AE Public BB
Joe G.'s Tardgasm
Post by Henry J
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't.
Categories: AE Public BB
Joe G.'s Tardgasm
Post by k.e..
I wonder if Joe would do any better than AFDave on imaginary numbers?
I wonder if Joe would do any better than AFDave on imaginary numbers?
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 4
Post by Occam's Aftershave
LOL! Gordo is now strutting and crowing like a cock-o-the-walk because the IDiots identified the source of Febble's "CSI challenge" picture. They did it by using Google reverse-image search.
Not a single one of the IDiots actually calculated any value for CSI, which was the only reason for the exercise. Not a single one of them even tried. But they're beating their collective chests now over their "great victory"
LOL! Gordo is now strutting and crowing like a cock-o-the-walk because the IDiots identified the source of Febble's "CSI challenge" picture. They did it by using Google reverse-image search.
Not a single one of the IDiots actually calculated any value for CSI, which was the only reason for the exercise. Not a single one of them even tried. But they're beating their collective chests now over their "great victory"
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 4
Post by REC
I think vjtorley went and undid the application of ID to life:
Quote (1) There is a vital distinction that needs to be kept in mind between a specified pattern’s being improbable as a configuration, and its being improbable as an outcome. The former does not necessarily imply the latter. If a pattern is composed of elements, then if we look at all possible arrangements or configurations of those constituent elements, it may be that only a very tiny proportion of these will contain the pattern in question. That makes it configurationally improbable. But that does not mean that the pattern is unlikely to ever arise: in other words, it would be unwarranted to infer that the appearance of the pattern in question is historically improbable, from its rarity as a possible configuration of its constituent elements.
Isn't that umm....exactly what the big numbers game does? It ignores the history of the protein, and calculates its rarity in sequence space?
I agree totally. It is an unwarranted inference.
I think vjtorley went and undid the application of ID to life:
Quote (1) There is a vital distinction that needs to be kept in mind between a specified pattern’s being improbable as a configuration, and its being improbable as an outcome. The former does not necessarily imply the latter. If a pattern is composed of elements, then if we look at all possible arrangements or configurations of those constituent elements, it may be that only a very tiny proportion of these will contain the pattern in question. That makes it configurationally improbable. But that does not mean that the pattern is unlikely to ever arise: in other words, it would be unwarranted to infer that the appearance of the pattern in question is historically improbable, from its rarity as a possible configuration of its constituent elements.
Isn't that umm....exactly what the big numbers game does? It ignores the history of the protein, and calculates its rarity in sequence space?
I agree totally. It is an unwarranted inference.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (NoName @ May 16 2013,14:22) Quote (Henry J @ May 16 2013,12:20) Quote (NoName @ May 16 2013,07:58)He does seem to be a bit, ahem, slow, on the uptake, does he not?
Gary G, as likely to take on a point as a Hydrogen atom to take on a 4th electron in a stable orbital.
Fourth? Would even a second one qualify as stable? How stable is a hydride ion anyway?
Or is that getting off topic?
Surely Gary and his "theory" of "molecular intelligence" should be able to clarify this, yes?
I mean, given how high and deep he insists his "theory" reaches, such a paltry issue should be trivial for him to address, and address correctly.
We're waiting, Gary.
That's all covered in the Behavior (Of Matter) at the top of the causation illustration, therefore I suggest you consult a physics or chemistry textbook.
Quote (NoName @ May 16 2013,14:22) Quote (Henry J @ May 16 2013,12:20) Quote (NoName @ May 16 2013,07:58)He does seem to be a bit, ahem, slow, on the uptake, does he not?
Gary G, as likely to take on a point as a Hydrogen atom to take on a 4th electron in a stable orbital.
Fourth? Would even a second one qualify as stable? How stable is a hydride ion anyway?
Or is that getting off topic?
Surely Gary and his "theory" of "molecular intelligence" should be able to clarify this, yes?
I mean, given how high and deep he insists his "theory" reaches, such a paltry issue should be trivial for him to address, and address correctly.
We're waiting, Gary.
That's all covered in the Behavior (Of Matter) at the top of the causation illustration, therefore I suggest you consult a physics or chemistry textbook.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (JohnW @ May 16 2013,11:32) Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 16 2013,01:48)Even where you succeed in showing that to be true only one the first of several intelligent causation levels without the others on top that the theory needs to stay standing are not at all changed. Most you would produce is an edit to keep the theory as coherent as possible, that I then would not mind making for you, but that does not make a whole theory go away.
