RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < ... 480 481 482 483 484 [485] 486 487 488 489 490 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2007,11:06   

Quote (guthrie @ April 19 2007,08:21)
Newsflash!

Steve Fuller has a new book out soon.  
on amazon

The synopsis is interesting reading:
   
Quote
Synopsis
If you think Intelligent Design Theory (IDT) is merely the respectable face of Christian fundamentalism, and Evolution the only sensible scientific world-view, think again...IDT has driven science for 500 years. It was responsible for the 17th century's Scientific Revolution and helped build modern histories of physics, mathematics, genetics and social science. IDT's proponents take literally the Biblical idea that humans have been created in God's image. This confident, even arrogant, view of humanity enabled the West to triumph in the modern era. Evolution, on the other hand, derives from more ancient, even pagan, ideas about our rootedness in nature and the transience of all life forms. It has been always more popular outside the West, and until Darwin few evolutionists were scientists. What happened to reverse these two movements' fortunes? Steve Fuller's brilliant revisionist history is essential reading for anyone who wants a deeper understanding of science's most vociferous debate.


Now, apart from demonstrating that Fuller has no clue about science and how it is and has been practised, it shows that at least he agrees with Judge Jones on one issue- that ID is Creationism, with a religious presupposition.

It's especially interesting in that it reflects a post-Dover trend I've noticed whereby straight Creationism and ID seem to basically be merging. It's essentially settling into unabashed Creationism except with a top layer of ID jargon recited for appearance's sake.

This person's tactic is interesting: he happily admits that ID is all about Jesus, yet then claims that only by being all about Jesus can one be truly scientific.

It's a completely self-defeating tactic, so I'm cool with it.

It reminds me of FTK's meme of "ID isn't all about Jesus, but Darwinism is atheistic, so that's why ID is correct". That won't work either, so fine.

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

  
2ndclass



Posts: 182
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2007,11:29   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 19 2007,10:32)
I don't think there's much doubt that Joe is the most stupidest of the stupid.

I'm afraid I'll have to agree.  A few random goodies from a recent "conversation" with him:

Joe:
Quote
A computer's future state does not depend on its current state.
Quote
There isn't any way to objectively test the premise that chimps and humans shared a common ancestor and I know there isn't anything in any journals about it.
Quote
If I were involved [with the Dover trial] the outcome would have been different.
Quote
Philosophers of science set up the rules by which science plays.
Quote
Me: The fact remains that Dembski invented the term "Explanatory Filter", and he alone defined it to refer to a series of steps.
Joe: I doubt you are correct.
Quote
Me: The first step [of the EF] is to ask whether the event has high probability under a chance hypothesis.
Joe: That is false.
Quote
Me: CSI is measured in bits.
Joe: Wrong.

And for some double howlers, watch Joe demonstrate that he doesn't know what "strawman" means, and simultaneously deny that computers operate via fixed law and chance:
Quote
It is also a strawman to say that computers operate via fixed law and chance.
Quote
And in the end to say that computers run via fixed law and chance is a strawman.


--------------
"I wasn't aware that classical physics had established a position on whether intelligent agents exercising free were constrained by 2LOT into increasing entropy." -DaveScot

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2007,11:47   

Joe is the dumbest of the dumb.  All of his accumulated knowledge can be yours for only 20,000 USD.  But, if you don't have it, you're out of luck.  And this proves that he's really interested in disseminating information.

Quote
I am looking forward to the meeting. My list is completed. You will only see it once you give me the list I requested or $10,000. I don't give anything away for free.


--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2007,11:47   

Fine stuff! Does Joe the Refrigerator Repairman produce enough quality laugh-laugh to merit his own thread here, or is most of his shtick just boring?

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

  
2ndclass



Posts: 182
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2007,11:54   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 19 2007,11:47)
Fine stuff! Does Joe the Refrigerator Repairman produce enough quality laugh-laugh to merit his own thread here, or is most of his shtick just boring?

I'm sure he has a lot more where that came from.  But to coax the hilarity out of him, you have to try to engage him in conversation.  That's something I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.

--------------
"I wasn't aware that classical physics had established a position on whether intelligent agents exercising free were constrained by 2LOT into increasing entropy." -DaveScot

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2007,11:57   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 19 2007,11:47)
Fine stuff! Does Joe the Refrigerator Repairman produce enough quality laugh-laugh to merit his own thread here, or is most of his shtick just boring?

