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 4

Pages: (356) < ... 179 180 181 182 183 [184] 185 186 187 188 189 ... >

Tracy P. Hamilton Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 27 2012,20:29    Quote (Patrick @ July 27 2012,16:41) Quote (keiths @ July 27 2012,17:22) Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 26 2012,23:55) Every now and then, I check Springer's homepage... Just for a second, my brain thought you meant Dave Springer's homepage. What a tard mine that would be. Has anyone sighted him lately? He fancies himself a climate expert now. -------------- "Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV "The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen "We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

sparc Posts: 2088 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 28 2012,00:38    Could somebody please inform the former militant atheist son of the best scientist he ever met about google or pubmed. There is a lot out there and much is even open access. -------------- "[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God." - William Dembski -

sparc Posts: 2088 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 28 2012,00:45    Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ July 27 2012,20:29)   Quote (Patrick @ July 27 2012,16:41)     Quote (keiths @ July 27 2012,17:22)     Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 26 2012,23:55) Every now and then, I check Springer's homepage... Just for a second, my brain thought you meant Dave Springer's homepage. What a tard mine that would be. Has anyone sighted him lately? He fancies himself a climate expert now. After years of denial his close relative had to concede global warming: -------------- "[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God." - William Dembski -

BillB Posts: 388 Joined: Aug. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: July 28 2012,03:11    Quote (CeilingCat @ July 27 2012,21:10) Quote (OgreMkV @ July 27 2012,12:36)     Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 27 2012,12:08)     Quote (BillB @ July 27 2012,10:07)       Quote (Henry J @ July 27 2012,15:51)       Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 27 2012,06:32) Reminds me of that story when they were trying to evolve a timer mechanism. They ended up evolving a radio receiver that took the "time" from a nearby computer's oscillations. :D Ahh. Evolvable hardware. Fond memories (I worked with the people behind it) Wonderful stuff. And at what point did you sneak the desired result in? :) But seriously, I love all that sort of stuff. I think we may be approaching a confluence of factors that'll allow something big to happen, faster computers, GPUs that are very good at simulating specific types of interaction, massive connectivity and now little cheap hardware boxes full of input and output sensors. Who knows what the next bill gates is cooking up in their garage. If anyone has any recent research along these lines, I'd love to read it. I have a keen interest in this area as well. Just Google  hardware evolution.  The first result should be "Adrian Thompson's Hardware Evolution Page". I remember reading an article about 20 years ago about a researcher who hooked a small computer up to a FPGA (field programmable gate array) chip.  A FPGA is a chip with thousands of logic gates on it that are unconnected.  By sending in a string of ones and zeros, you can "wire" the gates together into just about any circuit you want.  You can literally wire them into something as complex as a microprocessor if you want. They programmed the small computer to send in a string of random ones and zeros which caused the FPGA to wire it's internal gates up randomly.  The computer would then feed two audio tones into the FPGA and look at two specific output pins.  The goal was to have one of the pins go high when one audio tone was sent into the FPGA and the other pin to go high when the other audio tone was sent in.  The string of random ones and zeros was then changed a little bit in a random fashion and the test was repeated. Very early in the program, the FPGA wired the outputs of two gates together, which is normally a very big design no-no, and the output of one of the gates was made low and the output of the second gate was made high.  This misfiring screwed up the internal voltages in the FPGA so badly that it stopped operating as a digital chip and started acting as an analog circuit instead. After tens or maybe hundreds of thousands of rounds of Darwinian evolution, the chip finally reliably detected the two tones and made the appropriate pins go high when they were detected - and nobody understood how it worked!  They could look at the string of ones and zeros that made it work, and see how the gates were wired together, but the resulting circuit made no sense.  The digital gates were operating as a bastard analog circuit and nothing made sense. For instance, there were groups of gates wired to each other and to nothing else.  