I'll take a guess of about 2:30 PM PDT.

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

    
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2011,21:00   

According to the DI, the butterfly is the new (cue radio voice) ICON OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN (/cue radio voice)!

Yes, the flagellum of the bacteria, let's face it, is not very photogenic.  How about a nice butterfly?  Ohhhhh, look at the wings, the eyes, the throax and the little hooky feet!  Must have been DESIGNED because Charles Darwin couldn't make a butterfly!  

DUH!

And which better scientists to decry the design of the butterfly and talk about all it's biological parts than Paul "I'm not a scientists nor do I play one on TV" Nelson and Ann "What, me science?" Gauger.

Seriously, I hope the DI realizes eventually that their ultimate mascot is the shark since they've jumped it so many times.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3553
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2011,21:08   

Well. the flagellum is am icon of Intestinal Dysentery, not to mention, reducible.

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

Pat Robertson

  
Henry J



Posts: 4048
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2011,23:06   

Aren't butterflies just a kind of moth?

Henry

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2011,17:46   

Over at EvoNews or Klinghoffer Wanks Again is this charming invitation to Luskin's opus minimus on how there ain't no stinkin' increase in Biologikal Informashun:

Quote
We don't routinely open the comments feature at ENV because of the staffing requirement that comes into play when we do, cleaning up after Darwinists who don't know how to have a discussion on science without descending to the gutter.


I say "fuck 'em."

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3553
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2011,18:46   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Sep. 21 2011,17:46)
Over at EvoNews or Klinghoffer Wanks Again is this charming invitation to Luskin's opus minimus on how there ain't no stinkin' increase in Biologikal Informashun:

Quote
We don't routinely open the comments feature at ENV because of the staffing requirement that comes into play when we do, cleaning up after Darwinists who don't know how to have a discussion on science without descending to the gutter.


I say "fuck 'em."

The first rule of decorum is to insult your guests before they even arrive.

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

Pat Robertson

  
Henry J



Posts: 4048
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2011,08:35   

Quote
I say "fuck 'em."

Sorry, they're not my type.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4474
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2011,11:35   

Google Alerts tells me EN&V has another post up trying to make the Granville Sewell thing all about me.

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

    
paragwinn



Posts: 377
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2011,18:26   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 25 2011,09:35)
Google Alerts tells me EN&V has another post up trying to make the Granville Sewell thing all about me.

Luskin is practically frothing at the mouth in that post.
Link

Some revealing quotes indicating his awareness of the issue:  
Quote
Early in his response, titled "Educating Casey on Publishing," Dr. Elsberry concedes my point that he self-plagiarized his recent paper in Synthese.

 
Quote
Apparently, since Granville Sewell has published his arguments in peer-reviewed scientific papers, and then tried to republish some prior material in his now-withdrawn Applied Mathematics Letters (AML) paper, Sewell is supposedly guilty of some grave sin that Elsberry hasn't committed.
 
Quote
As for the "gaming the system" accusations, whatever that means I see no evidence that Granville Sewell did it.


eta: as per SOP, no commenting allowed

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

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3553
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2011,16:59   

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011....51.html

I'm not sure Casey's open mike blog went the way he hoped.

At least he has JoeG on his side.

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

Pat Robertson

  
paragwinn



Posts: 377
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2011,22:28   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 26 2011,14:59)
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011.......51.html

I'm not sure Casey's open mike blog went the way he hoped.

At least he has JoeG on his side.

Careful, if he gets too close, JoeG might decide to send in some intelligent agents like termites to probe Luskin's eyebrows for signs of design.

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

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3553
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2011,11:43   

He needs to protect his prose from termites.

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

Pat Robertson

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3285
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2011,11:53   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 26 2011,16:59)
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011.......51.html

I'm not sure Casey's open mike blog went the way he hoped.

At least he has JoeG on his side.

I would like to quote from a document that Casey's employers(?) produced some years back.


Quote
To replace materialistic explanation with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.


I wonder what happened to 'we must defeat scientific materialism'?

These guys flop around more than a bass in the bottom of a boat.

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

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

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 3553
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2011,17:15   

Casey at bat again:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011....1404051

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

Pat Robertson

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1237
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2011,20:35   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 28 2011,17:15)
Casey at bat again:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011.......1404051

There is going to be no joy in UDville!

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
raguel



Posts: 107
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2011,21:41   

Quote
Problem 1: The first problem is that the examples Venema offers did not demonstrate new genetic information arising in the form of, as Meyer asks for it, “fundamentally new genes and proteins.”



That's dangerously close to "homology disproves evolution".  Or is there a more fair interpretation? Apparently not, since teh gerbil failed to provide one.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3553
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2011,22:28   

Why not ask him why the relative absence of new genes and proteins in, say mammals, doesn't render the new information argument moot?

If evolution didn't need to invent a lot of new proteins to make men different from mice, doesn't that reduce the improbability factor?

It a genuine question. I would like to hear from someone who knows more than I do.

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

Pat Robertson

  
Henry J



Posts: 4048
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2011,23:40   

Quote
There is going to be no joy in UDville!

Where's an UDmpire when you need one?

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3553
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2011,08:25   

Case swings:

Quote
So SELEX experiments do not demonstrate that selection can occur prior to the origin of life. Rather, they show that in the absence of natural selection, intelligence is the only other selective agent. Since there was no natural selection prior to the origin of life, this doesn't leave many options for the materialist.

Thanks.

Casey


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

Pat Robertson

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2011,10:16   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 28 2011,23:15)
Casey at bat again:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011.......1404051

Swingggggggg and a miss!

Louis

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

  
Quack



Posts: 1751
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2011,11:31   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 29 2011,10:16)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 28 2011,23:15)
Casey at bat again:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011.......1404051

Swingggggggg and a miss!

Louis

Seems Casey is unfamiliar with the phrase "Teaching old genes new tricks."

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2011,11:53   

Quote (Quack @ Sep. 29 2011,17:31)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 29 2011,10:16)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 28 2011,23:15)
Casey at bat again:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011.......1404051

Swingggggggg and a miss!

Louis

Seems Casey is unfamiliar with the phrase "Teaching old genes new tricks."

