news aggregator
Joe G.'s Tardgasm
Post by OgreMkV
Just visited Joey's little blog. It's pretty funny how much he still stalks me. But, as I was reading, I came upon this gem...
Quote And decay rates are fine. I am not saying otherwise. But unstable isotopes can start decaying when they are formed and they are not formed on earth. They were decaying for millions or billions of years before the earth formed.
It's as if you are just an ignorant fool who can't think beyond its own ass.
Uranium was formed either by supernovae or via the collision of two neutron stars. So it is decaying/ can decay well before it comes to earth.
https://www.blogger.com/comment....4186811
That's just... wow... much ignorance...
Just visited Joey's little blog. It's pretty funny how much he still stalks me. But, as I was reading, I came upon this gem...
Quote And decay rates are fine. I am not saying otherwise. But unstable isotopes can start decaying when they are formed and they are not formed on earth. They were decaying for millions or billions of years before the earth formed.
It's as if you are just an ignorant fool who can't think beyond its own ass.
Uranium was formed either by supernovae or via the collision of two neutron stars. So it is decaying/ can decay well before it comes to earth.
https://www.blogger.com/comment....4186811
That's just... wow... much ignorance...
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (Nomad @ April 21 2014,06:00)Pssst. Hey Gary. You know how you're so proud about your model possessing "rat level navigation"?
How about bird level navigation?
http://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/eserv......sis.pdf
In this instance evolutionary algorithms were used to evolve the control logic to autonomously fly a simulated unmanned aerial vehicle to a landing on board a naval vessel.
Can your bug do that?
Yes.
Quote (Nomad @ April 21 2014,06:00)Pssst. Hey Gary. You know how you're so proud about your model possessing "rat level navigation"?
How about bird level navigation?
http://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/eserv......sis.pdf
In this instance evolutionary algorithms were used to evolve the control logic to autonomously fly a simulated unmanned aerial vehicle to a landing on board a naval vessel.
Can your bug do that?
Yes.
Categories: AE Public BB
Joe G.'s Tardgasm
Post by OgreMkV
Quote (Quack @ April 21 2014,08:19) Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 21 2014,04:51)... or he has started talking to himself.
I wish he would, that should be something to watch!
I bet he would get so confused, he'd actually lose an argument with himself.
Quote (Quack @ April 21 2014,08:19) Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 21 2014,04:51)... or he has started talking to himself.
I wish he would, that should be something to watch!
I bet he would get so confused, he'd actually lose an argument with himself.
Categories: AE Public BB
Joe G.'s Tardgasm
Post by Quack
Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 21 2014,04:51)... or he has started talking to himself.
I wish he would, that should be something to watch!
Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 21 2014,04:51)... or he has started talking to himself.
I wish he would, that should be something to watch!
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by NoName
Quote (N.Wells @ April 21 2014,08:36)...
But the interesting point is that Gary identifies genetic algorithms as simple. They are indeed impressively simple as well as being astoundingly powerful, which is why I can't see what Gary has against natural selection and why he keeps misunderstanding it. Especially, I cannot understand why he rejects it in favor of an alternate mechanism whose existence and effects he can't even demonstrate at the levels that he is interested in.
It's because he's self-assembled. And assembled wrong.
He's reminiscent of the chef on Metalocalypse, 'sewn together wrong'.
He believes in an alternative because he has a desperate need to be the underdog who eventually triumphs, usually by means of a "and then a miracle occurs' step, coupled with an equally desperate need for opposition so he can justify any and all of his shortcomings as due to external oppression, not internal flaws.
That he cannot demonstrate the existence or effects of his preferred approach is part of its glory -- he thinks it allows him to shift the game to one where his opponents must present something better than his never explained, never identified, never clarified "alternative". He thinks he can make it a game of "heads, he wins, tails we lose."
Like I said before, attempting to win a poker game by shouting 'checkmate'.
Quote (N.Wells @ April 21 2014,08:36)...
But the interesting point is that Gary identifies genetic algorithms as simple. They are indeed impressively simple as well as being astoundingly powerful, which is why I can't see what Gary has against natural selection and why he keeps misunderstanding it. Especially, I cannot understand why he rejects it in favor of an alternate mechanism whose existence and effects he can't even demonstrate at the levels that he is interested in.
