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

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

Pages: (1000) < ... 223 224 225 226 227 [228] 229 230 231 232 233 ... >

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2006,02:23    Quote The problem stems from what Jones called “a creeping civic stupidity,” where the public, for whatever reason, thinks judges should bow to what politicians say or polls show. Judge in Dover I.D. case touts legal independence link how apt they have his picture on their new website.  civic stupidity indeed. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Zachriel Posts: 2723 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2006,03:36    DaveScot said at Uncommon: Tom English I understand your frustration and but I’m not going to allow your ad hominem attacks to stand. Two were deleted. Knock it off. I’m growing very frustrated by you and others’ inability to grasp the fact that models of reality need to be testable. Of course, DaveScot is off-topic. The accuracy of the model is not the question. The question is the independence of the model from the substrate. And for DaveScot to suppress comments because of ad hominem attacks is absolutely hilarious in light of his own past behavior. -------------- You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2006,05:50    Zachriel: Quote And for DaveScot to suppress comments because of ad hominem attacks is absolutely hilarious in light of his own past behavior. Dave's standard response to losing out to his intellectual superiors. I predict Karl Pfluger's days are numbered. Not you tho, Bob, I think Dave likes you.

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2006,06:37    From the inimitable John Davison, after  great_ape politely demolishes his collected papers here     Quote great_ape You are nothing but another gutless coward, afraid to even divulge his name. I have no respect for you or any of your cronies over at Esley Welsberry’s Alamo. All you do is sit around and snipe at Dembski, O’Leary and DaveScot. I notice that none of you clowns hardly ever mention my name. I know why. I am a published scientist who has exposed the Darwinian myth as a monumental joke. That is why. Welsberry has instructed you gossip mongers not to mention me. Falan Ox has freely admitted as much. He is another big time loser. The only rreason my work is being ignored by the Darwimps is the same reason that they ignored Grasse, Bateson, Broom, Schindewolf, Berg, Goldschmidt, Mivart, Osborn and Bateson. It is summarized in one word- FEAR. John, You are only posting at UD because, as their only qualified biologist, they appear to think you lend some scientific credibility to the site. Unfortunately, to most people, you come over as an obnoxious crank.

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2006,07:33    Quote Welsberry has instructed you gossip mongers not to mention me. Wrong again, Davison. I've cautioned people from reposting material from a banned user in order to circumvent a banning. That is different from "mentioning", which is unobjectionable and has occurred some twenty times or so within the last month alone. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Thank Dog Posts: 31 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2006,08:43    Here DaveTard said to Tom English, Quote I understand your frustration and but I’m not going to allow your ad hominem attacks to stand. Two were deleted. Knock it off. I found one of the "ad hominem attacks" in my page cache. Tom English said to Gil Dodgin, Quote In another thread I stated that I did not believe you were trying to mislead anyone. I can only conclude now that you were. To the degree that you establish yourself to be knowledgeable here, you establish yourself to be an unethical propagandist in your claims about simulation modeling of evolutionary processes. So congratulations on having rescued your ego and revealed your nature. You parody simulation in the case of evolution, when you know how to do simulation. Thus you show yourself to be a "cultural warrior" willing to promulgate any distortion of the studies of legitimate researchers such as myself. Clearly it is not ignorance on your part. It is frightened defense of a fragile faith, manifest as sheer malignity. Only the unsure get a kick out of manipulating the beliefs of others. Perhaps I will get booted from the site for this post. But Bill Dembski has never never said anything as abysmally stupid about evolutionary computation as you have. You are a loose cannon, pure and simple. I thought an ad hominem was when you used a persons traits to attack his argument. The post uses Gil's arguments to attack his character. Isn't that different? But where the heck did malignity come from? That's over the top.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2006,09:40    If OverwhelminglyDense.com gets more active, we might have to start a thread. Quote My Design theory In my intro quote, I said I'm skeptical about using ID to scientifically identify design. That doesn't mean, however, that I'm opposed to ID in principle, and in fact I've done some work on my own theory of intelligent design. I haven't published it before, so I thought I'd share it here. My theory is based on what I call "cognitive distance" or CD. Don't let the big words fool you, all it really means is "how far away are we from knowing who did it?" It's not scientifically exact, but it does help us be a little more scientific about how we decide whether or not something is intentionally designed. (I like "intentional design" better than "intelligent design," since "intelligent" can mean different things). The way my theory works is like this: suppose we have something, and we don't know whether or not it was intentionally designed. Let's say we found an oddly-shaped rock, and we want to know whether its shape had a natural origin, or was deliberately sculpted to have that shape. What we do is consider each of the possibilities by making four measurements for each possibility. The measurements cover four aspects of design:    * Agency    * Capacity    * Opportunity    * Impetus By assigning a numeric score in each of these four areas, we can calculate a total score for each possibility. The numbers get bigger the less certain we are about each area, so whichever possibility has the lowest total score, "wins." I'll say more about each of the four aspects of design in future posts. This is just a high-level overview. http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/blog/theman/my_design_theory

