RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (20) < ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... >   
  Topic: The Skeptical Zone, with Lizzie< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3509
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2012,10:19   

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 20 2012,09:42)
William J Murray and Sal Cordova are certainly adding a certain flavour to TsZ.

Give them credit for being ID's best and brightest.

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

Pat Robertson

  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1248
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2012,06:05   

Meanwhile, at the ranch: Natural Selection - What is it and what does it do?, a copypasta from Joe's blog.
He must have got back his posting privilege after whining  
Quote
21 posts in moderation- how many can it hold?

I beseech you, let my posts go!


Not so long ago, he sounded a little bit different:  
Quote
Hi Lizzie-

You can take your moderation and shove it up your ass.

I noticed that some of you gals and guys are already discussing with him, so the NCSE is looking forward to another 30 bucks.

Edit: Much more correcterer preposition.

Edited by Kattarina98 on April 24 2012,06:06

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

  
Febble



Posts: 310
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2012,08:01   

It's got nothing to do with his whining, it's just got to do with when I've got time to go through the backlog and sort them into guanoables, sandboxables and stayputables.

He posts a lot, so they mount up.

Also dealing with them in batches stops them dominating the New Comments list, and, to some extent, from disrupting conversation.

As for posting privileges, he has them, but his posts are also subject to moderation.  However, in his own threads he is free to post without moderation (just the way the software works).

If people don't want to respond to him, I suggest they ignore his posts and comments :)

There is plenty other interesting stuff.

Joe G: if you are reading this, please note that I have no intention of censoring your contributions (i.e. not promoting them at all), but my problem is that they are often a) rude b) copious and c) irrelevant to the thread.  If you can be respectful and relevant, I don't mind if you are prolific, but right now the SNR from you is too high and the N too loud for the health of the site.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10004
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2012,08:54   

He's already tripped over himself again.
I'm a fan of him erecting undeletable monuments to his own stupidity.

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

  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1248
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2012,09:07   

Quote (Febble @ April 24 2012,08:01)
It's got nothing to do with his whining, it's just got to do with when I've got time to go through the backlog and sort them into guanoables, sandboxables and stayputables.

He posts a lot, so they mount up.

Also dealing with them in batches stops them dominating the New Comments list, and, to some extent, from disrupting conversation.

As for posting privileges, he has them, but his posts are also subject to moderation.  However, in his own threads he is free to post without moderation (just the way the software works).

If people don't want to respond to him, I suggest they ignore his posts and comments :)

There is plenty other interesting stuff.

Joe G: if you are reading this, please note that I have no intention of censoring your contributions (i.e. not promoting them at all), but my problem is that they are often a) rude b) copious and c) irrelevant to the thread.  If you can be respectful and relevant, I don't mind if you are prolific, but right now the SNR from you is too high and the N too loud for the health of the site.

Hi Lizzy, I was talking about posting privileges = writing OPs as opposed to commenting. I never assumed that you did no longer allow him to comment.
And just to be clear, I love the way you manage your blog. :-)

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

  
Febble



Posts: 310
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2012,09:43   

Thanks :)

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10004
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2012,10:23   

Quote (Febble @ April 24 2012,09:43)
Thanks :)

Me too.

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

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3509
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2012,14:15   

Joe is just about all that's left of ID. No one else will stay and fight.

I was a bit surprised to see WJM melt down into a puddle of Joe.

W is to philosophy what Uri Geller is to physics.

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

Pat Robertson

  
paragwinn



Posts: 376
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2012,02:55   

WJM and JoeG respond to the "rabbit fossils found in pre-Cambrian strata" falsifiability test for evolution.

WJM:
Quote
it might force a reorganization of the timeline of common descent
Joe:
Quote
All it would do is cast doubt on our current time-line.

They can't even evaluate the implications correctly. Go figure.

eta: inconsequential formatting and consequential strata labelling

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

  
Soapy Sam



Posts: 474
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2012,04:10   

Quote
it might force a reorganization of the timeline of common descent


I'll say! single-celled eukaryotes -> rabbits -> plants, animals, fungi ... and all those fucking trees will have to go - fossils trump molecules.

Edited by Soapy Sam on April 25 2012,04:11

--------------
Evolutionists trust entropy for creation of life but are like men who horse a crocodile to get across a river - niwrad.

The organism could already metabolize citrus. Joe G

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3509
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2012,15:57   

Sal is back with the Bacardi 151 of TARD.

