RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (501) < ... 141 142 143 144 145 [146] 147 148 149 150 151 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 3, The Beast Marches On...< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3326
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,15:20   

Paging Bob O'H!  Bob O'H to the white courtesy phone!

Josh Rosenau, over at Thoughts from Kansas, brings attention to this article behind the paywall over at Nature magazine.

Josh quotes the money shot:
 
Quote
[In] a new paper by psychologists Ilkka Pyysiäinen of the University of Helsinki and Marc Hauser of Harvard University … individuals presented with unfamiliar moral dilemmas show no difference in their responses if they have a religious background or not.


Anyone got a sock going over at UD? I am sure StephenB and GEM of Talky would like to see this so that they can critically re-evaluate their presuppositions regarding the objective moral code.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,15:30   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 11 2010,16:20)
Paging Bob O'H!  Bob O'H to the white courtesy phone!

Josh Rosenau, over at Thoughts from Kansas, brings attention to this article behind the paywall over at Nature magazine.

Josh quotes the money shot:
   
Quote
[In] a new paper by psychologists Ilkka Pyysiäinen of the University of Helsinki and Marc Hauser of Harvard University … individuals presented with unfamiliar moral dilemmas show no difference in their responses if they have a religious background or not.


Anyone got a sock going over at UD? I am sure StephenB and GEM of Talky would like to see this so that they can critically re-evaluate their presuppositions regarding the objective moral code.

Nah - StephenB's views are more protean than that. His response? All men and women have an objective moral code inscribed on their souls that guides their behavior, whether they know it or not.

Indeed Stephen maintains this view whether it is true or not. See, if you say it isn't true you are following that portion of the objective moral code that commends the truth.

But that's another issue.

--------------
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: Feb. 12 2010,02:08   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 11 2010,15:20)
Paging Bob O'H!  Bob O'H to the white courtesy phone!

Nothing to do with me any more - I'm in Frankfurt now.  I did bring the winter with me, though.

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 11 2010,15:20)
Josh Rosenau, over at Thoughts from Kansas, brings attention to this article behind the paywall over at Nature magazine.

If you have an iPhone, it's free on the nature.com app.  I saw it and wondered what our friends Over There would think of it. I'm waiting for the blog post...

P.S. Was it Joe G. who was threatening Hermagoras with violence a couple of years ago?

P.P.S. what happened to Hermagoras?  Did he finally OD on tard?

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

   
Ptaylor



Posts: 1180
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2010,03:46   

Denyse O'Leary, ace journalist:
 
Quote
The United States is cancelling its space programs, or so I hear.

Allen_MacNeill, real world:
 
Quote
Wrong


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

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2363
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2010,04:23   

In the same message, the Ace Journalist says,    
Quote
In the world of Climategate, why does anyone care whether ID-related research has reached journals?


Here's some "ID-related research":Fabricated Quote Used to Discredit Climate Scientist from The Independent newspaper.

   
Quote
For climate sceptics it was a key piece of evidence showing that the scientists behind global warming could not be trusted. A quotation by one of the world's most eminent climate scientists was supposed to demonstrate the depths to which he and his ilk would stoop to create scare stories exaggerating the threat of global warming.

Sir John Houghton, who played a critical role in establishing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC), was roundly condemned after it emerged that he was an apparent advocate of scary propaganda to frighten the public into believing the dangers of global warming.

"Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen," Sir John was supposed to have said in 1994.

The quotation has since become the iconic smoking gun of the climate sceptic community. The words are the very first to appear in the "manual" of climate denialism written by the journalist and arch-sceptic Christopher Booker. They get more than a million hits on Google, and are wheeled out almost every time a climate sceptic has a point to make, the last occasion being in a Sunday newspaper article last weekend written by the social anthropologist and climate sceptic Benny Peiser.

The trouble is, Sir John Houghton has never said what he is quoted as saying. The words do not appear in his own book on global warming, first published in 1994, despite statements to the contrary. In fact, he denies emphatically that he ever said it at any time, either verbally or in writing.

