AE BB DB Explorer


Action:
Author:
Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):


form_srcid: BillB

form_srcid: BillB

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.205.175.144

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: BillB

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'BillB%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2009/08/21 07:33:53, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (k.e.. @ Aug. 21 2009,08:53)
Quote (Ptaylor @ Aug. 21 2009,10:21)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 21 2009,17:58)
Before they go:
<snip>

...add to that BillB's comment:          
Quote
PZ’s critisism concerns the representation of Dawkins WEASEL algorithm in Dembski and Marks paper. Dembski and Marks represent the algorithm incorrectly.

If D and M want to claim that WEASEL actually includes extra components that Dawkins never included in his description, then they need to make these claims clear in their paper, and provide some argument or evidence to support them.

As it stands the description of WEASEL in their paper misrepresents Dawkins algorithm. A reader who is familiar with Dawkins book, or who follows up the reference, will also see that is is misrepresented, and that can cast doubt on the validity of D and M’s conclusions. A bit more checking and it would become clear that D and M have had this pointed out to them prior to publication, and yet they never corrected the mistake, or acknowledged that their representation was unorthodox.

The bottom line is that it is wrong to misrepresent other peoples work. Dembski and Marks are providing a very good reason for readers doubt or dismiss their papers conclusions so they really haven’t done themselves any favours.

Clive (hi Clive!) has essentially reopened comments for Dr Dembski's closed thread, in a well thought out plan.

lol

The question has to be asked.

Where the Hell do Marks and Dembski think they are going?

Where ever it is, they have the front seats on the bus.

Kum bi ya, my Lord, Kum bi ya

Tin foil hats and copies of Mein Kampf all round.

I think Marks and Dembski (Dembski certainly) might be trying to do a little history re-writing.  If their description of WEASEL passes peer review then it *MUST* be correct !

(Hello everyone BTW)

I'm getting worried, I was expecting reams of cut'n'paste obfuscation from KF but instead ... silence ... perhaps it is the calm before the storm.

Date: 2009/08/21 07:52:39, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 21 2009,13:49)
welcome, oh venerable one

Thank you, although I have been lurking for many months.

Date: 2009/08/21 09:06:21, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 20 2009,23:10)
Jerry ends a rambling comment with
   
Quote
My guess is the non latching was introduced later when the embarrassingly fast convergence was pointed out to him.

Guess? Jerry, that's the difference (PM Ras) between you and everyone rational. They looked at the evidence. You guess based, presumably, on gut feeling.

Sun go round earth much Jerry?

EDIT: In the same comment Jerry says
Quote
It would be a bizarre thing if it was not latching given the published results showing no changes once selected and Dawkins’ published views on evolution.

Dawkins' published views happen to include an opinion on if Weasel latched or not (via Wes). It not latched.

Again, I don't have an account at UD at the moment, but somebody want to point Jerry in the direction of those published views?

Do you have any links you can supply?

Date: 2009/08/21 16:09:29, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 21 2009,20:21)
KhorusFreakus screeches loudly

 
Quote
BillB:

You are wrong, as long since step by step and repeatedly pointed out, and are insistent on using ad hominems against me.

You have sacrificed any right to civil discourse.

Good bye

GEM of TARD

Sploink!, there goes my irony meter (Again!!!)

Date: 2009/08/22 06:45:09, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 22 2009,10:18)

Quote
18 –> In either case, these searches would for sure fail to arrive at and preserve say METHINKS*IT*IS*LIKE*A*BEAGLE, as the embedded target in teh program now pushes the string away from the target. That is, the Weasel type algorithm with the wrong target is sure to fail, even while just plain random chance has 1 in 10^40 or so odds of getting home on any one toss.

Wow, you don't get any dumber than that!

Shorter KF:

If you don't specify a target then you won't find a target, therefore it fails.

Date: 2009/08/27 18:13:31, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (khan @ Aug. 27 2009,23:30)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 27 2009,18:21)
i don't understand why this fool is stuck on crankshafts like gordon mullings is stuck on latches.  they are both stuck on stupid and retreating to such irrelevancies and rhetoricisms is about all they have.  the past few days have demonstrated, once again, that there is nothing at UD except pointing and laughing.

I'm amazed at how they think their verbal diarrhea is demonstrative of their great intellect and philosophical insight.

Bunch of fucking pre-teens.

Well I've been travelling, writing last minute presentations and giving talks about robots, so I just did a quick catch up on O'Leary's WEASEL competition thread ...

WOW  - Its like some strange kind of street theatre (pun intended)  I knew KF would never bow to reason or evidence but it is just getting surreal - The irony is that it makes little difference if they (D and M) just remove the reference to WEASEL and replace it with a reference to a partitioned search.

My thanks to R0b, Indium, DeLurker and others for their persistance in this honorable, if perhaps eternally fruitless, task.

Date: 2009/08/27 19:03:11, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 28 2009,00:59)
(AP, UPI) Aug 27, 4:50 PM PDT.
In a shocking recent development, William "Wee Willy" Dembski cried openly while writing in his  Uncommonly Dense blogsite.

"Th..th...those Baylor administrators made me feel inadequate," wept Dembski.

"Th...th..they sexpelled me, right in my culo, and then the...then, uh, uh...th...th..they didn't let me do what I want. I HATE THEM!!!, he shrieked, waving a deadly banstick at passers-by.

On-site reports will continue as negotiators and psychologists hope to reason with Dembski and bring the crisis to a non-violent end.

Quote
27
yakky d
08/27/2009
6:57 pm

Quote
   For the sorts of shenanigans that can occur at those bastions of academic freedom known as universities, check out:


I am aware that all sorts of things can happen at universities.

But you’ve already floated theories involving McWhorter’s associates at the Manhattan Institute and Columbia with absolutely no evidence in hand. Perhaps it would be best to wait until the facts come out before speculating like this.


Fee fy fo fum, I smell the approach of the moderation button.

Or perhaps 'Comments closed'?

Date: 2009/08/30 10:50:04, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 30 2009,16:35)
I would like to see Gordon Mullings fight a black hole

From the perspective of evidence and reason, KF IS a black hole.

Date: 2009/09/02 09:21:15, Link
Author: BillB
My parting words to KF:    
Quote
281
BillB
09/02/2009
8:15 am

The issue here, at its core, is simple. Is the algorithm that Dembski and Marks describe the same as the one Dawkins describes.

The answer, clearly: It is not.

You have consistently failed to deal with this simple issue, resorting instead to verbal gymnastics to try and make it look like all the obvious differences between the two are not really differences, or are irrelevant to the point, and to making derogatory comments about the motivations of those who are questioning your dubious reasoning.

Your profound inability to deal with these simple and straightforward issues is shocking, as is your contempt for academic standards. I see no point it continuing with this, you are beyond the grasp of reason, logic and evidence.

Goodbye


and then KF:    
Quote
282
kairosfocus
09/02/2009
8:36 am

BillB:

The game just changed.

After the red herring, strawman and ad hominem fest overnight, you have proved that you were a harbinger.

What is indicated now is apology and correction on your part; and that of several others.

On basic civility.

Absent that, discussion is over.

G’day.

GEM of TKI

PS: Onlookers Point 5 above answers to anything on the serious merits BillB might otherwise have had. (And of course the just above from him concludes with yet another turnabout false accusation. I think astute onlookers can easily enough see that others, Joseph and I have taken a lot of time and effort to answer to genuine issues on the merits, ever since December last. To slander us as distracting and distortion to try to reduce us to immoral equivalency to those whose sleaziness is revealed above through documented misdirection, misrepresentation and mischaracterisation, is slander, willful and malicious, inexcusable slander. Period. [Save, that this last slander tells us a lot of what we need to know about the real balance of the case on its merits.])


Must ... resist ... replying ... to this moron.

By the way, GCUGreyArea is vanishing from this forum because, if you didn't guess already (and I know at least one of you has) he was me.  I now have no socks anywhere.  The question is, will Clive now moderate me on UD for not being a sock?

Date: 2009/09/08 15:23:44, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 08 2009,21:06)
Quote (socle @ Sep. 06 2009,12:26)
Clive:
     
Quote

Gil is right, Blue Lotus also goes by David v. Squatney. So, Blue, which name would you like to use? To make it easier to follow and for the sake of continuity, just stick with your David v. Squatney handle, and Blue Lotus will now be retired by me.

Just for the record, I know with absolute certainty that David v. Squatney and Blue Lotus are not the same person.  I've made a post to that effect, but DvS is now under moderation.

Clive is on a design inference roll.

[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/education/blown-away-dan-peterson-reviews-dr-stephen-meyers-book-the-signature-in-the-cell-at-the-am


erican-spectator/#comment-333486]DeLurker = JayM[/URL]

Oatmeal Stout = Sal Gal

So, can anyone comment if his mad inference skillz have improved since he got a false positive on Blue Lotus = Squatney?

I'm sure Clive would be very surprised to discover that I am actually Joseph.  Unfortunately I don't think his design detector is capable of anything more that "if it looks a bit like X then it must be X" so I guess my ubersocktard is safe for a while (unless he is watching? ... Clive?)

Date: 2009/09/08 15:26:23, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 08 2009,21:21)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 08 2009,15:06)
Quote (socle @ Sep. 06 2009,12:26)
Clive:
     
Quote

Gil is right, Blue Lotus also goes by David v. Squatney. So, Blue, which name would you like to use? To make it easier to follow and for the sake of continuity, just stick with your David v. Squatney handle, and Blue Lotus will now be retired by me.

Just for the record, I know with absolute certainty that David v. Squatney and Blue Lotus are not the same person.  I've made a post to that effect, but DvS is now under moderation.

Clive is on a design inference roll.

[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/education/blown-away-dan-peterson-reviews-dr-stephen-meyers-book-the-signature-in-the-cell-at-the-am


erican-spectator/#comment-333486]DeLurker = JayM[/URL]

Oatmeal Stout = Sal Gal

So, can anyone comment if his mad inference skillz have improved since he got a false positive on Blue Lotus = Squatney?

Maybe he's getting cute with IP adresses?

Ha, I have at least two proxies!

Date: 2009/09/10 09:44:27, Link
Author: BillB
Learned hand responds to KF:  
Quote
321
Learned Hand
09/10/2009
9:04 am
Quote

(KF) I of course refuse to go off on his latest red herring headed off to as strawman soaked in ad hominems.

If you post your mailing address, I would be quite happy to send you a thesaurus.

LOL.

Date: 2009/09/15 09:08:15, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 15 2009,12:16)
A Tard is Born
niwrad takes a lesson from Donald Rumsfeld:      
Quote
The Darwinism contradiction of repair systems
niwrad
When a thing is false, is false from all points of view. In fact it cannot exist a point of view from which the thing becomes true, given it is false, rather each view point manifests a particular aspect of the falsity of the thing. As a consequence, when a thing is false, whether we suppose it is true we get contradictions, one for every point of view we consider the thing from. All that is simple logic.
It gets worse from there.  niwrad's difficulty with English also takes its toll.  In fact, there's a possibility that his name is more a case of severe dyslexia than trying to be cute.  

BillB tries to explain in the only reply so far, but I don't think there's much hope.

Joseph, being unable to cope with science, unzips his trousers and waves his ignorance at me:  
Quote
9
Joseph
09/15/2009
7:27 am

BillB:

   
Quote
Take a toy example of a simple replicator that generates variable copies of its self.


And where do you get that from- a magic shop?

Ya see BB, your scenario can’t even get started.


Now I expect KF to reply at any minute announcing that this is all a dripping straw man because it doesn't explain the origin of self replicators.

Date: 2009/09/15 09:45:31, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 15 2009,15:40)
 
Quote
However, the dynamical-empirical semantic fundamentals of Weasel and why implicit latching non-latching is a credible account for the showcased runs c 1986 remain the same. (And that is why I rely on and prioritise dynamical-empirical semantic contortion methods.)

Fixed that for you KF

Date: 2009/09/16 09:19:22, Link
Author: BillB
niwrad:
Quote
Nakashima #40

I am claiming that any error-correction mechanism cannot evolve by mean of a process of random errors inside a complex system. A process of random variations is non teleological for definition (randomness has no purpose). A repair system is teleological for definition (has the purpose of fixing errors because “know” how things should be). Here “know” has to be intended in metaphorical sense, in that the real knowledge is in the designer, who necessarily knows the controlled system and its repair mechanisms. A teleological thing cannot arise from a non teleological thing. In other words, purpose or goal cannot come from nothingness.


Shorter niwrad: I define self repair as teleological, therefore self repair mechanisms have to be intelligently designed.

Date: 2009/10/04 14:26:02, Link
Author: BillB
Quote
20
BillB
10/04/2009

2:25 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

   The difference is the implication that pornography wasn’t objectively morally wrong with the preface “Whether we like it or not”.

There is no such implication unless you are trying to claim that no one at all likes pornography.

Whether we like it or not Anti-Semitism has been around for a long time!

Now are you going to accuse me of anti-Semitism for making that observation.


That about sums it up.

Date: 2009/10/04 15:35:08, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (BillB @ Oct. 04 2009,20:26)
Quote
20
BillB
10/04/2009

2:25 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

   The difference is the implication that pornography wasn’t objectively morally wrong with the preface “Whether we like it or not”.

There is no such implication unless you are trying to claim that no one at all likes pornography.

Whether we like it or not Anti-Semitism has been around for a long time!

Now are you going to accuse me of anti-Semitism for making that observation.


That about sums it up.

my other comments haven't materialized either - I wonder if the same fate has befallen Learned Hand or Nakashima.

Perhaps it was all a trap.  Say something obviously wrong about a critic of ID, wait for outraged comments from other critics then post a reply dismissing their outrage and silently ban them to make the lack of response look like a victory.

In other news ...

I handed in my PhD thesis last week.  YIPEEEE!

Date: 2009/10/06 00:31:42, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (sledgehammer @ Oct. 05 2009,19:55)
That and "cleverly" hiding "Evolutionary Informatics" and "this is designed" in the starting strings for the partitioned search.
But I thought the most egregious error was characterizing evolutionary search as "monkey at a typewriter", the only entry in the section labeled "Critiquing Evolutionary Search Algorithms".
That should have been caught by the reviewers IMHO:

   
Quote

4 Critiquing Evolutionary Search Algorithms

Christensen and Oppacher note the sometimes-outrageous claims that had been made of specific optimiza-
tion algorithms" [7]. Their concern is well founded. In computer simulations of evolutionary search,
researchers often construct a complicated computational software environment and then evolve a group of
agents in that environment. When subjected to rounds of selection and variation, the agents can demon-
strate remarkable success at resolving the problem in question. Often the claim is made, or implied, that
the search algorithm deserves full credit for this remarkable success. Such claims, however, are often made
(1) without numerically or analytically assessing the endogenous information that gauges the difficulty of
the problem to be solved, and (2) without acknowledging, much less estimating, the active information that
is folded into the simulation for the search to reach a solution.

4.1 Monkey at a Typewriter
A "monkey at a typewriter" is often used to illustrate the viability of random evolutionary search. It also illustrates the need for active information in even modestly sized searches...

(my bold)
WTF is "random evolutionary search"?  Since "Active Info" is defined by them as the improvement over random search, so that last sentance is bullcrap.

Edited just because.

I'm not so sure the intention was to characterise evolutionary algorithms as a "monkey at a typewriter", although their wording is a bit cloudy.  They may be referring to Dawkins use of WEASEL where he compares it to the idea of moneys at typewriters in order to demonstate how cumulative selection gets round the proplem of a purely random sampling

Date: 2009/10/06 02:44:00, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (sledgehammer @ Oct. 06 2009,07:36)
I see your point, Bill.  On a charitable re-read from that perspective, I concede that M&D might be trying to say something like "Monkeys at typewriters are sometimes used as a contrasting counterexample to demonstrate the effectiveness of evolutionary algorithms"
That still doesn't explain their use of the term "random evolutionary search", not to mention that it's immediately followed by that "mass of the earth" and "planet destroying" 147 bits hokum.  They then proceed to show how partitioned search can solve the problem "in milliseconds".  Nowhere do I see evolutionary algorithms critiqued, much less discussed, unless they somehow consider partitioned search as an example of an evolutionary algorithm.  I suppose that would be in line with their mistaken interpretation of Weasel.
 That plus the section title, "Critiquing Evolutionary Search Algorithms" followed by a single section titled "Monkey at a Typewriter" seems too deliberate from my admittedly cynical perspective.

Yes - Dawkins uses the monkeys idea to illustrate the viability of random evolutionary search - by contrasting random sampling (monkeys) with cumulative selection (Evo).  Their insertion of random is unwarranted - along with the jump to discussing the mass of lots of suns ... you can smell the vapour wafting off the oil of ad homenim soaked strawmen slowly smouldering in the subtext - I guess it served to distract the reviewers long enough to get into print.

Date: 2009/10/06 02:45:52, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (BillB @ Oct. 06 2009,08:44)
Quote (sledgehammer @ Oct. 06 2009,07:36)
I see your point, Bill.  On a charitable re-read from that perspective, I concede that M&D might be trying to say something like "Monkeys at typewriters are sometimes used as a contrasting counterexample to demonstrate the effectiveness of evolutionary algorithms"
That still doesn't explain their use of the term "random evolutionary search", not to mention that it's immediately followed by that "mass of the earth" and "planet destroying" 147 bits hokum.  They then proceed to show how partitioned search can solve the problem "in milliseconds".  Nowhere do I see evolutionary algorithms critiqued, much less discussed, unless they somehow consider partitioned search as an example of an evolutionary algorithm.  I suppose that would be in line with their mistaken interpretation of Weasel.
 That plus the section title, "Critiquing Evolutionary Search Algorithms" followed by a single section titled "Monkey at a Typewriter" seems too deliberate from my admittedly cynical perspective.

Yes - Dawkins uses the monkeys idea to illustrate the viability of random evolutionary search - by contrasting random sampling (monkeys) with cumulative selection (Evo).  Their insertion of random is unwarranted - along with the jump to discussing the mass of lots of suns ... you can smell the vapour wafting off the oil of ad homenim soaked strawmen slowly smouldering in the subtext - I guess it served to distract the reviewers long enough to get into print.

I should point out that on my first reading of the paper I think I interpreted it the same way you did - evidence to the opacity of their writing.

Date: 2009/10/06 11:56:12, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Turncoat @ Oct. 06 2009,16:59)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 06 2009,05:42)
Quote (Turncoat @ Oct. 05 2009,18:56)
 
Quote (sledgehammer @ Oct. 05 2009,18:06)
   
Quote (Turncoat @ Oct. 05 2009,15:57)
The latest at Bounded Science:
             
Quote
Resolving a moral dilemma

I made a promise to Bob Marks that I would not divulge my correspondence with him regarding drafts of the paper that IEEE SMC-A published last month. But I did not know that he and Dembski would resort to trickery to get the paper published, and, after considerable agonizing, I've decided that the better course is to break my word.

False attribution of partitioned search to Dawkins is the not the full extent of the academic dishonesty in the article.

This is the first I've heard of sneaky tactics or trickery in the path to publication.  Any details you can share? Give us dirty laundry!  We like dirty laundry.

Another blog entry is on the way. Omitting the names of the two evolutionary algorithms, as well as neglecting to cite the relevant literature, was a trick to keep the editors and reviewers from scrutinizing the redundant and/or worthless analysis Dembski and Marks provided. If there had been explicit mention of evolutionary algorithms, the editor-in-chief might have handed the paper off to a different associate editor, and the associate editor might have lined up better-informed reviewers.

I had already blocked out to have a section on the neologism issue in my response, but hadn't really taken it to the academic dishonesty conclusion. I was thinking more in terms of how it was another way that poor scholarship was expressed.

I'm a bit worried that lodging academic dishonesty complaints will fire up the old "expelled" propaganda mill. I really will listen to arguments against doing it.

I agree that a complaint would present an opportunity for them to cry conspiracy but it would also be a shame to let them get away with academic dishonesty ... tricky one.

The alternative I suppose is to refute the paper from a technical standpoint through academic journals, and try and hint at the possible dishonesty through that means.

Whatever happens there will be claims of a conspiracy to expell ID (Even though the paper isn't about ID) and the paper will be hailed as peer reviewed research supporting ID.

Date: 2009/10/07 02:25:34, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (djmullen @ Oct. 07 2009,07:27)
I seem to have been silently banninated from Uncommon Descent.

I think I have too - it will be known in the future as the great purge of October where the dictators of UD got fed up with having their opinions questioned and expelled anyone with opposing views.

Date: 2009/10/07 09:24:31, Link
Author: BillB
tribune7:
Quote
61
tribune7
10/07/2009
8:03 am

I vote for charity — for Seversky.

I whole-heartily defend his freedom not to give money to organizations whose views he doesn’t share.

But can we all agree that the underlying incident that is the basis for this discussion shows that the NSF has lost all credibility to speak as any kind of authority?

Oh, and would Seversky defend our freedom not to give money to organizations whose views we don’t share i.e. like the NSF and a host of other tax-supported institutions?

So if the whole organisation has lost its credibility because of a few employees surfing for porn, then what does that say about the authority of the Catholic church?

Date: 2009/10/08 10:36:09, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (REC @ Oct. 08 2009,16:17)
Please won't someone think of the children!!!

And a post that will never see the light of day.....

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Lets say I’m a atheist materialist that favors property rights. No god, I just like my stuff. The first and foremost property is one’s own body. Violations to that right (and particularly minors who are less able to defend their right) should be prosecuted.

I suppose this blog argues all legal codes ever evolved from the Old Testament? You should really take a look at Numbers 31:18.

Or maybe this should this be the punishment?
“If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl…..” Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NI
….

You beat me to it:
 
Quote
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

I have a daughter, and plenty of instincts to protect her, I also like living in communities where I feel that I and my family are safe (it would be a bad survival tactic to do otherwise). I wouldn’t want someone to force themselves on my daughter, and thanks to an ability to feel empathy I don’t want to see that happen to anyone else.

The result is a belief that it is wrong for people to force sexual acts on unwilling participants.

Given that the Bible has this piece of advice:
 
Quote
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 New International Version

It is clear that rape is disapproved of, but do you believe that the punishment it advises is just – particularly from the girls point of view?

Date: 2009/10/08 12:35:58, Link
Author: BillB
I just realized why there isn't an rss feed from UD for individual comments - if there were it would be easier to keep track of the vanishing posts.

Date: 2009/10/09 05:32:02, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 09 2009,09:05)
Clive is such an amazingly shallow thinker.

He is asked:    
Quote
Please explain how, if slavery is objectively wrong, could people accept its practice as moral for hundreds, if not thousands, of years?

His reply:    
Quote
Because people do wrong things, if there were no objective morality, you can’t really say that slavery is wrong. In acting as if it really is wrong, and that others “should” agree, you have to know that you have to assert this on firmer ground than your own personal and private preference.

So people did "wrong things" for generations all the time knowing it was wrong when "objective morality" was considered.
Clive does not actually address the question asked in any meaningful way.

I guess it's because he could not find a suitable pre-packaged quote from Lewis.

Link

Somehow I doubt this will see the light of day:
 
Quote
107
BillB
10/09/2009
5:30 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Clive:

 
Quote
   Because people do wrong things, if there were no objective morality, you can’t really say that slavery is wrong. In acting as if it really is wrong, and that others “should” agree, you have to know that you have to assert this on firmer ground than your own personal and private preference.


I still don’t understand how you know objectively that slavery is morally wrong – or to put it another way: How do you know objectively that the Christians who supported slavery were wrong and that you are right?

Date: 2009/10/09 05:34:40, Link
Author: BillB
I predict lots of hate fuelled posts at UD about this (From the Guardian):  
Quote
The US president, Barack Obama, was today awarded the 2009 Nobel peace prize "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples".

The Nobel committee said "only rarely has a person such as Obama captured the world's attention and given his people hope for a better future".

"His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population," the citation said.

The committee said Obama, who only took up the presidency in January, had been acknowledged for his calls to reduce the world's stockpile of nuclear weapons and working for world peace.

"Obama has as president created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play."
...

Date: 2009/10/09 10:32:27, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Zachriel @ Oct. 09 2009,12:51)
ALERT!

Learned Hand says he's locked in a closet with J. Davison and D. Scott! He's obviously desperate.

 
Quote
Hi -

I was recently banned from UD as Learned Hand. (I assume, as a man of erudition, that you were a fan of my work.) Id love to contribute to the ATBC board, but for some reason Im stuck in limbo. Ive sent some emails, but Im still awaiting authorization, and cannot post or contact members whose email addresses are private. Is there a feedback link Im missing somewhere, or some part of the process Ive skipped?

Its hugely frustrating to be barred from UD and ATBC simultaneously! Probably not many people are unwelcome at both boards, after all. I feel as if Im locked in a closet with J. Davison and D. Scott. For the love of god, and the spite of Barry Arrington, please help free me from this indignity!


Please lend Learned Hand a hand!


[EMAIL=anfractuous@gmail.com" target="_blank]
anfractuous at gmail.com[/EMAIL]

I think I had this problem when I signed up here - I got no verification e-mail - it turned out that googlemail had put it in the junk mail folder.

Date: 2009/10/11 06:23:19, Link
Author: BillB
before they get deleted:  
Quote
189
delmot
10/11/2009
5:31 am

I think these threads are embarrassing and insulting. Not to atheists, most of whom I’m pretty sure are secure and confident in their knowledge of morality, but to christians, who apparently cannot figure themselves what is right and wrong but need to be told by an authority figure; and who also apparently cannot figure out how to use the internet discover what some non-religious theories of morality might be. Hint: wikipedia is pretty good at that kind of thing.

and:  
Quote
190
delmot
10/11/2009
5:33 am

Genuine question: what would you do if God asked you to sacrifice your firstborn child?

that, I suspect, is one of those questions you are not allowed to ask.

Date: 2009/10/23 06:31:56, Link
Author: BillB
Remember niwrads thermodynamics thread

He cited the biologos foundation as believing that information is beamed to earth from the sun:

 
Quote
14
niwrad
10/14/2009
9:40 am

Doomsday Smith #11,

Your claim that no evolutionist considers the Sun as source of biological complexity is contradicted by many examples. For instance read the following recent statement by Biologos Foundation (of Dr. Francis Collins, a major evolutionist scientist):

 
Quote
“With biological evolution however, the system being considered is not the universe, but the Earth. And the Earth is not an isolated system. This means that an increase in order can occur on Earth as long as there is an energy input — most notably the light of the sun. Therefore, energy input from the sun could give rise to the increase in order on Earth INCLUDING COMPLEX MOLECULES AND ORGANISMS.”


Your “dead horse” is not so dead after all.


and:
 
Quote
23
niwrad
10/15/2009
2:19 am

BillB #14

   
Quote
 
Quote
“Therefore, energy input from the sun could give rise to the increase in order on Earth INCLUDING COMPLEX MOLECULES AND ORGANISMS.”


   This is not a claim that the sun delivers biological complexity, it simply states that mechanisms which can produce biological complexity derive power from the sun.


Don’t defend the indefensible. “X gives rise to the increase in order on Y” is fully different from “X powers Y” and the guys at Biologos Foundation know it.


I thought it worth chasing up so I e-mailed the Biologos foundation and posted this response:
 
Quote
86
BillB
10/22/2009
10:57 am

niwrad:

   
Quote
 Don’t defend the indefensible. “X gives rise to the increase in order on Y” is fully different from “X powers Y” and the guys at Biologos Foundation know it.


I e-mailed the Biologos Foundation about this quote:

     
Quote
With biological evolution however, the system being considered is not the universe, but the Earth. And the Earth is not an isolated system. This means that an increase in order can occur on Earth as long as there is an energy input — most notably the light of the sun. Therefore, energy input from the sun could give rise to the increase in order on Earth INCLUDING COMPLEX MOLECULES AND ORGANISMS.


They (after a long delay) replied to say:

 
Quote
  . . . You’re right that nowhere in the Questions’ response were we making a statement about ‘information’ being delivered to Earth via light beams from the sun. We meant only to clarify that the Earth itself is not a closed system, as is often mistakenly assumed in conversations about the 2nd law.



I'm surprised that Clive passed it through moderation, I didn't think contradicting evidence was allowed.

Date: 2009/10/26 08:10:18, Link
Author: BillB
We're doomed!

From the Guardian yesterday:

Teach both evolution and creationism say 54% of Britons
 
Quote
More than half of British adults think that intelligent design and creationism should be taught alongside evolution in schoolscience lessons – a proportion higher than in the US.

An Ipsos Mori survey questioned 11,768 adults from 10 countries on how the theory of evolution should be taught in school science lessons.

About 54% of the 973 polled Britons agreed with the view: "Evolutionary theories should be taught in science lessons in schools together with other possible perspectives, such as intelligent design and creationism."

. . . . .

Date: 2009/10/30 03:24:22, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 29 2009,23:59)
Quote (Rrr @ Oct. 29 2009,17:23)
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 29 2009,17:05)
 
Quote (Rrr @ Oct. 29 2009,14:00)
There, that's my reactance, whether it is germanium or simply sillycon.

It's elementary.

I emit, this is my last GaAsP. Probably just a transient, not solid, state. It's only for collectors who wouldn't have three legs to stand on without this base, nor a case. All chrystal clear now? Because to amplify, I cannot semiconduct this disc-ussion e-hole lot longer.

I'll christen these PUNRUNS, if that's okay.

Dope.  This whole thread is below the substrate, I'm close to having a reverse breakdown.

Date: 2009/11/04 18:11:28, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 04 2009,21:59)
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 04 2009,14:32)
 
Quote (jerry @ Nov. 04 2009,whenever)
I know he has a PhD in mathematics but he failed to understand the implications of Behe’s Edge of Evolution and on his blog mocked him because of his short sidedness.

On behalf of all small polygons, I object to this slur.

It's a deep-seeded short sidedness, too.

sideism is a terrible thing.

Date: 2009/11/14 14:25:30, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 14 2009,19:25)
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 14 2009,10:44)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 12 2009,04:23)
   
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 11 2009,20:25)
       
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 09 2009,04:33)
         
Quote (Alan Fox @ Nov. 08 2009,16:20)
         
Quote (someotherguy @ Nov. 08 2009,10:14)
             
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 08 2009,14:38)
               
Quote (RDK @ Nov. 08 2009,13:24)
               
Quote (someotherguy @ Nov. 08 2009,13:06)
                   
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 08 2009,12:09)
                   
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 08 2009,09:30)
                 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 05 2009,07:25)

Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 05 2009,00:03)

Quote (keiths @ Nov. 04 2009,23:02)

Quote (RDK @ Nov. 04 2009,18:07)

Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 04 2009,19:13)

Quote (keiths @ Nov. 04 2009,18:54)

Quote (keiths @ Nov. 04 2009,16:43)

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 04 2009,13:59)

Quote (keiths @ Nov. 04 2009,14:32)

Quote (jerry @ Nov. 04 2009,whenever)
I know he has a PhD in mathematics but he failed to understand the implications of Behe’s Edge of Evolution and on his blog mocked him because of his short sidedness.

On behalf of all small polygons, I object to this slur.

It's a deep-seeded short sidedness, too.

It's a doggy-dog world, for all intensive purposes.

Jerry is a bowl in a china shop.

Jerry deserves a pullet surprise, but this is a mute point.

Indeed, for it seems Jerry could care less about what you have to say.

That's because he's a naval gazer.

I thought he won the Noble Prize for naval grazing.

It's time for him to shit and get off the pot.

BA77 warms the coggles of my heart. Yours?

RB, I think you need to curve your enthusiasm for these eggcorns.

They say the pun is mightier than the sword.

I have nothing but the up-most respect for BA^77, irregardless of his rather lengthy posts.

Is this what you folks call a nested hierarchy?

I have it on good authority that no such thing exists.

Wes'll be so mad if you break his forum!

Like BA77, you speak with undo bias.

Anyone have more eggcorns? Speak now or forever hold your piece.

Noledge is power, sayeth Frost122585. And just saying your a Chrsitain does not make you one. It simply doe snot.

Clive, baby: "If the new atheists (folks like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett) are making the party line, Rosenhouse is just towing it like a pack mule."

Rosenhouse is a coal-hearted Darwinist.

I'm hoping that this will make the most nested quote completly square ...

Date: 2009/11/18 03:58:13, Link
Author: BillB
Clive:  
Quote
83
Clive Hayden
11/18/2009
2:39 am

Graham,
     
Quote
What do we have to do (besides grovel) to please you ?

Just be civil. The posts you see are civil, but you don’t see all posts.

Those of us who are in 'moderation' know that Clive is Lying - unfortunately making factual observations like that will get you banned.

Clive, like many conservative Christians, thinks that the definition of civil behaviour is 'people who don't disagree with my warped preconceptions too much or bother me with troublesome evidence and fact'

Date: 2009/11/18 16:40:20, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (khan @ Nov. 18 2009,22:31)
Quote (REC @ Nov. 18 2009,17:29)
Anyone else getting a white screen over at UD?

Am I perma-banned, blocked, or did someone forget to pay the bill?

I can view.

I had momentary problems but it is back now - a glitch in the matrix - it usually means they changed something ...

Date: 2009/11/18 16:53:34, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 18 2009,22:26)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 18 2009,16:14)
But do NOT change that shit-eating Mona Lisa smile.

Disclaimer: This is not me, it is your m... I mean, I look more like Denyse O'Leary.

And now for something completely different:

Faked orgasm:
[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/education/intelligent-design-book-delivers-blow-to-darwin-cracks-amazon-com-best-seller-list-in-scie


nce/#comments]http://www.uncommondescent.com/educati....omments[/URL]

Went to Amazon's bestseller list and could not find it. But maybe Amazon gives different results when contacted from overseas?

When I force my browser to go to the .com site I found it at 95 in the top 100 books in the science category - Dawkins 'greatest show on earth' is at 6 so Meyers is lagging behind a bit, it is also quite a bit behind 'Home Cheese Making: Recipes for 75 Delicious Cheeses' by Ricki Carroll at No 77 in science best sellers!

Date: 2009/11/19 06:02:18, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 19 2009,09:49)
First creationism would say there is a common blueprint.
So one should expect a sameness in dna. Its not a trail of heritage but a expression of bits and pieces from a common factory.

Rubbish - you need to demonstrate with some evidence why the designer would conform to that pattern of creation.  It might seem logical to you that a designer would make everything based on a  common underlying platform but from the perspective of a deity there may be many ways to create living organisms that are all built on different fundamental principles, who are you to decide that this deity would only choose one method of creation.

It is quite arrogant of you to assume you know what god would do and why.

Everything is consistent with a god who can do anything.

Date: 2009/11/21 05:23:06, Link
Author: BillB
I don't trust the moderation policy at UD so I'll re-post here so people can decide if I was breaching the moderation policy - from the Put up or shut up thread:
Quote
18
BillB
11/21/2009

6:16 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Jehu:

 
Quote
 Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm, Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
   Thanks for the comments, Ray.

   Cheers
   Phil




Quote
   What part of “I just completed Mike’ Nature trick … to hide the decline” did you not get?


It is a good question but perhaps it just as important to ask it of yourself.

First off, don’t you also find it suspicious that they are “adding in the real temps” to a series of something – it seems an odd thing to do if you are trying to fake data – and it would be nice to know what series they are talking about.

Secondly, do you understand what the word ‘trick’ means in this context? Are they trying to ‘trick’ us or are they using a clever technique to improve the readability of a data series – I developed a trick for representing data during my PhD but the trick was in making a set of data easier to understand, not in misleading the reader – Perhaps a preceding e-mail pointed out that a graphic was confusing so someone suggested a particular trick to improve clarity? This is quite common and making complex data easier to understand is not fraud.

Next – do you know what ‘decline’ they are referring to? are they inserting real temperatures into a temperature series to hide the decline in temperatures? that makes no sense! so perhaps they are trying to hide a measurement artefact that makes a trend they are studying hard to identify in a noisy data set. Perhaps the decline they refer to is the annual drop in temperature caused by winter when what they really want is are global mean temps over a decade? perhaps the decline is not temperature but some other element that obscures an important – and real – signal in the data?

I don’t know which of these scenarios might be true, but like a good sceptic I won’t jump to conclusions based on a single e-mail with no context that can be interpreted in many different ways – unless of course you have a prior commitment to a particular view?

Quote
   “Mike” by the way is none other than climate fraud Michael Mann who based his entire hockey stick nonsense on data from a single tree somewhere in Russia…


The ‘hockey stick’ data has been reproduced independently by dozens of other research groups using various data sources – multiple lines of evidence indicate the same overall pattern – are you claiming that they are all faking them as well?

Date: 2009/11/21 09:56:36, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 21 2009,15:06)
 
Quote (Reg @ Nov. 21 2009,06:46)
         
Quote (Ptaylor @ Nov. 21 2009,04:07)
My - who could this comment be aimed at?
   
Quote
28

Prof_P.Olofsson

11/21/2009

12:15 am

Do you often post private email conversation without consent? Strange behavior. At least spell my name right.

Dembski is so lacking in ways to publish and discuss his work that the best method of handling criticism of a paper submitted for publication is via a comments thread on his blog?  ???

   
Quote
William Dembski: Peter O.: You publicly charged me with making a very elementary error in my field of expertise, probability/measure theory. I then pointed the error out to you in correspondence. You had the opportunity to correct it here on this blog, where you made the charge. You didn’t. Also, the correspondence in question was copied to my colleague Robert Marks. So no, I don’t make a habit of posting private emails. And yes, I make exceptions when I perceive that people aren’t playing straight with me.

I’ll get your last name right in the future.

As far as having the opportunity to correct it on Uncommon Descent, there was only a short time between the email exchange and when Dembski posted the email exchange. However, in a situation like this, I'm not sure there is much expectation of privacy. The emails read as more of a conversational aside than a private conversation. Neverthless, Dembski should have let Prof_P.Olofsson correct the record himself. The business about "playing straight" is just silly.

PS. The reason this comment is posted here instead of on Uncommon Descent is because it is metacommentary and not addressed to the actual topic. "Uncommonly Dense Thread" on AtBC is the proper forum for metacommentary.

Well spotted, I didn't look at the times and dates of the e-mails - its a case of "before you get a chance to correct the record yourself I'm going to chastise you for not correcting the record yourself - HA! Gotcha!"

So the question now is, will DrDrDembski silently ban the professor and then chastise him some more for not responding?

