RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: Commentary on Salvador Cordova vs. Lenny Flank< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
gregonomic



Posts: 44
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2005,13:34   

In the interests of keeping the "Salvador Cordova vs. Lenny Flank" thread free of comments from those not directly involved in the "debate", I thought I'd start a thread where others can leave comments.

Sadly, it already looks like it's going to be a bust. SC's first question (after much chest-puffing) to the good "Rev Dr" is "State the laws of physics from which Darwinian evolution can be derived". Clearly this is not going to be a rational discussion.

  
gregonomic



Posts: 44
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2005,16:37   

Yeah, I think you're right Lenny. That doesn't sound like the real Sal Cordova - too manic. Another parody, perhaps?

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank says:
Quote
By the way, why do all the nutters (everybody from the New Age wackos to the flying saucer kooks) always want to blither on and on about quantum mechanics?


Because they don't understand the biology behind evolution? And they want to move the fight to their own turf?

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2005,03:05   

I agree. Not the real Cordova. I put my money on DaveScot. This "Sal" addressed one of his middle-school barbs to "Flanky Boy". DaveScot, before he was banned at PT, addressed me as "Russy Boy". Coincidence? I think not.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2005,09:41   

Quote
I agree. Not the real Cordova. I put my money on DaveScot. This "Sal" addressed one of his middle-school barbs to "Flanky Boy". DaveScot, before he was banned at PT, addressed me as "Russy Boy". Coincidence? I think not.

 Could someone tell me why troll-hunting is so popular on the internet? I admit that it satisfies a communal urge to gossip and speculate, but why does this sport so overshadow the content of a person's arguments? Are ideas really that boring? I'd appreciate any insight on this.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2005,11:09   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Dec. 05 2005,16:41)
why does [troll-hunting] so overshadow the content of a person's arguments?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Are we talking about Cordova's thread here? Because I don't see any content on his part.

Quote
Are ideas really that boring?

Ideas in general aren't boring, but hearing the same regurgitated-tripe-that's-just-plain-wrong over and over again sure is.


Regarding this lurker's opinions of the thread in question:

Quote
I answered 1 and 2.


Weak. Extremely weak. That's probably why the good Dr. Flank repeated the questions, yet again.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1402
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2005,11:31   

Mr The Ghost of Paley asks

Quote
I'd appreciate any insight on this.


You know, I'm tempted to believe you would. I see a difference between your playfulness, and the simple baiting* of the fake Cordova. However, I can't believe you take this "crystal spheres" nonsense seriously.

(*in the sense of provoking, eg baiting bears)

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2005,12:34   

Quote
Could someone tell me why troll-hunting is so popular on the internet? I admit that it satisfies a communal urge to gossip and speculate, but why does this sport so overshadow the content of a person's arguments?
In this case, we're wondering if the impersonation is responsible for the lack of content. I'm puzzled that the real Cordova hasn't protested, and I'm wondering if Wesley might be able to divine from IP addresses whether there's anything to this speculation. If it is DaveScot, it's just one more in a long list of despicable ethical lapses. If it's someone else, he deserves to be banned.
Quote
Are ideas really that boring? I'd appreciate any insight on this.
Oh, quite the contrary! I was just disappointed that Cordova (the real one?) seems to have abandoned my quest for his "ideas" on Dawkins, information theory, and integrity on the thread I started, and wondered if this whole imposter thing might have something to do with it.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2005,12:45   

Quote
Could someone tell me why troll-hunting is so popular on the internet?
The other thing is that if that is the real Cordova, I can see it was a mistake to try to engage him in a serious discussion. I had ascribed more maturity to him that "this" Cordova demonstrates.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
J. G. Cox



Posts: 38
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2005,15:27   

For the benefit of any lurkers, I would like to expand somewhat on Lenny's answer to scordova's demand for a derivation of the theory of evolution from (the first principles of?) physics.
 Lenny's answer seemed to me to be basically 'that's a ridiculous demand.' He's right, for several reasons. First, though theoretically you could boil the workings of the entire universe down to subatomic forces (as far as science is concerned), it is impossible that we humans would ever have the computing power, let alone the brainpower, to do so. Scaling highly reductionist physics principles up to the level of organization studied in evolutionary biology is impossible. (Note: would anyone with a background in physics like to challenge scordova's use of quantum theory?)
 Second,there are many theories that focus on higher levels of organization for which we have no explicit tie to fundamental physics in psychology, ecology, sociology, economics, etc. Yet, any demand for such a derivation applied to these would seem absurd.
 Third, for the theists among you, ID itself would fail any such demand for a derivation because God (or the Designer, or the Designer of the Designer, ad nauseum), is by definition not subject to the laws of physics. Thus, this diversionary attack is equally well applied to ID

 As I write this, however, I wonder if one *could* derive evolutionary theory from physics and math. One component is that of heredity (genetics) and mutation therein, which boils down to chemistry and eventually physics. As for factors such as natural selection and drift, those derive inevitably from basic probability theory and are not explicit functions of physical laws.

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2005,19:04   

J.G.,

Quote
Note: would anyone with a background in physics like to challenge scordova's use of quantum theory?
Addressing Sal's claim of quantum theory being the foundation for information theory isn't a good usage of time.  The equations he posted are about as fundamental as can be.  Many, many things can be derived from them alone.  Sal's claim is Sal's to demonstrate, himself.  Of course, we all know he can't and won't demonstrate it.  So, why waste our time with it at all?

