RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (501) < ... 387 388 389 390 391 [392] 393 394 395 396 397 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 3, The Beast Marches On...< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2011,11:38   

Quote (Zachriel @ April 09 2011,08:54)
 
Quote
Jonathan M: Lynn Margulis Expresses Her Doubts About neo-Darwinism In Discover Magazine ... This is the kind of of intellectual honesty, and open-minded pursuit of facts and truth, upon which science thrives.

In the same article, Margulis also says this:
 
Quote
Margulis: all scientists agree that evolution has occurred —that all life comes from a common ancestry... The critics, including the creationist critics, are right about their criticism. It's just that they've got nothing to offer but intelligent design or "God did it." They have no alternatives that are scientific.

She has said this previously.

 
Quote
Margulis: Although I greatly admire Darwin's contributions and agree with most of his theoretical analysis and I am a Darwinist, I am not a neo-Darwinist.

What she means here is that while she accepts the importance of natural selection for determining which strains survive, she rejects overly simplistic mutation and selection models.

(Margulis has been shown right about the importance of endosymbiosis in evolution, but she tends to want to extend it to cover nearly every evolutionary transition, which isn't supportable by the evidence. Margulis also tends to be a bit of a crank on AIDS/HIV and 9-11.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Margulis

In other words, we're going to start another linky meme here: Margulis! (See "Lewontin!") Well, that's one small step for woman - kind of...

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

  
Seversky



Posts: 441
Joined: June 2010

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2011,12:25   

I think JemimaRacktouey touched a nerve:
   
Quote
Onlookers:

I am now finished with Ms Jemima Racktouey, who has now definitively crossed over into the realm of the uncivil closed minded propagandist, not a serious participant in serous dialogue. (For just one point, has she in her fulminations above shown a single sign of having read much less bothered to reflect on say this discussion of the minimal facts relevant to the credibility of the NT documents, which was previously linked?

An interesting response from someone who lays claim to supreme moral authority by virtue of his religious beliefs.  Dismissing the life's work of hundreds of thousands of scientists as being, at best, misguided or, at worst, conspiring to promote an atheist agenda is polite behavior.  Raising questions about the historicity of New Testament documentation is "uncivil".  Do we see a double standard here?

And while the value of Scripture to believers in theological terms is for them to decide, its weight as evidence for historical events must be questionable when we observe discrepancies such as the following in accounts of just one event, the Resurrection:
 
Quote
What are the apparent conflicts that emerge in the accounts? They are these:

1. How many women went out to the tomb that morning, one (Jn 20:21) two (Matt 28:1), or three (Mk 16:1)?

2. Did Magdalene alone go to just Peter and John (Jn 20) or did the several women go to the Apostles (Matt 28; Mk 16)?

3. How many angels did they see there that morning, one (Matt 28:2; Mk 16:5) or two (Lk 24:4; Jn 20:12)?

4. Did the women run to the other disciples and tell what they had seen (Mt 28:8; Lk 24:9) or did they say nothing out of fear (Mk 16:8)?

5. Did Jesus see them first in Galilee (Mk 16:7; Mt 28:9) or in Jerusalem (Jn 20; Lk 24:36)?

6. Among the Apostles, did he appear to Peter first (Lk 24:34), all eleven at once (Mt. 28:16), or the eleven minus Thomas (Jn 20:24)?

7. Did Jesus appear to them in a room (Jn 20:19) or a mountaintop (Mt 28:16)?

8. Lastly, did Jesus ascend on Easter Sunday (Lk 24:50-53; Mk 16:19) or forty days later (Acts 1:3,9)?

That list, by the way, comes from the website of the Archdiocese of Washington and includes a lengthy attempt to reconcile the differing accounts.

