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... > Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread

Pages: (1000) < ... 94 95 96 97 98 [99] 100 101 102 103 104 ... >

beervolcano Posts: 147 Joined: Dec. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,12:50    Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 15 2006,13:44) I don't think DM is reading off a script anymore -- I think he's just blithering now. He's redefined 'bigot' so broadly it includes anyone. Right about now he should be realizing this includes him, too. WHOOPS. ID seems to be all about stretching definitions. First they had to stretch the definition of science to fit in things like ID and astrology. Then they had to constrict the definition of creationism to only include a limited version of YEC, so that ID could not be considered creationism. Now on UD they redefine "fundamentalist religious extremist" to include everyone and they redefine bigot to apply to just about anyone. All this in order to "rationalize" an irrational worldview. -------------- ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."--Jonathan Swift)

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,14:01    Quote (sir_toejam @ May 15 2006,15:12)   Quote I think he's just blithering now. er... just now? when wasn't he? Well, DM usually says things that make no sense, but often he seems to sort of have a plan with what he says -- usually as part of his little sociopolitical program. Here, however he just seems to be doing some off-the-cuff babbling, like he's backed into a corner and hasn't thought through what he's saying. You can tell it's gotten this way when he starts deleting or revising his own comments every couple hours. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

UnMark Posts: 97 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,15:56    I love the "be tolerant" rule on UD and how fantastically DM follows that rule.  What a tool.

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,18:43    Quote but often he seems to sort of have a plan with what he says I think you give him too much credit. ever seen that commercial with the guy who simply by eating a bowl of loud crunchy cereal gets promoted? he simply can't hear anything going on around him, but ignoring everything his boss keeps telling him results in his magical promotion... sound familiar?

Bob O'H Posts: 2564 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,19:25    One for the nerds, comment 4: Quote # What I like best, what I think is the most accurate, about this cartoon is that the data on the left, while it looks intellectual, is unintelligable nonsense. Comment by bFast — May 15, 2006 @ 11:22 am Anyone else but me recognise those equations?  Anyone remember their introductory population genetics course? Sorry, that's the same question. Bob -------------- It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

Joseph Beres Posts: 7 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,21:40    Bob O'H:             Quote Anyone else but me recognise those equations?  Anyone remember their introductory population genetics course? Sorry, that's the same question. Thanks. It didn't look familiar to me, but I figured it wasn't random gibberish. On the subject of population genetics, Sal Cordova at UD delivers unto us Haldane’s Dilemma and peer-review. It's a little late tonite to read in depth the paper mentioned (written, not surprisingly, by an engineer and based on the work of J.B.S. Haldane), and as I'm unfamiliar with populations genetics the subject matter might be over my head. Perhaps some kind soul in the Panda's Thumb universe will fisk it for us non-biologists. But, by coincidence, earlier today I was thumbing through my copy of The World of Mathematics (a terrific 4 volume set edited by James R. Newman) which contains 2 works by J.B.S. Haldane, one of which is entitled Mathematics of Natural Selection. Reading that will have to wait until tomorrow, but flipping to the conclusion one finds this statement   Quote I hope that I have shown that a mathematical analysis of the effects of selection is necessary and valuable. Many statements which are constantly made, e.g., "Natural selection cannot account for the origin of a highly complex character," will not bear analysis. The conclusions drawn by common sense on this topic are often very doubtful. And note that johnnyb has been kind enough to link to Haldane's original paper in comment #12 the first page of which uses the Peppered Moth as an example (ya'll know how much ID'er love the Peppered Moth).

Bebbo Posts: 161 Joined: Dec. 2002 (Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,00:39    Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 15 2006,10:49) Quote (stevestory @ May 15 2006,10:39) It's been a funny year, with Davetard at the helm. UD wasn't this much of a freak show last year when it was still just Dembski running it, was it? I wasn't paying much attention back then. You've got to wonder about Dembski. Last year he says he's mothballing UD because it's too distracting, then he brings it back and spends time accusing scientists of all sorts based on secondhand accounts. This is the guy who says he's changing jobs for family reasons, including having a son with autism. Surely he has better things to do with his time than play the clown on UD.

