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) < ... 84 85 86 87 88 [89] 90 91 92 93 94 ... >

Amadan Posts: 1337 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2015,10:08    Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 06 2015,06:21) Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 05 2015,23:36) And just in time for Friday. :D his comments are briefer now - he's painted himself into a corner and killed an extra child - *recalculating* objective morality. Are differences between absolute moralities a bit like the ones between different size infinities? In that case, why doesn't Barry solve his moral conundrums by moving one door down the hall? -------------- "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.

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2015,10:21    http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....rmation Podcast: Winston Ewert on computer simulation of evolution (AVIDA) that sneaks in information I have a question for Winston. Suppose the search space is such that for any string in the form AAAAA... it will almost always be possible to form a string of equivalent selective value by mutating one element of the string. In other words, equivalent strings will almost always be next door in the search space. Having defined the search space, how difficult is it to find the search? My second question would be, can you show an example in an actual genome where this is not true? This seems to be the argument put forth by Wagner in "Arrival of the Fittest." Perhaps I've got it wrong or haven't expressed it correctly. But I find it interesting. Wagner argues that this kind of permissiveness is true of many complex systems, including systems of logic circuits. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Patrick Posts: 666 Joined: July 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2015,14:55    I'd love to see Ewert visit here or at TSZ to discuss his views.  I think he'd get a pleasant reception (seriously).  Can someone with a sock at UD invite him?

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2015,14:57    TSZ is less stressful for them. -------------- "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: Feb. 06 2015,15:37    Okay, this got me to peek over at UD for the first time in months.  The first sentence of Ewert's abstract: Quote According to conservation of information theorems, performance of an arbitrarily chosen search, on average, does no better than blind search. This is a typical IDCist misstatement of the No Free Lunch theorems.  A more accurate summary is "No algorithm outperforms blind search when averaged over all possible search landscapes." On a particular landscape, of course, some algorithms far outperform blind search.  Leaving aside the issues with modeling evolution as a search, fitness landscapes like those we find in our environment are quite amenable to search by known evolutionary mechanisms. When he starts off with an error of that magnitude, I don't have a lot of confidence in what's coming next. Edited by Patrick on Feb. 06 2015,16:37

timothya Posts: 280 Joined: April 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2015,19:37    From gpuccio,  explaining "intelligent selection" at UD: Quote IS is any situation in which the system actively measures some property of the mutated object and reacts to that measure in a specific way. In this case, only the measured property can trigger the active response of the environment which “selects” (this time in a completely correct sense) the result, and expands and supports it. As a thermostat does? -------------- "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." Anatole France

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2015,21:56    Quote (Patrick @ Feb. 06 2015,15:37) Okay, this got me to peek over at UD for the first time in months.  The first sentence of Ewert's abstract:     Quote According to conservation of information theorems, performance of an arbitrarily chosen search, on average, does no better than blind search. This is a typical IDCist misstatement of the No Free Lunch theorems.  A more accurate summary is "No algorithm outperforms blind search when averaged over all possible search landscapes." On a particular landscape, of course, some algorithms far outperform blind search.  Leaving aside the issues with modeling evolution as a search, fitness landscapes like those we find in our environment are quite amenable to search by known evolutionary mechanisms. When he starts off with an error of that magnitude, I don't have a lot of confidence in what's coming next. Nothing new under the sun, apparently. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2015,22:31    If evolution was a search, then why didn't all (or at least most) of millions of species find the same, or at least similar, answers?

Driver Posts: 649 Joined: June 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2015,23:48    Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 05 2015,08:16) Barry's now arguing that it's OK to let people die if the alternative is to do something about it   Quote Some of my readers might remember the movie Sophie’s Choice (or the novel of the same name). The eponymous choice of the movie occurred upon Sophie’s arrival at Auschwitz. A guard forced her to choose which one of her two children would be gassed and which would proceed to the labor camp. If she refused to choose, both children would be killed. What was Sophie to do? Is it not the moral choice to choose one of the children to die so that at least one may live? Sophie chooses her son to live and her daughter to die. Sophie’s choice was profoundly immoral. The only moral choice is to refuse to choose even if this means both children must die. Thank you for solving that film, Barry. Her choice results in a downward spiral of immorality. Drink, drugs, a torrid sexual relationship, suicide. Easy. Living is easy when you're an eyes closed fundie. In Sophie's Choice II (Arrogant Edition), Sophie the Polish Jew chooses Jesus and everything is dandy and they all get together and have a laugh about the holocaust in Heaven. -------------- Why would I concern myself with evidence, when IMO "evidence" is only the mind arranging thought and matter to support what one already wishes to believe? - William J Murray [A]t this time a forum like this one is nothing less than a national security risk. - Gary Gaulin