There are several unanswered questions, though.  The Resurrection of the Son of God, if it actually happened would be an event of huge significance on so many levels.  This was a person who, during his lifetime, demonstrated miraculous or supernatural powers and then rose from the dead.  Yet the only accounts come from his supporters and, presumably, promoters with the earliest fragment of text dating from the second century AD.  No one else noticed, apparently.  These texts are presumed to be at least divinely inspired accounts.  You would think an all-powerful, all-knowing God would be able ensure they got his story straight at least.  On the site KF links to there is a quote from a British barrister.  It made me wonder how many lawyers would want to go to trial when their only evidence is testimony recorded decades after the event in question and which differs in so many details.  I suspect opposing counsel would have a field day eviscerating that weak a case.

  
noncarborundum



Posts: 320
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2011,12:43   

Quote (Seversky @ April 09 2011,12:25)
I think JemimaRacktouey touched a nerve:
     
Quote
Onlookers:

I am now finished with Ms Jemima Racktouey, who has now definitively crossed over into the realm of the uncivil closed minded propagandist, not a serious participant in serous dialogue. (For just one point, has she in her fulminations above shown a single sign of having read much less bothered to reflect on say this discussion of the minimal facts relevant to the credibility of the NT documents, which was previously linked?

An interesting response from someone who lays claim to supreme moral authority by virtue of his religious beliefs.  Dismissing the life's work of hundreds of thousands of scientists as being, at best, misguided or, at worst, conspiring to promote an atheist agenda is polite behavior.  Raising questions about the historicity of New Testament documentation is "uncivil".  Do we see a double standard here?

And while the value of Scripture to believers in theological terms is for them to decide, its weight as evidence for historical events must be questionable when we observe discrepancies such as the following in accounts of just one event, the Resurrection:
   
Quote
What are the apparent conflicts that emerge in the accounts? They are these:

1. How many women went out to the tomb that morning, one (Jn 20:21) two (Matt 28:1), or three (Mk 16:1)?

2. Did Magdalene alone go to just Peter and John (Jn 20) or did the several women go to the Apostles (Matt 28; Mk 16)?

3. How many angels did they see there that morning, one (Matt 28:2; Mk 16:5) or two (Lk 24:4; Jn 20:12)?

4. Did the women run to the other disciples and tell what they had seen (Mt 28:8; Lk 24:9) or did they say nothing out of fear (Mk 16:8)?

5. Did Jesus see them first in Galilee (Mk 16:7; Mt 28:9) or in Jerusalem (Jn 20; Lk 24:36)?

6. Among the Apostles, did he appear to Peter first (Lk 24:34), all eleven at once (Mt. 28:16), or the eleven minus Thomas (Jn 20:24)?

7. Did Jesus appear to them in a room (Jn 20:19) or a mountaintop (Mt 28:16)?

8. Lastly, did Jesus ascend on Easter Sunday (Lk 24:50-53; Mk 16:19) or forty days later (Acts 1:3,9)?

That list, by the way, comes from the website of the Archdiocese of Washington and includes a lengthy attempt to reconcile the differing accounts.

There are several unanswered questions, though.  The Resurrection of the Son of God, if it actually happened would be an event of huge significance on so many levels.  This was a person who, during his lifetime, demonstrated miraculous or supernatural powers and then rose from the dead.  Yet the only accounts come from his supporters and, presumably, promoters with the earliest fragment of text dating from the second century AD.  No one else noticed, apparently.  These texts are presumed to be at least divinely inspired accounts.  You would think an all-powerful, all-knowing God would be able ensure they got his story straight at least.  On the site KF links to there is a quote from a British barrister.  It made me wonder how many lawyers would want to go to trial when their only evidence is testimony recorded decades after the event in question and which differs in so many details.  I suspect opposing counsel would have a field day eviscerating that weak a case.

Not to mention the invasion of Jerusalem by the walking dead, according to Matthew 27.  You'd think this would garner at least a little extra-Biblical notice.

--------------
"The . . . um . . . okay, I was genetically selected for blue eyes.  I know there are brown eyes, because I've observed them, but I can't do it.  Okay?  So . . . um . . . coz that's real genetic selection, not the nonsense Giberson and the others are talking about." - DO'L

  
paragwinn



Posts: 504
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2011,12:53   

Quote (noncarborundum @ April 09 2011,12:43)
Not to mention the invasion of Jerusalem by the walking dead, according to Matthew 27.  You'd think this would garner at least a little extra-Biblical notice.

