RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   
  Topic: a growing global community of YEC scientists?s, ISCID - the design journal? Where is it?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2007,16:16   

I saw somebody (PrincessEve)on the thread about an real life working example of the EF (so far nothing doing) saying of YEC Scientists    
Quote
They hypothesize and test theories and adapt to the findings and discard unworkable theories, just like evolutionists do


If that's true, where is it happening? Is it written down, in a paper or magazine, or journal?
Is ISCID it? They have not published in years.
 
Quote
It's nice that you can discard a growing global community of scientists as "left behind many years ago."
where is the evidence for that?
I've asked PrincessEve if she would care to talk about it here.
I hope you don't mind Steve!

EDIT: Of course the discarded unworkable theories are what i'm interested in most of all. Where is that line drawn?

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2007,16:35   

Let me point out early on that engineers aren't scientists.

--------------
"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: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2007,16:40   

Of course they test and discard unworkable theories.  Where they differ is what they test them against:

Scientists: empirical evidence.
Creationists: literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2007,16:51   

Quote (JohnW @ April 25 2007,16:40)
Of course they test and discard unworkable theories.  Where they differ is what they test them against:

Scientists: empirical evidence.
Creationists: literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis.

I know, but it's like the favourite centre in a box of chocolates, that nutty crunch as a serious "scientific" article segues into bible references from out of nowhere.
I mean, if somebody can say (my bold, as usual.)
Quote
YEC requires radioisotope dating to be collaberated with another reliable dating method (carbon 14 dating is not at issue--perhaps you should actually try reading YEC literature instead of misrepresenting their positions).  Currently there is no other dating system that collaborates the dates that radioisotope dating provides, and items whose dates can be established through over means are given vastly inaccurate dates by all the radiometric dating techniques.  This has actually been approached scientifically and researched extensively, but since it throws out dates the evolutionists desperately need, the data from such experiments is branded "bad science".  The rest of your accusations are just more strawmen arguments and misrepresentations.

I mean....
Link
I'd like to see an example of each of those bolded items Princess, if you ever make it over here. As we found out with FTK, her talking points are dictated by the Discovery Institute. Who's promoting this "thrown out" data meme currently I wonder?

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2007,17:03   

Re "Of course the discarded unworkable theories are what i'm interested in most of all."

Well, they had a theory that the 2nd law of thermo somehow prevented evolution, but later they discarded that particular theory.

Or at least some of them did. Maybe too many people kept asking them to go outside on a clear day and notice that bright yellow thing in the sky, I dunno.

Henry

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2007,17:05   

On the contrary, I absolutely don't mind. Take it and run with it.

   
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2007,17:17   

Creationism can play havoc with your vocabulary:

Quote
YEC requires radioisotope dating to be collaberated with another reliable dating method (carbon 14 dating is not at issue--perhaps you should actually try reading YEC literature instead of misrepresenting their positions).  Currently there is no other dating system that collaborates the dates that radioisotope dating provides, and items whose dates can be established through over means are given vastly inaccurate dates by all the radiometric dating techniques.  This has actually been approached scientifically and researched extensively, but since it throws out dates the evolutionists desperately need, the data from such experiments is branded "bad science".  The rest of your accusations are just more strawmen arguments and misrepresentations.

What a piranha.

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

  
steve_h



Posts: 533
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2007,17:33   

Incidentally, my inspiration for the snowflake in stones or crop-circles questions are these messages from DS.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....circles

 
Quote
The problem for ID is that it is extremely difficult to precisely quantify what patterns are too improbable for known or possible natural mechanisms to explain. We seem to have no problem intuitively recognizing them, as in the case of crop circles, and this handily explains why so many people intuitively accept the premise of ID. It takes only a short dissertation to adequately elucidate the concept of ID while 150 years of unending attempt to dispute it with the theory of natural selection has failed to convince more than a small minority ID has no rational merit.

Comment on comments as of 2/9/06 3pm:

The $64,000 question remains unanswered.

If a pattern like the one above were discovered not in a farmer’s field but carved into an asteroid would you presume it had an origin devoid of intelligent agency?

Answer yes or no, then support your answer. If you dare!


and


http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....vidence

 
Quote
Snowflakes don’t look designed. They are not assemblages of interdependent parts that perform a function. Machines are designed. Snowflakes are merely repetitive crystal patterns. They look pleasing, not designed. Anyone who thinks a snowflake looks designed has no understanding of engineering or design.


