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... > A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

Pages: (622) < ... 462 463 464 465 466 [467] 468 469 470 471 472 ... >

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: May 15 2015,00:50    Typo, should read: The video in the article indicates that Richard's Atheist movement is now attempting to redefine "secular" to be an anti-religion, in order to make fast money trying to deceive secular countries like the US into adopting their pop science religious agenda in their public school classrooms. -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: May 15 2015,07:05    Oh look, more pouting about irrelevancies from Gary.  More pitiful attempts at distracting from his failure to produce any of the  requisites of science. The funniest, of course, was his outrage at the analogy between his precise form of "reasoning" and its application in an only slightly different arena. Gary, the analogy is spot-on.  You don't have the faintest hope of dislodging it, other than by corrected your hideous conflation of part and whole. But as always, we know you won't because you can't.  The tragedy here is that you can't even see the nature of the problem. But, then, that's been the tragedy of your entire undertaking -- you don't even see the nature of the problem.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: May 15 2015,20:26    A secular society has a government that many coexisting peaceful religions are for the most part happy with and will help defend. It is vital to keep it out of religion including Atheism, which must have no special rights. Where Atheism had control of public education the science teachers would be wasting time with philosophical "bad design" type arguments against all other religions, embellished definitions for hypothesis and theory that turns everything in science into a tribunal Atheists believe they are most qualified to be the judge for. There is also good evidence that the giraffe dissection video only shows the movement does not know about time delays for resonant cavaties and could be very wrong about the unusually long larygeal nerve having no function/purpose. In either case the Atheist movement should be helping to keep these arguments from ignorance OUT of the public school science classrooms, but I expect that the goal is the opposite. -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: May 15 2015,23:15    I can though add: Following scientific evidence wherever it leads can sometimes take great bravery. Especially when the knowledge opening theory getting (at least some of) us somewhere is riddled with religious implications and was proposed by theorists from the Discovery Institute. But with something like that it's possible to reach religiously inspiring scientific answers, to a never ending story about who we are and how we work... (Secular) Verse and music: limahl - never ending story -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Woodbine Posts: 1218 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: May 16 2015,03:58    Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 16 2015,05:15) Following scientific evidence wherever it leads can sometimes take great bravery. Especially when the knowledge opening theory getting (at least some of) us somewhere is riddled with religious implications and was proposed by theorists from the Discovery Institute. But with something like that it's possible to reach religiously inspiring scientific answers, to a never ending story about who we are and how we work... And we slip back into the comforting arms of gibberish masquerading as deepity.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: May 16 2015,06:40    Poor Gary wants so desperately to make this about religion. As if his "theory" had any religious element to it, as if it weren't as atheistic as weather forecasting or plate tectonics. But it fits his confused narrative and allows him to fantasize that he is part of a 'movement', that he is being 'oppressed', that others like him are 'doing real science, despite ...', etc. All the convenient excuses for his utter and complete failure to convince anyone at all, even the anti-science lunatics at the DI or their running dogs on UD, the he has the faintest whiff of a trace of a clue about intelligence in any form whatsoever. But that's really all "thinkers" like Gary need -- excuses. It's so much less work, so much less effort, and so much more emotionally rewarding in the moment than doing the work, putting in the effort. Gary, you can't even manage a "God did it" pseudo-explanation for any of the things we all agree are best explained by intelligent cause. You have even less success when you try a "my theory explains it as ..." when confronted with those same phenomena.

