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 5

Pages: (527) < ... 53 54 55 56 57 [58] 59 60 61 62 63 ... >

Soapy Sam Posts: 659 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 09 2014,13:41    Mapou, dweeb of this parish: Quote Even the curvature of the earth, ocean waves, sand dunes and alluvial deposits were designed in the sense that they obey non-random laws. What's a frigging random law look like, then? -------------- SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 09 2014,15:51    Quote (Soapy Sam @ Oct. 09 2014,13:41) Mapou, dweeb of this parish:   Quote Even the curvature of the earth, ocean waves, sand dunes and alluvial deposits were designed in the sense that they obey non-random laws. What's a frigging random law look like, then? Mappy means an arbitrary law, i.e. command, you know, such as Kill your firstborn - the kind that is supposed to give meaning and purpose to our lives. -------------- 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

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 09 2014,16:06    What a GREAT PICTURE! Somebody really, really cool must have taken it! :) -------------- 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

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 09 2014,16:16    Quote (DiEb @ Oct. 09 2014,13:06) Barry Arrington's couple of posts on complexity is just a text-book example of Dunning-Kruger. As I don't know whether my comment will appear at How to Lose a Wittgensteinian Battle, here it is for posterity:     Quote DiEb October 9, 2014 at 11:45 am Your comment is awaiting moderation. BA: Have a look at this string:     Quote    4ad9;SdaodDajdjad9;Sdjfijdvsdjf;dHJ;sjvaD5    pf;jf;od’jvsd2a98;odvDdjf;d3vDVdjadsJgg;o    4f;d68vDLsdiDVdkooaZsdagdaJjoiL;aJsdXaojJD;S    7odjadji0;dko3sdiLivDsjdid6;idagdjoaJ98;sS    kDVd9OdaFFasvDLSd;DVdjf;3Kd4adVv;Sdjads8;;F5    2ad3ao;IdiDVd9Odids8;;FSdjadsiOdZ;d;DV    4f;d:;iojPiAf;SdiDVdjf;djfaJsiDVd2ijJoi8dsfaA0s    4fijdX8;sfdvsdf;vodjaKdw4vsdidAaDsJ33ijvaD    n;eaJj8Odjad9;dZvsf;Vud4adVv;Sdjads8;;FS    4ads8;;FSdF;oAfiDA;djadno;i3IdkO;Sdjf;o;’sdjf;doJ9S    XaodvDdjfijds8;;FdagdV;ijfSdZfijdVo;i3sd3iOdAa3;S    pf;DdZ;dfie;dsfJgg8;Vdaggdjfvsd3aoji8dAav8S Looks a lot like your first string – so is it gibberish? OTOH, it’s the quote from Hamlet, only that I encoded it using a substitution cypher (” “->”d”, “e”->”;”,”o”->”a”). As I replaced the most common letter of #2 by the most common letter of #1, the second most common of #2 by the second most common of #1 etc., the string appears to be similar to string #1. So, is this string more or less random (or more or less complex) than your string #2? What information does it contain? How does it compare to string #1? Barry quickly censors those who make him look bad. OBJECTIVE MORALITY! -------------- "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

