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... > Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread

Pages: (1000) < ... 716 717 718 719 720 [721] 722 723 724 725 726 ... >

Zachriel Posts: 2723 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2007,15:24    Quote Borne: In the 1870 Anthropological Review, Max Muller classified the human race into 7 categories on an ascending scale - with the Aborigines on the lowest rung and the “Aryan” type supreme. What theory do you think he based this upon? Max Müller was a Biblical creationist who opposed Darwin's views of human evolutionary development. What was your point again? -------------- You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2007,15:44    As noted upthread, WAD doesn't like the "new atheists." He was recently moved to ventilate his spleen in response to Mark Oppenheimer's article for the New York Times Magazine, The Turning of an Atheist           Quote ...The neo-atheists, by contrast, are militant and amateurish. And vile. In his November 4, 2007 article for the New York Times (“The Turning of an Atheist”), Mark Oppenheimer attributes Flew’s conversion to a combination of senility on Flew’s part and manipulation by Christian evangelicals. This is despicable. But is Oppenheimer a "militant atheist? That is not at all clear. What is clear is that Oppenheimer has an abiding interest in religion, and has organized his career around the analysis of religion in America. Oppenheimer holds a PhD in religious studies from Yale University. In 2003, he was the Koret Young Writer on Jewish Themes at Stanford University. His books include Knocking on Heaven's Door: American Religion in the Age of Counterculture and Thirteen and a Day: The Bar and Bat Mitzvah Across America. He has been a frequent contributor to The Christian Century. In a recent review in which he savages Hitchens' God is Not Great ("an intellectually shoddy and factually inaccurate rush-job, written with blithe ignorance of what his antagonists actually believe"), he stated, "As a man who loves religion and attends Jewish religious services, I fervently believe that we have too few Menckens, too few Tom Paines, too few Hitchenses." Clearly, Oppenheimer has written both affectionately and critically on all manner of religious topics. His views appear to be nuanced and informed, far from the hostile derision that Dembski attributes to "new atheists" such as Dawkins and Hitchens. On my reading, his article on Flew is similarly both affectionate and critical, and was unquestionably thoroughly researched - to the extent that Oppenheimer pointedly interviewed Flew in his home in an attempt to disambiguate his shifting views. It was during this interview that Flew's intellectual decline was apparent, and during which Flew frankly admitted that he did not author There is a God. Oppenheimer reported same.   Nevertheless, Dembski feels entitled, on the basis of his displeasure over Oppenheimer's disclosures, to characterize Oppenheimer as "vile" and "despicable" and attribute his report to militant atheism. Obviously, Dembski is flat-assed uninformed about yet another object of his petulant vilification, and his post is "an intellectually shoddy and factually inaccurate rush-job, written with blithe ignorance of what his antagonists actually believe." In short, although Dembski claims admiration for civility and intellectual integrity, his post exemplifies neither. -------------- 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

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2007,16:03    Reciprocating Bill, thanks for digging up the quote by Mark Oppenheimer on Hitchens' God is Not Great Quote "an intellectually shoddy and factually inaccurate rush-job, written with blithe ignorance of what his antagonists actually believe" That's a characterization that can also apply very well to nearly everything that appears either on the UD website or under the Disco Institute imprimatur.

Zachriel Posts: 2723 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2007,17:06    Quote bornagain77: Please list your source for CSI (complex specified information) generation CSI is not a well-defined mathematical or scientific concept. Quote bornagain77: While evolution “must” have beneficial mutations, almost all recorded mutations are harmful. Gerrish and Lenski estimate the rate of harmful to beneficial mutations at 1 million: 1 Gerrish, P.J. & R. Lenski, 1998. The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Genetica 102/103: 127-144. Actually that's the ratio of all mutations to beneficial mutations. Most mutations are neutral. What's interesting is that the Gerrish and Lenski paper studies the effect on fixation of *more than one* beneficial mutation competing in a single population. It's even the title of the paper that bornagain77 cites! Gerrish and Lenski also state, "Asexual populations adapt to their environment by the occurrence and subsequent rise in frequency of beneficial mutations." That's direct and clear. I can't imagine that bornagain77 actually read the paper though he's cited it on Uncommon Descent at least seven times. The rest of his cut-and-paste are of comparable merit. — Adding a bit of math: the genomic mutation rate of E. coli is  ~10^-3 mutations per replication. Of these ~10^-6 are beneficial. So that's one beneficial mutation per billion replications. A milliliter of agar (or soil) might contain a billion bacteria and the generation time for E. coli in the laboratory is less than an hour. And that means that beneficial mutations are inevitable in any reasonably large population. -------------- You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