Date: 2009/12/11 00:18:51, Link
Author: BillB
StephenB:  
Quote

1) How do you know that your moral standard is absolute? (By “absolute” I assume you mean “objective” and by “know” I mean “justified true belief” which is by no means the same as “I just know.”)

It is both inate and self evident, just as knowledge of the law of non-contradiction is inate and self-evident. Of course, we can be brainwashed out of it by fanaticism or we can brainwash ourselves out of it by behaving badly and looking for moral loopholes.

2) If someone else has a different moral standard that he claims is absolute, how do we determine who is correct?

We put it to the test of reason. All moral truths are reasonable if properly understood.


I can therefore conclude that my own innate and self evident sense of morality must be objectively justified and, having reasoned it out as someone who properly understands it, I can say with absolute certainty that StephenB has been brainwashed into a state of immoral fanaticism.

TARD

Date: 2009/12/25 14:42:21, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (dnmlthr @ Dec. 22 2009,17:27)
Just adding some padding, nothing to see here, move along.

ETA: Huh, strange. Looked like a classic pagination bug.

ditto

Date: 2010/01/01 03:26:54, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 01 2010,07:42)
 
Quote (sparc @ Dec. 31 2009,23:15)
Happy new year.

Yes, everyone.

I'm an ayearist - I don't believe in years.

Your new years celebrations are just nonsense superstition.  The evidence is against you, your years are based on blind faith in the idea that the earth orbits the sun in an ellipse yet there are no evidence to support this.  Ya see the earth is at the centre so there is no years. Saying otherwise is self referential incoherence COFFEE.

...

Happy passing-of-the-arbitary-demarcation-point-for-counting-solar-orbits everyone!

Date: 2010/01/07 15:02:29, Link
Author: BillB
A quick snapshot as Barry and/or Clive re-writes history to make it look like everyone agrees with them:
 
Quote
1
waterbear
01/06/2010
2:39 pm

I tried to post this earlier, but it seemed to disappear. Apologies if it ends up being double-posted:

   Cochrane is impatient with the “dignity criterion,” because it prevents actions that he deems beneficial, for example medical experiments on human guinea pigs that might lead to advances in medicine.

Where in Cochrane’s paper does he advocate experimenting on live humans? Reading the whole paper requires a subscription so I’ve only seen the extracts Barry Arrington has posted, and they can be interpreted in two ways; as part of a paper arguing “Let’s cut up live babies for science!”, or as a part of a paper arguing “There are some ethical problems in which dignity is not a helpful concept, so we need new criteria to use in those situations so we can safeguard people’s wellbeing” and then maybe proposing some of those critieria. Without seeing the whole paper it’s not possible to know which it is.
Can you please post those part(s) of Cochrane’s paper in which he advocates using human guinea pigs?

2
Clive Hayden
01/06/2010
3:56 pm

Mark Frank,

   But while this conception of dignity now makes sense, it only does so by being grounded in extremely controversial claims that not all individuals can reasonably be expected to accept. It is impossible to prove that human beings do stand in this special relationship with God; and it is also something that many people, due to different religious views or the absence of any religious view, reject out of hand. We would surely be wise to avoid using an understanding of dignity that rests on such controversial premises. And this is especially true when addressing the often complex and contested issues in bioethics.

Ahhh, interesting tactic. Deny something, and then call it controversial, and say that we cannot use an argument because it is controversial. But what’s good for the goose is also good for the gander. I deny his argument, and it is therefore controversial, and we wouldn’t want to base bioethics on anything controversial, now would we?

3
Dave Wisker
01/07/2010
2:54 pm

Bye bye Dave.

4
Mung
01/07/2010
3:42 pm

Premise 1: This concept (dignity as inherent moral worth) only makes sense in the Christian religious tradition.

I don’t see any reason to think this premise is true. Does Cochrane give adequate argumentation for it’s truth?

Conclusion: We would surely be wise to avoid using an understanding of dignity that rests on such controversial premises. And this is especially true when addressing the often complex and contested issues in bioethics.
Does the conclusion follow?

I don’t see how it does. It’s a non sequitur.

Clive@3

   But what’s good for the goose is also good for the gander.

Good point. Does he have a non-controversial understanding of dignity, or does he want to do away with dignity altogether?

Date: 2010/01/11 04:34:53, Link
Author: BillB
He he he:  
Quote
13
Heinrich
01/11/2010
3:34 am
   
Quote
One thing which I think ID can contribute to any historical aspect of earth history is shaving off hypothetical creatures.

How will ID do that, other by by fiat (i.e. saying they don’t exist)? How will it build an argument that these hypotheticals don’t exist?
     
Quote
There are roughly 250,000 species that have been identified in the fossil record, and well over 1,000,000 species that exist today. Taken at face value, even if every species in the fossil record has gone extinct (which they haven’t), that means that 80% of species that ever existed ARE STILL ALIVE

Eh? You’re assuming that every species there has been has been found fossilised. I’m, well, sceptical about this – do tardigrades fossilise well, for example?

Date: 2010/01/14 06:39:47, Link
Author: BillB
[quote=carlsonjok,Jan. 14 2010,11:33]
Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 14 2010,00:49)

Actually, Joe said one time that his injury in Iraq came when he was there demonstrating bomb detection equipment.  That would hang together with his "Many dealing with ion trap mobilty spectrometry & mass spectrometry. Many more dealing with electronic circuitry and electricity."

Here is a couple links.

He was demonstrating this perhaps?

Date: 2010/01/14 08:47:04, Link
Author: BillB
timaeus:
   
Quote
I wonder how the Dover Trial would have gone if all the scientific witnesses for the plaintiffs had been so bluntly honest about the limitations of their scientific knowledge. silently banned from speaking and had any existing testimony struck from the court record. But of course, the Dover Trial wasn’t about science — it was about politics. religion.


There, fixed that for you ...

Date: 2010/01/14 08:49:18, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 14 2010,14:42)
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 14 2010,08:27)
If critter is monitoring this channel, please drop a note to Timaeus that the replies were deleted.

Thanks Cabal.

I just hope timaeus gets to see it before it gets deleted, and Cabal gets banned for linking to AtBC.

Date: 2010/01/14 13:04:59, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 14 2010,13:30)
   
Quote
GilDodgen: I was warned about the consequences of this heresy by You Know Who, and I’m prepared to suffer it.
   
Quote
feebish: Voldemort?

: )

Just kidding. I don’t read that pagan stuff.

You know who? ... Voldemort - no, you mean He who shall not be named - Gordemul - what a GEM

Date: 2010/01/17 15:44:31, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 17 2010,21:37)
Hmmmm  
Quote


39

Clive Hayden

01/17/2010

4:26 pm

Joseph,

 
Quote
Don’t ask for help you intellectual coward.


I’m afraid this qualifies you for moderation.

So I guess we can expect him to be released from moderation by the end of the day.  Clive is to much of a coward to let UD run for more than a few hours without his Gestapo captain on duty, besides, I think Joseph knows where Clive lives.

Date: 2010/01/19 16:09:52, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Maya @ Jan. 19 2010,18:50)
Jerry shows a sense of humor:  
Quote
I never put myself on record. Otherwise I might have to defend something.

Clivebaby (yes, we know you're still reading here), you know that a sense of humor is a sure sign of a sockpuppet.  Ban him!

Heh, it gets better - a moment of clarity:
 
Quote
...
Meanwhile if you read all my comments you will notice I never say anything of substance or try to explain anything and continually try to evade answers.
...

We noticed, unfortunately Clivebaby has a bit of a blind spot.

Date: 2010/01/21 10:11:29, Link
Author: BillB
Slightly OT but I just loaded UD and pharyngula into two tabs in firefix when my JavaVM started, a PDF download dialog popped up and my antivirus screamed at me about a trojan download.

Not sure which of the two sites might have caused this but has it happened to anyone else?

. . .or am I seeing a causal relationship where there is none.

Date: 2010/01/27 07:33:40, Link
Author: BillB
Joseph:
Quote


Nakashima-san-

   
Quote
A personal question, why can’t you keep a conversation civil? Why do you include the “talking out of your arse” and “waste of bandwidth” comments?


I am civil given civil opponents…

The definition of civil being:
DON'T QUESTION MY CLAIMS, ASK FOR EVIDENCE OR DISAGREE WITH ME IN ANY WAY.

Date: 2010/01/28 03:27:47, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 28 2010,04:15)
Quote (Ptaylor @ Jan. 26 2010,20:57)
Densey's latest bit of idiocy seems to have provoked some sort of tard chain reaction over at UD. The ineducable Borne offers this:
Code Sample
Under Darwinism there is no reason for anything except survival for survival’s sake. How boring.
Why should anything survive?
Why should packs of neurons survive?
Materialism utterly fails to provide any viable reasons or answers.
Darwinism sucks.

And elsewhere Clivebaby provides:    
Quote
Seversky,

   
Quote
   For creationists there is a very big problem. Think about it. If we find one other planet with life, especially if that life has reached a similar stage of development, then we are no longer unique. If we find many other life -bearing planets then we are not even special. It then becomes a lot harder to justify the claim that we are God’s chosen people or special favorite.


Quantity doesn’t negate quality. You cannot assume as fact a notion of quality by virtue of a quantity.

Pure tard's breaking out all over.

Clive's unique! Just like everyone else...

Yes!, we're all individuals!
...

Date: 2010/01/29 02:16:31, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 29 2010,02:25)
Quote (BillB @ Jan. 28 2010,01:27)
Yes!, we're all individuals!
...

Okay, I'll bite.

"I'm not!"

:-)

At last, I was beginning to loose hope!

Date: 2010/02/04 00:32:58, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 04 2010,04:39)
Some Clive jive:
   
Quote
Your feeble attempt at showing brain damage doesn’t prove what you want it to prove, just as if i throw a brick at my stereo speakers it will not broadcast the news properly, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a broadcaster for goodness sakes. It amazes me that you think the speakers are the voice broadcasting the news.

Yet you removed a Voice Coil, hoping the UD fuckwittery it made apparent would disappear too. Go figure.

So presumably Clive or Stephen or someone is going to follow up by demonstrating which parts of the brain act as the receiver and how it works, then use this knowledge to build their own receiver and use it to track down the source of the transmission - which is, after all, what we all have really been asking them to do all along and the approach any competent scientist would take. . .

Take you're time guys . . .

we can wait . . .

Date: 2010/02/09 06:37:13, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 09 2010,08:59)
The site isn't peer reviewed, and it looks like a failed experiment by Elsevier.  Poke around a bit more, and you'll find [URL=http://www.scitopics.com/Phenomena_of_life_and_death_explained_based_on_a_computer_model_of_organism_in_the_light_o  f_the_Quran_and_the_Bible.html]this little gem[/URL].  Figure 2 is a classic.

Wow, the chromasome looks just like the letter n, therefore DNA is a language, therefore god.

QED

All science so far!

Date: 2010/02/10 11:10:19, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 10 2010,12:51)
Quote (bfish @ Feb. 10 2010,01:26)
That really is what it is all about for those guys, right? Bringing in the lost sheep.

And shearing them.

You mean fleecing them?

Date: 2010/02/10 15:33:35, Link
Author: BillB
StephenB:          
Quote
17
StephenB
02/10/2010
12:00 pm

—Allen MacNeil:            
Quote
“Furthermore, I’m not convinced that your reading of Aquinas is consistent with current catholic doctrine. Pope Benedict XVI (and his predecessor, John Paul II) have been very clear on the current position of the Roman church that the human soul is of divine origin, but the human body is the result of evolution, the scientific understanding of which is “more than a hypothesis” (i.e. a “theory”, and therefore as valid as anything ever gets in science).”


Your ID strawman should take you to court for subjecting him to cruel and unusual punishment. You know very well that JPII was talking about “evolution” in general and that he was not talking about a neo-Darwinian/naturalistic mechanism that is alleged to be driving it. Further, it makes no sense to “deconstruct” Aquinas’ text or make him say something he didn’t say on the grounds that some modern Catholics disagree with him.

—          
Quote
"That this is the case is further supported by the catholic church’s current position on “mainstream” ID: that it is not legitimate science, and therefore excluded from the most recent conclaves on the subject of religion and the science of origins.”


The Catholic Church has no position on ID. The Notre Dame/ anti-ID contingent that cooked up that conference does not speak for the Catholic Church. Some Catholic prelates, including bishops, accept intelligent design.(1)


Pope Benedict’s 2007 Statement on Evolution (or a part of it):
         
Quote
   Currently, I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called “creationism” and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: those who believe in the Creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God.

   This antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such.

   But on the other, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, especially the great philosophical question: where does everything come from? And how did everything start which ultimately led to man? I believe this is of the utmost importance.


And pope John Paul (another extract)        
Quote
Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis.  It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge.  The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.


Yes Stephen, they were clearly talking about evolution 'in general' and not about the scientific theory of evolution at all... Or perhaps by 'in general' you mean he was talking about only the bits of evolutionary theory that the average ID'er would agree with(2) .

(1) Some accept children in unatural ways but that doesn't make it OK
(2) Which of course keep changing all the time

Date: 2010/03/22 03:42:07, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Amadan @ Mar. 22 2010,00:31)
 
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 21 2010,04:49)
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Mornington Crescent eh?

Tut tut.

Fairlop.

Louis

Totteridge & Whetstone (Ha! It's still Sunday here! Bet you forgot about low tide too.)

It ain't Sunday any more, and it's the 22nd so ...

Mansion House.

Date: 2010/03/23 17:25:19, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 23 2010,19:53)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 23 2010,18:14)
 
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 23 2010,10:57)
 
Quote (sparc @ Mar. 23 2010,17:19)
   
Quote (Tom Ames @ Mar. 23 2010,12:05)
   
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 23 2010,08:56)
Why would observation (or not) of daylight saving time matter? Are these Mornington Crescent trips timed?

Not at all. Rather, it's because your red tokens can't be shunted towards the secondary nexus when the obverse of the lane marker is exposed. (Which state is dependent--in part!--on the solar angle.)

I get the impression one has to be British or under the influence of drugs to grasp what you are talking about.

Both.

Fairlop.

Louis

P.S. Non standard play on a weekday will result in a player spending one turn in Knid.

*COUGH* *COUGH* nerd *COUGH* *COUGH*

Yes. Sorry, your point was what precisely?

Louis

P.S. In honour of Steve Story I do think all further MC play should be moved to the relevant thread. This thread probably also contains a reproduction of the rules.

Assuming the left Penwick rule (section 3A paragraph 4) can be invoked for south westerly long jumps, I would have to say ...
Elephant and Castle.

Date: 2010/03/24 12:01:32, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 24 2010,17:49)
Following the standard Thurgood-Hamilton conversion algorithm, but banning semi-lateral shunts, I shall play my Transfer to the Purple Line, and exit at the Northwestern station.

HA! Morningto... Oh, hang on ...

...

Camden Market?

Close, but no cigar.

Date: 2010/03/25 05:58:56, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 25 2010,06:10)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 24 2010,12:11)

I never quite understood this whole reductionist "chemistry explains biology, and physics explains chemistry" routine. Does he think that these are higher-level languages that "compile" into physics? Even so, machine language doesn't really "explain" assembly, C or higher-level languages, does it? Why in heaven's name are they blatting on and on about computer programs when they still have not mastered Dawkins' program written in BASIC?

Gran, this is for you - I wrote it myself:

<?phhhh
echo $FAIL;
echo $giveitarest;
print_r(error_get_lost());
? ? ?>

But I'll bet they don't know PHP either.

ETA - I don't know why I keep calling him "Grant."

Anyone care to put an estimate on the number of atoms required to create a bank of computer memory capable of storing the state and position of every atom on the planet?

Lets say (and I'm being very generous here) we need 1000 atoms for each bit of data storage (assuming Granville doesn't have a laptorp with atomic storage) and the state of each atom requires one million bits of memory (Assuming the co-ordinates that describe its XYZ position in space are reasonably fine grained)

So thats approximatly 1,000,000,000 atoms of memory substrate for every atom on earth?

Boy that laptop must be heavy!

Date: 2010/03/25 10:43:38, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (ppb @ Mar. 25 2010,16:29)
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 25 2010,11:24)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 25 2010,09:42)
... I zoomed back to SimGran, ran the calendar forward and there he was, posting his horseshit on UD.

(remember to recycle)

POTW!!! 111 ELEVENNTY!!

Seconded!

cubed!

Date: 2010/03/29 11:35:35, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 29 2010,17:23)
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 16 2010,16:53)
Anyone looking for a sig?

Joe G:
 
Quote
Hail is made out of water?

Are you really that stupid?

Hail is made out of ice.

Rain is water.

Retardation runs deep at atbc...

Ice is water that has frozen, water is a chemical substance composed of hydrogen and oxygen.  Water doesn't stop being water when its temperature drops and it enters a solid phase, equally it doesn't stop being water when it boils (which is why they call it water vapor) - All three phases of the substance are forms of WATER.

Hail is made from water, just like rain.

Date: 2010/03/29 12:00:45, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 29 2010,17:52)
Quote (BillB @ Mar. 29 2010,11:35)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 29 2010,17:23)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 16 2010,16:53)
Anyone looking for a sig?

Joe G:
     
Quote
Hail is made out of water?

Are you really that stupid?

Hail is made out of ice.

Rain is water.

Retardation runs deep at atbc...

Ice is water that has frozen, water is a chemical substance composed of hydrogen and oxygen.  Water doesn't stop being water when its temperature drops and it enters a solid phase, equally it doesn't stop being water when it boils (which is why they call it water vapor) - All three phases of the substance are forms of WATER.

Hail is made from water, just like rain.

No!  It is called steam.  Not the same as water.  Or ice.

QED  (That is latin for "you are a dumbass")

wikipedia:
Quote
Water is a ubiquitous chemical substance that is composed of hydrogen and oxygen and is vital for all known forms of life.[1]

In typical usage, water refers only to its liquid form or state, but the substance also has a solid state, ice, and a gaseous state, water vapor or steam. Water covers 71% of the Earth's surface.[2] On Earth, it is found mostly in oceans and other large water bodies, with 1.6% of water below ground in aquifers and 0.001% in the air as vapor, clouds (formed of solid and liquid water particles suspended in air), and precipitation.[3] Oceans hold 97% of surface water, glaciers and polar ice caps 2.4%, and other land surface water such as rivers, lakes and ponds 0.6%. A very small amount of the Earth's water is contained within biological bodies and manufactured products.

Date: 2010/03/29 15:37:47, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 29 2010,19:54)
Quote
Hail is made from water, just like rain.

Water is a liquid.

Hail is not a liquid, is it?


Undistributed muddle.

Is butter a liquid?
Is cement a liquid?
Is glass a liquid?
And what about pitch?

......

At what temperature is water a liquid?

Date: 2010/03/30 09:22:42, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (CeilingCat @ Mar. 30 2010,11:43)
Quote (keiths @ Mar. 29 2010,14:29)
StephenB is a tard:
   
Quote
In truth, theology is the noblest of disciplines, followed by philosophy, followed by science. There is more truth to be found in the former than in the latter.

StephenB is an even bigger Tard:    
Quote
—Aleta: “You say there is nothing in matter that can explain mind. And how do you know that? And I presume you would say that there is nothing in non-life that can explain life – how do you know that?”

I have already explained that the law of causality disallows more in the effect that was present in the cause. Can you imagine a symphony having more music in it than was present in the mind of the composer? It has nothing to do with belief and everything to do with causality.

What if the score demands that the musicians improvise ...

Date: 2010/04/28 14:51:09, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (afarensis @ April 28 2010,13:18)
Quote (Louis @ April 28 2010,03:56)
Quote (afarensis @ April 28 2010,01:29)
 
Quote (Doc Bill @ April 26 2010,17:22)
Seems that my only alternative out of Pervivale is to sashay over to

Queensway

also known as Boobquake East.

Oh, is that how it is? That move gives:

St. John's Wood

Ah ha ha ha. Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Bow.

Louis

Be here all week...try the waitress/waiter...tip the veal...

Pah! St Johns 'wood' - he always was a saucy saint - easily aroused. Lets restore some decency:

Panton St.

Date: 2010/05/04 04:00:39, Link
Author: BillB
From the 'Buy my book' thread ...
Quote
5
Truism
05/03/2010
5:45 pm

I think I’ll hang off until I can borrow it from the fiction section of my local library if that’s OK.


LOL

Date: 2010/05/06 05:31:40, Link
Author: BillB
KF has a breakdown:
KF has a breakdown:
       
Quote
Onlookers (and participants, esp Aleta and StephenB):

First, let us notice how Aleta has plainly been utterly unable to address the key issue of programs and associated codes, algorithms, language, plans and evident intent in the design of the cell, as was cited from Koshland, 2002, in the original post, and as I cited in 109, inviting Aleta to “provide an empirically observed, rationally credible alternative explanation” discussing something else with stephenB

...
       
Quote
For, by virtue of what was put up as correction, but ever since 44 above, has been uncontested but studiously ignored, was not what was being discussed we know the fatal flaw at the heart of the evolutionary materialist claim to provide an adequate account for origins though imposing so called methodological naturalism on science.

Indeed, the saddening pattern of the above thread is by now quite plain: evolutionary materialist ad hominem laced strawmanism as rhetorical strategy and filter that distorts ability to perceive accurately and fairly, then respond reasonably and responsibly. IF YOU DISAGREE WITH ME OR INSIST ON INGORING MY ATTEMPTS TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT OF THE DISCUSSION THEN YOU ARE STUPID AND EVIL AND ARE PERSONALLY ATTACKING ME - THIS IS NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK ... HOMINEM HOMINEM HOMINEM

...
       
Quote
we must observe how the warranted credible truths approach to comparing and assessing which worldviews are best warranted as accurate to reality — i.e. well warranted as truthful and trustworthy — has been studiously ignored.were not the issue being discussed

OCWU - Obsessive Compulsive Word Use
Have you considered psychiatric help?

Date: 2010/05/06 11:09:59, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Hermagoras @ May 06 2010,16:35)
When did Kairosfocus return?  He disappeared a while ago, I assumed for reasons related to the Haiti earthquake (he works in development of some sort).  Now's he back in full-throated accusatory zeal.

I assumed that the whole WEASEL latching farce caused a sever bout of runningawayness - he vanished around then.

Date: 2010/05/06 12:29:50, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 06 2010,17:45)
Quote (BillB @ May 06 2010,11:09)
...
I assumed that the whole WEASEL latching farce caused a sever bout of runningawayness - he vanished around then.

No. He semi-quasi-pseudo vanished, which is something else entirely.

vanishing did not credibly occur based on emperical warranted inference to the best explanation.

ONOKERS SEE HOW THESE EVO MAT LEWONTIANISTS SPRAY OIL OF AD HOMINEM LACED STRAWMAN TACTICS IGNITING A CLOUD OF SMELL TO CONFUSE AND DISTRACT

Date: 2010/05/08 12:07:38, Link
Author: BillB
Gordon:
Quote
As an example of testability with one reference but many billions of instances, try the test of the origin of web pages on the internet. It is known that communication networks suffer noise and that they can in principle generate any signal pattern. So, why not generate some noise and thereby make a coherent web page with text and images etc, properly formatted in html or whatever?

An easy way to try would be to use a zener source and an amplifier to spew noise on a disk at random. See if you ever will get a page with at least 125 bytes of coherent information, about a 20 world paragraph.
Yes gord, first you have to demonstrate why teh internet or a random noise generator are good models of a primordial planet and complex chemical processes.
Its the classic ID methodology - propose a model that doesn't match reality, show that said model doesn't work, claim victory.

Date: 2010/05/08 12:20:57, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 08 2010,18:10)
Quote (BillB @ May 08 2010,13:07)
Its the classic ID methodology - propose a model that doesn't match reality, show that said model doesn't work, claim victory.

Your forgot the step where they refuse to propose a model of their own.

Ah, credit where credit is due, GEM has proposed the humble zenner diode as a model.

Date: 2010/05/10 08:45:11, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (keiths @ May 10 2010,13:45)
efren ts kairosfocuses, with a little Luskinning thrown in at the end:
 
Quote
As onlookers can plainly see that paragraph introduces only a source of variation, but not selection. So, whether or not you have referenced selection in one of your other epic tomes is quite irrelevant. The comment referenced was correctly characterized.

Protestations to the contrary coupled with an attack on my honesty are clearly a red herring soaked in the oil of ad hominem and set ablaze to obscure the discussion in the acrid smoke of burning fish oil.

So, it would seem that *you*, sir, owe *me* an apology. However, I neither expect nor request such an apology. I am more amused than aggrieved. However, far be it for me to leave on such a note. Let me offer an olive branch to you by forgiving you for your slight on my character.

I would post this, but don't hold any hope of passing moderation:

KF's zener noise generator as a 'metaphor' for pre-biotic chemistry would work better (but only slightly) if there were several trillion of these noise generators each passing their output to an HTML parser.  What is the probability of one of them, over the course of a few billion years, producing "<html></html>" - resulting in a valid, but blank page?

Even those figures don't come close to the 'search capabilities' of the universe over it's entire existence.

Date: 2010/05/10 11:50:32, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (sledgehammer @ May 10 2010,15:47)
Quote (BillB @ May 10 2010,06:45)
KF's zener noise generator as a 'metaphor' for pre-biotic chemistry would work better (but only slightly) if there were several trillion of these noise generators each passing their output to an HTML parser.  What is the probability of one of them, over the course of a few billion years, producing "<html></html>" - resulting in a valid, but blank page?

Even those figures don't come close to the 'search capabilities' of the universe over it's entire existence.

Or how about this one:  Random white noise (quantum fluctuations), when passed through a particular filter (the Hydrogen atom), results in the Lyman alpha lines.

 What are the chances that this particular spectrum would be produced by nature, acting alone, using a uniform probability distribution (justified by the Bernoulli Principle of Insufficient Reason) on all possible atomic resonances?  All the probabilistic resources of the universe would be woefully inadequate, therefore intelligent design.

Of course the noise generator experiment would be invalid anyway because even if it produces some bits of FSCFCSI or whatever ... THE NOISE GENERATOR WAS DESIGNED!!!!

cue the sound of goalposts moving until you get to:

The probability of a random noise generator, based on a zener diode, coming into existence by random chance is nil THEREFORE DESIGNER

It's designers all the way down.

Date: 2010/05/10 14:21:01, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (keiths @ May 10 2010,19:10)
Quote (didymos @ May 10 2010,10:04)
I still want to see a 'Gordon' or a 'Mullings' over there.  Last time that happened he had such a conniption over it that he actually had Clivebaby publicly agreeing with teh wicked materialist instigators that El Gordo had clearly lost his damn mind.

Efren obliges:
Quote
As far as the other issues you wish to turn to, I really don’t have the time, like others, to tax the gourd which sits upon my shoulders, mulling over (apparently) every word you have ever written.

Even though it was on UD and not here I still say: POTW!

Date: 2010/05/10 14:31:21, Link
Author: BillB
Hmm, not a UD topic but I just saw this on New Scientist:
"Soft tissue remnants discovered in Archaeopteryx fossil"
Meaning that chemical traces (copper, zinc, phosphorous) from soft tissue are preserved in the rock.

So how long before we see this regurgitated by cdesign proponentists who mistakenly think that the actual flesh was still there and that therefore the dinosaur could only be a few thousand years old.

Oh, yeah, I nearly forgot.

THEREFORE ABRAHAMIC GOD

Date: 2010/05/10 14:33:19, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (BillB @ May 10 2010,20:21)
Quote (keiths @ May 10 2010,19:10)
Quote (didymos @ May 10 2010,10:04)
I still want to see a 'Gordon' or a 'Mullings' over there.  Last time that happened he had such a conniption over it that he actually had Clivebaby publicly agreeing with teh wicked materialist instigators that El Gordo had clearly lost his damn mind.

Efren obliges:
 
Quote
As far as the other issues you wish to turn to, I really don’t have the time, like others, to tax the gourd which sits upon my shoulders, mulling over (apparently) every word you have ever written.

Even though it was on UD and not here I still say: POTW!

Perhaps we should have a 'gord of the week' award for managing to drop a mulling into the conversation over at UD.

Date: 2010/05/11 08:37:58, Link
Author: BillB
KF:      
Quote
Next, we observe that the quantum of information required for a von Neumann type replicator greatly exceeds 500 – 1,000 bits, as his analysis and subsequent work to date have shown. So it is not unexpected that in the smallest simplest organisms we find DNA covering in excess of 100 k bits.

Hmm, greatly exceeds a range between these two numbers?
And where exactly did you observe this, by looking at modern organisms or by defining all possibe chemical replicators and picking the simplest - if you have done this then it would be a massive advance in science.
   
Quote
This — as we at UD have pointed out over and over for years now — is over ten times the square of the number of Planck-time quantum states of our observed universe of ~ 10^80 atoms, across its thermodynamic potential lifespan [~10^25 s, or about 50 million times the 13.7 BY generally said to have elapsed since the big bang]. In short, if the whole universe we observe were to be viewed as a search engine as it develops from the initial singularity forward, it could not scan through an appreciable fraction of the config space for just 1,000 bits worth of storage capacity.

Implicit assumption there that the entire universe can only 'check' one configuration at a time.  Take, for example, the ARM processor core, of which there are over a billion versions in existence worldwide, how do KF's search metrics change if we asked each processor to spit out 1000 bits of random data at a rate of 10 megabits per second?  And now if we constrain the paramaters (because the universe is structured, not random noise) so they only spit out human readable ASCII chars?  Will we ever see the phrase <html><\html>.
Now if these random generators were also incorporating previous outputs as well as generating noise (as simple chemical processes produce more complex molecules) then would we ever see <html>Hello World!<\html>?
And we haven't even got as far as selection yet...  
Quote
That is, we have an excellent reason to see that a random walk based process would not credibly arrive at the shores of ANY island of functionality in the von Neumann sense.
A random walk from where - assumptions again about the nature of reality, contaminated by belief in the universe as a single process search engine and some made up bignumber.

Date: 2010/05/11 08:51:55, Link
Author: BillB
And this
Quote
. . .Similarly, if the object was a fair die, we would see it drop, tumble and read from 1 to 6 at random. Statistically distributed,credibly undirected contingency is the signature of chance.

If the die were loaded, or if we came across a tray of 200 die all reading 6, we would see the signature of directed, purposeful contingency, i.e design.
reminded me of a trick that Derrin Brown once did - I forget the details but I think he anounced that he would toss ten coins and they would all come up as heads, which he then did without a loaded coin - what he actually did was film himself tossing coins for over a day until he got a sequence of ten heads ...

Date: 2010/05/11 12:20:36, Link
Author: BillB
Apollos:
Quote


There are two logical possibilities for the genesis of the UCA, the putative Universal Common Ancestor (a functional self-replicating single-celled organism):

1) It was designed — specified and brought into existence by an intelligent agent.

2) It came about as a result of chance in concert with natural laws — laws that produce observable, repeatable, decipherable patterns.

madbat, either you accept that both of these logical possibilities exist, or you’ve ruled out design a priori. If it’s the latter, then you’re wasting everyone’s time here, including your own.

Both options allow for design - the first in creating life explicitly and the latter by not ruling out the universe being designed for life to arise from the operation of the universes natural laws.

It should be re-stated as follows:
1 Some 'intelligent agent' creates the universe then also creates some life somewhere a bit later on.
2 Some 'intelligent agent' creates the universe then watches as it produces life, precisely as intended.
3 Some 'intelligent agent' creates the universe then watches with surprise as life emerges.
4 The universe came into existence and then life arose
5 The universe (or some metauniverse) has always been in existence
6 The universe came into existence/was always here, then some intelligent agent created life (leaving the question of the origin of the agent conveniently aside)
7 some other scenario.
8 etc.

Date: 2010/05/13 02:57:15, Link
Author: BillB
madbat089 is gone
Quote
165
Clive Hayden
05/13/2010
2:26 am

madbat089,

Goodbye.

Date: 2010/05/13 03:23:21, Link
Author: BillB
Clive responds:  
Quote
162
Clive Hayden
05/13/2010
2:32 am
Sooner,
   
Quote
I worked for ten years to clarify a topic, and I do take it personally when “maverick geniuses” with an agenda step in and make mud of it.

You’ll have to keep what you take personally to yourself, and just argue the merits. This sort of thing won’t fly here: “Most senior researchers are similarly humble — they do not preserve the cruft and trumpet that it is “right up there with sliced bread.” and “I used to give him feedback, but now I’m just letting him run into the wall you smack into when you’re wrong.”

If you think him wrong, then show it with whatever you’ve got, but no personal opinions of the man will be tolerated here. Are we clear?

DO NOT CRITICIZE THE BELOVED LEADER OR YOU WILL BE DISAPPEARED

Date: 2010/05/17 07:00:47, Link
Author: BillB
Hmm, I was just reading a piece on New Scientist about denialism when this bit caught my eye:
Quote
He (Seth Kalichman) believes the instigators of denialist movements have more serious psychological problems than most of their followers. "They display all the features of paranoid personality disorder", he says, including anger, intolerance of criticism, and what psychiatrists call a grandiose sense of their own importance. "Ultimately, their denialism is a mental health problem. That is why these movements all have the same features, especially the underlying conspiracy theory."
Remind you of anyone?

Date: 2010/05/19 18:12:24, Link
Author: BillB
i dun haz PhD (subject to minor corrections)
Now I shall get very drunk.
Yippee!

Date: 2010/05/20 04:02:57, Link
Author: BillB
Thanks all ... anyone know a good cure for a hangover?

Date: 2010/05/20 04:22:02, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Louis @ May 20 2010,09:47)
Quote (carlsonjok @ May 20 2010,02:22)
Quote (BillB @ May 19 2010,18:12)
i dun haz PhD (subject to minor corrections)
Now I shall get very drunk.
Yippee!

Well, now that you are a doctor, you better be ready for all the requests for free medical advice.


Ahhhh I love those.

An old Greek aunt once asked me for medical help. I replied with the Greek equivalent of "I can't do much for your bunions, love, but I can whip you up a cracking batch of speed."

She was not amused. I, on the other hand, found it mightily funny.

Yes, I do already know I am a bad person, what of it?

Louis

My Dad is a retired medical doctor - he always used to book travel tickets and accommodation as 'Mr' instead of 'Dr' because he got fed up with being called on for medical advice.

As for me, if I get asked for medical advice I shall whip out a torque wrench and a set of screwdrivers and ask - 'did you plug your battery in the right way around?'.

Date: 2010/05/20 04:31:38, Link
Author: BillB
the dodgenator strikes:
Quote


As someone with a specialty in GN&C (guidance, navigation and control) software for UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) I can attest to the fact that this is an extraordinarily difficult and challenging engineering discipline.

Flapping-wing aerial vehicles (ornithopters) were long ago abandoned because the control laws are hopelessly complicated and fault-intolerant. Add to this the fact that the echolocation- and visual-feedback systems of bats and birds must be seamlessly integrated through the central nervous system with the flight-control systems, with fraction-of-a-second precision – or the creature will die an instantaneous and ignominious death, leaving behind no progeny.

Arguing with Darwinists about the plausibility of random errors filtered by natural selection producing such technology and precise engineering is like trying to discuss reality with a psychotic mental patient standing on a street corner talking to himself.
I have a friend who is using genetic algorithms to control tethered inflated aerofoils - the kites people use for kite surfing.  He is using GA's because applying conventional control theory to the task is rather difficult - the control laws are hopelessly complicated - yet a genetic algorithm is able to solve the problems fairly easily!

Date: 2010/05/23 03:20:15, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 23 2010,01:41)
Some shots from my son:






congratulations as well!!!

Date: 2010/06/08 09:26:30, Link
Author: BillB
The zombie weasel:
Dembski is on about weasel again, these bits caught my eye:    
Quote
Dawkins’ simulation has come under considerable criticism both here at UD and at the Evolutionary Informatics Lab ( ... ) Some internet critics have urged that we are beating a dead horse, that this example was never meant to be taken too seriously, and that if we were “serious scientists,” we would be directing our energies elsewhere...

So Yarus produces a pop science book and references Dawkins WEASEL algorithm, with his own version as an example.  Yarus says:
   
Quote
You must be aware that this is an idealization, not a realistic simulation of evolution.

Dembski - if you were a serious scientist you would look at realistic models of evoluton from the academic literature, not toy examples from popular science books.
Dembski again:    
Quote
The reason we keep bringing up Dawkins’ example is because evolutionists themselves won’t let it die.

Quite right, it has now been used TWICE in scence books by TWO SEPERATE SCIENTISTS within the space of TWENTY FIVE YEARS.  I just can't move for all these evolutionists publishing research on WEASEL.

Here is a better idea Bill, try popping over to this: IEEE CEC 2010 where you can learn all about the actual science of evolutionary computing.  Then try a few biology conferences as well.

Date: 2010/06/15 15:24:54, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ June 15 2010,12:16)
Scorned Ova:
   
Quote
Sternberg Plasters Matheson
scordova

...Steve Matheson, a teacher and Darwinist promoter at a religious school, repeats the biggest mistake in molecular biology.

Judge for yourself. Steve Matheson has been pounding the piss out of Meyer and the Duplicity Institute, and responds directly to Sternberg.

I saw a post from veilsofmaya replying to some spew from sal, but then I went back and the post had been deleted - did anyone catch it - has sal bannated veilsofmaya or is the slime just going to delete comments it doesn't like? - the blogging equavalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shoutingLA LA LA.

Date: 2010/06/15 16:12:35, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 15 2010,21:54)
 
Quote (BillB @ June 15 2010,15:24)
   
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ June 15 2010,12:16)
Scorned Ova:
         
Quote
Sternberg Plasters Matheson
scordova

...Steve Matheson, a teacher and Darwinist promoter at a religious school, repeats the biggest mistake in molecular biology.

Judge for yourself. Steve Matheson has been pounding the piss out of Meyer and the Duplicity Institute, and responds directly to Sternberg.

I saw a post from veilsofmaya replying to some spew from sal, but then I went back and the post had been deleted - did anyone catch it - has sal bannated veilsofmaya or is the slime just going to delete comments it doesn't like? - the blogging equavalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shoutingLA LA LA.

I still see a comment by veilsofmaya.

 
Quote
60
scordova
06/15/2010
11:26 am

V,
 
Quote
However, Mathasion clearly provided context when he use the phrase known to have “important functional roles.” Note the qualifiers “know to have” and “important functional roles”.
NOT KNOWING IF AN INTRON HAS FUNCTION DOESN’T MEAN THE INTRON HAS NO FUNCTION! GET A CLUE!
Sal posted this, followed by two others and veilsofmaya replied, quoting Sals SHOUTING.  But then it woz gone ...