And that ain't the only thing Casey is unfamiliar with...

Louis

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

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2011,11:53   

The shorter Casey:

Anything Darwinists have done is not good enough.

All experiments are evidence of intelligent design by definition.

Cambrian Explosion.

QID

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3553
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2011,20:31   

Behe weighs in:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011.......21.html

Quote
Dollo's law holds going forward as well as backward. We can state the experimentally based law simply: "Any evolutionary pathway from one functional state to another is unlikely to be traversed by random mutation and natural selection. The more the functional states differ, the much-less likely that a traversable pathway exists."


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

Pat Robertson

  
paragwinn



Posts: 377
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2011,20:46   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 05 2011,18:31)
Behe weighs in:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011.......21.html

Quote
Dollo's law holds going forward as well as backward. We can state the experimentally based law simply: "Any evolutionary pathway from one functional state to another is unlikely to be traversed by random mutation and natural selection. The more the functional states differ, the much-less likely that a traversable pathway exists."

A TADL tale?

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

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3553
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2011,20:52   

Is this related to the Law of Retrospective Astonishment?

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

Pat Robertson

  
afarensis



Posts: 1005
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2011,19:18   

Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 05 2011,20:46)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 05 2011,18:31)
Behe weighs in:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011.......21.html

 
Quote
Dollo's law holds going forward as well as backward. We can state the experimentally based law simply: "Any evolutionary pathway from one functional state to another is unlikely to be traversed by random mutation and natural selection. The more the functional states differ, the much-less likely that a traversable pathway exists."

A TADL tale?

So, does Behe mean Tiktaalik or something more recent?

Quote
For example, whales do not re-evolve gills, even though they are aquatic creatures who descended from fish, because gills are a lost, complex trait in that lineage.


--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 1954
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2011,00:10   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 05 2011,18:52)
Is this related to the Law of Retrospective Astonishment?

Tell me more of this new science...

Edited by Dr.GH on Oct. 06 2011,22:11

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

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

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 3553
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2011,02:45   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 07 2011,00:10)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 05 2011,18:52)
Is this related to the Law of Retrospective Astonishment?

Tell me more of this new science...

Retrospective astonishment is a term employed by the Sensuous Curmudgeon. I don't know if he invented it.

It roughly means that the odds against any specific thing happening are so high that it couldn't possibly have happened, except by magic.

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

Pat Robertson

  
Henry J



Posts: 4048
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2011,09:35   

Quote
It roughly means that the odds against any specific thing happening are so high that it couldn't possibly have happened, except by magic.

And never mind that the number of specific things that might happen is so large that there isn't any one specific thing that doesn't have enormous odds against it. Yet something has to happen.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3553
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2011,12:00   

I've decided to call Behe's new law Time Asymmetric Reality Denial.

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

Pat Robertson

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3553
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2011,19:15   

Retrospective astonishment:

Quote
Finally, Behe erroneously equates “evolving non-deterministically” with “impossible to evolve.”  He supposes that if each of a set of specific evolutionary outcomes has a low probability, then none will evolve.  This is like saying that, because the probability was vanishingly small that the 1996 Yankees would finish 92-70 with 871 runs scored and 787 allowed and then win the World Series in six games over Atlanta, the fact that all this occurred means it must have been willed by God.


http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom....hornton

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

Pat Robertson

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1237
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2011,21:55   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 07 2011,19:15)
Retrospective astonishment:

Quote
Finally, Behe erroneously equates “evolving non-deterministically” with “impossible to evolve.”  He supposes that if each of a set of specific evolutionary outcomes has a low probability, then none will evolve.  This is like saying that, because the probability was vanishingly small that the 1996 Yankees would finish 92-70 with 871 runs scored and 787 allowed and then win the World Series in six games over Atlanta, the fact that all this occurred means it must have been willed by God.


http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom.......hornton

Now if they had said the Yankees season was willed by Satan, I'm a willing believer!  :)

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
Henry J



Posts: 4048
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2011,22:09   

Quote
the fact that all this occurred means it must have been willed by God.

AMEN!!111!!!eleven!!!!

(Or something like that.)

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1954
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2011,18:37   

"A Weirdly Naked Appeal to Racism from the National Center for Science Education?
10.24.2011 4:35PM

David Klinghoffer is one of the most vile shit-for-brains in the entire Discotute stable of whores.

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

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

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2011,11:12   

BREAKING NEWS (HOMOS!)  !!!!

This just in from Evo Nooze and Snooze:

Quote
The online encyclopedia triumphantly points to resistance to myxoma virus among Australian rabbis as one piece of evidence, among others, for common descent.



Oy, vey!  Who knew??

  
paragwinn



Posts: 377
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2011,21:22   

from the "We Get Love from Leading Darwinist Group Blog" post:  
Quote
This [Jack Scanlan's Panda's Thumb post] has put us in such a good mood we're almost tempted to open the great Black Gate that allows comments so all the other Darwinists can write in and tell us how much they love us.

Fuckin' cowards!

frikkin' clarification frakin' mine

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

  
Seversky



Posts: 413
Joined: June 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2011,07:49   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 24 2011,18:37)
"A Weirdly Naked Appeal to Racism from the National Center for Science Education?
10.24.2011 4:35PM

David Klinghoffer is one of the most vile shit-for-brains in the entire Discotute stable of whores.

That goes without saying although, since they played the racism card, it did lead me to wonder how many members of the DI are not white.

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4361
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2011,18:54   

We are now a "Not So Privleged Planet"...

But don't hold your breath waiting to gonzalez to recant his truly bad book.  He is an IDist after all.

New Habitable Planet Found

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

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2011,20:14   

David Klinghoffer:
Quote
...Rod reminded me of a saying from the Talmud. Attributed to Rabbi Yochanan, it makes an observation about the Hebrew Bible: "Wherever you find mention of the greatness of the Holy One, Blessed Be He, there you will also find mention of his humility."

Rod insisted on this point about God's humility, a kind of shyness or modesty, almost, that seems to be a characteristic of his personality.