It was noted in the Monday morning Obituary section of the Jerusalem Post under "Retractions"

--------------
All women build up a resistance [to male condescension]. Apparently, ID did not predict that. -Kristine 4-19-11
F/Ns to F/Ns to F/Ns etc. The whole thing is F/N ridiculous -Seversky on KF footnote fetish 8-20-11
Sigh. Really Bill? - Barry Arrington

  
Seversky



Posts: 441
Joined: June 2010

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2011,13:58   

KF is still seething:
 
Quote
JR:

On blatant and insistent, slanderous incivility, you have forfeited the right of general dialogue.

Does this mean there will be no further communiques from the Caribbean on this issue?
 
Quote
Until you can answer to the origin of language, on observational data and relevant demonstration of the origin of FSCO/I on blind watchmaker chance and necessity, your very posts demonstrate that there is a gaping hole in the foundation of your case.

Until ID can match the pathetic level of detail in the existing case for evolution it is ill-advised to complain about gaping holes.
 
Quote
The capacity to use language is itself based on FSCO/I, and the only empirically known source of FSCO/I is design. So, there is every epistemic right to infer from the FSCO/I to design.

Appealing to a property which, like beauty, seems to exist only in the eye of the beholder and which is measured by a metric like FIASCO that is so poorly defined as to be impracticable is not exactly a hole-free foundation for inferring design.
 
Quote
As has been repeatedly pointed out, and just as repeatedly ignored, and distracted from, with red herrings led to strawmen soaked in slanderous ad hominems and ignited to choke, cloud, polarise and poison the atmosphere.

Boilerplate indignation doesn't help either.
 
Quote
You have a substantial issue unanswered and a major civility challenge that lies still unaddressed.

Still doesn't

  
didymos



Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2011,14:25   

Quote (Seversky @ April 09 2011,10:25)
 Do we see a double standard here?

With Gordon?  Here, there, and fucking everywhere.  The man is practically the anthropomorphic personification of hypocrisy.  It's his stock-in-trade. That and pseudo-sciency acronyms.

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2011,14:39   

Quote (Seversky @ April 09 2011,13:58)
KF is still seething:
   
Quote
JR:

On blatant and insistent, slanderous incivility, you have forfeited the right of general dialogue.

Does this mean there will be no further communiques from the Caribbean on this issue?

No.  

It is pretty typical of Gordon, when he wants to leave a conversation, to get his panties in a bunch and rail on about incivility and the person forfeiting their right to dialogue.

However, there is one thing about Gordon that you can take to the bank. He is incapable of letting anyone else have the last word.  So, as long as Jemima is allowed to rattle his cage, he'll continue to comment. Though, all subsequent comments will pretty much be a repeat of this one:  indignant concern trolling.

ETA: You can see this in spades on the Taking Manhattan Out of The Apple thread, where some high school girl takes the piss out of KF. You will see all the same charges of incivility and forfeiting the right to the discussion there.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2011,15:36   

Fucking hell.



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

  
noncarborundum



Posts: 320
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2011,16:34   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 09 2011,15:36)
Fucking hell.


Second prize, two Expelled and two Privileged Planet DVD's.

--------------
"The . . . um . . . okay, I was genetically selected for blue eyes.  I know there are brown eyes, because I've observed them, but I can't do it.  Okay?  So . . . um . . . coz that's real genetic selection, not the nonsense Giberson and the others are talking about." - DO'L

  
Freddie



Posts: 369
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2011,17:33   

KF spits out a twofer: Godwin and Lewontin in the same post!
       
Quote
Especially when, it is beyond reasonable doubt — onlookers, reread the Lewointin statement and keep on going through what NAS and NSTA have to say — that a priori evolutionary materialism has been imposed on origins science in the major institutions, and is exerting undue influence on theories, models and other explanatory contructs.

In short, you are guilty of the turnabout false accusation, a classic resort of the lowest sort of propagandists. I will not even name the main proponent of the tactic in recent times, beyond saying that his name should have been Schicklegruber.

