RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < ... 361 362 363 364 365 [366] 367 368 369 370 371 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Cedric Katesby



Posts: 55
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,07:57   

Oh goody! A thread for Avocationist has been set up.
(Thanks Louis)
Let the games commence. (waits patiently) :)

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,08:03   

they are just too funny, had to quote these in full
GilDodgen:
Quote

The bottom line is that Darwinism is a 19th-century, puerile, ill-supported, futile attempt to explain away design in nature — especially in living systems, although it is now applied to almost everything from cosmology to psychology — that stares every reasonable person in the face. Materialistic philosophy and its creation myth have been embraced by many (perhaps most) members of the academy simply because this philosophy supports a cultural consensus that design simply cannot exist by definition.

The implications of purpose and design in nature would totally shatter the lives of those who have invested everything in denying the obvious. Thus, ludicrous conclusions must be defended by any means available.

well, i'm waiting for my worldview to be shattered. I suspect i'll be waiting a long long time.
Then Bourne adds:
Quote


“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 - 1860)

Right now then, ID is in phase 2.
Phase 3 is “just around the corner”.

hahahah, yes, the corner of an infinitely big cube perhaps (for the IDer's out there, i'm implying that it'll never happen).
Janice:
Quote
If you look here you will find, in reasonable detail, a list of reasons why God designed the vertebrate eye with the rods and cones facing away from the light source. They boil down to, “so that we don’t go blind soon after birth”.

ahh, it's all clear now. What a nice gawd gawd must be to think of us like that! now, why did he do it the other way round in some cases (and yet no after-birth blindness is apparent? Explain that IDiots).

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,09:44   

A quick search on medline pulled up a bunch on soft selection, too, e.g.:

Garcia-Dorado A, Martin P, Garcia N.  Soft selection and quantitative genetic variation: a laboratory experiment. Heredity. 1991 Jun;66 ( Pt 3):313-23
Chao L, Hanley KA, Burch CL, Dahlberg C, Turner PE.  Kin selection and parasite evolution: higher and lower virulence with hard and soft selection. Q Rev Biol. 2000 Sep;75(3):261-75.
Spichtig M, Kawecki TJ. The maintenance (or not) of polygenic variation by soft selection in heterogeneous environments. Am Nat. 2004 Jul;164(1):70-84.

DaveTard's getting lazier as the cheesy poofs continue  to clog his synapses.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,11:12   

PT takes up the fire analogy..

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/01/confusion_by_de.html

FAO Dr. GH

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,13:18   

Quote
“Poetry in the Genetic Code” — does this mean that Natural Selection is now a poet?

The latest garbage over at UD is on their Junk DNA fixation. http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1983#more-1983

So, here are some questions that anybody who as a working account at UD is welcome to post

a) What does this, specifically, have to do with Intelligent design?
b) When did ID predict this result? What further predictions can ID make along these lines (apart from "doh, junk DNA baint Junk DNA).
c) Do the researchers agress with the ID spin?
d) Have the researchers been asked for comment in relation to ID on their work??
e) Will the Biologic lab be following up on these results?
f) Does Michael M. Gottesman, M.D. support ID?
g) Does the Laboratory of Cell Biology at the NCR have a position on ID?
h) Will ID ever stop pirating other peoples work for the front page of their blogs? I.E DO SOME SCIENCE RE-TREADS.
The comments are IDiot classics:
Quote

IT takes great faith to believe that this type of elegance and sophistication at that level is the result of an unguided process. No wonder that materialists don’t want the design hypothesis to even be considered in public schools.

Quote
BTW, proof of “evolution” doesn’t carry much meaning around here. If you mean “proof for change”, then sure, it is. If you mean “proof for macroevolutionary, bacteria-to-baboons change”, then no, it was a built-in genetic engineering response to input.

oHH, a "built-in genetic engineering response to input" - would anybody from the ID camp care to explain this? After all, terms like "built-in" "generic engineering" "response to input" sound very amenable to a rigorous analysis and they could get get a peer reviewed paper out of this yet! The best is from shaner74:  
Quote
How can you adhere to materialism with findings like this?
shaner74 - I suspect you do not even begin to understand what's the article is about. After all, if the people who did the research (NOT ID PEOPLE) are not convinced by the work that you say  makes it unbelieveable how people can still "adhere to materialism" then how will anybody else be? IDiots, do you hear what I am saying? NOBODY BUT YOU takes away that spin on this, you believe already and yet express amazement that people still do not. True IDiots. Keep up the armchair research! Why not apply to work in a lab, or are some qualifications lacking prehaps? hmm.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,13:28   

Cross post from :

http://www.blogger.com/publish....od=true

Okay.