It makes you wonder if Rod or David or Rabbi Yochanan have ever actually read the Hebrew Bible.  The words 'shyness' and 'modesty' don't exactly spring to mind when you read the following:
Quote

Job 38

1 Then the LORD spoke to Job out of the storm. He said:
2 “Who is this that obscures my plans
  with words without knowledge?
3 Brace yourself like a man;
  I will question you,
  and you shall answer me.

4 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
  Tell me, if you understand.
5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
  Who stretched a measuring line across it?
6 On what were its footings set,
  or who laid its cornerstone—
7 while the morning stars sang together
  and all the angels[a] shouted for joy?

8 “Who shut up the sea behind doors
  when it burst forth from the womb,
9 when I made the clouds its garment
  and wrapped it in thick darkness,
10 when I fixed limits for it
  and set its doors and bars in place,
11 when I said, ‘This far you may come and no farther;
  here is where your proud waves halt’?

12 “Have you ever given orders to the morning,
  or shown the dawn its place,
13 that it might take the earth by the edges
  and shake the wicked out of it?
14 The earth takes shape like clay under a seal;
  its features stand out like those of a garment.
15 The wicked are denied their light,
  and their upraised arm is broken.

16 “Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea
  or walked in the recesses of the deep?
17 Have the gates of death been shown to you?
  Have you seen the gates of the deepest darkness?
18 Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth?
  Tell me, if you know all this.

19 “What is the way to the abode of light?
  And where does darkness reside?
20 Can you take them to their places?
  Do you know the paths to their dwellings?
21 Surely you know, for you were already born!
  You have lived so many years!

22 “Have you entered the storehouses of the snow
  or seen the storehouses of the hail,
23 which I reserve for times of trouble,
  for days of war and battle?
24 What is the way to the place where the lightning is dispersed,
  or the place where the east winds are scattered over the earth?
25 Who cuts a channel for the torrents of rain,
  and a path for the thunderstorm,
26 to water a land where no one lives,
  an uninhabited desert,
27 to satisfy a desolate wasteland
  and make it sprout with grass?
28 Does the rain have a father?
  Who fathers the drops of dew?
29 From whose womb comes the ice?
  Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens
30 when the waters become hard as stone,
  when the surface of the deep is frozen?

31 “Can you bind the chains[b] of the Pleiades?
  Can you loosen Orion’s belt?
32 Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons[c]
  or lead out the Bear[d] with its cubs?
33 Do you know the laws of the heavens?
  Can you set up God’s[e] dominion over the earth?

34 “Can you raise your voice to the clouds
  and cover yourself with a flood of water?
35 Do you send the lightning bolts on their way?
  Do they report to you, ‘Here we are’?
36 Who gives the ibis wisdom[f]
  or gives the rooster understanding?[g]
37 Who has the wisdom to count the clouds?
  Who can tip over the water jars of the heavens
38 when the dust becomes hard
  and the clods of earth stick together?

39 “Do you hunt the prey for the lioness
  and satisfy the hunger of the lions
40 when they crouch in their dens
  or lie in wait in a thicket?
41 Who provides food for the raven
  when its young cry out to God
  and wander about for lack of food?

On and on without a single humble word until the end of chapter 41, when the soliloquy mercifully ceases.

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

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2011,20:37   

Klinghoffer goes on to explain that God's shyness is the reason that the evidence for intelligent design is so, shall we say, understated:
Quote
...God too has characteristics that you might not expect. Among them is the quality, surprising to find in the transcendent source of all existence, of being rather shy...

This may explain a lot of things. For example, why so much of the Bible gives a superficial impression of simplicity, even primitiveness or dry legalism. Impatient readers assume that's all there is to it, never realizing what lies beneath the surface but that can only be uncovered by subtle probing of hints and nuances, hidden and delicate pointers that give way suddenly, unexpectedly on limitless vistas of wisdom from another world.

It may explain too why the historical redemption that Jews and Christians wait for is so long in coming. A situation where all of mankind turns its eyes to you, fully revealed, is not a prospect that a shy deity would necessarily want to see rushed to fruition.

It may, finally, explain why the evidence of nature's design is elusive to lots of people. Often we wonder why Darwinists can never seem to get it. They champ and cry and try to shout us down with taunts that we are "creationists." They can never tire of boisterously waving Judge Jones in our face.

The signature in the cell, in the genetic code, in protein synthesis, in what Behe calls irreducibly complex features of biology, in the Cambrian explosion and the rest of the fossil record, in cosmology, in individual types of creatures -- from butterfly metamorphosis to the history of whale evolution -- whatever piece of the argument for intelligent design that you want to think of, it is all very lightly imprinted. The "signature" is in a sense misnamed because you can't make out the name of the signer. It takes patience and study to see any of this...

By no means does nature hit you over the head and shout "I am designed! There is a designer! And the designer's name is the LORD!"


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

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 752
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2011,21:01   

Quote (keiths @ Dec. 06 2011,20:37)
Klinghoffer goes on to explain that God's shyness is the reason that the evidence for intelligent design is so, shall we say, understated:
 
Quote
...God too has characteristics that you might not expect. Among them is the quality, surprising to find in the transcendent source of all existence, of being rather shy...

This may explain a lot of things. For example, why so much of the Bible gives a superficial impression of simplicity, even primitiveness or dry legalism. Impatient readers assume that's all there is to it, never realizing what lies beneath the surface but that can only be uncovered by subtle probing of hints and nuances, hidden and delicate pointers that give way suddenly, unexpectedly on limitless vistas of wisdom from another world.

It may explain too why the historical redemption that Jews and Christians wait for is so long in coming. A situation where all of mankind turns its eyes to you, fully revealed, is not a prospect that a shy deity would necessarily want to see rushed to fruition.

It may, finally, explain why the evidence of nature's design is elusive to lots of people. Often we wonder why Darwinists can never seem to get it. They champ and cry and try to shout us down with taunts that we are "creationists." They can never tire of boisterously waving Judge Jones in our face.

The signature in the cell, in the genetic code, in protein synthesis, in what Behe calls irreducibly complex features of biology, in the Cambrian explosion and the rest of the fossil record, in cosmology, in individual types of creatures -- from butterfly metamorphosis to the history of whale evolution -- whatever piece of the argument for intelligent design that you want to think of, it is all very lightly imprinted. The "signature" is in a sense misnamed because you can't make out the name of the signer. It takes patience and study to see any of this...

