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) < ... 85 86 87 88 89 [90] 91 92 93 94 95 ... >

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,12:12    Quote They can also have the whole "dinosaur bone marrow" how would they 'have' that?

C.J.O'Brien Posts: 395 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,12:14    sauteed, with a little butter and garlic? -------------- The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand. --Joe G

PuckSR Posts: 314 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,12:41    Quote how would they 'have' that? They can pretend that it supports their views...

Tiax Posts: 62 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,13:58    Quote # In a search for truth one must follow the evidence wherever it leads. If, given the evidence from various areas of science and philosophical reasoning, the best possible explanation is design…then that is the explanation that should be accepted no matter how it makes anyone “feel”. Professionals who study this are the ones who are truly searching for truth. They consider all the possibilities and accept the best of all possible explanations, without ruling out possible explanations because of a materialistic or naturalistic bias. Comment by Franz Bernstein — May 2, 2006 @ 1:20 pm # I think PZ Myers should find it assbackwards that the smartest, most evolved species on the planet has to look to lower, less evolved species in order to learn something about design. It’s kinda like a college professor asking a 1st grader how to design a car. Comment by Lurker — May 2, 2006 @ 5:14 pm Franz seems to have forgotten that the designer isn't necissarily supernatural. Lurker's just comically idiotic.  Either he thinks we're going to bacteria and asking them how to make a usefull gadget, and then waiting for them to draw up some blueprints, or he's very, very bad at analogies.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,15:42    Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ May 02 2006,17:14) sauteed, with a little butter and garlic? Supposed to be a lot of iron in dinosaur, oops, I mean dragon marrow... -------------- "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

Aardvark Posts: 134 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,17:32    I think that this is 'Scott' from UD: Quote scottdeus12 36 years old, Christian (Thank God). Married (to a babe, again Thank God). Born in NJ, College in VA, busted a move to Oregon, and here I planted myself. I'm a Christian before I'm a Republican...I moved to an interest in politics when that idiot Kerry was running (man, did we dodge a bullet), and started listening to Hannity on my lunch break. The Liberal agenda is a scourge and must be eradicated!! http://www.freerepublic.com/~scottdeus12/ Fits the profile.

Bob O'H Posts: 2564 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,19:38    How to detect design Sal is showing ID up again.  He (fals to) link to acompany that detects genetically modified material by looking for the DNA that was inserted.  IOW, they look for a label saying "this is genetically modified".  If only the search for the intelligent designer was that easy. Aaagh!  Can't resist!  Can't resist! It'll be banned anyway, but here goes: Quote 1. Can you fix the link?  It's pointing back to UD at the moment. 2. If only detection of the intelligent designer was so simple!  Genetic-id look for the DNA that was inserted into the plant.  It's a bit like working out that a book was written by Bill Dembski because it says "Bill Dembski" on the cover. Please tell me that an ID researcher has worked out what the Intelligent Designer's signature looks like. GMOs are serious stuff, and something I work on.  So why am I wasting my time taking the piss out of these guys? The person with the best answer wins shares in my new, explanatory filter-inspired business: book-id. 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)

Tiax Posts: 62 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,20:10    So, I get done making a post telling Salvador how wrong he is, and I see this: Quote   1.      Sal, I think you misunderstood Genetic ID’s method of detecting GMOs. They appear to be using DNA fingerprinting to compare *known* GMO fingerprints to sample foods to determine if they contain any GMOs. There’s no design detection going on here.      Comment by DaveScot — May 3, 2006 @ 121 am Goddamnit Dave, that's not how this site is supposed to work.  You nod your head to the crazy claims and let -us- mock them!

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,20:54    Maybe Mr. Springer had a look at this thread I started at ARN last September, where I remarked : Quote From their site it looks as if they use standard genetic fingerprinting techniques to compare samples of DNA with possible GM contamination to wild-type. I think the only link with Intelligent Design is their name. Care to comment, Salvador. Arguing with IDers is just like playing "Whack-a-Mole".

