Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Uncommonly Dense Thread 4

Pages: (356) < ... 51 52 53 54 55 [56] 57 58 59 60 61 ... >

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 29 2011,21:03    LOL... Joe is using my blog as a SOURCE document for his claims.  One of his claims is correct... the conclusions he draws from that are his own... and wrong on an epic scale (literally geological). Apparently, no one told Joe is was significantly warmer during most of the periods when future fossil fuels were growing.  Like no ice caps and no snow warmer. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 29 2011,21:04    Quote Ya see I do not disagree that we are the bad guys. It is just that with everything else that we are doing, to focus on the one thing that we may actually be doing right, ie getting that lost carbon back into the (carbon) cycle (which we also need), is beyond lunacy. Should somebody point out that it isn't the existence of CO2 that's at issue, but the relative quantity of it? It's somewhat analogous to the way too much of a vital nutrient can cause health problems, even though an absence of it would be, er, bad as well. Nobody is saying that we want an atmosphere with a lower percentage of CO2 than it had a few thousand years ago. Henry

Tracy P. Hamilton Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 29 2011,23:14    Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 29 2011,21:04) Quote Ya see I do not disagree that we are the bad guys. It is just that with everything else that we are doing, to focus on the one thing that we may actually be doing right, ie getting that lost carbon back into the (carbon) cycle (which we also need), is beyond lunacy. Should somebody point out that it isn't the existence of CO2 that's at issue, but the relative quantity of it? It's somewhat analogous to the way too much of a vital nutrient can cause health problems, even though an absence of it would be, er, bad as well. Nobody is saying that we want an atmosphere with a lower percentage of CO2 than it had a few thousand years ago. Henry Plants would indeed do better at higher co2 levels if nothing else changed.  Some of those that do best may be weeds, some may decrease nutritive value, etc. Not to mention the whole nothing else changed (particularly temperature, associated extremes in the water cycle, expansion of the subtropical desert zones, changes in pests) is not going to happen, IDiots notwithstanding. -------------- "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: Dec. 29 2011,23:52    haha Henry nice try if we were constrained by "shoulds" then somebody "should" nicely tell that idiot to shut the fuck up because it makes him look stupid.   and who is going to do that right? Joe, I'd tell you but you wouldn't listen.  and for that you are one of my favorite retarded people i know. -------------- 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: Dec. 29 2011,23:54    after all this queef is the kind of ass mint who will say anything.  joe would argue with a free rim job -------------- 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

Kattarina98 Posts: 1267 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2011,03:48    Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 29 2011,15:10) Richardthughes, I am dismayed at the cynicism you display with your question, which carries the implicit presumption that I might actually have fabricated the entire graph, including the data-points on which it is based. However, I must admit that in these days of Photoshop and Faux News, such cynicism is at least partially justified. Indeed, it would have been relatively simple for me to have faked the graph, had I so chosen, by means of ruthless exploitation of the Pen tool in Photoshop. The basic idea would be, start with a straight line; add a whole lot of corner-points; and shuffle said corner-points up and down, as needed, until the final faked graph takes shape. Of course, if I had actually done that, it would have been a Faux-worthy lapse of intellectual dishonesty and a vindication of the standards we at AtBC have come to hold dear. TARD. I love your graph - and thanks for explaining how to do it! -------------- Barry Arrington is a bitch.