I really believe he does consider his intellect and accomplishments to be equivalent to that of Hoyle:
       
Quote
On the finetuning half of that observation, I am among others, in the company of Sir Fred Hoyle [as has been explicitly cited], Nobel equivalent prize holding astrophsysicist. And lifelong atheist/agnostic, but he was honest about what evidence is and what it points to. I make no bones, he is one of my personal heroes of science.

... and get this: Anthony Flew agreed with KF's position!  Who would have known?
       
Quote
Indeed, the formerly leading philosophical atheist in the world, the late Antony Flew, agreed with my position on that; once the balance of evidence was decisively shifted by the design evidence on fine tuning etc.

IANAP but i'm beginning to think 'pathological narcissism'.  Wikipedia has an interesting description of some of the traits:

 
Quote
To the extent that people are pathologically narcissistic, they can be controlling, blaming, self-absorbed, intolerant of others’ views, unaware of others' needs and of the effects of their behavior on others, and insistent that others see them as they wish to be seen.

People who are overly narcissistic commonly feel rejected, humiliated and threatened when criticised. To protect themselves from these dangers, they often react with disdain, rage, and/or defiance to any slight criticism, real or imagined ... With narcissistic personality disorder, the individual's self-perceived fantastic grandiosity, often coupled with a hypomanic mood, is typically not commensurate with his or her real accomplishments.


--------------
Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy.
Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people.
Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2011,17:51   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 09 2011,15:36)
Fucking hell.


Somebody here should submit 1904:

   "Today, at the dawn of the new century, nothing is more certain than that Darwinism has lost its prestige among men of science.  It has seen its day and will soon be reckoned a thing of the past.  A few decades hence when people will look back upon the history of the doctrine of Descent, they will confess that the years between 1860 and 1880 were in many respects a time of carnival; and the enthusiasm which at that time took possession of the devotees of natural science will appear to them as the excitement attending some mad revel." Eberhard Dennert,  At the Deathbed of Darwinism, 1904, cited by Ronald L. Numbers, Creationism In Twentieth-Century America: A Ten-Volume Anthology of  Documents, 1903-1961 (New York & London, Garland Publishing, 1995"

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
didymos



Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2011,19:27   

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ April 09 2011,15:51)
Somebody here should submit 1904:

At least in 1904, Darwinism actually *had* lost much of its prestige in scientific circles, so such a prediction wasn't unreasonable or simply wishful creationist thinking, even if it ultimately was mistaken.  

It's interesting to look at what Dennert's conclusion to that paper was:
Quote
We may conveniently summarize what we have said in the foregoing chapters in the following statement: The theory of Descent is almost universally recognized to-day by naturalists as a working hypothesis. Still, in spite of assertions to the contrary, no conclusive proof of it has as yet been forthcoming. Nevertheless it cannot be denied that the theory provides us with an intelligible explanation of a series of problems and facts which cannot be so well explained on other grounds.

On the other hand, Darwinism, i.e., the theory of Natural Selection by means of the Struggle for Existence, is being pushed to the wall all along the line. The bulk of naturalists no longer recognizes its validity, and even those who have not yet entirely discarded it, are at least forced to admit that the Darwinian explanation now possesses a very subordinate significance.

In the place of Darwinian principles, new ideas are gradually winning general acceptance, which, while they are in harmony with the principles of adaptation and use, (Lamarck) enunciated before the time of Darwin, nevertheless attribute a far-reaching importance to internal forces of development. These new conceptions necessarily involve the admission that Evolution has not been a purely mechanical process.


I.e.: common descent was still very much the scientific order of the day, and it was still about doing some actual science and coming up with genuine hypotheses, even if some of them were a little...wonky...from our POV.

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2011,21:06   

Gil: ID is loathed because it's hard science!
Quote
The answer is simple and obvious. ID theory is rigorous. It’s based on the hard sciences of information theory, computation, probabilistic mathematics, and the limits of chemical reactions, stochastic processes, and the Darwinian mechanism to produce what we see in nature — in particular, information-rich systems with the requisite hardware and software.

Let’s face it, the reason ID has created such an uproar is that it has attacked materialistic philosophy on its own grounds, and has demonstrated in rigorous terms why its propositions are simply not credible.


