RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (500) < ... 493 494 495 496 497 [498] 499 500 >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 2, general discussion of Dembski's site< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2009,09:15   

wesley it's too late to send you my firstborn but i can arrange to have the firstborn of others sent to you for your ceremonial nefariosities

ETA on other notes, how is that gordon mullings never has heart attacks?  seems like tard that great must stress the machine that produces it.  that latest screed is some seriously hysterical horsefeathers.  there is no reasonable naive person in the world who would take that poor dumb bastard seriously so perhaps that is a gift.

i would like to see him fight a bathtub full of ice

or better yet

BARRET BROWN
 why don't you do a story on Gordon E Mullings of Montserrat the mad ID scientist preacher????

that would be faaaaaaaaaantastic.  there are plenty of web crumbs

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

  
BillB



Posts: 388
Joined: Aug. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2009,09:21   

My parting words to KF:    
Quote
281
BillB
09/02/2009
8:15 am

The issue here, at its core, is simple. Is the algorithm that Dembski and Marks describe the same as the one Dawkins describes.

The answer, clearly: It is not.

You have consistently failed to deal with this simple issue, resorting instead to verbal gymnastics to try and make it look like all the obvious differences between the two are not really differences, or are irrelevant to the point, and to making derogatory comments about the motivations of those who are questioning your dubious reasoning.

Your profound inability to deal with these simple and straightforward issues is shocking, as is your contempt for academic standards. I see no point it continuing with this, you are beyond the grasp of reason, logic and evidence.

Goodbye


and then KF:    
Quote
282
kairosfocus
09/02/2009
8:36 am

BillB:

The game just changed.

After the red herring, strawman and ad hominem fest overnight, you have proved that you were a harbinger.

What is indicated now is apology and correction on your part; and that of several others.

On basic civility.

Absent that, discussion is over.

G’day.

GEM of TKI

PS: Onlookers Point 5 above answers to anything on the serious merits BillB might otherwise have had. (And of course the just above from him concludes with yet another turnabout false accusation. I think astute onlookers can easily enough see that others, Joseph and I have taken a lot of time and effort to answer to genuine issues on the merits, ever since December last. To slander us as distracting and distortion to try to reduce us to immoral equivalency to those whose sleaziness is revealed above through documented misdirection, misrepresentation and mischaracterisation, is slander, willful and malicious, inexcusable slander. Period. [Save, that this last slander tells us a lot of what we need to know about the real balance of the case on its merits.])


Must ... resist ... replying ... to this moron.

By the way, GCUGreyArea is vanishing from this forum because, if you didn't guess already (and I know at least one of you has) he was me.  I now have no socks anywhere.  The question is, will Clive now moderate me on UD for not being a sock?

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2009,09:57   

Pigs flew:

StephenB:
 
Quote
On the other hand, my critics are right in another important way: The sentence is misleading as the words, “under the circumstances,” by which I meant to convey “if, as it turns out,” easily translates into “according to the conditions just mentioned,” which would make it appear that I am arguing that events can occur solely through natural causes. I mistakenly assumed that my readers understood that all physical events automatically require sufficient causes, so I should have bridged that gap by using a different transitional phrase. I have not been attentive enough to that point...

That means, of course, that I owe Rob and Diffaxial apologies for my half of the misunderstanding and the attendant allusions to dishonesty.

It's half notpology ("I mistakenly assumed that my readers understood...") but that is more than I would expected from Stephen, EVAR.

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

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

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

  
dheddle



Posts: 545
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2009,10:56   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 01 2009,18:59)
 
Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 01 2009,11:52)
Armininians:  Jimmy Swaggart, Charles Finney, …

You left out John Wesley.

Don't burden me with inconvenient facts!

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

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2009,13:04   

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 02 2009,10:56)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 01 2009,18:59)
 
Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 01 2009,11:52)
Armininians:  Jimmy Swaggart, Charles Finney, …

You left out John Wesley.

Don't burden me with inconvenient facts!