It's because he's self-assembled. And assembled wrong.
He's reminiscent of the chef on Metalocalypse, 'sewn together wrong'.
He believes in an alternative because he has a desperate need to be the underdog who eventually triumphs, usually by means of a "and then a miracle occurs' step, coupled with an equally desperate need for opposition so he can justify any and all of his shortcomings as due to external oppression, not internal flaws.
That he cannot demonstrate the existence or effects of his preferred approach is part of its glory -- he thinks it allows him to shift the game to one where his opponents must present something better than his never explained, never identified, never clarified "alternative". He thinks he can make it a game of "heads, he wins, tails we lose."
Like I said before, attempting to win a poker game by shouting 'checkmate'.
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
Post by Glen Davidson
Quote I dislike those animations. Had a gf years ago who studied that protein, i forget, i think actin or myosin, that they show trucking around the cell like little pedestrians, and she had actually done experiments on the things were you could, if the planets lined up, barely see them, and she said they were little fuzzy strands that barely manage to make 11 steps 'forward' every 20.
Those little animations, with their separate colors, and their oversimplified activities, make shit look a million times more designed than it looks under a 'scope.
That's another thing that makes it sound like a lie. If she really were a biology major, she should know how fake the animations are. And they're meant to be fake, to leave out the stochastic jitters and to show basically the resulting functional movements.
They really shouldn't be shown without a good explanation of how much is left out--probably one included in the animation itself.
No biology major has an excuse, regardless, even if she's not very far along. So if she did exist, let's hope she got out long ago, or learned a whole lot more than the junk you get from the DI.
Glen Davidson
Quote I dislike those animations. Had a gf years ago who studied that protein, i forget, i think actin or myosin, that they show trucking around the cell like little pedestrians, and she had actually done experiments on the things were you could, if the planets lined up, barely see them, and she said they were little fuzzy strands that barely manage to make 11 steps 'forward' every 20.
Those little animations, with their separate colors, and their oversimplified activities, make shit look a million times more designed than it looks under a 'scope.
That's another thing that makes it sound like a lie. If she really were a biology major, she should know how fake the animations are. And they're meant to be fake, to leave out the stochastic jitters and to show basically the resulting functional movements.
They really shouldn't be shown without a good explanation of how much is left out--probably one included in the animation itself.
No biology major has an excuse, regardless, even if she's not very far along. So if she did exist, let's hope she got out long ago, or learned a whole lot more than the junk you get from the DI.
Glen Davidson
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
Post by stevestory
Quote (REC @ April 12 2014,18:29)I call Bullshit.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014.......71.html
Quote We had an experience a couple years ago where some of the Discovery scientists were traveling with one of our supporters. So that night, we were at this cowboy steakhouse feeding the troops.
Ok....Didn't know the DI had a travelling circus....but whatever....
Quote So I jumped in and offered the Discovery Institute credit card to pay for the Discovery Institute scientists, and this young waitress came back with the bill and the credit card. And she looked left and looked right and lowered her voice and said, "Can you tell me what the Discovery Institute is?"
Nope. Not happening. Waited tables, and you know damn better than to ask about a company credit card when people are entertaining. Or to express even passing interest at all in peoples' plastic which they are very protective of.
Though my bigger objection should be "Discovery Institute scientists," of which there are 0. Anti-science-ists, plenty.
Quote
Well, I said, we're a scientific think tank, and we're investigating the evidence for intelligent design and challenging standard Darwin. She says, "I thought so!"
I'll poll 300 "U" students right now. Odds of even one having heard of the Discovery Institute? Lol.
Quote She said, "Our professors hate you." And then she motioned to three other waiters and waitresses. She says, "I'm a bio major at the U, and so are they, and, I'm telling you, our professors hate you.
How did this come up? In Bio 101, the profs announce "F-intelligent design idiots and the Discovery Institute we hate them", and this woman happens to remember it when she sees your credit card? We don't bring up the "controversy" in college classes. There is no controversy. Outside of idiot school boards in red states, you don't even exist.
Quote But then we go on your website and we see those animations of all those little machines and we say, 'No way did that evolve.'
