RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < ... 229 230 231 232 233 [234] 235 236 237 238 239 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2006,09:49   

Yeah I haven't taken much notice of the pretenders to Mullah Dembski's Mineret but I wish there were more,

it doesn't take a great deal of imagination to come up with really sensible buzz phrases like say ....'Dissembling Design'.

DD for short..... it's the design you get when you have to make excuses for it.

Which of course begs the question .....who was the Dissembler?

Was it the dude behind the rainbow, or his second cousin?

Who knows..who gives a ****?

But to give the inventor of the 'CD' his credit he needs to pick a less obvious letter combination ......its not as sexy or edgy as 'CSI'

I suggest 'Designers under Inspiration by God'

'DUI by God' for short

...I know..I know ....its a cheap shot .....it has the word god,

but hey the cats out of the bag now and with Congress passing the bill that bans atheists who going to stop us now?

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2006,10:47   

Is it me or has UD gotten terribly boring lately.  Typical dave tard boasting ("look at me, I'm a brilliant person and William Dembski calls me by my name"), the church lady (aka "morphodyke") going on and on about nothing (that woman needs a hobby), and Dembski quoting anonymous sources who whine endlessly.

I drop by once a day and it's been super-zilla boring for weeks now.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2006,11:33   

Yeah, but we're sooooo close to 7000 posts

Anyway, PandasThumb has been really boring for the last few months.

I think it's just post-Dover malaise. ID The Science is nonexistent, ID the Blog Posts are just laymen repeating tired old nonsense arguments, and ID the Legal Strategy was killed, gutted, butchered, battered, fried, and served for dinner last December. We have nothing to do at the moment.

   
keiths



Posts: 2195
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2006,11:36   

Davey digs himself in deeper:
 
Quote (DaveScot @ Oct. 06 2006,12:38)
Oh Goody! Now 2ndClass wants to be the next clown I knock down. These people have not done any hardware design. They have not drawn schematics for many complex digital designs then sat thousands of hours in the drivers’s seat of a logic analyzer and oscilloscope debugging their own designs. That and programming is all I did for almost 25 years and I was really, really good at it.

2ndclass sticks his foot in his mouth thusly:

   
Quote
- “Simulations of gate logic” are only done with boolean logic. What other kind of logic do you think is simulated?

- Contrary to your strawman, nobody here said that analog considerations aren’t important. They just aren’t part of gate-level modelling.


But this article in EDN says:

The most common form of logic simulation is event-driven, in which the simulator sees the world as a series of discrete events. When an input value on a primitive gate changes, the simulator evaluates the gate to determine whether this change causes a change at the output and, if so, schedules an event for some future time (Figure 3).

Most event-driven logic simulators allow you to attach minimum, typical, and maximum delays to each model (Figure 4). When you run the simulator, you can select one of these delay modes, and the simulator uses that mode for all of the gates in the circuit. Also, some simulators allow you to select one delay mode as the default and then force certain gates to adopt another mode. For example, you might set all the gates in your datapath to use minimum delays and all the gates in your control path to use maximum delays, thereby allowing you to perform a “cheap and cheerful” timing analysis.

What a dope. There’s much more at the EDN link.


Dave,

It's painfully obvious to everyone (including the folks at UD) that you're bluffing.  Why keep pretending to understand how chip simulation is done?  You're just making yourself look ridiculous.  Perhaps you've done some board design, but you clearly don't understand chip design methodology.

First of all, do you really think that a gate-level simulation becomes non-boolean just because gate delays are added?

Secondly, in 20 years of chip design (microprocessors, ASICs, and FPGAs) I have never used, nor seen anyone use, nor heard about anyone using a gate-level simulation for timing analysis.  Can you do it?  Of course.  But why would you?  It's the wrong tool for the job, and there are much better tools available.

What's wrong with using a gate-level simulation for timing analysis?  Here are two biggies:

1)  Your vectors (or testbenches) have to achieve 100% path coverage (not just node coverage) to guarantee that you haven't missed any critical paths.  Not only is this impossible to achieve (or even to approach) for most designs, it also means that your verification suite has to be nearly complete before you can do significant timing analysis.  A stand-alone timing analysis tool has no such limitations and requires no vectors or testbenches.

