RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (500) < ... 491 492 493 494 495 [496] 497 498 499 500 >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 2, general discussion of Dembski's site< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
steve_h



Posts: 544
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2009,18:17   

Uncommonly Behe      
Quote
Well, mobs, including internet mobs, are scary things, and it’s understandable to panic when they unexpectedly show up at your door. But if you’re going to set up a website to air discussions about contentious issues of the day, you should have a whole lot more guts than displayed by Bloggingheads
TV

 
Quote

This entry was posted Friday, August 28th, 2009 at 7:33 am and is filed under Uncategorized. Both comments and pings are currently closed.


ETA: emphasis

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2009,21:14   

Quote
And snapshots of the tourists on the Moon.

And don't forget the golf course.

Henry

  
bfish



Posts: 267
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2009,21:54   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 31 2009,14:26)
the last battle i thought made it clear that Tash was Allah and Aslan the christian god.

in this analysis then what of Tash?

Tashlan?

there are biblical precedents for those ideas in Lewis.  i'm not sure how to think about these things under the scheme above.

ETA  on second thought its all just another jack tell bull shite and the green knights and the pips.  if it aint revelations there i don't know what.  

i really did think that there were a bunch of turks and moors and scimitars in that last narnarnia book thar.  and they bowed on rugs and what-all, with camels and stuff.  or not, i don't rememb.er  but i always thought it was antichristophoric histrionics told from the perspective of great mums wet nurse.  the mistress's son of the first imperial whoremongler

Your memory is correct about Tash. My daughter and I read all seven books aloud this past year. They are pretty good stories, but the depictions of the darker skinned, clearly Arab people is embarrassing. This is mostly in "A Horse and His Boy" and "The Last Battle." One of the things you want to skip through as you read the series. I don't feel like digging through the books to find some tasty examples, but I know there were sentences I skipped over due to the racism.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2009,22:51   

you know in all of the ignorant blithering about cs lewis over there i had forgotten all about all that.  

that's a new light to look at the stupidity of irq and clive,baby and the rest of this dunceocracy

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
sledgehammer



Posts: 533
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2009,00:06   

Uptight Blowtard:    
Quote
Why should a any theory demand something of the evidence? Why not (just for a salty change of pace) let the evidence demand something of the theory instead? It would seem that the evidence is that which can be studied and it is the theory that must conform to those studies.

In fact (given your condemnation of such logical errors) why don’t you personally lead the charge that (from now on) science should demand that the evidence demand something from the theory.

Perhaps that “something” could be conformity to the evidence itself.

seems to have difficulty with the concept of prediction, and that a good theory makes predictions that are supported by newly discovered evidence.
 In the case of the discovery of one less chromosome in humans as compared to apes: the theory of common descent predicts (demands?) that the evidence will eventually uncover to a fusion event. Special creation (or ID for that matter) makes no prediction (the omnipotent designer could design it any way it wanted).   Common Design is even worse in that there would be no good design reason for reducing chromosome number at all.

--------------
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2363
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2009,05:11   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 31 2009,22:51)
you know in all of the ignorant blithering about cs lewis over there i had forgotten all about all that.  

that's a new light to look at the stupidity of irq and clive,baby and the rest of this dunceocracy

You should also read A. N. Wilson's biography of C. S. Lewis.  That guy had some serious kinks!  For instance,  Lewis's mother died when Lewis was 10 at which time he was packed off to a rather horrid English boarding school.  The headmaster was eventually committed to an insane asylum some years after Lewis and his older brother left.  The Lewis family was from Northern Ireland.  So there he was, aged 10, suddenly with no mother, a very distant father and in a strange school run by a sadist nut in a foreign country.  Not too surprisingly, he got a little bent, emotionally.  He spent the rest of his life looking for substitutes for his mother.  Wilson also says his "mildly sadistic" tendencies began at that school.

