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

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

Pages: (527) < ... 92 93 94 95 96 [97] 98 99 100 101 102 ... >

Acartia_Bogart Posts: 2927 Joined: Sep. 2014 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2015,00:21    Quote (sparc @ Mar. 16 2015,23:50) KF seems a little bit bitter: Quote 126 kairosfocusMarch 16, 2015 at 9:35 pm KS, I have taken time I should not have spared, to address a raft of seriouis misconceptions and strawman objections you and other objectors have raised again and again, resisting and dismissing correction. Do you think that I am now in a mood to go after a red herring chase that leads predictably to more strawman caricatures soaked in ad hominems to be set alight to further poison, cloud and polarise the atmosphere? Do you think that I was born yesterday and do not understand that already you have been hinting at personal attacks, in the teeth of reasonable responses already given on the material question, the 500 – 1,000 bit threshold? As of now, you come across as an indoctrinated ideologue who is not serious about substantial matters, only intent on the rhetoric of polarisation and distraction. I challenge you to show to us some semblance of a sign that you have seriously and with fairness and understanding interacted with our concerns and understand why I in particular have pointed to statistical underpinnings of 2LOT and then have raised the issue of statistical miracles; saying that prof Sewell has a serious point. KF Am I wrong, or has Gordon Mullings moved the goalposts? For the longest time he was talking about 500 bits being the threshold above which "design" was guaranteed. Now he is talking about the threshold being 500-1000 bits. At this rate, the Argos will never win the Grey Cup.

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2015,00:29    Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Mar. 17 2015,00:21) Quote (sparc @ Mar. 16 2015,23:50) KF seems a little bit bitter:   Quote 126 kairosfocusMarch 16, 2015 at 9:35 pm KS, I have taken time I should not have spared, to address a raft of seriouis misconceptions and strawman objections you and other objectors have raised again and again, resisting and dismissing correction. Do you think that I am now in a mood to go after a red herring chase that leads predictably to more strawman caricatures soaked in ad hominems to be set alight to further poison, cloud and polarise the atmosphere? Do you think that I was born yesterday and do not understand that already you have been hinting at personal attacks, in the teeth of reasonable responses already given on the material question, the 500 – 1,000 bit threshold? As of now, you come across as an indoctrinated ideologue who is not serious about substantial matters, only intent on the rhetoric of polarisation and distraction. I challenge you to show to us some semblance of a sign that you have seriously and with fairness and understanding interacted with our concerns and understand why I in particular have pointed to statistical underpinnings of 2LOT and then have raised the issue of statistical miracles; saying that prof Sewell has a serious point. KF Am I wrong, or has Gordon Mullings moved the goalposts? For the longest time he was talking about 500 bits being the threshold above which "design" was guaranteed. Now he is talking about the threshold being 500-1000 bits. At this rate, the Argos will never win the Grey Cup. He's all about the fishing real these days. -------------- "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

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2015,03:39    Box is cheated out of a Darwin Award by a miracle:   Quote 10 Box March 16, 2015 at 6:00 am About two decades ago at a midday I was riding my bike approaching a crossroad in the provincial city where my parents lived, which I paid a short visit. In front of me other bikers were waiting at the stop sign. I saw a rather long row of cars on the right, at the intersecting road, also waiting at a stop sign. There was no traffic from any other direction. IOW everyone was waiting for a stop sign to turn green. But not me … In a blink I decided to ride my bike passed the waiting bikers and ride straight passed the long line of waiting cars on the right – a young man in a hurry for some reason. The intersecting road on the right, with the row of cars waiting at the stop sign, consisted of two lanes. Only at the lane closest to me cars were standing still. When I passed that lane, hasty and somewhat uneasy about breaking traffic rules, I suddenly saw a dark car driving on the next lane heading towards me. I had not seen the car at all, my vision was completely blocked by the row of cars. It all happened in a split second. In short: when I saw the car heading directly towards me it was already too late. I remember that at one moment I intended to peddle as hard as I could, but the very next moment I already gave in. The car headed right towards me with high speed and was already much too close. I realized that the situation was hopeless and more or less “relaxed” for impact – I gave up. And then … somehow I’m still riding my bike … the car did not hit me? I’m totally shook up. No sounds around me. I realize that the car is “gone”. There was no way that the car could have missed me. The car went through me – vanished into thin air. I am too shocked to look around me. No one is shouting; no sounds. I ride my bike confused, slowly a little power returns into my legs. wallstreeter43's grandpappy is saved by an even grander miracle in message 3, but I won't endanger your gullibility meters by repeating it here. Link

