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) < ... 130 131 132 133 134 [135] 136 137 138 139 140 ... >

Bob O'H Posts: 2564 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 21 2006,07:38    Ha!   This is hilarious! Why?  Well, a few months ago I got an email from Salthe.  He'd sent it round a few people who had expressed an interest in his work.  The email was his response to questions from a Chinese reporter.  It included his comments on evolution and ID.  In summary: the man who is "at the top of the Discovery Institute’s Dissent from Darwin honor roll" doesn't believe in ID either! I remember I forwarded the email to someone (Wes?), because I thought it might be useful at some point.  It's in my computer at work so I'll have to retrieve it tomorrow. 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)

2ndclass Posts: 182 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 21 2006,08:35    This site quotes the New York Times thusly: Quote Dr. Salthe, who describes himself as an atheist, said that when he signed the petition he had no idea what the Discovery Institute was. Rather, he said, “I signed it in irritation.” He said evolutionary biologists were unfairly suppressing any competing ideas. “They deserve to be prodded, as it were,” Dr. Salthe said. “It was my way of thumbing my nose at them.” Dr. Salthe said he did not find intelligent design to be a compelling theory, either. “From my point of view,” he said, “it’s a plague on both your houses.” This is the man that Salvador says has a "brilliant mind" and has "seen the light.". -------------- "I wasn't aware that classical physics had established a position on whether intelligent agents exercising free were constrained by 2LOT into increasing entropy." -DaveScot

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 21 2006,08:38    http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1239#comment-44782 Quote Yes, there really does come a time for Darwin’s funeral. So when folks like Berlinski and Dembski proclaim it—why not? R. O’Connor brings up old arguments but in a good spirit. Let me then, a dilettante in this informal venue, just say that there is no evidence whatsoever that microevolution adds information. It’s the new information that must be accounted for, and inherent variation or the loss of information just won’t do. Is it illegitimate to extrapolate from the design in human artifacts to the design in biological organisms? We can study design in all its glory as it emerges from human agency. Biological design has all the hallmarks of human design. We cannot observe Darwinism in action—there is no evidence whatsoever that Darwinism can account for any kind of design. The folks who usually shout the loudest about extrapolating from human design are the Deists. Their deus is by definition so alien from anything we can imagine that nothing attributed to it could ever be observed in our world. The Young Earth theory, even the tooth fairie, at least makes falsifiable predictions—Deism doesn’t. Nobody in ID so far as I know is against demarcation arguments that distinguish between “real science” and pseudoscience. There are no good arguments for calling naturalism science and theism pseudoscience. Comment by Rude — June 21, 2006 @ 1:33 pm Yup, because we can study human design, that proves that cells were made by a designer.  Oh, and how dare you call theism a pseudoscience.  Um, but there's no religion here.  None at all.  Move along, nothing to see here.

Aardvark Posts: 134 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 21 2006,08:44    Heads up: Scientists urge evolution lessons http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5098608.stm Can't wait for the DI/UD/YEC response.

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 21 2006,09:01    Davetard says : http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1236#comment-44764   Quote Oh goody, the dopey little contributors at ATBC now proclaim that SAT scores don’t measure IQ. How can computer literate people make bogus claims like that when it’s so easy to do a little fact checking and they can be shown to be idiots making things up out of thin air so easily? It boggles my 99.97th percentile mind. but wait... http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi....de=psci   Quote Measures of g were extracted from the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery and correlated with SAT scores of 917 participants. The resulting correlation was .82 (.86 corrected for nonlinearity). Study 2 investigated the correlation between revised and recentered SAT scores and scores on the Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices among 104 undergraduates. The resulting correlation was .483 (.72 corrected for restricted range). They have positive correlation. So SAT's measure IQ in the same way believing in ID measures theism. -------------- "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

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 21 2006,09:22    Quote (2ndclass @ June 21 2006,12:01)   Quote (Glen Davidson @ June 21 2006,10:56) DaveTard:       Quote I’m an autodidact... He writes and thinks like one. Yes, it explains a lot.  There's nothing wrong with being self-taught, but declaring one's knowledge to be superior when it's never been tested in an academic or peer-review environment is beyond presumptuous. There's a world of difference between working one's way through a science curriculum and reading Scientific American.  I think a semester in an advanced physics course would provide Dave with some much-needed humility.  Maybe I'll dig up an old textbook and let him try his hand at solving some problems. Oh, wait, I already posed a problem back in March: Given a 700 nm photon, assuming it came from a black body, what is the probability that the temperature of the black body is between 4139 K and 4141 K? How you coming on that, Dave? It's typical of DT that he should BRAG about being an autodidact, but in my experience in linguistics, about 98% of the time, people who describe themselves as such lack any kind of scientific rigor or humility (i.e., any sense that their gut hunches could possibly be wrong) and are almost always crackpots whose work collapses under the first serious scrutiny. So it figures that DT should think 'autodidact' is a good thing. It's entirely possible to be self-taught and not have your head up your ass, but people who boast of being autodidacts almost never seem to clear that hurdle. (And if anyone is in that magical 2%, it ain't DT.) -------------- "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

