RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (527) < ... 29 30 31 32 33 [34] 35 36 37 38 39 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 5, Return To Teh Dingbat Buffet< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2014,03:34   

Quote
I had to look twice at this because at first glance Torley was asserting that the entire ID movement was based on a fallacy.  What he's actually doing is advancing the facile argument that any scientific experiment, even Lenski's long-term work with bacteria, is actually evidence for intelligent design because they are organized and run by scientists who are intelligent designers.  In other words, even an experiment which demonstrated biological compounds emerging unaided  from inanimate precursors, would be evidence of  intelligent design because it was set up by scientists.


In that case, is there any experimental result we can trust was not the result of divine intervention? God's finger is everywhere, even when you wipe ...

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
timothya



Posts: 280
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2014,04:27   

Byers at UD:
 
Quote
Feminism has always been a evil attack upon the rights of males. Its not been a attempt to allow humans to get anything despite identity.
women were meant to help their husbands goals on earth,. Therefore its not right that women try to achieve but as a social contract we can allow it.
There are no womens rights but only people rights and then citizen rights. The men never had to give women rights we didn’t mean them to have. Its a fraud.

I am surprised that he permits women to be members of the species, literally or figuratively.

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

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2014,05:08   

He's getting worse....how dare women achieve!

I remember encountering Byers 'in person' so to speak one time I was trolling UD. He insisted the only reason there were African American astronauts niggers in space was due to their being selected over their more qualified (read: white) counterparts.

Edited by Woodbine on June 06 2014,11:09

  
rossum



Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2014,05:14   

Quote (Quack @ June 06 2014,03:34)
Quote
I had to look twice at this because at first glance Torley was asserting that the entire ID movement was based on a fallacy.  What he's actually doing is advancing the facile argument that any scientific experiment, even Lenski's long-term work with bacteria, is actually evidence for intelligent design because they are organized and run by scientists who are intelligent designers.  In other words, even an experiment which demonstrated biological compounds emerging unaided  from inanimate precursors, would be evidence of  intelligent design because it was set up by scientists.


In that case, is there any experimental result we can trust was not the result of divine intervention? God's finger is everywhere, even when you wipe ...

What is means is that there is no possible experimental backing for non-human ID.  Any experiment they perform will show signs of design -- human design.  There is no way that they can perform any experiment uncontaminated by human design, and hence no way that they can, experimentally, show the presence of non-human design.  All their experiments must be contaminated and hence not capable of unambiguously showing non-human design.

--------------
The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2014,08:34   

Quote (rossum @ June 06 2014,05:14)
Quote (Quack @ June 06 2014,03:34)
 
Quote
I had to look twice at this because at first glance Torley was asserting that the entire ID movement was based on a fallacy.  What he's actually doing is advancing the facile argument that any scientific experiment, even Lenski's long-term work with bacteria, is actually evidence for intelligent design because they are organized and run by scientists who are intelligent designers.  In other words, even an experiment which demonstrated biological compounds emerging unaided  from inanimate precursors, would be evidence of  intelligent design because it was set up by scientists.


In that case, is there any experimental result we can trust was not the result of divine intervention? God's finger is everywhere, even when you wipe ...

What is means is that there is no possible experimental backing for non-human ID.  Any experiment they perform will show signs of design -- human design.  There is no way that they can perform any experiment uncontaminated by human design, and hence no way that they can, experimentally, show the presence of non-human design.  All their experiments must be contaminated and hence not capable of unambiguously showing non-human design.

Of course, using that same logic, all engineers who work on roulette tables, slot machines, craps tables, etc should immediately be banned from all casinos, because they know how the games were designed and therefore can easily predict the outcomes of each spin/throw.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2014,08:57   

Quote (OgreMkV @ June 06 2014,08:34)
Quote (rossum @ June 06 2014,05:14)
Quote (Quack @ June 06 2014,03:34)
 
Quote
I had to look twice at this because at first glance Torley was asserting that the entire ID movement was based on a fallacy.  What he's actually doing is advancing the facile argument that any scientific experiment, even Lenski's long-term work with bacteria, is actually evidence for intelligent design because they are organized and run by scientists who are intelligent designers.  In other words, even an experiment which demonstrated biological compounds emerging unaided  from inanimate precursors, would be evidence of  intelligent design because it was set up by scientists.


In that case, is there any experimental result we can trust was not the result of divine intervention? God's finger is everywhere, even when you wipe ...

What is means is that there is no possible experimental backing for non-human ID.  Any experiment they perform will show signs of design -- human design.  There is no way that they can perform any experiment uncontaminated by human design, and hence no way that they can, experimentally, show the presence of non-human design.  All their experiments must be contaminated and hence not capable of unambiguously showing non-human design.

