Skip navigation.
Home
The Critic's Resource on AntiEvolution

AE Public Forum

Syndicate content
Antievolution.org is the critic's resource on antievolution. The public bulletin board is a lightly moderated place for general discussions, using a set of rules first implemented in 1992 for the Fidonet "Evolution Echo".
Updated: 7 weeks 6 days ago

Joe G.'s Tardgasm

Tue, 2014-02-18 22:08
Post by JohnW
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 18 2014,13:41) Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 18 2014,15:34)See Joe argue in support of Noah's flood: http://www.skepticink.com/tipplin....e-flood
Joe: "Nope, I have no interest in the Bible other than it is a collection of old books."

but also

Joe: "And I only hate atheists who misrepresent the Bible"

and "What Bible are you using? And why do all Bible scholars disagree with you?

“And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered” (KJV).

High hills,not mountains.

See also- http://www.answersingenesis.org/....sis....sis.org "

and

Joe: "And yes a 6,000 year old earth is dumb and it isn't part of the Bible"

And also:

That whole page is a shrine to his Tard.
He's hit the jackpot:
Quote Talk to Walter Brown and associates
Joe, you do know that's tantamount to saying "i know absolutely fuck all about basic, middle-school-level physics", don't you?
Categories: AE Public BB

Joe G.'s Tardgasm

Tue, 2014-02-18 21:55
Post by socle
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 18 2014,15:41)   Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 18 2014,15:34)See Joe argue in support of Noah's flood: http://www.skepticink.com/tipplin....e-flood
Joe: "Nope, I have no interest in the Bible other than it is a collection of old books."

but also

Joe: "And I only hate atheists who misrepresent the Bible"

and "What Bible are you using? And why do all Bible scholars disagree with you?

“And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered” (KJV).

High hills,not mountains.

See also- http://www.answersingenesis.org/....sis....sis.org "

and

Joe: "And yes a 6,000 year old earth is dumb and it isn't part of the Bible"

And also:

That whole page is a shrine to his Tard.
Nice to see Wally B's Hydropants Theory getting a mention by Joe in that thread.
Categories: AE Public BB

Joe G.'s Tardgasm

Tue, 2014-02-18 21:41
Post by Richardthughes
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 18 2014,15:34)See Joe argue in support of Noah's flood: http://www.skepticink.com/tipplin....e-flood
Joe: "Nope, I have no interest in the Bible other than it is a collection of old books."

but also

Joe: "And I only hate atheists who misrepresent the Bible"

and "What Bible are you using? And why do all Bible scholars disagree with you?

“And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered” (KJV).

High hills,not mountains.

See also- http://www.answersingenesis.org/....sis.org "

and

Joe: "And yes a 6,000 year old earth is dumb and it isn't part of the Bible"

And also:

That whole page is a shrine to his Tard.
Categories: AE Public BB

Joe G.'s Tardgasm

Tue, 2014-02-18 21:34
Post by OgreMkV
See Joe argue in support of Noah's flood: http://www.skepticink.com/tipplin....e-flood
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

