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 2

Pages: (500) < ... 469 470 471 472 473 [474] 475 476 477 478 479 ... >

MichaelJ Posts: 462 Joined: June 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,00:18    Quote (paragwinn @ Aug. 18 2009,23:41) Quote (didymos @ Aug. 01 2009,01:05) Ahahahahahahaahahahahaha!1!one!! GilDodgen is a tard (bolding mine):     Quote Completely and totally off-topic: From time to time I Google my name to check out the latest vitriol and abject hatred directed at me by Darwinists. I was amazed to discover that there is a reference to my Masters thesis, written in French in 1977, about the great French aviation pioneer and author, Antoine de Saint Exupéry. His best known work is The Little Prince. At that time I was pursuing degrees in music and foreign language and literature, and building and flying hang gliders on the weekends. Saint Exupéry was an inspiration, for obvious reasons, so I read his entire opus in French and wrote my thesis on his life and literature. Here is what I would like to know: To the best of my knowledge, there are only two copies of my Masters thesis — one in my personal library and one in the library archives at Washington State University. How did this end up on the Internet? http://openlibrary.org/b/OL167.....pe%CC%81ry Here’s a link about Saint Exupéry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.....up%C3%A9ry Anyone wanna try and get a copy of Gildo's thesis? While trying to get caught up on posts here, I came across this one above and checked the out the first link regarding the Exupéry paper. It has an, uh, interesting "book cover" associated with it. Ha Ha Ha Ha

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,01:23    Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 19 2009,03:24) Quote I notice that Lamarck, moon landing denier, has come out as a 9/11 troofer... Isn't the moronic convergence a thing of wonder? UFO ESP HIV 911 Evolution Immunization Birth Cert ETC You could make an alternate Crank Index, and I bet they would track each other. don't forget crank cancer cures & Hiter & Global Meltdown. Jerry "Peroxide" Tumours Dave  "Sump Oil" Tard Dense " No Holocaust without Darwin" GMINW2F Tard Dave "New Ice Age" Tard (again) -------------- "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

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,03:56    Denyse gives Ken Miller a rare compliment:       Quote Friend Casey Luskin writes, “There He Goes Again: Ken Miller misrepresents Behe’s Arguments on the Immune System.” Well, of course he would, wouldn’t he? I’ve read Behe’s Edge of Evolution and Miller’s Finding Darwin’s God, and – to be charitable to Miller – can find no way of even ranking them in the same category. All right!  The Heavens (and Ken Miller) rejoice!!  I think she's 100 percent serious here.  This is a complement straight from the heart.  Way to go, Ken Miller!  This may be the only thing that IDists and Sane People agree on: Ken Miller and Michael Behe are not in the same category!!

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,05:24    Gordon Mullings   Quote Darwinism and the broader project of Evolutionary Materialism are plainly dying as a new era of sophisticated design thought dawns for science and our wider civlisation. My socks are threadbare at the moment. But somebody please do ask Gordon to predict when this "new era" is due to arrive. -------------- 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

Quack Posts: 1961 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,06:13    Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 18 2009,19:46)     Quote Quack, posted 8/18/09 2:19 AM     Quote Defence money has always been magic. Off topic, but while we are at it - read a story many years ago about Pentagon procurement - hammers at >$100 apiece. (Gold plated and numbered, with certificate?) How do you think they pay for stuff that they don't want listed on the official records? ;) Henry I leave that one to Ollie North. -------------- Rocks have no biology.               Robert Byers.