The whole truth Posts: 1554 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2015,00:20    Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 06 2015,20:31) If evolution was a search, then why didn't all (or at least most) of millions of species find the same, or at least similar, answers?  ;) And here's something else to consider: The IDiots go on and on about the improbability or impossibility of evolutionary 'searches' being able to find whatever it is that they are looking for and need, and the IDiots obviously believe that the only way for the 'searches' to be successful is via 'God's' help, by designing and creating front-loaded biological entities with some search and find abilities and/or by directing the search and find actions within biological entities from nano-second to nano-second (omnipresent). Think about gordo's constant blab about isolated islands of function. So, what I'd like see the IDiots explain is why did/does the 'loving', 'omnibenevolent' designer-creator-god make it so hard for biological entities to search for and find solutions/answers? Why did/does the designer-creator-god design, create, front-load, and sustain isolated islands of function? Why are so many (or any) biological entities unsuccessful in their 'searches'? Why have so many (or any) organisms gone extinct? Why are some organisms allowed or directed to survive, and why are there so many (or any) differences in how long any particular types of biological entities/organisms are allowed or directed to find solutions/answers and survive? And if everything was/is designed-created by an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, perfect, loving 'God', why does anything have to 'search' for anything at all? -------------- 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

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2015,00:31    Quote (Driver @ Feb. 06 2015,23:48) Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 05 2015,08:16) Barry's now arguing that it's OK to let people die if the alternative is to do something about it   Quote Some of my readers might remember the movie Sophie’s Choice (or the novel of the same name). The eponymous choice of the movie occurred upon Sophie’s arrival at Auschwitz. A guard forced her to choose which one of her two children would be gassed and which would proceed to the labor camp. If she refused to choose, both children would be killed. What was Sophie to do? Is it not the moral choice to choose one of the children to die so that at least one may live? Sophie chooses her son to live and her daughter to die. Sophie’s choice was profoundly immoral. The only moral choice is to refuse to choose even if this means both children must die. Thank you for solving that film, Barry. Her choice results in a downward spiral of immorality. Drink, drugs, a torrid sexual relationship, suicide. Easy. Living is easy when you're an eyes closed fundie. In Sophie's Choice II (Arrogant Edition), Sophie the Polish Jew chooses Jesus and everything is dandy and they all get together and have a laugh about the holocaust in Heaven. And amazingly this Tard scales: Pick* one of a million or they'll all die... © Objective Morality. *Burning hospital with babies and fertilized eggs might be a good chance for Barry to work some more objective morality.. -------------- "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

The whole truth Posts: 1554 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2015,03:11    -------------- 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

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2015,12:21    amazing how everyone who believes in objective morality, believes it's their own morality. Because Obvi, Duh.

Cubist Posts: 558 Joined: Oct. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2015,16:08    "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do to their fellows, because it always coincides with their own desires."—Susan B. Anthony

Acartia_Bogart Posts: 2927 Joined: Sep. 2014 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2015,18:49    Irony alert! Irony alert! Dense and Dreary has commented on the journalistic ethics of Brian Williams.

Acartia_Bogart Posts: 2927 Joined: Sep. 2014 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2015,18:50    Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Feb. 07 2015,18:49) Irony alert! Irony alert! Dense and Dreary has commented on the journalistic ethics of Brian Williams. Sorry. Linkoid

Seversky Posts: 442 Joined: June 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2015,23:19    Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Feb. 07 2015,18:49) Irony alert! Irony alert! Dense and Dreary has commented on the journalistic ethics of Brian Williams. i fear for the safety of the planet when I read such comments.  Sooner or later the irony will become so heavy that it will collapse into a singularity.  UD and all around it will be sucked into their own self-referential black hole.  All that will be left behind is a haze of obFSCO-ation still bearing the faint aroma of oil of <i>ad hominem</i> and red herring.