Date: 2010/06/16 05:54:06, Link
Author: BillB
From the BBC:Ancient fossils show fig wasps remain unchanged
A study of three ancient fossils found on the Isle of Wight in the 1920s has revealed that evolution has not altered the fig wasp in 34 million years.

Cue creationist claims that this disproves evolution or some such thing ...

As everyone knows evilution is a progression towards pre-defined informatic goals - hang on, does this mean that the wasps achieved a state of perfection 35 MY ago?

Date: 2010/06/17 09:04:18, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Zachriel @ June 17 2010,12:50)
   
Quote
Barry Arrington: But only a fool, no matter how educated, believes he can have mud-to-man Darwinism and human dignity at the same time.

But said fool is right, of course.

So how does that work for theistic evolutionary scientists ...

Scenario A - God creates universe, designd so that life and ultimatly intelligent beings will emerge.
Scenario B - God creates universe, then creates living creatures kindof fully formed.

According to Barry you can only have human dignity if God didn't use evolution to create humans.

Hey, theres an idea, maybe god created several universes, some employing special post universe creation and ocasional intervention, whilst others are set up and just left to run. All are created for the same purpose - entertainment!

Date: 2010/06/21 14:40:48, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (fnxtr @ June 21 2010,14:34)
 
Quote (Quack @ June 20 2010,23:10)
 
Quote
I had a writer friend posit the idea once that rewrites are never as good as the original, even if it was just a rough draft. HA!

Maybe not quite the same thing, but no written text of mine ever approaches the clarity and stringency of the superbly worded chain of thought that triggered my attempt at writing it down; only to decide that the c**p isn't even publishable. So there.

I think what he was feeling but not saying was that editing and rewriting isn't nearly the rush of getting the idea in the first place.  Clarity? Many's the time I look and old notes and go, "Uh... what?"

Hmm, I guess it is a question of style - some of the writing I've been most pleased with has come out almost fully formed, for example I wrote my first 'proper' research paper in about 24 hours, showed it to my supervisor who told me it was about 98 percent complete. (it won best paper prize at a conference)

But then I wasn't writing about a new idea I had just had.

Sometimes when I've gone back to edit stuff it all goes wrong - then comes right if I just start at the beginning and type the whole thing again.

Date: 2010/06/21 17:35:17, Link
Author: BillB
Clive Hayden 06/21/2010
4:26 pm      
Quote
... I can’t speak for Denyse
Denyse isn't very good at it either  
Quote
, but no evidence supports Darwinism
apart from all the evidence that does  
Quote
, I reckon the folks claiming it does have the burden of evidence.
so the burden of evidence is on scientists to show that the evidence for evolution is evidence for evolution  
Quote
Molecules to man, and a shrimp ancestor and banana tree ancestor being the same ancestor, is a large claim, and that needs its own evidence, not just some bugs eating nylon or children having red hair from parents without it.
or multiple confirming lines of evidence from mollecular biology and paleontology etc ...  
Quote
I know this sounds simple, but it exactly this sort of thing that is used for evidence of evolution, and it doesn’t cut muster. If Darwinism cannot explain the simplest of things, it cannot explain anything else. Survival of the fittest is saying “Whatever survives survives”, which is saying “Whatever will be will be”. This is not an explanation, you may as well explain the way the wind blows on such grounds. Natural Selection is not an explanation of cellular machinery, data in DNA, etc., or a mouse giving birth, eventually, to a bat, as the myth claims. I know it’s a good dream to materialists, because dreams cannot be refuted. It takes everything as evidence and therefore lacks actual evidence.


ROTFL - clive, words fail.

Date: 2010/06/22 02:26:28, Link
Author: BillB
pav:
Quote
I thought organisms that replicate can solve any old kind of problem thrown at them.

It reminds me of a conversation I had with Dave Scot - back when I was GCUGreyArea ...
Quote
Quote
“Might biological evolution have limitations as well? “
Yes, that is the current thinking in evolutionary biology as far as I know. Outside of the molecular mechanisms in the cell there appear to be absolutely no continually rotating joints in nature – things like wheels don’t seem to appear ‘naturally’ they are only observed as the product of human design.
gpuccio:    
Quote
Seqenenre:
Quote
So, no, organisms that replicate cannot solve any old kind of problem thrown at them.
I am happy someone from the other side finally realizes that. Do you know how many times I had to counter the darwinist myth that “evolution can just go in any possible direction”
Funny, for some reason UD has reminded me of that film Karate Kid:  
Quote
Facts do not exist in this dojo, do they?
NO, SENSEI!
Evidence does not exist in this dojo, does it?
NO, SENSEI!
Science does not exist in this dojo, does it?
NO, SENSEI!

Date: 2010/06/23 08:55:20, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (J-Dog @ June 23 2010,14:27)
Quote (JLT @ June 23 2010,07:17)
Sal:
     
Quote
We’ve been able to figure out important features of the DNA genetic code without identifying the Intelligent Designer. Thus we can recognize and interpret artifacts without direct or indirect interaction with the designer.
Further the cell is a computer and it runs computer languages running on a computer architecture. The computer analogy is spot on.

Translation:

We don't need to invent an intelligent designer to explain the DNA genetic code. This doesn't mean that the genetic code is not an artifact, but the opposite.
Also, a rose is a rose is a rose a cell is a computer is a computer is a computer which proves that the cell is a computer.

Sal - Shouldn't that be a computer with an outboard motor flagella?

If a cell is a type of computer then a computer is not an analogy for a cell.  That is like saying that a type of computer is analogous to a type of computer.

A cell is, in fact, more like a robot, and I would not class a robot as a type of computer.

Date: 2010/06/24 05:35:39, Link
Author: BillB
veilsofmaya:  
Quote
8
veilsofmaya
06/23/2010
7:45 pm

I’m confused.

Isn’t the supposed “bias of Darwinism” supposedly preventing researchers from studying junk DNA?

For example, if the claim that biologists commit the fallacy of assuming genes with no currently known function really are universally functionless was true, it’s unclear why anyone bothered to study these psuedogenes in the first place.

As such, wouldn’t this be a “very bad day” for those who continually, perpetuate, these claims, despite research such as this which clearly suggests otherwise?

Alex73:  
Quote


12

Alex73

06/24/2010

3:24 am

veilsofmaya @ 8:

Those who continually perpetuate these claims include the New Scientist, where you can read this:

Once the vast majority of our DNA was dismissed as junk, but now we know it is important – or so you might have read recently. In fact, it still appears likely that 85 to 95 per cent of our DNA is indeed useless. While many bits of DNA that do not code for proteins are turning out to have some function or other, this was predicted by some all along, and the overall proportion of our DNA with a proven function remains tiny.

The article came out just last week. Here is a link for you to read more. Once you have a retraction of these false claims by the editors, give us a shout.
www.newscientist.com...unknown-human-genome

And the NS piece links nicely to a website with these bits:  
Quote
From the very beginning, the concept of “junk DNA” has implied non-functionality with regards to protein-coding, but left open the question of sequence-independent impacts (perhaps even functions) at the cellular level. “Junk DNA” may now be taken to imply total non-function and is rightly considered problematic for that reason, but no such tacit assumption was present in the term when it was coined.
...
... it seems likely that most evolutionary biologists today could tolerate a conclusion, if such were rendered, that a significant fraction of non-coding DNA is functionless.
...
Those who complain about a supposed unilateral neglect of potential functions for non-coding DNA simply have been reading the wrong literature. In fact, quite a lengthy list of proposed functions for non-coding DNA could be compiled (for an early version, see Bostock 1971). Examples include buffering against mutations (e.g., Comings 1972; Patrushev and Minkevich 2006) or retroviruses (e.g., Bremmerman 1987) or fluctuations in intracellular solute concentrations (Vinogradov 1998), serving as binding sites for regulatory molecules (Zuckerkandl 1981), facilitating recombination (e.g., Comings 1972; Gall 1981; Comeron 2001), inhibiting recombination (Zuckerkandl and Hennig 1995), influencing gene expression (Britten and Davidson 1969; Georgiev 1969; Nowak 1994; Zuckerkandl and Hennig 1995; Zuckerkandl 1997), increasing evolutionary flexibility (e.g., Britten and Davidson 1969, 1971; Jain 1980; reviewed critically in Doolittle 1982), maintaining chromosome structure and behaviour (e.g., Walker et al. 1969; Yunis and Yasmineh 1971; Bennett 1982; Zuckerkandl and Hennig 1995), coordingating genome function (Shapiro and von Sternberg 2005), and providing multiple copies of genes to be recruited when needed (Roels 1966).

So yes, the NS headline is not very accurate and apparently there are all these ID scientists working as evolutionary biologists, and arguing from an evolutionary perspective that most non-coding DNA ought to have a function.  Meanwhile there are all these non ID scientists, working as evolutionary biologists, who have mercilessly supressed research into non-coding DNA by not stopping research into it and not preventing the publication of results.

Date: 2010/06/25 02:01:27, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Robin @ June 24 2010,20:21)
[quote=Doc Bill,June 23 2010,18:33][/quote]
Quote
It always cracks me up when creationists back up their arguments by citing other creationists.

The banana was designed to be grasped by the human hand. (1)


1.  Comfort, R, J. Graspology Rev., 2002, Vol. 2, Issue 8, pp 125-129.



Funny then that the human finger generally fits perfectly into the human nose. Must be designed for such...

ya see being gay is something god designed us for - we have a number of orifices, and an appendage that fit them.  Gay by design, thats what I say.

Date: 2010/07/20 15:41:19, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Alan Fox @ July 19 2010,13:35)
*another point we haven't talked about, fatwa...

DAMM YOU TO *HELL

There I was at the IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence, checkin e-mail and AtBC during a coffee break when I get a face full of naked Burqua babes - whilst behind me a room full of eminent professors from all nations looked on in  wonder and awe ...

*(metaphorically)

Date: 2010/08/03 08:45:35, Link
Author: BillB
Barry A explains his logical coherence:
Quote
Philosophical materialism compels the conclusion that mind does not exist and that what we call “mind” is an illusion, an epiphenomenon of the chemical processes of the brain.
So to put it another way: If the mind is the product of measurable, observable reality then it is an illusion, but if it is externally imposed on what we can see by something unseeable and unmeasurable then it is real.

ALL LOGIC SO FAR.

I think I understand the reasoning though - in Barry's mind the definition of a mind is something immaterial, therefore anyone claiming the mind is the product of physical processes is claiming it is an illusion, because he has defined it thus.
Quote
Biological determinism is an inescapable corollary to biological reductionism. In other words, if every choice we make can be reduced to the chemical processes of the brain, free will is an illusion.

Hint Barry, you are making a claim, not stating a fact.  Simply stating this does not make it true, you actually have to come up with some arguments as to why this is true, and address the many arguments that oppose your claims.

Date: 2010/08/05 04:40:50, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (sparc @ Aug. 05 2010,03:45)
BTW, didn't Kairosfocus aka Gordon Elliot Mullings aka GEM of TKI aka Dictionary of Montserrat recently say that he won't be able to post at UD due to kind of a day job?

Maybe he got the sack for talking rubbish all the time.

Date: 2010/08/05 08:44:59, Link
Author: BillB
Granville gets confused:        
Quote
By “front-loaded” I didn’t mean to imply “always been there”, just put there in anticipation of a later need.
Put there when? - when it was designed?
So it was put there when it was designed but it hasn't always been there, is that it?, or was it put there later, after it was designed, in anticipation that it might be useful later on? Presumably the designer didn't know when it was being designed that it would need this so it had to be added in later - a correction to a flawed design; The work of a non-omniscient designer perhaps?

Or maybe - if it was put there after design it might have been put there by something other than the designer!!!
I see a new branch to ID on the horizon - IPTT - Intelligent Post-design Tinkering Theory!!!

ellazimm responds:      
Quote
Ah, sorry I misinterpreted you. That is an important distinction.
Yes, very clear!

Date: 2010/08/05 12:34:14, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (olegt @ Aug. 05 2010,14:55)
This morning I learned from an unimpeachable source that Bob Marks, a.k.a. Gloppy, had been named the Charles Darwin of intelligent design.

Don't many folks at UD believe Darwin was an evil fraud who peddled a duff idea as legitimate science, which led to countless deaths and Hitler?

Does this mean they feel the same way about Marks?

Date: 2010/08/11 03:32:02, Link
Author: BillB
Gordon:    
Quote
Onlookers:

First, let us ignore for the moment the rude, uncalled for and offensive personal abuse and slander Petrushka resorts to in 143 above. (A sure sign of the third phase of the standard tactic of the ideologised, closed mind: distractive red herrings dragged out to caricatured strawmen laced with ad hominems and now ignited to cloud, confuse, choke, polarise and poison the atmosphere in order to frustrate discussion on the merits.)

Let us therefore note on the merits that P has chosen to resort to abuse
....
But, at all costs [including resort to utterly rude incivility], the ideologised, closed mind CANNOT acknowledge that unwelcome fact.

So, P owes us all an apology, but sadly, probably will not find the humility to give one.

Having noted that .... .... etc ... repeat same assertions .. fail to provide evidence to back them up ... claim it is all a conspiracy ... accuse opponents of lying ... claim victim status ...
Yes, lets ingore this by talking about it - or was that semi-ignore, or quasi-ingore, or perhaps psuedo-semi-quasi ingore?

Gordons definition of civility: Not questioning my authority.

Of course if you try an point out to him the hypocrisy in the way he always accuses others of being deceitful lier's misrepresenting and poisoning science with personal attacks and smelly fish then you get yelled at for making 'turnabout accusations' - where he implicitly admits that he was making the first accusation anyway.

Always the first to cast stones eh Gordon!

Date: 2010/08/11 14:15:53, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 11 2010,19:29)
To figure out if language can be learned incrementally, just build a computer with a neural net, some sensors and manipulators, and an output device, and see if the thing can be taught a language.

Most of the common neural nets don't actually learn, they get trained or configured using various techniques (like evolution)  there are some types of network that include rules to model learning mechanisms - like adjusting synaptic connections based on firing rate - but there is still a bit of a gap between what the nets do and what biology does. (although I'm a few years out of date in my neural net knowledge)

There is also the question of archetecture.  the brain is not a uniform structure, it has a lot of variety from the start and some of this may affect how and what it is able to learn.  Even if we have a neural net capable of learning it still might not learn some things unless its archetecture is right.

An then there is the problem of power, to get close to a rat brain you need millions of neurons - thats a lot of processing power!

Date: 2010/08/11 14:27:39, Link
Author: BillB
KF:
Quote
Onlookers:

After seeing a client . . .

OH GOD NO NO NO.

Sometimes I hate the images my imagination delivers up.

Date: 2010/08/11 15:21:25, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 11 2010,20:51)
 
Quote
An then there is the problem of power


The power problem may have been solved.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/brainsinsilicon/index.html

Or here:
SpiNNaker - A Universal Spiking Neural Network Architecture
Stephen Furber, the project leader is coming to my Uni to do a talk in a couple of months.  Should be interesting!
One thing these projects always focus on though is neurons, synapses and spikes. There is a whole mess of chemical signalling going on as well which also plays a part, and some neural nets have been designed to investigate how these play a part, for example GasNets.

Date: 2010/08/14 02:28:00, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 13 2010,23:55)
AIGuy has been tearing them up over on the Computational Intelligence and Darwinism thread.  In response to the assertion that only intelligence can create FCSI, he takes a different approach than most folks have in the past..  Rather than point out that FCSI is somethng they have pulled out of their ass and never actually calculated, he grants the presence of FCSI in biology and keeps trying to pin them down on how they know it was created by intelligence and how to test for the presence of that intelligence*.  Most all the regulars have backed away from the conversation, including post author GilDodgen.  However, a few intrepid souls try to argue with AIGuy and we get this definition from avocationist:
     
Quote
The only intelligence test we have for the designer is that it was capable of producing the things designed.

So there you have it.  We know biological structures are designed because they have FCSI, which can only be created by intelligence, which is tested for by the presence of something that is designed.



* This calls to mind the Febble incident a few years back in which a commenter named Febble took Dembski's definition of intelligence and showed that, by that definition, natural selection was intelligent.  Good times.

ETA: Added link to the PT coverage and another picture

I've been watching with great interest, well done that AIGuy!

Even KF ran away and hid - chucking the usual insults over his shoulder as he went.

Date: 2010/08/16 07:07:54, Link
Author: BillB
Teleologically Autonomous Righteously Determined

Date: 2010/08/20 10:08:14, Link
Author: BillB
KF:  
Quote
Why do you keep trying to inject a prioris sanity into the design inference process?

We deal with a simple induction on facts readily in evidence. Such as, that designers humans exist and that when they exert directed contingency do stuff they often leave characteristic traces of that causal pattern behind. For instance, there is little doubt that some texts of posts in this thread are intelligently created, not the product of undirected stocahstic contingency insane ramblingsunlucky noise.

There, corrected that for you.

Date: 2010/08/23 02:57:05, Link
Author: BillB
Just flipped back to UD after looking at it earlier this morning - is it me or have a whole load of blog entries just disappeared?

A glitch in the matrix - they must have changed something!

Date: 2010/08/23 03:04:59, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (BillB @ Aug. 23 2010,08:57)
Just flipped back to UD after looking at it earlier this morning - is it me or have a whole load of blog entries just disappeared?

A glitch in the matrix - they must have changed something!

Corny's "The Gene Myth" post (were there several - Pt 1, Pt 2, etc?) seems to be one of the victims.

Could the public naming of GEM be to blame?

Date: 2010/08/30 06:49:07, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 30 2010,11:39)
Most of its citations will likely be from themselves taking "search for a search" as if it were established in future papers.

and most of the citations in this are to their own earlier work

Date: 2010/09/14 15:50:01, Link
Author: BillB
Clive (Quoting StephenB):
Quote
StephenB,
Quote
I am also amused by this side discussion about the credentials of C.S. Lewis from pedants who have never read him and probably wouldn’t do so even on a bet. In order to have something to talk about, his critics should continue to attack him personally because they clearly have no answers to his arguments, of which they are almost always ignorant.
Isn’t that the truth.

So correcting inaccurate statements about his credentials made by people on UD is an attack on him - we should simply accept this re-writing of history, Lewis is now a professor of philosophy, to say otherwise would be a slur against him (even though he never actually was)

ALL HISTORY SO FAR!

Date: 2010/09/15 16:45:12, Link
Author: BillB
As a scientist who is terminally bad at maths I've found BarryR's contribution to UD enlightening - Good work!

KF:  
Quote
As has been repeatedly pointed out above [e.g. cf 187 - 191], MF, the notion that 2 + 2 = 4 can be shown “wrong” by shifting “axioms” in midstream is a gross confusion rooted in the blatant error of substituting a novel redefinition of the “”+” operator; creating an unnecessary and blatant contradiction where + is now held to at once mean two different things that deny one another.

KF should look at his watch - if it says 11 and you add 14 you get 1, not 25
got that: 11+14=1
In the same fashion 300+70=10 (if you are talking about angles measured in degrees)

Like I said, I'm rubbish at maths but even I can understand that!

Date: 2010/09/16 03:05:59, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 15 2010,23:50)
Quote (BillB @ Sep. 15 2010,16:45)
As a scientist who is terminally bad at maths I've found BarryR's contribution to UD enlightening - Good work!

KF:    
Quote
As has been repeatedly pointed out above [e.g. cf 187 - 191], MF, the notion that 2 + 2 = 4 can be shown “wrong” by shifting “axioms” in midstream is a gross confusion rooted in the blatant error of substituting a novel redefinition of the “”+” operator; creating an unnecessary and blatant contradiction where + is now held to at once mean two different things that deny one another.

KF should look at his watch - if it says 11 and you add 14 you get 1, not 25
got that: 11+14=1
In the same fashion 300+70=10 (if you are talking about angles measured in degrees)

Like I said, I'm rubbish at maths but even I can understand that!

Not only that, but you can make 2 + 2 = 11 just by working in base 3.

Quite true but for people who's understanding of maths doesn't extend much beyond counting stones, base n is a concept that needs explaining whereas a clock is a concrete example.

For people like me who struggle with this stuff having some concrete examples to ground the concept is very handy - although I realise that it is pretty difficult to ground some of the more pure maths this way!

Date: 2010/09/17 07:38:30, Link
Author: BillB
Bruce David:
Quote
It is truly awesome to me to realize that now that Darwinism has been overturned (and it has been, folks), the ONLY force in the Universe capable of producing CSI (or of violating the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, to put it another way) is intelligence, in which we all participate.
So are there any other fundamental laws of physics that we can violate by virtue of this hard to define property called 'intelligence'? Gravity perhaps? or maybe causality? perhaps if I am smart enough I can make something happen after it happened (whilst flying around like superman)

Cool, I'm being won over here by the force of their arguments and evidence (and my desire to have superpowers)

Date: 2010/09/23 15:39:30, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 23 2010,14:47)
Hah! You've all fallen into my cunningly laid trap. Mild and meek though it appeared (I even gave you a hint). This will be over soon methinks.

Earls Court!

Louis

I was all prepared today for the masterstroke, armed with a cameraphone, a printout of the Antievolution logo and a trip to london that took me through Mornington Crescent ...

Then my phone broke, so no winning pictorial move.

Kings cross?

Date: 2010/09/30 01:19:19, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 30 2010,03:03)
Quote (Maya @ Sep. 28 2010,09:29)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 28 2010,07:33)
Just as an aside, I recommend "safeword" as the easiest safeword to remember.

All y'all are a bit too . . . advanced for me.  If "ouch" isn't a good enough safeword, I don't think I want to play the game.

pfft. If you can tell the difference between hockey and sex, you're doing one of them wrong.

Is that why Sarah Palin is referred to as a 'Hockey Mom'?

Date: 2010/10/11 06:45:31, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Ptaylor @ Oct. 11 2010,04:25)
Slightly off topic, but this seems to be the most relevant thread.

This headline has been sitting on my Google News page for over a week now:

UK Centre for Intelligent Design claims it will focus on science, not religion

Today it was joined by [URL=http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/education/would-you-adam-and-eve-it-top-scientists-tell-scottish-pupils-the-bible-is-true-1.1060545?


localLinksEnabled=false]this one[/URL], referring to the same outfit:

Would you Adam and Eve it? Top scientists tell Scottish pupils: the Bible is true

Surely some mistake!

Edit: fixed second link

Quote
They are among Scotland’s most eminent scientists

Quote
, headed by a Northern Irish professor of genetics, a vice-president of the Royal College of Physicians and a former school inspector,

I count one scientist ...
So no, they aren't "among Scotland’s most eminent scientists"

Date: 2010/10/11 11:29:03, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 11 2010,15:38)
Of course, "among scientists" could mean in the same room or building with them... :p

Or just in Scotland

Date: 2010/10/12 05:41:04, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 11 2010,23:06)
Quote
Big search space: realistic
Huge search space: not realistic
Thanks for clearing that up, gpuccio!

Aside from the vagueness of big and huge, at least he has proposed something testable.

When the sparseness of Douglass Axe's protein space is found to be rubbish, then Pooch's entire ID inference fails.

Until the goalposts are moved.

The goalposts of the ID movement have been intelligently designed with wheels to make rapid transportation easy.

They also exhibit a curious property of quantum duality where the distance between posts are both infinitly large and small at the same time, and their mexican wave function can collapse into a state to suit any argument.

Of course the 'rules' also dictate that a goal can be scored by moving a goalpost past a stationary ball.

Date: 2010/10/23 08:38:55, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 23 2010,13:05)
http://tinyurl.com/2fe34ro

 
Quote
Imperial College London News Release: Two strains of the type of mosquito responsible for the majority of malaria transmission in Africa have evolved such substantial genetic differences that they are becoming different species, according to researchers behind two new studies published today in the journal Science.

As malaria is the poster child over at UD for "the lack of power of evolution" I wonder what they'll make of it's host undergoing speciation.

ID Answer: THE ARE STILL MOSQUITOS!
Extended ID answer: TEY ARE STILL FLYING INSECTS!
Even more extended answer: TEY R STILL INSECTS!11111

Date: 2010/10/23 08:39:52, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (BillB @ Oct. 23 2010,14:38)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 23 2010,13:05)
http://tinyurl.com/2fe34ro

 
Quote
Imperial College London News Release: Two strains of the type of mosquito responsible for the majority of malaria transmission in Africa have evolved such substantial genetic differences that they are becoming different species, according to researchers behind two new studies published today in the journal Science.

As malaria is the poster child over at UD for "the lack of power of evolution" I wonder what they'll make of it's host undergoing speciation.

ID Answer: THE ARE STILL MOSQUITOS!
Extended ID answer: TEY ARE STILL FLYING INSECTS!
Even more extended answer: TEY R STILL INSECTS!11111

Oh, nearly forgot.
Other ID answer: GODDITIT!

Date: 2010/10/29 15:02:19, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (didymos @ Oct. 29 2010,19:22)
Bannination Alert!  Molch "uncivilly" derides Gordon:
 
Quote
Just like the KF I know and love: putting words in my mouth and then attacking what he just made up:

”So, Molch, your assertion just above of an “obvious” entailment of a symmetrical challenge to theism fails”

Here is what I actually said: “a wise thinker will never claim to KNOW that there is no God.” …which obviously also entails the opposite end of that bargain.”

In the context of the actual discussion I was having with CY, you might have glimpsed that what I was talking about here were the truth claims of the multitude of alternative worldviews we were discussing (i.e. there is no Tao, there is no Karma, there is no Boddhisattva, there is no [insert whatever concept you want]). But I guess I am expecting too much by asking for contextual reading.

“and this error shows that your reasoning has not been as soundly instructed as you imagined.”

Well, at least your comments are good for a chuckle – feel free to question my reasoning all you wish without knowing anything about my reasoning, I’ll be content with questioning your reading comprehension…

“I have concluded” in the context of worldview warrant, is to imply a claim to warranted, credibly true belief, i.e. to knowledge.”

That’s nice that you think that. I disagree. Belief (warranted credibly true or not) is fundamentally different from knowledge. Look it up in the dictionary. The conclusion that A = B is fundamentally different from the knowledge that A = B.

“It may not be politically correct to point to such circumstances, but alas, they are well warranted. Cf e.g. here on the story of a 9 y.o. child bride taken from her dolls, and other related concerns. Sorry to be so painfully specific, but such details are necessary given your attempt at personal attack.”

You want some “painfully specific details” why calling Christianity “troubled” might be “well warranted”?

“In short, my point 9 in 54 above was indeed a highly compressed summary remark but that did not mean that it has no warranting context that should have been immediately accessible to one discussing worldview choice across major systems of thought on a reasonably informed basis.”

Let’s see – how about some highly compressed summary remark that I find Christianity an ethically highly questionable, internally inconsistent cult for a barbaric god, and Alvin Plantinga outdated and far from the mark in addressing the problem of evil. After all, these views have a lot of warranting context, as someone as well versed in Christian apologetics as you should know. And after saying this, I’ll expect you to have a fair-minded, productive discussion on the merits of different world-views…

“Nor, have you taken up the issue that on inference to best explanation, to reject the set of evidence pointing to theism leads to commitments that have very strong challenges on difficulties.”

I am sorry that it irks you that I don’t feel like debating the roots and reasonings behind my world-view with you. If I want to do that, I go to much more intellectually and philosophically challenging places than here. Like I pointed out in the discussion with CY, I am not here to discuss my world-view, or his, or yours. I entered the discussion to challenge his somewhat strange and in my eyes inconsistent standard for adopting a world-view.

“Unfortunately, this is a classic tactic of those caught up in selectively hyperskeptical systems: divert, distort, deride, dismiss.”

Thanks for summarizing your pervasive debating technique so beautifully. That’s exactly why I find discussions with you neither productive, nor educational, nor enjoyable. Have fun deriding the next customer!


Off-site POTW.  Damn.  When the time comes, Molch, I shall shed many a manly tear for your valorous and noble sacrifice!

Ah, beat me to it. My first response to reading it on UD was "must preserve on AE before disappeared"
Cue "turnabout accusations..." from KF - who never seams to realize that accusing others of turnabout accusations explicitly implies that he is casting the first stone, but of course KF presumably believes that "let he who is without sin ..." is a divine command/justification to for him to stand up and start chucking stones at people he doesn't like.

Christian morality - the ultimate adaptive system.

Date: 2010/11/01 17:50:25, Link
Author: BillB
Another Post about WEASEL
Quote
Check out the following paper at arXiv. It gives yet another incarnation of Dawkins’ WEASEL. Let me suggest that Darwinists next try a horror version of it: “The WEASEL That Wouldn’t Die.” Perhaps Michael Moore can help make it.
Quote
There’s plenty of time for evolution
...

DrDrD must be worried, much more of this and Dawkins Pop-Sci book will have been referenced in real science papers more than the sum of Dembskis own output, of that of the entire ID crowd!

Date: 2010/11/02 03:47:35, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (olegt @ Nov. 02 2010,03:02)
How does science tell the difference between ‘natural selection’ and ‘artificial selection’? And wouldn’t any computer demonstration be artificial selection regardless?

I suppose technically any simulation of evolution is actually a type of simulated theistic evolution - The researcher (god) creates a world (the simulation) in which evolution can occur.

The key difference between this and 'artificial selection' is that selection is written into the rules of the simulation, not imposed on individual population members by an agent outside the simulation.

If the ID compatible branch of TE is right - that God ocasionally intervenes to change things - then God is performing artificial selection by tweaking the 'simulator'.

hmmm.

Date: 2010/11/02 10:01:39, Link
Author: BillB
gpuccio outlines his plan:
Quote
The designer must not design the system for his simulation. He must only design the replicators for an existing real system (I suggested Windows 7, but Linux would fit too). And obviously the mutation system, more or less adjustable. And nothing else. And the replicators should select themselves in that “natural” system, which has not been set by the designer of the experiment, and therefore is certainly “neutral”.

So he suggests "windows 7" or "Linux" as an "environment" or an example of an existing real system that is neutral?

There is just so much wrong with that I don't know where to start ... He is basically saying that you can write code to simulate a self replicating system but not to simulate an environment, instead you should rely on an environment that someone else has designed (but not for evolutionary experiments) and which may not be ameanable to evolution in any way.

Or the short version - Put fish on mount everest, if they reproduce then evolution wins!!!11!!!1!!one

Date: 2010/11/02 12:55:43, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 02 2010,16:45)
Quote (BillB @ Nov. 02 2010,08:01)
gpuccio outlines his plan:    
Quote
The designer must not design the system for his simulation. He must only design the replicators for an existing real system (I suggested Windows 7, but Linux would fit too). And obviously the mutation system, more or less adjustable. And nothing else. And the replicators should select themselves in that “natural” system, which has not been set by the designer of the experiment, and therefore is certainly “neutral”.

So he suggests "windows 7" or "Linux" as an "environment" or an example of an existing real system that is neutral?

There is just so much wrong with that I don't know where to start ... He is basically saying that you can write code to simulate a self replicating system but not to simulate an environment, instead you should rely on an environment that someone else has designed (but not for evolutionary experiments) and which may not be ameanable to evolution in any way.

Or the short version - Put fish on mount everest, if they reproduce then evolution wins!!!11!!!1!!one

You know what's weird?  He honestly seems to think that it would actually be successful and you'd see "artificial non intelligent selection" occur.  For a few days now, he's been trying to convince batshit77 on another thread that this selection stuff really does work.  This isn't something he's contrived to make evolution "fail".  He just thinks this bullshit is an accurate simulation of how NS "really" works.  

Truly fucking amazing.

It's like someone just went and took a hammer to all the neurons for handling any sort of abstraction whatsoever in every UD commenter's head:  "Kick the computer!" "Make 'em live in Windows 7!"  "Weasel!" "Nothing can begin to exist without a cause!" "Rocks are made of energy, force and truth!" "Here: watch some shitty Christian rock videos!"

Someone who isn't banned ought to ask if a more biologically plausible environment not explicitly designed for this would suffice - for example a computer game environment?

You could (speculating wildly) use a game engine to create a virtual world and polulate it with evolvable agents. Oh, but then you need an environment that contains resources - food that the agents can acquire - which would presumably means you have then 'loaded the die' and the whole thing can be dismissed as one big cheat.

Date: 2010/11/02 14:27:48, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Maya @ Nov. 02 2010,20:10)
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 02 2010,13:39)
 
Quote (Maya @ Nov. 02 2010,11:20)
By the way, I found this interesting:
   
Quote
The authors of Avida were probably convinced that they were running a correct simulation, but Dembski and Marks have shown that this is not the case.

While I would never suspect anyone from UD of overstating the conclusions of a distinguished mathematician like Dembski, wtf is gpuccio on about?

This:

http://evoinfo.org/papers/2009_EvolutionarySynthesis.pdf

Short version: Active information!

Haven't read it myself, so no long version.

It smells of BS.  Has anyone from the Aviva team responded?  (Google doesn't show any response.)

ETA: The immediate BS smell comes from the misstatement of the No Free Lunch theorems in the abstract and this line from the conclusions:  "Mutation, fitness, and choosing the fittest of a number of mutated offspring [5] are additional sources of active information in Avida we have not explored in this paper."  Evidently the environment is a source of "active information".  What a surprise.

Yes, anything that makes evolution work is a source of active information - therefore evolution doesn't work, even if it does, therefore god.

QED

Date: 2010/11/02 15:49:42, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Raevmo @ Nov. 02 2010,21:39)
OMG!!! Now gpuccio is really losing it:

   
Quote
The point with Windows or Linux is that those systems have certainly not been conceived by the author of the simulation. That is the important requirement. The environment must not have been designed thinking of the simulation.

His bold.

Happens to me all the time: "oh shit -- I just thought of the simulation -- now I have to start all over again designing a new environment."

These guys just cannot wrap their minds around the concept of a model. They really are retards.

PaV chips in:
Quote
How does one “create” an environment that ‘rewards’ certain configurations without inputting some selection functions? But this then means that human intelligence has to come up with a ‘reasonable’ selection function that will then operate under ‘reasonable’ conditions. This is information, located in an intelligent agent. How do you surmount this problem?

And the get out clause is - If, by some feat of genius someone created a windows programe that reproduces and evolves then the extra dFSCSIInformation must have been gathered from the OS - WHICH WAS DESIGNED!

Date: 2010/11/02 16:46:57, Link
Author: BillB
gpuccio again:
Quote
I believe that everybpody emphasizes too much the concept of “selection pressure”. Maybe because the only real model of darwinism is antibiotic resistance? But you know, that is an extreme scenario.

And then, isn’t RV the real originator of the new functions?

Yes, in part:
Quote
RV knows nothing of selection pressure.

Correct:
Quote
If a new function arises by RV, it will be a new useful function also in a general purpose computer environment, I believe.

Useful to what? If it is used by something, and is found to be usefull it will be used some more. If it is not useful it will not be used - this is called SELECTION!

Date: 2010/11/02 18:47:43, Link
Author: BillB
MathGrrl:
Quote
Tierra is about the simplest environment possible, given that RAM and time are the only two resources available. Programs live or die based on how well they use those resources. Interestingly, even in such a simple environment we see parasites evolve, and resistance to parasites, and “hyper parasites” that prey on the new programs.
PaV:
Quote
This type of programming seems harmless enough. But the devil is in the details. Viz., when you say that the programs “live or die based on how well they use those resources,” just what, exactly, determines “how well” they’re doing. Why kind of a comparison is involved? And who decided that this comparison is a good one to make?
Presumably the same kind of agent that decides if a programme running under windows or linux is useful?

Date: 2010/11/04 17:10:54, Link
Author: BillB
SCheesman on corny's robot evolution discussion:
Quote


A true test would be to start with Robots with a rudimentary ability to navigate throught the maze.

Now, randomly mutate and recompile the naviagational source code, selecting, of course, only those copies which actually compile, and then select robots, using the new code, that have improved navigational ability.
A true test of what exactly?

A test of whether a high level language is evolvable of course.

If you can't evolve C then Darwin woz rong!!!

Or ...

Computer code is brittle and not directly comparable to genomes in this context.

Date: 2010/11/04 17:17:16, Link
Author: BillB
Hmmm. Handed in my corrected and neatly bound PhD thesis today ... all thats left is to don a silly outfit and collect a piece of paper whilst my parents try not to cry... maybe I'll post some photos!

Date: 2010/11/11 08:43:12, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 11 2010,14:34)
Quote (dogdidit @ Nov. 11 2010,08:15)
Quote (KCdgw @ Nov. 11 2010,07:43)
   
Quote (KCdgw @ Nov. 11 2010,07:39)
   
Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 10 2010,17:45)
     
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 10 2010,14:03)

       
Quote (olegt @ Nov. 10 2010,15:57)
       
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2010,15:52)
             
Quote (KCdgw @ Nov. 10 2010,15:45)
             
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 10 2010,15:41)
               
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 10 2010,13:19)
               
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,15:00)
                 
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 10 2010,13:51)
                 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2010,12:49)
                   
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:41)
                   
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 10 2010,13:34)
                     
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 10 2010,20:24)
                     
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:20)
                       
Quote
The modified salmon includes a gene from an eel. Any explanation has to explain that fact.

That requirement is apt to leave them floundering.

Cod happen.

Gentlemen, is this really the plaice for this sort of behaviour? Louis

Well, not if people are gonna carp about it!

I can't believe what I'm herring. LOLer-Skates.

I shall not be reeled into this undignified pun cascade.

So this then will be your sole reply on this matter?

You all have finally jumped the shark.

I knew something smelt fishy about this thread.

I'm getting a haddock over all this

Are you having a wet bream?

I am afraid this is eel-conceived.

I am dolphin*-ly not impressed. Methinks it's just time to clam up. * fish, not the mammal

It all smells of, ick, theology!

Makes me want to tuna-out.

And its a crappie thread, besides.

Stop this, you bass tards!

Go fish.

Oh Cod, not again!

Date: 2010/11/20 11:37:20, Link
Author: BillB
From Darwins God:
Quote
Eocene said...