Tue, 2014-02-18 19:20
Post by NoName
It makes just as much sense after running through a length-5 markov chain generator with Gary's latest screed as the input text:
"I also much labs are all stay learning that biologically this means forum could be religious important that are, from anyway, and that most makes N.Wells electronically already happening my best advice, forum, they can't be no sense for the evidence is across they were about best) is not have that separated and Creator a reputations of what just having ago illustrated and all stay learned, I honestly the religious, which happening, from the ways, how the odd one all standard that or we have to figuring implication, have the way for ID. In my best route possible to ID or else Creating like Guenter them with what that they already have to model one all the Theory of that going entists across to making like: Someone else Creation, have to try to science work make the madness, to go crazy trying the two parts or not care all you want eventually this for this means for have the best opinion the religious implicate is whether end of Intelligence is saying entific abyss they really can't want them honest of that are the scientists them. As long able excitemention the explain jelly sure the descripture, and are, and left the complain jelly don't best of cells the brain their lab geniuses were like them with the odd one the madness, to makes N.Wells the science working all starts or we have to do together end one out it's OK to fight somethink that going out it's OK to complained and does no fun, for those what keep them, while I found online (and what way. The the research busy in them magnets and are about work so ment, which happens anyway, the part what see the religious, while I focus on things does not having double to go crazy try to go away, and other should fit to components or else scientionists attractal abyss, going useful information the understood explanations of that eventually do with cells electronically happy for the paradigms are a bit overing as always of that way human brain jelly already work so it makes N.Wells the Brain jelly surgery paper hell parated that see that biology labs are unexpectrum any eventually this for me to try figuring what field (not even want to compete with cells electrum could fit to come from fractal” being no see then the expected fanfare. I earning, from what the rever this means for them with the Brain jelly having of cells the odd one that them in the brains to slap they can't way. That the most need theory of me. That I long as the words something as far as the science level at the descripture, from anyone else Creator all standard the paper hell oppose where essentirely doing the best advice, from the ways, how a self-defeation I focus on and Creating my honestly the odd online (and such. Also much lab get stuck in the understood in the madness, to model one else about where about where essentionists and such. Also much like that the church of ID and whatevered, the middle of whatever loaded example of Intelligence. In the beforehand online (and as evidence to change for our the describing what real then this case the level at the expert discussion I found of a human brain jelly different Design most played hymn/anthem, while I focus on thing that intelligence level up to sense for our case them in the words like Guenter their lab get stuck in that see the explanations of a concerned and hope the Theory of our their lab get stuck in the two parts. In my honest of that are a bit over the road overbial abyss, to Creator a reputationists the parated about words like: Someone all stay learned, the complained a real that are all excited for these. And all excited for othere we happening, from the brain jelly surgery paper make surgery paper is cases, as it makes a good so much like: Someone out what keep the road overbial abyss, to figuring double starts of the way. Theory of a context of ID or go away, anyway, that going what just having as always of the madness, to change for the excited a real the science is describing ago illustrated and does no coming the religious important to do together the brains to change forum could be prover loaded explaints from in the others like Guenter they just happens forum has been Sheryl Crow - Soak Up Theory of what that most need to sense for me to makes a good in the madness, to sense forum anotech like the components from in this means from fractal” being in the religious, which happens from what field (not on the two part whethere. I also ment but not event, which make surgery paper helps show the paper helps should look like Guenter those whether this for the explaints from. That the works out. Missing able excited fanfare. In anyway, that way for those where like Guenter the middle of science is context of a helps show the excited from discussion Science is where we are that are all excited from anotech lab geniuses context of scientists attractal” being together for ID. In both of what that just having able standard that the The Sun or else"
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

Tue, 2014-02-18 19:06
Post by jeffox
There must be some kind of way I can speak
Said the GooGoo to the chief
There's so much confusion
In my head, where's relief?
Scientific in my mind
Yet I'm just not heard
No one will ever give me time
Intelligent fractal is turfed . . . .
Hey!
No reason to be enlightened
The chief he snidely spoke
You don't belong here among us
Cuz your brain is high on hope
But I know you've been told that
And this is not your aim
So please do not talk to these folks
Your tard is getting great
Hey!
All along the science blog
Real brains kept the clue
While all the shitheads came and went
And ol' Goo Goo, too
Outside in the ID tardcage
They all did hoot
You scientists just aren't dumb enough!
And that goes up our snoot . . . .
Hey!  

(The 'Heys' are for the Jimi Hendrix version)
(May Bobby Dylan forgive me)
           
Categories: AE Public BB

Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

Tue, 2014-02-18 18:15
Post by REC
Quote (k.e.. @ Feb. 18 2014,09:48) Quote (Quack @ Feb. 18 2014,17:38)I wouldn't dare opening his fridge unless wearing a gas mask!
Yeah his fridge wants a lawyer so it can sue him for negligence.

Hey Barry the fifties called they want their Formica and contagious diseases  back.
BA77 follows up with a mined quote from a January 6, 1978 book review.

1978: 36 years ago. Before DNA sequencing.  

36 Years before that, and we've got 2 years to go DNA is clearly demonstrated to be genetic material.

36 Years before that, and Mendel's work has just been rediscovered, and 'vitalism' is a concept.

36 Years before that, and Darwin has yet to use the word "evolution" in print.

And there is a post up today asking why we're so dismissive when these types toss out stupid concepts and  outdated mis-cites from outdated sources and ask why we won't engage them on their merits. Lol. I'd rather debate vitalism.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

Tue, 2014-02-18 18:01
Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 18 2014,00:54) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 18 2014,00:50)   Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 18 2014,00:38)How about you actually read and think about what N.Wells wrote, Gary?
Is it impossible for you to actually read and think about what I wrote?

    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 16 2014,19:39)I must suggest that you try to gain the ability to know whether my work is biologically relevant and pertains to molecular self-assembly of (as per science) "intelligence" before trying to make it appear that you already are:

Brain jelly - design and construction of an organic, brain-like computer
Design and Construction of a Brain-Like Computer: A New Class of Frequency-Fractal Computing Using Wireless Communication in a Supramolecular Organic, Inorganic System
I did.

"Or in other words: You embraced and praised a paper that experts in the field could not even make sense of or confirm, simply because it seemed to serve your religious agenda to do so."

seems completely unrelated to the criticism.

Oh for goodness sake, on the previous page N.Wells was talking like this is a theory dreamed up at church on a whim after watching a Discovery Institute video:

Quote (N.Wells @ Feb. 16 2014,20:37)Gary, despite your claim to agnosticism, that only seems to hold for your opinions concerning a deity, but does not cover your distinctly religion-style approach to knowledge and argument.  You are continually making non-scientific belief statements along the lines of "I believe, too!".  You approach science by making assertions in the manner of religious pronouncements rather than scientific conclusions (statements that are clearly based on your personal beliefs, which you won't investigate objectively and which you can't and won't defend with evidence, and which often fly in the face of reality, such as your claims about salmon defending their young, etc.).  You are also constantly going out of your way to make statements that are supportive of DI-style camouflaged-religious ID but which are not justified by any evidence that you provide, such as your misrepresentation of scientific arguments in order to give support to a creationist misrepresentation of biology when you say "With science now going towards the Creation Science perspective, the old graphics are again useful".  (Both halves of that sentence are wrong; creationist diagrams of the sort that you show are usually provided in support of their concept of baramins rather than lateral gene transfer; the time and taxonomic levels dominated by comparatively unfettered lateral gene transfer principally happened in distant Precambrian prokaryotes rather than Ediacaran / Cambrian metazoa; the last two to three decades of research into Cambrian faunas have revealed much about the origin of phyla and other groups at high taxonomic levels that you are ignoring.)  You continually cite the DI statement about ID and keep claiming that it is worthwhile, without providing any evidence in its support.  You are clearly going out of your way to support a religious agenda, therefore you are clearly giving support to a religious agenda.
......

I am in fact trying to make the best of the Discovery Institute having come around in 1999 with an intelligence theory that was much like I was for years earlier working on, but without the "Creation Science" that the other theory (Theory of Intelligent Design) like a magnet attracted. The theory I was working on grew out of the low power W I Don't Know AI in an age where very few ever heard a computer talk before, where what would be our hymn was Rush-The Spirit Of Radio where it's really just a question of your honesty, yeah, your honesty.

In my case, I have to honestly say that the “Brain jelly” paper did not explain what I would consider to be a fractal. The problem was mentioned in the discussion at K-AI forum, so I'm at least not alone on that one.  Jumping to the conclusion that the paper was fine on that detail, while another that goes up in magnitude from at most self-replicating RNA up to at least the size of whales, and looks like this, is nothing in comparison:



In both of our cases, as far as evidence for our theories is concerned, I honestly think that Dr. Anirban Bandyopadhyay is describing what the components of cells electronically do together, and are all excited from discovering that biological molecular intelligence systems work so much like a human brain they can model one that way. The theory I defend predicted that eventually happening, from fractal similarity, in what I long ago illustrated (above). I also mentioned it making no sense for me to try to compete with what biology lab geniuses were essentially already working on and left the describing of that intelligence level up to them, while I focus on the level at the other end of that intelligence spectrum and the part where like Guenter their work makes them magnets attracting the ID movement, but not because of me. That just happens anyway, then they just have to make the best of the unexpected fanfare.

In any event, whether this is where it all starts or we have to wait a little longer the paper makes a good example of what the evidence coming together should look like: Someone all excited about being able to model human brains with cell parts.

In my honest opinion the expert discussion I found online (and searched for others but that's the best) is correct, which makes N.Wells the odd one out whether they explained a fractal and such. Also missed what something like this means for the Theory of Intelligent Design that connects across the scientific abyss to Creation Science where it's OK to talk about God/Allah/Creator all you want even scripture, for those who need that or else science is no fun, for them. As long as the two paradigms are kept separated and all stay learning towards something real there should be no complaints from anyone else about it existing, because it really can't be made to go away, anyhow. We're then back to it being important that the religious implications of what's happening in the biology/nanotech labs are understood in the context of ID or else Creationists and others will oppose whatever loaded explanation the masterminds in this forum could fit to slap them with, then the scientists the Theory of Intelligent Design most need to stay busy in their lab get stuck in the middle of a hell of a conflict, they really don't want to be in. Better to be revered, than not.

For what it's worth, the most played hymn/anthem in this forum has been Sheryl Crow - Soak Up The Sun or go crazy trying to fight the ways of the world, that are that way for a reason, having to do with the way human intelligence works. I'm simply doing my best to make sure the religious implications of science to come are beforehand understood so it will be properly received by those who do not even want to have to try figuring out what the Brain jelly paper is saying as it pertains to ID and Creation Science. I earned a reputation for having useful information, on matters like these. And as always, how the researchers concerned explain things does not have to change for ID. In this case they already have the right experts giving them honest advice, from another forum, that keep the author(s) heading the best route possible towards the road over the proverbial abyss, to see the madness, going on below but not on the other side where the church buses come from in search of intelligent knowledge of who we are, and where we came from.

The brain jelly surgery paper (or similar) might soon enough become an ID epic, even where they were a bit overambitious, which happens from the excitement but best be happy for them and hope that what they have that most matters to science (and does not care about words like “fractal” being there or not that's trivial) works out. Missing all that going on in the paper helps show a self-defeating double standard that sees something entirely different from what reliable experts in that field (not just I) indicate is actually there.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

Tue, 2014-02-18 16:58
Post by stevestory
I just want novelty, frankly. We've already replied ad nauseum to his mentally ill screeds, I kinda just want to see them waived past newbies, to see their replies.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

Sun, 2014-02-16 21:07
Post by midwifetoad
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 16 2014,14:50) Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 16 2014,14:42)Name a specific feature of a living thing best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Bear in mind that not all unguided processes in evolution involve selection.
The intelligent behavior, of intelligent animals.

I already won. So now I'm getting back to work on the ID Lab.
Congratulations.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

Sun, 2014-02-16 20:50
Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 16 2014,14:42)Name a specific feature of a living thing best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Bear in mind that not all unguided processes in evolution involve selection.
The intelligent behavior, of intelligent animals.

I already won. So now I'm getting back to work on the ID Lab.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

Sun, 2014-02-16 20:46
Post by NoName
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 16 2014,15:39)...
For there to be a question I am obliged to answer you must first operationally define your terminology "evolve unguided except by natural selection" and "designed".

