RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (438) < ... 425 426 427 428 429 [430] 431 432 433 434 435 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 5, Return To Teh Dingbat Buffet< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
KevinB



Posts: 479
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2019,08:45   

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 13 2019,20:44)
Are there any fonts small enough to help with that?

I don't think that the idea will get any traction with full-immersion postings.

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2385
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2019,09:38   

Quote (LarTanner @ Oct. 11 2019,10:10)
Bornagain says this:
Quote
For instance, in support of the claim that it is ‘crazy’, I can reference the fact that no material object can travel the speed of light, much less travel faster than the speed of light, and that the milky way galaxy itself is on the order of at least 170,000 light-years, and possibly up to 200,000 light-years, across its diameter.

I am not a scientist, so I must sheepishly ask: Is light itself, which travels 'at the speed of light,' considered a 'material object'? If not, what is it that is traveling 'at the speed of light'?

Of course it's a material object. It's part of the fabric of the universe, innit?

--------------
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)

   
Henry J



Posts: 5454
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2019,10:23   

Re "Is light itself, which travels 'at the speed of light,' considered a 'material object'?"

That depends on what meaning of "material" is meant. It's particles with rest mass that always move slower than C. That's particles that have mass even when not moving.

Photons, OTOH, don't have rest mass - their mass is proportional to their kinetic energy. Whether they are considers "material" or not is a question of word usage.

  
stevestory



Posts: 12213
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2019,11:13   

Quote
4
GoodusernameOctober 13, 2019 at 2:45 pm
Quote
But stop, wait! The very doctrine of the natural origin of life from inanimate materials teaches precisely this.

No, it doesn’t. Darwinism says that humans, flies, bacteria, etc are all related in the evolutionary tree. Spontaneous generation says that life is continuously forming from non-life all around us, such as maggots “spontaneously” forming from dead flesh, and thus says that we aren’t related. In other words, it was a rival theory on the “origin of species.” Pasteur’s biggest champion (who helped make him a household name) was T. H. Huxley. He could equally have been called “Pasteur’s Bulldog”.
Quote

5
Bornagain77October 13, 2019 at 3:43 pm
Goodusername, in a post entitled Real Science Vs Pseudoscience. I don’t think that it is such a bright idea for you to plug Darwin’s pseudo-scientific theory.

Dobzhansky stated that “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution”

“Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution”
– Theodosius Dobzhansky, – 1973

Yet biology itself could care less about Darwinian evolution.

As Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, stated, “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”

“In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”
Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005

Or as A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, stated, “While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.”

“While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.”
A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to “Evolutionary Processes” – (2000).

Darwinian Evolution simply has nothing to do with the science of biology. Materialists like to claim evolution is indispensable to experimental biology and led the way to many breakthroughs, yet in an article subtitled “Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology”, this expert author begs to differ.

“Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming’s discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.
In the peer-reviewed literature, the word “evolution” often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for “evolution” some other word – “Buddhism,” “Aztec cosmology,” or even “creationism.” I found that the substitution never touched the paper’s core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.,,,
Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology.”
Philip S. Skell – (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. – Why Do We Invoke Darwin? – 2005

Again, the science of Biology itself owes nothing to Darwinian presuppositions. Darwinian evolution is simply a metaphysical belief, i.e. atheistic materialism, that is, as the late Dr. Skell alluded to in the preceding article, added onto, even forced onto, biological discoveries as a ‘narrative gloss’ after the discovery was made.

In fact, not only does Darwinian evolution have nothing to do with the science of Biology, advances in quantum biology have now shown that Darwinian evolution, with its reductive materialistic framework, is not even on the correct theoretical, and/or metaphysical, foundation in order to properly understand biology in the first place:

Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II – video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....2CsjKbg

How Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Correlate – video (27:15 minute mark, how quantum information theory relates to molecular biology)
https://youtu.be/4f0hL3N....?t=1634

By any reasonable measure one may wish to invoke to determine whether something is scientific or not, Darwinism simply fails to qualify as a science.

“There are five standard tests for a scientific hypothesis. Has anyone observed the phenomenon — in this case, Evolution — as it occurred and recorded it? Could other scientists replicate it? Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if true, would contradict the theory (Karl Popper’s “falsifiability” tests)? Could scientists make predictions based on it? Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science? In the case of Evolution… well… no… no… no… no… and no.”
– Tom Wolfe – The Kingdom of Speech – page 17
Darwinian Evolution Fails the Five Standard Tests of a Scientific Hypothesis – video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....fyoPybw

The main reason that Darwinian evolution fails to qualify as a science is that, although falsification is considered the gold standard to judge whether a theory is scientific or not, Darwinists themselves simply refuse to accept any reasonable falsification criteria for their theory:

As Karl Popper stated, “In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.”