2) To isolate a timing path using gate-level simulation, you have to a) produce a failure, b) debug from the failure back to the critical path, c) fix the path, and d) resimulate to find the next failure.  Step (b) in particular takes a huge amount of engineering time, all for the sake of highlighting one or a handful of critical paths.

A timing analyzer, by contrast, identifies hundreds or even thousands of critical paths all at once.  The engineer simply has to fix the paths and rerun the analyzer.

This is why the EDA vendors sell timing analysis tools, and it's why everyone buys them instead of trying to piggyback "cheap and cheerful" timing analysis onto their functional simulations.

We've pretty much run that topic into the ground, unless you aren't embarrassed enough yet.  Now let's hear why your definition of irreducible complexity is the right one, as opposed to Behe's and Dembski's.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2006,11:48   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 06 2006,11:13)
Kurt Wise, Dembski's replacement at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, is now a consultant for the "Answers in Genesis" Creation Museum in Florence, KY. SBTS is just thrilled about it, too, featuring a page about Wise's views and new affiliation:

   
Quote

"If you don't believe in a young earth, you really cannot—and be consistent—believe in the truth of much of Genesis 1-11," he said. "You have to reject a Babel origin for modern languages. You have to reject a global flood—it has to be a local flood. You have to reject the longevity of the patriarchs—they couldn't possibly have lived for 900 years.

"You have to reject that the first city was built by Cain or anything associated with Cain. You have to reject that Adam was the first human. You have to reject the origin of agriculture spoken of in Genesis 4. You have to reject the description of Eden—it becomes absurd with rivers on three different continents coming out in one place. You have to reject Genesis chapter 1—the order of creation is wrong, not just the days or the length of the days."


Source

Looks like Rob Pennock's "Tower of Babel" was not just ID critic excess, eh?

Lots of good stuff in that article after that quote, too:

   
Quote

Wise acknowledged that the majority of Christians and even the majority of conservative evangelicals believe the world is older than 7,000 years, but he argued many of the foundational doctrines of the Bible—such as marriage, the literal fall of man, the necessity of a savior and the end times—depend on belief in a young earth.

"The most important thing is that you ought to be able to trust your God and the claims the Bible makes. I know most people don't understand what in the world the scientists are saying. That's okay. Just pay attention to what God says. If you trust what God has given us, it becomes an appropriate foundation for every aspect of our lives."

As believers examine science, the most important thing they can remember is to always pay attention to Scripture above any scientist, Wise said.

"The most important thing is, regardless of what all the scientists are saying, the Bible is true and you can accept it by faith," he said. "God is only pleased with faith, as a matter of fact. To trust the scientists is not faith. It is, in fact, trusting in man's reason rather than God."


AFDave in a nutshell, no?

Is it just me, or does this essay have a strong hint of "we admit all this Young Earth literalism doesn't make any sense at all, but believe it anyway, 'cuz God'll get real pissed otherwise"?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2006,11:59   

7000!


   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2006,12:08   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 06 2006,17:48)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 06 2006,11:13)
Kurt Wise, Dembski's replacement at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, is now a consultant for the "Answers in Genesis" Creation Museum in Florence, KY. SBTS is just thrilled about it, too, featuring a page about Wise's views and new affiliation:

     
Quote

"If you don't believe in a young earth, you really cannot—and be consistent—believe in the truth of much of Genesis 1-11," he said. "You have to reject a Babel origin for modern languages. You have to reject a global flood—it has to be a local flood. You have to reject the longevity of the patriarchs—they couldn't possibly have lived for 900 years.

"You have to reject that the first city was built by Cain or anything associated with Cain. You have to reject that Adam was the first human. You have to reject the origin of agriculture spoken of in Genesis 4. You have to reject the description of Eden—it becomes absurd with rivers on three different continents coming out in one place. You have to reject Genesis chapter 1—the order of creation is wrong, not just the days or the length of the days."


Source

Looks like Rob Pennock's "Tower of Babel" was not just ID critic excess, eh?

Lots of good stuff in that article after that quote, too:

   
Quote

Wise acknowledged that the majority of Christians and even the majority of conservative evangelicals believe the world is older than 7,000 years, but he argued many of the foundational doctrines of the Bible—such as marriage, the literal fall of man, the necessity of a savior and the end times—depend on belief in a young earth.