Nope. But how proud are you that the total of your "science" can be expressed in an emotional reaction?
Nope. We're no relative of apes. Nope that's complex-no way it evolved." God done it!
I dislike those animations. Had a gf years ago who studied that protein, i forget, i think actin or myosin, that they show trucking around the cell like little pedestrians, and she had actually don't experiments on the things were you could, if the planets lined up, barely see them, and she said they were little fuzzy strands that barely manage to make 11 steps 'forward' every 20.
Those little animations, with their separate colors, and their oversimplified activities, make shit look a million times more designed than it looks under a 'scope.
Quote (REC @ April 12 2014,18:29)I call Bullshit.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014.......71.html
Quote We had an experience a couple years ago where some of the Discovery scientists were traveling with one of our supporters. So that night, we were at this cowboy steakhouse feeding the troops.
Ok....Didn't know the DI had a travelling circus....but whatever....
Quote So I jumped in and offered the Discovery Institute credit card to pay for the Discovery Institute scientists, and this young waitress came back with the bill and the credit card. And she looked left and looked right and lowered her voice and said, "Can you tell me what the Discovery Institute is?"
Nope. Not happening. Waited tables, and you know damn better than to ask about a company credit card when people are entertaining. Or to express even passing interest at all in peoples' plastic which they are very protective of.
Though my bigger objection should be "Discovery Institute scientists," of which there are 0. Anti-science-ists, plenty.
Quote
Well, I said, we're a scientific think tank, and we're investigating the evidence for intelligent design and challenging standard Darwin. She says, "I thought so!"
I'll poll 300 "U" students right now. Odds of even one having heard of the Discovery Institute? Lol.
Quote She said, "Our professors hate you." And then she motioned to three other waiters and waitresses. She says, "I'm a bio major at the U, and so are they, and, I'm telling you, our professors hate you.
How did this come up? In Bio 101, the profs announce "F-intelligent design idiots and the Discovery Institute we hate them", and this woman happens to remember it when she sees your credit card? We don't bring up the "controversy" in college classes. There is no controversy. Outside of idiot school boards in red states, you don't even exist.
Quote But then we go on your website and we see those animations of all those little machines and we say, 'No way did that evolve.'
Nope. But how proud are you that the total of your "science" can be expressed in an emotional reaction?
Nope. We're no relative of apes. Nope that's complex-no way it evolved." God done it!
I dislike those animations. Had a gf years ago who studied that protein, i forget, i think actin or myosin, that they show trucking around the cell like little pedestrians, and she had actually don't experiments on the things were you could, if the planets lined up, barely see them, and she said they were little fuzzy strands that barely manage to make 11 steps 'forward' every 20.
Those little animations, with their separate colors, and their oversimplified activities, make shit look a million times more designed than it looks under a 'scope.
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
Post by Glen Davidson
Well, it's Colonel Klinkhoffer, quoting the great Meyer, so it's pretty much unbelievable from the get-go.
But what about this?
Quote But then we go on your website and we see those animations of all those little machines and we say, 'No way did that evolve.'" So this is a little, in microcosm, a picture of what's happening. The establishment is terrified of this idea. -
Yeah, they have to go to EvolutionBullshit for animation, when for Expelled the IDiots had to take out XVIVO's animation, which they at first copied, and make one of their own.
Terrifying, indeed. Because we only have poofs as explanations. No, wait, that's Meyer and (other) morons.
No, the whole story reeks of made-up garbage, possibly based on a few flimsy facts. If there was a waitress who said such things, obviously she was just a creationist bigot--who else says that professors hate the worthless frauds?--who is so damned ignorant that she doesn't know that science made the first and best animations of molecular machines, and that it also has the evidence of evolution of a good many, if not all, of them.
The only thing scary about these jerks is that they'd make a whole lot of science illegal if they ever had power firmly in their grasp.
Glen Davidson
Well, it's Colonel Klinkhoffer, quoting the great Meyer, so it's pretty much unbelievable from the get-go.
But what about this?
Quote But then we go on your website and we see those animations of all those little machines and we say, 'No way did that evolve.'" So this is a little, in microcosm, a picture of what's happening. The establishment is terrified of this idea. -
Yeah, they have to go to EvolutionBullshit for animation, when for Expelled the IDiots had to take out XVIVO's animation, which they at first copied, and make one of their own.
