RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (356) < ... 29 30 31 32 33 [34] 35 36 37 38 39 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 4, Fostering a Greater Understanding of IDC< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Freddie



Posts: 369
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,16:23   

... and further clarifies a few things for us:

Quote
GB:

Strawman.

To apply signs of something, we must first observe the signs.

Once present, per tests we have carried out, the signs are reliable. (As in, deer tracks point to deer.)

What about when the signs are NOT present — as in no deer tracks are there, so deer tracks are not reliable signs of deer — is a strawman fallacy distraction.

GEM of TKI


Hmmm.  What about someone who lays down false deer tracks pretending to be a deer ... or "something".

--------------
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.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1786
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,19:41   

Quote (Ptaylor @ Nov. 01 2011,20:50)
Fossfur on DeNews' 'Scientists, our moral and intellectual superiors: Big Dutch researcher made up or manipulated dozens of papers' thread:
           
Quote
I see my reply was ‘disappeared’. Figures.


And here it iswas:
           
Quote
2
FossfurNovember 1, 2011 at 7:00 pm

GinoB,
It’s primarily an anti-science Christian apologetics blog; this is par for the course. The stories reported on are for the purposes of sneering, not illumination. There’s no actual interest in discovery, and certainly nothing that could be described as ‘intelligent design news’.

It’s hilarious really. Considering the amount of articles dealing with morality you’ll be hard pressed to find anything at UD on the Catholic church’s systematic cover-up of the rape of children. Not a peep. It’s like it never happened!

But when someone has the temerity to call out William Lane Craig as an apologist for genocide….well. That’s simply beyond the pale! The heathens have gone too far this time!!!

TranMa DeNews is really being a major league cunt these days.  First she deletes posts with no comment, then today she gets out the banhammer:

Kariosflatus got caught in a blatant lie about Dr.Bot, and Dr. Bot tongue-in-cheek (including smiley) threatened to call in his attorneys on KF for libel:

     
Quote
Dr.Bot:  "Now do the decent, Christian, thing: withdraw the accusation and apologize – or do I have to get my lawyers involved, I hear that British libel laws can have a long reach ;)


DeNews overreacts big time

 
Quote
TranMa: "Dr. Bot, you can please yourself re British libel law, but you are no longer with us. As a general rule, anyone who threatens to sue is off the board."


linky

They all have a carrot up their collective ass AFAICT.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
NormOlsen



Posts: 104
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,19:54   

I think Denyse was looking for any excuse to ban Dr. Bot as he was scoring some major points against the resident blow-hard KF.  I wonder how long Elizabeth Liddle will last?

Denyse also deleted a comment of mine (with no explanation); I was simply remarking how comical it was that she use "we" to refer to herself in her "news" posts.  Somewhat Gollumesque.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1786
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,20:01   

Quote (NormOlsen @ Nov. 03 2011,19:54)
I think Denyse was looking for any excuse to ban Dr. Bot as he was scoring some major points against the resident blow-hard KF.  I wonder how long Elizabeth Liddle will last?

Denyse also deleted a comment of mine (with no explanation); I was simply remarking how comical it was that she use "we" to refer to herself in her "news" posts.  Somewhat Gollumesque.

I get the feeling they're between a rock and a hard place.  It's my sincere belief that the only reason they started letting non-IDiots post was to drive their abysmal page visit count up to make the advertisers stay.  But since they did, the regulars are getting their asses kicked from DC to daylight on a daily basis.

What to do?  What to do?

ETA: DeNews just deleted 2 more posts from the Caroline Crocker thread in the last 5 minutes.  What a cunt.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
Ptaylor



Posts: 1035
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,20:17   

More disappearing comments, this time on the Caroline Crocker thread. GinoB made a comment to the effect that Crocker deserved to be disciplined if she was teaching creationism (sorry, saw the post but did not save it). Now all we have there is BSI77:      
Quote
1
bornagain77November 3, 2011 at 7:05 pm
GinoB, excuse me but could you please show me that neo-Darwinism is true. (several hundred words ensue)


--------------
We no longer say: “Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.” We now say: “Another day since the time Darwinism was disproved.”
-PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1786
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,20:40   

Denise the cunt just banned another pro-science poster after a comment about batshit77's ramblings:

Quote
“Perhaps we all should just spam the comments with Youtube links and Christian music? That’s about the only thing left here.”

