Printable Version of Topic

-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 3 started by Bob O'H


Posted by: Bob O'H on Sep. 04 2009,16:20

Oh, nobody else started one up then?  I guess I'll have to.
Posted by: Aardvark on Sep. 04 2009,16:26

More like UDT 2.5 than 3; since the original had ~1000 pages (IIRC) and the sequel only 500.

Anyways, on with the tardmining...
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 04 2009,16:32

Because this passage is eminently appropriate for UD, always:
 

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

Let us begin with Isaiah 57:20-21:

"But the wicked are like the tossing sea,
which cannot rest,
whose waves cast up mire and mud.

'There is no peace,' says my God, 'for the wicked.' "

------------------------------------
stevestory's opening post, UD thread#2, < here >


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


Posted by: dheddle on Sep. 04 2009,16:37

What's up with stopping before the Mark of the Beast?*. You going all dispensational on us, Wes?

---------
* Which anyone who is anyone knows is 661, not 666
Posted by: someotherguy on Sep. 04 2009,16:37

It feels so fresh and new in here!  Like anything is possible:

- Gil could could use a new argument that was not generated by the Dogdenator 3000
- Corny could write a blog post that didn't link back to one of his other blogs
- Denyse could write something that didn't cause English teachers everywhere to start calling suicide hotlines
- Davetard could sell his houseboat and travel to Tibet to seek personal enlightenment
- KF could admit, in a post of less than 500 words, that "quasi-latching" and "implicit latching" are just bullshit concepts that he made up to avoid admitting defeat
- StephenB could apologize--and actually mean it
- Dr. Dr. D could be invited on a reality TV show to get a wardrobe makeover
- All of us could vow to never make socks at UD again because, really, getting your laughs from watching a bunch of moderately crazy strangers act like idiots is kind of immature


Okay, I admit that last possibility is probably rather remote!   :D
Posted by: Maya on Sep. 04 2009,16:37

< Joseph outs himself as a YEC: >  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Cabal:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The evolutionist position is amply supported by 150 years of research.

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


The only thing supported is the Creationists’ position of baraminology.

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


Posted by: Maya on Sep. 04 2009,16:40

Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 04 2009,16:37)
All of us could vow to never make socks at UD again because, really, getting your laughs from watching a bunch of moderately crazy strangers act like idiots is kind of immature
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll stop mocking them when they stop voting.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Sep. 04 2009,16:45

Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 04 2009,16:37)
It feels so fresh and new in here!  Like anything is possible:

- Gil could could use a new argument that was not generated by the Dogdenator 3000
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, I was considering upgrading the Dodgenator 3000 by adding an option about the "cell as a highly complex information processing machine."  But, I cannot decide if that is sufficiently different than "DNA is a computer program."

Thoughts?
Posted by: J-Dog on Sep. 04 2009,16:50

Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 04 2009,16:45)
Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 04 2009,16:37)
It feels so fresh and new in here!  Like anything is possible:

- Gil could could use a new argument that was not generated by the Dogdenator 3000
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, I was considering upgrading the Dodgenator 3000 by adding an option about the "cell as a highly complex information processing machine."  But, I cannot decide if that is sufficiently different than "DNA is a computer program."

Thoughts?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's the same, IMO.  It's like taking Creation Science adding something sciencey and voila, you got your Intelligent Design.  

and BTW -

"Welcome my friends, to the show that never ends"...
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 04 2009,16:56

With a straight face PaV says:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It seems to me that if there is any “power” to Darwin’s theory, then it must come from its ability to demonstrate how new structures arise, not how previously occurring structures disappeared.

Furthermore, from the writings of Fred Hoyle, and the recent work of Behe (The Edge of Evolution), what we, here at UD would predict, is that the ‘loss’ of teeth or enamel wouldn’t involve more than two amino acid substitutions. This is, more or less, what Meredith, et. al. found. So, whose predictive power is enormous and whose not?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< enormous-predictive-power-of-darwins-theory >
Um.
Posted by: Barrett Brown on Sep. 04 2009,17:45



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You managed to stir up a couple of commenters over there. Some of them are really odious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, and I've replied with two additional comments that have yet to be moderated through hours later despite other, later comments having already appeared, as per usual. I've reproduced them at my little blog post:

< http://trueslant.com/barrett....f-shame >
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 04 2009,18:11

Quote (Maya @ Sep. 04 2009,17:40)
Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 04 2009,16:37)
All of us could vow to never make socks at UD again because, really, getting your laughs from watching a bunch of moderately crazy strangers act like idiots is kind of immature
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll stop mocking them when they stop voting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


word
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Sep. 04 2009,18:42

Wow! It's all in color and stuff, I don't think we are in the old thread anymore Toto!

Edit to add: PaV is a putz...
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Sep. 04 2009,21:11

PaV says:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Furthermore, from the writings of Fred Hoyle, and the recent work of Behe (The Edge of Evolution), what we, here at UD would predict, is that the ‘loss’ of teeth or enamel wouldn’t involve more than two amino acid substitutions. This is, more or less, what Meredith, et. al. found.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Does anyone who has read the paper know where PaV gets this figure from? The closest thing I can find is where they calculate substitution rates in Mysticetes (they get .0081 frameshifts/kb/myr) and where they calculate gene (well technically the survival time of a 3 kb exon) survival time assuming neutral evolution and use nucleotide substitution rate in their calculation, but perhaps I missed something?Or is PaV just making shit up?
Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 04 2009,21:49

Quote (Maya @ Sep. 04 2009,17:40)
Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 04 2009,16:37)
All of us could vow to never make socks at UD again because, really, getting your laughs from watching a bunch of moderately crazy strangers act like idiots is kind of immature
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll stop mocking them when they stop voting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Exactly so.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 04 2009,22:38

front page tard-by


Detectable Tranmaw



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Does anyone remember when “speciation” meant something?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



words fail

Andrew Sibleytard



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If this is the best RD can do then Darwinian evolution is clearly on its last legs
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



because why?

Frill



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The recent brouhaha concerning Mike Behe at BloggingHeads got me to thinking. (I do that from time to time.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



and it is always so cute!

d-d-d-d-d-d-d-dembski



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
His unbridled contempt for Jan Helfeld reminds me of the Darwinists’ contempt for lay people when they ask simple probing questions about their theory. Darwinism has a similar addling effect on even the best-educated minds. It too is a fevered swamp.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



good old bill is always so calm cool and collected, reserved even, with his use of language.  

now, what, too, is a fevered swamp?  darwinism is a fevered swamp?  or the similar addling effect on even the best-educated minds?  

because i could see how that would be just a little bit more of a fevered swamp than you know the other one.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 04 2009,23:16

Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 04 2009,21:49)
 
Quote (Maya @ Sep. 04 2009,17:40)
   
Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 04 2009,16:37)
All of us could vow to never make socks at UD again because, really, getting your laughs from watching a bunch of moderately crazy strangers act like idiots is kind of immature
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll stop mocking them when they stop voting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Exactly so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm contractually obliged to keep mocking them until they stop saying stupid shit.
It's my job.

Apparently, I will never, ever be unemployed
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 04 2009,23:48

which one of y'all is spark300c.  this is good



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
14
spark300c
09/04/2009
1:40 pm
it seem that why but I think the left over are there to make sure that we do not think there are many designers. no lefter overs means no signs of command design. Also if we think natural section is strong enough to make evolution happen than these non coding parts will go away very quickly. eaten way by deletions. We have genes for laying eggs. Why in hell would natural selection persevere it. It since it does no do any thing it takes up space and energy and in nature is very sightly deleterious. Any deletion will be beneficial since it will reduce energy being wasted and add to our fitness. Since that gene still exist means it sending message to us that one designer created us. Anther thing is rise question about natural selection because it show natural selection does not see there fore it’s creative powers are limited.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



THAT

is thinkin'!!!
Posted by: Bob O'H on Sep. 05 2009,02:12

Quote (Barrett Brown @ Sep. 04 2009,17:45)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You managed to stir up a couple of commenters over there. Some of them are really odious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes, and I've replied with two additional comments that have yet to be moderated through hours later despite other, later comments having already appeared, as per usual. I've reproduced them at my little blog post:

[URL=http://trueslant.com/barrettbrown/2009/09/04/intelligent-design-advocate-mocking-of-scientist-by-other-scientists-a-century-ago-is-evol


utions-legacy-of-shame/]http://trueslant.com/barrett....f-shame[/URL]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep, the snark is up.

I appreciate this, from your post:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Incidentally, I consider message board arguments to be a fine art despite its reputation as useless and silly. It’s not as if they are any more unproductive than any other sort of argument, really.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Delurker < also has a go >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
13

DeLurker

09/04/2009

4:47 pm

IRQ Conflict#8



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But hey! At least we aren’t in their bedrooms. Right? Why are they in ours?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I almost hesitate to ask, but do homosexuals really force themselves into your bedroom?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: k.e.. on Sep. 05 2009,05:33

Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 05 2009,00:45)
Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 04 2009,16:37)
It feels so fresh and new in here!  Like anything is possible:

- Gil could could use a new argument that was not generated by the Dogdenator 3000
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, I was considering upgrading the Dodgenator 3000 by adding an option about the "cell as a highly complex information processing machine."  But, I cannot decide if that is sufficiently different than "DNA is a computer program."

Thoughts?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Make it a hat trick

DNA is a gay turing machine

Not because Turing was gay, which he was
but because the turing machine would have no way of knowing if it was having 'sex' with another turing machine without external information telling it if liked lacy to wear underwear or preferred to watch sport and drink beer.

ETA: Naturally one of the turing machines was named Lacy.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Sep. 05 2009,07:25

Dangaroo!  Over on the [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/education/blown-away-dan-peterson-reviews-dr-stephen-meyers-book-the-signature-in-the-cell-at-the-am

erican-spectator/]Dan Peterson lurvs Stephen Meyers thread[/URL], Blue Lotus drops 5 comments totalling 3131 words onto KF in less than an hour and a half.  Stealing a tactic from his book, Blue?

How will Gordon respond?  Will he up the ante with a 5000 word response?  Will Lewontin be invoked?  How many strawmen will be torched?  Inquiring minds want to know!

PS:  Blue Lotus?  Do something about that OCD. Seriously.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 05 2009,11:41

Joe be do dat science !

Thesis proposal, ratcheer



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
10
Joseph
09/05/2009
8:06 am
Darwinism has predictions?

Please post the predictions based on the proposed mechamisms.

BTW ID will be falsified if it is ever demonstrated that living organisms can arise from non-living matter via non-telic processes.

The following is half of my design hypothesis:

Observation:

Living organisms

Question

Are living organisms the result of intentional design?

Prediction:

If living organisms were the result of intentional design then I would expect to see that living organisms are (and contain subsystems that are) irreducibly complex and/ or contain complex specified information. IOW I would expect to see an intricacy that is more than just a sum of chemical reactions (endothermic or exothermic).

Further I would expect to see command & control- a hierarchy of command & control would be a possibility.

Test:

Try to deduce the minimal functionality that a living organism. Try to determine if that minimal functionality is irreducibly complex and/or contains complex specified information. Also check to see if any subsystems are irreducibly complex and/ or contain complex specified information.

Potential falsification:

Observe that living organisms arise from non-living matter via a mixture of commonly-found-in-nature chemicals. Observe that while some systems “appear” to be irreducibly complex it can be demonstrated that they can indeed arise via purely stochastic processes such as culled genetic accidents. Also demonstrate that the apparent command & control can also be explained by endothermic and/or exothermic reactions.

Confirmation:

Living organisms are irreducibly complex and contain irreducibly complex subsystems. The information required to build and maintain a single-celled organism is both complex and specified.

Command & control is observed in single-celled organisms- the bacterial flagellum not only has to be configured correctly, indicating command & control over the assembly process, but it also has to function, indicating command & control over functionality.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




TARD STUDIES

learn how to beg questions you have never even considered at University of Unprincipled Dissent
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 05 2009,12:13



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BTW ID will be falsified if it is ever demonstrated that living organisms can arise from non-living matter via non-telic processes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's only because they defined it to include the assertion that evolution is wrong. If they had instead defined it to mean simply that something deliberately engineered life (or some aspect(s) of it), then merely showing the possibility of non-telic evolution wouldn't falsify it.

Henry
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Sep. 05 2009,13:12

dheddle pointed out who the world class software engineer is in UCD thread 2: < http://www.atarimagazines.com/startv3n4/stsciplot.html >

but a bit of the code (as in Bible code) disturbs me...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ST SciPlot is a full-featured GEM application
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I knew it!  GEM of TKI is a Turing test (complete with teh gay).
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 05 2009,13:50

snip--

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
then I would expect to see that
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

--snip

insert 25c ask "Why do you expect to see that?"

observe subject beat itself against the bars of cage

20 GOTO 10
Posted by: Bob O'H on Sep. 05 2009,14:57

< Jerry is being his usual genteel self >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
56

jerry

09/05/2009

2:40 pm

“And the FSCI in those things you mention is? And it’s measured how? And the minimum possible amount of FSCI is?”

It is easy to measure and the minimum amount is zero but not in DNA used to code proteins. It is close to zero in most of your comments.

“Fact is Jerry the NCIS won’t have heard of FSCI”

But they use the concept all the time even if they do not use the term. Just as most humans uses it when they speak and write.

I have a question. How many more stupid remarks are you going to make. I haven’t seen one intelligent one yet, though I haven’t read them all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can someone sock ask him if it's so easy to calculate, to show us an example of a calculation of FCSI for a stretch of coding DNA.  I'm genuinely curious.
Posted by: tsig on Sep. 05 2009,17:46

Quote (Maya @ Sep. 04 2009,16:40)
Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 04 2009,16:37)
All of us could vow to never make socks at UD again because, really, getting your laughs from watching a bunch of moderately crazy strangers act like idiots is kind of immature
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll stop mocking them when they stop voting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll stop when they start thinking.
Posted by: khan on Sep. 05 2009,17:48

Quote (tsig @ Sep. 05 2009,18:46)
Quote (Maya @ Sep. 04 2009,16:40)
Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 04 2009,16:37)
All of us could vow to never make socks at UD again because, really, getting your laughs from watching a bunch of moderately crazy strangers act like idiots is kind of immature
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll stop mocking them when they stop voting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll stop when they start thinking.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't hold your breath.
Posted by: tsig on Sep. 05 2009,19:36

Quote (khan @ Sep. 05 2009,17:48)
Quote (tsig @ Sep. 05 2009,18:46)
Quote (Maya @ Sep. 04 2009,16:40)
 
Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 04 2009,16:37)
All of us could vow to never make socks at UD again because, really, getting your laughs from watching a bunch of moderately crazy strangers act like idiots is kind of immature
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll stop mocking them when they stop voting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll stop when they start thinking.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't hold your breath.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not turning blue at the moment.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 05 2009,20:10

whoa

new tard.  carlson you need some new letters



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here’s another one: F = MA (force equals mass times acceleration) This is a fundamental law of physics, described in the most simple of all mathematical equations, that I use in my work creating finite-element analysis computer simulations of transient nonlinear dynamic systems. (All that means simulating real-life stuff, like cars crashing and figuring out how to design them so that they absorb the energy of impact and protect the human occupants.)

But here’s something very interesting about such a simple mathematical equation as F = MA. Force (e.g., lbf, or pound force) = Mass times Acceleration. Acceleration could be something like feet per second per second (ft. / sec.^2). Solving for Mass with simple algebra we get:

lbf / (ft. / sec.^2) or (lbf times sec.^2) / ft.

Thus, we calculate mass density by dividing mass by volume (in this case ft.^3), and we get:

lbf sec.^2 / ft.^4

How interesting! The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space.

And all of this ultimately comes from 1 apple plus 1 apple equals 2 apples
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



did you get the pathetic part?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I use in my work creating finite-element analysis computer simulations of transient nonlinear dynamic systems. (All that means simulating real-life stuff, like cars crashing and figuring out how to design them so that they absorb the energy of impact and protect the human occupants.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



poor frill don't know how much of a tard he is.

not yet that is.  until now



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2
Blue Lotus
09/05/2009
7:16 pm
Gil

that I use in my work creating finite-element analysis computer simulations of transient nonlinear dynamic systems.

I have heard about these simulations on the interwebs. The rumour is you introduce an additional element of reality by having the computer running the simulation experence a similar enviroment to that being simulated!

It’s an interesting idea but I think it will have limited pratical use to be honest.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



hahahaha

now he knows



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
3
GilDodgen
09/05/2009
7:38 pm
…you introduce an additional element of reality by having the computer running the simulation experence a similar enviroment to that being simulated!

This is a completely incoherent comment, and I have no idea what you are talking about. I’ve just finished a set of FEA simulations at work, the validity of which have been empirically verified through actual physical tests of the systems in question.

If you think FEA has limited practical use I would suggest that you investigate LS-DYNA, the FEA program I use.

tard-link




4
GilDodgen
09/05/2009
7:49 pm
P.S. LS-DYNA was originally developed in the early 1970s at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, by some of the world’s most brilliant and innovative scientists, primarily for the development and simulation of nuclear weapons.

It works, but you must know how to use it. This is a nontrivial exercise that requires a lot of dedication and effort.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



that makes me feel kinda bad for the little guy.  

lololololol just for a second, he's a chump

BL



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I take it you don’t throw your computers running the FEA simulations out the back of planes then?

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



loloololololol
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 05 2009,20:18

jerry, ahem

*cough*

shuffles feet



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No one is arguing that artificial selection is not evolution but it is evolution in a trivial sense because it is micro evolution and not of any interest to anyone in the evolution debate. The debate is about macro evolution and dog breeding or artificial selection has no bearing on this
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



hear that, all you silly bastards out there measuring selection and fitness, bugger off
Posted by: olegt on Sep. 05 2009,21:39



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How interesting! The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, that's sig-worthy!  I [heart] Gil.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Sep. 05 2009,21:41

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 05 2009,20:10)
whoa

new tard.  carlson you need some new letters

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here’s another one: F = MA (force equals mass times acceleration) This is a fundamental law of physics, described in the most simple of all mathematical equations, that I use in my work creating finite-element analysis computer simulations of transient nonlinear dynamic systems. (All that means simulating real-life stuff, like cars crashing and figuring out how to design them so that they absorb the energy of impact and protect the human occupants.)

But here’s something very interesting about such a simple mathematical equation as F = MA. Force (e.g., lbf, or pound force) = Mass times Acceleration. Acceleration could be something like feet per second per second (ft. / sec.^2). Solving for Mass with simple algebra we get:

lbf / (ft. / sec.^2) or (lbf times sec.^2) / ft.

Thus, we calculate mass density by dividing mass by volume (in this case ft.^3), and we get:

lbf sec.^2 / ft.^4

How interesting! The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space.

And all of this ultimately comes from 1 apple plus 1 apple equals 2 apples
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Sorry 'Ras, but there is nothing new there. It looks to start out as an Argument Bx, but someone threw an I-didn't-come-from-no-monkey wrench into the gears of the < Dodgenator 3000 > before any conclusions could be spit out.
Posted by: olegt on Sep. 05 2009,21:51



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

< 10 >
GilDodgen
09/05/2009
9:40 pm

This Blue Lotus clown is a troll. I recognize him. Trolls should be required to identify themselves.

It is a simple design inference. I once suggested that computer simulations that purport to simulate biological evolution should not artificially isolate the means of reproduction from the effects of random errors, and every time this troll logs on with another name he talks about stuff like throwing computers out of airplanes to simulate airdrop guidance software, which he knows is one of my areas of software engineering expertise.

His MO is easily recognizable, and he reappears under different names.

He is a cowardly scumbag.

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


Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 05 2009,21:57

Quote (olegt @ Sep. 05 2009,22:51)


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

< 10 >
GilDodgen
09/05/2009
9:40 pm

This Blue Lotus clown is a troll. I recognize him. Trolls should be required to identify themselves.

It is a simple design inference. I once suggested that computer simulations that purport to simulate biological evolution should not artificially isolate the means of reproduction from the effects of random errors, and every time this troll logs on with another name he talks about stuff like throwing computers out of airplanes to simulate airdrop guidance software, which he knows is one of my areas of software engineering expertise.

His MO is easily recognizable, and he reappears under different names.

He is a cowardly scumbag.

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


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


ALL SCIENCE SO FAR


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Posted by: sparc on Sep. 05 2009,22:23

Gil

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
All of mathematics can ultimately be traced back to the simple concept of addition: 1 apple plus 1 apple equals 2 apples.

Repetitive addition yields multiplication and its inverse yields division. Repetitive multiplication yields exponentiation
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I am looking forward to his mathematical foundation of the concept of square apples and sexuality. Or would it rather be homo-sexuality?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 05 2009,22:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
59

Blue Lotus

09/05/2009

4:16 pm

Jerry

   It is easy to measure and the minimum amount is zero but not in DNA used to code proteins.

Could you show us an example of a calculation of FCSI for a stretch of coding DNA?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



are we going to see some pencils and calculators and scratch paper?

naaaah



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


62

jerry

09/05/2009

5:44 pm

Just take 4^n where n in the number of nucleotides in the string. This number has to be reduced somewhat for multiple codons coding for the same amino acid and reduced further for possible substitutions of one amino acid for another in certain proteins but it gets at the level of complexity of the issue. Another way to do this is to take each codon or group of three and assign the corresponding amino acid to it. Then for each group of three the calculation would be 20^m where m is the number of codons in the string. This would again have to be reduced somewhat for amino acids that could substitute for each other in certain proteins. These are rough calculations but magnitude of the measure is easy to estimate.

I am sure there are refinements of this but this gets at the issue and the magnitude of the measure. Just as you can measure the complexity of a communications by calculating the possible letter/character strings in a sentence or paragraph and then reducing it by other strings that could communicate the same message.

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



shorter jerry:  english spelling has more information

colour

see?

blue lotus



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I mean, rather then explain how to do it, actually do it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



yeah right.  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAA
Posted by: Turncoat on Sep. 05 2009,22:54

Quote (Maya @ Sep. 04 2009,16:40)
Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 04 2009,16:37)
All of us could vow to never make socks at UD again because, really, getting your laughs from watching a bunch of moderately crazy strangers act like idiots is kind of immature
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll stop mocking them when they stop voting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Inspiring words. I'm bored with UD, but digging handy trench latrines for the neo-creos to lay tard on the front is a civic duty. I'll be back.

Dog and Country!
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 05 2009,22:57



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


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

All of mathematics can ultimately be traced back to the simple concept of addition: 1 apple plus 1 apple equals 2 apples.

Repetitive addition yields multiplication and its inverse yields division. Repetitive multiplication yields exponentiation

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


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


Yeah, numerical mathematics is defined in terms of repeated additions, and addition is defined in terms of set theory. Deriving number systems from set theory is an interesting subject. (To me, anyway.) I'm not sure how any of that relates to either evolution or I.D. though.

Henry
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 05 2009,23:46

well, i reckon that's about as close as it'll ever get



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
71
jerry
09/05/2009
11:33 pm
nicholas.steno,

There is another long analysis I made that is relevant to how one views the debate if you are interested in reading it.

link
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



now, who keeps track of links like that?  a comment from a thread 9 months ago.  either jerry is carlson or he is a bit proud of the stuff he writes over there.

as am i, jerry, as am i.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Sep. 06 2009,01:41

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 05 2009,23:46)
now, who keeps track of links like that?  a comment from a thread 9 months ago.  either jerry is carlson or he is a bit proud of the stuff he writes over there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry again, 'Ras. I haven't socked since poachy got banned.
Posted by: Rrr on Sep. 06 2009,03:55

Quote (sparc @ Sep. 05 2009,22:23)
Gil

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
All of mathematics can ultimately be traced back to the simple concept of addition: 1 apple plus 1 apple equals 2 apples.

Repetitive addition yields multiplication and its inverse yields division. Repetitive multiplication yields exponentiation
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I am looking forward to his mathematical foundation of the concept of square apples and sexuality. Or would it rather be homo-sexuality?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ehrm. That would be pomo-sexuality, for the lingwits.

Hat/tip/veal.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Sep. 06 2009,04:26

< Ha! >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
20

BillB

09/06/2009

2:22 am



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Give us your real name, as I have done. Otherwise, please do us the favor of blessing us with your absence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



GEM of TKI to that
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




I'll just comment that I do think this Gil baiting is a bit unkind.  Whilst some of his ideas are a bit, um, odd, he doesn't come across as being malicious or nasty.  And he has at least made something of his off-line life.

Now jerry, on the other hand, deserves the vitriol aimed at him.
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 06 2009,08:37



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Blue Lotus >:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< GilDodgen >: All computational evolutionary algorithms artificially isolate the effects of random mutation on the underlying machinery: the CPU instruction set, operating system, and algorithmic processes responsible for the replication process.

If the blind-watchmaker thesis is correct for biological evolution, all of these artificial constraints must be eliminated. Every aspect of the simulation, both hardware and software, must be subject to random errors.

Of course, this would result in immediate disaster and the extinction of the CPU, OS, simulation program, and the programmer, who would never get funding for further realistic simulation experiments.

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


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


GilDodgen lashes out.  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< GilDodgen >: With all due lack of respect, you are a clown, hiding behind your anonymity.

Click on my name or Google it, and you can find out all about me.

You must do the same in order for this conversation to continue. Give your real name so I have as much information about you as you do about me, or do us both a favor and crawl back into the hole from which you emerged.

Give us your real name, as I have done. Otherwise, please do us the favor of blessing us with your absence.

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


I don't think it's productive to call GilDodgen names. He is certainly accomplished in a number of ways, and for that he deserves respect. But when he's wrong, he should be called on it. Nor should GilDodgen react in such a fashion.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< C_G_K >: The underlying machinery (OS, programs, hardware and so on) are an important part of genetic algorithms and therefore become part of the simulation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is a perfect opportunity for GilDodgen to correct this wrong perception. The hardware is not part of the world being simulated.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< GilDodgen >: I once suggested that computer simulations that purport to simulate biological evolution should not artificially isolate the means of reproduction from the effects of random errors, and every time this troll logs on with another name he talks about stuff like throwing computers out of airplanes to simulate airdrop guidance software, which he knows is one of my areas of software engineering expertise.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The "means of reproduction" can and are simulated by evolutionary models. But that is *not* done by mutating the CPU or OS.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< GilDodgen >: He is a cowardly scumbag.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's obvious that GilDodgen feels inadequate, constantly peppering his posts with references to his accomplishments. He is sensitive—overly so. It is a common circumstance when someone who can't admit error is confronted, repeatedly, with the source of his error.

But he said what he said. Even now, GilDodgen's language hedges on the distinction. He refuses to accept that he was wrong, is wrong. This will remain an issue for as long as he maintains his position.

Sympathy for GilDodgen's obvious discomfort is understandable—it's anguishing to watch him—, but it seems to be something to do with GilDodgen, not with Blue Lotus.


-
Edited for clarity.

Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 06 2009,09:49



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If the blind-watchmaker thesis is correct for biological evolution, all of these artificial constraints must be eliminated. Every aspect of the simulation, both hardware and software, must be subject to random errors.

Of course, this would result in immediate disaster and the extinction of the CPU, OS, simulation program, and the programmer, who would never get funding for further realistic simulation experiments.

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

Someone propose the following thought experiment to Gil:

Create a simulation that runs on a virtual machine. I'm sure he understands the concept. The virtual machine includes the OS, hardware drivers, and programs. All of this will reside in memory, but this is the only feasible way to run his kind of simulation.

To make it possible, the virtual machine would be somewhat less complex than Windows. Perhaps a few thousand bytes. I think the early Apple and Radio Shack computers implemented Basic in under 4K. I think you could easily make a VM that requires much less. A VM would consist of an interpreter and code, and both would be subject to mutation.

Since abiogenesis is not the issue being explored, the starting VM would be a self replicator. It would divide, producing imperfect copies of itself. The division and mutation process could affect both "children."

The VMs would exist in a sea of memory, perhaps a turbulent sea that sloshes around, separating the individuals so replications don't always sit on other individuals. Although this could happen. Perhaps individuals need a virtual membrane.

My first thought is that something like this has probably already been done. I don't follow the details of the various simulation programs, but I'd be surprised if someone hasn't tried this.

My second thought is that Gill wouldn't accept this, because the "real" OS isn't affected.
Posted by: k.e.. on Sep. 06 2009,11:11



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The VMs would exist in a sea of memory, perhaps a turbulent sea that sloshes around, separating the individuals so replications don't always sit on other individuals. Although this could happen. Perhaps individuals need a virtual membrane.

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



I'LL SECOND THAT! HOMO.

YOU COULD HAVE SEAHORSES AND TURTLES AND EACH TIME YOU HAVE A TSUNAMI THEY WASH UP ON THE MONITOR SCREEN AT WHICH POINT YOU COULD JUST DO A CTRL ALT DEL TO SWAP TO A NEW VM.

...erm OR JUST THROW THE WHOLE THING IN THE NEAREST OCEAN AND ALLOW THE GA TO SLOSH IN THROUGH THE USB PORT.dt

Gil's bitchin' isn't covering up his lying for Jesus.
I'll bet he is way out of the loop on the latest developments on weapons programming.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 06 2009,11:22

There's people running a virtual Mac OSX < in Windows. > (or < Windows in Mac) >.

I'm ambivalent about Gil.

He has some fair accomplishments, but he tries to whip those out seemingly at every possible opportunity, as if he's got some kind of tiny pianist complex (I was trying to figure out how to sneak in that Krusty teh Clown ref.).

To be honest, his musicianship is his most formidable achievement. The code-jockeying...eh, others might see that as more important. The "I was a teenage were-athesist" shit is just trite, esp. when it constantly prefaces / accompanies his pontifications regarding matters he clearly doesn't understand or wish to understand. As Zach mentioned, there's also the overblown ego that can't accept/admit being wrong without a frilly flounce-attack. Add in his questionable behavior when he was actually modding. (Although, compared to Scooter, Gil was a little ray of sunshine.)

Aside from those quibbles, he seems moderately tolerable, even if I can't imagine doing so overly long in any social setting.

ETA: I saw what you did there, "Turncoat." That was a pip.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Sep. 06 2009,11:47

Quote (olegt @ Sep. 05 2009,21:39)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How interesting! The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, that's sig-worthy!  I [heart] Gil.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Consider it stolen.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 06 2009,11:48

Virtual Windows and virtual OSX are a bit ambitious.

What I have in mind is a bit of self replicating code, such that it satisfies Gil's demand that the code and data both be subject to mutation. Something like a virtual Spiegelman's Monster.
Posted by: socle on Sep. 06 2009,12:26

< Clive: >
 

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

Gil is right, Blue Lotus also goes by David v. Squatney. So, Blue, which name would you like to use? To make it easier to follow and for the sake of continuity, just stick with your David v. Squatney handle, and Blue Lotus will now be retired by me.

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


Just for the record, I know with absolute certainty that David v. Squatney and Blue Lotus are not the same person.  I've made a post to that effect, but DvS is now under moderation.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 06 2009,12:29

Quote (socle @ Sep. 06 2009,12:26)
< Clive: >
 

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

Gil is right, Blue Lotus also goes by David v. Squatney. So, Blue, which name would you like to use? To make it easier to follow and for the sake of continuity, just stick with your David v. Squatney handle, and Blue Lotus will now be retired by me.

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


Just for the record, I know with absolute certainty that David v. Squatney and Blue Lotus are not the same person.  I've made a post to that effect, but DvS is now under moderation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Clivebaby will be outing GAB of Talky next?
Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 06 2009,12:37

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 06 2009,13:29)
Quote (socle @ Sep. 06 2009,12:26)
< Clive: >
   

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

Gil is right, Blue Lotus also goes by David v. Squatney. So, Blue, which name would you like to use? To make it easier to follow and for the sake of continuity, just stick with your David v. Squatney handle, and Blue Lotus will now be retired by me.

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


Just for the record, I know with absolute certainty that David v. Squatney and Blue Lotus are not the same person.  I've made a post to that effect, but DvS is now under moderation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Clivebaby will be outing GAB of Talky next?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If consistency were their strong suit, we wouldn't be having this discussion about not throwing Gil's computer out the back of an airplane.

Liars and hypocrites, to the last one.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 06 2009,12:43

Gab of Talkys new strategy seems to be to claim victory "I've already squashed an refuted that argument" and link to some blurtfest on his web page that does nothing of the sort..
Posted by: Turncoat on Sep. 06 2009,13:48

Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 06 2009,04:26)
< Ha! >    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
20

BillB

09/06/2009

2:22 am

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Give us your real name, as I have done. Otherwise, please do us the favor of blessing us with your absence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



GEM of TKI to that
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




I'll just comment that I do think this Gil baiting is a bit unkind.  Whilst some of his ideas are a bit, um, odd, he doesn't come across as being malicious or nasty.  And he has at least made something of his off-line life.

Now jerry, on the other hand, deserves the vitriol aimed at him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gil is highly narcissistic, in the clinical sense. I would not hazard to say from online interactions if a clinician would diagnosis him as a full-blown narcissistic personality, but a number of the signs are there. Narcissists commonly present fine fronts in public, and brutalize their families at home. They are in fact malicious and nasty.

What's missing from the Dodgenator 3000 is Gil's frequent self-description as expert in one of a rapidly growing list of fields. At best I can tell, he's an expert if he reads a book about something (e.g., computational number theory) and then writes a program related to it. I think this earns him some baiting.

As for making something of his off-line life, Gil has moved from tweaking a checkers-playing program to tweaking the trajectory of a parachute and its military payload. The checkers program entertained some people, and may have contributed indirectly to science by offering competition to programs developed by actual researchers in AI. The trajectory-control program serves primarily to hurt people. What would Jesus do with a computer?
Posted by: keiths on Sep. 06 2009,14:13

Gilbert K. Dodgen:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here’s another one: F = MA (force equals mass times acceleration) This is a fundamental law of physics, described in the most simple of all mathematical equations, that I use in my work creating finite-element analysis computer simulations of transient nonlinear dynamic systems. (All that means simulating real-life stuff, like cars crashing and figuring out how to design them so that they absorb the energy of impact and protect the human occupants.)

But here’s something very interesting about such a simple mathematical equation as F = MA. Force (e.g., lbf, or pound force) = Mass times Acceleration. Acceleration could be something like feet per second per second (ft. / sec.^2). Solving for Mass with simple algebra we get:

lbf / (ft. / sec.^2) or (lbf times sec.^2) / ft.

Thus, we calculate mass density by dividing mass by volume (in this case ft.^3), and we get:

lbf sec.^2 / ft.^4

How interesting! The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Poor Gil. He uses the definition of mass density -- a definition that assumes three-dimensional space -- to reach the conclusion that space is four-dimensional. And then he fails to notice the discrepancy.

Here's your problem, Gil. The lbf is defined as 32 · lbm · ft/s2.  Substituting that into your derived equation for mass density, we get

mass density = (lbm·ft/s2)·s2/ft4 = lbm/ft3

Well, duh.  The very definition of mass density assumes three spatial dimensions, so of course we end up with ft3 in the denominator.  If you started with a definition of density that assumed 16 spatial dimensions, you'd end up with ft16 in the denominator.  A definition doesn't tell us anything about reality, Gil, especially if you screw up the algebra.
Posted by: sledgehammer on Sep. 06 2009,14:26

Quote (socle @ Sep. 06 2009,10:26)
< Clive: >
   

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

Gil is right, Blue Lotus also goes by David v. Squatney. So, Blue, which name would you like to use? To make it easier to follow and for the sake of continuity, just stick with your David v. Squatney handle, and Blue Lotus will now be retired by me.

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


Just for the record, I know with absolute certainty that David v. Squatney and Blue Lotus are not the same person.  I've made a post to that effect, but DvS is now under moderation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The cynic in me suspects that CliveBaby knows this all too well, and just needed a justification to excommunicate Blue.

 

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


12

nicholas.steno

09/05/2009

10:05 pm
<snip>

That is a key reason that we are Alone in this war. We have to Reprioritize our commitments towards Depending on common decency.

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


Clever.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 06 2009,15:30

StephenB lapses into the personal once again, and laments that UD moderation doesn't forbid kicking his ass up one side and down the other (which entails a change in movement, but isn't necessarily causal). But Diffaxial gets the last word:

< StephenB >:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You ignore all my questions, misrepresent what I do say, and labor endlessly on irrelevant trivialities, apparantly in an attempt to create the illusion that you a presenting reasoned arguments, which you are not. Rather than accuse you of being dishonest for a second time on the same thread, I will simply assert that you are evading all the hard questions because you can provide no rational defense for your position. Evasion is permitted on this site, so there is nothing to be done about it.

Since you have apparently decided to argue by attrition, getting in the last word would be important for you. So, I think I will grant it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Diffaxial >:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
OK.

"Rutabaga"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



As usual, Diffaxial's is the more substantive comment.

ETA: StephenB then < goes right on > playing his broken record on another thread:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The scientific method assumes those beliefs apriori and gains its legitimacy from them. The law of non-contradiction and uncompromised causality, for example, are two among many fundamental principles of right reason...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 06 2009,16:05

StephenB could have accepted my invitation to a two-person debate outside of UD, but ran away from that idea.

Luckily, he had Clivebaby to protect him, in Clive's honesty-challenged way.

Clive also ran away from that same invitation I'd posted in another thread. Right, Clive? Mwah, you sweet thang. Keep hiding! Daddy Dembski will protect you.
Posted by: MichaelJ on Sep. 06 2009,18:01

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 06 2009,09:49)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If the blind-watchmaker thesis is correct for biological evolution, all of these artificial constraints must be eliminated. Every aspect of the simulation, both hardware and software, must be subject to random errors.

Of course, this would result in immediate disaster and the extinction of the CPU, OS, simulation program, and the programmer, who would never get funding for further realistic simulation experiments.

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

Someone propose the following thought experiment to Gil:

Create a simulation that runs on a virtual machine. I'm sure he understands the concept. The virtual machine includes the OS, hardware drivers, and programs. All of this will reside in memory, but this is the only feasible way to run his kind of simulation.

To make it possible, the virtual machine would be somewhat less complex than Windows. Perhaps a few thousand bytes. I think the early Apple and Radio Shack computers implemented Basic in under 4K. I think you could easily make a VM that requires much less. A VM would consist of an interpreter and code, and both would be subject to mutation.

Since abiogenesis is not the issue being explored, the starting VM would be a self replicator. It would divide, producing imperfect copies of itself. The division and mutation process could affect both "children."

The VMs would exist in a sea of memory, perhaps a turbulent sea that sloshes around, separating the individuals so replications don't always sit on other individuals. Although this could happen. Perhaps individuals need a virtual membrane.

My first thought is that something like this has probably already been done. I don't follow the details of the various simulation programs, but I'd be surprised if someone hasn't tried this.

My second thought is that Gill wouldn't accept this, because the "real" OS isn't affected.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It does remind me of an related project. The GAs are based around machine code. You started with a population random byte arrays and the processor attempts to read the byte string as instructions.

Usually you have a target (such as finding the square root of a number loaded into a register) but you could mix this with another game from the eighties "Core War" where each individual attempts to kill the other members of the population by moving around memory and putting stop codes in other individual's code. You would change the code by putting in random mutations.

In this scenario you don't need to code the reproduction code as the programs should develop the ability to reproduce to protect the "genome" against being killed by competitors or by random mutations
Posted by: khan on Sep. 06 2009,18:09



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Gil is highly narcissistic, in the clinical sense. I would not hazard to say from online interactions if a clinician would diagnosis him as a full-blown narcissistic personality, but a number of the signs are there. Narcissists commonly present fine fronts in public, and brutalize their families at home. They are in fact malicious and nasty.

What's missing from the Dodgenator 3000 is Gil's frequent self-description as expert in one of a rapidly growing list of fields. At best I can tell, he's an expert if he reads a book about something (e.g., computational number theory) and then writes a program related to it. I think this earns him some baiting.

As for making something of his off-line life, Gil has moved from tweaking a checkers-playing program to tweaking the trajectory of a parachute and its military payload. The checkers program entertained some people, and may have contributed indirectly to science by offering competition to programs developed by actual researchers in AI. The trajectory-control program serves primarily to hurt people. What would Jesus do with a computer?

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



I spent ~20 years tweaking code, but I can't play piano and don't have frilly shirts.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 06 2009,18:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In this scenario you don't need to code the reproduction code as the programs should develop the ability to reproduce to protect the "genome" against being killed by competitors or by random mutations
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I assumed that the idea wasn't original.
Posted by: socle on Sep. 06 2009,21:51

< Gil: >
 

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


Clive:
Gil is right, Blue Lotus also goes by David v. Squatney. So, Blue, which name would you like to use? To make it easier to follow and for the sake of continuity, just stick with your David v. Squatney handle, and Blue Lotus will now be retired by me.

Clive,
Detecting trolls involves a relatively simple design inference. They have thematic fingerprints which are immediately obvious; the use of language in certain ways is also consistent and obvious; and they always try to hide their identity by logging on with different names.

Unfortunately for the troll, his attempts at deception will ultimately find him out, because one cannot fake his fingerprints.

I think there’s something about one’s sins ultimately finding him out, in a book I once read.

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


LOL  Oops.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 06 2009,21:58

If BL were innocent he would defend himself, right?
Posted by: Turncoat on Sep. 06 2009,22:05

Quote (khan @ Sep. 06 2009,18:09)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Gil is highly narcissistic, in the clinical sense. I would not hazard to say from online interactions if a clinician would diagnosis him as a full-blown narcissistic personality, but a number of the signs are there. Narcissists commonly present fine fronts in public, and brutalize their families at home. They are in fact malicious and nasty.

What's missing from the Dodgenator 3000 is Gil's frequent self-description as expert in one of a rapidly growing list of fields. At best I can tell, he's an expert if he reads a book about something (e.g., computational number theory) and then writes a program related to it. I think this earns him some baiting.

As for making something of his off-line life, Gil has moved from tweaking a checkers-playing program to tweaking the trajectory of a parachute and its military payload. The checkers program entertained some people, and may have contributed indirectly to science by offering competition to programs developed by actual researchers in AI. The trajectory-control program serves primarily to hurt people. What would Jesus do with a computer?

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



I spent ~20 years tweaking code, but I can't play piano and don't have frilly shirts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My first master's thesis was a collection of 40 poems along with a poetics. But I never wore a frilly shirt. I suppose that if I had so little shame as to publish my thesis collection at my website, I might have little enough shame to pose in a frilly shirt.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 06 2009,22:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
12
nicholas.steno
09/05/2009
10:05 pm
I have long maintained that these sorts of occasions are perfect opportunities to formalize the mathematical method of design detection.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



i think the point is that this design detection business has yet to be formalized.  and operationalized.  then marginalized, mythologized and recircumcised.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 06 2009,22:36

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 06 2009,22:58)
If BL were innocent he would defend himself, right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


hahaha

there are lots of things you can make fun of Frill about that are sorta mean spirited and shitty.

that fucking shirt is not one of those things.

neither is his sissy flounce out style of moderation.

neither is his ignorant blithering about "trolls are easy to detect" roflmao

GAFB at any given moment there are a dozen Poes working UD and these dipshits don't know the Clyde Lewis from the Clyde Moody.  Frill grow a set.  You will never be a nanogram of a pianist like Del Wood.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 07 2009,00:16

Quote (Turncoat @ Sep. 06 2009,14:48)
What would Jesus do with a computer?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Same as the rest of us. Spend inordinate amounts of time searching for free porn with intermittent breaks to mock the TARD and post random crap to Facebook.





...what?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 07 2009,02:04

Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 07 2009,00:16)
 
Quote (Turncoat @ Sep. 06 2009,14:48)
What would Jesus do with a computer?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Same as the rest of us. Spend inordinate amounts of time searching for free porn(*a)  [snip] post random crap to Facebook.(*b)





...what?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


After checking my FezBok, I'm gathering that Carlson covers point "a," and you got that "b" part.

(I kid -- Every morning, I wake up hoping for MOAR TWITTING AND  TURKLE PICS!)

P.S. I really want to see turkle pics.

PPS: Did I mention the TURKLE PICS?
Posted by: Bob O'H on Sep. 07 2009,02:36

Go Mark!

BarryA < posts about an exchange between DeLurker and StephenB >.  Mark Franks demolishes it points out some problems with the argument, so Barry defends himself like this:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
5

Barry Arrington

09/07/2009

1:37 am

Mark Frank, your feeble attempts to rescue Delurker are only more of the same weak brew that he offered. I won’t even stoop to responding to them. To do so would give them more dignity than they deserve.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks, Barry.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 07 2009,02:57

Quote (socle @ Sep. 06 2009,21:51)
< Gil: >
     

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


Clive:
Gil is right, Blue Lotus also goes by David v. Squatney. So, Blue, which name would you like to use? To make it easier to follow and for the sake of continuity, just stick with your David v. Squatney handle, and Blue Lotus will now be retired by me.

Clive,
Detecting trolls involves a relatively simple design inference. They have thematic fingerprints which are immediately obvious; the use of language in certain ways is also consistent and obvious; and they always try to hide their identity by logging on with different names.

Unfortunately for the troll, his attempts at deception will ultimately find him out, because one cannot fake his fingerprints.

I think there’s something about one’s sins ultimately finding him out, in a book I once read.

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


LOL  Oops.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then their design "inference" is incorrect, as I was Blue Lotus and socle I'm guessing is David V.

I did make a post saying as much but as BL has been "retired" by Clive it did not even go into the moderation queue, just vanished.

So much for Clive being "absolutely" certain BL and David V are the same person. They get that wrong even after being absolutely certain, what else are they getting wrong? :)
Posted by: Quack on Sep. 07 2009,05:43

Quote (MichaelJ @ Sep. 06 2009,18:01)
   
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 06 2009,09:49)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If the blind-watchmaker thesis is correct for biological evolution, all of these artificial constraints must be eliminated. Every aspect of the simulation, both hardware and software, must be subject to random errors.

Of course, this would result in immediate disaster and the extinction of the CPU, OS, simulation program, and the programmer, who would never get funding for further realistic simulation experiments.

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

Someone propose the following thought experiment to Gil:

Create a simulation that runs on a virtual machine. I'm sure he understands the concept. The virtual machine includes the OS, hardware drivers, and programs. All of this will reside in memory, but this is the only feasible way to run his kind of simulation.

To make it possible, the virtual machine would be somewhat less complex than Windows. Perhaps a few thousand bytes. I think the early Apple and Radio Shack computers implemented Basic in under 4K. I think you could easily make a VM that requires much less. A VM would consist of an interpreter and code, and both would be subject to mutation.

Since abiogenesis is not the issue being explored, the starting VM would be a self replicator. It would divide, producing imperfect copies of itself. The division and mutation process could affect both "children."

The VMs would exist in a sea of memory, perhaps a turbulent sea that sloshes around, separating the individuals so replications don't always sit on other individuals. Although this could happen. Perhaps individuals need a virtual membrane.

My first thought is that something like this has probably already been done. I don't follow the details of the various simulation programs, but I'd be surprised if someone hasn't tried this.

My second thought is that Gill wouldn't accept this, because the "real" OS isn't affected.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It does remind me of an related project. The GAs are based around machine code. You started with a population random byte arrays and the processor attempts to read the byte string as instructions.

Usually you have a target (such as finding the square root of a number loaded into a register) but you could mix this with another game from the eighties "Core War" where each individual attempts to kill the other members of the population by moving around memory and putting stop codes in other individual's code. You would change the code by putting in random mutations.

In this scenario you don't need to code the reproduction code as the programs should develop the ability to reproduce to protect the "genome" against being killed by competitors or by random mutations
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



IMHO much too sophisticated and not edible to GD, a machine emulating a machine?

When I try to visualize an entirely mechanical computing machine instead of the sophistication of electronic devices with operating systems and no means of actually observing their operation, I see a machine that would eliminate all of the objections people like GilD might come up with?

A mechanical device hard-coded to run just the program it was built for. (Or a little more flexible by using a punched tape loop to store the program?)
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 07 2009,05:55

Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 07 2009,06:16)
Quote (Turncoat @ Sep. 06 2009,14:48)
What would Jesus do with a computer?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Same as the rest of us. Spend inordinate amounts of time searching for free porn with intermittent breaks to mock the TARD and post random crap to Facebook.





...what?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I take great umbrage at that, sir. I have NEVER spent inordinate amounts of time searching for free porn. I knew where it was already.

Yours disgustedly

Louis
Posted by: carlsonjok on Sep. 07 2009,07:18

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 07 2009,02:04)
(I kid -- Every morning, I wake up hoping for MOAR TWITTING AND  TURKLE PICS!)

P.S. I really want to see turkle pics.

PPS: Did I mention the TURKLE PICS?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 07 2009,07:34

Kariosfocus
         

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


An Organisation Behaviour theory footnote:

Highly Machiavellian, manipulative people are restrained not by compunctions or words of correction, but by prudence: where they perceive that they will likely get caught and it will hurt them, they will refrain from unacceptable conduct. but if the odds are they will get away with and benefit from it, they will proceed full steam ahead.

So, allowing such amoral men to act without painful consequence them is enabling behaviour.

And, as I have highlighted this morning, evolutionary materialism, since 360 BC, was known to be amoral.

Sadly, the manipulative, destructive darwinist rhetorical tactics above — sadly — fit the pattern as a hand fits a glove. (When I used to see this in the power centres of universities here in the Caribbean, I used to discuss it in terms of “Star Trek World, the reality.” Alcibiades has all too many descendants among us, I am afraid.)

A thought for the day.

G’day

GEM of TKI

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



In other news, Gordon Mullings is still responding to "Blue Lotus" as if Clive had not retired BL.

I asked Gordon
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, I ask you KF, what journal access has been restricted and for whom?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He responds
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Read and weep, here and here, onlookers; to see what is going on, when all the blaming the victim and poisoning the well rhetoric has settled down. (Again, inconvenient points already in evidence and steamrollered over. Worse, on matters of patent injustice.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The "here" links were
< http://www.richardsternberg.org/smithsonian.php >
< http://freegonzalez.com/tenure.html >

So one example is about where Stenberg published in a journal his paper (so, er, not restricted then) and the other example is someone who who did not get tenure, not somebody who has been barred from a journal simply because their work supports ID.

So, somebody could in theory ask KF if he has any actual examples of ID supporters being rejected from journals rather then examples of people either sucessfully publishing their paper or examples nothing to do with access to journals.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 07 2009,07:40

Gordon is being asked about the "F" in FSCI and responds
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The very provenance of the term function indicates that function is identified as a component of making the determination that FSCI is present. As such, FSCI is not going to predict function.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But I thought that if FSCI was present = designed object = function.

So before you can determine the FSCI (ha!) you have to determine if the thing is functional. You could do that by checking it's FSCI - if it has over 500+ FSCI it's functional. You can then determine it's FSCI, as you now know it's functional. Once you know it has FSCI you can be sure it's designed so it has FSCI for sure. And once you know that you can determine it's FSCI, and knowing that allows you to know that it's designed and so worth while measure the FSCI. And once you've measured it you know the object was designed and so can measure the FSCI in the object.  

So, Gordon, I suspect you'll shortly be asked if you determine the FSCI for two strings of DNA and come up with the same answer for both (as really FSCI = how long is the string in question) but later find one string is "junk" DNA and does nothing then how can the FSCI be the same for both strings?

And so on and so forth.

I think Gordon has made a very big mistake here. If the F in FSCI can only be determined externally to working out the FSCI in the first place then you already know it's designed in the first place. And Gordons claims of >500 FSCI = designed become nonsensicial.

< Tard >
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 07 2009,07:52



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< William Dembski >: Not only is his scholarship sloppy on this point (for instance, he fails to distinguish the younger C. S. Lewis, who largely had no problem with evolution, from the later C. S. Lewis, who did), but he justifies taking the side of evolution on the basis of an argumentum ad populum:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am not a biologist, but what impresses me is that virtually every biologist in the world accepts the theory of evolution. While the debate goes on, it seems improbable that the small group fo intelligent design advocates is right and the entire community of biologists is wrong. Consider what two leading Christian biologists say about evolution. Kenneth Miller writes, “Evolution is as much a fact as anyting we know in science,” and Theodosius Dobzhansky famously said, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


That's not an argumentum ad populum (appeal to popularity), but an argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority). An argumentum ad verecundiam is valid when an unbiased scholar is speaking as an authority in a valid field of study, and there is adequate agreement by such experts in the subject. The proper response to a valid appeal to authority is to the evidence.
< www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html >

In this case, Dembski doesn't dispute that the vast majority of biologists accept the Theory of Evolution, so even though no specific scholar is named (Appeal to an Unnamed Authority), the cite remains valid. In and of itself, this can be considered a stronger argument (among laypersons), or weaker (among experts in the field).

< NATIONAL ACADEMY of SCIENCES >: "The theory of evolution has become the central unifying concept of biology and is a critical component of many related scientific disciplines. In contrast, the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested."
Posted by: mitschlag on Sep. 07 2009,10:01

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 07 2009,07:40)
...

I think Gordon has made a very big mistake here. If the F in FSCI can only be determined externally to working out the FSCI in the first place then you already know it's designed in the first place. And Gordons claims of >500 FSCI = designed become nonsensicial.

< Tard >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gordon had no choice.  I give him credit for fessing up.

And I've archived his admission.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 07 2009,10:02

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 07 2009,03:04)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 07 2009,00:16)
 
Quote (Turncoat @ Sep. 06 2009,14:48)
What would Jesus do with a computer?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Same as the rest of us. Spend inordinate amounts of time searching for free porn(*a)  [snip] post random crap to Facebook.(*b)





...what?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


After checking my FezBok, I'm gathering that Carlson covers point "a," and you got that "b" part.

(I kid -- Every morning, I wake up hoping for MOAR TWITTING AND  TURKLE PICS!)

P.S. I really want to see turkle pics.

PPS: Did I mention the TURKLE PICS?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Damned Turkles just will not hatch!!!, the bastards.

Night three for me, Incubation day 69 or 70 for them, no turkles. I even had the video camera set up with the low-light thing and everything.

A nest boiled last night about a mile up the beach from us, and while everyone else jumped and ran, I hung out at our nest just in case. None of our group made it to the other nest in time to see it, though.

I really, really want to see them hatch. I have an 8 AM class tomorrow and I have a head cold, so I don't know if I'll make the beach tonight. (Of course that means they'll hatch tonight...)
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Sep. 07 2009,11:01

Quote (mitschlag @ Sep. 07 2009,10:01)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 07 2009,07:40)
...

I think Gordon has made a very big mistake here. If the F in FSCI can only be determined externally to working out the FSCI in the first place then you already know it's designed in the first place. And Gordons claims of >500 FSCI = designed become nonsensicial.

< Tard >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gordon had no choice.  I give him credit for fessing up.

And I've archived his admission.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A WTF (What The Function) moment.
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 07 2009,11:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< SpitfireIXA >: I am not an astronomer, but what impresses me is that virtually every astronomer in the world accepts the theory of geocentrism. It seems improbable that the small group for heliocentrism (Galileo and his few fringe friends) is right and the entire community of geocentrists is wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Galileo recanted his heliocentric theory.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Galileo >: I must altogether abandon the false opinion that the sun is the center of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the center of the world
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does Galileo's signed abjuration represent a valid cite to authority?
Posted by: Maya on Sep. 07 2009,14:51

< Learned Hand finds a use for D'Wooza: >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
An astute point. This battle, over the currency of ID, is fought with mass market books. There is another battle, fought with laboratories and original, empirical research. ID has retreated from that fight. D’Souza has observed how ID chooses its battles, and drawn an appropriate conclusion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Bob O'H on Sep. 07 2009,15:22

Grab the popcorn
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 16 >

Will Vaus

09/07/2009

11:33 am

Dear Mr. Dembski,

I was attracted to your site because of your comment about C. S. Lewis in this post. Having studied and written about Lewis fairly extensively (See my “Mere Theology: A Guide to the Thought of C. S. Lewis”) it strikes me that your comments about Lewis’s view on evolution is mistaken. I can think of no place in which Lewis retracts his theistic evolutionary stance expressed in “The Problem of Pain”. Could you site a source for your contention that Lewis changed his view on evolution?

Thanks,
Will Vaus
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(P.S. Learned Hand - in the same thread you imply that Darwin wrote in the 17th Century.  I think your point is still valid, though)
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 07 2009,15:36



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Does Galileo's signed abjuration represent a valid cite to authority?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I dunno, but it doesn't really sound like he had much in the way of authority over anything.

Henry
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 07 2009,15:48

Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 07 2009,15:22)
Grab the popcorn
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 16 >

Will Vaus

09/07/2009

11:33 am

Dear Mr. Dembski,

I was attracted to your site because of your comment about C. S. Lewis in this post. Having studied and written about Lewis fairly extensively (See my “Mere Theology: A Guide to the Thought of C. S. Lewis”) it strikes me that your comments about Lewis’s view on evolution is mistaken. I can think of no place in which Lewis retracts his theistic evolutionary stance expressed in “The Problem of Pain”. Could you site a source for your contention that Lewis changed his view on evolution?

Thanks,
Will Vaus
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(P.S. Learned Hand - in the same thread you imply that Darwin wrote in the 17th Century.  I think your point is still valid, though)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's Dr. Dr. Dembski!



< Will Vaus Ministries >

< Will Vaus's Blog >
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 07 2009,16:08

ooooh i can't wait for that!

in the meantime

to hell with "when they quit voting", when mugs say shit that is THIS STUPID then I will always tell them how dumb they are.  voting or not



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
22
jerry
09/07/2009
1:53 pm
Darwin wrote a mass market book and look at the result. Dawkins writes mass market books and he got appointed to a prestigious Oxford position. This battle is fought with mass market books.

I doubt the average biologist could cite any evidence for macro evolution. Why because there is no science to support macro evolution. They just assume it exists. And as we know here, there isn’t any. So I assume D’Souza assumes it exists and both he and all these biologist are ill informed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



FOOL, PRODUCE THY AVERAGE BIOLOGIST!  AS THOU KNOWEST THERE, ASSUMING IS THE BEST YOU CAN DO.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 07 2009,16:12

26


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
jerry
09/07/2009
3:53 pm
“Looks like an appropriate boomerang to me, i.e. an argument that one should be vary of using, it has a tendency to find its way back”

Two things, I do not think you are reading Hunter correctly but then again I do not know what you think he is saying.

Second, there is no evidence for a mechanism for macro evolution. So what could boomerang, the truth. But I am already using that. No one is afraid of the truth here or any argument about evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



right.

<< cough >>
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 07 2009,17:31

Pav clarifies ID. Somebody has to.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I disagree with you that Paley’s point is trivial. Further, I disagree when you say that “we can infer an object is designed only by its similarity to objects we already know to be designed.” But, before moving on, let’s note that assuming your statement is true, then if I conclude that the bacterial flagellum is designed, this would allow me, then, to conclude that rotor engines are designed. Oops! Did I mean to say it the other way around? Maybe not.

We can infer something is designed when an object is so arranged as to produce a certain effect, or, function. IOW, when “purpose” can be inferred. If an ‘unknown designer’ arranges something in such a way as to produce a certain function, we need not know anything about said designer for us to conclude that design is present.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< Argh. > And "IOW"? That reminds me of someone....
Posted by: someotherguy on Sep. 07 2009,17:40

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 07 2009,17:31)
Pav clarifies ID. Somebody has to.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I disagree with you that Paley’s point is trivial. Further, I disagree when you say that “we can infer an object is designed only by its similarity to objects we already know to be designed.” But, before moving on, let’s note that assuming your statement is true, then if I conclude that the bacterial flagellum is designed, this would allow me, then, to conclude that rotor engines are designed. Oops! Did I mean to say it the other way around? Maybe not.

We can infer something is designed when an object is so arranged as to produce a certain effect, or, function. IOW, when “purpose” can be inferred. If an ‘unknown designer’ arranges something in such a way as to produce a certain function, we need not know anything about said designer for us to conclude that design is present.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< Argh. > And "IOW"? That reminds me of someone....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Argument from analogy now!  Argument from analogy forever!
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 07 2009,17:55

Learned Hand points out the valid use of an appeal to authority.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Learned Hand >: He does not say that evolutionary biology is true because the majority of scientists accept it. He says, “what impresses me is that virtually every biologist in the world accepts the theory of evolution.” The unanimous consensus of experts on a topic is relevant to an assessment of fringe arguments against those experts. The consensus doesn’t make the consensus position, but D’Souza doesn’t claim otherwise.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"The consensus doesn’t make the consensus position, but D’Souza doesn’t claim otherwise." SpitfireIXA misses the point, of course.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< SpitfireIXA >: Ad Populum is an appeal based on quantity (majority opinion), therefore it fits Dinesh’s logical error. It does not matter whether those appealed to are experts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not majority opinion, but consensus opinion. If there is a great deal of uncertainty or opposing opinion within a community of experts on a specific issue, then an appeal to authority may not be valid. (And responsible authority would include mention of these conflicts when asked for an expert opinion.)

It's not a logical error to appeal to the consensus of experts in a field. It doesn't make the argument, and authority is not without its source of error. However, absent countervening evidence, it is reasonable to tentatively accept the findings of such experts.

A paleontologist may consult a geologist for help finding an exposed strata of the appropriate age. A geneticist does not have to replicate Rosalind Franklin's original photographs of DNA before proceeding with an experiment, but can normally rely on the consensus of other researchers that DNA is, in fact, a double helix. And if independent doctors agree you have cancer, then you should probably consider taking appropriate actions.

-
By the way, the proper counter to a valid cite to authority is always to the evidence—something which The Argument Regarding Design completely lacks.
Posted by: dvunkannon on Sep. 07 2009,22:13

Hi all! I'm back from my vacation in the Czech Republic and have wasted my jetlagged Labor Day catching up with all the hilarity of UD.

CZ was great, but the part I really wanted to share with y'all was my 'pilgrimage' to Brno to see the Gregor Mendel Museum. I will try to post some pics soon.

Very nice small exhibit, recently redone. I took photos of the original plot of land where Mendel worked on his pea plants.

An interesting point that was brought up in the exhibit was Mendel's awareness of Darwin's work. Mendel actually travelled to England in 1865, though I doubt he could have ever met Darwin. Mendel did have a copy of OoS, apparently he underlined passages he found important. I am considering writing to the Museum to see if they have more specific information on which passages those might be. Besides OoS, he had several of Darwin's later works as well, that related to his interests in plant husbandry.

All pretty interesting for a guy who went on to become the Abbot of the Augustinian monks in Brno.

(Nakashima came back with me, though it was hard to drag him away from the Czech supermodels, and vice versa. He'll be back in the tardmines of UD soon enough!)
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 07 2009,22:46

preserved in entirety because it is too stupid to cut



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
4
Mario A. Lopez
09/07/2009
8:14 pm
Lenoxus,

I am not sure where you get the idea that ID proponents claim or predict that there will be absolutely no “junk” DNA.

Stephen Meyer, who has spoken out against Darwinian predictions concerning junk DNA, has made it pretty clear that ID proponents do NOT deny the degradation of an aboriginal design or even that “mutational processes might have degraded or ‘broken’ some previously functional DNA.” (see Signature in the Cell pgs 406-407)

BTW–I don’t know of anyone that does not believe evolution to be degrading. The article is not telling us anything we didn’t already know about evolution.

I wish someone would publish something with a little more than simple “variation” or “resistance” or the ability to “digest” something new. None of these minor changes get us anywhere in the grand evolutionary story as told by Darwinists!

If you could provide even one example of an increase of CSI in the genome of any organism, I’d love to see it.

Note: An example of CSI should exhibit functional divergence.

I should point out that functional divergence does not require an increase of information; however, information increase does require functional divergence. Make sense?

For example, in gene duplication the “free” duplicate may only be considered an increase of info. if it acquires a novel function (one that diverges from the original). However, The original must also maintain its function, otherwise, you just gained one function to lose another.

As you know, vertical evolution requires an increase of biological information and organization. In other words, If you could show how adaptations lead to morphological innovations, I will embrace Darwinism like the fanatics at Pharyngula! No kidding!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
BTW–I don’t know of anyone that does not believe evolution to be degrading. The article is not telling us anything we didn’t already know about evolution
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



you should get out of that sunday school class more often Mario.  maybe get Screech to show you how he parties.  you are certainly keeping company with some world class demented fuckwits, by your own testimony.  that or you are a hermit.
Posted by: sparc on Sep. 07 2009,23:18

dvunkannon

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am considering writing to the Museum to see if they have more specific information on which passages those might be.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I guess much of what you are looking for is included in < this article by Daniel J. Fairbanks and Bryce Rytting > and in the < Mendel Marginalia > they published as supplemental material.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 08 2009,02:49

According to KF the EF is "easy to apply"
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And, for FSCI, when the specification involved is functional — as just discussed, the filter is very simple and practically effective to apply.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And then
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now for the outright deceptive falsehood: the claim that the EF improperly rules “design” in many cases (false positives):
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now, I agree it's true that the EF does not improperly rule "design". I agree it because it's not possible to use it and therefore it has not ruled anything either way ever.

I think an example is called for. Anyone care to ask KF for one?

< Link >
Posted by: damitall on Sep. 08 2009,04:09

Well, I seem to have precipitated a TardTorrent from kf, by asking politely-framed questions at UD not specifically addressed to him.

Do I get a small prize?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 08 2009,06:12

ha.  Gordon Mullings' "weak argument corrective" hahahahahaha

fucking 30 pages?

wow.  

barret brown you are missing a huge opportunity buddy
Posted by: Maya on Sep. 08 2009,07:05

< Joseph brings the pure TARD: >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
PaulBurnett:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Would anybody suggest that the whales’ distant tetrapod ancestral line that moved from the sea to the land had “devolved” when they later went back to the sea?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Anyone who thinks such a transformation is even possible is living in fantasy-land anyway so what does it matter?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Past experience shows that providing Joseph with overwhelming evidence is futile.  Some of the IDiots seem ignorant of basic biology and blinded by religion, but Joseph appears monumentally stupid.  Please tell me he's someone's sock.
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 08 2009,08:05

The Greek alphabet didn't format correctly. Nevermind.
Posted by: Advocatus Diaboli on Sep. 08 2009,08:08

Quote (Maya @ Sep. 08 2009,07:05)
< Joseph brings the pure TARD: >
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
PaulBurnett:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Would anybody suggest that the whales’ distant tetrapod ancestral line that moved from the sea to the land had “devolved” when they later went back to the sea?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Anyone who thinks such a transformation is even possible is living in fantasy-land anyway so what does it matter?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Past experience shows that providing Joseph with overwhelming evidence is futile.  Some of the IDiots seem ignorant of basic biology and blinded by religion, but Joseph appears monumentally stupid.  Please tell me he's someone's sock.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Someone should remind them that Michael Behe lives in such a fantasy-land.
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 08 2009,08:21

Just FYI I did something I almost never do, I read a thread at UD. The thread in question is the one about Dawkins' new book (which I am currently reading*).

I came away from reading that thread stupider than I went in. Renounce the TARD, people. I am more and more convinced that Steve Story was right and that interacting with TARD of this magnitude is bad for one's mental health. Encountering that level of stupid always leaves me with a feeling of almost overwhelming hopelessness and the immense and imponderable question of "Where does one even start?".

Ah well, the journey of a thousand miles begins with just one step.

Louis

*It is, so far, the usual stuff, very watered down for the populist market. The question "Is this the best that RD can do?" is daft as a bag of poked weasels. It's a popular book, hardly a scholastic treatise. It's nice to see the level of criticism from the IDCists et al has not raised above that levied at The God Delusion. I.e. inaccurate, littered with straw men, ineffective and ultmately based on the fact that they haven't read the book.
Posted by: Maya on Sep. 08 2009,08:55

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 08 2009,08:21)
Renounce the TARD, people. I am more and more convinced that Steve Story was right and that interacting with TARD of this magnitude is bad for one's mental health. Encountering that level of stupid always leaves me with a feeling of almost overwhelming hopelessness and the immense and imponderable question of "Where does one even start?".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When I ponder why I find UD weirdly fascinating, I sometimes think that I half expect to see them one day admit that it was all a big practical joke (and that most of you long time tardaholics were in on it from the beginning).
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 08 2009,09:18

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 08 2009,08:21)
Just FYI I did something I almost never do, I read a thread at UD. The thread in question is the one about Dawkins' new book (which I am currently reading*).

I came away from reading that thread stupider than I went in. Renounce the TARD, people. I am more and more convinced that Steve Story was right and that interacting with TARD of this magnitude is bad for one's mental health. Encountering that level of stupid always leaves me with a feeling of almost overwhelming hopelessness and the immense and imponderable question of "Where does one even start?".

Ah well, the journey of a thousand miles begins with just one step.

Louis

*It is, so far, the usual stuff, very watered down for the populist market. The question "Is this the best that RD can do?" is daft as a bag of poked weasels. It's a popular book, hardly a scholastic treatise. It's nice to see the level of criticism from the IDCists et al has not raised above that levied at The God Delusion. I.e. inaccurate, littered with straw men, ineffective and ultmately based on the fact that they haven't read the book.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Louis may be right. I read a UD thread -- the one on Dinesh D'Wooza (hat tip to Maya) and this is what I now look like:

In that thread,  both < Clive, baby > and < Wee Billy Dembski > point to C.S. Lewis' correspondence as evidence that Lewis was privately rejecting evolution in the 1950's while publicly embracing it.

I'd like to make another suggestion -- based on some evidence about the correspondence and the person C.S. Lewis was writing to -- that Lewis was merely humoring an increasingly irrational man who wasn't merely unstable, but also likely a fraud.

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

Clivebaby and  Dembski point to < this > article by Ferngren and Numbers, originally from the American Scientific Affiliation's ("A Fellowship of Christians in Science" )  Perspectives on Science & Christian Faith,  < here >

Ferngren and Numbers say that they present  "in their entirety"  responses of Lewis to letters from one Bernard Acworth.

So, who was Acworth? Well, he was an interesting figure, but before I deal with him, I'd like to post some quotes from Ferngren and Numbers' own article:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nothing in his [C.S. Lewis'] published writings suggests, however, that he gave up his long-held view that biological evolution was compatible with Christianity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It is doubtful that Lewis would have felt comfortable espousing the views of present-day creationists. He always carefully indicated that he opposed evolutionism as a philosophy, not evolution as a biological theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


--------------------------------------
Okay, so who was Acworth? Acworth was a nutty creationist who helped start the "Evolution Protest Movement." As Ferngren and Numbers point out, he was also  
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A staunch opponent of socialism, air power, and imported oil, he twice stood unsuccessfully for Parliament, in 1931 and again in 1942.

His outspoken opposition to the policies of Winston Churchill during World War II and his calls for peace with Japan prompted the prime minister to urge electors to vote against Acworth and moved the London Daily Mirror to demand his arrest.

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



Oh, but he was far more than that.

I'm kinda tired out from staying up far too late, but there's lots more info here:

(1) < http://airminded.org/2008/04/28/who-was-neon/ >
(2) < http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/28jan/neon.htm >
(3) < http://fretmarks.blogspot.com/2005_11_01_archive.html >

Acworth didn't just dislike "socialism, air power, and imported oil." He also disliked psychoanalysis (okay, not so nutty) , birth control and communism. Basically, he linked all  of those things to the immorality of evolution.

-- But he also railed against General Relativity (Einstein).

-- He also thought that cuckoos are hybrids between male cuckoos and female birds of other species.

-- He also thought that "Birds [and butterflies,etc.] don't migrate on purpose; they're passively carried around the globe by prevailing winds. This explains other phenomena too, such as birds deserting their nests (winds blow them away). " See site 3 above.

-- He also thought that seaplanes could never, NEVER achieve regular intercontinental flights.

-- He was also a literalist YEC that thought "magnetic " flips led to frozen mammoths in Siberia.  

-- And he may well have been the author of work by "Marion Acworth," (AKA "Neon")  fraudulently presented as other than his own.  See site 1 above.

---------------------------------
Clive and Dembski want to believe that C.S. Lewis was publically embracing evolution while secretly embracing anti-evo in private. In short, they prefer to beleve that he was publically lying/dissembling about his true beliefs.

Remember what Ferngren and Numbers admitted: "Nothing in his published writings suggests, however, that he gave up his long-held view that biological evolution was compatible with Christianity." But they prefer to believe he was *dishonestly* privately holding to what was in direct contradiction to that? Based on letters to a religious nutcase? Uh-huh.

