RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (304) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 5, Return To Teh Dingbat Buffet< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
stevestory



Posts: 10392
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 29 2013,11:01   

Yes indeed, how much DOES Jerry Coyne know about biology?

Edited by stevestory on Dec. 29 2013,13:47

   
hotshoe



Posts: 42
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 29 2013,11:25   

Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 29 2013,11:01)
[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-fetus-is-a-parasite-abortion-is-like-plucking-out-a-hair-how-much-does-jerry-coyne-rea

lly-know-about-biology/]Yes indeed, how much DOES Jerry Coyne know about biology?[/URL]

Their crazy long URLs break the links sometimes, right?  I think that's what happened ...
Wandered over there and had a read of the Jerry Coyne/abortion farrago.  Torley is a forced-birther female-enslaving fetus-worshipper; who could have guessed?

Along the way Torley the corporate-asslicker also manages to find fault with Bishop Sanchez's strongly-worded statement that predatory capitalism (viz America) allows the "wealthy [to] arrange to get all kinds of subsidies, while the working class and the poor struggle to survive"

Who could argue with that?  Torley, that's who  Fuck him.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10392
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 29 2013,12:39   

Fixed it with a bit.ly redirect.

Edited by stevestory on Dec. 29 2013,13:48

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2013,10:30   

Hat Tip for Deadman:

http://www.qwantz.com/index.p....ic=2550

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

  
Robin



Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2013,12:38   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 30 2013,10:30)
Hat Tip for Deadman:

http://www.qwantz.com/index.p....ic=2550

Awesome! Hadn't seen that before.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
timothya



Posts: 259
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2013,14:09   

Robert Byers has this to say at UD concerning a "creationist movie":
 
Quote
The directer here is Jewish and this Jewish presence stands in the way of a movie industry that balances the nations beliefs.

It has been sitting there for three days and nobody at the site has criticised him for it.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10392
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2013,18:03   

Aside from writing amazingly terrible sentences, Gary's boring so I was trying to think of who from UD we could invite to their own thread here. Not sure, but not Byers. He's just too dumb.

   
olegt



Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2013,21:38   

Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 30 2013,18:03)
Aside from writing amazingly terrible sentences, Gary's boring so I was trying to think of who from UD we could invite to their own thread here. Not sure, but not Byers. He's just too dumb.

There is a new chewing toy at TSZ called phoodoo. Here is a sample of his/her/its writing. A temper tantrum starts here.

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2013,22:08   

Quote (olegt @ Dec. 30 2013,21:38)
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 30 2013,18:03)
Aside from writing amazingly terrible sentences, Gary's boring so I was trying to think of who from UD we could invite to their own thread here. Not sure, but not Byers. He's just too dumb.

There is a new chewing toy at TSZ called phoodoo. Here is a sample of his/her/its writing. A temper tantrum starts here.

If he's Joe G's sock, let's not let the cat out of the bag straight away. Do ask him about his life and understanding of math, though.

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

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1501
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2013,23:49   

Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 30 2013,18:03)
Aside from writing amazingly terrible sentences, Gary's boring so I was trying to think of who from UD we could invite to their own thread here. Not sure, but not Byers. He's just too dumb.

I thought we had Byers here for a bit a few years ago.  I can't remember if he got banned, walled, or just bored.

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

  
DiEb



Posts: 271
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2013,05:59   

New's reading skills:

In her article Retract that, sir, or face the consequences! Er, maybe., Denyse shows again her attention to details. She writes: "Top ten retractions of 2010, courtesy The Scientist..." While the first number mentioned in the article is indeed 2010, the year about which "The Scientist" is writing is 2013 (much more topical). That's why the journal used the title "Top 10 Retractions of 2013".

I mentioned that in a comment over there which died in the moderation queue....

   
Patrick



Posts: 610
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2013,10:42   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 30 2013,23:08)
Quote (olegt @ Dec. 30 2013,21:38)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 30 2013,18:03)
Aside from writing amazingly terrible sentences, Gary's boring so I was trying to think of who from UD we could invite to their own thread here. Not sure, but not Byers. He's just too dumb.

There is a new chewing toy at TSZ called phoodoo. Here is a sample of his/her/its writing. A temper tantrum starts here.

If he's Joe G's sock, let's not let the cat out of the bag straight away. Do ask him about his life and understanding of math, though.

His understanding of probability is on a par with Joe's understanding of set theory, but I don't get the same bluster-covering-up-fear-of-being-exposed-as-ignorant feel from phoodoo's writing.  Perhaps it is just Joe taking the time to preview before posting.

No need to be outing people, though.  Regardless of his or her RL identity, phoodoo is a great example of the knowledge and manners possessed by the average  intelligent design creationist.

Edited by Patrick on Dec. 31 2013,11:42

  
JohnW



Posts: 2834
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2013,11:43   

Quote (Patrick @ Dec. 31 2013,08:42)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 30 2013,23:08)
 
Quote (olegt @ Dec. 30 2013,21:38)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 30 2013,18:03)
Aside from writing amazingly terrible sentences, Gary's boring so I was trying to think of who from UD we could invite to their own thread here. Not sure, but not Byers. He's just too dumb.

There is a new chewing toy at TSZ called phoodoo. Here is a sample of his/her/its writing. A temper tantrum starts here.

If he's Joe G's sock, let's not let the cat out of the bag straight away. Do ask him about his life and understanding of math, though.

His understanding of probability is on a par with Joe's understanding of set theory, but I don't get the same bluster-covering-up-fear-of-being-exposed-as-ignorant feel from phoodoo's writing.  Perhaps it is just Joe taking the time to preview before posting.

No need to be outing people, though.  Regardless of his or her RL identity, phoodoo is a great example of the knowledge and manners possessed by the average  intelligent design creationist.

This is certainly Joe-esque:
Quote
You don’t know what the terminology really means, you just know its convention in your particular circle.

... but I don't think it's Joe.  Joe splutters when he loses it; phoodoo babbles.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1788
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2013,12:15   

Don't think it's Joe either but phoodoo sure is an obnoxious, rude, and blinding ignorant asshat.  I especially liked the part where he condescendingly called Dr. Liddle a "smart girl".

He fits right in with the other IDiots.

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

  
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1030
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2013,12:21   

Quote (Texas Teach @ Dec. 30 2013,23:49)
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 30 2013,18:03)
Aside from writing amazingly terrible sentences, Gary's boring so I was trying to think of who from UD we could invite to their own thread here. Not sure, but not Byers. He's just too dumb.

I thought we had Byers here for a bit a few years ago.  I can't remember if he got banned, walled, or just bored.

Yeah, we did. I think he got bored...

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

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

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

   
JohnW



Posts: 2834
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2013,12:58   

KF: Math is hard:
Quote
10  kairosfocus  December 31, 2013 at 7:45 am

PPS: Which of these is pi digits, which sky noise, which phone numbers (admittedly the local phone directory is a bit on the scanty side), and why does the pattern stand out so clearly at D and at E:

A: 821051141354735739523

B: 733615329964125325790

C: 698312217625358227195

D: 123409876135791113151

E: 113581321345589146235

(Ans: C — sky, A – pi, B – phone, last 2 digits each of line codes.)


Quote
17  cantor  December 31, 2013 at 10:45 am

Which of these is pi digits…

Correct answer: A thru E are pi digits


linky

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2013,13:12   

Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 31 2013,12:58)
KF: Math is hard:
 
Quote
10  kairosfocus  December 31, 2013 at 7:45 am

PPS: Which of these is pi digits, which sky noise, which phone numbers (admittedly the local phone directory is a bit on the scanty side), and why does the pattern stand out so clearly at D and at E:

A: 821051141354735739523

B: 733615329964125325790

C: 698312217625358227195

D: 123409876135791113151

E: 113581321345589146235

(Ans: C — sky, A – pi, B – phone, last 2 digits each of line codes.)


 
Quote
17  cantor  December 31, 2013 at 10:45 am

Which of these is pi digits…

Correct answer: A thru E are pi digits


linky

Oh this could be pseudo-quasi-latching weasel good!

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

  
steve_h



Posts: 535
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2013,13:39   

Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 31 2013,19:58)
KF: Math is hard:
   
Quote
10  kairosfocus  December 31, 2013 at 7:45 am

PPS: Which of these is pi digits, which sky noise, which phone numbers (admittedly the local phone directory is a bit on the scanty side), and why does the pattern stand out so clearly at D and at E:

A: 821051141354735739523

B: 733615329964125325790

C: 698312217625358227195

D: 123409876135791113151

E: 113581321345589146235

(Ans: C — sky, A – pi, B – phone, last 2 digits each of line codes.)


   
Quote
17  cantor  December 31, 2013 at 10:45 am

Which of these is pi digits…

Correct answer: A thru E are pi digits


linky

A-E could also be telephone numbers (by taking the last few digits of several numbers)

E looks like it could be the famous Fibonacci sequence formed by adding the previous two numbers to get a new one:

1 + 1 = 3
1 + 3 = 5
..
55 + 89 = 146
etc.

  
JohnW



Posts: 2834
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2013,15:29   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 31 2013,11:12)
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 31 2013,12:58)
KF: Math is hard:
 
Quote
10  kairosfocus  December 31, 2013 at 7:45 am

PPS: Which of these is pi digits, which sky noise, which phone numbers (admittedly the local phone directory is a bit on the scanty side), and why does the pattern stand out so clearly at D and at E:

A: 821051141354735739523

B: 733615329964125325790

C: 698312217625358227195

D: 123409876135791113151

E: 113581321345589146235

(Ans: C — sky, A – pi, B – phone, last 2 digits each of line codes.)


 
Quote
17  cantor  December 31, 2013 at 10:45 am

Which of these is pi digits…

Correct answer: A thru E are pi digits


linky

Oh this could be pseudo-quasi-latching weasel good!

Joe's already commented on that thread, so we could be heading for another "largest known number" tardfest.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2194
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2013,15:44   

Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 31 2013,12:58)
KF: Math is hard:
 
Quote
10  kairosfocus  December 31, 2013 at 7:45 am

PPS: Which of these is pi digits, which sky noise, which phone numbers (admittedly the local phone directory is a bit on the scanty side), and why does the pattern stand out so clearly at D and at E:

A: 821051141354735739523

B: 733615329964125325790

C: 698312217625358227195

D: 123409876135791113151

E: 113581321345589146235

(Ans: C — sky, A – pi, B – phone, last 2 digits each of line codes.)


 
Quote
17  cantor  December 31, 2013 at 10:45 am

Which of these is pi digits…

Correct answer: A thru E are pi digits


linky

Of course Cantor would know that.

(actually does anyone know a proof of Cantor's statement? It seems reasonable, but number theory isn't my area)

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
socle



Posts: 322
Joined: July 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2013,16:24   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Dec. 31 2013,15:44)
   
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 31 2013,12:58)
KF: Math is hard:
       
Quote
10  kairosfocus  December 31, 2013 at 7:45 am

PPS: Which of these is pi digits, which sky noise, which phone numbers (admittedly the local phone directory is a bit on the scanty side), and why does the pattern stand out so clearly at D and at E:

A: 821051141354735739523

B: 733615329964125325790

C: 698312217625358227195

D: 123409876135791113151

E: 113581321345589146235

(Ans: C — sky, A – pi, B – phone, last 2 digits each of line codes.)


       
Quote
17  cantor  December 31, 2013 at 10:45 am

Which of these is pi digits…

Correct answer: A thru E are pi digits


linky

Of course Cantor would know that.

(actually does anyone know a proof of Cantor's statement? It seems reasonable, but number theory isn't my area)

I am not a number theorist either, but AFAIK, the general problem remains unsolved.  See here: http://tinyurl.com/9oa3kjw....9oa3kjw

Only the first string of digits that KF posted occurs in the first 200 million digits of pi according to http://www.angio.net/pi....p....i....pi

  
Patrick



Posts: 610
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2013,17:03   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Dec. 31 2013,13:15)
Don't think it's Joe either but phoodoo sure is an obnoxious, rude, and blinding ignorant asshat.  I especially liked the part where he condescendingly called Dr. Liddle a "smart girl".

He fits right in with the other IDiots.

Can't be PaV, then.  He didn't tell her to go away.

The intelligent design creationists work hard, albeit ineffectually, to hide their fundamentalist dogma behind a facade of "science".  One would think they'd realize the importance of concealing their misogyny, too.

  
rossum



Posts: 237
Joined: Dec. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 01 2014,04:25   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Dec. 31 2013,15:44)
Of course Cantor would know that.

(actually does anyone know a proof of Cantor's statement? It seems reasonable, but number theory isn't my area)

Cantor is correct.  Pi gives an infinite stream of digits with no repeating pattern.  Any finite string of digits will be found in Pi an infinite number of times.  Of course, the longer your search string the more digits if Pi you have to calculate to find it.

--------------
The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

  
DiEb



Posts: 271
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 01 2014,07:40   

Quote (rossum @ Jan. 01 2014,10:25)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Dec. 31 2013,15:44)
Of course Cantor would know that.

(actually does anyone know a proof of Cantor's statement? It seems reasonable, but number theory isn't my area)

Cantor is correct.  Pi gives an infinite stream of digits with no repeating pattern.  Any finite string of digits will be found in Pi an infinite number of times.  Of course, the longer your search string the more digits if Pi you have to calculate to find it.

I'm afraid that it isn't proven yet that pi is a normal number (though most mathematicians would bet that it is one...) At the moment we cannot say that each finite number can be found in the decimal representation of pi - but every short string of numbers (birthdates, etc.) has been found :-)

   
steve_h



Posts: 535
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 01 2014,11:35   

Trivially, all are pi-digits. Maybe not consecutive pi-digits. If he wanted to know which of the sequences corresponded to a range of consecutive digits found in the decimal representation of pi, I'm sure KF would have asked for that :)

  
rossum



Posts: 237
Joined: Dec. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 01 2014,15:35   

Quote (DiEb @ Jan. 01 2014,07:40)
I'm afraid that it isn't proven yet that pi is a normal number (though most mathematicians would bet that it is one...) At the moment we cannot say that each finite number can be found in the decimal representation of pi - but every short string of numbers (birthdates, etc.) has been found :-)

I'm not sure that full normality is required.  Only base 10 needs to be looked at, and even then, equal proportions of each digit are not required.  If, for example, '1' occurred at twice the frequency of any other digit, then all the specified strings would still appear somewhere in Pi.  You might just have to search further to find them.

--------------
The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 01 2014,20:08   

KF:

Quote
kairosfocusJanuary 1, 2014 at 7:52 pm
PS: a 100:1 hits to comments ratio is interesting . . .


It's certainly support for intelligent censorship...

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

  
sparc



Posts: 1985
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2014,00:10   

Since you mention Kairosfocus:
In 2013 Jerry Coyne enjoyed 8 views from  Vatican City but
only a single one from Montserrat.
Still, we've seen a 2000+ word posts on Coyne at UD and Kairosfocus from our montserratian friend.

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

- William Dembski -

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2014,00:18   

Slimey Sal will let his dogma mangle every branch of accepted physics:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/physics....-at-you

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

  
timothya



Posts: 259
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2014,02:48   

Didn't the results of the Sloan Deep Sky Survey contradict Halton Arp's cosmological hypothesis?

  
timothya



Posts: 259
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2014,03:07   

Anyone want to bet against "The Church of Atheism" will be a recurring theme at UD in 2014?

  
timothya



Posts: 259
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2014,03:08   

Anyone want to bet against "The Church of Atheism" being a recurring theme at UD in 2014?

