RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (527) < ... 88 89 90 91 92 [93] 94 95 96 97 98 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 5, Return To Teh Dingbat Buffet< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Ptaylor



Posts: 1180
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2015,23:36   

Hooray - Gil's back! He has posted an OP commenting on recent news with 'Do You Believe In Evolution?'. And he's straight back to his old form using Dodgenator3000 argument A1!
UD linky via donotlink

--------------
We no longer say: “Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.” We now say: “Another day since the time Darwinism was disproved.”
-PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

  
Soapy Sam



Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2015,09:05   

Quote (Ptaylor @ Feb. 26 2015,05:36)
Hooray - Gil's back! He has posted an OP commenting on recent news with 'Do You Believe In Evolution?'. And he's straight back to his old form using Dodgenator3000 argument A1!
UD linky via donotlink

Heh heh. "Most people think this page is nonsense", quoth the donotlink bull.

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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2015,09:11   

One thing I've always wondered is why people think that all of those aspects of evolution are mutually exclusive. I think it's the 3rd comment (I don't care enough to look again).

I mean, why can't PE and convergent evolution both be valid? The answer is: They are both valid.

They are so weird.

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

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

   
Soapy Sam



Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2015,10:02   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 26 2015,15:11)
One thing I've always wondered is why people think that all of those aspects of evolution are mutually exclusive. I think it's the 3rd comment (I don't care enough to look again).

I mean, why can't PE and convergent evolution both be valid? The answer is: They are both valid.

They are so weird.

Ah, it's 'ex-atheist' (34 years before the mast!) Andre. He can work himself into quite a lather, Andre can. I'd love to see some of his pre-conversion pro-evolution commentary.

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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2015,10:16   

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Feb. 26 2015,10:02)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 26 2015,15:11)
One thing I've always wondered is why people think that all of those aspects of evolution are mutually exclusive. I think it's the 3rd comment (I don't care enough to look again).

I mean, why can't PE and convergent evolution both be valid? The answer is: They are both valid.

They are so weird.

Ah, it's 'ex-atheist' (34 years before the mast!) Andre. He can work himself into quite a lather, Andre can. I'd love to see some of his pre-conversion pro-evolution commentary.

I've asked from time to time to see outspoken Darwinist Jonathan Wells' pro-evolution essays. I haven't seen any yet.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
CeilingCat



Posts: 2363
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2015,10:31   

In post 14, Humbled can't wait for Science's Judgement Day:  
Quote
Under Christian rule science flourished. All you darwin faithful did was corrupt and destroy ushering in a new scientific dark age. You science terrorists have a lot to answer for. Can’t wait for the future tribunal one day, would love to see the many skeletons leaping out of that closet haha.

The tumbrels will roll!

I wonder if he's affiliated with ISIS?  Probably not - wrong religion.

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2015,11:04   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 26 2015,08:31)
In post 14, Humbled can't wait for Science's Judgement Day:    
Quote
Under Christian rule science flourished. All you darwin faithful did was corrupt and destroy ushering in a new scientific dark age. You science terrorists have a lot to answer for. Can’t wait for the future tribunal one day, would love to see the many skeletons leaping out of that closet haha.

The tumbrels will roll!

I wonder if he's affiliated with ISIS?  Probably not - wrong religion.

Same ideology.  Different hat.

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

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2015,11:12   

Quote
Ah, it's 'ex-atheist' (34 years before the mast!) Andre.


Andre outed himself as a psychopath with not moral compass and no inner desire to be anything but a raging mass murderer.

God help us if He fails to keep Andre on a short leash.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2015,11:21   

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Feb. 26 2015,16:02)
Ah, it's 'ex-atheist' (34 years before the mast!) Andre. He can work himself into quite a lather, Andre can. I'd love to see some of his pre-conversion pro-evolution commentary.

They can be found in the same dusty chest that contains 'ex-militant atheist' Gil Dodgen's leaflets, placards and megaphone.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2015,11:47   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 26 2015,11:31)
In post 14, Humbled can't wait for Science's Judgement Day:    
Quote
Under Christian rule science flourished. All you darwin faithful did was corrupt and destroy ushering in a new scientific dark age. You science terrorists have a lot to answer for. Can’t wait for the future tribunal one day, would love to see the many skeletons leaping out of that closet haha.

The tumbrels will roll!

I wonder if he's affiliated with ISIS?  Probably not - wrong religion.

Quote
40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)


Crackpot Index

   
KevinB



Posts: 525
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2015,12:02   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 26 2015,10:31)
The tumbrels will roll!

Is this something to do with the post about head transplants over at Pharyngula?

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2015,12:52   

Quote (KevinB @ Feb. 26 2015,12:02)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 26 2015,10:31)
The tumbrels will roll!

Is this something to do with the post about head transplants over at Pharyngula?

I saw that movie. The X-Files.

Perfect for the conspiracy people on UD. Excellent linking.