Lewis and his friend, Paddy Moore were in W.W. I together.  His friend didn't come back.  So Clive Staples moved in with his mother, Jane Moore, and they lived together until Moore was hospitalized in the late 1940s.  Wilson makes it clear that the relationship included sex.

They had to be doubly sly about it because at that time young Oxford scholars like him weren't even supposed to be married.  Lewis customarily introduced Mrs. Moore as his mother.  Lewis himself referred to this episode in his biography: "But before I say anything of my life there I must warn the reader that one huge and complex episode will be omitted. I have no choice in this reticence. All I can or need to say is that my earlier hostility to the emotions was very fully and variously avenged".

Just to make up for living with a woman 27 years older for decades, near the end of his life he met Joy Gresham, 17 years younger than himself and married her.

If you want to see most of Lewis's effects today, you have to travel to Billy Graham's old alma mater, Wheaton college in Illinois where you may see, amongst many other artifacts, his collection of pipes and liquor decanters.  What they make of that at tee-totaling Wheaton I do not know.

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2363
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2009,07:00   

Quote (steve_h @ Aug. 31 2009,18:17)
Uncommonly Behe              
Quote
Well, mobs, including internet mobs, are scary things, and it’s understandable to panic when they unexpectedly show up at your door. But if you’re going to set up a website to air discussions about contentious issues of the day, you should have a whole lot more guts than displayed by Bloggingheads
TV

         
Quote

This entry was posted Friday, August 28th, 2009 at 7:33 am and is filed under Uncategorized. Both comments and pings are currently closed.


ETA: emphasis

The McWhorter-Behe interview is back up now: Here.

There's also this explanation from Robert Wright, who is apparently the head honcho at Bloggingheads:      
Quote
Bloggingheads  
Administrator   Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1  

Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)

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

John McWhorter feels, with regret, that this interview represents neither himself, Professor Behe, nor Bloggingheads usefully, takes full responsibility for same, and has asked that it be taken down from the site. He apologizes to all who found its airing objectionable.

Update from Robert Wright, editor-in-chief of Bloggingheads.tv, Aug. 30: This diavlog has now been re-posted. The decision to remove it from the site was made by BhTV staff while I was away and unavailable for consultation. (Yes, even in a wired world it's possible to take yourself off the grid. Here's how I did it.) It's impossible to say for sure whether, in the heat of the moment, I would have made a decision different from the staff's decision. But on reflection I've decided that removing this particular diavlog from the site is hard to justify by any general principle that should govern our future conduct. In other words, it's not a precedent I'd want to live with. At the same time, I can imagine circumstances under which a diavlog would warrant removal from the site. So this episode has usefully spurred me and the BhTV staff to try to articulate some rules of the road for this sort of thing. Within a week, the results will be posted, along with some related thoughts on the whole idea behind Bloggingheads.tv, here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Brenda; 08-30-2009 at 10:29 PM.


Meanwhile, Shawn Carroll seems to have left Blogginheads in disgust because they let Behe in.
 
Quote
Blogs / Cosmic Variance
« Dark Energy: Still a Puzzle
Astronomical conflagration? »
Bye to Bloggingheads
by Sean

Unfortunately, I won’t be appearing on Bloggingheads.tv any more. And it is unfortunate — I had some great times there, and there’s an enormous amount to like about the site. So I thought I should explain my reasons.

A few weeks ago we were a bit startled to find a “Science Saturday” episode of BH.tv featuring Paul Nelson, an honest-to-God young-Earth creationist. Not really what most of us like to think of as “science.” So there were emails back and forth trying to figure out what went on. David Killoren, who is the person in charge of the Science Saturday dialogues, is an extremely reasonable guy; we had slightly different perspectives on the matter, but in the end he appreciated the discomfort of the scientists, and we agreed to classify that dialogue as a “failed experiment,” not something that would be a regular feature.

