RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < ... 406 407 408 409 410 [411] 412 413 414 415 416 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
steve_h



Posts: 544
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2007,09:21   

Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 20 2007,12:00)
Not quite. Temperature is related to energy. Roughly speaking, temperature is the average kinetic energy of molecules. However, you are right that DaveScot answers his own question. The Earth is heating. The climate is changing. The ice is melting. The sea levels are rising. And human technological activities are a significant factor in these changes.

I wasn't being entirely serious. It was a reference to
DaveScot insisting that (other) people check their facts before posting.

 
Quote
I’m guilty of taking it for granted that people in a discussion such as this know that the energy in photons is measured by degrees Kelvin. And of course degrees Kelvin is a measure of temperature and temperature is synonymous with heat. Next time you decide to be argumentative I suggest you do a better job of it. -ds

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2007,09:42   

Quote (Ichthyic @ Feb. 19 2007,23:32)
argy-

it's just one of those cases where the link wrapped around and had a space in it.

It's just poorly constructed (go figure).

try this one:

http://tinyurl.com/ywyhz3

Yeah, I know. I cut n pasted the thing into the url box and came up with a same-old-shit DI article. Don't have any idea why Sam thought it was so special.

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

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2007,10:16   

Yes, Virginia! There are "Darwinist Authorities!" No, Karen! No, no, no. Bad girl think. Naughty girl.
:angry:

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2007,10:36   

DAVESCOTT BRANCHES OUT -  CURES CANCER -

http://scienceblogs.com/insolen....roa.php

My attempt to let others View The Tard:

In most of the cases involving internet quackery, you can follow the trail of "why" by following the money.  However, in DaveScot Springer's case, you have to follow the Cheesy Poof’s trail, that keeps him at his posting and fighting weight of @ 290.  He would actually weigh less except that his fingers have wiped @ 5 lbs of crumbs onto his dirty, sweat-stained t-shirt.

I also suspect that in Dave's opinion, (which is the only right one, as far as he is concerned), DCA and Cheesy Poofs get him a cheap high.  And when you are like Dave, and the Captain of a high-powered house boat, you need that kind of release.  

Cheesy Poofs are also vital to Dave, because he also has the HUGE responsibility of banning anyone with a dissenting opinion as Bill Dembski's lackey on his IDiot blog.

So don't be too hard on Dave.  He's done as well as you can expect a delusional, chubby ex-Marine, to do.  He has published drivel about evolution, and backs intelligent design.  He has recently started posting against global warming, and as you bring up in detail, “cancer cures”.  He is clearly in the running for the Lifetime Achievement Don Quixote Award, with all the windmills he tilts at.  

If his "little friend" would take the time to actually read what DaveScot has posted on various web-sites, they would understand and distance themselves from this nut-job.  

Brief CV:
*Self-professed autodidact with IQ “in the 150++ range (based on SAT equivalency, NOT actual testing!)
*Ex-Marine – worked on aircraft repair.  After Viet Nam, before first Gulf war.
*Married and lives on houseboat in TX (I suspect he lives in the basement of his mother’s house)
*Dell-Made millionaire – got rich in the dot-com boom and cashed out.  He says.
*Blog “Moderator” for William Dembski’s Uncommon Descent website.  He is supposed to keep the information flowing, but since ID has not real information, and is entirely a political attack on evolution, in reality, this means that he bans anyone with a dissenting opinion.  For a more detailed look at the inanities and stupidity exhibited by Springer and his uninformed minions, please visit:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;t=1274

Springer has the focus ability of an “idiot savant” and can totally ignore any verified and verifiable scientific evidence and discoveries in favor of “alternate evidence” and woo.  For example, his latest delusion is to deny Global Warning, and he is comfortable railing against GW science, because he “looked at gross data from print-outs” for a couple of hours.  Since he is a legend in his own mind, his 2 hours of reading qualifies Springer to lecture on Global Warming.

As discussed in depth by Orac here, Springer also has more ability to cure cancer than Doctors and entire decades of research scientists.  Of course he has probably read up on cancer now for a couple of hours, so at least it’s understandable.  At least to him.

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

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2007,10:52   

Quote
Intelligent Design makes a claim to scientific validity. As such, it is false. (Perhaps you mean Deism or Pantheism.)


