RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (424) < ... 410 411 412 413 414 [415] 416 417 418 419 420 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 5, Return To Teh Dingbat Buffet< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
stevestory



Posts: 12083
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 11 2019,13:32   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Aug. 11 2019,14:05)
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 11 2019,12:52)
The three stooges at UD seem to be going all conspiracy theory on Epstein, but I haven't had the willpower to read the thread.

Who wants to have a lottery on when Pizzagate is raised?

You're too late.

   
stevestory



Posts: 12083
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 11 2019,16:19   

Quote
50
Brother BrianAugust 11, 2019 at 12:46 pm
KF@48, what exactly would “they” be covering up? Killing Epstein does nothing about the large number of underage girls who were victimized, and who were witnesses. The testimony that was recently made public, and contained some powerful names, was testimony of the witness, not Epstein.

As I said previously, propagating unproven conspiracy theories does no good but it has the potential to do great harm to innocent people.

When I mentioned Trump paying off women to keep them quite (a proven fact) you accused me of scandal mongering. But when you make unproven accusations, it is somehow acceptable. Why the hypocrisy?


linky

   
sparc



Posts: 2017
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 13 2019,06:32   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 10 2019,16:41)
I wonder if Kairosfocus is uploading all that graphical nonsense on a dial-up modem. I just found out the GDP per capita in Montserrat is $8,500 a year.

I wonder if that number is true for KF. Just google "Gordon E. Mullings 250.000$".

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
stevestory



Posts: 12083
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2019,05:28   

Quote
61
PaVAugust 13, 2019 at 9:37 am
For the curious:

1.) Who is more likely to have something to fear regarding sexual predation, Bill Clinton or Donald Trump?
2.) Who ordered Jeffrey Epstein to stay away, Clinton or Trump?
3.) Does what happened to Epstein sound familiar? Yes, it sounds like what happened to Jim McDougall of Whitewater fame who, while in prison was put into solitary confinement despite his doctors strictly saying that because of his heart condition solitary confinement would likely kill him, was put into solitary confinement and died. He never testified against Bill and Hillary Clinton. Oh, well . . . . .
linky

   
sparc



Posts: 2017
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2019,08:50   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 14 2019,05:28)
 
Quote
61
PaVAugust 13, 2019 at 9:37 am
For the curious:

1.) Who is more likely to have something to fear regarding sexual predation, Bill Clinton or Donald Trump?
2.) Who ordered Jeffrey Epstein to stay away, Clinton or Trump?
3.) Does what happened to Epstein sound familiar? Yes, it sounds like what happened to Jim McDougall of Whitewater fame who, while in prison was put into solitary confinement despite his doctors strictly saying that because of his heart condition solitary confinement would likely kill him, was put into solitary confinement and died. He never testified against Bill and Hillary Clinton. Oh, well . . . . .
linky

I wanted to post something like "His scientific arguments support ID nearly as much as Pizzagate."
However reality is even better  
Quote
ET
August 13, 2019 at 5:56 pm

Teaching blind watchmaker evolution has ruined more innocent lives than pizzagate. School shootings occurred due to the teaching of that nonsense.

ETA: The new UD design is really hurting my eyes

Edited by sparc on Aug. 14 2019,08:51

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
stevestory



Posts: 12083
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 15 2019,08:13   

Quote
Darwinists may be paying a price for pop science celebrity: Jeffrey Epstein


The late Jeffrey Epstein cultivated a lot of people, including Darwinists who were pop science faves. In the aftermath, they must be wishing he’d never heard of them.

   
k.e..



Posts: 5324
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 15 2019,09:29   

Quote
Republican Steve King: if not for incest and rape ‘would there be any population left?’
link

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2240
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2019,09:03   

Our good friend PaV has gifted us with as fine a piece of ID Wisdom as you'll find anywhere this side of O'Leary.  He talks about how Darwin is on the ropes.  He goes on at length about how the Cambrian Explosion generated lots and lots of new body plans, but not many species and then 80 million years later, the Ordivician Radiation generated lots of new species, but few new body plans!  That's exactly opposite!

I think you can see how poor old Darwin is getting squeezed in a Dembskian vice here.

PaV finishes his OP with these stirring words:
     
Quote
To an intellectually honest person, these facts should cause serious concerns about the scientific validity of Darwinian theory, to the point of abandonement. Most who have thoroughly studied the foundations of Darwinian theory and compared it to actual facts end up untethering themselves from this sinking ship.

Robert F. Shedinger is the latest to take this voyage.

So I click on Shedinger's name to find out who this latest super genius is and I wind up on "Evolution News and Science Today" where I find ...
   