Fossfur is no longer with us.


--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1198
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,22:13   

I was Fossfur.

I feel a bit hypocritical in that that my usual stance is to leave the place well alone. But then all of a sudden one of my occasional snarky comments that never, ever see the light of day somehow gets through. Well....since I'm in there's no harm in poking around, right? I knew you'd understand. And in my defence I did manage to elicit a 17 point, red-fonted tantrum from KF.

Anyhoo, here's one of the posts from the Caroline 'Crocker' Shit Advertisment that got culled just prior to my termination....


  
NormOlsen



Posts: 104
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,22:50   

Fossfur, we hardly knew ye!
Looks like the progrom is on.  Denyse is cleaning house.   I predict Dr. Rec is the next to go.

  
Ptaylor



Posts: 1035
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,22:57   

Well, here's something you don't see too often on UD - a graceful acceptance of a correction from BA77 hisself:
 
Quote
9.1.1
bornagain77November 3, 2011 at 9:14 pm

Nothing biased in that reporting eh DrRec??? ,,, Lead off quote to the article being a theologically based ‘bad design’ quote;:

What a book a Devil’s Chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering, low and horridly cruel works of nature.
– Charles Darwin

I suppose one of these days they will get to actual evidence! :)
Log in to Reply

   9.1.1.1
   DrRECNovember 3, 2011 at 9:17 pm

   I didn’t see bias in the reporting.

   And the lead quote, the one that precedes Darwin’s, is from the book of Isaiah.

   Did you miss that, or choose to lie?
   Log in to Reply
       9.1.1.1.1
       bornagain77November 3, 2011 at 9:32 pm

      DrREC, for once you are right, the reporting is fairly even handed. I skipped the scripture, saw the theologically based ‘bad design’ quote, and mistakenly thought the entire article was going to be ‘hit piece’.

Link
Notwithstanding the "for once", congratulations, BA.

--------------
We no longer say: “Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.” We now say: “Another day since the time Darwinism was disproved.”
-PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1198
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,23:31   

Odd. Fossfur's posts have been resurrected and now Kellyholmes has suddenly been un-moderated into the lead comment.

[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/from-the-indoctrinate-u-files-turns-out-teaching-creationism-means-teaching-students-to-th

ink/]What's going on?[/URL]

ETA: Fixed link.

ETA: OK, the link just won't play nice.

  
Seversky



Posts: 441
Joined: June 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,03:48   

Screwing the Pooch:
Quote
1.1
gpuccioNovember 4, 2011 at 12:32 am

Single_Malt:

Just for curiosity. You say:

It basically tells us that before Wells had even studied the subject he had been instructed to devote his life to destroying it!

But your quote from Wells is:

“Father’s [Sun Myung Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism.”

I can’t see your point. Wells is obviously including “his studies” in the reasons that convinced him. What’s wrong with that?

Thus does gpuccio, for all his appearance of sweet reason, confirm himself as just another fuddite (fundamentalist Luddite), like Wells, out to destroy anything like science that conflicts with his faith.

In the unlikely event that the Pooch actually does not see anything wrong with Wells's admission, we could trying changing just one word:
Quote
“Father’s [Sun Myung Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Christianity.”

Presumably, the Pooch would see nothing wrong with that either.

Or is he being a touch disingenuous, perchance?

  
BillB



Posts: 388
Joined: Aug. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,03:58   

Quote (NormOlsen @ Nov. 04 2011,01:54)
I think Denyse was looking for any excuse to ban Dr. Bot as he was scoring some major points against the resident blow-hard KF.  I wonder how long Elizabeth Liddle will last?

Denyse also deleted a comment of mine (with no explanation); I was simply remarking how comical it was that she use "we" to refer to herself in her "news" posts.  Somewhat Gollumesque.