   Bill bigge:

   "To sum up. You claim that information exists independantly of matter, I ask for evidence, and a way of incorporating this substrate free information into experiments "
   =====

   Once again I already gave you an example to understand a simple example to illustrate the point that even a child would get. I told you to THINK about it. You obviously knew what I meant , but predictably skirted around the edges of true rational logic using a "What Is Truth?" arguement about what is "immaterial thought". The problem continues to be your problem with the experiemnt and that is the point.
   -----

   Bille Bigge:

   "(one way might be to explain how this type of information interacts with matter, and give some experimental evidence of this happening.)"
   =====

   Wow, this is Kindergarten stuff. Bill, first think(immaterial) about something, then take an ink pen and write those thoughts down on paper(material). That's about as grade school experimenting as you're going to get.
   *eyes rolling*
   -----

   Bill Bigge:

   "I think you may have misunderstood how this whole science thing works."
   =====

   Really. Science is about physical and naturalistic proofs. You have done neither and neither has the Darwin gang without telling predictable myths and fables found only in a parallel universe of some online gaming site.
   -----

   Bill Bigge:

   "You said "Goal orientated replication" - Why do we need to demonstrate that chemical replicators have goals? Why is that useful?"
   =====

   Because chemicals reacting to a catalyst making crytal-like patterns are not LIFE, Bill. We are talking about LIFE Bill, not some unilateral agenda to appease atheists so they'll promise to be your friend. The genetic codes do have goals for renewal and replication, but they also have at their disposal a bounty of error correction mechanisms and other resources to prevent birth defects. These were all present at the very beginning. Why ??? Because if not, then life never gets of the ground billions of years ago, let alone continuing to the present from last year. Once again you are proving this is more about religious faith, than science. Thanks for illustrating that for us.

I just can't find the words ...

Date: 2010/11/21 11:32:05, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Raevmo @ Nov. 21 2010,15:13)
VJ [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-earth-not-our-mother-not-our-sister-not-a-living-thing-but-our-treasure-trove-our-obse

rvatory-our-library-our-spaceship-and-our-home/#comment-367788]on cleaning up the environment:[/URL]
 
Quote
Here’s another fact to consider. The task you propose is a task that by definition could never be finished. No matter how much you worry, no matter what precautions you take, there’s always another one you could take to make the world even safer. If you kept thinking like that, you’d have no time for human interactions with people around you, let alone prayer.

This guy has a PhD in philosophy?

No matter how much exercise you do, you could always be a little bit fitter, therefore you shouldn't bother.

RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!!!!111

Date: 2010/12/08 08:13:29, Link
Author: BillB
Shogun:    
Quote
I’m afraid that no study is good enough to convince the opposition. The whole idea of legalizing homosexuality hinged on the claim that it was perfectly natural which was prematurely taken from few studies conducted by none other than homosexual researchers. But now that it was shown that homosexuality has no natural/genetic basis, the society has already been desensitized enough into accepting it as a norm thanks to the tactics of Kirk and Madsen.


So what would the definition of 'Natural' be - not found in nature perhaps ...
List of animals displaying homosexual behavior:  
Quote
... homosexual behavior, not necessarily sex, has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.

Date: 2010/12/13 16:45:39, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (carlsonjok @ Dec. 13 2010,20:30)
It seems more explanatory that KF is completely incapable of admitting error.

The whole WEASEL comedy demonstrated that to perfection. The only errors he will admit to are inconsequential to his position, and even then they are only a device for deflecting criticism of his inability to admit error.

Date: 2010/12/18 07:41:20, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (carlsonjok @ Dec. 18 2010,12:49)
LarTanner:  KF is like Torquemada.
Kairosfocus: Wahhh! Apologize!
LarTanner:  I didn't intend to make a direct comparison, so I apologize.
Kairosfocus: No! Apologize right!

Hey Gordon?  Since we know your read here, let me say this: What a prissy, childlike fop KF you are. Get over yourself.

What is most surprising is that he doesn't see his own double standards. He routinely accuses others of lying, distorting, confusing and generally being the cause of societal collapse, and  isn't above comparing his opponents to despicable people (hitler, defenders of rapists ... ... ) If he interprets someone else's words as a slander then he will refuse to accept that he misinterpreted and demand apologies for something he thought was said, but actually wasn't, he complains all the time about ad-homenim attacks yet they seem to form the core of his 'civilized' debating tactics.

And when he is called out on his own behavior he has a hissy-fit and starts yelling 'moderator moderator', makes more accusations of lying, deceiving, distorting etc... oh, and 'turnabout accusations' (because with KF he is always the first to cast stones)

He obviously has a very high opinion of himself (above all others) but in reality he is a sanctimonious thug.

Date: 2010/12/18 10:20:16, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Dec. 18 2010,15:37)
Quote (BillB @ Dec. 18 2010,07:41)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ Dec. 18 2010,12:49)
LarTanner:  KF is like Torquemada.
Kairosfocus: Wahhh! Apologize!
LarTanner:  I didn't intend to make a direct comparison, so I apologize.
Kairosfocus: No! Apologize right!

Hey Gordon?  Since we know your read here, let me say this: What a prissy, childlike fop KF you are. Get over yourself.

What is most surprising is that he doesn't see his own double standards. He routinely accuses others of lying, distorting, confusing and generally being the cause of societal collapse, and  isn't above comparing his opponents to despicable people (hitler, defenders of rapists ... ... ) If he interprets someone else's words as a slander then he will refuse to accept that he misinterpreted and demand apologies for something he thought was said, but actually wasn't, he complains all the time about ad-homenim attacks yet they seem to form the core of his 'civilized' debating tactics.

And when he is called out on his own behavior he has a hissy-fit and starts yelling 'moderator moderator', makes more accusations of lying, deceiving, distorting etc... oh, and 'turnabout accusations' (because with KF he is always the first to cast stones)

He obviously has a very high opinion of himself (above all others) but in reality he is a sanctimonious thug.

A while ago K-F demanded someone be banned from UD for using his real name. The fact that GEM of TKI had a link to his personal blog which displayed his name, was of little importance to K-F.

GEM of TKI aka 'He who shall not be named'

Date: 2010/12/19 06:50:35, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (carlsonjok @ Dec. 19 2010,12:14)
Kairosfocus seems to have a reading comprehension problem.

Not satisfied to proclaim his indignation from the soapbox provided at UD, he wanders over to LarTanner's blog to vent his spleen some more.  Over there, he encounters Bill Bigge (presumably our own BillB), who takes him to task for his tactics.  KF runs back to UD to tell all his little friends about how poorly he was treated:
 
Quote
In addition,I saw a commenter there, who seems to be an old UD commenter.

He tried to reinforce the Torquemada false accusation by LT, through claiming to onlookers that I had slanderously associated him with rapists.

This is wrong, and inexcusable.

In a UD thread some time ago, the commenter had twisted the following description of the SAME turnabout, false accusation rhetorical tactic he is now employing, to make me out as casting him in the same boat as rapists:


What did Bill Bigge actually say?
 
Quote
You complain about an implied association with Torquemada yet when you debate people who disagree with you you use that very tactic yourself - you once tried to associate me with lawyers who blame rape victims for the crime, yet the result of my complaint about this offensive and uncivil comment was more abuse from you, appeals to moderators and eventually my bannation from UD.


Gordon? I know nothing makes you happier than to be outraged but, really, do try to read honestly what others write.  Lawyers who blame rape victims ? rapists

BillB, do you have a link to the comment where KF made this association you are referring to?

Yes, it was me.

As far as I can tell the comment first appeared during the hilarious latching debate in this discussion, although I haven't had a chance to track it down yet because my 2yo daughter is competing with my netbook for attention. It may have first appeared on another discussion at around the same time.

Date: 2010/12/19 06:55:30, Link
Author: BillB
I think this might be it.

Date: 2011/01/04 05:10:39, Link
Author: BillB
KF:  
Quote
j –> In mechanical systems, conventions define how analogue inputs are encoded as digital symbols — e.g even a keyboard is a crude form of A/D converter here [press key with "enough" force --> symbol recognised and stored];

I suppose so ... following through with this logic we would find that ANY switch connected to a computer is an analogue input, even if it's operation is entirely binary ... hmm so there is no such thing as a digital input to a computer, only analogue ones (because the world is analogue?)

From this starting point KF could then argue that, even though logic gates have thresholds and hysteresis, (they are latches!) they are actually analogue signal processors, therefore 'digital' computers don't exist, they are really a crude form of analogue computer built with very high gain amplifiers.

So to sum up, in KF land digital is just a type of analogue, and cells contain digitally encoded information, we never observe natural systems generating digital information (which is actually just analogue, like the stuff that natural systems generate) - THEREFORE GOD!11!

Digital is just analog? perhaps semi-analog, or quasi-analog ... semi-quasi-psuedo-analog?

Date: 2011/01/06 08:09:08, Link
Author: BillB
More KF:  
Quote
ES58:

The observed cosmos is generally accepted as having ~ bignum ... bignum ... more bignumbers ...

With a bit of conservative rounding, blah ... only a very small fraction of these would be available for forming terrestrial planets suitable for life sites or other conceivably similarly life friendly zones.

Now 1,000 coin flips is capable of 1.07*10^301 configurations, i.e. greater than 10^150 by a factor of more than 10^150. So, any proposed case by which something that stores at least 1,000 bits of information [esp. digitally coded info or info reducible to that] as a specific part of its function is said to have originated by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity working with such blind chance, runs into a wall whereby the scope of possible search on the gamut of the observable cosmos is so vastly inferior to what needs to be searched, that the search rounds down to zero.


KF seems to believe that in order to find something one must first search everywhere, and if there is not enough time to search everywhere then it is impossible to find anything.

 
Quote
next, the quasi-infinite multiverse runs into the problem that he observed cosmos — the only one actually observed BTW (so the multiverse idea is a metaphysical speculation not science) — rests on physics that is friendly to C-chemistry life but sits at a finely balanced, deeply isolated operating point, on dozens of factors. That is, locally minor shifts in parameters, even without touching laws, would suffice to make it radically unfriendly to life.


I LOL'd - as AIGuy pointed out a while ago, 'Intelligence' is not observed independantly of life on earth yet KF likes to tell us that 'Intelligence' is the only observed source of dF***ingSCI and that it explains life - let me correct that for you:

 
Quote
next, the concept of intelligence runs into the problem that observed intelligence—the only examples actually observed BTW (so the disembodied intelligence idea is a metaphysical speculation not science)—are biological creatures (life on earth) and can't have been responsible for creating life on earth.

Date: 2011/01/06 08:31:03, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (BillB @ Jan. 06 2011,14:09)
More KF:      
Quote
ES58:

The observed cosmos is generally accepted as having ~ bignum ... bignum ... more bignumbers ...

With a bit of conservative rounding, blah ... only a very small fraction of these would be available for forming terrestrial planets suitable for life sites or other conceivably similarly life friendly zones.

Now 1,000 coin flips is capable of 1.07*10^301 configurations, i.e. greater than 10^150 by a factor of more than 10^150. So, any proposed case by which something that stores at least 1,000 bits of information [esp. digitally coded info or info reducible to that] as a specific part of its function is said to have originated by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity working with such blind chance, runs into a wall whereby the scope of possible search on the gamut of the observable cosmos is so vastly inferior to what needs to be searched, that the search rounds down to zero.


KF seems to believe that in order to find something one must first search everywhere, and if there is not enough time to search everywhere then it is impossible to find anything.

Perhaps someone with an undead sock can ask KF: What is the ratio of search space and available time where searches become impossible.

{rant}

And whilst I'm at it there are some other questions I would ask KF if I hadn't been banned for objecting to his incivility:

1: We are told that 1000 bits is a threshold for dFSCI below which something isn't 'alive' enough to self replicate (or sometimes it is a threshold of 500-1000 bits - funny type of threshold that!).

If we forget about the problems with dFSCI for a moment, if you know that something can't self replicate (and evolve) without this many bits then you ought to be able to describe a minimal self replicating system (in real chemistry) and provide some proof that it can't be made any simpler - otherwise how can you know that 500-1000 bits is a threshold?

2: If I have a minimal self replicating system (that can be described in 500 bits) and I alter one bit such that it breaks then does that mean it now has zero bits of dFSCI - I mean if it doesn't work then it must have zero functionality and hence no 'Functional Information'?

3: Following from this, you can take this non functional (with respect to self replication) system (which has zero dFSCI) and change one bit to make it into a functional system with 500 bits of dFSCI.

4: I find all this ID maths very confusing.
{/rant}

Date: 2011/01/09 04:21:21, Link
Author: BillB
They are reporting that the guy who shot Gabrielle Giffords in the US wasn't a fan of religion ... how long before we see a post at UD implying that teh evil eviloution was to blame, or perhaps just them evil atheists?

Date: 2011/01/10 10:56:47, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Amadan @ Jan. 10 2011,15:27)
Quote (dvunkannon @ Jan. 10 2011,13:00)
What good is an explanation (Nature exists because...) if it is attached to an obviously wrong description (World is 6000 years old, rides on back of turtle, etc.).

Heretic!

If the observation doesn't match scripture then the observation is WRONG (and the obserer is an evil evo-materialist spouting clouds of fishy oily ad hom strawmen)

Date: 2011/01/14 11:54:59, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (dvunkannon @ Jan. 14 2011,13:38)
KairosFlatus is very familiar with the trifecta of fail:
 
Quote
i: use a smelly red herring distractor to pull attention away from the real issues and arguments

ii: lead it away to a strawman caricature of the issues and arguments of the opponent

iii: soak it in inflammatory innuendos, guilt by invidious association or outright demonising attacks to the man (ad hominems) and ignite through snide or incendiary rhetoric.


Let me see if I understand, KF.

i: Evolution leads to gay marriage and the collapse of civilization.

ii: There is not enough resources in the universe to discover even a single functional molecule.

iii: Darwin inspired Hitler and kicked puppies.

How about it KF, am I doin' it right?

Bevets quotes Dembski:  
Quote
As a consequence, critics of intelligent design engage in all forms of character assassination, ad hominem attacks, guilt by association, and demonization.
and  
Quote
When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff. ~ Cicero

Yes, quite right, Darwin=Hitler, Evilutionary materialists are destroying science, yadda yadda (insert fart noise here), cdesign proponentists are not creationists in any way but darwinists are all materialist atheists, hate god, want to eat your babies and everything is meaningless if god doesn't exist ... therefore jebus

But above all don't forget ... When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff.

Date: 2011/01/15 08:07:39, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 15 2011,12:42)
For those no longer reading UD, you've missed out!

vjtorley explains free will!

   
Quote
AS for how top-down causation is compatible with physics, here’s how I picture it.

Reasoning is an immaterial activity. This means that reasoning doesn’t happen anywhere – certainly not in some spooky soul hovering 10 centimeters above my head. It has no location. Ditto for choice. However, choices have to be somehow realized on a physical level, otherwise they would have no impact on the world. The soul doesn’t push neurons, as Eccles appears to think; instead, it selects from one of a large number of quantum possibilities thrown up at some micro level of the brain (Doyle’s micro mind). This doesn’t violate quantum randomness, because a selection can be non-random at the macro level but random at the micro level.

1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1

The above two rows were created by a random number generator. Now suppose I impose the macro requirement: keep the columns whose sum equals 1, and discard the rest. I now have:

1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0

Each row is still random, but I have imposed a non-random macro-level constraint. That’s how my will works when I make a choice.


Wow. And to think there I was thinking nobody knew quite how free will works!

He's got one thing right at least, as long as we understand he's talking about his friends at UD:

 
Quote
reasoning doesn’t happen

Umm, so how does the soul decide gain?

Oh, I forgot, we aren't supposed to talk about how the immaterial bits work.  OK then, I get it, choice can be explained by an immaterial soul choosing between possible random states.

So how does the soul make its decision again? Oh, yeah, I forgot ...

I know, lets invent IMATERIAL DETERMINISM!

Date: 2011/01/15 10:21:03, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 15 2011,15:58)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 15 2011,06:42)
For those no longer reading UD, you've missed out!

vjtorley explains free will!

Quote
AS for how top-down causation is compatible with physics, here’s how I picture it.

Reasoning is an immaterial activity. This means that reasoning doesn’t happen anywhere – certainly not in some spooky soul hovering 10 centimeters above my head. It has no location. Ditto for choice. However, choices have to be somehow realized on a physical level, otherwise they would have no impact on the world. The soul doesn’t push neurons, as Eccles appears to think; instead, it selects from one of a large number of quantum possibilities thrown up at some micro level of the brain (Doyle’s micro mind). This doesn’t violate quantum randomness, because a selection can be non-random at the macro level but random at the micro level.

1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1

The above two rows were created by a random number generator. Now suppose I impose the macro requirement: keep the columns whose sum equals 1, and discard the rest. I now have:

1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0

Each row is still random, but I have imposed a non-random macro-level constraint. That’s how my will works when I make a choice.

Wow. And to think there I was thinking nobody knew quite how free will works!

He's got one thing right at least, as long as we understand he's talking about his friends at UD:

Quote
reasoning doesn’t happen

Hmm, so if the soul "selects from one of a large number of quantum possibilities thrown up at some micro level of the brain", and if evolution selects from among random possibilities, then

EVOLUTION is SOUL.

-
Edit: MIND to SOUL

Good point - does that mean DARWIN IS GOD!

Date: 2011/01/20 05:52:50, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 20 2011,06:09)
Quote (Raevmo @ Jan. 19 2011,22:19)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 19 2011,21:14)
Clive waxes eloquent:
       
Quote
Do you think science is conducted outside of humans doing it, and using the power of inference, thus common sense, when doing it? Science is a tool for descriptions of nature, not real explanations behind the curtain of why nature is the way it is. We can’t get behind the curtain, we can only use our powers of inference and describe nature, we cannot explain our descriptions as we can explain the logic behind driving on the right side of the road or the necessary usage of a notary public. The only knowledge we uncover about the world through is inductive descriptions, not real explanations of the ideas behind nature. What science is in itself, which is nothing but a consensual agreement of a methodology, is not the same as the thing studied. You seem to equate natural occurrences with the methodology used to describe the occurrences. The methodology is a convention, what it hits up against, what everyone encounters everyday, that is, the natural world, is not science, it is the natural world. The methodology to describe the natural world is absolutely a convention, and we call that conventional methodology science. The thing studied is not the thing you use to study it. Science is a consensual methodology of the best way to describe nature, which is itself a value judgment, and value judgments, like methodologies, don’t physically exist. You shouldn’t equate the thing worked on with the methodology with which you work. If science discovers a tree, the tree is not science, and science is not the tree.

More! More!

BTW, I think we have an unclaimed signature:

"If science discovers a tree, the tree is not science, and science is not the tree."

Oh, but there is more. You lucky man -- you've hit upon an extraordinarily rich vein of tard, almost entirely free from rational impurities.

From the same vein, a little upstream:
     
Quote
No, I was designed by two intelligent agents, my parents, and they were designed by four, etc., until you get back to an intelligent agent that can imbue life like itself, not machines like itself. Top down, not bottom-up.

Wow.

The discovery of the Clive Hayes Sequence: 2,4,...,1

I guess Clive just realized that there was rampant inbreeding among his ancestors.

He was "designed" by his parents?  They practiced Eugenics?  Genetic manipulation?  Designer genes?  What?  Were they related to Arnim Zola?  Replicants?

What!!!!!!

(Does he think that since his parents chose to have him - at least, that's what they tell him - that qualifies as "design"?)

Doesn't "Top Down, not Bottom-Up" sound like an...interesting...club or hobby?

If Clive followed through with the implications of defining 'design' as reproduction then even single celled organisms would qualify as designers - perhaps you could stretch it even further and say that a meteor designed an impact crater.

Date: 2011/01/24 15:56:06, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (tsig @ Jan. 24 2011,18:40)
This is where the concept of a metaphysically necessary ground of being as the ultimate cause of the material universe enters the picture. For the reasons I have already given, the theistic hypothesis seems to be just what the doctor ordered; it appears to fit the bill perfectly.

placebo

Date: 2011/02/01 10:07:44, Link
Author: BillB
At last - I've graduated!:

Date: 2011/02/10 14:34:42, Link
Author: BillB
LOL, I'm starting to understand KF better:
Quote
a red herring led away to a strawman, creating the false and misleading, ad hominem laced impression that I do not know what I am talking about on this topic.


So he basically admits that if you disagree with anything he claims then you are attacking him personally - therefore, from his perspective, anything except total submission to his authority is an Ad Hominem.

KF - the unquestionable authority on ... well everything apparently?

Date: 2011/02/21 15:51:12, Link
Author: BillB
I wonder what they would make of the maximum entropy production principle.

Date: 2011/02/23 10:22:35, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Seversky @ Feb. 23 2011,14:29)
Quote (JohnW @ Feb. 22 2011,13:12)
Bruce David has done something truly remarkable - making UD even stupider:
   
Quote
3

Bruce David

02/22/2011

11:36 am
I believe that we have been receiving messages from aliens for some time. They’re called crop circles, and they appear all over the world, but mainly in England. If you look at them carefully and objectively, (there are many books and Web sites that cover them), including their shapes, their size and complexity, the biophysical effects on the crops themselves, and other measurable physical effects in and around them, it is quite clear that there is no known human technology that could produce them, particularly in the space of time in which they appear.

I suspect making UD even "stupider" would be like making the original singularity from which our Universe sprang even more compressed.

Besides, what Bruce apparently doesn't know is that the aliens are already here.

To avoid drawing attention to themselves, they settled in the quiet countryside of rural England and took on the guise of two local lads, Doug Bower and Dave Chorley.

Their spacetime ship is a bit like the TARDIS from Dr Who in that it can camouflage itself.  In this case, instead of an obsolete British police call box it chose to take on the appearance of an English pub called The Percy Hobbs.  It isn't really bigger on the inside than the outside.  It just seems that way after you've spent a few hours there, particularly when you're trying to find the bathroom.

What Bruce and the cerealogists don't seem to realize is that the circles are not messages meant for us.  They're the regular situation reports that these two alien observers have to send back to base somewhere in the Guinness Quadrant.

Yes indeed - it turns out that the most effective way of communicating over stellar distances is with polarised corn stalk technology!

Date: 2011/03/02 07:04:37, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (dheddle @ Mar. 02 2011,12:29)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 01 2011,21:07)
If something has heritable properties that are passed from parent to child instance, that is likely to be considered included broadly within evolutionary computation. "Genetic algorithm" is a specific form of evolutionary computation due to John Holland. GAs operate on instances that are fixed-length bit strings. Other evolutionary computation differs from that. For instance, the Avida program fits in "genetic programming" specifically and "artificial life" categories in evolutionary computation. It operates on variable-length, fixed cardinality symbol sets (fixed cardinality for any given run; that can be changed by instantiating an instruction set of different size).

I suspect ant colony simulations are not, strictly speaking, in evolutionary computation. I would think that they would fit in both natural computation and emergent computation categories.

Hmm.  I never made a distinction between evolutionary algorithms and GAs. Are you saying the latter is a subset of the former where the solution is necessarily represented by a bit string? None of the implementation I wrote used bits--they all used real numbers (and/or ints) to represent solutions.

The question I asked was along a "theory of algorithms" direction. That's a topic in which I have little expertise. But I recall reading (IIRC) that simulated annealing can be shown to be equivalent to a GA--and having done both (though not with bit representations) that "smelled" right.

For fun I thought I'd try a traveling salesman by an ant colony algorithm, and it struck me that it will just be a GA  where the fitness function is maximal pheromone detection.

I've not come across that categorical distinction before, from what I was taught through my MSc onwards a GA can be implemented with variable length genomes, and with a variety of encoding formats.

The bulk of the work I was exposed to was in using GA's with animat simulations (using dynamic recurrent NNEts), evolutionary robotics and evolutionary electronics (Husbands, Harvey, Thompson et.al. at Sussex Uni) They never regarded or referred to a GA as requiring a bit encoded fixed length genotype. I guess historically the GA was created in this form but I think the classification has become a little broader (at least in some disciplines like Evo robotics)

Date: 2011/03/05 12:05:58, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 05 2011,17:10)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 05 2011,10:21)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 05 2011,10:14)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 05 2011,10:10)
Joe finally found my blog.  He's gotten his two warnings already.  

Called me a liar twice.  Called me ignorance.  Failed to produce any evidence for either of his statements.

He also doesn't know what a targeted search is and why it doesn't apply to the genetic algorithms I mentioned in the post.

Here's the links to his two comments.  Feel free to jump in, but remain civil and polite.  Everyone is expected to remain polite and civil in my place.  Thanks

http://ogremk5.wordpress.com/2011....gn-flaw

http://ogremk5.wordpress.com/2011....ligence

You are a liar and it is very telling that you failed to produce any evidence for your statements.

Yes I know what a targeted search is and it does apply to the genetic algorithms.

OTOH you don't have a fucking clue.

It applies to SOME genetic algorithms.

Please explain how to generate a targeted search for something that you don't know how to do.

Joe, are termites intelligent?  That's what this is about right?  "Intelligent" Design.  There's nothing in the notion about non-intelligent design.  So, are termites the intelligent agent that we're talking about here?  If so, I've got some bad news Joe.  "Intelligent" doesn't mean what you think it means.

Just out of curiosity, can you speak to others as if you were a human with empathy, or are you a complete asshole to everyone all the time?

BTW: This is not my blog and I don't care what happens here.

There isn't a genetic algorithm that isn't a targeted search.

A targeted search is just an initial condition, the end point, ie the target, and the resources to get there. You don't need to know how to get there you moron.

Termites are agencies- that is they can do what nature, operating freely cannot do. And you have no idea what you are talking about- as usual.

And I am an asshole only to assholes- I treat people how they treat others. And you are a fucking liar that deserves to have his ass kicked.

Joe,

What would be the point of using a GA to solve a design problem (as many engineers do) if you already know what the solution is?

Explicit targets are used to demonstrate GA's but in practical use the target is unknown, and there are often many possible targets. What is known are the criteria for judging if you have reached a target.

Consider locomotion - there are many ways to move across the ground, we can measure the success of a locomoting agent by measuring how far it moves.  If we want to use a GA to evolve a locomoting agent then the target is BEHAVIOR - how far can it walk in a given period - not how it moves.

There are no targets as far as the organism goes, there are many ways to move, you do not need to know how to get there, or where there is, you just know if it can move, and how well it can move..

Date: 2011/03/13 16:07:48, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Raevmo @ Mar. 13 2011,21:34)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Mar. 13 2011,15:24)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 13 2011,20:39)
   
Quote (Ptaylor @ Mar. 13 2011,14:28)
   
Quote (Raevmo @ Mar. 14 2011,06:20)
In her unrelenting self-promotion campaign (well, who else would promote her?) O'Leary brings to our attention an interview with her in the Dutch Catholic newspaper "Katholiek Nieuwsblad" (a weekly with circulation of about 10,000).

Interestingly, there is this description of Denyse:
         
Quote
De 60-jarige gelauwerde wetenschapsjournaliste uit Canada

Meaning, the 60-year-old laureled science journalist from Canada.

Laureled?

Journalist?

Science?

Meaning?

60?

from?

Laureled and hardy'd ...

Date: 2011/05/18 11:16:13, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Alan Fox @ May 18 2011,15:38)
Mung offers:  
Quote
Still no sign of MathGrrl.


but...


She's back!

DrBot invites the banhammer
Quote
67
DrBot
05/18/2011
10:08 am

Just curious, can anyone give me a figure (and the math behind it) for the CSI in the Mount Rushmore National Memorial?

lol

Date: 2011/05/20 15:37:43, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Freddie @ May 20 2011,17:04)
Quote (Zachriel @ May 20 2011,09:57)
We've been charging the Tard Capacitor for several weeks. Tard Shields Up!

<snip>

Kairosfocus repeats his usual red herring strawman. But he, of all people, should know that repetition doesn't add information, at least not True Information™.

     
Quote

kairosfocus: Perhaps I can give you some context: have you ever met me?


Shields at maximum power!

<snip>

Shields nearly gone. Exiting the Vortex.


ellazim responds:
   
Quote
Have I ever met you? I can’t say as I don’t even know what your real name is!

Perhaps some kind soul could help him out over there by posting Buck of Twiki's real name and email address for him to see ...

You missed this great one liner from ellazim referring to KF
Quote
You think deeply, latch on and don’t let go.

ROTFL

Date: 2011/05/23 06:31:58, Link
Author: BillB
Weasly DrBot has a dig at KF:  
Quote
   
Quote
 recognisability as a portrait of a specific individual is subjective but that is not as opposed to being objective.


? So it is subjective, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t objective ? Quasi objective perhaps?

LOL
 
Quote
 
Quote
   PS: “We’re going downnnnn . . . !”

Not on me you’re not

Ewww, that image will haunt me forever..

Date: 2011/05/31 03:40:45, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Seversky @ May 31 2011,05:11)
Gil Dodgen on who has freedom of thought:

 
Quote
Oops, I forgot, most of these people have no experience in any rigorous engineering discipline. And those who do, and still believe in the Darwinian fantasy, have obviously undergone the atrophy and crippling of their basic reasoning powers — the product of many years of Darwinian indoctrination and suppression of free thought.

Who are the real freethinkers, Darwinists or ID folks? The Darwinian world is Orwellian.


So tell us, Gil, do you want the freedom to decide what is or is not moral in human society or do you want God to lay down the law for you?

Of course, this is already decided, isn't it, Gil?  You have no say in the matter.  Whatever God decides is right, is right.  If He decides He wants to wipe out virtually all life on Earth again then that is fine by you.  If He decides that the virgin daughters of a defeated enemy should be distributed amongst your victorious soldiers as concubines then that is the way it has to be.  What you might think doesn't come into it.

In fact, you are failing in your duties here, Gil.  Not only is homosexuality an abomination but there is a clear OT requirement for adulteresses and rebellious children to be stoned to death.  Why isn't this happening?  You have no choice in these matters.

Could it be that writing checkers programs or modeling how things fall out of the back of aircraft on parachutes does not necessarily endow you with a Jedi-like mastery of all other scientific disciplines.  Could it be that your feeble skills are no match for the power of the Darwin Side?

I suspect Gil wants God to lay down a sufficiently vague and contradictory law so he can decide what is moral or not whilst still claiming that God agrees with him.

Date: 2011/05/31 09:11:30, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 31 2011,14:36)
Gordon "nest of homosexuals" Mullings has this to say:
   
Quote
And, you are talking here to someone who just had to deal with a cluster of slanders up to and including false accusation of homosexuality, indeed that the UD is a nest of homosexuals.

Tard
And get this:
   
Quote
As to the connexion from Darwin to Haeckel et al and onward to Hitler, it may be hotly denied by Darwinists, with personal attacks on those who beg to differ, but he line of ideas descent is unmistakable, once you actually read the relevant parts of Mein Kampf, Darwin’s Descent of Man Chs 5 – 7 (decode: celts = Irish, Scots are obvious and Saxons = English).

Hmm, so Gordon "nest of homosexuals" Mullings has been reading Mein Kampf eh? I guess that makes him a homosexual Nazi then. Er.

And Dr bot responds:  
Quote
And briefly on Darwin and Hitler, the Nazis listed Darwins works as books to be burnt:
Quote
Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel).

A translation of Guidelines from Die Bücherei 2:6 (1935), p. 279

Hitler seemingly objected to the idea of common descent and the idea that Humans could have evolved from other animals by a gradual process. It seems he thought that evolution couldn’t make these large jumps from one island of function to another:
Quote
Whence do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump, as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today.” (Hitler’s Table Talk)

Personally I think trying to make arguments about the validity or not of evolution by invoking historical monsters like this is an unplesant distraction and does nothing to address the scientific issues at hand.

Along with Neil Rickert:  
Quote
   
Quote
  Now, of course, as clever ad men and smart politicians have long since known, the most persuasive form of argument is the appeal to our emotions and underlying perceptions.

Yes, you have nailed it. The arguments for ID are 100% appeals to the emotions, and 0% evidence.

Your entire post is an appeal to the emotions.
 
Quote
For, if clever but willfully deceptive rhetors …

Personally, I find it quite distasteful to call somebod “willfully deceptive.” However, since you are making an appeal to the emotions, I guess anything goes.
 
Quote
This last is why, in his 1997 NYRB review of Sagan’s last book, Lewontin notoriously said: …

I have a lot of respect for Lewontin as a scientist. But I disagree with his statement that you quoted. In particular, I do not make an a priori commitment to materialism. And I expect that there are many scientists who do not make such an a priori commitment.
 
Quote
As in: fallacy of the question-begging materialist assumption and the resulting materialism-indoctrinated, closed mind presented under false colours of science, anyone?

That surely looks like an appeal to the emotions.

I predict that KF will detonate in a mushroom cloud of bafflegab within the next hour including accusations of turnabout accusations™ - and perhaps attempt to blame Einstien for the bombing of Hiroshima.

Date: 2011/06/03 14:03:45, Link
Author: BillB
mung & co confess to bestiality:
Quote
Quote

Could a human and another primate breed, and if not, why not?

Absolutely, we do it all the time.


Or perhaps he was referring to humans (white people) breeding with primates (black people) I wonder how KF would feel about that?

Date: 2011/06/03 16:00:39, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (midwifetoad @ June 03 2011,21:54)
Quote
Or perhaps he was referring to humans


Speak for yourself, homo.

Ah, of course, he believes that the term 'human' only refers to men

Date: 2011/06/07 01:57:10, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (socle @ June 07 2011,05:06)
Quote (Hermagoras @ June 06 2011,21:14)
Finding his Second Law paper tossed out of a peer-reviewed journal, oddball mathematician Granville Sewell announces the next best thing: he's made a video!

Comments are "off," -- but really, what comment could be funnier than the announcement itself?


Granville:
   
Quote
Suppose you and your wife go for a vacation, leaving a dog, a cat, and a parakeet loose in the house (I put the animals there to cause the entropy to increase more rapidly, otherwise you might have to take a much longer vacation to see the same effect).  When you come back, you will not be surprised to see chaos in the house.  But tell her some scientists say, "but if you leave the door open while on vacation, your house becomes an open system, and the second law does not apply to open systems ... you may find everything in better condition than when you left."

That's pretty funny

I'm sure I heard a news report a few years back about someone who would break into peoples houses and tidy up.

Even by means of a bad analogy Granville is still proven wrong!

Date: 2011/06/11 14:49:01, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (damitall @ June 11 2011,18:03)
Looks like Lizzie's got 'em scared.

They seem to be brown-trousered with fear that she could write a simulation to THEIR specifications and rules, yet that would show something they couldn't accept.

There's a deafening noise of shifting goalposts and rising bars.

If I were a bit better at maths I would write out an equation that describes how the goalposts set by the inhabitants of UD move relative to the position if the opposing player. It seems that the goal posts move relative to the player, and at a rate proportional to the speed with which the player is approaching the goal - almost like an inverse PID motion control algorithm.

Something like ...

Gp = Pp+Pv+Pi

where Gp is goal pos, Pp is player position (relative to the goal), Pv is player velocity and Pi is the integral of the distance of the player from the goal.

But like I said, I'm rubbish at maths. Anyone want a shot at formulating it properly?

Date: 2011/06/12 05:41:19, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Driver @ June 12 2011,10:43)
Hi. Been reading UD over the last few weeks (since the CSI furore started). Think I found this site via rational wiki IIRC. Anyway, just wanted to mention that Gil Dodgen's latest article looks like it was triggered by Elizabeth Liddle's threatened simulation. They really want to say "Don't bother" ("Don't prove us wrong").

Yes, the only type of simulation that is allowed in the ID camp is one that explicitly prevents any possibility of proving them wrong in any way.

Date: 2011/06/13 05:55:48, Link
Author: BillB
In an increasingly long thread [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-some-point-the-obvious-becomes-transparently-obvious-or-recognizing-the-forrest-with-al

ls-its-barbs-through-the-trees/#comment-384371]Elizabeth Liddle[/URL] disagrees with KF's assertions about information theory:
Quote
So you are saying, and in this you appear to disagree with Mung and myself, and possibly with Upright BiPed, that the value p, which you need in order to quantify “surprise” can be estimated from the frequency of each character within the message?

If not, and you say: “In that context, so soon as we can characterise a typical symbol frequency distribution, we are well on the way”, then that frequency distribution must be estimated from some other information source, which was my point: if you are only estimating your pdfs from the message, then you have no way of knowing whether the message contains any useful information or not – you have no distribution under the null hypothesis with which to compare your message.

To take Mung’s example above, of a string of Ones. If we take the pdf from the message, the message contains zero bits of information, because the probability of a One (estimated from the message) is 1.

However, if we know that the pdf under the null is equiprobable Ones and Zeros, then the message contains 100 bits of information.

The point being that the information content of the message is a function of your priors concerning the distribution from which possible messages are drawn. Without those priors, you can’t compute the information content of the message.
Followed by a quote from Shannon.

The problem is that KF's null hypothesis is always MONKEYS!

How long before this turns into another Mathgrrl exchange where KF just starts yelling about incivility and demanding that Elizabeth account for her behaviour. "How dare these experts disagree with me, don't they realise I am infallible!"

Date: 2011/06/13 07:50:06, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 13 2011,13:23)
 
Quote (BillB @ June 13 2011,05:55)
In an increasingly long thread [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-some-point-the-obvious-becomes-transparently-obvious-or-recognizing-the-forrest-with-al



ls-its-barbs-through-the-trees/#comment-384371]Elizabeth Liddle[/URL] disagrees with KF's assertions about information theory:      
Quote
So you are saying, and in this you appear to disagree with Mung and myself, and possibly with Upright BiPed, that the value p, which you need in order to quantify “surprise” can be estimated from the frequency of each character within the message?

If not, and you say: “In that context, so soon as we can characterise a typical symbol frequency distribution, we are well on the way”, then that frequency distribution must be estimated from some other information source, which was my point: if you are only estimating your pdfs from the message, then you have no way of knowing whether the message contains any useful information or not – you have no distribution under the null hypothesis with which to compare your message.

To take Mung’s example above, of a string of Ones. If we take the pdf from the message, the message contains zero bits of information, because the probability of a One (estimated from the message) is 1.

However, if we know that the pdf under the null is equiprobable Ones and Zeros, then the message contains 100 bits of information.

The point being that the information content of the message is a function of your priors concerning the distribution from which possible messages are drawn. Without those priors, you can’t compute the information content of the message.
Followed by a quote from Shannon.

The problem is that KF's null hypothesis is always MONKEYS!

How long before this turns into another Mathgrrl exchange where KF just starts yelling about incivility and demanding that Elizabeth account for her behaviour. "How dare these experts disagree with me, don't they realise I am infallible!"

One of the theorems proven by Shannon is that in the limit as a message's length increases, the probability goes to zero that its frequency distribution of symbols diverges from that of the ensemble of messages from which it is taken. This is one of the facts Shannon used to divorce information from meaning. All religious antievolution information-speak is a futile attempt to marry them again in just the way they want it to happen.