Glen Davidson Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 21 2006,09:22    I'm going to have to point out once more that I have answered lying hound Michaels7 in this, and the following two posts: http://tinyurl.com/mgtfv Actually, I put it in this thread as well, but I can't link as exactly to posts here as I can to posts on PT. Is Michaels7 really so stupid that he doesn't know why no response appeared on UD (never mind that Retard himself said he wasn't going to allow me to post more)?  I'm guessing that he is, as he shows no understanding of why gravity and relativity came up in the first place, and stupidly insists that I was avoiding the question. I don't "answer his questions" per se in my post, of course.  This is because they're stupid questions.  But I did answer him quite properly.  Of course DaveTard would not want that. Glen D -------------- http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 21 2006,09:32    Besides, if DT was as bright as he claims, wouldn't he know how pathetic it makes you look to brag about your IQ and magazine subscriptions when asked for your 'qualifications'? (And let's not mention DT's little fiasco with that urban legend he so credulously posted a few weeks ago.) -------------- "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

Rilke's Granddaughter Posts: 311 Joined: Jan. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 21 2006,09:45    Quote (Glen Davidson @ June 21 2006,11:51) High IQ scores are noted to correlate fairly well with high SAT scores.  I don't know how to get an IQ score off of SAT scores, but I'd be surprised if someone hasn't come up with a  table, graph, or some such thing to get a good idea of IQ from SAT scores. IQ scoring is adjusted by age, so that the average at all ages is supposed to come out to 100.  So it is not surprising if anyone has an IQ of 150 at the age of 50, 60, or 70.  But having an IQ of 150 at the age of 50 does not imply the same intelligence as an IQ of 150 at the age of 25. The correlation isn't the real issue.  The issue is that Dave claimed that his IQ was demonstrated to be 150 by means of the SAT.  This is, of course, nonsense. It's reasonably clear that Dave has significant problems with self-esteem; his need to invent a glorious past for himself (and note that whatever he claims is all in the past) is simply a way of coping with the fact that he's pretty much a nobody - merely one of the numerous ignorant fools who post about various lost causes around the web.

Glen Davidson Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 21 2006,10:00    Well sure, RD, I wouldn't disagree with any of that.   The truth of the matter is that general competence in intellectual matters is not the issue, nor is even scientific competence the most important issue.  He needs to show that he actually knows something about which he claims to be competent. Since he is ignorant in evolution, as well as in physics, he has no proper role in these debates.  He does, however, represent Dembski well enough on the scientific competence score. Glen D -------------- http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

Rilke's Granddaughter Posts: 311 Joined: Jan. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 21 2006,10:05    Quote (Glen Davidson @ June 21 2006,15:00) Well sure, RD, I wouldn't disagree with any of that.   The truth of the matter is that general competence in intellectual matters is not the issue, nor is even scientific competence the most important issue.  He needs to show that he actually knows something about which he claims to be competent. Since he is ignorant in evolution, as well as in physics, he has no proper role in these debates.  He does, however, represent Dembski well enough on the scientific competence score. Glen D Dave Scott also seems to represent Dembski's personality well.  He's belligerant, prone to adolescent bathroom humor, unsubtle, and generally unable to deal with any kind of criticism.  In that sense, they are an excellent fit.  (No secondary humor was intended by that last comment - I'm sure that Dembski is quite happy with Sal.)

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 21 2006,10:30    Hoisted by his own Davetard: that website Dave points us to for IQ and SAT's? on another page (same site) http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/Pre1974SAT.html Quote 'The correlation between the two scores was 0.58.  The standard error of estimate for the SAT total score was 102; the standard error of estimate for the Otis was 5.8.  This correlation of 0.58 gives a spuriously low impression of the correlation between the SAT and the Otis due to restriction in the range of ability in this sample.' Unlucky Dave! Join us next week as Dave links us to the bible to show how ID isn't religious. -------------- "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