Well, the volume of tard that he writes posts about is perhaps worthy of a thread.  After he writes the post though, he gets off track easily due to his complete lack of ability to answer questions.  And his total DaveTard-at-his-worst-personality.

But he does say a lot of funny stuff.  Of course, he'll never appear here to discuss anything, but that doesn't mean we can't poke him with a stick.  In fact, that's what I think his blog is for.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2007,16:54   

Re "Moi is definitely pretentious. "

Miss Piggy resembles that remark!  :p

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2007,16:55   

A comment on the Evolutionist withholds evidence on Haldane’s Dilemma thread.
 
Quote
I have already refuted Nunney’s simulation. I could verify this, but I don’t feel like it.

I suspect it might have a short half life!
ALso, on the same thread  
Quote
No way can Darwinists keep pulling this cr*p and get away with it. They don’t want ReMine getting access to the data because they know he’ll rip it apart and show it for what it is - Darwinist storytelling. I wonder what some Darwinists are willing to resort to in order to protect their faith? How far will they go? I’m scared to find out.
shaner74

I find it odd that nobody's addressed the heart of the issue on UD (ok, not that odd).
From the article:
 
Quote
He declined, saying he will not share his software with “people who do not publish in peer-reviewed journals.” (his words)
I’m sure Prof. Nunney is a fine person, but this is bad public policy.

No attempt to say that in fact he is publishing in peer reviewed journals, just that it's bad policy!

What I found funny was Dumbski says at the start of the article  
Quote
I asked Walter ReMine to write up his recent experiences debating Haldane’s Dilemma:

If you read the article there is nothing that could be considered debate! Just Walter complaining about the unfairness of it all! And nothing else! No debates, because I guess who wants to debate him?

EDIT: http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/04/haldanes-dilemma.html

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

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2007,17:13   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 18 2007,18:02)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 18 2007,15:25)
 
Quote (J-Dog @ April 18 2007,14:59)
"The Virgin Mary in the palm of your hands, and swallowing".

I wonder if that would have been her first taste of Christianity.

On your knees and repent, you sinner.

faster... faster...

Quote
2.  Evilushionists are a bunch of atheist Nazi church-burning Ebola boys.  They eat babies too.


happy to use my flamethrower and bag of ebola for the cause, but I'm on a strict diet at the moment, so I gotta pass on the succulent, tender, babies.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2007,17:46   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 19 2007,11:06)
Quote (guthrie @ April 19 2007,08:21)
Newsflash!

Steve Fuller has a new book out soon.  
on amazon

The synopsis is interesting reading:
   
Quote
Synopsis
If you think Intelligent Design Theory (IDT) is merely the respectable face of Christian fundamentalism, and Evolution the only sensible scientific world-view, think again...IDT has driven science for 500 years. It was responsible for the 17th century's Scientific Revolution and helped build modern histories of physics, mathematics, genetics and social science. IDT's proponents take literally the Biblical idea that humans have been created in God's image. This confident, even arrogant, view of humanity enabled the West to triumph in the modern era. Evolution, on the other hand, derives from more ancient, even pagan, ideas about our rootedness in nature and the transience of all life forms. It has been always more popular outside the West, and until Darwin few evolutionists were scientists. What happened to reverse these two movements' fortunes? Steve Fuller's brilliant revisionist history is essential reading for anyone who wants a deeper understanding of science's most vociferous debate.


Now, apart from demonstrating that Fuller has no clue about science and how it is and has been practised, it shows that at least he agrees with Judge Jones on one issue- that ID is Creationism, with a religious presupposition.

It's especially interesting in that it reflects a post-Dover trend I've noticed whereby straight Creationism and ID seem to basically be merging. It's essentially settling into unabashed Creationism except with a top layer of ID jargon recited for appearance's sake.

This person's tactic is interesting: he happily admits that ID is all about Jesus, yet then claims that only by being all about Jesus can one be truly scientific.

It's a completely self-defeating tactic, so I'm cool with it.

It reminds me of FTK's meme of "ID isn't all about Jesus, but Darwinism is atheistic, so that's why ID is correct". That won't work either, so fine.