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2006,09:45    Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 30 2006,19:39) Interesting. In the "Overwhelming Evidence" forums, ( http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/forum ) there seem to be more posts on "politics" than "science."  I wonder why?   *snort* I hereby dub thee the "Overweening Vanity" site. "OverwhelminglyDense" and "OverwhelmingEvidence(AgainstUs)" have come to mind, but neither seems inspired. I encourage people to suggest alternate names, which might one day label a great new thread. FYI: If you're interested in the brilliant and insightful "Ed Brayton is a fat loser" "Oh yeah well you don't know what 'solicitous means" discussion, you can find it at the Bathroom Wall.

Altabin Posts: 308 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2006,10:48    Dennis the Dense, in her report from the cutting edge of ID, trying out a new meme (my emphasis):     Quote For these people, Darwinism is a cult. They simply cannot understand objections to Darwinian evolution as actual objections. For example, the fact that very few instances of speciation are actually observed makes it very difficult to test Darwinian evolution against other kinds. This may be an accident, to be sure, but it is an accident with consequences. It means that the “overwhelming evidence” that supposedly exists for Darwin’s theory is really just overwhelming belief on the part of people like themselves. But there they sit, placid with overwhelming belief, like pious grannies - and mistaking it for overwhelming evidence. Does everyone get the message that there's, like, this other rilly cool new website where the kids hang out, with, like, overwhelming evidence you can, like, look at.  Or at least you will be able to see the, like, evidence soon - we seem to have misplaced it for the moment; but it will sure be, like, overwhelming.  Rilly !  Ciao!!??!!   --------------

steve_h Posts: 544 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2006,10:55    At Overwhelming'dence, the "LATEST NEWS" page (http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/news) bears a striking resemblence to UD's front page.  Don't those high school students realise that Google may see this as a "link farm", thus causing real damage to UD? I was going to comment on this at UD but decided to read the recent comments first:     Quote Anyway, did we really need another Uncommon Descent mirror, albeit with more colourful graphics? Comment by MikeFNQ — September 30, 2006 @ 8:28 pm     Quote MikeFNQ: There’s a phenomenon called a neighborhood effect, in which similar entities enhance and reinforce each other. I’ve removed you from the forum. Comment by William Dembski — October 1, 2006 @ 2:37 pm "similar entities"? Entities owned and run by the same people.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2006,11:00    Quote 6. DaveScot  // Oct 1st 2006 at 1:32 am MikeFNQ I guess Jones wanted to cut his career off at the knees. Let me know if he gets promoted. Comment by DaveScot — October 1, 2006 @ 1:32 am Judge Jones should have based his decision on how it would personally benefit him? They must not have had civics classes wherever Davetard grew up.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2006,11:08    Quote (steve_h @ Oct. 01 2006,16:55) "similar entities"? Entities owned and run by the same people. Speaking of that, I don't see any statement on OE that Dembski is behind the site. Quote We Don' Need Science Science is evil and promotes materialism. Like when I go to science class at my school, it makes me want to buy stuff. Why do we need science when its all right there in teh bible anyways. See, look at this website, nobody is a scientist, but they know that there is overwheling evidence against evolution because of what it says in teh Bible. This is a great site. http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe....science HAHAHAHA