Onlookers, clearly "they" don't want you to remember the latching that led to John Wesley Hardin.

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

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2009,14:12   

Does anyone know what happened to herb?  I haven't seen him at UD for a bit, and don't recall a bannination (and didn't see anything on the relevant thread here).

I'm just curious.

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2009,14:32   

yw bob

i've always maintained you are herb.  you're not fooling me with this doe-eyed "where is herb" stuff

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

  
olegt



Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2009,14:45   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 02 2009,09:57)
Pigs flew:

StephenB:
   
Quote
On the other hand, my critics are right in another important way: The sentence is misleading as the words, “under the circumstances,” by which I meant to convey “if, as it turns out,” easily translates into “according to the conditions just mentioned,” which would make it appear that I am arguing that events can occur solely through natural causes. I mistakenly assumed that my readers understood that all physical events automatically require sufficient causes, so I should have bridged that gap by using a different transitional phrase. I have not been attentive enough to that point...

That means, of course, that I owe Rob and Diffaxial apologies for my half of the misunderstanding and the attendant allusions to dishonesty.

It's half notpology ("I mistakenly assumed that my readers understood...") but that is more than I would expected from Stephen, EVAR.

Wow!  It only took 225 comments to get to the bottom of this!  Good job, StepnenB!

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2009,15:26   

Bourne:
 
Quote
It gets worse. Multiply that 1st P (probability) by the P for getting the structural requirements correct, the P of randomly creating the correctly shaped and sized parts.
Then, add to this the fact that nature isn’t even trying to make a flagellum (let alone DNA) and you don’t need to be a pro statistician to know it will never happen in any amount of time.

emphasis in original.
 
Quote
don’t need to be a pro statistician

Sums up UD - boom boom!

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2009,16:11   

lololol that is sigworthy

cornytard's most recent episode of getting-some-on-your-leg is pretty funny

Quote
3
camanintx
09/02/2009
3:39 pm
An internal combustion engine is irreducibly complexity, for instance. Take away the valve, or the piston, or the spark plug, or the wire, and it does not function.

You do realize that early internal combustion engines didn’t use compression or sparks to function. So much for irreducibly complex.

Besides, the double-acting reciprocating piston pump with a crank-connecting rod mechanism was invented in 1206 for moving water and spark gap generators were invented in 1887 to generate radio signals. Thus the modern internal combustion engine is a perfect example of how existing features can be co-opted to produce new functions.


Very nice.  

swine pearls, etc.

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

  
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2009,16:20   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 02 2009,17:11)
lololol that is sigworthy

cornytard's most recent episode of getting-some-on-your-leg is pretty funny

Quote
3
camanintx
09/02/2009
3:39 pm
An internal combustion engine is irreducibly complexity, for instance. Take away the valve, or the piston, or the spark plug, or the wire, and it does not function.

You do realize that early internal combustion engines didn’t use compression or sparks to function. So much for irreducibly complex.

Besides, the double-acting reciprocating piston pump with a crank-connecting rod mechanism was invented in 1206 for moving water and spark gap generators were invented in 1887 to generate radio signals. Thus the modern internal combustion engine is a perfect example of how existing features can be co-opted to produce new functions.


Very nice.  

swine pearls, etc.

Are the tards incapable of doing research? Or merely philosophically opposed?

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

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2009,16:38   

Quote (khan @ Sep. 02 2009,17:20)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 02 2009,17:11)
lololol that is sigworthy

cornytard's most recent episode of getting-some-on-your-leg is pretty funny

   
Quote
3
camanintx
09/02/2009
3:39 pm
An internal combustion engine is irreducibly complexity, for instance. Take away the valve, or the piston, or the spark plug, or the wire, and it does not function.

You do realize that early internal combustion engines didn’t use compression or sparks to function. So much for irreducibly complex.

Besides, the double-acting reciprocating piston pump with a crank-connecting rod mechanism was invented in 1206 for moving water and spark gap generators were invented in 1887 to generate radio signals. Thus the modern internal combustion engine is a perfect example of how existing features can be co-opted to produce new functions.


