RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (458) < ... 446 447 448 449 450 [451] 452 453 454 455 456 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 5, Return To Teh Dingbat Buffet< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
stevestory



Posts: 12441
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2020,10:09   

Quote (Jkrebs @ Jan. 13 2020,10:56)
At the Blythe Institute

Quote

Research Fellows

The Blyth Institute partners with a number of research fellows to pursue common goals and assist each other in research work.  If you are interested in becoming a research fellow, email [EMAIL=info@blythinstitute.org.]info@blythinstitute.org.[/EMAIL]  We are working on developing a program to provide research grants for select projects.
Program Director

Jonathan Bartlett (ResearchGate, Academia, Google Scholar)
Current Research Fellows

   Eric Holloway (Academia)
   Salvador Cordova (ResearchGate)

Current Interns

   Trey Merkley



Salvador!

And check out their lengthy list of upcoming events.

   
stevestory



Posts: 12441
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2020,10:12   

Johnny B’s got this attitude like ‘I’m a professional programmer, therefore I am A Very Smart Man, and I can easily do this biology crap.’

The astute reader will not be surprised to learn that the majority of his “papers” are published by “Blythe Institute Press”.  :p

Edited by stevestory on Jan. 13 2020,11:13

   
stevestory



Posts: 12441
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2020,10:16   

Quote
Thinking More Deeply About Causation


Most people (including experts) tend to have a one-level view of causation. That is, they have a static idea of what the subject matter is, and then they look to see how the pieces bounce around within that static structure. That more or less works for physics. It totally fails everywhere else.

Posted onJanuary 12, 2020 Authorjohnnyb Comments(3)


Dang now Johnny's going to totally revolutionize philosophy!  :p

   
stevestory



Posts: 12441
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2020,10:23   

Quote
While this isn’t meant to focus on politics, I wanted to point out another way that this manifests. In the 2016 election, everybody said, “you have to choose one, so choose the lesser of two evils” (or at least that’s what my friends said). I decided to vote for no one, because no one met my minimum standard. Now, by myself, that does nothing. However, imagine that a large group of people had voted for no one. Do you think that this would be a phenomena that the pollsters would miss? While it is true that I would have failed to effect change of the outcome of 2016, if a large group did it, it could mean the change of the outcome of every election afterwards, as the powers-that-be who run candidates realize that they actually have to appeal to us, and not just run a “not-as-bad-as-that-guy” campaign.
this guy’s a god-damn genius.

Also check out his first comment where he explains that people can’t have deep same-sex friendships anymore, because it could just go gay at any moment.

How will evolution ever survive dazzling intellects like these.

Edited by stevestory on Jan. 13 2020,11:25

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 4827
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2020,10:45   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 13 2020,10:12)
Johnny B’s got this attitude like ‘I’m a professional programmer, therefore I am A Very Smart Man, and I can easily do this biology crap.’

The astute reader will not be surprised to learn that the majority of his “papers” are published by “Blythe Institute Press”.  :p

It should be the "Blythering Institute Press".   Truth in advertising and all that.   :)

--------------
"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.

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2261
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2020,11:05   

YouTubes of the "institute" 2017 conference.

   
Bob O'H



Posts: 2419
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2020,13:58   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Jan. 13 2020,11:05)
YouTubes of the "institute" 2017 conference.

I think I'll pass.

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

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 1993
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2020,17:07   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 13 2020,08:26)
Quote (Jkrebs @ Jan. 13 2020,09:06)
I think johnny b has an exaggerated sense of his own deep-thinking powers. Among other things, as the math wiz he thinks he is, he should know about chaos theory and iterative functions. The reason the world changes is that every moment feeds the current state of affairs back through all the various causative processes to create the next moment. I'm sure experts in finance, politics, and sociology understand this well, and I have no idea why johnny thinks they don't.

Sir I will have you know that johnnyb aka Jonathan Bartlett is an editor at the prestigious journal Bio-Complexity. They don’t let just any idiot hold that prestigious position.

No, you have to be an extraordinary idiot to hold that prestigious position.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3321
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2020,17:20   

Remind me, who was it Mad magazine listed as "Contributing artists and writers"?