They weren't wired to any other part of the circuit and didn't seem to be doing anything but wasting power, but if you took them out the chip stopped detecting the audio tones! And nobody had any idea of why.  But unguided evolution had made it work.  Ann Gauger has just had a small taste of the power of Darwinian evolution and she has no idea if what's going on either. Edited from a PC to remove iPad-induced typos. I'm glad you mentioned Adrian Thompson, the evolvable FPGA work was all his, it formed part of his PhD thesis and basically invented the whole field - Incidentally, he was the internal examiner for my own PhD a few years ago, but also just a really nice guy. As far as the FPGA work goes, the tone discriminator did end up using isolated gates as part of the circuit, they relied on parasitic capacitance between neighboring gates to contribute to the circuits functionality (normally something a designer tries to avoid!) - it is also worth noting that some evolved designs would not transfer to other FPGA's or even other areas of the FPGA they evolved on - basically evolution was exploiting tiny manufacturing variations in the hardware (Niche exploitation). I think this led to some work exploring how circuits could be evolved to exploit damaged hardware - for example in space where radiation can damage micro circuitry but you can't send a repair man to fix it. The accidentally evolved radio stuff was cool. The setup involved another FPGA, but with the digital clock sources switched off, and the goal was to generate a stable clock pulse at a fixed frequency on an output. When the experiment ran (for a week) and the population converged on a high fitness solution they looked at the output of the FPGA and just got random noise instead of a clock pulse - it turned out on closer examination that the circuit produced the clock pulse for 0.25 seconds or so, then it deteriorated into noise. The fitness evaluation period for each circuit was 0.25 seconds, so it had evolved to do <b>exactly</b> what they specified (and it got used ever since as an example of the pitfalls of designing a fitness function) - Finally, they realized that the noise at the output was actually radio frequency noise, and traced it to RF interference from the lab computers - so the circuit has evolved to use RF interference as a source for generating a stable clock pulse stream for 0.25 seconds - and of course it was another example of niche exploitation because the circuit would only work in the lab it evolved in. I recall other stories about circuits that would only work when a soldering iron on the adjoining bench was switched off ... and I think the attempts to toughen up the circuits by 'noising out' some of the niche features (for example introducing randomized temperature variations and RF noise during evolution) resulted in circuits that didn't exploit the FPGA features in such unconventional ways. All this stuff led to an annual evolvable hardware conference facilitated by NASA, which has now turned into a broader conference on adaptive hardware systems - AHS - Adrians stuff was all done at Sussex University in the UK, but NASA kind of took over the lead, and unfortunately some people even tried to edit out Adrians contribution as the founder of the field - I had to re-write the intro on the evolvable hardware Wikipedia page when Adrian was edited out and replaced with something along the lines of 'invented by NASA' ... grrr. I think one of the big things that came out of all the research was that it is actually very hard to get useful designs this way - the problems of time, plus niche exploitation put up big barriers to success. The more successful approaches at evolving hardware actually involve simulated hardware because you can iterate generations much faster, and control noise and environment - but you can't then exploit unknown features of the hardware (although evolution will still exploit unintended features of the simulation, which is a bit of a problem - I once saw a simulated evolved biped robot fly like superman thanks to a bug in the physics engine) One of Adrians PhD students, Miguel Garvie, did some nice work evolving logic circuit designs (in simulation, not on hardware) He used a SETI@home'esq technique of recruiting people on-line to install an application that evolved the designs using computer idle time. He was trying to produce fault tolerant logic circuits (for critical system applications) - the logic circuits have to signal if they develop a fault. Conventional designs use an additional set of logic to check the gates functionality, so a fault in the fault checker can cause problems. As far as I remember he managed to produce self checking logic circuits, so any fault in any part of the circuit, including the fault checking parts, would produce an error signal - essentially there was no differentiation between the functional logic and the fault checker, it was all one integrated system (They were irreducibly complex!)

