RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < ... 285 286 287 288 289 [290] 291 292 293 294 295 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
phonon



Posts: 396
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2006,11:32   

Yeah, I guess the theory of relativity never predicted the existence of black holes.

this thread is great too
http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1829

I guess space aliens endowed us with inalienable rights?
It makes so much sense now.


Oh, and I'm an uptown boy, apparently.

--------------
With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

To do just the opposite is also a form of imitation. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2006,11:45   

Yeesh, 30-year old SAT scores of 150 and this is the best El Tardo can come UP with?

Quote
by DaveScot on December 3rd, 2006 · 17 Comments

I’d like to take this opportunity to give a tip o’ the hat to Roddy Bullock for a really great read

From Jefferson to Jones: Self-Evident Truths Made Illegal

Self evident truths is a reference to the first line of the second paragraph of the United States’ Declaration of Independence made in congress by the 13 original states on July 4, 1776. To wit

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It is often pointed out that the United States Constitution does not specify that inalienable rights are bestowed upon all men by their Creator. Forty-five out of fifty states do and it’s a very important concept in American government and one that Judge Jones has forgotten about.

You see, the intent of declaring that inalienable rights are bestowed by a Creator is not just ceremonial. It’s a core principle. It’s what makes the rights inalienable. Governments exist only to secure these rights not to grant them for if governments are the source of these rights then governments can rightly take them away. Thus it is important to remember that a higher authority exists that grants these rights so that no government can take them away.

People like Judge Jones, in their zeal to enforce an impenetrable wall of separation between church and state, overstep the clear intent of the founders. The mere mention by government of a generic Creator is not an establishment of religion. If it was then 45 state constitutions are violating the 1st amendment establishment clause. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Judge Jones.


Shit, he's starting to sound like Larry Fafarman. Sometimes I think Davetard isn't even trying anymore...

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

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2006,11:58   

Quote
I mean, who ever saw a dog breeding with a cat? Have any of you ever seen a 'dat'?"


No, but I’ve seen a cog!  :D

This hit my funnybone too, from the My Day Job thread:

       
Quote
Does Dr. Dembski read these blogs?


Well, he posts there, doesn't he? I assume that he reads what he writes. (If he doesn't it would explain a lot.) I think poor Douglas meant "these comments," and specifically, the questions directed at WAD.

And that's a good question!

It's kind of like Waiting for God(ot) over there. Poor Douglas was up at 4:25 a.m. wondering.

I, the nice girl that I am, even told WAD about a broken link on his page--like a hangnail! It drives me nuts!--and it's still there.

Maybe dat cat reads dis blog?  :)

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2711
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2006,13:20   

DaveScot
Quote
We often hear the ridiculous assertion that the theory of evolution is as well tested as the theory of gravity.

The theory of gravity can predict precisely where the planets will be a million years from now. What can the theory of evolution predict a million years into the future?

Gee. This has already been discussed. It's almost as if he forgot already. Predictions concern observations. So, if geological theory were to predict that gold can be found by digging in a particular place, and gold is found, this is a confirmed prediction -- even if the gold has been there for eons. Repeating such predictions leads to confidence in the theory.

Predicting the behavior of Earth in the near-term is easy, but so is predicting the behavior of bacteria in a Petri dish. Despite the success of the Theory of Gravity, predicting the behavior of collections of asteroids is still problematic and probabilistic. Predicting the behavior of the Earth in the long-term, or the predicting the behavior of billions of stars in a galaxy is not an exact science, but statistical. And even then, the current Theory of Gravity does not adequately predict the motions of stars in galaxies, or how larger ensembles interact.

Prediction: Any newly discovered metazoan will fit the nested hierarchy of descent. New species are frequently discovered providing ample opportunity for falsification.

Prediction: Each new metazoan genome sequenced will fit the nested hierarchy of descent. This new area of discovery has strongly confirmed common descent.

Recently confirmed predictions: In the arctic tundra, fish with limbs. In the Egyptian desert, whales with legs. In the Pakistani wastelands, from molecular evidence, an ankle bone ancestral to modern cetaceans.

Joseph
Quote
Present the data, along with the options for how that data came to be. Then have an open discussion that would perhaps lend itself to objective testing.

This from someone who purposefully suppresses comments on this own blog, commenting on a blog that suppresses reasoned argument.