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: May 16 2015,08:24    Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 16 2015,07:15) I can though add: Following scientific evidence wherever it leads can sometimes take great bravery. Especially when the knowledge opening theory getting (at least some of) us somewhere is riddled with religious implications and was proposed by theorists from the Discovery Institute. But with something like that it's possible to reach religiously inspiring scientific answers, to a never ending story about who we are and how we work... (Secular) Verse and music: limahl - never ending story It takes even greater bravery to recognise ones own failings. However in Gary's case that's completely redundant he's just fucking nuts. His reptillilian skeeming brain only sees base creationist identity politics populism, in all its reality denialism. He just wants to blow smoke upe Casey Unibrow's ass. -------------- "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

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 16 2015,17:21    Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 15 2015,20:26) There is also good evidence that the giraffe dissection video only shows the movement does not know about time delays for resonant cavaties and could be very wrong about the unusually long larygeal nerve having no function/purpose. Lay off the BS, Gary. There's no obvious causal relationship between your supposed nerve signal delay and "length of a resonance chamber".   First, the giraffe's "resonating chamber" is not the length of its throat, just the length of its larynx, and to a lesser extent the portion of the throat above, but the giraffe's larynx is pretty much at the top of its throat, just like ours.   Second, all the sound-producing muscles of the larynx except one are innervated by the recurrent laryngeal nerve rather than the superior nerve.  The exception is the cricothyroid muscle, which tensions the vocal folds, thereby resulting in higher pitch phonation: no signal lag or exceptional resonating chamber length are involved.  The cricothyroid muscle works at the bottom of the larynx, but is enervated by the shorter, upper, nerve, while the lower (left recurrent) nerve enervates muscles at the top, middle, and bottom of the larynx.   Third, there is no signal lag.  Synchronized nerve signal arrival is important in functions like coughing and swallowing as well as coordinating the cricothyroid muscle with the other phonation muscles, but this is taken care of not by delay or lag in signal arrival but by differential myelination (thicker myelin sheathing on the longer nerve, causing faster signal transmission): D.F.N. Harrison, 1981, Acta Oto-laryngologica, 1981, Vol. 91, No. 1-6 , Pages 383-389, "Fibre Size Frequency in the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerves of Man and Giraffe".       Quote An Optomax Image Analyser has been used to carry out fibre-size analyses in six pairs of human recurrent laryngeal nerve and two pairs of recurrent nerves from adult giraffes. in every case the left recurrent laryngeal nerve was found to contain a greater number of large, fast-conducting fibres. Since this nerve is longer than the right, these findings may explain the simultaneous arrival of motor impulses to both sides of the laryngeal musculature. So, studies have been done and biologists know about these things, contra your charges, and there is no lag between the two nerve signals, contra your expectations, and there is no required correlation between resonance chamber length and nerve lag time.  Again, there is no lag.  This has been pointed out to you earlier in this thread, so at this point you are lying. Note the pattern here: once again you are spouting ignorant and untruthful BS because you think it sounds good and because it supports the way you want things to be.  Is it surprising that you have NO credibility left?

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: May 16 2015,17:33    Quote (N.Wells @ May 16 2015,17:21) First, the giraffe's "resonating chamber" is not the length of its throat, just the length of its larynx, and to a lesser extent the portion of the throat above, but the giraffe's larynx is at the top of its throat, just like ours. ......... That is just more of your usual bullshit that completely ignores the giraffe's ability to transmit and receive 10 hz sound waves that we cannot even hear. In either case you cannot be sure either way, therefore your "bad design" argument only qualifies as an "argument from ignorance". -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Texas Teach Posts: 2084 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: May 16 2015,17:54    Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 16 2015,17:33) Quote (N.Wells @ May 16 2015,17:21) First, the giraffe's "resonating chamber" is not the length of its throat, just the length of its larynx, and to a lesser extent the portion of the throat above, but the giraffe's larynx is at the top of its throat, just like ours. ......... That is just more of your usual bullshit that completely ignores the giraffe's ability to transmit and receive 10 hz sound waves that we cannot even hear. In either case you cannot be sure either way, therefore your "bad design" argument only qualifies as an "argument from ignorance". Poor Gary.  