I've said it before, I'll say it again:

This is exactly why I love fundies.  Love 'em.

Ya see, for them to win and get their Wedge into schools, they MUST, absolutely MUST, shut up about their religious opinions.

Alas for them, they simply can't do it.  Ain't none of them can go ten minutes without telling everyone all about Jay-sus.

So not only CAN'T they shut up about their religious agenda, but they don't WANT to shut up about it.

It's why they will never win in court.  Ever.

See, IDers are *easy* to beat.  All you gotta do is let them talk long enough, and they happily and publicly shoot themselves in the head, every time.

Makes it so much easier.

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2007,17:50   

Quote (Ichthyic @ April 19 2007,17:13)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 18 2007,18:02)
 
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 18 2007,15:25)
 
Quote (J-Dog @ April 18 2007,14:59)
"The Virgin Mary in the palm of your hands, and swallowing".

I wonder if that would have been her first taste of Christianity.

On your knees and repent, you sinner.

faster... faster...

HANG ON, LORD --- HERE I COME !!!!!!!!!

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2007,19:20   

Quote (guthrie @ April 19 2007,08:21)
If you think Intelligent Design Theory (IDT) is merely the respectable face of Christian fundamentalism, and Evolution the only sensible scientific world-view, think again...

IDT's proponents take literally the Biblical idea that humans have been created in God's image.

The very first questions during Fuller's testimony during the Dover trial:


Quote
Q. Dr. Fuller, as we begin your direct examination, which is my opportunity to elicit your opinions, I want to ask you a few questions, which we'll go back and explain. Do you have an opinion concerning whether intelligent design is science?

A. Yes.

Q. What is that opinion?

A. It is.

Q. Do you have an opinion concerning whether intelligent design is religion?

A. It is not.

Q. Do you have an opinion concerning whether intelligent design is inherently religious?

A. It is not.

Q. Do you have an opinion concerning whether intelligent design is creation-science?

A. Nope, it is not.

Q. Do you have an opinion --

A. I do have an opinion. The opinion is, it is not.

Q. Thank you. Do you have an opinion concerning whether intelligent design is creationism?

A. I do, and it is not.





Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm . . . . .

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2007,19:43   

Quote (2ndclass @ April 19 2007,12:29)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 19 2007,10:32)
I don't think there's much doubt that Joe is the most stupidest of the stupid.

I'm afraid I'll have to agree.  A few random goodies from a recent "conversation" with him:

Joe:  
Quote
A computer's future state does not depend on its current state.
Quote
There isn't any way to objectively test the premise that chimps and humans shared a common ancestor and I know there isn't anything in any journals about it.
Quote
If I were involved [with the Dover trial] the outcome would have been different.
Quote
Philosophers of science set up the rules by which science plays.
Quote
Me: The fact remains that Dembski invented the term "Explanatory Filter", and he alone defined it to refer to a series of steps.
Joe: I doubt you are correct.
Quote
Me: The first step [of the EF] is to ask whether the event has high probability under a chance hypothesis.
Joe: That is false.
Quote
Me: CSI is measured in bits.
Joe: Wrong.

And for some double howlers, watch Joe demonstrate that he doesn't know what "strawman" means, and simultaneously deny that computers operate via fixed law and chance:
Quote
It is also a strawman to say that computers operate via fixed law and chance.
Quote
And in the end to say that computers run via fixed law and chance is a strawman.

Wow.

   
Ptaylor



Posts: 1180
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2007,20:26   

Jerry from JohnW's post above:
 
Quote
One of the things ID proponents should be trained to do when making presentations is to answer all the common objections as part of their presentation. It would undermine all the hecklers or sign waivers and marginalize their comments.

How does he think signing waivers will help?  ;)

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

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2007,21:19   

William Dembski
Quote
Mitochondrial ribosomes - define "match"

Compare the RNA sequence in mitochondrial ribosomes to other organisms. Turns out that they most closely match proteobacterium than any other organism, and this homology is strongly supported by the overall phylogenetic tree.

