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

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

Pages: (500) < ... 64 65 66 67 68 [69] 70 71 72 73 74 ... >

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2008,12:06    Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 27 2008,11:50) Quiet round here, isn't it? Just waiting for you to publicly kiss and make up with the folks over at UD. -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. �We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2008,12:26    Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 27 2008,17:50) Quiet round here, isn't it? Thankfully. See previous comments about being mildly worse for wear after enjoying copious quantities of tramp fuel last night. Is that cockroach crawling too loudly? Louis -------------- Bye.

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2008,12:42    Quote (Louis @ Sep. 27 2008,12:26) Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 27 2008,17:50) Quiet round here, isn't it? Thankfully. See previous comments about being mildly worse for wear after enjoying copious quantities of tramp fuel last night. Is that cockroach crawling too loudly? Louis So, tell us where a sciencey chap goes to party @ London these days? -------------- 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

Skullboy Posts: 24 Joined: Sep. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2008,12:58    Burning Questions: Will anyone over there mention this eugenics plan, or is it too embarrassing--in light of their recent political declarations--to acknowledge that the idea came from a republican? Will Dembski or O'leary be lame enough to suggest a theological interpretation of this recent astronomical observation? Or will they leave it to Batshit77, who'll characterize this as an obviously purposeful aspect of the universe, and add it to his list of things materialist science didn't "predict", even though it is a prediction, and is based on advanced observations, tools and methods of current "materialist" astronomy? I'm actually curious to see if and how these two items are discussed over there.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2008,13:55    Quote (J-Dog @ Sep. 27 2008,18:42) Quote (Louis @ Sep. 27 2008,12:26) Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 27 2008,17:50) Quiet round here, isn't it? Thankfully. See previous comments about being mildly worse for wear after enjoying copious quantities of tramp fuel last night. Is that cockroach crawling too loudly? Louis So, tell us where a sciencey chap goes to party @ London these days? Everywhere! Followed shortly by the gutter. Occasionally the kebab shop calls first. I wasn't in London last night, I was out slightly west of it in the commuter belt. It was one of those "one pint after work" type things. Never managed to have just one pint on any of them. Louis -------------- Bye.

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2008,13:59    Quote (Skullboy @ Sep. 27 2008,13:58) Will Dembski or O'leary be lame enough to suggest a theological interpretation of this recent astronomical observation? Note the difference between Space.com's take and this one. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2008,17:34    One thing I'd like to know, GUC Grey Area: how many of your comments at UD were deleted, if any?

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2008,17:41    I edited the subtitles of the 2 UD threads to make their purposes clearer.

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2008,18:14    Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 27 2008,18:41) I edited the subtitles of the 2 UD threads to make their purposes clearer. Dude! You fixed what ain't broke! -------------- 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

GCUGreyArea Posts: 180 Joined: Sep. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2008,18:27    Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 27 2008,17:34) One thing I'd like to know, GUC Grey Area: how many of your comments at UD were deleted, if any? Quote One thing I'd like to know, GUC Grey Area: how many of your comments at UD were deleted, if any? I think just one, I realised early on that I had to be careful what I said, after all there is little point in making a comment if it just gets deleted. The comment in question got 'annotated' by an administrator first before being deleted. �I didn't think to keep a copy of it though. �Needless to say they totally failed to understand my point.

Jkrebs Posts: 590 Joined: Sep. 2004 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2008,19:05    Over here, on a thread entitled ID is Not Science Because ..., DaveScot, after quoting Ernst Mayr about how Darwin's work contradicted the creationism of his time, says, Quote Huh. It appears like Darwin was testing scientific creationism and found evidence contrary to it. So what is it. Is ID science or not science? It seems our opponents want to have their cake and eat it too by saying: �ID is not science because it cannot be falsified or verified. And by the way, ID has been repeatedly tested and shown to be false.� So what is it, Dave? Is ID the same as scientific creationism, or not? �Do you see that you just considered the two equivalent? � Your last sentence continues the confusion. Positive statements about what ID is, few as they are, are untestable - at least no one has been able to articulate such testable propositions and show how those tests are to be done. �The arguments for ID are flawed philosophical arguments, not testable scientific propositions. Negative arguments against evolution, which are the bulk of what ID offers, are merely warmed over creationist arguments, and these arguments have been tested and been shown to be false. So Dave's post seems a confused mess. �He first identifies scientific creationism with �ID (a position everyone over there works hard to deny), and then confuses arguments for ID with arguments against evolution. �The former are untestable and the latter are wrong. I wonder if anyone over there will point out to him this equivalence of scientific creationism and ID, and I wonder if this post will stand as written. �We'll see.

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2008,21:18    Quote (Jkrebs @ Sep. 27 2008,20:05) So Dave's post seems a confused mess. �He first identifies scientific creationism with �ID (a position everyone over there works hard to deny), and then confuses arguments for ID with arguments against evolution. �The former are untestable and the latter are wrong. I agree - DaveScot can be startlingly obtuse. The Bible's creation account, taken literally, makes all sorts of assertions about historical facts (e.g. the flood, creation of unchanging "kinds") that are eminently testable. It also includes the untestable assertion that God is a causal force in the universe. Many of the former assertions have been tested and been found wanting (by Darwin, among others); the latter remains untested and untestable. ID carefully avoids committing to any testable factual assertions and predictions whatsoever - having stripped the testable assertions of creationism out in a failed attempt to disguise its origins. It then reinterprets extant evidence by positing a causal mechanism (design) that is untestable by definition. It is this core assertion that is analogous to the untestable component of creationism noted above. � That's what it is, Dave. ID is not science. These distinctions are flatass obvious, and should be obvious even to you. -------------- 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

PTET Posts: 133 Joined: Jan. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2008,07:38    Quote 27 September 2008 Burning Down the House DaveScot Make it viral. Link to email to everyone you know, post everywhere you go... DaveScot's latest bandwagon is a viral video blaming the current credit crunch on every democrat from Jimmy Carter onwards. I also saw it linked at that home of rational debate and lucid discussion, Rapture Ready. The video blames the Community Reinvestment Act. (The relevant wikipedia article is being updated, presumably in response to this viral.) Dave like the vid because it paints John McCain as the unsung hero, trying to regulate the mortgage industry in the face of Dem opposition. There's no mention of the $15,000 a month paid to McCain's campaign manager's firm; or McCain's calls for US healthcare to be (de)regulated the same way as the financial system; or any alternative viewpoints or analysis or anything like that. So in summary: throw one narrow bit of information at people and tell them that's the whole story. It's business as usual at UD. [edited for a bit of clarity] -------------- "It�s not worth the effort to prove the obvious. Ridiculous ideas don�t deserve our time. Even the attempt to formulate ID is a generous accommodation." - ScottAndrews

dvunkannon Posts: 1377 Joined: June 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2008,10:59    Quote (Louis @ Sep. 27 2008,14:55) Quote (J-Dog @ Sep. 27 2008,18:42) Quote (Louis @ Sep. 27 2008,12:26)   Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 27 2008,17:50) Quiet round here, isn't it? Thankfully. See previous comments about being mildly worse for wear after enjoying copious quantities of tramp fuel last night. Is that cockroach crawling too loudly? Louis So, tell us where a sciencey chap goes to party @ London these days? Everywhere! Followed shortly by the gutter. Occasionally the kebab shop calls first. I wasn't in London last night, I was out slightly west of it in the commuter belt. It was one of those "one pint after work" type things. Never managed to have just one pint on any of them. Louis Hey Louis, I was actually in London for a few days this past week, but too jet lagged for anything interesting. However, if I can avoid that condition in the future, I'd like to meet a fellow AtBC denizen in person for once and get an introduction to the gutters of your fair city. Anyone visiting NYC, feel free to contact me! -------------- I�m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter I�m not an evolutionist, I�m a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

Jkrebs Posts: 590 Joined: Sep. 2004 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2008,11:48    From BarryA.  Is he serious? Quote 94 BarryA 09/28/2008 11:13 am DaveScot, I agree that God did a perfect job of making the universe appear to be very old, and that is my point. I can see no purpose in arguing with people who deny this fact or try to explain it away. Link

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2008,11:52    Quote (dvunkannon @ Sep. 28 2008,16:59) Quote (Louis @ Sep. 27 2008,14:55) Quote (J-Dog @ Sep. 27 2008,18:42)   Quote (Louis @ Sep. 27 2008,12:26) � Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 27 2008,17:50) Quiet round here, isn't it? Thankfully. See previous comments about being mildly worse for wear after enjoying copious quantities of tramp fuel last night. Is that cockroach crawling too loudly? Louis So, tell us where a sciencey chap goes to party @ London these days? Everywhere! Followed shortly by the gutter. Occasionally the kebab shop calls first. I wasn't in London last night, I was out slightly west of it in the commuter belt. It was one of those "one pint after work" type things. Never managed to have just one pint on any of them. Louis Hey Louis, I was actually in London for a few days this past week, but too jet lagged for anything interesting. However, if I can avoid that condition in the future, I'd like to meet a fellow AtBC denizen in person for once and get an introduction to the gutters of your fair city. Anyone visiting NYC, feel free to contact me! NYC? I know it well! The gutters around East 81st St bore my carcass more than once in the early 90s. That offer (and its London reciprocation) might be taken up! Louis -------------- Bye.

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2008,13:35    Quote (Jkrebs @ Sep. 28 2008,12:48) From BarryA. �Is he serious?   Quote 94 BarryA 09/28/2008 11:13 am DaveScot, I agree that God did a perfect job of making the universe appear to be very old, and that is my point. I can see no purpose in arguing with people who deny this fact or try to explain it away. Link Yes, and he hedges in other ways: Quote Everyone, everywhere understands that the evidence points to a universe/earth that are millions if not billions of years old. No Barry, everyone, everywhere understands that the evidence points to a universe that is 13.7 billion years old, and an earth that is 4.5 billion years old. There is no place for an earth that is mere "millions" of years old to hide in the current state of knowledge. -------------- 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

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2008,14:22    Quote 95 BarryA 09/28/2008 2:05 pm In other words, why appeal to evidence when even if the evidence goes 100% in one direction the person with whom you are arguing would nevertheless conclude the opposite. Is that not the very definition of futility? Barry, have you met Paul Nelson?

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2008,14:23    Or Salvador Cordova? Barry and Dave are going to damage the big tent if they insist on saying YECs don't listen to reason.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2008,14:28    Quote 94 BarryA 09/28/2008 11:13 am DaveScot, I agree that God did a perfect job of making the universe appear to be very old, and that is my point. I can see no purpose in arguing with people who deny this fact or try to explain it away. Quote I woke up one morning and looked around the room. Something wasn't right. I realized that someone had broken in the night before and replaced everything in my apartment with an exact replica. I couldn't believe it...I got my roommate and showed him. I said, "Look at this--everything's been replaced with an exact replica!" He said, "Do I know you?" http://www.theotherpages.org/quote-20.html

Zachriel Posts: 2723 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2008,19:57    Quote DaveScot: Since I was diligent enough to quote Crick & Orgel to support my statement that they hypothesized an advanced civilization which sent biotic material to the earth I�m going to have to go ahead and ask that you provide me with a quote backing up your assertion that Crick assumed the advanced civilization was evolved. You cited the abstract, but you might try to actually read the paper. Crick and Orgel, "Directed Panspermia," Icarus 1973. Quote Crick & Orgel: For all we know there may be other types of planet on which the origin of life ad initio is greatly more probable than on our own. For example, such a planet may possess a mineral, or compound, of crucial catalytic importance, which is rare on Earth. So, they argue that perhaps abiogenesis requires very rare conditions, so life evolved on one of a multitude of other watery worlds then was transferred to Earth. Quote Crick & Orgel: The chemical composition of living organisms must reflect to some extent the composition of the environment in which they evolved. Thus the presence in living organisms of elements that are extremely rare on the Earth might indicate that life is extraterrestrial in origin. Molybdenum in an essential trace element that plays an important role in many enzymatic reactions, while chromium and nickel are relatively unimportant in biochemistry. Life is the result of its evolutionary history. And if life evolved on another planet, this history may be detectable, in particular, dependence on the rare conditions of its origin. Quote DaveScot: This is a bit on the personal side for me as Francis Crick�s son Michael was a business partner of mine for a few years in the 1990�s and it annoys me when someone appears to be putting words in his father�s mouth that he never said. Oy vey! -------------- You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

Dr.GH Posts: 2333 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2008,20:20    Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 28 2008,17:57) You cited the abstract, but you might try to actually read the paper. Crick and Orgel, "Directed Panspermia," Icarus 1973. Quote Crick & Orgel: For all we know there may be other types of planet on which the origin of life ad initio is greatly more probable than on our own. For example, such a planet may possess a mineral, or compound, of crucial catalytic importance, which is rare on Earth. Thank you for that link. I have seen the papare cited often, but never bestirred my lazy self to read it. Done and Done. -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

keiths Posts: 2195 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2008,21:01    Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 28 2008,17:57)   Quote DaveScot: Since I was diligent enough to quote Crick & Orgel to support my statement that they hypothesized an advanced civilization which sent biotic material to the earth I�m going to have to go ahead and ask that you provide me with a quote backing up your assertion that Crick assumed the advanced civilization was evolved. You cited the abstract, but you might try to actually read the paper. Crick and Orgel, "Directed Panspermia," Icarus 1973. Quote Crick & Orgel: For all we know there may be other types of planet on which the origin of life ad initio is greatly more probable than on our own. For example, such a planet may possess a mineral, or compound, of crucial catalytic importance, which is rare on Earth. So, they argue that perhaps abiogenesis requires very rare conditions, so life evolved on one of a multitude of other watery worlds then was transferred to Earth.   Quote Crick & Orgel: The chemical composition of living organisms must reflect to some extent the composition of the environment in which they evolved. Thus the presence in living organisms of elements that are extremely rare on the Earth might indicate that life is extraterrestrial in origin. Molybdenum in an essential trace element that plays an important role in many enzymatic reactions, while chromium and nickel are relatively unimportant in biochemistry. Life is the result of its evolutionary history. And if life evolved on another planet, this history may be detectable, in particular, dependence on the rare conditions of its origin. Quote DaveScot: This is a bit on the personal side for me as Francis Crick�s son Michael was a business partner of mine for a few years in the 1990�s and it annoys me when someone appears to be putting words in his father�s mouth that he never said. Oy vey! I guess there must be life after death, because a lot of people seem to become ID supporters  after they cross the Styx. -------------- 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

Ptaylor Posts: 1180 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2008,01:00    DT has sensed the frustration settling in with the lack of action over at UD and has decided to liven things up with a bannination: � � Quote AB I would have thought, that the term �Drama Queen�, and kindred examples of fashionable internet lingo, would never see the light of day here. I am disappointed. Drama Queen is fashionable internet lingo? Huh. I�m pretty sure I was using the term before Al Gore invented the internet. Be that as it may I didn�t expect to see anyone compare UprightBiped to Stalin or Khomeini. I guess we all have our crosses to bear. Look, we already knew that ID was ecumenical. That�s why we call it the big tent. It�s not �Anything But Darwinism�. It�s design detection and it�s employed daily by everyone both consciously and unconsciously, formally and informally, to discriminate between the intentional and the unintentional. I think the most insightful thing you said here so far was that you don�t seem to be fitting in. I agree. Goodbye. By the way, can someone tell me the correct protocol. Do posts like this belong on this thread, or over at the BlogCzar Years thread? -------------- We no longer say: “Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.” We now say: “Another day since the time Darwinism was disproved.” -PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

didymos Posts: 1828 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2008,04:21    Quote (Ptaylor @ Sep. 28 2008,23:00) DT has sensed the frustration settling in with the lack of action over at UD and has decided to liven things up with a bannination: � � �   Quote AB I would have thought, that the term �Drama Queen�, and kindred examples of fashionable internet lingo, would never see the light of day here. I am disappointed. Drama Queen is fashionable internet lingo? Huh. I�m pretty sure I was using the term before Al Gore invented the internet. Be that as it may I didn�t expect to see anyone compare UprightBiped to Stalin or Khomeini. I guess we all have our crosses to bear. Look, we already knew that ID was ecumenical. That�s why we call it the big tent. It�s not �Anything But Darwinism�. It�s design detection and it�s employed daily by everyone both consciously and unconsciously, formally and informally, to discriminate between the intentional and the unintentional. I think the most insightful thing you said here so far was that you don�t seem to be fitting in. I agree. Goodbye. By the way, can someone tell me the correct protocol. Do posts like this belong on this thread, or over at the BlogCzar Years thread? DaveTard is such a DramaTard..... -------------- I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

dvunkannon Posts: 1377 Joined: June 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2008,12:23    Paul Nelson finds the most relevant issue in the Explore Evolution review, a flub of reflexin for relaxin. Paul, looking at Schwabe's papers on relaxin, how do you deal with that 500 million year figure in this one of Schwabe's publications??? -------------- I�m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter I�m not an evolutionist, I�m a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

dvunkannon Posts: 1377 Joined: June 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2008,12:24    Yes!!! Post 69 appears on page 69!!! I win the Intertubes!!!11! -------------- I�m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter I�m not an evolutionist, I�m a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2008,12:31    Quote (Ptaylor @ Sep. 29 2008,02:00) By the way, can someone tell me the correct protocol. Do posts like this belong on this thread, or over at the BlogCzar Years thread? Anything about UD, banninations included, can be discussed here, this being the all-purpose UD thread.  The purpose of the blogczar thread is just to list the banninations.

Bob O'H Posts: 2564 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2008,12:40    I suppose getting confused between reflexin and relaxin is much, much worse than getting confused between an RNA virus and a DNA virus. -------------- 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)

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2008,13:59    Yeah. Much worse that being a big fat liar like Paul Nelson.

Pages: (500) < ... 64 65 66 67 68 [69] 70 71 72 73 74 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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