Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread

Posted: Dec. 03 2007,11:24

The short version of the aforementioned post:

ID: The bacterial flagellum could not possibly have evolved, therefore ~~god~~ The Intelligent Designer which might be a space alien (wink wink) did it.

Matzke: It could have evolved this way.

Klebba: or this way.

Dembski: They haven't proven that it did evolve that way, therefore the bacterial flagellum could not possibly have evolved, therefore ~~god~~ The Intelligent Designer which might be a space alien (wink wink) did it.

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Kristine

Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

Posted: Dec. 03 2007,11:40

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Dec. 03 2007,09:42)

For what it's worth, in a recent UD thread the tards were whining about no colleges have any ID research happening on campus. �Someone logically suggested/asked why Southwestern or other Christian colleges seem to have the SAME level of interest in ID research that secular schools have (zero). �

Dembski himself chimed in and said talks were currently going on at Southwestern to establish an ID lab (or some sort of ID research center).

I was going to dig up that thread but I got grossed out being so close to all that stupid. �Maybe later.

Chris

EDIT= here's the link where Dembski was asked why no christian schools have a ID lab. �Dembski himself replies two or so posts later

Why do christian colleges have no interest in ID??

Those UD-horns don't even appreciate a real conspiracy when they see one:

Quote

Actually some anti-ID people on the Darwin forum are suggestion other anti-ID people vote �encourage�. They seem to think if Baylor allows any ID research it will back fire. Or some kind of weird logic like that.

Hee hee. Meanwhile in the real world: Are you smarter than a 5-year-old chimp?

Let's ask Denyse.

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

J-Dog

Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

Posted: Dec. 03 2007,12:48

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Dec. 03 2007,10:42)

For what it's worth, in a recent UD thread the tards were whining about no colleges have any ID research happening on campus. �Someone logically suggested/asked why Southwestern or other Christian colleges seem to have the SAME level of interest in ID research that secular schools have (zero). �

Dembski himself chimed in and said talks were currently going on at Southwestern to establish an ID lab (or some sort of ID research center).

I was going to dig up that thread but I got grossed out being so close to all that stupid. �Maybe later.

Chris

EDIT= here's the link where Dembski was asked why no christian schools have a ID lab. �Dembski himself replies two or so posts later

Why do christian colleges have no interest in ID??

Ah yes, the halcyon days of Mid-November, before GaryLarson became a non-person...

There he is in an early post pointing out that Dr. Dembksi might be allowed back in the Baylor Cafeteria, if only the school newspaper poll results would show the TrueTruth Of ID™.

Sadly, Gary's obsequious comments and tweaking B^A77's nose are in the past, and he remains, and will always remain, just another victim in the cruel ID wars.

Chris, back to you.

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

JohnW

Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

Posted: Dec. 03 2007,13:36

Anyone want to confess to being leo stotch?

Quote

I have to agree with DaveScot about letting the foxes guard the chickenhouse. We shouldn�t leave biology and biochemistry to the biologists and biochemists. There is too much money at stake for them to deal honestly with the reality.

Beautiful. Let's take biology away from the biologists and give it to the theologians and retired code monkeys. That should improve things.

On a related note, my back steps need to be repaired. Can anyone recommend a good fishmonger?

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

Albatrossity2

Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Dec. 03 2007,13:38

Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 03 2007,11:10)

Jesus H., we're back to the bacteria flagellating again.

The frickin' horse is dead, dude, and so is your bacterial magic poof ~~theory~~ ~~hypothesis~~ ~~wild ass guess~~ useless idea pulled from your anal cavity.

I think you owe us like three weeks of decent melt-downs, however. You've been rather lame lately. We'll accept them late, but you're only getting partial credit.

And the tard chorus does not disappoint. Cue bfast

Quote

If there is anything in Dr. Klebba�s pontification it is that the IC nature of the bacterial flagellum is scientifically falsifiable. The day that the biological community can demonstrate a mutation-event by mutation-event path from a pre-flagellum to a flagellum where each event produces a bacterium that within some realistic environment has an advantage over its predicessor, I will contend that the inevolvability of the bacterial flagellum will have been falsified.

I say to the scientif commmunity, quit claiming that IC is non-falsifiable. Falsify it! Put up, or shut up!

The day that the ID world can show me a think-poof event by think-poof event path from nothing to the bacterial flagellum is probably a long ways off too...

Furthermore, it is singularly unclear to me how someone who claims that IC cannot be falsified should proceed to falsify it, or shut up. I'm sure it is clear to bfast, unfortunately, since he also believes in miracles and such.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
� � � � � � � � � � � � - Pattiann Rogers

J-Dog

Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

Posted: Dec. 03 2007,13:40

Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 03 2007,13:36)

On a related note, my back steps need to be repaired. �Can anyone recommend a good fishmonger?