By no means does nature hit you over the head and shout "I am designed! There is a designer! And the designer's name is the LORD!"

No, oddly enough it hits you over the head and says life evolved without intelligent direction.

But if you properly "prepare" your mind to "accept" design, you can always close your eyes and mind to the evidence of evolution, and say that it was all designed.

Exactly why the Lord of Truth would make minds that "work" like that isn't clear, however God's shyness no doubt explains that, too.

Glen Davidson

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

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

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2011,21:53   

Klinghanger is a fucking idiot.  Why would anybody care what he writes?

Luskin is like a Nobel Prize winner next to Klinkdropper.

  
Seversky



Posts: 413
Joined: June 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2011,00:08   

Quote
...God too has characteristics that you might not expect. Among them is the quality, surprising to find in the transcendent source of all existence, of being rather shy...


Shy?

We're talking about the Great White Sky-Dude who tossed Adam and Eve out of Eden for disobeying orders, who turned people into pillars of salt for looking at him the wrong way, who wiped out whole cities and races because they wouldn't grovel before him and who finally drowned out almost all life on Earth in an amazing fit of pique.

"Shy" is not the first word that comes to mind to describe him.

 
Quote
By no means does nature hit you over the head and shout "I am designed! There is a designer! And the designer's name is the LORD!"


Really?  Are you serious?  The whole case for design in Nature from Paley onwards has been that it's so blatantly obvious that only a fool could deny that it screams out for explanation.

Someone needs to have a quiet word with Corporal Klinghoffer about staying on-message.

 
Quote
They can never tire of boisterously waving Judge Jones in our face.


That's because before the trial we heard a lot of bluster along the lines of

 
Quote
I therefore await the day when the hearings are not voluntary but involve subpoenas that compel evolutionists to be deposed and interrogated at length on their views.

[...]

What I propose, then, is a strategy for interrogating the Darwinists to, as it were, squeeze the truth out of them.


But all we actually heard at Dover then is what we've heard from the DI ever since - the sound of pips squeaking.

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2011,12:47   

Quote
...God too has characteristics that you might not expect. Among them is the quality, surprising to find in the transcendent source of all existence, of being rather shy...

Why should this quality (assuming your god exists and actually does have it) be surprising? Why would any characteristic in a god be surprising?
 
Quote
This may explain a lot of things. For example, why so much of the Bible gives a superficial impression of simplicity, even primitiveness or dry legalism.

Why, because all shy people are primitive and superficial? Are they all passive females too? Any other erroneous generalizations you'd like to imply?
 
Quote
Impatient readers assume that's all there is to it, never realizing what lies beneath the surface but that can only be uncovered by subtle probing of hints and nuances, hidden and delicate pointers that give way suddenly, unexpectedly on limitless vistas of wisdom from another world.

You mean like this?

 
Quote
It may explain too why the historical redemption that Jews and Christians wait for is so long in coming. A situation where all of mankind turns its eyes to you, fully revealed, is not a prospect that a shy deity would necessarily want to see rushed to fruition.

Wait...what? I thought Christians had received their redemption. Isn't that the whole point of Christianity vs Judaism?
 
Quote
It may, finally, explain why the evidence of nature's design is elusive to lots of people.

Why, because shy people design things that don't look designed? Or is it that shy people's designs are more subtle - and thus creative - which then begs the question of what you implied earlier about shy people being primitive and superficial. Can you make up your mind?
 
Quote
Often we wonder why Darwinists can never seem to get it.

Clearly because we don't carry the baggage of your presupposed generalizations about shy and in-your-face people, to say nothing of lacking any expectations about the characteristics that gods and nature must have.
 
Quote
They champ and cry and try to shout us down with taunts that we are "creationists." They can never tire of boisterously waving Judge Jones in our face.

Oh please...blame that fiasco on yourselves. It's not our fault you all imploded and looked inane. Further it isn't our fault that none of your representatives brought any actual evidence for this "obvious" design you keep yammering about. We keeping waving Judge Jones in your face to remind you of those facts.
 
Quote
The signature in the cell, in the genetic code, in protein synthesis, in what Behe calls irreducibly complex features of biology, in the Cambrian explosion and the rest of the fossil record, in cosmology, in individual types of creatures -- from butterfly metamorphosis to the history of whale evolution -- whatever piece of the argument for intelligent design that you want to think of, it is all very lightly imprinted. The "signature" is in a sense misnamed because you can't make out the name of the signer. It takes patience and study to see any of this...

Uh huh...see Kitzmiller vs Dover (see what I did there). You can make this claim all you want, but when push comes to shove, you guys have no way to substantiate the claim.
 
Quote
By no means does nature hit you over the head and shout "I am designed! There is a designer! And the designer's name is the LORD!"

There in lies your problem then, huh?

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
sledgehammer



Posts: 531
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2011,21:37   

Quiz time:
Who is being quoted here, and who is the speaker referring to?

 
Quote

... That's what often happens when people who are adamantly opposed to an idea publicize their own definitions of its key terms—the terms are manipulated to wage a PR battle.

...If they want to show their theory can account for it (good luck!), then they'll have to do so by relevant experiments and detailed model building—not by wordplay and sleight-of-hand.

...This is clearly not a fellow who wants to look into the topic too closely.


Let's see... Dawkins talking about Dembski?  PZ, about Meyer?  Miller on Behe?
Those would be  wrong.  But the last one is close.

--------------
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

  
paragwinn



Posts: 377
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2011,03:33   

Ironic AnalogyFAIL:
"Darwinian Biology Is to Spelling as Intelligent Design Is to the Art of Writing"

If i remember my analogy formulation right, it should have read:
Darwinian Biology Is to Intelligent Design as Spelling Is to the Art of Writing

for as we all know
 
Quote
In one case you're looking at the micromechanics of how you put letters together to make words but in the other you are looking at higher-level principles that allow good writing to take place, the principles you have to master in order to write well.

If the post title is anything to go by, good writing is not taking place.
It so happens that the post stems from an ID: The Future podcast titled "Key Figures in Intelligent Design Measure the Impact of Discovery Institute", which could be analogized as "a man measures the size of his own dick."

