RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < ... 466 467 468 469 470 [471] 472 473 474 475 476 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2007,18:22   

Quote (blipey @ April 05 2007,17:36)
Well, the time draws nigh.  DaveScot will be seen in person in May, the 13th to be exact.  I will be passing through Austin and will be visiting the Master of Tard (unless he decides to dodge...).

So, I am once again collecting things that people would like to know about DaveTard.  These can be science questions, political questions, details about his appearance, whatever.  I'm most interested in what his reactions will be to being questioned in person and how he deals with people while not behind a keyboard.

So, anyone with burning questions, let me know here and I'll see what I can do to help you out.

ALL YOU NEAD IS A CAMARA TO FILM IT WHEN I KICK BLIPEYS ASS. HA! I CRACK ME UP! -DT

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

  
2ndclass



Posts: 182
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2007,18:30   

Quote (blipey @ April 05 2007,17:36)
So, anyone with burning questions, let me know here and I'll see what I can do to help you out.

Ask all three of them why they bail out of every open discussion and run back to their own blogs.  Offer them teddy bears as substitutes for their banning buttons.

--------------
"I wasn't aware that classical physics had established a position on whether intelligent agents exercising free were constrained by 2LOT into increasing entropy." -DaveScot

  
phonon



Posts: 396
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2007,19:47   

Quote
intelligence does not violate entropy

Even when typing on keyboards?

--------------
With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

To do just the opposite is also a form of imitation. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

  
franky172



Posts: 158
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2007,21:44   

Wells' newest monologue is posted on UD here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evoluti....tantrum

Somehow Wells manages to mis-quote Meyers.

He writes:
Quote
In case you think this is just a dry scientific dispute, Myers also wrote: “Wells is… [an] unctuous rodent who earns the contempt of every man who meets him.


Meyers wrote:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng....ent.php

Quote
If you're familiar with Wells and with Deadwood, you know what I mean. You'll just have to imagine that I am Al Swearingen, the brutal bar-owner who uses obscenities as if they were lyric poetry, while Wells is E.B. Farnum, the unctuous rodent who earns the contempt of every man who meets him.


i.e. "imagine Wells is a well known character who's a real jerk, and I'm a well known character who swears, and you can imagine what I'd say"  vs. "Wells is a [...] real jerk".

Nice.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2007,22:21   

Quote (franky172 @ April 05 2007,21:44)
Wells' newest monologue is posted on UD here:

Hasn't "Father Moon" (ya know, the younger brother of Jesus Christ) ordered Wells to marry anyone yet . . . . ?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Kristine



Posts: 3037
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2007,23:29   

Jeepers Wells is such a tool:  
Quote
So much for civilized discourse. Darwinists have replaced it with character assassination.

Oh, well. [And now for some civilized discourse.] As Johnny Cash reputedly once said, “It’s good to know who hates you, and it’s good to be hated by the right people.”

I bet the people who are fighting AIDS really hate your guts, Wells. Hey Dembski! Does HIV cause AIDS?

Use your EF and get back to me on that, huh?
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 05 2007,21:21)
 
Quote (franky172 @ April 05 2007,21:44)
Wells' newest monologue is posted on UD here:

Hasn't "Father Moon" (ya know, the younger brother of Jesus Christ) ordered Wells to marry anyone yet . . . . ?
*Runs and hides*  :D

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 1956
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2007,02:22   

Don't worry Kristine: the Rev. Moon isn't that mad yet.

*runs and hides really well*

Bob

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

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2007,06:12   

Dumbski says  
Quote
Here’s a pro-ID article without the usual disclaimers (e.g., a ritualistic suck-up to Darwin, an obligatory sneer at ID). Perhaps this is a sign of things to come.


Now, i've only read the abstract, but does this quote from the article  
Quote
There is also overreliance on the Darwinian blind search to obtain practical results. In the long run, random methods cannot replace insight in constructing life-like proteins. For the near future, however, in enzyme development, we need to rely on a combination of both.

really imply pro-ID intent? I really don't think so. To me the difficulty Dumbski has is when he see phrases like "in the long run" and equates them to human time scales. Yes, in the long run, random methods will not produce results because we'll all be dead. In the geological "long run" random methods are fruitfull.

Dembski, this is the best "
pro-ID" paper you can find? Pshaw!Link

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

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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4231
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2007,06:28   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 05 2007,22:21)
Quote (franky172 @ April 05 2007,21:44)
Wells' newest monologue is posted on UD here:

Hasn't "Father Moon" (ya know, the younger brother of Jesus Christ) ordered Wells to marry anyone yet . . . . ?

