RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < ... 433 434 435 436 437 [438] 439 440 441 442 443 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2007,15:30   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 09 2007,13:07)
This "Darwin did not know shit about math" thing over at UD at the moment really shows them up for the fools they are.

No math involved in understanding evolution? Projection again, I suppose, after all there's no math in understanding ID whatsoever. And there's more science in making cake then there is in ID :)

I have news for them, Dimski doesn't know shit about math either and he has an advanced degree in it.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2007,15:36   

For those who celebrate,



Thank God It's Wife of Wóden Day!!!

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

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2007,15:42   

Re "Thank God It's Wife of Wóden Day!!! "

Took me a few seconds to figure that one out.  :p

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2007,15:58   

Makes you wonder how the heck jesus got involved with those chickin-fuckin bunnies don't it?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2007,16:05   

I think Patrick is frothing at the mouth over at OW        
Quote
I thought I'd point out the following to those so enamored of Science. Unfortunately, people are involved so there is corruption. I won't name names but even some ID proponents exhibit dubious behavior.
Won't name names? Won't do the math? Is there no end to the things IDists won't do for the cause?
Then follows an artickle "debuking" peer review because of some fraud by some scientists. Or at least that's the spin I get off of it because it's on OW anyway :)
Quote
If we ever needed evidence that peer review is an empty ritual, this episode provides it.
Pesky Peer Review - If not for that we'd be smothered in ID papers!
Funny thing is if you search  for a random chunk of his article you find a totally different article (single hit) that apparently is        
Quote
From Beaumont CollegeAlumni News
Effective Treatments “Decades Away” Prof. McKeown Shocks Audience
By Max Thaler


Yet I see no credit or copyright to Max Thaler on the OW article Patrick takes great relish in putting in "quote marks" and happlily allows us to assume he wrote it.
Could it be coincidence? Searching for a random other sampler give the same hit, right near the top.
       
Quote
some ID proponents exhibit dubious behavior.

It appears so.

EDIT: ERm, it appears to be a Chinese SciFi Web site? Err...
 
Quote
“Because UCLA did nothing to change your cells, another company could take those same cells, make minor genetic modifications, and sell them as a new product.”

“But BioGen already has my cells.”

“True. But cell lines are fragile. Things happen to them.”


--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3326
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2007,16:18   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 09 2007,16:05)
Funny thing is if you search  for a random chunk of his article you find a totally different article (single hit) that apparently is          
Quote
From Beaumont CollegeAlumni News
Effective Treatments “Decades Away” Prof. McKeown Shocks Audience
By Max Thaler

It may be even better than that.  I wonder if the Beaumont College being referred to is this one that has been defunct for 40 years or perhaps this fine institution offering programs in aromatherapy and crystal therapy.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2007,16:22   



--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2007,16:53   

Quote
 
Quote
I want to make a plea to Design Theorists like Bill Dembski and others. PLEASE GET TO WORK.  

//checks calendar

He's right, they've gotta do some work. I mean, how long is it since the last ID book was published??  ;)


As of April 2, 2007, Dembski's got nine years left.

And less than a month to go for my first TICKLE ME EVO post. Maybe I can publicize this countdown more widely, too.

Demb ass. He said it, and it's on!  :)

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

  
phonon



Posts: 396
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2007,17:33   

Our most trusted weapon is the most advanced missile, isn't it?

The foundation is cracked by missile attacks!

Your out-of-date weapons cannot match ours.

ACLU, the radical liberal group

James Clerk Maxwell, the creationist
whaaa?

 
Quote
It was through those divine Maxwell’s Equations of electro dynamics that Einstein formulated his famous theory of relativity, and it was through Maxwell’s Equations that the modern world is what it is today.

Divine equations? I guess god sent them in a vision?
No god wrote them, Sal believes, because of the praise of Boltzmann. And they must have been written by god, because they are quite literally good for the soul.

I guess that's the problem with childish minds. They take everything so literally. From Genesis to Goethe, it's all literal.

And google provides some nice little tidbits like the Darwin Model for Maxwell's Equations, which is apparently an algorithm for numerically calculating complicated electric fields.
 