I have heard that if you bury a statue of St. Hoffa upside down in your backyard, it will fix your concrete.

HTH :)

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

Gunthernacus

Posts: 235
Joined: April 2007

Posted: Dec. 03 2007,13:47

Photo redacted - possible copyright concern, don't want to get the board in trouble...

Sorry everyone...sorry. Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who...

--------------
Given that we are all descended from Adam and Eve...genetic defects as a result of intra-family marriage would not begin to crop up until after the first few dozen generations. - Dr. Hugh Ross

Bob O'H

Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Dec. 03 2007,13:48

Quote (keiths @ Dec. 03 2007,10:19)

Quote

Is External Delivery the same as Santa Clausism?

No. The theory of external delivery is only concerned with empirically testing whether Christmas presents are delivered by an external agent, or an internal agent such as your parents. Santa Clausism typically starts with the premise that Santa Claus is delivering presents, and then seeks to fit the evidence to that theory. The theory of external delivery has developed strictly from objective interpretations of the empirical evidence.

From External Delivery the Future.

OK, own up. One of you is responsible for that, aren't you?

Or possibly more than one...

Bob

--------------
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)

djmullen

Posts: 327
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Dec. 03 2007,14:24

bornagain77 finds a tard-mate:

From: �

Quote

Nonlocal Effects of Chemical Substances on the Brain
Produced through Quantum Entanglement
Huping Hu and Maoxin Wu
Biophysics Consulting Group, 25 Lubber Street, Stony Brook, NY 11790, USA
E-mail: hupinghu@quantumbrain.org

Here we report that applying magnetic pulses to the brain
when an anesthetic or pain medication was placed in between caused the brain to feel
the effect of the said substance for several hours after the treatment as if the test subject
had actually inhaled the same. The said effect is consistently reproducible. We further
found that drinking water exposed to magnetic pulses, laser light or microwave when a
chemical substance was placed in between also causes consistently reproducible brain
effects in various degrees.

You have to read the rest for yourself. �Cage your irony meter and set your tard detector to OFF first. �About a quart of brandy applied internally may help dull the tard. �Through the process of quantum entanglement, of course.

Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

Posted: Dec. 03 2007,14:26

I tried to contact the legal team at UD with some very important news. I got this:

Quote

Hi. This is the qmail-send program at yahoo.com.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.

<legal@www.uncommondescent.com>:
Sorry, I wasn't able to establish an SMTP connection. (#4.4.1)
I'm not going to try again; this message has been in the queue too long.

I now realize that putting the terms "legal team" and "Uncommon Descent" in the same paragraph is indeed a permanent error.

I love it.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Dec. 03 2007,15:23

Wasn't Klebba the one that Abbie was going on and on about? Can't remember...anywhooo, here's my comment on Bill's latest post:

Quote

Man, I love posts like this�thank you Bill!

Amazing that the evolutionists always claim that we are the ones who never ask questions and just state that �goddit�.

Yet, here are the questions being asked by IDists�

�Take Klebba�s transition from a pilum to a type-three secretory system. Precisely which pilum and which type-three secretory system does he have in mind? How exactly did a pilum shed its hair-like filament in becoming a type-three secretory system (last I looked, type-three secretory systems are microsyringes that do not have hair-like filaments)? What new genes need to be added to form a type-three secretory system from a pilum? What old genes need to be lost to form a type-three secretory system from a pilum? In the evolution from the pilum to the type-three secretory system, how many intermediate systems whose functions were neither that of a pilum nor that of a type-three secretory system were there? Klebba and his colleagues never answer such questions.�

�and Klebba claims that science has already solved the mystery of the evolution of the flagellum!

Mind boggling, the logic these folks possess.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero

Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Dec. 03 2007,15:24

Crap...that should be who.

You suck, Steve. I want my edit function back.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero

J-Dog

Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

Posted: Dec. 03 2007,15:26

Quote (blipey @ Dec. 03 2007,14:26)

I tried to contact the legal team at UD with some very important news. �I got this:

Quote

Hi. This is the qmail-send program at yahoo.com.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.

<legal@www.uncommondescent.com>:
Sorry, I wasn't able to establish an SMTP connection. (#4.4.1)
I'm not going to try again; this message has been in the queue too long.

I now realize that putting the terms "legal team" and "Uncommon Descent" in the same paragraph is indeed a permanent error.

I love it.

It might help to use a simple substitution code:

Use - "You Little Lyers" instead of "Legal Team" in the heading.

I'm surprised your Nixplanatory Filter didn't help you with this.

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

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Dec. 03 2007,15:29

Short FTK:

"Science has not answered every single question that IDers can think of in regards to the flagellum. Therefore, it can't have evolved, evolution is false, and ID is true!"

USA! USA! USA!

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Dec. 03 2007,15:44

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 03 2007,15:29)

Short FTK:

"Science has not answered every single question that IDers can think of in regards to the flagellum. Therefore, it can't have evolved, evolution is false, and ID is true!"

USA! USA! USA!

[in a very patient voice]

No, Arden, that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that evolutionists have been stating that the evolution of the flagellum been explained in evolutionary terms.

At the OK lecture, it happened again. The audience was told that biologists know full well how the bacterial flagellum arose without the need for intelligent design, but that is not true. Klebba was insinuating that Dembski is a liar...he's not.

Now, it is interesting to me that you beat up on Sal for jesting and not providing an entire quote, yet you have no problem with guys like Klebba doing what he did.

Pot meet Kettle.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero

Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

Posted: Dec. 03 2007,15:50

Are we seriously going to revisit the stack of papers pertaining to the evolution of the flagellum? Seriously? The stack of explanations that you just don't believe, Ftk? Because you have the expertise to tell us that those papers (all of which you've read?) don't explain the flagellum?

Please let's go somewhere more interesting. Or, you could cite some evidence of a better explanation and it'll be time to dive back in. So, I guess option 2 is the one you'll go for right? The evidence?

edited to put correct word in place of incorrect word because I done used the wrong one

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Richardthughes

Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Dec. 03 2007,15:51

Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 03 2007,15:44)

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 03 2007,15:29)

Short FTK:

"Science has not answered every single question that IDers can think of in regards to the flagellum. Therefore, it can't have evolved, evolution is false, and ID is true!"

USA! USA! USA!

[in a very patient voice]

No, Arden, that is not what I'm saying. �I'm saying that evolutionists have been stating that the evolution of the flagellum been explained in evolutionary terms. �

At the OK lecture, it happened again. �The audience was told that biologists know full well how the bacterial flagellum arose without the need for intelligent design, but that is not true. �Klebba was insinuating that Dembski is a liar...he's not.

Now, it is interesting to me that you beat up on Sal for jesting and not providing an entire quote, yet you have no problem with guys like Klebba doing what he did.

Pot meet Kettle.

Actually, I think they offered possible pathways, because Behe's schtick was there are no possible pathways.

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

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Dec. 03 2007,15:52

Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 03 2007,15:44)

�

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 03 2007,15:29)

Short FTK:

"Science has not answered every single question that IDers can think of in regards to the flagellum. Therefore, it can't have evolved, evolution is false, and ID is true!"

USA! USA! USA!

[in a very patient voice]

No, Arden, that is not what I'm saying. �I'm saying that evolutionists have been stating that the evolution of the flagellum been explained in evolutionary terms. �

At the OK lecture, it happened again. �The audience was told that biologists know full well how the bacterial flagellum arose without the need for intelligent design, but that is not true. �

The NEED for Intelligent Design?

The NEED to say "it can't have evolved, therefore Goddidit?

Uh huh.

Your post:

�

Quote

�Take Klebba�s transition from a pilum to a type-three secretory system. Precisely which pilum and which type-three secretory system does he have in mind? How exactly did a pilum shed its hair-like filament in becoming a type-three secretory system (last I looked, type-three secretory systems are microsyringes that do not have hair-like filaments)? What new genes need to be added to form a type-three secretory system from a pilum? What old genes need to be lost to form a type-three secretory system from a pilum? In the evolution from the pilum to the type-three secretory system, how many intermediate systems whose functions were neither that of a pilum nor that of a type-three secretory system were there? Klebba and his colleagues never answer such questions.�

�and Klebba claims that science has already solved the mystery of the evolution of the flagellum!

Mind boggling, the logic these folks possess.

What explanation does ID offer?

"It can't have evolved, quit looking, if they haven't solved everything, evolution is false."

Have you been looking? That is the only 'explanation' for the flagellum ID is offering. IDers are not contributing anything.

So in place of Klebba's 'faulty logic', we have "therefore goddiddit", which ISN'T faulty logic.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Louis

Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Dec. 03 2007,15:54

As usual I'm just amazed you don't notice your own weaselling FTK.

Once again you've failed to understand the simple "walk to the end of the road"

ID states that it is impossible for me to get to the end of the road from my house.

Evolutionary biology demonstrates that I started at my house, I'm now at the end of the road, and if we're lucky we get a few pictures of me walking along the road. Which specific route I took may never be fuily known, bits of it are known, more bits are getting known every day, but one thing is for certain: I got to the end of the road.