Terrifying, indeed. Because we only have poofs as explanations. No, wait, that's Meyer and (other) morons.
No, the whole story reeks of made-up garbage, possibly based on a few flimsy facts. If there was a waitress who said such things, obviously she was just a creationist bigot--who else says that professors hate the worthless frauds?--who is so damned ignorant that she doesn't know that science made the first and best animations of molecular machines, and that it also has the evidence of evolution of a good many, if not all, of them.
The only thing scary about these jerks is that they'd make a whole lot of science illegal if they ever had power firmly in their grasp.
Glen Davidson
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
Post by stevestory
Larry Moran says Nick Matzke says this may be the worst post in UD Herstory.
So I KNOW reading that shit directly would require All Teh Alcohols!
Larry Moran says Nick Matzke says this may be the worst post in UD Herstory.
So I KNOW reading that shit directly would require All Teh Alcohols!
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
Post by REC
I call Bullshit.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014....71.html
Quote We had an experience a couple years ago where some of the Discovery scientists were traveling with one of our supporters. So that night, we were at this cowboy steakhouse feeding the troops.
Hmm...cowboy steakhouse....feeding the troops?
[QUOTE]So I jumped in and offered the Discovery Institute credit card to pay for the Discovery Institute scientists, and this young waitress came back with the bill and the credit card. And she looked left and looked right and lowered her voice and said, "Can you tell me what the Discovery Institute is?"[QUOTE]
Nope. Not happening. Waited tables, and you know damn better than to ask about a company credit card when people are entertaining. Or to express even passing interest at all in peoples' plastic which they are very protective of.
Though my bigger objection should be "Discovery Institute scientists," of which there are 0. Anti-science-ists, plenty.
Quote
Well, I said, we're a scientific think tank, and we're investigating the evidence for intelligent design and challenging standard Darwin. She says, "I thought so!"
I'll poll 300 "U" students right now. Odds of even one having heard of the Discovery Institute? Lol.
Quote
She said, "Our professors hate you." And then she motioned to three other waiters and waitresses. She says, "I'm a bio major at the U, and so are they, and, I'm telling you, our professors hate you.
How did this come up? In Bio 101, the profs announce "F-intelligent design idiots and the Discovery Institute we hate them", and this woman happens to remember it when she sees your credit card? We don't bring up the "controversy" in college classes. There is no controversy. Outside of idiot school boards in red states, you don't even exist.
Quote But then we go on your website and we see those animations of all those little machines and we say, 'No way did that evolve.'
Nope. But how proud are you that the total of your "science" can be expressed in an emotional reaction?
Nope. We're no relative of apes. Nope that's complex-no way it evolved." God done it!
I call Bullshit.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014....71.html
Quote We had an experience a couple years ago where some of the Discovery scientists were traveling with one of our supporters. So that night, we were at this cowboy steakhouse feeding the troops.
Hmm...cowboy steakhouse....feeding the troops?
[QUOTE]So I jumped in and offered the Discovery Institute credit card to pay for the Discovery Institute scientists, and this young waitress came back with the bill and the credit card. And she looked left and looked right and lowered her voice and said, "Can you tell me what the Discovery Institute is?"[QUOTE]
Nope. Not happening. Waited tables, and you know damn better than to ask about a company credit card when people are entertaining. Or to express even passing interest at all in peoples' plastic which they are very protective of.
Though my bigger objection should be "Discovery Institute scientists," of which there are 0. Anti-science-ists, plenty.
Quote
Well, I said, we're a scientific think tank, and we're investigating the evidence for intelligent design and challenging standard Darwin. She says, "I thought so!"
I'll poll 300 "U" students right now. Odds of even one having heard of the Discovery Institute? Lol.
Quote
She said, "Our professors hate you." And then she motioned to three other waiters and waitresses. She says, "I'm a bio major at the U, and so are they, and, I'm telling you, our professors hate you.
How did this come up? In Bio 101, the profs announce "F-intelligent design idiots and the Discovery Institute we hate them", and this woman happens to remember it when she sees your credit card? We don't bring up the "controversy" in college classes. There is no controversy. Outside of idiot school boards in red states, you don't even exist.
Quote But then we go on your website and we see those animations of all those little machines and we say, 'No way did that evolve.'
Nope. But how proud are you that the total of your "science" can be expressed in an emotional reaction?
Nope. We're no relative of apes. Nope that's complex-no way it evolved." God done it!
Categories: AE Public BB
Board Mechanics
Post by Cubist
Quote (Bob O'H @ April 12 2014,16:16) Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 12 2014,12:51) All in all, I have about a half-dozen legacy Drupal installs, about the same number of WordPress installs, and this IkonBoard install to try to migrate. Fun, fun, fun.
Yes, yes, yes. But what are you going to do after breakfast?
Another six impossible things, of course.
Quote Seriously, I think we all appreciate the effort you put in.
For values of "all" which include anybody who has a clue about how much of a hassle all this is, definitely.
Quote (Bob O'H @ April 12 2014,16:16) Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 12 2014,12:51) All in all, I have about a half-dozen legacy Drupal installs, about the same number of WordPress installs, and this IkonBoard install to try to migrate. Fun, fun, fun.
Yes, yes, yes. But what are you going to do after breakfast?
Another six impossible things, of course.
Quote Seriously, I think we all appreciate the effort you put in.
For values of "all" which include anybody who has a clue about how much of a hassle all this is, definitely.
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
Post by stevestory
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 11 2014,23:38) Quote (Glen Davidson @ April 11 2014,18:38)VJ Torley: Quote When I’m wrong
I didn't read it, but I'm pretty sure that it involves writing 20 pages of meaningless tripe.
Glen Davidson
Torley is actually having a bit of a Friday Meltdown™.
This is the climax of a catastrophically stupid (and hilarious) series of threads between vjtorley and Larry Moran. It's one of the best I've ever seen on UD.
Larry Moran's side of the thread starts here. You can pick up the links to the torley pieces from the articles.
A creationist illustrates the argument from ignorance while trying to understand population genetics and Neutral Theory:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.uk/2014.......om.html
A creationist tries to understand genetic load:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.uk/2014.......nd.html
Breaking news: Creationist Vincent Torley lies and moves goalposts:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.uk/2014.......nt.html
Vincent Torley tries to understand fixation:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.uk/2014.......nd.html
On being "outed" as a closet Darwinist:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.uk/2014.......st.html
On the frustration of trying to educate IDiots:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.uk/2014.......te.html
I have never seen anyone beat themselves up as thoroughly as Torley does here.
Edited to remove meaningless tripe.
Holy Toledo, from the second link by Salvador Cordova
Quote Ok, so let’s do an experiment. Let’s subject bacteria or plants or any organism to radiation and thus increase the mutation rate mutation rate by a factor of 1 million or 1 billion. Do you think the above formula will still hold? We tried it in the lab, it killed the plants, and at some point rather than speeding evolution we are doing sterilization.
Well Check-Goddam-Mate Evilushunists!
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 11 2014,23:38) Quote (Glen Davidson @ April 11 2014,18:38)VJ Torley: Quote When I’m wrong
I didn't read it, but I'm pretty sure that it involves writing 20 pages of meaningless tripe.
Glen Davidson
Torley is actually having a bit of a Friday Meltdown™.
This is the climax of a catastrophically stupid (and hilarious) series of threads between vjtorley and Larry Moran. It's one of the best I've ever seen on UD.
Larry Moran's side of the thread starts here. You can pick up the links to the torley pieces from the articles.
A creationist illustrates the argument from ignorance while trying to understand population genetics and Neutral Theory:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.uk/2014.......om.html
A creationist tries to understand genetic load:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.uk/2014.......nd.html
Breaking news: Creationist Vincent Torley lies and moves goalposts:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.uk/2014.......nt.html
Vincent Torley tries to understand fixation:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.uk/2014.......nd.html
On being "outed" as a closet Darwinist:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.uk/2014.......st.html
On the frustration of trying to educate IDiots:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.uk/2014.......te.html
I have never seen anyone beat themselves up as thoroughly as Torley does here.
Edited to remove meaningless tripe.