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2011,07:54    Quote (Kattarina98 @ Dec. 30 2011,11:48) Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 29 2011,15:10) Richardthughes, I am dismayed at the cynicism you display with your question, which carries the implicit presumption that I might actually have fabricated the entire graph, including the data-points on which it is based. However, I must admit that in these days of Photoshop and Faux News, such cynicism is at least partially justified. Indeed, it would have been relatively simple for me to have faked the graph, had I so chosen, by means of ruthless exploitation of the Pen tool in Photoshop. The basic idea would be, start with a straight line; add a whole lot of corner-points; and shuffle said corner-points up and down, as needed, until the final faked graph takes shape. Of course, if I had actually done that, it would have been a Faux-worthy lapse of intellectual dishonesty and a vindication of the standards we at AtBC have come to hold dear. TARD. I love your graph - and thanks for explaining how to do it! OH REALLLY, HOMO? I WOULD LIKE TO THANK DILBO DEMBSKI FOR ALL THE PHOTOSHOP OPERUNTUNITIES OFFERED TO ATBC. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO THANK LOLCATS FOR CARLSON JOK AND RICHTARD HUGHES FOR TEH SECRET GAYER HANDSHAKES. SERIOUSLY IF IT WASN'T FOR THOSE THINGS JOE, GIL, TRANMAW AND MONSERRAT MONKEY BOY GEM OF SHITTY GORDON MULLINGS WOULD BE JUST COMPOST. -------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2011,08:47    This just gets funnier every day! tjguy and Dr Poochie are now offering the phony paper by none other that "Bozo" Atheistoclast as a disproof of evolution!   Quote tjguy:  "Here is an interesting write-up on a study by Bozorgmehr published in Complexity on Dec. 22, 2010 that seems to falsify evolution and show the limits of natural selection:" gpuccio: "tjguy, The paper is exactly right." linky You can't make up this stuff folks! -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2011,10:19    Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Dec. 30 2011,06:47) This just gets funnier every day! tjguy and Dr Poochie are now offering the phony paper by none other that "Bozo" Atheistoclast as a disproof of evolution!     Quote tjguy:  "Here is an interesting write-up on a study by Bozorgmehr published in Complexity on Dec. 22, 2010 that seems to falsify evolution and show the limits of natural selection:" gpuccio: "tjguy, The paper is exactly right." linky You can't make up this stuff folks! Moar tard!  Pooch tries the "make opponent bite her tongue so hard she bleeds to death" debating strategy. Quote 11.2 Elizabeth Liddle December 30, 2011 at 5:16 am Bozorghmehr is a crank with no training in biological science who somehow managed to get his phoney papers past inadequate peer-review. He’s an internet troll who was so successful he moved on to trolling scientific journals. I sometimes suspect he’s an atheist sockpuppet. Quote 11.2.1 gpuccio December 30, 2011 at 8:30 am Elizabeth: I have made an explicit reasoning in my post 11.1 that is independent from what Bozorghmehr may have said, or from what he may be, and of which I take full responsibility. Can you please comment on that? Unless you think that I am a crank too -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2011,11:03    Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 30 2011,10:19) Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Dec. 30 2011,06:47) This just gets funnier every day! tjguy and Dr Poochie are now offering the phony paper by none other that "Bozo" Atheistoclast as a disproof of evolution!     Quote tjguy:  "Here is an interesting write-up on a study by Bozorgmehr published in Complexity on Dec. 22, 2010 that seems to falsify evolution and show the limits of natural selection:" gpuccio: "tjguy, The paper is exactly right." linky You can't make up this stuff folks! Moar tard!  Pooch tries the "make opponent bite her tongue so hard she bleeds to death" debating strategy.   Quote 11.2 Elizabeth Liddle December 30, 2011 at 5:16 am Bozorghmehr is a crank with no training in biological science who somehow managed to get his phoney papers past inadequate peer-review. He’s an internet troll who was so successful he moved on to trolling scientific journals. I sometimes suspect he’s an atheist sockpuppet.   Quote 11.2.1 gpuccio December 30, 2011 at 8:30 am Elizabeth: I have made an explicit reasoning in my post 11.1 that is independent from what Bozorghmehr may have said, or from what he may be, and of which I take full responsibility. Can you please comment on that? Unless you think that I am a crank too Never ask questions that you really don't want the answer to. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Kattarina98 Posts: 1267 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2011,14:35    I actually followed the link to the "scientific journal" Atheistoclast published his paper in - it is a creationist swamp. Edit: I was wondering where Bozo wanted to publish the other papers he kept promising over at PT. Now we know. -------------- Barry Arrington is a bitch.

Kattarina98 Posts: 1267 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2011,14:56    IDiots should be reminded of gpuccio's moment of modesty whenever they get too smug:   Quote The general implementation if [sic] design in natural history remains, IMO, vastly an object for future research. -------------- Barry Arrington is a bitch.

Patrick Posts: 666 Joined: July 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2011,15:25    Elizabeth Liddle is back (spending quite a bit of time with Joseph, for some unknown reason), and takes down Granville Sewell with an almost offhand swat: Quote Quote But I’m not going to be drawn further into a discussion with someone who is as insulting as you, and isn’t making any effort to see my point. I apologise for insulting you. It was not my intention. I was genuinely surprise that someone could publish an analogy so self-defeating. I still am. No one who has read Granville's gross misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics would be surprised.

