Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

Pages: (499) < ... 447 448 449 450 451 [452] 453 454 455 456 457 ... >

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5279 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2020,11:55    Looks like the scumbags at the DI have now decided indoctrinating children with their anti-science bullshit is the way to go,   Quote Dallas Conference Youth Track — Intelligent Design for Kids I know that my own children, who are of middle and high school ages, have a rather, shall we say, incomplete understanding of the theory of intelligent design. Why would that be, considering that their dad is immersed in the subject? Well, in part because the science is challenging and the books for the most part are not written with kids, even smart kids, in mind. Nor are many of the lectures and videos you can listen to or watch. Parents have brought this fact to our attention. So at last year’s Westminster Conference, in Philadelphia, we experimented with a separate youth track. It was such a wonderful success that we are doing the same thing at this month’s Dallas Conference on Science & Faith, January 25 in Denton, TX. Teleology Without Tears It will be led by Daniel Reeves, Educational Outreach Coordinator for the Center for Science & Culture. Biochemist Michael Behe, author most recently of Darwin Devolves, will offer a presentation. So will protein chemist Douglas Axe, author of Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed. Their topics: “One Big Question — What Intelligent Design Can and Can’t Answer” (Reeves) “Beyond ‘Survival of the Fittest’ — How Life Is Much More Beautiful” (Axe) “Darwin vs. the Borg — The Nanotechnology of Life” (Behe) The audience will learn, in a fun, humorous, interactive, and age-appropriate way, what intelligent design encompasses and what it doesn’t, what Darwinian fitness means and why it can’t explain the wonders of life, including the molecular machinery, unknown to Darwin himself, that points in its dramatic fashion to purpose — teleology — in biology. They will also learn what teleology means! The program is tailored for intermediate school students and high schoolers. Words can't adequately convey my anger and disgust at these child abusers.   -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

fnxtr Posts: 3428 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2020,12:38    Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 16 2020,09:55) Looks like the scumbags at the DI have now decided indoctrinating children with their anti-science bullshit is the way to go,   Quote Dallas Conference Youth Track — Intelligent Design for Kids I know that my own children, who are of middle and high school ages, have a rather, shall we say, incomplete understanding of the theory of intelligent design. Why would that be, considering that their dad is immersed in the subject? Well, in part because the science is challenging and the books for the most part are not written with kids, even smart kids, in mind. Nor are many of the lectures and videos you can listen to or watch. Parents have brought this fact to our attention. So at last year’s Westminster Conference, in Philadelphia, we experimented with a separate youth track. It was such a wonderful success that we are doing the same thing at this month’s Dallas Conference on Science & Faith, January 25 in Denton, TX. Teleology Without Tears It will be led by Daniel Reeves, Educational Outreach Coordinator for the Center for Science & Culture. Biochemist Michael Behe, author most recently of Darwin Devolves, will offer a presentation. So will protein chemist Douglas Axe, author of Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed. Their topics: “One Big Question — What Intelligent Design Can and Can’t Answer” (Reeves) “Beyond ‘Survival of the Fittest’ — How Life Is Much More Beautiful” (Axe) “Darwin vs. the Borg — The Nanotechnology of Life” (Behe) The audience will learn, in a fun, humorous, interactive, and age-appropriate way, what intelligent design encompasses and what it doesn’t, what Darwinian fitness means and why it can’t explain the wonders of life, including the molecular machinery, unknown to Darwin himself, that points in its dramatic fashion to purpose — teleology — in biology. They will also learn what teleology means! The program is tailored for intermediate school students and high schoolers. Words can't adequately convey my anger and disgust at these child abusers.   :angry: Perhaps an interpretive dance? -------------- "[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

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2020,12:55    Quote I know that my own children, who are of middle and high school ages, have a rather, shall we say, incomplete understanding of the theory of intelligent design. Why would that be, considering that their dad is immersed in the subject?   Well, given that was written by David Klinghoffer, it could be because their father is a Know-Nothing who knows nothing about science and whose background is in running election campaigns. More likely, though, it's because "God didit" isn't much of a scientific theory. Or, maybe the poor kids read a lot of Uncommon Descent and Evolution News. Or they could just be products of a Conservative Christian school. There are an awful lot of ways of getting something wrong.

Lou FCD Posts: 5434 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2020,14:34    It bears repeating that first and foremost, there is no Theory of Intelligent Design. -------------- Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound Work-friendly photography NSFW photography

Henry J Posts: 5658 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2020,16:09    I have a theory that if somebody is gonna design something, they ought to use intelligence when doing so.

