RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (501) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 3, The Beast Marches On...< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Bob O'H



Posts: 1968
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2009,16:20   

Oh, nobody else started one up then?  I guess I'll have to.

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

   
Aardvark



Posts: 134
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2009,16:26   

More like UDT 2.5 than 3; since the original had ~1000 pages (IIRC) and the sequel only 500.

Anyways, on with the tardmining...

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2009,16:32   

Because this passage is eminently appropriate for UD, always:
 
Quote

Let us begin with Isaiah 57:20-21:

"But the wicked are like the tossing sea,
which cannot rest,
whose waves cast up mire and mud.

'There is no peace,' says my God, 'for the wicked.' "

------------------------------------
stevestory's opening post, UD thread#2, here



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

  
dheddle



Posts: 530
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2009,16:37   

What's up with stopping before the Mark of the Beast?*. You going all dispensational on us, Wes?

---------
* Which anyone who is anyone knows is 661, not 666

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

   
someotherguy



Posts: 367
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2009,16:37   

It feels so fresh and new in here!  Like anything is possible:

- Gil could could use a new argument that was not generated by the Dogdenator 3000
- Corny could write a blog post that didn't link back to one of his other blogs
- Denyse could write something that didn't cause English teachers everywhere to start calling suicide hotlines
- Davetard could sell his houseboat and travel to Tibet to seek personal enlightenment
- KF could admit, in a post of less than 500 words, that "quasi-latching" and "implicit latching" are just bullshit concepts that he made up to avoid admitting defeat
- StephenB could apologize--and actually mean it
- Dr. Dr. D could be invited on a reality TV show to get a wardrobe makeover
- All of us could vow to never make socks at UD again because, really, getting your laughs from watching a bunch of moderately crazy strangers act like idiots is kind of immature


Okay, I admit that last possibility is probably rather remote!   :D

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

  
Maya



Posts: 702
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2009,16:37   

Joseph outs himself as a YEC:  
Quote
Cabal:
 
Quote
The evolutionist position is amply supported by 150 years of research.

The only thing supported is the Creationists’ position of baraminology.

  
Maya



Posts: 702
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2009,16:40   

Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 04 2009,16:37)
All of us could vow to never make socks at UD again because, really, getting your laughs from watching a bunch of moderately crazy strangers act like idiots is kind of immature

I'll stop mocking them when they stop voting.

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2009,16:45   

Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 04 2009,16:37)
It feels so fresh and new in here!  Like anything is possible:

- Gil could could use a new argument that was not generated by the Dogdenator 3000

Actually, I was considering upgrading the Dodgenator 3000 by adding an option about the "cell as a highly complex information processing machine."  But, I cannot decide if that is sufficiently different than "DNA is a computer program."

Thoughts?

--------------
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: Sep. 04 2009,16:50   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 04 2009,16:45)
Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 04 2009,16:37)
It feels so fresh and new in here!  Like anything is possible:

- Gil could could use a new argument that was not generated by the Dogdenator 3000

Actually, I was considering upgrading the Dodgenator 3000 by adding an option about the "cell as a highly complex information processing machine."  But, I cannot decide if that is sufficiently different than "DNA is a computer program."

Thoughts?

It's the same, IMO.  It's like taking Creation Science adding something sciencey and voila, you got your Intelligent Design.  

and BTW -

"Welcome my friends, to the show that never ends"...

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2009,16:56   

With a straight face PaV says:
Quote
It seems to me that if there is any “power” to Darwin’s theory, then it must come from its ability to demonstrate how new structures arise, not how previously occurring structures disappeared.

Furthermore, from the writings of Fred Hoyle, and the recent work of Behe (The Edge of Evolution), what we, here at UD would predict, is that the ‘loss’ of teeth or enamel wouldn’t involve more than two amino acid substitutions. This is, more or less, what Meredith, et. al. found. So, whose predictive power is enormous and whose not?

enormous-predictive-power-of-darwins-theory
Um.

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

  
Barrett Brown



Posts: 7
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2009,17:45   

Quote
You managed to stir up a couple of commenters over there. Some of them are really odious.


Yes, and I've replied with two additional comments that have yet to be moderated through hours later despite other, later comments having already appeared, as per usual. I've reproduced them at my little blog post:

http://trueslant.com/barrett....f-shame

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2009,18:11   

Quote (Maya @ Sep. 04 2009,17:40)
Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 04 2009,16:37)
All of us could vow to never make socks at UD again because, really, getting your laughs from watching a bunch of moderately crazy strangers act like idiots is kind of immature

I'll stop mocking them when they stop voting.

word

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

  
afarensis



Posts: 1005
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2009,18:42   

Wow! It's all in color and stuff, I don't think we are in the old thread anymore Toto!

Edit to add: PaV is a putz...

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

   
afarensis



Posts: 1005
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2009,21:11   

PaV says:

Quote
Furthermore, from the writings of Fred Hoyle, and the recent work of Behe (The Edge of Evolution), what we, here at UD would predict, is that the ‘loss’ of teeth or enamel wouldn’t involve more than two amino acid substitutions. This is, more or less, what Meredith, et. al. found.


Does anyone who has read the paper know where PaV gets this figure from? The closest thing I can find is where they calculate substitution rates in Mysticetes (they get .0081 frameshifts/kb/myr) and where they calculate gene (well technically the survival time of a 3 kb exon) survival time assuming neutral evolution and use nucleotide substitution rate in their calculation, but perhaps I missed something?Or is PaV just making shit up?

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

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5377
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2009,21:49   

Quote (Maya @ Sep. 04 2009,17:40)
Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 04 2009,16:37)
All of us could vow to never make socks at UD again because, really, getting your laughs from watching a bunch of moderately crazy strangers act like idiots is kind of immature

I'll stop mocking them when they stop voting.

Exactly so.

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

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2009,22:38   

front page tard-by


Detectable Tranmaw

Quote
Does anyone remember when “speciation” meant something?


words fail

Andrew Sibleytard

Quote
If this is the best RD can do then Darwinian evolution is clearly on its last legs


because why?

Frill

Quote
The recent brouhaha concerning Mike Behe at BloggingHeads got me to thinking. (I do that from time to time.)


and it is always so cute!

d-d-d-d-d-d-d-dembski

Quote
His unbridled contempt for Jan Helfeld reminds me of the Darwinists’ contempt for lay people when they ask simple probing questions about their theory. Darwinism has a similar addling effect on even the best-educated minds. It too is a fevered swamp.


good old bill is always so calm cool and collected, reserved even, with his use of language.  

now, what, too, is a fevered swamp?  darwinism is a fevered swamp?  or the similar addling effect on even the best-educated minds?  

because i could see how that would be just a little bit more of a fevered swamp than you know the other one.

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2009,23:16   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 04 2009,21:49)
 
Quote (Maya @ Sep. 04 2009,17:40)
   
Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 04 2009,16:37)
All of us could vow to never make socks at UD again because, really, getting your laughs from watching a bunch of moderately crazy strangers act like idiots is kind of immature

I'll stop mocking them when they stop voting.

Exactly so.

I'm contractually obliged to keep mocking them until they stop saying stupid shit.
It's my job.

Apparently, I will never, ever be unemployed

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2009,23:48   

which one of y'all is spark300c.  this is good

Quote
14
spark300c
09/04/2009
1:40 pm
it seem that why but I think the left over are there to make sure that we do not think there are many designers. no lefter overs means no signs of command design. Also if we think natural section is strong enough to make evolution happen than these non coding parts will go away very quickly. eaten way by deletions. We have genes for laying eggs. Why in hell would natural selection persevere it. It since it does no do any thing it takes up space and energy and in nature is very sightly deleterious. Any deletion will be beneficial since it will reduce energy being wasted and add to our fitness. Since that gene still exist means it sending message to us that one designer created us. Anther thing is rise question about natural selection because it show natural selection does not see there fore it’s creative powers are limited.


THAT

is thinkin'!!!

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

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 1968
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2009,02:12   

Quote (Barrett Brown @ Sep. 04 2009,17:45)
Quote
You managed to stir up a couple of commenters over there. Some of them are really odious.


Yes, and I've replied with two additional comments that have yet to be moderated through hours later despite other, later comments having already appeared, as per usual. I've reproduced them at my little blog post:

[URL=http://trueslant.com/barrettbrown/2009/09/04/intelligent-design-advocate-mocking-of-scientist-by-other-scientists-a-century-ago-is-evol


utions-legacy-of-shame/]http://trueslant.com/barrett....f-shame[/URL]

Yep, the snark is up.

I appreciate this, from your post:
Quote
Incidentally, I consider message board arguments to be a fine art despite its reputation as useless and silly. It’s not as if they are any more unproductive than any other sort of argument, really.


Delurker also has a go
Quote
13

DeLurker

09/04/2009

4:47 pm

IRQ Conflict#8

Quote
But hey! At least we aren’t in their bedrooms. Right? Why are they in ours?


I almost hesitate to ask, but do homosexuals really force themselves into your bedroom?


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

   
k.e..



Posts: 2876
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2009,05:33   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 05 2009,00:45)
Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 04 2009,16:37)
It feels so fresh and new in here!  Like anything is possible:

- Gil could could use a new argument that was not generated by the Dogdenator 3000

Actually, I was considering upgrading the Dodgenator 3000 by adding an option about the "cell as a highly complex information processing machine."  But, I cannot decide if that is sufficiently different than "DNA is a computer program."

Thoughts?

Make it a hat trick

DNA is a gay turing machine

Not because Turing was gay, which he was
but because the turing machine would have no way of knowing if it was having 'sex' with another turing machine without external information telling it if liked lacy to wear underwear or preferred to watch sport and drink beer.

ETA: Naturally one of the turing machines was named Lacy.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2009,07:25   

Dangaroo!  Over on the [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/education/blown-away-dan-peterson-reviews-dr-stephen-meyers-book-the-signature-in-the-cell-at-the-am

erican-spectator/]Dan Peterson lurvs Stephen Meyers thread[/URL], Blue Lotus drops 5 comments totalling 3131 words onto KF in less than an hour and a half.  Stealing a tactic from his book, Blue?

How will Gordon respond?  Will he up the ante with a 5000 word response?  Will Lewontin be invoked?  How many strawmen will be torched?  Inquiring minds want to know!

PS:  Blue Lotus?  Do something about that OCD. Seriously.

--------------
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!)

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2009,11:41   

Joe be do dat science !

Thesis proposal, ratcheer

Quote
10
Joseph
09/05/2009
8:06 am
Darwinism has predictions?

Please post the predictions based on the proposed mechamisms.

BTW ID will be falsified if it is ever demonstrated that living organisms can arise from non-living matter via non-telic processes.

The following is half of my design hypothesis:

Observation:

Living organisms

Question

Are living organisms the result of intentional design?

Prediction:

If living organisms were the result of intentional design then I would expect to see that living organisms are (and contain subsystems that are) irreducibly complex and/ or contain complex specified information. IOW I would expect to see an intricacy that is more than just a sum of chemical reactions (endothermic or exothermic).

Further I would expect to see command & control- a hierarchy of command & control would be a possibility.

Test:

Try to deduce the minimal functionality that a living organism. Try to determine if that minimal functionality is irreducibly complex and/or contains complex specified information. Also check to see if any subsystems are irreducibly complex and/ or contain complex specified information.

Potential falsification:

Observe that living organisms arise from non-living matter via a mixture of commonly-found-in-nature chemicals. Observe that while some systems “appear” to be irreducibly complex it can be demonstrated that they can indeed arise via purely stochastic processes such as culled genetic accidents. Also demonstrate that the apparent command & control can also be explained by endothermic and/or exothermic reactions.

Confirmation:

Living organisms are irreducibly complex and contain irreducibly complex subsystems. The information required to build and maintain a single-celled organism is both complex and specified.

Command & control is observed in single-celled organisms- the bacterial flagellum not only has to be configured correctly, indicating command & control over the assembly process, but it also has to function, indicating command & control over functionality.



TARD STUDIES

learn how to beg questions you have never even considered at University of Unprincipled Dissent

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4048
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2009,12:13   

Quote
BTW ID will be falsified if it is ever demonstrated that living organisms can arise from non-living matter via non-telic processes.

That's only because they defined it to include the assertion that evolution is wrong. If they had instead defined it to mean simply that something deliberately engineered life (or some aspect(s) of it), then merely showing the possibility of non-telic evolution wouldn't falsify it.

Henry

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1237
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2009,13:12   

dheddle pointed out who the world class software engineer is in UCD thread 2: http://www.atarimagazines.com/startv3n4/stsciplot.html

but a bit of the code (as in Bible code) disturbs me...

Quote
ST SciPlot is a full-featured GEM application


I knew it!  GEM of TKI is a Turing test (complete with teh gay).

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2009,13:50   

snip--
Quote
then I would expect to see that
--snip

insert 25c ask "Why do you expect to see that?"

observe subject beat itself against the bars of cage

20 GOTO 10

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

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 1968
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2009,14:57   

Jerry is being his usual genteel self
Quote
56

jerry

09/05/2009

2:40 pm

“And the FSCI in those things you mention is? And it’s measured how? And the minimum possible amount of FSCI is?”

It is easy to measure and the minimum amount is zero but not in DNA used to code proteins. It is close to zero in most of your comments.

“Fact is Jerry the NCIS won’t have heard of FSCI”

But they use the concept all the time even if they do not use the term. Just as most humans uses it when they speak and write.

I have a question. How many more stupid remarks are you going to make. I haven’t seen one intelligent one yet, though I haven’t read them all.

Can someone sock ask him if it's so easy to calculate, to show us an example of a calculation of FCSI for a stretch of coding DNA.  I'm genuinely curious.

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

   
tsig



Posts: 320
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2009,17:46   

Quote (Maya @ Sep. 04 2009,16:40)
Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 04 2009,16:37)
All of us could vow to never make socks at UD again because, really, getting your laughs from watching a bunch of moderately crazy strangers act like idiots is kind of immature

I'll stop mocking them when they stop voting.

I'll stop when they start thinking.

  
khan



Posts: 1481
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2009,17:48   

Quote (tsig @ Sep. 05 2009,18:46)
Quote (Maya @ Sep. 04 2009,16:40)
Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 04 2009,16:37)
All of us could vow to never make socks at UD again because, really, getting your laughs from watching a bunch of moderately crazy strangers act like idiots is kind of immature

I'll stop mocking them when they stop voting.

I'll stop when they start thinking.

Don't hold your breath.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

  
tsig



Posts: 320
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2009,19:36   

Quote (khan @ Sep. 05 2009,17:48)
Quote (tsig @ Sep. 05 2009,18:46)
Quote (Maya @ Sep. 04 2009,16:40)
 
Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 04 2009,16:37)
All of us could vow to never make socks at UD again because, really, getting your laughs from watching a bunch of moderately crazy strangers act like idiots is kind of immature

I'll stop mocking them when they stop voting.

I'll stop when they start thinking.

Don't hold your breath.

Not turning blue at the moment.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2009,20:10   

whoa

new tard.  carlson you need some new letters

Quote
Here’s another one: F = MA (force equals mass times acceleration) This is a fundamental law of physics, described in the most simple of all mathematical equations, that I use in my work creating finite-element analysis computer simulations of transient nonlinear dynamic systems. (All that means simulating real-life stuff, like cars crashing and figuring out how to design them so that they absorb the energy of impact and protect the human occupants.)

But here’s something very interesting about such a simple mathematical equation as F = MA. Force (e.g., lbf, or pound force) = Mass times Acceleration. Acceleration could be something like feet per second per second (ft. / sec.^2). Solving for Mass with simple algebra we get:

lbf / (ft. / sec.^2) or (lbf times sec.^2) / ft.

Thus, we calculate mass density by dividing mass by volume (in this case ft.^3), and we get:

lbf sec.^2 / ft.^4

How interesting! The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space.

And all of this ultimately comes from 1 apple plus 1 apple equals 2 apples


did you get the pathetic part?

Quote
I use in my work creating finite-element analysis computer simulations of transient nonlinear dynamic systems. (All that means simulating real-life stuff, like cars crashing and figuring out how to design them so that they absorb the energy of impact and protect the human occupants.)


poor frill don't know how much of a tard he is.

not yet that is.  until now

Quote
2
Blue Lotus
09/05/2009
7:16 pm
Gil

that I use in my work creating finite-element analysis computer simulations of transient nonlinear dynamic systems.