DiEb Posts: 312 Joined: May 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 09 2014,16:33    Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 09 2014,22:16) Quote (DiEb @ Oct. 09 2014,13:06) Barry Arrington's couple of posts on complexity is just a text-book example of Dunning-Kruger. As I don't know whether my comment will appear at How to Lose a Wittgensteinian Battle, here it is for posterity:       Quote DiEb October 9, 2014 at 11:45 am Your comment is awaiting moderation. BA: Have a look at this string:       Quote    4ad9;SdaodDajdjad9;Sdjfijdvsdjf;dHJ;sjvaD5    pf;jf;od’jvsd2a98;odvDdjf;d3vDVdjadsJgg;o    4f;d68vDLsdiDVdkooaZsdagdaJjoiL;aJsdXaojJD;S    7odjadji0;dko3sdiLivDsjdid6;idagdjoaJ98;sS    kDVd9OdaFFasvDLSd;DVdjf;3Kd4adVv;Sdjads8;;F5    2ad3ao;IdiDVd9Odids8;;FSdjadsiOdZ;d;DV    4f;d:;iojPiAf;SdiDVdjf;djfaJsiDVd2ijJoi8dsfaA0s    4fijdX8;sfdvsdf;vodjaKdw4vsdidAaDsJ33ijvaD    n;eaJj8Odjad9;dZvsf;Vud4adVv;Sdjads8;;FS    4ads8;;FSdF;oAfiDA;djadno;i3IdkO;Sdjf;o;’sdjf;doJ9S    XaodvDdjfijds8;;FdagdV;ijfSdZfijdVo;i3sd3iOdAa3;S    pf;DdZ;dfie;dsfJgg8;Vdaggdjfvsd3aoji8dAav8S Looks a lot like your first string – so is it gibberish? OTOH, it’s the quote from Hamlet, only that I encoded it using a substitution cypher (” “->”d”, “e”->”;”,”o”->”a”). As I replaced the most common letter of #2 by the most common letter of #1, the second most common of #2 by the second most common of #1 etc., the string appears to be similar to string #1. So, is this string more or less random (or more or less complex) than your string #2? What information does it contain? How does it compare to string #1? Barry quickly censors those who make him look bad. OBJECTIVE MORALITY! That's the beauty of the whole exchange: he cannot imagine that he looks bad - the emperor is always the last to recognize his nudeness.... But perhaps, if W. Dembski takes at look at the whole debacle, some threads will disappear...

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 09 2014,16:37    Ah, the fundy butthurt is wonderful: Quote 65 Silver AsiaticOctober 9, 2014 at 3:10 pm DiEb 50 The term Sdjads appears 4 times in the text. Sure, you can try to obscure the underlying message but if you had a rule-based method for encryption, then with enough work it could be re-mapped to Shakespeare Really? Remap this, Designboy: Quote U q # f j 2 ' w { * y {  . ƒ  1 t x @ 5 Š  y  : „  = ’ ‡ … A “ ˜ ‰ ˜ š  — — Á ‚ ” ’ ¢ — • £ R Å ¨ ž © W † ¨ œ § ¡ ¯ ^ ¨ ® a ¶ « © e ³ ° ¶ ­ j ¿ » m Á Ä ¶ · · Å ¨ ½ » w « Å Ã É Ã Ð ~ À Î Å ‚ ¤ Ö × Õ Þ Û ‰ Ù Ñ Œ Ü ã ã â Ò Ù Ø ã ê é — ¾ è ì ï ñ ë ã « Ï ó ¢ ÷ ó ¥ ú è ó î ª Ì þ ú  ¯ ñ ø ó ü  " "  · ù ¹ í ý ½   À       " "  Õ ë   Í  ) Ð ! # $ $ ) & å Ú ! + " Þ 4 ) ' 0  ä  6 ç - 3 0 ÷ ì B > ï D > 8 9 E m % G ø G J N B  þ A O F  F ^  H  \ V P Q ]   d `  f U n  n ]  _ i ` Q f d I g d v y 3 h k q o 7 , n | s 0 … z x 4 ‰ ~ †  Œ { ‰ € = l € ” – ” „  E ™  — Œ • ž € •  £ P w ž ˜ §  V   « Y ¢   ¥ ¯ ^ ³ ¯ € b Ô ˜ ® ¹ g © i ­ º º À à ¼ ½ ² Æ ¼ à à š ¼ Î È Ï Ï È Ö ~ Ó Ï  Ä È „ Ü Ï Ú Ð Î Î ™ Œ Á Ý  Ô Ú × Ÿ ” é å — ë å ß à ì © Ò î   ô î è é õ ² § ø î ü î ô î ü ò õ ±   ´ Ù " " ü ù  Õ » Ý   Ë À   " "   9  È    Ì $  Ü ÷ " & Ô  % × - "  0 Ü 1 + % & 2 â 3 + å + - * > 3 ÷ ì E 7 1 E ñ 7 F : 7 D K ø G < U ü A N M F  : L J T  _ N " " S M c S  c Y g Y Z a [ [  h ` a  q f h s ! o r v y g s ( l y t x 9 -------------- "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

