AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: Cubist

form_srcid: Cubist

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: Cubist

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 'Cubist%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2007/10/05 17:55:41, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (ck1 @ Oct. 05 2007,15:48)
Whatever happened to this book?  Is it still being actively promoted?  Are sales brisk?  Or has it already sunk into oblivion?

It's really quite simple, ck1: We have always been at war with Eastasia...

Date: 2008/02/27 04:45:34, Link
Author: Cubist
One question (well, maybe two questions, since it's a compound) for Kevin:
What is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design, and how can this theory be tested with the scientific method?
Now, I wouldn't really expect you to know the answer to that, Kevin. The trouble is, nobody else in the ID movement seems to know, either! "There's a Designer -- but we can't say anything about Him. Or Her, or It, or Them, as the case may be. And we can't say anything about what He did, or why He did it, or what tools He used to do whatever the heck He did, or when He did it. In fact, we can't really say much of anything about the Intelligent Designer, other than the fact that He is both 'Intelligent' and a 'Designer'. We do know that His Designs are wonderfully good -- except, of course, for those of His Designs which appear to be lousy, which only go to show that we can't actually tell whether or not His Designs are good."
Now, you may object that ID isn't as gee-I-dunno-vacuous as I've painted it up to be here; you may even want to argue that I've horribly misrepresented ID. Well, maybe I have -- but if I have, indeed, misrepresented ID... how have I misrepresented it?
For instance: Does ID say anything about how the Designer did His thing? If it doesn't, then "we can't say anything about how the Designer did it" is an accurate portrayal of ID. And the same goes for the rest of my portrayal of ID.
So, once again:
What is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design, and how can this theory be tested with the scientific method?
If ID ain't got that, it ain't got nothing whatsoever.

Date: 2008/02/28 07:42:12, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:40)
Okay, here’s a question with an unfortunately long lead-up: The way I see it, one reason ID is so controversial is that it argues mind precedes matter in the form of a creative intelligence; whereas classic evolutionary theory says that mind is a product of matter. Intelligence is one of the last things to appear on the scene.

I kinda doubt that that has anything to do with why ID is so 'controversial'. Somehow, I rather suspect that ID's 'controversial' nature has just a teensy bit more to do with the facts that science is all about testable ideas, that ID simply doesn't have any testable ideas, and that IDists still insist that ID is just as good as real science.
But regardless of whether or not I am correct about why ID is 'controversial', I note that your remarks here don't come within a country megaparsec of answering one simple question:
What is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design, and how can this theory be tested by means of the scientific method?
Quote
But when confronted with the question of how life began, many evolutionary theorists allow that perhaps Panspermia had something to do with it. This theory is broadly accepted as a scientific possibility even though it also posits that mind came first and matter—at least the highly organized arrangements of matter we call living things—second.

Yes, panspermia is, indeed, accepted as a "scientific possibility". The main reason for this is, we have good ideas on how we could go about testing panspermia. Of course, the necessary tests (stuff like "go searching on other planets to see if there's life there") are just a tad impractical, which is why panspermia is generally accepted as a scientific possibility, and not as a scientific theory. ID differs from panspermia in that there really isn't any way to actually test the son of a bitch. Which reminds me that this paragraph of yours, like the one before, does not come anywhere near answering my simple question:
What is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design, and how can this theory be tested by means of the scientific method?
Quote
So my question is, why is one theory so controversial and the other not? What if you stripped away all of the religious and political baggage from ID?

I don't know, Kevin. What if you did "strip... away all of the religious and political baggage from ID]? And shouldn't you really be asking ID's supporters why the heck they haven't "stripped away all of the religious and political baggage from ID"? One way to go about stripping away said baggage would be if ID's supporters would quit whining about how Teh Evil Darwinianismists are so horribly unfair to ID, and instead answer, in plain language, one simple question:
What is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design, and how can this theory be tested by means of the scientific method?
Quote
Would the theory be more acceptible then? And wouldn’t ID and Panspermia become nearly indistinguishable? After all, both argue that perhaps the best possibility for explaining how life began is a higher intelligence that seeded it on earth.

as has already been pointed out, panspermia does not "argue that perhaps the best possibility for explaining how life began is a higher intelligence that seeded it on earth". All panspermia does argue is that however life in the universe began, it happened someplace other than Earth.
Be that as it may, I note that you still haven't yet come within a country gigaparsec of answering one simple question:
What is the scientific theory of intelligent Design, and how can this theory be tested by means of the scientific method?
Quote
We can argue all day about what the nature of that intelligence really is. But that’s beside the main point: Do we need intelligence to explain things like the origin and diversity of life or not? Classical evolution says no, ID and Panspermia say yes. Two different answers to the same question. I fail to see how one answer is scientific and the other not.

If you don't see why ID is not scientific, you must surely have an answer to my simple question:
What is the scientific theory of intelligent Design, and how can this theory be tested by means of the scientific method?
So why haven't you, like, answered that simple question, Kevin? Why have you chosen to go off on a tangent about a speculative hypothesis like panspermia, rather than just answering this simple question:
What is the scientific theory of intelligent Design, and how can this theory be tested by means of the scientific method?
Quote
That being said, I’m sure someone is going to go off about the scientific method and how the IDers aren’t serious scientists, that they’re a bunch of liars, etc. But once again, that’s beside the point. Never mind their methods or their ethics. Is the question the ID community is asking scientific or not?

You're assuming that the "ID community" is asking a question, Kevin. As far as I can tell, those guys ain't asking jack shit; rather, they're asserting "Somehow, somewhere, somewhen, someway, evolution is wrong." don't know, Kevin. What if you did "strip... away all of the religious and political baggage from ID]? And shouldn't you really be asking ID's supporters why the heck they haven't "stripped away all of the religious and political baggage from ID"? One way to go about that would be to ask ID's supporters one simple question:
What is the scientific theory of intelligent Design, and how can this theory be tested by means of the scientific method?

Date: 2008/02/28 08:04:01, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 27 2008,08:46)
 
Quote
The trouble is, nobody else in the ID movement seems to know, either!


Cubist, I'd say that they do know.  And I'd agree with them partway (separating for the moment the messengers).  If you take what some of these demonstrated liars say at face value, their claim is that sometimes we can analytically deduce some property of some features of some objects as being 'designed' by some agents.

That's the ID claim, yes. But that claim is false. Consider that the class of "Designed entities" covers everything from a ham sandwich to a performance of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony to a F-18 fighter jet; exactly what 'signature of Design' do all Designed entities share in common? Hell, what 'signature of Design' can all Designed entities share in common? Thus, looking for Design is a fool's game. So what real scientists do is, they note that every Designed object known to Man must necessarily have been manufactured, and therefore, real scientists look for signs of Manufacture. And if they find signs of Manufacture, that how they know whatever-it-was is a Designed entity.
ID, of course, is absolutely silent on the question of how the Designer implemented His/Her/Its/Their Design(s)...

Date: 2008/02/28 08:11:37, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:46)
You're dodging the question, oldman. You know as well as I do that evolutionary theory is supposed to explain the origin AND diversity of life. How about attempting a serious answer?

By now, Kevin, you know that evolutionary theory doesn't care about the origin of life, because evolutionary theory would work just as well regardless of whether life originally arose via abiogenesis, or via some sort of intervention by an Intelligent Designer, or via a Divine 'poof', or what. So now that you're aware of your error, how about you take a shot at answering this one simple question:
What is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design, and how can this theory be tested by means of the scientific method?

Date: 2008/02/28 08:14:30, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:48)
How has the theory of Panspermia proved its usefulness?

Beats the heck outta me, Kevin. How has the soi-disant 'theory' of ID proven its 'effectiveness'? I say ID has zero 'effectiveness', because it's not even a theory. But if you disagree, feel free to answer this one simple question:
What is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design, and how can this theory be tested by means of the scientific method?

Date: 2008/02/28 08:23:42, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,10:54)
Albatrossity: How is Panspermia consistent with the evidence? And exactly what evidence are you talking about? As for what the real question is, I'm accepting Mr. Christopher's invitation to ask questions today rather than answering them. As for your question, if you were really serious about finding an answer, a five-minute web search would give you more than enough information.

Oldman: You're dodging the question again. Is the question the IDers are asking scientific or not?

You got me, Kevin. Is the question the IDers are asking scientific? I can't say, because as far as I can tell, the IDists are not, in fact, asking any question at all; rather, the IDists are making an assertion, said assertion being "somehow, somewhere, somewhen, someway, evolution is wrong." If you think the IDists are, in fact, asking any kind of question, I'm sure you'll have no trouble at all answering this one simple question:
What is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design, and how can this theory be tested by means of the scientific method?

Date: 2008/02/28 16:57:41, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (RBH @ Feb. 28 2008,11:52)
Quote (Cubist @ Feb. 28 2008,08:04)
     
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 27 2008,08:46)
       
Quote
The trouble is, nobody else in the ID movement seems to know, either!


Cubist, I'd say that they do know.  And I'd agree with them partway (separating for the moment the messengers).  If you take what some of these demonstrated liars say at face value, their claim is that sometimes we can analytically deduce some property of some features of some objects as being 'designed' by some agents.

That's the ID claim, yes. But that claim is false. Consider that the class of "Designed entities" covers everything from a ham sandwich to a performance of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony to a F-18 fighter jet; exactly what 'signature of Design' do all Designed entities share in common? Hell, what 'signature of Design' can all Designed entities share in common? Thus, looking for Design is a fool's game. So what real scientists do is, they note that every Designed object known to Man must necessarily have been manufactured, and therefore, real scientists look for signs of Manufacture. And if they find signs of Manufacture, that how they know whatever-it-was is a Designed entity.
ID, of course, is absolutely silent on the question of how the Designer implemented His/Her/Its/Their Design(s)...

I'll repeat what I've posted many times over the years.  The "theory" of ID is this:      
Quote
Sometime or other, something(s) or other designed something or other, and then somehow or other manufactured that thing in matter and energy, all this occurring while leaving no independent evidence of the design process or the manufacturing process, and while providing no independent evidence for the presence, or even the existence, of the designing and manufacturing agent(s).
Now a question for Kevin is whether he can fill in even one of the placeholders (some       ) in that statement.  My bet is no.

[nods] I came up with my own formulation of ID: "Somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent did something." Says pretty much the same thing as yours, but it's hopefully got more rhetorical punch for being pithier...

Date: 2008/12/24 18:35:51, Link
Author: Cubist
What's so special about the year 2012?
Let's generalize this "grue/bleen" business, and say that an object is "grue (XXXX)" if it's green until the year XXXX, and blue thereafter; similarly, "bleen (XXXX)" objects are blue until the year XXXX, and green thereafter. (I hope I got the switches set correctly...) Obviously, some objects have been grue (2007), because we humans do have a tendency to change the appearance of things, and it would be a rather improbable state of affairs if no green object(s) whatsoever were painted blue during the year 2007. Likewise, natural processes can and do alter the appearance of objects, so it's hardly implausible that there might be at least one naturally-occurring instance of a grue (2007) object.
However, it's worth noting that the above paragraph is built on the implicit presumption that an object's color remains stable unless some physical process alters that color. And the whole "grue/bleen" schtick, as best I understand it, explicitly denies that there is any intrinsic stability to an object's color -- the "grue/bleen" schtick explicitly asserts that an object's color can change, just because. But thus far, we do not have any actual examples of objects whose color changed "just because"! Color changes because humans messed with the color, sure; color changes because some physical process messed with the color, sure; color changes just because, not so much.
Ignoring color-changes with known causes, because those color-changes aren't relevant to this "grue/bleen" schtick in the first place, there are no grue (XXXX) objects, or bleen (XXXX) objects, where 'XXXX' is any year before the present. In principle, as a hypothetical proposition, it's entirely possible that any object which has proved itself to be green rather than grue (2007) might turn out to be grue (2008), or grue (2009), or yada yada yada... but how does this differ from the hypothetical proposition that the Sun might not rise tomorrow, or that gravity might switch over to a repulsive force next year?
In sum: As a practical matter, this "grue/bleen" schtick is basically mental masturbation. If that's the sort of thing you enjoy doing, feel free; just don't expect anybody else to take it seriously.

Date: 2009/01/09 21:44:23, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (khan @ Jan. 08 2009,18:54)
Quote (Peter Henderson @ Jan. 08 2009,19:42)
 
Quote
It is clear from the reading of Genesis 3:16 favoured by both the Catholic Douai-Rheims Bible and the Protestant King James Bible that the consequences of original sin were, and always have been: problems with fecundity, childbirth, and carnal concupiscence; problems with the environment and earning a living; decay and death.


Hmm ! Does this mean that caesarean sections (or epidurals for that matter) contradict a literal reading of the book of Genesis ? Must put that one to the cretins on Premier.

I recall it being argued by some who never tried to shove a watermelon through a hose.

Carol Burnett, who has tried it, has compared childbirth to "pulling your bottom lip up over the top of your head"...

Date: 2009/01/13 08:00:18, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 12 2009,19:17)
   
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 10 2009,17:40)
                 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 10 2009,13:31)
The aspect of front-loading that might seem miraculous to us (and the part that I'm agreeing to) is the necessity for foreknowledge of world environmental conditions.  This may not be "miraculous" at all, if indeed there is a being that exists outside the constraints of time.If such a being exists, then this is not miraculous at all for him.  It's the natural state of affairs for such a being.  It just seems miraculous to us.  So, I'll agree that omniscience is a requirement for successful front-loading.  

That's tap dancing. The dust settles and omniscience is required for front loading. Hence front loading is a supernatural explanation and lies outside the purview of science.

Front-loading requires omniscience in the same way that successful DNA encoding does.  To build a successful DNA program for a functioning, reproducing, evolving organism would require knowledge far beyond that of man.  Also, (to use your argument), front-loading happened billions of years ago - so how can we know that all the genetic "spit-swapping" that went on back then didn't produce a super-genome from which all others descended?
One: Mutations. The problem here is, front loading cannot work unless the front-loaded genetic material has been perfectly, 100% shielded from any and all mutations. Without that kind of anti-mutation protection, the odds of front-loaded genetic material managing to avoid getting zapped by mutations are small enough to make Creationist estimates of the probability of abiogenesis look like a sure thing.
Two: Genetic variance. Specifically, there's just too much genetic variance for it all to have ever existed in any 1 (one) critter.
 
Quote
I don't care if my argument is scientific or not, I don't care if it contributes anything to the empirical research of methodological naturalists, I especially don't care if those who embrace methodological naturalism reject it, I only care if it's true.

If you care about whether or not your ideas are true, you really ought to be testing your ideas, not just assuming them to be true. Who do you think is more concerned about the truth of their ideas: John Doe, who says "I think X is true because [insert list of evidence which supports the proposition that X is true]" or Richard Roe, who says "I think X is true, just because"?
Quote
I only brought up the science of front-loading because those who presented the most powerful case for it were some of the most brilliant scientists in their respective fields.

That's nice. Do any of these "brilliant scientists" have a way to overcome the mutations happen and too much variety objections to front loading? If they don't, it doesn't matter how smart they are -- they're just wrong, end of discussion.
Quote
 One thing I should have made clearer though was that none of them called it front-loading.  Berg called it "Nomogenesis" ...  Schindewolf directly rejected creationism and metaphysical explanations. ... Goldschmidt['s] ... view was that macroevolution was saltational and based on the chromosomes and not the gene.  Dr. John Davison ... introduced the concept of front-loading into the mix.