Bob O'H Posts: 2564 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2015,04:03    OMG OMG OMG... He's BACK Quote 4 scordova March 16, 2015 at 8:34 pm I’m and ID proponent and creationist, but with respect to the 2nd law I’ve had to side with the ID-haters on the question of the 2nd law. I’ve never been quite forgiven by many of my peers for breaking ranks. A living human has substantially more thermodynamic entropy than a frozen dead rat. Anyone who actually bothers to calculate entropy as taught in Chemistry, Engineering, and Physics textbooks will know this. All things being equal, entropy increases with mass. I don’t participate here much anymore. My dissent and disagreement with other ID proponents and creationists isn’t exactly welcome. Here are computations that show entropy INCREASE with complexity of design: http://www.uncommondescent.com.....se-part-1/....-pa....-part-1 http://www.uncommondescent.com.....se-part-2/....-pa....-part-2 Here are derivations that connect Clausius, Boltzman Shannon, Dembski: http://creationevolutionuniver.....&t=72/......&......&t=72 Taking the above link, one can even make conversion factor from Clausius entropy expressed in Joule/Kelvin to Shannon Entropy expressed in Bits. Two people on opposite sides of the ID issue (Gordon Davisson and Myself) independently arrived at the same conversion factor! See: http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ober-2000/....er-....er-2000 http://www.uncommondescent.com.....cs-and-id/....-an....-and-id I probably wasn’t really ever forgiven for this heresy: http://www.uncommondescent.com.....d-systems/....sys....systems Bottom line, I wish ID proponents would de-emphasize the 2nd law, it doesn’t add credibility to the ID case, it just adds confusion. Good work, btw, Eric Anderson. PS For the Physics Buffs, I did find these gems: http://www.uncommondescent.com.....nt-beings/....-be....-beings and http://www.uncommondescent.com.....n-physics/....phy....physics -------------- 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)

BillB Posts: 388 Joined: Aug. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2015,04:13    Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Mar. 17 2015,06:21) Quote (sparc @ Mar. 16 2015,23:50) KF seems a little bit bitter:   Quote 126 kairosfocusMarch 16, 2015 at 9:35 pm KS, I have taken time I should not have spared, to address a raft of seriouis misconceptions and strawman objections you and other objectors have raised again and again, resisting and dismissing correction. Do you think that I am now in a mood to go after a red herring chase that leads predictably to more strawman caricatures soaked in ad hominems to be set alight to further poison, cloud and polarise the atmosphere? Do you think that I was born yesterday and do not understand that already you have been hinting at personal attacks, in the teeth of reasonable responses already given on the material question, the 500 – 1,000 bit threshold? As of now, you come across as an indoctrinated ideologue who is not serious about substantial matters, only intent on the rhetoric of polarisation and distraction. I challenge you to show to us some semblance of a sign that you have seriously and with fairness and understanding interacted with our concerns and understand why I in particular have pointed to statistical underpinnings of 2LOT and then have raised the issue of statistical miracles; saying that prof Sewell has a serious point. KF Am I wrong, or has Gordon Mullings moved the goalposts? For the longest time he was talking about 500 bits being the threshold above which "design" was guaranteed. Now he is talking about the threshold being 500-1000 bits. At this rate, the Argos will never win the Grey Cup. He isn't moving them so much as defining them as movable - otherwise how do you explain having a 'threshold' that is not clearly defined. It means that if you can show something of natural origin with 700 bits you will fail because he can insist that you need 1000 bits, but for his purposes if you can't reach 500 then you also fail. I think if you do an international patent search you might well find a Mr GE Mullings and his patent for an adjustable goal post.

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2015,13:15    KF gets pissy because people keep bringing up that he can't do the math: Quote 136 DNA_JockMarch 17, 2015 at 10:30 am Yet every time you do one of these FIASCO calculations, you assume that the identity of each amino acid in the protein is independent of the identity of the other AAs. You might (on one of your good days) admit that this is inaccurate, but you always assert that the error is “immaterial”. When asked to justify this latter assertion, you are reduced to “because the numbers are really big”. Any engineer who makes an approximation needs to demonstrate that the approximation is fit-for-purpose, not merely assert it. A calculation that you have yet to perform. Also in the set of calculations that you have yet to perform: any comparison of the “informational” and “thermal” contributions to entropy. How can we discuss the limits of “compensation” unless you are willing to do this calculation? Would any of the other IDists care to help you out? I think Sal Cordova is numerate enough… 137 kairosfocusMarch 17, 2015 at 12:09 pm DNA_Jock, I warned. You insist on descending to schoolyard taunts, revealing much about your attitude. Commenting is a privilege, not a right, and it is conditional on reasonable, civil behaviour. KF Wow. Go and look at how KF has marked up DNAJock's original post now. He's lost it: http://www.uncommondescent.com/molecul....-554479 Edited by Richardthughes on Mar. 17 2015,13:46 -------------- "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

Patrick Posts: 666 Joined: July 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2015,13:54    Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 17 2015,05:03) OMG OMG OMG... He's BACK   Quote 4 scordova March 16, 2015 at 8:34 pm I’m and ID proponent and creationist, but with respect to the 2nd law I’ve had to side with the ID-haters on the question of the 2nd law. I’ve never been quite forgiven by many of my peers for breaking ranks. A living human has substantially more thermodynamic entropy than a frozen dead rat. Anyone who actually bothers to calculate entropy as taught in Chemistry, Engineering, and Physics textbooks will know this. All things being equal, entropy increases with mass. I don’t participate here much anymore. My dissent and disagreement with other ID proponents and creationists isn’t exactly welcome. Here are computations that show entropy INCREASE with complexity of design: http://www.uncommondescent.com.....se-part-1/....-pa....-part-1 http://www.uncommondescent.com.....se-part-2/....-pa....-part-2 Here are derivations that connect Clausius, Boltzman Shannon, Dembski: http://creationevolutionuniver.....&t=72/......&......&t=72 Taking the above link, one can even make conversion factor from Clausius entropy expressed in Joule/Kelvin to Shannon Entropy expressed in Bits. Two people on opposite sides of the ID issue (Gordon Davisson and Myself) independently arrived at the same conversion factor! See: http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ober-2000/....er-....er-2000 http://www.uncommondescent.com.....cs-and-id/....-an....-and-id I probably wasn’t really ever forgiven for this heresy: http://www.uncommondescent.com.....d-systems/....sys....systems Bottom line, I wish ID proponents would de-emphasize the 2nd law, it doesn’t add credibility to the ID case, it just adds confusion. Good work, btw, Eric Anderson. PS For the Physics Buffs, I did find these gems: http://www.uncommondescent.com.....nt-beings/....-be....-beings and http://www.uncommondescent.com.....n-physics/....phy....physics This reminded me of an earlier conversation on The Skeptical Zone where Mike Elzinga pointed out that Granville Sewell's "x-entropy" doesn't survive a simple dimensional analysis. I would love to see the UD regulars explain away the need for consistent units.

sparc Posts: 2088 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2015,14:03    Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 17 2015,13:15) KF gets pissy because people keep bringing up that he can't do the math:   Quote 136 DNA_JockMarch 17, 2015 at 10:30 am Yet every time you do one of these FIASCO calculations, you assume that the identity of each amino acid in the protein is independent of the identity of the other AAs. You might (on one of your good days) admit that this is inaccurate, but you always assert that the error is “immaterial”. When asked to justify this latter assertion, you are reduced to “because the numbers are really big”. Any engineer who makes an approximation needs to demonstrate that the approximation is fit-for-purpose, not merely assert it. A calculation that you have yet to perform. Also in the set of calculations that you have yet to perform: any comparison of the “informational” and “thermal” contributions to entropy. How can we discuss the limits of “compensation” unless you are willing to do this calculation? Would any of the other IDists care to help you out? I think Sal Cordova is numerate enough… 137 kairosfocusMarch 17, 2015 at 12:09 pm DNA_Jock, I warned. You insist on descending to schoolyard taunts, revealing much about your attitude. Commenting is a privilege, not a right, and it is conditional on reasonable, civil behaviour. KF Wow. Go and look at how KF has marked up DNAJock's original post now. He's lost it: http://www.uncommondescent.com/molecul....-554479 Is it only me or did he close comments completely after this. -------------- "[...] 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 -

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2015,14:06    Quote (sparc @ Mar. 17 2015,14:03) Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 17 2015,13:15) KF gets pissy because people keep bringing up that he can't do the math:   Quote 136 DNA_JockMarch 17, 2015 at 10:30 am Yet every time you do one of these FIASCO calculations, you assume that the identity of each amino acid in the protein is independent of the identity of the other AAs. You might (on one of your good days) admit that this is inaccurate, but you always assert that the error is “immaterial”. When asked to justify this latter assertion, you are reduced to “because the numbers are really big”. Any engineer who makes an approximation needs to demonstrate that the approximation is fit-for-purpose, not merely assert it. A calculation that you have yet to perform. Also in the set of calculations that you have yet to perform: any comparison of the “informational” and “thermal” contributions to entropy. How can we discuss the limits of “compensation” unless you are willing to do this calculation? Would any of the other IDists care to help you out? I think Sal Cordova is numerate enough… 137 kairosfocusMarch 17, 2015 at 12:09 pm DNA_Jock, I warned. You insist on descending to schoolyard taunts, revealing much about your attitude. Commenting is a privilege, not a right, and it is conditional on reasonable, civil behaviour. KF Wow. Go and look at how KF has marked up DNAJock's original post now. He's lost it: http://www.uncommondescent.com/molecul....-554479 Is it only me or did he close comments completely after this. He did. He did that before when I challenged him to "do the math". Pathetic. -------------- "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: Mar. 17 2015,14:18    If questions are too hard / embarrassing / insightfull, go for something like this: Quote 51 kairosfocusMarch 17, 2015 at 1:05 pm Piotr, you failed to mention that despite warnings you resorted to schoolyard taunt type trollish behaviour, forfeiting the privilege of comment. That context is highly material, and it speaks to a serious attitude problem that you and those who are as you need to address. KF -------------- "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: Mar. 17 2015,14:23    Brace for Martyrdom in 3...2...1...: Quote 52 DNA_JockMarch 17, 2015 at 1:12 pm Good point, Piotr. I would also note that, when closing the thread, kf did concede …entropy values directly tied to creating such configurations would patently be small relative to those connected to things like the latent heat of fusion of ice… Well, not so much “small” as miniscule, but I accept his concession that 2LoT has nothing to do with it. That was my point. 53 keith sMarch 17, 2015 at 1:15 pm KF, Try to learn to accept defeat gracefully. You were out-argued in that thread, plain and simple. This repeated business of grabbing your ball, scrawling all over someone else’s comments, closing comments altogether, and going home is childish. If you can’t accept defeat gracefully, then perhaps you should find a much smaller pond in which you can pretend to be the big fish. -------------- "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