Don't they read any of Shannon's stuff?

They only read the bits that they need to support their own presuppositions.

KF again:  
Quote
this suffices to show that the approaches I have spoken of are in fact part and parcel of Shannon’s approach.

In addition, he recognises the centrality of meaningfulness but is focussed on aspects tied closely to sending information down channels, an engineering task.

Other participants in this discussion and I have already spoken to how the context of meaningfulness can be added back in, through following the ID concept of zones of functional configurations from the field of possibilities.
(My bold)

Date: 2011/06/13 08:02:08, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (BillB @ June 13 2011,11:55)
In an increasingly long thread [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-some-point-the-obvious-becomes-transparently-obvious-or-recognizing-the-forrest-with-al



ls-its-barbs-through-the-trees/#comment-384371]Elizabeth Liddle[/URL] disagrees with KF's assertions about information theory:  
Quote
So you are saying, and in this you appear to disagree with Mung and myself, and possibly with Upright BiPed, that the value p, which you need in order to quantify “surprise” can be estimated from the frequency of each character within the message?

If not, and you say: “In that context, so soon as we can characterise a typical symbol frequency distribution, we are well on the way”, then that frequency distribution must be estimated from some other information source, which was my point: if you are only estimating your pdfs from the message, then you have no way of knowing whether the message contains any useful information or not – you have no distribution under the null hypothesis with which to compare your message.

To take Mung’s example above, of a string of Ones. If we take the pdf from the message, the message contains zero bits of information, because the probability of a One (estimated from the message) is 1.

However, if we know that the pdf under the null is equiprobable Ones and Zeros, then the message contains 100 bits of information.

The point being that the information content of the message is a function of your priors concerning the distribution from which possible messages are drawn. Without those priors, you can’t compute the information content of the message.
Followed by a quote from Shannon.

The problem is that KF's null hypothesis is always MONKEYS!

How long before this turns into another Mathgrrl exchange where KF just starts yelling about incivility and demanding that Elizabeth account for her behaviour. "How dare these experts disagree with me, don't they realise I am infallible!"

And so it begins:
Quote
Pardon, but I find this discussion is beginning to be a tedious, non-progressive treading around circles or in effect demanding of us that we show basic and long since established things over and over and over again, but no repetition or elaboration will ever be deemed sufficient to be acceptable.

I think you need to look at he issue of what makes for adequate warrant, and at what point you may be treading unawares into selective hyperskepticism based on suspicion of sources. Much of the above for me is stuff I first saw as a telecomms course student many, many years ago, and I am astonished to see this sort of stuff being suddenly suspect.

When I saw that Schneider was trying to “correct” and dismiss Dembski as ignorant on the most commonplace definition of information there is int eh field, I = – log p, that did it for me. After that point I had no further confidence in Mr Schneider or those who blindly followed him.


Shorter KF "I'm wright, your wrong, and if you don't just shut up and agree with me then I'm going to have a hissy fit and stop talking to you"

Date: 2011/06/14 15:13:29, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Woodbine @ June 14 2011,21:07)
Word Salad of TKI.....
 
Quote
g –> It further documents a pattern of irrationality: making a self-refuting epistemological claim on the begetter of knowledge, confusing a question-begging censoring a priori imposition of materialistically redefined science for a self evident truth about the world and accessing truth about it, imposition of a censoring a priori.

Thats what I call 'incoherent with rage'

Date: 2011/06/14 17:07:37, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (realworld53 @ June 14 2011,22:59)
nice to see you have NOTHING TO SAY, my little bunch of NAZIS

can't . ... speak .... ... laughing ... too .. much

Date: 2011/06/16 07:39:53, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (damitall @ June 16 2011,13:21)
It's like the good old "weasel" days.

GERM of TAKI would rather cut  his own liver out than admit he's ever been wrong

I'm pretty sure gordon believes he is incapable of error, although I think he once admitted to an error during the WEASEL comedy (can't remember what but it was as trivial as a spelling error) and then proceeded to bash people over the head with it saying LOOK I CAN ADMIT ERROR.

If only Dawkins had known, he could have used a Shakespeare quote from 'A comedy of errors' rather than Hamlet.

Date: 2011/06/27 16:21:53, Link
Author: BillB
mathgrrl has some harsh words for vjtorley
Quote
As it is, your lack of testicular fortitude highlights not only the character flaws that lead to attacking the person rather than addressing the argument, but also the smug insincerity that permeates your apology.

Phrase of the week?

Date: 2011/06/30 15:02:13, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Woodbine @ June 30 2011,00:51)
Just to give a sense of how far up his own backside Gordon Mullings lives, take a brief wander through his 'Transformational Leadership Seminar' blog.

http://transformleadershipsem.blogspot.com/

It appears to be an action plan for re-Christianizing the West Indies in these dark days and Gordon is the man with the plan. And what a typically Mullings affair it is! Page upon page of soul destroying, bureaucratic, power-pointed dreck that Gordo revels in.

LOL, I decided to take a look.  The very first line:
Quote
Strategies have to be practically implemented, if they are to work.
Of course they do, you moron, how could a strategy possibly work if it is NOT IMPLEMENTED!

Date: 2011/07/01 04:21:05, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ July 01 2011,10:05)
Quote
snip

yet, i would dearly love to see a handcuffed Gordon E Mullings thrash about in splashes of boiling oil wearing a burlap head sack and louis' ball gag choker while a sexy naked muslim woman ground his tiny atrophied ball sack into the third chapter of the song of solomon using her pointy stiletto heels as she lit one of those giant jesus candles you get for 99 cents at the grocery store to burn as a giant oversized (yet inadequate) rectal flare.

snip


I'm sure Gordon would love it too...

Quote
J Abnorm Psychol. 1996 Aug;105(3):440-5.
Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?
Adams HE, Wright LW Jr, Lohr BA.
Source

Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens 30602-3013, USA.
Abstract

The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

PMID:
   8772014
   [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Date: 2011/07/02 17:02:20, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ July 02 2011,22:23)
Seriously, I wish Mabuse would start stalking Gordon. Would be tremendous fun.

I don't. Harassing people with severe mental illness is cruel.

Date: 2011/07/04 08:15:44, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 04 2011,13:39)
Gordo asks:
 
Quote

Is the CSI concept well-founded mathematically, and can it be applied to the real world, giving real and useful numbers?


And after the same 10,000 words he always uses in defence of CSI he notes:
 
Quote
And, now also you know the most likely why of TWT’s attempt to hold my family hostage by making the mafioso style threat: we know you, we know where you are and we know those you care about. END


All this from a comment that nobody even saw apart from Gordon. It's almost as if Gordy is trying to become a martyr so his claims of suppression can be supported.

But that can't be the case can it? Nobody would be that petty.....

Unless of course they had no other actual evidence to support their arguments of oppression. Then they'd make a big old meal of it.

Guilt by association - by rejecting or arguing against KF's claims you are associated with someone who allegedly made threats to KF. Therefore your argument doesn't stand up.

Or the shorter version, so-and-so is a bad person who argued against my claims, therefore your argument against me is wrong and you are a bad person for making it.  I think that probably qualifies as Ad Hom by proxy?

Date: 2011/07/06 09:26:51, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ July 06 2011,13:57)
Quote
Yup, deniable, useful goons doing the Alinskyite dirty work not even realising they are cat’s paws for a dangerous, destructive radical agenda — did you see how they could not even apply the Categorical imperative to identify what is morally unsound? No need for a widespread conspiracy, just have a few sponsored agents of influence set up astroturf fever swamps for mobs of the ill adjusted and educationally lobotomised who are bewitched by the Plato’s cave shadow shows that stand in for reality (why else do you think they want to control education and the media) to stoke up on rage, deceptive talking points and turnabout accusation tactics. Then, point them to latest targets to swarm down. But this time they picked the wrong target: my family. That’s a nuke threshold, a point of no return.

So we have gone from one person making a comment that KF construed to be a threat to an organized global conspiracy against him, I predict that in the next few days he will recount how he was roused in the night by mysterious noises and forced to arm himself against shadowy hooded darwinjas trying to get at his family.

THEY are targeting his family, all of them, indeed anyone who argues against any of his claims is part of THEM, and engaged in terrorizing his family!!!!111!!

I was thinking that taunting him was a bad thing because it just gives him ammunition with which to avoid actually debating any science, but then you can't really debate with him anyway so perhaps it is better to let him dissolve into incoherent indignation soaked in oil of global conspiracy theories and ignited with the flames of fantasy darwinist bogeymen so as to gently pan fry some red herrings and serve with a sauce of hot gay porn. ... or something ...

Date: 2011/07/14 02:38:31, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Patrick @ July 14 2011,02:08)
Ilion and Mung are going beyond the bounds of even the usual UD levels of civility.  Somewhere in their willfully stunted little minds they seem to understand that Elizabeth Liddle is more intelligent, patient, thoughtful, eloquent, ethical, and honest than they have any hope of being.

I consider free speech to be a good in and of itself and vigorous debate to be essential to arriving at some approximation of truth, but these contemptible, sanctimonious ignorati do make my darker side pine for the lost days of the code duello.

From the same thread
Quote
[s]M[\s]Dung
07/13/2011
6:19 pm
Quote
Mung, you’re much to nice. The answer is “no” … and I figured it out a long time ago.

Yeah, I know you did. And of course I agree.

I really do think her true calling is writing children’s fiction.

Actually I think her calling would be teaching the class of school kids who are either to dumb or too damaged by their backgrounds to learn properly and mix with the other 'normal' kids and who require endless patience and an immunity to childish taunts.

Date: 2011/07/14 16:19:34, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ July 14 2011,22:04)
Quote (Henry J @ July 14 2011,21:59)
Quote (damitall @ July 14 2011,14:43)
 
Quote (Freddie @ July 14 2011,14:48)
 
Quote (keiths @ July 14 2011,14:05)
   
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 14 2011,04:45)
Unpleasant Blowhard, wordsmith:
   
Quote
It seems as though you asked for an operational definition, then got one, then later found out what kind of dynamic structure would be required for such a phenomenon to exist, and have since gone on a rant to eviscerate yourself from the position you are in.

Apparently, it wasn't clear to her what his argument entrails.

That's my gut feeling as well.

Is that colon intentional?

I hope there's not going to be another nested pun-fest. I couldn't stomach that

It would indeed take some intestinal fortitude.

Forgot to nest my entry. better do it now so my undying, marvelous, gut wrenching sense of humeur stays in the thread:

Hey now! WTF? When has AtBC turned into a communist dictature? We are free to pun as much as we want! Wes is NOT Fidel Gastro!

I won't be participating, I don't have the stomach for it.

Date: 2011/07/16 06:29:12, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (iconofid @ July 16 2011,12:08)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 15 2011,17:59)
 
Quote (Tom Ames @ July 15 2011,18:41)
     
Quote (KCdgw @ July 15 2011,14:41)
     
Quote (Seversky @ July 15 2011,07:54)
       
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 14 2011,23:10)
       
Quote (Cubist @ July 14 2011,21:44)
         
Quote (Henry J @ July 14 2011,20:40)
         
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 14 2011,19:37)
           
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 14 2011,20:15)
             
Quote (sledgehammer @ July 14 2011,18:30)
             
Quote (noncarborundum @ July 14 2011,16:18)
                 
Quote (keiths @ July 14 2011,18:01)
                   
Quote (OgreMkV @ July 14 2011,14:22)
                     
Quote (JohnW @ July 14 2011,15:55)
                       
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 14 2011,13:50)
                       
Quote (damitall @ July 14 2011,16:43)
                         
Quote (Freddie @ July 14 2011,14:48)
                         
Quote (keiths @ July 14 2011,14:05)
                           
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 14 2011,04:45)
Unpleasant Blowhard, wordsmith:
                           
Quote
It seems as though you asked for an operational definition, then got one, then later found out what kind of dynamic structure would be required for such a phenomenon to exist, and have since gone on a rant to eviscerate yourself from the position you are in.

Apparently, it wasn't clear to her what his argument entrails.

That's my gut feeling as well.

Is that colon intentional?

I hope there's not going to be another nested pun-fest. I couldn't stomach that

(Here incorporate AtBC policy on nested puns as an appendix to the above.)

That would be quite a tract.

I villi think this is not a good idea.

Butt colitis get on with it.

My reflux is not to ruminate on this tripe.

Is this the right time to point out that the ID folks should spend less of their time in theorizin' and more intestine?

Maybe we should spleen that to them.

Bile means keep on with the alimentary witticisms. This must be that polyp fiction people speak of. Don't let it get too serosa, though.

Just duodenum others as you would have them duodenum you.

Maybe at this point we should liver be?

Naah, we just need some authoritative advice on how to deal with it. I'm sure the Army can supply a G.I. Tract on the subject.

That's it? Shit.

That's right.  What he means is the Army can supply a Jack Shit Tract - rather than a Jack Chick Tract - because that's what they really know about anything.

What gall.

I don't find this conversation at all humorous.

I don't know about you, but it boweled me over.

Me too. But I find it all rather hard to digest.

Pfft. I see that my own comment on this got skipped over. I'm gutted.

Date: 2011/07/17 11:27:31, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (damitall @ July 17 2011,16:42)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ July 17 2011,08:46)
Quote (k.e.. @ July 17 2011,13:56)
 
Quote (iconofid @ July 17 2011,15:43)
 
Quote (k.e.. @ July 17 2011,07:06)
     
Quote (iconofid @ July 17 2011,14:52)
     
Quote (utidjian @ July 17 2011,06:20)
         
Quote (noncarborundum @ July 16 2011,21:31)
         
Quote (OgreMkV @ July 16 2011,17:24)
I think we broke it.  I'm on a 19" widescreen and I still can't see the fist 4 or 5 posts in the stream.

Ah.  Then our work here is dung.

And sealed with mucous.

Excretions eh? Urine for a long one, and it'll end in tears.

You may be thin skinned but I'm flushed with hide.

'Snot my fault I'm thin skinned.

Yes it jizz.

Cool down, guys. It's just a misunderstanding on sementics.

Eh? Come again?

Are we building up to a second climax then?

Multiple postgasms!

Date: 2011/07/26 06:49:01, Link
Author: BillB
KF, still on about how Breivik was inspired by Darwin:
Quote
4
kairosfocus
07/26/2011
5:01 am

Breivik in his own words:

   
Quote
“Social-darwinism was the norm before the [sic] 1950. Back then, it was allowed to say what we feel. Now, however, we have to disguise our preferences to avoid the horrible consequences of being labeled as a genetical preferentialist.”


For background on this read here. Note especially Darwin in Descent of Man, chs 5 – 7.

GEM of TKI

GEM of TKI

The difference between Breivik and KF: Breivik sprayed people with bullets because of a twisted ideology, KF sprays people with words because of a twisted ideology.

Date: 2011/07/26 14:57:25, Link
Author: BillB
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

Quote (fnxtr @ July 26 2011,20:02)
"Making a visual pun on my religion and its intolerance of Teh Gheys is the same as raping babies."

Just when I think ftk might actually turn into a reasonable human being (comments about the Norway whacko), she turns back into an asshole. Shoulda known better.

As the old tired cliche goes, "I find your ideas interesting. Please send me more of your literature."

Guess what? No-one gives a fuck if boys in leather at the last supper offends you.

JW's coming to my door over and over offends me, but I just politely tell them they're wasting their time.

Likewise when I've been hit on by boys...actually that I just find amusing ("That is so not gonna happen").

Grow up.

I seem to remember a bit of published research recently that found that people heterosexuals who expressed 'distaste' for homosexuality tended to show mild sexual arousal when shown homosexual images, whereas heterosexuals who had no issues with homosexuality were not aroused by sexy pics of girl on girl, or guy on guy action.

Anyone remember where it was published?

I suspect it was flawed, I'm hetro but don't have a problem with homosexuality, but girl on girl ... hmmm ... excuse me for a few minutes...

Date: 2011/07/26 15:06:47, Link
Author: BillB
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ July 26 2011,21:00)
yeah, girl on girl yaddy yaddy

but FtK on anything would be kinda disgusting.  Like you mated a brood sow with a leech and set it loose.  i betcha the heron slayers old man has to slam a gallon of hooch to get past the bristles

Hmm, what, sorry, I was just trying to find that pic of Louis' mum and thingamy .. oh, oh yeah here it is .. .. .

Date: 2011/08/04 14:18:37, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (BWE @ Aug. 04 2011,17:33)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 04 2011,09:26)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 04 2011,11:38)
Sparc, you've caused every-one's favourite bloviator to have a melt-down...

http://kairosfocus.blogspot.com/

LOL!

Sparc as quoted by KairosFlatus:
   
Quote
I had a look over at [the Kairosfocus blog] just to ruin my [vulgarity  deleted] detector and melt my irony meter when I learned that he uses the Dembski's Explanatory Filter to analyse media content...

And what was that deleted vulgarity?  

"BS"

KF probably can't bring himself to hold his own wiener when he goes wee wee.

My guess is that he can't bring himself to admit to anyone else that he holds his own wiener when he goes pee pee. And would deny it if pressed on the issue... er...

pseudo wiener, or maybe quasi wiener or semi pseudo quasi wiener, or perhaps it is just an implicit wiener.

Date: 2011/08/10 08:17:20, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 10 2011,12:33)
Pfff these aren't proper riots. These are silly kids going out for a lovely bit of looting and McDonalds burning because they can. It's not (yet) like the 80s when people actually had something to riot about. There's no unifying cause or principle behind most of this rioting. It's pretty sickening and my thoughts are with the victims of the riots.

What worries me is what draconian toss the Old Etonians are going to introduce on the back of it.

Louis

Rubbish, of course they have something proper to riot about. Many of these poor deprived middle class kids don't have the very latest mobile phone, or a bigger flat screen TV than they already have, or a second XBox, or more than two pairs of fashionable trainers.

Many more are deprived of their human right to make money selling stuff that they don't own on e-bay. They are rioting about how their undeniable human right to have lots of shiny fashionable things for nothing is being denied them by the evil authorities and adults, who so unreasonably demand that they must first work hard to earn the money with which they can then buy stuff.

ITS SOOOOO UNFAIR!!!111!!

Date: 2011/08/10 08:30:34, Link
Author: BillB
Lewontin

Date: 2011/08/17 04:04:08, Link
Author: BillB
Catholic student arrested in Madrid (Spain) while planning sarin gas attack against a secular demonstration during World Youth Day (linky)

How long before KF claims that he wuz a darwinist?

Date: 2011/08/19 15:28:47, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 19 2011,15:23)
Which of you is Spartacus? I am.

I'm not

Date: 2011/08/25 05:31:52, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (JLT @ Aug. 25 2011,11:27)
Joseph
 
Quote
That said a family “tree” doesn’t even form a tree and that is decent with modification at the lowest level (sexually reproducing organisms)- no nested hierarchy in a family tree.

I nearly spit out my coffee reading that.
Although, it is possible that in Joseph's family everything is a bit different and he is actually as closely related to his brother than he is to his cousin. Who knows.

Joseph is his own grandfather.

Date: 2011/08/31 07:39:12, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 31 2011,13:25)
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Regardless of how unpleasant the "opposition" is, I find all this mild tracking them down in real life and identifying them a little tasteless. Just a personal opinion, not binding on anyone else.

Sure KF's super dooper secret identity is about as super secret as the fact that Rich does things to sheep, but I dunno, it all makes me feel a little....bleurgh. Perhaps I'm getting all prudish and weird in my old age, and I admit this might be my limitation, but I guess I just don't take these guys seriously enough to care that much. Sure they annoy me, sure I'll oppose their real life efforts, but I'm comfortable letting them remain pseud/anonymous in their "Being Wrong On The Internet", however incompetently they do both argument and anonymity.

The guy wants to remain pseudonymous from what I remember, I can live with it as long as his horseshit stays where it belongs, i.e. on the internet. Should he start trying to harass people in real life in some personal way (as opposed to simply having his own religious foundation or something, or being involved in missionary work/activism, or just doing something I don't like) by outing other people or what have you, then perhaps that's different. But really in any situation in which he doesn't do that is just yet another instance of these fulminating IDCists being full of sound and fury and fuck all else. We could, after all, take the high ground, in the majority of applicable cases.

I seem to remember KF does try to out people or advocate it, I could be wrong about that too, and thus via some spurious reason "deserves" it (I still don't agree with it). An email to the guy with his every detail should suffice, why stoop to his level when there's no need?

We all know the guy's an incompetent babbling whack job, his every word demonstrates it. Do we really need to do any more than pick apart his shitty "arguments" and mock him roundly? Aren't we better than the IDCists in this regard? Why enter in to their world on their terms?

I know voicing my disagreement on this is likely to be unpopular, it's pretty mild disagreement based more on personal taste than anything, so I'm not being unpleasant (I hope) to you Oldman, or indeed anyone, especially as I'm sure I've crossed the line myself in the past. That's not my intent or desire. Rather can't we just think of better ways to illustrate this crank's foolishness, posting pics of the guy when he's asked not to be identified (regardless of his own hypocrisy) seems to be a little.....I'm struggling for the right word....well it just makes me uncomfortable is all. Like I said, probably my own issue and certainly not binding on anyone else.

Rambling gut feelings over.

Louis

P.S. Incidentally, because I think this is relevant to Mabus and what not. PZ et al did the right thing by contacting the police, I'm not sure they did the right thing by blogging about it...although it does seem that without e-harassment the police would have done sod all. Perhaps in the Mabus case the right thing to do was to identify him and have him dealt with officially as they did, death threats are death threats after all. Is KF in the same league? Or is he just another elderly paranoid religious whackjob that infests the web? From thousands of miles away I guess I can afford to be sanguine, I'd probably think differently if I lived next door.

I agree.

Date: 2011/08/31 09:08:52, Link
Author: BillB
BA77 on the latest thread:
Quote
This reminds me of this cartoon:

   
Quote
Evolution Cartoon – Waiting For That Beneficial Mutation
   http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4165228/

So I went to the site and saw this which made me LOL:
Quote
Tags:
   Random Mutations, Beneficial Mutations, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Michael Behe, William Dembski, Jesus Is Lord

Date: 2011/09/06 13:58:54, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 06 2011,18:24)
And here I though an expert was somebody what used to be a pert...

ex-pert. (Noun):  female breasts that have succumbed to the forces of gravity and age.

Date: 2011/09/15 02:18:46, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 15 2011,07:47)
To get around loan interest, Islamic banks have various financial devices that have the same effect.

I guess it is a bit like Christianity and the whole 'thou shalt not kill' thing. There are various theological devices that make it permissible. After all, why let a commandment from God get in the way of a good old religious war.

Date: 2011/09/15 16:19:01, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 15 2011,20:09)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 15 2011,07:59)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 15 2011,07:33)
Lewontin!

Wherein KairosFlatus implicitly acknowledges that he has been quotemining Lewontin, and tries to justify doing so.

what a cunt

Someone seems to have caused a constitutional crisis in the homeland at the very moment KF was gearing up for a massive outburst of pure logic.

He was last seen entering a phone booth.

From what I remember of the few phone booths I entered in the past they seemed to be mostly used as an advertising space for 'escort services'.

Presumably KF felt a sudden urge for spiritual relief at the hands of a youthful nun.

Date: 2011/09/20 08:15:39, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Patrick @ Sep. 20 2011,13:32)
DrBot [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/paper-“the-origin-and-relationship-between-the-three-domains-of-life-is-lodged-in-a-phylogenetic-



impasse”/comment-page-1/#comment-400218]rubs StephenB's nose[/URL] in Lizzie's argument:
 
Quote
Now where, StephenB, do they conclude that “abiogenesis is plausible”? They don’t, what they show is that the data supports their hypothesis, as stated in the paper, and that it fits into their own broader theory about abiogenesis.

Like DrBot, I am astounded at how difficult it is for StephenB and the rest of the IDiots to follow Lizzie's very clear explanation.  It's almost enough to make me want to study psychology.  The problem isn't low intelligence, although that does contribute in some cases, or lack of education, ditto, but a deeply ingrained inability to recognize facts that contradict their views.  Frustrating, but fascinating.

It does make me more cognizant of when I might be reinforcing my own biases, though, so clearly my tard addiction is good for me.

From here:
 
Quote
Dr Liddle's current research interest is translational mental health, in particular ADHD and schizophrenia, as well as neuroimaging. Her work mainly focuses on trying to correct aberrant learning


It is all one big psychology project ;)

Date: 2011/09/26 01:55:15, Link
Author: BillB
someone had better tell KF:
a few million monkeys randomly recreate shakespeare
Quote
Today (2011-09-23) at 2:30 PST the monkeys successfully randomly recreated A Lover’s Complaint. This is the first time a work of Shakespeare has actually been randomly reproduced.  Furthermore, this is the largest work ever randomly reproduced. It is one small step for a monkey, one giant leap for virtual primates everywhere.

Date: 2011/09/27 01:30:43, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 27 2011,05:38)
Quote (noncarborundum @ Sep. 26 2011,17:19)
Quote (rossum @ Sep. 26 2011,11:50)
   
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Sep. 26 2011,11:27)
As much as I have to admit Shakespeare and DaveTard shouldn't match, this is most likely a POTW...

Given the current state of Physics, shouldn't it be POLW (Post of last week)?

rossum

If it got here via neutrino, maybe it's the PONW.

This is definitely the POSW (Post Of Some Week).

Hmm, well I think the one I posted tomorrow was better, but I decided to delete it last week.

Date: 2011/09/27 03:04:38, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 27 2011,07:40)
Quote (BillB @ Sep. 26 2011,23:30)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 27 2011,05:38)
 
Quote (noncarborundum @ Sep. 26 2011,17:19)
 
Quote (rossum @ Sep. 26 2011,11:50)
     
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Sep. 26 2011,11:27)
As much as I have to admit Shakespeare and DaveTard shouldn't match, this is most likely a POTW...

Given the current state of Physics, shouldn't it be POLW (Post of last week)?

rossum

If it got here via neutrino, maybe it's the PONW.

This is definitely the POSW (Post Of Some Week).

Hmm, well I think the one I posted tomorrow was better, but I decided to delete it last week.

Sorry, I wasn't there. But I won't be there later, or earlier either.

I actually had a thought that these neutrinos could be using some of string theory's spare dimensions. But I still favor my idea that the universe is really running a 60 millionth of a second late and these particles have just avoided the crowded station.

We are living in a simulation - photons are buffered, neutrinos are not.

Date: 2011/09/28 08:56:06, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Patrick @ Sep. 28 2011,14:29)
gpuccio is back and talking about information again:
 
Quote
I am discussing the probability of generating the complex functional information present in basci protein domains by darwinain evolution. That is clear, simple and explicit.

It's almost as though he's completely forgotten about the multiple threads on Mark Frank's blog where he claimed to be able to calculate CSI but ended up repeatedly changing his definition and finally stopped participating altogether.

He must have spent the last year fixing those problems with his definition and calculations.  Surely no Intelligent Design Creationist at UD would be so intellectually dishonest as to continue to use demonstrably nonsensical concepts.

And is now running away:
Quote
DrBot:

I am afraid your “arguments” have fallen below any acceptable level. A pity, I thought you were quite reasonable, in the beginning.

Well, I will leave you to explain, if you want, how the laws of electromagnetism completely explain the existence of Windows 7. Good luck, and have a good time.

Date: 2011/10/06 12:21:53, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Doc Bill @ Oct. 06 2011,18:04)
Let me get this straight.*

I could create an unaccredited "university,"  Doc Bill U, and award myself an PhD Hon, or several and be a PhD Hon Mult.

Srsly?  I could do that?  Cool!  And I don't even need to recruit a football team.  I had no idea.



*that's what she said.

lets create one right here, ATBCU and rename POTW as P(hd)OTW. Now we can all compete to see who can rack up the most 'Honorary doctorates in humorous or ironic posts' per year.

Date: 2011/10/13 14:15:28, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Patrick @ Oct. 13 2011,19:54)
kellyhomes [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/id-foundations-8-switcheroo-the-error-of-asserting-without-adequate-observational-evidence


-that-the-design-of-life-from-ool-on-is-achievable-by-small-chance-driven-success-reinforc


ed-incre/comment-page-1/#comment-403112]pokes kairosfocus with a sharp stick[/URL]:
 
Quote
And I know somebody that even when they were presented with such video evidence they simply refused to believe what they were seeing and constructed an elaborate explanation as to why the video was not showing what it was plainly showing. The person viewing the video never latched on to it’s true meaning.

I see what you did there.  A bit subtle for Gordon, isn't it?

DrBot is less subtle
Quote
   
Quote
You do not have a right to redefine words as you please.
Neither do you yet you are happy to do it when it suits you.

Latching, psuedo-latching, semi-latching, quasi-latching …

Date: 2011/10/26 04:35:26, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 26 2011,07:21)
Quote (Ptaylor @ Oct. 25 2011,17:45)
Final comment on that thread:
         
Quote
I will not reward that behaviour, so I will now shut down comments, and add responses in brief overnight to what requires a reasonable comment for record, as editorial notes.

GEM of TKI


POTW? - gets my vote.

Date: 2011/10/26 16:39:33, Link
Author: BillB
DrBot replies to KF:
Quote
Quote
   Kindly tell us the term we use to describe a discrete as opposed to continuous state system.

Discrete

Date: 2011/11/01 15:06:00, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 01 2011,17:47)
For Gordo to say that somebody has "no sign of serious or fair-minded interaction with the serious issues" is a joke - he never engages with the serious problems in his position.


Tard.
EDIT:Working URL.

Well he has carefully constructed his 'methodology for civilized debate' around the idea of him being allowed to say anything he wants and others only being allowed to agree with him - or at best to really politely disagree once so long as it is never mentioned again.

Date: 2011/11/02 12:08:31, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 02 2011,17:20)
Quote (Patrick @ Nov. 02 2011,10:16)
Lizzie explains a basic flaw in kairosfocus' argument:
 
Quote
Dr Liddle:

Perhaps, it has not been recognised by you that once the alphabet is discrete state, it is perforce digital?

 
Quote
No, it has not been recognised by me, kf, because it is not true. “Discrete” does not mean the same as “digital”. Letters as used in words are discrete, that does not mean they are digital.

This is even better than the Weasel latching debate because there is absolutely no wiggle room for kairosfocus.  He is purely, simply, clearly wrong.

Now, since rule number one in his mind is that kairosfocus is never wrong and therefore will never admit error, what might we expect as a response?  Could this be the aneurysm trigger or is he immune to cognitive dissonance after all this time of living with it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......Digital

 
Quote
A digital system[1] is a data technology that uses discrete (discontinuous) values.


QED, Mullings, you tiresome bore.

DrBot bitchslaps KF:
Quote
 
Quote
  Dr Bot:

   You have some fairly serious explaining to do on another thread.


No I don’t. But I believe you do. I’m getting a bit fed up of the way you preach at and bully others simply because they disagree with you – and quite often people who have considerably more expertise than you.

As for digital logic – it is quite clear that you failed to understand my point. The more I see your posts, riddled with grand claims backed up by no evidence and followed up by bullying attacks on others, the more I am inclined to think … Dunning Kruger.

Please put a sock in your uncivilized behavior and try treating others as you expect to be treated. (Except of course you seem to expect others to treat you as an infallible source of knowledge and truth, which is a bit of a problem considering you are so often wrong)

Date: 2011/11/04 03:58:18, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (NormOlsen @ Nov. 04 2011,01:54)
I think Denyse was looking for any excuse to ban Dr. Bot as he was scoring some major points against the resident blow-hard KF.  I wonder how long Elizabeth Liddle will last?

Denyse also deleted a comment of mine (with no explanation); I was simply remarking how comical it was that she use "we" to refer to herself in her "news" posts.  Somewhat Gollumesque.

What a shame. It would be nice if a surviving sock could point out to DeNews just what the smiley in DrBots post was intended to signify, and ask if KF is also banned for lying, and which is a worse sin - lying, or joking about legal action - but I guess that would risk another banning.

DrBot is, I imagine, very unhappy about this!

Date: 2011/11/06 13:24:08, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 06 2011,17:01)
Oh, this is too funny....
   
Quote
FYI, let’s get something straight off the bat: I am not a liar.

Your accusation there crossed a line.

A very serious line.

And, I know it to be false.

And I think, further, I can fairly challenge you to demonstrate — not assert, imply or assume — dishonesty, smears or lies (not merely errors or points of difference or disagreement, willful calculated deceit) in the online course here.

If you cannot (which I am confident of, since I know my intent in the linked, and the above original post) then you owe a retraction and apology.

Kindly, act within 24 hours from the time-stamp of this post.

Good day, sir.

GEM of TKI

YOU HAVE 24 HOURS TO READ MY 300,000 WORD TIMECUBE PAGE!!!

Tard

All anyone need do is direct KF towards his recent false accusation against DrBot - KF is most definitely a liar.

Date: 2011/11/06 13:25:28, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (BillB @ Nov. 06 2011,19:24)
Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 06 2011,17:01)
Oh, this is too funny....
   
Quote
FYI, let’s get something straight off the bat: I am not a liar.

Your accusation there crossed a line.

A very serious line.

And, I know it to be false.

And I think, further, I can fairly challenge you to demonstrate — not assert, imply or assume — dishonesty, smears or lies (not merely errors or points of difference or disagreement, willful calculated deceit) in the online course here.

If you cannot (which I am confident of, since I know my intent in the linked, and the above original post) then you owe a retraction and apology.

Kindly, act within 24 hours from the time-stamp of this post.

Good day, sir.

GEM of TKI

YOU HAVE 24 HOURS TO READ MY 300,000 WORD TIMECUBE PAGE!!!

Tard

All anyone need do is direct KF towards his recent false accusation against DrBot - KF is most definitely a liar.

Ah, scrolled down to see this:
Quote
LOL! Sure thing KF. Right after you issue your retraction and apology to Dr. Bot for falsely accusing him of saying all modern religious leaders support genocide.

Kindly, act within 24 hours from the time-stamp of this post.


I predict another banning!

Date: 2011/11/21 10:11:07, Link
Author: BillB
There is a joke in here somewhere about KF and his evo mat conspiracy theories - I was at Tesco buying some wine when I noticed the signs everywhere - "You may be asked for proof of ID" and "Proof of ID may be required!"

I guess that's one way to stop people drinking!

Date: 2011/12/06 06:53:24, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Patrick @ Dec. 06 2011,12:49)
Quote (sparc @ Dec. 06 2011,00:24)
Nobody here seems to care about UD anymore . . . .

ID is dead.

Unfortunately, The Panda's Thumb appears dead, too.  Is anyone else unable to connect to that server?

Quite literally at the moment:
Quote
Server not found
Firefox can't find the server at www.uncommondescent.com.

Date: 2011/12/07 05:46:29, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (CeilingCat @ Dec. 07 2011,11:13)
A new metaphor from kairosflatus:

"I can understand your sense of urgency to respond to specific tangential challenges. However, I must note that the point of these is inherently to distract and to pull us into a poisonous crocodile death roll fight."

Now I'd pay good money to see that!

tard

Today I learned that one anagram of Gordon Mullings is 'Mud sling or long'

How very appropriate!

Date: 2011/12/12 02:19:32, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Woodbine @ Dec. 11 2011,12:40)
Happily, Mullings is having conniptions.

He is now accusing Dawkins and the whole Gnu Atheists of 'implicit anti-semitism', both at UD and his own inert blog.

Kairostard
 
Quote
So, Dr Dawkins and co, kindly note: the direct implication of these anti-God, anti-Bible arguments, is that they are implicit attacks on Jews and Judaism, not just Christians and Christianity. Those who would make them, need to ask whether they would be willing to explicitly substitute terms directly accusing or challenging Jews, for those that accuse or challenge Christians.

I think the trick with trolling Mullings is in eliciting the greatest amount of textual garbage for the least amount of prodding. And it's a comfort to know he's stuck behind his keyboard vomiting ream upon ream of multicoloured, bullet-pointed shite and not at large in the world. Job done.

:D

Well, lets not forget the Islamic faith, it is after all one of the Abrahamic religions and even has its share of Jesus. If criticizing Christianity is also quasi latchingly implied criticism of the Jews then it is also criticism of Islam.

Presumably it also works in reverse - if KF or any of the others at UD are critical of Islam then they are making an implied criticism of Christianity and Judaism ... perhaps someone should point that out so that KF can start writing tirades against himself before silently banning himself.

Date: 2012/01/07 07:41:57, Link
Author: BillB
This headline at UD caused my irony meter to twitch - "south carolina - id friendly santorum more popular than thought"

Well, yes, thinking has never been very popular amongst his supporters.

Date: 2012/01/09 05:44:56, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Jan. 08 2012,22:30)
Quote (Seversky @ Jan. 08 2012,13:28)
In the same vein, he describes Werner von Braun as:

     
Quote
... the man who led the Apollo project, the world famed von Braun, was not only a design thinker and Christian, but a creationist.


but neglects to mention that he was also, according to Wikipedia, a

     
Quote
...member of the Nazi party, commissioned Sturmbannführer of the paramilitary SS and decorated Nazi war hero


which, as far as I'm aware, neither Charles Darwin nor members of his family ever were.

Methinks KF is experiencing the sweet smell of excess brought on by huffing too many burning strawmen soaked in oil of ad hominem.

As for van Lommel's research into NDEs, they suffer from the same problems as all such studies, they are based on anecdotal accounts where it is very difficult to be certain that the reported experiences occurred at the same time as the brain was clinically dead and not during the periods of unconsciousness and semi-consciousness that precede and follow the brain-dead state.

I do hope someone will tell him his hero's ugly past - and that the comment will see the light of day.

As for the "near-death experiences", isn't it interesting that some creationists would embrace occultism rather than science? After all, major churches hate that sort of competition, at least where I live.

GCUGA Obliges:
Quote
GCUGreyAreaJanuary 9, 2012 at 5:37 am
Quote
First, the man who led the Apollo project, the world famed von Braun, was not only a design thinker and Christian, but a creationist. (Cf. the notes in reply to Lewontin’s similar well-poisoning attempt, here.)


He was also a card carrying member of the Nazi party – I can’t help thinking that if he had ever expressed an approval of Darwins theory then he would be viewed very differently by the ID community, and would be considered evidence of a link between Nazism and Evolutionary theory.