  
Quack



Posts: 1960
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2014,03:55   

Quote (timothya @ Jan. 02 2014,02:48)
Didn't the results of the Sloan Deep Sky Survey contradict Halton Arp's cosmological hypothesis?

Maybe ten or more years ago I had recently watched a bad TV program about Halton Arp's hyptohesis when I had the opportunity to ask the Norwegian astrophysicist Knut Jřrgen Rřed Řdegaard about just that and his reply was clear although I don't today remember his dismissive reply, only his opinion that programs like that did not deserve airtime.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1203
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2014,05:01   

Quote
Knut Jřrgen Rřed Řdegaard


What a magnificent name! Even if it is tempting to swap the....

A belated happy new orbit, everyone.

  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1266
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2014,07:25   

KF is still waiting for that essay on Darwinism. Quick, someone put him out of his misery!

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2014,13:15   

Slimey Sal and Mapou's YEC lovefest is a joy to behold.

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2014,20:38   

Hey Oleg:

Quote
37
MapouJanuary 2, 2014 at 8:16 pm
In my opinion, nobody can explain the anomalous redshifts because an essential piece of the puzzle is missing. What is lacking is a fundamental understanding of motion. Unless and until we can explain the cause of motion, i.e., why a body in inertial motion remains in motion, we will never understand why light loses energy over great distances. In this case, we need to explain why photons move and why they move at C. Of course, as in everything else having to do with energy and motion, the redshift is the result of nature correcting a violation of the energy conservation principle.

In my view, based on my private understanding of motion, the brighter or the more energetic the source of the light, the more pronounced will the redshift be. That being said, distance is the primary factor.


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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2014,20:46   

Bonus Mapou:

Quote
Entropy would have turned the universe into a chaotic nothing ages ago.


Here's the home of the master:

http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/....pot.com

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

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2014,22:26   

Actually his programming ideas look to be worth discussing.

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

  
Quack



Posts: 1960
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2014,03:13   

Quote (Woodbine @ Jan. 02 2014,05:01)
Quote
Knut Jřrgen Rřed Řdegaard


What a magnificent name! Even if it is tempting to swap the....

A belated happy new orbit, everyone.


And a magnficient person as well, with sparkling Attenboroughesque enhusiasm.
...
Is this what you had in mind: Knut Jörgen Röed Ödegĺrd?

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
JohnW



Posts: 2834
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2014,10:12   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 02 2014,18:38)
Hey Oleg:

Quote
37
MapouJanuary 2, 2014 at 8:16 pm
In my opinion, nobody can explain the anomalous redshifts because an essential piece of the puzzle is missing. What is lacking is a fundamental understanding of motion. Unless and until we can explain the cause of motion, i.e., why a body in inertial motion remains in motion, we will never understand why light loses energy over great distances. In this case, we need to explain why photons move and why they move at C. Of course, as in everything else having to do with energy and motion, the redshift is the result of nature correcting a violation of the energy conservation principle.

In my view, based on my private understanding of motion, the brighter or the more energetic the source of the light, the more pronounced will the redshift be. That being said, distance is the primary factor.

Quote
In my view, based on my private understanding of motion...

All science so far!

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
stevestory



Posts: 10392
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2014,20:05   

Now that's the guy we'd want as a new chew toy!

   
Woodbine



Posts: 1203
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2014,21:43   

Quote (Quack @ Jan. 03 2014,09:13)
Quote (Woodbine @ Jan. 02 2014,05:01)
 
Quote
Knut Jřrgen Rřed Řdegaard


What a magnificent name! Even if it is tempting to swap the....

A belated happy new orbit, everyone.


And a magnficient person as well, with sparkling Attenboroughesque enhusiasm.
...
Is this what you had in mind: Knut Jörgen Röed Ödegĺrd?

No, it was infinitely more rude.

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2014,09:20   

Quote (Woodbine @ Jan. 03 2014,21:43)
Quote (Quack @ Jan. 03 2014,09:13)
Quote (Woodbine @ Jan. 02 2014,05:01)
 
Quote
Knut Jřrgen Rřed Řdegaard


What a magnificent name! Even if it is tempting to swap the....

A belated happy new orbit, everyone.


And a magnficient person as well, with sparkling Attenboroughesque enhusiasm.
...
Is this what you had in mind: Knut Jörgen Röed Ödegĺrd?

No, it was infinitely more rude.

Speculation - "Knut" = Some word that Dave Scott might use to refer to Ms. O'Dreary?

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Quack



Posts: 1960
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2014,16:21   

Knut, a male name, entymology norse word knútr, meaning knot.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
timothya



Posts: 259
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2014,17:26   

As in, "I am knot a male nurse"?

  
Febble



Posts: 310
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2014,21:22   

"News" on the UD "newsdesk" is, apparently, a six year old TED talk by Garrett Lisi.

Cool and all, but not exactly "new".

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1501
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2014,21:47   

Quote (Febble @ Jan. 04 2014,21:22)
"News" on the UD "newsdesk" is, apparently, a six year old TED talk by Garrett Lisi.

Cool and all, but not exactly "new".

Given that Denyse still hasn't caught up with 150+ years of science, calling a 6 year-old talk "news" is unsurprising.

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

  
Quack



Posts: 1960
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2014,02:59   

Quote (timothya @ Jan. 04 2014,17:26)
As in, "I am knot a male nurse"?

,

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2075
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2014,07:10   

J-dog:  
Quote
Speculation - "Knut" = Some word that Dave Scott might use to refer to Ms. O'Dreary? 

Her brain is in Knutral?

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

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2014,12:03   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 05 2014,07:10)
J-dog:  
Quote
Speculation - "Knut" = Some word that Dave Scott might use to refer to Ms. O'Dreary? 

Her brain is in Knutral?

Ahem... You have to think more like DaveScott  - (I can't believe I just typed that !) - and read "Knut" like you were more dyslexic...

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2014,12:34   

Is that a Knadian spelling?

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

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2075
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2014,14:26   

Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 05 2014,12:03)
 
Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 05 2014,07:10)
J-dog:      
Quote
Speculation - "Knut" = Some word that Dave Scott might use to refer to Ms. O'Dreary? 

Her brain is in Knutral?

Ahem... You have to think more like DaveScott  - (I can't believe I just typed that !) - and read "Knut" like you were more dyslexic...

Think like DaveScott?  But I don't suffer from texlexia.

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

  
Febble



Posts: 310
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2014,16:37   

It just dawned on me that ID is dead.

Dembski is off all radar.  He doesn't even show up in the search box at South Carolina bible college or whatever. The last post on the Design Inference is a year old.

Meyer's book went up like a firework and came down with the stick.  

Most of the static websites are moribund.  UD has banned virtually all dissenters.  The few brave enough to wander over to TSZ bail out after a couple of rounds.  The biologic institute inflates its "selected publications" with publications that have nothing to do with the biologic institute and seems to be doing no more than pretending to produce output.

Bio-Complexity is moribund.

Behe doesn't seem to have much to say.

The big guys won't come out to debate.  The small ones mostly won't leave heavily censored sites.  Even the UD newsdesk peddles 6 year old stories as "news".

And all the threads are about religion.  Or tossing coins.

I don't know why I hadn't seen it before.

It's dead.

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1501
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2014,16:42   

Quote (Febble @ Jan. 05 2014,16:37)
It just dawned on me that ID is dead.

Dembski is off all radar.  He doesn't even show up in the search box at South Carolina bible college or whatever. The last post on the Design Inference is a year old.

Meyer's book went up like a firework and came down with the stick.  

Most of the static websites are moribund.  UD has banned virtually all dissenters.  The few brave enough to wander over to TSZ bail out after a couple of rounds.  The biologic institute inflates its "selected publications" with publications that have nothing to do with the biologic institute and seems to be doing no more than pretending to produce output.

Bio-Complexity is moribund.

Behe doesn't seem to have much to say.

The big guys won't come out to debate.  The small ones mostly won't leave heavily censored sites.  Even the UD newsdesk peddles 6 year old stories as "news".

And all the threads are about religion.  Or tossing coins.

I don't know why I hadn't seen it before.

It's dead.

Yeah, it's back to open creationism now.  That is still alive and trying to sneak into schools, especially in the form of individual teachers.

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

  
Febble



Posts: 310
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2014,16:51   

But much more overtly not-science, surely?

ID had this sciencey-mathy-PhD-ey look.

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1501
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2014,16:58   

Quote (Febble @ Jan. 05 2014,16:51)
But much more overtly not-science, surely?

ID had this sciencey-mathy-PhD-ey look.

The creation scientists dabbled in that, too, but it always comes down to "2000 years ago a man died on a cross.  Won't anyone stand up for him?" arguments.  Lenny Flank pointed out years ago that they just can't help talking about their god eventually.  Once it was clear that judges weren't going to buy it, there really wasn't any point keeping up the pretense.

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

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2014,19:57   

Quote (Febble @ Jan. 05 2014,16:37)
It just dawned on me that ID is dead.

Dembski is off all radar.  He doesn't even show up in the search box at South Carolina bible college or whatever. The last post on the Design Inference is a year old.

Meyer's book went up like a firework and came down with the stick.  

Most of the static websites are moribund.  UD has banned virtually all dissenters.  The few brave enough to wander over to TSZ bail out after a couple of rounds.  The biologic institute inflates its "selected publications" with publications that have nothing to do with the biologic institute and seems to be doing no more than pretending to produce output.

Bio-Complexity is moribund.

Behe doesn't seem to have much to say.

The big guys won't come out to debate.  The small ones mostly won't leave heavily censored sites.  Even the UD newsdesk peddles 6 year old stories as "news".

And all the threads are about religion.  Or tossing coins.

I don't know why I hadn't seen it before.

It's dead.

Unfortunately, vampires & zombies are all the rage these days - so I want to see the stake through ID's ugly little heart, and even smaller brain before I count them totally dead. :)

added in edit:  I wonder if this means GEM of ICKY will be turning me into Homeland Security for threatening ID?  Or is that privilege reserved only for Dr. Dr. Dembski?

Edited by J-Dog on Jan. 05 2014,20:03

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
stevestory



Posts: 10392
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2014,20:31   

Quote (Febble @ Jan. 05 2014,17:37)
It just dawned on me that ID is dead.

Dembski is off all radar.  He doesn't even show up in the search box at South Carolina bible college or whatever. The last post on the Design Inference is a year old.

Meyer's book went up like a firework and came down with the stick.  

Most of the static websites are moribund.  UD has banned virtually all dissenters.  The few brave enough to wander over to TSZ bail out after a couple of rounds.  The biologic institute inflates its "selected publications" with publications that have nothing to do with the biologic institute and seems to be doing no more than pretending to produce output.

Bio-Complexity is moribund.

Behe doesn't seem to have much to say.

The big guys won't come out to debate.  The small ones mostly won't leave heavily censored sites.  Even the UD newsdesk peddles 6 year old stories as "news".

And all the threads are about religion.  Or tossing coins.

I don't know why I hadn't seen it before.

It's dead.

Telic Thoughts is over, the fake ID journal PCID was abandoned right after Kitzmiller.

The ID people are behaving exactly as they would if ID was nothing but a scam that failed in Dec 2005. Because that's all it was.

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2014,21:00   

It's been dead a while. UC now run by the b / c listers. It'll come back as "intelligent evolution" once they get some new faces, new sciency words and more Templeton money.

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 10392
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2014,21:05   

I commented right around Kitzmiller, "when they lose, what are they going to rename themselves?" Intelligent Evolution was a common response.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10392
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2014,21:13   

LOL! Bio-Complexity, a science 'journal' with 33 editors, published 1 'research' article last year. And a whopping 2 for all of 2012.

Wow, guys, the darwinian paradigm is collapsing under the assault!

   
didymos



Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2014,23:38   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 05 2014,19:13)
LOL! Bio-Complexity, a science 'journal' with 33 editors, published 1 'research' article last year. And a whopping 2 for all of 2012.

Wow, guys, the darwinian paradigm is collapsing under the assault!

Even better, out of the eight 'research' papers they've published since 2010,  seven have at least one of those 33 editors listed as an author.

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

  
Quack



Posts: 1960
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2014,01:32   

Quote (didymos @ Jan. 05 2014,23:38)
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 05 2014,19:13)
LOL! Bio-Complexity, a science 'journal' with 33 editors, published 1 'research' article last year. And a whopping 2 for all of 2012.

Wow, guys, the darwinian paradigm is collapsing under the assault!

Even better, out of the eight 'research' papers they've published since 2010,  seven have at least one of those 33 editors listed as an author.

Inbreeding is unhealthy. Is that predicted by ID?

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
k.e..



Posts: 3885
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2014,05:47   

Quote (Quack @ Jan. 06 2014,09:32)
Quote (didymos @ Jan. 05 2014,23:38)
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 05 2014,19:13)
LOL! Bio-Complexity, a science 'journal' with 33 editors, published 1 'research' article last year. And a whopping 2 for all of 2012.

Wow, guys, the darwinian paradigm is collapsing under the assault!

Even better, out of the eight 'research' papers they've published since 2010,  seven have at least one of those 33 editors listed as an author.

Inbreeding is unhealthy. Is that predicted by ID?

Has the price of teenage brides in cows collapsed? Approximately a quarter of the editorial staff having to do their own dirty work is not conducive to prothelizing a religious belief system through Darwinian profilaxis. They need to reproduce with more 'glory be' fitness, moar 'git down now and pray' . That in itself is anathema to their stated aims. Reproduction without reality based education or more corectly ideologically enforced stupidly by bibliophilic boards of education free from constitutional constraints aka theocracy for everyone  who won't take the Rev Jim Jones Cool @id.
FuckersI I hope they die.

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

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2014,10:25   

Quote (didymos @ Jan. 05 2014,23:38)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 05 2014,19:13)
LOL! Bio-Complexity, a science 'journal' with 33 editors, published 1 'research' article last year. And a whopping 2 for all of 2012.

Wow, guys, the darwinian paradigm is collapsing under the assault!

Even better, out of the eight 'research' papers they've published since 2010,  seven have at least one of those 33 editors listed as an author.

That explains why the editors don't have time to review the massive backlog of submissions (why else would there be so few published articles?).  Too busy doing research and publishing, just like you see with the editors of fake journals such as Journal of the American Chemical Society.

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

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2014,13:22   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 05 2014,22:05)
I commented right around Kitzmiller, "when they lose, what are they going to rename themselves?" Intelligent Evolution was a common response.

I remember that.

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

   
REC



Posts: 638
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2014,13:29   

I'm feeling bad for O'Leary. Not sure she's got it all together:

Quote

People’s Choice Awards: Our most read stories June 2013

January 6, 2014

Top three in January (here), February here), March here), April (here), May (here).

  
Patrick



Posts: 610
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2014,13:52   

Quote (Febble @ Jan. 05 2014,17:37)
It just dawned on me that ID is dead.

Dembski is off all radar.  He doesn't even show up in the search box at South Carolina bible college or whatever. The last post on the Design Inference is a year old.

Meyer's book went up like a firework and came down with the stick.  

Most of the static websites are moribund.  UD has banned virtually all dissenters.  The few brave enough to wander over to TSZ bail out after a couple of rounds.  The biologic institute inflates its "selected publications" with publications that have nothing to do with the biologic institute and seems to be doing no more than pretending to produce output.

Bio-Complexity is moribund.

Behe doesn't seem to have much to say.