No, Zachriel, though thanks for suggesting an escape.I meant philosophy. But, not being a philosopher, I should rephrase and say I was unaware that philosophers had declared that Intelligent Design is not philosophy, and as I tend to agree with Lenny's oft repeated remark of Marx and Engels that "philosophy is to real life as masturbation is to sexual intercourse" I am not sure it matters. Keeping an eye on those who were using ID as a vehicle for political objectives (unsuccessfully as it turned out) and being ready to counter them would be more productive.

  
2ndclass



Posts: 182
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2007,11:02   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 19 2007,13:22)
   
Quote
Fox’s blog has no google rank


The URL http://alanfox.blogspot.com/index.html has a google pagerank of 2 of 10.

Searching for "A place where IDers and Darwinists" brings up Alan's blog as the 1st result as it is part of the intro text. There are lots of other hits to pandasthumb, UD, all sorts. Searching with quotes brings up Alan's blog only.

And if you google "entropy on the earth decreases where intelligent agency is operating", you find the real reason that Dave won't participate on an unmoderated discussion.  He simply can't survive on a level playing field.

Alan's blog has demonstrated quite well that the IDers with the most bluster (DaveScot, Joe G) are also the biggest cowards.

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

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2007,11:13   

Quote (steve_h @ Feb. 20 2007,09:21)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 20 2007,12:00)
Not quite. Temperature is related to energy. Roughly speaking, temperature is the average kinetic energy of molecules. However, you are right that DaveScot answers his own question. The Earth is heating. The climate is changing. The ice is melting. The sea levels are rising. And human technological activities are a significant factor in these changes.

I wasn't being entirely serious. It was a reference to
DaveScot insisting that (other) people check their facts before posting.

     
Quote
I’m guilty of taking it for granted that people in a discussion such as this know that the energy in photons is measured by degrees Kelvin. And of course degrees Kelvin is a measure of temperature and temperature is synonymous with heat. Next time you decide to be argumentative I suggest you do a better job of it. -ds

I stand un- re- anti- corrected. Next time I'll try to remember to check my non- un- pseudo- facts before posting.

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

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: Feb. 20 2007,11:33   

Quote (2ndclass @ Feb. 20 2007,11:02)
   
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 19 2007,13:22)
     
Quote
Fox’s blog has no google rank


The URL http://alanfox.blogspot.com/index.html has a google pagerank of 2 of 10.

Searching for "A place where IDers and Darwinists" brings up Alan's blog as the 1st result as it is part of the intro text. There are lots of other hits to pandasthumb, UD, all sorts. Searching with quotes brings up Alan's blog only.

And if you google "entropy on the earth decreases where intelligent agency is operating", you find the real reason that Dave won't participate on an unmoderated discussion.  He simply can't survive on a level playing field.

Alan's blog has demonstrated quite well that the IDers with the most bluster (DaveScot, Joe G) are also the biggest cowards.

Wow! That's quite a thread on Alan's Neutral Venue. Even has a great title, Gravity is the strongest force. I remember when DaveScot made that comment. But that's not as ridiculous as when he said, "Intelligence can violate 2LOT. In fact I just did it again by writing this comment!"

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

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

   
jujuquisp



Posts: 129
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2007,11:44   

Watch DaveScot get reamed a new one over at Orac's blog:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolen....hp#more

  
2ndclass



Posts: 182
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2007,13:17   

Joseph pontificates on CSI:  
Quote
CSI can be understood as the convergence of physical information, for example the hardware of a computer and conceptual information, for example the software that allows the computer to perform a function, such as an operating system with application programs.

So a computer sans software is not CSI.  Likewise, software sans computer is not CSI.  But you put them together and you get CSI!  Brilliant!

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

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2007,13:20   

The cosmos ain't big enough for the two of 'em. (Go here first.)  :D

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

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2007,13:24   

Quote (2ndclass @ Feb. 20 2007,13:17)
Joseph pontificates on CSI:      
Quote
CSI can be understood as the convergence of physical information, for example the hardware of a computer and conceptual information, for example the software that allows the computer to perform a function, such as an operating system with application programs.

So a computer sans software is not CSI.  Likewise, software sans computer is not CSI.  But you put them together and you get CSI!  Brilliant!

My 2LoT is a little, um, rusty; but I think you have to take the square root of what Joseph said.

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

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: Feb. 20 2007,13:34   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Feb. 20 2007,10:52)
 
Quote
Intelligent Design makes a claim to scientific validity. As such, it is false. (Perhaps you mean Deism or Pantheism.)