Bonus points for including the word "coherent" in the middle of that steaming pile.
I was overtired when I wrote that, but it still makes sense.
In other words: Reliably showing that there is no such thing as "Molecular Intelligence" would only require me to change the name to "Molecular Behavior", and the arrow from it would be another "Behavioral Causation". And since the theory is now well into "Collective Intelligence" I would need to at the same time add a new intelligent causation block to the illustration, resulting in it still showing as many intelligent causation events as before, which is more than enough for the theory to still remain true:
Quote (JohnW @ May 16 2013,11:32) Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 16 2013,01:48)Even where you succeed in showing that to be true only one the first of several intelligent causation levels without the others on top that the theory needs to stay standing are not at all changed. Most you would produce is an edit to keep the theory as coherent as possible, that I then would not mind making for you, but that does not make a whole theory go away.
Bonus points for including the word "coherent" in the middle of that steaming pile.
I was overtired when I wrote that, but it still makes sense.
In other words: Reliably showing that there is no such thing as "Molecular Intelligence" would only require me to change the name to "Molecular Behavior", and the arrow from it would be another "Behavioral Causation". And since the theory is now well into "Collective Intelligence" I would need to at the same time add a new intelligent causation block to the illustration, resulting in it still showing as many intelligent causation events as before, which is more than enough for the theory to still remain true:
Categories: AE Public BB
Joe G.'s Tardgasm
Post by stevestory
Joe--can a subset a, of a proper superset b, which has members a doesn't have, be the same size as b?
Please please please answer this JoeG.
Joe--can a subset a, of a proper superset b, which has members a doesn't have, be the same size as b?
Please please please answer this JoeG.
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 4
Post by JohnW
Quote (damitall @ May 16 2013,10:17)KF is now ranting about "progressivist" anti-Christian bias in education (another huge URL that makes you tired just reading it)
DonaldM asks questions of us.
Quote 1. How do you know scientifically (and I emphasize “scientifically” here because I want to make it clear that theological, metaphysical or philosophical opinions – while important for other reasons – have no bearing on the question at hand) that the properties of the Cosmos are such that any apparent design we observe in natural systems can not be actual design, even in principle?
2. How do you know scientifically that Nature (or the Cosmos) is a completely closed system of natural cause and effect? (Recall Dawkins claim that a universe superintended by a Deity would look much different than ours as he says in The God Delusion several times)
3. How do you know scientifically that the properties of biological systems are such that any apparent design we observe in them can not be actual design, even in principle? (The Blind Watchmaker and Dawkins’s claim that “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance [emphasis mine] of having been designed for a purpose.”)
4. How do you know scientifically that no supernatural being, if such actually existed, could ever take any action within nature itself that would produce observable phenomenon or effect any change in the arrangement of matter or energy anywhere in the Cosmos?
I guess the answer to each one is "Scientifically, we don't know. Just as soon as you've worked out a way to investigate these things scientifically, let us know. In the meantime, absent any evidence for supernatural designers, we'll carry on with something useful, thanks."
This is just absurd.
"You have to demonstrate that the universe wasn't created by a god, couldn't have been created by a god, there cannot be a god in principle, and the concept of a god is unimaginable. Otherwise we win."
Quote (damitall @ May 16 2013,10:17)KF is now ranting about "progressivist" anti-Christian bias in education (another huge URL that makes you tired just reading it)
DonaldM asks questions of us.
Quote 1. How do you know scientifically (and I emphasize “scientifically” here because I want to make it clear that theological, metaphysical or philosophical opinions – while important for other reasons – have no bearing on the question at hand) that the properties of the Cosmos are such that any apparent design we observe in natural systems can not be actual design, even in principle?
2. How do you know scientifically that Nature (or the Cosmos) is a completely closed system of natural cause and effect? (Recall Dawkins claim that a universe superintended by a Deity would look much different than ours as he says in The God Delusion several times)
3. How do you know scientifically that the properties of biological systems are such that any apparent design we observe in them can not be actual design, even in principle? (The Blind Watchmaker and Dawkins’s claim that “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance [emphasis mine] of having been designed for a purpose.”)
4. How do you know scientifically that no supernatural being, if such actually existed, could ever take any action within nature itself that would produce observable phenomenon or effect any change in the arrangement of matter or energy anywhere in the Cosmos?
I guess the answer to each one is "Scientifically, we don't know. Just as soon as you've worked out a way to investigate these things scientifically, let us know. In the meantime, absent any evidence for supernatural designers, we'll carry on with something useful, thanks."
This is just absurd.
"You have to demonstrate that the universe wasn't created by a god, couldn't have been created by a god, there cannot be a god in principle, and the concept of a god is unimaginable. Otherwise we win."
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by NoName
Quote (Henry J @ May 16 2013,12:20) Quote (NoName @ May 16 2013,07:58)He does seem to be a bit, ahem, slow, on the uptake, does he not?
Gary G, as likely to take on a point as a Hydrogen atom to take on a 4th electron in a stable orbital.
Fourth? Would even a second one qualify as stable? How stable is a hydride ion anyway?
Or is that getting off topic?
Surely Gary and his "theory" of "molecular intelligence" should be able to clarify this, yes?
I mean, given how high and deep he insists his "theory" reaches, such a paltry issue should be trivial for him to address, and address correctly.
We're waiting, Gary.
Quote (Henry J @ May 16 2013,12:20) Quote (NoName @ May 16 2013,07:58)He does seem to be a bit, ahem, slow, on the uptake, does he not?
Gary G, as likely to take on a point as a Hydrogen atom to take on a 4th electron in a stable orbital.
Fourth? Would even a second one qualify as stable? How stable is a hydride ion anyway?
Or is that getting off topic?
Surely Gary and his "theory" of "molecular intelligence" should be able to clarify this, yes?
I mean, given how high and deep he insists his "theory" reaches, such a paltry issue should be trivial for him to address, and address correctly.
We're waiting, Gary.
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 4
Post by Febble
Quote (damitall @ May 16 2013,12:17)KF is now ranting about "progressivist" anti-Christian bias in education (another huge URL that makes you tired just reading it)
DonaldM asks questions of us.
Quote 1. How do you know scientifically (and I emphasize “scientifically” here because I want to make it clear that theological, metaphysical or philosophical opinions – while important for other reasons – have no bearing on the question at hand) that the properties of the Cosmos are such that any apparent design we observe in natural systems can not be actual design, even in principle?
2. How do you know scientifically that Nature (or the Cosmos) is a completely closed system of natural cause and effect? (Recall Dawkins claim that a universe superintended by a Deity would look much different than ours as he says in The God Delusion several times)
3. How do you know scientifically that the properties of biological systems are such that any apparent design we observe in them can not be actual design, even in principle? (The Blind Watchmaker and Dawkins’s claim that “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance [emphasis mine] of having been designed for a purpose.”)
4. How do you know scientifically that no supernatural being, if such actually existed, could ever take any action within nature itself that would produce observable phenomenon or effect any change in the arrangement of matter or energy anywhere in the Cosmos?
I guess the answer to each one is "Scientifically, we don't know. Just as soon as you've worked out a way to investigate these things scientifically, let us know. In the meantime, absent any evidence for supernatural designers, we'll carry on with something useful, thanks."
heh. I just did a post about that.
I must get something more interesting up. Nagel, and Krauss.
Quote (damitall @ May 16 2013,12:17)KF is now ranting about "progressivist" anti-Christian bias in education (another huge URL that makes you tired just reading it)
DonaldM asks questions of us.
Quote 1. How do you know scientifically (and I emphasize “scientifically” here because I want to make it clear that theological, metaphysical or philosophical opinions – while important for other reasons – have no bearing on the question at hand) that the properties of the Cosmos are such that any apparent design we observe in natural systems can not be actual design, even in principle?
2. How do you know scientifically that Nature (or the Cosmos) is a completely closed system of natural cause and effect? (Recall Dawkins claim that a universe superintended by a Deity would look much different than ours as he says in The God Delusion several times)
3. How do you know scientifically that the properties of biological systems are such that any apparent design we observe in them can not be actual design, even in principle? (The Blind Watchmaker and Dawkins’s claim that “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance [emphasis mine] of having been designed for a purpose.”)
4. How do you know scientifically that no supernatural being, if such actually existed, could ever take any action within nature itself that would produce observable phenomenon or effect any change in the arrangement of matter or energy anywhere in the Cosmos?
I guess the answer to each one is "Scientifically, we don't know. Just as soon as you've worked out a way to investigate these things scientifically, let us know. In the meantime, absent any evidence for supernatural designers, we'll carry on with something useful, thanks."
heh. I just did a post about that.
I must get something more interesting up. Nagel, and Krauss.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by Henry J
Quote (NoName @ May 16 2013,07:58)He does seem to be a bit, ahem, slow, on the uptake, does he not?
Gary G, as likely to take on a point as a Hydrogen atom to take on a 4th electron in a stable orbital.
Fourth? Would even a second one qualify as stable? How stable is a hydride ion anyway?
Or is that getting off topic?
Quote (NoName @ May 16 2013,07:58)He does seem to be a bit, ahem, slow, on the uptake, does he not?
Gary G, as likely to take on a point as a Hydrogen atom to take on a 4th electron in a stable orbital.
Fourth? Would even a second one qualify as stable? How stable is a hydride ion anyway?
Or is that getting off topic?
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by Woodbine
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 16 2013,09:31)I'm often around science educators and sometimes they visit here. Can honestly say, by the busload.
What's the length of this bus, Gary?
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 16 2013,09:31)I'm often around science educators and sometimes they visit here. Can honestly say, by the busload.
What's the length of this bus, Gary?
Categories: AE Public BB
Joe G.'s Tardgasm
Post by Richardthughes
From his blog, emphasis mine:
Quote What's the point? Well Oleg Tsuchajerkoff axed me if a set could be a superset of itself. I said no, provided the reasoning and he started flopping about like a fish out of water.
From his blog, emphasis mine:
Quote What's the point? Well Oleg Tsuchajerkoff axed me if a set could be a superset of itself. I said no, provided the reasoning and he started flopping about like a fish out of water.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by fnxtr
btw What did Messrs. Lehman and Stanley think of GinGout's manifesto? He sent it to them, right? Right?
btw What did Messrs. Lehman and Stanley think of GinGout's manifesto? He sent it to them, right? Right?
Categories: AE Public BB
Joe G.'s Tardgasm
Post by didymos
Nobody answer before Joe takes a shot. You'll ruin the fun.
Nobody answer before Joe takes a shot. You'll ruin the fun.
Categories: AE Public BB
Joe G.'s Tardgasm
Post by Jim_Wynne
Quote (stevestory @ May 14 2013,14:55)He's been bragging about his math skills, I thought I'd ask him a set theory 201 question....
It was late though so i fucked up and called him gary once. :-(
So Joe, I've got two sets, A and B. A is a proper subset of B. B contains everything A contains, but also a bunch more members.
Can A and B be the same size, or is B necessarily bigger?
Fuck you, you evotard asswippe. Your side still has no evidence for blind watsh-makker evolution and ya see, IOW, ID has no problem with evolution and DESIGN *IS* A MECHANISM, FAGGOT.
Quote (stevestory @ May 14 2013,14:55)He's been bragging about his math skills, I thought I'd ask him a set theory 201 question....
It was late though so i fucked up and called him gary once. :-(
So Joe, I've got two sets, A and B. A is a proper subset of B. B contains everything A contains, but also a bunch more members.
Can A and B be the same size, or is B necessarily bigger?
Fuck you, you evotard asswippe. Your side still has no evidence for blind watsh-makker evolution and ya see, IOW, ID has no problem with evolution and DESIGN *IS* A MECHANISM, FAGGOT.
Categories: AE Public BB
Joe G.'s Tardgasm
Post by stevestory
He's been bragging about his math skills, I thought I'd ask him a set theory 201 question....
It was late though so i fucked up and called him gary once. :-(
So Joe, I've got two sets, A and B. A is a proper subset of B. B contains everything A contains, but also a bunch more members.
Can A and B be the same size, or is B necessarily bigger?
He's been bragging about his math skills, I thought I'd ask him a set theory 201 question....
It was late though so i fucked up and called him gary once. :-(
So Joe, I've got two sets, A and B. A is a proper subset of B. B contains everything A contains, but also a bunch more members.
Can A and B be the same size, or is B necessarily bigger?
Categories: AE Public BB