The big guys won't come out to debate.  The small ones mostly won't leave heavily censored sites.  Even the UD newsdesk peddles 6 year old stories as "news".

And all the threads are about religion.  Or tossing coins.

I don't know why I hadn't seen it before.

It's dead.

As a scientific hypothesis, intelligent design creationism is most certainly dead.  In fact, it was stillborn.  After Dover, it was clear that ID is nothing more than an attempt to get around constitutional prohibitions against the establishment of religion in the US.

As a political and cultural movement, however, intelligent design creationism unfortunately lives on, and will do so in every school district that includes a fundamentalist church.  It doesn't matter to creationists of any variety whether or not ID is science or if science supports their sectarian views, they will continue to make those irrational, repeatedly disproven claims in an attempt to force their religion into public schools.

Creationists, including the intelligent design variety, lie.  They are not interested in truth because they already have TRUTH.  They want the power to impose that on everyone else.

  
JohnW



Posts: 2834
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2014,14:29   

Quote (Patrick @ Jan. 06 2014,11:52)
Quote (Febble @ Jan. 05 2014,17:37)
It just dawned on me that ID is dead.

Dembski is off all radar.  He doesn't even show up in the search box at South Carolina bible college or whatever. The last post on the Design Inference is a year old.

Meyer's book went up like a firework and came down with the stick.  

Most of the static websites are moribund.  UD has banned virtually all dissenters.  The few brave enough to wander over to TSZ bail out after a couple of rounds.  The biologic institute inflates its "selected publications" with publications that have nothing to do with the biologic institute and seems to be doing no more than pretending to produce output.

Bio-Complexity is moribund.

Behe doesn't seem to have much to say.

The big guys won't come out to debate.  The small ones mostly won't leave heavily censored sites.  Even the UD newsdesk peddles 6 year old stories as "news".

And all the threads are about religion.  Or tossing coins.

I don't know why I hadn't seen it before.

It's dead.

As a scientific hypothesis, intelligent design creationism is most certainly dead.  In fact, it was stillborn.  After Dover, it was clear that ID is nothing more than an attempt to get around constitutional prohibitions against the establishment of religion in the US.

As a political and cultural movement, however, intelligent design creationism unfortunately lives on, and will do so in every school district that includes a fundamentalist church.  It doesn't matter to creationists of any variety whether or not ID is science or if science supports their sectarian views, they will continue to make those irrational, repeatedly disproven claims in an attempt to force their religion into public schools.

Creationists, including the intelligent design variety, lie.  They are not interested in truth because they already have TRUTH.  They want the power to impose that on everyone else.

ID will be around for a while as a business model.  There still seem to be a lot of people who want sciency jargon with their apologetics and conspiracy theories.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Henry J



Posts: 4786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2014,22:28   

Quote
There still seem to be a lot of people who want sciency jargon with their apologetics and conspiracy theories.

Like on that other thread on this forum? :p

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1788
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 07 2014,09:53   

The tards are out in force this morning at UD.

niwrad starts the parade with an incredibly stupid analogy:

"Evolution is like poker hands.  Some get dealt winners and some get dealt losers.  Now random mutations happen to the symbols on the cards so they are ALL losers.  Therefore evolution is impossible!!"

One pro-science poster Lincoln Phipps (which one of you is he?) points out what a terrible analogy it is.

Fat JoeTard pipes in with "there is no theory of evolution!"

Nightlight offers that ToE is wrong because it can't calculate probabilities.

Jeff M claims natural selection is a tautology so ToE is false.

Batshit77 copypastas his usual giant steaming pile of drivel.

Barry Arrogant congratulates niwrad for such an excellent and insightful OP.

:D

There you have everything you need to know about the ID movement in one neat package.

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

  
Patrick



Posts: 610
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 07 2014,11:51   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 07 2014,10:53)
The tards are out in force this morning at UD.

niwrad starts the parade with an incredibly stupid analogy:

"Evolution is like poker hands.  Some get dealt winners and some get dealt losers.  Now random mutations happen to the symbols on the cards so they are ALL losers.  Therefore evolution is impossible!!"

One pro-science poster Lincoln Phipps (which one of you is he?) points out what a terrible analogy it is.

Fat JoeTard pipes in with "there is no theory of evolution!"

Nightlight offers that ToE is wrong because it can't calculate probabilities.

Jeff M claims natural selection is a tautology so ToE is false.

Batshit77 copypastas his usual giant steaming pile of drivel.

Barry Arrogant congratulates niwrad for such an excellent and insightful OP.

:D

There you have everything you need to know about the ID movement in one neat package.

Thank you for sacrificing your brain cells reading UD so that others' can survive and still get the lulz.

Out of curiosity, does Joe mean "there is no theory of evolution" stated in words small enough for him to understand?

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1788
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 08 2014,18:17   

Holy fuck.  We might have found a UDer even more stupid than Joe Gallien.

   
Quote
Joe: "Lizzie sez that the fundamentals of evolutionism are reproduction and variation. Those are the same fundamentals as Intelligent Design Evolution and Baraminology."


If that wasn't bad enough...

   
Quote
Eric Anderson: "And, actually, reproduction isn’t even fundamental. The only reason reproduction is necessary is because organisms don’t live forever.

To see what I mean, as an interesting thought experiment consider a single-celled organism that were to live for 100M years. What kinds of changes would we expect it to experience during its lifetime? How would we expect it to change? Would we expect it to turn into a different kind of creature over that time period, and if not, why not?

Once we have taken time to thoughtfully consider the above questions, we realize that the only thing reproduction does is provide additional opportunities for variation (due to copying mistakes, swaps, etc.). But reproduction doesn’t fundamentally alter anything about the evolutionary storyline: (mostly unspecified) random changes occur in an organism, and over time they add up to wonderful?"

linky


There you have it folks.  Reproduction isn't needed for evolution.  If animals lived forever eventually each individual would macro-evolve into who knows what.  :O

Words fail me.

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

  
Driver



Posts: 649
Joined: June 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,18:46   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 09 2014,00:17)
Holy fuck.  We might have found a UDer even more stupid than Joe Gallien.

     
Quote
Joe: "Lizzie sez that the fundamentals of evolutionism are reproduction and variation. Those are the same fundamentals as Intelligent Design Evolution and Baraminology."


If that wasn't bad enough...

     
Quote
Eric Anderson: "And, actually, reproduction isn’t even fundamental. The only reason reproduction is necessary is because organisms don’t live forever.

To see what I mean, as an interesting thought experiment consider a single-celled organism that were to live for 100M years. What kinds of changes would we expect it to experience during its lifetime? How would we expect it to change? Would we expect it to turn into a different kind of creature over that time period, and if not, why not?

Once we have taken time to thoughtfully consider the above questions, we realize that the only thing reproduction does is provide additional opportunities for variation (due to copying mistakes, swaps, etc.). But reproduction doesn’t fundamentally alter anything about the evolutionary storyline: (mostly unspecified) random changes occur in an organism, and over time they add up to wonderful?"

linky


There you have it folks.  Reproduction isn't needed for evolution.  If animals lived forever eventually each individual would macro-evolve into who knows what.  :O

Words fail me.

I really should stop sniffing this shit. My brain is suffering.

--------------
Why would I concern myself with evidence, when IMO "evidence" is only the mind arranging thought and matter to support what one already wishes to believe? - William J Murray

[A]t this time a forum like this one is nothing less than a national security risk. - Gary Gaulin

  
stevestory



Posts: 10392
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,20:38   

Quote (Driver @ Jan. 09 2014,19:46)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 09 2014,00:17)
Holy fuck.  We might have found a UDer even more stupid than Joe Gallien.

     
Quote
Joe: "Lizzie sez that the fundamentals of evolutionism are reproduction and variation. Those are the same fundamentals as Intelligent Design Evolution and Baraminology."


If that wasn't bad enough...

     
Quote
Eric Anderson: "And, actually, reproduction isn’t even fundamental. The only reason reproduction is necessary is because organisms don’t live forever.

To see what I mean, as an interesting thought experiment consider a single-celled organism that were to live for 100M years. What kinds of changes would we expect it to experience during its lifetime? How would we expect it to change? Would we expect it to turn into a different kind of creature over that time period, and if not, why not?

Once we have taken time to thoughtfully consider the above questions, we realize that the only thing reproduction does is provide additional opportunities for variation (due to copying mistakes, swaps, etc.). But reproduction doesn’t fundamentally alter anything about the evolutionary storyline: (mostly unspecified) random changes occur in an organism, and over time they add up to wonderful?"

linky


There you have it folks.  Reproduction isn't needed for evolution.  If animals lived forever eventually each individual would macro-evolve into who knows what.  :O

Words fail me.

I really should stop sniffing this shit. My brain is suffering.

how would selection enter into that, exactly...?

   
Driver



Posts: 649
Joined: June 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,21:50   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 10 2014,02:38)
Quote (Driver @ Jan. 09 2014,19:46)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 09 2014,00:17)
Holy fuck.  We might have found a UDer even more stupid than Joe Gallien.

       
Quote
Joe: "Lizzie sez that the fundamentals of evolutionism are reproduction and variation. Those are the same fundamentals as Intelligent Design Evolution and Baraminology."


If that wasn't bad enough...

       
Quote
Eric Anderson: "And, actually, reproduction isn’t even fundamental. The only reason reproduction is necessary is because organisms don’t live forever.

To see what I mean, as an interesting thought experiment consider a single-celled organism that were to live for 100M years. What kinds of changes would we expect it to experience during its lifetime? How would we expect it to change? Would we expect it to turn into a different kind of creature over that time period, and if not, why not?

Once we have taken time to thoughtfully consider the above questions, we realize that the only thing reproduction does is provide additional opportunities for variation (due to copying mistakes, swaps, etc.). But reproduction doesn’t fundamentally alter anything about the evolutionary storyline: (mostly unspecified) random changes occur in an organism, and over time they add up to wonderful?"

linky


There you have it folks.  Reproduction isn't needed for evolution.  If animals lived forever eventually each individual would macro-evolve into who knows what.  :O

Words fail me.

I really should stop sniffing this shit. My brain is suffering.

how would selection enter into that, exactly...?

I haven't reproduced since I've started reading UD.

--------------
Why would I concern myself with evidence, when IMO "evidence" is only the mind arranging thought and matter to support what one already wishes to believe? - William J Murray

[A]t this time a forum like this one is nothing less than a national security risk. - Gary Gaulin

  
REC



Posts: 638
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 09 2014,22:31   

From longtime UD Denizen JGuy, we have a Christian faux-snuff film, wherein an atheist professor is tortured and murdered (apparently justifiably):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....5LRkjkk

Fucking sickos.

Edited by REC on Jan. 09 2014,22:35

  
timothya



Posts: 259
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2014,14:07   

At UD, News posted an article entitled "Fossils of Australasian tree unexpectedly found in South America". Note that the word "unexpected" does not occur in the ScienceDaily report; it is News' contribution.

Unexpected to whom? Anyone familiar with the biogeography of southern gymnosperms, if asked where to search for fossil specimens of Agathis outside of its extant range, would immediately say, "South America!". Tectonic movement + common descent > expected result.

  
Soapy Sam



Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 11 2014,04:59   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 09 2014,00:17)
Holy fuck.  We might have found a UDer even more stupid than Joe Gallien.
[...]
       
Quote
Eric Anderson: "And, actually, reproduction isn’t even fundamental. [...]


[...]
Words fail me.

Not. Even. Wrong.

--------------
SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G

BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

  
stevestory



Posts: 10392
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 11 2014,09:47   

Quote (REC @ Jan. 09 2014,23:31)
From longtime UD Denizen JGuy, we have a Christian faux-snuff film, wherein an atheist professor is tortured and murdered (apparently justifiably):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....5LRkjkk

Fucking sickos.

Quote
THE BIRTHERS.... I call them "conversation enders." These are comments that lead you to know, the moment you hear them, that the writer/speaker is either clueless or intellectually dishonest, and there's really no reason to engage the person in a serious dialog.
...
I suspect we all have them. When I hear, "Tax cuts are fiscally responsible because they pay for themselves," it's a conversation ender. When I hear, "Evolution is just a theory," it's a conversation ender. When someone says, "Global warming can't be real because it's cold outside," it's a conversation ender.


That was steve benen. From your link, I decided I have a new conversation ender. Whenever I hear anything along the lines of "Atheism taken to its logical conclusion..." Shut it down.

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2014,07:08   

JohnW:
 
Quote
ID will be around for a while as a business model.

Until it attains a pathetic level of retail.




Edited by stevestory on Jan. 12 2014,10:13

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

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2075
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2014,10:45   

An O'Leary own goal!  She's checking out a new grammar checker.  She types in this bit of deathless prose:
Quote
   Hawking is comfortable with non-realism: “I’m a positivist. … I don’t demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don’t know what it is.” The end of reality is captured in a telling vignette: The lead character in the film Happy Go Lucky, browsing in a bookshop, pulls Roger Penrose’s Road to Reality from a shelf, glances at the title and puts it straight back, saying, “Oh, we don’t want to go there!”

   A question arises: If, in the multiverse (especially the many worlds version) everything possible is true, why do cosmologists trash traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs? Because there is a critical catch: Anything may be true, including contradictory states, except serious dissent from the Copernican principle–the principle that Earth and our universe are nothing special.


The score?  "58 of 100(weak, needs revision)"

Whoda guessed?

--------------
...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: Jan. 13 2014,14:37   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 13 2014,10:45)
An O'Leary own goal!  She's checking out a new grammar checker.  She types in this bit of deathless prose:  
Quote
   Hawking is comfortable with non-realism: “I’m a positivist. … I don’t demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don’t know what it is.” The end of reality is captured in a telling vignette: The lead character in the film Happy Go Lucky, browsing in a bookshop, pulls Roger Penrose’s Road to Reality from a shelf, glances at the title and puts it straight back, saying, “Oh, we don’t want to go there!”

   A question arises: If, in the multiverse (especially the many worlds version) everything possible is true, why do cosmologists trash traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs? Because there is a critical catch: Anything may be true, including contradictory states, except serious dissent from the Copernican principle–the principle that Earth and our universe are nothing special.


The score?  "58 of 100(weak, needs revision)"

Whoda guessed?

Never would have guessed as high as 58!

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

  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1266
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2014,17:02   

And this is why we haven't heard from Dembski for quite some time: He has written a new book.
Being as Communion: What is intelligent design?
UD was allowed to publish two short paragraphs complete with a definition of intelligent design in which the cat is immediately out of the bag.
 
Quote
Intelligent design is the study of patterns (hence “design”) in nature that give empirical evidence of resulting from real teleology (hence “intelligent”). In this definition, real 37[sic] teleology is not reducible to purely material processes.


In the publisher's description - link at UD - there is a helpful review of Rupert Sheldrake: Wikipedia describes him as an "an English author,[3] lecturer, and researcher in the field of parapsychology,[4] best known for advocating his "morphic resonance" concept."

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1203
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2014,17:57   

Being as Communion....isn't this the book Templeton paid Dembski a stack of cash for a decade ago?

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1788
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2014,18:17   

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Jan. 13 2014,17:02)
And this is why we haven't heard from Dembski for quite some time: He has written a new book.
Being as Communion: What is intelligent design?
UD was allowed to publish two short paragraphs complete with a definition of intelligent design in which the cat is immediately out of the bag.
   
Quote
Intelligent design is the study of patterns (hence “design”) in nature that give empirical evidence of resulting from real teleology (hence “intelligent”). In this definition, real 37[sic] teleology is not reducible to purely material processes.