What makes more sense is that in private letters, C.S. Lewis was humoring that religious nutcase named Bernard Acworth .

Ferngren and Numbers' evidence OTHER than Acworth ...are lines like "I see we have a Darwinist among us" which may have merely been joking or anything else, because no real elaboration of that statement is found in Ferngren and Numbers' citation of it in their article.

Oh, and  they cite a totally ambiguous poem in "support" of their claim.

THAT'S IT.

All in all, that's what makes Louis right about these assholes. They force-fit, discard, cherry-pick, lie, misdirect, or anything else necessary -- by whatever means necessary.

I regard C.S. Lewis as a less-than-middling figure in phil. or logic, and as a mediocre author and apologist. But I hold scumbags like Clive,baby and Dembski with far more scorn.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 08 2009,09:39

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 08 2009,09:18)
Clive and Dembski want to believe that C.S. Lewis was publically embracing evolution while secretly embracing anti-evo in private. In short, they prefer to beleve that he was publically lying/dissembling about his true beliefs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why not? They do it all the time!
Posted by: k.e.. on Sep. 08 2009,10:43

DM notes:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
All in all, that's what makes Louis right about these assholes. They force-fit, discard, cherry-pick, lie, misdirect, or anything else necessary -- by whatever means necessary.

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



AIN'T IT GREAT?
HOMO!
YUP NEVER GIVE A CHANCE WORSHIPPER AN EVEN BREAK.
WE GET TO SELL SWAMPS AS PRIME TURF TO BELIEVERS
STOCKS SET TO FAIL TO MA AND PA
DEATH THREATS TO JUDGES
CHEAP BIBLE MERCHANDISE TO ONE AND ALL
ENDLESS PREACHIN ON TV AND RADIO
KILL ABORTIONISTS
EXPORT JESUS SOLDIERS ON CRUSADES
PIMP CRANK CANCER CURES
RAIL AGAINST VACINATION
DENY THE HOLOCAUST
LOVE GLOBAL WARMING
PREVENT AIDS PREVENTION
WHAT'S NOT TO LIKE? d.t.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Sep. 08 2009,11:15

I started reading the UD thread linked by Deadman and was amused by the notion that Dembski's new book will be hyped as "a counterblast to the neo-atheist literature." So, now he is reading about it to prepare for interviews.

I would have thought that he would have known what his book was about already.  :p
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 08 2009,11:16

Quote (Maya @ Sep. 08 2009,14:55)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 08 2009,08:21)
Renounce the TARD, people. I am more and more convinced that Steve Story was right and that interacting with TARD of this magnitude is bad for one's mental health. Encountering that level of stupid always leaves me with a feeling of almost overwhelming hopelessness and the immense and imponderable question of "Where does one even start?".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When I ponder why I find UD weirdly fascinating, I sometimes think that I half expect to see them one day admit that it was all a big practical joke (and that most of you long time tardaholics were in on it from the beginning).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I sincerely hope so!

It would eradicate much of my cynicism regarding the human species.

Louis
Posted by: Quack on Sep. 08 2009,11:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It would eradicate much of my cynicism regarding the human species.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Arthur Koestler didn't see much hope, I am afraid I don't either.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 08 2009,11:52

Clive, the ID expert, speaks:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As noted, either the “experts” can or cannot defend their position. If they cannot, it doesn’t follow that those who ask them to are kooks. I think you are right in saying that Dinesh will not be swayed unless the experts tell him to be, which is a failing of Dinesh’s point of view. ID does sway folks who actually look into the matter, like Antony Flew, a well respected philosopher, contrary to those who just take their ques from “what a lot of folks are saying in a field at a given time.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Link >
Posted by: Amadan on Sep. 08 2009,12:27

Quote (damitall @ Sep. 08 2009,04:09)
Well, I seem to have precipitated a TardTorrent from kf, by asking politely-framed questions at UD not specifically addressed to him.

Do I get a small prize?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is what is known in rhetoric as the Montgolfier Principle:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The deeper the hole you dig yourself into, the more hot air you need to get out.

1st corollary: If hot air alone can't do it, throw logic, principles etc overboard
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Louis on Sep. 08 2009,13:23

Quote (Quack @ Sep. 08 2009,17:50)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It would eradicate much of my cynicism regarding the human species.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Arthur Koestler didn't see much hope, I am afraid I don't either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh I don't know. I'm an optimistic cynic. After all I could be wrong. In fact it's quite likely I am.

Mind you, if I'm right then it really is advisable to start drinking heavily.......soon.

Louis
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 08 2009,14:17

Gordon Mullings breaks it down for us
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
–> partitioned seqarches, P are a subset of latched searches, L

–> but, suppressed context: due to the involved dynamics, we can also see that Latched searches L, are a subset of partitioned searches P
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Er
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
–> That is, the two sets are equivalent, due to the dynamics of ratceting
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's more at the link, of course. Plenty more. But if you just want to skip to the conclusion here we are
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
–> In short the imagined fallacy is begging the question of the relationship between sets L and P. And, we have reason to see that L is not a proper subset of P but an equivalent set to P.

–> And, see how thinking in terms of sets untangles the complexities of syllogistic reasoning? [Thank you, Irving Copi!]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, er, Dembski's imagined Weasel = Actual Weasel. Somehow.

That's about as clear as how to determine FSCI.

< Link >
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 08 2009,14:41

Jerry:


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


“If you want to know how biologists defend their positions, ask a biologist.”

I have and they have punted. We have regular biologist and evolutionary biologists here and none would even step up to the plate. On a couple occasions they did and they struck out immediately so they then knew they better than to try again.

What is the big mystery that they are keeping from us. And you just admitted you understand nothing and all you are doing is accepting the words of biologists. So I suggest you excuse yourself from any further discussion and let the rest of us who understand the essence of the debate comment without having to answer your ignorance which you just admitted.

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


Whereas Jerry does not have to admit his ignorance as he simply shows it with every comment. If "Jerry" exists anyway.

I can't believe Clive allows Jerry to continue, he's practically the main spokesperson for the UD/ID - few of the mods join in the "debate", certainly Dembski steers clear.
< Link >
So it falls to Jerry.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Sep. 08 2009,15:06

Quote (socle @ Sep. 06 2009,12:26)
< Clive: >
   

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

Gil is right, Blue Lotus also goes by David v. Squatney. So, Blue, which name would you like to use? To make it easier to follow and for the sake of continuity, just stick with your David v. Squatney handle, and Blue Lotus will now be retired by me.

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


Just for the record, I know with absolute certainty that David v. Squatney and Blue Lotus are not the same person.  I've made a post to that effect, but DvS is now under moderation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Clive is on a design inference roll.

< DeLurker = JayM >

< Oatmeal Stout = Sal Gal >

So, can anyone comment if his mad inference skillz have improved since he got a false positive on Blue Lotus = Squatney?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 08 2009,15:21

Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 08 2009,15:06)
Quote (socle @ Sep. 06 2009,12:26)
< Clive: >
     

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

Gil is right, Blue Lotus also goes by David v. Squatney. So, Blue, which name would you like to use? To make it easier to follow and for the sake of continuity, just stick with your David v. Squatney handle, and Blue Lotus will now be retired by me.

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


Just for the record, I know with absolute certainty that David v. Squatney and Blue Lotus are not the same person.  I've made a post to that effect, but DvS is now under moderation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Clive is on a design inference roll.

[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/education/blown-away-dan-peterson-reviews-dr-stephen-meyers-book-the-signature-in-the-cell-at-the-am

erican-spectator/#comment-333486]DeLurker = JayM[/URL]

< Oatmeal Stout = Sal Gal >

So, can anyone comment if his mad inference skillz have improved since he got a false positive on Blue Lotus = Squatney?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe he's getting cute with IP adresses?
Posted by: BillB on Sep. 08 2009,15:23

Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 08 2009,21:06)
Quote (socle @ Sep. 06 2009,12:26)
< Clive: >
     

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

Gil is right, Blue Lotus also goes by David v. Squatney. So, Blue, which name would you like to use? To make it easier to follow and for the sake of continuity, just stick with your David v. Squatney handle, and Blue Lotus will now be retired by me.

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


Just for the record, I know with absolute certainty that David v. Squatney and Blue Lotus are not the same person.  I've made a post to that effect, but DvS is now under moderation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Clive is on a design inference roll.

[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/education/blown-away-dan-peterson-reviews-dr-stephen-meyers-book-the-signature-in-the-cell-at-the-am


erican-spectator/#comment-333486]DeLurker = JayM[/URL]

< Oatmeal Stout = Sal Gal >

So, can anyone comment if his mad inference skillz have improved since he got a false positive on Blue Lotus = Squatney?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sure Clive would be very surprised to discover that I am actually Joseph.  Unfortunately I don't think his design detector is capable of anything more that "if it looks a bit like X then it must be X" so I guess my ubersocktard is safe for a while (unless he is watching? ... Clive?)
Posted by: BillB on Sep. 08 2009,15:26

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 08 2009,21:21)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 08 2009,15:06)
Quote (socle @ Sep. 06 2009,12:26)
< Clive: >
     

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

Gil is right, Blue Lotus also goes by David v. Squatney. So, Blue, which name would you like to use? To make it easier to follow and for the sake of continuity, just stick with your David v. Squatney handle, and Blue Lotus will now be retired by me.

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


Just for the record, I know with absolute certainty that David v. Squatney and Blue Lotus are not the same person.  I've made a post to that effect, but DvS is now under moderation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Clive is on a design inference roll.

[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/education/blown-away-dan-peterson-reviews-dr-stephen-meyers-book-the-signature-in-the-cell-at-the-am


erican-spectator/#comment-333486]DeLurker = JayM[/URL]

< Oatmeal Stout = Sal Gal >

So, can anyone comment if his mad inference skillz have improved since he got a false positive on Blue Lotus = Squatney?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe he's getting cute with IP adresses?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ha, I have at least two proxies!
Posted by: JohnW on Sep. 08 2009,15:27

Quote (BillB @ Sep. 08 2009,13:23)
I'm sure Clive would be very surprised to discover that I am actually Joseph.  Unfortunately I don't think his design detector is capable of anything more that "if it looks a bit like X then it must be X" so I guess my ubersocktard is safe for a while (unless he is watching? ... Clive?)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just wait until he finds out that Louis is Denyse O'Leary.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 08 2009,15:31

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 08 2009,13:23)
 
Quote (Quack @ Sep. 08 2009,17:50)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It would eradicate much of my cynicism regarding the human species.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Arthur Koestler didn't see much hope, I am afraid I don't either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh I don't know. I'm an optimistic cynic. After all I could be wrong. In fact it's quite likely I am.

Mind you, if I'm right then it really is advisable to start drinking heavily.......soon.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Start?" Who stopped? Damn slackers. That's the problem with young people nowadays: no stick-to-it-ivness. Why, when I was a kid, I never gave consideration to such trivial things as neurons or so-called "hepatocytes." In fact, when I was a kid we had to carry our...onions...belt...ZzzzZZz *snork*
Posted by: khan on Sep. 08 2009,15:40



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In that thread,  both Clive, baby and Wee Billy Dembski point to C.S. Lewis' correspondence as evidence that Lewis was privately rejecting evolution in the 1950's while publicly embracing it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In my 'net travels, I have observed that one sign of a crank is the belief that people (online, on TV,...) are communicating with said crank in code.
Posted by: Ptaylor on Sep. 08 2009,15:43

Delurker not only gets a thread about him*, but apparently gets banninated in it as well:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
DeLurker used to go by the name JayM, who claimed to be, if you remember, an ID supporter, even though everything he wrote was against ID. He justified this by saying that he was just trying to help ID to gain credibility. This was, of course, not true. It was, in reality, an underhanded way to critique ID. These folks, they’ll go to any length to argue against ID, even by being disingenuous. So, no, JayM, I’m not going to re-instate you under a sock-puppet name, so stop emailing Denyse about it. Your insincerity is, quite honestly, bothersome.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Link >.*Assuming the masculine here, I may be wrong.
Posted by: JohnW on Sep. 08 2009,15:49

Quote (khan @ Sep. 08 2009,13:40)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In that thread,  both Clive, baby and Wee Billy Dembski point to C.S. Lewis' correspondence as evidence that Lewis was privately rejecting evolution in the 1950's while publicly embracing it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In my 'net travels, I have observed that one sign of a crank is the belief that people (online, on TV,...) are communicating with said crank in code.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Creationists do this all the time, at UD and elsewhere.  "In their heart of hearts, scientists know goddidit, but won't admit it because of their career / fear of the International Scientist Conspiracy / Satan."  It's why they spend so much time looking for hidden pro-ID messages in the scientific literature.
Posted by: khan on Sep. 08 2009,16:12

Quote (JohnW @ Sep. 08 2009,16:49)
Quote (khan @ Sep. 08 2009,13:40)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In that thread,  both Clive, baby and Wee Billy Dembski point to C.S. Lewis' correspondence as evidence that Lewis was privately rejecting evolution in the 1950's while publicly embracing it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In my 'net travels, I have observed that one sign of a crank is the belief that people (online, on TV,...) are communicating with said crank in code.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Creationists do this all the time, at UD and elsewhere.  "In their heart of hearts, scientists know goddidit, but won't admit it because of their career / fear of the International Scientist Conspiracy / Satan."  It's why they spend so much time looking for hidden pro-ID messages in the scientific literature.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A variant from usenet days: "People support me in email."
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 08 2009,16:24

Quote (khan @ Sep. 08 2009,16:12)
   
Quote (JohnW @ Sep. 08 2009,16:49)
   
Quote (khan @ Sep. 08 2009,13:40)
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In that thread,  both Clive, baby and Wee Billy Dembski point to C.S. Lewis' correspondence as evidence that Lewis was privately rejecting evolution in the 1950's while publicly embracing it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In my 'net travels, I have observed that one sign of a crank is the belief that people (online, on TV,...) are communicating with said crank in code.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Creationists do this all the time, at UD and elsewhere.  "In their heart of hearts, scientists know goddidit, but won't admit it because of their career / fear of the International Scientist Conspiracy / Satan."  It's why they spend so much time looking for hidden pro-ID messages in the scientific literature.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A variant from usenet days: "People support me in email."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Onlookers!

Khan attacked me in email. With a baseball bat.

Oh, how the heathen Darwinian materialists despise the innocent and pure of heart. I am just like Jesus, who was also persecuted.

Buy my book. Visit my site. Don't risk eternal fire, my friends. Send your donations and love offerings to fend off this encroaching tide of hate and violence.
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 08 2009,16:42

Quote (JohnW @ Sep. 08 2009,21:27)
Quote (BillB @ Sep. 08 2009,13:23)
I'm sure Clive would be very surprised to discover that I am actually Joseph.  Unfortunately I don't think his design detector is capable of anything more that "if it looks a bit like X then it must be X" so I guess my ubersocktard is safe for a while (unless he is watching? ... Clive?)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just wait until he finds out that Louis is Denyse O'Leary.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought I was FTK. Look, if you're going to accuse me of being random internet people, get it straight will you?

Anyway, I am Dembski*. It's all been a big joke**. Ha ha***. Etc.

Louis

* Or not.

** Or not.

*** I kill me sometimes
Posted by: Quack on Sep. 08 2009,16:49

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 08 2009,13:23)
       
Quote (Quack @ Sep. 08 2009,17:50)
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It would eradicate much of my cynicism regarding the human species.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Arthur Koestler didn't see much hope, I am afraid I don't either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh I don't know. I'm an optimistic cynic. After all I could be wrong. In fact it's quite likely I am.

Mind you, if I'm right then it really is advisable to start drinking heavily.......soon.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What more to say then but SKÅL!

BTW, Sweden has a rich tradition of debauchery (hope that is an appropriate term), and libertinism made immortal by a character named < Bellmann >; his songs about careless life with lavish amounts of wine, broads, strumming the zithar and maybe other joyful things of which my limited command of the English language makes me recognize only as images in my poor bourgeois soul...
Guess this should be bumped to the BW.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Sep. 08 2009,18:32

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 08 2009,16:24)
Quote (khan @ Sep. 08 2009,16:12)
   
Quote (JohnW @ Sep. 08 2009,16:49)
     
Quote (khan @ Sep. 08 2009,13:40)
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In that thread,  both Clive, baby and Wee Billy Dembski point to C.S. Lewis' correspondence as evidence that Lewis was privately rejecting evolution in the 1950's while publicly embracing it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In my 'net travels, I have observed that one sign of a crank is the belief that people (online, on TV,...) are communicating with said crank in code.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Creationists do this all the time, at UD and elsewhere.  "In their heart of hearts, scientists know goddidit, but won't admit it because of their career / fear of the International Scientist Conspiracy / Satan."  It's why they spend so much time looking for hidden pro-ID messages in the scientific literature.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A variant from usenet days: "People support me in email."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Onlookers!

Khan attacked me in email. With a baseball bat.

Oh, how the heathen Darwinian materialists despise the innocent and pure of heart. I am just like Jesus, who was also persecuted.

Buy my book. Visit my site. Don't risk eternal fire, my friends. Send your donations and love offerings to fend off this encroaching tide of hate and violence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Darn it, why do you people always break out the fun while I am at work and can't participate :angry:

Maybe I wanted to hit someone via email, with a bat (I mean a real bat, not the baseball variety).
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 08 2009,19:44

< >
Posted by: Maya on Sep. 08 2009,20:16

Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 08 2009,19:44)
< >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My Greek is a little rusty, but I think I got "F*** Clivebaby and the horse he rode in on."

I can haz humanateez duhploma now?
Posted by: keiths on Sep. 08 2009,23:16

< D O'L >:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Someone from the BBC wants to interview me. I am not sure about that, because I am concerned that they are looking for a gap-tooth Canadian moron to spout Bible verses, rock the tent, and handle snakes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't hesitate, Denyse.  You're perfect for the role.
Posted by: keiths on Sep. 08 2009,23:22

Denyse:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Tell me again that Darwinism isn’t a religion?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seversky < replies >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Okay

Darwinism isn’t a religion.

But Paleyism is.

Except for Cornelius Hunter

For whom everything is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Amadan on Sep. 09 2009,10:32

Interesting (but surely hopelessly biased) profile of Densye's best friend < here >.
Posted by: Quack on Sep. 09 2009,11:15

Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 09 2009,10:32)
Interesting (but surely hopelessly biased) profile of Densye's best friend < here >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Creationist martyrs of all countries, unite!
Posted by: socle on Sep. 09 2009,11:17

< Dembski: >
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In case you missed this blog (and now that The Brites are no longer in existence):


< http://satirizingscientism.blogspot.com >

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


Yet another outlet for IDCists to dissipate their energy (as opposed to doing science):  A blog "satirizing scientism" that's about as funny as syphilis.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 09 2009,11:27

i have a blog satirizing satire.

it's pretty much just a mirror and a glass of some warm slightly flat spring water.
Posted by: Amadan on Sep. 09 2009,11:48

Quote (socle @ Sep. 09 2009,11:17)
< Dembski: >
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In case you missed this blog (and now that The Brites are no longer in existence):


< http://satirizingscientism.blogspot.com >

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


Yet another outlet for IDCists to dissipate their energy (as opposed to doing science):  A blog "satirizing scientism" that's about as funny as syphilis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Mickey Mouse hasn't evolved??? >

< HA! >

Also, they don't have their own opera, which means Dembski must have a small, bent penis.
Posted by: J-Dog on Sep. 09 2009,11:57

Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 09 2009,11:48)
Also, they don't have their own opera, which means Dembski must have a small, bent penis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I suspect that Denyse has the miniscule bent penis, and Dembski has a vagina.  

Not that that's wrong, and it's not something I would expect anyone to verify through empiracal observation and experimentation.*



* Even in full haz-mat mode...



Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 09 2009,12:09

dembski is built like a female hyena

dennis is built like this guy
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 09 2009,13:30

Has anyone seed my turkle duff?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 09 2009,14:06

Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 09 2009,10:32)
Interesting (but surely hopelessly biased) profile of Densye's best friend < here >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hah, I didn't know he thought he was the Mahdi. Damn, every nut fundy thinks he's the messiah/elect/speshul to god in some way
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 09 2009,14:47

Quote (Maya @ Sep. 08 2009,20:16)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 08 2009,19:44)
< >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My Greek is a little rusty, but I think I got "F*** Clivebaby and the horse he rode in on."

I can haz humanateez duhploma now?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Close. For a clue, click the Greek.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 09 2009,16:06

RBH put up a link (at PT) to this < "Metropolis Sampler" > critique of the recent Dembski-Marks sham scam "paper."

It concerns a priori bias in Dembski/Marks' bullsh*t representations. It's also full of math goodness!
Posted by: J-Dog on Sep. 09 2009,16:06

Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 09 2009,14:47)
I can haz humanateez duhploma now?[/quote]
Close. For a clue, click the Greek.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That was Great Alexander Zachriel.  I'm looking forward to seeing this on LOLcats in the future!
Posted by: Quack on Sep. 09 2009,16:20



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yet another outlet for IDCists to dissipate their energy (as opposed to doing science):  A blog "satirizing scientism" that's about as funny as syphilis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Pox on you, evoswine!
Posted by: MichaelJ on Sep. 09 2009,21:26

Quote (Quack @ Sep. 09 2009,16:20)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yet another outlet for IDCists to dissipate their energy (as opposed to doing science):  A blog "satirizing scientism" that's about as funny as syphilis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Pox on you, evoswine!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So lame - they do humour worse than they do science
Posted by: Bob O'H on Sep. 10 2009,01:21

It's been a slow day at UD - they must have all stayed in to watch videos of Obama's recent speeches.  But I did find this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 22 >

senseorsensibility.com

09/09/2009

8:03 pm

To be fair KibyNp, this is part of a series of posts by O’Leary, the earlier ones providing the context. I think we can take a Darwinist to be a neo-Darwinist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Right.  So people who follow the science developed by the likes of Fisher and Dobzhansky.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why does it qualify as a religion? I think for the kind of reason that I have just pointed out. Neo-Darwinism incorporates metaphysical elements that are now doing much more than providing a framework for enquiry, but have been integrated into the belief systems of their adherents and are being used as personal frameworks for making sense of reality.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dunno about you lot, but my personal framework for making sense of reality includes the theory of gravity.

I wonder, though, does anyone base their whole framework on Neo-Darwinist metaphysical elements?  And what are these metaphysical elements?  (Anyone?  Anyone?  Snowflake?)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The problem with this is that the personal belief system is contingent and vulnerable to refutation. These are not good characteristics to have in a personal belief system, and why I would recommend a classical one every time (i.e., the usual suspects, or failing that a very open agnosticism).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, blind faith.  Someone doesn't want to be told they're wrong.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am sure Denyse will provide a pithier and more accurate answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Pithier than GEM of Kon-tiki, certainly.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 10 2009,02:49

Gil says

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Just put’em in a bag, shake’em up, and (wave the magic wand of “deep” time)complex information-processing machinery emerges.

Please help me! Why does anyone schooled and experienced in the hard sciences take this transparent idiocy seriously?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< I don't know > Gil. Why would anyone who has put the effort in believe such rampant idiocy? You make sure and have a think about that now OK?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 10 2009,02:52

Here's one from Andrew Sibley, our UK Weather forecaster creationist friend


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
At the end of the day all inductive arguments must begin in belief, whether it is old or new riddles of induction, which is why the American strict division of science and faith in education policy is a fallacy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Whatever Andrew. >Whatever.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 10 2009,02:53

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 09 2009,11:27)
i have a blog satirizing satire.

it's pretty much just a mirror and a glass of some warm slightly flat spring water.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Turns out he's "Wascally Wabbit" whose blog Dembski had previously plugged a few months back. I'm pretty sure he's also a Baylor Director of Spanish and Portuguese div. named Mike Thomas, but that's just a deep, deep suspicion as of yet:
< http://www.baylor.edu/spanish/index.php?id=12339 >
< http://www.mikethomas.net/about_the_author >
< http://aharvestofmiracles.blogspot.com/ >
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 10 2009,02:56

Mario A Lopez, if you don't know, is IDs con-man. He's the guy who goes round setting up pages on networking sites, or just plain websites, to give the impression there is a groundswell of popular support for ID.

He's also a denier of common descent, which is always handy to know.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What this paper demonstrates is 1) the author presupposes ancestral relationships between humans and chimps
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep, such relationships are based purely on conjecture. < Tard >
Posted by: CeilingCat on Sep. 10 2009,06:31

Is there anything in the world that Cornelius Hunter doesn't think is religion?  Gretta Garbo's aunt Bessie's knees?  Maybe a sharp stick in the eye?

< Tard >
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 10 2009,06:57

Hmm..I don't want to give that satirizingscientism any site hits, but given "Wascally Wabbit's" response to me, I think my  informed guess as to his identity was correct.

The funny part is that he'll be deleting my posts there for calling him a pendejo, which he claims is profanity. Except it's not, in Mexican slang/idiom (which is what I learned growing up in New Mexico). Literally, it means "pubic hair" and figuratively, it refers to an ass, an idiot. A fool. Given the "humor" of the site, you'd think he'd appreciate the term. Oh, well.

Mike Thomas, Marks, Dembski...Baylor seems to have sprouted / shed a fair contingent of pendejos
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 10 2009,07:00

Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 09 2009,14:47)
         
Quote (Maya @ Sep. 08 2009,20:16)
             
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 08 2009,19:44)
< >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My Greek is a little rusty, but I think I got "F*** Clivebaby and the horse he rode in on."

I can haz humanateez duhploma now?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Close. For a clue, click the Greek.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person. (Just look at the bottom of your shoe.)

< >

A lot of people probably don't know that tard is a Greek term, as when Hippasus, the discoverer of irrational numbers, said "Pythagoras is a tard." (That was just before Pythagoras had him tossed overboard.)

By the way, Heraclitus is called "the weeping philosopher". (Probably because they were new shoes.)
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 10 2009,07:46

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 10 2009,03:53)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 09 2009,11:27)
i have a blog satirizing satire.

it's pretty much just a mirror and a glass of some warm slightly flat spring water.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Turns out he's "Wascally Wabbit" whose blog Dembski had previously plugged a few months back. I'm pretty sure he's also a Baylor Director of Spanish and Portuguese div. named Mike Thomas, but that's just a deep, deep suspicion as of yet:
< http://www.baylor.edu/spanish/index.php?id=12339 >
< http://www.mikethomas.net/about_the_author >
< http://aharvestofmiracles.blogspot.com/ >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


that's thoroughness!

he mentioned to you that he was an administrator.

he didn't have to say that he was a sophist, it was obvious.  that blag is a piece of shite.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Sep. 10 2009,08:12

Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 10 2009,06:31)
Is there anything in the world that Cornelius Hunter doesn't think is religion?  Gretta Garbo's aunt Bessie's knees?  Maybe a sharp stick in the eye?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How about ID?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 10 2009,08:32

Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 10 2009,08:12)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 10 2009,06:31)
Is there anything in the world that Cornelius Hunter doesn't think is religion?  Gretta Garbo's aunt Bessie's knees?  Maybe a sharp stick in the eye?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How about ID?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That science is a religion and that religion is a science.

Darwinism violates the separation of church and state but creationism is simply following the evidence.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 10 2009,08:42

that hurts my brain but i know that is pretty close to what some of the dooshes think
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 10 2009,09:24

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 10 2009,09:32)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 10 2009,08:12)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 10 2009,06:31)
Is there anything in the world that Cornelius Hunter doesn't think is religion?  Gretta Garbo's aunt Bessie's knees?  Maybe a sharp stick in the eye?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How about ID?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That science is a religion and that religion is a science.

Darwinism violates the separation of church and state but creationism is simply following the evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


that, and the mystical views of 19th century ichthyologists are proof that everyone else worships chance.
Posted by: BillB on Sep. 10 2009,09:44

Learned hand responds to < KF: >  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
321
Learned Hand
09/10/2009
9:04 am


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

(KF) I of course refuse to go off on his latest red herring headed off to as strawman soaked in ad hominems.

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


If you post your mailing address, I would be quite happy to send you a thesaurus.

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


LOL.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Sep. 10 2009,15:56

Damn, it's quiet around here.

Too quiet.
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 10 2009,16:01



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< niwrad >: John von Neumann, an IDer ante litteram

Hungarian mathematician John von Neumann (1903 – 1957) ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Von Neumann quite clearly < understood and accepted > the Theory of Evolution.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< niwrad >: Moreover we have the concept of “autotrophic” replicator. An autotrophic replicator is not a replicator that needs an external provider of basic parts, rather it can self-reproduce finding the necessary materials by itself in the wild. Biological cells are even autotrophic replicators.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The "necessary materials" for many autotrophs being just air, water and a few dissolved minerals.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Sep. 10 2009,16:03

Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 10 2009,15:56)
Damn, it's quiet around here.

Too quiet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, it is your turn.


Posted by: Louis on Sep. 10 2009,16:07

Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 10 2009,21:56)
Damn, it's quiet around here.

Too quiet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's not quiet here. I showed the kid UD last week. He hasn't stopped crying yet.

I'm due in court Monday. Social Services have called round.

Louis
Posted by: JohnW on Sep. 10 2009,16:34

Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 10 2009,14:01)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< niwrad >: John von Neumann, an IDer ante litteram

Hungarian mathematician John von Neumann (1903 – 1957) ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Von Neumann quite clearly < understood and accepted > the Theory of Evolution.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< niwrad >: Moreover we have the concept of “autotrophic” replicator. An autotrophic replicator is not a replicator that needs an external provider of basic parts, rather it can self-reproduce finding the necessary materials by itself in the wild. Biological cells are even autotrophic replicators.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The "necessary materials" for many autotrophs being just air, water and a few dissolved minerals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, but he meets the essential criterion for recruitment into UD's "Distinguished scientists who support us" club.  He's too dead to disagree.
Posted by: Reg on Sep. 10 2009,16:46

Quote (JohnW @ Sep. 10 2009,16:34)
Yes, but he meets the essential criterion for recruitment into UD's "Distinguished scientists who support us" club.  He's too dead to disagree.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Von Neumann seems to have had the whole ID movement nailed down quite well, even going so far as to < lay down the ground rules for their approach to both mathematics and biology: >
 
Quote (Von Neumann @ possibly apocryphal)
"There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's as true today as it ever was.
Posted by: Reg on Sep. 10 2009,17:00

I've just had a thought. UncommonDescent describes John von Neumann as "an IDer ante litteram". But I'm sure I've seen many posts on UD flatly denying that Intelligent Design is any kind of a recent notion (like, say, some kind of rebranding of creationism) and insisting that ID is ancient and well-established, invoking Aristotle and Newton and other great names back into the mists of history as great ID proponents. But if that's the case, and ID is so well established and not at all new, how come ID could have been < ante litterum > as recently as von Neumann's days of the 1950s? I would ask there, but have no confidence the question would see the light of day.
Posted by: dvunkannon on Sep. 10 2009,17:23

Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 10 2009,17:01)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< niwrad >: John von Neumann, an IDer ante litteram

Hungarian mathematician John von Neumann (1903 – 1957) ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Von Neumann quite clearly < understood and accepted > the Theory of Evolution.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< niwrad >: Moreover we have the concept of “autotrophic” replicator. An autotrophic replicator is not a replicator that needs an external provider of basic parts, rather it can self-reproduce finding the necessary materials by itself in the wild. Biological cells are even autotrophic replicators.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The "necessary materials" for many autotrophs being just air, water and a few dissolved minerals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not sure what nirwad's first language is, but it isn't English.
Posted by: keiths on Sep. 10 2009,19:32

Quote (dvunkannon @ Sep. 10 2009,15:23)
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 10 2009,17:01)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< niwrad >: John von Neumann, an IDer ante litteram

Hungarian mathematician John von Neumann (1903 – 1957) ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Von Neumann quite clearly < understood and accepted > the Theory of Evolution.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< niwrad >: Moreover we have the concept of “autotrophic” replicator. An autotrophic replicator is not a replicator that needs an external provider of basic parts, rather it can self-reproduce finding the necessary materials by itself in the wild. Biological cells are even autotrophic replicators.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The "necessary materials" for many autotrophs being just air, water and a few dissolved minerals.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not sure what nirwad's first language is, but it isn't English.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From previous encounters with niwrad at UD, I gather that he is Italian. I wonder if he is < Giuseppe Sermonti >.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 10 2009,20:52



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not sure what nirwad's first language is, but it isn't English.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe it's hsilgnE?

Henry
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 10 2009,21:44

lolol



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
26
JTaylor
09/10/2009
1:51 pm
Cornelius: “3. We can make a design inference. People have always done this, and we can formalize methods to do this.”

I understand a little about CSI, explanatory filters etc, although I’m not a mathematician so some of the math is beyond me. But these concepts are often presented in a generalized way (or apply to the whole evolutionary landscape); what I’m interested in understanding further is the idea of the “formalized methods” that Cornelius mentions being applied to a specific artifact. For example, is it possible to show the working documentation for how a conclusion of design inference was derived for, say, the flagellum?

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



um, no.

but you knew that, right?  

what does Corny Tard say?

"Ummmm yeah i know all about that or not enough any way read this blag"

lolol

Seversky, I extol thee.  Thou hast survived the tard for many moons.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
36
Seversky
09/10/2009
8:45 pm
Cornelius Hunter @ 32
You need to read Sober.

This would be the same Elliott Sober who concluded an article entitled What is wrong with Intelligent Design? with the sentence:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In all its forms, ID fails to constitute a serious alternative to evolutionary theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Here I must agree. We need to read Sober.

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



lololol
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 11 2009,02:46

Gordon Mullings is still posting on the Weasel thread


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Absent such, this thread will have achieved something else, which is perhaps even more important if we care about science and our civlisation: it demonstrates the utter willful untruthfulness and unfairness of typical darwinist approaches to origins science issues and to those who challenge the holy rulings of the a priori materialism neo-magisterium wearing the holy vestments of scientists’ lab coats.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< Tard >.

No Gordon, what the thread shows is that no matter what the evidence shows you think Dembski = Right.
Posted by: k.e.. on Sep. 11 2009,03:12

bah..mis qued
Zac how did you yo get the greek alphabet to show?
Posted by: keiths on Sep. 11 2009,05:51

Quote (k.e.. @ Sep. 11 2009,01:12)
Zac how did you yo get the greek alphabet to show?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He cheated. It's not text, it's an image file.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 11 2009,06:26

Quote (keiths @ Sep. 11 2009,06:51)
 
Quote (k.e.. @ Sep. 11 2009,01:12)
Zac how did you yo get the greek alphabet to show?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He cheated. It's not text, it's an image file.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cheating? That's how the Greeks did it.
Posted by: damitall on Sep. 11 2009,07:32

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 11 2009,06:26)
Quote (keiths @ Sep. 11 2009,06:51)
 
Quote (k.e.. @ Sep. 11 2009,01:12)
Zac how did you yo get the greek alphabet to show?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He cheated. It's not text, it's an image file.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cheating? That's how the Greeks did it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Typical atheist materialist evilutionist behaviour, cheating with image files.
Posted by: Quack on Sep. 11 2009,08:00

Funny, the Greek characters I typed in MSWord displayed properly in preview but came out as ?????'s in the submitted post.




Edited.
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 11 2009,08:11

Quote (Quack @ Sep. 11 2009,08:00)
           
Quote (k.e.. @ Sep. 11 2009,03:12)
bah..mis qued
Zac how did you yo get the greek alphabet to show?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or, you can do it with Insert Symbol in MSWord..., like ?????????????????????????
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tried that.
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 08 2009,08:05)
The Greek alphabet didn't format correctly. Nevermind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 11 2009,06:26)
             
Quote (keiths @ Sep. 11 2009,06:51)
                 
Quote (k.e.. @ Sep. 11 2009,01:12)
Zac how did you yo get the greek alphabet to show?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He cheated. It's not text, it's an image file.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cheating? That's how the Greeks did it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The first version, Aristotle drew in the sand, but we had trouble putting it into the scanner. Plato suggested we just had to idealize it in our minds, but that didn't work quite right either. Finally, we carved it in stone, then scanned it. There may have been an easier way, but that was all we could think of at the time. (Whilst Democritus laughed the whole time, Socrates just kept asking a bunch of silly questions, like who the heck we were trying to impress.)

Meanwhile, if you want the text, just click the image.

<
>

< >
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 11 2009,09:17

GEM's intellectual corpse is still being kicked:

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwini....-333750 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
334

Indium

09/11/2009

9:02 am
DNA_Jock:
I have asked kf more or less the same question over 10 times now, for example in post 194 here.

He will continue to avoid answering it. Maybe the reason is that it is so obvious that these two searches, called “Partitioned” and “Proximity Reward”, are completely different.

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



Prosthelytizing: Never having to admit you're wrong.
Posted by: sparc on Sep. 11 2009,11:16

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 11 2009,02:46)
Gordon Mullings is still posting on the Weasel thread
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Absent such, this thread will have achieved something else, which is perhaps even more important if we care about science and our civlisation: it demonstrates the utter willful untruthfulness and unfairness of typical darwinist approaches to origins science issues and to those who challenge the holy rulings of the a priori materialism neo-magisterium wearing the holy vestments of scientists’ lab coats.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< Tard >.

No Gordon, what the thread shows is that no matter what the evidence shows you think Dembski = Right.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I must strictly disagree here: KF is such a pompous dick that he is absolutely sure that he is right. That Dembski happens to share some of his views is just an accident. And it is still not clear if Dembski even cares about FSCI.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 11 2009,12:04



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He will continue to avoid answering it. Maybe the reason is that it is so obvious that these two searches, called “Partitioned” and “Proximity Reward”, are completely different.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

As others have pointed out, all you have to do is sit down to program a Weasel algorithm, and it becomes clear that passing the location of correct letters is much more complex than selecting the child closest to the target. One could differentiate the algorithms by the number of steps and tests required to generate a population.

In the case of self replicators, no information at all is passed to the replicator.
Posted by: dvunkannon on Sep. 11 2009,12:20

Quote (sparc @ Sep. 11 2009,12:16)
I must strictly disagree here: KF is such a pompous dick that he is absolutely sure that he is right. That Dembski happens to share some of his views is just an accident. And it is still not clear if Dembski even cares about FSCI.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is still not clear if Dembski even cares about irreducible complexity.

To the good doubleplusdoctor, it is all about the Sweater.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Sep. 11 2009,15:57

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 11 2009,12:04)
 As others have pointed out, all you have to do is sit down to program a Weasel algorithm, and it becomes clear that passing the location of correct letters is much more complex than selecting the child closest to the target. One could differentiate the algorithms by the number of steps and tests required to generate a population.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So Dembski's version is more complicated?  Doesn't that mean he's just smuggling information into his algorithm?

Naughty Dembski!  No free lunch for you.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 11 2009,15:58

Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 11 2009,15:57)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 11 2009,12:04)
 As others have pointed out, all you have to do is sit down to program a Weasel algorithm, and it becomes clear that passing the location of correct letters is much more complex than selecting the child closest to the target. One could differentiate the algorithms by the number of steps and tests required to generate a population.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So Dembski's version is more complicated?  Doesn't that mean he's just smuggling information into his algorithm?

Naughty Dembski!  No free lunch for you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Arf!

Someone do a funny about lunchtime and baylor cafe being NOMA.
Posted by: keiths on Sep. 11 2009,17:45

Quote (dvunkannon @ Sep. 11 2009,10:20)
It is still not clear if Dembski even cares about irreducible complexity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He cared enough to revisit it:   < Irreducible Complexity Revisited >
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 11 2009,18:24

CliveBaby, KF apologist:

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwini....-333763 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
339

Clive Hayden

09/11/2009

3:33 pm
FrogBox,

Just to note that if it wasn’t for the likes of me and the hundreds of thousands of colleauges throughout the world who are proud lab coat wearers, the planet would be in a very much worse way than it is now.

kairosfocus’ anti-science rhetoric shows him in a very bad light indeed, as one of those who would indeed take society back to the Dark Ages if they had the opportunity.


Advancement is not limited to lab coat wearers, it is only limited to human ingenuity, and on this score kairosfocus can speak as well as anyone, indeed better than someone who wears a lab coat. Lab coats don’t come with the art of ingenuity built-in, and without folks like kairosfocus, lab coats would be a self aggrandizing group, with no accountability and no special training in actual broad thinking. Surely you’re not willing to say that labcoats gives a mind a special monopoly on ingenuity and rationality? If you are, that is called scientism, which is a philosophy, which other reasonable men can critique and which has no special place in the world of thinking men. Who would take us back to the Dark Ages are those who think that the only thing that matters is whatever folks who wear lab coats think, for they will impose whatever they want on the rest of humanity, which will be the opposite of the Enlightenment, and indeed, may be called the next age of Endarkenment.

“Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.”
C.S. Lewis

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



Clive, while "Advancement is not limited to lab coat wearers..", we'd be royally fucked without the contribution of that specific subset.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Sep. 11 2009,18:39

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 11 2009,18:24)
CliveBaby, KF apologist:

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwini....-333763 >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
339

Clive Hayden

09/11/2009

3:33 pm
FrogBox,

Just to note that if it wasn’t for the likes of me and the hundreds of thousands of colleauges throughout the world who are proud lab coat wearers, the planet would be in a very much worse way than it is now.

kairosfocus’ anti-science rhetoric shows him in a very bad light indeed, as one of those who would indeed take society back to the Dark Ages if they had the opportunity.


Advancement is not limited to lab coat wearers, it is only limited to human ingenuity, and on this score kairosfocus can speak as well as anyone, indeed better than someone who wears a lab coat. Lab coats don’t come with the art of ingenuity built-in, and without folks like kairosfocus, lab coats would be a self aggrandizing group, with no accountability and no special training in actual broad thinking. Surely you’re not willing to say that labcoats gives a mind a special monopoly on ingenuity and rationality? If you are, that is called scientism, which is a philosophy, which other reasonable men can critique and which has no special place in the world of thinking men. Who would take us back to the Dark Ages are those who think that the only thing that matters is whatever folks who wear lab coats think, for they will impose whatever they want on the rest of humanity, which will be the opposite of the Enlightenment, and indeed, may be called the next age of Endarkenment.

“Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.”
C.S. Lewis

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



Clive, while "Advancement is not limited to lab coat wearers..", we'd be royally fucked without the contribution of that specific subset.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe, maybe not.  But, we will never know. And all I can say is Praise the Lord that Kairosfocus is spending large amounts of time pontificating about Lewontin and oil-soaked ad hominids on a backwater IDC blog, otherwise those labcoat types would be making a mess of this world with such atrocities as human-animal hybrids and sharks with frikkin' laserbeams on their heads.  Gordon is all that stands between us and a dark materialistic future.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 11 2009,18:51

You've all read his anti-intellectualism TARD manifesto:

< http://www.angelfire.com/pro....eculrsm >

?
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Sep. 11 2009,19:24

Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 11 2009,15:57)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 11 2009,12:04)
 As others have pointed out, all you have to do is sit down to program a Weasel algorithm, and it becomes clear that passing the location of correct letters is much more complex than selecting the child closest to the target. One could differentiate the algorithms by the number of steps and tests required to generate a population.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So Dembski's version is more complicated?  Doesn't that mean he's just smuggling information into his algorithm?

Naughty Dembski!  No free lunch for you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, he hides it in his sweater.
Posted by: CeilingCat on Sep. 11 2009,20:32

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 11 2009,18:51)
You've all read his anti-intellectualism TARD manifesto:

< http://www.angelfire.com/pro....eculrsm >

?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


GEM of Riki-Tiki lives in Jamaica, which has more churches per capita than any other nation on earth.  It also has a crime rate that has spiraled so out of control that an Honorary English Ambassador was found  beaten and strangled to death in his  own home in a wealthy neighborhood a couple of days ago.  

His main job as honorary Ambassador was providing council to English crime victims.

< Found murdered, Jamaica has highest murder rate in the world. >


< Beaten and strangled because he was gay. >

Perhaps Mr. Gordon should stop preaching to the rest of the world and concentrate on his own gay-bashing, church-going xtians.
Posted by: bfish on Sep. 11 2009,21:00

Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 11 2009,18:32)
GEM of Riki-Tiki lives in Jamaica
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought KF was from Montserrat.
Posted by: keiths on Sep. 11 2009,22:51

Quote (bfish @ Sep. 11 2009,19:00)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 11 2009,18:32)
GEM of Riki-Tiki lives in Jamaica
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought KF was from Montserrat.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's a native Jamaican who lives in Montserrat.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 11 2009,23:33

TARD!


< http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/caribbeankairos/message/742 >
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 11 2009,23:57

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 12 2009,00:33)
TARD!


< http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/caribbeankairos/message/742 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


gordon mullings is a fucked up individual



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
On October 6, 2008, under the banner BBC News, Roger Bolton published an article on the recent digitalisation of the well-known Codex Sinaiticus, discovered in 1844 by Tischendorf in a pile of old manuscripts in St Catherine's Monastery in the Sinai; and then intended to be used for heating cold rooms.

A minor item, hardly worth noticing, you would say.

Until you read the sensationalistic headline: "The rival to the Bible."

For, a la Dan Brown et al on steroids, the article -- duly presented as "news" asserts:

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



no oily ad homos yet



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A little "deconstruction" is plainly in order, as the item is highly revealing on what is happening to the former gold standard of world news, the BBC:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



hmm sounds familiar?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
idiotic points ONE THROUGH SEVENTEEN!!!!!!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



christ



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
n short, Mr Bolton has inappropriately sensationalised the significance of the Codex Sinaiticus, and in so doing has failed to consult and give us the counsel of informed experts on both sides of the questions. Had he done so, a very different picute would have emerged.

That is bad enough, but it is compounded by the emerging pattern that reeveals the flawed editorial policy of the BBC in our day: such gross errors and bias SHOULD have been caught at the first step of editorial cross-checking.

Thatit was not, and the fact that a follow up inquiry by this blogger to the head of the relevant Editorial Committee in the BBC, Mr Bruce Vander, has been unanswered for coming on a fortnight now, speaks volumes about this once gold standard media house. (I treated this issue as a follow up to an earlier complaint on an entertainment programme that grossly slandered evangelical Christians as potentially violent, racist terrorists.)

All of which is ever so sad.

Let us hope that BBC will wake up and do better in future reports. END

--
Posted By Gordon to KairosFocus at 8/04/2009 08:00:00 AM

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



No, fucko, IT IS NOT IN SHORT.  YOU DO NOT WRITE THINGS IN SHORT.

which is ever so sad

DUM
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 12 2009,00:23

So, what y'all are saying is that Gordon E. (I vant to be alone) Mullings has email addys that should be kept private, per his express wishes:
 
caribbeankairos-owner@yahoogroups.com.uk

kairosfocus@yahoo.co.uk

Okay, gotcha. Will do. Private it is. Even if they're already freely available on teh intardwebz, I won't encourage anyone to abuse those.
Posted by: sparc on Sep. 12 2009,00:28

What do you expect from somebody who wrote a  < manual for running a fundamentalist cell >.
Posted by: sparc on Sep. 12 2009,00:49

BTW, I always wonder why burning strawmen should be bad. We do this once a year in Cologne and it is fun:
< link >, < link >, < link >
Posted by: k.e.. on Sep. 12 2009,02:33



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mr Gordon Mullings
Montserrat


Dear Gordon,

I thank you for your rather long letter regarding the BBC's documentary on the Codex Sinaiticus. I'm glad you appreciated it and notpologise for taking more than 2 weeks to reply.

Whilst it is not the policy of the BBC to normally apologize to foreign nationals whose tendentious claptrap falls outside proper professional standards by which their opinions dissenting or not preclude any rational conclusions in the normal space of a working eon. I will take this opportunity to offer you a free raspberry from one of "The Goon Show" audio tapes.
Expect delivery in the next 2 weeks.

It seems to me that you would benefit from some of our other programs and I would like to take this opportunity to recommend "Magic Roundabout" and "Captain Pugwash"

I look forward to further correspondence from you with regard to the above BBC programs.

Please visit our online store for merchandise suitable for any family.

Yours Sincerely

Amanda Hugginkiss

PP

Bruce Vander
Complaints Manager and Secretary to the ESC.
BBC Trust.

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






Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 12 2009,05:22

Venturefree:

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


Corny,

I’m so happy that you started posting here on UD. You’re posts are hilarious! The best part is the credulous responses of the IDists, which can often be even more hilarious.

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


< Link >

Classic.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 12 2009,06:15

< Gordon Mullings >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
On topic: the objectors above to my remarks on materialist philosophers and would-be neo-magisterium in lab coats rather than ecclesiastical robes — forgive me on this, Catholics, I have to make a point in a way that will go home to a Golden Compass, anti- C S Lewisian thinking mentality — would do well to ponder the implications of the already linked remarks on US National Academy of Sciences member Richard Lewontin’s infamous 1997 review, and the statements from the said academy in its interventions in Kansas, but moreso the following from their 2008 version of their official pamphlet on “Science” vs “Creationism” — as was also linked — which let us note, they do not directly address on the merits, choosing instead to resort to an ad hominem.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gordon sure does have some problems.

I wonder if he's anti Harry Potter too?

Think I'll find out........
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 12 2009,07:20

barrett brown is sure missing a good chance to kick a hateful tardmongerer
Posted by: J-Dog on Sep. 12 2009,07:49

Quote (k.e.. @ Sep. 12 2009,02:33)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mr Gordon Mullings
Montserrat


Dear Gordon,

I thank you for your rather long letter regarding the BBC's documentary on the Codex Sinaiticus. I'm glad you appreciated it and notpologise for taking more than 2 weeks to reply.

Whilst it is not the policy of the BBC to normally apologize to foreign nationals whose tendentious claptrap falls outside proper professional standards by which their opinions dissenting or not preclude any rational conclusions in the normal space of a working eon. I will take this opportunity to offer you a free raspberry from one of "The Goon Show" audio tapes.
Expect delivery in the next 2 weeks.

It seems to me that you would benefit from some of our other programs and I would like to take this opportunity to recommend "Magic Roundabout" and "Captain Pugwash"

I look forward to further correspondence from you with regard to the above BBC programs.

Please visit our online store for merchandise suitable for any family.

Yours Sincerely

Amanda Hugginkiss

PP

Bruce Vander
Complaints Manager and Secretary to the ESC.
BBC Trust.

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


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


k.e. - Your best post EVAH!

I nominate for POTW!
Posted by: k.e.. on Sep. 12 2009,09:18

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 12 2009,14:15)
< Gordon Mullings >    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
On topic: the objectors above to my remarks on materialist philosophers and would-be neo-magisterium in lab coats rather than ecclesiastical robes — forgive me on this, Catholics, I have to make a point in a way that will go home to a Golden Compass, anti- C S Lewisian thinking mentality — would do well to ponder the implications of the already linked remarks on US National Academy of Sciences member Richard Lewontin’s infamous 1997 review, and the statements from the said academy in its interventions in Kansas, but moreso the following from their 2008 version of their official pamphlet on “Science” vs “Creationism” — as was also linked — which let us note, they do not directly address on the merits, choosing instead to resort to an ad hominem.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gordon sure does have some problems.

I wonder if he's anti Harry Potter too?

Think I'll find out........
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Onlookers take note:
3000 years of creationist dogma beats rationality


Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 12 2009,09:58

Here's a short one:

(it's so big It gets truncated here as a post!)

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwini....-333792 >

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwini....-333795 >

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwini....-333796 >
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 12 2009,10:33

< Gordon Mullings >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
unfortunate strawman distortion, laced with ad hominems. I too, as noted, am a “lab coat wearer.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It takes more then wearing a lab coat Gordon!

Some weird goings on over the proper attire for a scientist in them comments

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
used to try to pretend and project that I have not worn a lab coat myself (quite literally) are simply a “no true scotsman” ad hominem in disguise. And, besides the probative force of an argument comes from its weight on the merits of fact and logic, not who makes it, and what clothes s/he happens to wear [a shirtjac at the time as I recall], or when s/he said it – the just linked was a backup brief presentation for a public ethics lecture — what circle approves or disapproves.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Confusingly Gordon ends
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In sum, we easily see the imposition of a priori materialism on science, the operation of a lab-coat wearing materialist neo-magisterium, and its pernicious effects.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: khan on Sep. 12 2009,12:01

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 12 2009,11:33)
< Gordon Mullings >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
unfortunate strawman distortion, laced with ad hominems. I too, as noted, am a “lab coat wearer.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It takes more then wearing a lab coat Gordon!

Some weird goings on over the proper attire for a scientist in them comments

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
used to try to pretend and project that I have not worn a lab coat myself (quite literally) are simply a “no true scotsman” ad hominem in disguise. And, besides the probative force of an argument comes from its weight on the merits of fact and logic, not who makes it, and what clothes s/he happens to wear [a shirtjac at the time as I recall], or when s/he said it – the just linked was a backup brief presentation for a public ethics lecture — what circle approves or disapproves.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Confusingly Gordon ends
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In sum, we easily see the imposition of a priori materialism on science, the operation of a lab-coat wearing materialist neo-magisterium, and its pernicious effects.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


I went to the Gordon links. I can not read his stuff.  I try, but I literally can not follow what he's trying to convey.
Posted by: J-Dog on Sep. 12 2009,12:27

Quote (khan @ Sep. 12 2009,12:01)
I went to the Gordon links. I can not read his stuff.  I try, but I literally can not follow what he's trying to convey.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Khan - Not understanding kf - That's good - you pass the sanity test.

kf operates at the brain-scan level of a birther / deather / tea-partier / Glenn Beck watchin' Fox Fan.*



* Note to Heddle - Yes, I did leave out NASCAR fans, even though they only turn one way.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 12 2009,12:37

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 12 2009,10:58)
Here's a short one:

(it's so big It gets truncated here as a post!)

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwini....-333792 >

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwini....-333795 >

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwini....-333796 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


that one almost gave him a stroke.

try harder!
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 12 2009,13:39

Someone mentioned a while back that GAB of TALKY makes a kind of sense when one hypothesizes that words are magickal to him.

We've seen that before among religious fanatics, but not to quite the same degree as in Gordon Mullings.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Far away across the field,
The tolling of the iron bell
Calls the faithful to their knees,
To hear the softly spoken magic spells."
(apologies to Roger Waters)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In Mullings' case, the words don't have to be soft, or make a valid point, or even sense. There just has to be lots of them, arranged in magickal patterns that can be repeated ad nauseam to placate the angry gods and comfort the believers.

If one word is majickal, a thousand must be really potent. One just has to keep including the neccessary formulae, like "oil-soaked ad hominem strawmen" which he sometimes chants many times in the same clause-ridden post.

When I look at his posts that way -- as droning liturgies --  they do make a kind of sense.
Posted by: Badger3k on Sep. 12 2009,13:47

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 12 2009,13:39)
Someone mentioned a while back that GAB of TALKY makes a kind of sense when one hypothesizes that words are magickal to him.

I've seen that among a handful of religious fanatics, but not to quite the same degree as in Gordon Mullings.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Far away across the field,
The tolling of the iron bell
Calls the faithful to their knees,
To hear the softly spoken magic spells."
(apologies to Roger Waters)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In Mullings' case, the words don't have to be soft, or make a valid point, or even sense. There just has to be lots of them, arranged in magickal patterns that can be repeated ad nauseam to placate the angry gods and comfort the believers.

When I look at his posts that way, they do make a kind of sense.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe he's actually speaking in tongues, and it is our pattern seeking brains that try to make sense of it.
Posted by: khan on Sep. 12 2009,13:50

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 12 2009,14:39)
Someone mentioned a while back that GAB of TALKY makes a kind of sense when one hypothesizes that words are magickal to him.

I've seen that among a handful of religious fanatics, but not to quite the same degree as in Gordon Mullings.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Far away across the field,
The tolling of the iron bell
Calls the faithful to their knees,
To hear the softly spoken magic spells."
(apologies to Roger Waters)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In Mullings' case, the words don't have to be soft, or make a valid point, or even sense. There just has to be lots of them, arranged in magickal patterns that can be repeated ad nauseam to placate the angry gods and comfort the believers.

When I look at his posts that way, they do make a kind of sense.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Interesting hypothesis.

What is interesting to me about observing these types is that I did not interact with fundies while I was growing up.
Posted by: damitall on Sep. 12 2009,15:05

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 12 2009,13:39)
Someone mentioned a while back that GAB of TALKY makes a kind of sense when one hypothesizes that words are magickal to him.

We've seen that before among religious fanatics, but not to quite the same degree as in Gordon Mullings.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Far away across the field,
The tolling of the iron bell
Calls the faithful to their knees,
To hear the softly spoken magic spells."
(apologies to Roger Waters)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



In Mullings' case, the words don't have to be soft, or make a valid point, or even sense. There just has to be lots of them, arranged in magickal patterns that can be repeated ad nauseam to placate the angry gods and comfort the believers.

If one word is majickal, a thousand must be really potent. One just has to keep including the neccessary formulae, like "oil-soaked ad hominem strawmen" which he sometimes chants many times in the same clause-ridden post.

When I look at his posts that way -- as droning liturgies --  they do make a kind of sense.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


C'mon, everybody! In the true spirit of the pantomime that is a kairosfocus megatardtorrent

1.....2.....3..

"OH, NO THEY DON'T!"
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 12 2009,16:19



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Maybe he's actually speaking in tongues, and it is our pattern seeking brains that try to make sense of it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Argument ad lingua?

Henry
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 12 2009,16:55

As every ID advocate has ever done < DLH > asks you to do the work he should be doing to prove his point
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To apply these measures to distinguish between materialistic and intelligent causes, See William Dembski, No Free Lunch, Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence, (2002) Rowman & Littlefield Pub Inc. ISBN 0-7425-1297-5

Does this get you started?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Erm, DLH. Why not just do it yourself? What's stopping you?
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
See Tchaikovsky’s musical score for another measure of prior specified complexity that could be compared with the audio frequency analysis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Could be? Should be if you ask me. So, who's suppressing you DLH? Your example sounds great. So please do it. Then once you have the prior specified complexity you can determine the FSCI.
Posted by: MichaelJ on Sep. 12 2009,17:07

DLH doesn't need to do no steenking calculations. Jesus told him so.
Posted by: Ra-Úl on Sep. 12 2009,18:04

"See Tchaikovsky’s musical score for another measure of prior specified complexity that could be compared with the audio frequency analysis."

See John Cage's musical score for 4' 33" for another measure of prior specified complexity that could be compared with the audio frequency analysis. I'm waiting.
Posted by: Maya on Sep. 12 2009,19:28

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 12 2009,16:55)
As every ID advocate has ever done < DLH > asks you to do the work he should be doing to prove his point
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To apply these measures to distinguish between materialistic and intelligent causes, See William Dembski, No Free Lunch, Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence, (2002) Rowman & Littlefield Pub Inc. ISBN 0-7425-1297-5

Does this get you started?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Erm, DLH. Why not just do it yourself? What's stopping you?
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
See Tchaikovsky’s musical score for another measure of prior specified complexity that could be compared with the audio frequency analysis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Could be? Should be if you ask me. So, who's suppressing you DLH? Your example sounds great. So please do it. Then once you have the prior specified complexity you can determine the FSCI.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm trying to lay off the hard, direct from the source tard this semester, but you tempt me, Satan Old Man.

Are they claiming to be able to use ID to distinguish between music and noise?  Color me unimpressed.

Regardless of the details, this smells like one of those discussions that they'll drag on endlessly, never answering any direct questions nor applying  their junior high math to any real organism and then constantly refer back to it in support of their conclusions.  "Of course ID can identify design.  You need to read about the use of our collection of three and four letter acronyms in musicology, stupid materialist."

This prediction brought to you by the letters F and Q, the number 68, and the long history of ridiculous behavior by the IDiots at UD.
Posted by: RDK on Sep. 12 2009,22:37



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What do you expect from somebody who wrote a  < manual for running a fundamentalist cell >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



From Grandma E. Mullings of The Kick-a-baby Initiative, Manual on How To Be A Young Fundamentalist Blowhard for Jesus:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
3.4 Evolutionary Materialism


The intellectual powerhouse that energises secularism is Evolutionary Materialism.19
Consequently, we must take its measure, and understand then respond to its claims, strengths and
limitations, if we are to be effective as educated Christian thinkers and leaders in our region.
Now, except in intellectual circles, Evolutionism is not yet an openly dominant influence in our
region, due to the lingering hold of the Bible on the popular mindset. As time goes on, however,
the secularist trend is clearly gathering momentum, and so it is imperative for us to respond to it
without further delay.
The core issue, of course, is that the biological Theory of [Macro-] Evolution is often held to
"prove" the philosophy of Materialism, thus discrediting the Bible and the Christian Faith. This
leads to four critical questions:

(1) Is biological macro-evolution a proven fact?

(2) Do the various evolutionary philosophies and theories in various fields of study
necessarily follow from biological macro-evolution?

(3) Can these philosophies and theories stand up as proven facts?

(4) Does Evolution therefore disprove the existence of God?

The critical issue is the linkage between observable data, the inferred theory of macro-evolution,
and the claimed implication, materialism. If the inference is good and the implication holds, then
God is dead, full stop. So would be Man.
19 Often called “Naturalism.” Evolutionary Materialism is used here because it is a more descriptive phrase.
90
First, a clarification. It is macro-evolution which is at stake, not the minor population variations
commonly called micro-evolution. We are not discussing well known small scale changes, such
as Darwin’s Finches or Industrial Melanism, but rather the grand theory that seeks to explain the
origin and diversification of life into the many forms in the fossil record and those existing
today.
All such macro-theories face three major difficulties: explaining the origin of life; explaining the mechanism that allows, say, a fish to evolve into a man in several hundred million years; explaining the all-too-characteristic "sudden appearances and disappearances" of life-forms in the "almost unmanageably rich" fossil record, which is the major evidence.
For, as many competent commentators have repeatedly pointed out,20 the leap from amino acids
formed in spark-in-gas experiments to a complete and functioning life-form is vast. Colour
changes in moths are one thing, "amoeba to man" quite another. A fossil record of gaps and
postulated but still all-too-missing links is more of an embarrassment than a proof (and has
always been so).21 In short, it is hardly proper to conclude, after more than a century, that
macro-evolution is proven fact.
Of course, to many, macro-evolution "must" be true — the alternative, creation and/or intelligent
design, "is incredible." Their basic reason, of course, is that they are philosophical materialists —
they begin by assuming that there is no God, rather than with an open-minded assessment of the
evidence. Plainly, this is a circular argument — one obvious alternative is that God/the
Intelligent Designer used evolution as his means of creation! Another, given the problems with
the evidence, is that macro-evolution simply did not happen. (This may be intellectually
unfashionable, but it is definitely not ruled out by the available evidence.)
In short, while macro-evolution may well fit into an atheistic view of the world, it is itself open
to significant challenge and simply cannot prove materialism to be true.
Philosophical materialism, however, has deeper problems. It argues that the cosmos is the
product of chance interactions of matter and energy, within the constraint of the laws of nature.
Therefore, all phenomena in the universe, without residue, are determined by the working of
purposeless laws acting on material objects, under the direct or indirect control of chance.
But human thought, clearly a phenomenon in the universe, must now fit into this picture. Thus,
what we subjectively experience as "thoughts" and "conclusions" can only be understood
materialistically as unintended by-products of the natural forces which cause and control the
electro-chemical events going on in neural networks in our brains. (These forces are viewed as
ultimately physical, but are taken to be partly mediated through a complex pattern of genetic
inheritance and psycho-social conditioning, within the framework of human culture.)
Therefore, if materialism is true, the "thoughts" we have and the "conclusions" we reach, without
residue, are produced and controlled by forces that are irrelevant to purpose, truth, or validity.
20 See the references at the end of this module.
21 In Darwin’s day, it was confidently expected that the “gaps” would be filled in, hence the search for “missing links.”
The persistence of the gaps in the fossil record — though often denied in debate — is sufficiently serious that the late Steven Jay
Gould (of Harvard), Niles Eldredge et al proposed an alternative to Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory: Punctuated Equilibrium.
91
Of course, the conclusions of such arguments may still happen to be true, by lucky coincidence
— but we have no rational grounds for relying on the “reasoning” that has led us to feel that we
have “proved” them. And, if our materialist friends then say: “But, we can always apply
scientific tests, through observation, experiment and measurement,” then we must note that to
demonstrate that such tests provide empirical support to their theories requires the use of the very
process of reasoning which they have discredited!
Thus, evolutionary materialism reduces reason itself to the status of illusion. But, immediately,
that includes “Materialism.” For instance, Marxists commonly deride opponents for their
“bourgeois class conditioning” — but what of the effect of their own class origins? Freudians
frequently dismiss qualms about their loosening of moral restraints by alluding to the impact of
strict potty training on their “up-tight” critics — but doesn’t this cut both ways? And, should we
not simply ask a Behaviourist whether s/he is simply another operantly conditioned rat trapped in
the cosmic maze?
In the end, materialism is based on self-defeating logic, and only survives because people often
fail (or, sometimes, refuse) to think through just what their beliefs really mean.
As a further consequence, materialism can have no basis, other than arbitrary or whimsical
choice and balances of power in the community, for determining what is to be accepted as True
or False, Good or Evil. So, Morality, Truth, Meaning, and, at length, Man, are dead.
As Francis Schaeffer and others have so ably pointed out, this inner contradiction explains
modern man's dilemma and confusion. For, his soul — created by God, our real Maker — tells
such a man that he is significant, but what he thinks he knows tells him that he is nothing but a
random bit of rubbish cast up by an ultimately chaotic and purposeless universe. He therefore
knows not which to believe, and so lives under a cloud of hopeless despair, "a double-minded
man, unstable in all his ways.”
It is consequently no surprise to detect the consistent theme that all of reality is ultimately
meaningless in modern and post-modern Literature, in contemporary Philosophy, and in the Arts
generally. Equally unsurprisingly, when materialistic evolutionary frameworks are applied to
academic/professional disciplines such as Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology, Linguistics,
Economics, Management, or Media and Communication, it is the implications of materialism
that invariably are the root of anti-Christian bias.
In Law, Government, and Public Policy, the same bitter seed has shot up the idea that "Right"
and "Wrong" are simply arbitrary social conventions. This has often led to the adoption of
hypocritical, inconsistent, futile and self-destructive public policies.
"Truth is dead," so Education has become a power struggle; the victors have the right to
propagandise the next generation as they please. Media power games simply extend this cynical
manipulation from the school and the campus to the street, the office, the factory, the church and
the home.
92
Further, since family structures and rules of sexual morality are "simply accidents of history,"
one is free to force society to redefine family values and principles of sexual morality to suit
one's preferences.
Finally, life itself is meaningless and valueless, so the weak, sick, defenceless and undesirable —
for whatever reason — can simply be slaughtered, whether in the womb, in the hospital, or in the
death camp.
In short, ideas sprout roots, shoot up into all aspects of life, and have consequences in the real
world. Paul therefore aptly summarises the bitter fruit of dismissing God from our thoughts:
since they did not think it worth while to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over
to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every
kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife,
deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and
boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless,
faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who
do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also
approve those who practice them. [Rom. 1:28 - 32; cf. 18 - 27, which shows the
significance of widespread sexual perversions in a culture.]
However, since evolutionary materialism has become the orthodoxy of the academic community
and that of many policy-makers and opinion leaders, it is often simply embedded in the
foundation of contemporary academic discourse, public discussion of issues, and the policymaking
and implementing process.
Therefore, educated Christians must learn how to unearth these hidden assumptions, and then to expose the resulting contradictions, foolish policy recommendations and their likely bitter fruit.22
Once that is done, we can then set about separating the wheat of sound insight from the chaff of
anti-Christian bias, then work towards a sounder, more sustainable future for our region.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Atheist materialists are bitter fruits?  Strange.  That's the exact mental picture I get when I think of Grammy Mullings: a bitter fruit.



Edit: If I had (cover your eyes, FL) millions and millions of years available to me, I'd go through and try and break actual paragraphs into that gem of a GEM passage, but alas, I'm going to go ahead and actually study something useful instead of babysitting giant walls of text written by anti-materialist Jamaican preacher-terrorists.

Edit edit: just weeks ago, didn't GEM make fun of some woman who filed for a sexual abuse suit because she was a skimpy dresser or some other misogynist shit?  In the above picture Gordon is clearly asking for it.  Somebody should throw him into a bathroom stall and pull a Chris Brown on him, and when he goes to file a law suit tell him to stop actin' a ho.
Posted by: sparc on Sep. 13 2009,00:34

In case KairosFocus should make fuss about his Gordon "Sissy" E Mullings identity again you may point him to his own latest post at < Creation: By Design > that starts with        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ths is a superb apologetical summary from a < commentary > on the Uncommon Descent site.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

and is signed by      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Gordon Mullings
< Kairos Focus >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed, exactly what you would do if you want to stay anonyous. What I find even more disturbing though not really surprising is the fact that  both, the "superb summary" and the original "commentary", are authored by KF.
Posted by: N.Wells on Sep. 13 2009,02:30

"Kairos" has several related christian meanings (the appointed time or the coming of christ), and it is also the name for a christian retreat.  I had thought that was all the reason that Gordon Mullings needed for his pseudonym.  Then I just discovered (and pardon me if everybody but me already knew this) rhetoricians call kairos 'the art of assessing one's audience and adapting one's tone and technique to best get one's point across' (paraphrased from < http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/17-09/st_thompson > ).  I think that blows out an entire planet-load of irony detectors.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 13 2009,07:02

< Gordon Mullings > is fixated on "lab coats". Some sort of fetish I imagine
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nor does it disestablish the evident facts regarding Weasel 1986. Nor does such “shut up!” rhetoric change the fact that there is an a priori evolutionary materialist neo-magisterium, duly vested in lab coats, that has clearly seized control of key science institutions such as the US NAS. Nor, does it change the fact that hey are pushing materialism under the false colours of science [even seeking to redefine "science" to suit their agenda], while actually falling into reduction to absurdity, e.g. as we see from Mr Lewontin’s “science as the only begetter of truth” — a self-refuting knowledge claim in epistemology not science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And does it seem to anybody else that Gordon has got some sort of messiah complex going? That he's here to save us? Does he see himself as a "itinerant evangelist"?
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
PPS: And those who are taking “turn the other cheek” out of context above — BTW, this is specifically a Saul Alinski Rules for Radicals Communist agitator tactic — should remember that it is arguable that TWICE [and certainly at least once], the itinerant evangelist who said that, drove abusive moneychangers out of the Temple in Jerusalem, with a certain shocking implement in hand, which he plaited himself and at minimum brandished threateningly. He did it to protest abuse of key public institutions in service to powerful agendas. (In short, as SB has observed, all too many today struggle with context. Being one not easily provoked into a fight through personal insult is different from the need to challenge and correct — if necessary forcefully — public abuses publicly. [As another comparison, another famous C1 evangelist, when unjustly seized, whipped and gaoled in Phillipi, on the morrow refused to leave town quietly; standing on his rights as a Roman citizen and insisting that public wrong be publicly corrected instead of being left to spread its poison by remaining uncorrected.])
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does Gordon really think he's correcting a public wrong by insisting on "Explicitly latched Weasel" as a legitimate interpretation of Weasel?
Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 13 2009,08:03

Gordon Mullings' ravings sound like antecedent justifications for violence.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 13 2009,08:14

Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 13 2009,09:03)
Gordon Mullings' ravings sound like antecedent justifications for violence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


that, my good sir, is exactly what this raving lunatic desires.  

and THAT is why fighting the tards on their own turf is crucial to the future of civilization.

ok maybe that is his rhetorical game and not mine.

but i would like to see gordon mullings fight atmospheric friction from orbit.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 13 2009,08:29

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 13 2009,09:14)
but i would like to see gordon mullings fight atmospheric friction from orbit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd rather see him hospitalized and treated, before it ends badly:

< >

or worsely:

< >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The first image is titled < Doink Doink >, and the second is titled < Ground Zero >, both by me and both licensed under the < Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike license. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 13 2009,08:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Cornelius Hunter >:

< Read more >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Someone teach Cornelius Hunter how to link. The link should be to here:

< http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009....re.html >

By pointing the link to his home page, in a few days, the link will become a non sequitur. It's not a typo. He does it every time.
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 13 2009,09:08

Someone teach Zachriel how to read. It looks like Ilion has already < schooled > Cornelius.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Sep. 13 2009,13:06

< anonym >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Mandatory government health warning: This comment contains analogy. Analogies are not suitable for children under the age of 12 except under the supervision of an adult. The drawing of a sound analogy between naturalistic evolution and Ptolemaic astronomy does not in itself constitute evidence that naturalistic evolution is false, or an assertion to that effect. Analogies can go down as well as up.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: CeilingCat on Sep. 13 2009,15:20

< Joseph in the same thread: >  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"    Common descent leads to the positive prediction that the history of life would show a hierarchy of development while separate descent would not."