Holy Toledo, from the second link by Salvador Cordova
Quote Ok, so let’s do an experiment. Let’s subject bacteria or plants or any organism to radiation and thus increase the mutation rate mutation rate by a factor of 1 million or 1 billion. Do you think the above formula will still hold? We tried it in the lab, it killed the plants, and at some point rather than speeding evolution we are doing sterilization.
Well Check-Goddam-Mate Evilushunists!
Categories: AE Public BB
Board Mechanics
Post by Bob O'H
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 12 2014,12:51) All in all, I have about a half-dozen legacy Drupal installs, about the same number of WordPress installs, and this IkonBoard install to try to migrate. Fun, fun, fun.
Yes, yes, yes. But what are you going to do after breakfast?
Seriously, I think we all appreciate the effort you put in.
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 12 2014,12:51) All in all, I have about a half-dozen legacy Drupal installs, about the same number of WordPress installs, and this IkonBoard install to try to migrate. Fun, fun, fun.
Yes, yes, yes. But what are you going to do after breakfast?
Seriously, I think we all appreciate the effort you put in.
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
Post by Glen Davidson
Quote (Bob O'H @ April 12 2014,04:19) Quote (Glen Davidson @ April 11 2014,18:38)VJ Torley: Quote When I’m wrong
I didn't read it, but I'm pretty sure that it involves writing 20 pages of meaningless tripe.
Glen Davidson
Nope, it's surprisingly short. And it's a flat out "I was wrong", without any weaselling.
Yes, I did see it, although I didn't bother reading it, because, dull (Torley wrong--oh the news value...). I wouldn't call it short, though, except by comparison.
Although I knew it was on the obscure side, I hoped that it would be recognized that I was referring to the subject, that when he is wrong he writes 20 pages of meaningless drivel (tripe, what-not).
Perhaps this is why this post was relatively short. For once he wasn't wrong in the post itself.
Glen Davidson
Quote (Bob O'H @ April 12 2014,04:19) Quote (Glen Davidson @ April 11 2014,18:38)VJ Torley: Quote When I’m wrong
I didn't read it, but I'm pretty sure that it involves writing 20 pages of meaningless tripe.
Glen Davidson
Nope, it's surprisingly short. And it's a flat out "I was wrong", without any weaselling.
Yes, I did see it, although I didn't bother reading it, because, dull (Torley wrong--oh the news value...). I wouldn't call it short, though, except by comparison.
Although I knew it was on the obscure side, I hoped that it would be recognized that I was referring to the subject, that when he is wrong he writes 20 pages of meaningless drivel (tripe, what-not).
Perhaps this is why this post was relatively short. For once he wasn't wrong in the post itself.
Glen Davidson
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
Post by BillB
Quote (Bob O'H @ April 12 2014,10:19) Quote (Glen Davidson @ April 11 2014,18:38)VJ Torley: Quote When I’m wrong
I didn't read it, but I'm pretty sure that it involves writing 20 pages of meaningless tripe.
Glen Davidson
Nope, it's surprisingly short. And it's a flat out "I was wrong", without any weaselling.
It almost gives you hope ...
Quote (Bob O'H @ April 12 2014,10:19) Quote (Glen Davidson @ April 11 2014,18:38)VJ Torley: Quote When I’m wrong
I didn't read it, but I'm pretty sure that it involves writing 20 pages of meaningless tripe.
Glen Davidson
Nope, it's surprisingly short. And it's a flat out "I was wrong", without any weaselling.
It almost gives you hope ...
Categories: AE Public BB
Board Mechanics
Post by Wesley R. Elsberry
Quote (Dr.GH @ April 11 2014,12:18) Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 10 2014,20:52)The server powered itself off for reasons unknown, and was claiming the boot disk had no bootable partition. This evening it decided there was a bootable partition after all. That's certainly a spur toward the host transfer I've been plotting for months now.
Good luck.
I have transferred files and database contents as they stood on the 11th. I'll try and do some testing to see if I can instantiate the DBs on the new system and get the web apps running. If so, I'll try to do a new snapshot, install, and switch over. The new snapshot might fail or the old server might fail. On the other hand, differences in underlying versions might prevent getting the old stuff running on the new server. In that case, I'll likely step this forum to PHP-BB or something similar on the new host, and see about updating the static "aebb-archive" pages for the old system, then pull those across.