No, Zachriel, though thanks for suggesting an escape.I meant philosophy. But, not being a philosopher, I should rephrase and say I was unaware that philosophers had declared that Intelligent Design is not philosophy, and as I tend to agree with Lenny's oft repeated remark of Marx and Engels that "philosophy is to real life as masturbation is to sexual intercourse" I am not sure it matters. Keeping an eye on those who were using ID as a vehicle for political objectives (unsuccessfully as it turned out) and being ready to counter them would be more productive.

Intelligent Design™ makes false scientific claims. I suppose it could be recast as philosophy without the scientific pretensions, but then I think it would be given another name. Are we having a semantic quibble? How would you define Intelligent Design?

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

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: Feb. 20 2007,13:40   

Alan, I withdraw my comment. I reread what you wrote in response to Phillip Johnson's remarks and I think I understand the gist of your post.

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

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

   
jujuquisp



Posts: 129
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2007,14:12   

HAHA!  First class TARDAGE here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwini....re-2089

Unbelievable.  DaveScot displays his utter ignorance for all to see and mock!  The comedy never ends!  Even when things start to look a little boring there, you can always count on some good tardage to rev things up again.  I literally laughed out loud at this post.  HAHAHAHAHAHA!

  
2ndclass



Posts: 182
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2007,14:16   

DaveScot:  
Quote
The major claims of evolution are the creation of novel cell types, tissue types, organs, and body plans. These are required to get from bacteria to baboons. No evolution of these by any means has been observed. They simply appear fully formed in the fossil record and can be observed fully formed in living things today. Given the definition of a theory as a well tested explanation there is no theory of evolution but rather only hypotheses of evolution. Until a hypothetical mechanism is observed doing that which it is claimed it can do these mechanisms remain hypothetical.
(Emphasis mine)

So Dave thinks that the only way to test a theory is to actually observe the proposed mechanisms in action.  Thanks to Dave's insight, an awful lot of scientists are going to have to close up shop.  And it leaves ID in a pretty awkward position, too.

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

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2007,14:17   

Quote
HAHA!  First class TARDAGE here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwini....re-2089

Unbelievable.  DaveScot displays his utter ignorance for all to see and mock!  The comedy never ends!  Even when things start to look a little boring there, you can always count on some good tardage to rev things up again.  I literally laughed out loud at this post.  HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Holy sh*t that's pathetic....

Is Cheesy Poof boy channeling AFDave? or vice versa?

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2007,14:19   

Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 20 2007,13:34)
How would you define Intelligent Design?

"How would you define ID?"

My first thought is that it can’t be defined, as it is neither intelligent, nor designed the words are meaningless noise….

Reflecting deeper, it’s just a bad marketing campaign to re-label a concept declared illegal by US courts.

Therefore, I think the best definition is “ID is creationism in a cheap tuxedo”.

All the other "ID" noise made by the DI, Dembski, DaveScott and Casey Luskin is just that.  Noise.

--------------
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: Feb. 20 2007,14:34   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 20 2007,14:17)
Quote
HAHA!  First class TARDAGE here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwini....re-2089

Unbelievable.  DaveScot displays his utter ignorance for all to see and mock!  The comedy never ends!  Even when things start to look a little boring there, you can always count on some good tardage to rev things up again.  I literally laughed out loud at this post.  HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Holy sh*t that's pathetic....

Is Cheesy Poof boy channeling AFDave? or vice versa?

Boo - its gone...

did someone take a snapshot for me?

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

  
jujuquisp



Posts: 129
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2007,14:45   

Here it is again:  
http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwini....olution

Hopefully it works now for all to mock!

  
ofro



Posts: 19
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2007,15:00   

Quote (2ndclass @ Feb. 20 2007,14:16)
<a href=""http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/there-is-no-theory-of-evolution/#more-2089" target="_blank">DaveScot</a>:  
Quote
The major claims of evolution are the creation of novel cell types, tissue types, organs, and body plans. These are required to get from bacteria to baboons. No evolution of these by any means has been observed. They simply appear fully formed in the fossil record and can be observed fully formed in living things today. Given the definition of a theory as a well tested explanation there is no theory of evolution but rather only hypotheses of evolution. Until a hypothetical mechanism is observed doing that which it is claimed it can do these mechanisms remain hypothetical.
(Emphasis mine)

So Dave thinks that the only way to test a theory is to actually observe the proposed mechanisms in action.  Thanks to Dave's insight, an awful lot of scientists are going to have to close up shop.  And it leaves ID in a pretty awkward position, too.

