RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (356) < ... 242 243 244 245 246 [247] 248 249 250 251 252 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 4, Fostering a Greater Understanding of IDC< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
sparc



Posts: 1691
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2012,21:29   

Quote (Patrick @ Nov. 30 2012,19:44)
Quote (JLT @ Nov. 30 2012,19:32)
So, I still have the UD comments in my feed reader, although nowadays I mostly ignore them. But this one caught my eye.
Quote
JDH

So I think we already have proof of the supernatural.

1. Place X number of intelligent people in a room who all speak the same language.
2. Provide an accurate clock which can be seen by all.
3. Tell them them to raise their right hands precisely Y seconds from NOW.

Given our fore-knowledge of crowd behavior ( see for exapmle films of the Nazi army before Hitler ) we can assume such an experiment would be successful ( all right hands raised in the precise time as humanly measured ) and that X and Y are completely arbitrary ( space and time constraints allowing ).

I contend there is no natural explanation for the above.

1. From what we know about human beings, it was a voluntary response to raise the right hand ( they have the ability to NOT do). We can show this by before hand telling an arbitrary population of the group that they will receive 1 million dollars if they do not follow the command given.
2. There is no conceivable natural way that the mere speaking of the words at T=0 formed a natural set of preconditions in all X people causing the raising of the right hand at T=Y. This solution is highly improbable.
3. Therefore it only makes sense that the X people made a willful decision to tie some abstract future event ( the ticking of clock hands arbitrarily forward in time ) to a willful act of raising their hands.
4. But booth of the above willful acts ( deciding to tie the act to a future event, and executing the act at that time ) being determined by an immaterial will lies outside the realm of the natural and are supernatural events.
5. Thus the existence of the supernatural is proven.

TL;DR: people raising their hands when told to do so proves the existence of the supernatural (and Jesus, presumably).

I just had to post this, it's such a fine example of pure and undiluted TARD, brought tears to my eyes.

Ahh, that's the good stuff. Slipping in "immaterial will" takes it from the ridiculous to the sublime.

Why then do they blame Darwin and not God for Hitler?

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
Kattarina98



Posts: 1255
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,15:46   

What do cetaceans and humans have in common?
Torley knows: Both have evolved due to massive divine intervention.

"Detecting design (2): A reply to John Loftus"

And that OP has already produced nice tard:  
Quote
I知 always puzzled by the argument against ID that involves the supposed inability to provide a rigorous definition of complexity such that living systems can be distinguished from, eg, snowflakes or a jumble of wood washed up on beach. This is because if those design critics are really saying there is no scientifically valid difference between these things then why the need for the theory of evolution to explain one and not the others. The mere existence of the theory of evolution shows that the difference is understood well enough even irrespective of whether it can be (at this timer) explicitly formulated.


--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4046
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,20:47   

Kattarina98,

If that's saying that the snowflake analogy is ineffective because snowflakes don't reproduce, then I have to agree. That particular analogy doesn't work.

IMNSHO, it's not whether "complexity" is defined, it's whether there's some evidence based reason for thinking there's some limit to increases in complexity within things that reproduce themselves. As far as I can tell, it's absurd to think that something with a level of complexity wouldn't be able to add a few more details to what it has, which by any definition I'm familiar with, would mean an increase in complexity. In the case of living things, I'd think the energy requirements, and sources thereof, would be the limiting factors, not the number of details in the construction of the organism.

(Or if discussing abiogenesis, they'd need an actual reason for thinking there's some boundary that can't be crossed without help, to get from non-reproducing chemistry to self replicators of some sort.)

Henry

  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1255
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2012,06:04   

Hi Henry,

I found the quoted comment funny in several ways (but I've got a weird sense of humour). The snowflake example is sometimes used by defenders of science, e.g. when the IDist claims that nature (more exactly natural laws) can't produce complexity, or not beyond a certain threshold.
However, I did never see this example used to show that ID can't distinguish between living beings and inanimate things.

Then the poster says
Quote
if those design critics are really saying there is no scientifically valid difference
and thus gets it ass backwards. It's not the design critics, it's the IDists who conveniently forget the fact that living beings reproduce.

The best bit imo is this one:  
Quote
the difference is understood well enough even irrespective of whether it can be (at this timer) explicitly formulated.