Quote
We are delighted to welcome Dr. Shedinger as a new contributor. A Professor of Religion at Luther College in Decorah, Iowa, he is the author of a new book critiquing Darwinian triumphalism, The Mystery of Evolutionary Mechanisms: Darwinian Biology’s Grand Narrative of Triumph and the Subversion of Religion, from which this post is adapted.

Link

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2232
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2019,11:43   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 17 2019,07:03)
Our good friend PaV has gifted us with as fine a piece of ID Wisdom as you'll find anywhere this side of O'Leary.  He talks about how Darwin is on the ropes.  He goes on at length about how the Cambrian Explosion generated lots and lots of new body plans, but not many species and then 80 million years later, the Ordivician Radiation generated lots of new species, but few new body plans!  That's exactly opposite!

I think that was a garbled version of this;
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_rel....519.php

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Henry J



Posts: 5415
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2019,13:12   

Re "He goes on at length about how the Cambrian Explosion generated lots and lots of new body plans, but not many species and then 80 million years later, the Ordivician Radiation generated lots of new species, but few new body plans!  That's exactly opposite!"

How would either of those scenarios be contrary to the theory?

  
stevestory



Posts: 12083
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2019,11:42   

Quote

How Materialist Fundamentalists Are Like Christian Fundamentalists

n a comment to PaV’s recent post about the insurmountable problem the Cambrian Explosion presents for Darwinism, materialist fundamentalist Seversky writes: the Cambrian Explosion is no longer such a problem for Darwin’s theory Of course this is nonsense of a high order, which has been refuted 10,000 times including in the very post Sev was […]

Posted on August 18, 2019 AuthorBarry Arrington Comment(0)


Why won't you scientific experts realize us uneducated laymen are more correcter? We've told you so many times!!!11

:D

linky

Edited by stevestory on Aug. 18 2019,12:42

   
stevestory



Posts: 12083
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2019,11:44   

Quote
51
HazelAugust 18, 2019 at 9:17 am
I just read the PS to 49. kf wants to include the hyperreals in this discussion, and I don’t, as I don’t think that is the model many, or any except kf, have in mind when they discuss time. Therefore, no further discussion is necessary.


linky

   
CeilingCat



Posts: 2240
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2019,22:05   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 18 2019,11:42)
     
Quote

How Materialist Fundamentalists Are Like Christian Fundamentalists

n a comment to PaV’s recent post about the insurmountable problem the Cambrian Explosion presents for Darwinism, materialist fundamentalist Seversky writes: the Cambrian Explosion is no longer such a problem for Darwin’s theory Of course this is nonsense of a high order, which has been refuted 10,000 times including in the very post Sev was […]

Posted on August 18, 2019 AuthorBarry Arrington Comment(0)


Why won't you scientific experts realize us uneducated laymen are more correcter? We've told you so many times!!!11

:D

linky

He even quotes from a great scientist to back him up:      
Quote
Robert F. Shedinger recounts how this phenomenon has played out from the very beginning of the Darwinian project:

That's Robert F. Shedinger, the great Professor of Religion at Luther College at Decorah, Iowa.  Not surprisingly, this man, whose salary depends on clinging to his religion, supports Barry, who clings to his religion because ...

Edited by CeilingCat on Aug. 18 2019,22:06

  
stevestory



Posts: 12083
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2019,23:38   

http://www.correlationjournal.com/issues....sue.php the astrology scientific journal published more papers than biocomplexity last year, but they're tied at zero for this year, while the Young Earth dummies blew past a dozen new papers months ago.

who will be the least successful pseudoscience in 2019? ID? Or astrology?

   
Bob O'H



Posts: 2367
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2019,05:06   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 18 2019,11:44)
Quote
51
HazelAugust 18, 2019 at 9:17 am
I just read the PS to 49. kf wants to include the hyperreals in this discussion, and I don’t, as I don’t think that is the model many, or any except kf, have in mind when they discuss time. Therefore, no further discussion is necessary.


linky

Oh where's the fun in that? Watching kf try to discuss infinities is a lot of fun. He knows just enough to confirm the results of Messers Dunning & Kruger.

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
stevestory



Posts: 12083
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2019,07:50   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 19 2019,00:38)
http://www.correlationjournal.com/issues.....sue.php the astrology scientific journal published more papers than biocomplexity last year, but they're tied at zero for this year, while the Young Earth dummies blew past a dozen new papers months ago.

who will be the least successful pseudoscience in 2019? ID? Or astrology?

For those curious, the number of papers published by biologists every year is over 400,000.