Hmm.  I'm going to call a B.2.  Does that seem right?  Could be a B.1, a B.3, or even a D.1.

Note to Gil: c'mon, man, the Dodgenator has to be rigorous too.

Edited to fix link.  

Nope: dammitall, can someone fix that link?

--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Woodbine



Posts: 1173
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2011,21:20   

Did Gil really just include the 'Darwinian mechanism' in the 'hard' sciences?

Shome mishtake surely?

EDIT: I just threw Dembski's 'Taliban' prediction into O'Hahaha's face-palm of a post. We'll see if it gets past moderation.
EDIT 2: I see you scamps beat me to it....grrr.

  
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2011,21:49   

Quote (Woodbine @ April 09 2011,21:20)
Did Gil really just include the 'Darwinian mechanism' in the 'hard' sciences?

Shome mishtake surely?

EDIT: I just threw Dembski's 'Taliban' prediction into O'Hahaha's face-palm of a post. We'll see if it gets past moderation.
EDIT 2: I see you scamps beat me to it....grrr.

Gil's frilly sentences are hard to parse, but I see something like this:  
Quote
It’s based on
the hard sciences of
[1] information theory,
[2] computation, [and]
[3] probabilistic mathematics,

and [on] the limits of
[1] chemical reactions,
[2] stochastic processes, and
[3] the Darwinian mechanism to produce what we see in nature — in particular, information-rich systems with the requisite hardware and software.
 
Something like that.

--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
didymos



Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2011,21:51   

I give you CannuckianYankee's  fantasies about the inevitable victory of ID:
Quote
I think we’ll hear proclamations such as:

Former Darwinist: “Well we never really disagreed with Dembski, we simply demanded more rigor in his argument. He produced it, and we were pleased.”

Another former Darwinist: “So Behe was right; so what. We knew it all along.”

Another former Darwinist: “Well Meyer’s book was just too dense and I couldn’t get through it. If I had known then what I know now, I would never have lampooned it on Amazon.”

Yet another former Darwinist: “The current thinking is what neoDarwinism was leading too. The original ID proponents jumped the gun too soon and without evidence, due to their religious biases, and we demonstrated this as the case. Remember Dover? Oh never mind.


Oh, yes.  This all seems so very likely indeed. See you in Waterloo!

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
olegt



Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2011,22:12   

This seems appropriate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMxTFqPET5I

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

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2011,22:14   

Quote (didymos @ April 09 2011,21:51)
I give you CannuckianYankee's  fantasies about the inevitable victory of ID:
   
Quote
I think we’ll hear proclamations such as:

Former Darwinist: “Well we never really disagreed with Dembski, we simply demanded more rigor in his argument. He produced it, and we were pleased.”

Another former Darwinist: “So Behe was right; so what. We knew it all along.”

Another former Darwinist: “Well Meyer’s book was just too dense and I couldn’t get through it. If I had known then what I know now, I would never have lampooned it on Amazon.”

Yet another former Darwinist: “The current thinking is what neoDarwinism was leading too. The original ID proponents jumped the gun too soon and without evidence, due to their religious biases, and we demonstrated this as the case. Remember Dover? Oh never mind.


Oh, yes.  This all seems so very likely indeed. See you in Waterloo!

Oh, ha ha ha!

Let me put my head on the Darwinian chopping block, so they can hit my neck with a wet noodle:

I disagree vehemently with Dembski.

Michael Behe is wrong and a quack. ("If it walks like a duck...")

Meyer is just plain dense.

We shall Dovercome.

Yes, there goes my career. Waterloo!  :D

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

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1173
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2011,23:09   

Quote
Gil's frilly sentences are hard to parse, but I see something like this:  
   
Quote

It’s based on
the hard sciences of
[1] information theory,
[2] computation, [and]
[3] probabilistic mathematics,

and [on] the limits of
 
Quote

[1] chemical reactions,
[2] stochastic processes, and
[3] the Darwinian mechanism to produce what we see in nature — in particular, information-rich systems with the requisite hardware and software.


Something like that.


That makes sense.