Except that evolution does NOT have a direction so in reality no such hierarchy was ever predicted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That whooshing sound you heard was Joseph missing the point.
Posted by: CeilingCat on Sep. 13 2009,15:32

Quote (keiths @ Sep. 11 2009,22:51)
   
Quote (bfish @ Sep. 11 2009,19:00)
   
Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 11 2009,18:32)
GEM of Riki-Tiki lives in Jamaica
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I thought KF was from Montserrat.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's a native Jamaican who lives in Montserrat.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


God told me KF lives in Jamaica in a dream.  Now who you gonna believe?  Your fallible human "sources" or something I dreamed God told me?  

Consider carefully before you answer lest you and bfish wind up in the ID section of hell, which reeketh with the stench of straw men soaked in the flaming oil of ad hominem, which you just can't ever get out of your clothes.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 13 2009,18:25

This should get lots of use in this thread:


Posted by: RDK on Sep. 13 2009,19:38

Is the $2.69 price tag indicative of how much it costs to attain an education in Pop-Tard?  Someone should Photoshop a picture of Kent Hovind holding up that sign in front of Patriot U.

I like the phrase, though; it almost sounds like a bona fide major.  Or maybe it could be short for Popular Tard, like Pop Music or Pop Art.
Posted by: steve_h on Sep. 13 2009,19:42

< Cornelius Hunter reports predicts... >  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thousands of DNA segments have been found to be nearly identical across a wide range of species including human, mouse, rat, dog, chicken and fish. Evolutionary theory expected no such high similarity for species that are supposed to have been evolving independently for hundreds of millions of years. The only explanation could be a super strong functional constraint requiring the very unusual similarities, but none was found
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I've only read the < abstract > of the paper to which he refers. It states:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We propose that the cis-regulatory inputs identified by CNEs arose during the re-wiring of regulatory interactions that occurred during early animal evolution. Consequently, different animal groups, with different core GRNs, contain alternative sets of CNEs. Due to the subsequent stability of animal body plans, these core regulatory sequences have been evolving in parallel under strong purifying selection in different animal groups.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

. This suggests to me that certain B I G changes to body plans etc. were laid down in the (pre) cambrian and that you don't mess around with these changes in organisms which rely rather heavily on them.   Cornelius seems to think that a modification which will produce mammalian offspring without, say, bones  should be equally likely to succeed as one which makes one individual have slightly darker skin or differently colored hair. He backs this up with a website of Evolution's" predictions, written by one Cornelius Hunter.
Posted by: CeilingCat on Sep. 14 2009,03:52

< Cornelius Hunter is turning into a real asshole. >            

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
After all, there are no fossil rabbits in the ancient strata. That's right, no rabbits before the Cambrian era. Astonishing, evolution must be true.

After this extreme example of the fallacy of affirming the consequent ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< The actual words of the article: >            

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When asked what observation would disprove the theory of evolution, J.B.S. Haldane, a pioneering British geneticist, replied: “Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era.” But such anachronisms have never been found.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

That's not "affirming the consequent".  It's listing an observation that could disprove the theory of evolution and noting that this and other such anachronisms have never been found.  PHILOSOPHY FAIL

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Cornelius: "But the best is saved until last. As always, the real proof is the religious evidence. As the review proclaims:"
 
[The article lists laryngeal nerves that are routed perfectly for fish, but have to take long detours in creatures with necks, including a fifteen foot detour in giraffes, trees that would work perfectly well if they were lower, but which are forced to grow tall to prevent other trees from shading them, futility and suffering in the world such as the ichneumon wasp whose larve eat living caterpillars]  

Cornelius's reply: "With religious arguments like these who needs scientific evidence?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then, in the comments section, we find:          

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Corny: "There are multitudes of examples of similarities amongst the species that do not fit the evolutionary pattern."

Bob O'H: "Such as?"

Corny: "Incredible. This shows how far evolutionary misinformation and misrepresentation has penetrated science. If you really want science rather than dogma then you'll have to look at the evidence. Try any life science library. If that is not convenient, here are some links for starters:


< http://www.darwinspredictions.com/#_4.2_Genomes_of >

< http://www.darwinspredictions.com/#_4.3_Genomes_of >"


Timcol: "do you not accept that there is pain and suffering in the animal kingdom?"

Corny: "Yes, I accept that."

Timcol: "what is YOUR explanation of this phenomena?"

Corny: "Evolutionists use this question as a protectionist device. They believe evolution is a fact, and when faced with the absurdity of their claims they switch the subject. There is little point to discussing *my* idea with folks who are either lying, in denial, or unbelievably ignorant about science."

Timcol: "Huh? I write 3-4 sentences and from this you conclude I might be lying, in denial or ignorant about science?"

Corny: "How did you conclude that? I made it clear I was referring to evolutionists."

Boo: "You appear to be confusing criticism of the claims of Intelligent Design with evidence for evolution. The Economist is not a scientific journal presenting the results of studies. It is a popular magazine presenting a book review."

Corny: "No, I'm not the one confusing the criticism. This is a classic evolutionary cunard.(sic) The evolutionist gives his religious pronouncements and then is shocked when it is pointed out. What me?

If you think the religion is contrived by pop media such as the Economist, then you are not familiar with evolution."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I quit reading there.  This guy is turning into a Dembski class asshole.

Edit: Typo
Posted by: Maya on Sep. 14 2009,05:53

Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 14 2009,03:52)
< Cornelius Hunter is turning into a real asshole. >

Then, in the comments section, we find:              

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Corny: "There are multitudes of examples of similarities amongst the species that do not fit the evolutionary pattern."

Bob O'H: "Such as?"

Corny: "Incredible. This shows how far evolutionary misinformation and misrepresentation has penetrated science. If you really want science rather than dogma then you'll have to look at the evidence. Try any life science library. If that is not convenient, here are some links for starters:


< http://www.darwinspredictions.com/#_4.2_Genomes_of >

< http://www.darwinspredictions.com/#_4.3_Genomes_of >"


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



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


I briefly looked at those links, but won't have time to read the referenced papers until later this week.  Taking as a given that Creationists lie, that Intelligent Design Creationists lie even more than members of their parent species, and that they tend to repeat their lies, has anyone already fisked darwinspredictions.com?
Posted by: CeilingCat on Sep. 14 2009,06:40

Bob O'H was not impressed with those references either.
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 14 2009,07:25

We can't emphasize enough. Please do not follow the link without protective gear. Kairosfocus admits error.

Tard Zone Ahead

Buried in the footnotes of a nine thousand word, seven comment screed (this after hundreds of posts over many weeks).



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Onlookers:
I
Commentary
 1-16
II
 A-E (1-4), F-I
 PS
Corrective Remarks
 1-3
Some further, corrective footnotes
 1-6, 8, 12-16, 7
 PS
 PS
 PPS
Footnotes
 1-2 (a-f), 3-7
Follow up
 1-11
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Buried in Footnotes 5 (745 words):



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< kairosfocus >: I stand corrected on this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course, he's not really wrong.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< kairosfocus >: In short, the M & D model in part E of the paper is correctable in principle.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's not only correctable, but correctable *in principle*, which kairosfocus proves in the Follow up 1-11.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< kairosfocus >: 11] Which was what was to be explained, per showcased run excerpts circa 1986.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Q.E.D.
Posted by: 1of63 on Sep. 14 2009,08:05

Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 14 2009,03:52)
< Cornelius Hunter is turning into a real asshole. >            
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Turning?

This guy's just another Wells.

I wouldn't believe either of them if they told me the sun rises in the east each morning.

Anything that don't check out against their religious beliefs gets tossed or trashed.

I don't care what their qualifications are.  That ain't science and they ain't scientists,
Posted by: Amadan on Sep. 14 2009,08:47



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is a classic evolutionary cunard.(sic)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



... as evidenced by these typical materialists. Please note the slogan, which emphasises the [semi] pointlessness of faith-unimbued existence.




Acute paranoiacs Fox-watchers will note the name of the sixth liner at the bottom. This proves it's all part of a librul conspiracy.
Posted by: J-Dog on Sep. 14 2009,09:16

Beautiful Poster - makes me proud to be a materialist - but I don't even see a mention of Noah's Ark.  

BTW - Your new Sig Line though is pretty damn scarry.

edited for sp
Posted by: dmso74 on Sep. 14 2009,09:27

The funny thing about Corny is that, if he follows his own logic:

1) Evolutionary theory is religious bc it refutes creationist claims
2) All of the half-baked ID methods involve eliminating the possibility of some structure evolving as per evolutionary theory
3) therefore as per 1), all ID is religious.

the other funny thing is that he makes a living writing (and teaching classes on the biophysics of Jesus at Biola), yet can't seem to string coherent sentences together. if he and O'Leary had a child I don't think it would even be able to communicate that it was hungry.
Posted by: k.e.. on Sep. 14 2009,10:05

Quote (J-Dog @ Sep. 14 2009,17:16)
Beautiful Poster - makes me proud to be a materialist - but I don't even see a mantion of Noah's Ark.  

BTW - Your new Sig Line though is pretty damn scarry.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah yes the good old days
Brylcreem, Capstan Navy Cut Cigarettes & Garter Belts.

When going down and having a gay time.... meant actually going down and having a gay time.

When children spoke when spoken too and the beetles were pests.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 14 2009,11:45

Cornelius Hunter is asked
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What do you find to be the most compelling evidence supporting ID which is not just a critique of evolution?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


His answer?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
the language one finds scientists using is strong support for ID. Here are some typical examples:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He then provides a paragraph of text with words like build bolded. The usual.

Then:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The fact that so many writers use design language is good evidence that certain features are best explained by an intelligent cause.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And this is the best evidence he has!

What a deluded viewpoint. < Link >
Posted by: J-Dog on Sep. 14 2009,12:19

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 14 2009,11:45)
Cornelius Hunter is asked
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What do you find to be the most compelling evidence supporting ID which is not just a critique of evolution?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


His answer?
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
the language one finds scientists using is strong support for ID. Here are some typical examples:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He then provides a paragraph of text with words like build bolded. The usual.

Then:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The fact that so many writers use design language is good evidence that certain features are best explained by an intelligent cause.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And this is the best evidence he has!

What a deluded viewpoint. < Link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah... I'm just not gonna believe he's serious though until he PULLS OUT THE ALL CAPS!!! and exclamation points like a real believer.
Posted by: REC on Sep. 14 2009,12:33

Haven't posted in a while, but I'm just amused how far the discussion on the antibiotic resistance thread on UD has gone without someone pointing out that nitric oxide is NO and not NO2 (nitrogen dioxide).

I mean, these guys don't know the difference between a toxic gas and the signaling molecule present in most organisms (this is the pathway Viagra influences).  Wow.....

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/evoluti....omments >
Posted by: REC on Sep. 14 2009,12:43

...and actually bacterial Nitric Oxide Synthases (bNOS) are great examples of reducible complexity.  They are a two part system of the catalytic domain and redox energy supplying domain.  Ala UD, a two part system shouldn't arise, because one is useless without the other.  Ahh no, the redox domains are fully funtional parts of other systems appropriated for this task.....

"Here we demonstrate that bNOS enzymes from Bacillus subtilis
and Bacillus anthracis do indeed produce NO in living cells and
accomplish this task by hijacking available cellular redox partners
that are not normally committed to NO production
. These
“promiscuous” bacterial reductases also support NO synthesis
by the oxygenase domain of mammalian NOS expressed in Escherichia
coli. Our results suggest that bNOS is an early precursor
of eukaryotic NOS and that it acquired its dedicated reductase
domain later in evolution
."


Bacterial NOS


OWN GOAL? Come on, someone tally it......[B][/B]
Posted by: Bob O'H on Sep. 14 2009,14:37

Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 14 2009,06:40)
Bob O'H was not impressed with those references either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I didn't really follow them up: one was irrelevant to the point Corny was trying to make, and the other could be (largely) dismissed, as I did.  I suspect a thorough fisking would be more severe.

Corny is happier to have comments than the UD mods are.  Dunno for how long - I guess it depends on how nice we are to him.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 14 2009,14:41

Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 14 2009,15:37)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 14 2009,06:40)
Bob O'H was not impressed with those references either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I didn't really follow them up: one was irrelevant to the point Corny was trying to make, and the other could be (largely) dismissed, as I did.  I suspect a thorough fisking would be more severe.

Corny is happier to have comments than the UD mods are.  Dunno for how long - I guess it depends on how nice we are to him.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


weighing the rewarding of blog whoring, on the one hand, with the possibility of mudding up somebody else's yard for a change....

hmmm....
Posted by: J-Dog on Sep. 14 2009,14:43

Quote (REC @ Sep. 14 2009,12:43)
...and actually bacterial Nitric Oxide Synthases (bNOS) are great examples of reducible complexity.  They are a two part system of the catalytic domain and redox energy supplying domain.  Ala UD, a two part system shouldn't arise, because one is useless without the other.  Ahh no, the redox domains are fully funtional parts of other systems appropriated for this task.....

"Here we demonstrate that bNOS enzymes from Bacillus subtilis
and Bacillus anthracis do indeed produce NO in living cells and
accomplish this task by hijacking available cellular redox partners
that are not normally committed to NO production
. These
“promiscuous” bacterial reductases also support NO synthesis
by the oxygenase domain of mammalian NOS expressed in Escherichia
coli. Our results suggest that bNOS is an early precursor
of eukaryotic NOS and that it acquired its dedicated reductase
domain later in evolution
."


<a href="www.jbc.org/cgi/reprint/283/19/13140.pdf" target="_blank">Bacterial NOS</a>


OWN GOAL? Come on, someone tally it......[B][/B]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


REC - Good post!

Good idea on the "Own Goal Thread" - You should pm Wes -but I bet that if we did, it would double the bandwidth!  

Plus we would have to have a meeting - in Paris or London maybe - where we would have to hash out details such as should "UD Shooting Self In Foot" threads be included in the "UD Own Goal Thread"...

So - are you a "splitter" or a "lumper"?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 14 2009,15:42

Clive gives Corny Hunter his full support and brings his full attention to the problem


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You can’t use any other language other than design language because that is what explains and describes the mechanisms. To use any other language wouldn’t relate what is being meant. That means that the idea that it is not designed is wishful thinking.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Huh? >
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 14 2009,15:42

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 13 2009,07:02)
And does it seem to anybody else that Gordon has got some sort of messiah complex going? That he's here to save us? Does he see himself as a "itinerant evangelist"?
   
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep, I think part of that is also why Scooter couldn't stand him -- KF's word-vomiting pretense of "authority" conflicted with Scooter's own pretense at authority. KF's a religious fanatic and posed a threat to DaveScot's "I am the King Tard of Sciemce!" crown. The creobots prefer bibliolator "science" much, much more than pseudoagnostic babble like Scooters. Dembski et al. made a choice -- Scooter had to go.

Quote (1of63 @ Sep. 14 2009,08:05)
 
Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 14 2009,03:52)
< Cornelius Hunter is turning into a real asshole. >            
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Turning? This guy's just another Wells. I wouldn't believe either of them if they told me the sun rises in the east each morning.

Anything that don't check out against their religious beliefs gets tossed or trashed. I don't care what their qualifications are.  That ain't science and they ain't scientists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Corny seems to be a poster child for the notion that even an idiot can get a Ph.D in some arenas -- given sufficient obsessive focus.  

Most people have (or will) encountered these types in academia. You wonder how the fuck they'd get degrees in crayon-eating, let alone getting through a grad program in Biophysics and Computational Biology at U. of Illinois, Urbana.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Sep. 15 2009,01:30

Steve Fuller < takes aim at his foot... >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To Nakashima: You’re missing the point. Of course, the atheist scientists who make claims about what God could or could not do are not publishing in peer review journals — because the relevant peer review journals would be in theology, not biology. And these scientists couldn’t care less whether they pass peer review in theology because they don’t believe the subject really exists. This is why I say that it’s up to theologians to insist on peer review for such claims and not let them simply free float in the public domain without any professional scrutiny.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As my mum would say, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.  If he wants to insist on peer review of scientists talking theology, then he should insist on peer review of theologians talking about science.
Posted by: CeilingCat on Sep. 15 2009,06:16

< A Tard is Born >
niwrad takes a lesson from Donald Rumsfeld:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Darwinism contradiction of repair systems
niwrad
When a thing is false, is false from all points of view. In fact it cannot exist a point of view from which the thing becomes true, given it is false, rather each view point manifests a particular aspect of the falsity of the thing. As a consequence, when a thing is false, whether we suppose it is true we get contradictions, one for every point of view we consider the thing from. All that is simple logic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It gets worse from there.  niwrad's difficulty with English also takes its toll.  In fact, there's a possibility that his name is more a case of severe dyslexia than trying to be cute.  

BillB tries to explain in the only reply so far, but I don't think there's much hope.
Posted by: CeilingCat on Sep. 15 2009,06:31

< Some days I just love UD >
Mapou runs face first into reality:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As an example, I have given up on trying to convince the physics community that their understanding of motion is fundamentally flawed.  The physicist’s definition of motion denies causality because it fails to give a cause for inertial motion. This means that Aristotle was right to insist that motion requires a cause. But you will not see a mainstream physicist admit to this even if they know it’s true. It would be a career killing move on his or her part. The fear factor is very much a part of the peer review process. Even an idle comment on the internet can ruin one’s career.

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

Another promising career blighted just because he tried to set physics straight on a few of the fundamentals.  First Galileo and now Mapou.  Curse those arrogant scientists!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 15 2009,09:05

Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 15 2009,01:30)
Steve Fuller < takes aim at his foot... >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To Nakashima: You’re missing the point. Of course, the atheist scientists who make claims about what God could or could not do are not publishing in peer review journals — because the relevant peer review journals would be in theology, not biology. And these scientists couldn’t care less whether they pass peer review in theology because they don’t believe the subject really exists. This is why I say that it’s up to theologians to insist on peer review for such claims and not let them simply free float in the public domain without any professional scrutiny.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As my mum would say, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.  If he wants to insist on peer review of scientists talking theology, then he should insist on peer review of theologians talking about science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Plus its not like there's any objective measure for religion past interpretations of 'holy writings'. The various schisms and divides in must religions show how futile 'peer review' would be.
Posted by: BillB on Sep. 15 2009,09:08

Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 15 2009,12:16)
< A Tard is Born >
niwrad takes a lesson from Donald Rumsfeld:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Darwinism contradiction of repair systems
niwrad
When a thing is false, is false from all points of view. In fact it cannot exist a point of view from which the thing becomes true, given it is false, rather each view point manifests a particular aspect of the falsity of the thing. As a consequence, when a thing is false, whether we suppose it is true we get contradictions, one for every point of view we consider the thing from. All that is simple logic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It gets worse from there.  niwrad's difficulty with English also takes its toll.  In fact, there's a possibility that his name is more a case of severe dyslexia than trying to be cute.  

BillB tries to explain in the only reply so far, but I don't think there's much hope.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joseph, being unable to cope with science, unzips his trousers and < waves his ignorance at me: >  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
9
Joseph
09/15/2009
7:27 am

BillB:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Take a toy example of a simple replicator that generates variable copies of its self.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And where do you get that from- a magic shop?

Ya see BB, your scenario can’t even get started.

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



Now I expect KF to reply at any minute announcing that this is all a dripping straw man because it doesn't explain the origin of self replicators.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 15 2009,09:40



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
However, the dynamical-empirical fundamentals of Weasel and why implicit latching is a credible account for the showcased runs c 1986 remain the same. (And that is why I rely on and prioritise dynamical-empirical methods.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwini....-334030 >

A pretty concise example of how ID can't find it's own elbow.
Posted by: BillB on Sep. 15 2009,09:45

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 15 2009,15:40)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
However, the dynamical-empirical semantic fundamentals of Weasel and why implicit latching non-latching is a credible account for the showcased runs c 1986 remain the same. (And that is why I rely on and prioritise dynamical-empirical semantic contortion methods.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Fixed that for you KF
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Sep. 15 2009,10:48

Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 15 2009,06:31)
< Some days I just love UD >
Mapou runs face first into reality:        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As an example, I have given up on trying to convince the physics community that their understanding of motion is fundamentally flawed.  The physicist’s definition of motion denies causality because it fails to give a cause for inertial motion. This means that Aristotle was right to insist that motion requires a cause. But you will not see a mainstream physicist admit to this even if they know it’s true. It would be a career killing move on his or her part. The fear factor is very much a part of the peer review process. Even an idle comment on the internet can ruin one’s career.

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

Another promising career blighted just because he tried to set physics straight on a few of the fundamentals.  First Galileo and now Mapou.  Curse those arrogant scientists!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What "causes" inertial motion is conservation of energy and momentum.
Posted by: dvunkannon on Sep. 15 2009,10:52

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 15 2009,10:05)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 15 2009,01:30)
Steve Fuller < takes aim at his foot... >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To Nakashima: You’re missing the point. Of course, the atheist scientists who make claims about what God could or could not do are not publishing in peer review journals — because the relevant peer review journals would be in theology, not biology. And these scientists couldn’t care less whether they pass peer review in theology because they don’t believe the subject really exists. This is why I say that it’s up to theologians to insist on peer review for such claims and not let them simply free float in the public domain without any professional scrutiny.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As my mum would say, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.  If he wants to insist on peer review of scientists talking theology, then he should insist on peer review of theologians talking about science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Plus its not like there's any objective measure for religion past interpretations of 'holy writings'. The various schisms and divides in must religions show how futile 'peer review' would be.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Peer review in theology reminds me of the classic Gary Larson Far Side cartoon "You must be this tall to attack the city"
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 15 2009,11:02

Gab of Talky has had is account hacked:

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/philoso....-334045 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
30

kairosfocus

09/15/2009

10:33 am
Mr Fuller is right.

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




Onlookers.

1 => WTF?

2 => One cannot help but ponder is such brevity from the master of circumlocution an omen?

....

14 => TARD!

PS - oil soaked ad hominem!

PPS quasi-pseudo implicit latching

PPPS Don't use my real name.
Posted by: olegt on Sep. 15 2009,15:20

Clive is a < one-trick pony >.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dar-win is a misnomer, Dar-lose is more accurate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Maya on Sep. 15 2009,16:15

Quote (olegt @ Sep. 15 2009,15:20)
Clive is a < one-trick pony >.    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dar-win is a misnomer, Dar-lose is more accurate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


That level of "humor" is evidence in support of the Dembski-is-Clivebaby hypothesis.
Posted by: dmso74 on Sep. 15 2009,17:16

Quote (Maya @ Sep. 15 2009,16:15)
 
Quote (olegt @ Sep. 15 2009,15:20)
Clive is a < one-trick pony >.      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dar-win is a misnomer, Dar-lose is more accurate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


That level of "humor" is evidence in support of the Dembski-is-Clivebaby hypothesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


apparently CLivebaby also doesn't know that clicking on the yellow text takes you to the source of a quotation, and hence the more substantive argument:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your quote says that there is a flaw, but doesn’t say what it is. ID opponents would do well to post materials that actually further the dialogue with actual substantive arguments rather than quotes which argue incompletely and by fiat.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< linky >
Posted by: Ptaylor on Sep. 15 2009,18:16

In the thread about the study showing reptiles' transition from straddled to upright gait PaV once again reminds us that it is not ID's place to match science's pathetic level of detail:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mark Frank:

You’re interested in what I think happened?

I think some act of intelligent design occurred. What do you think happened? You’re the evolutionist, after all. This finding conforms to ID, and refutes Darwinism. Sorry, Mark, but the “ball is in “your side of the court.” You tell me what happened, and how Darwin’s theory explains it.

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


< Link >.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 15 2009,18:26

Quote (Maya @ Sep. 15 2009,17:15)
Quote (olegt @ Sep. 15 2009,15:20)
Clive is a < one-trick pony >.    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dar-win is a misnomer, Dar-lose is more accurate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


That level of "humor" is evidence in support of the Dembski-is-Clivebaby hypothesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


critical mass?
Posted by: dmso74 on Sep. 15 2009,18:56

Quote (Ptaylor @ Sep. 15 2009,18:16)
In the thread about the study showing reptiles' transition from straddled to upright gait PaV once again reminds us that it is not ID's place to match science's pathetic level of detail:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mark Frank:

You’re interested in what I think happened?

I think some act of intelligent design occurred. What do you think happened? You’re the evolutionist, after all. This finding conforms to ID, and refutes Darwinism. Sorry, Mark, but the “ball is in “your side of the court.” You tell me what happened, and how Darwin’s theory explains it.

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


< Link >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


PaV's population genetics are a hoot, too:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you have a population size of 100,000, and the population is stable over time, then this would produce 2-3 x 10^12 individuals over a period of 20-30 million years. [I.e., 10^5 'net' offspring would be produced each year]

What would happen in all this time?
This number of offsprings would be enough to (1) produce a “good” mutations[we'll assume the probability to be one in 10^8], and (2) based on the probability of fixation in a population of 1/2N, with N here being 10^5, this would NOT be good enough to bring this ONE mutation to fixation within the population.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



what's missing here? what's that thing called? matural seblection? that wouldn't change the probability of fixation of a beneficial mutation, would it?
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 15 2009,19:27



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It is one of Behe’s most profound, yet simple, points that it is not time but reproductive events that matters in terms of Darwinism. i.e. the greater the number of reproductive events the greater the probability any given mutation will occur. Time itself, independent of reproductive events does not increase the probability of a mutation occurring. Therefore, we can observe in one year with P. falceparum what would be the equivalent of millions of years in other organisms.

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



Darwinists are so stupid they haven't even read the transcript of the Dover trial, where Behe first discovers this principle. :p
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 15 2009,19:54

Quote (dmso74 @ Sep. 15 2009,18:56)
 
Quote (Ptaylor @ Sep. 15 2009,18:16)
In the thread about the study showing reptiles' transition from straddled to upright gait PaV once again reminds us that it is not ID's place to match science's pathetic level of detail:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mark Frank:

You’re interested in what I think happened?

I think some act of intelligent design occurred. What do you think happened? You’re the evolutionist, after all. This finding conforms to ID, and refutes Darwinism. Sorry, Mark, but the “ball is in “your side of the court.” You tell me what happened, and how Darwin’s theory explains it.

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


< Link >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


PaV's population genetics are a hoot, too:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you have a population size of 100,000, and the population is stable over time, then this would produce 2-3 x 10^12 individuals over a period of 20-30 million years. [I.e., 10^5 'net' offspring would be produced each year]

What would happen in all this time?
This number of offsprings would be enough to (1) produce a “good” mutations[we'll assume the probability to be one in 10^8], and (2) based on the probability of fixation in a population of 1/2N, with N here being 10^5, this would NOT be good enough to bring this ONE mutation to fixation within the population.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



what's missing here? what's that thing called? matural seblection? that wouldn't change the probability of fixation of a beneficial mutation, would it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quite so.

1/2N is the rate of fixation of a single neutral mutation. In a diploid population of size N and a neutral mutation rate of mu, each generation will produce 2Nmu * 1/(2N) = mu new mutations. But for a selection coefficient s, as long as 4Ns is not <<1, then selection may be a predominant factor. Even for weak selection, the relative fixation rate of beneficial vs. neutral mutations > 2s/mu. Taking an example of s=1% and mu=10^-7, the rate of fixation under selection would be many orders of magnitude larger than drift alone.

Another bugaboo is the equivalence drawn between reproductive events and evolutionary potential. A million replications in one generation is not the same as a thousand replications for a thousand generations, even though they have the same number of reproductive events. It's like the difference between a million soldiers each taking one step, and a thousand soldiers each taking a thousand steps. While the former may more carefully reconnoiter the area immediate adjacent to the camp, the latter can explore much farther afield.

< Random Walkers >

< >
Posted by: Ptaylor on Sep. 15 2009,19:58

Speaking of Behe, he has a new < post >, in which he complains that his feedback letter on an article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences was rejected.
The kicker?:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Comments are closed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: sparc on Sep. 15 2009,22:09

Quote (olegt @ Sep. 15 2009,15:20)
Clive is a < one-trick pony >.    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dar-win is a misnomer, Dar-lose is more accurate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


I must admit that I've used "Case Lost Luskin" occasionally.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 15 2009,22:16

Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 15 2009,19:54)
A million replications in one generation is not the same as a thousand replications for a thousand generations, even though they have the same number of reproductive events. It's like the difference between a million soldiers each taking one step, and a thousand soldiers each taking a thousand steps. While the former may more carefully reconnoiter the area immediate adjacent to the camp, the latter can explore much farther afield.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A point that I see I see overlooked far, far too often -- by people that should know better.  

Last week,  I saw a < book review > in Science that was pointing to the value of medical students having a grasp of evo theory (see Egnor as an example).

It'd be nice if Gen. Algo. concepts were in the mix, somewhere. I'm trying to learn, myself, so I don't see why others should be exempted -- in fields that depend far more on such.
Posted by: CeilingCat on Sep. 16 2009,06:03



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Corny is a little unclear on the concept. >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Corny starts to talk about the molecular clock - the random changes in two genomes that help tell how long its been since two species diverged)

Mammalian-Like Clockwork in the Honey Bee
More than forty years ago evolutionists coined the term molecular clock to describe their concept that molecular changes tick away over long time periods and so can be used to measure how long it has been since two species have diverged from their common ancestor. Molecular clock predictions have consistently been falsified and in recent years yet another example of such failure has been discovered in the genes associated with the circadian clock.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Then he unknowningly starts to talk about a different kind of clock entirely)

The circadian clock of the honey bee is implicated in ecologically relevant complex behaviors. These include time sensing, time-compensated sun-compass navigation, and social behaviors such as coordination of activity, dance language communication, and division of labor.
....

Of course evolutionists do not know how such wonders arose by themselves. And recently the story became even more unbelievable when it was discovered that the bee's molecular clockwork contradicts the molecular clock expectations. That is, structure and expression patterns of genes associated with the bee's clock are inconsistent with the fly and closer to mammalian clock genes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



As Mark Twain once said, "Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Edited to add this:
< Cornelius tries some street theater: >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
khan calls corny: "2)gene expression patterns have nothing to do with molecular clocks, which are based on sequences. so why do you lump this in with 'molecular clock expectations?'"

Corny explains it was just a joke: "I agree that using the molecular clock, rather than a more general homology argument, was a stretch (the pun was irresistable)"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Move along, nothing to see here, just keep moving.
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 16 2009,06:18



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< David Coppedge >: Debating in an Echo Chamber

Casual readers may not know about the comeback arguments posted by Michael Behe on Evolution News and Uncommon Descent, by Casey Luskin on Evolution News and by Cornelius Hunter on Darwin’s God, because the evolutionists refused to hear them or allow them inside their sphere of influence.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So PNAS publishes a complex bit of original research, but won't allow a "comeback argument" that consists entirely of "IS NOT". David Coppedge adds—without a sense of irony—



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< David Coppedge >: A victory cheer in an echo chamber sounds hollow no matter how many decibels and reverberations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Clements, et al., < The reducible complexity of a mitochondrial molecular machine >, PNAS 2009.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 16 2009,06:31

None of the links in Behe's post work.

LOL @ Behe.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2009/09/reducible-complexity-in-pnas/%28http:/tinyurl.com/ln7a6k
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: dmso74 on Sep. 16 2009,07:15

oh, and Behe's an asshat too:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, at least it’s nice to know that my work gives some authors a hook on which to hang results that otherwise would be publishable only in journals with impact factors of -3 or less.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



what a pathetic dude.
Posted by: BillB on Sep. 16 2009,09:19

< niwrad: >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nakashima #40

I am claiming that any error-correction mechanism cannot evolve by mean of a process of random errors inside a complex system. A process of random variations is non teleological for definition (randomness has no purpose). A repair system is teleological for definition (has the purpose of fixing errors because “know” how things should be). Here “know” has to be intended in metaphorical sense, in that the real knowledge is in the designer, who necessarily knows the controlled system and its repair mechanisms. A teleological thing cannot arise from a non teleological thing. In other words, purpose or goal cannot come from nothingness.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Shorter niwrad: I define self repair as teleological, therefore self repair mechanisms have to be intelligently designed.
Posted by: KCdgw on Sep. 16 2009,09:42

< Gil Dodgen: >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm like Joseph.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



<snicker>

KC
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 16 2009,09:48

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 16 2009,06:31)
None of the links in Behe's post work.

LOL @ Behe.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2009/09/reducible-complexity-in-pnas/%28http:/tinyurl.com/ln7a6k
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


He should get Granny Spice to help.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 16 2009,10:03

I think Gil deserves every poke he gets with whatever stick is to hand


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Darwinism is parasitic on real science, and has attained unwarranted legitimacy without scientific rigor.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Frilly shirts or no.

< Twat >
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 16 2009,10:13

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 16 2009,11:03)
I think Gil deserves every poke he gets with whatever stick is to hand
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Darwinism is parasitic on real science, and has attained unwarranted legitimacy without scientific rigor.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Frilly shirts or no.

< Twat >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


amen.  let's dispense with the "Tard in the ghey shirt is a harmless slightly confused nice guy" meme.
Posted by: damitall on Sep. 16 2009,10:19

Quote (KCdgw @ Sep. 16 2009,09:42)
< Gil Dodgen: >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm like Joseph.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



<snicker>

KC
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why should ANYONE want to admit to that?

Sheesh!
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Sep. 16 2009,10:42

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 16 2009,10:48)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 16 2009,06:31)
None of the links in Behe's post work.

LOL @ Behe.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2009/09/reducible-complexity-in-pnas/%28http:/tinyurl.com/ln7a6k
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


He should get Granny Spice to help.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does she know how to post a link that doesn't direct to one of her many blags?
Posted by: dmso74 on Sep. 16 2009,10:57

speaking of Joseph, he is now hilariously backpedaling on his claims that T-urf13 was "intelligently designed" in plants:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   1. Turf-13 arose naturally in maize.

Maize arose artificially.

The protein in question wouldn’t have arisen if we didn’t artificially screw around with the plant.


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



< linky >
Posted by: KCdgw on Sep. 16 2009,11:06

Quote (dmso74 @ Sep. 16 2009,10:57)
speaking of Joseph, he is now hilariously backpedaling on his claims that T-urf13 was "intelligently designed" in plants:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   1. Turf-13 arose naturally in maize.

Maize arose artificially.

The protein in question wouldn’t have arisen if we didn’t artificially screw around with the plant.


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



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


Those ancient mesoamericans sure must have known their molecular biology.  

What a maroon.

KC
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 16 2009,11:17

LOL @ O'Leary
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dawkins refuses to debate educated people who doubt his theories, like Michael Behe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< LOL! >

EDIT: Or like Dembski at Dover refusing to "debate"......
Posted by: Quack on Sep. 16 2009,11:28

It wasn't too hard to fix Behe's link but to me it didn't look like much worth to bother with
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Recently a paper appeared online in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, entitled “The reducible complexity of a mitochondrial molecular machine” (http://tinyurl.com/mhoh7w). As you might expect, I was very interested in reading what the authors had to say. Unfortunately, as is all too common on this topic, the claims made in the paper far surpassed the data, and distinctions between such basic ideas as “reducible” versus “irreducible” and “Darwinian” versus “non-Darwinian” were pretty much ignored.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 16 2009,11:48

Quote (Quack @ Sep. 16 2009,11:28)
It wasn't too hard to fix Behe's link but to me it didn't look like much worth to bother with
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Recently a paper appeared online in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, entitled “The reducible complexity of a mitochondrial molecular machine” (http://tinyurl.com/mhoh7w). As you might expect, I was very interested in reading what the authors had to say. Unfortunately, as is all too common on this topic, the claims made in the paper far surpassed the data, and distinctions between such basic ideas as “reducible” versus “irreducible” and “Darwinian” versus “non-Darwinian” were pretty much ignored.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
the claims made in the paper far surpassed the data
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sounds like ID in general.
Posted by: dmso74 on Sep. 16 2009,12:10

let's see how long Khan lasts on COrny's blog..

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
it's also a dramatic misrepresentation of science to claim that this research had anything to do with molecular clocks. or that a different gene family is found in insects and mammals (or is drosophila not an insect?). or that gene expression has anything to do with molecular clocks (you still haven't corrected the mistake). or that finding unexpected result is a reason to discard an entire theory. being a protein guy, i'm sure you realize how badly theoretical Ramachandran plots sometimes predict emprically measured plots. does this mean that sterochemistry theory should be discarded?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< linky >
Posted by: socle on Sep. 16 2009,14:09

Wow.  For once Denyse makes a genuinely thoughtful post, in Clive's thread on Norman Borlaug:
     

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

Or maybe more than a billion, Clive?

Many people who live in technologically advanced societies do not realize how much violence against women in many poor societies is driven by food shortages. Including female infanticide, dowry burns, widow burnings, etc.

When anyone, male or female, can get a paying job and buy lots of food, prejudice against females tends to wane. It just doesn’t matter that much whether your family added a boy or a girl, because either sex can get a job in a technologically advanced society.

Maybe not the same job, but a job that buys food. So … ?

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


"So ... ?"? 

Then it all goes pear-shaped:


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

Of course, we then get issues around obesity, but that’s choice, not desperation.

Investor tip: Invest in health clubs in nations where health gurus are screaming about excess fatness.

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



WTF?
Posted by: J-Dog on Sep. 16 2009,14:21

Quote (socle @ Sep. 16 2009,14:09)
Wow.  For once Denyse makes a genuinely thoughtful post, in Clive's thread on Norman Borlaug:
     

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

Or maybe more than a billion, Clive?

Many people who live in technologically advanced societies do not realize how much violence against women in many poor societies is driven by food shortages. Including female infanticide, dowry burns, widow burnings, etc.

When anyone, male or female, can get a paying job and buy lots of food, prejudice against females tends to wane. It just doesn’t matter that much whether your family added a boy or a girl, because either sex can get a job in a technologically advanced society.

Maybe not the same job, but a job that buys food. So … ?

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


"So ... ?"? 

Then it all goes pear-shaped:
 

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

Of course, we then get issues around obesity, but that’s choice, not desperation.

Investor tip: Invest in health clubs in nations where health gurus are screaming about excess fatness.

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



WTF?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


but...

If only science could cure her fat-headedness...:)
Posted by: Chayanov on Sep. 16 2009,16:32

Quote (J-Dog @ Sep. 16 2009,14:21)
Quote (socle @ Sep. 16 2009,14:09)
Wow.  For once Denyse makes a genuinely thoughtful post, in Clive's thread on Norman Borlaug:
       

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

Or maybe more than a billion, Clive?

Many people who live in technologically advanced societies do not realize how much violence against women in many poor societies is driven by food shortages. Including female infanticide, dowry burns, widow burnings, etc.

When anyone, male or female, can get a paying job and buy lots of food, prejudice against females tends to wane. It just doesn’t matter that much whether your family added a boy or a girl, because either sex can get a job in a technologically advanced society.

Maybe not the same job, but a job that buys food. So … ?

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


"So ... ?"? 

Then it all goes pear-shaped:
 

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

Of course, we then get issues around obesity, but that’s choice, not desperation.

Investor tip: Invest in health clubs in nations where health gurus are screaming about excess fatness.

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



WTF?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


but...

If only science could cure her fat-headedness...:)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry, she's a terminal case.
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 16 2009,18:47

Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 07 2009,15:22)
Grab the popcorn
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 16 >

Will Vaus

09/07/2009

11:33 am

Dear Mr. Dembski,

I was attracted to your site because of your comment about C. S. Lewis in this post. Having studied and written about Lewis fairly extensively (See my “Mere Theology: A Guide to the Thought of C. S. Lewis”) it strikes me that your comments about Lewis’s view on evolution is mistaken. I can think of no place in which Lewis retracts his theistic evolutionary stance expressed in “The Problem of Pain”. Could you site a source for your contention that Lewis changed his view on evolution?

Thanks,
Will Vaus
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Will Vaus >: I note Mr. Hayden’s comments seeking to support the view that C. S. Lewis retracted his views on theistic evolution. I am aware of the Acworth-Lewis correspondence and have read it in full. What is interesting to note is the end result of that correspondence. Though Acworth sought to enlist Lewis in his cause against evolution Lewis refused to be drawn further into the debate. Furthermore, Lewis never revised “The Problem of Pain” as he revised “Miracles” after his debate with Elizabeth Anscombe.

The supposed comments by Lewis about a historical Adam in A. N. Wilson’s biography are interesting. However, we do not have those comments in Lewis’s own hand. So I still think it is ill advised to try to enlist Lewis against theistic evolution when in his written comments on the subject he is clearly for it.

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


Posted by: KCdgw on Sep. 16 2009,22:15

ID science at its best:


< tragic mishap >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dave,

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Until our ID friends consider and explore these known selective advantages for CMS, and then compare them to the one selective disadvantage in a natural setting, their objections really don’t hold much water.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Do you have a grant in mind? One in which I could be explicit about the purpose of the experiment? Because I have a perfect test in mind.

1. Take a CMS and non-CMS batch of seeds mixed 50/50, and plant them randomly in a field.

2. Leave them be for several seasons, taking samples of every generation. The plants would be allowed to breed naturally.

3. See which version wins out.

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




IDers are so cute when they play dress up:




KC


Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 16 2009,23:22

StephenB sounds like he needs to come over here and debate some
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Those who truly understand a subject can reduce it to its simplest essence and explain in such a way that a twelve year old could understand it. On the other hand, those who are bluffing hide behind the pretext that the whole thing is far too complex lay out in a few informal paragraphs. I too, have asked the biologists to present evidence for their claims, and they have no answers. This is an open forum. If they had the goods, they would produce them. For them, the name of the game is to scrutinize ID advocates while exempting themselves from being scrutinized. That is why they are always on offense and never on defense. Or haven’t you noticed?

—-”This is a blog. If you want to understand biology, the proper venue is a school.”

School is a good venue for Darwinists to oppress children who are powerless to raise intellectual objections. A blog is a good place for Darwinists to test their theories against those who can evaluate the merits of their arguments. Each time they are challenged, they respond much the same way you did, insisting that this isn’t the right time or the right place.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Link >.

This is the right time and place. How about it StephenB?

LOL@Bolded bit.
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 17 2009,06:41



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< David Coppedge >: ID Found in DNA

Suppose they spelled out “Brigham Young University” in full using this code and signed their names with it.  Now they’re not only approaching the Universal Probability Bound, they are tightening the independently verifiable specification...

Would an observer need to know the identity of the designers to detect the design?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Argh! They signed their names, even told us where to look for them!

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< David Coppedge >: Some interesting philosophical questions can ensue from this discussion.  Did the researchers intervene in nature?  Did they use miracles?  Would an observer conclude a miracle had occurred?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< >


-

Edited by the DeSnark™ desnarkification field.

Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 17 2009,08:19

< Gordon Mullings >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Trebino story shows the root-problem at work: basic loss of respect for truth and fairness to others, AKA incivility.

It is not just on Darwinism, but across a lot of issues, whether labelled science, education, environment, “reproductive rights” (NOT right to life], etc etc. It crops up in the complaints over Wikipedia’s hit pieces in the name of “knowledge,” and it is in the textbooks, mass market books, monographs, journals, conference proceedings, lecture courses, museums, newspaper and magazine columns, TV Channels and web sites etc that are too often putting up misleading shadow-shows that are too often standing in for the truth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Notice the scare quotes around  “reproductive rights”. I can imagine how Gordon feels about  “reproductive rights”.

And seems that Gordon is happy to complain about  textbooks, mass market books, monographs, journals, conference proceedings, lecture courses, museums, newspaper and magazine columns but when it comes to doing something about it he stalls. He could start by writing up a paper on FSCI and getting it reviewed. But no, Gordon "scare quotes" Mullings thinks that a blog is the best way to change the oh so unfair world.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Sep. 17 2009,10:15

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 16 2009,23:22)
StephenB sounds like he needs to come over here and debate some
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Those who truly understand a subject can reduce it to its simplest essence and explain in such a way that a twelve year old could understand it. On the other hand, those who are bluffing hide behind the pretext that the whole thing is far too complex lay out in a few informal paragraphs. I too, have asked the biologists to present evidence for their claims, and they have no answers. This is an open forum. If they had the goods, they would produce them. For them, the name of the game is to scrutinize ID advocates while exempting themselves from being scrutinized. That is why they are always on offense and never on defense. Or haven’t you noticed?

—-”This is a blog. If you want to understand biology, the proper venue is a school.”

School is a good venue for Darwinists to oppress children who are powerless to raise intellectual objections. A blog is a good place for Darwinists to test their theories against those who can evaluate the merits of their arguments. Each time they are challenged, they respond much the same way you did, insisting that this isn’t the right time or the right place.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Link >.

This is the right time and place. How about it StephenB?

LOL@Bolded bit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


New hit tune: "She Blinded Me with BlogScience!"

A good discussion of BlogScience of global warming at
< Denial Depot >
Posted by: dvunkannon on Sep. 17 2009,13:20

Nakashima explains animal husbandry to PaV
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The point is that Great Danes and Chihuahuas are a greater ratio of body size and pelvis to pelvis distance than the ratios of upright stance and straddle stance in ancient reptiles. Even if the male has an upright stance and has to adopt a stance as wide as a Republican senator in an airport bathroom in order to mate, I don’t see this as an insurmountable (no pun intended) obstacle.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Though in the case of the Republican Senator, the stance did not improve his chances of reproductive success.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 17 2009,14:00

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Sep. 17 2009,11:15)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 16 2009,23:22)
StephenB sounds like he needs to come over here and debate some
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Those who truly understand a subject can reduce it to its simplest essence and explain in such a way that a twelve year old could understand it. On the other hand, those who are bluffing hide behind the pretext that the whole thing is far too complex lay out in a few informal paragraphs. I too, have asked the biologists to present evidence for their claims, and they have no answers. This is an open forum. If they had the goods, they would produce them. For them, the name of the game is to scrutinize ID advocates while exempting themselves from being scrutinized. That is why they are always on offense and never on defense. Or haven’t you noticed?

—-”This is a blog. If you want to understand biology, the proper venue is a school.”

School is a good venue for Darwinists to oppress children who are powerless to raise intellectual objections. A blog is a good place for Darwinists to test their theories against those who can evaluate the merits of their arguments. Each time they are challenged, they respond much the same way you did, insisting that this isn’t the right time or the right place.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Link >.

This is the right time and place. How about it StephenB?

LOL@Bolded bit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


New hit tune: "She Blinded Me with BlogScience!"

A good discussion of BlogScience of global warming at
< Denial Depot >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


holey-moley that is a wonderful blog.  thanks for the link.  love it
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 17 2009,17:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< PaV >: Because I’m assuming that the change of one, single nucleotide isn’t enough, by itself, to make ’straddling’ reptiles ‘upright’. So it has to wait for other mutations to occur before it can bestow any benefit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There is wide variation in archosaurs of the structure of the pelvis, and the erect gait evolved more than once. This is clearly a case where gradual changes to the overall structure can lead to different strategies or tradeoffs (e.g. Rauisuchia, Crurotarsi).



It's doesn't seem to matter how fine the gradations, IDers always claim each new gap is an uncrossable chasm.
Posted by: franky172 on Sep. 17 2009,19:20

< Dembski > on why he publishes so many books:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
[My books] sell well and they get read, especially in the Christian community.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Which is what matters to someone trying to make a difference and a lasting impact in science.
Posted by: J-Dog on Sep. 17 2009,19:31

Quote (franky172 @ Sep. 17 2009,19:20)
< Dembski > on why he publishes so many books:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
[My books] sell well and they get read, especially in the Christian community.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Which is what matters to someone trying to make a difference and a lasting impact in science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If only I still had a puppet...

I could ask Dr. Dr. if there was a free sweater giveaway for those that buy both books at the Church Basement Sale.
Posted by: sparc on Sep. 17 2009,23:36

Dembski

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I receive a mention next to one of the slides — apparently the emergence of nylonase is supposed to provide empirical disconfirmation of my theoretical work on specified complexity (Miller has been taking this line for years). For my response about nylonase, which the critics never cite, go < here >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you go ther you will find something hilarious:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The problem with this argument is that Miller fails to show that the construction/evolution of nylonase from its precursor actually requires CSI at all. As I develop the concept, CSI requires a certain threshold of complexity to be achieved (500 bits, as I argue in my book No Free Lunch). It’s not at all clear that this threshold is achieved here (certainly Miller doesn’t compute the relevant numbers).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Did Dembski ever calculated such numbers himself?
Posted by: Bob O'H on Sep. 18 2009,00:53

Reasons you should add links...

Dembski says his new book "Evidence for God" is published by Baker.  I've no idea who they are, and google baker press.  < This is the first hit >

Hmmm....

I'm guessing WmAD meant the second hit, < Baker Academic >.  Publishers of theological works to the gentry.
Posted by: DiEb on Sep. 18 2009,01:35

Just a quick question: Waiting for an answer of kf, I've to read at the thread < Uncommon Descent Contest Question 10: Provide the Code for Dawkins’ WEASEL Program >:

Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Is this O'Leary's usual procedure?
Posted by: Bob O'H on Sep. 18 2009,01:47



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is this O'Leary's usual procedure?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No.  But you wouldn't want to moderate that morass of words, would you?  Perhaps either she or Clive have given up.  I'm not sure I blame them.

Of course, it might not be locked, just left on the latch.
Posted by: sledgehammer on Sep. 18 2009,02:11

Quote (sparc @ Sep. 17 2009,21:36)
Dembski          

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I receive a mention next to one of the slides — apparently the emergence of nylonase is supposed to provide empirical disconfirmation of my theoretical work on specified complexity (Miller has been taking this line for years). For my response about nylonase, which the critics never cite, go < here >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you go ther you will find something hilarious:
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The problem with this argument is that Miller fails to show that the construction/evolution of nylonase from its precursor actually requires CSI at all. As I develop the concept, CSI requires a certain threshold of complexity to be achieved (500 bits, as I argue in my book No Free Lunch). It’s not at all clear that this threshold is achieved here (certainly Miller doesn’t compute the relevant numbers).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Did Dembski ever calculated such numbers himself?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



By the Durston/Axe method of calculating functional sequence specificity in protein configuration space, namely:

(negative base 2 log of the ratio of the number of sequences with a specified functionality, to the total number of possible sequences)

- any protein or enzyme that is longer than 250 aa can have over 500 bits of "Functional Information" (by their definition);
-even if it is a near duplicate of another extant sequence, even if different by only a single amino acid-
as long as it enables a novel, specifiable function (like digesting Nylon).

 Since evolution can easily produce just such a sequence, It appears that Dembski and Co. have specified themselves into a proverbial corner.
Posted by: Benny H on Sep. 18 2009,03:21

Quote (DiEb @ Sep. 18 2009,01:35)
Just a quick question: Waiting for an answer of kf, I've to read at the thread < Uncommon Descent Contest Question 10: Provide the Code for Dawkins’ WEASEL Program >:

Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Is this O'Leary's usual procedure?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From casual observation it appears to me threads on UD automatically have comments and pings turned off after three weeks.
Posted by: Benny H on Sep. 18 2009,03:25

Quote (franky172 @ Sep. 17 2009,19:20)
< Dembski > on why he publishes so many books:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
[My books] sell well and they get read, especially in the Christian community.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Which is what matters to someone trying to make a difference and a lasting impact in science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And legit scientists especially value having their work sold in Christian book stores, since Christians invented Science after all!
Posted by: Maya on Sep. 18 2009,07:08

Quote (sparc @ Sep. 17 2009,23:36)
Dembski  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I receive a mention next to one of the slides — apparently the emergence of nylonase is supposed to provide empirical disconfirmation of my theoretical work on specified complexity (Miller has been taking this line for years). For my response about nylonase, which the critics never cite, go < here >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you go ther you will find something hilarious:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The problem with this argument is that Miller fails to show that the construction/evolution of nylonase from its precursor actually requires CSI at all. As I develop the concept, CSI requires a certain threshold of complexity to be achieved (500 bits, as I argue in my book No Free Lunch). It’s not at all clear that this threshold is achieved here (certainly Miller doesn’t compute the relevant numbers).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Did Dembski ever calculated such numbers himself?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is that a rhetorical question?  ;-)

Has anysock asked him why he doesn't do the calculation himself in his response?  That would be a lot more credible as a refutation than his usual logorrhea.

Or does the brave DrDr bar the hoi polloi from commenting on his threads?
Posted by: Maya on Sep. 18 2009,22:42

No more comments all day?  Did I kill the board?

(Where's that emoticon for feeling sorry, yet powerful?)
Posted by: Dr.GH on Sep. 18 2009,22:48

Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 17 2009,22:53)
Reasons you should add links...

Dembski says his new book "Evidence for God" is published by Baker.  I've no idea who they are, and google baker press.

I'm guessing WmAD meant the second hit, < Baker Academic >.  Publishers of theological works to the gentry.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Around 1984 I wrote a few pages for the Baker Dictionary of Psychology. I wrote something on superstition, and also on exorcism IIRC. I remember I did get paid. I had a similar piece in another book.

D'oh, here are the references

Hurd, G. S., E. M. Pattison
1984  "Manifestations of Possession in Novel Ecological Contexts,"  in Ecological Models in Clinical and Community Mental Health, W. A. O'Connor and B. Lubin (ed.s).  John Wiley & Sons: New York.

G. S. Hurd
1985    "Superstition."  In Baker's Encyclopedia of Psychology. David Brenner (ed.) Baker Book House, Grand Rapids.
Posted by: MichaelJ on Sep. 19 2009,02:09

Quote (sledgehammer @ Sep. 18 2009,17:11)
Quote (sparc @ Sep. 17 2009,21:36)
Dembski          

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I receive a mention next to one of the slides — apparently the emergence of nylonase is supposed to provide empirical disconfirmation of my theoretical work on specified complexity (Miller has been taking this line for years). For my response about nylonase, which the critics never cite, go < here >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you go ther you will find something hilarious:
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The problem with this argument is that Miller fails to show that the construction/evolution of nylonase from its precursor actually requires CSI at all. As I develop the concept, CSI requires a certain threshold of complexity to be achieved (500 bits, as I argue in my book No Free Lunch). It’s not at all clear that this threshold is achieved here (certainly Miller doesn’t compute the relevant numbers).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Did Dembski ever calculated such numbers himself?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



By the Durston/Axe method of calculating functional sequence specificity in protein configuration space, namely:

(negative base 2 log of the ratio of the number of sequences with a specified functionality, to the total number of possible sequences)

- any protein or enzyme that is longer than 250 aa can have over 500 bits of "Functional Information" (by their definition);
-even if it is a near duplicate of another extant sequence, even if different by only a single amino acid-
as long as it enables a novel, specifiable function (like digesting Nylon).

 Since evolution can easily produce just such a sequence, It appears that Dembski and Co. have specified themselves into a proverbial corner.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Isn't his default position that everything is 500 bits until somebody proves that it isn't
Posted by: Bob O'H on Sep. 19 2009,03:13

Now < here's a name we haven't seen around UD for a bit >.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 19 2009,08:42

The big cheese hisself, DrDr (we don't need no stinking details) Dembski, < chimes in with this projection: >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joseph is right. Have you even read DARWIN’S BLACK BOX? Behe is not claiming to offer a mathematical proof. Nor is (sic) claiming that Darwinists can’t conceive of how IC systems might have formed. He offers IC as an obstacle to Darwinian processes, providing theoretical as well as empirical grounds for why they do indeed pose an obstacle. Yes, Darwinian (sic) imagine how IC systems might form and offer fabulous tales to that end. But that’s a far cry from detailed testable Darwinian pathways to such systems.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Judging from the typos, he must have drained that fabled bottle of single-malt.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Sep. 19 2009,08:57

What is the good Doctor Doctor's point?  Behe doesn't show that IC structures can't evolve but... ?  But that they provide an obstacle?

And we (evil) Darwinists show how IC structures might have evolve, but this doesn't mean we've shown a pathway for how they could have evolved?

Oh well. I think I'll get back to < my Barber >.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 19 2009,08:58



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, Darwinian (sic) imagine how IC systems might form and offer fabulous tales to that end.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The funny thing is that even if that was all Darwinian had to offer that'd still be more then Intelligent Design can offer.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 19 2009,10:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Behe is not claiming to offer a mathematical proof. Nor is claiming that Darwinists can’t conceive of how IC systems might have formed. He offers IC as an obstacle to Darwinian processes, providing theoretical as well as empirical grounds for why they do indeed pose an obstacle.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


God of the gaps is an obstacle?
Posted by: carlsonjok on Sep. 19 2009,10:22

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 19 2009,10:05)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Behe is not claiming to offer a mathematical proof. Nor is claiming that Darwinists can’t conceive of how IC systems might have formed. He offers IC as an obstacle to Darwinian processes, providing theoretical as well as empirical grounds for why they do indeed pose an obstacle.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


God of the gaps is an obstacle?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: k.e.. on Sep. 19 2009,10:24

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 19 2009,16:42)
The big cheese hisself, DrDr (we don't need no stinking details) Dembski, < chimes in with this projection: >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Joseph is right. Have you even read DARWIN’S BLACK BOX? Behe is not claiming to offer a mathematical proof. Nor is (sic) claiming that Darwinists can’t conceive of how IC systems might have formed. He offers IC as an obstacle to Darwinian processes, providing theoretical as well as empirical grounds for why they do indeed pose an obstacle. Yes, Darwinian (sic) imagine how IC systems might form and offer fabulous tales to that end. But that’s a far cry from detailed testable Darwinian pathways to such systems.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Judging from the typos, he must have drained that fabled bottle of single-malt.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


THAT WAS MY FAULT SORRY, HOMO.

BILL CALLED ME OVER FROM THE MOBILE COMMAND CENTER AND SAID HE WAS GOING TO DRINK THAT BOTTLE OF SINGLE MALT.

IMAGINE MY EXCITEMENT?
WELL BY THE TIME I GOT THERE HE HAD FINISHED IT ALL BY HIMSELF.
I ASKED HIM IF THERE WAS ANY MORE AND HE JUST SAID NO.

SO I WENT HOME. d.t.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 19 2009,11:10

DrDr publishes second peer reviewed research paper.


Posted by: socle on Sep. 19 2009,11:40

Here we go again:  < The Original Weasel(s) >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Unless Richard Dawkins and his associates can show conclusively that these are not the originals (either by providing originals in their possession that differ, or by demonstrating that these programs in some way fail to perform as required), we shall regard the contest as closed, offer Oxfordensis his/her prize, and henceforward treat the programs below as the originals.

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



It's fascinating to me how these people simply cannot accept the fact that the original program no longer exists, and that there will always be some uncertainty about its features.  They would actually rather declare programs they received from some random anonymous person on the internet to be the "originals".  LOL.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 19 2009,11:55

Missing from Dembski's article is any claim that these are the originas as written by Dawkins.

I suppose that in a minor detail in Dembskiverse.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 19 2009,11:55



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's fascinating to me how these people simply cannot accept the fact that the original program no longer exists,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, they know that, but since they can't address the patterns of evidence that support evolution theory, attacking minor irrelevancies is all they've got.

Henry
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 19 2009,11:59

I never did Pascal but


---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------
Child:=Parent;
Child[Random(Length(Child))+1]:=RandChar;
---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------


They don't seem to "latch".


---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------
OFFSPRING := CURRENT;
OFFSPRING[ 1 + RANDOM(LENGTH(OFFSPRING)) ] := RANDOMLETTER;
---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------


Therefore is Dembski saying Gordon Mullings/Kairosfocus = Wrong?

This could be amusing.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 19 2009,12:04

I've never coded in Pascal, but it seems to follow recognisable syntax rules.

And I see nothing that would implement latching.

So assuming Dembski preemptively declares these to be the winner of someone else's contest, does he admit he's been a dumbass for the last decade?

Edit: The closer I look, the less sense it makes. Where's the mutation rate? I don't see any evidence that each letter of each child has some probability of changing.

Is this a hoax? I admit not knowing Pascal.
Posted by: steve_h on Sep. 19 2009,12:30

Quote (socle @ Sep. 19 2009,17:40)
Here we go again:  < The Original Weasel(s) >

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Unless Richard Dawkins and his associates can show conclusively that these are not the originals (either by providing originals in their possession that differ, or by demonstrating that these programs in some way fail to perform as required), we shall regard the contest as closed, offer Oxfordensis his/her prize, and henceforward treat the programs below as the originals.

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



It's fascinating to me how these people simply cannot accept the fact that the original program no longer exists, and that there will always be some uncertainty about its features.  They would actually rather declare programs they received from some random anonymous person on the internet to be the "originals".  LOL.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I guess these are quasi-originals rather than actual originals.

Both change exactly one letter of each child (possibly back to the original value) with no regard to whether it's already correct or not.

AFAICT they are trying to use the same algorithm, but #2 is displaying every child.

And I think no.1 gets stuck in an infinite loop inside the SameLetters function because it doesn't advance the loop count when the tested letter doesn't match the target. I expect Dawkins 1986 version is still running somewhere.

Neither keeps all of the correct letters while choosing new values for all of the incorrect ones as D&M did.

Maybe this is a close as Dembski is capable of getting to admitting that they got the algorithm wrong.

ETA: Oops misread the code. 'If' ... 'then' is followed by one statement (or several between "begin" and "end")
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 19 2009,12:34

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/the-original-weasels/ >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...Unless Richard Dawkins and his associates can show conclusively that these are not the originals (either by providing originals in their possession that differ, or by demonstrating that these programs in some way fail to perform as required), we shall regard the contest as closed...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Unless Dembski can show here conclusively he wasn't bumming Barry Arrington last month then he is a homosexual.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 19 2009,12:35

Quote (steve_h @ Sep. 19 2009,12:30)
Maybe this is a close as Dembski is capable of getting to admitting that they got the algorithm wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dembski:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
These are by far the best candidates we have received to date.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


On what criteria is he basing that I wonder? Best in what way? You could have a million line version and as long as the output was correct it would be just as "good" as any other.

Would the candidates not be measured against how he thinks Weasel operates? So has he now had an epiphany? Did he go read TBW for the first time or what?

Will he now update his recent paper I wonder?

EDIT: Not that either example represents Weasel, no mutation rate etc.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 19 2009,12:38



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Both change exactly one letter of each child
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's what I concluded after trying to convert the code to BASIC. It makes no sense. It certainly isn't Dawkins' Weasel.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 19 2009,12:39



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
On what criteria is he basing that I wonder? Best in what way? You could have a million line version and as long as the output was correct it would be just as "good" as any other.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I rather doubt the output would match that of Dawkins' Weasel.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 19 2009,12:48

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 19 2009,12:39)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
On what criteria is he basing that I wonder? Best in what way? You could have a million line version and as long as the output was correct it would be just as "good" as any other.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I rather doubt the output would match that of Dawkins' Weasel.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, a million lines of "Junk" (comments) perhaps...
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 19 2009,12:55

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 19 2009,12:38)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Both change exactly one letter of each child
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's what I concluded after trying to convert the code to BASIC. It makes no sense. It certainly isn't Dawkins' Weasel.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, see what you mean. No concept of a mutation rate, just one letter per string, every time.

oh dear.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 19 2009,13:21



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ETA: Oops misread the code. 'If' ... 'then' is followed by one statement (or several between "begin" and "end")
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Is this the code in question?

 

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

Var
I:Integer;
L:Integer;
Begin
L:=0;
I:=0;
While I< =Length(New) do
 Begin
   If New[I]=Current[I] Then
   L:=L+1;
   I:=I+1;
 End;
 SameLetters:=L;
End;
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Edit: still working on this...
Posted by: steve_h on Sep. 19 2009,13:53

Yes, the code's not really in question, but my pascal parsing skills are.

I wouldn't have made this mistake if  Dawkins  had formatted his original code :) as follows:



---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------

While I <= Length(New) do
Begin
    If New[I]=Current[I] Then
        L:=L+1;
    I:=I+1;
End;

---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------


Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 19 2009,14:33

Here's my BASIC interpretation:


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

Sub Weasel()
   Dim AlphabetText As String
   Dim Target As String, Parent As String, BestChild As String, Child As String
   Dim I As Integer, Best As Integer, Generation As Integer, Copies As Integer
   
   AlphabetText = "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ "
   Target = "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL"
   Copies = 100
   
   Parent = ""
   Best = 0
   For I = 1 To Len(Target)
       Parent = Parent + RandChar(AlphabetText)
   Next
   Debug.Print Parent
   Generation = 1
   While Best < Len(Target)
       For I = 1 To Copies
           Child = Parent
           Mid(Child, RandNum(Len(Child)), 1) = RandChar(AlphabetText)
           If SameLetters(Child, Target) > Best Then
               BestChild = Child
               Best = SameLetters(Child, Target)
           End If
       Next
       Parent = BestChild
       If Generation Mod 10 = 0 Then Debug.Print CStr(Generation) + ":" + Parent
       Generation = Generation + 1
   Wend
   Debug.Print CStr(Generation) + ":" + Parent
End Sub

Function RandChar(AlphabetText As String) As String
   Dim c As Integer
   Randomize
   c = Int((27 * Rnd) + 1)
   RandChar = Mid(AlphabetText, c, 1)
End Function

Function RandNum(I As Integer) As Integer
   Randomize
   RandNum = Int((I * Rnd) + 1)
End Function

Function SameLetters(Child As String, Target As String) As Integer
   Dim L As Integer, I As Integer
   L = 0
   For I = 1 To Len(Child)
       If Mid(Child, I, 1) = Mid(Target, I, 1) Then
           L = L + 1
       End If
   Next
   SameLetters = L
End Function
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It works, but it can't be Dawkins' code, because only one character per child can mutate. The effective mutation rate is approximately 4 percent, which gives decent results, but conceptually it isn't Dawkins.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 19 2009,14:47

I think I've discovered the weasel in the woodpile.

If only one letter per child can mutate, you have latching by default. It a correct letter changes, is impossible for a compensating mutation to produce the same fitness score.

Dembski is attempting to redeem himself by getting this obscure and badly formatted imposter accepted as Dawkins' code.

It does indeed satisfy KF's claim of implicit latching.

A Dawkins' Weasel, however, would give each and every letter in each and every child to mutate.
Posted by: steve_h on Sep. 19 2009,15:08

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 19 2009,20:47)
It does indeed satisfy KF's claim of implicit latching.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Both versions of the program do. There's supposed to be a change in explicit latching to quasi latching between the two versions.  

I do hope Gordon of Talky tries to educate DrDr about this.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 19 2009,15:13

Interestingly, if you change the algorithm to allow each letter to mutate independently"



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

           Child = ""
           For J = 1 To Len(Parent)
               K = Int((100 * Rnd) + 1)
               If K < 5 Then
                   Child = Child + RandChar(AlphabetText)
               Else
                   Child = Child + Mid(Parent, J, 1)
               End If
           Next

           ' instead of this:
           'Mid(Child, RandNum(Len(Child)), 1) = RandChar(AlphabetText)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not only does it not latch, but it reaches the target in about half the number of generations.
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Sep. 19 2009,15:13

Quote (socle @ Sep. 19 2009,12:40)
Here we go again:  < The Original Weasel(s) >

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Unless Richard Dawkins and his associates can show conclusively that these are not the originals (either by providing originals in their possession that differ, or by demonstrating that these programs in some way fail to perform as required), we shall regard the contest as closed, offer Oxfordensis his/her prize, and henceforward treat the programs below as the originals.

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



It's fascinating to me how these people simply cannot accept the fact that the original program no longer exists, and that there will always be some uncertainty about its features.  They would actually rather declare programs they received from some random anonymous person on the internet to be the "originals".  LOL.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They're looking at WEASEL in the only terms they know; to them it's our scripture and if it's lost, so are whatever fundamental truths it may have contained.  Since they stake their entire worldview on an assumption of scriptural infallibility, they can only apprehend that establishing fallibility of WEASEL negates our god.  They can't grok the fact that only the principle behind WEASEL matters, and that any of a million possible implementations of the concept would demonstrate the same thing about selection.  

To them everything either proves or disproves Jebus, and if it disproves Jebus it must be attacked and destroyed, facts and reason be damned.  They don't understand why WEASEL is important, they don't understand that it's really not very important at all (it's really just a thought problem to help people understand one facet of evolution and you don't need to run or even write the program to understand what the algorithm does or does not do), and they don't understand that the idea either works or it doesn't, regardless of what idiot writes the code.  They think that if we can't produce the sacred scrolls, they win, because blind faith to a book is the only thing they understand and the only thing they care about.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 19 2009,15:20



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Since they stake their entire worldview on an assumption of scriptural infallibility, they can only apprehend that establishing fallibility of WEASEL negates our god.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That is probably how some of them look at it, but I suspect Dembski is after a version of Weasel that rescues his dimwitted interpretation of it.

How convenient to come across someone with a Pascal version that superficially behaves like Weasel, but is actually a partitioned search.

My Explanatory Filter is twitching.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 19 2009,15:47

Interesting to note that my copy of TBW seems to have misprints in the "critical" Weasel chapter.

I assume they're misprints, because the number of characters in the children varies from 27 to 29.

The assumption of invisible spaces doesn't look like the correct explanation.

typos appear to explain this:

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/evoluti....-334547 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
However, somethings not quite right since the first one is shorter then it should be…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: DiEb on Sep. 19 2009,15:56

My first implementation of the weasel behaved the same way: exactly one letter is changed.

Why? It's easier to handle mathematically: the neighbourhood of a string is then much smaller, and, when seen as a Markov chain, you have a sparser transition matrix.

That's why Dembski and Marks use a mutation probability of µ=10^{-5}  - and a generation size of two: then, they can come up with a neat differential equation.

But in reality, Dawkins weasel is well understood and nothing special: it's a very simple < evolution strategy > and studied as such since the 1970th.
Posted by: DiEb on Sep. 19 2009,15:58

ouch, 1970s....
And even with this mutation, the algorithm doesn't latch...
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 19 2009,16:21

Quote (DiEb @ Sep. 19 2009,15:58)
ouch, 1970s....
And even with this mutation, the algorithm doesn't latch...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If only one character per child can mutate, characters cannot revert unless the entire population loses fitness.

In order for correct characters to change, there must be at least one compensation mutation.

In a population of 100, with only 27 values for characters, it would be rare for the entire population to lose fitness.

Of course it will happen occasionally, at a predictable rate.
Posted by: DiEb on Sep. 19 2009,16:27

It's most probable if almost every letter is correct. So, imagine 27 correct letters and a population of 100.
The probability that the next generation is worse is
(27/28)^100 = 2.63%
That's not so bad!
Posted by: DiEb on Sep. 19 2009,16:50

It gets worse, of course, if a chosen letter is only changed with probability 26/27 ( as in the programs ). Then, we have a probability of a change to the worse at the last stage of (26/27 * 27/28)^100 = 0.06%...

But a more complicate calculation yields that the probability of a change to the worse during the run of such an algorithm with a generation size of 100 is 0.48%

That's quite observable :-)
Posted by: DiEb on Sep. 19 2009,17:51



And < here > is a little bit more about the latching of the new weasel(s)...
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 19 2009,18:59



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, it would be a pity if you didn’t need to declare a winner from nearly 400 comments, and still judge other contests and put up more contests, and solicit new prizes from publishers hit by the recession.


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


< http://www.uncommondescent.com/evoluti....-334578 >

Considering that no one at UD has been able to understand how Weasel works (with the possible exception of Atom), how is she going to select a winner?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 19 2009,19:50

Frilly Gilly's incredulity is silly:

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/simply-not-credible/ >





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
19 September 2009
Simply Not Credible
GilDodgen
This thread inspired the following observations.

