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... > Uncommonly Dense Thread 3

Pages: (501) < ... 377 378 379 380 381 [382] 383 384 385 386 387 ... >

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2011,11:01    Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 31 2011,09:08) This is interesting. Quote MathGrrl March 30, 2011 at 3:58 pm eric, [snip] By the way, it has come to my attention that there is another person using the MathGrrl pseudonym, and her use actually predates mine. I am not the MathGrrl that comes up first in a Google search (I’m leaving her name out deliberately so as not to associate us in the search engines). Please don’t harass her because of anything I’ve said. Perhaps we were wrong about her identity. First, I was going to  ask if PaV just made the ultimate own goal. Second, does it matter if mathgrrl isn't mathgrrl?  The quality of the argument is what matters. It really doesn't matter if JoeG goes all internet staker on her.  No one over there can answer what is probably the most fundamental issue with ID. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2011,11:03    Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 31 2011,10:29) Dunno is anyone has brought this up but, presumably an apple on a tree has less CSI than an apple in space? How does that factor into calculations? Oh, wait.. what about an apple in a vacuum vs an apple in the library of congress PROBLEM DARWINSITS? -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Robin Posts: 1431 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2011,11:37    [quote=carlsonjok,Mar. 31 2011,09:08][/quote] Quote This is interesting.   Quote MathGrrl March 30, 2011 at 3:58 pm eric, [snip] By the way, it has come to my attention that there is another person using the MathGrrl pseudonym, and her use actually predates mine. I am not the MathGrrl that comes up first in a Google search (I’m leaving her name out deliberately so as not to associate us in the search engines). Please don’t harass her because of anything I’ve said. Perhaps we were wrong about her identity. I just want to know if she's the same Mathgrrl as the one with the profile on Beergeeks. If she is, I want to marry her! ...what's that dear? I can't marry another woman? Oh...(sigh) -------------- 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

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2011,11:40    Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 31 2011,07:43) Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 31 2011,17:29) Dunno is anyone has brought this up but, presumably an apple on a tree has less CSI than an apple in space? How does that factor into calculations? Oh, wait.. Wrong metric try Complete Stupidy Index Couple Snake Issue Corporate Slow Intake Caught Sliding Interstate Crock of Shit, Innit? -------------- 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

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2011,11:44    Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 31 2011,11:01) Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 31 2011,09:08) This is interesting.   Quote MathGrrl March 30, 2011 at 3:58 pm eric, [snip] By the way, it has come to my attention that there is another person using the MathGrrl pseudonym, and her use actually predates mine. I am not the MathGrrl that comes up first in a Google search (I’m leaving her name out deliberately so as not to associate us in the search engines). Please don’t harass her because of anything I’ve said. Perhaps we were wrong about her identity. First, I was going to  ask if PaV just made the ultimate own goal. Second, does it matter if mathgrrl isn't mathgrrl?  The quality of the argument is what matters. Oh, I agree.  It was more an attempt at owning up to our own mistakes. We had taken no small measure of glee watching the UDers question mathgrrl's credentials, on the belief that we knew who she really was.  Inasmuch as we look to be wrong, I thought it worth mentioning. -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

didymos Posts: 1828 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2011,12:04    Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 31 2011,09:44) It was more an attempt at owning up to our own mistakes. Yeah, this is one of those "If you kill him, you will be just like him" dealies.  Failing to do these things is the path to the TARDside. -------------- 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

rossum Posts: 289 Joined: Dec. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2011,13:05    Quote (Robin @ Mar. 31 2011,11:37) ...what's that dear? I can't marry another woman? Oh...(sigh) Easily solved.  If you are female, move to Vermont.  If you are male move to Saudi Arabia and convert.  I suspect that it might be easier to persuade MathGrrl to move to Vermont. Gender reassignment surgery and then Vermont perhaps? rossum (who usually tries to be helpful) -------------- The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