Quote
In many cases, the numerical resolution of Maxwell's equations is very expensive in terms of computational cost. The Darwin model, an approximation of Maxwell's equations obtained by neglecting the divergence free part of the displacement current, can be used to compute the solution more economically. However, this model requires the electric field to be decomposed into two parts for which no straightforward boundary conditions can be derived. In this paper, we consider the case of a computational domain which is not simply connected. With the help of a functional framework, a decomposition of the fields is derived. It is then used to characterize mathematically the solutions of the Darwin model on such a domain.


And this page talking about creationists' dishonesty (no!) about certain scientists that were Darwin's contemporaries.
http://www.charlespetzold.com/etc/MaxwellMoleculesAndEvolution.html
The page tries hard but it doesn't make its point very clearly.

Quote
No theory of evolution can be formed to account for the similarity of molecules, for evolution necessarily implies continuous change, and the molecule is incapable of growth or decay, of generation or destruction. - Maxwell

Wow, how wrong could he be? A molecule is incapable of decay, generation, or destruction? Wrong-o.

Maybe what he meant was atoms? And even then he's still wrong.

--------------
With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

To do just the opposite is also a form of imitation. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

  
2ndclass



Posts: 182
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2007,17:47   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 09 2007,16:05)
EDIT: ERm, it appears to be a Chinese SciFi Web site? Err...

I looks like a pirated copy of Michael Crichton's _Next_.  Amazon doesn't have a "Search Inside" for that book, so I can't verify it 100%, but that's what it looks like.

If so, we have Patrick plagiarizing a pirated work of fiction and passing it off as non-fiction, all in a post where he complains about corruption.

Am I seeing this correctly?

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

  
2ndclass



Posts: 182
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2007,18:00   

It looks like Patrick's post is indeed plagiarized from Michael Crichton.  Whether he copy-and-pasted it from an online pirated copy or typed it in himself, I don't know.  But it's a fictional news story, Patrick plagiarized it, and he presented it as nonfiction.  That's beyond bizarre.

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

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2007,18:15   

Dear Lord (Drink mightily in her name) the tard just keeps coming. I'm getting addicted. I'm hatching an evil plot of my own. Oh, there is power on the dark side. Feel your anger.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2007,18:16   

Wow. Unbelievable. And AFAIK Patrick runs OW at Dembski's express command :O

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
phonon



Posts: 396
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2007,18:26   

Just like every science paper is really an ID paper, every appeal to Providence is anti-Darwinism.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....t-97719
Quote
And speaking of anti-biotic resistance, the Nobel Laureates involved in research of penicilin and streptomyocin were anti-Darwinian and/or Design friendly.

Then Sal quotes Fleming:
Quote
It may be that while we think we are masters of the situation we are merely pawns being moved about on the board of life by some superior power.

Fleming
Nobel Laureate, discoverer of penicillin
Man, I'm glad Sal could see that Fleming was really getting in a jab at Darwin.

Sal is a master quote miner, eh? See UD troll, he's always been at work.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....t-97727
Quote
Sal,

My ancestry is to a large degree Scottish, and since Scots are mostly known for whiskey and stinginess, I’m pleased that Maxwell was both a great scientist and a good Presbyterian.
Yes, but was he a true Scotsman.

Quote


Thanks, Sal. Interesting post and good food for thought.

One of the things that struck me when I read Origin was that Darwin provided essentially no numerical, quantifiable calculations or analyses — virtually no math to speak of. In fairness, he readily acknowledged that his book was in the form of “one long [rhetorical] argument.” But one must not confuse general musings and hypotheses with rigorous numerical analysis. One cannot avoid the latter and expect the former to be taken seriously.


Yeah, it's not like he calculated the CSI in a bacterial flagellum or anything.

I think Sal's logic goes like this. True scientists are christians and non-christian scientists aren't good scientists. So much for Einstein.

--------------
With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

To do just the opposite is also a form of imitation. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

  
phonon



Posts: 396
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2007,18:38   

Quote
scordova (quoting de Beer):

   
Quote
The boy [Darwin] developed very slowly: he was given, when small, to inventing gratuitous fibs and to daydreaming.


And so began a pattern…


Yeah, a pattern of shyting all over Darwin. They did it back then. It's called character assassination. A smear. Darwin was hated in his day by many people.

