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) < ... 808 809 810 811 812 [813] 814 815 816 817 818 ... >

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2008,00:30    Is Barry trying to change the subject or simply admitting his ignorance? Quote 23 BarryA 01/14/2008 11:47 pm Help me out here. What does Darwinism predict? That's one of the dumbest threads they've had in some time and there's no sign of it stopping anytime soon.  Since they can't give Dembski a coherant answer they're now discussing what "Darwinism" predicts, or fails to.   Reading this thread is like watching a run away freight train of proud stupidity.  Dembski is of course the conductor.   I think I can I think I can I think I can.... No way in hell is Dembski going to post his coveted ID predictions in that thread.   Here's another gem Quote The sudden appearance of huge numbers of fully-formed species in the fossil record soundly falsifies the gradual evolution hypothesis. Killed at the starting gate. Where do you start with such ignorance? edit: I gotta stop reading that thread, it's disturbing.   The question posed to them was: "Before we make a call on your clients, can you or they provide any samples of things that intelligent design theory has predicted, which researchers have later determined to be true?" Keep that question in your mind as you read the answers they are giving to Dembski. At this point it appears not a single reply (25 so far) have answered the question.   The questions being asked at the tard-o-ramma are simple: 1) What prediction(s) has ID made? 2) Which researchers confirmed those predictions? Not a single tard has answered either question yet they cannot shut up.  It's like they can't read English.  A few seem to think Dembski was asking what their personal predictions are.  Crazy people. Scary.  And they want this crap in our science classes. Who was it in the Nova special that said "ID makes people stupid"? -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

Dr.GH Posts: 2333 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2008,01:03    Quote (Altabin @ Jan. 14 2008,21:20) Unlettered and Ordinary, from ID predictions thread:     Quote One predictions I have for ID is that nature holds the keys to advanced technology for us humans to unlock. In every living thing at lease one technological advancement waiting to be discovered. Properly understood and utilized, all the organisms that make up our eco-systems will propel human intellect to places we cannot imagine. I nearly barfed laughing Thank You so much for reading the crap that the IDCs spew and spreading it out like the bloody entrails of the poor rodent that took away their brains. It is more than I can take straight. Edited by Dr.GH on Jan. 14 2008,23:04 -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

Mister DNA Posts: 466 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2008,01:13    Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 15 2008,00:30) Who was it in the Nova special that said "ID makes people stupid"? In so many words, pretty much everyone on the ID side of the debate. -------------- CBEB's: The Church Burnin' Ebola Blog Thank you, Dr. Dembski. You are without peer when it comes to The Argument Regarding Design. - vesf

Dr.GH Posts: 2333 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2008,01:14    Quote 2) History of life: Life is shown too complex to develop slowly over time. Life will appear rapidly and remain in stasis. This has been confirmed countless times, i.e. the big bangs of life. I had a girlfriend who was 5'1'' and 280lb. That was the big bang of life, my friends.  She would mow these wimps down and not even notice the bumps. -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

Richard Simons Posts: 425 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2008,04:33    I was entertained by PaV writing   Quote When they find genes for the expression of digits in sea anemones (sea squirts?) . . . Sea anemones? Sea squirts? What the heck, they're all just bags of jelly. No-one seemed to notice or think that it mattered to get the facts correct. I would find them marginally more convincing if they occasionally discussed matters of fact instead of endlessly nattering about opinions, but I suppose that is what makes them IDers in the first place and it would be less fun to read. Perhaps someone should let them in on a secret. A prediction in science is worth nothing if it can not be potentially disproved. -------------- All sweeping statements are wrong.

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2008,06:48    Quote (Richard Simons @ Jan. 15 2008,04:33) I was entertained by PaV writing     Quote When they find genes for the expression of digits in sea anemones (sea squirts?) . . . Sea anemones? Sea squirts? What the heck, they're all just bags of jelly. No-one seemed to notice or think that it mattered to get the facts correct. I would find them marginally more convincing if they occasionally discussed matters of fact instead of endlessly nattering about opinions, but I suppose that is what makes them IDers in the first place and it would be less fun to read. Perhaps someone should let them in on a secret. A prediction in science is worth nothing if it can not be potentially disproved. I think the implication is that front-loading could be confirmed by such. The drawback is that such a procedure for confirming front-loading falls cleanly into the existential claims category that Popper rejected as having scientific content. The proposition could be true, but the means by which we might determine that isn't part of science as conceived by Popper. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2008,06:50    Quote Who was it in the Nova special that said "ID makes people stupid"? Kevin Padian, paleontologist at UC Berkeley and president of NCSE. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2008,07:33    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 15 2008,06:50) Quote Who was it in the Nova special that said "ID makes people stupid"? Kevin Padian, paleontologist at UC Berkeley and president of NCSE. That's him, thanks Wes. Chris! -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2008,08:21    Doesn't ID predict that DaveScot will lose 40 lbs in 1 week, if he wants to? -------------- 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

Venus Mousetrap Posts: 201 Joined: Aug. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2008,08:38    this is fun. I post the most plausible bullshit I can about DNA atomic forcefields, and in the very next post DaveScot offers his own theory which by pure coincidence happens to be similar to mine (but without the forcefields, which is a shame). Luckily I have been doing my research and can back up DaveScot with lots of possibilities. :)

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2008,08:48    After reading the first 37 responses, I make this prediction: Neither Dembski nor Wells is going to get interviewed on the national talking heads show. Edit to note that I have an edit button now.  Thanks!

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2008,09:34    Would someone please post in the ID's Predictive Prowess thread and point out that out of 39 responses so far not a single person has made an attempt to actually answer the two questions being posed. In fact restating those two questions for them would be cool too.  Asking Dembski if he's going to share his "list" would be just as groovy. I doubt your comments will survive but it's worth a shot. -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2008,09:42    This is predictive prowess? Sorta like boasting of one's sexual prowess, then detailing masturbatory fantasies. -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2008,09:50    Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 15 2008,09:34) Would someone please post in the ID's Predictive Prowess thread and point out that out of 39 responses so far not a single person has made an attempt to actually answer the two questions being posed. Apparently, ID needs some Predictive Cialis.  They should scrutinize their spam filter a bit closer.   I am sure they could find some appropriate products in there. -------------- 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!)

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2008,10:32    I lost one of my flip-flops again. Where’d it go? Oh, here it is:   Quote And just for the record, the Tiktaalik prediction speaks only to evolution by common descent not evolution by chance & necessity. Try again. ID does not dispute common descent. It disputes evolution by chance & necessity. Common descent loves us, common descent loves us not. It loves us! Not. Not! Well, I love these "predictions."   Quote front loading as an alternative to rm/ns to explain observed cases of microevolution makes sense. Limited descent makes sense (for example, lions and tigers probably had a common ancestor as they can produce hybrid ligers) But bacteria turning into people through front loading? Pardon my Yiddish, but that sounds a bit “farfetched.” Pardon my English, but aren’t male male ligers sterile, whereas female ligers and tigons are fertile? (You forgot tigons, Ari.) I’m just wondering because after his U of M presentation, Michael Behe mentioned to PZ Myers the inability of a cell to reproduce as evidence of the lack of evidence for the evolution of the flagellum. (I forget the details.) These people are really confused! -------------- 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

Bob O'H Posts: 2564 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2008,11:00    Quote (Richard Simons @ Jan. 15 2008,04:33) I was entertained by PaV writing     Quote When they find genes for the expression of digits in sea anemones (sea squirts?) . . . Sea anemones? Sea squirts? What the heck, they're all just bags of jelly. No-one seemed to notice or think that it mattered to get the facts correct. I would find them marginally more convincing if they occasionally discussed matters of fact instead of endlessly nattering about opinions, but I suppose that is what makes them IDers in the first place and it would be less fun to read. Perhaps someone should let them in on a secret. A prediction in science is worth nothing if it can not be potentially disproved. He might be thinking of the front-loading paper that came out last year: Sherman, M. (2007). Universal genome in the origin of metazoa. Cell Cycle 6: 1873-1877. If you read up on evo-devo on Pharyngula, you'll discover why this doesn't mean what he thinks it does (essentially, genes can be re-used in different parts of the developmental process). 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)

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2008,11:35    I predict this comment is going to effectively kill the ID Predictive Prowess thread or start a tard fight:   Quote Can we please stay on target? I believe Dr. Dembski’s words were: “… can you or they provide any samples of things that intelligent design theory has predicted, which researchers have later determined to be true?” The question is NOT what CAN ID predict, it is What HAS ID predicted, that researchers have later determined to be true. edit : there is another option, they may just ignore it or pretend is was not said.  Actually attempting to answer Dembski's question pales in comparison to the fun of playing ID theorist. -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

hooligans Posts: 114 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2008,12:10    hi

Bob O'H Posts: 2564 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2008,12:38    Oh, err, hi! -------------- 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)

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2008,12:47    Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 15 2008,11:35) I predict this comment is going to effectively kill the ID Predictive Prowess thread or start a tard fight:   Quote Can we please stay on target? I believe Dr. Dembski’s words were: “… can you or they provide any samples of things that intelligent design theory has predicted, which researchers have later determined to be true?” The question is NOT what CAN ID predict, it is What HAS ID predicted, that researchers have later determined to be true. edit : there is another option, they may just ignore it or pretend is was not said.  Actually attempting to answer Dembski's question pales in comparison to the fun of playing ID theorist. Chris - YOU may have IDC Theorist Potential! You used ID Theory to accurately predict that they would ignore the comment and pretend it was not said!   Based on this ground-breaking research, we Darwinistas all look forward to denying you tenure at a university of your choice later on.   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

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2008,12:54    Quote (hooligans @ Jan. 15 2008,12:10) hi This is great!  You are right - DaveScot, who is Mr. Frontloading Mr. Pantsloading, should have published it.   The only reasonable explanation is that he does not want to share this vital IDC data, and is at this very moment sending trained IDC assasins after you, so that only HIS name will be on the IDC Paper That Will Change The World, BWA Ha Ha! I hope you are like Jason Bourne, and can protect yourself against the ID Meanies.... added in edit: Delected my edit to protect a Secret Identity -------------- 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

Mister DNA Posts: 466 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2008,12:58    Is there an epidemic of washing machine breakdowns in New England? 73 responses and no Joe G. As Denyse O'Leary might say, "what up with that, yo?" Surely ID predicts that if high school students are exposed to GG's Privileged Planet, they will see The Reality of ID. Has anyone saved the thread recently? -------------- CBEB's: The Church Burnin' Ebola Blog Thank you, Dr. Dembski. You are without peer when it comes to The Argument Regarding Design. - vesf

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2008,13:08    Maybe it's just me, but the more I read, the more DaveTard seems to be leaning openly toward the "Godwhodunitwasanalienthenhedied" end of the spectrum. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Bob O'H Posts: 2564 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2008,13:14    J-Dog - I'm wondering if hooligans go a PM,and decided to pull an FtK. The whole thread is great, isn't it?  PaV is coming out with some great ideas - I think he's now determined to show that Lamarckism happens, and prove us all wrong. 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)

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2008,13:20    Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 15 2008,12:47) Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 15 2008,11:35) I predict this comment is going to effectively kill the ID Predictive Prowess thread or start a tard fight:     Quote Can we please stay on target? I believe Dr. Dembski’s words were: “… can you or they provide any samples of things that intelligent design theory has predicted, which researchers have later determined to be true?” The question is NOT what CAN ID predict, it is What HAS ID predicted, that researchers have later determined to be true. edit : there is another option, they may just ignore it or pretend is was not said.  Actually attempting to answer Dembski's question pales in comparison to the fun of playing ID theorist. Chris - YOU may have IDC Theorist Potential! You used ID Theory to accurately predict that they would ignore the comment and pretend it was not said!   Based on this ground-breaking research, we Darwinistas all look forward to denying you tenure at a university of your choice later on.   HTH :) J_Dog, a couple of points.  Thanks for recognizing the contributions I have made to the field of ID theoriez.  Soon my ID book will be published where I'll rightfully take my spot as a leading ID Theorist.  Amazon here I come. But fret not, friend.  I will not forget the little people who helped me get where I am today. To show my gratitude I'm offering free autographs for the first 50 darwinistas who ask for it!  Um, not autographed copies of my forthcoming ID book, just autographs.  Like on the back of a napkin or something. Another ID prediction from yours truly: William "the snake" Dembski is never going to revisit the ID Prective Powers thread nor will he delete it.  He will NOT be sharing his list and instead he's going to ignore the entire thread and make a mental note to never bring up the subject again. Now let's see if the evidence supports my prediction. -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

hooligans Posts: 114 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2008,13:32    I done did an FtK an done gone an deleted my comment and replaced it with a "hi" so as to protect my secret identity at the tardfest going on at UD Edit: I done gone and used my edit button yehhaaa!

sparc Posts: 2088 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2008,13:59    DaveScot Quote One rather visible (pun intended) example that gets a lot of popular press is the insertion of a gene that codes for a luminescent protein that glows under ultra-violet light. It’s been inserted in things ranging from tobacco to fish to cats. Glow in the dark pets are coming soon to a petstore near you! Since I forgot my UD password I would really appreciate if someone could tell Dave that most of the published GFP/YFP/RFP transgenic organisms have been generated by random insertions. And in some of these cases the procedures even included a selection step. -------------- "[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God." - William Dembski -

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2008,14:01    Quote (hooligans @ Jan. 15 2008,13:32) I done did an FtK an done gone an deleted my comment and replaced it with a "hi" so as to protect my secret identity at the tardfest going on at UD Edit: I done gone and used my edit button yehhaaa! Opps!  Sorry dude - I edited my post to protect you, so make an excellent tardariffic post over there.  Of course, most posts there are tardariffic, so not sure how to tell yours from the usual load that UD posters dump into the blogospheare. Maybe we should start a pool about how long they can operate before the EPA closes them down?  I say, 3 more months... -------------- 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

bunjo Posts: 3 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2008,15:22    I normally lurk, but I thought I would let you know I've saved the thread at 86 responses. Personally I think that Dr Dr Dembski (so good they doctored him twice) realises that the game is up and he is looking for a reason to abandon the UD website. It makes more sense than expecting anything useful to arise from such a steaming pile of tard. -------------- Evolution does not need to be believed in to work, but Religion does.

Tracy P. Hamilton Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2008,15:34    ari-freedom:   Quote   Quote “Converesely, I see Tiktaalik as a negative for ID. If the designer has designed fish, and then wants to design something for the land, why bother with a transitional?” I would expect designs to live in transitional environments. There are flying fish and mudskippers but I don’t think anyone claims they are turning into anything. However I think that this fish will turn out to be like the coelacanth, another lobe finned fish which was claimed to walk and hyped as the ancestor to tetrapods until it was actually discovered swimming in the ocean. I thought I was descended from a man I called a grandfather.  However, once I discovered him swimming in the ocean, I knew he couldn't be my grandfather. -------------- "Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV "The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen "We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

Pages: (1000) < ... 808 809 810 811 812 [813] 814 815 816 817 818 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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