But of course he is a design thinker, Christian and creationist so that’s OK ;)

Date: 2012/01/11 14:50:27, Link
Author: BillB
GCUGreyArea
Quote
GCUGreyAreaJanuary 11, 2012 at 2:12 pm

Personally, being British, I find O’leary’s attitude to be insulting and childish and the kind of thing ID supporters here would rail against if it were directed at them.

My ancestors were demi-toffs but blew the money long ago, however I know a few toffs and most of them are conservative Christians, skeptical of evolution and climate change.

As a protest to this insulting attitude to any British person whom O’Leary dislikes or disagrees with can I suggest that the non ID supporters on this site henceforth refer to O’Leary as “That ol’ Canda-hack”, Dr Dembski as a “Yank creationist” and KF as a “son-of-a-slave”.

(FYI, that last para is a joke) ;)

Date: 2012/01/13 13:10:02, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Patrick @ Jan. 13 2012,17:42)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 13 2012,11:47)
Kairosfocus has refused to defend his position unless we first apologize for our comment above.

Apologize for what, exactly?  I read through your whole post and didn't see anything at which one might take umbrage, even given the least possibly generous reading.

 
Quote
Per his request, we are not quoting kairosfocus' remarks.


For which I thank you as well.

Standard KF tactic, when you get uncomfortably close to being proven wrong, have a hissy fit about something else and demand apologies before continuing.

Which, funnily enough is exactly what he is doing with EL right now, as already posted:
Quote
Dr Liddle:

I am sorry. The false accusation is so outrageously incendiary and unwarranted, that just walking away from it is not good enough.

You need to explain and do something to set things right, pardon.

KF

Date: 2012/01/14 05:20:09, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Jan. 14 2012,11:15)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 13 2012,12:20)
Gordon, comment editing coward, says:
   
Quote
Dr Liddle:

I am sorry. The false accusation is so outrageously incendiary and unwarranted, that just walking away from it is not good enough.

You need to explain and do something to set things right, pardon.

KF

Link. What happens next I wonder?


Edit: This is Elizabeth Liddle, of course.
I think the elegance of this apology goes way over kairosfocus' head.    
Quote
I didn’t “walk away”, kf, but I should have apologised, and I do now.

I made three errors – one was to misunderstand you, the next was to forget that I had misunderstood you, and the third was to claim that I hadn’t.

I had, and I apologise.

And I am glad that you do not consider that atrocities have been committed in the name of atheism.

KF responds with this gem:
Quote
Marxism-Leninism and Maoism etc DID slaughter well over 100 millions in aggregate in the name of atheism

which EL spots:
Quote
kairosfocus!!!!!!!

First of all you take umbrage because I accuse you of saying that atrocities were committed in the name of atheism.

I (wrongly) say that I wasn’t accusing you of that (because in fact I did).

I then apologise for wrongly reading you, forgetting that I had done so, and saying that I had not.

I say I am reassured that you do not, in fact, believe that atrocities were committed in the name of atheism.

You now say, in response to me, of all people, that atrocities were committted in the name of atheism!!!!!!!

Date: 2012/01/20 10:31:12, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 20 2012,13:15)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 20 2012,06:45)
Oh Joy!!  A Testable ID Hypothesis!!

Kairosfocus has found somebody with the nom-de-tard of Genomicus who has provided a Testable ID Hypothesis.

Here it is:      
Quote
Thus, we can make this prediction from a front-loading perspective: proteins that are very important to eukaryotes, and specific to them, will share deep homology (either structurally or in sequence similarity) with prokaryotic proteins, and importantly, that these prokaryotic proteins will be more conserved in sequence identity than the average prokaryotic protein.

Emphasis in the original.

Looks fool proof to me.

He gives a few more predictions, which appear to be safely untestable for now.  Things like the first living thing must have been highly complex, complete with DNA and protein synthesis machinery.

He's also very impressed with The Design Matrix by Mike Gene.  How do you nominate someone for a Fellowship at the Discovery Institute?

ummm...

isn't that what evolutionary theory says?

I spy a potential new strategy for ID - try and invent reasons why it makes all the same predictions as Evolution, then claim that the predictions are accurate and therefore ID is just as good a theory as Evolution.

Date: 2012/01/26 02:33:36, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (The whole truth @ Jan. 26 2012,04:56)
gpuccio:

"I am absolutely against censorship, especially religious one. So, we can agree on that, at least."

Yes gpuccio, religion is often the main motivation behind those demanding censorship so I would agree with you there.

Date: 2012/01/27 02:07:35, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (sparc @ Jan. 27 2012,05:17)
WMAD is coming to Europe. Luckily, there's the Channel.


Europe, are you sure - it is advertising him as a speaker at a conference in Portsmouth - Rhode Island ... ?

Date: 2012/01/28 04:36:49, Link
Author: BillB
KF:
Quote
BA: Sadly revealing as to what is going on behind the cleverly toxic talking points and accusations that are so often pushed by the very same New Atheist circles and spokesmen. Let me add to your list, (a) the 101 survey here on the underlying historically grounded credibility of the gospel, and (b) the similarly introductory survey here on warrant for a specifically orthodox Christian theistic view in a selectively hyperskeptical (and too often indoctrination and closed-mindedness-driven) age, with (c ) the response on issues of the real and imagined sins of Christendom here also (which includes exposing the twisted attempt to lay the one generally acknowledged case of unmitigated evil in our civilisation at the feet of the Christian Faith). I trust these will help inquiring onlookers, and I trust that the expose of the nurturing of that sort of asp in one’s bosom as seen in the original post will draw attention to what is really going on in the New Atheist anger-driven fever swamps. Cf here as well for the online version of an expose of the new atheists (also available from Amazon). KF


GCUGreyArea:
Quote
KF is sadly revealing and perpetrating what is going on behind the cleverly toxic talking points and accusations that are so often pushed by the very same ID Creationist circles and spokesmen. Let me list, (a ) the open calls by Christians to kill atheists, and (b ) the atheist hate themed video game encouraging genocide against christ deniers (and crafted for the purpose of indoctrination to drive closed-mindedness and hatred), and (c ) the response on issues of the real and imagined sins of Atheists by KF also (which includes the twisted attempt to lay the one generally acknowledged case of unmitigated evil in our civilization at the feet of the Atheists and Darwin). I trust these will help inquiring onlookers, and I trust that the expose of the nurturing of that sort of asp in one’s bosom will draw attention to what is really going on in the Christian Fundamentalist anger-driven fever swamps.

Cf here as well for another example of hate driven persecution of atheists by theists.

ttfn.

Date: 2012/01/28 15:05:47, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Seversky @ Jan. 28 2012,17:51)
Glaring Contradictions Kairosfocus Ignores #1

   
Quote
1.1.2.2.4 kairosfocus  January 28, 2012

[...]

Then, we have the capping off with the claim that we have no freedom of will. Which means we cannot make truly responsible choices. The immediate implicat6ions are that we have undermined the credibility of mind and reasoned thought, and moral thought as well. Much less, moral acts. That is, all is conditioning, through genes, memes and whatever emotional and social forces have shaped you.


This is simple.

If the Christian's God is omniscient and if it knows the future then there can be no free will.

An omniscient god is one who knows all that can be known.  But even such a being cannot know what does not exist to be known.

If the Christian's God knows the future - and there is Biblical evidence to that effect - then that future already exists to be known.  In effect, it is all pre-ordained.  That future includes all of our individual futures which are, thus, also pre-ordained.  In other words, if our futures are already set in stone, as it were, then we are no more than little trains, each of us trundling along our own unique tracks until we reach the end of the line.  We have no free will.

Thus it is the Christian God "Which means we cannot make truly responsible choices. The immediate implicat6ions are that we have undermined the credibility of mind and reasoned thought, and moral thought as well. Much less, moral acts."  We are just puppets, dancing to whatever tune God chooses and "conditioning, through genes, memes and whatever emotional and social forces have shaped you" is entirely irrelevant.

Well I would disagree on a few technical points. You can be omniscient in more than one way, you can know everything that is now but that does not mean you can know everything that will happen next.

By analogy you could look at a programmer running a simulation - the programmer is, with respect to any agent in the simulation, omniscient because they can access any state variable at any time across the whole system, and they can 'stop time' (pause the sim) whilst they pour over the data - from the agents perspective they can appear to know everything in an instant.

If the sim is entirely deterministic they can work out the path the simulation will take, so they are, or appear to be, temporally omniscient, but of the sim is stochastic (for example uses real random numbers for noise) then knowing the current state only allows you to predict future states with a degree of certainty that decreases over time.

In the second scenario the software engineer (God) may be able to see many likely futures for the agent, but if the agents choices have a stochastic element then the engineer cannot know which future will pan out - just that one of them will.

It really comes down to exactly what is meant by omniscience from a temporal perspective, and with respect to the idea of determinism.

So... I guess you could argue, in theology, that omniscience means that God knows everything that is and that has been, and everything that could be, but not precisely what will come to pass - that part is determined by exercising our own free will.

Now as far as the allusion that the Christian God knows the future - well you could argue that any temporally omniscient God in a universe where free will is allowed would still know what will happen if certain choices are made - and issue commandments and warning about how 'if thous dos't X then Y will happen' - but they would also know about lots of things that are inevitable because they are not determined by free will, they are just a consequence of the system - for example a volcanic eruption, meteor strike ... all things that may have a stochastic element that determines the detail and timing of the event, but which are still going to happen eventually.

Date: 2012/02/05 03:08:08, Link
Author: BillB
I saw this and thought of UD:

 
Quote
Study links dimwits to conservative ideology
US, UK research: Thick kids more likely to become bigots.

British and American children who are less intelligent are more likely to grow up to be conservative and/or bigots, according to new research published in Physiological Science.

The research study, "Bright minds and dark attitudes", used data from two British studies that tested the intelligence of children born in 1958 and 1970. The tests were carried out when the children were around 10 years old, and then when they reached their 30s the subjects were quizzed on their political views. Data was also used from a similar study in the US, where attitudes towards homosexuality were checked.

“We found that lower general intelligence in childhood predicts greater racism in adulthood, and this effect was largely mediated via conservative ideology,” said Professor Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. “A secondary analysis of a US data set confirmed a predictive effect of poor abstract-reasoning skills on antihomosexual prejudice, a relation partially mediated by both authoritarianism and low levels of intergroup contact.”

Date: 2012/02/10 11:11:24, Link
Author: BillB
Hmm, well after repeated attempts, GCUGreyArea's posts just seem to vanish into the ether. Another silent banning - nay, a full on friday meltdown!

Barry mush have lost a court case.

Date: 2012/02/10 11:13:20, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Febble @ Feb. 10 2012,17:07)
Looks like I have been banned too.

And me - GCUGreyArea - again! (p.s. I was also DrBot)  :p

Date: 2012/02/10 11:40:08, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Freddie @ Feb. 10 2012,17:35)
Quote (BillB @ Feb. 10 2012,11:13)
Quote (Febble @ Feb. 10 2012,17:07)
Looks like I have been banned too.

And me - GCUGreyArea - again! (p.s. I was also DrBot)  :p

As an avid Iain M. Banks fan I laud you as one of the great players of games.  Your use of weapons was state of the art especially given all that time you were playing against a dark background: all of the IDiot responses to your posts I would consider flea bites.

Bravo!

Date: 2012/02/10 13:38:56, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 10 2012,19:30)
There you have it. A Friday meltdown. And a fine specimen, too.

As I said elsewhere, I recon it is because Barry just spent the week being humiliated in court so he has to take it out on someone, anyone. (Apart from his lapgogs of course!)

Date: 2012/02/10 13:40:50, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (BillB @ Feb. 10 2012,19:38)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 10 2012,19:30)
There you have it. A Friday meltdown. And a fine specimen, too.

As I said elsewhere, I recon it is because Barry just spent the week being humiliated in court so he has to take it out on someone, anyone. (Apart from his lapgogs of course!)

Lapdogs, not lapgogs. sorry, commenting from my new smartphone.

Date: 2012/02/10 14:11:55, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 10 2012,20:07)
This would be a good time to let UD die, by not engaging them and letting them have their "fun" on their unfairly moderated turf. As doveton said in regard to the "major house cleaning":

"It will be interesting to see what the post count goes down to with no one here to give a compelling reason to comment. Well…except for an occasion “Oh yeah!” and “Couldn’t agree more!” Explain to me where the fun for the pro-IDer is in that exactly?"

Looks like Doveton is out as well.

Date: 2012/02/12 14:22:29, Link
Author: BillB
Update on the LNC thread:
Quote
Further update: Eigenstate has run for cover.
The genesis of this post was the StephenB’s accusation that eigenstate refused to concede the law of noncontradiction: “For you [i.e.,eigenstate], the law of non-contradiction is a “useful tool” except on those occasions when it reveals the poverty of your non-arguments, at which time, it can be safely discounted. That position alone renders you unfit for rational dialogue.”

Surely not, I thought to myself. No one can argue logically and at the same time ever deny the law of noncontradiction, because the law of noncontradiction underlies ALL logical arguments. So I put this post up to give eigenstate a chance to refute StephenB’s accusation. I know eigenstate came back onto this site after I put up this post, because he commented on another string after this post went up. Yet he refused to answer the question. I can only conclude from this that StephenB is correct. Eigenstate and his ilk are not acting in good faith. They feel free to spew their nonsense, but when they are confronted with a challenge they cannot meet they run away. He is not, as StephenB points out, fit for rational dialogue, and you will not see him on this site again.

no. words.

The problem for you Barry, is that you cant (yet) censor the internet, so eigenstates reply is available for all to see, and clearly demonstrates that you are a bare faced liar.

Date: 2012/02/12 14:38:14, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 12 2012,20:33)
BTW, with that, this has become the best meltdown EVAR.

Agreed, I haven't had so much fun not being on UD ever!

And the best bit it, it is all preserved on teh interwebs for the serious onlooker to view forevar!

gun. foot. fire!

Date: 2012/02/13 04:12:42, Link
Author: BillB
Someone challenges KF to stand up and be counted:  
Quote
KF,
 
Quote
I would be interested to see such, if it exists.

I agree and I am glad to see that eigenstates response was cross posted at Elizabeth Liddles site here. It certainly seems odd that his reply didn’t get through here although I see that several people have attempted to post links from this thread to eigenstates reply for you and others to see. Unfortunately is seems those comments have also disappeared.

We could be uncharitable to eigenstate and conclude that he didn’t actually post his reply here, but simply claimed to have, then claimed to have been banned in order to smear the moderators of this blog. But as you charitably pointed out it could also be a simple error on his part, or an error in the site – I would imagine that given Mr Arringtons statement above that eigenstate would be given the right to post the first comment, some system would have been put in place for this thread to place all comments in moderation until eigenstates appeared in the que, and could be published. Perhaps this system was to blame.

On the other hand we have the problem of commentators linking to eigenstates reply being banned, and the comments vanishing. We might infer from this that Mr Arrington is being less than honest, perhaps even that he simply decided to pretend that eigenstate never posted a reply in order to smear eigenstate. It would be truly sad if this were the case and I hope that distinguished contributors like yourself would be brave enough to stand up to this type of behaviour – although I understand that it would probably get you banned as well (assuming that the inference about Mr Arrington was correct of course).

With that in mind I will try an experiment – posted below is eigenstates reply, which he claimed to have posted here already. If this post of mine disappears, and I am banned, we have more reason to infer that Mr Arrington is, for whatever reason, playing games rather than pursuing honest debate. In which case I would encourage you to try the experiment yourself, post eigenstates reply here, and see if it (and perhaps you) remain on this site!

....
...


Eigenstates reply was included, and a link to it on Elizabeths site.

Barry is probably asleep right now, hopefully that will mean the comment persists long enough for KF and others to have good look.

Date: 2012/02/13 07:12:00, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 13 2012,12:27)
With the new paper on Peppered Moths in mind, check this out:

arrington the arrogant IDiot

And notice that the ban hammer comes out in comment number 13.

From what I can tell, when UD re-vamped their site everyone who was registered with it but had been banned was un-banned (except of course anyone who had the account deleted). Don't know if this was deliberate or just an accident.

Date: 2012/02/13 09:26:36, Link
Author: BillB
MaxEntropies comments have now been deleted, has MaxE been banned as well?

Date: 2012/02/14 09:53:29, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (George @ Feb. 14 2012,08:53)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 12 2012,17:16)
Quote (paragwinn @ Feb. 12 2012,18:04)
Apparently, some onlookers such as myself have been banned as well since Friday.

eta: well, okay, maybe i said something or two.

Its what you both did and didn't say that counts.

Yes.  I missed the meltdown by being away over the weekend.  But I've been informed that Prof. FX Gumby has also been silently banned.  He wasn't a very active or effective commenter, but couldn't resist going after Barry on his outing of Dr REC.

Do we have a final casualty figure yet?

I guess you can add MaxEntropy to the list.  His last comments were awaiting moderation whilst those that got through were quickly sent to UD's gas chamber before being bulldozed in the mass grave of lost comments ...

Date: 2012/02/15 03:53:27, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Feb. 15 2012,09:18)
In online debates, one is forced to agree with any arbitrary pronouncement made by the host, and if not one is being foolish? An odd cove.

Barry should really just re-phrase the question to: "do you want to be banned - yes or no"

What he is really doing is a variation on the old "do you still beat your wife?" question.

Date: 2012/02/21 15:45:12, Link
Author: BillB
another UD post on climate change:
Quote
Prominent climate alarmist caught in flagrante delicto:Lies, deceit, theft.


Yes, isn't it awful that they stole thousands of e-mails from climate scie.. oh, wait ... yes Barry, I can see how this is different.

BA77 responds:
Quote
First line says it all: ...

Umm, yes, literally so - the post only consisted of one line.

Date: 2012/02/25 05:25:26, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (DiEb @ Feb. 25 2012,07:43)
Do Materialists Believe Rape is Wrong?

Short answer: yes, rape is wrong.

Long answer: Barry, you disgusting prick, rape is wrong.

Question begging flailing strawman thingy ...

Are cuckoos, and other brood parasites, immoral and if so then why did God design them like that ... CALL THE ANIMAL POLICE, ARREST THOSE BIRDS!


Barry:
Quote
Say one of the male chimps approaches one of the female chimps and makes chimp signals that he wants to have sexual relations with her, but for whatever reason she’s not interested and refuses. Is it morally wrong for the male chimp to force the female chimp to have sex with him against her will?


Of course, rape really isn't that wrong if you go by the Bible - just pay the dad off and marry the victim, whatever you do after that isn't rape because she is your property now and must subsume to your will.

Can't see how that would work for chimps though. Perhaps the chimp police demand payment in Bananas.

Date: 2012/03/21 05:52:00, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (dhogaza @ Mar. 21 2012,00:13)
Gil:

Quote
I’ve been given a promotion at work which will require even more time to solve problems with FEA simulations concerning an inflatable isotensoid supersonic decelerator for upcoming Mars missions.


In plain english, due to budget cuts, the next mars lander will land on a glorified whoopie cushion.

It is actually intended as a replacement for the parachutes used to decelerate the craft during atmospheric re-entry. They normally use a rigid aero-shell with a parachute capable of supersonic deployment to slow the thing down prior to landing.

The new system, if I recall, is an inflatable cone that deploys to the rear of the spacecraft - it turns the spacecraft into something like a shuttlecock, used when playing Badminton. You get nice stable ballistic flight with lots of drag, but fewer payload size limitations than with the parachute method.

I believe (but couldn't find a citation that wasn't behind a paywall) that GA's are one optimisation technique being used in their design.

Date: 2012/04/16 07:38:13, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 07 2012,18:26)
It's the usual horse-puckey, I see. Dembski et al. cite me and Jeff Shallit to say that they looked at more genetic algorithms than just stuff like "weasel" that obviously has the target in it. They do this to say that Dave Thomas was wrong in saying:

Quote


They claim that GAs cannot generate true novelty
and that all such “answers” are surreptitiously introduced into the program via the algorithm’s fitness
testing function


They take issue with a quote Thomas makes, pointing out just how specific that quote was and how general Thomas' claim was.

But one can justify Thomas' claim for Dembski at least, given the following:

Quote

This result refutes the claim that evolutionary algorithms can generate specified complexity, for it means that they can yield specified complexity only if such algorithms along with their fitness functions are carefully adapted to the complex specified targets they are meant to attain. In other words, all the specified complexity we get out of an evolutionary algorithm has first to be put into the construction of the evolutionary algorithm and into the fitness function that guides the algorithm. Evolutionary algorithms therefore do not generate or create specified complexity, but merely harness already existing specified complexity. Like a bump under a rug, the specified complexity problem has been shifted around, but it has not been eliminated.


There are no caveats there about multi-part, complex systems or what-have-you; just a straight-up universal claim about the abilities of evolutionary computation. Given that Dembski hadn't at that point even gotten well onto the dodge of claiming that CSI only meant CSI above his "universal improbability bound", this can only be taken to mean that he intended it to apply even to measures of "local small probability" as discussed in "The Design Inference".

So how does that work if you are a theistic evolutionist - All living things we see today are the result of evolutionary processes acting on, and from, the first life forms - but none of the specified complexity we see in life today is a result of those processes.

Date: 2012/04/16 09:05:54, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (fusilier @ April 16 2012,13:54)
Quote (BillB @ April 16 2012,08:38)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 07 2012,18:26)
It's the usual horse-puckey, I see. Dembski et al. cite me and Jeff Shallit to say that they looked at more genetic algorithms than just stuff like "weasel" that obviously has the target in it. They do this to say that Dave Thomas was wrong in saying:

 
Quote


They claim that GAs cannot generate true novelty
and that all such “answers” are surreptitiously introduced into the program via the algorithm’s fitness
testing function


They take issue with a quote Thomas makes, pointing out just how specific that quote was and how general Thomas' claim was.

But one can justify Thomas' claim for Dembski at least, given the following:

 
Quote

This result refutes the claim that evolutionary algorithms can generate specified complexity, for it means that they can yield specified complexity only if such algorithms along with their fitness functions are carefully adapted to the complex specified targets they are meant to attain. In other words, all the specified complexity we get out of an evolutionary algorithm has first to be put into the construction of the evolutionary algorithm and into the fitness function that guides the algorithm. Evolutionary algorithms therefore do not generate or create specified complexity, but merely harness already existing specified complexity. Like a bump under a rug, the specified complexity problem has been shifted around, but it has not been eliminated.


There are no caveats there about multi-part, complex systems or what-have-you; just a straight-up universal claim about the abilities of evolutionary computation. Given that Dembski hadn't at that point even gotten well onto the dodge of claiming that CSI only meant CSI above his "universal improbability bound", this can only be taken to mean that he intended it to apply even to measures of "local small probability" as discussed in "The Design Inference".

So how does that work if you are a theistic evolutionist - All living things we see today are the result of evolutionary processes acting on, and from, the first life forms - but none of the specified complexity we see in life today is a result of those processes.

That's not what theistic evolution says.

The CSI bullshit is from creationism, not evolutionary biology.

Yes, I know. My question was aimed at creationists.

Perhaps I should have put an 'irony' tag before my comment.

Date: 2012/06/12 06:41:10, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 12 2012,10:21)
Quote
It has indeed been argued that genetic programing makes some people homosexual and others heterosexual, and many have been led to accept it, never mind the subsequent back-tracking proponents of genetic theories have had to make. A read-through of just the introductory summary of the just linked, will suffice to show that instead: genes are the foundation for our ability to act in human ways, and form habits (including sexual ones), but there is little reason to believe that genetic programming determines sexual orientations and habits. For, as minded creatures, we are not merely plants growing as the seed and the soil and sun determine. Our genes make us sexual -- male and female, but do not determine our sexual habits.


Perhaps you'd care to discuss this KF? For example, why would people make the choice to be gay knowing that it would cause them to be harassed in their community?

It's as absurd as saying that you chose your race KF.

No wonder you won't leave your ivory castle, you know you can't defend the indefensible.

So what should we do with teh gay KF? Lock them up? Beat them until they change their mind?

You are generating alot of hate KF, alot....

KF finds the gays scary and wants you to feel scared, and as we all know, fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.

But I guess that's what KF is counting on.

Date: 2012/06/12 09:36:26, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Dr.GH @ June 11 2012,23:32)
Why would you think that a cockroach would come out during the day?

Teen pregnancy rates are highest in "Abstinence Only" states, and lowest in comprehensive sex education states. STD rates are the same or higher in "Abstinence Only" states" as in states with no sex ed at all.

"Abstinence-Only Education and Teen Pregnancy Rates: Why We Need Comprehensive Sex Education in the U.S" Stanger-Hall KF, Hall DW (2011) PLoS ONE 6(10): e24658. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0024658

"Abstinence Only vs. Comprehensive Sex Education:
What are the arguments?
What is the evidence?"

AIDS Research Institute University of California, San Francisco Policy Monograph Series – March 2002

"After the promise: the STD consequences of adolescent virginity pledges" Hannah Brückner, and Peter Bearman, Journal of Adolescent Health 36 (2005) 271–278

"Abstinence-Only and Comprehensive Sex Education and the Initiation of Sexual Activity and Teen Pregnancy" Pamela K. Kohler, Lisa E. Manhart, and William E. Lafferty, Journal of Adolescent Health 42 (2008) 344–351

Yes, I seem to remember a report or study about how a more biblical approach to sex ed had led to more anal sex - as a way of avoiding breaking the pledge.

I mentioned this to my wife, who mumbled something about silly religious folk, the bible and not understanding the relevant passages...

Yes, I said - relevant passage is the operative word.

...

It took her quite a long time to stop laughing . ..

Date: 2012/06/22 09:43:57, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (The whole truth @ June 22 2012,05:26)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 20 2012,00:47)
"The whole truth":

   
Quote

What cracks me up is that the TEs say that the IDiots are wrong and the IDiots say that the TEs are wrong, and they fight over the nitpicky particulars of their beliefs, which are ALL based on the SAME insane delusion. What it really comes down to is 'authority' (power). god zombies, regardless of the particulars they promote or argue about, ALL have the insatiable desire to be, and they proclaim themselves to be, THE authority. THEIR version of their beliefs are THE right ones. THEY are THE authority. Anyone who doesn't agree with them is WRONG. Everyone MUST accept, believe, and worship whatever THEY say. THEY are NEVER wrong. In their totally pompous minds, they ARE god.

They're all fucking nuts.


My disagreement with IDC and all other religious antievolution is and always has been that their arguments are wrong, irrelevant, or counterfactual, and that insisting on teaching falsehoods is a poor way to show devotion to God. I'd be interested in knowing where I've argued over "nitpicky particulars of belief", where I've insisted that others worship as I'd specify, or where I've been wrong on something decidable and not admitted it. There's a lot of what I've written over the years available online, so you should have plenty of ready-to-hand material to back up your claims ... if they were true.

The truth is that I advocate the teaching of science in science classrooms, and leaving the non-science out of those classrooms. I have documentable decades of this mode of advocacy behind me. What I believe personally is, in my opinion, of no importance to this issue.

Are you saying that you're a theistic evolutionist?

Does it matter?

I think the only thing that really matters as far as this discussion board goes, and its reference to UD and evolution is this:

Quote
"The truth is that I advocate the teaching of science in science classrooms, and leaving the non-science out of those classrooms."


I agree.

I've met and worked with plenty of scientists who harbored some level of theistic belief or faith, but what made them all good scientists was that they kept all this out of the lab.

Date: 2012/06/22 09:52:23, Link
Author: BillB
Dr Jam, I think you made a few errors, here is a corrected version:  
Quote
Back to my primary point, which is that, while they may cover opposite ends of the spectrum, Darwinists are every bit as motivated by their personal beliefs as they accuse so-called "IDiots" of being. Therefore, if IDiots' views are religious, then so, too, are theirs.

ME: I think that Darwinists believe I.D. proponents are motivated by their religion (worldview), which discredits everything they say.

Me: I think that Darwinists are motivated by their worldview (religion), which, according to the Darwinists' "logic," should discredit everything they say.

Quote
Get it?

Nope, it is wrong.
Quote
Got it?

see above.
Quote
Good.

Bad.

Date: 2012/06/24 09:42:24, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 24 2012,15:00)

Can you fill in some of the blanks - for example, which intelligent design argument are you referring to?

I assume (perhaps wrongly) you are not referring to just the 'God Didit' one?

Second, I don't recognize any of that as relating to reality, I've attempted to debate people like KF on many occasions, only to be met with personal attacks and veiled abuse - he even tried to claim at one point that any critique of his arguments was an attack on him personally, a tactic designed to shut down critical debate and absolve him from explaining perceived flaws in his thinking.

In addition to the latching debacle, you might also want to look up his  proposed experiment involving a random noise generator, and the replies that point out some of the gaping flaws in his thinking there - namely the point that demonstrating how a random noise generator produces random noise and not order has nothing to do with evolution in a world with order and structure, all it proves is that a random noise generator generates random noise (which we all knew anyway but KF systematically failed to understand) - also consider his constant confusion and conflation of biological evolution and biogenesis ... He is a preacher who believes he should be beyond criticism.

If you take a look through all the replies to his ramblings you won't see me or many others referring to Judge Jones, Haeckel, or anything else in your satirical straw man. Take a look at the actual arguments that ID critics made on UD (before the recent cull) and you will see that the vast bulk of the critiques are addressing the ID arguments, and refer to the evidence.

As for peer review - yes it would be wrong to claim that there are no peer-reviewed ID publications. The issue is that they are very rare, and appear in journals that don't deal with biology. Peer review does not a theory make, at least not in science - you need a major body of work and - critically - empirical evidence, not just weak probability calculations based on unrealistic scenarios.

Date: 2012/06/27 03:51:20, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Patrick @ June 27 2012,00:19)
I notice on Montserrat's Wikipedia page that no one with the initials GEM is listed in the section "Famous Montserratians."  An oversight, surely.

The population of the island is less than six thousand, spread over a number of towns and villages.  I wonder how many know kairosfocus by name?

Given his fearful reaction to people using his real name I would guess that those who know of him refer to him as either 'you know who' or 'he who shall not be named'

Or maybe just occasionally 'The dark lord'

Date: 2012/06/27 05:32:50, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (BillB @ June 27 2012,09:51)
Quote (Patrick @ June 27 2012,00:19)
I notice on Montserrat's Wikipedia page that no one with the initials GEM is listed in the section "Famous Montserratians."  An oversight, surely.

The population of the island is less than six thousand, spread over a number of towns and villages.  I wonder how many know kairosfocus by name?

Given his fearful reaction to people using his real name I would guess that those who know of him refer to him as either 'you know who' or 'he who shall not be named'

Or maybe just occasionally 'The dark lord'

Just realised of course that Gordon will read that and decide that my use of the word Dark is a racist slur, and probably launch a hate filled tirade at me from some secure obscure spot on teh interweb.

Just so you know gordo - it is a reference to Harry Potters evil nemesis, lord voldemort.

Date: 2012/07/02 13:29:33, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Patrick @ July 02 2012,19:04)
Quote (Amadan @ July 02 2012,13:55)
Ummmm, would it be tactless to mention that this is the fourth mammoth thread concerned entirely with observing and commenting on their site?

Indeed.  If only Google Sidewiki had taken off, AtBC would be unnecessary.  ;-)

So UD becomes a site that comments on ATBE-UDT and we comment back. Did I mention that I'm a robotics engineer? - I just love feedback loops.

Date: 2012/07/15 04:33:52, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 15 2012,04:09)
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 14 2012,17:03)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 12 2012,15:43)
Gordon Mullings gets asked for specifics, shits the bed:

   
Quote
F/N: I see an attempt to draw us out on a further tangent regarding triceratops and kin. I will simply say, what is the vertical transformational significance of variations beyond say those of the deer family or say the pattern of diversity we may see across mastodons and elephants, or the Finches of the Galapagos? Again, where is the lead up to the general body plan, and the lead out to a farther along one, climbing up a branch to an alleged “higher” life form? I trust this makes the pivotal issue sufficiently plain, and why I see no point in further entertaining distractors maintained even after I took a fair amount of time to already address and correct them. After a couple of rounds like that, it becomes evident that side-tracking was the rhetorical object, not clarity.


http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-427720

And he's run off. Coward.

And he back

Hi Gordo! *waves*

It's frankly pathetic how you wont give your definition. You accuse others of everything, but in the cold light of day you're a coward, unable to give the definition. I imagine the Scottish Mullings would be very embarrassed by you - I suggest you change your motto from bydand to *bwaka!*, the sound of retreating poultry.

Just wait, I can feel it growing in the air ...

Semi quasi psuedo transitional quarter semi final-final body plan.
Someone should write a book - a comedyof errors

Date: 2012/07/17 03:36:05, Link
Author: BillB
Quote
LYO:

Re:

 
Quote
My initial point was that you (and Fuller) are making the mistake of thinking of ID as an honest enterprise, but it can’t be honest about itself without disappearing in a puff of smoke.
That’s a gratuitous smear, and you just put it before someone who takes such VERY seriously.

You are being rude, disrespectful and falsely accusatory.

You owe the blog an apology and a retraction.

As a first step, I suggest you work your way through the summary on ID here, and the weak argument correctives here. (You have already willfully ignored a correction above, on the material contribution of the Christian milieu to the rise of modern science, having dismissed it in a fit of assertive ignorance.)

If you cannot substantiate your assertions in the face of these — and I am morally certain that you cannot, as I have done my homework — then you owe an apology, bigtime.

Otherwise, you are simply being a willful slanderer.

GEM of TKI


This is the same KF who routinely accuses biology and science in general of dishonesty (i.e. not an 'honest enterprise'), and evolutionary theory as being 'self referentially incoherent' (i.e. 'it can’t be honest about itself without disappearing in a puff of smoke.')

pot - meet kettle.

Date: 2012/07/17 05:55:59, Link
Author: BillB
KF gets a ticking off for threadjacking:
Quote


Kairosfocus posted: “LYO: You have some pretty serious unfinished business of accounting for some loaded and unsubstantiated accusations you have made. Kindly, attend to this. KF”

This thread has a topic under discussion. Please either contribute or remain virtually silent.


I predict a verbal riot.

Date: 2012/07/21 01:45:49, Link
Author: BillB
Anyone care to place bets on whick UD regular will be first to blame the cinema shootings on Darwin?

Date: 2012/07/22 12:33:06, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (REC @ July 21 2012,15:19)
Quote (The whole truth @ July 21 2012,03:47)
Quote (didymos @ July 21 2012,00:27)
 
Quote (BillB @ July 20 2012,23:45)
Anyone care to place bets on whick UD regular will be first to blame the cinema shootings on Darwin?

Barrogant.  He's always gotten a ghoulish delight out of these things. Plus, it happened in Colorado.

You're likely right, although it wouldn't surprise me if o'leary beats him to it. And of course mullings will chime in at some point and blame it on "Darwinism", methodological naturalism, evolutionary materialism, and the 'de-christianization' of the USA.

I'm sure that arrington is also thinking of how to make money off the situation by suing somebody. He probably rushed to the scene, chased the ambulances, and handed out his business card to the survivors.

I'm sure Barry is looking for something to thrust him back into the limelight. Going from Columbine lawyer to sleazy debt-collection agency has to hurt....

Quote
Barry K. Arrington Law Office is currently seeking a Full-time collector/skip tracer. ....
$9/hr ...
Qualifications:
Must be at least 18 yrs old
Link

Quote
Turns out they say I owe a loan I paid off in 2010--basically twice as much as the original loan. It is from some attorney BARRY K. ARRINGTON LAW OFFICE .   ...  

I received a call twice and was told that if I don't respond they will assume I am NOT cooperating and will press charges

I have contacted an Alaskan attorney since I paid this debt off. They have been harrassing me at work and I sent a letter to discontinue under the Fair Debt Collection Act.  They still call every day regardless.
Link

http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwini....assacre

Date: 2012/07/23 03:08:33, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (keiths @ July 23 2012,07:08)
This is pitiful.  Barry "Law of Non-Contradiction" Arrington suddenly decides that contradictions are a-ok after all... as long as you're talking about God:
Quote
God is powerful enough to combine apparent contradictions in his person.  He is three, yet he is only one.  He is both immanent and transcendent.  He is sovereign, omniscient, omnipotent; yet despite the evil that exists in the universe he created, he is also omni-benevolent.  It never ceases to amaze me that skeptics are surprised when they are unable to fit God into neat human categories.  But if we could understand God completely, would we not be gods ourselves?  I know I am no god, so I am unsurprised to find that I cannot comprehend God in his fullness or understand fully how such contradictions can be combined in him.  Nevertheless, I am quite certain they are.

That post is a textbook example of how faith addles the mind.

Barry, ban yourself.

All this means is that anyone challenged about their belief the law of non-contradick'sn can simply quote Barry when replying 'NO'

Date: 2012/07/23 07:51:13, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 23 2012,12:51)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 21 2012,04:18)
     
Quote (BillB @ July 21 2012,01:45)
Anyone care to place bets on whick UD regular will be first to blame the cinema shootings on Darwin?

It will be someone who can write a nice No True Scotsman script accounting for the fact that the shooter was a churchgoing Christian. So my bet is on KF.

ETA: I feel deeply sorry for the victims and their friends and families.

KF:
     
Quote
“He wasn’t an extrovert at all. If there was any conversation, it would be because I initiated it, not because he did,” said Jerald Borgie, senior pastor of Penasquitos Lutheran Church. Borgie said he never saw the suspect mingle with others his age at church.

Italics by KF
     
Quote
If you have a bright, somewhat shy academically inclined kid of a family in your church, who is pursuing university studies for an advanced degree, it would be reasonable that a pastor would try to keep in touch. That suggests that the lack of interaction basically since Holmes went off to college was probably because the young man drifted from church involvement, which was already inadequate

     
Quote
He also probably had very little social and counselling support, in a context where a solid line to a good pastor, priest or Rabbi would be worth its weight in gold.

 
Quote
Multiply that by the evolutionary materialistic scientism milieu of neuroscience and the top candidate explanation is that this young man was moving to the sort of worldview that dominates this field and similar fields.



Told you so.  ;-)

UD link

ETA last quote

KF:  
Quote
I would normally recommend a Master’s programme for at least a year, then an upgrade to a PhD if there is some showing of the ability.


You can recommend all you like KF but you don't have the qualifications, training or work experience for your recommendations about academic training to actually mean anything.

Quote
Multiply that by the evolutionary materialistic scientism milieu of neuroscience and the top candidate explanation is that this young man was moving to the sort of worldview that dominates this field and similar fields. Which is the expected ideology. And indeed, the bright kid from church not prepared for the issues and rhetoric of the college campus going off to college with the Bible on the top of his clothes in his suitcase and coming back home with it under the bottom — or outright dumping it across his first year — is a stock story.