So last week we were startled once again, this time by the sight of a dialogue between John McWhorter and Michael Behe. Behe, some of you undoubtedly know, is a leading proponent of Intelligent Design, and chief promulgator of the idea of “irreducible complexity.” The idea is that you can just look at something and know it was “designed,” because changing any bit of it would render the thing useless — so it couldn’t have arisen via a series of incremental steps that were all individually beneficial to the purpose of the object. The classic example was a mousetrap — until someone shows how a mousetrap is, in fact, reducibly complex. Then you change your choice of classic example. Behe had his butt handed to him during his testimony at the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial over teaching intelligent design in schools; but embarrassment is not an arrow in the ID quiver, and he hasn’t been keeping quiet since then.

John McWhorter is not a biologist — he’s apparently a linguist, who writes a lot about race. In any event, the dialogue was hardly a grilling — McWhorter’s opening words are:

Michael Behe, I am so glad to meet you, and thank you for agreeing to do this. This is one of the rare times that I have initiated a Bloggingheads pairing, and it’s because I just read your book The Edge of Evolution from 2007, and I found it absolutely shattering. I mean, this is a very important book, and yet I sense, from the reputation or the reception of your book from ten-plus years ago, Darwin’s Black Box, that it may be hard to get a lot of people to understand why the book is so important.

I couldn’t listen to too much after that. McWhorter goes on to explain that he doesn’t see how skunks could have evolved, and what more evidence do you need than that? (Another proof that belongs in the list, as Jeff Harvey points out: “A linguist doesn’t understand skunks. Therefore, God exists.”) Those of us who have participated in Bloggingheads dialogues before have come to expect a slightly more elevated brand of discourse than this.

Then, to make things more bizarre, the dialogue suddenly disappeared from the site. I still have very little understanding why that happened. The reason given was that it was removed at McWhorter’s behest, because he didn’t think it represented him, Behe, or BH.tv very well. I’m sure that is the reason it was removed, although I have no idea what McWhorter was thinking — either when he proposed the dialogue, or while he was doing it, or when he asked that it be taken down. Certainly none of we scientists who were disturbed that the dialogue existed in the first place ever asked that it be removed. That feeds right into the persecution complex of the creationists, who like nothing more than to complain about how they are oppressed by the system. And, on cue, Behe popped up to compare Bloggingheads to Stalinist Russia. But now the dialogue is back up again — so I suppose old comrades can be rehabilitated, after all.

But, while none of the scientists involved with BH.tv was calling for the dialogue to be removed, we were a little perturbed at the appearance of an ID proponent so quickly after we thought we understood that the previous example had been judged a failed experiment. So more emails went back and forth, and this morning we had a conference call with Bob Wright, founder of BH.tv. To be honest, I went in expecting to exchange a few formalities and clear the air and we could all get on with our lives; but by the time it was over we agreed that we were disagreeing, and personally I didn’t want to be associated with the site any more. I don’t want to speak for anyone else; I know that Carl Zimmer was also very bothered by the whole thing, hopefully he will chime in.

It’s important to understand exactly what the objections are. (Again, speaking only for myself; others may object on different grounds.) It’s too easy to guess at what someone else is thinking, then argue against that, rather than work to understand where they are coming from. I tried to lay out my own thinking in the Grid of Disputation post. Namely: if BH.tv has something unique and special going for it, it’s the idea that it’s not just a shouting match, or mindless entertainment. It’s a place we can go to hear people with very different perspectives talk about issues about which they may strongly disagree, but with a presumption that both people are worth listening to. If the issue at hand is one with which I’m sufficiently familiar, I can judge for myself whether I think the speakers are respectable; but if it’s not, I have to go by my experience with other dialogues on the site.

What I objected to about the creationists was that they were not worthy opponents with whom I disagree; they’re just crackpots. Go to a biology conference, read a biology journal, spend time in a biology department; nobody is arguing about the possibility that an ill-specified supernatural “designer” is interfering at whim with the course of evolution. It’s not a serious idea. It may be out there in the public sphere as an idea that garners attention — but, as we all know, that holds true for all sorts of non-serious ideas. If I’m going to spend an hour of my life listening to two people have a discussion with each other, I want some confidence that they’re both serious people. Likewise, if I’m going to spend my own time and lend my own credibility to such an enterprise, I want to believe that serious discussions between respectable interlocutors are what the site is all about.