I have heard about these simulations on the interwebs. The rumour is you introduce an additional element of reality by having the computer running the simulation experence a similar enviroment to that being simulated!

It’s an interesting idea but I think it will have limited pratical use to be honest.


hahahaha

now he knows

Quote
3
GilDodgen
09/05/2009
7:38 pm
…you introduce an additional element of reality by having the computer running the simulation experence a similar enviroment to that being simulated!

This is a completely incoherent comment, and I have no idea what you are talking about. I’ve just finished a set of FEA simulations at work, the validity of which have been empirically verified through actual physical tests of the systems in question.

If you think FEA has limited practical use I would suggest that you investigate LS-DYNA, the FEA program I use.

tard-link




4
GilDodgen
09/05/2009
7:49 pm
P.S. LS-DYNA was originally developed in the early 1970s at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, by some of the world’s most brilliant and innovative scientists, primarily for the development and simulation of nuclear weapons.

It works, but you must know how to use it. This is a nontrivial exercise that requires a lot of dedication and effort.


that makes me feel kinda bad for the little guy.  

lololololol just for a second, he's a chump

BL

Quote
I take it you don’t throw your computers running the FEA simulations out the back of planes then?


loloololololol

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2009,20:18   

jerry, ahem

*cough*

shuffles feet

Quote
No one is arguing that artificial selection is not evolution but it is evolution in a trivial sense because it is micro evolution and not of any interest to anyone in the evolution debate. The debate is about macro evolution and dog breeding or artificial selection has no bearing on this


hear that, all you silly bastards out there measuring selection and fitness, bugger off

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

  
olegt



Posts: 1386
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2009,21:39   

Quote
How interesting! The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space.

Wow, that's sig-worthy!  I [heart] Gil.

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

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2009,21:41   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 05 2009,20:10)
whoa

new tard.  carlson you need some new letters

   
Quote
Here’s another one: F = MA (force equals mass times acceleration) This is a fundamental law of physics, described in the most simple of all mathematical equations, that I use in my work creating finite-element analysis computer simulations of transient nonlinear dynamic systems. (All that means simulating real-life stuff, like cars crashing and figuring out how to design them so that they absorb the energy of impact and protect the human occupants.)

But here’s something very interesting about such a simple mathematical equation as F = MA. Force (e.g., lbf, or pound force) = Mass times Acceleration. Acceleration could be something like feet per second per second (ft. / sec.^2). Solving for Mass with simple algebra we get:

lbf / (ft. / sec.^2) or (lbf times sec.^2) / ft.

Thus, we calculate mass density by dividing mass by volume (in this case ft.^3), and we get:

lbf sec.^2 / ft.^4

How interesting! The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space.

And all of this ultimately comes from 1 apple plus 1 apple equals 2 apples

Sorry 'Ras, but there is nothing new there. It looks to start out as an Argument Bx, but someone threw an I-didn't-come-from-no-monkey wrench into the gears of the Dodgenator 3000 before any conclusions could be spit out.

--------------
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!)

  
olegt



Posts: 1386
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2009,21:51   

Quote

10
GilDodgen
09/05/2009
9:40 pm

This Blue Lotus clown is a troll. I recognize him. Trolls should be required to identify themselves.

It is a simple design inference. I once suggested that computer simulations that purport to simulate biological evolution should not artificially isolate the means of reproduction from the effects of random errors, and every time this troll logs on with another name he talks about stuff like throwing computers out of airplanes to simulate airdrop guidance software, which he knows is one of my areas of software engineering expertise.

His MO is easily recognizable, and he reappears under different names.

He is a cowardly scumbag.


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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2009,21:57   

Quote (olegt @ Sep. 05 2009,22:51)
Quote

10
GilDodgen
09/05/2009
9:40 pm

This Blue Lotus clown is a troll. I recognize him. Trolls should be required to identify themselves.

It is a simple design inference. I once suggested that computer simulations that purport to simulate biological evolution should not artificially isolate the means of reproduction from the effects of random errors, and every time this troll logs on with another name he talks about stuff like throwing computers out of airplanes to simulate airdrop guidance software, which he knows is one of my areas of software engineering expertise.

His MO is easily recognizable, and he reappears under different names.

He is a cowardly scumbag.

ALL SCIENCE SO FAR


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

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

  
sparc



Posts: 1691
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2009,22:23   

Gil
Quote
All of mathematics can ultimately be traced back to the simple concept of addition: 1 apple plus 1 apple equals 2 apples.

Repetitive addition yields multiplication and its inverse yields division. Repetitive multiplication yields exponentiation
I am looking forward to his mathematical foundation of the concept of square apples and sexuality. Or would it rather be homo-sexuality?

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

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2009,22:24   

Quote
59

Blue Lotus

09/05/2009

4:16 pm

Jerry

   It is easy to measure and the minimum amount is zero but not in DNA used to code proteins.

Could you show us an example of a calculation of FCSI for a stretch of coding DNA?


are we going to see some pencils and calculators and scratch paper?

naaaah

Quote


62

jerry

09/05/2009

5:44 pm

Just take 4^n where n in the number of nucleotides in the string. This number has to be reduced somewhat for multiple codons coding for the same amino acid and reduced further for possible substitutions of one amino acid for another in certain proteins but it gets at the level of complexity of the issue. Another way to do this is to take each codon or group of three and assign the corresponding amino acid to it. Then for each group of three the calculation would be 20^m where m is the number of codons in the string. This would again have to be reduced somewhat for amino acids that could substitute for each other in certain proteins. These are rough calculations but magnitude of the measure is easy to estimate.

I am sure there are refinements of this but this gets at the issue and the magnitude of the measure. Just as you can measure the complexity of a communications by calculating the possible letter/character strings in a sentence or paragraph and then reducing it by other strings that could communicate the same message.


shorter jerry:  english spelling has more information

colour

see?

blue lotus

Quote
I mean, rather then explain how to do it, actually do it?


yeah right.  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAA

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

  
Turncoat



Posts: 124
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2009,22:54   

Quote (Maya @ Sep. 04 2009,16:40)
Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 04 2009,16:37)
All of us could vow to never make socks at UD again because, really, getting your laughs from watching a bunch of moderately crazy strangers act like idiots is kind of immature

I'll stop mocking them when they stop voting.

Inspiring words. I'm bored with UD, but digging handy trench latrines for the neo-creos to lay tard on the front is a civic duty. I'll be back.

Dog and Country!

--------------
I never give them hell. I just tell the truth about them, and they think it's hell. — Harry S Truman

  
Henry J



Posts: 4048
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2009,22:57   

Quote
Quote

All of mathematics can ultimately be traced back to the simple concept of addition: 1 apple plus 1 apple equals 2 apples.

Repetitive addition yields multiplication and its inverse yields division. Repetitive multiplication yields exponentiation

Yeah, numerical mathematics is defined in terms of repeated additions, and addition is defined in terms of set theory. Deriving number systems from set theory is an interesting subject. (To me, anyway.) I'm not sure how any of that relates to either evolution or I.D. though.

Henry

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2009,23:46   

well, i reckon that's about as close as it'll ever get

Quote
71
jerry
09/05/2009
11:33 pm
nicholas.steno,

There is another long analysis I made that is relevant to how one views the debate if you are interested in reading it.

link


now, who keeps track of links like that?  a comment from a thread 9 months ago.  either jerry is carlson or he is a bit proud of the stuff he writes over there.

as am i, jerry, as am i.

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

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2009,01:41   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 05 2009,23:46)
now, who keeps track of links like that?  a comment from a thread 9 months ago.  either jerry is carlson or he is a bit proud of the stuff he writes over there.

Sorry again, 'Ras. I haven't socked since poachy got banned.

--------------
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!)

  
Rrr



Posts: 146
Joined: Nov. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2009,03:55   

Quote (sparc @ Sep. 05 2009,22:23)
Gil
Quote
All of mathematics can ultimately be traced back to the simple concept of addition: 1 apple plus 1 apple equals 2 apples.

Repetitive addition yields multiplication and its inverse yields division. Repetitive multiplication yields exponentiation
I am looking forward to his mathematical foundation of the concept of square apples and sexuality. Or would it rather be homo-sexuality?

Ehrm. That would be pomo-sexuality, for the lingwits.

Hat/tip/veal.

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 1968
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2009,04:26   

Ha!
Quote
20

BillB

09/06/2009

2:22 am

Quote
Give us your real name, as I have done. Otherwise, please do us the favor of blessing us with your absence.


GEM of TKI to that



I'll just comment that I do think this Gil baiting is a bit unkind.  Whilst some of his ideas are a bit, um, odd, he doesn't come across as being malicious or nasty.  And he has at least made something of his off-line life.

Now jerry, on the other hand, deserves the vitriol aimed at him.

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

   
Zachriel



Posts: 2595
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2009,08:37   

Quote
Blue Lotus:    
Quote
GilDodgen: All computational evolutionary algorithms artificially isolate the effects of random mutation on the underlying machinery: the CPU instruction set, operating system, and algorithmic processes responsible for the replication process.

If the blind-watchmaker thesis is correct for biological evolution, all of these artificial constraints must be eliminated. Every aspect of the simulation, both hardware and software, must be subject to random errors.

Of course, this would result in immediate disaster and the extinction of the CPU, OS, simulation program, and the programmer, who would never get funding for further realistic simulation experiments.

GilDodgen lashes out.  

Quote
GilDodgen: With all due lack of respect, you are a clown, hiding behind your anonymity.

Click on my name or Google it, and you can find out all about me.

You must do the same in order for this conversation to continue. Give your real name so I have as much information about you as you do about me, or do us both a favor and crawl back into the hole from which you emerged.

Give us your real name, as I have done. Otherwise, please do us the favor of blessing us with your absence.

I don't think it's productive to call GilDodgen names. He is certainly accomplished in a number of ways, and for that he deserves respect. But when he's wrong, he should be called on it. Nor should GilDodgen react in such a fashion.

Quote
C_G_K: The underlying machinery (OS, programs, hardware and so on) are an important part of genetic algorithms and therefore become part of the simulation.

This is a perfect opportunity for GilDodgen to correct this wrong perception. The hardware is not part of the world being simulated.

Quote
GilDodgen: I once suggested that computer simulations that purport to simulate biological evolution should not artificially isolate the means of reproduction from the effects of random errors, and every time this troll logs on with another name he talks about stuff like throwing computers out of airplanes to simulate airdrop guidance software, which he knows is one of my areas of software engineering expertise.

The "means of reproduction" can and are simulated by evolutionary models. But that is *not* done by mutating the CPU or OS.

Quote
GilDodgen: He is a cowardly scumbag.

It's obvious that GilDodgen feels inadequate, constantly peppering his posts with references to his accomplishments. He is sensitive—overly so. It is a common circumstance when someone who can't admit error is confronted, repeatedly, with the source of his error.

But he said what he said. Even now, GilDodgen's language hedges on the distinction. He refuses to accept that he was wrong, is wrong. This will remain an issue for as long as he maintains his position.

Sympathy for GilDodgen's obvious discomfort is understandable—it's anguishing to watch him—, but it seems to be something to do with GilDodgen, not with Blue Lotus.


-
Edited for clarity.


--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 3553
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2009,09:49   

Quote
If the blind-watchmaker thesis is correct for biological evolution, all of these artificial constraints must be eliminated. Every aspect of the simulation, both hardware and software, must be subject to random errors.

Of course, this would result in immediate disaster and the extinction of the CPU, OS, simulation program, and the programmer, who would never get funding for further realistic simulation experiments.
Someone propose the following thought experiment to Gil:

Create a simulation that runs on a virtual machine. I'm sure he understands the concept. The virtual machine includes the OS, hardware drivers, and programs. All of this will reside in memory, but this is the only feasible way to run his kind of simulation.

To make it possible, the virtual machine would be somewhat less complex than Windows. Perhaps a few thousand bytes. I think the early Apple and Radio Shack computers implemented Basic in under 4K. I think you could easily make a VM that requires much less. A VM would consist of an interpreter and code, and both would be subject to mutation.

Since abiogenesis is not the issue being explored, the starting VM would be a self replicator. It would divide, producing imperfect copies of itself. The division and mutation process could affect both "children."

The VMs would exist in a sea of memory, perhaps a turbulent sea that sloshes around, separating the individuals so replications don't always sit on other individuals. Although this could happen. Perhaps individuals need a virtual membrane.

My first thought is that something like this has probably already been done. I don't follow the details of the various simulation programs, but I'd be surprised if someone hasn't tried this.

My second thought is that Gill wouldn't accept this, because the "real" OS isn't affected.

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

Pat Robertson

  
k.e..



Posts: 2876
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2009,11:11   

Quote
The VMs would exist in a sea of memory, perhaps a turbulent sea that sloshes around, separating the individuals so replications don't always sit on other individuals. Although this could happen. Perhaps individuals need a virtual membrane.


I'LL SECOND THAT! HOMO.

YOU COULD HAVE SEAHORSES AND TURTLES AND EACH TIME YOU HAVE A TSUNAMI THEY WASH UP ON THE MONITOR SCREEN AT WHICH POINT YOU COULD JUST DO A CTRL ALT DEL TO SWAP TO A NEW VM.

...erm OR JUST THROW THE WHOLE THING IN THE NEAREST OCEAN AND ALLOW THE GA TO SLOSH IN THROUGH THE USB PORT.dt

Gil's bitchin' isn't covering up his lying for Jesus.
I'll bet he is way out of the loop on the latest developments on weapons programming.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2009,11:22   

There's people running a virtual Mac OSX in Windows. (or Windows in Mac).

I'm ambivalent about Gil.

He has some fair accomplishments, but he tries to whip those out seemingly at every possible opportunity, as if he's got some kind of tiny pianist complex (I was trying to figure out how to sneak in that Krusty teh Clown ref.).

To be honest, his musicianship is his most formidable achievement. The code-jockeying...eh, others might see that as more important. The "I was a teenage were-athesist" shit is just trite, esp. when it constantly prefaces / accompanies his pontifications regarding matters he clearly doesn't understand or wish to understand. As Zach mentioned, there's also the overblown ego that can't accept/admit being wrong without a frilly flounce-attack. Add in his questionable behavior when he was actually modding. (Although, compared to Scooter, Gil was a little ray of sunshine.)

Aside from those quibbles, he seems moderately tolerable, even if I can't imagine doing so overly long in any social setting.

ETA: I saw what you did there, "Turncoat." That was a pip.

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

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1237
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2009,11:47   

Quote (olegt @ Sep. 05 2009,21:39)
 
Quote
How interesting! The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space.

Wow, that's sig-worthy!  I [heart] Gil.

Consider it stolen.

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

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3553
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2009,11:48   

Virtual Windows and virtual OSX are a bit ambitious.

What I have in mind is a bit of self replicating code, such that it satisfies Gil's demand that the code and data both be subject to mutation. Something like a virtual Spiegelman's Monster.

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

Pat Robertson

  
socle



Posts: 262
Joined: July 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2009,12:26   

Clive:
 
Quote

Gil is right, Blue Lotus also goes by David v. Squatney. So, Blue, which name would you like to use? To make it easier to follow and for the sake of continuity, just stick with your David v. Squatney handle, and Blue Lotus will now be retired by me.

Just for the record, I know with absolute certainty that David v. Squatney and Blue Lotus are not the same person.  I've made a post to that effect, but DvS is now under moderation.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10094
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2009,12:29   

Quote (socle @ Sep. 06 2009,12:26)
Clive:
 
Quote

Gil is right, Blue Lotus also goes by David v. Squatney. So, Blue, which name would you like to use? To make it easier to follow and for the sake of continuity, just stick with your David v. Squatney handle, and Blue Lotus will now be retired by me.

Just for the record, I know with absolute certainty that David v. Squatney and Blue Lotus are not the same person.  I've made a post to that effect, but DvS is now under moderation.

Clivebaby will be outing GAB of Talky next?