In the publisher's description - link at UD - there is a helpful review of Rupert Sheldrake: Wikipedia describes him as an "an English author,[3] lecturer, and researcher in the field of parapsychology,[4] best known for advocating his "morphic resonance" concept."

Just read the excerpts.  Maybe I'm missing something but didn't Dr.Dr.Dr. just hold the door wide open for theistic evolution?

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

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1045
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2014,18:19   

Quote
In the context of biology, intelligent design looks for patterns in biological systems that confirm real teleology.


Whereas science asks if the hypothetical can be falsified.

IDiocy would never ask if it could be wrong.  Because it is, or anyway, wild-type organisms lack the signs of the leaps beyond what mere adaptation can produce.  Meaning that the honest version of ID has been falsified, and IDiocy won't accept that.

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
CeilingCat



Posts: 2075
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2014,19:30   

They want 54 British pounds for that thing!  That's $88 bucks!

Here it is, suckers!

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

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2014,19:53   

From the Contents:

Quote
Information as ruling out possibilities;


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

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2014,20:05   

Bill is right on top of the latest pop physics:

Quote
Within such a theory of communication the proper object of study becomes not isolated particles but the information that passes between entities.


http://www.ashgate.com/isbn....4638575

Quote
If neither particles nor fields are fundamental, then what is? Some researchers think that the world, at root, does not consist of material things but of relations or of properties, such as mass, charge and spin.


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article....ng-else

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

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1788
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2014,20:44   

Pretty funny that the Disco Tooters haven't mentioned a word about Dembski's latest book after busting a truckload of nuts promoting Meyer's Darwin's Doubt stupidity.  Must make Dr.Dr.Dr. feel really good about his current status with the professional IDiots.

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2014,23:08   

Quote
Quote
Some researchers think that the world, at root, does not consist of material things but of relations or of properties, such as mass, charge and spin.

The "world", or the description of it used by physicists? Properties such as those are what can be detected and measured.

Henry

  
sparc



Posts: 1985
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2014,23:18   

Here's how Ashgate describe Dembski:  
Quote
About the Author: A philosopher and mathematician, William A. Dembski is a senior fellow with Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture as well as a research scientist with the Evolutionary Informatics Lab. A cross-disciplinary scholar, he has published widely in the mathematics, engineering, philosophy, and theology literature, and is the author/editor of more than 20 books. Being as Communion ties together two decades of his research on the relation between teleology and information
Maybe it is technically wrong but wouldn't he be better described as some kind of pastor or priest?


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

- William Dembski -

   
sparc



Posts: 1985
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2014,00:13   

BTW, what about Dembski's "Why Theistic Evolution Fails as Science and Theology" that was announced for November 2011? Didn't O'Leary stop blogging back in 2010 to rewrite it for him? I cannot find it at Amazon or the publisher (Broadman and Holman) and Dembski lists it as "in preparation".
Sounds familiar, though.

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

- William Dembski -

   
Freddie



Posts: 369
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2014,02:15   

There's a tard fight brewing between Joe and Barb here:



Almost a vintage tard thread like in the good old days, worth a read and a chuckle.

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

  
Cubist



Posts: 493
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2014,02:21   

Notice the favorable review on the webpage for Dembski's book? Seems appropriate that the quoted reviewer is Rupert Sheldrake…

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2194
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2014,06:58   

No wonder Sheldrake likes the book - this is how the blurb starts:
Quote
For a thing to be real, it must be able to communicate with other things

So a large inert stone isn't real. Hmm. I refute it thus.

*hobbles away*

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2014,07:01   

Hortas had a nearly fatal failure to communicate.

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

  
DiEb



Posts: 271
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2014,08:27   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 14 2014,12:58)
No wonder Sheldrake likes the book - this is how the blurb starts:
 
Quote
For a thing to be real, it must be able to communicate with other things

So a large inert stone isn't real. Hmm. I refute it thus.

*hobbles away*

Communicate, interact - Dembski doesn't say that a thing has to be able to spread its message, so if you hit a stone, the stone communicates with you.

Therefore stones are real, the ether is not real, the voices in my head are real.

   
Bob O'H



Posts: 2194
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2014,08:30   

Hm, so if my iPhone is real, does that make my Phone imaginary?

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
stevestory



Posts: 10392
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2014,09:47   

Quote (Freddie @ Jan. 14 2014,03:15)
There's a tard fight brewing between Joe and Barb here:



Almost a vintage tard thread like in the good old days, worth a read and a chuckle.

Barb landed a pretty solid punch, I'd say.

   
Patrick



Posts: 610
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2014,10:28   

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Jan. 13 2014,18:02)
And this is why we haven't heard from Dembski for quite some time: He has written a new book.
Being as Communion: What is intelligent design?
UD was allowed to publish two short paragraphs complete with a definition of intelligent design in which the cat is immediately out of the bag.
 
Quote
Intelligent design is the study of patterns (hence “design”) in nature that give empirical evidence of resulting from real teleology (hence “intelligent”). In this definition, real 37[sic] teleology is not reducible to purely material processes.


In the publisher's description - link at UD - there is a helpful review of Rupert Sheldrake: Wikipedia describes him as an "an English author,[3] lecturer, and researcher in the field of parapsychology,[4] best known for advocating his "morphic resonance" concept."

Is "real teleology" the new CSI?

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2014,11:44   

Quote (Patrick @ Jan. 14 2014,10:28)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Jan. 13 2014,18:02)
And this is why we haven't heard from Dembski for quite some time: He has written a new book.
Being as Communion: What is intelligent design?
UD was allowed to publish two short paragraphs complete with a definition of intelligent design in which the cat is immediately out of the bag.
   
Quote
Intelligent design is the study of patterns (hence “design”) in nature that give empirical evidence of resulting from real teleology (hence “intelligent”). In this definition, real 37[sic] teleology is not reducible to purely material processes.


In the publisher's description - link at UD - there is a helpful review of Rupert Sheldrake: Wikipedia describes him as an "an English author,[3] lecturer, and researcher in the field of parapsychology,[4] best known for advocating his "morphic resonance" concept."

Is "real teleology" the new CSI?

As compared to fake teleology? Maybe such as those promoted by Muslims, Hindus, and those other religions.

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

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

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2589
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2014,12:43   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 14 2014,05:01)
Hortas had a nearly fatal failure to communicate.

Hortae.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2075
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2014,13:21   

Same thread, message 45:
Quote
So you use a couple verses that seem metaphorical to discount the entire Creation and Flood account in Genesis? The construction of the Ark is metaphorical? The majority of the account of Genesis sounds more like matter-of-fact, historical bullet points. Not metaphor.

Mapou, does it mean anything to you that Jesus Christ himself gave a history lesson on the flood?

For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
Matthew 24:38

Or how about that in the gospel of Peter, we are told straight out that people will come in the last days and deny that the Flood happened? Does that sound metaphorical?

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
2 Peter 3:5-6

All science so far.

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

  
Tony M Nyphot



Posts: 370
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2014,13:30   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 14 2014,05:58)
No wonder Sheldrake likes the book - this is how the blurb starts:
   
Quote
For a thing to be real, it must be able to communicate with other things


Does this mean that, even given 300+ pages at AtBC, Gary Gaulin was never real?

--------------
"I, OTOH, am an underachiever...I either pee my pants or faint dead away..." FTK

"You could always wrap fresh fish in the paper you publish it on, though, and sell that." - Field Man on how to find value in Gary Gaulin's real-science "theory"

  
sparc



Posts: 1985
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2014,14:08   

Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Jan. 14 2014,13:30)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 14 2014,05:58)
No wonder Sheldrake likes the book - this is how the blurb starts:
     
Quote
For a thing to be real, it must be able to communicate with other things


Does this mean that, even given 300+ pages at AtBC, Gary Gaulin was never real?

POTW!

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

- William Dembski -

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 1501
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2014,16:54   

Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Jan. 14 2014,13:30)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 14 2014,05:58)
No wonder Sheldrake likes the book - this is how the blurb starts:
     
Quote
For a thing to be real, it must be able to communicate with other things


Does this mean that, even given 300+ pages at AtBC, Gary Gaulin was never real?

If only.

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

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2014,16:20   

Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Jan. 14 2014,13:30)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 14 2014,05:58)
No wonder Sheldrake likes the book - this is how the blurb starts:
     
Quote
For a thing to be real, it must be able to communicate with other things


Does this mean that, even given 300+ pages at AtBC, Gary Gaulin was never real?

I think he's as real as ID Science...

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2014,21:03   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 14 2014,07:47)
 
Quote (Freddie @ Jan. 14 2014,03:15)
There's a tard fight brewing between Joe and Barb here:



Almost a vintage tard thread like in the good old days, worth a read and a chuckle.

Barb landed a pretty solid punch, I'd say.

Take a closer look at this part:



Do Witnesses eat their pets?

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

  
sparc



Posts: 1985
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2014,23:00   

Is there any post by scordova which isn't followed by his very own comments before any reader gets a chance to express his views?
e.g.

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

- William Dembski -

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2014,23:16   

Quote
Do Witnesses eat their pets?


Only when no one is watching.

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

  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1266
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2014,06:00   

Quote (sparc @ Jan. 16 2014,06:00)
Is there any post by scordova which isn't followed by his very own comments before any reader gets a chance to express his views?
e.g.

And what an OP!  
Quote
Radiometric C-14 dates of fossils say the fossils are young.

Oviously, Sal aspires to be the next generation of DI's paradigm-shifting physicists. :D
And I made a joke about carbondating just the other day over at "Science Break".

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
Soapy Sam



Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2014,06:46   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 14 2014,15:47)
 
Quote (Freddie @ Jan. 14 2014,03:15)
There's a tard fight brewing between Joe and Barb here:



Almost a vintage tard thread like in the good old days, worth a read and a chuckle.

Barb landed a pretty solid punch, I'd say.

"Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you"?

God forgot to add "well, when I say every ... please see pages xxx-yyy for a list of exclusions. Pigs, shellfish, bottom feeders ..."

--------------
SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G

BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

  
Quack



Posts: 1960
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2014,07:05   

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Jan. 16 2014,06:00)
Quote (sparc @ Jan. 16 2014,06:00)
Is there any post by scordova which isn't followed by his very own comments before any reader gets a chance to express his views?
e.g.

And what an OP!    
Quote
Radiometric C-14 dates of fossils say the fossils are young.

Oviously, Sal aspires to be the next generation of DI's paradigm-shifting physicists. :D
And I made a joke about carbondating just the other day over at "Science Break".

I find him horrific.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2014,10:20   

Quote (keiths @ Jan. 15 2014,20:03)
Do Witnesses eat their pets?

Is the pet a schmoo?

  
Henry J



Posts: 4786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2014,10:20   

Then there was this line from a movie:

"Didn't there used to be two of those?"

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2014,13:14   

Sal post headline:"DNA half-life only 521 years, so is dino DNA and insect amber DNA young?"

What he quotes:"To make matters worse, variable environmental conditions such as temperature, degree of microbial attack and oxygenation alter the speed of the decay process."

IDiot.

Of course, under the best of conditions they considered DNA might have a half-life of 1.5 millions years.  Did they consider permineralized?  How do the tests for DNA work - do they look for individual bases or other?

By all means Sal, continue posting YEC crap at the leading ID site.  No way anybody would ever believe ID is just religion in disguise!

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

  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1266
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2014,04:53   

Sal's thread is a deep, rich TARD mine.
Lincoln Phipps is desperately trying to talk some sense into Sal who, when confronted with the limits of carbondating and adequate methods of radiodating, resorts to accusations of fraud:
 
Quote
A living dog today could be bracketed by old rocks if I buried it old rocks! The sedimentation video JGuy provided may suggest how this can be done in nicely stratified layers.

Bracketing living dog today inside layers of old rocks doesn’t make the dog 500 million years old!

Unbelievable you guys will insist on using the rock dates when dates are available in the fossil tissues themselves, unless of course the truth needs to be covered up to maintain a narrative.


Why do you guys even talk to him over at SZ? He's despicable.

ETA: And meanwhile, on the same thread, they discuss the meaning of Bible verses. Genesis is a textbook, you just need to know how to read it.

Edited by Kattarina98 on Jan. 18 2014,11:56

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1402
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2014,06:32   

Quote
Why do you guys even talk to him over at SZ? He's despicable.


Site rules! ""Treat all other commenters as if they are posting in good faith". It does sometimes require suspension of disbelief.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1788
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2014,08:32   

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Jan. 18 2014,04:53)
Why do you guys even talk to him over at SZ? He's despicable.

I'll note that human shitstain Sal abandoned his latest thread with YEC claims at TSZ as soon as he was asked about them.  He along with phoodoo have retreated to the safety of UD where he doesn't have to answer those tough questions.  The IDiots over there will pat him on the back no matter what kind of idiocy he barfs up.

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

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2075
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2014,19:39   

Incipient Torley fatigue?
Mapou:    
Quote
lnteresting piece even if a little on the long side.


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

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2075
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2014,19:45   

Oh yeah, the title of that too-long piece?  "Why the best arguments for the existence of God are not stupid."

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

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1402
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2014,02:32   

Anyone following StephenB's evisceration by RDFish/aiguy in the "ID Foundations 21 ...etc" thread may be amused to note KF's correction of HTML errors in comment 346. Gordon assumes all the ad hominems must be by RDFish and "corrects" accordingly, crediting StephenB with making the key point in RDFish's argument (pointing out the new schism of Dembski-ID and Meyer-ID).

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2014,03:24   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 19 2014,19:39)
Incipient Torley fatigue?
Mapou:    
Quote
lnteresting piece even if a little on the long side.

Demonstrating that it is possible for one's legs -- though lengthy-- not to reach the ground.

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

  
olegt



Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2014,08:03   

Timaeus laments that Karl Gibberson is fighting against straw men:
Quote
But let’s face it; Giberson, Falk, etc. had their formative years in the 60s and 70s. They grew up as fundies and the great spiritual and intellectual crisis in their lives was their rebellion against their fellow-fundies Gish, Morris, etc. They are still reacting to that early crisis in their lives. They are still reliving those battles, in fact, have dedicated their lives to refighting those battles, reslaying those dragons, trying to justify over and over again, to themselves as much as to others, the decisions they made back then.

ID folks, by contrast, have mostly moved on. They aren’t talking about defending a literal Genesis, they aren’t contesting the age of the earth, etc. They are talking about information theory, about engineering and computer science conceptions of systems and design, about the physics of molecular structures and Platonic forms of protein folds etc. — all stuff which should interest any serious student of nature, but which Giberson etc. don’t care about. Giberson and his friends are intellectually frozen in a past era of religion/science controversy. And because they still think in outdated terms, they force ID into the old “creation versus evolution” mold, and then write ID off as “creationism.” Meanwhile, much smarter people by far, people like Nagel and Plantinga and Monton and Flew and others, are telling the world that ID isn’t creationism and that the world should give it a serious hearing. Giberson, Falk, etc. are simply going to be left behind.


The forum where Timaeus wrote this is crawling with YECs. I eagerly await their reaction.

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

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2194
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2014,08:39   

Quote (olegt @ Jan. 20 2014,08:03)
Timaeus laments that Karl Gibberson is fighting against straw men:  
Quote
But let’s face it; Giberson, Falk, etc. had their formative years in the 60s and 70s. They grew up as fundies and the great spiritual and intellectual crisis in their lives was their rebellion against their fellow-fundies Gish, Morris, etc. They are still reacting to that early crisis in their lives. They are still reliving those battles, in fact, have dedicated their lives to refighting those battles, reslaying those dragons, trying to justify over and over again, to themselves as much as to others, the decisions they made back then.