“In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.”
Karl Popper – The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge

Here are a few falsifications of Darwinian evolution that Darwinists simply refuse to ever accept as falsifications of their theory:

Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are found to be ‘directed’.

Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute.

Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke.

Darwin’s theory holds there to be an extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever.

Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late).

Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species.

Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.”

Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as the modern versions of it.”

Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God.”. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’.

Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place!

Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!.

The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy.

Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science!

Darwinist’s, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution.

On top of all that, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on intelligent design and is certainly not based on methodological naturalism as is presupposed by Darwinists.
From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science, (i.e. that the universe is rational and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can dare understand that rationality), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results, from top to bottom science itself is certainly not ‘natural’.
Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever just found laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analysed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place.

In fact, (as I have pointed out several times now), assuming Naturalism instead of Theism as the worldview on which all of science is based leads to the catastrophic epistemological failure of science itself.

Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft).
Bottom line, nothing is real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,
– Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification – video – 39:45 minute mark
https://youtu.be/8rzw0Jk....?t=2387

Thus, although the Darwinist may firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.

It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.

In short, Darwinian evolution is a shining example of a pseudoscience pretending to be a real science.

2 Corinthians 10:5
Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
Quote

6
GoodusernameOctober 13, 2019 at 4:20 pm
Bornagain77,

Nothing you wrote bears any relevance to anything I wrote.


LOL

   
fnxtr



Posts: 3241
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2019,15:20   

Oh, yay. More exegesis and hermeneutics.

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
stevestory



Posts: 12213
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2019,16:32   

Wtf is going on at http://www.bio-complexity.org/....ity.org ?

   
CeilingCat



Posts: 2267
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2019,17:42   

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 15 2019,16:32)
Wtf is going on at http://www.bio-complexity.org/....ity....ity.org ?

Somebody clicked the wrong configure button somewhere?  

Check out Marilee Marks's page.  She's posing with what looks like every Male relative she's got and describes them all.  Here's her description of Dad.          
Quote
Then there's Dad. You should stay clear of him.  He's scary. He likes to eat sticks. He doesn't have any black belts - but he has lots of guns. When Dad went to the NRA convention in Seattle, his favorite bumper sticker was "Beware of dog. He eats everything I shoot." He laughed his head off.  He likes to shoot things for fun.  Next to Dad is Uncle Ray.  He makes Dad look normal. 

Note that this is on the Bio-Complexity server.  Her url is ]http://www.bio-complexity.org/Marilee....ex.htm]  

BS77 recently had some sport with a statement Bob O'H wrote somewhere, saying he tortures data till it confesses.  Anybody want to try him with "He likes to shoot things for fun."

On the other hand, the links to the Gunsmoke radio episodes are gold.

Edited by CeilingCat on Oct. 15 2019,17:46

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 4403
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2019,17:45   

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 15 2019,16:32)
Wtf is going on at http://www.bio-complexity.org/....ity....ity.org ?

Damn.  Looks like the Disco Tooters have finally thrown in the towel and shit-canned their ID "science" phony journal.   All that cutting edge ID research gone forever.

It is funny they turned the URL over to Galapagos Finch, er, I mean Bob Marks.  Wonder if the DI had to pay him to take it.  I bet Barry Arrington is going to be pissed he didn't get first dibs.   :)

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"I'm a female retired marine biologist"

Whizz-dumb from Joe "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest female impersonator YEC.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 4403
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2019,17:47   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Oct. 15 2019,17:42)
 

Check out Marilee Marks's page.

That guy on the right is a dead ringer for Uncle Fester of the Addams Family.    :D

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"I'm a female retired marine biologist"

Whizz-dumb from Joe "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest female impersonator YEC.

  
stevestory



Posts: 12213
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2019,19:34   

I doubt they've gotten rid of their fake journal: it fools the rubes. this is probably just some dumb configuration error they will fix in a day or two.

   
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2500
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2019,19:58   

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 15 2019,19:34)
I doubt they've gotten rid of their fake journal: it fools the rubes. this is probably just some dumb configuration error they will fix in a day or two.

But I’m sure that KF will see some homosexual conspiracy at work.

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2500
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2019,21:30   

Quote
Ed George
Quote

BA77:

Yet, the majority of Christians regularly get their rights to religious freedom trampled on by the minority of atheists in American jurisprudence, and always to the detriment of the nation as a whole.