Look, IDiots. People back then (19th century) were very convinced that God must have made molecules and atoms, because they looked manufactured. Atoms and molecules of each kind were all the same (barring isotopes). They never envisioned the universe being smaller in the past than it was that day. They never thought of curved spacetime or even nuclear reactions. They calculated the age of the sun to a few million years because they thought the process was chemical, not nuclear. How could they know? They came to the same conclusions that Paley did regarding living things for the same reason you do. Ignorance. Yes, these men were geniuses and great scientists. But they were ignorant of things we know now. It's called scientific progress. ID is intellectual regress. You're trying to erase an entire field of science and an entire basis of knowledge, just so you can get back to those comfortable days when the sun burned chemically and hung in the luminiferous aether, and all life was created by the God of the Bible.

--------------
With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

To do just the opposite is also a form of imitation. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2007,19:28   

Quote (2ndclass @ Mar. 09 2007,16:00)
It looks like Patrick's post is indeed plagiarized from Michael Crichton.  Whether he copy-and-pasted it from an online pirated copy or typed it in himself, I don't know.  But it's a fictional news story, Patrick plagiarized it, and he presented it as nonfiction.  That's beyond bizarre.

Oi! It's a real news story, I'm surprised you hadn't heard it when it happened a couple of years ago. See Woo-Suk's wikipedia page:
Quote
Hwang Woo-suk (&#54889;&#50864;&#49437;) (born 29 January 1953[14]) is a South Korean biomedical scientist. He was a professor of theriogenology and biotechnology at Seoul National University (dismissed on March 20, 2006) who rose to fame after claiming a series of remarkable breakthroughs in the field of stem cell research. Until November 2005, he was considered one of the pioneering experts in the field of stem cell research, best known for two articles published in the journal Science in 2004 and
2005 where he fraudulently reported to have succeeded in creating human embryonic stem cells by cloning. Both papers have been editorially retracted after being found to contain a large amount of fabricated data. He has admitted to various lies and frauds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Woo-suk

The "article" itself was probably pulled from the prologue to Crichton's book or somesuch. Not giving the reference makes it plagiarism, but the story's not fabricated.

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2007,21:12   

Sigh.

Great_ape                
Quote
If you are referring to neutral theory, neutral theory provides a means to statistically evaluate claims for selection by providing a null hypothesis. A multitude of examples of positive selection on characters are published and continue to be published. Neutral theory has cemented the case for positive molecular selection.

I meant to warn Great_ape about the inevitable conflation of the term "Darwinism". But, alas, it was too late.

scordova                
Quote
A multitude of papers is no substitute for the truth. These papers are being presented as science when they are merely assertions and circularly reasoned arguments.

Just hand-waving. Great_ape is referring to numerous published observational studies that follow from theoretical predictions, fruitful sources of new hypotheses. You also ignored the point about the null-hypothesis.

scordova                
Quote
Policing such large regions of conserved regions incurs a cost and is inconsistent with the population resources available.

See Nachman’s U-Paradox to get an idea of why this is prohibitive.

Do you mean Michael Nachman who recently published Detecting selection at the molecular level, Human Adaptive Evolution and The genetic basis of adaptation?

scordova          
Quote
“What’s most mysterious is that we don’t know any molecular mechanism that would demand conservation like this,” Haussler says.

No mechanism? Not even natural selection!

A Gap!! A Gap!! Call the ID Squad before they fill it!

Is that David Haussler of Haussler Labs who published that fascinating study on rapid evolution of the human brain? Gee, it's been nearly three years since Haussler et al. published Ultraconserved Elements in the Human Genome. I wonder if anyone has followed up on that... Dembski? Behe? Oh well. Just a couple of bioinformaticians. You know. Math.

Signatures of adaptive evolution within human non-coding sequence : Although the amount of the human genome that harbours functional, yet non-coding, elements remains ill-determined, models of sequence evolution are unanimous in predicting at least as much functional non-coding sequence as protein-coding material in the genome...

(Actually, take a look at the list of articles that cite Ultraconserved. The mark of a good paper is the number of new studies it sparks.)

scordova                
Quote
There is always the obligatory salute to Darwin. I will quote Kimura himself (who makes the obligatory salute to Darwin, while simultaneously refuting Darwin)... This is double speak by Kimura, but even then it betrays a significant truth.

In other words, you are calling Kimura a liar, but you want to somehow cite his research.

In any case, you are conflating two uses of the word "Darwinism". Darwinism can mean the Theory of Evolution generally, or among neutralists it often refers to natural selection. No scientist of note, not even Darwin, believes that natural selection is the only mechanism of evolution.

scordova                
Quote
The double speak phrase is “neutral in natural selection.” If it’s neutral, it’s not in natural selection.

The actual phrase is "almost neutral in natural selection". The difference is very important, and a subject of some scientific interest with regards to Nearly Neutral Theory. It also eliminates the so-called double-speak. As Great_ape points out, neutral evolution is the null-hypothesis with natural selection being a measurable effect.

scordova                
Quote
At this stage we can only disagree, but the time will come when one of us will be shown wrong.

Thank God It's Wife of Wóden Day!!!  That day has come and gone.

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

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2007,21:16   

Dacook reviews Schopenhauer's catalog of unfair, manipulative, and downright mean rhetorical tactics, and notes that Darwinian defenders, desperate obfuscators all, employ each and every one.  He includes a summary of the ad hominem attack:
           
Quote
38. “Become personal, insulting and rude as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand. ...This is a very popular technique, because it takes so little skill to put it into effect.”

He continues...
         
Quote
...I’ve been on the receiving end of this sort of thing more than once myself. This tactic is by far the most common “answer” to ID proponents and NDE critics, precisely because it takes so little skill...

No ID advocate would stoop so low. He concludes:
         
Quote
...Alas, a little skill is all most of them have.

Uh, Dakook? Since we are getting to know one another and all, can I call you "Duh," for short?

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
2ndclass



Posts: 182
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2007,23:55   

Quote (argystokes @ Mar. 09 2007,19:28)
Oi! It's a real news story, I'm surprised you hadn't heard it when it happened a couple of years ago.

Yes, the facts about Hwang are true, but about 1/3 of the way through Patrick's post, we see:  
Quote
“What lessons can be drawn from this?” asked Professor McKeown. “First...
and the quote continues through the remaining 2/3 of the post.  Who is Professor McKeown, and who is quoting him?

Answer:  McKeown is fictional, and he's being quoted by the fictional Max Thaler in a fictional news story published in the fictional Beaumont College Alumni News.  It's all in chapter 7 of Crichton's novel, _Next_.

Not only did Patrick fail to mention that his report of McKeown's speech is copied verbatim from another source, but it turns out that McKeown doesn't even exist.  That's just plain wacky, even for OE.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2007,04:47   

There's a reply on Partick's "post" now
Quote

error
Alan Fox | Sat, 2007-03-10 08:39

error
login or register to post comments | 0 points


Alan, did you write just "error"? or did somebody "edit" it for you?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2007,05:56   

Quote (2ndclass @ Mar. 10 2007,07:55)
Quote (argystokes @ Mar. 09 2007,19:28)
Oi! It's a real news story, I'm surprised you hadn't heard it when it happened a couple of years ago.

Yes, the facts about Hwang are true, but about 1/3 of the way through Patrick's post, we see:  
Quote
“What lessons can be drawn from this?” asked Professor McKeown. “First...
and the quote continues through the remaining 2/3 of the post.  Who is Professor McKeown, and who is quoting him?

Answer:  McKeown is fictional, and he's being quoted by the fictional Max Thaler in a fictional news story published in the fictional Beaumont College Alumni News.  It's all in chapter 7 of Crichton's novel, _Next_.

Not only did Patrick fail to mention that his report of McKeown's speech is copied verbatim from another source, but it turns out that McKeown doesn't even exist.  That's just plain wacky, even for OE.

Bwhwhwhwhwhahahahahahahahahahhaha.

How very fiting, a fictional scientific idea promoted by people who confuse fiction as printed in books such as the Bible with its Genesis Myth and fact such as Darwin's ToE.

What do they do for an encore? Sign autographs on numbered ID team lab coats....I think not.

Hey DT why don't you do a line of ceramic mushrooms with the ID 'Theorists' <giggle> signatures as a limited run and sell 'em in jesus shops.

As a propaganda tool for the Lying for jesus/Creationist/ID movement  its right up there with BWE's ashtray and rungless ladders.


I can't wait for ID's new 'theory' ......Elephant tusks made from piano keys.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2007,08:07   

Psst

Yeah you. Do you want to acquire a bootleg, er quality copy of the 1965 Wistar Conference, Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution? Hot stuff, I tell ya. Vintage. But only for um educational purposes, if you know what I mean, heh.

Is it legal? Well, sure it is. My uncle, he knows a lawyer, got him out of some trouble once, says, you know, who's to say. What's legal anyway? Only what they can prove. And if you keep your mouth shut...

Here you go, Buddy. Thanks. Just don't tell Wistar, okay.

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

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2007,09:04   

From regular Uncommon Descent denizen, Joseph, over at Teleological Blog.

--
Zachriel: The environment is decidedly non-random.            
Quote
Joseph: We know that is false. Environments change.

Heartbeats change. Are heartbeats random? Does gravity have a direction? Does Sunlight? Is the diurnal cycle random? You clearly have no idea what randomness implies.

--
Zachriel: Heredity is non-random.            
Quote
Joseph: We know that is also false. There is no way to tell what will be inherited from which parent.

My Goodness! Humans beget humans. Sharks beget sharks. If the ancestors have four limbs and two eyes, their descendents will tend to have four limbs and two eyes. Children are not a random assortment of characteristics, but closely resemble their parents. It's a fundamental observation!

This goes to the very heart of what it means to make a scientific assertion. When I claim that “Heredity is non-random”, it means that there are predictable correlations between the characteristics of parents and children that can be confirmed by independent observers.

Is there anyone on Teleological Blog willing to explain this to Joseph?

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

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2007,09:44   

Meta-question:

Is there a reason why there is a long delay when a comment pushes onto the next page? I'm crosslinking to Teleological Blog and I'm having trouble coordinating the posts.

Update: As soon as I posted this comment, my previous comment appeared. Coincidence?

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

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2007,10:15   

Ah, this is just beautiful. Patrick backtracks:
Quote
On a side note, I'll make certain to check my sources better in the future...and to not forget to list them. I'd assumed that the NEXT bibliography contained the original source but did not do any reading to make certain (I was in a rush since the book was due back at the library). Thanks to Alan Fox for pointing my error out.

But of course, Alan Fox's comment pointing out the error has disappeared. T-t-t-t-t-tard.

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2007,10:55   

Bwhahahah.

But what does
Quote
I'd assumed that the NEXT bibliography contained the original source but did not do any reading to make certain (I was in a rush since the book was due back at the library).

mean? What kind of excuse is that?
And anyway
Quote
the below segment is pulled from Michael Crichton's novel NEXT

Is that allowed? I mean, we get fair use for parody and criticism :) but does right out theft and "passing off" get the same privilage?

EDIT: So, does anybody have any idea of what Patrick thought he was posting in the first place now that he's "clarified" things, and what his actual excuse is for it now that he's been caught out? Or did the designer control his hands at a molecular level and telogically force him to "channel" it into his post at OW? I'm confused :) But enjoying it so !

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2007,11:08   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 09 2007,23:47)
There's a reply on Partick's "post" now
 
Quote

error
Alan Fox | Sat, 2007-03-10 08:39

error
login or register to post comments | 0 points


Alan, did you write just "error"? or did somebody "edit" it for you?

I originally posted on OE but, remembering Patrick had asked me not to post there again, I decided to delete it and email instead. I couldn't delete my post, so I just substituted "error". I guess Patrick should be complimented for graciously conceding his mistake.

Also congratulations to Secondclass for pointing it out originally. (And for service above and beyond the call of duty at ISCID :) )

I have made the point before that we can be more selective in who to engage. ID is defunct, and there are those, up until now ID proponents, who may be beginning to realise it. I don't think they are true opponents, just misguided. David Springer and Joe Gallien are examples of people who it is pointless debating with, as their motive is political and has nothing to do with advancing human knowledge.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2007,11:20   

Quote
So, does anybody have any idea of what Patrick thought he was posting in the first place now that he's "clarified" things, and what his actual excuse is for it now that he's been caught out? Or did the designer control his hands at a molecular level and telogically force him to "channel" it into his post at OW? I'm confused :) But enjoying it so !


Email exchange:

From: Patrick
To: Alan Fox
Subject: Re: Plagiarism
Date: Sat, 2007-03-10 15:02

Yep. I failed to doublecheck the Bibliography as throughly as I should have. Oh well.

