RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (356) < ... 143 144 145 146 147 [148] 149 150 151 152 153 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 4, Fostering a Greater Understanding of IDC< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2012,02:13   

I think it's important to distinguish between TARD and outright lunacy.  Yes, the boundary is somewhat smeared, but Joe G.= TARD while Mariano=lunacy might be a good place to start.

--------------
"[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

  
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2012,21:50   

Quote
In my work experience, societal relevance envy is rampant among natural scientists. Do the rank-and-file biologists actually innovate or just do the menial work of their superiors? This is partly why engineers, biologists, physicists and mathematicians turn to philosophy and social-political theory in their later years (even starting in their 40s) rather than economists, anthropologists, cultural theorists and sociologists turning to naturalistic fields.

Comedy gold.

That's like saying the only reason scientists don't become professional athletes later in life is because they don't see the "societal relevance" of it.

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2012,10:28   

Quote
vh

Of course Jerry Coyne is not a clear thinker: Evolutionists have always claimed that the difference between species can be found in the genes. The reason, for example, that humans are not chimps is because our respective genes mutated away from our supposed common ancestor. So, theoretically, science should be able to turn a human into a chimp simply by replacing the genes responsible for our separation. If evolution works forwards, then it should work backwards too.

This is marvellous. I love that he starts with "Jerry Coyne is not a clear thinker". Vh definitely is!

I've just done this experiment for him. This is what a human with a chimpanzee genome looks like:



No need to thank me.



Edited by Lou FCD on May 27 2012,19:15

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2012,11:32   

Quote (JLT @ May 27 2012,10:28)
Quote
vh

Of course Jerry Coyne is not a clear thinker: Evolutionists have always claimed that the difference between species can be found in the genes. The reason, for example, that humans are not chimps is because our respective genes mutated away from our supposed common ancestor. So, theoretically, science should be able to turn a human into a chimp simply by replacing the genes responsible for our separation. If evolution works forwards, then it should work backwards too.

This is marvellous. I love that he starts with "Jerry Coyne is not a clear thinker". Vh definitely is!

I've just done this experiment for him. This is what a human with a chimpanzee genome looks like:



No need to thank me.

POTW!  Complete with LOL pic of vh!

--------------
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: May 27 2012,21:42   

Okay, so Thomas Cudworth gets all uppity here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-part-i

About this thing he calls "the weselyan maneuver".

Quote
...1. A commenter asks, in a non-belligerent tone, what a particular BioLogos author believes about God’s control over the evolutionary process.

2. The BioLogos author attempts to deflect the question in one of a number of ways (answering an entirely different question; accusing the questioner of making theologically heretical or “Enlightenment” assumptions in the very form of the question; or asking the questioner a question about what the question means).

3. The commenter tries to get the discussion back on track by responding in an appropriate way to whatever deflection is offered, so that the original question can be answered.

4. The BioLogos author continues to deflect the (original or reformulated) question.

5. The commenter, perhaps starting to show slight impatience but remaining polite, reformulates and explains the question in as many ways as necessary, determined not to leave without an answer.

6. The BioLogos author, if he does not exit the thread altogether (and thus leave the question unanswered) finally gives some sort of answer, but an inadequate one, partly sketchy and partly off-topic, and conveying a strong impression that he does not want to fully commit himself.


...


If only faith had the luxury of ID:

Quote
As for your example, I’m not going to take the bait. You’re asking me to play a game: “Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories.
- Billy D.

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2012,22:09   

Let me fix that for Billy D:

Theistic evolution is not a mechanistic theory. It is not its task to match the detail required for an actual mechanistic theory such as the ToE, since T.E. is compatible both with the science and with theology.

Henry

  
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2012,01:46   

CannuckianYankee:
Quote
Denyse,

Next time you’re in SoCal, let me know ahead of time, please. Would be great to have a meet and greet. I’m about 1 hour away from Biola. I think Gil D. is close by also (Riverside CO?), and BA77 is probably within that area too. Plus, there’s some great restaurants in the OC/LA County area. My treat if we can get it going.

The horror...