All in all, I have about a half-dozen legacy Drupal installs, about the same number of WordPress installs, and this IkonBoard install to try to migrate. Fun, fun, fun.
Quote (Dr.GH @ April 11 2014,12:18) Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 10 2014,20:52)The server powered itself off for reasons unknown, and was claiming the boot disk had no bootable partition. This evening it decided there was a bootable partition after all. That's certainly a spur toward the host transfer I've been plotting for months now.
Good luck.
I have transferred files and database contents as they stood on the 11th. I'll try and do some testing to see if I can instantiate the DBs on the new system and get the web apps running. If so, I'll try to do a new snapshot, install, and switch over. The new snapshot might fail or the old server might fail. On the other hand, differences in underlying versions might prevent getting the old stuff running on the new server. In that case, I'll likely step this forum to PHP-BB or something similar on the new host, and see about updating the static "aebb-archive" pages for the old system, then pull those across.
All in all, I have about a half-dozen legacy Drupal installs, about the same number of WordPress installs, and this IkonBoard install to try to migrate. Fun, fun, fun.
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
Post by BillB
Quote (Ptaylor @ April 08 2014,01:55)Sal Cordova really should have seen this coming. In posting a thread titled 'Questions college students should ask science professors' he should have anticipated:
1. Someone (i.e. Roy) might actually answer his questions
2. UD regulars (in this case Barb) would use it to go into full Big Daddy? mode, suggesting more questions. Sample:
Question: What takes greater faith—to believe that the millions of intricately coordinated parts of a cell arose by chance or to believe that the cell is the product of an intelligent mind?
I can just see that atheist materialist darwinist professor withering under an onslaught like that.
UD link
I LOL'd
Quote 13. I’ll consider it if it happens. Until then, it’s no more a problem for science than asking “What if Moses returns and she’s female and tells the world that the Bible was written by a drunken con-artist with diarrhoea?” is a problem for religion.
Quote (Ptaylor @ April 08 2014,01:55)Sal Cordova really should have seen this coming. In posting a thread titled 'Questions college students should ask science professors' he should have anticipated:
1. Someone (i.e. Roy) might actually answer his questions
2. UD regulars (in this case Barb) would use it to go into full Big Daddy? mode, suggesting more questions. Sample:
Question: What takes greater faith—to believe that the millions of intricately coordinated parts of a cell arose by chance or to believe that the cell is the product of an intelligent mind?
I can just see that atheist materialist darwinist professor withering under an onslaught like that.
UD link
I LOL'd
Quote 13. I’ll consider it if it happens. Until then, it’s no more a problem for science than asking “What if Moses returns and she’s female and tells the world that the Bible was written by a drunken con-artist with diarrhoea?” is a problem for religion.
Categories: AE Public BB
Board Mechanics
Post by Quack
I don't know if I am the only one experiencing this problem but some threads, like the Uncommonly Dense opens ok, but I can't get the Joe G or Young Cosmos threads to open.
I don't know if I am the only one experiencing this problem but some threads, like the Uncommonly Dense opens ok, but I can't get the Joe G or Young Cosmos threads to open.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by N.Wells
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 07 2014,22:23)Offer a better wording that does not leave out required qualifiers including "image" and "likeness" otherwise I have to stay with what I now have for a first sentence.
Even though (to some) the grammar agreement seems wrong that's the way it is where "trinity" of science and religion exists in a sentence. At that point it's to early to mention the trinity from multiple intelligent causation events, otherwise gets wrongly operationally defined as more than one event, but it's there causing the sentence to seem out of place to those who are new to the concept of "Trinity".
Genesis scripture/theory ends up operationally defining our creator in plural form, where singular is expected, which can at first seem wrong but that's what I ended up having to explain for scientific theory.
There is no real grammar agreement problem. That's simply the way it is, in modern religion too.
You're only wasting your time and mine, trying to make it appear that what many in theology and elsewhere would expect to happen to sentence structure by properly scientifically operationally defining the "intelligent cause" part of the process.
There is also the challenge for all from Planet Source Code and other things that cannot be argued away, which are now done and in the past. Arguing semantics will not make that go away.
1) Already did: just add "or".