In fact, his view on the matter of generating scare stories to publicise climate change is quite the opposite. "There are those who will say 'unless we announce disasters, no one will listen', but I'm not one of them," Sir John told The Independent.

"It's not the sort of thing I would ever say. It's quite the opposite of what I think and it pains me to see this quote being used repeatedly in this way. I would never say we should hype up the risk of climate disasters in order to get noticed," he said.

Even though the quotation appears on about 1.77 million web links, no one seems to know where it originated. On the few occasions a reference is cited, it is listed as coming from the first edition of Sir John's book, Global Warming: The Complete Briefing, published by Lion Books in 1994. But Sir John does not say it in this edition, nor in subsequent editions published by Cambridge University Press.

Christopher Booker, a newspaper columnist, considers the quotation so important that he lists it at the top of the first page of his most recent book on climate scepticism, The Real Global Warming Disaster, published last year. Mr Booker also cites the 1994 edition of Houghton's own book on global warming as the source of the quotation, even though there is no mention of it there. Mr Booker did not respond yesterday to enquiries by The Independent.

Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist at Liverpool John Moores University, also cited the 1994 edition of Sir John's book as the source of the quote, which he used last Sunday in an article denouncing the alarmism of climate scientists. Dr Peiser admitted to The Independent that he had not read the book recently and had only used the quote "from memory" because it is so widely cited in other books on climate scepticism.

"I've seen it printed in many books. He is well known for making these statements. I've used that quote on many occasions from one of the books on climate alarmism. If he makes the claim that he never said this then he has to clarify that," Dr Peiser said.

"If he publicly says that he never made that statement then, of course, I wouldn't use it, but this is the first time I've heard [his denial] and this has been going on for 15 years. This quote has been used for the past 15 years," he said.

In fact, the earliest record of the quote comes not from 15 years ago but from November 2006 when it appeared in a newspaper column written by the journalist Piers Akerman in the Australian newspaper The Daily Telegraph. Akerman, a controversial right-wing columnist and global warming sceptic, appears to be the first person to use the quote verbatim in an opinion piece criticising the Stern Review, which looked at the economic effects of global warming.

"This alarmist approach reeked of stupidity, snake oil, and misguided gospel preaching but was in line with a formula adopted by the first chairman of the IPCC, Sir John Houghton, who produced the IPCC's first three reports in 1990, 1995 and 2001 and wrote in his book Global Warming, The Complete Briefing, in 1994: 'Unless we announce disasters no one will listen'," Mr Akerman said.

Within three years of Akerman's piece being published, climate sceptics had jumped on the supposed quotation, citing the source as Houghton's 1994 book. Mr Akerman did not respond to enquiries by The Independent.

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, also cites the 1994 book as the source of the quote, which he uses extensively in his writings and lectures advocating climate scepticism. The quotation, he says, is a prime example of the alarmism and exaggeration of the climate change community and the IPCC.

Although Lord Monckton replied to an email asking him for the source of the quotation, he did not reply to a second email pointing out that it does not appear anywhere in Houghton's 1994 book.

Sir John, who was the former head of the Met Office but is now living in semi-active retirement in Wales, said he is considering taking legal action because he feels that the continued recycling of the misquotation is doing him and his science a huge disfavour.

"It doesn't do me any good because it suggests to everyone that I have hyped things up. I've been growing aware of it now for some time. The trouble is, if I just deny it then it cuts no ice with the people who want to believe it. I have to consider legal action," Sir John said.


That's how ID does it's research too.  One person tells a lie and the whole ID Noise Machine repeats it over and over and over again.  Nobody bothers to check to see if the quote is real because that smells too much like "peer review" or something else that the atheists do.

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2363
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2010,06:04   

From Steven Barr's First Things article on the Death of ID:

Gary Hurd expresses my opinion of ID precisely:    
Quote
Both authors [Dembski and Wells in "The Design of Life"] are on record that the “intelligent designer” is the biblical God. So, their “speciation” is exclusively the result of Devine intervention. These acknowledged intellectual leaders of the ID movement wasted a great deal of ink just to say “goddidit.” Henry Morris or Duane Gish said it clearly and honestly.