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2011,18:50    gpuccio:   Quote Elizabeth: Frankly, I don’t think it is a problem of language. I think it is a cognitive problem. With respect, your copgnitive problem. hmm -------------- 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: Dec. 30 2011,21:41    i'll bet you liver cells that atheistoclast is our friend fourass -------------- 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

Seversky Posts: 442 Joined: June 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2011,00:55    Bruce David (quoted by Cairo's FUBAR) Quote What you are all missing, even you, Dr. Sewell, is that it is not obvious that even with intelligence in the picture a major modification of a complex system is possible one small step at a time if there is a requirement that the system continue to function after each such step. For example, consider a WWII fighter, say the P51 Mustang. Can you imagine any series of incremental changes that would transform it into a jet fighter, say the F80 and have the plane continue to function after each change? To transform a piston engine fighter in to a jet fighter requires multiple simultaneous changes for it to work–an entirely new type of engine, different engine placement, different location of the wings, different cockpit controls and dials, changes to the electrical system, different placement of the fuel tanks, new air intake systems, different materials to withstand the intense heat of the jet exhaust, etc., etc., etc. You can’t make these changes in a series of small steps and have a plane that works after each step, no matter how much intelligence is input into the process. Now both a P51 and an F80 are complex devices, but any living organism, from the simplest cell on up to a large multicellular plant or animal, is many orders of magnitude more complex than a fighter plane. If you believe that it is possible to transform a reptile with a bellows lung, solid bones and scales, say, into a bird with a circular flow lung, hollow bones, and feathers by a series of small incremental changes each of which not only results in a functioning organism, but a more “fit” one, then the burden of proof is squrely on your shoulders, because the idea is absurd on the face of it. TARDcatz.  Argument by analogy.  Ur doin' it wrong. P51 iz machine.  Made of metal 'n stuff.  Flies fast.  Carries gunz.  Good for shootin down other planez.  Does not make copies of self. Birdz not machine.  Made of featherz n' stuff.  Not fly fast. No gunz.  Not good for shootin down other planez.  (Good to eat, but I digress) Iz makin copies of self. Argument by anal...annual...an allergy, not fallacy. Selektive reporting iz.

rossum Posts: 289 Joined: Dec. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2011,05:23    Ryan FR-1 Fireball P51 => FR-1 => F80 rossum -------------- The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2011,08:17    you mean heartless athiest matreyanalists don't you know if you break their little shitty analogy toys they'll have nothing left but some stinky fingers and scattered pubic hair -------------- 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

rossum Posts: 289 Joined: Dec. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2011,10:39    Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 31 2011,08:17) you mean heartless athiest matreyanalists don't you know if you break their little shitty analogy toys they'll have nothing left but some stinky fingers and scattered pubic hair All your analogy are belong to us. rossum -------------- The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

Kattarina98 Posts: 1267 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2011,10:40    Joe makes a promising start:   Quote A gradual process would lead to a nice smooth blending of characteristics as would be observed if all the alleged transitional populations were still alive- or with today’s tech we should be able to animate what they should have been- Auuuugh - trainwreck ahead - abort - abort - abort:   Quote The point is that a smooth blending leads to an overlap, which is indicative of a Venn diagram and not allowed by a nested hierarchy. Not a pretty sight. Happy New Year to all, including Joe because he's so cute! -------------- Barry Arrington is a bitch.

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2011,12:34    Quote (Seversky @ Dec. 31 2011,00:55) Bruce David (quoted by Cairo's FUBAR)     Quote What you are all missing, even you, Dr. Sewell, is that it is not obvious that even with intelligence in the picture a major modification of a complex system is possible one small step at a time if there is a requirement that the system continue to function after each such step. For example, consider a WWII fighter, say the P51 Mustang. Can you imagine any series of incremental changes that would transform it into a jet fighter, say the F80 and have the plane continue to function after each change? To transform a piston engine fighter in to a jet fighter requires multiple simultaneous changes for it to work–an entirely new type of engine, different engine placement, different location of the wings, different cockpit controls and dials, changes to the electrical system, different placement of the fuel tanks, new air intake systems, different materials to withstand the intense heat of the jet exhaust, etc., etc., etc. You can’t make these changes in a series of small steps and have a plane that works after each step, no matter how much intelligence is input into the process. Now both a P51 and an F80 are complex devices, but any living organism, from the simplest cell on up to a large multicellular plant or animal, is many orders of magnitude more complex than a fighter plane. If you believe that it is possible to transform a reptile with a bellows lung, solid bones and scales, say, into a bird with a circular flow lung, hollow bones, and feathers by a series of small incremental changes each of which not only results in a functioning organism, but a more “fit” one, then the burden of proof is squrely on your shoulders, because the idea is absurd on the face of it. TARDcatz.  Argument by analogy.  Ur doin' it wrong. P51 iz machine.  Made of metal 'n stuff.  Flies fast.  Carries gunz.  Good for shootin down other planez.  Does not make copies of self. Birdz not machine.  Made of featherz n' stuff.  Not fly fast. No gunz.  Not good for shootin down other planez.  (Good to eat, but I digress) Iz makin copies of self. Argument by anal...annual...an allergy, not fallacy. Selektive reporting iz. I think that I can imagine a series of incremental changes and discoveries that allowed the Wright flyer and the Curtiss pusher to give way to prop engines and finally to jet planes (and no, the Wright flyer does not "change into" any of the later models). They always use the analogy of one machine/creature changing into another, which is not evolution but a strawman. What is it about "common ancestor" that they do not understand? Do they think that their cousin can give birth to their sibling? -------------- 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