It (reproduction) has been explicitly formulated again and again, they have been slapped with it till their ears rang.

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
onlooker



Posts: 17
Joined: Sep. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2012,10:23   

This comment by Reciprocating Bill deserves more visibility:
Quote
If your definition of "plausible" is "That which UB and the Budweiser toads (Joe and Mung) find it plausible," I値l pass.

That's the best assessment of those two I've seen yet, with the slight difference that the Budweiser Frogs have a certain charm.

  
JohnW



Posts: 2226
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2012,10:44   

Quote (onlooker @ Dec. 03 2012,08:23)
This comment by Reciprocating Bill deserves more visibility:
Quote
If your definition of "plausible" is "That which UB and the Budweiser toads (Joe and Mung) find it plausible," I値l pass.

That's the best assessment of those two I've seen yet, with the slight difference that the Budweiser Frogs have a certain charm.

I think Budweiser itself is a better comparison: gassy, tasteless and nausea-inducing.

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2012,10:51   

Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 03 2012,11:44)
Quote (onlooker @ Dec. 03 2012,08:23)
This comment by Reciprocating Bill deserves more visibility:
 
Quote
If your definition of "plausible" is "That which UB and the Budweiser toads (Joe and Mung) find it plausible," I値l pass.

That's the best assessment of those two I've seen yet, with the slight difference that the Budweiser Frogs have a certain charm.

I think Budweiser itself is a better comparison: gassy, tasteless and nausea-inducing.

watch it son

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

  
REC



Posts: 567
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,15:22   

Joe one again declares ID to be a sad subset of theistic evolution (forgetting the mechanisms of biological diversification are largely measurably random):

Quote
Joe December 4, 2012 at 7:40 am
The theory of evolution does NOT assert that a certain class or classes of mechanisms is required to create the biological diversification observed, therefor Intelligent Design is perfectly acceptable under evolutionism痴 framework.


No one on UD cares. He can't even get a fight started there.

  
rossum



Posts: 178
Joined: Dec. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,15:47   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 03 2012,10:51)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 03 2012,11:44)
Quote (onlooker @ Dec. 03 2012,08:23)
This comment by Reciprocating Bill deserves more visibility:
Quote
If your definition of "plausible" is "That which UB and the Budweiser toads (Joe and Mung) find it plausible," I値l pass.

That's the best assessment of those two I've seen yet, with the slight difference that the Budweiser Frogs have a certain charm.

I think Budweiser itself is a better comparison: gassy, tasteless and nausea-inducing.

watch it son

No, watch this instead:



rossum

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4046
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,15:51   

Remember what Xander Harris said about beer: "Beer bad"!

(But never mind that when he said that, he was working as a bartender.  :D )

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,16:46   

MMMM budweiser

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

  
Ptaylor



Posts: 883
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,22:19   

Evilutionists!
You are hereby forbidden to use the phrase Gish gallop. It is a false accusation tactic and fallacious dodge; it is an alleged fallacy is a polarising diversion and is a fallacy in its turn. It is an oil soaked straw ad hominem (or something).
You are forbidden to use this term under pain of a visit from Mr Leathers.
Bydand!

--------------
典o 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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3282
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,22:28   

Quote (Ptaylor @ Dec. 04 2012,22:19)
Evilutionists!
You are hereby forbidden to use the phrase Gish gallop. It is a false accusation tactic and fallacious dodge; it is an alleged fallacy is a polarising diversion and is a fallacy in its turn. It is an oil soaked straw ad hominem (or something).
You are forbidden to use this term under pain of a visit from Mr Leathers.
Bydand!

And to support their dislike of the Gish Gallop... they use the... well... Gish Gallop.

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

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

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2012,22:38   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 04 2012,23:28)
Quote (Ptaylor @ Dec. 04 2012,22:19)
Evilutionists!
You are hereby forbidden to use the phrase Gish gallop. It is a false accusation tactic and fallacious dodge; it is an alleged fallacy is a polarising diversion and is a fallacy in its turn. It is an oil soaked straw ad hominem (or something).
You are forbidden to use this term under pain of a visit from Mr Leathers.
Bydand!