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,07:45    some bait for Gordon Mullings??? from pzs joint Quote Men, Women Divided Over Sex Bill Category: Religion here is a bill pending in the Bahamas which would outlaw marital rape, and it is facing a lot of opposition. There is a common theme in the arguments against it: see if you can figure out what it is. "It is ridiculous for them to try to make that a law, because I don't think a man can rape his own wife. After two people get married, the Bible says that they become one - one flesh. How is it possible to rape what is yours?" asked Mr. Sutherland. "Even if a woman says no to her husband it still can't be considered rape because she is his wife. He already paid his dues at the church and she already said 'I do,' so from then on, even if [a man] forces sex on his wife, it isn't rape," he said. "I disagree with the bill because I disagree that a man can rape his wife. The Bible tells me that a man's body is his wife's and her body is his. How could he rape her?" asked Ms. Sweeting. It looks to me as if being brought up with a belief in the literal truth of a misogynistic document like the Bible can inculcate the evil idea that women are possessions, and that marriage is an act of handing over a woman's bill of sale to a man. I thought a wife was a partner, not a slave -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,08:14    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 19 2009,05:24) Gordon Mullings   Quote Darwinism and the broader project of Evolutionary Materialism are plainly dying as a new era of sophisticated design thought dawns for science and our wider civlisation. My socks are threadbare at the moment. But somebody please do ask Gordon to predict when this "new era" is due to arrive. The age of Tardquarius. Tardquarius!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111111111111one. -------------- "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: Aug. 19 2009,09:28    Quote However, the emergence of the NA movement and the rise of its chief exponents to public prominence and the New York Times bestseller list clearly shows that Darwinism is not only a dominant institutional scientific paradigm, but that — angry rebuttals to the contrary notwithstanding — it is and has always been a deeply controversial scientific theory. By that standard, ID is not quite as controversial as alien anal probes. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,09:40    Dembski can has peer review? http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....erature -------------- "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

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,09:43    Hedge:   Quote I think that, right now, what the ID movement needs most is some sort of online, social networking site aimed at interesting young people in ID theory and teaching them about the holes in Darwinism. Something like that could go a long way toward “disarming Darwinism in the general culture” and would, I bet, prove quite popular too. Perhaps we should help them think of a name! How about... http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/ ? -------------- 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

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,09:44    duplicate. -------------- 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

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,09:48    Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 19 2009,09:40) Dembski can has peer review? http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....erature Fucks sake   Quote P.S. Our critics will immediately say that this really isn’t a pro-ID article but that it’s about something else (I’ve seen this line now for over a decade once work on ID started encroaching into peer-review territory). Before you believe this, have a look at the article. In it we critique, for instance, Richard Dawkins METHINKS*IT*IS*LIKE*A*WEASEL (p. 1055). Question: When Dawkins introduced this example, was he arguing pro-Darwinism? Yes he was. In critiquing his example and arguing that information is not created by unguided evolutionary processes, we are indeed making an argument that supports ID. What the fuck does WEASEL have to do with anything? Anybody seen the paper yet? He "critiquing"  latched or proper Weasel? And their argument might "support ID" in his mind but does it mention ID in the paper? Inquiring minds want to know and I can't look at the paper right now. -------------- 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

Maya Posts: 702 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,09:58    Hedge knows what ID needs: Quote I think that, right now, what the ID movement needs most is some sort of online, social networking site aimed at interesting young people in ID theory and teaching them about the holes in Darwinism. Something like that could go a long way toward “disarming Darwinism in the general culture” and would, I bet, prove quite popular too. a) There's an ID theory now? b) Is anyone even pretending anymore that ID is about science? I almost started another UD account to ask, but I hate to send a young sock on a suicide mission.

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,10:01    Quote E. Partitioned Search Partitioned search [12] is a “divide and conquer” procedure best introduced by example. Consider the L = 28 character phrase METHINKS ? IT ? IS ? LIKE ? A ? WEASEL. (19) Suppose that the result of our first query of L = 28 characters is SCITAMROFN ? IYRANOITULOVE ? SAM. (20) Two of the letters {E, S} are in the correct position. They are shown in a bold font. In partitioned search, our search for these letters is finished. For the incorrect letters, we select 26 new letters and obtain OOT ? DENGISEDESEHT ? ERA?NETSIL. (21) Five new letters are found, bringing the cumulative tally of discovered characters to {T, S,E, ?,E, S,L}. All seven characters are ratcheted into place. The 19 new letters are chosen, and the process is repeated until the entire target phrase is found. Quote Endogenous information represents the inherent difficulty of a search problem in relation to a random-search baseline. If any search algorithm is to perform better than random search, active information must be resident. Quote The first query consists of L randomly selected binary digits.We mutate the parent with a bit-flip probability of ? and form two children. The fittest child, as measured by the Hamming distance from the target, serves as the next parent, and the process is repeated. Choosing the fittest child is the source of the active information. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