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

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5377
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2009,12:37   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 06 2009,13:29)
Quote (socle @ Sep. 06 2009,12:26)
Clive:
   
Quote

Gil is right, Blue Lotus also goes by David v. Squatney. So, Blue, which name would you like to use? To make it easier to follow and for the sake of continuity, just stick with your David v. Squatney handle, and Blue Lotus will now be retired by me.

Just for the record, I know with absolute certainty that David v. Squatney and Blue Lotus are not the same person.  I've made a post to that effect, but DvS is now under moderation.

Clivebaby will be outing GAB of Talky next?

If consistency were their strong suit, we wouldn't be having this discussion about not throwing Gil's computer out the back of an airplane.

Liars and hypocrites, to the last one.

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

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10094
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2009,12:43   

Gab of Talkys new strategy seems to be to claim victory "I've already squashed an refuted that argument" and link to some blurtfest on his web page that does nothing of the sort..

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

  
Turncoat



Posts: 124
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2009,13:48   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 06 2009,04:26)
Ha!    
Quote
20

BillB

09/06/2009

2:22 am

   
Quote
Give us your real name, as I have done. Otherwise, please do us the favor of blessing us with your absence.


GEM of TKI to that



I'll just comment that I do think this Gil baiting is a bit unkind.  Whilst some of his ideas are a bit, um, odd, he doesn't come across as being malicious or nasty.  And he has at least made something of his off-line life.

Now jerry, on the other hand, deserves the vitriol aimed at him.

Gil is highly narcissistic, in the clinical sense. I would not hazard to say from online interactions if a clinician would diagnosis him as a full-blown narcissistic personality, but a number of the signs are there. Narcissists commonly present fine fronts in public, and brutalize their families at home. They are in fact malicious and nasty.

What's missing from the Dodgenator 3000 is Gil's frequent self-description as expert in one of a rapidly growing list of fields. At best I can tell, he's an expert if he reads a book about something (e.g., computational number theory) and then writes a program related to it. I think this earns him some baiting.

As for making something of his off-line life, Gil has moved from tweaking a checkers-playing program to tweaking the trajectory of a parachute and its military payload. The checkers program entertained some people, and may have contributed indirectly to science by offering competition to programs developed by actual researchers in AI. The trajectory-control program serves primarily to hurt people. What would Jesus do with a computer?

--------------
I never give them hell. I just tell the truth about them, and they think it's hell. — Harry S Truman

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2009,14:13   

Gilbert K. Dodgen:
Quote
Here’s another one: F = MA (force equals mass times acceleration) This is a fundamental law of physics, described in the most simple of all mathematical equations, that I use in my work creating finite-element analysis computer simulations of transient nonlinear dynamic systems. (All that means simulating real-life stuff, like cars crashing and figuring out how to design them so that they absorb the energy of impact and protect the human occupants.)

But here’s something very interesting about such a simple mathematical equation as F = MA. Force (e.g., lbf, or pound force) = Mass times Acceleration. Acceleration could be something like feet per second per second (ft. / sec.^2). Solving for Mass with simple algebra we get:

lbf / (ft. / sec.^2) or (lbf times sec.^2) / ft.

Thus, we calculate mass density by dividing mass by volume (in this case ft.^3), and we get:

lbf sec.^2 / ft.^4

How interesting! The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space.

Poor Gil. He uses the definition of mass density -- a definition that assumes three-dimensional space -- to reach the conclusion that space is four-dimensional. And then he fails to notice the discrepancy.

Here's your problem, Gil. The lbf is defined as 32 · lbm · ft/s2.  Substituting that into your derived equation for mass density, we get

mass density = (lbm·ft/s2)·s2/ft4 = lbm/ft3

Well, duh.  The very definition of mass density assumes three spatial dimensions, so of course we end up with ft3 in the denominator.  If you started with a definition of density that assumed 16 spatial dimensions, you'd end up with ft16 in the denominator.  A definition doesn't tell us anything about reality, Gil, especially if you screw up the algebra.

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

  
sledgehammer



Posts: 531
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2009,14:26   

Quote (socle @ Sep. 06 2009,10:26)
Clive:
   
Quote

Gil is right, Blue Lotus also goes by David v. Squatney. So, Blue, which name would you like to use? To make it easier to follow and for the sake of continuity, just stick with your David v. Squatney handle, and Blue Lotus will now be retired by me.

Just for the record, I know with absolute certainty that David v. Squatney and Blue Lotus are not the same person.  I've made a post to that effect, but DvS is now under moderation.

The cynic in me suspects that CliveBaby knows this all too well, and just needed a justification to excommunicate Blue.

 
Quote


12

nicholas.steno

09/05/2009

10:05 pm
<snip>

That is a key reason that we are Alone in this war. We have to Reprioritize our commitments towards Depending on common decency.

Clever.

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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2009,15:30   

StephenB lapses into the personal once again, and laments that UD moderation doesn't forbid kicking his ass up one side and down the other (which entails a change in movement, but isn't necessarily causal). But Diffaxial gets the last word:

StephenB:
     
Quote
You ignore all my questions, misrepresent what I do say, and labor endlessly on irrelevant trivialities, apparantly in an attempt to create the illusion that you a presenting reasoned arguments, which you are not. Rather than accuse you of being dishonest for a second time on the same thread, I will simply assert that you are evading all the hard questions because you can provide no rational defense for your position. Evasion is permitted on this site, so there is nothing to be done about it.

Since you have apparently decided to argue by attrition, getting in the last word would be important for you. So, I think I will grant it.

Diffaxial:
     
Quote
OK.

"Rutabaga"


As usual, Diffaxial's is the more substantive comment.

ETA: StephenB then goes right on playing his broken record on another thread:
Quote
The scientific method assumes those beliefs apriori and gains its legitimacy from them. The law of non-contradiction and uncompromised causality, for example, are two among many fundamental principles of right reason...


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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2009,16:05   

StephenB could have accepted my invitation to a two-person debate outside of UD, but ran away from that idea.

Luckily, he had Clivebaby to protect him, in Clive's honesty-challenged way.

Clive also ran away from that same invitation I'd posted in another thread. Right, Clive? Mwah, you sweet thang. Keep hiding! Daddy Dembski will protect you.

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

  
MichaelJ



Posts: 455
Joined: June 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2009,18:01   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 06 2009,09:49)
Quote
If the blind-watchmaker thesis is correct for biological evolution, all of these artificial constraints must be eliminated. Every aspect of the simulation, both hardware and software, must be subject to random errors.

Of course, this would result in immediate disaster and the extinction of the CPU, OS, simulation program, and the programmer, who would never get funding for further realistic simulation experiments.
Someone propose the following thought experiment to Gil:

Create a simulation that runs on a virtual machine. I'm sure he understands the concept. The virtual machine includes the OS, hardware drivers, and programs. All of this will reside in memory, but this is the only feasible way to run his kind of simulation.

To make it possible, the virtual machine would be somewhat less complex than Windows. Perhaps a few thousand bytes. I think the early Apple and Radio Shack computers implemented Basic in under 4K. I think you could easily make a VM that requires much less. A VM would consist of an interpreter and code, and both would be subject to mutation.

Since abiogenesis is not the issue being explored, the starting VM would be a self replicator. It would divide, producing imperfect copies of itself. The division and mutation process could affect both "children."

The VMs would exist in a sea of memory, perhaps a turbulent sea that sloshes around, separating the individuals so replications don't always sit on other individuals. Although this could happen. Perhaps individuals need a virtual membrane.

My first thought is that something like this has probably already been done. I don't follow the details of the various simulation programs, but I'd be surprised if someone hasn't tried this.

My second thought is that Gill wouldn't accept this, because the "real" OS isn't affected.

It does remind me of an related project. The GAs are based around machine code. You started with a population random byte arrays and the processor attempts to read the byte string as instructions.

Usually you have a target (such as finding the square root of a number loaded into a register) but you could mix this with another game from the eighties "Core War" where each individual attempts to kill the other members of the population by moving around memory and putting stop codes in other individual's code. You would change the code by putting in random mutations.

In this scenario you don't need to code the reproduction code as the programs should develop the ability to reproduce to protect the "genome" against being killed by competitors or by random mutations

  
khan



Posts: 1481
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2009,18:09   

Quote
Gil is highly narcissistic, in the clinical sense. I would not hazard to say from online interactions if a clinician would diagnosis him as a full-blown narcissistic personality, but a number of the signs are there. Narcissists commonly present fine fronts in public, and brutalize their families at home. They are in fact malicious and nasty.

What's missing from the Dodgenator 3000 is Gil's frequent self-description as expert in one of a rapidly growing list of fields. At best I can tell, he's an expert if he reads a book about something (e.g., computational number theory) and then writes a program related to it. I think this earns him some baiting.

As for making something of his off-line life, Gil has moved from tweaking a checkers-playing program to tweaking the trajectory of a parachute and its military payload. The checkers program entertained some people, and may have contributed indirectly to science by offering competition to programs developed by actual researchers in AI. The trajectory-control program serves primarily to hurt people. What would Jesus do with a computer?


I spent ~20 years tweaking code, but I can't play piano and don't have frilly shirts.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3553
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2009,18:29   

Quote
In this scenario you don't need to code the reproduction code as the programs should develop the ability to reproduce to protect the "genome" against being killed by competitors or by random mutations


I assumed that the idea wasn't original.

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

Pat Robertson

  
socle



Posts: 262
Joined: July 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2009,21:51   

Gil:
 
Quote


Clive:
Gil is right, Blue Lotus also goes by David v. Squatney. So, Blue, which name would you like to use? To make it easier to follow and for the sake of continuity, just stick with your David v. Squatney handle, and Blue Lotus will now be retired by me.

Clive,
Detecting trolls involves a relatively simple design inference. They have thematic fingerprints which are immediately obvious; the use of language in certain ways is also consistent and obvious; and they always try to hide their identity by logging on with different names.

Unfortunately for the troll, his attempts at deception will ultimately find him out, because one cannot fake his fingerprints.

I think there’s something about one’s sins ultimately finding him out, in a book I once read.

LOL  Oops.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3553
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2009,21:58   

If BL were innocent he would defend himself, right?

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

Pat Robertson

  
Turncoat



Posts: 124
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2009,22:05   

Quote (khan @ Sep. 06 2009,18:09)
 
Quote
Gil is highly narcissistic, in the clinical sense. I would not hazard to say from online interactions if a clinician would diagnosis him as a full-blown narcissistic personality, but a number of the signs are there. Narcissists commonly present fine fronts in public, and brutalize their families at home. They are in fact malicious and nasty.

What's missing from the Dodgenator 3000 is Gil's frequent self-description as expert in one of a rapidly growing list of fields. At best I can tell, he's an expert if he reads a book about something (e.g., computational number theory) and then writes a program related to it. I think this earns him some baiting.

As for making something of his off-line life, Gil has moved from tweaking a checkers-playing program to tweaking the trajectory of a parachute and its military payload. The checkers program entertained some people, and may have contributed indirectly to science by offering competition to programs developed by actual researchers in AI. The trajectory-control program serves primarily to hurt people. What would Jesus do with a computer?


I spent ~20 years tweaking code, but I can't play piano and don't have frilly shirts.

My first master's thesis was a collection of 40 poems along with a poetics. But I never wore a frilly shirt. I suppose that if I had so little shame as to publish my thesis collection at my website, I might have little enough shame to pose in a frilly shirt.

--------------
I never give them hell. I just tell the truth about them, and they think it's hell. — Harry S Truman

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2009,22:30   

Quote
12
nicholas.steno
09/05/2009
10:05 pm
I have long maintained that these sorts of occasions are perfect opportunities to formalize the mathematical method of design detection.


i think the point is that this design detection business has yet to be formalized.  and operationalized.  then marginalized, mythologized and recircumcised.

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2009,22:36   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 06 2009,22:58)
If BL were innocent he would defend himself, right?

hahaha

there are lots of things you can make fun of Frill about that are sorta mean spirited and shitty.

that fucking shirt is not one of those things.

neither is his sissy flounce out style of moderation.

neither is his ignorant blithering about "trolls are easy to detect" roflmao

GAFB at any given moment there are a dozen Poes working UD and these dipshits don't know the Clyde Lewis from the Clyde Moody.  Frill grow a set.  You will never be a nanogram of a pianist like Del Wood.

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

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5377
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2009,00:16   

Quote (Turncoat @ Sep. 06 2009,14:48)
What would Jesus do with a computer?

Same as the rest of us. Spend inordinate amounts of time searching for free porn with intermittent breaks to mock the TARD and post random crap to Facebook.





...what?

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

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2009,02:04   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 07 2009,00:16)
 
Quote (Turncoat @ Sep. 06 2009,14:48)
What would Jesus do with a computer?

Same as the rest of us. Spend inordinate amounts of time searching for free porn(*a)  [snip] post random crap to Facebook.(*b)





...what?

After checking my FezBok, I'm gathering that Carlson covers point "a," and you got that "b" part.

(I kid -- Every morning, I wake up hoping for MOAR TWITTING AND  TURKLE PICS!)

P.S. I really want to see turkle pics.

PPS: Did I mention the TURKLE PICS?

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

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 1968
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2009,02:36   

Go Mark!

BarryA posts about an exchange between DeLurker and StephenB.  Mark Franks demolishes it points out some problems with the argument, so Barry defends himself like this:
Quote
5

Barry Arrington

09/07/2009

1:37 am

Mark Frank, your feeble attempts to rescue Delurker are only more of the same weak brew that he offered. I won’t even stoop to responding to them. To do so would give them more dignity than they deserve.

Thanks, Barry.

--------------
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: Sep. 07 2009,02:57   

Quote (socle @ Sep. 06 2009,21:51)
Gil:
     
Quote


Clive:
Gil is right, Blue Lotus also goes by David v. Squatney. So, Blue, which name would you like to use? To make it easier to follow and for the sake of continuity, just stick with your David v. Squatney handle, and Blue Lotus will now be retired by me.

Clive,
Detecting trolls involves a relatively simple design inference. They have thematic fingerprints which are immediately obvious; the use of language in certain ways is also consistent and obvious; and they always try to hide their identity by logging on with different names.

Unfortunately for the troll, his attempts at deception will ultimately find him out, because one cannot fake his fingerprints.

I think there’s something about one’s sins ultimately finding him out, in a book I once read.

LOL  Oops.

Then their design "inference" is incorrect, as I was Blue Lotus and socle I'm guessing is David V.

I did make a post saying as much but as BL has been "retired" by Clive it did not even go into the moderation queue, just vanished.

So much for Clive being "absolutely" certain BL and David V are the same person. They get that wrong even after being absolutely certain, what else are they getting wrong? :)

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

  
Quack



Posts: 1751
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2009,05:43   

Quote (MichaelJ @ Sep. 06 2009,18:01)
   
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 06 2009,09:49)
   
Quote
If the blind-watchmaker thesis is correct for biological evolution, all of these artificial constraints must be eliminated. Every aspect of the simulation, both hardware and software, must be subject to random errors.

Of course, this would result in immediate disaster and the extinction of the CPU, OS, simulation program, and the programmer, who would never get funding for further realistic simulation experiments.
Someone propose the following thought experiment to Gil:

Create a simulation that runs on a virtual machine. I'm sure he understands the concept. The virtual machine includes the OS, hardware drivers, and programs. All of this will reside in memory, but this is the only feasible way to run his kind of simulation.

To make it possible, the virtual machine would be somewhat less complex than Windows. Perhaps a few thousand bytes. I think the early Apple and Radio Shack computers implemented Basic in under 4K. I think you could easily make a VM that requires much less. A VM would consist of an interpreter and code, and both would be subject to mutation.

Since abiogenesis is not the issue being explored, the starting VM would be a self replicator. It would divide, producing imperfect copies of itself. The division and mutation process could affect both "children."

The VMs would exist in a sea of memory, perhaps a turbulent sea that sloshes around, separating the individuals so replications don't always sit on other individuals. Although this could happen. Perhaps individuals need a virtual membrane.

My first thought is that something like this has probably already been done. I don't follow the details of the various simulation programs, but I'd be surprised if someone hasn't tried this.

My second thought is that Gill wouldn't accept this, because the "real" OS isn't affected.

It does remind me of an related project. The GAs are based around machine code. You started with a population random byte arrays and the processor attempts to read the byte string as instructions.

Usually you have a target (such as finding the square root of a number loaded into a register) but you could mix this with another game from the eighties "Core War" where each individual attempts to kill the other members of the population by moving around memory and putting stop codes in other individual's code. You would change the code by putting in random mutations.

In this scenario you don't need to code the reproduction code as the programs should develop the ability to reproduce to protect the "genome" against being killed by competitors or by random mutations


IMHO much too sophisticated and not edible to GD, a machine emulating a machine?

When I try to visualize an entirely mechanical computing machine instead of the sophistication of electronic devices with operating systems and no means of actually observing their operation, I see a machine that would eliminate all of the objections people like GilD might come up with?

A mechanical device hard-coded to run just the program it was built for. (Or a little more flexible by using a punched tape loop to store the program?)

--------------
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. 07 2009,05:55   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 07 2009,06:16)
Quote (Turncoat @ Sep. 06 2009,14:48)
What would Jesus do with a computer?

Same as the rest of us. Spend inordinate amounts of time searching for free porn with intermittent breaks to mock the TARD and post random crap to Facebook.





...what?

I take great umbrage at that, sir. I have NEVER spent inordinate amounts of time searching for free porn. I knew where it was already.

Yours disgustedly

Louis

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

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2009,07:18   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 07 2009,02:04)
(I kid -- Every morning, I wake up hoping for MOAR TWITTING AND  TURKLE PICS!)

P.S. I really want to see turkle pics.

PPS: Did I mention the TURKLE PICS?



--------------
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!)

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2009,07:34   

Kariosfocus
         
Quote


An Organisation Behaviour theory footnote:

Highly Machiavellian, manipulative people are restrained not by compunctions or words of correction, but by prudence: where they perceive that they will likely get caught and it will hurt them, they will refrain from unacceptable conduct. but if the odds are they will get away with and benefit from it, they will proceed full steam ahead.

So, allowing such amoral men to act without painful consequence them is enabling behaviour.

And, as I have highlighted this morning, evolutionary materialism, since 360 BC, was known to be amoral.

Sadly, the manipulative, destructive darwinist rhetorical tactics above — sadly — fit the pattern as a hand fits a glove. (When I used to see this in the power centres of universities here in the Caribbean, I used to discuss it in terms of “Star Trek World, the reality.” Alcibiades has all too many descendants among us, I am afraid.)

A thought for the day.

G’day

GEM of TKI


In other news, Gordon Mullings is still responding to "Blue Lotus" as if Clive had not retired BL.

I asked Gordon
     
Quote
So, I ask you KF, what journal access has been restricted and for whom?

He responds
     
Quote
Read and weep, here and here, onlookers; to see what is going on, when all the blaming the victim and poisoning the well rhetoric has settled down. (Again, inconvenient points already in evidence and steamrollered over. Worse, on matters of patent injustice.)

The "here" links were
http://www.richardsternberg.org/smithsonian.php
http://freegonzalez.com/tenure.html

So one example is about where Stenberg published in a journal his paper (so, er, not restricted then) and the other example is someone who who did not get tenure, not somebody who has been barred from a journal simply because their work supports ID.

So, somebody could in theory ask KF if he has any actual examples of ID supporters being rejected from journals rather then examples of people either sucessfully publishing their paper or examples nothing to do with access to journals.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2009,07:40   

Gordon is being asked about the "F" in FSCI and responds
 
Quote
The very provenance of the term function indicates that function is identified as a component of making the determination that FSCI is present. As such, FSCI is not going to predict function.


But I thought that if FSCI was present = designed object = function.

So before you can determine the FSCI (ha!) you have to determine if the thing is functional. You could do that by checking it's FSCI - if it has over 500+ FSCI it's functional. You can then determine it's FSCI, as you now know it's functional. Once you know it has FSCI you can be sure it's designed so it has FSCI for sure. And once you know that you can determine it's FSCI, and knowing that allows you to know that it's designed and so worth while measure the FSCI. And once you've measured it you know the object was designed and so can measure the FSCI in the object.  

So, Gordon, I suspect you'll shortly be asked if you determine the FSCI for two strings of DNA and come up with the same answer for both (as really FSCI = how long is the string in question) but later find one string is "junk" DNA and does nothing then how can the FSCI be the same for both strings?

And so on and so forth.

I think Gordon has made a very big mistake here. If the F in FSCI can only be determined externally to working out the FSCI in the first place then you already know it's designed in the first place. And Gordons claims of >500 FSCI = designed become nonsensicial.

Tard

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

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2595
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2009,07:52   

Quote
William Dembski: Not only is his scholarship sloppy on this point (for instance, he fails to distinguish the younger C. S. Lewis, who largely had no problem with evolution, from the later C. S. Lewis, who did), but he justifies taking the side of evolution on the basis of an argumentum ad populum:

Quote
I am not a biologist, but what impresses me is that virtually every biologist in the world accepts the theory of evolution. While the debate goes on, it seems improbable that the small group fo intelligent design advocates is right and the entire community of biologists is wrong. Consider what two leading Christian biologists say about evolution. Kenneth Miller writes, “Evolution is as much a fact as anyting we know in science,” and Theodosius Dobzhansky famously said, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”

That's not an argumentum ad populum (appeal to popularity), but an argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority). An argumentum ad verecundiam is valid when an unbiased scholar is speaking as an authority in a valid field of study, and there is adequate agreement by such experts in the subject. The proper response to a valid appeal to authority is to the evidence.
www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

In this case, Dembski doesn't dispute that the vast majority of biologists accept the Theory of Evolution, so even though no specific scholar is named (Appeal to an Unnamed Authority), the cite remains valid. In and of itself, this can be considered a stronger argument (among laypersons), or weaker (among experts in the field).

NATIONAL ACADEMY of SCIENCES: "The theory of evolution has become the central unifying concept of biology and is a critical component of many related scientific disciplines. In contrast, the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested."

--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
mitschlag



Posts: 235
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2009,10:01   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 07 2009,07:40)
...

I think Gordon has made a very big mistake here. If the F in FSCI can only be determined externally to working out the FSCI in the first place then you already know it's designed in the first place. And Gordons claims of >500 FSCI = designed become nonsensicial.

Tard

Gordon had no choice.  I give him credit for fessing up.

And I've archived his admission.

--------------
"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5377
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2009,10:02   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 07 2009,03:04)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 07 2009,00:16)
 
Quote (Turncoat @ Sep. 06 2009,14:48)
What would Jesus do with a computer?

Same as the rest of us. Spend inordinate amounts of time searching for free porn(*a)  [snip] post random crap to Facebook.(*b)





...what?

After checking my FezBok, I'm gathering that Carlson covers point "a," and you got that "b" part.

(I kid -- Every morning, I wake up hoping for MOAR TWITTING AND  TURKLE PICS!)

P.S. I really want to see turkle pics.

PPS: Did I mention the TURKLE PICS?

Damned Turkles just will not hatch!!!, the bastards.

Night three for me, Incubation day 69 or 70 for them, no turkles. I even had the video camera set up with the low-light thing and everything.

A nest boiled last night about a mile up the beach from us, and while everyone else jumped and ran, I hung out at our nest just in case. None of our group made it to the other nest in time to see it, though.

I really, really want to see them hatch. I have an 8 AM class tomorrow and I have a head cold, so I don't know if I'll make the beach tonight. (Of course that means they'll hatch tonight...)

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

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1237
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2009,11:01   

Quote (mitschlag @ Sep. 07 2009,10:01)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 07 2009,07:40)
...

I think Gordon has made a very big mistake here. If the F in FSCI can only be determined externally to working out the FSCI in the first place then you already know it's designed in the first place. And Gordons claims of >500 FSCI = designed become nonsensicial.

Tard

Gordon had no choice.  I give him credit for fessing up.

And I've archived his admission.

A WTF (What The Function) moment.

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

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2595
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2009,11:24   

Quote
SpitfireIXA: I am not an astronomer, but what impresses me is that virtually every astronomer in the world accepts the theory of geocentrism. It seems improbable that the small group for heliocentrism (Galileo and his few fringe friends) is right and the entire community of geocentrists is wrong.

Galileo recanted his heliocentric theory.

Quote
Galileo: I must altogether abandon the false opinion that the sun is the center of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the center of the world

Does Galileo's signed abjuration represent a valid cite to authority?

--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
Maya



Posts: 702
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2009,14:51   

Learned Hand finds a use for D'Wooza:
Quote
An astute point. This battle, over the currency of ID, is fought with mass market books. There is another battle, fought with laboratories and original, empirical research. ID has retreated from that fight. D’Souza has observed how ID chooses its battles, and drawn an appropriate conclusion.

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 1968
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2009,15:22   

Grab the popcorn
 
Quote
16

Will Vaus

09/07/2009

11:33 am

Dear Mr. Dembski,

I was attracted to your site because of your comment about C. S. Lewis in this post. Having studied and written about Lewis fairly extensively (See my “Mere Theology: A Guide to the Thought of C. S. Lewis”) it strikes me that your comments about Lewis’s view on evolution is mistaken. I can think of no place in which Lewis retracts his theistic evolutionary stance expressed in “The Problem of Pain”. Could you site a source for your contention that Lewis changed his view on evolution?

Thanks,
Will Vaus

(P.S. Learned Hand - in the same thread you imply that Darwin wrote in the 17th Century.  I think your point is still valid, though)

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

   
Henry J



Posts: 4048
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2009,15:36   

Quote
Does Galileo's signed abjuration represent a valid cite to authority?

I dunno, but it doesn't really sound like he had much in the way of authority over anything.

Henry

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2595
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2009,15:48   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 07 2009,15:22)
Grab the popcorn
 
Quote
16

Will Vaus

09/07/2009

11:33 am

Dear Mr. Dembski,

I was attracted to your site because of your comment about C. S. Lewis in this post. Having studied and written about Lewis fairly extensively (See my “Mere Theology: A Guide to the Thought of C. S. Lewis”) it strikes me that your comments about Lewis’s view on evolution is mistaken. I can think of no place in which Lewis retracts his theistic evolutionary stance expressed in “The Problem of Pain”. Could you site a source for your contention that Lewis changed his view on evolution?

Thanks,
Will Vaus

(P.S. Learned Hand - in the same thread you imply that Darwin wrote in the 17th Century.  I think your point is still valid, though)

That's Dr. Dr. Dembski!



Will Vaus Ministries

Will Vaus's Blog

--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2009,16:08   

ooooh i can't wait for that!

in the meantime

to hell with "when they quit voting", when mugs say shit that is THIS STUPID then I will always tell them how dumb they are.  voting or not

Quote
22
jerry
09/07/2009
1:53 pm
Darwin wrote a mass market book and look at the result. Dawkins writes mass market books and he got appointed to a prestigious Oxford position. This battle is fought with mass market books.

I doubt the average biologist could cite any evidence for macro evolution. Why because there is no science to support macro evolution. They just assume it exists. And as we know here, there isn’t any. So I assume D’Souza assumes it exists and both he and all these biologist are ill informed.


FOOL, PRODUCE THY AVERAGE BIOLOGIST!  AS THOU KNOWEST THERE, ASSUMING IS THE BEST YOU CAN DO.

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2009,16:12   

26
Quote
jerry
09/07/2009
3:53 pm
“Looks like an appropriate boomerang to me, i.e. an argument that one should be vary of using, it has a tendency to find its way back”

Two things, I do not think you are reading Hunter correctly but then again I do not know what you think he is saying.

Second, there is no evidence for a mechanism for macro evolution. So what could boomerang, the truth. But I am already using that. No one is afraid of the truth here or any argument about evolution.


right.

<cough>

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2009,17:31   

Pav clarifies ID. Somebody has to.
 
Quote
I disagree with you that Paley’s point is trivial. Further, I disagree when you say that “we can infer an object is designed only by its similarity to objects we already know to be designed.” But, before moving on, let’s note that assuming your statement is true, then if I conclude that the bacterial flagellum is designed, this would allow me, then, to conclude that rotor engines are designed. Oops! Did I mean to say it the other way around? Maybe not.

We can infer something is designed when an object is so arranged as to produce a certain effect, or, function. IOW, when “purpose” can be inferred. If an ‘unknown designer’ arranges something in such a way as to produce a certain function, we need not know anything about said designer for us to conclude that design is present.
Argh. And "IOW"? That reminds me of someone....

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

  
someotherguy



Posts: 367
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2009,17:40   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 07 2009,17:31)
Pav clarifies ID. Somebody has to.
 
Quote
I disagree with you that Paley’s point is trivial. Further, I disagree when you say that “we can infer an object is designed only by its similarity to objects we already know to be designed.” But, before moving on, let’s note that assuming your statement is true, then if I conclude that the bacterial flagellum is designed, this would allow me, then, to conclude that rotor engines are designed. Oops! Did I mean to say it the other way around? Maybe not.

We can infer something is designed when an object is so arranged as to produce a certain effect, or, function. IOW, when “purpose” can be inferred. If an ‘unknown designer’ arranges something in such a way as to produce a certain function, we need not know anything about said designer for us to conclude that design is present.
Argh. And "IOW"? That reminds me of someone....

Argument from analogy now!  Argument from analogy forever!

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

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2595
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2009,17:55   

Learned Hand points out the valid use of an appeal to authority.

Quote
Learned Hand: He does not say that evolutionary biology is true because the majority of scientists accept it. He says, “what impresses me is that virtually every biologist in the world accepts the theory of evolution.” The unanimous consensus of experts on a topic is relevant to an assessment of fringe arguments against those experts. The consensus doesn’t make the consensus position, but D’Souza doesn’t claim otherwise.

"The consensus doesn’t make the consensus position, but D’Souza doesn’t claim otherwise." SpitfireIXA misses the point, of course.

Quote
SpitfireIXA: Ad Populum is an appeal based on quantity (majority opinion), therefore it fits Dinesh’s logical error. It does not matter whether those appealed to are experts.

Not majority opinion, but consensus opinion. If there is a great deal of uncertainty or opposing opinion within a community of experts on a specific issue, then an appeal to authority may not be valid. (And responsible authority would include mention of these conflicts when asked for an expert opinion.)

It's not a logical error to appeal to the consensus of experts in a field. It doesn't make the argument, and authority is not without its source of error. However, absent countervening evidence, it is reasonable to tentatively accept the findings of such experts.

A paleontologist may consult a geologist for help finding an exposed strata of the appropriate age. A geneticist does not have to replicate Rosalind Franklin's original photographs of DNA before proceeding with an experiment, but can normally rely on the consensus of other researchers that DNA is, in fact, a double helix. And if independent doctors agree you have cancer, then you should probably consider taking appropriate actions.

-
By the way, the proper counter to a valid cite to authority is always to the evidence—something which The Argument Regarding Design completely lacks.

--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2009,22:13   

Hi all! I'm back from my vacation in the Czech Republic and have wasted my jetlagged Labor Day catching up with all the hilarity of UD.

CZ was great, but the part I really wanted to share with y'all was my 'pilgrimage' to Brno to see the Gregor Mendel Museum. I will try to post some pics soon.

Very nice small exhibit, recently redone. I took photos of the original plot of land where Mendel worked on his pea plants.

An interesting point that was brought up in the exhibit was Mendel's awareness of Darwin's work. Mendel actually travelled to England in 1865, though I doubt he could have ever met Darwin. Mendel did have a copy of OoS, apparently he underlined passages he found important. I am considering writing to the Museum to see if they have more specific information on which passages those might be. Besides OoS, he had several of Darwin's later works as well, that related to his interests in plant husbandry.

All pretty interesting for a guy who went on to become the Abbot of the Augustinian monks in Brno.

(Nakashima came back with me, though it was hard to drag him away from the Czech supermodels, and vice versa. He'll be back in the tardmines of UD soon enough!)

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2009,22:46   

preserved in entirety because it is too stupid to cut

Quote
4
Mario A. Lopez
09/07/2009
8:14 pm
Lenoxus,

I am not sure where you get the idea that ID proponents claim or predict that there will be absolutely no “junk” DNA.

Stephen Meyer, who has spoken out against Darwinian predictions concerning junk DNA, has made it pretty clear that ID proponents do NOT deny the degradation of an aboriginal design or even that “mutational processes might have degraded or ‘broken’ some previously functional DNA.” (see Signature in the Cell pgs 406-407)

BTW–I don’t know of anyone that does not believe evolution to be degrading. The article is not telling us anything we didn’t already know about evolution.