Robin Posts: 1431 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2011,13:13    PaV attempts to  challenge Mathgrrl. However:   Quote If we look at String #1, and then, using ASCII code to convert letters into binary code while inserting the integer ’1? after the first four digits of the code for each letter, the binary string represents Uhh..."using ASCII"? "Convert letters into binary"? "binary string"?? Hold up a moment there, PaV...what happened to the metric that could be applied? And what about this condition of using that metric:   Quote without any knowledge of their history Why would your calculation require one to convert the binary code into letters using ASCII unless you already knew the history of this code and that it would spell something out in English? -------------- 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

olegt Posts: 1405 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2011,13:16    Broken linky. Try this: tinyurl.com/no-csi-scanner#comment-375755 -------------- If you are not: Galapagos Finch please Logout »

Robin Posts: 1431 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2011,13:26    Quote (rossum @ Mar. 31 2011,13:05) Quote Quote (Robin @ Mar. 31 2011,11:37) ...what's that dear? I can't marry another woman? Oh...(sigh) Easily solved.  If you are female, move to Vermont.  If you are male move to Saudi Arabia and convert.  I suspect that it might be easier to persuade MathGrrl to move to Vermont. Gender reassignment surgery and then Vermont perhaps? rossum (who usually tries to be helpful) I must confess, I'm not exactly up on Vermont law. What the caveat for being a woman there? And...umm...there's one major potential hurdle to this idea anyway: what are the odds that Mathgrrl wants to marry a gender reassigned women (who really wants to be a man with her) in Vermont? Outside of that this sounds pretty much flawless, Rossum! Thanks! -------------- 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

didymos Posts: 1828 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2011,13:28    I liked this part of PaV's post:   Quote So, using the “metric” of CSI, we would conclude that neither of the strings is “designed”. This turns out to be wrong; BUT, it is NOT a false positive, which would render CSI suspect, and of limited use. Oh, it's definitely not a false positive.  CSI still failed to give you the right answer.  Dumbass. ETA: Also, he's basically just doing a straight bit-length count. Any genuinely random bit-string of 500 digits or more would break the so-called "UPB" and thus give a false positive.  I repeat: dumbass. ETAA: to fix the first ETA, in which I didn't initially include "or more". Stupid me. -------------- 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

Robin Posts: 1431 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2011,13:40    Quote (olegt @ Mar. 31 2011,13:16) Broken linky. Try this: tinyurl.com/no-csi-scanner#comment-375755 Yeah. Not sure why, but it puts a break (<br>) in the URL when it converts. I'm just copying the url from the site as I see it. Oh well... Thanks Olegt! -------------- 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

olegt Posts: 1405 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2011,13:43    I figured out that String 1 was designed. Didn't have time to point it out. String 1 has 112 ones and 80 zeros. An excess of 32 from the mean is pretty large: 2.3 standard deviations (the square root of 192, or about 14). String 2 is more even, 107 ones and 85 zeros. That's an excess of 1.6 standard deviations. PaV's rant about 500 bits is stupid. It's an arbitrary cutoff. DrDr could have declared 100 bits the CSI bound and it would be as good. -------------- If you are not: Galapagos Finch please Logout »

didymos Posts: 1828 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2011,13:44    William J. Murray tries to help.  He fails:   Quote BTW, any CSI or FSCO/I analysis only makes a provisional finding of “best explanation” under current knowledge. As PaV’s example shows, we can find false negatives all the time simply by not knowing about the pattern that a sequence describes; it might appear totally random until we find the pattern (in cryptanalysis, that would be the “key”) that reveals the functional specificity of the sequence. So, basically if one suspects design in the first place, one can then determine if some string actually is designed.  That'd probably require some sort of background knowledge about the prime designer suspect, I'd imagine.  But wow, that CSI sure is useful, I tell you what!  Oh, but wait: what if the pattern is actually due to some totally natural but unknown regularity? Well shucks. ETA: stupid URL mangling. -------------- 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

