Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Uncommonly Dense Thread 2

Pages: (500) < ... 471 472 473 474 475 [476] 477 478 479 480 481 ... >

olegt Posts: 1405 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,13:03    In other news, Frost122585 increasingly looks like a deep-cover sock:   Quote Allow me to explain what i mean by the above. ID wants a base of personally motivated and sincerely interested fallows [sic!] and advocates. ID does not want a social “fad” situation. People like BIll and other are already making a good living selling books and etc- but what I think real ID advocated really want is for the theory of ID to get in the driver seat of science and make a real difference in how science is done and what is produced by it- at least to a similar level that Darwin’s theory did. -------------- If you are not: Galapagos Finch please Logout »

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,13:10    Quote (olegt @ Aug. 19 2009,14:03) In other news, Frost122585 increasingly [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/religion/uncommon-descent-contest-question-8-do-the-new-atheists-help-or-hurt-the-cause-of-darwinis m/#comment-330632]looks like a deep-cover sock[/URL]:     Quote Allow me to explain what i mean by the above. ID wants a base of personally motivated and sincerely interested fallows [sic!] and advocates. ID does not want a social “fad” situation. People like BIll and other are already making a good living selling books and etc- but what I think real ID advocated really want is for the theory of ID to get in the driver seat of science and make a real difference in how science is done and what is produced by it- at least to a similar level that Darwin’s theory did. we need a reference to the baylor cafeteria to confirm this at the maximum threshold -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,13:11    What's this obsession with "finding targets" anyway? Do cdesign proponentsists really think evolution is "trying" to build structures? -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,13:21    Quote (Maya @ Aug. 19 2009,20:40)   Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 19 2009,12:09) I’m growing weary of these quibbling and thus shutting the comments off. - WmAD Translation - "Dang, that peer review thing is brutal. I'm gonna stick to books from now on!" OMFG.  What a gutless prick dishonest wimp.  (Self-censoring in case mom is reading.) no one quibbles with me release the hounds -------------- "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

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,13:33    noted scholar is on it already. Quote Go see over at the Panda’s Thumb where my very, very simple objection to Dembski’s theories makes him go totally berserk and shut off all comments for the blog. Talk about a lack of an open mind. lololololol the link "pandas thumb" goes to UD. Sal Gal shows up with one that didn't make it Quote Sal Gal Says: August 19, 2009 at 1:10 pm I didn’t get this in before Dembski shut down comments: Dr. Dembski [4]:    But in his articulation, it was a targeted search and our critique applies. Why would you regard your analysis of the amenability of the problem to solution by a simple evolutionary process as a critique? I don’t have The Blind Watchmaker at hand, but I do know that in the 1987 BBC Horizons program Dawkins says outright,    Although this is a fairly good model for Darwinism, in that it is cumulative selection, in another way, it’s really a bit of a cheat, because this program is homing in on a distant target, “Methinks it is like a weasel.” It’s looking into the future. Real evolution is blind to the future. [6:54] Would you please quote text from the book indicating that Dawkins hid the limitations of the Weasel Program from his readers? Dawkins also said in the BBC program,    This is the problem with combination locks. I get absolutely no reward for getting some of the problem right. But I don’t believe that evolution uses chance like that at all. [4:18] Again, your loaded term active information leads to attribution of the gain in performance relative to random search to Dawkins, when in fact it is due to “alignment” of evolutionary processes, in general, with problems in which increase of reproductive fitness through accrual of traits is possible. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

utidjian Posts: 185 Joined: Oct. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,14:30    My comment on the Water-strider thread hasn't been dissappearinated yet but just in case: Linky Texty Quote Hunter @ (3): Quote Is it conceivable that this gene that causes (or helps to cause) the formation of the limbs is not the blind cause of the original appearance of the limbs, as the evolutionist so claims? Where in the article does it claim that this gene is responsible for the “original appearance of the limbs”? Quote    In other words, is it possible that the evolutionary account (which roughly is that there was this bug a long time ago which suffered some mutations which happened to result in a regulatory protein modifying the limb lengths just right so the bug could start to walk on water; it worked pretty well and some more mutations came along and made it work even better; and then some more mutations, and it worked really well) is not true? Which is an interesting question. Have you ever noticed that many different kinds of insects can support themselves on water? I have. Most ants I have seen manage it quite well, even flies. Ants and flies are not well adapted to living on water but it is a start. All that is necessary is that their body weight not exceed the ability of the surface tension of the water to hold them up. Certainly it is possible that the current evolutionary explanation as presented in the paper is incorrect. Did you read the paper? What is more amazing to me is that somehow nature managed to evolve legs that just reach the water. I was going to get in on the Dembski paper thread but I figured that commenting on that was not as important as finishing watching Alien vs Predator: Requiem Seems that others got the message across to Dr. Dr. anyhow. -DU- -------------- Being laughed at doesn't mean you're progressing along some line. It probably just means you're saying some stupid shit -stevestory

