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... > Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread

Pages: (1000) < ... 944 945 946 947 948 [949] 950 951 952 953 954 ... >

steve_h Posts: 544 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 22 2008,18:52    Quote (Bob O'H @ May 22 2008,19:12) Denyse is rather coy         Quote 7 O'Leary 05/22/2008 7:50 am Tard Alert! Bob O’H, I own three Blogger blogs, each of which supports a book, present or proposed. I am paid to blog at several sites and volunteer blog or guest blog at others. It is a congenial way of life for a freelance writer. OK, she won't tell me, but let's try and work it out.  Her three blogspot blogs are http://collidinguniverses.blogspot.com/ http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/ http://mindfulhack.blogspot.com/ Then she also posts at UD http://www.uncommondescent.com/ DoL http://www.thedesignoflife.net/ Overwhelming Silence http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/ what have I missed?  And which onse does she get paid for? She is also a contributor at The Whirred Gild: Canadien orfers who is kristyuns, the whorespishuss organization wot resently nominated one Dense O'Linky for free Right?-Canada awards. edit(s): 4 spelin eta: http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php (various 'today at my other blog' posts)

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 22 2008,19:55    WAD is sad.           Quote “There is no controversy” William Dembski “There is no controversy.” “There should be no controversy.” “It’s okay to expel those who pretend that there is a controversy.” “Academic freedom does not apply where the scientific consensus says there is no controversy.” … The Washington Post has a ridiculous editorial that elevates evolutionary theory to the same status as gravitational theory and the truths of mathematics (go here). Meanwhile, the Altenberg meeting coming up this summer brings together biologists who see the contemporary state of evolutionary theory as in upheaval (go here). Yes, the field is in disarray, but there is NO CONTROVERSY. What, are we living in a Kafka novel? Poor WAD. There is no controversy of the kind he would like. Something that obscures the handwriting on the wall vis the essentials of evolutionary biology, and the history of life. It's just not there. But take heart, WAD. Take heart, and TEACH the NOTROVERSY. There are many notroversial subjects. The age of the earth. The reality of common descent. The essential role of natural selection and unguided contingency in the history of life. The continuity of human beings with the natural world. The embodiment of human consciousness. None is subject to rational scientific dispute - but each is the occasion for heated and sometimes bitter notroversy, sustained by original slinkers like you. Sow the notroversy. Nurture the notroversy, and watch it grow. Bring to bear the tools of scientistic presesarch upon the notroversy. TEACH the NOTROVERSY. -------------- 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

Ptaylor Posts: 1180 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 22 2008,20:31    Second bannination on the No controversy thread:   Quote Cue: I’m not following this thread too closely, but to say that methodological naturalism is an essential ingredient of the scientific method betrays a gross ignorance of the history and philosophy of science. Indeed, it’s not even fair to say that there is one scientific method. Percy Bridgman put it this way: “the scientific method, insofar as it is a method, is doing one’s damndest with one’s mind, no holds barred.” In any case, you’re out of here. It's Friday (at least where I am) - any bets that Dr Doctor is going for the record? -------------- We no longer say: “Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.” We now say: “Another day since the time Darwinism was disproved.” -PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

sparc Posts: 2088 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: May 22 2008,22:48    Apparently, due to Cue's lack of humor UD lost another commenter:       Quote 63 William Dembski 05/22/2008 7:55 pm Cue: I’m not following this thread too closely, but to say that methodological naturalism is an essential ingredient of the scientific method betrays a gross ignorance of the history and philosophy of science. Indeed, it’s not even fair to say that there is one scientific method. Percy Bridgman put it this way: “the scientific method, insofar as it is a method, is doing one’s damndest with one’s mind, no holds barred.” In any case, you’re out of here. -------------- "[...] 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 -

franky172 Posts: 160 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: May 22 2008,23:13    Quote (sparc @ May 22 2008,22:48) Apparently, due to Cue's lack of humor UD lost another commenter:         Quote 63 William Dembski 05/22/2008 7:55 pm Cue: I’m not following this thread too closely, but to say that methodological naturalism is an essential ingredient of the scientific method betrays a gross ignorance of the history and philosophy of science. Indeed, it’s not even fair to say that there is one scientific method. Percy Bridgman put it this way: “the scientific method, insofar as it is a method, is doing one’s damndest with one’s mind, no holds barred.” In any case, you’re out of here. Dr. Dr. has banned someone for being correct. Quote Steven D. Schafersman contends methodological naturalism is "the adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within scientific method with or without fully accepting or believing it … science is not metaphysical and does not depend on the ultimate truth of any metaphysics for its success (although science does have metaphysical implications), but methodological naturalism must be adopted as a strategy or working hypothesis for science to succeed. We may therefore be agnostic about the ultimate truth of naturalism, but must nevertheless adopt it and investigate nature as if nature is all that there is." [10] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....uralism Edit: fixed double post

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 22 2008,23:21    Quote (Lou FCD @ May 22 2008,15:01) That's three PotW over the last page. Y'all are on a roll. Pretty soon that trophy's going to be some cheap piece of crap used only for icing down the vodka and late harvest Riesling. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 22 2008,23:57    Quote (blipey @ May 23 2008,00:21) Pretty soon that trophy's going to be some cheap piece of crap used only for icing down the vodka Sounds pretty awesome...