What a shame. It would be nice if a surviving sock could point out to DeNews just what the smiley in DrBots post was intended to signify, and ask if KF is also banned for lying, and which is a worse sin - lying, or joking about legal action - but I guess that would risk another banning.

DrBot is, I imagine, very unhappy about this!

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2062
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,07:00   

For your consideration, here are Caroline Crocker's Bunk Detecting Rules:    
Quote
Bunk Detecting PrinciplesPosted on August 2, 2011 by aitse

Several people have asked how a person who is not scientifically trained can assess the validity of the scientific claims made in published articles, on television, on the Internet, in advertisements, etc. There is no easy answer, but here are a few principles that might prove helpful:

1. Check if the author claims that something has been proven or declares something controversial to be a fact; remember that this in itself is a very unscientific statement. Scientists are trained to be skeptical and ask questions.

2. Check if the author makes claims to have accomplished something that is beyond what has actually been done or is even possible to do. For example, is it possible to show that ALL mammals are controlled by anything?

3. Check if what is said is scientifically accurate–an elementary science mistake in the article is a give-away. For example, if the article says that something goes double the speed of light, distrust everything else it says, too!

4. Beware of grandiose claims. If the article or book says that it will cure all ills and reverse 100% of a particular condition, remember that if it looks like snake oil, sounds like snake oil, and tastes like snake oil…

5. Check if the claims can be tested scientifically, that is, can they be measured. If they can’t, then it is possible that the claims being made are not scientific. For example, the assertion that all girls would secretly like to be princesses is not scientific. After all, what double blind study showed that? Did they ask all girls? But, the girls were keeping it secret, so how could they? You get the idea.

6. Be careful when an author makes too much of the scientific qualifications of those involved or disparages those who do not agree his/her views; it may mean their argument is weak. For example, a scientist who says that “all research scientists agree with me” is using an argument from authority, not scientific reasoning. One who says that those who do not agree are “scientifically illiterate” is doing the same. Also, keep in mind that being a scientist or a physician does not make one infallible.

7. Finally, be skeptical. Do not be quick to believe people, especially when it involves your health and/or your money!


ID doesn't do too well when measured against these rules.  I think you can find about ten different ways ID fails for every one of those principles.

--------------
...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

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1198
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,07:25   

Quote
6. Be careful when an author makes too much of the scientific qualifications of those involved or disparages those who do not agree his/her views; it may mean their argument is weak.

You tell 'em Caroline!
   
Quote
A word about credentials seems worth bringing up. Richard Wein holds a bachelor's degree in statistics -- that's it.

Oh, William....

:(

  
k.e..



Posts: 3869
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,08:19   

Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 04 2011,06:13)
I was Fossfur.

I feel a bit hypocritical in that that my usual stance is to leave the place well alone. But then all of a sudden one of my occasional snarky comments that never, ever see the light of day somehow gets through. Well....since I'm in there's no harm in poking around, right? I knew you'd understand. And in my defence I did manage to elicit a 17 point, red-fonted tantrum from KF.

Anyhoo, here's one of the posts from the Caroline 'Crocker' Shit Advertisment that got culled just prior to my termination....


Standard Creobot polemic not even rhetoric.

What they can't explain is that there will be plans and the names of the actual humans who did all those things.

Street addresses, tax records, birth certificates the frikken lot.

Where are the records for the old goat upstairs?

.....sounds of crickets chirping

No Creobots…you’re social reality is just junk.

No facts, no evidence, no records, just weasel words and hot air.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,08:40   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Nov. 03 2011,04:27)
There's a great tard-fight between O'Leary and Eocene in the [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/science/latest-climate-change-scandal-lead-best-study-author-accused-of-trying-to-mislead-the-publ

ic-by-co-author/]Latest Climate Change Scandal...[/URL] thread and Denese is getting creamed.  Adding to the embarassment is that Eocene is an ID fan.

Must get some popcorn now.

Nothing better than TARD on TARD action.