Very nice.  

swine pearls, etc.

Are the tards incapable of doing research? Or merely philosophically opposed?

A lot of them don't even seem to have any google.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2009,16:59   

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Sep. 02 2009,16:38)
A lot of them don't even seem to have any google.

It's not fair - it's just cuz The Bible don't tell 'em how to Google!  Or how to be honest either, apparantly!

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

  
MichaelJ



Posts: 462
Joined: June 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2009,16:59   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 02 2009,09:15)
wesley it's too late to send you my firstborn but i can arrange to have the firstborn of others sent to you for your ceremonial nefariosities

ETA on other notes, how is that gordon mullings never has heart attacks?  seems like tard that great must stress the machine that produces it.  that latest screed is some seriously hysterical horsefeathers.  there is no reasonable naive person in the world who would take that poor dumb bastard seriously so perhaps that is a gift.

i would like to see him fight a bathtub full of ice

or better yet

BARRET BROWN  why don't you do a story on Gordon E Mullings of Montserrat the mad ID scientist preacher????

that would be faaaaaaaaaantastic.  there are plenty of web crumbs

I think an article on KF would be a little too much like making fun of the mentally ill.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2009,17:08   

Clive
Quote
Of course, but the velocity is something in particular, not just generic “velocity” or all “velocities”. It is a particular, so it is not exhaustive, so it is not a tautology. So, your question to Barry is a non sequitur, for the “active information” involved is not a tautology.

What? Go read it in context. It won't make a difference.

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2009,17:32   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 02 2009,17:08)
Clive
           
Quote
Of course, but the velocity is something in particular, not just generic “velocity” or all “velocities”. It is a particular, so it is not exhaustive, so it is not a tautology. So, your question to Barry is a non sequitur, for the “active information” involved is not a tautology.

What? Go read it in context. It won't make a difference.

I like Clive's previous analogy better:
         
Quote
" to give any positive number, is to say that it is more than zero. That’s not a tautology, for the positive number isn’t all positive numbers, it is a specific number, a specific amount. "


Shorter Clive:
"If I say that 5 is a (A) positive number  (B) greater than zero, that's not tautological"


Apparently,  even if 5 as (A) belongs to (B) by definition, and the converse is also true, by definition.

Here's the kicker, Clive: ALL POSSIBLE MEMBERS OF "A" BELONG TO "B" (and vice-versa).

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2009,17:36   

Quote
Thus the modern internal combustion engine is a perfect example of how existing features can be co-opted to produce new functions.


Don't forget that carburetors were based on perfume atomizers.

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2009,18:12   

Quote (MichaelJ @ Sep. 02 2009,17:59)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 02 2009,09:15)
wesley it's too late to send you my firstborn but i can arrange to have the firstborn of others sent to you for your ceremonial nefariosities

ETA on other notes, how is that gordon mullings never has heart attacks?  seems like tard that great must stress the machine that produces it.  that latest screed is some seriously hysterical horsefeathers.  there is no reasonable naive person in the world who would take that poor dumb bastard seriously so perhaps that is a gift.

i would like to see him fight a bathtub full of ice

or better yet

BARRET BROWN  why don't you do a story on Gordon E Mullings of Montserrat the mad ID scientist preacher????

that would be faaaaaaaaaantastic.  there are plenty of web crumbs

I think an article on KF would be a little too much like making fun of the mentally ill.

anyone that is that much of an asshole loses much of my sympathy.


as in this

Quote
2 September 2009

Interest in Intelligent Design is Strong
TCS

We thought the readers here might be interested in knowing a little bit about how much interest is out there for ID.  One gauge of that is UD’s traffic.  August traffic is at a high for the year with 31,000 more visits than the previous 7-month average (see graph).



What is also of interest is the number of unique addresses visiting UD over the course of a month.  This is an indicator (although imperfect) of the number of individual computers that are used to view UD.  Note that this number has grown for every month that we have data for (sorry the data only goes back to April because of a server change).