Goodnight room. Goodnight moon. Goodnight cow jumping over the moon. Goodnight light, and the red balloon...

(Wedding night)

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

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2594
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2007,07:10   

kairosfocus        
Quote
My prediction: we will have to wait longer than the universe exists to get a change that requires information generation on the scale of 500 – 1000 or more bits. [See the info-generation issue over macroevolution by RM + NS?]

Let the nanobots assemble letters from an alphabet, and instead of the specified assembly of a hyperspace-capable spacecraft, let it assemble phrases in Shakespearean English. And just to make it difficult, we'll use a clumsy implementation in VBasic. Turns out, instead of taking billions of years to reach the Universal Probability Bound of 500-bits, it takes just hours. Doh!


http://www.zachriel.com/phrasenation/

kairosfocus        
Quote
Now, redo the experiment above with nano-ashlars etc that together make up a model, functional aqueduct, complete with an arched bridge — that we could inspect through a microscope.

–> Would this be likely to happen by chance + necessity only if you heat the vat [inject more random molecular motion]?

 

Natural arches and bridges are quite common in nature.
http://www.naturalarches.org/

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

   
Zachriel



Posts: 2594
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2007,07:17   

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 05 2007,16:42)
Zach, WRT Dopey Joe's latest blog post:

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=442

Joe's basic assertion (from Privileged Planet) is that with regards to solar eclipses, the astronomical vantage point on Earth is unique. But, of course, there are a lot of wonderful views in the Solar System, including eclipses. Take the Jovian System:

Quote
Ride the atmospheric currents on the native gas-filled steeds that graze in the upper clouds of Jupiter. Schedule your visit for one of the many solar eclipses...



Skate the vast ice plains of Europa, or lava-ski the great volcanos on Io. If you feel adventurous, pass through Jupiter's Rings on the moon Metis and watch the wonderful defracting eclipses of the Sun and Jupiter. Be regaled by Ganymedian poets with tales of ancient explorers whose view of the great immensity of Jupiter impelled them to leave their homeland. There is nothing like watching Jupiter rise from the comfort of your hotel room.

(And due to the strong magnetic fields, free electricity is available throughout most of the Jovian System! Any coil of wire will do. So bring your hybrid vehicle.)

(From a travel brochure.)

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

   
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 554
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2007,08:07   

Quote (blipey @ April 05 2007,17:36)
Well, the time draws nigh.  DaveScot will be seen in person in May, the 13th to be exact.  I will be passing through Austin and will be visiting the Master of Tard (unless he decides to dodge...).

So, I am once again collecting things that people would like to know about DaveTard.  These can be science questions, political questions, details about his appearance, whatever.  I'm most interested in what his reactions will be to being questioned in person and how he deals with people while not behind a keyboard.

So, anyone with burning questions, let me know here and I'll see what I can do to help you out.

Ask him what he uses to get those pesky ground-in cheesy poof stains out of his muumuu.


--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2007,08:50   

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ April 06 2007,08:07)
Quote (blipey @ April 05 2007,17:36)
Well, the time draws nigh.  DaveScot will be seen in person in May, the 13th to be exact.  I will be passing through Austin and will be visiting the Master of Tard (unless he decides to dodge...).

So, I am once again collecting things that people would like to know about DaveTard.  These can be science questions, political questions, details about his appearance, whatever.  I'm most interested in what his reactions will be to being questioned in person and how he deals with people while not behind a keyboard.

So, anyone with burning questions, let me know here and I'll see what I can do to help you out.

Ask him what he uses to get those pesky ground-in cheesy poof stains out of his muumuu.

ask him for a essay on the laws of thermodynamics and what they mean for him, personally :)