Since 3.1% of Americans are atheists and 75% are Christians, the Christians must be a gullible lot. The fact is, none of the progressive changes that many here despise could have occurred without support and advocacy by other Christians. Increased secularism of society, pro-choice, doctor assisted suicide, same sex marriage, removal of prayer from school, teaching of evolution, sex education, access to contraceptives, keeping pregnant teens in their schools, etc, have all occurred with the support of millions of Christians.

  
Lethean



Posts: 246
Joined: Jan. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2019,00:44   

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 14 2019,11:13)
                           
Quote
4
GoodusernameOctober 13, 2019 at 2:45 pm
                           
Quote
But stop, wait! The very doctrine of the natural origin of life from inanimate materials teaches precisely this.

No, it doesn’t. Darwinism says that humans, flies, bacteria, etc are all related in the evolutionary tree. Spontaneous generation says that life is continuously forming from non-life all around us, such as maggots “spontaneously” forming from dead flesh, and thus says that we aren’t related. In other words, it was a rival theory on the “origin of species.” Pasteur’s biggest champion (who helped make him a household name) was T. H. Huxley. He could equally have been called “Pasteur’s Bulldog”.
                           
Quote

5
Bornagain77October 13, 2019 at 3:43 pm
Goodusername, in a post entitled Real Science Vs Pseudoscience. I don’t think that it is such a bright idea for you to plug Darwin’s pseudo-scientific theory.


<<< snip everything including multiple QUANTUM references down to what really matters >>>


2 Corinthians 10:5
Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
                           
Quote

6
GoodusernameOctober 13, 2019 at 4:20 pm
Bornagain77,

Nothing you wrote bears any relevance to anything I wrote.


LOL


Batshit is of course misrepresenting the context, or rather the point, that most if not all the sources are ultimately making or revealing. The point is that a large portion of scientific work being done in biology is highly specialized and therefore increasingly focused on the testing and mapping of the finer details. Details which have no need to invoke or have little to no affect on the larger overall picture at that resolution. Increasing focus on the individual trees means less unnecessary referral to the forest. In that context he is correct, it is irrelevant and completely unsurprising after a couple of centuries of examination of a subject, any subject, with strict methodology.

What Batshit is arguing is equivalent to asserting that the National Hot Rod Association (evolution, for those unencumbered by Darwin Derangement Syndrome) is completely irrelevant to drag racing (biology) because specific fastener manufacturers (biochemists, physiologists - his examples) do not constantly refer to the National Hot Rod Association's base racing and track parameter rule-sets or their administration bylaws in the analyzing and description of the specific fasteners required to mount a blower manifold on a fully bored, ported, and ground racing engine. Complaining that since none of the aforementioned NHRA rules are found within the materials science used by the manufacturing facility that produces the hardware we can just chuck out all that "irrelevant" framework. Whilst also conveniently ignoring the disciplines that deal with crash statistics or analyze tire and track compositions (population genetics, etc.) that directly inform and improve the aforementioned rule-sets (biological theory).

This is not to say that the disciplines mentioned earlier do not affect the overarching theory. Indeed this is why there is always constant and shifting debate on which aspects of evolution are more or less contributory to change as these interlocked yet independent disciplines gather more data and work to come to consensus. Which, incidentally, is what tards like Joke dishonestly play on, this shifting aspect of interdisciplinary interaction like it's some sort dishonest shortcoming on the part of biological scientists. I'm referring here to the "genius" of "there is no actual theory of evolution, go ahead and point to one" horseshit.

[talkingheads]Same as it ever was.[/talkingheads]

--------------
"So I'm a pretty unusual guy and it's not stupidity that has gotten me where I am. It's brilliance."

"My brain is one of the very few independent thinking brains that you've ever met. And that's a thing of wonder to you and since you don't understand it you criticize it."


~Dave Hawkins~

  
sparc



Posts: 2031
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2019,01:59   

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 15 2019,16:32)
Wtf is going on at http://www.bio-complexity.org/....ity....ity.org ?

Obviously, Robert Marks is color blind.

--------------
"[...] 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 -

   
Bob O'H



Posts: 2385
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2019,02:30   

Quote (sparc @ Oct. 16 2019,01:59)
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 15 2019,16:32)
Wtf is going on at http://www.bio-complexity.org/....ity....ity.org ?

Obviously, Robert Marks is color blind.

I'm old enough to remember when tat sort of colour scheme was the height of fashion. You lot should look on the bright side - your browsers won't render the blink tag.

--------------
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)

   
Bob O'H



Posts: 2385
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2019,02:46   

Bob Marks is being very naughty. Biocomplexity (the journal) is at https://bio-complexity.org/....ity.org (and using http not https resolves to yh https location). His paean to '90s web design is at http://www.bio-complexity.org/....ity.org (and using https gets me a warning about going to unsafe sites).