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

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 23 2011,19:51   

Casey whistles past the graveyard:
Quote
You won't know it from reading the New York Times, an NCSE-staffer blog, or Judge Jones's manifesto, but ID has already gained the kind of scientific legitimacy we'd expect from a young (and vastly underfunded) scientific field. With scientific productivity leading the way, ID's future is looking bright.

You wouldn't know it from reading the Wedge Document, either. Here are the DI's 5-year scientific goals for the period 1999-2003:
Quote
Scientific achievements:

An active design movement in Israel, the UK and other influential countries outside the US

Ten CRSC Fellows teaching at major universities

Two universities where design theory has become the dominant view

Design becomes a key concept in the social sciences

Legal reform movements base legislative proposals on design theory

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

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

  
Woodbine



Posts: 775
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 23 2011,22:52   

2011....
 
Quote
Anyway, some of us who write for ENV got a laugh this past Wednesday morning when we arrived at the office and someone pointed out that it was the sixth anniversary of the Dover ruling....

2009....
 
Quote
To say the least, we at the IDEA Center got a good laugh reading these IDEA Center death certificates fabricated by these highly imaginative internet Darwinists.

So much laughter, so little awareness.

  
didymos



Posts: 1824
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 23 2011,23:02   

Quote (Woodbine @ Dec. 23 2011,20:52)
2011....
   
Quote
Anyway, some of us who write for ENV got a laugh this past Wednesday morning when we arrived at the office and someone pointed out that it was the sixth anniversary of the Dover ruling....

I call bullshit on that one.  As obsessed with Dover as they are and they somehow didn't notice the anniversary?  Yeah. Right.

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
sparc



Posts: 1692
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 23 2011,23:23   

I left the following comment at EN&V:
Quote
The current impact of ID becomes obvious at Google trends and Google insight


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

   
sparc



Posts: 1692
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 24 2011,00:18   

EN&V's comment policy may prevent my comment from seeing the light of the public:
Quote
Comment Policy

All comments are held for moderation. The debate over evolution and intelligent design attracts all kinds, including those who detract from the conversation by their obnoxious behavior. In order to maintain a higher level of discourse, we will not publish comments that use foul language, ad hominem attacks, threats, or are otherwise uncivil.
emphasis mine

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

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4361
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 24 2011,12:09   

Quote (sparc @ Dec. 24 2011,00:18)
EN&V's comment policy may prevent my comment from seeing the light of the public:
Quote
Comment Policy

All comments are held for moderation. The debate over evolution and intelligent design attracts all kinds, including those who detract from the conversation by their obnoxious behavior. In order to maintain a higher level of discourse, we will not publish comments that use foul language, ad hominem attacks, threats, or are otherwise uncivil.
emphasis mine

You're right - It will never see the light of day.

Everyone knows that facts have a well-known scientific bias.*


* adapted from A Great American Stephen Colbert

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

  
sparc



Posts: 1692
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 25 2011,23:53   

Quote (keiths @ Dec. 23 2011,19:51)
Casey whistles past the graveyard:
 
Quote
You won't know it from reading the New York Times, an NCSE-staffer blog, or Judge Jones's manifesto, but ID has already gained the kind of scientific legitimacy we'd expect from a young (and vastly underfunded) scientific field. With scientific productivity leading the way, ID's future is looking bright.

You wouldn't know it from reading the Wedge Document, either. Here are the DI's 5-year scientific goals for the period 1999-2003:
 
Quote
Scientific achievements:

An active design movement in Israel, the UK and other influential countries outside the US

Ten CRSC Fellows teaching at major universities

Two universities where design theory has become the dominant view

Design becomes a key concept in the social sciences

Legal reform movements base legislative proposals on design theory

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

EN&V's main page still asks you to  
Quote
Be the first to comment
on "How bright is the future of Intelligernt Design?" although Casey already moved to "Post-Dover Education Victories for Intelligent Design" in which he is re-writing history.

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

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 26 2011,17:35   

"Be the first to comment" should read:

Be the first to suck up.

Be the first to praise jeebus.

Be the first to kiss Luskin's furry butt.

Be the first to use the use the word 'evotard.'

Be the first to Meyer*.

Be the first to fart.



*Meyer - write a sentence with 500 irrelevant references.

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2011,19:46   

"It's time for some folks to get over Dover," said Casey, without a trace of irony.

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

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2011,20:02   

Here are the articles by year referencing or mentioning Kitzmiller on the Disco Tute Evo Whine and Cheese website:

2011  18
2010  16
2009  22
2008  26
2007  45

In contrast, Pharyngula mentioned Kitzmiller once this year, and the PT three times.

Project much, Gerbil?

  
sparc



Posts: 1692
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2012,22:48   

Can anybody identify what is displayed on the slide left of Behe? And what could the writing on the white board relate to?


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

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2110
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2012,01:39   

The chances of bumblebees happening by accident, apparently.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2012,04:59   

It's a slide related to the film Transformers.

Behe sure is a pathetic shit. Transformers indeed.


http://tinyurl.com/6rqrqv9....6rqrqv9

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

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

  
sparc



Posts: 1692
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 07 2012,00:09   

Thanks for the information. I can't help the feeling that I am getting old.

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

   
sparc



Posts: 1692
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2012,23:16   

It is quite long, not new but does anybody understand the comments from the audience during Robert Marks' talk on information, genetic algortims, Avida and weasel?

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

   
sledgehammer



Posts: 531
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2012,17:38   

Quote (sparc @ Jan. 19 2012,21:16)
It is quite long, not new but does anybody understand the comments from the audience during Robert Marks' talk on information, genetic algortims, Avida and weasel?

I suspect it is another manifestation of Bob Marks' juvenile sense of humor.  He is not giving this lecture to a live audience, so he's probably filling in what he imagines is going through the minds of his target audience.  If so, he obviously doesn't think much of the intellectual capabilities of his audience, or maybe those are the thoughts that go through his mind.
It kind of follows along the lines of those disturbing drawings of "people" that he populates his slides with.  I have a very hard time looking at those. The artwork is so starkly ugly, they remind me of adolescent male pen-and-ink doodling.  And then he puts the same cartoon on several successive slides, like he's proud to show them off.  They make me wince, and want to look away.