Without mentioning the first post, I made the following point in the second thread, hoping to get banned for putting words into DaveScot's mouth which was one of his favorite grounds for bannination back then.

 
Quote
and yet if the same snowflake pattern were to be found cut into a field of corn, I suspect you would have no problem intuitively recognising it as as designed, just from the pattern  


but he didn't bite - or respond in any way.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2007,17:48   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 25 2007,16:51)
As we found out with FTK, her talking points are dictated by the Discovery Institute. Who's promoting this "thrown out" data meme currently I wonder?

It sounds like a garbled version of ICR's "RATE  (Radiodating and Age of The Earth) Project".

They did, uh, extensive "scientific study" of the various radiodating methods, and, after much, uh, scientific consideration, concluded that the Bible is right after all, just as they knew all along.

Shocking, isn't it.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2007,15:26   

princessEve gave me a link to  
Quote
multiple creation science organizations ... alive and well and contain plenty of relevant content

http://www.nwcreation.net/journalcreation.html
As I don't consider
# Archaeology Odyssey  Magazine by the Biblical Archeology Society
# Biblical Creation Journal by the Biblical Creation Society UK
# Biblical Archaeology Review by the Biblical Archeology Society
# Biblical Astronomer Journal Quarterly on Geocentricity
# Christian Research Institute : Journal
# Connections Archive quarterly magazine from Reasons to Believe
to be science, they had to be ignored. When I got to the "science" link I got things like
Quote
Watch for the online version of Origins & Design Issue 40 in late 2001

Quote
The document you requested was not found. May we suggest our home page?

Quote
The requested URL /journal.htm was not found on this server.

Quote
The page cannot be found

I wanted to see what I could find on "Premise by The Center for the Advancement of Paleo Orthodoxy  " as that sounded exciting.
The wayback machine obliges
There is some funny stuff in there. But nothing that could be called a recent scientific journal. So how can people honestly
believe that nobody will check their links!
Ironic really as PrincessEve says  
Quote
Your naturalistic evolutionary worldview will automatically reassemble data to fit with your desired conclusions.  A creationist will do the same thing.  At least the creationist admits to a worldview.  While someone like you just asserts that your worldview isn't a worldview and that the only way to explain the data is your way.  Sure you will modify your theory to fit new scientific evidence, but it won't change your underlying assumption through which you arrived at the theory. Creationists have an underlying worldview, but this does not prohibit them from doing science, as you have blatantly accused.

http://thesciphishow.com/forums/index.php?topic=114.45

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

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2007,21:31   

Holy shite, check this out.

http://www.grisda.org/origins/52007.htm
and
http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/opbsg/002.pdf

I haven’t read them both right through but basically, Wood and Cavanaugh conclude using their creationist method of ANOPA that all 20,000 species of the family Asteraceae could be one “created kind” that suddenly (and somehow) “diversified” after the Flood!

Hahahahaha! And excuse me, but doesn’t that conclusion show a really sped-up form of speciation, as well as common descent?

It’s pathetic! How can you average discontinuous or catagorical data, or even continuous data from a small sample set? How can you simplify multivariate data down to three dimensions “without losing information”? Helloooo!

“Ever see a dog turn into a cat?” Well, did you ever see a sunflower turn into a Jerusalem artichoke? :D  I’m sorry, but how could this nonsense escape lampooning? (Or is there a joke played on them using ANOPA that I don’t know about?)

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

AtBC Poet Laureate

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

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

  
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2007,12:44   

Quote (Kristine @ April 27 2007,21:31)
How can you simplify multivariate data down to three dimensions “without losing information”? Helloooo!

I think I finally understand what they're trying to do.

I've seen a lot of wacky arguments in support of a lot of wacky things, but nothing makes me spurt coffee out of my nose, bite the carpet and scream "Oh my God" more reliably than creation "science".  And obviously, twitching uncontrollably while saying "Oh my God" is an outbreak of religious ecstacy and the first step on the road to Jesus.

Maybe they're cleverer than we thought.  Probably not, but maybe.

