Printable Version of Topic

-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 5 started by stevestory


Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 29 2013,11:01

< Yes indeed, how much DOES Jerry Coyne know about biology? >


Posted by: hotshoe on Dec. 29 2013,11:25

Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 29 2013,11:01)
[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-fetus-is-a-parasite-abortion-is-like-plucking-out-a-hair-how-much-does-jerry-coyne-rea

lly-know-about-biology/]Yes indeed, how much DOES Jerry Coyne know about biology?[/URL]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Their crazy long URLs break the links sometimes, right?  I think that's what happened ...
Wandered over there and had a read of the Jerry Coyne/abortion farrago.  Torley is a forced-birther female-enslaving fetus-worshipper; who could have guessed?

Along the way Torley the corporate-asslicker also manages to find fault with Bishop Sanchez's strongly-worded statement that predatory capitalism (viz America) allows the "wealthy [to] arrange to get all kinds of subsidies, while the working class and the poor struggle to survive"

Who could argue with that?  Torley, that's who  Fuck him.
Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 29 2013,12:39

Fixed it with a bit.ly redirect.


Posted by: Richardthughes on Dec. 30 2013,10:30

Hat Tip for Deadman:

< http://www.qwantz.com/index.p....ic=2550 >
Posted by: Robin on Dec. 30 2013,12:38

Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 30 2013,10:30)
Hat Tip for Deadman:

< http://www.qwantz.com/index.p....ic=2550 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Awesome! Hadn't seen that before.
Posted by: timothya on Dec. 30 2013,14:09

Robert Byers has this to say at UD concerning a "creationist movie":
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The directer here is Jewish and this Jewish presence stands in the way of a movie industry that balances the nations beliefs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It has been sitting there for three days and nobody at the site has criticised him for it.
Posted by: stevestory on Dec. 30 2013,18:03

Aside from writing amazingly terrible sentences, Gary's boring so I was trying to think of who from UD we could invite to their own thread here. Not sure, but not Byers. He's just too dumb.
Posted by: olegt on Dec. 30 2013,21:38

Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 30 2013,18:03)
Aside from writing amazingly terrible sentences, Gary's boring so I was trying to think of who from UD we could invite to their own thread here. Not sure, but not Byers. He's just too dumb.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There is a new chewing toy at TSZ called phoodoo. < Here > is a sample of his/her/its writing. A temper tantrum starts < here >.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Dec. 30 2013,22:08

Quote (olegt @ Dec. 30 2013,21:38)
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 30 2013,18:03)
Aside from writing amazingly terrible sentences, Gary's boring so I was trying to think of who from UD we could invite to their own thread here. Not sure, but not Byers. He's just too dumb.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There is a new chewing toy at TSZ called phoodoo. < Here > is a sample of his/her/its writing. A temper tantrum starts < here >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If he's Joe G's sock, let's not let the cat out of the bag straight away. Do ask him about his life and understanding of math, though.
Posted by: Texas Teach on Dec. 30 2013,23:49

Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 30 2013,18:03)
Aside from writing amazingly terrible sentences, Gary's boring so I was trying to think of who from UD we could invite to their own thread here. Not sure, but not Byers. He's just too dumb.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought we had Byers here for a bit a few years ago.  I can't remember if he got banned, walled, or just bored.
Posted by: DiEb on Dec. 31 2013,05:59

New's reading skills:

In her article < Retract that, sir, or face the consequences! Er, maybe. >, Denyse shows again her attention to details. She writes: "Top ten retractions of 2010, courtesy The Scientist..." While the first number mentioned in the article is indeed 2010, the year about which "The Scientist" is writing is 2013 (much more topical). That's why the journal used the title "Top 10 Retractions of 2013".

I mentioned that in a comment over there which died in the moderation queue....
Posted by: Patrick on Dec. 31 2013,10:42

Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 30 2013,23:08)
Quote (olegt @ Dec. 30 2013,21:38)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 30 2013,18:03)
Aside from writing amazingly terrible sentences, Gary's boring so I was trying to think of who from UD we could invite to their own thread here. Not sure, but not Byers. He's just too dumb.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There is a new chewing toy at TSZ called phoodoo. < Here > is a sample of his/her/its writing. A temper tantrum starts < here >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If he's Joe G's sock, let's not let the cat out of the bag straight away. Do ask him about his life and understanding of math, though.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


His understanding of probability is on a par with Joe's understanding of set theory, but I don't get the same bluster-covering-up-fear-of-being-exposed-as-ignorant feel from phoodoo's writing.  Perhaps it is just Joe taking the time to preview before posting.

No need to be outing people, though.  Regardless of his or her RL identity, phoodoo is a great example of the knowledge and manners possessed by the average  intelligent design creationist.


Posted by: JohnW on Dec. 31 2013,11:43

Quote (Patrick @ Dec. 31 2013,08:42)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 30 2013,23:08)
 
Quote (olegt @ Dec. 30 2013,21:38)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 30 2013,18:03)
Aside from writing amazingly terrible sentences, Gary's boring so I was trying to think of who from UD we could invite to their own thread here. Not sure, but not Byers. He's just too dumb.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There is a new chewing toy at TSZ called phoodoo. < Here > is a sample of his/her/its writing. A temper tantrum starts < here >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If he's Joe G's sock, let's not let the cat out of the bag straight away. Do ask him about his life and understanding of math, though.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


His understanding of probability is on a par with Joe's understanding of set theory, but I don't get the same bluster-covering-up-fear-of-being-exposed-as-ignorant feel from phoodoo's writing.  Perhaps it is just Joe taking the time to preview before posting.

No need to be outing people, though.  Regardless of his or her RL identity, phoodoo is a great example of the knowledge and manners possessed by the average  intelligent design creationist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is certainly Joe-esque:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You don’t know what the terminology really means, you just know its convention in your particular circle.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


... but I don't think it's Joe.  Joe splutters when he loses it; phoodoo babbles.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Dec. 31 2013,12:15

Don't think it's Joe either but phoodoo sure is an obnoxious, rude, and blinding ignorant asshat.  I especially liked the part where he condescendingly called Dr. Liddle a "smart girl".

He fits right in with the other IDiots.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Dec. 31 2013,12:21

Quote (Texas Teach @ Dec. 30 2013,23:49)
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 30 2013,18:03)
Aside from writing amazingly terrible sentences, Gary's boring so I was trying to think of who from UD we could invite to their own thread here. Not sure, but not Byers. He's just too dumb.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought we had Byers here for a bit a few years ago.  I can't remember if he got banned, walled, or just bored.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, we did. I think he got bored...
Posted by: JohnW on Dec. 31 2013,12:58

KF: Math is hard:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
10  kairosfocus  December 31, 2013 at 7:45 am

PPS: Which of these is pi digits, which sky noise, which phone numbers (admittedly the local phone directory is a bit on the scanty side), and why does the pattern stand out so clearly at D and at E:

A: 821051141354735739523

B: 733615329964125325790

C: 698312217625358227195

D: 123409876135791113151

E: 113581321345589146235

(Ans: C — sky, A – pi, B – phone, last 2 digits each of line codes.)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
17  cantor  December 31, 2013 at 10:45 am

Which of these is pi digits…

Correct answer: A thru E are pi digits

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< linky >
Posted by: Richardthughes on Dec. 31 2013,13:12

Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 31 2013,12:58)
KF: Math is hard:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
10  kairosfocus  December 31, 2013 at 7:45 am

PPS: Which of these is pi digits, which sky noise, which phone numbers (admittedly the local phone directory is a bit on the scanty side), and why does the pattern stand out so clearly at D and at E:

A: 821051141354735739523

B: 733615329964125325790

C: 698312217625358227195

D: 123409876135791113151

E: 113581321345589146235

(Ans: C — sky, A – pi, B – phone, last 2 digits each of line codes.)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
17  cantor  December 31, 2013 at 10:45 am

Which of these is pi digits…

Correct answer: A thru E are pi digits

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< linky >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh this could be pseudo-quasi-latching weasel good!
Posted by: steve_h on Dec. 31 2013,13:39

Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 31 2013,19:58)
KF: Math is hard:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
10  kairosfocus  December 31, 2013 at 7:45 am

PPS: Which of these is pi digits, which sky noise, which phone numbers (admittedly the local phone directory is a bit on the scanty side), and why does the pattern stand out so clearly at D and at E:

A: 821051141354735739523

B: 733615329964125325790

C: 698312217625358227195

D: 123409876135791113151

E: 113581321345589146235

(Ans: C — sky, A – pi, B – phone, last 2 digits each of line codes.)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
17  cantor  December 31, 2013 at 10:45 am

Which of these is pi digits…

Correct answer: A thru E are pi digits

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< linky >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A-E could also be telephone numbers (by taking the last few digits of several numbers)

E looks like it could be the famous Fibonacci sequence formed by adding the previous two numbers to get a new one:

1 + 1 = 3
1 + 3 = 5
..
55 + 89 = 146
etc.
Posted by: JohnW on Dec. 31 2013,15:29

Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 31 2013,11:12)
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 31 2013,12:58)
KF: Math is hard:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
10  kairosfocus  December 31, 2013 at 7:45 am

PPS: Which of these is pi digits, which sky noise, which phone numbers (admittedly the local phone directory is a bit on the scanty side), and why does the pattern stand out so clearly at D and at E:

A: 821051141354735739523

B: 733615329964125325790

C: 698312217625358227195

D: 123409876135791113151

E: 113581321345589146235

(Ans: C — sky, A – pi, B – phone, last 2 digits each of line codes.)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
17  cantor  December 31, 2013 at 10:45 am

Which of these is pi digits…

Correct answer: A thru E are pi digits

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< linky >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh this could be pseudo-quasi-latching weasel good!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joe's already commented on that thread, so we could be heading for another "largest known number" tardfest.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Dec. 31 2013,15:44

Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 31 2013,12:58)
KF: Math is hard:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
10  kairosfocus  December 31, 2013 at 7:45 am

PPS: Which of these is pi digits, which sky noise, which phone numbers (admittedly the local phone directory is a bit on the scanty side), and why does the pattern stand out so clearly at D and at E:

A: 821051141354735739523

B: 733615329964125325790

C: 698312217625358227195

D: 123409876135791113151

E: 113581321345589146235

(Ans: C — sky, A – pi, B – phone, last 2 digits each of line codes.)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
17  cantor  December 31, 2013 at 10:45 am

Which of these is pi digits…

Correct answer: A thru E are pi digits

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< linky >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course Cantor would know that.

(actually does anyone know a proof of Cantor's statement? It seems reasonable, but number theory isn't my area)
Posted by: socle on Dec. 31 2013,16:24

Quote (Bob O'H @ Dec. 31 2013,15:44)
   
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 31 2013,12:58)
KF: Math is hard:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
10  kairosfocus  December 31, 2013 at 7:45 am

PPS: Which of these is pi digits, which sky noise, which phone numbers (admittedly the local phone directory is a bit on the scanty side), and why does the pattern stand out so clearly at D and at E:

A: 821051141354735739523

B: 733615329964125325790

C: 698312217625358227195

D: 123409876135791113151

E: 113581321345589146235

(Ans: C — sky, A – pi, B – phone, last 2 digits each of line codes.)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
17  cantor  December 31, 2013 at 10:45 am

Which of these is pi digits…

Correct answer: A thru E are pi digits

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< linky >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course Cantor would know that.

(actually does anyone know a proof of Cantor's statement? It seems reasonable, but number theory isn't my area)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am not a number theorist either, but AFAIK, the general problem remains unsolved.  See here: < http://tinyurl.com/9oa3kjw....9oa3kjw >

Only the first string of digits that KF posted occurs in the first 200 million digits of pi according to < http://www.angio.net/pi....p....i....pi >
Posted by: Patrick on Dec. 31 2013,17:03

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Dec. 31 2013,13:15)
Don't think it's Joe either but phoodoo sure is an obnoxious, rude, and blinding ignorant asshat.  I especially liked the part where he condescendingly called Dr. Liddle a "smart girl".

He fits right in with the other IDiots.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can't be PaV, then.  He didn't tell her to < go away >.

The intelligent design creationists work hard, albeit ineffectually, to hide their fundamentalist dogma behind a facade of "science".  One would think they'd realize the importance of concealing their misogyny, too.
Posted by: rossum on Jan. 01 2014,04:25

Quote (Bob O'H @ Dec. 31 2013,15:44)
Of course Cantor would know that.

(actually does anyone know a proof of Cantor's statement? It seems reasonable, but number theory isn't my area)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cantor is correct.  Pi gives an infinite stream of digits with no repeating pattern.  Any finite string of digits will be found in Pi an infinite number of times.  Of course, the longer your search string the more digits if Pi you have to calculate to find it.
Posted by: DiEb on Jan. 01 2014,07:40

Quote (rossum @ Jan. 01 2014,10:25)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Dec. 31 2013,15:44)
Of course Cantor would know that.

(actually does anyone know a proof of Cantor's statement? It seems reasonable, but number theory isn't my area)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cantor is correct.  Pi gives an infinite stream of digits with no repeating pattern.  Any finite string of digits will be found in Pi an infinite number of times.  Of course, the longer your search string the more digits if Pi you have to calculate to find it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm afraid that it isn't proven yet that pi is a < normal number > (though most mathematicians would bet that it is one...) At the moment we cannot say that each finite number can be found in the decimal representation of pi - but every short string of numbers (birthdates, etc.) has been found :-)
Posted by: steve_h on Jan. 01 2014,11:35

Trivially, all are pi-digits. Maybe not consecutive pi-digits. If he wanted to know which of the sequences corresponded to a range of consecutive digits found in the decimal representation of pi, I'm sure KF would have asked for that :)
Posted by: rossum on Jan. 01 2014,15:35

Quote (DiEb @ Jan. 01 2014,07:40)
I'm afraid that it isn't proven yet that pi is a < normal number > (though most mathematicians would bet that it is one...) At the moment we cannot say that each finite number can be found in the decimal representation of pi - but every short string of numbers (birthdates, etc.) has been found :-)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not sure that full normality is required.  Only base 10 needs to be looked at, and even then, equal proportions of each digit are not required.  If, for example, '1' occurred at twice the frequency of any other digit, then all the specified strings would still appear somewhere in Pi.  You might just have to search further to find them.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 01 2014,20:08

KF:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
kairosfocusJanuary 1, 2014 at 7:52 pm
PS: a 100:1 hits to comments ratio is interesting . . .

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's certainly support for intelligent censorship...
Posted by: sparc on Jan. 02 2014,00:10

Since you mention Kairosfocus:
In 2013 Jerry Coyne enjoyed 8 views from  Vatican City but
< only a single one from Montserrat >.
Still, we've seen a 2000+ word posts on Coyne at < UD > and < Kairosfocus > from our montserratian friend.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 02 2014,00:18

Slimey Sal will let his dogma mangle every branch of accepted physics:

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/physics....-at-you >
Posted by: timothya on Jan. 02 2014,02:48

Didn't the results of the Sloan Deep Sky Survey contradict Halton Arp's cosmological hypothesis?
Posted by: timothya on Jan. 02 2014,03:07

Anyone want to bet against < "The Church of Atheism" > will be a recurring theme at UD in 2014?
Posted by: timothya on Jan. 02 2014,03:08

Anyone want to bet against < "The Church of Atheism" > being a recurring theme at UD in 2014?
Posted by: Quack on Jan. 02 2014,03:55

Quote (timothya @ Jan. 02 2014,02:48)
Didn't the results of the Sloan Deep Sky Survey contradict Halton Arp's cosmological hypothesis?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe ten or more years ago I had recently watched a bad TV program about Halton Arp's hyptohesis when I had the opportunity to ask the Norwegian astrophysicist Knut Jørgen Røed Ødegaard about just that and his reply was clear although I don't today remember his dismissive reply, only his opinion that programs like that did not deserve airtime.
Posted by: Woodbine on Jan. 02 2014,05:01



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Knut Jørgen Røed Ødegaard
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What a magnificent name! Even if it is tempting to swap the....

A belated happy new orbit, everyone.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Jan. 02 2014,07:25

KF is < still waiting > for that essay on Darwinism. Quick, someone put him out of his misery!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 02 2014,13:15

Slimey Sal and Mapou's YEC lovefest is a joy to behold.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 02 2014,20:38

Hey Oleg:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
37
MapouJanuary 2, 2014 at 8:16 pm
In my opinion, nobody can explain the anomalous redshifts because an essential piece of the puzzle is missing. What is lacking is a fundamental understanding of motion. Unless and until we can explain the cause of motion, i.e., why a body in inertial motion remains in motion, we will never understand why light loses energy over great distances. In this case, we need to explain why photons move and why they move at C. Of course, as in everything else having to do with energy and motion, the redshift is the result of nature correcting a violation of the energy conservation principle.

In my view, based on my private understanding of motion, the brighter or the more energetic the source of the light, the more pronounced will the redshift be. That being said, distance is the primary factor.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 02 2014,20:46

Bonus Mapou:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Entropy would have turned the universe into a chaotic nothing ages ago.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Here's the home of the master:

< http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/....pot.com >
Posted by: midwifetoad on Jan. 02 2014,22:26

Actually his programming ideas look to be worth discussing.
Posted by: Quack on Jan. 03 2014,03:13

Quote (Woodbine @ Jan. 02 2014,05:01)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Knut Jørgen Røed Ødegaard
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What a magnificent name! Even if it is tempting to swap the....

A belated happy new orbit, everyone.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And a magnficient person as well, with sparkling Attenboroughesque enhusiasm.
...
Is this what you had in mind: Knut Jörgen Röed Ödegård?
Posted by: JohnW on Jan. 03 2014,10:12

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 02 2014,18:38)
Hey Oleg:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
37
MapouJanuary 2, 2014 at 8:16 pm
In my opinion, nobody can explain the anomalous redshifts because an essential piece of the puzzle is missing. What is lacking is a fundamental understanding of motion. Unless and until we can explain the cause of motion, i.e., why a body in inertial motion remains in motion, we will never understand why light loses energy over great distances. In this case, we need to explain why photons move and why they move at C. Of course, as in everything else having to do with energy and motion, the redshift is the result of nature correcting a violation of the energy conservation principle.

In my view, based on my private understanding of motion, the brighter or the more energetic the source of the light, the more pronounced will the redshift be. That being said, distance is the primary factor.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In my view, based on my private understanding of motion...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All science so far!
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 03 2014,20:05

Now that's the guy we'd want as a new chew toy!
Posted by: Woodbine on Jan. 03 2014,21:43

Quote (Quack @ Jan. 03 2014,09:13)
Quote (Woodbine @ Jan. 02 2014,05:01)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Knut Jørgen Røed Ødegaard
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What a magnificent name! Even if it is tempting to swap the....

A belated happy new orbit, everyone.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And a magnficient person as well, with sparkling Attenboroughesque enhusiasm.
...
Is this what you had in mind: Knut Jörgen Röed Ödegård?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, it was infinitely more rude.
Posted by: J-Dog on Jan. 04 2014,09:20

Quote (Woodbine @ Jan. 03 2014,21:43)
Quote (Quack @ Jan. 03 2014,09:13)
Quote (Woodbine @ Jan. 02 2014,05:01)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Knut Jørgen Røed Ødegaard
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What a magnificent name! Even if it is tempting to swap the....

A belated happy new orbit, everyone.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And a magnficient person as well, with sparkling Attenboroughesque enhusiasm.
...
Is this what you had in mind: Knut Jörgen Röed Ödegård?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, it was infinitely more rude.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Speculation - "Knut" = Some word that Dave Scott might use to refer to Ms. O'Dreary?
Posted by: Quack on Jan. 04 2014,16:21

Knut, a male name, entymology norse word knútr, meaning knot.
Posted by: timothya on Jan. 04 2014,17:26

As in, "I am knot a male nurse"?
Posted by: Febble on Jan. 04 2014,21:22

"News" on the UD "newsdesk" is, apparently, a six year old TED talk by Garrett Lisi.

Cool and all, but not exactly "new".
Posted by: Texas Teach on Jan. 04 2014,21:47

Quote (Febble @ Jan. 04 2014,21:22)
"News" on the UD "newsdesk" is, apparently, a six year old TED talk by Garrett Lisi.

Cool and all, but not exactly "new".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Given that Denyse still hasn't caught up with 150+ years of science, calling a 6 year-old talk "news" is unsurprising.
Posted by: Quack on Jan. 05 2014,02:59

Quote (timothya @ Jan. 04 2014,17:26)
As in, "I am knot a male nurse"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


,
Posted by: CeilingCat on Jan. 05 2014,07:10

J-dog:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Speculation - "Knut" = Some word that Dave Scott might use to refer to Ms. O'Dreary? 
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Her brain is in Knutral?
Posted by: J-Dog on Jan. 05 2014,12:03

Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 05 2014,07:10)
J-dog:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Speculation - "Knut" = Some word that Dave Scott might use to refer to Ms. O'Dreary? 
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Her brain is in Knutral?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ahem... You have to think more like DaveScott  - (I can't believe I just typed that !) - and read "Knut" like you were more dyslexic...
Posted by: midwifetoad on Jan. 05 2014,12:34

Is that a Knadian spelling?
Posted by: CeilingCat on Jan. 05 2014,14:26

Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 05 2014,12:03)
 
Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 05 2014,07:10)
J-dog:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Speculation - "Knut" = Some word that Dave Scott might use to refer to Ms. O'Dreary? 
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Her brain is in Knutral?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ahem... You have to think more like DaveScott  - (I can't believe I just typed that !) - and read "Knut" like you were more dyslexic...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Think like DaveScott?  But I don't suffer from texlexia.
Posted by: Febble on Jan. 05 2014,16:37

It just dawned on me that ID is dead.

Dembski is off all radar.  He doesn't even show up in the search box at South Carolina bible college or whatever. The last post on the Design Inference is a year old.

Meyer's book went up like a firework and came down with the stick.  

Most of the static websites are moribund.  UD has banned virtually all dissenters.  The few brave enough to wander over to TSZ bail out after a couple of rounds.  The biologic institute inflates its "selected publications" with publications that have nothing to do with the biologic institute and seems to be doing no more than pretending to produce output.

Bio-Complexity is moribund.

Behe doesn't seem to have much to say.

The big guys won't come out to debate.  The small ones mostly won't leave heavily censored sites.  Even the UD newsdesk peddles 6 year old stories as "news".

And all the threads are about religion.  Or tossing coins.

I don't know why I hadn't seen it before.

It's dead.
Posted by: Texas Teach on Jan. 05 2014,16:42

Quote (Febble @ Jan. 05 2014,16:37)
It just dawned on me that ID is dead.

Dembski is off all radar.  He doesn't even show up in the search box at South Carolina bible college or whatever. The last post on the Design Inference is a year old.

Meyer's book went up like a firework and came down with the stick.  

Most of the static websites are moribund.  UD has banned virtually all dissenters.  The few brave enough to wander over to TSZ bail out after a couple of rounds.  The biologic institute inflates its "selected publications" with publications that have nothing to do with the biologic institute and seems to be doing no more than pretending to produce output.

Bio-Complexity is moribund.

Behe doesn't seem to have much to say.

The big guys won't come out to debate.  The small ones mostly won't leave heavily censored sites.  Even the UD newsdesk peddles 6 year old stories as "news".

And all the threads are about religion.  Or tossing coins.

I don't know why I hadn't seen it before.

It's dead.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, it's back to open creationism now.  That is still alive and trying to sneak into schools, especially in the form of individual teachers.
Posted by: Febble on Jan. 05 2014,16:51

But much more overtly not-science, surely?

ID had this sciencey-mathy-PhD-ey look.
Posted by: Texas Teach on Jan. 05 2014,16:58

Quote (Febble @ Jan. 05 2014,16:51)
But much more overtly not-science, surely?

ID had this sciencey-mathy-PhD-ey look.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The creation scientists dabbled in that, too, but it always comes down to "2000 years ago a man died on a cross.  Won't anyone stand up for him?" arguments.  Lenny Flank pointed out years ago that they just can't help talking about their god eventually.  Once it was clear that judges weren't going to buy it, there really wasn't any point keeping up the pretense.
Posted by: J-Dog on Jan. 05 2014,19:57

Quote (Febble @ Jan. 05 2014,16:37)
It just dawned on me that ID is dead.

Dembski is off all radar.  He doesn't even show up in the search box at South Carolina bible college or whatever. The last post on the Design Inference is a year old.

Meyer's book went up like a firework and came down with the stick.  

Most of the static websites are moribund.  UD has banned virtually all dissenters.  The few brave enough to wander over to TSZ bail out after a couple of rounds.  The biologic institute inflates its "selected publications" with publications that have nothing to do with the biologic institute and seems to be doing no more than pretending to produce output.

Bio-Complexity is moribund.

Behe doesn't seem to have much to say.

The big guys won't come out to debate.  The small ones mostly won't leave heavily censored sites.  Even the UD newsdesk peddles 6 year old stories as "news".

And all the threads are about religion.  Or tossing coins.

I don't know why I hadn't seen it before.

It's dead.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Unfortunately, vampires & zombies are all the rage these days - so I want to see the stake through ID's ugly little heart, and even smaller brain before I count them totally dead. :)

added in edit:  I wonder if this means GEM of ICKY will be turning me into Homeland Security for threatening ID?  Or is that privilege reserved only for Dr. Dr. Dembski?


Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 05 2014,20:31

Quote (Febble @ Jan. 05 2014,17:37)
It just dawned on me that ID is dead.

Dembski is off all radar.  He doesn't even show up in the search box at South Carolina bible college or whatever. The last post on the Design Inference is a year old.

Meyer's book went up like a firework and came down with the stick.  

Most of the static websites are moribund.  UD has banned virtually all dissenters.  The few brave enough to wander over to TSZ bail out after a couple of rounds.  The biologic institute inflates its "selected publications" with publications that have nothing to do with the biologic institute and seems to be doing no more than pretending to produce output.

Bio-Complexity is moribund.

Behe doesn't seem to have much to say.

The big guys won't come out to debate.  The small ones mostly won't leave heavily censored sites.  Even the UD newsdesk peddles 6 year old stories as "news".

And all the threads are about religion.  Or tossing coins.

I don't know why I hadn't seen it before.

It's dead.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Telic Thoughts is over, the fake ID journal PCID was abandoned right after Kitzmiller.

The ID people are behaving exactly as they would if ID was nothing but a scam that failed in Dec 2005. Because that's all it was.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 05 2014,21:00

It's been dead a while. UC now run by the b / c listers. It'll come back as "intelligent evolution" once they get some new faces, new sciency words and more Templeton money.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 05 2014,21:05

I commented right around Kitzmiller, "when they lose, what are they going to rename themselves?" Intelligent Evolution was a common response.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 05 2014,21:13

LOL! Bio-Complexity, a science 'journal' with 33 editors, published 1 'research' article last year. And a whopping 2 for all of 2012.

Wow, guys, the darwinian paradigm is collapsing under the assault!
Posted by: didymos on Jan. 05 2014,23:38

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 05 2014,19:13)
LOL! Bio-Complexity, a science 'journal' with 33 editors, published 1 'research' article last year. And a whopping 2 for all of 2012.

Wow, guys, the darwinian paradigm is collapsing under the assault!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Even better, out of the eight 'research' papers they've published since 2010,  seven have at least one of those 33 editors listed as an author.
Posted by: Quack on Jan. 06 2014,01:32

Quote (didymos @ Jan. 05 2014,23:38)
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 05 2014,19:13)
LOL! Bio-Complexity, a science 'journal' with 33 editors, published 1 'research' article last year. And a whopping 2 for all of 2012.

Wow, guys, the darwinian paradigm is collapsing under the assault!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Even better, out of the eight 'research' papers they've published since 2010,  seven have at least one of those 33 editors listed as an author.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Inbreeding is unhealthy. Is that predicted by ID?
Posted by: k.e.. on Jan. 06 2014,05:47

Quote (Quack @ Jan. 06 2014,09:32)
Quote (didymos @ Jan. 05 2014,23:38)
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 05 2014,19:13)
LOL! Bio-Complexity, a science 'journal' with 33 editors, published 1 'research' article last year. And a whopping 2 for all of 2012.

Wow, guys, the darwinian paradigm is collapsing under the assault!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Even better, out of the eight 'research' papers they've published since 2010,  seven have at least one of those 33 editors listed as an author.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Inbreeding is unhealthy. Is that predicted by ID?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Has the price of teenage brides in cows collapsed? Approximately a quarter of the editorial staff having to do their own dirty work is not conducive to prothelizing a religious belief system through Darwinian profilaxis. They need to reproduce with more 'glory be' fitness, moar 'git down now and pray' . That in itself is anathema to their stated aims. Reproduction without reality based education or more corectly ideologically enforced stupidly by bibliophilic boards of education free from constitutional constraints aka theocracy for everyone  who won't take the Rev Jim Jones Cool @id.
FuckersI I hope they die.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Jan. 06 2014,10:25

Quote (didymos @ Jan. 05 2014,23:38)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 05 2014,19:13)
LOL! Bio-Complexity, a science 'journal' with 33 editors, published 1 'research' article last year. And a whopping 2 for all of 2012.

Wow, guys, the darwinian paradigm is collapsing under the assault!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Even better, out of the eight 'research' papers they've published since 2010,  seven have at least one of those 33 editors listed as an author.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That explains why the editors don't have time to review the massive backlog of submissions (why else would there be so few published articles?).  Too busy doing research and publishing, just like you see with the editors of fake journals such as Journal of the American Chemical Society.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Jan. 06 2014,13:22

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 05 2014,22:05)
I commented right around Kitzmiller, "when they lose, what are they going to rename themselves?" Intelligent Evolution was a common response.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I remember that.
Posted by: REC on Jan. 06 2014,13:29

I'm feeling bad for O'Leary. Not sure she's got it all together:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

People’s Choice Awards: Our most read stories June 2013

January 6, 2014

Top three in January (here), February here), March here), April (here), May (here).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Patrick on Jan. 06 2014,13:52

Quote (Febble @ Jan. 05 2014,17:37)
It just dawned on me that ID is dead.

Dembski is off all radar.  He doesn't even show up in the search box at South Carolina bible college or whatever. The last post on the Design Inference is a year old.

Meyer's book went up like a firework and came down with the stick.  

Most of the static websites are moribund.  UD has banned virtually all dissenters.  The few brave enough to wander over to TSZ bail out after a couple of rounds.  The biologic institute inflates its "selected publications" with publications that have nothing to do with the biologic institute and seems to be doing no more than pretending to produce output.

Bio-Complexity is moribund.

Behe doesn't seem to have much to say.

The big guys won't come out to debate.  The small ones mostly won't leave heavily censored sites.  Even the UD newsdesk peddles 6 year old stories as "news".

And all the threads are about religion.  Or tossing coins.

I don't know why I hadn't seen it before.

It's dead.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As a scientific hypothesis, intelligent design creationism is most certainly dead.  In fact, it was stillborn.  After Dover, it was clear that ID is nothing more than an attempt to get around constitutional prohibitions against the establishment of religion in the US.

As a political and cultural movement, however, intelligent design creationism unfortunately lives on, and will do so in every school district that includes a fundamentalist church.  It doesn't matter to creationists of any variety whether or not ID is science or if science supports their sectarian views, they will continue to make those irrational, repeatedly disproven claims in an attempt to force their religion into public schools.

Creationists, including the intelligent design variety, lie.  They are not interested in truth because they already have TRUTH.  They want the power to impose that on everyone else.
Posted by: JohnW on Jan. 06 2014,14:29

Quote (Patrick @ Jan. 06 2014,11:52)
Quote (Febble @ Jan. 05 2014,17:37)
It just dawned on me that ID is dead.

Dembski is off all radar.  He doesn't even show up in the search box at South Carolina bible college or whatever. The last post on the Design Inference is a year old.

Meyer's book went up like a firework and came down with the stick.  

Most of the static websites are moribund.  UD has banned virtually all dissenters.  The few brave enough to wander over to TSZ bail out after a couple of rounds.  The biologic institute inflates its "selected publications" with publications that have nothing to do with the biologic institute and seems to be doing no more than pretending to produce output.

Bio-Complexity is moribund.

Behe doesn't seem to have much to say.

The big guys won't come out to debate.  The small ones mostly won't leave heavily censored sites.  Even the UD newsdesk peddles 6 year old stories as "news".

And all the threads are about religion.  Or tossing coins.

I don't know why I hadn't seen it before.

It's dead.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As a scientific hypothesis, intelligent design creationism is most certainly dead.  In fact, it was stillborn.  After Dover, it was clear that ID is nothing more than an attempt to get around constitutional prohibitions against the establishment of religion in the US.

As a political and cultural movement, however, intelligent design creationism unfortunately lives on, and will do so in every school district that includes a fundamentalist church.  It doesn't matter to creationists of any variety whether or not ID is science or if science supports their sectarian views, they will continue to make those irrational, repeatedly disproven claims in an attempt to force their religion into public schools.

Creationists, including the intelligent design variety, lie.  They are not interested in truth because they already have TRUTH.  They want the power to impose that on everyone else.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ID will be around for a while as a business model.  There still seem to be a lot of people who want sciency jargon with their apologetics and conspiracy theories.
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 06 2014,22:28



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There still seem to be a lot of people who want sciency jargon with their apologetics and conspiracy theories.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like on that other thread on this forum? :p
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Jan. 07 2014,09:53

The tards are < out in force > this morning at UD.

niwrad starts the parade with an incredibly stupid analogy:

"Evolution is like poker hands.  Some get dealt winners and some get dealt losers.  Now random mutations happen to the symbols on the cards so they are ALL losers.  Therefore evolution is impossible!!"

One pro-science poster Lincoln Phipps (which one of you is he?) points out what a terrible analogy it is.

Fat JoeTard pipes in with "there is no theory of evolution!"

Nightlight offers that ToE is wrong because it can't calculate probabilities.

Jeff M claims natural selection is a tautology so ToE is false.

Batshit77 copypastas his usual giant steaming pile of drivel.

Barry Arrogant congratulates niwrad for such an excellent and insightful OP.

:D

There you have everything you need to know about the ID movement in one neat package.
Posted by: Patrick on Jan. 07 2014,11:51

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 07 2014,10:53)
The tards are < out in force > this morning at UD.

niwrad starts the parade with an incredibly stupid analogy:

"Evolution is like poker hands.  Some get dealt winners and some get dealt losers.  Now random mutations happen to the symbols on the cards so they are ALL losers.  Therefore evolution is impossible!!"

One pro-science poster Lincoln Phipps (which one of you is he?) points out what a terrible analogy it is.

Fat JoeTard pipes in with "there is no theory of evolution!"

Nightlight offers that ToE is wrong because it can't calculate probabilities.

Jeff M claims natural selection is a tautology so ToE is false.

Batshit77 copypastas his usual giant steaming pile of drivel.

Barry Arrogant congratulates niwrad for such an excellent and insightful OP.

:D

There you have everything you need to know about the ID movement in one neat package.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you for sacrificing your brain cells reading UD so that others' can survive and still get the lulz.

Out of curiosity, does Joe mean "there is no theory of evolution" stated in words small enough for him to understand?
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Jan. 08 2014,18:17

Holy fuck.  We might have found a UDer even more stupid than Joe Gallien.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joe: "Lizzie sez that the fundamentals of evolutionism are reproduction and variation. Those are the same fundamentals as Intelligent Design Evolution and Baraminology."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If that wasn't bad enough...

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Eric Anderson: "And, actually, reproduction isn’t even fundamental. The only reason reproduction is necessary is because organisms don’t live forever.

To see what I mean, as an interesting thought experiment consider a single-celled organism that were to live for 100M years. What kinds of changes would we expect it to experience during its lifetime? How would we expect it to change? Would we expect it to turn into a different kind of creature over that time period, and if not, why not?

Once we have taken time to thoughtfully consider the above questions, we realize that the only thing reproduction does is provide additional opportunities for variation (due to copying mistakes, swaps, etc.). But reproduction doesn’t fundamentally alter anything about the evolutionary storyline: (mostly unspecified) random changes occur in an organism, and over time they add up to wonderful?"

< linky >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There you have it folks.  Reproduction isn't needed for evolution.  If animals lived forever eventually each individual would macro-evolve into who knows what.  :O

Words fail me.
Posted by: Driver on Jan. 09 2014,18:46

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 09 2014,00:17)
Holy fuck.  We might have found a UDer even more stupid than Joe Gallien.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joe: "Lizzie sez that the fundamentals of evolutionism are reproduction and variation. Those are the same fundamentals as Intelligent Design Evolution and Baraminology."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If that wasn't bad enough...

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Eric Anderson: "And, actually, reproduction isn’t even fundamental. The only reason reproduction is necessary is because organisms don’t live forever.

To see what I mean, as an interesting thought experiment consider a single-celled organism that were to live for 100M years. What kinds of changes would we expect it to experience during its lifetime? How would we expect it to change? Would we expect it to turn into a different kind of creature over that time period, and if not, why not?

Once we have taken time to thoughtfully consider the above questions, we realize that the only thing reproduction does is provide additional opportunities for variation (due to copying mistakes, swaps, etc.). But reproduction doesn’t fundamentally alter anything about the evolutionary storyline: (mostly unspecified) random changes occur in an organism, and over time they add up to wonderful?"

< linky >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There you have it folks.  Reproduction isn't needed for evolution.  If animals lived forever eventually each individual would macro-evolve into who knows what.  :O

Words fail me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I really should stop sniffing this shit. My brain is suffering.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 09 2014,20:38

Quote (Driver @ Jan. 09 2014,19:46)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 09 2014,00:17)
Holy fuck.  We might have found a UDer even more stupid than Joe Gallien.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joe: "Lizzie sez that the fundamentals of evolutionism are reproduction and variation. Those are the same fundamentals as Intelligent Design Evolution and Baraminology."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If that wasn't bad enough...

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Eric Anderson: "And, actually, reproduction isn’t even fundamental. The only reason reproduction is necessary is because organisms don’t live forever.

To see what I mean, as an interesting thought experiment consider a single-celled organism that were to live for 100M years. What kinds of changes would we expect it to experience during its lifetime? How would we expect it to change? Would we expect it to turn into a different kind of creature over that time period, and if not, why not?

Once we have taken time to thoughtfully consider the above questions, we realize that the only thing reproduction does is provide additional opportunities for variation (due to copying mistakes, swaps, etc.). But reproduction doesn’t fundamentally alter anything about the evolutionary storyline: (mostly unspecified) random changes occur in an organism, and over time they add up to wonderful?"

< linky >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There you have it folks.  Reproduction isn't needed for evolution.  If animals lived forever eventually each individual would macro-evolve into who knows what.  :O

Words fail me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I really should stop sniffing this shit. My brain is suffering.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


how would selection enter into that, exactly...?
Posted by: Driver on Jan. 09 2014,21:50

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 10 2014,02:38)
Quote (Driver @ Jan. 09 2014,19:46)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 09 2014,00:17)
Holy fuck.  We might have found a UDer even more stupid than Joe Gallien.

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joe: "Lizzie sez that the fundamentals of evolutionism are reproduction and variation. Those are the same fundamentals as Intelligent Design Evolution and Baraminology."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If that wasn't bad enough...

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Eric Anderson: "And, actually, reproduction isn’t even fundamental. The only reason reproduction is necessary is because organisms don’t live forever.

To see what I mean, as an interesting thought experiment consider a single-celled organism that were to live for 100M years. What kinds of changes would we expect it to experience during its lifetime? How would we expect it to change? Would we expect it to turn into a different kind of creature over that time period, and if not, why not?

Once we have taken time to thoughtfully consider the above questions, we realize that the only thing reproduction does is provide additional opportunities for variation (due to copying mistakes, swaps, etc.). But reproduction doesn’t fundamentally alter anything about the evolutionary storyline: (mostly unspecified) random changes occur in an organism, and over time they add up to wonderful?"

< linky >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There you have it folks.  Reproduction isn't needed for evolution.  If animals lived forever eventually each individual would macro-evolve into who knows what.  :O

Words fail me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I really should stop sniffing this shit. My brain is suffering.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


how would selection enter into that, exactly...?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I haven't reproduced since I've started reading UD.
Posted by: REC on Jan. 09 2014,22:31

From longtime UD Denizen JGuy, we have a Christian faux-snuff film, wherein an atheist professor is tortured and murdered (apparently justifiably):

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....5LRkjkk >

Fucking sickos.


Posted by: timothya on Jan. 10 2014,14:07

At UD, News posted an article entitled "Fossils of Australasian tree unexpectedly found in South America". Note that the word "unexpected" does not occur in the ScienceDaily report; it is News' contribution.

Unexpected to whom? Anyone familiar with the biogeography of southern gymnosperms, if asked where to search for fossil specimens of Agathis outside of its extant range, would immediately say, "South America!". Tectonic movement + common descent > expected result.
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Jan. 11 2014,04:59

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 09 2014,00:17)
Holy fuck.  We might have found a UDer even more stupid than Joe Gallien.
[...]
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Eric Anderson: "And, actually, reproduction isn’t even fundamental. [...]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



[...]
Words fail me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not. Even. Wrong.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 11 2014,09:47

Quote (REC @ Jan. 09 2014,23:31)
From longtime UD Denizen JGuy, we have a Christian faux-snuff film, wherein an atheist professor is tortured and murdered (apparently justifiably):

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....5LRkjkk >

Fucking sickos.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
THE BIRTHERS.... I call them "conversation enders." These are comments that lead you to know, the moment you hear them, that the writer/speaker is either clueless or intellectually dishonest, and there's really no reason to engage the person in a serious dialog.
...
I suspect we all have them. When I hear, "Tax cuts are fiscally responsible because they pay for themselves," it's a conversation ender. When I hear, "Evolution is just a theory," it's a conversation ender. When someone says, "Global warming can't be real because it's cold outside," it's a conversation ender.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That was steve benen. From your link, I decided I have a new conversation ender. Whenever I hear anything along the lines of "Atheism taken to its logical conclusion..." Shut it down.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 12 2014,07:08

JohnW:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ID will be around for a while as a business model.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Until it attains a pathetic level of retail.





Posted by: CeilingCat on Jan. 13 2014,10:45

An O'Leary < own goal! >  She's checking out a new grammar checker.  She types in this bit of deathless prose:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   Hawking is comfortable with non-realism: “I’m a positivist. … I don’t demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don’t know what it is.” The end of reality is captured in a telling vignette: The lead character in the film Happy Go Lucky, browsing in a bookshop, pulls Roger Penrose’s Road to Reality from a shelf, glances at the title and puts it straight back, saying, “Oh, we don’t want to go there!”

   A question arises: If, in the multiverse (especially the many worlds version) everything possible is true, why do cosmologists trash traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs? Because there is a critical catch: Anything may be true, including contradictory states, except serious dissent from the Copernican principle–the principle that Earth and our universe are nothing special.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The score?  "58 of 100(weak, needs revision)"

Whoda guessed?
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Jan. 13 2014,14:37

Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 13 2014,10:45)
An O'Leary < own goal! >  She's checking out a new grammar checker.  She types in this bit of deathless prose:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   Hawking is comfortable with non-realism: “I’m a positivist. … I don’t demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don’t know what it is.” The end of reality is captured in a telling vignette: The lead character in the film Happy Go Lucky, browsing in a bookshop, pulls Roger Penrose’s Road to Reality from a shelf, glances at the title and puts it straight back, saying, “Oh, we don’t want to go there!”

   A question arises: If, in the multiverse (especially the many worlds version) everything possible is true, why do cosmologists trash traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs? Because there is a critical catch: Anything may be true, including contradictory states, except serious dissent from the Copernican principle–the principle that Earth and our universe are nothing special.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The score?  "58 of 100(weak, needs revision)"

Whoda guessed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Never would have guessed as high as 58!
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Jan. 13 2014,17:02

And this is why we haven't heard from Dembski for quite some time: He has written a new book.
Being as Communion: What is intelligent design?
< UD was allowed to publish two short paragraphs > complete with a definition of intelligent design in which the cat is immediately out of the bag.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Intelligent design is the study of patterns (hence “design”) in nature that give empirical evidence of resulting from real teleology (hence “intelligent”). In this definition, real 37[sic] teleology is not reducible to purely material processes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In the publisher's description - link at UD - there is a helpful review of Rupert Sheldrake: Wikipedia describes him as an "an English author,[3] lecturer, and researcher in the field of parapsychology,[4] best known for advocating his "morphic resonance" concept."
Posted by: Woodbine on Jan. 13 2014,17:57

Being as Communion....isn't this the book Templeton paid Dembski a stack of cash for a decade ago?
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Jan. 13 2014,18:17

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Jan. 13 2014,17:02)
And this is why we haven't heard from Dembski for quite some time: He has written a new book.
Being as Communion: What is intelligent design?
< UD was allowed to publish two short paragraphs > complete with a definition of intelligent design in which the cat is immediately out of the bag.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Intelligent design is the study of patterns (hence “design”) in nature that give empirical evidence of resulting from real teleology (hence “intelligent”). In this definition, real 37[sic] teleology is not reducible to purely material processes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In the publisher's description - link at UD - there is a helpful review of Rupert Sheldrake: Wikipedia describes him as an "an English author,[3] lecturer, and researcher in the field of parapsychology,[4] best known for advocating his "morphic resonance" concept."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just read the excerpts.  Maybe I'm missing something but didn't Dr.Dr.Dr. just hold the door wide open for theistic evolution?
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Jan. 13 2014,18:19



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the context of biology, intelligent design looks for patterns in biological systems that confirm real teleology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Whereas science asks if the hypothetical can be falsified.

IDiocy would never ask if it could be wrong.  Because it is, or anyway, wild-type organisms lack the signs of the leaps beyond what mere adaptation can produce.  Meaning that the honest version of ID has been falsified, and IDiocy won't accept that.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: CeilingCat on Jan. 13 2014,19:30

They want 54 British pounds for that thing!  That's $88 bucks!

< Here it is, suckers! >
Posted by: midwifetoad on Jan. 13 2014,19:53

From the Contents:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Information as ruling out possibilities;
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: midwifetoad on Jan. 13 2014,20:05

Bill is right on top of the latest pop physics:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Within such a theory of communication the proper object of study becomes not isolated particles but the information that passes between entities.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://www.ashgate.com/isbn....4638575 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If neither particles nor fields are fundamental, then what is? Some researchers think that the world, at root, does not consist of material things but of relations or of properties, such as mass, charge and spin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://www.scientificamerican.com/article....ng-else >
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Jan. 13 2014,20:44

Pretty funny that the Disco Tooters haven't mentioned a word about Dembski's latest book after busting a truckload of nuts promoting Meyer's Darwin's Doubt stupidity.  Must make Dr.Dr.Dr. feel really good about his current status with the professional IDiots.
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 13 2014,23:08



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Some researchers think that the world, at root, does not consist of material things but of relations or of properties, such as mass, charge and spin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The "world", or the description of it used by physicists? Properties such as those are what can be detected and measured.

Henry
Posted by: sparc on Jan. 13 2014,23:18

Here's how Ashgate describe Dembski:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
About the Author: A philosopher and mathematician, William A. Dembski is a senior fellow with Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture as well as a research scientist with the Evolutionary Informatics Lab. A cross-disciplinary scholar, he has published widely in the mathematics, engineering, philosophy, and theology literature, and is the author/editor of more than 20 books. Being as Communion ties together two decades of his research on the relation between teleology and information
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Maybe it is technically wrong but wouldn't he be better described as some kind of pastor or priest?

Posted by: sparc on Jan. 14 2014,00:13

BTW, what about Dembski's "Why Theistic Evolution Fails as Science and Theology" that was announced for November 2011? Didn't O'Leary stop blogging back in 2010 to rewrite it for him? I cannot find it at Amazon or the publisher (Broadman and Holman) and Dembski lists it as "in preparation".
Sounds familiar, < though >.
Posted by: Freddie on Jan. 14 2014,02:15

There's a tard fight brewing between Joe and Barb < here: >



Almost a vintage tard thread like in the good old days, worth a read and a chuckle.
Posted by: Cubist on Jan. 14 2014,02:21

Notice the favorable review on the webpage for Dembski's book? Seems appropriate that the quoted reviewer is Rupert Sheldrake…
Posted by: Bob O'H on Jan. 14 2014,06:58

No wonder Sheldrake likes the book - this is < how the blurb starts >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For a thing to be real, it must be able to communicate with other things
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So a large inert stone isn't real. Hmm. < I refute it thus >.

*hobbles away*
Posted by: midwifetoad on Jan. 14 2014,07:01

Hortas had a nearly fatal failure to communicate.
Posted by: DiEb on Jan. 14 2014,08:27

Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 14 2014,12:58)
No wonder Sheldrake likes the book - this is < how the blurb starts >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For a thing to be real, it must be able to communicate with other things
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So a large inert stone isn't real. Hmm. < I refute it thus >.

*hobbles away*
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Communicate, interact - Dembski doesn't say that a thing has to be able to spread its message, so if you hit a stone, the stone communicates with you.

Therefore stones are real, the ether is not real, the voices in my head are real.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Jan. 14 2014,08:30

Hm, so if my iPhone is real, does that make my Phone imaginary?
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 14 2014,09:47

Quote (Freddie @ Jan. 14 2014,03:15)
There's a tard fight brewing between Joe and Barb < here: >



Almost a vintage tard thread like in the good old days, worth a read and a chuckle.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Barb landed a pretty solid punch, I'd say.
Posted by: Patrick on Jan. 14 2014,10:28

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Jan. 13 2014,18:02)
And this is why we haven't heard from Dembski for quite some time: He has written a new book.
Being as Communion: What is intelligent design?
< UD was allowed to publish two short paragraphs > complete with a definition of intelligent design in which the cat is immediately out of the bag.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Intelligent design is the study of patterns (hence “design”) in nature that give empirical evidence of resulting from real teleology (hence “intelligent”). In this definition, real 37[sic] teleology is not reducible to purely material processes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In the publisher's description - link at UD - there is a helpful review of Rupert Sheldrake: Wikipedia describes him as an "an English author,[3] lecturer, and researcher in the field of parapsychology,[4] best known for advocating his "morphic resonance" concept."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is "real teleology" the new CSI?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 14 2014,11:44

Quote (Patrick @ Jan. 14 2014,10:28)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Jan. 13 2014,18:02)
And this is why we haven't heard from Dembski for quite some time: He has written a new book.
Being as Communion: What is intelligent design?
< UD was allowed to publish two short paragraphs > complete with a definition of intelligent design in which the cat is immediately out of the bag.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Intelligent design is the study of patterns (hence “design”) in nature that give empirical evidence of resulting from real teleology (hence “intelligent”). In this definition, real 37[sic] teleology is not reducible to purely material processes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In the publisher's description - link at UD - there is a helpful review of Rupert Sheldrake: Wikipedia describes him as an "an English author,[3] lecturer, and researcher in the field of parapsychology,[4] best known for advocating his "morphic resonance" concept."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is "real teleology" the new CSI?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As compared to fake teleology? Maybe such as those promoted by Muslims, Hindus, and those other religions.
Posted by: fnxtr on Jan. 14 2014,12:43

Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 14 2014,05:01)
Hortas had a nearly fatal failure to communicate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hortae.
Posted by: CeilingCat on Jan. 14 2014,13:21

Same thread, message 45:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So you use a couple verses that seem metaphorical to discount the entire Creation and Flood account in Genesis? The construction of the Ark is metaphorical? The majority of the account of Genesis sounds more like matter-of-fact, historical bullet points. Not metaphor.

Mapou, does it mean anything to you that Jesus Christ himself gave a history lesson on the flood?

For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
Matthew 24:38

Or how about that in the gospel of Peter, we are told straight out that people will come in the last days and deny that the Flood happened? Does that sound metaphorical?

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
2 Peter 3:5-6
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All science so far.
Posted by: Tony M Nyphot on Jan. 14 2014,13:30

Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 14 2014,05:58)
No wonder Sheldrake likes the book - this is < how the blurb starts >:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For a thing to be real, it must be able to communicate with other things
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does this mean that, even given 300+ pages at AtBC, Gary Gaulin was never real?
Posted by: sparc on Jan. 14 2014,14:08

Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Jan. 14 2014,13:30)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 14 2014,05:58)
No wonder Sheldrake likes the book - this is < how the blurb starts >:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For a thing to be real, it must be able to communicate with other things
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does this mean that, even given 300+ pages at AtBC, Gary Gaulin was never real?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


POTW!
Posted by: Texas Teach on Jan. 14 2014,16:54

Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Jan. 14 2014,13:30)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 14 2014,05:58)
No wonder Sheldrake likes the book - this is < how the blurb starts >:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For a thing to be real, it must be able to communicate with other things
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does this mean that, even given 300+ pages at AtBC, Gary Gaulin was never real?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If only.
Posted by: J-Dog on Jan. 15 2014,16:20

Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Jan. 14 2014,13:30)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 14 2014,05:58)
No wonder Sheldrake likes the book - this is < how the blurb starts >:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For a thing to be real, it must be able to communicate with other things
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does this mean that, even given 300+ pages at AtBC, Gary Gaulin was never real?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think he's as real as ID Science...
Posted by: keiths on Jan. 15 2014,21:03

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 14 2014,07:47)
 
Quote (Freddie @ Jan. 14 2014,03:15)
There's a tard fight brewing between Joe and Barb < here: >



Almost a vintage tard thread like in the good old days, worth a read and a chuckle.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Barb landed a pretty solid punch, I'd say.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Take a closer look at this part:



Do Witnesses eat their pets?
Posted by: sparc on Jan. 15 2014,23:00

Is there any post by scordova which isn't followed by his very own comments before any reader gets a chance to express his views?
< e.g. >
Posted by: midwifetoad on Jan. 15 2014,23:16



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do Witnesses eat their pets?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Only when no one is watching.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Jan. 16 2014,06:00

Quote (sparc @ Jan. 16 2014,06:00)
Is there any post by scordova which isn't followed by his very own comments before any reader gets a chance to express his views?
< e.g. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And what an OP!  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Radiometric C-14 dates of fossils say the fossils are young.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oviously, Sal aspires to be the next generation of DI's paradigm-shifting physicists. :D
And I made a joke about carbondating just the other day over at "Science Break".
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Jan. 16 2014,06:46

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 14 2014,15:47)
 
Quote (Freddie @ Jan. 14 2014,03:15)
There's a tard fight brewing between Joe and Barb < here: >



Almost a vintage tard thread like in the good old days, worth a read and a chuckle.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Barb landed a pretty solid punch, I'd say.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you"?

God forgot to add "well, when I say every ... please see pages xxx-yyy for a list of exclusions. Pigs, shellfish, bottom feeders ..."
Posted by: Quack on Jan. 16 2014,07:05

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Jan. 16 2014,06:00)
Quote (sparc @ Jan. 16 2014,06:00)
Is there any post by scordova which isn't followed by his very own comments before any reader gets a chance to express his views?
< e.g. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And what an OP!    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Radiometric C-14 dates of fossils say the fossils are young.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oviously, Sal aspires to be the next generation of DI's paradigm-shifting physicists. :D
And I made a joke about carbondating just the other day over at "Science Break".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I find him horrific.
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 16 2014,10:20

Quote (keiths @ Jan. 15 2014,20:03)
Do Witnesses eat their pets?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is the pet a schmoo?
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 16 2014,10:20

Then there was this line from a movie:

"Didn't there used to be two of those?"
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Jan. 16 2014,13:14

Sal post headline:"DNA half-life only 521 years, so is dino DNA and insect amber DNA young?"

What he quotes:"To make matters worse, variable environmental conditions such as temperature, degree of microbial attack and oxygenation alter the speed of the decay process."

IDiot.

Of course, under the best of conditions they considered DNA might have a half-life of 1.5 millions years.  Did they consider permineralized?  How do the tests for DNA work - do they look for individual bases or other?

By all means Sal, continue posting YEC crap at the leading ID site.  No way anybody would ever believe ID is just religion in disguise!
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Jan. 18 2014,04:53

Sal's thread is a deep, rich TARD mine.
Lincoln Phipps is desperately trying to talk some sense into Sal who, when confronted with the limits of carbondating and adequate methods of radiodating, < resorts to accusations of fraud >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A living dog today could be bracketed by old rocks if I buried it old rocks! The sedimentation video JGuy provided may suggest how this can be done in nicely stratified layers.

Bracketing living dog today inside layers of old rocks doesn’t make the dog 500 million years old!

Unbelievable you guys will insist on using the rock dates when dates are available in the fossil tissues themselves, unless of course the truth needs to be covered up to maintain a narrative.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why do you guys even talk to him over at SZ? He's despicable.

ETA: And meanwhile, on the same thread, they discuss the meaning of Bible verses. Genesis is a textbook, you just need to know how to read it.


Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 18 2014,06:32



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why do you guys even talk to him over at SZ? He's despicable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Site rules! ""Treat all other commenters as if they are posting in good faith". It does sometimes require suspension of disbelief.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Jan. 18 2014,08:32

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Jan. 18 2014,04:53)
Why do you guys even talk to him over at SZ? He's despicable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll note that human shitstain Sal abandoned his latest thread with YEC claims at TSZ as soon as he was asked about them.  He along with phoodoo have retreated to the safety of UD where he doesn't have to answer those tough questions.  The IDiots over there will pat him on the back no matter what kind of idiocy he barfs up.
Posted by: CeilingCat on Jan. 19 2014,19:39

< Incipient Torley fatigue? >
Mapou:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
lnteresting piece even if a little on the long side.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: CeilingCat on Jan. 19 2014,19:45

Oh yeah, the title of that too-long piece?  "Why the best arguments for the existence of God are not stupid."
Posted by: Alan Fox on Jan. 20 2014,02:32

Anyone following StephenB's evisceration by RDFish/aiguy in the "ID Foundations 21 ...etc" thread may be amused to note KF's correction of HTML errors in comment 346. Gordon assumes all the ad hominems must be by RDFish and "corrects" accordingly, crediting StephenB with making the key point in RDFish's argument (pointing out the new schism of Dembski-ID and Meyer-ID).
Posted by: midwifetoad on Jan. 20 2014,03:24

Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 19 2014,19:39)
< Incipient Torley fatigue? >
Mapou:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
lnteresting piece even if a little on the long side.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Demonstrating that it is possible for one's legs -- though lengthy-- not to reach the ground.
Posted by: olegt on Jan. 20 2014,08:03

< Timaeus laments > that Karl Gibberson is fighting against straw men:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But let’s face it; Giberson, Falk, etc. had their formative years in the 60s and 70s. They grew up as fundies and the great spiritual and intellectual crisis in their lives was their rebellion against their fellow-fundies Gish, Morris, etc. They are still reacting to that early crisis in their lives. They are still reliving those battles, in fact, have dedicated their lives to refighting those battles, reslaying those dragons, trying to justify over and over again, to themselves as much as to others, the decisions they made back then.

ID folks, by contrast, have mostly moved on. They aren’t talking about defending a literal Genesis, they aren’t contesting the age of the earth, etc. They are talking about information theory, about engineering and computer science conceptions of systems and design, about the physics of molecular structures and Platonic forms of protein folds etc. — all stuff which should interest any serious student of nature, but which Giberson etc. don’t care about. Giberson and his friends are intellectually frozen in a past era of religion/science controversy. And because they still think in outdated terms, they force ID into the old “creation versus evolution” mold, and then write ID off as “creationism.” Meanwhile, much smarter people by far, people like Nagel and Plantinga and Monton and Flew and others, are telling the world that ID isn’t creationism and that the world should give it a serious hearing. Giberson, Falk, etc. are simply going to be left behind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The forum where Timaeus wrote this is crawling with YECs. I eagerly await their reaction.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Jan. 20 2014,08:39

Quote (olegt @ Jan. 20 2014,08:03)
< Timaeus laments > that Karl Gibberson is fighting against straw men:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But let’s face it; Giberson, Falk, etc. had their formative years in the 60s and 70s. They grew up as fundies and the great spiritual and intellectual crisis in their lives was their rebellion against their fellow-fundies Gish, Morris, etc. They are still reacting to that early crisis in their lives. They are still reliving those battles, in fact, have dedicated their lives to refighting those battles, reslaying those dragons, trying to justify over and over again, to themselves as much as to others, the decisions they made back then.

ID folks, by contrast, have mostly moved on. They aren’t talking about defending a literal Genesis, they aren’t contesting the age of the earth, etc. They are talking about information theory, about engineering and computer science conceptions of systems and design, about the physics of molecular structures and Platonic forms of protein folds etc. — all stuff which should interest any serious student of nature, but which Giberson etc. don’t care about. Giberson and his friends are intellectually frozen in a past era of religion/science controversy. And because they still think in outdated terms, they force ID into the old “creation versus evolution” mold, and then write ID off as “creationism.” Meanwhile, much smarter people by far, people like Nagel and Plantinga and Monton and Flew and others, are telling the world that ID isn’t creationism and that the world should give it a serious hearing. Giberson, Falk, etc. are simply going to be left behind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The forum where Timaeus wrote this is crawling with YECs. I eagerly await their reaction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hang on, "Platonic forms of protein folds etc."?!
Posted by: REC on Jan. 20 2014,10:01

Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 20 2014,08:39)
Quote (olegt @ Jan. 20 2014,08:03)
< Timaeus laments > that Karl Gibberson is fighting against straw men:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But let’s face it; Giberson, Falk, etc. had their formative years in the 60s and 70s. They grew up as fundies and the great spiritual and intellectual crisis in their lives was their rebellion against their fellow-fundies Gish, Morris, etc. They are still reacting to that early crisis in their lives. They are still reliving those battles, in fact, have dedicated their lives to refighting those battles, reslaying those dragons, trying to justify over and over again, to themselves as much as to others, the decisions they made back then.

ID folks, by contrast, have mostly moved on. They aren’t talking about defending a literal Genesis, they aren’t contesting the age of the earth, etc. They are talking about information theory, about engineering and computer science conceptions of systems and design, about the physics of molecular structures and Platonic forms of protein folds etc. — all stuff which should interest any serious student of nature, but which Giberson etc. don’t care about. Giberson and his friends are intellectually frozen in a past era of religion/science controversy. And because they still think in outdated terms, they force ID into the old “creation versus evolution” mold, and then write ID off as “creationism.” Meanwhile, much smarter people by far, people like Nagel and Plantinga and Monton and Flew and others, are telling the world that ID isn’t creationism and that the world should give it a serious hearing. Giberson, Falk, etc. are simply going to be left behind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The forum where Timaeus wrote this is crawling with YECs. I eagerly await their reaction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hang on, "Platonic forms of protein folds etc."?!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sure that is a reference to Denton's 12-year old paper:

< Protein folds as platonic forms.... >

He argues that since there are only a finite number of stable protein folds, that "The folds are evidently determined by natural law, not natural selection, and are "lawful forms" in the Platonic and pre-Darwinian sense of the word"

These protein folds are also lowest free energy states, and since evolution is constrained to proteins that actually fold and function...?!? Natural law!

Weird argument. I guess because atoms and molecules pack into only 219 space groups in crystals, that reveals a natural law, therefore God?
Posted by: Quack on Jan. 20 2014,10:40



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ID folks, by contrast, have mostly moved on. They aren’t talking about defending a literal Genesis, they aren’t contesting the age of the earth, etc. They are talking about information theory, about engineering and computer science conceptions of systems and design, about the physics of molecular structures and Platonic forms of protein folds etc. — all stuff which should interest any serious student of nature, but which Giberson etc. don’t care about.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Serious students of nature might want to learn the where, when and how of the designer's effort. Unless the designer is God, in which case it is all done by magic - his preferrered method according to reliable sources.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The forum where Timaeus wrote this is crawling with YECs. I eagerly await their reaction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Please keep us updated.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Jan. 20 2014,12:19

Quote (olegt @ Jan. 20 2014,15:03)
< Timaeus laments > that Karl Gibberson is fighting against straw men:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But let’s face it; Giberson, Falk, etc. had their formative years in the 60s and 70s. They grew up as fundies and the great spiritual and intellectual crisis in their lives was their rebellion against their fellow-fundies Gish, Morris, etc. They are still reacting to that early crisis in their lives. They are still reliving those battles, in fact, have dedicated their lives to refighting those battles, reslaying those dragons, trying to justify over and over again, to themselves as much as to others, the decisions they made back then.

ID folks, by contrast, have mostly moved on. They aren’t talking about defending a literal Genesis, they aren’t contesting the age of the earth, etc. They are talking about information theory, about engineering and computer science conceptions of systems and design, about the physics of molecular structures and Platonic forms of protein folds etc. — all stuff which should interest any serious student of nature, but which Giberson etc. don’t care about. Giberson and his friends are intellectually frozen in a past era of religion/science controversy. And because they still think in outdated terms, they force ID into the old “creation versus evolution” mold, and then write ID off as “creationism.” Meanwhile, much smarter people by far, people like Nagel and Plantinga and Monton and Flew and others, are telling the world that ID isn’t creationism and that the world should give it a serious hearing. Giberson, Falk, etc. are simply going to be left behind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The forum where Timaeus wrote this is crawling with YECs. I eagerly await their reaction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They won't react, Big Tent and all.

By the way, the post immediately above the one you linked to is interesting:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He is a well-known writer — though mainly in the evangelical world — on “science and theology,” but has no training in theology to speak of. His Ph.D. was in physics, and while he taught a course on theology and science for years at his little Nazarene College, he never had any notable academic achievement in theology and science, never had any published articles in any serious academic journals in that field. (He may have published one or two pieces in journals like Zygon, but to my knowledge you won’t find him in Isis, Review of Metaphysics, Journal of the History of Ideas, Scottish Journal of Theology, etc.)

He did publish several *books* on theology and science, but these books are all of a popular rather than an academic character,  and slanted toward evangelicals struggling with evolution and with science generally. They therefore aren’t used in graduate or even undergraduate courses in serious universities, but only in little Christian colleges and seminaries. (Serious universities aren’t concerned with the angst of evangelicals who fear science.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now who does that remind me of?  :p
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 20 2014,16:15

Evolution News & Views (No comments allowed) are via Uncommon Descent (Mass bannings, comment suppression and alteration) hosting a ....



...wait for it...


...




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Censor of the Year contest
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Uh huh.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Jan. 20 2014,16:38

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 20 2014,16:15)
Evolution News & Views (No comments allowed) are via Uncommon Descent (Mass bannings, comment suppression and alteration) hosting a ....



...wait for it...


...




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Censor of the Year contest
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Uh huh.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, if they could recognize irony, they'd immediately overdose on their own hypocrisy.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: Texas Teach on Jan. 20 2014,16:49

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 20 2014,16:15)
Evolution News & Views (No comments allowed) are via Uncommon Descent (Mass bannings, comment suppression and alteration) hosting a ....



...wait for it...


...




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Censor of the Year contest
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Uh huh.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe it's just their in house awards for a the year?
Posted by: J-Dog on Jan. 20 2014,17:05

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 20 2014,16:15)
Evolution News & Views (No comments allowed) are via Uncommon Descent (Mass bannings, comment suppression and alteration) hosting a ....



...wait for it...


...




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Censor of the Year contest
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Uh huh.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I believe at UD they are also considering giving out awards: " DiscoTute's Universal Moral and Manly Yaweh-Like" Awards - (aka the D.U.M.M.Y. Awards) for the following categories:

The Fast Talker Of The Year category (The Golden Gish)
The Holier Than Thou category (A 20 way tie between the Usual UD Posters)
The Bestest ID Writer (O'Leary to get Lifetime Achievement recognition)
And of course the crowd will be on the edge of their pew seats for the Final "Best Liar For Jesus" category.

I for one expect another 20-way tie...
Posted by: fnxtr on Jan. 20 2014,17:32

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 20 2014,14:15)
Evolution News & Views (No comments allowed) are via Uncommon Descent (Mass bannings, comment suppression and alteration) hosting a ....



...wait for it...


...




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Censor of the Year contest
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Uh huh.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The nominees are:

The CBEB's.

The Atheist Darwinist Materialist Baby-Eating Conspiracy.

The Entire Scientific Community.

Corny Hunter.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Jan. 21 2014,13:48

From vjtorley's thoughts about Lizzie's post on the SZ - "Getting some stuff off my chest" - the discussion quickly degrades to bickering about the nature of god. First < highlight >, written by RexTugwell:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Eric and Mapou, are you guys Mormons? If you are, we’ve got bigger disagreements than whether God has a body or not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: sparc on Jan. 21 2014,13:54

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 20 2014,16:15)
Evolution News & Views (No comments allowed) are via Uncommon Descent (Mass bannings, comment suppression and alteration) hosting a ....



...wait for it...


...




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Censor of the Year contest
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Uh huh.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I used their Twitter button but added a bit before re-teeting:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Censor of the Year: Who Will It Be? Obviously, Barry Arrington of < http://uncommondescent.com/....ent.com >  http://shar.es/UslLM  via @sharethis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Soapy Sam on Jan. 21 2014,18:22

Quote (REC @ Jan. 20 2014,16:01)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 20 2014,08:39)
 
Quote (olegt @ Jan. 20 2014,08:03)
< Timaeus laments > that Karl Gibberson is fighting against straw men:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But let’s face it; Giberson, Falk, etc. had their formative years in the 60s and 70s. They grew up as fundies and the great spiritual and intellectual crisis in their lives was their rebellion against their fellow-fundies Gish, Morris, etc. They are still reacting to that early crisis in their lives. They are still reliving those battles, in fact, have dedicated their lives to refighting those battles, reslaying those dragons, trying to justify over and over again, to themselves as much as to others, the decisions they made back then.

ID folks, by contrast, have mostly moved on. They aren’t talking about defending a literal Genesis, they aren’t contesting the age of the earth, etc. They are talking about information theory, about engineering and computer science conceptions of systems and design, about the physics of molecular structures and Platonic forms of protein folds etc. — all stuff which should interest any serious student of nature, but which Giberson etc. don’t care about. Giberson and his friends are intellectually frozen in a past era of religion/science controversy. And because they still think in outdated terms, they force ID into the old “creation versus evolution” mold, and then write ID off as “creationism.” Meanwhile, much smarter people by far, people like Nagel and Plantinga and Monton and Flew and others, are telling the world that ID isn’t creationism and that the world should give it a serious hearing. Giberson, Falk, etc. are simply going to be left behind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The forum where Timaeus wrote this is crawling with YECs. I eagerly await their reaction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hang on, "Platonic forms of protein folds etc."?!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sure that is a reference to Denton's 12-year old paper:

< Protein folds as platonic forms.... >

He argues that since there are only a finite number of stable protein folds, that "The folds are evidently determined by natural law, not natural selection, and are "lawful forms" in the Platonic and pre-Darwinian sense of the word"

These protein folds are also lowest free energy states, and since evolution is constrained to proteins that actually fold and function...?!? Natural law!

Weird argument. I guess because atoms and molecules pack into only 219 space groups in crystals, that reveals a natural law, therefore God?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The 'platonic' forms all ultimately relate back to the charge of the quarks and their packing in threes. Obviously it's a put-up job. Things like that don't just happen!
Posted by: midwifetoad on Jan. 21 2014,18:33

Nobody expects the charge of the quarks.
Posted by: Texas Teach on Jan. 21 2014,19:05

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 21 2014,18:22)
Quote (REC @ Jan. 20 2014,16:01)
 
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 20 2014,08:39)
 
Quote (olegt @ Jan. 20 2014,08:03)
< Timaeus laments > that Karl Gibberson is fighting against straw men:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But let’s face it; Giberson, Falk, etc. had their formative years in the 60s and 70s. They grew up as fundies and the great spiritual and intellectual crisis in their lives was their rebellion against their fellow-fundies Gish, Morris, etc. They are still reacting to that early crisis in their lives. They are still reliving those battles, in fact, have dedicated their lives to refighting those battles, reslaying those dragons, trying to justify over and over again, to themselves as much as to others, the decisions they made back then.

ID folks, by contrast, have mostly moved on. They aren’t talking about defending a literal Genesis, they aren’t contesting the age of the earth, etc. They are talking about information theory, about engineering and computer science conceptions of systems and design, about the physics of molecular structures and Platonic forms of protein folds etc. — all stuff which should interest any serious student of nature, but which Giberson etc. don’t care about. Giberson and his friends are intellectually frozen in a past era of religion/science controversy. And because they still think in outdated terms, they force ID into the old “creation versus evolution” mold, and then write ID off as “creationism.” Meanwhile, much smarter people by far, people like Nagel and Plantinga and Monton and Flew and others, are telling the world that ID isn’t creationism and that the world should give it a serious hearing. Giberson, Falk, etc. are simply going to be left behind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The forum where Timaeus wrote this is crawling with YECs. I eagerly await their reaction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hang on, "Platonic forms of protein folds etc."?!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sure that is a reference to Denton's 12-year old paper:

< Protein folds as platonic forms.... >

He argues that since there are only a finite number of stable protein folds, that "The folds are evidently determined by natural law, not natural selection, and are "lawful forms" in the Platonic and pre-Darwinian sense of the word"

These protein folds are also lowest free energy states, and since evolution is constrained to proteins that actually fold and function...?!? Natural law!

Weird argument. I guess because atoms and molecules pack into only 219 space groups in crystals, that reveals a natural law, therefore God?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The 'platonic' forms all ultimately relate back to the charge of the quarks and their packing in threes. Obviously it's a put-up job. Things like that don't just happen!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Father, the Son, and the Holy Quark?
Posted by: Driver on Jan. 21 2014,19:21

I thought quarks and whatnot were Buddhist.
Posted by: fnxtr on Jan. 21 2014,21:15

Quote (Driver @ Jan. 21 2014,17:21)
I thought quarks and whatnot were Buddhist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ramans do everything in threes
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 21 2014,21:40

Quark? He follows the rules of Acquisition.
Posted by: Driver on Jan. 21 2014,21:47

Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 22 2014,03:15)
Quote (Driver @ Jan. 21 2014,17:21)
I thought quarks and whatnot were Buddhist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ramans do everything in threes
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay, you're more obscure.
Posted by: Driver on Jan. 21 2014,21:50

Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 22 2014,03:40)
Quark? He follows the rules of Acquisition.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, you are the most obscure.
Posted by: rossum on Jan. 22 2014,05:48

Quote (Driver @ Jan. 21 2014,19:21)
I thought quarks and whatnot were Buddhist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Only in the south, on Tuesdays.  Otherwise they are Zoroastrian.
Posted by: Febble on Jan. 23 2014,04:16

I have to say, I find it a bit annoying (but "revealing" as KF would say) that UD bans me, lets vjtorley post nice posts commenting on my posts at TSZ, which I can't comment on at UD, and yet the commenters there can "paraphrase" my views, without link, so that they make no sense whatsoever, and then congratulate themselves on the vacuity of the paraphrase.

Phoodoo:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


William,

I thought Lizzie argument of why we should see humans as anything more than chemical oddities if one believes in evolution, is particularly unsophisticated. Basically her idea is that, well, we can call humans special, because we feel they are special. And her biggest cop-out, well, they have “emergence”. A completely vague, and unexplainable science term which tries to make sense of how a bunch of ants can make something smart, or how our individual brain cells can put together a complex thought.

She kept trying to say, “well, they are emergent, see, so that is where we get our moral ideas.” I think she didn’t even have a clue what she was trying to say, but simply was trying to throw out some concepts and hope they deflected the problem of finding morality in a completely materialist world.

If we are all just different mixes of chemicals, all the talk in the world about emergence doesn’t erase the fact that its just chemicals creating the illusion of value.

The fact is, science doesn’t even know what emergence is, they have no idea how ants make complex decisions, and how individual brain cells, add up to consciousness. Its a complete mystery,and she is using it as a defense for pulling morality out of thin air.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Eric A:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


phoodoo:

Thanks for calling out the “emergence” business. It is amazing how many people buy into the “emergence” buzzword as though it were some kind of actual explanation.

Emergence, without more explanation of what is actually going on at the micro and macro level, is just another way of restating the old evolutionary storyline:

Stuff Happens.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Needless to say, I have never said that humans "have" "emergence".

geez.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Jan. 23 2014,04:37

I'm somewhat guilty of arguing for emergence. I don't think I've ever said it is an explanation of anything,  but I think it is silly to say humans can't have this or that attribute because the attribute isn't an attribute of mere molecules.

It would be interesting to have a coherent description of emergence,  preferable a readable one. It would seem to be a cousin of vitalism.
Posted by: Febble on Jan. 23 2014,05:15

I've certainly talked about emergence - I think it's really important. But I don't think it's a property that things have.  I think a way of indicating that wholes have different properties from their parts.

The properties of a carbon dioxide molecule are different from those of atomic carbon or oxygen.  So to that extent, its properties are "emergent" from the configuration of its more fundamental components, which in turn have properties that "emerge" from their more fundamental components, and so on.

I don't think it's even controversial.  Wholes have properties not possessed by their parts, and they have them by virtue of their configuration, not by possessing Magic Parts.

And we call these properties "emergent" properties because nothing is added that wasn't there originally, unless you call the configuration "added".  In which case what has been "added" is good old "information", which is lost when the configuration is destroyed.

But then IDists consider "Information" to be "Magic Parts".
Posted by: BillB on Jan. 23 2014,05:36

Quote (Febble @ Jan. 23 2014,11:15)
I've certainly talked about emergence - I think it's really important. But I don't think it's a property that things have.  I think a way of indicating that wholes have different properties from their parts.

The properties of a carbon dioxide molecule are different from those of atomic carbon or oxygen.  So to that extent, its properties are "emergent" from the configuration of its more fundamental components, which in turn have properties that "emerge" from their more fundamental components, and so on.

I don't think it's even controversial.  Wholes have properties not possessed by their parts, and they have them by virtue of their configuration, not by possessing Magic Parts.

And we call these properties "emergent" properties because nothing is added that wasn't there originally, unless you call the configuration "added".  In which case what has been "added" is good old "information", which is lost when the configuration is destroyed.

But then IDists consider "Information" to be "Magic Parts".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've heard AI and ALife researchers loosely (and often jokingly) refer to emergence as "Behaviour I wasn't expecting" because if so often gets used to describe a behaviour or property that the researcher wasn't fully expecting to see.

I did witness a mild argument once: One person claimed emergent behaviour in system x, another denied it was emergent - "It isn't emergent, it is exactly what I would have expected"
Posted by: midwifetoad on Jan. 23 2014,06:01

Rather than "not expected" it would be more accurate to say not predictable.

At any rate, the issue has been around for a long time. I think it would be interesting to have a history of the idea,  because I think it encompasses vitalism,  souls,  and such.
Posted by: BillB on Jan. 23 2014,06:13

Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 23 2014,12:01)
Rather than "not expected" it would be more accurate to say not predictable.

At any rate, the issue has been around for a long time. I think it would be interesting to have a history of the idea,  because I think it encompasses vitalism,  souls,  and such.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or 'not predicted' - hence the argument anecdote.
Posted by: olegt on Jan. 23 2014,06:15

This excerpt amply demonstrates that phoodoo isn't someone worth paying attention to.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
She kept trying to say, “well, they are emergent, see, so that is where we get our moral ideas.” I think she didn’t even have a clue what she was trying to say, but simply was trying to throw out some concepts and hope they deflected the problem of finding morality in a completely materialist world.

If we are all just different mixes of chemicals, all the talk in the world about emergence doesn’t erase the fact that its just chemicals creating the illusion of value.

The fact is, science doesn’t even know what emergence is, they have no idea how ants make complex decisions, and how individual brain cells, add up to consciousness. Its a complete mystery,and she is using it as a defense for pulling morality out of thin air.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Each paragraph contains an egregious error. Phoodoo has been pointed several times to P.W. Anderson's short essay that explains very well what emergence is and gives examples. I don't think he ever bothered to read it. He still has no clue and accuses others of not understanding it. The guy is both ignorant and arrogant at the same time, with hilarious results.

This isn't an entirely new trait exhibited by phoodoo. He claims that < I have no clue about dynamical chaos > and that < Joe Felsenstein cannot count >. LOL.
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Jan. 23 2014,06:26

Emergence is just interaction, surely? Two hands clapping, to go a bit Zen. It starts with our little quarks. They interact by gluons in menages a trois (Pretentious? Moi?). But free neutrons are unstable. Flip a down to an up and the whole has an electrical field, into which stray electrons tumble. Then (flips over a few pages) ... everything else! Ta-daaaah!

Phoodoo has beat a fine retreat, BTW. Back to where he can say what he likes, and is never gainsaid.
Posted by: olegt on Jan. 23 2014,06:45

The notion of emergence in science, as I understand it, begins with a negative statement.

For example, the rigidity of a solid is not explained by the properties of atoms that make it up. You can know everything about the atomic structure and energy levels and even about interactions of atoms. But you still don't understand what makes a solid rigid. When you attempt to deform a piece of ice and it resists your efforts, you can't just say "Oh, atoms are hard and so is the solid they make up." Because when that piece of ice melts, you can deform the resulting water easily. And it is made of the same atoms. So it's not about atoms.

But of course making a negative statement does not explain anything. You need a positive theory. The rigidity of crystals is explained by < spontaneous breaking of the symmetries > of translations and rotations in them. The vacuum is translationally and rotationally invariant: it looks the same if you move by an angstrom left or right or if you turn your head. A liquid is also translationally and rotationally invariant: there are no preferred positions or directions in it. A crystal isn't: atoms form a periodic structure; shifting by an angstrom left or right shifts the periodic lattice; turning your head changes its orientation with respect to the crystal's face.

So the rigidity of a crystal turns out to be a property that is not possessed by the atoms constituting a solid. It only emerges when a large collection of atoms does something entirely new: spontaneously breaks some symmetries of the vacuum. Rigidity is a canonical example of emergence in science. Contrary to phoodoo's ignorant claim, scientists know very well what emergence is. There are well understood cases.
Posted by: Amadan on Jan. 23 2014,07:55

Tard goes in, tard goes out.

You can't explain that.
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Jan. 23 2014,08:33

Quote (olegt @ Jan. 23 2014,12:45)
The notion of emergence in science, as I understand it, begins with a negative statement.

For example, the rigidity of a solid is not explained by the properties of atoms that make it up. You can know everything about the atomic structure and energy levels and even about interactions of atoms. But you still don't understand what makes a solid rigid. When you attempt to deform a piece of ice and it resists your efforts, you can't just say "Oh, atoms are hard and so is the solid they make up." Because when that piece of ice melts, you can deform the resulting water easily. And it is made of the same atoms. So it's not about atoms.

But of course making a negative statement does not explain anything. You need a positive theory. The rigidity of crystals is explained by < spontaneous breaking of the symmetries > of translations and rotations in them. The vacuum is translationally and rotationally invariant: it looks the same if you move by an angstrom left or right or if you turn your head. A liquid is also translationally and rotationally invariant: there are no preferred positions or directions in it. A crystal isn't: atoms form a periodic structure; shifting by an angstrom left or right shifts the periodic lattice; turning your head changes its orientation with respect to the crystal's face.

So the rigidity of a crystal turns out to be a property that is not possessed by the atoms constituting a solid. It only emerges when a large collection of atoms does something entirely new: spontaneously breaks some symmetries of the vacuum. Rigidity is a canonical example of emergence in science. Contrary to phoodoo's ignorant claim, scientists know very well what emergence is. There are well understood cases.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But surely still, as a shorthand, 'interaction'? Interactions between atoms and molecules in pure form or solution change with energy distribution, number and the properties of the atoms in any surrounding medium. That there are discrete phase transitions doesn't go against the simplistic notion that collective properties arise from summed complex interactions.
Posted by: olegt on Jan. 23 2014,08:41

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 23 2014,08:33)
But surely still, as a shorthand, 'interaction'? Interactions between atoms and molecules in pure form or solution change with energy distribution, number and the properties of the atoms in any surrounding medium. That there are discrete phase transitions doesn't go against the simplistic notion that collective properties arise from summed complex interactions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A bit too simplistic. Surely, if atoms didn't interact then there would not be any solids. Or liquids, for that matter. But just saying "interactions are responsible for rigidity" misses an essential point. Interactions between atoms exist in both liquids and solids. However, solids keep their shapes and liquids do not. The presence of interactions does not explain this key difference. So alluding to interactions is not an explanation.
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Jan. 23 2014,09:23

Quote (olegt @ Jan. 23 2014,14:41)
 
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 23 2014,08:33)
But surely still, as a shorthand, 'interaction'? Interactions between atoms and molecules in pure form or solution change with energy distribution, number and the properties of the atoms in any surrounding medium. That there are discrete phase transitions doesn't go against the simplistic notion that collective properties arise from summed complex interactions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A bit too simplistic. Surely, if atoms didn't interact then there would not be any solids. Or liquids, for that matter. But just saying "interactions are responsible for rigidity" misses an essential point. Interactions between atoms exist in both liquids and solids. However, solids keep their shapes and liquids do not. The presence of interactions does not explain this key difference. So alluding to interactions is not an explanation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's true - it's no more an explanation than 'emergence' is. I merely regard them as approximately synonymous, and it evades the slightly mystical quality that emergence seems to engender.

phoodoo, I'm betting, would waft away any scientific understanding of this or that specific emergent phenomenon because it does not extend to his chosen example - ants, or brain cells. He wants THE scientific explanation for emergence as a phenomenon - everything beyond the naked quark, if such can stand alone. And the fundamental, explains-nothing-by-itself quality of emergent phenomena is that they result from interactions, building onion-like up to and including the level of interest.
Posted by: Driver on Jan. 23 2014,20:57

Stephen B isn't the next Dembski but he might be the next Karl Pilkington:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do I really have to enumerate every example of law/chance to show you that no example of law/chance can run off with the jewelry? Can a volcano run off with jewelry? Can a flood run off with jewelry? Can a river run off with jewelry?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Volcanos aren't burglars, therefore ID.


< link >
Posted by: midwifetoad on Jan. 23 2014,21:07

Perhaps a wormhole will open up and run off with his jewelry.
Posted by: Freddie on Jan. 23 2014,23:06

Quote (Driver @ Jan. 23 2014,20:57)
Stephen B isn't the next Dembski but he might be the next Karl Pilkington:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do I really have to enumerate every example of law/chance to show you that no example of law/chance can run off with the jewelry? Can a volcano run off with jewelry? Can a flood run off with jewelry? Can a river run off with jewelry?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Volcanos aren't burglars, therefore ID.


< link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does he have a little round head, too?
Posted by: Quack on Jan. 24 2014,01:48

Something for Stephen B to ponder? Spontaneous symmetry breaking - watch  < superfluid > in action.
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 24 2014,14:04

Well, a flood might wash some jewelry away where it can't be found.

And a volcano could melt stuff.
Posted by: keiths on Jan. 25 2014,21:13

Batshit77, < first human to reach absolute zero in self-awareness >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Jaceli123, sorry I’m not watching any of your off topic rabbit trail videos anymore. You have to do your own homework!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: midwifetoad on Jan. 25 2014,21:31

That would make BA the Bose-Einstein of intelligent design.
Posted by: sparc on Jan. 26 2014,22:36

Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 25 2014,21:31)
That would make BA the Bose-Einstein of intelligent design.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You don't want to say that BA77 is cool, do you?
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Jan. 27 2014,02:41

Comprised almost entirely of Bozons.
Posted by: Woodbine on Jan. 27 2014,02:44

I wonder how long it takes Slimy Sal to headline the following at UD....

< http://www.bbc.co.uk/news....5881953 >


Posted by: Driver on Jan. 27 2014,05:40

Quote (Woodbine @ Jan. 27 2014,08:44)
I wonder how long it takes Slimy Sal to headline the following at UD....

< http://www.bbc.co.uk/news.......5881953 >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


After all, the difference between 70 million and 6 million years is a lot more than the difference between 6million and 6000 years.
Posted by: KevinB on Jan. 27 2014,14:43

Quote (sparc @ Jan. 26 2014,22:36)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 25 2014,21:31)
That would make BA the Bose-Einstein of intelligent design.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You don't want to say that BA77 is cool, do you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think he must be suggesting that BA77 is a loudspeaker....

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki...........ose >
Posted by: midwifetoad on Jan. 27 2014,16:40

Quote (KevinB @ Jan. 27 2014,14:43)
Quote (sparc @ Jan. 26 2014,22:36)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 25 2014,21:31)
That would make BA the Bose-Einstein of intelligent design.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You don't want to say that BA77 is cool, do you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think he must be suggesting that BA77 is a loudspeaker....

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki...........ose >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have three sets of 901s, the first purchased in 1968 and having a low serial number. The others were purchased at estate sales.

No sign of Albert , though.
Posted by: JohnW on Jan. 27 2014,17:47

Quote (KevinB @ Jan. 27 2014,12:43)
Quote (sparc @ Jan. 26 2014,22:36)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 25 2014,21:31)
That would make BA the Bose-Einstein of intelligent design.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You don't want to say that BA77 is cool, do you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think he must be suggesting that BA77 is a loudspeaker....

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki...........ose >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's tard superconductivity - where the tard just flows forever, with nothing to stop it.  Batshit77 reached this state years ago.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Jan. 27 2014,18:02

So far it hasn't climbed out of the container.
Posted by: Ptaylor on Jan. 27 2014,20:01

Denyse O'Leary,

Which of these statements from your latest post doesn't belong?:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
See also: Musical instruments pushed back by about 7,000 years

Artists’ workshop from 100,000 years ago

Sophisticated tool production system discovered, from 200,000-400,000 million years ago

Stone tools nearly two million years old
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(Hint: you were corrected on this nearly two and a half years ago.)

< UD link >
Posted by: Texas Teach on Jan. 27 2014,21:56

Quote (Ptaylor @ Jan. 27 2014,20:01)
Denyse O'Leary,

Which of these statements from your latest post doesn't belong?:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
See also: Musical instruments pushed back by about 7,000 years

Artists’ workshop from 100,000 years ago

Sophisticated tool production system discovered, from 200,000-400,000 million years ago

Stone tools nearly two million years old
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(Hint: you were corrected on this nearly two and a half years ago.)

< UD link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This would be big news if it was the God the designer producing tools at that time.
Posted by: BillB on Jan. 28 2014,06:08

Quote (Texas Teach @ Jan. 28 2014,03:56)
Quote (Ptaylor @ Jan. 27 2014,20:01)
Denyse O'Leary,

Which of these statements from your latest post doesn't belong?:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
See also: Musical instruments pushed back by about 7,000 years

Artists’ workshop from 100,000 years ago

Sophisticated tool production system discovered, from 200,000-400,000 million years ago

Stone tools nearly two million years old
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(Hint: you were corrected on this nearly two and a half years ago.)

< UD link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This would be big news if it was the God the designer producing tools at that time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Shortly followed by an in depth item in Make magazine - "DNA splicing using only a stone axe - a how-to guide"
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 28 2014,07:42

Chubs gets a guest post at UD!

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/science....st-post >

And he doesn't swear once! (yet).

He does a great job of showing how barren ID is, it is fine with lots of stuff being there or not, doesn't predict anything, does like Standard evolutionary mechanisms but proffers none of its own (brace for 'Desine is teh mekunism' numb-nutsery).

Editz.


Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Jan. 28 2014,09:50

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 28 2014,07:42)
Chubs gets a guest post at UD!

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/science....st-post >

And he doesn't swear once! (yet).

He does a great job of showing how barren ID is, it is fine with lots of stuff being there or not, doesn't predict anything, does like Standard evolutionary mechanisms but proffers none of its own (brace for 'Desine is teh mekunism' numb-nutsery).

Editz.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like always Chubs also manages to directly contradict himself.

- ID is not anti-evolution

- Evolution can't create anything.

It does go to show just how desperate UD is to have "informed" commentary when they make IDiot JoeTard a spokesman.  We need to get him talking about baraminology and the CSI of Noah's Ark.
Posted by: Woodbine on Jan. 28 2014,10:43

Fuck me, who's next? Byers?
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Jan. 28 2014,10:52

Joe:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The problem is lack of evidence for natural selection being a designer mimic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Not a problem for biology, since biologic phenomena are cladistically organized.  Design has never been observed to be so (including technologic evolution, of course).

The big problem for creationism is explaining how design is an evolution mimic.  "Evolution" is hardly the explanation, since the whole point of design is to get away from biologic evolution's limits.*  Life, for one, does not.

Glen Davidson

*To be done creatively, or, what's that word?  To be creation.
Posted by: Ptaylor on Jan. 28 2014,14:29

Joe dominates the comments in his thread, and gives us this gem:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And FYI- I have started writing a book titled “On the Origin of Species by Means of Intelligent Design Evolution”- don’t know when or even if I will finish it, but I did start it…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think he means but don't hold your breath.
< UD link >
Posted by: JohnW on Jan. 28 2014,14:29

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 28 2014,05:42)
Chubs gets a guest post at UD!

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/science....st-post >

And he doesn't swear once! (yet).

He does a great job of showing how barren ID is, it is fine with lots of stuff being there or not, doesn't predict anything, does like Standard evolutionary mechanisms but proffers none of its own (brace for 'Desine is teh mekunism' numb-nutsery).

Editz.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bingo!


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
20 Joe January 28, 2014 at 12:47 pm

Eric- Thank you. True ID is not a mechanistic theory but that does not stop design from being a mechanism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Glen Davidson on Jan. 28 2014,14:42

Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 28 2014,14:29)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 28 2014,05:42)
Chubs gets a guest post at UD!

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/science....st-post >

And he doesn't swear once! (yet).

He does a great job of showing how barren ID is, it is fine with lots of stuff being there or not, doesn't predict anything, does like Standard evolutionary mechanisms but proffers none of its own (brace for 'Desine is teh mekunism' numb-nutsery).

Editz.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bingo!


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
20 Joe January 28, 2014 at 12:47 pm

Eric- Thank you. True ID is not a mechanistic theory but that does not stop design from being a mechanism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And they're against equivocation:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Honest question: If your theory thrives on rampant equivocation, what is the incentive to seek clarity?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I seriously was wondering when I read that if this was one of the few remaining anti-IDiots.  Next line showed that it wasn't.

Yes, design produces the same patterns and evidences of evolution (compatible with biologic evolution, you know--not that anything of the sort has ever been seen, but Designer can do anything so evidence is hardly an issue), and ID isn't mechanistic but can be.  Damn those evolutionists and their equivocations!

Glen Davidson
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Jan. 28 2014,15:23

Quote (Ptaylor @ Jan. 28 2014,14:29)
Joe dominates the comments in his thread, and gives us this gem:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And FYI- I have started writing a book titled “On the Origin of Species by Means of Intelligent Design Evolution”- don’t know when or even if I will finish it, but I did start it…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think he means but don't hold your breath.
< UD link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


JoeTard has posted the first chapter of his "book" on his blog.

He took the first entry from Theobald's "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" and did a Word replace of "common descent" with "common design".

:D  :D  :D

Even with that he fucked up a few entries a la "cdesignproponentist"

Maybe he can get O'Dreary to be his proofreader, teach him how to rite gud.

ETA:  looks like it's a reprint of something he did back in 2007.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Jan. 28 2014,15:30

Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 28 2014,14:29)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 28 2014,05:42)
Chubs gets a guest post at UD!

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/science....st-post >

And he doesn't swear once! (yet).

He does a great job of showing how barren ID is, it is fine with lots of stuff being there or not, doesn't predict anything, does like Standard evolutionary mechanisms but proffers none of its own (brace for 'Desine is teh mekunism' numb-nutsery).

Editz.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bingo!
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
20 Joe January 28, 2014 at 12:47 pm

Eric- Thank you. True ID is not a mechanistic theory but that does not stop design from being a mechanism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Eric Anderson has the sack to correct Joe and tell him design is not a mechanism.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think I understand what you are saying. I don’t mean to nitpick definitions too much, but in the design field we typically speak of “design processes” or “design approaches“, rather than a “design mechanism”. There are good reasons for that terminology. A design approach or a design process can make use of mechanisms or implement mechanisms, but the design itself is typically not thought of as a “mechanism.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How will JoeTard react to being called down by one of his IDiot buddies?
Posted by: socle on Jan. 28 2014,16:11

Quote (Ptaylor @ Jan. 28 2014,14:29)
Joe dominates the comments in his thread, and gives us this gem:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And FYI- I have started writing a book titled “On the Origin of Species by Means of Intelligent Design Evolution”- don’t know when or even if I will finish it, but I did start it…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think he means but don't hold your breath.
< UD link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please please please let this happen.  Joe, I will tip you 1000 dogecoin if you finish this book and KF posts a review of it on UD.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 28 2014,16:36

Quote (socle @ Jan. 28 2014,16:11)
Quote (Ptaylor @ Jan. 28 2014,14:29)
Joe dominates the comments in his thread, and gives us this gem:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And FYI- I have started writing a book titled “On the Origin of Species by Means of Intelligent Design Evolution”- don’t know when or even if I will finish it, but I did start it…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think he means but don't hold your breath.
< UD link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please please please let this happen.  Joe, I will tip you 1000 dogecoin if you finish this book and KF posts a review of it on UD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So Tard... Wow....Such ignorant..Much foolish..Amaze..So swearing.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 28 2014,17:15

Hey, it's giving me a lot more hits on my blog.  Joe really is silly, sending people to compare what he says to what is real.

I guess it's time to cross post my ID is Anti-evolution opening.
Posted by: REC on Jan. 28 2014,17:33



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
30
Joe January 28, 2014 at 3:56 pm

Mapou,

Some of the evo responses are priceless. One guy actually chides the OP for not saying what ID predicts, not realizing that is not the topic. Anything to distract from the facts, I guess.

Another guy sez that natural selection is a designer because of his misunderstanding of the way we classify phenomena. Again anything to avoid the actual topic- look at LarTanner’s “response” (#15)

Classic and priceless…

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm not sure I saw any "evos" reply. KF seems similarly puzzled:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

31
kairosfocusJanuary 28, 2014 at 4:56 pm
Joe, where are those responses? KF

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Joe, misrepresenting what people say may work across blogs (e.g what you do to TSZ at UD). Within the same thread, even KF's skeptical.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 28 2014,17:59

Quote (REC @ Jan. 28 2014,17:33)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
30
Joe January 28, 2014 at 3:56 pm

Mapou,

Some of the evo responses are priceless. One guy actually chides the OP for not saying what ID predicts, not realizing that is not the topic. Anything to distract from the facts, I guess.

Another guy sez that natural selection is a designer because of his misunderstanding of the way we classify phenomena. Again anything to avoid the actual topic- look at LarTanner’s “response” (#15)

Classic and priceless…

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm not sure I saw any "evos" reply. KF seems similarly puzzled:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

31
kairosfocusJanuary 28, 2014 at 4:56 pm
Joe, where are those responses? KF

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Joe, misrepresenting what people say may work across blogs (e.g what you do to TSZ at UD). Within the same thread, even KF's skeptical.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are where they just insta-banned?
Posted by: REC on Jan. 28 2014,18:06

Quote (Woodbine @ Jan. 28 2014,10:43)
Fuck me, who's next? Byers?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


PLEASE let it be Mapou!!! Crotchety, cursy, and batshit insane:

< http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/....pot.com >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In Part I, I gave an interpretation of verses 1 to 7 of the third chapter of the book of Zechariah. I claimed that Joshua the high priest is a metaphor for a sensorimotor mechanism in the brain's sequence memory. I wrote that the Joshua chapter was a continuation (or complement) of the metaphors found in the message to Sardis in the book of Revelation. I claimed that the Biblical model of perceptual learning sharply contradicts modern statistical approaches to machine learning.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 28 2014,18:49

Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 28 2014,15:29)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 28 2014,05:42)
Chubs gets a guest post at UD!

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/science....st-post >

And he doesn't swear once! (yet).

He does a great job of showing how barren ID is, it is fine with lots of stuff being there or not, doesn't predict anything, does like Standard evolutionary mechanisms but proffers none of its own (brace for 'Desine is teh mekunism' numb-nutsery).

Editz.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bingo!


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
20 Joe January 28, 2014 at 12:47 pm

Eric- Thank you. True ID is not a mechanistic theory but that does not stop design from being a mechanism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


John beated me to it. So I will post my favorite Joe comments

Numbar Too:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the next court case the evos and ACLU are going to have to deal with the facts presented in the OP. And if they don’t then they will fail- if they do they will also fail.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



We are Doomed!

Numbar Three:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And FYI- I have started writing a book titled “On the Origin of Species by Means of Intelligent Design Evolution”- don’t know when or even if I will finish it, but I did start it…

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's sad that nothing will come of it. This 'book' would be hilarious!
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 28 2014,18:51



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One strawman wrt ID not being a mechanistic theory is that the antiIDists take that and say that means ID desn’t have any mechanisms. As if…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Please Proceed, Joe!
Posted by: Texas Teach on Jan. 28 2014,19:28

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 28 2014,18:49)
Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 28 2014,15:29)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 28 2014,05:42)
Chubs gets a guest post at UD!

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/science....st-post >

And he doesn't swear once! (yet).

He does a great job of showing how barren ID is, it is fine with lots of stuff being there or not, doesn't predict anything, does like Standard evolutionary mechanisms but proffers none of its own (brace for 'Desine is teh mekunism' numb-nutsery).

Editz.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bingo!
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
20 Joe January 28, 2014 at 12:47 pm

Eric- Thank you. True ID is not a mechanistic theory but that does not stop design from being a mechanism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


John beated me to it. So I will post my favorite Joe comments

Numbar Too:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the next court case the evos and ACLU are going to have to deal with the facts presented in the OP. And if they don’t then they will fail- if they do they will also fail.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



We are Doomed!

Numbar Three:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And FYI- I have started writing a book titled “On the Origin of Species by Means of Intelligent Design Evolution”- don’t know when or even if I will finish it, but I did start it…

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's sad that nothing will come of it. This 'book' would be hilarious!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe Joe, Ray Martinez, and Gaulin could do an anthology and split the publishing costs.
Posted by: Ray Martinez on Jan. 28 2014,19:40

Quote (Febble @ Jan. 05 2014,16:37)
It just dawned on me that ID is dead.

Dembski is off all radar.  He doesn't even show up in the search box at South Carolina bible college or whatever. The last post on the Design Inference is a year old.

Meyer's book went up like a firework and came down with the stick.  

Most of the static websites are moribund.  UD has banned virtually all dissenters.  The few brave enough to wander over to TSZ bail out after a couple of rounds.  The biologic institute inflates its "selected publications" with publications that have nothing to do with the biologic institute and seems to be doing no more than pretending to produce output.

Bio-Complexity is moribund.

Behe doesn't seem to have much to say.

The big guys won't come out to debate.  The small ones mostly won't leave heavily censored sites.  Even the UD newsdesk peddles 6 year old stories as "news".

And all the threads are about religion.  Or tossing coins.

I don't know why I hadn't seen it before.

It's dead.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Seems you've forgotten the fact that DI-IDism does accept the concept of natural selection and the concept of evolution to exist in nature. Other than opening up their websites for discussion and dissent, what more could you possibly want? or expect?

Besides, the DI-IDist, like the Darwinist, especially the ones who are Federal judges, refuse to allow evolutionary theory to be open for criticism in a public arena, so the DI-IDist learned censorship from you guys. Persons who accept evolution believe in, and practice, censorship. Matt Young routinely censors most anti-Evolutionist posts by sending them to Siberia (BW). So you should stop complaining about closed to discussion articles until the practice is abandoned in domains controlled by Darwinists.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 28 2014,19:53

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 28 2014,18:51)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One strawman wrt ID not being a mechanistic theory is that the antiIDists take that and say that means ID desn’t have any mechanisms. As if…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Please Proceed, Joe!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, Joe, tell us... should we listen to Behe when (while in court) he said that ID was about mechanisms or when (while in court a few hours later) he said that ID was not a mechanistic notion?

Which Behe to believe?  Use your wisdom Joe, enlighten us.  Show us where Behe (the guy who has actually written books on ID) was wrong.
Posted by: fnxtr on Jan. 28 2014,19:53

Poof! is a mechanism, you guys.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Jan. 28 2014,20:03

Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 28 2014,19:53)
Poof! is a mechanism, you guys.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course it is.

Just too fast to see anything happen.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 28 2014,20:46

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Jan. 28 2014,20:03)
Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 28 2014,19:53)
Poof! is a mechanism, you guys.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course it is.

Just too fast to see anything happen.

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And it looks EXACTLY like evolution.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Jan. 28 2014,22:27

It's a shame that the Darwinist judge held the 40 day trial behind closed doors and didn't allow transcripts to be published.
Posted by: sparc on Jan. 28 2014,22:37

Thanks for reporting directly from IDiot heaven. But how do you guys protect your brains from being immediately cauterized when you go diving in the UD sea of TARD?
Posted by: Driver on Jan. 29 2014,02:54

Wow. They went there. Joe on little evolution but none of that big evolution you hear?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 29 2014,10:34

Joe Gallien, eater of donuts, purveyor of strawmen:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolution has several meanings. And seeing that ID only disagrees with one definition it is not OK to cal it anti-evolution. It is OK to call ID anti-blind watchmaker, ie unguided, evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The Bengalese Finch: A Window on the Behavioral Neurobiology of Birdsong Syntax,KAZUO OKANOYA,Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Volume 1016, Behavioral Neurobiology of Birdsong pages 724–735, June 2004


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...When female preference in a natural environment guides the direction of evolution...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





MODELING PHENOTYPIC PLASTICITY IN GROWTH TRAJECTORIES: A STATISTICAL FRAMEWORK

< http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi............ull >


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...A number of quantitative hypotheses can be made for the interplay between environment and development in a hope to address fundamental questions in biology; for example, how the environment affects developmental rate and timing and the length of a particular developmental event in the lifetime of an organism (Parsons et al. 2011) and how the environment guides the development of traits to achieve maximum fitness (Agraval 2001; Beldade et al. 2011). Second, statistical modeling of developmental traits is based on a few parsimonious parameters that can capture the structure of trait development and correlation, thus facilitating the computation of a complex model and its power for the detection of environment-induced differences (Ma et al. 2002; Griswold et al. 2008)...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



etc. etc.

and of course the real issue:
< http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2010.......ed.html >
Posted by: Woodbine on Jan. 29 2014,10:49

Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 29 2014,04:27)
It's a shame that the Darwinist judge held the 40 day trial behind closed doors and didn't allow transcripts to be published.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A typical Evo-Mat tactic, that - hiding in plain sight.

Back, and to the left....
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 29 2014,14:02

Joe is now claiming that the environment (in the context of organism / environment fit) can't guide reproductive success / evolution.



This could be CSI of CAEK / Choo choo math good.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 29 2014,14:29

Bonus:

< http://scholar.google.com/scholar....=0%2C44 >
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Jan. 29 2014,20:57

Quote (keiths @ Jan. 25 2014,21:13)
Batshit77, < first human to reach absolute zero in self-awareness >:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Jaceli123, sorry I’m not watching any of your off topic rabbit trail videos anymore. You have to do your own homework!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Batshit77 reaffirms his status as most self-unaware person on the planet.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BA77: "Mapou, I’ve noticed that when anybody contradicts your own personal opinion on a matter, with hard evidence and quotes by leading experts in the field no less, that you do not present any countervailing evidence, references, or quotes from experts of your own but that you just make bold declarations as to how you think reality ought to be structured and dismiss all evidence and everyone else’s opinion with a wave of the hand and sometimes ad hominem. Why is this? Do you expect just to take your word for how reality is structured without any hard evidence?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: CeilingCat on Jan. 30 2014,01:22

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 29 2014,20:57)
 
Quote (keiths @ Jan. 25 2014,21:13)
Batshit77, < first human to reach absolute zero in self-awareness >:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Jaceli123, sorry I’m not watching any of your off topic rabbit trail videos anymore. You have to do your own homework!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Batshit77 reaffirms his status as most self-unaware person on the planet.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BA77: "Mapou, I’ve noticed that when anybody contradicts your own personal opinion on a matter, with hard evidence and quotes by leading experts in the field no less, that you do not present any countervailing evidence, references, or quotes from experts of your own but that you just make bold declarations as to how you think reality ought to be structured and dismiss all evidence and everyone else’s opinion with a wave of the hand and sometimes ad hominem. Why is this? Do you expect just to take your word for how reality is structured without any hard evidence?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BA77: There’s none so blind as those who will not see.
Prov. You cannot make someone pay attention to something that he or she does not want to notice.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Posted by: CeilingCat on Jan. 30 2014,02:39

That thread is just bursting with tard.  Here are some examples.  They're not taken out of context as much as you might think.

News: "Those who want to be in the know, whether or not there is anything to know, will not know enough not to ask about evidence."

Axel: "Aren’t these the people who speak dismissively – if ever so gently so – at QM as woo-woo?"

Mapou: "How did an obvious crackpot/con-man like Stephen Hawking ever acquire such fame? This is a sad commentary on the status of modern science."

Dr. Dr. William Dembski (quoted by BA77): “In mathematics there are two ways to go to infinity. One is to grow large without measure. The other is to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity.”

Unknown (quoted by BA77): "Scientists say Turin Shroud is supernatural"

Mapou (comment 11): "Compared to the infinitely large, everything is infinitely small. And compared to the infinitely small, everything is infinitely large. So, if infinity existed, everything would be infinitely large and infinitely small while also being finite at the same time. This is absurd on the face of it."

Mapou (to BA77): "Your reply to my comment @11 is exactly what I expected from you. You would rather believe in lies than change your doctrine. Your doctrine IS your God. You worship your idea of God more than you worship God. That makes you an idolater in my book. Good luck with that."

Mapou: "Please, don’t circumvent my proof against infinity @11 above with other arguments. Either prove me wrong (if you do, I’ll bow down to your superior understanding and apologize for my foolishness) or accept that I am right (in which case, you must bow down to my superior understanding and make amends). Anything else is just useless talk."

[CeilingCat (here and now): "I'm 175 cm tall.  Compared to the Eiffel Tower I'm 175 cm tall.  Compared to Mt. Everest I'm 175 cm tall.  Compared to infinity, I'm 175 cm tall.  Compared to a fireplug I'm 175 cm tall.  Compared to a mouse I'm 175 cm tall.  Compared to a bacteria I'm 175 cm tall.  Compared to an infinitely small thing I'm 175 cm tall.

Your argument fails in both directions.  Bow down and start apologizing, tard-boy!

Ok, back to the < Mathematician wonders about ... thread. >]

BA77: "Jaceli123, sorry I’m not watching any of your off topic rabbit trail videos anymore. You have to do your own homework!"

Mapou (to BA77): "Unless you are prepared refute my argument @11 against infinity, everything you write from now on is unimportant to me. In fact, my respect for you has taken a precipitous dive. See you around."

Mapou (to BA77): "Your self-deception is as bold and in-your-face as that of a Jerry Coyne or a Richard Dawkins. But it does not fool me. Why should anybody try to understand something that does not exist? The non-existence of infinity has absolutely nothing to do with materialism of naturalism.

Another thing that bothers me about you is your constant use of this world’s pathological science to prove your Christian faith. Don’t you know that Yahweh’s science makes a mockery of human science? Yahweh and the host of his angels laughs at the stuff you bring up to defend your doctrine. I, too, join them in poking fun at it. Don’t you know that this world’s science is carefully designed to deny God and his glory? But those of you who truly have faith in Yahweh will not have long to wait to see His science manifested in this world and crush the science of this world like one crushes a bug underfoot."

BA77: About a page of Bible quotations skipped because ID is a scientific theory.

Mapou to BA77: "You are indeed a deceiver and you are not to be trusted.

News (to anyone who will help stop this thread from making a laughingstock of ID): "Enough theology in this one thread for a divinity school. Anyone noted how Tegmark’s philosophizing (with a clearly religious turn) can be advanced in science publications (SciAm comes to mind)? Odd that it bothers so few.

Stephen Hawking/No Black Holes, by the way, reached 76 m on Google search."

Chalciss: '“And the truth shall set you free”, that is exactly why reading posts from BA77, Q, KF, VJT and others like them makes us die-hard fans of them and makes us want to read more and more. Kudos!'

Joe: "Querius, I agree with you. Cantor never proved anything wrt infinite sets and he is not God. Not only that there isn’t any utility in saying all countable and infinite sets have the same cardinality.

Cantor’s is more dogma than mathematics."

Mapou: "By the way, those of you who are under the false impression that calculus uses infinity, consider that digital computers routinely solve calculus problems and yet, nothing is more discrete and finite than a computer."

Mapou: "Everything that occurs in the physical universe is being recorded in what I call “the lattice”. It’s a finite universe and a finite lattice."

BA77 (quoted by Mapou): "Perhaps you should call Gregory Chaitin up with your insight that infinity should be stricken from math?"

Mapou (replying to quote above): "I don’t give a rat’s posterior about Gregory Chaitin’s opinion or the world of mathematics and their preeminent mathematicians. I know my priorities. I always write for the simple man or woman. Those are my peers."

BA77 (replying to the "rats posterior" comment): "And yet you expect us to ‘yield to the infinite superiority of your arguments’, and indeed you act like a spoiled child when no one takes your strawman argument seriously, when you yourself don’t take the entire field of mathematics seriously. Someone has an seriously hyper-inflated opinion of their own infallibility on this matter!"

Mapou (to BA77): "Maybe I have a hyper-inflated opinion of my infallibility in this matter but the same can be said about you."

BA77 (to Mapou): "

Mapou, you want a ‘logical refutation’ of your ahem ‘argument’ when you have rejected the entire logical world of mathematics as to having any purchase over your own self-exalted infallible thinking in this matter in the first place? i.e. cart before horse!

To shine a light in a darkened room it is first necessary to, at least, open a window!

There’s none so blind as those who will not see.
Prov. You cannot make someone pay attention to something that he or she does not want to notice."

Mapou (to BA77): " I am not trying to help you at all. I have very little respect for you, especially after this exchange. You’re a typical doctrinairian and I don’t like doctrinairians. I don’t think you’re less fortunate. You have access to the same knowledge sources as I do. That’s the way I feel. And I tell it like I see it."

Mapou: "Cantor was a self-important crackpot and a con artist, IMO. His contribution to society amounts to a disaster, considering the enormous amount of time wasted by the world’s acceptance of infinity as a logical concept. Even after Planck discovered that the universe was discrete, physicists still continue to act as if infinity is a valid concept. It’s painful just to think about it."

KF (to Mapou) "PPS: Your ad hom on one of the most significant mathematicians in history — who, similar to several others suffered bipolar depression — is unworthy and verges on being offensive."

Mapou (all in same comment): "I’m sorry but anybody who legitimizes infinity as a viable concept in science is a crackpot in my view."

"So I don’t care how great a contribution Cantor has made to set theory. His obsession with the legitimacy of infinity and his ability to captivate and deceive the minds of so many generations of thinkers with his crackpottery is unforgivable, IMO."

"PS. The veneration that some people (mostly Catholics, I think) have for the Angelic Doctor (Thomas Aquinas) borders on the idolatrous, IMO. Talk about worshiping doctrine."

[vjtorley thinks: "That's aimed directly at me!"]

KF (striking a blow for Tommy: "PS: I am about as Protestant as they come, and the angelic doctor is one of the greatest minds in the history of Christendom, with Paul, Augustine, Calvin and Wesley up there too in that league — warts and all."

Mapou (to Barb): "I no longer want to discuss this topic. Thanks for the comments."

More tomorrow, I'm sure.
Posted by: CeilingCat on Jan. 30 2014,02:58

Sigh!  I should be sleeping, but Sal's caught another live one and is holding him up so we can all see.  It's in the < Creationist RA Herrmann's ID theory — the last magic on steroids! thread. >

Here are a few highlights:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I was associated with the occult from birth, but in 1946 when I was 12 years old, I suddenly became extremely interested in occult manifestations and simultaneously became, what is sometimes called, a “mental giant” – indeed, a child scientist. I delved into any aspect of the occult that had any meaning for a child of my age. For two or three months, I was a superior telepathist. I once telepathically identified more than forty-five cards out of fifty-two cards from an ordinary deck of playing cards. However, suddenly I lost this particular telepathic ability, I lost the “key” so to speak. Obviously, I was brokenhearted over this state of affairs and began a long search for the lost mechanisms so as to renew this telepathic ability. Moreover, I investigated other occult manifestations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
After some years of effort, I became a well-known research scientist and educator who had been purposefully placed into situations where I could influence and corrupt the minds of the young.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In 1977, my wife brought my budding anti-Christ activities to an end. Without my having any knowledge of her pending actions, during the morning hours of 6 April 1977, my wife correctly removed herself and our children from my immediate influence. At noon, I went to my car in the parking lot of the U. S. Naval Academy and found a short cryptic note on the front seat. It said that in order to protect herself and our children from my depraved behavior, she had moved out of the house and taken the children out of my grasp. I had no idea what this message meant until I reached my house for Evil so clouds your mind that the obvious is often not perceived. Upon entering, I experienced personally one consequence of these vile actions for I found my wife, my children and all of their belongings gone.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dr. Herrmann became a creationist and went on to become complete a career as a full professor of mathematics at the US Naval Academy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dr. Herrmann’s version of these ideas I will term “The Last Magic on Steroids”!

His website and writings are tough to navigate and it is hard to get a coherent picture even after hours reading what he is actually claiming.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Somewhere on < the Professor's web site: > he complains that www.arxiv.org is censoring him.

I've had all I can take.  And so to bed.
Posted by: didymos on Jan. 30 2014,04:08

Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 30 2014,00:39)
Dr. Dr. William Dembski (quoted by BA77): “In mathematics there are two ways to go to infinity. One is to grow large without measure. The other is to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....5cbaZso >

ETA:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mapou (comment 11): "Compared to the infinitely large, everything is infinitely small. And compared to the infinitely small, everything is infinitely large. So, if infinity existed, everything would be infinitely large and infinitely small while also being finite at the same time. This is absurd on the face of it."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I prefer this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

   It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Woodbine on Jan. 30 2014,04:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
.....during the morning hours of 6 April 1977, my wife correctly removed herself and our children from my immediate influence. At noon, I went to my car....and found a short cryptic note on the front seat. It said that in order to protect herself and our children from my depraved behavior, she had moved out of the house and taken the children out of my grasp.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Take note, Gaulin.
Posted by: Patrick on Jan. 30 2014,07:12

Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 30 2014,03:39)
Mapou (replying to quote above): "I don’t give a rat’s posterior about Gregory Chaitin’s opinion or the world of mathematics and their preeminent mathematicians. I know my priorities. I always write for the simple man or woman. Those are my peers."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The simpler the man or woman, the more of a peer.
Posted by: Patrick on Jan. 30 2014,07:14

Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 30 2014,03:39)
Mapou: "Cantor was a self-important crackpot and a con artist, IMO. His contribution to society amounts to a disaster, considering the enormous amount of time wasted by the world’s acceptance of infinity as a logical concept. Even after Planck discovered that the universe was discrete, physicists still continue to act as if infinity is a valid concept. It’s painful just to think about it."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wonder if Mapou and JoeG will announce it on UD when they set up house together.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Jan. 30 2014,07:15

I rember being taught that division by zero is undefined,  rather than infinity. I suppose that is old math.
Posted by: didymos on Jan. 30 2014,07:47

Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 30 2014,05:15)
I rember being taught that division by zero is undefined,  rather than infinity. I suppose that is old math.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dembski is apparently thinking was talking about the limit approaching infinity when the denominator approaches 0.

Edit: correction.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Jan. 30 2014,08:01

Quote (didymos @ Jan. 30 2014,07:47)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 30 2014,05:15)
I rember being taught that division by zero is undefined,  rather than infinity. I suppose that is old math.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dembski is apparently thinking was talking about the limit approaching infinity when the denominator approaches 0.

Edit: correction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
At first glance it seems possible to define a/0 by considering the limit of a/b as b approaches 0.
For any positive a, the limit from the right is....

...

These and other similar facts show that the expression 0/0 cannot be well-defined as a limit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....by_zero >
Posted by: didymos on Jan. 30 2014,08:16

Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 30 2014,06:01)
Quote (didymos @ Jan. 30 2014,07:47)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 30 2014,05:15)
I rember being taught that division by zero is undefined,  rather than infinity. I suppose that is old math.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dembski is apparently thinking was talking about the limit approaching infinity when the denominator approaches 0.

Edit: correction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
At first glance it seems possible to define a/0 by considering the limit of a/b as b approaches 0.
For any positive a, the limit from the right is....

...

These and other similar facts show that the expression 0/0 cannot be well-defined as a limit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......by_zero >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Um, yeah?  That's what I was talking about.  That the numerator was non-zero was assumed.  That's what Dembski said too.  He may be an IDiot, but he didn't claim dividing by zero equals infinity.
Posted by: k.e.. on Jan. 30 2014,09:53

Quote (didymos @ Jan. 30 2014,16:16)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 30 2014,06:01)
 
Quote (didymos @ Jan. 30 2014,07:47)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 30 2014,05:15)
I rember being taught that division by zero is undefined,  rather than infinity. I suppose that is old math.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dembski is apparently thinking was talking about the limit approaching infinity when the denominator approaches 0.

Edit: correction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
At first glance it seems possible to define a/0 by considering the limit of a/b as b approaches 0.
For any positive a, the limit from the right is....

...

These and other similar facts show that the expression 0/0 cannot be well-defined as a limit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......by_zero >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Um, yeah?  That's what I was talking about.  That the numerator was non-zero was assumed.  That's what Dembski said too.  He may be an IDiot, but he didn't claim dividing by zero equals infinity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


True but according to Dembski using the limit as it approaches divinity, huminity is crossed by a path within a newfound contract for zero united to resurrect paths of fininity

...or somesuch

Must be in the Gospel of John somewhere.
Posted by: stevestory on Jan. 30 2014,10:32

Quote (sparc @ Jan. 28 2014,23:37)
Thanks for reporting directly from IDiot heaven. But how do you guys protect your brains from being immediately cauterized when you go diving in the UD sea of TARD?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You know how super-deep-sea divers can't breathe normal oxygen, but instead have to submerge themselves in an oxygen-rich fluid, which kinda feels like drowning, but it'll sustain and protect you in absurdly stressful environments?

We do a version of that. The fluid is typically vodka.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 30 2014,10:34

the 3rd seal of the Tardpocolypse has been broken, Joe G made a guest posts. Soon, He will be given full author rights and the dogs will dance with cats in the street.

UD is rapidly running out of opportunities to lower its quality. Perhaps get Gaulin over there? Or let Batshit^77 posts?
Posted by: JohnW on Jan. 30 2014,15:54

Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 30 2014,00:39)
Mapou: "Please, don’t circumvent my proof against infinity @11 above with other arguments. Either prove me wrong (if you do, I’ll bow down to your superior understanding and apologize for my foolishness) or accept that I am right (in which case, you must bow down to my superior understanding and make amends). Anything else is just useless talk."

[CeilingCat (here and now): "I'm 175 cm tall.  Compared to the Eiffel Tower I'm 175 cm tall.  Compared to Mt. Everest I'm 175 cm tall.  Compared to infinity, I'm 175 cm tall.  Compared to a fireplug I'm 175 cm tall.  Compared to a mouse I'm 175 cm tall.  Compared to a bacteria I'm 175 cm tall.  Compared to an infinitely small thing I'm 175 cm tall.

Your argument fails in both directions.  Bow down and start apologizing, tard-boy!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're busted, you are:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ok. I cannot let this go without a response. Some dumbass over at antievolution.org who calls itself CeilingCat, wrote the following as a refutation of my argument @11:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
71 Mapou January 30, 2014 at 1:41 pm
[CeilingCat (here and now): "I'm 175 cm tall. Compared to the Eiffel Tower I'm 175 cm tall. Compared to Mt. Everest I'm 175 cm tall. Compared to infinity, I'm 175 cm tall. Compared to a fireplug I'm 175 cm tall. Compared to a mouse I'm 175 cm tall. Compared to a bacteria I'm 175 cm tall. Compared to an infinitely small thing I'm 175 cm tall.

Your argument fails in both directions. Bow down and start apologizing, tard-boy!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LOL. CeilingCat has no clue as to what a comparison is. A comparison is a question or test that demands a true or false answer. For example, given the finite values X and Y, we can ask:

X is greater than Y, true or false?

or, within the context of my argument against infinity, if Y is given as an infinitely small value, we can phrase the question thus:

X is infinitely greater than Y, true or false?

or, if Y is given as an infinitely large value, we can phrase the question thus:

X is infinitely smaller than Y, true or false?

The answer is a resounding YES to both questions. CeilingCat should claw its way back to the ceiling and let grownups take care of grownup business.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(< UD link >)

This isn't even good math crankery.  It's just boring: "1 x infinity = 2 x infinity" implies "1 = 2", therefore there's no such thing as infinity.

I'd love to see Mapou's first-year algebra grade.  Obviously it would have been an F, but was it just a plain old F, or a great big gold F with knobs on?
Posted by: J-Dog on Jan. 30 2014,16:17

Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 30 2014,09:53)
 
Quote (didymos @ Jan. 30 2014,16:16)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 30 2014,06:01)
   
Quote (didymos @ Jan. 30 2014,07:47)
     
Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 30 2014,05:15)
I rember being taught that division by zero is undefined,  rather than infinity. I suppose that is old math.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dembski is apparently thinking was talking about the limit approaching infinity when the denominator approaches 0.

Edit: correction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
At first glance it seems possible to define a/0 by considering the limit of a/b as b approaches 0.
For any positive a, the limit from the right is....

...

These and other similar facts show that the expression 0/0 cannot be well-defined as a limit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......by_zero >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Um, yeah?  That's what I was talking about.  That the numerator was non-zero was assumed.  That's what Dembski said too.  He may be an IDiot, but he didn't claim dividing by zero equals infinity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


True but according to Dembski using the limit as it approaches divinity, huminity is crossed by a path within a newfound contract for zero united to resurrect paths of fininity

...or somesuch

Must be in the Gospel of John somewhere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And this leads us to the NEWEST ID Spokesperson:



Buzz is perfect in so many ways, but #1 - He's an imaginary spokesperson for an imaginary theory.


Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 30 2014,16:19

Kirosfocus, unless you think selection is orthogonal to environment,

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2. to control the movement or course of (an animal, vehicle, etc) by physical action; steer
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Is *exactly* what is happening.

then we have



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Unless RTH intends to personify — not likely — the environment in which an organism lives or dies, reproduces or fails to do so, it cannot “guide” as it is not an agent with a purpose or a knowledge base and skill set.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So Kirosfocus by his own 'reasoning' must invoke  personhood for the rails that guide a train, or gravity that guides the orbits of the planets and stars. Must do better in the teeth  of correction, etc.

Edits for clarity and content.


Posted by: JohnW on Jan. 30 2014,16:29

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 30 2014,14:19)
Kirosfocus, unless you think selection is orthogonal to environment,

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2. to control the movement or course of (an animal, vehicle, etc) by physical action; steer
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Is *exactly* what is happening.

then we have

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Unless RTH intends to personify — not likely — the environment in which an organism lives or dies, reproduces or fails to do so, it cannot “guide” as it is not an agent with a purpose or a knowledge base and skill set.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So Kirosfocus by his own 'reasoning' must invoke  personhood for the rails that guide a train, or gravity that guides the orbits of the planets and stars. Must do better in the teeth  of correction, etc.

Edits for clarity and content.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This space left blank for Intelligent Falling jokes:














.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 30 2014,16:31

He also accuses us of being denizens of Plato's cave. Well, I hate to tell you KF but we're *all* in the cave or we aren't. And the cave may be in Plato's metacave. Regardless, we all still eat our cornflakes with a spoon.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Jan. 30 2014,17:59

Here's something for KF, in his cave or not:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Carl Sagan
Posted by: Texas Teach on Jan. 30 2014,18:59

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 30 2014,16:19)
Kirosfocus, unless you think selection is orthogonal to environment,

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2. to control the movement or course of (an animal, vehicle, etc) by physical action; steer
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Is *exactly* what is happening.

then we have

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Unless RTH intends to personify — not likely — the environment in which an organism lives or dies, reproduces or fails to do so, it cannot “guide” as it is not an agent with a purpose or a knowledge base and skill set.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So Kirosfocus by his own 'reasoning' must invoke  personhood for the rails that guide a train, or gravity that guides the orbits of the planets and stars. Must do better in the teeth  of correction, etc.

Edits for clarity and content.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm fairly certain KF thinks that Jesus does all those things, so personification wouldn't trouble him.
Posted by: CeilingCat on Jan. 30 2014,20:13

Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 30 2014,15:54)
   
Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 30 2014,00:39)
Mapou: "Please, don’t circumvent my proof against infinity @11 above with other arguments. Either prove me wrong (if you do, I’ll bow down to your superior understanding and apologize for my foolishness) or accept that I am right (in which case, you must bow down to my superior understanding and make amends). Anything else is just useless talk."

[CeilingCat (here and now): "I'm 175 cm tall.  Compared to the Eiffel Tower I'm 175 cm tall.  Compared to Mt. Everest I'm 175 cm tall.  Compared to infinity, I'm 175 cm tall.  Compared to a fireplug I'm 175 cm tall.  Compared to a mouse I'm 175 cm tall.  Compared to a bacteria I'm 175 cm tall.  Compared to an infinitely small thing I'm 175 cm tall.

Your argument fails in both directions.  Bow down and start apologizing, tard-boy!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're busted, you are:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ok. I cannot let this go without a response. Some dumbass over at antievolution.org who calls itself CeilingCat, wrote the following as a refutation of my argument @11:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
71 Mapou January 30, 2014 at 1:41 pm
[CeilingCat (here and now): "I'm 175 cm tall. Compared to the Eiffel Tower I'm 175 cm tall. Compared to Mt. Everest I'm 175 cm tall. Compared to infinity, I'm 175 cm tall. Compared to a fireplug I'm 175 cm tall. Compared to a mouse I'm 175 cm tall. Compared to a bacteria I'm 175 cm tall. Compared to an infinitely small thing I'm 175 cm tall.

Your argument fails in both directions. Bow down and start apologizing, tard-boy!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



LOL. CeilingCat has no clue as to what a comparison is. A comparison is a question or test that demands a true or false answer. For example, given the finite values X and Y, we can ask:

X is greater than Y, true or false?

or, within the context of my argument against infinity, if Y is given as an infinitely small value, we can phrase the question thus:

X is infinitely greater than Y, true or false?

or, if Y is given as an infinitely large value, we can phrase the question thus:

X is infinitely smaller than Y, true or false?

The answer is a resounding YES to both questions. CeilingCat should claw its way back to the ceiling and let grownups take care of grownup business.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(< UD link >)

This isn't even good math crankery.  It's just boring: "1 x infinity = 2 x infinity" implies "1 = 2", therefore there's no such thing as infinity.

I'd love to see Mapou's first-year algebra grade.  Obviously it would have been an F, but was it just a plain old F, or a great big gold F with knobs on?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mapou's IQ is infinitely larger than an infinitely small Y.  True.  It's still 85.
Mapou's IQ is infinitely smaller than an infinitely large Y.  True.  It's still 85.

Bow down and start apologizing, Tardboy!
Posted by: CeilingCat on Jan. 30 2014,20:26

Barry, you spelling challenged, debt collecting ambulance chaser: You can silently ban me  but you can't stop me from posting on your board as long as you let idiots like Mapou use it!

Next time, try banning the dumb shits.


Posted by: REC on Jan. 30 2014,21:55



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If Y is given as an infinitely small value, we can phrase the question thus:

X is infinitely greater than Y, true or false?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If Y is infinitely small ~0, and X is one, then X is ~1 greater than Y.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
X is infinitely greater than Y, true or false?

The answer is a resounding YES
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



For fuck's sake....
Posted by: socle on Jan. 30 2014,22:38

Hey Mapou,

What number system are you working in?  Obviously not the real numbers, since there are no infinite real numbers.  And what do you mean by "X is infinitely greater than Y"?  How you decide, given X and Y, whether that is true?

Anyway, the < hyperreal numbers > refute your naive argument.  There are 'infinitely small' and 'infinitely large' hyperreal numbers, and these terms are defined rigorously.  Kairosfocus has even referred to this set on UD.
Posted by: socle on Jan. 30 2014,22:54

Quote (socle @ Jan. 30 2014,22:38)
Hey Mapou,

What number system are you working in?  Obviously not the real numbers, since there are no infinite real numbers.  And what do you mean by "X is infinitely greater than Y"?  How you decide, given X and Y, whether that is true?

Anyway, the < hyperreal numbers > refute your naive argument.  There are 'infinitely small' and 'infinitely large' hyperreal numbers, and these terms are defined rigorously.  Kairosfocus has even referred to this set on UD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


stupid me, strike the first paragraph...
Posted by: Driver on Jan. 31 2014,02:29

I think this is wrong, but not in the usual amusing and ridiculous sense. Still, it's something I find interesting:

< Querius >:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If we have a flat universe, the value for PI is maximized. If the curvature of the universe is extreme, PI can be as small as exactly 2.0000, depending on the size of the circle.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Pi is not an empirically derived value, is it?

I think he means the ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter is different if space cannot be described by Euclidean geometry. Yes?
Posted by: CeilingCat on Jan. 31 2014,03:06

I think so.  Ditto for the angles of a triangle not equaling 180 degrees.

Of course, when attempting a discussion with Mapou, you have to remember that he thinks Einstein needs correcting and motion is impossible.
Posted by: CeilingCat on Jan. 31 2014,03:11

A couple of messages ago I referred to Mapou (and, by implication, some of the other UD posters) as a "dumb shit".  

I should not have used such language.  

I apologize to all fertilizer everywhere.
Posted by: BillB on Jan. 31 2014,03:24

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 30 2014,23:59)
Here's something for KF, in his cave or not:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Carl Sagan
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


True, but the trouble with quotes like that is that ID'ists see it as entirely applicable to us. They see us as the ones who have been bamboozled and themselves as the ones who have escaped the charlatans power.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Jan. 31 2014,03:42

Quote (Driver @ Jan. 31 2014,02:29)
I think this is wrong, but not in the usual amusing and ridiculous sense. Still, it's something I find interesting:

< Querius >:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If we have a flat universe, the value for PI is maximized. If the curvature of the universe is extreme, PI can be as small as exactly 2.0000, depending on the size of the circle.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Pi is not an empirically derived value, is it?

I think he means the ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter is different if space cannot be described by Euclidean geometry. Yes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I assume so - it's an easy mistake to make.

BTW, the ratio can be > ? if one wants to be < hyperbolic > (which makes me wonder whether those extolling the virtues of Pringles are exaggerating).

Totally off-topic but this morning as I was walking into work a police van with a tannoy attached to the roof drew up outside the maths department and counted up to five. Was this some bizarre mathematical taunt?
Posted by: midwifetoad on Jan. 31 2014,07:16

Does your mother smell of elderberries?

ETA: unfortunate page break.


Posted by: Glen Davidson on Jan. 31 2014,10:23



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the near decade that I’ve been watching the Intelligent Design movement, one thing has consistently amazed me: the pathological inability of many ID critics to accurately represent what ID actually is, what claims and assumptions are made on the part of the most noteworthy ID proponents, and so on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, it amazes Delearious* (I assume it's she) that we're not fooled, not fools.

But we can't all be like her.  

Glen Davidson

*edited to  note that apparently it's nullasalus.  One IDiot or another, such a difference...
Posted by: midwifetoad on Jan. 31 2014,10:49



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the near decade that I’ve been watching the Intelligent Design movement, one thing has consistently amazed me: the pathological inability of many ID critics advocates to accurately represent what ID actually is, what claims and assumptions are made on the part of the most noteworthy ID proponents, and so on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: JohnW on Jan. 31 2014,11:05

Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 31 2014,01:42)
Totally off-topic but this morning as I was walking into work a police van with a tannoy attached to the roof drew up outside the maths department and counted up to five. Was this some bizarre mathematical taunt?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's Joe, with a Largest Known Number progress report.
Posted by: k.e.. on Jan. 31 2014,11:23

Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 31 2014,19:05)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 31 2014,01:42)
Totally off-topic but this morning as I was walking into work a police van with a tannoy attached to the roof drew up outside the maths department and counted up to five. Was this some bizarre mathematical taunt?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's Joe, with a Largest Known Number progress report.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I suspect it's a recruiting drive anyone that rushes out to tell them the next number is six is rejected.
Posted by: Driver on Jan. 31 2014,11:46

Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 31 2014,17:05)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 31 2014,01:42)
Totally off-topic but this morning as I was walking into work a police van with a tannoy attached to the roof drew up outside the maths department and counted up to five. Was this some bizarre mathematical taunt?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's Joe, with a Largest Known Number progress report.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Haha.
Posted by: Driver on Jan. 31 2014,12:06

< The phonically apt KRock >:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When you read the findings of Dr Richard Gallagher’s case study from 2008, specifically on how this unseen force, demonic entity or what ever you want to call it, showed utter contempt for anything Holy, ie the name of Jesus, Holy water, etc… I think it speaks volumes as to what we’re truly dealing with. Why is it that when you envoke the name of Jesus, there seems to be such a negative and hostile reaction? As Christians, I think we know why, :-).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



"You are either for me or against me."

The influence of Voldemort runs through the veins of the unbelievers!
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Jan. 31 2014,12:23

Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 31 2014,11:05)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 31 2014,01:42)
Totally off-topic but this morning as I was walking into work a police van with a tannoy attached to the roof drew up outside the maths department and counted up to five. Was this some bizarre mathematical taunt?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's Joe, with a Largest Known Number progress report.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think it means they lost the instructions to the holy hand grenade of Antioch and are about to snuff it.
Posted by: KevinB on Jan. 31 2014,14:15

Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 31 2014,10:49)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the near decade that I’ve been watching the Intelligent Design movement, one thing has consistently amazed me: the pathological inability of many ID critics advocates to accurately represent what ID actually is, what claims and assumptions are made on the part of the most noteworthy ID proponents, and so on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Very, very apt!

It is notable that though the quiz explicitly [purports to] define "evolution", "common descent", etc, it merely asserts  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
the bare and basic essentials of Intelligent Design arguments, as offered by Dembski, Behe and others.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So can we use Dembski's "Logos Theology" definition?
Posted by: JohnW on Jan. 31 2014,17:04

Quote (KevinB @ Jan. 31 2014,12:15)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 31 2014,10:49)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the near decade that I’ve been watching the Intelligent Design movement, one thing has consistently amazed me: the pathological inability of many ID critics advocates to accurately represent what ID actually is, what claims and assumptions are made on the part of the most noteworthy ID proponents, and so on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Very, very apt!