Here’s the distinction I want to draw, which might admittedly be a very fine line. If someone wants to talk about ID as a socio/religio/political phenomenon worth of study by anthropologists and sociologists, that’s fine. (Presumably the right people to have that discussion are anthropologists or sociologists or historians/philosophers of science, not biochemists who have wandered into looney land.) If someone wants to talk to someone who believes in ID about something that person has respectable thoughts about, that would also be fine with me. If you want to talk to a theologian about theology, or a politician about politics, or an artist about art, the fact that such a person has ID sympathies doesn’t bother me in the least.

But if you present a discussion about the scientific merits of ID, with someone who actually believes that such merits exist — then you are wasting my time and giving up on the goal of having a worthwhile intellectual discussion. Which is fine, if that’s what you want to do. But it’s not an endeavor with which I want to be associated. At the end of our conversations, I understood that my opinions about these matters were very different from those of the powers that be at BH.tv.

I understand that there are considerations that go beyond high-falutin’ concerns of intellectual respectability. There is a business model to consider, and one wants to maintain the viability of the enterprise while also having some sort of standards, and that can be a very difficult compromise to negotiate. Bob suggested the analogy of a TV network — would you refuse to be interviewed by a certain network until they would guarantee to never interview a creationist? (No.) But to me, the case of BH.tv is much more analogous to a particular TV show than to an entire network — it’s NOVA, not PBS, and the different dialogues are like different episodes. There is a certain common identity to things that BH.tv does, in a way that simply isn’t comparable to the wide portfolio of a TV network. Appearing for an hour-long dialogue creates connection with a brand in a way that being interviewed for 30 seconds on a TV news spot simply does not. If there were a TV show that wanted me on, but I had doubts about their seriousness, I would certainly decline (and I have).

And heck, we all have a business model. I’d like to sell some books, and I was really looking forward to doing a BH.tv dialogue with George Johnson when my book came out — it would have been a lot of fun, and perhaps even educational. But at the end of the day, I’m in charge of defending my own integrity; life is short, and I have to focus on efforts I can get completely behind without feeling compromised.

Having said all that, I’m very happy to admit that there’s nothing cut-and-dried about any of these issues, and I have a great deal of sympathy for anyone who feels differently and wants to continue contributing to BH.tv. The site provides a lot of high-quality intellectual food for thought, and I wish it well into the future. These decisions are necessarily personal. A few years ago I declined an invitation to a conference sponsored by the Templeton foundation, because I didn’t want to be seen as supporting (even indirectly) their attempts to blur the lines between science and religion. But even at the time I admitted that it wasn’t an easy choice, and couldn’t blame anyone who decided to go. Subsequently, I’ve participated in a number of things — the World Science Festival, the Foundational Questions Institute, and BH.tv itself — that receive money from Templeton. To me, there is a difference between taking the money directly, and having it “laundered” through an organization that I think is otherwise worthwhile. Not everyone agrees; Harry Kroto has expressed deep disappointment that I would sully myself in this manner. And that’s understandable, too; we all have to look at ourselves in the mirror each morning.

So, on we go, weaving our own uncertain ways through the briars of temptation and the unclear paths of right and wrong. Or something like that. I have no doubt that BH.tv will continue to put up a lot of good stuff, and that they’ll find plenty of good scientists to take my place; meanwhile, I’ll continue to argue for increasing the emphasis on good-faith discourse between respectable opponents, and mourn the prevalence of crackpots and food fights. Keep hope alive!
Link

I'm a little disappointed by all this because I thought McWhorter withdrew the video because he made such a complete fool of himself.  (Just listen to the video.)  I was on the verge of starting a campaign to demand that McWhorter take his medicine and restore the video and now it's out of my hands and with ancilliary damage.

