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

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

Pages: (1000) < ... 197 198 199 200 201 [202] 203 204 205 206 207 ... >

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2006,09:03    Quote 15. In the previous comment I mentioned the U. Cal Berkeley. In another thread about John Davison’s theory someone named Leo said Darwin’s theory were so well documented and supported that few scientist really doubts them. When I made a challenge to Leo to be the first one to present a comprehensive defense of Darwin, he punted and said I should go to the Darwin exhibit in New York which is now closed. Salvador asked to keep the concepts on that thread relative to John’s theory so I did not reply. My comment in the previous paragraph is also not exactly in sync with this thread but in response to Leo, I went to the U. Cal Berkeley website to learn more about Darwin and am currently diligently watching their lectures on biology and Darwin. In a very informative set of lectures the professor talks in detail about the Origin of Species and why it was so successful. The structure of the book was a stroke of genius. Essentially Charles Darwin was a fantastic salesman. His book is set up to make a sell and my wife who has a background in sales management said its approach is one of the best. The professor related how Darwin used the first few chapters to relate what all knew at the time about breeding and variety in nature as well as Malthus’s ideas so that when he introduced natural selection the reader had been nodding in agreement for over a hundred pages. It was only a little bit more to ask them to nod in agreement about the speculation he introduced and close the deal as the term is used in sales management. Charlie was a fantastic used card salesmen given the information about Blyth. Blyth couldn’t sell the original but Darwin could sell the used version. Darwin actually falsified his own theory in the chapter on natural selection because he emphasized a constant struggle for resources which is continually causing adaptation and is essential to his theory but as we know the natural world is one of stasis not constant change despite this struggle. By the way the Berkeley professor failed to mention this contradiction. And he said the current theory is known as “neo Darwinism” as well as the “modern synthesis.” Again the UD challenge; can a Darwinist or if they don’t like that term, someone who supports Darwin’s ideas give a coherent defense of Darwin or neo Darwinism? Comment by jerry — August 27, 2006 @ 1:45 pm That comment says it's from Jerry, but I suspect it's from Jerry's kids.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2006,09:10    http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1515#comments Quote 1. “Rather, I’m talking about people not having any longer to show undue deference for the theory — a new age when they can ridicule it openly, and its defenders must actually defend the theory rather than merely sneering at those who disbelieve it.” hmm. I can relate to that. I remember I got into a discussion with a evolutionist and instead of giving me evidence, he just called me names, siad I was wrong, and wouildn’t let me get a word in Comment by Behemoth — August 26, 2006 @ 4:07 pm But enough about Lenny Flank... Quote 8. Quote If a theory is scientific and not ideological, then it can be discussed freely. Evolutionism can be discussed freely as long as the discussion is not about its failure. Comment by Joseph — August 26, 2006 @ 8:52 pm 9. Evolutionism is not a failure. Neither is evolution. Without evolution Joseph, you wouldn’t even be here. A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.” Joh A. Davison Comment by John A. Davison — August 26, 2006 @ 9:28 pm 10. “Without evolution Joseph, you wouldn’t even be here.” Hmmm… that statement sounds so familiar. Oh yeah… Without God, you wouldn’t even be here. Comment by Smidlee — August 26, 2006 @ 9:36 pm Is this third grade?

Bob O'H Posts: 2564 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2006,09:10    The Church Lady is back: http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1520 And no sign of a DaveTard post.  Has anyone ever seen the two of them together in the same place?  Hmm... Bob -------------- 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: Aug. 27 2006,09:13    New Award: Best Icon goes to Argystokes. Runner up goes to Arden Chatfield.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2006,09:25    Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 27 2006,14:10) http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1515#comments   Quote 1. “Rather, I’m talking about people not having any longer to show undue deference for the theory — a new age when they can ridicule it openly, and its defenders must actually defend the theory rather than merely sneering at those who disbelieve it.” hmm. I can relate to that. I remember I got into a discussion with a evolutionist and instead of giving me evidence, he just called me names, siad I was wrong, and wouildn’t let me get a word in Comment by Behemoth — August 26, 2006 @ 4:07 pm But enough about Lenny Flank...   Quote 8.   Quote If a theory is scientific and not ideological, then it can be discussed freely. Evolutionism can be discussed freely as long as the discussion is not about its failure. Comment by Joseph — August 26, 2006 @ 8:52 pm 9. Evolutionism is not a failure. Neither is evolution. Without evolution Joseph, you wouldn’t even be here. A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.” Joh A. Davison Comment by John A. Davison — August 26, 2006 @ 9:28 pm 10. “Without evolution Joseph, you wouldn’t even be here.” Hmmm… that statement sounds so familiar. Oh yeah… Without God, you wouldn’t even be here. Comment by Smidlee — August 26, 2006 @ 9:36 pm Is this third grade? I hate to say this, but I think UD has actually gotten stupider since DaveScot quit bossing the place. See? I told you they needed an ex-Marine to keep order. You homo.-dt -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