A pegasus would falsify NDE because two very different branches fo the photogenic / morphological tree would strangely converge.

Whatever you think would falsify ID let me get my reply in early be saying, "No, an omnipotent supernatural entity could have made it that way and it would be beyond the remit of science for us to know"

Your comment selection is shameful, BTW.

When I said that psychics, mediums and astrologers have the same issues with MN, I was correct. If you think that makes you look bad, that's ironic, because that would be INDUCTION.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,13:36   

Bonus points cross post:

Quote
side note:

When you said "I DON'T GET YOU JEREMY....NEVER WILL" it was bad inductive reasoning. If you'd used empirical falsification you might have gotten "I DON'T GET YOU JEREMY....BUT PERHAPS ONEDAY I MIGHT, BECAUSE OPEN SCIENCE IS STRUCTURED THAT WAY"

This message was brought to you by NDE.


--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,14:24   

And the reply:

http://www.blogger.com/publish....od=true

Quote
aka...Forthekids said...
Good grief, Rich, go back to your buddies at AE. You're right, I'm rejecting the rest of your comments because they're empty. You have no interest in dialogue whatsoever.

Go hang out with the rest of your little friends in the playpen.

11:57 AM



I'm pleased I cross-posted now.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,14:32   

More Tard from Atom:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1981#comment-86754



Quote
The creator of a structure is what decides its inherent purpose. If a blind process created us, we have no real purpose, only the “illusion” of purpose.


*looks at stapler being used as a paperweight on my desk*
Its the authoritative tone that tickles me.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,15:14   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 20 2007,18:15)
bFast 01/20/2007 3:50 pm      
Quote
As far as I am conserned the whole “sexual selection” hypothesis totally collapses in light of reality.
I am the adoptive father of two girls who are the product of an FAS, mentally handicapped mother. She seems to breed like a rabbit. She has no trouble finding another partner. I, on the other hand, a fellow with a good career and above average intelligence was not able to establish a solid romantic relationship until I was 40. Watching those that are low on the evolutionary totem pole breed like rabbits (and my daughters’ birth-mother is surely not the only one) has caused me to conclude that this theory is, well, full of it.


Okay, so what did we learn here?

(1) bFast adopted two kids...that's great, noble, A Good Thing ( unless bFast manages to stunt their intellectual growth to equal his).
 
(2) bFast thinks that HUMAN sexual selection means that the "mentally handicapped" (undefined in his example) are LESS likely to find willing casual sex partners. This is beyond ignorant.

Conversely, bFast is stating that "sexual selection" means males prefer increasingly intelligent women to have sex with.

By his reasoning, males shouldn't be lusting after Playboy models, but instead seeking out and avidly competing for Rhodes scholars. Like Pamela Anderson, Paris Hilton, Brittany Spears, or Lindsay Lohan --just to cite some current "sex goddesses?"

Or for a man of bFast's age...maybe he DIDN'T really lust after those hot babes of the 1970's and '80's -- he really wanted a tryst with Golda Meir and Madeleine Albright  

(3) bFast thinks that the less intelligent are " low on the evolutionary totem pole." in HUMAN societies, at THIS time in history.

This statement is more a reflection of bFast's own bitter, biased, ego-centric views than an honest appraisal of sexual selection. I have no real idea of the extent to which his adopted children's mother is "mentally handicapped" or how bFast is ignoring the historical, biological and social science data that downplays the role of female intelligence in MALE sexual selection. I do know, however, that  bFast is guilty of the worst sort of twisting and perversion of selection theory, game theory, human psychology, etc.

I have a very good idea of why you couldn't find a relationship up to your forties, bFast.

Note also that Bruce Fast - an IT technician - considers himslef of above-average intelligence.

I have a read a number of his writings on UD and elsewhere, and frankly, I don't see it.  I see the typical 'I know evolution is wrong, therefore, ID must be right, and anything that I can misinterpret to prop up my position, I will do' schtick.

These people do have one thing in common - an overblown sense of self-importance.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,15:35   

DaveScot:    
Quote
At any rate, I thought I’d solve Haldane’s Dilemma too so I proposed that beneficial genes are spread through a population by kissing. I didn’t yet outline how it works by kissing (I was saving that for my forthcoming book “How I Solved Haldane’s Dilemma”) but since you mentioned the mechanism I might as well ‘fess up. A virus that implants the beneficial gene is passed during the kiss.


 
Quote
passed during the kiss

Quote
passed during the kiss



--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,15:55   

What a tard show.  Our AFDave is up to 14 pages already, had his a$$ handed to him since page 3 (or earlier actually) and tries to deny everything.

Another "Portuguese Moment" is in progress.

http://richarddawkins.net/forum....art=260

Thank You ericmurphy, Faid, OA, Ved, and many others for continuing to eviscerate AFDave.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,17:56   

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 21 2007,22:26)
GCT,
Quote
Having previously dealt with Avocationist and her evasive tactics and lies, I don't want this thread to get bogged down with that carp.
You know, GCT, you've chosen just the right avatar.

Anyone can go back to your previous thread and look at the lies you made, and how I documented them.  Don't bother trying to deny it.  Now, go play in your own thread and only use this one for its stated purpose.

  
phonon



Posts: 396
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,18:14   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 22 2007,14:32)
More Tard from Atom:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1981#comment-86754



   
Quote
The creator of a structure is what decides its inherent purpose. If a blind process created us, we have no real purpose, only the “illusion” of purpose.


*looks at stapler being used as a paperweight on my desk*
Its the authoritative tone that tickles me.

I think the term "inherent" is the problem here. Sure, the inherent purpose of a stapler is to be played by Rob Schneider in a movie called The Stapler, but it could be used for other functions.

There is this huge problem with ID and language. I think it comes from their previous battles in politics (and that's all ID boils down to, a political battle). By using the English language to swerve and argument subtly one way or the other, the debater can seemingly "win" an argument, or at least successfully preach to the choir, or even convince the gullible.

For instance, the term "Junk" DNA never meant "garbage" DNA, complete refuse. It mean junk. When I go to a auto junk yard, I can pick up spare parts and reuse them. Or there could be a junk drawer at someone's house. Well, you don't keep waste and refuse in a drawer, but you do keep junk. There was an excellent post about antifreeze proteins recently on Panda's Thumb where this sort of thing was addressed. But the IDers pounced on the term junk DNA and declared that the people who coined the term obviously meant refuse or waste DNA.

So, when a biologist publishes his/her work and includes terms like "design" or "purpose" the IDers will inevitably pick up on it and use it in their political game.

I'm not saying that biologists should choose their words simply to thwart IDers and other creationists, but I just wish that people weren't so stupid and easily convinced by dumb things based on simple language manipulation.Maybe I could wish and pray (and pray and pray) but it won't happen in my lifetime. I guess that sort of thing is just not an act of god.

--------------
With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

To do just the opposite is also a form of imitation. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,18:22   

Quote (phonon @ Jan. 22 2007,18:14)
There is this huge problem with ID and language. I think it comes from their previous battles in politics (and that's all ID boils down to, a political battle). By using the English language to swerve and argument subtly one way or the other, the debater can seemingly "win" an argument, or at least successfully preach to the choir, or even convince the gullible.

The word for that is, I believe, "propaganda".

The fundies have been studying their Frank Luntz.

(And anyone who doesn't know who "Frank Luntz" is, should immediately go to Google and enter that name.)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,19:20   

Quote (phonon @ Jan. 22 2007,18:14)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 22 2007,14:32)
More Tard from Atom:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1981#comment-86754



   
Quote
The creator of a structure is what decides its inherent purpose. If a blind process created us, we have no real purpose, only the “illusion” of purpose.


*looks at stapler being used as a paperweight on my desk*
Its the authoritative tone that tickles me.

I think the term "inherent" is the problem here. Sure, the inherent purpose of a stapler is to be played by Rob Schneider in a movie called The Stapler, but it could be used for other functions.

There is this huge problem with ID and language. I think it comes from their previous battles in politics (and that's all ID boils down to, a political battle). By using the English language to swerve and argument subtly one way or the other, the debater can seemingly "win" an argument, or at least successfully preach to the choir, or even convince the gullible.


For instance, the term "Junk" DNA never meant "garbage" DNA, complete refuse. It mean junk. When I go to a auto junk yard, I can pick up spare parts and reuse them. Or there could be a junk drawer at someone's house. Well, you don't keep waste and refuse in a drawer, but you do keep junk. There was an excellent post about antifreeze proteins recently on Panda's Thumb where this sort of thing was addressed. But the IDers pounced on the term junk DNA and declared that the people who coined the term obviously meant refuse or waste DNA.

So, when a biologist publishes his/her work and includes terms like "design" or "purpose" the IDers will inevitably pick up on it and use it in their political game.

I'm not saying that biologists should choose their words simply to thwart IDers and other creationists, but I just wish that people weren't so stupid and easily convinced by dumb things based on simple language manipulation.Maybe I could wish and pray (and pray and pray) but it won't happen in my lifetime. I guess that sort of thing is just not an act of god.

Yup...it's called spin.

AFD /Hovind/GWB are perfect examples, they know their reality is false but it only causes them to argue more in the vain hope that that alone; that being the last man standing will be proof in itself alone.

AFD let it slip that he was pretending his hypothetical reality was real, check out Hovind's red face caught out by Ali G and GWB's weak performance lately now that he has decided to be 'honest' with the people. GWB looks like a deer caught in headlights now that his stock in trade, his 100% pure bullsh*t has no currency.
Even he knows that every time he opens his mouth all that comes out are lies, he doesn't even convince himself.

The adopted persona by the IDists that of the open minded, polite and non-judgemental(as well as white middle class, well dressed, well connected, church going, religious and political conservative ,who never has sex before marriage and doesn't do drugs.... typical fascist profile etc etc etc) honest debater

Their whole facade crumbles when they finally let their guard slip on one or other point on the web of deceit.

You can fool some of the people...etc etc.

The only ones left are the rusted on  29% fundy backwash they will never change.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,19:32   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 22 2007,18:22)
Quote (phonon @ Jan. 22 2007,18:14)
There is this huge problem with ID and language. I think it comes from their previous battles in politics (and that's all ID boils down to, a political battle). By using the English language to swerve and argument subtly one way or the other, the debater can seemingly "win" an argument, or at least successfully preach to the choir, or even convince the gullible.

The word for that is, I believe, "propaganda".

The fundies have been studying their Frank Luntz.

(And anyone who doesn't know who "Frank Luntz" is, should immediately go to Google and enter that name.)

Yup 'Frank Luntz' the man who 'loves' George Orwell

....not because he was a lefty anti-facist who distrusted language itself because of its power to control the masses via the media...just the opposite in fact.

Frank Luntz seems to have given Obama his imprimatur for some reason, that almost makes me paranoid. Why would a died in the wool GOP apparatchik tip his hat to his natural enemy, in the hope that it divides the ememy?

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,21:00   

Quote (k.e @ Jan. 22 2007,19:32)
Frank Luntz seems to have given Obama his imprimatur for some reason, that almost makes me paranoid. Why would a died in the wool GOP apparatchik tip his hat to his natural enemy, in the hope that it divides the ememy?


The Repugs are PRAYING that either Hillary or Obama get the nomination.

In our benighted "democracy", neither a black man nor a white woman has a snowball's chance in #### of being elected President.

It's the only chance the Republicrats have in 2008 -- the only possibility they have of overcoming the anvil that Chimpy has tied around their necks.

The Democans, after all, are pretty good at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.



-edit-   I *hope* I'm wrong about that.  I really do.  But I don't think I am.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,22:02   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 22 2007,21:00)
Quote (k.e @ Jan. 22 2007,19:32)
Frank Luntz seems to have given Obama his imprimatur for some reason, that almost makes me paranoid. Why would a died in the wool GOP apparatchik tip his hat to his natural enemy, in the hope that it divides the ememy?


The Repugs are PRAYING that either Hillary or Obama get the nomination.

In our benighted "democracy", neither a black man nor a white woman has a snowball's chance in #### of being elected President.

It's the only chance the Republicrats have in 2008 -- the only possibility they have of overcoming the anvil that Chimpy has tied around their necks.

The Democans, after all, are pretty good at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.



-edit-   I *hope* I'm wrong about that.  I really do.  But I don't think I am.

Hmmmm ....I suspected as much.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,22:11   

*Aaa-chooo!* Oh, excuse me, UD. Actually I'm not contagious (in fact, I don't even have a cold, just a fever, but you know I like to be dramatic). Did you UDudes miss me?  :)

*Crack of thunder* No.

Geez, thanks all the same, Bill. But did someone mention poetry?
Quote
These punctuations in the RNA-to-protein translation process have unexpected consequences: They can change the timing by which nascent proteins fold as they elongate and peel away from ribosomes. This means that two stretches of mRNA that differ only in synonymous codons can translate into two proteins that have identical amino acid sequences but different three-dimensional shapes. Such differences can convey important, even grave, biological and medical meanings. It’s akin to the way the same hand can fold into an affirming thumbs-up gesture or into a shape involving the middle finger that conveys another sentiment altogether.

Now that's romantic. You give me feev-ahh! But I really think this is more of a Gertrude Stein "As a wife has a cow a love story" poem rather than "My love is a red, red nose" kind of poem. Which isn't going to rouse the OE kiddies much. ("Gertrude who?")

Oh. Rose. *Cough* :p

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,23:39   

Barry A puts the tard-pedal to the metal.

Shorter Barry A: According to the Evilootionary Nachuralists, arrowheads weren't caused by no Injuns of the Gaps, they'z caused by materialistic causes.

   
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,23:58   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 22 2007,23:39)
Barry A puts the tard-pedal to the metal.

Shorter Barry A: According to the Evilootionary Nachuralists, arrowheads weren't caused by no Injuns of the Gaps, they'z caused by materialistic causes.

Don't ya just love it when they finally lose it and forget the god lie is a lie and think it IS reality.

Remember the mantra Barry

inside head"They think g$d is a lie and g$d didn't create the material world with his immaterial finger"

outside head"G$d is a true and g$d  created the material world with his immaterial finger"

....NOT

inside head"I think g$d is a lie and g$d didn't create the material world with his immaterial finger"

outside head" The world is immaterial or a lie and g$d touched me with his material finger"


.....is that a Portuguese moment?

The Noble Lie demoted to a simple mistruth.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,00:21   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 22 2007,23:39)
Barry A puts the tard-pedal to the metal.

Shorter Barry A: According to the Evilootionary Nachuralists, arrowheads weren't caused by no Injuns of the Gaps, they'z caused by materialistic causes.

An other hand-waving free, science-laden post from the research team at the UD labs.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,00:33   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 22 2007,23:39)
Barry A puts the tard-pedal to the metal.

Shorter Barry A: According to the Evilootionary Nachuralists, arrowheads weren't caused by no Injuns of the Gaps, they'z caused by materialistic causes.

"God of the Gap-toothed" is starting to feel right.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,03:52   

Haha, so Barry's grandfather saw "patterns" in the stones? Or was that what Barry thought?

"Hey Gramps, here's another one!"

"Lemme see, Barry my boy... Nope, sorry, it's just a rock"

"What? But the pattern is just right! it's triangular and pointy and stuff!"

"No no no, Barry, all kinds of rocks can be that way. It's good to pick them up that way first, but then you have to look for signs of craftmanship by the hunter- see? serrated edges chipped out, with little cresent marks from his strokes, here... then the sides smoothed out with a harder stone- see the grinding marks? Then, if you're lucky, a crease carved in the back..."

"No way gramps, that's speculating on the designer and how he made them, it's not design detection!"

"...whaaa?"

"I'm sure some day a brave scientist will come along, and invent a way to detect design at once- maybe even measure it! And then you will look at a rock and say 'hey presto! designed!"

"..."

"And then everyone will see my rocks for the beautiful arrowheads that they are!"

"...When do you start Law School, son? Because Archaeology sure ain't your thing".

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,06:41   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 22 2007,23:39)
Barry A puts the tard-pedal to the metal.

Shorter Barry A: According to the Evilootionary Nachuralists, arrowheads weren't caused by no Injuns of the Gaps, they'z caused by materialistic causes.

Ok. That's a joke? Someone infiltrated Uncommon Descent and is poking fun at them, right?

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

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,06:48   

BarryA starts to come around:

B:  "Wow Grandpa, you're saying that some Injuns designed and made these things?"

G: "No.  They clearly display design, and I am an expert in detecting design. But I am not saying there was a designer."

B: "Grandpa, but who made them?  Do you think it was just one tribe, two, or even more?"

G: "We don't speculate on who made them.  I can reliably detect design, but can't say anything about a designer, or whether there were two designers."

B: "Wha...Ok.  Wow, Grandpa, but when were they made? Can we tell if they were made last week?  Or maybe thousands of years ago.  That would be COOL!"

G: "I see design.  And they could have been designed last week, and they could have been designed thousands of years ago. My design expertise doesn't give me any way to tell."

B: "Ok Grandpa. But wow!  Wouldn't it be cool if we could find out about the Injuns?  Where did they live?  If we could figure out where they lived, and what they were doing with these pointy things, we would know where to look for more, and how deep to dig!"

G: "Grandson, you just aren't listening. I am not saying there were Injuns, or anything about a designer.  I am saying they clearly display design, which I can prove mathematically, but we can't say anything about a designer."

B: "Grandpa, wouldn't it be cool if we looked at the pointy things and figured out how they were made?  I wonder if they were all made the same way?  Does it take a long time, or can they make one right away?"

G: "These objects absolutely reflect design.  Any idiot can see that.  But you have to understand that we can't say anything about a designer, or even that there was a designer, or two designers, or when they designed, or how they turned the design into a real thing, or why they were designed, or anything else. I am only interested in detecting the design they display."

B: "But Grandpa, I'll bet we can figure out SOMETHING about the pointy things that would tell us if they are old or not, or something about the designer, or how they made them, or when, or why.  WHY won't you think about that?"

G: "Grandson, that's the last bit of idiocy I'm going to hear from you.  Hasta la vista Baby!" (Grandpa smacks the shit out of his insolent grandson, and permanently terminates their relationship).

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,09:53   

IDist  
Quote
By the standards of evolutionists Richard Dawkins is not even a scientist as he didn’t didn’t publish in any peer-reviewed journal

Google Scholar lists more than two hundred cites for a "Richard Dawkins", including the journals Nature, Evolution, Philosophy, Science, Animal Behaviour, Behavioural Ecology and Artificial Life; plus books in the Oxford University Press and the Cambridge University Press.

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

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,10:10   

Go, Barry.  

Now how was it that you didn't identify cattle bones as having been made by native peoples?  How could you possibly mistake a cow's jaw, which is far more complex than any old arrowhead, as being due to natural causes, rather than as having been designed by the most intelligent organisms observed to date?

And by the way, what is complex about an arrowhead anyway?  I realize that the fracture patterns are indeed complex, but that is simply an artifact of the production method, not "specified complexity".  Indeed, complex stones are worked into relatively simple shapes when arrowheads are made.  

Tell us about this "design detection method" again that Dembski has revealed.  I'd like to know how it can be used to distinguish the many apparent points and blades from the genuine ones, as well as how it differentiates between humans knapping stones and designers who apparently use genetic algorithms and repeated iterations in order to design organisms.

Glen D

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,10:32   

Another crosspost from 'Reasonale kansans' that may not see the light of day:

Quote
You've conflated ID, "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" with biomimetics, which *is* real science. ID just offers design detection, except it doesn't as no one has ever done it. Oooh look ma, its full of CSI.

many people of faith have no problem with NDE:

http://www.ncseweb.org/resourc....002.asp

"Well, the truth is that I don’t sensor people who I believe are truthfully interested in constructive dialogue" - so you know the outcome before the dialogue. WOW. No wonder you can see design. My I advocate post them all, and let rational minds decide, rather than the usual creationist just post the ones that don't make me look bad?

Rich


--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < ... 361 362 363 364 365 [366] 367 368 369 370 371 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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