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

  
Kristine



Posts: 3037
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2007,09:22   

I must admit I thought about it, but I'm too busy to engage this poor thing
 
Quote
Hi to all. I have a big favor to ask of the ID community- Two days ago, I posted a comment on a paper which Dr. Dembski had so kindly shared with us ( Carlos Gershenson’s paper on Viewing the world as information). In that comment, I mentioned that I had a debate going with several atheists in the comments section of an essay I had written on intelligent design versus evolution at my own blog. I invited folks to weigh-in and got deluged by about 400 hits. My intention was to try to bring some balance to the discussion by getting an ID and/or creationist perspective on the matter. Somehow or another, I managed to accomplish the exact opposite. I put my fist in a hornet’s nest, and I am now single-handedly trying to defend myself against a total atheist/evolutionist onslaught. A small sampling of a few words that have been applied to my sincere and polite advocacy of ID are as follows- ” go educate yourself”, I “argue from ignorance”, I am an “intellectual coward”, I speak ” despicable lies”, I “pretend”, I “know nothing”, my arguments are “ludicrous”, I display ” agressive ignorance”, I am “ignorant”, “dishonest”, and “intellectually dishonest”. All this because I politely, and reasonably ( or so I thought), expessed some conscerns that I had about the probabilistic liklihood of human DNA evolving from random particles. I am absolutely getting hammered guys. If there is ANYBODY out there with a reasonable, rational, and polite argument in FAVOR of creationism, [OOOPS!] could you please stop by and add a comment? I feel like a one-legged man in a butt-kicking contest. Dr. Dembski, all I can say is that you must have a very, very thick skin. Because I have tasted but a thimbleful from the cup of scorn that you drink deeply from every day, ( despite the fact that all you do is offer fair alternatives to an established orthodoxy in the marketplace of ideas ), and I havent’ enjoyed the taste very much. Again, thanks for your efforts to enlighten and inform. By the way, have you ever considered just how much the advent of the internet has changed the terms of the debate? When you consider how much hate and resistance there is out there in academia directed at ID even having a chance to be CONSIDERED, arent we all blessed beyond our wildest dreams by the ability to take the message straight to the people? There is really no stopping the free exchange of ideas now. ID advocates have such an opportunity to be heard now, that we never could have dreamed possible 10 years ago. Anyways, if there are any thick-skinned ID advocates or creationists out there, who are ready for an intellectual rumble, please feel free to stop by and enter the comments-war-zone at;
http://tyharris.wordpress.com
All I can say is I didn't do it.  :)

Even with my school account I cannot access the article - but for pity sakes what a big to-do about nothing. Semantic slights-of-hand again. "Random." "Design." "Both." Don't worry Tyharris, I'm after bigger fish.

What are you doing in my rabbit hole, Bob? *Pounces*

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2007,09:27   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 06 2007,16:50)
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ April 06 2007,08:07)
 
Quote (blipey @ April 05 2007,17:36)
Well, the time draws nigh.  DaveScot will be seen in person in May, the 13th to be exact.  I will be passing through Austin and will be visiting the Master of Tard (unless he decides to dodge...).

So, I am once again collecting things that people would like to know about DaveTard.  These can be science questions, political questions, details about his appearance, whatever.  I'm most interested in what his reactions will be to being questioned in person and how he deals with people while not behind a keyboard.

So, anyone with burning questions, let me know here and I'll see what I can do to help you out.

Ask him what he uses to get those pesky ground-in cheesy poof stains out of his muumuu.

ask him for a essay on the laws of thermodynamics and what they mean for him, personally :)

OK HOMO'S, WELL MAY YOU LAUGH BUT I'M IN TRAINING RIGHT NOW.

200 CUPS OF LIPTONS GREEN TEA WITH A DCA CHASER EACH DAY AND MY OLD DRILL SARGEANT HAS DROPPED BY TO HELP ME GET IN SHAPE.

I REMEMBER THE FIRST DAY I MET HIM.

HE SAID "JESUS MAY OWN YOUR HEARTS BUT THE MARINES OWN YOUR HANDS AND WHEN WE HAVE FINISHED WITH YOU, YOU WILL BE THE WORLDS MOST FEARED KILLING MACHINES WAITING FOR THE NEXT WAR BUT UNTIL THEN YOU ARE NOTHING BUT SLIMY WORMS, MY SLIMY WORMS NOW DROP AND BLOW ME GIVE ME 20. *sniff* I LOVED THAT MAN AND JUST WANTED TO BE LIKE HIM.
AND I DID ....I WAS SARGEANT OF BAR FRIDGE REPAIR AND PINBALL MACHINE REPAIR.
NOW I AM THE WORLDS MOST FEARED TRAINED KILLING MACHINE. A SATANIC BIT OF MEAN RED MEAT WRAPPED IN FLAG...THE STARS AND STRIPES. JUST YOU SEE.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2007,09:34   

Quote (Kristine @ April 06 2007,17:22)
I must admit I thought about it, but I'm too busy to engage this poor thing
 
