RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (527) < ... 141 142 143 144 145 [146] 147 148 149 150 151 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 5, Return To Teh Dingbat Buffet< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Amadan



Posts: 1337
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2015,14:17   

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 06 2015,18:50)
next time they go off talking about Natural Law blah blah, this might be a good part of someone's response:


Ah, but they were all Democrats!

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

   
Bob O'H



Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2015,16:16   

Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 06 2015,14:17)
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 06 2015,18:50)
next time they go off talking about Natural Law blah blah, this might be a good part of someone's response:


Ah, but they were all Democrats!

Really? Are you sure they could differentiate?

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

   
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2015,16:46   

Well, in math differentiating is easier than integrating...

But this isn't about math, is it...

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2015,17:53   

political reply re: democrat posted to BW on general principles.

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2015,12:39   

Quote
What is a “species” anyway?

September 7, 2015
Posted by News under Darwinism, Intelligent Design, News, speciation
3 Comments

If you listen to Darwinblather, you’d never think to ask. (As the rest of us face the road ahead. Yes, it is all as out of touch as it sounds.)

Meanwhile:

Quote
BEACON Researchers at Work: The Origin of a Species? [D]espite all the fantastic work done since Darwin’s day, speciation is still mysterious. Speciation is complex, multifaceted, tricky to study, and, most importantly, hard to “catch in the act.” It would help if we had a model system in which we could study speciation in fine detail as it occurs, examine and manipulate the processes involved, and to do so over a humanly reasonable time scale. More.


In short, no one knows.

But courts and governments demand public funding for this stuff.

Why is that fair? If we leave out publicly funded, government-approved attacks on traditional religious communities, why IS it fair?

Look, I (O’Leary for News) am not saying speciation doesn’t occur. I guess so, but don’t really care.

I want to talk about something else, something I do care about: The evidence base for Darwinism-based speciation wouldn’t get a drunk driver convicted. Why don’t we have a problem when students are hearing it shouted in tax-funded schools?

See also: Talk to the fossils: Let’s see what they say back

Follow UD News at Twitter!

(Visited 50 times, 50 visits today)
DeliciousFacebookRedditStumbleUponTwitterRSS Feed


Quote
1
SeverskySeptember 7, 2015 at 10:53 am
Species: A History of the Idea


Quote
2
wd400September 7, 2015 at 10:57 am
Quote
If you listen to Darwinblather, you’d never think to ask.

How would you know?

I mean, seriously, the “species problem” is part of most intro to evolution courses, covered in every intro textbook I know about and has been a central question in evolutionary biology since the field began.

If you are looking for “blather” then it’s hard to imagine a better example than this post.

Quote
3
goodusername

September 7, 2015 at 10:59 am
Quote
What is a “species” anyway?
If you listen to Darwinblather, you’d never think to ask.

Whaaa? I’m glad I didn’t have a drink in my mouth when I read that.
That question is asked and discussed – in length – in just about every work on Darwinism starting with Origin of Species to the modern day.




linky, but i've saved the page in case Dense sobers up and deletes it.

   
CeilingCat



Posts: 2363
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2015,16:12   

Still drunk.
Quote

5 News September 7, 2015 at 11:41 am

Glad Good User Name didn’t have a drink in his mouth too.

So WHY is speciation still a big problem?

Something so obvious can’t be solved?

Look, where News lives, not only can basic property rights be solved but private vs. municipal SNOW dumping rights can be solved.

You can’t solve basic problems? So why do you people think the rest of us should go on paying taxes for your nonsense?

Don’t tell us that Europeans bow down and pay. We aren’t Europeans (maybe you didn’t notice. Read the fine print).

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2015,16:30   

Quote
60
JDH

September 7, 2015 at 2:09 pm

This comment is directed to all of you who are arrogant enough to believe to have God caught in an obvious contradiction over free will vs. omniscience.

You claim it is not possible for both to exist. So I don’t have to know how God has both, all I have to show is one method by which the infinite God can have both.

1. When any time bound intelligent agent makes a decision, the Lord is there. If some other directive of God depends upon the agent making a different decision, he just puts every particle in the universe back to the time before the decision and again observes. He repeats this process until the agent makes the decision He wants.