So is that based on your years of experience in academic life KF, or are you just making it up again?

Date: 2012/07/23 08:09:48, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (BillB @ July 23 2012,13:51)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 23 2012,12:51)
 
Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 21 2012,04:18)
     
Quote (BillB @ July 21 2012,01:45)
Anyone care to place bets on whick UD regular will be first to blame the cinema shootings on Darwin?

It will be someone who can write a nice No True Scotsman script accounting for the fact that the shooter was a churchgoing Christian. So my bet is on KF.

ETA: I feel deeply sorry for the victims and their friends and families.

KF:
     
Quote
“He wasn’t an extrovert at all. If there was any conversation, it would be because I initiated it, not because he did,” said Jerald Borgie, senior pastor of Penasquitos Lutheran Church. Borgie said he never saw the suspect mingle with others his age at church.

Italics by KF
     
Quote
If you have a bright, somewhat shy academically inclined kid of a family in your church, who is pursuing university studies for an advanced degree, it would be reasonable that a pastor would try to keep in touch. That suggests that the lack of interaction basically since Holmes went off to college was probably because the young man drifted from church involvement, which was already inadequate

     
Quote
He also probably had very little social and counselling support, in a context where a solid line to a good pastor, priest or Rabbi would be worth its weight in gold.

 
Quote
Multiply that by the evolutionary materialistic scientism milieu of neuroscience and the top candidate explanation is that this young man was moving to the sort of worldview that dominates this field and similar fields.



Told you so.  ;-)

UD link

ETA last quote

KF:  
Quote
I would normally recommend a Master’s programme for at least a year, then an upgrade to a PhD if there is some showing of the ability.


You can recommend all you like KF but you don't have the qualifications, training or work experience for your recommendations about academic training to actually mean anything.

 
Quote
Multiply that by the evolutionary materialistic scientism milieu of neuroscience and the top candidate explanation is that this young man was moving to the sort of worldview that dominates this field and similar fields. Which is the expected ideology. And indeed, the bright kid from church not prepared for the issues and rhetoric of the college campus going off to college with the Bible on the top of his clothes in his suitcase and coming back home with it under the bottom — or outright dumping it across his first year — is a stock story.


So is that based on your years of experience in academic life KF, or are you just making it up again?

KF, (because I know your watching)

It tends to be the case that people who dress up in costume in order to go off on a killing spree either have some severe mental health problems or have experienced a major psychological trauma.

Just being shy and going to university doesn't tend to cause killing sprees, as evidenced by the almost total majority of students not engaging in killing sprees.

Date: 2012/07/23 09:19:52, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (OgreMkV @ July 23 2012,15:07)
Hey KF,

I was very, very shy growing up.  I was picked on by people in and out of church.  I am extremely smart.

Oh and I collect guns and have several thousand rounds of ammunition.

I also thing that evolution is not only a valid explanation, but correct and that your religion of Intelligent Design is full of crap.

Shockingly, I have never gone on a killing spree.  

Perhaps, you ought to examine your hypothesis for flaws.

Me to - but without the guns.

Date: 2012/07/23 10:16:05, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Bob O'H @ July 23 2012,15:22)
Blaming mental illness stigmatises it just as much as blaming Darwinism (or indeed bowling) is meant to. Let's wait to see what he says, and what's decided about his state of mind and motivations.

Fair point, humbly accepted :)

Date: 2012/07/27 08:11:56, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Zachriel @ July 27 2012,12:40)
Now we remember why we read this forum.

Quote
Günter Wagner (and most of the other participants, I assume) knew that the mutant strain I found did not solve the problem I had posed -- namely, how new enzyme functions, or the ability to make biotin, arise in the first place.

Poor Ann. Outsmarted by evolution — again!

The shorter version: It evolved, but not in the direction we wanted.

The headline: ID scientists produce evidence against directed evolution by an intelligent designer!

Date: 2012/07/27 10:07:30, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Henry J @ July 27 2012,15:51)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 27 2012,06:32)
Reminds me of that story when they were trying to evolve a timer mechanism. They ended up evolving a radio receiver that took the "time" from a nearby computer's oscillations.

:D

Ahh. Evolvable hardware. Fond memories (I worked with the people behind it)

Date: 2012/07/28 03:11:52, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (CeilingCat @ July 27 2012,21:10)
Quote (OgreMkV @ July 27 2012,12:36)
   
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 27 2012,12:08)
   
Quote (BillB @ July 27 2012,10:07)
     
Quote (Henry J @ July 27 2012,15:51)
     
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 27 2012,06:32)
Reminds me of that story when they were trying to evolve a timer mechanism. They ended up evolving a radio receiver that took the "time" from a nearby computer's oscillations.

:D

Ahh. Evolvable hardware. Fond memories (I worked with the people behind it)

Wonderful stuff.

And at what point did you sneak the desired result in? :)

But seriously, I love all that sort of stuff. I think we may be approaching a confluence of factors that'll allow something big to happen, faster computers, GPUs that are very good at simulating specific types of interaction, massive connectivity and now little cheap hardware boxes full of input and output sensors.

Who knows what the next bill gates is cooking up in their garage.

If anyone has any recent research along these lines, I'd love to read it.

I have a keen interest in this area as well.

Just Google  hardware evolution.  The first result should be "Adrian Thompson's Hardware Evolution Page".

I remember reading an article about 20 years ago about a researcher who hooked a small computer up to a FPGA (field programmable gate array) chip.  A FPGA is a chip with thousands of logic gates on it that are unconnected.  By sending in a string of ones and zeros, you can "wire" the gates together into just about any circuit you want.  You can literally wire them into something as complex as a microprocessor if you want.

They programmed the small computer to send in a string of random ones and zeros which caused the FPGA to wire it's internal gates up randomly.  The computer would then feed two audio tones into the FPGA and look at two specific output pins.  The goal was to have one of the pins go high when one audio tone was sent into the FPGA and the other pin to go high when the other audio tone was sent in.  The string of random ones and zeros was then changed a little bit in a random fashion and the test was repeated.

Very early in the program, the FPGA wired the outputs of two gates together, which is normally a very big design no-no, and the output of one of the gates was made low and the output of the second gate was made high.  This misfiring screwed up the internal voltages in the FPGA so badly that it stopped operating as a digital chip and started acting as an analog circuit instead.

After tens or maybe hundreds of thousands of rounds of Darwinian evolution, the chip finally reliably detected the two tones and made the appropriate pins go high when they were detected - and nobody understood how it worked!  They could look at the string of ones and zeros that made it work, and see how the gates were wired together, but the resulting circuit made no sense.  The digital gates were operating as a bastard analog circuit and nothing made sense.

For instance, there were groups of gates wired to each other and to nothing else.  They weren't wired to any other part of the circuit and didn't seem to be doing anything but wasting power, but if you took them out the chip stopped detecting the audio tones!

And nobody had any idea of why.  But unguided evolution had made it work.  Ann Gauger has just had a small taste of the power of Darwinian evolution and she has no idea if what's going on either.

Edited from a PC to remove iPad-induced typos.

I'm glad you mentioned Adrian Thompson, the evolvable FPGA work was all his, it formed part of his PhD thesis and basically invented the whole field - Incidentally, he was the internal examiner for my own PhD a few years ago, but also just a really nice guy.

As far as the FPGA work goes, the tone discriminator did end up using isolated gates as part of the circuit, they relied on parasitic capacitance between neighboring gates to contribute to the circuits functionality (normally something a designer tries to avoid!) - it is also worth noting that some evolved designs would not transfer to other FPGA's or even other areas of the FPGA they evolved on - basically evolution was exploiting tiny manufacturing variations in the hardware (Niche exploitation). I think this led to some work exploring how circuits could be evolved to exploit damaged hardware - for example in space where radiation can damage micro circuitry but you can't send a repair man to fix it.

The accidentally evolved radio stuff was cool. The setup involved another FPGA, but with the digital clock sources switched off, and the goal was to generate a stable clock pulse at a fixed frequency on an output. When the experiment ran (for a week) and the population converged on a high fitness solution they looked at the output of the FPGA and just got random noise instead of a clock pulse - it turned out on closer examination that the circuit produced the clock pulse for 0.25 seconds or so, then it deteriorated into noise. The fitness evaluation period for each circuit was 0.25 seconds, so it had evolved to do <b>exactly</b> what they specified (and it got used ever since as an example of the pitfalls of designing a fitness function) - Finally, they realized that the noise at the output was actually radio frequency noise, and traced it to RF interference from the lab computers - so the circuit has evolved to use RF interference as a source for generating a stable clock pulse stream for 0.25 seconds - and of course it was another example of niche exploitation because the circuit would only work in the lab it evolved in.

I recall other stories about circuits that would only work when a soldering iron on the adjoining bench was switched off ... and I think the attempts to toughen up the circuits by 'noising out' some of the niche features (for example introducing randomized temperature variations and RF noise during evolution) resulted in circuits that didn't exploit the FPGA features in such unconventional ways.

All this stuff led to an annual evolvable hardware conference facilitated by NASA, which has now turned into a broader conference on adaptive hardware systems - AHS - Adrians stuff was all done at Sussex University in the UK, but NASA kind of took over the lead, and unfortunately some people even tried to edit out Adrians contribution as the founder of the field - I had to re-write the intro on the evolvable hardware Wikipedia page when Adrian was edited out and replaced with something along the lines of 'invented by NASA' ... grrr.

I think one of the big things that came out of all the research was that it is actually very hard to get useful designs this way - the problems of time, plus niche exploitation put up big barriers to success. The more successful approaches at evolving hardware actually involve simulated hardware because you can iterate generations much faster, and control noise and environment - but you can't then exploit unknown features of the hardware (although evolution will still exploit unintended features of the simulation, which is a bit of a problem - I once saw a simulated evolved biped robot fly like superman thanks to a bug in the physics engine)

One of Adrians PhD students, Miguel Garvie, did some nice work evolving logic circuit designs (in simulation, not on hardware) He used a SETI@home'esq technique of recruiting people on-line to install an application that evolved the designs using computer idle time.

He was trying to produce fault tolerant logic circuits (for critical system applications) - the logic circuits have to signal if they develop a fault. Conventional designs use an additional set of logic to check the gates functionality, so a fault in the fault checker can cause problems. As far as I remember he managed to produce self checking logic circuits, so any fault in any part of the circuit, including the fault checking parts, would produce an error signal - essentially there was no differentiation between the functional logic and the fault checker, it was all one integrated system (They were irreducibly complex!)

Date: 2012/08/01 04:52:23, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Aug. 01 2012,07:58)
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Aug. 01 2012,01:50)
 
Quote (sparc @ Aug. 01 2012,01:34)
KF on Christina Shellska's Discovering the Discovery Institute:              
Quote
This is an ideological hit piece in the guise of research. An arts student will not normally be in a position to evaluate a technical scientific case on a controversial matter, even if she has some phil and history of sci. Communication strategies have little or nothing to do with it.

KF

A lawyer, however ... ?

Ooh, ooh, found a better one!

KF

 
Quote
PS: My son just advised me to be plain. Ms Shellska, you don’t have the relevant technical qualifications (much less facts) to speak with credibility on this matter. Please, think again.


Anyone know where I can get a second-hand irony meter?

I think that comment from KF could result in a world wide shortage of Irony meters.

Date: 2012/08/04 06:04:19, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Aug. 04 2012,10:25)
Not so long ago, it was even more absurd: Wives without degree who were married to a husband with PhD or a professor would be called "Frau Doktor" or "Frau Professor".

In Austria, engineers are called "Herr Ingenieur".

And Bob, a slight correction: Professor first, then Doktor, like "Herr Professor Doktor".

Fortunately, times are changing, if slowly.

When I first got my phd I had the urge to put it on everything. It wore off after a while.

On a related note, an Indian friend of mine noted that when he was pulled over once by the police (uk) once, their attitude to him changed when they saw Dr on his driving license.

A colleague once told me about an early attempt to develop a knowledge based system for the police, based on officers answers to questions. The knowledge that the system generated basically came down to: If they are black then they are up to no good, if people argue with you then arrest them - unless they are a doctor, doctors are allowed to argue with you.

Date: 2012/08/07 02:28:59, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 07 2012,00:11)
Also, where did ID say junk DNA had a function.  The earliest mention that I can find of ID saying anything about junk DNA having a function is Behe in 1996.

Of course, Gould had been saying that since 1978.  So I'm not real sure why ID can even make the claim.

And on what basis - because 'it doesn't make sense' - sounds like a nice sciency hypothesis.

Human designers include junk in designs, either by blind copying of errors or depreciated functional elements, or to deliberately obfuscate attempts to back engineer - so if you want to draw analogies from known designers then you have to conclude that sometimes including junk in a design makes sense.

Date: 2012/08/07 15:24:36, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (dvunkannon @ Aug. 07 2012,19:27)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 07 2012,14:08)
Quote
Only thing I can think of would be precursor molecules or something along the RNA-world organisms.


Or something along those lines that is completely unexpected or unprecedented. I would accept it as a personal favor if they found something interesting and pre-biotic. Or even post-biotic.

I'd love to see a mineral formation made of a mineral we know is created by life when we find it on Earth.

Mars had water on the surface for a long time, maybe a billion years. Enough time for life and photosynthesis, compared to Earth. Unless OOL needs a moon and/or deep se vents...

The response from IDists to any solid evidence of life on Mars would either be to claim that it must'v got there from earth (probably by design) or, they will find some vaguely ID supporting proponent who once said something about life on Mars not being a problem for ID, wheel out some quotes and claim that ID predicted it, therefore nothing ever evolved ever, and jesus.

Aaaaaannd, if nothing lifelike is found, they will claim that ID predicted it, therefore nothing ever evolved ever, and jesus. ... and global warming isn't happening etc.

ID is a theory in the true spirit of their favorite designer - omnipotent - ID predicts all things, and none.

Date: 2012/08/14 09:42:33, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 14 2012,13:09)
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Aug. 14 2012,03:12)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 13 2012,15:13)
     
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 13 2012,15:05)
StephenB:
       
Quote
This takes us back to another claim– that “design cannot be measured.” No one has ever said that the design itself can be measured. That is just a silly strawman. ID argues that, in some cases, the probability that design exists can be measured, as in the case of a sand castle (the number of formed grains) or a written paragraph (the number of formed characters) or a monkey typing the works of Shakespeare, or with the arrangement of nucleotides in a DNA molecule. Do these self-described Thomists know what they mean when they say design CANNOT be measured? It appears that they do not. Do they even know what ID is measuring or how they do it? It appears that they do not.


Hmm. Go on then, measure me some design in a sandcastle.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-429935

So, if you can't measure the one thing that your notions depend on... why are y'all blathering about this all the time?

Oh yeah, Theocracy.

Well, obviously you quantify the number of microstates in a sandcastle and compare it to the microstates available to an 'unordered' pile of sand. If the first is much, much fewer, then you can reliably infer that the sandcastle was designed, since this is the only way you can violate the second law of thermodynamics. Well, one of the only ways. OK, not that second law of thermodynamics ... but you'd be dead surprised, and entropy is a measure of surprise, units eyebrow-micrometers per gram.

define 'sandcastle'

What if it was built by ants?

How would they fit in with this idea of 'design' - is an individual ant the designer?, or do they get treated as a collective entity? How did they go about designing the ant nest ...?

Date: 2012/08/20 09:40:04, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 20 2012,13:38)
I envision Barry as someone who daydreams of redoing the Dover trial with him in the lead. This time they'll get it right.

I think Barry envisions himself as the judge and the jury, and maybe the executioner.

Date: 2012/08/26 10:36:20, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 26 2012,15:39)
Quote (keiths @ Aug. 26 2012,01:05)
There's also a full-on tardfight between Maus and KF on the Toronto thread. Sample:
 
Quote
So if I accept your plea to wordsnitchery as valid then you surely accept that it was the height of bad form and malice to attack and ban those commenters on UD that took a Dialetheist approach to contradictions. Both arguments stand together or fall together...

If your answer relies on ‘because I infer it backwards, but not in the well understood fallacy way, but in a magic way indistinguishable yet awesome’?

Then you are a Supernatural Materialist. And being of Moral Immoral character acknowledge that you have Contradicted your position on Contradiction – -but not in a contradictory manner — and will ban youself from UD by not leaving.


No more 'big tent' for Maus.  He's going the Sal route.

His posts content have been deleted, ASFAICT.

This is why you always have and always will lose, UD, because you don't even play. Shame on Barry. I don't want to hear diddly about censorship from him, the bully.

I happened to copy the last post from Maus, which is probably the one that invoked the impotent wrath of baz:


Quote

Maus August 25, 2012 at 11:56 pm

@Barry
Quote
Your fear of the questions in the OP has been demonstrated repeatedly …

Oh? Are you saying that an established law professional with an impressive CV and work history is so incompetent as to not understand what a “Devil’s Advocate” argument is? And that they are further so incompetent that they find the proper rejoinder is a long line of straw man and ad hominems?
We both know that you’re not such an incompetent. Which leaves one of two curiosities: 1) You know your argument is a mouth-breathing waste. 2) You’re on a Torquemada fishing expedition for the ‘faithful’.

So I’ll tell you what, Barry, since I obviously cannot answer for a personally held belief that I do not hold I’ll go ahead and answer for the one I am only allowed to hold until I answer the statements that you assert are absolutely correct and airtight.[1] And ‘hold until’ is the case as we do not dispute the LNC in this fora lest we be banned.

Which is to say I cannot answer your questions from a Christian perspective. For if I assume Christianity then the Lord has commanded, on various occasions, that children should be killed in toto. (Put aside ‘fun’ for now.) Such that if these sorts of antics are universally immoral then the Lord Himself is immoral. But He is the seat of morality and moral by definition. Which is absurd.

Therefore the killing of children, by numerous means, can only be contingently immoral. And this brings us back to ‘fun’. For it is understood that to worship the Lord, is amongst other things, to revel in His Glory and be at good cheer in carrying out His will. And since he has commanded the death of children on various occasions then it is immoral to not have a good cheer about trashing tots for the Lord. But, as you have continually asserted that your argument is airtight, then it is immoral to be moral and have a good cheer toasting toddlers.

So we cannot say that your airtight argument shows that Christianity is more or less moral than Materialism. We can only say that your airtight argument shows that Christianity is absurd. That it is self-contradictory and you have accomplished by assertion what Dawkins has spent a lifetime failing at.

But since I am not allowed by my nature, nor the rules of the road here, to disavow the LNC then I must reject the Christianity I held previously to accepting your arugment as valid. And since you’re not such an incompetent as to be a Christian and make an argument that refutes Christianity then your assertion to universal immorality must come from elsewhere.

Certainly not Materialism, since there Materialism is orthogonal to the topic. And so it must be some other religion that you follow. And since I cannot be any further a Christian then I should sorely like to know which religion it is that you practice, and which holds all the answers.

Not that you’ll answer, of course. For answering the notion — for whatever worldview you hold — would demonstrate that it was indeed an enthymeme that Begged the Question as I originally stated to you. And should your argument be simultaneously valid and invalid then you would need to have the bravery to deal with my original post or the bravery to ban yourself from your own site for rejecting the LNC you demand of others.

So I’ll just let it hang for others to let me know what a suitable replacement for my worldview should be.

[1] You have not, of course, stated this outright. But then your cowardice at addressing common rebuttal is enough to make the same intent apparent.
My Webpage

Date: 2012/08/26 10:42:09, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (BillB @ Aug. 26 2012,16:36)
My Webpage

Just to avoid any horrific assumptions - that 'my webpage' link pointing to UD is just an editing error - UD is not really my webpage and I am not really Baz the Bully.

Honest!

Date: 2012/08/28 16:13:16, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (keiths @ Aug. 28 2012,22:03)
A Gene is toying with Barry:
Quote (A Gene @ August 28 2012, 2:38 pm)
Barry, we can give reasons for why 9×9=81. It’s also not self-evident (we have to learn our multiplication tables). So the two aren’t comparable.

BTW, I trust you know that 9×9=23 is correct, even if for a slightly odd reason.

Goddamit, I wish I was better at maths.

Date: 2012/08/30 04:52:45, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 30 2012,08:05)
Barry, being the fine upstanding citizen that he is wrote this:
 
Quote
A Gene @ 100.
You can’t give reasons that 9×9=81. You can only say the same thing in different words as KF did above.

Poor A Gene can't even say that - the silent bannhammer has descended.

EDIT: Oh yes, that was before A Gene told kf (in effect) that he couldn't argue that multiplication is repeated addition, because Barry had said one couldn't give reasons for it. He was sorely tempted to suggest Barry ban kf for this, but thought he might get banned himself. It was then his ironymeter started smoking.

Sergio explains it to KF:
Quote
105 sergiomendesAugust 30, 2012 at 1:52 am

for math base of 10, 9×9=81 (eight of 10 + 1).
for math base of 39, 9×9=23 (two of 39 + 3).
necessary understand of math base choosen for operating.

sergio

Yes KF, it helps if you actually try to understand the things you are talking about!

Date: 2012/09/02 02:53:14, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (keiths @ Sep. 02 2012,01:52)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 01 2012,15:13)
OK. I've been hearing search for a search for years and just tuned it out as  bullshit. Can someone play devil's advocate and put the best possible face on this? Explain how it could possibly be relevant?

I'm not joking.

Okay, here's my best straight-faced attempt at presenting Dembski's argument:
 
Quote
1.  A search is a process which attempts to find targets within a larger space of possibilities.

2.  A search can be run over and over.  Each time it is run, it "lands on" one point in the space of possibilities.  If that point is one of the targets, then the search has succeeded.  If the landing point is not a target, then the search has failed.

3.  A blind search is one in which the "landing point" is chosen purely at random out of the space of possibilities, without favoring any points over others.

4.  If the possibility space is huge and the target space is tiny, then a blind search will rarely succeed. The odds of hitting the target are just too low.  In other words, the cost of finding the target is high with a blind search.

5.  If we use a better search, we improve the odds of hitting the target.  In other words, we can reduce the cost of finding the target by employing a better search.

6.  However, finding a better search is itself a search ("the search for a search").  It has its own cost, which must be factored in.

7.  The total cost of finding a target therefore includes both the cost of the search plus the cost of the "search for a search".

8.  According to the Law of Conservation of Information, this total cost is always greater than or equal to the cost of finding the target through a blind search.  One way or another, you have to pay the piper in order to find the target.

9.  Evolution is a search:  it looks for viable organisms (the targets) within the much larger space of possible organisms.

10.  Evolution obviously cannot succeed as a blind search, because the target space is too small relative to the possibility space.  However, evolution uses the fitness landscape as a source of information to zero in on the target space. (A designer may also inject information at crucial moments.)

11.  The fitness landscape doesn't come for free. The total cost of the evolutionary search has to include the cost of the information contained in the fitness landscape.

12.  The Law of Conservation of Information tells us that the total cost of the evolutionary search, including the cost of the information contained in the fitness landscape, equals or exceeds the cost of a blind search.

13.  Purely material processes don't generate information.  They merely rearrange information that was already there. Therefore, no material process can "buy" you a fitness landscape.  

14.  Thus, the information in the fitness landscape comes from an immaterial intelligence.  (And so does any information that is injected along the way.)

15.  Without this information, evolution could not succeed.  

16.  One way or another, then, evolution depends for its success on information generated by an immaterial intelligence.

It's riddled with holes, but that, to the best of my knowledge, is the argument that Dembski is actually making.

Of course if you have to search for a search then that search has a cost as well and you need to find the best way of searching for the search that you are going to use to find the search... It's searches all the way down.

Date: 2012/09/12 03:46:32, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 12 2012,06:11)
*Run the numbers doesn't have to involve any math. We design theorists do this all the time.

By 'running the numbers' he means creating long numbered bullet point lists. Some of the numbers are prime, therefore design, because without a divine authority numbers would be meaningless ... etc, pps, ppps/fn

Date: 2012/09/13 07:28:28, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 12 2012,16:00)
Dear Diary,
Yet another argument with the neighbour over the fence between our back garden. Well, to be more precise, the gate between the gardens.

It's been there a long time and recently the lock failed. The neighbour went out and bought a bolt.

Of course, I immediately replaced it with a latch as a latch is the only thing possible in this situation that could even begin to keep the gate securely closed. He insisted that a bolt would do just as good a job, and that in fact a bolt had been there all along until it had finally rusted away. Of course, he was mistaken. Despite the fact that he then provided "photographs" that happened to have the gate in the background I knew I was right. Who are you going to trust, me or your lyin eyes?

So, anyway, since that day all I heard from the neighbour was a muffled *bang* and that was the last of it. He's obviously entranced by my "ALWAYS LINKED" that I linked him to and is working his way through each page, carefully making notes. That noise, which sounded like something muffled perhaps by a pillow, was obviously him locking and bolting his door - once he saw my "ALWAYS LINKED" he knew he was in for the full ride!

Once day somebody is going to ask me a question about my "ALWAYS LINKED", I just know it!

(sorry, couldn't resist:)
Dear Diary,
Yet another argument with the neighbour over the fence between our back garden. Well, to be more precise, the gate between the gardens.

It's been there a long time and recently the latch failed. The neighbour went out and bought a bolt!!!

Of course, I immediately replaced the latch but my neighbour insisted that there had always been a bolt there and that it had just rusted away. Of course, he was mistaken. Despite the fact that he then provided "photographs" which he claimed depicted a bolt on the gate it was, dear onlookers, clearly a type of latch which, whilst having the appearance of a bolt, was clearly and intelligently designed to perform a pseudo semi latching function.

Date: 2012/09/20 07:14:43, Link
Author: BillB
Thought I would embrace ID and start trying to produce a testable model. Here is my first bit of code:
Code Sample
repeat
{
  if(gap) gap = god;
}
until faith == 0;

Date: 2012/09/20 07:23:22, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (BillB @ Sep. 20 2012,13:14)
Thought I would embrace ID and start trying to produce a testable model. Here is my first bit of code:
Code Sample
repeat
{
  if(gap) gap = god;
}
until faith == 0;

oops, forgot a key header, pre-processor statements and a bit of code:
Code Sample
#include<theology.h>

#ifdef toEvidence
evidence = 0;
#endif

void main(void)
{
  repeat
  {
     if(gap) gap = god;
     ID++;
     if(ID>0) ID = WIN;
  }
  until faith == 0;

}

Date: 2012/09/20 07:28:16, Link
Author: BillB
[quote=BillB,Sep. 20 2012,13:23]
Quote (BillB @ Sep. 20 2012,13:14)

Code Sample
#include<theology.h>

#ifdef toEvidence
evidence = 0;
#endif

void main(void)
{
  repeat
  {
     if(gap) gap = god;
     ID++;
     if(ID>0) ID = WIN;
  }
  until faith == 0;

}

Damn it, you can see I don't write code that often:

Code Sample
#include<theology.h>

#ifdef toEvidence
evidence = 0;
#endif

void main(void)
{
  repeat
  {
     if(gap)
     {
        gap = god;
        ID++;
     }
     if(ID>0) ID = WIN;
  }
  until faith == 0;
}

Date: 2012/09/20 07:36:48, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 20 2012,13:34)
Code Sample

while gap:
      ID

Error: gap is not defined in this scope

Date: 2012/09/20 07:40:53, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 20 2012,13:34)
Code Sample

while gap:
      ID

Actually, you just made me realise that the entire ID research programe can be captures with a single line of ARM assembly:

mov r0, r0

Date: 2012/09/20 08:28:55, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 20 2012,14:04)
Quote (BillB @ Sep. 20 2012,07:36)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 20 2012,13:34)
Code Sample

while gap:
      ID

Error: gap is not defined in this scope

Code Sample
gap = True
while gap:
     Incentive = Buy_My_Book(Recycled_Arguments,CherryPickedData)

Ok, thanks, that compiles fine now ;)

Incidentally, the language I am using is not your standard 'C' - it is an undefined language of unknown origin with unknown constraints, but it just happens to behave in a 'C' like fashion if the goal of your code is to prove ID.

Discussing the origin and operation of the language, the compiler, and how it affects code execution is forbidden!

Date: 2012/09/24 04:19:36, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Patrick @ Sep. 22 2012,23:47)
             
Quote (Learned Hand @ Sep. 22 2012,17:29)
               
Quote (onlooker @ Sep. 22 2012,10:14)
                 
Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 22 2012,05:43)
It's getting a little slow around here. We need a new meltdown.

I'm [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/design-inference/it-seems-that-tsz-objector-to-design-af-insists-on-the-long-since-corrected-canard-that-de
















sign-is-a-default-inference/#comment-434129]working on it[/URL]:


Your comment has been censored on grounds that it accused the censor of censorship.

You made me look.  Thank you.  I wouldn't want to have missed this:
               
Quote
O makes a false accusation of censorship — probably being amplified all across the slander laced fever swamps as we speak — when O knows full well he was asked to apologise and cease from derail attempts or leave. He chose to leave then tried to return and suggest that he could — with an unresolved matter of uncivil behaviour on his part on the table — hold a separate conversation ignoring the thread owner. Sorry, it does not work that way. Comment removed for cause. KF

"I'm removing what Onlooker posted because he accused me of censorship.  In the process I'll slander him while complaining about slander on other sites."

How does his head not explode from the weapons grade hypocrisy?

ETA:  Bolding in the original.  Like multiple exclamation points, a sure sign of a disturbed mind.

I realised that any code for my ID simulation would need some way of handling errors, that would seem to be KF's department so ...

Code Sample
double offended = TRUE;

very very long string YouAreInError {
   try verbiage {
       throw tantrum(BYDAND);
       delete comments;
   }
   catch (evomat conspirators) {
       do {
           cout << "oil soaked burning stawmen of red herring. Because " << bigNumber << ENDl;
       } while (offended);
       apply(mrLeathers);
       latch = -latch;
   }
   return jesus;
}

void apply(const* self falgellation){
   ofstream myfile;
   myfile.open("scantilyCladLadies.jpg");
   fap( random(10*10^e ) );
   myfile.close();
   very very long string *myKeyboard = new keyboard;
   delete internetHistory;
}

Date: 2012/09/28 05:42:38, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 28 2012,10:39)
Quote (keiths @ Sep. 27 2012,16:30)
               
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 27 2012,05:24)
               
Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 27 2012,07:38)
Dr. Torley explains his reasoning:                
Quote
You ask why the question of whether crows are rational matters. I can think of two big reasons, right off the top of my head. One is religious and the other is political. First, a demonstration that non-human animals are capable of abstract reasoning of any sort – let alone reasoning about hidden causal agents – would discredit claims made by most adherents of Judaism, Christianity and Islam that human beings alone are made in the image of God, thanks to their possession of reason (see here and here and here). After all, if other animals can reason too, then we’re obviously no longer unique, are we?

Second, if other animals are considered to be capable of reasoning, then political rights for these animals are sure to follow. The recent Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness recently declared that “Evidence of near human-like levels of consciousness has been most dramatically observed in African grey parrots” (italics mine) – an assertion that I criticized here. At the 2012 meeting in Vancouver, Canada, of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, support was reiterated for a cetacean bill of rights, listing cetaceans as “non-human persons.”


Shorter answer: I don't want animals to be able to think, therefore they don't.  

Evidence be damned.

Link

It's like the fool sat down and TRIED to think of the most fallacious set of arguments from consequences that was possible for this dataset.  fuck me that is hilarious

CeilingCat, 'Ras,

In that passage, Torley is explaining why the question matters, not why he thinks his answer is correct.  

There are plenty of real problems with Torley's reasoning.  No need to invent bogus ones.

I was being charitable.  Torley knows that non-human animals can't think because they aren't made in the image of God.  See Thomas Acquinas and Edward Feser for the details.

Confronted with evidence that crows do reason, he grabs every straw he can find to "disprove" this apostasy.

The best straw he can come up with is that crows can't speak, therefore they can't explain their reasoning to us, therefore Jesus.  Bull shit.

His second straw:          
Quote
Think about that. These crows supposedly learn how to reason without explicit instruction of any sort, and without even learning through imitation? I have t say I find that philosophically absurd.

What do you say to something like this?  They figured it out themselves, therefore they can't reason?  More BS.
         
Quote
My third reason for pouring cold water on the claim that crows are capable of reasoning about hidden causal agents is that in order to reason about causal agents in the first place, you need to be able to understand the notion of a cause, which is quite a sophisticated concept. Even eminent philosophers have a hard time explaining it.

So if a crow's not as smart as an eminent philosopher, he can't think?  That's PhD (Piled higher and Deeper) grade BS.

Sorry, but the real reason for Torley's "reasoning" are in the initial quotes above.  There's no way he can think critically in the face of his overriding Thomistic beliefs.  It would absolutely kill Baby Jesus.  And besides, if we let the crows get away with this, next thing you know whales and parrots will be demanding the vote and don't even let him get started on chimps.  BS^2

I think he is still coming to terms with the revelation, contrary to the beliefs of many men in the 19th century, that women were indeed capable of rational thought and abstract reasoning.

I guess he deserves a break, first they go and grant Women the power of abstract reasoning, and let them vote, now they are trying to claim that the dumb animals are capable of thought ... next they will be claiming that machines can play chess!

oh, wait ....

Date: 2012/10/05 06:47:22, Link
Author: BillB
KF gets ready to declare a hollow victory:  
Quote
Folks: Two days and counting, no takers. Looks like these folks have decided that the “just don’t understand science [a priori materialism flying the flag of science]” talking point is a good enough brush-off. But what this really shows is that there is a big challenge to answer to the origins question from the evolutionary materialist perspective without convenient a prioris, especially when OOL is in the mix. KF


Hold your horses KF, here is my entry:  
Quote
(comment deleted)


Yes - thought I would just skip to the inevitable conclusion.

Date: 2012/10/06 03:42:15, Link
Author: BillB
The Skeptical Zone seems to have gone down ... just as I was about to post something there. Doh!

Date: 2012/10/06 03:44:17, Link
Author: BillB
Mung: I notice that in good Uncommon Descent tradition you are slinging insults with almost every post in the discussion of GA's (calling people dumb etc ..) meanwhile the self proclaimed moral authorities like KF turn a blind eye - Give the discussion about GA's I thought I would point out that Mung is only two mutations away from Dumb.

Date: 2012/10/08 05:11:35, Link
Author: BillB
Joe:    
Quote


Robb,

Try to compress the works of Shakespear- CSI. Try to compress any encyclopedia- CSI. Even Stephen C. Meyer says CSI is not amendable to compression.

A protein sequence is not compressable- CSI.

So please reference Dembski and I will find Meyer’s quote.


Challenge accepted!

"Shakespeare complete.txt" 5.33MB -> ZIP -> "Shakespeare complete.zip" 1.98 MB

Date: 2012/10/16 10:53:11, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Freddie @ Oct. 16 2012,16:43)
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 15 2012,14:57)
     
Quote (keiths @ Oct. 14 2012,22:26)
     
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 14 2012,17:43)
Getting away from AtBC was good for me. It was a needed break. I've been away for what, 4 years or so?

I'm going way out on a limb here and guessing that the numbsculls at UD and the DI etc failed to do any groundbreaking research in biology in that time?

Have I missed anything interesting?

Dude!  Welcome back!

We were just reminiscing about the AFDave TARD graph...

Maybe my best moment here. Ahh, memories.

It's possible you also missed the whole "Weasel Wars" episode, where KF declared all sorts of patent nonsense to accuse Richard Dawkins of cheating with his little BASIC program running on his BBC Micro.

This lead to the coining of the terms 'latching', 'semi-latching' and, when KF was shown indisputably that RDs program had no need to do any such thing: 'Quasi-latching'.  

So UD held a competition where they announced a prize for anyone who provided Richard Dawkins' Weasel code.  Read that thread - it is ... well ....

What followed was one of the most pitiful and embarrassing episodes at UD where, because of course no-one was able to ante-up the original Weasel code, they declared that
someone else's code was to be taken henceforth as the de facto program for Weasel.  
     
Quote
Unless Richard Dawkins and his associates can show conclusively that these are not the originals (either by providing originals in their possession that differ, or by demonstrating that these programs in some way fail to perform as required), we shall regard the contest as closed, offer Oxfordensis his/her prize, and henceforward treat the programs below as the originals.


What a bunch of pompous loons.

Gordon basically proceeded to define latching in ways that covered any change in a system, declared victory, and proceeded to shout at everyone.

Date: 2012/10/18 06:47:25, Link
Author: BillB
Jerad:    
Quote
Given a first basic replicator the fossil evidence is consistent with universal common descent given that not all life forms formed fossils. The geographic distribution of life forms is also consistent with universal common descent and was one of Wallace and Darwin’s mail lines of argument.


KF:    
Quote
1: We are not “given” a self-replicating cell. We need to get there, that is the first and biggest issue, and the one that puts design squarely on the table.


1 ----> WERE YOU THERE?
2 ----> If design is the answer to biogenesis then OF COURSE we are given the first self-replicating cell!
2 ----> Lets assume design is the explanation for the first self-replicating cell ... In what way is that an argument against this:
   
Quote
The geographic distribution of life forms is also consistent with universal common descent and was one of Wallace and Darwin’s mail lines of argument. Comparative morphology of present and past life forms is consistent with universal common descent. And the molecular evidence is strong evidence for universal common descent. Any one line of evidence is strong, four lines combined are very compelling.

Date: 2012/10/18 08:33:29, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (olegt @ Oct. 18 2012,14:06)
This little gem from gpuccio will brighten your fall day.
Quote
I don’t what to elimimate subjectivity. The foundation of all my thinking is objective subjectivity, that is consious representations.

ROTFL

Let's not eliminate irrationality - The foundation of all their behaviour is, after all, rational irrationality.

Date: 2012/11/21 04:33:36, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 21 2012,07:46)
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 20 2012,15:28)
Teh gays are taking over the world:
 
Quote (kairosfocus @ November 12 2012, 11:24 pm)
F/N: In short onlookers, this time, someone is going to go down. For instance, a watershed has been crossed in our civilisation with the homosexualist factionist challenge to marriage, and it is going to be either justice rooted in the natural moral law anchored in creation order — and contrast here on “my genes made me do it” — or tyranny in one form or another. No compromise is possible, and I assure you, this is a hill that people will stand and die on; quite literally. It is “to the lions” time again. That is what the factionists have now so foolishly or even so arrogantly let loose in our civilisation. (Cf a case in point here, with Mr Smith’s foolish and arrogantly disrespectful and potentially job-destroying challenge to and harassment of a Chick-fil-A worker, Rachel.) KF

Gordon you arrogant pussy. You're just a bag of wind with no substance and no spine. You're all talk.