ppb Posts: 325 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,10:02    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 19 2009,10:48) Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 19 2009,09:40) Dembski can has peer review? http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....erature Fucks sake   Quote P.S. Our critics will immediately say that this really isn’t a pro-ID article but that it’s about something else (I’ve seen this line now for over a decade once work on ID started encroaching into peer-review territory). Before you believe this, have a look at the article. In it we critique, for instance, Richard Dawkins METHINKS*IT*IS*LIKE*A*WEASEL (p. 1055). Question: When Dawkins introduced this example, was he arguing pro-Darwinism? Yes he was. In critiquing his example and arguing that information is not created by unguided evolutionary processes, we are indeed making an argument that supports ID. What the fuck does WEASEL have to do with anything? Anybody seen the paper yet? He "critiquing"  latched or proper Weasel? And their argument might "support ID" in his mind but does it mention ID in the paper? Inquiring minds want to know and I can't look at the paper right now. He talks about characters being ratcheted into place, so not really Dawkin's WEASEL. No direct mention of ID either. He's basically saying that random searches don't work without problem specific information being inserted into the program.  Lots of formulas which I will leave to the math types to critique. -------------- "[A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd." - Richard P. Feynman

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,10:05    Quote He's basically saying that random searches don't work without problem specific information being inserted into the program. He does say that selection provides specified information, so I'm not sure what is left of the ID argument. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

franky172 Posts: 160 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,10:06    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 19 2009,09:48) Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 19 2009,09:40) Dembski can has peer review? http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....erature Fucks sake     Quote P.S. Our critics will immediately say that this really isn’t a pro-ID article but that it’s about something else (I’ve seen this line now for over a decade once work on ID started encroaching into peer-review territory). Before you believe this, have a look at the article. In it we critique, for instance, Richard Dawkins METHINKS*IT*IS*LIKE*A*WEASEL (p. 1055). Question: When Dawkins introduced this example, was he arguing pro-Darwinism? Yes he was. In critiquing his example and arguing that information is not created by unguided evolutionary processes, we are indeed making an argument that supports ID. What the fuck does WEASEL have to do with anything? Anybody seen the paper yet? He "critiquing"  latched or proper Weasel? And their argument might "support ID" in his mind but does it mention ID in the paper? Inquiring minds want to know and I can't look at the paper right now. Dembski is full of shit, and he knows it.  On page 1055 he critiques "Partitioned Search", cites Dawkins [12], and then pretends that Weasel is a partitioned search.  Dawkins never used the term, AFAIK, and Weasel isn't partitioned. Dembski knows these facts because they have been pointed out to him on his own blog, and he has known these facts for months, yet he let these lies (formerly perhaps mistakes, now corrected lies) be published.  Why?

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,10:08    Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 19 2009,11:56) Denyse gives Ken Miller a rare compliment:         Quote Friend Casey Luskin writes, “There He Goes Again: Ken Miller misrepresents Behe’s Arguments on the Immune System.” Well, of course he would, wouldn’t he? I’ve read Behe’s Edge of Evolution and Miller’s Finding Darwin’s God, and – to be charitable to Miller – can find no way of even ranking them in the same category. All right!  The Heavens (and Ken Miller) rejoice!!  I think she's 100 percent serious here.  This is a complement straight from the heart.  Way to go, Ken Miller!  This may be the only thing that IDists and Sane People agree on: Ken Miller and Michael Behe are not in the same category!! To be charitable to Behe thank Ken Miller he couldn't sell a text book in any catagory other than tarot card reading for greybeards, palm reading for ID trial witnesses  and admitting to wanting to talk to invisible men in the sky while in the dock. Dense didn't get the memo or obviously hear the same voices. Behe declared victory after the trial not for the success of ID but for his waterloo or "personal victory" that he claimed at the "stage door" outside the Dover court. So yes there is no comparison between them. One is a "Bio" star the others bio is collecting dust in the deepest darkest sections of libraries and teh net where only jolly jumping clapping "bringing in teh sheaves" jesus noobs go. Dense must have been talking about what the Sunday morning fundie backwash would be thinking about. Not a great deal. -------------- "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