I am no way suggesting that this has any comport with reality, as I think this is much too complicated way. I bet God has a much simpler algorithm. I can’t see it, being the time-bound agent that I am.

BUT … any of you who read this, and still go on believing that you have discovered this obvious truth that God can’t both be omniscient and have granted His subjects free will are willingly ignorant.

You choose to disbelieve in spite of the evidence, not because of it.


You make a choice, and god hits the 'rearrange Whole Fucking Universe and make them retry' button until you freely choose what god wanted, at every moment. Doesn't sound completely bonkers at all.

Edited by stevestory on Sep. 07 2015,17:31

   
someotherguy



Posts: 398
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2015,21:58   

I just had to come out of deep AtBC retirement - not that I was ever all that active - to note that that particular UD thread is, while young, already a deeply rich vein of stupid to be mined.  I think y'all will be able to get a seriously good fix if it keeps up like this.

Here's some more:

 
Quote


Bob O’H at 7, you gloriously miss the point: We don’t want to pay taxes or be compelled by court orders to front anything to do with Darwinism if YOU can’t answer that question.

We don’t ask for funding or legislation because we admit we don’t know. Not so Darwin’s mob.

You want funding but you don’t know either. Why?


--------------
Evolander in training

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2015,22:25   

Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 07 2015,21:58)
I just had to come out of deep AtBC retirement - not that I was ever all that active - to note that that particular UD thread is, while young, already a deeply rich vein of stupid to be mined.  I think y'all will be able to get a seriously good fix if it keeps up like this.

Here's some more:

 
Quote


Bob O’H at 7, you gloriously miss the point: We don’t want to pay taxes or be compelled by court orders to front anything to do with Darwinism if YOU can’t answer that question.

We don’t ask for funding or legislation because we admit we don’t know. Not so Darwin’s mob.

You want funding but you don’t know either. Why?

Does that mean that she thinks that religions should be forced to give up their tax free status?

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2015,22:28   

O'Leary - "We demand all funding be withdrawn from scientific research unless it already knows the answer."

She's the greatest.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2015,04:38   

Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 07 2015,21:58)
I just had to come out of deep AtBC retirement - not that I was ever all that active - to note that that particular UD thread is, while young, already a deeply rich vein of stupid to be mined.  I think y'all will be able to get a seriously good fix if it keeps up like this.

Here's some more:

 
Quote


Bob O’H at 7, you gloriously miss the point: We don’t want to pay taxes or be compelled by court orders to front anything to do with Darwinism if YOU can’t answer that question.

We don’t ask for funding or legislation because we admit we don’t know. Not so Darwin’s mob.

You want funding but you don’t know either. Why?

Welcome back!

--------------
"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: Sep. 08 2015,04:39   

Quote (Woodbine @ Sep. 07 2015,22:28)
O'Leary - "We demand all funding be withdrawn from scientific research unless it already knows the answer."

She's the greatest.

But those evolutionists want answers! That's just not fair. Can't they be happy with doubt / uncertainty / don't rule out religion?

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

  
KevinB



Posts: 525
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2015,05:27   

Quote (Woodbine @ Sep. 07 2015,22:28)
O'Leary - "We demand all funding be withdrawn from scientific research unless it already knows the answer."

Strike out from "unless" for greater accuracy.

She's mixing up the scientific method with the "theologic method", where you know what you want the answer to be, and fudge the working-out to get there.

Quote
She's the greatest.

She's still a couple of dormice short of a Tea Party.

  
someotherguy



Posts: 398
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2015,07:21   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 08 2015,04:38)
Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 07 2015,21:58)
I just had to come out of deep AtBC retirement - not that I was ever all that active - to note that that particular UD thread is, while young, already a deeply rich vein of stupid to be mined.  I think y'all will be able to get a seriously good fix if it keeps up like this.

Here's some more:

   
Quote


Bob O’H at 7, you gloriously miss the point: We don’t want to pay taxes or be compelled by court orders to front anything to do with Darwinism if YOU can’t answer that question.

We don’t ask for funding or legislation because we admit we don’t know. Not so Darwin’s mob.

You want funding but you don’t know either. Why?

Welcome back!

Thanks!