> Hi Patrick
>
> Seems the allegation is quite specific. See here


From: Patrick
To: Alan Fox
Subject: Re: Plagiariem
Date: Sat, 2007-03-10 15:01

huh? I was under the impression it was an actual news story based upon “Scientist Admits Faking Stem Cell Data,” New York Times, July 5, 2006.

As if the usage of quotation marks and section headers doesn't make that blatantly obvious...but to make it even more obvious I'll edit the post to include the original source.

> Hi Patrick
>
> Thought you should know that it is being suggested that you have plagiarised your story "Big Science" from Michael Crighton's "Next".
>
> Regards
> Alan Fox

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2007,11:29   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 10 2007,11:08)


I have made the point before that we can be more selective in who to engage. ID is defunct, and there are those, up until now ID proponents, who may be beginning to realise it. I don't think they are true opponents, just misguided. David Springer and Joe Gallien are examples of people who it is pointless debating with, as their motive is political and has nothing to do with advancing human knowledge.



Au contrraire, those are precisely the ones we NEED to confront, since the theocrat-wanna-be's are by far the most dangerous parts of the ID movement.

Coincidentally, I just wrote, a short time ago, on another forum:

 
Quote
Dudes, you are wasting your time with this guy -- he
doesn't know a prokaryote from a pachyderm, so all our
science talk is utterly wasted on the guy.

But it certainly is convenient to have him demonstrate
to everyone that, for all the arm-waving that the
fundies do about how wonderfully wonderful the
wonderful world is, the simple fact is that they
**know next to nothing about it**.

This guy is EXACTLY the target audience for
ID/creationists. He doesn't know diddley-doo about
science or about the natural world, and he's not
remotely interested in learning any, but he's all
gung-ho to tell all the world's scientists (and most
of the world's Christians) that they are wrong because
his particular religious opinions SAY that they are
wrong. All he does is brainlessly parrot what he's
read on some creationist crapsite or another -- and
since he doesn't understand any of the arguments
anyway, he can't even parrot them accurately. He
quite literally has no idea what he's talking about,
and his entire "argument" (such as it is) boils down
to "my religious opinions are right, and anyone who
says otherwise is wrong".

That sums up ID/creationism in a nutshell (pun
intended).

By themselves, of course, the typical ID/creationists
(and again, this guy is pretty typical of all of them)
are rather harmless, since nobody pays much attention
to their pig-ignorant rants anyway. The danger lies
in the fact that it is typical ID/creationists like
this one who actually buy the books and write the
letters and vote for the "godly", which is what gives
the theocratic political movement its strength.

I'm quite sure that our fundie friend here is just as
pig-ignorant of the political aims and goals of the
ID/creationist movement as he is of all things
scientific. All he knows is that ID/creationists are
"fighting for Jebus against the evil atheists" --and,
of course, he is wrong on both counts; perhaps he will
be bright enough to figure out that most of the people
here who are telling him he's full of shit are
*Christians*, but given the past history of the
hundreds of creationuts we've had over the years, it
seems awfully unlikely. Their willfull blindness runs
just as deep as their willfull ignorance.

The typical rank-and-filer ID/creationist is,
generally, just a pig-ignorant putz who is being led
around by the nose by people he doesn't understand.
The people at the *top*, though, the people who write
the books, produce the websites, make the lecture
tours and form the political organizations, know
EXACTLY what they are doing. They are deceptive,
evasive, dishonest and secretive, deliberately and
with malice aforethought. Our fundie friend here has
no idea at all what he is a part of or what he is
supporting. If he were to actually read the political
program the ID/creationists have been proposing, he'd
likely be shocked (and since he won't believe me if
*I* tell him, I will leave it to him to discover it
for himself, if he dares -- just go Google the terms
"Christian Reconstructionism", "Howard Ahmanson" and
"Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture".)

This guy is just a minnow. It's the bigger fish at
the top that I want.


Seems appropriate here too.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2007,11:33   

Quote
David Springer and Joe Gallien are examples of people who it is pointless debating with, as their motive is political and has nothing to do with advancing human knowledge.


This is not a dig at you Zachriel. I greatly admire your persistence. There is value in demonstrating Joe's bone-headed intransigence to as wide an audience as possible.

  
  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < ... 433 434 435 436 437 [438] 439 440 441 442 443 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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