*searches with Netscape*

Ah, here's a nice explanation for how this works. Presumably Bob Marks (or his charming daughter) is the BI's network administrator, and has decided to use the domain for his personal pages.

--------------
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)

   
KevinB



Posts: 479
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2019,07:14   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Oct. 15 2019,19:58)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 15 2019,19:34)
I doubt they've gotten rid of their fake journal: it fools the rubes. this is probably just some dumb configuration error they will fix in a day or two.

But I’m sure that KF will see some homosexual conspiracy at work.

Looks like the Marksists to me. Definitely Reds (or at least, Purples) under the bed.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5454
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2019,08:06   

Re "Looks like the Marksists to me. Definitely Reds (or at least, Purples) under the bed."

Well, then maybe get a bedspread with a different color?

  
Ptaylor



Posts: 1149
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2019,20:29   

PaV has killed Darwinism - again! On News' Bacteria thrive via non-Darwinian “survival of the friendliest” thread:
 
Quote
4
PaV
October 16, 2019 at 12:28 pm

So, bacteria help one another out instead of trying to kill one another off. Darwin is wrong, then. Of course. But, let’s continue. We’re told that bacteria has existed from 2-3.5 billion years ago. It’s no wonder, then, if competition is out–and therefore NS!!–that multicellular life did not arise until .54 billion years ago. But now there’s this larger problem. If bacteria don’t compete, then what caused them to compete (or else NS is not available for change) all of sudden after 2 billion years? What caused this? Why was there an “explosion” of phyla? Darwinian explanations are completely lame.

Theodosius Dobzhansky famously said, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of Evolution.” But, as we can see, each day teaches us that, “Nothing in biology makes sense in the light of Darwinism.”

That's twice now, I think, that PaV has seen off Darwinism since I started using my current sig line. Time for a change soon.

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

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 4403
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2019,20:48   

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 15 2019,19:34)
I doubt they've gotten rid of their fake journal: it fools the rubes. this is probably just some dumb configuration error they will fix in a day or two.

Been more than a day and there hasn't been a peep at the DI about the demise of BIO-Complexity.  It's also funny that Bob Marks home page where the URL now directs has no mention and no links to the DI.  I wonder if they had a behind the scenes falling out?

Of course the single digit IQ crowd at UD has been too busy sniffing their own buttholes to notice or comment. :D

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"I'm a female retired marine biologist"

Whizz-dumb from Joe "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest female impersonator YEC.

  
stevestory



Posts: 12213
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2019,20:49   

Quote (Ptaylor @ Oct. 16 2019,21:29)
PaV has killed Darwinism - again! On News' Bacteria thrive via non-Darwinian “survival of the friendliest” thread:
 
Quote
4
PaV
October 16, 2019 at 12:28 pm

So, bacteria help one another out instead of trying to kill one another off. Darwin is wrong, then. Of course. But, let’s continue. We’re told that bacteria has existed from 2-3.5 billion years ago. It’s no wonder, then, if competition is out–and therefore NS!!–that multicellular life did not arise until .54 billion years ago. But now there’s this larger problem. If bacteria don’t compete, then what caused them to compete (or else NS is not available for change) all of sudden after 2 billion years? What caused this? Why was there an “explosion” of phyla? Darwinian explanations are completely lame.

Theodosius Dobzhansky famously said, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of Evolution.” But, as we can see, each day teaches us that, “Nothing in biology makes sense in the light of Darwinism.”

That's twice now, I think, that PaV has seen off Darwinism since I started using my current sig line. Time for a change soon.

I haven't done microbiology in 20 years but most of the bacteria in direct contact with a bacterium are likely to be close relatives, right? like the kind of situation where you see cooperative behaviors because that helps survival?

   
stevestory



Posts: 12213
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2019,21:22   

Quote
5
MimusOctober 16, 2019 at 4:22 pm

What? Under one condition cooperation increases individual fitness so…. Darwin was wrong? NS is out? And that has something to do with multicellularity?

Really, what?


"...the fuck is wrong with you complete simpletons?"

   
sparc



Posts: 2031
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2019,01:21   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Oct. 16 2019,02:46)
Presumably Bob Marks (or his charming daughter) is the BI's network administrator, and has decided to use the domain for his personal pages.

What exactly has to be administrated on the web pages of a stillborn journal.

--------------
"[...] 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 -

   
Bob O'H



Posts: 2385
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2019,04:20   

Quote (sparc @ Oct. 17 2019,01:21)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Oct. 16 2019,02:46)
Presumably Bob Marks (or his charming daughter) is the BI's network administrator, and has decided to use the domain for his personal pages.