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2007,13:55   

Re "but nothing makes me spurt coffee out of my nose,"

Hey, do ya s'pose they have stock in coffee companies? :p

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2007,14:05   

I've been following the whole 'baraminology' thing since about 1998 (I've got some stories, ooo....), and I can safely say that, IMHO, the entire thing is a system established to 'disprove':
1. human relatedness to anything else (i.e., specially created status to be 'proven')
2. macroevolution

IN some of their earlier papers, baraminologists opted to use subjective, biologically irrelevant data to rely on when doing phylogenetic analyses to show that you can use standard phylogenetic analyses to show a discontinuity between humans and other primates - they rejected the analyses done using molecular, anatomical, and chromosomal data is favor of - and I am serious - whether or not monogamous pair bonds are formed, population density, dwelling type, etc.

Pretty blatantly non-scientific, if you ask me...

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2007,18:20   

Quote (slpage @ April 30 2007,14:05)
I've been following the whole 'baraminology' thing since about 1998 (I've got some stories, ooo....), and I can safely say that, IMHO, the entire thing is a system established to 'disprove':
1. human relatedness to anything else (i.e., specially created status to be 'proven')

Yes, I think that deep down inside, most creationists would be entirely willing to accept all of evolution, every single bit of it --- as long as HUMANS didn't evolve from something else.



After all, I've heard creationists argue, in all seriousness, that all existing species of fish evolved from SALMON, after the Flood.  

Why salmon, you might say?  Simple ---- salmon can live in both fresh and salt water, and the Flood mixed fresh and salt water.  Therefore only the salmon survived.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2007,22:36   

Re "Therefore only the salmon survived."

And during that year, they ate what? And bred where? ;)

Btw, is a salmon's ability to live in either fresh or salt a year round ability, or does it come and go with their breeding season?

Or am I supposed to avoid asking that kind of question? :p

Henry

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2007,23:20   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 30 2007,18:20)
 
Quote (slpage @ April 30 2007,14:05)
I've been following the whole 'baraminology' thing since about 1998 (I've got some stories, ooo....), and I can safely say that, IMHO, the entire thing is a system established to 'disprove':
1. human relatedness to anything else (i.e., specially created status to be 'proven';)

Yes, I think that deep down inside, most creationists would be entirely willing to accept all of evolution, every single bit of it --- as long as HUMANS didn't evolve from something else.



After all, I've heard creationists argue, in all seriousness, that all existing species of fish evolved from SALMON, after the Flood.  

Why salmon, you might say?  Simple ---- salmon can live in both fresh and salt water, and the Flood mixed fresh and salt water.  Therefore only the salmon survived.

So it only took 6,000 years for hammerhead sharks to evolve from salmon?

Then why do we still have salmon? :angry:

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2007,07:06   

Quote (Henry J @ April 30 2007,22:36)
Re "Therefore only the salmon survived."

And during that year, they ate what? And bred where? ;)

Btw, is a salmon's ability to live in either fresh or salt a year round ability, or does it come and go with their breeding season?

Or am I supposed to avoid asking that kind of question? :p

Henry

You're uh, supposed to avoid asking those kinds of questions . . .

;)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2007,07:14   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 30 2007,23:20)
So it only took 6,000 years for hammerhead sharks to evolve from salmon?

Yes.

But, ya know, chimps and humans are so different from each other that they couldn't have evolved in 4.5 million years.

Welcome to Creationist World.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2007,10:55   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 25 2007,16:16)
I saw somebody (PrincessEve)on the thread about an real life working example of the EF (so far nothing doing) saying of YEC Scientists        
Quote
They hypothesize and test theories and adapt to the findings and discard unworkable theories, just like evolutionists do


If that's true, where is it happening? Is it written down, in a paper or magazine, or journal?
Is ISCID it? They have not published in years.

Like Princess Eve said, they hypothesized, tested theories, adapted to the findings, and discarded unworkable theories, just like evolutionists do.  Ergo, nothing to publish.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2007,12:58   

Didn't someone suggest we could produce the next issue ourselves?  It sounded like a good idea at the time.*




*and I wasn't drunk or anything.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2007,14:01   

Quote (guthrie @ May 01 2007,12:58)
Didn't someone suggest we could produce the next issue ourselves?  It sounded like a good idea at the time.*




*and I wasn't drunk or anything.

yes, they did indeed! On the UD thread I believe.
I found this gem:
 
Quote
So, did random explosions create all this, or did God? What can stop the outward travel of gasses after an explosion in space? For if gravity stopped this travel outward, would it not also pull these gasses back inward so that it would not longer be the beautiful designs that we see? So why has not NASA done a test on this to see how long it would take a gas to dissipate in space? Or maybe, they already know and wish not to reveal that information.

when trolling around the deadly earnest http://yecheadquarters.org site. Urgh. I bet there is a paper or three right there for this new journal!