We think this shows that many people are pleased with the direction UD has been taking and that interest in intelligent design remains quite high.  Thank you to all of the volunteer contributors, commenters, and general readers.


just as dishonest as the rest of the site.  if it weren't for trolls and sock puppets and folks from ATBC laughing at these dipshits <*guilty guilty guilty*> they would have nothing.

weasel tardery makes for hits too.

don't think they don't know it.

a tard boycott would be interesting.  don't know if i can do it.  DTs and what all

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

  
someotherguy



Posts: 398
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2009,19:30   

I believe a tard boycott was proposed a while back, but I don't think much came of it.  I, for one, have let my sock lie dormant in the closet for the past few weeks (not that it was ever too active), but that's just because I'm busy (read:  lazy).

--------------
Evolander in training

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2009,21:49   

Gordon Mullings just can't say, "I got it wrong," even when it is patently obvious to anybody that he was wrong, flagrantly and belligerently. Well, anybody who doesn't have a religious precommitment to IDC.

It's worth repeating what I said back around the time the 1987 video footage came to light:

Quote

The video demonstrates that the “weasel” program used by Dawkins was not latching, no source code is needed to confirm that. The religious antievolutionists have themselves latched onto the utterly demented notion that Dawkins used a different “latching” program for “weasel” output in “The Blind Watchmaker” and “New Scientist” in 1986 than in the 1987 video. Why is it demented? First, because “latching” is completely unlike the biology, and Dawkins is an accomplished biologist. Second, because the program Dawkins obviously did use in the video documentary about his book “The Blind Watchmaker” obviously doesn’t use latching. Third, because the math says that for reasonable population sizes and mutation rates, one doesn’t expect to see the best candidates from successive generations lose correct characters. Fourth, because Dawkins himself has said that he didn’t do anything of the sort.


All of that makes sense... something Gordon Mullings can't bring himself to do on this topic.

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

    
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2009,21:57   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 02 2009,18:32)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 02 2009,17:08)
Clive
           
Quote
Of course, but the velocity is something in particular, not just generic “velocity” or all “velocities”. It is a particular, so it is not exhaustive, so it is not a tautology. So, your question to Barry is a non sequitur, for the “active information” involved is not a tautology.

What? Go read it in context. It won't make a difference.

I like Clive's previous analogy better:
         
Quote
" to give any positive number, is to say that it is more than zero. That’s not a tautology, for the positive number isn’t all positive numbers, it is a specific number, a specific amount. "


Shorter Clive:
"If I say that 5 is a (A) positive number  (B) greater than zero, that's not tautological"


Apparently,  even if 5 as (A) belongs to (B) by definition, and the converse is also true, by definition.

Here's the kicker, Clive: ALL POSSIBLE MEMBERS OF "A" BELONG TO "B" (and vice-versa).

clive,baby he he he he be some kind of craaaazy transcendental mathematician

yo axe him do he think axioms be all tautological and shit

fo real, clive,baby be all "that sh1t 6e what g0d be tr1pp1n on y0 they be hi5 numbah5 too h0w you crunk you cn c0unt wit d3m and sh1t"

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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2009,22:06   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 02 2009,22:57)
 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 02 2009,18:32)
   
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 02 2009,17:08)
Clive
               
Quote
Of course, but the velocity is something in particular, not just generic “velocity” or all “velocities”. It is a particular, so it is not exhaustive, so it is not a tautology. So, your question to Barry is a non sequitur, for the “active information” involved is not a tautology.

What? Go read it in context. It won't make a difference.

I like Clive's previous analogy better:
             
Quote
" to give any positive number, is to say that it is more than zero. That’s not a tautology, for the positive number isn’t all positive numbers, it is a specific number, a specific amount. "


Shorter Clive:
"If I say that 5 is a (A) positive number  (B) greater than zero, that's not tautological"


Apparently,  even if 5 as (A) belongs to (B) by definition, and the converse is also true, by definition.