Rilke's Granddaughter Posts: 311 Joined: Jan. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 21 2006,11:33    Apparently Dave Springer-Spaniel Scott, the boy-wonder, has not been trained in logic. Quote Oh goody, the dopey little contributors at ATBC now proclaim that SAT scores don’t measure IQ. How can computer literate people make bogus claims like that when it’s so easy to do a little fact checking and they can be shown to be idiots making things up out of thin air so easily? It boggles my 99.97th percentile mind. Got that?  We have pointed out that SAT scores do not measure IQ.  A completely accurate statement.  So what is Dave's reponse to that? Quote Almost all the High IQ societies accept SAT scores to meet entrance requirements. My SAT score was 1480 in 1978. I took it during my last few months in the Marine Corps after having been away from school for 4 years (except for a few business classes at Pepperdine). I can’t quite make it into the best of the best as my test score is only in the 99.97th percentile while societies like Prometheus and a few others require 99.99 or better scores. A classic example of why Dave is rightly and fitly the master of a web-site for dolts. Dave: "I have an IQ of 150 as measured by SAT!" Us: "SAT doesn't measure IQ" Dave: "Well, high IQ societies accept SAT scores in lieu of IQ tests.  And my SAT scores were really high." Us: "But Dave, that still doesn't show that the SAT measures IQ" Dave: "Oh, yeah?  Look at this site!" Us: "Dave, that site points out that the correlation is very rough; and the point is still you made a fundamentally incorrect and rather stupid statement: that your SAT measured your IQ" If we think about the law of averages, it's fairly clear that Dave is doing his part by holding down the low end of averaging intelligence by balancing out several hundred geniuses at the high end. Dave, why waste your time on a losing proposition like ID?  Or is your amateur interest in science enough to balance out being a nobody?

Glen Davidson Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 21 2006,12:03    Quote My SAT score was 1480 in 1978. I took it during my last few months in the Marine Corps after having been away from school for 4 years (except for a few business classes at Pepperdine). Since I rarely read the BS with which DaveTard violates the blogosphere--unless he is deliberately targeting me with his stupidity--I hadn't seen the important qualifications written above before RD quoted him. The SATs are made for high school students, not for people who have had a number of years to increase their reading ability, and perhaps even their mathematical ability.  I had excellent SAT scores in high school, but I know that my verbal skills have increased substantially in the intervening years.  If DaveTard was working with mathematical material in school (college?) as well as in the Marines, which wouldn't surprise me, he should have gained in mathematical ability as well as in the verbal portion of the test. So apparently he not only is using what can only be considered to be a rough correlation in order to make his claims about IQ, he is also using a test out of the context in which it is truly relevant.   Why does he constantly seem so far from truly being bright?  Of course RD did answer that yet again, he's compensating.  And I wonder if it is only intellectual compensation, or if he has other unattractive traits as well--I mean other than his personality. I have the suspicion that he has spent his whole life doing nothing but bragging about his intellect, so that he has never done anything else with his brain.  Even if he were impressively bright, he'd certainly need to do something besides defend pseudoscience and to proclaim a brilliance that is not evident in his posts, for his intelligence to count for anything.   However, I really don't trust any of his claims, including his SAT scores.   Glen D -------------- http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

Tiax Posts: 62 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 21 2006,12:18    I have a better SAT score than Dave.  I'm pretty sure this gives me a carte blanche to make wild statements in any field regardless of my total lack of expertise. The Sun weighs about 250 lbs.

Rilke's Granddaughter Posts: 311 Joined: Jan. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 21 2006,12:24    Quote (Tiax @ June 21 2006,17:18) I have a better SAT score than Dave.  I'm pretty sure this gives me a carte blanche to make wild statements in any field regardless of my total lack of expertise. The Sun weighs about 250 lbs. The Granddaughter shakes her head in disgust. Idiot!  The sun weighs 250 kilograms.  What do they teach children in school these days?

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 21 2006,12:30    I'm tempted to say something about weight vs. mass here, but on second though never mind. Henry

2ndclass Posts: 182 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 21 2006,12:46    Dembski shares his foreward to a forthcoming  book: Quote ...I think of a story that my colleague Del Ratzsch at Calvin College tells about the wife of an entertainer who, according to a tabloid, descended from aliens. The key piece of evidence cited to support this hypothesis was that the woman had slightly lower than average blood pressure. Obviously, the problem with such an argument is that there is no rational connection between blood pressure and alien descent. This sounds like a setup for an anti-ID argument.  A natural follow-up sentence would be, "Likewise, there is no rational connection between a flagellum and a supernatural designer." But, no.  What he says is: Quote Likewise, there is no rational connection between the mountains of evidence cited by Darwinists and the grand claim they make that all organisms are descended from a last universal common ancestor via a purposeless material process... And I say:  Likewise, there is no rational connection between gravity and the purposeless material general theory of relativity.  Gravity could be the work of a purposeful, immaterial Greek gravity god.  Never mind that such a conjecture has no scientific value whatsoever. -------------- "I wasn't aware that classical physics had established a position on whether intelligent agents exercising free were constrained by 2LOT into increasing entropy." -DaveScot