Meanwhile, Uncommon Descent will continue to delete messages and 404 threads while complaining that Behe isn't loved on Blogginheads.

By the way, "diavlog" isn't a misprint.

  
dheddle



Posts: 545
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2009,08:26   

Have to disagree with the hordes on the C.S. Lewis question. I think his writing is worthy of the praise with which it is lavished. I think the Chronicles are beautifully written: descriptive (shows, doesn’t tell), entertaining, thought provoking, good character growth, works on multiple levels, etc. Screwtape Letters is a masterpiece, in my opinion.

My only complaint about Lewis is that he wasn’t a Calvinist. What’s up with that?

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

   
GCUGreyArea



Posts: 180
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2009,08:58   

Ha, expect some verbal diarrhoea from KF in response to this:
 
Quote
272
Gaz
09/01/2009
8:27 am

What a fascinating discussion! Most interesting, for me, is the parallels with the philosophies of the participants.

KF and Joseph, being creatures of Faith, clearly need there to be latching, even if it doesn’t exist, because certain prophets say it exists in the original Weasel. Now, they can’t say that the prophets are wrong, despite the objective evidence, otherwise the rest of the philosophy as espoused by the prophets is questionable. So they go through all kinds of linguistic contortions to claim latching exists, even to the point of defining “latching” as something it isn’t.

As in this thread, so in their religious philosophies. For “latching” read “God”.

Or possibly just observe it disappear.

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2009,09:09   

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 01 2009,08:26)
My only complaint about Lewis is that he wasn’t a Calvinist. What’s up with that?

Heddle - Maybe he was a "Secret Calvinist"?  Something to look forward to for you, as it was obviously pre-ordained that he wound up with a 17 year old babe! Perhaps they could put that in the "Top Ten Reasons To Be A Calvinist" brochure?

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2009,09:26   

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 01 2009,16:26)
Have to disagree with the hordes on the C.S. Lewis question. I think his writing is worthy of the praise with which it is lavished. I think the Chronicles are beautifully written: descriptive (shows, doesn’t tell), entertaining, thought provoking, good character growth, works on multiple levels, etc. Screwtape Letters is a masterpiece, in my opinion.

My only complaint about Lewis is that he wasn’t a Calvinist. What’s up with that?

Nothing, except that he would have been even more intolerable if he was a Calvanist, not to mention being a friend of the most boring author in the English language Tolkien.

Huxley was a far better writer.

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

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2009,10:51   

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 01 2009,08:26)
Have to disagree with the hordes on the C.S. Lewis question. I think his writing is worthy of the praise with which it is lavished. I think the Chronicles are beautifully written: descriptive (shows, doesn’t tell), entertaining, thought provoking, good character growth, works on multiple levels, etc. Screwtape Letters is a masterpiece, in my opinion.

My only complaint about Lewis is that he wasn’t a Calvinist. What’s up with that?

If God wanted him to be Calvinist, he would have been. ;)

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2009,10:54   

Poe?
Quote


Blue Lotus, re your comment at [99].

Darwinists have had 150 years to develop their theory. Yet, no matter how often they act like petulant children, getting red in the face and jumping up and down screaming “fact! fact! fact!”, it is plain that they have experienced a catastrophic failure to seal the deal, and their flailing about serves only to bring that failure into stark relief.

ID as a scientific project is less than 15 years old, and already it has made impressive gains in laying the framework for further research, and peer-reviewed articles supporting its basic premise (e.g. the Dembski-Marks article published this month) are starting to appear.

Scoff now while you still can. 20 years from now we will see who was on the wrong side of history. I suspect you will get to know first hand how dedicated Marxists felt the day after the Soviet Union fell and America won the cold war.