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,14:49    Quote (someotherguy @ Aug. 19 2009,12:33) Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 19 2009,09:43) Hedge:     Quote I think that, right now, what the ID movement needs most is some sort of online, social networking site aimed at interesting young people in ID theory and teaching them about the holes in Darwinism. Something like that could go a long way toward “disarming Darwinism in the general culture” and would, I bet, prove quite popular too. Perhaps we should help them think of a name! How about... http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/ ? Something (call it intuition) tells me that Hedge might be aware of OD already.   :D Thanks for the OE link!   The last 10 comments go from 13 weeks to 31 weeks... that works out to less than 20 comments per year! I think the kidz are seeing right thru teh big ID scam. -------------- 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: Aug. 19 2009,15:25    Dembski: What a coward. -------------- "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

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,15:29    Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 19 2009,16:25) Dembski: What a coward. pffft not enough invective -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,15:36    Quote (utidjian @ Aug. 19 2009,13:30) My comment on the Water-strider thread hasn't been dissappearinated yet but just in case: [...] Oh, don't worry, it's only being held up by surface tension anyway, so it probably won't last long.

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,15:41    Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 19 2009,13:25) Dembski: What a coward. Time for FTK to surrender her Queen of the Flounce-Outs title. -------------- 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

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,15:49    I think that Dembski's snit could be due to the fact that he simply no longer reads his own blog. To meet such immediate resistance and to respond so feebly (with a link to a "refutation" that was nothing of the sort and he knew it) perhaps shows he was shellshocked? Maybe? Bueller? -------------- 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

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,16:29    He's probably on the phone to Do'L right know pleading with her to spampost* his trouncing off the first page. *Could be a real word. -------------- "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

dheddle Posts: 545 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,16:46    Unapologetic denial in the face of irrefutable evidence (visa vis WEASEL) always reminds me of the great train scene in Trading Places where Ophelia (Jamie Lee Curtis) needs help with her rucksack: Ophelia: I’m Inga from Sveeden. Beeks: But you’re wearing Lederhosen! Ophelia: Ja, definitely from Sveeden. Edit: wrong character--which is apropos--let the reader understand. -------------- Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,16:46    Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 19 2009,16:29) He's probably on the phone to Do'L right know pleading with her to spampost* his trouncing off the first page. *Could be a real word. That could be real entertaining. Most of the respectable grandmother's "writing" reads as if it was written in the dark and in a hurry, so if she needs to dump out a load of copy to get DrDr D's faceplant off UD's front page, it will be a real tour de farce*. *probably not a real word, but it should be. -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

khan Posts: 1554 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,16:49    Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 19 2009,16:25) Dembski: What a coward. OT? (stereotypes to follow) It amazes how quickly these misogynistic, alpha male, bully boys turn into weepy little girls. -------------- "It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad Frequency is just the plural of wavelength... -JoeG

Doc Bill Posts: 1039 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,17:15    Wow!  Dembski baled after SEVEN comments.  Maybe he forgot the drumming he got in Oklahoma from ART STUDENTS and the flagellum evolution by a Real Scientist. Dembski and his freaking Target o' Evolution.  How many times, Dembski, how many times to you have to be told there's no freaking target.  Don't listen to the voices in your head.  Srsly. Doc Bill (Real Scientist):  How do you spell "target," Dembski? WmD:  T.A.R.G.E.T. Doc:  No, that's wrong.  It's spelled T.A.R.F.U.C.K.G.E.T. WmD:  Wait a sec, there's no "fuck" in "target." Doc:  That's what I've been trying to tell you! Edited by Lou FCD on Aug. 20 2009,06:41