Quote
I will donate $50 to the New Mexicans skeptic organization that you are a member of if you can write a GA which will converge on the complex specified informaiton string (a password if you will) that I have wrtitten explicitly on a sheet of paper. You have 2 months to solve it and publish your results.


http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....t-11721

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

Pat Robertson

  
REC



Posts: 537
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2012,16:38   

Quote (midwifetoad @ April 25 2012,15:57)
Sal is back with the Bacardi 151 of TARD.

Quote
I will donate $50 to the New Mexicans skeptic organization that you are a member of if you can write a GA which will converge on the complex specified informaiton string (a password if you will) that I have wrtitten explicitly on a sheet of paper. You have 2 months to solve it and publish your results.


http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....t....t-11721

Evolution=Programmable ESP?

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2039
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2012,21:14   

Quote (REC @ April 25 2012,14:38)
Quote (midwifetoad @ April 25 2012,15:57)
Sal is back with the Bacardi 151 of TARD.

 
Quote
I will donate $50 to the New Mexicans skeptic organization that you are a member of if you can write a GA which will converge on the complex specified informaiton string (a password if you will) that I have wrtitten explicitly on a sheet of paper. You have 2 months to solve it and publish your results.


http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....t....t-11721

Evolution=Programmable ESP?

"You can't read my mind. Therefore Jesus."

Sad, really.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1248
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2012,02:49   

Over at Joe's thread they are still trying to explain to WJM that the use of "natural" and "artificial" selection was just Darwin's shorthand for "made by a breeder" versus "not man-made" selection - even Joe seems to have grasped that basically it's the same thing.

I'm wondering if the boundary between "artifical" and "natural" isn't actually quite blurry: For instance, global warming is man-made; so in a changing climate we might find some species die off, others thrive, others develop new features. Would you call this process "natural" or "artificial"?

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

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5353
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2012,06:19   

Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 26 2012,03:49)
Over at Joe's thread they are still trying to explain to WJM that the use of "natural" and "artificial" selection was just Darwin's shorthand for "made by a breeder" versus "not man-made" selection - even Joe seems to have grasped that basically it's the same thing.

I'm wondering if the boundary between "artifical" and "natural" isn't actually quite blurry: For instance, global warming is man-made; so in a changing climate we might find some species die off, others thrive, others develop new features. Would you call this process "natural" or "artificial"?

We wrangled with this question last week in my senior seminar on hybridization. It's kind of sticky, but bears on things like conservation policy.

Near as I can tell, in a Venn diagram of artificial and natural, the former lies in some sense entirely within the latter. The distinction itself is completely artificial (ha! see what I did there?), and arbitrary. It's context-dependent. To me it seems that the boundary lies wherever you choose to place it in a given discussion, but where you place it should be very clear to everyone involved in that particular discussion to facilitate clear communication.

My tuppence, worth exactly what you just paid for it.

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

   
George



Posts: 310
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2012,07:14   

Quote (Lou FCD @ April 26 2012,06:19)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 26 2012,03:49)
Over at Joe's thread they are still trying to explain to WJM that the use of "natural" and "artificial" selection was just Darwin's shorthand for "made by a breeder" versus "not man-made" selection - even Joe seems to have grasped that basically it's the same thing.

I'm wondering if the boundary between "artifical" and "natural" isn't actually quite blurry: For instance, global warming is man-made; so in a changing climate we might find some species die off, others thrive, others develop new features. Would you call this process "natural" or "artificial"?

We wrangled with this question last week in my senior seminar on hybridization. It's kind of sticky, but bears on things like conservation policy.

Near as I can tell, in a Venn diagram of artificial and natural, the former lies in some sense entirely within the latter. The distinction itself is completely artificial (ha! see what I did there?), and arbitrary. It's context-dependent. To me it seems that the boundary lies wherever you choose to place it in a given discussion, but where you place it should be very clear to everyone involved in that particular discussion to facilitate clear communication.

My tuppence, worth exactly what you just paid for it.

Absolutely it's blurry and context dependent.  Arguably even more so in Europe and other places with a long history of intensive human meddling in nature than in North America. These are the sorts of issues I thrash about with in my work.  Those lovely species-rich grasslands that aren't plowed, herbicided or fertilised, they're natural aren't they?  But wait, wouldn't they be forests if you got rid of the cattle?  Or would the deer keep the grasslands open?  And what about the now-extinct wolves?