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

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

   
Seversky



Posts: 442
Joined: June 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2015,19:21   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 26 2015,10:31)
In post 14, Humbled can't wait for Science's Judgement Day:    
Quote
Under Christian rule science flourished. All you darwin faithful did was corrupt and destroy ushering in a new scientific dark age. You science terrorists have a lot to answer for. Can’t wait for the future tribunal one day, would love to see the many skeletons leaping out of that closet haha.

The tumbrels will roll!

I wonder if he's affiliated with ISIS?  Probably not - wrong religion.

He's got a point.  What has science done since it split from Christianity?  Or, to paraphrase Reg from Life of Brian,  "What has science ever done for us?!"

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2015,02:36   

Wow. Just, um, wow.
Quote
There are several flaws in Professor Coyne’s arguments, which I shall discuss shortly. But Coyne really gives the game away when he remarks in passing that “the laws of nature may vary among different universes if we have a multiverse.” For the multiverse is precisely what makes scientific inferences about the past, based on uniform laws, irrational. The reason is a very simple one: the number of possible universes in which the laws of Nature and the values of physical parameters vary over the course of time will infinitely exceed the number of possible universes in which the laws and physical parameters of Nature never vary, even in the slightest degree. And even if we restrict ourselves to the subset of possible universes in which life could exist, or to the still smaller subset of universes in which life actually appears and in which organisms are able to survive over long periods, we would still find that the number of these universes in which laws and physical parameters vary (either slightly, briefly or locally) infinitely exceeds the number of universes in which the laws and physical parameters never vary. Since (by the mediocrity principle) there is no reason to regard our own universe as exceptional, it is rational to conclude that the laws and physical parameters of Nature have varied in the past, in our universe. Since miracles only require variations which are infrequent, local and brief, it follows that there can be no scientific objection to the possibility of miracles, if we define these as events arising from singular variations in the laws and physical parameters of Nature.

Next up from vjtorley, rice pudding and income tax.

--------------
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)

   
KevinB



Posts: 525
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2015,05:38   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 27 2015,02:36)
Next up from vjtorley, rice pudding and income tax.

But would Deep Thought have been able to deduce the existence of vjtorley?

  
Soapy Sam



Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2015,06:42   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 27 2015,08:36)
Next up from vjtorley, rice pudding and income tax.

Ah yes. There is nothing in life more certain. Well, there was something else, but it escapes me.

--------------
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: Feb. 27 2015,17:07   

You know, there might be something to this flying saint business after all.  According to Top 10 Astonishing Miracles, St Joseph of Cupertino was "the patron saint of air travelers, aviators, people with a mental handicap, and weak students."

He was also supposed to have been "remarkably unclever".

Coincidence?  I think not.  He clearly foresaw Uncommon Descent back in the 1600's.  I'm sure he would have been a regular commenter.  He probably would have had posting privileges.

Oh yes, he was also reputed to have anger problems.  I think he would have posted as "Joe C".

Edited by CeilingCat on Feb. 27 2015,17:08

  
paragwinn



Posts: 539
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2015,21:24   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 27 2015,15:07)
You know, there might be something to this flying saint business after all.  According to Top 10 Astonishing Miracles, St Joseph of Cupertino was "the patron saint of air travelers, aviators, people with a mental handicap, and weak students."

He was also supposed to have been "remarkably unclever".

Coincidence?  I think not.  He clearly foresaw Uncommon Descent back in the 1600's.  I'm sure he would have been a regular commenter.  He probably would have had posting privileges.

Oh yes, he was also reputed to have anger problems.  I think he would have posted as "Joe C".

Joe C: "You wanna tell me that to my face? Just tell me where you live and I'll fly right over there for the privilege. I dont just mean fly as in 'coach class 747' but the 'boy, my arms are tired' kinda flyin'. But I'll need some open space for landing, like a parking lot, open field or remote roadway. Just you wait, you evo-coward."

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2015,09:00   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 27 2015,10:36)
Wow. Just, um, wow.
 
Quote
There are several flaws in Professor Coyne’s arguments, which I shall discuss shortly. But Coyne really gives the game away when he remarks in passing that “the laws of nature may vary among different universes if we have a multiverse.” For the multiverse is precisely what makes scientific inferences about the past, based on uniform laws, irrational. The reason is a very simple one: the number of possible universes in which the laws of Nature and the values of physical parameters vary over the course of time will infinitely exceed the number of possible universes in which the laws and physical parameters of Nature never vary, even in the slightest degree. And even if we restrict ourselves to the subset of possible universes in which life could exist, or to the still smaller subset of universes in which life actually appears and in which organisms are able to survive over long periods, we would still find that the number of these universes in which laws and physical parameters vary (either slightly, briefly or locally) infinitely exceeds the number of universes in which the laws and physical parameters never vary. Since (by the mediocrity principle) there is no reason to regard our own universe as exceptional, it is rational to conclude that the laws and physical parameters of Nature have varied in the past, in our universe. Since miracles only require variations which are infrequent, local and brief, it follows that there can be no scientific objection to the possibility of miracles, if we define these as events arising from singular variations in the laws and physical parameters of Nature.