Rilke's Granddaughter Posts: 311 Joined: Jan. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 21 2006,12:53    Now, I found this remark rather odd Quote The longest and bestest thread at ATBC is called Uncommonly Dense and it was created to honor me (in the manner of little boys pulling the hair of little girls they lust after because they don’t know any other way to get their attention) after Bill Dembski made me blogczar here. Not for the juvenile attempt at humor, but because it is, as far as I know completely false.  Could Dave be so narcissistic that any mention of him counts as 'honor'? Somehow I doubt it.  This post, like many of his recent ones, seems to betray a personality that is bitter about having chosen the wrong side in this little matter; incredibly insecure (hence the need to bolster prestige by "rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic"; and boasting about his incorrectly calculated IQ); and embarrased that he's the butt of innumerable jokes. Poor Dave.  (And what is it with engineer's named Dave who are fundamental idiots?  Dave from Texas over on IIDB; our own 2nd Lt. Dave; Dave Springer-Spaniel Scott at UD; etc.  Is it some kind of unwritten law that in order to be a fool you have to be an engineer named Dave?  Perhaps we should start a 'Dave' list - like the 'Steve' list - of non-stupid Daves!

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 21 2006,13:01    Quote (Tiax @ June 21 2006,17:18) I have a better SAT score than Dave.  I'm pretty sure this gives me a carte blanche to make wild statements in any field regardless of my total lack of expertise. Well, that depends, what magazines do you subscribe to? -------------- "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

Tiax Posts: 62 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 21 2006,13:10    Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 21 2006,18:01) Quote (Tiax @ June 21 2006,17:18) I have a better SAT score than Dave.  I'm pretty sure this gives me a carte blanche to make wild statements in any field regardless of my total lack of expertise. Well, that depends, what magazines do you subscribe to? Now that you mention it, I -do- subscribe to Scientific American.  I must be the smartest man alive!!

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 21 2006,13:21    Quote (Tiax @ June 21 2006,18:10) Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 21 2006,18:01)   Quote (Tiax @ June 21 2006,17:18) I have a better SAT score than Dave.  I'm pretty sure this gives me a carte blanche to make wild statements in any field regardless of my total lack of expertise. Well, that depends, what magazines do you subscribe to? Now that you mention it, I -do- subscribe to Scientific American.  I must be the smartest man alive!! Yes, ALIVE. It was established two days ago that smartest EVER goes to Leonardo DaVinci. But think of what he could have done with a subscription to Scientific American! So that makes you second smartest ever. Still not bad! Create a big mechanical dragon to scare your party guests shitless and we'll review your case again.   -------------- "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

Bing Posts: 144 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 21 2006,14:21    Quote (Rilke's Granddaughter @ June 21 2006,17:53) Perhaps we should start a 'Dave' list - like the 'Steve' list - of non-stupid Daves! Already done!

Drew Headley Posts: 152 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 21 2006,15:16    DaveScot:   Quote Overall I’d say gravity is the strongest force in the universe. Neither the electromagnetic nor the strong or weak nuclear forces have any effect at great distance but gravity’s effect stretches all the way across the observable universe. The hotel I am staying at on the way to grad school has wifi, so I decided to see what DaveScot has been up to. Well look what I find. Apparently, DaveScot has never seen the stars since the electromagnetic force has no effect at a great distance (would light-years be enough?). What makes the quote even better is that he uses the term  "observable universe" while saying the force that mediates that observation does not actually have an effect at such distances. But hey, what do I know. I do not have an IQ of 150. Edit: Oh man, DaveScot you are great. Quote I had all the formal training in electromagnetic theory the military has to offer which is substantial plus a number of college classes after the military but I didn’t learn anything in the college classes that I hadn’t already learned on my own.

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 21 2006,15:41    Quote Re "with a certified IQ north of 150 (MGCT and SAT tests)" I have a certified IQ of 165. Worship me, Dave. (oh, and send money - even better) -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

Drew Headley Posts: 152 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 21 2006,15:44    I feel left out. My parents will not tell me what my IQ is.

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 21 2006,15:52    Quote The 'Tard may be intelligent.  I've written this before, but I think it should be noted that he may not only be a severe ignoramus, but he may as well be quite stupid.  Perhaps he is a savant, with some flashes of intelligence, but with a near-total incapacity to understand things that normal people grasp with ease. well, that would explain Carol Clouser as well. ... and Dave Heddle. maybe a few others... -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 21 2006,15:57    Quote my parents will not tell me what my iq is Who cares? Just make something up. That's what Davetard probably did.

Drew Headley Posts: 152 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 21 2006,16:00    Quote (stevestory @ June 21 2006,20:57) Quote my parents will not tell me what my iq is Who cares? Just make something up. That's what Davetard probably did. Good idea. My IQ is 53. If I am wrong about the electromagnetic force, don't blame me cause I am retarded. But, if I am right then a retard just disproved DaveScot.

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 21 2006,16:02    on converting SAT scores to IQ... I found this: http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/002360.html -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

Pages: (1000) < ... 130 131 132 133 134 [135] 136 137 138 139 140 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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