These sorts of arguments are why we use the term "semi-natural" a lot!

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2012,07:30   

first nature is a myth

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

  
George



Posts: 310
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2012,07:54   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ April 26 2012,07:30)
first nature is a myth

The birds will be so disappointed.

  
SLP



Posts: 136
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2012,08:46   

So whatever happened to Upright Douchebag and his* 'semiotic' argument?  I note that after his unnecessarily lengthy bafflegab posts riddled with analogies and nonsense, he sort of split.



*Which is to say Abel the resume-padder's...

  
Quack



Posts: 1715
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2012,09:05   

Quote (fnxtr @ April 25 2012,21:14)
     
Quote (REC @ April 25 2012,14:38)
     
Quote (midwifetoad @ April 25 2012,15:57)
Sal is back with the Bacardi 151 of TARD.

       
Quote
I will donate $50 to the New Mexicans skeptic organization that you are a member of if you can write a GA which will converge on the complex specified informaiton string (a password if you will) that I have wrtitten explicitly on a sheet of paper. You have 2 months to solve it and publish your results.


http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....t....t-11721

Evolution=Programmable ESP?

"You can't read my mind. Therefore Jesus."

Sad, really.

An Oiuja board would serve the purpose much better than any GA, solution guaranteed. Not to mention good old prayer, works every time. Not to mention monkeys with typewriters!

But only $50? He has more faith in GA's than I have!

Edited by Quack on April 26 2012,09:08

--------------
Waiting for Gary to reply to the question: Show us at least one person alive that understand his diagram and theory.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1357
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2012,10:36   

Quote (SLP @ April 26 2012,03:46)
So whatever happened to Upright Douchebag and his* 'semiotic' argument?  I note that after his unnecessarily lengthy bafflegab posts riddled with analogies and nonsense, he sort of split.



*Which is to say Abel the resume-padder's...

Don't know if you caught this? Lizzie remains unimpressed.

  
clamboy



Posts: 153
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2012,13:50   

TSZ is most excellent, I always learn something new each time I catch up with the goings-on there, and the "assumption of good faith" is a fine rule for those discussions, since it lends itself to much self-peTARD hoisting. Many thanks to the good doctor for all her hard work and patience!

But, I have to say one thing. Joe is a troll extraordinaire, true, but  he's always going to be a harmless, silly little goof. That William J. Murray character, though?

What...a...dick!!!!

What a pusillanimous pusfart!

What a bloviating bumtrickle!!

What a...what a...what an asinine assleak!!!

I'm sorry, but I just had to delurk to express how vile I find William J. Murray to be. So, um, there.

  
damitall



Posts: 315
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2012,17:35   

Quote (clamboy @ May 03 2012,13:50)
TSZ is most excellent, I always learn something new each time I catch up with the goings-on there, and the "assumption of good faith" is a fine rule for those discussions, since it lends itself to much self-peTARD hoisting. Many thanks to the good doctor for all her hard work and patience!

But, I have to say one thing. Joe is a troll extraordinaire, true, but  he's always going to be a harmless, silly little goof. That William J. Murray character, though?

What...a...dick!!!!

What a pusillanimous pusfart!

What a bloviating bumtrickle!!

What a...what a...what an asinine assleak!!!

I'm sorry, but I just had to delurk to express how vile I find William J. Murray to be. So, um, there.

clamboy, I salute your inventiveness with invective.

Rightly targeted, too.

  
SLP



Posts: 136
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2012,12:17   

Quote (Alan Fox @ April 26 2012,10:36)
Quote (SLP @ April 26 2012,03:46)
So whatever happened to Upright Douchebag and his* 'semiotic' argument?  I note that after his unnecessarily lengthy bafflegab posts riddled with analogies and nonsense, he sort of split.



*Which is to say Abel the resume-padder's...

Don't know if you caught this? Lizzie remains unimpressed.

Nor I.  He just seems to spew the same crap over and over in different ways without ever providing anything concrete.  Just strained analogies, metaphorical language, and a laughable dose of wishful interpretation.

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2039
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2012,15:09   

Quote (SLP @ May 04 2012,10:17)
Quote (Alan Fox @ April 26 2012,10:36)
Quote (SLP @ April 26 2012,03:46)
So whatever happened to Upright Douchebag and his* 'semiotic' argument?  I note that after his unnecessarily lengthy bafflegab posts riddled with analogies and nonsense, he sort of split.



*Which is to say Abel the resume-padder's...