"The most important thing is that you ought to be able to trust your God and the claims the Bible makes. I know most people don't understand what in the world the scientists are saying. That's okay. Just pay attention to what God says. If you trust what God has given us, it becomes an appropriate foundation for every aspect of our lives."

As believers examine science, the most important thing they can remember is to always pay attention to Scripture above any scientist, Wise said.

"The most important thing is, regardless of what all the scientists are saying, the Bible is true and you can accept it by faith," he said. "God is only pleased with faith, as a matter of fact. To trust the scientists is not faith. It is, in fact, trusting in man's reason rather than God."


AFDave in a nutshell, no?

Is it just me, or does this essay have a strong hint of "we admit all this Young Earth literalism doesn't make any sense at all, but believe it anyway, 'cuz God'll get real pissed otherwise"?

So, looks like they after Dembski left, they were able to find a replacement with the same intellectual firepower. Good for them.

   
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2006,12:13   

This is some weird, ignorant shite if you think about it.

Quote
To trust the scientists is not faith. It is, in fact, trusting in man's reason rather than God."


When they speak of trustijng god what the #### are they saying?  

What he is suggesting is do not trust man's ability to reason, instead trust a book that is incomprehensible, spilled poetry written thousands of years ago by men who thought the Earth was flat, the Sun circled the Earth, and owning slaves was cool as long as you don't abuse them too much.  WTF?

Yeah, put your faith in an ancient text written by people who were ignorant of fundamental things.

I think it was Bertrand Russell who said something close to I don't recall any part of the bible that praised using one's intelligence. (feel free to provide a more precise quotation).

Yeah don't trust man's ability to reason, trust Dembski and the Discovery Institute instead, afterall they obviously speak for gawd.  Or don't trust them, trust your bible!  Well your bible was written by men just them, so who exactly are you trusting when you say you are trusting god?

I was a believer the first 30 years and my life and I can assure you god never once called me on the phone so people can pretend they are trusting god but what they are really "trusting" are ignorant, uneducated men who wrote down their nutty thoughts thousands of years ago.

I'm probably not making any sense...Oh well...

Chris

The frightening and dangerous part to me is how so many christians (and IDers) make ignorance out to be a heavenly virtue.  They might as well say "blessed are the dumb and uninformed who do not think for themselvbes and instead let others think for them as they delude themselves into believeing they are actually trusting in god.  Blessed are those who refuse to think critically or question any of their beliefs or examine the evidence for those beliefs"

THAT is what this "faith" Wise is talking about really is.  And the dunces eat it up.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
2ndclass



Posts: 182
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2006,12:41   

Dave, glad to see that you're still with us.

Quote
And he still insists I said microprocessors are modeled at the transistor level when I clearly said gate level. Tom English and Karl Pfluger made up that straw man about transistor level.

Tom said that transistors are not the right level for microprocessor simulation, and you told him that his ignorance was showing.  Are you now saying that his statement wasn't ignorant?  While you're getting your story straight, please retract your "strawman" accusation.

Quote
These people have not done any hardware design. They have not drawn schematics for many complex digital designs then sat thousands of hours in the drivers’s seat of a logic analyzer and oscilloscope debugging their own designs.

Well, that's news to me.  I'm not sure how I earned a Master's in Electrical Engineering and worked for several years as a hardware designer without designing hardware, but obviously you know more about me than I do.

--------------
"I wasn't aware that classical physics had established a position on whether intelligent agents exercising free were constrained by 2LOT into increasing entropy." -DaveScot

  
ScaryFacts



Posts: 337
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2006,13:03   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 06 2006,17:48)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 06 2006,11:13)
Kurt Wise, Dembski's replacement at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, is now a consultant for the "Answers in Genesis" Creation Museum in Florence, KY. SBTS is just thrilled about it, too, featuring a page about Wise's views and new affiliation:

       
Quote

[snip]


Source

Looks like Rob Pennock's "Tower of Babel" was not just ID critic excess, eh?

Lots of good stuff in that article after that quote, too:

       
Quote

[snip]As believers examine science, the most important thing they can remember is to always pay attention to Scripture above any scientist, Wise said.
[snip]


AFDave in a nutshell, no?

Is it just me, or does this essay have a strong hint of "we admit all this Young Earth literalism doesn't make any sense at all, but believe it anyway, 'cuz God'll get real pissed otherwise"?