I wish someone would publish something with a little more than simple “variation” or “resistance” or the ability to “digest” something new. None of these minor changes get us anywhere in the grand evolutionary story as told by Darwinists!

If you could provide even one example of an increase of CSI in the genome of any organism, I’d love to see it.

Note: An example of CSI should exhibit functional divergence.

I should point out that functional divergence does not require an increase of information; however, information increase does require functional divergence. Make sense?

For example, in gene duplication the “free” duplicate may only be considered an increase of info. if it acquires a novel function (one that diverges from the original). However, The original must also maintain its function, otherwise, you just gained one function to lose another.

As you know, vertical evolution requires an increase of biological information and organization. In other words, If you could show how adaptations lead to morphological innovations, I will embrace Darwinism like the fanatics at Pharyngula! No kidding!


Quote
BTW–I don’t know of anyone that does not believe evolution to be degrading. The article is not telling us anything we didn’t already know about evolution


you should get out of that sunday school class more often Mario.  maybe get Screech to show you how he parties.  you are certainly keeping company with some world class demented fuckwits, by your own testimony.  that or you are a hermit.

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

  
sparc



Posts: 1691
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2009,23:18   

dvunkannon
Quote
I am considering writing to the Museum to see if they have more specific information on which passages those might be.
I guess much of what you are looking for is included in this article by Daniel J. Fairbanks and Bryce Rytting and in the Mendel Marginalia they published as supplemental material.

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

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,02:49   

According to KF the EF is "easy to apply"
     
Quote
And, for FSCI, when the specification involved is functional — as just discussed, the filter is very simple and practically effective to apply.

And then
     
Quote
Now for the outright deceptive falsehood: the claim that the EF improperly rules “design” in many cases (false positives):

Now, I agree it's true that the EF does not improperly rule "design". I agree it because it's not possible to use it and therefore it has not ruled anything either way ever.

I think an example is called for. Anyone care to ask KF for one?

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

  
damitall



Posts: 322
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,04:09   

Well, I seem to have precipitated a TardTorrent from kf, by asking politely-framed questions at UD not specifically addressed to him.

Do I get a small prize?

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,06:12   

ha.  Gordon Mullings' "weak argument corrective" hahahahahaha

fucking 30 pages?

wow.  

barret brown you are missing a huge opportunity buddy

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

  
Maya



Posts: 702
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,07:05   

Joseph brings the pure TARD:
Quote
PaulBurnett:
Quote
Would anybody suggest that the whales’ distant tetrapod ancestral line that moved from the sea to the land had “devolved” when they later went back to the sea?

Anyone who thinks such a transformation is even possible is living in fantasy-land anyway so what does it matter?

Past experience shows that providing Joseph with overwhelming evidence is futile.  Some of the IDiots seem ignorant of basic biology and blinded by religion, but Joseph appears monumentally stupid.  Please tell me he's someone's sock.

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2595
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,08:05   

The Greek alphabet didn't format correctly. Nevermind.

--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
Advocatus Diaboli



Posts: 197
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,08:08   

Quote (Maya @ Sep. 08 2009,07:05)
Joseph brings the pure TARD:
   
Quote
PaulBurnett:
   
Quote
Would anybody suggest that the whales’ distant tetrapod ancestral line that moved from the sea to the land had “devolved” when they later went back to the sea?

Anyone who thinks such a transformation is even possible is living in fantasy-land anyway so what does it matter?

Past experience shows that providing Joseph with overwhelming evidence is futile.  Some of the IDiots seem ignorant of basic biology and blinded by religion, but Joseph appears monumentally stupid.  Please tell me he's someone's sock.


Someone should remind them that Michael Behe lives in such a fantasy-land.

--------------
I once thought that I made a mistake, but I was wrong.

"I freely admit I’m a sociopath" - DaveScot

"Most importanly, the facts are on the side of ID." - scordova

"UD is the greatest website of all time." stevestory

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,08:21   

Just FYI I did something I almost never do, I read a thread at UD. The thread in question is the one about Dawkins' new book (which I am currently reading*).

I came away from reading that thread stupider than I went in. Renounce the TARD, people. I am more and more convinced that Steve Story was right and that interacting with TARD of this magnitude is bad for one's mental health. Encountering that level of stupid always leaves me with a feeling of almost overwhelming hopelessness and the immense and imponderable question of "Where does one even start?".

Ah well, the journey of a thousand miles begins with just one step.

Louis

*It is, so far, the usual stuff, very watered down for the populist market. The question "Is this the best that RD can do?" is daft as a bag of poked weasels. It's a popular book, hardly a scholastic treatise. It's nice to see the level of criticism from the IDCists et al has not raised above that levied at The God Delusion. I.e. inaccurate, littered with straw men, ineffective and ultmately based on the fact that they haven't read the book.

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

  
Maya



Posts: 702
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,08:55   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 08 2009,08:21)
Renounce the TARD, people. I am more and more convinced that Steve Story was right and that interacting with TARD of this magnitude is bad for one's mental health. Encountering that level of stupid always leaves me with a feeling of almost overwhelming hopelessness and the immense and imponderable question of "Where does one even start?".

When I ponder why I find UD weirdly fascinating, I sometimes think that I half expect to see them one day admit that it was all a big practical joke (and that most of you long time tardaholics were in on it from the beginning).

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,09:18   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 08 2009,08:21)
Just FYI I did something I almost never do, I read a thread at UD. The thread in question is the one about Dawkins' new book (which I am currently reading*).

I came away from reading that thread stupider than I went in. Renounce the TARD, people. I am more and more convinced that Steve Story was right and that interacting with TARD of this magnitude is bad for one's mental health. Encountering that level of stupid always leaves me with a feeling of almost overwhelming hopelessness and the immense and imponderable question of "Where does one even start?".

Ah well, the journey of a thousand miles begins with just one step.

Louis

*It is, so far, the usual stuff, very watered down for the populist market. The question "Is this the best that RD can do?" is daft as a bag of poked weasels. It's a popular book, hardly a scholastic treatise. It's nice to see the level of criticism from the IDCists et al has not raised above that levied at The God Delusion. I.e. inaccurate, littered with straw men, ineffective and ultmately based on the fact that they haven't read the book.

Louis may be right. I read a UD thread -- the one on Dinesh D'Wooza (hat tip to Maya) and this is what I now look like:

In that thread,  both Clive, baby and Wee Billy Dembski point to C.S. Lewis' correspondence as evidence that Lewis was privately rejecting evolution in the 1950's while publicly embracing it.

I'd like to make another suggestion -- based on some evidence about the correspondence and the person C.S. Lewis was writing to -- that Lewis was merely humoring an increasingly irrational man who wasn't merely unstable, but also likely a fraud.

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

Clivebaby and  Dembski point to this article by Ferngren and Numbers, originally from the American Scientific Affiliation's ("A Fellowship of Christians in Science" )  Perspectives on Science & Christian Faith,  here

Ferngren and Numbers say that they present  "in their entirety"  responses of Lewis to letters from one Bernard Acworth.

So, who was Acworth? Well, he was an interesting figure, but before I deal with him, I'd like to post some quotes from Ferngren and Numbers' own article:

     
Quote
Nothing in his [C.S. Lewis'] published writings suggests, however, that he gave up his long-held view that biological evolution was compatible with Christianity.


     
Quote
It is doubtful that Lewis would have felt comfortable espousing the views of present-day creationists. He always carefully indicated that he opposed evolutionism as a philosophy, not evolution as a biological theory.

--------------------------------------
Okay, so who was Acworth? Acworth was a nutty creationist who helped start the "Evolution Protest Movement." As Ferngren and Numbers point out, he was also  
     
Quote
A staunch opponent of socialism, air power, and imported oil, he twice stood unsuccessfully for Parliament, in 1931 and again in 1942.

His outspoken opposition to the policies of Winston Churchill during World War II and his calls for peace with Japan prompted the prime minister to urge electors to vote against Acworth and moved the London Daily Mirror to demand his arrest.


Oh, but he was far more than that.

I'm kinda tired out from staying up far too late, but there's lots more info here:

(1) http://airminded.org/2008/04/28/who-was-neon/
(2) http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/28jan/neon.htm
(3) http://fretmarks.blogspot.com/2005_11_01_archive.html

Acworth didn't just dislike "socialism, air power, and imported oil." He also disliked psychoanalysis (okay, not so nutty) , birth control and communism. Basically, he linked all  of those things to the immorality of evolution.

-- But he also railed against General Relativity (Einstein).

-- He also thought that cuckoos are hybrids between male cuckoos and female birds of other species.

-- He also thought that "Birds [and butterflies,etc.] don't migrate on purpose; they're passively carried around the globe by prevailing winds. This explains other phenomena too, such as birds deserting their nests (winds blow them away). " See site 3 above.

-- He also thought that seaplanes could never, NEVER achieve regular intercontinental flights.

-- He was also a literalist YEC that thought "magnetic " flips led to frozen mammoths in Siberia.  

-- And he may well have been the author of work by "Marion Acworth," (AKA "Neon")  fraudulently presented as other than his own.  See site 1 above.

---------------------------------
Clive and Dembski want to believe that C.S. Lewis was publically embracing evolution while secretly embracing anti-evo in private. In short, they prefer to beleve that he was publically lying/dissembling about his true beliefs.

Remember what Ferngren and Numbers admitted: "Nothing in his published writings suggests, however, that he gave up his long-held view that biological evolution was compatible with Christianity." But they prefer to believe he was *dishonestly* privately holding to what was in direct contradiction to that? Based on letters to a religious nutcase? Uh-huh.

What makes more sense is that in private letters, C.S. Lewis was humoring that religious nutcase named Bernard Acworth .

Ferngren and Numbers' evidence OTHER than Acworth ...are lines like "I see we have a Darwinist among us" which may have merely been joking or anything else, because no real elaboration of that statement is found in Ferngren and Numbers' citation of it in their article.

Oh, and  they cite a totally ambiguous poem in "support" of their claim.

THAT'S IT.

All in all, that's what makes Louis right about these assholes. They force-fit, discard, cherry-pick, lie, misdirect, or anything else necessary -- by whatever means necessary.

I regard C.S. Lewis as a less-than-middling figure in phil. or logic, and as a mediocre author and apologist. But I hold scumbags like Clive,baby and Dembski with far more scorn.

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,09:39   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 08 2009,09:18)
Clive and Dembski want to believe that C.S. Lewis was publically embracing evolution while secretly embracing anti-evo in private. In short, they prefer to beleve that he was publically lying/dissembling about his true beliefs.

Why not? They do it all the time!

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

   
k.e..



Posts: 2876
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,10:43   

DM notes:
Quote
All in all, that's what makes Louis right about these assholes. They force-fit, discard, cherry-pick, lie, misdirect, or anything else necessary -- by whatever means necessary.


AIN'T IT GREAT?
HOMO!
YUP NEVER GIVE A CHANCE WORSHIPPER AN EVEN BREAK.
WE GET TO SELL SWAMPS AS PRIME TURF TO BELIEVERS
STOCKS SET TO FAIL TO MA AND PA
DEATH THREATS TO JUDGES
CHEAP BIBLE MERCHANDISE TO ONE AND ALL
ENDLESS PREACHIN ON TV AND RADIO
KILL ABORTIONISTS
EXPORT JESUS SOLDIERS ON CRUSADES
PIMP CRANK CANCER CURES
RAIL AGAINST VACINATION
DENY THE HOLOCAUST
LOVE GLOBAL WARMING
PREVENT AIDS PREVENTION
WHAT'S NOT TO LIKE? d.t.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1954
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,11:15   

I started reading the UD thread linked by Deadman and was amused by the notion that Dembski's new book will be hyped as "a counterblast to the neo-atheist literature." So, now he is reading about it to prepare for interviews.

I would have thought that he would have known what his book was about already.  :p

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

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

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,11:16   

Quote (Maya @ Sep. 08 2009,14:55)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 08 2009,08:21)
Renounce the TARD, people. I am more and more convinced that Steve Story was right and that interacting with TARD of this magnitude is bad for one's mental health. Encountering that level of stupid always leaves me with a feeling of almost overwhelming hopelessness and the immense and imponderable question of "Where does one even start?".

When I ponder why I find UD weirdly fascinating, I sometimes think that I half expect to see them one day admit that it was all a big practical joke (and that most of you long time tardaholics were in on it from the beginning).

I sincerely hope so!

It would eradicate much of my cynicism regarding the human species.

Louis

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

  
Quack



Posts: 1751
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,11:50   

Quote
It would eradicate much of my cynicism regarding the human species.

Arthur Koestler didn't see much hope, I am afraid I don't either.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,11:52   

Clive, the ID expert, speaks:
Quote
As noted, either the “experts” can or cannot defend their position. If they cannot, it doesn’t follow that those who ask them to are kooks. I think you are right in saying that Dinesh will not be swayed unless the experts tell him to be, which is a failing of Dinesh’s point of view. ID does sway folks who actually look into the matter, like Antony Flew, a well respected philosopher, contrary to those who just take their ques from “what a lot of folks are saying in a field at a given time.”

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

  
Amadan



Posts: 1244
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,12:27   

Quote (damitall @ Sep. 08 2009,04:09)
Well, I seem to have precipitated a TardTorrent from kf, by asking politely-framed questions at UD not specifically addressed to him.

Do I get a small prize?

This is what is known in rhetoric as the Montgolfier Principle:

 
Quote
The deeper the hole you dig yourself into, the more hot air you need to get out.

1st corollary: If hot air alone can't do it, throw logic, principles etc overboard


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

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,13:23   

Quote (Quack @ Sep. 08 2009,17:50)
Quote
It would eradicate much of my cynicism regarding the human species.

Arthur Koestler didn't see much hope, I am afraid I don't either.

Oh I don't know. I'm an optimistic cynic. After all I could be wrong. In fact it's quite likely I am.

Mind you, if I'm right then it really is advisable to start drinking heavily.......soon.

Louis

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,14:17   

Gordon Mullings breaks it down for us
 
Quote
–> partitioned seqarches, P are a subset of latched searches, L

–> but, suppressed context: due to the involved dynamics, we can also see that Latched searches L, are a subset of partitioned searches P

Er
 
Quote
–> That is, the two sets are equivalent, due to the dynamics of ratceting

There's more at the link, of course. Plenty more. But if you just want to skip to the conclusion here we are
 
Quote
–> In short the imagined fallacy is begging the question of the relationship between sets L and P. And, we have reason to see that L is not a proper subset of P but an equivalent set to P.

–> And, see how thinking in terms of sets untangles the complexities of syllogistic reasoning? [Thank you, Irving Copi!]

So, er, Dembski's imagined Weasel = Actual Weasel. Somehow.

That's about as clear as how to determine FSCI.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,14:41   

Jerry:
Quote


“If you want to know how biologists defend their positions, ask a biologist.”

I have and they have punted. We have regular biologist and evolutionary biologists here and none would even step up to the plate. On a couple occasions they did and they struck out immediately so they then knew they better than to try again.

What is the big mystery that they are keeping from us. And you just admitted you understand nothing and all you are doing is accepting the words of biologists. So I suggest you excuse yourself from any further discussion and let the rest of us who understand the essence of the debate comment without having to answer your ignorance which you just admitted.

Whereas Jerry does not have to admit his ignorance as he simply shows it with every comment. If "Jerry" exists anyway.

I can't believe Clive allows Jerry to continue, he's practically the main spokesperson for the UD/ID - few of the mods join in the "debate", certainly Dembski steers clear.
Link
So it falls to Jerry.

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

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,15:06   

Quote (socle @ Sep. 06 2009,12:26)
Clive:
   
Quote

Gil is right, Blue Lotus also goes by David v. Squatney. So, Blue, which name would you like to use? To make it easier to follow and for the sake of continuity, just stick with your David v. Squatney handle, and Blue Lotus will now be retired by me.

Just for the record, I know with absolute certainty that David v. Squatney and Blue Lotus are not the same person.  I've made a post to that effect, but DvS is now under moderation.

Clive is on a design inference roll.