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,10:14    Quote (franky172 @ Aug. 19 2009,10:06) Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 19 2009,09:48)   Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 19 2009,09:40) Dembski can has peer review? http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....erature Fucks sake     Quote P.S. Our critics will immediately say that this really isn’t a pro-ID article but that it’s about something else (I’ve seen this line now for over a decade once work on ID started encroaching into peer-review territory). Before you believe this, have a look at the article. In it we critique, for instance, Richard Dawkins METHINKS*IT*IS*LIKE*A*WEASEL (p. 1055). Question: When Dawkins introduced this example, was he arguing pro-Darwinism? Yes he was. In critiquing his example and arguing that information is not created by unguided evolutionary processes, we are indeed making an argument that supports ID. What the fuck does WEASEL have to do with anything? Anybody seen the paper yet? He "critiquing"  latched or proper Weasel? And their argument might "support ID" in his mind but does it mention ID in the paper? Inquiring minds want to know and I can't look at the paper right now. Dembski is full of shit, and he knows it.  On page 1055 he critiques "Partitioned Search", cites Dawkins [12], and then pretends that Weasel is a partitioned search.  Dawkins never used the term, AFAIK, and Weasel isn't partitioned. Dembski knows these facts because they have been pointed out to him on his own blog, and he has known these facts for months, yet he let these lies (formerly perhaps mistakes, now corrected lies) be published.  Why? A beer to the first sock that makes this point there. -------------- "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

olegt Posts: 1405 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,10:27    I loves DrDr's postscript:   Quote P.S. Our critics will immediately say that this really isn’t a pro-ID article but that it’s about something else (I’ve seen this line now for over a decade once work on ID started encroaching into peer-review territory). Before you believe this, have a look at the article. In it we critique, for instance, Richard Dawkins METHINKS*IT*IS*LIKE*A*WEASEL (p. 1055). Question: When Dawkins introduced this example, was he arguing pro-Darwinism? Yes he was. In critiquing his example and arguing that information is not created by unguided evolutionary processes, we are indeed making an argument that supports ID. Bill, critiquing a competing theory is not the same as providing support for yours.  How about generating positive evidence, Mr. Isaac Newton of information theory? -------------- If you are not: Galapagos Finch please Logout »

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,10:31    Quote (franky172 @ Aug. 19 2009,10:06) Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 19 2009,09:48)   Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 19 2009,09:40) Dembski can has peer review? http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....erature Fucks sake     Quote P.S. Our critics will immediately say that this really isn’t a pro-ID article but that it’s about something else (I’ve seen this line now for over a decade once work on ID started encroaching into peer-review territory). Before you believe this, have a look at the article. In it we critique, for instance, Richard Dawkins METHINKS*IT*IS*LIKE*A*WEASEL (p. 1055). Question: When Dawkins introduced this example, was he arguing pro-Darwinism? Yes he was. In critiquing his example and arguing that information is not created by unguided evolutionary processes, we are indeed making an argument that supports ID. What the fuck does WEASEL have to do with anything? Anybody seen the paper yet? He "critiquing"  latched or proper Weasel? And their argument might "support ID" in his mind but does it mention ID in the paper? Inquiring minds want to know and I can't look at the paper right now. Dembski is full of shit, and he knows it.  On page 1055 he critiques "Partitioned Search", cites Dawkins [12], and then pretends that Weasel is a partitioned search.  Dawkins never used the term, AFAIK, and Weasel isn't partitioned. Dembski knows these facts because they have been pointed out to him on his own blog, and he has known these facts for months, yet he let these lies (formerly perhaps mistakes, now corrected lies) be published.  Why? So, are you saying that Dembski and Marks have not addressed any of the criticism of the paper that Wes had previously pointed out to them? -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

