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) < ... 153 154 155 156 157 [158] 159 160 161 162 163 ... >

Zachriel Posts: 2723 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2010,08:09    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 27 2010,06:31) David Tyler and primordial soup:     Quote William Martin and colleagues have presented a strong case for retiring the primordial soup concept from active service. It has reached the grand old age of 81 and, as a hypothesis, it has not been confirmed. Normally, when hypotheses are tested and found wanting, they are discarded – but we are now overdue for this to happen with the primordial soup. It is “well past its sell-by date”. Gee, David, the notion of a primordial chef has lingered through time immemorial without a shred of dispositive evidence or meaningful test, yet it survives. Indeed, you embrace it, I'll wager. What's up with that? Doesn't seem as if David Tyler actually read the article, which proposes a different natural abiogenetic mechanism. Not sure why he thinks that supports Intelligent Design. -------------- You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

Zachriel Posts: 2723 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2010,08:21    Meanwhile Robert Deyes gives himself a headache with exponents. Quote The Infinite Headaches Of The Adjacent Impossible: This means that for a protein that is 200 amino acids long, there are approximately 20200 possible ways that these amino acids can be lined up (ie 10260 proteins).  Given that the total number of particles in the known universe is estimated to be around 1080 and considering Kauffman’s own calculation for the total number of reactions since the big bang as being 10193, it is easy to see that the universe has not been around for long enough to cover even a small fraction of these 10260 proteins.   Of course that assumes the poppycock notion that there is exactly one sequence out of those 20200 possible sequences that could be a possible precusor to life, and that 200 is the minimum length. -------------- You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

REC Posts: 638 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2010,10:44    Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 27 2010,08:21) Meanwhile Robert Deyes gives himself a headache with exponents. Quote The Infinite Headaches Of The Adjacent Impossible: This means that for a protein that is 200 amino acids long, there are approximately 20200 possible ways that these amino acids can be lined up (ie 10260 proteins).  Given that the total number of particles in the known universe is estimated to be around 1080 and considering Kauffman’s own calculation for the total number of reactions since the big bang as being 10193, it is easy to see that the universe has not been around for long enough to cover even a small fraction of these 10260 proteins.   Of course that assumes the poppycock notion that there is exactly one sequence out of those 20200 possible sequences that could be a possible precusor to life, and that 200 is the minimum length. They should really really stop trying to act like biochemists until they read a textbook. There are di-peptides that are catalytic, and functional short motifs. The ubiquitous nucleotide-binding Walker motifs are super short and simple. The Walker A motif is G-X-X-G-X-G-K-T/S  and the Walker B motif is  R/K-X(7-8)-h(4)-D. (where X is anything).  If you make synthetic peptides based on these sequences, they bind ATP.  Throw in an aspartate and magnesium, and you have an ATPase.

paragwinn Posts: 539 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2010,00:54    Quote (REC @ Feb. 27 2010,10:44) Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 27 2010,08:21) Meanwhile Robert Deyes gives himself a headache with exponents.   Quote The Infinite Headaches Of The Adjacent Impossible: This means that for a protein that is 200 amino acids long, there are approximately 20200 possible ways that these amino acids can be lined up (ie 10260 proteins).  Given that the total number of particles in the known universe is estimated to be around 1080 and considering Kauffman’s own calculation for the total number of reactions since the big bang as being 10193, it is easy to see that the universe has not been around for long enough to cover even a small fraction of these 10260 proteins.   Of course that assumes the poppycock notion that there is exactly one sequence out of those 20200 possible sequences that could be a possible precusor to life, and that 200 is the minimum length. They should really really stop trying to act like biochemists until they read a textbook. There are di-peptides that are catalytic, and functional short motifs. The ubiquitous nucleotide-binding Walker motifs are super short and simple. The Walker A motif is G-X-X-G-X-G-K-T/S  and the Walker B motif is  R/K-X(7-8)-h(4)-D. (where X is anything).  If you make synthetic peptides based on these sequences, they bind ATP.  Throw in an aspartate and magnesium, and you have an ATPase. Throw in some olive oil and you have AnTiPasTo (which argues for a northern Mediterranean origin of life) -------------- All women build up a resistance [to male condescension]. Apparently, ID did not predict that. -Kristine 4-19-11 F/Ns to F/Ns to F/Ns etc. The whole thing is F/N ridiculous -Seversky on KF footnote fetish 8-20-11 Sigh. Really Bill? - Barry Arrington