That's nice, Again: Do any of these "brilliant scientists" have a way to overcome the mutations happen and too much variety objections to front loading? Science does not care how smart you are; science only cares whether your ideas (a) can be tested or not, and (b) pass the tests. Everything else is just window dressing.
Quote
For me, though, I'm only interested in how all these things fit together and how the findings of science fit within a theological worldview.  I reject methodological naturalism because it cannot consider God as a source.

Wrong. It's philosophical naturalism which actively rejects the God hypothesis. Methodological naturalism merely ignores the God hypothesis as an idea which isn't testable, and therefore isn't useful, however true it may happen to be.
You think the God hypothesis is testable? Groovy. How!? In specific, how do you propose to go about testing the hypothesis "an Entity whose motivations are utterly beyond human comprehension, with powers utterly without limit, is responsible for such-and-such"?
If you see no need to test the God hypothesis, fine. But if you don't see any need to test the God hypothesis, are you really concerned with whether or not your ideas are true? Or are you, instead, only concerned with whether or not your ideas make you feel good?

Date: 2009/01/13 08:11:53, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (keiths @ Jan. 13 2009,04:00)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Jan. 12 2009,22:03)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 12 2009,12:04)
Talk amongst yourselves. I'll give you a topic:

"A computational simulation of Gil Dodg'em: should the hardware itself emit a whining sound?"

You reminded me of the famous ICS thesis, "Computers run on smoke because if the smoke comes out, the computer stops."

How can we get the whining to stop?

Baptism should do it, provided you hold him under long enough...

Date: 2009/01/13 08:53:18, Link
Author: Cubist
Mornington Crescent? Nice game -- but I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, in California. We simply don't have an Underground worth talking about (I mean, BART? really!), so we've had to make adaptations for local conditions... and once it was found that El Camino Real is a guaranteed win in no more than 7 moves, I just lost interest.

Date: 2009/01/17 20:01:08, Link
Author: Cubist
Mr. Miller, your character wasn't assassinated; it committed suicide. All we've done is conduct the autopsy.
You are a false witness, Mr. Miller. That waste of perfectly good celluloid which you call Expelled is a compendium of groundless whining, logical fallacies, libelous (or is it 'slanderous'? I can never remember which is spoken and which is written) attacks on people who have done nothing to merit such abuse, and blatant falsehoods. Every human being who bears any responsibility for the content of that waste of celluloid is, him- or herself, a false witness.
It's the Ninth Commandment, Mr. Miller, not the Ninth Suggestion.  I am given to understand that God doesn't much like false witnesses, Mr. Miller -- that, in fact, He has a lake of fire waiting for the likes of you in the afterlife. You may of course bear as much false witness as you like about anyone you like, Mr. Miller... but don't be surprised if, when you finally meet Jesus, you turn out to be one of those of whom He says, "I never knew ye."

Date: 2009/01/20 16:37:01, Link
Author: Cubist
I've read that the specific copy of the Bible that Obama swore on was the same one Abraham Lincoln used when he got sworn in. Interesting, if true...

Date: 2009/02/07 05:08:34, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (khan @ Feb. 05 2009,13:48)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 05 2009,14:42)
wtf was all that

A disturbance in The Force?

As if millions of brain cells cried out, and were suddenly silenced...

Date: 2009/03/02 17:37:08, Link
Author: Cubist
Hmmm... you've got a population of whatzits to evaluate, those being the (X, Y) number-pairs... you've got a protocol for assigning values to the whatzits... but where's the fitness function that decides which of the whatzits gets to propagate itself along to the next 'generation', and which of the whatzits is cruelly forgotten?

Date: 2009/03/04 03:10:22, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 02 2009,18:10)
variance to the actual x and y values given. cull the bottom z%, mutate back up to full population, rinse, repeat.

So the "fitness" of each "entity" is simply the numerical value of the expression? Hmmm... if I'm not mistaken, that basically works out to "highest value wins", and I'm not sure how useful/informative/exciting that would be. What about something more like "absolute value of (X - FitnessValue)" for the fitness function? You could get a wider range of results, depending on whether X is an integer, or rational, or irrational, or whatever. Or I think so, anyway...

Date: 2009/03/14 16:39:11, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 13 2009,09:37)
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 13 2009,09:36)
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 13 2009,05:37)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 13 2009,05:12)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 12 2009,23:03)
some slightly inebriated houseguests speculated last night that perhaps UFOs are shadow life, flitting around the atmosphere with their own little shadowy atmosphere adaptations.  

made me wish we had a hot tub.  that's where that sort of stuff belongs, in the middle of naked people.

I live in a loft, Rasser, so no hot tub for me. I'm currently renovationg though - and this am for my baftime:

http://link.brightcove.com/service....9484561

Your interior decoration tastes. I approves of them.

(See 'Ras, RTH's bath has Teh Nekkid Laydee init. Hopefully this means sex, although in RTH's case, this may be in question.)

Louis

True... I clicked on the link and the voice-over DID mention "calming homo therapy"...

I AM ALL ZEN AND SHIT. DONT SPOILS IT.  :angry:

Person A: "You got Zen on my shit!"
Person B: "And you got shit in my Zen!"
[experimental NOM NOM NOM-ing]
Both persons together: "Hey -- this tastes great!"

Date: 2009/03/21 05:36:39, Link
Author: Cubist
(to the tune of HAVAH NAGILA)
Ia, Ia, Cthulhu
Ia, Ia, Cthulhu
Ia, Ia, Cthulhu
And Yog-Sothoth...

Date: 2009/03/21 05:51:35, Link
Author: Cubist
Hey, I does music, too! Point your browser here to listen to a setting of the Rudyard Kipling poem Conundrum of the Workshops. It is a beta-quality rough draft; comments are welcome, and may even be incorporated into the final product...

Date: 2009/07/29 05:38:36, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Telamon @ July 28 2009,21:45)
Hi, I'm rather new to this forum. I came here in search of some rational minds to help me with a small dilemma I'm having. You see, I decided to debate a YEC online, but I am not sure how to respond to his latest comment. I'll post his comments here, hopefully someone can provide me with some advice, answers, and resources.

Note: We were discussing Russell Humphreys' "White Hole Theory" and the age of the Earth. For those of you who do not know, Humphreys is an AiG "scientist" who created a hypothesis to explain the distant starlight conundrum.

Here is the YEC's post:

"I didn’t intend to claim that geologists always assumed the Bible to be untrue. Steno was one of the founding fathers of the science of geology, and he was a biblical creationist. However, it is a terrible shame that most Christians compromised so quickly when these unbiblical ideas began to be introduced. The big changes in geology began happening when people proposed, instead of one global flood, many catastrophes, in contradiction of Scripture. Uniformitarianism was even more contradictory, and the fact is it is a philosophical assumption, and a framework in which to interpret the evidence. They assumed the Bible was untrue from the outset, and then went about doing their research and interpreting the evidence in their new system. As a result, you can’t take any of the “findings” of secular geology and use it to attack the Bible, because that would be circular.

Do you think Big Bang cosmology is testable? Is there any set of observations that could falsify the theory (e.g. not enough matter in the universe  )?

People have tried to challenge Humphreys’ cosmology on scientific grounds for 15 years, and failed. The fact is, as far as we know it remains within the realm of the possible, and it is consistent with the Bible. How many cosmologies do you know that have both of these things going for them?

I can see by your trust in "dating methods" that you have a lot of faith in what scientists tell you. I think if a scientist makes a set of unprovable assumptions in order to calculate a date for something, and the result conflicts with Scripture, I would question his assumptions and not Scripture.

I don’t think Humphreys “upholds” the dating methods used for the universe, because they all assume the Big Bang. He’s just trying to solve the starlight travel time problem (and remember, the Big Bang has its own starlight travel time problem)."

If all you're concerned about is whether or not the math is consistent with itself, Humphrey's "white hole" conjecture does the job: If the Earth really is at the center of a cosmically humongous gravity field of the proper sort, then gravity-induced time dilation could very well make the Earth "run slow" to the point that the Earth only gets a few thousand years older whilst the rest of the Universe gets a few billion years older.
Again, that's if all you care about is whether the math is internally consistent.
If you're concerned about whether or not the math is consistent with the physical Universe -- that is, if it matters to you whether or not the physical Universe's observed behavior is consistent with what the math says about the physical Universe ought to behave -- Humphrey's "white hole" conjecture crashes and burns on contact with, well, pretty much any observation of the night sky. The problem is this: If the rest of the Universe is "running" millions of times faster than Earth, then one Earth-second would be equivalent to millions of rest-of-the-Universe-seconds, which means that when we look at the sky, everything we see should be sped up like superintense time-lapse photography, complete with truly massive levels of blue-shifting in the observed light.
Curiously, we don't see blue-shifting at all in most of the objects in the sky; rather, what we see is that the light from most of the objects in the sky displays red-shifting rather than blue-shifting. Conclusion: Humphrey's "white hole" conjecture doesn't come within a country parsec of matching what we see in the physical Universe, and can therefore be dismissed as irrelevant.

Date: 2009/09/16 05:16:13, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 16 2009,04:01)
 
Quote
There it is - not even one "alternate version" of christianity, only FL's version.
No alternate interpretations of the Bible, only FL's One True Interpretation.
Is there an "alternate interpretation" you've got that, in light of the biblical data, reconciles evolution and Christianity?
I don't happen to have such an interpretation myself... but then, I'm also not a Believer, so I think it would be unfair to expect that of me. So please allow me to cite a very definitely Christian gent named Glenn Morton, who
does have such an interpretation. Perhaps you might be good enough to check out Morton's harmonization of science with Christianity, and identify any errors Morton may have committed?

Date: 2009/10/10 17:40:33, Link
Author: Cubist
One point nobody has raised yet: According to our boy Floyd, the 'death' we are saved from by Christ's sacrifice is physical death. Not spiritual death, not the death of the soul; but, rather, physical death, the death of the body. But Christians' bodies die all the time -- heck, there are entire cemetaries filled with the dead bodies of Christians! So... if our boy Floyd is right about how Christ's sacrifice was intended to save us from physical death... if that's true, Christ's sacrifice is a sham regardless of how valid evolution is or is not!

Creationism in action, folks: Lousy science, and worse theology.

Date: 2009/10/11 02:52:09, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 11 2009,01:52)
 
Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 10 2009,19:02)
No, I don't think that's a fair comment. As far as I recall, Floyd's opinion is that the Fall introduced death of both the body and soul.

Which does nothing to account for Jesus' Y chromosome, but then again it's late. Oíche mhaith agus codladh sámh ó mBaile Átha Cliath

I think he's actually correct; it's not a question of whether Adam's sin introduced physical and spiritual death (it's clear from the context that it's only spiritual death), but the fact that if Floyd is claiming that the reference is to physical and spiritual death, then Christ's sacrifice must logically have redeemed us from physical death.  Which it hasn't.

What CM said. Whatever we're supposed to have been saved from by Christ's sacrifice, the fact that Christians' bodies drop dead all over the place means that one of two things must be true: Either (a) Christ's sacrifice wasn't supposed to save us from mere brute physical death, or else (b) Christ's sacrifice was a total failure. Or, if you like, either (a) no-death-before-the-Fall is not even a theologically-valid argument against evolution, or else (b) Christ was a totally lame loser. We leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out why a sincere, devout Christian like Floyd is okay with declaring Christ to be a totally lame loser...

Date: 2009/10/12 16:30:34, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Dan @ Oct. 12 2009,15:27)
Oops, let me correct my previous post.  The way to make the Adam and Eve story (in Todd Wood's malignant version) consistent with evolution is to say that God created Adam, then Eve.  Three seconds later the a different Homo sapiens evolved from Homo erectus.
Given the fact that the Bible is real short on the details of exactly how God went about doing the Creation thing, reconciling Christianity with evolution is even easier than that: All you need to do is say that God used evolution as His tool for creating all the different lifeforms on Earth.
I'm sure that Yodel Elf rejects that possibility, but it might... or might not... be amusing to see the mental gymnastics he has to go thru in order to do so.

Date: 2009/10/15 04:49:34, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 15 2009,00:03)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,17:36)
 
Quote
I can't help it if you don't understand logic, evidence, or science.

However, I DO understand that you said this:
   
Quote
Cause, I think the others here have shown just as many quotes as you have that counter your argument.

After which you were sincerely asked,  
     
Quote
Really?   Please document that claim.

And I understand that the rrequested documentation wasn't provided.   All done, yes?     :)

The documentation was provided.  You are lying, Floyd.  The Pope supports evolution.  I support evolution.  nmgirl supports evolution.  Thousands of clergy have signed a petition supporting evolution.  Catholics support evolution - that's a billion Christians right there.

Citations were provided.  It is not possible for you to lie about that, Floyd - everything is documented here on the internet.
I beg to differ, CM: It's very possible for Loyd Flee (can't let the resident Frog have all the fun here!) to lie -- about5 this topic, or any other. Heck, how many statements of any kind has he made here which are actually true?

Date: 2009/10/15 06:03:03, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 14 2009,21:20)
I've seen a few things you guys have been discussing about the flood.  First of all, current YEC theory believes tectonics and/or vulcanism to be major players in the flood, not just water.  

Louis mentioned thermodynamics and the broiling of things by the sediment and water.  Why?
Because (a) tectonic processes involve rocks sliding against each other, which means said processes necessarily generate heat (see also: "friction"), and (b) volcanic processes typically involve spewing heat -- and rather a lot of heat -- into the environment (see also "lava flow"). Since you YECists purport to accept all the same evidence as real science, but merely interpret it differently, you surely agree with real scientists about how many different lava flows have occured in the Earth's history; you just claim that all of said lava flows happened within a timespan of a few thousand years, as opposed to the few-billion-year timespan which real science says said lava flows happened within.
A few thousand years versus a few billion years: This is not a trivial difference. In fact, the difference is a factor of about one million. So when you YECists claim to accept all the same evidence as real science, you're cramming all those lava flows, and consequently all the heat associated with said lava flows, into a timespan roughly one one-millionth as long as what real science says. In other words: The YECist "same evidence, different interpretation" position necessarily entails that in the total heat output from volcanic processes be one million times greater than what real science says.
One.
Million.
Times.
Greater.

You shine one heat lamp on somebody, and they stay comfortable in cold weather; shine one million heat lamps on that same person, and they're quick-fried to a crackly crunch.
See the problem?
Quote
If the water was rising slowly over 40 days...