However, Eocene is totally correct.  In ANY blog, forum, website, etc.  The opposing view is often maligned for no good reason and without actual knowledge or data.

I've seen it on every website I've been to... including the 'Freethought' blogs.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,08:42   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 02 2011,11:20)
Quote (Patrick @ Nov. 02 2011,10:16)
Lizzie explains a basic flaw in kairosfocus' argument:
 
Quote
Dr Liddle:

Perhaps, it has not been recognised by you that once the alphabet is discrete state, it is perforce digital?

 
Quote
No, it has not been recognised by me, kf, because it is not true. “Discrete” does not mean the same as “digital”. Letters as used in words are discrete, that does not mean they are digital.

This is even better than the Weasel latching debate because there is absolutely no wiggle room for kairosfocus.  He is purely, simply, clearly wrong.

Now, since rule number one in his mind is that kairosfocus is never wrong and therefore will never admit error, what might we expect as a response?  Could this be the aneurysm trigger or is he immune to cognitive dissonance after all this time of living with it?

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

Quote
A digital system[1] is a data technology that uses discrete (discontinuous) values.


QED, Mullings, you tiresome bore.

Can someone explain this?  I'm missing something I think.

Is it basically that digital is discrete, but discrete is not always digital?

Thanks in advance.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,08:44   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Nov. 04 2011,07:00)
For your consideration, here are Caroline Crocker's Bunk Detecting Rules:    
Quote
Bunk Detecting PrinciplesPosted on August 2, 2011 by aitse

Several people have asked how a person who is not scientifically trained can assess the validity of the scientific claims made in published articles, on television, on the Internet, in advertisements, etc. There is no easy answer, but here are a few principles that might prove helpful:

1. Check if the author claims that something has been proven or declares something controversial to be a fact; remember that this in itself is a very unscientific statement. Scientists are trained to be skeptical and ask questions.

2. Check if the author makes claims to have accomplished something that is beyond what has actually been done or is even possible to do. For example, is it possible to show that ALL mammals are controlled by anything?

3. Check if what is said is scientifically accurate–an elementary science mistake in the article is a give-away. For example, if the article says that something goes double the speed of light, distrust everything else it says, too!

4. Beware of grandiose claims. If the article or book says that it will cure all ills and reverse 100% of a particular condition, remember that if it looks like snake oil, sounds like snake oil, and tastes like snake oil…

5. Check if the claims can be tested scientifically, that is, can they be measured. If they can’t, then it is possible that the claims being made are not scientific. For example, the assertion that all girls would secretly like to be princesses is not scientific. After all, what double blind study showed that? Did they ask all girls? But, the girls were keeping it secret, so how could they? You get the idea.

6. Be careful when an author makes too much of the scientific qualifications of those involved or disparages those who do not agree his/her views; it may mean their argument is weak. For example, a scientist who says that “all research scientists agree with me” is using an argument from authority, not scientific reasoning. One who says that those who do not agree are “scientifically illiterate” is doing the same. Also, keep in mind that being a scientist or a physician does not make one infallible.

7. Finally, be skeptical. Do not be quick to believe people, especially when it involves your health and/or your money!


ID doesn't do too well when measured against these rules.  I think you can find about ten different ways ID fails for every one of those principles.

Ha!  I need only one rule to bind them all:
0. It has been posted on Uncommon Descent.

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

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1198
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,08:50   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2011,14:40)
I've seen it on every website I've been to... including the 'Freethought' blogs.

I think the format is to blame. Forums for all their faults are infinitely more conducive to rational discussion. Blogs on the other hand are too cramped to encourage nuance, expansion or patience; most are barely one rung above Youtube comments in my experience.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4756
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,10:14   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2011,07:42)
Can someone explain this?  I'm missing something I think.

Is it basically that digital is discrete, but discrete is not always digital?

Thanks in advance.

I think that discrete means it comes in separate pieces, with a sharp boundary between those pieces.

Digital means the pieces are numeric digits, or can be regarded as such.

So yeah, if a signal is digital then it's also discrete. That's when talking about signals, though; a digital clock isn't generally referred to as discrete.

