RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (501) < ... 154 155 156 157 158 [159] 160 161 162 163 164 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 3, The Beast Marches On...< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
didymos



Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2010,13:11   

Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 02 2010,10:38)
That's right. It's impossible for nature to make a circle because it takes a computer to plot the equation.

Ha!  But you see, we live in the Matrix...so nature is a computer!  OK wait, I think I see a problem....

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

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1501
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2010,17:38   

Quote (didymos @ Mar. 02 2010,13:11)
Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 02 2010,10:38)
That's right. It's impossible for nature to make a circle because it takes a computer to plot the equation.

Ha!  But you see, we live in the Matrix...so nature is a computer!  OK wait, I think I see a problem....

If we lived in the Matrix, wouldn't the food be better?

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"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
someotherguy



Posts: 398
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2010,18:56   

Quote (Texas Teach @ Mar. 02 2010,17:38)
Quote (didymos @ Mar. 02 2010,13:11)
Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 02 2010,10:38)
That's right. It's impossible for nature to make a circle because it takes a computer to plot the equation.

Ha!  But you see, we live in the Matrix...so nature is a computer!  OK wait, I think I see a problem....

If we lived in the Matrix, wouldn't the food be better?

They tried making the food better, but no one would accept the program.  Entire crops were lost.

--------------
Evolander in training

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2010,19:08   

Quote (someotherguy @ Mar. 02 2010,19:56)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Mar. 02 2010,17:38)
Quote (didymos @ Mar. 02 2010,13:11)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 02 2010,10:38)
That's right. It's impossible for nature to make a circle because it takes a computer to plot the equation.

Ha!  But you see, we live in the Matrix...so nature is a computer!  OK wait, I think I see a problem....

If we lived in the Matrix, wouldn't the food be better?

They tried making the food better, but no one would accept the program.  Entire crops were lost.

Plus, they had no spoons, apparently.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2010,19:23   

StephenB mutters on his park bench:
 
Quote
You still do not understand the example. It was a facsimile of a Corvette designed with sand compared to all the other mounds of sand made by natural forces, NOT a facsimile of a Corvette compared to a real Corvette.

—-”I want to go on record as saying that if I saw any object on the beach made out of sand, that resembled something designed by humans, it was probably also designed by humans.”

How do you know that water, wind, and erosion didn’t do it? Once you understand that significance of and the answer to that question, you will have finally arrived at a basic understanding of what we are talking about.

Same answer as given by those of us who don't care to inappropriately project design into nature, Stephen:
 
Quote
We each spend a lifetime, literally starting from birth, immersed in the actions and products of other human beings and navigating the social landscape of others’ motives and intentions (we are adapted to do so) – as well as engaging in actions, generating products, and deploying motives and intentions of our own. Moreover, we spend our lifetimes also encountering unguided physical events such as wind, rain and the general increase of disorder observed in non-living processes over time. As a consequence we are quite adept at identifying the characteristic markers of human actions, products, motives and intentions, and distinguishing them from unguided physical events. Indeed, there are significant reasons to suspect that we are adapted to quickly make these distinctions, particularly the subtle discernment of human actions and motives.

These inferences to human artifact (no need to cite "rarefied design") remain a cinch, whether one believes the whole shebang has a supernatural author, or is itself strictly natural.

(Remember to recycle.)

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

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2010,05:06   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 02 2010,20:23)
StephenB mutters on his park bench:
 
Quote
You still do not understand the example. It was a facsimile of a Corvette designed with sand compared to all the other mounds of sand made by natural forces, NOT a facsimile of a Corvette compared to a real Corvette.

—-”I want to go on record as saying that if I saw any object on the beach made out of sand, that resembled something designed by humans, it was probably also designed by humans.”

How do you know that water, wind, and erosion didn’t do it? Once you understand that significance of and the answer to that question, you will have finally arrived at a basic understanding of what we are talking about.

In order to make that comparison, StephenB must assert that the mounds of sand made by natural forces were not designed. Once StephenB understands the significance of that assertion, he will have taken a great big step toward pulling his fucking head out of his ass.

I'm not holding my breath.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2010,06:35   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 03 2010,06:06)
In order to make that comparison, StephenB must assert that the mounds of sand made by natural forces were not designed. Once StephenB understands the significance of that assertion, he will have taken a great big step toward pulling his fucking head out of his ass.

I'm not holding my breath.

He certainly must be.

StephenB is trying to have it both ways.

He wants to be able to say that if we maintain that human beings are part of the natural world, events that reflect human causation and those that do not (burglars versus tornados) are causally indistinguishable, because both have natural causes.

My response was that a lifetime of experiences with these very different sorts of natural causation enable us to make these distinctions quite effortlessly.

Toronto/lastyearon's question turns the tables on him. They note that StephenB's world view is a mirror image of the claim that human agency is continuous with the natural world: if God is the author of all things everywhere (by means of fine tuning, etc.), then it would follow that all phenomena are in a sense designed, and that design detection ("distinguishing designed objects from the products of natural 'undirected causes'") should therefore be impossible.

This is also wrong, if "detection of human agency" is substituted for "design detection," for the same reason: a lifetime of experiences with these very different sorts of natural causation enable us to make these distinctions quite effortlessly, without resort to placement of these events into different ontological categories - even if we believe in divine authorship of the universe.

Although StephenB wants to attribute to naturalism absurd cognitive impairments, he resists accepting the analogous attribution of impairment when the tables have turned. He has the same lifetime of such experience and knows that his sand-Corvette and a lump of sand are easily discerned as having different sorts of causal histories - one undirected, the other reflecting human agency. But like tornados and burglars, his sand-Corvette example doesn't accomplish what he wants it to accomplish (establish a basis for the detection of Wesley's well-named "rarified design"), and rather simply points to a universal human skill grounded in our long experience with (and adaptation to) the natural and cultural phenomenon of human agency.

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

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2010,11:04   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 02 2010,19:23)
StephenB mutters on his park bench:
   
Quote
You still do not understand the example. It was a facsimile of a Corvette designed with sand compared to all the other mounds of sand made by natural forces, NOT a facsimile of a Corvette compared to a real Corvette.

—-”I want to go on record as saying that if I saw any object on the beach made out of sand, that resembled something designed by humans, it was probably also designed by humans.”

How do you know that water, wind, and erosion didn’t do it? Once you understand that significance of and the answer to that question, you will have finally arrived at a basic understanding of what we are talking about.

Same answer as given by those of us who don't care to inappropriately project design into nature, Stephen:
   
Quote
We each spend a lifetime, literally starting from birth, immersed in the actions and products of other human beings and navigating the social landscape of others’ motives and intentions (we are adapted to do so) – as well as engaging in actions, generating products, and deploying motives and intentions of our own. Moreover, we spend our lifetimes also encountering unguided physical events such as wind, rain and the general increase of disorder observed in non-living processes over time. As a consequence we are quite adept at identifying the characteristic markers of human actions, products, motives and intentions, and distinguishing them from unguided physical events. Indeed, there are significant reasons to suspect that we are adapted to quickly make these distinctions, particularly the subtle discernment of human actions and motives.

These inferences to human artifact (no need to cite "rarefied design") remain a cinch, whether one believes the whole shebang has a supernatural author, or is itself strictly natural.

(Remember to recycle.)

I wonder if StephenB thinks this is designed: http://www.alittleleaven.com/2010....et.html

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

  
franky172



Posts: 160
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2010,11:32   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 03 2010,06:35)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 03 2010,06:06)
In order to make that comparison, StephenB must assert that the mounds of sand made by natural forces were not designed. Once StephenB understands the significance of that assertion, he will have taken a great big step toward pulling his fucking head out of his ass.

I'm not holding my breath.

He certainly must be.

StephenB is trying to have it both ways.

He wants to be able to say that if we maintain that human beings are part of the natural world, events that reflect human causation and those that do not (burglars versus tornados) are causally indistinguishable, because both have natural causes.

My response was that a lifetime of experiences with these very different sorts of natural causation enable us to make these distinctions quite effortlessly.

Toronto/lastyearon's question turns the tables on him. They note that StephenB's world view is a mirror image of the claim that human agency is continuous with the natural world: if God is the author of all things everywhere (by means of fine tuning, etc.), then it would follow that all phenomena are in a sense designed, and that design detection ("distinguishing designed objects from the products of natural 'undirected causes'") should therefore be impossible.

This is also wrong, if "detection of human agency" is substituted for "design detection," for the same reason: a lifetime of experiences with these very different sorts of natural causation enable us to make these distinctions quite effortlessly, without resort to placement of these events into different ontological categories - even if we believe in divine authorship of the universe.

Although StephenB wants to attribute to naturalism absurd cognitive impairments, he resists accepting the analogous attribution of impairment when the tables have turned. He has the same lifetime of such experience and knows that his sand-Corvette and a lump of sand are easily discerned as having different sorts of causal histories - one undirected, the other reflecting human agency. But like tornados and burglars, his sand-Corvette example doesn't accomplish what he wants it to accomplish (establish a basis for the detection of Wesley's well-named "rarified design"), and rather simply points to a universal human skill grounded in our long experience with (and adaptation to) the natural and cultural phenomenon of human agency.

this, this, this.  a million times, this.

  
MichaelJ



Posts: 462
Joined: June 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2010,15:17   

I'm only going by what is captured in the august pages of this thread but wasn't Stephen recently saying that as the human mind is not material human design is supernatural design or was that another IDiot.

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2010,15:30   

Quote (MichaelJ @ Mar. 03 2010,15:17)
I'm only going by what is captured in the august pages of this thread but wasn't Stephen recently saying that as the human mind is not material human design is supernatural design or was that another IDiot.

That is correct. He defined nature as law and chance, exclusive of intelligence, and, therefore, human intelligence is not a natural phenomenon.  On his debut contribution at UD, several commenters tried to engage him on this point.  But, sensing a trap, Stephen resorted to some of his typical evasion techniques and, when his inquisitor's wouldn't play that game by his rules, he picked up his toys and went home.

--------------
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: Mar. 03 2010,16:28   

CSI is finally calculated!

Sortof...

niwrad:
 
Quote
Toronto #7

Consider this scenario. Let’s call FPC a system composed of (formula + program + computer) as those necessary to generate fractals. A FPC is an intelligent design. As such say it contains x bit of CSI (complex specified information). Eventually this FPC generates an output of y bits where y is far greater than x. Question: can we really say that (y-x) bits of CSI are created gratis?

The answer is no. The y bits are not bits of CSI. To be CSI an output must be specified and complex while an output of a FPC can be yes complex but not specified. In other words the y bits don’t entail contingency (they are deterministically generated) and without contingency no CSI. At best we could say that the specification of the output never is greater than the specification of its generator (whatever be the output). In philosophical terms that sounds: an effect cannot contain more essence/quality than its cause. This explains because there are no (y-x) bits of CSI created gratis in the scenario. In general not a single bit of CSI is costless (”no free lunch”).

In general not a single bit of CSI is costless? Ok......

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

  
MichaelJ



Posts: 462
Joined: June 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2010,22:13   

So in other words part of the definition of Specification is that which only an intelligence can produce, another nice circular argument

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2010,06:26   

Nimrod:
   
Quote
In philosophical terms that sounds: an effect cannot contain more essence/quality than its cause. This explains because there are no (y-x) bits of CSI created gratis in the scenario. In general not a single bit of CSI is costless (”no free lunch”).

Mathematically, empirically, ID science has rigorously established that systems displaying CSI have a certain je ne sais quoi.

Which can't arise by natural means. Therefore intelligence.

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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2010,06:31   

Nimrod continues:
Quote
fractals in nature are generated by the physical/chemical laws. In a sense these laws are the instructions continually executed by that giant computer the universe is. This is one of the claims of the so-called “digital philosophy” (see for example the works of G. Chaitin).

Well, that settles it.

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

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2010,08:06   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 04 2010,06:26)
Nimrod:
   
Quote
In philosophical terms that sounds: an effect cannot contain more essence/quality than its cause. This explains because there are no (y-x) bits of CSI created gratis in the scenario. In general not a single bit of CSI is costless (”no free lunch”).

Mathematically, empirically, ID science has rigorously established that systems displaying CSI have a certain je ne sais quoi.

Which can't arise by natural means. Therefore intelligence.

"an effect cannot contain more essence/quality than its cause"

Counterexamples:

1) photomultiplier tube

2) feedback.

3) the following:

Cause: Dembski's "theories"

Effect: the avalanche of The Argument Regarding Design at UD

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

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2010,08:52   

Cause: monotheism.

Effect: 10,000 splinter groups at each other's throats forever.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2010,08:59   

William Dembski:
Quote
Nakashima: If the point were to show that partial rewards can lead to success where their absence doesn’t, then you don’t need a program as sophisticated as Avida — Dawkins’s WEASEL does the job quite nicely, thank you. With the WEASEL, however, the teleology is blatantly obvious. With Avida, you actually have to do some analysis to see where the intelligence is being smuggled in. Avida is a “find the pea under the covers” game. The sophistication of the program is in fact a subterfuge. That’s why my paper with Winston et al. concludes: “To have integrity, computer simulations of evolutionary search like Avida should make explicit [such sources of intelligence].”

Interesting the fart-meister himself can talk about integrity when he himself does not seem to know what it is.

Knocked off any more animations recently Dr Dr?

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

  
sledgehammer



Posts: 533
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2010,09:33   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 04 2010,06:59)
William Dembski:    
Quote
Nakashima: If the point were to show that partial rewards can lead to success where their absence doesn’t, then you don’t need a program as sophisticated as Avida — Dawkins’s WEASEL does the job quite nicely, thank you. With the WEASEL, however, the teleology is blatantly obvious. With Avida, you actually have to do some analysis to see where the intelligence is being smuggled in. Avida is a “find the pea under the covers” game. The sophistication of the program is in fact a subterfuge. That’s why my paper with Winston et al. concludes: “To have integrity, computer simulations of evolutionary search like Avida should make explicit [such sources of intelligence].”

Interesting the fart-meister himself can talk about integrity when he himself does not seem to know what it is.

Knocked off any more animations recently Dr Dr?

How about:
"To have integrity, ID should make explicit [the source of intelligence] that it postulates"

--------------
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2010,15:01   

Denyse's toes weigh in on global warming:
Quote
Well, the first thing I should say, is that I am not a disinterested witness. I lost my toenails some years ago in Ottawa. They grew back, but never very successfully.

If the planet is warming up, my toes would be the happiest local items to hear it.

It is a sad day when media generally do not see the point that teaching both sides of a question means teaching students to “theenk”. (Blackwood’s first rule of bridge: “Theenk.”)

How do we know we are right? Well, we don’t. We might be wrong. My toes think that the global warming people are wrong. Do I know? No. But I sure wanna hear both sides.

And I think the students should too.


--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Ptaylor



Posts: 1038
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2010,17:45   

Wagenweg admits to being no expert on SETI, but he has given it some deep thought:
Quote
If sound/message came from our universe, then they would have to accomidate for the change in the massege as it travels through atmospheres of planets either slowing it down, speeding it up or changing the messages direction which again may change it into something unrecognizable as we do not fully understand what may or may not happen on the outer edges within our universe.

He should pass that on to Seth Shostak.

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

  
someotherguy



Posts: 398
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2010,20:33   

Quote (keiths @ Mar. 04 2010,15:01)
Denyse's toes weigh in on global warming:
Quote
Well, the first thing I should say, is that I am not a disinterested witness. I lost my toenails some years ago in Ottawa. They grew back, but never very successfully.

If the planet is warming up, my toes would be the happiest local items to hear it.

It is a sad day when media generally do not see the point that teaching both sides of a question means teaching students to “theenk”. (Blackwood’s first rule of bridge: “Theenk.”)

How do we know we are right? Well, we don’t. We might be wrong. My toes think that the global warming people are wrong. Do I know? No. But I sure wanna hear both sides.

And I think the students should too.

Sweet Jesus, that is deeply, deeply stupid.

--------------
Evolander in training

  
Ptaylor



Posts: 1038
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2010,20:52   

Quote (someotherguy @ Mar. 05 2010,15:33)
Sweet Jesus, that is deeply, deeply stupid.

Heh. To paraphrase Carl Sagan, I try not to think with my toes.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2010,08:56   

Without a trace of irony Dembski says:  
Quote
As Nobelist biologist Peter Medawar put it: “I cannot give any scientist of any age better advice than this: the intensity of a conviction that a hypothesis is true has no bearing over whether it is true or not.”

How's that whole ID thing working out for you Dr Dr Dembski? 20+ years of your life wasted.

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

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2010,11:38   

Quote (keiths @ Mar. 04 2010,15:01)
Denyse's toes weigh in on global warming:
Quote
Well, the first thing I should say, is that I am not a disinterested witness. I lost my toenails some years ago in Ottawa. They grew back, but never very successfully.

If the planet is warming up, my toes would be the happiest local items to hear it.

It is a sad day when media generally do not see the point that teaching both sides of a question means teaching students to “theenk”. (Blackwood’s first rule of bridge: “Theenk.”)

How do we know we are right? Well, we don’t. We might be wrong. My toes think that the global warming people are wrong. Do I know? No. But I sure wanna hear both sides.

And I think the students should too.

Given that to really understand global warming one needs to know the quantum theory of black body radiation, absorption and emission, fluid dynamics, numerical integration of differential equations, what are these students going to accomplish with their "theenking" ?  Yes, you can have students learn, but not by presenting good stuff and crap to students lacking the tools they need to identify why the crap is crap.

Denyse, why don't you bone up on these prerequisites, then see whether there is a second alternative with any merit?

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

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2010,13:17   

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Mar. 05 2010,11:38)
Quote (keiths @ Mar. 04 2010,15:01)
Denyse's toes weigh in on global warming:
 
Quote
Well, the first thing I should say, is that I am not a disinterested witness. I lost my toenails some years ago in Ottawa. They grew back, but never very successfully.

If the planet is warming up, my toes would be the happiest local items to hear it.

It is a sad day when media generally do not see the point that teaching both sides of a question means teaching students to “theenk”. (Blackwood’s first rule of bridge: “Theenk.”)

How do we know we are right? Well, we don’t. We might be wrong. My toes think that the global warming people are wrong. Do I know? No. But I sure wanna hear both sides.

And I think the students should too.

Given that to really understand global warming one needs to know the quantum theory of black body radiation, absorption and emission, fluid dynamics, numerical integration of differential equations, what are these students going to accomplish with their "theenking" ?  Yes, you can have students learn, but not by presenting good stuff and crap to students lacking the tools they need to identify why the crap is crap.

Denyse, why don't you bone up on these prerequisites, then see whether there is a second alternative with any merit?

<insert obligatory "bone" joke here>

For Densy to do that means she would have to (a) read, and (b) understand what she reads.  I doubt she wants to, or is even capable of, doing either.  But I am in favor of "teaching the controversy" over her religious beliefs.  When do we start, Denyse?

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
RDK



Posts: 229
Joined: Aug. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2010,13:25   

Quote (Ptaylor @ Mar. 04 2010,20:52)
 
Quote (someotherguy @ Mar. 05 2010,15:33)
Sweet Jesus, that is deeply, deeply stupid.

Heh. To paraphrase Carl Sagan, I try not to think with my toes.

I don't even know why she would need to, being the intellectual heavyweight that she is.

I mean just look at this grammar:

Quote
I lost my toenails some years ago in Ottawa. They grew back, but never very successfully.


Why hasn't she won a Noble for journalism yet?  This is a sick, crazy, messed-up world we live in where genius like that of Dembski and O'Leary can go unnoticed by the general populus.

IS THERE NO GOD?!?!

--------------
If you are not:
Leviathan
please Logout under Meta in the sidebar.

‘‘I was like ‘Oh my God! It’s Jesus on a banana!’’  - Lisa Swinton, Jesus-eating pagan

  
RDK



Posts: 229
Joined: Aug. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2010,13:28   

Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 05 2010,13:17)
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Mar. 05 2010,11:38)
Quote (keiths @ Mar. 04 2010,15:01)
Denyse's toes weigh in on global warming:
 
Quote
Well, the first thing I should say, is that I am not a disinterested witness. I lost my toenails some years ago in Ottawa. They grew back, but never very successfully.

If the planet is warming up, my toes would be the happiest local items to hear it.

It is a sad day when media generally do not see the point that teaching both sides of a question means teaching students to “theenk”. (Blackwood’s first rule of bridge: “Theenk.”)

How do we know we are right? Well, we don’t. We might be wrong. My toes think that the global warming people are wrong. Do I know? No. But I sure wanna hear both sides.

And I think the students should too.

Given that to really understand global warming one needs to know the quantum theory of black body radiation, absorption and emission, fluid dynamics, numerical integration of differential equations, what are these students going to accomplish with their "theenking" ?  Yes, you can have students learn, but not by presenting good stuff and crap to students lacking the tools they need to identify why the crap is crap.

Denyse, why don't you bone up on these prerequisites, then see whether there is a second alternative with any merit?

<insert obligatory "bone" joke here>

For Densy to do that means she would have to (a) read, and (b) understand what she reads.  I doubt she wants to, or is even capable of, doing either.  But I am in favor of "teaching the controversy" over her religious beliefs.  When do we start, Denyse?

What?  That's now how "teaching the controversy" works at all.  It can't be applied to ID because ID is the correct view, duh.  That's the point.

Don't fix what ain't broked.

"Teaching the Controversy: attempting to savagely sling mud at any and all viewpoints........except those held by myself"

--------------
If you are not:
Leviathan
please Logout under Meta in the sidebar.

‘‘I was like ‘Oh my God! It’s Jesus on a banana!’’  - Lisa Swinton, Jesus-eating pagan

  
Benny H



Posts: 34
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2010,21:13   

UD is flatlining. The last post there to have more than 100 comments was two weeks ago.

  
REC



Posts: 638
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2010,21:36   

Quote (Benny H @ Mar. 05 2010,21:13)
UD is flatlining. The last post there to have more than 100 comments was two weeks ago.

The fun is all at Hunter's blog.  I've been sick at home and bored, and having some lols there.

But the recent posts on UD are a bit nuts.  I mean, WTF do the Indian/Pakistani military posts, or the Rube-Goldburg machine have to do with anything?  And Cornelius has misidentified a TMBG song as a spoof. Some explanatory filter there.

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

Pages: (501) < ... 154 155 156 157 158 [159] 160 161 162 163 164 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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