It must really hurt when reality destroys your imaginings. -------------- "Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr "I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: May 16 2015,18:48    Quote (Texas Teach @ May 16 2015,17:54) Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 16 2015,17:33) Quote (N.Wells @ May 16 2015,17:21) First, the giraffe's "resonating chamber" is not the length of its throat, just the length of its larynx, and to a lesser extent the portion of the throat above, but the giraffe's larynx is at the top of its throat, just like ours. ......... That is just more of your usual bullshit that completely ignores the giraffe's ability to transmit and receive 10 hz sound waves that we cannot even hear. In either case you cannot be sure either way, therefore your "bad design" argument only qualifies as an "argument from ignorance". Poor Gary.  It must really hurt when reality destroys your imaginings. I did not have a problem changing my ways after learning that "bad design" arguments are based on lack of evidence (including having missed Muller cell light guides that give the human retina great sensitivity and detail) and easily later become embarrassing to repeat arguments from ignorance. They are not scientific evidence against the premise of the Theory of Intelligent Design. -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: May 16 2015,18:56    Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 16 2015,19:48) Quote (Texas Teach @ May 16 2015,17:54) Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 16 2015,17:33)   Quote (N.Wells @ May 16 2015,17:21) First, the giraffe's "resonating chamber" is not the length of its throat, just the length of its larynx, and to a lesser extent the portion of the throat above, but the giraffe's larynx is at the top of its throat, just like ours. ......... That is just more of your usual bullshit that completely ignores the giraffe's ability to transmit and receive 10 hz sound waves that we cannot even hear. In either case you cannot be sure either way, therefore your "bad design" argument only qualifies as an "argument from ignorance". Poor Gary.  It must really hurt when reality destroys your imaginings. I did not have a problem changing my ways after learning that "bad design" arguments are based on lack of evidence (including having missed Muller cell light guides that give the human retina great sensitivity and detail) and easily later become embarrassing to repeat arguments from ignorance. They are not scientific evidence against the premise of the Theory of Intelligent Design. Idiot it's not even a 'bad design' argument. It's an "it doesn't work the way you claim" argument. A decisive one.  Not that you've ever met an argument that didn't defeat you.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 16 2015,20:19    Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 16 2015,17:33)               Quote (N.Wells @ May 16 2015,17:21) First, the giraffe's "resonating chamber" is not the length of its throat, just the length of its larynx, and to a lesser extent the portion of the throat above, but the giraffe's larynx is at the top of its throat, just like ours. ......... That is just more of your usual bullshit that completely ignores the giraffe's ability to transmit and receive 10 hz sound waves that we cannot even hear. In either case you cannot be sure either way, therefore your "bad design" argument only qualifies as an "argument from ignorance". BS again.  I'm well aware of the giraffe's ability to produce infrasound.  It does not do it from below its larynx.  (Neither does the elephant, which manages to produce massive amounts of infrasound with a much shorter left recurrent laryngeal nerve, albeit with a very large larynx.  The Sumatran rhino gets down to 3 Hz, again without a really long recurrent laryngeal nerve.) So you really want to go down arguing, "scientists can be wrong, so whatever fantasy I dream up has to be taken seriously"?  Really????  That's truly an argument from ignorance. Also, shifting from "that's not how it works" to arguments that "yes, a feature can indeed be identified as a suboptimum arrangement", Muller glia cells are a pretty good (but not fantastic) fix that mediates some of the problems of an unfortunate, locked-in bad design.  They offer a FEW pathways of transmission through a mass of nerve cells, etc., which inherently means a worse image than would be afforded to a retina with 100% coverage and no blocking ganglia and other cells.  They are present in some animals that do not have backwardly wired retinas (they do significantly aid color vision, so they are a legitimate part of a well-functioning eye), but in animals with eyes like ours, they appear to have been co-opted to offset the problem of "backward wiring" which was caused at least in part by our eyes being formed from the layered cortex of the brain: http://www.theskepticsguide.org/scienti....ds-eye.  This function had been overlooked, but the eye remains a bad design regardless.  Furthermore, the discovery was made by regular scientists doing regular science, not by IDists, who have yet to contribute anything of practical or theoretical value to science.  The "Discovery Institute" has not yet earned its name, and should perhaps be referred to as the "No Discoveries Institute". Dictionary of English: bull·shit, ˈbo͝olˌSHit/, noun, Stupid or untrue talk or writing; nonsense. Dictionary of Gary: bullshit, noun, "I have no rebuttal."

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: May 16 2015,21:24    I earlier provided information showing that the acoustics involve the lung volume and length to throat. Musical instruments for low notes also have longer acoustic chamber lengths. I do not even have to be right, for other possibilities that need further research to exist. You are still arguing from ignorance. Shame on you. -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: May 16 2015,22:16    Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 17 2015,05:24) I earlier provided information showing that the acoustics involve the lung volume and length to throat. Musical instruments for low notes also have longer acoustic chamber lengths. I do not even have to be right, for other possibilities that need further research to exist. You are still arguing from ignorance. Shame on you. So that would be argument from being WRONG! Jesus Gary you're a twat. -------------- "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

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 16 2015,23:44    You got your preposition wrong. We are arguing with ignorance. Namely, y'all. -------------- "[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory "Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: May 17 2015,01:47    Quote (fnxtr @ May 16 2015,23:44) You got your preposition wrong. We are arguing with ignorance. Namely, y'all. The "bad design" type arguments always boil down to religious arguments against religious deities by assuming that such things as nipples on human males proves that there is no intelligence at all in the incredibly complex molecular and cellular system that have for many generations been causing our development, over time. It's wrong to ignore the fact that intelligent designs are not expected to start off perfect in every way and never can be improved. In reality the first designs may barely work. The best these tactics can accomplish is provide evidence for "intelligent design" not against it. I am even giggling right now by how easily they essentially "fall into my hands" without even knowing it, by doing that. Where sufficiently able to model them the computer model would most likely put nipples on males too, but not because there is no intelligence in the system it's from there being such an impressive amount there. -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: May 17 2015,08:00    Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 17 2015,02:47) Quote (fnxtr @ May 16 2015,23:44) You got your preposition wrong. We are arguing with ignorance. Namely, y'all. The "bad design" type arguments always boil down to religious arguments against religious deities by assuming that such things as nipples on human males proves that there is no intelligence at all in the incredibly complex molecular and cellular system that have for many generations been causing our development, over time. It's wrong to ignore the fact that intelligent designs are not expected to start off perfect in every way and never can be improved. In reality the first designs may barely work. The best these tactics can accomplish is provide evidence for "intelligent design" not against it. I am even giggling right now by how easily they essentially "fall into my hands" without even knowing it, by doing that. Where sufficiently able to model them the computer model would most likely put nipples on males too, but not because there is no intelligence in the system it's from there being such an impressive amount there. And that's why you're so desperate to drag the argument to where it did not start. Again, it is not a "bad design" argument here, it is a "you are wrong about how real things in the real world work, based on real data." You are a pathetic lunatic who goes wrong even about how he's gone wrong. Do please note that the consequence of your "answer" to the 'bad design' argument is that the designer is inept, quite the opposite of omniscient or omnipotent, and ultimately, unnecessary.  The 'designer' has zero explanatory power, zero aspects that warrant worship or respect, zero resemblance to the deity of any major religion, and so is the target of interest to neither science nor religion. Which may be a small part of the explanation for why your spittle-flecked raving and drooling attracts zero support from any camp, including the DI and its ilk.

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: May 17 2015,09:17    Gary seems to echo Paul Nelson, but without the scholarship. My response to Nelson. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Jim_Wynne Posts: 1208 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 17 2015,09:24    Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 17 2015,01:47) The "bad design" type arguments always boil down to religious arguments against religious deities by assuming that such things as nipples on human males proves that there is no intelligence at all in the incredibly complex molecular and cellular system process of evolution by natural selection that have has for many generations been causing our development, over time. FTFY -------------- Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 17 2015,11:03    Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 17 2015,01:47)       Quote (fnxtr @ May 16 2015,23:44) You got your preposition wrong. We are arguing with ignorance. Namely, y'all. The "bad design" type arguments always boil down to religious arguments against religious deities by assuming that such things as nipples on human males proves that there is no intelligence at all in the incredibly complex molecular and cellular system that have for many generations been causing our development, over time. It's wrong to ignore the fact that intelligent designs are not expected to start off perfect in every way and never can be improved. In reality the first designs may barely work. 1 & 2)  People have learned not to expect perfection at the outset from low-level intelligent causation, such as beaver dams, your attempts at writing, or my attempts at playing musical instruments (well, everyone expects a certain level of competence from beavers at least).  However, anti-ID arguments boil down to *evidence-based* (not "religious") arguments against religious assertions because ALL the ID arguments other than yours are ultimately interested in the designer who sole text proclaims Creation of Everything as a first attempt that was indeed very good: "And God saw that it was good..... And God saw that it was good.........  