Trouble with Gil's posts is that you skip over the vast majority of the content due to it being nothing more than the previous year's content recycled. And, so, when a grammatical gorilla runs across the court you're none the wiser.

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2004
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2011,23:20   

Quote (didymos @ April 08 2011,20:19)
 
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 08 2011,16:11)
Does anybody know what song is the background for the video with the three young men standing on a home made tractor?  It's played on some kind of wooden xylophone type instrument.  I've heard snatches of this piece before and I love it.

The piece is "Gassenhauer" by Carl Orff.  It was famously used as part of the score of the films Badlands (slightly different arrangement) and True Romance (though that's actually a quasi-original piece by Hans Zimmer. He made no secret of what it was based on though).

ETA:  Linkage to the "Badlands" version:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CxCQlYDxpg

True Romance theme:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du0NSnJnoEY

Didymos, thank you from the bottom of my heart for those cites!  Both songs are on my computer now thanks to the magic of Amazon and I'm listening to them as I type this.  You have truly won an internets!

GORDON (GEM of TKI) MULLINGS:  Gordy, you have astounded us all.  No matter how inadvertent and accidental your actions, you have actually succeeded in making at least one small part of this universe (namely myself) better!  Truly, I never thought it was possible, but you've done it Gordy Boy.

As a special reward for doing such good, I make you this gift:

       GORDON MULLINGS, I PROMISE YOU THAT YOU SHALL NEVER GO TO HELL!  YOU SHALL NEVER BATHE IN THE LAKE OF FIRE!


Note that only a non-believer can make that promise.  All the Christians are sure you're gonna burn.

--------------
...after reviewing the arguments, I’m inclined to believe that the critics of ENCODE’s bold claim were mostly right, and that the proportion of our genome which is functional is probably between 10 and 20%.  --Vincent Torley, uncommondescent.com 1/1/2016

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2004
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2011,23:38   

Quote (Lou FCD @ April 08 2011,18:55)
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 08 2011,19:11)
Off topic

Gordon gives a link to a web page for an organization called "Global Village Construction Set.  

Does anybody know what song is the background for the video with the three young men standing on a home made tractor?  It's played on some kind of wooden xylophone type instrument.  I've heard snatches of this piece before and I love it.

If anybody can provide the title to that piece then GEM of TIKI (with your help) will have made a positive contribution to the universe, at least my part of it, and that's always nice.

Sounds more like steel drums to me.

It's apparently not a steel drum.  At least, the full title of one of the versions is:

Vier Stücke für Xylophon: Gassenhauer nach Hans Neusiedler (1536) für Sopran-, Altxylophon, Castagnetten, kleine Trommel, Schellentrommel und Pauken, Musik für Kinder III, Nr. 15, 1952

My German's a little rusty, but I think that translates as "No steel drums".

But hey, wouldn't that song sound grand on steel drums?

GORDON: YOU'VE INADVERTENTLY GOOD-DEEDED YOUR WAY OUT OF HELL AND THE LAKE OF FIRE.  IF YOU'D LIKE TO AVOID PURGATORY TOO, START ORGANIZING A STEEL DRUM BAND AND POST THE RESULTS TO YOUTUBE.

Thanks everybody.

--------------
...after reviewing the arguments, I’m inclined to believe that the critics of ENCODE’s bold claim were mostly right, and that the proportion of our genome which is functional is probably between 10 and 20%.  --Vincent Torley, uncommondescent.com 1/1/2016

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2004
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2011,23:47   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 09 2011,15:36)
Fucking hell.


When KairosFocus goes to hell.

--------------
...after reviewing the arguments, I’m inclined to believe that the critics of ENCODE’s bold claim were mostly right, and that the proportion of our genome which is functional is probably between 10 and 20%.  --Vincent Torley, uncommondescent.com 1/1/2016

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2004
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2011,23:54   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 09 2011,15:36)
Second prize, two Expelled and two Privileged Planet DVD's.

They can't even give those things away.