--------------
"[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

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 4827
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2020,17:25   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 13 2020,09:18)
Johnny B also runs the Blythe Institute, which is a very well-funded and productive organization that’s totally revolutionizing science.

Here is the homepage. Check that shit out.  :p  :p  :p

Wow.  So much sciency science.  :)  "Blythe Institute" looks like something Jonathan Bartlett runs out of his garage, or maybe his parents' basement.

Besides being editor at the prestigious science journal  BIO-Complexity Johnny B is a well respected author of YEC articles for several other bastions of scientific knowledge like AIG and ICR.  :D

   
Quote
Bartlett, Jonathan.  2018.  “Intelligent Design and Its Place in the Creation Model.”  Creation Research Society Quarterly 54:48-56.

Bartlett, Jonathan.  2009.  “Towards a Creationary Classification of Mutations” Answers Research Journal 2:169-174.

Bartlett, Jonathan.  2008.  “Statistical and Philosophical Notions of Randomness in Creation Biology” Creation Research Society Quarterly 45(2):91-99.


ID is just loaded with sciency science scientists.  :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.

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2660
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2020,17:28   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 13 2020,17:25)
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 13 2020,09:18)
Johnny B also runs the Blythe Institute, which is a very well-funded and productive organization that’s totally revolutionizing science.

Here is the homepage. Check that shit out.  :p  :p  :p

Wow.  So much sciency science.  :)  "Blythe Institute" looks like something Jonathan Bartlett runs out or his garage, or maybe his parents' basement.

Besides being editor at the prestigious science journal  BIO-Complexity Johnny B is a well respected author of YEC articles for several other bastions of scientific knowledge like AIG and ICR.  :D

   
Quote
Bartlett, Jonathan.  2018.  “Intelligent Design and Its Place in the Creation Model.”  Creation Research Society Quarterly 54:48-56.

Bartlett, Jonathan.  2009.  “Towards a Creationary Classification of Mutations” Answers Research Journal 2:169-174.

Bartlett, Jonathan.  2008.  “Statistical and Philosophical Notions of Randomness in Creation Biology” Creation Research Society Quarterly 45(2):91-99.


ID is just loaded with sciency science scientists.  :D

Is creationary even a word?

  
stevestory



Posts: 12441
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2020,19:54   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Jan. 13 2020,18:28)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 13 2020,17:25)
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 13 2020,09:18)
Johnny B also runs the Blythe Institute, which is a very well-funded and productive organization that’s totally revolutionizing science.

Here is the homepage. Check that shit out.  :p  :p  :p

Wow.  So much sciency science.  :)  "Blythe Institute" looks like something Jonathan Bartlett runs out or his garage, or maybe his parents' basement.

Besides being editor at the prestigious science journal  BIO-Complexity Johnny B is a well respected author of YEC articles for several other bastions of scientific knowledge like AIG and ICR.  :D

     
Quote
Bartlett, Jonathan.  2018.  “Intelligent Design and Its Place in the Creation Model.”  Creation Research Society Quarterly 54:48-56.

Bartlett, Jonathan.  2009.  “Towards a Creationary Classification of Mutations” Answers Research Journal 2:169-174.

Bartlett, Jonathan.  2008.  “Statistical and Philosophical Notions of Randomness in Creation Biology” Creation Research Society Quarterly 45(2):91-99.


ID is just loaded with sciency science scientists.  :D

Is creationary even a word?

Somebody should ask him at UD how that project is going.

   
stevestory



Posts: 12441
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2020,12:58   

Quote
10
Ed George
January 14, 2020 at 12:53 pm
JB

Quote


I also don’t want this to be about gay marriage, but one thing I wanted to point out is that one of the outcomes of the gay marriage normalization is that teenagers no longer can have deep relationships which don’t risk turning sexual.


How has SSM changed this? There were always homosexuals, and there always will be. The only difference is that the stigma associated with same sex attraction has decreased. Surely that is a good thing.



linky.