DeLurker = JayM

Oatmeal Stout = Sal Gal

So, can anyone comment if his mad inference skillz have improved since he got a false positive on Blue Lotus = Squatney?

--------------
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!)

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10094
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,15:21   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 08 2009,15:06)
Quote (socle @ Sep. 06 2009,12:26)
Clive:
     
Quote

Gil is right, Blue Lotus also goes by David v. Squatney. So, Blue, which name would you like to use? To make it easier to follow and for the sake of continuity, just stick with your David v. Squatney handle, and Blue Lotus will now be retired by me.

Just for the record, I know with absolute certainty that David v. Squatney and Blue Lotus are not the same person.  I've made a post to that effect, but DvS is now under moderation.

Clive is on a design inference roll.

[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/education/blown-away-dan-peterson-reviews-dr-stephen-meyers-book-the-signature-in-the-cell-at-the-am

erican-spectator/#comment-333486]DeLurker = JayM[/URL]

Oatmeal Stout = Sal Gal

So, can anyone comment if his mad inference skillz have improved since he got a false positive on Blue Lotus = Squatney?

Maybe he's getting cute with IP adresses?

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

  
BillB



Posts: 355
Joined: Aug. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,15:23   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 08 2009,21:06)
Quote (socle @ Sep. 06 2009,12:26)
Clive:
     
Quote

Gil is right, Blue Lotus also goes by David v. Squatney. So, Blue, which name would you like to use? To make it easier to follow and for the sake of continuity, just stick with your David v. Squatney handle, and Blue Lotus will now be retired by me.

Just for the record, I know with absolute certainty that David v. Squatney and Blue Lotus are not the same person.  I've made a post to that effect, but DvS is now under moderation.

Clive is on a design inference roll.

[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/education/blown-away-dan-peterson-reviews-dr-stephen-meyers-book-the-signature-in-the-cell-at-the-am


erican-spectator/#comment-333486]DeLurker = JayM[/URL]

Oatmeal Stout = Sal Gal

So, can anyone comment if his mad inference skillz have improved since he got a false positive on Blue Lotus = Squatney?

I'm sure Clive would be very surprised to discover that I am actually Joseph.  Unfortunately I don't think his design detector is capable of anything more that "if it looks a bit like X then it must be X" so I guess my ubersocktard is safe for a while (unless he is watching? ... Clive?)

  
BillB



Posts: 355
Joined: Aug. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,15:26   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 08 2009,21:21)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 08 2009,15:06)
Quote (socle @ Sep. 06 2009,12:26)
Clive:
     
Quote

Gil is right, Blue Lotus also goes by David v. Squatney. So, Blue, which name would you like to use? To make it easier to follow and for the sake of continuity, just stick with your David v. Squatney handle, and Blue Lotus will now be retired by me.

Just for the record, I know with absolute certainty that David v. Squatney and Blue Lotus are not the same person.  I've made a post to that effect, but DvS is now under moderation.

Clive is on a design inference roll.

[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/education/blown-away-dan-peterson-reviews-dr-stephen-meyers-book-the-signature-in-the-cell-at-the-am


erican-spectator/#comment-333486]DeLurker = JayM[/URL]

Oatmeal Stout = Sal Gal

So, can anyone comment if his mad inference skillz have improved since he got a false positive on Blue Lotus = Squatney?

Maybe he's getting cute with IP adresses?

Ha, I have at least two proxies!

  
JohnW



Posts: 2228
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,15:27   

Quote (BillB @ Sep. 08 2009,13:23)
I'm sure Clive would be very surprised to discover that I am actually Joseph.  Unfortunately I don't think his design detector is capable of anything more that "if it looks a bit like X then it must be X" so I guess my ubersocktard is safe for a while (unless he is watching? ... Clive?)

Just wait until he finds out that Louis is Denyse O'Leary.

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,15:31   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 08 2009,13:23)
 
Quote (Quack @ Sep. 08 2009,17:50)
   
Quote
It would eradicate much of my cynicism regarding the human species.

Arthur Koestler didn't see much hope, I am afraid I don't either.

Oh I don't know. I'm an optimistic cynic. After all I could be wrong. In fact it's quite likely I am.

Mind you, if I'm right then it really is advisable to start drinking heavily.......soon.

Louis

"Start?" Who stopped? Damn slackers. That's the problem with young people nowadays: no stick-to-it-ivness. Why, when I was a kid, I never gave consideration to such trivial things as neurons or so-called "hepatocytes." In fact, when I was a kid we had to carry our...onions...belt...ZzzzZZz *snork*

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

  
khan



Posts: 1481
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,15:40   

Quote
In that thread,  both Clive, baby and Wee Billy Dembski point to C.S. Lewis' correspondence as evidence that Lewis was privately rejecting evolution in the 1950's while publicly embracing it.


In my 'net travels, I have observed that one sign of a crank is the belief that people (online, on TV,...) are communicating with said crank in code.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

  
Ptaylor



Posts: 883
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,15:43   

Delurker not only gets a thread about him*, but apparently gets banninated in it as well:
   
Quote
DeLurker used to go by the name JayM, who claimed to be, if you remember, an ID supporter, even though everything he wrote was against ID. He justified this by saying that he was just trying to help ID to gain credibility. This was, of course, not true. It was, in reality, an underhanded way to critique ID. These folks, they’ll go to any length to argue against ID, even by being disingenuous. So, no, JayM, I’m not going to re-instate you under a sock-puppet name, so stop emailing Denyse about it. Your insincerity is, quite honestly, bothersome.

Link.*Assuming the masculine here, I may be wrong.

--------------
“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

  
JohnW



Posts: 2228
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,15:49   

Quote (khan @ Sep. 08 2009,13:40)
Quote
In that thread,  both Clive, baby and Wee Billy Dembski point to C.S. Lewis' correspondence as evidence that Lewis was privately rejecting evolution in the 1950's while publicly embracing it.


In my 'net travels, I have observed that one sign of a crank is the belief that people (online, on TV,...) are communicating with said crank in code.

Creationists do this all the time, at UD and elsewhere.  "In their heart of hearts, scientists know goddidit, but won't admit it because of their career / fear of the International Scientist Conspiracy / Satan."  It's why they spend so much time looking for hidden pro-ID messages in the scientific literature.

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

  
khan



Posts: 1481
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,16:12   

Quote (JohnW @ Sep. 08 2009,16:49)
Quote (khan @ Sep. 08 2009,13:40)
Quote
In that thread,  both Clive, baby and Wee Billy Dembski point to C.S. Lewis' correspondence as evidence that Lewis was privately rejecting evolution in the 1950's while publicly embracing it.


In my 'net travels, I have observed that one sign of a crank is the belief that people (online, on TV,...) are communicating with said crank in code.

Creationists do this all the time, at UD and elsewhere.  "In their heart of hearts, scientists know goddidit, but won't admit it because of their career / fear of the International Scientist Conspiracy / Satan."  It's why they spend so much time looking for hidden pro-ID messages in the scientific literature.

A variant from usenet days: "People support me in email."

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,16:24   

Quote (khan @ Sep. 08 2009,16:12)
   
Quote (JohnW @ Sep. 08 2009,16:49)
   
Quote (khan @ Sep. 08 2009,13:40)
     
Quote
In that thread,  both Clive, baby and Wee Billy Dembski point to C.S. Lewis' correspondence as evidence that Lewis was privately rejecting evolution in the 1950's while publicly embracing it.


In my 'net travels, I have observed that one sign of a crank is the belief that people (online, on TV,...) are communicating with said crank in code.

Creationists do this all the time, at UD and elsewhere.  "In their heart of hearts, scientists know goddidit, but won't admit it because of their career / fear of the International Scientist Conspiracy / Satan."  It's why they spend so much time looking for hidden pro-ID messages in the scientific literature.

A variant from usenet days: "People support me in email."

Onlookers!

Khan attacked me in email. With a baseball bat.

Oh, how the heathen Darwinian materialists despise the innocent and pure of heart. I am just like Jesus, who was also persecuted.

Buy my book. Visit my site. Don't risk eternal fire, my friends. Send your donations and love offerings to fend off this encroaching tide of hate and violence.

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,16:42   

Quote (JohnW @ Sep. 08 2009,21:27)
Quote (BillB @ Sep. 08 2009,13:23)
I'm sure Clive would be very surprised to discover that I am actually Joseph.  Unfortunately I don't think his design detector is capable of anything more that "if it looks a bit like X then it must be X" so I guess my ubersocktard is safe for a while (unless he is watching? ... Clive?)

Just wait until he finds out that Louis is Denyse O'Leary.

I thought I was FTK. Look, if you're going to accuse me of being random internet people, get it straight will you?

Anyway, I am Dembski*. It's all been a big joke**. Ha ha***. Etc.

Louis

* Or not.

** Or not.

*** I kill me sometimes

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

  
Quack



Posts: 1751
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,16:49   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 08 2009,13:23)
       
Quote (Quack @ Sep. 08 2009,17:50)
         
Quote
It would eradicate much of my cynicism regarding the human species.

Arthur Koestler didn't see much hope, I am afraid I don't either.

Oh I don't know. I'm an optimistic cynic. After all I could be wrong. In fact it's quite likely I am.

Mind you, if I'm right then it really is advisable to start drinking heavily.......soon.

Louis


What more to say then but SKÅL!

BTW, Sweden has a rich tradition of debauchery (hope that is an appropriate term), and libertinism made immortal by a character named Bellmann; his songs about careless life with lavish amounts of wine, broads, strumming the zithar and maybe other joyful things of which my limited command of the English language makes me recognize only as images in my poor bourgeois soul...
Guess this should be bumped to the BW.

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

  
afarensis



Posts: 1005
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,18:32   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 08 2009,16:24)
Quote (khan @ Sep. 08 2009,16:12)
   
Quote (JohnW @ Sep. 08 2009,16:49)
     
Quote (khan @ Sep. 08 2009,13:40)
     
Quote
In that thread,  both Clive, baby and Wee Billy Dembski point to C.S. Lewis' correspondence as evidence that Lewis was privately rejecting evolution in the 1950's while publicly embracing it.


In my 'net travels, I have observed that one sign of a crank is the belief that people (online, on TV,...) are communicating with said crank in code.

Creationists do this all the time, at UD and elsewhere.  "In their heart of hearts, scientists know goddidit, but won't admit it because of their career / fear of the International Scientist Conspiracy / Satan."  It's why they spend so much time looking for hidden pro-ID messages in the scientific literature.

A variant from usenet days: "People support me in email."

Onlookers!

Khan attacked me in email. With a baseball bat.

Oh, how the heathen Darwinian materialists despise the innocent and pure of heart. I am just like Jesus, who was also persecuted.

Buy my book. Visit my site. Don't risk eternal fire, my friends. Send your donations and love offerings to fend off this encroaching tide of hate and violence.

Darn it, why do you people always break out the fun while I am at work and can't participate :angry:

Maybe I wanted to hit someone via email, with a bat (I mean a real bat, not the baseball variety).

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

   
Zachriel



Posts: 2595
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,19:44   



--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
Maya



Posts: 702
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,20:16   

Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 08 2009,19:44)

My Greek is a little rusty, but I think I got "F*** Clivebaby and the horse he rode in on."

I can haz humanateez duhploma now?

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,23:16   

D O'L:
Quote
Someone from the BBC wants to interview me. I am not sure about that, because I am concerned that they are looking for a gap-tooth Canadian moron to spout Bible verses, rock the tent, and handle snakes.

Don't hesitate, Denyse.  You're perfect for the role.

--------------
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: Sep. 08 2009,23:22   

Denyse:
Quote
Tell me again that Darwinism isn’t a religion?

Seversky replies:
Quote
Okay

Darwinism isn’t a religion.

But Paleyism is.

Except for Cornelius Hunter

For whom everything is.


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

  
Amadan



Posts: 1244
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2009,10:32   

Interesting (but surely hopelessly biased) profile of Densye's best friend here.

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

   
Quack



Posts: 1751
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2009,11:15   

Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 09 2009,10:32)
Interesting (but surely hopelessly biased) profile of Densye's best friend here.

Creationist martyrs of all countries, unite!

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

  
socle



Posts: 262
Joined: July 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2009,11:17   

Dembski:
   
Quote
In case you missed this blog (and now that The Brites are no longer in existence):


http://satirizingscientism.blogspot.com

Yet another outlet for IDCists to dissipate their energy (as opposed to doing science):  A blog "satirizing scientism" that's about as funny as syphilis.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2009,11:27   

i have a blog satirizing satire.

it's pretty much just a mirror and a glass of some warm slightly flat spring water.

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

  
Amadan



Posts: 1244
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2009,11:48   

Quote (socle @ Sep. 09 2009,11:17)
Dembski:
     
Quote
In case you missed this blog (and now that The Brites are no longer in existence):


http://satirizingscientism.blogspot.com

Yet another outlet for IDCists to dissipate their energy (as opposed to doing science):  A blog "satirizing scientism" that's about as funny as syphilis.

Mickey Mouse hasn't evolved???

HA!

Also, they don't have their own opera, which means Dembski must have a small, bent penis.

--------------
"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: Sep. 09 2009,11:57   

Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 09 2009,11:48)
Also, they don't have their own opera, which means Dembski must have a small, bent penis.

I suspect that Denyse has the miniscule bent penis, and Dembski has a vagina.  

Not that that's wrong, and it's not something I would expect anyone to verify through empiracal observation and experimentation.*



* Even in full haz-mat mode...




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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2009,12:09   

dembski is built like a female hyena

dennis is built like this guy

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10094
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2009,13:30   

Has anyone seed my turkle duff?

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2009,14:06   

Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 09 2009,10:32)
Interesting (but surely hopelessly biased) profile of Densye's best friend here.

Hah, I didn't know he thought he was the Mahdi. Damn, every nut fundy thinks he's the messiah/elect/speshul to god in some way

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

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2595
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2009,14:47   

Quote (Maya @ Sep. 08 2009,20:16)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 08 2009,19:44)

My Greek is a little rusty, but I think I got "F*** Clivebaby and the horse he rode in on."

I can haz humanateez duhploma now?

Close. For a clue, click the Greek.

--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2009,16:06   

RBH put up a link (at PT) to this "Metropolis Sampler" critique of the recent Dembski-Marks sham scam "paper."

It concerns a priori bias in Dembski/Marks' bullsh*t representations. It's also full of math goodness!

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

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4361
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2009,16:06   

Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 09 2009,14:47)
I can haz humanateez duhploma now?[/quote]
Close. For a clue, click the Greek.

That was Great Alexander Zachriel.  I'm looking forward to seeing this on LOLcats in the future!

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

  
Quack



Posts: 1751
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2009,16:20   

Quote
Yet another outlet for IDCists to dissipate their energy (as opposed to doing science):  A blog "satirizing scientism" that's about as funny as syphilis.

Pox on you, evoswine!

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

  
MichaelJ



Posts: 455
Joined: June 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2009,21:26   

Quote (Quack @ Sep. 09 2009,16:20)
Quote
Yet another outlet for IDCists to dissipate their energy (as opposed to doing science):  A blog "satirizing scientism" that's about as funny as syphilis.

Pox on you, evoswine!

So lame - they do humour worse than they do science

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 1968
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2009,01:21   

It's been a slow day at UD - they must have all stayed in to watch videos of Obama's recent speeches.  But I did find this:

Quote
22

senseorsensibility.com

09/09/2009

8:03 pm

To be fair KibyNp, this is part of a series of posts by O’Leary, the earlier ones providing the context. I think we can take a Darwinist to be a neo-Darwinist.

Right.  So people who follow the science developed by the likes of Fisher and Dobzhansky.

Quote
Why does it qualify as a religion? I think for the kind of reason that I have just pointed out. Neo-Darwinism incorporates metaphysical elements that are now doing much more than providing a framework for enquiry, but have been integrated into the belief systems of their adherents and are being used as personal frameworks for making sense of reality.

Dunno about you lot, but my personal framework for making sense of reality includes the theory of gravity.

I wonder, though, does anyone base their whole framework on Neo-Darwinist metaphysical elements?  And what are these metaphysical elements?  (Anyone?  Anyone?  Snowflake?)

