RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (4) < [1] 2 3 4 >   
  Topic: fun at Amazon Discussions, a live one!< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2010,13:24   

There's good fun with M. Holcumbrink and Richard Kepler here.

Dick, who has an MA in anthropology (I suspect an "exit" one after flunking the qualifying exam), is in a froth because I've pointed out that Stephen Meyer lied about the nature of peptidyl transferase and lied in an intertwining way about the RNA World hypothesis to make the former lie go down more palatably.

What really has Dick going is that I'm making them look for the relevant data themselves, so they can't dismiss what I tell them using the genetic fallacy.

They're afraid to look for the truth, so please join in the taunting and give them hints, but please don't hand the answers to them on a platter or the fun will be over.

I propose this as a general strategy to deal with denialism, because what underlies denialism is not faith, but fear and a lack of faith.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2010,13:28   

I'd love to join in, but the link doesn't work for me.

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

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2010,13:31   

this might be it

http://tinyurl.com/322wbkr

Quote
We never asked for hints and don't want them. We want straight-shooter answers instead of hauteur, pomposity, and poorly stated puzzles. You're obviously not that kind of person; you're evasive and rude. Meyer did not display such in his book. He does not deserve your ridicule, but you apparently do! He was factual and direct, non-evasive. Maybe he was inaccurate or mistaken, and we have given you a fair hearing about this. But if so, it was innocent, though you couldn't know, because your accusations of Meyer have been based on suspicions to a significant degree and you have been proudly malevolent.


teh crazy it is.

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

  
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2010,14:28   

That's it. Fixed my link.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2010,15:06   

Quote (JAM @ Sep. 29 2010,14:28)
That's it. Fixed my link.

And I joined it! That's some weapons-grade stupid you found over there...

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

   
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2010,17:47   

I've been trolling with Meyer's lies in several groups there.

After Dick gets exhausted there, we should invite him to visit. He loves to write...

  
JohnW



Posts: 2224
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2010,18:15   

Oooh, now you're in for it!
Quote
You called me an expletive. You called me Dick, meaning the male reproductive organ. You switched from Richard abruptly for effect and it was without question done with malicious intent. My knick name is not Dick. I have only been called that name derisively perhaps ten times in my life, and never in the last fifteen years. I will not retaliate by returning more of the same to you in this column, but you can be certain that I will I not take this act lightly.

This surely deserves some sort of award, which means henceforth you should refer to him as "Prize Dick".

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

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2010,00:27   

Quote (JohnW @ Sep. 29 2010,18:15)
Oooh, now you're in for it!
Quote
You called me an expletive. You called me Dick, meaning the male reproductive organ. You switched from Richard abruptly for effect and it was without question done with malicious intent. My knick name is not Dick. I have only been called that name derisively perhaps ten times in my life, and never in the last fifteen years. I will not retaliate by returning more of the same to you in this column, but you can be certain that I will I not take this act lightly.

This surely deserves some sort of award, which means henceforth you should refer to him as "Prize Dick".

His "knick name"?  Either he is not a native speaker of English, or he just likes basketball.  Nicknames like his should not be abused.  He shouldn't swallow that insult!  I can see his red-headed anger, and he's gonna spew!

If he's sick, can he be "Spotted Dick"?

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1954
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2010,11:02   

Well, I dropped a somewhat broader hint regarding peptidyltransferase. I hope you won't mind.

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

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

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2010,11:37   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 30 2010,11:02)
Well, I dropped a somewhat broader hint regarding peptidyltransferase. I hope you won't mind.

It would have to be several light-years broad before that IDiot gets it...

This is truly a classic exchange.

1) Incurious creationist swallows absolute bald-faced lies emitted by some orifice of a DI Fellow.

2) Lies are noted by scientist, but not explicitly pointed out, asking creationist to find them if he/she is truly interested in the evidence.

3) Creationist, who learned no biology in school and lots of pseudoscience in church, flounders at this task.

4) Mocking ensues from scientists.

5) Creationist initiates discussion of religion, morals and ethics rather than talk about the evidence.

6) Lather, rinse, repeat.

This whole thing is exactly like a discussion with FtK or StephenB or BA^77. And FtK wonders why one would be reluctant to discuss religion in a conversation that started out as a discussion of science.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2010,12:51   

I found  THIS at Beliefnet, believe it or not, and it seems to be a reasonable summary of the "argument" going on over at Amazon.

Meyer has to know his entire thesis of Too Complex Therefore Oogity Boogity was wrong from the outset because the research and the smoking gun, p-transferase, were right there in front of him.

Pay no attention to that RNA, er, man, behind the curtain!  Nice one, Meyer.

  
Sealawr



Posts: 54
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2010,14:45   

SHHH...the Belifenet review dismantling Meyer was written by a PhD physicist.  Even intelligent Christians, by and large, don't buy the DI B.S.

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

  
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2010,15:18   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Sep. 30 2010,11:51)
I found  THIS at Beliefnet, believe it or not, and it seems to be a reasonable summary of the "argument" going on over at Amazon.

No, Doc, that's not my point at all. My point is far more simple, and it's about simple, incontrovertible facts.

PM me if you'd like the answer. I don't want to give it away here either.

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2010,18:10   

Oh, I got the point from the get go.  What I provided for the moron on Amazon was more hints.

I thought my musical analogy was particularly nifty since most analogies involve sports or cars.  However, I think the moron knows the jig is up.  He's already talking about having to flounce because his hair needs washing.  Typical response for the defeated.

Well done, all, for hammering on one point.  Creationists hate that.  However, never, never let them off the mat.  Keep them on subject and eventually they will run away.

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2010,18:48   

Sorry to spoil your fun, Jam, but Richard has flounced.  Gone missing.  Taken a kip.  AWOL.

Could it be my musical analogy?  If so I'll use it more!!

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2010,08:12   

Yay! Uptight Bi-tard has joined the fun!

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

   
sparc



Posts: 1683
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2010,08:58   

sorry, removed content because this was the wrong thread

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

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2010,05:51   

There's been some progress (Richard Kepler and M Holcumbrink seem to have vacated the scene) and some regress (Uptight Bi-Tard is there) on this Amazon thread.

UB is going on about "meaningful information", and, when pressed for a definition, said that it "refers to or is correlated according to some system with certain physical or conceptual entities". Bafflegab. I'm pretty sure that he is misrepresenting Shannon information as well. But I am a mere biologist, so if somebody better versed in information theory wants to whack-a-mole, head on over there.

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

   
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 09 2010,11:07   

Should we invite Kepler over here? He's clearly a compulsive liar and therefore might be fun...

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 09 2010,11:16   

Quote (JAM @ Oct. 09 2010,11:07)
Should we invite Kepler over here? He's clearly a compulsive liar and therefore might be fun...

He's a long-winded, pedantic liar who seems more wrapped up in the sociological and rhetorical aspects of the "debate" than in the science. In fact, he is scientifically illiterate, it seems.

Fun...

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

   
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 09 2010,11:44   

Even funnier, he claims to have been a professional editor but doesn't know the difference between "eminent" and "imminent."

But you didn't answer my question—should we invite him here?

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 09 2010,13:05   

Quote (JAM @ Oct. 09 2010,11:44)
Even funnier, he claims to have been a professional editor but doesn't know the difference between "eminent" and "imminent."

But you didn't answer my question—should we invite him here?

Sure! He's a variant of the IDolator kind that we have had visit here before - the scientifically ignorant, verbose, pontificating, more-interested-in-meta-discussion-than-actual-discussion. He kinda reminds me of Donald M at UD.

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

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 09 2010,17:48   

Man. M. Holcumbrink is a good'un too!

Quote
Cells ARE machines, and they are machines that are controlled by SOFTWARE! You will assign intelligent causation to the least bit of scrawling on cave walls, but you won't do the same for the software that controls the cybernetic activity of the cell?

linky

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

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2010,09:04   

It's gotten pretty quiet over there. I guess Kepler had an aneurysm and is slumped over his spittle-flecked keyboard in Japan, Holcumbrink doesn't like it when you point out that he is a liar, and Uptight Bi-Tard is still off somewhere trying to calculate "meaningful information".

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

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2010,10:17   

Sweet! Uptight and Holcumbrink are arguing about free will on UD, and BA^77 piles on as well. Poor Holcumbrink has no port in this storm, even though he tries to suck up to Uptight.
 
Quote
Upright, good to hear from you! I’m at my wits end with those other guys. Maybe I’ll just hang out here for a while where the people seem to be more sensible (most of them anyway).


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

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2010,08:30   

Claims that the EF can be used to detect design are now being made on that thread. I've (as OM) asked for an example, but so far no examples have been forthcoming. What a surprise. The excuses are laughable.

Quote
In summary, you went straight from my post to a your own request for information from me on the EF to satisfy your own sick curiousity. You replied without even responding to my argument at all. You evaded it totally. A complete distraction and an attack on a straw-man. First, you answered your own question by saying what I no doubt will do (go silent), then accused IDers of ALWAYS doing the same- highlighting your class bigotry. After that, you personally interpreted the reason for such hypothetical actions only to your own idiosyncratic satisfaction, and than pined over what I would say next in turn.



Quote
You didn't get or discuss anything out of my post but the personal mental distraction ensuing from your own personal fixation on a perceived need to disprove a personal prejudice of yours (specifically, your idiosyncratically determined list of needs for information proving the utility of the EF). When I referred to Dembski's filter, I alleged that you did not have the intellectual sophistication to interpret M's reference to statistics as a reference to it. And that's why you criticized M: You were incapable of understanding his succinct point!

Your ability to comprehend ID arguments appears routinely to be inept and highly distracted by your own self-aggrandizement. Other evolutionists can understand and respond to points made about them. Only you can't.

I am not here to placate you who do not respond to critiques except with distractions. You completely discarded my points and substituted your own concerns- repeatedly. These were not requests for clarification. They were your own idiosyncratic points. I take it to be your modus operandi.

I will get you references on Dembski's EF, which you already have, liar! And the EF wasn't written to satisfy your dogmatic, prejudiced, malicious, hypocritical, idiosyncratic, circular-reasoned, childish views about what is science and what isn't. You have chosen to not address my points at all; what collateral do you have to offer to get your own addressed? A taunt?

Look at the dates on the EF. How many years will you give us and Demski to apply his EF into a full-blown peer-reviewed article published in a scientific journal people of your ilk won't permit? Oh, you will require the full loaf before you yield an inch. I don't think you even give a 'specific', hypocrite! I responded about EF, which you so much as said I wouldn't, liar! The truth is it is just never to your satisfaction. Just like Meyer did with other evolutionist hypocrities in the Smithsonian article! The trouble is: Evolutionists can never see their own li(v)es or each others'.


http://tinyurl.com/3a5hxf7

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

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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4237
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2010,08:52   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 24 2010,09:30)
Claims that the EF can be used to detect design are now being made on that thread. I've (as OM) asked for an example, but so far no examples have been forthcoming. What a surprise. The excuses are laughable.
* snippage *

I think you're misunderstanding the intent of "explanatory filter." The purpose of the explanatory filter is to detect and deflect all requests for coherent demonstrations of the explanatory filter.

As can be seen in your quoted examples, it works beautifully.

It wasn't easy, but I've obtained a photo of the original Explanatory Filter. It's been a bit neglected of late.



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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10094
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2010,12:08   

Also, didn't thetempleton foundation want to fund their "science", but couldn't find any?

--------------
"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: Oct. 24 2010,12:17   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 24 2010,12:08)
Also, didn't thetempleton foundation want to fund their "science", but couldn't find any?

I've pointed that out several times now. But you know how it is, the filter just snips those points out. At the very least there's been no response to that specific point.

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

  
SLP



Posts: 136
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 27 2010,17:44   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 08 2010,05:51)
There's been some progress (Richard Kepler and M Holcumbrink seem to have vacated the scene) and some regress (Uptight Bi-Tard is there) on this Amazon thread.

UB is going on about "meaningful information", and, when pressed for a definition, said that it "refers to or is correlated according to some system with certain physical or conceptual entities". Bafflegab. I'm pretty sure that he is misrepresenting Shannon information as well. But I am a mere biologist, so if somebody better versed in information theory wants to whack-a-mole, head on over there.

Looks like upright was too busy proof-texting to read all the relevant words:

"Frequently the messages have meaning; that is they refer to or are correlated according to some system with certain physical or conceptual entities."


Messages are not in and of themselves information.

  
  90 replies since Sep. 29 2010,13:24 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (4) < [1] 2 3 4 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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