Here's the kicker, Clive: ALL POSSIBLE MEMBERS OF "A" BELONG TO "B" (and vice-versa).

clive,baby he he he he be some kind of craaaazy transcendental mathematician

yo axe him do he think axioms be all tautological and shit

fo real, clive,baby be all "that sh1t 6e what g0d be tr1pp1n on y0 they be hi5 numbah5 too h0w you crunk you cn c0unt wit d3m and sh1t"

When he denies his tautology thrice before the cock crows, it'll be a notology.

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

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

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

  
Chayanov



Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2009,22:22   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 02 2009,22:06)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 02 2009,22:57)
     
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 02 2009,18:32)
     
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 02 2009,17:08)
Clive
                   
Quote
Of course, but the velocity is something in particular, not just generic “velocity” or all “velocities”. It is a particular, so it is not exhaustive, so it is not a tautology. So, your question to Barry is a non sequitur, for the “active information” involved is not a tautology.

What? Go read it in context. It won't make a difference.

I like Clive's previous analogy better:
                 
Quote
" to give any positive number, is to say that it is more than zero. That’s not a tautology, for the positive number isn’t all positive numbers, it is a specific number, a specific amount. "


Shorter Clive:
"If I say that 5 is a (A) positive number  (B) greater than zero, that's not tautological"


Apparently,  even if 5 as (A) belongs to (B) by definition, and the converse is also true, by definition.

Here's the kicker, Clive: ALL POSSIBLE MEMBERS OF "A" BELONG TO "B" (and vice-versa).

clive,baby he he he he be some kind of craaaazy transcendental mathematician

yo axe him do he think axioms be all tautological and shit

fo real, clive,baby be all "that sh1t 6e what g0d be tr1pp1n on y0 they be hi5 numbah5 too h0w you crunk you cn c0unt wit d3m and sh1t"

When he denies his tautology thrice before the cock crows, it'll be a notology.

It's like he learned a new word and wants to use it as much as possible. Maybe it came up on his "word of the day" calendar.

--------------
Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

  
sparc



Posts: 2088
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2009,22:43   

Quote
2
Edson
09/02/2009
9:35 pm

The growth of public interest in ID is an inevitable tendency.


Indeed, as Google Trends clearly shows:

Alexa data are as convincing:


You know: a Butterfly's Wings in Brazil set off a Tornado in Riesel, Texas

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2009,23:29   

Quote (sparc @ Sep. 02 2009,20:43)
You know: a Butterfly's Wings in Brazil set off a Tornado in Riesel, Texas

And that tornado narrowly missed the Cafeteria. It was a warning, it was.  ;)

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

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

   
sparc



Posts: 2088
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2009,23:36   

Kairosfocus aka Gordon E. Mullings renowned selfspamming bandwidth burning UD entity has another alias: Dictionary    
Quote
Dictionary  // February 10, 2009 at 11:02 AM

Onlookers:

While I am busy elsewhere on the Internet, I have noticed the current discussion has now come to address issues and controversies surrounding origins science and in particular the inference to design.

Much of the commentary above is of the Dawkinsian school of thought, that in effect those who disagree with evolutionary materialism are by that fact “ignorant, stupid, insane . . . or wicked.”

[...]

1 –>[...]
2 –> [...]
3 –> [...]
4 –> [...]
5 –> [...]
6 –> [...]
7 –> [...]
8 –> [...]
9 –> [...]
10 –> [...]
(a) function-specifying complex digital info is the product of intelligence

(b) computer procedural and data storing languages/codes are the product of intelligence

© algorithms — step by step sequences of actions that carry out a process or solve a problem — are the product of intelligence

(d) functioning programs that carry out such algorithms are the product of intelligence

(e) the machines that work together to execute the programs physically are the product of intelligence.

(f) the probability of such originating by chance + necessity without intelligent action — while such is logically possible [a hurricane in David Edge computers creating and programming a PC] — is of such vanishing improbability that we immediately conclude that such entities are works of art, not accidents.

11 –> [...]
12 –> [...]
Nor are biologists, Qua Biologists particularly well-qualified to address the issue or rule on it. For, it is a matter of information theory.