The exact scenario applies to the flagellum. Behe's argument is that it cannot function if any of the complex interacting parts are removed, ergo it cannot have evoled. Real scientists (i.e. not apologists for nonsense) had proven beyond doubt that it DOES function without some of its complex interacting parts. That refutes Behe's claim utterly. Do you understand why? Or are we going to have to go around this Mulberry bush AGAIN?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

Richardthughes

Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Dec. 03 2007,15:56

Special Merit Tard Award:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-153089

Quote

28

William Brookfield

12/03/2007

2:46 pm
It seems to me that the �many universes� hypothesis only makes the fine-tuning problem worse. Even if another universe is not fine-tuned for life, it still had to be fine-tuned �big time� just get itself out of the initial black hole. As I see it, the size of the fine-tuning problem is proportional to he sum of all the fine-tuning � not just our local universe.

5c a comment. *holds out cup*

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

Albatrossity2

Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Dec. 03 2007,15:58

Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 03 2007,15:44)

At the OK lecture, it happened again. The audience was told that biologists know full well how the bacterial flagellum arose without the need for intelligent design, but that is not true.

Note the clever use of the false dichotomy here. Without a mutation-by-mutation explanation, there is a need for intelligent design. I'd love to hear WHY these are the only possible choices, please.

Science has not fully explained the bacterial flagellum, but rather has outlined a plausible hypothesis (contra Behe) about how it might have evolved from known parts using known mechanisms. This hypothesis leads to testable predictions.

ID has not explained the bacterial flagellum, and has no plausible hypothesis that involves known parts and known mechanisms. This lack of hypothesis means that it is impossible to test (or falsify) ID.

I'm keeping my money on #1, but as a scientist, I'm probably biased.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
� � � � � � � � � � � � - Pattiann Rogers

Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Dec. 03 2007,16:00

Blipes, since I never answer questions, why don't you answer a few and show me how it's done properly. I'm tired of always being on the defense.

How about you go read that stack of books, and answer the questions that Dembski posed.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero

Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

Posted: Dec. 03 2007,16:03

Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 03 2007,16:00)

Blipes, since I never answer questions, why don't you answer a few and show me how it's done properly. I'm tired of always being on the defense.

How about you go read that stack of books, and answer the questions that Dembski posed.

Alright, Ftk-babes, what was the question?

Also, you are always free to ask questions of me. I'll answer them. Your comments usually seem to be question-free, however. This is something that I point out to you all the time--your disdain for asking question, due IMO to your fervent belief that you already have the answers.

edited to use the more familiar terms that we've been using recently, sugarlips

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

cogzoid

Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

Posted: Dec. 03 2007,16:03

The stack of papers being referred to here are about the evolution of the bac flag, right? They present testable hypothesis of varying plausibility, right?

The IDers, from Behe to Dembski, say that those hypotheses don't exist, or they are not sufficient. Well, what do they have to offer for an alternate theory? That "someone" did "something" at "sometime"? How exactly do we test that theory?

How do you think science works, FTK?

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Dec. 03 2007,16:05

Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 03 2007,16:00)

Blipes, since I never answer questions, why don't you answer a few and show me how it's done properly. �I'm tired of always being on the defense.

How about you go read that stack of books, and answer the questions that Dembski posed.

Well, Behe didn't think reading all those articles and books they showed him in the courtroom was necessary...

Anyway, we could start with the peer-reviewed articles you've claimed to have read. You never told us what they were, btw, can you identify them for us now?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

jupiter

Posts: 97
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Dec. 03 2007,16:14

Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 03 2007,15:24)

Crap...that should be who.

You suck, Steve. I want my edit function back.

Your edit function was taken away because you abused it.

You're too sloppy and too frenetic to use the preview function.

You can't muster up an argument that's consistent from comment to comment.

Your flirty, flippy, party-girl persona is way past its expiration date.

Actually, hon, you suck.

Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Dec. 03 2007,16:17

Blipes, they were in my post above:

1. Precisely which pilum and which type-three secretory system [did Klebba] he have in mind?

2. How exactly did a pilum shed its hair-like filament in becoming a type-three secretory system (last I looked, type-three secretory systems are microsyringes that do not have hair-like filaments)?

3. What new genes need to be added to form a type-three secretory system from a pilum?

4. What old genes need to be lost to form a type-three secretory system from a pilum?

5. In the evolution from the pilum to the type-three secretory system, how many intermediate systems whose functions were neither that of a pilum nor that of a type-three secretory system were there?

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero

Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Dec. 03 2007,16:20

Quote (jupiter @ Dec. 03 2007,16:14)

Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 03 2007,15:24)

Crap...that should be who.

You suck, Steve. �I want my edit function back.

Your edit function was taken away because you abused it.

You're too sloppy and too frenetic to use the preview function.

You can't muster up an argument that's consistent from comment to comment.

Your flirty, flippy, party-girl persona is way past its expiration date.

Actually, hon, you suck.

Jupiter,

No doubt you are an incarnation of someone at KCFS. I have a specific person in mind, but won't embarass you.

Then again, I could be wrong. Every once in a great while, my telepathy fails me.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero

Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006