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

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2007,14:56   

Quote
Btw, is a salmon's ability to live in either fresh or salt a year round ability, or does it come and go with their breeding season?


ask Dr. Science:

salmon posses the ability to be euryhaline (highly tolerant of wide ranges of salinity - the opposite is stenohaline), but really only do a massive shift in physiology to become completely adapated to pure salt or fresh water twice; once when a juvenile entering the ocean, and again when returning back into river systems to breed.

they don't regularly migrate between fresh/salt water.

OTOH, there are several groups of fishes that have many species that do; most live in brackish conditions to begin with.

Poeciliids, for example, have many species that can rapidly adjust to fresh or salt water, like mollys.  you can drop a molly into a salt water aquarium and it will adjust its physiology quite rapidly and do just fine.

also, certain species of pufferfish, sturgeon, and herring are some other examples.

sharks/rays also contain some species which regularly migrate between fresh and salt water, most notably the bull shark (Carcharhinus leucas).  The bull shark has been known to attack humans far up several river systems, for example the Zambezi (Africa), Brisbane (Australia), and Ganges (India).  It's even found in Lake Nicaragua (central America).

The way sharks cope physiologically with rapid changes in salinity is far different from the way most bony fishes handle it.  However, that's a story for a different time.

*ahem*

back to your regularly scheduled programming.

 
Quote
So it only took 6,000 years for hammerhead sharks to evolve from salmon?


ugh.

that's equivalent to saying:

so it only took 6000 years for alligators to evolve from chameleons?

if you don't know why that is just SO wrong, ask lenny.

actually, it's even worse than that; there's not a big enough schism in the reptile group to cover a bony fish evolving into cartilaginous one.

hmm.

maybe spider monkey->kangaroo might be a better comparison.

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

-CC

  
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2007,15:06   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 01 2007,14:01)
Quote (guthrie @ May 01 2007,12:58)
Didn't someone suggest we could produce the next issue ourselves?  It sounded like a good idea at the time.*




*and I wasn't drunk or anything.

yes, they did indeed! On the UD thread I believe.
I found this gem:
   
Quote
So, did random explosions create all this, or did God? What can stop the outward travel of gasses after an explosion in space? For if gravity stopped this travel outward, would it not also pull these gasses back inward so that it would not longer be the beautiful designs that we see? So why has not NASA done a test on this to see how long it would take a gas to dissipate in space? Or maybe, they already know and wish not to reveal that information.

when trolling around the deadly earnest http://yecheadquarters.org site. Urgh. I bet there is a paper or three right there for this new journal!

Given the ID community's interest in farting, this seems like a natural for ISCID.

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2007,15:07   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 01 2007,15:01)
Quote (guthrie @ May 01 2007,12:58)
Didn't someone suggest we could produce the next issue ourselves?  It sounded like a good idea at the time.*




*and I wasn't drunk or anything.

yes, they did indeed! On the UD thread I believe.
I found this gem:
   
Quote
So, did random explosions create all this, or did God? What can stop the outward travel of gasses after an explosion in space? For if gravity stopped this travel outward, would it not also pull these gasses back inward so that it would not longer be the beautiful designs that we see? So why has not NASA done a test on this to see how long it would take a gas to dissipate in space? Or maybe, they already know and wish not to reveal that information.

when trolling around the deadly earnest http://yecheadquarters.org site. Urgh. I bet there is a paper or three right there for this new journal!

Those guys are nuts. I'm starting a new thread.

   
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2007,16:54   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ May 01 2007,06:14)
   
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 30 2007,23:20)
So it only took 6,000 years for hammerhead sharks to evolve from salmon?
Yes.


But, ya know, chimps and humans are so different from each other that they couldn't have evolved in 4.5 million years.

Welcome to Creationist World.