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 09 2014,16:55    Quote (DiEb @ Oct. 09 2014,17:33) Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 09 2014,22:16)   Quote (DiEb @ Oct. 09 2014,13:06) Barry Arrington's couple of posts on complexity is just a text-book example of Dunning-Kruger. As I don't know whether my comment will appear at How to Lose a Wittgensteinian Battle, here it is for posterity:       Quote DiEb October 9, 2014 at 11:45 am Your comment is awaiting moderation. BA: Have a look at this string:       Quote    4ad9;SdaodDajdjad9;Sdjfijdvsdjf;dHJ;sjvaD5    pf;jf;od’jvsd2a98;odvDdjf;d3vDVdjadsJgg;o    4f;d68vDLsdiDVdkooaZsdagdaJjoiL;aJsdXaojJD;S    7odjadji0;dko3sdiLivDsjdid6;idagdjoaJ98;sS    kDVd9OdaFFasvDLSd;DVdjf;3Kd4adVv;Sdjads8;;F5    2ad3ao;IdiDVd9Odids8;;FSdjadsiOdZ;d;DV    4f;d:;iojPiAf;SdiDVdjf;djfaJsiDVd2ijJoi8dsfaA0s    4fijdX8;sfdvsdf;vodjaKdw4vsdidAaDsJ33ijvaD    n;eaJj8Odjad9;dZvsf;Vud4adVv;Sdjads8;;FS    4ads8;;FSdF;oAfiDA;djadno;i3IdkO;Sdjf;o;’sdjf;doJ9S    XaodvDdjfijds8;;FdagdV;ijfSdZfijdVo;i3sd3iOdAa3;S    pf;DdZ;dfie;dsfJgg8;Vdaggdjfvsd3aoji8dAav8S Looks a lot like your first string – so is it gibberish? OTOH, it’s the quote from Hamlet, only that I encoded it using a substitution cypher (” “->”d”, “e”->”;”,”o”->”a”). As I replaced the most common letter of #2 by the most common letter of #1, the second most common of #2 by the second most common of #1 etc., the string appears to be similar to string #1. So, is this string more or less random (or more or less complex) than your string #2? What information does it contain? How does it compare to string #1? Barry quickly censors those who make him look bad. OBJECTIVE MORALITY! That's the beauty of the whole exchange: he cannot imagine that he looks bad - the emperor is always the last to recognize his nudeness.... But perhaps, if W. Dembski takes at look at the whole debacle, some threads will disappear... anybody heard anything from Dembski lately? Or Behe for that matter?