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,17:32    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 19 2009,16:49) I think that Dembski's snit could be due to the fact that he simply no longer reads his own blog. To meet such immediate resistance and to respond so feebly (with a link to a "refutation" that was nothing of the sort and he knew it) perhaps shows he was shellshocked? Maybe? Bueller? no way, he reads the damn thing, it's just he reads it wearing mummy's dress and wig and calls hisself "Clive" or any of the other dozen or so aliases that have passed through UD in the past 2 or 3 years.   midwifetoad suggested that moderating a blog was a time sink and that this was evidence against dembski=clive,baby but i offer the observation that Dembski is doing Fuck.All.Else.  other than instructing new generations of sunday school teachers how to stare at their navel in greater detail and churning out long refuted stale horseshit, he has nothing keeping him from doing this dirty work. i bet he's just sorry that his huge ego got ahead of his tiny little ass, causing him to post that under his own name instead of one of his socks.  if he had used an alias he wouldn't have had to shut down the commentary so quickly.  what a little bitch pup -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Advocatus Diaboli Posts: 198 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,17:43    I love the latest Demsbacle. Dembski + debacle.     Quote DrDr D: Hi guys! Check this new Pro-ID thingy out! The Gang: U got it wrong here and here. DrDr D: Im not playing with u anymore! -------------- I once thought that I made a mistake, but I was wrong. "I freely admit I’m a sociopath" - DaveScot "Most importanly, the facts are on the side of ID." - scordova "UD is the greatest website of all time." stevestory

MichaelJ Posts: 462 Joined: June 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,17:45    Quote (k.e.. @ Aug. 19 2009,12:44) Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 19 2009,19:27) Quote 4 William Dembski 08/19/2009 11:09 am Sal Gal: “He definitely did not present it as that.” Quite right, he did not present it — as in portray it – as a targeted search. But in his articulation, it was a targeted search and our critique applies. Squatney: I would re-read the paper. I know your side has quibbled about our characterization of Dawkins’ algorithm (which he did not clearly lay out in THE BLIND WATCHMAKER) as to whether it locks in correct characters or allows for their random alteration after they’ve been achieved. As I showed here, it doesn’t really matter. and he sends you to the 16 march 2009 post "Dawkins’ WEASEL: Proximity Search With or Without Locking?" where he does not show anything of the sort.  In that post he claims that Dawkins manipulated the code for the video in order to make it look 'unlatched'.  of course this is what spawned Gordon Mullings to have an apoplectic fit in which he spewed out the character count equivalent of 7 dissertations, and the content count of the back of a cereal box. Dembski has found new lows!  for this we should rejoice!  but i do believe i would rather see more flash animation than him attempting to do what he cannot possibly do, that is use science to justify his religious beliefs.  Stay Clowny, b-b-b-b-b-b-bill!!!! One wonders why Billy didn't cite Mullings and I'm sure Gordo hisself will be wondering the same. After all Billy boy and him are peers and teh new way of ID for thrith in science and resurection of culture needs all the logos of men like Mullings and his mission to save No Free Information for the likes of Jerry etc. Expect a new cancer cure from cutting edge Dembski genetic algorithms....if he can figure out what they are. If you have a tumor on you hair ID tells you chances are better than 10-150 that it's designed and a dilute solution of peroxide will remove the hair tumor and your finger prints too if you don't use gloves. Read all about it in "Hair Dressers Monthly" or tune into "Days of Our Lives" for a charged look at "Intelligent Design" in action, or heavy petting...whateva. Dense can raffle free copies of Billz book for the first creative use of Billies new paragim. ............yawn. I'm sure that GUM of TOOTHY will be wondering just that and not connect that DrDr never reads the blog. I also wonder if the moderators will be dragged over the carpet for letting the riff-raff in,

Advocatus Diaboli Posts: 198 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,18:17    If you could not follow what Dembski and Marks were trying to argue, Casey Luskin explains everything:   Quote After assessing various examples of evolutionary searches, Dembski and Marks show that attempts to model Darwinian evolution via computer simulations, such Richard Dawkins' famous "METHINKSITISLIKEAWEASEL" example, start off with, as Dembski and Marks put it, "problem-specific information about the search target or the search-space structure." According to the paper, such simulations only reach their evolutionary targets because there is pre-specified "accurate information to guide them," or what they call "active information." The implication, of course, is that some intelligent programmer is required to front-load a search with active information if the search is to successfully find rare functional genetic sequences. They conclude, "Active information is clearly required in even modestly sized searches." That makes more sense than the original paper. Dembski and Marks should get Luskin to join in on their next paper. There's also a bit of lamentation over Baylor. -------------- I once thought that I made a mistake, but I was wrong. "I freely admit I’m a sociopath" - DaveScot "Most importanly, the facts are on the side of ID." - scordova "UD is the greatest website of all time." stevestory

Zachriel Posts: 2723 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,20:18    Quote-mines, ellipses, incomplete sentences, filled in sentences, and simplified restatements. Dembski's paper doesn't start well. This is from section F. Random Mutation: Quote Dembski: If we define success of a single generation as better fitness, the active information of having {many} children as opposed to one ... ... increases. That is Dembski's active information—which is supposedly the signal of intelligence. Making more babies. Of course, increasing the reproductive rate—all else being equal—does increase the chances that at least one child will be fitter. It works every time! (All else is not always equal. Increasing the reproductive rate requires resources, food and energy in vivo organisms, cpu and memory in silico creatures.) Dembski seems to mix up the information he claims must be in the search algorithm with the information that is absorbed from the environment. This is not an issue with combination locks, but it is an issue with evolutionary algorithms. There is actually little discussion of evolution in the paper, and it seems to be limited to special cases. Quote Dembski: Conservation of information theorems indicate that any search algorithm performs, on average, as well as random search without replacement unless it takes advantage of problem-specific information about the search target or the search-space structure. With regards to evolution, we're not talking about the average performance of all search algorithms across every possible search space. We're talking about a very specific type of search algorithm and a highly organized search space. Only a study of the particulars can be fruitful. Regardless of the mathematical validity of the paper, or the utility of active information as a concept, the winked support of Intelligent Design is not warranted. -------------- You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

paragwinn Posts: 539 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,21:28    Wee Willy: Quote I’m growing weary of these quibblings and thus shutting the comments off. Meanies. Ball. Home. -------------- 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

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,21:47    Quote With regards to evolution, we're not talking about the average performance of all search algorithms across every possible search space. We're talking about a very specific type of search algorithm and a highly organized search space. One in which you always start from a viable position and never depart from viability. The only way you could validate Behe's assertions regarding structures like the flagellum would be to demonstrate that every modification of the genome results in death. He promotes the idea that every change must improve fitness, but all that's required to get from one place to another is steps that don't result in death. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,22:28    Quote (paragwinn @ Aug. 19 2009,22:28) Wee Willy:   Quote I’m growing weary of these quibblings and thus shutting the comments off. Meanies. Ball. Home. nice sig!  barryhole has been conspicuously absent these days.  must be a-lawyerin' sommers.  or glory holing -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,23:25    Quote Quote The implication, of course, is that some intelligent programmer is required to front-load a search with active information if the search is to successfully find rare functional genetic sequences. They conclude, "Active information is clearly required in even modestly sized searches." My guess is that human generated searches generally have some target specified, since when humans set up a search they're generally, well, searching for something in particular. Henry

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2009,00:19    It's pretty hard to write a GA that doesn't have some agent that implements differential reproductive success. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2009,00:28    Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 20 2009,07:25) Quote Quote The implication, of course, is that some intelligent programmer is required to front-load a search with active information if the search is to successfully find rare functional genetic sequences. They conclude, "Active information is clearly required in even modestly sized searches." My guess is that human generated searches generally have some target specified, since when humans set up a search they're generally, well, searching for something in particular. Henry And so does every living thing it just so happens. Except mosquitos don't ponder if god causes autism in their kids or worry if on the long flight from blood feed to pond whether their children will be taught dogs can have cats which seems to be some sort of invocation against inter racial sex or question the meaning of what it means to be mosquito. Without ID demons to ban such blasphemies mosquitos seem to get along fine not mating with elephants so that disproves Dembski's targeted search. -------------- "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

Ptaylor Posts: 1180 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2009,01:41    I notice the number of comments on the Dembski Pro-ID Article post has slipped from 10 to 9. Anyone know which comment was the offender? (FWIW current comments are from: Indium, David v Squatney, Sal Gal x 2, Dembski, Learned Hand, Dembski, ppb, Dembski) -------------- 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

socle Posts: 322 Joined: July 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2009,01:57    Quote (Ptaylor @ Aug. 20 2009,01:41) I notice the number of comments on the Dembski Pro-ID Article post has slipped from 10 to 9. Anyone know which comment was the offender? (FWIW current comments are from: Indium, David v Squatney, Sal Gal x 2, Dembski, Learned Hand, Dembski, ppb, Dembski) Must be noted scholar's post that's gone missing.   :p

Pages: (500) < ... 471 472 473 474 475 [476] 477 478 479 480 481 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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