Henry

  
Henry J



Posts: 4756
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,10:17   

Quote
6. Be careful when an author makes too much of the scientific qualifications of those involved or disparages those who do not agree his/her views; it may mean their argument is weak.

Actually what that means is look at the argument and not the side commentary. Science supporters quite often use insults when the other person is simply repeating already debunked stuff, or even if he just has a reputation for doing so.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,11:45   

Gordo:
Quote
The decision of value on S is justified by objective criteria, namely an independent description that confines acceptable set members E to a narrow zone T in the set of abstractly possible configs, W. W must be at least big enough to swamp the Planck time Quantum state resources of the 10^57 atoms of our solar system across 10^17 s, or if we go up to the 1,000 bit threshold, the observable cosmos; creating a situation where the config space is so large that tit cannot be sufficiently sampled that any isolated,atypical zones are likely to be picked up by sampling based on blind chance and mechanical necessity.

For instance, in the cases here, (i) an apparently random coin toss is assumed non specific, but a string of coins with ASCII code in English is specified, and (ii) biofunctional protein sequences from families, where such are known to be deeply isolated in AA sequence space, are again S = 1.

If you CANNOT so specify on objective grounds of warrant, the default is S = 0. That means if you take a million coins in a string and toss them so they settle H/T at random, S will be zero. but if the coins are arranged in accordance with the ASCII code for a coherent work in English, we have every right to see this as a specified outcome, and to infer that Chi_500 will be much more than 1, so the outcome is best explained on the only empirically known causal force that can make that outcome reasonably likely on the gamut of our solar system: design. [Just as, would be the reasonable conclusion if you came across a coherent text in English online that required 143,000 or so ASCII characters, or about 25,000 words.]

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Or, is that really: accept?


If you are claiming to quantify the information in a biological system but use a "coin toss" example, how seriously would you expect to be taken?

Quote
Chi_500 will be much more than 1


Ah, the old "it has loads so I don't need to calculate it exactly" dodge.

T.A.R.D

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

  
Seversky



Posts: 441
Joined: June 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2011,04:25   

Mullings over questions of probability:
Quote
If you CANNOT so specify on objective grounds of warrant, the default is S = 0. That means if you take a million coins in a string and toss them so they settle H/T at random, S will be zero. but if the coins are arranged in accordance with the ASCII code for a coherent work in English, we have every right to see this as a specified outcome, and to infer that Chi_500 will be much more than 1, so the outcome is best explained on the only empirically known causal force that can make that outcome reasonably likely on the gamut of our solar system: design. [Just as, would be the reasonable conclusion if you came across a coherent text in English online that required 143,000 or so ASCII characters, or about 25,000 words.]

Hmmm, a human body, like yours or mine, is an incredibly complex arrangement of uncounted trillions of molecules, atoms, sub-atomic particles, what have you, which has come together at this time and this place for a short period.  The odds against such a highly-organized structure emerging from blind chance and mechanical necessity must be literally astronomical.  Yet here you are and here am I and here are around seven billion others.  Does this mind-boggling improbability and specificity mean that we were all designed or is it possible we are we the product of some natural process?  Now, perhaps you were designed by some Dr Frankenstein in a secret laboratory somewhere but I'm reasonably sure I am the product of the natural process of human procreation and I assume the same is true of the rest of the people on this planet.

Quote
Why is that so hard for you to understand?


Exactly.

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1198
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2011,05:21   

Eocene....

Quote
NEWS quote:

“When are scientific heretics right and when are they mad? How do you tell the difference between science and pseudoscience?”
====

This is an easy one. What practical application has been obtained from the research. If it’s the same old assumptions, assertions, speculations, etc or even the hijacking of intelliegent design concepts with evolutionary baggage attached to it, then it’s worthless.

GMO applications are proof of bad science.


Poe/Tard ?


You decide.

  
k.e..



Posts: 3869
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2011,08:45   

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 04 2011,18:14)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2011,07:42)
Can someone explain this?  I'm missing something I think.

Is it basically that digital is discrete, but discrete is not always digital?