Hermagoras Posts: 1260 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2007,18:19    Peter notes that aborted babies are being replaced by wetbacks.     Quote Don’t forget the 50 million and counting babies killed in America after it became a secular state. At 1.5 million babies killed a year, it won’t be long before this will be the worst mass murder in history. . . . . . Does anyone ever wonder way there are 20+ million illegal (permanent?) immigrants in America at this point in its history? Blessed are the meek for they will inherit the world. That is DI-approved Grade A Tard, folks. -------------- "I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2007,18:49    Quote (Bob O'H @ Nov. 10 2007,11:07) And Zachriel, what about the pigeons?  Will nobody think of the pigeons that have been massacred throughout history? But they got their revenge! The best-laid designs go awry... -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

khan Posts: 1554 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2007,20:08    Quote (Hermagoras @ Nov. 10 2007,19:19) Peter notes that aborted babies are being replaced by wetbacks.     Quote Don’t forget the 50 million and counting babies killed in America after it became a secular state. At 1.5 million babies killed a year, it won’t be long before this will be the worst mass murder in history. . . . . . Does anyone ever wonder way there are 20+ million illegal (permanent?) immigrants in America at this point in its history? Blessed are the meek for they will inherit the world. That is DI-approved Grade A Tard, folks. "Abortion was invented in 1973." quoth the Tard -------------- "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

Rob Posts: 154 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2007,20:32    getawitness skates on thin ice when he explains why MacNeill is blowing off ba77's CSI question:     Quote I think, thought, that one reason for the silence is that CSI is not a widely used concept in biology (or for that matter in mathematics). It remains a kind of “specialist” term. Go GaW!  Just a couple of corrections:     Quote I think, thought, that one reason for the silence is that CSI is not a widely used concept in biology (or for that matter in mathematics). It remains a kind of “specialist” useless term. -------------- -- Rob, the fartist formerly known as 2ndclass

Zachriel Posts: 2723 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2007,21:31    Quote bornagain77:  Gerrish and Lenski estimate the rate of harmful to beneficial mutations at 1 million:1 getawitness: In other words, 1 million: 1 is their estimate of total mutations:beneficial mutations. bornagain77: The quote is from Dr. Sanford’s book “Genetic Entropy”. He is a head and shoulders above his peers in his particular field of genetics (He invented the biolistic “Gene Gun” process as well as numerous other breakthroughs). Thus I am positive he meant exactly what he wrote since it was crucial to the main thesis of his book. As I mentioned above, it's doubtful that bornagain77 actually read the paper he has repeatedly cited—and he cited Gerrish and Lenski, not Sanford. Quote Gerrish and Lenski: The solution for this system of equations is alpha = 35 and mu = 2.0 * 10^-9 beneficial mutations per replication. Given that the genomic mutation rate of E. coli is approximately 3 * 10^-3 mutations per replication (Drake, 1991), one can infer that the proportion of mutations that are beneficial is roughly one in a million. The "genomic mutation rate" refers to all mutations as per Drake's original 1991 paper, A Constant Rate of Spontaneous Mutation in DNA-Based Microbes which "concludes that DNA-based microbes share a spontaneous mutation rate of about 0.003 per genome per replication." So apparently Dr. "head and shoulders above his peers in his particular field of genetics" Sanford didn't bother to read the paper he cited either. -------------- You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

Annyday Posts: 583 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2007,23:28    Carl Sachs is cruising for a banning. Quote Nevertheless: if one is a theist, or if one accepts that logic is independent of subjective belief, then one must think that Stalin’s beliefs about what follows or doesn’t follow from Darwinism are irrelevant to assessing Darwinism. If Stalin thought that Newtonian mechanics warranted mass murder, we wouldn’t say, “this shows the pernicious social consequences of Newtonian mechanics.” Instead we would — rightly — say, “this gives us one more good reason for thinking that Stalin was a bloodthirsty nutcase.” And besides which, what about all the atheists who don’t become bloodthirsty nutcases? Quote Ha! I should have said “what about all the Darwinists who don’t become bloodthirsty nutcases?”! Who wants to take odds that he'll be banned for this and his other offenses against orthodoxy? How about Bugsy (same thread)? I mean, they're demanding logical consistency and regard for the facts of history, and "Bugsy" is an awfully mobster name. -------------- "ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