didymos Posts: 1828 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2010,05:23    Dense is dense: Quote But 78% of evolutionary biologists are pure naturalists (no God and no free will), according to a recent study. Surely they go into that area because it enables them to front their religious beliefs at tax expense. Yes, the religious beliefs you just said they don't have.  And not because, say, they're actually fucking interested in evolutionary biology or the pursuit of knowledge. But to be fair, the latter is something with which you have no acquaintance and have proven yourself incapable of comprehending. On the other hand, STOP MAKING SHIT UP! -------------- 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: Feb. 28 2010,05:30    And now, gleaner63 will commence his demonstration of how a double-standard works by failing to get banned: Quote I’ll go ahead and answer the question for you, Graham. I would never make an attempt to have a rational discussion with a group of skinheads on race, or any like-minded group, for obvious reasons. For one, I wouldn’t expect them to be civilized, and secondly, our ideas of how to conduct ourselves would be so opposite that we simply couldn’t find any common ground. Likewise, anyone who I knew who defended them, or kept their company, would probably have a lot in common with them. So, my guess about you is that if you don’t honestly see what’s wrong with Phyrangula, then you are arguably like the trash that hangs out over there. How close would that be to the truth? How many people on the ID side over there are NOT complete fucking judgemental assholes? -------------- 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

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2010,17:32    Denyse demonstrates the gentle art of the Own Goal: First, she has a very, very important announcement: Book #5 in the Top Ten books to read on the intelligent design controversy series is (ta da!):                     Quote Why Us? How Science Rediscovered the Mystery of Ourselves by James Le Fanu. The second international book to make the Top Ten list this year is Why Us? by James Le Fanu, a British medical doctor who publishes in peer-reviewed medical journals like the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine and the British Medical Journal, a columnist for the London Telegraph, winner of the Los Angeles Times Book Award for his book The Rise and Fall of Modern Medicine (2001). She goes on to mention:                 Quote This is a great book to give your Darwin-devoted friends. Intelligent design is never mentioned, but the foundation for the materialist, reductionist world-view is systematically dismantled by a well-known authority on science and medicine. Then she just has to tell the world about the evil New Scientist magazine:                 Quote [From Denyse: A sideshow with respect to this story is that New Scientist (the National Enquirer of pop science mags) had to withdraw - due to a libel threat - an article bashing design in which Le Fanu and I were the only persons mentioned. So the cry went up, who made the threat? I don’t know who made it, but I can tell you who didn’t. I am a free speech journalist who finds Britain’s libel laws a scandal in need of serious reform. So some have assumed it was Le Fanu who complained. I do not know, but the article is back up now, with a comment from Le Fanu, so I assume this is a minor happy ending. Libel law reform in Britain would be a major happy ending.] Having set herself up for a faceplant, we continue on to the replies:               Quote Heinrich gives us some interesting information in reply #1: Denyse, this is what is written at the top of the New scientist article you link to:               Quote    This article was temporarily taken down on legal advice after New Scientist’s editor, Roger Highfield, received a letter from a law firm on behalf of James Le Fanu, the GP and author of the book Why Us? Following discussions, New Scientist has now reinstated the article accompanied by a comment from Dr Le Fanu. I think there’s a hint in there about the identity of the complainant. O'Leary shoots right back with reply #2:             Quote O'Leary Thanks for pointing that out, Heinrich. Okay, end of story. However, I rather wish Britain would reform its libel laws. Keeping publications on tenterhooks for months is not the way to go, in my view. But I am hardly an unbiased source; I am a writer and editor. Yes, a writer and editor who wants to reform the British libel laws and whose number five selection for ID book of the year is by an author who uses the unreformed British libel laws you so decry to censor an article criticizing himself!  Great shot Denyse!  Right into the center of your own goal! Surprisingly, the infamous Mung has the last, best laught in comment 3:           Quote Mung    But I am hardly an unbiased source; I am a writer and editor. All writers are biased. All editors are biased All writers who are also editors must be extremely biased. Very good Mung, that is certainly true in O'Leary's case!

