RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (527) < ... 191 192 193 194 195 [196] 197 198 199 200 201 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 5, Return To Teh Dingbat Buffet< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2363
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2016,23:04   

Thanks Paeleo, Dr. GH and Wes.

Speaking of Wes, Princess Bride is on Netflix for viewing now.

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2016,18:01   

Gordon Mullings. The gift that keeps on giving.
Quote
remember, you are here talking with someone who has seen ideological conflict triggered chaos and mini civil war including murder of an aunt at agit-prop instigation of a pressure group leader who then publicly disclaimed responsibility for intemperate, destructive words in an explosive situation.


KairosFocus

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2016,18:30   

Quote
KF: “IE, do you not see that if minds serve survival not truth, that brings serious self referential incoherence issues to the fore? KF”


Quote
iE: Absolutely. So, how are you reconciling this fact with your worldview?

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2016,11:14   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ April 21 2016,19:01)
Gordon Mullings. The gift that keeps on giving.
Quote
remember, you are here talking with someone who has seen ideological conflict triggered chaos and mini civil war including murder of an aunt at agit-prop instigation of a pressure group leader who then publicly disclaimed responsibility for intemperate, destructive words in an explosive situation.


KairosFocus

he's like an adjective-holic.

   
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2016,12:23   

Quote (stevestory @ April 22 2016,19:14)
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ April 21 2016,19:01)
Gordon Mullings. The gift that keeps on giving.
 
Quote
remember, you are here talking with someone who has seen ideological conflict triggered chaos and mini civil war including murder of an aunt at agit-prop instigation of a pressure group leader who then publicly disclaimed responsibility for intemperate, destructive words in an explosive situation.


KairosFocus

he's like an adjective-holic.

He's like an over excited extremely belligerent self agrandizing hyperbolic ideological pressure group leading adjective-a-holic.

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

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2016,13:38   

Quote (k.e.. @ April 22 2016,12:23)
Quote (stevestory @ April 22 2016,19:14)
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ April 21 2016,19:01)
Gordon Mullings. The gift that keeps on giving.
 
Quote
remember, you are here talking with someone who has seen ideological conflict triggered chaos and mini civil war including murder of an aunt at agit-prop instigation of a pressure group leader who then publicly disclaimed responsibility for intemperate, destructive words in an explosive situation.


KairosFocus

he's like an adjective-holic.

He's like an over excited extremely belligerent self agrandizing hyperbolic ideological pressure group leading adjective-a-holic.

But he is our over excited extremely belligerent self agrandizing hyperbolic ideological pressure group leading adjective-a-holic.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2016,13:45   

Telic Thoughts is gone, Dembski got outta dodge, Disco Tute is barely heard from anymore, UD seems to just be KluelessFocus 24/7 now....

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2016,14:15   

Quote
141
Indiana EffigyApril 22, 2016 at 12:24 pm
KF@139: “My particular existence is not a result of blind chance processes and blind mechanisms…”

Your unsubstantiated assertion is duly noted.

“…but the result of a functioning procreative system on the part of my parents.”

True. But my claim was about the unique individual that is you, not that your parents could procreate.

Your father produced 500 billion sperm cells throughout his life. Your mother had a couple hundred thousand eggs. The unique you is the result of one specific sperm cell from your father and one specific egg cell from your mother. Any other sperm or egg would not result in the you that we all know and love. The result is that the probability of you existing, given the existence of your parents, is in the order of one in 100,000,000,000,000,000 (please double check my math, I could be in error).

Now, to really scare you, try extending these probability calculations back a few generations. It will not take too many generations to arrive at a probability that is so astronomically small that it is effectively zero. Therefore, you can’t exist.

Obviously, this conclusion is rediculous because the initial assumption, that the unique person that is you was the targeted goal, is wrong. But this is the same assumption that ID uses when it talks about the combinatorial explosion.


:O

Edited by stevestory on April 22 2016,15:15

   
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2016,14:22   

Quote (k.e.. @ April 22 2016,12:23)
Quote (stevestory @ April 22 2016,19:14)
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ April 21 2016,19:01)
Gordon Mullings. The gift that keeps on giving.
 
Quote
remember, you are here talking with someone who has seen ideological conflict triggered chaos and mini civil war including murder of an aunt at agit-prop instigation of a pressure group leader who then publicly disclaimed responsibility for intemperate, destructive words in an explosive situation.


KairosFocus

he's like an adjective-holic.

He's like an over excited extremely belligerent self agrandizing hyperbolic ideological pressure group leading adjective-a-holic.

He just has a hard time describing the evil of Darwinists/Materialists.

They're such horrible, name-calling Hitlerian persecutors that he has to call them out on each and every aspect of their total evil, and it takes a good many adjectives to describe those name-calling despots.  Only when he can righteously put such vile people into concentration camps where they will meet Mr. Leathers and a bit of Death's mighty sickle now and again, can he ease up somewhat on his crusade to end persecution and oil of red herring ad hominem materialist attacks.

That's the legacy bequeathed by Darwinists, after all.

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2016,19:22   

Quote
156
AletaApril 22, 2016 at 5:05 pm
kf, you write.

Aleta, as we are both fully aware, evolutionary epistemology as discussed by a human being necessarily refers to the person putting forth the view also as s/he is a human being. This entails self referentiality; a term that means just what it says. Instantly, this means the assertions can become circular and question begging, or if they are contradictory they will be self referentially incoherent.

1. How is this any different for you than it is for me? You are putting forth views as a human being, just as I am. Why does a theist not have the same problem?

2. And saying “self referentiality [is] a term that means just what it says” doesn’t say much. Give me an example of an assertion I might make about human beings that is somehow self referential in a way that is problematic. Obviously, If I say “I see a tree” that refers to myself, but you must mean something other than that.

What is the problem with human beings making statements about human beings?

3. Also, you say “assertions can become circular and question begging.” I assume this means some assertions wouldn’t be circular, then. Can you give examples of circular assertions vs non-circular assertions?


linky

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2016,21:56   

Quote (stevestory @ April 22 2016,14:15)
 
Quote
141
Indiana EffigyApril 22, 2016 at 12:24 pm
KF@139: “My particular existence is not a result of blind chance processes and blind mechanisms…”

Your unsubstantiated assertion is duly noted.

“…but the result of a functioning procreative system on the part of my parents.”

True. But my claim was about the unique individual that is you, not that your parents could procreate.

Your father produced 500 billion sperm cells throughout his life. Your mother had a couple hundred thousand eggs. The unique you is the result of one specific sperm cell from your father and one specific egg cell from your mother. Any other sperm or egg would not result in the you that we all know and love. The result is that the probability of you existing, given the existence of your parents, is in the order of one in 100,000,000,000,000,000 (please double check my math, I could be in error).

Now, to really scare you, try extending these probability calculations back a few generations. It will not take too many generations to arrive at a probability that is so astronomically small that it is effectively zero. Therefore, you can’t exist.

Obviously, this conclusion is rediculous because the initial assumption, that the unique person that is you was the targeted goal, is wrong. But this is the same assumption that ID uses when it talks about the combinatorial explosion.


:O

OK, this is the argument that had me looking back in my records, Google Groups having totally failed me.

And I did eventually find it.

 
Quote

Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 21:47:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Wesley R. Elsberry" <wre>
Message-Id: <199908210447.VAA27645@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com>
To: welsberr, talk-origins@moderators.uu.net
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: I know this is wrong...
References: <37BD2BD3.89EEA3F@earthlink.net>
Organization: Online Zoologists
Status: R

In article <37BD2BD3.89EEA3F@earthlink.net>,
jenn and jason  <ouroboros@earthlink.net> wrote:

[...]

J&J>This was posted to me today- can anybody explain this nonsense?

?> But let's really look at the math. ASCI (the code I am
?>writing with) is base 256. So this sentence:

?>    I am writing to you.

?>Has a total of 20 characters, and thus the probability of
?>getting this sentence by pounding on the keyboard is one in
?>256^20, or 1.5X10^-48.

This is inaccurate, as others have pointed out.

?>In cosmological terms that equals zero.

This would appear to be a reference to Borel.  Borel's rule of
thumb indicated that events less likely than 1E-50 could be
considered to have zero likelihood.  Dembski explored this in
his book, "The Design Inference".  Dembski's revision, though,
results in a much different number: 1E-500.

?>The genetic code is base 4, and has millions of bits of
?>information. Changing a simple genetic code string of only
?>1000 characters (a very small and unimportant genetic code)
?>would be one in 4^1000, or 10^-602. Considering that there are
?>no more than 10^81 atoms in the total universe, you can see
?>how the probability drops far below unlikely. In fact, all the
?>time in the universe could not be enough for even one mutation
?>to take place, let alone all of the various different species
?>we see.

As others have pointed out,

1) mutations are observed to occur
2) classes of proteins can perform the same function
3) redundancy via duplication and divergence leads to novel
  proteins
4) biochemistry is not random, but has inherent constraints

I would like to demonstrate a problem with the indicated
probability argument by example.  Let us consider the
probability involved in the specification of one particular
human being, in this case the putative author of the
probability argument quoted above.  What is the probability
that our putative author exists?

Each human being receives about 100,000 alleles from each
parent.  (This is a topic of current research, as to the
actual number of loci in the human genome.)  So, we can start
off with a figure of 1/100,000^2, or 1E-10.

Each human genome consists of about 3 billion nucleotide
bases, and the typical mutation rate is 1E-9 per base.  This
yields about 3 mutations per genome.  Thus, there are about
three mutations per human being on average.  What are the odds
that one human has the particular set of mutations that occurs
in their genome?  That's any of 19 alternatives at three
positions out of 3E9 bases.  First, we have an instantiation
of 1 out of the possible permutations. The permutations are
N!/(N-n)!, or 19!/(19-3)! = 19!/16! = 5814, and our relevant
stat is 1/5,814.  Now, the statistic for the positions that
are affected is 1/3E9 * 1/(3E9-1) * 1/(3E9-2) = 3.70E-29.  The
average expected individual factor due to mutations is thus
6.37E-33.

But all the above assumes that the right sets of alleles come
together.  That's right, one must have the right parents.
Here we have another term, where if M is the total human
population, the odds of getting the right set of parents is
1/(M/2)^2.  For our putative author, let's assume M was about
3 billion.  This yields a value of 4.44E-19.

Let's total up the damage so far.  The odds of our putative
author coming about is 1E-10 * 6.37E-33 * 4.44E-19 = 2.83E-61.
This ignores the fact that the author's existence is the
result of not just the odds given above, but also the odds of
each individual who existed in his ancestry.  So the figure
above is a drastic underestimate of the odds.  By our author's
reasoning, 2.83E-61 is much much smaller than 1E-48, and thus
by the "cosmological" principles cited by our putative author,
he does not exist.  QED.  ;-)

Notice, please, that I did not say that this kind of
probability analysis is valid.  The point is that this kind of
analysis is invalid.  Various of the figures or calculations
are based upon flawed, simplistic, or incorrect assumptions.
While any particular human being is unique as a result of a
convergence of contingent factors, these factors cannot be
enumerated and handled with the ease that the numbers above
were generated and used.  And after all, while the odds of a
particular individual being instantiated really are quite
remote, the odds that *some* human being may come about are
much much better.  (Consider the world's current human
population figure.)  That that human being may later come to
use invalid probability arguments is no long shot at all.

--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
"In the fall when plants return\By harvest time she knows the score" - BOC


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

    
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2016,12:24   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 22 2016,21:56)
Quote (stevestory @ April 22 2016,14:15)
 
Quote
141
Indiana EffigyApril 22, 2016 at 12:24 pm
KF@139: “My particular existence is not a result of blind chance processes and blind mechanisms…”

Your unsubstantiated assertion is duly noted.

“…but the result of a functioning procreative system on the part of my parents.”

True. But my claim was about the unique individual that is you, not that your parents could procreate.

Your father produced 500 billion sperm cells throughout his life. Your mother had a couple hundred thousand eggs. The unique you is the result of one specific sperm cell from your father and one specific egg cell from your mother. Any other sperm or egg would not result in the you that we all know and love. The result is that the probability of you existing, given the existence of your parents, is in the order of one in 100,000,000,000,000,000 (please double check my math, I could be in error).

Now, to really scare you, try extending these probability calculations back a few generations. It will not take too many generations to arrive at a probability that is so astronomically small that it is effectively zero. Therefore, you can’t exist.

Obviously, this conclusion is rediculous because the initial assumption, that the unique person that is you was the targeted goal, is wrong. But this is the same assumption that ID uses when it talks about the combinatorial explosion.


:O

OK, this is the argument that had me looking back in my records, Google Groups having totally failed me.

And I did eventually find it.

 
Quote

Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 21:47:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Wesley R. Elsberry" <wre>
Message-Id: <199908210447.VAA27645@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com>
To: welsberr, talk-origins@moderators.uu.net
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: I know this is wrong...
References: <37BD2BD3.89EEA3F@earthlink.net>
Organization: Online Zoologists
Status: R

In article <37BD2BD3.89EEA3F@earthlink.net>,
jenn and jason  <ouroboros@earthlink.net> wrote:

[...]

J&J>This was posted to me today- can anybody explain this nonsense?

?> But let's really look at the math. ASCI (the code I am
?>writing with) is base 256. So this sentence:

?>    I am writing to you.

?>Has a total of 20 characters, and thus the probability of
?>getting this sentence by pounding on the keyboard is one in
?>256^20, or 1.5X10^-48.

This is inaccurate, as others have pointed out.

?>In cosmological terms that equals zero.

This would appear to be a reference to Borel.  Borel's rule of
thumb indicated that events less likely than 1E-50 could be
considered to have zero likelihood.  Dembski explored this in
his book, "The Design Inference".  Dembski's revision, though,
results in a much different number: 1E-500.

?>The genetic code is base 4, and has millions of bits of
?>information. Changing a simple genetic code string of only
?>1000 characters (a very small and unimportant genetic code)
?>would be one in 4^1000, or 10^-602. Considering that there are
?>no more than 10^81 atoms in the total universe, you can see
?>how the probability drops far below unlikely. In fact, all the
?>time in the universe could not be enough for even one mutation
?>to take place, let alone all of the various different species
?>we see.

As others have pointed out,

1) mutations are observed to occur
2) classes of proteins can perform the same function
3) redundancy via duplication and divergence leads to novel
  proteins
4) biochemistry is not random, but has inherent constraints

I would like to demonstrate a problem with the indicated
probability argument by example.  Let us consider the
probability involved in the specification of one particular
human being, in this case the putative author of the
probability argument quoted above.  What is the probability
that our putative author exists?

Each human being receives about 100,000 alleles from each
parent.  (This is a topic of current research, as to the
actual number of loci in the human genome.)  So, we can start
off with a figure of 1/100,000^2, or 1E-10.

Each human genome consists of about 3 billion nucleotide
bases, and the typical mutation rate is 1E-9 per base.  This
yields about 3 mutations per genome.  Thus, there are about
three mutations per human being on average.  What are the odds
that one human has the particular set of mutations that occurs
in their genome?  That's any of 19 alternatives at three
positions out of 3E9 bases.  First, we have an instantiation
of 1 out of the possible permutations. The permutations are
N!/(N-n)!, or 19!/(19-3)! = 19!/16! = 5814, and our relevant
stat is 1/5,814.  Now, the statistic for the positions that
are affected is 1/3E9 * 1/(3E9-1) * 1/(3E9-2) = 3.70E-29.  The
average expected individual factor due to mutations is thus
6.37E-33.

But all the above assumes that the right sets of alleles come
together.  That's right, one must have the right parents.
Here we have another term, where if M is the total human
population, the odds of getting the right set of parents is
1/(M/2)^2.  For our putative author, let's assume M was about
3 billion.  This yields a value of 4.44E-19.

Let's total up the damage so far.  The odds of our putative
author coming about is 1E-10 * 6.37E-33 * 4.44E-19 = 2.83E-61.
This ignores the fact that the author's existence is the
result of not just the odds given above, but also the odds of
each individual who existed in his ancestry.  So the figure
above is a drastic underestimate of the odds.  By our author's
reasoning, 2.83E-61 is much much smaller than 1E-48, and thus
by the "cosmological" principles cited by our putative author,
he does not exist.  QED.  ;-)

Notice, please, that I did not say that this kind of
probability analysis is valid.  The point is that this kind of
analysis is invalid.  Various of the figures or calculations
are based upon flawed, simplistic, or incorrect assumptions.
While any particular human being is unique as a result of a
convergence of contingent factors, these factors cannot be
enumerated and handled with the ease that the numbers above
were generated and used.  And after all, while the odds of a
particular individual being instantiated really are quite
remote, the odds that *some* human being may come about are
much much better.  (Consider the world's current human
population figure.)  That that human being may later come to
use invalid probability arguments is no long shot at all.

--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
"In the fall when plants return\By harvest time she knows the score" - BOC

And I am sure that Mullings will either completely ignore the comment or accuse IE of soaking strawmen in oil of red herring and setting it afire with a barrage of turnabouts, ad-hominems and a general lack of duty of care to the truth.

or maybe I am not reading Mullings accurately.

  
sparc



Posts: 2088
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2016,13:35   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ April 23 2016,12:24)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 22 2016,21:56)
Quote (stevestory @ April 22 2016,14:15)
   
Quote
141
Indiana EffigyApril 22, 2016 at 12:24 pm
KF@139: “My particular existence is not a result of blind chance processes and blind mechanisms…”

Your unsubstantiated assertion is duly noted.

“…but the result of a functioning procreative system on the part of my parents.”

True. But my claim was about the unique individual that is you, not that your parents could procreate.

Your father produced 500 billion sperm cells throughout his life. Your mother had a couple hundred thousand eggs. The unique you is the result of one specific sperm cell from your father and one specific egg cell from your mother. Any other sperm or egg would not result in the you that we all know and love. The result is that the probability of you existing, given the existence of your parents, is in the order of one in 100,000,000,000,000,000 (please double check my math, I could be in error).

Now, to really scare you, try extending these probability calculations back a few generations. It will not take too many generations to arrive at a probability that is so astronomically small that it is effectively zero. Therefore, you can’t exist.

Obviously, this conclusion is rediculous because the initial assumption, that the unique person that is you was the targeted goal, is wrong. But this is the same assumption that ID uses when it talks about the combinatorial explosion.


:O

OK, this is the argument that had me looking back in my records, Google Groups having totally failed me.

And I did eventually find it.

   
Quote

Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 21:47:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Wesley R. Elsberry" <wre>
Message-Id: <199908210447.VAA27645@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com>
To: welsberr, talk-origins@moderators.uu.net
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: I know this is wrong...
References: <37BD2BD3.89EEA3F@earthlink.net>
Organization: Online Zoologists
Status: R

In article <37BD2BD3.89EEA3F@earthlink.net>,
jenn and jason  <ouroboros@earthlink.net> wrote:

[...]

J&J>This was posted to me today- can anybody explain this nonsense?

?> But let's really look at the math. ASCI (the code I am
?>writing with) is base 256. So this sentence:

?>    I am writing to you.

?>Has a total of 20 characters, and thus the probability of
?>getting this sentence by pounding on the keyboard is one in
?>256^20, or 1.5X10^-48.

This is inaccurate, as others have pointed out.

?>In cosmological terms that equals zero.

This would appear to be a reference to Borel.  Borel's rule of
thumb indicated that events less likely than 1E-50 could be
considered to have zero likelihood.  Dembski explored this in
his book, "The Design Inference".  Dembski's revision, though,
results in a much different number: 1E-500.

?>The genetic code is base 4, and has millions of bits of
?>information. Changing a simple genetic code string of only
?>1000 characters (a very small and unimportant genetic code)
?>would be one in 4^1000, or 10^-602. Considering that there are
?>no more than 10^81 atoms in the total universe, you can see
?>how the probability drops far below unlikely. In fact, all the
?>time in the universe could not be enough for even one mutation
?>to take place, let alone all of the various different species
?>we see.

As others have pointed out,

1) mutations are observed to occur
2) classes of proteins can perform the same function
3) redundancy via duplication and divergence leads to novel
  proteins
4) biochemistry is not random, but has inherent constraints

I would like to demonstrate a problem with the indicated
probability argument by example.  Let us consider the
probability involved in the specification of one particular
human being, in this case the putative author of the
probability argument quoted above.  What is the probability
that our putative author exists?

Each human being receives about 100,000 alleles from each
parent.  (This is a topic of current research, as to the
actual number of loci in the human genome.)  So, we can start
off with a figure of 1/100,000^2, or 1E-10.

Each human genome consists of about 3 billion nucleotide
bases, and the typical mutation rate is 1E-9 per base.  This
yields about 3 mutations per genome.  Thus, there are about
three mutations per human being on average.  What are the odds
that one human has the particular set of mutations that occurs
in their genome?  That's any of 19 alternatives at three
positions out of 3E9 bases.  First, we have an instantiation
of 1 out of the possible permutations. The permutations are
N!/(N-n)!, or 19!/(19-3)! = 19!/16! = 5814, and our relevant
stat is 1/5,814.  Now, the statistic for the positions that
are affected is 1/3E9 * 1/(3E9-1) * 1/(3E9-2) = 3.70E-29.  The
average expected individual factor due to mutations is thus
6.37E-33.

But all the above assumes that the right sets of alleles come
together.  That's right, one must have the right parents.
Here we have another term, where if M is the total human
population, the odds of getting the right set of parents is
1/(M/2)^2.  For our putative author, let's assume M was about
3 billion.  This yields a value of 4.44E-19.

Let's total up the damage so far.  The odds of our putative
author coming about is 1E-10 * 6.37E-33 * 4.44E-19 = 2.83E-61.
This ignores the fact that the author's existence is the
result of not just the odds given above, but also the odds of
each individual who existed in his ancestry.  So the figure
above is a drastic underestimate of the odds.  By our author's
reasoning, 2.83E-61 is much much smaller than 1E-48, and thus
by the "cosmological" principles cited by our putative author,
he does not exist.  QED.  ;-)

Notice, please, that I did not say that this kind of
probability analysis is valid.  The point is that this kind of
analysis is invalid.  Various of the figures or calculations
are based upon flawed, simplistic, or incorrect assumptions.
While any particular human being is unique as a result of a
convergence of contingent factors, these factors cannot be
enumerated and handled with the ease that the numbers above
were generated and used.  And after all, while the odds of a
particular individual being instantiated really are quite
remote, the odds that *some* human being may come about are
much much better.  (Consider the world's current human
population figure.)  That that human being may later come to
use invalid probability arguments is no long shot at all.

--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
"In the fall when plants return\By harvest time she knows the score" - BOC

And I am sure that Mullings will either completely ignore the comment or accuse IE of soaking strawmen in oil of red herring and setting it afire with a barrage of turnabouts, ad-hominems and a general lack of duty of care to the truth.

or maybe I am not reading Mullings accurately.

Has this ever been possible?

--------------
"[...] 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 -

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2016,17:02   

Quote
181
Indiana EffigyApril 23, 2016 at 3:44 pm

KF@180: “The issue for instance is not, can a one or few base pair mutation make steps to break say vit C synthesis, but getting to vit c synthesis in the first place.”

Again with the false assumptions that the combinatorial explosion relies on. Why to you think that vitamin C is the goal?

“And I am sure you are aware that in some cases single point mutations can be fatal . . . “

Of course. And these may be the cause of a significant percentage of spontaneous abortions. But there are very many that are not fatal. We each carry many of them. Even some that affect the function of normal proteins. I myself have Marfans which is a connective tissue disorder that has many symptoms that I have (myopia, spontaneous pneumothorax, and scoliosis), and others that I don’t yet have, but could (mitral valve damage and aneurism). I think you would agree that this is s serious genetic disorder that has resulted in a significant reduction in function. Yet, I am still here poking holes in your sacred cows.
the only good thing one can say about gordon is he's slightly better than BatShit77.

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2016,17:03   

Quote
179
Indiana EffigyApril 23, 2016 at 2:49 pm
KF@178: “PS: You have fallen into the classic trap of being selectively hypercritical in looking at what those you disagree with speak of.”

You mean the classic trap of claiming that your arguments are based on false assumptions and supporting my claims? Yes, I can see why you would rather criticize my motive than my argument.

“Go look up the exploded view diagram for a 6500 C3 round reel,”

I have seen you repeat this many times and all you have proven is that a fishing reel designed by humans is a good evidence for a fishing reel designed by humans.

“. Use AutoCAD as description language generator and do a drawing file, which will be a collection of bit strings describing a 3-d functionally specific config. Ponder what happens when you play around with the bits and pieces at random, they soon become non functional.”

OK, I get it. Human designed things are prone to losing function upon variation.

“Same for text strings in posts here and in code. Punch in a bit of noise and see how fast function is lost.”

Actually, this is not true. You can leave out a significant number of matters, and even rearrange them, and the message can still be deciphered. But, again, human design.

“Islands of function are real, and are relevant to cell based life.”

Repeating this will not make it true. I explained why. Argue against my reasons if you can, but please stop making unsubstantiated assertions. Your argument is that loss of function means death. Which is not the case. You can’t produce vitamin C due to loss of function. Many adults cannot digest lactose due to lack of function. Neither are resulting in mass deaths.
hahahaha

Edited by stevestory on April 23 2016,22:36

   
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2016,18:33   

Quote (stevestory @ April 23 2016,17:03)
Quote
179
Indiana EffigyApril 23, 2016 at 2:49 pm
KF@178: “PS: You have fallen into the classic trap of being selectively hypercritical in looking at what those you disagree with speak of.”

You mean the classic trap of claiming that your arguments are based on false assumptions and supporting my claims? Yes, I can see why you would rather criticize my motive than my argument.

“Go look up the exploded view diagram for a 6500 C3 round reel,”

I have seen you repeat this many times and all you have proven is that a fishing reel designed by humans is a good evidence for a fishing reel designed by humans.

“. Use AutoCAD as description language generator and do a drawing file, which will be a collection of bit strings describing a 3-d functionally specific config. Ponder what happens when you play around with the bits and pieces at random, they soon become non functional.”

OK, I get it. Human designed things are prone to losing function upon variation.

“Same for text strings in posts here and in code. Punch in a bit of noise and see how fast function is lost.”

Actually, this is not true. You can leave out a significant number of matters, and even rearrange them, and the message can still be deciphered. But, again, human design.
[/i]
“Islands of function are real, and are relevant to cell based life.”
[/i]
Repeating this will not make it true. I explained why. Argue against my reasons if you can, but please stop making unsubstantiated assertions. Your argument is that loss of function means death. Which is not the case. You can’t produce vitamin C due to loss of function. Many adults cannot digest lactose due to lack of function. Neither are resulting in mass deaths.
hahahaha

The most surprising thing is that In Effigy has lasted as long as he has.

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2016,19:04   

[191
Indiana EffigyApril 23, 2016 at 5:58 pm
KF@187: FSCO/I is real, is observable and readily distinguishable and at the relevant threshold 500 – 1000 bits on a trillion observations is a reliable sign of design as cause. ”

It is only a reliable sign of human design. You really are starting to sound like a broken record.

“gffayid6ifudiyg97rdu[w.
this is a string in English text.
to make a basic point.”

OK, but what about this?
????
inanite k’oshashawi mulu lemulu yetemola newi

Or this?

“jy is heeltemal vol kak

Do they have FSCO/I or not?

“Again, the selective hyperskepticism is patent, as all of this has been explained over and over and over, just dismissed, in the end because the message is utterly unwelcome.”

Again, attacking the messenger rather than addressing the message.

“And you forget, I was there when dozens of attempts were made to suggest cases of FSCO/I by blind chance and mechanism only to consistently fail.”

And you forget, I was present at an unexplained undersea mass sponge migration:)

Click to EditRequest Deletion (16 minutes and 29 seconds)

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2363
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2016,06:13   

Louis Savain is not afraid of homosexuals.  In fact, they had better fear him!
              
Quote
My goal in calling any of them "atheist closet homosexuals, dirt worshippers, tree-dwelling primitive, etc." is to show the a-holes that I have no fear of them whatsoever and that I am not intimidated in any shape or form. In fact, I want to instill fear in them, if possible. They are the enemy and they are attacking my religion.

The homosexuals are attacking him.  They got him kicked off Uncommon Descent, but it's not working at Darwin's God because Cornelius is too gosh darn brave.
             
Quote
 They tried their darndest to get Cornelius to kick me off but Cornelius does not take orders from dirt worshippers. They succeeded at Uncommon Descent, which is understandable. UD depends on maintaining a certain reputation to attract advertisers and donors from the Christian community. They see me as a threat. Which is the way I like it. LOL

They also see Cornelius as a major threat, which is why they comment here. Unfortunately for the a-holes, Cornelius also has no fear. Their only weapon is name-calling, propaganda and intimidation. But none of it works on Cornelius. It's hilarious.

ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...

Soon, they will get what's coming to them.  Real soon!            
Quote
Soon, the entire dirt-worshipping mafia will quake in their boots. The fall will come suddenly and without mercy. It will come from the one place you suspect the least. Wait for it.

For my part, I'll be watching the whole thing unfold with a beer in one hand, a bag of Cheetos in the other and a smirk on my face. LOL

It's the homosexual's own fault, too.          
Quote
You chose Darwinism, not science. You did because it was the best way for you to attack those goddamn Christians who persecute homosexuals. If it hadn't been for the stigma they have placed on homosexuals over the years, you would have come out of the closet. So now, you're stuck in a heterosexual relationship. Why? Because you're scared.

But Louis is on to them.  They can run, but they can't hide!        
Quote
This is precisely the kind of language a closet male homosexual would use. If science was really your main motivation, you would not be here. I know what motivates you. You don't fool me, Horton. I've been observing a homosexual for years and he talks just like you. Ya'll can't help it. It's in your DNA.

Evolution of Darwin's Finches thread.

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2016,06:18   

Quote
I've been observing a homosexual for years....

ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...

  
Soapy Sam



Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2016,07:29   

Quote
Their only weapon is name-calling, propaganda and intimidation.

Their only weapon is name-calling. Name-calling and propaganda. Two! Their two main weapons are name-calling, propaganda and intimidation. Three ... amongst their weaponry are ... I'll come in again.







Edited by stevestory on April 25 2016,13:29

--------------
SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G

BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2016,10:28   

Quote (CeilingCat @ April 24 2016,07:13)
For my part, I'll be watching the whole thing unfold with a beer in one hand, a bag of Cheetos in the other and a smirk on my face. LOL

that's a pretty flat beer by now.  :p

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2016,10:31   

Quote (Woodbine @ April 24 2016,07:18)
Quote
I've been observing a homosexual for years....

ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...

HOW IS THIS GUY NOT A POE??!?!?!?!?!

   
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2016,15:53   

Quote (stevestory @ April 24 2016,10:31)
Quote (Woodbine @ April 24 2016,07:18)
Quote
I've been observing a homosexual for years....

ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...

HOW IS THIS GUY NOT A POE??!?!?!?!?!

And those words from a man who admits to having a homosexual partner.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2016,16:23   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ April 24 2016,16:53)
And those words from a man who admits to having a homosexual partner.

???

   
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2016,16:46   

Quote (stevestory @ April 24 2016,16:23)
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ April 24 2016,16:53)
And those words from a man who admits to having a homosexual partner.

???

Actually, his words were "homosexual business partner", but I liked my shameless quote-mine better.

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2016,19:53   

Quote (Soapy Sam @ April 24 2016,05:29)
Quote
Their only weapon is name-calling, propaganda and intimidation.

Their only weapon is name-calling. Name-calling and propaganda. Two! Their two main weapons are name-calling, propaganda and intimidation. Three ... amongst their weaponry are ... I'll come in again.

At least Post of the Week.
:D

   
paragwinn



Posts: 539
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2016,00:10   

Quote (Soapy Sam @ April 24 2016,05:29)
 
Quote
Their only weapon is name-calling, propaganda and intimidation.

Their only weapon is name-calling. Name-calling and propaganda. Two! Their two main weapons are name-calling, propaganda and intimidation. Three ... amongst their weaponry are ... I'll come in again.

Don't forget farting in Savain's general direction and insulting his parents.

--------------
All women build up a resistance [to male condescension]. Apparently, ID did not predict that. -Kristine 4-19-11
F/Ns to F/Ns to F/Ns etc. The whole thing is F/N ridiculous -Seversky on KF footnote fetish 8-20-11
Sigh. Really Bill? - Barry Arrington

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2016,08:08   

William SpearshakeApril 24, 2016 at 5:43 PM
Quote

Mapou: "So what? What is your stupid point? Come out with it."

Everybody else gets my point. I guess you will just have to live with your ignorance.


Louis SavainApril 24, 2016 at 5:51 PM

Quote
Man, pack it up your asteroid. The only truly ignorant jackasses here are the dirt worshippers.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2016,13:01   

Quote
How Did Mathematics Come to be Woven Into the Fabric of Reality?

April 25, 2016

Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design, Mathematics
9 Comments


Talk about being in over your head.  :p

linky

   
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2016,16:53   

Quote (stevestory @ April 25 2016,13:01)
Quote
How Did Mathematics Come to be Woven Into the Fabric of Reality?

April 25, 2016

Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design, Mathematics
9 Comments


Talk about being in over your head.  :p

linky

Given that his head is usually up his ass, that would mean he is wearing his stomach as a hat. And his sphincter as a necklace.

  
  15792 replies since Dec. 29 2013,11:01 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (527) < ... 191 192 193 194 195 [196] 197 198 199 200 201 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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