There was a Christian discussion board I visited some weeks ago and began posting to the "Bible and Science" thread.

I wasn't being trollish, but I did ask some tough questions.  So did a very few others.

One of the toughest ones to get an answer to was this:

If you believe the earth is 6,000 years old and Genesis is a literal, historical account, is God intentionally misleading His people with His creation?

The more we look at the Creation, the more we are convinced it speaks of being ancient.  Is God intentionally misleading us?

I don't think the big problem with fundys is their belief in a young earth.  I think the big problem they have is their belief in their own interpretation of an "infallible" book.  Everything else is just a natural outgrowth.

After a week or so they closed the Science and Bible area and now won't let anyone post there.  Big surprise.

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2006,13:08   

Quote
The frightening and dangerous part to me is how so many christians (and IDers) make ignorance out to be a heavenly virtue.  They might as well say "blessed are the dumb and uninformed who do not think for themselvbes and instead let others think for them as they delude themselves into believeing they are actually trusting in god.  Blessed are those who refuse to think critically or question any of their beliefs or examine the evidence for those beliefs"


"Ignorance is Strength"

When one sees how these folks think and react, one might conclude Orwell was a prophet, except that this kind of thing has been commonplace throughout much of human history.  Hence, the reason that Orwell could write so eloquently about it to begin with.

It just becomes more and more obvious as populations ever increase, and communication levels increase as well.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2006,17:10   

Carlson (presumably our very own carlsonjok) had a beautiful takedown of uberidiot TRoutMac on OE, which will almost certainly earn him a banning and deleted comment, so I will reproduce it here:
Quote

A Metaphor Still Isn't Science
carlson | Sat, 2006-10-07 02:27

Quote
ID bashers only wish to avoid analogies and metaphors because they are embarassed to admit they have no rebuttal of them. This business about "let's move beyond metaphors and talk about science" is nothing more than a deflection.


Metaphors don't increase the body of scientific knowledge. Scientific knowledge is created through the process of scientific inquiry; namely forming and testing hypotheses. The answer you propose is that something is designed if it has CSI. You follow that with the statement it is superfluous to calculate CSI because the thing in question appears to be designed. But, without actually applying a calculation of CSI in a rigorous manner, it is an empty concept and the whole deal boils down to the assertion that something is designed because it looks designed. It is an interesting apologetic, but it doesn't rise to the level of scientific discourse.

You have stated the hypotheses that it is DNA is designed because it is highly improbable that it formed through natural processes. And you have a tool called CSI that allows you to quantify those probabilities. So, why the reluctance to apply the tool to the hypotheses? You may consider it superfluous, but the people you are trying to convince apparently don't. They want to dig into the details because that is how science works.

Quote
Are you saying that if I go to the park and see some geese, I'm not allowed to claim that there are geese at the park unless I count them first?


You are saying that DNA has CSI, but it is completely unnecessary to do the calculation. You are basically saying that "DNA is designed because it looks designed to me." That is an argument by assertion. So, more accurately, what I am saying is that you can't claim that the geese are really squirrels and expect people to believe you unless you are willing and able to positively compare the animal in front of you to the known morphology of a squirrel.

Quote
Why is it so unreasonable to suggest that, if the presence of language on a stone tablet indicates intelligent authorship, the presence of language embedded in a complex molecule like DNA indicates intelligent authorship as well? Is it just because you know that author must not be human? Really… just what IS the problem here?


There are undoubtedly many scientists who are familiar with the structure and functioning of DNA who may not necessarily agree to your assertion that DNA is designed. By virtue of their knowledge of DNA, they are going to want to have discussions about (guess what?).....DNA. CSI is a measure of the improbability of something having formed naturally. If you are going to assert that it is improbable that DNA formed naturally, then you have expect to be asked very specific questions about DNA, the calculated probabilities, the confidence intervals, and the methodology you used to calculate it. Appeals to archaeology and rune stones won't get you very far with biologists.

So the problem I am struggling with is why go to all the bother of even defining a complex probability function like CSI if there isn't any effort to apply it in a rigorous manner. It is reduced to the biological equivalent of a Potemkin village. Which, unfortunately, raises the question of who exactly it is you are trying to convince.
login or register to post comments | 0 points


http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe....ent-198

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2006,23:32   

Someone bitter?