The whole truth Posts: 1554 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: July 28 2012,03:12    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 27 2012,16:43) Did you hear that cock crow Gordo?   Quote And, the timeline projected — here, across three million years (as though someone was ticking off on a diary) — is riddled with all sorts of circularities. And this is not just a matter of those despised silly Young Earth Creationists — note the “typical” adjectives that show another problem of projection of a programmed dismissal talking point string — who cannot accept the all but certain findings of “science.” If you cannot see and understand the circularities in geo-dating systems, you have a problem with basic inductive logic. (I have a lot more respect for say the dating of star clusters based on the physics of H-balls leading to the HR plot and the observed branch-points heading to the Giants branch. There are some assumptions in this, but there is nowhere near as much circularity in the system.) Watch Gordo assert that because "geo-dating" is wrong he don't have to answer no specific points. He makes it clear what he's after:   Quote At no point has there been an actual empirical demonstration with actual direct observations and measurements of the actual facts. Er, about that whole ID thing Gordo?   Quote See the problem, and notice how you are lining up next to another objector who evidently does not understand the inductive logic of science? I’ll let that stand for now. That is what you have to face. His entire argument seems to be this:   Quote The pivotal problem is, no such thing has been SHOWN. Nothing specific. Just "dating is wrong, therefore nothing like the claim can be shown". You total utter coward Gordon E Mullings.   Quote Let me clip 41 above again, for those who came in late (the links and emphases are there): Clip it over and over, until you address a specific point with a specific rebuttal you just look like a fool when you claim "it's just wrong". Selective hyper skepticism much Gordo? Gordo thinks that his assertions and beliefs get an exemption from the demands he puts on science. "The pivotal problem is, no such thing has been SHOWN." Hey gordo, since you read this site and this thread, can you SHOW intelligent design in action, by a designer/god, in nature? Can you SHOW any testable, verifiable evidence of "intelligent design", by a designer/god, in nature? Can you SHOW how much "CSI" or "FSCO/I" is in a banana, a frog, a galaxy, and a golf ball passing through a garden hose? Can you SHOW "the designer"? Can you SHOW the alleged designing and creation of the universe and the Earth by your imaginary designer/god yhwh or any other alleged designer/god? Can you SHOW the alleged guy now referred to as jesus? Can you SHOW the alleged crucifixion and resurrection of the alleged guy referred to as jesus? Can you SHOW any god or jesus performed miracles? Can you SHOW a person's so-called 'soul'? Can you SHOW that animals don't have souls? Can you SHOW that your imaginary designer/god yhwh is the 'is' that grounds 'ought'? Can you SHOW the alleged places called heaven and hell? Can you SHOW the alleged first humans now referred to as adam and eve? Can you SHOW your imaginary designer/god creating adam from dirt? Can you SHOW your imaginary designer/god creating eve from adam's rib? Can you SHOW where cain's wife came from? Can you SHOW a talking serpent or a magic fruit tree? Can you SHOW the alleged garden of eden? Can you SHOW the alleged biblical flood? Can you SHOW people riding or eating or being eaten by dinosaurs? Can you SHOW that dinosaurs, people, trilobites, ammonites, brontotheres, creodonts, toothed birds, ichthyosaurs, pterosaurs and all other extinct and extant organisms all lived at the same time and were all represented on the alleged ark? Can you SHOW the alleged ark? Can you SHOW the alleged noah and his incestual family? Can you SHOW how your imaginary god got the imaginary married virgin mary pregnant? Can you SHOW that the Earth is only 6 thousand years old? Can you SHOW that people used to live for over 900 years? Can you SHOW who allegedly begat whom? Can you SHOW that jesus and his disciples weren't homosexual? After all, they were "fishers of men". Can you SHOW that humans were specially created by your imaginary designer/god yhwh and that humans did not and could not have evolved from an ape or ape-like ancestor and from earlier life forms? Were you there? -------------- Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 28 2012,07:28    Joe: Quote Well if the same random mutation can arise sperately in different populations then evos canNOT use genetic similarity as evidence for a common ancestry. You have just destroyed a MAJOR piece of evidence for universal common descent. Congratulations, nicely done. What's that Joe? There's evidence for universal common descent? But I thought you said there was no evidence at all.... Joe fail. -------------- 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: July 28 2012,09:27    Quote GilDodgen: When I was a kid, for a weekend getaway, our family used to visit a place in the woods of northern Idaho. A stream flowed through the campsite, and I remember seeing these fascinating insects called water skippers. They moved on the surface of the water on their “feet,” supported by the water’s surface tension. How did these creatures evolve by random mutation and natural selection in a step-by-tiny-step fashion? Did proto-water skippers sink and drown, and then random errors introduced into the proto-water skipper genetic code produce semi-skippers, some of whom drowned and others that eventually skipped without drowning? Gee whiz, GilDodgen. Many small insects float on water. It's called surface tension. As Galileo showed, even an iron needle will float on water. Hairy Legs Help Bugs Walk on Water http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news....rs.html -------------- You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