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2006,11:20    I'm the newest blogger at Overwhelming Evidence: Quote Critical Analysis of ID Hello Everybody! Since this site has dozens of bloggers supporting Intelligent Design, I think I'll be critical of it. It's never a good thing to hang out in an echo chamber, right? Diverse opinions freely discussed in a marketplace of ideas is the surest route to the truth, right? So I'm sure you'll welcome my critical analysis of ID. Bookmark/Search this post with: delicious delicious | newsvine newsvine | google google | steve story's blog | add new comment | email this page | 0 points Submitted by steve story on Sun, 2006-10-01 21:16. We'll see if I wind up like LovinJesus Quote My Posts Got Deleted!? What Happened to my posts. Yesterday I signed up and wrote alot of my ideas down, now they are all gone. What happened? I am a student and thought this site was perfect for what I see happening in my school. Did I do something wrong? Bookmark/Search this post with: delicious delicious | newsvine newsvine | google google | LovinJesus's blog | add new comment | email this page | 0 points Submitted by LovinJesus on Sun, 2006-10-01 21:15.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2006,11:36    Quote Critical Analysis of Mark from Pittsburgh    * view    * edit Mark in Pittsburg recently blogged about his own theory of ID. I think we should take a critical look at it: "In my intro quote, I said I'm skeptical about using ID to scientifically identify design. That doesn't mean, however, that I'm opposed to ID in principle, and in fact I've done some work on my own theory of intelligent design. I haven't published it before, so I thought I'd share it here. My theory is based on what I call "cognitive distance" or CD. Don't let the big words fool you, all it really means is "how far away are we from knowing who did it?"" This sounds a bit like Ontogenetic Depth. Maybe Paul Nelson should be alerted! "The way my theory works is like this: suppose we have something, and we don't know whether or not it was intentionally designed. Let's say we found an oddly-shaped rock, and we want to know whether its shape had a natural origin, or was deliberately sculpted to have that shape. What we do is consider each of the possibilities by making four measurements for each possibility. The measurements cover four aspects of design: * Agency * Capacity * Opportunity * Impetus By assigning a numeric score in each of these four areas, we can calculate a total score for each possibility. The numbers get bigger the less certain we are about each area, so whichever possibility has the lowest total score, "wins."" How do we assign those numerical scores. How much 'Agency' is in a paperclip? How much 'Opportunity' should I attribute to a pair of sunglasses? And let's overlook that and assume our analysis indicates a score of * Agency 32 points * Capacity 41 points * Opportunity 7 points * Impetus 94 points What should we conclude from that? Design? No design? He doesn't say. "I'll say more about each of the four aspects of design in future posts. This is just a high-level overview." Anyway, Impetus and Agency seem to attribute qualities to The Designer, which is something I'm told ID does not do. I conclude that Mark's hypothesis is still not detailed enough to be useful, and it contradicts certain ID claims. Maybe Mark will clear up some of these points for us in the future! http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe....tsburgh

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2006,12:46    I'm turning into a very prolific blogger at OE Quote A Critical Look at Wells's Questions    * view    * edit On Sam Chen's blog he says: "I've seen some of you ask about questions to ask your biology or science teacher concerning evolution. Some of you might be curious as to whether what you're learning about evolution in science class is all factual and true. Dr. Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., Ph.D. has written ten questions that you can (and should) ask your science teacher in any class that deals with Darwinian evolution. Here are the ten questions: "Ten Questions to Ask You Biology Teacher about Evolution" by Dr. Jonathan Wells" I think this could be an instructive thing for a kid to do--any decent biology teacher can point out the problems with Wells's questions. Myself, I think I would just stick to teaching evolution. If a kid has been told there's some secret flaw, I would just refer him to the appropriate Talk Origins page, and tell him to come back if he still thinks there's a flaw. Bookmark/Search this post with: delicious delicious | newsvine newsvine | google google | steve story's blog | add new comment | email this page | 0 points Submitted by steve story on Sun, 2006-10-01 22:43.