Texas Teach Posts: 2084 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 09 2014,17:13    Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 09 2014,16:55) Quote (DiEb @ Oct. 09 2014,17:33) Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 09 2014,22:16)   Quote (DiEb @ Oct. 09 2014,13:06) Barry Arrington's couple of posts on complexity is just a text-book example of Dunning-Kruger. As I don't know whether my comment will appear at How to Lose a Wittgensteinian Battle, here it is for posterity:         Quote DiEb October 9, 2014 at 11:45 am Your comment is awaiting moderation. BA: Have a look at this string:         Quote    4ad9;SdaodDajdjad9;Sdjfijdvsdjf;dHJ;sjvaD5    pf;jf;od’jvsd2a98;odvDdjf;d3vDVdjadsJgg;o    4f;d68vDLsdiDVdkooaZsdagdaJjoiL;aJsdXaojJD;S    7odjadji0;dko3sdiLivDsjdid6;idagdjoaJ98;sS    kDVd9OdaFFasvDLSd;DVdjf;3Kd4adVv;Sdjads8;;F5    2ad3ao;IdiDVd9Odids8;;FSdjadsiOdZ;d;DV    4f;d:;iojPiAf;SdiDVdjf;djfaJsiDVd2ijJoi8dsfaA0s    4fijdX8;sfdvsdf;vodjaKdw4vsdidAaDsJ33ijvaD    n;eaJj8Odjad9;dZvsf;Vud4adVv;Sdjads8;;FS    4ads8;;FSdF;oAfiDA;djadno;i3IdkO;Sdjf;o;’sdjf;doJ9S    XaodvDdjfijds8;;FdagdV;ijfSdZfijdVo;i3sd3iOdAa3;S    pf;DdZ;dfie;dsfJgg8;Vdaggdjfvsd3aoji8dAav8S Looks a lot like your first string – so is it gibberish? OTOH, it’s the quote from Hamlet, only that I encoded it using a substitution cypher (” “->”d”, “e”->”;”,”o”->”a”). As I replaced the most common letter of #2 by the most common letter of #1, the second most common of #2 by the second most common of #1 etc., the string appears to be similar to string #1. So, is this string more or less random (or more or less complex) than your string #2? What information does it contain? How does it compare to string #1? Barry quickly censors those who make him look bad. OBJECTIVE MORALITY! That's the beauty of the whole exchange: he cannot imagine that he looks bad - the emperor is always the last to recognize his nudeness.... But perhaps, if W. Dembski takes at look at the whole debacle, some threads will disappear... anybody heard anything from Dembski lately? Or Behe for that matter? They're with Kim Jong Un planning the next big scientific revolution. -------------- "Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr "I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 09 2014,17:14    Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 09 2014,16:55) Quote (DiEb @ Oct. 09 2014,17:33) Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 09 2014,22:16)   Quote (DiEb @ Oct. 09 2014,13:06) Barry Arrington's couple of posts on complexity is just a text-book example of Dunning-Kruger. As I don't know whether my comment will appear at How to Lose a Wittgensteinian Battle, here it is for posterity:         Quote DiEb October 9, 2014 at 11:45 am Your comment is awaiting moderation. BA: Have a look at this string:         Quote    4ad9;SdaodDajdjad9;Sdjfijdvsdjf;dHJ;sjvaD5    pf;jf;od’jvsd2a98;odvDdjf;d3vDVdjadsJgg;o    4f;d68vDLsdiDVdkooaZsdagdaJjoiL;aJsdXaojJD;S    7odjadji0;dko3sdiLivDsjdid6;idagdjoaJ98;sS    kDVd9OdaFFasvDLSd;DVdjf;3Kd4adVv;Sdjads8;;F5    2ad3ao;IdiDVd9Odids8;;FSdjadsiOdZ;d;DV    4f;d:;iojPiAf;SdiDVdjf;djfaJsiDVd2ijJoi8dsfaA0s    4fijdX8;sfdvsdf;vodjaKdw4vsdidAaDsJ33ijvaD    n;eaJj8Odjad9;dZvsf;Vud4adVv;Sdjads8;;FS    4ads8;;FSdF;oAfiDA;djadno;i3IdkO;Sdjf;o;’sdjf;doJ9S    XaodvDdjfijds8;;FdagdV;ijfSdZfijdVo;i3sd3iOdAa3;S    pf;DdZ;dfie;dsfJgg8;Vdaggdjfvsd3aoji8dAav8S Looks a lot like your first string – so is it gibberish? OTOH, it’s the quote from Hamlet, only that I encoded it using a substitution cypher (” “->”d”, “e”->”;”,”o”->”a”). As I replaced the most common letter of #2 by the most common letter of #1, the second most common of #2 by the second most common of #1 etc., the string appears to be similar to string #1. So, is this string more or less random (or more or less complex) than your string #2? What information does it contain? How does it compare to string #1? Barry quickly censors those who make him look bad. OBJECTIVE MORALITY! That's the beauty of the whole exchange: he cannot imagine that he looks bad - the emperor is always the last to recognize his nudeness.... But perhaps, if W. Dembski takes at look at the whole debacle, some threads will disappear... anybody heard anything from Dembski lately? Or Behe for that matter? Yes, but not at UDderly. Dembski: Thanks, Santa Dawkins! Coal means I have been a good boy. Behe: Throw a tie clip at evolution one more time for the Gipper. Both at Disco 'Tute's evolutionnews.org -------------- 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