--------------
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4474
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2012,20:45   

David Klinghoffer is upset about NCSE almost adding Peter Gleick to the NCSE Board of Directors.

He lays it on pretty thick for a guy fronting an organization that has paid a salary to Casey Luskin for years now.

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

    
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2012,21:46   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 22 2012,18:45)
David Klinghoffer is upset about NCSE almost adding Peter Gleick to the NCSE Board of Directors.

He lays it on pretty thick for a guy fronting an organization that has paid a salary to Casey Luskin for years now.

Casey forgives you for that comment, Wes.

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10094
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2012,21:46   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 22 2012,20:45)
David Klinghoffer is upset about NCSE almost adding Peter Gleick to the NCSE Board of Directors.

He lays it on pretty thick for a guy fronting an organization that has paid a salary to Casey Luskin for years now.

Hmmm. "Gleick" also sounds pretty German, which is what Hitler was*

http://scienceandcreation.blogspot.com/2010....at.html

*Almost.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1237
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2012,23:45   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 22 2012,20:45)
David Klinghoffer is upset about NCSE almost adding Peter Gleick to the NCSE Board of Directors.

He lays it on pretty thick for a guy fronting an organization that has paid a salary to Casey Luskin for years now.

Leaking strategy memos is just awful - people might find out what you are up to!  Where could I look for an example?  Could it be.... SATAN?

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1255
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2012,00:20   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 22 2012,21:46)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 22 2012,20:45)
David Klinghoffer is upset about NCSE almost adding Peter Gleick to the NCSE Board of Directors.

He lays it on pretty thick for a guy fronting an organization that has paid a salary to Casey Luskin for years now.

Hmmm. "Gleick" also sounds pretty German, which is what Hitler was*

http://scienceandcreation.blogspot.com/2010.......at.html

*Almost.

I followed your link: Whatever this guy claims to be, he can't be a True Christian ™.

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
sparc



Posts: 1692
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2012,23:42   

Stop the presses:
Granville Sewell censored!
AGAIN!!!


Bob Lloyd of Trinity College Dublin debunked Sewell's oft-repeated several times self-plagiarized claims regarding the second law in his article:        
Quote
Is There Any Conflict Between Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

Sewell's arguments have been shredded
time and again before before. However, Lloyd dared to publish his work in The Mathematical Intelligencer (Volume 34, Number 1 (2012), 29-33) thus in the very same journal Sewell sneaked the first version of his article in and the editors refused to publish Sewell's reponse.

On a side note: Is it really a good idea to attack a journal run by the same publisher who is currently re-reviewing Biological Information: New Perspectives in which Sewell is repeating his claims.

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

   
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 30 2012,20:34   

Where does the DI get these yahoos?

Stephen Batzer writes:
Quote
Jerry Coyne, in his polemic Why Evolution is True, scoffs at those 91 percent who find his analysis unconvincing. He writes, "True, breeders haven't turned a cat into a dog, and laboratory studies haven't turned a bacterium into an amoeba ... but it is foolish to think that these are serious objections to natural selection."

Of course these are, in fact, serious objections; Dr. Coyne doesn't get to choose what data is and isn't objectionable to others. Major speciation via undirected processes is the crux of the Darwinian narrative. If it can't be replicated, this objection is an example of what logicians call a "defeater." If you, an intelligent actor using skill, can't breed a cat into a different genera [sic], then presumably and reasonably nature can't do this either.


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

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2012,08:29   

Another "Darwin on Trial" mechanical engineer from Arkansas, aka future DI senior fellow.

  
Starbuck



Posts: 16
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2012,13:57   

<a href="">These guys</a> aren't even trying to hide their creationism anymore.

Quote

With the appearance of Homo erectus, though, many traits changed all at once. Below the neck, these hominins were virtually indistinguishable from a modern human. Their legs, lumbar spine, arms, shoulder girdle, pelvis and hips, rib cage and feet now were those of a long-distance runner with an efficient well-balanced gait


How efficient? And what the hell is a "well-balanced gait"? The features that would have made H. erectus good endurance runners did not appear all at once.  We see some of these features in earlier hominins such as H.
habilis.  But they first appear as a total package in H. erectus.

  
Starbuck



Posts: 16
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2012,13:58   

Messed that up. Referring to here http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012....91.html

  
Woodbine



Posts: 775
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2012,14:31   

Quote
The story of our own journey to upright bipedalism, as recorded in the fossil record, is discontinuous.


It would seem she's on board with common descent for humans - if that's Gauger's actual position she's a lot closer to us than the rest of the ID crowd.

  
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2012,16:00   

Barham's latest post, cross-posted between ENV and TBS, prompts me to say that TBS has joined the DI link farm.

--------------
I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
I’m not an evolutionist, I’m a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
afarensis



Posts: 1005
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2012,17:22   

Quote (Starbuck @ May 31 2012,13:57)
<a href="">These guys</a> aren't even trying to hide their creationism anymore.

Quote

With the appearance of Homo erectus, though, many traits changed all at once. Below the neck, these hominins were virtually indistinguishable from a modern human. Their legs, lumbar spine, arms, shoulder girdle, pelvis and hips, rib cage and feet now were those of a long-distance runner with an efficient well-balanced gait


How efficient? And what the hell is a "well-balanced gait"? The features that would have made H. erectus good endurance runners did not appear all at once.  We see some of these features in earlier hominins such as H.
habilis.  But they first appear as a total package in H. erectus.

Yes, and what the hell does
Quote
Faith the Dog is not evidence for the ability to evolve bipedalism, she is evidence for achievement in the face of adversity.
have to do with anything?

Quote
Australopithecine fossils were ape-like in posture and gait. Their ribcage, hips, legs, spine, and feet were closer to chimp than human. While these hominins may have spent some time on the ground, they were not built for speed or running.


So Australopithicines contain some traits linking them to the common ancestor of chimps and humans, and some traits linking it to later Homo? This is called, unless I am mistaken, a transitional fossil.

Luskin has been flogging the same two articles Gauger cited for years, guess he was indisposed and let Ann have a chance to misunderstand them...