And God saw that it was good. ....... And God saw that it was good. ..........  And God saw that it was good.........  God saw all that he had made, and it was very good."  This gets elevated to their doctrine of a perfect Creation (e.g. "God's Holiness Demands a Perfect Creation", by Henry Morris III).       Quote The best these tactics can accomplish is provide evidence for "intelligent design" not against it. I am even giggling right now by how easily they essentially "fall into my hands" without even knowing it, by doing that. 3) Arguments against perfection provide excellent evidence against standard Intelligent Design (more particularly, in Wesley's words, against creation by an optimizing engineer), and as such belong in discussions about ID.  No serious support of your particular set of ideas has been forthcoming (which is why one of several reasons why it fails to qualify as a theory and why it has not earned a place at the table).   Wesley makes a nice point about how you are wrong about science's arguments being religious and how you are also wrong about "the best these tactics can accomplish....".  Scientific arguments against design do not (or need not) ultimately rely on anyone's feelings about good versus bad design.  It is enough simply that different lineages do basic tasks differently, and that some lineages have severely compromised and kludged systems while others are significantly better.  Primate color vision versus color vision in reptiles and birds would be a good example.  From Wesley,       Quote the "comparative method allows for identification of suboptimal design. The instantiation of components achieving particular functions gives us a basis for comparing the systems which provide for similar functionality. In those cases where such systems meet an engineering criterion of modularity, it is eminently reasonable to ask why module p was employed in one instance, but kludgy module p' was employed in another. We don't have to be able to identify the optimal in order to identify what is suboptimal." Things that would be bad design if they were designed in no way provide evidence for intelligent design (the best you can hope for is to neutralize bad design arguments).  However, you are failing miserably at this because you can't even get basic facts right, and you are in fact lying on some items. That you claim to be giggling at your performance here merely strengthens the argument for you needing better medications and professional help.       Quote Where sufficiently able to model them the computer model would most likely put nipples on males too, but not because there is no intelligence in the system it's from there being such an impressive amount there. 4) That's a totally hollow assertion that lacks supporting logic, supporting evidence, and competent English. Your model has a hippocampus in an insect, for instance, so how valid is that going to be?

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: May 17 2015,16:47    Quote (N.Wells @ May 17 2015,11:03) Wesley makes a nice point about how you are wrong about science's arguments being religious........... Only a fool would believe that "science's arguments" against a computer model and its theory of operation include asking what kind of perfect God would put nipples on males. If women were polled for their opinion then that argument could easily fail by finding out that most of them prefer it that way. It was then a wise choice indeed, by whatever God you ended up arguing for (instead of against). -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Texas Teach Posts: 2084 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: May 17 2015,17:00    Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 17 2015,16:47) Quote (N.Wells @ May 17 2015,11:03) Wesley makes a nice point about how you are wrong about science's arguments being religious........... Only a fool would believe that "science's arguments" against a computer model and its theory of operation include asking what kind of perfect God would put nipples on males. If women were polled for their opinion then that argument could easily fail by finding out that most of them prefer it that way. It was then a wise choice indeed, by whatever God you ended up arguing for (instead of against). Gary, has anyone here ever asked you what kind of perfect god put nipples on males?  Unless the answer is yes, you're full of shit. Not everything is about you, Giggles. Now, can we please go back to discussing how the published literature shows you're just making thing up?  Because that's funny as hell. -------------- "Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr "I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: May 17 2015,17:40    Quote (Texas Teach @ May 17 2015,17:00) Gary, has anyone here ever asked you what kind of perfect god put nipples on males?  Unless the answer is yes, you're full of shit. Yes this is one of the "bad design" arguments that I have encountered. It was not directly asked to me, it's included in at least one of the lists of religious demands that the entire ID movement is expected to scientifically meet. -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Texas Teach Posts: 2084 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: May 17 2015,17:50    Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 17 2015,17:40) Quote (Texas Teach @ May 17 2015,17:00) Gary, has anyone here ever asked you what kind of perfect god put nipples on males?  Unless the answer is yes, you're full of shit. Yes this is one of the "bad design" arguments that I have encountered. It was not directly asked to me, it's included in at least one of the lists of religious demands that the entire ID movement is expected to scientifically meet. So, "no"?  Again, you aren't the entire IDC movement, nor are you any part of the IDC movement outside of your imagination. They don't want you.  They mostly don't even know you exist.  You've tried to appropriate their name and a few vague slogans for reasons no one can fathom as an association with those charlatans is nothing but bad for you. How's about you answer the questions we've actually asked instead of flailing at stawmen? -------------- "Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr "I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 17 2015,19:52    Maybe flailing is how he gets his exercise?