steve_h Posts: 544 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2006,11:18    Quote (k.e @ Aug. 27 2006,19:53) but ...but...He WAS 'an all-around Bad Guy' ......why he was  resposible for Hitler AND Global Warming.. Except now it seems that it was creationists who were responsible for all of the theories that fuelled the genocide and communism. Darwin was only a plagiarist. However, if Hitler ever plagiarised anyone, that was because of Darwin. ;-)   Quote (k.e @ Aug. 27 2006,19:53) In the first case Hitler mentioned 'god' thousands of times ... I expect Blyth did that as well. Further proof that  Hitler was a Blythist / Creationist who would no doubt be an ID supporter if he were around today.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2006,13:15    My apologies if it has already been mentioned, but John Davison abandoned his old blog, and started a new one, The End Of Evolution, at http://theendofevolution.blogspot.com/2006/08/end-of-evolution.html (Along the lines of the old joke, apparently the ashtrays were full again.)

argystokes Posts: 766 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2006,15:34    Jerry explains why ID isn't just an "it's too complex, so goddidit" hypothesis: Quote Because of this discrepancy between these philosophical points of view and reality people are searching for an alternative. One of alternative explanations that has appeared is Intelligent Design. It is that simple. Some of the discrepancies or events which these ideas cannot explain are unbelievably complex. For example, the origin of life. Thus, many people have said it must be an intelligent force that caused the event. Surely, there must be more... Quote It is that simple. Comment by jerry — August 27, 2006 @ 8:08 pm oh. -------------- "Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2006,15:49    Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 27 2006,18:15) My apologies if it has already been mentioned, but John Davison abandoned his old blog, and started a new one, The End Of Evolution, at http://theendofevolution.blogspot.com/2006/08/end-of-evolution.html (Along the lines of the old joke, apparently the ashtrays were full again.) I know the usual saying is 'to sell the car when the ashtrays get full', but Davison abandons his car when the ashtrays get full... -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2006,15:58    Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 27 2006,14:10) hmm. I can relate to that. I remember I got into a discussion with a evolutionist and instead of giving me evidence, he just called me names, siad I was wrong, and wouildn’t let me get a word in Comment by Behemoth — August 26, 2006 @ 4:07 pm But enough about Lenny Flank... Well, I point out in passing that at my website: http://www.geocities.com/lflank there are roughly one hundred fifty pages worth of evidence. Alas, IDers simply aren't interested in evidence.  Or science.  It's not what ID is about.  (shrug) -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2006,19:33    OT: right now, on CN: Brock Sampson flashes back to when he met "Sgt." Hunter S. Thompson. Classic. -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

Robert O'Brien Posts: 348 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2006,21:29    Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 27 2006,18:15) My apologies if it has already been mentioned, but John Davison abandoned his old blog, and started a new one, The End Of Evolution, at http://theendofevolution.blogspot.com/2006/08/end-of-evolution.html (Along the lines of the old joke, apparently the ashtrays were full again.) Classic! -------------- Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,06:56    Quote (Ichthyic @ Aug. 28 2006,00:33) OT: right now, on CN: Brock Sampson flashes back to when he met "Sgt." Hunter S. Thompson. Classic. Brock Samson is a god.  There's your intelligent designer right there.  The new season of Venture Bros. has definitely lived up to the hype! Go Team Venture!

dhogaza Posts: 525 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,07:12    Ah, davescot rides into battle again: Quote The chance worshippers know they are doomed if chance evolution can be questioned in public school. And if chemistry can be questioned in public school, alchemy will replace it in the world of science.  I love Dave's logic...