--------------
Proudly banned three four five times by Uncommon Descent.
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4841
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2006,13:20   

I'm happy to announce that Google has re-indexed the Talkorigins Archive. You may now resume telling antievolutionists to Google the TOA for answers to their tired old conundrums.

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

    
Zachriel



Posts: 2711
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2006,13:57   

DaveScot
Quote
Random mutations are by definition unpredictable. The theory cannot predict what mutations will occur, when they will occur. or what effect they will have. It’s without predictive value.


Add probability theory to things DaveScot either doesn't understand. Consider that there is such a thing as a probability "theory" for a flavor of why DaveScot is wrong. Consider also that while players may gamble, the house never does.

Today, University students will watch as bacteria acquire random mutations that lead to antibiotic resistance. Today, someone will win at the Roulette table. The Amazing Predictions of Zachriel.

--------------
Proudly banned three four five times by Uncommon Descent.
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2006,14:00   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 05 2006,13:20)
I'm happy to announce that Google has re-indexed the Talkorigins Archive. You may now resume telling antievolutionists to Google the TOA for answers to their tired old conundrums.

Speaking of conundrums, I'm happy to see they included my sentimental favorite:

 
Quote
Claim CC150:

If we are descended from apes, why are there still apes around?
Source:

Robinson, B. A, 2003. 17 indicators that evolution didn't happen (with rebuttals). http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_noway.htm#11
Response:

Humans and other apes are descended from a common ancestor whose population split to become two (and more) lineages. The question is rather like asking, "If many Americans and Australians are descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans around?" Creationists themselves recognize the invalidity of this claim (AIG n.d.).
Links:

Foley, Jim. 2002. Fossil hominids: Frequently asked questions http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/faqs.html#apes
References:

AIG, n.d. Arguments we think creationists should NOT use. http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/faq/dont_use.asp#apes
Further Reading:

Darwin, C., 1872. The Origin of Species, London: Senate, chap. 4. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter4.html


Aaaaaaahhhhh... THAT'S the stuff!

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

  
Seizure Salad



Posts: 60
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2006,14:16   

This is DaveScot on Matt Cutts' weblog:

Quote
After all that we still weren’t reindexed until November and that I suspect was only because users who were shareholders in google phoned or wrote to investor relations asking why a blog with a 6/10 rank at google run by a famous professor/author (William Dembski) and linked to by hundreds of .edu sites had been delisted.


No comment necessary. It's hilarious enough by itself.

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2711
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2006,14:30   

Now this is funny.

Joseph blogs
Quote
You can make all the accusations against me that you want. However until you substantiate any of them they will not see the light of day on my blog.


The only 'accusation' I have made is that he won't agree to promptly publish my on-topic comments. But, here he is saying he won't publish my comments, so he is substantiating my complaint. But if I point that out, will he censor my response?

This is some sort of Gödelian inversion. I think the Universe might implode.

--------------
Proudly banned three four five times by Uncommon Descent.
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4841
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2006,14:30   

What appeared to be the factor leading to UD's re-indexing at Google was their site makeover, which inadvertently led to the dumping of the stuff the cracker had added.

At least, that seemed to be what I got from the email exchange.

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

    
Richardthughes



Posts: 10760
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2006,14:31   

Quote (Seizure Salad @ Dec. 05 2006,14:16)
This is DaveScot on Matt Cutts' weblog:

Quote
After all that we still weren’t reindexed until November and that I suspect was only because users who were shareholders in google phoned or wrote to investor relations asking why a blog with a 6/10 rank at google run by a famous professor/author (William Dembski) and linked to by hundreds of .edu sites had been delisted.


No comment necessary. It's hilarious enough by itself.

I suspect the designer intervened using zero wavelength radiation...




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

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1198
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2006,14:51   

Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 05 2006,13:57)
DaveScot  
Quote
Random mutations are by definition unpredictable. The theory cannot predict what mutations will occur, when they will occur. or what effect they will have. It’s without predictive value.


Add probability theory to things DaveScot either doesn't understand. Consider that there is such a thing as a probability "theory" for a flavor of why DaveScot is wrong.

The tardy boy never learns. I noticed his problems with the concept of randomness back in July. Here's part of what he said at UD that got me:
Quote
To call any mutation “random” requires that you demonstrate 1) the unverse is not entirely deterministic and 2) you have demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that no unknown directed process is involved. I won’t hold my breath while you show me where these are demonstrated. What random in this case really means is “unknown cause”.