ID folks, by contrast, have mostly moved on. They aren’t talking about defending a literal Genesis, they aren’t contesting the age of the earth, etc. They are talking about information theory, about engineering and computer science conceptions of systems and design, about the physics of molecular structures and Platonic forms of protein folds etc. — all stuff which should interest any serious student of nature, but which Giberson etc. don’t care about. Giberson and his friends are intellectually frozen in a past era of religion/science controversy. And because they still think in outdated terms, they force ID into the old “creation versus evolution” mold, and then write ID off as “creationism.” Meanwhile, much smarter people by far, people like Nagel and Plantinga and Monton and Flew and others, are telling the world that ID isn’t creationism and that the world should give it a serious hearing. Giberson, Falk, etc. are simply going to be left behind.


The forum where Timaeus wrote this is crawling with YECs. I eagerly await their reaction.

Hang on, "Platonic forms of protein folds etc."?!

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
REC



Posts: 638
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2014,10:01   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 20 2014,08:39)
Quote (olegt @ Jan. 20 2014,08:03)
Timaeus laments that Karl Gibberson is fighting against straw men:  
Quote
But let’s face it; Giberson, Falk, etc. had their formative years in the 60s and 70s. They grew up as fundies and the great spiritual and intellectual crisis in their lives was their rebellion against their fellow-fundies Gish, Morris, etc. They are still reacting to that early crisis in their lives. They are still reliving those battles, in fact, have dedicated their lives to refighting those battles, reslaying those dragons, trying to justify over and over again, to themselves as much as to others, the decisions they made back then.

ID folks, by contrast, have mostly moved on. They aren’t talking about defending a literal Genesis, they aren’t contesting the age of the earth, etc. They are talking about information theory, about engineering and computer science conceptions of systems and design, about the physics of molecular structures and Platonic forms of protein folds etc. — all stuff which should interest any serious student of nature, but which Giberson etc. don’t care about. Giberson and his friends are intellectually frozen in a past era of religion/science controversy. And because they still think in outdated terms, they force ID into the old “creation versus evolution” mold, and then write ID off as “creationism.” Meanwhile, much smarter people by far, people like Nagel and Plantinga and Monton and Flew and others, are telling the world that ID isn’t creationism and that the world should give it a serious hearing. Giberson, Falk, etc. are simply going to be left behind.


The forum where Timaeus wrote this is crawling with YECs. I eagerly await their reaction.

Hang on, "Platonic forms of protein folds etc."?!

I'm sure that is a reference to Denton's 12-year old paper:

Protein folds as platonic forms....

He argues that since there are only a finite number of stable protein folds, that "The folds are evidently determined by natural law, not natural selection, and are "lawful forms" in the Platonic and pre-Darwinian sense of the word"

These protein folds are also lowest free energy states, and since evolution is constrained to proteins that actually fold and function...?!? Natural law!

Weird argument. I guess because atoms and molecules pack into only 219 space groups in crystals, that reveals a natural law, therefore God?

  
Quack



Posts: 1960
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2014,10:40   

Quote
ID folks, by contrast, have mostly moved on. They aren’t talking about defending a literal Genesis, they aren’t contesting the age of the earth, etc. They are talking about information theory, about engineering and computer science conceptions of systems and design, about the physics of molecular structures and Platonic forms of protein folds etc. — all stuff which should interest any serious student of nature, but which Giberson etc. don’t care about.

Serious students of nature might want to learn the where, when and how of the designer's effort. Unless the designer is God, in which case it is all done by magic - his preferrered method according to reliable sources.
 
Quote
The forum where Timaeus wrote this is crawling with YECs. I eagerly await their reaction.
Please keep us updated.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1266
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2014,12:19   

Quote (olegt @ Jan. 20 2014,15:03)
Timaeus laments that Karl Gibberson is fighting against straw men:    
Quote
But let’s face it; Giberson, Falk, etc. had their formative years in the 60s and 70s. They grew up as fundies and the great spiritual and intellectual crisis in their lives was their rebellion against their fellow-fundies Gish, Morris, etc. They are still reacting to that early crisis in their lives. They are still reliving those battles, in fact, have dedicated their lives to refighting those battles, reslaying those dragons, trying to justify over and over again, to themselves as much as to others, the decisions they made back then.

ID folks, by contrast, have mostly moved on. They aren’t talking about defending a literal Genesis, they aren’t contesting the age of the earth, etc. They are talking about information theory, about engineering and computer science conceptions of systems and design, about the physics of molecular structures and Platonic forms of protein folds etc. — all stuff which should interest any serious student of nature, but which Giberson etc. don’t care about. Giberson and his friends are intellectually frozen in a past era of religion/science controversy. And because they still think in outdated terms, they force ID into the old “creation versus evolution” mold, and then write ID off as “creationism.” Meanwhile, much smarter people by far, people like Nagel and Plantinga and Monton and Flew and others, are telling the world that ID isn’t creationism and that the world should give it a serious hearing. Giberson, Falk, etc. are simply going to be left behind.


The forum where Timaeus wrote this is crawling with YECs. I eagerly await their reaction.

They won't react, Big Tent and all.

By the way, the post immediately above the one you linked to is interesting:  
Quote
He is a well-known writer — though mainly in the evangelical world — on “science and theology,” but has no training in theology to speak of. His Ph.D. was in physics, and while he taught a course on theology and science for years at his little Nazarene College, he never had any notable academic achievement in theology and science, never had any published articles in any serious academic journals in that field. (He may have published one or two pieces in journals like Zygon, but to my knowledge you won’t find him in Isis, Review of Metaphysics, Journal of the History of Ideas, Scottish Journal of Theology, etc.)

He did publish several *books* on theology and science, but these books are all of a popular rather than an academic character,  and slanted toward evangelicals struggling with evolution and with science generally. They therefore aren’t used in graduate or even undergraduate courses in serious universities, but only in little Christian colleges and seminaries. (Serious universities aren’t concerned with the angst of evangelicals who fear science.)


Now who does that remind me of?  :p

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2014,16:15   

Evolution News & Views (No comments allowed) are via Uncommon Descent (Mass bannings, comment suppression and alteration) hosting a ....



...wait for it...


...


Quote
Censor of the Year contest


Uh huh.

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

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1045
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2014,16:38   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 20 2014,16:15)
Evolution News & Views (No comments allowed) are via Uncommon Descent (Mass bannings, comment suppression and alteration) hosting a ....



...wait for it...


...


Quote
Censor of the Year contest


Uh huh.

Well, if they could recognize irony, they'd immediately overdose on their own hypocrisy.

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 1501
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2014,16:49   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 20 2014,16:15)
Evolution News & Views (No comments allowed) are via Uncommon Descent (Mass bannings, comment suppression and alteration) hosting a ....



...wait for it...


...


Quote
Censor of the Year contest


Uh huh.

Maybe it's just their in house awards for a the year?

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

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2014,17:05   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 20 2014,16:15)
Evolution News & Views (No comments allowed) are via Uncommon Descent (Mass bannings, comment suppression and alteration) hosting a ....



...wait for it...


...


Quote
Censor of the Year contest


Uh huh.

I believe at UD they are also considering giving out awards: " DiscoTute's Universal Moral and Manly Yaweh-Like" Awards - (aka the D.U.M.M.Y. Awards) for the following categories:

The Fast Talker Of The Year category (The Golden Gish)
The Holier Than Thou category (A 20 way tie between the Usual UD Posters)
The Bestest ID Writer (O'Leary to get Lifetime Achievement recognition)
And of course the crowd will be on the edge of their pew seats for the Final "Best Liar For Jesus" category.

I for one expect another 20-way tie...

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2589
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2014,17:32   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 20 2014,14:15)
Evolution News & Views (No comments allowed) are via Uncommon Descent (Mass bannings, comment suppression and alteration) hosting a ....



...wait for it...


...


Quote
Censor of the Year contest


Uh huh.

The nominees are:

The CBEB's.

The Atheist Darwinist Materialist Baby-Eating Conspiracy.

The Entire Scientific Community.

Corny Hunter.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1266
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2014,13:48   

From vjtorley's thoughts about Lizzie's post on the SZ - "Getting some stuff off my chest" - the discussion quickly degrades to bickering about the nature of god. First highlight , written by RexTugwell:
 
Quote
Eric and Mapou, are you guys Mormons? If you are, we’ve got bigger disagreements than whether God has a body or not.



--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
sparc



Posts: 1985
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2014,13:54   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 20 2014,16:15)
Evolution News & Views (No comments allowed) are via Uncommon Descent (Mass bannings, comment suppression and alteration) hosting a ....



...wait for it...


...


Quote
Censor of the Year contest


Uh huh.

I used their Twitter button but added a bit before re-teeting:
Quote
Censor of the Year: Who Will It Be? Obviously, Barry Arrington of http://uncommondescent.com/....ent.com  http://shar.es/UslLM  via @sharethis


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

- William Dembski -

   
Soapy Sam



Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2014,18:22   

Quote (REC @ Jan. 20 2014,16:01)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 20 2014,08:39)
 
Quote (olegt @ Jan. 20 2014,08:03)
Timaeus laments that Karl Gibberson is fighting against straw men:    
Quote
But let’s face it; Giberson, Falk, etc. had their formative years in the 60s and 70s. They grew up as fundies and the great spiritual and intellectual crisis in their lives was their rebellion against their fellow-fundies Gish, Morris, etc. They are still reacting to that early crisis in their lives. They are still reliving those battles, in fact, have dedicated their lives to refighting those battles, reslaying those dragons, trying to justify over and over again, to themselves as much as to others, the decisions they made back then.

ID folks, by contrast, have mostly moved on. They aren’t talking about defending a literal Genesis, they aren’t contesting the age of the earth, etc. They are talking about information theory, about engineering and computer science conceptions of systems and design, about the physics of molecular structures and Platonic forms of protein folds etc. — all stuff which should interest any serious student of nature, but which Giberson etc. don’t care about. Giberson and his friends are intellectually frozen in a past era of religion/science controversy. And because they still think in outdated terms, they force ID into the old “creation versus evolution” mold, and then write ID off as “creationism.” Meanwhile, much smarter people by far, people like Nagel and Plantinga and Monton and Flew and others, are telling the world that ID isn’t creationism and that the world should give it a serious hearing. Giberson, Falk, etc. are simply going to be left behind.


The forum where Timaeus wrote this is crawling with YECs. I eagerly await their reaction.

Hang on, "Platonic forms of protein folds etc."?!

I'm sure that is a reference to Denton's 12-year old paper:

Protein folds as platonic forms....

He argues that since there are only a finite number of stable protein folds, that "The folds are evidently determined by natural law, not natural selection, and are "lawful forms" in the Platonic and pre-Darwinian sense of the word"

These protein folds are also lowest free energy states, and since evolution is constrained to proteins that actually fold and function...?!? Natural law!

Weird argument. I guess because atoms and molecules pack into only 219 space groups in crystals, that reveals a natural law, therefore God?

The 'platonic' forms all ultimately relate back to the charge of the quarks and their packing in threes. Obviously it's a put-up job. Things like that don't just happen!

--------------
SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G

BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2014,18:33   

Nobody expects the charge of the quarks.

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

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1501
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2014,19:05   

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 21 2014,18:22)
Quote (REC @ Jan. 20 2014,16:01)
 
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 20 2014,08:39)
 
Quote (olegt @ Jan. 20 2014,08:03)
Timaeus laments that Karl Gibberson is fighting against straw men:      
Quote
But let’s face it; Giberson, Falk, etc. had their formative years in the 60s and 70s. They grew up as fundies and the great spiritual and intellectual crisis in their lives was their rebellion against their fellow-fundies Gish, Morris, etc. They are still reacting to that early crisis in their lives. They are still reliving those battles, in fact, have dedicated their lives to refighting those battles, reslaying those dragons, trying to justify over and over again, to themselves as much as to others, the decisions they made back then.

ID folks, by contrast, have mostly moved on. They aren’t talking about defending a literal Genesis, they aren’t contesting the age of the earth, etc. They are talking about information theory, about engineering and computer science conceptions of systems and design, about the physics of molecular structures and Platonic forms of protein folds etc. — all stuff which should interest any serious student of nature, but which Giberson etc. don’t care about. Giberson and his friends are intellectually frozen in a past era of religion/science controversy. And because they still think in outdated terms, they force ID into the old “creation versus evolution” mold, and then write ID off as “creationism.” Meanwhile, much smarter people by far, people like Nagel and Plantinga and Monton and Flew and others, are telling the world that ID isn’t creationism and that the world should give it a serious hearing. Giberson, Falk, etc. are simply going to be left behind.


The forum where Timaeus wrote this is crawling with YECs. I eagerly await their reaction.

Hang on, "Platonic forms of protein folds etc."?!

I'm sure that is a reference to Denton's 12-year old paper:

Protein folds as platonic forms....

He argues that since there are only a finite number of stable protein folds, that "The folds are evidently determined by natural law, not natural selection, and are "lawful forms" in the Platonic and pre-Darwinian sense of the word"

These protein folds are also lowest free energy states, and since evolution is constrained to proteins that actually fold and function...?!? Natural law!

Weird argument. I guess because atoms and molecules pack into only 219 space groups in crystals, that reveals a natural law, therefore God?

The 'platonic' forms all ultimately relate back to the charge of the quarks and their packing in threes. Obviously it's a put-up job. Things like that don't just happen!

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Quark?

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

  
Driver



Posts: 649
Joined: June 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2014,19:21   

I thought quarks and whatnot were Buddhist.

--------------
Why would I concern myself with evidence, when IMO "evidence" is only the mind arranging thought and matter to support what one already wishes to believe? - William J Murray

[A]t this time a forum like this one is nothing less than a national security risk. - Gary Gaulin

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2589
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2014,21:15   

Quote (Driver @ Jan. 21 2014,17:21)
I thought quarks and whatnot were Buddhist.

Ramans do everything in threes

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
Henry J



Posts: 4786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2014,21:40   

Quark? He follows the rules of Acquisition.

  
Driver



Posts: 649
Joined: June 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2014,21:47   

Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 22 2014,03:15)
Quote (Driver @ Jan. 21 2014,17:21)
I thought quarks and whatnot were Buddhist.

Ramans do everything in threes

Okay, you're more obscure.

--------------
Why would I concern myself with evidence, when IMO "evidence" is only the mind arranging thought and matter to support what one already wishes to believe? - William J Murray

[A]t this time a forum like this one is nothing less than a national security risk. - Gary Gaulin

  
Driver



Posts: 649
Joined: June 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2014,21:50   

Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 22 2014,03:40)
Quark? He follows the rules of Acquisition.

No, you are the most obscure.

--------------
Why would I concern myself with evidence, when IMO "evidence" is only the mind arranging thought and matter to support what one already wishes to believe? - William J Murray

[A]t this time a forum like this one is nothing less than a national security risk. - Gary Gaulin

  
rossum



Posts: 237
Joined: Dec. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2014,05:48   

Quote (Driver @ Jan. 21 2014,19:21)
I thought quarks and whatnot were Buddhist.

Only in the south, on Tuesdays.  Otherwise they are Zoroastrian.