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2020,16:49    Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 17 2020,14:34) It bears repeating that first and foremost, there is no Theory of Intelligent Design. You mean, "God didit." isn't the theory of Intelligent Design?

stevestory Posts: 13026 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2020,17:53    Baby born with 16 cm tail. Dang ol’ Common Design strikes again!

Cubist Posts: 547 Joined: Oct. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2020,20:56    Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 17 2020,16:49) Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 17 2020,14:34) It bears repeating that first and foremost, there is no Theory of Intelligent Design. You mean, "God didit." isn't the theory of Intelligent Design? Correct. The theory of Intelligent Design, as per the Discovery Institute, "holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Note what isn't part of that description: Nothing about what that "intelligent cause" did. Nothing about how the "intelligent cause" did… whatever it did. Nothing about why the "intelligent cause" felt it should do whatever it did. Nothing about the "intelligent cause" itself, other than the bare assertion that it was both intelligent, and a cause. In short: The theory of Intelligent Design holds that somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent did something.

fnxtr Posts: 3428 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2020,23:59    Quote (Cubist @ Jan. 17 2020,18:56) In short: The theory of Intelligent Design holds that somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent did something. That rules out the DI itself, then, dunnit? -------------- "[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: 13026 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2020,08:41

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2020,09:24    Happy Birthday to Michael Behe.

Ptaylor Posts: 1172 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2020,18:47    Speaking of people who have single handedly destroyed vast scientific enterprises, genius Nonlin has gone and posted a comment intended for his ’Divergence of Character’ Myth at TSZ over at UD on a thread about a scorpion fossil find. 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

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4960 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 18 2020,23:24    Quote (Ptaylor @ Jan. 18 2020,18:47) Speaking of people who have single handedly destroyed vast scientific enterprises, genius Nonlin has gone and posted a comment intended for his ’Divergence of Character’ Myth at TSZ over at UD on a thread about a scorpion fossil find. Linky His point #1:   Quote 1. ‘Regression to the mean’ is the biological law that overrules passive ‘Divergence of Character’ Some years ago, Diane was discussing dog breeding for field trial dogs, and was confused by someone claiming that she was behind in her understanding of that bedrock principle of genetics, "regression to the mean", which necessitated breeding to dogs with extreme versions of particular phenotypic traits just to keep the population somewhat near the desired level of performance associated with that trait. With just a little looking, I found that the reason that neither Diane nor I had much conversance with this concept was that it had its heyday well before the turn of the century -- 19th to 20th, that is. The founder of the main publication for North American field trials, "The American Field", was much enamored of Sir Francis Galton's views on genetics, including his "regression to the mean" ... and many stalwarts in this hobby haven't bothered to learn any more recent genetics. The thing about regression to the mean is that Galton's explicit mechanism for that happening is that parents only contribute 1/2 of an offspring's genetic material; the rest is due to a decreasing series, 1/2 of the half remaining for grandparents' genes, 1/2 of the remainder due to great-granparents, and so on. The basic view of how genetic transmission happens for "regression to the mean" to work is akin to homunculus theory rather than anything that modern genetics has found. There are certain characters contributed to by alleles at multiple loci whose effects may have inspired Galton's swing-and-a-miss at a mechanism, but those are not the whole of how genetics operates, and the whole "regression to the mean" thing is little more than a a couple of pages in Bowler's "Evolution: The History of an Idea": interesting to read about, but of no current utility in genetic analysis. It relies upon an entirely discredited notion of how genetic material is passed from generation to generation, among other faults. But, hey, at least "Nonlin" is using arguments that somewhat post-date Rev. William Paley, so I guess that can be considered progress. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

stevestory Posts: 13026 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2020,07:15    Quote Crime scene investigator Warner J. Wallace vs. Sagan’s Pale Blue Dot (insignificant Earth) Is it true that Earth is insignificant? What is the pattern of the evidence? Wallace investigates. Posted onJanuary 19, 2020 AuthorNews Comment(0) Thinking that programmers are better at biology than biologists is one thing, but this is ridiculous.