The bottom line is that none of Dawkins’ computer programs have any relevance to biological evolution, because of this in WEASEL1:
Target:Text=’METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL’;
and this in WEASEL2:
WRITELN(’Type target phrase in capital letters’);
READLN(TARGET);

which allows the user to enter the “target” phrase. No search is required, because the solution has been provided in advance. These programs are just hideously inefficient means of printing out what could have been printed out when the program launched. The information for the solution was explicitly supplied by the programmer. Once this is recognized, further conversation about the relevance of the programs to biological evolution is no more illuminating than conjecture about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

The bottom line is that the proposed Darwinian mechanism of random errors filtered by natural selection makes no sense on its face, as an explanation for the kinds of highly sophisticated information-processing engineering we see in living systems. It is a claim that an inherently entropic process can produce unlimited neg-entropic results, from the lowest to the highest levels (the cell to the piano concerti of Rachmaninoff). The magic wand of “deep time” (which is not very deep in terms of probabilistic resources) cannot be waved to make this transparent lunacy believable.

The Darwinian mechanism as an explanation for all of life is simply not credible. Most people have enough sense to recognize this, which is why the consensus “scientists” — with all their prestige, academic credentials, and incestuous self-congratulation — are having such a hard time convincing people that they have it all figured out, when they obviously don’t.

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


Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 19 2009,21:03

it is hard to convince dishonest lackwits of anything that is for sure
Posted by: creeky belly on Sep. 20 2009,01:20

I went for the numerical alphabet for convenience and wrote it up in python. It has a variable alphabet length, phrase length, number of generations, population size, and flat mutation rate per letter (plus a random 'phrase' every time). Anyone enjoy python? (insert Randall Munroe joke here)

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
import pylab as p
import numpy as N
import copy as c

# main function - runs WEASEL simulation
def main(let=27,lin=20,pop=50,mut=0.05,gen=100):

   # 'let' = length of alphabet
   # 'lin' = 'phrase' length
   # 'pop' = number of offspring
   # 'mut' = probability of mutation of any letter in offspring
   # 'gen' = number of generations to simulate
   
   #create an array of 'lin' elements from a 'let' length alphabet
   target = N.array([int(let*p.rand()) for x in N.arange(0,lin,1)])
   
   #create initial population of completely random lines (offspring)
   offsp = []
   for i in N.arange(0,pop,1):
       offsp.append(N.array([int(let*p.rand()) for x in N.arange(0,lin,1)]))
       
   #store best fit
   curbest=-1
       
   ##loop over generations
   for i in N.arange(0,gen,1):

       #initialize best fit offspring parameters
       bestfit=0
       bestoff=offsp[int(p.rand()*(pop-1))]
       newoff=[]

       ##loop over offspring
       for off in offsp:
   
           #initialize fitness
           currentfit = 0

           ##loop over 'letters' in 'phrase'
           for pos in N.arange(0,lin,1):
               
               #letters match => (fitness+1)
               if target[pos]==off[pos]:
                   currentfit=currentfit+1
           ##end letter loop
           
           #found a more fit individual, use it to populate next generation
           if currentfit>bestfit:
               bestoff=off
               bestfit=currentfit

       ##end offspring loop

       #only output if there's a change in fitness between generations
       if curbest != bestfit:
           print 'Best fit candidate %s out of %s in generation %s'% (bestfit,lin,i)
           curbest = bestfit

       ##create next generation from the most fit candidate from previous generation
       for k in N.arange(0,pop,1):
           
           #make a copy of 'fittest' offspring
           coff = c.copy(bestoff)
           
           #create an array of uniform random numbers [0,1) of the 'phrase' length
           probs = p.rand(lin)

           ##loop over random number array
           for z in N.arange(0,lin,1):

               #mutate corresponding letter if random number is less than the mutation rate
               if probs[z]<mut:
                   coff[z]=int(let*p.rand())
           
           ##end random array loop
           
           #add offspring to next generation
           newoff.append(coff)

       #set new generation
       offsp=newoff

       ##end 'reproduction' loop

   ##end generation loop
   
   print 'Target',target
   print 'Best  ',bestoff
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Here's some sample output:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In [106]: we.main(lin=25,let=27,pop=100,mut=0.05,gen=50)
Best fit candidate 4 out of 25 in generation 0
Best fit candidate 5 out of 25 in generation 1
Best fit candidate 6 out of 25 in generation 2
Best fit candidate 8 out of 25 in generation 3
Best fit candidate 9 out of 25 in generation 4
Best fit candidate 10 out of 25 in generation 5
Best fit candidate 11 out of 25 in generation 6
Best fit candidate 12 out of 25 in generation 7
Best fit candidate 13 out of 25 in generation 8
Best fit candidate 14 out of 25 in generation 9
Best fit candidate 15 out of 25 in generation 10
Best fit candidate 16 out of 25 in generation 13
Best fit candidate 17 out of 25 in generation 14
Best fit candidate 18 out of 25 in generation 16
Best fit candidate 19 out of 25 in generation 22
Best fit candidate 20 out of 25 in generation 27
Best fit candidate 21 out of 25 in generation 28
Best fit candidate 22 out of 25 in generation 34
Best fit candidate 23 out of 25 in generation 35
Target [ 2  1 25 14  6 10  3 10 21 16 17 10  5 19  5 10 11  1 18 23 24  3 21  8  8]
Best   [ 2  1 25 14  6 10  3 10 21 16 12 15  5 19  5 10 11  1 18 23 24  3 21  8  8]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: DiEb on Sep. 20 2009,03:52

What amuses me about the weasel: all programs I've seen until now define the fitness of a string as the number of correct letters. That's the obvious choice - though many others are possible (e.g., length of longest correct substring): Dawkins only stated that the string is chosen which most resembles the target.

The only exception is the algorithm of Dembski and Marks...
Posted by: Quack on Sep. 20 2009,04:59

I am  not amused but what strikes me is the inability of ID'ers to recognize that Weasel is just about fitness. The target is just a vehicle for fitness; there's got to be something against which to measure fitness.

Fitness is a requirement for survival just as in real life.
Posted by: DiEb on Sep. 20 2009,05:04

Yep, it's striking how the whole idea of fitness or a fitness function is missing from Dembski's and Marks's paper: for them, the fitness function seems to be given implicitly  by the search space, which is amazingly odd as they are talking so much about no free lunch theorems.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 20 2009,08:25

The other interesting thing about the ID/Creationists is how they transmogrify the concept of fitness into the concept of search.

They are all obsessed with retrospective astonishment at complex functions, as if these functions were goals. Behe is particularly stuck on the idea that any test of evolution must produce a flagellum or the test disproves evolution.

It is, of course, interesting when evolution produces a specific adaptation, but the history of life includes a lot of extinction, examples where adaptations were not produced. I think you could argue that adaptation is the unusual case.

Behe and Dembski sit around looking at lottery winners and speculating about what great and powerful agent arrange for them to be the winners.
Posted by: Maya on Sep. 20 2009,08:43

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 19 2009,19:50)
Frilly Gilly's incredulity is silly:

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/simply-not-credible/ >



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
19 September 2009
Simply Not Credible
GilDodgen
This thread inspired the following observations.

The bottom line is that none of Dawkins’ computer programs have any relevance to biological evolution, because of this in WEASEL1:
Target:Text=’METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL’;
and this in WEASEL2:
WRITELN(’Type target phrase in capital letters’);
READLN(TARGET);

which allows the user to enter the “target” phrase. No search is required, because the solution has been provided in advance. These programs are just hideously inefficient means of printing out what could have been printed out when the program launched. The information for the solution was explicitly supplied by the programmer. Once this is recognized, further conversation about the relevance of the programs to biological evolution is no more illuminating than conjecture about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

The bottom line is that the proposed Darwinian mechanism of random errors filtered by natural selection makes no sense on its face, as an explanation for the kinds of highly sophisticated information-processing engineering we see in living systems. It is a claim that an inherently entropic process can produce unlimited neg-entropic results, from the lowest to the highest levels (the cell to the piano concerti of Rachmaninoff). The magic wand of “deep time” (which is not very deep in terms of probabilistic resources) cannot be waved to make this transparent lunacy believable.

The Darwinian mechanism as an explanation for all of life is simply not credible. Most people have enough sense to recognize this, which is why the consensus “scientists” — with all their prestige, academic credentials, and incestuous self-congratulation — are having such a hard time convincing people that they have it all figured out, when they obviously don’t.

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


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


Oh. My. Goddess.

I went on the tard wagon this week, but I fell off because I had to see for myself that they were still ranting about that silly little program.

I'm not going to start a sock during school, but would someone please point out the giant freaking elephant in the middle of the room to these morons:  It doesn't matter in the slightest how Dawkins implemented his algorithm.  The point is that the algorithm demonstrates cumulative selection.

Now, sure, it's worth demonstrating yet again that Dembski is completely lacking in integrity and that the IDiots of UD lack the ability to comprehend, well, almost any science topic, but that's just:



Regardless of all that, anyone can implement Dawkins algorithm and show how random mutation and variable reproductive success result in populations evolving to be more fit in their environment.  In two pages, twenty-some years ago, Dawkins provided more supporting evidence for one small facet of evolutionary theory than Dembski has ever provided for his entire preferred brand of creationism.

Dembski must dream of one day being relevant enough to be considered Dawkins' bitch.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 20 2009,08:59



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In two pages, twenty-some years ago, Dawkins provided more supporting evidence for one small facet of evolutionary theory than Dembski has ever provided for his entire preferred brand of creationism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




That's the problem for the IDiots. Anyone can make a complicated demonstration, full of wheels and gizmos to the point where it takes hours of concentration to understand.

Simple demonstrations that any 12 year old can follow are works of genius. And very dangerous to the opposition.

I wonder what kind of simple demonstration you could make to illustrate ID.
Posted by: Quack on Sep. 20 2009,09:18

If my understanding is right, another facet of the concept of fitness in evolution is that it works even with a moving target. Evolution has no target; it is always about immediate fitness. As long as the fitness landscape don't change too fast. Otherwise, extinction.

In a nutshell what Darwin said 150 years ago - and still going strong.

ETA:

Shouldn't it be possible to write a version of Weasel with moving target - and wouldn't that prove unworkable with latching?
Posted by: k.e.. on Sep. 20 2009,10:44



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Shouldn't it be possible to write a version of Weasel with moving target - and wouldn't that prove unworkable with latching?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yes of course it should be possible

Grand knob gobbler Gordon Mullings hisself provides a moving target with unworkable latching every time  he posts anything to with Weasel.

He has that many permutations of moving targets.....

....oh wait...
Posted by: carlsonjok on Sep. 20 2009,10:51

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 20 2009,08:59)
I wonder what kind of simple demonstration you could make to illustrate ID.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 20 2009,10:57

Quote (Quack @ Sep. 20 2009,09:18)
Shouldn't it be possible to write a version of Weasel with moving target - and wouldn't that prove unworkable with latching?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< >

< Wandering Weasel (XLS file) >
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 20 2009,11:21

I'm confused. What is it that wanders?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 20 2009,11:24

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 20 2009,12:21)
I'm confused. What is it that wanders?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


is the flag moving, or the wind?
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 20 2009,11:34

Is it gravity, or water following the curvature of the toilet bowl?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 20 2009,11:35

PaV judges evolution via (It seems to me) popular science articles for the layperson
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This WAS standard orthodoxy. It’s changing. It NOW looks like the first mammals appeared all at the same time. I don’t remember the article, but it came out earlier this year.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Hmmm. >And he's a moderator as well. Don't these people realise how utterly pathetic they are?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course not. There NEVER is ANYTHING incompatible with the theory of evolution. That’s the problem. It’s unfalsifiable. [But, of course, there really are problems; Darwinists simply wave them away.]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I guess if we ask PaV what those problems actually are he'll simply claim to have forgotten the article they were detailed in, but to trust him, there are problems!

And this guy's a moderator at UD.An "official" spokesperson for ID.

< Richie > tries to set him straight, but it'll be futile


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have no idea why you accept such a ludicrous assertion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do read the rest of his comment, it'll be interesting to see if PaV is able to respond or will just pretend it does not exist (they do alot of that).
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 20 2009,12:52

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 20 2009,11:21)
I'm confused. What is it that wanders?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The target migrates by mutation. It's defaults to 1%, so each letter in the target has a 1% chance of mutating, meaning the target will change about every four generations. You'll see the target for each generation in column J (blanks for no change). Here's the first 18 targets of a typical run.

METHINKS@IT@IS@LIKE@A@WEASEL



METHINKS@AT@IS@LIKE@A@WEASEL

METTINKS@AT@IS@LIKE@A@WEASEL

MET@INKS@AT@IS@LIKE@A@WEASEL
MET@INKS@AG@IS@LIKE@A@WEASEL




MET@INKS@AG@@S@LIKE@A@WEASEL
MET@INKS@AG@@S@LIKE@A@WESSEL
MET@INKS@AG@@SXLIKE@A@WESSEL
MET@INKS@AG@@SXMIKE@A@WESSEL


The 60th generation it reached a fitness of 28 and stopped. There were 6 fitness stepbacks, and 1 letter reversion. This was the final target.

MET@INKT@AGCMSXMIKE@QOGCSSEL

Wandering Weasel is set to stop when fitness reaches 28, but if you set Wandering too high, it will (almost) never stop. (Use the escape key to interrupt the process.)
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 20 2009,13:11

That's pretty cool I might steal it. It needs labels and a brief description of what's going on.
Posted by: DiEb on Sep. 20 2009,14:03

At the moment, there are at least three of my comments held in moderation - for up to one day. Here's one of them


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


23

DiEb

09/20/2009

12:41 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

– Andrew Freedman
I calculated the expected number of runs for some combination of population size and mutation probability (in brackets the standard deviation) Sorry about the format

size — 4% ———- 5% ——— one mut.
10 1305 (924) 12,461 (12,140) 477,456 (477,303)
20 326 (121) 341 (140) 754 (652)
30 222 (80) 223 (84) 168 (90)
40 170 (60) 170 (63) 101 (38)
50 139 (49) 140 (51) 79 (25)
60 119 (41) 120 (42) 67 (19)
70 105 (35) 105 (37) 60 (16)
80 93 (31) 94 (32) 54 (14)
90 85 (28) 86 (29) 50 (13)
100 79 (25) 79 (26) 48 (12)
200 49 (14) 49 (14) 35 (8)
300 40 (10) 40 (10) 32 (6)
400 35 (8) 35 (9) 30 (6)
500 32 (7) 32 (8) 30 (6)

1: 4% – 5% is the best rate of mutation, values outside this interval will produce longer runs
2: For his interview, Dawkins needed the program to run for ~ 2000 generations. This could be achieved by the combination (10 children, 4% mutation rate) But I suppose that Dawkins just fooled around a little bit with his program to get an optimal number of runs, i.e., the program was running during the length of his interview…
3: I’m glad to see that your numbers agree with mine…
4: For the book, the number of children was 100-200, not fifty, as I said earlier. Sorry. That is, if Dawkins used the algorithm which most people think he described…

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


Posted by: Maya on Sep. 20 2009,14:27

Analogy.  < Barry does it wrong. >


Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 20 2009,14:44

Quote (DiEb @ Sep. 20 2009,14:03)
2: For his interview, Dawkins needed the program to run for ~ 2000 generations. This could be achieved by the combination (10 children, 4% mutation rate) But I suppose that Dawkins just fooled around a little bit with his program to get an optimal number of runs, i.e., the program was running during the length of his interview…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is that correct? Dawkins seems to be showing all the children, not just the parents. It's slower because it takes time to display on the antique system he's using. It looks much like this version of Weasel.

< http://www.zachriel.com/weasel/attitudeweasel.xls >

Look at cell J1. J1 is each child, J2 is the parent.

With < Dawkins' display > of "Random", "tries" is an entirely new sequence. But with "Darwin", "tries" is a new child. This would be a consistent comparison of "tries" between "Random" and "Darwin".
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 20 2009,14:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Therefore, the fuss and the disagreement is about whether “intelligent cause” must be ruled out from the beginning as a possible causal factor for why things are different now than they were in the past.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Actually, the debate is about whether an event can be explained by known causes.

Death by accident and death by murder are both death by known causes.

What is generally ruled out by police investigations is death by ghosts, invisible pink unicorns, sky pixies, psychokinesis vampires and such. (Although Holmes was known to dabble in vampires, and his author was notoriously fond of pixies).
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 20 2009,16:46

James Bond, no less, asks Barry the obvious question:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is a great post, because it’ll let me ask what is really my biggest question about Intelligent Design: What is the current consensus among ID propenents:

Did the designer act ONCE, at some point during (I guess the beginning of) life, setting up the starting conditions intelligently, and then microevolution has brought us the rest of the way?

Or does the designer act continuously, effecting change step by step in life, much like evolution, but with an intelligent agent at the helm?

Or is there some other intermediate model of interaction with life that the designer adopts that I haven’t grasped?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< I suspect > he won't even get a "just so" story in reply.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Sep. 20 2009,16:49

Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 20 2009,14:44)
Quote (DiEb @ Sep. 20 2009,14:03)
2: For his interview, Dawkins needed the program to run for ~ 2000 generations. This could be achieved by the combination (10 children, 4% mutation rate) But I suppose that Dawkins just fooled around a little bit with his program to get an optimal number of runs, i.e., the program was running during the length of his interview…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is that correct? Dawkins seems to be showing all the children, not just the parents. It's slower because it takes time to display on the antique system he's using. [...]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think the number 2485 comes up at the end of the video as the number of individuals. If that is the case, Dawkins likely did have to find fairly particular parameters in order to terminate in the short time of the video sequence, and the slow display system likely did have an impact on that. I think I posted some numbers here before on the likely parameter space the video run's parameters were taken from.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 20 2009,16:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Simple demonstrations that any 12 year old can follow are works of genius. And very dangerous to the opposition.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I guess there's never a 12 year old around when ya need one, huh? :p

Henry
Posted by: Ptaylor on Sep. 20 2009,18:11

I see that < Joseph > < has > < been > < working > < overtime > < on > Barry's Evolution is a Fact! thread, forcefully driving home the point that ...um...err...
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 20 2009,18:41

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 20 2009,16:56)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Simple demonstrations that any 12 year old can follow are works of genius. And very dangerous to the opposition.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I guess there's never a 12 year old around when ya need one, huh? :p

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mental age, I meant.
Posted by: Maya on Sep. 20 2009,19:05

Quote (Ptaylor @ Sep. 20 2009,18:11)
I see that < Joseph > < has > < been > < working > < overtime > < on > Barry's Evolution is a Fact! thread, forcefully driving home the point that ...um...err...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joseph is the one entity at UD that I have never suspected of being a sock.  He's also, not coincidentally, the one that makes me most cynical about humanity.


Posted by: CeilingCat on Sep. 20 2009,23:33

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 19 2009,12:34)
< http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/the-original-weasels/ >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...Unless Richard Dawkins and his associates can show conclusively that these are not the originals (either by providing originals in their possession that differ, or by demonstrating that these programs in some way fail to perform as required), we shall regard the contest as closed...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Unless Dembski can show here conclusively he wasn't bumming Barry Arrington last month then he is a homosexual.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or at least we shall regard him as such.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 21 2009,02:14

from Barry-Holes latest pile of shite



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
19
Mark Frank
09/21/2009
1:10 am
Finally, I note the presence of a bloody club near the body, and on that club are the fingerprints of the dead person’s worst enemy who swore to kill him only two days ago

How it helps when you have a theory as to who, how and when.

To me it is more like this. An old body is found at the bottom of a quarry.

C: looks like an accident. The victim fell into the quarry.

H: – ah but what are the chances that it should fall in exactly this position so near the bottom of the quarry when there are a billion other positions it might have fallen in. This outcome is so implausible as to be negligible. Therefore, it was not natural. Therefore it must have been murder.

C: I think the accident is more plausible.

H: Plausible! Tell me exactly when and how the victim fell, the path it took in its descent to this spot, and the probability of each point on that path.

C: Well no – that would be difficult. But tell me who do you think did it? How? And why?

H: Ah that is for future enquiry. The important thing is we have overwhelming evidence of murder.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



lololololololololoololo

what a bunch of dumb asses they are.  mark frank you are tossing pearls before stumps
Posted by: Chayanov on Sep. 21 2009,02:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
C: Well no – that would be difficult. But tell me who do you think did it? How? And why?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't have to match your pathetic level of detail.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
H: Ah that is for future enquiry. The important thing is we have overwhelming evidence of murder.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Although the identity of the murderer is irrelevant.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 21 2009,03:06

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 20 2009,21:14)
from Barry-Holes latest pile of shite



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
19
Mark Frank
09/21/2009
1:10 am
Finally, I note the presence of a bloody club near the body, and on that club are the fingerprints of the dead person’s worst enemy who swore to kill him only two days ago

How it helps when you have a theory as to who, how and when.

To me it is more like this. An old body is found at the bottom of a quarry.

C: looks like an accident. The victim fell into the quarry.

H: – ah but what are the chances that it should fall in exactly this position so near the bottom of the quarry when there are a billion other positions it might have fallen in. This outcome is so implausible as to be negligible. Therefore, it was not natural. Therefore it must have been murder.

C: I think the accident is more plausible.

H: Plausible! Tell me exactly when and how the victim fell, the path it took in its descent to this spot, and the probability of each point on that path.

C: Well no – that would be difficult. But tell me who do you think did it? How? And why?

H: Ah that is for future enquiry. The important thing is we have overwhelming evidence of murder.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



lololololololololoololo

what a bunch of dumb asses they are.  mark frank you are tossing pearls before stumps
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Finally, I note the presence of a bloody club near the body...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Mark Frank neatly demonstrates the superiority of the rapier as a murder weapon.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 21 2009,03:20

< Cabal > has a moment of insight!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Very few of us are “einsteins”.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Quack on Sep. 21 2009,05:06

Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 21 2009,03:20)
< Cabal > has a moment of insight!

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Very few of us are “einsteins”.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


But plenty of "them"
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Sep. 21 2009,06:25

Just got email from Bill Dembski to a laundry list of critics, asking Richard Dawkins to confirm or repudiate the programs Dembski is holding to be perhaps the original "weasel".

I sent a response to a few of the folks on the list, including Dembski and Dawkins:



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

The first seems unlikely due to the section following:

"              (* Each Copy Gets a Mutation *)"

Putting mutation on a per-copy basis rather than per-base would be rather unlike the biology.

The second shares the same fault, though coded somewhat differently:

"
   (* Darwin *)
   OFFSPRING := CURRENT;
   OFFSPRING[ 1 + RANDOM(LENGTH(OFFSPRING)) ] := RANDOMLETTER;
"

The fact remains that "weasel" implementations were not based on "partitioned search" as claimed in Dembski and Marks' recent paper, a point that Dembski implicitly concedes by his attempted elevation of these two programs without provenance, and further, that other "weasel" style programs can illustrate the point at argument in "The Blind Watchmaker" while allowing a small finite chance of mutation at every base or symbol in the generation of new candidates.

Wesley

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


Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 21 2009,07:08

< Joseph: >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The computer code on a disc is hard to see under a microscope.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed. I also understand it's quite hard to smell also.

But would it not depend on what sort of disc you mean Joseph? I mean, a CD-ROM shows the "computer code" quite nicely with a microscope.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Design is natural.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And so is Joseph.


Posted by: OWKtree on Sep. 21 2009,08:26

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 20 2009,16:46)
James Bond, no less, asks Barry the obvious question:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This is a great post, because it’ll let me ask what is really my biggest question about Intelligent Design: What is the current consensus among ID propenents:

Did the designer act ONCE, at some point during (I guess the beginning of) life, setting up the starting conditions intelligently, and then microevolution has brought us the rest of the way?

Or does the designer act continuously, effecting change step by step in life, much like evolution, but with an intelligent agent at the helm?

Or is there some other intermediate model of interaction with life that the designer adopts that I haven’t grasped?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< I suspect > he won't even get a "just so" story in reply.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


of course there won't be a straight answer since Admiral Akbar has already detected the question as a trap.

The first option is simply theistic evolution.  That's surrendering on all points barring abiogenesis issues.  And, note, that this is surrendering the point on "we ain't descended from no monkey" issue that seems to get so many folks in a lather about evolution in the first place.

The second option makes the designer responsible for lots of nasty critters; malaria, tapeworms, parasites, etc.  Not to mention a bunch of inept design decisions.  Not what you expect from a omnipotent all-loving being who sent an avatar down to die for our sins.

In addition the big tent must be left complete.  So no answer that would serve to alienate either side of the Young Earth vs Old Earth split.*

- Kurt

*- And remember that the Book is right despite what the rocks tell you.  And the rocks are much more entertaining in their description of a much more interesting world.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 21 2009,08:44

Check out < Joseph > and his impression of a spoilt 5 year old.

Its classic Joseph.

Hey, Clive. Don't you get it yet? People see Joseph as an official spokesperson for ID. You allow him to harangue posters with questions you'd expect from a child
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   A fast cheetah is one with an advantage.

Prove it.

   But a cheetah who is bigger than average is not.

Prove it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


and by default he's one of the "Voices of ID".

Har de har har. Joseph asking for "proof". Even if you supplied "proof" he's ignore it and be asking for the same "proof" in the next thread.

Sumpthin serious wrong with that 'un.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 21 2009,08:58

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 21 2009,09:44)
Check out < Joseph > and his impression of a spoilt 5 year old.

Its classic Joseph.

Hey, Clive. Don't you get it yet? People see Joseph as an official spokesperson for ID. You allow him to harangue posters with questions you'd expect from a child
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   A fast cheetah is one with an advantage.

Prove it.

   But a cheetah who is bigger than average is not.

Prove it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


and by default he's one of the "Voices of ID".

Har de har har. Joseph asking for "proof". Even if you supplied "proof" he's ignore it and be asking for the same "proof" in the next thread.

Sumpthin serious wrong with that 'un.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


if by "serious wrong" you mean "just like the rest of them"

something about Joetard is seriously like the rest of the tards

don't expect Clive,baby to get it.  he has not so much drank the koolaid as he has sniffed the shitty undies
Posted by: Maya on Sep. 21 2009,08:59

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 21 2009,08:44)
Hey, Clive. Don't you get it yet? People see Joseph as an official spokesperson for ID.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, I see Joseph as the epitome of the Intelligent Design Creationism target demographic:  ignorant, uneducable, and proud of it (with a dash of violent fantasies, in his case).


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sumpthin serious wrong with that 'un.

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


I'm worried that there are more like him out there.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 21 2009,09:23

Cakeboy is cranking out the TARDcake over there double fast. Will UD's moderation:

(1) quietly tell him he's an idiotic blowhard they don't need
(2) Promote him - He is a much less smart DT
(3) Even notice
(4) Ask him to 'sell their book!' ©
Posted by: KCdgw on Sep. 21 2009,09:58

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 21 2009,08:44)
Check out < Joseph > and his impression of a spoilt 5 year old.

Its classic Joseph.

Hey, Clive. Don't you get it yet? People see Joseph as an official spokesperson for ID. You allow him to harangue posters with questions you'd expect from a child
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   A fast cheetah is one with an advantage.

Prove it.

   But a cheetah who is bigger than average is not.

Prove it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


and by default he's one of the "Voices of ID".

Har de har har. Joseph asking for "proof". Even if you supplied "proof" he's ignore it and be asking for the same "proof" in the next thread.

Sumpthin serious wrong with that 'un.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The only proof that would satisfy cakeboy is videocamera  footage from the Cambrian.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 21 2009,10:13

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 21 2009,10:23)
Cakeboy is cranking out the TARDcake over there double fast. Will UD's moderation:

(1) quietly tell him he's an idiotic blowhard they don't need
(2) Promote him - He is a much less smart DT
(3) Even notice
(4) Ask him to 'sell their book!' ©
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(5)  give him mod privileges?

Oh, make it so!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 21 2009,10:18

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 21 2009,10:13)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 21 2009,10:23)
Cakeboy is cranking out the TARDcake over there double fast. Will UD's moderation:

(1) quietly tell him he's an idiotic blowhard they don't need
(2) Promote him - He is a much less smart DT
(3) Even notice
(4) Ask him to 'sell their book!' ©
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(5)  give him mod privileges?

Oh, make it so!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Threads would be locked and comments nuked oh so much faster!
Posted by: Turncoat on Sep. 21 2009,16:07

Quote (Quack @ Sep. 20 2009,09:18)
If my understanding is right, another facet of the concept of fitness in evolution is that it works even with a moving target. Evolution has no target; it is always about immediate fitness. As long as the fitness landscape don't change too fast. Otherwise, extinction.

In a nutshell what Darwin said 150 years ago - and still going strong.

ETA:

Shouldn't it be possible to write a version of Weasel with moving target - and wouldn't that prove unworkable with latching?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I proposed this at UD some months back. There's a very simple approach. You use exactly the same routine to mutate the target sentence in each generation as you do to mutate each copy of the parent sentence. This models environmental drift. The parent sentence generally will track the environment well from generation to generation, provided the environmental mutation rate is sufficiently low. "Sufficiently low" depends on both the mutation rate for offspring and the number of offspring per generation. For instance, you can set the mutation rate for the environment equal to that for the offspring if you make the number of offspring large.
Posted by: Turncoat on Sep. 22 2009,00:02

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 20 2009,16:49)
               
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 20 2009,14:44)
                 
Quote (DiEb @ Sep. 20 2009,14:03)
2: For his interview, Dawkins needed the program to run for ~ 2000 generations. This could be achieved by the combination (10 children, 4% mutation rate) But I suppose that Dawkins just fooled around a little bit with his program to get an optimal number of runs, i.e., the program was running during the length of his interview…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is that correct? Dawkins seems to be showing all the children, not just the parents. It's slower because it takes time to display on the antique system he's using. [...]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think the number 2485 comes up at the end of the video as the number of individuals. If that is the case, Dawkins likely did have to find fairly particular parameters in order to terminate in the short time of the video sequence, and the slow display system likely did have an impact on that. I think I posted some numbers here before on the likely parameter space the video run's parameters were taken from.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In contrast, the mean number of trials for the simple hill-climber encoded in Weasel2 to reach the target is about 5800. The closer Weasel2 gets to the target, the greater the expected number of trials for an uphill step on the fitness landscape. The expected number of trials to reach the target is in the ballpark of 2485 only when 25 or 26 of the characters in the best-so-far sentence match the target.

1. Weasel2 never takes a downhill step.

2. Weasel2 mutates the character in just one position in each trial. If the character is already correct, the mutation cannot yield an uphill step. The probability of selecting an incorrect character for mutation is (28 - n) / 28, where n is the number of correct characters. The probability that mutation yields the correct character is 1 / 27. Thus the probability of an uphill step when n characters are correct is p = (28 - n) / 28 / 27.

3. The expected number of trials for an uphill step is 2 * (1 - p) / p. This is the mean of a random variable following a negative binomial distribution. See Wikipedia.

4. The number of correct characters in the randomly initialized sentence is binomially distributed with mean 28 * (1 / 27) = 1.037 and variance 28 * (1 / 27) * (1 - 1 / 27) = 0.999. That is, the mean and variance are both about 1, and 25 correct characters in the initial sentence (see above) would be about 24 standard deviations above the mean.

5. Here is code and example outputs for the Unix bc utility. The function f takes as its argument the number of correct characters in the initial parent, and returns the expected number of trials to reach the target. The "for" loop sums the expected numbers of trials for all the uphill steps required to maximize fitness. (The expectation of a sum of random quantities is the sum of the expectations.)



---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------
scale=25

define f(m) {
  auto p, n, t

  t = 0

  for (n = m; n < 28; n++) {
     p = (28 - n) / 28.0 / 27.0
     t += 2 * (1 - p) / p
  }

  return(t)
}

f(27)
1510.0000000000000000000586656

f(26)
2264.0000000000000000000594216

f(25)
2766.0000000000000000000662760

f(0)
5881.8826109171485399780675527

f(1)
5829.8826109171485399780674987

f(2)
5775.8826109171485399780673643

f(3)
5719.7287647633023861319134600

(f(0)+f(1)+f(2)+f(3))/4.0
5801.8441493786870015165289689

---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------



I could go further with the analysis, but I don't see why I should. It is highly improbable that Weasel2 was at work in the BBC show.
Posted by: Turncoat on Sep. 22 2009,00:15

For any IDiots lurking, what I just accomplished was not a design inference. I analyzed the performance of a program for minimizing the Hamming distance of a string of characters from a target string, and determined that it is highly improbable that the program performs as well as claimed.

It took me much longer to attempt to explain the analysis clearly than actually to do it. Dembski should be embarrassed to have mass-distributed tard mail without scrutinizing Weasel2 for himself.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 22 2009,00:50

lololoololol YEAH RIGHT

that fool has no capacity for embarassment.  witness www.uncommondescent.com
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 22 2009,00:52

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 21 2009,11:18)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 21 2009,10:13)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 21 2009,10:23)
Cakeboy is cranking out the TARDcake over there double fast. Will UD's moderation:

(1) quietly tell him he's an idiotic blowhard they don't need
(2) Promote him - He is a much less smart DT
(3) Even notice
(4) Ask him to 'sell their book!' ©
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(5)  give him mod privileges?

Oh, make it so!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Threads would be locked and comments nuked oh so much faster!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


i think you guys are getting to him!!!!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2009
The Gossip is in and it is never disappointing
Gossip factory AtBC (another tired baby crying) is still cranking out the gossip.

oldmanwithadickuphisass is gossiping about me.

The Rich Hughestard has joined in. Tards of a feather type of thing.

What the oldmanwithadickuphisass doesn't understand is that the computer code is not readable except with a computer.

The code is NOT the disc. The code is not reducible to the matter that makes up the disc.

Then a couple of comments down the oldmanwithadickuphisass gets on me for using his type of tactics against is type of ilk.

When people make bald assertions I respond accordingly.

And seeing that is all those mother-friggers have are bald assertions my responses of "Prove it" are right in line with their grade-school antics.

But anyway I am more than willing to take on any one of those fruitloops in a debate.

We can both put up some money and see who knows best.
posted by Joe G @ 2:17 PM   0 comments  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



joe Allah gets angry when you use the dirty talk
Posted by: Turncoat on Sep. 22 2009,01:06

As for Weasel1, how does it happen that its initial parent sentence matches up with the initial sentence output by the single-step selection program? Let's call that other program, for which we don't have code, Monkey.

Weasel1 calls the Randomize procedure to automatically seed the random number generator. This means that you would have to run the program many times to stand much chance of seeing an initial parent sentence you've seen before.

How does Monkey come up with the same initial sentence as Weasel1? A call to Randomize is very unlikely to generate the same seed that was automatically generated in Weasel1. And Dawkins did not know what seed was automatically generated, because Weasel1 does not supply it as output. Did Dawkins explicitly enter the first sentence output by Weasel1 into Monkey? In other words, did Dawkins "smuggle information" into the program by supplying the first sentence he attributed to a "monkey at a typewriter"? I doubt it.

(Yes, I know about the one-character discrepancy in sentences. I think it's safe enough to attribute it to a typo.)

If we really must guess about programs, rather than ask Dawkins to clarify the algorithm he had in mind, then it makes sense to guess that Dawkins reused code in some way or another and seeded the random number generator explicitly. Personally, I would have written just one evolution strategy, and would have set both the per-site mutation rate and the number of offspring to 1 to model the monkey at a typewriter.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 22 2009,06:02



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How does Monkey come up with the same initial sentence as Weasel1?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Whatever are you talking about?
Posted by: Maya on Sep. 22 2009,06:29

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 22 2009,00:52)
i think you guys are getting to him!!!!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2009
The Gossip is in and it is never disappointing
Gossip factory AtBC (another tired baby crying) is still cranking out the gossip.

oldmanwithadickuphisass is gossiping about me.

The Rich Hughestard has joined in. Tards of a feather type of thing.

What the oldmanwithadickuphisass doesn't understand is that the computer code is not readable except with a computer.

The code is NOT the disc. The code is not reducible to the matter that makes up the disc.

Then a couple of comments down the oldmanwithadickuphisass gets on me for using his type of tactics against is type of ilk.

When people make bald assertions I respond accordingly.

And seeing that is all those mother-friggers have are bald assertions my responses of "Prove it" are right in line with their grade-school antics.

But anyway I am more than willing to take on any one of those fruitloops in a debate.

We can both put up some money and see who knows best.
posted by Joe G @ 2:17 PM   0 comments  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



joe Allah gets angry when you use the dirty talk
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you have a link for that?  Surely Joseph wouldn't use foul language in the Online Church of UD?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But anyway I am more than willing to take on any one of those fruitloops in a debate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Someone should invite Joey over here.  Mr. Wannabe Tough would be wearing a wig, corset, and badly applied makeup while serving drinks on his knees to the AtBC regulars in short order.

Rhetorically speaking, of course.
Posted by: Maya on Sep. 22 2009,06:37

Quote (Maya @ Sep. 22 2009,06:29)
Do you have a link for that?  Surely Joseph wouldn't use foul language in the Online Church of UD?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nevermind, my Google Fu is strong this morning.  < Joey's posing is here. >

I've invited him over.  I hope no one minds.  Perhaps if everyone tells him how much we want him to join us, he'll be persuaded.
Posted by: CeilingCat on Sep. 22 2009,06:51

< WTF? >
Denyse opens with sort of an article on how atheists are distrusted and hated.  Except it's not an article, it's the results of a Google search.

Then she says it's the first step in geting atheists protected by hate crime legislation.  Then she says the government has just implemented such legislation, only again her cite is to a Google search and the first article I read from that search (Hate Crime in America: The Debate Continues | NIJ Journal Issue No ...) doesn't mention any recent laws.

Then we get this remarkable sentence:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I had almost forgotten. I helped draft our Constitution in 1981. But no one minds that kind of thing any more. Unless … could there now be hope?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What The F___!!!  O'Leary helped draft a Constitution??!!  Of a country?  Maybe as a typist.

I call BS on this one a thousand times over with a cherry on top.  Denyse is entering the advanced stages of Alzheimers now.

The rest of the message is standard O'Leary blather except that atheists are now equated with Islamic Fascists.  Nothing to see here, move along.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 22 2009,06:54

Quote (Maya @ Sep. 22 2009,06:37)
Quote (Maya @ Sep. 22 2009,06:29)
Do you have a link for that?  Surely Joseph wouldn't use foul language in the Online Church of UD?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nevermind, my Google Fu is strong this morning.  < Joey's posing is here. >

I've invited him over.  I hope no one minds.  Perhaps if everyone tells him how much we want him to join us, he'll be persuaded.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Maya Papaya has her? profile blocked.

Why do all intellectual cowards do that?


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


JoeG has the courage to reveal personal details, such as the fact that he lives somewhere in New England, and that he "fixes things."
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 22 2009,07:04



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If Dawkins is defining Darwinian evolution as inherently without a target, then he is going to have to show that cumulative selection can operate without a target to even show that cumulative selection can indeed be a part of Darwinian evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Maybe if he turned the page in TBW

< http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/mirror/biomorph/ >

< http://home.pacbell.net/s-max/scott/biobounce.html >
Posted by: carlsonjok on Sep. 22 2009,07:04

Quote (Maya @ Sep. 22 2009,06:37)
Quote (Maya @ Sep. 22 2009,06:29)
Do you have a link for that?  Surely Joseph wouldn't use foul language in the Online Church of UD?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nevermind, my Google Fu is strong this morning.  < Joey's posing is here. >

I've invited him over.  I hope no one minds.  Perhaps if everyone tells him how much we want him to join us, he'll be persuaded.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Been There, Done That >.

Joe showed up on page 2 (< 7/23/2007 at 8:52 Eastern >) and made his last contribution a little more than 36 hours later on page 6 (< 7/24/2007 at 21:43 Eastern >).
Posted by: Quack on Sep. 22 2009,07:17



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I've invited him over.  I hope no one minds.  Perhaps if everyone tells him how much we want him to join us, he'll be persuaded.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't think so. From the tone of His Lordship, I gather he prefers the elevated position of his ivory tower.

Isn't he a perfect icon of cdesign proponentsism?
Posted by: Maya on Sep. 22 2009,08:40

Since Joey has his blog moderated (Clivebaby envy, perhaps?), here's what I've posted there:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You might take a little heat at AtBC, but if you could actually support any of the ridiculous assertions you post on UD, you'd get many serious responses.  You might even learn something (which, I suspect, is the real reason you don't want to go there).

If AtBC isn't acceptable, I suggest the talk.origins newsgroup.  No one is going to debate you here where you can moderate them out of existence.  We've seen the echo chamber of UD, which is why there is a long running thread at AtBC dedicated to mocking it.

It's too bad you lack the intellectual courage to defend your views in a forum where you can't run and hide.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Maya on Sep. 22 2009,08:40

And this:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The reason my profile is blocked, Joey dear, is that there are some disturbed people on the Internet.  People who post violent fantasies about what they'd like to do to those who don't share their beliefs on pseudo-science blogs.  People who threaten college professors when those professors mop the floor with them in an argument.  In short, willfully ignorant people with poor self-control.

People like you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We know you're reading, Joey (we can see your lips moving).  Come out and play!
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 22 2009,08:41



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thus, after months we see that while explicit latching was credibly not used in Weasel c 1986, implicit latching is a possible explanation of the showcased runs of Weasel c 1986, and that quasi-latched runs (ratcheting with occasional slips) are likely to predominate in the population of runs of the program.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://www.uncommondescent.com/evoluti....-334833 >

Damn, you get all the way to the 12th step and stumble back into the gutter.

The rest of KF's post (what follows the quote) makes sense, for a change.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 22 2009,08:43

Dippy Joe:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But anyway I am more than willing to take on any one of those fruitloops in a debate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Those Fundies, always aching for a debate. Try Peer reviewed science journals instead!
Posted by: k.e.. on Sep. 22 2009,09:10

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 22 2009,14:54)
Quote (Maya @ Sep. 22 2009,06:37)
Quote (Maya @ Sep. 22 2009,06:29)
Do you have a link for that?  Surely Joseph wouldn't use foul language in the Online Church of UD?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nevermind, my Google Fu is strong this morning.  < Joey's posing is here. >

I've invited him over.  I hope no one minds.  Perhaps if everyone tells him how much we want him to join us, he'll be persuaded.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Maya Papaya has her? profile blocked.

Why do all intellectual cowards do that?


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


JoeG has the courage to reveal personal details, such as the fact that he lives somewhere in New England, and that he "fixes things."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bwhahahahahahahahaha

"fixes things"

Like signs?


Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 22 2009,09:18

Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 22 2009,08:04)
Quote (Maya @ Sep. 22 2009,06:37)
 
Quote (Maya @ Sep. 22 2009,06:29)
Do you have a link for that?  Surely Joseph wouldn't use foul language in the Online Church of UD?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nevermind, my Google Fu is strong this morning.  < Joey's posing is here. >

I've invited him over.  I hope no one minds.  Perhaps if everyone tells him how much we want him to join us, he'll be persuaded.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Been There, Done That >.

Joe showed up on page 2 (< 7/23/2007 at 8:52 Eastern >) and made his last contribution a little more than 36 hours later on page 6 (< 7/24/2007 at 21:43 Eastern >).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


sorry maya i figured you had already plumbed the depths of tard that is joes blog.  

its pretty much a place for Rich to play straightman while blipey kicks the shit out of Joe.  entertaining, but let's not pretend it is ever going to be anything other than a pathos.

no way is he coming back here!  he'd kill us all with his incisive wit, devastating rhetoric and his ability to tell a baldfaced lie about whatever topic is at hand!  

as rich put it to me many moons ago



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I has conversations with Joe at his blog
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



thats the best place for them you know.  you really cant get them anywhere else anyway, it's like an endemic species of tard with a population size of 1, an effective population size of 0, and outside of its native carefully controlled habitat, fitness approaching zero.  clearly globally imperiled, and protected by the ESA 1st Amendment.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 22 2009,09:26

"its pretty much a place for Rich to play straightman" - and on those days I don't co-ordinate my handkerchief with my socks, and use less product in my hair.

NOT FABULOUS NOT HOMO.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 22 2009,09:39

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 22 2009,10:26)
"its pretty much a place for Rich to play straightman" - and on those days I don't co-ordinate my handkerchief with my socks, and use less product in my hair.

NOT FABULOUS NOT HOMO.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


well whatever it is, it sure as hell is fun to read.  i couldn't participate though
Posted by: Dr.GH on Sep. 22 2009,09:53

Was Joe G the small appliance repairman?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 22 2009,09:56

Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 22 2009,09:53)
Was Joe G the small appliance repairman?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Correct. He had some sort of meltdown IIRC, has threated people here with 'visits' and I believe claimed once to be Muslim?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 22 2009,09:57

Joe G gives up in disgust:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes you are a troll and a liar.

So I will leave you with that- I don’t have time to deal with liars and losers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Har de har har >

So much for wanting a debate.....
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 22 2009,09:58

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 22 2009,10:56)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 22 2009,09:53)
Was Joe G the small appliance repairman?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Correct. He had some sort of meltdown IIRC, has threated people here with 'visits' and I believe claimed once to be Muslim?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


so far carlson has failed to provide the link to the Mullah-hood of joe G.  pfft

i don't think it was here, and i don't think it was at his cough blog.  ARN?  anybody?  god i would love to see that get tossed up at UD
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 22 2009,09:58

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 22 2009,10:57)
Joe G gives up in disgust:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes you are a troll and a liar.

So I will leave you with that- I don’t have time to deal with liars and losers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Har de har har >

So much for wanting a debate.....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


moseph

BWAAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Posted by: carlsonjok on Sep. 22 2009,10:07

Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 22 2009,09:53)
Was Joe G the small appliance repairman?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is the running joke.  We had established, at one time, that he worked in repair for GE. Which means he could work on anything from home appliances to jet engines.
Posted by: J-Dog on Sep. 22 2009,10:27

Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 22 2009,10:07)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 22 2009,09:53)
Was Joe G the small appliance repairman?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is the running joke.  We had established, at one time, that he worked in repair for GE. Which means he could work on anything from home appliances to jet engines.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like this...


Posted by: dnmlthr on Sep. 22 2009,10:57

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 22 2009,06:52)
i think you guys are getting to him!!!!

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2009
The Gossip is in and it is never disappointing
Gossip factory AtBC (another tired baby crying) is still cranking out the gossip.

oldmanwithadickuphisass is gossiping about me.

The Rich Hughestard has joined in. Tards of a feather type of thing.

What the oldmanwithadickuphisass doesn't understand is that the computer code is not readable except with a computer.

The code is NOT the disc. The code is not reducible to the matter that makes up the disc.

Then a couple of comments down the oldmanwithadickuphisass gets on me for using his type of tactics against is type of ilk.

When people make bald assertions I respond accordingly.

And seeing that is all those mother-friggers have are bald assertions my responses of "Prove it" are right in line with their grade-school antics.

But anyway I am more than willing to take on any one of those fruitloops in a debate.

We can both put up some money and see who knows best.
posted by Joe G @ 2:17 PM   0 comments  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Code isn't readable without a compiler? Strange, I'm reading code in a text editor as we speak. And I've done so with cat, grep, echo and a whole slew of other commandline tools as well. Guess I've must've used an implicit compiler all these years, who knew?

And all those interpreted languages, they're not readable either I guess. I thought that only applied to Perl, but I digress.

It's all the great assembler of the gaps. The usual UD fare in other words.
Posted by: franky172 on Sep. 22 2009,11:45

< Dembski > gets a reply from Dawkins:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The relevant portion of his email for this discussion reads: “I cannot confirm that either of them is mine. They don’t look familiar to me, but it is a long time ago. I don’t see what more I can say.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I have to wonder - what did the irrelevant portion of the e-mail say?
Posted by: sparc on Sep. 22 2009,11:47

Since I got the German version of Harun Yahya's "Atlas of Creation" I looked up what he had to say about ID and found this:
<
INTELLIGENT DESIGN: A NEW AGE THEORY
>
Denyse O'leary who  < interviewed him recently > will not be amused.
Posted by: Maya on Sep. 22 2009,11:49

Quote (franky172 @ Sep. 22 2009,11:45)
< Dembski > gets a reply from Dawkins:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The relevant portion of his email for this discussion reads: “I cannot confirm that either of them is mine. They don’t look familiar to me, but it is a long time ago. I don’t see what more I can say.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I have to wonder - what did the irrelevant portion of the e-mail say?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"No, you're not welcome at the Oxford cafeteria either."




Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 22 2009,11:54

Quote (dnmlthr @ Sep. 22 2009,10:57)
Code isn't readable without a compiler? Strange, I'm reading code in a text editor as we speak.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think I've worked out what his "point" is.

Joe G On /
Yes, you can read the bits from the disk. But those bits are simply ones and zeros unless they are "surrounded" by the context of programming languages, machines to execute them, the actual understanding of the programming language itself etc etc.
Joe G Off /

So when Joe G says
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The code is not reducible to the matter that makes up the disc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In one way he's right. You need more then the "code" itself to give the information on the disc meaning. In his "mind" however, no doubt the understanding required to understand the code resides in a human mind which is non-material and therefore it's impossible that the code is reducible to matter.

But so what, all it means is that he says "everything required to understand the code on the disc is not reducible to less then that which is required to understand the code on the disc" really saying nothing at all.

Unless of course the disc is a disc that contains instructions on how to understand the rest of the disc? Starting from the simplest mathematical axoims...

Douglas Hofstader wrote about this, in a way, in < Le Ton beau de Marot >. I'm sure I'll mangle it, but where does the information and the way the information is instantiated begin and end? Would a record sent into space where grooves physically represent sound waves be any different to a CD-ROM containing the same music but digitised? Does the language a poem is in change the meaning of the poem?

So in way Joe has an interesting point. In a way. Of course saying "The code is not reducible to the matter that makes up the disc" is like saying a space rocket is not reducible to the instructions that tell you how to build a space rocket. You still need some other bits and pieces. Bolts, stuff like that. People.

It's just a shame he's too chicken to come here and debate his grand idea.
Posted by: khan on Sep. 22 2009,12:50

Quote (Maya @ Sep. 22 2009,12:49)
Quote (franky172 @ Sep. 22 2009,11:45)
< Dembski > gets a reply from Dawkins:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The relevant portion of his email for this discussion reads: “I cannot confirm that either of them is mine. They don’t look familiar to me, but it is a long time ago. I don’t see what more I can say.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I have to wonder - what did the irrelevant portion of the e-mail say?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"No, you're not welcome at the Oxford cafeteria either."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


POTW!
Posted by: Maya on Sep. 22 2009,13:22

Joe has moved from stupid to < stupid and potentially violent >
 

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Please provide a cite to PZ making a credible threat.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


PZ said to break out the brass knuckles, steel-toed boots, and baseball bats- then use them against people like me.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Then explain how that justifies your response to David Kellogg.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All responses to Kellogg were because of his bullshit.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You're just the kind of wannabe bully my brothers love to meet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Evolutionists are the bullies. I am the one who can put a stop to that.

For example if I ever meet PZ or Lenny Flank, I will have no problem with punching them right in the nose.

And if they get up I will do it again.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


While I strongly suspect that Joey is just as gutless in the physical world as he is in the virtual, this kind of thing ought to be preserved in case his fantasies ever start to overwhelm his meds.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 22 2009,13:44

Quote (Maya @ Sep. 22 2009,13:22)
Joe has moved from stupid to < stupid and potentially violent >
 

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Please provide a cite to PZ making a credible threat.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


PZ said to break out the brass knuckles, steel-toed boots, and baseball bats- then use them against people like me.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Then explain how that justifies your response to David Kellogg.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All responses to Kellogg were because of his bullshit.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You're just the kind of wannabe bully my brothers love to meet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Evolutionists are the bullies. I am the one who can put a stop to that.

For example if I ever meet PZ or Lenny Flank, I will have no problem with punching them right in the nose.

And if they get up I will do it again.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


While I strongly suspect that Joey is just as gutless in the physical world as he is in the virtual, this kind of thing ought to be preserved in case his fantasies ever start to overwhelm his meds.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Considering he's retired and just had a hip operation, he's probably only a danger to himself.
Posted by: Maya on Sep. 22 2009,14:33

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 22 2009,13:44)
Considering he's retired and just had a hip operation, he's probably only a danger to himself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, so all the posturing is to try to attract him some Granny Tard luvvin'!
Posted by: JohnW on Sep. 22 2009,14:37

Quote (Maya @ Sep. 22 2009,12:33)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 22 2009,13:44)
Considering he's retired and just had a hip operation, he's probably only a danger to himself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, so all the posturing is to try to attract him some Granny Tard luvvin'!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You win the Ghastly Mental Image Of The Day award, Maya.  I just had lunch too.
Posted by: Turncoat on Sep. 22 2009,16:13

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 20 2009,16:49)
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 20 2009,14:44)
 
Quote (DiEb @ Sep. 20 2009,14:03)
2: For his interview, Dawkins needed the program to run for ~ 2000 generations. This could be achieved by the combination (10 children, 4% mutation rate) But I suppose that Dawkins just fooled around a little bit with his program to get an optimal number of runs, i.e., the program was running during the length of his interview…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is that correct? Dawkins seems to be showing all the children, not just the parents. It's slower because it takes time to display on the antique system he's using. [...]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think the number 2485 comes up at the end of the video as the number of individuals. If that is the case, Dawkins likely did have to find fairly particular parameters in order to terminate in the short time of the video sequence, and the slow display system likely did have an impact on that. I think I posted some numbers here before on the likely parameter space the video run's parameters were taken from.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My previous comment regarding Weasel2 was wrong. I should have used Wolfram's MathWorld rather than Wikipedia to get the mean of the negative binomial distribution. Wikipedia explains the r parameter incorrectly. The mean number of trials required for an uphill step is (1 - p) / p, not 2 * (1 - p) / p.

The mean number of trials for Weasel2 to reach the target is about 2900. In simulation, 12% of runs require 2485 or fewer trials.

My apologies for not double-checking my work prior to posting here.
Posted by: MichaelJ on Sep. 22 2009,16:33

Quote (Turncoat @ Sep. 23 2009,07:13)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 20 2009,16:49)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 20 2009,14:44)
   
Quote (DiEb @ Sep. 20 2009,14:03)
2: For his interview, Dawkins needed the program to run for ~ 2000 generations. This could be achieved by the combination (10 children, 4% mutation rate) But I suppose that Dawkins just fooled around a little bit with his program to get an optimal number of runs, i.e., the program was running during the length of his interview…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is that correct? Dawkins seems to be showing all the children, not just the parents. It's slower because it takes time to display on the antique system he's using. [...]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think the number 2485 comes up at the end of the video as the number of individuals. If that is the case, Dawkins likely did have to find fairly particular parameters in order to terminate in the short time of the video sequence, and the slow display system likely did have an impact on that. I think I posted some numbers here before on the likely parameter space the video run's parameters were taken from.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My previous comment regarding Weasel2 was wrong. I should have used Wolfram's MathWorld rather than Wikipedia to get the mean of the negative binomial distribution. Wikipedia explains the r parameter incorrectly. The mean number of trials required for an uphill step is (1 - p) / p, not 2 * (1 - p) / p.

The mean number of trials for Weasel2 to reach the target is about 2900. In simulation, 12% of runs require 2485 or fewer trials.

My apologies for not double-checking my work prior to posting here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't give in so easily. Don't admit a mistake until you have written 20 3000 word posts and then hide it in the middle of a 15000 word post
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 22 2009,16:34

Quote (JohnW @ Sep. 22 2009,14:37)
Quote (Maya @ Sep. 22 2009,12:33)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 22 2009,13:44)
Considering he's retired and just had a hip operation, he's probably only a danger to himself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, so all the posturing is to try to attract him some Granny Tard luvvin'!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You win the Ghastly Mental Image Of The Day award, Maya.  I just had lunch too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maya = POTW and stomach-heaving, gonad-curdling gerontophilic mental conjurations... all in one brief span?

The queen is dead. Long live The Queen!

Dammit, not YOU, richard. Siddown, ya mook. :P
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 22 2009,16:36

But..but... I got a new bag and hat, special.  :angry:


Posted by: Maya on Sep. 22 2009,16:40

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 22 2009,16:36)
But..but... I got a new bag and hat, special.  :angry:


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


I really do worry wonder about the pictures you boys have so close to hand....
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 22 2009,16:50

I got this from Tarden; He said it was you. Apparently it's sticky because of the special colouring process they use.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 22 2009,17:08

The Weasel slapdown continues:

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/the-original-weasels/ >

GEM has been called out for making stuff up and Dembski and marks have had their 'willful ignorance' highlighted.
Posted by: dnmlthr on Sep. 22 2009,17:37

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 22 2009,17:54)
Quote (dnmlthr @ Sep. 22 2009,10:57)
Code isn't readable without a compiler? Strange, I'm reading code in a text editor as we speak.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think I've worked out what his "point" is.

Joe G On /
Yes, you can read the bits from the disk. But those bits are simply ones and zeros unless they are "surrounded" by the context of programming languages, machines to execute them, the actual understanding of the programming language itself etc etc.
Joe G Off /

So when Joe G says
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The code is not reducible to the matter that makes up the disc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In one way he's right. You need more then the "code" itself to give the information on the disc meaning. In his "mind" however, no doubt the understanding required to understand the code resides in a human mind which is non-material and therefore it's impossible that the code is reducible to matter.

But so what, all it means is that he says "everything required to understand the code on the disc is not reducible to less then that which is required to understand the code on the disc" really saying nothing at all.

Unless of course the disc is a disc that contains instructions on how to understand the rest of the disc? Starting from the simplest mathematical axoims...

Douglas Hofstader wrote about this, in a way, in < Le Ton beau de Marot >. I'm sure I'll mangle it, but where does the information and the way the information is instantiated begin and end? Would a record sent into space where grooves physically represent sound waves be any different to a CD-ROM containing the same music but digitised? Does the language a poem is in change the meaning of the poem?

So in way Joe has an interesting point. In a way. Of course saying "The code is not reducible to the matter that makes up the disc" is like saying a space rocket is not reducible to the instructions that tell you how to build a space rocket. You still need some other bits and pieces. Bolts, stuff like that. People.

It's just a shame he's too chicken to come here and debate his grand idea.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But information exists regardless of meaning to the current observer, or perhaps I'm not following your line of reasoning.

Granted, Big Joey G-funk probably defines information in a different way than Kolmogorov-Chaitin (at least according to my all-too-brief exposure to information theory). If only my exposure to UD was as brief.

<
Mark Chu-Carroll writes more and better about this topic than I'm capable of. >
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 22 2009,18:03



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

But information exists regardless of meaning to the current observer, or perhaps I'm not following your line of reasoning.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't have the words to describe it, but yes, agreed 100% that  information exists regardless of meaning to the current observer.

I'll get back to you after reading that link!
Posted by: khan on Sep. 22 2009,18:09

Quote (Maya @ Sep. 22 2009,12:49)
Quote (franky172 @ Sep. 22 2009,11:45)
< Dembski > gets a reply from Dawkins:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The relevant portion of his email for this discussion reads: “I cannot confirm that either of them is mine. They don’t look familiar to me, but it is a long time ago. I don’t see what more I can say.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I have to wonder - what did the irrelevant portion of the e-mail say?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"No, you're not welcome at the Oxford cafeteria either."


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


The best
Posted by: dnmlthr on Sep. 22 2009,18:52

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 23 2009,00:03)


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

But information exists regardless of meaning to the current observer, or perhaps I'm not following your line of reasoning.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't have the words to describe it, but yes, agreed 100% that  information exists regardless of meaning to the current observer.

I'll get back to you after reading that link!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I meant to write "to any given observer" btw.
Posted by: dnmlthr on Sep. 22 2009,18:57

It really, really irks me when design proponentsists step into my area of expertise (you might have guessed which one that is by now), I can only imagine what their ramblings do to actual biologists.

Needless to say, you have my deepest sympathies.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 22 2009,18:58

Three guesses which author clivebaby recommends?

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-334958 >
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Sep. 22 2009,20:21

Was it Sinclair Lewis?   :p

Edit to add second guess: Clive Barker? :D

Can I get a hint?  :(
Posted by: didymos on Sep. 22 2009,20:30

Personally, I think it's high time Clivebaby started quoting Huey Lewis at every opportunity.  Or Emmanuel Lewis.
Posted by: sparc on Sep. 22 2009,22:09

Quote (didymos @ Sep. 22 2009,20:30)
Personally, I think it's high time Clivebaby started quoting Huey Lewis at every opportunity.  Or Emmanuel Lewis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What about Lewis Hamilton?
Posted by: sledgehammer on Sep. 22 2009,22:49

Quote (sparc @ Sep. 22 2009,20:09)
Quote (didymos @ Sep. 22 2009,20:30)
Personally, I think it's high time Clivebaby started quoting Huey Lewis at every opportunity.  Or Emmanuel Lewis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What about Lewis Hamilton?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think Jerry Lewis is more his style.
Posted by: Goffr on Sep. 22 2009,23:08



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To me, “literal” means letters
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


lol
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 22 2009,23:15

or lewis CK maybe

louie

whatever
Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 22 2009,23:22

Dear Joseph, < who wrote >:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
38

Joseph

09/21/2009

7:00 pm

Cumulative selection implies a target.

Otherwise cumulative is meaningless.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





Got it?
Posted by: CeilingCat on Sep. 22 2009,23:35

Quote (JohnW @ Sep. 22 2009,14:37)
 
Quote (Maya @ Sep. 22 2009,12:33)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 22 2009,13:44)
Considering he's retired and just had a hip operation, he's probably only a danger to himself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, so all the posturing is to try to attract him some Granny Tard luvvin'!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You win the Ghastly Mental Image Of The Day award, Maya.  I just had lunch too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, I had lunch too.  Now it's all over the desk and floor.
Posted by: CeilingCat on Sep. 22 2009,23:50

< How the mind of a Biblical literalist works > as described by KairosFocus:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2] Provenance is thus about right, chain of custody is reasonable, and there are no signs of obvious fraud, so on the Ancient Documents Rule — failing credible explanation otherwise [i.e burden of disproof is now on those who would reject the programs] — it seems on preponderance of evidence these are the right “original” pgms, PASCAL version at least. (The BASIC version would be interesting . . . )
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The "provenance" is that the handle has "oxford" embedded in it, the "chain of custody" is an anonymous handle on a whacko blog and there are no obvious signs of fraud to a person who happens to be dead or in a coma.  "...so on the Ancient Documents Rule — failing credible explanation otherwise [i.e burden of disproof is now on those who would reject the programs] — it seems on preponderance of evidence these are the right 'original' pgms..."

Life really starts to make sense when you abandon logic and evidence and just start using your God-given Discernment.
Posted by: k.e.. on Sep. 23 2009,00:15

Quote (Maya @ Sep. 23 2009,00:40)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 22 2009,16:36)
But..but... I got a new bag and hat, special.  :angry:


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


I really do worry wonder about the pictures you boys have so close to hand....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well at least you can see both of his in that photo.

Did you know the average purse can hold about a dozen gerbils?
Posted by: Turncoat on Sep. 23 2009,02:48

Quote (didymos @ Sep. 22 2009,20:30)
Personally, I think it's high time Clivebaby started quoting Huey Lewis at every opportunity.  Or Emmanuel Lewis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"I want a new drug. One that won't make me sick."
Posted by: 1of63 on Sep. 23 2009,05:34

Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 22 2009,23:22)
Dear Joseph, < who wrote >:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
38

Joseph

09/21/2009

7:00 pm

Cumulative selection implies a target.

Otherwise cumulative is meaningless.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





Got it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wrong.

Much as I hate to agree with the little weasel, he's right.

If something is selected, it is one thing chosen from a range of others.  

In cumulative selection, a number of things are chosen in succession using the same criteria.  In other words, they are being selected with a particular purpose, goal or target in mind.

No target, no selection.

Except in nature, where there is no mind but the target is survival.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As for being a targeted search, well, of course it is. You cannot have a search unless you have something to search for just as you cannot have selection unless you have some target towards which selection is directed.

In the case of WEASEL or similar programs, the author sets the target. In the natural world, the environment in which the organism has to survive sets the target or targets.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< Seversky >
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 23 2009,08:25



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In cumulative selection, a number of things are chosen in succession using the same criteria.  In other words, they are being selected with a particular purpose, goal or target in mind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Generating a fitness score does not require a particular target.

You can as Zach has done, have a target that mutates along with the population, or you can have a diffuse target that models all the viable combinations or strings.

Your statement is wrong on at least two separate counts.

In the wandering weasel, the target can change for successive generations.

But it is also possible to score substrings rather than the entire string, resulting in the possibility that individual characters change in fitness value.

And of course, Dawkins himself, after about four pages of describing Weasel, introduces biomorphs, which have no target at all. Nevertheless, they accumulate selected changes.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 23 2009,09:54

Joseph and Kairosfocus talk about Pi. It ends with Joseph noting:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
IOW if we asked 1,000 people to give a value for Pi we could predict that they wouldn’t all be the same.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Trainwreck. >

Along the way Gordon Mullings states the obvious
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One reason not to use pi etc in your friendly local encrypting system!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Several times
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And of course one of my little challeges to the chance folks is to get 1,000 bits of functionally specific algorithmic or linguistic info out of such a chance process. Y’know, write some Word files or a short Pascal pgm
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



...

And what would that prove Gordon?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 23 2009,10:03

O'Leary explanins the origins of bird migration


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


Joseph, thanks for the information and thanks for recalling Sermonti, one of the first to question the Darwin nonsense.

Obviously, these creatures use a method that depends on things that change little from year to year.

That would suggest they use the sky, and would also explain why weather conditions might delay them by occlusion.

In northern regions, the colder it gets, the brighter the sky (unless a blizzard descends, where vast snow insulates).

But almost all have left before then.

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


I kid you not. < No, really. >
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 23 2009,10:31

joseph is a genius (and closet YEC?)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
8
Joseph
09/23/2009
9:32 am
Denyse,

I say it is all programming.

IOW migration is downloaded into the DNA along with the rest of the software required- for development and day-to-day operations.

Sermonti also talks about butterflies- how they flutter about one their own- that they must have a system of recognition of group identity.

But anyway about the birds one person commnted:

An animal with an innate image of the firmament!

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



butterfly = computer = bye bye freewill
Posted by: Quack on Sep. 23 2009,11:26



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No target, no selection.

Except in nature, where there is no mind but the target is survival.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Right, May it also be expressed like the target is about fitness, a measure of chance of survival with respect to a fitness landscape? But I suppose that is implicit in "survival"

I see the target phrase as a stand-in for the fitness landscape.

I don't think this is difficult except when one has a mental block against it.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 23 2009,12:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I see the target phrase as a stand-in for the fitness landscape.

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



I'm sorry to keep repeating this, but selection can be based on any of the following, plus any that I haven't thought of.

Random selection, as by asteroid impacts or supervolcanoes. Not difficult to model in software.

Wandering fitness functions, as in real life, with changing environments and ecosystems. Also not difficult to model.

Capricious selection, as in Dawkins' biomorphs.

Target proximity, as in most Weasel implementations.

Diffuse fitness, in which there are multiple possible targets, and in which a specific character may change in fitness value depending on the value of other characters. This is also not difficult to model in software.

You could also model wandering diffuse fitness.

What Behe would like you to believe is that structures like the flagellum are some kind of Platonic ideal to be searched for, rather than something arrived at through a series of contingencies having no plan or foresight.

There is an interesting empirical question posed as to exactly what historic steps produced the flagellum, but not having that history is no more troubling than not having the exact facts in any historical event.
Posted by: Touchstone on Sep. 23 2009,14:01

Here's something you don't see everyday... kairosfocus making a coherent, short(ish) post CORRECTING Joseph:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
the sequence of digits in pi will be similar to the patterns of appearance of a flat random generator’s o/p.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-335053 >

I couldn't think of a clever term, but there's some kind of threshold being crossed here, when Joseph's tard is so thick, even KF can identify it as tard. "Crossing the KF limit" or some such.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 23 2009,14:23

Quote (Touchstone @ Sep. 23 2009,14:01)
I couldn't think of a clever term, but there's some kind of threshold being crossed here, when Joseph's tard is so thick, even KF can identify it as tard. "Crossing the KF limit" or some such.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Don't cross the streams!
Posted by: Dr_Dave on Sep. 23 2009,14:55

Ahoy hoy!

Long time lurker, first time poster. Been routinely amused and edumacated by this thread for years now.

Don't know if anyone saw (apologies if it's been mentioned already), but Google launched "sidewiki" today.

< http://www.google.com/sidewiki/intl/en_GB/index.html >

A fascinating application that allows independent commenting on any webpage on the internet. It basically allows informed experts to post independent comments alongside, for example, any blog post that, maybe, didn't have a balanced commenting policy already. Thus allowing visitors to that page to learn more about the subject matter in question.

I can't imagine where that might come in handy...

Dave
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 23 2009,16:04

Dr_Dave that's too bad.  It might make this thread obsolete.  Welcome!  Hang out, have a drink, be aware that Louis might ask you to try on a bear costume.  You don't have to if you don't wanna.  if you do wanna might wanna warsh it first

Hi touchstone I still laugh my ass off at Joe-Tards pet name for you.  I do appreciate the people that point out stupid.  There is hope yet.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Sep. 23 2009,20:01

I addedd a SideWiki comment pointing out that Mullings was wrong about "latching" in "weasel" and hasn't had the guts to admit it.
Posted by: Ptaylor on Sep. 23 2009,20:44

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 24 2009,13:01)
I addedd a SideWiki comment pointing out that Mullings was wrong about "latching" in "weasel" and hasn't had the guts to admit it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's on 'The Original WEASEL(s)' thread < here >, and I notice there is a 'usefulness' voting function.
Edited: added an earle
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 23 2009,22:41

My long-lived, most excellent puppet Diffaxial has been silently banninated at UD, following a mild tweak of StephenB. I'll reconstruct that jibe from memory as best I can:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
30 years later, StephenB sits alone on a park bench, clutching his cane:

"And then I said, all things that come to exist have a... uh...uh... a something. A cause! Ha! By cracky Diffaxitive I got you that time. That's what I said! I think that's, I think that's what I said. Heh Heh. I said. Heh. That Diffixative."

:D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Too close to homeless, apparently.

This occurred on the < Shrinking Timeline > thread.

(Cross posted from the Czar thread.)
Posted by: sparc on Sep. 23 2009,22:57

Quote (Ptaylor @ Sep. 23 2009,20:44)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 24 2009,13:01)
I addedd a SideWiki comment pointing out that Mullings was wrong about "latching" in "weasel" and hasn't had the guts to admit it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's on The Original WEASEL(s) thread, and I notice there is a 'usefulness' voting function.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is like searching KF's first use of the term FSCI (you may judge if my comment on < my comment on FCSI explanation in the UD Glossary > is helpful). So,  which was the original Weasel thread? Link please, I want to leave my vote there.
If you want to link to your sidewiki entrance directly you will find it in your google profile. Just copy the link address under the "more" button. Your comment will pop up together with the original page you commented on.
Posted by: Ptaylor on Sep. 23 2009,23:30

Quote (sparc @ Sep. 24 2009,15:57)
So,  which was the original Weasel thread? Link please, I want to leave my vote there.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry, got lazy - < here it is >.
Posted by: CeilingCat on Sep. 24 2009,00:12

< The Constitutional Scholar explains herself: >    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I had almost forgotten. I helped draft our Constitution in 1981. But no one minds that kind of thing any more. Unless … could there now be hope?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Later, in the same thread:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1

IRQ Conflict

09/22/2009

5:29 am
“I helped draft our Constitution in 1981.”

Really? Wow! That’s something to brag to the grand kids about eh?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
11

feebish

09/23/2009

12:40 am
I’m with IRQ Conflict on this one. I think I mentioned in one of my first comments here that I got to live in Toronto for a year and enjoyed it very much. Please tell us what part you played in the drafting of the Constitution! Even if it was small, I’d like to hear it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
14

O'Leary

09/23/2009

11:54 am
Feebish at 11, I was summoned to Ottawa (our seat of government) in 1981, to testify about our new Constitution.

The government paid my plane fare.