Quote
Hi to all. I have a big favor to ask of the ID community- Two days ago, I posted a comment on a paper which Dr. Dembski had so kindly shared with us ( Carlos Gershenson’s paper on Viewing the world as information). In that comment, I mentioned that I had a debate going with several atheists in the comments section of an essay I had written on intelligent design versus evolution at my own blog. I invited folks to weigh-in and got deluged by about 400 hits. My intention was to try to bring some balance to the discussion by getting an ID and/or creationist perspective on the matter. Somehow or another, I managed to accomplish the exact opposite. I put my fist in a hornet’s nest, and I am now single-handedly trying to defend myself against a total atheist/evolutionist onslaught. A small sampling of a few words that have been applied to my sincere and polite advocacy of ID are as follows- ” go educate yourself”, I “argue from ignorance”, I am an “intellectual coward”, I speak ” despicable lies”, I “pretend”, I “know nothing”, my arguments are “ludicrous”, I display ” agressive ignorance”, I am “ignorant”, “dishonest”, and “intellectually dishonest”. All this because I politely, and reasonably ( or so I thought), expessed some conscerns that I had about the probabilistic liklihood of human DNA evolving from random particles. I am absolutely getting hammered guys. If there is ANYBODY out there with a reasonable, rational, and polite argument in FAVOR of creationism, [OOOPS!] could you please stop by and add a comment? I feel like a one-legged man in a butt-kicking contest. Dr. Dembski, all I can say is that you must have a very, very thick skin. Because I have tasted but a thimbleful from the cup of scorn that you drink deeply from every day, ( despite the fact that all you do is offer fair alternatives to an established orthodoxy in the marketplace of ideas ), and I havent’ enjoyed the taste very much. Again, thanks for your efforts to enlighten and inform. By the way, have you ever considered just how much the advent of the internet has changed the terms of the debate? When you consider how much hate and resistance there is out there in academia directed at ID even having a chance to be CONSIDERED, arent we all blessed beyond our wildest dreams by the ability to take the message straight to the people? There is really no stopping the free exchange of ideas now. ID advocates have such an opportunity to be heard now, that we never could have dreamed possible 10 years ago. Anyways, if there are any thick-skinned ID advocates or creationists out there, who are ready for an intellectual rumble, please feel free to stop by and enter the comments-war-zone at;
http://tyharris.wordpress.com
All I can say is I didn't do it.  :)

Even with my school account I cannot access the article - but for pity sakes what a big to-do about nothing. Semantic slights-of-hand again. "Random." "Design." "Both." Don't worry Tyharris, I'm after bigger fish.

What are you doing in my rabbit hole, Bob? *Pounces*

Is he for real?

I'm finding it harder to tell the parody from the 'real' thing.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10077
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2007,09:48   

Quote (k.e @ April 06 2007,09:27)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 06 2007,16:50)
 
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ April 06 2007,08:07)
   
Quote (blipey @ April 05 2007,17:36)
Well, the time draws nigh.  DaveScot will be seen in person in May, the 13th to be exact.  I will be passing through Austin and will be visiting the Master of Tard (unless he decides to dodge...).

So, I am once again collecting things that people would like to know about DaveTard.  These can be science questions, political questions, details about his appearance, whatever.  I'm most interested in what his reactions will be to being questioned in person and how he deals with people while not behind a keyboard.

So, anyone with burning questions, let me know here and I'll see what I can do to help you out.

Ask him what he uses to get those pesky ground-in cheesy poof stains out of his muumuu.

ask him for a essay on the laws of thermodynamics and what they mean for him, personally :)

OK HOMO'S, WELL MAY YOU LAUGH BUT I'M IN TRAINING RIGHT NOW.

200 CUPS OF LIPTONS GREEN TEA WITH A DCA CHASER EACH DAY AND MY OLD DRILL SARGEANT HAS DROPPED BY TO HELP ME GET IN SHAPE.

I REMEMBER THE FIRST DAY I MET HIM.

HE SAID "JESUS MAY OWN YOUR HEARTS BUT THE MARINES OWN YOUR HANDS AND WHEN WE HAVE FINISHED WITH YOU, YOU WILL BE THE WORLDS MOST FEARED KILLING MACHINES WAITING FOR THE NEXT WAR BUT UNTIL THEN YOU ARE NOTHING BUT SLIMY WORMS, MY SLIMY WORMS NOW DROP AND BLOW ME GIVE ME 20. *sniff* I LOVED THAT MAN AND JUST WANTED TO BE LIKE HIM.
AND I DID ....I WAS SARGEANT OF BAR FRIDGE REPAIR AND PINBALL MACHINE REPAIR.
NOW I AM THE WORLDS MOST FEARED TRAINED KILLING MACHINE. A SATANIC BIT OF MEAN RED MEAT WRAPPED IN FLAG...THE STARS AND STRIPES. JUST YOU SEE.

Very good! TARDFORCE 9.

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

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2007,10:03   

Well, Joe is now officially no longer worth slapping around:

Quote
blipey:
You do realise yu are becoming John Davison, Jr?

Thanks for the compliment!


Since he admits he's a senile individual with a discredited idea, our work is done.

I love it so!