Anti-gay people always act like the power of gayness is so strong that it can get you at any moment.  :p

   
stevestory



Posts: 12441
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2020,13:00   

It’s like an alcoholic who’s been sober for six months and sees a bottle of beer and gets scared.

   
stevestory



Posts: 12441
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2020,14:49   

Quote
11
Silver Asiatic
January 14, 2020 at 2:21 pm
EG

Quote


How has SSM changed this? There were always homosexuals, and there always will be. The only difference is that the stigma associated with same sex attraction has decreased. Surely that is a good thing.



The OP here is touching on several things that are relevant to your response.

First, it is focused on how a change in the environment is not limited to the thing directly changed. Just shifting to evolution for a moment, this is a key critique of evolutionary scenarios that attempt to be predictive. A change in one organism or species cause changes in the entire environment, not merely with the two competing species.

But back to SSM and society, acceptance of same-sex marriage is one direct change, but it also affects society in other ways.

First, a greater tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality changes attitudes among people, and eventually changes social relationships.
The article cited talks about how boys are having a more difficult time binding with friends. The authors fail to understand that this breakdown in friendships is caused by the public’s greater acceptance of homosexuality, and not from an opposition to it. They recommend more tolerance, but that’s exactly what’s causing boys to fail to bond.

Homosexuality is a violation of trust that must be inherent in the relationships among boys and men.

That’s the key point. It violates trust. If a close friendship between boys can become sexualized, then there is a danger. If there was no (or extremely limited) possibility of such a thing, there would be closer friendships. When I was a kid, there was virtually zero possibility of homosexuality among boys, and I grew up in a neighborhood of big families with lots of kids – we were constantly playing sports and games in groups of boys. “Gay” was not a term in our lexicon, and not just the term, but the concept did not register. There was a lot of trust.

But more to the point of the OP — you state that “the only difference” (pre-SSM to post-SSM) is that the stigma is gone. But the thing here is that we can’t restrict or limit the actual change that will occur when one part of the environment changes. Yes, we could say “the only difference for gay people” is that there is less stigma for them. Ok, but what about the rest of society?

A huge change would be a greater acceptance of SSM itself. When people are more willing to accept a concept that they previously rejected, then this changes their views on other things. The change may be positive or it may be negative.

The attitude of the public is not static.
We might say “there has always been hatred of gays, now however, more people are accepting so that the overall population of gay-opposition is reduced”.

But new generations are rising and growing up. They add to the numbers of either acceptance or opposition to homosexuality.

One area of research I like to look into on my own is the rise of ultra-right wing nationalism (alt right) among the young generations. At one time, this was something almost unheard of. Now, there are dozens of ‘neo-Nazi” (so to speak), fascist, nationalist, alt-right sites, videos and groups that attract thousands of teen and Gen Z participants.

In other words, it’s a huge reaction against moral liberalism, and SSM and gay rights are a very clear and visible target for these groups.

So, it’s not just a one-way street. For some people (myself included) acceptance of SSM is not a good thing.






I didn’t read any of this because it’s obvious what he’s doing. It’s BatShit’s technique where he knows he doesn’t have a good answer, so he just churns out a whole bunch of bullshit paragraphs hoping to look impressive.

   
Ptaylor



Posts: 1160
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2020,16:27   

The End-stage Darwinism thread provides some amusement (beyond the title, that is).
Martin_r hits us with this zinger:
   
Quote
the most absurd fact about evolutionary theory is, that this theory can’t explain the existence of the most abundant organism on Earth – the viruses.

As usual at UD, no one seems to consider that there is any onus at all for the theory of Intelligent Design to step in and provide an explanation, except Fasteddious, who has considered it:
   
Quote
One hypothesis suggests that after God started creating life, satan decided he was clever and could do the same. Given his penchant for destroying what God creates, took some bits of living cells and created viruses to attack them. Then God, bringing good from evil, changed some viruses into phages to attack the bacteria that cause diseases. OK, just a thought – entirely non-scientific, but hey, hypotheses begin as vague and novel thoughts…

So that’s an ID answer!
Linky

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 12441
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2020,17:09   

Quote (Ptaylor @ Jan. 14 2020,17:27)
The End-stage Darwinism thread provides some amusement (beyond the title, that is).
Martin_r hits us with this zinger:
   
Quote
the most absurd fact about evolutionary theory is, that this theory can’t explain the existence of the most abundant organism on Earth – the viruses.