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1675#comment-67337
Quote
5. John A. Davison  // Oct 6th 2006 at 9:46 am

It will be very interesting to see how the Darwimps here as elsewhere will respond to these comments by a member of the National Academy of Sciences.

Here is my prediction. He will probably be accused of senility. After all that is what they have done with me.

Or how about this one?

“He used to be a decent scientist but something happened to him in the 1980s.”

It is especially significant that Skell saw through Dobzhansky’s claim about how nothing makes sense in biology without evolution. The Darwinians conveniently forget that Dobzhansky is also the one that proved that the most intensive selection cannot exceed the species barrier and he did it with Drosophila, the favorite pet animal of the Darwinian geneticists, an animal which has not changed in millions of years. Yet Dobzhansky remained a staunch Darwinian. Is it any wonder that I often declare -

It is hard to believe isn’t it?

It sure is!

In any event Skell and I had a fine conversation and while we didn’t agree about everything, we sure did on the failure of the Darwinian model.

I love it so!

“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison

Comment by John A. Davison — October 6, 2006 @ 9:46 am


--------------
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)

   
Bing



Posts: 144
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2006,02:19   

Quote (2ndclass @ Oct. 06 2006,17:41)
Well, that's news to me.  I'm not sure how I earned a Master's in Electrical Engineering and worked for several years as a hardware designer without designing hardware, but obviously you know more about me than I do.

Well, there you go.  You have both and undergrad and graduate degrees and professional experience in the relevant field.  Obviously you have no justfication for claiming any knowledge in the area.

OTOH DaveScot has sergeant's stripes from the USMC.  Because he's an autodidact (he's had a Scientific American subscription for more than 30 years) polymath (he told us) with an IQ above 150 (again, self-identified) based on extrapolation from his SAT scores then his stripes trump your academic hoods and actual experience any day.

In his ID world theology degrees confer expertise in biology, USMC rank tops IEEE membership and all that is really necessary is a fawning devotion to his Most Worshipful Master Dembski.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2006,02:31   

While I was browsing for some Lynn Margulis and E. Zuckerkandl quotes, I ran across this, thought it might be fun to read:  
Zuckerkandl E (2006)  Intelligent design and biological complexity. Gene. (in press, abstract and corrected proof available here )
"...biological complexity has been deemed by some to be one of the privileged points of insertion of a supernatural intelligence endowed with temporal and causal primacy. In the course of a critical review, it is pointed out that the spectacle of nature's spontaneous tinkering with the structures and performances of informational macromolecules and with interactive connections among these molecules suggests that intelligence and design are absent from evolution. Nor is intelligent design required for explaining biological complexity, which can increase spontaneously as a byproduct of combinatorial intermolecular gambles and of the restoration of molecular damage wrought by mutations. One of the possible molecular pathways to spontaneous evolutionary increases in complexity is described."

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2006,02:58   

it's thundering along over at the ID wiki:

Detecting_Intelligence_in_Movies
 
Quote
Detecting Intelligence in Movies summarizes examples where movie directors depict people recognizing intelligent design or intelligent causation.
  1.  Kubrick’s 2001 Space Oddessy: (1968) A black monolith with smooth sides and geometric proportions is unearthed on the moon with sides “in the exact ratio 1 to 4 to 9 - the square of the first three integers." It is immediately recognized as made by an advanced civilization.
  2. The Gods Must be Crazy: (1980) Kalahari Bushmen recognize a soft drink bottle as “from the gods” and not natural.
  3. The Hunt for Red October (1990). The apparent "seismic," "magma" or "whale" sound is shown to repetitious and moving along a track with an identifiable destination, and was thus man made, caused by the Red October submarine's magnetohydrodynamic "silent" drive.
  4. Contact: the movie (1997) Reception of a signal containing a sequence of prime numbers from outerspace reveals an alien civilization. They discover an audio band, a TV broadcast of Hitler, and material in the artificial language Lincos. The movie is modeled after SETI. See also: Contact review
  5. My Favorite Martian (1999) An alien spacraft (UFO) is distinguished from other cellestial objects by its "erratic" (non-gravitationally controlled) behavior indicating controlled flight. An alien life form is identified by its non-human DNA.


pathetic. overwhelimg evidence indeed.

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

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2006,04:54   

One of the regular posters at Uncommon Descent, Joseph a.k.a. joe g runs a blog Intelligent Reasoning. He moderates it, of course, but usually publishes comments. (I have asked him to quit the moderation and use Word Verification to limit spam, instead. He hasn't responded yet.)

joe g has cross-referenced his blog on the Skell essay, Why do we invoke Darwin?  I have pointed out that 1) Skell is not a biologist, and provided a cite to valid authority. 2) Skell is factually wrong.

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

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

   
Bob O'H



Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2006,06:17   

Zachriel - I've just checked for Skell in Web of Science (use to be the ISI Science Citations Index), and according to them, Skell has 3 papers in "LIFE SCIENCES & BIOMEDICINE".  The most recent was in 1947.

Here they are:
1. CARTER HE, LOO YH, SKELL PS
STREPTOMYCIN - THE LINKAGE BETWEEN STREPTIDINE AND STREPTOBIOSAMINE
JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY 168 (1): 401-402 1947
Times Cited: 9

2. LOO YH, SKELL PS, THORNBERRY HH, et al.
ASSAY OF STREPTOMYCIN BY THE PAPER-DISC PLATE METHOD
JOURNAL OF BACTERIOLOGY 50 (6): 701-709 1945
Times Cited: 193

3. CARTER HE, CLARK RK, DICKMAN SR, et al.
ISOLATION AND PURIFICATION OF STREPTOMYCIN
JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY 160 (1): 337-342 1945
Times Cited: 40

The second one is the only one cited since the 1970s.  Clearly it's a methodological paper.

Bob

--------------
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)

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2006,08:57   

Over at Uncommonly Dense, they're now begging Phil Skell to join them.

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2006,09:39   

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 07 2006,13:57)
Over at Uncommonly Dense, they're now begging Phil Skell to join them.

Philip Skell looks to be at least as crackpotty as Davison. And there seems to be a lengthy history of IDCers misrepresenting his credentials. And he also appears to be even older than Davison, at least somewhere in his mid-80's.

Also, Skell has claimed he has purely scientific motives and not religious motives for his views on evolution, but this, uh, kind of contradicts that:

 
Quote
Philip Skell wrote:
“the main purpose” of anyone teaching evolutionary biology in our schools is the “indoctrination of students to a worldview of materialism and atheism”


I think it's kind of adorable that UD is so desperate for people with letters after their names who can talk all sciency-like that they have to endure cranks like Davison and DT is compelled to beg Skell to grace them with their presence. I guess DT's subscription to Scientific American just wasn't enough. :p

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
mcc



Posts: 110
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2006,09:52   

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 07 2006,13:57)
Over at Uncommonly Dense, they're now begging Phil Skell to join them.

Okay, so wait, they're letting DaveScot write for them again?

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2006,10:35   

Thanks, Bob O'H. I was only aware of the assay, which is the most cited. I'll update my post at Intelligent Reasoning.

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

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

   
Thank Dog



Posts: 31
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2006,11:41   

Quote
with an IQ above 150 (again, self-identified) based on extrapolation from his SAT scores then his stripes trump your academic hoods and actual experience any day.

Daveless Wonder:
     
Quote
Oh goody, the dopey little contributors at ATBC now proclaim that SAT scores don’t measure IQ. How can computer literate people make bogus claims like that when it’s so easy to do a little fact checking and they can be shown to be idiots making things up out of thin air so easily? It boggles my 99.97th percentile mind.

Almost all the High IQ societies accept SAT scores to meet entrance requirements. My SAT score was 1480 in 1978. I took it during my last few months in the Marine Corps after having been away from school for 4 years (except for a few business classes at Pepperdine). I can’t quite make it into the best of the best as my test score is only in the 99.97th percentile while societies like Prometheus and a few others require 99.99 or better scores.

More evidence in support of my hypothesis that Daveless Wonder has spent his adult life trying to compensate for a small penis. Note that he enlisted in the Marines at the end of the Vietnam war, evidently not to see combat, but to join in gyreen rites of manhood. Oh, the profound ego-wounds he must have suffered, stepping and fetching for silver-spoon lieutenants whose parents sent them to college! Clearly he believes today that people with doctorates enjoy rank without merit, and that he can outdo them in their own fields.

Of course, Daveless now holds the rank of general. To be precise, he is the Forester General of Uncommon Descent. He may not wield much of a penis, but with a single swing of his mighty ax he can fell any big tree that casts a shadow over the shrubs at UD.