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

   
Kristine



Posts: 3037
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2007,10:30   

Quote (k.e @ April 06 2007,08:34)
 
Quote (Kristine @ April 06 2007,17:22)
I must admit I thought about it, but I'm too busy to engage this poor thing
Quote
Hi to all. I have a big favor to ask of the ID community- Two days ago, I posted a comment on a paper which Dr. Dembski had so kindly shared with us ( Carlos Gershenson’s paper on Viewing the world as information). In that comment, I mentioned that I had a debate going with several atheists in the comments section of an essay I had written on intelligent design versus evolution at my own blog. I invited folks to weigh-in and got deluged by about 400 hits. My intention was to try to bring some balance to the discussion by getting an ID and/or creationist perspective on the matter. Somehow or another, I managed to accomplish the exact opposite. I put my fist in a hornet’s nest, and I am now single-handedly trying to defend myself against a total atheist/evolutionist onslaught. A small sampling of a few words that have been applied to my sincere and polite advocacy of ID are as follows- ” go educate yourself”, I “argue from ignorance”, I am an “intellectual coward”, I speak ” despicable lies”, I “pretend”, I “know nothing”, my arguments are “ludicrous”, I display ” agressive ignorance”, I am “ignorant”, “dishonest”, and “intellectually dishonest”. All this because I politely, and reasonably ( or so I thought), expessed some conscerns that I had about the probabilistic liklihood of human DNA evolving from random particles. I am absolutely getting hammered guys. If there is ANYBODY out there with a reasonable, rational, and polite argument in FAVOR of creationism, [OOOPS!] could you please stop by and add a comment? I feel like a one-legged man in a butt-kicking contest. Dr. Dembski, all I can say is that you must have a very, very thick skin. Because I have tasted but a thimbleful from the cup of scorn that you drink deeply from every day, ( despite the fact that all you do is offer fair alternatives to an established orthodoxy in the marketplace of ideas ), and I havent’ enjoyed the taste very much. Again, thanks for your efforts to enlighten and inform. By the way, have you ever considered just how much the advent of the internet has changed the terms of the debate? When you consider how much hate and resistance there is out there in academia directed at ID even having a chance to be CONSIDERED, arent we all blessed beyond our wildest dreams by the ability to take the message straight to the people? There is really no stopping the free exchange of ideas now. ID advocates have such an opportunity to be heard now, that we never could have dreamed possible 10 years ago. Anyways, if there are any thick-skinned ID advocates or creationists out there, who are ready for an intellectual rumble, please feel free to stop by and enter the comments-war-zone at;
http://tyharris.wordpress.com
All I can say is I didn't do it.  :)

Even with my school account I cannot access the article - but for pity sakes what a big to-do about nothing. Semantic slights-of-hand again. "Random." "Design." "Both." Don't worry Tyharris, I'm after bigger fish.

What are you doing in my rabbit hole, Bob? *Pounces*

Is he for real?

I'm finding it harder to tell the parody from the 'real' thing.

He's real. He's just overstating the "hammered" whine. It looks like a healthy discussion and he only got 22 comments. (Who complains about getting 400 hits? Certainly not me.) :(   :p

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2594
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2007,10:31   

Quote (blipey @ April 06 2007,10:03)
Well, Joe is now officially no longer worth slapping around:

     
Quote
blipey:
You do realise yu are becoming John Davison, Jr?

Thanks for the compliment!


Since he admits he's a senile individual with a discredited idea, our work is done.

I love it so!

The assertions in "The Privileged Planet" make for very poor science.

Quote
The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to find a distant and very different environment that, while quite hostile to life, nevertheless offers a superior platform for making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment.. The opposite of this would have the same effect- finding an extremely habitable and inhabited place that was a lousy platform for observation.

You can falsify all sorts of theories including the Theory of Evolution by finding a magic, flying pony, but that doesn't represent a valid falsifiable prediction. It's a dodge that attempts to avoid the potential for actual falsification. (If it were presented as speculation rather than firm conclusion, then it would not be an issue.) In any case, there are plenty of places even in the local Solar System that make very good platforms for making diverse astronomical and other scientific discoveries.

   
Quote
For instance, it’s unquestionable that a relatively transparent atmosphere is more conducive to astronomical curiosity and discovery than is a murky (translucent) or opaque one.

This shows a complete lack of imagination and curiosity. (It's almost as if they are a counter-example to their own assertion.) Perhaps intelligent organisms float in dense atmospheres. Or perhaps, other physical processes can pique curiosity in other realms.