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
sparc



Posts: 1692
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2012,21:05   

Quote
This is called, unless I am mistaken, a transitional fossil.
Really. You will have to admit that it is flanked by gaps on both sides. ;)

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

   
Kattarina98



Posts: 1255
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: June 01 2012,03:23   

Quote (keiths @ May 30 2012,20:34)
Where does the DI get these yahoos?

Stephen Batzer writes:
 
Quote
Jerry Coyne, in his polemic Why Evolution is True, scoffs at those 91 percent who find his analysis unconvincing. He writes, "True, breeders haven't turned a cat into a dog, and laboratory studies haven't turned a bacterium into an amoeba ... but it is foolish to think that these are serious objections to natural selection."

Of course these are, in fact, serious objections; Dr. Coyne doesn't get to choose what data is and isn't objectionable to others. Major speciation via undirected processes is the crux of the Darwinian narrative. If it can't be replicated, this objection is an example of what logicians call a "defeater." If you, an intelligent actor using skill, can't breed a cat into a different genera [sic], then presumably and reasonably nature can't do this either.

Why not go the whole hog and demand a crocoduck?

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1255
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: June 01 2012,03:27   

Quote (dvunkannon @ May 31 2012,16:00)
Barham's latest post, cross-posted between ENV and TBS, prompts me to say that TBS has joined the DI link farm.

Pathetic incest - sending their readers back and forth between blogs might increase the traffic but not the actual amount of followers.

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1237
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 01 2012,13:42   

Quote (Kattarina98 @ June 01 2012,03:23)
Quote (keiths @ May 30 2012,20:34)
Where does the DI get these yahoos?

Stephen Batzer writes:
   
Quote
Jerry Coyne, in his polemic Why Evolution is True, scoffs at those 91 percent who find his analysis unconvincing. He writes, "True, breeders haven't turned a cat into a dog, and laboratory studies haven't turned a bacterium into an amoeba ... but it is foolish to think that these are serious objections to natural selection."

Of course these are, in fact, serious objections; Dr. Coyne doesn't get to choose what data is and isn't objectionable to others. Major speciation via undirected processes is the crux of the Darwinian narrative. If it can't be replicated, this objection is an example of what logicians call a "defeater." If you, an intelligent actor using skill, can't breed a cat into a different genera [sic], then presumably and reasonably nature can't do this either.

Why not go the whole hog and demand a crocoduck?

And if a ducodile is discovered, evolution (which predikts crocoduck) is teh disproved!

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2012,13:35   

Hey kids!

http://www.facebook.com/discove....verycsc

It's Facebook, so I'm not sure they can suppress comments as they do on their own sites.

--------------
I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
I’m not an evolutionist, I’m a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2012,14:08   

Quote (dvunkannon @ June 06 2012,13:35)
Hey kids!

http://www.facebook.com/discove....verycsc

It's Facebook, so I'm not sure they can suppress comments as they do on their own sites.

This kind of says it all:

Quote
Center for Science & Culture
1,310 likes · 37 talking about this · 2 were here


Anyway to "unlike"?

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1255
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2012,14:09   

And right at the top the "Donate" button.
AFAIK you can block persons.

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
The whole truth



Posts: 979
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2012,08:31   

Quote (dvunkannon @ June 06 2012,11:35)
Hey kids!

http://www.facebook.com/discove....verycsc

It's Facebook, so I'm not sure they can suppress comments as they do on their own sites.

Damn, I looked at that page and a bunch of my brain cells committed suicide. There's a lot more tard there than should be allowed by law.

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

   
Woodbine



Posts: 775
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2012,10:06   

So ID has a Facebook page.....Waterloo!

Is anyone else reminded of Dembski's typically tragic  clarion call from the good old days?

http://tinyurl.com/c7zojm8....c7zojm8



Student activism, eh?

Hey, let's pay a visit to the front line of a bona-fide social, scientific and cultural revolution....

Here's MySpace - surely an ongoing hot-bed of radical ID thought....



2007? It has indeed been a while!

Ahh....never mind. Surely XANGA will blow us away with the sheer weight of enthusiasm for the promised cultural renewal....



Mmmm....I know, LiveJournal. Ah, yes. Where else would we find the white hot core of a revolution but at LiveJournal?



Fuck. Well, what about BlogSpot.....



:(

Oh, William.

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1016
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2012,20:40   

Someone get Woodbine a PotW pronto.

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

  
sledgehammer



Posts: 531
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2012,20:49   

Quote (Texas Teach @ June 07 2012,18:40)
Someone get Woodbine a PotW pronto.

Segundoded!

--------------
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

  
NormOlsen



Posts: 104
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2012,21:17   

Quote (sledgehammer @ June 07 2012,20:49)
 
Quote (Texas Teach @ June 07 2012,18:40)
Someone get Woodbine a PotW pronto.

Segundoded!



Oh yeah, it's lame I know, but it's still POTW!  Err, anyway, where's Kattarina98 when you need her?

  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1255
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2012,01:13   

Quote (NormOlsen @ June 07 2012,21:17)
Oh yeah, it's lame I know, but it's still POTW!  Err, anyway, where's Kattarina98 when you need her?

Right here to join the public demand for POTW for Woodbine; he must have an exhaustive archive of TARD.

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2012,03:44   

Quote (Woodbine @ June 07 2012,10:06)
Is anyone else reminded of Dembski's typically tragic  clarion call from the good old days?

At the time (IIRC) I looked into who created/registered those and IIRC IDEA clubs. It turned out to be the same person, Mario something, who has been active in ID for a long time.

So just more astroturfing...

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

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

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2012,06:11   

Wasn't Mario their IT guy for a while?  Also haven't heard from Anika "the tank" Smith for a while. I guess they finally found real jobs. Too bad about Luskin.

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2110
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2012,09:45   

Quote (Doc Bill @ June 08 2012,04:11)
Wasn't Mario their IT guy for a while?  Also haven't heard from Anika "the tank" Smith for a while. I guess they finally found real jobs. Too bad about Luskin.

Hannah Maxson, Mark Hausam... man, those were the days, hey?

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

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2012,11:07   

Don't forget Carolyn Crocker!