-Dan

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4903
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2005,23:56   

I emailed Salvador, who confirmed that the posts are his.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2005,02:00   

Quote
I emailed Salvador, who confirmed that the posts are his
Thanks, Wesley.

Salvador: no need to respond on my "Dawkins" thread; I've learned all I need to know.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2005,02:13   

wow, I knew Sal was a moron, but those posts of his in the flank thread are really, uh, pushing the envelope.

I too was convinced it was Dave Scott.  Sal has completely lost what little sanity he apparently ever had.

I don't understand why Sal doesn't just put the three letters he cares about over and over again, in big bold caps, and say nothing else.  His posts would make far more sense.

How do you "debate" someone who shows such little concern for rational discourse?

  
gregonomic



Posts: 44
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2005,02:21   

Yikes. The poor guy has definitely lost it.

Is there any way we can draw the attention of the IDiots to that thread? Oh ... wait ... they'd probably declare him the victor.

Oh well, if there's one good thing to come out of this, it's that I don't need to bother reading anything Sal writes ever again.

  
J. G. Cox



Posts: 38
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2005,05:31   

@ cogzoid

 You are right, of course. Unless scordova can actually show how to derive ID from his physics, then there is nothing to refute. Hence Lenny's 'underline the designer in that equation' response. I guess I was just kind of hoping that someone could crush the argument before it was even made. Chalk it up to excessive exuberance on my part for being a first time poster.

 That said, maybe I'll take the same tack as scordova. In fact, I say that that same equation proves the theory of evolution. It also proves my trophic level turnover hypothesis in the paper I'm currently working on. In addition, it proves that the state of Indiana owes me $3.5 million in overpaid income tax. An exposition of how these proofs operate can be found in chapter 3 of No Free Lunch; if anyone can't understand how the content of this chapter supports my contention (especially the tax part), then that person is an idiot unworthy of the time it would require to explain. I will provide formal derivations of these proofs when a robust derivation is provided for ID.

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2005,08:39   

J.G.,

Now you're catching on!  This is how New-Science should be done!

-Dan

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2005,09:10   

Well, it's moot, because Sal's acting like such a sneering juvenile, but he gives away the store with this one, I think: (paraphrased, because I'm in lazy-like-a-creationist mode)

"You don't need another theory to know that phlogiston and epicycles are wrong."

Now, I'm not a Kuhnian (heck, Kuhn says he's not a Kuhnian), but I think if there's one lesson to take away from SSR, it's that you do, in fact, need another theory to see the way out of a dead-end paradigm. I mean, I don't think anybody thought those epicycles were particularly elegant, but they were accepted because they fit in the only framework available for theorizing about orbital dynamics. Once another framework was proposed and began to gain acceptance, then you could see clearly that epicycles were ad hoc and unnecessary.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2005,15:59   

Has Mr. Flank ever given any specific criteria on what constitutes an answer to any of his questions? His debating tactic seems to reduce to:

"Answer these questions please."

"Nope, you didn't answer my questions [copy n' paste]"

"Still no answer I see...[copy n' paste]

Repeat as many times as necessary......

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
gregonomic



Posts: 44
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2005,18:25   

Ghost says:
Quote
Has Mr. Flank ever given any specific criteria on what constitutes an answer to any of his questions?


Well, unless you're even more of a newcomer than I am, you'd know that we've been waiting a LONG time for Sal to answer these questions. And he's had a LONG time to think of coherent answers. When he finally turns up and spouts the same old obtuse nonsense (actually, it's even more obtuse and nonsensical than usual), what is Lenny supposed to do?

BTW, does Sal really believe he's got the upper hand just because he has a college degree? I mean, really? I have degrees coming out of my yin-yang, and I can tell that Lenny is far more intelligent than Sal and me put together.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10399
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2005,02:53   

I also thought it was fake Salvador. But I have to toot my own horn a bit for this post a few days ago:

Quote

stevestory


Posts: 50
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Dec. 04 2005,  
on the other hand, he said "wilfully", "Speuclations", "un-planned", "wil", "readshifts", and "hyptheses", all in one post, so it might actually be Salvador.

   
SteveF



Posts: 2
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2005,04:41   

Salvador seems to have become rather hysterical (and kind of agressive) recently.  Check out his references to 'Darwinbots' in a recent PT thread and also the following:

"Hey Flank I see you enjoy flaunting your knowledge level (or lack thereof, high school boy): :p"

He's generally always been very polite (in an irritating, smug kind of way).  I wonder what has rattled his cage?

  
J. G. Cox



Posts: 38
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2005,04:53   

Well, I was concerned for a moment when scordova actually put up his 'derivation' of ID from quantum physics. What he actually did was an attempt to prove the existence of an observer (whom he no doubt interprets as his designing god) outside of the universe. However, no where in that derivation is anything about design of any portion of the universe or about that observer being the designer of the universe. At best, he showed that something is watching.
 Therefore, as per my previous post, the state of Indiana still owes me $3.5 million. Maybe I'll start a referendum to get that added to the bill requiring the teaching of intelligent design in high schools that our legislators are threatening to propose. After all, I have just as much positive evidence supporting my claim as do the IDers supporting theirs.

  
  21 replies since Dec. 04 2005,13:34 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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