Tiax Posts: 62 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,23:40    You know, maybe there -is- something to this explanatory filter: 1) Could Scordova's post be the result of chance? No.  No intelligent person would by chance make something this dumb.  I know this because even DaveScot figured out that it was bogus 2) Could this be explained by a law? Yes, the law of stupid people make stupid posts. The Explanatory filter has thus proven that Cordova is an imbecile.

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,23:43    How is what genetic-id do not design detection? Not only do they detect the presence of design, but they identify the designer as well. Thats top quality design detection at low-low prices. Quote The code to the old earth?/young earth? puzzle is in Genesis. Everything “big-banged” with THE APPEARANCE OF AGE already on it. The text chronicles God calling forth the universe out of eternity. Well, how old is eternity? ... to reason then that galaxies, planets, moons and rocks suddenly manifested out of the forever dimension would have upon them an appropriate appearance of antiquity. The Fovever Dimension eh?

Tiax Posts: 62 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,23:45    You know, if genetic-id is doing legit design detection, you'd think they'd all be up in arms that everything except for genetically engineered stuff comes up as not designed. EDIT: Just noticed this Quote With this in mind, I claim the work of the company genetic-ID is an instance of the Explanatory Filter. www.genetic-id.com    Genetic ID can reliably detect ALL commercialized genetically modified organisms. GMO [gentically modified organisms] testing is used to detect and quantify the presence of GMOs. Just savor that logical train for a minute.   A) Genetic ID can detect design B) The explanatory filter can (in SCordova's wonderland) detect design C) Therefore, Genetic ID is using the explanatory filter.

Renier Posts: 276 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,23:53    Quote You know, if genetic-id is doing legit design detection, you'd think they'd all be up in arms that everything except for genetically engineered stuff comes up as not designed. True. They would have been the first to say "wait a minute, why does this natural bit of dna look designed?" But of course, Go...eh... the Designer designs in a way different from humans. In fact, it looks just like RM + NS.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,02:54    Quote #6 DaveScot, Well, that’s the reason I hope we can discuss this amongst ourselves here. The salient DNA in a GMO is a man-made object. If the explanatory filter is capable of detecting man-made objects (such as in the case of patent or copyright infringement), then Genetic-ID’s DNA fingerprinting is a method of design detection. Salvador Comment by scordova — May 3, 2006 @ 5:31 am #7 antg wrote:     Comparing the known GMO fingerprint (ie an independent specification) to a test sample is a design detection method, ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! Think of it as comparable to detecting a copyright infringement. It is the same method of design  detection. Comment by scordova — May 3, 2006 @ 5:44 am #8 This is not remotely comparable to detecting design in nature. It’s comparable to detecting who wrote this comment. Sorry Sal. I’m closing the comments on this thread. Comment by DaveScot — May 3, 2006 @ 6:37 am

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,03:16    Not fair I was just about to go over there and point out how technically it is the explanatory filter in reverse, something occurs naturally if it has a low probability of being designed. Quote Intelligent Design becoming part of pop culture Intelligent Design by Cesium-137 (thanks to Joe Manzari for alerting me to this development.) Nice to know what a 'development' in intelligent design is. I bet this sells better.

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,04:21    Quote Not fair I was just about to go over there and point out how technically it is the explanatory filter in reverse, something occurs naturally if it has a low probability of being designed. You could always post here at ARN, Chris. Salvador may show up there.

steve_h Posts: 544 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,06:13    Good to see ds showing some intellectual honesty and correcting a mistake by a fellow ID supporter. http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1090 Quote With this in mind, I claim the work of the company genetic-ID is an instance of the Explanatory Filter. www.genetic-id.com However, it's not the first time someone has made that "mistake" (charitable version) at UD: http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/922 Quote Information Forensics (IF) — another branch of ID: .www.ieee.org  On that occasion, none of the regulars were brave or honest enough to speak up. One guy asked "What's this got to do with ID?" and was banned on the spot by Dembski. Brown-noser DS obsequiously offered a candidate for lamest backup of all time with a "proof by google". I also recall someone (I think it was Dembski) arguing that someone who was designing things was therefore utilising ID "theory". I don't recall enough details to find it.

