Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread

Pages: (1000) < ... 240 241 242 243 244 [245] 246 247 248 249 250 ... >

djmullen Posts: 327 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2006,20:34    Quote Dembski has teaching chores to be sure.  Take a gander at the Fall 2006 class details: http://www.designinference.com/teaching/teaching.htm This is interesting:     Quote Spring 2006 Critical Thinking and the Art of Argumentation (SBTS #28970) <> As indicated in class and in the previous note, the final is to be a 2000-word critical review of Richard Dawkins’s 2-part series “The Root of All Evil?” (For examples of critical reviews see the previous note below.) The word limit is absolute. The exam is open-book in the sense that you can use any books in the course as well as any other materials that you find useful. There is one exception, however, which is that I don’t want you looking at other reviews of this series (on the internet or elsewhere) or talking to fellow classmates about the exam. You can spend as much time working on this review as you like. But it is due by midnight Eastern Standard Time on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 as an email attachment sent to me at the following email address: wdembski AT designinference DOT com (my SBTS email account has in the past proven unreliable for such assignments). If you need to view the series again and don’t have it readily available, Jiri Prochazka is on campus and will be able to assist you (his email address is: chrochy AT hotmail DOT com). To the best of my knowledge, no legal copies of this series are available in the United States.  I checked Amazon and they don't have it, nor does Amazon UK, nor does BBCAmerica shop.  That makes me wonder where Jiri Prochazka got his or her copy.  Could it be (gasp) an illegal bootleg copy?(/gasp) This also makes me wonder how many illegal pirates attend that seminary: "If you need to view the series again and don’t have it readily available..." sort of implies that many of the students do have copies readily at hand.  However, the idea of writing a two thousand word review of something you've apparently only seen once fits right in with that type of "educational" institution. --- Signs of the times: Since the early 1990’s, for example, young male elephants in Pilanesberg National Park and the Hluhluwe-Umfolozi Game Reserve in South Africa have been raping and killing rhinoceroses;   http://www.nytimes.com/2006....5087%0A

Altabin Posts: 308 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2006,21:05    Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 18 2006,00:34) One of the criteria Dembski uses, on his asinine post about whether IDers or biologists engage in groupthink, is this:   Quote 8. the emergence of self-appointed mindguards - members who protect the group from adverse information that might shatter their shared complacency about the effectiveness and morality of their decisions. Is it just a cosmic coincidence that 'mindguard' rhymes with 'Davetard'? And it surely cannot be a coincidence that Taner Edis - the editor of the book on the masthead above - is an anagram of "I seen tard". --------------

djmullen Posts: 327 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2006,21:05    Talk about honestly named books!       Quote New book: Complete Idiot’s Guide to Intelligent Design by O'Leary on October 17th, 2006 · 1 Comment December 5, Penguin is coming out with The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Intelligent Design .Author Christopher Carlisle is the Episcopal Chaplain at the University of Massachusetts and W. Thomas Jr.l, is a freelance writer. This book is badly needed!  At last, a book for the average IDer. As leebowman reports in the only comment, so far,   Quote At least the title is fitting, since we now know that there are a plethora of ‘idiots’ out there that still require elucidation. And, very helpfully, many of the idiots are right there on Uncommon Descent. From http://www.uncommondescent.com/archive....RL=http

djmullen Posts: 327 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,00:39    Thanks to dharmabum: http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/platform.html It just gets weirder and weirder.

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,04:11    Quote (hereoisreal @ Oct. 17 2006,23:52) Now, what does a lilly have in common with Soloman besides symmetry? Zero The suspense is killing me, please oh please give me the answer! Chris -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,06:30    Quote What is the role of a research professor in a seminary?   First, Dembski searches for God in all the wrong places.  That's "search". Then he searches for God in all the same wrong places all over again.  That's "research". QED.

dhogaza Posts: 525 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,06:51    Allen rocks.  No doubt about it: Quote It’s very gratifying to know there’s such interest in the evolving field of evolutionary biology, even at website that is moderated by someone who believes that it is morally detestible and the source of most of the moral failings of modern society

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,06:53    Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 18 2006,11:30) Quote What is the role of a research professor in a seminary?   First, Dembski searches for God in all the wrong places.  That's "search". Then he searches for God in all the same wrong places all over again.  That's "research". QED. Fantastic. Actually did make me, laugh out loud.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,06:56    Quote (argystokes @ Oct. 17 2006,15:15) Hey, Stephen I hope you're feeling well.  One of the headlines from this week's The Stranger: Quote Stephen Elliott gets beat up by girlfriend I don't think that was me. Unless she hit me so hard, I completely forgot about it.

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,07:33    Re Dembski's "and some active research projects with them which I expect will in the next year to bear fruit. " He planted a grapevine? Or maybe strawberries?

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,07:52    Quote (dhogaza @ Oct. 18 2006,11:51) Allen rocks.  No doubt about it:   Quote It’s very gratifying to know there’s such interest in the evolving field of evolutionary biology, even at website that is moderated by someone who believes that it is morally detestible and the source of most of the moral failings of modern society Was this a recent comment?  WHich thread?   Surely Dembski will boot him. -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,08:28    Quote (2ndclass @ Oct. 17 2006,10:24) That retraction will be included in the paper on CSI that Dembksi publishes in a math journal.  IOW, don't hold your breath. It could happen. http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1708#comment-68620   Quote 10. William Dembski // Oct 14th 2006 at 11:48 pm Allen: Pardon me for not being impressed with the threat of having a course “delisted.” As for being willing to argue the evidence and its interpretation, please refer me to any of your writings in which you lay out the positive case for evolution (why you are a believer) and your refutation of ID. URLs will be fine. As for evolutionary theory being so much richer than strict Darwinism, this holds little water with me, especially since most attempted refutations of ID look to the power of natural selection (have a look at my intro to UNCOMMON DISSENT — the book — in which I spell out why Darwinism is the core of evolutionary biology). Oh, please stop the whining about ad hominems — you seem to give as good as you get. Finally, Baylor and I have patched up our differences — I have good colleagues there in a number of departments and some active research projects with them which I expect will in the next year to bear fruit. Comment by William Dembski — October 14, 2006 @ 11:48 pm [emphasis mine] I expect an impending Waterloo for evolution to be forthcoming. Edit:  Oops, I hadn't read the whole thread through when I posted.  Keiths beat me to the punch.

dhogaza Posts: 525 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,08:38    Allen's comment is in this thread.

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,08:55    MacNeill lays the smack-down on CSI. I wonder if WmD will come out and play? -------------- 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: Oct. 18 2006,08:59    Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 18 2006,13:55) MacNeill lays the smack-down on CSI. I wonder if WmD will come out and play? I doubt it. I suspect that'll be the last post in that thread! What could you possible say? Quote In other words, Dr. Dembski’s mathematical models amount to interesting philosophical speculations, without any empirical application that we can infer. -------------- 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

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,09:02    Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 18 2006,13:55) MacNeill lays the smack-down on CSI. I wonder if WmD will come out and play? Quote 88. Allen_MacNeill // Oct 18th 2006 at 12:44 pm In comment #86 mike1962 states: “There is lots and lots of hard evidence that intelligence agents can create CSI. There is none for NDE mechanisms. Therefore, so far, ID is the best explanation for the CSI in found in bio-forms.” This is precisely where our seminar this summer at Cornell reached an impass. After reading and analyzing Dr. Dembski’s Design Inference and other papers updating his mathematical analysis of CSI, we concluded that, although his ideas were intriguing, there didn’t seem to be any way of actually applying them to an analysis of either unambiguously design objects, such as a ballpoint pen or a flashlight, and a “natural” object, such as a bacterium or a maple tree, in such a way as to clearly distinguish whether the object is the result of purposeful design or not. For exampe, consider the following two examples: (1) a large boulder placed by a human in the middle of a country lane in order to block traffic in the lane (2) the sum total of all of the snowflakes at the top of Mount Blanc The first object (the boulder in the lane) is unambiguously the result of purposeful design, yet its complexity (according to Dembski’s mathematics) would identify it otherwise. By contrast, the staggering complexity of the crystalline forms contained in all the snowflakes is beyond computation, yet no one that I know of would argue that they were the result of purposeful design. Furthermore, “specification” doesn’t solve the problem, as the position and “function” of the boulder are certainly specified, yet according to the mathematics of Dembski’s CSI they would not so qualify. And, folk wisdom to contrary, given a sufficiently large number of snowflakes, the probability that more than one of them will exhibit virtually identical crystalline structures is pretty high (i.e. their shapes are “specified” by the hydrogen bonding capabilities inherent in the “natural” shape of water molecules), and yet once again no one that I know of would argue that such immense complexity was the result of purposeful design, “specified” or not. In other words, Dr. Dembski’s mathematical models amount to interesting philosophical speculations, without any empirical application that we can infer. Simply “doing the math” isn’t what is going on, here: when one compares the results of an actual experiment with the predicted outcome, to determine if the results are “significant” evidence in favor of one’s hypothesis, one is actually doing science. However, deriving a mathematical model that has no real basis in actual practice nor any application to hypothesis testing isn’t doing science at all. ID will be ready to take its place among the other sciences when a person schooled in its mathematical methods can unambiguously determine that the boulder in the lane is the result of purposeful design, but the collective crystalline structure snowflakes on Mount Blanc are not. Until then, it’s all airy speculation… Comment by Allen_MacNeill — October 18, 2006 @ 12:44 pm -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,09:15    Quote 10. William Dembski // Oct 14th 2006 at 11:48 pm [...] this holds little water with me, especially since most attempted refutations of ID look to the power of natural selection Funny, I thought the refutations of ID looked mostly to the absence if ID actually saying anything. Or is that just me?

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,09:23    Can someone translate for me: Who is Allen MacNeill? Why is he posting on UD? Amazing.  This guy has brought more biology to light over there in a few posts than Dembski and his wall of mindless zombies have in two years.  Amazingly several folks there seem eager to hear what he has to say. I bet Demsbki is over in the corner polishing the trigger on his ban gun, just waiting for the perfect moment to pull the trigger. . . We should be archiving his comments... I hope Davetard engages MacNeill before Dembski erases him.  I'd love to see Davetard school MacNeill on biology. -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

2ndclass Posts: 182 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,09:43    Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 18 2006,13:55) MacNeill lays the smack-down on CSI. I wonder if WmD will come out and play? Dembski has avoided the whole CSI fiasco lately.  I can find only one place where he has mentioned "specified complexity" or "CSI" in the past year, and that's in his ID Primer class last March.  (Can anyone find another?) He has laid a logically bankrupt foundation and he doesn't dare try to build on it or even defend it, knowing that anything he says will receive an immediate debunking from the scores or hundreds of folks who see through his smoke and mirrors. If he breaks this trend and responds to Allen, he'll just insult Allen and tell him to read NFL, or he'll say that Allen doesn't understand his use of the terms complexity or specifity. (And he'll neglect to give formal definitions of either word.  Dembski's M.O. is to avoid committing to formal definitions, allowing himself to move goalposts at will.) -------------- "I wasn't aware that classical physics had established a position on whether intelligent agents exercising free were constrained by 2LOT into increasing entropy." -DaveScot

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,09:47    Joseph is now schooling Allen.  Too funny. Quote Joseph // Oct 18th 2006 at 2:40 pm Allen MacNeil: Until then, it’s all airy speculation… I would agree with that. That is is ALL airy speculation, even evolutionary biology and especially common descent. I am also sure that anyone can fail to understand “No Free Lunch” and “The Design Inference”. However given the materialistic alternative to ID is “sheer-dumb-luck”, sooner or later people, ie the general population, will start to realize that all objections to ID are nothing more than philosphical whinings. As for “unambiguously” well with science you give it your best shot with the knowledge/ data available. Then future research can/will either confirm or refute the initial inference. And BTW ball point pens and flashlights are just as “natural” as a bacterium or a maple tree. That is they exist in nature. And although we can say with confidence that neither ball point pens nor flashlights were produced by nature (acting freely) we have no idea how a bacterium nor a maple tree was originally produced- by nature operating freely or by intentional design. Comment by Joseph — October 18, 2006 @ 2:40 pm -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

Tim Hague Posts: 32 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,10:08    Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Oct. 18 2006,14:23) Can someone translate for me: Who is Allen MacNeill? Why is he posting on UD? Amazing.  This guy has brought more biology to light over there in a few posts than Dembski and his wall of mindless zombies have in two years.  Amazingly several folks there seem eager to hear what he has to say. You asking seriously? Allen is the guy who ran the 'Evolution and Design seminar' at Cornell during the summer.   You can read all about it: http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,11:00    Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Oct. 18 2006,14:47) Joseph is now schooling Allen.  Too funny. Quote Joseph // Oct 18th 2006 at 2:40 pm Allen MacNeil: Until then, it’s all airy speculation… I would agree with that. That is is ALL airy speculation, even evolutionary biology and especially common descent. I am also sure that anyone can fail to understand “No Free Lunch” and “The Design Inference”. However given the materialistic alternative to ID is “sheer-dumb-luck”, sooner or later people, ie the general population, will start to realize that all objections to ID are nothing more than philosphical whinings. As for “unambiguously” well with science you give it your best shot with the knowledge/ data available. Then future research can/will either confirm or refute the initial inference. And BTW ball point pens and flashlights are just as “natural” as a bacterium or a maple tree. That is they exist in nature. And although we can say with confidence that neither ball point pens nor flashlights were produced by nature (acting freely) we have no idea how a bacterium nor a maple tree was originally produced- by nature operating freely or by intentional design. Comment by Joseph — October 18, 2006 @ 2:40 pm Closer to the truth, Joesph understands neither Dembski's books nor NDE, so he gives them equal weight. Argumentum Tardicus. No, I'm TARDICUS -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,11:05    Quote (Tim Hague @ Oct. 18 2006,15:08) Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Oct. 18 2006,14:23) Can someone translate for me: Who is Allen MacNeill? Why is he posting on UD? Amazing.  This guy has brought more biology to light over there in a few posts than Dembski and his wall of mindless zombies have in two years.  Amazingly several folks there seem eager to hear what he has to say. You asking seriously? Allen is the guy who ran the 'Evolution and Design seminar' at Cornell during the summer.   You can read all about it: http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/ Yes I was serious and thanks for the link. -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,11:52    Oh dear... Over on UD they ask, "what is life?" and we get this nugget: Quote 17. mike1962 // Oct 18th 2006 at 4:30 pm The only consistent definition of life I can think of at the moment is: Entities that come into existence due to preexisting programming in (what we call) DNA. These things are alive and NOTHING else is. Next. He is (what we call) a Tard. -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,12:28    Well...There's life and then there's..... -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

Bebbo Posts: 161 Joined: Dec. 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,12:31    Quote (GCT @ Oct. 18 2006,13:28) Quote (2ndclass @ Oct. 17 2006,10:24) That retraction will be included in the paper on CSI that Dembksi publishes in a math journal.  IOW, don't hold your breath. It could happen. http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1708#comment-68620     Quote 10. William Dembski // Oct 14th 2006 at 11:48 pm Allen: Pardon me for not being impressed with the threat of having a course “delisted.” As for being willing to argue the evidence and its interpretation, please refer me to any of your writings in which you lay out the positive case for evolution (why you are a believer) and your refutation of ID. URLs will be fine. As for evolutionary theory being so much richer than strict Darwinism, this holds little water with me, especially since most attempted refutations of ID look to the power of natural selection (have a look at my intro to UNCOMMON DISSENT — the book — in which I spell out why Darwinism is the core of evolutionary biology). Oh, please stop the whining about ad hominems — you seem to give as good as you get. Finally, Baylor and I have patched up our differences — I have good colleagues there in a number of departments and some active research projects with them which I expect will in the next year to bear fruit. Comment by William Dembski — October 14, 2006 @ 11:48 pm [emphasis mine] I expect an impending Waterloo for evolution to be forthcoming. Edit:  Oops, I hadn't read the whole thread through when I posted.  Keiths beat me to the punch. The problem for Dembski is that he hasn't figured out that if you're going to fight a metaphorical Waterloo it's best not to be on the losing side.

Bebbo Posts: 161 Joined: Dec. 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,12:33    Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 18 2006,12:33) Re Dembski's "and some active research projects with them which I expect will in the next year to bear fruit. " He planted a grapevine? Or maybe strawberries? The fruit will probably turn out to be rotten apples.

argystokes Posts: 766 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,12:57    Quote 19. mike1962  // Oct 18th 2006 at 4:53 pm By the way, I had a random thought come to me today that “junk” DNA may harbor instructions that affect *other* species rather than the carrier, that might be transmitted via a bite or a sting, and might alter the victim. Anyone hear of any research along these lines? Hey, yeah!  DNA that gets injected, and then invades cells and coopts the victim's cellular machinery!  A perfect mix of eukaryotes, viruses, and tard! -------------- "Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,13:10    You know the UD/ID crowd  are always asking moronic questions like "how come we don't see no cats givin' birth to no dogs?" or "how come we don't see no half man half monkeys??" I got a question for those Genesis thumpin' rocket scientists. How come we don't see no man or woman livin' to be no 700 years old no more?  According to the Word, that used to happen all the time way back then...How come aint no one livin' no 700 years nowadays? -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,13:37    Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Oct. 18 2006,18:10) You know the UD/ID crowd  are always asking moronic questions like "how come we don't see no cats givin' birth to no dogs?" or "how come we don't see no half man half monkeys??" I got a question for those Genesis thumpin' rocket scientists. How come we don't see no man or woman livin' to be no 700 years old no more?  According to the Word, that used to happen all the time way back then...How come aint no one livin' no 700 years nowadays? I think I asked Heddle that once, many months ago. Can't recall his answer. Heddle? Whatcha think? -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Pages: (1000) < ... 240 241 242 243 244 [245] 246 247 248 249 250 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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