Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread

Posted: Mar. 15 2006,13:40

I'm seriously thinking of putting up a site about "information on the specified complexity in the design of Leprechauns", and see if the searchbot Dr. Dembski uses sticks it in his next post.
It might make the good doctor see it would help if he tweaked his engine's filters somewhat- or, at least, if he actually checked the results himself a little, before c/p them in his entry.

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

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Mar. 15 2006,13:55

lol

Quote

#

James Wynne asks what this has to do with ID.

This is what.

Comment by DaveScot — March 15, 2006 @ 4:20 pm

Quote

I get it now. If you enter any two search terms in the same Google search, then all hits are pertinent to whatever you want them to be pertinent to, or, it means that if there are any hits, the search terms must be related. How could I not have known that? Here’s another example for you that proves your point: http://tinyurl.com/mnuzr

Comment by JimWynne — March 15, 2006 @ 4:40 pm

And no, I didn't change the order.

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Mar. 15 2006,14:09

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 15 2006,19:55)

lol

Quote

#

James Wynne asks what this has to do with ID.

This is what.

Comment by DaveScot — March 15, 2006 @ 4:20 pm

Quote

I get it now. If you enter any two search terms in the same Google search, then all hits are pertinent to whatever you want them to be pertinent to, or, it means that if there are any hits, the search terms must be related. How could I not have known that? Here’s another example for you that proves your point: http://tinyurl.com/mnuzr

Comment by JimWynne — March 15, 2006 @ 4:40 pm

And no, I didn't change the order.

Very amusing! Is he banned yet?

--------------
"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

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Mar. 15 2006,14:12

Quote

Very amusing! Is he banned yet?

No, but you are, sucka! -dt

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Mar. 15 2006,14:17

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 15 2006,20:12)

Quote

Very amusing! Is he banned yet?

No, but you are, sucka! -dt

Oh no you don't, only *I* can ban people, and... oh, wait. Never mind.-dt

--------------
"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

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Mar. 15 2006,14:22

Quote

#

I have encountered critics of William Dembski claiming that his works have never been peer-reviewed, and hence lack credibility.

While I have not not been able to determine the validity of this claim, I have also not been able to verify whether Darwin’s Origin of Species (or any other work) has ever been peer-reviewed.

I know that Darwin was honoured, medalled, praised, granted, dedicated, and even buried in the Abbey. While these are certainly wonderful things, I would like to see a definitive list of hard peer-review credentials (or at least the 19th century equivalents)

If his works were to be (post-humously) peer-reviewed today, would ID advocates be included? Who would be considered Darwin’s peers, and what would be the likely outcome? Has anyone proposed this kind of validation?

I will stop short of outright Darwin-bashing, but really it seems his works have been held to a different standard than most.

Comment by bigtalktheory — March 15, 2006 @ 6:50 pm

Heh priceless. Where do they get these people.

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Mar. 15 2006,14:24

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 15 2006,20:22)

Quote

#

I have encountered critics of William Dembski claiming that his works have never been peer-reviewed, and hence lack credibility.

While I have not not been able to determine the validity of this claim, I have also not been able to verify whether Darwin’s Origin of Species (or any other work) has ever been peer-reviewed.

I know that Darwin was honoured, medalled, praised, granted, dedicated, and even buried in the Abbey. While these are certainly wonderful things, I would like to see a definitive list of hard peer-review credentials (or at least the 19th century equivalents)

If his works were to be (post-humously) peer-reviewed today, would ID advocates be included? Who would be considered Darwin’s peers, and what would be the likely outcome? Has anyone proposed this kind of validation?

I will stop short of outright Darwin-bashing, but really it seems his works have been held to a different standard than most.

Comment by bigtalktheory — March 15, 2006 @ 6:50 pm

Heh priceless. Where do they get these people.

From under a rock somewhere would be my guess.

--------------
"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

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Mar. 15 2006,14:26

While you're at it, let's get somebody peer-reviewing Isaac Newton's Theory of Gravity. How do I know he wasn't just pulling my leg...

Faid

Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

Posted: Mar. 15 2006,14:38

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 15 2006,20:22)

Quote

#

I have encountered critics of William Dembski claiming that his works have never been peer-reviewed, and hence lack credibility.