--------------
...after reviewing the arguments, I’m inclined to believe that the critics of ENCODE’s bold claim were mostly right, and that the proportion of our genome which is functional is probably between 10 and 20%.  --Vincent Torley, uncommondescent.com 1/1/2016

  
didymos



Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2011,00:07   

Quote (CeilingCat @ April 09 2011,21:54)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 09 2011,15:36)
Second prize, two Expelled and two Privileged Planet DVD's.

They can't even give those things away.

And if you actually did manage to give copies of either away, I think any potential tax deduction should instead become an *addition*.

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
sparc



Posts: 1957
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2011,01:33   

New features at UD:
Dembski's latest from April 2 is back on the top of the UD home page.

Current posts are followed by the number of daily viewers:
 
Quote
9 April 2011
[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-id-theory-has-caused-so-much-controversy-or-the-rigorous-versus-the-purely-philosophic


al/]Why ID Theory Has Caused so Much Controversy (or, the Rigorous Versus the Purely Philosophical)[/URL]GilDodgen
[...]
(Visited 38 times, 38 visits today)

 
Quote
9 April 2011
[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/suzan-mazurs-interview-with-the-guy-who-funds-much-of-what-your-family-and-friends-learn-a


bout-evolution/]Suzan Mazur’s interview with the guy who funds much of what your family and friends learn about evolution …
[/URL]
O'Leary
[...]
(Visited 74 times, 74 visits today)

 
Quote
9 April 2011
Predict “Darwin’s doom” timeline and win free stuff

O'Leary
[...]
(Visited 249 times, 248 visits today)

 
Quote
9 April 2011
Now and then people sidle up to me to confide…
O'Leary
[...]
(Visited 119 times, 119 visits today)

 
Quote
9 April 2011
Where is astronomer Howard Van Till now?
News
[...]
(Visited 129 times, 129 visits today)

 
Quote
9 April 2011
He said it: Darwinist philosopher Michael Ruse’s view of ethics as illusion
News
[...]
(Visited 48 times, 48 visits today)

 
Quote
9 April 2011
Lynn Margulis Expresses Her Doubts About neo-Darwinism In Discover Magazine
Jonathan M
[...]
(Visited 344 times, 344 visits today)

 
Quote
9 April 2011
What follows from Christian Darwinism?
O'Leary
[...]
(Visited 63 times, 63 visits today)

 
Quote
8 April 2011
Catholics and intelligent design: Jay Richards’ response to Ed Feser
News
[...]
(Visited 46 times, 46 visits today)

 
Quote
8 April 2011
Key biologist Lynn Margulis tells Discover Magazine “Natural selection doesn’t create“
News
[...]
(Visited 181 times, 181 visits today)

Quote
8 April 2011
[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/they-said-it-materialist-atheists-jerry-fodor-and-colleague-dismiss-darwinismevolutionary-

psychology/]They said it: Materialist atheists Jerry Fodor and colleague dismiss Darwinism/evolutionary psychology[/URL]
News
[...]
(Visited 65 times, 65 visits today)

Quote
8 April 2011
Lying for the Spontaneous Generation
idnet.com.au
[...]
(Visited 55 times, 54 visits today)

Quote
8 April 2011
Two quick questions for Professor Beckwith
vjtorley
[...]
(Visited 224 times, 224 visits today)

Quote
8 April 2011
He said it: Atheist prof says there is some evidence for design in nature
News
[...]
(Visited 158 times, 158 visits today)

Quote
8 April 2011
Media: Political orientation touted as brain-based
News
[...]
(Visited 133 times, 133 visits today)

Quote
8 April 2011
Does Good come from God II – Harris vs Lane
DLH
[...]
(Visited 580 times, 579 visits today)

Quote
April 2011
Christian Darwinism: “Catholic Thing” reviewer loves David Brooks’s “Social Animal” and sees it as the Catholic view of man
O'Leary
[...]
(Visited 119 times, 119 visits today)

Quote
8 April 2011
… we heard you singin ‘in the wires
News
[...]
(Visited 104 times, 104 visits today)

Quote
8 April 2011
Of little green men and CSI-lite
vjtorley
[...]
(Visited 241 times, 241 visits today)