"... each in its own image or likeness."
2) To everyone (but you, and you're wrong) the grammar is wrong. It has to be, "each in its own..." And that's "too". Your whole trinity argument is irrelevant at this point, so why bring it up here? The reader can only process what you have written, not what you are thinking and not mentioning.
3) (All the rest of your last round of comments.) BS. Your writing is truly crappy, and cannot be followed without a lot of guessing about your intentions, which means that you are effectively NEVER getting your point across. This isn't semantics or me disagreeing with you about science or you being clever about theology - this is just you not knowing how to write a comprehensible sentence.
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 07 2014,22:23)Offer a better wording that does not leave out required qualifiers including "image" and "likeness" otherwise I have to stay with what I now have for a first sentence.
Even though (to some) the grammar agreement seems wrong that's the way it is where "trinity" of science and religion exists in a sentence. At that point it's to early to mention the trinity from multiple intelligent causation events, otherwise gets wrongly operationally defined as more than one event, but it's there causing the sentence to seem out of place to those who are new to the concept of "Trinity".
Genesis scripture/theory ends up operationally defining our creator in plural form, where singular is expected, which can at first seem wrong but that's what I ended up having to explain for scientific theory.
There is no real grammar agreement problem. That's simply the way it is, in modern religion too.
You're only wasting your time and mine, trying to make it appear that what many in theology and elsewhere would expect to happen to sentence structure by properly scientifically operationally defining the "intelligent cause" part of the process.
There is also the challenge for all from Planet Source Code and other things that cannot be argued away, which are now done and in the past. Arguing semantics will not make that go away.
1) Already did: just add "or".
"... each in its own image or likeness."
2) To everyone (but you, and you're wrong) the grammar is wrong. It has to be, "each in its own..." And that's "too". Your whole trinity argument is irrelevant at this point, so why bring it up here? The reader can only process what you have written, not what you are thinking and not mentioning.
3) (All the rest of your last round of comments.) BS. Your writing is truly crappy, and cannot be followed without a lot of guessing about your intentions, which means that you are effectively NEVER getting your point across. This isn't semantics or me disagreeing with you about science or you being clever about theology - this is just you not knowing how to write a comprehensible sentence.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by GaryGaulin
Offer a better wording that does not leave out required qualifiers including "image" and "likeness" otherwise I have to stay with what I now have for a first sentence.
Even though (to some) the grammar agreement seems wrong that's the way it is where "trinity" of science and religion exists in a sentence. At that point it's to early to mention the trinity from multiple intelligent causation events, otherwise gets wrongly operationally defined as more than one event, but it's there causing the sentence to seem out of place to those who are new to the concept of "Trinity".
Genesis scripture/theory ends up operationally defining our creator in plural form, where singular is expected, which can at first seem wrong but that's what I ended up having to explain for scientific theory.
There is no real grammar agreement problem. That's simply the way it is, in modern religion too.
You're only wasting your time and mine, trying to make it appear that what many in theology and elsewhere would expect to happen to sentence structure by properly scientifically operationally defining the "intelligent cause" part of the process.
There is also the challenge for all from Planet Source Code and other things that cannot be argued away, which are now done and in the past. Arguing semantics will not make that go away.
Offer a better wording that does not leave out required qualifiers including "image" and "likeness" otherwise I have to stay with what I now have for a first sentence.
Even though (to some) the grammar agreement seems wrong that's the way it is where "trinity" of science and religion exists in a sentence. At that point it's to early to mention the trinity from multiple intelligent causation events, otherwise gets wrongly operationally defined as more than one event, but it's there causing the sentence to seem out of place to those who are new to the concept of "Trinity".
Genesis scripture/theory ends up operationally defining our creator in plural form, where singular is expected, which can at first seem wrong but that's what I ended up having to explain for scientific theory.
There is no real grammar agreement problem. That's simply the way it is, in modern religion too.
You're only wasting your time and mine, trying to make it appear that what many in theology and elsewhere would expect to happen to sentence structure by properly scientifically operationally defining the "intelligent cause" part of the process.
There is also the challenge for all from Planet Source Code and other things that cannot be argued away, which are now done and in the past. Arguing semantics will not make that go away.
Categories: AE Public BB