It's not a happy world. They keep running into the ape-apostle link. :) Here's a quote from the NCSE's Reports, "Baraminology: Systematic Discontinuity in Discontinuity Systematics" by Alan Gishick (sassy title, that):  
Quote
Baraminologists suggest that it is useful to talk about apobaramins because the holobaramins [there's a lot of awful lingo that they use] have many similiarities that cross holobaraminic boundaries... Frair suggests that humans should be compared with the group most structurally and functionally similar to them: the great apes. There is a sort of cognitive dissonance going on with apobaramins in that baraminologists are still using the power of phylogenetic inference, even though they deny phylogeny. If the groups are not phylogenetically related, why should baraminologists expect them to be comparable?


And again:
Quote
In conditions where it [the BDIST methodology] did not return results favorable to baraminologists, other criteria [such as the bible] are applied to achieve the desired result. This was the case for humans and primates where BDIST did not show a separation. Instead, the authors employed ad hoc "ecological criteria" to achieve separate baramins, while not discussing the "biblical criteria."


Pardonnez mon typos, I'm at work and scanning your pages, slpage! :)

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

AtBC Poet Laureate

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

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

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2007,10:09   

Got them - thanks!

Gishlick makes many of the same arguments I have made elsewhere regarding the Baraminology activity. For one, giving primacy to the "Scriptural criterion" seems to be a bit closed-minded and limiting on the 'objectivity' of the turht-seeking creation scientists...

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2007,10:21   

Quote (slpage @ May 02 2007,10:09)
Gishlick makes many of the same arguments I have made elsewhere regarding the Baraminology activity. For one, giving primacy to the "Scriptural criterion" seems to be a bit closed-minded and limiting on the 'objectivity' of the turht-seeking creation scientists...

And just to show that the nuts don't fall too far from the tree, we can read this in the comments on Dr. Dr. Dembski's UD post about how a recent paper on the anatomy of the retina is consistent with ID. Someone named nullusalas opines:
   
Quote
I think the greater point is, whether or not you can ‘prove’ ID in the lab (I’m skeptical about it philosophically, but I don’t have the expertise to evaluate ID’s technical arguments), this does show that you can walk into a lab with a philosophical presupposition of ID and achieve quite some interesting results.

Of course, this works best when you just "walk into a lab", and then presumably walk out without doing any actual experiments...

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2007,10:38   

I realise this may make me a piranha to the assembled masses, but it is I, yes I who is responsible for publishing ISCID journals.*

Erm, I've been busy.

Louis

*Erm, no it isn't. Oops.

--------------
Bye.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2007,10:40   

I'll ask nullusalas if he'll join us here to discuss
Quote
that you can walk into a lab with a philosophical presupposition of ID and achieve quite some interesting results.


He's also on thesciphishow threads where so far, surprisingly, nobody has managed to come up with a worked example of the EF.

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

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2007,17:10   

The Institute for Creation Research has put out a call for papers! :D

If you guys can get me some dog and cat data to plot, I could draw little circles showing three "discontinuities" between dogs, cats, and dats. (Or cogs?) Then I'll submit it and see if they get the joke at all.

Dat would be funny. :)

I got one more article coming your way, slpage.

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

AtBC Poet Laureate

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

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2007,18:00   

Quote (Kristine @ May 02 2007,17:10)
The Institute for Creation Research has put out a call for papers! :D

Hey, check this out in their call for papers:

Quote
Papers can be in any scientific, or social scientific, field, but must be from a young-earth perspective


(my boldfacing)

My oh my, no Old-Earth Creationism welcome here, just straight James Ussher old-time religion all the way.

Hey, I bet Piranha Lady could get something published there!

: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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2007,22:40   

Re "dats. (Or cogs?) "

Would it say "me-oof", or "wo-eow"?

Henry

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2007,08:57   

It would sound like my older cat, who thinks he's a dog. (He really does.)

But what about winged cats?  :D

P.S. I'm serious about submitting a joke paper - let me think about it during vacation.  :) Maybe I can even bounce some ideas off of Dawkins. Neener, neener.

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

AtBC Poet Laureate

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

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

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2007,12:57   

Quote (Kristine @ May 03 2007,08:57)
It would sound like my older cat, who thinks he's a dog. (He really does.)