--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2006,15:30   

Quote
Gee. This has already been discussed. It's almost as if he forgot already


That's what extreme cognitive dissonance will do for ya.

he might as well cut right to the chase and give himself a complete frontal lobotomy

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2006,15:37   

Quote
To call any mutation “random” requires that you demonstrate 1) the unverse is not entirely deterministic


Well, that's interesting because I've seen video of Dembski insisting that intelligent design does not make the universe deterministic. Anyway, who besides B.F. Skinner (no biologist, he) pleads for determinism anyway? Dawkins doesn’t, despite the consequences that people attribute to the “selfish gene” argument.

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
2ndclass



Posts: 182
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2006,15:46   

DaveScot:
Quote
By the way, I'’m certain I’ve studied the stock market at least as much or more than you have, I made millions in it, and I knew enough to get out of it with my winnings intact because it’s all just a matter of luck. A little more predictable in the short term than Vegas but in the long run only the house wins.

Since Dave made millions on Dell options, it's obvious that he knows more about the stock market than business school teacher Dopderbeck.

I always thought that the market was unpredictable in the short term but more predictable in the long term.  And I thought that, on average, long-term investors come out winners.  Thanks to Dave, now I know that I've had it backwards all this time.

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10760
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2006,15:53   

Vintage Tard.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1838#comment-79609

Quote

...Lots of them lose their shirts too. Some people win in Vegas and some people lose. That doesn’t make any of it predictable. If the market was predictable it wouldn’t be a market.

By the way, I'’m certain I’ve studied the stock market at least as much or more than you have, I made millions in it, and I knew enough to get out of it with my winnings intact because it’s all just a matter of luck. A little more predictable in the short term than Vegas but in the long run only the house wins.

Comment by DaveScot — December 5, 2006 @ 4:07 pm



Dave seems to think the stockmarket has a negative expected value for Shareholders. is ID predicting a stockmarket crash before the end of days?

However, Dave's insights have pushed Tard stock up this session.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=ATD-B.TO

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

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2711
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2006,16:04   

DaveScot    
Quote
A comment that wasn’t worth saving said climatology can’t predict where a tornado will land a year from now but climatology is still worth teaching.

Not worth saving, but worth responding to. Patently unfair.

DaveScot    
Quote
Lots of them lose their shirts too. Some people win in Vegas and some people lose. That doesn’t make any of it predictable.

Showing more ignorance of probability theory. As I mentioned, players may gamble, but the house never does. They consistently make money based on the outcome of random events.

Atom    
Quote
This will land you right in the tautological (useless) aspects of Natural Selection. What mutations confer advantage? Those that allow an organism to better survive and reproduce. So those mutations that allow an organism to better survive will allow it to better survive.

Natural selection is not a tautology, but an empirical observation, more clearly defined as "differential reproductive success due to heritable traits". The key biological question is the linking of specific traits to reproductive success. A large number of studies have demonstrated such a linkage, including the Grants' work with Darwin Finches

--------------
Proudly banned three four five times by Uncommon Descent.
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
ScaryFacts



Posts: 337
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2006,16:09   

PaV at UD
Quote

To me, at least, it is becoming increasingly apparent that science as a discipline has lost that essential quality which made science’s authority seem impregnible: objectivity. We increasingly live in a world where everything, including science itself, has been politicized. We’re witnessing the Fall of the Scientific Empire.

The parallels to the ID-NDE debate are transparently clear.


Yes, the parallels ARE clear.

   
Zachriel



Posts: 2711
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2006,16:11   

DaveScot:
Quote
A little more predictable in the short term than Vegas but in the long run only the house wins.

Here, DaveScot admits that markets have non-random correlations with various predictive methodologies -- just after claiming they did not. Enough of a correlation that an investor can know when to get out of the market.

2ndclass makes a good point too. Most markets can be shown to grow over longer time-scales, as well as exhibiting scale-invariant behavior (e.g. Benoit Mandelbrot's study of cotton futures).

--------------
Proudly banned three four five times by Uncommon Descent.
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2006,16:23   

What in the world is Davescot trying to demonstrate? That mutations are not random?  ???