   
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2460
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2019,08:34   

Brim Barry:
Quote
SmartAZ

Quote
It is awfully dreary when someone puts people in named classifications


How dare you classify me as someone who puts people in classifications! How dreary.

Sorry. I forgot to tell you to turn off your irony meter. The power surge is sure to fry it.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5415
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2019,09:10   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 19 2019,04:06)
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 18 2019,11:44)
Quote
51
HazelAugust 18, 2019 at 9:17 am
I just read the PS to 49. kf wants to include the hyperreals in this discussion, and I don’t, as I don’t think that is the model many, or any except kf, have in mind when they discuss time. Therefore, no further discussion is necessary.


linky

Oh where's the fun in that? Watching kf try to discuss infinities is a lot of fun. He knows just enough to confirm the results of Messers Dunning & Kruger.

Infinities? What was he doing, trying to construct the real number system from basic principles?

  
stevestory



Posts: 12083
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2019,12:54   

Quote
14
Drc466August 19, 2019 at 7:36 am
So, allow me to provide an opinion from the YEC perspective.
To expand on the Update to the OP, YEC not only acknowledges that our beliefs are based on a fundamentalist reading of a religious document, we also readily acknowledge that the most straight-forward examination of all available empirical evidence exposes two basic contradictions to a YEC interpretation: distant starlight and radioactive decay. As fundamentalists, like fundamentalist Darwinians, we seek to provide theoretical explanations for the discordant data (e.g. “white-hole cosmogeny”). Unlike fundamentalist Darwinians, we do not try to pretend such discordancies don’t even exist, or that YEC is “as much a law as the law of gravity”.
Somewhat OT: And, yes, our belief system isn’t particularly bothered by these two discrepancies, for the simple reason that all available empirical evidence does not lead to a single consistent conclusion from the data. Quick: on a piece of paper, list all of the empirical evidence that gives you a result of 4.5by for earth (and the solar system)’s age, and all of the empirical evidence that gives you a result of approx 14by for the universe. Now list all the other measures of age that don’t match. If you’re being honest: which list is longer?
The good part about being YEC is that, unlike materialist evolutionists, as new discoveries are made, from biology to cosmology, we see more evidence for our position, rather than having to add epicycles like dark matter, punc eq, neutral theory, iron-bonding, oort clouds, etc., etc. Junk DNA? nope. Vestigial Organs? nope. Young active planets? yup. Living fossils? yup. Original biomatter in “ancient” life? yup. Massively complex genetics? yup. Genetic burden? yup. And so on. Contrary to popular misconception and Evolutionist propaganda, we don’t have to “bastardize” evidence, nor do we object to any type of scientific exploration and experimentation, as they solidify our position, not falsify it. Think about it – what was the last time you actually heard about a discovery that evolutionists trumpeted as “falsifying creationism!”? Getting fewer and farther between, aren’t they? When was the last time you read a book against creationism that didn’t come down to, “well, God wouldn’t have done it that way!”. Now you just get to hear about “third ways”, and “biofilms”, and “expanded Cambrian age”, and other attempts to explain why empirical evidence doesn’t somehow contradict Evolution.
Personal anecdote: I’m old enough to remember debating evolutionists on a Compuserve topic board back in the late ’80s. 30 years later, the objections to YEC are still the same (distant starlight/radioactive decay), while our increase in knowledge and experimentation has only strengthened the YEC position. Can’t wait to see what the next 30 years brings!
P.S. Just out of curiosity – if anyone has empirical evidence that inherently disputes the YEC view beyond the two listed above, I’d be interested to hear it. I might be forgetting something.


linky

   
stevestory



Posts: 12083
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2019,18:20   

Quote
2
PolistraAugust 19, 2019 at 4:24 pm
I wouldn’t go quite as far as vmahuna. I use rate of change fairly often in software for education and graphics and neurology. (Because nerves are differentiators!)

But I never use integrals or partial diff eq. In curricular terms, I use the first week of college calculus.

The example Bartlett gives in his MindMatters article is completely useless. Nobody EVER needs to figure sin or cos by converging series. If you don’t have a table or a slide rule or a calculator or a computer, you can always carefully draw a right triangle and measure the ratios!


is polistra a troll?

   
stevestory



Posts: 12083
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2019,07:43   

Quote
85
KairosfocusAugust 20, 2019 at 1:54 am
F/N: Will signed two days before death: https://nypost.com/2019....suicide (also note onward links). Yet another bit in the convergence. Remember Rommel, KF


linky

   
stevestory



Posts: 12083
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2019,08:34   

Quote
10
HazelAugust 20, 2019 at 7:01 am

Uh, no, ET. Your calculator does not have tables in it. If you press sine 42°, it does not look up the value in a table. It computes the value using the formulas JohnnyB mentions in his articles, using enough terms to get the level of accuracy for that particular calculator. A small hand-held computer might only have to use four or five terms, and a super computer 10 terms, but they all use a small number of the infinite number of terms in the relevant series. They do not use tables.