I trust that helps.

GEM of TKI

PS: I will stick up a helpful link or two . . .
   
Quote
PPS
   
Quote
PPPS

 
Quote
Dictionary  // February 10, 2009 at 11:49 AM

Oops, forgot my own discussion [warning, fat web page -- download and save to your own PC please . . .]:

http://www.angelfire.com/pro....nce.htm
[QUOTE]
LINK

You can't teach an old dog new tricks.

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
CeilingCat



Posts: 2363
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2009,23:54   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 02 2009,07:17)
 
Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 02 2009,05:52)
   
Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 02 2009,05:22)
Oh my Designer, the game is up!
         
Quote
Equally startling is that these genes were discovered in what had been considered “junk” DNA, non-functioning strings of repetitive DNA that do not seem to do anything.
[...]
Scientists have long assumed new genes could only evolve from duplicated or rearranged versions of preexisting genes, passed on by our ancestors, Dr McLysaght said. But then scientists began to discover a very few novel genes in species such as flies and yeasts that arose from apparently inactive junk DNA.


I, for one, welcome our new junk DNA overlords.

       
Quote
Research leader Dr Aoife McLysaght and Dr David G Knowles, of TCD’s Smurfit Institute of Genetics, conducted comparisons of human, ape and monkey DNA.
Honestly, you heathens will believe anything!

Aoife is also quite the cutie...she's in front here:


Darwin Day!


I was seeing if she had a preprint or anything of that paper up and got all sexcited when I saw a .pdf icon next to the title-- but, alas, it was not to be.

I made do with ogling pics of her and other lab denizens here http://www.gen.tcd.ie/molevol/

Sex and the Single Scientist!  Loved that book!

The one on the right in the first picture is also foxy, although she seems to get her sweater sense from Dembski.  But on her, it looks good!

Both of these pictures will join my growing selection of science porn.

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2363
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2009,00:14   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 02 2009,16:11)
lololol that is sigworthy

cornytard's most recent episode of getting-some-on-your-leg is pretty funny

     
Quote
3
camanintx
09/02/2009
3:39 pm
An internal combustion engine is irreducibly complexity, for instance. Take away the valve, or the piston, or the spark plug, or the wire, and it does not function.

You do realize that early internal combustion engines didn’t use compression or sparks to function. So much for irreducibly complex.

Besides, the double-acting reciprocating piston pump with a crank-connecting rod mechanism was invented in 1206 for moving water and spark gap generators were invented in 1887 to generate radio signals. Thus the modern internal combustion engine is a perfect example of how existing features can be co-opted to produce new functions.


Very nice.  

swine pearls, etc.

Not to mention that if you take away the valve you've got a two-cycle engine and if you take away the spark plug or the wire you've got a diesel, both internal combustion engines.

But aside from that and a few other mistakes, Cornelius is correct, using the ID definition of correct.

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2363
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2009,00:22   

Quote
clive,baby he he he he be some kind of craaaazy transcendental mathematician

yo axe him do he think axioms be all tautological and shit

fo real, clive,baby be all "that sh1t 6e what g0d be tr1pp1n on y0 they be hi5 numbah5 too h0w you crunk you cn c0unt wit d3m and sh1t"

Is Erasmus, FCD really a Denyse O'Leary sock?
Does anybody else in the world talk that way?

We report, you decide.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2009,00:37   

yeah, baby we talks like that too, you just gots to elevate, the basal, what some might say is the level, of your mind, and raise that moffuckah to a whole nuther type of discoursement altogether and what not.  you see certain, factors, or should i say, elements, rather, be directly im-pinging on your brain up in the front lobe and that be diminishing yor capacity to understand the d-e-e-e-e-ire circumastamances that y'all have done gone and put yo selves on and up and in of.  i ain't really tryin' to be hearin all that booooooolshit

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

  
  14997 replies since July 17 2008,19:00 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (500) < ... 493 494 495 496 497 [498] 499 500 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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