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: May 17 2015,23:23    Quote (N.Wells @ May 17 2015,11:03) Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 17 2015,01:47)         Quote (fnxtr @ May 16 2015,23:44) You got your preposition wrong. We are arguing with ignorance. Namely, y'all. The "bad design" type arguments always boil down to religious arguments against religious deities by assuming that such things as nipples on human males proves that there is no intelligence at all in the incredibly complex molecular and cellular system that have for many generations been causing our development, over time. It's wrong to ignore the fact that intelligent designs are not expected to start off perfect in every way and never can be improved. In reality the first designs may barely work. 1 & 2)  People have learned not to expect perfection at the outset from low-level intelligent causation, such as beaver dams, your attempts at writing, or my attempts at playing musical instruments (well, everyone expects a certain level of competence from beavers at least).  However, anti-ID arguments boil down to *evidence-based* (not "religious") arguments against religious assertions because ALL the ID arguments other than yours are ultimately interested in the designer who sole text proclaims Creation of Everything as a first attempt that was indeed very good: "And God saw that it was good..... And God saw that it was good.........  And God saw that it was good. ....... And God saw that it was good. ..........  And God saw that it was good.........  God saw all that he had made, and it was very good."  This gets elevated to their doctrine of a perfect Creation (e.g. "God's Holiness Demands a Perfect Creation", by Henry Morris III).         Quote The best these tactics can accomplish is provide evidence for "intelligent design" not against it. I am even giggling right now by how easily they essentially "fall into my hands" without even knowing it, by doing that. 3) Arguments against perfection provide excellent evidence against standard Intelligent Design (more particularly, in Wesley's words, against creation by an optimizing engineer), and as such belong in discussions about ID.  No serious support of your particular set of ideas has been forthcoming (which is why one of several reasons why it fails to qualify as a theory and why it has not earned a place at the table).   Wesley makes a nice point about how you are wrong about science's arguments being religious and how you are also wrong about "the best these tactics can accomplish....".  Scientific arguments against design do not (or need not) ultimately rely on anyone's feelings about good versus bad design.  It is enough simply that different lineages do basic tasks differently, and that some lineages have severely compromised and kludged systems while others are significantly better.  Primate color vision versus color vision in reptiles and birds would be a good example.  From Wesley,         Quote the "comparative method allows for identification of suboptimal design. The instantiation of components achieving particular functions gives us a basis for comparing the systems which provide for similar functionality. In those cases where such systems meet an engineering criterion of modularity, it is eminently reasonable to ask why module p was employed in one instance, but kludgy module p' was employed in another. We don't have to be able to identify the optimal in order to identify what is suboptimal." Things that would be bad design if they were designed in no way provide evidence for intelligent design (the best you can hope for is to neutralize bad design arguments).  However, you are failing miserably at this because you can't even get basic facts right, and you are in fact lying on some items. That you claim to be giggling at your performance here merely strengthens the argument for you needing better medications and professional help.         Quote Where sufficiently able to model them the computer model would most likely put nipples on males too, but not because there is no intelligence in the system it's from there being such an impressive amount there. 4) That's a totally hollow assertion that lacks supporting logic, supporting evidence, and competent English. Your model has a hippocampus in an insect, for instance, so how valid is that going to be? Joe G found something by William D that you need to read: http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2015.......6046789 -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: May 18 2015,01:17    After reading Demsbki, who also utilized Nelson, one can then read my response. Quote There are a variety of problems in this latest essay. As implied above, terminological issues pose not inconsiderable problems of their own. Part of the problem is that the topic of optimality is not simply a tabula rasa awaiting the impress of an IDC intellect to shape it. A quite considerable literature exists which explores various aspects of optimality as it applies to biological issues. As the literature on optimal foraging theory makes clear, optimality is to be considered as finding the best approach with respect to a set of relevant constraints. In other words, "optimality" as it is already used by biologists corresponds rather closely to the description that Dembski gives for "constrained optimization". "Constrained optimization" is touted by Dembski as a feature of designs produced by intelligent designers and thus characteristic of actual design. But now we have the curious situation where the theologian climbs the mountain - and finds the biologists already ensconced there. The "optimality" discussed by biologists is "constrained optimization", and thus shares the properties that Dembski asserts for "actual design". -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: May 18 2015,07:36    Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 18 2015,07:23) Quote (N.Wells @ May 17 2015,11:03)   Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 17 2015,01:47)           Quote (fnxtr @ May 16 2015,23:44) You got your preposition wrong. We are arguing with ignorance. Namely, y'all. The "bad design" type arguments always boil down to religious arguments against religious deities by assuming that such things as nipples on human males proves that there is no intelligence at all in the incredibly complex molecular and cellular system that have for many generations been causing our development, over time. It's wrong to ignore the fact that intelligent designs are not expected to start off perfect in every way and never can be improved. In reality the first designs may barely work. 1 & 2)  People have learned not to expect perfection at the outset from low-level intelligent causation, such as beaver dams, your attempts at writing, or my attempts at playing musical instruments (well, everyone expects a certain level of competence from beavers at least).  