Bob O'H Posts: 2564 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2007,03:11    The schoolmarm goes red with embarrassment Quote correction: for “jeery” read “jerry.” I wasn’t playing with his name, promise. You should, though. -------------- 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)

keiths Posts: 2195 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2007,04:13    Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 10 2007,06:56) I don't even bother with the irony meters any more.  The search for a UD-proof irony meter is about as fruitful as the search for integrity from UD or the DI. O ye of little faith -- behold the construction and operation of a UD-proof irony meter: 1. Procure standard cereal box. 2. Cover with pink construction paper. 3. Using crayon, draw irony sensor on narrow side of box. 4. Also using crayon, draw analog dial with needle pegged at "11". To perform a measurement: 1. Point irony sensor at UD. 2. Read irony level from dial. 3. Repeat as necessary. P.S. Don't even think about it, church-burners.  I've filed for a patent. -------------- And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

keiths Posts: 2195 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2007,06:02    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 08 2007,19:32) Shaken to the core, I must now rethink my materialist foundations, which I heretofore clung to because they granted me license to rape, pillage and plunder at will. Beauregard and O'Leary appeared on Dennis Prager's podcast today to discuss The Spatula Brain, and in so doing present a devastating, insurmountable argument. Listen to the podcast if you dare. Here I summarize their presentation: Prager:  What is your theory? Beauregard (with suave accent): The mind is not just electrical and chemical processes. Prager: I know about materialism because I studied Marxism. What is the evidence for your theory? Beauregard: The placebo effect. Prager: Hmmm. What other evidence do you have for your theory? Beauregard: Near death experiences (describes one).   Prager: OK, we have the placebo effect, and near death experiences. What other evidence do you present? O'Leary (in squeaky little voice): The placebo effect. This guy had arthritis, was given a placebo, and not only feels better, he is better. His mind must have told his his brain to tell his body to do something.   Prager: Ah, Ha ha ha. Very interesting. I'm going to have to think about that. But isn't that just his psyche telling him he feels better? O'Leary: That proves you have a psyche that can make your brain do things. Prager: Ah, ha ha. I see. But how does this prove a soul? O'Leary: When it is detachable, we call it a soul. Prager: Very interesting. Do you have other arguments? Beauregard: Near death experiences during standstill procedures. OK, these are anecdotal, but we are going to do some research. Near death experiences. The placebo effect. O'Leary: Also, the placebo effect.   Beauregard: And I can say placebo effect, too.   O'Leary: And Near death experiences. I can say that. Placebo effect. Materialism. The placebo effect. Materialism. Near death experiences. Listener: I understand the human desire for dualism, but the evidence you cite is purely uncontrolled and subjective. How can you call that science? Beauregard: We are going to do some research. So it is science. Near death experiences. Placebo effect. See? O'Leary: Plus there is the placebo effect. The soul tells the mind to tell the brain to tell the body to do something. Materialism. The placebo effect.   Prager: Thank you very much. Lest anyone think that RB is exaggerating, here is a portion of that magnificent tardalogue, verbatim:   Quote Prager: Well, why couldn't the materialist argue -- and I believe in a soul, but I want to just be as fair as possible -- why couldn't the materialist -- and by the way, let me explain this to my listeners, as well -- this is something I'm very familiar with, and I know not everybody is: 'materialist' doesn't mean you like to spend money on material things -- Beauregard: Heh-heh. Prager: That is the way people think of the term.  But 'materialist' in philosophy means "only matter is real."  That's what materialism means, and that is the basis of Marxism. That's how I know it, because that was my field of study.  Only matter is real, non-matter is not real.  So, this is what people are talking about here. But let me argue then, maybe if I take a placebo -- my brother believes that my vitamin C is a placebo -- he's a doctor, and they have a deep skepticism with regard to vitamins -- I claim to my brother "You know, it's amazing how little I get colds.  I take a lot of vitamins."  and he says "Dennis, God bless you, I want you to be healthy, but I think it's a placebo."  So maybe what is happening is, my psyche is in fact triggering material reactions -- O'Leary: Precisely!  But then that means you must in fact have a psyche -- Beauregard: Heh-heh. O'Leary: -- that can act on your brain. Prager: Ohhh.  Ohhh. Beauregard: Heh-heh. O'Leary: Which means your mind is not your brain. Prager: Ohhh.  Ohhh. O'Leary: Your mind is something that can cause an effect. Prager: Ohhhhh. Oh oh oh.  That's a fascinating argument. Beauregard: Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Prager: And so, of course, again, let me explain this too:  Most of us believe we have a mind, not just a brain -- I mean, an ant has a brain, but an ant, we don't think, has a mind.  The mind is the part of us that battles the brain.  I'll give an example.  My brain wants cheesecake.  My mind says it's fattening. Beauregard: Heh-heh. Prager: All right?  Is that a fair distinction? Beauregard: Yes. Yeah. Uh-huh. Prager: Okay.  So, whereas a dog can never do that.  A dog will not look at food and think "You know, I've really overeaten today and I really want to live a long time." O'Leary: Hee-hee. Beauregard: Ha-ha. Prager: Dogs have brains, but not minds, as we understand 'mind', in any event, where you could have a mind/brain difference.  So you argue, from a scientific standpoint, that we have minds, not only brains. Is that correct? Beauregard: Absolutely.  Yes. -------------- And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

Roland Anderson Posts: 51 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2007,06:45    Quote (keiths @ Nov. 11 2007,04:13)   Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 10 2007,06:56) I don't even bother with the irony meters any more.  The search for a UD-proof irony meter is about as fruitful as the search for integrity from UD or the DI. O ye of little faith -- behold the construction and operation of a UD-proof irony meter: 1. Procure standard cereal box. 2. Cover with pink construction paper. 3. Using crayon, draw irony sensor on narrow side of box. 4. Also using crayon, draw analog dial with needle pegged at "11". To perform a measurement: 1. Point irony sensor at UD. 2. Read irony level from dial. 3. Repeat as necessary. P.S. Don't even think about it, church-burners.  I've filed for a patent. OK, I tried it and read the "new atheists" thread at UD, and now I have a smoking black hole on my armchair where my nice new cereal box used to be. Care to explain?

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2007,08:21    Don't use any cereal box with the word "flakes" in the name: when pointed at UD, harmonic resonance can build up and cause a burn out.

Zachriel Posts: 2723 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2007,08:43    Quote Allen_MacNeill: any more than it declares or establishes the United States of America as a “Christian nation.” tribune7Allen, the U.S. Constitution declares Jesus to be Lord i.e. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.signers.html   Quote Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth. Gee whiz, tribune7. No, kairosfocus. Adding A.D. (Anno Domini or "year of our Lord") after a date does not imply an endorsement of religion. 2007 A.D. -------------- You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

Zachriel Posts: 2723 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2007,09:01    DaveScot sums it all up. Quote DaveScot: There’s nothing further to “test” about intelligent design in the way of verfication. -------------- You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

Altabin Posts: 308 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2007,09:26    Quote (keiths @ Nov. 11 2007,13:02)   Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 08 2007,19:32) Shaken to the core, I must now rethink my materialist foundations, which I heretofore clung to because they granted me license to rape, pillage and plunder at will. Beauregard and O'Leary appeared on Dennis Prager's podcast today to discuss The Spatula Brain, and in so doing present a devastating, insurmountable argument. Listen to the podcast if you dare. Here I summarize their presentation: Prager:  What is your theory? Beauregard (with suave accent): The mind is not just electrical and chemical processes. Prager: I know about materialism because I studied Marxism. What is the evidence for your theory? Beauregard: The placebo effect. Prager: Hmmm. What other evidence do you have for your theory? Beauregard: Near death experiences (describes one).   Prager: OK, we have the placebo effect, and near death experiences. What other evidence do you present? O'Leary (in squeaky little voice): The placebo effect. This guy had arthritis, was given a placebo, and not only feels better, he is better. His mind must have told his his brain to tell his body to do something.   Prager: Ah, Ha ha ha. Very interesting. I'm going to have to think about that. But isn't that just his psyche telling him he feels better? O'Leary: That proves you have a psyche that can make your brain do things. Prager: Ah, ha ha. I see. But how does this prove a soul? O'Leary: When it is detachable, we call it a soul. Prager: Very interesting. Do you have other arguments? Beauregard: Near death experiences during standstill procedures. OK, these are anecdotal, but we are going to do some research. Near death experiences. The placebo effect. O'Leary: Also, the placebo effect.   Beauregard: And I can say placebo effect, too.   O'Leary: And Near death experiences. I can say that. Placebo effect. Materialism. The placebo effect. Materialism. Near death experiences. Listener: I understand the human desire for dualism, but the evidence you cite is purely uncontrolled and subjective. How can you call that science? Beauregard: We are going to do some research. So it is science. Near death experiences. Placebo effect. See? O'Leary: Plus there is the placebo effect. The soul tells the mind to tell the brain to tell the body to do something. Materialism. The placebo effect.   Prager: Thank you very much. Lest anyone think that RB is exaggerating, here is a portion of that magnificent tardalogue, verbatim:     Quote Prager: Well, why couldn't the materialist argue -- and I believe in a soul, but I want to just be as fair as possible -- why couldn't the materialist -- and by the way, let me explain this to my listeners, as well -- this is something I'm very familiar with, and I know not everybody is: 'materialist' doesn't mean you like to spend money on material things -- Beauregard: Heh-heh. Prager: That is the way people think of the term.  But 'materialist' in philosophy means "only matter is real."  That's what materialism means, and that is the basis of Marxism. That's how I know it, because that was my field of study.  Only matter is real, non-matter is not real.  So, this is what people are talking about here. But let me argue then, maybe if I take a placebo -- my brother believes that my vitamin C is a placebo -- he's a doctor, and they have a deep skepticism with regard to vitamins -- I claim to my brother "You know, it's amazing how little I get colds.  I take a lot of vitamins."  and he says "Dennis, God bless you, I want you to be healthy, but I think it's a placebo."  So maybe what is happening is, my psyche is in fact triggering material reactions -- O'Leary: Precisely!  But then that means you must in fact have a psyche -- Beauregard: Heh-heh. O'Leary: -- that can act on your brain. Prager: Ohhh.  Ohhh. Beauregard: Heh-heh. O'Leary: Which means your mind is not your brain. Prager: Ohhh.  Ohhh. O'Leary: Your mind is something that can cause an effect. Prager: Ohhhhh. Oh oh oh.  That's a fascinating argument. Beauregard: Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Prager: And so, of course, again, let me explain this too:  Most of us believe we have a mind, not just a brain -- I mean, an ant has a brain, but an ant, we don't think, has a mind.  The mind is the part of us that battles the brain.  I'll give an example.  My brain wants cheesecake.  My mind says it's fattening. Beauregard: Heh-heh. Prager: All right?  Is that a fair distinction? Beauregard: Yes. Yeah. Uh-huh. Prager: Okay.  So, whereas a dog can never do that.  A dog will not look at food and think "You know, I've really overeaten today and I really want to live a long time." O'Leary: Hee-hee. Beauregard: Ha-ha. Prager: Dogs have brains, but not minds, as we understand 'mind', in any event, where you could have a mind/brain difference.  So you argue, from a scientific standpoint, that we have minds, not only brains. Is that correct? Beauregard: Absolutely.  Yes. Holy crap, that's stupid beyond belief. I cannot bring myself to listen to the podcast; for one thing, I'm concerned it may damage my iPod.  The argument for dualism from cheesecake (argumentum pro dualitate ex torta casea) is beyond price. There is something that continues to puzzle me.  Why on earth would they choose the placebo effect as an argument for dualism?  To me, it seems to be a perfect argument for materialism: "A mental conviction that a medicine is effective can bring about physical changes in the body.  The best explanation of this is that there is some continuity between the mind and the body; that mental states are in some sense physical states, which have wider physical effects."  That, it seems to me, would be the obvious conclusion from the placebo effect.  No doubt one could find a dualistic explanation for the phenomenon, but it would be hard work.  If anything, the placebo effect is a counter-example to dualism, which any philosophically respectable dualism will have to take into account. Or am I missing something?  Are they really so stupid that they would claim a counter-argument to their position as the primary argument in favor of it? --------------

Annyday Posts: 583 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2007,09:40    Look, they're hick Canadians, speaking an ungodly terrible dialect that offends the ears of all, who are making a completely unfounded argument for duality. Do you expect intelligence? Stripped away from the sentimentality of the idea of a "soul", the argument is basically the same as this would be if we didn't know how the digestive tract worked: When I eat, my stomach does things, and later I shit. I'm pretty sure it's the same food I ate earlier due to the corn bits, but it has changed a good deal! Moreover, sometimes I can vomit when I haven't eaten, which doesn't seem to support the food-in-food-out hypothesis. Since I do not know intimately everything that has occured in the transition of food to shit, my bowels must send my food through a metaphysical vortex which somehow makes them into unpleasant brown sludge. My bowels, in fact, must be in contact with a mystical gut-at-large, which is the universe as a whole, which is busy processing matter, just as my gut does. I pray to the intestine-at-large god daily, and strongly suspect it created all life. Hail to the cosmic intestine! Contemplate its mysteries solemnly. Now, completely offtopic, has anyone read Minsky's latest book? It's pretty good. -------------- "ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2007,09:41    Quote (Altabin @ Nov. 11 2007,10:26) Are they really so stupid that they would claim a counter-argument to their position as the primary argument in favor of it? Wait.  Rhetorical, right? -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2007,10:17    Quote (keiths @ Nov. 11 2007,07:02) ...Lest anyone think that RB is exaggerating, here is a portion of that magnificent tardalogue, verbatim... "His mind must have told his his brain to tell his body to do something" is more or less a direct quote of Denyse. I also got a kick out of it when she asserted that "when mind is detachable we call it a soul" - again more or less exactly what she stated, including the word "detachable." Is Densye fond of my detachable ghosts? That is so cute. -------------- 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

Hermagoras Posts: 1260 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2007,10:23    Schoolmarm getawitness spanks BA77, almost sends him up for plagiarism:   Quote bornagain77, Please calm down. I’m not attacking Dr. Sanford. In fact, I thought I was just offering a minor and friendly correction to you, since your original comment gave the impression that you’d read Gerrish and Lenski yourself. Now I realize that you were citing that paper secondhand, from Dr. Sanford’s book. First, however, let me correct something you wrote about me. You wrote: “This reflects your belief that some mutations are not deleterious but could be neutral and as such have some hypothetical future beneficial effect.” I said no such thing. I’ve said nothing about my beliefs regarding mutation but only about the claims of Gerrish and Lenski. They’re the ones who assume not all mutations are negative. Frankly, you’re assuming a lot about me. Let me explain why I think Dr. Sanford uses the source wrongly. It has nothing to do with intuition or what Dr. Sanford knows to be true; it has to do with treating sources fairly. That’s the first rule of citation. Imagine that Gerrish and Lenski cite Sanford’s book, and they say “Sanford has argued that most or all mutations are neutral or deleterious.” Sanford would be hopping mad at such a misuse of his book, and rightly so! Such a statement claims that Sanford believes in neutral mutations, when he clearly does not! The proper way to disagree with Sanford would be to write, “Sanford has argued that most or all mutations are deleterious, but he should consider neutral mutations more carefully.” So my point is simply that Sanford gives the false impression that Gerrish and Lenski were intending to estimate the rate of bad to good mutations. What Sanford should have said was something like this: “I have seen estimates of the incidence of beneficial mutations which range from one in one thousand up to one in one million. The best estimates seem to be one in one million (Gerrish and Lenski, 1998) Since neutral mutations almost never occur, then the ratio of deleterious to beneficial mutations seems to be one million to one.” That would be a fair use of the source. Finally, let me offer again a suggestion, in all friendship: You should not give the impression that you’ve read a primary source when you’ve gotten that material through a secondary source. -------------- "I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

Bob O'H Posts: 2564 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2007,10:38    The Headmistress was responding to this Quote Bob O’H, I hope this does not sound rude, as I am not face to face with you, but for the 5th time, please go get the book Bob. getawitness, I believe that Dr. Sanford, being a more than highly qualified, Geneticist, is interpreting the evidence, presented by Gerrish and Lenski, exactly as he sees it, and you, not being privy to what he knows intuitively to be true, interpret their evidence very differently from his highly educated and more qualified perspective. Thus, I stand by what he wrote and will not retract it. Poor bornagain77 - he gets so frustrated when he can't answer a question, and just lashes out. -------------- 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)

Zachriel Posts: 2723 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2007,11:10    Quote bornagain77 (quoting Sanford): “I have seen estimates of the ratio of deleterious to beneficial mutations which range from one thousand to one, up to one million to one. The best estimates seem to be one million to one (Gerrish and Lenski, 1998). The actual rate of beneficial mutations is so extremely low as to thwart any actual measurement (Bataillon, 2000, Elena et al, 1998)" We *expect* that most mutations that have phenotypic effects in a highly optimized organism in a stable environment will be neutral or slightly deleterious. If we artificially maintain organisms, their fitness will tend to degrade as deleterious mutations accumulate and as phenotypic traits spread out across the peak fitness values. Under selection, though, these slightly  deleterious mutations tend to be eliminated—rapidly in sexually reproducing populations, less so with asexual reproduction. But even accepting bornagain77's ratio of one beneficial mutation in a million, that still means that beneficial mutations are inevitable in any reasonably large population. Quote Joseph and Hall, 2004: We found that 5.75% of the fitness-altering mutations accumulated were beneficial. Quote Nachman and Crowell, 2000: Using conservative calculations of the proportion of the genome subject to purifying selection, we estimate that the genomic deleterious mutation rate (U) is at least 3 [out of 175]. -------------- You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

Jim_Wynne Posts: 1208 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2007,11:35    Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2007,10:20)   Quote (Hermagoras @ Nov. 10 2007,07:12) getawitness corrects DaveScot, ducks:       Quote Pantrog, “and ‘generation’ is, as we have learnt, ambiguous.” Not really. From The Oxford Dictionary of Science: A group of organisms of approximately the same age within a population. Organisms that are crossed to produce offspring in a genetics study are referred to as the parent generation and their offspring are the first filial generation. DaveScot’s point is beyond my understanding, but his language isn’t: he was clearly using “generation” in a non-standard sense. and another: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-147003   Quote 66 Stanton Rockwell 11/10/2007 10:29 am DaveScot,”Each replication is a new generation. Ergo there have been billions of trillions of generations in the last several decades.” I’m no expert in this area, but it seems to me that using this definition of “generation” that my siblings and I should be considered of different generations? Get ready for squirming... No squirming is in evidence at this point. DT seems to have paid no attention to being corrected regarding the generations/replications confusion, but note that in this comment he changes his terminology:   Quote ID claims that even billions of trillions of replications are not enough to have any reasonable chance of observing significant biological complexity on the order of what separates reptiles from mammals. {my bold} While still ignoring the basic fallacy, of course. We have indeed always been at war with Eurasia. -------------- Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

Zachriel Posts: 2723 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2007,11:51    Quote bornagain77 (quoting Sanford: The actual rate of beneficial mutations is so extremely low as to thwart any actual measurement (Bataillon, 2000, Elena et al, 1998) So thwarted that Bataillon never could determine "the distribution of fitness effects among beneficial mutations". Nor did Elena ever find out that "the proportion of beneficial mutations was unexpectedly high". -------------- You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2007,14:18    Fairplay to Batshit77 for turning his life around: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-147357 Quote getawitness, For me to even discuss such high level matters on the web is extremely humorous to the highest degree, for I was a homeless alcoholic for over 12 years, before I managed, with a lot of help from the Lord, to turn my life around. ... The tard after that bit quickly kills my warm and fuzzy feeling... -------------- "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

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2007,14:59    Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 11 2007,13:18) Fairplay to Batshit77 for turning his life around: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-147357   Quote getawitness, For me to even discuss such high level matters on the web is extremely humorous to the highest degree, for I was a homeless alcoholic for over 12 years, before I managed, with a lot of help from the Lord, to turn my life around. ... The tard after that bit quickly kills my warm and fuzzy feeling... Yeah! A bet comes later. Oh, that stings. Quote Shoot, I am even confident enough to make this following prediction for the Theistic position of ID. Further deciphering of the human genome will reveal 100% functionality with severe polyfunctionality revealed throughout the entire genome. As well I predict the complexity of the genome will severely stress if not exceed man’s ability to completely understand it. If you are a betting man, That is sure money the way I see things getawitness! A bet! And no one takes me up on my bet... Why they don't comez?   -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2007,18:14    Uncommonly Denyse: Just the facts, ma'am:     Quote This tragedy has provoked an enormous outburst of protest from Darwinists on account of my noting that the shooter's motive was social Darwinism. On the rare occasions when a shooter's motive has been anti-abortion advocacy ( Rudolph) or fundamentalist madness ( Yates), I have NEVER been excoriated by an anti-abortionist or fundamentalist for openly discussing that fact. This is recycled from the Post-Darwinist AND The ID Report (per usual). I wanted to read the measured reactions of her readers to her discussions of Yates and Rudolph, so I searched the Post-Darwinist to find those posts.   I was disappointed (and SO surprised!) to find that U-Denyse has never before actually mentioned either of these troubled Christians on her blog, which might account for the muted reaction of her readers to those discussions. Just maybe. Hey, Denyse, can you point us to those discussions? We want to see how it's done. [Edit] To their everlasting credit, and perhaps eventual bannination, commenters Specs and Getawitness continue to press Denyse (as earlier they did BarryA) on her shameful attempt to exploit the Finnish school shooting. -------------- 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

tsig Posts: 339 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2007,18:35    Quote (J-Dog @ Nov. 09 2007,15:46) Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 09 2007,15:41) BarryA knows no shame:         Quote Darwin at Columbine BarryA ...One of O’Leary’s interlocutors more or less accused her of cherry picking her data to push her personal religious agenda.  Apparently this person believes this case is an aberation, and it is unfair to suggest a connection between Darwin’s theory and a school shooter’s self understanding as an instrument of natural selection.  Not so. As the attorney for the families of six of the students killed at Columbine, I read through every single page of Eric Harris’ jounals; I listened to all of the audio tapes and watched the videotapes, including the infamous “basement tapes.”  There cannot be the slightest doubt that Harris was a worshiper of Darwin and saw himself as acting on Darwinian principles... I am not suggesting that Auvinen’s and Harris’ actions are the inevitable consequences of believing in Darwinism.  It is, however, clear that at least some of Darwin’s followers understand “survival of the fittest” and the attendant amorality at the bottom of Darwinism as a license to kill those whom they consider “inferior.”  Nothing could be more obvious. Barry: You are an attorney. Let's follow the implications of your argument.   Because Eric Harris was obsessed with and cited concepts drawn from evolutionary theory as justification for his actions at Columbine, it follows that belief in evolutionary theory ("Darwinism") contributed to his horrible, violent acts.   Ergo, more generally, when disturbed people do disturbed things, such as shooting and murdering schoolmates, we should accept at face value their own account of the motivations for and causes of their behavior. It follows that belief in Christian concepts such as God, heaven, hell, and eternal damnation results in mothers drowning their children.   Andrea Yates drowned her five children in a bathtub. Although she knew that what she was doing was illegal, she nevertheless thought it was the right thing to do to save her children from eternal damnation. You might protest that this was an aberation. But a thorough psychiatric evaluation conducted by one of the country's leading forensic psychiatrists (Philip Resnick) showed that she was obsessed with religious concepts and the implications thereof for her children. I am not suggesting that Yates' actions are the inevitable consequences of believing in Christianty. It is, however, clear that at least some of Jesus' followers understand “heaven, hell and eternal damnation” and the attendant moral structure of Christianity as a license to kill those whom they fear are at risk of eternal damnation - even their own small children. Nothing could be more obvious. ------- Barry, I hope the above illustrates for you how mistaken and, frankly, ridiculous your reasoning is. As disturbed people do disturbed things, they often draw from their environment to formulate delusional, idiosyncratic systems of thought that they believe motivate or justify their actions. However, in the 21st century we understand that disturbed people often have poor insight into the actual basis of their own motivations and behaviors, and are often unable to discern the distortions that may be introduced into their thinking by their disturbed mental state.  Nevertheless, it is the mental disturbance that accounts for the behavior that follows, not the ideas that were recruited into a disturbed or distorted system of thought by a mental illness into which the individual has no insight. Shame on you, Barry. Shame on you. RB - Thank you.  You can do both serious and comedy!  Who knew? (Probably everyone except me!)   It's gonna be hard to turn that post into a LOLCat though... lolcats We are killing yr bodize but saving yr soles

Pages: (1000) < ... 716 717 718 719 720 [721] 722 723 724 725 726 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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