And that is all that distinguishes ID from special creationism- honesty.

Amen.

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2363
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2010,06:35   

That First Things thread is golden.  Search for Nick M and watch him take Francis Beckwith apart at 2.11.2010 | 12:11am.

ID's Last Gasp

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2010,10:21   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 12 2010,02:23)
Here's some "ID-related research":Fabricated Quote Used to Discredit Climate Scientist from The Independent newspaper.

     
Quote
(snip)
In fact, the earliest record of the quote comes not from 15 years ago but from November 2006 when it appeared in a newspaper column written by the journalist Piers Akerman in the Australian newspaper The Daily Telegraph. Akerman, a controversial right-wing columnist and global warming sceptic, appears to be the first person to use the quote verbatim in an opinion piece criticising the Stern Review, which looked at the economic effects of global warming.

"This alarmist approach reeked of stupidity, snake oil, and misguided gospel preaching but was in line with a formula adopted by the first chairman of the IPCC, Sir John Houghton, who produced the IPCC's first three reports in 1990, 1995 and 2001 and wrote in his book Global Warming, The Complete Briefing, in 1994: 'Unless we announce disasters no one will listen'," Mr Akerman said. (snip)



That's how ID does it's research too.  One person tells a lie and the whole ID Noise Machine repeats it over and over and over again.  Nobody bothers to check to see if the quote is real because that smells too much like "peer review" or something else that the atheists do.

FOUR YEARS and no-one checked to see if this quotation was actually in the book?

Sad.

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

  
Maya



Posts: 702
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2010,11:30   

UD manages to avoid being completely useless by posting a link to a petition to properly categorize intelligent design creationism books.

Thanks, DonaldM, I just signed!

  
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2010,12:43   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 10 2010,16:10)
Well, we shall see if I pass "moderation."

I feel I have come a bit late to this particular party. However, I have been a long time student of the intelligent design movement. I would like to add a comment to Nick Matzke’s observations regarding ID and common ancestry, or speciation.

William Dembski and Jonathan Wells writing in their recent book, “The Design of Life”  deny common ancestry as it is used by mainstream biologists. They wrote that ID “neither requires nor excludes speciation,” and  that “ID is sometimes confused with a static view of species, as though species were designed to be immutable.” These remarks would seem to leave the door open to common ancestry. But, in their concluding remarks on speciation, they insist that “there are strict limits to the amount and quality of variations that material mechanisms such as natural selection and random genetic change can alone produce.”  So ID accepts speciation, but not by mutation, and natural selection- not by biology. No, rather their claim is that, “intelligence can itself be a source of biological novelties that lead to macroevolutionary changes. In this way, intelligent design is compatible with speciation. (pg. 109)”

Both authors are on record that the “intelligent designer” is the biblical God. So, their “speciation” is exclusively the result of Devine intervention. These acknowledged intellectual leaders of the ID movement wasted a great deal of ink just to say “goddidit.” Henry Morris or Duane Gish said it clearly and honestly.

And that is all that distinguishes ID from special creationism- honesty.

That is false.

ID says that not all mutations are genetic accidents.

Genetic accidents occur but they are a minor player.

Dr Spetner talks about this in "Not By Chance"- most mutations would be the result of "built-in responses to environmental cues".

IOW there are targeted searches going on.

So ID says speciation occurs by mutation but not all mutations are blind and undirected.

No intervention required- just the proper initial conditions.

Glad I could help...

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2010,12:53   

Quote
So ID says speciation occurs by mutation but not all mutations are blind and undirected.


Stupid, then.

Considering that when actually observed, mutations occur without regard to utility.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Maya



Posts: 702
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2010,13:01   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 12 2010,12:43)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 10 2010,16:10)
And that is all that distinguishes ID from special creationism- honesty.