didymos Posts: 1828 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2010,18:33    Allen_MacNeil would also like Dense to stop making shit up: Quote In comment #1 O’Leary wrote: Quote “…78% of evolutionary biologists are pure naturalists (no God and no free will), according to a recent study.” According to Dr. Greg Graffin’s study of 151 biologists who are members of the national academies of science worldwide (percentages rounded to nearest whole number) [see: http://www.cornellevolutionproject.org/ ]: Quote atheist/agnostic [op cit, pg 34]” = 59% believe in free will [op cit, pg 38]” = 79% materialist [op cit, pg 39]” = 73% “metaphysical naturalist” [op cit, pg 48]” = 79% As all but one of these data are significantly different from those cited by O’Leary, it would perhaps improve the quality of this discussion if she would please cite her reference(s). REFERENCE CITED: Graffin, G. (2004) Evolution, monism, atheism, and the naturalist world-view. Polypterus Press, Ithaca, NY, 252 pages. This study was Dr. Graffin’s PhD dissertation, completed under the supervision of Dr. William Provine (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Provine ) And, yes:  it is a study by that Dr. Greg Graffin.  If the philistines at UD figure it out, expect much apsersion casting and wringing of hands. -------------- 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

sparc Posts: 2088 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2010,11:40    Wait until Denyse sees this: Quote Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa at the the London School of Economics and Political Science correlated data on these behaviors with IQ from a large national U.S. sample and found that, on average, people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs. This applied also to sexual exclusivity in men, but not in women. -------------- "[...] 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 -

Ptaylor Posts: 1180 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2010,13:10    A sample from a comment from rockyr on the PiusXII (they've corrected the title) thread:     Quote If evolution simply means that a positive thing called an ape turned very slowly into a positive thing called a man, then it is stingless for the most orthodox; for a personal God might just as well do things slowly as quickly, especially if, like the Christian God, he were outside time. But if it means anything more, it means that there is no such thing as an ape to change, and no such thing as a man for him to change into. It means that there is no such thing as a thing. At best, there is only one thing, and that is a flux of everything and anything. It goes on (and on). Does anyone here know what he's on about? Does anyone over at UD? Does rockyr? -------------- We no longer say: “Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.” We now say: “Another day since the time Darwinism was disproved.” -PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2010,13:36    Quote It means that there is no such thing as a thing. At best, there is only one thing, and that is a flux of everything and anything. I'm guessing this is a reference to what Mayr called essentialism. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

didymos Posts: 1828 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2010,13:59    Quote (Ptaylor @ Mar. 01 2010,11:10) A sample from a comment on the PiusXII (they've corrected the title) thread:     Quote If evolution simply means that a positive thing called an ape turned very slowly into a positive thing called a man, then it is stingless for the most orthodox; for a personal God might just as well do things slowly as quickly, especially if, like the Christian God, he were outside time. But if it means anything more, it means that there is no such thing as an ape to change, and no such thing as a man for him to change into. It means that there is no such thing as a thing. At best, there is only one thing, and that is a flux of everything and anything. It goes on (and on). Does anyone here know what he's on about? Does anyone over at UD? Does rockyr? No. Yes.  Maybe?  I dunno.  It's all in flux.  All I know is, I thought that was pure Clivebaby at first.  Nope.  There's a Chesterton quote at the end of his post though! -------------- 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: Mar. 01 2010,14:01    Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 01 2010,11:36) Quote It means that there is no such thing as a thing. At best, there is only one thing, and that is a flux of everything and anything. I'm guessing this is a reference to what Mayr called essentialism. Yes.  Very Platonic, actually. -------------- 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

REC Posts: 638 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2010,14:03    O'Leary on Polyandry: Words can't describe the dumb.... Quote Most human cultures think marriage should be Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. But very, very few human cultures have EVER thought that marriage should be Adam, Louie, Luigi, Sig, Syed, and … (organ music) Here comes the bride, here comes the bride!! … one little Eve for all of them. Try selling that in the locker room … so long as you do not share a health insurer with me. Most guys still want their own Eve, in the end. Of course, she doesn't read the paper, on Drosophila species, which doesn't include the word human, vertebrate, etc. etc.  Fuck.

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2010,14:43    Quote (REC @ Mar. 01 2010,15:03) O'Leary on Polyandry: Words can't describe the dumb.... I'm thinking we can open a wormhole to the next world by asking Denise herself to string together words and sentences that describe the dumb. -------------- 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

Robin Posts: 1431 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2010,14:44    Quote (REC @ Mar. 01 2010,14:03) Quote O'Leary on Polyandry: Words can't describe the dumb.... Quote Most human cultures think marriage should be Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. But very, very few human cultures have EVER thought that marriage should be Adam, Louie, Luigi, Sig, Syed, and … (organ music) Here comes the bride, here comes the bride!! … one little Eve for all of them. Try selling that in the locker room … so long as you do not share a health insurer with me. Most guys still want their own Eve, in the end. Of course, she doesn't read the paper, on Drosophila species, which doesn't include the word human, vertebrate, etc. etc.  Fuck. Drosophila aside, I thought most men wanted there own Eve, Yvette, Arlene, Bunny, Babs, Kristine, etc... -------------- we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

sledgehammer Posts: 533 Joined: Sep. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2010,15:00    Quote (REC @ Mar. 01 2010,12:03) O'Leary on Polyandry: Words can't describe the dumb....   Quote <snippage> Most guys still want their own Eve, in the end. Which end would that be, oral or ab-oral, I wonders. ... I'll get me coat. -------------- The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD) If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

Quack Posts: 1961 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2010,16:07    Quote (sparc @ Mar. 01 2010,11:40) Wait until Denyse sees this:     Quote Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa at the the London School of Economics and Political Science correlated data on these behaviors with IQ from a large national U.S. sample and found that, on average, people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs. This applied also to sexual exclusivity in men, but not in women. Funny, that doesn't even surprise me... -------------- Rocks have no biology.               Robert Byers.

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2010,16:29    Quote (didymos @ Mar. 01 2010,13:59)   Quote (Ptaylor @ Mar. 01 2010,11:10) A sample from a comment on the PiusXII (they've corrected the title) thread:       Quote If evolution simply means that a positive thing called an ape turned very slowly into a positive thing called a man, then it is stingless for the most orthodox; for a personal God might just as well do things slowly as quickly, especially if, like the Christian God, he were outside time. But if it means anything more, it means that there is no such thing as an ape to change, and no such thing as a man for him to change into. It means that there is no such thing as a thing. At best, there is only one thing, and that is a flux of everything and anything. It goes on (and on). Does anyone here know what he's on about? Does anyone over at UD? Does rockyr? No. Yes.  Maybe?  I dunno.  It's all in flux.  All I know is, I thought that was pure Clivebaby at first.  Nope.  There's a Chesterton quote at the end of his post though! It's worse than that.  The entire second half of that posting is a Chesterton quote, including all the "it means that there is no such thing as an ape to change, and no such thing as a man for him to change into. It means that there is no such thing as a thing. At best, there is only one thing, and that is a flux of everything and anything." BS. Doesn't the Bible have a saying about how the smart become dumb?  I think Mr. Chesterton took that passage a little too literally.

steve_h Posts: 544 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2010,16:43    D3   Quote According to Jerry Coyne, atheistic evolutionists and ID proponents have at least this in common — they can expect no bribes from the Templeton Foundation. Read Coyne’s post on the topic here. IIRC, there was a time when almost any ID upstart in an oversize sweater could secure a $100,000 bribe by offering to write a book which used information theory to demonstrate that science and theology were mutually dependent. But as I remember it, they got burned - The ID guy took the cash and gave them nothing in return.

sledgehammer Posts: 533 Joined: Sep. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2010,16:55    Quote (steve_h @ Mar. 01 2010,14:43) D3     Quote According to Jerry Coyne, atheistic evolutionists and ID proponents have at least this in common — they can expect no bribes from the Templeton Foundation. Read Coyne’s post on the topic here. IIRC, there was a time when almost any ID upstart in an oversize sweater could secure a $100,000 bribe by offering to write a book which used information theory to demonstrate that science and theology were mutually dependent. But as I remember it, they got burned - The ID guy took the cash and gave them nothing in return. And yet he wonders why he's not invited to their wine and cheese parties anymore? -------------- The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD) If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2010,17:44    Quote (sledgehammer @ Mar. 01 2010,16:55) And yet he wonders why he's not invited to their wine and cheese parties anymore? You negative naysayers just wait... Dembski will be The Star at the Templeton Whine and Tease Party later this year! -------------- 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

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2010,20:12    Quote It means that there is no such thing as a thing. At best, there is only one thing, and that is a flux of everything and anything. That kind of needs a flux capacitor to help in figuring it out. (That or a DeLorean.) Henry

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2010,22:17    i think every node should have it's own playing card like magick the gaythering or at the very least some sort of proper noun or binomial. because if not it's just swirling nothing into nothing and jesus died for nothing.   is that about it? -------------- 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

JLT Posts: 740 Joined: Jan. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2010,04:40    Quote This is the first of probably three posts on applied Intelligent Design. This is not an extensive list of applications of ID concepts, but I thought that giving people examples of how ID can be not only interesting and informative but actually useful in solving both biological and engineering problems. [snip drivel] So, that is application #1 – to be able to tell when additional information sources are feeding evolution. The next two applications of ID will not be biological at all, but rather related to software design and engineering. Linky So, the first and only practical application of ID to biology is to be able to say that what was designed was designed? That must sound pathetic even to people who believe in that nonsense. -------------- "Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...] Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2010,05:41    Quote (JLT @ Mar. 02 2010,04:40) Quote This is the first of probably three posts on applied Intelligent Design. This is not an extensive list of applications of ID concepts, but I thought that giving people examples of how ID can be not only interesting and informative but actually useful in solving both biological and engineering problems. [snip drivel] So, that is application #1 – to be able to tell when additional information sources are feeding evolution. The next two applications of ID will not be biological at all, but rather related to software design and engineering. Linky So, the first and only practical application of ID to biology is to be able to say that what was designed was designed? That must sound pathetic even to people who believe in that nonsense. Sadly, nothing sounds pathetic if you believe in that nonsense... -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

REC Posts: 638 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2010,10:11    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 02 2010,05:41) Quote (JLT @ Mar. 02 2010,04:40) Quote This is the first of probably three posts on applied Intelligent Design. This is not an extensive list of applications of ID concepts, but I thought that giving people examples of how ID can be not only interesting and informative but actually useful in solving both biological and engineering problems. [snip drivel] So, that is application #1 – to be able to tell when additional information sources are feeding evolution. The next two applications of ID will not be biological at all, but rather related to software design and engineering. Linky So, the first and only practical application of ID to biology is to be able to say that what was designed was designed? That must sound pathetic even to people who believe in that nonsense. Sadly, nothing sounds pathetic if you believe in that nonsense... No, what is really sad is going to his personal blog (which he grandiosely calls Bartlett publishing) and reading about his "article." Link Quote I had finally gotten a paper published (titled "Irreducible Complexity and Relative Irreducible Complexity: Foundations and Applications") that I had been working on for the last 3.5 years.  You might be wondering why it took me so long to come out and announce it.  The reason is simple - most people who have read it misunderstood what I was trying to say. Bolds mine. Are these signs you should find a new career: 1) The ID/Creationists find your arguments confusing.  You are misunderstood by the pro-misunderstanders, who have no crap filter. 2) It takes 3.5 years to publish a review article in Occasional Papers of the BSG (A creation science study group) 3) Said paper lands right behind "The Serpent in Genesis 3:15 is a Snake"