When teaching this, I would have students do a few examples “longhand”, finding the value of about four terms directly (x, -x^3/3!, etc.), adding them up, and then comparing the result to the calculator.

By the way, the calculator also uses trig relationships to simplify the process by translating the results to one involving a small angle close to zero, as the closer to zero the value of x is, the quicker the result converges.

For instance, for sine 100°, the calculator would first convert to sine 100° = sine 80°, and then to cos 10°.


poor dumb ET  :D

   
stevestory



Posts: 12083
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2019,08:41   

Say what you will about the era of Dave Scot and Dembski, at least they would have understood what Hazel was saying, in Dembski's case, and kinda sorta got it, in davescot's case.

   
stevestory



Posts: 12083
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2019,15:54   

Quote
2
PolistraAugust 20, 2019 at 11:23 am
Infinite number of terms not a polynomial? That’s just dumb, even by normal calculus-class methods. Calculus teachers always emphasize that you can’t reach infinity, so limits are “approaching a really large number.” A polynomial with a really large number of terms is still a polynomial. Poly means many, for heavens sake.


if it has an infinite number of terms it's not a polynomial it's a power series you numbnut.

where do they find these idiots?

   
Ptaylor



Posts: 1140
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2019,17:54   

Axel is a strange one, although he would use the phrase ‘rum cove’ or something more arcane. Among recent comments he asks:
 
Quote
Since you are a Catholic StephenB, if you are not already familiar with La Croix International, I think you (and other readers, here) might find it as fascinatingly to the point, as I do.

Fuck knows what he is on about, and I don’t really care. What is truly odd is that he is replying to a comment StephenB made in January 2013.
UD link

--------------
We no longer say: “Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.” We now say: “Another day since the time Darwinism was disproved.”
-PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

  
Ptaylor



Posts: 1140
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2019,23:21   

From the Jeffrey Shallit asks thread:
 
Quote
18
SmartAZ
August 20, 2019 at 7:55 pm
Darwinists always argue their case by insulting the opposition. They only offer facts to support their insults.

Darwinists and their stupid facts!

--------------
We no longer say: “Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.” We now say: “Another day since the time Darwinism was disproved.”
-PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2240
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2019,00:24   

Quote (Ptaylor @ Aug. 20 2019,17:54)
Axel is a strange one, although he would use the phrase ‘rum cove’ or something more arcane. Among recent comments he asks:
     
Quote
Since you are a Catholic StephenB, if you are not already familiar with La Croix International, I think you (and other readers, here) might find it as fascinatingly to the point, as I do.

Fuck knows what he is on about, and I don’t really care. What is truly odd is that he is replying to a comment StephenB made in January 2013.
UD link

It turns out to be an online Catholic news newsletter.  You have to register to read most of the articles.

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2367
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2019,02:40   

All this stuff about polynomials is just boring semantics. We could equally well define polynomials to be able to have an infinite number of degrees, and the maths would still be the same. A polynomial is just a power series with a finite number of non-zero coefficients.

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
stevestory



Posts: 12083
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2019,07:14   

It's not very substantive, true, but it's still ignorant. ID doesn't produce anything substantive. Young Earth creationists have published nine "research papers" in their Journal this year, ID can't even publish their own journal. UD is just a site for warehousing two mental patients who like to monologue about abortion and how the Shroud of Turn is a Quantum Hologram. Anybody with a clue departed a long time ago.

Edited by stevestory on Aug. 21 2019,08:15

   
k.e..



Posts: 5324
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2019,08:07   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 21 2019,15:14)
It's not very substantive, true, but it's still ignorant. ID doesn't produce anything substantive. Young Earth creationists have published nine "research papers" in their Journal this year, ID can't even publish their own journal. UD is just a site for warehousing two mental patients who like to monologue about abortion and how the Shroud of Turn is a Quantum Hologram. Anybody with a clue departed a long time ago.

Waiting for GodID, a tragicomedy in an infinity of acts. He never writes he never phones he never shows up.

All those wasted prayers.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
  12691 replies since Dec. 29 2013,11:01 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (424) < ... 410 411 412 413 414 [415] 416 417 418 419 420 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]