Bob O'H Posts: 2506 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2020,08:04    Quote There are certain characters contributed to by alleles at multiple loci whose effects may have inspired Galton's swing-and-a-miss at a mechanism, but those are not the whole of how genetics operates, and the whole "regression to the mean" thing is little more than a a couple of pages in Bowler's "Evolution: The History of an Idea": interesting to read about, but of no current utility in genetic analysis. It relies upon an entirely discredited notion of how genetic material is passed from generation to generation, among other faults. I haven't looked at the history of regression towards the mean for some years (IIRC Stigler wrote has a book chapter about it), but the way regression towards the mean is understood now, it's very relevant to genetics: it'll occur for any trait with <100% heritability. Extreme traits come about from both high genetic and environmental effects. So the offspring of an individual will have the high genetic effect but (on average) an average environmental effect. Thus they will be closer to the mean because they only inherit part of the extremeness of the trait. -------------- 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)

Dr.GH Posts: 2303 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2020,11:33    "But, hey, at least "Nonlin" is using arguments that somewhat post-date Rev. William Paley, so I guess that can be considered progress."

Bob O'H Posts: 2506 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2020,05:12    Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 19 2020,07:15) Quote Crime scene investigator Warner J. Wallace vs. Sagan’s Pale Blue Dot (insignificant Earth) Is it true that Earth is insignificant? What is the pattern of the evidence? Wallace investigates. Posted onJanuary 19, 2020 AuthorNews Comment(0) Thinking that programmers are better at biology than biologists is one thing, but this is ridiculous. As a statistician, I can answer this question with some authority. As less than one twentieth of the Earth is made up of peas, it is clear that p < 5%, so indeed the Earth is significant. Also note that pee < 5%. -------------- 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)

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5279 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2020,10:23    Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 20 2020,05:12)   Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 19 2020,07:15)     Quote Crime scene investigator Warner J. Wallace vs. Sagan’s Pale Blue Dot (insignificant Earth) Is it true that Earth is insignificant? What is the pattern of the evidence? Wallace investigates. Posted onJanuary 19, 2020 AuthorNews Comment(0) Thinking that programmers are better at biology than biologists is one thing, but this is ridiculous. As a statistician, I can answer this question with some authority. As less than one twentieth of the Earth is made up of peas, it is clear that p < 5%, so indeed the Earth is significant. The Earth also spins on its axis.  Hence the expression "support whirled peas"   -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

stevestory Posts: 13026 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2020,15:30    Quote Aesthetics, Art, Beauty And Mind Defending Our Civilization Logic And First Principles Of Right Reason Philosophy Rocks Have No Dreams (But Minds Contemplate) Thoughts on the soul In the recent discussion on causation, I noted: KF, 72: >>As I think about cause, I am led to ponder a current discussion that echoes Plato on the self-moved, ensouled agent with genuine freedom. Without endorsing wider context, John C Wright draws out a key point that we may ponder as a nugget drawn fromRead More… Posted onJanuary 21, 2020 Authorkairosfocus Comment(1) totally not creationism. 100% science.

Acartia_Bogart Posts: 2800 Joined: Sep. 2014 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2020,17:21    Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 21 2020,15:30) Quote Aesthetics, Art, Beauty And Mind Defending Our Civilization Logic And First Principles Of Right Reason Philosophy Rocks Have No Dreams (But Minds Contemplate) Thoughts on the soul In the recent discussion on causation, I noted: KF, 72: >>As I think about cause, I am led to ponder a current discussion that echoes Plato on the self-moved, ensouled agent with genuine freedom. Without endorsing wider context, John C Wright draws out a key point that we may ponder as a nugget drawn fromRead More… Posted onJanuary 21, 2020 Authorkairosfocus Comment(1) totally not creationism. 100% science. Is there anything that doesn’t remind him of Plato?

fnxtr Posts: 3428 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2020,19:42    Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Jan. 21 2020,15:21) Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 21 2020,15:30)   Quote Aesthetics, Art, Beauty And Mind Defending Our Civilization Logic And First Principles Of Right Reason Philosophy Rocks Have No Dreams (But Minds Contemplate) Thoughts on the soul In the recent discussion on causation, I noted: KF, 72: >>As I think about cause, I am led to ponder a current discussion that echoes Plato on the self-moved, ensouled agent with genuine freedom. Without endorsing wider context, John C Wright draws out a key point that we may ponder as a nugget drawn fromRead More… Posted onJanuary 21, 2020 Authorkairosfocus Comment(1) totally not creationism. 100% science. Is there anything that doesn’t remind him of Plato? ... aaand here's a little something for KF. -------------- "[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: 13026 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2020,19:48    Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 21 2020,20:42) Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Jan. 21 2020,15:21)   Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 21 2020,15:30)   Quote Aesthetics, Art, Beauty And Mind Defending Our Civilization Logic And First Principles Of Right Reason Philosophy Rocks Have No Dreams (But Minds Contemplate) Thoughts on the soul In the recent discussion on causation, I noted: KF, 72: >>As I think about cause, I am led to ponder a current discussion that echoes Plato on the self-moved, ensouled agent with genuine freedom. Without endorsing wider context, John C Wright draws out a key point that we may ponder as a nugget drawn fromRead More… Posted onJanuary 21, 2020 Authorkairosfocus Comment(1) totally not creationism. 100% science. Is there anything that doesn’t remind him of Plato? ... aaand here's a little something for KF. I was going to say something about that, but I didn’t because I’m not a Plato expert. There are multiple passages where Plato seems to think that man on man action is awesome, but there’s one or two where he seems to say it’s terrible. But he also thought that heterosexual sex was not good and should be kept to a minimum.