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

   
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2007,10:34   

Quote (Kristine @ April 06 2007,18:30)
Quote (k.e @ April 06 2007,08:34)
   
Quote (Kristine @ April 06 2007,17:22)
I must admit I thought about it, but I'm too busy to engage this poor thing
 
Quote
Hi to all. I have a big favor to ask of the ID community- Two days ago, I posted a comment on a paper which Dr. Dembski had so kindly shared with us ( Carlos Gershenson’s paper on Viewing the world as information). In that comment, I mentioned that I had a debate going with several atheists in the comments section of an essay I had written on intelligent design versus evolution at my own blog. I invited folks to weigh-in and got deluged by about 400 hits. My intention was to try to bring some balance to the discussion by getting an ID and/or creationist perspective on the matter. Somehow or another, I managed to accomplish the exact opposite. I put my fist in a hornet’s nest, and I am now single-handedly trying to defend myself against a total atheist/evolutionist onslaught. A small sampling of a few words that have been applied to my sincere and polite advocacy of ID are as follows- ” go educate yourself”, I “argue from ignorance”, I am an “intellectual coward”, I speak ” despicable lies”, I “pretend”, I “know nothing”, my arguments are “ludicrous”, I display ” agressive ignorance”, I am “ignorant”, “dishonest”, and “intellectually dishonest”. All this because I politely, and reasonably ( or so I thought), expessed some conscerns that I had about the probabilistic liklihood of human DNA evolving from random particles. I am absolutely getting hammered guys. If there is ANYBODY out there with a reasonable, rational, and polite argument in FAVOR of creationism, [OOOPS!] could you please stop by and add a comment? I feel like a one-legged man in a butt-kicking contest. Dr. Dembski, all I can say is that you must have a very, very thick skin. Because I have tasted but a thimbleful from the cup of scorn that you drink deeply from every day, ( despite the fact that all you do is offer fair alternatives to an established orthodoxy in the marketplace of ideas ), and I havent’ enjoyed the taste very much. Again, thanks for your efforts to enlighten and inform. By the way, have you ever considered just how much the advent of the internet has changed the terms of the debate? When you consider how much hate and resistance there is out there in academia directed at ID even having a chance to be CONSIDERED, arent we all blessed beyond our wildest dreams by the ability to take the message straight to the people? There is really no stopping the free exchange of ideas now. ID advocates have such an opportunity to be heard now, that we never could have dreamed possible 10 years ago. Anyways, if there are any thick-skinned ID advocates or creationists out there, who are ready for an intellectual rumble, please feel free to stop by and enter the comments-war-zone at;
http://tyharris.wordpress.com
All I can say is I didn't do it.  :)

Even with my school account I cannot access the article - but for pity sakes what a big to-do about nothing. Semantic slights-of-hand again. "Random." "Design." "Both." Don't worry Tyharris, I'm after bigger fish.

What are you doing in my rabbit hole, Bob? *Pounces*

Is he for real?

I'm finding it harder to tell the parody from the 'real' thing.

He's real. He's just overstating the "hammered" whine. It looks like a healthy discussion and he only got 22 comments. (Who complains about getting 400 hits? Certainly not me.) :(   :p

OK I TOOK THE BAIT....er bugger ....I took the bait, is horizontal evolution anythig like horizontal dancing?

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
phonon



Posts: 396
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2007,10:36   

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-pro-id

As much as he'd like to believe so, this article is NOT pro-ID. It speaks of rational design or intelligent design, but that's not the same as Intelligent Design.

This is biomimetics. Duh. It's called directed enzyme evolution.

From the article:  
Quote
Ultimately, the objective is to make proteins perform for us as well as they perform in life.

And dig this, Dembski:  
Quote
Rational design has been mainly used in biotechnology to improve the properties (especially thermostability) of natural enzymes.
Oh noes, did we improve upon the work of the Intelligent Designer? How can that be? Well, you always said that Intelligent didn't mean perfect. I guess the Intelligent Designer makes mistakes. Can't be who you had in mind then, can it?

Another nice quote for Dembski:  
Quote
It is often said that random genetic methods to improve enzyme properties “rely on simple but powerful Darwinian principles of mutation and selection” (Johannes and Zhao 2006). We agree. It is also said that “every protein has become adapted by step-by-step improvement and refinement of its function over millions of years” (McLachlan 1987). The present theories, however, only partly explain the protein diversity, although a recent study (Poelwijk et al. 2007) shows that even the key-lock dilemma can be resolved by the Darwinian approach when the operation field for random search is within the same protein family, and the new key-lock pair closely resembles the original (ancestral).

And:  
Quote
Gene duplication and subsequent divergence as mechanisms to create natural variety and novel structures are now decade’s old theories (Ohno 1970). Basically, directed evolution approach is an application of the gene duplication concept. Gene duplication is seen as a way to avoid random sequences in evolution, because random sequences most often are not functional. Mutations in the duplicated genes explore the local sequence space and expand the number of members in a gene family.
Ohno, those theories from Ohno are decades old.

Pro-ID article? I think not, Dembski.

--------------
With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

To do just the opposite is also a form of imitation. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2007,10:43   

Quote (2ndclass @ April 03 2007,14:24)
What in the world has gotten into DaveScot?
 
Quote
Ilion is no longer with us. His first comment here included the rather grandiose claim that he is certain he can show us modern evolutionary theory is false. His subsequent comments have been large on claims and short on substance. We wish him luck and await his Nobel prize for disproving ToE but won’t be holding our collective breath in the interim.

Since when are grandiose, substance-free claims against the ToE considered a bad thing at UD?

Interestingly, Ilion has been posting more at ARN, most likely as a result of his banning at UD.  I noticed this, and checked out the post re: Ilion on my blog and lo and behold, Davetard had left me a message:

"I just banned Ilion from Uncommon Descent for making wild claims and no substance behind them. Out of curiosity I then googled his name and found the same assessment from Scott L. Page. We finally agree on something, Scott. Funny stuff."

Yeah, funny.

It is not that hard to see Ilion as the underinformed, overconfident gasbag he is.

  
phonon



Posts: 396
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2007,10:45   

Love this:tyharris
Quote
I am absolutely getting hammered guys. If there is ANYBODY out there with a reasonable, rational, and polite argument in FAVOR of creationism, could you please stop by and add a comment?



Patrick:
Quote
All I have to say is that you either need to get really, really thick-skinned or implement a better moderation/filtering system if possible. It’s amazing how nasty these people can be…and how much free time they seem to have.

Apollo
Quote
tyharris,

I agree with Patrick. Moderate your blog.

That's right. If you "get hammered" by those evil Darwinistas, just delete their posts and you win by default. No, Jesus wins.

Speaking of Jesus winning, check out this SP Easter Special. It's friggin genius, IMO.

--------------
With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

To do just the opposite is also a form of imitation. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1006
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2007,11:08   

Quote (phonon @ April 06 2007,10:45)
Love this:tyharris
 
Quote
I am absolutely getting hammered guys. If there is ANYBODY out there with a reasonable, rational, and polite argument in FAVOR of creationism, could you please stop by and add a comment?



Patrick:  
Quote
All I have to say is that you either need to get really, really thick-skinned or implement a better moderation/filtering system if possible. It’s amazing how nasty these people can be…and how much free time they seem to have.

Apollo  
Quote
tyharris,

I agree with Patrick. Moderate your blog.

That's right. If you "get hammered" by those evil Darwinistas, just delete their posts and you win by default. No, Jesus wins.

Speaking of Jesus winning, check out this SP Easter Special. It's friggin genius, IMO.

Ty Harris, the poor fool, has but a single post on his blog thus far, and he made the foolish mistake of linking to it from UD. Blissfully ignorant of the fact that the UD denizens don't like going where comments aren't moderated, he thought that a lot of them (even Dembski) would come to his rescue.  I left a few comments in foolishly thinking that he might be willing to listen to reason, but he's just another typical Paleyist whose mind is made up.

My guess is that he'll start "moderating" and fade back into talking to himself, or just give it up and go back to his knitting.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Jake



Posts: 50
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2007,11:12   

Quote (phonon @ April 06 2007,10:36)
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-pro-id

As much as he'd like to believe so, this article is NOT pro-ID. It speaks of rational design or intelligent design, but that's not the same as Intelligent Design.

This is biomimetics. Duh. It's called directed enzyme evolution.

From the article:    
Quote
Ultimately, the objective is to make proteins perform for us as well as they perform in life.

And dig this, Dembski:    
Quote
Rational design has been mainly used in biotechnology to improve the properties (especially thermostability) of natural enzymes.
Oh noes, did we improve upon the work of the Intelligent Designer? How can that be? Well, you always said that Intelligent didn't mean perfect. I guess the Intelligent Designer makes mistakes. Can't be who you had in mind then, can it?

Another nice quote for Dembski:    
Quote
It is often said that random genetic methods to improve enzyme properties “rely on simple but powerful Darwinian principles of mutation and selection” (Johannes and Zhao 2006). We agree. It is also said that “every protein has become adapted by step-by-step improvement and refinement of its function over millions of years” (McLachlan 1987). The present theories, however, only partly explain the protein diversity, although a recent study (Poelwijk et al. 2007) shows that even the key-lock dilemma can be resolved by the Darwinian approach when the operation field for random search is within the same protein family, and the new key-lock pair closely resembles the original (ancestral).