By the way, mitochondria usually have circular DNA and their own ribosomes. Mitochondria have two membranes. The outer membrane is similar to a eukaryote membrane, while the inner resembles a prokaryotic plasma membrane with its mesosomes (used for aerobic respiration in both cases). Mitochondria replicate by binary fission. And something akin to endosymbiosis can be directly observed in nature, such as when dinoflagellates engulf algae and retain the functioning chloroplast.

I'm sure everyone realizes that mitochondria evolve, so identity to the original symbiote would not be expected. (Some of the original genes appear to have been transferred to the nucleus.) Dembski links to a site that heavily relies upon the work of Thomas W. O'Brien, who says that mammalian mitochondria are of the prokaryotic type and that they are rapidly evolving. Says O'Brien, "Our laboratory has developed the bovine mitochondrial ribosome as a model system to address several questions related to the structure, function, biosynthesis and evolution of these interesting ribosomes."

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

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

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2007,21:20   

Quote (Ptaylor @ April 19 2007,20:26)
Jerry from JohnW's post above:
   
Quote
One of the things ID proponents should be trained to do when making presentations is to answer all the common objections as part of their presentation. It would undermine all the hecklers or sign waivers and marginalize their comments.

How does he think signing waivers will help?  ;)

Good catch!  

And maybe this can help protect him from all the sign waivers :




For The Truly Marginalized ID Supporter

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

  
keiths



Posts: 2195
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2007,00:12   

Quote (Zachriel @ April 19 2007,21:19)
By the way, mitochondria usually have circular DNA and their own ribosomes.

And if any of you Darwinian rubes think DNA can be circular and helical at the same time, let DaveTard set you straight:
   
Quote (DaveScot @ Feb 07 2006,14:59)
Unless I’m mistaken mtDNA is a circular molecule (like bacterial DNA) while nuclear DNA is a double helix. It seems the most likely explanation would be that a cell with a nucleus containing double helix DNA incorporated a separate cell with circular DNA. Symbiotic relationships abound. This is just one more example.


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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2007,00:49   

Heh, Dave Tard strikes again. He should go get his circular DNA fixed by at Joe's "home":  Cocoplum Appliance Distributors - 540 Main St, Keene, New Hampshire 03431. I think he needs some freon in those coils. Or oxygen for his neurons.

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

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2007,00:55   

Quote
Or oxygen for his neurons.


if so, it's way too late.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2007,03:08   

Dumbski attempts humour again. NO farting this time!
 
Quote
I will share a simulation that refutes Nunney’s simulation only with scholars who have published in the peer-reviewed ID literature. ;-)


Well, Bill, you've somewhat missed the boat there, the last issue was a while ago!

 
Quote
Volume 4.2, November 2005


Unless you've got a time machine (Tardis anybody!?) you'll have to wait for the next issue. And as nobody's picking up the phone.....

And in the same thread, they realise they don't need it anyway
Quote
Is there anything the results cannot be reproduced using the data in the paper and recoding the simulation ?
That's right - reproducable results? Almost sounds like they are understanding science (almost)

Quote
Jason, that’s what I would assume. I haven’t read the paper (I skimmed it), but I think once you know his assumptions then it would be straight-forward to code a similar simulation.


So, if it's possible to re-code it that sounds like a perfect ID research project. DaveTard is a computer whizz, so what are you waiting for IDiots? Or is this the best you can do? I.E Nothing at all.

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

  
Amadan



Posts: 1337
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2007,06:50   

Quick! Someone fetch the Exploonaturdy Felcher!!

http://www.huliq.com/18859/tunguska-meteorites-undeciphered-artifacts

Once we show that Tunguska was an intelligently designed accident that caused a big bang, we can refute all those Big Bang believing accidentalists!

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2007,10:46   

Oi DaveTard get posting you lazy git.

I'd love some SLoT violations if that's okay.

VIOLATE MY SLOT!

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

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2007,11:22   

nullasalus
 
Quote
If an IC structure were seen to spontaneously assemble under the microscope (mind you, I’m not arguing this is how ID proponents envision it happening) would that be a witness to a non-naturalistic event?

mike1962
 
Quote
Yes.

Leaving aside an unambiguous definition of "IC", we can probably agree that a baby requires all its parts in more-or-less the right configuration. Yet, we can watch babies "spontaneously assemble". They really, really need to get out more.