--------------
Evolander in training

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2015,07:33   

According to evolutionary theory, species are expected to be groups that transition across their boundaries.  In reality, species are found at all stages of transition, from well defined and isolated through freely hybridizing when the opportunity arises.  Beyond that, we know that there are many potential routes and processes involved in speciation, so groups exist that can be defined as species by some definitions but not by others.  A complex reality leads to complex semantics.  Not surprisingly, this means that there are problems in coming up with sharp dividing lines about what is and what is not a species.  

The ability of religious blinders to make people oblivious to the obvious is mind-blowing.

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2015,08:29   

Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 08 2015,13:33)
According to evolutionary theory, species are expected to be groups that transition across their boundaries.  In reality, species are found at all stages of transition, from well defined and isolated through freely hybridizing when the opportunity arises.  Beyond that, we know that there are many potential routes and processes involved in speciation, so groups exist that can be defined as species by some definitions but not by others.  A complex reality leads to complex semantics.  Not surprisingly, this means that there are problems in coming up with sharp dividing lines about what is and what is not a species.  

The ability of religious blinders to make people oblivious to the obvious is mind-blowing.

SHUT UP DARWINTHUG AND GIVE DENYSE HER MONEY BACK!

:angry:

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2015,08:59   

Quote
61
steveh

September 7, 2015 at 3:25 pm
Quote
1. When any time bound intelligent agent makes a decision, the Lord is there. If some other directive of God depends upon the agent making a different decision, he just puts every particle in the universe back to the time before the decision and again observes. He repeats this process until the agent makes the decision He wants.


That also explains why Hitler’s “National Judaism day” and Stalin’s on-going “Kittens are cute” league were replaced by more God-friendly events.

Free will according to JDH:

G) Do you you take sugar
Y) No thanks
G) No that is not the correct answer. Deleted. Now, do you take sugar?
Y) No
G) No that is not the correct answer. Deleted. Now, do you take sugar?
Y) No, I have a medical condition, I must avoid sugar.
G) No that is not the correct answer. Deleted. Now, do you take sugar?
Y) No, I have a medical condition, I must avoid sugar.
G) No that is not the correct answer. Deleted. Now, do you take sugar?
Y) (High energy particle enters brain). Half past two, er, three, er sorry where was I?
G) Ok three sugars it is then.
linky

Edited by stevestory on Sep. 08 2015,09:59

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2015,09:04   

Quote
14

Robert Byers

September 4, 2015 at 8:59 pm

Jesus was the 911 answer. It was a big call.
Also God is always stopping problems. He just can’t stop them all because of the problem that led to Jesus being the 911 answer.
Its an equation.


isn't this the nimrod who said math was worthless? Now he says Jesus is an equation? linky

   
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2015,09:24   

From the same thread....I know UD houses a wonderful spectrum of delusion but I really think Mapou might be insane.

Like, 'mad actual'....


  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2015,09:31   

"We, too are Elohim"

that should go over well.

   
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2015,10:32   

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 08 2015,08:31)
"We, too are Elohim"

that should go over well.

That reminds me of the novel "Stranger in a Strange Land".

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2015,11:33   

Quote
Darwinian evolution is not a valid research program
September 7, 2015 Posted by News under Culture, Darwinism, News
21 Comments
Darwinian evolution is not a valid research program.

I do not have a cat entered in the fight, so I don’t really care that much.



Denyse has taken to day-drinking?

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2015,11:37   

Quote
19
wd400September 8, 2015 at 8:58 am
Quote
Darwinian evolution is not a valid research program


As I asked in the other thread: how would you know?

You’re talking about a thread in which you start by demonstrating you ignorance of evolutionary biology as it is taught and practiced. IDers in the comments follow that up with incomprehensible ramblings about snow and property rights in Canada and whole bunch of made-up factoids about what Darwin thought about species (as if that was important to modern evolutionary biology).

There’s certainly some blather in that thread, but it’s not coming from people that understand evolutionary biology…
hahahaha

   
KevinB



Posts: 525
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2015,11:39   

I see that Denews has posted  Why Christian Darwinism is a Dead Duck

And "Dr JDD" has asserted that
Quote
Christian Darwinism is an allagorous term for weak faith unfortunately.


Surely that's backwards. It's the Creationists whose faith is weak, since the idea that it is possible for life to have come about without divine intervention is sufficient to undermine their belief.

BRW Is "allagorous" a portmanteau of "allegory" and "allosaurus"?