I have a hypothetical mechanism that could explain the creation of this new post:
1.  After the multiple posts on global warming, Dembski ordered him to get back on track and come up with something to fit under the Big Tent.
2.  In his desperation to do that quickly, as ordered, he borrowed a few phrases from joseph (like” novel cell types, tissue types, organs, and body plans”).
3.  In this hurry, it didn’t matter whether that fit into his favorite explanation of a preloaded genome and extraterrestrial intelligence.
4.  Hup, hoop, hreep, horp, good Marine!

Of course, until this hypothetical mechanism is observed doing that which it is claimed it can do this mechanisms remains hypothetical.

  
bystander



Posts: 301
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2007,15:09   

Quote (djmullen @ Feb. 20 2007,22:23)
Are you talking about this "debate" from last August?

And could you give us a link to Denyse admitting she hadn't read Dawkins?  I mean, it's pretty obvious from what she writes about him, but I'd like to see her admitting it.

No this is recent from UD. You have to listen close to the end of the podcast where Robyn asks D'OL if she has read Dawkins. Her reply paraphrased is that Dawkins is far down on her reading list. She would rather read the more intelligent Atheists and that Dawkins is a has been.

Michael

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2007,15:18   

Atom    
Quote
Specification deals with algorithmic complexity theory and compression

Algorithmic complexity as used here is probably a corruption of Kolmogorov Complexity (with specification being the inverse relation). The problem is that Kolmogorov complexity must be defined in terms of a specific description language, e.g. a Turing Machine. Importantly, Kolmogorov Complexity is an uncomputable function.

Atom    
Quote
Specification patterns “tap into” our background knowledge, making use of ideas we already have.

This is the tip-off. Specification is being defined in terms of what people know or expect. The entire argument is circular and specious. Great_ape asks,
   
Quote
how does one formalize and enumerate the notion of “ideas we already have”? That seems like an inherently hazy endeavor.


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

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

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2007,15:32   

ALRIGHT I’VE CRACKED IT I CAN’T BELIEVE NO-ONE ELSE IS RESEARCHING THIS, FOR MY SPANPERMIA HYPOTHESIS IT WAS DEFINATLEY ACE SPALIENS.

http://ufoabduction.com/faq1.htm#q13

   
Quote
These arguments are culture-bound notions of how aliens should act and not based on any sense of reality. They have been fashioned into a sort of dogma, which has become a litmus test of "reality." If the abduction phenomenon does not fit that dogma, it does not exist.
We must confront the abduction evidence for what it is. The phenomenon is what it is. All we can do is chronicle what is happening, sort out the aliens' behavior and try to make sense of it. Our culturally determined expectations of how aliens should or should not act are of little consequence in the absence of evidence for their motivations. Investigators must analyze what is happening, not what should be happening. The abduction phenomenon is extremely logical and rational. Everything the aliens do is for a reason. Apparently, repeated abductions, repeated taking of eggs and sperm, and using women as hosts for fetuses are part of their plan.

THEY ARE AMONG US NOW AND WATCHING AND SEEING HOW WELL THEY'RE DESIGN WORKS.

===================================

UPDATE:
APARENTLY THERE HAS BEEN A BIG GOVERNEMT COVER UP AND THE LIBERALS DON’T WANT YOU TO KNOW:
http://home.sprynet.com/~pnahay/ufoastro.htm
Quote
And in an exclusive interview with the National Enquirer on 14 January 1997, Cooper speaks openly about alien spacecraft. He says there's been a massive government cover-up of UFOs for nearly 50 years and insists the American public has a right to know the truth.
"I know other astronauts share my feelings," declared Cooper, 69, who went into space aboard a Mercury craft in 1963 and on a Gemini craft two years later.
"And we know the government is sitting on hard evidence of UFOs!"  

WHY IS NO-ONE INVESTINGATING THIS? IT IS SO OBVIOUS.


=================================
<<< COMMENT DELETED >>>
=================================


GAWD I’M GOOD:
LOOK AT ALL OF THIS REAL SCIENCE THAT SUPPORTS UFOOLOGY:
http://www.europeanufosurvey.com/en/departments.php
IF ONLY THE COULD FREE THEYRE MINDS FROM THE DOGMA.