--------------
The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

  
Febble



Posts: 310
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2014,04:16   

I have to say, I find it a bit annoying (but "revealing" as KF would say) that UD bans me, lets vjtorley post nice posts commenting on my posts at TSZ, which I can't comment on at UD, and yet the commenters there can "paraphrase" my views, without link, so that they make no sense whatsoever, and then congratulate themselves on the vacuity of the paraphrase.

Phoodoo:

Quote


William,

I thought Lizzie argument of why we should see humans as anything more than chemical oddities if one believes in evolution, is particularly unsophisticated. Basically her idea is that, well, we can call humans special, because we feel they are special. And her biggest cop-out, well, they have “emergence”. A completely vague, and unexplainable science term which tries to make sense of how a bunch of ants can make something smart, or how our individual brain cells can put together a complex thought.

She kept trying to say, “well, they are emergent, see, so that is where we get our moral ideas.” I think she didn’t even have a clue what she was trying to say, but simply was trying to throw out some concepts and hope they deflected the problem of finding morality in a completely materialist world.

If we are all just different mixes of chemicals, all the talk in the world about emergence doesn’t erase the fact that its just chemicals creating the illusion of value.

The fact is, science doesn’t even know what emergence is, they have no idea how ants make complex decisions, and how individual brain cells, add up to consciousness. Its a complete mystery,and she is using it as a defense for pulling morality out of thin air.

Eric A:
Quote


phoodoo:

Thanks for calling out the “emergence” business. It is amazing how many people buy into the “emergence” buzzword as though it were some kind of actual explanation.

Emergence, without more explanation of what is actually going on at the micro and macro level, is just another way of restating the old evolutionary storyline:

Stuff Happens.


Needless to say, I have never said that humans "have" "emergence".

geez.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2014,04:37   

I'm somewhat guilty of arguing for emergence. I don't think I've ever said it is an explanation of anything,  but I think it is silly to say humans can't have this or that attribute because the attribute isn't an attribute of mere molecules.

It would be interesting to have a coherent description of emergence,  preferable a readable one. It would seem to be a cousin of vitalism.

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

  
Febble



Posts: 310
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2014,05:15   

I've certainly talked about emergence - I think it's really important. But I don't think it's a property that things have.  I think a way of indicating that wholes have different properties from their parts.

The properties of a carbon dioxide molecule are different from those of atomic carbon or oxygen.  So to that extent, its properties are "emergent" from the configuration of its more fundamental components, which in turn have properties that "emerge" from their more fundamental components, and so on.

I don't think it's even controversial.  Wholes have properties not possessed by their parts, and they have them by virtue of their configuration, not by possessing Magic Parts.

And we call these properties "emergent" properties because nothing is added that wasn't there originally, unless you call the configuration "added".  In which case what has been "added" is good old "information", which is lost when the configuration is destroyed.

But then IDists consider "Information" to be "Magic Parts".

  
BillB



Posts: 388
Joined: Aug. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2014,05:36   

Quote (Febble @ Jan. 23 2014,11:15)
I've certainly talked about emergence - I think it's really important. But I don't think it's a property that things have.  I think a way of indicating that wholes have different properties from their parts.

The properties of a carbon dioxide molecule are different from those of atomic carbon or oxygen.  So to that extent, its properties are "emergent" from the configuration of its more fundamental components, which in turn have properties that "emerge" from their more fundamental components, and so on.

I don't think it's even controversial.  Wholes have properties not possessed by their parts, and they have them by virtue of their configuration, not by possessing Magic Parts.

And we call these properties "emergent" properties because nothing is added that wasn't there originally, unless you call the configuration "added".  In which case what has been "added" is good old "information", which is lost when the configuration is destroyed.

But then IDists consider "Information" to be "Magic Parts".

I've heard AI and ALife researchers loosely (and often jokingly) refer to emergence as "Behaviour I wasn't expecting" because if so often gets used to describe a behaviour or property that the researcher wasn't fully expecting to see.

I did witness a mild argument once: One person claimed emergent behaviour in system x, another denied it was emergent - "It isn't emergent, it is exactly what I would have expected"

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2014,06:01   

Rather than "not expected" it would be more accurate to say not predictable.

At any rate, the issue has been around for a long time. I think it would be interesting to have a history of the idea,  because I think it encompasses vitalism,  souls,  and such.

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

  
BillB



Posts: 388
Joined: Aug. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2014,06:13   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 23 2014,12:01)
Rather than "not expected" it would be more accurate to say not predictable.

At any rate, the issue has been around for a long time. I think it would be interesting to have a history of the idea,  because I think it encompasses vitalism,  souls,  and such.

Or 'not predicted' - hence the argument anecdote.

  
olegt



Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2014,06:15   

This excerpt amply demonstrates that phoodoo isn't someone worth paying attention to.
Quote
She kept trying to say, “well, they are emergent, see, so that is where we get our moral ideas.” I think she didn’t even have a clue what she was trying to say, but simply was trying to throw out some concepts and hope they deflected the problem of finding morality in a completely materialist world.

If we are all just different mixes of chemicals, all the talk in the world about emergence doesn’t erase the fact that its just chemicals creating the illusion of value.

The fact is, science doesn’t even know what emergence is, they have no idea how ants make complex decisions, and how individual brain cells, add up to consciousness. Its a complete mystery,and she is using it as a defense for pulling morality out of thin air.

Each paragraph contains an egregious error. Phoodoo has been pointed several times to P.W. Anderson's short essay that explains very well what emergence is and gives examples. I don't think he ever bothered to read it. He still has no clue and accuses others of not understanding it. The guy is both ignorant and arrogant at the same time, with hilarious results.

This isn't an entirely new trait exhibited by phoodoo. He claims that I have no clue about dynamical chaos and that Joe Felsenstein cannot count. LOL.

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

  
Soapy Sam



Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2014,06:26   

Emergence is just interaction, surely? Two hands clapping, to go a bit Zen. It starts with our little quarks. They interact by gluons in menages a trois (Pretentious? Moi?). But free neutrons are unstable. Flip a down to an up and the whole has an electrical field, into which stray electrons tumble. Then (flips over a few pages) ... everything else! Ta-daaaah!

Phoodoo has beat a fine retreat, BTW. Back to where he can say what he likes, and is never gainsaid.

--------------
SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G

BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

  
olegt



Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2014,06:45   

The notion of emergence in science, as I understand it, begins with a negative statement.

For example, the rigidity of a solid is not explained by the properties of atoms that make it up. You can know everything about the atomic structure and energy levels and even about interactions of atoms. But you still don't understand what makes a solid rigid. When you attempt to deform a piece of ice and it resists your efforts, you can't just say "Oh, atoms are hard and so is the solid they make up." Because when that piece of ice melts, you can deform the resulting water easily. And it is made of the same atoms. So it's not about atoms.

But of course making a negative statement does not explain anything. You need a positive theory. The rigidity of crystals is explained by spontaneous breaking of the symmetries of translations and rotations in them. The vacuum is translationally and rotationally invariant: it looks the same if you move by an angstrom left or right or if you turn your head. A liquid is also translationally and rotationally invariant: there are no preferred positions or directions in it. A crystal isn't: atoms form a periodic structure; shifting by an angstrom left or right shifts the periodic lattice; turning your head changes its orientation with respect to the crystal's face.

So the rigidity of a crystal turns out to be a property that is not possessed by the atoms constituting a solid. It only emerges when a large collection of atoms does something entirely new: spontaneously breaks some symmetries of the vacuum. Rigidity is a canonical example of emergence in science. Contrary to phoodoo's ignorant claim, scientists know very well what emergence is. There are well understood cases.

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

  
Amadan



Posts: 1334
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2014,07:55   

Tard goes in, tard goes out.

You can't explain that.

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
Soapy Sam



Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2014,08:33   

Quote (olegt @ Jan. 23 2014,12:45)
The notion of emergence in science, as I understand it, begins with a negative statement.

For example, the rigidity of a solid is not explained by the properties of atoms that make it up. You can know everything about the atomic structure and energy levels and even about interactions of atoms. But you still don't understand what makes a solid rigid. When you attempt to deform a piece of ice and it resists your efforts, you can't just say "Oh, atoms are hard and so is the solid they make up." Because when that piece of ice melts, you can deform the resulting water easily. And it is made of the same atoms. So it's not about atoms.

But of course making a negative statement does not explain anything. You need a positive theory. The rigidity of crystals is explained by spontaneous breaking of the symmetries of translations and rotations in them. The vacuum is translationally and rotationally invariant: it looks the same if you move by an angstrom left or right or if you turn your head. A liquid is also translationally and rotationally invariant: there are no preferred positions or directions in it. A crystal isn't: atoms form a periodic structure; shifting by an angstrom left or right shifts the periodic lattice; turning your head changes its orientation with respect to the crystal's face.

So the rigidity of a crystal turns out to be a property that is not possessed by the atoms constituting a solid. It only emerges when a large collection of atoms does something entirely new: spontaneously breaks some symmetries of the vacuum. Rigidity is a canonical example of emergence in science. Contrary to phoodoo's ignorant claim, scientists know very well what emergence is. There are well understood cases.

But surely still, as a shorthand, 'interaction'? Interactions between atoms and molecules in pure form or solution change with energy distribution, number and the properties of the atoms in any surrounding medium. That there are discrete phase transitions doesn't go against the simplistic notion that collective properties arise from summed complex interactions.

--------------
SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G

BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

  
olegt



Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2014,08:41   

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 23 2014,08:33)
But surely still, as a shorthand, 'interaction'? Interactions between atoms and molecules in pure form or solution change with energy distribution, number and the properties of the atoms in any surrounding medium. That there are discrete phase transitions doesn't go against the simplistic notion that collective properties arise from summed complex interactions.

A bit too simplistic. Surely, if atoms didn't interact then there would not be any solids. Or liquids, for that matter. But just saying "interactions are responsible for rigidity" misses an essential point. Interactions between atoms exist in both liquids and solids. However, solids keep their shapes and liquids do not. The presence of interactions does not explain this key difference. So alluding to interactions is not an explanation.

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

  
Soapy Sam



Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2014,09:23   

Quote (olegt @ Jan. 23 2014,14:41)
 
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 23 2014,08:33)
But surely still, as a shorthand, 'interaction'? Interactions between atoms and molecules in pure form or solution change with energy distribution, number and the properties of the atoms in any surrounding medium. That there are discrete phase transitions doesn't go against the simplistic notion that collective properties arise from summed complex interactions.

A bit too simplistic. Surely, if atoms didn't interact then there would not be any solids. Or liquids, for that matter. But just saying "interactions are responsible for rigidity" misses an essential point. Interactions between atoms exist in both liquids and solids. However, solids keep their shapes and liquids do not. The presence of interactions does not explain this key difference. So alluding to interactions is not an explanation.

It's true - it's no more an explanation than 'emergence' is. I merely regard them as approximately synonymous, and it evades the slightly mystical quality that emergence seems to engender.

phoodoo, I'm betting, would waft away any scientific understanding of this or that specific emergent phenomenon because it does not extend to his chosen example - ants, or brain cells. He wants THE scientific explanation for emergence as a phenomenon - everything beyond the naked quark, if such can stand alone. And the fundamental, explains-nothing-by-itself quality of emergent phenomena is that they result from interactions, building onion-like up to and including the level of interest.

--------------
SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G

BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

  
Driver



Posts: 649
Joined: June 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2014,20:57   

Stephen B isn't the next Dembski but he might be the next Karl Pilkington:

Quote
Do I really have to enumerate every example of law/chance to show you that no example of law/chance can run off with the jewelry? Can a volcano run off with jewelry? Can a flood run off with jewelry? Can a river run off with jewelry?


Volcanos aren't burglars, therefore ID.


link

--------------
Why would I concern myself with evidence, when IMO "evidence" is only the mind arranging thought and matter to support what one already wishes to believe? - William J Murray

[A]t this time a forum like this one is nothing less than a national security risk. - Gary Gaulin

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2014,21:07   

Perhaps a wormhole will open up and run off with his jewelry.

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

  
Freddie



Posts: 369
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2014,23:06   

Quote (Driver @ Jan. 23 2014,20:57)
Stephen B isn't the next Dembski but he might be the next Karl Pilkington:

 
Quote
Do I really have to enumerate every example of law/chance to show you that no example of law/chance can run off with the jewelry? Can a volcano run off with jewelry? Can a flood run off with jewelry? Can a river run off with jewelry?


Volcanos aren't burglars, therefore ID.


link

Does he have a little round head, too?

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

  
Quack



Posts: 1960
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2014,01:48   

Something for Stephen B to ponder? Spontaneous symmetry breaking - watch  superfluid in action.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2014,14:04   

Well, a flood might wash some jewelry away where it can't be found.

And a volcano could melt stuff.

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2014,21:13   

Batshit77, first human to reach absolute zero in self-awareness:
Quote
Jaceli123, sorry I’m not watching any of your off topic rabbit trail videos anymore. You have to do your own homework!


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

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2014,21:31   

That would make BA the Bose-Einstein of intelligent design.

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

  
sparc



Posts: 1985
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 26 2014,22:36   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 25 2014,21:31)
That would make BA the Bose-Einstein of intelligent design.

You don't want to say that BA77 is cool, do you?

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

- William Dembski -

   
Soapy Sam



Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2014,02:41   

Comprised almost entirely of Bozons.

--------------
SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G

BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1203
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2014,02:44   

I wonder how long it takes Slimy Sal to headline the following at UD....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news....5881953


  
Driver



Posts: 649
Joined: June 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2014,05:40   

Quote (Woodbine @ Jan. 27 2014,08:44)
I wonder how long it takes Slimy Sal to headline the following at UD....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news.......5881953


After all, the difference between 70 million and 6 million years is a lot more than the difference between 6million and 6000 years.

--------------
Why would I concern myself with evidence, when IMO "evidence" is only the mind arranging thought and matter to support what one already wishes to believe? - William J Murray

[A]t this time a forum like this one is nothing less than a national security risk. - Gary Gaulin

  
KevinB



Posts: 351
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2014,14:43   

Quote (sparc @ Jan. 26 2014,22:36)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 25 2014,21:31)
That would make BA the Bose-Einstein of intelligent design.

You don't want to say that BA77 is cool, do you?

I think he must be suggesting that BA77 is a loudspeaker....

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

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2014,16:40   

Quote (KevinB @ Jan. 27 2014,14:43)
Quote (sparc @ Jan. 26 2014,22:36)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 25 2014,21:31)
That would make BA the Bose-Einstein of intelligent design.

You don't want to say that BA77 is cool, do you?

I think he must be suggesting that BA77 is a loudspeaker....

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

I have three sets of 901s, the first purchased in 1968 and having a low serial number. The others were purchased at estate sales.

No sign of Albert , though.

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

  
JohnW



Posts: 2834
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2014,17:47   

Quote (KevinB @ Jan. 27 2014,12:43)
Quote (sparc @ Jan. 26 2014,22:36)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 25 2014,21:31)
That would make BA the Bose-Einstein of intelligent design.

You don't want to say that BA77 is cool, do you?

I think he must be suggesting that BA77 is a loudspeaker....

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

It's tard superconductivity - where the tard just flows forever, with nothing to stop it.  Batshit77 reached this state years ago.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2014,18:02   

So far it hasn't climbed out of the container.

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

  
Ptaylor



Posts: 1038
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2014,20:01   

Denyse O'Leary,

Which of these statements from your latest post doesn't belong?:

 
Quote
See also: Musical instruments pushed back by about 7,000 years

Artists’ workshop from 100,000 years ago

Sophisticated tool production system discovered, from 200,000-400,000 million years ago

Stone tools nearly two million years old

(Hint: you were corrected on this nearly two and a half years ago.)