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2015,04:40    Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Feb. 07 2015,19:49) Irony alert! Irony alert! Dense and Dreary has commented on the journalistic ethics of Brian Williams. That's pretty rich coming from the person who reviewed "The Selfish Gene" after reading the title, Kwok-style. Edited by Lou FCD on Feb. 08 2015,05:40 -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Amadan Posts: 1337 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2015,08:52    Quote (Seversky @ Feb. 08 2015,05:19) Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Feb. 07 2015,18:49) Irony alert! Irony alert! Dense and Dreary has commented on the journalistic ethics of Brian Williams. i fear for the safety of the planet when I read such comments.  Sooner or later the irony will become so heavy that it will collapse into a singularity.  UD and all around it will be sucked into their own self-referential black hole.  All that will be left behind is a haze of obFSCO-ation still bearing the faint aroma of oil of <i>ad hominem</i> and red herring. I thought it had already happened. All we are seeing is the Hawking radiation of Tard, where bits of spontaneously occurring mindlessness that don't get sucked back into the motherlode spring out into perceptible reality in a momentary burst of ecstatic ignorance. It is notable that, contrary to the predictions of some theorists, the singularity does destroy any information - or at least any useful information - that gets sucked into it. Take that, Second Law! Edited by Amadan on Feb. 08 2015,14:55 -------------- "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.

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2015,09:17    Quote (Amadan @ Feb. 08 2015,16:52) Quote (Seversky @ Feb. 08 2015,05:19)   Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Feb. 07 2015,18:49) Irony alert! Irony alert! Dense and Dreary has commented on the journalistic ethics of Brian Williams. i fear for the safety of the planet when I read such comments.  Sooner or later the irony will become so heavy that it will collapse into a singularity.  UD and all around it will be sucked into their own self-referential black hole.  All that will be left behind is a haze of obFSCO-ation still bearing the faint aroma of oil of <i>ad hominem</i> and red herring. I thought it had already happened. All we are seeing is the Hawking radiation of Tard, where bits of spontaneously occurring mindlessness that don't get sucked back into the motherlode spring out into perceptible reality in a momentary burst of ecstatic ignorance. It is notable that, contrary to the predictions of some theorists, the singularity does destroy any information - or at least any useful information - that gets sucked into it. Take that, Second Law! It all happens at the non-event horizon. -------------- "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

Seversky Posts: 442 Joined: June 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2015,10:00    Wow!  They really are in full rant mode over at UD.   Denyse is using the Brian Williams revelations to savage basically any journalism that isn't her kind of journalism, namely 'yellow' As for Barry, he's jumped the shark so far that he should be banning himself.  First, we were treated to an exposition of why he loathes Henry Kissinger.  Now, atheists are belabored as "simpering cowards" for not endorsing Nietszche's views and, if this didn't make his position clear enough, he rounds out his OP with Quote I have nothing but contempt for smiley-faced, weak-kneed, milquetoast atheism that insists that God is dead and all is well because we are just as nice as you.

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2015,13:52    Quote (Seversky @ Feb. 08 2015,05:00) Wow!  They really are in full rant mode over at UD.   Denyse is using the Brian Williams revelations to savage basically any journalism that isn't her kind of journalism, namely 'yellow' As for Barry, he's jumped the shark so far that he should be banning himself.  First, we were treated to an exposition of why he loathes Henry Kissinger.  Now, atheists are belabored as "simpering cowards" for not endorsing Nietszche's views and, if this didn't make his position clear enough, he rounds out his OP with Quote I have nothing but contempt for smiley-faced, weak-kneed, milquetoast atheism that insists that God is dead and all is well because we are just as nice as you. Yes, I think we are about to see another gear change from Mr Arrington.

REC Posts: 638 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2015,15:37    Barry only has one gear. After putting words in the mouth of everyone he disagrees with: "Here endeth the argument. Comments are now closed."

