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) < ... 39 40 41 42 43 [44] 45 46 47 48 49 ... >

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,03:03    somebody at UP tried to show dougmoron that he had a contradiction: http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/896 dougmoron apparently couldn't argue otherwise, so he resorted to insult.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,03:40    Quote DaveScot is right on the money as usual. I appreciate his insight and hope he continues to call it as he sees it. Anyone who’s read the PETA peanuts has experienced the struggle between speaking their mind and remaining politically correct. Fortunately for all of us, DaveScot is blessed with both incredible insight and the courage to express it. It is not at all surprising that the other side would react as they have to his comments - the guilty usually do. Keep it up, DaveScot. Comment by dougmoron — March 10, 2006 @ 1:24 am

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,03:45    Quote Panda’s Thumb Denizens? These three guys been reading the hate speech at Panda’s Thumb too long? Update: It’s absolutely amazing that so far no commenters here have comdemned what these three men did. They targeted and burned down 12 fundamentalist Christian churches. They terrorized the communities surrounding these churches in so doing. Not to mention the property damage, any of those churches could have had people in them when they were torched and lives would have been lost. Is there no outrage here? Update 2: To those of you saying PT does nothing to encourage things like this I will remind you of PZ Myers (Panda’s Thumb author and Professor of Biology) saying scientists are not angry enough, not martial enough, and these [Christian fundamentalist] lunatics deserve responses involving righteous fury and butt-kicking. Maybe he got more than he wanted in this church burning incident. Then again maybe that’s just what the doctor ordered. Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 2:59 am Comments (10) It's absolutely amazing to me that DaveScot never condemned the massacres of Pol Pot.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,06:00    someone asked a while back, if Davetard is removed from power, will it make ID less amusing and entertaining. I was not sure, but after seeing him blame the church arsons on Panda's Thumb, I have to say, yes.

egbooth Posts: 17 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,06:18    I guess it's DaveScot's new technique now to allow you to post the first comment to a post and then cut you off after his yes-men comeback with empty rebuttals. http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/902#comments

hehe Posts: 59 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,06:45    I think DaveStalin and Bill Dembski burned those churches to later claim PT fans did it.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,06:55    Quote (hehe @ Mar. 10 2006,12:45) I think DaveStalin and Bill Dembski burned those churches to later claim PT fans did it. Sort of a Reichstag fire thing? -------------- "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

cogzoid Posts: 234 Joined: Sep. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,07:23    Dave Springer says: "SirRamic asked for a minimum number of photons that can be given a temperature and how that minimum number is derived.  No one provided him a numerical answer.  It appears SirRamic won that point by default." Dave Springer originally asked: "You said that a group of photons can have a temperature.  What precisely is the minimum number of photons required in such a group and how is this number derived? " Unfortunately, he didn't finish the question.  He didn't specify how precise he wanted the temperature to be.  For example, I'm sure with a few hundred photons one could calculate a temperature that is accurate to a few hundred kelvins.  But, with a few billion you could get to a kelvin or two, I'm sure.  It's all about statistics as people have pointed out so frequently to him.  More photons means more accuracy.  The fact that he didn't even recognize this fact demonstrates alot. He asked "How many photons to calculate a temperature?"  Which is akin to asking "How much do rocks weigh?"  "Well," one has to reply, "which rock are you talking about?" The minimum of photons it requires to calculate a temperature depends on statistical mechanics.  I'm not going to bother trying to  teach a brilliant engineer like Dave Springer statistical mechanics.  For that would surely embarass such a (deservedly) proud man.  Afterall, he worked at DELL!  And currently moderates the most prominent Intelligent Design Research blog on the planet!

secondclass Posts: 9 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,07:32    DaveScot, you might try working through a concrete example.  For instance, given a 700 nm photon, what is the temperature of the black body from which it was emitted?

Rilke's Granddaughter Posts: 311 Joined: Jan. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,07:41    For a man who doesn't like to lose, Dave Scot (pico, etc.) does an awful lot of it.  Pretty much every statement he makes (aside from "you're fired!") turns out to be bogus, incorrect, or just plain idiotic. And to have us continually point this out must be galling. Ah, well.  What else would one expect from a pseudo-engineer?