No, UD moderator Barry Arrington

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2009,11:12   

Waterloo (again)

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2009,11:13   

ummm, that's BarryHole

heddle what about the trash talking about arab types in the narnia books?  lewis portrays them as a lesser human, i always thought.  but richtard coming at me with this secret muslim business threw me fer a loop

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
olegt



Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2009,11:30   

Quote
Scoff now while you still can. 20 years from now we will see who was on the wrong side of history. I suspect you will get to know first hand how dedicated Marxists felt the day after the Soviet Union fell and America won the cold war.


Let's see... The Wedge Strategy said ID would win 20 years from 1999.  Today is 2009 and the victory is still 20 years ahead.  Did we discover a new fundamental[ist] constant?

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

  
dheddle



Posts: 545
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2009,11:52   

Midwifetoad,


 
Quote
If God wanted him to be Calvinist, he would have been.


I know! That’s what’s confusing! All the really cool people are Calvinists, (but not vice versa.) It’s as if God looked at the intellectual scorecard:

Calvinists: Augustine,  Aquinas,  Luther, Calvin (duh), Jonathan Edwards, Spurgeon, Knox,  Francis Schaeffer,  Cornelius Van Til, the Apostle Paul, Jesus, Jesus' Father…

Armininians:  Jimmy Swaggart, Charles Finney, …

And said—wait, these guys are well-meaning though misguided. Let’s give them a 1st round draft pick. And they snagged C. S. Lewis.

As for your signature, remember that Lutheran theology is not Lutheran—and all should be clear.

Ras,

 
Quote
heddle what about the trash talking about arab types in the narnia books?  lewis portrays them as a lesser human, i always thought.  but richtard coming at me with this secret muslim business threw me fer a loop


I never noticed that. As for Hughes—the boy never met a lunatic fringe theory he didn’t embrace. He still thinks that Goldie Hawn’s Laugh In gig was talent based and had nothing to do with the Kennedy Assassination. Can you believe it?

Olegt,

 
Quote
Today is 2009 and the victory is still 20 years ahead.  Did we discover a new fundamental[ist] constant?


It’s the same as the “affordable, commercial fusion power” time constant!

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2009,12:05   

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 01 2009,11:52)
I never noticed that. As for Hughes—the boy never met a lunatic fringe theory he didn’t embrace.

Erm, ID?

My outing of the Heddle space telescope:



is a public service. I put the meddle to the Heddle. erm, fo' sheddle.

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

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2009,12:09   

Quote
It’s the same as the “affordable, commercial fusion power” time constant!

Not to mention the AI time constant.

As for counting pinheads, I remain,

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

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2009,12:35   

Quote (olegt @ Sep. 01 2009,11:30)
Quote
Scoff now while you still can. 20 years from now we will see who was on the wrong side of history. I suspect you will get to know first hand how dedicated Marxists felt the day after the Soviet Union fell and America won the cold war.


Let's see... The Wedge Strategy said ID would win 20 years from 1999.  Today is 2009 and the victory is still 20 years ahead.  Did we discover a new fundamental[ist] constant?

I think the relatively recent uprising amongst creationists can be traced to progress in molecular biology.

They find themselves in the position of a flat-earther living in an age of GPS and communication satellites. It's one thing to hold fast to ignorance when the evidence against you is abstract, but when evolution becomes a laboratory science with commercial applications, the facade crumbles.

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

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2009,12:37   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 01 2009,12:05)
Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 01 2009,11:52)
I never noticed that. As for Hughes—the boy never met a lunatic fringe theory he didn’t embrace.

Erm, ID?

My outing of the Heddle space telescope:



is a public service. I put the meddle to the Heddle. erm, fo' sheddle.

Cool!  And isn't that the same telescope used for the research in Privaleged Planet ?

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

  
dheddle



Posts: 545
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2009,13:36   

Quote (J-Dog @ Sep. 01 2009,12:37)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 01 2009,12:05)
 
Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 01 2009,11:52)
I never noticed that. As for Hughes—the boy never met a lunatic fringe theory he didn’t embrace.

Erm, ID?