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,07:42    I wonder if there is any significance in the fact that Dave2lot has only started one thread on UD in the last 29?

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,08:41    IDK. I do think there is significance in BarryA not being seen in 5 weeks, though. Too bad we don't have any way to contact BarryA and ask him what happened.

beervolcano Posts: 147 Joined: Dec. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,09:32    Man, Demski should have gone into politics. He's such a slick liar. Will anyone ask him to explain WHY because something is a coordinated chain-reaction it "points seductively toward design?" Quote Kirschner, who is quite critical of ID in his recent book, is here proposing a metaphor for metazoan development that underscores its elegant coordination and thus points seductively toward design. It's really disenginuous and I'd say dishonest, also. Why should this seduce anyone to ID, when you're so spicy and seductive yourself there Bill? Oh, Bill you've seduced me. Let me tell you. SAAAMOKIN! -------------- ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."--Jonathan Swift)

beervolcano Posts: 147 Joined: Dec. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,09:37    Quote Here’s how it works: we find some amazing system in the biological realm, determine how to reverse engineer it, and then design and build a parallel system to serve our needs. But of course, the original system evolved by blind trial-and-error tinkering (random variation and natural selection). To think that it was actually designed because we had to design its human counterpart is just plain stupid. See Bill? It wasn't so hard. I know you're trying to be sarcastic here, but what you said above is totally true. Why don't you try to be sarcastic more often? Maybe those evil Darwinists will leave you alone. (Bill: When we find these amazing systems, they were there because of what? They were there because of genes, right? Well, humans didn't reverse engineer the genes and the transcription mechanism too did they? No, they just cobbled together parts that are similar and do things similar to those amazing systems. The designed systems don't reproduce. They certainly don't produce offspring with slight modifications. In fact, they don't reproduce at all. They must be fabricated every time - until humans actually can design a mimic to biological reproduction. Anyone seduced yet?) -------------- ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."--Jonathan Swift)

beervolcano Posts: 147 Joined: Dec. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,09:49    Quote Actually the most difficult problem is trying to explain how organisms that appear to be designed are in fact not designed. -ds Actually, Dave, the hard part is determining what psychological mechanism is responsible for the "appearance of design." This is because there is no objective systematic way to determine what even "appears" designed. All these things that appear designed only do so because of subjective discrimination by some person, which may not be the same in another person. IOW, the entirety of ID is "yup, looks designed to me." -------------- ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."--Jonathan Swift)

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,10:30    Quote # “ID is therefore not simply an assault on evolution: it is an assault on science itself.” My daughter’s junior-high science book contains a number of the discredited icons, and students are taught as fact that microevolutionary changes can be extrapolated to explain all of life’s diversity, complexity, and innovation. Students are taught that randomness (i.e., mutations) are the source of biological information, even though randomness represents the anti-pole of information. That which is known to cause the decay of information is invoked as its creator. In no other field of science is such shoddy reasoning and such a low standard of evidence acceptable. Darwinian evolution as it is taught in the public schools is the assault on science, not ID. Comment by GilDodgen — May 3, 2006 @ 22 pm Randomness is the antipole of information. Except of course, in that little thing called Information Theory. But what does that matter? The IEEE Information Theory website contains not a single mention of Dembski, so obviously those "scientists" are really out of the loop about Information Theory.

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,12:23    Quote The Kirschner lab studies, among many other things, the way a developing frog embryo orchestrates numerous signals to yield the final, complex organism. Just as multiple cues would destroy an actor’s ability to deliver his lines at the right time, it would seem like the existence of multiple signals ought to result in cellular cacophony. But, somehow, the cells in the embryo can sort out the meaning of the different signals that are bombarding them. In particular, the lab is investigating the signals that tell cells when to divide.” ... Kirschner, who is quite critical of ID in his recent book, is here proposing a metaphor for metazoan development that underscores its elegant coordination and thus points seductively toward design. And the fact that people have been publishing on the evolution of transcriptional developmental networks for about a decade points seductively to that last comment being either purposefully misleading or ignorant.

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,14:04    Quote (stevestory @ May 03 2006,13:41) IDK. I do think there is significance in BarryA not being seen in 5 weeks, though. Too bad we don't have any way to contact BarryA and ask him what happened. Barry has not been seen since more or less the time when he effectively killed Dr. Dembski's post about the new Dover board and ACLU being in cahoots: http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/990#comments -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,15:17    Quote Faid,May 03 2006,19<!--emo&] Quote (stevestory @ May 03 2006,13:41) IDK. I do think there is significance in BarryA not being seen in 5 weeks, though. Too bad we don't have any way to contact BarryA and ask him what happened. Barry has not been seen since more or less the time when he effectively killed Dr. Dembski's post about the new Dover board and ACLU being in cahoots: http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/990#comments Interesting, I don't see one of DT's classic And so's your mom. You're outta here dismissals. Is Dave trying to be more, uh, 'subtle' these days? Just silently zapping people who look too intelligent for UD? -------------- "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

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,15:29    there's an hilarious comment at the link you posted, Arden: Quote # I am pretty sure that the case utterly hinged on the constitutional issue of the establishment clause. Judge Jones’s decision clearly states that ID=religion. In fact, that is what the whole case argued. I read the whole grueling thing. They put a bunch of religious appologists on the stand for ID and determined ID to be religious. When activist judges create the legal reality to support the meme (ID=religion), then researchers in the ID sciences have more and more trouble getting grants, christians are made laughingstocks, and the foundations of our society tremble. When America no longer calls itself a Christian Nation, we have lost and our children will suffer. Comment by Doug — April 5, 2006 @ 10:23 am I love it when they simultaneously complain that ID was labelled religion, and that attacking ID is attacking christianity. These guys are truly the Keystone Kops.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,15:45    Quote (stevestory @ May 03 2006,20:29) there's an hilarious comment at the link you posted, Arden: Quote # I am pretty sure that the case utterly hinged on the constitutional issue of the establishment clause. Judge Jones’s decision clearly states that ID=religion. In fact, that is what the whole case argued. I read the whole grueling thing. They put a bunch of religious appologists on the stand for ID and determined ID to be religious. When activist judges create the legal reality to support the meme (ID=religion), then researchers in the ID sciences have more and more trouble getting grants, christians are made laughingstocks, and the foundations of our society tremble. When America no longer calls itself a Christian Nation, we have lost and our children will suffer. Comment by Doug — April 5, 2006 @ 10:23 am I love it when they simultaneously complain that ID was labelled religion, and that attacking ID is attacking christianity. These guys are truly the Keystone Kops. They've been doing that constantly lately. "I can't believe people say ID is religion. It isn't. It's science. And anyone who doesn't like ID is an atheist who is trying to destroy Christianity." And they honestly seem to be totally unaware of how ridiculous this sounds. It seems inescapable that fundamentalism combined with junk science plain and simple makes people stupid. But hey, this is why we won Dover, so I shouldn't complain. -------------- "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

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,02:23    Quote Talk about wasting money. the Big Bang Theory is useless and worthless yet tons of money poured into it. Comment by Smidlee — May 3, 2006 @ 4:16 pm

Renier Posts: 276 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,02:40    Talk about wasting money. the ID "Theory" is useless and worthless yet tons of money poured into it (all into PR).

Pages: (1000) < ... 85 86 87 88 89 [90] 91 92 93 94 95 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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