stevestory Posts: 13026 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2020,08:27    Quote 2 Ed George January 21, 2020 at 8:50 pm Quote Plato and Same-Sex Sexuality Plato is perhaps the most significant and influential philosopher in the Western tradition. He lived from c. 428-347 B.C.E. and was a student of Socrates and teacher of Aristotle. At one time Plato wrote that the best relationship would be an erotically charged relationship between men, though he believed the highest relationship would not involve actual sexual contact. It is from this ideal that we get the term platonic relationship. However today a platonic relationship refers to a completely non-sexual relationship. Despite Plato’s assertion that an erotically charged but sexually unconsummated relationship was best, he does have Socrates say in the Phaedrus, that pairs of lovers, eromenoi (lover) and erastoi (beloved) could reach heaven even if they did take part in “that desire of their hearts which to many is bliss” (Crompton, 2003, p. 60-61). Crompton (2011) stated that in general “Plato’s dialogues are suffused with a homoerotic ambience” (p. 1). However, in Plato’s last work, the Laws [A1], he seems to take the opposite view (Hubbard, 2003, p. 9). In that work, Plato refers to heterosexual intercourse as “natural” and same-sex sex between women and men as “unnatural” (Jowett, 1937, 636, p. 418). Plato also writes of the origin of same and opposite sex urges. In his Symposium, Plato has Aristophanes tell a tale of human origins in which everyone was once a four legged creature until Zeus cut each in half. Each half tried to reunite with its mate and this explains the nature of human beings: Men who are a section of that double nature which was once called androgynous [made up of a man and a woman] are lovers of women, adulterers are generally of this breed, and also adulterous women who lust after men. The women who are a section of the woman do not care for men, but have female attachments: the female companions [that is, lesbians] are of this sort. But they who are a section of the male follow the male, and while they are young, being slices of the original man, they have affection for men and embrace them [the Greek verb implies a sexual sense], and these are the best of boys and youths, because they have the most manly nature. [bracketed material in Crompton] (Crompton, 2003, p. 58). This passage is an unusual celebration of male same-sex desire by contemporary Western standards. Plato is explicitly linking manliness not with heterosexual desire but with homosexual desire. So then Kairosfocus babbles about how that was because the Greeks didn’t have Jesus, then BatShit spends 3,939 words about how quantum mechanics proves god. linky

Henry J Posts: 5658 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2020,13:49    So, something that's done by only around 10% of the population is "unnatural"? I've read that lots of other species have a similar percentage.

stevestory Posts: 13026 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2020,14:04    Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 22 2020,14:49) So, something that's done by only around 10% of the population is "unnatural"? I've read that lots of other species have a similar percentage. Unnatural is a word like supernatural. Everybody thinks they know what it means, but if you try to define it it starts getting weird.

Bob O'H Posts: 2506 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2020,06:01    Over on "At Times Higher: Is Defending Expertise Worthwhile These Days?", AaronS1978 observes Quote It is absurd stuff like this that gives fuel to anti-science and war on science myth -------------- 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: 13026 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2020,07:58    Jordan Peterson and Cultural Darwinism Ugh.

stevestory Posts: 13026 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2020,21:17    Quote 5 Seversky January 23, 2020 at 8:59 pm What is ironic is that Paleyists are bitterly critical of the “dog eat dog” evolutionary model of biological diversity yet will defend exactly the same model of “survival of the fittest” in capitalist economics just as vehemently. linky

stevestory Posts: 13026 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2020,08:35    Quote Even sperm are “fine-tuned”? What now, Darwin? Yeah, what now, Darwin, you stupid-head! linky

stevestory Posts: 13026 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2020,08:42

Pages: (499) < ... 447 448 449 450 451 [452] 453 454 455 456 457 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard