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 2

Pages: (500) < ... 57 58 59 60 61 [62] 63 64 65 66 67 ... >

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 17 2008,13:23    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 17 2008,07:00) I suspect it means Ken Miller will be invited, but not Richard Dawkins. Wait and see, I guess. Call me crazy as an ID theorist, but I'm taking a wild-ass guess that PZ is on the Do Not Invite List also... -------------- Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10 Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08 UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 17 2008,13:26    Quote (Kristine @ Sep. 17 2008,09:05) Quote (sparc @ Sep. 16 2008,22:17) afarensis         Quote Vatican Event to Exclude Intelligent Design Didn't you read the rest?         Quote Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, president of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the other extreme of the evolution debate -- proponents of an overly scientific conception of evolution and natural selection -- also were not invited. IMO the RCC holds just another ID position which differs from evangelical ID-creationists in two ways: - rather then proclaiming design as the creation mechanism the RCC remains unclear about the mechanisms involved - instead of refusing to name the designer in public the RCC is absolutely clear about his identity "Overly scientific"? What's that?  :)  Can I get some in liquid form? Maybe it'll change me back into human form.  :p Well, welcome back girl-friend!   So... You think you can just come belly-dancing back here, make a comment post like nothing happened, and  then just sashay off into the intertubes again, without 'splainin' where you been?  What you been doing??? And I thought we meant something to each other... -------------- Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10 Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08 UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 17 2008,14:57    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 17 2008,07:00)   Quote (sparc @ Sep. 16 2008,22:17) afarensis           Quote Vatican Event to Exclude Intelligent Design Didn't you read the rest?           Quote Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, president of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the other extreme of the evolution debate -- proponents of an overly scientific conception of evolution and natural selection -- also were not invited. IMO the RCC holds just another ID position which differs from evangelical ID-creationists in two ways: - rather then proclaiming design as the creation mechanism the RCC remains unclear about the mechanisms involved - instead of refusing to name the designer in public the RCC is absolutely clear about his identity It will be interesting to see who is invited (or not), so that we can get a better idea what the Vatican means by that description "overly scientific"... I suspect it means Ken Miller will be invited, but not Richard Dawkins. Wait and see, I guess. This is just a guess and nothing more. I reckon "overly scientific"=anti religious. Until the invites go out I can think of nothing to make a reasonable calculation/judgment about, so my opinion is nothing but that (an opinion).

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 17 2008,18:01    DaveScot reports on the mental health of Republicans vs. Democrats:           Quote Crazy to be Republican? Hardly… DaveScot I’ve been reading a lot of claims about how it’s batsht crazy to support Governor Palin for VP. Yet she managed to enchant & energize the Republican party. I thought I’d check to see which party really has more crazy people in it. November 2007 Gallup poll shows Republicans by a wide margin across all age, gender, income, and education levels report significantly better mental health than Democrats and Independents... As one commenter points out, "reported mental health" isn't the same thing as mental health. More importantly, DaveScot's inability to read statistics is on display. In the original article, the construction of a regression model establishing the independent contributions of each of the variables surveyed is described, as represented in a table of regression coefficients. To obtain the shared variance between a given independent variable (economic status, party identification, etc.) and the dependent variable (reported mental health) one squares the appropriate regression coefficient. The r value reported for party affiliation is .139. r^2 is therefore .019321. We'll round up to .02 - which indicates that party affiliation accounts for a whopping 2% of the variance of reported mental health in this model. ETA: Gallup reports this as an "independent and highly significant impact of being a Republican on mental health." Bullshit on several counts - it isn't "highly significant" and the dependent variable was not "mental health." The summary statement "The table shows that income, education, gender, church attendance, and being a Republican are significantly related to self-reported mental health -- each such relationship occurring even when the impact of the other variables is taken into account" repeats the common error of conflating statistical significance with practical significance. In summary, reported mental health (as disclosed to a stranger through a telephone survey) isn't the same as mental health. And party affiliation accounts for 2% of the variance of this piss-poor dependent variable. (I also had to laugh at the report that several regression coefficients were "significant at the .000 level.") Yep, yer a genius, Dave. -------------- 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

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 17 2008,18:16    A bit more on DaveScot's citation vis mental health and party affiliation. It was just a week ago that DaveScot was deriding the use of correlational methods within social science research as junk science:             Quote But no, the researchers in fact did nothing at all to discriminate between cause and symptom and it’s obvious in seconds to even a casual observer such as myself that the study and its conclusions are flawed. Where was the peer review that should have prevented this junk science from reaching the pages of the Journal of Clinical Psychology without correction of obvious flaws?....Correlation does not equal causation and this simple rule of scientific inquiry is very often set aside when there are political or financial incentives that make one finding preferable to another.* Of course, the relationship reported via Dave's post today vis party affiliation is purely correlational (the foundation of regression). Yay, Dave! Way to excoriate a technique one day and kiss on it the next. Perhaps that has to do with "political or financial incentives." Or maybe yer a genius! *The bolded sentence following the elipsis is found in the comments. -------------- 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

Bob O'H Posts: 2564 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2008,01:08    Quote The r value reported for party affiliation is .139. r^2 is therefore .019321. Sorry, that's not r, it's beta.  What it means is that being a republican means you are 0.14 points higher on the mental health scale.  They don't tell us what the scale is, though, which is really crappy for an organisation that wants to have its statistics taken seriously. I'd like to see the covariance matrix for model parameters too, but I'm just a statistical nerd.  And the Finnish taxpayer pays me for it too! -------------- 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)

Advocatus Diaboli Posts: 198 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2008,03:08    IDeists may have learned something from UD, as the Nota Bene newsletter from Disco Institute's Anika Smith says this about LeVake:   Quote A Science Teacher’s Story: Denied Academic Freedom to Challenge Darwin Can thought crimes against Darwin get you fired?  Just ask former high school biology teacher Rodney LeVake, featured in a series of two podcasts at ID The Future: On this episode of ID The Future, CSC’s Casey Luskin interviews Rodney LeVake, the plaintiff in the Academic Freedom court case LeVake vs. Independent School District #656. LeVake, a former high school biology teacher, informally expressed doubts about evolution to a colleague who then reported him to the principal. LeVake ended up losing his biology position, not because he taught creationism or intelligent design, but merely because he expressed reservations about evolution to a colleague. Still claiming everything is due to a ratting colleague, nothing about the paper LeVake wrote to his superiors. -------------- I once thought that I made a mistake, but I was wrong. "I freely admit I’m a sociopath" - DaveScot "Most importanly, the facts are on the side of ID." - scordova "UD is the greatest website of all time." stevestory

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2008,06:55    Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 18 2008,02:08)     Quote The r value reported for party affiliation is .139. r^2 is therefore .019321. Sorry, that's not r, it's beta.  What it means is that being a republican means you are 0.14 points higher on the mental health scale.  They don't tell us what the scale is, though, which is really crappy for an organisation that wants to have its statistics taken seriously. I'd like to see the covariance matrix for model parameters too, but I'm just a statistical nerd.  And the Finnish taxpayer pays me for it too! Right right right. That makes ME the genius! (His mouth twisting and hands trembling, RB now knows the ripe TEMPTATIONS of OBLIVIATION, and he reaches, both thrilled and gripped with revulsion, for the EDIT button...But WAIT, a better solution!) Bob O'H, that's the last bit of nonsense we're going to hear from you. You're out of here. - rb -------------- 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

PTET Posts: 133 Joined: Jan. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2008,10:03    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 18 2008,06:55) Bob O'H, that's the last bit of nonsense we're going to hear from you. You're out of here. - rb Just in case it's needed... -------------- "It’s not worth the effort to prove the obvious. Ridiculous ideas don’t deserve our time. Even the attempt to formulate ID is a generous accommodation." - ScottAndrews

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2008,11:04    Quote (PTET @ Sep. 18 2008,16:03) Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 18 2008,06:55) Bob O'H, that's the last bit of nonsense we're going to hear from you. You're out of here. - rb Just in case it's needed... Satire? Is that being seated in an elevated position? Louis -------------- Bye.

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2008,15:48    Satire? Nobody does it better then DS himself.   Quote Distinguished scientists don’t want creationism to come up because it raises too many questions they cannot answer. I have to wonder how somebody in his position can type. What questions are those DS? Tard -------------- 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

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2008,16:37    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 18 2008,15:48) Satire? Nobody does it better then DS himself.   Quote Distinguished scientists don’t want creationism to come up because it raises too many questions they cannot answer. I have to wonder how somebody in his position can type. What questions are those DS? Tard -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2008,19:12    DOES STEVE FULLER ALWAYS SHOUT?? -------------- 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