. . .
ID says that not all mutations are genetic accidents.

Genetic accidents occur but they are a minor player.

. . .

IOW there are targeted searches going on.

So ID says speciation occurs by mutation but not all mutations are blind and undirected.

As soon as you provide any empirical evidence for your little hypothesis, it will warrant some consideration.  Right now all you and the rest of the IDC movement have are baseless assertions.

  
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2010,14:04   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 12 2010,13:43)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 10 2010,16:10)
Well, we shall see if I pass "moderation."

I feel I have come a bit late to this particular party. However, I have been a long time student of the intelligent design movement. I would like to add a comment to Nick Matzke’s observations regarding ID and common ancestry, or speciation.

William Dembski and Jonathan Wells writing in their recent book, “The Design of Life”  deny common ancestry as it is used by mainstream biologists. They wrote that ID “neither requires nor excludes speciation,” and  that “ID is sometimes confused with a static view of species, as though species were designed to be immutable.” These remarks would seem to leave the door open to common ancestry. But, in their concluding remarks on speciation, they insist that “there are strict limits to the amount and quality of variations that material mechanisms such as natural selection and random genetic change can alone produce.”  So ID accepts speciation, but not by mutation, and natural selection- not by biology. No, rather their claim is that, “intelligence can itself be a source of biological novelties that lead to macroevolutionary changes. In this way, intelligent design is compatible with speciation. (pg. 109)”

Both authors are on record that the “intelligent designer” is the biblical God. So, their “speciation” is exclusively the result of Devine intervention. These acknowledged intellectual leaders of the ID movement wasted a great deal of ink just to say “goddidit.” Henry Morris or Duane Gish said it clearly and honestly.

And that is all that distinguishes ID from special creationism- honesty.

That is false.

ID says that not all mutations are genetic accidents.

Genetic accidents occur but they are a minor player.

Dr Spetner talks about this in "Not By Chance"- most mutations would be the result of "built-in responses to environmental cues".

IOW there are targeted searches going on.

So ID says speciation occurs by mutation but not all mutations are blind and undirected.

No intervention required- just the proper initial conditions.

Glad I could help...

Actually, ID says it can detect that some mutations (and other genetic rearrangements) don't fall into some probability distribution.

In public.

In private, cdesign proponentists know goddidit.

(I've never heard the Dembski/Behe axis mention frontloading.)

Glad I could help...

--------------
I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
I’m not an evolutionist, I’m a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2010,15:19   

How long before Joe makes a digital threat of some kind, then bravely runs away without providing us with anything that looks remotely like a testable hypothesis of ID?

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2010,15:38   

Some light reading on Spetner.

http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho36.htm

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
bfish



Posts: 267
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2010,23:17   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 12 2010,04:35)
That First Things thread is golden.  Search for Nick M and watch him take Francis Beckwith apart at 2.11.2010 | 12:11am.

ID's Last Gasp

Of possible interest to Reciprocating Bill:

A certain StephenB has left a comment on the First Things thread, at 8:30 on 2/12. He discusses "methodological naturalism", "natural causes," tornadoes, and burglars.

And he can't ban people from the thread.

Edited to remove "white courtesy phone" reference upon noticing that Carlsonjok had opened this page with that very same gag.

*shakes fist at Oklahoma*

  
sparc



Posts: 2088
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2010,00:00   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 12 2010,15:38)
Some light reading on Spetner.

http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho36.htm

Geert Korthof's pages are always worth a visit. If you have problems to remember the name of his site just type wasdarwinwrong.com into your browser and you will be redirected to his homepage.

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2010,00:14   

ooooooh, the mullah!  thanks for your service Joe.  and I don't mean in iraq, I mean well you know what i mean.  hmmmmmmmmm

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
socle



Posts: 322
Joined: July 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2010,00:25   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 12 2010,12:43)
IOW

How are those hydrogen peroxide treatments going, JoeG?  Do you still have an esophagus?