Kattarina98 Posts: 1267 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: July 28 2012,09:45    Bartax has challenged KF to come out as YEC. KF is stalling:     Quote In your haste to label and dismiss, with the neat little dismissive Dawkins pigeonholes — ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked — it has evidently not dawned on you that I am not a Young Earth Creationist, but a design thinker on origins — i.e. my evaluations are not constrained by debates and views over exegesis of scripture? (Did you see or pay attention to the contrasted case of dating our galaxy per the HR plot and the H-ball model for star physics? As in branch points of stellar cluster HR diagrams that give reasonable age estimates with a minimum of questionable assumptions. I have a lot of respect for those dates. They may be wrong, as there are factors we do not know, and we were not there to see the actual past, but to accept these provisionally on IBE is very reasonable. I just emphasise that all of these are model not actual past timelines. In fact, if last Thursday the cosmos were created in an instant complete with our memories of the past, it would be empirically indistinguishable. We have to make a worldview level choice — best, per comparative difficulties — to accept a worldview. So, instead of begging big questions, face them.) However, there seems to be an easy - if weaseling - way out:     Quote (I do note that as an inadvertent testimony to what I am highlighting there are YEC physicists who propose a young earth in a 15 BY cosmos model pivoting on a time freeze.) This episode of StarTrek has been brought to you by the "8 - 10" girls working in the bars of Montserrat. My bolding -------------- Barry Arrington is a bitch.

sparc Posts: 2088 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 28 2012,15:17    Googling UD's newest poster andyjones results in links to just 18 comments at UD. If this is all it takes many of you guys should have posting privileges over there and it must  hurt Godon Mullings, Joe G. et al. -------------- "[...] 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 -

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: July 28 2012,15:55    Andy's thesis ties into something I'm interested in. Namely, how does the designer know the emergent properties of complex molecules without trial and error? I wish him luck. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