So how fast was the water rising over those 40 days, hm?
Quote
...then it would have reached different levels in different geographical areas.  So different events would be happening at different times.
At different times within a total timespan of 40 days, yes. Unless you want to argue that it took more than 40 days for the Floodewaters to cover over every bleeding point on Earth's surface?
Quote
If there was a lot of thermodynamic effect by fast moving sediment we would have convective heat transfer in the water and a lot of potential for diffusion of the heat.
That's nice, Scienthuse. I notice that you didn't bother to even pretend to work out how much heat would have to be dissipated (by convective heat transfer and diffusion and yada yada yada), but it's nice. And as I pointed out above, you YECists are cramming billions of years' worth of heat-generating events into a timespan of a mere thousands of years. So you YECists damn well better have a good, solid answer to "where'd the heat go, huh?", and not just some vague, unquantified handwaving in the general direction of "Uh... diffusion and convection! Yeah, that's the ticket..."
Quote
Also, it was asked where did the water come from and where did it go.  There are different theories.  Not to escape the issue but isn't that like asking where did hydrogen come from?
Not really. According to you Floode-believing YECists, there was dry land before the Floode; there was no dry land during the Floode; and finally there was dry land once again after the Floode. Therefore, you Floode-believing YECists simply must explain where the heck all the Floodewaters were hiding before the Floode, and where the heck said Floodewaters snuck off to after the Floode. Okay, you Floode-believing YECists only have to do that if you want the Floode to be accepted as a realio-trulio, sho'-nuff SCIENTIFIC THEORY!!!! -- but hey, you Floode-believing YECists do want the Floode to be accepted as a scientific theory, don't you? I mean, that's the whole point of all that those-nasty-dogmatic-Darwinians-won't-even-look-at-our-perfectly-reasonable-scientific-theory noise you YECists insist on making, right?

Date: 2009/10/16 04:50:58, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 15 2009,21:01)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Oct. 14 2009,22:52)
Hey, SciMoron, how's the water going?

Every creationist I've cornered with this question about water has run to Mama because he/she can't do the math.

Poor baby.

So, where did the water come from and where did it go?

Also, you've got a time problem.  You've got to get to 30,000 feet in 40 days.  That's roughly 1000 feet per day of rain.

Slowly?  You can't go slowly and flood the earth, moron.  Srsly, does it hurt being stupid?

I take it since we are talking about the flood, we can use just a bit of scripture--just this one.

Genesis 7:11, 12 -- In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.  12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.

First, Doc Bill, don't be fooled by the simplicity of the narrative--it is speaking to people of all generations--what makes us think our scientific culture is so special?  The arrogant scorn of these last generations at texts that were here long before we were ever thought of amazes some people.

Second, we don't know if the water level was 30,000 feet--that's based on today's figures.  We don't know ocean levels or how much tectonic movement has occurred in orogeny since then.  By the figure you mentioned you're referring to the narrative saying the water went above the mountains.

Third, in reference to other comments--no one here can do any math without variables--and no one has them--because it is in the past. Please don't start with math since evolutionists are notorious at turning a deaf ear to the improbability of unguided mutation as a mechanism for macroevolution.

Fourth, there were obviously two major water sources and a third may be considered.  Hard rain by the metaphor "floodgates,"  and the "springs (or fountains) of the great deep" being the second.  This could refer to oceanic and/or subterranean origin of the waters.  

The third could be only considered--it seems that the water "bursting forth" or being "broken up" in other translations--KJV (NIV is a modern accurate translation--not a paraphrase but not quite as literal as KJV) could imply (inductively only) tectonics.  And many creationists include this possibility throughout the deluge--not only during the rain, but during the drainage period.

Fifth, Where did it go?  I'm not an expert on creationist theories but the general gist is that tectonic uplift would have been involved here.  Baumgardner did a computer model for his PhD--I couldn't find it.  I'll look for it.  The model is one of the Atlantic ocean during the  deluge.  It's not just a video.  He seems to be quite advanced in his knowledge of computers.

Sixth, can you let me ask a question.

This is off the subject of the flood. During the formation of the earth why did the rocks and asteroids in open space defy Newton's third law?    

If I take a bat and hit a ball it rebounds from the bat in reaction--I understand we are talking about very large objects. i understand this is based on Einstein's theory--gravitational attraction pulls the objects together. But meteorites come to us from our asteroid belt regularly as a result of collisions.  Newton's third law is empirical in nature and in space.

No.1 This VIDEO does not teach that they were pulled gently into each other, they were "violent" collisions.  

No2. Either way--gentle or violent--I tend to think Newton's law is going to work.  They are going to bounce off of each other--otherwise why should we ever have to worry about any asteroids from our asteroid belt?  I realize that other asteroids come in from other places--but some of them come from the AB--some of them no doubt resulting from collisions.

Question for you, Scienthuse: Do you believe it's possible to learn about events that occured in the past by studying the traces which were left on physical objects when said events occured?

Date: 2009/10/16 14:40:32, Link
Author: Cubist
Which came first, LoydFlee -- horses, or Adam? Did God create horses before Adam (as Genesis 1 says, with horses being part of the "the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind" bit in Gen 1:24, and humans coming a touch later in Gen 1:27), or did God create Adam before horses (with Adam being created in Gen 2:7, and horses being part of the "every beast of the field" bit in Gen 2:19, which is after "the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him" in Gen 2:18)?
Oh, and since you cite Gen. 2:21-22, which talks about the creation of the first human woman: Whatever happen to the first human woman who was created in Gen 1:27 ("male and female created he them")?

Date: 2009/10/17 07:41:16, Link
Author: Cubist
They're your rules, LoydFlee.
It's your Hell.
You burn in it.

Date: 2009/10/17 17:43:15, Link
Author: Cubist
A word to the wise: Never piss off a woman who makes her living with HIV...

Date: 2009/10/19 07:03:11, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 15 2009,23:07)
Did you calculate all the water in the oceans and where that came from--water vapor wasn't it--I believe the Archaen era--not looking--may be wrong.
This sentence is very confused. And confusing. Could you translate it from the original English into something I can understand?
[quoteWater vapor, methane, nitrogen, CO2 all from volcanoes--and the earth cooled how again?[/quote]In the usual way -- 'excess' heat radiates away into space. Why wouldn't it? I mean, what's gonna stop it, you know?
Quote
Where did all the greenhouse gases go--the CO2 and water vapor?
Those gases were there all along (and good on you for recognizing this), just in different quantities than we see nowadays. The current fuss over global warning isn't about the mere fact that any greenhouse gases are present in Earth's atmosphere; rather, the current fuss is over the question of whether or not human actions are pumping enough extra greenhouse gases into Earth's atmosphere, that the resulting rise in temperature might have some side-effects we wouldn't like.
Fun fact: It's possible to calculate what the Earth's temperature would be if there were no greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere... and if you do that calculation, it turns out that the Earth's
temperature would be about -25° Celsius, which is the same as -13° Fahrenheit. If you're interested, you could do worse than start out at the Wikipedia page on the scientific concept of a "black body".
Quote
How did the earth cool so that the water vapor could form an ocean.
If the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, as real science says it is, there's been far more than enough time for the Earth to have cooled. "How did it cool off?" is only a problem for you YECs because you insist on cramming billions of years' worth of heat-generating events into a timespan of a few thousand years. Those Creationists who accept what real science has to say about the Earth's age (people like Hugh Ross, of Reasons to Believe) would agree with me on this point, if none other, and they'd also agree with me that you YECists are full of baloney when it comes to the Earth's age.
Quote
That's alot of water vapor--it expands 1600 times the volume of liquid water.
Yes, it is. What of it?
Quote
So you have the same problem accounting for water--only you have no God in your equations--no creator who might be catalyst for some phenomena.
You're going to have to walk me thru your thought processes here. Why is the putative lack of God a problem for people who accept real science?
Quote
Again as I said no one knows the height of any mountains 4000 years ago. Your math is without variables when it is based on today's data
Your argument here is based on the implied premise that Things Coulda Changed RADICALLY Between Now And Then. Fine -- but if that implied premise is true, how come things aren't changing like that right now? How do you know that the height of mountains today has anything at all to do with the height of mountains three weeks ago?
Quote
It might be more pertinent to know something of thermal runaway in silicate and other minerals.
If "thermal runaway" is a (somewhat garbled) reference to Baumgartner's "runaway subduction" conjecture, I do know about "thermal runaway". I also know, as you apparently do not, that Baumgartner's "runaway subduction" conjecture is based on some work he did with his TIERRA mathematical model of the Earth's plate tectonics, and that his "runaway subduction" conjecture doesn't work unless God performs at least three distinct miracles to make it happen. Miracle #1, heat mysteriously builds up inside the Earth over a period of about 20 million years; miracle #2, severe and mysterious adjustments to the thermal properties of the stuff from which Earth's crust is made; miracle #3, keeping Noah & co. from frying to death on account of all the heat that was generated as a result of the first two miracles.
At this point, you may be thinking, "Well, duh -- of course it requires miracles! The Floode was a miracle, so what's the problem?"
The problem is, how do you test the idea that such-and-such a miracle occured? There are people who argue that Noah's Floode didn't inundate all of the Earth, but, rather, only that part of the Earth which was known to the Bible's authors at that time; this "limited Floode" scenario still requires a miracle or three -- but it requires different miracles than what Baumgartner's "runaway subduction" conjecture needs. So you have a problem: On what grounds can you safely argue that God performed the particular set of miracles you like, rather than the different set of miracles preferred by advocates of a "limited Floode" scenario?

Date: 2009/10/22 03:55:06, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,16:09)
 
Quote
So you regard Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, homosexuals and the disabled as pests, Floyd?  Would you like to tell us more?

Sure, there's more.  The evolution-based racism found in Darwin's "Descent of Man" finds a clear and sobering echo in Hitler's Mein Kampf.

I would very much like you to tell us more about "The evolution-based racism found in Darwin's Descent of Man'", Floyd. In particular, I would very much like you to cite chapter and verse, throwing the harsh spotlight of truth upon the exact and specific passages in Descent of Man  in which Darwin expressed racist ideas. Fortunately, pretty much everything Darwin ever wrote, Descent of Man included, is freely available online, which means it will be quite easy for anybody who might doubt your veracity to confirm that your chapter-and-verse citations of Darwin's words are accurate quotes which do no violence to Darwin's ideas. So go for it, Floyd! You'll have exposed the hated Darwin, and put the lie to those benighted souls who are so misguided that they have accused you of deceitful behavior like quote-mining! It's a win-win situation for you!

Date: 2009/11/19 02:00:47, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (bfish @ Nov. 18 2009,19:08)
Hot Dingleberries, I just got my copy of the Ray Comfort "Origin of Species." I wasn't able to get down to campus myself, but some co-workers grabbed one for me. Hallelulah!

Good (if that's the word...) for you! Do you think you could compare the Comfort'ed Origin to the real thing, and work up a report on what unholy modifications Comfort may have inflicted on the poor thing, over and above the chapters he omitted?

Date: 2009/11/20 03:38:21, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (ppb @ Nov. 19 2009,10:11)
Happy Birthday Heddle


For future reference: The typeface used for "It's good to be" is Brush Script. The Photoshopped-in "a Sexy Right-Wingnut" uses a different typeface, which I think is Linotype Script, but I am not at all sure. Alas, the person who modified this image did not match the font very well...

Date: 2009/11/24 15:22:56, Link
Author: Cubist
Also from Canada: William Shatner. The question is, should he be counted on the 'good' side of the ledger or the 'bad' side?

Date: 2009/12/04 05:14:36, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 03 2009,17:20)
Yeah that definitely begs the question. I prefer to look at the empirical evidence to support my conclusions. In reference to the empirical evidence, what are your thoughts on where the empirical evidence leads? Can we safely say that material mechanisms are responsible for all that we observe in our universe?

As best anybody can tell, yes. Science does a great job with phenomena that operate according to regular rules which are discoverable; heck, there have been scientific investigations of the power of intercessory prayer, okay? The main reason so many people think science cannot do anything with "supernatural" or "immaterial" phenomena, is that these "supernatural"/"immaterial" phenomena don't seem to operate according to regular, discoverable rules.
Quote
Is there any room for some kind of mechanism that is immaterial or at least contrary to natural selection?

That depends on what you mean by "room for". If you're asking about whether there are any aspects of the universe that we know for certain are flatly incapable of being accounted for by any conceivable concatenation of material/natural/physical mechanisms, and therefore require some sort of immaterial/supernatural/nonphysical mechanism, the answer is "no". If, on the other hand, you're asking about whether there are any aspects of the Universe that we do not yet have a decent explanation for, and for which it is therefore conceivable that some sort of immaterial/supernatural/nonphysical mechanism might be required to account for them, the answer is "yes".
Quote
I know these are rather broad questions. Maybe give me what you (anyone in this forum) think are the best arguments for your view either way.

In my view, the best argument against supernatural processes is that there are lots of things which have, at various times and places, been deemed the result of supernatural processes... and every time someone figures out a way to test one of these things, it's always turned out to have a boring, ordinary, mundane, non-supernatural explanation. Lightning used to be a product of Thor or Zeus; now it's a natural weather phenomenon. The season of winter used to be the fault of Hades (see also: the story of Persephone); now it's a natural consequence of Earth's axial tilt. Earthquakes used to be caused by powerful entities like the Midgard Serpent; now they're the result of natural tectonic processes occuring in the Earth's crust.
Apart from the fact that all supernatural "explanations" thus far have proved to be either wrong or untestable, I find it compelling that the word "supernatural" doesn't really mean anything -- it's a word without a well-defined referent, which (as fas as I can tell) is, in practical terms, interchangeably synonymous with the phrase "something I don't understand".  If you think the word "supernatural" does have any meaning beyond "something I don't understand", great! Can you tell me what that meaning is, please?

Date: 2009/12/05 03:25:13, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Dec. 04 2009,14:13)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 03 2009,21:18)
joe is good for one thing.  i am not sure what it is yet

I dimly remember an American comic strip, Beetle Baily ... there was this really dumb and eternally grumpy sergeant ... If they decided to make it into a movie ...

Beetle Bailey, eh? Haven't seen that strip in a while, but it's apparently still going. The character you're thinking of is Sergeant Orville Snorkel, and with a name like that, his grumpiness is perhaps understandable...

Date: 2009/12/05 14:41:59, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 05 2009,09:20)
Do you hold to Darwin’s definition of natural selection: “This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call ‘natural selection.” Including the idea that this process eventually brings about a new species?
Yeah, I'd say the old guy got it right. In this context, it's worth noting that Darwin thought natural selection was "the main but not exclusive means of modification" (last sentence of the Introduction to Origin of Species); in other words, even Darwin himself explicitly acknowledged the possibility of processes at work other than natural selection, and later scientists have identified some of those other processes.
Quote
I should have defined what I meant by supernatural since this can be a rather messy term. By supernatural I mean a being or beings that are in some sense beyond nature...
Fine. What does that mean? How can you tell whether or not some Being X really and truly is "in some sense beyond nature"?
Quote
...acting on nature that cause certain things to come into existence. I don’t think these entity/entities would have to be beyond nature in order to impact nature. Further I don’t think this being/s would necessarily interfere but could work along with natural laws.
I ain't buying your don't-think-it-would-necessarily figleaf. If "this being/s" always "work(s) along with natural laws", and never "interfere(s)... with natural laws", why bother to describe it/them as "beyond nature" -- why not just say it/they is/are natural being/s that you don't happen to understand,, and be done with it?
Quote
So there wouldn’t be an obstacle for arriving at generalizations.
Do these "being/s" you speak of ever "interfere" with natural laws? If so, then yes, there is an "obstacle for arriving at generalizations".
Quote
To use the example given of conducting an experiment on a cell, you as an individual transcend the cell (you’re beyond it)...
So in this context, you're using the word "transcend" as a synonym for "is not the same entity as"? Fine, but if so, I'd recommend that you just say "is not the same entity as", because that word "transcend" carries all sorts of extraneous connotations which can only get in the way of clearly expressing your ideas.
 
