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 3

Pages: (501) < ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... >

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2009,04:16    Kirk Cameron and his Darwin project makes it to Salon.com   Quote You can say there's inherent idiocy in the creationist worldview (you'd be right), but this is not the worst idea ever. Rather than resorting to the old tried-and-true method of simply attempting to silence evolutionary teaching, they’re leaning on the classic American standby: freedom of speech. Emphasis on the “free.”   Quote And once those godly volunteers get on campus, what 19-year-old wouldn’t clamor for a 19th-century tract amended by someone whose argument for the evidence of God is the existence of the banana?

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2009,05:44    Quote (Touchstone @ Sep. 24 2009,01:50)     Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 23 2009,22:41) My long-lived, most excellent puppet Diffaxial has been silently banninated at UD, following a mild tweak of StephenB. I'll reconstruct that jibe from memory as best I can:           Quote 30 years later, StephenB sits alone on a park bench, clutching his cane: "And then I said, all things that come to exist have a... uh...uh... a something. A cause! Ha! By cracky Diffaxitive I got you that time. That's what I said! I think that's, I think that's what I said. Heh Heh. I said. Heh. That Diffixative." :D Too close to homeless, apparently. This occurred on the Shrinking Timeline thread. (Cross posted from the Czar thread.) Diffaxial is banninated?? Ouch. That was a hell of a run. I saw that that StephenB's witty retort -- something like "Diffaxial needs a laxative!" *yuk, yuk* -- got removed, too, so I was thinking it was just mod prudery against both sides... That thread was easily the most lopsided spanking of StephenB I've seen to date (if only because it "summed" so many other damning points from previous threads). One *almost* gets the sense that StephenB has gotten a bit of glimpse of the scope and breadth of his mistakes at the "right reasoning" level. But that sense only lasts until you read his next post… Diffaxial RIP. Thanks, Touch. ETA: And Alan Fox, too. I never saw his witty riposte. What amazes me about StephenB was that no matter what sort of drubbing his shtick receives on one thread (he abandoned several threads in frustration during my run), he pops up on another a week later with the same unmodified horseshit with no apparent memory of the beating, no memory of any of the points raised, or any awareness that his argument has already been subject to autopsy and interment. But doesn't that describe ID generally? -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

Zachriel Posts: 2723 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2009,06:51    Quote (Touchstone @ Sep. 24 2009,00:50) Diffaxial is banninated?? Ouch. That was a hell of a run. ... Diffaxial RIP. Another argument won for Intelligent Design! -------------- You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2009,07:38    Bleh, the mods there have a definite desire to protect a select few posters at all costs -- the mods view them as "valuable," even though they're (Like StephenB and KF) laughably ridiculous. The really humorous point being that they're about the best they have. It was a good run, though, Bill. RIP, Diffaxial--we hardly knew ye, yet you flew so ...close...*snort* to...the..sun...BWAHAHAHAHA. More like "touched the face of TARD" HAHAHA. Sorry about that outburst. It's a solemn occasion. *giggle* -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2009,07:53    Quote (Touchstone @ Sep. 24 2009,00:50) That thread was easily the most lopsided spanking of StephenB I've seen to date (if only because it "summed" so many other damning points from previous threads). One *almost* gets the sense that StephenB has gotten a bit of glimpse of the scope and breadth of his mistakes at the "right reasoning" level. But that sense only lasts until you read his next post… Diffaxial RIP. And to quote that great philosopher Billy Joel, Only The Good Die Young RIP young puppet. -------------- Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10 Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08 UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

Maya Posts: 702 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2009,08:04    Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 24 2009,06:51) Quote (Touchstone @ Sep. 24 2009,00:50) Diffaxial is banninated?? Ouch. That was a hell of a run. ... Diffaxial RIP. Another argument won for Intelligent Design! So, Clivebaby, how do you justify this one? I really hope you are Dembski, because I'd hate to think there are two such gutless fuckwits.

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2009,08:18    Gordon Mullings proves life was created Quote In the case of Judge Jones’ declaration above, we have 482 ASCII text characters, well beyond the 143 character threshold where by the search resources of the entire cosmos could not scan as much as 1 in 10^150 of the available configs. The learned judge (or his ACLU mentors) probably produced the text in a matter of at most hours. Simple as that! Tard -------------- 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

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2009,08:36    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 23 2009,22:41) My long-lived, most excellent puppet Diffaxial has been silently banninated at UD, following a mild tweak of StephenB. I'll reconstruct that jibe from memory as best I can:     Quote 30 years later, StephenB sits alone on a park bench, clutching his cane: "And then I said, all things that come to exist have a... uh...uh... a something. A cause! Ha! By cracky Diffaxitive I got you that time. That's what I said! I think that's, I think that's what I said. Heh Heh. I said. Heh. That Diffixative." :D Too close to homeless, apparently. This occurred on the Shrinking Timeline thread. (Cross posted from the Czar thread.) Great Job Bill. I hope your sock drawer is full, because UD needs that sort of commentary. -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Zachriel Posts: 2723 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2009,08:42    On the solemn occasion of Diffaxial's demise. Quote kairosfocus: Again: every Genetic Algorithm program, and every Evolutionary Algorithm implementing program we see was composed by a programmer, who is of coruse intelligent. Every weather simulation is composed by a programmer who is of course intelligent. Hence the Wind blows by Design. Bow down to the Anemoi! -------------- You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2009,09:01    Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 24 2009,09:42) On the solemn occasion of Diffaxial's demise. Quote kairosfocus: Again: every Genetic Algorithm program, and every Evolutionary Algorithm implementing program we see was composed by a programmer, who is of coruse intelligent. Every weather simulation is composed by a programmer who is of course intelligent. Hence the Wind blows by Design. Bow down to the Anemoi! that is the perfect analogy for pointing out how verily stupid is that bullshit line of argument -------------- 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

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2009,09:32    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 24 2009,09:01) Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 24 2009,09:42) On the solemn occasion of Diffaxial's demise.   Quote kairosfocus: Again: every Genetic Algorithm program, and every Evolutionary Algorithm implementing program we see was composed by a programmer, who is of coruse intelligent. Every weather simulation is composed by a programmer who is of course intelligent. Hence the Wind blows by Design. Bow down to the Anemoi! that is the perfect analogy for pointing out how verily stupid is that bullshit line of argument Except, of course, the crew over at UD would probably agree.  Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. -------------- 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!)

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2009,10:16    Quote Also it is a strawman to say ID sez that things are sooooo complex they must have been designed. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-335141 Which leads to several questions... -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2009,10:18    Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 24 2009,10:32) Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 24 2009,09:01) Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 24 2009,09:42) On the solemn occasion of Diffaxial's demise.   Quote kairosfocus: Again: every Genetic Algorithm program, and every Evolutionary Algorithm implementing program we see was composed by a programmer, who is of coruse intelligent. Every weather simulation is composed by a programmer who is of course intelligent. Hence the Wind blows by Design. Bow down to the Anemoi! that is the perfect analogy for pointing out how verily stupid is that bullshit line of argument Except, of course, the crew over at UD would probably agree.  Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. of course of course dishonest little bastards equivocate about what they mean by "design" and in other news water is wet -------------- 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

Turncoat Posts: 129 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2009,13:50    Zachriel, FYI, the standard ONEMAX problem is to maximize a function that counts the number of 1's in a length-N binary string over alphabet {0, 1}. Generalization to a function that counts the number of bits matching those in an arbitrary "target" string in {0, 1}^N is trivial and inconsequential. Generalizing further to non-binary alphabets gets you the problem addressed by the Weasel program. Stefan Droste has analyzed the performance of a (1+1) evolutionary algorithm (one parent competes with its one offspring for survival) in the case that a binary target string "wanders" precisely as I suggested. Quote Analysis of the (1+1) EA for a Dynamically Bitwise Changing ONEMAX Although evolutionary algorithms (EAs) are often successfully used for the optimization of dynamically changing objective function, there are only very few theoretical results for EAs in this scenario. In this paper we analyze the (1+1) EA for a dynamically changing OneMax, whose target bit string changes bitwise, i. e. possibly by more than one bit in a step. We compute the movement rate of the target bit string resulting in a polynomial expected first hitting time of the (1+1) EA asymptotically exactly. This strengthens a previous result, where the dynamically changing OneMax changed only at most one bit at a time. This comes from a Dagstuhl workshop, "Theory of Evolutionary Computation." (I got an invitation, but was underemployed at the time, and had committed already to two overseas trips. Dammit.) I can't find the full text online. Do results for the binary case generalize easily to the non-binary case? I don't know. -------------- I never give them hell. I just tell the truth about them, and they think it's hell. — Harry S Truman

Maya Posts: 702 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2009,14:25    Dembski, the weasel, puts code in Dawkins' mouth: From Quote When I contacted Richard Dawkins to confirm their authenticity, he replied, in an email dated 9.21.09, “I cannot confirm that either of them is mine. They don’t look familiar to me, but it is a long time ago. I don’t see what more I can say.” the loud-mouthed but gutless Dover no-show gets to Quote We therefore conclude, unless further evidence is presented, that the single-mutation algorithm implemented by WEASEL1 is the one used by Dawkins in TBW. in an almost Gordon Mullings-like spew of illogic and baseless assertions. Any chance of bothering Dr. Dawkins again about this, Mr. Elsberry, sir?

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2009,14:34    Dreary O'Leary follows up with this   Quote Re prize: The prize is a copy of either Stephen Meyer’s new Signature in the Cell or Richard Dawkins’ soon-to-be-out The Greatest Show on Earth. [Winner's choice] Should the winner choose the latter, I will ask Dawkins’s publicist to mail the copy. Either book could be obtained for less than US$50 in most places, so I doubt either would be much of an incentive to perpetrate a big hoax that would take many hours to prepare. Oh the wit. And, my bold, notice the attempt to rebut possible objections already? Very poor. It's all a big hoax EDIT: O'Leary seems to be referring to the time taken to write the program. As noted, even on several UD threads, it can be coded faster then "many hours" would seem to imply. Just pathetic. "It must be real because nobody would bother, it's soooo much effort ." -------------- 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: Sep. 24 2009,14:48    Dembski claims "These programs were widely circulated at the time." but a search for any of the unique strings within them turns up just one hit:  Dembski's UD post. Is he really stupid enough to a) think that he can just make stuff like this up and b) not realize that neither of these faux weasels correspond to his claims in his paper with Marks? Okay, enough for today, back to real biology.

Turncoat Posts: 129 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2009,14:53    Quote (Maya @ Sep. 24 2009,14:25) Dembski, the weasel, puts code in Dawkins' mouth: From     Quote When I contacted Richard Dawkins to confirm their authenticity, he replied, in an email dated 9.21.09, “I cannot confirm that either of them is mine. They don’t look familiar to me, but it is a long time ago. I don’t see what more I can say.” the loud-mouthed but gutless Dover no-show gets to     Quote We therefore conclude, unless further evidence is presented, that the single-mutation algorithm implemented by WEASEL1 is the one used by Dawkins in TBW. in an almost Gordon Mullings-like spew of illogic and baseless assertions. Any chance of bothering Dr. Dawkins again about this, Mr. Elsberry, sir? I had guessed that Dawkins would reply to everyone that Dembski addressed. I'd like to know at least he gist of what Dembski left out. If Dawkins did not emphasize that it's the principle, and not the program, that matters, I'd be surprised. But something really surprises me in Dembski's quote of Dawkins. If Dawkins had ever programmed in Pascal with "caps lock" on, he would remember it. I've never known a Pascal programmer who would go from a mixed-case style in one year to an execrable all-caps style in the next. If you're in the habit of using mixed case, you can't stand to look at all-caps code. And it simply does not take that much time to use the shift key. -------------- I never give them hell. I just tell the truth about them, and they think it's hell. — Harry S Truman

Turncoat Posts: 129 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2009,15:43    Quote (Maya @ Sep. 24 2009,14:48) Dembski claims "These programs were widely circulated at the time." but a search for any of the unique strings within them turns up just one hit:  Dembski's UD post. Is he really stupid enough to a) think that he can just make stuff like this up and b) not realize that neither of these faux weasels correspond to his claims in his paper with Marks? Okay, enough for today, back to real biology. Sorry, Maya, but R0b is right in pointing out that neither Weasel implements partitioned search. The apocryphal Weasels do comport ever so wonderfully with other dumb shit Dembski and his acolytes have said over the years, however. I'm not sure that the claim that the Weasel of the BBC Horizons program worked differently from the Weasel in TBW originated with Dembski. But Dembski never passes on an opportunity to make Dawkins out to be a cheat. IIRC, the key "evidence" is the mention of "tries" on the screen. This does not seem at all odd to someone who has compared the efficiency of evolutionary optimizers using populations of different sizes. The number of trials is the number of generations multiplied by the population size. Dawkins' random search essentially has a population size of 1, and Weasel program has a population size larger than that. To make a fair comparison of the two programs, Dawkins had to report numbers of trials for the Weasel program rather than number of generations. BTW, I'm not really a fan of Dawkins, but he does impress me with his honesty and straightforwardness. Some years back, I sent Dembski email to explain how he'd gotten a fundamental aspect of the "no free lunch" theorems wrong. His response was something like "OK, but don't expect me to admit that." I had previously sent email to Dawkins to explain that he was wrong in some claim regarding the effect of mutation on the Kolmogorov complexity of a genotype. His response was something like "I think you may be right." He has since fixed the online article in which I spotted the problem. Dembski constantly projects his own worst traits onto his adversaries. -------------- I never give them hell. I just tell the truth about them, and they think it's hell. — Harry S Truman

Maya Posts: 702 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2009,16:25    Quote (Turncoat @ Sep. 24 2009,15:43) Quote (Maya @ Sep. 24 2009,14:48) Dembski claims "These programs were widely circulated at the time." but a search for any of the unique strings within them turns up just one hit:  Dembski's UD post. Is he really stupid enough to a) think that he can just make stuff like this up and b) not realize that neither of these faux weasels correspond to his claims in his paper with Marks? Okay, enough for today, back to real biology. Sorry, Maya, but R0b is right in pointing out that neither Weasel implements partitioned search. Exactly.  That's what I was trying to say in my point (b).  Re-reading it, the double negative with a half-twist is not my most cogent writing sample ever. It seems that Dembski doesn't realize that he is contradicting his own claims about Dawkins' algorithm.

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2009,16:29    Edit: gah! wrong thread! -------------- "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

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2009,16:34    Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 24 2009,16:29) Edit: gah! wrong thread! HAHA, I saw what you did there, taHugs. Amidst all this  discussion of GA's, too. It's like you ran up to the table and farted -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2009,16:35    Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 24 2009,17:34) Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 24 2009,16:29) Edit: gah! wrong thread! HAHA, I saw what you did there, taHugs. Amidst all this  discussion of GA's, too. It's like you ran up to the table and farted I saw it too. It was hysterically and completely random. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2009,16:44    It's still true, just misplaced.   -------------- "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

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2009,17:31    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 24 2009,09:01) Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 24 2009,09:42) On the solemn occasion of Diffaxial's demise.   Quote kairosfocus: Again: every Genetic Algorithm program, and every Evolutionary Algorithm implementing program we see was composed by a programmer, who is of coruse intelligent. Every weather simulation is composed by a programmer who is of course intelligent. Hence the Wind blows by Design. Bow down to the Anemoi! that is the perfect analogy for pointing out how verily stupid is that bullshit line of argument I used it on Dembski in 2006 at the Greer-Heard Forum. He changed the topic. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Maya Posts: 702 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2009,18:07    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 24 2009,17:31) Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 24 2009,09:01) Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 24 2009,09:42) On the solemn occasion of Diffaxial's demise.   Quote kairosfocus: Again: every Genetic Algorithm program, and every Evolutionary Algorithm implementing program we see was composed by a programmer, who is of coruse intelligent. Every weather simulation is composed by a programmer who is of course intelligent. Hence the Wind blows by Design. Bow down to the Anemoi! that is the perfect analogy for pointing out how verily stupid is that bullshit line of argument I used it on Dembski in 2006 at the Greer-Heard Forum. He changed the topic. If only you could have put him in a . . . thingy.  Darn, right on the tip of my tongue.  A . . . wossname, holds stuff tight . . . .

olegt Posts: 1405 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2009,18:35    From the Judge Jones thread: Quote 25 Clive Hayden 09/24/2009 4:21 pm StephenB, I know that Dr. Dembski’s position is that the Intelligent Designer can be entirely natural. Clive is demonstrably wrong.  Here is Dembski in his own words: Quote The fine-tuning of the universe, about which cosmologists make such a to-do, is both complex and specified and readily yields design. So too, Michael Behe's irreducibly complex biochemical systems readily yield design. The complexity-specification criterion demonstrates that design pervades cosmology and biology. Moreover, it is a transcendent design, not reducible to the physical world. Indeed, no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life. -------------- If you are not: Galapagos Finch please Logout »

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2009,18:47    Quote (Maya @ Sep. 24 2009,18:07) Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 24 2009,17:31) Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 24 2009,09:01)   Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 24 2009,09:42) On the solemn occasion of Diffaxial's demise.     Quote kairosfocus: Again: every Genetic Algorithm program, and every Evolutionary Algorithm implementing program we see was composed by a programmer, who is of coruse intelligent. Every weather simulation is composed by a programmer who is of course intelligent. Hence the Wind blows by Design. Bow down to the Anemoi! that is the perfect analogy for pointing out how verily stupid is that bullshit line of argument I used it on Dembski in 2006 at the Greer-Heard Forum. He changed the topic. If only you could have put him in a . . . thingy.  Darn, right on the tip of my tongue.  A . . . wossname, holds stuff tight . . . . Speedo? Prevert. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2009,18:51    Quote (olegt @ Sep. 24 2009,18:35) From the Judge Jones thread:         Quote 25 Clive Hayden 09/24/2009 4:21 pm StephenB, I know that Dr. Dembski’s position is that the Intelligent Designer can be entirely natural. Clive is demonstrably wrong.  Here is Dembski in his own words:         Quote The fine-tuning of the universe, about which cosmologists make such a to-do, is both complex and specified and readily yields design. So too, Michael Behe's irreducibly complex biochemical systems readily yield design. The complexity-specification criterion demonstrates that design pervades cosmology and biology. Moreover, it is a transcendent design, not reducible to the physical world. Indeed, no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life. But, but...what abouts teh ID-famed "Disembodied Telic Energy Entity™" ? Huh, huh?!?!?! Another mighty blow strucken for Intelligents Desine. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Maya Posts: 702 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2009,19:33    Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 24 2009,18:47) Quote (Maya @ Sep. 24 2009,18:07)   Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 24 2009,17:31)   Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 24 2009,09:01)     Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 24 2009,09:42) On the solemn occasion of Diffaxial's demise.       Quote kairosfocus: Again: every Genetic Algorithm program, and every Evolutionary Algorithm implementing program we see was composed by a programmer, who is of coruse intelligent. Every weather simulation is composed by a programmer who is of course intelligent. Hence the Wind blows by Design. Bow down to the Anemoi! that is the perfect analogy for pointing out how verily stupid is that bullshit line of argument I used it on Dembski in 2006 at the Greer-Heard Forum. He changed the topic. If only you could have put him in a . . . thingy.  Darn, right on the tip of my tongue.  A . . . wossname, holds stuff tight . . . . Speedo? Prevert. Sure, this time you guys don't have a picture. ETA: No, I don't mean of Dembski.  Or Davey.

Pages: (501) < ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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