And to support their dislike of the Gish Gallop... they use the... well... Gish Gallop.

his shit is clenched sooooooooo tight

--------------
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: Dec. 04 2012,22:43   

Quote (Ptaylor @ Dec. 04 2012,22:19)
Evilutionists!
You are hereby forbidden to use the phrase Gish gallop. It is a false accusation tactic and fallacious dodge; it is an alleged fallacy is a polarising diversion and is a fallacy in its turn. It is an oil soaked straw ad hominem (or something).
You are forbidden to use this term under pain of a visit from Mr Leathers.
Bydand!

KF is a divine gift not only to Montserrat but to the whole world:

After the following brief introduction
Quote
In a recent comment clipped by GP in the Jerad thread, Keiths has used the rhetorically dismissive term 敵ish Gallop.

Let me cite:
Quote
KS: . . . with gpuccio it is sometimes possible to zero in on the crux of a disagreement. You can稚 do that with Gish Gallopers.
Now, as I will shortly show
he gallops another 1,191 words of thought salad.
With comments closed.

Edited by sparc on Dec. 04 2012,22:51

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2012,00:39   

Quote (sparc @ Dec. 04 2012,20:43)
Quote (Ptaylor @ Dec. 04 2012,22:19)
Evilutionists!
You are hereby forbidden to use the phrase Gish gallop. It is a false accusation tactic and fallacious dodge; it is an alleged fallacy is a polarising diversion and is a fallacy in its turn. It is an oil soaked straw ad hominem (or something).
You are forbidden to use this term under pain of a visit from Mr Leathers.
Bydand!

KF is a divine gift not only to Montserrat but to the whole world:

After the following brief introduction
Quote
In a recent comment clipped by GP in the Jerad thread, Keiths has used the rhetorically dismissive term 敵ish Gallop.

Let me cite:  
Quote
KS: . . . with gpuccio it is sometimes possible to zero in on the crux of a disagreement. You can稚 do that with Gish Gallopers.
Now, as I will shortly show
he gallops another 1,191 words of thought salad.
With comments closed.

The best part is that KF, with his offense-o-meter set to "ultra hair-trigger", failed to notice that I was actually defending gpuccio from an accusation of Gish galloping.

(link, link)

What a useless twit KF 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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2012,00:43   

Quote (keiths @ Dec. 05 2012,01:39)
What a useless twit KF is.

he said, as he made out with him, over and over and over and over, again

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

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2012,02:47   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 04 2012,22:43)
 
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 05 2012,01:39)
What a useless twit KF is.

he said, as he made out with him, over and over and over and over, again

Don't let your jealousy spoil the moment, 'Ras.

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 2874
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2012,05:34   

Quote (keiths @ Dec. 05 2012,10:47)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 04 2012,22:43)
 
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 05 2012,01:39)
What a useless twit KF is.

he said, as he made out with him, over and over and over and over, again

Don't let your jealousy spoil the moment, 'Ras.

Har Har



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

  
Quack



Posts: 1751
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2012,08:02   

I had not seen this (shudder) before and would like to know about responses.

I've read this

Edited by Quack on Dec. 05 2012,08:04

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2012,08:35   

Quote (keiths @ Dec. 05 2012,03:47)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 04 2012,22:43)
 
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 05 2012,01:39)
What a useless twit KF is.

he said, as he made out with him, over and over and over and over, again

Don't let your jealousy spoil the moment, 'Ras.

ahem

momentS

i will stifle my covetous nature for long enough to implore you, kind sir, to add some variety to the coital routine which you and gordon have perfected.

for example, you could ask him to let you have a turn doing HIM for a change. I will probably watch just about anyone do it but at least change positions or something JEEEEEZ



Edited by Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 05 2012,09:37

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

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2012,08:46   

Quote (Quack @ Dec. 05 2012,08:02)
I had not seen this (shudder) before and would like to know about responses.

