RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (500) < ... 223 224 225 226 227 [228] 229 230 231 232 233 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 2, general discussion of Dembski's site< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,15:44   

Quote (Rrr @ Mar. 12 2009,09:30)
Hey Erasmus, aren't you humming a bit out of tune?    
Quote
Evolution can't explain why A = 440 mHZ.

Your fiddle must be quite the wrong size for standard classics.
 :D

oops.

ahem, yes, it is the world's smallest violin.  I am now playing it for you.  I call this piece "Aria on a fracterial blagellum" and only O'Leary and other canine species can hear 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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,15:44   

Quote (Chayanov @ Mar. 12 2009,15:39)
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 12 2009,15:15)
 
Quote (JLT @ Mar. 12 2009,13:04)
Clive's understanding of evolution is depicted on the left:


Clive would be the plank at the bottom.

I assume you mean below the cactus?

lower than whale shit is the way they say that on the rez.

--------------
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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,16:26   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 12 2009,15:11)
[1] Dembski and Marks explicitly claim that "weasel"'s advantage over blind search is due to it being a partitioned search.

Atom
       
Quote
does this have to do with the WeaselWare algorithms on evoinfo.org (which I coded, btw)?

Atom
         
Quote
I’ll code an additional algorithm when I get a chance and you’ll see that nothing changes (except the amount of time it takes to reach the target will be slightly longer on average.)

I wonder what Atom will say to Dembski (who is probably totally unaware of that monster 400 comment thread) about getting the new, accurate version of Weasel posted at evoinfo.org?

That's a conversation I'd like to hear!

--------------
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

  
GCUGreyArea



Posts: 180
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,17:56   

Quote
444
Atom
03/12/2009
5:27 pm
...I think the more interesting problem is seeing what happens when the reward matrix (fitness function) is independent of target.

In other words, what happens when the fitness function doesn’t reward based on proximity to targets? (In all our examples, from Weasel to Ev, we assume that the closer you are to a functional state, the higher the reward.) But this matrix is just like any other and can be randomized as well…what if the reward matrix is organized based on something other than proximity, like simple ascending order of cells? Will functional islands ever be found in that case? Or what if we simply choose a random reward matrix, how does that affect the search?

hmmm, a fitness function that doesn't evaluate fitness (fitness being how close you are to the target in this context)  sounds like a variation on a parallel random walk.  I think I can predict what will happen but I won't spoil it for them.

Meanwhile ...
 
Quote
443
George L Farquhar
03/12/2009
5:04 pm
I wonder even if the enviroment and the mutating phrase could enter eqlibrium and forever “chase” each other, never quite winning or losing.

Good 'ol George is gently introducing the well studied phenomena of co-evolution.  Some science at last, keep up the good work!

   
CeilingCat



Posts: 2363
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,18:19   

Could somebody who has a puppet on UD please PM me?

Thanks

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,18:30   

Quote (GCUGreyArea @ Mar. 12 2009,17:56)

Meanwhile ...
     
Quote
443
George L Farquhar
03/12/2009
5:04 pm
I wonder even if the enviroment and the mutating phrase could enter eqlibrium and forever “chase” each other, never quite winning or losing.

Good 'ol George is gently introducing the well studied phenomena of co-evolution.  Some science at last, keep up the good work!

Now if they could only grasp the fact that there isn't a hard dividing line between an organism and its environment, they'd almost be ready for The Extended Phenotype.

GEEZ! I cannot believe how clearly uninformed these people are!

I mean, being that I'm a English lit nerd I'm good at describing the arguments of others as they understand them without me agreeing at all - I could probably write a good ID tract without anyone expecting that it was me. Because I understand ID. They still don't grasp evolution! I feel like tearing out my hair sometimes. :)

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,18:50   

I am gratified that Allen linked to my 2005 PT article on this "Darwin was a racist" bullshit.

Clive steps in some more shit writing,
Quote
"My argument is that evolution can only exist by comparison to those who are close to others. To see the similarities is by comparison to say that they are closely related, and to see the differences is by comparison to see how one is evolving from the other. And once that determination is made, it is discerned that the one is either more or less evolved than the other by comparison."


It turns out that I spent most of today reading a gross racist, anti-Semite, and direct Hitler mentor, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, who's 1899 "Foundations of the Nineteenth Century" makes the identical complaint as Clive about Darwinism,
Quote
"But where there is no limitation, one cannot, in the proper sense of the word, speak of progression forwards or backwards, but only of motion. For this reason no tenable notion can be derived even from the most consistent, and, therefore, most shallow, Darwinism; for conforming to definite conditions is nothing more than a manifestation of equilibrium, and so called evolution from simpler to more complicated forms of life may be quite as justifiably considered a decline as an advance; it is in fact neither the one nor the other, but merely a manifestation of motion. This too is admitted by the philosopher of Darwinism, Herbert Spencer, in that he regards evolution as a kind of rhythmic pulsation, and explains very clearly that the equilibrium is at every moment the same.  In fact it is inconceivable how the systole should form an “advance” on the diastole or the pendulum's movement to the right an “advance” on its movement to the left."


What wankers.

Edited by Dr.GH on Mar. 12 2009,17:10

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,20:26   

Quote (GCUGreyArea @ Mar. 12 2009,18:56)
Quote
444
Atom
03/12/2009
5:27 pm
...I think the more interesting problem is seeing what happens when the reward matrix (fitness function) is independent of target.

In other words, what happens when the fitness function doesn’t reward based on proximity to targets? (In all our examples, from Weasel to Ev, we assume that the closer you are to a functional state, the higher the reward.) But this matrix is just like any other and can be randomized as well…what if the reward matrix is organized based on something other than proximity, like simple ascending order of cells? Will functional islands ever be found in that case? Or what if we simply choose a random reward matrix, how does that affect the search?

hmmm, a fitness function that doesn't evaluate fitness (fitness being how close you are to the target in this context)  sounds like a variation on a parallel random walk.  I think I can predict what will happen but I won't spoil it for them.

If he really wants to simulate evolution, then he should write some sort of mutation into the computer's bios so that the computer may or may not run the program at all.  I'm sure then he'll get the result he wants.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,20:51   

Quote (GCT @ Mar. 12 2009,20:26)
Quote (GCUGreyArea @ Mar. 12 2009,18:56)
Quote
444
Atom
03/12/2009
5:27 pm
...I think the more interesting problem is seeing what happens when the reward matrix (fitness function) is independent of target.

In other words, what happens when the fitness function doesn’t reward based on proximity to targets? (In all our examples, from Weasel to Ev, we assume that the closer you are to a functional state, the higher the reward.) But this matrix is just like any other and can be randomized as well…what if the reward matrix is organized based on something other than proximity, like simple ascending order of cells? Will functional islands ever be found in that case? Or what if we simply choose a random reward matrix, how does that affect the search?

hmmm, a fitness function that doesn't evaluate fitness (fitness being how close you are to the target in this context)  sounds like a variation on a parallel random walk.  I think I can predict what will happen but I won't spoil it for them.

If he really wants to simulate evolution, then he should write some sort of mutation into the computer's bios so that the computer may or may not run the program at all.  I'm sure then he'll get the result he wants.

Gil Dodgems should kick the box a bit, too, to 'simulate' environmental flux.

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,21:08   

Hey Wes, you get a plug and a link:

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

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,22:13   

that "We cannot live by septic system alone" thread is a monument to, well, something.  Anyone who ever thought KF was either 1) sane or 2) an honest commenter interested in merits should be quickly convinced otherwise.  i sure hope they don't 404 it, I have thoroughly enjoyed his meltdown.

I just hope he doesn't take it out on some one else.  I could totally see a Tard like that guy finally losing whatever shred of rational thought he might have had squirreled away in his oil soaked straw brain, then flipping out and killing everyone in a McDonalds with an AK47 or something.

He is becoming seriously unhinged over there.  It's almost not funny anymore.  But not quite.

--------------
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

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,22:14   

Oh my aching brain.
 
Quote
If both archi-purpose and neo-purpose are evolved adaptations, why bother to make a distinction between the two? There’s seems to be some confusion on Dawkins’s part on this. But what choice does he really have. On the evolutionary view, all aspects of our mental functions must be evolved adaptions of one sort or another. The very fact that Dawkins feels compelled to lecture on the subject of purpose seems to indicate that there is something about our human ability to have intent and purpose (that is our will to make something happen) that runs counter to what we would expect from evolution. Dawkins must think he’s being clever in devising the “archi” vs “neo” distinction, but in the end he has to explain them both as “evolved adaptions”, thus blurring the distinction entirely.