It is notable that though the quiz explicitly [purports to] define "evolution", "common descent", etc, it merely asserts    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
the bare and basic essentials of Intelligent Design arguments, as offered by Dembski, Behe and others.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So can we use Dembski's "Logos Theology" definition?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's impled, but not explicitly stated, that they mean the ID they talk about when not in church - an unknown designer did unknown things by unknown means for unknown purposes.  Which is, of course, compatible with anything (the modern synthesis, Lamarckism, biblical literalism, last-Tuesdayism, turtles all the way down...), and makes no testable predictions.
Posted by: didymos on Jan. 31 2014,21:04

Quote (Driver @ Jan. 31 2014,10:06)
< The phonically apt KRock >:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When you read the findings of Dr Richard Gallagher’s case study from 2008, specifically on how this unseen force, demonic entity or what ever you want to call it, showed utter contempt for anything Holy, ie the name of Jesus, Holy water, etc… I think it speaks volumes as to what we’re truly dealing with. Why is it that when you envoke the name of Jesus, there seems to be such a negative and hostile reaction? As Christians, I think we know why, :-).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



"You are either for me or against me."

The influence of Voldemort runs through the veins of the unbelievers!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I actually had someone use the fact that people say stuff like "Jesus!" and "Goddamnit!" as "proof" that Christianity was true, because why else would people swear using those names?  I tried pointing out that that was entirely cultural, but was greeted with only incomprehension for my efforts.
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 31 2014,22:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I actually had someone use the fact that people say stuff like "Jesus!" and "Goddamnit!" as "proof" that Christianity was true, because why else would people swear using those names???I tried pointing out that that was entirely cultural, but was greeted with only incomprehension for my efforts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So if lots of people said "shazbot", that would be proof that Mork is really from Ork, but just lives in Boulder?

(Along with analogous comments about "oh my stars". )

Henry
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 31 2014,22:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The influence of Voldemort runs through the veins of the unbelievers!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That name is not to be used!!!!!!

(Or at least they said that a lot in the earlier parts of that series, even if later on they forgot about that rule. )
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 31 2014,22:13



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Pi is not an empirically derived value, is it?

I think he means the ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter is different if space cannot be described by Euclidean geometry. Yes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is circumference divided by diameter even a constant in those other two geometries?

I expect that the limit of that ratio would approach pi as the size of the circle approaches zero, from above in one case, from below in the other.

Henry
Posted by: midwifetoad on Jan. 31 2014,22:35

Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 31 2014,22:12)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The influence of Voldemort runs through the veins of the unbelievers!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That name is not to be used!!!!!!

(Or at least they said that a lot in the earlier parts of that series, even if later on they forgot about that rule. )
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They never forgot. It became a plot point.
Posted by: socle on Jan. 31 2014,22:59

Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 31 2014,22:13)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Pi is not an empirically derived value, is it?

I think he means the ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter is different if space cannot be described by Euclidean geometry. Yes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is circumference divided by diameter even a constant in those other two geometries?

I expect that the limit of that ratio would approach pi as the size of the circle approaches zero, from above in one case, from below in the other.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is R^2 with the taxicab metric allowed?  
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Feb. 01 2014,01:18

An interesting exchange:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

MapouJanuary 31, 2014 at 11:54 pm

   2. Is Intelligent Design compatible with common descent, with common descent defined as the claim that all living organisms share a common biological ancestor?

In my opinion, in a truly comprehensive ID theory, the answer should be NO. As an advanced intelligent designer, I would find common descent to be a tremendous limitation to my design freedom. I would want to be free to reuse designs across distant branches of the hierarchy.

When I write object oriented software using a language like Java or C# that does not allow multiple inheritance, I find myself having to copy code (as opposed to inheriting code) from one branch of the class hierarchy to another because the single inheritance mechanism (analogous to common descent) is way too restrictive.

I propose that the intelligent designers who designed life on earth also used multiple inheritance (so-called lateral gene transfers), a fact that is becoming more and more evident as we unravel the genomes of various species.
29
nullasalusFebruary 1, 2014 at 12:49 am

Mapou,

   In my opinion, in a truly comprehensive ID theory, the answer should be NO. As an advanced intelligent designer, I would find common descent to be a tremendous limitation to my design freedom. I would want to be free to reuse designs across distant branches of the hierarchy.

Sure, but some designers intentionally work within artificial limitations. More than that, this is back to ID as the most prominent proponents put it – and that’s going to include Behe, who flat out accepts common descent.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So Mapou wants ID to predict what it obviously should predict, that the designer will act like a designer, without idiotic limitations--or the ad hoc BS that IDiots bring in to justify the lack of design elements that we'd expect (engineers aren't going to just decide to mimic inheritance limitations for the hell of it when designing a jet engine--but the Supreme Intelligence will).

Never mind all that, though, Behe and others have written it, therefore that is what ID is.  "Fortunately," this avoids Mapou's objection, which is fatal to any intellectually honest ID--he's just too ignorant to know that, or he'd not have brought it up.  

So yeah, we're not talking about science or evidence, it's all about authority,  and "Darwinists" get ID wrong because they don't accept the mindless drivel of their "authorities."

Glen Davidson
Posted by: Patrick on Feb. 01 2014,08:00

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Feb. 01 2014,02:18)
An interesting exchange:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

MapouJanuary 31, 2014 at 11:54 pm

. . .

When I write object oriented software using a language like Java or C# that does not allow multiple inheritance, I find myself having to copy code (as opposed to inheriting code) from one branch of the class hierarchy to another because the single inheritance mechanism (analogous to common descent) is way too restrictive.

. . . .

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Interesting.  Not only is Mapou ignorant about evolutionary biology, he's a poor programmer as well.


Posted by: NoName on Feb. 01 2014,08:06

Years ago, when the big OO language battle was between Smalltalk and C++, one of the luminaries of the OO design world insisted you simply had to have multiple inheritance.
Otherwise, how could you model an apple pie?  It has to inherit from flour and butter and fruit and spice.
Yeah, right ;-)
Posted by: REC on Feb. 01 2014,11:27

This is awesome:

Mark Frank:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Here’s quiz on ID for you ID proponents:

On page 21 of Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence William Dembksi defines the context dependent specified complexity of T given H as –log2[M·N·?S(T)·P(T|H)]

Consider the context of the bacterial flagellum.

1. What is T?
2. What is the function ?S ?
3. How is ?S(T) estimated?
4. What is H?
5. How is P(T|H) estimated?
6. M·N·?S(T)·P(T|H) is meant to be a probability. Under what conditions might the answer exceed 1?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nullasalus*, in reply:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Most ID proponents – in the sense of ‘people in comboxes, non-professional supporters of ID’ could not answer that question.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't think any 'professional' supporters of ID have answered it either. And can't your non-professional genius computer programmers and engineers and mathematicians work that equation? Why not?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And most ID *critics* in the same vein could not answer that question, and answers related to that question are absolutely not the basis on which ID is typically criticized. Could you imagine Richard Dawkins being made to answer that question in the middle of his denouncing ID? Or better yet, Zack Kopplin? It would be comedy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Your detractors' inability to meaningfully work an equation that they think is meaningless is comedy gold? No, actually, I could see this as a Monty Python style sketch. Sadly nullasalus doesn't see the joke is on him.

* isn't that the Catholic doctrine that for those outside the Church, it is hellfire for eternity? Surprised the Protestants put up with that.


Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 01 2014,11:44

And all this time I thought it was a  Miyazaki film.
Posted by: socle on Feb. 01 2014,12:09

Quote (REC @ Feb. 01 2014,11:27)
I don't think any 'professional' supporters of ID have answered it either. And can't your non-professional genius computer programmers and engineers and mathematicians work that equation? Why not?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Time for KF to post an epically long response in which he elides the critical steps.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 01 2014,12:49

< http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....?p=4045 >
Posted by: DiEb on Feb. 01 2014,15:03

Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 31 2014,09:42)

Totally off-topic but this morning as I was walking into work a police van with a tannoy attached to the roof drew up outside the maths department and counted up to five. Was this some bizarre mathematical taunt?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wahrscheinlich im Zuge der Vorbereitungen zur Sprengung des Pädagogenturms...
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 01 2014,17:58



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So Mapou wants ID to predict what it obviously should predict, that the designer will act like a designer, without idiotic limitations...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And he thinks that the known examples of genetic crossover are of the frequency that would be expected if some entity or entities had engineered all the new species?

Henry
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 01 2014,18:40

Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 01 2014,17:58)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So Mapou wants ID to predict what it obviously should predict, that the designer will act like a designer, without idiotic limitations...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And he thinks that the known examples of genetic crossover are of the frequency that would be expected if some entity or entities had engineered all the new species?

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's a great argument. I wish him luck pursuing it.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 01 2014,22:23

Roy destroys KirosFocus. And rightly too:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Kairosfocus (post #97):
If you want to accuse me sight unseen of misquoting or quoting out of context, I think on fair comment the ball is in your court to show that my citation is inaccurate.
I have still not been able to locate my copy of Gould’s The Panda’s Thumb, but I have found some-one else who owns one. I’ve also checked several reliable on-line sources, including one with a copy of the full text of the essay concerned.

In Return of the Hopeful Monster, Gould wrote this:
All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.
But in post #53, you quoted Gould – italics yours, bolding mine – thus:

All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between the major groups are characteristically abrupt.

You misquoted Gould.

It may only be a minor misquote, but it is unquestionably a misquote.

Does that additional “the” matter? You lost any chance you ever had of arguing that it doesn’t matter in post #75 when you wrote this:

Where — notice Roy, when a world class paleontologist speaks of a scarcity of transitional forms among “THE major groups” [all caps emphasis added], the direct, normal import of his meaning is quite plain and obvious…

Well, it might have been obvious if Gould had actually written that, but he didn’t.

Putting emphasis on a word that isn’t even in the text is a novel way of preserving the meaning. Still, it’s just possible that by “major groups” Gould did indeed mean, as you wrote in post #53, “the top level classifications at levels where major body plan features and functions are manifest, including phyla, subphyla, class and order.” Luckily Gould included a couple of examples of the transitions, and hence major groups, that he was referring to:

On the isolated island of Mauritius, former home of the dodo, two genera of boid snakes (a large group that includes pythons and boa constrictors) share a feature present in no other terrestrial vertebrate: the maxillary bone of the upperjaw is split into front and rear halves, connected by a movable joint.
Many rodents have check pouches for storing food. These internal pouches connect to the pharynx and may have evolved gradually under selective pressure for holding more and more food in the mouth. But the Geomyidae (pocket gophers) and Heteromyidae (kangaroo rats and pocket mice) have invaginated their cheeks to form external fur-lined pouches with no connection to the mouth or pharynx.


It takes just a couple of minutes to discover that the two snake genera – Casarea and Bolyeria – are in one of about a dozen families in the infraorder Alethinophidia, and the two families of rodents lie within the suborder Castorimorpha along with the family Castoridae (beavers). Thus the types of direct, fossil-less transition that Gould was referring to are those that lead to animals being classified as belonging to new families – not to new phyla, subphyla, classes or orders. By claiming Gould was referring to the latter, when the examples Gould provided suggest otherwise, you have taken Gould’s words out of context.

And since Gould wasn’t referring to phyla, subphyla etc, by emphasising that non-existent “the” and claiming that Gould was referring to “THE major groups“, rather than any old major groups, you have distorted Gould’s meaning.

You provided a handy checklist of what quote-mining typically means at post #90:

misquoting or out of context, distorting quoting
Misquoting: check.
Out of context: check.
Distorting: check.

WJM also provided a definition:
Quote mining is using quotes in order to make it appear the person being quoted meant something other than what they actually meant.

Yous used a (mis)quote to make it appear that Gould meant the higher taxonomic orders, including phyla and subphyla, when both the examples in Gould’s essay and Gould’s own later clarification show that he actually meant lower taxonomic orders. By both WJM’s definition and your own, you are a quote-miner.

You could try claim to be a victim of some-one’s error here – after all, it probably wasn’t you that inserted that additional “the”. But nobody forced you to copy the misquote from whatever dubious site you obtained it from. Nobody forced you to cite Gould directly rather than via a secondary source. Nobody forced you to continue to conceal your actual source, despite hints in posts #91 and #93 and being directly asked in posts #86 and #95. Then, after I say that “I am being as careful as I can to make sure that everything I say is justifiable“, you can’t even be bothered to wonder why I’m asking or how I knew you didn’t get that quote from a legitimate source, but instead accuse me of making unjustified and groundless accusations and false insinuations. You aren’t a victim, you’re culpably negligent.

Nor are you innocent of the distortion. Your comments about quote-mining in post #53 indicate that you knew when you posted the quote from “Return of the Hopeful Monster” that it had been described as being out-of-context. Yet despite that knowledge, you made no attempt to confirm the context before posting. Culpable negligence again.

That is the basis for my criticism. It is possible that Gould produced multiple versions of his essay, and that your misquote is actually genuine, but I really, really doubt it. It’s far more likely that you misquoted Gould out-of-context, distorted his intended meaning, and became a quote-miner.

Despite the facts provided here and your exhortation for me to “acknowledge wrongdoing,accept correction and turn from what has been done” I suffer no illusion that you will do anything of the sort. Instead I expect you to either to twist and turn in false indignation and slander me, or to ignore this post completely. But if you do reply, remember that unless your response starts with either an acknowledgment that you misquoted Gould (or very strong evidence that he did produce two versions of his text) it will not be worth reading.

Roy
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: OgreMkV on Feb. 01 2014,22:29

Quote (socle @ Feb. 01 2014,12:09)
Quote (REC @ Feb. 01 2014,11:27)
I don't think any 'professional' supporters of ID have answered it either. And can't your non-professional genius computer programmers and engineers and mathematicians work that equation? Why not?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Time for KF to post an epically long response in which he elides the critical steps.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I know KFs response... he used the same thing on me.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Any simple protein exceeds the probability bound, therefore anything made of proteins automatically is much larger than the probability bound.  Therefore, everything made of proteins is complex.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Of course, the mathematical rigor is not present, but I'm not sure that Gordon (or Joe or any contributor to UD) can do math.

For example, if they could do simple math, then they would realize that there exists a condition by which the DNA that codes for a protein is NOT complex (according to their definition) while the protein IS complex.  

Isn't that interesting Gordon, the thing that makes the protein isn't complex, yet the resulting thing is complex.  Where does the complexity come from.  It's almost as if it appears out of nowhere... mathematically speaking. Which is only one reason the entire math discussion is a waste of time.  

Figure don't lie... but liars can figure.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 01 2014,22:31

And some more KF hypocrisy in the a above:





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
M,

I understand how you feel but sorta think you should slide the tone/language intensity down a bit.

...

Let’s give it an official name, just like viruses, trojans and worms get names form antivirus software people:

The Darwinist 1984-style Orwellian doubletalk definition slip-slide trojan horse.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Bolding his.  Just as well you didn't want to ratchet up the rhetoric, eh KF?

Tragic. Must do better in the jaws of correction etc.
Posted by: sparc on Feb. 01 2014,23:33

Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 01 2014,17:58)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So Mapou wants ID to predict what it obviously should predict, that the designer will act like a designer, without idiotic limitations...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And he thinks that the known examples of genetic crossover are of the frequency that would be expected if some entity or entities had engineered all the new species?

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wonder if the number of neurons such an entity would need to calculate all the possible setups of all possible genomes wouldn't exceed the number of atoms in all possible universes. More importantly, though: Why would such an entity make all these efforts? Just to be praised by guys like JoeG, KF, etc. while being ingored by those one can have interesting conversation with?
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Feb. 02 2014,04:20

They Said It:

KF -  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
TVH, you have been given an answer above, not only by me but by VJT — who is a full bore philosopher.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Bob O'H on Feb. 02 2014,05:36

Quote (afarensis @ Jan. 31 2014,12:23)
Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 31 2014,11:05)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 31 2014,01:42)
Totally off-topic but this morning as I was walking into work a police van with a tannoy attached to the roof drew up outside the maths department and counted up to five. Was this some bizarre mathematical taunt?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's Joe, with a Largest Known Number progress report.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think it means they lost the instructions to the holy hand grenade of Antioch and are about to snuff it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< It looks like they finally found it this morning >
Posted by: sparc on Feb. 02 2014,23:08

Just to not let this thread dry out: Are you aware of < A Storehouse of Knowledge >?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 02 2014,23:49

Why has KF not thanked Roy for his much need correction < here > upon his seat of learning? Must do better.

Editz for linkfixin.


Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Feb. 02 2014,23:54

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 02 2014,23:49)
Why has KF not thanked Roy for his much need correction (here < http://www.uncommondescent.com/evoluti....ti....) > upon his seat of learning? Must do better.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Link broken.  Need a space before the last parentheses.

Mapoo and KF both sure cut and ran after Roy's smackdown though.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 03 2014,00:30

interesting, Winston Ewert admits they can't calculate the probabilities for evolution, but would like to argue from BIGNUM anyways. < Here. >
Posted by: CeilingCat on Feb. 03 2014,03:45

Quote (sparc @ Feb. 02 2014,23:08)
Just to not let this thread dry out: Are you aware of < A Storehouse of Knowledge >?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's like a little piece of Conservapedia broke off and drifted to Australia.
Posted by: BillB on Feb. 03 2014,06:36

Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 03 2014,09:45)
 
Quote (sparc @ Feb. 02 2014,23:08)
Just to not let this thread dry out: Are you aware of < A Storehouse of Knowledge >?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's like a little piece of Conservapedia broke off and drifted to Australia.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Apparently it had set out with a YEC companion from Mexico in a small boat over a year ago, heading for El Salva-cordova. The companion slipped overboard many months earlier and the remaining conservacastawayapedia only managed to survive by drinking the gullibility of home schooled children and eating his own words.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 03 2014,08:12

Marsupial tard.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 03 2014,08:13

Hmmm, KF still hasn't thanked Roy for pointing out his hypocrisy and that he is indeed a quote-miner, and apologized to him. Sad, and very telling. Mist do better.
Posted by: BillB on Feb. 03 2014,08:41

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 03 2014,14:13)
Hmmm, KF still hasn't thanked Roy for pointing out his hypocrisy and that he is indeed a quote-miner, and apologized to him. Sad, and very telling. Mist do better.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A sudden emergency has diverted KF's attention and won't be over until the thread has been buried.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Feb. 03 2014,09:30

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 03 2014,00:30)
interesting, Winston Ewert admits they can't calculate the probabilities for evolution, but would like to argue from BIGNUM anyways. < Here. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seqenenre (which one of you is he?) points out the battleship-sized hole in their reasoning.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Seqenenre: What are the chances that an Intelligent Designer is capable of designing a flagellum
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Chubbytard of course chimes in with his circular non-answer

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
JoeTard:  Designers are capable of designing the things they design.

How do we know that ancient humans could design Stonehenge? Stonehemge. (SIC)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In that case Chubs evolution is capable of producing things that have evolved.

How do we know evolution produced the flagellum?  The flagellum.
 

End of discussion.
Posted by: REC on Feb. 03 2014,15:29

So when pressed on specification, UD's death spiral:

1) We've done the maths.
2) Ahem, we haven't, but it doesn't matter. DESIGN!
3) You first!!!
4) We're not talking to you until you clean up the entire internet and dissociate from anyone who has outed someone*, made rude parodies of someone^, or banned Joe for a grotesque slur.  

*Arrington and Dembski, guilty
^Farting federal judges, etc...
Posted by: Driver on Feb. 03 2014,18:41

Denyse has < her finger on the pulse > as ever:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Onion takes a stab, so to speak, at design theory

And gets something right, too, with respect to Isaac Newton’s theories, in the new theory of Intelligent Falling

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm sure many of you are familiar with the Onion article, from 2005.
Posted by: Ptaylor on Feb. 03 2014,19:43

< Clive sighting >! (I think, if so Hi Clive!).
Check out this paragraph:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually I agree that much of the Old Testament in an allegory. This is pretty standard doctrine. The Jews are an image of the church. The sacrifice of the lamb foreshadows the sacrifice of the Christ. That being said, they are an allegory that actually lived and breathed. Jesus was referred to as a “Second Adam” in that he was beginning a new people. Be that as it may, there is no sense that Jesus looked at the old testament as an allegory only. He spoke of it as actual history. And he should know, he was there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Great stuff - it starts with a statement, and then it somehow turns right back on itself, resolving to argumentum ad kenham.

Edited: OK, probably not the original moderator Clive.


Posted by: fnxtr on Feb. 03 2014,21:32

Quote (DiEb @ Feb. 01 2014,13:03)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 31 2014,09:42)

Totally off-topic but this morning as I was walking into work a police van with a tannoy attached to the roof drew up outside the maths department and counted up to five. Was this some bizarre mathematical taunt?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wahrscheinlich im Zuge der Vorbereitungen zur Sprengung des Pädagogenturms...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Easy for you to say.

Mein Luftkissenfahrzeug ist voller Aale
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 03 2014,21:38

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 02 2014,23:49)
Why has KF not thanked Roy for his much need correction < here > upon his seat of learning? Must do better.

Editz for linkfixin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


KirosFocus, you posted this in the self same thread:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...Looks like, rather than acknowledge wrongdoing,accept correction and turn from what has been done, we have a silent tip-toeing away. Speaks volumes, sad but revealing volumes. KF
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



YOU ARE THE KING OF HYPOCRITES. Sad but revealing volumes.
Posted by: CeilingCat on Feb. 04 2014,00:00

From the < quotemining thread. >
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
72 Mapou December 25, 2013 at 3:37 pm

God darn it.

I want to see the evidence for the fine Darwinian gradation between small Precambrian shellies and trilobites.

Where are those Darwinists hiding? Are they all celebrating Christmas? LOL.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



God darn it.

I want to see YOUR evidence for the abrupt transitions between small Precambrian shellies and trilobites.

Where are those IDists hiding?  Christmas is over.  Give us your data NOW!

I'll assume you're all bullshitters until one of you produces it.


Just trying for my second Mapou assisted post-bannanation posting on UD.  I don't think he's dumb enough to fall for it a second time, but that boy can surprise you sometimes.
Posted by: Tony M Nyphot on Feb. 04 2014,00:14

Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 03 2014,20:32)
Quote (DiEb @ Feb. 01 2014,13:03)
 
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 31 2014,09:42)

Totally off-topic but this morning as I was walking into work a police van with a tannoy attached to the roof drew up outside the maths department and counted up to five. Was this some bizarre mathematical taunt?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wahrscheinlich im Zuge der Vorbereitungen zur Sprengung des Pädagogenturms...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Easy for you to say.

Mein Luftkissenfahrzeug ist voller Aale
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Meine Nippel explodieren vor Freude
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 04 2014,11:06

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 03 2014,21:38)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 02 2014,23:49)
Why has KF not thanked Roy for his much need correction < here > upon his seat of learning? Must do better.

Editz for linkfixin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


KirosFocus, you posted this in the self same thread:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...Looks like, rather than acknowledge wrongdoing,accept correction and turn from what has been done, we have a silent tip-toeing away. Speaks volumes, sad but revealing volumes. KF
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



YOU ARE THE KING OF HYPOCRITES. Sad but revealing volumes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Still no apology KF? I see you are prolific in other threads. Shameful, cowardly and hypocritical. MUST DO BETTER.
Posted by: didymos on Feb. 04 2014,18:37

A new player by the name of "origin_surgeon" has appeared at UD.  Looks like they'll be fitting in just < fine >:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No serious biologist would deny that Homo Sapiens have 46 Chromosomes and the great apes have 48. However, to say this is ‘proof’ of common descent is completely misleading, because to believe that 46-48 chromosomes of close human to apes relationship as ancestry would mean that potatoes,Tobacco and gray tree frogs are direct descents as well for they also have 48 chromosomes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Glen Davidson on Feb. 04 2014,19:08

Title at UD:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Resources for the Nye Ham debate tonight – also, plea to ID types: Be realistic
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah, that'll work.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: Texas Teach on Feb. 04 2014,22:05

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Feb. 04 2014,19:08)
Title at UD:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Resources for the Nye Ham debate tonight – also, plea to ID types: Be realistic
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah, that'll work.

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's worked so well up to now.
Posted by: sparc on Feb. 04 2014,23:06

Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Feb. 04 2014,00:14)
Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 03 2014,20:32)
Quote (DiEb @ Feb. 01 2014,13:03)
 
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 31 2014,09:42)

Totally off-topic but this morning as I was walking into work a police van with a tannoy attached to the roof drew up outside the maths department and counted up to five. Was this some bizarre mathematical taunt?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wahrscheinlich im Zuge der Vorbereitungen zur Sprengung des Pädagogenturms...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Easy for you to say.

Mein Luftkissenfahrzeug ist voller Aale
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Meine Nippel explodieren vor Freude
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Vielleicht sollten wir einen thread für deutschsprachige Latrinalia einrichten.
Posted by: Tony M Nyphot on Feb. 05 2014,00:03

Quote (sparc @ Feb. 04 2014,22:06)
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Feb. 04 2014,00:14)
Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 03 2014,20:32)
 
Quote (DiEb @ Feb. 01 2014,13:03)
   
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 31 2014,09:42)

Totally off-topic but this morning as I was walking into work a police van with a tannoy attached to the roof drew up outside the maths department and counted up to five. Was this some bizarre mathematical taunt?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wahrscheinlich im Zuge der Vorbereitungen zur Sprengung des Pädagogenturms...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Easy for you to say.

Mein Luftkissenfahrzeug ist voller Aale
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Meine Nippel explodieren vor Freude
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Vielleicht sollten wir einen thread für deutschsprachige Latrinalia einrichten.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wenn ich sagte, Sie hatten einen schönen Körper, würdest du es gegen mich halten?
Posted by: Driver on Feb. 05 2014,02:27

UD has a commentary on the Nye-Ham debate. You will like this passage:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also, Nye harped quite a bit on the number of species, but he seemed to misunderstand his own calculation. His number (16 million I think) of species are based off of the total number of species anywhere – including bacteria, fungus, molds, plants, single-celled organisms, fish, etc (it is also an *estimate*, not an actual count). The number of species on the ark is based on the total number of land-based animals and birds. I don’t remember exactly what the present number of species is for land-based animals, but it is a much more reasonable number (I think there is an average that each ark-kind has only diversified into 8-10 species in total).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



8-10 species. Right.
Posted by: Driver on Feb. 05 2014,03:04

Querius:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
On weekends, I spend time with some guys that have recently come out of prison, helping them adjust to being out.

One of them spent 18 years in prison, the other 12 years between county jail and prison. Going in, they were violent drug and alcohol abusers, and the first was also a drug dealer.

In prison, they accepted Christ, immersed themselves in the Word of God, and have changed dramatically! They are kind, loving, hard working, and dependable guys deeply ashamed of their histories and grateful for the smallest blessing or kindness. I’m humbled by them, trust them more than many other people I know, and honored to have them as friends.

Their personal relationships with God through the power of Jesus Christ has had an amazing effect on their relationships, values, and their lives. They tell me that phonies and hypocrites are quickly exposed in prison.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< link >

I want to comment on this because it is personal. I knew a guy who became Christian in prison. Everyone on our street, very few of them Christians (as this is middle class London) knew what he had done but they were pleasant to him and prepared to give him a chance to show he had turned over a new leaf. He found work as a painter and decorator.

He was actively involved in his Church, and I do not doubt that he found purpose and acceptance there. Unfortunately, it was not enough, as he eventually committed suicide.

It is unlikely that this story is rare. I would expect to find that ex-criminals who have been in prison are far more likely to both become Christian and kill themselves.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 05 2014,05:51

Quote (Driver @ Feb. 05 2014,03:27)
UD has a commentary on the Nye-Ham debate. You will like this passage:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also, Nye harped quite a bit on the number of species, but he seemed to misunderstand his own calculation. His number (16 million I think) of species are based off of the total number of species anywhere – including bacteria, fungus, molds, plants, single-celled organisms, fish, etc (it is also an *estimate*, not an actual count). The number of species on the ark is based on the total number of land-based animals and birds. I don’t remember exactly what the present number of species is for land-based animals, but it is a much more reasonable number (I think there is an average that each ark-kind has only diversified into 8-10 species in total).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



8-10 species. Right.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's an epically dishonest argument which serves to completely sidestep the issue of osmosis, not to mention what the herbivores ate after getting off the ark.

It wouldn't even get past basic high school Bio I or Chem I.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Feb. 05 2014,05:55

< Lewontin! >
Posted by: OgreMkV on Feb. 05 2014,07:49

Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 05 2014,05:51)
Quote (Driver @ Feb. 05 2014,03:27)
UD has a commentary on the Nye-Ham debate. You will like this passage:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also, Nye harped quite a bit on the number of species, but he seemed to misunderstand his own calculation. His number (16 million I think) of species are based off of the total number of species anywhere – including bacteria, fungus, molds, plants, single-celled organisms, fish, etc (it is also an *estimate*, not an actual count). The number of species on the ark is based on the total number of land-based animals and birds. I don’t remember exactly what the present number of species is for land-based animals, but it is a much more reasonable number (I think there is an average that each ark-kind has only diversified into 8-10 species in total).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



8-10 species. Right.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's an epically dishonest argument which serves to completely sidestep the issue of osmosis, not to mention what the herbivores ate after getting off the ark.

It wouldn't even get past basic high school Bio I or Chem I.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not to mention which of the people on the ark had all those parasites.

Or are parasites tools of satan and therefore evolve more quickly?  Or is satan also a designer?  Man, this is more complicated than I thought.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 05 2014,09:26

Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 05 2014,08:49)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 05 2014,05:51)
Quote (Driver @ Feb. 05 2014,03:27)
UD has a commentary on the Nye-Ham debate. You will like this passage:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also, Nye harped quite a bit on the number of species, but he seemed to misunderstand his own calculation. His number (16 million I think) of species are based off of the total number of species anywhere – including bacteria, fungus, molds, plants, single-celled organisms, fish, etc (it is also an *estimate*, not an actual count). The number of species on the ark is based on the total number of land-based animals and birds. I don’t remember exactly what the present number of species is for land-based animals, but it is a much more reasonable number (I think there is an average that each ark-kind has only diversified into 8-10 species in total).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



8-10 species. Right.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's an epically dishonest argument which serves to completely sidestep the issue of osmosis, not to mention what the herbivores ate after getting off the ark.

It wouldn't even get past basic high school Bio I or Chem I.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not to mention which of the people on the ark had all those parasites.

Or are parasites tools of satan and therefore evolve more quickly?  Or is satan also a designer?  Man, this is more complicated than I thought.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not to mention all the STIs...

WHO CARRIED ALL THE VD???
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 05 2014,10:48

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 03 2014,21:38)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 02 2014,23:49)
Why has KF not thanked Roy for his much need correction < here > upon his seat of learning? Must do better.

Editz for linkfixin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


KirosFocus, you posted this in the self same thread:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...Looks like, rather than acknowledge wrongdoing,accept correction and turn from what has been done, we have a silent tip-toeing away. Speaks volumes, sad but revealing volumes. KF
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



YOU ARE THE KING OF HYPOCRITES. Sad but revealing volumes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Kirosfocus, may I focus your attention to this thread where you make some pointed claims then ran away when it was revealed you where indeed a quote-miner. For shame!
Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 05 2014,12:07

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 05 2014,11:48)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 03 2014,21:38)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 02 2014,23:49)
Why has KF not thanked Roy for his much need correction < here > upon his seat of learning? Must do better.

Editz for linkfixin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


KirosFocus, you posted this in the self same thread:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...Looks like, rather than acknowledge wrongdoing,accept correction and turn from what has been done, we have a silent tip-toeing away. Speaks volumes, sad but revealing volumes. KF
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



YOU ARE THE KING OF HYPOCRITES. Sad but revealing volumes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Kirosfocus, may I focus your attention to this thread where you make some pointed claims then ran away when it was revealed you where indeed a quote-miner. For shame!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm pretty sure this is falling squarely under "bearing false witness against thy neighbor", n'est-ce pas?
Posted by: J-Dog on Feb. 05 2014,16:08

Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 05 2014,12:07)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 05 2014,11:48)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 03 2014,21:38)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 02 2014,23:49)
Why has KF not thanked Roy for his much need correction < here > upon his seat of learning? Must do better.

Editz for linkfixin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


KirosFocus, you posted this in the self same thread:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...Looks like, rather than acknowledge wrongdoing,accept correction and turn from what has been done, we have a silent tip-toeing away. Speaks volumes, sad but revealing volumes. KF
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



YOU ARE THE KING OF HYPOCRITES. Sad but revealing volumes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Kirosfocus, may I focus your attention to this thread where you make some pointed claims then ran away when it was revealed you where indeed a quote-miner. For shame!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm pretty sure this is falling squarely under "bearing false witness against thy neighbor", n'est-ce pas?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Unfortunately, Kairofocus also knows that Lying For Jesus = Not really a lie! :)

This may also fall under the heading "Everyone is equal.  But some are more equal than others."
Posted by: JohnW on Feb. 05 2014,16:42

Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 05 2014,14:08)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 05 2014,12:07)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 05 2014,11:48)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 03 2014,21:38)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 02 2014,23:49)
Why has KF not thanked Roy for his much need correction < here > upon his seat of learning? Must do better.

Editz for linkfixin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


KirosFocus, you posted this in the self same thread:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...Looks like, rather than acknowledge wrongdoing,accept correction and turn from what has been done, we have a silent tip-toeing away. Speaks volumes, sad but revealing volumes. KF
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



YOU ARE THE KING OF HYPOCRITES. Sad but revealing volumes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Kirosfocus, may I focus your attention to this thread where you make some pointed claims then ran away when it was revealed you where indeed a quote-miner. For shame!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm pretty sure this is falling squarely under "bearing false witness against thy neighbor", n'est-ce pas?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Unfortunately, Kairofocus also knows that Lying For Jesus = Not really a lie! :)

This may also fall under the heading "Everyone is equal.  But some are more equal than others."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think they're going for "Who are you going to believe: God-Fearing Christians or Teh Lying Evilushonists?"

WJM, same thread:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Roy,

I appreciate that you’ve made the effort to back up your claim of quote-mining. However, not having a copy of the book in question, I have no way of vetting what anyone says about the book – you or KF. I was just making the points that your original understanding of quote-mining was apparently wrong, and that it was your job to make your case for it.

I give you credit for what appears to be you at least attempting to make your case.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Patrick on Feb. 05 2014,18:23

Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 05 2014,13:07)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 05 2014,11:48)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 03 2014,21:38)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 02 2014,23:49)
Why has KF not thanked Roy for his much need correction < here > upon his seat of learning? Must do better.

Editz for linkfixin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


KirosFocus, you posted this in the self same thread:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...Looks like, rather than acknowledge wrongdoing,accept correction and turn from what has been done, we have a silent tip-toeing away. Speaks volumes, sad but revealing volumes. KF
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



YOU ARE THE KING OF HYPOCRITES. Sad but revealing volumes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Kirosfocus, may I focus your attention to this thread where you make some pointed claims then ran away when it was revealed you where indeed a quote-miner. For shame!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm pretty sure this is falling squarely under "bearing false witness against thy neighbor", n'est-ce pas?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The heathens who accept the evidence for evolution don't count as "neighbors", so it's okay.
Posted by: sparc on Feb. 05 2014,21:55

Hopefully, this will turn into a full blown TARD fight:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
27 Mapou < February 5, 2014 at 9:36 pm >
scordova @26,
Well, show me a dolphin or a penguin or a manatee in the Cambrian, then.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You are invited to open your eyes to true rebel science as I’ve laid out here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dude, this is not rebel science. Young earth creationism is the work of the devil, pure and simple. It’s a mountain of bovine excrement designed to make Christians look stupid. To tell you the truth, as a Christian, it pisses me off.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(emphasis mine)
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 05 2014,22:28

Mapou is a meat puppet rather than a sock.
Posted by: k.e.. on Feb. 06 2014,08:47

Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 06 2014,06:28)
Mapou is a meat puppet rather than a sock.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://yoursockcompany.com/images.....g" >
Posted by: OgreMkV on Feb. 06 2014,10:50

Quote (JohnW @ Feb. 05 2014,16:42)
I think they're going for "Who are you going to believe: God-Fearing Christians or Teh Lying Evilushonists?"

WJM, same thread:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Roy,

I appreciate that you’ve made the effort to back up your claim of quote-mining. However, not having a copy of the book in question, I have no way of vetting what anyone says about the book – you or KF. I was just making the points that your original understanding of quote-mining was apparently wrong, and that it was your job to make your case for it.

I give you credit for what appears to be you at least attempting to make your case.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And he probably says that believing it is an actual valid argument.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 06 2014,11:09

Quote (sparc @ Feb. 05 2014,22:55)
Hopefully, this will turn into a full blown TARD fight:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
27 Mapou < February 5, 2014 at 9:36 pm >
scordova @26,
Well, show me a dolphin or a penguin or a manatee in the Cambrian, then.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You are invited to open your eyes to true rebel science as I’ve laid out here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dude, this is not rebel science. Young earth creationism is the work of the devil, pure and simple. It’s a mountain of bovine excrement designed to make Christians look stupid. To tell you the truth, as a Christian, it pisses me off.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(emphasis mine)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


oooo. I'm crossing my fingers, hoping that goes nucular.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 06 2014,11:13

On a related note:

< http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news....ng.html >
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 06 2014,13:19

UD:

'Neo-Darwinian Evolution - Impossible!'

'Pairs of animals got off a really big boat and created all the species we have filling the entire planet today - Looks legit!'

ASSF!
Posted by: JohnW on Feb. 06 2014,16:21

At last, Sal presents < hard scientific evidence >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And there will be Russell Crowe Movie coming out next month, called Noah.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Argumentum ad movies.  This is how we know that Tokyo was severely damaged by a giant marine reptile, elves and goblins are running around New Zealand, and Santa Claus has conquered the Martians.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 06 2014,16:44

In the modern age of miracles, all of Crowe's animals will fit on a thumb drive.
Posted by: Ptaylor on Feb. 06 2014,19:33

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 07 2014,06:19)
UD:

'Neo-Darwinian Evolution - Impossible!'

'Pairs of animals got off a really big boat and created all the species we have filling the entire planet today - Looks legit!'

ASSF!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Logic, JGuy style:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(1)What the scripture says is certain.
(2)What the evidence of science says is not certain.
Therefore, it would be safe to conclude the earth is young.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< UD link >
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 06 2014,20:55

Young Cosmos rides again! Thanks for pulling back the door of the big tent so we can all have a laugh, Sal!
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 06 2014,21:42



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

75
MapouFebruary 6, 2014 at 8:18 pm

Jguy @72,

You are greatly mistaken, IMO. It is not a matter of what God says versus what science says. It goes without saying that what God says supersedes or overrules everyone and everything else.

It’s a matter of what God says versus what Ken Ham or the Pope claims God says. I refuse to put my faith in what a preacher says unless I have incontrovertible proof that the preacher is a true prophet of God. And if the preacher happens to make his livelihood from his preaching, which is the case for both Mr. Ham and the Pope, I am doubly suspicious.

There is no question in my mind that God’s science will soon obliterate human science. In fact, I happen to have excellent reasons to believe that there is hidden scientific knowledge in certain metaphorical books and passages of the Bible that will blow everyone’s socks off, scientists and laymen alike, and transform the world in ways we cannot imagine.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Texas Teach on Feb. 06 2014,22:15

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 06 2014,21:42)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

75
MapouFebruary 6, 2014 at 8:18 pm

Jguy @72,

You are greatly mistaken, IMO. It is not a matter of what God says versus what science says. It goes without saying that what God says supersedes or overrules everyone and everything else.

It’s a matter of what God says versus what Ken Ham or the Pope claims God says. I refuse to put my faith in what a preacher says unless I have incontrovertible proof that the preacher is a true prophet of God. And if the preacher happens to make his livelihood from his preaching, which is the case for both Mr. Ham and the Pope, I am doubly suspicious.

There is no question in my mind that God’s science will soon obliterate human science. In fact, I happen to have excellent reasons to believe that there is hidden scientific knowledge in certain metaphorical books and passages of the Bible that will blow everyone’s socks off, scientists and laymen alike, and transform the world in ways we cannot imagine.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But YEC is a bridge too far!
Posted by: keiths on Feb. 06 2014,22:37

Quote (Texas Teach @ Feb. 06 2014,20:15)
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 06 2014,21:42)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

75
MapouFebruary 6, 2014 at 8:18 pm

Jguy @72,

You are greatly mistaken, IMO. It is not a matter of what God says versus what science says. It goes without saying that what God says supersedes or overrules everyone and everything else.

It’s a matter of what God says versus what Ken Ham or the Pope claims God says. I refuse to put my faith in what a preacher says unless I have incontrovertible proof that the preacher is a true prophet of God. And if the preacher happens to make his livelihood from his preaching, which is the case for both Mr. Ham and the Pope, I am doubly suspicious.

There is no question in my mind that God’s science will soon obliterate human science. In fact, I happen to have excellent reasons to believe that there is hidden scientific knowledge in certain metaphorical books and passages of the Bible that will blow everyone’s socks off, scientists and laymen alike, and transform the world in ways we cannot imagine.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But YEC is a bridge too far!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The man's got standards.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 06 2014,22:38

Bibble Codiness. Kewl.
Posted by: Driver on Feb. 06 2014,22:45

Quote (Texas Teach @ Feb. 07 2014,04:15)
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 06 2014,21:42)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

75
MapouFebruary 6, 2014 at 8:18 pm

Jguy @72,

You are greatly mistaken, IMO. It is not a matter of what God says versus what science says. It goes without saying that what God says supersedes or overrules everyone and everything else.

It’s a matter of what God says versus what Ken Ham or the Pope claims God says. I refuse to put my faith in what a preacher says unless I have incontrovertible proof that the preacher is a true prophet of God. And if the preacher happens to make his livelihood from his preaching, which is the case for both Mr. Ham and the Pope, I am doubly suspicious.

There is no question in my mind that God’s science will soon obliterate human science. In fact, I happen to have excellent reasons to believe that there is hidden scientific knowledge in certain metaphorical books and passages of the Bible that will blow everyone’s socks off, scientists and laymen alike, and transform the world in ways we cannot imagine.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But YEC is a bridge too far!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mapou is a striking example of the stopped clock.
Posted by: damitall on Feb. 07 2014,05:15

OK, which one of you is "Mapou"?

Whoever it is, congratulations. I've never seen such an expert and finely judged parody. Long may he continue
Posted by: k.e.. on Feb. 07 2014,08:21

Quote (Texas Teach @ Feb. 07 2014,06:15)
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 06 2014,21:42)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

75
MapouFebruary 6, 2014 at 8:18 pm

Jguy @72,

You are greatly mistaken, IMO. It is not a matter of what God says versus what science says. It goes without saying that what God says supersedes or overrules everyone and everything else.

It’s a matter of what God says versus what Ken Ham or the Pope claims God says. I refuse to put my faith in what a preacher says unless I have incontrovertible proof that the preacher is a true prophet of God. And if the preacher happens to make his livelihood from his preaching, which is the case for both Mr. Ham and the Pope, I am doubly suspicious.

There is no question in my mind that God’s science will soon obliterate human science. In fact, I happen to have excellent reasons to believe that there is hidden scientific knowledge in certain metaphorical books and passages of the Bible that will blow everyone’s socks off, scientists and laymen alike, and transform the world in ways we cannot imagine.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But YEC is a bridge too far!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mappy nappy is just another coolade drinking bible bashing daulist douche bag. If his god really existed THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY YECs! He gets to define what God is and isn't by the old canard - no true Scotsman etc etc. In truth he's projecting religious bigotry with a mightier than thou twist.

I love it so!

He should create a new breakfast cereal "Christi-O-s" pour in the milk and they nail each other to the cross.
Posted by: NoName on Feb. 07 2014,08:52

Quote (k.e.. @ Feb. 07 2014,09:21)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Feb. 07 2014,06:15)
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 06 2014,21:42)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

75
MapouFebruary 6, 2014 at 8:18 pm

Jguy @72,

You are greatly mistaken, IMO. It is not a matter of what God says versus what science says. It goes without saying that what God says supersedes or overrules everyone and everything else.

It’s a matter of what God says versus what Ken Ham or the Pope claims God says. I refuse to put my faith in what a preacher says unless I have incontrovertible proof that the preacher is a true prophet of God. And if the preacher happens to make his livelihood from his preaching, which is the case for both Mr. Ham and the Pope, I am doubly suspicious.

There is no question in my mind that God’s science will soon obliterate human science. In fact, I happen to have excellent reasons to believe that there is hidden scientific knowledge in certain metaphorical books and passages of the Bible that will blow everyone’s socks off, scientists and laymen alike, and transform the world in ways we cannot imagine.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But YEC is a bridge too far!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mappy nappy is just another coolade drinking bible bashing daulist douche bag. If his god really existed THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY YECs! He gets to define what God is and isn't by the old canard - no true Scotsman etc etc. In truth he's projecting religious bigotry with a mightier than thou twist.

I love it so!

He should create a new breakfast cereal "Christi-O-s" pour in the milk and they nail each other to the cross.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What a pity that their practical actions never rise beyond nailing milk to the wall.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Feb. 07 2014,17:31

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 06 2014,13:19)
ASSF!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I read Rich's comment and got to wondering about ASSF. I remembered that it was a DaveScot quote, but context eluded me. But google came to the rescue, and I found < this > (comment #6).

Nearly seven years ago; no wonder it was getting a bit hazy! Unfortunately this acronym is not in any online urban dictionary that I could find. Too bad. It would be the only lasting contribution ever made by DaveScot!
Posted by: Tony M Nyphot on Feb. 07 2014,19:04

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 07 2014,16:31)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 06 2014,13:19)
ASSF!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I read Rich's comment and got to wondering about ASSF. I remembered that it was a DaveScot quote, but context eluded me. But google came to the rescue, and I found < this > (comment #6).

Nearly seven years ago; no wonder it was getting a bit hazy! Unfortunately this acronym is not in any online urban dictionary that I could find. Too bad. It would be the only lasting contribution ever made by DaveScot!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I note that comment was on an O'Leary post.

Was that before or after the shaved-morphodyke-walking-backwards episode? (Which I would consider a worthy DaveScot contribution as well.)
Posted by: fnxtr on Feb. 07 2014,20:51

Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Feb. 07 2014,17:04)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 07 2014,16:31)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 06 2014,13:19)
ASSF!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I read Rich's comment and got to wondering about ASSF. I remembered that it was a DaveScot quote, but context eluded me. But google came to the rescue, and I found < this > (comment #6).

Nearly seven years ago; no wonder it was getting a bit hazy! Unfortunately this acronym is not in any online urban dictionary that I could find. Too bad. It would be the only lasting contribution ever made by DaveScot!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I note that comment was on an O'Leary post.

Was that before or after the shaved-morphodyke-walking-backwards episode? (Which I would consider a worthy DaveScot contribution as well.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've always loved the meme but had no idea of its provenance. That's beeeyoootiful.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 07 2014,21:10

Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Feb. 07 2014,20:04)
   
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 07 2014,16:31)
     
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 06 2014,13:19)
ASSF!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I read Rich's comment and got to wondering about ASSF. I remembered that it was a DaveScot quote, but context eluded me. But google came to the rescue, and I found < this > (comment #6).

Nearly seven years ago; no wonder it was getting a bit hazy! Unfortunately this acronym is not in any online urban dictionary that I could find. Too bad. It would be the only lasting contribution ever made by DaveScot!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I note that comment was on an O'Leary post.

Was that before or after the shaved-morphodyke-walking-backwards episode? (Which I would consider a worthy DaveScot contribution as well.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   
Quote (DaveScot @ July 18, 2006 at 4:44 pm)
I hate to disappoint the church burnin’ ebola boys but I won’t be commenting on UD in the future. I just told the smarmy Canadian cross dresser to go fuck itself in an email. It would have banned me in any case as it’s nowhere near as cool as Bill Dembski. The stick up its disgusting ass could make a redwood feel inadequate. I’m going to go ahead and forgive Bill for this monumental brainfart as he’s going through some long term bad shit on the homefront with a sick child. I felt bad about bailing out on him at a time like this but he forced my hand. No big deal. I had a few extra hours today to finish rebuilding the carbs on my jetboat (it’s back together and running great) and throw a ball in the water for my puppy. He’s napping at my feet on the houseboat at the moment. I think we’ll go out for a swim and then take the jetboat for a longer validation run.

P.S. if my dog was as ugly as the Canadian cross dresser I’d shave his ass and teach him to walk backwards.

HAHAHA – I kill me sometimes!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< This was a classic DaveScot comment >.
Posted by: Tony M Nyphot on Feb. 07 2014,21:59

Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 07 2014,20:10)
 
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Feb. 07 2014,20:04)
     
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 07 2014,16:31)
         
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 06 2014,13:19)
ASSF!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I read Rich's comment and got to wondering about ASSF. I remembered that it was a DaveScot quote, but context eluded me. But google came to the rescue, and I found < this > (comment #6).

Nearly seven years ago; no wonder it was getting a bit hazy! Unfortunately this acronym is not in any online urban dictionary that I could find. Too bad. It would be the only lasting contribution ever made by DaveScot!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I note that comment was on an O'Leary post.

Was that before or after the shaved-morphodyke-walking-backwards episode? (Which I would consider a worthy DaveScot contribution as well.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


     
Quote (DaveScot @ July 18, 2006 at 4:44 pm)
I hate to disappoint the church burnin’ ebola boys but I won’t be commenting on UD in the future. I just told the smarmy Canadian cross dresser to go fuck itself in an email. It would have banned me in any case as it’s nowhere near as cool as Bill Dembski. The stick up its disgusting ass could make a redwood feel inadequate. I’m going to go ahead and forgive Bill for this monumental brainfart as he’s going through some long term bad shit on the homefront with a sick child. I felt bad about bailing out on him at a time like this but he forced my hand. No big deal. I had a few extra hours today to finish rebuilding the carbs on my jetboat (it’s back together and running great) and throw a ball in the water for my puppy. He’s napping at my feet on the houseboat at the moment. I think we’ll go out for a swim and then take the jetboat for a longer validation run.

P.S. if my dog was as ugly as the Canadian cross dresser I’d shave his ass and teach him to walk backwards.

HAHAHA – I kill me sometimes!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< This was a classic DaveScot comment >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The stick up its disgusting ass could make a redwood feel inadequate
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
HAHAHA – I kill me sometimes
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Dave produced a few AtBC memes in that single post.

Perhaps I've led a sheltered life, but Lou's Janibelle, Corporal Kate and UDOJ takedown of DaveScot was one of the most elaborate, extensive and hilarious internet larks perpetrated on someone deserving of nothing less.

It kills me sometimes.

Write that down.

[eta - Don't we owe the CBEB meme to Dave as well?]
Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 08 2014,06:06

Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Feb. 07 2014,22:59)
[eta - Don't we owe the CBEB meme to Dave as well?]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes we do, and as I recall, that comment was the genesis of that one as well.

ETA: Also, the floating command center/lab.


Posted by: sparc on Feb. 08 2014,07:23

David Klinghoffer is on Twitter now: @d_klinghoffer (< https://twitter.com/d_kling....ghoffer >)
I guess he can not censor replies to his #CensoroftheYear tweets. Thus, you may want to add your thoughts on the issue there.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 08 2014,08:12

My thought is Gary Gaulin,  David Klinghoffer and Gregory together in Thunderdome.
Posted by: N.Wells on Feb. 08 2014,12:21

UD scored an own-goal a few days ago, in the post entitled “Bat family 36 million years older than thought” (presumably 'older than scientists had thought' :) ), with the implication that scientists and the modern theory of evolution are wrong again.

The details show that the research actually fulfills a couple of predictions made by previous evolutionary studies.  Mzopodid bats are now restricted to two species in Madagascar, and Madagascar has almost no Paleocene to Pliocene vertebrate fossil record to speak of, and no fossils of Myzopodids were previously known (except possibly an early Pleistocene humerus from East Africa).  However, people who study myzopodids have long thought that myzopodids are among the most primitive of the Noctilionoidea superfamily of bats, which are themselves one of the earlier branches of the microchiropteran branch of bat evolution and which are now most common in South America.   So one prediction is that there should be some fairly ancient (mid-Cenozoic) fossils of myzopodids. The second is that a distribution of a goup of mammals in Madagascar and South America implies that the group got underway in the remnants of Gondwana as it was fragmenting (but before bats could not longer get to increasingly isolated landmasses like Madagascar and South America.)  This in turn implies that fossils of these guys could well turn up in Africa, Australia, and Antarctica.  Well, Gregg Gunnell et al. just turned up two species in Africa, in 37 million year old strata.  

Endemic Malagasy vertebrates (and large portions of the rest of Madagascar’s biota) show early Cenozoic African origins (lemuroid primates, tenrecid afrotherians, euplerid carnivorans, and nesomyine muroid rodents), so this is another instance in the same pattern.

Incidentally, “News” also asks, “What exactly does ‘primitive’ mean, by the way? In this context? Is it a term that should be retired?”  Primitive means split off early in the history of the parent group under discussion, retaining some distinctive characteristics of the group at that stage in its evolution, and lacking some later derived innovations.  This shouldn’t be a mystery to someone who pretends to even a mediocre level of understanding of the subject.
Posted by: N.Wells on Feb. 08 2014,13:48

Sorry in advance for a long post, but Sal's latest BS over at UD merits it.

Sal has done another instance of his usual disgusting misrepresentation of stratigraphy, sedimentology, and structural geology.  He says,      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
“The first thing to realize is that few if any places on the Earth do we have the following column intact, in fact many of the “layers” are only layers in one’s imagination since they can be side by side or in some cases INVERTED!”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The earth has been active and changeable over a very long time, with bits of the crust going up and down like a very slow yo-yo, to the extent that we would not be surprised if nowhere ended up preserving a geologic column that had strata representing every geological period.  However, there are actually at least 30 such places (http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Entire_geological_column_doesn%27t_exist), with precise numbers depending on how you define “period”, but there are a lot more if you include places where you can cross all the layers obliquely because the layers have been tilted, as in Great Britain.  In contrast, there are no places where you can find different “layers” side by side or inverted without clear evidence of an unconformity or faulting (e.g., strata filling a Paleocene valley that was cut into Cretaceous strata, hence putting Paleocene strata next to Cretaceous strata, or Precambrian strata clearly thrust up over Lower Paleozoic strata such as along the Lewis Overthrust in Glacier National Park, notwithstanding YEC misrepresentations to the contrary).  Strata do get overturned or thrust up onto younger strata, but this happens in areas such as deformed zones between colliding continents, where an asteroid blasted slabs of rock out of its impact crater, or where a slab of strata slid off a swelling volcano.

Sal says,      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
“So do we have something that ought to change Nye’s mind. Absolutely!.        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
“Many people are surprised when they hear of these creatures being buried together and wonder why they never heard of it before. Below is one evolutionary paleontologist’s explanation.  

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
     “We find mammals in almost all of our [dinosaur dig] sites. These were not noticed years ago … . We have about 20,000 pounds of bentonite clay that has mammal fossils that we are trying to give away to some researcher. It’s not that they are not important, it’s just that you only live once and I specialized in something other than mammals. I specialize in reptiles and dinosaurs.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



   Consider how many more tens of thousands of fossil mammals in ‘dinosaur rock’ are likely being similarly ignored in other parts of the world, with the likelihood of finding even more representatives of the same kinds as modern-day mammals.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So is there a possibility anomalies are edited out and instead a practice of false reporting (perhaps innocently done) has been perpetuated. They probably think something like: “We found a mammal, that’s clearly contamination because we know mammals aren’t in that era”. So thus we never hear official reports of the anomalies because the anomalies are regarded as contaminants since according to the false narrative, certain creatures didn’t live in certain eras."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, what we have here is misrepresentations piled on misunderstandings piled on outright lies mixed with attempted sleight of hand and nasty insinuations.  The clear implication is that mammals in dinosaurian strata are somehow embarrassing and get pushed under the carpet.  As someone who once got to be part of a paper in Nature because of half a mammal tooth in a dinosaurian deposit (because it fulfilled expectations, not because it refuted them), I’ve got to say that Sal is completely delusional here.  He knows better than this: he and I have had discussions (back before ARN went extinct) about paleontologists' views of the fossil record, but apparently Sal expects scientists to lie as easily as he does to protect his cherished world-view.

Mammals are inferred to have evolved in the Jurassic, so of course they are expected to be present in Jurassic and Cretaceous strata.  They are however very rare and belong to very primitive groups of mammals.  They also tend to have been overlooked, because people searching in dinosaur strata have mostly been dinosaur paleontogists who have been looking for large fossils, the sort of thing you can spot from horseback or while walking around upright.  Mesozoic mammal fossils (typically small jaws and very tiny teeth) tend to be hard to see with a microscope, let alone while prospecting in the field, even if you are crawling, or digging very carefully, so few discoveries were made until searching methods were changed.  With dry and wet sieving and bulk processing of concentrate back at the lab, sites that have yielded dinosaur bones tend also to have yielded bones of frogs, small lizards and mammals, which makes sense because if conditions were right for preserving one fossil they were probably good for preserving several more.  That being said, you may have to process a ton or two of dirt to get a mammal tooth or two.

What we don’t have in the Mesozoic are fossils of modern types of placental mammals.  Also, Cenozoic placental mammals all occur in their own very marked and exception-free sequences in Cenozoic strata

Sal then cites a particularly revolting Dutch creationist video that perverts large areas of sedimentology and stratigraphy in devious ways.  It is a somewhat more sophisticated version of the ignorant YEC tripe that Sal usually deals in.  We have known for a couple of centuries that deposition can vary from extremely slow to astonishingly fast (although our knowledge of both extremes has expanded considerably), so instances of fast sedimentation do not disprove instances of slow deposition elsewhere.  We know that thick fast deposits tend to be characteristically different from slow deposits (although not infrequently we lack the clues that can tell them apart), and that they occur in characteristically different settings.  Mudflows, landslides, impactites, floods, tsunamis, and volcanic eruptions all have a high potential for very rapid deposition.  They tend to do things like bury soils and whatever is living immobile on the surface that is about to be buried.  Allluvial fans, areas around volcanoes, deltas, rivers, and areas below fault scarps and the like all lend themselves to instances of rapid deposition.  Lake floors free from river influx and deltas and abyssal plains in deep oceans experience fairly slow deposition.   Although many fossil deposits clearly record catastrophic floods, many others do not (not all floods are gigantic, and not all fossil deposits involve water, let alone moving water).  The Dutch video really needs book-length refutation, but does not merit it.  Any sed/strat text will show why the video makes a sham of its misrepresentation of time-transgressive stratigraphy (rock units that cross time planes).  For example, when a delta fills in a lake or builds out into the sea, you get a “delta layer” (really a delta package) that is older at the back end than at the front end because it built out laterally over time.  (Likewise, the upwind end of a snow drift is usually older than the downwind end, because the pile has grown downwind over time.)  However, this in no way overthrows standard ideas about stratigraphy: go back to Dunbar and Rogers (a classic text from 1957) for a clear explanation of how this happens, why it is expected, and how to tell if you are dealing with an instance of it, albeit at a fairly coarse scale.  The video also puts a lot of stock into ecologic and hydrologic sorting of fossils.  Both occur, of course, but trying to explain the whole geological column and biostratigraphy this way is just delusional.  Note that insects that were buried in amber occur in geological strata according to their evolutionary order, NOT according to the shapes and sizes of the chunks of amber that contain them: how did that happen?  The earliest grass fossils occur much higher in the fossil record than the earliest fir trees: is this because fir trees cover lowlands and grass only grows on mountain tops?  Likewise, water lilies first occur later than the first tree ferns: is this because water lilies can outrun tree ferns?  Without exception, all reefs of scleractinian corals occur in strata younger than those with all reefs of tabulate and rugose corals: given that reefs vary from less than car-sized to more than city-sized, what is there about scleractinian coral reefs that allows them to get sorted separately and deposited later, and how did so many (or for that matter, any) happen to get transported and deposited right-side-up, balanced on little tiny triangular points exactly matching their growth position?   YEC geology is bullshit from one end to the other, and Sal is completely full of it.
Posted by: Driver on Feb. 09 2014,07:03

CentralScrutinizer < has had enough > of the jostling in the tent. It is time for a radical approach:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Please, please, people, leave the Bible alone. Leave your pet religions at the doors. Let’s talk about ID. Let’s DO SCIENCE.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Please let Joe do some science. Or niwrad with his wonderful diagrams.
Posted by: Driver on Feb. 09 2014,07:17

- LET'S DO SCIENCE!
- YEAH!
- YES!
- WOO!
- Right on!
- Science! Science!
...
...
...
- So...
- Um...
- Science?
- We should do it!
- Yeah!
- YEAH!
- AYE! AYE!
- WOO!
...
...
...
- That's a great idea Joe. Really great. Now, apart from Joe, does anyone have an idea for an experiment?
- We should have a discussion!
- YEAH!
- A DISCUSSION!
- WOO!
- About doing science?
- Well I was thinking first we discuss how best to discuss the discussion about doing science.
- YEAH!
- RIGHT ON!
- WOOOOOOHOOOO!
- NOW WE ARE ROLLING

***

Along comes Granville Sewell to save the day with an experiment that shows if you keep a chihuahua in a lead lined box it will die. Therefore Jesus. I mean ID. ID Science.




Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 09 2014,07:56

Mapou:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
CentralScrutinizer:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   What I find interesting is how intelligent people do not acknowledge all the contradictions in the Old and New Testament. If we’re going to talk theology and Bibliology, I may as well throw it out. I can post tons of stuff.

   The Bible is LOADED with contradictions. Shall I point out a few of them?

   Please, please, people, leave the Bible alone. Leave your pet religions at the doors. Let’s talk about ID. Let’s DO SCIENCE.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I disagree. The real reason that UD exists is that Darwinism and Christian creationism exist. Regardless of the strength of ID, Darwinists will continue to ignore it because it’s more advantageous for them to target the weak underbelly of their enemy. This weak underbelly is called Christian fundamentalism, the same fundamentalism that gave us young earth creationism.

Christian fundamentalism exists because its leaders make a good living by preaching that the Bible is the infallible word of God and that God has infinite power and knowledge. As a Christian, it bothers me a great deal that people find it profitable to preach that God, the extremely advanced being who created the universe and life on earth, could have been the author of some of the nonsense I read in the Bible. In so doing they offend God’s intelligence and mine. As a Christian, I strongly resent that and I think it’s the work of the devil.

Now, I don’t believe for a second that the entire Bible is nonsense and that God’s revelation cannot be found in it but I am convinced that Christianity will not win this war unless it does something about its weak underbelly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< And the base keeps running running, and running running.... >


Posted by: Woodbine on Feb. 09 2014,09:06



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
God, the extremely advanced being
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Poor God, just doesn't get the props these days.

:(
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 09 2014,09:42

Quote (Woodbine @ Feb. 09 2014,09:06)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
God, the extremely advanced being
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Poor God, just doesn't get the props these days.

:(
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Philip Pullman has the right idea. The god of the Bible is a megalomaniac subcontractor who stuck around for a while after the project was finished and screwed things up.

Heaven is a prison.

At the end of Dark Materials, Yahweh gets run out of town on a rail.

At least that's consistent with my vision of the advanced being that designed the things we see.
Posted by: didymos on Feb. 09 2014,23:13

Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 09 2014,07:42)
Quote (Woodbine @ Feb. 09 2014,09:06)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
God, the extremely advanced being
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Poor God, just doesn't get the props these days.

:(
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Philip Pullman has the right idea. The god of the Bible is a megalomaniac subcontractor who stuck around for a while after the project was finished and screwed things up.

Heaven is a prison.

At the end of Dark Materials, Yahweh gets run out of town on a rail.

At least that's consistent with my vision of the advanced being that designed the things we see.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yahweh was just a figurehead by that point, and was so senile that he was basically a vegetable.

Also, that's the worst book of the series.  Pullman got a bit too preachy for his own good.  Ironically, not unlike what Lewis did in The Last Battle.
Posted by: fnxtr on Feb. 09 2014,23:24

Quote (Driver @ Feb. 09 2014,05:17)
- LET'S DO SCIENCE!
- YEAH!
- YES!
- WOO!
- Right on!
- Science! Science!
...
...
...
- So...
- Um...
- Science?
- We should do it!
- Yeah!
- YEAH!
- AYE! AYE!
- WOO!
...
...
...
- That's a great idea Joe. Really great. Now, apart from Joe, does anyone have an idea for an experiment?
- We should have a discussion!
- YEAH!
- A DISCUSSION!
- WOO!
- About doing science?
- Well I was thinking first we discuss how best to discuss the discussion about doing science.
- YEAH!
- RIGHT ON!
- WOOOOOOHOOOO!
- NOW WE ARE ROLLING

***

Along comes Granville Sewell to save the day with an experiment that shows if you keep a chihuahua in a lead lined box it will die. Therefore Jesus. I mean ID. ID Science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


potw.
Posted by: keiths on Feb. 11 2014,01:09

< Guess who >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I’m bANNED,BANNED,BANNED on his blog thing.
I think he is afraid of me(and i’m Canadian I suspect)
Yes i beat up evolutionists but in a fair and decent way. its all intellectual and moral. i don’t dislike or hurt anybody. i’m a Christian and just me.
these guys truly seek to censor and control conversation !
They can’t take it!!
We should do a march.

By the way. When one banns conclusions or ideas in schools then it means that the school is officially saying something is not true BECAUSE the purpose of school is to teach the truth in subjects.
its official. ID is NOT true at Ball!!
Of coarse you know this means war!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



He suspects he's Canadian.  The Harper government vigorously denies the charge.
Posted by: Driver on Feb. 11 2014,03:56

Quote (keiths @ Feb. 11 2014,07:09)
< Guess who >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I think he is afraid of me

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wha?
Posted by: hotshoe on Feb. 11 2014,05:06

Another winning complaint against Jerry Coyne - this one from phoodoo:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think someone should add to his page on wikipedia, something like:

“Coyne is openly critical of any viewpoints which are contrary to his own, and of academics, including his own colleagues and other scholars who disagree with his scientific interpretations, and his stated publicly on his website that he will delete any posts from his site which are by creationists or which he feels are critical of his scientific positions”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Phoodoo is a lazy sack.  If xe thinks "someone" should do it, what is xe waiting for?  Go do it yerself, phoodoo!

Or, don't.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Feb. 11 2014,06:49



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of coarse you know this means war!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That sounds fine to me, if you have the grit.
Posted by: Zachriel on Feb. 11 2014,07:11



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< niwrad >: Therefore one can say that nothing new can be produced that isn’t already there. Nowhere there is something coming from nothing. Nowhere there is more arising from less. No “free-lunch”, as ID theory puts it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Evolution requires a complex natural environment. This is represented by the landscape in an evolutionary algorithm. With Dawkins's algorithm, it's "Methinks it is like a weasel". In nature, it's the acquisition of resources, and the problem of propagation.
Posted by: Freddie on Feb. 11 2014,09:51

From < here: >



A link to the original < USC News article. >

The first two paragraphs of the original USC News article:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A team of paleontologists affiliated with USC and the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County has determined that birds were capable of modern flight patterns much earlier than previously suspected — at least 60 million years before T. rex stalked the land.

The new findings have added a layer of understanding to the evolution of birds from dinosaurs, as researchers explore how early birds took flight.

- See more at: [URL=http://news.usc.edu/#!/article/58528/pristine-specimen-offers-clues-to-flight-of-ancient-birds/
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So few words, so much fail in addition to a dishonest quote-mine thrown in for kicks.
Posted by: REC on Feb. 11 2014,11:14

Looks like Barry has returned to quell the YEC uprising:

Quoting Geisle:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
After seriously pondering these questions for over a half century, my conclusions are: (1) The Young Earth view is not one of the Fundamentals of the Faith. (2) It is not a test for orthodoxy.  (3)  It is not a condition of salvation.  (4)  It is not a test of Christian fellowship. (5) It is not an issue over which the body of Christ should divide. (6) It is not a hill on which we should die. (7) The fact of creation is more important than the time of creation. (8) There are more important doctrines on which we should focus
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sal?

Interesting also that Barry doesn't state his own views. In fact, he doesn't write anything at all, but quotes someone else. Gotta keep the big tent up, I suppose.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Feb. 11 2014,11:18

Quote (REC @ Feb. 11 2014,11:14)
Looks like Barry has returned to quell the YEC uprising:

Quoting Geisle:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
After seriously pondering these questions for over a half century, my conclusions are: (1) The Young Earth view is not one of the Fundamentals of the Faith. (2) It is not a test for orthodoxy.  (3)  It is not a condition of salvation.  (4)  It is not a test of Christian fellowship. (5) It is not an issue over which the body of Christ should divide. (6) It is not a hill on which we should die. (7) The fact of creation is more important than the time of creation. (8) There are more important doctrines on which we should focus
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sal?

Interesting also that Barry doesn't state his own views. In fact, he doesn't write anything at all, but quotes someone else. Gotta keep the big tent up, I suppose.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All Science so far!
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 11 2014,11:21

If birds evolved from dinosaurs, why are there still dinosaurs?

World's oldest non sequitur.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 11 2014,11:23

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 05 2014,10:48)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 03 2014,21:38)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 02 2014,23:49)
Why has KF not thanked Roy for his much need correction < here > upon his seat of learning? Must do better.

Editz for linkfixin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


KirosFocus, you posted this in the self same thread:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...Looks like, rather than acknowledge wrongdoing,accept correction and turn from what has been done, we have a silent tip-toeing away. Speaks volumes, sad but revealing volumes. KF
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



YOU ARE THE KING OF HYPOCRITES. Sad but revealing volumes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Kirosfocus, may I focus your attention to this thread where you make some pointed claims then ran away when it was revealed you where indeed a quote-miner. For shame!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey KF, don't forget this. You semi-latching Weasel.
Posted by: CeilingCat on Feb. 11 2014,11:34

Quote (REC @ Feb. 11 2014,11:14)
Looks like Barry has returned to quell the YEC uprising:

Quoting Geisle:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
After seriously pondering these questions for over a half century, my conclusions are: (1) The Young Earth view is not one of the Fundamentals of the Faith. (2) It is not a test for orthodoxy.  (3)  It is not a condition of salvation.  (4)  It is not a test of Christian fellowship. (5) It is not an issue over which the body of Christ should divide. (6) It is not a hill on which we should die. (7) The fact of creation is more important than the time of creation. (8) There are more important doctrines on which we should focus
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sal?

Interesting also that Barry doesn't state his own views. In fact, he doesn't write anything at all, but quotes someone else. Gotta keep the big tent up, I suppose.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Link please?  I don't want to leave page it's all over UD looking for this.

Thank you.

P.S.  Should that be Geisler?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 11 2014,11:47

Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 11 2014,11:34)
Quote (REC @ Feb. 11 2014,11:14)
Looks like Barry has returned to quell the YEC uprising:

Quoting Geisle:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
After seriously pondering these questions for over a half century, my conclusions are: (1) The Young Earth view is not one of the Fundamentals of the Faith. (2) It is not a test for orthodoxy.  (3)  It is not a condition of salvation.  (4)  It is not a test of Christian fellowship. (5) It is not an issue over which the body of Christ should divide. (6) It is not a hill on which we should die. (7) The fact of creation is more important than the time of creation. (8) There are more important doctrines on which we should focus
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sal?

Interesting also that Barry doesn't state his own views. In fact, he doesn't write anything at all, but quotes someone else. Gotta keep the big tent up, I suppose.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Link please?  I don't want to leave page it's all over UD looking for this.

Thank you.

P.S.  Should that be Geisler?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-debate >
Posted by: Tony M Nyphot on Feb. 11 2014,12:13



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

16
< William J Murray >
 February 11, 2014 at 8:43 am
So, we can say – in some sense – that the universe is the computer and that the so-called “natural laws” represent an operating system. Life would represent a program running on that operating system.

The user can act on the system in various ways – they can change the physical features of the computer, alter the operating system, alter the programs running on the operating system (like, say, life) or use an interface to “enter” the program as it is running and do various things provided by the nature of the running program.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Posted by: BillB on Feb. 11 2014,14:48

I think I must have been reading too much UD. I saw something on  slashdot about a new cambrian fossil find and my brain automatically mined the quote out of its punctuation and turned it into a new quote worthy of the finest YEC:

"The fossils provide insight into the Cambrian explosion, a time that brought the rapid appearance and diversification of many animal forms in just two weeks"
Posted by: Dr.GH on Feb. 11 2014,21:51

Jerry Coyne banned me as well when I  pointed out his lame review of Michael E. N. Majerus's book is still inspiring creationists.

Just saying.
Posted by: CeilingCat on Feb. 11 2014,23:07

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 11 2014,11:47)
     
Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 11 2014,11:34)
     
Quote (REC @ Feb. 11 2014,11:14)
Looks like Barry has returned to quell the YEC uprising:

Quoting Geisle:
           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
After seriously pondering these questions for over a half century, my conclusions are: (1) The Young Earth view is not one of the Fundamentals of the Faith. (2) It is not a test for orthodoxy.  (3)  It is not a condition of salvation.  (4)  It is not a test of Christian fellowship. (5) It is not an issue over which the body of Christ should divide. (6) It is not a hill on which we should die. (7) The fact of creation is more important than the time of creation. (8) There are more important doctrines on which we should focus
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sal?

Interesting also that Barry doesn't state his own views. In fact, he doesn't write anything at all, but quotes someone else. Gotta keep the big tent up, I suppose.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Link please?  I don't want to leave page it's all over UD looking for this.

Thank you.

P.S.  Should that be Geisler?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-debate >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah yes, good ol' Norm.  I love this quote from Dr. Geisler re the Bible's age of the earth:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
8) There are more important doctrines on which we should focus (like the inerrancy of the Bible, the deity of Christ, the Trinity, and the death and resurrection of Christ, and His literal Second Coming.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, ignore the million percent error in the Bible's age of the earth and focus on the Bible's lack of error.

All science so far.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Feb. 12 2014,05:17

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 11 2014,06:23)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 05 2014,10:48)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 03 2014,21:38)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 02 2014,23:49)
Why has KF not thanked Roy for his much need correction < here > upon his seat of learning? Must do better.

Editz for linkfixin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


KirosFocus, you posted this in the self same thread:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...Looks like, rather than acknowledge wrongdoing,accept correction and turn from what has been done, we have a silent tip-toeing away. Speaks volumes, sad but revealing volumes. KF
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



YOU ARE THE KING OF HYPOCRITES. Sad but revealing volumes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Kirosfocus, may I focus your attention to this thread where you make some pointed claims then ran away when it was revealed you where indeed a quote-miner. For shame!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey KF, don't forget this. You semi-latching Weasel.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The hypocrisy is stunning. It'd be good if someone still unmoderated at UD could give GEM a little headsup. I mean we could be assuming the worst; perhaps he has forgotten the incident, and he's not just hoping that everyone else will.
Posted by: Robin on Feb. 12 2014,13:19

All quiet on < the UD front. >

UD link for those wishing to avoid the sauce pit. Here's what it says:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

19
G-typeFebruary 12, 2014 at 2:08 am

In the kitzmiller v. dover case, a federal court ruled that intelligent design is religious.

Teaching a religious viewpoint in a class that is listed as a science course = school endorses a religious viewpoint, and is therefore unconstitutional.

During the trial, the discovery institute claim that intelligent design is a scientific viewpoint rather than a religious one. Yet, in articles on f.ex. evolutionnews.org, its pretty appearant that intelligent design is religiously motivated:

Example, from one article: “The outline of the story is now, sadly, a familiar one. Instructor wants to discuss intelligent design (ID). Intolerant atheists throw a fit. College quickly capitulates to the demands of the atheists. Instructor is censored. – See more at: < http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....z....dpuf” >

The article blames “intolerant atheists” for censoring intelligent design. In saying that, the article heavily implies that intelligent design is religously motivated.

In effect: intelligent design proponents are aware that Hedin was breaking the law, and are upset that Jerry Coyne had a part in exposing the crime.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




I'm just fascinated by the fact that this comment has sat for some time without so much a ceiling speaker crackle. So which one of you is G-Type?

:D
Posted by: Freddie on Feb. 12 2014,15:54

Quote (Robin @ Feb. 12 2014,13:19)
All quiet on < the UD front. >

UD link for those wishing to avoid the sauce pit. Here's what it says:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

19
G-typeFebruary 12, 2014 at 2:08 am

In the kitzmiller v. dover case, a federal court ruled that intelligent design is religious.

Teaching a religious viewpoint in a class that is listed as a science course = school endorses a religious viewpoint, and is therefore unconstitutional.

During the trial, the discovery institute claim that intelligent design is a scientific viewpoint rather than a religious one. Yet, in articles on f.ex. evolutionnews.org, its pretty appearant that intelligent design is religiously motivated:

Example, from one article: “The outline of the story is now, sadly, a familiar one. Instructor wants to discuss intelligent design (ID). Intolerant atheists throw a fit. College quickly capitulates to the demands of the atheists. Instructor is censored. – See more at: < http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....z....dpuf” >

The article blames “intolerant atheists” for censoring intelligent design. In saying that, the article heavily implies that intelligent design is religously motivated.

In effect: intelligent design proponents are aware that Hedin was breaking the law, and are upset that Jerry Coyne had a part in exposing the crime.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




I'm just fascinated by the fact that this comment has sat for some time without so much a ceiling speaker crackle. So which one of you is G-Type?

:D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From the same thread.



Yes, it's often hard to parse comments as convoluted as this.  Please try harder.
Posted by: DiEb on Feb. 15 2014,14:34

Quote (Alan Fox @ Feb. 12 2014,11:17)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 11 2014,06:23)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 05 2014,10:48)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 03 2014,21:38)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 02 2014,23:49)
Why has KF not thanked Roy for his much need correction < here > upon his seat of learning? Must do better.

Editz for linkfixin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


KirosFocus, you posted this in the self same thread:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...Looks like, rather than acknowledge wrongdoing,accept correction and turn from what has been done, we have a silent tip-toeing away. Speaks volumes, sad but revealing volumes. KF
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



YOU ARE THE KING OF HYPOCRITES. Sad but revealing volumes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Kirosfocus, may I focus your attention to this thread where you make some pointed claims then ran away when it was revealed you where indeed a quote-miner. For shame!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey KF, don't forget this. You semi-latching Weasel.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The hypocrisy is stunning. It'd be good if someone still unmoderated at UD could give GEM a little headsup. I mean we could be assuming the worst; perhaps he has forgotten the incident, and he's not just hoping that everyone else will.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< KF answers >.  
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So at most there is a minor error of citation such as does occur, for which if so I apologise. (That will happen occasionally, even when typing from a book.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



KF, it would have been "a minor error of citation" if you hadn't made this error a cornerstone of your argument!

(edit for snark)


Posted by: Febble on Feb. 15 2014,14:51

He didn't seem to think it was a minor point, in which case it's not a minor error to get it wrong.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Feb. 15 2014,23:19

Nice little bit of fun going on over at the cesspool.

franklin sets a trap for the UD IDiots starting < here > with a question about the Disco Tooters home site.

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
does anyone know why this site doesn’t allow comments on its posts/articles?

< Discovery Institute >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



batshit77 takes the bait, comes back with his usual scroll-wheel killing blither about those nasty disgusting atheists:

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How atheists became the most colossally smug and annoying people on the planet (internet) – 2013
Excerpt: When did atheists become so teeth-gratingly annoying?

I strongly suggest watching Dr. Craig’s presentation, that I have linked, to get a full feel for just how insane the metaphysical naturalist’s (atheist’s) position actually is.

(snip tons more)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



franklin gives batshit77 more rope

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don’t know BA77 is their overall censorship at the website I posted driven by their fear of atheist’s being able to comment on their website?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



batshit77 fashions a noose, sticks his head in

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think you are merely setting up a straw man since the thread in question was shut down for merely the questioning of if evolution is true or not and was not shut down for any exceedingly boorish behavior as is characteristic of typical internet ‘new’ atheists. Even UD, in a policy a clearly agree with, limits the trollish behavior of new atheists on its threads. Elsewise UD would be overrun by such behavior.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



franklin kicks the trap door release

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
got it,BA77, you hold that there are two standards for censorship given your perception of someone being an atheist or not.

The one thing that I am a bit confused about is if ID is not religious, or as claimed has absolutely no religious connotations, why would it matter if one is a fundamentalist christian, agnostic, deist, or atheist for their comments to be considered? Should not all comments be welcome for consideration?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



For once in his verbose multi-thousand word post life batshit77 has no answer.

Well played franklin, well played!  :D
Posted by: k.e.. on Feb. 15 2014,23:53

Nice catch Mr Aftershave!!!

In light of this I suggest BA77 should have Barry Ambulancechaser rename their blog Censored Unboorish Nonscientific Theists.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Feb. 16 2014,00:30

Ooh, it's getting better!

After an hour with both his brain cells working furiously batshit77 decides the best strategy is to completely ignore franklin's points, begins preaching about those evil atheist censors oppressing ID

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So franklin, it seems you agree wholeheartedly that ID should be allowed a place in Academia and not be censored at all? Glad you agree, welcome aboard the ID ship.

(snip another 1000 words of batshit77 drivel)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



franklin's not buying, holds batshit77's feet to the fire

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BA77, your desperation to change the subject is duly noted! Now would you care to address the subject of the OP?

Again, I don’t understand your obsession with atheism. After all. ID has nothing to do with religion so why should an individuals religious proclivities be considered in any of these discussions?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Your move Philip Cunningham.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Feb. 16 2014,02:32

I just don't care anymore what these dipshits write, think, or do.

Years ago there was a Christian rock band called POD "Pay ? Death." I was asked to join their fan website that was dominated by Christian creationists. Eventually the band crapped out, but somebody had paid their ISP in advance for years and years. Long after the band was gone, there were a few holdouts still using the band's forum as a 10 member FaceBook.

That is how I see UD today. It is a pathetic wreck like ARN before it.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 16 2014,06:44

Quote (Febble @ Feb. 15 2014,14:51)
He didn't seem to think it was a minor point, in which case it's not a minor error to get it wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And now he's had a meltdown / gone to Plato's Cave. Sadly predictable, must do better.
Posted by: keiths on Feb. 16 2014,08:50

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 16 2014,04:44)
Quote (Febble @ Feb. 15 2014,14:51)
He didn't seem to think it was a minor point, in which case it's not a minor error to get it wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And now he's had a meltdown / gone to Plato's Cave. Sadly predictable, must do better.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Followed by < this pitiful, lame rationalization >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
F/N: Onlookers, remember that it is normal for citation to be fairly brief, as issues of permissions easily arise. I am in effect implicitly appealing to the doctrine of fair use in giving a much more extensive cite, but a publisher can challenge that a cite is excessive. And, in the days when cites were on paper, every word added materially to costs. KF
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 16 2014,09:14

Adding a word not in the original does not make it briefer.

But brevity isn't quote mining.

Misrepresenting the author's intended meaning is the essence of quote mining.
Posted by: REC on Feb. 16 2014,13:13

This, from Sal, seems worth preserving. He's all about phylogenetic methods, but resorts to nonsense about "gaps between created kinds" to scuttle the obvious evolutionary implications of a sound method.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
They ignore obvious gaps between created kinds...

Otherwise, the phylogenetic methods for a created kind I think are really cool. They’ve been used to reconstruct Y-chromosomal Aaron, and possibly Abraham, and maybe, just Maybe Noah or the daughters in law of Noah. We’ll see. I’m not totally against phylogeny, but I don’t believe in 1 universal phylogenetic tree, I believe in an orchard of phylogenetic trees.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< UD link >

"Created kind" seems like a nice moving target. Sal rejects that phylogenetic methods DO work across species in favor of his beliefs.


Posted by: Febble on Feb. 16 2014,16:08

Quote (keiths @ Feb. 16 2014,08:50)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 16 2014,04:44)
Quote (Febble @ Feb. 15 2014,14:51)
He didn't seem to think it was a minor point, in which case it's not a minor error to get it wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And now he's had a meltdown / gone to Plato's Cave. Sadly predictable, must do better.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Followed by < this pitiful, lame rationalization >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
F/N: Onlookers, remember that it is normal for citation to be fairly brief, as issues of permissions easily arise. I am in effect implicitly appealing to the doctrine of fair use in giving a much more extensive cite, but a publisher can challenge that a cite is excessive. And, in the days when cites were on paper, every word added materially to costs. KF
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Whereas these days, adding words is much cheaper presumably.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 16 2014,16:12

KF's extensive experience with academic publication comes to the fore.

Biblical child discipline, KF and Mr. Leathers, batshit weekly.
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 16 2014,17:21



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Whereas these days, adding words is much cheaper presumably.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Especially when words (sometimes lots of them) is all they've got. :D
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 16 2014,17:22



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We?ll see. I?m not totally against phylogeny, but I don?t believe in 1 universal phylogenetic tree, I believe in an orchard of phylogenetic trees.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


IMNSHO, that one sentence kills whatever anti-evolution argument he was trying to produce.

Biologists don't "believe in" 1 universal tree, either. They infer that conclusion from the evidence. If the evidence pointed the other way, that's what biologists as a group would be saying.

Henry
Posted by: timothya on Feb. 17 2014,05:30

"Jerry" at UD posted this:
             

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Despite being mocked by Voltaire, I believe that Leibniz got it right. This is the “best of all possible worlds.” We just do not know or understand what is meant by “best.” A benevolent world is definitely not a “best” world. Why would an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent God not create the best or all possible worlds?

So the worm eating out the boy’s eye is part of “best.” I am sure with a little thought we can think of much more gross or horrible examples. But they are all trivial compared to what is being offered, at least by the Christian God.

So Attenborough should look to other possible gods to condemn but not the Christian God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now consider how many mistakes can be crammed into three paragraphs:
1. A grammatical error in the first sentence (Jerry: a qualifying clause is assumed to be related to the subject of the sentence. In your contribution, that would be "I"). I doubt that Voltaire had the foreknowledge to mock you, but that is the plain meaning of your statement, so I suppose you know what you mean.
2. Liebniz argues from logic that "this must be the best of all possible worlds because we are in it". Voltaire then writes a book (Candide) pointing out that Liebniz conflates a claim from logic ("this must be the best of all possible worlds") with a claim from evidence ("because we are in it"). Voltaire has a lot of fun with Liebniz's solipsism. Jerry missed that bit.
3. Jerry then says that we (what you mean "we", paleface?) don't know what "best" means. Yes, well OK, but who ever made such a claim? I don't think it is an extraorordinary claim that most people can tell the difference between "better" and "worse", at least as far as the world affects them. I suspect that most Congolese can tell that it is better not to have your hands chopped off if you pilfer a diamond in the mines. I suspect that most women know it is better that they should be able to go about their business without some men assuming they (the women) are available for sex.
4. Next we get: "A benevolent world is definitely not a “best” world." Here is a clue, Jerry. Before you get to use an adjective such as "benevolent" in relation to the noun "world", you have explain some features of benevolence (because benevolence carries the imputation of intention). Some things that require explanation are:
A. Who or what is the entity possessing this benevolence (evidence of existence and characteristics required)?
B. What did this entity do that convinces us of its benevolence (evidence of its intention)?
C. When did this entity conduct its actions (evidence of timing required)?
D.  Where did this entity conduct its actions (evidence of place required)?
E. How did this entity accomplish its actions (evidence of mechanism required)?
F. Why did this entity do these things (no evidence required for this, anyone can come up with Because Reasons)?
5. Then we get: . "Why would an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent God not create the best or all possible worlds?". Very good question (it happens to be the question that atheists ask over and over again). What does Jerry have to contribute as an answer? Here is what we get: "So the worm eating out the boy’s eye is part of “best.” I am sure with a little thought we can think of much more gross or horrible examples. But they are all trivial compared to what is being offered, at least by the Christian God."
6. So let me get this straight. Your theology trumps the pain and suffering of that boy (who may never have heard of your God) because you claim your belief is correct (without any evidence-based answers to A-F questions above). Is that the best your religion can do?
7. And finally we get a conclusion: "So Attenborough should look to other possible gods to condemn but not the Christian God." But wait a sec, you haven't produced any evidence that this god of yours actually exists (A-F above). You may be right, but your conclusion ("So . . ?") does not rest on any demonstrably reliable presumption.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 17 2014,05:34

Jerry is high on the list of suspects.
Posted by: timothya on Feb. 17 2014,06:00

Midwifetoad said said:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Jerry is high on the list of suspects. 
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, evidently (in the normally accepted sense of evidence). It seems (from observation) that the contributors to the UD blog have lost interest in debating the "scientific" claims for Intelligent Design, and are most interested in discussing the religious implications of scientific research results.

Evidence: that the only posts appearing at UD and generating comments aising above the bjornagain77 background noise are those addressing either a) direct criticisms of intelligent design, or b) posts that raise questions about Christian religious orthodoxy.
Posted by: timothya on Feb. 17 2014,06:18

Why did I say that Miwifetoad said said?

Because:

She sells sea shells by the sea shore
The shells she sells are surely seashells
So if she sells shells on the seashore,
I'm sure she sells seashore shells.

It is a maritime experience.
Posted by: timothya on Feb. 17 2014,06:54

Joe says:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Talk about a strawman- I don’t know any Creationist who thinks that God created all the organisms that we observe. Creationists accept that today’s organisms evolved from the orginally created kind.That means darwinian evolution could very well be responsible for parasitic worms. It also means that God didn’t have to be.Then there is God’s plan- which is something tat we don’t know and most likely couldn’t understand.You know what I say about that kid in Africa- what were his parents thinking?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ummmm. Wait a sec.

Since the biblical version of "kind" is something you are proposing as a reliable category in biology, then I assume you have a set of measurable characteristics that we can use to identify them. What set of characteristics do you propose that we use?
Posted by: k.e.. on Feb. 17 2014,07:19

Quote (timothya @ Feb. 17 2014,14:18)
Why did I say that Miwifetoad said said?

Because:

She sells sea shells by the sea shore
The shells she sells are surely seashells
So if she sells shells on the seashore,
I'm sure she sells seashore shells.

It is a maritime experience.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Whereas UD is a Martinet experience.
Posted by: Driver on Feb. 17 2014,07:39

Quote (timothya @ Feb. 17 2014,12:54)
Since the biblical version of "kind" is something you are proposing as a reliable category in biology, then I assume you have a set of measurable characteristics that we can use to identify them. What set of characteristics do you propose that we use?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


woof kind, meow kind, big grey nose kind, pouchy kind, flying kind, creeping thing kind, swimming kind, scaly kind, mankind, helpmeet kind, duckbilled platypus kind.
Posted by: KevinB on Feb. 17 2014,07:41

Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 17 2014,05:34)
Jerry is high on the list of suspects.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You do realise that in the context of this thread CSI means "Complex Specified Information", not "Crime Scene Investigation" ?
Posted by: k.e.. on Feb. 17 2014,07:48

Quote (timothya @ Feb. 17 2014,14:54)
Joe says:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Talk about a strawman- I don’t know any Creationist who thinks that God created all the organisms that we observe. Creationists accept that today’s organisms evolved from the orginally created kind.That means darwinian evolution could very well be responsible for parasitic worms. It also means that God didn’t have to be.Then there is God’s plan- which is something tat we don’t know and most likely couldn’t understand.You know what I say about that kid in Africa- what were his parents thinking?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ummmm. Wait a sec.

Since the biblical version of "kind" is something you are proposing as a reliable category in biology, then I assume you have a set of measurable characteristics that we can use to identify them. What set of characteristics do you propose that we use?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


50 shades of Joe is the harlequin of gay ID.

God may or may not be teh designer, evilusion is teh thing that makes kinds like whales with fingers and parasitic wormies not to mention all the animals that creationists don't ascribe to God. Joe doesn't understand it but heck ac/dc is the way to go for Joe.

Hey Joe can we have the list please? The one with the God created animals and the ones that he didn't?
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 17 2014,08:12

That kid in Africa -- his parents created the worm.
Posted by: Texas Teach on Feb. 17 2014,08:18

Quote (timothya @ Feb. 17 2014,06:54)
Joe says:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Talk about a strawman- I don’t know any Creationist who thinks that God created all the organisms that we observe. Creationists accept that today’s organisms evolved from the orginally created kind.That means darwinian evolution could very well be responsible for parasitic worms. It also means that God didn’t have to be.Then there is God’s plan- which is something tat we don’t know and most likely couldn’t understand.You know what I say about that kid in Africa- what were his parents thinking?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ummmm. Wait a sec.

Since the biblical version of "kind" is something you are proposing as a reliable category in biology, then I assume you have a set of measurable characteristics that we can use to identify them. What set of characteristics do you propose that we use?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So God created humans and the charismatic megafauna, and evolution created all things dark and ugly.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 17 2014,11:21

Barry seems to be going for some sort of false equivalency around "faith".

Not all "faith" is equal, Barry. Knowing is hard, confidence is less so.
Posted by: REC on Feb. 17 2014,11:24

So Barry has pulled out ALL the quotes (seriously, looks like at least 50) including several from:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, The Myth of Human Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), 45-46.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Myths not Myth. Wrong pages. Again. FFS!

Barry seems to want to reopen the fight about quote mining:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Prediction: I will be accused of quote mining. Those who accuse me of quote mining will have the burden of demonstrating that I am quoting all of these writers out of context, and in context they mean something other than what I appear to be quoting them for.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Barry, even though the quotes are both:
1) Often mis-attributed, and badly mangled
2) Reflective of a pointless faux-scholarship where perusing creationist quote lists* on the web substitutes for reading, comprehending, and synthesizing the evidences into some coherent point,

I would say these quotes do support the point that many evolutionary biologists do not support strict phyletic gradualism, contradicting your title: "Gradualism: The Darwinist Article of Faith." Your post is, therefore, self-refuting.

You could add one more quote, and we could debate whether Darwin himself believed in this "Darwinist Article of Faith":



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Species of different genera and classes have not changed at the same rate, or in the same degree. In the oldest tertiary beds a few living shells may still be found in the midst of a multitude of extinct forms... The Silurian Lingula differs but little from the living species of this genus. Charles Darwin, 1859. On the origin of species London: John Murray. 1st edition, p. 313
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



or p. 279 of this online version:
< http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty....ies.pdf >


*(and the typos, choices of ellipses, etc do reflect their sources).


Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 17 2014,11:42

The Arrington hustle. Let's see you tackle all 50.

How many are not covered by the quote mine project?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Feb. 17 2014,12:07

Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 17 2014,11:42)
The Arrington hustle. Let's see you tackle all 50.

How many are not covered by the quote mine project?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Alternately, let's see how many also appear in Meyer's two books...
Posted by: OgreMkV on Feb. 17 2014,12:14

Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 17 2014,12:07)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 17 2014,11:42)
The Arrington hustle. Let's see you tackle all 50.

How many are not covered by the quote mine project?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Alternately, let's see how many also appear in Meyer's two books...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just a quick survey and I see at least four that I remember from Meyer's work.

I'd also like to point out to Barry that I was taken to task by a scientist for referencing a peer-reviewed paper from 2004 for a particular refutation of Meyer's work. That was much too old for the work that I was doing.

Barry, on the other hand, is trying to use works from the 70s, 80s, 90s... I even saw one from 1953... to support his claims. This is a fundamental error in scholarship.  

Of course, most of those authors are safely dead and Barry can argue that his interpretation is correct all he wants. He's still wrong, but that's not the point. Sowing confusion and attempting to fluff his 'research cred' is the purpose of this. Shame I'm banned and much, much to uncaring to create a sock account.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Feb. 17 2014,12:29

Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 17 2014,12:07)
Barry, on the other hand, is trying to use works from the 70s, 80s, 90s... I even saw one from 1953... to support his claims. This is a fundamental error in scholarship.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Barry Arrington is about as far from being a science scholar as is possible to imagine.
Posted by: Quack on Feb. 18 2014,09:38

I wouldn't dare opening his fridge unless wearing a gas mask!
Posted by: k.e.. on Feb. 18 2014,09:48

Quote (Quack @ Feb. 18 2014,17:38)
I wouldn't dare opening his fridge unless wearing a gas mask!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah his fridge wants a lawyer so it can sue him for negligence.

Hey Barry the fifties called they want their Formica and contagious diseases  back.
Posted by: REC on Feb. 18 2014,12:15

Quote (k.e.. @ Feb. 18 2014,09:48)
Quote (Quack @ Feb. 18 2014,17:38)
I wouldn't dare opening his fridge unless wearing a gas mask!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah his fridge wants a lawyer so it can sue him for negligence.

Hey Barry the fifties called they want their Formica and contagious diseases  back.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


BA77 follows up with a mined quote from a January 6, 1978 book review.

1978: 36 years ago. Before DNA sequencing.  

36 Years before that, and we've got 2 years to go DNA is clearly demonstrated to be genetic material.

36 Years before that, and Mendel's work has just been rediscovered, and 'vitalism' is a concept.

36 Years before that, and Darwin has yet to use the word "evolution" in print.

And there is a post up today asking why we're so dismissive when these types toss out stupid concepts and  outdated mis-cites from outdated sources and ask why we won't engage them on their merits. Lol. I'd rather debate vitalism.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 18 2014,17:29

This is kind of slow, but here's a few Barry quotemines and their discussion at talkorigins:

Whoops. Formatting didn't work.
Try again.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never to happen.

< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs....t3.html >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism . . . I wish only to point out that it was never ‘seen’ in the rocks.

< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs....t3.html >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------






---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change

< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs....t3.html >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble

< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs....t3.html >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------






---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution

< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs....-3.html >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
With the benefit of hindsight, it is amazing that paleontologists could have accepted gradual evolution as a universal pattern on the basis of a handful of supposedly well-documented lineages

< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs....-4.html >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------






---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The main problem with such phyletic gradualism is that the fossil record provides so little evidence for it.

< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs....-1.html >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
f we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find – over and over again – not gradual evolution

< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs....-4.html >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study

< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs....t3.html >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------







---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left ignored

< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs....-2.html >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The main impetus for expanding the view that species are discrete at any one point in time, to embrace their entire history, comes from the fossil record.

< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs....-2.html >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------







---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The record certainly did not reveal gradual transformations of structure in the course of time.

< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs....-2.html >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------








---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Many species remain virtually unchanged for millions of years, then suddenly disappear to be replaced by a quite different, but related, form.

< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs....-2.html >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang

< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs....t3.html >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
if you do collect a series of fossils up through a sequence of sedimentary rock, and if you don’t see much evidence of anatomical change through that series, that is indeed evidence that substantial gradual evolutionary change has not occurred

< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs....-2.html >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Posted by: sparc on Feb. 18 2014,21:52

I can not be asked to read  < vjtorley's latest > in detail but my impression is that while discussing if being bitten by a snake is different from and more senseful than suicide he concludes that Islam is superior to other religions because it prevents suicide.
Posted by: Quack on Feb. 19 2014,02:39

Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 18 2014,17:29)
This is kind of slow, but here's a few Barry quotemines and their discussion at talkorigins:

Whoops. Formatting didn't work.
Try again.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never to happen.

< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......t3.html >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism . . . I wish only to point out that it was never ‘seen’ in the rocks.

< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......t3.html >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change

< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......t3.html >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble

< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......t3.html >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution

< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......-3.html >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
With the benefit of hindsight, it is amazing that paleontologists could have accepted gradual evolution as a universal pattern on the basis of a handful of supposedly well-documented lineages

< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......-4.html >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The main problem with such phyletic gradualism is that the fossil record provides so little evidence for it.

< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......-1.html >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
f we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find – over and over again – not gradual evolution

< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......-4.html >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study

< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......t3.html >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------





 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left ignored

< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......-2.html >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The main impetus for expanding the view that species are discrete at any one point in time, to embrace their entire history, comes from the fossil record.

< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......-2.html >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------





 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The record certainly did not reveal gradual transformations of structure in the course of time.

< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......-2.html >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------






 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Many species remain virtually unchanged for millions of years, then suddenly disappear to be replaced by a quite different, but related, form.

< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......-2.html >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang

< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......t3.html >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
if you do collect a series of fossils up through a sequence of sedimentary rock, and if you don’t see much evidence of anatomical change through that series, that is indeed evidence that substantial gradual evolutionary change has not occurred

< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......-2.html >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The safest way to remain an IDiot is to follow in the footsteps of past IDiots.
Posted by: CeilingCat on Feb. 19 2014,09:55

Quote (sparc @ Feb. 18 2014,21:52)
I can not be asked to read  < vjtorley's latest > in detail but my impression is that while discussing if being bitten by a snake is different from and more senseful than suicide he concludes that Islam is superior to other religions because it prevents suicide.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Non explosive suicides anyway.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 19 2014,10:42

Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 19 2014,09:55)
Quote (sparc @ Feb. 18 2014,21:52)
I can not be asked to read  < vjtorley's latest > in detail but my impression is that while discussing if being bitten by a snake is different from and more senseful than suicide he concludes that Islam is superior to other religions because it prevents suicide.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Non explosive suicides anyway.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Doesn't prevent murder.

Nor, apparently, does any religion. As long as the victims have been cleared by the priests, who are presumably in direct phone contact with God.

I was surprised the other day to read about rampaging Buddhists.

Perhaps Quakers and Amish are next.
Posted by: khan on Feb. 19 2014,11:58

Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 19 2014,11:42)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 19 2014,09:55)
Quote (sparc @ Feb. 18 2014,21:52)
I can not be asked to read  < vjtorley's latest > in detail but my impression is that while discussing if being bitten by a snake is different from and more senseful than suicide he concludes that Islam is superior to other religions because it prevents suicide.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Non explosive suicides anyway.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Doesn't prevent murder.

Nor, apparently, does any religion. As long as the victims have been cleared by the priests, who are presumably in direct phone contact with God.

I was surprised the other day to read about rampaging Buddhists.

Perhaps Quakers and Amish are next.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There was this: < Amish hate crimes >
Posted by: REC on Feb. 19 2014,12:36

PaV, in claiming he's searched everywhere for evolutionary mechanisms:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Have you read R.A. Fisher’s “Genetical Theory of Evolution”?

I have read what I consider the most important parts, including Chapter 2, on the “Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection.”

Do you know upon what basis he derives this “theorem”?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Publication date: 1930.

Fisher was an amazing scientist. But damn guys.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 19 2014,17:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
4
drc466 February 19, 2014 at 4:09 pm
–Slightly off-topic point follows–

Quick question – how many dogs have to give birth, before one gives birth to an octopus?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



TAKE THAT DARWINISMS1111!!!!!!!ONEONE
Posted by: OgreMkV on Feb. 19 2014,17:26

Quote (REC @ Feb. 19 2014,12:36)
PaV, in claiming he's searched everywhere for evolutionary mechanisms:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Have you read R.A. Fisher’s “Genetical Theory of Evolution”?

I have read what I consider the most important parts, including Chapter 2, on the “Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection.”

Do you know upon what basis he derives this “theorem”?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Publication date: 1930.

Fisher was an amazing scientist. But damn guys.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Searching everywhere for more quotes to misrepresent.
Posted by: Ptaylor on Feb. 19 2014,17:31

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 20 2014,10:05)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
4
drc466 February 19, 2014 at 4:09 pm
–Slightly off-topic point follows–

Quick question – how many dogs have to give birth, before one gives birth to an octopus?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



TAKE THAT DARWINISMS1111!!!!!!!ONEONE
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, man, you beat me to it. And drc466's comment comes while the 'nullasalus Makes a Point' < thread > (UD link) is still active, with  Barry and UD regulars complaining that they are too often wrongly accused of not understanding evolution (simultaneously, somehow, exposing their personality issues to the rest of the world). The ironing.


Posted by: k.e.. on Feb. 20 2014,08:23

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 20 2014,01:05)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
4
drc466 February 19, 2014 at 4:09 pm
–Slightly off-topic point follows–

Quick question – how many dogs have to give birth, before one gives birth to an octopus?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



TAKE THAT DARWINISMS1111!!!!!!!ONEONE
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Breathlessly & fevourishly k.e. types ...before Henry beats him to it.

..or gives birth to a Cat-o-nine eight-tails!
Posted by: KevinB on Feb. 20 2014,08:33

Quote (k.e.. @ Feb. 20 2014,08:23)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 20 2014,01:05)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
4
drc466 February 19, 2014 at 4:09 pm
–Slightly off-topic point follows–

Quick question – how many dogs have to give birth, before one gives birth to an octopus?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



TAKE THAT DARWINISMS1111!!!!!!!ONEONE
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Breathlessly & fevourishly k.e. types ...before Henry beats him to it.

..or gives birth to a Cat-o-nine eight-tails!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But has anyone seen a cat-o-nine-tails turn into a dog-o-nine-tails in the laboratory?!!!
Posted by: k.e.. on Feb. 20 2014,08:56

Quote (KevinB @ Feb. 20 2014,16:33)
Quote (k.e.. @ Feb. 20 2014,08:23)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 20 2014,01:05)
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
4
drc466 February 19, 2014 at 4:09 pm
–Slightly off-topic point follows–

Quick question – how many dogs have to give birth, before one gives birth to an octopus?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



TAKE THAT DARWINISMS1111!!!!!!!ONEONE
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Breathlessly & fevourishly k.e. types ...before Henry beats him to it.

..or gives birth to a Cat-o-nine eight-tails!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But has anyone seen a cat-o-nine-tails turn into a dog-o-nine-tails in the laboratory?!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No but if it did it would a dogtopus+1

If it happened in China they would be both on the evening menu*
*Now whilst technically speaking this isn't a pun it would be woking the dog!
Posted by: k.e.. on Feb. 20 2014,08:57

Or a muteightion...
Posted by: Ptaylor on Feb. 20 2014,18:00

In his latest post A Dialogue With A Darwinist Barry imagines an argument with a 'Darwinist'. Guess what: Barry wins!
< UD link >
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Feb. 20 2014,18:47

Quote (Ptaylor @ Feb. 20 2014,18:00)
In his latest post A Dialogue With A Darwinist Barry imagines an argument with a 'Darwinist'. Guess what: Barry wins!
< UD link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's what ID imaginings are for.

Oh, that and seeing design where hereditary limitations are rife.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 20 2014,19:09

Joe:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
3
JoeFebruary 20, 2014 at 6:37 pm
Who needs facts when we have wikipedia?

Wikipedia, changing history with a few keystrokes…

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Says the emotion and mental child who went back and changed his own blog posts to try and score rhetorical points, but got caught because he isn't very bright.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 20 2014,19:12

Quote (Ptaylor @ Feb. 20 2014,18:00)
In his latest post A Dialogue With A Darwinist Barry imagines an argument with a 'Darwinist'. Guess what: Barry wins!
< UD link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They are just cringeworthy.

< http://www.chick.com/reading...._01.asp >




Posted by: Learned Hand on Feb. 20 2014,19:54

Quote (Ptaylor @ Feb. 20 2014,18:00)
In his latest post A Dialogue With A Darwinist Barry imagines an argument with a 'Darwinist'. Guess what: Barry wins!
< UD link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I would love to see him (or any UD denizen) attempt the < ideological Turing test >.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 20 2014,19:58

Quote (Learned Hand @ Feb. 20 2014,19:54)
Quote (Ptaylor @ Feb. 20 2014,18:00)
In his latest post A Dialogue With A Darwinist Barry imagines an argument with a 'Darwinist'. Guess what: Barry wins!
< UD link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I would love to see him (or any UD denizen) attempt the < ideological Turing test >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We missed comedy gold but not having Joe write it:

ID Scientist: Your position can't account for squirrels

EVO Scientismist: EVOTARDGASM

etc.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 20 2014,20:22

I just reread the "arguing with a Darwinist" thread and I didn't spot the "ban anyone who makes a coherent argument" part, or the "only argue in venues where you are able to censor" and "don't argue in scientific literature" or "Ask them about their love of Hitler"...
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Feb. 20 2014,20:27

I think Barry could be right, you know.  A Darwinist might very well argue like that.

When it's all made up, though, including the "Darwinist" caricature of a science-acceptor, who can say for sure?

Glen Davidson
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 20 2014,21:44

Barry can dialog himself with just one hand.
Posted by: Driver on Feb. 21 2014,04:18

Central Scrutinizer has gone one step further than Barry. < His fantasy > is about Darwinist women that will jump into bed with him:





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I’m going to a bar tonight.

I will seek out a Darwinist.

Why?

Because she will believe any stupid thing I tell her.

I will get lucky tonight.

Oh, thank you, you lovely, wonderful Darwinist

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



When that fails he can draw a 'Darwinist woman' on his hand and talk to that.
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Feb. 21 2014,06:06

Quote (Driver @ Feb. 21 2014,10:18)
Central Scrutinizer has gone one step further than Barry. < His fantasy > is about Darwinist women that will jump into bed with him:



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I’m going to a bar tonight.

I will seek out a Darwinist.

Why?

Because she will believe any stupid thing I tell her.

I will get lucky tonight.

Oh, thank you, you lovely, wonderful Darwinist

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



When that fails he can draw a 'Darwinist woman' on his hand and talk to that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


CS approaches gorgeous woman. "So, can I just ask what your views are on Darwin's theory of evolution by Natural Selection?".

Nope, it seems the perfect plan. She'll be putty in his hands.

And I guess lying for promiscuous sexual favours is morally entirely tickety-boo, provided the donor is not a believer in Objective Morality. Classy.
Posted by: REC on Feb. 21 2014,10:52

I don't know.....I think evil-Barry held his own in the 'debate'.

Concessions:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Certainly morphologic and molecular homologies are consistent with theories of descent with modification generally. They are even consistent with the particular mechanism (random variation sorted by natural selection) that Darwin proposed to account for descent with modification.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Which seem only tempered with the ludicrous:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
.. if you assume that a homologous structure or sequence is homologous because it is shared with a common ancestor, you can’t then turn around and say that the homology is evidence for the very thing you assume
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



A very odd statement, particularly in reference to sequence similarity. We don't assume sequences are homologous, we demonstrate they are similar and test homology and common descent as models to account for that similarity. Right?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
the search space for a single protein fold is so unimaginably vast as to exhaust all of the probabilistic resources available in the universe, much less this single little planet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Is equally bizarre. What does Barry mean here? I don't think any scientist believes evolution requires a comprehensive search of sequence space to discover any particular, or all possible folds. The search space to find a protein that folds might be quite small--I've seen estimates in 1 in 10,000*. This is in keeping with the small sequence requirements for most folds.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Darwinism is certainly not the “only known theory that is in principle capable of explaining certain aspects of life.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What theory of science (especially haveing shed methodological naturalism, as Barry advocates) is the ONLY explainatory theory? It may be the most parsiminious, encompass the data the best, make the most testable predictions--but the only, exclusive of all others? WTF? Intellegent falling, angles pushing photons through the double slit?

So I give it to evil-Barry. He convincingly exposes the fraud Barry is.

Finkelstein AV, Gutin AM, Badretdinov AY (1995) Boltzmann-like statistics of protein architectures. Origins and consequences. In: Biswas BB, Roy S, editors. Subcellular Biochemistry, Vol 24. Proteins: Structure, function and engineering. Plenum Press, New York.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Feb. 21 2014,13:03

The thought of Barry holding his own is apt, but unappealing.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Feb. 21 2014,13:43

[quote=REC,Feb. 21 2014,10:52][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Which seem only tempered with the ludicrous:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
.. if you assume that a homologous structure or sequence is homologous because it is shared with a common ancestor, you can’t then turn around and say that the homology is evidence for the very thing you assume
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



A very odd statement, particularly in reference to sequence similarity. We don't assume sequences are homologous, we demonstrate they are similar and test homology and common descent as models to account for that similarity. Right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What a moron.  The point is that evolution predicts homologies that will be found if evolution is true, then those sorts of homologies are found.  Indicating that evolution is what happened.

His pathetic circularity belies the history of homology and how it was recognized even before evolutionary theory was commonly accepted.  Richard Owen did the work prior to his accepting evolution, and his definition of homology is the "same organ in different animals under every variety of form and function."  Which is a ridiculous way to design life, and turned out to be predicted by the constraints of non-magical evolution.

But if you're just making shit up, the point of his appalling little fiction, just pretend that it's all circular and you don't have to confront what real science says.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Darwinism is certainly not the “only known theory that is in principle capable of explaining certain aspects of life.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What theory of science (especially haveing shed methodological naturalism, as Barry advocates) is the ONLY explainatory theory? It may be the most parsiminious, encompass the data the best, make the most testable predictions--but the only, exclusive of all others? WTF? Intellegent falling, angles pushing photons through the double slit?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Of course, that's the whole point of falsifiability.  The logical possibilities are endless, hence the only way evidence matters is if it is entailed by causes explicit in the  theory.  Darwinian evolution fails if homologies aren't found.  ID doesn't, but then it also doesn't explain homologies (or anything else).  All that they can do to pretend to explain homologies is to say that God could have done it that way--and so what?  An unknown law could do it, multiverses could do it, aliens could be trying to trick us, whatever, homologies mean nothing outside of causal entailment.

Homology is entailed only by non-magical evolution (clearly magic has not been shown to have the same limits), only Darwinian evolution is falsifiable by the lack of homology, hence non-magic evolution is the only reasonable explanation for homologies.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: REC on Feb. 22 2014,13:16

TSErik cites NARTH approvingly-

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwini....-491118 >

Wonder if he knows the rational world thinks the pray-the-gay-away NARTH is comedy fodder? Seriously, remember this guy (head scientific advisor):

Anti-gay activist, Christian minister George Rekers caught in gay escort scandal resigns from NARTH

Read more: < http://www.nydailynews.com/news....4wG2u6D >

And from other NARTH 'science' advisors:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

"Berger said that instead of teaching tolerance, schools should "let the other children ridicule" boys and girls who don't conform."

During the interview, Schoenewolf lambasted civil rights, women's rights, and gay rights. "All such movements are destructive," he said. He also claimed the American Psychological Association, of which he is a member, "has been taken over by extremist gays."

Africa at the time of slavery was still primarily a jungle… . Life there was savage … and those brought to America, and other countries, were in many ways better off."

"The civil rights movement has from the beginning and today seen itself as good and others are evil, like slaveowners are evil," he said.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://www.splcenter.org/get-inf....e-enemy >
Posted by: Woodbine on Feb. 23 2014,15:22

denyse_o'leary.jpg



< http://www.arn.org/arnprod....le.html >
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 23 2014,15:42

Those books can answer important outstanding science questions like "How much thermite does it take to get rid of 322 really horribly-written books"?
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 23 2014,15:50

"The Naked Emperor: Darwinism Exposed" Dear god I would be mad if you sent me that junk for free, because now I have to bother with throwing some crap away.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 23 2014,16:04

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/culture....-491196 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

5
Dionisio February 23, 2014 at 3:09 pm

At the beginning of the post we read this:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

   Asks a writer at New Scientist, wondering whether people will be allowed to marry robots

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Allowed what? allowed by whom?
The biblical concept of marriage doesn’t come from this world, but from God.
The worldly parody of marriage has nothing to do with that biblical definition.
These days many words have lost their true meaning. They mean whatever. So what’s the big deal about asking if whatever is allowed? Allowed by whom? Allow what?
So the first question I would ask the questioner is: what do you mean when you say ‘to marry’? what does the word ‘marriage’ mean to you? Where did you take that definition from? The answer to those basic questions should suffice to respond the original question at the beginning of this post.
Can we reduce the crime level in a country by declaring that some crimes are not considered crimes anymore?
Can a company increase the quality of its production by lowering their quality assurance standards?
Would we all agree with that?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

[/QUOTE]

This is like a fictional parody of whiny old men.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 23 2014,16:15

All I see at UD lately is Dionisio, who just seems to be a cranky old man, BrainDamaged77 and Joe G who need no introduction, and a few foreign weirdos, one of whom seems to think that after Bohr and Planck said some mysticalicious things nobody else gets an opinion.

Hard to believe there was a point years ago where this site kinda meant something.
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 23 2014,16:35

this bit from evolutionnews.org is unintentionally funny:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Why Do Theistic Evolutionist Theologians All Seem to Have Exactly the Same Misconceptions About Intelligent Design?
Casey Luskin February 21, 2014 10:52 AM

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Woodbine on Feb. 23 2014,16:42

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 23 2014,21:42)
Those books can answer important outstanding science questions like "How much thermite does it take to get rid of 322 really horribly-written books"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Funny you should mention thermite. On ARN's front page we find this plug for Michael Behe...



The Mind Renewed podcast? Who are they, you ask?

< http://themindrenewed.com/....wed....wed.com >







Ah.

E: forgot link.


Posted by: fnxtr on Feb. 23 2014,16:57

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 23 2014,13:42)
Those books can answer important outstanding science questions like "How much thermite does it take to get rid of 322 really horribly-written books"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like the National Lampoon book with reviews on the back,

What people have said about this book:

"Here, kill it with this."
"This should balance the table better."
"That'll be $1.50, sir."

etc...
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 23 2014,18:10

I like thermite because I get stress from noise pollution and in a fantasy world Obama wakes up and declares by exec order that vandalism is perfectly legal if the target is a car or motorcycle that has been made artificially louder. In that fantasy I have to figure out the perfect vandalism tool to make said cars inoperable, and the answer is lots of thermite.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Feb. 23 2014,18:41

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 23 2014,18:10)
I like thermite because I get stress from noise pollution and in a fantasy world Obama wakes up and declares by exec order that vandalism is perfectly legal if the target is a car or motorcycle that has been made artificially louder. In that fantasy I have to figure out the perfect vandalism tool to make said cars inoperable, and the answer is lots of thermite.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Potato in the tailpipe?
Posted by: stevestory on Feb. 23 2014,19:06

you can keep yer eddie murphy movies, I'll use this: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....bZf1_Ng >
Posted by: sparc on Feb. 23 2014,21:31

Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 23 2014,16:15)
All I see at UD lately is Dionisio, who just seems to be a cranky old man, BrainDamaged77 and Joe G who need no introduction, and a few foreign weirdos, one of whom seems to think that after Bohr and Planck said some mysticalicious things nobody else gets an opinion.

Hard to believe there was a point years ago where this site kinda meant something.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


During the few times I went over to UD recently I didn't see anything from Kairosfocus in the comment section of their homepage. Does this mean he is gone?


Posted by: Driver on Feb. 24 2014,01:24

Quote (sparc @ Feb. 24 2014,03:31)
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 23 2014,16:15)
All I see at UD lately is Dionisio, who just seems to be a cranky old man, BrainDamaged77 and Joe G who need no introduction, and a few foreign weirdos, one of whom seems to think that after Bohr and Planck said some mysticalicious things nobody else gets an opinion.

Hard to believe there was a point years ago where this site kinda meant something.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


During the few times I went over to UD recently I didn't see anything from Kairosfocus in the comment section of their homepage. Does this mean he is gone?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He was there a few days ago. I doubt he would go anywhere without 30 footnotes announcing his departure.
Posted by: keiths on Feb. 24 2014,01:30

< Byers >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Where are these hot good looking robots? who is defining what robot beauty is?
I still would allow robot marriage before gay marriage. Robots are less objectionable and they are objectionable.
Call it robotophobia if you must!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Driver on Feb. 24 2014,01:38

Quote (keiths @ Feb. 24 2014,07:30)
< Byers >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I still would allow robot marriage before gay marriage.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Advice for Dante.
Posted by: Woodbine on Feb. 24 2014,04:00

Quote (keiths @ Feb. 24 2014,07:30)
< Byers >:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Where are these hot good looking robots? who is defining what robot beauty is?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Chalmers, Byers. Chalmers.



Best damn model they ever put out.
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Feb. 24 2014,06:44



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 23 2014,22:04)
< http://www.uncommondescent.com/culture....-491196 >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

5
Dionisio February 23, 2014 at 3:09 pm

At the beginning of the post we read this:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

   Asks a writer at New Scientist, wondering whether people will be allowed to marry robots

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Allowed what? allowed by whom?
The biblical concept of marriage doesn’t come from this world, but from God.
The worldly parody of marriage has nothing to do with that biblical definition.
These days many words have lost their true meaning. They mean whatever. So what’s the big deal about asking if whatever is allowed? Allowed by whom? Allow what?
So the first question I would ask the questioner is: what do you mean when you say ‘to marry’? what does the word ‘marriage’ mean to you? Where did you take that definition from? The answer to those basic questions should suffice to respond the original question at the beginning of this post.
Can we reduce the crime level in a country by declaring that some crimes are not considered crimes anymore?
Can a company increase the quality of its production by lowering their quality assurance standards?
Would we all agree with that?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is like a fictional parody of whiny old men.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Argument by definition. There is, by similar reasoning, no such thing as anal or oral sex, regardless of the gender complementarity of the participants. So priests are OK, as long as as they steer clear of the danger zone. Which they generally do.


Posted by: Robin on Feb. 24 2014,09:27

Quote (Woodbine @ Feb. 24 2014,04:00)
 
Quote (keiths @ Feb. 24 2014,07:30)
< Byers >:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Where are these hot good looking robots? who is defining what robot beauty is?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Chalmers, Byers. Chalmers.



Best damn model they ever put out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Feh...



Not that I'd put Seven of Nine into a dumpster...

Hmmm...come to think of it, there are a fairly  good number of robots I'd be more than happy to tie the knot with.  :D


Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 24 2014,10:59

Barry takes Denyse to task?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
15
Barry ArringtonFebruary 24, 2014 at 8:54 am
The real question is should close minded bigoted hacks be allowed to be journalists?

The answer to that question is “yes” BTW.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




;-)
Posted by: J-Dog on Feb. 24 2014,15:20

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 24 2014,10:59)
Barry takes Denyse to task?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
15
Barry ArringtonFebruary 24, 2014 at 8:54 am
The real question is should close minded bigoted hacks be allowed to be journalists?

The answer to that question is “yes” BTW.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




;-)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Beautiful catch!  I would gladly sacrifice a sock to askd Denyse her take on the comment - if I had one.

Anyone?
Posted by: J-Dog on Feb. 24 2014,15:20

sorry for double post :(


Posted by: socle on Feb. 24 2014,15:33

Speaking of Denyse, has her stint at The Best Schools blog ended?  I can still see google's cached snapshot from early February 2014, but now it seems the url redirects to thebestschools.org
Posted by: steve_h on Feb. 24 2014,16:07

They've still got this on < Dembski. >

I always assumed TBS this was a fake DO'L web-farm site. Maybe it was an unwitting host to an ID parasite akin to "Baylor University's Evolutionary informatics lab."
Posted by: CeilingCat on Feb. 24 2014,17:20

Quote (sparc @ Feb. 23 2014,21:31)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 23 2014,16:15)
All I see at UD lately is Dionisio, who just seems to be a cranky old man, BrainDamaged77 and Joe G who need no introduction, and a few foreign weirdos, one of whom seems to think that after Bohr and Planck said some mysticalicious things nobody else gets an opinion.

Hard to believe there was a point years ago where this site kinda meant something.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


During the few times I went over to UD recently I didn't see anything from Kairosfocus in the comment section of their homepage. Does this mean he is gone?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A month or two ago, KF was soliciting prayers on UD for his son, who was being flown off - island for medical treatment.  He's been unusually quiet ever since, so I presume that no miracles have occurred and things are still pretty grim.

Shit end of the stick defined: you're so sick you're being flown to a foreign country for treatment and if you recover and make it back home, Gordon is still your father.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Feb. 24 2014,17:38

Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 24 2014,17:20)
 
Quote (sparc @ Feb. 23 2014,21:31)
   
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 23 2014,16:15)
All I see at UD lately is Dionisio, who just seems to be a cranky old man, BrainDamaged77 and Joe G who need no introduction, and a few foreign weirdos, one of whom seems to think that after Bohr and Planck said some mysticalicious things nobody else gets an opinion.

Hard to believe there was a point years ago where this site kinda meant something.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


During the few times I went over to UD recently I didn't see anything from Kairosfocus in the comment section of their homepage. Does this mean he is gone?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A month or two ago, KF was soliciting prayers on UD for his son, who was being flown off - island for medical treatment.  He's been unusually quiet ever since, so I presume that no miracles have occurred and things are still pretty grim.

Shit end of the stick defined: you're so sick you're being flown to a foreign country for treatment and if you recover and make it back home, Gordon is still your father.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


About 2-3 weeks ago someone asked KF about the boy.  KF said the operation was a success and the son was home and out of danger.  Can't remember which UD thread it was in.
Posted by: socle on Feb. 24 2014,18:44

Quote (steve_h @ Feb. 24 2014,16:07)
They've still got this on < Dembski. >

I always assumed TBS this was a fake DO'L web-farm site. Maybe it was an unwitting host to an ID parasite akin to "Baylor University's Evolutionary informatics lab."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Interesting.  Too bad that Dembski interview is on such a useless website.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
William Dembski: Thanks for the opportunity to do this interview, which looks as though it will be my most extensive interview to date...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Learned Hand on Feb. 24 2014,22:20

Quote (steve_h @ Feb. 24 2014,16:07)
They've still got this on < Dembski. >


I always assumed TBS this was a fake DO'L web-farm site. Maybe it was an unwitting host to an ID parasite akin to "Baylor University's Evolutionary informatics lab."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is that the Informatics Lab that supposedly scared $25 million out of the NSF?

"Another thing that makes me think that maybe this work is having an impact is that after it started gaining momentum, Michigan State University, home of Pennock’s Digital Evolution Lab, received a huge $25 million NSF grant in 2010 for BEACON (Bio-computational Evolution in Action CONsortium). I suspect that at least part of the rationale for the NSF giving our tax dollars to fund this boondoggle is the threat to Darwinian evolution posed by the Evolutionary Informatics Lab."

< http://www.thebestschools.org/feature....terview >
Posted by: sparc on Feb. 24 2014,23:19



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Another thing that makes me think that maybe this work is having an impact is that after it started gaining momentum, Michigan State University, home of Pennock’s Digital Evolution Lab, received a huge $25 million NSF grant in 2010 for BEACON (Bio-computational Evolution in Action CONsortium). I suspect that at least part of the rationale for the NSF giving our tax dollars to fund this boondoggle is the threat to Darwinian evolution posed by the Evolutionary Informatics Lab."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was not aware that megalomania is measured in Dembskis.

ETA: just learned that the unit can only be properly expressed with caps lock on.


Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 25 2014,00:29

Quote (sparc @ Feb. 24 2014,23:19)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Another thing that makes me think that maybe this work is having an impact is that after it started gaining momentum, Michigan State University, home of Pennock’s Digital Evolution Lab, received a huge $25 million NSF grant in 2010 for BEACON (Bio-computational Evolution in Action CONsortium). I suspect that at least part of the rationale for the NSF giving our tax dollars to fund this boondoggle is the threat to Darwinian evolution posed by the Evolutionary Informatics Lab."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was not aware that megalomania is measured in Dembskis.

ETA: just learned that the unit can only be properly expressed with caps lock on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


from the interview:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Far better would have been to use those seven minutes to recount the record of accomplishment of intelligent design.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



???
Posted by: timothya on Feb. 25 2014,01:37

Is it just me or do you think it passing strange that the Carroll/Craig debate happened without acknowledgement, advertising or commentary by anyone at UD or EN&V? I may have missed their references, but what gives when one of the DI Fellows makes a big noise with a prominent cosmologist and then . . . nothing?
Posted by: Driver on Feb. 25 2014,02:05

Quote (timothya @ Feb. 25 2014,07:37)
Is it just me or do you think it passing strange that the Carroll/Craig debate happened without acknowledgement, advertising or commentary by anyone at UD or EN&V? I may have missed their references, but what gives when one of the DI Fellows makes a big noise with a prominent cosmologist and then . . . nothing?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Craig was destroyed.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Feb. 25 2014,04:34

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 25 2014,00:29)
 
Quote (sparc @ Feb. 24 2014,23:19)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Another thing that makes me think that maybe this work is having an impact is that after it started gaining momentum, Michigan State University, home of Pennock’s Digital Evolution Lab, received a huge $25 million NSF grant in 2010 for BEACON (Bio-computational Evolution in Action CONsortium). I suspect that at least part of the rationale for the NSF giving our tax dollars to fund this boondoggle is the threat to Darwinian evolution posed by the Evolutionary Informatics Lab."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was not aware that megalomania is measured in Dembskis.

ETA: just learned that the unit can only be properly expressed with caps lock on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


from the interview:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Far better would have been to use those seven minutes to recount the record of accomplishment of intelligent design.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It would involve s p e a k i n g   v  e  r  y     s    l    o    w    l    y.

Think Sir Clement Freud on Just a Minute.
Posted by: fnxtr on Feb. 25 2014,09:06

Heh. They used to play that on the local campus station at 6am Mondays. Now, thanks to a technology upgrade, we get "library on random". Bleh.
Posted by: Woodbine on Feb. 25 2014,10:47

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Far better would have been to use those seven minutes to recount the record of accomplishment of intelligent design.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



William Dembski - 7'00''
Posted by: khan on Feb. 25 2014,12:33

Quote (socle @ Feb. 24 2014,19:44)
Quote (steve_h @ Feb. 24 2014,16:07)
They've still got this on < Dembski. >

I always assumed TBS this was a fake DO'L web-farm site. Maybe it was an unwitting host to an ID parasite akin to "Baylor University's Evolutionary informatics lab."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Interesting.  Too bad that Dembski interview is on such a useless website.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
William Dembski: Thanks for the opportunity to do this interview, which looks as though it will be my most extensive interview to date...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Discovery Institute’s founding dates back to the early ’90s. It was started as a high-tech and public-policy think tank. George Gilder (left) was one of the key people providing it with vision.

Were I not already thoroughly disgusted by Dembski and the 'toot, this would be sufficient.
Posted by: JohnW on Feb. 25 2014,13:03

Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 25 2014,02:34)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 25 2014,00:29)
 
Quote (sparc @ Feb. 24 2014,23:19)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Another thing that makes me think that maybe this work is having an impact is that after it started gaining momentum, Michigan State University, home of Pennock’s Digital Evolution Lab, received a huge $25 million NSF grant in 2010 for BEACON (Bio-computational Evolution in Action CONsortium). I suspect that at least part of the rationale for the NSF giving our tax dollars to fund this boondoggle is the threat to Darwinian evolution posed by the Evolutionary Informatics Lab."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was not aware that megalomania is measured in Dembskis.

ETA: just learned that the unit can only be properly expressed with caps lock on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


from the interview:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Far better would have been to use those seven minutes to recount the record of accomplishment of intelligent design.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It would involve s p e a k i n g   v  e  r  y     s    l    o    w    l    y.

Think Sir Clement Freud on Just a Minute.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, I don't know.  It would take him more than seven minutes to count just the Templeton money.
Posted by: socle on Feb. 25 2014,13:40

Quote (khan @ Feb. 25 2014,12:33)
The Discovery Institute’s founding dates back to the early ’90s. It was started as a high-tech and public-policy think tank. George Gilder (left) was one of the key people providing it with vision.
Were I not already thoroughly disgusted by Dembski and the 'toot, this would be sufficient.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What an odious man.  

OT:  From Gilder's wikipedia page, on the origins of the Discovery Institute:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The organization started as a moderate group which aimed to privatize and modernize Seattle's transit systems
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Heh.  Joe G will publish his CSI calculations in Nature before Seattle has a modern transportation system (I still love the town though).
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 25 2014,13:42

Quote (Driver @ Feb. 25 2014,02:05)
Quote (timothya @ Feb. 25 2014,07:37)
Is it just me or do you think it passing strange that the Carroll/Craig debate happened without acknowledgement, advertising or commentary by anyone at UD or EN&V? I may have missed their references, but what gives when one of the DI Fellows makes a big noise with a prominent cosmologist and then . . . nothing?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Craig was destroyed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's like the < 2001 Haverford conference >, then. Behe, Dembski, and Nord debated Miller, me, and Scott. Just try finding IDC advocates bragging about that...
Posted by: Woodbine on Feb. 25 2014,14:39

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 25 2014,19:42)
Quote (Driver @ Feb. 25 2014,02:05)
 
Quote (timothya @ Feb. 25 2014,07:37)
Is it just me or do you think it passing strange that the Carroll/Craig debate happened without acknowledgement, advertising or commentary by anyone at UD or EN&V? I may have missed their references, but what gives when one of the DI Fellows makes a big noise with a prominent cosmologist and then . . . nothing?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Craig was destroyed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's like the < 2001 Haverford conference >, then. Behe, Dembski, and Nord debated Miller, me, and Scott. Just try finding IDC advocates bragging about that...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


[tinfoilhat]Wesley, every video at that site works....except yours.[/tinfoilhat]
Posted by: DiEb on Feb. 25 2014,16:22

Quote (Driver @ Feb. 25 2014,08:05)
Quote (timothya @ Feb. 25 2014,07:37)
Is it just me or do you think it passing strange that the Carroll/Craig debate happened without acknowledgement, advertising or commentary by anyone at UD or EN&V? I may have missed their references, but what gives when one of the DI Fellows makes a big noise with a prominent cosmologist and then . . . nothing?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Craig was destroyed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is there any footage free available?
Posted by: DiEb on Feb. 25 2014,16:26

Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 25 2014,10:34)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 25 2014,00:29)
   
Quote (sparc @ Feb. 24 2014,23:19)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Another thing that makes me think that maybe this work is having an impact is that after it started gaining momentum, Michigan State University, home of Pennock’s Digital Evolution Lab, received a huge $25 million NSF grant in 2010 for BEACON (Bio-computational Evolution in Action CONsortium). I suspect that at least part of the rationale for the NSF giving our tax dollars to fund this boondoggle is the threat to Darwinian evolution posed by the Evolutionary Informatics Lab."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was not aware that megalomania is measured in Dembskis.

ETA: just learned that the unit can only be properly expressed with caps lock on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


from the interview:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Far better would have been to use those seven minutes to recount the record of accomplishment of intelligent design.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It would involve s p e a k i n g   v  e  r  y     s    l    o    w    l    y.

Think Sir Clement Freud on Just a Minute.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"He's listing again...."

I miss him...
Posted by: Febble on Feb. 25 2014,16:39

Quote (DiEb @ Feb. 25 2014,16:22)
Quote (Driver @ Feb. 25 2014,08:05)
Quote (timothya @ Feb. 25 2014,07:37)
Is it just me or do you think it passing strange that the Carroll/Craig debate happened without acknowledgement, advertising or commentary by anyone at UD or EN&V? I may have missed their references, but what gives when one of the DI Fellows makes a big noise with a prominent cosmologist and then . . . nothing?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Craig was destroyed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is there any footage free available?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oddly, no, as far as I can tell, although somewhere I saw someone anticipating that it would eventually be posted.
Posted by: Driver on Feb. 25 2014,17:51

Quote (DiEb @ Feb. 25 2014,22:22)
Quote (Driver @ Feb. 25 2014,08:05)
Quote (timothya @ Feb. 25 2014,07:37)
Is it just me or do you think it passing strange that the Carroll/Craig debate happened without acknowledgement, advertising or commentary by anyone at UD or EN&V? I may have missed their references, but what gives when one of the DI Fellows makes a big noise with a prominent cosmologist and then . . . nothing?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Craig was destroyed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is there any footage free available?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Live streamed, then not available, but Carroll has said it will be available on Youtube shortly.
Posted by: fnxtr on Feb. 25 2014,20:22

Quote (Woodbine @ Feb. 25 2014,08:47)
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Far better would have been to use those seven minutes to recount the record of accomplishment of intelligent design.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



William Dembski - 7'00''
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Clever Woodbine.

On the B Side is a rare studio recording of Marcel Marceau.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 25 2014,21:29

Quote (Woodbine @ Feb. 25 2014,14:39)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 25 2014,19:42)
 
Quote (Driver @ Feb. 25 2014,02:05)
 
Quote (timothya @ Feb. 25 2014,07:37)
Is it just me or do you think it passing strange that the Carroll/Craig debate happened without acknowledgement, advertising or commentary by anyone at UD or EN&V? I may have missed their references, but what gives when one of the DI Fellows makes a big noise with a prominent cosmologist and then . . . nothing?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Craig was destroyed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's like the < 2001 Haverford conference >, then. Behe, Dembski, and Nord debated Miller, me, and Scott. Just try finding IDC advocates bragging about that...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


[tinfoilhat]Wesley, every video at that site works....except yours.[/tinfoilhat]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I had to try starting it three times, but it eventually did.
Posted by: Henry J on Feb. 25 2014,22:36

Quote (keiths @ Feb. 24 2014,00:30)
< Byers >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Where are these hot good looking robots? who is defining what robot beauty is?
I still would allow robot marriage before gay marriage. Robots are less objectionable and they are objectionable.
Call it robotophobia if you must!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But how would one determine if a robot has reached the age of consent? :p
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 25 2014,22:55

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 25 2014,21:29)
Quote (Woodbine @ Feb. 25 2014,14:39)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 25 2014,19:42)
 
Quote (Driver @ Feb. 25 2014,02:05)
   
Quote (timothya @ Feb. 25 2014,07:37)
Is it just me or do you think it passing strange that the Carroll/Craig debate happened without acknowledgement, advertising or commentary by anyone at UD or EN&V? I may have missed their references, but what gives when one of the DI Fellows makes a big noise with a prominent cosmologist and then . . . nothing?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Craig was destroyed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's like the < 2001 Haverford conference >, then. Behe, Dembski, and Nord debated Miller, me, and Scott. Just try finding IDC advocates bragging about that...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


[tinfoilhat]Wesley, every video at that site works....except yours.[/tinfoilhat]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I had to try starting it three times, but it eventually did.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're but a pup there, Wes!
Posted by: CeilingCat on Feb. 27 2014,16:13

Is that The Legendary Sweater Dembski is wearing?

< Link >
Posted by: J-Dog on Feb. 27 2014,16:31

Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 27 2014,16:13)
Is that The Legendary Sweater Dembski is wearing?

< Link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's it - In all HIS its GLORY - Praise Jesus! The Designer!
Posted by: khan on Feb. 27 2014,19:54

Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 27 2014,17:13)
Is that The Legendary Sweater Dembski is wearing?

< Link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Sweater should be on exhibit somewhere.
Posted by: Texas Teach on Feb. 27 2014,20:49

Quote (khan @ Feb. 27 2014,19:54)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 27 2014,17:13)
Is that The Legendary Sweater Dembski is wearing?

< Link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Sweater should be on exhibit somewhere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If Sternberg hadn't been expelled, we could have gotten him to acquire it for the Smithsonian.
Posted by: CeilingCat on Feb. 27 2014,22:17

Last I heard, he still works there.  Being "expelled" isn't what it used to be.
Posted by: CeilingCat on Feb. 27 2014,22:41

Ok, cage your irony meters, raise your blood alcohol levels to at least "sub lethal" levels, empty your bladders, sit down, strap in, set your phasors to "stun" and hang on for dear life.