Quote
7 April 2011
A new “Darwinian” way of processing information?
O'Leary
[...]
(Visited 45 times, 45 visits today)
Quote
7 April 2011
The forgotten non-materialist side of James Clerk Maxwell
News
[...]
(Visited 83 times, 83 visits today)

Quote
7 April 2011
Tennessee would permit critical thinking on received science dogmas
News
[...]
(Visited 105 times, 105 visits today)

Quote
7 April 2011
Psychologist: Human freedom holds up to scientific scrutiny
News
[...]
(Visited 75 times, 75 visits today)

Quote
7 April 2011
And you thought that Darwinism makes no difference to politics …
O'Leary
[...]
(Visited 84 times, 84 visits today)

Quote
7 April 2011
The Christian Darwinist addresses the lowly masses
O'Leary
[...]
(Visited 142 times, 142 visits today)

Quote
7 April 2011
Reaction to comment made in a Nature review of a current Darwinbook?
News
[...]
(Visited 106 times, 106 visits today)

Quote
7 April 2011
Coffee!! Can biology be rid of language that implies design?
O'Leary
[...]
(Visited 66 times, 66 visits today)

Quote
7 April 2011
Darwinism: Cretaceous buttercup a “doubly abominable” mystery, it seems
News
[...]
(Visited 150 times, 149 visits today)

Quote
6 April 2011
The Bright Side of Atheism
GilDodgen
[...]
(Visited 571 times, 571 visits today)


DLH's Harris vs. Lane post is special because it contains 9 links to videos and people are likely comming back to the page to follow the next link. Unfortunately, unique visitor numbers are not provided. On avarage we have about 150 visitors per posts of the last three days within the last 24 hours. Taking into account that I've counted 72 commenters in 10 days during November 2010 the current visitor numbers prove that UD remains an echo chamber.
Gildo's April 7 post may be special because his posts get quite some attention at AtBC and nay of you guys may have contributed to that number.
Seems the system is currently adding numbers even to old thread. e.g.
Quote
28 February 2009
Usefulness of Chance & Necessity
Dave S.
[...]
(Visited 5 times, 3 visits today)


--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
didymos



Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2011,01:55   

StephenB:
Quote
There is no impasse. When atheism confronts reason, atheism loses. When irrationality confronts rationality, irrationality loses.


So, Stevie: tell us what happens when ID confronts reality? Say, just hypothetically of course, in some court case or something.

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
noncarborundum



Posts: 320
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2011,02:26   

Quote (didymos @ April 10 2011,01:55)
StephenB:
   
Quote
There is no impasse. When atheism confronts reasonI get to make unsupported assersions, atheism loses.



--------------
"The . . . um . . . okay, I was genetically selected for blue eyes.  I know there are brown eyes, because I've observed them, but I can't do it.  Okay?  So . . . um . . . coz that's real genetic selection, not the nonsense Giberson and the others are talking about." - DO'L

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2709
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2011,08:15   

Quote
Joseph: Yet look at what the good Dr states:

Quote
They teach that what is generating novelty is the accumulation of random mutations in DNA, in a direction set by natural selection

Yes, random mutation is an important source of novelty — just not the only source.

Quote
Joseph: and

Quote
They teach that what is generating novelty is the accumulation of random mutations in DNA, in a direction set by natural selection

Margulis earned her PhD in 1963 (UC Berkeley). When she was studying, the structure of DNA was still a novel discovery. Biology has changed somewhat in the last half century.

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

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 1438
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2011,08:43   

Quote (didymos @ April 10 2011,01:55)
StephenB:
Quote
There is no impasse. When atheism confronts reason, atheism loses. When irrationality confronts rationality, irrationality loses.


So, Stevie: tell us what happens when ID confronts reality? Say, just hypothetically of course, in some court case or something.

They mutually annihilate.  With enough energy released to keep UD up and running.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1030
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2011,10:12   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 09 2011,15:36)
Fucking hell.


I left a comment linking to The Imminent Demise of Evolution:
The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism


--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
  15001 replies since Sep. 04 2009,16:20 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (501) < ... 387 388 389 390 391 [392] 393 394 395 396 397 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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