I do not know what use they made of my information.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, a free plane ride!  That makes her a regular Tardus Jefferson.  I wonder if she testified for the constitution or against it?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 24 2009,00:20

lolololol tardus jefferson

what a god damned fool
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 24 2009,00:40

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 23 2009,15:01)
I addedd a SideWiki comment pointing out that Mullings was wrong about "latching" in "weasel" and hasn't had the guts to admit it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I see it. The marvels of modern technology!
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 24 2009,00:42

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 23 2009,17:41)
My long-lived, most excellent puppet Diffaxial has been silently banninated at UD, following a mild tweak of StephenB. I'll reconstruct that jibe from memory as best I can:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
30 years later, StephenB sits alone on a park bench, clutching his cane:

"And then I said, all things that come to exist have a... uh...uh... a something. A cause! Ha! By cracky Diffaxiate I got you that time. That's what I said! I think that's, I think that's what I said. Heh Heh. I said. Heh. That Diffixiate."

:D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Too close to homeless, apparently.

This occurred on the < Shrinking Timeline > thread.

(Cross posted from the Czar thread.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Congrats on the performance.

</envy
Posted by: Touchstone on Sep. 24 2009,00:50

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 23 2009,22:41)
My long-lived, most excellent puppet Diffaxial has been silently banninated at UD, following a mild tweak of StephenB. I'll reconstruct that jibe from memory as best I can:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
30 years later, StephenB sits alone on a park bench, clutching his cane:

"And then I said, all things that come to exist have a... uh...uh... a something. A cause! Ha! By cracky Diffaxiate I got you that time. That's what I said! I think that's, I think that's what I said. Heh Heh. I said. Heh. That Diffixiate."

:D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Too close to homeless, apparently.

This occurred on the < Shrinking Timeline > thread.

(Cross posted from the Czar thread.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Diffaxial is banninated?? Ouch. That was a hell of a run.

I saw that that StephenB's witty retort -- something like "Diffaxial needs a laxative!" *yuk, yuk* -- got removed, too, so I was thinking it was just mod prudery against both sides...

That thread was easily the most lopsided spanking of StephenB I've seen to date (if only because it "summed" so many other damning points from previous threads). One *almost* gets the sense that StephenB has gotten a bit of glimpse of the scope and breadth of his mistakes at the "right reasoning" level. But that sense only lasts until you read his next post…

Diffaxial RIP.
Posted by: CeilingCat on Sep. 24 2009,00:54

From the < Darrell Falk's Misshapen Theology thread: >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
10

alan

09/22/2009

9:08 am
Can you see God is now separating The Wheat and the Tares, The Foolish virgins and the Wise, the Sheep from the Goats. An example: theistic evolution as more of a means to escape from God (the Biblical One) specifically in terms of His Judgements which are His Word(s) as revealed in Romans 8 for example – the “bad” design can’t be due to a moral fall of man – we are not subject to futility that could give sight to the blind if willing to receive a repentance unto salvation – groaning inwardly I will not! Theistic Evolution: yet another religion = mans escape from God leading to books written replete with such illogic as to not be able to recognize it when writing it…as Bill points out “passing the buck”. Blind men looking at the Son. The Sheep from the Goats (Mt. 25) (Rev. 3:10) Be aware the your religion can be your hope that will keep you blind.

Daniel 12:12, God speaks of a blessed person who waits and comes to1,335 days. September 26, A.D. 29, announcing the Lamb of God to May 22, A.D. 33, the Day of Pentecost. The time between these two events was exactly 1,335 days inclusive, as Daniel 12:12 had predicted. God will allow you to have your religion which is your reward, but God has His Plan. So be free to be created in the image of darwin – or, and without apology as this applies to all including me, start paying better attention.

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


All science so far!
Posted by: MichaelJ on Sep. 24 2009,01:19

Sidewiki doesn't work on Chrome!
Posted by: CeilingCat on Sep. 24 2009,01:23

Wow!  That Darrell Falk's Misshapen Theology thread is a goldmine of religious tardism.  tragic mishap steps up to the plate in messages 16 through 19 and gives a detailed rundown on some of God's greatest evils.  He even has a run at Calvinism.  And he's supposedly on religion's side.  Some samples:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In what Christian theology does there exist a God who is not responsible for death? God has decreed that “the wages of sin is death”. In Christianity, God is therefore responsible for the death of every human being who has ever lived. How could the assertion that God created pathogens make it any worse? lol.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Bible I read places upon God the direct responsibility for plagues against Egyptians and even Israelites in the OT. He struck down Ananias and Saphira in the NT. What about Revelations?

Rev 14:19-20
“The angel swung his sickle on the earth, gathered its grapes and threw them into the great winepress of God’s wrath. They were trampled in the winepress outside the city, and blood flowed out of the press, rising as high as the horses’ bridles for a distance of 1,600 stadia.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Exodus 32:35
“And the LORD struck the people with a plague because of what they did with the calf Aaron had made.”

Numbers 11:33
“But while the meat was still between their teeth and before it could be consumed, the anger of the LORD burned against the people, and he struck them with a severe plague.”

There are also plagues in Numbers 14, 16 and 25 along with dire warnings in the Mosaic covenant of plagues if the people turned away from God. In 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21 God gave king David a choice of punishments and David chose a plague which lasted for three days and killed 70,000 people. God using plagues as a punishment is recorded and predicted in the prophetic books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Amos, Habakkuk, Zechariah and Revelations. Again, which Bible are TEs reading?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It just occurred to me that the Calvinist definition of evil is even worse. In hardcore, five-point Calvinism, God determines every action that human beings take and indeed every event that has ever happened. The Calvinist theodicy justifies a God that directly causes evil in humans by suggesting that God causes evil so he may display his grace and mercy in forgiving us and redeeming us to himself. One might rightly wonder what he is trying to prove by displaying his grace and mercy to a bunch of machines. Regardless these TEs cannot be Calvinists because that option is actually worse from their perspective than the free will definition of evil.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All science so far!
Posted by: CeilingCat on Sep. 24 2009,01:40

Oh Joy!  Same Darell Falk's Misshapen thread:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
37

kairosfocus

09/23/2009

1:22 pm
Prof Beckwith.

Pardon a brief note or two:

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


45,000 words later, KF finishes and (rimshot) Frank Beckwith replies to him!  Tardfight!!  Get the popcorn!!
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Sep. 24 2009,04:02

Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 24 2009,01:12)
< The Constitutional Scholar explains herself: >      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I had almost forgotten. I helped draft our Constitution in 1981. But no one minds that kind of thing any more. Unless … could there now be hope?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Later, in the same thread:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1

IRQ Conflict

09/22/2009

5:29 am
“I helped draft our Constitution in 1981.”

Really? Wow! That’s something to brag to the grand kids about eh?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
11

feebish

09/23/2009

12:40 am
I’m with IRQ Conflict on this one. I think I mentioned in one of my first comments here that I got to live in Toronto for a year and enjoyed it very much. Please tell us what part you played in the drafting of the Constitution! Even if it was small, I’d like to hear it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
14

O'Leary

09/23/2009

11:54 am
Feebish at 11, I was summoned to Ottawa (our seat of government) in 1981, to testify about our new Constitution.

The government paid my plane fare.

I do not know what use they made of my information.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, a free plane ride!  That makes her a regular Tardus Jefferson.  I wonder if she testified for the constitution or against it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


She probably recommended 999999% more Jebus, then filled the rest of her testimony with links to her blogs.
Posted by: CeilingCat on Sep. 24 2009,04:16

< Kirk Cameron and his Darwin project makes it to Salon.com >  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You can say there's inherent idiocy in the creationist worldview (you'd be right), but this is not the worst idea ever. Rather than resorting to the old tried-and-true method of simply attempting to silence evolutionary teaching, they’re leaning on the classic American standby: freedom of speech. Emphasis on the “free.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And once those godly volunteers get on campus, what 19-year-old wouldn’t clamor for a 19th-century tract amended by someone whose argument for the evidence of God is the existence of the banana?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 24 2009,05:44

Quote (Touchstone @ Sep. 24 2009,01:50)
   
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 23 2009,22:41)
My long-lived, most excellent puppet Diffaxial has been silently banninated at UD, following a mild tweak of StephenB. I'll reconstruct that jibe from memory as best I can:
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
30 years later, StephenB sits alone on a park bench, clutching his cane:

"And then I said, all things that come to exist have a... uh...uh... a something. A cause! Ha! By cracky Diffaxitive I got you that time. That's what I said! I think that's, I think that's what I said. Heh Heh. I said. Heh. That Diffixative."

:D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Too close to homeless, apparently.

This occurred on the < Shrinking Timeline > thread.

(Cross posted from the Czar thread.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Diffaxial is banninated?? Ouch. That was a hell of a run.

I saw that that StephenB's witty retort -- something like "Diffaxial needs a laxative!" *yuk, yuk* -- got removed, too, so I was thinking it was just mod prudery against both sides...

That thread was easily the most lopsided spanking of StephenB I've seen to date (if only because it "summed" so many other damning points from previous threads). One *almost* gets the sense that StephenB has gotten a bit of glimpse of the scope and breadth of his mistakes at the "right reasoning" level. But that sense only lasts until you read his next post…

Diffaxial RIP.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks, Touch. ETA: And Alan Fox, too.

I never saw his witty riposte.

What amazes me about StephenB was that no matter what sort of drubbing his shtick receives on one thread (he abandoned several threads in frustration during my run), he pops up on another a week later with the same unmodified horseshit with no apparent memory of the beating, no memory of any of the points raised, or any awareness that his argument has already been subject to autopsy and interment.

But doesn't that describe ID generally?
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 24 2009,06:51

Quote (Touchstone @ Sep. 24 2009,00:50)
Diffaxial is banninated?? Ouch. That was a hell of a run.

... Diffaxial RIP.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Another argument won for Intelligent Design!
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 24 2009,07:38

Bleh, the mods there have a definite desire to protect a select few posters at all costs -- the mods view them as "valuable," even though they're (Like StephenB and KF) laughably ridiculous. The really humorous point being that they're about the best they have.

It was a good run, though, Bill.

RIP, Diffaxial--we hardly knew ye, yet you flew so ...close...*snort* to...the..sun...BWAHAHAHAHA. More like "touched the face of TARD" HAHAHA.

Sorry about that outburst. It's a solemn occasion. *giggle*
Posted by: J-Dog on Sep. 24 2009,07:53

Quote (Touchstone @ Sep. 24 2009,00:50)
That thread was easily the most lopsided spanking of StephenB I've seen to date (if only because it "summed" so many other damning points from previous threads). One *almost* gets the sense that StephenB has gotten a bit of glimpse of the scope and breadth of his mistakes at the "right reasoning" level. But that sense only lasts until you read his next post…

Diffaxial RIP.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And to quote that great philosopher Billy Joel, Only The Good Die Young

RIP young puppet.
Posted by: Maya on Sep. 24 2009,08:04

Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 24 2009,06:51)
Quote (Touchstone @ Sep. 24 2009,00:50)
Diffaxial is banninated?? Ouch. That was a hell of a run.

... Diffaxial RIP.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Another argument won for Intelligent Design!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, Clivebaby, how do you justify this one?

I really hope you are Dembski, because I'd hate to think there are two such gutless fuckwits.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 24 2009,08:18

Gordon Mullings proves life was created


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the case of Judge Jones’ declaration above, we have 482 ASCII text characters, well beyond the 143 character threshold where by the search resources of the entire cosmos could not scan as much as 1 in 10^150 of the available configs. The learned judge (or his ACLU mentors) probably produced the text in a matter of at most hours.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Simple as that! < Tard >
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 24 2009,08:36

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 23 2009,22:41)
My long-lived, most excellent puppet Diffaxial has been silently banninated at UD, following a mild tweak of StephenB. I'll reconstruct that jibe from memory as best I can:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
30 years later, StephenB sits alone on a park bench, clutching his cane:

"And then I said, all things that come to exist have a... uh...uh... a something. A cause! Ha! By cracky Diffaxitive I got you that time. That's what I said! I think that's, I think that's what I said. Heh Heh. I said. Heh. That Diffixative."

:D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Too close to homeless, apparently.

This occurred on the < Shrinking Timeline > thread.

(Cross posted from the Czar thread.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Great Job Bill. I hope your sock drawer is full, because UD needs that sort of commentary.
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 24 2009,08:42

On the solemn occasion of Diffaxial's demise.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< kairosfocus >: Again: every Genetic Algorithm program, and every Evolutionary Algorithm implementing program we see was composed by a programmer, who is of coruse intelligent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Every weather simulation is composed by a programmer who is of course intelligent. Hence the Wind blows by Design. Bow down to the Anemoi!
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 24 2009,09:01

Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 24 2009,09:42)
On the solemn occasion of Diffaxial's demise.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< kairosfocus >: Again: every Genetic Algorithm program, and every Evolutionary Algorithm implementing program we see was composed by a programmer, who is of coruse intelligent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Every weather simulation is composed by a programmer who is of course intelligent. Hence the Wind blows by Design. Bow down to the Anemoi!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


that is the perfect analogy for pointing out how verily stupid is that bullshit line of argument
Posted by: carlsonjok on Sep. 24 2009,09:32

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 24 2009,09:01)
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 24 2009,09:42)
On the solemn occasion of Diffaxial's demise.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< kairosfocus >: Again: every Genetic Algorithm program, and every Evolutionary Algorithm implementing program we see was composed by a programmer, who is of coruse intelligent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Every weather simulation is composed by a programmer who is of course intelligent. Hence the Wind blows by Design. Bow down to the Anemoi!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


that is the perfect analogy for pointing out how verily stupid is that bullshit line of argument
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Except, of course, the crew over at UD would probably agree.  Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 24 2009,10:16



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Also it is a strawman to say ID sez that things are sooooo complex they must have been designed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-335141 >

Which leads to several questions...
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 24 2009,10:18

Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 24 2009,10:32)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 24 2009,09:01)
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 24 2009,09:42)
On the solemn occasion of Diffaxial's demise.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< kairosfocus >: Again: every Genetic Algorithm program, and every Evolutionary Algorithm implementing program we see was composed by a programmer, who is of coruse intelligent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Every weather simulation is composed by a programmer who is of course intelligent. Hence the Wind blows by Design. Bow down to the Anemoi!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


that is the perfect analogy for pointing out how verily stupid is that bullshit line of argument
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Except, of course, the crew over at UD would probably agree.  Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


of course of course

dishonest little bastards equivocate about what they mean by "design"

and in other news water is wet
Posted by: Turncoat on Sep. 24 2009,13:50

Zachriel,

FYI, the standard ONEMAX problem is to maximize a function that counts the number of 1's in a length-N binary string over alphabet {0, 1}. Generalization to a function that counts the number of bits matching those in an arbitrary "target" string in {0, 1}^N is trivial and inconsequential. Generalizing further to non-binary alphabets gets you the problem addressed by the Weasel program.

Stefan Droste has analyzed the performance of a (1+1) evolutionary algorithm (one parent competes with its one offspring for survival) in the case that a binary target string "wanders" precisely as I suggested.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Analysis of the (1+1) EA for a Dynamically Bitwise Changing ONEMAX

Although evolutionary algorithms (EAs) are often successfully used for the optimization of dynamically changing objective function, there are only very few theoretical results for EAs in this scenario. In this paper we analyze the (1+1) EA for a dynamically changing OneMax, whose target bit string changes bitwise, i. e. possibly by more than one bit in a step. We compute the movement rate of the target bit string resulting in a polynomial expected first hitting time of the (1+1) EA asymptotically exactly. This strengthens a previous result, where the dynamically changing OneMax changed only at most one bit at a time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This comes from a Dagstuhl workshop, "Theory of Evolutionary Computation." (I got an invitation, but was underemployed at the time, and had committed already to two overseas trips. Dammit.) I can't find the full text online.

Do results for the binary case generalize easily to the non-binary case? I don't know.
Posted by: Maya on Sep. 24 2009,14:25

Dembski, the weasel, < puts code in Dawkins' mouth >:

From


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When I contacted Richard Dawkins to confirm their authenticity, he replied, in an email dated 9.21.09, “I cannot confirm that either of them is mine. They don’t look familiar to me, but it is a long time ago. I don’t see what more I can say.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


the loud-mouthed but gutless Dover no-show gets to


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We therefore conclude, unless further evidence is presented, that the single-mutation algorithm implemented by WEASEL1 is the one used by Dawkins in TBW.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


in an almost Gordon Mullings-like spew of illogic and baseless assertions.

Any chance of bothering Dr. Dawkins again about this, Mr. Elsberry, sir?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 24 2009,14:34

Dreary O'Leary follows up with this
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Re prize:

The prize is a copy of either Stephen Meyer’s new Signature in the Cell or Richard Dawkins’ soon-to-be-out The Greatest Show on Earth. [Winner's choice]

Should the winner choose the latter, I will ask Dawkins’s publicist to mail the copy.

Either book could be obtained for less than US$50 in most places, so I doubt either would be much of an incentive to perpetrate a big hoax that would take many hours to prepare.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh the wit. And, my bold, notice the attempt to rebut possible objections already? Very poor. < It's all a big hoax > EDIT: O'Leary seems to be referring to the time taken to write the program. As noted, even on several UD threads, it can be coded faster then "many hours" would seem to imply. Just pathetic.

"It must be real because nobody would bother, it's soooo much effort ."
Posted by: Maya on Sep. 24 2009,14:48

Dembski claims "These programs were widely circulated at the time." but a search for any of the unique strings within them turns up just one hit:  Dembski's UD post.

Is he really stupid enough to a) think that he can just make stuff like this up and b) not realize that neither of these faux weasels correspond to his claims in his paper with Marks?

Okay, enough for today, back to real biology.
Posted by: Turncoat on Sep. 24 2009,14:53

Quote (Maya @ Sep. 24 2009,14:25)
Dembski, the weasel, < puts code in Dawkins' mouth >:

From
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When I contacted Richard Dawkins to confirm their authenticity, he replied, in an email dated 9.21.09, “I cannot confirm that either of them is mine. They don’t look familiar to me, but it is a long time ago. I don’t see what more I can say.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


the loud-mouthed but gutless Dover no-show gets to
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We therefore conclude, unless further evidence is presented, that the single-mutation algorithm implemented by WEASEL1 is the one used by Dawkins in TBW.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


in an almost Gordon Mullings-like spew of illogic and baseless assertions.

Any chance of bothering Dr. Dawkins again about this, Mr. Elsberry, sir?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I had guessed that Dawkins would reply to everyone that Dembski addressed. I'd like to know at least he gist of what Dembski left out. If Dawkins did not emphasize that it's the principle, and not the program, that matters, I'd be surprised.

But something really surprises me in Dembski's quote of Dawkins. If Dawkins had ever programmed in Pascal with "caps lock" on, he would remember it. I've never known a Pascal programmer who would go from a mixed-case style in one year to an execrable all-caps style in the next. If you're in the habit of using mixed case, you can't stand to look at all-caps code. And it simply does not take that much time to use the shift key.
Posted by: Turncoat on Sep. 24 2009,15:43

Quote (Maya @ Sep. 24 2009,14:48)
Dembski claims "These programs were widely circulated at the time." but a search for any of the unique strings within them turns up just one hit:  Dembski's UD post.

Is he really stupid enough to a) think that he can just make stuff like this up and b) not realize that neither of these faux weasels correspond to his claims in his paper with Marks?

Okay, enough for today, back to real biology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry, Maya, but R0b is right in pointing out that neither Weasel implements partitioned search. The apocryphal Weasels do comport ever so wonderfully with other dumb shit Dembski and his acolytes have said over the years, however.

I'm not sure that the claim that the Weasel of the BBC Horizons program worked differently from the Weasel in TBW originated with Dembski. But Dembski never passes on an opportunity to make Dawkins out to be a cheat. IIRC, the key "evidence" is the mention of "tries" on the screen. This does not seem at all odd to someone who has compared the efficiency of evolutionary optimizers using populations of different sizes. The number of trials is the number of generations multiplied by the population size. Dawkins' random search essentially has a population size of 1, and Weasel program has a population size larger than that. To make a fair comparison of the two programs, Dawkins had to report numbers of trials for the Weasel program rather than number of generations.

BTW, I'm not really a fan of Dawkins, but he does impress me with his honesty and straightforwardness. Some years back, I sent Dembski email to explain how he'd gotten a fundamental aspect of the "no free lunch" theorems wrong. His response was something like "OK, but don't expect me to admit that." I had previously sent email to Dawkins to explain that he was wrong in some claim regarding the effect of mutation on the Kolmogorov complexity of a genotype. His response was something like "I think you may be right." He has since fixed the online article in which I spotted the problem.

Dembski constantly projects his own worst traits onto his adversaries.
Posted by: Maya on Sep. 24 2009,16:25

Quote (Turncoat @ Sep. 24 2009,15:43)
Quote (Maya @ Sep. 24 2009,14:48)
Dembski claims "These programs were widely circulated at the time." but a search for any of the unique strings within them turns up just one hit:  Dembski's UD post.

Is he really stupid enough to a) think that he can just make stuff like this up and b) not realize that neither of these faux weasels correspond to his claims in his paper with Marks?

Okay, enough for today, back to real biology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry, Maya, but R0b is right in pointing out that neither Weasel implements partitioned search.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Exactly.  That's what I was trying to say in my point (b).  Re-reading it, the double negative with a half-twist is not my most cogent writing sample ever.

It seems that Dembski doesn't realize that he is contradicting his own claims about Dawkins' algorithm.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 24 2009,16:29

Edit: gah! wrong thread!
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 24 2009,16:34

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 24 2009,16:29)
Edit: gah! wrong thread!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


HAHA, I saw what you did there, taHugs. Amidst all this  discussion of GA's, too. It's like you ran up to the table and farted
Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 24 2009,16:35

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 24 2009,17:34)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 24 2009,16:29)
Edit: gah! wrong thread!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


HAHA, I saw what you did there, taHugs. Amidst all this  discussion of GA's, too. It's like you ran up to the table and farted
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I saw it too. It was hysterically and completely random.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 24 2009,16:44

It's still true, just misplaced.  :O
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Sep. 24 2009,17:31

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 24 2009,09:01)
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 24 2009,09:42)
On the solemn occasion of Diffaxial's demise.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< kairosfocus >: Again: every Genetic Algorithm program, and every Evolutionary Algorithm implementing program we see was composed by a programmer, who is of coruse intelligent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Every weather simulation is composed by a programmer who is of course intelligent. Hence the Wind blows by Design. Bow down to the Anemoi!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


that is the perfect analogy for pointing out how verily stupid is that bullshit line of argument
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I used it on Dembski in 2006 at the Greer-Heard Forum. He changed the topic.
Posted by: Maya on Sep. 24 2009,18:07

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 24 2009,17:31)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 24 2009,09:01)
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 24 2009,09:42)
On the solemn occasion of Diffaxial's demise.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< kairosfocus >: Again: every Genetic Algorithm program, and every Evolutionary Algorithm implementing program we see was composed by a programmer, who is of coruse intelligent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Every weather simulation is composed by a programmer who is of course intelligent. Hence the Wind blows by Design. Bow down to the Anemoi!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


that is the perfect analogy for pointing out how verily stupid is that bullshit line of argument
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I used it on Dembski in 2006 at the Greer-Heard Forum. He changed the topic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If only you could have put him in a . . . thingy.  Darn, right on the tip of my tongue.  A . . . wossname, holds stuff tight . . . .
Posted by: olegt on Sep. 24 2009,18:35

From the Judge Jones thread:


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

< 25 >
Clive Hayden
09/24/2009
4:21 pm

StephenB,

I know that Dr. Dembski’s position is that the Intelligent Designer can be entirely natural.

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


Clive is demonstrably wrong.  Here is Dembski < in his own words >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The fine-tuning of the universe, about which cosmologists make such a to-do, is both complex and specified and readily yields design. So too, Michael Behe's irreducibly complex biochemical systems readily yield design. The complexity-specification criterion demonstrates that design pervades cosmology and biology. Moreover, it is a transcendent design, not reducible to the physical world. Indeed, no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 24 2009,18:47

Quote (Maya @ Sep. 24 2009,18:07)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 24 2009,17:31)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 24 2009,09:01)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 24 2009,09:42)
On the solemn occasion of Diffaxial's demise.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< kairosfocus >: Again: every Genetic Algorithm program, and every Evolutionary Algorithm implementing program we see was composed by a programmer, who is of coruse intelligent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Every weather simulation is composed by a programmer who is of course intelligent. Hence the Wind blows by Design. Bow down to the Anemoi!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


that is the perfect analogy for pointing out how verily stupid is that bullshit line of argument
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I used it on Dembski in 2006 at the Greer-Heard Forum. He changed the topic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If only you could have put him in a . . . thingy.  Darn, right on the tip of my tongue.  A . . . wossname, holds stuff tight . . . .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Speedo? Prevert.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 24 2009,18:51

Quote (olegt @ Sep. 24 2009,18:35)
From the Judge Jones thread:
       

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

< 25 >
Clive Hayden
09/24/2009
4:21 pm

StephenB,

I know that Dr. Dembski’s position is that the Intelligent Designer can be entirely natural.

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


Clive is demonstrably wrong.  Here is Dembski < in his own words >:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The fine-tuning of the universe, about which cosmologists make such a to-do, is both complex and specified and readily yields design. So too, Michael Behe's irreducibly complex biochemical systems readily yield design. The complexity-specification criterion demonstrates that design pervades cosmology and biology. Moreover, it is a transcendent design, not reducible to the physical world. Indeed, no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


But, but...what abouts teh ID-famed "Disembodied Telic Energy Entity™" ? Huh, huh?!?!?! Another mighty blow strucken for Intelligents Desine.
Posted by: Maya on Sep. 24 2009,19:33

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 24 2009,18:47)
Quote (Maya @ Sep. 24 2009,18:07)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 24 2009,17:31)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 24 2009,09:01)
   
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 24 2009,09:42)
On the solemn occasion of Diffaxial's demise.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< kairosfocus >: Again: every Genetic Algorithm program, and every Evolutionary Algorithm implementing program we see was composed by a programmer, who is of coruse intelligent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Every weather simulation is composed by a programmer who is of course intelligent. Hence the Wind blows by Design. Bow down to the Anemoi!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


that is the perfect analogy for pointing out how verily stupid is that bullshit line of argument
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I used it on Dembski in 2006 at the Greer-Heard Forum. He changed the topic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If only you could have put him in a . . . thingy.  Darn, right on the tip of my tongue.  A . . . wossname, holds stuff tight . . . .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Speedo? Prevert.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure, this time you guys don't have a picture.

ETA: No, I don't mean of Dembski.  Or Davey.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Sep. 24 2009,19:45

Quote (Maya @ Sep. 24 2009,19:33)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 24 2009,18:47)
 
Speedo? Prevert.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure, this time you guys don't have a picture.

ETA: No, I don't mean of Dembski.  Or Davey.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How about RichardTHughes?


Posted by: olegt on Sep. 24 2009,19:55

Denyse to Dembski, who has posted a link to a blasphemy contest sponsored by an atheist organization:


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

< 1 >
O'Leary
09/24/2009
12:46 pm

Bill, why are you always scooping me on wingnut news? I still haven’t completely forgiven you for scooping me on the Big Bazooms theory of human evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I know Denyse is a hopeless case, but maybe someone should point out to her that she is using the wrong term.  It should be a moonbat, not a wingnut.  William Safire, the author of the Times column On Language, looked into these terms and had < this to say >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The prevailing put-down of right-wing bloggers is wingnuts; this has recently been countered by the vilification of left-wing partisans who use the Web as moonbats, the origin of which I currently seek.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can't imagine that the < Center for Inquiry > is a right-wing operation.  

And don't get me started on the Big Bazooms!
Posted by: Maya on Sep. 24 2009,19:58

Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 24 2009,19:45)
Quote (Maya @ Sep. 24 2009,19:33)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 24 2009,18:47)
 
Speedo? Prevert.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure, this time you guys don't have a picture.

ETA: No, I don't mean of Dembski.  Or Davey.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How about RichardTHughes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I didn't realize he was a nice Catholic boy.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 24 2009,19:58

Quote (Maya @ Sep. 24 2009,19:33)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 24 2009,18:47)
 
Quote (Maya @ Sep. 24 2009,18:07)
 
If only you could have put him in a . . . thingy.  Darn, right on the tip of my tongue.  A . . . wossname, holds stuff tight . . . .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Speedo? Prevert.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure, this time you guys don't have a picture.

ETA: No, I don't mean of Dembski.  Or Davey.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ask and ye shall receive. Christmas comes early for Maya:

Ho, Ho, Ho, Bay-beee
Posted by: Maya on Sep. 24 2009,20:08

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 24 2009,19:58)
Quote (Maya @ Sep. 24 2009,19:33)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 24 2009,18:47)
 
Quote (Maya @ Sep. 24 2009,18:07)
 
If only you could have put him in a . . . thingy.  Darn, right on the tip of my tongue.  A . . . wossname, holds stuff tight . . . .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Speedo? Prevert.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure, this time you guys don't have a picture.

ETA: No, I don't mean of Dembski.  Or Davey.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ask and ye shall receive. Christmas comes early for Maya:

Ho, Ho, Ho, Bay-beee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Note to self:  No more posting on AtBC on Thursday Margarita night.
Posted by: Texas Teach on Sep. 24 2009,21:49

Quote (Maya @ Sep. 24 2009,20:08)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 24 2009,19:58)
Quote (Maya @ Sep. 24 2009,19:33)
 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 24 2009,18:47)
   
Quote (Maya @ Sep. 24 2009,18:07)
 
If only you could have put him in a . . . thingy.  Darn, right on the tip of my tongue.  A . . . wossname, holds stuff tight . . . .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Speedo? Prevert.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure, this time you guys don't have a picture.

ETA: No, I don't mean of Dembski.  Or Davey.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ask and ye shall receive. Christmas comes early for Maya:

Ho, Ho, Ho, Bay-beee
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Note to self:  No more posting on AtBC on Thursday Margarita night.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Trust me, it doesn't get any better on Saturday moonshine night or on Tuesday vanilla extract night.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 25 2009,04:09

StephenB caps a discussion vis quantum events that spanned many threads with yet another remarkable concession. Throughout that discussion he expressed more willingness to have his teeth pulled with rusty pliers than admit that there are elements of quantum theory that can be said to be acausal.

Now he closes that discussion with an extensive, admiring < quote > of William Lane Craig, "one of the most talented [and thorough] philosophers that I know." Buried therein we find:
               

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Now in fact particle pair production furnishes no analogy for this radical ex nihilo becoming, as Davies seems to imply. This quantum phenomenon, even if an exception to the principle that every event has a cause, provides no analogy to something’s coming into being out of nothing."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


StephenB: From your selection of this closing quote we take it you now concede Diffaxial's point that some quantum events provide "an exception to the principle that every event has a cause," and may be said to be acausal.

That's progress.

We also see the motivation for Stephen's repeated modification of his Self-evident, Unchanging Law of Causation (originally "every effect has a cause") through Version 2.0 ("every physical event has a cause") and Version 3.0 ("all beginnings of existence have causes.”): He knew that, by the lights of one of his own favorite authorities, "every effect has a cause" has exceptions at the quantum level (as Diffaxial and others repeatedly asserted, and SB repeatedly denied), and recognized the inevitability of having to concede that.

Many bits would have been spared had he either the stones or the integrity to simply admit his mistake.

[Edited to correct Version 1.0]
Posted by: olegt on Sep. 25 2009,06:56

From StephenB's gem of a tard unearthed by Bill:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Many great minds agree with me, including some of the most influential philsophers who ever lived. I will let someone else do the talking. He is William Lane Craig, one of the most talented [and thorough] philosophers that I know.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's just unbelievable that someone would call Craig one of the most influential philosophers of all times.  A great philosopher Craig is not.  He is better < known > as “the finest Christian apologist of the last half century.”  

Craig's philosophical contributions include such great achievements as < reviving the cosmological argument >.  He clings to the < Lorentz ether theory >, which includes thoroughly obsolete notions of absolute space and absolute simultaneity of time.  (General relativity makes absolutely no sense from this perspective.)

Lastly, Craig is a Research Professor of Philosophy (!) at Talbot School of Theology (!), Biola University (!!).  Needless to say, he is a Discovery Fellow.  

The guy is a living fossil.  What he does would be considered cutting-edge stuff a mere 400 years ago.  A great tard in the original sense of the word.

ETA: snark
Posted by: Touchstone on Sep. 25 2009,19:55

Here's the < ever-lovely > Denyse:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For what it is worth, I have met genuinely humble scientists who brought credit to science – but they were usually experimentalists or medical scientists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Same mind, mapped to another subject:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For what it is worth, I have met genuinely humble black folk who brought credit to their race – but they were usually hired help, or workers in the fields.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



"Humble" being O'Leary's euphemism for "represents no threat to my foolish ideas"...
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 25 2009,20:27

she's onto all of you theoreticians!  death to theory!
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 25 2009,21:13

Erasmus can haz < design inferentz? >

from d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-dd--d-dembski's b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-blasfemmy challenge rant



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
22
Barb
09/25/2009
9:21 am
In other words, rather than rationally discuss the merits of religious belief, we’ll just blaspheme. That’s more our style.

(insert eyeroll here)

The above poster who menioned denying reality and the three cups of coffee I’ve had made me compose a song (sung to the tune of “Defying Gravity” from Wicked) :

GOD:
Oh, Charles…why couldn’t you have stayed in England instead of sailing the world over? Are you happy now that you’ve completed your endeavor? Do you think you’re clever?

DARWIN:
I hope you’re happy, too…my child is gone and you expect me to grovel in submission to feed your own ambition!

GOD/DARWIN: Although I can’t imagine how, I hope you’re happy right now.

GOD: Charles, please, listen to me…you can still be with Annie forever..what you’ve trained and worked for…I can give you all you ever wanted…

DARWIN: I know. Deep down, I know…but I don’t want it anymore.

Something has changed within me, something is not the same
I’m through with playing by the rules of your religious game
Too late for second guessing, too late, I’m in too deep
It’s time to close my eyes, trust in myself, and leap
It’s time to try defying reality
I think I’ll try defying reality
And you can’t bring me down!

GOD: Charles, Can’t I make you understand, you’re having delusions of grandeur?

DARWIN: I’m through accepting limits because you say they’re so
Some beliefs I cannot change, but until I try I’ll never know
Too long I’ve been afraid of losing your love, which I guess I’ve lost
But if that’s love, it comes at much too high a cost
I’d sooner buy
Denying reality
I think I’ll try denying reality
And you still can’t bring me down!

(spoken) There must be some way to join the two…evolution and faith

GOD: I cannot deny myself, Charles.

DARWIN: Without God, my future is unlimited…Think of what people will do in my name…

GOD: Charles, please…if you want your future to be unlimited, then come back to me.

DARWIN: Yes, unlimited…
I think I’ll try denying reality
Just the atheists and I,
Denying reality
My name will be set upon high
Denying reality

GOD (sadly): I hope you’re happy now that you’re choosing this.

DARWIN: I am.

GOD: You know, it won’t bring you bliss

DARWIN:
I really hope I get it and don’t live to regret it

GOD/DARWIN:
Will you/I be happy in the end? When you/I am no longer your friend?

DARWIN:
So if you care to find me
Look to Westminster Abbey
As someone told me lately
“Every great advance in natural knowledge has involved the absolute rejection of authority” (Thomas Huxley)
And I’m not flying solo
There are those whose thoughts are free
And to those who’d argue for design
Take a message back from me
And tell them how I am denying reality
Believing in nothing is denying reality
And soon I’ll match Newton in renown
And nobody in all the Earth
No God that there is or was
Is ever going to bring me down!

(Brooms and pyrotechnics optional)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



jesus frakking christ lady get some help.
Posted by: sparc on Sep. 26 2009,00:23

Quote (Touchstone @ Sep. 25 2009,19:55)
Here's the < ever-lovely > Denyse:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For what it is worth, I have met genuinely humble scientists who brought credit to science – but they were usually experimentalists or medical scientists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




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


Does she intend to imply that there is any such thing like experimental ID work?
However, I must admit that the relevance of Dr. Dembski's theoretic output surely does not exceed the impact of his experimental endeavors.
Posted by: Quack on Sep. 26 2009,05:25

Quote (sparc @ Sep. 26 2009,00:23)
 
Quote (Touchstone @ Sep. 25 2009,19:55)
Here's the < ever-lovely > Denyse:

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For what it is worth, I have met genuinely humble scientists who brought credit to science – but they were usually experimentalists or medical scientists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




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


Does she intend to imply that there is any such thing like experimental ID work?
However, I must admit that the relevance of Dr. Dembski's theoretic output surely does not exceed the impact of his experimental endeavors.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Funny, No "ID scientist" that I know of strikes me as humble. Dembski, Behe and the few others, humble is the last word I'd find appropriate.

They know ID is true, what remains is to get past legislation and have it taught in school.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Sep. 26 2009,05:39

< No comment needed, really >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
9

O'Leary

09/25/2009

7:06 pm

gleaner63,

You sure got that right.

Most people understand science as a help to understanding life, especially human life or the lives of animals humans care about or the environment in which we all live.

That’s why electronics research or medical/veterinary research or attempts to find a dark matter particle must actually work .

Few will intentionally fund a failure with elaborate excuses.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But I've highlighted the bit that's particularly relevant to ID.
Posted by: JLT on Sep. 26 2009,07:43

Whoa. I just caught up with you guys after being away for a while. I've got a slight tard overdose just by reading the quoted bits.
Posted by: JLT on Sep. 26 2009,08:21

Naturally, being a tard addict an' all, I couldn't stay away from the real source. And what do I find? A comment from DO'L in which she implies* that the Irish blasphemy law was instated because the Irish are afraid of Islamists.

< mikev6 asks >:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So you feel that Catholics in Ireland opposed this bill and it was passed despite that opposition by a strong Islamic movement? You also feel that only Islam is upset with blasphemy and Christians are immune to it? In that case, why the post here on UD?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< DO'L answers >:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I haven’t researched the situation in Ireland, but I do know that Islamic-dominated nations are the main group interested in official blasphemy laws. And the religion they mean to protect is Islam, not Catholic Christianity.

That means, explicitly, protecting it against criticism by Muslims and others who are angry about injustices perpetrated in its name. [...]

If the Irish follow suit with the Islamists, they should be ashamed of themselves.

Is it possible they are afraid of Islamic fascists? Lord knows, after 9-11, 7-11 and the Tube bombings, some people may just be quietly selling out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



* At least that is what my DO'L parser came up with. It must be broken. Even DO'L couldn't come up with something that ridiculous.**

** I've been away for too long. Nothing could be too ridiculous to believe in for someone who buys into ID.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 26 2009,11:06

Quote (Quack @ Sep. 26 2009,06:25)
Quote (sparc @ Sep. 26 2009,00:23)
 
Quote (Touchstone @ Sep. 25 2009,19:55)
Here's the < ever-lovely > Denyse:

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For what it is worth, I have met genuinely humble scientists who brought credit to science – but they were usually experimentalists or medical scientists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




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


Does she intend to imply that there is any such thing like experimental ID work?
However, I must admit that the relevance of Dr. Dembski's theoretic output surely does not exceed the impact of his experimental endeavors.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Funny, No "ID scientist" that I know of strikes me as humble. Dembski, Behe and the few others, humble is the last word I'd find appropriate.

They know ID is true, what remains is to get past legislation and have it taught in school.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've heard Behe speak in person, and I have to say that my observation of him is quite in line with this.

He came off as a pompous twit.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 26 2009,11:09

Quote (JLT @ Sep. 26 2009,09:21)
< DO'L answers >:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I haven’t researched..., but I do know...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


O'Leary summarizes ID Creationism.
Posted by: KCdgw on Sep. 26 2009,11:54

Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 26 2009,11:06)
Quote (Quack @ Sep. 26 2009,06:25)
Quote (sparc @ Sep. 26 2009,00:23)
   
Quote (Touchstone @ Sep. 25 2009,19:55)
Here's the < ever-lovely > Denyse:

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For what it is worth, I have met genuinely humble scientists who brought credit to science – but they were usually experimentalists or medical scientists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




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


Does she intend to imply that there is any such thing like experimental ID work?
However, I must admit that the relevance of Dr. Dembski's theoretic output surely does not exceed the impact of his experimental endeavors.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Funny, No "ID scientist" that I know of strikes me as humble. Dembski, Behe and the few others, humble is the last word I'd find appropriate.

They know ID is true, what remains is to get past legislation and have it taught in school.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've heard Behe speak in person, and I have to say that my observation of him is quite in line with this.

He came off as a pompous twit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, but he is a veritable saint compared to Jonathan Wells.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 27 2009,08:09

Two paradoxical posters at UD. In response to < UD's report > of recent findings confirming the descent of birds from dinosaurs:

< Gil Dodg'em >:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How many more times must we be tormented with the Darwinian “finality” claim of the absolute and undeniable truth of the creative power of Darwinian incrementalism?...

Am I a bizarre, anti-intellectual, IQ-deprived, science-destroying troglodyte who can’t somehow see The Truth of Darwinism?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why yes, Gil, you are, although it is because your IQ is respectable that the other descriptors (bizarre, anti-intellectual troglodyte) fit - although you won't be actually destroying science any time soon, as no one gives a rat's ass what you or anyone else on UD has to say.

< Vjtorley >:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thanks to the new discovery, I think the evidence that birds are descended from dinosaurs is about as good as one could reasonably ask for.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Vjtorley is the most paradoxical pro-ID poster on UD. He is uniformly polite and respectful, writes well, is well informed, is interested in the literature, often takes reasonable positions in response to evidence (such as this example), and actually reads, understands, and sometimes modifies his views in response to contributions of ID critics. Granted, he takes a position of extreme dualism, although one of which he can mount a reasonably thoughtful defense. He is also prone to outlandish claims (human rationality arose whole in literally one 24 hour period with NO Jack Bauer involved) that are inconsistent with his own obvious fund of evolutionary knowledge, and occasionally displays a quasi-paranoid line of thinking that is a bit difficult to square with his other qualities (the notion that if human consciousness and rationality are physically instantiated, then computers are going to take over the world and think for us). But on the whole, as Diffaxial, I enjoyed my exchanges with him due to his thoughtful qualities and politeness. My only real complaint was that he is somewhat of a drive-by poster and is prone to abandoning interactions and threads after a post or two.

What's he doing among those other nitwits?
Posted by: Quack on Sep. 27 2009,11:45



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What's he doing among those other nitwits?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Any possibility he might be an impostor - I presume sock already is out of the question?

An approach like his is something I might have wanted to take but I am far too un-educated and short-tempered to keep  pretending.
Posted by: Raevmo on Sep. 27 2009,12:34

StephenB is a < blowtard >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ellazimm: “The [evolutionary] scientists working on evolution research are trying to find the details of how it all happened.”

SB: No, actually they are not. They are working hard to stop ID from finding out what happened, because we now know that the Darwinists almost certainly got it wrong. They work hard at protecting their paradigm. That’s about it. Darwinists have discovered nothing more than that which we already knew without their help—–things change. The theory of evolution has not given us one good thing in 150 years. Most of the real advances come from medical specialists and molecular biologists, neither of which need the ToE to do their work.

ellazimm: “Surely the ID researchers are doing the same. Yeah?”

SB:  Life was designed. That is a big scientific discovery. Why do you not celebrate it? There may be more to come, but maybe not. We may never know about life’s origins from a scientific point of view. If, however, ID does prove how the designer designed life, you may be sure that the Darwinist academy will respond the same way they responded to the news that life was designed. They will persecute the messenger.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What kind of bizarro world does this creep live in?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 27 2009,12:46

Quote (Raevmo @ Sep. 27 2009,13:34)
StephenB is a < blowtard >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ellazimm: “The [evolutionary] scientists working on evolution research are trying to find the details of how it all happened.”

SB: No, actually they are not. They are working hard to stop ID from finding out what happened, because we now know that the Darwinists almost certainly got it wrong. They work hard at protecting their paradigm. That’s about it. Darwinists have discovered nothing more than that which we already knew without their help—–things change. The theory of evolution has not given us one good thing in 150 years. Most of the real advances come from medical specialists and molecular biologists, neither of which need the ToE to do their work.

ellazimm: “Surely the ID researchers are doing the same. Yeah?”

SB:  Life was designed. That is a big scientific discovery. Why do you not celebrate it? There may be more to come, but maybe not. We may never know about life’s origins from a scientific point of view. If, however, ID does prove how the designer designed life, you may be sure that the Darwinist academy will respond the same way they responded to the news that life was designed. They will persecute the messenger.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What kind of bizarro world does this creep live in?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


c'mon Raevmo you know exactly what kind of world he lives in.

a fantasy world.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 27 2009,16:48

Quote (Quack @ Sep. 27 2009,12:45)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What's he doing among those other nitwits?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Any possibility he might be an impostor - I presume sock already is out of the question?

An approach like his is something I might have wanted to take but I am far too un-educated and short-tempered to keep  pretending.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's the real deal. I've got a .pdf of his dissertation (in philosophy). Plus he maintains an elaborate web page stocked with links to literature that "refutes" materialism.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 27 2009,17:15



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
c'mon Raevmo you know exactly what kind of world he lives in.

a fantasy world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



De plane! De plane!

Henry
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 27 2009,17:47



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
with links to literature that "refutes" materialism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Really? If materialism is simply the philosophy of not assuming existence of something until there's evidence for it, then it's not a hypothesis that could be refuted, even in principle. After all, if somebody comes up with evidence for something previously thought not to exist, then "materialism" by that definition would not produce an objection.

(OTOH, it's possible I don't know what "materialism" means?)

Henry
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 27 2009,21:26

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 27 2009,18:47)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
with links to literature that "refutes" materialism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Really? If materialism is simply the philosophy of not assuming existence of something until there's evidence for it, then it's not a hypothesis that could be refuted, even in principle. After all, if somebody comes up with evidence for something previously thought not to exist, then "materialism" by that definition would not produce an objection.

(OTOH, it's possible I don't know what "materialism" means?)

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Here > is a link to the page to which I refer.

ETA: < His web page >, which includes a link to his dissertation.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 27 2009,22:19

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 27 2009,17:15)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
c'mon Raevmo you know exactly what kind of world he lives in.

a fantasy world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



De plane! De plane!

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


De sign! De sign!
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 27 2009,23:04

De Nile! De Nile!

(Not just a river in Egypt!)
Posted by: Bob O'H on Sep. 28 2009,02:58

De bait!  De Bait!
Posted by: Quack on Sep. 28 2009,03:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Plus he maintains an elaborate web page stocked with links to literature that "refutes" materialism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now I know: I am too simple-minded. Can't even fathom the possibility that someone not out of his wits can (thinks he) refute materialism.

OTOH, this world is an illusion, we'll never know the 'real world', whatever that may be. And in the end, this world, whatever it is, will (maybe) no longer be. It is all < Maya. > Some people need absolute certainty in order not to go nuts and they go nuts in their quest for certainty.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Sep. 28 2009,08:38

Denyse O'Leary demonstrates her chops as a journalist.

< She posts today > (September 28) about the Darwin film "Creation" not finding a distributor.  This comes 4 days after < Newmarket announces > it will distribute the film. When < told of this fact > by Ellazim, Denyse < flippantly responds >:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Has a distributor?

Well, that re-ends the uproar. You can probably catch it on the summer reruns.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If Denyse had bothered to do any research, she would have known that Newmarket is planning a December release.

Denyse's approach to journalism is like......umm.......the whole ID approach to science.  Research, schmesearch.  They already know what is true. Don't bother them with the facts.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 28 2009,10:13

Corny's latest:

From here:

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....thought >

to here:

< http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/09/speed-of-thought.html >

end with this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Two thousand years ago the Epicureans explained that the organization in nature arose from nothing more than the swerving motions of atoms. How naive. Evolution has moved us far beyond such a silly idea. Religion drives science and it matters.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Religion drives science and it matters. Completely pulled out of his arse with no support.

Computers are fast, brains are massively parallel. We've know this for a long, long time, Corny.
Posted by: RDK on Sep. 28 2009,10:49

Dennis-O on reindeer antlers for felines:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In these parts, people will distribute anything they think will sell.

One of my kids once brought home fake reindeer antlers for our cat (a Christmas gimmick).

I recall pointing out that the cat wouldn’t like them.

He didn’t.

But someone designed, manufactured, distributed, and sold them. Just shows you …
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah, and you're the stupid jackass that bought it, Dennis.  Simple supply and demand.

Add economics to the list of things she he it doesn't get.
Posted by: dmso74 on Sep. 28 2009,11:04

[quote=Richardthughes,Sep. 28 2009,10:13]Corny's latest:

From here:

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....thought >

to here:

< http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/09/speed-of-thought.html >

end with this:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Two thousand years ago the Epicureans explained that the organization in nature arose from nothing more than the swerving motions of atoms. How naive. Evolution has moved us far beyond such a silly idea. Religion drives science and it matters.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Religion drives science and it matters.

That's his trademarked sign off phrase. picture him in his basement, proudly practicing it in front of a pretend television audience after another 10 straight hours of non-stop scouring of evolution-related press releases for words like "design" and "complex" that he can bold and quote as further evidence that evolutionary biologists really know ID is right but refuse to admit it. his website is non-stop hilarity, full of bizarre twisted arguments that make sense only in the context of his own made-up little world where all science is religious except ID.
Posted by: sparc on Sep. 28 2009,11:38

Let's see what UD wil make out of < this >.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Sep. 28 2009,11:49

Quote (sparc @ Sep. 28 2009,11:38)
Let's see what UD wil make out of < this >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh now that's interesting.  I'm co-author on a paper about gene regulation on the stickleback sex chromosome.
Posted by: Robin on Sep. 28 2009,11:52

Quote (dmso74 @ Sep. 28 2009,11:04)

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


Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 28 2009,10:13)
Corny's latest:


Religion drives science and it matters.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hmmm...maybe Hunter is correct. Seems to me that religion drives science in the same way that a road drives a car. Sure, there are occasionally obstacles and debris along the road that bounce the car around a bit, but for the most part the car just rolls over the road.
Posted by: sparc on Sep. 28 2009,12:22

Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 28 2009,11:49)
 
Quote (sparc @ Sep. 28 2009,11:38)
Let's see what UD wil make out of < this >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh now that's interesting.  I'm co-author on a paper about gene regulation on the stickleback sex chromosome.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This was not unlikely because according to the < only relevant ID site > Bob has many more publications than the staff of the Discovery Institute.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 28 2009,13:34

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 28 2009,10:13)
Corny's latest:

From here:

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....thought >

to here:

< http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/09/speed-of-thought.html >

end with this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Two thousand years ago the Epicureans explained that the organization in nature arose from nothing more than the swerving motions of atoms. How naive. Evolution has moved us far beyond such a silly idea. Religion drives science and it matters.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Religion drives science and it matters. Completely pulled out of his arse with no support.

Computers are fast, brains are massively parallel. We've know this for a long, long time, Corny.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wonder what he'd make of this:

< http://www.stanford.edu/group/brainsinsilicon/goals.html >
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 28 2009,13:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Inspired by GRAPE-6, a $60K supercomputer that has revolutionized astrophysics, Neurogrid provides an affordable option for brain simulations. It uses analog computation to emulate ion-channel activity and uses digital communication to softwire structured connectivity patterns. Because operation is parallel or serial, respectively, these technologies impose different constraints. Analog computation constrains the number of distinct ion-channel populations (subcellular compartments) that can be simulated—unlike digital computation, which simply takes longer to run bigger simulations. Digital communication constrains the rate (bandwidth) at which synapses can be activated—unlike analog communication, which simply sums additional inputs onto the same line. Working within these constraints, Neurogrid achieves its goal of simulating multiple cortical areas in real-time through the following choices.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://www.stanford.edu/group/brainsinsilicon/neurogrid.html >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Rivaling Blue Gene's performance, Neurogrid will simulate a million neurons in real-time, while consuming a million times less energy, one watt instead of a megawatt!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 28 2009,15:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Clive Hayden >: Author Dan Brown is interviewed at < Parade >, and comments on his loss of faith as a kid:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I remember saying to a minister, “I don’t get it. I read a book that said there was an explosion known as the Big Bang, but here it says God created heaven and Earth and the animals in seven days. Which is right?” Unfortunately, the response I got was, “Nice boys don’t ask that question.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It’s six days of creation in Genesis, not seven days.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, he misstated the time between the creation of the Heavens and humans by nearly 17% ... or so.


-
edited

Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 28 2009,16:22

from cornytard's latest pile of sputum

Graham I asks "why the hell would a designer make brains a billion times more powerful than our computers?"

Barb-tard replies that her god is a super-ape


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
4
Barb
09/28/2009
8:02 am
Graham: As to why the designer would provide an excess, I believe that we are created in His image. Why wouldn’t he give us the capacity to comprehend our universe, our Earth, beauty, love, etc.?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



ALL SCIENCE SO FAR
Posted by: dmso74 on Sep. 28 2009,16:22

In other news, Clive Hayden reads Parade magazine
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 28 2009,16:25

Dennis tucks it in for a minute so it can act coy



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The press release informs me that Kauffman is ”one of the world’s most eminent scientists” and that the MacArthur foundation has officially labelled him a “genius,” stuff I could never have imagined from reading his first book, At Home in the Universe. But then I had no idea that Richard Dawkins (a guy who can’t even find his own computer code) is, by his own admission, “the most formidable intellect in public discourse” either
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



a guy who can't even find his own computer code.  are you fucking kidding me.  these people are so deeply stupid that sometimes i feel guilty for making fun of them.  then i read some shit that tranny tard has dribbled and i realize that no amount of ridicule is enough.  stupid that big should get you thrown in some kind of dungeon.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 28 2009,16:27

Quote (dmso74 @ Sep. 28 2009,17:22)
In other news, Clive Hayden reads Parade magazine
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


bwaahahahahaaha

i missed that.

well you have to take what you can get if you are a demented fuckwit.  

and that's exactly what clive,baby is.

he thinks fucking "materialism" is why people reject genesis.

Pssst, hey dumbass, it's because Genesis is a fucking load of bollocks, you stupid stupid little man.
Posted by: Raevmo on Sep. 28 2009,17:13

SpitfireIXA < is a dumb fuck: >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ID has been a better predictor of the fossil record results over the past 160 years.

Darwinism predicted an extended, gradual, smooth transition that would nearly erase taxonomy due to the vast number of necessary transitional forms.

ID predicted species stasis and stable taxonomies. The creationism extension predicts sudden and staged appearance of designs.

In the 1850’s, Darwin said “we’ll see.” In 2009, we see. The fossil records shows atasis, stable taxonomies, and sudden, staged appearance of designs.

Hence the Darwinist need for such contortions as PE, convergence, and the newfound love for Lamarck.

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



The poor guy doesn't understand that predictions have to follow logically from hypotheses.

And he's a homo: he likes to photograph Shetland ponies. (< link >).

Or maybe he's a she?
Posted by: J-Dog on Sep. 28 2009,17:32

Quote (Raevmo @ Sep. 28 2009,17:13)
SpitfireIXA < is a dumb fuck: >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ID has been a better predictor of the fossil record results over the past 160 years.

Darwinism predicted an extended, gradual, smooth transition that would nearly erase taxonomy due to the vast number of necessary transitional forms.

ID predicted species stasis and stable taxonomies. The creationism extension predicts sudden and staged appearance of designs.

In the 1850’s, Darwin said “we’ll see.” In 2009, we see. The fossil records shows atasis, stable taxonomies, and sudden, staged appearance of designs.

Hence the Darwinist need for such contortions as PE, convergence, and the newfound love for Lamarck.

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



The poor guy doesn't understand that predictions have to follow logically from hypotheses.

And he's a homo: he likes to photograph Shetland ponies. (< link >).

Or maybe he's a she?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, not many women would pick a WWII fighter plane as a mon iker...
Maybe a Limey Poofter... not that that's wrong...
Posted by: Raevmo on Sep. 28 2009,17:39



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Maybe a Limey Poofter... not that that's wrong...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No not really, unless it's Louis and he's been making up all those stories about his kid...
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 28 2009,18:39



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The poor guy doesn't understand that predictions have to follow logically from hypotheses.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That was my thought too. No surprise there, though. For one example of that error, antievolutionists routinely claim that ID implies that unguided evolution won't work. But "something somehow deliberately engineered some aspect of life" does not imply that unguided evolution couldn't also do so.

Henry
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 28 2009,18:46

sane?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
8
Lutepisc
09/28/2009
5:20 pm
Steve, I completely agree with you…as a (Lutheran) clergyperson myself. I must say my seminary training back in the 70s prepared me to deal with questions like Dan’s much more adequately than his priest’s seminary did, it seems. I could have talked very readily and easily with Dan about the meaning of the Creation and Fall narrative in Genesis apart from the latest discoveries in biological science.

The problem with mainline denominations like mine is rather the opposite. As far as I can tell, we don’t challenge the dominant paradigm in biology, and don’t feel we’re entitled to do so. We have achieved (or settled for) a kind of truce in which we don’t permit biologists to interpret Genesis, and we don’t believe we can help them interpret their biological data.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



ummm, i dunno.  

but i do know that that guy will always have to deal with this next question, in sequence.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
10
RickToews
09/28/2009
6:19 pm
Lutepisc, #8. We have achieved (or settled for) a kind of truce in which we don’t permit biologists to interpret Genesis, and we don’t believe we can help them interpret their biological data.

Yet, if I may ask, can there really be a truce here? I think it’s clear to most people that, taking Genesis as straightforward history, one can’t have one’s cake and eat it too.

So if one is convinced that the scientific understanding is reasonably accurate, why is not the simplest explanation for the obvious discrepancies that the biblical account is merely the fruit of someone’s creative imagination?

Or, if God can make a claim in one age that another age is able to demonstrate false (OK, euphemistically, figurative or allegorical; the point is, the text looks straightforward and was historically generally understood to be so), why would those who were in a position to lift the wool from their eyes in this instance choose to believe him on the next thing he said, simply because they hadn’t (yet) been forced by actual fact to reinterpret his words?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



and i've never seen a reasonable answer to that.

just this hook-line-sinker idiocy



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
11
tribune7
09/28/2009
6:20 pm
I never believed the Bible either — until I read it. Which happened in my early 20s. It was not what I was lead to believe
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



lololol



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
7
toc
09/28/2009
5:07 pm
I am always amazed by someone whose decisions of this magnitude are made at such a young age. I find it hard to imagine that Brown possessed the faculties to categorically reject the existence of God at that young age, but he had to be indignant–what other reaction would he have.

I do know a woman who, when she was seventeen or eighteen years of age asked a lutheran minister why she should believe what was written in the Bible. He responded hastily that she had to take it all on faith. She passed away last week at eighty-six having never believed. His answer baffled her.

When someone of the faith, particularly a professional, answers a question like this with such a trite answer it is shameful. Serious questions deserve serious and well thought out answers. Ministers like this should be selling shoes as far as I am concerned.


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



toc should be amazed at the stupidity of tribune7, making such decisions at such a young age.  lutepisc is amazed at anyone who takes genesis literally.  rick is amazed at the whole bloody lot.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 28 2009,21:04

hooboy

so lutepisc again says genesis is bunk (cue Irving Kristol)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But that’s exactly the point, RickToews. Genesis is not written as “straightforward history,” as we understand those words today. Indeed, its intended audience had no newspapers or history textbooks, and would not have understood modern distinctions like this. Rather, the Creation and Fall narrative is a theological treatise–presenting its readers with an understanding of who God is, and discussing the relationship between God and humanity–in the form of a story. The story conveys truths. They are not intended primarily as biological or historical truths…but as existential truths about our human relationships with each other, about our capacity for good or evil, and about our ultimate meaning and destiny as humans.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



yeah yeah "different kinds of truths" we get it mr constructionist

but the best part is Frances Beckwith getting in some playa hatin' time



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
16
fbeckwith
09/28/2009
7:41 pm
“This is why it’s so important that theologians and ministers get on board with ID — so they can avoid this unintentional bleeding of the ranks.”

It would be one thing if the ID advocates were only offering their point of view as a mere hypothesis subjected to the usual give and take in scientific and philosophical discourse. (In fact, my earlier work on ID assumed as much). But that in fact is not the case. It has over the years morphed into a movement that treats the soundness of its arguments as virtually essential to sustaining the rationality of theism itself. Steve Meyer, for example, suggests that before the 20th century’s advances in biochemistry and microbiology, immaterialism and teleology were down for the count. But now ID stands ready, Meyer contends, to triumphantly procure these advances to help restore “some of the intellectual underpinning of traditional Western metaphysics and theistic belief.” Who knew?

This embellished sense of ID’s importance in the march of history is not a virture. It is an unattractive enthusiasm that clouds rather than showcases ID’s important, though modest, publishing successes and the legitimate questions these writings bring to bear on many issues that overlap science, theology, and philosophy. Combine this lack of academic modesty with the ubiquitous propagation of ID within Evangelical Protestantism and its churches, seminaries, and parachurch groups (and even among some Catholics) as a new and improved way to topple the materialist critics of Christianity, and you have a recipe for widespread disappointment (and perhaps disillusionment with Christianity) if the ID ship takes on too much water in the sea of philosophical and scientific criticism. For this reason, other non-materialist Christian academics, such as Thomists and some Cosmic Fine-Tuning supporters, who would ordinarily find ID’s project intriguing and worth interacting with (as I do), are hesitant to cooperate with a movement that implies to church goers and popular audiences that the very foundations of theism and Western civilization rise or fall on the soundness of Behe’s and Dembski’s inferences.

Take, for example, comments from a press release for an ID conference (30-31 Oct 2009) sponsored by Shepherd Project Ministries in Colorado:

The conference will explore the cultural impact of Darwinism and the ground-breaking new evidence for Intelligent Design that is changing the shape of this crucial conversation today.

With presentations by some of the world’s foremost Intelligent Design experts, this conference will equip Christians to understand the key issues and be able to speak effectively into a culture that is foundering in the sea of meaninglessness that is Darwin’s most lasting legacy.

(http://www.shepherdproject.com.....stian.pdf). See also the descriptions of similar con-ferences held at Southwestern Bapist Theological Seminary, 23-24 Oct 2009 (http://www.discovery.org/e/901) and Westerminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, 12-13 March 2010 (http://www.discovery.org/e/901).

I am, of course, not suggesting that there is anything wrong with having conferences in which theology and science are integrated and their interaction critically assessed. And, to be sure, any such conference should give ID a fair hearing and explain how it interacts with theology and the life of the mind. However, what I am suggesting is that it is intel-lectually irresponsibile to offer Christians, especially prospective clergy, ID as the only legitimate non-religious alternative to Darwinian materialism that a Christian may authentically embrace, as these conferences seem to do.

(BTW, if the above reads like I clipped and pasted it from something else. It’s because I have. It’s a sliver of a 15,000 word article I have coming out early next year, “How to Be an Anti-Intelligent Design Advocate.” It is going to be published in a special issue of a law review on ID and public education).

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



wow
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 28 2009,22:06

incoming tard alert!!!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
28 September 2009

Author Gil Dodgen Discusses His Loss of Faith in Adulthood
GilDodgen

I was raised an atheist, and was very devout as a kid. I studied astronomy, cosmology, and the origins of the universe. I remember saying to a scientist, “I don’t get it. I read a book that said there was an explosion known as the Big Bang, and that all the laws of physics were fine-tuned to make life possible. Wouldn’t this require design and purpose?” Unfortunately, the response I got was, “Only mindless, uneducated religious fanatics ask that question. It was all an accident. Stop asking stupid questions.” But I wasn’t mindless, uneducated, or a religious fanatic. I was an atheist!

A light went off, and I said, “Materialism doesn’t make sense. Design and purpose in the cosmos makes much more sense to me.” And I just gravitated away from atheism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Frill, didn't you hear?  

toc



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am always amazed by someone whose decisions of this magnitude are made at such a young age. I find it hard to imagine that Brown FRILL possessed the faculties to categorically reject AFFIRM the existence of God at that young age, but he had to be indignant–what other reaction would he have.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



yeah it's pretty much the same old bullshit.  carlson don't even bother fuck we've seen this one a blumilliondy times
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 28 2009,22:11

Ooooh tardfight

In one corner we have Frances Beckwith, scholar, and presumably one who may still eat at the Baylor Cafeteria should he so desire (even though they didn't give him a lifetime card)

in the other, errr, StephenB, tard, and presumably one who may still eat at his mother's dinner table, should he so desire to come upstairs out of the basement and put on a pair of britches



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So far, we have two Christian world views in competition:
On the one hand, we have ID, consistent with but not tied to the Biblical view expressed in Psalm 19 and Romans 1:20, which teaches that God’s existence is made evident in his handiwork and that design in real. A purposeful, mindful God made the universe, but we don’t know how.

On the other hand, we have the anti-Biblical, Christian Darwinist view, which teaches that God’s handiwork is not evident at all and that design is an “illusion.” A purposeful, mindful God used a purposeless, mindless process because, well, because, in spite of the scant evidence to support such a proposition, we just know that God had to do it that way.

I can’t imagine why a thoughtful Christian would be scandalized by the first formulation and oh, so chummy with the second.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Little Miss Representation, your thong is showing.  that's GOTTA SUCK when you have to play who is the bigger christian with former DI Fellows.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Sep. 28 2009,22:38

Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 28 2009,11:49)
Quote (sparc @ Sep. 28 2009,11:38)
Let's see what UD wil make out of < this >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh now that's interesting.  I'm co-author on a paper about gene regulation on the stickleback sex chromosome.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is so cool! Sticklebacks are almost as cool as primates. Is there a link to the paper you co-authored?
Posted by: Benny H on Sep. 28 2009,22:54



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Considering Dan Brown’s Gil Dodgen's blanket mishandling of basic historical scientific facts in his novels posts, it’s hard to take Dan Brown’s GilDodgen's personal history seriously.

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


Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Sep. 28 2009,23:04

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 28 2009,21:04)
hooboy

but the best part is Frances Beckwith getting in some playa hatin' time

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
16
fbeckwith
09/28/2009
7:41 pm
“This is why it’s so important that theologians and ministers get on board with ID — so they can avoid this unintentional bleeding of the ranks.”

It would be one thing if the ID advocates were only offering their point of view as a mere hypothesis subjected to the usual give and take in scientific and philosophical discourse. (In fact, my earlier work on ID assumed as much). But that in fact is not the case. It has over the years morphed into a movement that treats the soundness of its arguments as virtually essential to sustaining the rationality of theism itself.

{snip supporting argument, compared to Floyd Lee, Beckwith looks like Hume, Voltaire, Shakespeare, Newton and Einstein combined}

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



wow
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have respect for Beckwith's arguments, past and presumably future.

Francis Beckwith made the argument that IF ID was truly a scientific enterprise, then it could not be denied being taught in public schools in spite of it supporting a certain religious doctrine.  Beckwith, not being a physical scientist, was fooled by the Dembski, Behe, et al. bafflegab, but I think he is slowly wising up that there is no content in ID (PCID the journal of ISCID is a big clue).
Posted by: Benny H on Sep. 28 2009,23:11

Dang, let me retry my last comment:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Considering Dan Brown’s Gil Dodgen's blanket mishandling of basic historical scientific facts in his novels posts, it’s hard to take Dan Brown’s Gil Dodgen's personal history disbelief in evolution seriously.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: sledgehammer on Sep. 28 2009,23:12

< O'Leary: >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But as for the ideas: Used to was, and done to death, and it will wash no more.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WTF?  Is this some literary reference or just Densye's attempt at lyrical prose? Either way, it makes no sense to me.
Posted by: Benny H on Sep. 28 2009,23:13

Dang again - well you get the idea. I'll just got to bed now before I can screw up any more comments.
Posted by: sparc on Sep. 28 2009,23:16

What is StephenB intending to say by    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ID, consistent with but not tied to the Biblical view expressed in Psalm 19 and Romans 1:20, which teaches that God’s existence is made evident in his handiwork and that design in real
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Wouldn't that statement imply at least another view consistent but tied to the biblical view expressed Psalm 19 and Romans 1:20? Or is good old fashioned honest creationism no christian world view anymore?
Posted by: keiths on Sep. 29 2009,00:21

Quote (sledgehammer @ Sep. 28 2009,21:12)
< O'Leary: >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But as for the ideas: Used to was, and done to death, and it will wash no more.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WTF?  Is this some literary reference or just Densye's attempt at lyrical prose? Either way, it makes no sense to me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


She's quoting, with no apparent sense of irony, from this ode to pretentious hacks by Henry Duff Traill:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
After Dillettante Concetti

"Why do you wear your hair like a man,
Sister Helen?
This week is the third since you began."
"I'm writing a ballad; be still if you can,
Little brother.
(O Mother Carey, mother!
What chickens are these between sea and heaven?)"

"But why does your figure appear so lean,
Sister Helen?
And why do you dress in sage, sage green?"
"Children should never be heard, if seen,
Little brother!
(O Mother Carey, mother!
What fowls are a-wing in the stormy heaven!)"

"But why is your face so yellowy white,
Sister Helen?
And why are your skirts so funnily tight?"
"Be quiet, you torment, or how can I write,
Little brother?
(O Mother Carey, mother!
How gathers thy train to the sea from the heaven!)"

"And who's Mother Carey, and what is her train,
Sister Helen?
And why do you call her again and again?"
"You troublesome boy, why that's the refrain,
Little brother.
(O Mother Carey, mother!
What work is toward in the startled heaven?)"

"And what's a refrain? What a curious word,
Sister Helen!
Is the ballad you're writing about a sea-bird?"
"Not at all; why should it be? Don't be absurd,
Little brother.
(O Mother Carey, mother!
Thy brood flies lower as lowers the heaven.)"

(A big brother speaketh:)

"The refrain you've studied a meaning had,
Sister Helen!
It gave strange force to a weird ballad.
But refrains have become a ridiculous 'fad',
Little brother.
And Mother Carey, mother,
Has a bearing on nothing in earth or heaven.

"But the finical fashion has had its day,
Sister Helen.
And let's try in the style of a different lay
To bid it adieu in poetical way,
Little brother.
So, Mother Carey, mother!
Collect your chickens and go to - heaven."

(A pause. Then the big brother singeth, accompanying himself
in a plaintive wise on the triangle:)

"Look in my face. My name is Used-to-was,
I am also called Played-out and Done-to-death,
And It-will-wash-no-more. Awakeneth
Slowly, but sure awakening it has,
The common-sense of man; and I, alas!
The ballad-burden trick, now known too well,
Am turned to scorn, and grown contemptible -
A too transparent artifice to pass.

"What a cheap dodge I am! The cats who dart
Tin-kettled through the streets in wild surprise
Assail judicious ears not otherwise;
And yet no critics praise the urchin's 'art',
Who to the wretched creature's caudal part
Its foolish empty-jingling 'burden' ties."

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


Posted by: Quack on Sep. 29 2009,02:25

English prose is one thing; English poetry something quite different but strangely similar, and hard to read.

For once I made the effort, and can only say Wow!
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 29 2009,05:50

< Clivebaby's > widdle feewings are hurt:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Karl Giberson has responded in a post at Beliefnet to Dr. Dembski’s previous post here at UD. The post that Dr. Dembski wrote was in response to another Beliefnet post written by Darrel Falk. What is left out of this triangle is that I had also posted a response to Darrel Falk’s post right after Dr. Dembski’s post. But Karl Giberson seems to have missed my post, because not only am I not mentioned in his reply, his reply has already been directly refuted by my post, and I would assume that Karl Giberson wouldn’t have written his post if only he had read mine.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Clive, howzabout a bit of inference to the best explanation: No one, but no one, gives a rat's ass WHAT you have to say.

The real mystery is why anyone cares what Dembski has to say anymore.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 29 2009,06:08

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 29 2009,05:50)
< Clivebaby's > widdle feewings are hurt:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Karl Giberson has responded in a post at Beliefnet to Dr. Dembski’s previous post here at UD. The post that Dr. Dembski wrote was in response to another Beliefnet post written by Darrel Falk. What is left out of this triangle is that I had also posted a response to Darrel Falk’s post right after Dr. Dembski’s post. But Karl Giberson seems to have missed my post, because not only am I not mentioned in his reply, his reply has already been directly refuted by my post, and I would assume that Karl Giberson wouldn’t have written his post if only he had read mine.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Clive, howzabout a bit of inference to the best explanation: No one, but no one, gives a rat's ass WHAT you have to say.

The real mystery is why anyone cares what Dembski has to say anymore.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Beat me to it Bill :)

Funniest thing I've seen in ages from Clive!

Poor wikkle baby!
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 29 2009,06:10

< Gordon Mullings > is back on form.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Indeed, Weasel is an inadvertent demonstration of intelligent design using targets and/or so-called fitness landscapes and optimisation by hill-climbing techniques.

As touching Dr Dembski et al; it has been pointed out that while their analysis on p 1055 of the IEEE paper is based on a constructed example and a particular model of variation as a weasel tracks to target, that does not change anything material about the reality of implicit latching, that similar to explicit latching it ratchets to target, and that either of them could account for the mere facts c 1986: the excerpted runs and the description. On subsequent reported statements by CRD, and the above probable programs, we can see that Weasel credibly exhibited implicit latching-ratcheting.

And, EIL, sponsored by M&D, present a cluster of algorithms covering ways in which the o/p of 1986 could have been achieved explicitly or implicitly or even by sheer random chance. (It is noteworthy that objectors claiming that the EIL analysis in the IEEE paper etc caricatures the Dawkins original weasel — which they cannot provide and show unique characterisation of from the 1986 BW text — characteristically do not reckon with that range of algorithms and the implications of observing that latching (an inferred behaviour from 1986 run outputs) can be achieved explicitly and implicitly.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 29 2009,06:23

What did I tell you? < StephenB >:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
—-(BTW, if the above reads like I clipped and pasted it from something else. It’s because I have. It’s a sliver of a 15,000 word article I have coming out early next year, “How to Be an Anti-Intelligent Design Advocate.” It is going to be published in a special issue of a law review on ID and public education).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


15,000 words of StephenB, alone on a park bench, clutching his cane:

"...and then I said, all things that come to exist have a... uh...uh... a something. A cause! Ha! By cracky Diffaxitive, I got you that time. That's what I said! I think that's, I think that's what I said. Heh Heh. I said. Heh. That Diffixative..."
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It’s a lot easier to float downstream than to swim upstream.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Even easier? Sinking like a stone.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 29 2009,07:00

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 28 2009,22:06)
incoming tard alert!!!

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
28 September 2009

Author Gil Dodgen Discusses His Loss of Faith in Adulthood
GilDodgen

I was raised an atheist, and was very devout as a kid. I studied astronomy, cosmology, and the origins of the universe. I remember saying to a scientist, “I don’t get it. I read a book that said there was an explosion known as the Big Bang, and that all the laws of physics were fine-tuned to make life possible. Wouldn’t this require design and purpose?” Unfortunately, the response I got was, “Only mindless, uneducated religious fanatics ask that question. It was all an accident. Stop asking stupid questions.” But I wasn’t mindless, uneducated, or a religious fanatic. I was an atheist!

A light went off, and I said, “Materialism doesn’t make sense. Design and purpose in the cosmos makes much more sense to me.” And I just gravitated away from atheism.

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


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


Freudian slip, Frill?

After it went off, it seems like the light never came back on again.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 29 2009,08:19

Gordon Mullings continues



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Cabal:

All you have to do is write a program that without using the target sentence and a distance to target metric, reliably achieves it in several dozens to several hundreds of generations, showing implicit [quasi-]latching-ratcheting as it converges on target by a real, current functionality anchored metric of fitness.

I would love to see the result.

GEM of TKI
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< Tard >. Where to begin?
Posted by: Maya on Sep. 29 2009,08:44

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 29 2009,08:19)
Gordon Mullings continues

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Cabal:

All you have to do is write a program that without using the target sentence and a distance to target metric, reliably achieves it in several dozens to several hundreds of generations, showing implicit [quasi-]latching-ratcheting as it converges on target by a real, current functionality anchored metric of fitness.

I would love to see the result.

GEM of TKI
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< Tard >. Where to begin?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WTF?  Can anyone translate that from tardese to something resembling English?  Is he asking for a simulation of evolution that doesn't incorporate any evolutionary mechanisms?
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 29 2009,09:27

It does shed some darkness on the subject.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 29 2009,12:38

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 29 2009,06:00)
Freudian slip, Frill?

After it went off, it seems like the light never came back on again.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is that why he's so delighted with I.D.?
Posted by: franky172 on Sep. 29 2009,16:43

Quote (Maya @ Sep. 29 2009,08:44)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 29 2009,08:19)
Gordon Mullings continues

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Cabal:

All you have to do is write a program that without using the target sentence and a distance to target metric, reliably achieves it in several dozens to several hundreds of generations, showing implicit [quasi-]latching-ratcheting as it converges on target by a real, current functionality anchored metric of fitness.

I would love to see the result.

GEM of TKI
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< Tard >. Where to begin?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WTF?  Can anyone translate that from tardese to something resembling English?  Is he asking for a simulation of evolution that doesn't incorporate any evolutionary mechanisms?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ignoring for the moment KF's totally vague wording, I believe the following fit his bill:

Antennaes (no distance metric, no target, all intermediates are functional):
< http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/projects/esg/research/antenna.htm >
< http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.41.9308 >

Travelling Salesman (no distance metric, no target, all intermediates are functional):
< http://www.lalena.com/AI/Tsp/ >

Unsupervised clustering (no distance metric, no target, all intermediates are functional):
< http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/6/289 >

Dozens more:
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm#Applications >

You might think that someone who had spent so much time writing probably over 20,000 words on GAs would have taken the time to read at least half that many words by people who use and understand GAs.

You'd be wrong.
Posted by: N.Wells on Sep. 29 2009,17:04

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 29 2009,07:00)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A light went off, and I said, “Materialism doesn’t make sense. Design and purpose in the cosmos makes much more sense to me.” And I just gravitated away from atheism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


After the Enlightenment comes the Endarkenment.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Sep. 29 2009,17:10

Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 29 2009,18:04)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 29 2009,07:00)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A light went off, and I said, “Materialism doesn’t make sense. Design and purpose in the cosmos makes much more sense to me.” And I just gravitated away from atheism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


After the Enlightenment comes the Endarkenment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, that's my word!

< My Country Bleeds for Thee >

ETA: I'll be standing by the mailbox, awaiting the royalty check.


Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 29 2009,20:37

So, why has Lou spent the last several days standing by his mailbox? :p

Henry
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 29 2009,21:10

< Gil > concludes the story of his conversion:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And now you know, the rest of the story (with a whole lot of details left out — I’d have to write a book about it).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, Gil, please, don't. Gee, you don't have to do that. *Looks at watch.* No, really! That's OK.
Posted by: J-Dog on Sep. 29 2009,21:33

Quote (sledgehammer @ Sep. 28 2009,23:12)
< O'Leary: >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But as for the ideas: Used to was, and done to death, and it will wash no more.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WTF?  Is this some literary reference or just Densye's attempt at lyrical prose? Either way, it makes no sense to me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Denyse might just be warming up to accept her Bulwer-Lyton Lifetime Achievement Award....

< Bulwer-Lyton >
Posted by: Raevmo on Sep. 30 2009,04:45

Clive is a < tard >:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I agree with you. When nature fell along with Man, death was introduced, and in my opinion, the whole of nature changed to such a degree that we cannot even reconstruct the original creation. It’s theoretically possible that the very repetitions of nature (what some people call laws) were very different pre-fall than how they behave now. But I think it is safe to say that pre-fall, God didn’t create anything that killed, because there wasn’t yet any death.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's also very safe to say that Clive didn't really think this one through. He must think that there wasn't any need to eat before the fall. What kind of paradise is that, where you can't have a juicy burger?

Or maybe he thinks that there was some kind of magic non-organic food-stuff that didn't require killing plants or animals. Well, come to think of it, you don't need to kill the entire plant to eat from it. Actually, I realize now that you could still eat lizard tail burgers before the fall.

I guess I didn't think this through myself...
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 30 2009,05:23

Is there anyone of the few left advocating ID who is still claiming there is no religious aspect to it?
Posted by: CeilingCat on Sep. 30 2009,05:40

< How to argue like an IDiot >

Staring the inimitable (and evidently undeniable) niwraD in the "Turing machines, cells and why both are designed" thread:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
5

niwrad

09/28/2009

3:11 pm
Graham #3

Graham: To decide if they are really IC you would need to look at their precursors, and their pre-cursors, etc, all the way back.

niwraD: To decide if a system is IC it is not necessary to look at its precursors, as you say, because it is sufficient to analyze its parts now (as I did to infer that a TM is IC). If all its parts are necessary to work then the system is IC and as such has no functioning precursors.

Graham: It’s possible (with ’scaffolding’ etc) to produce what now appears to be IC.

niwaD: Exaptation, adaptation, scaffolding and similar terms at the very end all mean forms of evolution. Unfortunately the equation IC = no evolution disproves all such forms in a single blow. Besides what now “appears” to be IC “is” really IC.

Graham: However, you are looking at current cell architectures that are the product of long periods of evolution.

niwraD: For the reasons said above the current cell architectures cannot be the product of long periods of evolution. In fact, although I dealt with the IC of the transcription process only, there are many other processes and systems having an IC kernel in the cell that make its basic architecture fundamentally non evolvable from inorganic matter by chance and

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


Well, there you have it!  "IC = no evolution".  If it looks like it's IC, then it is.  End of story.  Nothing to see here.  Move along.  You kids get offa my lawn!
Posted by: Raevmo on Sep. 30 2009,06:36

Denyse < rambles >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(= “God will just LOVE you if you blow yourself up in order to murder and maim others”? Yeah really. And if your parents think that is okay, please find a new set of parents. In all believable theistic traditions, only God chooses martyrs; it is NOT a matter for private judgment. Private judgement [sic] is too easily corrupted by local or personal issues.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In unbelievable theistic traditions on the other hand...

How does Denyse know that God did not choose suicide bombers? Is that her private judgment?
Posted by: Quack on Sep. 30 2009,07:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, there you have it!  "IC = no evolution".  If it looks like it's IC, then it is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Guess he's taken his cue from, I hesitate to mention his name - Ray Martinez:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If an IC system is reducible, evolvable, then it aint an IC system as
defined by Behe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Clever, eh?
Posted by: dmso74 on Sep. 30 2009,08:24

Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 30 2009,05:23)
Is there anyone of the few left advocating ID who is still claiming there is no religious aspect to it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Corny, of course. to him, all science is religious except ID. and up is down, black is white, Denyse is coherent, etc..
Posted by: olegt on Sep. 30 2009,10:03

I can't believe < this > was written by a guy with a Ph.D. in philosophy (emphasis in the original):
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In the end, there will be a reckoning for us all: Judgement Day. In the meantime, evil agents do get away with a lot of bad things. As to why God lets them do so, I don’t think it’s because He is powerless or indifferent to suffering. Two alternative possibilities which I think deserve to be explored in further depth are the following:

(1) The first human beings, when they rejected God at the beginning of human history, made God promise not to avert life-threatening dangers and safety hazards to human beings in the ways He used to before the Fall – “We don’t need your help, thank you! Leave us alone!” God cannot lie (Hebrews 6:18), so He cannot break a promise. Fortunately for us, Adam’s intelligence was no match for God’s. By Adam I mean the original leader of the human race, who possessed the authority to make decisions binding on the whole of humanity, including posterity. Although Adam thought he had turned the world into a “God-free zone,” he was not clever enough to anticipate God’s plan to redeem the human race – a plan whose execution required the performance of several hundred miracles – and he had no inkling of the Incarnation. Since the “terms and conditions” of God’s promise of non-intervention to Adam did not include miracles that were part of God’s redemptive plan, but was limited to life-saving (and injury-preventing) interventions of the sort that God would have made before the Fall, God’s hands were not totally tied. Although we live in a world where God often seems absent, we should remember that the really important work of God has been accomplished. Calvary saw to that; the rest is a mopping-up job. The final resolution of human history will be at a time that God decides.

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



There is a second part, but my capacity to digest TARD is limited.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 30 2009,11:19

< Vjtorley >. As I said: paradoxical. Here he is spinning a quasi-paranoid fantasy:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nature as we see it now could be very different from what God originally intended, because of interference in the natural world by malevolent agents, billions of years ago. These agents could have been: (a) angels, or (b) beings from another intelligent civilization, who visited Earth billions of years ago. These malevolent beings could have tampered with God’s original designs and thus warped the entire evolutionary process. This is the scenario I think most likely...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really? Bizarre.

Really bizarre.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 30 2009,11:43

Clive:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Remember also that prior to the flood, there were no carnivorous animals, so two dispensational changes have occurred (fall and flood) to get to the present, both of which had physiological impacts on the very created order of nature and all of life.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< WTF? >
Posted by: Raevmo on Sep. 30 2009,11:44

That has to be one of the weirdest threads EVER.

Somehow Clive still manages to pile up the tard even higher:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think you’re pet theory may be right. The derivative of the original creation was changed as a result of the fall, and as a result death was introduced into the world. Remember also that prior to the flood, there were no carnivorous animals, so two dispensational changes have occurred (fall and flood) to get to the present, both of which had physiological impacts on the very created order of nature and all of life.

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


(my bold)

WTF? Prior to the flood? I thought it was prior to the fall, which is weird enough.

Note how he says "remember" -- as if Clive and his deranged YEC buddies were actual witnesses.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 30 2009,11:46

Quote (Raevmo @ Sep. 30 2009,11:44)
That has to be one of the weirdest threads EVER.

Somehow Clive still manages to pile up the tard even higher:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think you’re pet theory may be right. The derivative of the original creation was changed as a result of the fall, and as a result death was introduced into the world. Remember also that prior to the flood, there were no carnivorous animals, so two dispensational changes have occurred (fall and flood) to get to the present, both of which had physiological impacts on the very created order of nature and all of life.

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


(my bold)

WTF? Prior to the flood? I thought it was prior to the fall, which is weird enough.

Note how he says "remember" -- as if Clive and his deranged YEC buddies were actual witnesses.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ALL SCIENCE SO FAR
Posted by: Zachriel on Sep. 30 2009,11:47



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Clive Hayden >: Remember also that prior to the flood, there were no carnivorous animals
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure. Have a carrot.

< >
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 30 2009,12:14

ID erm UD ain't about the babble, nosirree
Posted by: Dr.GH on Sep. 30 2009,12:46

Quote (Raevmo @ Sep. 30 2009,09:44)
That has to be one of the weirdest threads EVER.

Somehow Clive still manages to pile up the tard even higher:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think you’re pet theory may be right. The derivative of the original creation was changed as a result of the fall, and as a result death was introduced into the world. Remember also that prior to the flood, there were no carnivorous animals, so two dispensational changes have occurred (fall and flood) to get to the present, both of which had physiological impacts on the very created order of nature and all of life.

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


(my bold)

WTF? Prior to the flood? I thought it was prior to the fall, which is weird enough.

Note how he says "remember" -- as if Clive and his deranged YEC buddies were actual witnesses.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Prior to the "Flood" meat was forbidden and then allowed afterward. See Genesis 9:3.  :D  :D  :D
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 30 2009,13:34

Does that make vegans antediluvian?
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 30 2009,13:47



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Prior to the "Flood" meat was forbidden and then allowed afterward. See Genesis 9:3.  :D  :D  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But wasn't one of Adam's kids a shepherd?

Henry
Posted by: KCdgw on Sep. 30 2009,14:24

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 30 2009,13:47)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Prior to the "Flood" meat was forbidden and then allowed afterward. See Genesis 9:3.  :D  :D  :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But wasn't one of Adam's kids a shepherd?

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Um..sheep are domesticated primarily for wool, not meat.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 30 2009,15:08

Oh.
Posted by: dogdidit on Sep. 30 2009,15:09

< I call sock. > And a darned good one, too.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
15
absolutist
09/30/2009
2:10 pm

Consciousness doesn’t store anything in the brain. Long-term memories aren’t found in the brain. Brain aren’t hard drives and neuro-scientists only establish correlations between brain states and states of consciousness. The usual objection is: but then how come when you get brain damage or Parkinson’s you can’t remember things? But, if your car breaks down do you immediately think you are your car?

Brains are super cool but too many people have been brainwashed by Hollywood to think that brains are computers, people are animals and loose behavior is the norm.

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


Posted by: Amadan on Sep. 30 2009,15:42

We are fortunate indeed to be able to share these extracts from Dan Brown's new book, Faith and Flagella. Sadly, the pages are not all contiguous, but I'm sure that Onlookers will see what a thrilling, uplifting read it is.


< >  < >

< >

< >

< >




Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 30 2009,16:22

Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 30 2009,15:42)
We are fortunate indeed to be able to share these extracts from Dan Brown's new book, Faith and Flagella. Sadly, the pages are not all contiguous, but I'm sure that Onlookers will see what a thrilling, uplifting read it is.


< >  < >

< >

< >

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


PoTW.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 30 2009,17:06

good gog amadan you have outdone yourself this time.  stellar
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 30 2009,17:16

Fantastic. I'm still howling. How long have you been working this up, I ask questioningly?
Posted by: Amadan on Sep. 30 2009,17:28

The idea of doing a UD Dan Brown kind of bubbled up about a month ago but I left it to ferment. I was bored today trying to write an article on the Lisbon Treaty so I gave up and just threw it together over about 3 hours. Doing the book formatting took about 45 mins.
Posted by: steve_h on Sep. 30 2009,17:39

Brilliant! I've learned a new word, mustela, and had my stomach churned by some imagery that Maya would've been proud of.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Sep. 30 2009,17:58

I said "LOL" with characteristic modesty many times, Amadan. You are the KING (for a week)!

P.S. Watch out for richertahugs, he likes stealing the robes and crown -- he says they're his
Posted by: Advocatus Diaboli on Sep. 30 2009,17:58

But was it a cucumber or something else in Denyse Canoochey's room? I need to know.


Posted by: Amadan on Sep. 30 2009,18:07

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 30 2009,17:58)
I said "LOL" with characteristic modesty many times, Amadan. You are the KING (for a week)!

P.S. Watch out for richertahugs, he likes stealing the robes and crown -- he says they're his
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Richard's attempts to disrobe me are a hazard I have learnt to live with.
Posted by: Amadan on Sep. 30 2009,18:09

Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ Sep. 30 2009,17:58)
But was it a cucumber or something else in Denyse Canoochey's room? I need to know.


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


I guess you just happened to have that picture on your desktop, eh, Adv?

Yeah, right...
Posted by: J-Dog on Sep. 30 2009,19:04

Amadan - OUTSTANDING!  I want to buy the whole book, and of course the movie rights.

Somebody has GOT to have a puppet to sacrifice - you could dine out free for years on telling the story of how this went over at UD!

(Wes - back channel to the Dr. Dr.??)

In related news, sorry it took so long to comment, but I have found new way to pay the bills, and so, can not be playing on my favorite sites... until I break in the new boss correctly.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 30 2009,23:23

goog dod cornelius is one stupid bastard

he can't even fucking link to his own stupid blag correctly.

don't actually go there for the love of drain hair

< tard >

some funny comments there though.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"I should really start working out so my children will be Arnold Schwarzenegger! I hope my grasp of calculus gets passed down through the sperm too!"

Shouldn't need to work out, maybe you could just mate in front of a pic of Arnie.

Gen 30:37-39:
And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods. And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink. And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



hahahahahahaha

khan is that you or some other khan?

anyway from the UD thread of the same stupid

joe tard is a regular god damned genius



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1
Joseph
09/30/2009
6:18 am
PZ sez “epigenetics isn’t Lamarkism”?

Let’s see Larmarkism is the inheritance of acquired traits.

With epigenetics organisms can inherit acquired traits (agouti mice).

It is obvious that the two have nuthin’ in common- that is if you are a complete dolt.




2
Joseph
09/30/2009
6:18 am
PZ sez “epigenetics isn’t Lamarkism”?

Let’s see Larmarkism is the inheritance of acquired traits.

With epigenetics organisms can inherit acquired traits (agouti mice).

It is obvious that the two have nuthin’ in common- that is if you are a complete dolt.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



what's dumber, misunderstanding the concept or posting the comment twice?  both.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 30 2009,23:27

the rest of that UD thread is stellar.  what a concentration of stupid.  you get that much stupid in one place you should set it on fire.
Posted by: Advocatus Diaboli on Oct. 01 2009,06:38

Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 30 2009,18:09)
Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ Sep. 30 2009,17:58)
But was it a cucumber or something else in Denyse Canoochey's room? I need to know.


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


I guess you just happened to have that picture on your desktop, eh, Adv?

Yeah, right...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You don't wanna see my vegetable file.
Posted by: CeilingCat on Oct. 01 2009,06:56

< Corny can't stop itchin the wound! >Our boy Cornelius just can't leave Karl Giberson alone:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1 October 2009
An Open Letter to Karl Giberson
Cornelius Hunter
Dr. Karl Giberson
President, BioLogos Foundation

Dear Dr. Giberson:

As a professor, author and President of the BioLogos Foundation, you have powerful communication tools at your disposal. You have access to major media outlets and you speak with scientific authority. In short, you are a teacher with a very large audience. This is an enormous teaching responsibility which I am sure you take seriously. For this reason I want to alert you to a fundamental mistake which you and the BioLogos Foundation have made. Given the magnitude of your teaching responsibility I hope that you will carefully consider this situation and take the appropriate corrective measures.   Read more

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

And when you read more, you find the Fundamental Mistake:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your mistake is that you present evolution as a well-established scientific fact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Unfortunately, he's being too polite.  Not too much chance of another Conservapedia debacle.  But it should be interesting anyway.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 01 2009,08:15

Faith and teh blagella @ Pharyngula.

< http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/10/faith_and_flagella.php >


(I tipped PZ off)
Posted by: Amadan on Oct. 01 2009,08:18

Probably too many in-jokes. They'll get the Triceratops one, though.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 01 2009,08:49

Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 01 2009,08:15)
Faith and teh blagella @ Pharyngula.

< http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/10/faith_and_flagella.php >


(I tipped PZ off)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: khan on Oct. 01 2009,10:13



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

khan is that you or some other khan?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



not me

I can only watch in awe
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 01 2009,10:37

Quote (khan @ Oct. 01 2009,10:13)


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

khan is that you or some other khan?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



not me

I can only watch in awe
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
rather than throwing stones from the sidelines, it seems like it would be more productive to actually replicate Kammerer's experiment and see what happens.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sounds like fun.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Oct. 01 2009,10:40

Quote (afarensis @ Sep. 28 2009,22:38)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 28 2009,11:49)
Quote (sparc @ Sep. 28 2009,11:38)
Let's see what UD wil make out of < this >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh now that's interesting.  I'm co-author on a paper about gene regulation on the stickleback sex chromosome.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is so cool! Sticklebacks are almost as cool as primates. Is there a link to the paper you co-authored?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, it's still under review.  But there's plenty more stickleback goodness < here > (I'm the Clive Hayden wannabe for that blog)
Posted by: franky172 on Oct. 01 2009,11:34

< Rasputin > keeps the ball rolling with KF, by explaining the difference between what is being simulated (evolutionary mechanisms) and what is taken as given (the laws of physics) in antennae design with GA's.  Of course, KF should understand this already, having penned well over 20,000 words on GA's in the past few weeks alone.

Will KF understand the difference?  Magic 8-Ball says "Ask again later".
Posted by: REC on Oct. 01 2009,11:37

I think I've found the new ID 'filter' on this the skin pigmentation thread: if someone makes a pretty YouTube video they understand-then its in the realm of Evolution.  If they don't understand it, the system is designed.

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/evoluti....omments >

"....this could actually be an example of genuine Darwinian evolution."

"...Anyway, it’s pretty darn strong evidence for Darwinian evolution."

"Actually, this is exactly the kind of thing that I think is totally driven by Darwinian evolution — modification of the frequency of existing alleles."

Umm.....are the thought police on vacation? They better hurry back before their followers see this:

< Oldest Human Skeleton Found---Disproves missing Link >
Posted by: olegt on Oct. 01 2009,13:05

Clive Hayden proposes that the laws of nature have changed since duh flud.  When astonished Nakashima asks for any evidence of that, Clive < responds >:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It’s in Genesis. If you think Nature, in her present form, explains herself, you’re mistaken. She doesn’t now and she didn’t before the Fall. All we have are repetitions of nature, where is the evidence that we should believe this to have always been the case? Repetition? That’s not a real reason, not a reason perceived reasonably, for the repetitions in nature are not connected philosophically like the laws of logic are, they only repeat. Why they repeat, or why they must be as they are, we have no evidence for, and since we have no evidence for why whether or not they are necessities or not, we cannot reasonably say that they couldn’t have been otherwise. The narrative is the real story, the real explanation, the physical repetitions are, and can only be, descriptions. But descriptions are not explanations. And what point does a literalist worldview bring me to? If you claim that nature is immutable, you are begging the question, for that is your philosophical point of view, which is not empirically evidential.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If this guy is someone's sock, congrats to the owner on infiltrating the inner sanctum of the ID movement and moderating the TARD.  If, on the other hand, he is real... O well, I can't imagine that Clive is for real.  It just boggles the mind.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 01 2009,13:09

Clive should be introduced to the original Isaac newton.

< http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/intro.PS/newton's-rules.html >
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 01 2009,13:12

c'mon Oleg the woods are full of lunatics like clive,baby

the amazing thing is that one of these sorts of willful tards has the keys to drive the tard bus

the only difference between this bozo and the shaman with a bone in his nose, worshipping the corn goddess, is clive,baby only has sex with at the most one woman (and she probably hates it)
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 01 2009,13:13

Quote (franky172 @ Oct. 01 2009,09:34)
< Rasputin > keeps the ball rolling with KF, by explaining the difference between what is being simulated (evolutionary mechanisms) and what is taken as given (the laws of physics) in antennae design with GA's.  Of course, KF should understand this already, having penned well over 20,000 words on GA's in the past few weeks alone.

Will KF understand the difference?  Magic 8-Ball says "Ask again later".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mine said "What are you high?  Of course not."
Posted by: sparc on Oct. 01 2009,14:02

Quote (olegt @ Oct. 01 2009,13:05)
Clive Hayden proposes that the laws of nature have changed since duh flud.  When astonished Nakashima asks for any evidence of that, Clive < responds >:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It’s in Genesis. If you think Nature, in her present form, explains herself, you’re mistaken. She doesn’t now and she didn’t before the Fall. All we have are repetitions of nature, where is the evidence that we should believe this to have always been the case? Repetition? That’s not a real reason, not a reason perceived reasonably, for the repetitions in nature are not connected philosophically like the laws of logic are, they only repeat. Why they repeat, or why they must be as they are, we have no evidence for, and since we have no evidence for why whether or not they are necessities or not, we cannot reasonably say that they couldn’t have been otherwise. The narrative is the real story, the real explanation, the physical repetitions are, and can only be, descriptions. But descriptions are not explanations. And what point does a literalist worldview bring me to? If you claim that nature is immutable, you are begging the question, for that is your philosophical point of view, which is not empirically evidential.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If this guy is someone's sock, congrats to the owner on infiltrating the inner sanctum of the ID movement and moderating the TARD.  If, on the other hand, he is real... O well, I can't imagine that Clive is for real.  It just boggles the mind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wonder if Dr. Dr. D. can feel intellectually fullfilled with company like this.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 01 2009,14:35

lololol

who is the bigger moron, cornytard or clive,baby?

i just made the mistake of going to corny's blog.  christ what an insufferably stupid little man.  i am in awe of the warriors who can stand to attempt to engage it in conversation.  i do wondery why bother.  much like scraping a squirrel off the pavement and attempting to feed it an oatmeal creme pie.
Posted by: Raevmo on Oct. 01 2009,15:05

Alas, clivebaby is not a sock. I share Oleg's utter amazement, being from the sophisticated Ole Urup and all, but I believe Clive really is that stupid. I suspect he is one of Dr^n Dembski's student-fans from his retarded babble college that sucked up to him for so long that the good Dr^n had to give him a bone or people would start to talk about that weird boy hanging on to his pants all the time.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 01 2009,15:10

I am interested in why D-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-embski would tolerate YEC stupidity on UD when he knows good and goddam well that this is a fatal liability to his push for "ID=Science".

of course some of y'all done long pointed out that THAT ship sailed many moons ago.  so mebbe he is just pretending

of course that's all they ever have done is pretend to do science, or to care about science as a process.

but letting corny tard and clive,baby and steve fuller use UD as their own glory hole is a bit much.  the postmoderns are storming the gate and Billy D is waiting for them in a garter belt and stirrups.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 01 2009,15:14



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am interested in why D-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-embski would tolerate YEC stupidity on UD when he knows good and goddam well that this is a fatal liability to his push for "ID=Science".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave made a pretense of trying to discourage discussion of religion at UD. Pretty much a floodgate that failed.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Oct. 01 2009,15:26

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 01 2009,15:10)
I am interested in why D-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-embski would tolerate YEC stupidity on UD when he knows good and goddam well that this is a fatal liability to his push for "ID=Science".

of course some of y'all done long pointed out that THAT ship sailed many moons ago.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ship's name: Titanic
Posted by: Raevmo on Oct. 01 2009,15:30

My guess is that the Drrrrrrr  allowed this simply to get more traffic and more sales of his pathetic books.
Posted by: steve_h on Oct. 01 2009,16:23

I think he's gone further than just allowing blantant YECers - I appear to have been the subject of a silent (gasp) unbanning.

My Fortran weasel program a few weeks ago, never appeared, but since then I've posted three times. One of my posts was a poem on Dembski's blasphemy thread in which I asked who designed the designer etc., and finished with the word "tarred". I was rather disappointed when the expected routine ironic re-banning didn't result.

Maybe I was serving a fixed term ban. Or, maybe some of your accounts may have been unbanninated too.
Posted by: Maya on Oct. 01 2009,17:06

Quote (steve_h @ Oct. 01 2009,16:23)
Or, maybe some of your accounts may have been unbanninated too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Fly my pretties, fly!
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 01 2009,17:56

Quote (steve_h @ Oct. 01 2009,17:23)
Maybe I was serving a fixed term ban. Or, maybe some of your accounts may have been unbanninated too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Alas, Diffaxial, who was unflaggingly polite and substantial over dozens of posts spanning five months, and who was in turn repeatedly called a liar, a coward, irrational, lacking in intellectual honesty and courage, etc. etc. etc. by commenters who continue to post, remains banned.
Posted by: steve_h on Oct. 01 2009,18:17

Bugger! It's between fixed-term bans and lightweights then.
Posted by: J-Dog on Oct. 01 2009,19:04

Quote (Maya @ Oct. 01 2009,17:06)
Quote (steve_h @ Oct. 01 2009,16:23)
Or, maybe some of your accounts may have been unbanninated too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Fly my pretties, fly!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks Maya!

So, will there soon be more Jack Inhoffe at UD?

Will Denyse still be liking some Hugh Jass?

Stay tuned loyal ID fans!
Posted by: J-Dog on Oct. 01 2009,19:11

Bad news...

From the newest UD thread, the Dr. Dembski BUY MY BOOK POST:





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2

HughJass

10/01/2009

7:08 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Hugh Jass posted:
Congratulations Dr. Dembski! I am looking forward to picking up a couple of copies ASAP at the next Church Book Sale!

Hugh Jass

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


Posted by: tsig on Oct. 01 2009,22:44

Quote (Raevmo @ Sep. 30 2009,06:36)
Denyse < rambles >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(= “God will just LOVE you if you blow yourself up in order to murder and maim others”? Yeah really. And if your parents think that is okay, please find a new set of parents. In all believable theistic traditions, only God chooses martyrs; it is NOT a matter for private judgment. Private judgement [sic] is too easily corrupted by local or personal issues.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In unbelievable theistic traditions on the other hand...

How does Denyse know that God did not choose suicide bombers? Is that her private judgment?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We could pray that D'O become a martyr.

Wait I get it she is the suicide bomber of literary.
Posted by: tsig on Oct. 01 2009,22:58

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 30 2009,23:27)
the rest of that UD thread is stellar.  what a concentration of stupid.  you get that much stupid in one place you should set it on fire.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You'd need nanothermite to burn that hot.
Posted by: dvunkannon on Oct. 02 2009,01:47

Quote (tsig @ Oct. 01 2009,23:44)
Quote (Raevmo @ Sep. 30 2009,06:36)
Denyse < rambles >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(= “God will just LOVE you if you blow yourself up in order to murder and maim others”? Yeah really. And if your parents think that is okay, please find a new set of parents. In all believable theistic traditions, only God chooses martyrs; it is NOT a matter for private judgment. Private judgement [sic] is too easily corrupted by local or personal issues.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In unbelievable theistic traditions on the other hand...

How does Denyse know that God did not choose suicide bombers? Is that her private judgment?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We could pray that D'O become a martyr.

Wait I get it she is the suicide bomber of literary.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do believable theistic traditions allow you to kill other people if you don't plan on killing yourself, like in the Crusades?
Posted by: Turncoat on Oct. 02 2009,02:23

The inaugural post of < Bounded Science: No Free Lunch for Intelligent Design >, "Never Look a Gift Weasel in the Mouth," needs an infusion of wit. Come on over.
Posted by: CeilingCat on Oct. 02 2009,06:58

Quote (Turncoat @ Oct. 02 2009,02:23)
The inaugural post of < Bounded Science: No Free Lunch for Intelligent Design >, "Never Look a Gift Weasel in the Mouth," needs an infusion of wit. Come on over.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd like to try, but comments don't seem to be enabled.

I'm pretty sure Weasel 1 is not the program Dawkins used because IIRC he says in the book that he wrote it in Apple BASIC and then re-wrote it in Pascal.

I think that's been mentioned on UD once or twice too, but trust Dembski and company to miss and/or ignore that.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 02 2009,08:18

clive,baby has "difficulties"

this sombitch has a big bag of the killer



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So it appears that humans didn’t evolve from apes after all, so the correlation of modern genetic similarity between us seems a non-issue.  It’s interesting to me to note that genetic similarity is used in evidence for evolution, showing how closely related organisms are, but so is genetic dissimilarity, showing that evolution accounts for why they have grown apart. After all, evolution is supposed to exist in the differences, otherwise something isn’t evolving unless it is moving away from something else. And if something isn’t going away from something else, then there is no evolution. But in order to know the proximity of something to another thing, you have to know the basis for comparison, but the basis of comparison is assumed to be a result of evolution too. The measuring stick and the thing being measured are both evolving, and are indeed both the continuing result of evolution, so there cannot be a steady baseline for comparison because the measurement has evolved along with the variation it is supposed to be measuring in a continual process. Unless the measuring stick is separate from the thing being measured, you can do no measuring, to paraphrase C. S. Lewis. That is one difficulty.

This is my second difficulty. What is outside the circle of evolution that is used to compare evolution to? If all living things evolved, what are we using to determine that against? Something has to exist to be used as a basis for comparison that isn’t itself the thing being compared. Similarity and dissimilarity are both used to support evolution, which is, quite honestly, circular and a tautology in the respect that no new information is being given and all possibilities have been exhausted. It is like saying that it is either raining or not raining outside. Conceptually, by wanting too much, evolutionists will get nothing. If it explains everything, it explains nothing in particular. The knot comes loose when you try to pull it tight.

Aside from having it’s own measurement problem, what’s left to falsify it, since all comparisons are used to be evidence for evolution?  It seems to me you have to pick one or the other, and choosing the similarity of forms as your baseline, is based on an idea that “at bottom” forms should be fundamentally similar and evolve to different, which is really just smuggled in teleology. There is no conceptual nor evidential reason why anything should be similar with the assumption of evolution.  If we say that things that are similar survive better, then there is no reason to evolve. And if we say that things that are different survive better, then we have removed the basis for why things should be similar, ourselves and our ” reciprocal altruism” included. Or if we go the third route and claim both as true, then nothing stands to falsify it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



hahahahahah
Posted by: Maya on Oct. 02 2009,09:13

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 02 2009,08:18)
clive,baby has "difficulties"

this sombitch has a big bag of the killer
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So it appears that humans didn’t evolve from apes after all
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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


Clive baby (yes, we know you're lurking), we are apes.  We and the other apes share a common ancestor.

At least we now know why you let morons like Joseph post so prolifically on UD -- if you banned him, you'd be at the bottom of the IQ totem pole there.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 02 2009,09:15

If non sequitur were poetry, Clive would be Shakespeare.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 02 2009,10:11

Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 02 2009,10:15)
If non sequitur were poetry, Clive would be Shakespeare.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


yeah he is a fount of it.  and fond of it.  frowns upon it too.

i'll laugh about this last post for weeks.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What is outside the circle of evolution that is used to compare evolution to? If all living things evolved, what are we using to determine that against? Something has to exist to be used as a basis for comparison that isn’t itself the thing being compared.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



what the fuck is that
Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 02 2009,10:15

Quote (Turncoat @ Oct. 02 2009,02:23)
The inaugural post of < Bounded Science: No Free Lunch for Intelligent Design >, "Never Look a Gift Weasel in the Mouth," needs an infusion of wit. Come on over.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nice. Do you, Wes and DvK correspond?
Posted by: RDK on Oct. 02 2009,10:42



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Unless the measuring stick is separate from the thing being measured, you can do no measuring, to paraphrase C. S. Lewis. That is one difficulty.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Clivebaby attempts a refutation of biological evolution with.....C.S. Lewis and the metric system!  Brilliant!

Or this could just be another case of Clive being butthurt at the thought of reality being relative.  His entire argument is just a TARDy re-wording of the moral dilemma.  If there's no objective morals, then blah blah blah, you can fill in the rest.

At least I think that's what he's doing, it's fucking hard to tell.  For example, this:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What is outside the circle of evolution that is used to compare evolution to? If all living things evolved, what are we using to determine that against? Something has to exist to be used as a basis for comparison that isn’t itself the thing being compared.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The fuck does this even mean?  That's like saying "What is outside the circle of [insert any biological term ever.....metabolism / photosynthesis / fetal devlopment / etc.]  that is used to compare [same term] to?"

HOLY SHIT!  How can we determine gravity if there's nothing outside of gravity to compare it to!  Gravity is a tautology!  LHJDO:NIGONQ{NA{F!

He's the Grand Poo-Bah of WTF posts.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 02 2009,10:49

poor dumb bastard also thinks the babble points outside of itself, or some similar happy horseshit.  i can't parse the reeeeeealy stupid from the soooooorta stupid over there.  

i would really like to go catfishing with clive,baby  i bet that sombitch could talk them in the boat kinda like that bert and ernie skit

"HOW CAN YOU USE BAIT WHEN THERE IS NOTHING OUTSIDE OF THE BAIT TO COMPARE THE BAIT TO!!?!?!?!?!?  HERE FISHY FISHY FISHY FISHY FISHY FISHY"
Posted by: someotherguy on Oct. 02 2009,10:59

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 02 2009,10:11)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What is outside the circle of evolution that is used to compare evolution to? If all living things evolved, what are we using to determine that against? Something has to exist to be used as a basis for comparison that isn’t itself the thing being compared.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



what the fuck is that
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think that was Clive proving the existence of the multiverse.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 02 2009,11:15

Quote (RDK @ Oct. 02 2009,10:42)
For example, this:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What is outside the circle of evolution that is used to compare evolution to? If all living things evolved, what are we using to determine that against? Something has to exist to be used as a basis for comparison that isn’t itself the thing being compared.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The fuck does this even mean?  That's like saying "What is outside the circle of [insert any biological term ever.....metabolism / photosynthesis / fetal devlopment / etc.]  that is used to compare [same term] to?"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It looks like he is trying out a biological evolution version of the YEC "that's circular!!"argument that goes "fossils are dated by the strata they are found in, but the strata is dated by the fossils that are found in it."
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 02 2009,11:20

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 02 2009,08:11)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What is outside the circle of evolution that is used to compare evolution to? If all living things evolved, what are we using to determine that against? Something has to exist to be used as a basis for comparison that isn’t itself the thing being compared.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



what the fuck is that
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


On the other hand, we know the bible is the word of god, because it says so.
Posted by: Turncoat on Oct. 02 2009,12:39

Quote (CeilingCat @ Oct. 02 2009,06:58)
Quote (Turncoat @ Oct. 02 2009,02:23)
The inaugural post of < Bounded Science: No Free Lunch for Intelligent Design >, "Never Look a Gift Weasel in the Mouth," needs an infusion of wit. Come on over.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd like to try, but comments don't seem to be enabled.

I'm pretty sure Weasel 1 is not the program Dawkins used because IIRC he says in the book that he wrote it in Apple BASIC and then re-wrote it in Pascal.

I think that's been mentioned on UD once or twice too, but trust Dembski and company to miss and/or ignore that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The "comments" link after the article does not stand out.

If you need an OpenID, look < here >.
Posted by: Turncoat on Oct. 02 2009,14:11

Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 02 2009,10:15)
Quote (Turncoat @ Oct. 02 2009,02:23)
The inaugural post of < Bounded Science: No Free Lunch for Intelligent Design >, "Never Look a Gift Weasel in the Mouth," needs an infusion of wit. Come on over.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nice. Do you, Wes and DvK correspond?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not on this. DiEb has a nice series of posts at < DiEblog >.
Posted by: dvunkannon on Oct. 03 2009,01:57

Quote (Turncoat @ Oct. 02 2009,15:11)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 02 2009,10:15)
 
Quote (Turncoat @ Oct. 02 2009,02:23)
The inaugural post of < Bounded Science: No Free Lunch for Intelligent Design >, "Never Look a Gift Weasel in the Mouth," needs an infusion of wit. Come on over.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nice. Do you, Wes and DvK correspond?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not on this. DiEb has a nice series of posts at < DiEblog >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tom and Wes do this stuff as academic professionals. I'm just a tinkerer who likes to use it and play with it on the side.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 03 2009,03:35

I may get some time this weekend to do some more work on my draft manuscript in response to the Dembski and Marks paper. We have an offer in on a house, the media seems to have lost interest in the alligator bite story, and no new crisis has announced itself.

On the other hand, we might just go to the beach today, too.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Oct. 03 2009,04:23

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 02 2009,22:35)
I may get some time this weekend to do some more work on my draft manuscript in response to the Dembski and Marks paper. We have an offer in on a house, the media seems to have lost interest in the alligator bite story, and no new crisis has announced itself.

On the other hand, we might just go to the beach today, too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 < cache >

The thing to be positive about is that is not newsworthy because the only fatality was the alligator!  :)
Posted by: Alan Fox on Oct. 03 2009,04:30

92
Mark Frank
10/03/2009
1:01 am

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A common ID mantra is something like:

“All cases of CSI and FSCI that we know of have intelligent causes.”

Is this something we have discovered by observation? But hang on, if it had a non-intelligent cause it would no longer be CSI or FSCI. So it is true by definition.

Here is another way of looking at it. Survey the various phenomena we see around us. We can divide them into four categories based on two dimensions:

there is a plausible wholly natural account (yes/no)

there is a plausible account involved human intelligence (yes/no)

Imagine a 2×2 grid if it helps with quadrants a, b, c and d.

(a) We can give a plausible wholly natural account and we pretty sure there is no human intelligence involved e.g. the path a river takes to the sea on an uninhabited island.

(b) We can give a plausible wholly natural account but it is also possible to give an account involving human intelligence. e.g. a bundle of rocks damming a river in an inhabited area

© We cannot give a plausible natural account but we have good reason to believe includes some element of human intelligence. e.g. Mount Vernon.

(d) We cannot give a plausible natural account or a plausible account involving human intelligence (you would include the evolution of the bacterial flagellum in this)

ID lumps © and (d) together and calls them CSI. The common property being – no plausible natural account. It then concludes because in © human intelligence was associated with no plausible natural account then in (d) some other intelligence must be associated with no plausible natural account. But of course there is actually just no account.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I like Mark's clarity of thought!

< link >
Posted by: Bob O'H on Oct. 03 2009,06:27

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 03 2009,03:35)
I may get some time this weekend to do some more work on my draft manuscript in response to the Dembski and Marks paper. We have an offer in on a house, the media seems to have lost interest in the alligator bite story, and no new crisis has announced itself.

On the other hand, we might just go to the beach today, too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Watch out for the wildlife!  The beach beats beating D&M any day - even Cromer beach on the winter Solstice.

My taxi comes to collect me to take me to a new life in Germany in about 40 minutes, and I've packed everything except the laptop, the cat, the model and the wifi router.  As I'm waiting, I might as well catch up with the latest, and also have my final beer as a resident in Finland.



There are things I'll miss about Finland, but the beer is not one of them.  Complaining about it might be, though.
Posted by: N.Wells on Oct. 03 2009,08:39

If anyone needs a tard fix, a nice ore-body is available over at ARN ( < http://www.arn.org/ubbthre....1&vc=1, > culminating on 3 October, on the second page ): Frank, the resident and almost only remaining creationist loon, scored an own goal by quoting a reference that emphasized the opposite of a point he was trying to make, and then followed it up by trying to rip into me  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wells you prove to me over and over and over and over again how completely and totally ignorant you are of history or maybe worse because I have corrected you so many times and you repeat the same falsehoods over and over and over again.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(he tends to project a lot).  The choice nugget in all this is that the statement that he picked on to get upset about was not something that I said, but something that I quoted from him (which he probably grabbed from one of the creationist sources that are the beginning and end of his knowledge).  (He tends not to read stuff very thoroughly, if at all.)  

It is not often that a creationist calls himself completely and totally ignorant, so I'm savoring the moment.



Have fun in Germany, Bob.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 03 2009,09:37

< Tribune7 >:

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

Only a zealot cannot see that Darwinian evolution is false. Undirected genomic chances fixed by natural selection cannot explain biodiversity.

Now, if you add a designer, then evolution can work. Of course, once you add a designer, evolution is no longer necessary.

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


Quite. Where to begin...
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Oct. 03 2009,10:26

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 03 2009,03:35)
I may get some time this weekend to do some more work on my draft manuscript in response to the Dembski and Marks paper. We have an offer in on a house, the media seems to have lost interest in the alligator bite story, and no new crisis has announced itself.

On the other hand, we might just go to the beach today, too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can see the headline now "Wesley Elsberry bitten by shark, wife previously attacked by alligator"*



*One could also insert a gratuitous Australia joke in the headline as well
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 03 2009,10:42

Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 03 2009,08:39)
If anyone needs a tard fix, a nice ore-body is available over at ARN ( < http://www.arn.org/ubbthre....1&vc=1, > culminating on 3 October, on the second page ): Frank, the resident and almost only remaining creationist loon, scored an own goal by quoting a reference that emphasized the opposite of a point he was trying to make, and then followed it up by trying to rip into me    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wells you prove to me over and over and over and over again how completely and totally ignorant you are of history or maybe worse because I have corrected you so many times and you repeat the same falsehoods over and over and over again.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

(he tends to project a lot).  The choice nugget in all this is that the statement that he picked on to get upset about was not something that I said, but something that I quoted from him (which he probably grabbed from one of the creationist sources that are the beginning and end of his knowledge).  (He tends not to read stuff very thoroughly, if at all.)  

It is not often that a creationist calls himself completely and totally ignorant, so I'm savoring the moment.



Have fun in Germany, Bob.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


IIRC, Frank is the obnoxious jerk I was up against some years ago.

I felt justified in using language just a wee bit beyond what I usually do, and my post was silently removed. The next post silently made me persona non grata and that was that. Saved me from blowing my top, he really is a "#¤"#¤%.

I guess the end came when I invited him over to talkorigins where we could speak freely but I got the impression he was above sticking his nose into that cesspool of sin, and whatever words I used to express that must have been too much for the pure souls at ARN.
Posted by: Reg on Oct. 03 2009,10:42

Shorter < William Dembski >:
"Some NSF employees were looking at porn on work computers, thus Intelligent Design is science, Evolution is wrong, and the Earth isn't heating up."
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 03 2009,11:55

Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 03 2009,10:26)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 03 2009,03:35)
I may get some time this weekend to do some more work on my draft manuscript in response to the Dembski and Marks paper. We have an offer in on a house, the media seems to have lost interest in the alligator bite story, and no new crisis has announced itself.

On the other hand, we might just go to the beach today, too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can see the headline now "Wesley Elsberry bitten by shark, wife previously attacked by alligator"*



*One could also insert a gratuitous Australia joke in the headline as well
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The headline would have to be, "Husband bitten by shark, wife previously attacked by alligator." The media has close to no interest in the backstory.

I will endeavor not to provide headline fodder of that sort, or shark fodder out of my personal store of flesh.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Oct. 03 2009,12:04

Quote (Bob O'H @ Oct. 03 2009,06:27)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 03 2009,03:35)
I may get some time this weekend to do some more work on my draft manuscript in response to the Dembski and Marks paper. We have an offer in on a house, the media seems to have lost interest in the alligator bite story, and no new crisis has announced itself.

On the other hand, we might just go to the beach today, too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Watch out for the wildlife!  The beach beats beating D&M any day - even Cromer beach on the winter Solstice.

My taxi comes to collect me to take me to a new life in Germany in about 40 minutes, and I've packed everything except the laptop, the cat, the model and the wifi router.  As I'm waiting, I might as well catch up with the latest, and also have my final beer as a resident in Finland.



There are things I'll miss about Finland, but the beer is not one of them.  Complaining about it might be, though.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Welcome!



< http://www.augustiner-braeu.de/augustiners/html/en/Sortiment.html >

:)
Posted by: keiths on Oct. 03 2009,12:35

Quote (Raevmo @ Oct. 01 2009,13:05)
Alas, clivebaby is not a sock. I share Oleg's utter amazement, being from the sophisticated Ole Urup and all, but I believe Clive really is that stupid.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not so fast, Eurosnob: < Dutchman's Noah's Ark Opens Doors >

Homo ignoramus is a widely distributed species.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Oct. 03 2009,13:12

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 03 2009,11:55)
Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 03 2009,10:26)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 03 2009,03:35)
I may get some time this weekend to do some more work on my draft manuscript in response to the Dembski and Marks paper. We have an offer in on a house, the media seems to have lost interest in the alligator bite story, and no new crisis has announced itself.

On the other hand, we might just go to the beach today, too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can see the headline now "Wesley Elsberry bitten by shark, wife previously attacked by alligator"*



*One could also insert a gratuitous Australia joke in the headline as well
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The headline would have to be, "Husband bitten by shark, wife previously attacked by alligator." The media has close to no interest in the backstory.

I will endeavor not to provide headline fodder of that sort, or shark fodder out of my personal store of flesh.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I hope so because you are the only thing that stands between us and Louis and Richardthughes running amuck (shudders) on this forum...
Posted by: Reg on Oct. 03 2009,14:11

Dembski < gets classier >: "I think Dawkins would prefer to surf porn at work and pay hookers rather than give money to help orphans."

It's False Dichotomy Bingo, which is fun and easy for anyone to play:
This raises an interesting question for William Dembski: If we had to choose one or the other, helping “poor sick children” by (1) frequenting at taxpayer’s expense porn sites that pay these children's mothers a cut, the porn sites constituting a strictly non-scientific activity which stimulates his nonmaterial consciousness or by (2) donating money to charities that research the childhood diseases, using biological methods rooted in the Theory of Evolution, these charities constituting a secular materialistic activity, which should we prefer? I suspect WD, given his virulent hatred of secular materialism, would opt for (1).
Posted by: dmso74 on Oct. 03 2009,14:32



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
By the way, what if this NSF official’s porn usage had not been discovered but instead it was found that he secretly supported ID and tried to funnel research dollars that way?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



hm, well that would be awfully hard to do since as far as I can tell, no ID "researcher" has come up with an even semi-coherent research plan, much less submit a proposal to NSF.

Oh wait, here's one from Dr. Corny George Hunter

Proposed methodology: I will use the search engine "Google" (Brin and Page 2000) to find evolution-related press releases. I will use the "ctrl-F" function on my personal computer (hereafter "PC") to search for keywords in these press releases such as "design" and "complex" and larger strings such as "surprised to find." I will make these words more visible to the reader by highlighting them using the "ctrl-B" function on my "PC". In doing so, therefore ID.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 03 2009,14:49

Don't know where to put this...

< http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/entertainment/creation/ >
Posted by: RDK on Oct. 03 2009,16:32

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/science....omments >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
[Insert 5-comment back-and-forth between Dr^dr and the chimera]

RDK
10/3/09
5:30
The hilarious thing about this post, Bill, is that so far nobody but yourself and Dennis have commented on it.

Wouldn't it be a more prudent use of your web hosting funds if you guys just slipped each other notes under the cafeteria table at Baylor?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I can picture them sitting in the bat tard cave, giggling like schoolgirls (at least in Dembski's case) over their witty anti-Dawkins banter.
Posted by: Reg on Oct. 03 2009,16:50

"Oh, Dr Dembski! What a perceptive insight you have given."
"Why, Mrs O'Leary, you make an excellent point."
"That foolish Dawkins is quite the dunderhead isn't he, Dr Dembski?"
"He's certainly a dim bulb compared to us, Mrs O'Leary."
 [and so on...]
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 03 2009,18:40

seems like someone started a book about that recently....

ETA

good god i just read those comments what a pair of deeply stupid people.  i would like to see them fight each other for the last smallpox vaccination
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 03 2009,20:13



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
MeganC, the Catholic Church expects its clergy to be celibate and disciplines them if they are not, irrespective of their preferences.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



By which she means the Church moves pedophiles to a different church, where their proclivities are not known, with no warnings attached.

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/science....-336164 >
Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 03 2009,21:52

Granny Spice Quotemine

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/science....-336145 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Some hookers are in some kind of bondage...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Alright! tell us more!  :O
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 03 2009,21:55

before it's gone...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
6
Khan
10/03/2009
1:47 pm
How many ID grant proposals have ever been submitted to NSF? My guess is zero, but I am happy to be corrected.


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



BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

ahahahahah

oh shit oh shit oh shit

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 03 2009,21:59

d-d-d-d-dd-d-d-dembski replies



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

12
William Dembski
10/03/2009
9:39 pm
Khan: ID relevant research by ID supporters has certainly been supported by the NSF — indeed, my own early work on randomness was supported with an NSF postdoctoral grant. But research proposals that specifically name ID and indicate that the research is intended to support that hypothesis would, I strongly suspect, not get funded. But I’m happy to be proven wrong. Anyone? Anyone?....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



yeah right.  ID relevant in that humans did the research therefore it's all ID.  Right, Joe?  You and d-d-d-d-d-dembski smoking that same doobie there

HERE is the closest fucking thing to science that the morons behind IDC have EVER done



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
.....P.S. It would be interesting to write up essentially the same ID research proposal in two ways, one making the ID connection explicit, the other cloaking it, perhaps even by suggesting that the research actually supports Darwinism, and then seeing which variant, if any, gets accepted. If enough of such proposals are submitted and if only the “cloaked” variants get accepted, that would be strong (experimental?) evidence that ID is being systematically discriminated against.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



do it, asshole.  "supports Darwinism" right.  what an idiot.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 03 2009,22:44

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 03 2009,11:55)
I will endeavor not to provide headline fodder of that sort, or shark fodder out of my personal store of flesh.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: sparc on Oct. 03 2009,23:52

It must be former NSF employees applying for a new job:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Half of males who apply to serve as a missionary for the Southern Baptist Convention's international mission agency are turned down, according to a Baptist pastor. The primary reason is the use of internet porn.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< from the Christian Post >
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 04 2009,00:19

Quote (sparc @ Oct. 03 2009,23:52)
It must be former NSF employees applying for a new job:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Half of males who apply to serve as a missionary for the Southern Baptist Convention's international mission agency are turned down, according to a Baptist pastor. The primary reason is the use of internet porn.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< from the Christian Post >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The screening agency admits they ask the questions about Internet porn, but denied that half the applicants get rejected for that reason.

They do talk about depression as being a reason that they reject candidates. It would be interesting to know more generally what they do for people suffering from depression, whether they support mental health care and the use of medicines to counter depression. One would think they'd consider that a win-win, as anti-depression medications are noted widely for decreasing libido.
Posted by: sledgehammer on Oct. 04 2009,00:52

Quote (sparc @ Oct. 03 2009,21:52)
It must be former NSF employees applying for a new job:          

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Half of males who apply to serve as a missionary for the Southern Baptist Convention's international mission agency are turned down, according to a Baptist pastor. The primary reason is the use of internet porn.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< from the Christian Post >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< from the Christian Post > (http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070403/trustee-porn-viewing-charismatic-prayer-treated-equally-in-baptist-missionary-screening/index.html)

WTF is this "Private Prayer Language" or "Charismatic Prayer" that is as bad as porn according to the SBC?  Is this a euphemism for "speaking is tongues", and why is it so bad?  I was under the impression that this was considered a form of devotion by a lot of Baptists.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
According to the AP ("Seminary passes resolution against speaking in tongues", 10/19/2006), the trustees at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary recently voted 36-1 that "Southwestern will not knowingly endorse in any way, advertise, or commend the conclusions of the contemporary charismatic movement including 'private prayer language.'"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They're all wierd by my reckoning, but pornographic? I don't get it, but then, IANAB.
Posted by: dvunkannon on Oct. 04 2009,04:26

MeganC's post on O'Leary's < latest > contest post seems to have been excised, which doesn't stop O'Leary from answering it.

In other news, the loudspeaker in the ceiling has been turned on again by idnet.com.au
Posted by: dvunkannon on Oct. 04 2009,05:18

Quote (sledgehammer @ Oct. 04 2009,01:52)
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 03 2009,21:52)
It must be former NSF employees applying for a new job:            

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Half of males who apply to serve as a missionary for the Southern Baptist Convention's international mission agency are turned down, according to a Baptist pastor. The primary reason is the use of internet porn.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< from the Christian Post >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< from the Christian Post > (http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070403/trustee-porn-viewing-charismatic-prayer-treated-equally-in-baptist-missionary-screening/index.html)

WTF is this "Private Prayer Language" or "Charismatic Prayer" that is as bad as porn according to the SBC?  Is this a euphemism for "speaking is tongues", and why is it so bad?  I was under the impression that this was considered a form of devotion by a lot of Baptists.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
According to the AP ("Seminary passes resolution against speaking in tongues", 10/19/2006), the trustees at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary recently voted 36-1 that "Southwestern will not knowingly endorse in any way, advertise, or commend the conclusions of the contemporary charismatic movement including 'private prayer language.'"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They're all wierd by my reckoning, but pornographic? I don't get it, but then, IANAB.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you just listen to the soundtrack, charismatic porn and charismatic prayer may be hard to distinguish.
Posted by: olegt on Oct. 04 2009,08:26

Dembski < replies > to Khan about ID grant applications to the NSF:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Khan: ID relevant research by ID supporters has certainly been supported by the NSF — indeed, my own early work on randomness was supported with an NSF postdoctoral grant. But research proposals that specifically name ID and indicate that the research is intended to support that hypothesis would, I strongly suspect, not get funded. But I’m happy to be proven wrong. Anyone? Anyone?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's pretty lame even by your standards, Bill.  The NSF grant that supported your postdoctoral work had been written by one of your postdoctoral advisers, none of whom is known to be an ID "scientist".  

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
P.S. It would be interesting to write up essentially the same ID research proposal in two ways, one making the ID connection explicit, the other cloaking it, perhaps even by suggesting that the research actually supports Darwinism, and then seeing which variant, if any, gets accepted. If enough of such proposals are submitted and if only the “cloaked” variants get accepted, that would be strong (experimental?) evidence that ID is being systematically discriminated against.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That experiment has been performed, at least in part.  I recall reading Gloppy's NSF grant proposal on the EIL server.  If I remember correctly, the proposal did not explicitly mention ID and yet it still was rejected (reviews and a rejection letter from the program officer were there as well) because the ideas were lame.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 04 2009,08:27

hamalamalamanamananananlamarmamama DO ME!!!

that idnet thread is full of tardyness.  the awkward bold font insertion of loudspeaker comments is one thing, but joseph is another.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
7
Joseph
10/03/2009
8:01 am
So natural selection is so powerful tat bacteria evolve into bacteria!!!!

Wow, that makes me all shivery and stuff…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



hahahaha  so does morphine joe



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
8
Joseph
10/03/2009
8:03 am
Oops it would also help Dawkins if he referenced the Creationist claim that this is supposed to refute.

Otherwise people may think that he just made it up.

An atheistic butthead with an agenda wouldn’t do something like that, would he?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If all we had was one example, Joseph being the kind of tard the believes in gods would make it clear to me believing in gods is for stupid people.  Now, we have more than one example.  But for all the purported benefits of believing in gods (like being a nicer well rounded self aware transcendently intelligent person), Joe ain't got em.  what a dumbass
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 04 2009,08:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
23
tragic mishap
10/03/2009
4:33 pm
No I haven’t read the book. I’d appreciate it if you would summarize. For instance, like I read the paper Mark posted and related some actual information from it. If what you say excites my interest, I may read it. Otherwise, please don’t waste my time.


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



tragic sorry old buddy but please go ahead and comment even though you feel like you may be wasting your time.  we devour your stupid remarks with butter and salt!  help a brutha out!
Posted by: keiths on Oct. 04 2009,08:49

A commenter named 'Laughable' < rubs Denyse's face in the Bible >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
10
Laughable
10/04/2009
8:06 am

Denyse said “Have unicorns ever existed?”

According to Bible unicorns DO exist.

See < http://www.answersingenesis.or.....s-in-bible > for more info on that. You really should be more careful not to mock people’s beliefs, some people take this kind of thing literaly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Heh.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Oct. 04 2009,09:55

Quote (sledgehammer @ Oct. 04 2009,00:52)
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 03 2009,21:52)
It must be former NSF employees applying for a new job:            

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Half of males who apply to serve as a missionary for the Southern Baptist Convention's international mission agency are turned down, according to a Baptist pastor. The primary reason is the use of internet porn.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< from the Christian Post >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< from the Christian Post > (http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070403/trustee-porn-viewing-charismatic-prayer-treated-equally-in-baptist-missionary-screening/index.html)

WTF is this "Private Prayer Language" or "Charismatic Prayer" that is as bad as porn according to the SBC?  Is this a euphemism for "speaking is tongues", and why is it so bad?  I was under the impression that this was considered a form of devotion by a lot of Baptists.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
According to the AP ("Seminary passes resolution against speaking in tongues", 10/19/2006), the trustees at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary recently voted 36-1 that "Southwestern will not knowingly endorse in any way, advertise, or commend the conclusions of the contemporary charismatic movement including 'private prayer language.'"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They're all wierd by my reckoning, but pornographic? I don't get it, but then, IANAB.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Yes, it is basically praying tongues... > and apparently is quite controversial. The SB convention is reaping the rewards of their conservatism and are being invaded, as it were, by charismatics. LoL!
Posted by: KCdgw on Oct. 04 2009,10:23

This reminds me of that hilarious scene in the movie "Saved", when Cassandra, the only Jewish kid at a Christian high school starts speaking in tongues at an assembly. Or so everyone thinks at first...

during the school assembly, Cassandra stands up and begins yelling in Spanish]
Tia: [thinking] Oh my god, the Jew girl's speaking in tongues!
[Cassandra rips open her shirt]
Roland: She's going to show her boobs! Thank you Jesus!
Patrick: [thinking] She is, she's going to show her boobs!
[looking horrified, Hilary Faye stands up at the podium]
Hilary Faye: She's saying she has a hot pussy!
[the word "pussy" is bleeped out by microphone feedback]
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 04 2009,11:33

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 04 2009,09:30)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
23
tragic mishap
10/03/2009
4:33 pm
...If what you say excites my interest, I may read it. Otherwise, please don’t waste my time.


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


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


That's my market strategy, too. If a stock doesn't go up, don't buy it.
Posted by: olegt on Oct. 04 2009,11:36

BarryA, classy guy, quote mines Seversky in a < newly open thread >:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But Seversky’s defense of porn and his attempt to smear millions both pale in comparison to this gob-smacking passage: “I cannot speak for Richard Dawkins but I know I would prefer to give to those that do not include proselytization [sic] as part of their program.”

There you have it. Our opponents count among their number a man who would rather see a young woman live in sexual slavery if that’s what it takes to insulate her from the influence of Christians who would try to help her.

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



Here is Seversky's < unabridged quote >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As for charitable donations, I cannot speak for Richard Dawkins but I know I would prefer to give to those that do not include proselytization as part of their program.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is clear that he was not saying that he would prefer to pay the pimp, but rather that he would give to a charity that does not proselytize.  

Barry, you might want to post a correction and apologize.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 04 2009,11:46

Barry continues:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And I say this to our opponents who appear at this site: How do you answer Dembski’s question? Do you agree with Seversky? If not, will you remain silent or will you come on here and distance yourself from the views he expressed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Diffaxial was wondering the same thing. How does he answer the question? Why are so many like him silent??

*snicker*
Posted by: someotherguy on Oct. 04 2009,12:24

Quote (olegt @ Oct. 04 2009,11:36)
BarryA, classy guy, quote mines Seversky in a < newly open thread >:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But Seversky’s defense of porn and his attempt to smear millions both pale in comparison to this gob-smacking passage: “I cannot speak for Richard Dawkins but I know I would prefer to give to those that do not include proselytization [sic] as part of their program.”

There you have it. Our opponents count among their number a man who would rather see a young woman live in sexual slavery if that’s what it takes to insulate her from the influence of Christians who would try to help her.

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



Here is Seversky's < unabridged quote >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As for charitable donations, I cannot speak for Richard Dawkins but I know I would prefer to give to those that do not include proselytization as part of their program.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is clear that he was not saying that he would prefer to pay the pimp, but rather that he would give to a charity that does not proselytize.  

Barry, you might want to post a correction and apologize.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Luckily, BA is getting his ass handed to him in the comments.
Posted by: dvunkannon on Oct. 04 2009,12:54

Joe the G


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That retired official should be forced to reimburse the taxpayers money.

Next the NSF needs a good network admin who can block access to porn sites.

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



Nakashima


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Nakashima and Mr Joseph are in complete agreement!

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



Sig worthy!
Posted by: Advocatus Diaboli on Oct. 04 2009,13:09

Quote (olegt @ Oct. 04 2009,11:36)

Barry, you might want to post a correction and apologize.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh how I wish for a...

Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 04 2009,13:12

I have the thread and first 10 comments saved, in case of 404.
Posted by: someotherguy on Oct. 04 2009,13:33

Me thinks the Clive doth < protest too much >



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


Learned Hand,

   Seversky’s point is exactly the opposite of what you imply. In fact, he explicitly refers to “a few Catholic priests” (emphasis added). He does not suggest in any way that the failings of a few are extensible to the many; it appears, in fact, to be entirely contrary to his point.

He points out that Christianity doesn’t absolutely and in every case immunize everyone from sexual misdeeds by mentioning a few cases. The implication is that Christianity doesn’t stop sexual immorality in general. Barry’s characterization is right. Seversky’s point would be trivial if he only meant it to apply to a few men in the history of the faith and the enormous numbers of believers over that history. And, not to mention, how could anyone know how many people have refrained from sexual immorality because they were Christians? How do we know that it hasn’t been a calming effect on the otherwise rampant nature of the sexual impulse? The individual testimonies of Christians is such that this is vindicated as an outlook on the whole affair.

The only moral failings I see in this chain are yours and Seversky’s. Barry’s characterization of Seversky is exactly correct and spot on. That you would attempt to turn the argument around shows your intentional intellectual dis-ingenuousness to back your side when your side is clearly wrong, and this flies in the face of common decency. I recall that you claim to be an attorney sir, and this disappoints me. You give life to the atheistic/materialistic stereotype that perverts justice and argues vainly. I wonder about your interpretative ability, you see the opposite of what should be seen as obviously written and obviously intended. This has happened over and over, to the point that I doubt we can have any useful conversation. Claiming that pornography has been around a long time whether we like it or not, is implying that it is something that just “is” wherever humans are as a result of being human, and something that just “is” a result of being human and existing over the course of human history is to give it a normative place in humanity. This implication is obvious, but for you, either you don’t get it, or you intentionally avoid this implication to back your side of the argument. I think you get it, and I think that you think that the gray area is enough for you to move in. That anything short of explicit and unalterable declarations, you have room to change meaning from what was originally implied. I’ve seen this consistently from you, and it’s very annoying. I bet you even pride yourself with this manipulative ability. It certainly seems evident that you consider yourself talented enough to be brazen in your employment of it, that’s obvious. And the interesting thing is that you’re quick to fault Barry for what you perceive to be the same tactic. Barry doesn’t have the guile that you have, nor the self-referential incoherence, nor the hypocrisy. Good day sir.

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


Posted by: dvunkannon on Oct. 04 2009,13:42

Nakashima, in the latest Barrogant thread


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mr Arrington, you’ll have my response right after you post Diffaxial’s.

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



RBill, saddle that pony one more time!
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 04 2009,13:43



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The only moral failings I see in this chain are yours and Seversky’s.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I guess that settles that.

It also answers the age-old question of whether two dogs are dumber than one dog.
Posted by: Raevmo on Oct. 04 2009,13:56

keiths:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not so fast, Eurosnob: < Dutchman's Noah's Ark Opens Doors >

Homo ignoramus is a widely distributed species.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I resent that jealous swipe at our creationists. Our Dutch Ark is much more realistic than your American Creation Museum. It doesn't have dinosaurs!

You, sir, are a moral monster.
Posted by: someotherguy on Oct. 04 2009,14:19

Do you have a sock that you're not using?  Clive invites you to < go out in a blaze of glory >:    

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


BillB,

   The FACT is that Barry’s post is deeply dishonest and an immoral slur, the kind of thing we normally expect from KF.

It is not even shallowly dishonest. And I don’t appreciate your slur on KF either. Maybe this should be the post which acts as a clearinghouse of all you who want to get off your chest what you really think and risk being banned.

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



His near pathological inability to see the clear dishonesty in BA's post is pretty damn telling too.
Posted by: BillB on Oct. 04 2009,14:26



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
20
BillB
10/04/2009

2:25 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

   The difference is the implication that pornography wasn’t objectively morally wrong with the preface “Whether we like it or not”.

There is no such implication unless you are trying to claim that no one at all likes pornography.

Whether we like it or not Anti-Semitism has been around for a long time!

Now are you going to accuse me of anti-Semitism for making that observation.

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



That about sums it up.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 04 2009,15:06

< Clive >:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That is the relativism that Seversky was implying, that since pornography was a result of our human sexuality as a result of being human, and that since it had always been around wherever humans are, and that some folks like it and some folks don’t, hence a defense.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"hence a defense"? What on earth is Clive trying to say in this comment?
Posted by: BillB on Oct. 04 2009,15:35

Quote (BillB @ Oct. 04 2009,20:26)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
20
BillB
10/04/2009

2:25 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

   The difference is the implication that pornography wasn’t objectively morally wrong with the preface “Whether we like it or not”.

There is no such implication unless you are trying to claim that no one at all likes pornography.

Whether we like it or not Anti-Semitism has been around for a long time!

Now are you going to accuse me of anti-Semitism for making that observation.

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



That about sums it up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


my other comments haven't materialized either - I wonder if the same fate has befallen Learned Hand or Nakashima.

Perhaps it was all a trap.  Say something obviously wrong about a critic of ID, wait for outraged comments from other critics then post a reply dismissing their outrage and silently ban them to make the lack of response look like a victory.

In other news ...

I handed in my PhD thesis last week.  YIPEEEE!
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 04 2009,15:42


Posted by: Aardvark on Oct. 04 2009,16:48

Could somebody over at UD kindly ask for the internet logs for the DI & Baylor?  I guess if they aren't provided we can then just assume that they're all checking out the online naughties as well.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Oct. 04 2009,17:03

Midwifetoad is correct, BillB.  Handing in your thesis is a trap.

BTW, congratulations!
Posted by: RDK on Oct. 04 2009,17:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It is not even shallowly dishonest. And I don’t appreciate your slur on KF either. Maybe this should be the post which acts as a clearinghouse of all you who want to get off your chest what you really think and risk being banned.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Clivebaby admits that saying what you really think over at Dembski's Dungeon warrants a ban?  It seems as though our Clive's been hitting the strawberry daiquiris a little bit too hard.  Or whatever they allow Baylor undergrads to drink over there.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"hence a defense"? What on earth is Clive trying to say in this comment?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Blame it on the a-a-a-a-a-alcohol.
Posted by: Maya on Oct. 04 2009,17:49

Barry, you're a lying sack of . . . organic matter.

Clive baby, you're a sycophantic immoral toad.

Oh yes, and water is wet.

When Joseph is the only ethical ID proponent in a thread, it's a good time to check your premises.

*spit*

ETA: Those of you (us) who Barry "Free Speech" Arrington prevents from posting on UD can always < contact him here >:

Arrington Law Firm
7340 East Caley Ave, Suite 360
Centennial, Colorado 80111

telephone:  303-205-7870
fax:  303-463-0410

email:  barry@arringtonpc.com

Sending him some choice Christian porn would, of course, be wrong.
Posted by: someotherguy on Oct. 04 2009,18:42

Check out the addendum to the original post in which BA dials the asshattery up to 11:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Update:  As I write this 27 comments have been made.  As I expected, the materialists have stood by their man Seversky, mainly by advancing patently absurd interpretations of his comments.  And they’ve even attacked me, also as expected.  Pathetic.  Again, I was tempted to delete their comments, but I will not.  Instead, I will leave their moral squalor on display for all to see.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 04 2009,18:54

Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 04 2009,14:42)

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


Yeah, but this guy doesn't fit in the phylogenic tree!

WATERLOO!!!111!!!!!
Posted by: dvunkannon on Oct. 04 2009,19:01

Nakashima, saved just in case.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mr Arrington,

The interest in the responses is not in the expected, it is in the unexpected. It isn't just teh ebil materialists that think you have overshot.

But following Mrs O'Leary, lets shift the discourse slightly. Is there moral squalor in odious false dichotomy? If a trial lawyer asks a witness "Have you stopped beating your wife? Just answer the question!" is there any element of moral squalor in the approach? In the American advocacy system of pursuing justice, who is allowed to object to that kind of question? Is the witness allowed to object? Does the American Bar Association have a position on this kind of questioning?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Maya on Oct. 04 2009,19:19

Here's what I faxed to 303-463-0410:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Barry baby,

Thanks for the hot picture.  Here's a similar one of me (with a little more clothing on, you're bolder than I):



Now that we've both had a preview, when can we get together for the main event?

Love,

Joseph

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


I'm sure that Barry's secretary is used to this kind of correspondence.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 04 2009,19:58

< Clivers: >
           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I banned Diffaxial.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why?

Because right now we're left with the inescapable conclusion that you banned Diffaxial because he was politely and effectively making StephenB (such a delicate blossom) look ridiculous.

Now, from a distance, he renders you ridiculous too.
Posted by: RDK on Oct. 04 2009,20:00

Dennis-O attempts to edumacate the masses on pornography:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
- Little pornography is prepared for women. This fact tells you something right away.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



......that our boy Dennis has been poring over its private collection of naughty videos in search of positive evidence for female-oriented pr0n?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
- I doubt this can be proven
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



--but fuck the truth!  Who needs it anyway?  We're not scientists or journalists, after all!


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
but pornography is probably a factor in violence against women. A police officer once told me that it was rare NOT to find pornography when searching the flat of an accused perp. So pornography probably functions as a lure for sex tourism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



A birdie once told me that extended blowdryer use is directly linked to global warming.

Relevant?  You decide!

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
- Pornography is NOT a fact of life, any more than public profanity is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Here's Dennis-O denying the existence of both pornography and public profanity.  And I thought I'd had my fill of stupid for one lifetime.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
- As a free speech journalist,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





News Flash.  O'Leary is leery.....of laws



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
- As a free speech journalist, I am always leery of laws in these areas, because laws are useless compared to public distaste and disapproval. Of course I think sexual abuse of minors should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and I assume that all decent people agree. But the first step is broad public disapproval of the practices and the mindset that leads to them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sure, Dennis.  Let's abolish all laws protecting minors, because, well, they're so gosh-darned useless.

I don't know how they do things up thar in Canader, but down here, we have a little thing I like to call Mountain Justice.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course I think sexual abuse of minors should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and I assume that all decent people agree.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



^ I love how she just throws that in there, as if anyone is going to jump out of the woodwork and accuse her of being a pedophile.  Anyone have any idea of where the hell this came from?  We're talking about porn in that thread.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 04 2009,20:01

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 04 2009,19:58)
< Clivers: >
             

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I banned Diffaxial.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why?

Because right now we're left with the inescapable conclusion that you banned Diffaxial because he was politely and effectively making StephenB (such a delicate blossom) look ridiculous.

Now, from a distance, he renders you ridiculous too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Eh, well, he did do the same with me. StephenB is his pet.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 04 2009,21:09

Quote (RDK @ Oct. 04 2009,21:00)
Denise:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
- Pornography is NOT a fact of life, any more than public profanity is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


What the fuck?
Posted by: Dr.GH on Oct. 05 2009,02:04

Quote (BillB @ Oct. 04 2009,13:35)
In other news ...

I handed in my PhD thesis last week.  YIPEEEE!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Congratulations! Now it is all over but the screaming.

I trust that your committee has already seen all the chapters, and all that is left is your dissertation defense. (Do they still require those)?

Best wishes.
Posted by: GCUGreyArea on Oct. 05 2009,06:32

Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 05 2009,02:04)
Quote (BillB @ Oct. 04 2009,13:35)
In other news ...

I handed in my PhD thesis last week.  YIPEEEE!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Congratulations! Now it is all over but the screaming.

I trust that your committee has already seen all the chapters, and all that is left is your dissertation defense. (Do they still require those)?

Best wishes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks,  I have to wait until January to defend it because my external examiner is away.  I'm dreading re-reading it before the Viva because I'm bound to spot mistakes...
Posted by: Zachriel on Oct. 05 2009,07:23



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< VMartin >: What a nonsense is Dawkins publicly claiming in this interview! Those giraffes with longer necks had more offsprings and survived better in his opinion. Oddly enough all other species in Africa do not have such long necks and survived as well. One would think that there is only food in 6 metres above the ground in Africa and those with shorter necks starve.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As discussed by Darwin in Origin of Species, species tend to diverge in order to reduce competition. It's one of the classic mechanisms that tends to lead to distinct species.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< avocationist >: Actually, it is unlikely that giraffes got their long necks to get more food in tough times because the female giraffe is so much shorter that they should have all died during these proposed droughts when the taller males survived.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is that so? That shouldn't be too hard to determine. (Where's that tape measure?)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< helloo >: Um, no: “To test the theory, he led a team of researchers who studied 17 male and 21 female giraffes in Zimbabwe. They measured height, weight, and the length of necks and legs – but found little variation between the sexes.”

< http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/2814 >

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


So, there is little sexual dimorphism in giraffe necks. This is also relevant.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Cameron & Toit, < Winning by a neck: tall giraffes avoid competing with shorter browsers >, The American Naturalist, January 2007.

With their vertically elongated body form, giraffes generally feed above the level of other browsers within the savanna browsing guild, despite having access to foliage at lower levels. They ingest more leaf mass per bite when foraging high in the tree, perhaps because smaller, more selective browsers deplete shoots at lower levels or because trees differentially allocate resources to promote shoot growth in the upper canopy... We conclude that giraffes preferentially browse at high levels in the canopy to avoid competition with smaller browsers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The key, of course, is that natural selection is a testable hypothesis.
Posted by: Zachriel on Oct. 05 2009,07:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Barb >: The entire issue revolves around someone using my (and your) tax dollars to support a porn habit. This is wrong, and everyone knows it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Government workers probably shouldn't shop Amazon either, using government computers on government time. I assume there's a policy of some sort.
Posted by: Zachriel on Oct. 05 2009,10:37



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< DLH >: DNA Preservation discovery wins Nobel prize
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One of the < winners > is Jack Szostak, who has also done significant work in abiogenetics.

< >
< genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb >
Posted by: sparc on Oct. 05 2009,11:51

Quote (Zachriel @ Oct. 05 2009,10:37)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< DLH >: DNA Preservation discovery wins Nobel prize
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One of the < winners > is Jack Szostak, who has also done significant work in abiogenetics.

< >
< genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


DLH speculates 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
These telomeres can probably be shown to be essential to survival.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Mice live quite happy without telomerase and to my best knowledge telomerase is inactive in the majority of somatic human cells. Maybe it is not as irreducibly complex as DLH thinks.
Actually, DNA_Jock is currently teaching them UD-creationists telomer biology:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 6 >
DNA_Jock
10/05/2009
11:31 am

Yes, Borne, the Darwin camp predicted telomeres: when they elucidated the mechanism of DNA replication, they said “There’s a problem with the ends of linear chromosomes, they should get shorter and shorter, there must be some mechanism that protects the ends…” So they went and looked at the end of linear chromosomes, and found telomeres. And they built artificial chromosomes from scratch, and did all sorts of experiments and found telomerase and new targets for cancer therapies etc, etc.
And, DLH, anyone who knows anything about biology knows that telomeres are not “essential to survival”: bacteria don’t have them.

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


Posted by: Zachriel on Oct. 05 2009,12:00

Quote (Zachriel @ Oct. 05 2009,10:37)
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< DLH >: DNA Preservation discovery wins Nobel prize
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One of the < winners > is Jack Szostak, who has also done significant work in abiogenetics.

< >
< genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is going down hard.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< ellazimm >: Too bad no one from the ID camp predicted this discovery.

< Borne >: Perhaps.

Did anyone from the Darwin camp? I doubt it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Darwin campers were just stumbling around one night and saw a telomere being attacked by a telomerase.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Borne >: Yet this is exactly the kind of thing ID would predict – stability and protection mechanisms.

Darwinian theory could not predict this since it implies an underlying knowledge of genetic thermodynamics or genetic entropy as well as teleology.

No underlying teleology, no predictions of protection or correction mechanisms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They've been scooped by people camping in the backyard!



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< hdx >:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
“Telomerase is an independent mechanism. It adds DNA to the ends of chromosomes to take care of this sad glitch. It saves the chromosomes bacon. Its not elegant or clever. In fact, its kind of clumsy. But it works and has done so for billion of years for every creature, apart from bacteria. They have circular DNA.”

Elizabeth Blackburn went further into the biology of telomerase. “It’s RNA plus protein which together become a crude little copying machine,” she says. “It’s thought to be one of lifes ancient relics which got fossilised into our cells. Had it been useless, it would have been selected out.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Blackburn doesn’t think the system was intelligently designed.

< http://grants.innovation.gov.au/Science....urn.htm >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ouch. This is really going to hurt. Their only hope is to put their heads in the tardy sand.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< DNA_Jock >: Yes, Borne, the Darwin camp predicted telomeres: when they elucidated the mechanism of DNA replication, they said “There’s a problem with the ends of linear chromosomes, they should get shorter and shorter, there must be some mechanism that protects the ends…” So they went and looked at the end of linear chromosomes, and found telomeres. And they built artificial chromosomes from scratch, and did all sorts of experiments and found telomerase and new targets for cancer therapies etc, etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's the stuff.
Posted by: Zachriel on Oct. 05 2009,12:16

Quote (Zachriel @ Oct. 05 2009,10:37)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< DLH >: DNA Preservation discovery wins Nobel prize
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One of the < winners > is Jack Szostak, who has also done significant work in abiogenetics.

< >
< genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll just have you know that I've been citing Szostak on obscure blogs and newsgroups long before he won the Nobel Prize.
Posted by: sparc on Oct. 05 2009,12:40

Borne:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yet this is exactly the kind of thing ID would predict – stability and protection mechanisms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

They actually had the chance
< here >, < here >, < here > and < here > where telomerase was mentioned at UD earlier.
Posted by: sparc on Oct. 05 2009,12:46

Actually, this is what Cordova wrote about telomerase back in < 2006 > arguing that telomer research is ID research:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I would like to add that I made a small amount of money ($400) after buying shares in a company, Geron, that unwittingly profited from this approach (For the record I sold my shares, and this is no way a stock promotion, and I have no longer any financial interest ).

Geron noticed a correlation between the “age” of a cell (its closeness to senescence) and the amount of junk DNA at the end of a chromosome (telomeres). They must have thought something like, “it’s always hard to tell cause from effect, but ‘what the heck’, let’s see if playing with telomere length will affect longevity”

What they did was work the hTRT gene that affected telomere length, and then “voila”, the cell became immortalized! The junk DNA essentially served as a road map for the researchers. How hard would it have been to uncover this without “junk DNA”!

Geron’s work may lead to important medical advances in curing burn victims and spinal chord victims and help us understand the keys to longevity. Thus, already, some biotech firms are inadvertently happening upon the “user manual” qualities of junk DNA as Dembski envisioned in his steganography speech.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Raevmo on Oct. 05 2009,12:47

Zachriel:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'll just have you know that I've been citing Szostak on obscure blogs and newsgroups long before he won the Nobel Prize.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



We know you are Szostak, Zach. Congrats!

I bet those Swedish Academy members must have been reading those blogs. What blogs, pray tell? So I can cunningly lobby for my own Nobel as well...
Posted by: khan on Oct. 05 2009,13:16

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 04 2009,20:58)
< Clivers: >
             

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I banned Diffaxial.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why?

Because right now we're left with the inescapable conclusion that you banned Diffaxial because he was politely and effectively making StephenB (such a delicate blossom) look ridiculous.

Now, from a distance, he renders you ridiculous too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Turd Fairies: very stinky, very delicate
Posted by: sparc on Oct. 05 2009,14:30

Any sock around that could ask KF, Dr. D et al. what CSI/FSCI of the string TTAGGG is?
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 05 2009,16:03

Quote (Maya @ Oct. 04 2009,15:49)
ETA: Those of you (us) who Barry "Free Speech" Arrington prevents from posting on UD can always < contact him here >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, dropped by Barry's place, found this:



Turns out, not only does he write like a smug prick, he looks like one too.  I also like how the bookshelves in the background are well stocked with paperback novels rather than the expected legal texts.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 05 2009,16:13

wow that really is the silly little cunt.  what is that behind him, Finding Nemo?
Posted by: dmso74 on Oct. 05 2009,16:26

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 05 2009,16:13)
wow that really is the silly little cunt.  what is that behind him, Finding Nemo?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I just figured it was pr0n
Posted by: dnmlthr on Oct. 05 2009,16:53

Friends don't let friends post dox. Cue the inevitable "HALP! I'm being suppressed!" tirade from BarryA.
Posted by: Lowell on Oct. 05 2009,17:35

Barry "free speech" Arrington seems to specialize in helping municipalities get rid of “sexually oriented businesses” through zoning ordinances.

I found one successful case, Z.J. Gifts D-2, L.L.C. v. City of Aurora, 93 P.3d 633 (Colo. App. Ct. 2004) (holding that adult video store could be forced out of location by zoning ordinance), and one unsuccessful, JAM Restaurant Inc. v. City of Longmont, 140 P.3d 192 (Colo. App. Ct. 2006) (holding that “topless and nude dancing establishment” could not be “amortized” out of location through zoning ordinances).

Way to protect free speech, Barry!
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 05 2009,17:56

Some < previous thoughts > on BarryA.

He guest hosts a radio program from time to time that featured one of our own as a discussant (Keiths - banned from UD not long after that interaction). Barry comes across as breezy, friendly and approachable. Hard to square his radio persona with his pretentious blowhard writing style.

Some of the positions he has taken on school shootings are downright repulsive.

*Not to be confused with Unpleasant Blowhard.
Posted by: Turncoat on Oct. 05 2009,17:57

The latest at < Bounded Science >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Resolving a moral dilemma

I made a promise to Bob Marks that I would not divulge my correspondence with him regarding drafts of the paper that IEEE SMC-A published last month. But I did not know that he and Dembski would resort to trickery to get the paper published, and, after considerable agonizing, I've decided that the better course is to break my word.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


False attribution of partitioned search to Dawkins is the not the full extent of the academic dishonesty in the article.
Posted by: sledgehammer on Oct. 05 2009,18:06

Quote (Turncoat @ Oct. 05 2009,15:57)
The latest at < Bounded Science >:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Resolving a moral dilemma

I made a promise to Bob Marks that I would not divulge my correspondence with him regarding drafts of the paper that IEEE SMC-A published last month. But I did not know that he and Dembski would resort to trickery to get the paper published, and, after considerable agonizing, I've decided that the better course is to break my word.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


False attribution of partitioned search to Dawkins is the not the full extent of the academic dishonesty in the article.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is the first I've heard of sneaky tactics or trickery in the path to publication.  Any details you can share? Give us dirty laundry!  We like dirty laundry.
Posted by: Turncoat on Oct. 05 2009,18:56

Quote (sledgehammer @ Oct. 05 2009,18:06)
Quote (Turncoat @ Oct. 05 2009,15:57)
The latest at < Bounded Science >:
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Resolving a moral dilemma

I made a promise to Bob Marks that I would not divulge my correspondence with him regarding drafts of the paper that IEEE SMC-A published last month. But I did not know that he and Dembski would resort to trickery to get the paper published, and, after considerable agonizing, I've decided that the better course is to break my word.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


False attribution of partitioned search to Dawkins is the not the full extent of the academic dishonesty in the article.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is the first I've heard of sneaky tactics or trickery in the path to publication.  Any details you can share? Give us dirty laundry!  We like dirty laundry.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Another blog entry is on the way. Omitting the names of the two evolutionary algorithms, as well as neglecting to cite the relevant literature, was a trick to keep the editors and reviewers from scrutinizing the redundant and/or worthless analysis Dembski and Marks provided. If there had been explicit mention of evolutionary algorithms, the editor-in-chief might have handed the paper off to a different associate editor, and the associate editor might have lined up better-informed reviewers.
Posted by: sledgehammer on Oct. 05 2009,19:55

That and "cleverly" hiding "Evolutionary Informatics" and "this is designed" in the starting strings for the partitioned search.
But I thought the most egregious error was characterizing evolutionary search as "monkey at a typewriter", the only entry in the section labeled "Critiquing Evolutionary Search Algorithms".
That should have been caught by the reviewers IMHO:

 

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

4 Critiquing Evolutionary Search Algorithms

Christensen and Oppacher note the sometimes-outrageous claims that had been made of specific optimiza-
tion algorithms" [7]. Their concern is well founded. In computer simulations of evolutionary search,
researchers often construct a complicated computational software environment and then evolve a group of
agents in that environment. When subjected to rounds of selection and variation, the agents can demon-
strate remarkable success at resolving the problem in question. Often the claim is made, or implied, that
the search algorithm deserves full credit for this remarkable success. Such claims, however, are often made
(1) without numerically or analytically assessing the endogenous information that gauges the difficulty of
the problem to be solved, and (2) without acknowledging, much less estimating, the active information that
is folded into the simulation for the search to reach a solution.

4.1 Monkey at a Typewriter
A "monkey at a typewriter" is often used to illustrate the viability of random evolutionary search. It also illustrates the need for active information in even modestly sized searches...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(my bold)
WTF is "random evolutionary search"?  Since "Active Info" is defined by them as the improvement over random search, so that last sentance is bullcrap.

Edited just because.
Posted by: BillB on Oct. 06 2009,00:31

Quote (sledgehammer @ Oct. 05 2009,19:55)
That and "cleverly" hiding "Evolutionary Informatics" and "this is designed" in the starting strings for the partitioned search.
But I thought the most egregious error was characterizing evolutionary search as "monkey at a typewriter", the only entry in the section labeled "Critiquing Evolutionary Search Algorithms".
That should have been caught by the reviewers IMHO:

   

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

4 Critiquing Evolutionary Search Algorithms

Christensen and Oppacher note the sometimes-outrageous claims that had been made of specific optimiza-
tion algorithms" [7]. Their concern is well founded. In computer simulations of evolutionary search,
researchers often construct a complicated computational software environment and then evolve a group of
agents in that environment. When subjected to rounds of selection and variation, the agents can demon-
strate remarkable success at resolving the problem in question. Often the claim is made, or implied, that
the search algorithm deserves full credit for this remarkable success. Such claims, however, are often made
(1) without numerically or analytically assessing the endogenous information that gauges the difficulty of
the problem to be solved, and (2) without acknowledging, much less estimating, the active information that
is folded into the simulation for the search to reach a solution.

4.1 Monkey at a Typewriter
A "monkey at a typewriter" is often used to illustrate the viability of random evolutionary search. It also illustrates the need for active information in even modestly sized searches...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(my bold)
WTF is "random evolutionary search"?  Since "Active Info" is defined by them as the improvement over random search, so that last sentance is bullcrap.

Edited just because.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not so sure the intention was to characterise evolutionary algorithms as a "monkey at a typewriter", although their wording is a bit cloudy.  They may be referring to Dawkins use of WEASEL where he compares it to the idea of moneys at typewriters in order to demonstate how cumulative selection gets round the proplem of a purely random sampling
Posted by: sledgehammer on Oct. 06 2009,01:36

I see your point, Bill.  On a charitable re-read from that perspective, I concede that M&D might be trying to say something like "Monkeys at typewriters are sometimes used as a contrasting counterexample to demonstrate the effectiveness of evolutionary algorithms"
That still doesn't explain their use of the term "random evolutionary search", not to mention that it's immediately followed by that "mass of the earth" and "planet destroying" 147 bits hokum.  They then proceed to show how partitioned search can solve the problem "in milliseconds".  Nowhere do I see evolutionary algorithms critiqued, much less discussed, unless they somehow consider partitioned search as an example of an evolutionary algorithm.  I suppose that would be in line with their mistaken interpretation of Weasel.
 That plus the section title, "Critiquing Evolutionary Search Algorithms" followed by a single section titled "Monkey at a Typewriter" seems too deliberate from my admittedly cynical perspective.
Posted by: Ptaylor on Oct. 06 2009,01:37

< StephenB > tries on a kinder, gentler persona on Barry's willful-misconstrual-of-Seversky thread:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Moving away from the criticism of one person, who I think has been hit hard enough,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...but soon finds it a little uncomfortable...
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
there is a broader point to be made. If a man does not change his behavior to harmonize with a philosophy of life, he will change his philosophy of life to harmonize with his behavior.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...and finds that his good old arseholism is a much better fit:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled lecher
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: BillB on Oct. 06 2009,02:44

Quote (sledgehammer @ Oct. 06 2009,07:36)
I see your point, Bill.  On a charitable re-read from that perspective, I concede that M&D might be trying to say something like "Monkeys at typewriters are sometimes used as a contrasting counterexample to demonstrate the effectiveness of evolutionary algorithms"
That still doesn't explain their use of the term "random evolutionary search", not to mention that it's immediately followed by that "mass of the earth" and "planet destroying" 147 bits hokum.  They then proceed to show how partitioned search can solve the problem "in milliseconds".  Nowhere do I see evolutionary algorithms critiqued, much less discussed, unless they somehow consider partitioned search as an example of an evolutionary algorithm.  I suppose that would be in line with their mistaken interpretation of Weasel.
 That plus the section title, "Critiquing Evolutionary Search Algorithms" followed by a single section titled "Monkey at a Typewriter" seems too deliberate from my admittedly cynical perspective.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes - Dawkins uses the monkeys idea to illustrate the viability of random evolutionary search - by contrasting random sampling (monkeys) with cumulative selection (Evo).  Their insertion of random is unwarranted - along with the jump to discussing the mass of lots of suns ... you can smell the vapour wafting off the oil of ad homenim soaked strawmen slowly smouldering in the subtext - I guess it served to distract the reviewers long enough to get into print.
Posted by: BillB on Oct. 06 2009,02:45

Quote (BillB @ Oct. 06 2009,08:44)
Quote (sledgehammer @ Oct. 06 2009,07:36)
I see your point, Bill.  On a charitable re-read from that perspective, I concede that M&D might be trying to say something like "Monkeys at typewriters are sometimes used as a contrasting counterexample to demonstrate the effectiveness of evolutionary algorithms"
That still doesn't explain their use of the term "random evolutionary search", not to mention that it's immediately followed by that "mass of the earth" and "planet destroying" 147 bits hokum.  They then proceed to show how partitioned search can solve the problem "in milliseconds".  Nowhere do I see evolutionary algorithms critiqued, much less discussed, unless they somehow consider partitioned search as an example of an evolutionary algorithm.  I suppose that would be in line with their mistaken interpretation of Weasel.
 That plus the section title, "Critiquing Evolutionary Search Algorithms" followed by a single section titled "Monkey at a Typewriter" seems too deliberate from my admittedly cynical perspective.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes - Dawkins uses the monkeys idea to illustrate the viability of random evolutionary search - by contrasting random sampling (monkeys) with cumulative selection (Evo).  Their insertion of random is unwarranted - along with the jump to discussing the mass of lots of suns ... you can smell the vapour wafting off the oil of ad homenim soaked strawmen slowly smouldering in the subtext - I guess it served to distract the reviewers long enough to get into print.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I should point out that on my first reading of the paper I think I interpreted it the same way you did - evidence to the opacity of their writing.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 06 2009,05:42

Quote (Turncoat @ Oct. 05 2009,18:56)
Quote (sledgehammer @ Oct. 05 2009,18:06)
 
Quote (Turncoat @ Oct. 05 2009,15:57)
The latest at < Bounded Science >:
           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Resolving a moral dilemma

I made a promise to Bob Marks that I would not divulge my correspondence with him regarding drafts of the paper that IEEE SMC-A published last month. But I did not know that he and Dembski would resort to trickery to get the paper published, and, after considerable agonizing, I've decided that the better course is to break my word.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


False attribution of partitioned search to Dawkins is the not the full extent of the academic dishonesty in the article.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is the first I've heard of sneaky tactics or trickery in the path to publication.  Any details you can share? Give us dirty laundry!  We like dirty laundry.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Another blog entry is on the way. Omitting the names of the two evolutionary algorithms, as well as neglecting to cite the relevant literature, was a trick to keep the editors and reviewers from scrutinizing the redundant and/or worthless analysis Dembski and Marks provided. If there had been explicit mention of evolutionary algorithms, the editor-in-chief might have handed the paper off to a different associate editor, and the associate editor might have lined up better-informed reviewers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I had already blocked out to have a section on the neologism issue in my response, but hadn't really taken it to the academic dishonesty conclusion. I was thinking more in terms of how it was another way that poor scholarship was expressed.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 06 2009,06:22

< Monastyrski > to StephenB:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Having educated you thusly, I trust that in the future you will no longer resort to such lazy broad brush characterizations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dream big.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 06 2009,06:43

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 06 2009,07:22)
< Monastyrski > to StephenB:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Having educated you thusly, I trust that in the future you will no longer resort to such lazy broad brush characterizations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dream big.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


diffaxial having some dying muscle spasms?  lololol
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 06 2009,08:48

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 06 2009,07:43)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 06 2009,07:22)
< Monastyrski > to StephenB:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Having educated you thusly, I trust that in the future you will no longer resort to such lazy broad brush characterizations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dream big.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


diffaxial having some dying muscle spasms?  lololol
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The gamut. Pallor mortis to skeletonization.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 06 2009,10:33



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think there are few, if any, believers who would happily commit murder if God hadn’t told us not to.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-336394 >

Personally, I find it interesting that the Good Book records instances where people committed murder because God told them to. In fairness, there is a famous instance where someone disobeyed such a demand.

I've always thought the Bible reflect some evolution in ethical thinking.
Posted by: Turncoat on Oct. 06 2009,10:39

Quote (BillB @ Oct. 06 2009,00:31)
 
Quote (sledgehammer @ Oct. 05 2009,19:55)
That and "cleverly" hiding "Evolutionary Informatics" and "this is designed" in the starting strings for the partitioned search.
But I thought the most egregious error was characterizing evolutionary search as "monkey at a typewriter", the only entry in the section labeled "Critiquing Evolutionary Search Algorithms".
That should have been caught by the reviewers IMHO:

       

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

4 Critiquing Evolutionary Search Algorithms

Christensen and Oppacher note the sometimes-outrageous claims that had been made of specific optimiza-
tion algorithms" [7]. Their concern is well founded. In computer simulations of evolutionary search,
researchers often construct a complicated computational software environment and then evolve a group of
agents in that environment. When subjected to rounds of selection and variation, the agents can demon-
strate remarkable success at resolving the problem in question. Often the claim is made, or implied, that
the search algorithm deserves full credit for this remarkable success. Such claims, however, are often made
(1) without numerically or analytically assessing the endogenous information that gauges the difficulty of
the problem to be solved, and (2) without acknowledging, much less estimating, the active information that
is folded into the simulation for the search to reach a solution.

4.1 Monkey at a Typewriter
A "monkey at a typewriter" is often used to illustrate the viability of random evolutionary search. It also illustrates the need for active information in even modestly sized searches...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(my bold)
WTF is "random evolutionary search"?  Since "Active Info" is defined by them as the improvement over random search, so that last sentance is bullcrap.

Edited just because.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not so sure the intention was to characterise evolutionary algorithms as a "monkey at a typewriter", although their wording is a bit cloudy.  They may be referring to Dawkins use of WEASEL where he compares it to the idea of moneys at typewriters in order to demonstate how cumulative selection gets round the proplem of a purely random sampling
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dawkins compared the number of trials the Weasel program required to obtain the target sentence to the expected number of trials for the "monkey at a typewriter" benchmark, uniform sampling with replacement. Dembski and Marks do much the same. They compare the probability of hitting the target with the alternative search to the probability of hitting the target with the benchmark search. That is, they take the ratio of the former to the latter.

For no good reason I have been able to discern, despite spending a lot of time looking for one, they take the logarithm of the ratio. (It looked reasonable at first.) The result is "active" information. Talk about a loaded and stupid term. There is nothing "natural" about uniformity in physical processes, and deviation from uniformity does not imply that something has acted to inform the process.
Posted by: Turncoat on Oct. 06 2009,10:50

Quote (sledgehammer @ Oct. 06 2009,01:36)
I see your point, Bill.  On a charitable re-read from that perspective, I concede that M&D might be trying to say something like "Monkeys at typewriters are sometimes used as a contrasting counterexample to demonstrate the effectiveness of evolutionary algorithms"
That still doesn't explain their use of the term "random evolutionary search", not to mention that it's immediately followed by that "mass of the earth" and "planet destroying" 147 bits hokum.  They then proceed to show how partitioned search can solve the problem "in milliseconds".  Nowhere do I see evolutionary algorithms critiqued, much less discussed, unless they somehow consider partitioned search as an example of an evolutionary algorithm.  I suppose that would be in line with their mistaken interpretation of Weasel.
 That plus the section title, "Critiquing Evolutionary Search Algorithms" followed by a single section titled "Monkey at a Typewriter" seems too deliberate from my admittedly cynical perspective.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They do analyze two evolutionary algorithms, but do not identify them as such, and do not cite the appropriate literature. I believe they wanted to avoid proper scrutiny of their results. See the < email note to Marks explaining one of the algorithms > and the < comments on academic dishonesty > at Bounded Science.
Posted by: Turncoat on Oct. 06 2009,10:59

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 06 2009,05:42)
Quote (Turncoat @ Oct. 05 2009,18:56)
 
Quote (sledgehammer @ Oct. 05 2009,18:06)
   
Quote (Turncoat @ Oct. 05 2009,15:57)
The latest at < Bounded Science >:
           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Resolving a moral dilemma

I made a promise to Bob Marks that I would not divulge my correspondence with him regarding drafts of the paper that IEEE SMC-A published last month. But I did not know that he and Dembski would resort to trickery to get the paper published, and, after considerable agonizing, I've decided that the better course is to break my word.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


False attribution of partitioned search to Dawkins is the not the full extent of the academic dishonesty in the article.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is the first I've heard of sneaky tactics or trickery in the path to publication.  Any details you can share? Give us dirty laundry!  We like dirty laundry.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Another blog entry is on the way. Omitting the names of the two evolutionary algorithms, as well as neglecting to cite the relevant literature, was a trick to keep the editors and reviewers from scrutinizing the redundant and/or worthless analysis Dembski and Marks provided. If there had been explicit mention of evolutionary algorithms, the editor-in-chief might have handed the paper off to a different associate editor, and the associate editor might have lined up better-informed reviewers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I had already blocked out to have a section on the neologism issue in my response, but hadn't really taken it to the academic dishonesty conclusion. I was thinking more in terms of how it was another way that poor scholarship was expressed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm a bit worried that lodging academic dishonesty complaints will fire up the old "expelled" propaganda mill. I really will listen to arguments against doing it.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 06 2009,11:06

X-posted from the Czar thread:

The most excellent Learned Hand informs me that he has been silently banninated at UD.

He asked, "Would you mind posting a quick FYI that Barrys thread is, indeed, a cowards trap?"

Indeed.

(LH was never a sock. He'll be joining us shortly.)
Posted by: BillB on Oct. 06 2009,11:56

Quote (Turncoat @ Oct. 06 2009,16:59)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 06 2009,05:42)
Quote (Turncoat @ Oct. 05 2009,18:56)
 
Quote (sledgehammer @ Oct. 05 2009,18:06)
   
Quote (Turncoat @ Oct. 05 2009,15:57)
The latest at < Bounded Science >:
             

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Resolving a moral dilemma

I made a promise to Bob Marks that I would not divulge my correspondence with him regarding drafts of the paper that IEEE SMC-A published last month. But I did not know that he and Dembski would resort to trickery to get the paper published, and, after considerable agonizing, I've decided that the better course is to break my word.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


False attribution of partitioned search to Dawkins is the not the full extent of the academic dishonesty in the article.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is the first I've heard of sneaky tactics or trickery in the path to publication.  Any details you can share? Give us dirty laundry!  We like dirty laundry.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Another blog entry is on the way. Omitting the names of the two evolutionary algorithms, as well as neglecting to cite the relevant literature, was a trick to keep the editors and reviewers from scrutinizing the redundant and/or worthless analysis Dembski and Marks provided. If there had been explicit mention of evolutionary algorithms, the editor-in-chief might have handed the paper off to a different associate editor, and the associate editor might have lined up better-informed reviewers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I had already blocked out to have a section on the neologism issue in my response, but hadn't really taken it to the academic dishonesty conclusion. I was thinking more in terms of how it was another way that poor scholarship was expressed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm a bit worried that lodging academic dishonesty complaints will fire up the old "expelled" propaganda mill. I really will listen to arguments against doing it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I agree that a complaint would present an opportunity for them to cry conspiracy but it would also be a shame to let them get away with academic dishonesty ... tricky one.

The alternative I suppose is to refute the paper from a technical standpoint through academic journals, and try and hint at the possible dishonesty through that means.

Whatever happens there will be claims of a conspiracy to expell ID (Even though the paper isn't about ID) and the paper will be hailed as peer reviewed research supporting ID.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 06 2009,13:21

< StephenB > scolds Seversky:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You have written not one word in your response condemning pornography. Rather, you changed the subject rather dramatically, implying that you don’t think pornography is the equivalent of sexual slavery, which means that you have left the door open for continuing to defend the former. Also, you have nothing to say about the poor fool who has become addicted to it and needs some kind of liberation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Stephen would also like to emphasize how unattractive he found the hair on the palms of his hands. I mean, when he could still see it.
Posted by: Turncoat on Oct. 06 2009,13:37

Quote (BillB @ Oct. 06 2009,11:56)
The alternative I suppose is to refute the paper from a technical standpoint through academic journals, and try and hint at the possible dishonesty through that means.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It often takes more words to rebut a smooth creationist argument than are in the argument itself. It's hard to explain what's wrong with some fundamental things that Dembski and Marks breeze right through, like the notion of search.

In the IEEE Computational Intelligence Society, which includes investigators in evolutionary computation, rebuttals go in a peer-reviewed "magazine," not the primary journals, and manuscripts are limited to 8 double-spaced pages. The notorious information-smuggling president of society, David Fogel, tells me that the rebuttals are of articles in journals published by our society, not those of other societies (e.g., Systems, Man, and Cybernetics). I need to check with the editor of the magazine to see if there might be an exception. I don't know him, and the matter is politically sensitive.

I have to decide what strong points I can get across in very few words, and forget the others, even if I think they're very important. I frankly am very poor at disciplining myself to do that.
Posted by: Rrr on Oct. 06 2009,14:04

Quote (Turncoat @ Oct. 06 2009,13:37)
Quote (BillB @ Oct. 06 2009,11:56)
The alternative I suppose is to refute the paper from a technical standpoint through academic journals, and try and hint at the possible dishonesty through that means.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It often takes more words to rebut a smooth creationist argument than are in the argument itself. It's hard to explain what's wrong with some fundamental things that Dembski and Marks breeze right through, like the notion of search.

In the IEEE Computational Intelligence Society, which includes investigators in evolutionary computation, rebuttals go in a peer-reviewed "magazine," not the primary journals, and manuscripts are limited to 8 double-spaced pages.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tough challenge to so briefly (only 8 pages) counter a thesis as economically expressible as GODDIDIT (only 8 characters). 8 seconds is a normal sound bite, approximating the attention span of most ppl.

Teh stoopid is teh dense. Cant really pack it any tighter than that.
Posted by: Maya on Oct. 06 2009,14:36

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 06 2009,11:06)
X-posted from the Czar thread:

The most excellent Learned Hand informs me that he has been silently banninated at UD.

He asked, "Would you mind posting a quick FYI that Barrys thread is, indeed, a cowards trap?"

Indeed.

(LH was never a sock. He'll be joining us shortly.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We could all see that coming.  Learned Hand was routinely vulgar, utterly contemptuous towards those with whom he was debating, completely unable to support his theses, and generally fit the definition of a troll to a T (and that leaves aside his clear intellectual deficiencies).

Oh, wait, that's Barry.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 06 2009,14:49

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 06 2009,11:06)
The most excellent Learned Hand informs me that he has been silently banninated at UD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Slapping around the UDiots with a Learned Hand inevitably results in official (mod, admin) retaliation, in one form or another. Glad to hear that LH will be part of the banned here, though -- I saw his/her name on the user list yesterday and wondered about that.

ETA: I can't even express outrage or surprise any more when Billy's Boys pull this sort of thing. It's expected.
Posted by: MichaelJ on Oct. 06 2009,15:07

Quote (BillB @ Oct. 07 2009,02:56)
Quote (Turncoat @ Oct. 06 2009,16:59)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 06 2009,05:42)
 
Quote (Turncoat @ Oct. 05 2009,18:56)
   
Quote (sledgehammer @ Oct. 05 2009,18:06)
     
Quote (Turncoat @ Oct. 05 2009,15:57)
The latest at < Bounded Science >:
             

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Resolving a moral dilemma

I made a promise to Bob Marks that I would not divulge my correspondence with him regarding drafts of the paper that IEEE SMC-A published last month. But I did not know that he and Dembski would resort to trickery to get the paper published, and, after considerable agonizing, I've decided that the better course is to break my word.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


False attribution of partitioned search to Dawkins is the not the full extent of the academic dishonesty in the article.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is the first I've heard of sneaky tactics or trickery in the path to publication.  Any details you can share? Give us dirty laundry!  We like dirty laundry.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Another blog entry is on the way. Omitting the names of the two evolutionary algorithms, as well as neglecting to cite the relevant literature, was a trick to keep the editors and reviewers from scrutinizing the redundant and/or worthless analysis Dembski and Marks provided. If there had been explicit mention of evolutionary algorithms, the editor-in-chief might have handed the paper off to a different associate editor, and the associate editor might have lined up better-informed reviewers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I had already blocked out to have a section on the neologism issue in my response, but hadn't really taken it to the academic dishonesty conclusion. I was thinking more in terms of how it was another way that poor scholarship was expressed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm a bit worried that lodging academic dishonesty complaints will fire up the old "expelled" propaganda mill. I really will listen to arguments against doing it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I agree that a complaint would present an opportunity for them to cry conspiracy but it would also be a shame to let them get away with academic dishonesty ... tricky one.

The alternative I suppose is to refute the paper from a technical standpoint through academic journals, and try and hint at the possible dishonesty through that means.

Whatever happens there will be claims of a conspiracy to expell ID (Even though the paper isn't about ID) and the paper will be hailed as peer reviewed research supporting ID.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can't see the reason to tip-toe around. Think about the undecided middle. If you do a technical criticism, the undecided uninformed may just read it as taking DrDr seriously (and this may include IEEE themselves). Without background how are they to know whether you are critiquing details or are calling the paper a load of old bollocks.

I'd say call it dishonest scholarship, the IEEE would probably not publish them again. Also it is a simpler concept to understand for somebody randomly googling Dembski.

Sure they will play the martyr card but still both stories are out there, otherwise there is only Dembski braying that he has a published paper.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 06 2009,15:15

Supporting the claim of dishonesty is the well documented trail of warnings that the example doesn't match Dawkins' algorithm.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 06 2009,15:40

Quote (Turncoat @ Oct. 05 2009,18:56)
   
Quote (sledgehammer @ Oct. 05 2009,18:06)
     
Quote (Turncoat @ Oct. 05 2009,15:57)
The latest at < Bounded Science >:
             

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Resolving a moral dilemma

I made a promise to Bob Marks that I would not divulge my correspondence with him regarding drafts of the paper that IEEE SMC-A published last month. But I did not know that he and Dembski would resort to trickery to get the paper published, and, after considerable agonizing, I've decided that the better course is to break my word.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


False attribution of partitioned search to Dawkins is the not the full extent of the academic dishonesty in the article.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is the first I've heard of sneaky tactics or trickery in the path to publication.  Any details you can share? Give us dirty laundry!  We like dirty laundry.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Another blog entry is on the way. Omitting the names of the two evolutionary algorithms, as well as neglecting to cite the relevant literature, was a trick to keep the editors and reviewers from scrutinizing the redundant and/or worthless analysis Dembski and Marks provided. If there had been explicit mention of evolutionary algorithms, the editor-in-chief might have handed the paper off to a different associate editor, and the associate editor might have lined up better-informed reviewers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let me play the Devil's (heh!) Advocate here. You are assuming that D&M resorted to trickery to get their paper published.  I will grant that it is a safe assumption given those two's history (e.g. trying to sneak Dembski into the EIL ,and by extension back into Baylor, as a post-doc.)  However, you might ask yourself if the omissions you see as proof of academic dishonesty could, when divorced from the backstory, also be interpreted as academic sloppiness?  If there is latitude for someone at IEEE, who is not familiar with the evolution culture war like we are, to come to a different conclusion, then you might tread carefully about ascribing motive.

I am not saying that they weren't trying to pull a fast one and I am not saying you should not call them out for academic dishonesty.  But, just be aware that your reputation may be as much on the line as theirs.

Additionally, from my perspective*, the greatest indictment against Dembski and Marks is their willful misrepresentation of WEASEL as a partitioned search. There is a long, documented history of them being told otherwise. You specifically told Marks that it wasn't.  And Wes Elsberry had told the same < to Dembski 9 years ago >.

* Granted, I am not an expert in these technical subjects. Indeed, I don't even rise to the level of amateur.  But, I can understand the implications of their continued misrepresentation of WEASEL without having it stated specifically.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 06 2009,15:50

I think Dembski is aware of his problem with misrepresenting Dawkins. Hence the recent thread attempting to present a phoney Pascal program as Dawkins' original.

That seemed kind of lame at the time, but I suspect he was covering himself.
Posted by: Turncoat on Oct. 06 2009,16:11

Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 06 2009,15:40)
Quote (Turncoat @ Oct. 05 2009,18:56)
     
Quote (sledgehammer @ Oct. 05 2009,18:06)
       
Quote (Turncoat @ Oct. 05 2009,15:57)
The latest at < Bounded Science >:
               

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Resolving a moral dilemma

I made a promise to Bob Marks that I would not divulge my correspondence with him regarding drafts of the paper that IEEE SMC-A published last month. But I did not know that he and Dembski would resort to trickery to get the paper published, and, after considerable agonizing, I've decided that the better course is to break my word.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


False attribution of partitioned search to Dawkins is the not the full extent of the academic dishonesty in the article.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is the first I've heard of sneaky tactics or trickery in the path to publication.  Any details you can share? Give us dirty laundry!  We like dirty laundry.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Another blog entry is on the way. Omitting the names of the two evolutionary algorithms, as well as neglecting to cite the relevant literature, was a trick to keep the editors and reviewers from scrutinizing the redundant and/or worthless analysis Dembski and Marks provided. If there had been explicit mention of evolutionary algorithms, the editor-in-chief might have handed the paper off to a different associate editor, and the associate editor might have lined up better-informed reviewers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let me play the Devil's (heh!) Advocate here. You are assuming that D&M resorted to trickery to get their paper published.  I will grant that it is a safe assumption given those two's history (e.g. trying to sneak Dembski into the EIL ,and by extension back into Baylor, as a post-doc.)  However, you might ask yourself if the omissions you see as proof of academic dishonesty could, when divorced from the backstory, also be interpreted as academic sloppiness?  If there is latitude for someone at IEEE, who is not familiar with the evolution culture war like we are, to come to a different conclusion, then you might tread carefully about ascribing motive.

I am not saying that they weren't trying to pull a fast one and I am not saying you should not call them out for academic dishonesty.  But, just be aware that your reputation may be as much on the line as theirs.

Additionally, from my perspective*, the greatest indictment against Dembski and Marks is their willful misrepresentation of WEASEL as a partitioned search. There is a long, documented history of them being told otherwise. You specifically told Marks that it wasn't.  And Wes Elsberry had told the same < to Dembski 9 years ago >.

* Granted, I am not an expert in these technical subjects. Indeed, I don't even rise to the level of amateur.  But, I can understand the implications of their continued misrepresentation of WEASEL without having it stated specifically.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


See what Shallit had to say about < acknowledging priority > at Recursivity. He seems to agree that it's a pretty big deal to leave out mention of prior work you know about.

Dembski and Marks certainly repeat published analysis in the case of the (1+1)-EA [the one with "elitism"]. Prior results make the approximation they derive for the (1,2)-EA essentially worthless. DiEb has done Markov modeling of the Weasel program as a (1,n)-EA [what most of us think it is, whether we know the nomenclature or not] to generate the wonderful < plots > at his blog. This is what Dembski and Marks evidently were unable to do for even the (1,n)-EA searching for a target sentence over a 2-character alphabet, with n restricted to 2. In other words, Dembski and Marks have little to show in comparison to what DiEb put out on his blog.

Hope that made sense. I've got to rush off to keep a date with my bicycle.
Posted by: REC on Oct. 06 2009,22:05

"Jeff Shallit charges Jonathan Wells with incompetence for claiming that duplicating a gene does not increase the available genetic information."

Dr. D decides to step it in by listing every type of information theory known to him. But logically, if a gene is duplicated, the duplicate serves as a rich founding source of genetic information. Note the word AVAILABLE. It can mutate and change in ways not constrained by the original function. The identical, duplicate gene may have no additional information at t=0 (depending on which rabbit you pull out of the hat to parse that), but if evolution has two templates to modify and select, thats TWICE as damn many as one.

In the original context-Hox gene evolution (see below) it is clear that this is the point being made.  The many  HOX duplications and diversification allow for the regulation of diverse body plans.

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009....an.html >

"The questioner became agitated and shouted out something to the effect that HOX gene duplication explained the increase in information needed for the diversification of animal body plans. I replied that duplicating a gene doesn’t increase information content any more than photocopying a paper increases its information content"
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 06 2009,22:28



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

"The questioner became agitated and shouted out something to the effect that HOX gene duplication explained the increase in information needed for the diversification of animal body plans. I replied that duplicating a gene doesn’t increase information content any more than photocopying a paper increases its information content"

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



Certainly the information that an IDC advocate is wrong seems not to sink in no matter how many times they are presented with it.

But in biology, duplicated genetic material commonly does produce a difference in the phenotype.

< See here. >
Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 06 2009,23:46

Bwahaha

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....omments >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1

Reg

10/06/2009

6:44 pm
“[as well as] Kolmogorov there are lots and lots of other definitions of information out there. There’s Fisher information. There’s Shannon information. There’s Jack Szostak’s functional information.”

So it would help greatly if ID scholars would indicate exactly what information they mean when they say, for example, that duplicating a gene does not increase the available genetic information. Dr Dembski – the Isaac Newton of Information Theory – hasn’t told us what sort of information Dr Wells was referring to, but this post would be an excellent opportunity to do so.

[Reg:] You’re on thin ice so stop with the flip comments. As it is, I defined what concept of information I was using when discussing duplication in my book INTELLIGENT DESIGN. As for Wells, should he have explicitly laid out what concept of information he was using? I don’t think it was necessary. The concept he was using has wide currency, both within and outside the ID movement. Shallit’s fault is that he was so intent on making Wells look ridiculous that he refused to employ the principle of charity in interpreting his remarks and then used a concept of information that Wells could not have been using except in error. On another note, my harsh moderation policies have been considerably reined in at UD given the new management, but I have no problem banning you from this thread and I still have enough clout here to get you banned period. So keep it civil or head for the exit. –WmAD

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


Posted by: djmullen on Oct. 07 2009,01:27

I seem to have been silently banninated from Uncommon Descent.  Two messages disappeared without ever coming out of moderation and the last two messages I wrote vanished as soon as I hit return.  Long experience at UD has taught me to keep copies of every message I post, so here are the two that disappeared without coming out of moderation.

The first was for niwraD's "How to become an IDer in two weeks" thread:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1
djmullen
10/05/2009
6:41 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.


The big problem here is that computer architectures and the languages that run on them are DESIGNED. One of the goals of DESIGNING any computer language is to make it run as fast as possible and use as little memory as possible. This means that every last bit of redundancy is DESIGNED out of the language. This in turn means that these DESIGNED languages are incredibly brittle. Changing a single bit can often radically alter the operation of the program or make it crash spectacularly.

Life, on the other hand, is NOT DESIGNED and neither is the “language” of DNA. This means that changing a base-pair in most stretches of DNA makes no change in the organism’s operation at all. I think somebody (Clive maybe?) once stated on this blog that 1/2 of all mutations have no effect at all, 1/4 are deleterious and 1/4 are actually beneficial.

This means that fooling around with a DESIGNED language, such as a computer program is very bad training for fooling around with an UNDESIGNED organism and its DNA.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I do wish that people would continue to bash IDers over the head with this whenever they compare errors in DESIGNED languages, like computer languages with errors in UNDESIGNED languages, such as the "language" of DNA.  They really shouldn't have the free shot we're letting them have with this.

The second message was in the "Simply Not Credible" thread started by Gil Dodgem.  It was to tgpeeler, with whom I had been having a long discussion on what is and is not information:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
212
djmullen
10/06/2009
6:04 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.


tgpeeler, I spent last night and tonight reading some new threads on this blog and I really have to ask myself, is it even worth my time, indeed, is it even moral to engage any IDCer in conversation?

I say this after reading the slanderfest of a thread that Barry Arrington has opened on a perfectly moral comment by Seversky (”Hatred of Religion By Materialists More Virulent Than Previously Thought Possible”).

Reading that thread, where Arrington takes Seversky’s perfectly moral and innocuous statement (… I would prefer to give to those that do not include proselytization [sic] as part of their program.) and twists it into “… would rather see a young woman live in sexual slavery if that’s what it takes to insulate her from the influence of Christians who would try to help her.” positively turns my stomach. No, it makes me so $#%^#@ angry I want to punch some sense into that fool’s head – and I am not by nature a violent person.

Then I see DonaldM’s vacuous “Materialism and Moral Clarity” on the same topic, filled with O’Leary’s drivel like “My obstetrician friend who cashed in her possibly lucrative and well-respected career in Canada to go teach midwives in Africa – using modern techniques – would not likely have done that if she were not a devout Christian, who wanted to serve her Lord by saving mothers and babies, via teaching midwives scientific medicine.” as if she’s never even heard of Doctors Without Borders and other secular groups.

Then I write a short response to niwraD’s “How to become an IDer in two weeks” which mentions that computer languages are intelligently designed to use as little memory as possible and operate as quickly as possible, which makes them incredibly brittle and prone to crash, unlike the evolved and very fault tolerant DNA system and it goes straight into the bit bucket without a trace and I have to seriously ask myself, is it worth the time to talk to you people?

None of you have attained your beliefs through reason and you’re all incredibly ignorant about evolution and full of false “knowledge” about it. Most of you are convinced that if evolution is true, your God is dead and there is no heaven. The rest know that if evolution is true then IDers have made mighty big jackasses of themselves and in public.

Now what chance do I have against that? I’ve thought of a few new ways to illustrate my points, but I don’t have the kind of emotional arguments that would have a chance against ID’s emotion based beliefs. And I know, from bitter experience, that if I make an argument that really puts intelligent design on the spot, my posts will join the hundreds of other posts that I and a host of others have made that disappeared right down the bit bucket and never even saw the light of day.

That censoring and especially Arrington’s thread have pretty well disgusted me on ID.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That last message pretty well sums up my attitude towards the moral midgets of creationism and ID creationism.  No logical argument or set of facts is ever going to budge any of them one inch.  They did not reason themselves into their current beliefs and no amount of reason will reason them out of them.  Better to use the ID technique of pure Madison Avenue P.R. and go for an emotional attack, which I am not well equipped to mount.  So screw them.
Posted by: CeilingCat on Oct. 07 2009,01:33

Speaking of the "How to become an IDer in two weeks" thread, here are some simplified instructions:

1: Using plenty of lubricant, force the crown of the skull up against your rectum, then, using the 40 pound sledge hammer ...
Posted by: BillB on Oct. 07 2009,02:25

Quote (djmullen @ Oct. 07 2009,07:27)
I seem to have been silently banninated from Uncommon Descent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think I have too - it will be known in the future as the great purge of October where the dictators of UD got fed up with having their opinions questioned and expelled anyone with opposing views.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 07 2009,02:50

< O'Leary > wishes that anything she writes will still be talked about decades later:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To the best of my knowledge, neither Newton nor Einstein wrote a long racist tract, as Darwin did (the Descent of Man).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I doubt anybody will even remember O'Leary after an equivalent amount of time has passed.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I’d like to know if, at any point, Darwinists have ever simply disowned the racism, instead of covering it up or misrepresenting it as not really Darwin’s views, to protect their prophet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Have you stopped beating your Husband yet O'Leary?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 07 2009,02:54

Upright Biped wonders aloud
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I have wondered; what are the exact coordinates within the genome that causes the chemical reactions formerly known as living organisms to wish to persist, as oppossed to seeking stasis as the stately rocks, or heat traveling to cold?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Tard >.
Why don't you try and find out Bi-Tard? What's stopping you? Pull on the lab coat and get busy!
Posted by: Reed on Oct. 07 2009,03:36

Quote (doleary @ tard,farm)
To the best of my knowledge, neither Newton nor Einstein wrote a long racist tract, as Darwin Martin Luther did (the Descent of Man Von den Juden und Ihren Lügen).

..
I’d like to know if, at any point, Darwinists Protestants have ever simply disowned the racism, instead of covering it up or misrepresenting it as not really Darwin’s Martin Luther's views, to protect their prophet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK, I guess Doleary is/was nominally a Catholic, but she sure seem to hang around with the protestant kind, and I'm too lazy to come up a Catholic equivalent.
Posted by: KenGee on Oct. 07 2009,04:04

Is Dumbski an complete fool or what. His latest post "Going public with ID" not only does Rob F*k him, he F*K's himself up. Not only does he out himself as a Rush fanboy he also links to a story not about ID.....mmm unless you take the line "A denigration of religious belief and its replacement by the "worship" of secular humanism" as the ID part. But isn't ID non-religious?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 07 2009,04:22

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 07 2009,02:50)
< O'Leary > wishes that anything she writes will still be talked about decades later:
  [snip Densey drivel]
Have you stopped beating your Husband yet O'Leary?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I seem to recall reading a while back, in some tripe DuhLeery wrote, that she'd been divorced and was whining about it. I don't recall it being explicitly laid out, but strongly implied.

I can only assume her ex wised up to the nut job he was hitched to.
Posted by: Reg on Oct. 07 2009,04:31

I notice that while I seem to have been pushed into < UD's Outer Darkness > they still haven't actually answered the question of what kind of information Wells meant. Ho hum.
I don't quite know why Hayden says "Reg is now moderated" (my emphasis) - everything I've posted there for months has only appeared after being "held in moderation" for several hours.
Posted by: CeilingCat on Oct. 07 2009,05:42

Quote (Reed @ Oct. 07 2009,03:36)
 
Quote (doleary @ tard,farm)
To the best of my knowledge, neither Newton nor Einstein wrote a long racist tract, as Darwin Martin Luther did (the Descent of Man Von den Juden und Ihren Lügen).

..
I’d like to know if, at any point, Darwinists Protestants have ever simply disowned the racism, instead of covering it up or misrepresenting it as not really Darwin’s Martin Luther's views, to protect their prophet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK, I guess Doleary is/was nominally a Catholic, but she sure seem to hang around with the protestant kind, and I'm too lazy to come up a Catholic equivalent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oddly for someone with an Irish name, she is actually a convert to Catholicism.  She must have married Irish.

On a similar note, Dembski is a convert to red-neck protestantism.  Dembski is currently in bed with the Southern Baptists, but I think that's more for the paycheck and the (very small amount of) prestige he gets from being a faculty member of Southwestern Bible and Barbeque.  He'd really give his eye teeth to be able to dine at the Baylor cafeteria.
Posted by: KCdgw on Oct. 07 2009,06:09

I'm confused. So Dembski doesn't think he is the Isaac Newton of Information Theory?
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 07 2009,08:32

They're really going to be up the creek when the next generation of computer hardware becomes available.

< http://www.stanford.edu/group/brainsinsilicon/goals.html >

The brittleness and susceptibility to crashing on bit errors will disappear when the hardware better emulates brains. I thought this was twenty years away, but apparently not. I now expect commercial products within five or ten years.
Posted by: keiths on Oct. 07 2009,08:41

< Khan to CornyTard >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Cornelius,
I am looking forward to the creation of your companion website "Newton's predictions." The failure of Newton's theory of gravity is one of the great stories of 20th century science, yet it is still taught in textbooks as if it was true. This is an outrage, brought about by physicists' slavish devotion to their prophet. Religion drives physics and it matters.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Goffr on Oct. 07 2009,09:15

Quote (KenGee @ Oct. 07 2009,04:04)
Is Dumbski an complete fool or what. His latest post "Going public with ID" not only does Rob F*k him, he F*K's himself up. Not only does he out himself as a Rush fanboy he also links to a story not about ID.....mmm unless you take the line "A denigration of religious belief and its replacement by the "worship" of secular humanism" as the ID part. But isn't ID non-religious?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just read over that... does a +1 or -1 make much difference to the theory? I haven't done any maths since 1 year uni, and the whole thing looks like gibberish to me.
Posted by: BillB on Oct. 07 2009,09:24

< tribune7 >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
61
tribune7
10/07/2009
8:03 am

I vote for charity — for Seversky.

I whole-heartily defend his freedom not to give money to organizations whose views he doesn’t share.

But can we all agree that the underlying incident that is the basis for this discussion shows that the NSF has lost all credibility to speak as any kind of authority?

Oh, and would Seversky defend our freedom not to give money to organizations whose views we don’t share i.e. like the NSF and a host of other tax-supported institutions?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So if the whole organisation has lost its credibility because of a few employees surfing for porn, then what does that say about the authority of the Catholic church?
Posted by: keiths on Oct. 07 2009,09:37

Quote (Goffr @ Oct. 07 2009,07:15)
 
Quote (KenGee @ Oct. 07 2009,04:04)
Is Dumbski an complete fool or what. His latest post "Going public with ID" not only does Rob F*k him, he F*K's himself up. Not only does he out himself as a Rush fanboy he also links to a story not about ID.....mmm unless you take the line "A denigration of religious belief and its replacement by the "worship" of secular humanism" as the ID part. But isn't ID non-religious?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just read over that... does a +1 or -1 make much difference to the theory?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


R0b himself, < in pointing out the error >, describes it as "inconsequential":


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And simple algebra reveals the inconsequential error in the combinatoric proof of the Strict Vertical NFLT, namely that ?(K+1) should be ?(K-1).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dembski had arrogantly questioned whether R0b was "in a position to evaluate" the paper. R0b's point is that you don't have to be a Dr. Dr. to read a paper carefully and find errors in it.
Posted by: sparc on Oct. 07 2009,09:47

< Joseph > paging Gordon Mullings

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You make a copy of something and altough you have two of it the information is the same.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 07 2009,10:23

DR^2:

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-336511 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
9

William Dembski

10/07/2009

7:50 am
Nakashima & Frank: The ID movement does not use just one concept of information.

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



Because one definition does not lend itself to equivocation, bait and switch and goalpost-moving.
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 07 2009,10:49

Quote (sparc @ Oct. 07 2009,07:47)
< Joseph > paging Gordon Mullings    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You make a copy of something and altough you have two of it the information is the same.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Why can't they grasp that fact that the number of times a sequence is repeated is itself information?  Or that the location of each repetition is yet more information?  You don't even have to get into questions of whether or not the duplication is of an active gene, if it too gets transcribed, and whether  that has any effect if it does.

This is ridiculously obvious, and doesn't even require them to ponder that tricky DNA stuff at all: have your monitor display a single color.  Now do the same thing on a larger or smaller one.  So, what's the difference all you ID geniuses? Even though you could use the same simple program in both cases, that code will need to know different things for each run.  Now do it with image files of the same format that match the resolution of each display.  Compare the file sizes.  Notice anything?

So back to that DNA gunk, Joe-tard....you're exactly right: repeat a sequence and you have two of it.  Repeat it again, and you've got three.  And guess what?  1 != 2 != 3.  Maybe you learned about that somewhere.

(edited to add more information)
Posted by: sparc on Oct. 07 2009,11:38

The Chemistry Nobel Prize 2009    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"for studies of the structure and function of the ribosome"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

will offer UD-creationists more opportunities than the teleomeres awarded in Medicine and Physiology.Thus, be prepaired to see more like < this >    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think the ribosome is the ultimate testimony to irreducible complexity and complex specified information. The flagellum is trivial in comparative complexity but to give credit where credit is due, the flagella’s structure is more readily understood due to widespread understanding of motors and propellers whereas the ribomsome is most like a computer controlled 3D milling machine programmed to make all the parts required to build a duplicate of itself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< and this >    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The ribosome should be our focal point. Other ID proponents, < Bill Dembski in particular >, say that the DNA/protein paradox is too complex for lay persons to easily grasp and the ribosome’s structure doesn’t immediately bring to mind any machines people are familiar with. And so the flagellum remains the icon of ID instead of the ribosome.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

If Dr. Dr. Dembski only listened to DaveScot the ribosome would be UD's mascot.
Posted by: sparc on Oct. 07 2009,11:42

< overwhelmongevidence > seems to have finally passed away.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Unable to select database

We were able to connect to the MySQL database server (which means your username and password are okay) but not able to select the database.

The MySQL error was: Access denied for user 'cdslayer_cds'@'localhost' to database 'cdslayer_live'.

Currently, the database is cdslayer_live. The username is cdslayer_cds and the database server is localhost.

   * Are you sure you have the correct database name?
   * Are you sure the database exists?
   * Are you sure the username has permission to access the database?

For more help, see the Installation and upgrading handbook. If you are unsure what these terms mean you should probably contact your hosting provider.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Doc Bill on Oct. 07 2009,12:04

I think it's really cute how the IDiots (I'm talking about you, Dembski!) go to great lengths to explain what each other meant, but never, never confront critics directly.

Dembski explains Wells, Wells explains Meyer, Crowther explains West, Axe explains Behe and Behe explains himself scoring an pwn goal.

How come Wells doesn't hop on UD and explain what he meant and discuss it with the sock puppets?

Could it be that the rare time Behe forgot to lock comments he got taken to the woodshed by a GRADUATE STUDENT and had to retract his claim?

I get this vision of Dembski, Behe, Wells, Meyer, Crowther, West, Hunter, Axe and Luskin sitting around in a circle.

It's not a pretty vision.  Rather disturbing, actually.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 07 2009,12:11

Quote (Doc Bill @ Oct. 07 2009,12:04)
How come Wells doesn't hop on UD and explain what he meant and discuss it with the sock puppets?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Too risky. How many comments do you think it would take before someone asked Wells if he really thought that the Reverend Moon was The Messiah?



EDIT: It would be pretty interesting, though, to see how the more conventionally fundamentalist of the UD crowd would react.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 07 2009,12:20

Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 07 2009,12:11)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Oct. 07 2009,12:04)
How come Wells doesn't hop on UD and explain what he meant and discuss it with the sock puppets?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Too risky. How many comments do you think it would take before someone asked Wells if he really thought that the Reverend Moon was The Messiah?



EDIT: It would be pretty interesting, though, to see how the more conventionally fundamentalist of the UD crowd would react.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


*Spoiler alert*

The 'Dove of peace' is stuffed up his sleeve.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 07 2009,12:22

What's with the one white glove thing?

Is ...that... could it be... Michael Jackson's real dad?
Posted by: sparc on Oct. 07 2009,12:29

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 07 2009,12:22)
What's with the one white glove thing?

Is ...that... could it be... Michael Jackson's real dad?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know about the glove but you can get this kind of paper crown at Burger King for free (at least in Germany).
Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 07 2009,12:37

On the Moral Clarity thread, Clive is firm in his desire to censure the entire NSF over the pr0n viewing of a few employees:



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

< 66 >
Clive Hayden
10/07/2009
12:16 pm

Mark Frank,


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

   Because 7 employees out of 1200 have been found guilty of misconduct related to pornography?

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


Of course it depends on which 7, and what positions they hold, what other poor decisions they’ve made, how much money and time and resources have been lost, etc., if it is the upper echelons and not the functionaries and janitors, then yes, I think we have a right to discredit them.

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



I wonder if Clive would similarly censure The National Association of Evangelicals, who's < President from 2003 to 2006 > resigned amid accusations of using methamphetamine with the male prostitute he was having teh homo sex with?
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 07 2009,12:38

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 07 2009,12:22)
What's with the one white glove thing?

Is ...that... could it be... Michael Jackson's real dad?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I think I may have inadvertantly struck on the secret origins of MJ's "Moonwalking"
Posted by: Rrr on Oct. 07 2009,14:23

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 07 2009,12:38)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 07 2009,12:22)
What's with the one white glove thing?

Is ...that... could it be... Michael Jackson's real dad?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I think I may have inadvertantly struck on the secret origins of MJ's "Moonwalking"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're probably right, Michael Jackson's real dead. Oh.
Posted by: KCdgw on Oct. 07 2009,14:45

Quote (Doc Bill @ Oct. 07 2009,12:04)
I think it's really cute how the IDiots (I'm talking about you, Dembski!) go to great lengths to explain what each other meant, but never, never confront critics directly.

Dembski explains Wells, Wells explains Meyer, Crowther explains West, Axe explains Behe and Behe explains himself scoring an pwn goal.

How come Wells doesn't hop on UD and explain what he meant and discuss it with the sock puppets?

Could it be that the rare time Behe forgot to lock comments he got taken to the woodshed by a GRADUATE STUDENT and had to retract his claim?

I get this vision of Dembski, Behe, Wells, Meyer, Crowther, West, Hunter, Axe and Luskin sitting around in a circle.

It's not a pretty vision.  Rather disturbing, actually.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 07 2009,15:15

Quote (Doc Bill @ Oct. 07 2009,11:04)
I think it's really cute how the IDiots (I'm talking about you, Dembski!;) go to great lengths to explain what each other meant, but never, never confront critics directly.

Dembski explains Wells, Wells explains Meyer, Crowther explains West, Axe explains Behe and Behe explains himself scoring an pwn goal.

How come Wells doesn't hop on UD and explain what he meant and discuss it with the sock puppets?

Could it be that the rare time Behe forgot to lock comments he got taken to the woodshed by a GRADUATE STUDENT and had to retract his claim?

I get this vision of Dembski, Behe, Wells, Meyer, Crowther, West, Hunter, Axe and Luskin sitting around in a circle.

It's not a pretty vision.  Rather disturbing, actually.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does that make them a ring species? :p
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 07 2009,16:38

If you search < google news > for "Dembski" the third result is a College newspaper: < Bistro opens at BCF >
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Senses came alive and mouths began to water as students entered the Coffee Shop at The Baptist College of Florida in Graceville where a new eatery called the Bistro just opened.

Located just inside the Student Center, the new addition provides an array of fresh deli food options with unbeatable low prices.

BCF students and Bistro guests now have the opportunity to choose from a wide variety of sandwich selections, to include fresh baked bread, wraps, as well as sliced meats, vegetables, cheeses, and desserts for a healthy “anytime” meal.

Since the school cafeteria is not available on weekends, the Bistro offers a whole new level of convenience for BCF students. “I think it’s cool that they have a place for food (to be served) on the weekends,” stated BCF sophomore Donald Files. “I no longer have to run to the grocery store to purchase food now that they offer it on campus.”

For more information on the Bistro and other BCF news, please call (850) 263-3261 or visit the website at baptistcollege.edu.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And not a mention of Dembski to be seen.

I think this is evidence that teh google is becoming sentient.

And this is also worth a laugh:< Link >
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 07 2009,16:52

Or that the search engine is using keywords found with the first hit(s) to launch secondary searches, perhaps only when the number of initial hits is too low?

Henry
Posted by: Texas Teach on Oct. 07 2009,17:56

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 07 2009,16:38)
If you search < google news > for "Dembski" the third result is a College newspaper: < Bistro opens at BCF >
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Senses came alive and mouths began to water as students entered the Coffee Shop at The Baptist College of Florida in Graceville where a new eatery called the Bistro just opened.

Located just inside the Student Center, the new addition provides an array of fresh deli food options with unbeatable low prices.

BCF students and Bistro guests now have the opportunity to choose from a wide variety of sandwich selections, to include fresh baked bread, wraps, as well as sliced meats, vegetables, cheeses, and desserts for a healthy “anytime” meal.

Since the school cafeteria is not available on weekends, the Bistro offers a whole new level of convenience for BCF students. “I think it’s cool that they have a place for food (to be served) on the weekends,” stated BCF sophomore Donald Files. “I no longer have to run to the grocery store to purchase food now that they offer it on campus.”

For more information on the Bistro and other BCF news, please call (850) 263-3261 or visit the website at baptistcollege.edu.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And not a mention of Dembski to be seen.

I think this is evidence that teh google is becoming sentient.

And this is also worth a laugh:< Link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The first step in Dembski's plan to start up a new cafeteria and declare war on Baylor?
Posted by: J-Dog on Oct. 07 2009,20:47

Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 07 2009,17:56)
The first step in Dembski's plan design to start up a new cafeteria and declare holy war on Baylor?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fixed That For You!
Posted by: dvunkannon on Oct. 08 2009,00:15

Nakashima finds niwrad refreshingly different.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mr Niwrad,

Thank you for answering clearly. I appreciate your definiteness when so many equivocate.

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



< Still a TARD though. >
Posted by: Ptaylor on Oct. 08 2009,00:45

Heh - someone by the name of osteonectin on the Dawkins-is-a-coward-for-not-debating-Meyers thread:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But he didn’t get 20,000 bucks for not showing up.

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


< Linky > (at least for while it lasts).

Which one of you is osteonectin?
Posted by: Turncoat on Oct. 08 2009,01:29

Quote (REC @ Oct. 06 2009,22:05)
"Jeff Shallit charges Jonathan Wells with incompetence for claiming that duplicating a gene does not increase the available genetic information."

Dr. D decides to step it in by listing every type of information theory known to him. But logically, if a gene is duplicated, the duplicate serves as a rich founding source of genetic information. Note the word AVAILABLE. It can mutate and change in ways not constrained by the original function. The identical, duplicate gene may have no additional information at t=0 (depending on which rabbit you pull out of the hat to parse that), but if evolution has two templates to modify and select, thats TWICE as damn many as one.

In the original context-Hox gene evolution (see below) it is clear that this is the point being made.  The many  HOX duplications and diversification allow for the regulation of diverse body plans.

< http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009....an.html >

"The questioner became agitated and shouted out something to the effect that HOX gene duplication explained the increase in information needed for the diversification of animal body plans. I replied that duplicating a gene doesn’t increase information content any more than photocopying a paper increases its information content"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now available at the UD page through Google Sidewiki:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Describe the population, not the offspring

Let's think of a simple biological type. Each individual has a single chromosome. Let's say also that there are only two distinct chromosomes in the population. Each individual has either chromosome X or chromosome Y.

You cannot describe the population of chromosomes just by writing out the genetic spellings of X and Y. You have to indicate how many X's there are, and how many Y's. Thus there is more information in the population than there is in X and Y. If an X-individual produces an offspring that is a perfect copy of itself, then the number of X's increases. There is generally more information in bigger numbers (ranging over the set of non-negative integers), whatever the measure of information.