From the < The "D" of ID is science > thread, I give you the Philippine Phuckup, young Salvador Cordova:
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have debated Darwinists for many years, and I don’t debate them in order to persuade them, but rather to humiliate their claims as best I can, and this is done by arguing from the most unassailable positions possible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Do not attempt to reply for at least 45 minutes or until you stop rolling on the floor and laughing.  Do not forget to breathe.
Posted by: Woodbine on Feb. 28 2014,06:16




Posted by: OgreMkV on Feb. 28 2014,08:00

Here's the criag carrol debate: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?f....tAwH33k >
Posted by: Driver on Mar. 01 2014,04:51

< Before the fall, we were chimpanzees >:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This YEC creationist welcomes 100% likeness with primates.
We do not have human bodies but are renting primate bodies for human beings SOULS made in Gods image.
We are within the spectrum of creation.
We have livers, hearts, butts, lips, ears because we are in a common blueprint of biology. A single equation .
Yet because we are unique we could not have a body representing our true identity as a God image as it couldn’t be shown within a animal biology plan.
So we were given the best body on earth for our needs.
We are renting a body. We are using a ape construction.
Physical separateness is irrelevant.
In fact its probably post fall details that spin us away from 100%. Like colour, pain at childbirth, body issues, no hair etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Febble on Mar. 01 2014,06:29

Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 28 2014,08:00)
Here's the criag carrol debate: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?f....tAwH33k >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, that was a pretty unambiguous win for Carroll.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Mar. 01 2014,07:41

Quote (Febble @ Mar. 01 2014,06:29)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 28 2014,08:00)
Here's the criag carrol debate: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?f....tAwH33k >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, that was a pretty unambiguous win for Carroll.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You know, I have a good grounding in the majority of sciences. I've spoken to biochemists, paleontologists, even a physicist at one point.  I've been able to hold my own with them, ask intelligent questions and understand complex, technical answers.

I read journals at least weekly. After listening to Carroll, I'm woefully behind in my understanding of the current state of cosmology, but that happens. I've been concentrating on Cambrian evolution for the last few months/years.

But I am totally honest when I say half the time I couldn't understand what the hell Craig was saying. It reminded me of that guy on In living Color who would string together words that obviously didn't belong together, just to sound smart.

Craig struck me the same way. He didn't care whether anyone understood him. He just wanted to sound smart. Sort of the ultimate appeal to authority. "I'm smart and you don't understand me and are too scared to ask questions on the facts I'm saying because you will look stupid. Therefore, I win."  

Even the judge commented on it subtly. Mentioning that everyone is looking up Boltzman Brains on their iPhones.

Craig's argument didn't change either. He just said the same thing, with digs at Carroll.

I can only imagine what a lay audience was thinking.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 01 2014,11:49

We don't need Boltzmann Brains. We have Logical Depth.
Posted by: CeilingCat on Mar. 01 2014,14:14

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 01 2014,11:49)
We don't need Boltzmann Brains. We have Logical Depth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Never sold, but never remaindered either.
Posted by: steve_h on Mar. 02 2014,15:38

< Adam and Eve and Ann Gauger >  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here’s a vid of Gauger arguing a similar point in a different venue:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Said venue is of course the Disco'tute's fake lab / real stock photo.

Axel


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If only the materialists didn’t come across as such charlatans in the discussions here on UD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: CeilingCat on Mar. 02 2014,16:14

Quote (steve_h @ Mar. 02 2014,15:38)
< Adam and Eve and Ann Gauger >  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here’s a vid of Gauger arguing a similar point in a different venue:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Said venue is of course the Disco'tute's fake lab / real stock photo.

Axel
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If only the materialists didn’t come across as such charlatans in the discussions here on UD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But as Barb points out in reply 3:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yet, embodied in Christianity are the highest moral principles that can be found anywhere. Is it possible that the finest teachings as to truth and honesty could originate with something that is basically false?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: fnxtr on Mar. 02 2014,16:46

All science etc...
Posted by: timothya on Mar. 03 2014,00:26

From UD via a commenter called Chalciss:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
. . . These debates serve a purpose when they can get a believer to think and get the thinker to believe. . . .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is the dichotomy in the second paragraph really what he/she meant?
Posted by: BillB on Mar. 03 2014,01:26

KF

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One of the major problems I have with atheistical arguments is their habitual reliance on misrepresentations and caricatures, backed up by selective hyperskepticism rather than addressing comparative difficulties. Not to mention turnabout accusations and personalities, thuggishness and enabling behaviour.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That isn't the sound of clapping KF, it is the sound of irony meters popping.
Posted by: Quack on Mar. 03 2014,03:14

Quote (BillB @ Mar. 03 2014,01:26)
KF  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One of the major problems I have with atheistical arguments is their habitual reliance on misrepresentations and caricatures, backed up by selective hyperskepticism rather than addressing comparative difficulties. Not to mention turnabout accusations and personalities, thuggishness and enabling behaviour.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That isn't the sound of clapping KF, it is the sound of irony meters popping.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That isn't just KF's problem, it is a most characteristic problem shared by most if not all creationist (ID included) fundamentalists. They have cataracts in their mental eye; they are unable to see the difference between atheism and the application of scientfic method and thinking to all aspects of nature.

It remains to be proven that biology should be extempt from scientific thought and investigation.

A telling fact is that all biological knowlege stems from scientific discovery. Nothing from creationism regardless of how it is cloaked.
Posted by: k.e.. on Mar. 03 2014,07:33

Quote (Quack @ Mar. 03 2014,11:14)
Quote (BillB @ Mar. 03 2014,01:26)
KF  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One of the major problems I have with atheistical arguments is their habitual reliance on misrepresentations and caricatures, backed up by selective hyperskepticism rather than addressing comparative difficulties. Not to mention turnabout accusations and personalities, thuggishness and enabling behaviour.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That isn't the sound of clapping KF, it is the sound of irony meters popping.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That isn't just KF's problem, it is a most characteristic problem shared by most if not all creationist (ID included) fundamentalists. They have cataracts in their mental eye; they are unable to see the difference between atheism and the application of scientfic method and thinking to all aspects of nature.

It remains to be proven that biology should be extempt from scientific thought and investigation.

A telling fact is that all biological knowlege stems from scientific discovery. Nothing from creationism regardless of how it is cloaked.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Creationism's only redeeming scientific quality is to bring us the meme of the cheap tuxedo. Scientists don't have to worry much, third world tailors on the other hand must be up in arms.
Posted by: timothya on Mar. 05 2014,04:46

From KF at UD on events in the Ukraine:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
F/N: I trust the above, in light of the OP, also suffices to expose the destructive, deceitful, toxic nature of yet another increasingly common tactic: turnabout, blame the targetted victim accusations. Unfortunately, this seems to be a favourite stratagem of the Darwinist fever swamp denizens, and even those who are more genteel are prone to use it in subtler form, as Mr Nye plainly did. TSZ, I trust you are listening. KF
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Apparently you lot down there in the fever swamp are the cause of a Russophile insurrection in the Crimea. How did you manage that? I wonder which rabbit hole the "Putin is a bulwark against atheist immorality" trope suddenly disappeared down.
Posted by: Lethean on Mar. 05 2014,05:32

Quote (BillB @ Mar. 03 2014,01:26)
KF    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One of the major problems I have with atheistical arguments is their habitual reliance on misrepresentations and caricatures, backed up by selective hyperskepticism rather than addressing comparative difficulties. Not to mention turnabout accusations and personalities, thuggishness and enabling behaviour.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That isn't the sound of clapping KF, it is the sound of irony meters popping.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"habitual reliance on misrepresentations and caricatures"

This one always gets me. It reminds me of "Socrates" over at TR who constantly makes the same claim. Whenever someone poses a question or makes a statement that illustrates how what they have asserted is false by extending that persons thought/idea/assertion further in order to demonstrate that it's incorrect, their defense is to frequently claim that they are being misrepresented.

They never seem to look for where they are wrong, rather they are searching for ways to entrench their doubt concerning the ideas they disagree with. It makes me sad sometimes.  :(
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 05 2014,11:12

ooooo 'strategem'. Aren't we fancy.
Posted by: Quack on Mar. 05 2014,11:15



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
They never seem to look for where they are wrong, rather they are searching for ways to entrench their doubt concerning the ideas they disagree with. It makes me sad sometimes.  :(
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't we all share a slice of the same sadness?


Posted by: Glen Davidson on Mar. 05 2014,13:51

Quote (Quack @ Mar. 05 2014,11:15)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
They never seem to look for where they are wrong, rather they are searching for ways to entrench their doubt concerning the ideas they disagree with. It makes me sad sometimes.  :(
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't we all share a slice of the same sadness?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Schaden, yes.

Freude, yes.

It more than balances out, I think.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: midwifetoad on Mar. 05 2014,13:54

Quote (timothya @ Mar. 05 2014,04:46)
From KF at UD on events in the Ukraine:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
F/N: I trust the above, in light of the OP, also suffices to expose the destructive, deceitful, toxic nature of yet another increasingly common tactic: turnabout, blame the targetted victim accusations. Unfortunately, this seems to be a favourite stratagem of the Darwinist fever swamp denizens, and even those who are more genteel are prone to use it in subtler form, as Mr Nye plainly did. TSZ, I trust you are listening. KF
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Apparently you lot down there in the fever swamp are the cause of a Russophile insurrection in the Crimea. How did you manage that? I wonder which rabbit hole the "Putin is a bulwark against atheist immorality" trope suddenly disappeared down.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No fan of Putin, but just the same, how dare he copy what we do with the CIA?

And what countries have done since the dawn of history.
Posted by: Ptaylor on Mar. 05 2014,16:59

The latest thread on James Tour makes for entertaining reading, especially the comments about and from Nick Matzke.
But then again any thread that can generate this...

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
25
kairosfocusMarch 5, 2014 at 4:29 pm

Mr Matzke, you still have some outstanding apologies to make. Kindly understand that, for cause, I am on the verge of asking you to leave this thread as an abusive and disruptive false accuser. KF
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...has got to be worth checking out.

< UD link >
ETA - Bonus follow-up!:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
26
kairosfocusMarch 5, 2014 at 4:41 pm

Mr Matzke,

I scrolled up to post 15 ff.

I see you already tried a turnabout and pretzel twist game, compounding what you have done in recent weeks.

Strike three.

PLEASE LEAVE THIS THREAD, AND PLEASE DO NOT POST IN ANY THREADS I OWN UNTIL YOU CAN FIND THE BASIC MANNERS TO APOLOGISE FOR AND FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE YOUR CONDUCT TOWARDS BASIC CIVILITY.

Any further posts from you in this and future threads I own will be deleted, until you show that you have a civil tongue in your head.

Good day

GEM of TKI
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 05 2014,17:05

Quote (Ptaylor @ Mar. 05 2014,16:59)
The latest thread on James Tour makes for entertaining reading, especially the comments about and from Nick Matzke.
But then again any thread that can generate this...

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
25
kairosfocusMarch 5, 2014 at 4:29 pm

Mr Matzke, you still have some outstanding apologies to make. Kindly understand that, for cause, I am on the verge of asking you to leave this thread as an abusive and disruptive false accuser. KF
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...has got to be worth checking out.

< UD link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, and that's Dr. Matzke to Mullings.

I know that will be painful for the IDC cheerleading crowd whose refrain from early on was that Matzke didn't have that Ph.D. Now he does, and I think reminding the cheerleaders of that is precisely right.

< >


Posted by: Dr.GH on Mar. 06 2014,11:41

Quote (Febble @ Mar. 01 2014,04:29)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 28 2014,08:00)
Here's the criag carrol debate: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?f....tAwH33k >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, that was a pretty unambiguous win for Carroll.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Sean Carroll & William Lane..." This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Tactical Faith, Inc..

Chicken shits.

Here is a live URL:

< http://truthbomb.blogspot.com/2014....an.html >


Posted by: Dr.GH on Mar. 06 2014,12:09

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 05 2014,15:05)
Quote (Ptaylor @ Mar. 05 2014,16:59)
The latest thread on James Tour makes for entertaining reading, especially the comments about and from Nick Matzke.
But then again any thread that can generate this...

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
25
kairosfocusMarch 5, 2014 at 4:29 pm

Mr Matzke, you still have some outstanding apologies to make. Kindly understand that, for cause, I am on the verge of asking you to leave this thread as an abusive and disruptive false accuser. KF
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...has got to be worth checking out.

< UD link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, and that's Dr. Matzke to Mullings.

I know that will be painful for the IDC cheerleading crowd whose refrain from early on was that Matzke didn't have that Ph.D. Now he does, and I think reminding the cheerleaders of that is precisely right.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


BatShit77 posted a URL, < http://vimeo.com/8193063....1930637 > , to a lecture by Edward Trifonov that was supposed to imply that DNA couldn't have evolved. I'd point Batty to;

Trifonov, Edward N.
2004 "The Triplet Code From First Principles" Journal of Biomolecular Structure & Dynamics, ISSN 0739-1102 Volume 22, Issue Number 1.


Posted by: Soapy Sam on Mar. 06 2014,15:57

Quote (Ptaylor @ Mar. 05 2014,22:59)
The latest thread on James Tour makes for entertaining reading, [...]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tour:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Evolution not synthetic chemistry. Not OoL. Evolution something different. Evolution evolution.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Mar. 06 2014,16:22

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Mar. 06 2014,15:57)
Quote (Ptaylor @ Mar. 05 2014,22:59)
The latest thread on James Tour makes for entertaining reading, [...]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tour:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Evolution not synthetic chemistry. Not OoL. Evolution something different. Evolution evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Haven't you heard of intelligent molecules?

Maybe Gary does have one fan...

Glen Davidson
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 06 2014,16:55

Mapou:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Science is 90% guts, 5% sweat and 5% smarts. All of you Darwinists and atheists out there are a bunch of gutless cowards. Take a lesson from Tour and grow some gonads.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Mapou is 87% making things up, 9% Tard and 4% needed to add up to 1.
Posted by: CeilingCat on Mar. 06 2014,17:30

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Mar. 06 2014,15:57)
 
Quote (Ptaylor @ Mar. 05 2014,22:59)
The latest thread on James Tour makes for entertaining reading, [...]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tour:        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Evolution not synthetic chemistry. Not OoL. Evolution something different. Evolution evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tour is a secular Jew who had an emotional conversion to Christianity.  He describes himself as an Old Earth Creationist.  There's a URL for one of his talks on that thread and it's a standard "come to Jesus, you miserable sinner" Bible thumping speech like you'd hear in any conservative Christian church on any Sunday.  

Nowhere in Tour's writings does he describe what "understanding macroevolution" entails, but I'm betting he means the standard atom by atom description of how every molecule in every living thing came into existence, complete with date stamped samples, that every creationist loves to demand, on pain of Jesus.  Think of a JoeG who's accomplished something in the secular world.  

Fuck them both.  If they can't provide us with an atom by atom description of how God designed every biological molecule on the planet, complete with date stamped samples and all applicable DNA sequences, then Jesus is dead and Torley's an ass for not bringing up Tour's religious/emotional baggage.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 06 2014,17:46

KF is *very* excited about a video.

He comments:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
PS: In only a few minutes, another 100, it is going viral.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



He then graciously gives us time stamps and counts:

Days Count
0.00 82000
0.03 82600
0.09 83602
0.15 84272
0.38 87300

What's the best fit for this? A linear regression (r^2 .9958). That's the very definition of NOT VIRAL.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 06 2014,17:49

I WUV YOU FRANKLIN:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
yes, it does speak volumes that the environment here is not conducive to uncensored/unmodified responses. IOW, no one trust you…just look at your (Kf) recent censoring of Dr. Matzke.s responses and your subsequent modification of one of his posts….yes, Kf, it does speak volumes. It also speaks volumes that you refuse to engage those you wish to engage in a forum where they (and you) are free to make uncensored points/opinions.

You are either against censorship or you are not. Apparently, given your actions and your requests that others be censored elsewhere puts you in the “yes I approve of censorship’ category.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Ptaylor on Mar. 06 2014,17:58

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 07 2014,10:49)
I WUV YOU FRANKLIN:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
yes, it does speak volumes that the environment here is not conducive to uncensored/unmodified responses. IOW, no one trust you…just look at your (Kf) recent censoring of Dr. Matzke.s responses and your subsequent modification of one of his posts….yes, Kf, it does speak volumes. It also speaks volumes that you refuse to engage those you wish to engage in a forum where they (and you) are free to make uncensored points/opinions.

You are either against censorship or you are not. Apparently, given your actions and your requests that others be censored elsewhere puts you in the “yes I approve of censorship’ category.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And note the emphasis of Dr. in the original
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 06 2014,18:08

And know KF has just had another BIGNUM / 747 Junkyard / NOMATH blurt. Still no CSI calcs, KF? Sad, and very telling.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 06 2014,18:23



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Franklin:

you just tried an ad hominem atmosphere-poisoning distractor to polarise and divert discussion instead of dealing with a key matter on its merits.

You full well know that I gave a specific offer to host such an essay in toto, here at UD, and that it could freely be hosted elsewhere in parallel (I suggested TSZ).

No censorship or manipulation of such a post would be feasible under such circumstances, so you are making a deliberate misrepresentation in the teeth of what you know or should know.

It is also the case in describing showing hecklers and slanderers the door until they can find a civil tongue in their heads, as censorship.

Shame on you.

But then, this sort of diversion, twisting about, poisoning the atmosphere and making of threats is unfortunately all too common in the circles of toxic critics UD has had to deal with.

For instance, should I take your behaviour just now as willful enabling of the sort of behaviour where some attempted to identify and publicly name my uninvolved wife and minor children? Or, those who tried to reveal my residential address under similar circumstances?

I would suggest to you and ilk that leaving such information up and entertaining the sort of thug who does that IS enabling, and “freedom of expression” has limits of civility long before we come to libel and slander issues because there are ill willed, maladjusted bullies and crazies like that out there.

KF

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



tl:dr - Censorship is okay when KF does it.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 06 2014,18:38

KF yearns to descend to the Joe G level of 'pathetic'"



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
299
kairosfocusMarch 6, 2014 at 6:20 pm
PS: To correct a distortion, the recently Dr Matzke (some time back, I was corrected going the other way, for addressing as Dr, I just learned of his promotion) slandered me a couple of months ago then popped up in a thread yesterday as if nothing happened. I instructed him he was on strike 2 and needed to make amends. He doubled down, and just as I warned, I deleted posts he made beyond that point, to call him to order. He and his ilk know that all he needs to do to return to threads I own is to simply make amends for a toxic false accusation. This, he obviously cannot bring himself to do. Unless and until he makes such amends, I will treat him as a disruptive heckler and will do the online equivalent of calling security to have him removed from premises he has worn out his welcome at through uncivil conduct. That is what Franklin and others are trying to label as censorship in order to smear me for standing up for civil conduct in the teeth of slander, and it shows the fundamental incivility and arrogant rudeness of such. Since Franklin knows or should know better than the smear he just tried to spread, that too is a second order slander. Franklin has just revealed himself as a heckler and enabler of heckling for the world to see.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Thanks Big Brother! Its easier if you decide what's right and wrong for me before I even have to read it!


Posted by: sparc on Mar. 06 2014,22:51

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 06 2014,17:46)
KF is *very* excited about a video.

He comments:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
PS: In only a few minutes, another 100, it is going viral.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



He then graciously gives us time stamps and counts:

Days Count
0.00 82000
0.03 82600
0.09 83602
0.15 84272
0.38 87300

What's the best fit for this? A linear regression (r^2 .9958). That's the very definition of NOT VIRAL.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You must try to understand Gordon E. Mullings. He is sitting on a remote 50% uninhabibatable island threatened with red herrings, surrounded by strawman soaked in ad hominem and is waiting for his 15 minutes of fame that never come despite < "FSCO/I, dFCSI or whatever" (S. Cordova, 2014) >, hundreds of F/Ns, PSs, PPSs, PPPSs, PPPPSs and even PPPPPSs. He just has to get excited about this single UD thread that got some traffic although not at UD but on another obscure widely ignored web site. It means hope for him. Hope that he will finally get the attention that he thinks he deserves.
PS:Onlookers  
PPS: Good
PPPS: day
F/N and
-->Bydand!


Posted by: sparc on Mar. 06 2014,23:18

BTW, talking about guys nobody really pays attention to: Sal is again trying to open < his own ID creationst business >. I am afraid that the cake will not be big enough and that he will fail like with his long gone youncosmos echo chamber. < UD must indeed be frustrating for someone who beleaves he has a message to share with the world: >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Regarding this thread, if you want it to be persistent, I can keep it in 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, or 6th place for a while, but remember that might mean I bump other discussions off.

how long do you want this discussion close to the top of the queue? I can keep it up about a week.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It became impractical for me to try to keep this thread at the top of the queue. I hoped I could for a week, but I failed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Quack on Mar. 07 2014,03:24

I got so fed up with GG I removed myself from his thread never looking back.

I might want to have Sal over here in a thread of his own but I probably would end up removing myself from such one as well. I suspect he already is beyond the point of no return to the world of sanity, sound reason and < ratio >nal thinking.
Posted by: sparc on Mar. 07 2014,05:53

Can we actually push threads up on the UD front page?
Maybe some here wants to link to the most stupid but un-noticed thread of the ast three days and we click it to expose the TARD more prominently.
Or does Barry personally take care of what is kept on the top of the UD home page?
Posted by: sparc on Mar. 07 2014,07:23

Garry Gaulin's personal thread has produced 323 full pages since it started. I am fully aware that half of it must consist of his awful model but still it is quite telling that the two uncommonly dense threads only produced 135 pages during the same period indicationg that UD is indeed dead. It's just a sink for spewage by guys who are not even taken seriously by their co-IDiots.
Posted by: Driver on Mar. 07 2014,07:41

Quote (sparc @ Mar. 07 2014,05:18)
BTW, talking about guys nobody really pays attention to: Sal is again trying to open < his own ID creationst business >. I am afraid that the cake will not be big enough and that he will fail like with his long gone youncosmos echo chamber. < UD must indeed be frustrating for someone who beleaves he has a message to share with the world: >  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Regarding this thread, if you want it to be persistent, I can keep it in 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, or 6th place for a while, but remember that might mean I bump other discussions off.

how long do you want this discussion close to the top of the queue? I can keep it up about a week.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It became impractical for me to try to keep this thread at the top of the queue. I hoped I could for a week, but I failed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Liars for Darwin blog is for defenders of “science” and “reason” who are tired of getting banned and moderated from creationist websites.

   Here at Liars for Darwin, creationists can post and advocate their ideas in the OP articles, but unlike other blogs, defenders of “science” :roll: are free to speak their mind in defense of evolutionism and materialism in the comment section.

   Although truth in the comment section is welcome, also welcome are lies, falsehoods, obfuscation, spam and swarm tactics, misrepresentations, misinterpretations, non-sequiturs, equivocations, ad hominems, red herrings, off-topics derailments, trash talking and outright lies, etc.

   Sockpuppets and Trolls are especially welcome to participate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: KevinB on Mar. 07 2014,08:15

Quote (sparc @ Mar. 06 2014,22:51)
You must try to understand Gordon E. Mullings. He is sitting on a remote 50% uninhabibatable island ....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So do his pyroclastic flow posts & BA77's similar make him feel at home?
Posted by: midwifetoad on Mar. 07 2014,09:10

Quote (sparc @ Mar. 07 2014,07:23)
Garry Gaulin's personal thread has produced 323 full pages since it started. I am fully aware that half of it must consist of his awful model but still it is quite telling that the two uncommonly dense threads only produced 135 pages during the same period indicationg that UD is indeed dead. It's just a sink for spewage by guys who are not even taken seriously by their co-IDiots.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The best strategy for dealing with the Gary Gaulin thread is not to view it unless someone other than Gary has made the most recent post.

If everyone would follow this simple rule, the thread would be much better.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 07 2014,10:05

Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 07 2014,09:10)
Quote (sparc @ Mar. 07 2014,07:23)
Garry Gaulin's personal thread has produced 323 full pages since it started. I am fully aware that half of it must consist of his awful model but still it is quite telling that the two uncommonly dense threads only produced 135 pages during the same period indicationg that UD is indeed dead. It's just a sink for spewage by guys who are not even taken seriously by their co-IDiots.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The best strategy for dealing with the Gary Gaulin thread is not to view it unless someone other than Gary has made the most recent post.

If everyone would follow this simple rule, the thread would be much better.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Reminds me of the joke about shampoo killing the computer scientist... It said, "Lather. Rinse. Repeat."
Posted by: Driver on Mar. 07 2014,11:34



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As for his attempts to belittle and derail discussion of a report that something out there has caused VJT’s thread to go viral, which turned out to be a republication of a story; let the resort to pettiness, churlishness, out of order behaviour, rudeness and the like speak for itself in the context of over a year in the which any objector to design theory anywhere in the world has had a free kick at goal, and there has been a refusal to take it. Likewise, it should be quite clear that I have no power to censor NM, i.e. suppress his freedom to express himself as he likes, but I am taking the step of saying his rudeness and pattern of false accusations of dishonesty have worn out his welcome in threads I own. I trust that this modest disciplinary step may help wake him up after his tantrum passes, and he will find it in himself to make amends. Enough is enough. KF
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Driver:

F/N Such red herring tactics designed to poison the well and cloud the atmosphere are straight out of the Alinskyite playbook. Cf Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals.

F/N Plato warned about this behaviour in book XI of The Laws...

F/N I have personal experience on the front line of fighting Marxists and their turnabout tactics. You will not win, sir!

BYDAND!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



KF:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Q: You are right, and we need to ask some pointed questions why so many darwinists feel compelled to behave so nastily whenever questions are asked about their favourite ideology [er, theory]. H’mm, that may be the answer, we are likely dealing with an ideological agenda verging on a religion-substitute and worldview with cultural agenda . . . here, shaped by the radical relativism and even amorality that are inherent to an evolutionary materialist worldview dressed up in a lab coat; a worldview that patently has in it no foundational IS that can properly bear the weight OUGHT. And certainly, politics is a notorious hangout for those who imagine they have a right to heckle and slander, or worse. Ditto, on how dare you question US. Rather reminds me of how dangerous — literally, not figuratively — it was to deal with communist agitators back in the day. KF
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: REC on Mar. 07 2014,11:38

Wow KF is high on UD traffic to the Tour thread from last year.

I wonder what generated the spike in traffic to that post. Last time UD saw great numbers, it was because an UD-hosted image on the Scoville Scale for peppers became the top google image result.

One thing is for sure--the traffic isn't resulting in new commenters. 85% of the comments on the thread date to October of last year, and in the recent comments I could count the number of non-regulars KF, Joe, etc. on one hand.

So, either:

1) People are stumbling in, uninterested, and quickly bailing out.
2) Their interest has been heavily censored.

Big win for UD!!!
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Mar. 07 2014,11:46

Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 07 2014,15:10)
Quote (sparc @ Mar. 07 2014,07:23)
Garry Gaulin's personal thread has produced 323 full pages since it started. I am fully aware that half of it must consist of his awful model but still it is quite telling that the two uncommonly dense threads only produced 135 pages during the same period indicationg that UD is indeed dead. It's just a sink for spewage by guys who are not even taken seriously by their co-IDiots.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The best strategy for dealing with the Gary Gaulin thread is not to view it unless someone other than Gary has made the most recent post.

If everyone would follow this simple rule, the thread would be much better.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm afraid I lost interest after the first page, no matter who is posting. 18 months of "you haven't a clue"? Please!
Posted by: midwifetoad on Mar. 07 2014,12:22



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Rather reminds me of how dangerous — literally, not figuratively — it was to deal with communist agitators back in the day
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No doubt they hijacked airplanes and flew them into volcanoes, which is why Montserrat is mostly uninhabitable.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 07 2014,14:35

This bit is great: (after a PS and a PPS)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
F/N: I should note that I am of course looking at a fad spike driven renewed growth Bass curve, and anticipate a permanently higher plateau rate of access for multiple reasons; similar to how the hula hoop came back from obscurity in the 70?s or how pumps came back in the 80s or how platform shoes . . . to my annoyance as a former safety officer . . . have come back from the dead, we even have pumps with platforms, an ankle buster if I ever saw one....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Former safety officer - priceless. KF, professional worrier and clutcher of pearls!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 07 2014,14:43



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Franklin: You evidently do not recognise a logistic based, modified, product life cycle model. The one that is relevant to market type situations. And BTW, going viral is going to fit that as epidemics spread in much the same way. Surge and flatten out to a steady pattern. KF
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Of course, Franklin asked KF to do some simple math (amount 90 seconds in excel - which he couldn't do.)
Posted by: Woodbine on Mar. 07 2014,14:53

Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 07 2014,18:22)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Rather reminds me of how dangerous — literally, not figuratively — it was to deal with communist agitators back in the day
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No doubt they hijacked airplanes and flew them into volcanoes, which is why Montserrat is mostly uninhabitable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They weren't DC-8s were they?


Posted by: BillB on Mar. 07 2014,16:09

Quote (REC @ Mar. 07 2014,17:38)
Wow KF is high on UD traffic to the Tour thread from last year.

I wonder what generated the spike in traffic to that post. Last time UD saw great numbers, it was because an UD-hosted image on the Scoville Scale for peppers became the top google image result.

One thing is for sure--the traffic isn't resulting in new commenters. 85% of the comments on the thread date to October of last year, and in the recent comments I could count the number of non-regulars KF, Joe, etc. on one hand.

So, either:

1) People are stumbling in, uninterested, and quickly bailing out.
2) Their interest has been heavily censored.

Big win for UD!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


50% of that traffic is just kf checking the page every 3 seconds.
Posted by: JohnW on Mar. 07 2014,16:22

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 07 2014,12:35)
This bit is great: (after a PS and a PPS)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
F/N: I should note that I am of course looking at a fad spike driven renewed growth Bass curve, and anticipate a permanently higher plateau rate of access for multiple reasons; similar to how the hula hoop came back from obscurity in the 70?s or how pumps came back in the 80s or how platform shoes . . . to my annoyance as a former safety officer . . . have come back from the dead, we even have pumps with platforms, an ankle buster if I ever saw one....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Former safety officer - priceless. KF, professional worrier and clutcher of pearls!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...a permanently higher plateau rate of access for multiple reasons...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Multiple reasons?  I suppose you could count "pointing" and "giggling" as two reasons...
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 07 2014,16:22

KF's latest, erm, thing:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Franklin, you are intelligent enough to use a dictionary, so you know or full well should know the difference between doing the equivalent of calling security to deal with a disruptive and slanderous heckler and having and using power to effectively suppress publication of ideas. There is a world of difference between say Mr Obama having a heckler evicted from a meeting such a heckler has disrupted and using policing power to prevent someone from publishing a legitimate criticism — where, of course, there is no right to defame. Your insistence on mislabelling the former as the latter, having been corrected, speaks volumes about your attitudes and motivation. You are enabling a former slander by yourself indulging a slander. Just as, in another thread this afternoon, you sought to insinuate that thinking in terms of product life cycle patterns — a first step in strat marketing — is somehow inferior to doing linear regressions; maybe I should tell you that epidemics, and growing markets or for that matter pyramid schemes start exponentially, but tend to saturate, hence the utility of logistic models, Bass curves and the like or extensions. The pattern of behaviours you have been indulging in haste to poison the well is sadly revealing. KF
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Some points.

1. If you have better models, show how they are better
2. KF (and all IDists) like to talk about math but don't like to DO math. KF is the guy who writes cookbooks but has no oven, the guy who reviews cars but can't drive.
3. You censor people, KF. No amount of special pleading will change that. So be fine with censorship, you hypocritical windbag.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 07 2014,16:26

Franklin has discovered some great ID reasoning:

1. Micro evolution is possible, Macro evolution is impossible
2.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ppolishMarch 7, 2014 at 11:47 am
Do we know precisely how “hemoglobin in modern teleosts” evolved? If yes – it’s micro. If no – it’s macro.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: fnxtr on Mar. 07 2014,16:58

3. Profit!
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 07 2014,19:15

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 06 2014,18:46)
KF is *very* excited about a video.

He comments:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
PS: In only a few minutes, another 100, it is going viral.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



He then graciously gives us time stamps and counts:

Days Count
0.00 82000
0.03 82600
0.09 83602
0.15 84272
0.38 87300

What's the best fit for this? A linear regression (r^2 .9958). That's the very definition of NOT VIRAL.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OpenOffice gives me r^2 = .9955, so you're totes Rong and it's clearly viral.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 07 2014,19:24

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 07 2014,19:15)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 06 2014,18:46)
KF is *very* excited about a video.

He comments:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
PS: In only a few minutes, another 100, it is going viral.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



He then graciously gives us time stamps and counts:

Days Count
0.00 82000
0.03 82600
0.09 83602
0.15 84272
0.38 87300

What's the best fit for this? A linear regression (r^2 .9958). That's the very definition of NOT VIRAL.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OpenOffice gives me r^2 = .9955, so you're totes Rong and it's clearly viral.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Porter Loo!

Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 07 2014,19:24



I've never seen anything so viral. It's unprecedented.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 07 2014,19:29

Its from rounding days to 2 dp for display here.

I had to convert time stamps (hours / mins) into days to make the regression easier. Honest!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 07 2014,19:32

PM me your email Steve and I will send you my Fisher-Pry adoption / diffusion curve tool fing that I did dun myslefs for to be testing the KF logistic curve hypothesis.


Or something.
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 07 2014,19:39

I would if i cared, at all, about any of this, in any way, ever.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 07 2014,19:42

:-(

It had 'indirects' and everything.
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 07 2014,20:09

I'm just finding ID-related stuff almost depression-inducingly boring these days.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 07 2014,20:19

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 07 2014,20:09)
I'm just finding ID-related stuff almost depression-inducingly boring these days.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Id just like to them to do something interesting / positive.

Try and calculate CSI / DFIASCO
Do some experiments / research

All we get is "news" using POPSCI soundbites to cast doubt on science, Barry and KF getting into deep apologetics (ASSF) and Sal trying to make UD a YEC venue

Unfortunately they are more boring than funny these days, and as they take such a beating when they venture out they've adopted a siege mentality and all of the censorship that goes with that.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 07 2014,21:13

Franklin has discovered that on the thread "A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution",

No Idist can define macro or micro evolution.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 07 2014,21:41

Bonus KF wrongity:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Franklin: You evidently do not recognise a logistic based, modified, product life cycle model. The one that is relevant to market type situations. And BTW, going viral is going to fit that as epidemics spread in much the same way. Surge and flatten out to a steady pattern. KF
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Emphasis mine.

< http://library.thinkquest.org/11170....le.html >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
An epidemic hits a population, runs its course, and dies out. It disappears either because of a cure, or everyone without immunity dies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Emphasis mine again.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 07 2014,21:49





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Okay, Franklin, you have confirmed your status as a heckler and enabler of slander who has no regard for truth or fairness when it comes to those you hold in contempt. I hope you are happy with the rather public achievement. KF
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: socle on Mar. 07 2014,22:45

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 07 2014,21:41)
Bonus KF wrongity:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Franklin: You evidently do not recognise a logistic based, modified, product life cycle model. The one that is relevant to market type situations. And BTW, going viral is going to fit that as epidemics spread in much the same way. Surge and flatten out to a steady pattern. KF
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Emphasis mine.

< http://library.thinkquest.org/11170......le.html >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
An epidemic hits a population, runs its course, and dies out. It disappears either because of a cure, or everyone without immunity dies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Emphasis mine again.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: Lou FCD on Mar. 07 2014,22:52

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 07 2014,21:19)
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 07 2014,20:09)
I'm just finding ID-related stuff almost depression-inducingly boring these days.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Id just like to them to do something interesting / positive.

Try and calculate CSI / DFIASCO
Do some experiments / research

All we get is "news" using POPSCI soundbites to cast doubt on science, Barry and KF getting into deep apologetics (ASSF) and Sal trying to make UD a YEC venue

Unfortunately they are more boring than funny these days, and as they take such a beating when they venture out they've adopted a siege mentality and all of the censorship that goes with that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How 'bout it, Kairosfocus AKA Gordon E. Mullings of Manjack Heights, Montserrat? Are any of you swinging dicks ever going to get around to calculating the DFCIOXYZPDQASDFJKLSEMISPACE of a peanut butter sandwich, and how that compares to a ham sandwich? Or a rock? Or are you just going to continue making up acronyms and pretending they're relevant?

I'll donate the peanut butter sandwich. Hell, I'll even donate the ham sandwich. It's good ham.

But you'll have to get your own rock. I live at the beach.
Posted by: olegt on Mar. 08 2014,08:53

Kairosfocus has a unique ability to complexify simple things. Here is < a little GEM >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
F/N: The best way to understand a coin is as a physical approximation to a two-sided die. KF
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Soapy Sam on Mar. 08 2014,09:32

Quote (olegt @ Mar. 08 2014,14:53)
Kairosfocus has a unique ability to complexify simple things. Here is [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-world-famous-chemist-tells-the-truth-theres-no-scientist-alive-today-who-understands-mac


roevolution/#comment-492278]a little GEM[/URL]:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
F/N: The best way to understand a coin is as a physical approximation to a two-sided die. KF
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I prefer to think of a die as something you get when you glue 6 coins together and fill in the gaps with corners.
Posted by: k.e.. on Mar. 08 2014,09:40

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Mar. 08 2014,17:32)
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 08 2014,14:53)
Kairosfocus has a unique ability to complexify simple things. Here is [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-world-famous-chemist-tells-the-truth-theres-no-scientist-alive-today-who-understands-mac




roevolution/#comment-492278]a little GEM[/URL]:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
F/N: The best way to understand a coin is as a physical approximation to a two-sided die. KF
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I prefer to think of a die as something you get when you glue 6 coins together and fill in the gaps with corners.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And throw it on a roulette table it's called the god help me Monte Carlo simulation. Those guys should rename ID to WobblyWollyWeasels.Jesus.Blogs
Posted by: Driver on Mar. 08 2014,10:56

Gordon Mullings of The Montserrat Home Guard < is getting ready to fight the communists again >, with a thread which he intends (as he says in the comments) to use for

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
exposing the geo-strategic, civilisational, governance, cultural, legal and regulatory, economic, social and sci-tech etc consequences of imposing Lewontinian a priori materialism dressed up in a lab coat on our civilisation.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, the evolutionists are responsible for the situation in Ukraine.

Especially Bill Nye:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mr Nye, you threw the first punch.

We will finish the fight.

Bully-boys, the free pass is over.

KF
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Elizabeth Liddle is also to blame, by association:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
F/N: I trust the above, in light of the OP, also suffices to expose the destructive, deceitful, toxic nature of yet another increasingly common tactic: turnabout, blame the targetted victim accusations. Unfortunately, this seems to be a favourite stratagem of the Darwinist fever swamp denizens, and even those who are more genteel are prone to use it in subtler form, as Mr Nye plainly did. TSZ, I trust you are listening. KF

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why haven't the evolutionists commented on KF's thread?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Given their announced tactic of refusing debate save where they think they can make us look foolish, that refusal to come to the thread speaks volumes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



More footnotes:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

But, there is a civilisational civil war pushed by neomarxist progressives and their allies, who hold disproportionate influence thanks to sanctuaries in the academy, the media and foundations plus government. These same are the core of the radical secularist ideological push that so likes to dress itself up in the holy lab coat.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Repent Bill Nye! Ye have brought the end times upon us!

(Gordon says we are headed for World War. Look up!)
Posted by: damitall on Mar. 08 2014,11:42

That thread of KF's seems to be a mutual jerk-off between him and "JGuy", reinforcing one another's paranoia.

Mullings has set his self-importance control to MaxPlus
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 08 2014,11:47

KF the censor says:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
382
kairosfocusMarch 8, 2014 at 6:57 am
BTW, as he is not banned at UD [I have only said and will enforce, that he is unwelcome in threads I own unless he makes amends for outrageous false accusations that I have for cause found to be so offensive and defamatory that he needs to make amends -- enough is enough], NM is perfectly free to show up in this thread if he wants to. KF

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So he's free to post if he says what you want or in venues you don't control. Textbook censorship.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Mar. 08 2014,12:15

Poor Gordon.  He was supposed to be Minister of Truth by now.

Only the forces of evil and Lewontian materialism could have prevented the victory of the science of "it's so obvious."  Clearly the IDiots must win the soon-coming apocalyptic war, and institute The Purge.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: Woodbine on Mar. 08 2014,15:37

We'd better check in on the < Montserrat Volcano Observatory >



Considering he's currently round the bend, imagine Gordon's psychological state at 3 or above.
Posted by: DiEb on Mar. 08 2014,16:11

I put an comment into their < moderation queue >:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
‘PPS: The surge, of course, also documents that Sci News has credibly had significant impact.’
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Call me skeptic: there are other articles  here at Uncommon Descent which have been linked to by "Scientific News", like < New Age medic Deepak Chopra responds to Darwin’s man Jerry Coyne in The New Republic. Warning: Messy > and < To recognize design is to recognize products of a like-minded process, identifying the real probability in question, Part I >. They didn't go viral - at least they didn't make the list of most popular articles.

On the other hand, < reddit > is well known to be able to generate quite an impact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: fnxtr on Mar. 08 2014,16:53

Seriously, though. Who the fuck talks like that?  It looks pathological.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Mar. 08 2014,17:10

Quote (fnxtr @ Mar. 08 2014,16:53)
Seriously, though. Who the fuck talks like that?  It looks pathological.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sounds as sane as Gary Gaulin.

Oh, I see...

Glen Davidson
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Mar. 08 2014,19:12

I finally listened to Tour's disingenuous tripe.  He certainly has the equivocation game down well--yup, no one knows how macro-evolution occurred.  

Bullshit, we know a great deal about how it occurred, we just don't know a whole lot of the details of what happened millions to billions of years ago without leaving a great deal of evidence.  

It's like saying that we know nothing about the battles of Alexander the Great.  There's virtually no detail of which we can be certain (all of the accounts we have are doubtful), of course, but we still know that they happened, much of the weaponry that was used, and at least the broad outlines of the clash of Persian and Greek (for instance).  We know that "macroevolution" happened, we know how it happened in the sense of mutation and natural selections (sorta like the "weapons"), and we do indeed understand the broad outlines of how, say, lions and humans evolved traits that help them  to survive.

I can  see why no one took up his offer of dinner and teaching him something, since his whole point is that if there's something he doesn't understand--something that isn't understood by science at large, indeed--then nothing's known about it, and we can equivocate by saying that "no one knows how macroevolution occurred," hence we can pretend that we don't know that it happened at all.  

He'll fit in well with the Dishonesty Institute, if he so chooses.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Mar. 08 2014,19:30

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Mar. 08 2014,19:12)
I can  see why no one took up his offer of dinner and teaching him something, since his whole point is that if there's something he doesn't understand--something that isn't understood by science at large, indeed--then nothing's known about it, and we can equivocate by saying that "no one knows how macroevolution occurred," hence we can pretend that we don't know that it happened at all.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's ID Creationist Bullshit Excuse Number 1.

"if we don't know everything about evolution then we don't know anything!"
Posted by: OgreMkV on Mar. 08 2014,19:44

Quote (olegt @ Mar. 08 2014,08:53)
Kairosfocus has a unique ability to complexify simple things. Here is [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-world-famous-chemist-tells-the-truth-theres-no-scientist-alive-today-who-understands-mac

roevolution/#comment-492278]a little GEM[/URL]:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
F/N: The best way to understand a coin is as a physical approximation to a two-sided die. KF
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, he's wrong about that too.

A coin is a THREE sided system with an uneven distribution when flipped. But most people don't get it.
Posted by: CeilingCat on Mar. 08 2014,22:37

Quote (DiEb @ Mar. 08 2014,16:11)
I put an comment into their < moderation queue >:
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
‘PPS: The surge, of course, also documents that Sci News has credibly had significant impact.’
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Call me skeptic: there are other articles  here at Uncommon Descent which have been linked to by "Scientific News", like < New Age medic Deepak Chopra responds to Darwin’s man Jerry Coyne in The New Republic. Warning: Messy > and < To recognize design is to recognize products of a like-minded process, identifying the real probability in question, Part I >. They didn't go viral - at least they didn't make the list of most popular articles.

On the other hand, < reddit > is well known to be able to generate quite an impact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From the "New Age medic..." thread above:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, if you look into it, you will soon discover that people like Coyne and his wikitroll buddies simply insist, beyond the reach of evidence, that telepathy is false. Not so, it exists as a low level effect greater than chance but not nearly enough to justify the claims of typical psychics (seeThe Spiritual Brain).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

So now Dense is defending telepathy - at a suitably low level so it can't be detected without Jesus.
Posted by: CeilingCat on Mar. 08 2014,22:44

Soapy Sam:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I prefer to think of a die as something you get when you glue 6 coins together and fill in the gaps with corners. 
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I prefer to think of "die" as something you get when you go whoring after Jesus and neglect the local Volcano God.
Posted by: Quack on Mar. 09 2014,03:48

Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 08 2014,19:44)
   
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 08 2014,08:53)
Kairosfocus has a unique ability to complexify simple things. Here is [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-world-famous-chemist-tells-the-truth-theres-no-scientist-alive-today-who-understands-mac



roevolution/#comment-492278]a little GEM[/URL]:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
F/N: The best way to understand a coin is as a physical approximation to a two-sided die. KF
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, he's wrong about that too.

A coin is a THREE sided system with an uneven distribution when flipped. But most people don't get it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fixed link: < a little GEM > (I like to fix things.)
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Mar. 09 2014,07:16

KF! Fresh KF! Get yer KF 'ere!
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
F/N, FYI — FTR: Any serious commenter intending to be fair would have checked out that NM falsely accused me of deceit in an earlier thread several weeks ago [at roughly Christmas time], as in: “Gish Gallop” . . . as Rational Wiki defines, a very serious accusation of public deceit (and as a rule a patently false accusation, starting with the late Mr Gish himself, who could not have won the vast majority of 3 – 400 debates if he had been doing what he was caricatured as doing by hard core evolutionary materialist ideologues in order to dismiss what he was saying and showing by smearing the messenger, i.e. accuse without good warrant of wholesale “quote mining,” which is itself an informal — and in our experience here at UD, usually false — accusation of deceitful out of context quotation . . . note the in extenso cites I had to give to correct that insinuation and later accusation, regarding especially Gould’s career-long position as a world class expert on what the fossil record actually substantiates and contains).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Pause for breath. That's Sentence 1 over. Aaaaand ...

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That is the context in which I informed him that absent amends for that, he was not welcome and would be removed as a slanderous heckler, cf. 299 above where I pointed this out to F, and 39 on here, where I summarised what happened to JG . . . with links to the scene of the crime. NM chose to double down, and I took disciplinary action for cause. F’s cleverly misleading half-truth on in the same thread, speaks volumes, sadly revealing volumes. Onlookers, THIS is the COMMON level of behaviour by too many objectors to design thought, and if these unscrupulous hecklers are allowed free reign in UD’s threads, there would be a fever swamp race to the gutter. I do this for the record, not to feed the troll who will predictably continue twisting the matter into pretzels. KF
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Glen Davidson on Mar. 09 2014,11:52

Headline at UD:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Researchers: Dishonesty can mean greater creativity
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Funny, the IDiots seem to be about as uncreative as anyone can be.

No tradeoffs, there, they just go for the worst possible fate, uncreative dishonesty.*

Glen Davidson

*Not saying that they're consciously lying, but at UD we've mostly got people who are deeply dishonest with evidence and with themselves.
Posted by: REC on Mar. 09 2014,19:44

Sooo.....wow.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Axel March 9, 2014 at 4:46 pm
Re #57, KF, alas, Putin’s Russia is the only remaining superpower that is currently a bastion of Christianity. We know the extraordinary constraints Putin must be under to continue to keep the ravening wolves of the West at bay, and his own domestic gangster-oligarchs under some sort of control.

The UK is such a small country, with five hundred years odd of spy services, the latter have a poultice on the populace, so can do pretty much what they like under the radar. And in the US, discretion is no longer even necessary; an outcome for the country seemingly foreseen and feared by Eisenhower, though such Mammon-worship, allied to Moloch-worship, was bound to breed a culture of extraordinary wall-to-wall violence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: DiEb on Mar. 09 2014,23:22

Another one for the < moderation queue >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Indeed, 105,173 . . . that Sci News dot info repub had more impact than the detractors were willing to acknowledge. BTW, they seem to have been in operation since 2007.[
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

KF, you are kidding yourself if you think that  science-news.info (< alexa-rank below 4,000,000 >) has such an impact on a post at uncommondescent.com (< alexa-rank ca. 400,000 >)! The server data should show that the traffic comes to the article via reddit.com (< alexa-rank ca. 80 >).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


KairosFocus thinks that at last all the scientifically inclined minds flock to UD, while in reality, it's just a couple of teens wanting to have fun...
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 09 2014,23:42

Quote (DiEb @ Mar. 09 2014,23:22)
Another one for the < moderation queue >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Indeed, 105,173 . . . that Sci News dot info repub had more impact than the detractors were willing to acknowledge. BTW, they seem to have been in operation since 2007.[
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

KF, you are kidding yourself if you think that  science-news.info (< alexa-rank below 4,000,000 >) has such an impact on a post at uncommondescent.com (< alexa-rank ca. 400,000 >)! The server data should show that the traffic comes to the article via reddit.com (< alexa-rank ca. 80 >).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


KairosFocus thinks that at last all the scientifically inclined minds flock to UD, while in reality, it's just a couple of teens wanting to have fun...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


See, you can't fool the youth of Today! Overwhelmingevidence.com FTW!!!111
Posted by: Woodbine on Mar. 10 2014,04:04

It looks as if < Overwhelming Evidence > has gone extinct. The front page had been hanging on for years but, if my internets are reliable, it's finally disappeared.

So it's a perfect excuse to < post this..... >



:(

Oh, William.


Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 10 2014,04:28

Quote (Woodbine @ Mar. 10 2014,04:04)
It looks as if < Overwhelming Evidence > has gone extinct. The front page had been hanging on for years but, if my internets are reliable, it's finally disappeared.

So it's a perfect excuse to < post this..... >



:(

Oh, William.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Modeled on MySpace, you say...
Posted by: midwifetoad on Mar. 10 2014,06:56

What could go wrong?
Posted by: Zachriel on Mar. 10 2014,09:16

Quote (Woodbine @ Mar. 10 2014,04:04)
It looks as if < Overwhelming Evidence > has gone extinct. The front page had been hanging on for years but, if my internets are reliable, it's finally disappeared.

So it's a perfect excuse to < post this..... >



:(

Oh, William.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dembski still has the domain name registration.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Registrant Name: William Dembski
Registrant Organization:
Registrant Street: 1002 Main Street
Registrant City: Pella
Registrant State/Province: Iowa
Registrant Postal Code: 50219
Registrant Country: United States
Registrant Phone: *********
Registrant Phone Ext:
Registrant Fax:
Registrant Fax Ext:
Registrant Email: email@designinference.com
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: midwifetoad on Mar. 10 2014,12:53

The giant sleeps with the parrot.
Posted by: Driver on Mar. 10 2014,13:51

The difference is that Dembski didn't get a squillion dollars for selling overwhelmingevidence.com

Plus, Dembski isn't everyone's friend.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Mar. 10 2014,14:28

Human shitstain Sal Cordova has his new IDCreationist blog, < Creation Evolution University > up and going.  Looks like it's going to be just like his other failed IDC apologetics blog from a few years ago, Young Cosmos.

I'm rather disappointed he didn't keep the name he originally chose for this new goat rope, "Liars For Darwin".  :D

In a move with a huge amount of unintended irony Sal chose for his board background the same picture used by another science-denying crank, AGW denialist Anthony Watts and WattsUpWithThat.
Posted by: Woodbine on Mar. 10 2014,15:13

Quote (Driver @ Mar. 10 2014,19:51)
The difference is that Dembski didn't get a squillion dollars for selling overwhelmingevidence.com

Plus, Dembski isn't everyone's friend.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Also, Byers arrives fashionably retarded at Young Cosmos 2....






Posted by: Ptaylor on Mar. 10 2014,15:27

PZ Myers < comments > on the current UD hero worshiping of James Tour.
Good stuff.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Mar. 10 2014,15:28

Could Robert Byers aspire to be the Gary Gaulin of creationism? Is he that great?
Posted by: Woodbine on Mar. 10 2014,15:42

James Tour....



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living, and I don’t just buy a kit, and mix this and mix this, and get that. I mean, ab initio, I make molecules.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Fucking hell, he's channeling Gil Dodgen.
Posted by: Texas Teach on Mar. 10 2014,18:33

Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 10 2014,15:28)
Could Robert Byers aspire to be the Gary Gaulin of creationism? Is he that great?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's more coherent than Gary. On the other hand, he's a sexist, racist, POS.  So, maybe.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Mar. 10 2014,18:41



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living, and I don’t just buy a kit, and mix this and mix this, and get that. I mean, ab initio, I make molecules.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, absolutely, because you make molecules ab initio you must completely understand a process that never does this, or at least almost never has for the last couple billion years or so.

It's the typical creationist engineer's boast, hey, I know how to design things so I must understand evolution perfectly well.  Meaning in fact that they know nothing about evolution and merely assume that what they do must have been what the Great Engineer did.  And why bother learning evolution when you already know how it "must have happened"?

Glen Davidson
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Mar. 10 2014,19:52

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Mar. 11 2014,00:41)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living, and I don’t just buy a kit, and mix this and mix this, and get that. I mean, ab initio, I make molecules.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, absolutely, because you make molecules ab initio you must completely understand a process that never does this, or at least almost never has for the last couple billion years or so.

It's the typical creationist engineer's boast, hey, I know how to design things so I must understand evolution perfectly well.  Meaning in fact that they know nothing about evolution and merely assume that what they do must have been what the Great Engineer did.  And why bother learning evolution when you already know how it "must have happened"?

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, I write software for a living and if anyone should understand evolution it's me 'cos it's all software. Apart from the bit that's like a little machine. Or the bit that's chemistry which must have been intelligently designed 'cos chemists can't intelligently design it. Or the bit that's like 500 coins all heads-up. Anyway, it's got fuck all to do with biology.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Mar. 10 2014,21:47

Quote (Woodbine @ Mar. 10 2014,15:42)
James Tour....



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living, and I don’t just buy a kit, and mix this and mix this, and get that. I mean, ab initio, I make molecules.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Fucking hell, he's channeling Gil Dodgen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, he creates nuclear fusion in his lab out of particles from controlled quantum fluctuations "from the beginning" as it were.

Wow. That's almost good enough to BE the designer. Yet he probably refuses to talk about THE designer... modesty and all.
Posted by: Driver on Mar. 10 2014,22:35

Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 10 2014,21:28)
Could Robert Byers aspire to be the Gary Gaulin of creationism? Is he that great?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Robert Byers is miles funnier than Gary.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Mar. 10 2014,22:46



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Animals didn’t “arise” from oxygenation, they created it, researchers say
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Uh-huh, what does this say?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A more oxygen-rich ocean created ideal conditions for more mobile animals to evolve, because they have a higher requirement for oxygen. These included the first predatory animals with guts that started to eat one another, marking the beginning of a modern marine biosphere, with the type of food webs we are familiar with today.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Of course the dolt is either equivocating on purpose or because she's such an ignorant bozo.  Sure, if you want to talk about sponges as the animals that oxygenated the oceans, yes, that's what the researchers claim (seems a paltry cause to me, but that's what they said, anyway).  The animals that actually arose at the beginning of the Cambrian, however, still arose because of the oxygenation caused by the sponges that existed long before they did.

So yeah, they're saying that oxygenation caused* the "Cambrian Explosion," and she's blithering as usual.

Glen Davidson

ETA *Or, "was causal for"
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 10 2014,22:48

Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 10 2014,14:28)
Could Robert Byers aspire to be the Gary Gaulin of creationism? Is he that great?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I dunno about that. Would Byers be able to collect large numbers of details (each of which is more or less accurate if taken on its own), the way Gaulin does?

Henry
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 10 2014,22:52

Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 08 2014,18:44)
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 08 2014,08:53)
Kairosfocus has a unique ability to complexify simple things. Here is [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-world-famous-chemist-tells-the-truth-theres-no-scientist-alive-today-who-understands-mac


roevolution/#comment-492278]a little GEM[/URL]:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
F/N: The best way to understand a coin is as a physical approximation to a two-sided die. KF
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, he's wrong about that too.

A coin is a THREE sided system with an uneven distribution when flipped. But most people don't get it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or, maybe people would feel edgy about a thing like that? :p
Posted by: Quack on Mar. 11 2014,03:27

Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 10 2014,22:48)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 10 2014,14:28)
Could Robert Byers aspire to be the Gary Gaulin of creationism? Is he that great?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I dunno about that. Would Byers be able to collect large numbers of details (each of which is more or less accurate if taken on its own), the way Gaulin does?

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


RB is funny in a weird sort of way, but he knows nothing, understands nothing - in short, he's immersed in ignorance to up over his head.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 11 2014,03:38

Quote (Quack @ Mar. 11 2014,03:27)
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 10 2014,22:48)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 10 2014,14:28)
Could Robert Byers aspire to be the Gary Gaulin of creationism? Is he that great?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I dunno about that. Would Byers be able to collect large numbers of details (each of which is more or less accurate if taken on its own), the way Gaulin does?

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


RB is funny in a weird sort of way, but he knows nothing, understands nothing - in short, he's immersed in ignorance to up over his head.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


RB being Byers, not our beloved Reciprocating Bill.
Posted by: Freddie on Mar. 11 2014,09:54

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Mar. 10 2014,14:28)
Human shitstain Sal Cordova has his new IDCreationist blog, < Creation Evolution University > up and going.  Looks like it's going to be just like his other failed IDC apologetics blog from a few years ago, Young Cosmos.

I'm rather disappointed he didn't keep the name he originally chose for this new goat rope, "Liars For Darwin".  :D

In a move with a huge amount of unintended irony Sal chose for his board background the same picture used by another science-denying crank, AGW denialist Anthony Watts and WattsUpWithThat.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Snigger ...


Posted by: REC on Mar. 11 2014,10:29

I think Sal is following O'Leary's tactics, and launching multiple YEC blogs this month:

< Liars For Darwin >

is running.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Mar. 11 2014,16:54

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 11 2014,04:38)
     
Quote (Quack @ Mar. 11 2014,03:27)
     
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 10 2014,22:48)
       
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 10 2014,14:28)
Could Robert Byers aspire to be the Gary Gaulin of creationism? Is he that great?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I dunno about that. Would Byers be able to collect large numbers of details (each of which is more or less accurate if taken on its own), the way Gaulin does?

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


RB is funny in a weird sort of way, but he knows nothing, understands nothing - in short, he's immersed in ignorance to up over his head.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


RB being Byers, not our beloved Reciprocating Bill.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Anyone confuses me with Robert Byers, I shoot mys... him (RB). No, wait...


Posted by: Glen Davidson on Mar. 11 2014,18:51



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   This is all no great surprise. Why on earth should we expect that a theory drawn up 80 or so years ago will remain inviolable today? As I am sure Darwin expected, evolution is complex and doesn’t have a single operative principle, although obviously natural selection is a big part of it. (I need to be careful what I say here – one ticking off I got was from a biologist who was unhappy that I had over-stressed natural selection at the molecular level, which I freely confess was a slight failure of nerve – I have found that saying such things can induce apoplexy in folks who see the shadows of creationism everywhere.) My complaint is why this seemingly obvious truth gets so little airplay in popular accounts of genetics and evolution. I’m still puzzled by that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ball apparently doesn’t realize that Darwinism is the creation story of new atheism, and must therefore be held inviolate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, that's why such sentiments appear in prominent science journals, blogs, and in the responses we make the grotesque ignorance of UD posts.

No, wait, it's the IDiots who have to invent an inviolate "Darwinism" for "atheism," and are too stupid even to notice the difference between "Darwinism" and "Neodarwinism."

Better than dealing with what science actually says, the evidence, or anything like the truth, of course.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: sparc on Mar. 11 2014,23:46

Quote (REC @ Mar. 11 2014,10:29)
I think Sal is following O'Leary's tactics, and launching multiple YEC blogs this month:

< Liars For Darwin >

is running.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If he wants to make a living out of his creationist idiocy Sal should go for a theology degree and then open his own little church rather than running this obscure online "university" which is so obviously pseudoscienctific and especially so anti-academic that it will not attract even the dumbest IDiots. Like Dembski he may not be a good enough speaker, though.
Posted by: k.e.. on Mar. 12 2014,01:38

Quote (sparc @ Mar. 12 2014,07:46)
Quote (REC @ Mar. 11 2014,10:29)
I think Sal is following O'Leary's tactics, and launching multiple YEC blogs this month:

< Liars For Darwin >

is running.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If he wants to make a living out of his creationist idiocy Sal should go for a theology degree and then open his own little church rather than running this obscure online "university" which is so obviously pseudoscienctific and especially so anti-academic that it will not attract even the dumbest IDiots. Like Dembski he may not be a good enough speaker, though.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Demski not a good enough speaker? Doesn't he have a Sunday school class weekend child minding gig?
Posted by: CeilingCat on Mar. 12 2014,08:34

Quote (sparc @ Mar. 11 2014,23:46)
 
Quote (REC @ Mar. 11 2014,10:29)
I think Sal is following O'Leary's tactics, and launching multiple YEC blogs this month:

< Liars For Darwin >

is running.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If he wants to make a living out of his creationist idiocy Sal should go for a theology degree and then open his own little church rather than running this obscure online "university" which is so obviously pseudoscienctific and especially so anti-academic that it will not attract even the dumbest IDiots. Like Dembski he may not be a good enough speaker, though.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It worked for L. Ron Hubbard.  

And he didn't even get the theology degree.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Mar. 12 2014,09:23

UD conducts a debate against an invisible opponent.

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....allenge >
Posted by: k.e.. on Mar. 12 2014,09:25

Quote (CeilingCat @ Mar. 12 2014,16:34)
Quote (sparc @ Mar. 11 2014,23:46)
 
Quote (REC @ Mar. 11 2014,10:29)
I think Sal is following O'Leary's tactics, and launching multiple YEC blogs this month:

< Liars For Darwin >

is running.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If he wants to make a living out of his creationist idiocy Sal should go for a theology degree and then open his own little church rather than running this obscure online "university" which is so obviously pseudoscienctific and especially so anti-academic that it will not attract even the dumbest IDiots. Like Dembski he may not be a good enough speaker, though.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It worked for L. Ron Hubbard.  

And he didn't even get the theology degree.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hubbard? Of course he only used the tools of theology sycophancy and greed the rest were sheep & collateral damage.
Posted by: fnxtr on Mar. 12 2014,10:25

Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 12 2014,07:25)
 
Quote (CeilingCat @ Mar. 12 2014,16:34)
 
Quote (sparc @ Mar. 11 2014,23:46)
     
Quote (REC @ Mar. 11 2014,10:29)
I think Sal is following O'Leary's tactics, and launching multiple YEC blogs this month:

< Liars For Darwin >

is running.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If he wants to make a living out of his creationist idiocy Sal should go for a theology degree and then open his own little church rather than running this obscure online "university" which is so obviously pseudoscienctific and especially so anti-academic that it will not attract even the dumbest IDiots. Like Dembski he may not be a good enough speaker, though.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It worked for L. Ron Hubbard.  

And he didn't even get the theology degree.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hubbard? Of course he only used the tools of theology sycophancy and greed the rest were sheep & collateral damage.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Whereas ID, on the other hand... um...
Posted by: BillB on Mar. 12 2014,12:22

Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 12 2014,15:23)
UD conducts a debate against an invisible opponent.

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....allenge >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What, again? I guess some things never grow old.
Posted by: Patrick on Mar. 12 2014,13:04

Quote (BillB @ Mar. 12 2014,13:22)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 12 2014,15:23)
UD conducts a debate against an invisible opponent.

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....allenge >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What, again? I guess some things never grow old.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I try not to give traffic to UD, but based on the URL I think this is being addressed at The Skeptical Zone.  kairosfocus and all but one of the other UD denizens are free to participate there, while most of the TSZ regulars are banned at UD.  What do you suppose the odds are of them demonstrating some intellectual courage and leaving the safety of Barry's skirts?
Posted by: midwifetoad on Mar. 12 2014,13:14

Quote (Patrick @ Mar. 12 2014,13:04)
Quote (BillB @ Mar. 12 2014,13:22)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 12 2014,15:23)
UD conducts a debate against an invisible opponent.

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....allenge >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What, again? I guess some things never grow old.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I try not to give traffic to UD, but based on the URL I think this is being addressed at The Skeptical Zone.  kairosfocus and all but one of the other UD denizens are free to participate there, while most of the TSZ regulars are banned at UD.  What do you suppose the odds are of them demonstrating some intellectual courage and leaving the safety of Barry's skirts?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To be fair, it was posted by VJTorley. So at least one of them is able to leave the womb. So far no interaction, though.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 12 2014,14:09

Joe:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Stonehenge- design determined; further research to establish how, by whom, why and when.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Reality:

< http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news.......nehenge >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A prehistoric village has been discovered in southern England that was likely home to the builders of Stonehenge, archaeologists announced on January 30, 2007 (read the full story).

The village, located 1.75 miles (2.8 kilometers) from the famous stone circle, includes eight wooden houses dated back to around 2500 B.C.

The remains of a cluster of homes include the outlines of floors, beds, and cupboards. Tools, jewelry, pottery, and human and animal bones were also found.

...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



he's been corrected on this before, but in true creationist fashion he just rolls out the old, untrue tropes.


Posted by: fnxtr on Mar. 12 2014,14:20

Yeah, caekboy's just being a Vogon birfer on this one. Until we have the documents in triplicate we won't know which particular individuals hauled them stones.

Therefore Jesus.

Or Mohammed.

Or space aliens.

Or something.
Posted by: sparc on Mar. 13 2014,23:17

Discussions at UD are getting more and more autistic:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
11 kairosfocus < March 11, 2014 at 5:53 pm >
F/N: The first PS by Petrushka seems to be a bit of elephant-hurling. What is P’s thesis, and specifically what evidence from those journals substantiates it in respect of OOL and OOBPs . . . let’s abbreviate origin of body plans, it will come up fairly frequently . . . in such a way that on inference to best current explanation [IBCE] per observed, empirical facts, blind watchmaker mechanisms make designoid a better answer than designed. Reckon with the billions of cases of FSCO/I around us including text in this thread and the machines we are viewing such on, etc etc, and our uniform observation as to source of same backed up by the needle in haystack challenge.

KF

PS: The count on your article is now: 125,503. This is a new phenomenon at UD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
36
kairosfocus < March 12, 2014 at 4:32 am >
129,935. VJT, in two weeks or so, your page has put on coming on 100 k hits. New phenomenon, and I don’t doubt it helped trigger the attempt we are discussing in this thread. KF
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
72 kairosfocus < March 13, 2014 at 8:00 am >
143,158 for VJT on Tour . . .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
73 kairosfocus < March 13, 2014 at 1:54 pm >
145,865
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

77
kairosfocus < March 13, 2014 at 6:00 pm >
147,490
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



BYDAND!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 13 2014,23:32

His counting keeps thread-hopping. Lets put some noise between the reader and those uncomfortable questions.
Posted by: sparc on Mar. 13 2014,23:46

BTW,  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
PS: The count on your article is now: 125,503. This is a new phenomenon at UD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


KF, nobody has forgotten the times of < another-record-month-at-UD-DaveScot > when TARD was golden. Please don't continue to smear his memory.
Posted by: Driver on Mar. 14 2014,04:25

Robert Byers leapfrogs Joe G in the science denial stakes:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I say there is no such thing as science or scientists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Woodbine on Mar. 14 2014,07:00

Denyse sold a book!!!

< Previously....(Feb 23, 2014) >



Today....



:)
Posted by: KevinB on Mar. 14 2014,07:07

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 13 2014,23:32)
His counting keeps thread-hopping. Lets put some noise between the reader and those uncomfortable questions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A high count rate is not necessarily desirable.

< Radioactive Tableware on YouTube >
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 14 2014,11:57

John West lets the cat out of the  bag, ID = Religion. Whoops.

< http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014....us-view >
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Mar. 14 2014,12:05

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 14 2014,11:57)
John West lets the cat out of the  bag, ID = Religion. Whoops.

< http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014.......us-view >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How can you square that with all of the science they're doing using ID?

Glen Davidson
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 14 2014,14:32

A terrible idea:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
108
StephenBMarch 14, 2014 at 1:01 pm
UD administrators: I believe that GPuccio, Eric Anderson, and Timaeus should be given posting privileges

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



A great idea:
Give Joe G, Batshit77 and Gary Gaulin positing priveleges.

Look, UD / ID is dying a tragic, slow death. Let's make the last season awesome with SWEARING! YOUTUBE! and MYTHEORYOFID!
Posted by: OgreMkV on Mar. 14 2014,21:51

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 14 2014,14:32)
A terrible idea:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
108
StephenBMarch 14, 2014 at 1:01 pm
UD administrators: I believe that GPuccio, Eric Anderson, and Timaeus should be given posting privileges

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



A great idea:
Give Joe G, Batshit77 and Gary Gaulin positing priveleges.

Look, UD / ID is dying a tragic, slow death. Let's make the last season awesome with SWEARING! YOUTUBE! and MYTHEORYOFID!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If they really wanted to get back in blog hits, they would give one of us posting rights.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 14 2014,23:03

Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 14 2014,21:51)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 14 2014,14:32)
A terrible idea:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
108
StephenBMarch 14, 2014 at 1:01 pm
UD administrators: I believe that GPuccio, Eric Anderson, and Timaeus should be given posting privileges

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



A great idea:
Give Joe G, Batshit77 and Gary Gaulin positing priveleges.

Look, UD / ID is dying a tragic, slow death. Let's make the last season awesome with SWEARING! YOUTUBE! and MYTHEORYOFID!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If they really wanted to get back in blog hits, they would give one of us posting rights.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Barry gave it to those three no-marks and passed Joe over. Poor Chubsy. Do it for the Lulz, Barry!
Posted by: sparc on Mar. 15 2014,00:27

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 14 2014,23:03)
   
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 14 2014,21:51)
     
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 14 2014,14:32)
A terrible idea:

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
108
StephenBMarch 14, 2014 at 1:01 pm
UD administrators: I believe that GPuccio, Eric Anderson, and Timaeus should be given posting privileges

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



A great idea:
Give Joe G, Batshit77 and Gary Gaulin positing priveleges.

Look, UD / ID is dying a tragic, slow death. Let's make the last season awesome with SWEARING! YOUTUBE! and MYTHEORYOFID!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If they really wanted to get back in blog hits, they would give one of us posting rights.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Barry gave it to those three no-marks and passed Joe over. Poor Chubsy. Do it for the Lulz, Barry!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


you beat me on that:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
117 Barry Arrington < March 14, 2014 at 5:53  pm >    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
GPuccio, Eric Anderson, and Timaeus should be given posting privileges
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Agreed. They now have them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Some preview from a current comment:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

116
Eric AndersonMarch 14, 2014 at 5:50 pm

Mapou @109:

Intelligent design has been defined by the primary proponents of ID (Dembski, Behe, Meyer, et al.) as the idea that “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process.” Period. That’s it.

Yes, that inference includes — by definition if something is designed — a reference to the existence of a designer, but it does not get into questions about the designer’s intent, identity, purposes, desires, motives, methods or otherwise.

These second-order questions may be interesting in their own right. And an affirmative answer to the design question may have implications for some of these second-order questions, but they are logically distinct and separate and must be recognized as such.

The fact that a forum like UD hosts various threads and contains comments and tangents, including from those who desire to delve into these second-order questions, has nothing to do with whether or not these issues should be kept carefully separate. I will be the first to acknowledge that the second-order questions are interesting, but they must not be conflated with the fundamental questions that intelligent design asks.

A tremendous amount of effort, time, energy, and spilled ink has been spent by the primary proponents of intelligent design to make sure everyone is clear on this point.

Unfortunately, as anyone familiar with the debate knows, and as UB has aptly pointed out, one of the primary ploys of anti-ID rhetoric is to conflate the question of design detection with secondary questions about the identity, intent, methods, motives, etc. of this or that putative designer.

It is therefore supremely unhelpful for anyone who is hoping to advance the debate or bring clarity to the discussion to conflate the two and claim that ID somehow includes or “merges” these second-order questions with the purely objective and scientific inquiry about whether design is detectable. It is extremely unhelpful for public perception, and it is wrong logically.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In other words:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So! It's all forgotten now, and let's hear no more about it. So, that's two egg mayonnaise, a prawn Goebbels, a Hermann Goering, and four Colditz salads.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Posted by: sparc on Mar. 15 2014,00:36

Indeed, none of these  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
primary proponents of ID (Dembski, Behe, Meyer, et al.)*)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

will ever join a meeting which claims  


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
“The goal of REASONS 2014 will be to demonstrate the beautiful compatibility and synergy of the natural sciences and orthodox Christianity.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

*)due to unforeseen circumstances and surprising developments the list of primary proponents of ID had  to be edited


Posted by: Learned Hand on Mar. 15 2014,02:16

What a coincidence, I stopped by to mention that I just got back from the first day of the REASONS conference. I heard Dembski and Meyer speak, and spoke a bit to Dembski afterwards. I probably won't have time to write it up for a couple of days, but it was interesting.
Posted by: Patrick on Mar. 15 2014,11:07

Quote (sparc @ Mar. 15 2014,01:27)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

116
Eric AndersonMarch 14, 2014 at 5:50 pm

Mapou @109:

Intelligent design has been defined by the primary proponents of ID (Dembski, Behe, Meyer, et al.) as the idea that “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process.” Period. That’s it.

Yes, that inference includes — by definition if something is designed — a reference to the existence of a designer, but it does not get into questions about the designer’s intent, identity, purposes, desires, motives, methods or otherwise.
. . . .

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps Mapou would be kind enough to explain how one might detect design without knowing the capabilities and limitations of the putative designer.  If the answer includes the acronym "CSI" he'll need to address the flaws with that concept identified in a < couple > of < threads > at The Skeptical Zone.
Posted by: Driver on Mar. 15 2014,16:29

Quote (Patrick @ Mar. 15 2014,17:07)
Quote (sparc @ Mar. 15 2014,01:27)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

116
Eric AndersonMarch 14, 2014 at 5:50 pm

Mapou @109:

Intelligent design has been defined by the primary proponents of ID (Dembski, Behe, Meyer, et al.) as the idea that “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process.” Period. That’s it.

Yes, that inference includes — by definition if something is designed — a reference to the existence of a designer, but it does not get into questions about the designer’s intent, identity, purposes, desires, motives, methods or otherwise.
. . . .

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps Mapou would be kind enough to explain how one might detect design without knowing the capabilities and limitations of the putative designer.  If the answer includes the acronym "CSI" he'll need to address the flaws with that concept identified in a < couple > of < threads > at The Skeptical Zone.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Addressing flaws is not Louis Savain's strong point.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Previously in this series, I wrote that I get my understanding of intelligence and the brain (see Secrets of the Holy Grail) from ancient Biblical metaphorical texts that are thousands of years old.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Although he does recognize them:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know I am a crank and a lunatic; what else is new?)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< The crazy. >
Posted by: Patrick on Mar. 15 2014,17:26

Quote (Driver @ Mar. 15 2014,17:29)
Addressing flaws is not Louis Savain's strong point.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Previously in this series, I wrote that I get my understanding of intelligence and the brain (see Secrets of the Holy Grail) from ancient Biblical metaphorical texts that are thousands of years old.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Although he does recognize them:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know I am a crank and a lunatic; what else is new?)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< The crazy. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please tell me that blog post was transcribed by a kindly nurse from scrawls in Mapou's own waste on the walls of his padded hospital room.
Posted by: khan on Mar. 15 2014,18:31

TC; DR

Too crazy...
Posted by: CeilingCat on Mar. 15 2014,18:46

Quote (Woodbine @ Mar. 14 2014,07:00)
Denyse sold a book!!!

< Previously....(Feb 23, 2014) >



Today....



:)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ahh, that would be me.  I was stoned at the time.

I haven't had a chance to really read it yet, but skipping around it seems to be slightly less WTF than we're accustomed to.

I also have a first edition copy of Dembski's "The Design Inference".  It was also purchased at a great discount from a religious web site.  They weren't going out of business though, just cleaning out the trash.
Posted by: socle on Mar. 15 2014,20:33

The NY Times has published a < link > to what appears to be the youtube account of the MH370 pilot, Zaharie Ahmad Shah.  Zaharie's subscriptions include the channels of the Richard Dawkins Foundation and Tim Minchin and he has liked other atheism-related content.

Will Barry Arrington and KF be able to restrain themselves from speculating on the matter until the facts are known?
Posted by: Ptaylor on Mar. 16 2014,01:40

In a conversation about mitochondrial Eve, PaV decides he has a good reason to excuse himself from responding to anything wd400 might have to say:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
wd400:

From what I know, aren’t you about 30? That means you were what, ten years old when all this was going on, while I was in my forties. Do you want me to deny reality? Is that what you’re asking me?

It was in the papers. It was a topic of discussion. I remember it vividly. I waited expectantly for their results exactly because if there were multiple origins of “Eve” this would prove troubling. And then they were surprised when it turned out that there was only ‘one’ Eve. I remember all of this very well. We’re not in a communist state, yet; so I’m in no way going to deny reality.

Unless you’re older than forty, I’m not going to accept a word you say. Darwinists, like Communists, rewrite history to please themselves. Don’t drink the Kool-Aid, wd400.
...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Also note the communism references - Tea party much, PaV?
< UD link >
Posted by: Driver on Mar. 16 2014,04:25

Quote (Ptaylor @ Mar. 16 2014,07:40)
In a conversation about mitochondrial Eve, PaV decides he has a good reason to excuse himself from responding to anything wd400 might have to say:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
wd400:

From what I know, aren’t you about 30? That means you were what, ten years old when all this was going on, while I was in my forties. Do you want me to deny reality? Is that what you’re asking me?

It was in the papers. It was a topic of discussion. I remember it vividly. I waited expectantly for their results exactly because if there were multiple origins of “Eve” this would prove troubling. And then they were surprised when it turned out that there was only ‘one’ Eve. I remember all of this very well. We’re not in a communist state, yet; so I’m in no way going to deny reality.

Unless you’re older than forty, I’m not going to accept a word you say. Darwinists, like Communists, rewrite history to please themselves. Don’t drink the Kool-Aid, wd400.
...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Also note the communism references - Tea party much, PaV?
< UD link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You know someone has no reply when all they have left is ageism.

ETA: Also,



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you want me to deny reality?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Is this a trick question?
Posted by: Driver on Mar. 16 2014,04:40

Quote (khan @ Mar. 16 2014,00:31)
TC; DR

Too crazy...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What do you mean?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As I will explain in a future article, the false Jews, or the "synagogue of Satan", represent the church of Laodicea, which I interpret to symbolize the cerebellum, a supervised sensorimotor mechanism used for routine or automated tasks. The cerebellum receives sensory signals only from rich sensors.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: DiEb on Mar. 16 2014,05:19

Quote (socle @ Mar. 16 2014,02:33)
The NY Times has published a < link > to what appears to be the youtube account of the MH370 pilot, Zaharie Ahmad Shah.  Zaharie's subscriptions include the channels of the Richard Dawkins Foundation and Tim Minchin and he has liked other atheism-related content.

Will Barry Arrington and KF be able to restrain themselves from speculating on the matter until the facts are known?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What are you talking about?
Posted by: DiEb on Mar. 16 2014,05:21

Quote (Learned Hand @ Mar. 15 2014,08:16)
What a coincidence, I stopped by to mention that I just got back from the first day of the REASONS conference. I heard Dembski and Meyer speak, and spoke a bit to Dembski afterwards. I probably won't have time to write it up for a couple of days, but it was interesting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd love to read your essay. When and where will you publish it?
Posted by: didymos on Mar. 16 2014,06:07

Quote (DiEb @ Mar. 16 2014,03:19)
Quote (socle @ Mar. 16 2014,02:33)
The NY Times has published a < link > to what appears to be the youtube account of the MH370 pilot, Zaharie Ahmad Shah.  Zaharie's subscriptions include the channels of the Richard Dawkins Foundation and Tim Minchin and he has liked other atheism-related content.

Will Barry Arrington and KF be able to restrain themselves from speculating on the matter until the facts are known?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What are you talking about?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The pilot of the missing flight was apparently a godless materialist.  Barry loves to blame any tragedy he can on such people.  Thus the question: will he go there this time?
Posted by: k.e.. on Mar. 16 2014,09:09

Quote (Driver @ Mar. 16 2014,12:40)
Quote (khan @ Mar. 16 2014,00:31)
TC; DR

Too crazy...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What do you mean?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As I will explain in a future article, the false Jews, or the "synagogue of Satan", represent the church of Laodicea, which I interpret to symbolize the cerebellum, a supervised sensorimotor mechanism used for routine or automated tasks. The cerebellum receives sensory signals only from rich sensors.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The new ID=Indiscriminate Dystopia.

Christ on a bike these guys make the 7th circle of Hell look like a picnic.
Posted by: sparc on Mar. 17 2014,00:18

< If you are wondering what GilDodgen is currently doing: >  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I just bought my first rifle, a Marlin .30-30 with a Leupold 2-7x 33. I want to see how much long-range precision I can get. I'm loading Hornady FTX 160s, BC .33, 35.5 grains LVR powder, MV 2400 fps (chronographed).
BTW, I'm a former atheist and classical concert pianist, now born-again Christian, and play keyboards in a praise band. Visit worldchampionshipcheckers for my artificial-intelligence computer program and classical piano albums (all free).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I.e., nothing changed except for the fact that he is heavily aremed now.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 17 2014,01:02

Quote (sparc @ Mar. 17 2014,00:18)
< If you are wondering what GilDodgen is currently doing: >  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I just bought my first rifle, a Marlin .30-30 with a Leupold 2-7x 33. I want to see how much long-range precision I can get. I'm loading Hornady FTX 160s, BC .33, 35.5 grains LVR powder, MV 2400 fps (chronographed).
BTW, I'm a former atheist and classical concert pianist, now born-again Christian, and play keyboards in a praise band. Visit worldchampionshipcheckers for my artificial-intelligence computer program and classical piano albums (all free).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I.e., nothing changed except for the fact that he is heavily aremed now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From the makers of Kill Bill

FRILLY GILLY KILLY!
Posted by: k.e.. on Mar. 17 2014,08:25

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 17 2014,09:02)
Quote (sparc @ Mar. 17 2014,00:18)
< If you are wondering what GilDodgen is currently doing: >    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I just bought my first rifle, a Marlin .30-30 with a Leupold 2-7x 33. I want to see how much long-range precision I can get. I'm loading Hornady FTX 160s, BC .33, 35.5 grains LVR powder, MV 2400 fps (chronographed).
BTW, I'm a former atheist and classical concert pianist, now born-again Christian, and play keyboards in a praise band. Visit worldchampionshipcheckers for my artificial-intelligence computer program and classical piano albums (all free).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I.e., nothing changed except for the fact that he is heavily aremed now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From the makers of Kill Bill

FRILLY GILLY KILLY!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you see Frilly Gilly on the road...
Posted by: Bob O'H on Mar. 17 2014,11:54

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 17 2014,01:02)
Quote (sparc @ Mar. 17 2014,00:18)
< If you are wondering what GilDodgen is currently doing: >    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I just bought my first rifle, a Marlin .30-30 with a Leupold 2-7x 33. I want to see how much long-range precision I can get. I'm loading Hornady FTX 160s, BC .33, 35.5 grains LVR powder, MV 2400 fps (chronographed).
BTW, I'm a former atheist and classical concert pianist, now born-again Christian, and play keyboards in a praise band. Visit worldchampionshipcheckers for my artificial-intelligence computer program and classical piano albums (all free).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I.e., nothing changed except for the fact that he is heavily aremed now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From the makers of Kill Bill

FRILLY GILLY KILLY!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In which the serial killing of 70s romantic pianists is found to have been organised by a killifish genius that hates loosing at draughts (="checkers" if you're Over There).
Posted by: Learned Hand on Mar. 17 2014,14:12

As I mentioned the other day, I had a chance to attend the Reasons conference (http://faithbibleonline.org/reasons2014) to hear Drs. Meyer and Dembski speak. (I may drop the “Dr.” title as I write this, but I don’t mean any disrespect by it—I’m simply in the habit of referring to people in my notes by last name alone.) Due to family commitments I could only attend the plenary sessions on the first day, so I missed the probably more substantial breakout and plenary sessions on the second day. That’s too bad, but I was happy to see what I did.

There’s no particular theme to this writeup, or “gotcha” moment I’m building to. I just wanted to put my impressions down on paper, as I’m writing a book that touches on Dr. Dembski and some related issues. Since I’m writing up my experience anyway I’ll share it with y’all. The tl;dr version: Meyer is a good and glib speaker who did not address any criticisms of his ideas that I recall and was unwilling to take a position on the age of the earth or common descent. Dembski was noticeably bitter about his treatment by the secular and Christian establishments.

The conference was held, naturally, at a church. I don’t have a feel for how many of the attendees were faithful and how many were skeptics. The cost wasn’t prohibitive so I wouldn’t be surprised if there were quite a few non-creationists there. My sense was that most of the attendees were creationists, though. As I’ll discuss later, it was hard to tell from the Q&A session.

The audience was notably diverse. I think most attendees were white males of at least middle age, but it wasn’t a large majority. A quick count (which may not be representative) showed a little over a third of the people in my section were women, quite a few were relatively young, and maybe ten percent were African-American.

The stage was set with quite a few props. I didn’t get any good pictures, but there was a big fake desk, chemistry set, blackboard, periodic table, and other stage furniture that didn’t seem to have any purpose other than to look sciencey.

MEYER

Meyer spoke first; I missed the first part of his talk due to travel time. (I had to drive from Austin to get there, and fighting SXSW traffic was a nightmare.) As a professional speaker and communicator, my first impressions were stylistic rather than substantive. He’s a fairly skilled presenter. He puts his hands in his pockets too often, but otherwise has good control of his voice and body language. He seems to have a personal taste for jackets that are cut too large for his frame, which you can see in photos of him. (Not that it matters, of course, just something that struck me.)

Meyer gave a broad overview of ID, touching on familiar themes. He was unhappy that it’s called and thought of as a “faith-based” idea. He pushed back on that by referencing Anthony Flew; how could ID be a faith-based idea, he asked, when it found fertile ground in an atheist?

He recited the Expelled narrative in broad strokes, referred a few times to “nanotechnology” in the cell, and defined ID narrowly as being consistent with common descent. He was careful to note that he personally is “profoundly skeptical” of common descent, which was typical of his lawyerly way of describing his own beliefs. I noted several times that he was seemingly intentionally reluctant to nail down his own beliefs. He preferred to refer to himself as a skeptic or to identify some other group’s beliefs. (In the Q&A session, for example, when asked how old he thought the Earth is, he instead answered by saying that the scientific consensus is “billions of years” and then moving on to discuss the origin of life.)

Meyer spent a good amount of time talking about ATP synthase, and forgive me if I’ve misspelled that as it’s not something I’m familiar with. He described it as a mechanism that uses simply machines, levers and such, to turn ADP to ATP.

He then described ID as simply an inference to the “best explanation.” He seemed to follow the uniformitarian path by saying he was only looking for causes that exist today that can create what we see in life, and that’s only intelligence. (I was a little taken aback by that, as I don’t believe any current intelligence, tool, or guided process can actually create ATP synthase from scratch, but he didn’t address the gap between known intelligent capabilities and the artifacts of life.)

He ended his talk by saying that ID critics fail to understand (or intentionally ignore) the difference between ID’s bases and implications. He denied that it has religious bases, but acknowledged its religious implications. Those implications explained why the conference was being held in a church, and why ID critics are “working so hard to suppress this idea.” He painted the dispute as one between dedicated materialists and an ID community following the evidence where it leads.

DEMBKSI

Dembski took the stage next. The man who introduced him called him a “giant” and flattered him shamelessly. Meyer might have received the same treatment, but I missed his intro. Stylistically, Dembski does not have Meyer’s skill as a communicator. He was, however, and despite the sweater jokes, better dressed. Again that’s neither here nor there, just my first impression. In general his talk included less technical detail than Meyer’s, and he spent more time on (intentionally) corny jokes.

Dembski didn’t seem quite prepared for this event. He had a stock presentation, including slides and animations. (The same people seem to have made his and Meyer’s. They were well done.) Since Meyer had covered a lot of the material in Dembski’s slide deck, he frequently passed over slides without discussing them. It was odd since he prefaced his remarks by saying that he’d worked with Meyer prior to the conference to make sure their presentations didn’t overlap.

He stressed at the beginning that ID is a theory of information and that as such it is “fully a part of science.” A big chunk of his presentation was describing how people are allegedly using ID’s tools today, especially SETI, forensic investigators, archaeologists, and anyone who looks at Mount Rushmore. Biology is no different from these examples, he claimed, in that we can know whether we’re looking at something that was designed. Similarly he said

He turned to his central thesis, which seemed to be that ID and the faithful are under assault from mainstream scientists. He seemed honestly and sincerely bitter about this. He complained that atheistic scientists put on airs as “Prometheans,” but that in fact “Darwinian explanations have failed.” (Those comments were from two different places in his talk.) He played up his own credibility, claiming that if he was wrong he’d be “laughed off of this stage.” Obviously I don’t buy that; the intended audience has no idea whether his ideas are right or wrong, and as I’ll discuss later even he himself showed little interest in finding out whether his ID tools work.

Dembski described his critics as following this logic: if materialism works, ID is unnecessary and evolution has explained everything. And, he said, the received wisdom is that the detection of design cannot be science at all. (This seems to conflict with comments I’ve read from Dr. Liddle and others.)

He then gave a short explanation of CSI, saying that he’s looking for (1) complex/improbable events that show (2) specificity/an independent pattern. Only intelligence explains (1) and (2), etc.

At this point he digressed from his prepared remarks. He blurted out, “I am not the unreasonable one here!” My impression was that this was a spontaneous, honest, and emotional outburst. He laughed it off, as did the audience.

He segued into a complaint that ID is underfunded due to materialists’ control of the educational system. He asked for donations of time, talent, and money, but especially money as they have plenty of talent already. He discussed some of his own work, and complained that The Design Inference “killed his career” as even many Christian colleges won’t hire him now. (He has made this complaint elsewhere too, in interviews available online.)

As I recall he ended his speech by summarizing his thesis: we have good intuitive reasons to suspect design, and his design detection tools confirm that intuitive result.

Q&A

Dembski and Meyer jointly took questions. I wasn’t watching the clock by I had the impression that this was abbreviated due to the speakers going over their time. The hosts and speakers made a good effort to take questions, though. The only questions I recall were, paraphrasing, “How old is the earth?” and “Since new scientific discoveries are accepted without any significant resistance, why aren’t your ideas being accepted?” From their tone and content, I couldn’t tell whether the questioners were skeptics or creationists.

As I noted, Meyer dodged the age of the earth question. He said the scientific consensus is 3.5 billion years, and then went on to discuss the age of life. He’s skeptical of the consensus on human descent, but didn’t give details. I don’t recall whether Dembski took a turn answering this question. Meyer also fielded the other question, saying (rightly, I think) that the premise was wrong and that new ideas are very often met with significant resistance whether or not they’re right. He went on to say that people are reluctant to give up their deeply-held beliefs, so scientists aren’t willing to give ID a fair chance.

There were other questions too, but I don’t recall them or the answers in detail.

Afterwards I approached Dembski and asked him one of a few questions I was hoping to pose: what empirical testing are you doing to show, under controlled circumstances, that your toolkit works? (My idea is that if he’s not willing to perform such tests, it suggests that he doesn’t believe his own tools actually work.) He responded that blind testing is probably impossible, since the investigator would have to know the function of the thing being tested. He asked for examples of a possible test, but I wasn’t able to give him any good ones. (I’d love to hear suggestions.) My impression was that he was totally uninterested in such testing, and that he assumed it wouldn’t be possible and/or wouldn’t work. He also said it would be virtually impossible to confirm the results of testing on real-world examples, saying for example that we can’t independently confirm that a meteor killed the dinosaurs. (I’m skeptical of that, as it seems there are many ways to independently confirm the plausibility of that theory even if we can’t perfectly prove it.) He focused on the theoretical applicability of the ID methodology, with no concern for practical applicability.

I’m still writing up some notes on this, but these were my rough impressions. Hope they’re of interest.
Posted by: REC on Mar. 17 2014,14:51

Thanks for the write-up.

This is a nice video on ATP synthase:

< http://www.dnatube.com/video....chanism >

The larger context is that ATP synthase (an enzyme) is cashing in the energy of reduced carbons (from fats, carbohydrates and proteins) that have been oxidized in metabolism. Since we can't 'burn' our energy sources directly, biology picks off energy as electrons in (by enzymes+helping cofactors) in steps. This energy is then converted into the proton gradient in the film. This gradient, through ATP synthase, produces mechanical energy to create ATP, which is a key source of chemical energy for the cell.

I'm almost certain ATP synthase made an appearance in Darwin's Black Box (1996). Much discussion followed...
Posted by: Learned Hand on Mar. 17 2014,15:07

Thanks for the reference to the video. Meyer's was better-animated but much simpler. As I recall, it showed a "bump" on the rotary shaft and explained that the bump pushes channels for ADP and ATP open and closed as the shaft turns.

The video you linked does something crucial that Meyer's video doesn't, which is show that the animation is a simplified visualization of a structure that in actual reality doesn't much resemble any human creation.
Posted by: BillB on Mar. 17 2014,15:40

Quote (Learned Hand @ Mar. 17 2014,21:07)
Thanks for the reference to the video. Meyer's was better-animated but much simpler. As I recall, it showed a "bump" on the rotary shaft and explained that the bump pushes channels for ADP and ATP open and closed as the shaft turns.

The video you linked does something crucial that Meyer's video doesn't, which is show that the animation is a simplified visualization of a structure that in actual reality doesn't much resemble any human creation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks for taking the time to write this up. Very interesting.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 17 2014,15:58

Quote (Learned Hand @ Mar. 17 2014,14:12)
He asked for donations of time, talent, and money, but especially money as they have plenty of talent already.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This town ain't big enough for two snake-oil salesmen. Buy my book!
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 17 2014,17:39

Learned Hand,

I'd be interested in your thoughts on how Dembski has changed his arguments since 2001. If you go to the < Useful Links > page, there are links to video there from the Haverford "Interpreting Evolution" conference in 2001. Dembski presented, and I gave a critical presentation. You might check out the videos where I appear or have a look at my PowerPoint, which is also linked from that page.

In 2001, I pointed out that in order to test his notions, Dembski would need to concentrate on examples that already have good natural explanations, and see whether whether his technique indicates "design" if you exclude that explanation. I specifically mentioned the Krebs citric acid and mammalian middle-ear impedance-matching anatomy then.

In 2002, John Wilkins and I published < a critique of Dembski's "explanatory filter" > that laid out in greater detail our general objection to treating "ordinary design inferences" as being of the same class as "rarefied design inferences".

In 2003, Jeff Shallit and I posted < a lengthy critique of Dembski's "complex specified information" >. It contains a section on possible test cases for application of CSI. It also contains an appendix on "Specified Anti-Information" (SAI) that applies the universal distribution to the idea of testing to exclude chance as the source of information. The universal distribution is entirely based on algorithmic information theory and owes nothing to Dembski's probabilistic and logic-chopping approaches.  Here's < something I said about SAI > outside of that essay:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The existence of a minimal program/input pair that results in a certain output indicates that there exists an effective method for production of the output. Since effective methods are something that are in common between intelligent agents and instances of natural computation, one cannot distinguish which of the two sorts of causation might have resulted in the output, but one can reject chance causation for the output. We haven't so much repaired specification as we have pointed out a better alternative to it.

This leads me to a claim about Dembski's design inference: Everything which is supposedly explained by a design inference is better and more simply explained by Specified Anti-Information.

SAI identifies an effective method for the production of the output of interest. The result of a design inference is less specific, being simply the negation of currently known (and considered) regularity and chance. The further arguments Dembski gives to go from a design inference to intelligent agency are flawed. On both practical and theoretical grounds, SAI is a superior methodology to that of the design inference.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The section on challenges for IDC advocates was published in Reports of the NCSE in 2008 (< available online >).

Dembski certainly knows about these critiques. It doesn't sound like he acknowledged them within his presentation.
Posted by: Learned Hand on Mar. 17 2014,18:04

Thank you, I'll review that material as soon as the day job permits. I was prepared to ask some related questions, but the abbreviated Q&A session didn't permit it.

I can say that Dembski's presentation was fairly non-technical, and that he did not address any criticisms of his work whatsoever. It's possible that he did so on the second day, but if I recall correctly his breakout session was dedicated to theological issues.
Posted by: Learned Hand on Mar. 17 2014,18:35

Something I omitted from my writeup was another particularly bitter comment he made about his critics. He claimed that the incentives in academia and the broader culture are to attack Intelligent Design, and that accordingly some "mediocre philosophers" were awarded university chairs for it. Does anyone know to whom that might refer?

He also worked in a dig at "Judge Johnny Jones," telling the audience that the judge's "claim to fame" prior to the trial was as commissioner of a liquor commission. He did not address the merits of Kitzmiller that I recall, just made some derisive comments about the judge.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 17 2014,20:26

Quote (Learned Hand @ Mar. 17 2014,18:35)
Something I omitted from my writeup was another particularly bitter comment he made about his critics. He claimed that the incentives in academia and the broader culture are to attack Intelligent Design, and that accordingly some "mediocre philosophers" were awarded university chairs for it. Does anyone know to whom that might refer?

He also worked in a dig at "Judge Johnny Jones," telling the audience that the judge's "claim to fame" prior to the trial was as commissioner of a liquor commission. He did not address the merits of Kitzmiller that I recall, just made some derisive comments about the judge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know of anyone I'd consider "mediocre philosophers"  among philosophers critiquing Dembski. He's gotten attention from Elliot Sober, Michael Ruse, and Rob Pennock, among others, all of them IMO far more capable in philosophy than Dembski has proven himself to be. It would be worth a question to Dembski for clarification sometime, if only to allow somebody a shot at a defamation case. Dembski wants to have it both ways, that he is besieged by unworthy mental pygmies (i.e., anyone whose name isn't William A. Dembski), and that his ideas have been legitimated by the serious scholarship that has gone into opposing them.

Dembski chickened out of testifying at Kitzmiller. He didn't even stay in for the deposition, though he made sure that he was a glowering presence at Barbara Forrest's deposition. (The final communication to Dembski from the plaintiffs on the Thursday (IIRC) prior to his withdrawal was that Jeff Shallit and I would be assisting Steve Harvey at the deposition the following Monday. He withdrew on Friday. We had previously instructed him to bring along his documentation of the review process for "The Design Inference".) And Dembski's claim to fame after Kitzmiller is producing and being the voiceover talent for a farting animation of Judge Jones.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 17 2014,20:29

Michael Ruse probably has a chair position. Ruse, though, was prominent in philosophy long before Dembski appeared on the scene. Ruse was an expert witness for the plaintiffs in the McLean v. Arkansas trial. In no way does Ruse's prominence owe anything significant to his critiques of Dembski's ideas.
Posted by: Learned Hand on Mar. 17 2014,20:36

I'm curious who he was referring to and would follow up if I could, but FYI there's no conceivable way his remarks could be considered legally defamatory. Statements of opinion aren't eligible.
Posted by: Ptaylor on Mar. 17 2014,20:59

Sorry, back to more mundane matters for a moment - I couldn't let this pass:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
[context - piling onto Cosmos]
3
ChalcissMarch 17, 2014 at 6:57 pm

Not surprising at all, in my opinion the presenter of the show is drab and is not very engaging.
On another note what do the intellectual giants at UD like BA77, KF, BA, VJT think about the new discovery that bolsters the Big Bang theory?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK, who here is Chalciss?
< UD link >
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 17 2014,23:24

Quote (Learned Hand @ Mar. 17 2014,20:36)
I'm curious who he was referring to and would follow up if I could, but FYI there's no conceivable way his remarks could be considered legally defamatory. Statements of opinion aren't eligible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It all depends on the phrasing. A statement that someone *is* incompetent in their trade is grounds for defamation proceedings, and people have found out to their sorrow that they weren't clear enough in saying that such a statement was their opinion only and not offered as a fact. If you are saying that Dembski's statement about "mediocre philosophers" was clearly marked off as opinion, that's good to know.
Posted by: Learned Hand on Mar. 17 2014,23:45

That's true in general--statements that someone is unfit for their position could theoretically be defamation "per se," which makes it easier to sue on them. (I've only worked on a couple of defamation per se cases. One was an alleged statement that the plaintiff was mentally unstable and therefore unfit for his job, and the other was an alleged statement that someone was a convicted felon.)

In practice, though, it's very difficult to effectively bring and prevail on such a suit. Neither of the cases I worked on were strong ones, even though the alleged statements were relatively severe.

In this case Dembski was lightyears away from defamation. The fact that we can't identify who he was talking about from his cursory statements makes them non-specific and non-actionable. And I think that "X is a mediocre philosopher" would be seen by almost all courts as a statement of opinion even if we knew who X was. ("X only got his chair by attacking me" would probably be seen as opinion too, even though it seems like a presumably false statement of fact--since Dembski isn't saying that he has any special inside knowledge of the process, the natural interpretation of the remark is that it's only his opinion.)

All this is neither here nor there, of course, I just like talking law.
Posted by: timothya on Mar. 18 2014,04:30

TJguy at UD comments in their thread about the CMB polarisation result:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It shows that even evolutionists have a bias and are prone to interpret the evidence in their favor. Translated that means evolutionists are not the objective scientists they are always portrayed to be.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Who knows why he thinks that the reported results bear on debates in biology.

But at least, we can be pleased that he recognises a truth about scientific practice: it is a battle of ideas decided by the evidence. Now, TJguy, apply that criterion to your religion.
Posted by: tsig on Mar. 18 2014,04:48

Quote (khan @ Feb. 27 2014,19:54)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 27 2014,17:13)
Is that The Legendary Sweater Dembski is wearing?

< Link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Sweater should be on exhibit somewhere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All ID has come out of Dempskis' Sweater.
Posted by: tsig on Mar. 18 2014,05:04

Quote (sparc @ Mar. 07 2014,07:23)
Garry Gaulin's personal thread has produced 323 full pages since it started. I am fully aware that half of it must consist of his awful model but still it is quite telling that the two uncommonly dense threads only produced 135 pages during the same period indicationg that UD is indeed dead. It's just a sink for spewage by guys who are not even taken seriously by their co-IDiots.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's the attic room where you keep the crazy uncle who drools and counts unicorns.
Posted by: tsig on Mar. 18 2014,05:19

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 07 2014,16:22)
KF's latest, erm, thing:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Franklin, you are intelligent enough to use a dictionary, so you know or full well should know the difference between doing the equivalent of calling security to deal with a disruptive and slanderous heckler and having and using power to effectively suppress publication of ideas. There is a world of difference between say Mr Obama having a heckler evicted from a meeting such a heckler has disrupted and using policing power to prevent someone from publishing a legitimate criticism — where, of course, there is no right to defame. Your insistence on mislabelling the former as the latter, having been corrected, speaks volumes about your attitudes and motivation. You are enabling a former slander by yourself indulging a slander. Just as, in another thread this afternoon, you sought to insinuate that thinking in terms of product life cycle patterns — a first step in strat marketing — is somehow inferior to doing linear regressions; maybe I should tell you that epidemics, and growing markets or for that matter pyramid schemes start exponentially, but tend to saturate, hence the utility of logistic models, Bass curves and the like or extensions. The pattern of behaviours you have been indulging in haste to poison the well is sadly revealing. KF
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Some points.

1. If you have better models, show how they are better
2. KF (and all IDists) like to talk about math but don't like to DO math. KF is the guy who writes cookbooks but has no oven, the guy who reviews cars but can't drive.
3. You censor people, KF. No amount of special pleading will change that. So be fine with censorship, you hypocritical windbag.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually his cookbooks have no recipes in them, he argues that recipes  are a good thing and that other peoples' recipes are all wrong but he never offers any of his own.
Posted by: Quack on Mar. 18 2014,05:55

You are so formal:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As I mentioned the other day, I had a chance to attend the Reasons conference (http://faithbibleonline.org/reasons2014) to hear Drs. Meyer and Dembski speak.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How about "Dr. Meyer and Dr. Dr. Dembski"?
But I am not a lawyer...
Posted by: Driver on Mar. 18 2014,06:03

Quote (timothya @ Mar. 18 2014,09:30)
TJguy at UD comments in their thread about the CMB polarisation result:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It shows that even evolutionists have a bias and are prone to interpret the evidence in their favor. Translated that means evolutionists are not the objective scientists they are always portrayed to be.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Who knows why he thinks that the reported results bear on debates in biology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I do. The shtick at UD, via the DI, via fundie Evangelical literalism, is that there is an encompassing dirty war on their god. The enemy is a conflation of the secular, the scientific, Darwin and his "followers", and the left-wing. There are not multiple enemies. Utimately, the enemy is Satan aka the light bringer aka The Enlightenment.

Any evidence for more than one universe must be from that Darwinist Communist, Satan.
Posted by: BillB on Mar. 18 2014,08:06

Quote (tsig @ Mar. 18 2014,11:19)
Actually his cookbooks have no recipes in them, he argues that recipes  are a good thing and that other peoples' recipes are all wrong but he never offers any of his own.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think his claim, more specifically (if specifics are actually possible with KF) is that the recipe should be obvious to any serious participant if they read his 'always linked', and so asking him to explain the recipe is clearly just an attempt to distract and substitute the finished gingerbread man for a straw man burning in a red-herring-oil of ad-hom fuelled oven.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Mar. 18 2014,08:30

Quote (BillB @ Mar. 18 2014,08:06)
   
Quote (tsig @ Mar. 18 2014,11:19)
Actually his cookbooks have no recipes in them, he argues that recipes  are a good thing and that other peoples' recipes are all wrong but he never offers any of his own.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think his claim, more specifically (if specifics are actually possible with KF) is that the recipe should be obvious to any serious participant if they read his 'always linked', and so asking him to explain the recipe is clearly just an attempt to distract and substitute the finished gingerbread man for a straw man burning in a red-herring-oil of ad-hom fuelled oven.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I bet if KF asked nicely he could get JoeTard Gallien to calculate the CSI of a recipe for a caek :D
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Mar. 18 2014,10:37

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Mar. 18 2014,08:30)
Quote (BillB @ Mar. 18 2014,08:06)
   
Quote (tsig @ Mar. 18 2014,11:19)
Actually his cookbooks have no recipes in them, he argues that recipes  are a good thing and that other peoples' recipes are all wrong but he never offers any of his own.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think his claim, more specifically (if specifics are actually possible with KF) is that the recipe should be obvious to any serious participant if they read his 'always linked', and so asking him to explain the recipe is clearly just an attempt to distract and substitute the finished gingerbread man for a straw man burning in a red-herring-oil of ad-hom fuelled oven.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I bet if KF asked nicely he could get JoeTard Gallien to calculate the CSI of a recipe for a caek :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, but he would have to decorate it like Stonehenge :p
Posted by: Mindrover on Mar. 18 2014,12:58

Quote (Quack @ Mar. 18 2014,05:55)
You are so formal:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As I mentioned the other day, I had a chance to attend the Reasons conference (http://faithbibleonline.org/reasons2014) to hear Drs. Meyer and Dembski speak.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How about "Dr. Meyer and Dr. Dr. Dembski"?
But I am not a lawyer...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wouldn't it be Drs. Meyer and Dr. Dembski? Akin to "Attorneys General".
Posted by: midwifetoad on Mar. 18 2014,15:58



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dr. Imhaus: Doctor.
Austin Millbarge: Doctor.
Dr. Imhaus: Doctor.
Emmett Fitz-Hume: Doctor.
[Imhaus exits]
Dr. Marston: Doctor.
Austin Millbarge: Doctor.
Dr. Marston: Doctor.
Emmett Fitz-Hume: Doctor.
[Marston exits]
Karen Boyer: Doctor.
Austin Millbarge: Doctor.
Karen Boyer: Doctor.
Emmett Fitz-Hume: [amorously] Doctor!
[Boyer exits]
Jerry Hadley: Doctor.
Austin Millbarge: Doctor.
Jerry Hadley: Doctor.
Emmett Fitz-Hume: Doctor.
[Hadley exits]
Austin Millbarge: We're not doctors!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Texas Teach on Mar. 18 2014,16:45

Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 18 2014,15:58)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dr. Imhaus: Doctor.
Austin Millbarge: Doctor.
Dr. Imhaus: Doctor.
Emmett Fitz-Hume: Doctor.
[Imhaus exits]
Dr. Marston: Doctor.
Austin Millbarge: Doctor.
Dr. Marston: Doctor.
Emmett Fitz-Hume: Doctor.
[Marston exits]
Karen Boyer: Doctor.
Austin Millbarge: Doctor.
Karen Boyer: Doctor.
Emmett Fitz-Hume: [amorously] Doctor!
[Boyer exits]
Jerry Hadley: Doctor.
Austin Millbarge: Doctor.
Jerry Hadley: Doctor.
Emmett Fitz-Hume: Doctor.
[Hadley exits]
Austin Millbarge: We're not doctors!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bob Hope: Doctor. Doctor. Glad I'm not sick.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 19 2014,07:49

They all want to father their own information acronym:


< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-design >

Nirwad's mangling of Euler is particularly sad / funny.
Posted by: socle on Mar. 19 2014,09:20

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 19 2014,07:49)
They all want to father their own information acronym:


< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-design >

Nirwad's mangling of Euler is particularly sad / funny.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's some nice cargo cult maths there.  

Or maybe I should call it "science work".
Posted by: Gunthernacus on Mar. 19 2014,09:57

Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 18 2014,16:58)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dr. Imhaus: Doctor.
Austin Millbarge: Doctor.
Dr. Imhaus: Doctor.
Emmett Fitz-Hume: Doctor.
[Imhaus exits]
Dr. Marston: Doctor.
Austin Millbarge: Doctor.
Dr. Marston: Doctor.
Emmett Fitz-Hume: Doctor.
[Marston exits]
Karen Boyer: Doctor.
Austin Millbarge: Doctor.
Karen Boyer: Doctor.
Emmett Fitz-Hume: [amorously] Doctor!
[Boyer exits]
Jerry Hadley: Doctor.
Austin Millbarge: Doctor.
Jerry Hadley: Doctor.
Emmett Fitz-Hume: Doctor.
[Hadley exits]
Austin Millbarge: We're not doctors!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Me Doctor? >
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 19 2014,10:31

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 19 2014,07:49)
They all want to father their own information acronym:


< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-design >

Nirwad's mangling of Euler is particularly sad / funny.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mangling is a "niwrad" < specialty >.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Mar. 19 2014,10:38

How is this not an obfuscated version of Dembski?
Posted by: Bob O'H on Mar. 19 2014,11:34

Anyone know what JGuy is blathering on about in that thread?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There are some odd things in mathematics. One that I find peculiar is that the sum of all positive integers equals not infinity but rather -1/12. Of course, this requires a little creative math.. yet it’s apparently proven! So, my question is why would this most generic of divergent series (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + …inf) have such a peculiar value? Zero would have been as unexpected, but arguably more intuitively palatable from a symmetrical point of view (i.e. why 12 would be found special use in our decimal numbering system?). But -1/12 is certainly more interesting than zero. How odd.. not only is it an unexpected fraction, it’s negative.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I really shouldn't care, but if there is a 'proof' it's probably hilarious.
Posted by: socle on Mar. 19 2014,11:43

Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 19 2014,11:34)
Anyone know what JGuy is blathering on about in that thread?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There are some odd things in mathematics. One that I find peculiar is that the sum of all positive integers equals not infinity but rather -1/12. Of course, this requires a little creative math.. yet it’s apparently proven! So, my question is why would this most generic of divergent series (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + …inf) have such a peculiar value? Zero would have been as unexpected, but arguably more intuitively palatable from a symmetrical point of view (i.e. why 12 would be found special use in our decimal numbering system?). But -1/12 is certainly more interesting than zero. How odd.. not only is it an unexpected fraction, it’s negative.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I really shouldn't care, but if there is a 'proof' it's probably hilarious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I had to look this up too.  Here's some explanation:

< http://tinyurl.com/mnp635w....mnp635w >

Naturally, the idea that the literal sum in the infinite series sense equals -1/12 is rubbish.
Posted by: REC on Mar. 19 2014,11:46

I think more than one of us here thinks Nirwad might be in it for some lulz.

How else do you explain this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
complexity c(S)of a system S ” as a complex number z:
c(S) = z = x + i y = quantity + i quality
       = matter + i information
where x is a measure of its quantitative aspects (mass, weight, number of molecules…) and y is a measure of its qualitative aspects (shapes, complexity, organization, information, functional CSI…).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So the complexity of a system is defined, in part, by its complexity? Got it.

And Y is a quantitative measure of qualitative things (which include fCSI and information)?
Posted by: Bob O'H on Mar. 19 2014,12:04

Quote (REC @ Mar. 19 2014,11:46)
I think more than one of us here thinks Nirwad might be in it for some lulz.

How else do you explain this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
complexity c(S)of a system S ” as a complex number z:
c(S) = z = x + i y = quantity + i quality
       = matter + i information
where x is a measure of its quantitative aspects (mass, weight, number of molecules…) and y is a measure of its qualitative aspects (shapes, complexity, organization, information, functional CSI…).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So the complexity of a system is defined, in part, by its complexity? Got it.

And Y is a quantitative measure of qualitative things (which include fCSI and information)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed. It's complexities all the way down. It probably sums to 42.
Posted by: KevinB on Mar. 19 2014,13:17

Is niwrad going to change his "handle" to "notwen", since his mathematics is just as backwards as his biology?

Neil Rickert has alluded to the use of complex numbers in electrical engineering, and noted that in impedance calculations both resistance and reactance are measured in ohms, and "work" together when combined as complex numbers. "Joe" has jumped in and pointed out that  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Resistance and IMPEDENCE are measured in ohms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


which is true (when spelt right) but he has missed the salient point that all three quantities are measured in the same units.

What is deeper (and which has obviously escaped niwrad) is that the mapping of complex numbers onto the cartesian plane is a consequence of how complex numbers are defined, and that using complex numbers for impedance calculation is merely a convenient fiddle because the definition of complex arithmetic happens to right for the purpose.

I also note that niwrad has put "convection" instead of "convention" throughout a comment. Perhaps he's trying to boost circulation.  :)
Posted by: keiths on Mar. 19 2014,13:57

Quote (KevinB @ Mar. 19 2014,11:17)
"Joe" has jumped in and pointed out that    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Resistance and IMPEDENCE are measured in ohms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


which is true (when spelt right)...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Meanwhile, Denyse's new headline reads:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The multiverses doesn’t need actual evidence …
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



UD is such a clusterfuck.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Mar. 19 2014,14:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Henry Crun  March 19, 2014 at 7:35 am

Axel @36,

At last there’s something we can agree on: O’Leary is indeed one of the greatest intellects that UD has. No further comment is necessary.

< linky >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



:D  :D  :D

OK, which of you is Henry Crun?
Posted by: KevinB on Mar. 19 2014,15:14

Quote (keiths @ Mar. 19 2014,13:57)
Quote (KevinB @ Mar. 19 2014,11:17)
"Joe" has jumped in and pointed out that      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Resistance and IMPEDENCE are measured in ohms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


which is true (when spelt right)...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Meanwhile, Denyse's new headline reads:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The multiverses doesn’t need actual evidence …
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



UD is such a clusterfuck.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why are they so fixated on the "Multiverse"? Real scientists know that it's all speculation and are, in general, waiting for evidence to turn up. Which is, of course, why the polarization of the CMB is interesting. It's fun to watch all the theoreticians with dogs in the fight flapping around trying to make their theories fit the new facts.

The UD lot, for all their posturing, clearly have no concept of how science works.
Posted by: Ptaylor on Mar. 19 2014,16:22

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Mar. 20 2014,07:07)

OK, which of you is Henry Crun?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Whoever you are you've sure worked Mapou into a lather:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
55
MapouMarch 19, 2014 at 3:01 pm



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Crun @52:

   Hopelessly wrong. A red shift of 4 corresponds to a recession velocity of about 0.92 of the speed of light in vacuo. And your explosion issue is also grossly incorrect. The Big Bang isn ‘t a bomb going off – that was always an ironic sneer – it’s a massive and rapid expansion from a hot dense state, more like a sudden inflation of a balloon . Space isn’t just an abstract either, it’s space-time and it comes with real physical characteristics.

   If you want to write about this stuff with any credibility, take a course.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



More pomposity and deceit. You people are a bunch of con artists and you got nothing of value to teach. You are weavers of lies and deception. You are about as ignorant about the cosmos and its origin as the man on the street.

The .92 C velocity is just a piece of turd that some jackass in the physics community pulled out of his asteroid orifice. It was obtained by applying Special Relativity formulas to the redshift measurements. The actual truth is that relativistic corrections are already inherent in the redshift (as per relativity) and applying it after the measurement is about as deceitful and backasswards as one can get.

Your point about spacetime being some physical entity is also based on total ignorance. The truth is that nothing can move in spacetime. Go learn your own crappy Star Trek voodoo physics.

PS. No need for you to reply, Crun. I can’t stand throwing my pearls at swines.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< UD link >
Have to love the "No need for you to reply" bit.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 19 2014,20:59

The bit about throwing pearls reminded me of Terry Gilliam's "diamonds" in "Jabberwocky".
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 19 2014,21:51

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 14 2014,14:32)
A terrible idea:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
108
StephenBMarch 14, 2014 at 1:01 pm
UD administrators: I believe that GPuccio, Eric Anderson, and Timaeus should be given posting privileges

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



A great idea:
Give Joe G, Batshit77 and Gary Gaulin positing priveleges.

Look, UD / ID is dying a tragic, slow death. Let's make the last season awesome with SWEARING! YOUTUBE! and MYTHEORYOFID!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Eric Anderson has his first post up, and what a colossal turd it is: Bad, even by UD standards. If you're going to read it, do it in your stoner voice for added Lulz.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Mar. 19 2014,22:00

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 19 2014,21:51)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 14 2014,14:32)
A terrible idea:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
108
StephenBMarch 14, 2014 at 1:01 pm
UD administrators: I believe that GPuccio, Eric Anderson, and Timaeus should be given posting privileges

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



A great idea:
Give Joe G, Batshit77 and Gary Gaulin positing priveleges.

Look, UD / ID is dying a tragic, slow death. Let's make the last season awesome with SWEARING! YOUTUBE! and MYTHEORYOFID!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Eric Anderson has his first post up, and what a colossal turd it is: Bad, even by UD standards. If you're going to read it, do it in your stoner voice for added Lulz.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, that was pretty pathetic even by UD's low standards.

Anderson thus becomes the 5723rd IDiot to confuse the concepts of "information" and "meaning".
Posted by: Driver on Mar. 20 2014,00:24

Quote (REC @ Mar. 19 2014,16:46)
I think more than one of us here thinks Nirwad might be in it for some lulz.

How else do you explain this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
complexity c(S)of a system S ” as a complex number z:
c(S) = z = x + i y = quantity + i quality
       = matter + i information
where x is a measure of its quantitative aspects (mass, weight, number of molecules…) and y is a measure of its qualitative aspects (shapes, complexity, organization, information, functional CSI…).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So the complexity of a system is defined, in part, by its complexity? Got it.

And Y is a quantitative measure of qualitative things (which include fCSI and information)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No. Definitely not a troll. He uses the irrefutable ID example of irreducible complexity, the mousetrap, to calculate complexity.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Mar. 20 2014,03:39

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Mar. 19 2014,14:07)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Henry Crun  March 19, 2014 at 7:35 am

Axel @36,

At last there’s something we can agree on: O’Leary is indeed one of the greatest intellects that UD has. No further comment is necessary.

< linky >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



:D  :D  :D

OK, which of you is Henry Crun?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh dear. Does this mean that Denyse is Minnie Bannister?
Posted by: sparc on Mar. 20 2014,06:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
12 kairosfocus < March 19, 2014 at 5:42 pm >

[...]
A comparison of a petroleum refinery and a cell carrying out metabolic cycles makes the point powerfully.

KF
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

even more so if you think of a strawman soaked in oil of ad hominem.
Posted by: k.e.. on Mar. 20 2014,09:03

Quote (KevinB @ Mar. 19 2014,21:17)
Is niwrad going to change his "handle" to "notwen", since his mathematics is just as backwards as his biology?

Neil Rickert has alluded to the use of complex numbers in electrical engineering, and noted that in impedance calculations both resistance and reactance are measured in ohms, and "work" together when combined as complex numbers. "Joe" has jumped in and pointed out that    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Resistance and IMPEDENCE are measured in ohms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


which is true (when spelt right) but he has missed the salient point that all three quantities are measured in the same units.

What is deeper (and which has obviously escaped niwrad) is that the mapping of complex numbers onto the cartesian plane is a consequence of how complex numbers are defined, and that using complex numbers for impedance calculation is merely a convenient fiddle because the definition of complex arithmetic happens to right for the purpose.

I also note that niwrad has put "convection" instead of "convention" throughout a comment. Perhaps he's trying to boost circulation.  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Get real, you're imagining things. Are we in for some air force Dave hilarity What will nirwad's tard bring, convectional current? The square root of minus one as jouissance?

Eta: fix spelling on a bit of fashionable nonsense.
Posted by: k.e.. on Mar. 20 2014,09:07

Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 20 2014,11:39)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Mar. 19 2014,14:07)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Henry Crun  March 19, 2014 at 7:35 am

Axel @36,

At last there’s something we can agree on: O’Leary is indeed one of the greatest intellects that UD has. No further comment is necessary.

< linky >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



:D  :D  :D

OK, which of you is Henry Crun?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh dear. Does this mean that Denyse is Minnie Bannister?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Peter and Spike.I miss those buggers.
Posted by: Quack on Mar. 20 2014,09:29

Quote (KevinB @ Mar. 19 2014,13:17)
Is niwrad going to change his "handle" to "notwen", since his mathematics is just as backwards as his biology?

Neil Rickert has alluded to the use of complex numbers in electrical engineering, and noted that in impedance calculations both resistance and reactance are measured in ohms, and "work" together when combined as complex numbers. "Joe" has jumped in and pointed out that    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Resistance and IMPEDENCE are measured in ohms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


which is true (when spelt right) but he has missed the salient point that all three quantities are measured in the same units.

What is deeper (and which has obviously escaped niwrad) is that the mapping of complex numbers onto the cartesian plane is a consequence of how complex numbers are defined, and that using complex numbers for impedance calculation is merely a convenient fiddle because the definition of complex arithmetic happens to right for the purpose.

I also note that niwrad has put "convection" instead of "convention" throughout a comment. Perhaps he's trying to boost circulation.  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't think < impedance > is synonymous with resistance.
Posted by: k.e.. on Mar. 20 2014,09:44

Quote (Quack @ Mar. 20 2014,17:29)
Quote (KevinB @ Mar. 19 2014,13:17)
Is niwrad going to change his "handle" to "notwen", since his mathematics is just as backwards as his biology?

Neil Rickert has alluded to the use of complex numbers in electrical engineering, and noted that in impedance calculations both resistance and reactance are measured in ohms, and "work" together when combined as complex numbers. "Joe" has jumped in and pointed out that      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Resistance and IMPEDENCE are measured in ohms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


which is true (when spelt right) but he has missed the salient point that all three quantities are measured in the same units.

What is deeper (and which has obviously escaped niwrad) is that the mapping of complex numbers onto the cartesian plane is a consequence of how complex numbers are defined, and that using complex numbers for impedance calculation is merely a convenient fiddle because the definition of complex arithmetic happens to right for the purpose.

I also note that niwrad has put "convection" instead of "convention" throughout a comment. Perhaps he's trying to boost circulation.  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't think < impedance > is synonymous with resistance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


On reflection it's too complex for them!
.
Posted by: DiEb on Mar. 20 2014,11:13

Quote (KevinB @ Mar. 19 2014,19:17)
[...]using complex numbers for impedance calculation is merely a convenient fiddle because the definition of complex arithmetic happens to right for the purpose.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


no, no, no, complex numbers were designed for this purpose!
Posted by: KevinB on Mar. 20 2014,11:37

Quote (Quack @ Mar. 20 2014,09:29)
Quote (KevinB @ Mar. 19 2014,13:17)
Is niwrad going to change his "handle" to "notwen", since his mathematics is just as backwards as his biology?

Neil Rickert has alluded to the use of complex numbers in electrical engineering, and noted that in impedance calculations both resistance and reactance are measured in ohms, and "work" together when combined as complex numbers. "Joe" has jumped in and pointed out that      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Resistance and IMPEDENCE are measured in ohms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


which is true (when spelt right) but he has missed the salient point that all three quantities are measured in the same units.

What is deeper (and which has obviously escaped niwrad) is that the mapping of complex numbers onto the cartesian plane is a consequence of how complex numbers are defined, and that using complex numbers for impedance calculation is merely a convenient fiddle because the definition of complex arithmetic happens to right for the purpose.

I also note that niwrad has put "convection" instead of "convention" throughout a comment. Perhaps he's trying to boost circulation.  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't think < impedance > is synonymous with resistance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Blame Oliver Heaviside, who also came up with admittance, permittance and reluctance.

If you apply a sinusoidally-varying voltage (let's say, proportional to sin(wt)) the current flowing in the resistor is also proportional to sin(wt). If you do the same for a capacitor or an inductor is proportional to cos(wt) (I'm avoiding minus signs here.) Electrical engineers divide the peak voltage by the peak current and call the ratio reactance.

If you have a network containing resistors, capacitors and inductors, you can work out what the voltages and currents in the network are by treating the resistances and reactances as vectors perpendicular to each other, and combining them using the mathematics of vectors. The resultants are vectors which point in arbitrary directions on the plane (not necessarily the perpendiculars) and these quantities are "impedances".

Electrical engineers use complex numbers for these calculations because complex arithmetic is (sort of) the same as vector arithmetic.

niwrad is graphing two (potentially) independent variables on orthogonal axes - this is perfectly legitimate, and reveals possible dependence. What is not meaningful is trying to combine the vectors joining each of two points on the graph to the origin.

This is effectively what niwrad is doing when he describes his points on his graph as complex numbers rather than just as Cartesian co-ordinates. It is mathematical nonsense, and his whole discussion about Euler, etc, is merely bafflegab to obfuscate the point that his natural/artificial division is based on numbers plucked out of the air, (or possibly some part of his anatomy.)
Posted by: KevinB on Mar. 20 2014,11:42

Quote (DiEb @ Mar. 20 2014,11:13)
Quote (KevinB @ Mar. 19 2014,19:17)
[...]using complex numbers for impedance calculation is merely a convenient fiddle because the definition of complex arithmetic happens to right for the purpose.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


no, no, no, complex numbers were designed for this purpose!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is anyone in a position to ask why niwrad isn't using quaternions, or Clifford algebras?

(or, perhaps, Hundreds, Tens and Units, which he might aspire to actually understand.....)  :p
Posted by: socle on Mar. 20 2014,13:18

Quote (KevinB @ Mar. 20 2014,11:42)
 
Quote (DiEb @ Mar. 20 2014,11:13)
 
Quote (KevinB @ Mar. 19 2014,19:17)
[...]using complex numbers for impedance calculation is merely a convenient fiddle because the definition of complex arithmetic happens to right for the purpose.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


no, no, no, complex numbers were designed for this purpose!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is anyone in a position to ask why niwrad isn't using quaternions, or Clifford algebras?

(or, perhaps, Hundreds, Tens and Units, which he might aspire to actually understand.....)  :p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That sounds like a job for Kairosfocus!  
Posted by: midwifetoad on Mar. 20 2014,13:28

Candy coated bullshit, prettily wrapped.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 20 2014,14:03

I see Sal's pissyness has resurfaced. Designer, please grant Sal a boyfriend / girlfriend. He needs one.


> For me, for some reason Sal inhabits the same mental space as Dinesh D'Souza.

*shudder*
Posted by: REC on Mar. 20 2014,14:09

Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 20 2014,13:28)
Candy coated bullshit, prettily wrapped.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Speaking of, how about this quote from Barry, citing Dembski's yet to be published book:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But in a broader sense Dembski says “information is about realizing possibilities by ruling out others.”  Therefore, “Nature produces information when it comes down on one side or the other of a contingency (an event is contingent if it is possible but not necessary, in other words, if it can happen but alternatives to it can also happen).”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In that case, it seems to me that natural processes produce almost infinite information all the time? Considering the title is: "Being as Communion, a Metaphysics of Information" is there about to be a revival of :

A) The element "aether" as "information"?  
B) Vitalism
C) Aquinas (is there really any original ID argument?)
D) Intelligent design as theistic evolution with an information-rich, and therefore designed environment
E) All of the above

one more quote to consider: "Indeed, Dembski uses the orbit of the earth’s moon to illustrate information.  If the matrix of possibilities is stable orbit/non-stable orbit, the earth’s moon’s orbit comes down on a particular side of a contingency and thus information has been produced."
Posted by: k.e.. on Mar. 21 2014,10:08

Quote (KevinB @ Mar. 20 2014,19:37)
Quote (Quack @ Mar. 20 2014,09:29)
 
Quote (KevinB @ Mar. 19 2014,13:17)
Is niwrad going to change his "handle" to "notwen", since his mathematics is just as backwards as his biology?

Neil Rickert has alluded to the use of complex numbers in electrical engineering, and noted that in impedance calculations both resistance and reactance are measured in ohms, and "work" together when combined as complex numbers. "Joe" has jumped in and pointed out that        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Resistance and IMPEDENCE are measured in ohms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


which is true (when spelt right) but he has missed the salient point that all three quantities are measured in the same units.

What is deeper (and which has obviously escaped niwrad) is that the mapping of complex numbers onto the cartesian plane is a consequence of how complex numbers are defined, and that using complex numbers for impedance calculation is merely a convenient fiddle because the definition of complex arithmetic happens to right for the purpose.

I also note that niwrad has put "convection" instead of "convention" throughout a comment. Perhaps he's trying to boost circulation.  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't think < impedance > is synonymous with resistance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Blame Oliver Heaviside, who also came up with admittance, permittance and reluctance.

If you apply a sinusoidally-varying voltage (let's say, proportional to sin(wt)) the current flowing in the resistor is also proportional to sin(wt). If you do the same for a capacitor or an inductor is proportional to cos(wt) (I'm avoiding minus signs here.) Electrical engineers divide the peak voltage by the peak current and call the ratio reactance.

If you have a network containing resistors, capacitors and inductors, you can work out what the voltages and currents in the network are by treating the resistances and reactances as vectors perpendicular to each other, and combining them using the mathematics of vectors. The resultants are vectors which point in arbitrary directions on the plane (not necessarily the perpendiculars) and these quantities are "impedances".

Electrical engineers use complex numbers for these calculations because complex arithmetic is (sort of) the same as vector arithmetic.

niwrad is graphing two (potentially) independent variables on orthogonal axes - this is perfectly legitimate, and reveals possible dependence. What is not meaningful is trying to combine the vectors joining each of two points on the graph to the origin.

This is effectively what niwrad is doing when he describes his points on his graph as complex numbers rather than just as Cartesian co-ordinates. It is mathematical nonsense, and his whole discussion about Euler, etc, is merely bafflegab to obfuscate the point that his natural/artificial division is based on numbers plucked out of the air, (or possibly some part of his anatomy.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bravo Sir! Eloquently and lucently put. Dare I say the polar opposite to the brains trust over at Fundy Obscurantism Central Esrtwhile Religionists (FOCERS) at ID.
Posted by: fnxtr on Mar. 21 2014,16:04






Posted by: REC on Mar. 21 2014,21:19

and the UD Fri night drinking game....



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
usually the women thing is to promote women in science as they historically and today lag behind. I don’t think women can compete with men intellectually because of a lack of motivation or rather not as motivated as men. men are made to be accomplished and women were made to help men only as the bible teaches. in science accomplishment this is made obvious as affirmative action can’t hide the ratio.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Drink until you 1) forget asshats like this exist and
2) That all the xtian UDers will call you out on anything that looks like some support of some real science, but never, never this...


Posted by: fnxtr on Mar. 22 2014,00:13

Quote (REC @ Mar. 21 2014,19:19)
and the UD Fri night drinking game....

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
usually the women thing is to promote women in science as they historically and today lag behind. I don’t think women can compete with men intellectually because of a lack of motivation or rather not as motivated as men. men are made to be accomplished and women were made to help men only as the bible teaches. in science accomplishment this is made obvious as affirmative action can’t hide the ratio.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Drink until you 1) forget asshats like this exist and
2) That all the xtian UDers will call you out on anything that looks like some support of some real science, but never, never this...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We're so sorry, Mrs. Byers...
Posted by: Patrick on Mar. 22 2014,06:59

Quote (REC @ Mar. 21 2014,22:19)
and the UD Fri night drinking game....

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
usually the women thing is to promote women in science as they historically and today lag behind. I don’t think women can compete with men intellectually because of a lack of motivation or rather not as motivated as men. men are made to be accomplished and women were made to help men only as the bible teaches. in science accomplishment this is made obvious as affirmative action can’t hide the ratio.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Drink until you 1) forget asshats like this exist and
2) That all the xtian UDers will call you out on anything that looks like some support of some real science, but never, never this...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


3) Regain enough of your sense of humor to laugh at the idea of that collection of mental and moral midgets feeling intellectually superior to anyone, regardless of gender.
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 22 2014,09:30

Quote (REC @ Mar. 21 2014,22:19)
and the UD Fri night drinking game....

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
usually the women thing is to promote women in science as they historically and today lag behind. I don’t think women can compete with men intellectually because of a lack of motivation or rather not as motivated as men. men are made to be accomplished and women were made to help men only as the bible teaches. in science accomplishment this is made obvious as affirmative action can’t hide the ratio.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Drink until you 1) forget asshats like this exist and
2) That all the xtian UDers will call you out on anything that looks like some support of some real science, but never, never this...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Anyone else want to lock this guy in a room with Erv and a buncha medieval weapons?
Posted by: khan on Mar. 22 2014,16:03

Quote (REC @ Mar. 21 2014,22:19)
and the UD Fri night drinking game....

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
usually the women thing is to promote women in science as they historically and today lag behind. I don’t think women can compete with men intellectually because of a lack of motivation or rather not as motivated as men. men are made to be accomplished and women were made to help men only as the bible teaches. in science accomplishment this is made obvious as affirmative action can’t hide the ratio.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Drink until you 1) forget asshats like this exist and
2) That all the xtian UDers will call you out on anything that looks like some support of some real science, but never, never this...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


George F. Gilder (born November 29, 1939) is an American investor, writer, techno-utopian advocate, Republican Party activist, and co-founder of the Discovery Institute...
In the 1970s Gilder established himself as a critic of feminism and government welfare policies; he argued they eroded the "sexual constitution" that socialized men as fathers and providers.
(from wikipedia)
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 22 2014,22:21

There is an overwhelming record of people not being able to engage the topic with civility, even if you simply look at what happened here. There are many fora available, we don't need to become yet another smoking ruin in terms of discussion.
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 23 2014,13:11

I have no idea what any of this is. I suppose it refers to events that occurred in the 4 year period when I was ignoring all science/ID stuff. Whatever happened, I have no idea what it was, probably don't want to know, and let's get back to making fun of UD.
Posted by: BillB on Mar. 23 2014,15:32

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 23 2014,19:11)
I have no idea what any of this is. I suppose it refers to events that occurred in the 4 year period when I was ignoring all science/ID stuff. Whatever happened, I have no idea what it was, probably don't want to know, and let's get back to making fun of UD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Me too. Agreed. Etc.
Posted by: Patrick on Mar. 23 2014,15:33

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 23 2014,14:11)
I have no idea what any of this is. I suppose it refers to events that occurred in the 4 year period when I was ignoring all science/ID stuff. Whatever happened, I have no idea what it was, probably don't want to know, and let's get back to making fun of UD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fair enough.  I'll help the segue by reposting one of < ERV's greatest hits >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You. You Sal Cordova. You cottage cheese dripping pussy. You lack the courage of your convictions. You, who wont publish under your real name. You, who only accidentally let your Uni know about your 'activities'. You, who can lie until everyone within a 50 mile radius of you is covered in milky slime without losing the 'respect' of your peers and superiors in Creationist World. You, who has a lifetime-job-guarantee from any well funded Creationist or Dominionist organization for the rest of your life.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That still makes me laugh (while simultaneously throwing up a bit in my mouth).
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 23 2014,16:40

It's been a while, so maybe I should repost what I closed the other thread on skeptic communities and gender issues with:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

This is obviously a topic that turns otherwise reasonable people uncivil. I'm happy to note that all but two of the recently posted links Driver put up have comments sections, so anyone who feels they must talk about this topic has somewhere to do it.

That place is no longer here.

I dislike having to take this step, but I am convinced it has to be done.

This topic is now considered "excessively annoying". Further posts on other threads in this forum on the topic will be removed on recognition, no matter whether other topics are also discussed. People who insist on carrying on the conversation on this board will lose posting privileges.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 23 2014,21:04

call barry arrington Wesley is Sensor Of Teh Yeer!

Just kidding totes agree. Back to UD! Onward and Upward!

Oh wait, it's UD! Onward and Downward!
Posted by: socle on Mar. 24 2014,16:22

Quote (socle @ Mar. 15 2014,20:33)
The NY Times has published a < link > to what appears to be the youtube account of the MH370 pilot, Zaharie Ahmad Shah.  Zaharie's subscriptions include the channels of the Richard Dawkins Foundation and Tim Minchin and he has liked other atheism-related content.

Will Barry Arrington and KF be able to restrain themselves from speculating on the matter until the facts are known?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


U/D:  KF has finally broken his silence on the missing Malaysian plane.  On his blog, he links to an interview of Gen. Tom McInerney by Sean Hannity on Faux News in which the General discusses his theory that the plane was taken to Pakistan.  Hijacked by the "devout Muslim" pilot and copilot, of course.

Looks like KF missed the part about how the pilot looks to be a political progressive, possibly even an atheist, who posted videos to youtube on how to adjust air conditioning units.

Nothing in the copilot's background suggests a propensity to hijack airplanes either.  A family member of mine who was acquainted with him (the copilot dated her friend) reports that he seemed to be much more interested in the ladies than in jihad.  

Nevertheless, Kairosfocus lazily falls for the General's facile interpretation of the story, referring to "Gen. McInerney's educated guesses on the missing aircraft from Malaya [sic]" calling it "speculative" but "worth thinking on".

Oh yes, the General thinks all young Muslim men should be strip-searched before boarding airplanes.  He's also a birther.  

Nice job vetting your sources, KF.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Mar. 24 2014,18:13

No need to assume the pilot is involved. It does appear to be an odd sequence of failures to be just a mechanical problem.

There is precedent for a (Learjet) flying a great distance on autopilot after the occupants died.

But I lost three relatives on the ValuJet crash, and the fire scenario seems to me to be as far stretched as any of the others.
Posted by: Zachriel on Mar. 24 2014,19:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< vjtorley >: The ferns that evolution forgot: virtually unchanged after 180 million years!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Vjtorley and others read secondary sources that say that "the genome" has remained unchanged. The actual study says "the genome size" of these ferns has remained unchanged. They can't seem to see the problem, even when it is explictly pointed out to them by Allen_MacNeill.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< vjtorley >: Let’s go back to fossil ferns. As we’ve seen, they haven’t evolved for 180 million years. What was happening 180 million years ago? The supercontinent of Pangaea was breaking up into Laurasia and Gondwana. Volcanic activity was common. The first birds, lizards and therian mammals were appearing, and coralline algae appeared in the oceans for the first time. Clearly there were changes occurring. Which prompts me to ask: why don’t we see a diversification of niches, with new kinds of ferns evolving in those niches? Why do we observe stasis instead?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Angiosperms (with their insect symbiotes) were diversifying and taking over many of the niches that ferns once held.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Mar. 25 2014,08:22

Enough. Wesley has asked twice (and it's his fucking place!), Steve has asked twice. Take this shit elsewhere.

I'm sending the previous crap to the BW.
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 25 2014,12:05

< O'Leary has a way to end all this Origin of Life science bullcrap. >

Her genius idea is to try to create life in the laboratory. Then, see, when we find that the only way we can, is with a lot of human intervention and conditions unlike the early earth, we'll know life couldn't have come about naturally!

That woman's some kinda Einstein.
Posted by: fnxtr on Mar. 25 2014,14:46

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 25 2014,10:05)
< O'Leary has a way to end all this Origin of Life science bullcrap. >

Her genius idea is to try to create life in the laboratory. Then, see, when we find that the only way we can, is with a lot of human intervention and conditions unlike the early earth, we'll know life couldn't have come about naturally!

That woman's some kinda Einstein.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Having just read "The 100 Year Old Man Who Climbed Out The Window And Disappeared", I'm inclined to agree.

Maybe not the Einstein you're thinking of, though.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Mar. 25 2014,14:58

Scord:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Vodka! Cosmologists Say Last Week’s Announcement About Inflation May Be Wrong — now my turn!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Since when did Sal take turns being wrong?

Glen Davidson
Posted by: midwifetoad on Mar. 25 2014,15:11

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Mar. 25 2014,14:58)
Scord:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Vodka! Cosmologists Say Last Week’s Announcement About Inflation May Be Wrong — now my turn!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Since when did Sal take turns being wrong?

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here is the great galaxy in Andromeda. Does that look like a single star in the middle surrounded by a cloud of debris and gas, or is it billions and billions of stars with a whole bunch packed in the middle?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sal does not take turns Sal is not even a stopped clock.
Posted by: JohnW on Mar. 25 2014,15:40

Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 25 2014,13:11)
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Mar. 25 2014,14:58)
Scord:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Vodka! Cosmologists Say Last Week’s Announcement About Inflation May Be Wrong — now my turn!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Since when did Sal take turns being wrong?

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here is the great galaxy in Andromeda. Does that look like a single star in the middle surrounded by a cloud of debris and gas, or is it billions and billions of stars with a whole bunch packed in the middle?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sal does not take turns Sal is not even a stopped clock.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In other contexts, this would be how-could-anyone-be-so-fucking-ignorant, fall-off-the-chair, bite-the-carpet stuff.  But this is just Sal, posting on UD.  It's just another day.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you believe your eyes or do you believe the multiverse advocates?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The stars look like they're painted on the ceiling, Sal.  So they must be.
Posted by: keiths on Mar. 25 2014,20:09

Moar acronyms!

< PaV >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What, then, is to be the basis of making the distinction between CPDF ( constrained physical degrees of freedom) and CIDF (constrained intellectual degrees of freedom)?

...should the entropy of IDF decrease to sufficiently low levels, and surpass the UPB, then one can virtually presume that a designer is involved.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< And >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think PCDF and ICDF are better acronyms: physically constrained degrees of freedom and intelligently constrained degrees of freedom, respectively.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: JohnW on Mar. 25 2014,22:44

Quote (keiths @ Mar. 25 2014,18:09)
Moar acronyms!

< PaV >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What, then, is to be the basis of making the distinction between CPDF ( constrained physical degrees of freedom) and CIDF (constrained intellectual degrees of freedom)?

...should the entropy of IDF decrease to sufficiently low levels, and surpass the UPB, then one can virtually presume that a designer is involved.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Intelligent Design: Constraining intellectual degrees of freedom since 1802.
Posted by: sparc on Mar. 25 2014,23:07

Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 25 2014,15:11)
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Mar. 25 2014,14:58)
Scord:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Vodka! Cosmologists Say Last Week’s Announcement About Inflation May Be Wrong — now my turn!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Since when did Sal take turns being wrong?

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here is the great galaxy in Andromeda. Does that look like a single star in the middle surrounded by a cloud of debris and gas, or is it billions and billions of stars with a whole bunch packed in the middle?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sal does not take turns Sal is not even a stopped clock.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't get fooled. This is just a lame copy of UD's original Coffee!! pages.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Mar. 26 2014,04:32

Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 25 2014,15:11)
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Mar. 25 2014,14:58)
Scord:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Vodka! Cosmologists Say Last Week’s Announcement About Inflation May Be Wrong — now my turn!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Since when did Sal take turns being wrong?

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here is the great galaxy in Andromeda. Does that look like a single star in the middle surrounded by a cloud of debris and gas, or is it billions and billions of stars with a whole bunch packed in the middle?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sal does not take turns Sal is not even a stopped clock.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Andromeda may or may not look like a single star, but that's just a distraction and an ad hominem wrapped up in an oil soaked red herring (did I get that right?). The important question is - does it look designed?
Posted by: Amadan on Mar. 26 2014,07:12

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 25 2014,18:05)
< O'Leary has a way to end all this Origin of Life science bullcrap. >

Her genius idea is to try to create life in the laboratory. Then, see, when we find that the only way we can, is with a lot of human intervention and conditions unlike the early earth, we'll know life couldn't have come about naturally!

That woman's some kinda Einstein.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Take the materialist idea that 1 + 1 = 2:

Until someone counts all the 1s in the universe, how can they be sure this is true?

Well, smarty-pants Darwinists?


(Whatever about 1s, there's a fair collection of No. 2s over at UD that someone could get started on.)
Posted by: Zachriel on Mar. 26 2014,08:53

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 25 2014,12:05)
< O'Leary has a way to end all this Origin of Life science bullcrap. >

Her genius idea is to try to create life in the laboratory. Then, see, when we find that the only way we can, is with a lot of human intervention and conditions unlike the early earth, we'll know life couldn't have come about naturally!

That woman's some kinda Einstein.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Proof wind is intelligently designed:


Posted by: KCdgw on Mar. 26 2014,13:57

Quote (Amadan @ Mar. 26 2014,07:12)
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 25 2014,18:05)
< O'Leary has a way to end all this Origin of Life science bullcrap. >

Her genius idea is to try to create life in the laboratory. Then, see, when we find that the only way we can, is with a lot of human intervention and conditions unlike the early earth, we'll know life couldn't have come about naturally!

That woman's some kinda Einstein.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Take the materialist idea that 1 + 1 = 2:

Until someone counts all the 1s in the universe, how can they be sure this is true?

Well, smarty-pants Darwinists?


(Whatever about 1s, there's a fair collection of No. 2s over at UD that someone could get started on.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How do you know it's the right "2"?
Posted by: rossum on Mar. 26 2014,15:24

Quote (KCdgw @ Mar. 26 2014,13:57)
How do you know it's the right "2"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You don't.  But there will be a new 'Number Two' in the next episode.

"You are Number Six..."
Posted by: stevestory on Mar. 26 2014,17:42

Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 26 2014,09:53)
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 25 2014,12:05)
< O'Leary has a way to end all this Origin of Life science bullcrap. >

Her genius idea is to try to create life in the laboratory. Then, see, when we find that the only way we can, is with a lot of human intervention and conditions unlike the early earth, we'll know life couldn't have come about naturally!

That woman's some kinda Einstein.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Proof wind is intelligently designed:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


lol
Posted by: The whole truth on Mar. 27 2014,01:31

I tried to post this in the Bathroom Wall thread but it wouldn't let me. Oh well, it fits here too since the IDiots are eager to have creationism taught in schools and paid for by all taxpayers (even though they often dishonestly claim otherwise).

< http://rt.com/usa....ols-957 >
Posted by: Quack on Mar. 27 2014,02:16

Quote (The whole truth @ Mar. 27 2014,01:31)
I tried to post this in the Bathroom Wall thread but it wouldn't let me. Oh well, it fits here too since the IDiots are eager to have creationism taught in schools and paid for by all taxpayers (even though they often dishonestly claim otherwise).

< http://rt.com/usa........ols-957 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know if I can take it much longer; first Crimea, now this.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Mar. 27 2014,04:23

Denyse has a post up about a paper being retracted, with the title "< Entomologist surprised his name is included in a retracted anti-Darwin paper >". Unsurprisingly she fails to comment on the dis-honesty of the creationist who put Michener's name on the paper.
Posted by: Learned Hand on Mar. 27 2014,08:54

I think that's what they call a "typical turnabout accusation," with a side of straw man dipped in the oil of red herring and set alight with the flame of persecution.
Posted by: k.e.. on Mar. 27 2014,09:04

Quote (Learned Hand @ Mar. 27 2014,16:54)
I think that's what they call a "typical turnabout accusation," with a side of straw man dipped in the oil of red herring and set alight with the flame of persecution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If it walks like a canard and talks like a canard its a canard.
Posted by: Learned Hand on Mar. 27 2014,11:06

Now you're just ducking the issue.
Posted by: damitall on Mar. 27 2014,11:20

Quote (Learned Hand @ Mar. 27 2014,17:06)
Now you're just ducking the issue.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's a joke in there somewhere about the bill, but I can't be bothered to think of it.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 27 2014,13:14

Quote (damitall @ Mar. 27 2014,11:20)
Quote (Learned Hand @ Mar. 27 2014,17:06)
Now you're just ducking the issue.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's a joke in there somewhere about the bill, but I can't be bothered to think of it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How do you make a duck into a great soul singer?



....



Put him in the microwave until his bill whithers.
Posted by: tsig on Mar. 28 2014,11:47

Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 26 2014,04:32)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 25 2014,15:11)
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Mar. 25 2014,14:58)
Scord:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Vodka! Cosmologists Say Last Week’s Announcement About Inflation May Be Wrong — now my turn!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Since when did Sal take turns being wrong?

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here is the great galaxy in Andromeda. Does that look like a single star in the middle surrounded by a cloud of debris and gas, or is it billions and billions of stars with a whole bunch packed in the middle?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sal does not take turns Sal is not even a stopped clock.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Andromeda may or may not look like a single star, but that's just a distraction and an ad hominem wrapped up in an oil soaked red herring (did I get that right?). The important question is - does it look designed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course it's designed we even have the blueprint, The Bible.

Checkmate Atheists.
Posted by: tsig on Mar. 28 2014,11:50

Quote (damitall @ Mar. 27 2014,11:20)
Quote (Learned Hand @ Mar. 27 2014,17:06)
Now you're just ducking the issue.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's a joke in there somewhere about the bill, but I can't be bothered to think of it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you trying to float a note?
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 28 2014,22:28

Quote (damitall @ Mar. 27 2014,10:20)
Quote (Learned Hand @ Mar. 27 2014,17:06)
Now you're just ducking the issue.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's a joke in there somewhere about the bill, but I can't be bothered to think of it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Somebody's quacking up?

(Or is that too Daffy?)
Posted by: sparc on Mar. 28 2014,22:43

Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 28 2014,22:28)
Quote (damitall @ Mar. 27 2014,10:20)
Quote (Learned Hand @ Mar. 27 2014,17:06)
Now you're just ducking the issue.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's a joke in there somewhere about the bill, but I can't be bothered to think of it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Somebody's quacking up?

(Or is that too Daffy?)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ente gut, alles gut!
Posted by: sparc on Mar. 28 2014,23:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
9 Robert Byers < March 28, 2014 at 8:05 pm >
The bible is a witness in good standing until proven otherwise. Just like in court.
So the ark story is true. they even make movies about it and movies are true
they tell us otherwise there would not be the idea about movies documenting this or that cause or identity as a important thing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If I had been aware of this fact I would have repented years before. On second thougt it may well be that Bob is just pissing off BA77.
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 29 2014,13:08



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
they even make movies about it and movies are true
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Has that guy seen History of the World, Part 1?

Henry
Posted by: sparc on Mar. 29 2014,14:03

Talking about the movies: < Granville Sewel has yet another movie on his struggle with the 2LOT >.
ETA: Comments off to keep scordova out


Posted by: Ptaylor on Mar. 30 2014,17:47

Commenters AVS and okfanrific have been having fun on the 'Fisking a Biochemist...' comments section, getting regulars such as Uptighty, Querius and, of course Joe really riled up. At present AVS has announced his/her departure, which gets this response from Joe:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Goodbye dork
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


AVS:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You being some type of moderator, or whatever your title is here at UD, speaks volumes for the site itself.
What a fucking joke.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< UD link >
Heh

Update before posting: Barry has deleted the comment and closed comments.< New UD link >


Posted by: Bob O'H on April 01 2014,05:02

It'a April 1st, isn't it? Well, on UD, < Denyse has put up links to another of her websites >. In it she's placed these links:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Turn writing woes into < punchy prose > I
Turn writing woes into < punchy prose > II
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


having carefully put them on an obscure blog that we won't have noticed until now.

Well played, Denyse, well played.
Posted by: Driver on April 01 2014,12:08

More from punchy writer and serial science article poster, Denyse O'Leary:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The wonderful thing about science is the way it promotes somnolent faith that the System is somehow churning out … what is that stuff it’s churning out just now anyway?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Clearly she is planning to embed the famous Monty Python sketch from "Life Of Brian" in a later post.

Well played indeed.

ETA: < link >
Posted by: CeilingCat on April 01 2014,19:56

Quote (Bob O'H @ April 01 2014,05:02)
It'a April 1st, isn't it? Well, on UD, < Denyse has put up links to another of her websites >. In it she's placed these links:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Turn writing woes into < punchy prose > I
Turn writing woes into < punchy prose > II
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


having carefully put them on an obscure blog that we won't have noticed until now.

Well played, Denyse, well played.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A lot of Denyse's "prose" reads as if she's punchy - punchy as in the way you get when reality has hit you hard in the head too many times.
Posted by: J-Dog on April 02 2014,16:45

Quote (Driver @ April 01 2014,12:08)
More from punchy writer and serial science article poster, Denyse O'Leary:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The wonderful thing about science is the way it promotes somnolent faith that the System is somehow churning out … what is that stuff it’s churning out just now anyway?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Clearly she is planning to embed the famous Monty Python sketch from "Life Of Brian" in a later post.

Well played indeed.

ETA: < link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


EWWWWW!

Driver - Dude!  How about a little warning - NSFB!!! (Not Safe For Brain).  I clicked on your link - expected to go to Life of Brian clip = Good.  

What I got was a link to UD = BAD!

EWWWW!
Posted by: Driver on April 02 2014,17:16

Quote (J-Dog @ April 02 2014,21:45)
Quote (Driver @ April 01 2014,12:08)
More from punchy writer and serial science article poster, Denyse O'Leary:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The wonderful thing about science is the way it promotes somnolent faith that the System is somehow churning out … what is that stuff it’s churning out just now anyway?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Clearly she is planning to embed the famous Monty Python sketch from "Life Of Brian" in a later post.

Well played indeed.

ETA: < link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


EWWWWW!

Driver - Dude!  How about a little warning - NSFB!!! (Not Safe For Brain).  I clicked on your link - expected to go to Life of Brian clip = Good.  

What I got was a link to UD = BAD!

EWWWW!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry. Hope this is better:

< Monty Python >

< Bonus >
Posted by: Bob O'H on April 03 2014,08:32

Can someone please < tell Denyse about developmental genetics >. and then explain to her that "differential gene expression between developing murine tooth types" might have something to do with DNA. And if DNA has nothing to do with tooth morphology, how does she explain the statement "Gene dosage abnormalities are likely to occur in human rare diseases presenting with a tooth family specific dental phenotype"?

*sigh*
Posted by: REC on April 03 2014,11:27

Quote (Bob O'H @ April 03 2014,08:32)
Can someone please < tell Denyse about developmental genetics >. and then explain to her that "differential gene expression between developing murine tooth types" might have something to do with DNA. And if DNA has nothing to do with tooth morphology, how does she explain the statement "Gene dosage abnormalities are likely to occur in human rare diseases presenting with a tooth family specific dental phenotype"?

*sigh*
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So all genes have to be expressed at all times, or DNA doesn't matter? Differential gene expression in response to the environment means genes aren't in charge. Suck that Darwin lovers!

Doesn't this directly contradict their layers of information, big big # fi@sco! game?

And this isn't just a O'Learyism (though she did plug the notion that bacteria grown in wells to small to accommodate their shape as evidence of DNA not specifying "body plan"--despite that the researchers are nnnnnlooking into the roles of specific genes in these processes).

This goes all the way up to Wells:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We have rigorous experimental evidence that DNA does not even code completely for proteins; in most cases the final forms of proteins are not fully specified by DNA sequences.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Which is kinda bizarre, no? An ounce of truth, but he cites alternative splicing (at DNA specified splice sites), protein localization (by DNA coded amino acid signal peptides), glycosylation (at specific, gene encoded glycosylation motifs on the protein). Really odd interpretation, either slimy, or blissfully unaware of the 1999 Nobel Prize, etc.

But consistent, in the UD attempt to obfuscate and delude. In the way quantum dynamics=woo magic=Jesus, they'll do it with molecular biology. Regulation=vitalism=?.

Joe takes it up a notch, in response to "amino acid sequence is completely specified by the DNA":



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
‘The amino acid sequence doesn’t make the protein.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: keiths on April 03 2014,14:38

At ENV, Denyse < inadvertently comments on her "journalistic" career >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, continuing failure can undermine funding too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: J-Dog on April 03 2014,16:31

Quote (Driver @ April 02 2014,17:16)
Quote (J-Dog @ April 02 2014,21:45)
Quote (Driver @ April 01 2014,12:08)
More from punchy writer and serial science article poster, Denyse O'Leary:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The wonderful thing about science is the way it promotes somnolent faith that the System is somehow churning out … what is that stuff it’s churning out just now anyway?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Clearly she is planning to embed the famous Monty Python sketch from "Life Of Brian" in a later post.

Well played indeed.

ETA: < link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


EWWWWW!

Driver - Dude!  How about a little warning - NSFB!!! (Not Safe For Brain).  I clicked on your link - expected to go to Life of Brian clip = Good.  

What I got was a link to UD = BAD!

EWWWW!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry. Hope this is better:

< Monty Python >

< Bonus >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


AHHHHHH YES!  Much better.  Gratias!
Posted by: keiths on April 06 2014,01:49

< A nice comment from Diogenes at Larry Moran's blog > (there are lots of links in the original, but I can't be arsed to transcribe them):


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Torley is one of the smarter IDers. That's damning with faint praise, it's true.

In the infamous MathGrrl thread at Uncommon Descent, where MathGrrl asked the IDiots how to compute the change in Dembski's "Complex Specified Information" for the simplest conceivable genetic changes, Torley was the only one with the balls to actually do a computation. His math was all f*&@ed up (he thought genes were about 100,000 bps long) but at least he immediately computed that gene duplication vastly increases Dembski's "Complex Specified Information."

At least Torley, for a brief moment, conceded that natural processes can increase Dembski's CSI. Which would normally mean that ID is dead dead dead.

Then he took it back, naturally. A few days later Torley wrote another post where he basically invoked the usual ID circular-logic fraud-- since gene duplication is a natural process that increases Dembski's CSI, and that's the answer they don't want, therefore Dembski's CSI just shouldn't be computed for gene duplication events. It's like you're doing a double blind test on a pill that's said to cure cancer. Uh-oh, you find the same number of patients who took your pill got cancer as the control group. That's easy to fix-- just say the pill doesn't work on people who will later get cancer. Problem solved! Torley's take-it-back post is entitled, and I kid you not, "Why there’s no such thing as a CSI Scanner." Uh-- we know why, Vince. Every time you give us a real equation for CSI, we can show by simple f&%$ing math that natural processes increase it enormously. So you damn well better not give us an equation, you ID frauds.

Torley is also unusual among IDiots in that, in the MathGrrl thread, he admitted that Dembski's CSI is based on a "probability" calculation in which the "probability" is never the actual probability of the evolutionary path under consideration, but is instead the fake probability of a totally unrelated process-- the random scrambling of all parts-- which I call the tornado probability. Dembski himself almost never admits that his CSI calculation for all natural processes is based always on tornado probability and never on the probability of real evolutionary pathways (Richard Wein got him to admit it once, sort of, but mostly Dembski obfuscates and BS's, which is one of the reasons why none of the IDiots know how to compute CSI. Dembski doesn't want them to know how.)

The other IDiots, though they brag and boast they are smarter than the world's scientists, can't do long division. Multiplication troubles almost all of them.

Look at their reaction to Larry's ultra-simplified math. Larry tried to dumb neutral evolution down to simple multiplication and IDiots like Sal Cordova can't understand the math. Of multiplication. Multi-f%^&ing-cation. It isn't even frikkin calculus. How the hell should we communicate with these people? Hand puppets? But every UDite think he's Galileo.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Quack on April 06 2014,03:01

I love straight talk.
Posted by: Ptaylor on April 07 2014,19:55

Sal Cordova really should have seen this coming. In posting a thread titled 'Questions college students should ask science professors' he should have anticipated:
1. Someone (i.e. Roy) might actually answer his questions
2. UD regulars (in this case Barb) would use it to go into full Big Daddy? mode, suggesting more questions. Sample:
Question: What takes greater faith—to believe that the millions of intricately coordinated parts of a cell arose by chance or to believe that the cell is the product of an intelligent mind?

I can just see that atheist materialist darwinist professor withering under an onslaught like that.
< UD link >
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 07 2014,20:39

Quote (Ptaylor @ April 07 2014,19:55)
Sal Cordova really should have seen this coming. In posting a thread titled 'Questions college students should ask science professors' he should have anticipated:
1. Someone (i.e. Roy) might actually answer his questions
2. UD regulars (in this case Barb) would use it to go into full Big Daddy? mode, suggesting more questions. Sample:
Question: What takes greater faith—to believe that the millions of intricately coordinated parts of a cell arose by chance or to believe that the cell is the product of an intelligent mind?

I can just see that atheist materialist darwinist professor withering under an onslaught like that.
< UD link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And that atheist materialist darwinist professor....was Hitler!!!111
Posted by: BillB on April 08 2014,06:35

Quote (Ptaylor @ April 08 2014,01:55)
Sal Cordova really should have seen this coming. In posting a thread titled 'Questions college students should ask science professors' he should have anticipated:
1. Someone (i.e. Roy) might actually answer his questions
2. UD regulars (in this case Barb) would use it to go into full Big Daddy? mode, suggesting more questions. Sample:
Question: What takes greater faith—to believe that the millions of intricately coordinated parts of a cell arose by chance or to believe that the cell is the product of an intelligent mind?

I can just see that atheist materialist darwinist professor withering under an onslaught like that.
< UD link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I LOL'd


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
13. I’ll consider it if it happens. Until then, it’s no more a problem for science than asking “What if Moses returns and she’s female and tells the world that the Bible was written by a drunken con-artist with diarrhoea?” is a problem for religion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Zachriel on April 08 2014,08:35

-
moved to BIO-Complexity thread



Posted by: Glen Davidson on April 08 2014,12:11



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
At commencement on May 18, the University of Notre Dame will honor [Ken] Miller with the 2014 Laetare Medal, an award given annually to a Catholic “whose genius has ennobled the arts and sciences, illustrated the ideals of the Church and enriched the heritage of humanity.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



A Slimy question:  "Why did they pick Catholic Ken Miller over Catholic Michael Behe?"

Yeah, why?  Well, there was this in the text quoted by Slime:  "Notre Dame president Fr. John Jenkins describes Miller as an “incisive witness both to scientific acumen..."

Ah, yes, that pesky bit about scientific acumen.  Well, you can't expect Cordova to care about that, can you?

Glen Davidson
Posted by: KevinB on April 08 2014,14:57

Quote (Glen Davidson @ April 08 2014,12:11)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
At commencement on May 18, the University of Notre Dame will honor [Ken] Miller with the 2014 Laetare Medal, an award given annually to a Catholic “whose genius has ennobled the arts and sciences, illustrated the ideals of the Church and enriched the heritage of humanity.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



A Slimy question:  "Why did they pick Catholic Ken Miller over Catholic Michael Behe?"

Yeah, why?  Well, there was this in the text quoted by Slime:  "Notre Dame president Fr. John Jenkins describes Miller as an “incisive witness both to scientific acumen..."

Ah, yes, that pesky bit about scientific acumen.  Well, you can't expect Cordova to care about that, can you?

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It could be that it because the RCC doesn't think that Astrology is compatible with the "ideals of the Church". :)

< http://www.catholic.com/tracts.....trology >
Posted by: Ptaylor on April 11 2014,00:00

Was it just me, or has AtBC been down for the last 24 or so hours? Whatever, I had to find fun elsewhere on the internets regarding Uncommonly Dense for a while. It wasn't difficult - first I found Larry Moran having < a good laugh > at Sal Cordova's latest in 'How can IDiot students stump science professors?' PZ Myers < joined in > soon after with  'No! Not the list of stumpers again!', ending with
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ah, well. That’s Salvador Cordova for you. I think he’s competing with Casey Luskin for the title of Dumbest ID Creationist of Them All.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Coincidence or not, further commenting on Sal's Questions thread dwindled right away after that was posted.
Posted by: J-Dog on April 11 2014,13:54

Quote (Ptaylor @ April 11 2014,00:00)
Was it just me, or has AtBC been down for the last 24 or so hours? Whatever, I had to find fun elsewhere on the internets regarding Uncommonly Dense for a while. It wasn't difficult - first I found Larry Moran having < a good laugh > at Sal Cordova's latest in 'How can IDiot students stump science professors?' PZ Myers < joined in > soon after with  'No! Not the list of stumpers again!', ending with
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ah, well. That’s Salvador Cordova for you. I think he’s competing with Casey Luskin for the title of Dumbest ID Creationist of Them All.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Coincidence or not, further commenting on Sal's Questions thread dwindled right away after that was posted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I had a 48 hour hiatus... I thought either
1.  Wes forgot to pay the electric bill - or more likely -
2.  The UDers finally had enough, and instead of science - did some technology - and hacked The Thorn In Their Martyred Side...
Posted by: Glen Davidson on April 11 2014,18:38

VJ Torley:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When I’m wrong
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I didn't read it, but I'm pretty sure that it involves writing 20 pages of meaningless tripe.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: sparc on April 11 2014,22:26

Quote (Glen Davidson @ April 11 2014,18:38)
VJ Torley:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When I’m wrong
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I didn't read it, but I'm pretty sure that it involves writing 20 pages of meaningless tripe.

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


JLAfan2001 is twisting the knife in VJ's wound for all to see:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
4 JLAfan2001 < April 11, 2014 at 3:41 pm >

Another thing. If the neutral theory has been validated, wouldn’t that be proof that most of the human genome is in fact just as WD400 and Moran has been saying? If that is the case, that would be another nail in ID’s coffin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
5 JLAfan2001 < April 11, 2014 at 3:43 pm >

Meant to say that the human genome would in fact be junk.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: CeilingCat on April 11 2014,22:38

Quote (Glen Davidson @ April 11 2014,18:38)
VJ Torley:          

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When I’m wrong
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I didn't read it, but I'm pretty sure that it involves writing 20 pages of meaningless tripe.

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Torley is actually having a bit of a < Friday Meltdown™. >

This is the climax of a catastrophically stupid (and hilarious) series of threads between vjtorley and Larry Moran.  It's one of the best I've ever seen on UD.

Larry Moran's side of the thread starts here.  You can pick up the links to the torley pieces from the articles.


A creationist illustrates the argument from ignorance while trying to understand population genetics and Neutral Theory:
< http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.uk/2014.......om.html >

A creationist tries to understand genetic load:
< http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.uk/2014.......nd.html >

Breaking news: Creationist Vincent Torley lies and moves goalposts:
< http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.uk/2014.......nt.html >

Vincent Torley tries to understand fixation:
< http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.uk/2014.......nd.html >

On being "outed" as a closet Darwinist:
< http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.uk/2014.......st.html >

On the frustration of trying to educate IDiots:
< http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.uk/2014.......te.html >

I have never seen anyone beat themselves up as thoroughly as Torley does here.

Edited to remove meaningless tripe.


Posted by: Bob O'H on April 12 2014,03:27

Quote (Glen Davidson @ April 11 2014,18:38)
VJ Torley:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When I’m wrong
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I didn't read it, but I'm pretty sure that it involves writing 20 pages of meaningless tripe.

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope, it's surprisingly short. And it's a flat out "I was wrong", without any weaselling.
Posted by: Bob O'H on April 12 2014,04:19

Quote (Glen Davidson @ April 11 2014,18:38)
VJ Torley:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When I’m wrong
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I didn't read it, but I'm pretty sure that it involves writing 20 pages of meaningless tripe.

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope, it's surprisingly short. And it's a flat out "I was wrong", without any weaselling.
Posted by: BillB on April 12 2014,13:12

Quote (Bob O'H @ April 12 2014,10:19)
Quote (Glen Davidson @ April 11 2014,18:38)
VJ Torley:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When I’m wrong
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I didn't read it, but I'm pretty sure that it involves writing 20 pages of meaningless tripe.

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope, it's surprisingly short. And it's a flat out "I was wrong", without any weaselling.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It almost gives you hope ...
Posted by: Glen Davidson on April 12 2014,14:23

Quote (Bob O'H @ April 12 2014,04:19)
 
Quote (Glen Davidson @ April 11 2014,18:38)
VJ Torley:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When I’m wrong
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I didn't read it, but I'm pretty sure that it involves writing 20 pages of meaningless tripe.

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope, it's surprisingly short. And it's a flat out "I was wrong", without any weaselling.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, I did see it, although I didn't bother reading it, because, dull (Torley wrong--oh the news value...).  I wouldn't call it short (not that you said it was, but it could be taken that way), though, except by comparison.

Although I knew it was on the obscure side, I hoped that it would be recognized that I was referring to the subject, that when he is wrong he writes 20 pages of meaningless drivel (tripe, what-not).

Perhaps this is why this post was relatively short.  For once he wasn't wrong in the post itself.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: stevestory on April 12 2014,17:07

Quote (CeilingCat @ April 11 2014,23:38)
Quote (Glen Davidson @ April 11 2014,18:38)
VJ Torley:            

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When I’m wrong
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I didn't read it, but I'm pretty sure that it involves writing 20 pages of meaningless tripe.

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Torley is actually having a bit of a < Friday Meltdown™. >

This is the climax of a catastrophically stupid (and hilarious) series of threads between vjtorley and Larry Moran.  It's one of the best I've ever seen on UD.

Larry Moran's side of the thread starts here.  You can pick up the links to the torley pieces from the articles.


A creationist illustrates the argument from ignorance while trying to understand population genetics and Neutral Theory:
< http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.uk/2014.......om.html >

A creationist tries to understand genetic load:
< http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.uk/2014.......nd.html >

Breaking news: Creationist Vincent Torley lies and moves goalposts:
< http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.uk/2014.......nt.html >

Vincent Torley tries to understand fixation:
< http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.uk/2014.......nd.html >

On being "outed" as a closet Darwinist:
< http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.uk/2014.......st.html >

On the frustration of trying to educate IDiots:
< http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.uk/2014.......te.html >

I have never seen anyone beat themselves up as thoroughly as Torley does here.

Edited to remove meaningless tripe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Holy Toledo, from the second link by Salvador Cordova



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ok, so let’s do an experiment. Let’s subject bacteria or plants or any organism to radiation and thus increase the mutation rate mutation rate by a factor of 1 million or 1 billion. Do you think the above formula will still hold? We tried it in the lab, it killed the plants, and at some point rather than speeding evolution we are doing sterilization.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well Check-Goddam-Mate Evilushunists!
Posted by: REC on April 12 2014,17:29

I call Bullshit.

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014.......71.html >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We had an experience a couple years ago where some of the Discovery scientists were traveling with one of our supporters. So that night, we were at this cowboy steakhouse feeding the troops.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ok....Didn't know the DI had a travelling circus....but whatever....



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So I jumped in and offered the Discovery Institute credit card to pay for the Discovery Institute scientists, and this young waitress came back with the bill and the credit card. And she looked left and looked right and lowered her voice and said, "Can you tell me what the Discovery Institute is?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope. Not happening. Waited tables, and you know damn better than to ask about a company credit card when people are entertaining. Or to express even passing interest at all in peoples' plastic which they are very protective of.

Though my bigger objection should be "Discovery Institute scientists," of which there are 0. Anti-science-ists, plenty.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Well, I said, we're a scientific think tank, and we're investigating the evidence for intelligent design and challenging standard Darwin. She says, "I thought so!"

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'll poll 300 "U" students right now. Odds of even one having heard of the Discovery Institute? Lol.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
She said, "Our professors hate you." And then she motioned to three other waiters and waitresses. She says, "I'm a bio major at the U, and so are they, and, I'm telling you, our professors hate you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How did this come up? In Bio 101, the profs announce "F-intelligent design idiots and the Discovery Institute we hate them", and this woman happens to remember it when she sees your credit card? We don't bring up the "controversy" in college classes. There is no controversy. Outside of idiot school boards in red states, you don't even exist.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But then we go on your website and we see those animations of all those little machines and we say, 'No way did that evolve.'
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope. But how proud are you that the total of your "science" can be expressed in an emotional reaction?
Nope. We're no relative of apes. Nope that's complex-no way it evolved." God done it!


Posted by: stevestory on April 12 2014,17:55

< Larry Moran says Nick Matzke says this may be the worst post in UD Herstory. >

So I KNOW reading that shit directly would require All Teh Alcohols!
Posted by: Glen Davidson on April 12 2014,18:09

Well, it's Colonel Klinkhoffer, quoting the great Meyer, so it's pretty much unbelievable from the get-go.

But what about this?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But then we go on your website and we see those animations of all those little machines and we say, 'No way did that evolve.'" So this is a little, in microcosm, a picture of what's happening. The establishment is terrified of this idea. -
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah, they have to go to EvolutionBullshit for animation, when for Expelled the IDiots had to take out XVIVO's animation, which they at first copied, and make one of their own.  

Terrifying, indeed.  Because we only have poofs as explanations.  No, wait, that's Meyer and (other) morons.

No, the whole story reeks of made-up garbage, possibly based on a few flimsy facts.  If there was a waitress who said such things, obviously she was just a creationist bigot--who else says that professors hate the worthless frauds?--who is so damned ignorant that she doesn't know that science made the first and best animations of molecular machines, and that it also has the evidence of evolution of a good many, if not all, of them.

The only thing scary about these jerks is that they'd make a whole lot of science illegal if they ever had power firmly in their grasp.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: stevestory on April 12 2014,18:10

Quote (REC @ April 12 2014,18:29)
I call Bullshit.

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014.......71.html >

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We had an experience a couple years ago where some of the Discovery scientists were traveling with one of our supporters. So that night, we were at this cowboy steakhouse feeding the troops.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ok....Didn't know the DI had a travelling circus....but whatever....

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So I jumped in and offered the Discovery Institute credit card to pay for the Discovery Institute scientists, and this young waitress came back with the bill and the credit card. And she looked left and looked right and lowered her voice and said, "Can you tell me what the Discovery Institute is?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope. Not happening. Waited tables, and you know damn better than to ask about a company credit card when people are entertaining. Or to express even passing interest at all in peoples' plastic which they are very protective of.

Though my bigger objection should be "Discovery Institute scientists," of which there are 0. Anti-science-ists, plenty.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Well, I said, we're a scientific think tank, and we're investigating the evidence for intelligent design and challenging standard Darwin. She says, "I thought so!"

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'll poll 300 "U" students right now. Odds of even one having heard of the Discovery Institute? Lol.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
She said, "Our professors hate you." And then she motioned to three other waiters and waitresses. She says, "I'm a bio major at the U, and so are they, and, I'm telling you, our professors hate you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How did this come up? In Bio 101, the profs announce "F-intelligent design idiots and the Discovery Institute we hate them", and this woman happens to remember it when she sees your credit card? We don't bring up the "controversy" in college classes. There is no controversy. Outside of idiot school boards in red states, you don't even exist.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But then we go on your website and we see those animations of all those little machines and we say, 'No way did that evolve.'
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope. But how proud are you that the total of your "science" can be expressed in an emotional reaction?
Nope. We're no relative of apes. Nope that's complex-no way it evolved." God done it!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I dislike those animations. Had a gf years ago who studied that protein, i forget, i think actin or myosin, that they show trucking around the cell like little pedestrians, and she had actually done experiments on the things were you could, if the planets lined up, barely see them, and she said they were little fuzzy strands that barely manage to make 11 steps 'forward' every 20.

Those little animations, with their separate colors, and their oversimplified activities, make shit look a million times more designed than it looks under a 'scope.


Posted by: Glen Davidson on April 12 2014,18:19



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I dislike those animations. Had a gf years ago who studied that protein, i forget, i think actin or myosin, that they show trucking around the cell like little pedestrians, and she had actually done experiments on the things were you could, if the planets lined up, barely see them, and she said they were little fuzzy strands that barely manage to make 11 steps 'forward' every 20.

Those little animations, with their separate colors, and their oversimplified activities, make shit look a million times more designed than it looks under a 'scope.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's another thing that makes it sound like a lie.  If she really were a biology major, she should know how fake the animations are.  And they're meant to be fake, to leave out the stochastic jitters and to show basically the resulting functional movements.

They really shouldn't be shown without a good explanation of how much is left out--probably one included in the animation itself.  

No biology major has an excuse, regardless, even if she's not very far along.  So if she did exist, let's hope she got out of biology long ago, or at least learned a whole lot more than the junk you get from the DI.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: sparc on April 13 2014,03:51

Quote (BillB @ April 12 2014,13:12)
 
Quote (Bob O'H @ April 12 2014,10:19)
 
Quote (Glen Davidson @ April 11 2014,18:38)
VJ Torley:        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When I’m wrong
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I didn't read it, but I'm pretty sure that it involves writing 20 pages of meaningless tripe.

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope, it's surprisingly short. And it's a flat out "I was wrong", without any weaselling.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It almost gives you hope ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Better don't read the comments.
Posted by: Woodbine on April 13 2014,07:40

Quote (REC @ April 12 2014,23:29)
I call Bullshit.

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014.......71.html >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We had an experience a couple years ago where some of the Discovery scientists were traveling with one of our supporters. So that night, we were at this cowboy steakhouse feeding the troops.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ok....Didn't know the DI had a travelling circus....but whatever....

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So I jumped in and offered the Discovery Institute credit card to pay for the Discovery Institute scientists, and this young waitress came back with the bill and the credit card. And she looked left and looked right and lowered her voice and said, "Can you tell me what the Discovery Institute is?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope. Not happening. Waited tables, and you know damn better than to ask about a company credit card when people are entertaining. Or to express even passing interest at all in peoples' plastic which they are very protective of.

Though my bigger objection should be "Discovery Institute scientists," of which there are 0. Anti-science-ists, plenty.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Well, I said, we're a scientific think tank, and we're investigating the evidence for intelligent design and challenging standard Darwin. She says, "I thought so!"

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'll poll 300 "U" students right now. Odds of even one having heard of the Discovery Institute? Lol.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
She said, "Our professors hate you." And then she motioned to three other waiters and waitresses. She says, "I'm a bio major at the U, and so are they, and, I'm telling you, our professors hate you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How did this come up? In Bio 101, the profs announce "F-intelligent design idiots and the Discovery Institute we hate them", and this woman happens to remember it when she sees your credit card? We don't bring up the "controversy" in college classes. There is no controversy. Outside of idiot school boards in red states, you don't even exist.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But then we go on your website and we see those animations of all those little machines and we say, 'No way did that evolve.'
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope. But how proud are you that the total of your "science" can be expressed in an emotional reaction?
Nope. We're no relative of apes. Nope that's complex-no way it evolved." God done it!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep, it's practically a Chick tract.

(I wonder if Casey had to sit on the big cushion at the table.)
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on April 13 2014,11:01

Quote (Woodbine @ April 13 2014,07:40)
 
Quote (REC @ April 12 2014,23:29)
I call Bullshit.

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014.......71.html >

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We had an experience a couple years ago where some of the Discovery scientists were traveling with one of our supporters. So that night, we were at this cowboy steakhouse feeding the troops.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ok....Didn't know the DI had a travelling circus....but whatever....

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So I jumped in and offered the Discovery Institute credit card to pay for the Discovery Institute scientists, and this young waitress came back with the bill and the credit card. And she looked left and looked right and lowered her voice and said, "Can you tell me what the Discovery Institute is?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope. Not happening. Waited tables, and you know damn better than to ask about a company credit card when people are entertaining. Or to express even passing interest at all in peoples' plastic which they are very protective of.

Though my bigger objection should be "Discovery Institute scientists," of which there are 0. Anti-science-ists, plenty.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Well, I said, we're a scientific think tank, and we're investigating the evidence for intelligent design and challenging standard Darwin. She says, "I thought so!"

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'll poll 300 "U" students right now. Odds of even one having heard of the Discovery Institute? Lol.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
She said, "Our professors hate you." And then she motioned to three other waiters and waitresses. She says, "I'm a bio major at the U, and so are they, and, I'm telling you, our professors hate you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How did this come up? In Bio 101, the profs announce "F-intelligent design idiots and the Discovery Institute we hate them", and this woman happens to remember it when she sees your credit card? We don't bring up the "controversy" in college classes. There is no controversy. Outside of idiot school boards in red states, you don't even exist.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But then we go on your website and we see those animations of all those little machines and we say, 'No way did that evolve.'
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope. But how proud are you that the total of your "science" can be expressed in an emotional reaction?
Nope. We're no relative of apes. Nope that's complex-no way it evolved." God done it!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep, it's practically a Chick tract.

(I wonder if Casey had to sit on the big cushion at the table.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


C'mon, a good Xian IDiot like Meyer would never lie.

It's just the latest instance of street theater.   :D
Posted by: fusilier on April 13 2014,12:21

Quote (REC @ April 12 2014,18:29)
I call Bullshit.

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014.......71.html >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We had an experience a couple years ago where some of the Discovery scientists were traveling with one of our supporters. So that night, we were at this cowboy steakhouse feeding the troops.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ok....Didn't know the DI had a travelling circus....but whatever....

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So I jumped in and offered the Discovery Institute credit card to pay for the Discovery Institute scientists, and this young waitress came back with the bill and the credit card. And she looked left and looked right and lowered her voice and said, "Can you tell me what the Discovery Institute is?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope. Not happening. Waited tables, and you know damn better than to ask about a company credit card when people are entertaining. Or to express even passing interest at all in peoples' plastic which they are very protective of.

Though my bigger objection should be "Discovery Institute scientists," of which there are 0. Anti-science-ists, plenty.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Well, I said, we're a scientific think tank, and we're investigating the evidence for intelligent design and challenging standard Darwin. She says, "I thought so!"

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'll poll 300 "U" students right now. Odds of even one having heard of the Discovery Institute? Lol.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
She said, "Our professors hate you." And then she motioned to three other waiters and waitresses. She says, "I'm a bio major at the U, and so are they, and, I'm telling you, our professors hate you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How did this come up? In Bio 101, the profs announce "F-intelligent design idiots and the Discovery Institute we hate them", and this woman happens to remember it when she sees your credit card? We don't bring up the "controversy" in college classes. There is no controversy. Outside of idiot school boards in red states, you don't even exist.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But then we go on your website and we see those animations of all those little machines and we say, 'No way did that evolve.'
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope. But how proud are you that the total of your "science" can be expressed in an emotional reaction?
Nope. We're no relative of apes. Nope that's complex-no way it evolved." God done it!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


May I suggest that the server recognized these turkeys and was trying to get a decent tip?
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 13 2014,13:53

Quote (Woodbine @ April 13 2014,07:40)
Quote (REC @ April 12 2014,23:29)
I call Bullshit.

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014.......71.html >

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We had an experience a couple years ago where some of the Discovery scientists were traveling with one of our supporters. So that night, we were at this cowboy steakhouse feeding the troops.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ok....Didn't know the DI had a travelling circus....but whatever....

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So I jumped in and offered the Discovery Institute credit card to pay for the Discovery Institute scientists, and this young waitress came back with the bill and the credit card. And she looked left and looked right and lowered her voice and said, "Can you tell me what the Discovery Institute is?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope. Not happening. Waited tables, and you know damn better than to ask about a company credit card when people are entertaining. Or to express even passing interest at all in peoples' plastic which they are very protective of.

Though my bigger objection should be "Discovery Institute scientists," of which there are 0. Anti-science-ists, plenty.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Well, I said, we're a scientific think tank, and we're investigating the evidence for intelligent design and challenging standard Darwin. She says, "I thought so!"

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'll poll 300 "U" students right now. Odds of even one having heard of the Discovery Institute? Lol.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
She said, "Our professors hate you." And then she motioned to three other waiters and waitresses. She says, "I'm a bio major at the U, and so are they, and, I'm telling you, our professors hate you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How did this come up? In Bio 101, the profs announce "F-intelligent design idiots and the Discovery Institute we hate them", and this woman happens to remember it when she sees your credit card? We don't bring up the "controversy" in college classes. There is no controversy. Outside of idiot school boards in red states, you don't even exist.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But then we go on your website and we see those animations of all those little machines and we say, 'No way did that evolve.'
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope. But how proud are you that the total of your "science" can be expressed in an emotional reaction?
Nope. We're no relative of apes. Nope that's complex-no way it evolved." God done it!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep, it's practically a Chick tract.

(I wonder if Casey had to sit on the big cushion at the table.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And that waitress was a Navy Seal...
Posted by: Kattarina98 on April 13 2014,16:02

Sal just wanted to let his audience know that he used to travel with the DI's finest.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on April 13 2014,18:37

< A question of bias [by VJT] >

In which it is demonstrated that theists/IDiots are far less biased than the evangelicals for atheism and materialism, by doing such things as quoting IDiots saying that they are not biased like the Philistines.

A more basic question:  Can any of these people even imagine that evolution is about science and evidence, and not about atheism or "materialism?"  Or, imagine that theists/IDIots aren't to be believed until and unless they can be conclusively shown to be wrong, while any "atheist" and/or evolutionist is to be considered a lying hound unless and until some extraordinary case can be made that on some narrow point he is not?

So far the evidence suggests that the answer to both is "no."

Glen Davidson
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 13 2014,20:10

Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 13 2014,16:02)
Sal just wanted to let his audience know that he used to travel with the DI's finest.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All of Sal's posts are about himself. He has issues.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on April 13 2014,20:51

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 13 2014,20:10)
 
Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 13 2014,16:02)
Sal just wanted to let his audience know that he used to travel with the DI's finest.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All of Sal's posts are about himself. He has issues.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Human Shitstain Sal desperately, desperately wants to be one of the IDiot "big boys".  It's funny the way Shitstain is always dropping IDiot names (i.e "when I was discussing his explanatory filter with Bill") trying to ride their coattails.  :D  In reality if it wasn't for Barry A giving Shitstain topic starting privileges at UD he'd be pretty much anonymous.
Posted by: CeilingCat on April 13 2014,20:56

< Lewontin! >  This time from vjtorley.

Which reminds me, where the hell is Kairosfocus lately?

Perhaps sitting in a dark corner somewhere wondering why, in a world overseen by an omniscient, omnipotent benevolent God who has our best interests at heart and listens to our prayers, he had to fly his son to the mainland to get healed anyway?

Why did all his prayers fail while science worked?
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 13 2014,21:01

Quote (CeilingCat @ April 13 2014,20:56)
< Lewontin! >  This time from vjtorley.

Which reminds me, where the hell is Kairosfocus lately?

Perhaps sitting in a dark corner somewhere wondering why, in a world overseen by an omniscient, omnipotent benevolent God who has our best interests at heart and listens to our prayers, he had to fly his son to the mainland to get healed anyway?

Why did all his prayers fail while science worked?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Funny how committed to materialism they really are.
Posted by: CeilingCat on April 13 2014,21:19

stevestory:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Holy Toledo, from the second link by Salvador Cordova

Quote
Ok, so let’s do an experiment. Let’s subject bacteria or plants or any organism to radiation and thus increase the mutation rate mutation rate by a factor of 1 million or 1 billion. Do you think the above formula will still hold? We tried it in the lab, it killed the plants, and at some point rather than speeding evolution we are doing sterilization.


Well Check-Goddam-Mate Evilushunists!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Remember when he tried that experiment with Avida?  IIRC, he turned the point mutation rate to 11 and then was surprised to see that the population continued to grow?

As I recall, Richard B Hoppe had to get one of the authors of Avida to figure out what was going on.  Turns out that Sal's barrage of digital cosmic rays instantly blew every digital organism to bits.  Then the Avida machinery kept churning the bits.  Every time one of the chunks that Avida used to recognize an organism floated by, the program increased the population count by one.

Reminds me a little of the Encode project.

Sal talks about it < here, > but it apparently happened in 2004 on ARN and the link he gives doesn't work so it may be lost.  

Of course, to hear Sal tell it, the episode was his way of making an important contribution to the Avida documentation.  All traces of shame, humiliation and dumbfuckery have magically disappeared.
Posted by: CeilingCat on April 13 2014,21:29

I hear Sal tried watering the lab animals by holding them under the surface for a half hour, so they could get a real good drink.  That didn't work very well either.  

Science is hard.


Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on April 13 2014,21:35

Meanwhile over at the tard farm Shitstain Sal and Mung continue their ongoing < pissing contest >.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
scordova April 13, 2014 at 8:22 pm

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mung:  Then you deleted my posts showing you are wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You did no such thing. You’re just a creepy obsessed stalker with a vendetta. Your creepy behavior doesn’t add to my discussions. Half your comments at UD lately are directed personally at me, not the topic at hand. The proportion would even be higher if I weren’t sparing the readers from your spam, you creeper.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Shitstain has deleted at least half a dozen of Mung's posts in the last two hours; Mung keeps churning 'em out.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 13 2014,22:30

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ April 13 2014,21:35)
Meanwhile over at the tard farm Shitstain Sal and Mung continue their ongoing < pissing contest >.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
scordova April 13, 2014 at 8:22 pm

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mung:  Then you deleted my posts showing you are wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You did no such thing. You’re just a creepy obsessed stalker with a vendetta. Your creepy behavior doesn’t add to my discussions. Half your comments at UD lately are directed personally at me, not the topic at hand. The proportion would even be higher if I weren’t sparing the readers from your spam, you creeper.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Shitstain has deleted at least half a dozen of Mung's posts in the last two hours; Mung keeps churning 'em out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Stay Classy, UD.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on April 13 2014,22:46

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 13 2014,22:30)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ April 13 2014,21:35)
Meanwhile over at the tard farm Shitstain Sal and Mung continue their ongoing < pissing contest >.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
scordova April 13, 2014 at 8:22 pm

           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mung:  Then you deleted my posts showing you are wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You did no such thing. You’re just a creepy obsessed stalker with a vendetta. Your creepy behavior doesn’t add to my discussions. Half your comments at UD lately are directed personally at me, not the topic at hand. The proportion would even be higher if I weren’t sparing the readers from your spam, you creeper.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Shitstain has deleted at least half a dozen of Mung's posts in the last two hours; Mung keeps churning 'em out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Stay Classy, UD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mung goes < all in. >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mung  April 13, 2014 at 9:26 pm

Salvador, you’re a liar. Plain and simple. Repent.

I posted three links which showed that your concept of an orphan gene was mistaken, one from the Discovery Institute itself.

You’re also a hypocrite. Repent.

You claim to be a champion of dissent while deleting or modifying posts that dissent from your positions.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hot tard fightin' action!   :D  :D  :D
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 13 2014,23:06

< Live Cam >
Posted by: Glen Davidson on April 14 2014,00:07

Quote (CeilingCat @ April 13 2014,20:56)
< Lewontin! >  This time from vjtorley.

Which reminds me, where the hell is Kairosfocus lately?

Perhaps sitting in a dark corner somewhere wondering why, in a world overseen by an omniscient, omnipotent benevolent God who has our best interests at heart and listens to our prayers, he had to fly his son to the mainland to get healed anyway?

Why did all his prayers fail while science worked?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And he asks of the Lewontin quote, "I would ask my readers: if this is not a clear-cut example of ideological bias, then what is? "

It's a clear-cut example of a post-modernist type critique of that purported materialist bias.  These bozos are so dimwitted that they can't even recognize that Lewontin dislikes this "bias," part of the break he made from Sagan.  

I think Lewontin is essentially wrong, in fact, that there is an evidentiary bias that is often hardened into a ban of the supernatural, but that "ban" is essentially the result of not finding what many have desperately sought to discover, evidence of some sort of magic working beyond "matter."  And he can complain of evidence for "Lamarckist" sort of inheritance having been ignored as much as he wants (which eventually turned out to be epigenetic effects), the fact is that hanging data without an explanation is just that, something not explained, pretty much useless.  To be fair to him, such evidence was sort of swept under the rug, when it might have been good if people had recognized it as a problem, at least.

Of course the big problem isn't even that they can't see what Lewontin is saying, but that it hardly matters what one person says, rather, what the community of scientists does.  And while there's evidence of things not fitting in being more or less "forgotten," there's certainly no evidence of a case for supernaturalism being simply ignored.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on April 14 2014,08:37

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 13 2014,23:06)
< Live Cam >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oops!  Looks like Barry has had enough of the two class clowns.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
scordova April 13, 2014 at 8:22 pm

DELETED by UD Editors

UD will not tolerate scordova and Mung hijacking threads to spew venom at each other. All such post of which we become aware will be deleted, and if they continue posting privileges will be deleted.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Barry's the King Turd there and he wants to be sure everyone to know it.   :D
Posted by: KCdgw on April 14 2014,08:56

Mapou:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Atheists are not a very happy bunch. They remind me of the Taliban in a lot of ways.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------







Posted by: Richardthughes on April 14 2014,10:19

Quote (KCdgw @ April 14 2014,08:56)
Mapou:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Atheists are not a very happy bunch. They remind me of the Taliban in a lot of ways.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< The American Taliban >
Posted by: JohnW on April 14 2014,10:43

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 13 2014,11:53)
Quote (Woodbine @ April 13 2014,07:40)
Quote (REC @ April 12 2014,23:29)
I call Bullshit.

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014.......71.html >

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We had an experience a couple years ago where some of the Discovery scientists were traveling with one of our supporters. So that night, we were at this cowboy steakhouse feeding the troops.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ok....Didn't know the DI had a travelling circus....but whatever....

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So I jumped in and offered the Discovery Institute credit card to pay for the Discovery Institute scientists, and this young waitress came back with the bill and the credit card. And she looked left and looked right and lowered her voice and said, "Can you tell me what the Discovery Institute is?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope. Not happening. Waited tables, and you know damn better than to ask about a company credit card when people are entertaining. Or to express even passing interest at all in peoples' plastic which they are very protective of.

Though my bigger objection should be "Discovery Institute scientists," of which there are 0. Anti-science-ists, plenty.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Well, I said, we're a scientific think tank, and we're investigating the evidence for intelligent design and challenging standard Darwin. She says, "I thought so!"

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'll poll 300 "U" students right now. Odds of even one having heard of the Discovery Institute? Lol.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
She said, "Our professors hate you." And then she motioned to three other waiters and waitresses. She says, "I'm a bio major at the U, and so are they, and, I'm telling you, our professors hate you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How did this come up? In Bio 101, the profs announce "F-intelligent design idiots and the Discovery Institute we hate them", and this woman happens to remember it when she sees your credit card? We don't bring up the "controversy" in college classes. There is no controversy. Outside of idiot school boards in red states, you don't even exist.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But then we go on your website and we see those animations of all those little machines and we say, 'No way did that evolve.'
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope. But how proud are you that the total of your "science" can be expressed in an emotional reaction?
Nope. We're no relative of apes. Nope that's complex-no way it evolved." God done it!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep, it's practically a Chick tract.

(I wonder if Casey had to sit on the big cushion at the table.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And that waitress was a Navy Seal...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


... and then the waitress said "You know, my great-grandma was at Darwin's deathbed when he recanted".
Posted by: JohnW on April 14 2014,11:00

Quote (CeilingCat @ April 13 2014,19:19)
stevestory:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Holy Toledo, from the second link by Salvador Cordova

Quote
Ok, so let’s do an experiment. Let’s subject bacteria or plants or any organism to radiation and thus increase the mutation rate mutation rate by a factor of 1 million or 1 billion. Do you think the above formula will still hold? We tried it in the lab, it killed the plants, and at some point rather than speeding evolution we are doing sterilization.


Well Check-Goddam-Mate Evilushunists!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Remember when he tried that experiment with Avida?  IIRC, he turned the point mutation rate to 11 and then was surprised to see that the population continued to grow?

As I recall, Richard B Hoppe had to get one of the authors of Avida to figure out what was going on.  Turns out that Sal's barrage of digital cosmic rays instantly blew every digital organism to bits.  Then the Avida machinery kept churning the bits.  Every time one of the chunks that Avida used to recognize an organism floated by, the program increased the population count by one.

Reminds me a little of the Encode project.

Sal talks about it < here, > but it apparently happened in 2004 on ARN and the link he gives doesn't work so it may be lost.  

Of course, to hear Sal tell it, the episode was his way of making an important contribution to the Avida documentation.  All traces of shame, humiliation and dumbfuckery have magically disappeared.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Research proposal for Joe's shed the Cutting-Edge ID Research Institute:

Land a petunia on the surface of the sun.  If sunlight is really good for plants, it will grow like buggery.
Posted by: franky172 on April 14 2014,11:31

Barry posts the following:
< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-496343 >

Which he thinks shows that religion and classics students do better at the LSAT than, say, specialized Biology students.  Of course, it shows the exact opposite - that specialized biology students do better at the LSAT compared to religion students.  DESPITE HAVING LOWER UGPA's.  In fact, the low LSAT average for religionmajors conditioned on their GPA is probably indicative of grade inflation for religion majors.

Those students who chose to specialize in a particular kind of Biology (re: interested students) do better than their GPA would indicate on the LSAT.

EDIT: Actually, BOTH regular biology majors AND specialized biology majors do better than their GPA should indicate on the LSAT.  Religion majors?  Not so much.
Posted by: OgreMkV on April 14 2014,12:34

I have found the secret book of creationist argumentation theory.






Posted by: Kattarina98 on April 14 2014,12:43

Bully Bannington should really make an effort to protect Densye from < herself >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In 2009, Mayor Bloomberg of New York held a special ceremony to laud the recently discovered fossil Ida (pictured above), said to be the “missing link” between humans and other primates.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In this context, it is almost negligeable that she refers to "Science" when in fact her link leads to "TheScientist".
Posted by: midwifetoad on April 14 2014,12:54

deleted. Image is working now.


Posted by: REC on April 14 2014,12:58

Quote (franky172 @ April 14 2014,11:31)
Barry posts the following:
< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-496343 >

Which he thinks shows that religion and classics students do better at the LSAT than, say, specialized Biology students.  Of course, it shows the exact opposite - that specialized biology students do better at the LSAT compared to religion students.  DESPITE HAVING LOWER UGPA's.  In fact, the low LSAT average for religionmajors conditioned on their GPA is probably indicative of grade inflation for religion majors.

Those students who chose to specialize in a particular kind of Biology (re: interested students) do better than their GPA would indicate on the LSAT.

EDIT: Actually, BOTH regular biology majors AND specialized biology majors do better than their GPA should indicate on the LSAT.  Religion majors?  Not so much.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Also:

BIOLOGY, SPECIALIZATION    155.8
CHEMISTRY                      152.1
BIOLOGY                              149.
LAW                      147.6
PRE-LAW                      147.1
ACCOUNTING                      148.3


Does this disqualify Barry, the CPA/Lawyer from rational discussion?

No, of course not.

Does Barry's being---Barry disqualify him from rational discussion?
Posted by: Soapy Sam on April 14 2014,13:32

Quote (REC @ April 14 2014,18:58)
Quote (franky172 @ April 14 2014,11:31)
Barry posts the following:
< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-496343 >

Which he thinks shows that religion and classics students do better at the LSAT than, say, specialized Biology students.  Of course, it shows the exact opposite - that specialized biology students do better at the LSAT compared to religion students.  DESPITE HAVING LOWER UGPA's.  In fact, the low LSAT average for religionmajors conditioned on their GPA is probably indicative of grade inflation for religion majors.

Those students who chose to specialize in a particular kind of Biology (re: interested students) do better than their GPA would indicate on the LSAT.

EDIT: Actually, BOTH regular biology majors AND specialized biology majors do better than their GPA should indicate on the LSAT.  Religion majors?  Not so much.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Also:

BIOLOGY, SPECIALIZATION    155.8
CHEMISTRY                      152.1
BIOLOGY                              149.
LAW                      147.6
PRE-LAW                      147.1
ACCOUNTING                      148.3


Does this disqualify Barry, the CPA/Lawyer from rational discussion?

No, of course not.

Does Barry's being---Barry disqualify him from rational discussion?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He holds himself up as the-exception-that-proves-the-rule, having majored in accounting but scoring 97% on LSAT. So his critical thinking skills are just top-rate, thanks for asking.
Posted by: CeilingCat on April 14 2014,15:17

Soapy Sam:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He holds himself up as the-exception-that-proves-the-rule, having majored in accounting but scoring 97% on LSAT. So his critical thinking skills are just top-rate, thanks for asking.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If he's so smart, why is he collecting debts to scrape by?  Are those new ambulances too fast to chase?

I know somebody posted an ad Barry put out a couple of years ago, hiring debt collectors.  (Paying about ten bucks an hour, IIRC.)  Looking for that, I found < this. >  Note that the guy lives in Washington.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Who Called Us

The phone is ringing, and I don't recognize the number,
All Caller ID says is, "NAME UNAVAILABLE".
Please help me figure out who is calling and what they want
Caller ID
Barry K Arrington Law Office, LLC
Denver, CO

....

1 calls reported from this number. According to 1 reports the identity of this caller is Barry K Arrington Law Office, LLC
[+]
Who Called Caller ID Date
Barry K Arrington Law Office, LLC Unknown 2011-07-07
Comment on calls from 720-974-1551
1 Comments
July 7th, 2011 Sms WA

This is just another underhanded, unscrupulous immoral collection company. Typical of all the others, they are calling for an alleged family member claiming I am their reference. “It is imperative that you call me back immediately to avoid further legal action” – Trent at extension 105. I am a single, retired, and disabled MALE veteran. The purpose for this call was apparently to reach a FEMALE family member. I live alone and have for more than fourteen years now.

“Barry K Arrington Law Office, LLC is committed to getting outstanding claims resolved for all parties involved. The law firm is organized under a professional setting and we diversify our debt collection practices to the changing needs of the industry. All collectors abide by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Colorado Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and uphold to strict office guidelines and policies regarding compliance. This ensures that the consumer is treated fairly and that the client receives what is reasonably owed.”

Barry K Arrington Law Office, LLC
400 Inverness Parkway, Ste. 180
Englewood, CO 80112
barrykarringtonlawoffice.com
info@barrykarringtonlawoffice.com
(866)587-1550
(702)974-1551

Dru x107 – Left a rude message for “Ms.” Xxxxxxx. The purpose for this call was apparently to reach a FEMALE family member to threaten her into giving them money.
Warren x??? – Refused to identify the company that has been calling me repeatedly. Said I must own someone money and wanted me to provide him with my personal information.
Trent x105 – Has been calling my cellular telephone for weeks, several time a day. I have no knowledge of any debt they are attempting to collect from a “Ms. Xxxxx Xxxxxxx”.

All callers have repeatedly violated my privacy, Colorado State law and Federal law.

Colorado Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
www.coloradoattorneygeneral.gov

Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
www.ftc.gov

It is one thing if you owe them money, not that it is okay to harass anyone, but completely another if you are not even their intended victim.

If you are being wrongfully harassed and repeatedly called, file a complaint with the FTC and follow through with legal action. Eventually they will get the message. Are you getting all this Barry, Trent, Warren, and Dru?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's our highly intelligent lawyer/debt collector/politician Barry Arrington - 97th percentile!
Posted by: CeilingCat on April 14 2014,15:35

I see Barry the lawyer/debt collector is < getting sued in Illinois. >    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Lisa Lynch v. Barry K. Arrington Law Office, LLC


 
Summary Lawsuit
Summary
 
Court Documents Court
Documents
 
Docket Text Docket
Text
 
Lawsuit Tracker™ Lawsuit
Tracker™
 
Docket Text Related
Cases


Lawsuit Details

RFC Case Number: 1:2013cv05967
File Date: Wednesday, August 21, 2013
Plaintiff: Lisa Lynch
Plaintiff Counsel:
Defendant: Barry K. Arrington Law Office, LLC
Cause: Fair Debt Collection Act
Court: Illinois Northern District Court
Judge:
Notes:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I wonder if < this > is Lisa?    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Barry K Arrington- Debt Collection Law Office. They are rude and relentless.
Reported by Lisa on Tuesday, 01.31.2012 @ 10:21am. Report #9383368924
Company Calling: Barry K Arrington Law Office
Type of call: Debt Collector
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, < here's > the ad seeking debt collectors:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you ready to join a dynamic, growing company?
Barry K. Arrington Law Office is currently seeking a Full-time collector/skip tracer. This is a wonderful opportunity for a self motivated individual that likes a competitive environment. We are located in a convenient location near Park Meadows Mall, directly off of I-25 and County Line Road and one block from the Light Rail.
• $8-$10/hr plus monthly bonuses
• Health and Dental Insurance Benefits
• Contest with fun prizes and performance rewards
Duties include but are not limited to the following:
• Calls to/from debtors for payment arrangements
• Data entry and research
What qualities are we looking for in an ideal candidate?
• Driven and a Self Starter
• Strong Work Ethic
• Goal-Oriented with a Track Record for Success
• Mature
• Professional and Positive Attitude
• Excellent Communication and Listening Skills
Qualifications:
• Must be at least 18 yrs old
• Computer knowledge: Microsoft Excel, Word, Internet Browsing
• Professional appearance and demeanor
• FLUENT SPANISH SPEAKER IS A PLUS WITH EXTRA COMPENSATION!!!
If you would like an opportunity to earn a competitive wage with uncapped bonus potential then this is the job for you!
Contact the office at 1- today to schedule and interview.
Location: Denver, CO
Compensation: $8-$10 plus monthly bonuses
Principals only. Recruiters, please don't contact this job poster.
Please, no phone calls about this job!
Please do not contact job poster about other services, products or commercial interests.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Correction: $8.00 to $10.00 an hour.  Plus a monthly bonus.

Of course, as a man who once sued a political opponent for calling him a bully, Barry doesn't want you to take lawsuits too seriously.  Lisa might just be a vindictive prick trying to make trouble.
Posted by: Texas Teach on April 14 2014,16:47

Quote (Soapy Sam @ April 14 2014,13:32)
Quote (REC @ April 14 2014,18:58)
 
Quote (franky172 @ April 14 2014,11:31)
Barry posts the following:
< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-496343 >

Which he thinks shows that religion and classics students do better at the LSAT than, say, specialized Biology students.  Of course, it shows the exact opposite - that specialized biology students do better at the LSAT compared to religion students.  DESPITE HAVING LOWER UGPA's.  In fact, the low LSAT average for religionmajors conditioned on their GPA is probably indicative of grade inflation for religion majors.

Those students who chose to specialize in a particular kind of Biology (re: interested students) do better than their GPA would indicate on the LSAT.

EDIT: Actually, BOTH regular biology majors AND specialized biology majors do better than their GPA should indicate on the LSAT.  Religion majors?  Not so much.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Also:

BIOLOGY, SPECIALIZATION    155.8
CHEMISTRY                      152.1
BIOLOGY                              149.
LAW                      147.6
PRE-LAW                      147.1
ACCOUNTING                      148.3


Does this disqualify Barry, the CPA/Lawyer from rational discussion?

No, of course not.