While I have not not been able to determine the validity of this claim, I have also not been able to verify whether Darwin’s Origin of Species (or any other work) has ever been peer-reviewed.

I know that Darwin was honoured, medalled, praised, granted, dedicated, and even buried in the Abbey. While these are certainly wonderful things, I would like to see a definitive list of hard peer-review credentials (or at least the 19th century equivalents)

If his works were to be (post-humously) peer-reviewed today, would ID advocates be included? Who would be considered Darwin’s peers, and what would be the likely outcome? Has anyone proposed this kind of validation?

I will stop short of outright Darwin-bashing, but really it seems his works have been held to a different standard than most.

Comment by bigtalktheory — March 15, 2006 @ 6:50 pm

Heh priceless. Where do they get these people.

*tilt*

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

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Mar. 15 2006,14:57

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 15 2006,20:26)

While you're at it, let's get somebody peer-reviewing Isaac Newton's Theory of Gravity. How do I know he wasn't just pulling my leg...

Hey, was the BIBLE ever peer-reviewed? Seems to me it should have been since it's so important. And if it's going to be fair, there need to be several atheists among the peer reviewers, to guarantee balance.

--------------
"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

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Mar. 15 2006,15:03

*tilt*

I know. Isn't Uncommonly Dense the best site in the universe? If it folded, I'd probably cry. I need to mail Davetard some of those vitamins for old people. We need him alive and healthy to work his magic.

Sometimes I wonder if they'll ever tire of being humiliated. But then I realize I'm dealing with people like Salvador E. Coyote here. They will never stop ordering the defective products of Dembski & Behe Inc., they will never stop chasing our roadrunner-like theory, they will proclaim themselves geniuses, they will never win--but they will amuse.

I think a certain other well-known theory is about to take Sal out here.

UnMark

Posts: 97
Joined: Mar. 2006

Posted: Mar. 15 2006,15:12

Apparently I'm back on moderation after challenging Dave... then I go reiterate the point I made last night. Let's see if I'm still around tomorrow.

steve_h

Posts: 544
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Mar. 15 2006,15:17

Mathematician/Cosmologist wins religion prize, for "progess toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual realities" in religion, shock, horror.

http://www.templetonprize.org/
Does the John Templeton Foundation support intelligent design?
No!, er, I mean yes!, er... I mean, as long as it doesn't contradict the bible

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Mar. 15 2006,16:15

Quote

Very amusing! Is he banned yet?

Yep.

Quote

JimWynne, You don’t have quite the right spirit for our group. Go in peace, but go. –WmAD

Comment by William Dembski — March 15, 2006 @ 8:37 pm

Wesley R. Elsberry

Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

Posted: Mar. 15 2006,16:53

William A. Dembski:

Quote

Scott and Branch add, "... the sectarian orientation of ID renders it unsuitable for constitutional reasons."

Comment: They are herewith throwing down the gauntlet. I'll wager a bottle of single-malt scotch, should it ever go to trial whether ID may legitimately be taught in public school science curricula, that ID will pass all constitutional hurdles.

Dembski is coming to Berkeley to give two lectures, on Friday and Saturday, for the Berkeley IDEA Club.

This would be a perfect opportunity for him to settle up on the bet mentioned above. I am planning to attend at least the Saturday lecture; I can pick up the bottle for Glenn if he doesn't make it Friday or Saturday.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Mar. 15 2006,16:58

Fantastic. I wish I had known about that Dembski statement. I would be sipping some Mcallen this weekend. I'm about to go get banned at Uncommonly Dense for quoting Dembski.

Chris Hyland

Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Mar. 16 2006,00:27

Quote

I have also not been able to verify whether Darwin’s Origin of Species (or any other work) has ever been peer-reviewed.

Wich thread is that on, is it worth pointing out that Darwin and Wallace published a joint paper with the Linnean society before the publication of origin? Probably not.

Faid

Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

Posted: Mar. 16 2006,01:39

Quote (Chris Hyland @ Mar. 16 2006,06:27)

Quote

I have also not been able to verify whether Darwin’s Origin of Species (or any other work) has ever been peer-reviewed.

Wich thread is that on, is it worth pointing out that Darwin and Wallace published a joint paper with the Linnean society before the publication of origin? Probably not.