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
keiths



Posts: 2195
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2012,02:38   

Quote (JLT @ May 27 2012,23:46)
CannuckianYankee:
Quote
Denyse,

Next time you’re in SoCal, let me know ahead of time, please. Would be great to have a meet and greet. I’m about 1 hour away from Biola. I think Gil D. is close by also (Riverside CO?), and BA77 is probably within that area too. Plus, there’s some great restaurants in the OC/LA County area. My treat if we can get it going.

The horror...

Nightmares tonight for sure.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
DiEb



Posts: 312
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2012,03:37   

At Evolutionary Informatics Lab- a look inside …:
Quote
DiEb
May 28, 2012 at 2:10 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
I just wrote an email to the lab:  
Quote
Sir,

until at least May 19, 2012 there was a sub-page "errata" ("This area is for all corrections and post-publication additions to our published work") to which the home-page linked. And this page was there for years -  (see e.g., http://web.archive.org/web............ttp )

On May 24, 2012 I was informed by Winston Ewert of an erratum at W. Dembski's and R. Marks's paper "A Search for a Search". The paper itself has been appended, but suddenly, the sub-page "errata" is missing - and the link from the home-page is gone, too.

Even if this was just a coincidence, it doesn't create the impression that the Evolutionary Informatics Lab's handling of its mistakes is honest - or at least straightforward. Please correct this impression.

Thanks,
Di... Eb...

   
Nils Ruhr



Posts: 42
Joined: Nov. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2012,06:43   

Quote (DiEb @ May 28 2012,03:37)
At Evolutionary Informatics Lab- a look inside …:    
Quote
DiEb
May 28, 2012 at 2:10 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
I just wrote an email to the lab:    
Quote
Sir,

until at least May 19, 2012 there was a sub-page "errata" ("This area is for all corrections and post-publication additions to our published work") to which the home-page linked. And this page was there for years -  (see e.g., http://web.archive.org/web............ttp )

On May 24, 2012 I was informed by Winston Ewert of an erratum at W. Dembski's and R. Marks's paper "A Search for a Search". The paper itself has been appended, but suddenly, the sub-page "errata" is missing - and the link from the home-page is gone, too.

Even if this was just a coincidence, it doesn't create the impression that the Evolutionary Informatics Lab's handling of its mistakes is honest - or at least straightforward. Please correct this impression.

Thanks,
Di... Eb...

What exactly is your problem? The erratum is in their paper!

  
fusilier



Posts: 252
Joined: Feb. 2003

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2012,07:43   

Quote (Nils Ruhr @ May 28 2012,07:43)
Quote (DiEb @ May 28 2012,03:37)
At Evolutionary Informatics Lab- a look inside …:      
Quote
DiEb
May 28, 2012 at 2:10 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
I just wrote an email to the lab:      
Quote
Sir,

until at least May 19, 2012 there was a sub-page "errata" ("This area is for all corrections and post-publication additions to our published work") to which the home-page linked. And this page was there for years -  (see e.g., http://web.archive.org/web............ttp )

On May 24, 2012 I was informed by Winston Ewert of an erratum at W. Dembski's and R. Marks's paper "A Search for a Search". The paper itself has been appended, but suddenly, the sub-page "errata" is missing - and the link from the home-page is gone, too.

Even if this was just a coincidence, it doesn't create the impression that the Evolutionary Informatics Lab's handling of its mistakes is honest - or at least straightforward. Please correct this impression.

Thanks,
Di... Eb...

What exactly is your problem? The erratum is in their paper!

FTFY

--------------
fusilier
James 2:24

  
DiEb



Posts: 312
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2012,08:43   

Quote (Nils Ruhr @ May 28 2012,12:43)
[...]
What exactly is your problem? The erratum is in their paper!

What's my problem? The very moment, my humble efforts have (somewhat) succeeded in driving one of my points home, they abandon the section on their home-page where they would have to announce them. It's understandable that they don't want to stress their mistakes: if you look at the list of their main publications, errata have been added to four out of eight articles. IMO a sign that the other four articles haven't been scrutinized closely enough....

   
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2012,08:58   

Quote (keiths @ May 28 2012,00:38)
Quote (JLT @ May 27 2012,23:46)
CannuckianYankee:
Quote
Denyse,

Next time you’re in SoCal, let me know ahead of time, please. Would be great to have a meet and greet. I’m about 1 hour away from Biola. I think Gil D. is close by also (Riverside CO?), and BA77 is probably within that area too. Plus, there’s some great restaurants in the OC/LA County area. My treat if we can get it going.