franky172 Posts: 160 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,10:35    Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 19 2009,10:31) Quote (franky172 @ Aug. 19 2009,10:06) Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 19 2009,09:48)   Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 19 2009,09:40) Dembski can has peer review? http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....erature Fucks sake       Quote P.S. Our critics will immediately say that this really isn’t a pro-ID article but that it’s about something else (I’ve seen this line now for over a decade once work on ID started encroaching into peer-review territory). Before you believe this, have a look at the article. In it we critique, for instance, Richard Dawkins METHINKS*IT*IS*LIKE*A*WEASEL (p. 1055). Question: When Dawkins introduced this example, was he arguing pro-Darwinism? Yes he was. In critiquing his example and arguing that information is not created by unguided evolutionary processes, we are indeed making an argument that supports ID. What the fuck does WEASEL have to do with anything? Anybody seen the paper yet? He "critiquing"  latched or proper Weasel? And their argument might "support ID" in his mind but does it mention ID in the paper? Inquiring minds want to know and I can't look at the paper right now. Dembski is full of shit, and he knows it.  On page 1055 he critiques "Partitioned Search", cites Dawkins [12], and then pretends that Weasel is a partitioned search.  Dawkins never used the term, AFAIK, and Weasel isn't partitioned. Dembski knows these facts because they have been pointed out to him on his own blog, and he has known these facts for months, yet he let these lies (formerly perhaps mistakes, now corrected lies) be published.  Why? So, are you saying that Dembski and Marks have not addressed any of the criticism of the paper that Wes had previously pointed out to them? Yes.  And worse - they deliberately let a falsehood pass through peer review.

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,10:36    It appears so   Quote Partitioned search [12] is a “divide and conquer” procedure best introduced by example. Consider the L = 28 character phrase METHINKS ? IT ? IS ? LIKE ? A ? WEASEL. (19) Suppose that the result of our first query of L = 28 characters is SCITAMROFN ? IYRANOITULOVE ? SAM. (20) Two of the letters {E, S} are in the correct position. They are shown in a bold font. In partitioned search, our search for these letters is finished. For the incorrect letters, we select 26 new letters and obtain OOT ? DENGISEDESEHT ? ERA?NETSIL. (21) Five new letters are found, bringing the cumulative tally of discovered characters to {T, S,E, ?,E, S,L}. All seven characters are ratcheted into place. The 19 new letters are chosen, and the process is repeated until the entire target phrase is found. What a scum bag. EDIT: And the only mention of "intelligent design" is in the bio bit at the end. So how exactly is this a paper supporting ID? -------------- 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

ppb Posts: 325 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,10:40    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 19 2009,11:36) So how exactly is this a paper supporting ID? According to Dembski, by critiquing Dawkins (which he doesn't really do), he is critiquing evolution and therefore ID wins. -------------- "[A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd." - Richard P. Feynman