Don't know if you caught this? Lizzie remains unimpressed.

Nor I.  He just seems to spew the same crap over and over in different ways without ever providing anything concrete.  Just strained analogies, metaphorical language, and a laughable dose of wishful interpretation.

That's their whole schtick, though: word games, lawyering, and 9th-grade-chess-club-nerd style "arguments".

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10004
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2012,08:53   

OH NOES. TSZ Gets a BAD REVIEW

Quote
<span style='font-family:Comic Sans MS'></span>The "Skeptical" Zone- Just Another Dishonest and Cowardly EvoTARD Blog
-
The "Skeptical" Zone? Please, seeing that your position doesn't have any supporting evidence you don't have any right to be skeptical of anything but your position.

"Good faith" posts? Please, seeing that all you can do is lie, misrepresent what others say and not support your position, there isn't one bit of good faith in any evo.

EvoTARDgasms galour? Absolutely- Lizzie has created yet another venue in which evoTARDgasms can go on and on without ever being challenged.

Congratulations Lizzie- well done...


Poor Joe! Have a bunny:



Edited by Richardthughes on May 09 2012,08:55

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

  
Kristine



Posts: 3037
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2012,14:35   

Quote (Lou FCD @ April 26 2012,06:19)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 26 2012,03:49)
Over at Joe's thread they are still trying to explain to WJM that the use of "natural" and "artificial" selection was just Darwin's shorthand for "made by a breeder" versus "not man-made" selection - even Joe seems to have grasped that basically it's the same thing.

I'm wondering if the boundary between "artifical" and "natural" isn't actually quite blurry: For instance, global warming is man-made; so in a changing climate we might find some species die off, others thrive, others develop new features. Would you call this process "natural" or "artificial"?

We wrangled with this question last week in my senior seminar on hybridization. It's kind of sticky, but bears on things like conservation policy.

Near as I can tell, in a Venn diagram of artificial and natural, the former lies in some sense entirely within the latter. The distinction itself is completely artificial (ha! see what I did there?), and arbitrary. It's context-dependent. To me it seems that the boundary lies wherever you choose to place it in a given discussion, but where you place it should be very clear to everyone involved in that particular discussion to facilitate clear communication.

My tuppence, worth exactly what you just paid for it.

My major paper on how evolutionary theory can articulate archival theory dealt with just this question, too. Human society is a subset of nature, a creation of nature, and to label everything that we do (like create records) as artificial, while labeling constructions such as birds' nests as natural, is fallacious, the product of our dualistic thinking. Ironically, this also gets to the very core of ID, as its adherents cannot conceive of the natural. They use the word (as many others do) to mean "morally right" or "in balance," etc. Being also rigidly black and white thinkers, they fail to grasp the concept of a continuum.

Certainly nothing is unnatural that is not physically impossible. -John Bartlet

(Which does not mean I'm in any hurry to participate in the naturalness of illness or death, now, does it? ) ;)

Avian Architecture

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

AtBC Poet Laureate

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

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

  
Soapy Sam



Posts: 474
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2012,03:59   

Quote
Understood, my bad for not thoroughly reading the OP.


Joe G. Yes, really! Of course, it was directed to WJM, so the world has not in fact tilted on its axis.

(Personal hypocrisy declaration: I too am much less likely to apologise to one of 'them' for point-missing).

A related phenomenon, WJM reckons Joe has got in a few 'zingers'. That what they're calling it these days?

Edited by Soapy Sam on May 13 2012,04:00

--------------
Evolutionists trust entropy for creation of life but are like men who horse a crocodile to get across a river - niwrad.

The organism could already metabolize citrus. Joe G

  
George



Posts: 310
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2012,08:37   

Quote (SLP @ April 26 2012,08:46)
So whatever happened to Upright Douchebag and his* 'semiotic' argument?  I note that after his unnecessarily lengthy bafflegab posts riddled with analogies and nonsense, he sort of split.



*Which is to say Abel the resume-padder's...

Just checked in again on the semiotic argument thread.  Upright has a very special creationist aroma doesn't he?  So pungent, so cock-sure, so completely unable to get the flipping point.  His most recent best is his refusal to understand the difference between logical arguments and empirically-based arguments.

  
Henry J



Posts: 3964
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2012,22:09   

Semiotic? Check the thread about the guy I think you're talking about.

Henry

  
  589 replies since Aug. 15 2011,22:52 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (20) < ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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