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2010,11:05    Quote (REC @ Mar. 02 2010,08:11) Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 02 2010,05:41) Quote (JLT @ Mar. 02 2010,04:40)   Quote This is the first of probably three posts on applied Intelligent Design. This is not an extensive list of applications of ID concepts, but I thought that giving people examples of how ID can be not only interesting and informative but actually useful in solving both biological and engineering problems. [snip drivel] So, that is application #1 – to be able to tell when additional information sources are feeding evolution. The next two applications of ID will not be biological at all, but rather related to software design and engineering. Linky So, the first and only practical application of ID to biology is to be able to say that what was designed was designed? That must sound pathetic even to people who believe in that nonsense. Sadly, nothing sounds pathetic if you believe in that nonsense... No, what is really sad is going to his personal blog (which he grandiosely calls Bartlett publishing) and reading about his "article." Link Quote I had finally gotten a paper published (titled "Irreducible Complexity and Relative Irreducible Complexity: Foundations and Applications") that I had been working on for the last 3.5 years.  You might be wondering why it took me so long to come out and announce it.  The reason is simple - most people who have read it misunderstood what I was trying to say. Bolds mine. Are these signs you should find a new career: 1) The ID/Creationists find your arguments confusing.  You are misunderstood by the pro-misunderstanders, who have no crap filter. 2) It takes 3.5 years to publish a review article in Occasional Papers of the BSG (A creation science study group) 3) Said paper lands right behind "The Serpent in Genesis 3:15 is a Snake" crackpot index: Quote #11: 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own.) Sheesh! Then I got lost in the link-trail. SO much ID argument is "I know you are but what am I?".  Sad. -------------- "[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory "Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

Gunthernacus Posts: 235 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2010,11:39    Quote (REC @ Mar. 02 2010,11:11) Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 02 2010,05:41)   Quote (JLT @ Mar. 02 2010,04:40)   Quote This is the first of probably three posts on applied Intelligent Design. This is not an extensive list of applications of ID concepts, but I thought that giving people examples of how ID can be not only interesting and informative but actually useful in solving both biological and engineering problems. [snip drivel] So, that is application #1 – to be able to tell when additional information sources are feeding evolution. The next two applications of ID will not be biological at all, but rather related to software design and engineering. Linky So, the first and only practical application of ID to biology is to be able to say that what was designed was designed? That must sound pathetic even to people who believe in that nonsense. Sadly, nothing sounds pathetic if you believe in that nonsense... No, what is really sad is going to his personal blog (which he grandiosely calls Bartlett publishing) and reading about his "article." Link   Quote I had finally gotten a paper published (titled "Irreducible Complexity and Relative Irreducible Complexity: Foundations and Applications") that I had been working on for the last 3.5 years.  You might be wondering why it took me so long to come out and announce it.  The reason is simple - most people who have read it misunderstood what I was trying to say. Bolds mine. Are these signs you should find a new career: 1) The ID/Creationists find your arguments confusing.  You are misunderstood by the pro-misunderstanders, who have no crap filter. 2) It takes 3.5 years to publish a review article in Occasional Papers of the BSG (A creation science study group) 3) Said paper lands right behind "The Serpent in Genesis 3:15 is a Snake" Link Here is another sign: Quote I just finished reading a paper that is both fantastically interesting, and a little disheartening.  It is disheartening only because I thought that my senior paper for seminary was going to be freshly novel, but it turns out that someone else already made 90% of my arguments 11 years ago, and actually made most of them better than I could. -------------- Given that we are all descended from Adam and Eve...genetic defects as a result of intra-family marriage would not begin to crop up until after the first few dozen generations. - Dr. Hugh Ross

Zachriel Posts: 2723 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2010,12:38    Quote niwrad: One of the reasons is contained implicitly in the very fact we noted above about their discovery and that we can synthetically express as follows: fractals (or more in general any geometry arising from formulas) need computer programming. To explain this concept in the simplest way let’s return to the easy example of the circle and its equation. The symbolic equation x^2+y^2 = 1 per se displays nothing, not a single point in space. The equation alone is fully unable to generate the plot of the circle and by looking at it at first sight one hardly would say that it can generate a circle. To obtain the plot of the circle we need two additional important things: (1) a space (a plane) with a distance measure and a system of Cartesian x-y axes in the plane and (2) a specific algorithm to calculate the coordinates and plot the circle on the Cartesian plane. That's right. It's impossible for nature to make a circle because it takes a computer to plot the equation. -------------- You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

Pages: (501) < ... 153 154 155 156 157 [158] 159 160 161 162 163 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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