Gordon, if you had been born 100 years ago I am certain you would be ranting against women being given the vote, raving about how society would collapse etc. with footnotes ...

Date: 2013/01/28 06:06:43, Link
Author: BillB
Quote
11. God is impartial. Distinctions of rank, race, sex, color or creed mean nothing to God. All individuals are equal in God’s sight.

12. God disapproves of the deliberate killing of innocent people.

13. God disapproves of infanticide.

14. God disapproves of killing girls.


It seems to be important to them to pick out girls for a specific mention - because that is what impartiality is all about ...

Date: 2013/04/29 05:01:37, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (The whole truth @ April 28 2013,10:06)
Quote (sparc @ April 27 2013,22:48)
I wonder if KF ever thaught about how the Montserrat LIBEL AND SLANDER ACT relates to his writings.

Thank you for that link.

gordo obviously believes that his writings are exempt from any laws, and that only the writings by people who question or oppose him are subject to laws.

While looking at the laws of Montserrat I came across the "MENTAL TREATMENT ACT", which includes these definitions (bold is in originals):

""insane person" or "person of unsound mind" or "patient" includes an
idiot and any other person of unsound mind"

""psychopathic disorder" means a persistent disorder or disability of mind (whether or not including significant impairment of intelligence) which results in abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the person concerned"

""severe mental impairment" means a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind which includes severe impairment of intelligence and social functioning and is associated with abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the person concerned and "severely mentally impaired" shall be construed accordingly"

A fitting description of gordo, joey, and the rest of the IDiots.

Now it suddenly all makes sense - KF is actually in an asylum!

That is the whole reason he never participates in other sites like TSZ - They realised that it was helpful for him to have an outlet, but that it needed to be in a safe environment where reality wouldn't rear its head too much and send him on a decline - so they let him comment at UD.

Date: 2013/07/08 06:53:10, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (timothya @ July 08 2013,09:50)
Niwrad is given posting rights at UD and produces this:
 
Quote
Corollary of the 2nd law.In an isolated system, organization never increases spontaneously. Hence the 2nd law refutes evolution.

Doing well until the end of the first sentence.

If Nirwad is to be believed then humans routinely violate the SLoT - perhaps someone could ask him if there are any other laws of nature that people can violate by virtue of being intelligent enough?

If not then it ought to be headline news - The second law of thermodynamics is the one and only law of nature that is violated on a daily basis - perhaps when those silly scientists catch on they will stop calling it a law, because it obviously can't be a law of nature if it keeps getting broken.

Date: 2013/07/08 07:04:35, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (BillB @ July 08 2013,12:53)
Quote (timothya @ July 08 2013,09:50)
Niwrad is given posting rights at UD and produces this:
 
Quote
Corollary of the 2nd law.In an isolated system, organization never increases spontaneously. Hence the 2nd law refutes evolution.

Doing well until the end of the first sentence.

If Nirwad is to be believed then humans routinely violate the SLoT - perhaps someone could ask him if there are any other laws of nature that people can violate by virtue of being intelligent enough?

If not then it ought to be headline news - The second law of thermodynamics is the one and only law of nature that is violated on a daily basis - perhaps when those silly scientists catch on they will stop calling it a law, because it obviously can't be a law of nature if it keeps getting broken.

Perhaps what he means is that 'intelligence' is the organisational equivalent of a heat pump.

A heat pump can increase the temperature in one area at the expense of another by doing work.

An intelligence can increase the organisation in one area at the expense of another by doing work.

Therefore the act of creation would produce a terrible mess - EUREKA - now we know why the universe is so large and not full of life! It is the decrease in organisation everywhere else caused by the local increase in organisation here when everything was created precisely 5-6000 years ago(ish).

Take that evilutionists - your compensation argument proves jesus!

Date: 2013/07/16 03:37:51, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (CeilingCat @ July 16 2013,08:09)
Quote (stevestory @ July 15 2013,21:31)
When I was in a crim justice class 20 years ago there was a sudden exercise one day to teach us how shitty eye-witness testimony is.

One morning out of the blue in the middle of class, there was a bang, and a scream, and somebody ran in one door and out of another with some weapon, a knife I think.

Then the class was asked to write down what happened, in what order, and what color clothes was on who, and what/where the weapon was.

Virtually everyone got multiple details wrong. Colors switched or invented, the chronology all askew, wrong weapon in the wrong place etc. Everybody was sure they saw what they saw. Everybody was wrong.

That demonstration had a lasting impact on me, and I wish everyone had to do it.

And don't forget the experiment where a class sees a videotape of a pickup basketball game.  They're asked to keep track of how many times the ball is passed.  After a few minutes, the tape is stopped and the professor asks who noticed the gorilla?

When the tape is replayed, some huge percentage of the class notices the guy in the gorilla suit weaving in and out of the players for the first time.  He was there all along, but just keeping count of the number of passes was enough distraction to make lots of people not notice him at all.

Edited to add: http://www.theinvisiblegorilla.com/gorilla....nt.html

Or just google psychology experiment gorilla

I remember that one from a cognitive science talk at Uni - I didn't see the gorillaman, but I do recall finding it very difficult to keep track of the ball about half way through ... almost as if something was trying to distract me.

I've heard of related examples from pilot training programmes - they put a pilot in a simulator and get them to focus their attention of an apparent technical problem. The pilot will often fail to notice that they are about to fly into the side of a mountain.

Date: 2013/07/16 04:31:18, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Febble @ July 16 2013,10:26)
Quote
FYI-FTR, # 2: KeithS of TSZ and other objecting sites, inadvertently shows the self-referential absurdity of evolutionary materialism and its fellow traveller po-mo ideologies regarding first principles of right reason and other self-evident first truths


Is this a record for post-title length?

comments off - no surprise there.

Date: 2013/07/17 08:29:23, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (keiths @ July 17 2013,10:28)
Batshit77 is begging Barry to swing the ban hammer:
Quote
Perhaps its time for Mr. Arrington to clean house with LNC once again?

Keep hearing the occasional hysterical scream from outside - just realised it must be KF yelling at his computer.

Date: 2013/08/15 14:00:24, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Aug. 15 2013,16:27)
On the Bathroom Wall, cubist posted a link to Greta Christina's blog entry in which she discusses the situation.

I know you will eat me alive, but for once, I think she's 100% right.

I agree.

Date: 2013/08/15 15:05:31, Link
Author: BillB
Quote
what did she expect?


What should she expect.

Date: 2013/08/29 13:05:45, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 29 2013,13:46)
I've obviously let things get out of hand here.

There will be a modicum of decorum and respect offered between participants in discussion here. People who cannot find it within their repertoire to do so will be invited to find other places to discuss things. One can be abrupt and rude about an idea or stance; personal castigation, though, is not going to be tolerated any longer. I really don't care if that turns AtBC into a whistling graveyard of past conversations that I wander through alone, enough is enough.

Am I clear?

Seconded - not that I have any authority here...

Date: 2013/09/10 08:09:39, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 10 2013,13:34)
Barry passes on an article from the Torygraph without any critical thought. The second sentence should start to ring alarm bells:
 
Quote
In a rebound from 2012's record low an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia's northern shores, days before the annual re-freeze is even set to begin. (emphasis added)

and one of the Grauniad's environmental bloggers explains the problems with the report. Of course, this doesn't fit in with Barry's narrative, so don't expect a fair hearing.

Its like the tide going out - The waves wash in and out, gradually receding, but every now and then a slightly larger wave surges up the beach.

Up jumps Barry and declares it evidence that the tide is not going out at all and that it proves the moon has no effect on the oceans ... After all, if the tide were really going out you would expect EVERY wave to come in less far than the last one.

Date: 2013/09/20 04:54:25, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Febble @ Sep. 19 2013,14:55)
Yes, he does seem to be truly paranoid.

In fact, you raise a good point.  As I seem to be the one he is most obsessed with right now, I should probably get out of his way, at least until his child is better.

No surprise there, but the sheer hypocricy does still wind me up:

"You implied that I am a Nazi - SLANDERER! You implied that I was lying - SLANDERER! -- how dare you, YOU LYING NAZI SLANDERER"

I admire your continued patience and polite restraint!

Date: 2013/09/23 03:42:53, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Mark Frank @ Sep. 23 2013,09:07)
[quote=Patrick,Sep. 22 2013,17:38]  
Quote (Kantian Naturalist @ Sep. 22 2013,18:24)
Uncommon Descent

I am still, after all this time, utterly amazed (and a little bit impressed) there are people who try to carry on a discussion with Kairosfocus.

I gave up a long time ago. I also think it is bad for him to have his paranoia inflamed through debate, and frustrating though it is, the kindest thing is to ignore him (I sometimes wonder if he needs professional psychological help).

Perhaps, but I'm not sure it would work - I think he regards the rest of the world as needing psychological help ... specifically, they need his help to understand the truthiness and obviousyness of his position and the dire risk to civilisation presented by those who would disagree with him.

Date: 2013/09/26 16:33:46, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 26 2013,15:38)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 26 2013,06:08)
KF has lost it:

You mean he used to have it?

Looks like he has now officially thrown his toys out of the pram, picked up his ball and banished all others from the playing field.
Quote
As a first step, I am terminating this thread of discussion, as a mark of warning.


Take that, lying nazi materialist darwinists - that will teach you for calling me a lying nazi lying theistic creationist!

Date: 2013/09/27 08:51:37, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Kantian Naturalist @ Sep. 27 2013,14:06)
Same here -- "this account has been suspended".  

I fully support Lizzie's moderation procedure, because it can be enforced fairly.   It's like the professor's ethics about friending students on Facebook -- never send a friend request, and either friend all the students who send you a request, or friend none of them.  (I chose "none", if you're wondering.)  

Anything can be said, unless it contains obviously vulgar language ("Jane, you ignorant slut") or genuinely offensive images.   I think that if the moderators were to take a heavier hand in policing Murray or Mung, it would be ugly.  But that doesn't stop the rest of us from calling them out on their bullshit, as long we don't violate the rules in doing so.

I'm guessing either something mundane - quota exceeded (if the site has one) or KF has lodged a rambling complaint which they are forced to act on by suspending the account and investigating the allegation.

Maybe KF has hired barry to write them a nasty lawyer letter!

Date: 2013/09/27 09:01:58, Link
Author: BillB
KF posts a rant about a TSZ post:
FYI-FTR: TSZ post, Sept 12, 2013 describes “creationists” — ENEMIES OF HUMANITY
And proceeds to imply that all 'Darwinists' are enemies of humanity.

The hypocrisy is strong with this one.

Date: 2013/10/30 05:07:58, Link
Author: BillB
KF, Expert in AI declares:  
Quote
The 60:1 hits to comments ratio so far is interesting. KF

Plenty of visits but few people bothering to comment - THEREFORE I WIN 111twelfty1111

Picking at random from his piece:  
Quote
If he wants to claim or imply that consciousness, creativity, purposeful deciding and acting through reflective thought are all matters of emergence from computation through hardware that is organised and software on it — much less such happened by blind chance and mechanical necessity — then he has a scientific obligation to show such per empirical demonstration and credible observation.


Well yes, demonstrating real intelligence is one of the goals of strong AI, but he should remember that if he (KF) wants to claim that some immaterial agent is required then he also has a "scientific obligation to show such per empirical demonstration and credible observation."

You can't just assume it as the default.

Of course KF, not being qualified or engaged with the actual AI community IN ANY WAY, has almost no knowledge of the broad and deep arguments over intelligence, consciousness and philosophy of mind that real researchers grapple with within the AI community. Instead he is stuck on Searle ... and percieving materialist conspiracies ... forever.

I just have to pass coment on this bit he quotes from someone called Jay Richards:    
Quote
AI enthusiasts often make highly simplistic assumptions about human nature and biology. Rather than marveling at the ways in which computation illuminates our understanding of the microscopic biological world, many treat biological systems as nothing but clunky, soon-to-be-obsolete conglomerations of hardware and software. Fanciful speculations about uploading ourselves onto the Internet and transcending our biology rest on these simplistic assumptions. This is a common philosophical blind spot in the AI community, but it’s not a danger of AI research itself, which primarily involves programming and computers.
Well I know that there are a few truly crazy people in the AI community, and a few who would call themselves 'cyborgs' without good reason (mentions no names) but generally speaking people in the AI community that I know don't have these wild ideas and don't make simplistic assumptions (Some are actually biologists) - they come from Sci-Fi. It helps not to confuse Stargate or Star-Trek with real science.

Date: 2013/11/06 03:51:41, Link
Author: BillB
KF just blew my irony meter:
Quote
I think on matters of real controversy, there should be open debates and panels, or better yet, both. A debate, responded to by a panel, with comments then questions and then opened to the floor. But, such works only if there is willingness to admit that informed and serious people hold diverse views. The ad hominem laced strawmsn caricature stereotyping –> scapegoating and branding with a scarlet letter –> no true scotsman put-down game is all too common, and underlies Dawkins’ outrageously sophomoric dismmissals: ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked.

Unfortunately too much of the above from LT reeks of this attitude, and I don’t think he recognises how unnecessarily polarising and off-putting his behaviour is.


LOL - I'm laughing because I really have no words ...

Date: 2013/11/07 03:52:40, Link
Author: BillB
KF is still ranting about Darwin and Hitler:
 
Quote
Evolution plays a central role in the chapter in Mein Kampf on “Nation and Race,” which was the only chapter published as a separate pamphlet, thus circulating widely to promote Nazi ideology. 19 In that chapter Hitler explains why he thinks racial mixing violates evolutionary principles:  
Quote
Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level produces a medium between the level of the two parents. This means: the offspring will probably stand higher than the racially lower parent, but not as high as the higher one. Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life.

If KF actually understood evolutionary theory, and had read Darwins work, he would realise that this doesn't feature at all in the actual theory. Even if this thinking was actually based on Darwins work it makes a total and utter mess of it.

The fact that Hitler cites Christ as an inspiration isn't of course something you are allowed to mention in KF's presence, not are you allowed to point out that the Nazi's condemned Darwins works as deviant and listed them as books to be burnt. No doubt KF believes that this was a devious tactic by the Nazis to hide Darwins influence ;)

Date: 2013/11/07 07:09:47, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Mark Frank @ Nov. 07 2013,11:54)
Quote (BillB @ Nov. 07 2013,03:52)
the Nazi's condemned Darwins works as deviant and listed them as books to be burnt.

I didn't realise that - I think I will add it to the UD thread.

On second thoughts - looking at the sheer quantity of incomprehensible verbiage on the thread I maybe won't bother.

A source ...
Quote
Guidelines from Die Bücherei 2:6 (1935), p. 279
...
6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (H?ckel).


I can't actually find a source that says specifically that they burned Darwins books so maybe it is debatable ... but they certainly weren't given the protected status that Christian works were.

Date: 2013/11/07 07:35:05, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 07 2013,12:10)
If you want to read something reasonable about Hitler's relation to evolution theory I recommend Robert J. Richards' Was Hitler a Darwinian?.
Until I read his article I was not aware that Weickart had to translate the German word "Entwicklung" as "evolution" rather than as "development" to produce a connection from "Mein Kampf" to Darwin.

Someone should point this out to KF so we can all be entertained as he explains at length why everyone else is wrong to translate it that way, how he understands German to English translation much better than any language scholars and how anyone who argues against his is engaging in a turnabout distracting tactic of tossing oil soaked burning straw men down wells in order to poison the debate WHICH HE HAS ALREADY WON ON MERIT AND WITH WARRANT 111ELEVENTY111 and its all part of a conspiracy by evo mat academic linguists etc.

Date: 2013/11/07 08:25:06, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Bob O'H @ Nov. 07 2013,13:48)
Quote (BillB @ Nov. 07 2013,03:52)
KF is still ranting about Darwin and Hitler:
   
Quote
Evolution plays a central role in the chapter in Mein Kampf on “Nation and Race,” which was the only chapter published as a separate pamphlet, thus circulating widely to promote Nazi ideology. 19 In that chapter Hitler explains why he thinks racial mixing violates evolutionary principles:    
Quote
Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level produces a medium between the level of the two parents. This means: the offspring will probably stand higher than the racially lower parent, but not as high as the higher one. Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life.

If KF actually understood evolutionary theory, and had read Darwins work, he would realise that this doesn't feature at all in the actual theory. Even if this thinking was actually based on Darwins work it makes a total and utter mess of it.

The fact that Hitler cites Christ as an inspiration isn't of course something you are allowed to mention in KF's presence, not are you allowed to point out that the Nazi's condemned Darwins works as deviant and listed them as books to be burnt. No doubt KF believes that this was a devious tactic by the Nazis to hide Darwins influence ;)

Oh dear. Fleeming Jenkin's criticism of Dawrin precisely that this would happen (and thus blending inheritance doesn't work)? Luckily we have R.A. Fisher to thank for setting us straight.

Bonus fact: Fisher and Bluebottle both came from East Finchley.

LOL, I didn't think about it like that - so according to Hitler as quoted by KF, Evolutionary can't happen in nature because there is nothing to stop fitter individuals breeding with slightly less fit individuals, which will result in the steady erosion of fitness.

Sounds a bit like the old 'genetic entropy' argument.

Date: 2013/11/22 03:21:42, Link
Author: BillB
Scordova:  
Quote
Behe’s rule vindicated again –paper shows adaptive evolution in the near term is maladaptive for the future:

Natural Selection does not have foresight, and this lack of foresight destroys complex capabilities, it does not build them. Behe’s first rule of adaptive evolution is again vindicated. Behe’s rule states that adaptation is usually loss of function, not acquisition of function.

In contrast, Darwin envisioned that ever increasing complexity would be selected by nature. That new functions would emerge to enable adaptation. Not so. Nature selects for simplicity, if not out right extinction. Behe was right, Darwin was wrong.


From the paper in question:
 
Quote
We performed whole-genome, whole-population Illumina sequencing on replicate evolution experiments and find the major theme of adaptive evolution in a constant environment is the disruption of signaling networks responsible for regulating the response to environmental perturbations. Over half of all identified mutations occurred in three major signaling networks that regulate growth control: glucose signaling, Ras/cAMP/PKA and HOG. This results in a loss of environmental sensitivity that is reproducible across experiments. However, adaptive clones show reduced viability under starvation conditions, demonstrating an evolutionary tradeoff.


The constant environment may be an important factor here ...

Date: 2013/11/27 11:13:45, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 27 2013,16:10)
"Mindpowers" Murray is now creating his own definition of "banning".

Worse, he has kicked the ball straight past goalkeeper Barry and into their own net:
Quote
Since “banning” means that one cannot even visit the place they have been banned from, nobody has ever been banned from UD. They have only had their posting privileges suspended for the time being.See how that works, Neil? Alan?


Which would mean thay Barrys claim to jave been banned from TSZ is a lie.

Date: 2013/12/03 06:47:23, Link
Author: BillB
Here we go - KF has started to deface Mark Franks posts:
 
Quote


KF

1) Please make allowances for other cultures. I had no idea what you referring to because in my culture (by which I mean large sections of English speaking Western society) to call (SNIP-there you go again . . . in the face of full well knowing what you are doing) “excrement” is a euphemism and considered pretentious. Are you against using the language of Chaucer and Shakespeare? (You full well know that language shifts and that terms once acceptable become vulgar)

2) I know full well that people make errors. These errors lead to results as varied as faulty machines, sums with wrong answers, poor judgements of character and missed penalties in soccer. It is reasonable to call these results errors as long we know that were created as the result of someone erring. (this was never at issue: error implies but is not equal to erring. noun is not verb . . . all of which was already pointed out) That much we rather painfully established. But I got the impression you meant more than that by the phrase “error exists”. I would also point out that while it is obviously true that errors exist in this sense, denying it does not lead any kind of logical absurdity (it has been shown that denying error exists leads straight into multiple patent absurdities, and you previously agreed under pressure, try, E, ~E, [E AND ~E] = 0, so on inspection ~E = 0.) . Denying it would just mean a society where everyday got everything right all the time – not realistic but logically possible [rubbish].


KF follows up with the threat of censorship:
Quote
MF: why are you acting like the bad neighbour who refuses to restrain his dog after his neighbour has already pointed out what that dog is regularly depositing on his lawn? Are you trying to exasperate me into removing your posts or shut down this thread so you and/or associates/ enablers can go elsewhere and make false claims about “censorship for mere disagreement”? Come on, do better than that. KF

Date: 2013/12/08 21:32:22, Link
Author: BillB
Given the timing I am fairly confident that Barry Arrington would have interpreted the event as an act of God, and an affirmation that he is right and just in his actions ...

Date: 2013/12/09 01:54:47, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 09 2013,07:27)
Quote (BillB @ Dec. 08 2013,21:32)
Given the timing I am fairly confident that Barry Arrington would have interpreted the event as an act of God, and an affirmation that he is right and just in his actions ...

If that were the case, given that the ice storm likely caused three deaths so far and cut power to over a quarter million homes and businesses, one would be justified in inferring that Arrington's deity had lousy aim and no empathy for those caught in the collateral damage.

God aims in mysterious ways ... the people who died were being punished ... the people inconvenienced were also being punished because some of them are gay/muslim/not_part_of_my_preferred_branch_of_christianity/atheist ... [insert your preferred theological excuse on behalf of imaginary deity here]

Date: 2013/12/11 07:25:53, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (sparc @ Dec. 11 2013,05:13)
Threads in which Sal and KF teach each other are reminiscent of Pseudoceros bifurcus mating fights.

KF:  
Quote
...
By many orders of magnitude, we don’t get to even one molecule each of the required polymers per planet, much less bringing them together in the required proximity for them to work together as the molecular machinery of life.
...

I would have thought that where you have a natural chemical process that is producing polymers, it would both be messy and localised - KF is assuming that any natural chemical process that could produce a polymer would only produce one, and there would be no others in the vicinity, or no other similar processes happening nearby. Lots of things that are rare, but do actually happen, appear to be statistically impossible when you divide them by the size of the universe.

Date: 2013/12/18 05:53:09, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 18 2013,02:26)
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Dec. 17 2013,18:53)
Quote (REC @ Dec. 17 2013,23:32)
Barry, operating as always, without evidence or decency:

   
Quote
I know nothing about Karl Pierson, the Arapahoe High School shooter.....

That said, I am going to go out on a limb and make a prediction.  I predict that if he did leave behind writings, those writings will indicate that he was a committed Darwinist.  I will predict further that in those writings he will muse about the ethical implications of atheistic materialism and/or Darwinism.

What a slimeball.

Apparently he had the Latin phrase "Alea iacta est" written on his arm. That bastard Darwin got to the Romans too..

From the same post:
Quote
I could be very wrong.  It might turn out that he was a fundamentalist young earth creationist, and if that is the case our Darwinist friends will have a field day.

So Baz decided to get in there first ...
That popping sound was my irony meter blowing again.

Date: 2013/12/19 13:11:08, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Learned Hand @ Dec. 19 2013,18:21)
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Dec. 19 2013,03:00)
Super! A Lawyer Writes about the meaning(s) of 'random', 'chance', and 'random chance'! I'll pull up a chair.


My old firm once tried a case involving a securitization of some exotic assets. (All the facts here are only alleged, the case is still pending.) One of the contested facts was whether a report about the securitization, which referred to a "Monte Carlo model," was referring to a particular model we had found in the defendants' files. The defense team said it couldn't be referring to that model, since Monte Carlo models are random and the one we found was deterministic.

Every time you hit the "simulate" button on that model, it would run thousands of scenarios and report their results. But it would run the same scenarios each time, reporting the same results, unless you changed an assumption. The fact that the scenarios were functionally randomized didn't matter, the defense argued, the fact that they don't change each time means they're deterministic and therefore not random and therefore this can't be the Monte Carlo model the report referred to.

We wound up putting on an expert witness to testify as to the theoretical nature of randomness and its application in financial modeling. She explained, patiently, that you don't want a model to return different numbers every time you run it, since you use those models to test assumptions. If the results change every time you run it, you can't tell whether those changes are down to randomness or the new assumptions. So you run one set of randomized scenarios, but you use the same seed every time so the results don't change until you start changing assumptions.

Doesn't matter, the defense said. Unless the results change every single time, it's not random. Their position was unworkable in the real world and a little silly, but it was necessary to support their case so they (appropriately, in that context) defended it with gusto.

What was interesting to me is how much trouble everyone involved in the case (other than the experts) had understanding what "random" really meant. That the results change? That they're unpredictable? That it's the result of some operation on an uncorrelated seed?

And of course, the lawyers weren't interested in the theory. We were interested in whether the experts' approach helped our case or not.

When Barry Arrington discourses about non-legal matters, he's not doing a careful analysis and looking for answers. He's finding arguments that support his case and pounding the table to support them. Consequently, he's unable or unwilling to answer detailed analyses like RB's or Dr. Liddle's. Discussion isn't the point, winning the case is the point.

Of course, in a court of law there's a structure in place to corral combative litigants and direct their adversarial energy towards an objective result. When you give that power to one of the advocates, the process predictably goes off the rails.

Informative and insightful post of the week?

Date: 2014/01/23 04:32:08, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 23 2014,09:17)
While I did stress that the genomic content of the initial organism, and thus the Avidian population, could only acquire the new instructions via mutation, once an ancestral organism had one or more of those, they would be passed down to offspring with the usual frequency. And any effects they had on the organism could yield a difference in fitness, driving the usual selective processes. I think saying mutation was the only operative process goes too far. Not including the instructions in any way in the initial organism simply eliminates the possibility that I as experimenter set up a particular outcome by whatever arrangement of movement-relevant instructions might be set in that initial organism.

One question I was asked at SSCI in 2009 was why use Avida and not something like Echo. And while the efficient answer is that when one is at the Devolab, one is usually going to be using Avida, I did survey the available software at the time for applicability to the question I was looking at. The software systems allowing for agent movement all treated movement as a primitive property, often requiring some fixed movement strategy be defined for the agents a priori. I was interested in looking at what evolution could do given just the sort of capabilities underlying movement as seen in organisms like E. coli, but without specifying how those capabilities were used. And that kind of question was not what the other software packages could address.

Excellent stuff, and something I'm really interested in despite having no time to work on any more ...

I'm not intimately familiar with Avida but a few things jumped to mind whilst reading the description:
     
Quote
A facing is always toward another adjacent grid cell, so for an interior grid cell there are eight legal facings, five legal facings on an edge, and three at each corner grid cell.


I would say that there should be no illegal facings, just an inability to move when facing an edge – this would prevent a bias towards movement back to the centre – A bit like breeding E. coli in a jar: They cannot pass through the glass container but they could repeatedly bump against it until they die. By having illegal facings you are, in one sense, providing them with obstacle avoidance behaviour for free.

     
Quote
The "sense-diff-facing" instruction puts the difference in the amount of a specified resource between the current grid cell and the faced grid cell into one of the Avida registers.


What if this was expanded to be a “sense X,Y diff” instruction where X and Y can be any of the surrounding cells, or your own cell? The values for X and Y would be heritable. (And I don't know what you do about sensing the cell in front of you when facing the edge of the world)

Perhaps if you wanted to add an interesting twist you could turn that into something like "Z=F(X,Y)" where X and Y are as described above but the function F is a heritable operand (Add, Subtract Multiply Divide or Modulo) - you might even include bit shifting as a possible operand? Z=X<<Y or Z=X>>Y

The point would be to provide multiple pathways for this sensory apparatus to work - and for it to fail to work.

Expanding on this a bit more (if it is worth doing) you could allow for more distal sensing - maybe a Z=F((A,B)(X,Y)) instruction where A and B, and X and Y, are relative cell co-ordinates, perhaps capped to a maximum range of +/- 5. If you did this then I would be tempted to add a cost for longer range sensing (You need more energy to grow those longer whiskers!)

     
Quote
The environment is defined with a positively rewarding resource, with a peak in the resource set off-center in the world grid.


Can you make this more complex and dynamic? Perhaps try something more akin to a simple hydrothermal vent model:

A source (of the resource) pops up at a random location and begins churning out the ‘resource’, creating a gradient. Eventually the source is exhausted and the gradient disappears. You can have a maximum of x sources in the world at any time and when the number of sources is less than x a new source has some probability of appearing at a new random location.

It would also be nice to have a negative resource – something that causes harm but which is not simply a lack of positive resource – using the same hydrothermal vent model you could have a second resource whose intensity costs or harms an agent. This should result in a much more interesting and dynamic resource landscape for the agents to navigate.

I'm not sure if this should be a sense-able resource (something the agent can sense) of if it just causes harm without the agent realising -- Something I'm not clear on with Avida: can the agent sense its own 'energy' and as a result tell if it is being rewarded or harmed?

I am tempted to suggest actually defining a spectrum of resources (some good, some bad) but this would require many more methods for the agent to sense them (and makes for a much more complex research project). What I am thinking of here (and it is a vague thought without any of the important details) is to include potential routes by which an agent can gain an advantage by combining certain resources in certain ratios – it can create a more potent energy source than the ones it absorbs passively – This would, of course, be balanced by the potential for agents to combine resources into fatal concoctions.

Date: 2014/01/23 05:36:31, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Febble @ Jan. 23 2014,11:15)
I've certainly talked about emergence - I think it's really important. But I don't think it's a property that things have.  I think a way of indicating that wholes have different properties from their parts.

The properties of a carbon dioxide molecule are different from those of atomic carbon or oxygen.  So to that extent, its properties are "emergent" from the configuration of its more fundamental components, which in turn have properties that "emerge" from their more fundamental components, and so on.

I don't think it's even controversial.  Wholes have properties not possessed by their parts, and they have them by virtue of their configuration, not by possessing Magic Parts.

And we call these properties "emergent" properties because nothing is added that wasn't there originally, unless you call the configuration "added".  In which case what has been "added" is good old "information", which is lost when the configuration is destroyed.

But then IDists consider "Information" to be "Magic Parts".

I've heard AI and ALife researchers loosely (and often jokingly) refer to emergence as "Behaviour I wasn't expecting" because if so often gets used to describe a behaviour or property that the researcher wasn't fully expecting to see.

I did witness a mild argument once: One person claimed emergent behaviour in system x, another denied it was emergent - "It isn't emergent, it is exactly what I would have expected"

Date: 2014/01/23 06:13:40, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 23 2014,12:01)
Rather than "not expected" it would be more accurate to say not predictable.

At any rate, the issue has been around for a long time. I think it would be interesting to have a history of the idea,  because I think it encompasses vitalism,  souls,  and such.

Or 'not predicted' - hence the argument anecdote.

Date: 2014/01/23 09:01:54, Link
Author: BillB
Yes, indeed. Happy birthday to you (and also to me, I turned 41 last Sunday)

Date: 2014/01/23 10:51:55, Link
Author: BillB
Thanks for the detailed reply. I think I might try and find some time to familiarise myself with Avida ... I have, in the past, sketched out a framework for doing experiments like this myself but based on what you have written I think my system would not be possible to impliment in Avida.

I might go back over my early notes and see if there is anything sensible I can summarise here.

A thought occured after my last post - would it be possible to have the resource inflict a penalty when it is above a certain level? Think of it like a nutrient rich gradient coming from a hydrothermal vent - if you get too close to the source you literaly start to cook. There would be an optimal distance (A habitable zone?), and I would expect to see the resulting pattern of activity to appear as a ring rather than a point (referring to your plots above)

Date: 2014/01/24 11:43:34, Link
Author: BillB
this caught my eye - a thermodynamic theory of the origin of life. Reminds me of the Maximum Entropy Production Principle.

Date: 2014/01/28 06:08:57, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Texas Teach @ Jan. 28 2014,03:56)
Quote (Ptaylor @ Jan. 27 2014,20:01)
Denyse O'Leary,

Which of these statements from your latest post doesn't belong?:

     
Quote
See also: Musical instruments pushed back by about 7,000 years

Artists’ workshop from 100,000 years ago

Sophisticated tool production system discovered, from 200,000-400,000 million years ago

Stone tools nearly two million years old

(Hint: you were corrected on this nearly two and a half years ago.)

UD link

This would be big news if it was the God the designer producing tools at that time.

Shortly followed by an in depth item in Make magazine - "DNA splicing using only a stone axe - a how-to guide"

Date: 2014/01/31 03:24:45, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 30 2014,23:59)
Here's something for KF, in his cave or not:

Quote
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”


Carl Sagan

True, but the trouble with quotes like that is that ID'ists see it as entirely applicable to us. They see us as the ones who have been bamboozled and themselves as the ones who have escaped the charlatans power.

Date: 2014/02/03 06:36:25, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 03 2014,09:45)
 
Quote (sparc @ Feb. 02 2014,23:08)
Just to not let this thread dry out: Are you aware of A Storehouse of Knowledge?

It's like a little piece of Conservapedia broke off and drifted to Australia.

Apparently it had set out with a YEC companion from Mexico in a small boat over a year ago, heading for El Salva-cordova. The companion slipped overboard many months earlier and the remaining conservacastawayapedia only managed to survive by drinking the gullibility of home schooled children and eating his own words.

Date: 2014/02/03 08:41:37, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 03 2014,14:13)
Hmmm, KF still hasn't thanked Roy for pointing out his hypocrisy and that he is indeed a quote-miner, and apologized to him. Sad, and very telling. Mist do better.

A sudden emergency has diverted KF's attention and won't be over until the thread has been buried.

Date: 2014/02/11 14:48:31, Link
Author: BillB
I think I must have been reading too much UD. I saw something on  slashdot about a new cambrian fossil find and my brain automatically mined the quote out of its punctuation and turned it into a new quote worthy of the finest YEC:

"The fossils provide insight into the Cambrian explosion, a time that brought the rapid appearance and diversification of many animal forms in just two weeks"

Date: 2014/03/03 01:26:30, Link
Author: BillB
KF
Quote
One of the major problems I have with atheistical arguments is their habitual reliance on misrepresentations and caricatures, backed up by selective hyperskepticism rather than addressing comparative difficulties. Not to mention turnabout accusations and personalities, thuggishness and enabling behaviour.

That isn't the sound of clapping KF, it is the sound of irony meters popping.

Date: 2014/03/06 13:52:32, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 06 2014,17:58)
Behold, the birth of the "I'm not a hypocrite if I only do it on Wednesdays" defense:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-492041

LULZ like the "notorious BIG", I'm "the notorious RTH".

Anyhoo:

 
Quote
RTH needs to correct himself, as I have not cried “censorship” on this matter though I have pointed out ideological domination and indoctrination in the name of education. As in kindly cf Lewontin’s advocacy and too many concrete cases.


(yes, Lewontin, Everyone drink.)

What I actually said:

 
Quote
Absolutely shameful. To think that he cries "censorship" and questions the ethics of others and then behaves this way.


Emphasis added.

So you've never clutched your pearls regarding censorship, KF?

So this wasn't you:

 
Quote
However, having called for censorship of core Christian morality and foundational documents, Mr Morgan then went on to say...


or this

 
Quote
Notice, how the issue  in [a referenced cite]  is that I spoke to how ordinary Germans were taken to the camp after the defeat of the Nazis, to see what they had been enabling. And that has patently been my concern, in the face of a pattern of censorship and expulsion sustained by widespread blame/scapegoat the victim tactics and associated enabling passivity. As is documented above [in the linked].


or this

 
Quote
In turn, that is because the sterling and massively sacrificial contribution of Christians to the rise of modern liberty and democracy is commonly censored out in how the history of the past 500 years is presented.


or even nominating people for "censor of the year" here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-and-so

So pull your head out of Plato's...cave for a minute and decide. Are you for censorship, or not? If you are, don't gripe when others do it. If you're not, don't do it or condone it. Or you can keep being a hypocrite, but don't pretend otherwise.

ETA: You even wanted others to censor content on their sites on your behalf!

http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....?....?p=1768

Absolutely shameful.

Shorter kf: I'M NOT SHOUTING. YOU ARE A SHOUTER. STOP SHOUTING. BYDAND

Date: 2014/03/07 16:09:04, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (REC @ Mar. 07 2014,17:38)
Wow KF is high on UD traffic to the Tour thread from last year.

I wonder what generated the spike in traffic to that post. Last time UD saw great numbers, it was because an UD-hosted image on the Scoville Scale for peppers became the top google image result.

One thing is for sure--the traffic isn't resulting in new commenters. 85% of the comments on the thread date to October of last year, and in the recent comments I could count the number of non-regulars KF, Joe, etc. on one hand.

So, either:

1) People are stumbling in, uninterested, and quickly bailing out.
2) Their interest has been heavily censored.

Big win for UD!!!

50% of that traffic is just kf checking the page every 3 seconds.

Date: 2014/03/12 12:22:01, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 12 2014,15:23)
UD conducts a debate against an invisible opponent.

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

What, again? I guess some things never grow old.

Date: 2014/03/17 15:40:58, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (Learned Hand @ Mar. 17 2014,21:07)
Thanks for the reference to the video. Meyer's was better-animated but much simpler. As I recall, it showed a "bump" on the rotary shaft and explained that the bump pushes channels for ADP and ATP open and closed as the shaft turns.

The video you linked does something crucial that Meyer's video doesn't, which is show that the animation is a simplified visualization of a structure that in actual reality doesn't much resemble any human creation.

Thanks for taking the time to write this up. Very interesting.

Date: 2014/03/18 08:06:25, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (tsig @ Mar. 18 2014,11:19)
Actually his cookbooks have no recipes in them, he argues that recipes  are a good thing and that other peoples' recipes are all wrong but he never offers any of his own.

I think his claim, more specifically (if specifics are actually possible with KF) is that the recipe should be obvious to any serious participant if they read his 'always linked', and so asking him to explain the recipe is clearly just an attempt to distract and substitute the finished gingerbread man for a straw man burning in a red-herring-oil of ad-hom fuelled oven.

Date: 2014/03/23 15:32:26, Link
Author: BillB
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 23 2014,19:11)
I have no idea what any of this is. I suppose it refers to events that occurred in the 4 year period when I was ignoring all science/ID stuff. Whatever happened, I have no idea what it was, probably don't want to know, and let's get back to making fun of UD.

Me too. Agreed. Etc.

Date: 2014/04/08 06:35:28, Link
Author: 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.

Date: 2014/04/12 13:12:09, Link
Author: 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 ...

 

 

 

=====