The whole truth Posts: 1554 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: July 28 2012,17:06    On July 4th of this year gordon elliott mullings (kairosfocus) posted a rant on UD that was directed at me and the other people on this website. Among other things, he said:         Quote But it does not stop with those who are trying to smear people with false accusations of insanity or mental instability as a way to avoid actually having to deal with the issue on its merits. Or, smear decent women with false and disrespectful accusations. Or, resort to outing tactics. Or, resort to cyberstalking and cyber-bullying. Or, post photoshopped real-world pictures modified to indulge in unhinged personal mockery and taunting. Pictures, that, by the way, are tantamount to targetting information. Or, try to get people fired from jobs or excluded from employment — which has issued in recent cases where fines have had to be paid for doing that. Or even, those who make snide threats to innocent family members. No, the issue extends to those who harbour, associate with, encourage or tolerate such destructive behaviour. It is therefore high time for those who hang around at Anti Evo and similar fora to take a serious look in the mirror. And, they need to recognise that if they do not clean up their act bigtime, they are making it all too plain that they are spiritual cousins to those who abused science, medicine, psychiatry and institutions of health care to lock up, bully and pump full of mind altering drugs, dissidents in the USSR. Last, but not least, the habitual resort to such guttersnipe tactics leaves the clear implication that we are here dealing with out of control ideologues who have not got a sound case on the merits but believe they will prevail by smearing filth and acting as ill-brought-up bullies. Such bullies need to know that their want of common decency is duly noted, with all it implies. Those who encourage or tolerate such behaviour, need to know that such enabling behaviour will inevitably taint them as well. (Let's not forget that joe g used a picture of Kevin (ogre) as his avatar here for awhile, and that other IDiots, including william 'fart-video' dembski, have "photoshopped real-world pictures modified to indulge in unhinged personal mockery and taunting.") So, gordo, WHY do YOU and arrington and the rest of the IDiots at UD "harbour, associate with, encourage or tolerate such destructive behaviour" as is perpetrated by joe g every day and on every site he posts on? Should I post some quotes or links of joe g (and other IDiots, including you) saying/doing the very things, and more, that you're ranting about? Look at your own mirror you lying, two-faced, ill-brought-up, filth smearing, mentally unstable, tainted, indecent, out of control ideologue-guttersnipe who has not got a sound case on the merits. As far as I'm concerned, gordo, you are more despicable and cowardly than joe is, and joe is really, really, really, really, really despicable and cowardly. Ignorant, stupid, insane AND wicked doesn't even begin to describe just how deplorable you are. Rock bottom is your perpetual dwelling place. And yes, that's FOR RECORD. -------------- Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 28 2012,18:16    Quote (sparc @ July 28 2012,15:17) Googling UD's newest poster andyjones results in links to just 18 comments at UD. If this is all it takes many of you guys should have posting privileges over there and it must  hurt Godon Mullings, Joe G. et al. https://www.facebook.com/permali....ents=15   Quote Andrew Jones: Fiona, of course Irreducible Complexity exists. My ipod is irreducibly complex. So are some biological systems. Make sure you using the correct definition (that is, Behe's who coined it): Irreducible Complexity is where one has a substantial amount of initial complexity without which the function does not work. If people used this definition, the fact of its existence would not be contentious. What is flawed about claiming the flagellum is IC? 22 April at 01:39 He'll fit right in. -------------- 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

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: July 28 2012,18:27    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 28 2012,18:16) Quote (sparc @ July 28 2012,15:17) Googling UD's newest poster andyjones results in links to just 18 comments at UD. If this is all it takes many of you guys should have posting privileges over there and it must  hurt Godon Mullings, Joe G. et al. https://www.facebook.com/permali....ents=15   Quote Andrew Jones: Fiona, of course Irreducible Complexity exists. My ipod is irreducibly complex. So are some biological systems. Make sure you using the correct definition (that is, Behe's who coined it): Irreducible Complexity is where one has a substantial amount of initial complexity without which the function does not work. If people used this definition, the fact of its existence would not be contentious. What is flawed about claiming the flagellum is IC? 22 April at 01:39 He'll fit right in. So the memory in an ipod cannot be used in any other system and the ipod will not function without the memory.  Really?  Are you sure? So the ipod can't act as a memory device with the audio out system removed? So the ipod can't function as a music player without the screen? Can the ipod perform its function without external speakers? Me thinks he doesn't know what irreducible means. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: July 28 2012,18:39    It's absolutely certain the the iPod design has no precedents. Apple invented integrated circuits, microprocessors, digital audio encoding, LED displays. There is no prior art at all. They even invented the entire concept of a music player that you could carry around. No ever thought of that before. Irreducible complexity means nothing to the ID argument unless it rules out incremental adaptation and change. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 28 2012,19:12    Quote (midwifetoad @ July 28 2012,16:39) Irreducible complexity means nothing. FTFY -------------- "[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

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: July 28 2012,22:24    Whoops. UD is offline. I wonder if they are checking out Joe. Edit: just a hiccup. Yet another edit: HTTP Error 500 (Internal Server Error): Edited by midwifetoad on July 28 2012,23:32 -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 28 2012,22:54    Quote (midwifetoad @ July 28 2012,22:24) Whoops. UD is offline. I wonder if they are checking out Joe. Edit: just a hiccup. They're back.  Slimy Sal Cordova has a long post crowing about a new "Creationist" peer reviewed paper and trying to reconcile ID with YEC beliefs.  It's the usual bullshit and hand waving, with a few PRATTS thrown in too - "catastrophic" plate tectonics, helium in zircons, etc.  He even throws in the Noah's Flood claims:     Quote Slimy Sal:  "Even supposing the universe is old, there are some features (like man) that can’t in principle be that old. Then we have those marine fossils on tops of mountains and artifacts of huge tidal waves sweeping across entire continents." Darwinists say one thing, the evidence tells a different story. I wonder what "huge tidal waves sweeping across whole continents" he's talking about?  The Missoula floods? Here's a big hint Sal - the evidence doesn't say "6000 years". -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: July 28 2012,22:59    I look at the YEC stuff and smile. They seem to have abandoned attempts to appear rational and are now just trying to salvage their fund raising base. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Seversky Posts: 442 Joined: June 2010 (Permalink) Posted: July 29 2012,05:12    They also appear to be oblivious to the irony of their position.  On the one hand they affect to despise naturalistic science and denounce peer-review as almost a fraud, on the other they are clearly desperate to get <i>anything</i> remotely connected with IDC published in a peer-reviewed journal.  For all their contempt for science they still crave the respect of that community.

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 29 2012,09:02    Latest at UD - DeNews post *part* of a "poem" The Monkey, opines that the author must have been writing against evolution.   Quote    The Monkeys Disgrace    Three monkeys sat in a coconut tree    Discussing things as they’re said to be.    Said one to another, “Now listen, you two,    There’s a certain rumor that cannot be true,    That man descends from our noble race -    The very idea is a disgrace.  …    Yes, Man descended, the ornery cuss. . .    But brother he didn’t descend from us! The "poem" is really a song by Dave Bartholomew and Pearl King, first recorded in 2004 Quote The monkey speaks his mind "And three monkeys sat in a coconut tree Discussing things as they are said to be Said one to other now listen, you two “There’s a certain rumour that just can’t be true That man descended from our noble race Why, the very idea is a big disgrace, yea” No monkey ever deserted his wife Starved her baby and ruined her life Yea, the monkey speaks his mind And you’ve never known a mother monk To leave her babies with others to bunk And passed them on from one to another ‘Til they scarcely knew which was their mother Yea, the monkey speak his mind And another thing you will never see A monkey build a fence around a coconut tree And let all the coconuts go to waste Forbidding other monkeys to come and taste Why, if I put a fence around this tree Starvation would force you to steal from me Yea, the monkey speaks his mind Here’s another thing a monkey won’t do Go out on a night and get all in a stew Or use a gun or a club or a knife And take another monkey’s life Yes, man descended, the worthless bum But, brothers, from us he did not come Yea, the monkey speaks his mind Yea, now the monkey speaks his mind" So the song is about how shitty mankind is and how the apes are embarrassed to be related to us. DeNews right on top of things again! -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

Zachriel Posts: 2723 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 29 2012,09:05    Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ July 28 2012,22:54) They're back.  Slimy Sal Cordova has a long post crowing about a new "Creationist" peer reviewed paper and trying to reconcile ID with YEC beliefs.  It's the usual bullshit and hand waving, with a few PRATTS thrown in too - "catastrophic" plate tectonics, helium in zircons, etc.  He even throws in the Noah's Flood claims: Look closely. Quote scordova: Also congratulations to our very own Uncommon Descent author johnnyb (Jonathan Bartlett) for his work being mentioned in Wood’s paper. To my knowledge, the current tally of Uncommon Descent authors and commenters that have been published or mentioned in scientific journals: William Dembski, Michael Behe, Nick Matzke, Rob Sheldon, Caroline Crocker, Winston Ewert, Paul Nelson, Cornelius Hunter, Granville Sewell, John A. Davison, Allen MacNeill, Andrea Bottaro, Abbie Smith, Peter Olofsson, Albert Voie, Andras Pellionisz, Albert De Roos, Walter ReMine, Paul Giem, Jonathan Sarfati, Arthur Hunt, Steve Matheson, Larry Moran, johnnyb, Eric Anderson, Casey Luskin, and yours truly scordova. {If I missed anyone, please chime in.} Larry responds. What's Wrong with this List? Edited by Zachriel on July 29 2012,09:09 -------------- You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

Kattarina98 Posts: 1267 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: July 29 2012,09:18    Hehe, I spotted several more; everyone and their uncle who is anyone in science and has graced UD with a comment is an ID supporter now. -------------- Barry Arrington is a bitch.