You're otherwise still just throwing ambiguous generalizations around, as an excuse for not being able to show why certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

The shame for not even being willing to try, is entirely on you.
You really should stand in front of a mirror and recite this to yourself.
It's actually pretty funny coming from the guy who doesn't have a single operational definition in his 'theory', who constantly tosses around unfounded generalizations, and consistently provides excuses for why he shouldn't have to meet the same criteria expected of scientists in general or of scientific theories.
The shame is that even after all this time, we still try to engage with you.

But let's try to flip the issue around for once -- can you name a single 'feature of the universe' or a single entity that is not the result of intelligent design or an'intelligent cause'?
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

Sun, 2014-02-16 20:42
Post by midwifetoad
Name a specific feature of a living thing best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

Sun, 2014-02-16 20:39
Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 16 2014,14:17)Assume evolve unguided except by natural selection and answer the question.

Name a feature that was designed.
For there to be a question I am obliged to answer you must first operationally define your terminology "evolve unguided except by natural selection" and "designed".

You're otherwise still just throwing ambiguous generalizations around, as an excuse for not being able to show why certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

The shame for not even being willing to try, is entirely on you.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

Sun, 2014-02-16 20:17
Post by midwifetoad
Assume evolve unguided except by natural selection and answer the question.

Name a feature that was designed.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

Sun, 2014-02-16 20:13
Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 16 2014,13:37)No Gary, name a feature that did not evolve.
Show me where in the following information it says "did not evolve".

  Quote The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

http://www.discovery.org/csc........ons.php


If you cannot address the real premise of the theory then your opinions are already scientifically irrelevant.

I'm not obliged to entertain your deceptions.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

Sun, 2014-02-16 20:06
Post by NoName
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 16 2014,15:01)BTW: I have been spending all my free-time on the ID Lab and what I now have is already lifelike enough to be a little bit scary. And not because how it (still) works is complicated, it's because it's not. Something to respect and be careful with, or else (one way or another) be destroyed by.

Don't be in a rush to let the more theatrical thrills and shocks of a human (to human created intelligence) intelligent causation event now happening in our lifetime lead all to a tragically enslaving Karn Evil 9 ending.
Eliza was lifelike enough to be a little scary.
BFD.

You've been wasting your time with the ID-Lab -- it can accomplish nothing for you or for your 'theory' or for human knowledge.

But it's hardly surprising to see you meet the usual points raised against your nonsense with your standard "look over there" deflection and distraction.

You still don't have a clue as to just what 'features of the universe'** are 'best explained' by an 'intelligent cause', nor any idea what 'intelligence' is.  One suspects you don't even have a clue as to what a cause is.


** [by which we assume you mean 'entities in the universe'; the universe itself, the sum total of all that exists, has no more features than any collection]
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

Sun, 2014-02-16 20:01
Post by GaryGaulin
BTW: I have been spending all my free-time on the ID Lab and what I now have is already lifelike enough to be a little bit scary. And not because how it (still) works is complicated, it's because it's not. Something to respect and be careful with, or else (one way or another) be destroyed by.

Don't be in a rush to let the more theatrical thrills and shocks of a human (to human created intelligence) intelligent causation event now happening in our lifetime lead all to a tragically enslaving Karn Evil 9 ending.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

Sun, 2014-02-16 19:37
Post by midwifetoad
No Gary, name a feature that did not evolve.
Categories: AE Public BB

Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

Sun, 2014-02-16 19:13
Post by REC
This, from Sal, seems worth preserving. He's all about phylogenetic methods, but resorts to nonsense about "gaps between created kinds" to scuttle the obvious evolutionary implications of a sound method.

Quote They ignore obvious gaps between created kinds...

Otherwise, the phylogenetic methods for a created kind I think are really cool. They’ve been used to reconstruct Y-chromosomal Aaron, and possibly Abraham, and maybe, just Maybe Noah or the daughters in law of Noah. We’ll see. I’m not totally against phylogeny, but I don’t believe in 1 universal phylogenetic tree, I believe in an orchard of phylogenetic trees.

UD link
Categories: AE Public BB