The horror...

Nightmares tonight for sure.

What's TARD's critical mass?

--------------
"[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

  
sledgehammer



Posts: 533
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2012,12:58   

Quote (DiEb @ May 28 2012,06:43)
       
Quote (Nils Ruhr @ May 28 2012,12:43)
[...]
What exactly is your problem? The erratum is in their paper!

What's my problem? The very moment, my humble efforts have (somewhat) succeeded in driving one of my points home, they abandon the section on their home-page where they would have to announce them. It's understandable that they don't want to stress their mistakes: if you look at the list of their main publications, errata have been added to four out of eight articles. IMO a sign that the other four articles haven't been scrutinized closely enough....

Nice work Dieb. You did a very thorough analysis of "Search  for a Search", and pointing out where NoFreeLunch is completely misapplied to evolutionary "search".
I'll have to give Ewert credit for reading your review, and acknowledging the error.  He even thanked you for pointing it out.  His boss(es), on the other hand, don't appear to be so ethically inclined.
I think Nils meant to be sarcastic.

--------------
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

  
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2012,15:14   

It's so sad. Thomas Cudworth puts up a (at least) three part jeremiad about how Venema of BioLogos evades the question of someone named Crude, who wants to know how exactly in Venema's view God guided evolution.
From what I've read from BioLogos, their view is something along these lines: Everything is sustained by God, so there isn't really anything "natural". He could've made the whole universe in a way that the evolution of humans was somehow inevitable. But there isn't any way to determine God's influence scientifically.
Not surprisingly, that doesn't satisfy IDer. That is, of course, because they want to believe that a god was personally involved in their making and had to interfer continuously to bring about something as marvellous as them. They can't accept anything less.

So, now Gregory wants to know
   
Quote
how an IDer would answer Crude’s question, i.e. how does ID speak to the ‘how’ of guided evolution?

He clarifies
   
Quote
ID posits ‘design’ as a ‘teleological’ term, but it says next to nothing about the supposed process of ‘designing’ the biosphere, iow, it also leaves the guiding/designing/intervening process silent from a natural scientific viewpoint. So, though I am not defending Venema’s vacuousness in philosophy of science, I still don’t see what Meyer, Behe or Dembski have offered or currently could offer that BioLogos did not.


Behold nullasalus:
   
Quote
Easy answer: ID can’t respond to the question posed, because the relationship between Biologos and ID is disjunct. And this is by design. (Cue canned laughter.)

BL is an explicitly Christian organization which claims a Christian mission.

ID is a concept and set of (in the view of its advocates) scientific claims which, in and of itself, is detached from religion.

Thus, someone can ask Venema what role, if any, God plays in evolution or if God guides evolution in any way, and when Venema squirms and refuses to answer, it’s trouble. (Saying, ‘Well he probably believes God guides it all but he can’t say that because he doesn’t have tenure perhaps’ is not guaranteed, since there’s another option: Venema doesn’t believe God has anything to do with evolution.) Venema’s part of an organization supposedly dedicated to showing that there’s no conflict between God/God’s acts and evolution. If Venema deals with any apparent conflict by eradicating God from the evolutionary picture, Ruse style, that doesn’t reflect well on BL.

In contrast, ID isn’t committed to the idea that the designer of anything for which design is inferred is the Christian God. Now, one can conceivably believe that if the Christian God exists, then we should expect ID to find something – just as someone may believe that if the Christian God exists, science should point to the universe having a beginning. The existence of such a hypothetical person doesn’t make Big Bang theory, considered as a scientific hypothesis, say anything about God – nor would it make ID, considered the same way, say anything about God.

Isn't it cute how they are obsessed with BioLogos obviously theological position on evolution, just to immediately claim that they aren't interested AT ALL in these questions because ID is not (I repeat, IS NOT) a theological position? While simultaneously evading the actually asked question.

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2012,19:18   

Quote
Isn't it cute how they are obsessed with BioLogos obviously theological position on evolution, just to immediately claim that they aren't interested AT ALL in these questions because ID is not (I repeat, IS NOT) a theological position? While simultaneously evading the actually asked question.