================================
<<< COMMENT DELETED >>>
================================

IT’S AMAZING: SO MANY PEOPLE BELIVE IN UFOS BUT THE “SCIENTISTS” FROM THEIR IVORY LIBERAL HOMO TOWERS JUST CAN’T SEE IT BECAUSE OF THEIR FAITH.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/publicopinionpolls.htm

   
Quote
A new national poll found that 72 percent of Americans believe the government is not telling the public everything it knows about UFO activity, and 68 percent think the government knows more about extraterrestrial life than it is letting on, the SCI FI Channel reported.


===================================

THE AAAS’ (ASSES – HEHE I KILL ME SOMETIMES) MAGIZINE :
http://www.sciencemag.org/

STILL REFUSE TO PUBLISH MY COMMENTS – MORE PROOF OF THE CONSPIRACY. IF THE PUBLISH THEN I AM TEH WINNER IF NOT THEY ARE HOMO LIBERULS – TAILS I LOOSE HEADS THEY WIN.

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

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2007,15:36   

Atom
Quote
Dembski uses the english language as well as his restricted pattern set, describing the BacFlag as a bi-directional rotary motor (or some similar phrase.)

So, just about everything nameable is specified. White noise is specified.

Atom
Quote
Sewell actually does enumerate the set you’re seeking, defining it (implicitly) as grammatically correct english descriptions of 1000 words or less.

The problem is that there is no way to look at a sequence and always know its shortest description. It may look completely random, but turn out to be easily specified. As we don't know the shortest possible description, there is no reason to limit ourselves to a certain number of words.

Another problem is the ambiguity inherent in the English language. White noise is all the same, but all different, too.

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

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

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2007,15:47   

Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 20 2007,15:36)
Atom  
Quote
Dembski uses the english language as well as his restricted pattern set, describing the BacFlag as a bi-directional rotary motor (or some similar phrase.)

So, just about everything nameable is specified. White noise is specified.

Atom  
Quote
Sewell actually does enumerate the set you’re seeking, defining it (implicitly) as grammatically correct english descriptions of 1000 words or less.

The problem is that there is no way to look at a sequence and always know its shortest description. It may look completely random, but turn out to be easily specified. As we don't know the shortest possible description, there is no reason to limit ourselves to a certain number of words.

Another problem is the ambiguity inherent in the English language. White noise is all the same, but all different, too.

Zach, you're unique. Just like everbody else.

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2007,15:58   

TardFest!

http://www.conservapedia.com/Is_the_theory_of_macroevolution_true%3F

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

  
2ndclass



Posts: 182
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2007,16:23   

great_ape:  
Quote
1. Something has CSI if it conforms to a pattern that is “compressible,” in the sense that it can be described by a smallish program and/or rule set.

2. Such patterns, as opposed to non-compressible patterns, are exceptionally rare (assuming, of course, that the system generating the patterns generates them uniformly (i.e. is not biased towards compressible patterns)

3. The observation of such a pattern is exceedingly unlikely to be due to “chance” so, having observed it, one can reasonably infer design.

We'll see if anyone at UD spots the problem here.  #2 assumes that the system has a uniformly random output.  So if the output turns out to be highly compressible, all we can infer is that the assumption was wrong.  IOW, the source was not random.  We have no justification for making a leap from "non-random" to "designed".

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

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2007,16:44   

DaveScot's latest thread seems to conflict with some of his earlier comments, for instance  here and here.

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2007,16:52   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Feb. 20 2007,16:44)
DaveScot's latest thread seems to conflict with some of his earlier comments, for instance  here and here.

I can't imagine why you would remember that.

DaveScot (then) 
Quote
Alan Fox is no longer with us. His email to Rieseberg said his finding were being used to dispute evolution. I have never disputed evolution (only the role of chance) and didn’t use Riesberg’s article to do anything other than dispute trrll’s assertion that evolution is unrepeatable.

DaveScot (now) 
Quote
There Is No Theory of Evolution: The major claims of evolution are the creation of novel cell types, tissue types, organs, and body plans. These are required to get from bacteria to baboons. No evolution of these by any means has been observed.


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

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

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

Pages: (1000) < ... 406 407 408 409 410 [411] 412 413 414 415 416 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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