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 23 2008,00:03    Quote (stevestory @ May 22 2008,23:57) Quote (blipey @ May 23 2008,00:21) Pretty soon that trophy's going to be some cheap piece of crap used only for icing down the vodka Sounds pretty awesome... Yeah, it could then evolve into a drinking vessel, jettison the ice and just pour the vodka straight in and fill 'er up -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 23 2008,00:04    Quote (Lou FCD @ May 22 2008,16:01) That's three PotW over the last page. Y'all are on a roll. That's how good we are, bitch!

Bob O'H Posts: 2564 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 23 2008,00:25    OK, which one of you managed this? Quote 4 The A-Team 05/21/2008 8:14 pm Tard Alert! Connecting Al Gore and al Quaeda–real classy. http://www.expelledexposed.com.....th/crocker (HT to F2XL for pointing it out) -------------- 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)

dnmlthr Posts: 565 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: May 23 2008,03:00    The A-Team goes for broke   Quote cdesign proponentsists have yet to present any falsifying tests on which to judge the merits of their hypothesis and thus cannot fall into the sphere of science. You say there’s a magic leprechaun poofing everything into existence? Then put your money where your mouth is and prove it. That’s not an unreasonable request. Emphasis mine. Kairosfocus leaps into action. Quote That’s a gross strawman misrepresentation. Similarly, science is not about “proof,” but about empirically anchored inference to best — abductive — explanation. By contrast, here is a basic def’n of ID by Dr [x2 — Mathematics, and Phil; add’l Masters is in theol] Wm A D: No emphasis needed. Edited quoting. Edited again because I miss things. -------------- Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

dogdidit Posts: 315 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: May 23 2008,06:45    Quote (Bob O'H @ May 23 2008,00:25) OK, which one of you managed this?   Quote 4 The A-Team 05/21/2008 8:14 pm Tard Alert! Connecting Al Gore and al Quaeda–real classy. http://www.expelledexposed.com.....th/crocker (HT to F2XL for pointing it out) Yabbut meanwhile, F2XL isn't getting his homework done (FCSI calculations using the EF, remember?). I think he's hoping you and Allen will forget. Daniel King takes him to task for malingering:   Quote F2XL, YOU HAVE UNFINISHED BUSINESS ON ANOTHER THREAD… ...but F2XL is starting to come up with lame exuses:               Quote Yeah I know. I’m making sure as many ID critics who are skeptical of the X filter and CSI along with Irreducibility are paying attention to it. If 100 posts is the cut-off point for each thread then I may have to continue it to another relevant thread. "Uh- yeah, that's it! The 100-post cutoff. That's why I couldn't do the assignment, Perfesser. That darned thread cut-off... (Erm- what was the question??)" -------------- "Humans carry plants and animals all over the globe, thus introducing them to places they could never have reached on their own. That certainly increases biodiversity." - D'OL

dogdidit Posts: 315 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: May 23 2008,06:58    Never mind, Bob. I see he is still posting on the espalier thread. I salute your admirable restraint for not screaming out loud "CUT TO THE FRICKING CHASE". ETA Apologies to F2XL for the "malingering" and "lame excuses" comments above. Edited again to betterize the apology. -------------- "Humans carry plants and animals all over the globe, thus introducing them to places they could never have reached on their own. That certainly increases biodiversity." - D'OL

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 23 2008,08:56    I mentioned on his blog that a critique of spontaneous generation wouldn't be hard. He didn't promote the comment *shock*, but that might have got him a googling.. -------------- "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: May 23 2008,09:00    Quote (Richardthughes @ May 21 2008,12:16) Quote (guthrie @ May 19 2008,11:48) Just the usual denialist tactics- jump on the first thing you find using google to support your case. Entirely normal. I once had good fun pointing out to a climate change denialist that the paper he thought supported his position instead supported mine.  After I'd pointed it, and his continnued non-reply to my questions about it, out across 2 comments threads he dissappeared for a while. Dave *still* hasn't recovered from his latest shoeing? *still* licking your wounds, Dave? -------------- "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

olegt Posts: 1405 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 23 2008,13:53    That's a good one! Quote 20 DonaldM 05/23/2008 1:41 pm Bill Dembski can take some measure of comfort in knowing that somewhere in the infinity of multiverses there is a planet called “Dembski” that exhibits exquisite intelligent design in all aspects of its existence. Of course, to be fair, there is also the possibility that somewhere in the infinity of multiverses there is a planet called “Dawkins”…but I’d rather not consider that! -------------- If you are not: Galapagos Finch please Logout »

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 23 2008,15:16    What a great thread.   UD + physics + probability + philosophy = The Argument Regarding Design.  Gold-plated, diamond-encrusted and with knobs on. F2XL: Quote Suppose the probability trump cards that evolutionists play (such as the notion that the way atoms are arranged in the universe is highly improbable, or the possibility of a multiverse) are true, doesn’t that make the likelihood of a supernatural all-governing entity even more likely? The odds of all the grains of sand in the Sahara being in exactly those positions are just... like... wow.  Therefore God. GilDodgen: Quote The universe does appear to be “rigged” (as my brother — a very bright physicist, engineer, mathematician, computer programmer, and no friend of ID — has noted). I like the word rigged. One can accept the the prima facie evidence that the universe is rigged, or one can postulate that an infinitude of in-principle undetectable universes exists to explain away the obvious. Gil, meet false dichotomy.  False dichotomy, meet Gil. tribune7: Quote It depends on what you mean by the terms observable and applicable. That sort of like saying that “it depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”   You cannot observe the multiverse. You cannot measurably apply it to anything. You don’t know that it exist. We can observe design. We make hundreds, if not thousands, if not tens of thousands, of decisions every hour based on these observations. We know design exist. But I grant that if the multiverse exist and we find that they are places we have been calling Heaven and Hell, then they will certainly be applicable to our existence. Does anyone else want to see tribune7 making tens of thousands of decisions an hour based on observing design?  Video, please, tribby. nullasalus: Quote And finally, I’m glad to see Denyse’s coverage expanding into physics. It’s interesting to read up on from a design perspective. I'm glad too.  It's nice to see there's something else she's clueless about. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Advocatus Diaboli Posts: 198 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: May 23 2008,16:00    Is it me, or is UD trying really, really, really hard to sound all sciency after all that Hitler-Darwin-Old Testament-banning Jonathan Sarfati-riot? -------------- I once thought that I made a mistake, but I was wrong. "I freely admit I’m a sociopath" - DaveScot "Most importanly, the facts are on the side of ID." - scordova "UD is the greatest website of all time." stevestory

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 23 2008,16:08    Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ May 23 2008,16:00) Is it me, or is UD trying really, really, really hard to sound all sciency after all that Hitler-Darwin-Old Testament-banning Jonathan Sarfati-riot? They are. Bit they're not doing any math, and are now using the EF as a conceptual too. I guess that makes Mike Gene the Vanguard of ID. -------------- "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

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 23 2008,16:17    Quote (Richardthughes @ May 23 2008,14:08) Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ May 23 2008,16:00) Is it me, or is UD trying really, really, really hard to sound all sciency after all that Hitler-Darwin-Old Testament-banning Jonathan Sarfati-riot? They are. Bit they're not doing any math, and are now using the EF as a conceptual too. I guess that makes Mike Gene the Vanguard of ID. I expected Dr Dr D to step into the "no-one can really calculate CSI, but it sure looks designed to me" fiasco by the end of the week.   I was expecting "I can so too calculate CSI.  Because I'm clever and you're not." I was hoping for "Well, the jig's up.  You caught me bang to rights." We're getting "Someone farted in church.  Create a few mild distractions, and everyone will forget it ever happened." -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 23 2008,18:40    Oooh. CSI calculation underway. Let him go on for a bit and then require all pathways to all possible motility devices. -------------- "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

olegt Posts: 1405 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 23 2008,21:42    Another EPIC FAIL Denyse advertises Casey's interview with a videogame artist Dennis DeMercer.   Quote Anyone want to try this game and let me know if it’s good? O'Leary This time on ID the Future, Casey Luskin — changing things up a little — sits down to talk with videogame artist Dennis DeMercer about his recent work on the Nintendo DS version of the forthcoming game Spore. Working with Amaze Entertainment, DeMercer was responsible for animating 3-D creatures ranging from single-celled organisms to advanced intergalactic civilizations in a game that centers around players evolving creatures from one species into another in order to climb the evolutionary ladder. But is this highly anticipated game as much an example of the cultural pervasiveness of Darwinian evolution as it seems? Ironically, no. Luskin and DeMercer discuss their discovery that, despite the obviously evolutionary theme, Spore’s game-play actually hinges on intelligent design theory, because success depends entirely on the ability of the player — i.e. intelligent agent — to fashion a creature ready to take on the growing challenges of its environment. Win the popular culture and you’ve won everything. See, they can’t really Expell DeMercer. But there is no interview at ID the Future.  Instead, one finds this notice:   Quote Intelligent Design: The Videogame (Updated) CSC Update: This audio file removed at the request of Amaze Entertainment. Posted by CSC at 2:36 PM -------------- If you are not: Galapagos Finch please Logout »