The numbers matter immensely in biology. If we consider now random mutation of chromosomes in reproduction, there is a much wider range of possible outcomes for a population of one million X's and one million Y's than for one X and one Y. This fact is lost entirely if describe merely X and Y, and not the population of X's and Y's.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Turncoat on Oct. 08 2009,01:39

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 07 2009,02:50)
< O'Leary > wishes that anything she writes will still be talked about decades later:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
To the best of my knowledge, neither Newton nor Einstein wrote a long racist tract, as Darwin did (the Descent of Man).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I doubt anybody will even remember O'Leary after an equivalent amount of time has passed.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I’d like to know if, at any point, Darwinists have ever simply disowned the racism, instead of covering it up or misrepresenting it as not really Darwin’s views, to protect their prophet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Have you stopped beating your Husband yet O'Leary?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Has your husband stopped enjoying your beatings yet, O'Leary?"

[Fallacy of the complex and revolting question]
Posted by: Turncoat on Oct. 08 2009,02:41

Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 07 2009,10:23)
DR^2:

< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-336511 >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
9

William Dembski

10/07/2009

7:50 am
Nakashima & Frank: The ID movement does not use just one concept of information.

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



Because one definition does not lend itself to equivocation, bait and switch and goalpost-moving.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As in leaky conservation for complex specified information in No Free Lunch and strict conservation for active information, which has nothing to do with CSI.

Remember those little details he left out of the Jello book for readability -- stuff that anyone with some mathematical acumen should have been able to supply for himself?
Posted by: CeilingCat on Oct. 08 2009,04:38

< Waterloo!!1!1! >    

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

3
R0b
10/06/2009

6:50 pm
Dr. Dembski:


So you are one of the few who has read my work with Bob Marks carefully and are in a position to evaluate it? You haven’t persuaded me.

Nor will I try. My background in math, or rather lack thereof, affords me no authority, although I note that there are other challengers to the EIL who don’t share my deficit.

But some observations don’t require an extensive math background. To note that 1/439 cannot possibly be the correct result in the ev paper requires only a modicum of care in reading. And simple algebra reveals the inconsequential error in the combinatoric proof of the Strict Vertical NFLT, namely that ?(K+1) should be ?(K-1). And it doesn’t require any real expertise to notice that all of the higher-level spaces that you mention in Life’s Conservation Law consist of functions over ? that are closed under permutation, thus insuring that the endogenous information of the combined searches is equal to the endogenous information of the lower-level search.

5
William Dembski
10/06/2009

7:24 pm
R0b: Please provide the exact place in < http://marksmannet.com/RobertM.....rt/S4S.pdf > where ?(K+1) should be ?(K-1).

7
R0b
10/06/2009

11:44 pm
Dr. Dembski, as I said, it’s in the combinatoric proof of the Strict Vertical NFLT. ?(K+1) is found in two places, near the end of the proof, in the denominator.


8
William Dembski
10/06/2009

11:53 pm
R0b: I’ve given you the URL for the pdf of the article. Please give me the exact column and line numbers where the error occurs (if it does). We give several proofs in the appendices, for general and special cases of the VNFL.

9
R0b
10/07/2009

12:07 am
Dr. Dembski: page 11, second column, lower half.

[Thanks R0b: You are correct. We'll get this corrected. --WmAD]

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


It must suck to be Dembski.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 08 2009,06:40

well, duh.

but that's not really why.

oh no.

that's like reason 200038383872619
Posted by: VentureFree on Oct. 08 2009,07:00

Stoopid and possibly off topic question from a noob. Assuming that some kind of calculation can actually be done, how does "The Bible Code" (hereafter referred to as TBC) fare when it comes to Specified Complexity? Intuitively it would seem that it is both complex and specified and so must necessarily be considered designed. Do you supposed Dembski believes that TBC is legit? Or can it be claimed that the chances of finding coincidental specification (i.e. meaningful words) is high enough to not be considered officially complex, assuming that complexity = low probability?

In a similar vein, what other objects and/or concepts can you think of which are clearly not designed, but which are likely to have a high level of Specified Complexity (speaking intuitively of course, since it's not clear how, or even if, an actual calculation could actually be done).
Posted by: J-Dog on Oct. 08 2009,07:35

Quote (VentureFree @ Oct. 08 2009,07:00)
Stoopid and possibly off topic question from a noob. Assuming that some kind of calculation can actually be done, how does "The Bible Code" (hereafter referred to as TBC) fare when it comes to Specified Complexity? Intuitively it would seem that it is both complex and specified and so must necessarily be considered designed. Do you supposed Dembski believes that TBC is legit? Or can it be claimed that the chances of finding coincidental specification (i.e. meaningful words) is high enough to not be considered officially complex, assuming that complexity = low probability?

In a similar vein, what other objects and/or concepts can you think of which are clearly not designed, but which are likely to have a high level of Specified Complexity (speaking intuitively of course, since it's not clear how, or even if, an actual calculation could actually be done).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Welcome noob - what got you here BTW? - ( we are always curious!)

Click on the links, read and enjoy, as Dembski falls for the Boble Code Scam.  He has also attended a "faith-healer" scam recently, so the poor guy really has gone over the edge.  < Dembski & Bible Code Links >
Posted by: dvunkannon on Oct. 08 2009,08:29

Quote (J-Dog @ Oct. 08 2009,08:35)
Quote (VentureFree @ Oct. 08 2009,07:00)
Stoopid and possibly off topic question from a noob. Assuming that some kind of calculation can actually be done, how does "The Bible Code" (hereafter referred to as TBC) fare when it comes to Specified Complexity? Intuitively it would seem that it is both complex and specified and so must necessarily be considered designed. Do you supposed Dembski believes that TBC is legit? Or can it be claimed that the chances of finding coincidental specification (i.e. meaningful words) is high enough to not be considered officially complex, assuming that complexity = low probability?

In a similar vein, what other objects and/or concepts can you think of which are clearly not designed, but which are likely to have a high level of Specified Complexity (speaking intuitively of course, since it's not clear how, or even if, an actual calculation could actually be done).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Welcome noob - what got you here BTW? - ( we are always curious!)

Click on the links, read and enjoy, as Dembski falls for the Boble Code Scam.  He has also attended a "faith-healer" scam recently, so the poor guy really has gone over the edge.  < Dembski & Bible Code Links >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


IIRC, the whole Bible Code craze was started by an article published in a respectable, peer reviewed statistics journal. It compared the probability of finding Hebrew words at various repeats (and backwards) in the Hebrew Bible with the same for Russian words in the original of War and Peace, and some other similar long texts. It concluded that there was a statistically significant difference in the texts (not the underlying language).

I've read this paper. It is not so much smuggling ID in as trying to assert a religious position as calmly as possible. I think it was done by Orthodox Jewish scientists (CS, Stat, math types) in Israel. At least one otherwise respectable rabbi had been pursuing this idea for years by hand. But then, manipulating the holy and God given text of the Torah is an ancient Rabbinic tradition!
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 08 2009,08:37

Quote (dvunkannon @ Oct. 08 2009,08:29)
But then, manipulating _  is an ancient Rabbinic tradition!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Kinda like Louis' sainted mum. Or tainted bum. I forget.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 08 2009,08:47



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It concluded that there was a statistically significant difference in the texts
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Considering that Hebrew has no vowels, I'd expect there to be some difference. Unless I've misread something, it means that many Hebrew words are disambiguated by context.
Posted by: sparc on Oct. 08 2009,09:28

Since all his posts are so similar I may be wrong but IIRC Cornie's "Segmental Duplications and Evolution" was followed by comments yesterday.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 08 2009,09:42

Quote (sparc @ Oct. 08 2009,09:28)
Since all his posts are so similar I may be wrong but IIRC Cornie's "Segmental Duplications and Evolution" was followed by comments yesterday.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Newton used thousand of data point to infer his theory.
How many experiments Darwin did to infer his theory? None.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009....0114731 >

A couple of points. Newton's data points improved with age, absent new observations. A remarkable, possibly miraculous phenomenon.

Natural selection was suggested by millennia of artificial selection. Quite a bit of data.
Posted by: REC on Oct. 08 2009,10:17

Please won't someone think of the children!!!

And a post that will never see the light of day.....

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Lets say I’m a atheist materialist that favors property rights. No god, I just like my stuff. The first and foremost property is one’s own body. Violations to that right (and particularly minors who are less able to defend their right) should be prosecuted.

I suppose this blog argues all legal codes ever evolved from the Old Testament? You should really take a look at Numbers 31:18.

Or maybe this should this be the punishment?
“If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl…..” Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NI
….
Posted by: BillB on Oct. 08 2009,10:36

Quote (REC @ Oct. 08 2009,16:17)
Please won't someone think of the children!!!

And a post that will never see the light of day.....

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Lets say I’m a atheist materialist that favors property rights. No god, I just like my stuff. The first and foremost property is one’s own body. Violations to that right (and particularly minors who are less able to defend their right) should be prosecuted.

I suppose this blog argues all legal codes ever evolved from the Old Testament? You should really take a look at Numbers 31:18.

Or maybe this should this be the punishment?
“If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl…..” Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NI
….
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You beat me to it:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

I have a daughter, and plenty of instincts to protect her, I also like living in communities where I feel that I and my family are safe (it would be a bad survival tactic to do otherwise). I wouldn’t want someone to force themselves on my daughter, and thanks to an ability to feel empathy I don’t want to see that happen to anyone else.

The result is a belief that it is wrong for people to force sexual acts on unwilling participants.

Given that the Bible has this piece of advice:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 New International Version
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is clear that rape is disapproved of, but do you believe that the punishment it advises is just – particularly from the girls point of view?

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


Posted by: REC on Oct. 08 2009,11:24

Wow, after taking their lumps on anything resembling science, they sure have returned home to the core whine.....Hitler, Columbine, Child Rape, Global Warming.......and the ban hammer is out....
Posted by: dvunkannon on Oct. 08 2009,11:25

Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 08 2009,09:47)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It concluded that there was a statistically significant difference in the texts
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Considering that Hebrew has no vowels, I'd expect there to be some difference. Unless I've misread something, it means that many Hebrew words are disambiguated by context.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are correct, but if they found "b...g...n" at a certain repeat, I don't think they double counted that as finding both "begun" and "began". They may even have thrown in a disemvoweled War and Peace against a disemvoweled Russian dictionary. I remember they tested the Russian text of the Bible against the Russian dictionary. (They did not try the Koran against an Arabic dictionary!)

Sorry I can't Google a citation at the moment. It would have been from the mid-90s. I used to have a paper copy, but I think I chucked it, or worse, my ex has it.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 08 2009,11:33

< BarryA > is proving himself a defiantly sick man:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Darwin at Columbine Redux
Barry Arrington

Editor’s note:  I post frequently on the ethical implications of materialism.  There is a reason for that.  I have dealt personally with the deadly consequences of the materialist worldview taken to its logical end .  Below is a post that first appeared on these pages on November 9, 2007:

In a recent post Denyse O’Leary linked to a news story coverning Pekka Eric Auvinen, the Finnish student who killed eight in a shooting spree at his school.  Apparently Auvinen was an ardent Darwinist who considered himself to be an instrument of natural selection.  He wrote:  “I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgaces of human race and failures of natural selection."...

I am not suggesting that Auvinen’s and Harris’ actions are the inevitable consequences of believing in Darwinism.  It is, however, clear that at least some of Darwin’s followers understand “survival of the fittest” and the attendant amorality at the bottom of Darwinism as a license to kill those whom they consider “inferior.”  Nothing could be more obvious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Since Barry is going down memory lane, so will I. This was my response to his original post:

Barry:

You are an attorney. Let's follow the implications of your argument.

Because Eric Harris was obsessed with and cited concepts drawn from evolutionary theory as justification for his actions at Columbine, it follows that belief in evolutionary theory ("Darwinism") contributed to his horrible, violent acts.

Ergo, more generally, when disturbed people do disturbed things, such as shooting and murdering schoolmates, we should accept at face value their own account of the motivations for and causes of their behavior.

It follows that belief in Christian concepts such as God, heaven, hell, and eternal damnation results in mothers drowning their children.

Andrea Yates drowned her five children in a bathtub. Although she knew that what she was doing was illegal, she nevertheless thought it was the right thing to do to save her children from eternal damnation.

You might protest that this was an aberation. But a thorough psychiatric evaluation conducted by one of the country's leading forensic psychiatrists (Philip Resnick, whom I have met) showed that she was obsessed with religious concepts and the implications thereof for her children. There cannot be the slightest doubt that Yates was a worshiper of Christ and saw herself as acting on Christian principles.

I am not suggesting that Yates' actions are the inevitable consequences of believing in Christianty. It is, however, clear that at least some of Jesus' followers understand "heaven, hell and eternal damnation" and the attendant moral structure of Christianity as a license to kill those whom they fear are at risk of eternal damnation - even their own small children. Nothing could be more obvious.

-------

Barry, I hope the above illustrates for you how mistaken and, frankly, ridiculous your reasoning is. As disturbed people do disturbed things, they often incorporate elements from their environments into delusional, idiosyncratic systems of thought that they believe motivate or justify their actions. However, in the 21st century we understand that disturbed people often have poor insight into the actual basis of their own motivations and behaviors, and are often unable to discern the distortions that may be introduced into their thinking by their disturbed mental state. Nevertheless, it is the mental disturbance that accounts for the behavior that follows, not the ideas that were recruited into a disturbed or distorted system of thought by a mental illness into which the individual has no insight.

Shame on you, Barry. Shame on you.

Get some help.
Posted by: dvunkannon on Oct. 08 2009,11:37

Quote (sparc @ Oct. 08 2009,10:28)
Since all his posts are so similar I may be wrong but IIRC Cornie's "Segmental Duplications and Evolution" was followed by comments yesterday.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Comments on UD or his own blog? I only saw comments on his blog, at least 15.

BTW, didn't Clive,baby's post on assisted suicide disappear and reappear yesterday? GrannyTard's comment is just awful. Nakashima feels his gorge rising, but DDrr.. Dembski tells him to keep it down.

She must have pictures. Really nasty pictures.

Her "contributions" (TARDroppings) to other threads has risen. If anything, these missives are even less coherent than her own OPs. Mostly because they are longer. Her OP is usually just a cut and paste job, but CornyTard seems to have invaded that niche.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 08 2009,11:59

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 08 2009,11:33)
< BarryA > is proving himself a defiantly sick man:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Darwin at Columbine Redux
Barry Arrington

Editor’s note:  I post frequently on the ethical implications of materialism.  There is a reason for that.  I have dealt personally with the deadly consequences of the materialist worldview taken to its logical end .  Below is a post that first appeared on these pages on November 9, 2007:

In a recent post Denyse O’Leary linked to a news story coverning Pekka Eric Auvinen, the Finnish student who killed eight in a shooting spree at his school.  Apparently Auvinen was an ardent Darwinist who considered himself to be an instrument of natural selection.  He wrote:  “I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgaces of human race and failures of natural selection."...

I am not suggesting that Auvinen’s and Harris’ actions are the inevitable consequences of believing in Darwinism.  It is, however, clear that at least some of Darwin’s followers understand “survival of the fittest” and the attendant amorality at the bottom of Darwinism as a license to kill those whom they consider “inferior.”  Nothing could be more obvious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Since Barry is going down memory lane, so will I.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let's not forget Barry's reaction to the December 2007 shooting at the New Life Church in Colorado Springs by wondering if the shooter, Matthew Murray, had been reading any Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett.  Of course, he took the cowards way out, and rather than own the opinion he would only say it was "an interesting question."

I am guessing "The God Delusion" wasn't found among Murray's possessions. If it had, I am pretty sure Barry would be throwing that out right about now, too.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 08 2009,12:16

Quote (BillB @ Oct. 07 2009,02:25)
 
Quote (djmullen @ Oct. 07 2009,07:27)
I seem to have been silently banninated from Uncommon Descent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think I have too - it will be known in the future as the great purge of October where the dictators of UD got fed up with having their opinions questioned and expelled anyone with opposing views.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Quote (REC @ Oct. 08 2009,11:24)
Wow, after taking their lumps on anything resembling science, they sure have returned home to the core whine.....Hitler, Columbine, Child Rape, Global Warming.......and the ban hammer is out....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yowsa, after reading that < "Materializts = child rapes" thread >, this is indeed the season of the purge. What's the body (or sock) count so far?

Woo-hoo. Soon it'll be nothing but the fundies and we get to see more of the real UD ooze out.
Posted by: dmso74 on Oct. 08 2009,12:19

over at Corny's blog he's now claiming quantum mechanics is a religious theory:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As for Einstein's religious claims, sure, like everyone else he had his religious beliefs. And they probably influenced his thinking on QM. It is another example of religious influences in science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< linky >
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 08 2009,12:21



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Murray also wore an orange cord necklace with a pair of earplugs and a black cord necklace that featured two pentagrams and a medallion showing the Eye of Ra, an ancient Egyptian symbol.

In the right front pocket of his pants he carried a red paperback book called "The Book of the Law" by Aleister Crowley, a British occultist that Murray referred to in some of his web writings.

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



< http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news....himself >




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
On December 10, the gunman in both the YWAM Arvada and New Life Church shootings was identified as Matthew J. Murray, age 24, one of two sons of a prominent Colorado neurologist. Reportedly, Murray was homeschooled in a deeply religious Christian household, and he attended, but did not complete, a missionary training program at the YWAM Arvada facility in 2002.[5] Early on in the investigation, law enforcement officials stated that Murray had been sending "hate mail" to the program and that he "hated Christians",[14] the religion in which he had been raised.[15][16][17] Murray had previously attended the same YWAM Missionary Center where he began his shooting spree. Court records indicated that Murray was bitter over his expulsion from the 12-week missionary training program.[18][19] His expulsion from the school was confirmed by Cheryl Morrison, whose husband, George Morrison, is pastor of the Faith Bible Chapel adjacent to YWAM Denver. She didn't know specifics of the conflict. "I don't think that ‘run-in’ is the word, but they did have to dismiss him. It had to be something of significance, because they go the nth degree with people." Murray was expelled from the school due to "strange behavior," which included playing frightening rock music and claiming to hear voices.[20][21] Before the second shooting, Murray left several violent and threatening messages on several religious websites, espousing his hatred for Christianity and his intentions on killing as many Christians as possible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_J._Murray >
Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 08 2009,12:21

Okay, I was Quaggy and just got banned.  I had, over the course of several threads, challenged Barry on his misrepresentation of Seversky (PM me, you wonderful man!;) in the whole pr0n vs. Catholic charity question. I took a poke at him again on the Polanksi thread over this in the first comment that got me in trouble. I have bolded the part that they purged from my comment.
     

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

< 16 >
quaggy
10/08/2009
11:18 am

BarryA:
     

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

The issue is NOT whether materialist defend the rape of 13 year-old girls. As I have shown, some of them do and some of them do not.

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


I assume that you are referring to the quote by Tom Shales and not to the violence you did to poor Seversky in a previous comment thread. I won’t bother to ask how you know Shales is a materialist. I will grant you that he is. I might even be persuaded to grant that Warren Jeffs is a materialist, but you will need to be pretty darn persuasive. ;)
     

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

For the materialist that does not defend the rape of 13 year old girls, on what GROUNDS do you oppose it?

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


I already answered that question. I oppose it on the grounds that it is a clear violation of the girl’s liberty, exacerbated by the fact that she was of an age where she was incapable of making rational decisions regarding liberty.
     

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

Or do you appeal to a moral order outside yourself? If the latter, what is the basis of that moral order? This last question is the real issue.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, I answered that also, although I was way too parsimonious in my answer. As a deist, I tend to follow the example of the great deist, Enlightenment thinkers that preceded me. So long as an individual or group of individuals act in accord to their conscience and don’t impede the liberty of any other individual or group of individuals (call it a tacitly cooperative), civil society works.

I will certainly grant that organized religion has played a significant role in the inculcation of these rules of civil society (even while often erring on the side of restricting individual liberty). As a deist, I believe that they were basically derived, over history, through individual’s mostly unsuccessful (and occasionally successful) attempts to live in concert with each other. It is a strictly utlitarian view. I do not accept that these rules were handed down by any supreme being. Indeed, as hdx demonstrated in his now purged post, I do not find organized religion or its written guides in any way uniquely authoritative.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A couple things stand out.  They deleted more than my insult of Barry in the first part.  The comment regarding Warren Jeffs was intended to make the point that what Polanski did is not solely a "materialist" problem. It is a human problem, what with Jeffs being a leader of a splinter Mormon sect that believed in polygamy and forcing girls as young as 12 into marriages with sect elders.  What is also interesting is that, even as they editted out that second part referring to hdx comment about how Dueteronomy says to punish rape of a girl, Clive quoted it < in this response >.  Poor Clive just isn't the ripest cabbage in the patch sometimes.

So, figuring that I was already banned, I submitted another comment figuring only the moderators would see it. Imagine my surprise when it went right through.  Imagine my further surprise when it was deleted within two minutes.  That comment is reproduced below.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
22
quaggy
10/08/2009
11:42 am

I see that my comment has been edited under the guise that I insulted an editor. There was more than just that specific comment that was deleted, though. There was context relevant to the discussion. I find this truly sad.

First, as has been discussed elsewhere, that editor was quite uncharitable in his treatment of a commenter. Second, he has been rather draconian on what type of comment he would allow. I would have to say that, as a Christian and a self-described First Amendment attorney, Barry has provided a timely reminder of man’s fallen state.

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


Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 08 2009,12:26

By my count, four bans in that one thread. The Long Knives are out!
Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 08 2009,12:29

Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 08 2009,12:21)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Murray also wore an orange cord necklace with a pair of earplugs and a black cord necklace that featured two pentagrams and a medallion showing the Eye of Ra, an ancient Egyptian symbol.

In the right front pocket of his pants he carried a red paperback book called "The Book of the Law" by Aleister Crowley, a British occultist that Murray referred to in some of his web writings.

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



< http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news....himself >


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
On December 10, the gunman in both the YWAM Arvada and New Life Church shootings was identified as Matthew J. Murray, age 24, one of two sons of a prominent Colorado neurologist. Reportedly, Murray was homeschooled in a deeply religious Christian household, and he attended, but did not complete, a missionary training program at the YWAM Arvada facility in 2002.[5] Early on in the investigation, law enforcement officials stated that Murray had been sending "hate mail" to the program and that he "hated Christians",[14] the religion in which he had been raised.[15][16][17] Murray had previously attended the same YWAM Missionary Center where he began his shooting spree. Court records indicated that Murray was bitter over his expulsion from the 12-week missionary training program.[18][19] His expulsion from the school was confirmed by Cheryl Morrison, whose husband, George Morrison, is pastor of the Faith Bible Chapel adjacent to YWAM Denver. She didn't know specifics of the conflict. "I don't think that ‘run-in’ is the word, but they did have to dismiss him. It had to be something of significance, because they go the nth degree with people." Murray was expelled from the school due to "strange behavior," which included playing frightening rock music and claiming to hear voices.[20][21] Before the second shooting, Murray left several violent and threatening messages on several religious websites, espousing his hatred for Christianity and his intentions on killing as many Christians as possible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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


< This article > indicates that a Bible, a Youth With a Mission certificatde, and a picture of Ted Haggard were also found among his possession.

EDIT: I think Murray was severely mentally ill and neither Dawkins, Dennett, Haggard, or the Bible/church was a cause of what he did.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 08 2009,12:31

Was the picture sticky with fluids? Just askin'
Posted by: BGOG on Oct. 08 2009,12:35

I was first to go out on that thread, which wouldn't bother me so much (I did break their rules after all) if I hadn't put up a second post a minute later which condemned Polanski's behaviour (just to avoid a Seversky-style witchhunt) which they chose not to publish, leaving people to wonder if I condone child rape. (I don't!)
Posted by: keiths on Oct. 08 2009,12:35

Ahhh, the tard monsoon has come at last.  Come out and dance in the rain, folks!

Barry just banned one of his own:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 27 >

Gods iPod
10/08/2009
11:59 am

SNIP. Long-time poster God’s iPod is no longer with us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



GI had complained that the thread was making ID supporters look like uneducated dolts.
Posted by: BillB on Oct. 08 2009,12:35

I just realized why there isn't an rss feed from UD for individual comments - if there were it would be easier to keep track of the vanishing posts.
Posted by: sparc on Oct. 08 2009,12:36

Quote (BillB @ Oct. 08 2009,10:36)
 
Quote (REC @ Oct. 08 2009,16:17)
Please won't someone think of the children!!!

And a post that will never see the light of day.....

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Lets say I’m a atheist materialist that favors property rights. No god, I just like my stuff. The first and foremost property is one’s own body. Violations to that right (and particularly minors who are less able to defend their right) should be prosecuted.

I suppose this blog argues all legal codes ever evolved from the Old Testament? You should really take a look at Numbers 31:18.

Or maybe this should this be the punishment?
“If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl…..” Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NI
….
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You beat me to it:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

I have a daughter, and plenty of instincts to protect her, I also like living in communities where I feel that I and my family are safe (it would be a bad survival tactic to do otherwise). I wouldn’t want someone to force themselves on my daughter, and thanks to an ability to feel empathy I don’t want to see that happen to anyone else.

The result is a belief that it is wrong for people to force sexual acts on unwilling participants.

Given that the Bible has this piece of advice:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 New International Version
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is clear that rape is disapproved of, but do you believe that the punishment it advises is just – particularly from the girls point of view?

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


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


Unfortunately, I can not judge how reliable the following source is that came up when I googled pedophil "southern baptist" but according to < The Southern Baptist Church Has A Dirty Little Secret > their pastors must be hard core materialists by Arrington's measures.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 08 2009,12:37



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
EDIT: I think Murray was severely mentally ill and neither Dawkins, Dennett, Haggard, or the Bible/church was a cause of what he did.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hearing voices might be a clue. Voices from the ceiling are usually rather unpleasant.

I read somewhere that there is no record in the annals of psychotherapy of disembodied voices telling people to love their neighbors, be nice to the wife and kids, and pet the cat.

I think that may be an exaggeration, but still true in the main.
Posted by: keiths on Oct. 08 2009,12:42

Jackboots make StephenB horny:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 39 >

StephenB
10/08/2009
12:27 pm

I fully support the administrators and moderators for keeping this thread on track and sending to the showers all those who refuse to confront the issue. Sooner or later, deniers and equivocators must be brought face to face with their inability to debate the issue on its merits.

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


Stephen will be waiting, soaped up and ready.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 08 2009,12:44

Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 08 2009,12:37)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
EDIT: I think Murray was severely mentally ill and neither Dawkins, Dennett, Haggard, or the Bible/church was a cause of what he did.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hearing voices might be a clue. Voices from the ceiling are usually rather unpleasant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Speaking of which, has there been any recent Davescot sightings?
Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 08 2009,12:46

Quote (keiths @ Oct. 08 2009,12:42)
Jackboots make StephenB horny:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< 39 >

StephenB
10/08/2009
12:27 pm

I fully support the administrators and moderators for keeping this thread on track and sending to the showers all those who refuse to confront the issue. Sooner or later, deniers and equivocators must be brought face to face with their inability to debate the issue on its merits.

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


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


StephenB crows triumphantly about the empty chair's inability to answer his questions.
Posted by: Zachriel on Oct. 08 2009,13:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Barry Arrington >: I am not suggesting that Auvinen’s and Harris’ actions are the inevitable consequences of believing in Darwinism.  It is, however, clear that at least some of Darwin’s followers understand “survival of the fittest” and the attendant amorality at the bottom of Darwinism as a license to kill those whom they consider “inferior.”  Nothing could be more obvious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not sure that Auvinen or Harris really grasped the concept of reproductive success.
Posted by: REC on Oct. 08 2009,13:20

Someone should ask them if they think non-human primate social order and sense of justice is derived from the cute little monkey religious beliefs.  

e.g: < http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed....VDocSum >
Posted by: Zachriel on Oct. 08 2009,13:42

Quote (Zachriel @ Oct. 08 2009,13:12)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Barry Arrington >: I am not suggesting that Auvinen’s and Harris’ actions are the inevitable consequences of believing in Darwinism.  It is, however, clear that at least some of Darwin’s followers understand “survival of the fittest” and the attendant amorality at the bottom of Darwinism as a license to kill those whom they consider “inferior.”  Nothing could be more obvious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not sure that Auvinen or Harris really grasped the concept of reproductive success.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Borne >: While the actions of these young men are not the inevitable consequences of believing Darwinism, the conclusions they came to are.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I would have thought that spreading your seed around to produce prodigious numbers of offspring, or forming a stable family and community to produce a few, high-quality offspring, or even helping those close to you with their children, would be the inevitable conclusion.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Oct. 08 2009,13:43

Here's part of God's iPod's final post, courtesy of Clive:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you want to attack materialists, there’s better fodder for the fire than this example. I suggest you just delete this entire thread and pretend it never happened, it makes us look like uneducated fools.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed.
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 08 2009,14:03

Quote (Zachriel @ Oct. 08 2009,11:12)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Barry Arrington >: I am not suggesting that Auvinen’s and Harris’ actions are the inevitable consequences of believing in Darwinism.  It is, however, clear that at least some of Darwin’s followers understand “survival of the fittest” and the attendant amorality at the bottom of Darwinism as a license to kill those whom they consider “inferior.”  Nothing could be more obvious.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not sure that Auvinen or Harris really grasped the concept of reproductive success.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've written about this before (the last < two > < times > B-Tard felt like flogging Columbine for cheap rhetorical purposes). Harris certainly didn't.  His journals mention natural selection I think four times.  In one case, he wrote that he thought he should be able to steal stuff if people leave it in plain sight on the front seat of their car because, somehow,  that's "NATURAL SELECTION".   He also thought removing all warning labels, from everything, was a good idea and would somehow eliminate "dumbasses". Also people who "only know stupid facts" should be shot. Then there's the whole blowing his own head off and leaving no offspring behind thing, along with statements like these:


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

If you recall your history the Nazis came up with a "final solution" to the Jewish problem... kill them all. well incase you havent figured it out yet, I say, "K I L L M A N K I N D" no one should survive.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



IOW, Harris didn't understand shit about evolution.  He just liked anything that potentially included stuff dying violently, preferably people who pissed him off, which basically seemed to be everybody.

BTW, Klebold regularly attended a Lutheran church while growing up, and in the available documents he never said anything about either evolution in general or natural selection. Mostly he just pined over some girl, and his writings indicate clearly that he believed in some form of afterlife (or hoped for one, anyway) and a quasi-pantheistic deity.  Not very materialist of him, I must say.  Strange how Barry only seems to mention him in passing, if at all, but loves to harp on Harris ad nauseum.
Posted by: Reg on Oct. 08 2009,14:28

Good grief, Barry's really been < wielding the Ban Scythe with gusto >. Not counting the deletions where he's cut out inconvenient parts of people's responses, just the bannings:

* 2nd comment: BGOG is no longer with us.
Many snips and warnings follow before we reach comment 22:
* SNIP. Quaggy ignored the warning above and is no longer with us.
A mere 2 comments later Todd falls to the Banninator:
* SNIP. Todd, a guest on this site, attacked and insulted his host. He is no longer with us.
* Then: SNIP. Long-time poster God’s iPod is no longer with us.
* and SNIP, DNA_Jock is no longer with us..

5 down, warnings aplenty.

I love < this bit > where he justifies the gaggings and bannings:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It is rude for a dinner guest to tell his host that the food is odious. It is just as rude to come into UD’s house and tell the posters their posts are unworthy for discussion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, it would be rude to tell the host that the food is odious. To continue Barry's preferred dinner party analogy; if the host turned to the guest over dinner and proclaimed "Your problem is you lack any sense of decency and morality, I bet you think it's okay to sodomize drugged girls and I'm amazed we even allow you into our house while our daughter lies asleep upstairs" then it would hardly be rude for the guest to mount a spiritied defence and ask how the host justified such a position.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 08 2009,14:30

Quote (didymos @ Oct. 08 2009,14:03)
BTW, Klebold regularly attended a Lutheran church while growing up, and in the available documents he never said anything about either evolution in general or natural selection. Mostly he just pined over some girl, and his writings indicate clearly that he believed in some form of afterlife (or hoped for one, anyway) and a quasi-pantheistic deity.  Not very materialist of him, I must say.  Strange how Barry only seems to mention him in passing, if at all, but loves to harp on Harris ad nauseum.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He doesn't bring up Klebold for the same reason he never brings up Matthew Murray.  Barry is the worst sort of cultural warrior, in that he is not concerned with concepts such as truth, accuracy, or fairness. He is only concerned with advancing his cause and if that means telling the < Noble Lie >, so be it.  We can this see through his willful misrepresentation of Seversky and his convenient wielding of the ban hammer with critics.

EDIT: Fixed for more better clearness.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 08 2009,15:01

Quote (Reg @ Oct. 08 2009,15:28)
Good grief, Barry's really been < wielding the Ban Scythe with gusto >. Not counting the deletions where he's cut out inconvenient parts of people's responses, just the bannings:

* 2nd comment: BGOG is no longer with us.
Many snips and warnings follow before we reach comment 22:
* SNIP. Quaggy ignored the warning above and is no longer with us.
A mere 2 comments later Todd falls to the Banninator:
* SNIP. Todd, a guest on this site, attacked and insulted his host. He is no longer with us.
* Then: SNIP. Long-time poster God’s iPod is no longer with us.
* and SNIP, DNA_Jock is no longer with us..

5 down, warnings aplenty.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not to mention:

Editor: SNIP. your warped interpretation of the Old Testament is not the subject of this post.

SNIP. “I know you are but what am I” arguments are not germane. If you have any response to the actual question posed by the post, please submit it.

Indeed, SNIP, I do not find...

May I remind you that Mohamed SNIP. As I indicated in my post, I know you would like to change the subject away from your own ethically impoverished wouldview, but this post is not about Muhammad.

I'm thinking Barry needs to get on with that career performing vasectomies and circumcisions pronto. He has missed his calling.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 08 2009,15:04

BTW, I think we stand a very good chance of enjoying a genuine FRIDAY MELTDOWN, a real barn-burner, the first in months.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Oct. 08 2009,15:05

I'm not having Barry baptize any of my kids then - I want them whole after the ceremony.

P.S. more snippings as well now.
Posted by: Reg on Oct. 08 2009,15:07

People are still being SNIPped and told to stay tightly on topic after Clive's < 3000 word quote of CS Lewis on morality in religious texts > is left intact.
Posted by: REC on Oct. 08 2009,15:35

And for the Hat Trick-CHINA!!!

And the connection to evolution-?  ?  ?

<crickets>
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 08 2009,15:42

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 08 2009,13:01)
I'm thinking Barry needs to get on with that career performing vasectomies and circumcisions pronto. He has missed his calling.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They're not usually carried out with machetes and chainsaws.
Posted by: Reg on Oct. 08 2009,15:44

Quote (REC @ Oct. 08 2009,15:35)
And for the Hat Trick-CHINA!!!

And the connection to evolution-?  ?  ?

<crickets>
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Duh; climatology, euthanasia, Hitler, child rape, the Columbine shootings and Chinese infanticide are all made possible by evolution corrupting people's souls away from God.
Posted by: REC on Oct. 08 2009,15:45

By the way, follow the logic of the last update?

"Even in 1955, for example, it was taken for granted in the southern United States that black people are inferior to white people and therefore have no claim to equal rights under the law."

Yes Barry, 1955 White Southerners were such god-hating atheist materialists.  Luckily, they found racism was objectively wrong throughout history, in all cultures and times, as plainly stated in the one true book, and left their evil ways.
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 08 2009,15:50

Ugh.  What a creepy, creepy thread.  I'm going to spend the rest of the day in the shower.

History is full of people who shared Barry's belief that morality stemmed solely from the word of God.  Some of them even heard the word of God themselves, telling them to do all kinds of things.
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 08 2009,15:55

Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 08 2009,21:50)
Ugh.  What a creepy, creepy thread.  I'm going to spend the rest of the day in the shower.

History is full of people who shared Barry's belief that morality stemmed solely from the word of God.  Some of them even heard the word of God themselves, telling them to do all kinds of things.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've always wondered why the voices never tell people to perform random acts of kindness. Why do the voices say "go out and kill" as opposed to "make them a cup of tea"?

Maybe it's just because we don't notice the nice voices....

...ZOMG YOU IS ALL SCHIZO!!!!!

Louis
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 08 2009,16:08

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 08 2009,13:55)
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 08 2009,21:50)
Ugh.  What a creepy, creepy thread.  I'm going to spend the rest of the day in the shower.

History is full of people who shared Barry's belief that morality stemmed solely from the word of God.  Some of them even heard the word of God themselves, telling them to do all kinds of things.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've always wondered why the voices never tell people to perform random acts of kindness. Why do the voices say "go out and kill" as opposed to "make them a cup of tea"?

Maybe it's just because we don't notice the nice voices....

...ZOMG YOU IS ALL SCHIZO!!!!!

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To be fair, if the voices tell you to send me a case of malt, I'm very, very unlikely to call the police.
Posted by: sledgehammer on Oct. 08 2009,16:18

Quote (dmso74 @ Oct. 08 2009,10:19)
over at Corny's blog he's now claiming quantum mechanics is a religious theory:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As for Einstein's religious claims, sure, like everyone else he had his religious beliefs. And they probably influenced his thinking on QM. It is another example of religious influences in science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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


That fits.  Einstein was wrong about QM:  God really does play dice with the universe.
Posted by: MichaelJ on Oct. 08 2009,17:03

The US is really turning into 2 nations isn't it. The Barrys and Clives of your country have their own history, science, TV channels, web sites etc. UD is one of the few interfaces and even there reality has a hard time to poke its head through.
Posted by: khan on Oct. 08 2009,17:33

Page not working?
Posted by: dhogaza on Oct. 08 2009,19:38



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The US is really turning into 2 nations isn't it. The Barrys and Clives of your country have their own history, science, TV channels, web sites etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Not to mention that they'll soon have their own Bible ... >

A couple of favorites ...

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
First Example - Liberal Falsehood

The earliest, most authentic manuscripts lack this verse set forth at Luke 23:34:[7]

Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

Is this a liberal corruption of the original? This does not appear in any other Gospel, and the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing. This quotation is a favorite of liberals but should not appear in a conservative Bible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



and

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Third Example - Socialism

Socialistic terminology permeates English translations of the Bible, without justification. This improperly encourages the "social justice" movement among Christians.

For example, the conservative word "volunteer" is mentioned only once in the ESV, yet the socialistic word "comrade" is used three times, "laborer(s)" is used 13 times, "labored" 15 times, and "fellow" (as in "fellow worker") is used 55 times.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: keiths on Oct. 08 2009,22:43

Quote (MichaelJ @ Oct. 08 2009,15:03)
The US is really turning into 2 nations isn't it. The Barrys and Clives of your country have their own history, science, TV channels, web sites etc. UD is one of the few interfaces and even there reality has a hard time to poke its head through.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do we even know that Clive is American?  I'm holding on to the hope that he's a furriner.
Posted by: CeilingCat on Oct. 08 2009,23:30

< In the "Reaping the Whirlwind" thread, absolutist has a little reading comprehension problem: >    

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

1
Ritchie
3:36 pm

A tragedy, truly.

But we would indeed be fools to think this is just China’s problem. The world has finite space, and the population is growing exponentially, and at an alarming rate, despite the efforts of countries such as China to curb the population growth.

The obvious answer – keep families small! Contraception and sexual education widely available (obviously not irresponisbly so) so we teach the next generation about safe sex and encourage them to be responsible. And that includes not having large families.

Otherwise, sooner or later, we may find ourselves in a similar situation to China.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

   

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

3
absolutist
3:53 pm

Ritchie, are you suggesting that overpopulation be solved with homicide? Sounds like a great idea. Perhaps we can submit that in our new Healthcare Plan. I can see it clearly: “once your citizenry gets over, say, 10000 per 1 sq/mile shoot to kill.”

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

 

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

4
absolutist
3:58 pm

Seriously, are you saying abortion is tragic, female abortion is tragic or overpopulation? What about teaching the next generation that abortion is murder? Nah, let’s just give criminals newer guns and an education on how to use them safely.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And the thread actually gets worse from there.  I'm developing a visceral loathing for all things UD (and fundamentalism of all stripes.) Immoral perverts.
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 09 2009,00:01

Quote (CeilingCat @ Oct. 08 2009,21:30)
< In the "Reaping the Whirlwind" thread, absolutist has a little reading comprehension problem: >

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

1
Ritchie
3:36 pm

A tragedy, truly.

But we would indeed be fools to think this is just China’s problem. The world has finite space, and the population is growing exponentially, and at an alarming rate, despite the efforts of countries such as China to curb the population growth.

The obvious answer – keep families small! Contraception and sexual education widely available (obviously not irresponisbly so) so we teach the next generation about safe sex and encourage them to be responsible. And that includes not having large families.

Otherwise, sooner or later, we may find ourselves in a similar situation to China.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

   

 

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

3
absolutist
3:53 pm

Ritchie, are you suggesting that overpopulation be solved with homicide? Sounds like a great idea. Perhaps we can submit that in our new Healthcare Plan. I can see it clearly: “once your citizenry gets over, say, 10000 per 1 sq/mile shoot to kill.”

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

 

 

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

4
absolutist
3:58 pm

Seriously, are you saying abortion is tragic, female abortion is tragic or overpopulation? What about teaching the next generation that abortion is murder? Nah, let’s just give criminals newer guns and an education on how to use them safely.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And the thread actually gets worse from there.  I'm developing a visceral loathing for all things UD (and fundamentalism of all stripes.) Immoral perverts.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Absolutist is apparently laboring under the delusion that it is < still the 1950s >:


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

Are you a communist (endorsing Chinese policy of one child per family) saying things like “despite the efforts of countries such as China to curb the population growth”?

Or do you value freedom?

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



You just know they'd all love to resurrect HUAC.  I can just see it:  "The federal government is infested with materialists. I have here in my hands a list...."

"Are you now or have you ever been a Darwinist?  ANSWER THE QUESTION 'PROFESSOR' MYERS!!!"
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 09 2009,00:08

Oh, for fuck's sake!  Weasel.  < Again >.

Supposedly, this covers "every conceivable interpretation" of the program described in Blind Watchmaker.  Here be < the source >.  Haven't looked at it yet myself.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 09 2009,00:10

Yeesh, it's been said many times before, but it's still kind of mind-boggling that DaveScot was the only thing holding a lid on this pot of boiling tard.

Now, it's overflowed and oozing everywhere. Hah, I like it.
Posted by: CeilingCat on Oct. 09 2009,00:25

More from the "Reaping the Whirlwind" thread:

William J. Murray is a Deep Tard:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Materialists throw out the golden rule as if it is an objective standard. What if my golden rule is “might makes right”? What makes one golden rule more moral than the other?

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


Billy J., have you ever heard of the Golden Rule?  You know, the one that starts with, "Do unto others ..."?  It was once advocated by a guy named Jesus.  I'm sure you at least know that name.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 09 2009,01:04

I remember a "discussion" with a YEcreonaut who, when I mentioned the "Golden Rule,"  said something to the effect of:

" evolutionists are sado-masochists who only believe in a cruel world -- treating them as they treat others means I don't have to care about their lives at all, they want to be abused and abuse other people "

Apparently that view is kinda widespread. Dehumanize and demonize.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 09 2009,03:05

Clive is such an amazingly shallow thinker.

He is asked:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Please explain how, if slavery is objectively wrong, could people accept its practice as moral for hundreds, if not thousands, of years?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


His reply:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Because people do wrong things, if there were no objective morality, you can’t really say that slavery is wrong. In acting as if it really is wrong, and that others “should” agree, you have to know that you have to assert this on firmer ground than your own personal and private preference.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So people did "wrong things" for generations all the time knowing it was wrong when "objective morality" was considered.
Clive does not actually address the question asked in any meaningful way.

I guess it's because he could not find a suitable pre-packaged quote from Lewis.

< Link >
Posted by: BillB on Oct. 09 2009,05:32

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 09 2009,09:05)
Clive is such an amazingly shallow thinker.

He is asked:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Please explain how, if slavery is objectively wrong, could people accept its practice as moral for hundreds, if not thousands, of years?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


His reply:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Because people do wrong things, if there were no objective morality, you can’t really say that slavery is wrong. In acting as if it really is wrong, and that others “should” agree, you have to know that you have to assert this on firmer ground than your own personal and private preference.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So people did "wrong things" for generations all the time knowing it was wrong when "objective morality" was considered.
Clive does not actually address the question asked in any meaningful way.

I guess it's because he could not find a suitable pre-packaged quote from Lewis.

< Link >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Somehow I doubt this will see the light of day:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
107
BillB
10/09/2009
5:30 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Clive:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
   Because people do wrong things, if there were no objective morality, you can’t really say that slavery is wrong. In acting as if it really is wrong, and that others “should” agree, you have to know that you have to assert this on firmer ground than your own personal and private preference.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I still don’t understand how you know objectively that slavery is morally wrong – or to put it another way: How do you know objectively that the Christians who supported slavery were wrong and that you are right?

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


Posted by: BillB on Oct. 09 2009,05:34

I predict lots of hate fuelled posts at UD about this < (From the Guardian): >  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The US president, Barack Obama, was today awarded the 2009 Nobel peace prize "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples".

The Nobel committee said "only rarely has a person such as Obama captured the world's attention and given his people hope for a better future".

"His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population," the citation said.

The committee said Obama, who only took up the presidency in January, had been acknowledged for his calls to reduce the world's stockpile of nuclear weapons and working for world peace.

"Obama has as president created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play."
...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Amadan on Oct. 09 2009,05:47

I've no doubt it's intended to complement Carter's prize as a comment on Bush/Cheney & co.  Sad, really. I sympathise with the sentiment, but I don't think Obama did anything like what you'd expect of someone who really deserves the prize. It would be simpler to institute the anti-Nobels.
Posted by: Zachriel on Oct. 09 2009,06:51

ALERT!

Learned Hand says he's locked in a closet with J. Davison and D. Scott! He's obviously desperate.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hi -

I was recently banned from UD as Learned Hand. (I assume, as a man of erudition, that you were a fan of my work.) Id love to contribute to the ATBC board, but for some reason Im stuck in limbo. Ive sent some emails, but Im still awaiting authorization, and cannot post or contact members whose email addresses are private. Is there a feedback link Im missing somewhere, or some part of the process Ive skipped?

Its hugely frustrating to be barred from UD and ATBC simultaneously! Probably not many people are unwelcome at both boards, after all. I feel as if Im locked in a closet with J. Davison and D. Scott. For the love of god, and the spite of Barry Arrington, please help free me from this indignity!


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


Please lend Learned Hand a hand!



anfractuous at gmail.com

Posted by: carlsonjok on Oct. 09 2009,07:31

Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 09 2009,05:47)
I've no doubt it's intended to complement Carter's prize as a comment on Bush/Cheney & co.  Sad, really. I sympathise with the sentiment, but I don't think Obama did anything like what you'd expect of someone who really deserves the prize. It would be simpler to institute the anti-Nobels.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: franky172 on Oct. 09 2009,07:57

Quote (didymos @ Oct. 09 2009,00:08)
Oh, for fuck's sake!  Weasel.  < Again >.

Supposedly, this covers "every conceivable interpretation" of the program described in Blind Watchmaker.  Here be < the source >.  Haven't looked at it yet myself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The amazing part?

You don't have to write 5 versions of "Weasel", most of which have nothing to do with GA's to prove anything.  Just one correct one will do.
Posted by: dvunkannon on Oct. 09 2009,08:01

Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 09 2009,06:47)
I've no doubt it's intended to complement Carter's prize as a comment on Bush/Cheney & co.  Sad, really. I sympathise with the sentiment, but I don't think Obama did anything like what you'd expect of someone who really deserves the prize. It would be simpler to institute the anti-Nobels.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think Obama should turn it down. Put it in a time delay capsule or something. He knows he doesn't deserve it yet. Sad to see such overt political messaging from the Nobel committee.
Posted by: N.Wells on Oct. 09 2009,08:58

A lot of the award was probably for being Not-Bush, but even so, Obama has already earned it.  He inspired America to elect a biracial president, which will be a milestone of gigantic significance in social progress (consider just exactly how unlikely that was).  He led the charge to pull America back from being a bullying and torturing nation with no regard for human rights or the rule of law.  He unseated the republicans and discredited them, which is a general boon for humanity.  He has significantly softened a global recession, with significant contributions even before taking office.  Also, giving Obama additional motivation to do the right thing will, I think, be a wise investment on the part of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee.  Tellingly, the only people who have spoken vociferously against it are the Taliban, Hamas, and the Republicans, all sounding remarkably similar.

(However, turning it down on the grounds that he felt he hadn't earned it yet would be one heck of an impressive political move.)

Still no awards of any sort for Billy D. and the IDists. That has to rankle.
Posted by: Touchstone on Oct. 09 2009,10:19

Just getting around to reading this trainwreck of a thread, I'm struck by Dembski's finish to this comment:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If so, why not cheer Polanski on when he has the wisdom to see through the illusion and sample the choice flesh of a 13-year old?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....omments >

Am I the only that finds the way he expressed that more than a little creepy? It's little comments like that has me thinking that Dembski really is self-medicating some deep, dark problem with his fundy faith - a cage he puts himself in to protect himself and others from himself.

I read the question "why not" from him and fight the urge to laugh -- such a ludicrous question. But he's quite serious; if the bones of Jesus were found tomorrow and Christianity falsified for once and for all, it seems Dembski *would* have trouble coming up with a "why not".

Creepy, I tell ya.
Posted by: BillB on Oct. 09 2009,10:32

Quote (Zachriel @ Oct. 09 2009,12:51)
ALERT!

Learned Hand says he's locked in a closet with J. Davison and D. Scott! He's obviously desperate.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hi -

I was recently banned from UD as Learned Hand. (I assume, as a man of erudition, that you were a fan of my work.) Id love to contribute to the ATBC board, but for some reason Im stuck in limbo. Ive sent some emails, but Im still awaiting authorization, and cannot post or contact members whose email addresses are private. Is there a feedback link Im missing somewhere, or some part of the process Ive skipped?

Its hugely frustrating to be barred from UD and ATBC simultaneously! Probably not many people are unwelcome at both boards, after all. I feel as if Im locked in a closet with J. Davison and D. Scott. For the love of god, and the spite of Barry Arrington, please help free me from this indignity!


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


Please lend Learned Hand a hand!


[EMAIL=anfractuous@gmail.com" target="_blank]
anfractuous at gmail.com[/EMAIL]

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


I think I had this problem when I signed up here - I got no verification e-mail - it turned out that googlemail had put it in the junk mail folder.
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 09 2009,10:43

Quote (dvunkannon @ Oct. 09 2009,08:01)
 
Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 09 2009,06:47)
I've no doubt it's intended to complement Carter's prize as a comment on Bush/Cheney & co.  Sad, really. I sympathise with the sentiment, but I don't think Obama did anything like what you'd expect of someone who really deserves the prize. It would be simpler to institute the anti-Nobels.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think Obama should turn it down. Put it in a time delay capsule or something. He knows he doesn't deserve it yet. Sad to see such overt political messaging from the Nobel committee.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We are surprised here in Norway too. It is premature. But I don't think we need fear an embarrassment like we did by awarding the prize to Kissinger.

Just listened to Obama's speech, being awarded the prize so soon after ascending to presidency must have been a challenge to him too, but as usual he made a good impression.

He inspires hope.
Posted by: Advocatus Diaboli on Oct. 09 2009,11:52

Quote (Quack @ Oct. 09 2009,10:43)


Just listened to Obama's speech, being awarded the prize so soon after ascending to presidency must have been a challenge to him too, but as usual he made a good impression.

He inspires hope.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Just more evidence that he is the anti-christ.
Posted by: keiths on Oct. 09 2009,12:32

< StephenB >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
—-camanintx: “So we agree that, regardless of the ontological nature of morality, people can have differing opinions of what is right or wrong.”

No one who is proposing the existence of an objective moral code believes that or has even come close to saying anything like that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The implication of Stephen's statement is that he believes either that people cannot differ on moral issues, or that their ability to differ depends on morality's ontological status.

Is he really that stupid?

Never mind.  Don't answer.  I already know the sad truth.
Posted by: J-Dog on Oct. 09 2009,14:15

Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 09 2009,05:47)
I've no doubt it's intended to complement Carter's prize as a comment on Bush/Cheney & co.  Sad, really. I sympathise with the sentiment, but I don't think Obama did anything like what you'd expect of someone who really deserves the prize. It would be simpler to institute the anti-Nobels.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I see your point - and agree, BUT...

anyone that pisses off all the arseholes at FOX NOISE and Rush, Glenn Beck, Hanity and O'Reilly has GOT to be doing a hell of a good job for humanity.
Posted by: J-Dog on Oct. 09 2009,14:25

HaHa!

The POPE Hates ID!
FL and UD to burn in hell for being teh stupid!



< Pope's New Evo PR - ID is the suck >
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 09 2009,14:27

I don't see right-wingers being pissed off. Mostly they are laughing; the Peace Prize has been a joke more often than not. Obama is now enshrined along with Kissinger.
Posted by: Dr_Dave on Oct. 09 2009,14:38

After years of being amused and perplexed by UD, this past month or so has me feeling disturbed, infuriated and exhausted in equal measure.

This idiotic obsession with objective morality is just depressing. They endlessly chase their own tails by repeating the same "yes, but how do you know?" questions over and over again.

Kudos to our brave boys over there, laying their sanity on the line trying to combat the likes of Arrington and Hayden. I fear their brave sacrifice will come to naught though.

I miss DaveScott :(

Dave
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 09 2009,14:52



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I fear their brave sacrifice will come to naught though.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Only if your goal is to change their minds.

If you goal is to sharpen your own understanding, it's worthwhile.

I've been at this since the early 70's. I discovered Gould's essays in Natural History a few months after he started writing them. I've been following the argument on the net since 1998.

Over the years I've seen the debate narrow quite a bit. For those not clinically insane, Dover pretty much defined the issues. Nothing since then has changed much.
Posted by: someotherguy on Oct. 09 2009,15:25

Does anybody else think that the latest explosion of stupidity and banninations at UD is a perfect excuse to actually try our much talked about (but never actually attempted) Tard boycott?  At this point, I'm of the opinion that any non-sock UD posters who aren't either banned or so disgusted that they've given up have to be so far gone that they aren't even worth laughing at anymore.  I'm sure there are a few exceptions, but in general, I think it's true.

ETA:  What I mean is that when all it takes to be labeled as a moral monster is to calmly point out that a moderator is blatantly misrepresenting the opinions of another poster, maybe it's time to shake the dust off your sandals* and leave them to their misery.

*New-testament style, of course.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 09 2009,15:51

New socks will emerge. This thread makes Barry look so unhinged I suspect a 404 / server burp is on the way. Any sort of reasoned dialogue with them makes them look assclowns, and it needs to happen for that reason.
Posted by: MichaelJ on Oct. 09 2009,16:50

Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 10 2009,06:51)
New socks will emerge. This thread makes Barry look so unhinged I suspect a 404 / server burp is on the way. Any sort of reasoned dialogue with them makes them look assclowns, and it needs to happen for that reason.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think that they are oblivious to how stupid they look. Stephen has had the same discussion before and it made no difference then and it will make no difference now.
Posted by: dvunkannon on Oct. 09 2009,17:48

Quote (MichaelJ @ Oct. 09 2009,17:50)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 10 2009,06:51)
New socks will emerge. This thread makes Barry look so unhinged I suspect a 404 / server burp is on the way. Any sort of reasoned dialogue with them makes them look assclowns, and it needs to happen for that reason.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think that they are oblivious to how stupid they look. Stephen has had the same discussion before and it made no difference then and it will make no difference now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I agree. Conversing with StephenB is like watching Galvani talk to a frog's leg. The twitches are entirely predictable after a while.
Posted by: dvunkannon on Oct. 09 2009,19:29

Reaping the Whirlwind, StuartHarris opines


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Cultures that continue polygamy over time have a problem on their hands: what to do with all the volatile single young men? Get them involved in a religious or political movement is the common solution. Islamic jihad is a good example.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I thought he was going to mention BYU.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 09 2009,21:08

< FTK > rises from the dormant. The level of discourse at UD has nowhere to go but up, so why not?
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 09 2009,21:41

Quote (dvunkannon @ Oct. 09 2009,15:48)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Oct. 09 2009,17:50)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 10 2009,06:51)
New socks will emerge. This thread makes Barry look so unhinged I suspect a 404 / server burp is on the way. Any sort of reasoned dialogue with them makes them look assclowns, and it needs to happen for that reason.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think that they are oblivious to how stupid they look. Stephen has had the same discussion before and it made no difference then and it will make no difference now.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I agree. Conversing with StephenB is like watching Galvani talk to a frog's leg. The twitches are entirely predictable after a while.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For example, unwarranted declarations of < victory >:

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

Cheer up. Materialist/Darwinists come here primarily to scrutinize ID and escape scrutiny. They are seldom required to play defense. This thread shows how easily they loose their poise when asked to do so. It should happen more often.

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



Woo-hoo! Yet another Waterloo.  How many is that now?
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 09 2009,22:02

Quote (franky172 @ Oct. 09 2009,07:57)
Quote (didymos @ Oct. 09 2009,00:08)
Oh, for fuck's sake!  Weasel.  < Again >.

Supposedly, this covers "every conceivable interpretation" of the program described in Blind Watchmaker.  Here be < the source >.  Haven't looked at it yet myself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The amazing part?

You don't have to write 5 versions of "Weasel", most of which have nothing to do with GA's to prove anything.  Just one correct one will do.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.evoinfo.org/WeaselMath.html >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
First, let's look at partitioned search used by Dr. Dawkins.  Assuming uniformity, the probability of successfully identifying a specified letter with sample replacement at least once in Q queries is ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hmmmm...
Posted by: socle on Oct. 09 2009,23:16

Quote (Touchstone @ Oct. 09 2009,10:19)
Just getting around to reading this trainwreck of a thread, I'm struck by Dembski's finish to this comment:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If so, why not cheer Polanski on when he has the wisdom to see through the illusion and sample the choice flesh of a 13-year old?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


*barfs*

I haven't been following UD for a few weeks, but I'd swear it's ten times worse than the last time I checked:  Global warming denialism, evolution => Hitler, Weasel: A New Beginning, Errington's meltdown, etc.  It's pretty bad when the only remotely science-related post on the front page was written by Corny Hunter.  What a bunch of putzes.  
Posted by: sparc on Oct. 09 2009,23:39



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
9 October 2009
< Transcript of McWhorter-Behe Blogginheads Discussion >
William Dembski

For the original online McWhorter-Behe discussion, go here. Thanks to one of my research assistants for making the transcript.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

We can conclude

1. WMAD has or at least pretends to have more than 1 "research" assistant
2. If that's what WMAD calls research one doesn't want to know his other research
3. It must suck to be WMAD's "research" assistant

Edited to add link.
Posted by: sparc on Oct. 10 2009,03:45

More than 24 hours < The Consummate WEASEL > and KairosFocus aka Gordon E. Mullings didn't show up. Has he been silently banniated too?
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 10 2009,06:32



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< feebish >
10/10/2009
12:32 am

Great fun. I used
“Weasels Ripped my Flesh”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Frank Zappa quoted on UD. These ARE the end times.

The applicable Weasels Ripped my Flesh lyric vis UD is:

"I think you're probably out to lunch."


Posted by: JLT on Oct. 10 2009,07:14

< Stuart Harris >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We can see a similar result caused by Western nations’ welfare states. Women become dependant on the state, essentially marrying the government to provide them with material sustenance and security. Men in the welfare culture live outside a culture that needs marriage, and become superfluous loners with a vastly greater likelihood of committing crimes and joining gangs as a substitute for family.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The welfare state destroys marriage therefore men become criminals?

Ah, yes. Just stop giving out welfare cheques and crime rates will drop. That'll work.
Posted by: JLT on Oct. 10 2009,07:32



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
29

< Clive Hayden >

10/10/2009

7:06 am

Well, if you adhere to the materialistic framework that evolution explains our existence, then it must explain our whole existence, in which case you can put the blame for everything squarely on the shoulders of evolution.

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



HAHHHAHAAAA!
Clive,baby you didn't think that through, do you.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, if you adhere to the materialistic Christian framework that evolution God explains our existence, then it must explain our whole existence, in which case you can put the blame for everything squarely on the shoulders of evolution God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


At least, in a "materialistic framework" things just happen to be the way they are, nobody wanted them to be exactly as they are.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 10 2009,11:08

Quote (JLT @ Oct. 10 2009,07:14)
< Stuart Harris >
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We can see a similar result caused by Western nations’ welfare states. Women become dependant on the state, essentially marrying the government to provide them with material sustenance and security. Men in the welfare culture live outside a culture that needs marriage, and become superfluous loners with a vastly greater likelihood of committing crimes and joining gangs as a substitute for family.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The welfare state destroys marriage therefore men become criminals?

Ah, yes. Just stop giving out welfare cheques and crime rates will drop. That'll work.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And here I thought that from 1950-2000 the larger problem was the low wages (v. cost-of-living increases) paid out by "conservative" companies and corporations to middle class workers.

When both parents feel pressured to join the workforce,  junior picks up the crack pipe, runs amok and joins a cult like ...well, UD. Ignore those statistics, though, I guess. Clearly it's all the fault of those damn libbruls.
Posted by: DiEb on Oct. 10 2009,11:43

I'd love to start a new topic - but it seems that I'm not allowed to do so. Could someone start a thread titled Conservation of Information in Search - factual errors in an article of R. Marks and W. Dembski (or something like that)? It would be nice to have a place to collect our critique of their weaselings...
One problem with the article is that it is so sloppily written: For instance, the references seem just to be copied together (like creationistic pamphlets of old) from earlier works. And every time, I touch one, I find < an error >. That's not the fault of the reviewers, as those aren't expected to check the references - it's the fault of Dembski and Marks. And it is a typical sign of sloppy research.
Posted by: deadman_932 on Oct. 10 2009,12:20

Quote (DiEb @ Oct. 10 2009,11:43)
I'd love to start a new topic - but it seems that I'm not allowed to do so. Could someone start a thread titled Conservation of Information in Search - factual errors in an article of R. Marks and W. Dembski (or something like that)? It would be nice to have a place to collect our critique of their weaselings...
One problem with the article is that it is so sloppily written: For instance, the references seem just to be copied together (like creationistic pamphlets of old) from earlier works. And every time, I touch one, I find < an error >. That's not the fault of the reviewers, as those aren't expected to check the references - it's the fault of Dembski and Marks. And it is a typical sign of sloppy research.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's one here: < http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....34;st=0 > for Evo Computation stuff. Topics range from Weasel and Mendel's Accountant to Dembski-Marks & Sanford, ReMine, etc. I think it mostly dealt with Sanford, if I recall correctly, though.

If that seems unsuitable, or you feel a dedicated thread is preferable, I'm sure that'd be done easily by someone.
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 10 2009,13:20

Quote (JLT @ Oct. 10 2009,05:14)
< Stuart Harris >
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We can see a similar result caused by Western nations’ welfare states. Women become dependant on the state, essentially marrying the government to provide them with material sustenance and security. Men in the welfare culture live outside a culture that needs marriage, and become superfluous loners with a vastly greater likelihood of committing crimes and joining gangs as a substitute for family.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The welfare state destroys marriage therefore men become criminals?

Ah, yes. Just stop giving out welfare cheques and crime rates will drop. That'll work.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed. This explains the perpetual and bloody street violence between the Swedish branches of the Crips and Bloods.
Posted by: Amadan on Oct. 10 2009,13:42

... and their hømies.




Posted by: Turncoat on Oct. 10 2009,14:06

Quote (DiEb @ Oct. 10 2009,11:43)
I'd love to start a new topic - but it seems that I'm not allowed to do so. Could someone start a thread titled Conservation of Information in Search - factual errors in an article of R. Marks and W. Dembski (or something like that)? It would be nice to have a place to collect our critique of their weaselings...
One problem with the article is that it is so sloppily written: For instance, the references seem just to be copied together (like creationistic pamphlets of old) from earlier works. And every time, I touch one, I find < an error >. That's not the fault of the reviewers, as those aren't expected to check the references - it's the fault of Dembski and Marks. And it is a typical sign of sloppy research.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It happens that I woke this morning wanting to start an engineering-oriented discussion of the article somewhere.

I didn't even know that the "evolutionary computation" thread existed until now. The quality has been good, and there would be some advantage in just joining in. Then again, discussion of the D&M article deserves some prominence.

Hmm... I'm going to ask on that thread whether participants think there should be a thread devoted to the D&M article.
Posted by: Reed on Oct. 10 2009,14:54

Quote (JLT @ Oct. 10 2009,05:14)
< Stuart Harris >
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We can see a similar result caused by Western nations’ welfare states. Women become dependant on the state, essentially marrying the government to provide them with material sustenance and security. Men in the welfare culture live outside a culture that needs marriage, and become superfluous loners with a vastly greater likelihood of committing crimes and joining gangs as a substitute for family.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The welfare state destroys marriage therefore men become criminals?

Ah, yes. Just stop giving out welfare cheques and crime rates will drop. That'll work.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ooh someone on UD makes a testable hypothesis! So Mr Harris, how about you compare the rates of gang crime in the Nordic countries to those in the US.

Oh right, ID doesn't get into pathetic details like actually testing hypotheses. Never mind.
Posted by: Leftfield on Oct. 10 2009,16:19

Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 10 2009,13:42)
... and their hømies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


POTW (phrase of the week?)
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 10 2009,17:18

Like one's unconscious shadow, Google ads maintains a silent running commentary upon UD's self-righteous moralists:


Posted by: keiths on Oct. 10 2009,18:19

CannuckianYankee < outs himself > as a repressed gay:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
However, on the issue of homosexuality, there are quite a number of individuals in this country who have homosexual feelings, but who do not want to live a lifestyle of having sex with others of the same gender. Their feelings are ignored because of the current PC, which renders homosexuality as natural and not a choice – even though these individuals attest to the idea that it is not natural, and that it is a choice – and from their own experience. I count myself among them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wonder how the homophobes at UD will respond.  I remember that a while ago someone -- I think it was russ -- confessed at UD to having "homosexual impulses".  Their reaction then was to studiously ignore him while (I imagine) slowly edging away.

ETA: I found < russ's confession >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
13

russ
05/28/2008
12:40 pm



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Religious conservatives are just as likely to have children who grow up to be gay as anyone else.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I doubt that this is true, because the children of religious conservatives are taught (either explicitly or implicitly) to reinforce their “straight” impulses and resist their “gay” impulses. That was my experience. I CHOSE to be straight every time I resisted homosexual impulses in favor of a traditional Christian sexual orientation. As a direct result, I now have a wife and two kids. If I had gone with my feelings, I would likely not have produced any offspring at all. How can you say that religious training has no effect at all on sexual orientation?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: khan on Oct. 10 2009,18:30

Quote (keiths @ Oct. 10 2009,19:19)
CannuckianYankee < outs himself > as a repressed gay:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
However, on the issue of homosexuality, there are quite a number of individuals in this country who have homosexual feelings, but who do not want to live a lifestyle of having sex with others of the same gender. Their feelings are ignored because of the current PC, which renders homosexuality as natural and not a choice – even though these individuals attest to the idea that it is not natural, and that it is a choice – and from their own experience. I count myself among them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wonder how the homophobes at UD will respond.  I remember that a while ago someone -- I think it was russ -- confessed at UD to having "homosexual impulses".  Their reaction then was to studiously ignore him while (I imagine) slowly edging away.

ETA: I found < russ's confession >:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
13

russ
05/28/2008
12:40 pm



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Religious conservatives are just as likely to have children who grow up to be gay as anyone else.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I doubt that this is true, because the children of religious conservatives are taught (either explicitly or implicitly) to reinforce their “straight” impulses and resist their “gay” impulses. That was my experience. I CHOSE to be straight every time I resisted homosexual impulses in favor of a traditional Christian sexual orientation. As a direct result, I now have a wife and two kids. If I had gone with my feelings, I would likely not have produced any offspring at all. How can you say that religious training has no effect at all on sexual orientation?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


Seriously warped folks.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 10 2009,19:31

There is < the thread > that started for critique of the "unacknowledged costs" essay by Dembski and Marks.
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 10 2009,20:15

Quote (keiths @ Oct. 10 2009,16:19)
CannuckianYankee < outs himself > as a repressed gay:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
However, on the issue of homosexuality, there are quite a number of individuals in this country who have homosexual feelings, but who do not want to live a lifestyle of having sex with others of the same gender. Their feelings are ignored because of the current PC, which renders homosexuality as natural and not a choice – even though these individuals attest to the idea that it is not natural, and that it is a choice – and from their own experience. I count myself among them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wonder how the homophobes at UD will respond.  I remember that a while ago someone -- I think it was russ -- confessed at UD to having "homosexual impulses".  Their reaction then was to studiously ignore him while (I imagine) slowly edging away.

ETA: I found < russ's confession >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
13

russ
05/28/2008
12:40 pm

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Religious conservatives are just as likely to have children who grow up to be gay as anyone else.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I doubt that this is true, because the children of religious conservatives are taught (either explicitly or implicitly) to reinforce their “straight” impulses and resist their “gay” impulses. That was my experience. I CHOSE to be straight every time I resisted homosexual impulses in favor of a traditional Christian sexual orientation. As a direct result, I now have a wife and two kids. If I had gone with my feelings, I would likely not have produced any offspring at all. How can you say that religious training has no effect at all on sexual orientation?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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



My advice to both Russ and CY: stay out of politics, airport restrooms, and the pants of congressional pages if at all possible.  Do not hire male "massage therapists" either.
Posted by: Turncoat on Oct. 10 2009,21:00

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 10 2009,19:31)
There is < the thread > that started for critique of the "unacknowledged costs" essay by Dembski and Marks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is an earlier draft of the "Conservation of Information" article, isn't it? Much of the factual / technical content is in regard to the abortive analysis of ev. Also, the last comment is about 1-1/2 years old, and dvunkannon says on the "Evolutionary Computation" thread:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'd prefer for that discussion to happen here. Special purpose threads are hard to find (at least for me). I prefer general threads that pick up topics as necessary. Viz. the discussion of Mendel's Accountant and previous Weasel discussions on this thread.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Oct. 10 2009,21:01

Quote (didymos @ Oct. 10 2009,20:15)
Quote (keiths @ Oct. 10 2009,16:19)
CannuckianYankee < outs himself > as a repressed gay:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
However, on the issue of homosexuality, there are quite a number of individuals in this country who have homosexual feelings, but who do not want to live a lifestyle of having sex with others of the same gender. Their feelings are ignored because of the current PC, which renders homosexuality as natural and not a choice – even though these individuals attest to the idea that it is not natural, and that it is a choice – and from their own experience. I count myself among them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wonder how the homophobes at UD will respond.  I remember that a while ago someone -- I think it was russ -- confessed at UD to having "homosexual impulses".  Their reaction then was to studiously ignore him while (I imagine) slowly edging away.

ETA: I found < russ's confession >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
13

russ
05/28/2008
12:40 pm

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Religious conservatives are just as likely to have children who grow up to be gay as anyone else.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I doubt that this is true, because the children of religious conservatives are taught (either explicitly or implicitly) to reinforce their “straight” impulses and resist their “gay” impulses. That was my experience. I CHOSE to be straight every time I resisted homosexual impulses in favor of a traditional Christian sexual orientation. As a direct result, I now have a wife and two kids. If I had gone with my feelings, I would likely not have produced any offspring at all. How can you say that religious training has no effect at all on sexual orientation?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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



My advice to both Russ and CY: stay out of politics, airport restrooms, and the pants of congressional pages if at all possible.  Do not hire male "massage therapists" either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Also, they should not become evangelical preachers...
Posted by: sparc on Oct. 10 2009,21:19



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
10 October 2009
< The 4,000 >
Barry Arrington

This is UD’s 4,000th post.  Congrats and a hardy well done and thank you to all of our posters!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

< Osteonectin rightly asks which posts they are counting exactly >

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Including those that had been 404ed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

BTW, if my counting is correct this is the 5328th response at ATBC (I guess without those that had to be moved to the bathroom wall).
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 10 2009,22:30