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2015,15:35    He did prove, however, with geometric logic, that someone stole the strawberries. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

The whole truth Posts: 1554 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2015,15:42    Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 17 2015,13:35) He did prove, however, with geometric logic, that someone stole the strawberries. POTW -------------- Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

REC Posts: 638 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2015,15:56    So Sal SAL!?! is now the outsider's voice of reason at UD?

paragwinn Posts: 539 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2015,16:23    Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 17 2015,11:15) Wow. Go and look at how KF has marked up DNAJock's original post now. He's lost it: http://www.uncommondescent.com/molecul....-554479 That must be the posting equivalent of applying Mr. Leathers. -------------- All women build up a resistance [to male condescension]. Apparently, ID did not predict that. -Kristine 4-19-11 F/Ns to F/Ns to F/Ns etc. The whole thing is F/N ridiculous -Seversky on KF footnote fetish 8-20-11 Sigh. Really Bill? - Barry Arrington

paragwinn Posts: 539 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2015,16:36    niwrad, intrepid ID meteorologist:     Quote Zachriel     Quote    The monsoon is a water pump. Provide an exploded view so we can see its functional hierarchy and its controls/power apparatuses. The monsoon is a wind. ETA: fifthmonarchyman brings us a weather update: Quote We don’t know if monsoons can arise with out intelligent design . . . -------------- All women build up a resistance [to male condescension]. Apparently, ID did not predict that. -Kristine 4-19-11 F/Ns to F/Ns to F/Ns etc. The whole thing is F/N ridiculous -Seversky on KF footnote fetish 8-20-11 Sigh. Really Bill? - Barry Arrington

Texas Teach Posts: 2084 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2015,18:23    Quote (Patrick @ Mar. 17 2015,13:54) Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 17 2015,05:03) OMG OMG OMG... He's BACK     Quote 4 scordova March 16, 2015 at 8:34 pm I’m and ID proponent and creationist, but with respect to the 2nd law I’ve had to side with the ID-haters on the question of the 2nd law. I’ve never been quite forgiven by many of my peers for breaking ranks. A living human has substantially more thermodynamic entropy than a frozen dead rat. Anyone who actually bothers to calculate entropy as taught in Chemistry, Engineering, and Physics textbooks will know this. All things being equal, entropy increases with mass. I don’t participate here much anymore. My dissent and disagreement with other ID proponents and creationists isn’t exactly welcome. Here are computations that show entropy INCREASE with complexity of design: http://www.uncommondescent.com.....se-part-1/....-pa....-part-1 http://www.uncommondescent.com.....se-part-2/....-pa....-part-2 Here are derivations that connect Clausius, Boltzman Shannon, Dembski: http://creationevolutionuniver.....&t=72/......&......&t=72 Taking the above link, one can even make conversion factor from Clausius entropy expressed in Joule/Kelvin to Shannon Entropy expressed in Bits. Two people on opposite sides of the ID issue (Gordon Davisson and Myself) independently arrived at the same conversion factor! See: http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ober-2000/....er-....er-2000 http://www.uncommondescent.com.....cs-and-id/....-an....-and-id I probably wasn’t really ever forgiven for this heresy: http://www.uncommondescent.com.....d-systems/....sys....systems Bottom line, I wish ID proponents would de-emphasize the 2nd law, it doesn’t add credibility to the ID case, it just adds confusion. Good work, btw, Eric Anderson. PS For the Physics Buffs, I did find these gems: http://www.uncommondescent.com.....nt-beings/....-be....-beings and http://www.uncommondescent.com.....n-physics/....phy....physics This reminded me of an earlier conversation on The Skeptical Zone where Mike Elzinga pointed out that Granville Sewell's "x-entropy" doesn't survive a simple dimensional analysis. I would love to see the UD regulars explain away the need for consistent units. One word: Jesus. Next... -------------- "Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr "I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2015,19:07    There is some exquisite butthurt (KF, Tim, Mapou) at UD right now. All the KeithS haters, I ask you,  "are you not entertained?" Edited by Richardthughes on Mar. 17 2015,19:07 -------------- "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