noncarborundum Posts: 320 Joined: Jan. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2011,13:46    Quote (utidjian @ Mar. 31 2011,08:46) Heh Carlsonjok I just skimmed that thread at  UD you (tiny)linked to. None of the commenters there 5 years ago are still active. We know what happened to d'Tard but what about the rest of them? -DU- Doesn't UD have one person capable of writing a limerick that scans?  Aaugh, the assault on my refined poetic sensibilities! -------------- "The . . . um . . . okay, I was genetically selected for blue eyes.  I know there are brown eyes, because I've observed them, but I can't do it.  Okay?  So . . . um . . . coz that's real genetic selection, not the nonsense Giberson and the others are talking about." - DO'L

didymos Posts: 1828 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2011,13:47    Quote (olegt @ Mar. 31 2011,11:43) DrDr could have declared 100 bits the CSI bound and it would be as good. Which is of course to say, good for nothing. -------------- 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

utidjian Posts: 185 Joined: Oct. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2011,13:49    I liked this part of PaV's post: Quote So, it’s CSI is 196 bits; far less than the needed 500. Therefore, we cannot conclude—without knowing its causal history—that it is “designed”. Q.E.D. So... lemme see if I got this right. If we know it's causal history and that causal history tells us that it was designed then it was designed, yes? or shorter... If we know it was designed then it was designed. Q.E. tardfuckin D. Or perhaps PaV means if there was another "304 bits or more" longer (304+196=500 in my world) then he can say, Eureka! we have CSI? -DU- -------------- Being laughed at doesn't mean you're progressing along some line. It probably just means you're saying some stupid shit -stevestory

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2011,13:51    Quote (olegt @ Mar. 31 2011,13:43) I figured out that String 1 was designed. Didn't have time to point it out. String 1 has 112 ones and 80 zeros. An excess of 32 from the mean is pretty large: 2.3 standard deviations (the square root of 192, or about 14). String 2 is more even, 107 ones and 85 zeros. That's an excess of 1.6 standard deviations. PaV's rant about 500 bits is stupid. It's an arbitrary cutoff. DrDr could have declared 100 bits the CSI bound and it would be as good. 500 bits is supposed to come from the 10^150 of the UPB. I don't but that - but even if I did, as I told Joe: part of the 10^150 is 10^80, for the number of particles in the observable universe. But 'the observable universe' <> the universe. And even that 10^80 is acknowledged as being a lowball estimate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe#Matter_content "A typical star has a mass of about 2×1030 kg, which is about 1×1057 atoms of hydrogen per star. A typical galaxy has about 400 billion stars so that means each galaxy has 1×1057 × 4×1011 = 4×1068 hydrogen atoms. There are possibly 80 billion galaxies in the universe, so that means that there are about 4×1068 × 8×1010 = 3×1079 hydrogen atoms in the observable universe. But this is definitely a lower limit calculation, and it ignores many possible atom sources such as intergalactic gas.[42]" -------------- "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

noncarborundum Posts: 320 Joined: Jan. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2011,13:52    Quote (Robin @ Mar. 31 2011,11:37) Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 31 2011,09:08)     Quote This is interesting.     Quote MathGrrl March 30, 2011 at 3:58 pm eric, [snip] By the way, it has come to my attention that there is another person using the MathGrrl pseudonym, and her use actually predates mine. I am not the MathGrrl that comes up first in a Google search (I’m leaving her name out deliberately so as not to associate us in the search engines). Please don’t harass her because of anything I’ve said. Perhaps we were wrong about her identity. I just want to know if she's the same Mathgrrl as the one with the profile on Beergeeks. If she is, I want to marry her! ...what's that dear? I can't marry another woman? Oh...(sigh) Sure you can.  Depending on what you mean by "marry another woman", you can move either to Massachusetts or to Saudi Arabia. Now whether you may is another question altogether. -------------- "The . . . um . . . okay, I was genetically selected for blue eyes.  I know there are brown eyes, because I've observed them, but I can't do it.  Okay?  So . . . um . . . coz that's real genetic selection, not the nonsense Giberson and the others are talking about." - DO'L