UD link

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

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1501
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2014,21:56   

Quote (Ptaylor @ Jan. 27 2014,20:01)
Denyse O'Leary,

Which of these statements from your latest post doesn't belong?:

   
Quote
See also: Musical instruments pushed back by about 7,000 years

Artists’ workshop from 100,000 years ago

Sophisticated tool production system discovered, from 200,000-400,000 million years ago

Stone tools nearly two million years old

(Hint: you were corrected on this nearly two and a half years ago.)

UD link

This would be big news if it was the God the designer producing tools at that time.

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

  
BillB



Posts: 388
Joined: Aug. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2014,06:08   

Quote (Texas Teach @ Jan. 28 2014,03:56)
Quote (Ptaylor @ Jan. 27 2014,20:01)
Denyse O'Leary,

Which of these statements from your latest post doesn't belong?:

     
Quote
See also: Musical instruments pushed back by about 7,000 years

Artists’ workshop from 100,000 years ago

Sophisticated tool production system discovered, from 200,000-400,000 million years ago

Stone tools nearly two million years old

(Hint: you were corrected on this nearly two and a half years ago.)

UD link

This would be big news if it was the God the designer producing tools at that time.

Shortly followed by an in depth item in Make magazine - "DNA splicing using only a stone axe - a how-to guide"

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2014,07:42   

Chubs gets a guest post at UD!

http://www.uncommondescent.com/science....st-post

And he doesn't swear once! (yet).

He does a great job of showing how barren ID is, it is fine with lots of stuff being there or not, doesn't predict anything, does like Standard evolutionary mechanisms but proffers none of its own (brace for 'Desine is teh mekunism' numb-nutsery).

Editz.

Edited by Richardthughes on Jan. 28 2014,07:45

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

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1788
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2014,09:50   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 28 2014,07:42)
Chubs gets a guest post at UD!

http://www.uncommondescent.com/science....st-post

And he doesn't swear once! (yet).

He does a great job of showing how barren ID is, it is fine with lots of stuff being there or not, doesn't predict anything, does like Standard evolutionary mechanisms but proffers none of its own (brace for 'Desine is teh mekunism' numb-nutsery).

Editz.

Like always Chubs also manages to directly contradict himself.

- ID is not anti-evolution

- Evolution can't create anything.

It does go to show just how desperate UD is to have "informed" commentary when they make IDiot JoeTard a spokesman.  We need to get him talking about baraminology and the CSI of Noah's Ark.

--------------
"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: 1203
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2014,10:43   

Fuck me, who's next? Byers?

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1045
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2014,10:52   

Joe:

Quote
The problem is lack of evidence for natural selection being a designer mimic.


Not a problem for biology, since biologic phenomena are cladistically organized.  Design has never been observed to be so (including technologic evolution, of course).

The big problem for creationism is explaining how design is an evolution mimic.  "Evolution" is hardly the explanation, since the whole point of design is to get away from biologic evolution's limits.*  Life, for one, does not.

Glen Davidson

*To be done creatively, or, what's that word?  To be creation.

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Ptaylor



Posts: 1038
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2014,14:29   

Joe dominates the comments in his thread, and gives us this gem:
 
Quote
And FYI- I have started writing a book titled “On the Origin of Species by Means of Intelligent Design Evolution”- don’t know when or even if I will finish it, but I did start it…

I think he means but don't hold your breath.
UD link

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

  
JohnW



Posts: 2834
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2014,14:29   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 28 2014,05:42)
Chubs gets a guest post at UD!

http://www.uncommondescent.com/science....st-post

And he doesn't swear once! (yet).

He does a great job of showing how barren ID is, it is fine with lots of stuff being there or not, doesn't predict anything, does like Standard evolutionary mechanisms but proffers none of its own (brace for 'Desine is teh mekunism' numb-nutsery).

Editz.

Bingo!
Quote
20 Joe January 28, 2014 at 12:47 pm

Eric- Thank you. True ID is not a mechanistic theory but that does not stop design from being a mechanism.


--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1045
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2014,14:42   

Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 28 2014,14:29)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 28 2014,05:42)
Chubs gets a guest post at UD!

http://www.uncommondescent.com/science....st-post

And he doesn't swear once! (yet).

He does a great job of showing how barren ID is, it is fine with lots of stuff being there or not, doesn't predict anything, does like Standard evolutionary mechanisms but proffers none of its own (brace for 'Desine is teh mekunism' numb-nutsery).

Editz.

Bingo!
Quote
20 Joe January 28, 2014 at 12:47 pm

Eric- Thank you. True ID is not a mechanistic theory but that does not stop design from being a mechanism.

And they're against equivocation:

Quote
Honest question: If your theory thrives on rampant equivocation, what is the incentive to seek clarity?


I seriously was wondering when I read that if this was one of the few remaining anti-IDiots.  Next line showed that it wasn't.

Yes, design produces the same patterns and evidences of evolution (compatible with biologic evolution, you know--not that anything of the sort has ever been seen, but Designer can do anything so evidence is hardly an issue), and ID isn't mechanistic but can be.  Damn those evolutionists and their equivocations!

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1788
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2014,15:23   

Quote (Ptaylor @ Jan. 28 2014,14:29)
Joe dominates the comments in his thread, and gives us this gem:
   
Quote
And FYI- I have started writing a book titled “On the Origin of Species by Means of Intelligent Design Evolution”- don’t know when or even if I will finish it, but I did start it…

I think he means but don't hold your breath.
UD link

JoeTard has posted the first chapter of his "book" on his blog.

He took the first entry from Theobald's "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" and did a Word replace of "common descent" with "common design".

:D  :D  :D

Even with that he fucked up a few entries a la "cdesignproponentist"

Maybe he can get O'Dreary to be his proofreader, teach him how to rite gud.

ETA:  looks like it's a reprint of something he did back in 2007.

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

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1788
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2014,15:30   

Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 28 2014,14:29)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 28 2014,05:42)
Chubs gets a guest post at UD!

http://www.uncommondescent.com/science....st-post

And he doesn't swear once! (yet).

He does a great job of showing how barren ID is, it is fine with lots of stuff being there or not, doesn't predict anything, does like Standard evolutionary mechanisms but proffers none of its own (brace for 'Desine is teh mekunism' numb-nutsery).

Editz.

Bingo!
 
Quote
20 Joe January 28, 2014 at 12:47 pm

Eric- Thank you. True ID is not a mechanistic theory but that does not stop design from being a mechanism.

Eric Anderson has the sack to correct Joe and tell him design is not a mechanism.

 
Quote
I think I understand what you are saying. I don’t mean to nitpick definitions too much, but in the design field we typically speak of “design processes” or “design approaches“, rather than a “design mechanism”. There are good reasons for that terminology. A design approach or a design process can make use of mechanisms or implement mechanisms, but the design itself is typically not thought of as a “mechanism.”


How will JoeTard react to being called down by one of his IDiot buddies?

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

  
socle



Posts: 322
Joined: July 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2014,16:11   

Quote (Ptaylor @ Jan. 28 2014,14:29)
Joe dominates the comments in his thread, and gives us this gem:
 
Quote
And FYI- I have started writing a book titled “On the Origin of Species by Means of Intelligent Design Evolution”- don’t know when or even if I will finish it, but I did start it…

I think he means but don't hold your breath.
UD link

Please please please let this happen.  Joe, I will tip you 1000 dogecoin if you finish this book and KF posts a review of it on UD.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2014,16:36   

Quote (socle @ Jan. 28 2014,16:11)
Quote (Ptaylor @ Jan. 28 2014,14:29)
Joe dominates the comments in his thread, and gives us this gem:
   
Quote
And FYI- I have started writing a book titled “On the Origin of Species by Means of Intelligent Design Evolution”- don’t know when or even if I will finish it, but I did start it…

I think he means but don't hold your breath.
UD link

Please please please let this happen.  Joe, I will tip you 1000 dogecoin if you finish this book and KF posts a review of it on UD.

So Tard... Wow....Such ignorant..Much foolish..Amaze..So swearing.

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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2014,17:15   

Hey, it's giving me a lot more hits on my blog.  Joe really is silly, sending people to compare what he says to what is real.

I guess it's time to cross post my ID is Anti-evolution opening.

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

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

   
REC



Posts: 638
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2014,17:33   

Quote
30
Joe January 28, 2014 at 3:56 pm

Mapou,

Some of the evo responses are priceless. One guy actually chides the OP for not saying what ID predicts, not realizing that is not the topic. Anything to distract from the facts, I guess.

Another guy sez that natural selection is a designer because of his misunderstanding of the way we classify phenomena. Again anything to avoid the actual topic- look at LarTanner’s “response” (#15)

Classic and priceless…


I'm not sure I saw any "evos" reply. KF seems similarly puzzled:

Quote

31
kairosfocusJanuary 28, 2014 at 4:56 pm
Joe, where are those responses? KF


Joe, misrepresenting what people say may work across blogs (e.g what you do to TSZ at UD). Within the same thread, even KF's skeptical.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2014,17:59   

Quote (REC @ Jan. 28 2014,17:33)
Quote
30
Joe January 28, 2014 at 3:56 pm

Mapou,

Some of the evo responses are priceless. One guy actually chides the OP for not saying what ID predicts, not realizing that is not the topic. Anything to distract from the facts, I guess.

Another guy sez that natural selection is a designer because of his misunderstanding of the way we classify phenomena. Again anything to avoid the actual topic- look at LarTanner’s “response” (#15)

Classic and priceless…


I'm not sure I saw any "evos" reply. KF seems similarly puzzled:

Quote

31
kairosfocusJanuary 28, 2014 at 4:56 pm
Joe, where are those responses? KF


Joe, misrepresenting what people say may work across blogs (e.g what you do to TSZ at UD). Within the same thread, even KF's skeptical.

Are where they just insta-banned?

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

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

   
REC



Posts: 638
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2014,18:06   

Quote (Woodbine @ Jan. 28 2014,10:43)
Fuck me, who's next? Byers?

PLEASE let it be Mapou!!! Crotchety, cursy, and batshit insane:

http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/....pot.com

Quote
In Part I, I gave an interpretation of verses 1 to 7 of the third chapter of the book of Zechariah. I claimed that Joshua the high priest is a metaphor for a sensorimotor mechanism in the brain's sequence memory. I wrote that the Joshua chapter was a continuation (or complement) of the metaphors found in the message to Sardis in the book of Revelation. I claimed that the Biblical model of perceptual learning sharply contradicts modern statistical approaches to machine learning.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10392
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2014,18:49   

Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 28 2014,15:29)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 28 2014,05:42)
Chubs gets a guest post at UD!

http://www.uncommondescent.com/science....st-post

And he doesn't swear once! (yet).

He does a great job of showing how barren ID is, it is fine with lots of stuff being there or not, doesn't predict anything, does like Standard evolutionary mechanisms but proffers none of its own (brace for 'Desine is teh mekunism' numb-nutsery).

Editz.

Bingo!
Quote
20 Joe January 28, 2014 at 12:47 pm

Eric- Thank you. True ID is not a mechanistic theory but that does not stop design from being a mechanism.

John beated me to it. So I will post my favorite Joe comments

Numbar Too:
Quote
In the next court case the evos and ACLU are going to have to deal with the facts presented in the OP. And if they don’t then they will fail- if they do they will also fail.


We are Doomed!

Numbar Three:
Quote

And FYI- I have started writing a book titled “On the Origin of Species by Means of Intelligent Design Evolution”- don’t know when or even if I will finish it, but I did start it…


It's sad that nothing will come of it. This 'book' would be hilarious!

   
stevestory



Posts: 10392
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2014,18:51   

Quote


One strawman wrt ID not being a mechanistic theory is that the antiIDists take that and say that means ID desn’t have any mechanisms. As if…


Please Proceed, Joe!

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 1501
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2014,19:28   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 28 2014,18:49)
Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 28 2014,15:29)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 28 2014,05:42)
Chubs gets a guest post at UD!

http://www.uncommondescent.com/science....st-post

And he doesn't swear once! (yet).

He does a great job of showing how barren ID is, it is fine with lots of stuff being there or not, doesn't predict anything, does like Standard evolutionary mechanisms but proffers none of its own (brace for 'Desine is teh mekunism' numb-nutsery).

Editz.

Bingo!
 
Quote
20 Joe January 28, 2014 at 12:47 pm

Eric- Thank you. True ID is not a mechanistic theory but that does not stop design from being a mechanism.

John beated me to it. So I will post my favorite Joe comments

Numbar Too:  
Quote
In the next court case the evos and ACLU are going to have to deal with the facts presented in the OP. And if they don’t then they will fail- if they do they will also fail.


We are Doomed!

Numbar Three:  
Quote

And FYI- I have started writing a book titled “On the Origin of Species by Means of Intelligent Design Evolution”- don’t know when or even if I will finish it, but I did start it…


It's sad that nothing will come of it. This 'book' would be hilarious!

Maybe Joe, Ray Martinez, and Gaulin could do an anthology and split the publishing costs.

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

  
Ray Martinez



Posts: 24
Joined: Jan. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2014,19:40   

Quote (Febble @ Jan. 05 2014,16:37)
It just dawned on me that ID is dead.

Dembski is off all radar.  He doesn't even show up in the search box at South Carolina bible college or whatever. The last post on the Design Inference is a year old.

Meyer's book went up like a firework and came down with the stick.  

Most of the static websites are moribund.  UD has banned virtually all dissenters.  The few brave enough to wander over to TSZ bail out after a couple of rounds.  The biologic institute inflates its "selected publications" with publications that have nothing to do with the biologic institute and seems to be doing no more than pretending to produce output.

Bio-Complexity is moribund.

Behe doesn't seem to have much to say.

The big guys won't come out to debate.  The small ones mostly won't leave heavily censored sites.  Even the UD newsdesk peddles 6 year old stories as "news".

And all the threads are about religion.  Or tossing coins.

I don't know why I hadn't seen it before.

It's dead.


Seems you've forgotten the fact that DI-IDism does accept the concept of natural selection and the concept of evolution to exist in nature. Other than opening up their websites for discussion and dissent, what more could you possibly want? or expect?

Besides, the DI-IDist, like the Darwinist, especially the ones who are Federal judges, refuse to allow evolutionary theory to be open for criticism in a public arena, so the DI-IDist learned censorship from you guys. Persons who accept evolution believe in, and practice, censorship. Matt Young routinely censors most anti-Evolutionist posts by sending them to Siberia (BW). So you should stop complaining about closed to discussion articles until the practice is abandoned in domains controlled by Darwinists.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2014,19:53   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 28 2014,18:51)
Quote


One strawman wrt ID not being a mechanistic theory is that the antiIDists take that and say that means ID desn’t have any mechanisms. As if…


Please Proceed, Joe!

Yes, Joe, tell us... should we listen to Behe when (while in court) he said that ID was about mechanisms or when (while in court a few hours later) he said that ID was not a mechanistic notion?

Which Behe to believe?  Use your wisdom Joe, enlighten us.  Show us where Behe (the guy who has actually written books on ID) was wrong.

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

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

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2589
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2014,19:53   

Poof! is a mechanism, you guys.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1045
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2014,20:03   

Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 28 2014,19:53)
Poof! is a mechanism, you guys.

Of course it is.

Just too fast to see anything happen.