Glen Davidson Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2015,19:44    Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 17 2015,19:07) There is some exquisite butthurt (KF, Tim, Mapou) at UD right now. All the KeithS haters, I ask you,  "are you not entertained?" I'm even feeling stupid and contagious. Yay! Glen Davidson -------------- http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

Ptaylor Posts: 1180 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2015,21:09    Quote (paragwinn @ Mar. 18 2015,09:36) niwrad, intrepid ID meteorologist:           Quote Zachriel           Quote    The monsoon is a water pump. Provide an exploded view so we can see its functional hierarchy and its controls/power apparatuses. The monsoon is a wind. ETA: fifthmonarchyman brings us a weather update:       Quote We don’t know if monsoons can arise with out intelligent design . . . Yes, they do seem to be a meteorologically challenged bunch. Let's not forget StephenB's  response to a question about the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami:   Quote Because there was no reason for God to [warn people]. Haven’t you ever heard of a weather forecast? -------------- 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

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2015,23:14    Re "Yes, they do seem to be a meteorologically challenged bunch" They're under the weather?

Glen Davidson Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2015,09:21    I love the "logic" of Sewell and the other UD think tank members.  Designed objects have not, and don't, just appear without intervention from intelligent human (or at least animal) beings, therefore there is a Designer. Well, see, because it had to make reproducing organisms, which also don't appear from nothing, but reproduce themselves.  Because otherwise we have no explanation for their appearance--well, other than being born, hatching, or whatever. So the utter absence of truly identifiable. manufactured Designed Objects from the Great Designer means that it must have designed organisms that just happen to reproduce themselves imperfectly with no help from the outside.  Because The Designer doesn't make anything like humans make, it must by analogy make something that humans do not make (except by reproducing), reproducing life.  I mean, you wouldn't expect a monolith or a spacecraft from intelligence, only entities that lack the sort of portability of design of known designers, and that fit into the same natural hereditary patterns found in "microevolution."  It just stands to reason. Designed objects like houses and airplanes aren't made by anything but humans, therefore what has never been made by humans (at least de novo) must have been designed by a completely (otherwise) unobserved Designer, along with no identifiable non-life designed objects at all.  Can't you get that through your heads? Glen Davidson -------------- http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2015,09:40    Quote (Glen Davidson @ Mar. 18 2015,17:21) I love the "logic" of Sewell and the other UD think tank members.  Designed objects have not, and don't, just appear without intervention from intelligent human (or at least animal) beings, therefore there is a Designer. Well, see, because it had to make reproducing organisms, which also don't appear from nothing, but reproduce themselves.  Because otherwise we have no explanation for their appearance--well, other than being born, hatching, or whatever. So the utter absence of truly identifiable. manufactured Designed Objects from the Great Designer means that it must have designed organisms that just happen to reproduce themselves imperfectly with no help from the outside.  Because The Designer doesn't make anything like humans make, it must by analogy make something that humans do not make (except by reproducing), reproducing life.  I mean, you wouldn't expect a monolith or a spacecraft from intelligence, only entities that lack the sort of portability of design of known designers, and that fit into the same natural hereditary patterns found in "microevolution."  It just stands to reason. Designed objects like houses and airplanes aren't made by anything but humans, therefore what has never been made by humans (at least de novo) must have been designed by a completely (otherwise) unobserved Designer, along with no identifiable non-life designed objects at all.  Can't you get that through your heads? Glen Davidson That old trope. It must be in Bible sales class 101. They come to my door with that 1000 serom stare in their eyes spruiking "Someone had to make this house, therefore God!" They haven't graduated from the womb and yet they say they're reborn, from what? Mud? -------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