Yes, asserting that both men and women have evolved likewise "blurs the distinction" between the two. Dingbat. Dawkins is confused?

Why make a distinction between the two? Because human beings don't need to skydive to survive, Ronald. It's not hard. (It's so EASY! ) :p

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2009,00:02   

The "weasel" discussion at UD apparently inspires weaseling. The end game for the rabid UD people is to claim that without having Dawkins' original code implementing "weasel", nobody can know what the real situation is. However, Dawkins' described his procedure clearly in "The Blind Watchmaker". A great many people who understood Dawkins were able to write their own working versions of "weasel" without any "latching" of correct characters. One needn't have a particular implementation of an algorithm to say what the algorithm's methods are.

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

    
sparc



Posts: 2088
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2009,00:06   

Quote
Houston Stewart Chamberlain, who's 1899 "Foundations of the Nineteenth Century" makes the identical complaint as Clive about Darwinism,  [...] What wankers.
Too true. Even parts of the NSDAP program (bolded below) fit in their pages without catching anyone's eye:  
Quote

22
sparc
03/12/2009
12:19 am

     
Quote
I certainly do not hold myself responsible for everything anyone has ever done in the name of religion, simply because I am a Catholic Christian.


Thus, you would subscribe the following:

     
Quote
The same is true of the numerous stupid and clumsy attacks on Christianity. Remarks such as “Christianity has done nothing but harm” prove only that the person who makes the remark has no tact. It is easy to criticize the political church; and even the most devout Christians condemn the atrocities committed in the name of the cross during the Inquisition and Witch Trials. But one cannot blame the mistakes and perversions of individuals on one of the most powerful institutions of mankind.

   For untold millions, the Christian religion has meant hope and spiritual elevation that transported them beyond human suffering to God. The entire culture of the Middle Ages was inspired by the sign of the Cross. The heroic deeds, self sacrifice, fervour and courage of faith all had their roots in Christianity. One must always distinguish between the, spiritual nucleus of Christianity and the distortions of its secular manifestations.

Would you?


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

   
Bob O'H



Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2009,01:49   

BarryA has changed the moderation policy


Quote
Some commenters have raised questions regarding the propriety of recent posts and UD’s moderation policy. UD’s moderation policy is fairly simple: As a general rule, so long as your comment is not defamatory profane, or a vicious personal attack, you can say pretty much what you want. We have no interest in censoring viewpoints, because we believe ID is true and consequently in any full and fair debate we will win — and if we don’t win we either need to learn to debate better or change our position. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not opening this site up to nasty juvenile name-calling fests like one see so often at Panda’s Thumb.  But if you keep your comments restricted to ideas and not attacking people, you should have no problems passing muster here.


I decided to go for the irony, and posted this comment:
Quote
It's good to see this change in position.  I expect it will reduce the temptation to sock-puppetry as well.

Of course, it won't appear because I was silently banninated.

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
GCUGreyArea



Posts: 180
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2009,05:41   

Quote
Some commenters have raised questions regarding the propriety of recent posts and UD’s moderation policy. UD’s moderation policy is fairly simple: As a general rule, so long as your comment is not defamatory profane, or a vicious personal attack truthful statement backed up by evidence, you can say pretty much what you want. We have no interest in censoring viewpoints, because we believe ID is true and consequently in any full and fair debate we will loose — and if when we don’t win we either need to learn to debate better or will carry on as if we are winning and never change our position. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not opening this site up to free and open debate but nasty juvenile name-calling fests like one see so often at Panda’s Thumb are only allowed if you support ID.  But if you keep your comments restricted to ideas and not attacking people agreeing with us and attacking our enemies, you should have no problems passing muster here.

Changed that for you barry

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2009,06:18   

Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 12 2009,23:14)
Oh my aching brain.
   
Quote
If both archi-purpose and neo-purpose are evolved adaptations, why bother to make a distinction between the two? There’s seems to be some confusion on Dawkins’s part on this. But what choice does he really have. On the evolutionary view, all aspects of our mental functions must be evolved adaptions of one sort or another. The very fact that Dawkins feels compelled to lecture on the subject of purpose seems to indicate that there is something about our human ability to have intent and purpose (that is our will to make something happen) that runs counter to what we would expect from evolution. Dawkins must think he’s being clever in devising the “archi” vs “neo” distinction, but in the end he has to explain them both as “evolved adaptions”, thus blurring the distinction entirely.

Yes, asserting that both men and women have evolved likewise "blurs the distinction" between the two. Dingbat. Dawkins is confused?

Why make a distinction between the two? Because human beings don't need to skydive to survive, Ronald. It's not hard. (It's so EASY! ) :p

That said, I don't hear anything new or particularly surprising in Dawkins' talk, other than his new terminology. Dennett discusses similar notions at length in Freedom Evolves and elsewhere, a discussion that recalls Popperian creatures, etc.

--------------
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

  
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2009,06:38   

joshuabgood:
 
Quote
Further, if RM and NS produce aggressive behavior or thought systems which aids survival of individuals/group by producing domination and extinction of individuals/groups without the identical adaptation - then TTOE, as defined by the engines of RM and NS can be considered the cause of aggressive behavior and aggressive thought systems.

Seems pretty clear to me…

If a group of bees develops a “Killer” mentality they are better adapted and can take over the “regular” bees. (We of course actually see this happening in the Southern US.)

The bottom line is with TTOE, Ken Miller aside, there seems to be no “ought” there is just “is.” Therefore which groups survive and which group go extinct is not a moral question at all but is instead one of survival. If a racist mentality helps a group exist/reproduce there is no moral constraint. TTOE in the least then, to my way of thinking, makes no moral judgment on racism and partially enables it by suggesting that some groups will be “better adapted” than other groups. Some groups of living things will become extinct as conditions change. It also makes good sense that groups that are “better adapted” would not want to be bred with groups that are not as well adapted and would also keep the less well adapted groups/individuals from the finite resource pool.


That is so wrong on so many levels.

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

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2009,06:57   

Quote (JLT @ Mar. 13 2009,06:38)
joshuabgood:
Quote
Further, if RM and NS produce aggressive behavior or thought systems which aids survival of individuals/group by producing domination and extinction of individuals/groups without the identical adaptation - then TTOE, as defined by the engines of RM and NS can be considered the cause of aggressive behavior and aggressive thought systems.

Seems pretty clear to me…

If a group of bees develops a “Killer” mentality they are better adapted and can take over the “regular” bees. (We of course actually see this happening in the Southern US.)

The bottom line is with TTOE, Ken Miller aside, there seems to be no “ought” there is just “is.” Therefore which groups survive and which group go extinct is not a moral question at all but is instead one of survival. If a racist mentality helps a group exist/reproduce there is no moral constraint. TTOE in the least then, to my way of thinking, makes no moral judgment on racism and partially enables it by suggesting that some groups will be “better adapted” than other groups. Some groups of living things will become extinct as conditions change. It also makes good sense that groups that are “better adapted” would not want to be bred with groups that are not as well adapted and would also keep the less well adapted groups/individuals from the finite resource pool.
That is so wrong on so many levels.

AussieID shows ignorance in abundance.

My favorite part is the use of the term "Social Darwinism".  I have never seen anything about Darwin advocating or even suggesting that killing off "lesser people" is right, what we should be doing or even in passing.

That is like saying Xian Missionaries killed who they couldn't convert.  What a minute that is what happened.....

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2009,07:07   

Just a thought.

Isn't blaming Jesus/God for the murder, rapes, conversion by sword point, wars, etc, easier to make than blaming Darwin?

After all with the amount of death and destruction from all the crusades, religious cleansing, spats of whose idea of Jebus is the right one ("He's the Prince of Peace!", "No, He's the Prince of Tolerance!", both "Death to you heretic1"), etc even more vile than self proclaimed atheists who openly say they don't follow any "kind and loving god"?

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2009,07:10   

Quote
Barry Arrington: As a general rule, so long as your comment is not defamatory profane, or a vicious personal attack, you can say pretty much what you want.

... uuuuuuuuuuuuu ...

This Has Been a Test, And Only a Test, Of The Uncommon Descent Comment System. If this had been a real change in policy, this comment would have already appeared.

{xposted to Uncommon Descent}

--------------

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2009,07:10   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 13 2009,14:18)
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 12 2009,23:14)
Oh my aching brain.
     
Quote
If both archi-purpose and neo-purpose are evolved adaptations, why bother to make a distinction between the two? There’s seems to be some confusion on Dawkins’s part on this. But what choice does he really have. On the evolutionary view, all aspects of our mental functions must be evolved adaptions of one sort or another. The very fact that Dawkins feels compelled to lecture on the subject of purpose seems to indicate that there is something about our human ability to have intent and purpose (that is our will to make something happen) that runs counter to what we would expect from evolution. Dawkins must think he’s being clever in devising the “archi” vs “neo” distinction, but in the end he has to explain them both as “evolved adaptions”, thus blurring the distinction entirely.

Yes, asserting that both men and women have evolved likewise "blurs the distinction" between the two. Dingbat. Dawkins is confused?

Why make a distinction between the two? Because human beings don't need to skydive to survive, Ronald. It's not hard. (It's so EASY! ) :p

That said, I don't hear anything new or particularly surprising in Dawkins' talk, other than his new terminology. Dennett discusses similar notions at length in Freedom Evolves and elsewhere, a discussion that recalls Popperian creatures, etc.

Take it easy on them they're bored.

They have taken it upon themselves to hose out the stables.

When they could have used Ompalumpas paid only beans, cotton and sugar.

Except they too have been fast fowarded 3000 years or there abouts to believing in     er ....3000 year old mytholgy and their rightful place under the sun.

Well that backfired, now one is running the country.

ETA For clarity to those with numb nuts.
Christianity ain't what it used to be ( a far right wing political movement bent on usurping Roman law with Sharia law)

HU   RAH SEMPER FI

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

  
GCUGreyArea



Posts: 180
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2009,09:51   

In this thread:
Quote
23
Clive Hayden
03/12/2009
12:38 am
I going to disapprove your 1st comment Seversky, I cannot allow such language about God being worse than Hitler or Stalin.

Seversky has had his comment reinstated!!!

   
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2009,09:56   

Quote (GCUGreyArea @ Mar. 13 2009,09:51)
In this thread:
Quote
23
Clive Hayden
03/12/2009
12:38 am
I going to disapprove your 1st comment Seversky, I cannot allow such language about God being worse than Hitler or Stalin.
Seversky has had his comment reinstated!!!

The problem is that this god of theirs they claim has power, unlimited in fact, yet never shows to show the right way.

I'd say that makes this god way worse.

If you have the power to change things and you allow suffering on a planetary scale to continue to keep this illusion of "free will" to continue is just wrong.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2009,10:49   

Quote
If you think about it the BEST way to expose ID as sophist pseudo-science is by presenting the scientific data which demonstrates that.

It is only because such scientific data is unavailable do the ID critics and opponents use those other methods of debate.

And that is because if you can’t attack the data then attack the person because that is all that is left.


Says Joseph. After three posts that accused all evolution biologists of being racists and described Darwin as The Origin of All Evil.



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

  
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2009,10:56   

And the link I forgot to include..

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2009,11:24   

Quote (JLT @ Mar. 13 2009,10:49)
Quote
If you think about it the BEST way to expose ID as sophist pseudo-science is by presenting the scientific data which demonstrates that.

It is only because such scientific data is unavailable do the ID critics and opponents use those other methods of debate.

And that is because if you can’t attack the data then attack the person because that is all that is left.


Says Joseph. After three posts that accused all evolution biologists of being racists and described Darwin as The Origin of All Evil.


if they would frame their claims in any sort of empirical prediction then there would be something to talk about.  Joe G don't know shit but that won't stop him from pounding his chest and flinging his issues.

--------------
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

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2009,11:50   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Mar. 13 2009,12:24)
Quote (JLT @ Mar. 13 2009,10:49)
Quote
If you think about it the BEST way to expose ID as sophist pseudo-science is by presenting the scientific data which demonstrates that.

It is only because such scientific data is unavailable do the ID critics and opponents use those other methods of debate.

And that is because if you can’t attack the data then attack the person because that is all that is left.


Says Joseph. After three posts that accused all evolution biologists of being racists and described Darwin as The Origin of All Evil.


if they would frame their claims in any sort of empirical prediction then there would be something to talk about.  Joe G don't know shit but that won't stop him from pounding his chest and flinging his issues poo.

Fixed that for ya.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2009,12:02   



Selection Code Fail.

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

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2009,12:25   

Quote
This Has Been a Test, And Only a Test, Of The Uncommon Descent Comment System. If this had been a real change in policy, this comment would have already appeared.


Odd. So far not a single dissent, uncommon or otherwise.

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

  
  14997 replies since July 17 2008,19:00 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (500) < ... 223 224 225 226 227 [228] 229 230 231 232 233 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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