You really shouldn't bother, Chris. It's also pointless to even try and explain that saying Darwin (or Newton, for that matter) weren't "peer-reviewed", in the way we use the phrase today, is like accusing Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar for never graduating from any military academy.
Perhaps worse.

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

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Mar. 16 2006,03:25

yesterday I emailed the IEEE people behind the new Information Forensics business:

Quote

Hello: I read your interesting article about Information Forensics and the new journal about it. I was surprised when I read that William Dembski claims that Information Forensics is a branch of Intelligent Design, of which he is a famous proponent. The claim was made on his website at this address: http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/922#comments and I wondered if anyone at the IEEE could tell me whether there was any merit to Dembski's claim?

thanks,
Steve Story

and this morning received:

Quote

Dear Mr. Story,

Thank you for your message however, IEEE is unable to verify the merit of
William Dembski's claim.

Please let me know if you would like a complimentary copy of the first
issue of IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security to assist
you with any questions you may have. I will send to copy out immediately
if you would kindly supply me with your contact information.

Thank you and best,
*NAME*
************************************************
*NAME*
*POSITION*
IEEE Signal Processing Society
445 Hoes Lane
Piscataway, NJ 08854

I removed the name and position of the person because I didn't explicitly tell her I was going to broadcast her response.

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Mar. 16 2006,05:23

Can anyone tell me what looks different about this thread now?

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/884

Rilke's Granddaughter

Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

Posted: Mar. 16 2006,05:32

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 16 2006,11:23)

Can anyone tell me what looks different about this thread now?

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/884

Didn't there used to be some DT comments in the thread? His stuff in bold, I mean.

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Mar. 16 2006,05:36

A bunch of really retarded ones like where he says that his typing this sentence violates the 2nd Law? Yeah, where are those?

I’m guilty of taking it for granted that people in a discussion such as this know that the energy in photons is measured by degrees Kelvin. And of course degrees Kelvin is a measure of temperature and temperature is synonymous with heat. Next time you decide to be argumentative I suggest you do a better job of it. -ds

I'll tell you where they are. They're on my harddrive. Anybody who wants a copy of the page, send an email.

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Mar. 16 2006,05:41

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 16 2006,11:23)

Can anyone tell me what looks different about this thread now?

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/884

Has it been revised to indicate that we are now at war with Eurasia and that we have always been at war with Eurasia?

--------------
"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

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Mar. 16 2006,05:45

Quote

Has it been revised to indicate that we are now at war with Eurasia and that we have always been at war with Eurasia?

We have Always been at war with Eurasia. And homos like yourself. -ds

Rilke's Granddaughter

Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

Posted: Mar. 16 2006,05:52

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 16 2006,11:36)

A bunch of really retarded ones like where he says that his typing this sentence violates the 2nd Law? Yeah, where are those?

I’m guilty of taking it for granted that people in a discussion such as this know that the energy in photons is measured by degrees Kelvin. And of course degrees Kelvin is a measure of temperature and temperature is synonymous with heat. Next time you decide to be argumentative I suggest you do a better job of it. -ds

I'll tell you where they are. They're on my harddrive. Anybody who wants a copy of the page, send an email.

I rather suspected that sooner or later he would remove all that obvious evidence of his stupidity.

But you note his technique? He waits until the thread has dropped down off the top page and nobody's actively looking at, then edits it to get rid of his idiotic remarks.

Since he knows that nothing ever disappears in cyberspace, and that the evidence of his ignorance is always available, I'm not sure what it demonstrates.

Except that I am beginning to doubt that he worked for Dell in any capacity: no one who worked there could be this dumb... could they?

Stranger than fiction

Posts: 22
Joined: Mar. 2006

Posted: Mar. 16 2006,05:56

Dave learned to rewrite history from the master himself.

History is what I say it is, and I say you're history. -ds

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Mar. 16 2006,05:56

That's why I make a point of saving Uncommonly Dense threads now. Davetard can do whatever he wants, he can't delete them from my hard drive.

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Mar. 16 2006,06:09

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 16 2006,11:45)

Quote

Has it been revised to indicate that we are now at war with Eurasia and that we have always been at war with Eurasia?

We have Always been at war with Eurasia. And homos like yourself. -ds

I'm not the homo. You're the homo. And besides, we have always been at war with Eastasia.-dt

--------------
"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

keiths

Posts: 2195
Joined: Jan. 2006