That's because ID is a lie, wrapped in obfuscation, hidden behind the looking glass, and all For The Greater Glory Of God.   And it takes a certain type of person to be attracted to, fall for and preach that twisted kind of bullshit.

No one really expects the Spanish inquisition - but damn I'll bet Dembski's single-malt bottle of scotch that every IDCist  worth his salt would love to be in at the start of a Brand New Holy Inquisition, and would never, ever be caught without their pack of matches -and be ready to use them at the slighest provocation!

So anytime you can shine a light on the cockroaches at BioLogos, or DI, or UD, and put off the start of their longed-for Last Crusade, I say congratulations to you.

edited SP

Edited by J-Dog on May 28 2012,19:19

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

  
Amadan



Posts: 1337
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2012,05:25   

Quote (fnxtr @ May 28 2012,14:58)
Quote (keiths @ May 28 2012,00:38)
Quote (JLT @ May 27 2012,23:46)
CannuckianYankee:  
Quote
Denyse,

Next time you’re in SoCal, let me know ahead of time, please. Would be great to have a meet and greet. I’m about 1 hour away from Biola. I think Gil D. is close by also (Riverside CO?), and BA77 is probably within that area too. Plus, there’s some great restaurants in the OC/LA County area. My treat if we can get it going.

The horror...

Nightmares tonight for sure.

What's TARD's critical mass?

Don't be ridiculous. They don't allow anyone to be critical.

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
Kattarina98



Posts: 1267
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2012,06:09   

Neil Rickert over at TSZ made me watch Denyse O'Leary: Catholics & Evolution - after the first minutes I had to give up; she is just too incoherent. The video has a bit more than 400 views, a couple of nasty comments and mostly "dislikes". Looks like not even her readers went to the trouble to watch it.

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

  
Amadan



Posts: 1337
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2012,07:19   

That won't stop them citing it as an authoritative source!

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2012,08:17   

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 27 2012,21:42)
Okay, so Thomas Cudworth gets all uppity here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-part-i

About this thing he calls "the weselyan maneuver".

Quote
...1. A commenter asks, in a non-belligerent tone, what a particular BioLogos author believes about God’s control over the evolutionary process.

2. The BioLogos author attempts to deflect the question in one of a number of ways (answering an entirely different question; accusing the questioner of making theologically heretical or “Enlightenment” assumptions in the very form of the question; or asking the questioner a question about what the question means).

3. The commenter tries to get the discussion back on track by responding in an appropriate way to whatever deflection is offered, so that the original question can be answered.

4. The BioLogos author continues to deflect the (original or reformulated) question.

5. The commenter, perhaps starting to show slight impatience but remaining polite, reformulates and explains the question in as many ways as necessary, determined not to leave without an answer.

6. The BioLogos author, if he does not exit the thread altogether (and thus leave the question unanswered) finally gives some sort of answer, but an inadequate one, partly sketchy and partly off-topic, and conveying a strong impression that he does not want to fully commit himself.


...


If only faith had the luxury of ID:

Quote
As for your example, I’m not going to take the bait. You’re asking me to play a game: “Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories.
- Billy D.

Sorry I missed this one:

From talkorigins...
Quote
Q. Again so does intelligent design question all parts of Darwin's theory of evolution?

A. No. It focuses exclusively on the question of the mechanism of evolution, and I tried to make that clear as this picture shows. This is an issue of something called the reports of the National Center for Science Education, which is a group which strongly advocates for the teaching of Darwinian evolution in school, and I wrote a letter to the editor of The Reports, which was published in an issue approximately four years ago.

And here's an excerpt from that letter where I explain, "The core claim of intelligent design theory is quite limited. It says nothing directly about how biological design was produced, who the designer was, whether there has been common descent, or other such questions. Those can be addressed separately." It says, "Only that design can be empirically detected in observable features of physical systems."

And I go on to say, "As an important corollary it also predicts that mindless processes such as natural selection or the self-organization scenarios favored by Shanks and Joplin will not be demonstrated to be able to produce irreducible systems of the complexity found in cells." So I tried to clearly explain that the only focus of intelligent design is on the mechanism of evolution, or the question of whether or not aspects of life show the marks of intelligent design.


My emphasis.  So, billy, you disagree with Behe?  please explain further...