Glen Davidson Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2015,09:41    In other words, if houses did appear in the environment without any human intervention, I would seriously consider that there is an unseen Designer lurking around.   That wouldn't necessarily indicate that organisms are designed, but clearly it would give one pause to consider some role for it in life's evolution, at least. It's precisely the lack of evidence of such poofery that makes leaps to "design of life" unreasonable. Glen Davidson -------------- http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2015,09:48    Quote (Glen Davidson @ Mar. 18 2015,17:41) In other words, if houses did appear in the environment without any human intervention, I would seriously consider that there is an unseen Designer lurking around.   That wouldn't necessarily indicate that organisms are designed, but clearly it would give one pause to consider some role in life's evolution, at least. It's precisely the lack of evidence of such poofery that makes leaps to "design of life" unreasonable. Glen Davidson The whole idea of a god or gods preclude the existence of invisible designers because .....who designed them? What fundies want is an FSM so they can say. There I told you so! If they actually realized it's just a concept there wouldn't be a problem. -------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

Glen Davidson Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2015,11:54    harry:   Quote The problem with software that supposedly demonstrates mindless, accidental evolution in action is that it makes clear, as johnnyb is saying, the exact opposite. There is an intelligently designed utility company providing necessary electricity to the computer the software runs on. The computer was intelligently designed. The computer’s operating system was intelligently designed. The program running on it that is supposed to demonstrate mindless, accidental evolution in action was intelligently designed. It is absurd, no matter what results the execution of that program produces, to then exclaim, “Look at what can happen mindlessly and accidentally!” I am really disgusted at the results of my flight simulations using computers.  20,000 feet up, you release the computer, and the damn thing simply plummets to the ground. I'm just about to call it quits. Glen Davidson -------------- http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

Patrick Posts: 666 Joined: July 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2015,12:15    Quote (Glen Davidson @ Mar. 18 2015,12:54) harry:   Quote The problem with software that supposedly demonstrates mindless, accidental evolution in action is that it makes clear, as johnnyb is saying, the exact opposite. There is an intelligently designed utility company providing necessary electricity to the computer the software runs on. The computer was intelligently designed. The computer’s operating system was intelligently designed. The program running on it that is supposed to demonstrate mindless, accidental evolution in action was intelligently designed. It is absurd, no matter what results the execution of that program produces, to then exclaim, “Look at what can happen mindlessly and accidentally!” I am really disgusted at the results of my flight simulations using computers.  20,000 feet up, you release the computer, and the damn thing simply plummets to the ground. I'm just about to call it quits. Glen Davidson I used to be surprised about how difficult it is to explain simulations to intelligent design creationists.  It seems that they are obstinate in their refusal to understand.  Then I remembered this from Upton Sinclair: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" Substituting "faith" for "salary" explains a lot. Over at TSZ, Rumraket is trying to step through the design of an evolution simulator with an IDCist.  It appears he's close to the stage where the pigeon defecates on the board, declares victory, and flies away.

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2015,12:53    At UD, there has been a "serious" discussion over whether a robot can "find" a route to a target. The Idiot asserts that only a human can find something. When animals or robots find something, it's just a metaphor. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

REC Posts: 638 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2015,13:04    It is all fun and games at UD for now, but I predict a megapurge when tax season is over.

BillB Posts: 388 Joined: Aug. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2015,13:05    Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 18 2015,18:53) At UD, there has been a "serious" discussion over whether a robot can "find" a route to a target. The Idiot asserts that only a human can find something. When animals or robots find something, it's just a metaphor. Its because the robot was designed, so anything it does is the result of design and consequently any discoveries it makes should be attributed to its designer. This is in contrast to humans which are designed so their discoveries should not be attributed to their designer. Simples!

Pages: (527) < ... 92 93 94 95 96 [97] 98 99 100 101 102 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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