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2015,12:05   

Quote (KevinB @ Sep. 08 2015,19:39)
I see that Denews has posted  Why Christian Darwinism is a Dead Duck

And "Dr JDD" has asserted that
     
Quote
Christian Darwinism is an allagorous term for weak faith unfortunately.


Surely that's backwards. It's the Creationists whose faith is weak, since the idea that it is possible for life to have come about without divine intervention is sufficient to undermine their belief.

BRW Is "allagorous" a portmanteau of "allegory" and "allosaurus"?

It's obviously a Malamanteau.



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

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2015,12:08   

Quote (KevinB @ Sep. 08 2015,12:39)
I see that Denews has posted  Why Christian Darwinism is a Dead Duck

And "Dr JDD" has asserted that
 
Quote
Christian Darwinism is an allagorous term for weak faith unfortunately.


Surely that's backwards. It's the Creationists whose faith is weak, since the idea that it is possible for life to have come about without divine intervention is sufficient to undermine their belief.

BRW Is "allagorous" a portmanteau of "allegory" and "allosaurus"?

analogous?

   
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2015,12:16   

a humorous alligator......alligorous

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

  
Kantian Naturalist



Posts: 72
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2015,12:39   

This litle gem deserves a moment's notice. O'Leary has been vigorously promoting Barnham's holistic, organism-first philosophy of biology for a while now. Two things worth noting:

(1) The entire project of design theory relies on life-as-machine metaphor --that's the whole point of talking about organelles as nanotechnology, as they constantly do, or of DNA as software. Either O'Leary is simply too stupid to understand that Barham's organism-centered philosophy of biology is incompatible with design theory, or she doesn't care. (Box also comes out in support of Barnham and Talbott, and then has to do a lot of hand-waving to make their holistic, organism-centered philosophy of biology compatible with design theory.)  


(2) Barnham is a strong proponent of emergentism, which according to Arrington is bullshit. Does he realize that O'Leary is promoting bullshit on his page?  Shouldn't O'Leary be banned for this?  He's come down hard on materialists for this, but of course O'Leary is exempt.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2015,14:06   

Quote
24
RDFishSeptember 8, 2015 at 12:43 pm
Hi BA77,

You failed to respond to any of my points.

1) In your claim that disproving evolution constitutes support for “ID” you are posing a false dichotomy.
2) Are there guided material processes? Are there unguided immaterial processes? What sort of process is going on when human beings use their brains to design things? How do you know?
3) In reifying “intelligence” you are making a category error.
4) You misunderstand information physics by stating that “material processes” are described therein.
5) My example regarding the photoelectric effect is a perfect illustration of your conceptual error that you have no response to.
6) You’ve twice failed to respond to the failed prediction of ID regarding timescales

Instead of responding to anything I say, you paste more stuff from the internet and call me names. That just makes you look like you have no idea what you’re talking about.

Cheers,
RDFish/AIGuy


any guesses on how BatShit will respond?eta: linky

Edited by stevestory on Sep. 08 2015,15:06

   
sparc



Posts: 2088
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2015,14:43   

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 08 2015,14:06)
Quote
24
RDFishSeptember 8, 2015 at 12:43 pm
Hi BA77,

You failed to respond to any of my points.

1) In your claim that disproving evolution constitutes support for “ID” you are posing a false dichotomy.
2) Are there guided material processes? Are there unguided immaterial processes? What sort of process is going on when human beings use their brains to design things? How do you know?
3) In reifying “intelligence” you are making a category error.
4) You misunderstand information physics by stating that “material processes” are described therein.
5) My example regarding the photoelectric effect is a perfect illustration of your conceptual error that you have no response to.
6) You’ve twice failed to respond to the failed prediction of ID regarding timescales

Instead of responding to anything I say, you paste more stuff from the internet and call me names. That just makes you look like you have no idea what you’re talking about.

Cheers,
RDFish/AIGuy


any guesses on how BatShit will respond?eta: linky

It will start with either "OT" or "semi-related", continue with some unrelated randomly chosen quotes from Dembski and/or Behe culminating in some statements about how the Turin shroud proves ID/disproves Darwinism/materialism plus verse and music.

--------------
"[...] 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 -

   
  15792 replies since Dec. 29 2013,11:01 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (527) < ... 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]