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,01:22    From the Haldane thread, some guy seriously wonders why, according to ToE, the Passenger Pigeon didn't evolve, in the couple centuries it was hunted, to dodge bullets: Quote Bringing up Haldane’s dilemma reminds me of another evolutionary conundrum I’ve often wondered about: why did the Passenger Pigeon go extinct? Here we had a bird that was once considered the most common bird in the world, with vast flocks that blotted out the sun. Europeans started to hunt it with modern weapons, putting it under huge evolutionary pressure, and within 300 years it was totally extinct. One can understand birds like the Dodo, which were limited to small island populations, wouldn’t have the ability to adapt in time to avoid extinction, but if a species made up of billions of members, reproducing every few years, that ranged over a continent couldn’t succesfully evolve enough iover a few centuries to avoid extinction, why are we convinced that other species can magically adapt to abrupt changes it their environments through evolutionary transformation? Comment by jimbo — May 15, 2006 @ 11:37 pm ...I still can't believe I'm not paying for this. -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

guthrie Posts: 696 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,01:24    That'll be JBS Haldane, who came up with the word clone, and died in 1964.  Apprently he played a good part in producing the modern synthesis, but really, attacking the work of someone who's been dead for 42 years really isnt helping their cause. And..... Drum roll...... He was a marxist! So I predict that will get brought up next.  (Especially if they read this thread) And if it doesnt get brought up, obviously it proves that they do read this thread!

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,02:24    Quote some guy seriously wonders why, according to ToE, the Passenger Pigeon didn't evolve, in the couple centuries it was hunted, to dodge bullets No ones wondering that, they're wondering why the feathers didn't evolve in to super-hard-bullet-proof scales.

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,03:15    Quote (Chris Hyland @ May 16 2006,07:24) Quote some guy seriously wonders why, according to ToE, the Passenger Pigeon didn't evolve, in the couple centuries it was hunted, to dodge bullets No ones wondering that, they're wondering why the feathers didn't evolve in to super-hard-bullet-proof scales. Oops, I stand corrected. Sorry, Jimbo! Well, I guess I understand the difference between ID and creos now... IDers always think in scientifically feasible terms. -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,03:41    Evolution in action: -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,07:35    BarryA's newest is up and hot off the presses. http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1124#comments Eight comments already, and there's definitely some good stuff in there.  Like dt and this: Quote It’s time for you move along to another blog, John. You’ve been doing entirely too much regurgitating of trite evolutionist arguments we’ve all heard a million times and don’t care to waste our time refuting yet again.... Man, my irony meter blew up.  Yeah, it's the evilutionists who trot out the same old tired canards all the time... Or, how about this from dt? Quote Well, I’m an expert in digitally programmed machinery and so I know you have no expertise there either so you really have nothing to contribute and are just wasting time and bandwidth by regurgitating things you don’t even understand. So kindly find somewhere else to inexpertly pontificate. -ds And, more on his history at Dell: Quote I was one of a dozen engineers at Dell assigned to the patent committee. Once a week we met together with Dell’s patent attorneys and reviewed an average of a dozen patent abstracts submitted by employees around the world. We’d evaluate them for value to the company and patentability then vote on whether or not to pursue filing with the US PTO and a few foreign governments. The employees who submitted the patent abstracts were invited to present their patent in person and answer any questions we might have. I did this my last two years at the company and reviewed close to 1000 patent abstracts. About 30% of those we reviewed were approved for filing and almost all of those we approved were eventually granted patents. I’m particularly expert in two things only recently approved by the PTO for patenting - software algorithms and business methods. I personally hold patents in each of those areas. What particular question did you have? -ds What will they come up with next?

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,07:53    Quote (Chris Hyland @ May 16 2006,07:24) Quote some guy seriously wonders why, according to ToE, the Passenger Pigeon didn't evolve, in the couple centuries it was hunted, to dodge bullets No ones wondering that, they're wondering why the feathers didn't evolve in to super-hard-bullet-proof scales. And I am wondering why they have yet to "evolve" better landing gear.  I'm thinking a pair of wheels connected to their legs would be far superior to those claws.  That way they could land on level ground at faster speeds. -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,08:00    Quote Well, I’m an expert in digitally programmed machinery and so I know you have no expertise there either so you really have nothing to contribute and are just wasting time and bandwidth by regurgitating things you don’t even understand. So kindly find somewhere else to inexpertly pontificate. -ds Logic with Davetard: I am an expert in computers. Computers are digital machines. some cell parts are digital machines. Therefore I am an expert biologist. Quote Now, who still thinks that neo-darwinism is scientific theory? This little lamb maintains it is political doctrine in shepard’s clothing. Comment by Collin DuCrâp — May 16, 2006 @ 11:55 am LOL. I don't know Collin. Every biologist in the world?   Quote ... If companies move from GMO to fully modified organisms(or lets say more that 50%), how will it be discussed in education - even at high school levels? They will eventually have to talk about identifying artificial design in living organisms. Since artificial design is not evolution, is this not a quandry for evolutionist? ... Comment by Michaels7 — May 16, 2006 @ 12:06 pm In what alternate reality would this be a quandry for evolution?

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,08:10    Quote (stevestory @ May 16 2006,13:00)     Quote ... If companies move from GMO to fully modified organisms(or lets say more that 50%), how will it be discussed in education - even at high school levels? They will eventually have to talk about identifying artificial design in living organisms. Since artificial design is not evolution, is this not a quandry for evolutionist? ... Comment by Michaels7 — May 16, 2006 @ 12:06 pm In what alternate reality would this be a quandry for evolution? Right.  If us evilutionists have to admit that an organism was designed at some point because some company designed one, then we would have to admit that Jesus saves!

Tiax Posts: 62 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,09:13    Quote (stevestory @ May 16 2006,13:00) Quote Well, I’m an expert in digitally programmed machinery and so I know you have no expertise there either so you really have nothing to contribute and are just wasting time and bandwidth by regurgitating things you don’t even understand. So kindly find somewhere else to inexpertly pontificate. -ds Logic with Davetard: I am an expert in computers. Computers are digital machines. some cell parts are digital machines. Therefore I am an expert biologist. Plus, when he googles "biology" he gets 613 million hits.  That's basically 613 million things he now knows about biology.  That's a lot.

Bob O'H Posts: 2564 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,09:32    I'm a fan of this one: Quote Haeckel’s thinking and writings are relevant to the ID/Darwinism debate for a very important reason. They reflect the mindset and philosophical penchants of the people with whom, and the age in which, Darwinism took root. Hey, we've moved on from then, even if ID hasn't.  From the Pandas decision: "...defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich admitted that their argument for ID based on the “purposeful arrangement of parts” is the same one that Paley made for design." (pp24-25) Paley's Natural Theology being published in 1802, of course. Bob -------------- It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

Steverino Posts: 411 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,09:49    This is way above what I understand: from Dave Snot: "Yesterday I challenged you to provide evidence in support of how the notion that the digitally programmed self-replicating protein factory represented by DNA and ribosomes could self-assemble from inanimate chemical precursers was so strong that it should enjoy exclusivity in the classroom as the only possible way for life on earth to have originated. " Anyone?  ...thanks in advance! -------------- - Born right the first time. - Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers. - It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,09:56    Translation: Until science proves its abiogenesis theories and hypotheses beyond all doubt, you must teach my unevidenced presuppositions about the origins of life as correct in schools. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,09:56    Quote (Steverino @ May 16 2006,14:49) "Yesterday I challenged you to provide evidence in support of how the notion that the digitally programmed self-replicating protein factory represented by DNA and ribosomes could self-assemble from inanimate chemical precursers was so strong that it should enjoy exclusivity in the classroom as the only possible way for life on earth to have originated. " What is Dave talking about? There is no evidence for self assembly of DNA and ribosomes, hence we don't teach that in classroom.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,09:58    You left off my favorite part. The full quote: Quote "...defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich admitted that their argument for ID based on the “purposeful arrangement of parts” is the same one that Paley made for design. To be specific, I'm referring to William Paley, not Ghost of Paley from the After the Bar Closes discussion board, who is incapable of delivering scientific arguments, he merely promises them, says they're compelling, and then changes the topic to something like whether or not the media is liberal." (pp24-25)