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2014,20:46   

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Jan. 28 2014,20:03)
Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 28 2014,19:53)
Poof! is a mechanism, you guys.

Of course it is.

Just too fast to see anything happen.

Glen Davidson

And it looks EXACTLY like evolution.

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

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

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2014,22:27   

It's a shame that the Darwinist judge held the 40 day trial behind closed doors and didn't allow transcripts to be published.

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

  
sparc



Posts: 1985
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2014,22:37   

Thanks for reporting directly from IDiot heaven. But how do you guys protect your brains from being immediately cauterized when you go diving in the UD sea of TARD?

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

- William Dembski -

   
Driver



Posts: 649
Joined: June 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2014,02:54   

Wow. They went there. Joe on little evolution but none of that big evolution you hear?

--------------
Why would I concern myself with evidence, when IMO "evidence" is only the mind arranging thought and matter to support what one already wishes to believe? - William J Murray

[A]t this time a forum like this one is nothing less than a national security risk. - Gary Gaulin

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2014,10:34   

Joe Gallien, eater of donuts, purveyor of strawmen:

 
Quote
Evolution has several meanings. And seeing that ID only disagrees with one definition it is not OK to cal it anti-evolution. It is OK to call ID anti-blind watchmaker, ie unguided, evolution.


The Bengalese Finch: A Window on the Behavioral Neurobiology of Birdsong Syntax,KAZUO OKANOYA,Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Volume 1016, Behavioral Neurobiology of Birdsong pages 724–735, June 2004


 
Quote
...When female preference in a natural environment guides the direction of evolution...




MODELING PHENOTYPIC PLASTICITY IN GROWTH TRAJECTORIES: A STATISTICAL FRAMEWORK

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi............ull


 
Quote
...A number of quantitative hypotheses can be made for the interplay between environment and development in a hope to address fundamental questions in biology; for example, how the environment affects developmental rate and timing and the length of a particular developmental event in the lifetime of an organism (Parsons et al. 2011) and how the environment guides the development of traits to achieve maximum fitness (Agraval 2001; Beldade et al. 2011). Second, statistical modeling of developmental traits is based on a few parsimonious parameters that can capture the structure of trait development and correlation, thus facilitating the computation of a complex model and its power for the detection of environment-induced differences (Ma et al. 2002; Griswold et al. 2008)...


etc. etc.

and of course the real issue:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2010.......ed.html

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

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1203
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2014,10:49   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 29 2014,04:27)
It's a shame that the Darwinist judge held the 40 day trial behind closed doors and didn't allow transcripts to be published.

A typical Evo-Mat tactic, that - hiding in plain sight.

Back, and to the left....

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2014,14:02   

Joe is now claiming that the environment (in the context of organism / environment fit) can't guide reproductive success / evolution.



This could be CSI of CAEK / Choo choo math good.

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2014,14:29   

Bonus:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar....=0%2C44

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

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1788
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2014,20:57   

Quote (keiths @ Jan. 25 2014,21:13)
Batshit77, first human to reach absolute zero in self-awareness:
   
Quote
Jaceli123, sorry I’m not watching any of your off topic rabbit trail videos anymore. You have to do your own homework!

Batshit77 reaffirms his status as most self-unaware person on the planet.

 
Quote
BA77: "Mapou, I’ve noticed that when anybody contradicts your own personal opinion on a matter, with hard evidence and quotes by leading experts in the field no less, that you do not present any countervailing evidence, references, or quotes from experts of your own but that you just make bold declarations as to how you think reality ought to be structured and dismiss all evidence and everyone else’s opinion with a wave of the hand and sometimes ad hominem. Why is this? Do you expect just to take your word for how reality is structured without any hard evidence?"


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

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2075
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2014,01:22   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 29 2014,20:57)
 
Quote (keiths @ Jan. 25 2014,21:13)
Batshit77, first human to reach absolute zero in self-awareness:
       
Quote
Jaceli123, sorry I’m not watching any of your off topic rabbit trail videos anymore. You have to do your own homework!

Batshit77 reaffirms his status as most self-unaware person on the planet.

     
Quote
BA77: "Mapou, I’ve noticed that when anybody contradicts your own personal opinion on a matter, with hard evidence and quotes by leading experts in the field no less, that you do not present any countervailing evidence, references, or quotes from experts of your own but that you just make bold declarations as to how you think reality ought to be structured and dismiss all evidence and everyone else’s opinion with a wave of the hand and sometimes ad hominem. Why is this? Do you expect just to take your word for how reality is structured without any hard evidence?"
Quote
BA77: There’s none so blind as those who will not see.
Prov. You cannot make someone pay attention to something that he or she does not want to notice.


Edited by CeilingCat on Jan. 30 2014,01:23

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

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2075
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2014,02:39   

That thread is just bursting with tard.  Here are some examples.  They're not taken out of context as much as you might think.

News: "Those who want to be in the know, whether or not there is anything to know, will not know enough not to ask about evidence."

Axel: "Aren’t these the people who speak dismissively – if ever so gently so – at QM as woo-woo?"

Mapou: "How did an obvious crackpot/con-man like Stephen Hawking ever acquire such fame? This is a sad commentary on the status of modern science."

Dr. Dr. William Dembski (quoted by BA77): “In mathematics there are two ways to go to infinity. One is to grow large without measure. The other is to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity.”

Unknown (quoted by BA77): "Scientists say Turin Shroud is supernatural"

Mapou (comment 11): "Compared to the infinitely large, everything is infinitely small. And compared to the infinitely small, everything is infinitely large. So, if infinity existed, everything would be infinitely large and infinitely small while also being finite at the same time. This is absurd on the face of it."

Mapou (to BA77): "Your reply to my comment @11 is exactly what I expected from you. You would rather believe in lies than change your doctrine. Your doctrine IS your God. You worship your idea of God more than you worship God. That makes you an idolater in my book. Good luck with that."

Mapou: "Please, don’t circumvent my proof against infinity @11 above with other arguments. Either prove me wrong (if you do, I’ll bow down to your superior understanding and apologize for my foolishness) or accept that I am right (in which case, you must bow down to my superior understanding and make amends). Anything else is just useless talk."

[CeilingCat (here and now): "I'm 175 cm tall.  Compared to the Eiffel Tower I'm 175 cm tall.  Compared to Mt. Everest I'm 175 cm tall.  Compared to infinity, I'm 175 cm tall.  Compared to a fireplug I'm 175 cm tall.  Compared to a mouse I'm 175 cm tall.  Compared to a bacteria I'm 175 cm tall.  Compared to an infinitely small thing I'm 175 cm tall.

Your argument fails in both directions.  Bow down and start apologizing, tard-boy!

Ok, back to the Mathematician wonders about ... thread.]

BA77: "Jaceli123, sorry I’m not watching any of your off topic rabbit trail videos anymore. You have to do your own homework!"

Mapou (to BA77): "Unless you are prepared refute my argument @11 against infinity, everything you write from now on is unimportant to me. In fact, my respect for you has taken a precipitous dive. See you around."

Mapou (to BA77): "Your self-deception is as bold and in-your-face as that of a Jerry Coyne or a Richard Dawkins. But it does not fool me. Why should anybody try to understand something that does not exist? The non-existence of infinity has absolutely nothing to do with materialism of naturalism.

Another thing that bothers me about you is your constant use of this world’s pathological science to prove your Christian faith. Don’t you know that Yahweh’s science makes a mockery of human science? Yahweh and the host of his angels laughs at the stuff you bring up to defend your doctrine. I, too, join them in poking fun at it. Don’t you know that this world’s science is carefully designed to deny God and his glory? But those of you who truly have faith in Yahweh will not have long to wait to see His science manifested in this world and crush the science of this world like one crushes a bug underfoot."

BA77: About a page of Bible quotations skipped because ID is a scientific theory.

Mapou to BA77: "You are indeed a deceiver and you are not to be trusted.

News (to anyone who will help stop this thread from making a laughingstock of ID): "Enough theology in this one thread for a divinity school. Anyone noted how Tegmark’s philosophizing (with a clearly religious turn) can be advanced in science publications (SciAm comes to mind)? Odd that it bothers so few.

Stephen Hawking/No Black Holes, by the way, reached 76 m on Google search."

Chalciss: '“And the truth shall set you free”, that is exactly why reading posts from BA77, Q, KF, VJT and others like them makes us die-hard fans of them and makes us want to read more and more. Kudos!'

Joe: "Querius, I agree with you. Cantor never proved anything wrt infinite sets and he is not God. Not only that there isn’t any utility in saying all countable and infinite sets have the same cardinality.

Cantor’s is more dogma than mathematics."

Mapou: "By the way, those of you who are under the false impression that calculus uses infinity, consider that digital computers routinely solve calculus problems and yet, nothing is more discrete and finite than a computer."

Mapou: "Everything that occurs in the physical universe is being recorded in what I call “the lattice”. It’s a finite universe and a finite lattice."

BA77 (quoted by Mapou): "Perhaps you should call Gregory Chaitin up with your insight that infinity should be stricken from math?"

Mapou (replying to quote above): "I don’t give a rat’s posterior about Gregory Chaitin’s opinion or the world of mathematics and their preeminent mathematicians. I know my priorities. I always write for the simple man or woman. Those are my peers."

BA77 (replying to the "rats posterior" comment): "And yet you expect us to ‘yield to the infinite superiority of your arguments’, and indeed you act like a spoiled child when no one takes your strawman argument seriously, when you yourself don’t take the entire field of mathematics seriously. Someone has an seriously hyper-inflated opinion of their own infallibility on this matter!"

Mapou (to BA77): "Maybe I have a hyper-inflated opinion of my infallibility in this matter but the same can be said about you."

BA77 (to Mapou): "

Mapou, you want a ‘logical refutation’ of your ahem ‘argument’ when you have rejected the entire logical world of mathematics as to having any purchase over your own self-exalted infallible thinking in this matter in the first place? i.e. cart before horse!

To shine a light in a darkened room it is first necessary to, at least, open a window!

There’s none so blind as those who will not see.
Prov. You cannot make someone pay attention to something that he or she does not want to notice."

Mapou (to BA77): " I am not trying to help you at all. I have very little respect for you, especially after this exchange. You’re a typical doctrinairian and I don’t like doctrinairians. I don’t think you’re less fortunate. You have access to the same knowledge sources as I do. That’s the way I feel. And I tell it like I see it."

Mapou: "Cantor was a self-important crackpot and a con artist, IMO. His contribution to society amounts to a disaster, considering the enormous amount of time wasted by the world’s acceptance of infinity as a logical concept. Even after Planck discovered that the universe was discrete, physicists still continue to act as if infinity is a valid concept. It’s painful just to think about it."

KF (to Mapou) "PPS: Your ad hom on one of the most significant mathematicians in history — who, similar to several others suffered bipolar depression — is unworthy and verges on being offensive."

Mapou (all in same comment): "I’m sorry but anybody who legitimizes infinity as a viable concept in science is a crackpot in my view."

"So I don’t care how great a contribution Cantor has made to set theory. His obsession with the legitimacy of infinity and his ability to captivate and deceive the minds of so many generations of thinkers with his crackpottery is unforgivable, IMO."

"PS. The veneration that some people (mostly Catholics, I think) have for the Angelic Doctor (Thomas Aquinas) borders on the idolatrous, IMO. Talk about worshiping doctrine."

[vjtorley thinks: "That's aimed directly at me!"]

KF (striking a blow for Tommy: "PS: I am about as Protestant as they come, and the angelic doctor is one of the greatest minds in the history of Christendom, with Paul, Augustine, Calvin and Wesley up there too in that league — warts and all."

Mapou (to Barb): "I no longer want to discuss this topic. Thanks for the comments."

More tomorrow, I'm sure.

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

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2075
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2014,02:58   

Sigh!  I should be sleeping, but Sal's caught another live one and is holding him up so we can all see.  It's in the Creationist RA Herrmann's ID theory — the last magic on steroids! thread.

Here are a few highlights:

 
Quote
I was associated with the occult from birth, but in 1946 when I was 12 years old, I suddenly became extremely interested in occult manifestations and simultaneously became, what is sometimes called, a “mental giant” – indeed, a child scientist. I delved into any aspect of the occult that had any meaning for a child of my age. For two or three months, I was a superior telepathist. I once telepathically identified more than forty-five cards out of fifty-two cards from an ordinary deck of playing cards. However, suddenly I lost this particular telepathic ability, I lost the “key” so to speak. Obviously, I was brokenhearted over this state of affairs and began a long search for the lost mechanisms so as to renew this telepathic ability. Moreover, I investigated other occult manifestations.
 
Quote
After some years of effort, I became a well-known research scientist and educator who had been purposefully placed into situations where I could influence and corrupt the minds of the young.
 
Quote
In 1977, my wife brought my budding anti-Christ activities to an end. Without my having any knowledge of her pending actions, during the morning hours of 6 April 1977, my wife correctly removed herself and our children from my immediate influence. At noon, I went to my car in the parking lot of the U. S. Naval Academy and found a short cryptic note on the front seat. It said that in order to protect herself and our children from my depraved behavior, she had moved out of the house and taken the children out of my grasp. I had no idea what this message meant until I reached my house for Evil so clouds your mind that the obvious is often not perceived. Upon entering, I experienced personally one consequence of these vile actions for I found my wife, my children and all of their belongings gone.
 
Quote
Dr. Herrmann became a creationist and went on to become complete a career as a full professor of mathematics at the US Naval Academy.
 
Quote
Dr. Herrmann’s version of these ideas I will term “The Last Magic on Steroids”!

His website and writings are tough to navigate and it is hard to get a coherent picture even after hours reading what he is actually claiming.


Somewhere on the Professor's web site: he complains that www.arxiv.org is censoring him.

I've had all I can take.  And so to bed.

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

  
didymos



Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2014,04:08   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 30 2014,00:39)
Dr. Dr. William Dembski (quoted by BA77): “In mathematics there are two ways to go to infinity. One is to grow large without measure. The other is to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....5cbaZso

ETA:

Quote
Mapou (comment 11): "Compared to the infinitely large, everything is infinitely small. And compared to the infinitely small, everything is infinitely large. So, if infinity existed, everything would be infinitely large and infinitely small while also being finite at the same time. This is absurd on the face of it."


I prefer this:

Quote

   It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.


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

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1203
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2014,04:12   

Quote
.....during the morning hours of 6 April 1977, my wife correctly removed herself and our children from my immediate influence. At noon, I went to my car....and found a short cryptic note on the front seat. It said that in order to protect herself and our children from my depraved behavior, she had moved out of the house and taken the children out of my grasp.

Take note, Gaulin.

  
Patrick



Posts: 610
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2014,07:12   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 30 2014,03:39)
Mapou (replying to quote above): "I don’t give a rat’s posterior about Gregory Chaitin’s opinion or the world of mathematics and their preeminent mathematicians. I know my priorities. I always write for the simple man or woman. Those are my peers."

The simpler the man or woman, the more of a peer.

  
Patrick



Posts: 610
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2014,07:14   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 30 2014,03:39)
Mapou: "Cantor was a self-important crackpot and a con artist, IMO. His contribution to society amounts to a disaster, considering the enormous amount of time wasted by the world’s acceptance of infinity as a logical concept. Even after Planck discovered that the universe was discrete, physicists still continue to act as if infinity is a valid concept. It’s painful just to think about it."

I wonder if Mapou and JoeG will announce it on UD when they set up house together.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2014,07:15   

I rember being taught that division by zero is undefined,  rather than infinity. I suppose that is old math.

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