ReligionProf Posts: 33 Joined: Oct. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2011,12:51    Just as a bit of light relief that you might enjoy, I did a calculation to see what would happen if, instead of giving the "equal time" that proponents of creationism ask for, we gave "proportional time" based on the amount of time each says that it took for life to appear in its present form. I think you may find it entertaining - not to mention fair! :-) http://www.patheos.com/blogs......ct.html -------------- http://www.patheos.com/communi....rmatrix

rossum Posts: 289 Joined: Dec. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2011,16:19    Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 31 2011,12:34) Do they think that their cousin can give birth to their sibling? :O Well, daddy was very friendly with cousin Ellie-Mae a few months ago.  :D rossum -------------- The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

Cubist Posts: 558 Joined: Oct. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2011,17:02    Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 30 2011,21:41) i'll bet you liver cells that atheistoclast is our friend fourass Unlikely, on the grounds that their respective writing styles are quite different, as are the psychological pathologies they display.

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2011,17:14    Joe flirts with heresy:     Quote I do not hold the Bible as any kind of authority basically because I know and understand that humans had a hand in it. and compounds the felony two messages later:     Quote How do I know that humans had a hand in creating the Bible? I was unaware that was ever in any doubt. You will never get a job at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Joe. That's your Christmas present, Dembski.

Freddie Posts: 371 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2011,17:43    Granville Sewell:     Quote Good Lord Elizabeth, you always go after the perifery in order to avoid the main point. Say, what?  Elizabeth responds and provides the correct spelling.  Granville ignores her and compounds the error - guess he knows best!     Quote The fact that VWs don’t reproduce, or that we don’t find the designer’s tools lying around the fossils IS completely “periferal”. Later in the same thread - KF finally spells out the basis for an ID research program ...   Quote In short, we need to pause and look seriously at what is going on in that living cell. GEM of TKI Yes, we too can mine those quotes.  Happy New Year everyone ... may the tard never stop flowing! -------------- Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy. Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people. Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.

sparc Posts: 2088 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2011,23:31    Happy new year everybody. -------------- "[...] 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 -

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 01 2012,02:48    Quote (Freddie @ Dec. 31 2011,15:43)     Quote In short, we need to pause and look seriously at what is going on in that living cell. GEM of TKI Yes, we too can mine those quotes.  Happy New Year everyone ... may the tard never stop flowing! U.D., like herpes or an un-neutered cat, is the gift that keeps on giving. -------------- "[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory "Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

Kattarina98 Posts: 1267 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 01 2012,05:10    Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 31 2011,17:02) Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 30 2011,21:41) i'll bet you liver cells that atheistoclast is our friend fourass Unlikely, on the grounds that their respective writing styles are quite different, as are the psychological pathologies they display. I'm not so sure either. At the beginning of his thread, forastero didn't even know the difference between a quote and a citation, and I guess Bozo would know. -------------- Barry Arrington is a bitch.

Zachriel Posts: 2723 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 01 2012,10:59    Joe shows exactly why vehicles don't form a unique nested hierarchy. Quote Joe:     Quote Nested hierarchy of vehicles: Vehicles without an engine-> land (snow (skis), ice(skates), ground ->wheeled(cart), water(row boat)(sail boat)(kayak)(canoe), air (landing gear – snow(ski glider), ice(ice sailboat), water(float glider), ground( wheels)(glider)) Vehicles with engines-> land (snow(skidoo), ice, ground (car), water(boat), air-> landing gear- snow (skiplane), water (floatplane), ground ->wheels (aeroplane) Superset = Vehicles (as defined by Elizabeth) next level has two sets- one for powered vehicles (engines) and one for no engines- (human powered). Under the engine set we have three sets for land vehicles, air vehicles and water vehicles. Under the no-engine set we have the same three sets. From there each vehicle sits nicely in its own set. As Joe {unwittingly} points out, we can form the superset either by grouping by whether it has an engine or not, or what type of terrain it is designed for.   * Group by terrain, then group by engine; or * Group by engine, then group by terrain. In the case of vehicles, it depends on your purposes. For instance, a retailer in snow country will sell vehicles made for snow. In the case of biology, it is based on the panoply of traits. -------------- You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

Pages: (356) < ... 51 52 53 54 55 [56] 57 58 59 60 61 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard