RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (356) < ... 344 345 346 347 348 [349] 350 351 352 353 354 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 4, Fostering a Greater Understanding of IDC< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2013,22:06   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 07 2013,17:30)
 
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Dec. 07 2013,17:08)
LOL!

It had to happen.  Bully Arrignton's gasbag ego couldn't take any more embarrassment from Dr. Matzke so..

           
Quote
Nick, your reputation has already been sufficiently tarnished by your contemptible behavior over the last few days. Your comment that hung in mod was just more of the same, and for your own sake that is where it will remain.

link


The lying asshole just declares victory, hides Dr. Matzke's rebuttal so no one can see it.

Great job there Asshole Arrington.  You're a shining light for ID-Creationists everywhere.

Whoops.  No one believes you, glorious leader barry:

Best bit:

   
Quote
He believes that if you keep dissembling and distracting attention from the issue and spewing ever longer posts into the combox maybe no one will notice what a detestable boor he is.


Somehow *isn't* about KirosFocus!

Now look fellas, BA is only practicing the teachings of Jesus, protecting Nick's reputation, and censorship is merciful acting for Nick's own sake.

If only BA would have someone as diligent watching over himself!

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

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2013,04:51   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Dec. 07 2013,17:37)
Double LOL!

Gasbag Arrington follows up his ban of Dr. Matzke with another "permanent moderation" ban on poster Roy who has also been calling Bully on the egregious quote-mining

 
Quote
Self-delusion on this scale is invincible. Thus, further dialogue with you seems pointless.

I invite the onlookers to go read Origin for themselves. After they have done so they can determine for themselves whether to believe “Roy” or to believe world-renowned DARWINIST scholars Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall

linky


What a spectacle.  :D

Another day that will go down in infamy, this time from friendly fire.  Keep shooting Bully!

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2013,10:24   

Comments 9 and 10:

 
Quote (Roy @ Dec. 08 2013,15:12)

Mr Arrington,

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion, since it bears no resemblance to anything I’ve said. Perhaps I should have used shorter words. Further dialogue is indeed pointless, but for entirely different reasons.

Roy


 
Quote (goodusername @ Dec. 08 2013,16:05)

 
Quote (Roy @ Dec. 08 2013,15:12)
I have no idea how you came to that conclusion, since it bears no resemblance to anything I’ve said.


Actually, I would say it’s not possible for anyone to come to that conclusion from what you’ve written.

This can’t be merely a problem with reading comprehension. As I said, there’s something else going on, but it beats me as to what that is.


--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2013,10:55   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 08 2013,10:24)
Comments 9 and 10:

   
Quote (Roy @ Dec. 08 2013,15:12)

Mr Arrington,

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion, since it bears no resemblance to anything I’ve said. Perhaps I should have used shorter words. Further dialogue is indeed pointless, but for entirely different reasons.

Roy


   
Quote (goodusername @ Dec. 08 2013,16:05)

   
Quote (Roy @ Dec. 08 2013,15:12)
I have no idea how you came to that conclusion, since it bears no resemblance to anything I’ve said.


Actually, I would say it’s not possible for anyone to come to that conclusion from what you’ve written.

This can’t be merely a problem with reading comprehension. As I said, there’s something else going on, but it beats me as to what that is.

I can't imagine what it could be... no wait, that level of snark is too much.

It's what should be expected when dealing with the liars at Uncommon Descent.

I notice that they haven't appeared back at my blog to defend Darwin's Doubt (the chickens).

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

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

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2013,15:38   

Should you ever wonder what dogmatism looks like:
Quote
127
MapouDecember 8, 2013 at 11:26 am

Or maybe he’s just a scumbag.

That’s it! Just ban the psychopath. That will hit him where it hurts. UD don’t need people like Matzke and should not indulge them. They waste our time because they have nothing to teach us. Ban them at the slightest hint of pathology.


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

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2013,22:06   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 08 2013,15:38)
Should you ever wonder what dogmatism looks like:
   
Quote
127
MapouDecember 8, 2013 at 11:26 am

Or maybe he’s just a scumbag.

That’s it! Just ban the psychopath. That will hit him where it hurts. UD don’t need people like Matzke and should not indulge them. They waste our time because they have nothing to teach us. Ban them at the slightest hint of pathology.


Aren't we all scumbacs, psychopathts wasting the time of the serious paragons of UcD?

So why waste our time teaching them things they don't want to be taught? Things that we should know are wrong? I cast a glance at their blog and it seems they are very comfortable talking to each other, without much disagreement between them. They agree on everything be it an old Earth or a young Earth. I believe that's because in the end it is all about nothing but the Designer. We are but a fly in their ointment.

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2013,04:16   

Batshit^77 is a cock. He's a crappy advert for Christianity.

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

  
REC



Posts: 638
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2013,04:32   

I think you're right. Debating or educating at UD isn't going to happen. There is too much anger and anti-science crazy there.

TsErik is out to cause people harm. Not that he'll succeed, but he thinks he can:

Quote
What a coward.

But don’t worry Nickie-boy, I’ve already sent out your exchanges to quite a few hungry eyes and there are many, many more. Your side of the story will be read, though you probably shouldn’t relish that thought. Perhaps even future employers would love to see how you conduct yourself.


Creep. Nothing said to him.

Louis Savain (mapou): Has his own (Bible-based) version of neuroscience, physics, etc.

Quote
Lots and lots of clean, free energy. .... In my opinion, a few initiated religious high priests in the distant past knew how to tap into the lattice and used it to move blocks of stone weighing up to twelve hundred tons or more over long distances across rivers and even uphill....



Sal, next comment, indulges him:
Quote
Mapou,

The ID and creationist case maybe strengthened by developments in anti-mainstream physics, and a byproduct of this could be renewable energy. ....
I’ve also tracked developments in electro-alchemy.


Quote
Mapou December 7, 2013 at 4:06 pm

George E.:
"Mapou is right. Einstein’s Relativity is just a House of Mirrors. I’m surprised that so many IDers (and even creationists) have so much faith in it."

What Christians don’t realize is that there is deep deception in the sciences, and not just in biology. There are things about the universe that the mortal masses, even the intelligent ones among us, are forbidden to understand by the powers that be. That’s what Darwinism is about and that’s what Einstein’s physics is about. The concept of a time dimension in which we are moving in one direction or the other is a conceptual disaster that has retarded progress in physics by at least a century.


No debate.

  
Patrick



Posts: 666
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2013,05:31   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 08 2013,16:38)
Should you ever wonder what dogmatism looks like:
Quote
127
MapouDecember 8, 2013 at 11:26 am

Or maybe he’s just a scumbag.

That’s it! Just ban the psychopath. That will hit him where it hurts. UD don’t need people like Matzke and should not indulge them. They waste our time because they have nothing to teach us. Ban them at the slightest hint of pathology.

I've been avoiding giving UD page hits for some time now, so I'm not familiar with the newer denizens.  Is Mapou serious?  That sounds too much like a caricature of Barry Arrington to be real.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2013,05:55   

Quote
. UD don’t need people like Matzke and should not indulge them. They waste our time because they have nothing to teach us.


That is amazeballs.

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2013,06:24   

They really are getting deep into the woo there.

My hypothesis is that if these people weren't raised as Christians, then they would be New Age/Crystal worshipers.  It's the same thing, just with the trappings of Christianity.

Shockingly, I don't think the Bible every mentions crystals.

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

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

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2013,15:57   

Man, this is too good!

Bully Arrington started yet another thread at The Dense Place bashing Dr. Nick Matzke.  I guess the previous four just weren't enough.

I knew Bully was butthurt from Dr. Matzke pointing out his quote-mined lies and ignorance but I had no idea Bully's ass was so flaming red and sore from the reaming he received.

:p

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2013,15:59   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Dec. 09 2013,15:57)
Man, this is too good!

Bully Arrington started yet another thread at The Dense Place bashing Dr. Nick Matzke.  I guess the previous four just weren't enough.

I knew Bully was butthurt from Dr. Matzke pointing out his quote-mined lies and ignorance but I had no idea Bully's ass was so flaming red and sore from the reaming he received.

:p

They've had a hard-on for Nick since his dismantling of "Darwin's Doubt"

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

  
socle



Posts: 322
Joined: July 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2013,18:24   

Quote (REC @ Dec. 09 2013,04:32)
Sal, next comment, indulges him:
 
Quote
Mapou,

The ID and creationist case maybe strengthened by developments in anti-mainstream physics, and a byproduct of this could be renewable energy. ....
I’ve also tracked developments in electro-alchemy.

For my Christmas present, I want to see Sal post an OP on his favorite anti-mainstream physics.  Maybe some Tom Bearden-esque crankiness?


  
olegt



Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2013,18:47   

Barry in the new thread:
Quote
What does a “tree of life” purport to show? The obvious answer is a tree of life purports to show the pathways of common descent ASSUMING common descent occurred.

You idiot, Barry. That's how science works. A scientific theory begins with a set of assumptions and deduces consequences from them. If the consequences are confirmed by future observations, the theory lives.

By way of example, Newton's theory of gravity assumes that bodies attract one another with a force inversely proportional to the distance squared. From these assumptions, and from Newton's laws of motion (another set of assumptions!), it follows that planets should move about the Sun in elliptical orbits. As indeed is the case.

Does this prove that planets are attracted to the Sun according to the law of inverse squares? NOT in the sense of a logical proof. For all we know, gravity may end at the Earth's orbit and Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and so on are pushed in their orbs by angels. It is, though, a pretty good proof in the scientific sense.

I hope know you're reading this, so maybe you can learn something today.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2013,18:57   

Barry and Gary rhyme.

Coincidence?

I think not.

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

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2013,19:15   

Bully Arrington seems to have decided since he's now the king / legal owner / head chef and bottle washer of Uncommonly Dense well then gosh darn it he's going to be the biggest douche at UD too.

Hey, it's only fair.

:p  :p  :p

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
REC



Posts: 638
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2013,20:11   

Heh. So testing a model is now circular?  Besides that, Barry should at least check the abstracts of the papers he dismisses as "literature bluffs." They are quite elegant.

Abstract of the open access article: Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Evolution from DNA Sequences

Quote
We demonstrate quantitatively that, as predicted by evolutionary theory, sequences of homologous proteins from different species converge as we go further and further back in time. The converse, a non-evolutionary model can be expressed as probabilities, and the test works for chloroplast, nuclear and mitochondrial sequences, as well as for sequences that diverged at different time depths. Even on our conservative test, the probability that chance could produce the observed levels of ancestral convergence for just one of the eight datasets of 51 proteins is ?1×10?19 and combined over 8 datasets is ?1×10?132. By comparison, there are about 1080 protons in the universe, hence the probability that the sequences could have been produced by a process involving unrelated ancestral sequences is about 1050 lower than picking, among all protons, the same proton at random twice in a row. A non-evolutionary control model shows no convergence, and only a small number of parameters are required to account for the observations. It is time that that researchers insisted that doubters put up testable alternatives to evolution.


Heh....

Quote

As we see later, we currently cannot yet find any other hypothesis that leads inevitably to the same prediction without an explosive increase in the number of parameters.

It is basic to science that we have never tested all possible hypotheses; consequently we never obtain final and absolute knowledge about any aspect of the universe.

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2013,01:11   

Quote
As we see later, we currently cannot yet find any other hypothesis that leads inevitably to the same prediction without an explosive increase in the number of parameters.

It is basic to science that we have never tested all possible hypotheses; consequently we never obtain final and absolute knowledge about any aspect of the universe.

Not relevant for the 'we' of cdesignproponentsists that already have better explanations. That's why they sleep so well.

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2013,01:14   

Barry is such a poor human being.

Pro Hac Vice had a very pointed comment about Nick simply using Barry's tactic of refusing to play without a direct answer, but Nick can't ban and censor like Barry does. It has since been deleted.

Barry, you are one shit advertisement for Christianity, pal.

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

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2013,01:53   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 10 2013,01:14)
Barry is such a poor human being.

Pro Hac Vice had a very pointed comment about Nick simply using Barry's tactic of refusing to play without a direct answer, but Nick can't ban and censor like Barry does. It has since been deleted.

Barry, you are one shit advertisement for Christianity, pal.

PHV repeated his observation and asked why his first post was deleted.  Bully Arrington the Douche immediately deleted the contents of that one too and replaced it with

UD: No, you have been placed in mod. Keep your comments civil and on topic and they will be released from mod.

Heh.  Heavy handed moderation, "agree with me or be censored", etc.  Bully the Douche has decided to drop all pretenses and turn UD into EvolutionFairyTales, Part2.

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2363
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2013,18:19   

Specified Entropy — a suggested convention for discussion of ID concepts.

A new concept in bullshit "measurements" and its application to the problems of UD.

But it's an escargodova post, so don't bother.

Edited to add:

Creationist Gynecologist: two words you never thought you'd see together.

It's another escargodova post, so don't bother.

Edited by CeilingCat on Dec. 10 2013,18:25

  
olegt



Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2013,18:26   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Dec. 10 2013,18:19)
Specified Entropy — a suggested convention for discussion of ID concepts.

A new concept in bullshit "measurements" and its application to the problems of UD.

But it's an escargodova post, so don't bother.

Sal's "new" concept of specified entropy is literally Dembski's CSI with a minus sign.
Quote
To fix this enigma, and to make the notion of entropy line up to our intuitions, I’m suggesting that the notion of “specified entropy” be used to describe the increase in disorganization. I derive this coined phrase from Bill Dembski’s notions of specified information. In the case of the Lamborghini getting its vital parts removed, the specified entropy goes up by exactly the amount that the specified information goes down.

This isn’t a radical change in terms of ID literature, but may help to convey what is really meant by ID proponents when they say entropy is going up. What they really mean is not thermal entropy, but specified entropy.

It's hilarious to observe these guys repackage, again and again, the same shit that goes back to Henry Morris.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
olegt



Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2013,18:33   

Collin scores 10 points* on the crackpot scale:
Quote
Yes, I have been trying to say this for quite some time now, though not very well. When Granville was arguing with some people about this point “If an increase in order is extremely improbable when a system is isolated, it is still extremely improbable when the system is open, unless something is entering (or leaving) which makes it NOT extremely improbable.”

I tried to argue that the type of entropy he was talking about may not yet have scientific measurements or perfect scientific rigor, but it is something that we can detect intuitively. Just as we could detect light before we could really measure or rigorously define it. Thanks Sal for this idea.

*10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2013,19:50   

Specified entropy. Wow.

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2013,20:17   

Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 10 2013,19:50)
Specified entropy. Wow.

...followed by complex specified entropy (CSE) and digital function specified complex entropy (dFSCE).

You know it's coming.   :D

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2013,20:45   

Quote
What do we get when “science’s” view owes nothing to evidence?


ID

Hard questions over there...

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
sparc



Posts: 2088
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2013,23:03   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Dec. 10 2013,18:19)
Specified Entropy — a suggested convention for discussion of ID concepts.

A new concept in bullshit "measurements" and its application to the problems of UD.

But it's an escargodova post, so don't bother.

Edited to add:

Creationist Gynecologist: two words you never thought you'd see together.

It's another escargodova post, so don't bother.

The really bad part of Sal's post is the following
Quote
I tutor college and high school students in math, physics, and chemistry
And it doesn't help that biology is not on his list.
The full quote actually reads
Quote
As I mentioned in the comments of another thread, I tutor college and high school students in math, physics, and chemistry
(emphasis mine)
I.e., Sally is feeling close to full professorship.

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

   
sparc



Posts: 2088
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2013,23:13   

Threads in which Sal and KF teach each other are reminiscent of Pseudoceros bifurcus mating fights.

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

   
BillB



Posts: 388
Joined: Aug. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2013,07:25   

Quote (sparc @ Dec. 11 2013,05:13)
Threads in which Sal and KF teach each other are reminiscent of Pseudoceros bifurcus mating fights.

KF:  
Quote
...
By many orders of magnitude, we don’t get to even one molecule each of the required polymers per planet, much less bringing them together in the required proximity for them to work together as the molecular machinery of life.
...

I would have thought that where you have a natural chemical process that is producing polymers, it would both be messy and localised - KF is assuming that any natural chemical process that could produce a polymer would only produce one, and there would be no others in the vicinity, or no other similar processes happening nearby. Lots of things that are rare, but do actually happen, appear to be statistically impossible when you divide them by the size of the universe.

  
  10669 replies since Aug. 31 2011,21:06 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (356) < ... 344 345 346 347 348 [349] 350 351 352 353 354 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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