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: May 23 2008,22:45    Obviously eaten by the Andromeda Strain. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

didymos Posts: 1828 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: May 23 2008,23:02    There was already a sort of ID: The Video Game out a while ago on the Super Nintendo:  E.V.O.: The Search for Eden Actually, pretty cool game for its time.  Funny thing is though, there are multiple "designers",including the player, and one intelligence in the game is an evil product of weird crystals which are screwing up evolution.  Turns out the crystals were sent by misguided Martians hoping to accelerate evolution on Earth, apparently so they'd have someone to hang out with.  Plus there's this weird shit where you're competing for the hand of Gaia, daughter of Sol, and you reincarnate as various creatures along the way, and Sol decreed evolution as sort of a really overcomplicated test for potential suitors.  But, you know, it was originally Japanese so weirdness is to be expected. (edited: forgot the screencap) -------------- I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2008,01:54    Quote (olegt @ May 23 2008,22:42) Instead, one finds this notice:   Quote Intelligent Design: The Videogame (Updated) CSC Update: This audio file removed at the request of Amaze Entertainment. Posted by CSC at 2:36 PM Too funny. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2008,04:43    Quote DaveScot 05/24/2008 4:04 am ATBC First of all, I’m expelled from ATBC so save your silly platitudes about me talking at you from here. Glad to do it there. Just get Wesley to unblock me. Secondly, all the shouts about me linking to a retracted report on global ocean temp decline is unfounded. The study, then the correction, were done in 2006. I linked to a 2008 magazine report that quoted that described the project and quoted a lead investigator. The quote did not contradict anything I wrote. Global ocean temps declined slightly from 2002 to 2007. Deal with it. You can call it insignificant all day long but that doesn’t counter the claim - ocean temps DID decline. They didn’t stay the same, they didn’t rise, they declined. Rationalize it, explain it, just don’t deny it. link Not to speak for Wesley, Dave, but I don't think he has forgiven your threat to hack PT. If you want to engage directly with a wider public than at UD, this can easily be arranged via a new ad hoc venue. Email me, if you like. alanfox.frATgmail.com

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2008,07:23    I didn't realize that trends had to be monotonic to be trends. That certainly would change a lot of analysis of the stock market. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Zachriel Posts: 2723 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2008,07:50    Quote (Alan Fox @ May 24 2008,04:43)         Quote DaveScot Following up on Alan's comments. Quote DaveScot: First of all, I’m expelled from ATBC so save your silly platitudes about me talking at you from here. Glad to do it there. Just get Wesley to unblock me. Please let us know if DaveScot takes you up on the offer to participate in your neutral venue. Quote DaveScot: The quote did not contradict anything I wrote. Global ocean temps declined slightly from 2002 to 2007. Deal with it. You can call it insignificant all day long but that doesn’t counter the claim - ocean temps DID decline. Even now you imply that others call it insignificant, while it was the very scientist you cited.  Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory said, "There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant." and "Global warming doesn't mean every year will be warmer than the last." Not mentioning that important information for your readers could be considered quote-mining. -------------- You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2008,07:54    DaveScot: Quote Linking evolution and gravity as equally well tested theories is crap made up by evolutionists. You don’t hear physicists saying the gravity is as well tested as evolution. The day you do is the day you can take seriously any claim the evolution is as well tested as gravity. Ok. This is close enough: "I wrote a piece where I argued that is a disservice to evolutionary theory to call string theory a theory, for example. Because it's clearly not a theory in the same sense that evolutionary theory is, or that quantum electrodynamics is, because those are robust theories that make rigorous predictions that can be falsified. And string theory is just a formalism now that one day might be a theory. And when I'm lecturing, talking about science, people say to me, evolution is just a theory,  I say, in science theory means a different thing, and they say, what do you mean? Look at string theory, how can you falsify that? It's no worse than intelligent design. I do think there are huge differences between string theory and intelligent design. People who are doing string theory are earnest scientists who are trying to come up with ideas that are viable. People who are doing intelligent design aren't doing any of that." Lawrence Krauss -------------- 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

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 24 2008,18:17    Here's the deal regarding neutral venues. Whenever I've shown up, Dave has retreated tactically withdrawn. It must be a Marine thing. He's too yellow to show up at Alan's place. -------------- "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

Pages: (1000) < ... 944 945 946 947 948 [949] 950 951 952 953 954 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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