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2008,19:29    Does Simon always come across as an overwhelmingly nauseating, pompous ass?? Gads, that whole discussion was nothing but rhetoric.   What never ceases to amaze me is that molecule to man is no more falsifiable than ID.  *Evolution* is fact, but the idea that everything in nature arose from a primitive blob is merely an historical inference with virtually NO empirical evidence supporting the idea.  Neither theory is any more beneficial to science than the other. Guys like Simon and Dawkins are such a turn off.  Their mannerisms are deplorable, and their talking points are empty. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

Venus Mousetrap Posts: 201 Joined: Aug. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2008,20:28    Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 18 2008,19:29) Does Simon always come across as an overwhelmingly nauseating, pompous ass?? Gads, that whole discussion was nothing but rhetoric.   What never ceases to amaze me is that molecule to man is no more falsifiable than ID.  *Evolution* is fact, but the idea that everything in nature arose from a primitive blob is merely an historical inference with virtually NO empirical evidence supporting the idea.  Neither theory is any more beneficial to science than the other. Guys like Simon and Dawkins are such a turn off.  Their mannerisms are deplorable, and their talking points are empty. Well, except that there seems to be a boundary beyond which the distinction between life and molecules gets more and more vague (viruses? prions?), and that the further back in time you go, the closer life gets to primitive forms like this. Since it's clear that we were not among those forms, is it really that much of a leap to speculate that life may have arisen from the molecules which make it up? Meanwhile, ID asks us if it's such a leap to suggest that if humans can make neat stuff, and biology is neat, maybe someone made life. Which is nice, except they then spent twenty years giving talks about this idea, making fancy computer graphics about it, and sending DVDs to schools about it, while real scientists were working on abiogenesis hypotheses. Miller and Urey actually put some gases in a glass globe. People have actually modeled bilipid layers to see if the RNA world hypothesis is feasible. ID people, in the meantime, have stalled. Nowhere can you find people running simulations which measure CSI, or a mathematical treatment of irreducible complexity. This isn't because of oppression. No one can stop Dr Dr Dembski from putting a Java applet up on UD (maybe under the Panda-monium game?) showing off his Explanatory Filter. Of course, if ID was just a sham as evidenced by the Wedge Document and all the creationists that are free to quote ID to support their crap, then it'd make a lot more sense.

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2008,20:59    Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 18 2008,20:29) Does Simon always come across as an overwhelmingly nauseating, pompous ass?? The difference being that Simon Conway Morris has done considerable distinguished science (I was astounded to see how young he appears to be). His work is key to the story told by Stephen Jay Gould (in Wonderful Life in 1989) of the careful study and modern reinterpretation (vis anatomical description and taxonomic placement) of the creatures of the Burgess Shale - wherein is preserved a record of the "Cambrian explosion." Conway Morris performed careful reconstructions of several of the many strange creatures preserved therein. And there is an irony, in that Conway Morris presented in his (slightly spooky) book Life's Solution (2003) a thesis of convergence and inevitability in evolution that is quite at odds with Gould's thesis of the centrality of contingency, articulated in Wonderful life - a thesis derived, in turn (and in part) from Conway Morris' empirical work. -------------- 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

Jkrebs Posts: 590 Joined: Sep. 2004 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2008,21:14    Oh, is that how science works?  People disagree, offer new ideas which eventually gain credence, find and then analyze evidence, and so on.  I'll be darned! :-)

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2008,21:18    Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 18 2008,20:29) Neither theory is any more beneficial to science than the other. In support of your thesis, answer the questions that still await you here. Unrequited, alas. -------------- 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

Jkrebs Posts: 590 Joined: Sep. 2004 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2008,21:44    And here was Ftk's reply to your questions: Quote Oh, well shit.  Now, you're going to go and make me think again.  The rest of these bozos are easy prey, but you post lengthy crap that I have to dissect and actually do a little bit of thinking. Lengthy crap - you know, a dozen paragraphs full of stuff that looks suspiciously like evidence to me.

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2008,22:07    Quote (Jkrebs @ Sep. 18 2008,22:44) And here was Ftk's reply to your questions:   Quote Oh, well shit.  Now, you're going to go and make me think again.  The rest of these bozos are easy prey, but you post lengthy crap that I have to dissect and actually do a little bit of thinking. Lengthy crap - you know, a dozen paragraphs full of stuff that looks suspiciously like evidence to me. When all was said and done the thinking didn't amount to much:   Quote And, then there’s Bill’s jawbone.  Some science dude digs in the “right place” and finds some bone fragments that he deems transitionals.   W-h-a-t-e-v-e-r. -------------- 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

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2008,22:52    I tend to think of the demonstrated ignorant as the folks wearing clown makeup. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

keiths Posts: 2195 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2008,23:03    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 18 2008,20:52) I tend to think of the demonstrated ignorant as the folks wearing clown makeup. Blipey excluded, of course. -------------- And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2008,23:18    Nice, Wes.  Lovely.  So Darwinian of you.   Tell me *one* thing that Simon said in that clip that was informative about evolution.  One friggin' thing.  He sounded like an idiot...a snotty, snobby, elitist, pompus ASS.   Now, perhaps the guy is brilliant, but he didn't say one single thing that would imply that. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2008,23:55    Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 18 2008,21:18) Tell me *one* thing that Simon said in that clip that was informative about evolution.  One friggin' thing.  He sounded like an idiot...a snotty, snobby, elitist, pompus ASS.   Now Walt Brown on the other hand, is a wonderful, kindly old man. Gentlemanly. A pastor at his church. Doesn't act all stuck up-like. Uses short words. Never takes any longer than 10 seconds to describe anything. That's the kind of science FTK approves of. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2008,03:01    Maybe FTK prefers the DaveScot type of armchair "I told you so" science? I mean, look at his latest post! What an arrogant so and so. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....thought Tell me FTK, why do you think it is that all those biologists with their "wrong thinking" manage to publish so many dozens of peer reviewed journals etc, yet the number of ID peer reviewed publications has been static for a decade or two?   Quote ISCID is pleased to announce the latest issue of PCID, Volume 4.2 November 2005. The current issue features papers by Pattle Pun, William Dembski, Fernando Castro-Chavez and others. Note that even that non-peer reviewed publication has not managed to publish in 3 years. However the number of books that ID generates seems to double every year. A fool and their money..... -------------- 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

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2008,03:01    Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 18 2008,23:18) Nice, Wes.  Lovely.  So Darwinian of you.   Tell me *one* thing that Simon said in that clip that was informative about evolution.  One friggin' thing.  He sounded like an idiot...a snotty, snobby, elitist, pompus ASS.   Now, perhaps the guy is brilliant, but he didn't say one single thing that would imply that. I was responding to:   Quote The rest of these bozos are easy prey, "Simon"  wasn't the referent there. But, please, pray continue with the projection. Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Sep. 19 2008,03:03 -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2008,03:06    Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 18 2008,19:29) the idea that everything in nature arose from a primitive blob is merely an historical inference with virtually NO empirical evidence supporting the idea.  Neither theory is any more beneficial to science than the other. FTK, You say "virtually". One of the definitions of that word is 2.  Almost but not quite; nearly: It's clear that you believe there is some evidence  supporting the idea that everything in nature arose from a "primitive blob" as "virtually none" is more then "none". Could you tell me the following? On the balance of evidence which has the stronger case? Evolution (with "virtually" no evidence) Intelligent design (with "no actual" evidence) And furthermore, if there is virtually no evidence for evolution from a "blob" then logically there must be "some" evidence for it. What is that evidence? -------------- 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

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2008,03:07    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 19 2008,04:01) Tell me FTK, why do you think it is that all those biologists with their "wrong thinking" manage to publish so many dozens of peer reviewed journals etc, yet the number of ID peer reviewed publications has been static for a decade or two? I think we asked her that one time, and her answer, well, rather than misremember, I'll let her respond to you. If it's anything like what she said last time, your jaw will drop.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2008,03:12    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 19 2008,04:01) What an arrogant so and so. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....thought Poor Davetard reminds me of a jealous girl in the 3rd season of Buffy. Buffy runs up a stair handrail, jumps about 10 feet to grab the gutter on the roof, then from a hanging position backflips onto the roof. The jealous girl sitting on the grass thinks "I coulda done that." Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda, but Didna.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2008,03:20    It's easy to sit on your stupid little blog and talk about how much better you would have done in biology, than the biologists, what with your massive brain and all, but the whole world notices you never actually do any biology. You just talk big. Man, can you imagine if Davetard and the DI took their millions and bought a bunch of lab equipment and tried to do biology research? I would buy tickets to that. "Dr. Davetard! Have you seen Dr. Dodgen?" "No, Dr. Moran, I haven't. What's the news?" "Very shocking results on the gel electrophoresis." "Oh yes? Do tell." "Very well then...we've discovered...the gel is gunky." "No!" "Yes!" "Great scott." "I know." "Now if we could just figure out what this black cable with the three prongy bits does..." "Yes...quite a mystery..."

Pages: (500) < ... 57 58 59 60 61 [62] 63 64 65 66 67 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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