Quote
The problem with this is that the personal belief system is contingent and vulnerable to refutation. These are not good characteristics to have in a personal belief system, and why I would recommend a classical one every time (i.e., the usual suspects, or failing that a very open agnosticism).

Ah, blind faith.  Someone doesn't want to be told they're wrong.
Quote
I am sure Denyse will provide a pithier and more accurate answer.

Pithier than GEM of Kon-tiki, certainly.

--------------
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: Sep. 10 2009,02:49   

Gil says
Quote
Just put’em in a bag, shake’em up, and (wave the magic wand of “deep” time)complex information-processing machinery emerges.

Please help me! Why does anyone schooled and experienced in the hard sciences take this transparent idiocy seriously?


I don't know Gil. Why would anyone who has put the effort in believe such rampant idiocy? You make sure and have a think about that now OK?

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2009,02:52   

Here's one from Andrew Sibley, our UK Weather forecaster creationist friend
Quote
At the end of the day all inductive arguments must begin in belief, whether it is old or new riddles of induction, which is why the American strict division of science and faith in education policy is a fallacy.

Whatever Andrew.Whatever.

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2009,02:53   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 09 2009,11:27)
i have a blog satirizing satire.

it's pretty much just a mirror and a glass of some warm slightly flat spring water.

Turns out he's "Wascally Wabbit" whose blog Dembski had previously plugged a few months back. I'm pretty sure he's also a Baylor Director of Spanish and Portuguese div. named Mike Thomas, but that's just a deep, deep suspicion as of yet:
http://www.baylor.edu/spanish/index.php?id=12339
http://www.mikethomas.net/about_the_author
http://aharvestofmiracles.blogspot.com/

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2009,02:56   

Mario A Lopez, if you don't know, is IDs con-man. He's the guy who goes round setting up pages on networking sites, or just plain websites, to give the impression there is a groundswell of popular support for ID.

He's also a denier of common descent, which is always handy to know.
Quote
What this paper demonstrates is 1) the author presupposes ancestral relationships between humans and chimps

Yep, such relationships are based purely on conjecture. Tard

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

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 1663
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2009,06:31   

Is there anything in the world that Cornelius Hunter doesn't think is religion?  Gretta Garbo's aunt Bessie's knees?  Maybe a sharp stick in the eye?

Tard

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2009,06:57   

Hmm..I don't want to give that satirizingscientism any site hits, but given "Wascally Wabbit's" response to me, I think my  informed guess as to his identity was correct.

The funny part is that he'll be deleting my posts there for calling him a pendejo, which he claims is profanity. Except it's not, in Mexican slang/idiom (which is what I learned growing up in New Mexico). Literally, it means "pubic hair" and figuratively, it refers to an ass, an idiot. A fool. Given the "humor" of the site, you'd think he'd appreciate the term. Oh, well.

Mike Thomas, Marks, Dembski...Baylor seems to have sprouted / shed a fair contingent of pendejos

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

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2595
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2009,07:00   

Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 09 2009,14:47)
         
Quote (Maya @ Sep. 08 2009,20:16)
             
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 08 2009,19:44)

My Greek is a little rusty, but I think I got "F*** Clivebaby and the horse he rode in on."

I can haz humanateez duhploma now?

Close. For a clue, click the Greek.

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person. (Just look at the bottom of your shoe.)



A lot of people probably don't know that tard is a Greek term, as when Hippasus, the discoverer of irrational numbers, said "Pythagoras is a tard." (That was just before Pythagoras had him tossed overboard.)

By the way, Heraclitus is called "the weeping philosopher". (Probably because they were new shoes.)

--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2009,07:46   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 10 2009,03:53)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 09 2009,11:27)
i have a blog satirizing satire.

it's pretty much just a mirror and a glass of some warm slightly flat spring water.

Turns out he's "Wascally Wabbit" whose blog Dembski had previously plugged a few months back. I'm pretty sure he's also a Baylor Director of Spanish and Portuguese div. named Mike Thomas, but that's just a deep, deep suspicion as of yet:
http://www.baylor.edu/spanish/index.php?id=12339
http://www.mikethomas.net/about_the_author
http://aharvestofmiracles.blogspot.com/

that's thoroughness!

he mentioned to you that he was an administrator.

he didn't have to say that he was a sophist, it was obvious.  that blag is a piece of shite.

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

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 1968
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2009,08:12   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 10 2009,06:31)
Is there anything in the world that Cornelius Hunter doesn't think is religion?  Gretta Garbo's aunt Bessie's knees?  Maybe a sharp stick in the eye?

How about ID?

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

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10094
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2009,08:32   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 10 2009,08:12)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 10 2009,06:31)
Is there anything in the world that Cornelius Hunter doesn't think is religion?  Gretta Garbo's aunt Bessie's knees?  Maybe a sharp stick in the eye?

How about ID?

That science is a religion and that religion is a science.

Darwinism violates the separation of church and state but creationism is simply following the evidence.

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2009,08:42   

that hurts my brain but i know that is pretty close to what some of the dooshes think

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2009,09:24   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 10 2009,09:32)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 10 2009,08:12)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 10 2009,06:31)
Is there anything in the world that Cornelius Hunter doesn't think is religion?  Gretta Garbo's aunt Bessie's knees?  Maybe a sharp stick in the eye?

How about ID?

That science is a religion and that religion is a science.

Darwinism violates the separation of church and state but creationism is simply following the evidence.

that, and the mystical views of 19th century ichthyologists are proof that everyone else worships chance.

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

  
BillB



Posts: 355
Joined: Aug. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2009,09:44   

Learned hand responds to KF:  
Quote
321
Learned Hand
09/10/2009
9:04 am
Quote

(KF) I of course refuse to go off on his latest red herring headed off to as strawman soaked in ad hominems.

If you post your mailing address, I would be quite happy to send you a thesaurus.

LOL.

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 1968
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2009,15:56   

Damn, it's quiet around here.

Too quiet.

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

   
Zachriel



Posts: 2595
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2009,16:01   

Quote
niwrad: John von Neumann, an IDer ante litteram

Hungarian mathematician John von Neumann (1903 – 1957) ...

Von Neumann quite clearly understood and accepted the Theory of Evolution.

Quote
niwrad: Moreover we have the concept of “autotrophic” replicator. An autotrophic replicator is not a replicator that needs an external provider of basic parts, rather it can self-reproduce finding the necessary materials by itself in the wild. Biological cells are even autotrophic replicators.

The "necessary materials" for many autotrophs being just air, water and a few dissolved minerals.

--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2009,16:03   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 10 2009,15:56)
Damn, it's quiet around here.

Too quiet.

Well, it is your turn.



--------------
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!)

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2009,16:07   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 10 2009,21:56)
Damn, it's quiet around here.

Too quiet.

It's not quiet here. I showed the kid UD last week. He hasn't stopped crying yet.

I'm due in court Monday. Social Services have called round.

Louis

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

  
JohnW



Posts: 2228
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2009,16:34   

Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 10 2009,14:01)
Quote
niwrad: John von Neumann, an IDer ante litteram

Hungarian mathematician John von Neumann (1903 – 1957) ...

Von Neumann quite clearly understood and accepted the Theory of Evolution.

Quote
niwrad: Moreover we have the concept of “autotrophic” replicator. An autotrophic replicator is not a replicator that needs an external provider of basic parts, rather it can self-reproduce finding the necessary materials by itself in the wild. Biological cells are even autotrophic replicators.

The "necessary materials" for many autotrophs being just air, water and a few dissolved minerals.

Yes, but he meets the essential criterion for recruitment into UD's "Distinguished scientists who support us" club.  He's too dead to disagree.

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

  
Reg



Posts: 112
Joined: Dec. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2009,16:46   

Quote (JohnW @ Sep. 10 2009,16:34)
Yes, but he meets the essential criterion for recruitment into UD's "Distinguished scientists who support us" club.  He's too dead to disagree.

Von Neumann seems to have had the whole ID movement nailed down quite well, even going so far as to lay down the ground rules for their approach to both mathematics and biology:
 
Quote (Von Neumann @ possibly apocryphal)
"There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about."

That's as true today as it ever was.

--------------
"Even though I am not a creationist by any reasonable definition ... the Cambrian explosion was doubtless the work of God in my view but I would say that of all creation." - Denyse O'Leary, Oct 17, 2009.

  
Reg



Posts: 112
Joined: Dec. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2009,17:00   

I've just had a thought. UncommonDescent describes John von Neumann as "an IDer ante litteram". But I'm sure I've seen many posts on UD flatly denying that Intelligent Design is any kind of a recent notion (like, say, some kind of rebranding of creationism) and insisting that ID is ancient and well-established, invoking Aristotle and Newton and other great names back into the mists of history as great ID proponents. But if that's the case, and ID is so well established and not at all new, how come ID could have been ante litterum as recently as von Neumann's days of the 1950s? I would ask there, but have no confidence the question would see the light of day.

--------------
"Even though I am not a creationist by any reasonable definition ... the Cambrian explosion was doubtless the work of God in my view but I would say that of all creation." - Denyse O'Leary, Oct 17, 2009.

  
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2009,17:23   

Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 10 2009,17:01)
Quote
niwrad: John von Neumann, an IDer ante litteram

Hungarian mathematician John von Neumann (1903 – 1957) ...

Von Neumann quite clearly understood and accepted the Theory of Evolution.

Quote
niwrad: Moreover we have the concept of “autotrophic” replicator. An autotrophic replicator is not a replicator that needs an external provider of basic parts, rather it can self-reproduce finding the necessary materials by itself in the wild. Biological cells are even autotrophic replicators.

The "necessary materials" for many autotrophs being just air, water and a few dissolved minerals.

Not sure what nirwad's first language is, but it isn't English.

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

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2009,19:32   

Quote (dvunkannon @ Sep. 10 2009,15:23)
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 10 2009,17:01)
 
Quote
niwrad: John von Neumann, an IDer ante litteram

Hungarian mathematician John von Neumann (1903 – 1957) ...

Von Neumann quite clearly understood and accepted the Theory of Evolution.

 
Quote
niwrad: Moreover we have the concept of “autotrophic” replicator. An autotrophic replicator is not a replicator that needs an external provider of basic parts, rather it can self-reproduce finding the necessary materials by itself in the wild. Biological cells are even autotrophic replicators.

The "necessary materials" for many autotrophs being just air, water and a few dissolved minerals.

Not sure what nirwad's first language is, but it isn't English.

From previous encounters with niwrad at UD, I gather that he is Italian. I wonder if he is Giuseppe Sermonti.

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4048
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2009,20:52   

Quote
Not sure what nirwad's first language is, but it isn't English.

Maybe it's hsilgnE?

Henry

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2009,21:44   

lolol

Quote
26
JTaylor
09/10/2009
1:51 pm
Cornelius: “3. We can make a design inference. People have always done this, and we can formalize methods to do this.”

I understand a little about CSI, explanatory filters etc, although I’m not a mathematician so some of the math is beyond me. But these concepts are often presented in a generalized way (or apply to the whole evolutionary landscape); what I’m interested in understanding further is the idea of the “formalized methods” that Cornelius mentions being applied to a specific artifact. For example, is it possible to show the working documentation for how a conclusion of design inference was derived for, say, the flagellum?


um, no.

but you knew that, right?  

what does Corny Tard say?

"Ummmm yeah i know all about that or not enough any way read this blag"

lolol

Seversky, I extol thee.  Thou hast survived the tard for many moons.

Quote
36
Seversky
09/10/2009
8:45 pm
Cornelius Hunter @ 32
You need to read Sober.

This would be the same Elliott Sober who concluded an article entitled What is wrong with Intelligent Design? with the sentence:

Quote
In all its forms, ID fails to constitute a serious alternative to evolutionary theory.


Here I must agree. We need to read Sober.


lololol

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2009,02:46   

Gordon Mullings is still posting on the Weasel thread
Quote
Absent such, this thread will have achieved something else, which is perhaps even more important if we care about science and our civlisation: it demonstrates the utter willful untruthfulness and unfairness of typical darwinist approaches to origins science issues and to those who challenge the holy rulings of the a priori materialism neo-magisterium wearing the holy vestments of scientists’ lab coats.
Tard.

No Gordon, what the thread shows is that no matter what the evidence shows you think Dembski = Right.

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 2876
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2009,03:12   

bah..mis qued
Zac how did you yo get the greek alphabet to show?

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2009,05:51   

Quote (k.e.. @ Sep. 11 2009,01:12)
Zac how did you yo get the greek alphabet to show?

He cheated. It's not text, it's an image file.

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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2009,06:26   

Quote (keiths @ Sep. 11 2009,06:51)
 
Quote (k.e.. @ Sep. 11 2009,01:12)
Zac how did you yo get the greek alphabet to show?

He cheated. It's not text, it's an image file.

Cheating? That's how the Greeks did it.

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

  
damitall



Posts: 322
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2009,07:32   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 11 2009,06:26)
Quote (keiths @ Sep. 11 2009,06:51)
 
Quote (k.e.. @ Sep. 11 2009,01:12)
Zac how did you yo get the greek alphabet to show?

He cheated. It's not text, it's an image file.

Cheating? That's how the Greeks did it.

Typical atheist materialist evilutionist behaviour, cheating with image files.

  
Quack



Posts: 1751
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2009,08:00   

Funny, the Greek characters I typed in MSWord displayed properly in preview but came out as ?????'s in the submitted post.




Edited.

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

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2595
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2009,08:11   

Quote (Quack @ Sep. 11 2009,08:00)
           
Quote (k.e.. @ Sep. 11 2009,03:12)
bah..mis qued
Zac how did you yo get the greek alphabet to show?

Or, you can do it with Insert Symbol in MSWord..., like ?????????????????????????

Tried that.
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 08 2009,08:05)
The Greek alphabet didn't format correctly. Nevermind.


Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 11 2009,06:26)
             
Quote (keiths @ Sep. 11 2009,06:51)
                 
Quote (k.e.. @ Sep. 11 2009,01:12)
Zac how did you yo get the greek alphabet to show?

He cheated. It's not text, it's an image file.

Cheating? That's how the Greeks did it.

The first version, Aristotle drew in the sand, but we had trouble putting it into the scanner. Plato suggested we just had to idealize it in our minds, but that didn't work quite right either. Finally, we carved it in stone, then scanned it. There may have been an easier way, but that was all we could think of at the time. (Whilst Democritus laughed the whole time, Socrates just kept asking a bunch of silly questions, like who the heck we were trying to impress.)

Meanwhile, if you want the text, just click the image.






--------------
Tard Acquisition and Repository Department

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10094
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2009,09:17   

GEM's intellectual corpse is still being kicked:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwini....-333750

Quote
334

Indium

09/11/2009

9:02 am
DNA_Jock:
I have asked kf more or less the same question over 10 times now, for example in post 194 here.

He will continue to avoid answering it. Maybe the reason is that it is so obvious that these two searches, called “Partitioned” and “Proximity Reward”, are completely different.


Prosthelytizing: Never having to admit you're wrong.

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

  
sparc



Posts: 1691
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2009,11:16   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 11 2009,02:46)
Gordon Mullings is still posting on the Weasel thread
   
Quote
Absent such, this thread will have achieved something else, which is perhaps even more important if we care about science and our civlisation: it demonstrates the utter willful untruthfulness and unfairness of typical darwinist approaches to origins science issues and to those who challenge the holy rulings of the a priori materialism neo-magisterium wearing the holy vestments of scientists’ lab coats.
Tard.

No Gordon, what the thread shows is that no matter what the evidence shows you think Dembski = Right.

I must strictly disagree here: KF is such a pompous dick that he is absolutely sure that he is right. That Dembski happens to share some of his views is just an accident. And it is still not clear if Dembski even cares about FSCI.

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

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 3553
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2009,12:04   

Quote
He will continue to avoid answering it. Maybe the reason is that it is so obvious that these two searches, called “Partitioned” and “Proximity Reward”, are completely different.
As others have pointed out, all you have to do is sit down to program a Weasel algorithm, and it becomes clear that passing the location of correct letters is much more complex than selecting the child closest to the target. One could differentiate the algorithms by the number of steps and tests required to generate a population.

In the case of self replicators, no information at all is passed to the replicator.