Quote
Now I wouldn’t necessarily attribute all acts to this supernatural source...
"wouldn't necessarily"? Again with the unconvincing figleaf!
"this supernatural source": Hmmm. "(T)his supernatural source". Before you were merely making nonspecific noises about supernatural entities as a general class, but now you say "this" supernatural entity, as if you have a particular candidate in mind. Fine: Exactly what sort of critter do you have in mind when you speak of "this supernatural source"?
 
Quote
...but when it comes to living organisms, do natural laws account for their existence?
As far as anybody can tell, yes. There are some unanswered questions about various of the details, but in no case is there anything which flatly cannot be accounted for by natural laws.
 
Quote
Or like the building, house, etc. does there have to be something beyond the natural (as defined above)...
Hold it. "(A)s defined above"? You didn't "define" anything! You just tossed a couple of unsupported assertions in the general direction of a definition!
 
Quote
that brings those things into existence? Whatever the nature of that thing is, is more of a philosophical question. But the probability of such a being/s within the universe is I think an important scientific question.
Me, I think you really need to sharpen up your thinking and clarify your ideas. I also think you need to figure out  a way to distinguish "X is beyond nature" from "X is something I don't understand" -- which, by the by, you conspicuously do not do at present.

Date: 2009/12/06 02:03:22, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (MichaelJ @ Dec. 06 2009,01:45)
John,

I might have misinterpreted your argument but I can't see why there can't be a god who is a meddler. I agree with Dembski and Behe in this. These guys are dishonest turds but say someone did find a biological structure that had NO possible evolutionary pathways? Or something less subtle such as the stars lining up and saying "Dawkins is wrong".

John wasn't denying the possibility that a meddling, trickster-type god could exist; rather, he was speaking of whether or not this "god"-thingie is something us puny humans can use science to investigate.

Date: 2009/12/06 02:19:42, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 05 2009,19:05)
Do you hold to Darwin’s definition of natural selection: “This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call ‘natural selection.” Including the idea that this process eventually brings about a new species? I would agree that we see this within a species. So I appreciate you bringing that up, I should have been more specific. If you believe that this accounts for new species coming into being can you give me the empirical evidence for that view?

I should have defined what I meant by supernatural since this can be a rather messy term. By supernatural I mean a being or beings that are in some sense beyond nature acting on nature that cause certain things to come into existence. I don’t think these entity/entities would have to be beyond nature in order to impact nature. Further I don’t think this being/s would necessarily interfere but could work along with natural laws

For example, we observe people building homes, cars, etc. using natural laws to create new things. People are separate or apart from the material their working on (transcendent), utilizing the laws of nature. So it seems to me that it is possible for this being/s to operate within the realm of regular discoverable rules.

Why are you posting a Xerox copy re-run of an earlier post? Since it is the same set of questions, even unto copy-and-paste duplication of the phrasing used, I refer you to the response I posted the first time around; I see nothing in this 'new' post which would require a separate, different, response from me now.

Date: 2009/12/08 03:57:57, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,08:56)
Science deals with probabilities so I’m not trying to flatly account or discount anything about natural laws.
I call 'bullshit' on that, inquiry. You're a Creationist (YEC? Old-Earther?), so you bloody well are trying to "discount", at the very least,  the ability of natural laws to produce living things. How about you be honest and aboveboard about your agenda, eh?
Quote
What I want to address and try to answer is the probability of living organisms coming about by way of natural laws versus a designer/s.
Good luck with that (no pun intended), inquiry. For one thing, nobody knows the specifics of how abiogenesis would work, and how the heck can you calculate the probability of a process when most-to-all of the details of that process are unknown? For another thing, the how do you calculate the probability of an unknown process? objection applies in spades, doubled and redoubled, to this "designer" thingie of which you speak. Go ahead, inquiry, educate us all: How do you calculate the probability of a "designer" having acted, in the absence of any specific information whatsoever about this "designer"?
Quote
One of those unanswered questions is how do new species originate from already existing species.

"(U)nanswered questions"? "(U)n"-bleeding-"answered questions"? Give me a flippin' break, inquiry! I can easily believe that you happen to be ignorant of the answers to these questions, but guess what? Your ignorance of those answers does not make those answers cease to exist! Since others have already given you pointers to some of the answers which you implicitly claim to be nonexistent, I see no reason to provide any more such pointers myself; you can just as easily ignore/reject any pointer I give you as you can pointers given you by someone else.
Quote
Is there anything that convinces you that there is greater probability that natural laws alone are responsible for this?
Yes: In every case where we actually do know what's responsible for a new species having arisen, "natural laws alone" are responsible for that species having arisen.

Date: 2009/12/08 04:03:32, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,11:59)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 07 2009,09:15)
 
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,09:05)
But this type of speciation does not result in a new species.

Does any part of that statement seem odd to you?

By new species I was referring to new in nature (kind) That plants produce plants is one thing. Reproduction within a species is empirically verified. I'm not asking for proof of that.

What's a "kind", inquiry? Given two arbitrary critters, how can you tell whether said critters belong to the same "kind" or to different "kind"s? If you can't actually tell whether two arbitrary critters belong to the same "kind", how the heck would you know whether or not a new "kind" was produced?

Date: 2009/12/10 15:16:16, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 10 2009,13:31)
Since I had numerous responses I’m going to try to respond to as much as I can by posting a series of replies. I apologize in advance if you feel this is too much at once, but I figured it is the best way to address everyone’s (more or less) comments.

Evolutionary / Darwinian species  
A group of organisms that shares an ancestor; a lineage that maintains its integrity with respect to other lineages through both time and space. At some point in the progress of such a group, some members may diverge from the main population and evolve into a subspecies, a process that eventually will lead to the formation of a new full species if isolation (geographical or ecological) is maintained.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#Definitions_of_species


I think this most accurately defines what I mean by species. Additionally, species for me includes organisms that are asexual (bacteria for example), able to sexually reproduce, and no longer living (found in the fossil record).
Groovy. Now, what the heck is a 'kind'? I ask because now that you agree with real scientists that evolution can indeed produce new species, your 'reasons' for rejecting evolution appear to have been reduced to yeah, but that's just new species and not new kinds, so I really want to know what, exactly, this 'kind'-thingie decently is. Because if you can't tell what 'kind' a critter is, complaining that evolution can't produce new 'kind's is exactly as meaningless as complaining that evolution can't produce new 'zibbleblorf's. Okay?

Date: 2009/12/10 15:28:06, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 10 2009,13:33)
The question I have is how do we go from species that are modified in some way (flies with differences in wing size, etc.), to a completely new species? (fish to amphibian, reptiles to mammals).
What do you mean when you say "completely new species" (emphasis added)? I ask because if I take the words of that phrase at face value, it's not clear whether any species on the planet can truly be considered to be completely new. Take a look at us humans -- we breathe oxygen (not something which originated in humans); we use hemoglobin (not something which originated in humans) to carry oxygen to our cells; we use the same genetic code as Christ knows how many other, older, species than our own. So do we humans qualify as a completely new species, or not?

Date: 2009/12/10 15:45:53, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 10 2009,13:34)
I think JLT referred to change in chromosome number in particular with plant speciation (BTW thanks JLT for responding with reasons why you believe what you do and providing resources). If I understand this correctly, chromosome mutation brings about replication of sections of DNA. This can result in replication of a section of DNA that could then be potentially used to serve some function independent of the gene it was replicated from. But this replicated section is dependent upon either further chromosome mutation or point mutations (which are extremely rare and usually damaging). I know this is a popular theory for macroevolution but it seems to have significant problems. For a more detailed explanation: “Simulating  Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features that Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science 13 (2004): 1-14. It’s written by Michael J. Behe (not your favorite person I know) and David W. Snoke

Been there, done that. Or, less cryptically: Ian F. Musgrave, Steve Reuland, and Reed A. Cartwright demolished Behe & Snoke's conclusions in Theory is as Theory Does. I'm sure that an upstanding, truth-seeking Christian such as yourself will be sure to read and understand the criticisms in that response, and if you still think the B&S paper is valid, you'll be able to point out all the bits where Musgrave & co. went wrong in their criticism. Right? Because you are a truth-seeker -- someone who follows the Truth wherever it leads, and not someone who only follows the Truth if it leads to where he's comfortable with it going -- aren't you?

Date: 2009/12/10 16:21:11, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 10 2009,13:39)
There exists within the cell highly complex machines. These molecular machines are made up of multiple parts that perform a specific function.  If any part of the system is tampered with it no longer can perform the original function. This is known as the irreducible core. Can natural selection account for such irreducibly complex machines? In direct Darwinian pathways natural selection improves upon a system through the evolutionary process, yet the function of the system remains the same throughout the process. However, the irreducible core for the cell is quite complex. The function of the cell is dependent upon its complex components. In order for a direct Darwinian pathway to be a viable option the complexity of the cell came about by the evolution of simpler systems that had the same function. But if you any of the parts of the cell are missing it can no longer serve its function. Therefore, there could not be prior simpler systems that performed the same function.  Natural selection supposedly starts to work on a simple organism, yet nothing more simplified could perform the same function as this complex system. The only option would be for the complex system to come to be all at once. An alternative to a direct pathway is an indirect pathway whereby the system and the function itself evolve over time. As far as I know there is no empirical evidence to support such a claim.
"Direct Darwinian pathway" is Behe's term for a multi-step process in which every step is "add a new part to the system". This is all well and good, but it's worth noting that evolutionary changes aren't limited to just adding new parts; in addition, an evolutionary change can also (a) remove an existing part, and (b) modify an existing part. Therefore, there are any number of Darwinian pathways which include at least one step other than "add a new part to the system" -- which means there are any number of Darwinian pathways which do not fit Behe's definition for "direct Darwinian pathways"
Personally, I think Behe is right that his "direct Darwinian pathways" aren't capable of generating an irreducibly complex structure. Where he and I differ is that he thinks this restriction on "direct Darwinian pathways" applies to any and every Darwinian pathway whatsoever, direct or otherwise, and I call bullshit on that.
Now, Behe has already acknowledged that very simple Irreducibly Complex systems can arise by chance, no Designer needed. So let's look at a hypothetical IC system with only two parts, A and B. Since this system is IC, both of these parts are required for the system to do its job; if either part A or part B should be broken or absent, the system don't do its job. So this simple, two-part system chugs along, doing its job, until a mutation adds a new part, C, to it. At this point, part C is something the system can take or leave; the presence of part C might be helpful, but its absence won't hurt anything, either. And so our three-part system chugs along, doing its job with part C as a helpful-but-unnecessary attachment... until a new mutation hits part A, modifying part A in such a way that now part A needs part C in order to do its job. This modification of part A has rendered part C a necessary component of the system; at this point, what had formerly been a two-part IC system is now a three-part IC system. And there's nothing to keep new parts D, E, F, G, etc, from being incorporated into this IC system, with each new part being incorporated by an add-a-new-part/modify-an-existing-part tango.
Again: For Behe, a direct Darwinian pathway consists entirely of "add a new part" steps, so the scenario I just outlined, which includes a "modify an existing part" step, is not what Behe would call a direct Darwinian pathway! Therefore, everything Behe says about direct Darwinian pathways does not apply to the scenario I just outlined.
If Behe, or anybody else, wants to argue that evolution cannot produce IC systems, fine: All they have to do is figure out what's going to prevent mutations from modifying biological systems in such a way that parts of those systems get 'promoted' from helpful-but-unnecessary to required-in-order-to-function-at-all.

Date: 2009/12/11 04:25:19, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (phantom menace @ Dec. 10 2009,23:07)
1) I noticed several refernces to natural law in relation to the origin of biological diversity, but I didn't see an account given of natural law itself from what appears to be some unexamined materialist assumptions.
So what? What it's true that we do not yet have a good explanation for how come natural laws exist, it's also true that the existence (or lack thereof) of said natural laws is not in any way affected by our lack of an explanation for their origin. Yes, it would be nice if we did have a good explanation for how come natural laws exist... but we don't yet, and for all I know, we may never have such an explanation. What of it? Is it your position that our understanding of biological diversity is somehow flawed as a result of our not having a good explanation for how natural laws come about? For bonus points, please explain why the lack of an explanation for how natural laws came about is especially problematic for biology in particular, as opposed to being equally problematic for all fields of science in general.
And what "unexamined materialist assumptions" do you refer to, please? Are you laying the foundation of a later "evolution = TEH ATHEISM" argument, by any chance?
Quote
Anyone care to explain why the universe has "laws" rather than just chaos? And by explain, I mean give us your empirical observations since that seems to be the only grounds for knowledge you guys consider valid.
I can 'explain' it in two words: "Beats me." If you think you've got a better explanation than that, how about you lay it out so's I can take a look at it?
Quote
2) It would seem to me that the issue of isolated populations is an example of devolution and not evolution. In fact it is becoming quite clear that genetic entropy accounts for this phenomena much better than natural selection, beneficial mutations, etc. Since negative mutations far exceed positive mutations (assuming that there are some actual net-positive mutations) it is no wonder that organisims can actually lose functionality when isolated.
Hold it. What do you think "genetic entropy" means?
Quote
3) Inquiry - the definition you offered for "species" assumes evolution to be true. You are equivocating on the term if you then try to argue against the formation of a new species through natural processes. Don't worry though, Darwin's definition is just an assumption that he made and has no biological necessity to it. If we assume the process of evolution in defining a species then of course evolution has "produced" new species. What I would like to know is if your opponents can define a species apart from an evolutionary assumption?
First: It's worth noting that if evolution is true, this "species" concept should be difficult to define -- there should be "edge cases", critters which are genuinely difficult to classify because they've got a mosaic/mixture of traits from different species. But if Creationism is true, there's no reason at all to expect any such "edge cases" to exist -- not unless you know the Creator's mind/goals/will, and Creationism has historically been very explicit about how us puny humans do not and cannot know the Creator's mind/goals/will. Personally, I've never been clear on how it helps science to invoke a poorly-defined entity which is literally capable of doing anything at all, at any moment, for reasons which we humans are intrinsically incapable of comprehending... do you think you could explain that for me, PM?
Second: You want a "species" concept which is not based on an "evolutionary assumption"? Fine: Try the Biological Species Concept on for size.
Quote
4) I would hope that those who choose to respond to my posts would do so with actual arguments and evidence, rather than the silly name calling that has so far permeated this thread. Remember, you are betrayed as unable to answer your opponent as soon as you stoop to name calling. Just listen to Sean Hannity and you will see what I mean. But I suppose some of you will insist on imitating him.
Gosh, PM, it sure is a good thing you don't sneer at your opponents or make veiled accusations of intellectual incapacity or anything like that, because if you did, that would make you some kind of hypocrite...

Date: 2009/12/11 15:37:47, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 11 2009,08:38)
 
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 11 2009,04:25)
Second: You want a "species" concept which is not based on an "evolutionary assumption"? Fine: Try the Biological Species Concept on for size.

Could you elaborate on that a little bit more? Thanks
I think perhaps your question might be more profitably directed towards Phantom Menace, since PM is the one who introduced the notion of "evolutionary assumption" in this context. I am unsure what PM means when PM says "evolutionary assumption"... but the Biological Species Concept depends only on the ability (or lack thereof) of two critters to interbreed, so I figure it's at least a good bet that the BSC is not a species-definition that PM would deem based on "evolutionary assumption". We shall see, if PM ever chooses to grace this forum with their presence again.
Oh, and are you ever going to respond to all the people who pointed out problems in your recent posts, inquiry? Are you ever going to respond to any of those people?