My outing of the Heddle space telescope:



is a public service. I put the meddle to the Heddle. erm, fo' sheddle.

Cool!  And isn't that the same telescope used for the research in Privaleged Planet ?

You mock, but you haven't seen some of the images taken with that telescope. Here is an example:





--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2009,14:05   

For you fans of abiogenesis research, SteveF at TalkRational noticed this tasty bowl of primordial boulliabaise at PLoS One, which I'm just sampling now:

   
Quote
Emergence of a Code in the Polymerization of Amino Acids along RNA Templates

Abstract

"The origin of the genetic code in the context of an RNA world is a major problem in the field of biophysical chemistry. In this paper, we describe how the polymerization of amino acids along RNA templates can be affected by the properties of both molecules.

Considering a system without enzymes, in which the tRNAs (the translation adaptors) are not loaded selectively with amino acids, we show that an elementary translation governed by a Michaelis-Menten type of kinetics can follow different polymerization regimes: random polymerization, homopolymerization and coded polymerization.

The regime under which the system is running is set by the relative concentrations of the amino acids and the kinetic constants involved. We point out that the coding regime can naturally occur under prebiotic conditions. It generates partially coded proteins through a mechanism which is remarkably robust against non-specific interactions (mismatches) between the adaptors and the RNA template.

Features of the genetic code support the existence of this early translation system."


Available online at  http://www.plosone.org/article....0005773

ETA: I'll go along with "The Screwtape Letters" as "classic," however derivative of Twain's "Letters From The Earth."

For me, the Narnia stuff and the "Space Trilogy" are mediocre and awful, respectively.

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

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2009,14:12   

Quote
Emergence of a Code in the Polymerization of Amino Acids along RNA Templates

Laugh while you can, Darwinoid. Twenty years.

Just remember, you've got just 20 years.

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

  
dheddle



Posts: 545
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2009,15:05   

Do you think this student passed his quiz?

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

   
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2009,15:20   

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 01 2009,13:05)
Do you think this student passed his quiz?

I expect so.  There wouldn't be much to study.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2009,15:32   

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-332566

Quote
2

O'Leary

09/01/2009

2:43 pm
One thing this brouhaha has done is demonstrate that the thesis of Ben Stein’s Expelled is correct.

....


YES! Both Sean Carroll and Carl Zimmer have resigned as contributors from Bloggingheadstv.com therefore Darwin > Hitler. Q.E.D.

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2009,15:43   

Quote (JohnW @ Sep. 01 2009,15:20)
   
Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 01 2009,13:05)
Do you think this student passed his quiz?

I expect so.  There wouldn't be much to study.

I'm mildly concerned that anyone taking "Physics 341"  needs a GPA calculator other than half a brain and maybe a pencil & scrap of paper  

I wonder if this hypothetical student is at Bob Jones U or the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

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

  
dnmlthr



Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2009,16:06   

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 01 2009,21:05)
Do you think this student passed his quiz?

Of course not. "Linked list" is not supposed to be hyphenated.

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

  
dheddle



Posts: 545
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2009,16:09   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 01 2009,15:43)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Sep. 01 2009,15:20)
     
Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 01 2009,13:05)
Do you think this student passed his quiz?

I expect so.  There wouldn't be much to study.

I'm mildly concerned that anyone taking "Physics 341"  needs a GPA calculator other than half a brain and maybe a pencil & scrap of paper  

I wonder if this hypothetical student is at Bob Jones U or the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Looking closely at the course numbers--I think he is one of ours!

And our department produces world famous graduates.

(I saw the picture on a poster on one of our bulletin boards and just hit the website.) Not sure what the ID quiz really is--looks like something in his history class.

I'm guessing he is one of our CS students who wrote a couple I-phone apps and is looking for a little moula. In his defense, clearly he knows how to compute his GPA, he is trying to sell to those who can't figure it out, like philosophy majors and English (from England) exchange students.

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

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

Pages: (500) < ... 491 492 493 494 495 [496] 497 498 499 500 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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