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

Pat Robertson

  
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2009,12:20   

Quote (sparc @ Sep. 11 2009,12:16)
I must strictly disagree here: KF is such a pompous dick that he is absolutely sure that he is right. That Dembski happens to share some of his views is just an accident. And it is still not clear if Dembski even cares about FSCI.

It is still not clear if Dembski even cares about irreducible complexity.

To the good doubleplusdoctor, it is all about the Sweater.

--------------
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: Sep. 11 2009,15:57   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 11 2009,12:04)
 As others have pointed out, all you have to do is sit down to program a Weasel algorithm, and it becomes clear that passing the location of correct letters is much more complex than selecting the child closest to the target. One could differentiate the algorithms by the number of steps and tests required to generate a population.

So Dembski's version is more complicated?  Doesn't that mean he's just smuggling information into his algorithm?

Naughty Dembski!  No free lunch for you.

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

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10094
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2009,15:58   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 11 2009,15:57)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 11 2009,12:04)
 As others have pointed out, all you have to do is sit down to program a Weasel algorithm, and it becomes clear that passing the location of correct letters is much more complex than selecting the child closest to the target. One could differentiate the algorithms by the number of steps and tests required to generate a population.

So Dembski's version is more complicated?  Doesn't that mean he's just smuggling information into his algorithm?

Naughty Dembski!  No free lunch for you.

Arf!

Someone do a funny about lunchtime and baylor cafe being NOMA.

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

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2009,17:45   

Quote (dvunkannon @ Sep. 11 2009,10:20)
It is still not clear if Dembski even cares about irreducible complexity.

He cared enough to revisit it:   Irreducible Complexity Revisited

--------------
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: Sep. 11 2009,18:24   

CliveBaby, KF apologist:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwini....-333763

Quote
339

Clive Hayden

09/11/2009

3:33 pm
FrogBox,

Just to note that if it wasn’t for the likes of me and the hundreds of thousands of colleauges throughout the world who are proud lab coat wearers, the planet would be in a very much worse way than it is now.

kairosfocus’ anti-science rhetoric shows him in a very bad light indeed, as one of those who would indeed take society back to the Dark Ages if they had the opportunity.


Advancement is not limited to lab coat wearers, it is only limited to human ingenuity, and on this score kairosfocus can speak as well as anyone, indeed better than someone who wears a lab coat. Lab coats don’t come with the art of ingenuity built-in, and without folks like kairosfocus, lab coats would be a self aggrandizing group, with no accountability and no special training in actual broad thinking. Surely you’re not willing to say that labcoats gives a mind a special monopoly on ingenuity and rationality? If you are, that is called scientism, which is a philosophy, which other reasonable men can critique and which has no special place in the world of thinking men. Who would take us back to the Dark Ages are those who think that the only thing that matters is whatever folks who wear lab coats think, for they will impose whatever they want on the rest of humanity, which will be the opposite of the Enlightenment, and indeed, may be called the next age of Endarkenment.

“Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.”
C.S. Lewis


Clive, while "Advancement is not limited to lab coat wearers..", we'd be royally fucked without the contribution of that specific subset.

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

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2009,18:39   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 11 2009,18:24)
CliveBaby, KF apologist:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwini....-333763

 
Quote
339

Clive Hayden

09/11/2009

3:33 pm
FrogBox,

Just to note that if it wasn’t for the likes of me and the hundreds of thousands of colleauges throughout the world who are proud lab coat wearers, the planet would be in a very much worse way than it is now.

kairosfocus’ anti-science rhetoric shows him in a very bad light indeed, as one of those who would indeed take society back to the Dark Ages if they had the opportunity.


Advancement is not limited to lab coat wearers, it is only limited to human ingenuity, and on this score kairosfocus can speak as well as anyone, indeed better than someone who wears a lab coat. Lab coats don’t come with the art of ingenuity built-in, and without folks like kairosfocus, lab coats would be a self aggrandizing group, with no accountability and no special training in actual broad thinking. Surely you’re not willing to say that labcoats gives a mind a special monopoly on ingenuity and rationality? If you are, that is called scientism, which is a philosophy, which other reasonable men can critique and which has no special place in the world of thinking men. Who would take us back to the Dark Ages are those who think that the only thing that matters is whatever folks who wear lab coats think, for they will impose whatever they want on the rest of humanity, which will be the opposite of the Enlightenment, and indeed, may be called the next age of Endarkenment.

“Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.”
C.S. Lewis


Clive, while "Advancement is not limited to lab coat wearers..", we'd be royally fucked without the contribution of that specific subset.

Maybe, maybe not.  But, we will never know. And all I can say is Praise the Lord that Kairosfocus is spending large amounts of time pontificating about Lewontin and oil-soaked ad hominids on a backwater IDC blog, otherwise those labcoat types would be making a mess of this world with such atrocities as human-animal hybrids and sharks with frikkin' laserbeams on their heads.  Gordon is all that stands between us and a dark materialistic future.

--------------
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!)

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10094
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2009,18:51   

You've all read his anti-intellectualism TARD manifesto:

http://www.angelfire.com/pro....eculrsm

?

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

  
afarensis



Posts: 1005
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2009,19:24   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 11 2009,15:57)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 11 2009,12:04)
 As others have pointed out, all you have to do is sit down to program a Weasel algorithm, and it becomes clear that passing the location of correct letters is much more complex than selecting the child closest to the target. One could differentiate the algorithms by the number of steps and tests required to generate a population.

So Dembski's version is more complicated?  Doesn't that mean he's just smuggling information into his algorithm?

Naughty Dembski!  No free lunch for you.

Yeah, he hides it in his sweater.

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

   
CeilingCat



Posts: 1663
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2009,20:32   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 11 2009,18:51)
You've all read his anti-intellectualism TARD manifesto:

http://www.angelfire.com/pro....eculrsm

?

GEM of Riki-Tiki lives in Jamaica, which has more churches per capita than any other nation on earth.  It also has a crime rate that has spiraled so out of control that an Honorary English Ambassador was found  beaten and strangled to death in his  own home in a wealthy neighborhood a couple of days ago.  

His main job as honorary Ambassador was providing council to English crime victims.

Found murdered, Jamaica has highest murder rate in the world.


Beaten and strangled because he was gay.

Perhaps Mr. Gordon should stop preaching to the rest of the world and concentrate on his own gay-bashing, church-going xtians.

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

  
bfish



Posts: 267
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2009,21:00   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 11 2009,18:32)
GEM of Riki-Tiki lives in Jamaica

I thought KF was from Montserrat.

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2009,22:51   

Quote (bfish @ Sep. 11 2009,19:00)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 11 2009,18:32)
GEM of Riki-Tiki lives in Jamaica

I thought KF was from Montserrat.

He's a native Jamaican who lives in Montserrat.

--------------
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: Sep. 11 2009,23:33   

TARD!


http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/caribbeankairos/message/742

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2009,23:57   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 12 2009,00:33)
TARD!


http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/caribbeankairos/message/742

gordon mullings is a fucked up individual

Quote
On October 6, 2008, under the banner BBC News, Roger Bolton published an article on the recent digitalisation of the well-known Codex Sinaiticus, discovered in 1844 by Tischendorf in a pile of old manuscripts in St Catherine's Monastery in the Sinai; and then intended to be used for heating cold rooms.

A minor item, hardly worth noticing, you would say.

Until you read the sensationalistic headline: "The rival to the Bible."

For, a la Dan Brown et al on steroids, the article -- duly presented as "news" asserts:


no oily ad homos yet

Quote
A little "deconstruction" is plainly in order, as the item is highly revealing on what is happening to the former gold standard of world news, the BBC:


hmm sounds familiar?

Quote
idiotic points ONE THROUGH SEVENTEEN!!!!!!!!


christ

Quote
n short, Mr Bolton has inappropriately sensationalised the significance of the Codex Sinaiticus, and in so doing has failed to consult and give us the counsel of informed experts on both sides of the questions. Had he done so, a very different picute would have emerged.

That is bad enough, but it is compounded by the emerging pattern that reeveals the flawed editorial policy of the BBC in our day: such gross errors and bias SHOULD have been caught at the first step of editorial cross-checking.

Thatit was not, and the fact that a follow up inquiry by this blogger to the head of the relevant Editorial Committee in the BBC, Mr Bruce Vander, has been unanswered for coming on a fortnight now, speaks volumes about this once gold standard media house. (I treated this issue as a follow up to an earlier complaint on an entertainment programme that grossly slandered evangelical Christians as potentially violent, racist terrorists.)

All of which is ever so sad.

Let us hope that BBC will wake up and do better in future reports. END

--
Posted By Gordon to KairosFocus at 8/04/2009 08:00:00 AM


No, fucko, IT IS NOT IN SHORT.  YOU DO NOT WRITE THINGS IN SHORT.

which is ever so sad

DUM

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2009,00:23   

So, what y'all are saying is that Gordon E. (I vant to be alone) Mullings has email addys that should be kept private, per his express wishes:
 
caribbeankairos-owner@yahoogroups.com.uk

kairosfocus@yahoo.co.uk

Okay, gotcha. Will do. Private it is. Even if they're already freely available on teh intardwebz, I won't encourage anyone to abuse those.

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

  
sparc



Posts: 1691
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2009,00:28   

What do you expect from somebody who wrote a  manual for running a fundamentalist cell.

--------------
"[...] 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: 1691
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2009,00:49   

BTW, I always wonder why burning strawmen should be bad. We do this once a year in Cologne and it is fun:
link, link, link

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

   
k.e..



Posts: 2876
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2009,02:33   

Quote
Mr Gordon Mullings
Montserrat


Dear Gordon,

I thank you for your rather long letter regarding the BBC's documentary on the Codex Sinaiticus. I'm glad you appreciated it and notpologise for taking more than 2 weeks to reply.

Whilst it is not the policy of the BBC to normally apologize to foreign nationals whose tendentious claptrap falls outside proper professional standards by which their opinions dissenting or not preclude any rational conclusions in the normal space of a working eon. I will take this opportunity to offer you a free raspberry from one of "The Goon Show" audio tapes.
Expect delivery in the next 2 weeks.

It seems to me that you would benefit from some of our other programs and I would like to take this opportunity to recommend "Magic Roundabout" and "Captain Pugwash"

I look forward to further correspondence from you with regard to the above BBC programs.

Please visit our online store for merchandise suitable for any family.

Yours Sincerely

Amanda Hugginkiss

PP

Bruce Vander
Complaints Manager and Secretary to the ESC.
BBC Trust.




Edited by Lou FCD on Sep. 12 2009,10:53

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2009,05:22   

Venturefree:
Quote


Corny,

I’m so happy that you started posting here on UD. You’re posts are hilarious! The best part is the credulous responses of the IDists, which can often be even more hilarious.

Link

Classic.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2009,06:15   

Gordon Mullings
Quote
On topic: the objectors above to my remarks on materialist philosophers and would-be neo-magisterium in lab coats rather than ecclesiastical robes — forgive me on this, Catholics, I have to make a point in a way that will go home to a Golden Compass, anti- C S Lewisian thinking mentality — would do well to ponder the implications of the already linked remarks on US National Academy of Sciences member Richard Lewontin’s infamous 1997 review, and the statements from the said academy in its interventions in Kansas, but moreso the following from their 2008 version of their official pamphlet on “Science” vs “Creationism” — as was also linked — which let us note, they do not directly address on the merits, choosing instead to resort to an ad hominem.

Gordon sure does have some problems.

I wonder if he's anti Harry Potter too?

Think I'll find out........

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2009,07:20   

barrett brown is sure missing a good chance to kick a hateful tardmongerer

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

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4361
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2009,07:49   

Quote (k.e.. @ Sep. 12 2009,02:33)
Quote
Mr Gordon Mullings
Montserrat


Dear Gordon,

I thank you for your rather long letter regarding the BBC's documentary on the Codex Sinaiticus. I'm glad you appreciated it and notpologise for taking more than 2 weeks to reply.

Whilst it is not the policy of the BBC to normally apologize to foreign nationals whose tendentious claptrap falls outside proper professional standards by which their opinions dissenting or not preclude any rational conclusions in the normal space of a working eon. I will take this opportunity to offer you a free raspberry from one of "The Goon Show" audio tapes.
Expect delivery in the next 2 weeks.

It seems to me that you would benefit from some of our other programs and I would like to take this opportunity to recommend "Magic Roundabout" and "Captain Pugwash"

I look forward to further correspondence from you with regard to the above BBC programs.

Please visit our online store for merchandise suitable for any family.

Yours Sincerely

Amanda Hugginkiss

PP

Bruce Vander
Complaints Manager and Secretary to the ESC.
BBC Trust.

k.e. - Your best post EVAH!

I nominate for POTW!

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 2876
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2009,09:18   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 12 2009,14:15)
Gordon Mullings    
Quote
On topic: the objectors above to my remarks on materialist philosophers and would-be neo-magisterium in lab coats rather than ecclesiastical robes — forgive me on this, Catholics, I have to make a point in a way that will go home to a Golden Compass, anti- C S Lewisian thinking mentality — would do well to ponder the implications of the already linked remarks on US National Academy of Sciences member Richard Lewontin’s infamous 1997 review, and the statements from the said academy in its interventions in Kansas, but moreso the following from their 2008 version of their official pamphlet on “Science” vs “Creationism” — as was also linked — which let us note, they do not directly address on the merits, choosing instead to resort to an ad hominem.

Gordon sure does have some problems.

I wonder if he's anti Harry Potter too?

Think I'll find out........

Onlookers take note:
3000 years of creationist dogma beats rationality



--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10094
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2009,09:58   

Here's a short one:

(it's so big It gets truncated here as a post!)

http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwini....-333792

http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwini....-333795

http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwini....-333796

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2009,10:33   

Gordon Mullings:
 
Quote
unfortunate strawman distortion, laced with ad hominems. I too, as noted, am a “lab coat wearer.”

It takes more then wearing a lab coat Gordon!

Some weird goings on over the proper attire for a scientist in them comments

 
Quote
used to try to pretend and project that I have not worn a lab coat myself (quite literally) are simply a “no true scotsman” ad hominem in disguise. And, besides the probative force of an argument comes from its weight on the merits of fact and logic, not who makes it, and what clothes s/he happens to wear [a shirtjac at the time as I recall], or when s/he said it – the just linked was a backup brief presentation for a public ethics lecture — what circle approves or disapproves.)


Confusingly Gordon ends
 
Quote
In sum, we easily see the imposition of a priori materialism on science, the operation of a lab-coat wearing materialist neo-magisterium, and its pernicious effects.


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

  
khan



Posts: 1481
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2009,12:01   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 12 2009,11:33)
Gordon Mullings:
 
Quote
unfortunate strawman distortion, laced with ad hominems. I too, as noted, am a “lab coat wearer.”

It takes more then wearing a lab coat Gordon!

Some weird goings on over the proper attire for a scientist in them comments

 
Quote
used to try to pretend and project that I have not worn a lab coat myself (quite literally) are simply a “no true scotsman” ad hominem in disguise. And, besides the probative force of an argument comes from its weight on the merits of fact and logic, not who makes it, and what clothes s/he happens to wear [a shirtjac at the time as I recall], or when s/he said it – the just linked was a backup brief presentation for a public ethics lecture — what circle approves or disapproves.)


Confusingly Gordon ends
 
Quote
In sum, we easily see the imposition of a priori materialism on science, the operation of a lab-coat wearing materialist neo-magisterium, and its pernicious effects.

I went to the Gordon links. I can not read his stuff.  I try, but I literally can not follow what he's trying to convey.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4361
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2009,12:27   

Quote (khan @ Sep. 12 2009,12:01)
I went to the Gordon links. I can not read his stuff.  I try, but I literally can not follow what he's trying to convey.

Khan - Not understanding kf - That's good - you pass the sanity test.

kf operates at the brain-scan level of a birther / deather / tea-partier / Glenn Beck watchin' Fox Fan.*



* Note to Heddle - Yes, I did leave out NASCAR fans, even though they only turn one way.

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2009,12:37   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 12 2009,10:58)
Here's a short one:

(it's so big It gets truncated here as a post!)

http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwini....-333792

http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwini....-333795

http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwini....-333796

that one almost gave him a stroke.

try harder!

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006