Date: 2009/12/14 04:29:39, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (carlsonjok @ Dec. 13 2009,15:25)
Any hints how to reduce the size without losing alot of resolution? I am using Compupic at the moment.

I am unfamiliar with Compupic, but as an old Photoshop hand who has devoted a goodly amount of effort to reducing the filesize of graphic images, I have some comments that you may perhaps find useful...
Speaking in general terms, the way to reduce the filesize of an image is to throw away some of the bits. Ideally, you want to throw away only bits which do not affect the visual quality of the image; the more bits you throw away, the more likely it is that some of the bits you tossed out do affect the image quality.
Reducing the resolution (shrinking an X * Y image down to, say, an X/2 * Y/2 image) is a fairly obvious way to reduce the filesize. Each pixel of an image represents a certain number of bits of color information; a smaller number of pixels means a smaller total number of bits of color information. Yes, reducing the resolution means you're in danger of losing fine details in your image -- but depending on what you want to do with the image, loss of fine details may be unavoidable, in which case you may as well reduce the resolution and be done with it.
Reducing the bit depth is another obvious way to reduce the filesize, where "bit depth" is graphics geek slang for "number of bits used to describe 1 (one) pixel in an image". If your image is pure black-and-white, no grays need apply, each pixel in that image can be described with 1 bit, 0 (meaning "black") or 1 (meaning "white"), which is why pure B/W images are said to have a bit depth of 1. If every pixel in an image contains one color out fo a list of exactly 16 colors, each pixel can be described with 4 (four) bits, so a 16-color image has a bit depth of 4. Super-realistic images are likely to have bit depths of 24 or greater, which allows them to display very subtle gradations of color; at the same time, high bit depths do boost the filesize. Lower bit depths, contrariwise, reduce the filesize while, at the same time, also reducing the range of colors which can be displayed in the image (again, a bit depth of 1 means B/W, right?).  If Compupic allows you to play around with bit depth, try applying different bit depths to your image, and see what happens to the image's visual quality in each case. I can't make any promises, but it's possible that bit-depth manipulation by itself, may suffice to reduce the image's filesize down to a reasonable level *without*mucking up the image quality to a noticeable degree. If you want to play with bit depth, you'll want to save the image as either PNG or GIF -- JPEG is right out.
The reason I say "JPEG is right out" in the context of bit depth, is that JPEG format is a very different beast than either PNG format or GIF format. The JPEG format divvies an image up into 8*8 chunks, and then does the visual equivalent of a Fourier transform on each of those chunks, breaking said chunk down into the sum of various 2D "waveforms". If you ignore the least-significant of the relevant 2D "waveforms", you can save a few bits of filesize... but only at the cost of losing some of the image quality. Photoshop allows the user to pick a quality level (and associated filesize) when saving a file as JPEG; if Compupic also does that, try saving your file as JPEG several times, using a different quality level each time. You will definitely preserve the image's resolution, but the visual quality is likely to vary widely, so compare and contrast...
Hope this helps!

Date: 2009/12/16 00:29:51, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (phantom menace @ Dec. 15 2009,20:52)
By the way, the fact of biological change via mutation is not in dispute. What is disputed is that mutation/natural selection can account for an increase in GENETIC INFORMATION.
This is a fairly common Creationist argument. In my experience, I have never yet encountered any Creationist who manages to accompany this argument with a good definition of this "genetic information" thingie -- certainly not a definition of "genetic information" that anyone can actually use to measure the stuff, and thereby confirm that mutations are incapable of "increasing" this "genetic information" stuff.
If Creationists do indeed have a definition for "genetic information" which would allow the stuff to be measured... well, it's got to be one king hell humdinger of a definition. Now, I can see how deletion mutations (i.e., something like starting with cccgtcagagtc and ending up with cccagtc) would be a loss of "genetic information", so that's not a problem. What is a problem is, how the heck do you get a loss of "genetic information" from an insertion mutation (i.e., something like starting with gtataacca and ending up with gtataaatacgattacca)? I just don't see it, myself. But what the heck; maybe you can succeed in dispelling my confusion/ignorance, PM! If you actually have a useable definition of "genetic information", you should be able to, y'know, use said definition to determine how much "genetic information" there is in any given sequence of nucleotides, right? So here are two nucleotide sequences for you to play with:

Nucleotide sequence one: tct gct att ttg gcg tcc gcc tcc gta act gtc tga aag cat gct gcg gtt ctt tac ggg gga gga ccc gag tga cgg agg cga agt gtg cag aag gaa gtt tac ccc tcg aga cgt ccc gct gcg gtc acc agg ttc tga agg aac act

Nucleotide sequence two: tat gag ctg acc cca caa cct gta cac gag agt aat gaa act agc tcc caa gac gat ccg caa aat cct tgg cta cta tta gta ggt cgc gat aca aac aga gtt gat aat ttc tca acg aag ccg att att tga gat gag aac ccc cag

Please, PM, would you be so good as to tell me which of these two nucleotide sequence has more "genetic information" in it -- and, more importantly, explain how you determined which sequence has more "genetic information"?

Date: 2009/12/20 04:37:24, Link
Author: Cubist
Anybody seen Phantom Menace around in the past few days? I was looking forward to seeing how he responds to my "which sequence has more 'genetic information'?" question...

Date: 2009/12/31 08:50:40, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (k.e.. @ Dec. 31 2009,08:41)
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 31 2009,16:04)
Quote (afarensis @ Dec. 31 2009,07:21)
 
Quote (RDK @ Dec. 31 2009,00:04)
 
Quote (k.e.. @ Dec. 30 2009,22:17)
     
Quote (rhmc @ Dec. 31 2009,03:38)
     
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 30 2009,08:33)
Otters vs. Crocodiles

from that link:  this one time, I was walking home and a gang of otters stole my wallet.

You should have pelted them.


Come on now, boys, we otter stop these puns before they get out of control.  You remember what happened last time?

Sure, just weasel out of it...

That was otterly uncalled for.

I gotter resist...

So these pun exchanges are a form of gorilla warfare?

Date: 2010/01/01 03:50:45, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (BillB @ Jan. 01 2010,03:26)
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!

Does passing an arbitrary demarcation point hurt as bad as passing a kidney stone?

Date: 2010/01/05 14:49:43, Link
Author: Cubist
Lenny is still around; DebunkCreation -- his Yahoo Group -- is going strong. He's cut back on his anti-Creationist activity, however, because he feels that the fundies are politically irrelevant for the time being, hence there's no need for him to take action. He fully recognizes that Creationists never stop trying to push their agenda, he just thinks they ain't in any danger of succeeding in that effort any time soon, is all.
Given Lenny's notion that the Creationists are politically impotent, it's no surprise that he let his website fade into the ether. Fortunately, it has been mirrored elsewhere, so that's alright.

Date: 2010/01/05 15:09:36, Link
Author: Cubist
Addendum to previous post: I initially didn't remember where Lenny's website had been mirrored. How did I find the mirror? Good question, and the answer might be useful to other people, so here it is:
To begin with, I checked at the Internet Archive, whose purpose in life is to preserve backup copies of everything on the entire internet. I gave the Archive the URL for Lenny's now-gone site, and the Archive knew about it! Yay! I brought up the most recent version of the website, then tried one of the links on the recovered page, and that link pointed nowhere -- the Archive had saved only part of Lenny's website. Boo!
Take-home lesson: The Internet Archive is not perfect. Just because it preserved some of a website, doesn't mean it's got everything.
Okay, time to switch to Plan B -- Google. I copied a sentence -- Intelligent Design "theory" offers nothing new. All of its "scientific arguments" are just re-hashed versions of standard creation "science" arguments put out thirty years ago. -- from the Archive-recovered page; pasted said sentence into a Google searchbox; and the very first 'hit' was the mirror site I'd been seeking. Yay!

Date: 2010/01/26 04:14:53, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Evolution-FTW @ Jan. 24 2010,12:29)
In Scotland, Evolution isn't even taught.
It saddens me, because now I have to start teaching it to myself.
There's one thing I'm wondering though, what is the evidence for the common ancestor?  We don't have a fossil of it, so how do we know it existed?

When something can't be seen in and of itself, you have to look for less-direct evidence.
As an example, take black holes. By definition, you can't see a black hole, because the damn thing's gravity is so strong that not even light can escape its ferocious pull. So how can you tell whether or not black holes exist? By looking for indications of their gravity. One possibility: If you happen to see a bunch of stuff moving around as if all that stuff were orbiting a single massive body, but you can't see anything at all where that massive body ought to be, you might just be 'looking' at a black hole.
Another possibility: Say you can measure how fast an object is moving in its orbit, and you keep on measuring until you've got at least one complete orbit's worth of data. You can use that data to figure out (a) the radius of the object's orbit, and (b) the strength of the gravity field the object is orbiting within. Depending on how strong the gravity field is, compared to the radius of the object's orbit, you might be 'seeing' a black hole there, too.

Does that help you understand how you can learn about something by indirect means?

Now, what sort of indirect means could you use to learn something about a common ancestor you don't have access to? Well, by definition, a common ancestor has descendants, right? And descendants tend to inherit things from their ancestors. As well, descendants tend not to inherit stuff from living things that were not their ancestors. This means that a bunch of critters that are all descended from a common ancestor, should be more similar to each other than are a bunch of critters which aren't all descended from a common ancestor. So if you see a bunch of different species which are a lot more similar to each other than they really have any right to be, those species might all be descended from a common ancestor; if they are, it's a good bet that the traits which are most common to all of these species, are traits which they all inherited from their common ancestor.

Obviously, I haven't even pretended to get into the nitty-gritty details of How It's Actually Done In Practice. But does the above text at least give you a sense of how a person who was interested could learn about a common ancestor they don't have access to?

Date: 2010/01/28 16:36:16, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 28 2010,08:14)
Most scientists make very poor Tard Warriors. They get confused and think IDers want to learn. But Lenski is a veritable genius—and not just with bacteria. A true Master of the Tardic Arts. It was an awful and wonderful thing to see. Frankly, he beat the Tard out of 'em.

If Lenski beat the Tard out of them, why are they still tards?

Date: 2010/01/29 03:23:55, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Utunumsint @ Jan. 28 2010,14:46)
 
Quote (Doc Bill @ Jan. 28 2010,14:36)
Doesn't Behe know better, you ask?  Of course he does.  Does that make him intellectually dishonest (like all creationists)?

You tell me.

If this is true for Behe, then there is really nothing to ID. You'd think Lehigh University would have canned him by now...
As has already been pointed out, Behe can't be canned because he's got tenure... but his university has explicitly disowned him with a "this guy's views are strictly his own, and have nothing to do with science as she is spoke by the rest of the faculty" disclaimer. Not exactly a common thing for universities to do, eh?
Quote
That said, I would like to go through some of his arguments in detail. Hopefull people will be patient enough for that.
Okay by me! How about we start with Behe's arguments re: "irreducible complexity"? According to Behe, a system is "irreducibly complex" if every individual component in the system is required to be present in order for the system to perform its function. Thus, an irreducibly complex system which lacks any one of its components cannot function. So there is no way for evolution to produce an irreducibly complex system, because the immediate evolutionary precursor to an IC system would be lacking a component, hence would not function.
That's Behe's argument, as best I understand it. The problem is, his argument assumes that evolution can only add new parts to a system -- but evolution can also remove previously-existing parts from a system, and evolution can also modify a system's previously-existing parts.
So okay, Behe's IC argument ignores two of the three classes of change evolution can produce. Fine. Does that mean he's wrong? Well, sort of. Yes, Behe is correct that you can't get an IC system from any evolutionary process in which all the steps are "add a new part". But if you allow your evolutionary process to include "remove an old part" and/or "change an old part" steps in addition to "add a new part" steps, you can get an IC system in the following manner:
Step one: Add a new part to the system. At this point, the new part is not necessary for the system to function.
Step two: Modify one of the old parts so that said old part cannot function in the absence of the new part which was added in Step One.
For Behe's IC argument to be valid, it must not be possible for evolution to modify existing parts of a system... and it should be patently obvious that it bloody well is possible for evolution to modify existing parts of a system. To the best of my knowledge, Behe has never even acknowledged the existence of this counter-argument, let alone demonstrated that his argument survives said counter-argument.
What say you, Utunumsint?

Date: 2010/02/03 16:24:52, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 03 2010,12:06)
At the risk of being severely beaten, what if a miracle, or intelligence was involved in the evolutionary process? How would an evolutionary scientist detect this?
By proposing a hypothesis of exactly what happened -- a hypothesis which is sufficiently detailed that the proposer could work out what physical evidence was left by that 'miracle', and what to look for in order to confirm that said 'miracle' really was what happened.
If all you've got is "somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intellegint did something"... well... how the heck do you test that?
Quote
Because admittedly, we are intelligently affecting our own evolutionary path right now, and that of dog breeds, and in our medicinal attacks on deseases, etc... It is self evident because we are aware of our own history.... but what if, for example, a million years ago, E.T. landed on the earth and performed some genetic manipulation of some sea sludge to create the first microbes?

How would we have a testable theory to explain that?
That question doesn't quite follow from the paragraph you wrote just preeding; I think you meant to ask "How would we discover ET's genetic manipulations?"
Me, I'm not sure we could discover ET's genetic manipulations. We don't know what sort of tools and techniques ET might have used, so we wouldn't recognize the "tooth marks" left by ET's "saws" even if we actually did see them, right? And how do you distinguish a gene altered by ET from a gene altered by random mutation?

On an unrelated note, Utunumsint, a couple pages back I posted a takedown of Behe's "irreducible complexity" argument against evolution. You might want to look it over and see if you can find a way to salvage Behe's argument.

Date: 2010/02/12 04:43:51, Link
Author: Cubist
Science is all about the objective, empirically-verifiable data; as well, science regards 'private revelation' as the worst sort of flaw. Religion, contrariwise, is all about subjective 'data', and prizes 'private revelation' above everything else. Science loves doubt; religion despises doubt. Science insists on empirical confirmation; religion says "thou shalt not put thy God to the test.
In other words: Science and religion damn well are incompatible -- and religion knows it. Which brings up one more difference between science and religion: If science had its druthers, science would be perfectly happy to ignore religion -- but the reverse is very definitely not true.

I am not impressed by lists of religious people who happen to do science, or of scientists who happen to be religious. If "see? these guys do BOTH science AND religion!" really were a valid argument in support of the argument that religion is compatible with science, all those Catholic priests who rape little children would be a valid argument in support of the proposition that Catholicism is compatible with raping little children.

Date: 2010/02/19 23:14:18, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (cdanner @ Feb. 18 2010,10:21)
I have a question that is relevant to "Exploring Evolution." This is an honest question from an explorer of the truth!
Okay, this sentence is a bit of a red flag for those of us who have been around the Creationism-versus-evolution block a few times, because it just so happens that "I'm a good little scholar/truthseeker/Evolutionist, honest I am, but I just have some questions..." is an opening gambit which has been used by Creationists more than a few times. And even if it weren't, why bother with that "honest question" verbiage in the first place? Just ask the question without the extra justificationariness, and save a bit of wear and tear on your typing fingers!
 