Soapy Sam Posts: 659 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2015,15:56    BA:   Quote I have nothing but contempt for smiley-faced, weak-kneed, milquetoast atheism that insists that God is dead and all is well because we are just as nice as you. Not 'just as nice as you', Bazzer - nicer. He has grudging respect for nihilists, but not for sincere disbelievers who don't go down that path? Chuckle. I've said it before, but it bugs the hell out of these bozos that atheists aren't sinking into moral decay and despair like they should. I just found another reason to try to be 'a good person'. Not only is it rewarding in itself, it pisses Barry off! -------------- SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

Soapy Sam Posts: 659 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2015,16:12    After a few put their position, BA summarise the critiques with incisive wit:     Quote AS, FG, REC, Jerad . . . and the simpering continues. Nietzsche bears witness against them. They ignore him. “We are nice. Really we are! You objectivists are poopyheads!” That whirring sound you hear is Nietzsche spinning in his grave. We've pissed off a dead bloke now? -------------- SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

Seversky Posts: 442 Joined: June 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2015,16:47    Box on the "New Atheists Are Simpering Cowards" thread:   Quote 46 Box February 8, 2015 at 3:22 pm It’s telling that after some tear-jerking whining the atheists in this thread run off as if emasculate hypersensitivity means something under materialism. It underscores the point that Barry was making: No, Box, if some of the atheists on that thread have disappeared it's not because they are cowards or unable to answer your arguments, it's because they, like me, were silently banned by Arrington. That's how he quells dissent, by stealth, like a coward, and then leaves others to assume that the banned have run away.  Not admitting that he has banned them makes him a liar. If you think we have run away because we can't answer your arguments I challenge you to come here, to this thread, and see if that's true.   I'm not holding my breath, though.   I'll give you some food for thought, although I'm not expecting any response.  Ask yourself how many people have been banned from UD in a given period compared with those banned from AtBC or TSZ, silently or otherwise.  Ask yourself, on that basis, who is less afraid of and more tolerant of dissenting views?  If Arrington would let me back, I would be more than happy to put my case before the 49,000+ audience Barry claims for UD.  Would you do the same here?

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2015,18:42    Did he really say he's only banned 49 people? I suppose he might say that because he deleted the banned list. I can believe he's banned 49 people since the amnesty. That's pretty much everyone who's disagreed with him. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2015,19:24    Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Feb. 07 2015,18:50)     Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Feb. 07 2015,18:49) Irony alert! Irony alert! Dense and Dreary has commented on the journalistic ethics of Brian Williams. Sorry. Linkoid Dreary:    Quote A friend of mine is the victim of an expensive lawsuit prosecuted by a person who is often claimed to be a Nobel Prize winner, a claim the Nobel committee disclaims. Any idea what this is about?

Learned Hand Posts: 214 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2015,20:22    Any idea what this is about? First, I have to say that "News" is even less self-aware than normal if she feels comfortable editing an actual journalist's writing--particularly for clarity. For example, her own piece doesn't bother to explain what's wrong with the lede. She leaves that for her first comment. Wow. And of course she doesn't bother to explain this comment, either. Because why should anyone understand what she's writing about? The UD brigades only care whether she's on the attack, not whether or not she makes sense. My best guess is that she's referring to the Steyn/Mann lawsuit. I haven't read anything on it in a while, but if I remember right Mann referred to himself as a Nobel Prize winner in one of his pleadings, when actually he's affiliated with an organization that won the prize. Or something like that, at least, I don't recall the details. If her friend is Steyn, he's got nothing to complain about. Normally I'd be very sympathetic to him, because I find libel lawsuits extremely noxious, but in this case he's behaved incredibly stupidly. The Popehat links have details.

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2015,03:52    If Mann was part of an organization that won the Nobel Prize and contributed in some way to the win (which Wikipedia substantiates), then there would seem to be at least some justification for his claim. That contrasts with the case often touted by IDC advocates of a chemist who they claim is a Nobel Prize *nominee*, though the Nobel Committee does not make nominee names public. It seems hypocritical to me that they should be outraged in the first instance and adulatory in the second one. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Pages: (527) < ... 84 85 86 87 88 [89] 90 91 92 93 94 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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