  
Benny H



Posts: 34
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2010,00:49   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 12 2010,12:43)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 10 2010,16:10)
Well, we shall see if I pass "moderation."

I feel I have come a bit late to this particular party. However, I have been a long time student of the intelligent design movement. I would like to add a comment to Nick Matzke’s observations regarding ID and common ancestry, or speciation.

William Dembski and Jonathan Wells writing in their recent book, “The Design of Life”  deny common ancestry as it is used by mainstream biologists. They wrote that ID “neither requires nor excludes speciation,” and  that “ID is sometimes confused with a static view of species, as though species were designed to be immutable.” These remarks would seem to leave the door open to common ancestry. But, in their concluding remarks on speciation, they insist that “there are strict limits to the amount and quality of variations that material mechanisms such as natural selection and random genetic change can alone produce.”  So ID accepts speciation, but not by mutation, and natural selection- not by biology. No, rather their claim is that, “intelligence can itself be a source of biological novelties that lead to macroevolutionary changes. In this way, intelligent design is compatible with speciation. (pg. 109)”

Both authors are on record that the “intelligent designer” is the biblical God. So, their “speciation” is exclusively the result of Devine intervention. These acknowledged intellectual leaders of the ID movement wasted a great deal of ink just to say “goddidit.” Henry Morris or Duane Gish said it clearly and honestly.

And that is all that distinguishes ID from special creationism- honesty.

That is false.

ID says that not all mutations are genetic accidents.

Genetic accidents occur but they are a minor player.

Dr Spetner talks about this in "Not By Chance"- most mutations would be the result of "built-in responses to environmental cues".

IOW there are targeted searches going on.

So ID says speciation occurs by mutation but not all mutations are blind and undirected.

No intervention required- just the proper initial conditions.

Glad I could help...

The ID head honchos do not endorse front-loading because they have gone out of their way to tell Christians that ID is consistent with Christianity. A god that creates life and then leaves the scene is inconsistent with a personal god which constantly interacts with its creations.

  
sparc



Posts: 2088
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2010,01:20   

Quote
A god that creates life and then leaves the scene is inconsistent with a personal god which constantly interacts with its creations.
Not if you assume He is only interacting with the choosen.

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
Bob O'H



Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2010,04:56   

Design Inference: Mr. Arrington will be blogging about yesterday's shooting today or tomorrow.

FWIW, Dr. Bishop was a neurobiologist, eddicated at Harvard.

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

   
carlsonjok



Posts: 3326
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2010,06:41   

Quote (bfish @ Feb. 12 2010,23:17)
Edited to remove "white courtesy phone" reference upon noticing that Carlsonjok had opened this page with that very same gag.


Quote
*shakes fist at Oklahoma*


Don't make me open one of these up on you.


--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
olegt



Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2010,07:59   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 13 2010,04:56)
Design Inference: Mr. Arrington will be blogging about yesterday's shooting today or tomorrow.

FWIW, Dr. Bishop was a neurobiologist, eddicated at Harvard.

The shooting is already getting some play at TT.  Stay tuned.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2010,08:17   

Quote
GilDodgen: The problem is that living systems are not just transparently intelligently designed; they are intelligently engineered. It’s not just ID; it’s IE.

ID, i.e. IE

Quote
GilDodgen: Those of us who design and engineer functionally integrated systems, especially information-processing systems, know what is required.

I engineer, therefore I am.

Quote
GilDodgen: Trial and error do play a role, but the trials are always planned in advance, based on what has been learned so far, so as to minimize wasted effort.

Except that every fossil organism is adapted to its own environment.

Quote
GilDodgen: Mindless, unplanned trials are never considered, because their number is essentially infinite, and the probability of success as a result of such an approach is obviously zero.

Which is why evolution only samples a tiny portion of possible solutions.

Quote
GilDodgen: Once a proof-of-concept study has been completed and validated, and initial prototype engineering has shown promise, a team of engineers with specialized expertise (in our case, electrical, mechanical, aeronautical, and software engineers) pursue the final goal with much teamwork, thought, planning, and dogged determination.

So the Intelligent Designer Engineer was a committee?

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

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: Feb. 13 2010,08:20   

Quote (bfish @ Feb. 13 2010,00:17)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 12 2010,04:35)
That First Things thread is golden.  Search for Nick M and watch him take Francis Beckwith apart at 2.11.2010 | 12:11am.

ID's Last Gasp

Of possible interest to Reciprocating Bill:

A certain StephenB has left a comment on the First Things thread, at 8:30 on 2/12. He discusses "methodological naturalism", "natural causes," tornadoes, and burglars.

And he can't ban people from the thread.

Thanks. I posted a response (although it has yet to appear):

Quote
StephenB:

"According to the Darwinist, I have not violated the principle of methodological naturalism since, for him, both the tornado and the burglar, being mere molecules in action, are natural causes. So, as a methodological naturalist, you must say either that the burglar is a supernatural cause or else you must say that a burglar and a tornado are the same kind of cause, namely a natural cause. Either way, you are doomed to reside in an intellectual madhouse."

Nonsense. It doesn't follow from the proposition that human agents have natural origins that we have no basis from which to discern the results of human actions from the impact of other natural events.

Tornadoes and human beings both have natural origins, yet those origins reflect vastly different causal histories and exert characteristic and easily discerned impacts upon the world. Moreover, we each spend a lifetime, literally beginning at birth, immersed in the actions and products of other human beings, navigating the social landscape of others’ motives and intentions, and engaging in actions, generating products, and deploying motives and intentions of our own. Moreover, we spend our lifetimes also encountering unguided physical events such as wind, rain and the general increase of disorder observed in non-living processes.

This deep familiarity renders us adept at identifying the characteristic markers of human actions, products and intentions and distinguishing them from unguided natural events. Indeed, there are significant reasons to suspect that we are adapted to quickly make these distinctions, particularly the subtle discernment of human actions and motives. Abstract and unobservable posits such as "immaterial minds" are neither required nor helpful in making these particular distinctions.


ETA: My response.

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

  
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2010,08:21   

A first, it seems that one of Nakashima's posts has been not approved by Clive.

It would have appeared as approximately 18 on the current Paul Nelson channeling Inspector Clouseau thread. The content was something about how holding to a principle of causal suffiency didn't move you away from a zero sum game. If lightning was electrons, but a lot of them, that was +1 for natural causes and -1 for Zeus. If life, in its diversity, history, and distribution, was variation and selection, but a lot of them, that was +1 for natural causes and -1 for ...

--------------
I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
I’m not an evolutionist, I’m a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2010,08:42   

Quote (sparc @ Feb. 13 2010,01:20)
 
Quote
A god that creates life and then leaves the scene is inconsistent with a personal god which constantly interacts with its creations.
Not if you assume He is only interacting with the choosen.

Although when interacting he doesn't bother discriminating between righteous or sinner. A consoling thought for an "evolutionist".

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2010,09:33   

Quote
Quote
GilDodgen: Once a proof-of-concept study has been completed and validated, and initial prototype engineering has shown promise, a team of engineers with specialized expertise (in our case, electrical, mechanical, aeronautical, and software engineers) pursue the final goal with much teamwork, thought, planning, and dogged determination.


So the Intelligent Designer Engineer was a committee?


And there were no women on the committee.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2010,09:49   

Quote
Which is why evolution only samples a tiny portion of possible solutions.

One thing I've never understood is why the probability calculations of IDers never take into account the amazing wastage represented by sexual reproduction.

Sperm cells will have more mutations, because they have undergone more divisions. The percentage that win the lottery is astronomically low. So you have a mechanism that produces and filters billions of "offspring" per individual in each generation. The really detrimental mutations are quickly lethal, without affecting the adult population, and at relatively low cost.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
  15001 replies since Sep. 04 2009,16:20 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (501) < ... 141 142 143 144 145 [146] 147 148 149 150 151 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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