Quote
Why does all living creatures on Earth essentially have the same molecular biological design, such as the functions of RNA, DNA, etc?
Given the fact that there are a number of alternative genetic codes, it is not entirely clear that "all living creatures on Earth" do "essentially have the same molecular biological design". However, granting the premise of your question for the sake of argument, it seems to me that anything which which genuinely is shared by all living things on Earth, should be explicable as having been inherited from whatever ancestor(s) is (are?) shared by all lifeforms on Earth.
Quote
If evolution is in fact the truth, shouldn't there be evidence of molecular evolution in lower primitive lifeforms. No evidence of any kind of variance exists at this level.
First: Show me a guy who has no idea what a zibbleblorf might be, and I'll show you a guy who wouldn't recognize a zibbleblorf if one was chewing on their face. So can you tell me what this "evidence... of variance at this level" stuff looks like? If you can't tell me what this "evidence... of variance at this level" stuff looks like, how the heck do you know that no such evidence exists? Does the existence of alternative genetic codes count as "evidence... of variance at this level"?
Second: On the assumption that "evidence of molecular evolution" refers to something we can learn about by examining DNA sequences, it's worth noting that it's trivially easy to study the DNA sequences of living critters. It is also worth noting that it's appreciably less easy to study the DNA sequences of critters what was alive a couple billion years ago... seeing as how, you know, we don't actually have any DNA sequences from critters what was alive a couple billion years ago. But if you're willing to accept the proposition that the present-day DNA sequences of present-day critters can display indications of whatever flavors of genetic change may have occured in past generations, the lack of actual gigayears-old DNA sequences isn't all that crippling an obstacle to scientific study.

Date: 2010/02/20 00:47:59, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (someotherguy @ Feb. 19 2010,22:41)
Quote (Joy @ Feb. 19 2010,18:57)
Owwww!!!!! My EYES!!!!!!

Richardthughes, is that a picture of you? Just asking (and no, I'm not posting it yet again by quoting). Betty Bob the Redneck Transvestite is much prettier than you are. IMO, of course...

I'm pretty sure that's Sean Connery, in his early porn star phase.

Betcha that pic is from ZARDOZ. Whether or not ZARDOZ is any improvement over porn is an open question...

Date: 2010/02/28 21:17:24, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Feb. 28 2010,11:41)
"entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem"

Occam's razor isn't just a suggestion that "simpler is better" otherwise GodDidIt wins all (although Last Thursdayism could challenge it).
You sure about that? GodDidIt only wins if you assume, up front, that God is necessary. Absent that presupposition, I honestly don't see how GodDidIt can possibly beat ItJustIs.

Date: 2010/03/04 02:07:54, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 03 2010,06:57)
(P)erhaps you can tell me how it was determined that teh bacterial flagellum evolved via an accumulation of genetic accidents?
For the purpose of discussing ID, I am perfectly willing to stipulate that the theory of evolution is dead, dead, dead... that evolution has been taken out behind the barn and shot thru the head with empirical data... that evolution is an ex-theory. With this stipulation, the answer to your question is: "Actually, it never was determined that the bacterial flagellum evolved via an accumulation of genetic accidents; some folks thought so for a while, but they were wrong."
Now that your question has been answered, can you please explain how one would go about determining that the bacterial flagellum was (is?) the product of design?

Date: 2010/03/10 13:32:43, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 10 2010,12:27)
TARD!

 
Quote
chunkdz: An acronym which spells out a slur aimed at perhaps the most defenseless segment of human society; persons with mental disbilities. For you to perpetuate this slur just to score points in the culture war is just unconscionable.

You are truly a disgusting, disgusting human being.

Chunkdz pretends that the acronym is directed at those with mental disabilities.

I think he's right -- "TARD" is a slur against people with mental disabilities.
It's just not the same (set of) disabilities he's referring to...

Date: 2010/03/11 23:14:00, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 10 2010,17:30)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 10 2010,18:26)
[tangent] I went here for fodder [/tangent].

"Roughing up the suspect"! priceless.

"Cursing Richards?" What's that about?

The message board from which "cursing Richards" originated is for devotees of Brian Michael Bendis, a guy who writes comicbooks for Marvel. One of Marvel Comics' major characters is Reed Richards, aka Mister Fantastic, a gent with a 4-digit IQ and the power to expand/reshape every part of his body in any way he deems fit. Does that answer your question, RB?

Date: 2010/03/11 23:22:26, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 10 2010,13:52)
Quote (Cubist @ Mar. 10 2010,13:32)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 10 2010,12:27)
TARD!

     
Quote
chunkdz: An acronym which spells out a slur aimed at perhaps the most defenseless segment of human society; persons with mental disbilities. For you to perpetuate this slur just to score points in the culture war is just unconscionable.

You are truly a disgusting, disgusting human being.

Chunkdz pretends that the acronym is directed at those with mental disabilities.

I think he's right -- "TARD" is a slur against people with mental disabilities.
It's just not the same (set of) disabilities he's referring to...

Damn - beaten to it!

Of course, that does imply that there is mentality there to begin with, and I'm not sure that assumption is justified for all of them.

"Assumes organ not in evidence", eh?

Date: 2010/03/16 04:32:20, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (bjray @ Mar. 16 2010,01:12)
Why is there such an irrational disgust for scientific data or theories that might combat evolutionary theory?
Answer: What "scientific data or theories that might combat evolutionary theory"? As far as I know, there ain't no such animal. To be sure, there are various conjectures and assertions and suchlike which Creationists have presented as "combat(ting) evolutionary theory", but if you filter out everything which is based on misinterpretations and/or outright falsehoods, the residue simply doesn't contain anything which genuinely does "combat evolutionary theory". If you disagree with me here, I invite you to present something which you believe both (a) is not based on misinterpretations or falsehoods, and (b) genuinely "combat(s) evolutionary theory".
You apparently are under the impression that ID genuinely does "combat evolutionary theory", but as far as I can tell, ID can be accurately (albeit cruelly) summarized in seven words: Somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent did something. Do you think that terminally vague sentence can possibly pass muster as a 'theory'? I don't. If you disagree with me about the accuracy of my seven-word summary of ID, perhaps you could explain where it goes wrong? I am not optimistic that you'll be able to do so, based on the responses I got a while back when I asked this question in a different forum, but perhaps you can succeed where others have failed, eh?
     
Quote
Most mainstream scientists that I have read so far would all agree to something of this effect: Creationists are irrational and fail to objectively look at scientific evidence. Help me understand how this might be true and if evolution proponents can live up to the same scrutiny?
I need to present a little background before I get to my answer. The "foundational principles" of the Institute for Creation Research include this paragraph:
     
Quote
The Bible, consisting of the thirty-nine canonical books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven canonical books of the New Testament, is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological.

And the Statement of Faith for Answers in Genesis says, in part:
     
Quote
The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.

So Creationists believe that the Word of God is true, end of discussion. Fine -- but there are many Christians who believe that God used evolution to create Earth's various species. These guys can be called 'theistic evolutionists', and for some reason, I kinda suspect that most (if not all) of them would affirm that the Word of God is true... so what's going on here? How come one set of Word-of-God-is-true believers accepts evolution, while a different set of word-of-God-is-true believers rejects evolution? Surely the Word of God is the same for both sets of believers, isn't it? The solution to this riddle: These two sets of believers differ in how they interpret the Word of God. The evolution-rejecters interpret the Word of God in such a way that they believe evolution conflicts with the Word of God; evolution-accepters, on t'other hand, interpret the Word of God in such a way that they believe evolution is not in conflict with the Word of God.
So when Creationists make noise about how evolution contradicts God's Word, one of two things must be true: Either they're bearing false witness (because of all those other believers who do accept evolution), or else what they're really saying is that evolution contradicts the particular interpretation of God's Word which they happen to accept.
All of which is well and good... but how do you know which interpretation of God's Word is true? Me, I think that the best way to do this is to compare that interpretation to the Work of God -- to the universe which He created. For instance, 2 Chron 4:2 says "Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and five cubits the height thereof; and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about." Okay; let's see how hypothetical believer John Doe interprets that passage...

"It describes a circular pool ('round in compass') of molten metal, right? Since its shape is a circle, its diameter ('from brim to brim') is ten cubits, and its circumference ('compass it round about') is thirty cubits. The number pi is what you get when you divide the circumference of a circle by its diameter; do that with this circle, and you get (30 / 10 =) 3. Therefore, the value of pi is exactly 3 -- none of this unGodly 3.14159... nonsense need apply, thank you very much, and anybody who thinks pi is 3.14159... is just wrong, end of discussion."
Hmmm... but when I actually measure the circumference and diameter of a circle, I always get that bigger number, John.
"So what? The Word of God says that pi is exactly three! Are you telling me that the Word of God is wrong? Are you calling God Himself a liar!?"
No, John, I'm not saying anything about God. I'm saying that when you measure the diameter and circumference of a circle, and you divide the circumference by the diameter, you don't end up with a result of exactly three. You must have made a mistake somewhere.
"So you are saying that God is a liar! It's there in black and white -- pi is exactly equal to three!"

Do you think John Doe is rational, bjray? I don't. I think he's decided that his personal interpretation of the Bible takes precedence over empirical, objectively determinable fact, and I think that's crazy. I think that when it comes to the value of pi, this Doe guy is seriously irrational. Do you disagree?
Just as I think John Doe here is a bit of a nutbar when it comes to the value of pi, so do I think Creationists are seriously irrational when it comes to evolution. The problem is that you can interpret any piece of text, Biblical or not, in any bleedin' way you feel like... but science is constrained by Reality. See any problems there?
 
Quote
Why do you automatically suspect that what his students have to say might be inherently false and what you (or others) have to say is truth?
I can't speak for anybody else, but I think that any evolution-denying statement from a Creationist is false for pretty much the same reason I think the Sun will rise in the East tomorrow morning. Every time I've been awake whilst the Sun came up, the Sun has always risen in the East; every time I've investigated an evolution-denying statement from a Creationist, that evolution-denying statement has always been either (a) incoherent, (b) false on its own terms, ( c ) falsely presented as a problem for evolution when, in fact, it's nothing of the kind, or (d) some combination of (a), (b), and ( c ).
Always.

Date: 2010/03/16 04:59:26, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (bjray @ Mar. 16 2010,01:43)
Why not teach several of the various theories? (Ie: Evolution, Creationism, ID, Theistic evolution)
Creationism and ID should not be taught in science classes because neither Creationism nor ID is a scientific theory. If you disagree, please answer one or both of these questions:
What is the scientific theory of Creation, and how can we use the scientific method to test this theory?
What is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design, and how can we use the scientific method to test this theory?
Quote
Evolution shouldn't be the only de-facto theory taught. I mean, it can't even convince the full gamut of the scientific community who think that stuff up.
"the full gamut of the scientific community" includes scientists who have no expertise in the field of biology. Likewise, "the full gamut of the scientific community" includes scientists scientists who literally have a dogmatic religious commitment to the position that evolution is false. Why should the curriculum of any science class reflect the views of people who are ignorant, or dogmatically committed to one specific view, or both ignorant and dogmatically committed to one specific view?
Quote
Why try and teach it as the only truth?
I think science classes should teach science. If there only happens to be one scientific theory which covers a particular topic, well, them's the breaks; that one scientific theory is the one which should get taught. If you insist on teaching scientific alternatives to evolution, fine: We can include the "independent origins" theories of Periannan Senapathy and Christian Schwabe. Do you have any objections to teaching Senapathy and Schwabe in science classes, bjray?

Date: 2010/03/16 10:07:55, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 16 2010,08:13)
cubist:  I grade your work as a "C".  In real science / philosophy class, it would grade as an "F", but since you are in a backwater U, and lying for Jesus is what we have come to expect, you get the "C".  Enjoy.

edited

Huh? Are you sure you weren't replying to bjray here?

Date: 2010/03/16 18:47:23, Link
Author: Cubist
Since you're coming from a Creationist-heavy background, bjray, I think it would be appropriate to draw your attention to a recent example of behavior which you may have overlooked on account of unfamiliarity: Namely, someone admitting their mistake when called on it.
The specific mistake was made by J-Dog, who wrote two responses to you, bjray, that were somehow addressed to "Cubist".
When J-Dog's mistake was pointed out to him, his response to that pointing-out-of-mistake was basically, Oh, jeez... that was stupid of me, huh? My bad! He acknowledged his error -- took ownership of it, you might say.
What J-Dog did not do: He did not ignore the corrections. He did not defend his mistake. He did not attack the people who pointed out his mistake. He did not reply to their corrections with any variation of "You're not qualified to judge what I wrote". He did not employ sophistry to confuse the issue of the mistake he made.
He didn't do any of that; rather, he simply acknowledged his mistake.
bjray, it might be instructive for you to dig into some of the many criticisms Mr. Dembski's work has received, and compare Mr. Dembski's behavior in response to those criticisms with J-Dog's behavior here. If you do that, perhaps you may gain some insight as to why real scientists treat Creationists the way they do.

Date: 2010/03/18 19:35:02, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (bjray @ Mar. 16 2010,13:58)
I thought I'd make a quick post this afternoon just as a way of letting those who care to know that I have read all of the posts up until now and will work to respond in a timely fashion. However, you must realize that to my (somewhat) surprise, my inbox was filled with about 25 alerts from this forum regarding your replies. So, I have my work cut out for me.
Emphasis added, and timestamp noted without comment...

Date: 2010/03/25 02:49:06, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (cdanner @ Mar. 24 2010,16:55)
It truly is fascinating to read the majority of these posts trashing a person that many of you have never met. Is this how you discuss and display your understanding of creation and evolution?
No. This is how we mock ignorant people who pretend to knowledge that they do not possess, and present thinly-veiled religious dogma in the guise of empirical science. It's also how we mock deceitful weasels who damn well should recognize that the garbage they spew bloody well is garbage. For instance, it is utterly routine for you Creationists to claim "if evolution is true, why don't we see thus-and-so, huh? Huh?" -- and the 'thus-and-so' which is presented as supportive of evolution, is actually something which would refute evolution if it ever were actually observed.
 
Quote
Frankly, if I were one to be torn away from being a follower of Christ because of these entries, I wouldn’t have much faith in God, would I.
Perhaps not. What of it? I, for one, have never tried to dissuade any Christians from believing in God. I do urge Creationists to learn about what evolution really is, because in bloody near all cases, the 'evolution' you Creationists criticize is a weirdly distorted caricature of the genuine article... but surely that sort of thing shouldn't count as an attempt to drive you away from God, should it? Seeing as how Christ wants His followers to be truth-seekers and all, I mean.
Quote
...does trashing an honest man such as Dr. Dembski display the faith we all have in common?
Mr. Dembski is not an honest man. Rather, he is a deceitful weasel who has betrayed the trust you have placed in him. Mr. Dembski is the very model of what the Bible refers to as a "false witness", and if the Bible is right about the post mortem fate God has in store for people who break the Ninth Commandment, he is a (literally) damned liar who will spend all Eternity burning in a lake of fire. His behavior is despicable, and said behavior makes a mockery of the Faith which he pretends to, and which you may well hold.
Quote
You disparage his beliefs (and mine) simply because you disagree with Christianity in general.
Rubbish, cdanner. I couldn't care less about Mr. Dembski's beliefs; rather, it's his piss-poor 'science' and his commensurately lousy ethics which I disparage.
Quote
If... you would like to talk like an adult about issues of science, organized religion, unorganized religion, or any other aspect of life that does not require trashing someone on-line while I hide behind my avatar, let me know, and we certainly will talk.
Okay; how about we discuss Complex Specified Information (CSI for short)? I can't say I'm intimately familiar with the entire corpus of Mr. Dembski's work on CSI, but what I have seen has engendered more confusion in my mind than comprehension. Since you're one of Mr. Dembski's students, maybe you can help clear up my confusion by answering some questions.
Is CSI something which every Designed object/entity possesses, or is it something which only some Designed objects/entities possess?
Is CSI a strictly binary thing, which an object/entity either does possess or else does not possess, or is it a measurable quality of which different objects/entities can possess differing amounts?
As I understand it, the "Specified" part of CSI means that one must know the Specification of an object/entity before one can conclude that said object/entity possesses CSI. How does one determine the Specification of an object/entity when one has no knowledge whatsoever of said object's/entity's Designer?
In particular: What is the Specification of the bacterial flagellum, and how was it determined that that, rather than anything else, actually is the single Specification of the bacterial flagellum?
Given an object/entity which has more than one Specification, how do the 'extra' Specifications affect the object's/entity's CSI?
How much CSI does Beethoven's Ninth Symphony have?
Beethoven's Ninth Symphony has been performed by many orchestras. Does each such performance have the same amount of CSI? If different performances have different amounts of CSI, how do you measure the amount of CSI in each performance?