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 29 2012,09:27    Quote (Zachriel @ July 29 2012,09:05)     Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ July 28 2012,22:54) They're back.  Slimy Sal Cordova has a long post crowing about a new "Creationist" peer reviewed paper and trying to reconcile ID with YEC beliefs.  It's the usual bullshit and hand waving, with a few PRATTS thrown in too - "catastrophic" plate tectonics, helium in zircons, etc.  He even throws in the Noah's Flood claims: Look closely.     Quote scordova: Also congratulations to our very own Uncommon Descent author johnnyb (Jonathan Bartlett) for his work being mentioned in Wood’s paper. To my knowledge, the current tally of Uncommon Descent authors and commenters that have been published or mentioned in scientific journals: William Dembski, Michael Behe, Nick Matzke, Rob Sheldon, Caroline Crocker, Winston Ewert, Paul Nelson, Cornelius Hunter, Granville Sewell, John A. Davison, Allen MacNeill, Andrea Bottaro, Abbie Smith, Peter Olofsson, Albert Voie, Andras Pellionisz, Albert De Roos, Walter ReMine, Paul Giem, Jonathan Sarfati, Arthur Hunt, Steve Matheson, Larry Moran, johnnyb, Eric Anderson, Casey Luskin, and yours truly scordova. {If I missed anyone, please chime in.} Larry responds. What's Wrong with this List? Sneaky bastard.  In trying to show how many pro-ID articles there are he slips in that the list is "the current tally of Uncommon Descent authors and commenters " What he doesn't say it that some of those on his big name-dropping list think he and ID are full of shit. -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

Bob O'H Posts: 2564 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 29 2012,09:41    Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 29 2012,09:18) Hehe, I spotted several more; everyone and their uncle who is anyone in science and has graced UD with a comment is an ID supporter now. I'm not on the list. Has Sal forgotten me? -------------- 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)

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 29 2012,09:51    Gordon: Quote the beavers provide a direct and striking counter example, albeit a limited and non-linguistic one lol -------------- 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

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: July 29 2012,10:01    Some of us descended from beavers. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Kattarina98 Posts: 1267 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: July 29 2012,10:19    Quote (Bob O'H @ July 29 2012,09:41) Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 29 2012,09:18) Hehe, I spotted several more; everyone and their uncle who is anyone in science and has graced UD with a comment is an ID supporter now. I'm not on the list. Has Sal forgotten me? Serves you right for sock-puppetry.   ;-) But eventually Sal might get shameless enough to include socks in his list. -------------- Barry Arrington is a bitch.

Seversky Posts: 442 Joined: June 2010 (Permalink) Posted: July 29 2012,10:24    Quote (midwifetoad @ July 29 2012,10:01) Some of us descended from beavers. It probably explains kf's obsession with them

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 29 2012,10:47    It looks like Cornelius has learned the First Fact of Debating ID: The only way they can win an argument is to gag their opponents.  He's gone The Way of All ID and shut comments off on his blog. I think this is the thread that made him throw in the towel and the main reason he threw it seems to be ... wait for it ... Joe G! I lost track of how many of Joe G's comments were removed by the moderator, but the number was well over a dozen. After that,     Quote No comments: New comments are not allowed. I love it so!

Badger3k Posts: 861 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: July 29 2012,11:13    Quote (Seversky @ July 29 2012,10:24) Quote (midwifetoad @ July 29 2012,10:01) Some of us descended from beavers. It probably explains kf's obsession with them But, are they unshaven wild beavers, or the shaven civilized beavers? (not again!!) :D -------------- "Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

Pages: (356) < ... 179 180 181 182 183 [184] 185 186 187 188 189 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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