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,10:46    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 19 2009,10:36) It appears so     Quote Partitioned search [12] is a “divide and conquer” procedure best introduced by example. Consider the L = 28 character phrase METHINKS ? IT ? IS ? LIKE ? A ? WEASEL. (19) Suppose that the result of our first query of L = 28 characters is SCITAMROFN ? IYRANOITULOVE ? SAM. (20) Two of the letters {E, S} are in the correct position. They are shown in a bold font. In partitioned search, our search for these letters is finished. For the incorrect letters, we select 26 new letters and obtain OOT ? DENGISEDESEHT ? ERA?NETSIL. (21) Five new letters are found, bringing the cumulative tally of discovered characters to {T, S,E, ?,E, S,L}. All seven characters are ratcheted into place. The 19 new letters are chosen, and the process is repeated until the entire target phrase is found. What a scum bag. EDIT: And the only mention of "intelligent design" is in the bio bit at the end. So how exactly is this a paper supporting ID? I am just a bidness type, so this is outside my area of expertise*, but that seems to be the same latching error that Gordon could not admit to making, even when presented with video evidence showing that reversions took place on otherwise correct letters.  Is that correct? * I know, I know, as a bidness type, I have no areas of expertise. -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,10:46    Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 19 2009,09:40) Dembski can has peer review? http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....erature I see that Dembski and Marks persisted with the erroneous assertion that Dawkins' "weasel" was a "partitioned search", despite years worth of repeated notice that it was not. Another thing to do after the move. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Maya Posts: 702 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,10:47    Quote (franky172 @ Aug. 19 2009,10:35) Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 19 2009,10:31) Quote (franky172 @ Aug. 19 2009,10:06)   Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 19 2009,09:48)     Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 19 2009,09:40) Dembski can has peer review? http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....erature Fucks sake       Quote P.S. Our critics will immediately say that this really isn’t a pro-ID article but that it’s about something else (I’ve seen this line now for over a decade once work on ID started encroaching into peer-review territory). Before you believe this, have a look at the article. In it we critique, for instance, Richard Dawkins METHINKS*IT*IS*LIKE*A*WEASEL (p. 1055). Question: When Dawkins introduced this example, was he arguing pro-Darwinism? Yes he was. In critiquing his example and arguing that information is not created by unguided evolutionary processes, we are indeed making an argument that supports ID. What the fuck does WEASEL have to do with anything? Anybody seen the paper yet? He "critiquing"  latched or proper Weasel? And their argument might "support ID" in his mind but does it mention ID in the paper? Inquiring minds want to know and I can't look at the paper right now. Dembski is full of shit, and he knows it.  On page 1055 he critiques "Partitioned Search", cites Dawkins [12], and then pretends that Weasel is a partitioned search.  Dawkins never used the term, AFAIK, and Weasel isn't partitioned. Dembski knows these facts because they have been pointed out to him on his own blog, and he has known these facts for months, yet he let these lies (formerly perhaps mistakes, now corrected lies) be published.  Why? So, are you saying that Dembski and Marks have not addressed any of the criticism of the paper that Wes had previously pointed out to them? Yes.  And worse - they deliberately let a falsehood pass through peer review. You know, I suspect that sort of thing is frowned upon.  I'd double check with my advisor, purely in the interests of providing some collegial advice to Dembski, but I don't want my advisor to think I'm a dishonest idiot.  ;-) Seriously, shouldn't this be raised with the IEEE editors?

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,10:48    this should be good. dembski is apparently incapable of self-awareness.  i look forward to seeing how quickly his long-awaited research paper is dismantled.  Wes you should get many props out of this!!   in the meantime cue Gordon Mullings bitching about latching again -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,10:49    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 19 2009,11:46) Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 19 2009,09:40) Dembski can has peer review? http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....erature I see that Dembski and Marks persisted with the erroneous assertion that Dawkins' "weasel" was a "partitioned search", despite years worth of repeated notice that it was not. Another thing to do after the move. Erasmus likes this -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Bob O'H Posts: 2564 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2009,10:54    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 19 2009,09:48)   Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 19 2009,09:40) Dembski can has peer review? http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....erature Fucks sake       Quote P.S. Our critics will immediately say that this really isn’t a pro-ID article but that it’s about something else (I’ve seen this line now for over a decade once work on ID started encroaching into peer-review territory). Before you believe this, have a look at the article. In it we critique, for instance, Richard Dawkins METHINKS*IT*IS*LIKE*A*WEASEL (p. 1055). Question: When Dawkins introduced this example, was he arguing pro-Darwinism? Yes he was. In critiquing his example and arguing that information is not created by unguided evolutionary processes, we are indeed making an argument that supports ID. What the fuck does WEASEL have to do with anything? Anybody seen the paper yet? He "critiquing"  latched or proper Weasel? And their argument might "support ID" in his mind but does it mention ID in the paper? Inquiring minds want to know and I can't look at the paper right now. He actually looks at both the latched and unlatched (or is that quasi-ratcheted?) versions, although not by name.  And he only associates WEASEL with the latched version. The underlying message is the same one that's been discussed before - one can measure the difference in success between a blind search an a particular search algorithm as "active information", and this should be used to characterize search algorithms. There's no real criticism of Dawkins, but we know how this is going to be used... ETA: The only link in the article is that D&M cite The Blind Watchmaker as a reference for a partitioned search.  Complaining to the editors will look a bit anal, I suspect. -------------- 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)

Pages: (500) < ... 469 470 471 472 473 [474] 475 476 477 478 479 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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