Bing Posts: 144 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2006,13:11    Quote William "Show Me the Money" Dembski-Tidwell on the Ken Miller up to his old tricks . . .thread: ... I, as one of its principal advocates, am looking at more speaking engagements than I can fulfill and very generous honoraria (I suspect more than Ken Miller receives). So it's not about: the science the politics the religion It's all about the notoriety and the honoraria, the payola, the bling-bling.  Demsbki's taking the cash from the rubes, with maybe a little bit of dick-waving in Ken Miller's direction over their relative sizes.

dhogaza Posts: 525 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2006,14:55    Don't let the excitement over OE lead you to neglect UD.   In  this thread JasontheGreek sez Quote I’d bet that a lot of people here and others in ID, in general, would disagree that avida shows what you claim. Even if it did show this in a computer simulation, again- it’s not the real world. On top of that- I’d say a lot of honest IDers would disagree with you and do so honestly. It doesn’t make a person dishonest to discount avida as a fantasy. OK, Jason, you're not dishonest.  You're just dumb. The thread's fun.  Tom English, Karl Pfluger and others trash self-proclaimed CS experts DaveTard and Gil Dodgen thoroughly.

steve_h Posts: 544 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2006,15:44    Steve Story:  wow you've got 30 points and are in joint second place on the highest users board.  I think someone will have to step in and restore you to your rightful place before long.  I'm sure the points system will be abused --  there's no way of telling if points are from genuine users or from some sort of bespectacled points tzar, or his research assistant (delete as appropriate). Maybe user's should be required to enter a anonymous reason for their plus/minus-ing activitities, that will force him (or him - delete as approproate) to be creative at least. I will not be registering. I'm sure most of the contributors are forty-somethings, but I think there is something 'icky' about representing oneself as a schoolkid at my time of life.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2006,16:07    From Ms. O'Leary:     Quote The depth of the crisis with Darwinian evolution became apparent to me when I watched and listened to the Darwinian biologists present. For these people, Darwinism is a cult. They simply cannot understand objections to Darwinian evolution as actual objections. For example, the fact that very few instances of speciation are actually observed makes it very difficult to test Darwinian evolution against other kinds. This may be an accident, to be sure, but it is an accident with consequences. It means that the “overwhelming evidence” that supposedly exists for Darwin’s theory is really just overwhelming belief on the part of people like themselves. But there they sit, placid with overwhelming belief, like pious grannies - and mistaking it for overwhelming evidence. ...... To bolster their view - and this is a familiar psychological tactic - they construct a straw man of opponents. Boy oh boy.  Can we say "projection"?   So scientists (who are the only people in this "controversy" who are actually doing any lab work, or generating any field data, or creating and running any simulations, or actually posing and testing hypotheses regarding evolutionary theory, or indeed much of anything other than engaging in rhetorical games, misunderstandings, and distortions) are supposed to be pious cultists?  Whereas the fundaloonies who can barely avoid talking about religion for more than one consecutive post and who either don't understand evolutionary theory or perennially misrepresent it are not?   What a load of hogwash.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2006,16:58    Quote (steve_h @ Oct. 01 2006,21:44) Steve Story:  wow you've got 30 points and are in joint second place on the highest users board.  I think someone will have to step in and restore you to your rightful place before long.  I'm sure the points system will be abused --  there's no way of telling if points are from genuine users or from some sort of bespectacled points tzar, or his research assistant (delete as appropriate). Maybe user's should be required to enter a anonymous reason for their plus/minus-ing activitities, that will force him (or him - delete as approproate) to be creative at least. I will not be registering. I'm sure most of the contributors are forty-somethings, but I think there is something 'icky' about representing oneself as a schoolkid at my time of life. You get 10 points for each blog post. I've posted three times. I don't think I'm misrepresenting myself as a schoolkid, I used my real name. Gil and Dense O'Leary are there. They've got like 20 pro-ID bloggers. Are you telling me they can't handle one friendly critic?

Robert O'Brien Posts: 348 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2006,17:24    Quote (dhogaza @ Oct. 01 2006,19:55) Don't let the excitement over OE lead you to neglect UD.   In  this thread JasontheGreek sez   Quote I’d bet that a lot of people here and others in ID, in general, would disagree that avida shows what you claim. Even if it did show this in a computer simulation, again- it’s not the real world. On top of that- I’d say a lot of honest IDers would disagree with you and do so honestly. It doesn’t make a person dishonest to discount avida as a fantasy. OK, Jason, you're not dishonest.  You're just dumb. The thread's fun.  Tom English, Karl Pfluger and others trash self-proclaimed CS experts DaveTard and Gil Dodgen thoroughly. I agree with Jason; avida appears to be much ado about nothing. -------------- Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2006,17:31    Robert, you would do real well in these fora if all threads were simply polls. you could then simply say: "I voted "X" " and then your one-line replies might make some sense. -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

Mike PSS Posts: 428 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2006,17:56    Quote (Robert O'Brien Posted on Oct. 01 2006 @ 23:24 ) ...avida appears to be much ado about nothing. I think Robert should collect and save his quotes and open his own pro-ID chinese restaurant.  The quotes can be written in the fortune cookies and give all the diners a quick and fuzzy feeling at the end of the meal.  Just like here.

mcc Posts: 110 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2006,17:59    ok, wait heddle's banned from UD?

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2006,18:50    Quote (mcc @ Oct. 01 2006,23:59) ok, wait heddle's banned from UD? Indeed. http://helives.blogspot.com/2006....27.html Quote I am so anachronistic. I remember those days when we settled scientific debates by actually going into the lab (you know, those places where people [wear] the long white coats and use equipment) and doing science. I know, it does seem rather ridiculous by the methods championed here. Clearly the modern way is to write op-ed pieces or popularized books that declare victory anytime a new record that may be problematic, or at least can be cast as problematic, is added to the experimental database. In days of yore what we used to do (you'll get a kick out of this) is to see if the current theory can explain the new data and if it could not we would either modify it or, if it was beyond saving, we would jettison it. Is that a gas or what? But I understand that since this takes time and work it is much more efficient just to accumulate short-term political mileage while we can.

Altabin Posts: 308 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2006,19:34    Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 01 2006,14:45) Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 30 2006,19:39) Interesting. In the "Overwhelming Evidence" forums, ( http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/forum ) there seem to be more posts on "politics" than "science."  I wonder why?   *snort* I hereby dub thee the "Overweening Vanity" site. "OverwhelminglyDense" and "OverwhelmingEvidence(AgainstUs)" have come to mind, but neither seems inspired. I encourage people to suggest alternate names, which might one day label a great new thread. FYI: If you're interested in the brilliant and insightful "Ed Brayton is a fat loser" "Oh yeah well you don't know what 'solicitous means" discussion, you can find it at the Bathroom Wall. How about OverwhelmingIckiness? --------------

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2006,20:08    "Overwhelming Evidence" just doesn't lend itself to parody or wordplay (as a title, I mean -- the contents are another matter) I spent a few minutes thinking about it and "overpowering excrement" is pretty appropriate, but "OverwhelminglyDense" is still superior to anything I could cobble together. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

mcc Posts: 110 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2006,22:02    I propose "Overwhelming Gibberish"

George Posts: 316 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2006,22:42    Overabundant Eejits

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2006,01:10    Obnoxious or Odious Excresence? Olfactory Effluvia? 'Orrible Excrement? Oral Excitements? (Hmmmm perhaps not! Obloquy Evident? Oblique Excretia? Obfuscatory Effuvia? Out-of-place Exegesis? Or any combination thereof. Oh I have so many more! Benefits of a classical education and all that. :-) Louis -------------- Bye.

Pages: (1000) < ... 223 224 225 226 227 [228] 229 230 231 232 233 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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