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2012,10:22   

Quote (Kattarina98 @ May 29 2012,06:09)
Neil Rickert over at TSZ made me watch Denyse O'Leary: Catholics & Evolution - after the first minutes I had to give up; she is just too incoherent. The video has a bit more than 400 views, a couple of nasty comments and mostly "dislikes". Looks like not even her readers went to the trouble to watch it.

She's even less engaging and coherent as a speaker. I'll be kinder to her writing in the future.

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

  
Febble



Posts: 310
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2012,11:53   

I made a transcript here:

http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....t-14178

I'm not sure why.  I guess I was fascinated.  I think it has its own internal logic actually.  It just isn't premised on anything that is actually true.

  
Patrick



Posts: 666
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2012,14:30   

Quote (Febble @ May 29 2012,12:53)
I made a transcript here:

http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....t....t-14178

I'm not sure why.  I guess I was fascinated.  I think it has its own internal logic actually.  It just isn't premised on anything that is actually true.

I'm impressed that you were able to create that -- I couldn't even read the whole thing.  Before I started skimming, though, this jumped out at me:
Quote
Finally I said I want to go somewhere where people know what they believe from one decade to the next.

That pretty much summarizes the IDCist opposition to science.

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2012,14:41   

Quote
Finally I said I want to go somewhere where people know what they believe from one decade to the next.

Phew, it's lucky you didn't pick Catholicism, eh, Denyse?

Oh, wait a sec.....

???

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2012,14:55   

Nice of her to choose "always wrong" over "provisionally right"

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

  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1267
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2012,15:51   

Eric Anderson, a very friendly ID proponent, has no problems accepting the existence of junk DNA.    
Quote
Have you ever seen a car with a broken headlight? It is a statement of obvious fact that things which are designed over time break down, rust, decay, lose functionality. It is known that DNA has several mechanisms to help deal with this relentless march of entropy, but it is certainly possible that DNA is partly non-functional.

The effects of Teh FallGranwell Sewell.
It's kind of sad, he seems to be open to reason.

I bolded the junk yard.

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

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2012,15:58   

If I remember correctly Mr. Anderson believes that some crop-circles are too complex to have been.....well, you can fill in the rest yourselves.

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2012,16:04   

Quote (Febble @ May 29 2012,09:53)
I made a transcript here:

http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....t....t-14178

I'm not sure why.  I guess I was fascinated.  I think it has its own internal logic actually.  It just isn't premised on anything that is actually true.

I made it as far as this paragraph:
Quote
The problem with Darwinism is that it is a cultural mood.  It’s not really a theory in science, if you look at the actual science literature, what’s available to show Darwinism is negligible, piddling, the major claims are not met. Increasingly the publicity for the science papers that drift through my mailbox are more and more nonsensical, ever more frantic efforts to explain how human compassion, for example, is really a selfish thing. No really!  Because evolution really always means Darwinism.  In American terms.  The writer of the paper, the article advertising the paper, need to explain it in Darwinian terms. As Giberson did, one of the theologians mentioned here. It’s really that you were selected for selfishness. Now then how on earth you ever knew about compassion, I don’t know. I was genetically selected for blue eyes. I know there are brown eyes because I’ve observed them, but I can’t do it. That’s real genetic selection. Not the nonsense that Giberson and the others were talking about.

... and had to stop before I poked my own eyes out.

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

  
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2012,16:09   

DeNews quotes Sanford, and decides that is enough. My response here:
http://dvunkannon.blogspot.com/2012.......te.html

--------------
I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
I’m not an evolutionist, I’m a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2012,16:15   

Quote (fnxtr @ May 28 2012,07:58)
Quote (keiths @ May 28 2012,00:38)
Quote (JLT @ May 27 2012,23:46)
CannuckianYankee:  
Quote
Denyse,

Next time you’re in SoCal, let me know ahead of time, please. Would be great to have a meet and greet. I’m about 1 hour away from Biola. I think Gil D. is close by also (Riverside CO?), and BA77 is probably within that area too. Plus, there’s some great restaurants in the OC/LA County area. My treat if we can get it going.

The horror...

Nightmares tonight for sure.

What's TARD's critical mass?

An ounce of pretension?

  
  10669 replies since Aug. 31 2011,21:06 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (356) < ... 143 144 145 146 147 [148] 149 150 151 152 153 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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