Does Barry's being---Barry disqualify him from rational discussion?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He holds himself up as the-exception-that-proves-the-rule, having majored in accounting but scoring 97% on LSAT. So his critical thinking skills are just top-rate, thanks for asking.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But how does his IQ match up against DaveTARD?
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 14 2014,20:06

I'm surprised Denyse hasn't applied? Maybe she has?
Posted by: Henry J on April 14 2014,21:47

Quote (JohnW @ April 14 2014,10:00)
stevestory:      
Research proposal for the Cutting-Edge ID Research Institute:

Land a petunia on the surface of the sun.  If sunlight is really good for plants, it will grow like buggery.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And if that doesn't work, try a sunflower!

(And if that doesn't work either, then I guess we're not in Kansas anymore?)

Henry
Posted by: Amadan on April 15 2014,06:29

Quote (CeilingCat @ April 14 2014,03:29)
I hear Sal tried watering the lab animals by holding them under the surface for a half hour, so they could get a real good drink.  That didn't work very well either.  

Science is hard.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Spike Milligan said that the Army's attitude to marching is summed up in the phrase "If a man dies when you hang him, keep hanging him til he gets used to it".
Posted by: Kattarina98 on April 15 2014,12:36

When two small boys with a huge ego clash:

< >

< http://tinyurl.com/lq9h2hw....lq9h2hw >

Otherwise, the OP is Sal's usual slime, spewed at Gingerich and Thewissen, copied from a creationist site. Nothing to see here ...
Posted by: midwifetoad on April 15 2014,12:38

42. There's your answer.
Posted by: timothya on April 15 2014,15:41

Recent advances in creationist physiology:
"Seals don’t have legs, they have flippers."
Posted by: JohnW on April 15 2014,17:00

Today's (very easy) edition of "guess the IDiot":


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Seals are just bears and whales and manatees this or that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Woodbine on April 15 2014,19:33

What happened to Bung's "I'm mental and I'm not responsible for anything I say" gambit?
Posted by: Bob O'H on April 16 2014,04:02

This morning my wife found < a YouTube video of a parrot reading UD >.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on April 16 2014,06:52

OK, girls and guys, whose sock is < Axel >?
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It strikes me, BA77, that ‘OID’, for Optimal Intelligent Design’ should be substituted for ‘ID’, in references to the innumerable sublimely-sophisticated designs evidenced in the natural world.
...
As in the history of science up to the present day, if the truth be told, the best brains in science who post in the English language, post here and to kindred theistic blogs.
...
Is it not high time you and similarly competent boffins collaborated in drafting a comprehensive compendium of the unfalsified, indeed, de facto, unfalsifiable, truths of physics, ...
...
Hinting that QM is weird, woo-woo, and can’t really be seriously taken into account from a theoretical viewpoint.
...
Mathematical proof of the human mind’s ability to influence the past, surely merits the closest, most assiduous attention on the part of all physicists; ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And KF is back! He has been busy; after he has succeeded in turning ID into the mainstream paradigm, he has devoted his attention to other fields:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have been rather busy elsewhere with issues like AS-AD, Kondratiev waves, Hayek’s investment triangle, SD and Schumpeterian creative destruction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: REC on April 16 2014,09:37

Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 16 2014,06:52)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And KF is back! He has been busy; after he has succeeded in turning ID into the mainstream paradigm, he has devoted his attention to other fields:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have been rather busy elsewhere with issues like AS-AD, Kondratiev waves, Hayek’s investment triangle, SD and Schumpeterian creative destruction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Creative destruction? I think your economy's problem is literal destruction, KF. And isn't Schumpeter an evil socialist?
Posted by: KevinB on April 16 2014,09:54

Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 16 2014,06:52)
And KF is back! He has been busy; after he has succeeded in turning ID into the mainstream paradigm, he has devoted his attention to other fields:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have been rather busy elsewhere with issues like AS-AD, Kondratiev waves, Hayek’s investment triangle, SD and Schumpeterian creative destruction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Drat, and they'd only just got these fields cleaned up.

Watch where you're puttng your feet, everyone!
Posted by: J-Dog on April 16 2014,16:21

Quote (KevinB @ April 16 2014,09:54)
   
Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 16 2014,06:52)
And KF is back! He has been busy; after he has succeeded in turning ID into the mainstream paradigm, he has devoted his attention to other fields:        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have been rather busy elsewhere with issues like AS-AD, Kondratiev waves, Hayek’s investment triangle, SD and Schumpeterian creative destruction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Drat, and they'd only just got these fields cleaned up.

Watch where you're puttng your feet, everyone!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hayek's Investment triangle????

Yes please, may I have some moar???

Kairo & Salma? Not buying it any more than your ID proclamations!  Proof please....




Posted by: fnxtr on April 16 2014,17:55

Quote (Woodbine @ April 15 2014,17:33)
What happened to Bung's "I'm mental and I'm not responsible for anything I say" gambit?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


GaGa's using it.
Posted by: CeilingCat on April 16 2014,18:02

Quote (Bob O'H @ April 16 2014,04:02)
This morning my wife found < a YouTube video of a parrot reading UD >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's a lizard in South East Asia that has a call that sounds VERY much like, "Fuck you!"  I ran into one once in Thailand when I walked past a bush one night and it cursed at me.  Very clear and understandable, too.  I was glad I was sober and had a witness with me.

But I wish I had saved a little filler piece I found in "Stars and Stripes" circa sometime in 1970.  It told how an "Infamous Vietnamese Insulting Lizard" had taken up residence in the walls of a church!

Man, I wish I'd been there.  

Preacher (lifting up arms): "Oh Lord, give us a sign!"
IVIL: "Fuck you!"

I wonder if KF is in the market for a pet lizard?
Posted by: Texas Teach on April 16 2014,18:29

Quote (CeilingCat @ April 16 2014,18:02)
Quote (Bob O'H @ April 16 2014,04:02)
This morning my wife found < a YouTube video of a parrot reading UD >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's a lizard in South East Asia that has a call that sounds VERY much like, "Fuck you!"  I ran into one once in Thailand when I walked past a bush one night and it cursed at me.  Very clear and understandable, too.  I was glad I was sober and had a witness with me.

But I wish I had saved a little filler piece I found in "Stars and Stripes" circa sometime in 1970.  It told how an "Infamous Vietnamese Insulting Lizard" had taken up residence in the walls of a church!

Man, I wish I'd been there.  

Preacher (lifting up arms): "Oh Lord, give us a sign!"
IVIL: "Fuck you!"

I wonder if KF is in the market for a pet lizard?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If he can't get the lizard, he could offer Joe a place to stay.  The effect would be the same.
Posted by: didymos on April 17 2014,04:14

Quote (CeilingCat @ April 16 2014,16:02)
Quote (Bob O'H @ April 16 2014,04:02)
This morning my wife found < a YouTube video of a parrot reading UD >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's a lizard in South East Asia that has a call that sounds VERY much like, "Fuck you!"  I ran into one once in Thailand when I walked past a bush one night and it cursed at me.  Very clear and understandable, too.  I was glad I was sober and had a witness with me.

But I wish I had saved a little filler piece I found in "Stars and Stripes" circa sometime in 1970.  It told how an "Infamous Vietnamese Insulting Lizard" had taken up residence in the walls of a church!

Man, I wish I'd been there.  

Preacher (lifting up arms): "Oh Lord, give us a sign!"
IVIL: "Fuck you!"

I wonder if KF is in the market for a pet lizard?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.ichiban1.org/html...._40.htm >
Posted by: CeilingCat on April 17 2014,05:56

Wow!  Thank you!!  I never thought I'd see that article again.

Did you catch this?  "It is possible to see straight through the head of these geckoes through their ears."  This is definitely the Joe G. Lizard!  

Too bad it can't type.  A lizard like that would fit right in at UD.


Posted by: J-Dog on April 17 2014,18:46

Quote (CeilingCat @ April 17 2014,05:56)
Wow!  Thank you!!  I never thought I'd see that article again.

Did you catch this?  "It is possible to see straight through the head of these geckoes through their ears."  This is definitely the Joe G. Lizard!  

Too bad it can't type.  A lizard like that would fit right in at UD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, they certainly have lots of weasels at UD that can type...
Posted by: Amadan on April 18 2014,02:54

Quote (CeilingCat @ April 17 2014,11:56)
Wow!  Thank you!!  I never thought I'd see that article again.

Did you catch this?  "It is possible to see straight through the head of these geckoes through their ears."  This is definitely the Joe G. Lizard!  

Too bad it can't type.  A lizard like that would fit right in at UD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Proof of Densye's Immaterial Mind.

ETA:



Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on April 19 2014,06:21

< Lewontin! >
Posted by: Soapy Sam on April 19 2014,11:54

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 19 2014,12:21)
< Lewontin! >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


[Tips back another shot. Falls off chair. I'm going to have to pick another trigger word.]
Posted by: timothya on April 20 2014,16:40

From "fossil" at UD:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
. . . in a way I am glad that I am not a scientist. I don’t have to worry about what concept is going to go south tomorrow and what I can really believe and trust in – it is bad enough to live in the instability of politics and finance. For me when it comes to knowledge to an extent ignorance is bliss.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Kind of sums it up, really.
Posted by: keiths on April 20 2014,23:53

< Byers > (who else?):


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sounds great but Alabama too fat away from toronto.
bY the way this YEC speculates that Thor, the Germanic god, is actually a memory of a real man who was the first leader of the Germans according to genesis.
i think Gomer is the first german and torgamah , his son, was a leader of a division in the german peoples and lived long and when died they turned his memory into a God. it lasted easily 2500 years.
Think about it when thursday comes around.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Learned Hand on April 21 2014,00:41

He does seem like the kind of guy who's spent a few idle nights fantasizing about Germany and Nordic ideals and divisions.
Posted by: Quack on April 21 2014,02:10

Quote (keiths @ April 20 2014,23:53)
< Byers > (who else?):
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sounds great but Alabama too fat away from toronto.
bY the way this YEC speculates that Thor, the Germanic god, is actually a memory of a real man who was the first leader of the Germans according to genesis.
i think Gomer is the first german and torgamah , his son, was a leader of a division in the german peoples and lived long and when died they turned his memory into a God. it lasted easily 2500 years.
Think about it when thursday comes around.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I shudder at the thought of an irrational speculating mind like that in a position of power, Lysenko comes to mind.

He must have read Thor Heyerdahl's speculation about Odin as a real person. But this Thor had some research to back it up.

As for Thor, he looks more like the thunder god Zevs.
Posted by: Patrick on April 21 2014,08:36

Quote (timothya @ April 20 2014,17:40)
From "fossil" at UD:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
. . . in a way I am glad that I am not a scientist. I don’t have to worry about what concept is going to go south tomorrow and what I can really believe and trust in – it is bad enough to live in the instability of politics and finance. For me when it comes to knowledge to an extent ignorance is bliss.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Kind of sums it up, really.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow.  Thanks for the reminder of why we have to prevent these people from getting any influence on any school board.
Posted by: Bob O'H on April 21 2014,10:00

Quote (keiths @ April 20 2014,23:53)
< Byers > (who else?):


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sounds great but Alabama too fat away from toronto.
bY the way this YEC speculates that Thor, the Germanic god, is actually a memory of a real man who was the first leader of the Germans according to genesis.
i think Gomer is the first german and torgamah , his son, was a leader of a division in the german peoples and lived long and when died they turned his memory into a God. it lasted easily 2500 years.
Think about it when thursday comes around.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


According to < the source material I've read >, Odin was the leader. Thor was just a big guy with a boomerang for a hammer.
Posted by: Woodbine on April 21 2014,10:11



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Think about it when thursday comes around.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As if Byers has any idea what day it is.
Posted by: timothya on April 23 2014,01:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Too tired to be serious just now. – News
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How do we tell that News is tired? Because of the unserious character of the commentary, of course. Time for a Bex and a good lie down.
Posted by: timothya on April 23 2014,01:22

This one from "jw777" has to be a Poe, surely:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Strict Materialism as Pornography Addiction

As pointed out in the Dawkins post, I’m currently working on a thesis that proposes atheism is one of a class of neurodegenerative pathologies, hall-marked by substantial downregulation and possible total ischemia of dopaminergic receptors and opiate receptors.

Initial mechanism proposals and meta-analyses are promising. Trying to find a proper control is the elusive variable. My instinct tells me this will sweep discussions like Coyne’s completely aside in the future.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can think of at least one control.
Posted by: midwifetoad on April 23 2014,08:59

Quote (timothya @ April 23 2014,01:22)
This one from "jw777" has to be a Poe, surely:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Strict Materialism as Pornography Addiction

As pointed out in the Dawkins post, I’m currently working on a thesis that proposes atheism is one of a class of neurodegenerative pathologies, hall-marked by substantial downregulation and possible total ischemia of dopaminergic receptors and opiate receptors.

Initial mechanism proposals and meta-analyses are promising. Trying to find a proper control is the elusive variable. My instinct tells me this will sweep discussions like Coyne’s completely aside in the future.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can think of at least one control.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


NMITU

No more insane than usual.
Posted by: fnxtr on April 23 2014,10:40

Quote (timothya @ April 23 2014,01:22)
This one from "jw777" has to be a Poe, surely:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Strict Materialism as Pornography Addiction

As pointed out in the Dawkins post, I’m currently working on a thesis that proposes atheism is one of a class of neurodegenerative pathologies, hall-marked by substantial downregulation and possible total ischemia of dopaminergic receptors and opiate receptors.

(snip)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Therefore more opiates -> more religion. Makes sense to me.
Posted by: keiths on April 23 2014,15:33

JWTruthInLove, a Jehovah's Witness, offers his take on God:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
@Coyne:
All the questions are pretty easy to answer.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why would the Abrahamic God, all-loving and all-powerful, allow natural evils to torment and kill people?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There’s no evidence that god is all-loving or all-powerful. And he probably likes to torture and kill things. Maybe that’s one of the reasons he designed us.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why can’t he keep kids from getting cancer?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why should he??


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How did the Holocaust fit into God’s scheme?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perfectly.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why, if God wants us to know and accept him so much, does he hide himself from humanity?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He only hides from atheists. The other billions of religionists are too blind to see the truth of god.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why would an omnibenevolent God consign sinners to an eternity of horrible torment for crimes that don’t warrant that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hell is a trinitarian invention. There’s no evidence, that god designed any hell.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why is God in the Old Testament such a jerk, toying with people for his amusement, ordering genocides in which women and children are killed en masse, and allowing she-bears to kill a pack of kids just for making fun of a prophet’s baldness?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don’t know. Maybe he was born a jerk.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's a lovely God you're sucking up to, JW.
Posted by: midwifetoad on April 23 2014,15:49

I agree that hell is a relatively recent invention. Not particularly a place of punishment in Judaism.

It's fun to see people like JW show up on places like UD.
Posted by: Lou FCD on April 23 2014,20:12

Quote (timothya @ April 23 2014,02:22)
This one from "jw777" has to be a Poe, surely:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Strict Materialism as Pornography Addiction

As pointed out in the Dawkins post, I’m currently working on a thesis that proposes atheism is one of a class of neurodegenerative pathologies, hall-marked by substantial downregulation and possible total ischemia of dopaminergic receptors and opiate receptors.

Initial mechanism proposals and meta-analyses are promising. Trying to find a proper control is the elusive variable. My instinct tells me this will sweep discussions like Coyne’s completely aside in the future.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can think of at least one control.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't think a guy who believes in an Invisible Haploid Zombie who Lives in the Sky and Watches Us Masturbate really should involve "neurodegenerative pathologies" in the discussion.

ETA spelling


Posted by: Richardthughes on April 23 2014,23:11

Quote (keiths @ April 23 2014,15:33)
JWTruthInLove, a Jehovah's Witness, offers his take on God:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
@Coyne:
All the questions are pretty easy to answer.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why would the Abrahamic God, all-loving and all-powerful, allow natural evils to torment and kill people?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There’s no evidence that god is all-loving or all-powerful. And he probably likes to torture and kill things. Maybe that’s one of the reasons he designed us.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why can’t he keep kids from getting cancer?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why should he??


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How did the Holocaust fit into God’s scheme?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perfectly.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why, if God wants us to know and accept him so much, does he hide himself from humanity?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He only hides from atheists. The other billions of religionists are too blind to see the truth of god.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why would an omnibenevolent God consign sinners to an eternity of horrible torment for crimes that don’t warrant that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hell is a trinitarian invention. There’s no evidence, that god designed any hell.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why is God in the Old Testament such a jerk, toying with people for his amusement, ordering genocides in which women and children are killed en masse, and allowing she-bears to kill a pack of kids just for making fun of a prophet’s baldness?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don’t know. Maybe he was born a jerk.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's a lovely God you're sucking up to, JW.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"God is Love"
Posted by: fnxtr on April 24 2014,00:12

Quote (Lou FCD @ April 23 2014,18:12)
I don't think a guy who believes in an Invisible Haploid Zombie who Lives in the Sky and Watches Us Masturbate really should involve "neurodegenerative pathologies" in the discussion.

ETA spelling
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: Glen Davidson on April 24 2014,00:59

Quote (fnxtr @ April 24 2014,00:12)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ April 23 2014,18:12)
I don't think a guy who believes in an Invisible Haploid Zombie who Lives in the Sky and Watches Us Masturbate really should involve "neurodegenerative pathologies" in the discussion.

ETA spelling
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My selfless task of preventing the feline destruction of bird populations continues...

Glen Davidson
Posted by: midwifetoad on April 24 2014,12:18

more selfie than selfless.
Posted by: Soapy Sam on April 24 2014,14:13

If God had wanted us not to masturbate, he'd have organised things such that we couldn't. I can't tickle myself, so that's obviously something He has put beyond the pale.
Posted by: midwifetoad on April 24 2014,14:33

Quote (Soapy Sam @ April 24 2014,14:13)
If God had wanted us not to masturbate, he'd have organised things such that we couldn't. I can't tickle myself, so that's obviously something He has put beyond the pale.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But if you don't record it, you're an undocumented wanker.
Posted by: CeilingCat on April 25 2014,17:21

Everybody hold this thought: Denyse in a bikini.





That oughta put a stop to this masturbation epidemic.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on April 25 2014,18:11

Quote (CeilingCat @ April 25 2014,17:21)
Everybody hold this thought: Denyse in a bikini.





That oughta put a stop to this masturbation epidemic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Eating too, though.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: Glen Davidson on April 25 2014,18:16



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Psychologists show how to brainwash kids into Darwinism
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Next up, psychologists show how to brainwash kids into giving up their intuition that monsters routinely reside under their beds.

Damn these people who think kids should do anything but reinforce their prejudices.  After all, the IDiots have never done anything else, and look at how well they turned out.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: CeilingCat on April 27 2014,15:23

Paul Giem < writes: >  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have seen some claim, with some plausibility, that LINE elements may have something to do with original sin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mr. Giem is the author of < Scientific Theology >.
Posted by: timothya on April 28 2014,03:17

Sal Cordova embraces numerology as a scientific discipline:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If the mathematical/musical patterns Perez has found in DNA are improbable relative to laws of physics and chemistry, then he may have found yet another design feature of DNA, and this feature is found by combining coding DNA with non-coding DNA and viewing it holistically.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well if we can find Jebus in a pancake, we sure can find numerical structure in a repeating code. Kabbalah, anyone?
Posted by: timothya on April 28 2014,05:14

This person, quark1,  definitely has the irony thing nailed:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1) Take subtraction diagonal like

A = (TCT)-(TTC) = 251604556 – 225669775 = 25934781
B = (TAT)-(TTA) = 234734484 – 260313647 = -25579163
C = (TGT)-(TTG) = 229405484 – 190719226 = 38686258
D = (TAC)-(TCA) = 169023944 – 202932695 = -33908751
E = (TGC)-(TCG) = 96112792 – 91988158 = 4124634
F = (TGA)-(TAG) = 202932695 – 149333215 = 53599480

2) Alright, thereafter do a summation like

A + B + C + D + E + F = 62857239

3) Divide with 10.000.000 and thereafter

(1/10.000.000)(A + B + C + D + E + F) = 6,2857239

This is approximately 2pi = 2*3,14159 = 6,283185

Do the same for the other three intervall:

The second one: I get -6pi
The third one: I get 3pi
The fourd one: I get pi
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: KCdgw on April 28 2014,11:23

Quote (timothya @ April 28 2014,03:17)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If the mathematical/musical patterns Perez has found in DNA are improbable relative to laws of physics and chemistry, then he may have found yet another design feature of DNA, and this feature is found by combining coding DNA with non-coding DNA and viewing it holistically.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perez Hilton, maybe.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on April 28 2014,20:10

Mung brings < teh stoopid. >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mung April 28, 2014 at 6:54 pm

If natural selection existed, children would not die of cancer.

Children do die of cancer.

Therefore natural selection does not exist.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Ptaylor on April 28 2014,23:09

Both PZ Myers and Jerry Coyne have commented on this recently:

Does this mean we can now expect to be treated to a video of Granville Sewell re-reading aloud his paper whythat he is right and everyone else is wrong about evolution and SLoT?

(I'm not sure how to credit images here; it's from Zach Weiner at SMBC-Comics, < linkie >)
ETA snark



Posted by: Richardthughes on April 28 2014,23:28

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ April 28 2014,20:10)
Mung brings < teh stoopid. >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mung April 28, 2014 at 6:54 pm

If natural selection existed, children would not die of cancer.

Children do die of cancer.

Therefore natural selection does not exist.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FFS. They're angry with evolution before even understanding it.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on April 29 2014,02:32

Quote (CeilingCat @ April 27 2014,15:23)
Paul Giem < writes: >  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have seen some claim, with some plausibility, that LINE elements may have something to do with original sin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mr. Giem is the author of < Scientific Theology >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Giem is an M.D., perhaps most famous for opining that < Barbara Forrest could use some Haldol or something > while complaining about incivility on the part of pro-science advocates.
Posted by: Richardthughes on April 29 2014,02:38

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 29 2014,02:32)
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 27 2014,15:23)
Paul Giem < writes: >    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have seen some claim, with some plausibility, that LINE elements may have something to do with original sin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mr. Giem is the author of < Scientific Theology >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Giem is an M.D., perhaps most famous for opining that < Barbara Forrest could use some Haldol or something > while complaining about incivility on the part of pro-science advocates.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Better link to video:
< https://archive.org/details....0110416 >
Posted by: Soapy Sam on April 29 2014,06:08

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ April 29 2014,02:10)
Mung brings < teh stoopid. >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mung April 28, 2014 at 6:54 pm

If natural selection existed, children would not die of cancer.

Children do die of cancer.

Therefore natural selection does not exist.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If God existed ...
Posted by: k.e.. on April 30 2014,21:21

Quote (Soapy Sam @ April 29 2014,14:08)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ April 29 2014,02:10)
Mung brings < teh stoopid. >

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mung April 28, 2014 at 6:54 pm

If natural selection existed, children would not die of cancer.

Children do die of cancer.

Therefore natural selection does not exist.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If God existed ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, for them children dying of cancer IS proof God exists.
Its all the sinning not from themselves who are the most guilty of liars, schemers, scammers, flim flam artists and guilt peddlers but the children dying as the result of some sin committed elsewhere by someone who must be punished by their great fascist in the sky. If God really existed there wouldn't be any creationists.
Posted by: Henry J on April 30 2014,21:43

Quote (Soapy Sam @ April 29 2014,05:08)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ April 29 2014,02:10)
Mung brings < teh stoopid. >

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mung April 28, 2014 at 6:54 pm

If natural selection existed, children would not die of cancer.

Children do die of cancer.

Therefore natural selection does not exist.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If God existed ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


She'd have sued the authors of the Bible for libel by now? (Or do I mean slander?)

Henry
Posted by: tsig on May 01 2014,11:33

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 29 2014,02:32)
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 27 2014,15:23)
Paul Giem < writes: >    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have seen some claim, with some plausibility, that LINE elements may have something to do with original sin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mr. Giem is the author of < Scientific Theology >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Giem is an M.D., perhaps most famous for opining that < Barbara Forrest could use some Haldol or something > while complaining about incivility on the part of pro-science advocates.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nothing like assuming what you're going to prove:


The fact is that the existence of science argues strongly for an [33] ordering principle in the universe, which we may call God,and which we may at least partly comprehend. To argue otherwise is, quite frankly, absurd, and those who do so do not believe their own rhetoric. You don’t catch them fasting for prolonged periods in the belief that this time nature will not require food as usual, or chaining themselves to the ground in case they should no longer be attracted to the earth. I find the case against the existence of God very weak indeed. The first thing we can learn from nature is that the universe is orderly, and requires an ordering principle.
Posted by: NoName on May 01 2014,11:42

Quote (tsig @ May 01 2014,12:33)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 29 2014,02:32)
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 27 2014,15:23)
Paul Giem < writes: >    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have seen some claim, with some plausibility, that LINE elements may have something to do with original sin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mr. Giem is the author of < Scientific Theology >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Giem is an M.D., perhaps most famous for opining that < Barbara Forrest could use some Haldol or something > while complaining about incivility on the part of pro-science advocates.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nothing like assuming what you're going to prove:


The fact is that the existence of science argues strongly for an [33] ordering principle in the universe, which we may call God,and which we may at least partly comprehend. To argue otherwise is, quite frankly, absurd, and those who do so do not believe their own rhetoric. You don’t catch them fasting for prolonged periods in the belief that this time nature will not require food as usual, or chaining themselves to the ground in case they should no longer be attracted to the earth. I find the case against the existence of God very weak indeed. The first thing we can learn from nature is that the universe is orderly, and requires an ordering principle.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is very nearly the weakest of all possible arguments for the existence of god(s).
It also has a sting in its tail that theists are unlikely care for.
We can logically deduce that the ordering principle is itself orderly, and thus requires an ordering principle for itself.
The conditions under which an ordering principle can be applied are inherently orderly and thus require an ordering principle prior to the ordering principle being asserted in the theological claim.
If they care to reject the applicability of the 'argument'  when directed towards their deity of choice, the identical grounds suffice for rejecting its applicability to the universe.

Of course, there is no need to argue against the existence of god(s) until and unless a successful argument for their existence is produced.  Despite millennia of efforts, no such argument has been produced.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on May 01 2014,13:00

Quote (tsig @ May 01 2014,11:33)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 29 2014,02:32)
 
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 27 2014,15:23)
Paul Giem < writes: >      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have seen some claim, with some plausibility, that LINE elements may have something to do with original sin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mr. Giem is the author of < Scientific Theology >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Giem is an M.D., perhaps most famous for opining that < Barbara Forrest could use some Haldol or something > while complaining about incivility on the part of pro-science advocates.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nothing like assuming what you're going to prove:


The fact is that the existence of science argues strongly for an [33] ordering principle in the universe, which we may call God,and which we may at least partly comprehend. To argue otherwise is, quite frankly, absurd, and those who do so do not believe their own rhetoric. You don’t catch them fasting for prolonged periods in the belief that this time nature will not require food as usual, or chaining themselves to the ground in case they should no longer be attracted to the earth. I find the case against the existence of God very weak indeed. The first thing we can learn from nature is that the universe is orderly, and requires an ordering principle.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I guess that explains why creationists rarely expect miracles, because clearly an ordering principle means no exceptions.

Or wait, maybe it doesn't?

No, I figured it out, if "laws of nature" hold, it's evidence for God, and if "laws of nature" do not hold and a miracle occurs, it's evidence for God.  Because only God can flout God's laws.  So, um, why aren't creationists chaining themselves to the ground, since they realize that God can flippantly ignore his own laws (like ordering genocides, nice stuff like that)?

Oh those evilutionists, always illogical.

Say, biology appears to be ordered as well.  Evolutionary, hereditary order, but order nonetheless.  So Jesus.  Ha ha.  You thought that order would need to be design order?  No, order is due to God.  Short step to theistic evolution (in case baby Jesus thinks the cosmos should actually make sense, rather than sending people to hell for thinking from cause to effect), but don't go there.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: OgreMkV on May 01 2014,15:54

Quote (Glen Davidson @ May 01 2014,13:00)
Quote (tsig @ May 01 2014,11:33)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 29 2014,02:32)
 
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 27 2014,15:23)
Paul Giem < writes: >      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have seen some claim, with some plausibility, that LINE elements may have something to do with original sin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mr. Giem is the author of < Scientific Theology >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Giem is an M.D., perhaps most famous for opining that < Barbara Forrest could use some Haldol or something > while complaining about incivility on the part of pro-science advocates.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nothing like assuming what you're going to prove:


The fact is that the existence of science argues strongly for an [33] ordering principle in the universe, which we may call God,and which we may at least partly comprehend. To argue otherwise is, quite frankly, absurd, and those who do so do not believe their own rhetoric. You don’t catch them fasting for prolonged periods in the belief that this time nature will not require food as usual, or chaining themselves to the ground in case they should no longer be attracted to the earth. I find the case against the existence of God very weak indeed. The first thing we can learn from nature is that the universe is orderly, and requires an ordering principle.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I guess that explains why creationists rarely expect miracles, because clearly an ordering principle means no exceptions.

Or wait, maybe it doesn't?

No, I figured it out, if "laws of nature" hold, it's evidence for God, and if "laws of nature" do not hold and a miracle occurs, it's evidence for God.  Because only God can flout God's laws.  So, um, why aren't creationists chaining themselves to the ground, since they realize that God can flippantly ignore his own laws (like ordering genocides, nice stuff like that)?

Oh those evilutionists, always illogical.

Say, biology appears to be ordered as well.  Evolutionary, hereditary order, but order nonetheless.  So Jesus.  Ha ha.  You thought that order would need to be design order?  No, order is due to God.  Short step to theistic evolution (in case baby Jesus thinks the cosmos should actually make sense, rather than sending people to hell for thinking from cause to effect), but don't go there.

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The ultimate front-loading.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on May 01 2014,21:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Steve Meyer speaks up for Lynn Margulis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Professional crank courtesy.

Crank magnetism is alive and well.  Yay!

Glen Davidson
Posted by: timothya on May 02 2014,05:50

News at UD has this to say:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The main problem is that the people who use Wikipedia do not care whether it is false or true.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Since that is a claim of truth, a reasonable person might ask what evidence exists to support the claim.
Posted by: OgreMkV on May 02 2014,08:09

Quote (Glen Davidson @ May 01 2014,21:12)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Steve Meyer speaks up for Lynn Margulis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Professional crank courtesy.

Crank magnetism is alive and well.  Yay!

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Guy commenting on my blog is all over this one.
Posted by: stevestory on May 02 2014,11:05

Quote (Glen Davidson @ May 01 2014,22:12)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Steve Meyer speaks up for Lynn Margulis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Professional crank courtesy.

Crank magnetism is alive and well.  Yay!

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Margulis is a great example of how tenacity is a double-edged sword. She aggressively fought the prevailing opinion for years on endosymbiosis, and was vindicated in the end.

She aggressively fought against the HIV->AIDS link for years, and....
Posted by: Glen Davidson on May 02 2014,18:08



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Would-be mass shooter idolized Columbine Darwin shooters
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Damned Darwin shooters.  

The Columbine terrorists must have been IDiots or something, unless the author of that headline is an IDiot.

Does creationism cause these people not only to think wretchedly about science, but also to write stupidly, or does it just attract the dimwitted?  That's probably the most important question in ID, I think.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: stevestory on May 02 2014,18:34



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Does creationism cause these people not only to think wretchedly about science, but also to write stupidly, or does it just attract the dimwitted?  That's probably the most important question in ID, I think.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Years ago I had a private email exchange with DaveTard (I had set up a yahoo email account under some UD dimwit's name), and he said "I don't know if Demski's math proves ID or not, but nature is obviously intelligently designed, so I don't care."

I think a lot of people are a) scared of the consequences of darwinism b) full of cognitive biases and c) just can't make the mental leap of abstract thinking evolution requires.
Posted by: k.e.. on May 02 2014,21:49

Quote (stevestory @ May 03 2014,02:34)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Does creationism cause these people not only to think wretchedly about science, but also to write stupidly, or does it just attract the dimwitted?  That's probably the most important question in ID, I think.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Years ago I had a private email exchange with DaveTard (I had set up a yahoo email account under some UD dimwit's name), and he said "I don't know if Demski's math proves ID or not, but nature is obviously intelligently designed, so I don't care."

I think a lot of people are a) scared of the consequences of darwinism b) full of cognitive biases and c) just can't make the mental leap of abstract thinking evolution requires.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've found it's typical of some Auto Mechanics who see the world through the prism of the machine. The tide comes in and the tide goes out like clockwork. Everything is all part of some grand cosmic machine with some ancient grey haired Mechanic in control of the whole apparatus. It appeals to their sense of order.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on May 04 2014,23:13



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When we try to replace scholars with computers …
original ideas are just the sort of thing that can’t by their nature be automated.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yet replacing scholars with IDiots is just fine.

I guess it's just one of those things...

Glen Davidson
Posted by: REC on May 05 2014,08:23

How many years later, and now gpuccio takes a shot at defining functional specified information:

Functions arise when things are observed to have a function.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If an object can objectively be used by a conscious observer to obtain some specific desired result in a certain context, according to the conceived function, then we say that the object has objective functionality,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



He uses the analogy of stones on the beach. Only some are good at smashing things (their objective function?). Maybe they are for making inuksuit.

Gpuccio in the comments:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
everything can be functional, if we find a way to use it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So that is function.

Specification arises when something is specified (post hoc). Like "good rock" vs "bad rock."



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
IOWs, a specification is any well defined rule which generates a binary partition in a well defined set of objects.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ahh, thanks?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I call the total number of stones: the Search space.

I call the total number of good stones: the Target space

I call –log2 of the ratio Target space/Search space:  Functionally Specified Information (FSI)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As you can see, I have strictly avoided to discuss what information is or is not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well played...lol....
Posted by: REC on May 05 2014,08:24

Double post.

Can't wait to see the application to biology!


Posted by: midwifetoad on May 05 2014,09:27

To my Philistine eye, it looks like Specification (S) = What God the Designer wants.

That seems important in discussions of good and bad design.
Posted by: OgreMkV on May 05 2014,10:26

Quote (midwifetoad @ May 05 2014,09:27)
To my Philistine eye, it looks like Specification (S) = What God the Designer wants.

That seems important in discussions of good and bad design.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, an excessively long Pharyngeal nerve isn't a bug, it's feature.

God is the world's worst programmer: system full of bugs, massive amounts of code just commented out, and not a single explanatory comment in the entire thing.
Posted by: Quack on May 05 2014,10:26



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He uses the analogy of stones on the beach. Only some are good at smashing things (their objective function?).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's got it! Others are excellent for skipping.
Posted by: stevestory on May 05 2014,11:01

Quote (REC @ May 05 2014,09:23)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I call the total number of stones: the Search space.

I call the total number of good stones: the Target space

I call –log2 of the ratio Target space/Search space:  Functionally Specified Information (FSI)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay, so to know S-T, all we have to do is figure out what % of all the rocks could never have any possible use for anything whatsoever. How do we do that, exactly?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
everything can be functional,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So S=T. Making FSI=Log2(1)=0

These are the most worthless pseudoscientists to ever mash on a keyboard.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on May 05 2014,11:03

I wonder what the functionality of making bird wings out of many little parts (bones that are articulated in other dinosaurs) and fusing them into rigid structures is.  Well yes, I can see how it is functional to fuse the little bones into rigid structures if that's all you have to work with (evolution having that problem, not a supremely intelligent Designer), I just don't see the point in starting with bones that would be articulated for other functions, but then making rigid wholes out of them.

Perhaps Poochy can come up with a calculation of such functionality.  Even more, though, I'd like to see a Design explanation for it.  Maybe God has a cognitive deficit, and can only conceive and reconfigure what came before, without even the ability to begin development of avian limbs with something close to what he ends up with.

But then how is he so much better an explanation than some other process embodying that deficit?

We have an evolutionary explanation.  I'm just not sure what makes the Design explanation (God really likes it that way.  Or, he simply is about as intelligent as evolution would be) so much better.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: Robin on May 05 2014,13:18

Quote (REC @ May 05 2014,08:23)
How many years later, and now gpuccio takes a shot at defining functional specified information:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just curious, but if an object is observed to have more than one function - say a bird wing that used both for flight and for thermal management - does that have any impact on the specification?
Posted by: fusilier on May 05 2014,15:35

Quote (Robin @ May 05 2014,14:18)
Quote (REC @ May 05 2014,08:23)
How many years later, and now gpuccio takes a shot at defining functional specified information:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just curious, but if an object is observed to have more than one function - say a bird wing that used both for flight and for thermal management - does that have any impact on the specification?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lost specificity, therefore devolution from SLoT, therefore ....  aaah .... Benghazi!!!


What do you mean that's OT?  This isn't Faux Knooz?
Posted by: JohnW on May 05 2014,15:38

Quote (Robin @ May 05 2014,11:18)
Quote (REC @ May 05 2014,08:23)
How many years later, and now gpuccio takes a shot at defining functional specified information:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just curious, but if an object is observed to have more than one function - say a bird wing that used both for flight and for thermal management - does that have any impact on the specification?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Specified twice.  Therefore two Jesuses.
Posted by: Henry J on May 05 2014,19:21

Quote (k.e.. @ May 02 2014,20:49)
Quote (stevestory @ May 03 2014,02:34)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Does creationism cause these people not only to think wretchedly about science, but also to write stupidly, or does it just attract the dimwitted?  That's probably the most important question in ID, I think.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Years ago I had a private email exchange with DaveTard (I had set up a yahoo email account under some UD dimwit's name), and he said "I don't know if Demski's math proves ID or not, but nature is obviously intelligently designed, so I don't care."

I think a lot of people are a) scared of the consequences of darwinism b) full of cognitive biases and c) just can't make the mental leap of abstract thinking evolution requires.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've found it's typical of some Auto Mechanics who see the world through the prism of the machine. The tide comes in and the tide goes out like clockwork. Everything is all part of some grand cosmic machine with some ancient grey haired Mechanic in control of the whole apparatus. It appeals to their sense of order.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Prism? How about a kaleidescope?
Posted by: fnxtr on May 05 2014,20:09

Quote (Henry J @ May 05 2014,17:21)
Quote (k.e.. @ May 02 2014,20:49)
Quote (stevestory @ May 03 2014,02:34)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Does creationism cause these people not only to think wretchedly about science, but also to write stupidly, or does it just attract the dimwitted?  That's probably the most important question in ID, I think.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Years ago I had a private email exchange with DaveTard (I had set up a yahoo email account under some UD dimwit's name), and he said "I don't know if Demski's math proves ID or not, but nature is obviously intelligently designed, so I don't care."

I think a lot of people are a) scared of the consequences of darwinism b) full of cognitive biases and c) just can't make the mental leap of abstract thinking evolution requires.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've found it's typical of some Auto Mechanics who see the world through the prism of the machine. The tide comes in and the tide goes out like clockwork. Everything is all part of some grand cosmic machine with some ancient grey haired Mechanic in control of the whole apparatus. It appeals to their sense of order.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Prism? How about a kaleidescope?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lava lamp.
Posted by: sparc on May 05 2014,23:09

Quote (JohnW @ May 05 2014,15:38)
Quote (Robin @ May 05 2014,11:18)
Quote (REC @ May 05 2014,08:23)
How many years later, and now gpuccio takes a shot at defining functional specified information:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just curious, but if an object is observed to have more than one function - say a bird wing that used both for flight and for thermal management - does that have any impact on the specification?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Specified twice.  Therefore two Jesuses.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wasn't he three of them? Under different names, though?
Posted by: Quack on May 06 2014,02:35



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wasn't he three of them? Under different names, though?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


AFAIK there was one at every street corner.
Posted by: Bob O'H on May 06 2014,03:16

Quote (REC @ May 05 2014,08:23)
How many years later, and now gpuccio takes a shot at defining functional specified information:

Functions arise when things are observed to have a function.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If an object can objectively be used by a conscious observer to obtain some specific desired result in a certain context, according to the conceived function, then we say that the object has objective functionality,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I rather liked this:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Although I have used a conscious observer to define function, there is no subjectivity in the procedures. The conscious observer can define any possible function he likes. He is absolutely free. But he has to define objectively the function, and how to measure the functionality, so that everyone can objectively verify the measurement. So, there is no subjectivity in the measurements, but each measurement is referred to a specific function, objectively defined by a subject.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are absolutely free to chose the function in whatever way you want! But not subjectively!

*sigh*
Posted by: Kattarina98 on May 06 2014,08:09

To make a < hangi >, a traditional Maori dish, you need a pit full of red hot stones.
Now if kids are sent to gather stones they will come back with small ones that they can carry. But if Dad decides that's a man's job he will gather big rocks. And yet the stones have the same specificity.

It's a miracle!
Posted by: Kattarina98 on May 06 2014,08:14

As an aside, since May 1, Densye has opened 28 threads. I guess she's being paid by the number of OPs.
Posted by: midwifetoad on May 06 2014,10:40

Winston Ewert is almost, but not quite, as clever as evolution.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The evolutionary model, Avida, is best known for evolving the EQU function. In the supplementary materials for the 2003 Nature paper, the authors presented the shortest known program to compute EQU taking 19 instructions. They note that it hasn't been proven that it was the shortest program. In fact it is not, and I present a program that computes EQU only using 18 instructions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://www.uncommondescent.com/compute....uctions >

Lenski:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The number of instructions required for EQU ranged from 17 to 43, with a median of 28 instructions. Notice that one evolved type apparently needed only 17 instructions to perform EQU, whereas our shortest hand-written program used 19 instructions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< https://www.msu.edu/~pennoc....lex.pdf >
Posted by: fnxtr on May 06 2014,10:45

Quote (midwifetoad @ May 06 2014,08:40)
Winston Ewert is almost, but not quite, as clever as evolution.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The evolutionary model, Avida, is best known for evolving the EQU function. In the supplementary materials for the 2003 Nature paper, the authors presented the shortest known program to compute EQU taking 19 instructions. They note that it hasn't been proven that it was the shortest program. In fact it is not, and I present a program that computes EQU only using 18 instructions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://www.uncommondescent.com/compute....uctions >

Lenski:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The number of instructions required for EQU ranged from 17 to 43, with a median of 28 instructions. Notice that one evolved type apparently needed only 17 instructions to perform EQU, whereas our shortest hand-written program used 19 instructions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< https://www.msu.edu/~pennoc....lex.pdf >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Speaking of "pathetic level of detail"...
Posted by: midwifetoad on May 06 2014,11:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Speaking of "pathetic level of detail"...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Where the devil lies.
Posted by: JohnW on May 06 2014,13:09

Quote (Bob O'H @ May 06 2014,01:16)
Quote (REC @ May 05 2014,08:23)
How many years later, and now gpuccio takes a shot at defining functional specified information:

Functions arise when things are observed to have a function.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If an object can objectively be used by a conscious observer to obtain some specific desired result in a certain context, according to the conceived function, then we say that the object has objective functionality,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I rather liked this:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Although I have used a conscious observer to define function, there is no subjectivity in the procedures. The conscious observer can define any possible function he likes. He is absolutely free. But he has to define objectively the function, and how to measure the functionality, so that everyone can objectively verify the measurement. So, there is no subjectivity in the measurements, but each measurement is referred to a specific function, objectively defined by a subject.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are absolutely free to chose the function in whatever way you want! But not subjectively!

*sigh*
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Who says ID doesn't progress?

Complex specified information, 2004: Looks designed to me.
Functionally specified information, 2014: Everything looks designed to me.  Objectively.
Posted by: Soapy Sam on May 07 2014,06:20

What's happened to Mung? Several posts containing an accurate view of evolution, correcting fellow-travellers (who ought to know better given the time they've been at this). He must have been to Damascus.
Posted by: Nils Ruhr on May 07 2014,07:22

Quote (midwifetoad @ May 06 2014,11:07)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Speaking of "pathetic level of detail"...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Where the devil lies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yet the same paper states:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Using the 26 available instructions, we
wrote a program of length 19 that performs EQU but does not
replicate (Supplementary Information). This program seems, but
has not been proven, to be the shortest one to perform EQU.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If they know of the existence of a shorter one, why do they claim, that it hasn't been proven.
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on May 07 2014,09:02

Quote (Nils Ruhr @ May 07 2014,07:22)
Quote (midwifetoad @ May 06 2014,11:07)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Speaking of "pathetic level of detail"...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Where the devil lies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yet the same paper states:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Using the 26 available instructions, we
wrote a program of length 19 that performs EQU but does not replicate (Supplementary Information). This program seems, but has not been proven, to be the shortest one to perform EQU.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If they know of the existence of a shorter one, why do they claim, that it hasn't been proven.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The answer to your question is here.  Can you find it?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We ran the functional-genomic analyses on all 23 pivotal genotypes.The number of instructions required for EQU ranged from 17 to 43, with a median of 28 instructions. Notice that one evolved type apparently needed only 17 instructions to perform EQU, whereas
our shortest hand-written program used 19 instructions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on May 07 2014,16:23

Quote (fnxtr @ May 06 2014,10:45)
Quote (midwifetoad @ May 06 2014,08:40)
Winston Ewert is almost, but not quite, as clever as evolution.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The evolutionary model, Avida, is best known for evolving the EQU function. In the supplementary materials for the 2003 Nature paper, the authors presented the shortest known program to compute EQU taking 19 instructions. They note that it hasn't been proven that it was the shortest program. In fact it is not, and I present a program that computes EQU only using 18 instructions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://www.uncommondescent.com/compute....uctions >

Lenski:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The number of instructions required for EQU ranged from 17 to 43, with a median of 28 instructions. Notice that one evolved type apparently needed only 17 instructions to perform EQU, whereas our shortest hand-written program used 19 instructions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< https://www.msu.edu/~pennoc....lex.pdf >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Speaking of "pathetic level of detail"...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


'johnnyb' proudly < linked to > his BSG paper on irreducible complexity and computer science.

'johnnyb' there makes an attempt to cast IC in terms of Universal Turing machine functionality. He comes up with five 'principles' that he believes establish IC as a computational reality. The one that interested me was the fifth:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

5.
Because the chaotic portions of the Universal machine are being used, the solution cannot have been arrived at incrementally because it violates the definition of chaotic behavior, which does not display smooth and predictable outcome changes when the initial values of the tape are changed. Therefore, incremental searches will not make the searches find a solution any faster except perhaps on trivial problems.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's a simple category error. The phrase 'johnnyb' was apparently looking for instead of 'incremental' was 'deterministic'. Fortunately, nobody has tried to shoehorn evolutionary processes or evolutionary computation into determinism (except Sal Cordova, < who also was wrong >). The remainder of the essay is an exercise in deriving conclusions from false premises, including the section on Avida that 'johnnyb' is apparently particularly proud of, but shouldn't be.
Posted by: Dr.GH on May 08 2014,18:10



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Who says ID doesn't progress?

Complex specified information, 2004: Looks designed to me.
Functionally specified information, 2014: Everything looks designed to me.  Objectively.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



:D  :D  :D

That is much clearer than Dembski ever was.
Posted by: sparc on May 09 2014,03:36

Even without extremities gpuccio will still call it a draw:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
17 JLAfan2001 < May 8, 2014 at 7:27 am >
gpuccio

19% functional is long cry from 80%.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
18 gpuccio < May 8, 2014 at 7:38 am >
JLAfan2001:

OK, but the ENCODE data still show activity for 80% of DNA. Nothing has changed. We will see how much of that is confirmed as functional in independent ways. Science must be patient.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



edited to correct links and spacing


Posted by: REC on May 09 2014,08:45

As silly as UD is, the denizens there are made to look like geniuses by some of the YECs out there.

Take this guy Nathaniel T. Jeanson, who claims to have a PhD from Harvard.

Here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCVE5BwBrUk


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We can't say that we are closer to, say, chimps than we are to yeast, because chimps and humans are equally distant from yeast.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Holy hell. You're doing it wrong. I promise you that despite all of us being equally distant to my great aunt, that I can prove I am more closely related to my sister than my first cousin. It is beautiful that in his presentation he has the data to do phylogeny right, then discards it, and from the resulting mess, claims to have "disproved evolution."

Here: < http://www.icr.org/article...., > he applies a molecular clock to mitochondria, multiplying millions of years or 6000 years by the mutation rate. The number of differences works better for the YEC model. He conveniently forgets mitochondria have small (20,000 base) genomes, and that he has predicted 2-3 million coding changes. Oops. (Not to mention mtDNA is probably not neutral, he picked the most rapidly evolving segment "D-loop" to get his molecular clock, and he never states what genomes he's comparing).

I take it back. This guy can't be that dumb. He's just lying.
Posted by: Bob O'H on May 09 2014,09:20

Quote (sparc @ May 09 2014,03:36)
Even without extremities gpuccio will still call it a draw:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
17 JLAfan2001 < May 8, 2014 at 7:27 am >
gpuccio

19% functional is long cry from 80%.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
18 gpuccio < May 8, 2014 at 7:38 am >
JLAfan2001:

OK, but the ENCODE data still show activity for 80% of DNA. Nothing has changed. We will see how much of that is confirmed as functional in independent ways. Science must be patient.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



edited to correct links and spacing
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's a < nice review of the case for "junk DNA" in PLOS Genetics >, which I'm sure won't be mis-interpreted by 'news' at all.
Posted by: timothya on May 09 2014,14:44

Jerry at UD explains what "explaining" means:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here is something someone explained to me several years ago. I didn’t really understand it in terms of the debate at that time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: fnxtr on May 09 2014,15:23

Quote (REC @ May 09 2014,06:45)
As silly as UD is, the denizens there are made to look like geniuses by some of the YECs out there.

Take this guy Nathaniel T. Jeanson, who claims to have a PhD from Harvard.

Here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCVE5BwBrUk


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We can't say that we are closer to, say, chimps than we are to yeast, because chimps and humans are equally distant from yeast.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Holy hell. You're doing it wrong. I promise you that despite all of us being equally distant to my great aunt, that I can prove I am more closely related to my sister than my first cousin. It is beautiful that in his presentation he has the data to do phylogeny right, then discards it, and from the resulting mess, claims to have "disproved evolution."

Here: < http://www.icr.org/article....le...., > he applies a molecular clock to mitochondria, multiplying millions of years or 6000 years by the mutation rate. The number of differences works better for the YEC model. He conveniently forgets mitochondria have small (20,000 base) genomes, and that he has predicted 2-3 million coding changes. Oops. (Not to mention mtDNA is probably not neutral, he picked the most rapidly evolving segment "D-loop" to get his molecular clock, and he never states what genomes he's comparing).

I take it back. This guy can't be that dumb. He's just lying.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He has a stub at RationalWiki.
Posted by: Henry J on May 09 2014,23:33



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

18 gpuccio < May 8, 2014 at 7:38 am >
JLAfan2001:

OK, but the ENCODE data still show activity for 80% of DNA. Nothing has changed. We will see how much of that is confirmed as functional in independent ways. Science must be patient.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It shows "activity"? Does that mean any more than that this molecule sometimes reacts with other molecules that happen to bump into it?

Funny, I thought that's what molecules do!

Henry
Posted by: timothya on May 11 2014,05:35

News at UD says this about Anthechinus stuartii (without bothering to learn anything about this fascinating creature):


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Okay, but how does this elucidate the “true meaning of life”? Antechinus impacted the planet how, exactly? Apart from providing unexpected amusement for cats?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Three sentences. Three stupids.
Posted by: Learned Hand on May 11 2014,18:00

Apropos of nothing, I spent today touring Down House and its environs during a weekend off from a long business trip to London. I was not prepared for how beautiful the grounds are--the gardens, sandwalk, and walk back to the village were gorgeous.

The bookstore sells a number of excellent reads, such as Why Evolution is True. But not Darwin's Black Box or No Free Lunch. I suppose that will have to wait until IDists prove their case and have their homes converted into national parks.
Posted by: timothya on May 12 2014,00:56

Byers at UD on the intelligence gene:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As said before intelligence can be measured. However its still just measuring a point in time of some people or person.
If conclusions are made then it must be a controlled experiment.
no bringing immigrant peoples from backward nations into our nations AND THEN SCORING IT.
The only reason this stuff is allowed is because they don’t have to admit to a british or aryan or white superiority. Otherwise these books and writers would be burned at the stake.
Its proof its a liberal establishment and not common consent on these matters.

in reality there is no such thing as intelligence. just divisions of knowing.
The bible says Wisdom, first, and then understanding and then knowledge. its all outside us and its there for everybody HOWEVER generally the people you are born into and mingle with are the origin for what the kid picks up.
Thats why there are identity differences. Including motivation to explain female behindness etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You would have to think long and hard to deliberately cram so much toxic rubbish into so few words. There are at least three good reasons to keep your mouth closed in an Internet discussion:
1. If you don't know what you are talking about
2. If you don't want to prove that you don't know what you are talking about
3. If you don't want the flies to crap all over your tongue
Posted by: George on May 12 2014,08:33

Quote (timothya @ May 12 2014,00:56)
Byers at UD on the intelligence gene:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As said before intelligence can be measured. However its still just measuring a point in time of some people or person.
If conclusions are made then it must be a controlled experiment.
no bringing immigrant peoples from backward nations into our nations AND THEN SCORING IT.
The only reason this stuff is allowed is because they don’t have to admit to a british or aryan or white superiority. Otherwise these books and writers would be burned at the stake.
Its proof its a liberal establishment and not common consent on these matters.

in reality there is no such thing as intelligence. just divisions of knowing.
The bible says Wisdom, first, and then understanding and then knowledge. its all outside us and its there for everybody HOWEVER generally the people you are born into and mingle with are the origin for what the kid picks up.
Thats why there are identity differences. Including motivation to explain female behindness etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You would have to think long and hard to deliberately cram so much toxic rubbish into so few words. There are at least three good reasons to keep your mouth closed in an Internet discussion:
1. If you don't know what you are talking about
2. If you don't want to prove that you don't know what you are talking about
3. If you don't want the flies to crap all over your tongue
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have to admit to being a big fan of female behindness.
Posted by: stevestory on May 12 2014,11:26

You other brothers can't deny.
Posted by: Patrick on May 12 2014,11:48

Quote (timothya @ May 12 2014,01:56)
Byers at UD on the intelligence gene:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As said before intelligence can be measured. However its still just measuring a point in time of some people or person.
If conclusions are made then it must be a controlled experiment.
no bringing immigrant peoples from backward nations into our nations AND THEN SCORING IT.
The only reason this stuff is allowed is because they don’t have to admit to a british or aryan or white superiority. Otherwise these books and writers would be burned at the stake.
Its proof its a liberal establishment and not common consent on these matters.

in reality there is no such thing as intelligence. just divisions of knowing.
The bible says Wisdom, first, and then understanding and then knowledge. its all outside us and its there for everybody HOWEVER generally the people you are born into and mingle with are the origin for what the kid picks up.
Thats why there are identity differences. Including motivation to explain female behindness etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You would have to think long and hard to deliberately cram so much toxic rubbish into so few words. There are at least three good reasons to keep your mouth closed in an Internet discussion:
1. If you don't know what you are talking about
2. If you don't want to prove that you don't know what you are talking about
3. If you don't want the flies to crap all over your tongue
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is there anyone at UD who calls Byers out on his misogyny or is this acceptable behavior inside the big tent?
Posted by: J-Dog on May 12 2014,17:00

Quote (stevestory @ May 12 2014,11:26)
You other brothers can't deny.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Rec'd for quote - It reminds me of Shrek 2, with The Donkey & The Dragon...
Posted by: Ptaylor on May 12 2014,22:50

Quote (Learned Hand @ May 12 2014,11:00)
Apropos of nothing, I spent today touring Down House and its environs during a weekend off from a long business trip to London. I was not prepared for how beautiful the grounds are--the gardens, sandwalk, and walk back to the village were gorgeous.

The bookstore sells a number of excellent reads, such as Why Evolution is True. But not Darwin's Black Box or No Free Lunch. I suppose that will have to wait until IDists prove their case and have their homes converted into national parks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I went there about 3 years ago and can vouch for all of this. The grounds and general surroundings outshine the Down House interior exhibits, in my opinion, although it probably helped that I was there on a warm, fine spring day. It gave interesting insights into Darwin himself, with preserved experimental pieces, and life in general for a large Victorian household in outer London.
An excellent way to spend half a day if you find yourself in London with the time to spare.
And yes, the people that stock the book and gift shop seem to have no idea of the raging scientific controversy going on - no ID books in sight!
Posted by: Ptaylor on May 12 2014,22:53

Quote (Patrick @ May 13 2014,04:48)

Is there anyone at UD who calls Byers out on his misogyny or is this acceptable behavior inside the big tent?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, to her* credit regular commenter Barb has taken him up on it, but to the discredit of UD in general she seems to be the only one.
It's all water off a duck's back, of course, for Byers; witness his impervious-to-reality history of posting at PT.

*Assuming gender on the basis that Barb > Barbara
Posted by: Henry J on May 12 2014,22:55



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is there anyone at UD who calls Byers out on his misogyny or is this acceptable behavior inside the big tent?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, to all in tents and perversions...
Posted by: sparc on May 12 2014,22:59

Off topic: Where's KF? Another constitutional crisis on Montserrat?
Posted by: Richardthughes on May 13 2014,15:52

Quote (George @ May 12 2014,08:33)
Quote (timothya @ May 12 2014,00:56)
Byers at UD on the intelligence gene:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As said before intelligence can be measured. However its still just measuring a point in time of some people or person.
If conclusions are made then it must be a controlled experiment.
no bringing immigrant peoples from backward nations into our nations AND THEN SCORING IT.
The only reason this stuff is allowed is because they don’t have to admit to a british or aryan or white superiority. Otherwise these books and writers would be burned at the stake.
Its proof its a liberal establishment and not common consent on these matters.

in reality there is no such thing as intelligence. just divisions of knowing.
The bible says Wisdom, first, and then understanding and then knowledge. its all outside us and its there for everybody HOWEVER generally the people you are born into and mingle with are the origin for what the kid picks up.
Thats why there are identity differences. Including motivation to explain female behindness etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You would have to think long and hard to deliberately cram so much toxic rubbish into so few words. There are at least three good reasons to keep your mouth closed in an Internet discussion:
1. If you don't know what you are talking about
2. If you don't want to prove that you don't know what you are talking about
3. If you don't want the flies to crap all over your tongue
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have to admit to being a big fan of female behindness.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But will you ever get to the bottom of it?
Posted by: Patrick on May 13 2014,19:09

Quote (sparc @ May 12 2014,23:59)
Off topic: Where's KF? Another constitutional crisis on Montserrat?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Since none of the IDCists ever say anything new, if you're missing one of them you could just use a Markov algorithm to generate equally intelligible text.

My proof of that claim is < here >.  It's a quick hack -- let me know if you run into any problems.
Posted by: k.e.. on May 13 2014,19:52

Quote (sparc @ May 13 2014,06:59)
Off topic: Where's KF? Another constitutional crisis on Montserrat?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe Magenta called him over for a threesome.....
Posted by: Ptaylor on May 13 2014,22:52

Quote (Patrick @ May 13 2014,04:48)

Is there anyone at UD who calls Byers out on his misogyny or is this acceptable behavior inside the big tent?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Update from Upright (of all people):


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Robert. I am almost sick that I must share a forum with you.

You are a dipshit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


<
UD link >
Posted by: George on May 14 2014,01:43

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 13 2014,15:52)
Quote (George @ May 12 2014,08:33)
Quote (timothya @ May 12 2014,00:56)
Byers at UD on the intelligence gene:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As said before intelligence can be measured. However its still just measuring a point in time of some people or person.
If conclusions are made then it must be a controlled experiment.
no bringing immigrant peoples from backward nations into our nations AND THEN SCORING IT.
The only reason this stuff is allowed is because they don’t have to admit to a british or aryan or white superiority. Otherwise these books and writers would be burned at the stake.
Its proof its a liberal establishment and not common consent on these matters.

in reality there is no such thing as intelligence. just divisions of knowing.
The bible says Wisdom, first, and then understanding and then knowledge. its all outside us and its there for everybody HOWEVER generally the people you are born into and mingle with are the origin for what the kid picks up.
Thats why there are identity differences. Including motivation to explain female behindness etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You would have to think long and hard to deliberately cram so much toxic rubbish into so few words. There are at least three good reasons to keep your mouth closed in an Internet discussion:
1. If you don't know what you are talking about
2. If you don't want to prove that you don't know what you are talking about
3. If you don't want the flies to crap all over your tongue
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have to admit to being a big fan of female behindness.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But will you ever get to the bottom of it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, just arsing around.
Posted by: Bob O'H on May 14 2014,03:22

Quote (Patrick @ May 13 2014,19:09)
Quote (sparc @ May 12 2014,23:59)
Off topic: Where's KF? Another constitutional crisis on Montserrat?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Since none of the IDCists ever say anything new, if you're missing one of them you could just use a Markov algorithm to generate equally intelligible text.

My proof of that claim is < here >.  It's a quick hack -- let me know if you run into any problems.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The vincentbot needs more green text. I'm lookign forward to the ba77bot, once you've found a way of storing and generating that much text.
Posted by: rossum on May 14 2014,05:34

Quote (George @ May 14 2014,01:43)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 13 2014,15:52)
Quote (George @ May 12 2014,08:33)
 
Quote (timothya @ May 12 2014,00:56)
Byers at UD on the intelligence gene:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As said before intelligence can be measured. However its still just measuring a point in time of some people or person.
If conclusions are made then it must be a controlled experiment.
no bringing immigrant peoples from backward nations into our nations AND THEN SCORING IT.
The only reason this stuff is allowed is because they don’t have to admit to a british or aryan or white superiority. Otherwise these books and writers would be burned at the stake.
Its proof its a liberal establishment and not common consent on these matters.

in reality there is no such thing as intelligence. just divisions of knowing.
The bible says Wisdom, first, and then understanding and then knowledge. its all outside us and its there for everybody HOWEVER generally the people you are born into and mingle with are the origin for what the kid picks up.
Thats why there are identity differences. Including motivation to explain female behindness etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You would have to think long and hard to deliberately cram so much toxic rubbish into so few words. There are at least three good reasons to keep your mouth closed in an Internet discussion:
1. If you don't know what you are talking about
2. If you don't want to prove that you don't know what you are talking about
3. If you don't want the flies to crap all over your tongue
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have to admit to being a big fan of female behindness.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But will you ever get to the bottom of it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, just arsing around.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We need to get back to fundamentals here.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on May 14 2014,06:09

Quote (rossum @ May 14 2014,12:34)
Quote (George @ May 14 2014,01:43)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 13 2014,15:52)
 
Quote (George @ May 12 2014,08:33)
 
Quote (timothya @ May 12 2014,00:56)
Byers at UD on the intelligence gene:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As said before intelligence can be measured. However its still just measuring a point in time of some people or person.
If conclusions are made then it must be a controlled experiment.
no bringing immigrant peoples from backward nations into our nations AND THEN SCORING IT.
The only reason this stuff is allowed is because they don’t have to admit to a british or aryan or white superiority. Otherwise these books and writers would be burned at the stake.
Its proof its a liberal establishment and not common consent on these matters.

in reality there is no such thing as intelligence. just divisions of knowing.
The bible says Wisdom, first, and then understanding and then knowledge. its all outside us and its there for everybody HOWEVER generally the people you are born into and mingle with are the origin for what the kid picks up.
Thats why there are identity differences. Including motivation to explain female behindness etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You would have to think long and hard to deliberately cram so much toxic rubbish into so few words. There are at least three good reasons to keep your mouth closed in an Internet discussion:
1. If you don't know what you are talking about
2. If you don't want to prove that you don't know what you are talking about
3. If you don't want the flies to crap all over your tongue
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have to admit to being a big fan of female behindness.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But will you ever get to the bottom of it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, just arsing around.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We need to get back to fundamentals here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You shouldn't make female anatomy the butt of your jokes.
Posted by: Patrick on May 14 2014,06:59

Quote (Bob O'H @ May 14 2014,04:22)
Quote (Patrick @ May 13 2014,19:09)
Quote (sparc @ May 12 2014,23:59)
Off topic: Where's KF? Another constitutional crisis on Montserrat?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Since none of the IDCists ever say anything new, if you're missing one of them you could just use a Markov algorithm to generate equally intelligible text.

My proof of that claim is < here >.  It's a quick hack -- let me know if you run into any problems.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The vincentbot needs more green text. I'm lookign forward to the ba77bot, once you've found a way of storing and generating that much text.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Unfortunately, ba77 quotes so much material that a simple Markov generator can't model his output.  I'll try a few tweaks this weekend to see what might work.
Posted by: Patrick on May 14 2014,07:01

Quote (Ptaylor @ May 13 2014,23:52)
Quote (Patrick @ May 13 2014,04:48)

Is there anyone at UD who calls Byers out on his misogyny or is this acceptable behavior inside the big tent?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Update from Upright (of all people):
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Robert. I am almost sick that I must share a forum with you.

You are a dipshit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


<
UD link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Credit where credit is due.  Well said, Upright Biped.
Posted by: JohnW on May 14 2014,12:26

Quote (Kattarina98 @ May 14 2014,04:09)
Quote (rossum @ May 14 2014,12:34)
Quote (George @ May 14 2014,01:43)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 13 2014,15:52)
 
Quote (George @ May 12 2014,08:33)
   
Quote (timothya @ May 12 2014,00:56)
Byers at UD on the intelligence gene:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As said before intelligence can be measured. However its still just measuring a point in time of some people or person.
If conclusions are made then it must be a controlled experiment.
no bringing immigrant peoples from backward nations into our nations AND THEN SCORING IT.
The only reason this stuff is allowed is because they don’t have to admit to a british or aryan or white superiority. Otherwise these books and writers would be burned at the stake.
Its proof its a liberal establishment and not common consent on these matters.

in reality there is no such thing as intelligence. just divisions of knowing.
The bible says Wisdom, first, and then understanding and then knowledge. its all outside us and its there for everybody HOWEVER generally the people you are born into and mingle with are the origin for what the kid picks up.
Thats why there are identity differences. Including motivation to explain female behindness etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You would have to think long and hard to deliberately cram so much toxic rubbish into so few words. There are at least three good reasons to keep your mouth closed in an Internet discussion:
1. If you don't know what you are talking about
2. If you don't want to prove that you don't know what you are talking about
3. If you don't want the flies to crap all over your tongue
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have to admit to being a big fan of female behindness.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But will you ever get to the bottom of it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, just arsing around.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We need to get back to fundamentals here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You shouldn't make female anatomy the butt of your jokes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cheeky!
Posted by: Ptaylor on May 15 2014,00:24

Quote (Patrick @ May 14 2014,12:09)

Since none of the IDCists ever say anything new, if you're missing one of them you could just use a Markov algorithm to generate equally intelligible text.

My proof of that claim is < here >.  It's a quick hack -- let me know if you run into any problems.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm no programmer, but I think I can see why there is no DenyseBot. How could you assign text with no logic behind it?
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on May 15 2014,09:48

< Lewontin! >
Posted by: midwifetoad on May 15 2014,10:53

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 15 2014,09:48)
< Lewontin! >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I find the strong AI discussion interesting.I don't see much discussion of my idea, which is that artificial brains will have to evolve and cannot (in practice, if not in principle) be designed.

If strong AI ever happens, it will be after many iterations of tinkering. In effect, design by evolution.
Posted by: Woodbine on May 15 2014,17:57

Slimy Sal's Young Cosmos 2 Creation Evolution University is on fire; no activity in week.

Fittingly the last post is from Robert 'Wendell' Byers....



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To ID and YEC folks WHAT will it look like when we destroy darwins evolutionism?
Will it be a better world for creationism?
I suspect it will not for yEC.
YEC believes all creation ended on creation week. so after that anything that changed in biology etc was from natural mechanisms.
This was impressive by any standard and very impressive by other standards like mine.
i believe marine mammals are just adapted land lovers and probably bats are only post flood adated rats.
Etc etc. people look very different and so on.
Therefore this IS other mechanism for biological change of note.
i suspect when these are realized and discovered that it will allow a worst criticism for biblical creationism.
they will say GOD created the beginning stuff but then ever since there has been change and so genesis is wrong.
Anyways. knocking out darwin might lead to problems more serious.
just wondering what others think about when darwin is finally buried with the other wrong and dumb ideas in mankind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So he's not a YEC?
Posted by: Ptaylor on May 15 2014,18:20

PaV exposes - yet again - the us-versus-them mentality so prevalent at UD. In 'A High-Tech Lynching' he quotes a Daily Mail article:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   A globally-renowned climate scientist has been forced to step down from a think-tank after he was subjected to ‘Mc-Carthy’-style pressure from scientists around the world.

   Professor Lennart Bengtsson, 79, a leading academic from the University of Reading, left the high-profile Global Warming Policy Foundation as a result of the threats, which he described as ‘virtually unbearable’.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What does this have to do with intelligent design, or even anti-evolution? The answer, according to PaV, is obvious: it's yet another example of Darwinist persecution!
PaV:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Within the last few days, this story has come out. I’ll provide a link below; but, for the Darwinists (I won’t call them evolutionary biologists. Why? Because Erasmus Darwin was an evolutionary biologist. Lamarck was an evolutionary biologist, etc. No, they’re followers of C. Darwin, and, hence, Darwinists) who want to maintain that Richard Sternberg and others were not shabbily treated, here it is, the same kind of treatment, and, again, at the hands of ‘dispassionate,