David Coppedge will be on the payroll soon.

  
Sealawr



Posts: 54
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2012,14:56   

Coppedge will be available to start as soon as the judge issues his ruling.  I'm on pins and needles.

--------------
DS: "The explantory filter is as robust as the data that is used with it."
David Klinghoffer: ""I'm an IDiot"

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1237
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2012,15:02   

Quote (fnxtr @ June 08 2012,09:45)
Quote (Doc Bill @ June 08 2012,04:11)
Wasn't Mario their IT guy for a while?  Also haven't heard from Anika "the tank" Smith for a while. I guess they finally found real jobs. Too bad about Luskin.

Hannah Maxson, Mark Hausam... man, those were the days, hey?

All of those students must have graduated, woodbine.  Surely they have their PhD's by now, toiling away in ID laboratories.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2012,10:19   

Ann Gauger been spilling nonsense on the DI BI blog. I poke back with
Someone Teach Ann Gauger How to Google

--------------
I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
I’m not an evolutionist, I’m a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 19 2012,13:30   

David Klinghoffer likes James Barham's latest essay at TheBestSchools.org.

I don't.

http://dvunkannon.blogspot.com/2012....to.html

--------------
I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
I’m not an evolutionist, I’m a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 19 2012,13:44   

Quote (dvunkannon @ June 09 2012,10:19)
Ann Gauger been spilling nonsense on the DI BI blog. I poke back with
Someone Teach Ann Gauger How to Google

They had a thread on this at UD a little while ago. Predictable enough outcome.

Good stuff!

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

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

  
Dr. Jammer



Posts: 37
Joined: Feb. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2012,11:10   

Nothing in Biology Geology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution Geosynclinal Theory - Evolution News & Views

Absolutely brilliant.  :D

This whole series on the controversy of continental drift, and how eerily it mirrors today's Darwin vs. design dispute, has been absolutely scintillating.

--------------
Luskin destroys Talk Origins. | Dawkins runs scared. | Upright Biped scares off Moran

   
Amadan



Posts: 1244
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2012,11:32   

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 20 2012,17:10)
Nothing in Biology Geology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution Geosynclinal Theory - Evolution News & Views

Absolutely brilliant.  :D

This whole series on the controversy of continental drift, and how eerily it mirrors today's Darwin vs. design dispute, has been absolutely scintillating.

You mean, how Wegener's appealing theory wasn't accepted as scientifically sound until someone went and produced the pathetic level of detail stuff?

Yeah, that would be a good read alright.

But enough of this banter. We mustn't distract the IDiots from their very technical experimentation showing the evidence for design.

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

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3285
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2012,11:40   

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 20 2012,11:10)
Nothing in Biology Geology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution Geosynclinal Theory - Evolution News & Views

Absolutely brilliant.  :D

This whole series on the controversy of continental drift, and how eerily it mirrors today's Darwin vs. design dispute, has been absolutely scintillating.

So, a significant amount of evidence, from an unrelated field that supports evolution and you still can't be bothered to actually TALK ABOUT INTELLIGENT DESIGN?

According to JoeG, ID is not anti-evolution.  Is that true?  If so, then why do you spend so much time attacking evolution instead of looking for support for ID?

If it's not true, then you should go explain that to JoeG and a few other of the ID supports, because they are saying a lot of wrong things.

BTW: My most often used statement applies here. Even if you totally disprove evolutionary theory in all it's particulars and all it's supporting evidence, that doesn't automatically make ID (or creationism or anything else) right.  Only positive supporting evidence can do that... and you still aren't looking for it.

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

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

   
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2012,12:06   

Quote (OgreMkV @ June 20 2012,12:40)
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 20 2012,11:10)
Nothing in Biology Geology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution Geosynclinal Theory - Evolution News & Views

Absolutely brilliant.  :D

This whole series on the controversy of continental drift, and how eerily it mirrors today's Darwin vs. design dispute, has been absolutely scintillating.

So, a significant amount of evidence, from an unrelated field that supports evolution and you still can't be bothered to actually TALK ABOUT INTELLIGENT DESIGN?

According to JoeG, ID is not anti-evolution.  Is that true?  If so, then why do you spend so much time attacking evolution instead of looking for support for ID?

If it's not true, then you should go explain that to JoeG and a few other of the ID supports, because they are saying a lot of wrong things.

BTW: My most often used statement applies here. Even if you totally disprove evolutionary theory in all it's particulars and all it's supporting evidence, that doesn't automatically make ID (or creationism or anything else) right.  Only positive supporting evidence can do that... and you still aren't looking for it.

Ogre, to be charitable, he _is_ looking for it, in the same way as a drunk looks for his car keys under the street lamp. In this case, a Bible shaped street lamp.

--------------
I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
I’m not an evolutionist, I’m a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3285
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2012,12:48   

Quote (dvunkannon @ June 20 2012,12:06)
Quote (OgreMkV @ June 20 2012,12:40)
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 20 2012,11:10)
Nothing in Biology Geology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution Geosynclinal Theory - Evolution News & Views

Absolutely brilliant.  :D

This whole series on the controversy of continental drift, and how eerily it mirrors today's Darwin vs. design dispute, has been absolutely scintillating.

So, a significant amount of evidence, from an unrelated field that supports evolution and you still can't be bothered to actually TALK ABOUT INTELLIGENT DESIGN?

According to JoeG, ID is not anti-evolution.  Is that true?  If so, then why do you spend so much time attacking evolution instead of looking for support for ID?

If it's not true, then you should go explain that to JoeG and a few other of the ID supports, because they are saying a lot of wrong things.

BTW: My most often used statement applies here. Even if you totally disprove evolutionary theory in all it's particulars and all it's supporting evidence, that doesn't automatically make ID (or creationism or anything else) right.  Only positive supporting evidence can do that... and you still aren't looking for it.

Ogre, to be charitable, he _is_ looking for it, in the same way as a drunk looks for his car keys under the street lamp. In this case, a Bible shaped street lamp.

Is that the same joke as the officer asking why he's looking for his keys under the street lamp and the guys says, "Well, I dropped my keys in the street way over there, but the light is over here."

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

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