beervolcano Posts: 147 Joined: Dec. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,10:33    Quote (jeannot @ May 16 2006,14:56) Quote (Steverino @ May 16 2006,14:49) "Yesterday I challenged you to provide evidence in support of how the notion that the digitally programmed self-replicating protein factory represented by DNA and ribosomes could self-assemble from inanimate chemical precursers was so strong that it should enjoy exclusivity in the classroom as the only possible way for life on earth to have originated. " What is Dave talking about? There is no evidence for self assembly of DNA and ribosomes, hence we don't teach that in classroom. Actually, DNA does self-assemble. It does it all the time. It even does it in test tubes. Here's something Dave can understand: http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/MKUF-5UZJFP?OpenDocument I know he means pre-biotic self-assembly, and of course, it is pretty unlikely that the first ribosome self-assembled from individual nucleotides and amino acids, but who makes that argument? They always put up the same strawman arguments. This one goes back to the first "creation science" arguments. "DNA and proteins could not have possibly self-assembled out of their constituents, therefore evolution is bunk." Of course, no one claims they do or did, but that never stopped creationists. Or should I get Colbert on their asses and call them creationistas? -------------- ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."--Jonathan Swift)

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,10:38    Kevin Padian has a guest post at PT, Dembski's Apology: Moving Forward. He clarifies several issues. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,10:40    Quote Third, your reference to Godwin’s Law is misplaced. I did not compare Haeckel to the Nazis (or anyone else for that matter). I merely mentioned the historical fact that much of Nazi racism was based upon his work. Barry knows Law alright, but he knows jack squat about Godwin's Law. Direct comparisons are not necessary. You don't have to say "Haeckel was a Nazi" for Godwin to drop by and say hello: When Nazis are mentioned in relation to one side, in a debate whose subject is not directly relevant (such as the biological and ethnological accuracy of Haeckel's views), then their mention is a blatant appeal to emotion, and therefore sufficient to invoke Godwin's Law with glory and trumpets. Sorry Barry, you lose. BTW, does anyone else think that Dave and Barry's casual little exchange ("Hey barry, long time no see" / "Yeah I know, been busy") was, oh I dunno, a little staged? -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

Aardvark Posts: 134 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,10:40    Are we at 100 pages yet? Anyways, Demski's apology to Padian seems to have amounted nothing more than a chance for the UD faithful to pile on more junk about him.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,10:46    Quote Are we at 100 pages yet? damnn near. 3 posts away.

Moorit Posts: 21 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,11:07    I'm still wading my way through this thread (only up to page 25, but hanging in there), and curiosity's gotten the better of me.  Has anyone ever had any success in asking Dave Scott (or whatever the heck his name is) how the whole agnostic/ID thing fits together?  Or has he 'fessed to believing Rael and company about the whole alien origins thing?  I'd try asking over there if, in fact, he's still the moderator, but something tells me my post would not be answered or even survive very long. Moorit

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,11:12    Well, Moorit, you can try the kind and gentle approach, but it won't help. Most of us tried it, and simply got banned a couple days later. Re: 100 pages: And the winner is... -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

argystokes Posts: 766 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,11:35    argy stokes! -------------- "Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

Pages: (1000) < ... 94 95 96 97 98 [99] 100 101 102 103 104 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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