And:    
Quote
Gene duplication and subsequent divergence as mechanisms to create natural variety and novel structures are now decade’s old theories (Ohno 1970). Basically, directed evolution approach is an application of the gene duplication concept. Gene duplication is seen as a way to avoid random sequences in evolution, because random sequences most often are not functional. Mutations in the duplicated genes explore the local sequence space and expand the number of members in a gene family.
Ohno, those theories from Ohno are decades old.

Pro-ID article? I think not, Dembski.

Agreed.

The article is a review of current protein-engineering processes, arguing out that while a rational, directed approach to protein engineering would be most efficient, at present we do not know enough to do this effectively and hence iterative searches of random peptides (referred to here as 'Darwinian' methods) are currently used (we have a program of this type running on my department's screensavers, apparently). The review states a number of drawbacks with this sort of method and argues that such methods are impractical in the long term. In addition, they argue that over-reliance on random search methods should not be allowed to impede progress towards a better understanding how to rationally design proteins.

No-where does this paper support the idea that evolution is flawed, although it does highlight some current areas of uncertainty, notably the question of how novel protein folds arise. No-one is pretending that uncertainties like this do not exist, and productive careers are currently being employed investigating these very problems. To suggest that this is a weakness is to misunderstand the very nature of science.

The review cites both Axe (2004) and Behe and Snoke (2004), which is probably why Dembski noticed it in the first place. I can see why he posted it; the abstract can be read in a pro-ID way (if you squint) and I would guess, oh, 0% of the pro-ID readers over there will actually take the time and effort to read the whole thing.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1006
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2007,12:41   

Ty Harris gets just the help he was looking for, from UDer  kairosfocus:
Quote
Is it just an epiphenomenon of underlying neuronal networks firing away, having originated by chance and necessity, and having survived by being well adapted to the life ofan ape with too many neurons for his own good out on the plains of E Africa? So, why should we pay any more attention to it than to a chimp throwing a tantrum and launching lumps of faeces at anyone within range? And, if your consciousness is so delusional that it leads you to imagine that “moral outrage” at those who challenge “facts” and “science” is more than just an interesting fact of your neuronal networks, then why should we take such a delusional brain-emanation any more seriously than we take the ravings and screams of an angry chimp?]

We could go on and on, on the issue of originating the sort of functionally specified complex information that is more and more evidently a fundamental constituent of the cosmos. But first, are “you” there to debate with? (Or are we simply dealing with lucky noise that happened to burst through the internet — chance plus necessity can explain anything in a sufficiently large universe, especially a quasi-infinite one . . .


I hope Ty is appropriately thankful for the support.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
JohnW



Posts: 2202
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2007,12:55   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 06 2007,12:41)
Ty Harris gets just the help he was looking for, from UDer  kairosfocus:
 
Quote
Is it just an epiphenomenon of underlying neuronal networks firing away, having originated by chance and necessity, and having survived by being well adapted to the life ofan ape with too many neurons for his own good out on the plains of E Africa? So, why should we pay any more attention to it than to a chimp throwing a tantrum and launching lumps of faeces at anyone within range? And, if your consciousness is so delusional that it leads you to imagine that “moral outrage” at those who challenge “facts” and “science” is more than just an interesting fact of your neuronal networks, then why should we take such a delusional brain-emanation any more seriously than we take the ravings and screams of an angry chimp?]

We could go on and on, on the issue of originating the sort of functionally specified complex information that is more and more evidently a fundamental constituent of the cosmos. But first, are “you” there to debate with? (Or are we simply dealing with lucky noise that happened to burst through the internet — chance plus necessity can explain anything in a sufficiently large universe, especially a quasi-infinite one . . .


I hope Ty is appropriately thankful for the support.

Sadly, he probably is.

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

  
wintermute



Posts: 21
Joined: Feb. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2007,13:10   

Quote
So, why should we pay any more attention to it than to a chimp throwing a tantrum and launching lumps of faeces at anyone within range?

Sounds like something I'd want to pay plenty of attention to.

Have you ever tried to get chimp fæces out of wool? It's not easy, you know.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1006
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2007,13:19   

Quote (wintermute @ April 06 2007,13:10)
Quote
So, why should we pay any more attention to it than to a chimp throwing a tantrum and launching lumps of faeces at anyone within range?

Sounds like something I'd want to pay plenty of attention to.

Have you ever tried to get chimp fæces out of wool? It's not easy, you know.

That's why you never see chimps and sheep in the same room.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < ... 466 467 468 469 470 [471] 472 473 474 475 476 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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