BTW, what's the predictive power of ID?  :p

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10760
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2006,16:23   

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1838#comment-79626

Quote
The simple truth is that ID uses the same experimental data that other theories of evolution use. It interprets the data differently.

Comment by DaveScot — December 5, 2006 @ 5:09 pm




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

  
2ndclass



Posts: 182
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2006,17:31   

DaveScot:  
Quote
In a nutshell they are setting out to demonstrate how DNA-based life could have originated from undirected interplay of chemicals.

If ID is true then it predicts the Harvard project will fail. This is based on the ID hypothesis that the complex patterns found in the basic machinery of life are too complex to come about without intelligent guidance.

Now if I may be so bold as to ask that ID theorists be allowed to make predictions based upon their own theory, and detractors are gracious enough to let us make our own predictions, then I don’t want to hear any more nonsense about ID making no predictions. This is a prediction. It will play out soon enough. Let the chips fall where they may.

Okay, I can play that game too.

In July 2004, Dembski announced his seven part series, Mathematical Foundations of Intelligent Design, and he said, "I expect to place some of these articles in the mainstream statistics/probability/complexity literature."

My hypothesis is that Dembski's CSI/SC/LCI work is pure fluff.  If my hypothesis is correct, then Dembski's attempts to publish that work in mainstream journals will fail.

It looks like he's trying to make good on his announcement.  In his expert rebuttal for Dover, Dembski said that one of his seven papers was intended for an IEEE biocomputing journal.  How's that working out for you, Dr. Dembski?

If Dave wants to put money against my prediction, I'm game.

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

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2711
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2006,17:35   

DaveScot
Quote
In a nutshell they are setting out to demonstrate how DNA-based life could have originated from undirected interplay of chemicals.

If ID is true then it predicts the Harvard project will fail.


Sorry, DaveScot. That's not an empirical prediction. That's a fallacy. A strawman. An argument from ignorance.

There are many reasons why the Harvard effort may not succeed, including current technological limitations and the difficulty of unraveling events that happened billions of years ago and left few if any traces.

--------------
Proudly banned three four five times by Uncommon Descent.
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2006,18:11   

Quote
Now if I may be so bold as to ask that ID theorists be allowed to make predictions based upon their own theory, and detractors are gracious enough to let us make our own predictions, then I don’t want to hear any more nonsense about ID making no predictions. This is a prediction. It will play out soon enough. Let the chips fall where they may.

As all "predictions" proffered by ID, this one is parasitical upon genuine science. One might suspect this given that no ID theorist need leave his or her armchair to "test" DS's prediction.  But ALL predictions asserted to arise from ID prove to be equally parasitical.  

A good recent example: Scott Minnich claims to have proposed a theoretical prediction that is a test of ID, and to have made experimental headway vis this prediction.  This concerns Behe’s flagellar mechanism, which he argues is incapable of having originated by means of natural selection because irreducibly complex, and Kenneth Miller’s rejoinder that components of the flagellar mechanism actually arose first for other purposes (as a secretory pump) prior to their exaptation to locomotion.  Minnich has argued that if it can be demonstrated that secretory pumps arose after the flagellar mechanism, Miller’s argument would be refuted and Intelligent Design supported.  Here, he claims, we have a clear demonstration of the empirical testability of ID.

But this is exactly backward. It is indeed true that Miller’s model may be falsified through experimental investigation. That the secretory mechanism will be found to have arisen before flagellar propulsion is a prediction of Miller’s evolutionary hypothesis regarding this particular bit of contingent evolution. Miller’s model would indeed be falsified were it found that the secretory mechanisms arose after the flagellum. Miller would take his lumps and move on. This is how science works, and evolutionary biology is a science. And testable predictions such as these, which arise every day within biological science as evolutionary pathways are teased out, give the lie to DS' blank, dumb-ass statement that evolutionary theory makes no predictions, and hence has no value.  

What Minnich’s test of Miller’s model does not exemplify is an empirical test of ID. Quite the reverse: ID makes no predictions on this score. A designer - particularly one with no hypothesized characteristics that would permit the generation of a prediction - could have fabricated these molecular components in the order predicted by Miller, caused them to arise simultaneously, or given rise to the secretory mechanisms after the design of the flagellar mechanism. Hence empirical findings regarding the order in which the secretory and flagellar mechanisms arose can never be a test of ID. Indeed, Minnich's example again demonstrates that ID arguments boil down to attacks on evolutionary science that are otherwise devoid of testable content.