Of course, using that same logic, all engineers who work on roulette tables, slot machines, craps tables, etc should immediately be banned from all casinos, because they know how the games were designed and therefore can easily predict the outcomes of each spin/throw.

End game.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2014,11:21   

Quote (timothya @ June 06 2014,05:27)
Byers at UD:
   
Quote
Feminism has always been a evil attack upon the rights of males. Its not been a attempt to allow humans to get anything despite identity.
women were meant to help their husbands goals on earth,. Therefore its not right that women try to achieve but as a social contract we can allow it.
There are no womens rights but only people rights and then citizen rights. The men never had to give women rights we didn’t mean them to have. Its a fraud.

I am surprised that he permits women to be members of the species, literally or figuratively.

that is stellar. sakes alive.

   
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2014,16:40   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 06 2014,08:57)
Quote (OgreMkV @ June 06 2014,08:34)
 
Quote (rossum @ June 06 2014,05:14)
 
Quote (Quack @ June 06 2014,03:34)
   
Quote
I had to look twice at this because at first glance Torley was asserting that the entire ID movement was based on a fallacy.  What he's actually doing is advancing the facile argument that any scientific experiment, even Lenski's long-term work with bacteria, is actually evidence for intelligent design because they are organized and run by scientists who are intelligent designers.  In other words, even an experiment which demonstrated biological compounds emerging unaided  from inanimate precursors, would be evidence of  intelligent design because it was set up by scientists.


In that case, is there any experimental result we can trust was not the result of divine intervention? God's finger is everywhere, even when you wipe ...

What is means is that there is no possible experimental backing for non-human ID.  Any experiment they perform will show signs of design -- human design.  There is no way that they can perform any experiment uncontaminated by human design, and hence no way that they can, experimentally, show the presence of non-human design.  All their experiments must be contaminated and hence not capable of unambiguously showing non-human design.

Of course, using that same logic, all engineers who work on roulette tables, slot machines, craps tables, etc should immediately be banned from all casinos, because they know how the games were designed and therefore can easily predict the outcomes of each spin/throw.

End game.

LOL.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Cubist



Posts: 558
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2014,17:01   

A roulette wheel is the product of intelligent design, therefore if you spin the wheel several times, the sequence of numbers which come up on the wheel must have been designed.

A deck of cards is the product of intelligent design; the procedure of shuffling, by which the order of the cards in the deck gets rearranged, is the product of intelligent design; therefore, any hand of cards which is dealt must have been designed.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2014,18:08   

That depends on who's shuffling.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2014,22:05   

Quote (CeilingCat @ May 30 2014,13:20)
Has anybody else noticed that Salvador is MIA?  No postings in at least a month.

Silently banninated?

The ban hammer has a muffler? (Or do I mean silencer?)

Or to put that another way, it

  
sparc



Posts: 2088
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2014,00:56   

I wonder if a Japan based English teacher Japan based English teacher and a guy from a remote island in the caribean sea are the best choices to explain the history, content and meaning of the US constitution. I must admit I am not an US citizen, though.

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

   
timothya



Posts: 280
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2014,05:00   

Pav at UD thinks that 40-year-old opinions on HIV biology represent current science:
 
Quote
In the case of HIV, Dr. Peter Duesberg, considered in the late 70?s and early 80?s to be the premier virologist in the US, if not the world, questioned the “HIV causes AIDS” consensus, which quickly arose among the “experts”. What happened? Was there a discussion of his views? No. He started being uninvited to conferences, had his papers not published, lost his graduate students, and finally his lab.

So, apparently, not only are lay people not in a position to question the “experts,” but even ONE “expert” is not in a position to question THE “experts.” Let’s hear it for group-think.

What was Duesberg’s concerns? HIV doesn’t demonstrate the normal characteristics of what a virus is expected to demonstrate. How outlandish, wouldn’t you say?

Is there any person now working in the field who subscribes to Duesberg's hypothesis?

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

  
didymos



Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2014,08:21   

Quote (timothya @ June 07 2014,03:00)
Pav at UD thinks that 40-year-old opinions on HIV biology represent current science:
   
Quote
In the case of HIV, Dr. Peter Duesberg, considered in the late 70?s and early 80?s to be the premier virologist in the US, if not the world, questioned the “HIV causes AIDS” consensus, which quickly arose among the “experts”. What happened? Was there a discussion of his views? No. He started being uninvited to conferences, had his papers not published, lost his graduate students, and finally his lab.

So, apparently, not only are lay people not in a position to question the “experts,” but even ONE “expert” is not in a position to question THE “experts.” Let’s hear it for group-think.

What was Duesberg’s concerns? HIV doesn’t demonstrate the normal characteristics of what a virus is expected to demonstrate. How outlandish, wouldn’t you say?

Is there any person now working in the field who subscribes to Duesberg's hypothesis?

Duesberg has never been a virologist. He also didn't start his "HIV doesn't cause AIDS" thing until the late 80s.  In the late 70s, AIDS wasn't even called AIDS yet, and no one had a clue what was going on.  PaV is an idiot.

ETA: Also, a big part of Duesberg's "concerns" was a purported statistical correlation between drug use and AIDS, and not so much this notion of HIV not behaving like a "normal" virus.  PaV can't even get his crank science straight.

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
didymos



Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2014,21:34   

Mapou:

Quote
Darwinism, inflationism, Big Bangism, Copenhagen interpretationism, materialism, young earth creationism, etc. It’s all voodoo nonsense. Almost everything that matters in science is crap. It almost feels as if some powerful evil force is trying to hide some very important truth from humanity. Why is that?


That would be because you're crazy.

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
Amadan



Posts: 1337
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2014,04:21   

Quote (midwifetoad @ June 07 2014,00:08)
That depends on who's shuffling.

Are they naturally occurring or designed cards?

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

   
REC



Posts: 638
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2014,10:43   

There seem to be two trending UD arguments that are mutually exclusive:

1) Stephen B: "Law, by definition, cannot change its behavior and create novelty. Therefore, something that transcends law/chance must exist in order to create novelty."

2) KF, regarding coin flip patterns "not be observed once on the gamut of the observed solar system, even were the solar system dedicated to doing nothing but tossing coins for its lifespan."

So something they define as "law and chance" creates something new, something so original that it likely has never appeared, nor ever will, in the lifetime of the universe.

Applied to biology, an imperfect replicator (DNA polymerase) makes errors. These errors occur naturally, randomly, at a predictable rate without outside influence. Whola, a novel variant.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2014,11:04   

Quote (didymos @ June 07 2014,22:34)
Mapou:

Quote
Darwinism, inflationism, Big Bangism, Copenhagen interpretationism, materialism, young earth creationism, etc. It’s all voodoo nonsense. Almost everything that matters in science is crap. It almost feels as if some powerful evil force is trying to hide some very important truth from humanity. Why is that?


That would be because you're crazy.

Nearly 10 years post-kitzmiller, basically the only people still supporting ID online are people with obvious mental illness.

In retrospect, Dembski was smart to bail on his blog, and hand it over to that dumbass lawyer.

   
timothya



Posts: 280
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2014,07:24   

Denyse O'Leary explains her understanding of language:    
Quote
The current pretense is that “science” can teach people to write better.

"The literary scholars Mark Turner and Francis-Noël Thomas have identified the stance that our best essayists and writers implicitly adopt, and that is a combination of vision and conversation. When you write you should pretend that you, the writer, see something in the world that’s interesting, that you are directing the attention of your reader to that thing in the world, and that you are doing so by means of conversation."

Rubbish. As a writing teacher of some years of experience, I would say that we can’t “teach” people to be good writers, for the same reasons as we can’t “teach” good character. We can be guardian angels and discourage harmful habits, of course, but the actual sources of good writing are not illuminated by the sorts of fatuous claims made by Darwinians. You can’t write what you can’t live.

Pardon me, but how do people learn to use a common language (well or poorly) if they can't be taught its rules? Perhaps Denyse should consider the possibility that a language is actually defined by its rules (rules that she says that she is unable to teach).

Or if the rules of "good writing" can't be codified (a strange notion to hold in the face of several centuries of dictionaries and style guides), perhaps her notion of "language" is deficient.

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2014,10:57   

Quote (timothya @ June 11 2014,08:24)
Denyse O'Leary explains her understanding of language:      
Quote
The current pretense is that “science” can teach people to write better.

"The literary scholars Mark Turner and Francis-Noël Thomas have identified the stance that our best essayists and writers implicitly adopt, and that is a combination of vision and conversation. When you write you should pretend that you, the writer, see something in the world that’s interesting, that you are directing the attention of your reader to that thing in the world, and that you are doing so by means of conversation."

Rubbish. As a writing teacher of some years of experience, I would say that we can’t “teach” people to be good writers, for the same reasons as we can’t “teach” good character. We can be guardian angels and discourage harmful habits, of course, but the actual sources of good writing are not illuminated by the sorts of fatuous claims made by Darwinians. You can’t write what you can’t live.

Pardon me, but how do people learn to use a common language (well or poorly) if they can't be taught its rules? Perhaps Denyse should consider the possibility that a language is actually defined by its rules (rules that she says that she is unable to teach).

Or if the rules of "good writing" can't be codified (a strange notion to hold in the face of several centuries of dictionaries and style guides), perhaps her notion of "language" is deficient.

Of course, she's a pretty shitty writer.

"You can't write what you can't live?" The fucks that even mean?

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2014,11:09   

Depends on what you mean by good. Thousands of books get published that follow all the rules, but which are rubbish.

And even when Gary Gaulin follows the rules, he is incoherent. Most of the UD denizens write correctly.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2014,11:26   

Quote (stevestory @ June 11 2014,11:57)
Quote (timothya @ June 11 2014,08:24)
Denyse O'Leary explains her understanding of language:      
Quote
The current pretense is that “science” can teach people to write better.

"The literary scholars Mark Turner and Francis-Noël Thomas have identified the stance that our best essayists and writers implicitly adopt, and that is a combination of vision and conversation. When you write you should pretend that you, the writer, see something in the world that’s interesting, that you are directing the attention of your reader to that thing in the world, and that you are doing so by means of conversation."

Rubbish. As a writing teacher of some years of experience, I would say that we can’t “teach” people to be good writers, for the same reasons as we can’t “teach” good character. We can be guardian angels and discourage harmful habits, of course, but the actual sources of good writing are not illuminated by the sorts of fatuous claims made by Darwinians. You can’t write what you can’t live.

Pardon me, but how do people learn to use a common language (well or poorly) if they can't be taught its rules? Perhaps Denyse should consider the possibility that a language is actually defined by its rules (rules that she says that she is unable to teach).

Or if the rules of "good writing" can't be codified (a strange notion to hold in the face of several centuries of dictionaries and style guides), perhaps her notion of "language" is deficient.

Of course, she's a pretty shitty writer.

"You can't write what you can't live?" The fucks that even mean?

That Asimov built robots, that Heinlein travelled throughout space (often promiscuously), that Arthur Clarke indulged in magic, etc.
Despite being immersed in it, the woman is incapable of distinguishing fiction from field reports.

Someone should lock her and Gary in a room together for a 'televised discussion of grammar, syntax, and semantics, with examples' and broadcast the result on the surrealist channel.

  
REC



Posts: 638
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2014,12:30   

Quote
Someone should lock her and Gary in a room together for a 'televised discussion of grammar, syntax, and semantics, with examples' and broadcast the result on the surrealist channel.


Byers. You forgot Byers:

Quote
my question would be IF your JEWISH why should we believe your poor even relative to Russia.
Also why if your russian and mom teaches russian are you using Yiddish words very unlikely to still be welcome in modern Russia. Then i thought all jews had left russia for Israel and america.
Something funny here!


I thought about providing the context, but does it really matter?

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2014,13:00   



--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2014,13:43   

It is perhaps worth pointing out that it is rarely if ever persons of 'good character' who assert that 'good character' cannot be taught.

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2363
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2014,17:06   

Here's an excellent example of the "royal we":  
Quote
As a writing teacher of some years of experience, I would say that we can’t “teach” people to be good writers, for the same reasons as we can’t “teach” good character.
The reason "we" can't teach people to write good is because "we" don't know how to write good ourselves.  Ditto for the good character.

She could teach tard talk, however.  She's very fluent in talking tard.

Edited by CeilingCat on June 11 2014,17:08

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 11 2014,20:15   

Quote (Amadan @ June 08 2014,12:21)
Quote (midwifetoad @ June 07 2014,00:08)
That depends on who's shuffling.

Are they naturally occurring or designed cards?

Depends on whether you hold them up or down.....nah I'm just bluffing.

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

  
tsig



Posts: 339
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 14 2014,08:43   

Quote (CeilingCat @ May 24 2014,02:25)
The Wisdom of vjtorley:    
Quote
It is a bit of a mystery how it always happens that whenever I choose [a non-bodily act] to raise my arm [a bodily act], my arm goes up. I would answer: that’s just the way we’re made.

Well, that answers all of my questions.

Link

Sometimes my dick rises whether I want it to or not, that must be god doing that.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 14 2014,15:30   

Reciprocating Bill has skewered KirosFocus brilliantly on this thread.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-503726

KF can't answer his very pointed question, has tried turnabouts and strawmen, and asserted (falsely) he has answered the question.

Must try harder in the jaws of correction, KF.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Seversky



Posts: 442
Joined: June 2010

(Permalink) Posted: June 15 2014,09:11   

Bully Arrington, boulder than Stone Cold kairosfocus, takes on the hard problem of consciousness:

Quote
Awareness of the subjective self that is aware has been called the “primordial datum.” It can be denied only on pain of descent into absurdity on the order of “I do not believe that I exist.” Sadly, these pages have seen all too many who have rushed eagerly off that particular cliff.


Sadly, the rhetorical ploy of falsely accusing others of denying the existence of the personal experience of self reads like a lawyer's approach to a philosophical problem.  It is a courtroom debating tactic that does nothing to make the problem of consciousness anything other than hard.  There is still no satisfactory account of how it works, least of all from ID proponents.

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

Pages: (527) < ... 29 30 31 32 33 [34] 35 36 37 38 39 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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