What exactly has to be administrated on the web pages of a stillborn journal.

The collection box?

More seriously, they do have to make sure the articles are available, because they have an agreement with CrossRef (that's why they can have DOIs) to do that.

--------------
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)

   
Lethean



Posts: 246
Joined: Jan. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2019,10:00   

Quote (Ptaylor @ Oct. 16 2019,20:29)
PaV has killed Darwinism - again! On News' Bacteria thrive via non-Darwinian “survival of the friendliest” thread:
   
Quote
4
PaV
October 16, 2019 at 12:28 pm

So, bacteria help one another out instead of trying to kill one another off. Darwin is wrong, then. Of course. But, let’s continue. We’re told that bacteria has existed from 2-3.5 billion years ago. It’s no wonder, then, if competition is out–and therefore NS!!–that multicellular life did not arise until .54 billion years ago. But now there’s this larger problem. If bacteria don’t compete, then what caused them to compete (or else NS is not available for change) all of sudden after 2 billion years? What caused this? Why was there an “explosion” of phyla? Darwinian explanations are completely lame.

Theodosius Dobzhansky famously said, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of Evolution.” But, as we can see, each day teaches us that, “Nothing in biology makes sense in the light of Darwinism.”

That's twice now, I think, that PaV has seen off Darwinism since I started using my current sig line. Time for a change soon.


In light of Einstein's work PaV will soon be moving on to finally kill Newtonism.

Did you know that Newton is responsible for kids dropping rocks off of overpasses?

--------------
"So I'm a pretty unusual guy and it's not stupidity that has gotten me where I am. It's brilliance."

"My brain is one of the very few independent thinking brains that you've ever met. And that's a thing of wonder to you and since you don't understand it you criticize it."


~Dave Hawkins~

  
Henry J



Posts: 5454
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2019,11:27   

Re "Did you know that Newton is responsible for kids dropping rocks off of overpasses? "

Nope. Didn't know that.

Still don't. ;)

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2500
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2019,20:08   

Quote
135
Ed George
October 17, 2019 at 12:55 pm
Quote
”Monopolizing conversations? Feelings of entitlement? Inability to admit error? Belittling others? These are all classic signs of narcissistic personality disorder.”


KF, do these symptoms remind you of one of the frequent commenters here?

Whoever could he be referring to? :)

  
stevestory



Posts: 12213
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2019,20:55   

Quote
159
Ed GeorgeOctober 17, 2019 at 6:48 pm
Hazel@152, I agree. I go to church every year because my wife is Christian. We often have dinner with Christian friends and hold hands before dinner and say grace. They know that I am not Christian but have never judged me on this. They, in my mind, lead their lives as true Christians. I must add that they also support SSM. But the treatment I get here, from people who claim to be Christian, is very un-Christian.

I used to converse with a devout Christian (Nic) over on Cornelius Hunter’s blog when he allowed commenters. We disagreed on many things, including SSM, but we had great respect for each other and had great discussions. But there were a couple other commenters (some idiot named Joe and another named Louis) who constantly berated Nic for The crime of being civil to a non-Christian. This, sadly, is the same behaviour I see here.


LOL

   
stevestory



Posts: 12213
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2019,08:55   

Quote
3
Mpc755October 18, 2019 at 6:48 am
Dark matter is a supersolid that fills ’empty’ space, strongly interacts with ordinary matter and is displaced by ordinary matter.

The supersolid dark matter displaced by a galaxy pushes back, causing the stars in the outer arms of the galaxy to orbit the galactic center at the rate in which they do.

Displaced dark matter is curved spacetime. More correctly, what is referred to geometrically as curved spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the supersolid dark matter. The state of displacement of the supersolid dark matter is gravity.

The supersolid dark matter displaced by the quarks the Earth consists of, pushing back and exerting pressure toward the Earth, is gravity.


it's no dumber than BS77  :p  :p  :p

   
stevestory



Posts: 12213
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2019,09:01   

Quote
2
FourFacesOctober 17, 2019 at 11:39 pm
Of course, the equations are wrong. But changing the equations is not physics. It’s no better than Ptolemaic epicycles. Math does not explain anything other than itself. We need to figure out the physical reason why the equations are wrong. But before we can do that, we need to fully grok simple things like motion. Ask any physicist, why does a particle in inertial motion stay in motion and they don’t have an answer. If we don’t understand something as fundamental as motion, how are we going to understand gravity?


Moron Party at UD!

   
  13113 replies since Dec. 29 2013,11:01 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (438) < ... 425 426 427 428 429 [430] 431 432 433 434 435 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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