noncarborundum Posts: 320 Joined: Jan. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2011,13:55    Quote (noncarborundum @ Mar. 31 2011,13:52)   Quote (Robin @ Mar. 31 2011,11:37)   ...what's that dear? I can't marry another woman? Oh...(sigh) Sure you can.  Depending on what you mean by "marry another woman", you can move either to Massachusetts or to Saudi Arabia. Now whether you may is another question altogether. Oops.  Failed to note rossum's similar response above before posting mine.  I would argue for Mass. over Vt., however, on the basis of priority.  We've been at it longer so we must be better at it. -------------- "The . . . um . . . okay, I was genetically selected for blue eyes.  I know there are brown eyes, because I've observed them, but I can't do it.  Okay?  So . . . um . . . coz that's real genetic selection, not the nonsense Giberson and the others are talking about." - DO'L

didymos Posts: 1828 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2011,13:57    Quote (utidjian @ Mar. 31 2011,11:49) Or perhaps PaV means if there was another "304 bits or more" longer (304+196=500 in my world) then he can say, Eureka! we have CSI? He seemingly means both: if it's <500 bits, then you must know the causal history, or at least suspect it has one involving design. Only when said history is determined or just known from the outset can one then determine the CSI (which is just however many bits long it is) that his supposed CSI "metric" would tell you it doesn't have.  If it's >500 bits...IT'S DESIGNED!  It has 500+n bits of CSI!  Of course, that doesn't work either. -------------- 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

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2011,14:05    Quote (didymos @ Mar. 31 2011,13:28) I liked this part of PaV's post:       Quote So, using the “metric” of CSI, we would conclude that neither of the strings is “designed”. This turns out to be wrong; BUT, it is NOT a false positive, which would render CSI suspect, and of limited use. Oh, it's definitely not a false positive.  CSI still failed to give you the right answer.  Dumbass. ETA: Also, he's basically just doing a straight bit-length count. Any genuinely random bit-string of 500 digits would break the so-called "UPB" and thus give a false positive.  I repeat: dumbass. Which, I might add, plays right into Mathgrrl's hand.  She specifically asked about CSI with regard to a gene duplication, way back when on the original thread.  Calculating CSI in such a manner can only lead to the conclusion that known evolutionary mechanism, like a gene duplication, can create CSI. Is PaV really so stupid to go back to that? -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

noncarborundum Posts: 320 Joined: Jan. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2011,14:08    Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 31 2011,08:31)    However, I did come across a post that surely is the (still) high water mark for Uncommon Descent. Behold!  Dembski at his finest! I hadn't seen this before:   Quote (dembski @ Dec. 18 2006,18:21) Calm yourselves everybody. An enhanced flatulent version is being worked on at this very moment. I will make it available. I do want to say this for the record, however. Many people regard the flatulent version as unsophisticated and even infantile. I want to suggest that in this postmodern age the flatulence in this animation actually serves as a sophisticated rhetorical device that mirrors the subtext of flatulence that runs throughout Judge Jones’s decision. Anyone know if such an "enhanced flatulent version" ever saw the light of day? Also, flatulence as "sophisticated rhetorical device"?  Really? -------------- "The . . . um . . . okay, I was genetically selected for blue eyes.  I know there are brown eyes, because I've observed them, but I can't do it.  Okay?  So . . . um . . . coz that's real genetic selection, not the nonsense Giberson and the others are talking about." - DO'L

Robin Posts: 1431 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2011,14:17    Quote (noncarborundum @ Mar. 31 2011,13:52) Quote Quote (Robin @ Mar. 31 2011,11:37)   Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 31 2011,09:08)     Quote This is interesting.       Quote MathGrrl March 30, 2011 at 3:58 pm eric, [snip] By the way, it has come to my attention that there is another person using the MathGrrl pseudonym, and her use actually predates mine. I am not the MathGrrl that comes up first in a Google search (I’m leaving her name out deliberately so as not to associate us in the search engines). Please don’t harass her because of anything I’ve said. Perhaps we were wrong about her identity. I just want to know if she's the same Mathgrrl as the one with the profile on Beergeeks. If she is, I want to marry her! ...what's that dear? I can't marry another woman? Oh...(sigh) Sure you can.  Depending on what you mean by "marry another woman", you can move either to Massachusetts or to Saudi Arabia. Now whether you may is another question altogether. Well, the actual response had something to do with lawyers or some such, but I just tuned it out and figured it wasn't worth pursuing further. -------------- 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

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2011,14:18    Quote (noncarborundum @ Mar. 31 2011,15:08) Anyone know if such an "enhanced flatulent version" ever saw the light of day? yeah totally.  every single fucking post on UD since is that version -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Zachriel Posts: 2723 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2011,14:54    Quote (noncarborundum @ Mar. 31 2011,14:08) Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 31 2011,08:31)    However, I did come across a post that surely is the (still) high water mark for Uncommon Descent. Behold!  Dembski at his finest! I hadn't seen this before:   Quote (dembski @ Dec. 18 2006,18:21) Calm yourselves everybody. An enhanced flatulent version is being worked on at this very moment. I will make it available. I do want to say this for the record, however. Many people regard the flatulent version as unsophisticated and even infantile. I want to suggest that in this postmodern age the flatulence in this animation actually serves as a sophisticated rhetorical device that mirrors the subtext of flatulence that runs throughout Judge Jones’s decision. Anyone know if such an "enhanced flatulent version" ever saw the light of day? Also, flatulence as "sophisticated rhetorical device"?  Really? Here's some rhetoric for ya. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6dm9rN6oTs -------------- You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

Bob O'H Posts: 2564 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2011,15:27    Quote (Robin @ Mar. 31 2011,13:13) PaV attempts to  [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-theres-no-such-thing-as-a-csi-scanner-or-reasonable-and-unreasonable-demands-relating- to-complex-specified-information/#comment-375755]challenge[/URL] Mathgrrl. However:     Quote If we look at String #1, and then, using ASCII code to convert letters into binary code while inserting the integer ’1? after the first four digits of the code for each letter, the binary string represents Uhh..."using ASCII"? "Convert letters into binary"? "binary string"?? Hold up a moment there, PaV...what happened to the metric that could be applied? And what about this condition of using that metric:     Quote without any knowledge of their history Why would your calculation require one to convert the binary code into letters using ASCII unless you already knew the history of this code and that it would spell something out in English? PaV will be finding secret codes in The Bible next. -------------- 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)

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2011,15:42    King James 1611, no less!!!!1!!! -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

sledgehammer Posts: 533 Joined: Sep. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2011,15:56    Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 31 2011,09:40)     Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 31 2011,07:43)     Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 31 2011,17:29) Dunno is anyone has brought this up but, presumably an apple on a tree has less CSI than an apple in space? How does that factor into calculations? Oh, wait.. Wrong metric try Complete Stupidy Index Couple Snake Issue Corporate Slow Intake Caught Sliding Interstate Crock of Shit, Innit? Computational Spewage, Indeed -------------- The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD) If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

dvunkannon Posts: 1377 Joined: June 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2011,15:58    Quote (noncarborundum @ Mar. 31 2011,14:46) Quote (utidjian @ Mar. 31 2011,08:46) Heh Carlsonjok I just skimmed that thread at  UD you (tiny)linked to. None of the commenters there 5 years ago are still active. We know what happened to d'Tard but what about the rest of them? -DU- Doesn't UD have one person capable of writing a limerick that scans?  Aaugh, the assault on my refined poetic sensibilities! You didn't like Nakashima's? :( http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-342358 -------------- I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter I’m not an evolutionist, I’m a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

Pages: (501) < ... 377 378 379 380 381 [382] 383 384 385 386 387 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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