Date: 2010/03/26 00:42:51, Link
Author: Cubist
cdanner, if you look on page two of this thread, you'll see a post of mine (timestamped Mar. 16 2010,04:32) in which I had some highly relevant, substantive questions for a gent named bjray. Alas, bjray never saw fit to address those questions -- heck, he never even acknowledged I'd asked him anything! This, in spite of the fact that bjray claimed he was interested in discussing science.
Hmmm.
It's worth noting that this is a pattern of behavior which has been seen over and over and over and over and over and bleeding over again: It starts with J. Random Creationist posting a message about how he's interested in science and how awful it is that 'evolutionists' just don't want to judge Creationism on its merits and yada yada yada. This message yields several replies, some of which seriously address various aspects of Creationism; others of which blatantly sneer at J. Random Creationist and/or Creationism in general and/or both; and still others of which contain both blatant sneering and serious responses which directly address the question of Creationism's scientific validity. After these replies are posted, J. Random Creationist complains about the mockery while declining to address the serious critiques of Creationism.
See any problems there, cdanner?
Do you see how that sort of behavioral pattern might -- particularly if it's repeatedly observed! -- inspire people to look upon Creationists' you evolutionists are all big meanies an' you don't wanna discuss nothin' serious-like protestations with decidedly jaundiced eyes?
Speaking entirely for myself, cdanner, I think you're Just Another Whining Creationist. Because thus far, your behavior exactly and precisely matches the "ignore substantive responses and whine about the mockery" pattern which I've seen so goddamn many times before, from so goddamn many other Creationists before you. Your stereotype-matching behavior does not surprise me, any more than the Sun rising in the East surprises me. At this point, cdanner, I honestly believe you have no intention whatsoever of actually engaging in substantive discussion of anything that impinges upon Creationism; rather, I believe you will (if you choose to stick around, which is far from certain) continue to post whiny, oh-woe-look-at-how-poor-innocent-truthseekers-are-being-abused you evolutionists is all big meanies screeds which conspicuously fail to address any substantive points in the responses to you.
I don't like to think that of you, cdanner -- given my druthers, I'd prefer not to have that sort of opinion of anybody -- but your behavior here supports and justifies that opinion. You have complained about how mean/prejudiced/whatever those mean ol' evolutionists are, and you have conspicuously failed to participate in anything resembling a substantive discussion of scientific issue related to Creationism. So when the rubber hits the road... no, cdanner, I do not care to entertain the notion that the Sun might rise in the West -- sorry, I mean "that you might actually be the innocent truthseeker and willing participant in discussions of science that you present yourself as".
I don't expect you to care about what I think of you, cdanner. Still and all, if I actually am wrong about you, it's at least possible that you might care... and should that be the case, there's something you could do to sway my opinion. Scroll back to page 6 of this thread, cdanner, there's another post of mine (timestamped Mar. 25 2010,02:49), this one addressed to you. This post has some questions about the concept of Complex Specified Information, which I hoped you might be able to answer. Perhaps you might want to take them up at your earliest convenience?
cdanner, we shall see if you ever actually elect to answer my questions, or if you will, instead, follow in the well-trodden footsteps of bjray ancd, well, bloody near every Creationist who ever lived.

Date: 2010/03/29 20:56:03, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 29 2010,13:00)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 29 2010,12:14)
What device do we use to measure the specified information?  What units is specified information measured in?

Pick any three objects, organisms, or material structures and measure their specified information.  Please explain why you measured them that way and why the results are as they are.

measuring information/ specified complexity

And if you have something to say then post it on my blog.

This forum isn't a place for a discussion.

Hi, Joe! I read that blog-post of yours, and I have submitted a reply. Blogger thought it was too long for one reply, so I had to submit it in two parts, both of which await your approval before they can see the light of blog, I mean "day".

Date: 2010/03/30 05:27:23, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 30 2010,03:13)
 
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Mar. 30 2010,01:53)
[SNIP]

... <gasp>...  I don't drink beer (especially American beer)

[SNIP]

We don't take kindly to your type round here, stranger.

;-)

Be generous, Louis. Surely the fact that he especially doesn't drink American beer makes up for the fact that he declines to imbibe any fluid that might rightfully be named 'beer'?

Date: 2010/03/30 16:05:04, Link
Author: Cubist
JoeG approved my two-part response to his blog post on measuring information/ specified complexity. Having never before replied on an IDist-controlled forum, I wondered whether JoeG might unilaterally edit my words; I am happy to say that he did not do that. Yay JoeG!

Date: 2010/03/31 03:39:52, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (CeilingCat @ Mar. 30 2010,05:43)
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.

Some kind sock should bring David Cope's software, Experiments in Musical Intelligence, to StephenB's attention and report back to us on SB's reaction...

Date: 2010/04/01 07:22:10, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Louis @ April 01 2010,04:08)
Quote (qetzal @ Mar. 31 2010,23:51)
Well I'm not gonna look there!

NTTAWWT.

NTTAWWT?

I see you are displaying your ignorance of American pop culture, Louis. Not that there's anything wrong with that...

Date: 2010/04/17 20:25:06, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (bjray @ April 16 2010,00:57)
Quote (Cubist @ Mar. 18 2010,19:35)
Quote (bjray @ Mar. 16 2010,13:58)
I thought I'd make a quick post this afternoon just as a way of letting those who care to know that I have read all of the posts up until now and will work to respond in a timely fashion. However, you must realize that to my (somewhat) surprise, my inbox was filled with about 25 alerts from this forum regarding your replies. So, I have my work cut out for me.
Emphasis added, and timestamp noted without comment...

Hello my fellow acquaintances. My has it been a while. I could continue to give my rationale for it, but it's of no consequence.
Thanks for coming back, bjray. In truth, I didn't expect you to show up again, and I definitely didn't expect that you'd even attempt to address any of the points that had been raised in the many responses to your posts here; these expectations of mine have nothing to do with you, personally, but with my past online encounters with other Creationists. It's altogether too damned common for Creationists to come on strong with an opening salvo of unsupported anti-evolution assertions, and then, after receiving the customary volley of "oh, yeah? how 'bout you support your assertions?" and "actually, your statement that [insert Creationist statement here] is flatly wrong -- see [insert scientific paper here] for details" responses, to either ( a ) softly and suddenly vanish away, or else ( b ) continue the 'conversation' with however-many responses that never actually get around to addressing the points that the non-Creationists raised. It is not at all rare that Creationists who go the latter, evasive, route, make noise about how they "don't have time" to formulate a proper response to their critics... which tends to invoke, in me at least, the incredulous reaction, Hey, jackass, you had plenty of time to post that 2,000-word lump of Creationist propaganda in the first place, so where do you get off whining about how you're too busy now to actually, like, support your assertions with evidence and valid reasoning and like that? Apparently, Creationists expect their assertions to be accepted on first contact, and they can't quite figure out what to do when they fail to receive the instant acceptance they expect... or maybe they just figure the initial bout of testimony/preaching is sufficient for their purposes, and therefore further interaction with those godless evilutionists would serve no useful purpose. I dunno.
The point of the above BIG CHUNK OF TEXT... and it has a point... is that you are not exploring virgin territory here. Most/all of the regulars hereabouts have had extensive previous interactions with Creationists, and those previous interactions will tend to influence the way we respond to Creationists in the present. So when a Creationist replies to a bunch of "support your position"/"such-and-such proves you wrong" messages with anything in the general vicinity of "I don't have time to for a proper reply right now, but I'll get back to you as soon as I can," we look at that and think, Yeah, right. The last 57 Creationists who made noise about 'no time to reply now' just plain didn't reply, but this Creationist is gonna be different. SUUURE he is, uh-huh, you betcha, and we respond accordingly.
Quote
So where were we...I think it was something along the lines of people expressing their honest feelings about Dembski and also wanting proof for how to calculate CSI for things.
Right. If this CSI stuff really is the sure-fire Design Detector which Dembski claims it is, you should be able to use it to actually, like, detect Design. And that's why some ID critics like to ask ID-pushers how much CSI there is in known-to-be-Designed entities like bowling balls and chocolate cake and so on. If the CSI thingie is everything ID-pushers claim it is, then it should be possible to determine how much CSI a bowling ball has, and there should no more be different CSI values for any one (Designed) object than there are different mass values for any one object. If CSI lives up to ID-pushers' press releases, then it should be very possible, perhaps even easy, for ID-pushers to answer questions like "what's the CSI of this bowling ball here?" But if CSI is actually a pile of crap -- if there is, in fact, no way to determine how much CSI an object has -- then it should be impossible for ID-pushers to answer questions like "what's the CSI of this bowling ball here?"
If CSI is the genuine article, ID-pushers should have real answers to questions about the CSI of arbitrary objects, and when asked for CSI values of arbitrary objects, they should therefore have little reluctance to share that information. Is that how Dembski acts when asked how much CSI such-and-such object has?
Quote
Well, unfortunately, I can offer you no good advice on how to calculate such readings of an object using his CSI theory (if you will). Thing is, I have not in my spare time (the little there is), nor as a part of class, actually read his work on CSI.
Why not?
Seriously: Why haven't you read Dembski's work on CSI? If he's teaching ID, surely his own work on CSI would be very relevant to what you guys are supposed to be learning in class, wouldn't it? So how come Dembski hasn't assigned any CSI-related classwork? Why is he leaving it out?

later edit: After posting this, it occurred to me that since the class you're taking is "Christian Faith and Science" rather than, say, "Intelligent Design 101", it actually could make sense for Dembski to leave CSI out of the course syllabus, if he's not actually teaching about ID in the course. So... does this course cover ID, or not?
Quote
At any rate, I've been reading more material, etc. I think I have more questions now than before. But what I've read from your response are things about Dembski and things about how Behe and other ID'ers offer no "real" theories worth looking into.
This is mostly because Behe, and ID-pushers in general, don't have any real theories worth looking into. If you disagree, feel free to bring up any one of those "real theories" which you believe any ID-pusher to have, and let's see how well that 'real theory' stands up on its own.
Quote
Well, I think that ID'ers, evolutionists, old earth, young earth, all have some interesting points worth taking into consideration (some more than others, yes).
That's nice. If you ever get the urge to discuss any of those "interesting points" you think Creationists have, by all means bring up that point here and we'll see if it's got anything resembling scientific validity.
Quote
What I'm interested in is going back to Darwin and his thought of evolution. For instance, what was his purpose in thinking up his theory of evolution (and survival of the fittest)?
That's easy: He was trying to explain the diversity of Life on Earth. Creationists do tend to assume that Darwin's theory of evolution is supposed to cover all kinds of shit which have nothing to do with the diversity of life on Earth, but they're just wrong.
Quote
I think he was trying to make sense of the world (in essence a "theological" framework).
Not the whole world, but, rather, that subset of the world which has to do with the diversity of Life on Earth. Since Darwin was only trying to make sense of part of the world, are you sure "theological" is an appropriate word to apply to what he was doing?
Quote
Maybe I have not read as much as I should, but it appears that he did not have much to say about things like how the earth was created using his theory of evolution, etc.
Dude. Darwin wasn't even trying to explain how the Earth was created. His theory of evolution is all about the diversity of Life on Earth, not where the Earth came from. I have no idea where you're getting your ideas about Darwin, but if this is any indication, you really need some better sources, because the sources you got this stuff from are pretty much total garbage.
Quote
Rather, it seems to me that he was instead, trying to put the pieces of science together based on his findings of fossils, etc spread around the globe.
No shit, Sherlock. What's your point?
Quote
What I am getting at/what I am working out in my head is how can evolutionary proponents praise the man for starting something that he (Charles Darwin) never intended for his "theory" to do?
They don't. Next question?
Quote
Now, I obviously cannot tell his intentions, but it he was not even so sure about everything he said!
First: Says who, and how do they know? If you're getting this from the same sources which told you that the theory of evolution is somehow supposed to have something to do with the formation of the Earth, well, it's just one more piece of evidence that those sources are full of bullshit.
Second: It doesn't matter what Darwin's opinion of his theory may have been. What does matter is ( a ) the theory itself, and ( b ) how well said theory is supported by the empirical data. If your sources are telling you that "look! Darwin doubted himself!" is a valid reason to dismiss his theory, that's one more piece of evidence to support the proposition that your sources are full of shit.
Quote
Another thing I'm working on trying to understand from my evolutionary friends is their rationale for recent developments in molecular biology. My best friend has a Ph.D in molecular biology for Cornell U. and he too wonders similar things.