DaveScot's latest prediction is, at a much grosser level, parasitical in exactly the same way. It is the Harvard project that places hypotheses "at risk" through exposure to experimental test, and ID that lolls about in its increasingly threadbare armchair, sniping at the outcome.  Indeed, the facts of recent history show that regardless of what Harvard manages to demonstrate, proponents of ID will dismiss, deconstruct, distort, and ignore those results.  Now there is a prediction for 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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4841
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2006,18:18   

People search at Baylor University

Go to the linked page.

Plug "Dembski" into the last name field.

Hit enter.

Would Texas A&M University care to keep me on a personnel file for keeping in touch with my colleagues there? I don't think so.

Apparently, Baylor University is different.

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

    
Zachriel



Posts: 2711
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2006,18:47   

William Dembski  
Quote
Check out the following piece by G. K. Chesterton, published in 1920.

G. K. Chesterton  
Quote
There are many other signs of this confession of failure, for which I have hardly left myself space.

Apparently, 'Darwinism' went down to defeat in around 1918 — just like the German army.

--------------
Proudly banned three four five times by Uncommon Descent.
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2006,19:33   

I'm quite prescient:
   
Quote
Indeed, the facts of recent history show that regardless of what Harvard manages to demonstrate, proponents of ID will dismiss, deconstruct, distort, and ignore those results.  Now there is a prediction for you.

This didn't take long. They're already hard at it, in advance:
   
Quote
4. Collin // Dec 5th 2006 at 7:23 pm
I think they will succeed… at producing a complex tautology. A billion dollars should be enough to confuse a lot of people into THINKING they came up with something. That is what I am worried about.


--------------
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: 10334
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2006,20:33   

Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 05 2006,17:04)
DaveScot    
Quote
A comment that wasn’t worth saving said climatology can’t predict where a tornado will land a year from now but climatology is still worth teaching.

Not worth saving, but worth responding to. Patently unfair.

DaveScot    
Quote
Lots of them lose their shirts too. Some people win in Vegas and some people lose. That doesn’t make any of it predictable.

Showing more ignorance of probability theory. As I mentioned, players may gamble, but the house never does. They consistently make money based on the outcome of random events.

Atom    
Quote
This will land you right in the tautological (useless) aspects of Natural Selection. What mutations confer advantage? Those that allow an organism to better survive and reproduce. So those mutations that allow an organism to better survive will allow it to better survive.

Natural selection is not a tautology, but an empirical observation, more clearly defined as "differential reproductive success due to heritable traits". The key biological question is the linking of specific traits to reproductive success. A large number of studies have demonstrated such a linkage, including the Grants' work with Darwin Finches

Zach, the third rate minds over there think that if you can use something in a circular way, it must be circular. That's not true. It's trivially easy to arrange definitions in a circular way.

The Ford Camomille is Ford's next production model.
Ford's next production model is the Ford Camomille.

If you call these definitions, they're circular. That doesn't mean that you can't find non-circular definitions for 'ford camomille' and 'next production model'.

The Baylor search page stuff, I don't get it, what's going on?

   
Zachriel



Posts: 2711
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2006,20:54   

DaveScot    
Quote
I’m forced to conclude you knew ID’s position and your answer was intellectually dishonest. This is not ad hominem. It’s a simple observation.

dopderbeck    
Quote
You use the general term “evolution,” I respond, and then you call me a liar because you really had some special meaning of the term in mind.

DaveScot    
Quote
I didn’t call you a liar, dopderbeck. If you put words in my mouth one more time it will be the last time.

liar, someone willfully deceptive.
dishonest, willfully deceptive.

I don't think dopderbeck is long for Uncommon Descent.

--------------
Proudly banned three four five times by Uncommon Descent.
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
Zachriel



Posts: 2711
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2006,20:58   

Joseph  
Quote
Explaining the NH of myosin will take time- time is very valuable to me- so here it is- I do just that and you give me $10,000 (USD)- that you will first give to an agreed upon neutral party.

Now, this is funny. Joseph knows what a nested hierarchy is, but he won't tell anyone unless you pay him $10,000 (USD) — in advance.

Um, any takers?

--------------
Proudly banned three four five times by Uncommon Descent.
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < ... 285 286 287 288 289 [290] 291 292 293 294 295 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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