Next up from vjtorley, rice pudding and income tax.

Yes but are rice puddings non variant across multiverses? And if so why does God keep it a secret?

Surely a loving inclusive god wood produce and distribute a short multimedia package that gave a rice pudding rating for each universe?

Sort of a Michelin guide to rice pudding consumers across the universal divide.

Let's say in universe yellow, rice is magnetic. Would that be OK in universe blue where teeth are electric?

VJ Should consider the rice puddingness of multiverses vis-a-vis the godliness of blue and yellow with some testable demonstrable protocol for the new science of puddings.....oops sorry miracles.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Seversky



Posts: 442
Joined: June 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2015,11:19   

Quote
Why atheists can’t show that Ken Ham is wrong?


Burden of proof, vjt.  If Ken Ham wants to persuade us that his views have any merit, he has to provide the arguments and evidence.  If atheists want to present a counter-claim then they also have to back it up, if they are concerned with persuading an audience that they are right.

As for atheists not being able to prove Ken Ham is wrong, just come here and try out those arguments

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2015,01:00   

Who could have any problem showing that Kent Hovind is lying his ass off?

Mike Shermer failed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....mFVcfys

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2015,01:27   

I was at that "debate" at UCI. I was sitting on the stairs and every time Hovind lied, I said to a neighbor, "He just lied." I said this quite often because Hovind lied with every breath.

I was threatened by Hovind's bully boys at the intermission. But at the time I was faculty at UCI, and I told the fucking pig-boy goons that I would scream bloody murder, and then have the University Police (who are California State Marshals) come and arrest their fucking asses for assault.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2015,01:42   

At 33:50 there is an audience scan with T.O. stalwart Troy Britain and myself.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?f....#t=2030

Edited by Dr.GH on Feb. 28 2015,23:51

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2015,08:58   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 01 2015,01:00)
Who could have any problem showing that Kent Hovind is lying his ass off?

Mike Shermer failed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....mFVcfys

My understanding is that Creation Museum traffic fell off after the Shermer debate.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2015,15:04   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 01 2015,06:58)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 01 2015,01:00)
Who could have any problem showing that Kent Hovind is lying his ass off?

Mike Shermer failed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....mFVcfys

My understanding is that Creation Museum traffic fell off after the Shermer debate.

That was Kent Hovind and Mike Shermer at UC Irvine in 2002.

I think you are mentioning the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham last year.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
CeilingCat



Posts: 2363
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2015,16:03   

I'm sure I'm not the only person who has suspected that Rob Sheldon is full of shit, but he has just removed the last possible doubt:    
Quote
b) While it is true that “open” systems may allow energy and matter to flow through them, which would change the information in the system, this does not nor cannot explain biology. The best treatment of this is Granville Sewell’s articles on different types of entropy. Truly excellent. It explains why sunlight does not carry enough information to create life of precursor molecules. And people who claim this are either: (i) deluded that physics entropy = biology entropy, or (ii) equivocating on the use of the word “entropy”, or (iii) unable to handle basic math, or most likely, (iv) all the above.
The Proof

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2015,16:13   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Mar. 03 2015,17:03)
I'm sure I'm not the only person who has suspected that Rob Sheldon is full of shit, but he has just removed the last possible doubt:    
Quote
b) While it is true that “open” systems may allow energy and matter to flow through them, which would change the information in the system, this does not nor cannot explain biology. The best treatment of this is Granville Sewell’s articles on different types of entropy. Truly excellent. It explains why sunlight does not carry enough information to create life of precursor molecules. And people who claim this are either: (i) deluded that physics entropy = biology entropy, or (ii) equivocating on the use of the word “entropy”, or (iii) unable to handle basic math, or most likely, (iv) all the above.
The Proof

Quote
(i) deluded that physics entropy = biology entropy,


fuck does that mean?

   
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2015,16:39   

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 03 2015,14:13)
Quote
(i) deluded that physics entropy = biology entropy,


fuck does that mean?

It means the second law of thermodynamics doesn't work the way they want, so they invented a new one.

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

  
Soapy Sam



Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2015,18:35   

Sheldon:    
Quote
It explains why sunlight does not carry enough information to create life of precursor molecules. And people who claim this are either: (i) deluded that physics entropy = biology entropy, or (ii) equivocating on the use of the word “entropy”, or (iii) unable to handle basic math, or most likely, (iv) all the above.

or

(v) virtually nonexistent, among the chemically literate. Does sunlight cause electrons to move down gradients of serial electronegativity? No. It fucking doesn't. Do proton gradients need sunlight? No again.

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

  
Soapy Sam



Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2015,05:55   

WJM
 
Quote
Holy moley, BA77!! You’re like Mr. Universe in the movie “Serenity”. You have access to ALL the information! Those are some great links.

He is not being sarcastic.

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

  
  15792 replies since Dec. 29 2013,11:01 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (527) < ... 88 89 90 91 92 [93] 94 95 96 97 98 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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