Thanks in advance.

I think that discrete means it comes in separate pieces, with a sharp boundary between those pieces.

Digital means the pieces are numeric digits, or can be regarded as such.

So yeah, if a signal is digital then it's also discrete. That's when talking about signals, though; a digital clock isn't generally referred to as discrete.

Henry

I'm going to call you "fingers" from now on because you....like totalty won teh digital thing ....man.


an' if we drill down to bits it's Shannon all over again.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2062
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2011,10:39   

Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 05 2011,05:21)
Eocene....

     
Quote
NEWS quote:

“When are scientific heretics right and when are they mad? How do you tell the difference between science and pseudoscience?”
====

This is an easy one. What practical application has been obtained from the research. If it’s the same old assumptions, assertions, speculations, etc or even the hijacking of intelliegent design concepts with evolutionary baggage attached to it, then it’s worthless.

GMO applications are proof of bad science.


Poe/Tard ?


You decide.

If I were an ID theorist, I'd stay way back from Matt Ridley.  First of all, he's the author of several excellent books on evolution, especially "The Red Queen", "The Origins of Virtue" and "Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters", all solidly based on conventional evolution.

However, he's also a whacko libertarian and his philosophy has been a disaster.  In 2006, he wrote in "Edge" magazine:  
Quote
In every age and at every time there have been people who say we need more regulation, more government. Sometimes, they say we need it to protect exchange from corruption, to set the standards and police the rules, in which case they have a point, though often they exaggerate it...

... The dangerous idea we all need to learn is that the more we limit the growth of government, the better off we will all be.


Unfortunately, he was "non-executive chairman" of Northern Rock bank from 2004 to 2007 (at 300,000 pounds per year) where he put his economic theories into practice.    
Quote
In September 2007 Northern Rock became the first British bank since 1878 to suffer a run on its finances at the start of the credit crunch. It was forced to apply to the Bank of England for emergency liquidity funding, following problems caused by the US subprime mortgage crisis.  Matt Ridley resigned as chairman in October 2007, having been blamed in parliamentary committee hearings for not recognizing the risks of the bank's financial strategy and thereby "harming the reputation of the British banking industry."


So when it comes to evolution, UD should probably leave a lot of distance between themselves and Matt Ridley.  But when it comes to fucking things up royally because of whacko idiology, he's right in their camp.

Wikipedia on Ridley

--------------
...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

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2011,10:43   

Jammer quotes Vox Day, then this comment appears from a user named Single_Malt in response:
Quote
Jammer, at least show some taste in where you source your quotes.

Quote
   First, there is no such thing as marital rape. Once consent is formally given in public ceremony, it cannot be revoked.

   Vox Day.



I wonder if the IDiots will make a design inference about single malt whiskey and Dr Dr.

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

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1198
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2011,11:41   

Mmmm......
Quote
It’s interesting to me that most people ignore (cannot face?) the most compelling evidence there is that we have been in regular communication with ETs for decades, if not longer, and that is crop circles.

At least have the decency to PM 'Ras.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2011,14:10   

god there is some dumb on that one tranmaw

Quote
Just think! Someone else to blame for electricity waste, as in “THEY is worse than Us.”


WTF does it think that is 'posed to mean

they really look stupid in that thread.  LOL at times like this I davetard

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

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

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

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2011,14:18   

Quote
9
Single_MaltNovember 5, 2011 at 12:09 pm

Can any of the UD staff comment on why SETI has suddenly been ‘Expelled’?
Log in to Reply


 
Quote
9.1
   Eric AndersonNovember 5, 2011 at 12:37 pm

   It hasn’t been expelled. Certainly none of the key ID proponents view SETI as unscientific (Dembski, Meyer, Behe, Wells, Gonzalez, Richards, etc.). Some less careful ID supporters, however, have concerns with SETI (probably for the reasons articulated in my comment above).


IOW STFU tranmaw

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

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

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

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

  
  10669 replies since Aug. 31 2011,21:06 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (356) < ... 29 30 31 32 33 [34] 35 36 37 38 39 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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