Daveless brandishes his intelligence as though it were a big stick, but people who have been surrounded by true intellect for significant amounts of time recognize it as a twig. Can a twig get high SAT scores? The best known work of late on prediction of IQ with SAT scores is by Frey and Detterman. Some key results are posted here. Eyeballing plot a of Fig. 1, IQ by one measure does not generally increase as SAT total scores rise above 1300. A similar statement holds for SAT scores above 1350 in plot c, provided that an outlier for the SAT score of 1370 or so is discarded. Returning to plot a, one may observe that there is a subject with SAT score approximately equal to 1480 whose IQ score is lower than those of many subjects with SAT scores about 1000.

What is the bottom line here? Anyone who thinks his SAT total score of 1480 entitles him to claim exceptional intelligence is clueless. And the combination of cluelessness and unparalleled bombast strongly suggests a small penis.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2006,12:47   

Quote
Quote
Oh goody, the dopey little contributors at ATBC now proclaim that SAT scores don’t measure IQ. How can computer literate people make bogus claims like that when it’s so easy to do a little fact checking and they can be shown to be idiots making things up out of thin air so easily? It boggles my 99.97th percentile mind.

Almost all the High IQ societies accept SAT scores to meet entrance requirements. My SAT score was 1480 in 1978. I took it during my last few months in the Marine Corps after having been away from school for 4 years (except for a few business classes at Pepperdine). I can’t quite make it into the best of the best as my test score is only in the 99.97th percentile while societies like Prometheus and a few others require 99.99


There's only one thing one needs to say about this: In real life, what kind of person feels the need to brag about how intelligent they are based on absolutely nothing but 28 year old SAT scores?

Um, yes, I think Thank Dog has answered that question.

Bet he's thinking of buying a hummer.  :p

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
jujuquisp



Posts: 129
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2006,15:01   

*stands up and applauds Thank Dog*
Nice smackdown of DaveTard, Thank Dog.  Using evidence to bolster a claim is something DaveTard hasn't figured out how to do yet.  Maybe you could teach him how to google stuff in order to provide data to back up his blustering.  Honestly, I think he either makes stuff up that is baseless but sounds intelligent to the UD sheep, or he reads wikipedia synopses about complex subjects in order to appear more intelligent than he actually is.  If he really had a solid knowledge base, he wouldn't have to contort his arguments all over kingdom come just to wiggle out of obvious mistakes he makes with almost every inane post.  Again, kudos to you, Thank Dog, for putting DaveTard back on his lower rung where he belongs.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2006,17:38   

Quote
To be precise, he is the Forester General of Uncommon Descent. He may not wield much of a penis, but with a single swing of his mighty ax he can fell any big tree that casts a shadow over the shrubs at UD.


this makes me wonder what the source of light is to cast a shadow to begin with?

I keep looking for one over there, but all i see is a bunch of very dim bulbs.

If anything, they seem to prefer to grow their mushrooms in the dark over there.  Every time someone turns on a light, they pull the fuse.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2006,17:53   

It looks like Phil Skell has joined UncommonlyDense.

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2006,17:56   

one more dim bulb for the mushroom farm.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Thank Dog



Posts: 31
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2006,18:48   

Quote (Ichthyic @ Oct. 07 2006,22:38)
Quote
To be precise, he is the Forester General of Uncommon Descent. He may not wield much of a penis, but with a single swing of his mighty ax he can fell any big tree that casts a shadow over the shrubs at UD.


this makes me wonder what the source of light is to cast a shadow to begin with?

I keep looking for one over there, but all i see is a bunch of very dim bulbs.

If anything, they seem to prefer to grow their mushrooms in the dark over there.  Every time someone turns on a light, they pull the fuse.

Okay, the "light" is moonshine (2), and heavy fruits falling from trees of knowledge crush the psilocybin mushrooms that grow from the patties of the Designer's sacred herd, cutting into profits of the Dembski-O'Leary teahouse for the tripped-out faithful.

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2006,21:22   

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 07 2006,22:53)
It looks like Phil Skell has joined UncommonlyDense.

It's all pile on time!  Or would be if most people hadn't been banned.  :-(

Bob

--------------
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)

   
  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < ... 229 230 231 232 233 [234] 235 236 237 238 239 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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