However, anti-ID arguments boil down to *evidence-based* (not "religious") arguments against religious assertions because ALL the ID arguments other than yours are ultimately interested in the designer who sole text proclaims Creation of Everything as a first attempt that was indeed very good: "And God saw that it was good..... And God saw that it was good.........  And God saw that it was good. ....... And God saw that it was good. ..........  And God saw that it was good.........  God saw all that he had made, and it was very good."  This gets elevated to their doctrine of a perfect Creation (e.g. "God's Holiness Demands a Perfect Creation", by Henry Morris III).           Quote The best these tactics can accomplish is provide evidence for "intelligent design" not against it. I am even giggling right now by how easily they essentially "fall into my hands" without even knowing it, by doing that. 3) Arguments against perfection provide excellent evidence against standard Intelligent Design (more particularly, in Wesley's words, against creation by an optimizing engineer), and as such belong in discussions about ID.  No serious support of your particular set of ideas has been forthcoming (which is why one of several reasons why it fails to qualify as a theory and why it has not earned a place at the table).   Wesley makes a nice point about how you are wrong about science's arguments being religious and how you are also wrong about "the best these tactics can accomplish....".  Scientific arguments against design do not (or need not) ultimately rely on anyone's feelings about good versus bad design.  It is enough simply that different lineages do basic tasks differently, and that some lineages have severely compromised and kludged systems while others are significantly better.  Primate color vision versus color vision in reptiles and birds would be a good example.  From Wesley,           Quote the "comparative method allows for identification of suboptimal design. The instantiation of components achieving particular functions gives us a basis for comparing the systems which provide for similar functionality. In those cases where such systems meet an engineering criterion of modularity, it is eminently reasonable to ask why module p was employed in one instance, but kludgy module p' was employed in another. We don't have to be able to identify the optimal in order to identify what is suboptimal." Things that would be bad design if they were designed in no way provide evidence for intelligent design (the best you can hope for is to neutralize bad design arguments).  However, you are failing miserably at this because you can't even get basic facts right, and you are in fact lying on some items. That you claim to be giggling at your performance here merely strengthens the argument for you needing better medications and professional help.           Quote Where sufficiently able to model them the computer model would most likely put nipples on males too, but not because there is no intelligence in the system it's from there being such an impressive amount there. 4) That's a totally hollow assertion that lacks supporting logic, supporting evidence, and competent English. Your model has a hippocampus in an insect, for instance, so how valid is that going to be? Joe G found something by William D that you need to read: http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2015.......6046789 Waterloo! -------------- "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

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: May 18 2015,07:41    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 18 2015,09:17) After reading Demsbki, who also utilized Nelson, one can then read my response.   Quote There are a variety of problems in this latest essay. As implied above, terminological issues pose not inconsiderable problems of their own. Part of the problem is that the topic of optimality is not simply a tabula rasa awaiting the impress of an IDC intellect to shape it. A quite considerable literature exists which explores various aspects of optimality as it applies to biological issues. As the literature on optimal foraging theory makes clear, optimality is to be considered as finding the best approach with respect to a set of relevant constraints. In other words, "optimality" as it is already used by biologists corresponds rather closely to the description that Dembski gives for "constrained optimization". "Constrained optimization" is touted by Dembski as a feature of designs produced by intelligent designers and thus characteristic of actual design. But now we have the curious situation where the theologian climbs the mountain - and finds the biologists already ensconced there. The "optimality" discussed by biologists is "constrained optimization", and thus shares the properties that Dembski asserts for "actual design". designer gods and or space aliens -------------- "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

Pages: (622) < ... 462 463 464 465 466 [467] 468 469 470 471 472 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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