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on April 20 2007,14:20

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

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: April 20 2007,13:31   

Dave attempts to slake Richard's thirst:
 
Quote
Arguments from Incredulity - A Double Standard
DaveScot

I was reading The origin of the brain lies in a worm on the evolution of the central nervous system (CNS) and found a presumption in it based on nothing more than an Argument from Incredulity about the origin of complexity...

Dearest Dave,

This article reports an argument from the subdivision of regions that give rise to CNS structures, from the combinations of expression of regulatory genes, and an argument from the homologies that are observed between Playnereis and vertebrate nervous systems.  And probably a great deal more (I don't have access to the article itself).

Argument from incredulity occurs when one clings to belief in the face of contrary evidence, not when one arrives at belief and conjecture in response to the evidence.

This should be quite familiar to you.

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

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2007,14:08   

Thanks Lenny.  That makes all the point that needs to be made.  Now I need to find Fuller and confront him with it.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2007,14:35   

A comment in the worm thread reads:
Quote


Evolutionist =“Such a complex arrangement could not have been invented twice throughout evolution, it must be the same system,”

Creationist = “Such a complex arrangement could not have been invented once throughout evolution, it must be the amazing,”


Hmm, I guess smidlee did not get the memo.

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

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2007,14:44   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 20 2007,14:35)
A comment in the worm thread reads:
 
Quote


Evolutionist =“Such a complex arrangement could not have been invented twice throughout evolution, it must be the same system,”

Creationist = “Such a complex arrangement could not have been invented once throughout evolution, it must be the amazing,”


Hmm, I guess smidlee did not get the memo.

I don't think anyone over there cares any more.  Ever since Dover, the "But it's all about the science" corpse has been twitching more and more feebly.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2007,15:06   

Quote (JohnW @ April 20 2007,14:44)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 20 2007,14:35)
A comment in the worm thread reads:
     
Quote


Evolutionist =“Such a complex arrangement could not have been invented twice throughout evolution, it must be the same system,”

Creationist = “Such a complex arrangement could not have been invented once throughout evolution, it must be the amazing,”


Hmm, I guess smidlee did not get the memo.

I don't think anyone over there cares any more.  Ever since Dover, the "But it's all about the science" corpse has been twitching more and more feebly.

yes, it's like a word salad mixed with buzzword bingo over at UD lately

 
Quote
I think the idea of convergent evolution destroys the concept of homology as evidence for common descent (though I have no problem in accepting common descent myself). Since very similar organs and systems can appear many times in organisms that have no common anscestor, then the whole concept of homology is circular reasoning.


IDist

<shrug>

Typically I find that people who say things like "I have no problem in accepting common descent myself" usually then go on to prove that in fact they do have a problem. Problems

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

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2007,15:10   

Hey, SteveStory, the mysterious nonphone-picker-upper at the Discovery Institute has been named!

:D

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

AtBC Poet Laureate

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

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2007,16:33   

It's the ISCID I've been calling. They're the people who put out the premiere ID journal PCID.

Here's their contact info:

Quote


   ISCID
   66 Witherspoon Street, Suite 1800
   Princeton, NJ 08542

   609-924-4424 (general)
   609-924-0582 (fax)

   General E-mail - info@iscid.org

   To make tax exempt donations to ISCID, please click here.


ISCID Princeton Office:
 

William A. Dembski
Executive Director,
PCID General Editor william.dembski@iscid.org ext-1
 

Micah Sparacio
Managing Director micah.sparacio@iscid.org ext-7
 

Jed Macosko


Chief Research Coordinator,
PCID Associate Editor
jed.macosko@iscid.org ext-2
  Bruce Gordon PCID Associate Editor bruce.gordon@iscid.org
 

Terry Rickard
Development Officer terry.rickard@iscid.org ext-4
  James Barham PCID Book Review Editor james.barham@iscid.org ext-5
 

John Bracht
PCID Managing Editor john.bracht@iscid.org ext-6
 

Stephanie Hoylman
Office Manager stephanie.hoylman@iscid.org
       



The Journal (PCID) - pcid@iscid.org

Webmaster - webmaster@iscid.org


I emailed two of those addresses and called the phone number three times during EST business hours. No reply of any kind.

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

Pages: (1000) < ... 480 481 482 483 484 [485] 486 487 488 489 490 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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