I've read this

The link to the website also includes an invited commentary that sets the record straight and a second article that supports evolution quite thoroughly. One wonders why these last two weren't also mentioned...

http://www.baylorhealth.edu/researc....12.aspx

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1255
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2012,09:48   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Dec. 05 2012,08:35)
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 05 2012,03:47)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 04 2012,22:43)
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 05 2012,01:39)
What a useless twit KF is.

he said, as he made out with him, over and over and over and over, again

Don't let your jealousy spoil the moment, 'Ras.

ahem

momentS

i will stifle my covetous nature for long enough to implore you, kind sir, to add some variety to the coital routine which you and gordon have perfected.

for example, you could ask him to let you have a turn doing HIM for a change. I will probably watch just about anyone do it but at least change positions or something JEEEEEZ


I didn't realised I was being photographed - papparazzo!

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
afarensis



Posts: 1005
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2012,12:50   

Quote (Quack @ Dec. 05 2012,08:02)
I had not seen this (shudder) before and would like to know about responses.

I've read this

I looked at the part concerning fossils here. Also, Dr. GS Hurd looked at it here and here. Also, Jerry Coyne looked at it here.

--------------
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: 1661
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2012,00:15   

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Dec. 05 2012,09:48)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 05 2012,08:35)
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 05 2012,03:47)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 04 2012,22:43)
 
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 05 2012,01:39)
What a useless twit KF is.

he said, as he made out with him, over and over and over and over, again

Don't let your jealousy spoil the moment, 'Ras.

ahem

momentS

i will stifle my covetous nature for long enough to implore you, kind sir, to add some variety to the coital routine which you and gordon have perfected.

for example, you could ask him to let you have a turn doing HIM for a change. I will probably watch just about anyone do it but at least change positions or something JEEEEEZ


I didn't realised I was being photographed - papparazzo!

Mom!

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

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1954
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2012,08:23   

Quote (Quack @ Dec. 05 2012,06:02)
I had not seen this (shudder) before and would like to know about responses.

I've read this

I wrote an article rebutting Kuhn. The Baylor journal was going to publish, but literally the last minutes backed out. I was encouraged to revise it for NCSE Reports, but the formats and the Reports more general focus made it too much work.

All Kuhn did was to paraphrase Wells, and Meyer. He cribbed their arguments, and bibliographies almost exactly.

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

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

   
Quack



Posts: 1751
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2012,09:45   

Thank you all for the links provided. I am using them on a primitive blogI just created in response to a debate I had in the local paper. A retired urologist, Dr. Professor Emeritus published the most mediocre book I've ever seen. (Watchtower quality). I created the blog hoping he might want to read what I have to say. He is unvelievably ignorant and uninformed.

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

  
sparc



Posts: 1691
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2012,13:16   

Quote (Quack @ Dec. 07 2012,09:45)
Thank you all for the links provided. I am using them on a primitive blogI just created in response to a debate I had in the local paper. A retired urologist, Dr. Professor Emeritus published the most mediocre book I've ever seen. (Watchtower quality). I created the blog hoping he might want to read what I have to say. He is unvelievably ignorant and uninformed.

Why don't you just write a letter or an e-mail?

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

   
Quack



Posts: 1751
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2012,03:09   

I have not been able to find an email address. As for snail mail, I don't feel comfortable with that wrt. the person in question. I wrote about ID vs. evolution and not about him. In his reply he said things like

Quote
I've made the personal choice of believing in God. Not all people share this sensus divinitatis.
...

So I know exactly what I am up against. My friends and acquintances may rest assured that mr. Aalberg's characterisation of me doesn't incringe on my wellbeing.

(Sensus divinitatis, from Calvin)

Edited by Quack on Dec. 08 2012,03:10

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

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4361
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2012,15:31   

Quote (Quack @ Dec. 08 2012,03:09)
I have not been able to find an email address. As for snail mail, I don't feel comfortable with that wrt. the person in question. I wrote about ID vs. evolution and not about him. In his reply he said things like

 
Quote
I've made the personal choice of believing in God. Not all people share this sensus divinitatis.
...

So I know exactly what I am up against. My friends and acquintances may rest assured that mr. Aalberg's characterisation of me doesn't incringe on my wellbeing.

(Sensus divinitatis, from Calvin)

Quote
(Sensus divinitatis, from Calvin)


Calvist is it?!  So turn him over to David Heddle.  It's pre-ordained.

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

  
  10669 replies since Aug. 31 2011,21:06 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (356) < ... 242 243 244 245 246 [247] 248 249 250 251 252 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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