But what about winged cats?  :D

P.S. I'm serious about submitting a joke paper - let me think about it during vacation.  :) Maybe I can even bounce some ideas off of Dawkins. Neener, neener.

That is SOOOOO cool.  Take lots of pictures for us, some animls, but mostly girls in bikinis....

Leaving soon right?   You gonna be on line, while on the cruise?

ciao, or as Dave sayz:  Chow!

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2007,15:07   

Quote (J-Dog @ May 03 2007,11:57)
 That is SOOOOO cool.  Take lots of pictures for us, some animls, but mostly girls in bikinis....

Leaving soon right?   You gonna be on line, while on the cruise?

ciao, or as Dave sayz:  Chow!

Soon - Tuesday - and I won't be online. There's a weight limit and I'm not bringing my laptop. No wifi on the ship anyway (and I don't have wifi yet).

So you all be good! But just for you I'll get snaps of everyone in their swimwear, J-Dog, since I seem to be one of the few younger people going! :p

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

AtBC Poet Laureate

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

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

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2007,18:35   

Quote (Kristine @ May 03 2007,15:07)
No wifi on the ship anyway (and I don't have wifi yet).

Hey, a question for all you computer geeks out there.

I'm thinking about getting a laptop in a few months (after my vacation).  So how does this "wifi" thingie work?  I don't mean the technical stuff of it, I mean the "what do I need to do to get connected with it" part of it.  If I were to, say, drop my local cable-modem Internet account and therefore have no ISP, can I still connect to the Web anywhere where there is wifi?  If I'm in California and my ISP is in Florida, can I still connect by wifi?

Sorry for my Luddite-ness . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
mitschlag



Posts: 236
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2007,12:25   

You can connect wherever there is a WiFi transmitter/receiver (access point), like in motels, airports, coffee bars.  But all interaction with the Net will be insecure.  Your ISP is out of the picture; you're interacting with the local host's ISP.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2007,12:48   

If you still want to use it at home, you'll need to keep your current ISP and get a wireless router instead of your current setup for your laptop to connect to. Unless your next door neighbour has open wifi running!
In a few years (wi-max is coming! range measured in km) you won't need to but typically wifi has a range measured in tens of meters.

It's not quite true that all interaction with the web will be insecure, but if you don't take steps to secure it, then it certanly will be.

As mitschlag says, you can also connect anywhere there is a open wifi access point, but typically you'll be paying via the nasal orifice for the privilage. See it as an extension to your current set up, not a replacement.

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

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2007,13:54   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 30 2007,18:20)
Yes, I think that deep down inside, most creationists would be entirely willing to accept all of evolution, every single bit of it --- as long as HUMANS didn't evolve from something else.



After all, I've heard creationists argue, in all seriousness, that all existing species of fish evolved from SALMON, after the Flood.  

Why salmon, you might say?  Simple ---- salmon can live in both fresh and salt water, and the Flood mixed fresh and salt water.  Therefore only the salmon survived.

GhAhhhk! Salmon? Do you have any idea how much work those buggers do to deal with osmoregulation? It ain't easy. Not many of them can handle a salinity of  less than 25 ppt once they've gone out to sea. When they go back up the river, they don't often return to the ocean. They keep their internal salinity at a little over half the ocean's salinity so that when they get back into fresh water, it's less of a shock. They also stop all kinds of carbohydrate-related activity in fresh water. They starve to conserve salt kind of. No no no no. Salmon weren't the fish. Maybe sturgeon. But even a sturgeon doesn't just rocket out from the ocean up the river for a little sunday afternoon picnic and return. It is highly stressful even for the ones that can do it.

If you had only saltwater from the ocean to drink and salt pork to eat as provisions to get you to a whorehouse and the journey would take a week or more, well... er...

Cheerio. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2007,17:53   

Quote (mitschlag @ May 04 2007,12:25)
You can connect wherever there is a WiFi transmitter/receiver (access point), like in motels, airports, coffee bars.  But all interaction with the Net will be insecure.  Your ISP is out of the picture; you're interacting with the local host's ISP.

Well, St Petersburg, Florida, where I live, is in the initial stages of setting up a city-wide wifi network.  So I'm presuming I'll be able to connect from just about anywhere in town . . . .  And I'm also presuming it'll be free.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
  40 replies since April 25 2007,16:16 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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