paragwinn Posts: 539 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 09 2014,18:45    Barry, philosopher-warrior (or worrier) leads with:   Quote   Quote    Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language. Ludwig Wittgenstein, 1953, aphorism 109 Well, ya know what Nietzsche said:   Quote To forget one's purpose is the commonest form of stupidity. That was just a random selection in the non-technical, everyday-people, meaningful-English-text sense. PS - Barry's linguistic theory link leads to this:   Quote Sign (linguistics) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. (March 2013) This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay that states the Wikipedia editor's particular feelings about a topic, rather than the opinions of experts. (March 2013) This article needs attention from an expert in linguistics. The specific problem is: it is unclear whether there is a specifically linguistic concept to be described, distinct from semiotics. (March 2013) bolding in original. It focuses on Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure's model of the linguistic sign (signifier and signified) which I dont think makes his point. For instance:   Quote Saussure's understanding of sign is called the two-side model of sign. Furthermore, Saussure separated speech acts (la parole) from the system of a language (la langue). Parole was the free will of the individual, whereas langue was regulated by the group, albeit unknowingly. Saussure also postulated that once the convention is established, it is very difficult to change, which enables languages to remain both static, through a set vocabulary determined by conventions, and to grow, as new terms are needed to deal with situations and technologies not covered by the old. PPS - I'm scheduled to have that operation next week. ;) -------------- 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 Sigh. Really Bill? - Barry Arrington

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 09 2014,23:37    Arrington waxes poetic about how Jeff Shallit believes a passage from "Hamlet" to be more random than gibberish. Arrington is making a category error. The deployment of "gibberish" as a description has to do with whether we can assign meaning to something, whereas Prof. Shallit is quantifying amounts of information. As we demonstrated in the appendix to our long paper, the algorithmic information theory approach we took, while in every respect superior to Dembski's proposed means of identifying randomness, was demonstrably an upper bound on Dembski's CSI after subtracting a cost in terms of the length of a program P that specifies whether a string is in a target set. As such, Arrington cannot discount our approach without simultaneously discounting Dembski's own work. In order to accomplish his desired goal of showing Prof. Shallit to be wrong and himself to be right, he would have to address the mathematics and not merely the rhetoric in the argument. To me, Barry shows no signs of having the inclination -- or capability -- of doing any such thing. But as Jeff says, Barry could have a cookie. Edited by stevestory on Oct. 10 2014,12:41 -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 09 2014,23:41    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 09 2014,23:37) Arrington waxes poetic about how Jeff Shallit believes a passage from "Hamlet" to be more random than gibberish. Arrington is making a category error. The deployment of "gibberish" as a description has to do with whether we can assign meaning to something, whereas Prof. Shallit is quantifying amounts of information. As we demonstrated in the appendix to our long paper, the algorithmic information theory approach we took, while in every respect superior to Dembski's proposed means of identifying randomness, was demonstrably an upper bound on Dembski's CSI after subtracting a cost in terms of the length of a program P that specifies whether a string is in a target set. As such, Arrington cannot discount our approach without simultaneously discounting Dembski's own work. In order to accomplish his desired goal of showing Prof. Shallit to be wrong and himself to be right, he would have to address the mathematics and not merely the rhetoric in the argument. To me, Barry shows no signs of having the inclination -- or capability -- of doing any such thing. But as Jeff says, Barry could have a cookie. PotW -------------- "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

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2014,00:19    And Barry's been caught in the quote mine (again). Pathetic creationist. -------------- "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

Soapy Sam Posts: 659 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2014,02:57    Quote (Kristine @ Oct. 09 2014,21:51) Quote (Soapy Sam @ Oct. 09 2014,13:41) Mapou, dweeb of this parish:     Quote Even the curvature of the earth, ocean waves, sand dunes and alluvial deposits were designed in the sense that they obey non-random laws. What's a frigging random law look like, then? Mappy means an arbitrary law, i.e. command, you know, such as Kill your firstborn - the kind that is supposed to give meaning and purpose to our lives. Heh! I've been trying to take a leak this morning that did not have Mapou's 'designed' quality. Try as I might, I cannot get the stream to stop obeying non-random laws - gravity and the electrostatic interaction of hydrogen bonding, mainly - and hence, irrespective of where I aim, I am celebrating Design, and not being in the least bit random. My wife has asked me to stop. -------------- SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

Acartia_Bogart Posts: 2927 Joined: Sep. 2014 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2014,10:35    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 09 2014,23:37) Arrington waxes poetic about how Jeff Shallit believes a passage from "Hamlet" to be more random than gibberish. Arrington is making a category error. The deployment of "gibberish" as a description has to do with whether we can assign meaning to something, whereas Prof. Shallit is quantifying amounts of information. As we demonstrated in the appendix to our long paper, the algorithmic information theory approach we took, while in every respect superior to Dembski's proposed means of identifying randomness, was demonstrably an upper bound on Dembski's CSI after subtracting a cost in terms of the length of a program P that specifies whether a string is in a target set. As such, Arrington cannot discount our approach without simultaneously discounting Dembski's own work. In order to accomplish his desired goal of showing Prof. Shallit to be wrong and himself to be right, he would have to address the mathematics and not merely the rhetoric in the argument. To me, Barry shows no signs of having the inclination -- or capability -- of doing any such thing. But as Jeff says, Barry could have a cookie. Arrington has been positively childish in his random/non-random saga. His final line of defence is to claim that anyone who thinks that some lines from Hamlet are more random than some characters produced from him banging his head on the keyboard is either stupid or insane. This in spite of the fact that a person doesn't even need to use the tools that Jeffrey did to know that the "gibberish" string produced by Barry is not random.  There are long strings of lower case letters, long strings of upper case letters, and long strings of numbers. Although it is possible that these strings would arise randomly, the probability is vanishingly small; just like Barry's intelligence.

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2014,10:50    Barry's having another imaginary conversation with himself about what Darwinist say and an OP. Tragic. -------------- "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

Acartia_Bogart Posts: 2927 Joined: Sep. 2014 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2014,13:07    IRONY ALERT!!! Or is it HYPOCRIT ALERT??? Over at UD, Barry is criticizing behaviour at the Sceptical Zone. This is the little gem that had me on the floor laughing. Quote Scoffing is a very poor substitute for argument. Priceless. I would have paid real money for this.

Soapy Sam Posts: 659 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2014,14:21    The first string is actually deeply informative. Imagine agreeing a character set with aliens, and then having them send messages. From the second, we might conclude 'fuck me, they know Shakespeare!'. But basically, they can relay a string from our literature - big deal, copy-pasting aliens. But from the first - 'fuck me, they are almost certainly bilaterally symmetrical and use a QWERTY keyboard'! -------------- SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2014,16:03    I don't see why everybody's so surprised at Barry's lameness.  After all, he thought Michel(l)e Bachmann would make a good President.

Acartia_Bogart Posts: 2927 Joined: Sep. 2014 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2014,16:13    Quote (Soapy Sam @ Oct. 10 2014,14:21) The first string is actually deeply informative. Imagine agreeing a character set with aliens, and then having them send messages. From the second, we might conclude 'fuck me, they know Shakespeare!'. But basically, they can relay a string from our literature - big deal, copy-pasting aliens. But from the first - 'fuck me, they are almost certainly bilaterally symmetrical and use a QWERTY keyboard'! Cutandpasta? He is no better than BA77.

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2014,16:15    Ooooh SNAP: Quote 11 MapouOctober 10, 2014 at 3:11 pm I just love it when atheists quote the Bible. I don’t know whether to laugh or puke. UD is better than SZ because IDers are not dirt worshippers. We know that life did not arise from dirt all by itself. We graduated from kindergarten a long time ago and we no longer believe in Santa Claus and other childish things. That’s why UD is better. It parodies itself. -------------- "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

Acartia_Bogart Posts: 2927 Joined: Sep. 2014 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2014,16:30    PooPoo was responding to my comment (under a different name because, apparently, people who contradict get banned). But, I must admit, it is fun.

Acartia_Bogart Posts: 2927 Joined: Sep. 2014 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2014,17:05    OK, now it has just become surreal. Quote I have deleted all of the troll stenosemella’s comments, as they were nothing more than trollish distractions. If anyone has something to say about the actual topic of the OP, please feel free. I have also deleted all responses to the troll’s distractions (including my own). This, in spite of the fact that he left his own responses to me up

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2014,17:32    -------------- "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

Acartia_Bogart Posts: 2927 Joined: Sep. 2014 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2014,21:22    Quote 7 Barry ArringtonOctober 10, 2014 at 4:00 pm I have deleted all of the troll stenosemella’s comments, as they were nothing more than trollish distractions. If anyone has something to say about the actual topic of the OP, please feel free. I have also deleted all responses to the troll’s distractions (including my own). Barry Stalin. It has a good ring to it. If you don't like the message, delete the messenger and all copies of the message. If there is a picture of the messenger, air brush him out of it. I guess that it is easier than responding to the message.

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2014,21:25    Quote (Soapy Sam @ Oct. 10 2014,13:21) The first string is actually deeply informative. Imagine agreeing a character set with aliens, and then having them send messages. From the second, we might conclude 'fuck me, they know Shakespeare!'. But basically, they can relay a string from our literature - big deal, copy-pasting aliens. But from the first - 'fuck me, they are almost certainly bilaterally symmetrical and use a QWERTY keyboard'! Such as Klingons?

Acartia_Bogart Posts: 2927 Joined: Sep. 2014 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2014,05:58    Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Oct. 10 2014,21:22) Quote 7 Barry ArringtonOctober 10, 2014 at 4:00 pm I have deleted all of the troll stenosemella’s comments, as they were nothing more than trollish distractions. If anyone has something to say about the actual topic of the OP, please feel free. I have also deleted all responses to the troll’s distractions (including my own). Barry Stalin. It has a good ring to it. If you don't like the message, delete the messenger and all copies of the message. If there is a picture of the messenger, air brush him out of it. I guess that it is easier than responding to the message. It's a good thing that I read the back and forth between Barry and Stenosemella before Barry purged all records. The comment string was on Barry's criticism of the Sceptical Zone. Steno's first comment was about the following statement from Barry's OP: " Scoffing is a very poor substitute for argument." Steno said that this was the pot calling the kettle black. And that the vast majority of UD articles were little more than scoffing. Barry condescendingly responded that Steno was making a tu toque and suggested that he look it up and then get back to him explains how it was not. Steno presumably knew what tu toque means (or quickly looked it up). His quick response was that he (Steno) was in good company because Jesus used a tu toque argument when he said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. This was quickly followed by Barry stating that Steno was a troll and deleting the conversation because it was not relevant to the subject of his OP. how is criticizing Barry for using the same tactics that he is criticizing the Sceptical Zone for, not relevant? Personally, I think that Steno simply ran afoul of Barry's blasphemy laws.

Driver Posts: 649 Joined: June 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2014,09:41    Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Oct. 11 2014,10:58) Personally, I think that Steno simply ran afoul of Barry's blasphemy laws. At science blog UD, the worst offence to Science is to say anything less than grovelling about a 2000 year old preacher. Over at TSZ, phoodoo and WJM are arguing with Joe Felsenstein about biology. Hahahahaha. -------------- Why would I concern myself with evidence, when IMO "evidence" is only the mind arranging thought and matter to support what one already wishes to believe? - William J Murray [A]t this time a forum like this one is nothing less than a national security risk. - Gary Gaulin

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2014,13:05    They're now arguing you don't / can't calculate CSI over at UD. Get your story straight guys / Goodbye empirical hurdle... -------------- "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

The whole truth Posts: 1554 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2014,21:13    Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 11 2014,11:05) They're now arguing you don't / can't calculate CSI over at UD. Get your story straight guys / Goodbye empirical hurdle... Hi Richard, do you have a link handy? -------------- Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

Pages: (527) < ... 53 54 55 56 57 [58] 59 60 61 62 63 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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