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,07:19

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,07:24    I was hungry for a heaping bowl of dork soup so I moseyed (sp?) over to UD to read the latest rant/pile on regarding Darwin the idea thief! Good lord what idiots.   And get a load of Davetard who seems to get angry when other commenters are obviously smarter and better educated than he is.  And how many times is Davetard going to remind us about his 30 year old Marine pledge to God?   Amazingly comical.  I'm also shocked they allowed the subtle and well reasoned criticisms of ID and DI/ID strategy to slip through.  THAT was shocking actually. It's long but worth a full read. -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

Wonderpants Posts: 115 Joined: Sep. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,09:34    Quote If Darwinism is on the verge of collapse as is so often started on this blog, where does that leave us? And is there in fact solid evidence that this is the case, or is this just a much-desired assertion based on popular opinion? Let’s be a little scientific here, if Darwinism were to collapse, what would be the predictable signs? For example, would Universities stop teaching evolution classes? Would there be statements by prominent evolutionists (and preferable non-religious ones such as Dawkins) that declare that evolution theory is incorrect? So far I haven’t see these things occur, or maybe I’m not looking in the right place? And if Darwinism is a defunct theory, what exactly do we now teach? After all most IDers do accept common descent don’t they? And didn’t most of the scientific work around common descent in fact come from the evolutionist camp? Does ID theory alone have enough substance to fully replace evolution wholesale? Are the IDers then going to throw out the baby with the bath water, or is there going to be an acknowledgement that there is an overlapping body of knowledge that both the ID and evolution sides agree on? I think doing so would be a very good thing — acknowledging what ID and evolution have in common could help not only mend fences but allow for a more constructive dialog between the two groups. Comment by John Singleton — August 28, 2006 @ 2:12 pm Is this guy entirely clueless or just taking the mick? -------------- Fundamentalism in a nutshell: "There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."

dhogaza Posts: 525 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,09:38    Joy!  DaveTard and JAD are arguing on whether or not we're in the midst of a mass extinction event. To add to the fun, while Davison argues that we are, indeed, in the midst of such an event, it's mostly preprogrammed extinction ...

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,09:40    Quote (Wonderpants @ Aug. 28 2006,14:34)   Quote If Darwinism is on the verge of collapse as is so often started on this blog, where does that leave us? And is there in fact solid evidence that this is the case, or is this just a much-desired assertion based on popular opinion? Let’s be a little scientific here, if Darwinism were to collapse, what would be the predictable signs? For example, would Universities stop teaching evolution classes? Would there be statements by prominent evolutionists (and preferable non-religious ones such as Dawkins) that declare that evolution theory is incorrect? So far I haven’t see these things occur, or maybe I’m not looking in the right place? And if Darwinism is a defunct theory, what exactly do we now teach? After all most IDers do accept common descent don’t they? And didn’t most of the scientific work around common descent in fact come from the evolutionist camp? Does ID theory alone have enough substance to fully replace evolution wholesale? Are the IDers then going to throw out the baby with the bath water, or is there going to be an acknowledgement that there is an overlapping body of knowledge that both the ID and evolution sides agree on? I think doing so would be a very good thing — acknowledging what ID and evolution have in common could help not only mend fences but allow for a more constructive dialog between the two groups. Comment by John Singleton — August 28, 2006 @ 2:12 pm Is this guy entirely clueless or just taking the mick? It's far too coherent for it to be someone clueless. Bet on 'closet evilutionist who will soon find himself banned'.   -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,09:46    Quote (dhogaza @ Aug. 28 2006,14:38) Joy!  DaveTard and JAD are arguing on whether or not we're in the midst of a mass extinction event. To add to the fun, while Davison argues that we are, indeed, in the midst of such an event, it's mostly preprogrammed extinction ... Funny! You can tell from their stilted tone that each of them is trying really hard to behave and not to start spraying the other with abuse, like they both spent most of August doing to each other at UDOJ. Oh well, here's hoping that DT's sniping will eventually cause Davison to snap and start calling DT 'Sus Springeriana'.   -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

keiths Posts: 2195 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,10:05    Quote I would now welcome commentary on the emergence of new species. Are the speciation events above the species or genus level today? Salvador Comment by scordova — August 28, 2006 @ 1:38 pm What the fork does Salvador think a "genus level" speciation event looks like? -------------- 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

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,10:19    Re "It's far too coherent for it to be someone clueless. Bet on 'closet evilutionist who will soon find himself banned'.  " Does that mean his post was intelligently designed?

Wonderpants Posts: 115 Joined: Sep. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,11:02    Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 28 2006,15:19) Re "It's far too coherent for it to be someone clueless. Bet on 'closet evilutionist who will soon find himself banned'.  " Does that mean his post was intelligently designed?   There's very little on UD that's intelligently designed.   -------------- Fundamentalism in a nutshell: "There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."

2ndclass Posts: 182 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,13:55    Tom English explains Dembski's eliminative method to Joseph: Quote You clearly do not understand the logic of design inference. It is obvious in your writings that you start with the assumption of design and purpose, and expect others to prove you wrong. But the design inference works just the opposite way. One or more chance hypotheses must be rejected in favor of design. I gave you the hypothesis that the enumeration can arise by chance. It is your responsibility, as the ID advocate, to show how to reject the hypothesis and make a design inference. Then DaveScot pipes in: Quote I expect you to prove the chance hypothesis. It is obvious in your writings you begin with the assumption that evolution happened by chance then expect others to prove you wrong. I cannot prove or disprove either chance or design. All I can do is point to what I know is designed, compare and contrast it with what I suspect is designed, and ask which is the better explanation - design or chance. After all of these months on Dembski's blog, Dave still doesn't realize that design inferences are eliminative, not comparative.  Dave, it's obvious that you haven't actually read Dembski's work, although you do read this thread.  How about if you tell us which of Dembski's works you've read? -------------- "I wasn't aware that classical physics had established a position on whether intelligent agents exercising free were constrained by 2LOT into increasing entropy." -DaveScot

keiths Posts: 2195 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,15:24    Quote (2ndclass @ Aug. 28 2006,18:55) After all of these months on Dembski's blog, Dave still doesn't realize that design inferences are eliminative, not comparative.  Dave, it's obvious that you haven't actually read Dembski's work, although you do read this thread.  How about if you tell us which of Dembski's works you've read? Sgt. Tard is actually proud of the fact that he hasn't read Dembski's books:     Quote SaRtre - I independently arrived at most of Dembski’s conclusions without reading his work. You know the expression “great minds think alike”? Since you have no way of knowing let me assure you now that the expression is true. Comment by DaveScot — August 13, 2005 @ 9:41 am You see, Dave and Dembski reached the same conclusions, even though Dave doesn't know what Dembski's conclusions are (beyond "some stuff was designed").  Therefore Dave is a genius. Bonus tard quote from the same thread:   Quote Sartre Biologists have no training in engineering. How can they recognize design? You aren’t going to win this argument. I’m an autodidact. My knowledge of biology is extensive as is my knowledge of computers and machinery of all kinds. Comment by DaveScot — August 13, 2005 @ 7:56 pm -------------- 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

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,15:58    Quote (keiths @ Aug. 28 2006,21:24) SaRtre - I independently arrived at most of Dembski’s conclusions without reading his work. You know the expression “great minds think alike”? Since you have no way of knowing let me assure you now that the expression is true. Oh heh heh heh heh heh heh. How much do you want to bet that comment pissed Dembski off? Uncommonly Dense is the funniest channel on Internet TV.

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,16:52    Quote here's hoping that DT's sniping will eventually cause Davison to snap and start calling DT 'Sus Springeriana' Ah, you KNOW he's going to snap eventually. His hold on reality is greased and ready to go *whoosh*! -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,18:24    Lee Smolin an Id Theorist.  Who knew??? Dimski must really enjoy writing for a captive, docile and stone-stupid audience.  Could you mis-represent a man's views any more than this? Perhaps Dimski is unaware that Dr. Smolin's discipline of Loop Quantum Gravity actually posits progressive ideas and does not exist entirely to discredit String Theory (which also provides positive argument...though perhaps not all testable ideas, but that's another problem entirely). -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,18:26    Blipey - are you going to give Davetard a trouncing? -------------- "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

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,18:35    Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 28 2006,23:26) Blipey - are you going to give Davetard a trouncing? I think I'll skip the chainsaws.  I thought it was interesting that I left the door wide open and he missed his opportunity.  He could have suggested brains and made the joke his--I was  going to let him.  Guess using brains for a battle is the furthest thing from his mind.... Think I will invite him to provide positive argument in person when I get to Austin next January.  Maybe I should start a pool to see if he actually shows. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Pages: (1000) < ... 197 198 199 200 201 [202] 203 204 205 206 207 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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