As usual at UD, no one seems to consider that there is any onus at all for the theory of Intelligent Design to step in and provide an explanation, except Fasteddious, who has considered it:
   
Quote
One hypothesis suggests that after God started creating life, satan decided he was clever and could do the same. Given his penchant for destroying what God creates, took some bits of living cells and created viruses to attack them. Then God, bringing good from evil, changed some viruses into phages to attack the bacteria that cause diseases. OK, just a thought – entirely non-scientific, but hey, hypotheses begin as vague and novel thoughts…

So that’s an ID answer!
Linky

Wait, are we in end-stage Darwinism, or did Darwinism die five years ago?

   
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2660
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2020,17:51   

Edward Feser is now responding to people long banned at UD.

Linky

  
stevestory



Posts: 12441
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2020,18:06   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Jan. 14 2020,18:51)
Edward Feser is now responding to people long banned at UD.

Linky

Huh?

   
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2660
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2020,20:08   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 14 2020,18:06)
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Jan. 14 2020,18:51)
Edward Feser is now responding to people long banned at UD.

Linky

Huh?

Truthfreedom is Ed Feser.

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2660
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2020,20:09   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Jan. 14 2020,20:08)
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 14 2020,18:06)
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Jan. 14 2020,18:51)
Edward Feser is now responding to people long banned at UD.

Linky

Huh?

Truthfreedom is Ed Feser.

Brother Brian is on of my misplaced socks.

  
stevestory



Posts: 12441
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2020,20:11   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Jan. 14 2020,21:09)
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Jan. 14 2020,20:08)
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 14 2020,18:06)
 
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Jan. 14 2020,18:51)
Edward Feser is now responding to people long banned at UD.

Linky

Huh?

Truthfreedom is Ed Feser.

Brother Brian is on of my misplaced socks.

Oh. I totally missed TF being EF.

   
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2660
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2020,21:40   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 14 2020,20:11)
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Jan. 14 2020,21:09)
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Jan. 14 2020,20:08)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 14 2020,18:06)
 
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Jan. 14 2020,18:51)
Edward Feser is now responding to people long banned at UD.

Linky

Huh?

Truthfreedom is Ed Feser.

Brother Brian is on of my misplaced socks.

Oh. I totally missed TF being EF.

Clicking on the name takes you to his site.

  
stevestory



Posts: 12441
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2020,22:01   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Jan. 14 2020,22:40)
Clicking on the name takes you to his site.

For some reason the iPad is not showing me the name as a link so I didn’t notice it.

   
stevestory



Posts: 12441
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2020,22:05   

Silver Asiatic is a person of low character. he fits right in.

   
stevestory



Posts: 12441
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2020,05:02   

Quote
112
Sven Mil
January 15, 2020 at 12:19 am
Once again UB, you are deliberately twisting my words in order to push your own agenda. I have never said von Neumann was wrong, you’re just apparently in perpetual strawman-building mode (like many of your friends here).

What I have repeatedly said is that the machine analogy breaks down at the molecular level. The analogy works as a description of the basic parts in perfect self-replication, which at the time was quite an accomplishment.

Though, perfect self-replication is not what happens in biology.
Small variations occur, and biological systems are tolerant of these variations, in fact it is what evolution is built on.
Machines are not tolerant of this.

I believe von Neumann himself even predicted that biological systems could undergo mutations which would then be inherited and subsequently produce variability in offspring. In fact this is all in the Sydney Brenner series that you, yourself, initially posted here. Of course you have conveniently left that out.
(Just another example of your complete lack of trustworthiness)

Anyways, back to the problem at hand; which you were so quick to steer away from. The machine analogy (as well as all of your other terrible analogies) breaks down when extrapolating it to the level of molecular biology.
The transformation of information in cells occurs through physical interactions.
These physical interactions can come about via molecular evolution.
All of your analogies require an intelligence to make the initial association and/or make subsequent interpretations of the symbols.

The machine analogy fails.
All of your analogies fail.
linky

   
stevestory



Posts: 12441
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2020,08:56   

Quote
30
Ed George
January 15, 2020 at 8:37 am
SA

Quote


I’ll just quote ET’s response:



Never a sound strategy.


linky

   
stevestory



Posts: 12441
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2020,18:28   

Quote
6
Ed George
January 15, 2020 at 5:59 pm
BA77

Quote


Says the subjective experience of your mind in all its glory.

Moreover, who is this ‘you’ that ‘you’ keep referring to that gets his toe hurt? Remember, ‘you’ are an atheistic materialist. Ergo, ‘you’ do not exist!



Option 1: address the issue.
Option 2: declare the opposition as sub human and avoid addressing the issue.

Yup. That’s a strategy. A lame, moronic one, but still a strategy.


linky

   
stevestory



Posts: 12441
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2020,18:44   

Quote
53
Seversky
January 15, 2020 at 6:29 pm
Evolutionary materialism, if by that you mean the scientific theory of evolution in biology which treats the living world as physical phenomena, is neither nihilistic – it does not advocate any particular political ideology – nor is it amoral, except in the sense that it is a theory about what is that does not commit the naturalistic fallacy of trying to derive ought from is.

What surprises me is that ID/Creationists pretend that evolutionists or atheists are unable to form moral judgments. Although, thinking about it, I shouldn’t be. ID/Creationists have such a low opinion of humanity – even though it is supposed to be the pinnacle of God’s creation – that they think we cannot know moral from immoral unless God tells us. They would not know by themselves that it is wrong to kidnap, rape and murder a child unless God told them. Without that, apparently, if they saw something like that happening right before their eyes, they would just scratch their heads in bemusement and wonder what they should do.

What is even more alarming is that they hand over all responsibility for morals to their God. Whatever He says goes. Without question. Even though nowhere does He give any kind of detailed rationale for any of His moral edicts. So, if a Christian were convinced that their God had appeared to them and told them to sacrifice their child as a demonstration of their faith, they would do it. Without question. That’s not morality. That’s the Nazi defense of “I was just following orders”.

As for this laughable accusation that atheists are somehow “stealing” moral principles from Christians, it may come as surprise to you to learn that Christianity does not hold any copyright on them and did not originate all of them. The Golden Rule, for example, or its equivalent can be found in other faiths and cultures, some of which pre-date Christianity. Should we accuse Christians of appropriating that principle from other cultures and then claiming it as their own?

And before the inevitable accusations of Christian-bashing, let me say that I am certain that there are very many fine Christians who live the life exemplified by Jesus in the Bible. They work with the poor, the dispossessed, the homeless, the hopeless, the sick and the dying. They do so without much recognition or recompense and without complaint. It is a tragedy then that some of the most prominent so-called Christian figures here in the US have abandoned the principles of their faith in pursuit of wealth and political power. They excuse the bigotry, hypocrisy and corruption of those in power and utterly fail to hold them to the moral standards they claim to espouse. If the theory of evolution is tarnished by its association with the eugenics movement then how much more is US Christianity tarnished by its toleration of those who do not deserve it.

You are, of course, free to ignore the injunction against throwing stones unless you are without sin and attack evolution or materialism or atheism or agnosticism on moral grounds but, if you do so, expect to be answered in kind.


If you pay attention to the creationists, and a bunch of news stories, It’s easy to think that all Christians are dumb scumbags. I’ve known several Christians who were not scumbags, and demonstrably smarter than me, so I don’t think that. It’s worth reminding oneself every now and then, that Christianity is not fully represented by BatShit77, and others of that type, and there are plenty of Wesley Elsberrys and Fred Rogerses too.

   
Henry J



Posts: 5494
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2020,22:08   

Yep, the noisy ones are giving a bad rep to the whole group.

  
  13732 replies since Dec. 29 2013,11:01 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (458) < ... 446 447 448 449 450 [451] 452 453 454 455 456 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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