Weins Law Posts: 1 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,09:58    Quote (secondclass @ Mar. 10 2006,13:32) given a 700 nm photon, what is the temperature of the black body from which it was emitted? Wein's Law: Wavelength[micrometers]=2898/Temperature[Kelvin] 700 nanometers is the peak wavelength of a blackbody with a temperature of 4140 Kelvins. We can't know what actually emitted it from just its wavelength.  An ideal blackbody is a theoretical construct that doesn't exist.  For instance that photon could've been born a soft-xray from a star at the edge of the observable universe redshifted down into the visible light range.   However we can still convert easily enough from blackbody peakwavelength to temperature or vice versa. This conversion is important in electronic applications where we use (for instance) filters for specific infrared frequencies to detect objects of certain temperatures.  One common application is in security devices.  Motion sensors that look for moving objects around 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit so they trip on person walking but not on a curtain fluttering. Now you know.   Cheers.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,10:01    good going, Davetard. Now if you spend a month or so looking at the word 'peak' in your explanation, you might see what we've been trying to explain to you.

cogzoid Posts: 234 Joined: Sep. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,10:26    Dave Springer says: "We can't know what actually emitted it from just its wavelength.  An ideal blackbody is a theoretical construct that doesn't exist.  For instance that photon could've been born a soft-xray from a star at the edge of the observable universe redshifted down into the visible light range.   However we can still convert easily enough from blackbody peakwavelength to temperature or vice versa." And we can't even know if that photon represents the peak of the curve.  It is a sample of one, afterall.  Notice how broad the spectrum is when you looked at the your Wein's Displacement Law graphics?  ANY blackbody (theoretical or real world) can give off at least a single 700nm photon.  Yet you make the poor assumption that your one photon represents the peak of a blackbody spectrum from a 4140 K.  Is this how you do your "engineering" work? "This conversion is important in electronic applications where we use (for instance) filters for specific infrared frequencies to detect objects of certain temperatures.  One common application is in security devices.  Motion sensors that look for moving objects around 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit so they trip on person walking but not on a curtain fluttering." Don't you find it confusing that all of these obvious applications of black body radiation rely on looking at many, many photons?  It's almost as if the makers of them understood that a single photon doesn't represent a single temperature. As a moron often repeats: "This is too easy!"

secondclass Posts: 9 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,10:33    DaveScot, good job.  Now, given a 700 nm photon, assuming it came from a black body, what is the probability that the temperature of the black body is between 4139 K and 4141 K?

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,10:38    hint: it's less than 50%

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,10:40    Quote (Milly Henry @ Mar. 10 2006,01:53) SirRamic asked for a minimum number of photons that can be given a temperature and how that minimum number is derived.  No one provided him a numerical answer.  It appears SirRamic won that point by default. The answer is two.  If you try to determine a "temdperature" based on one photon, the error bounds are infinite, and you have determined nothing. Of course, with only two photons, the error bounds are going to be so large as to render the estimate pointless.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,10:54    This began with Davetard saying: Quote I’m guilty of taking it for granted that people in a discussion such as this know that the energy in photons is measured by degrees Kelvin. And of course degrees Kelvin is a measure of temperature and temperature is synonymous with heat. Next time you decide to be argumentative I suggest you do a better job of it. -ds Dougmoron exhibited the same kind of behavior Davetard is exhibiting here--the inability to admit to a basic error. Everybody makes mistakes. Dave makes three in the first twe sentences of that excerpt. Energy isn't measured in kelvin, it's not degrees kelvin, and temperature is not the same thing as heat. When Davetard said this, he showed us ignorance and insult. But not admitting the error just adds stubbornness to the mix.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,11:06    Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 10 2006,16:54) This began with Davetard saying: Quote I’m guilty of taking it for granted that people in a discussion such as this know that the energy in photons is measured by degrees Kelvin. And of course degrees Kelvin is a measure of temperature and temperature is synonymous with heat. Next time you decide to be argumentative I suggest you do a better job of it. -ds Dougmoron exhibited the same kind of behavior Davetard is exhibiting here--the inability to admit to a basic error. Everybody makes mistakes. Dave makes three in the first twe sentences of that excerpt. Energy isn't measured in kelvin, it's not degrees kelvin, and temperature is not the same thing as heat. When Davetard said this, he showed us ignorance and insult. But not admitting the error just adds stubbornness to the mix. And all in a reply where he is accusing someone of ignorance. LOL. Too funny.

Caledonian Posts: 48 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,12:41    These people can't acknowledge the possibility that they could be wrong.  Even the hypothetical is inconceivable.

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,13:51    Unfortunately, for many people, that is the first rule for debating on the internets, religious apologetics or no: Act like a God. Never, ever back out from a statement you made, even the most trivial one, even if you were intoxicated and sleep-deprived at the time and the subject was confusing and irrelevant to your points to begin with. If others insist of you to back it up, lie, confuse and mislead posting irrelevant links to look like you have a clue what you're talking about and, of course, mock and insult them, but NEVER admit to even the possibility of being wrong. I'm beginning to think this is the only kind of 'science' ol' Dave ever studied. -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

keiths Posts: 2195 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,14:32    You know, DaveTard comes off looking so pathetic in all of this that for a minute there, I was actually feeling sorry for him.  Such a complete and public humiliation must be hard for him to swallow. Then I thought about everything he's said and done to other folks, and the feeling passed. -------------- And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,14:42    Quote (keiths @ Mar. 10 2006,20:32) You know, DaveTard comes off looking so pathetic in all of this that for a minute there, I was actually feeling sorry for him.  Such a complete and public humiliation must be hard for him to swallow. Then I thought about everything he's said and done to other folks, and the feeling passed. Yes, if you doubt for a minute that DaveSpringer deserves the humiliation he undergoes here, refresh your memory with this: Quote Update: It’s absolutely amazing that so far no commenters here have comdemned what these three men did. They targeted and burned down 9 fundamentalist Christian churches. They terrorized the communities surrounding these churches in so doing. Not to mention the property damage, any of those churches could have had people in them when they were torched and lives would have been lost. Is there no outrage here? Update 2: To those of you saying PT does nothing to encourage things like this I will remind you of PZ Myers (Panda’s Thumb author and Professor of Biology) saying scientists are not angry enough, not martial enough, and these [Christian fundamentalist] lunatics deserve responses involving righteous fury and butt-kicking. Maybe he got more than he wanted in this church burning incident. Then again maybe that’s just what the doctor ordered. Update 3: To everyone writing to say I’m asserting that Panda’s Thumb is responsible, that is a straw man. Observe the question mark on the subject line and the original line of text at the top. To all of you who don’t know, a question marks denotes a question, not a statement or assertion. (Note how by Update 3 he's starting to p1ss up his back, and claim that he wasn't really blaming PT for the arsonists. Ho ho.) So bottom line, we need not worry about bruising Dave's widdle feelings. -------------- "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

keiths Posts: 2195 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,15:59    Quote To everyone writing to say I’m asserting that Panda’s Thumb is responsible, that is a straw man. Observe the question mark on the subject line and the original line of text at the top. To all of you who don’t know, a question marks denotes a question, not a statement or assertion. Dave, do you beat your wife out of anger, or for pleasure? Observe the question mark.  A question mark denotes a question, not a statement or assertion. -------------- And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,16:01    Quote (Faid @ Mar. 10 2006,08:45) Quote *From Dembski's 'Darwinists believe in the ether' thread* 3. The ether wasn’t absurd at all - it was a resaonable hypothesis at the time, given the then known properties of electromagnetic waves. Now, quantum mechanics and relativity ARE absurd - and so is the idea that some invisable, unknown intelligent agent designed something like the bacterial flaggellum. Unfortunately for us, the universe doesn’t always accomodate our own definations of absurdity… Comment by jimbo — March 9, 2006 @ 11:23 am 4. Uh Dave? Dave? We have an intruder. Dave? Comment by Red Reader — March 9, 2006 @ 27 pm As a small update, it seems that Dave has put his poodles on a leash: Checking back on the 'ether' thread, I noticed Red Reader's "Intruder! Intruder!" post had been cast into oblivion. I wonder if Master Dave rubbed poor RR's nose in it first... -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

Caledonian Posts: 48 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,17:37    Quote (Faid @ Mar. 10 2006,19:51) Unfortunately, for many people, that is the first rule for debating on the internets, religious apologetics or no: Act like a God. Never, ever back out from a statement you made, even the most trivial one, even if you were intoxicated and sleep-deprived at the time and the subject was confusing and irrelevant to your points to begin with. If others insist of you to back it up, lie, confuse and mislead posting irrelevant links to look like you have a clue what you're talking about and, of course, mock and insult them, but NEVER admit to even the possibility of being wrong. Y'know why?  Because this strategy works.  People (on the Internet, at least) fall for the oldest fallacies in the book.  In my judgment, people on the Internet are a much more representative sample than you'd experience in even a high school debate tournament. This is why we're "losing" this war.  Those who pander to the lowest common denominator will always win popularity contests.

hehe Posts: 59 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,18:09    DaveStalin must be a masochist.

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,18:18    Quote (keiths @ Mar. 10 2006,20:32) You know, DaveTard comes off looking so pathetic in all of this that for a minute there, I was actually feeling sorry for him.  Such a complete and public humiliation must be hard for him to swallow. Then I thought about everything he's said and done to other folks, and the feeling passed. I don't think Dave Tard is humiliated at all.  On the rare occassion when he realizes he is wrong, I think he could care less mainly because his followers/listeners don't know any better, or they too could care less.   We're not dealing with the sharpest crayons in the box over at UD.  Besides, they could care less about accuracy, they're only concerned with selling their nonsense to the ignorant and uninformed.   IDCers at UD are the internet equivalent of christian soldiers who will bravely die (look stupid) in an intellectual match to further their cause.   Dave is a poser riding the coat tails of a fraud.  Without IDC Dembski is a nobody with no future, without Dembski Dave Tard is just another jerk on the internet. That's my take on it. -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2006,22:40    Quote (Caledonian @ Mar. 10 2006,23:37) Y'know why?  Because this strategy works.  People (on the Internet, at least) fall for the oldest fallacies in the book.  In my judgment, people on the Internet are a much more representative sample than you'd experience in even a high school debate tournament. This is why we're "losing" this war.  Those who pander to the lowest common denominator will always win popularity contests. Well, let's just be glad that we live in a society where the principles of Science and the rules of education are not defined by popularity contests on the internets... ...N-not yet at least. -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2006,05:56    Quote Just as there are extremist Christian fundamentalists who advocate bombing abortion clinics, so I believe there are extremist agnostic or atheist Christian haters who would burn down churches. I want to make myself clear that PT is not to shoulder any of the blame for this terrible crime whatsoever; I also want to make clear that I do not accuse any of the moderators there of having the sort of mentality that is conducive to acts such as this. I do, however, think that PT is the sort of place that can be a haven for those who do. I think this is what Dave is trying to get at. You’re wrong about what I’m trying to get at. Hateful speech leads to hateful acts and PT admins breathlessly participate in it (like PZ Myers) or they let it flourish without attempting to stop it in any way. If someone actually conspired or threatened to commit a specific criminal act they might draw the line there but I’d have to see it to believe it. As far as I’ve seen they have no lines drawn and divest themselves of any responsibility for what’s said there. I think they should seriously consider the consequences of their anti-religion rabble rousing speech and shoulder some blame for where it can lead - hateful speech leads to hateful acts. If they were over there making the same kind of hateful mocking speech about blacks, homosexuals, jews, women, native Americans, handicapped, or whatever there’d be mega-outrage. The sad fact of the matter is that it has become politically acceptable to mock and hate fundamentalist Christians. And you’re so inured to it you don’t even care that it’s directed at just about all the authors on Uncommon Descent except me. And I’m the one that’s belligerant about it instead of you all. Go figure. There’s no way I’m apologizing for acting like a teed off Marine. -ds Comment by crandaddy — March 10, 2006 @ 8:56 pm (From this comment at UD with crandaddy trying to get Dave2lot to stop digging his hole deeper.) In characteristic fashion Davephot continues to justify his calumnies. But his "directed at just about all the authors on Uncommon Descent except me" remark suggests he has not noticed that (apart from Red Reader and Dougmoron, who aspire to emulate ds's sparkling prose but generally lack his unconscious humour) all the mockery here is indeed directed at him. Dave, you are a real star; our lives would all be poorer without your pearls of wisdom.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2006,06:08    Quote Hateful speech leads to hateful acts and PT admins breathlessly participate in it (like PZ Myers) or they let it flourish without attempting to stop it in any way. Davetard the Banninator thinks we should censor more people? I thought he said PT was a sham of a forum with no real free speech anyway? I know the idea of a forum which doesn't enforce a rigid ideology gives Davetard the howling fantods, but tough titty said the kitty.

Pages: (1000) < ... 39 40 41 42 43 [44] 45 46 47 48 49 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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