For example (and back to Behe and his irreducible complexity), we know (today) that the cell has plenty of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Such that without one of the pieces, it would fail to operate as it was designed. It's just what has been discovered, that's all.
That's IC according to Behe. Dembski came up with his own version of 'irreducible complexity' which is rather different from Behe's; you might want to ask Dembski about his version of IC. His response could be interesting.
First: "Plenty" of IC systems? Fine: Name five of those "plenty" of systems. I ask because I want to know if you're actually familiar with the specifics of this claim, or if you are, instead, just parroting a claim that someone else put in your head. Also, I'm curious to know if you're going to cite any of the anointed-as-IC-by-Behe systems which have, in fact, been demonstrated to not be IC...
Second: "Recent"? Wrong. A gent named Muller came up with the concept of irreducible complexity -- he named that concept "interlocking complexity", but under either name, it's still it stops working if any one of the parts ain't there -- back in 1918. If you're interesting in getting it 'straight from the horse's mouth', try Genetic Variablity, Twin Hybrids and Constant Hybrids, in a Case of Balanced Lethal Factors, by Hermann J Muller, in Genetics, Vol 3, No 5, Sept 1918, pp 422-499.
Third: Engineers have a term for a part of a system whose absence or breakage causes the entire system to stop working. This term is "critical failure point", and the more of them a system has, the less robust it is. We puny humans try to avoid putting critical failure points into our systems... but an IC system is one for which every part is a critical failure point! What sort of Designer would do that?
Fourth: Behe argues that IC systems cannot evolve, on the grounds that there is no possible evolutionary precursor to a system which requires all of its parts to be present and functional in order for the system itself to work. Behe's argument has a big, screaming, ugly hole in it, and that hole is his implicit assumption that every step in an evolutionary process must necessarily be 'add a new part to what was already there'. In reality, evolutionary processes can and do include two other kinds of steps, those being 'remove a part that was already in place', and 'modify a part that was already in place'. Therefore, the evolutionary precursor to an IC system can fall into one of three classes, depending on the last step of that evolutionary process:
If the last step was 'add a new part', the evolutionary precursor is the IC system, minus one part. This, of course, would necessarily have to be nonfunctional, by the definition of IC.
If the last step was 'remove an existing part', the evolutionary precursor is the IC system, plus an additional part. Is there anything in the definition of IC which requires that as IC system fail to work when a new part is added? No. Therefore, Behe's 'there cannot be any evolutionary precursor' argument crashes and burns here.
If the last step was 'modify an existing part', the evolutionary precursor is the IC system, except with one of its parts modified. Now, it must be admitted that in some cases, modifying one part of an IC system will end up breaking the system... but Behe is making a universal argument, which cannot be valid unless all physically possible modifications, to any of the IC system's parts, must necessarily break the system.
See any problems with Behe's argument?
Quote
Cubist, I think your post here is a little too reductionistic (if you will).
That's nice. It's a cop-out, but it's nice. What the hell is "reductionistic' about asking IDists to bloody well define that bleeding 'theory' they keep on claiming to bloody have?
Quote
My opinion on it is that ID'ers are not merely trying to provide answers to question like someone, somewhere, did something...
And my opinion is that ID-pushers are not trying to provide answers, period. They're not trying to provide answers to questions of how much CSI [insert Designed object here] has; they're not trying to provide answers to questions of what the hell this "theory of Intelligent Design" actually is and actually says; they're not trying to provide any answers. Feel free to bring up anything you regard as a counterexample to my assertion here.
Quote
...but are also attempting to show the stepping stones of how to get to those answers. For example: the thought that maybe intelligent design is a feasible option with supporting evidence.
Oh, please. Dude, you do not get to play the 'dem eevil Darwinismists HATE TEH IJNTELLIJINT DEEZYNE!!1!" card. It may come as a shock to you, but there are entire fields of scientific study -- archaeology and forensics are the first two which come to mind -- which are all about 'intelligent design'. The difference between 'intelligent design' as practiced by real scientists, and Intelligent Design as practiced by the likes of Dembski and Behe, is that real scientists think somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent did something is a mindlessly vague chunk of verbiage rather than a cutting-edge hypothesis. And if you think somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent did something is not an accurate summary of Intelligent Design 'theory', by all means feel free to clue us all in to how real ID 'theory' differs from my seven-word summary.
Or, you know, whine about "eeew, reductionism!" and avoid the question.
Quote
(you may say, what supporting evidence...but I would submit that they have provided it, people just don't accept it as "good" evidence, or what they think is "evidence.")
And I would submit that somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent did something is so damned vague that it isn't even possible for ID-pushers to have evidence for it.
Quote
p.s. "I think" many people miss the two words at the top left of this picture...
Yes, Darwin wrote "I think" in one of his notebooks. What's your point (if any)?

Date: 2010/04/18 07:43:20, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Louis @ April 18 2010,07:40)
 
Quote (Amadan @ April 17 2010,20:34)
In honour of the volcano that is currently keeping our feet firmly on the ground,

Mudchute.

(It was that or Burnt Oak, I guess)

Mudchute?

Pervert.

Louis

"Pervert", you say? Hm. I realize that the Underground has a number of dodgily-named stations, but... "Pervert"? Really?

Date: 2010/04/23 03:25:44, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (bjray @ April 22 2010,23:41)
You use harsh language about how ID'ers show poor evidence, ID'ers cannot stand up to real biology, ID'ers promote god-of-the-gaps arguments, ID'ers..you know what you say.
Yes, we do say those things. We say them because we believe they're true. Would you like to try to demonstrate that any of those things we say are not true... or would you rather (continue to) whine about how mean those nasty evilutionismustistas are to say those terribly, terribly hurtful things?
 
Quote
But you, yourself, said that "science is based on evidence that stands up to everything." Are you telling me that evolution has passed this test?
Yes. That's exactly what we're telling you. Would you like to learn about any of the tests which evolution has stood up to thus far?
 
Quote
I'm not telling you that God's actions in science/creation (what have you) can be fully explained. (Ie: now you accuse me of OH "god-of-the-gaps" right there...) It would seem to me that evolution does not stand to every "evidence" it provides.
What does "stand to every 'evidence'" mean? I've never encountered that phrase before, and it's not immediately obvious to me what you're tryna say... could you translate that from the original English, please?
 
Quote
Furthermore, evolution has attempted to attribute cause to creation, of which Darwin never intended to do (as noted by Sledgehammer).
Hold it. What the fuck does "attempted to attribute cause to creation" even mean? Again: Can you translate this from the original English?
 
Quote
One cannot provide evidence for some "big bang" or "primordial soup" or whatever the new story is this time around.
I begin to suspect that you have no idea whatsoever what 'scientific evidence' is. And given that you cite "big bang" and "primordial soup" as if these two very different notions were both instances of one single "new story", I also begin to suspect that you haven't fucking read any of the replies to you which pointed out that abiogenesis (see also: "primordial soup") is not the same fucking theory as the big bang -- or, if you did indeed manage to read any of those replies, you damn sure didn't understand them. Because if you did read and understand those replies, you wouldn't have repeated the same fucking "big bang = abiogenesis" mistake for which those replies corrected you in the first place!
Then again, perhaps you did read and understand the replies which corrected you. But if that's the case, your insistence on repeating your earlier error, in spite of having been corrected on it, would not reflect well upon your intellectual capacities.
 
Quote
So I submit to you that evolution also fails in many areas.

It just so happens that at present I'm in a philosophy course. I've taken the biology (albeit, my degree does not have that major listed). All I'm saying is that evolution does not do all that you say and praise it for.
Yes, that is indeed what you are saying. Since you were apparently under the impression that evolution has something to do with how the Earth originally formed... who fucking cares what you have to say about evolution? Yes, you have a right to your own opinion. But being taken seriously by other people... now, that is not a right. Rather, being taken seriously by other people is a privilege which must be earned, and the way one earns that priviligege is by demonstrating that one knows what the fuck one is talking about. Which you don't, at present.
 
Quote
A few that I always pondered were: the "gene for everything" idea, explanation of morality...
What's wrong with the existing evolutionary explanations for morality?
Do you even know what the existing evolutionary explanations for morality are? Or are you (still) working with bullshit distortions rather than the actual science?
Quote
...explanation for self-preservation...
What's wrong with the existing evolutionary explanations for self-preservation?
Do you even know what the existing evolutionary explanations for self-preservation are? Or are you (still) working with bullshit distortions rather than the actual science?
Quote
...failure to explain gene similarities among humans...
Hold it. Given that all humans share common ancestors, what the heck needs to be explained about "gene similarities among humans"? Is there something wrong with the explanation that similar genes were inherited from commmon ancestors?
Quote
...failure to explain how pure randomness can account for "social insects" ie: ants, bees.
Guess what? Evolution does not say that "pure randomness" accounts for social insects. In fact, evolution doesn't say that "pure randomness" can, or does, account for anything whatsoever. Those sources you're depending on for your knowledge of evolution... well, they fucking suck. In fact, those sources suck great green rocks with a Dixie straw. Hint: Any putative "theory of evolution" which leaves out selection is a bogus caricature of the genuine article. And once you throw selection into the mix, well, whatever "randomness" may be involved becomes, at the very least, decidedly impure, ennit?
Quote
My measly list could go on.
I'm sure it could. And if the rest of this list is anything like the items you cited here, said list is strongly persuasive, if not downright conclusive, evidence that you have no fucking clue whatsoever when it comes to evolution.
Quote
So I'll end this post with a question based on some of the further posts I've read. Is it simply that because Creationists attribute what might be a scientifically explainable event to an Intelligent Designer the primary issue?
Oh, please. Dude, you do not get to play the 'dem eevil Darwinismists HATE TEH IJNTELLIJINT DEEZYNE!!1!" card. It may come as a shock to you, but there are entire fields of scientific study -- archaeology and forensics are the first two which come to mind -- which are all about 'intelligent design'. The difference between 'intelligent design' as practiced by real scientists, and Intelligent Design as practiced by the likes of Dembski and Behe, is that real scientists think somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent did something is a mindlessly vague chunk of verbiage rather than a cutting-edge hypothesis. And if you think somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent did something is not an accurate summary of Intelligent Design 'theory', by all means feel free to clue us all in to how real ID 'theory' differs from my seven-word summary.
 
Quote
Or, is it because Creationists do not use evolution to help explain their work?
No. It's because Creationists don't fucking explain anything -- and then they piss and moan about how real scientists laugh at Creationists' and-then-a-miracle-occured not-an-explanation verbiage.
 
Quote
Or, is it that Creationists use a "get out of jail free" by attributing God to various things that science can explain? I desire to know what the underlying issue is.
I'm not sure there is any 1 (one) single underlying issue behind real scientists' rejection of Creationism; rather, I believe there are lots of underlying issues, not all of which are equally important to all real scientists.
For some scientists, it could be Creationists' insistence on miseducating innocent children with lies and pre-refuted old garbage.
For some scientists, it could be Creationists' flagrant ignorance of the scientific literature -- as in Behe's resurrection of Muller's "interlocking complexity" under the new name "irreducible complexity", without any discernable indication that Behe was aware of Muller's earlier work.
For some scientists, it could be Creationists' habit of leaping to conclusions which simply are not supported by whichever data the Creationists were allegedly basing their conclusions on -- as in Behe's argument that a limited subset of Darwinian processes cannot produce an IC system, therefore no evolutionary processes whatsoever can produce an IC system, therefore any IC system must necessarily have been produced by an Intelligent Designer.
For some scientists, it could be Creationists' habit of twisting scientists' words so that the (mis-)quoted scientists appear to be saying that evolution is Teh Suxxors, when, in reality, the (mis-)quoted scientists were not saying anything of the kind.
For some scientists, it could be Creationists' incessant drumbeat of slanderous lies about evolution is evil, the Nazis were evolutionists, evolution is evil, Darwin was a racist, evolution = eugenics, yada yada yada.
For some scientists, it could be Creationists' habit of using literary criticism in place of scientific argument.
For some scientists, it could be the massive, unrelenting, top-to-bottom dishonesty of the entire Creationist enterprise.
For some scientists, it could be the fact that Creationists' deceitful behavior is a massive stumbling block which prevents honest unbelievers from accepting Christ.
For some scientists, it could be Creationists' reflexive habit of re-using old, refuted arguments as if those arguments had never been refuted in the first place.
 
Quote
Btw, I will comment that I did read that the Dover case "proved" along with some other work that IC has already been proved that it COULD happen through natural causes. (ok, interesting stuff, I'll look more into that. Thanks.) This is not something earth-shattering to me. Matter a fact, I already knew that evolutionary proponents had written material attempting to explain their side. It's interesting stuff.

oldmanintheskydidntdoit - the facts do matter. :)

Ah, so many more to comment on. I'll do another tomorrow.

Oh, but one more - Albatrosity (nice name btw). Ok, I hear everyone. Don't get hung up on Darwin. His intentions are of no consequence. And I agree with your third point. Science is an ever-changing field of study. I'd like to point out though that the only thing I know of that is immutable is God. I don't think my science is or what have you. (if that's what you were trying to point out..)
No; I think he was trying to point out that science and religion are very different games, and if you approach science as if it was just another religion, you will crash and burn. Like, just for grins, if you think "well, Christianity stands or falls on its personal source, Jesus Christ. therefore, evolution must necessarily also stand or fall on its personal source, Charles Darwin."
 
Quote
Lastly, my whole point of bringing up Darwin's intentions were simply my attempt to understand the basis for his life's work.
That's fine, but again: The scientific validity (or lack thereof) of Darwin's work has nothing whatsoever to do with Darwin's intentions, and everything to do with, like, the work itself.

Date: 2010/04/24 06:30:37, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 23 2010,09:09)
Let's play a little game... Let's put up some words and then everyone defines them in their own words without any reference materials.
Sounds good to me!
Quote
1) Evidence
In the context of science, 'evidence' is objective information which in relevant to determining the scientific validity of a theory. If the information agrees with the theory it's evidence for, that information can be considered 'positive evidence'; if the information disagrees with the theory it's evidence for, it can be considered 'negative evidence'.
Quote
2) Evolution
Generally speaking, the word 'evolution' simply means 'change'. But in the restricted context of biological science, 'evolution' can be either the observed phenomenon of change in living creatures over a period of however-many generations, or the scientific theory originally proposed by Charles Darwin, and modified by successive generations of biologists, which is the scientific explanation of the observed fact of evolution.
Quote
3) Fact
Philosophically, a 'fact' is a piece of information which is absolutely congruent with the appropriate piece of Reality. In the context of scientific investigation of the Real World, it is never 100% clear to what degree a given piece of information really is absolutely congruent with Reality, so as far as science is concerned, a 'fact' is a piece of information that has been confirmed by empirical evidence to such a degree that it would be perverse not to agree, at least provisionally, that said piece of information is true.
Quote
4) Intelligent Design
'Intelligent Design' with capital letters refers to the crypto-Creationist political movement whose single most prominent and best-funded source of support is on record as explicitly seeking to "defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies" and "replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God". 'intelligent design' without capital letters, refers to the unexceptional notion of designs which were produced by intelligent minds.
Quote
5) Irreducible Complexity
In the context of the Intelligent Design movement, 'irreducible complexity' pretty much always refers to the concept of a system in which every last one of the system's component parts is a critical failure point, hence the system stops function if any of its component parts is missing or broken or whatever. That said, it is worth noting that Dr. Dr. Dembski created another, far less prominent, concept of 'irreducible complexity'; according to the good Doctor Doctor's version of IC, a system possesses the quality of IC if and only if said system is the absolutely simplest system which is physically capable of performing the system's function.
According to Behean IC, a three-legged stool is IC. If you take away the stool's seat, the three legs collapse to the floor and cannot be sat upon; if you take away any one of the stool's three legs, it falls over and cannot be sat upon. But according to Dembskian IC, a three-legged stool is not IC. A three-legged stool has four component parts (the three legs and the seat) -- but you can just as easily sit on a one-piece block of wood of appropriate size and shape, and a one-component 'system' is clearly simpler than a four-component system.
Quote
6) Theory
In general colloquial usage, a 'theory' is basically a wild-ass guess. In the context of science, however, a 'theory' is a well-supported explanation for a given phenomenon. A scientific theory tells you two things about the phenomenon it's an explanation for: First, it tells you why that phenonenon is the way it is. Second, it tells you why that phenomenon is not some other way entirely. Real scientists value a theory in direct proportion to how well that theory performs both halves of its job description. In the context of science, saying that "evolution is just a theory" is right up there with saying that "Bill Gates is just a multibillionaire".

Date: 2010/04/25 00:43:19, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (bjray @ April 24 2010,13:44)
All right, for starters. I cannot for the sake of my own time respond to everyone one of your questions or comments. I would also like to point out, Cubists and others, that I have at no time in my posts admitted or actually “whined” or accused evolutionists about being nasty:
Bullshit. You damn well have accused evolutionists of being nasty, and you did so in your very first post to this thread. In that post, you asserted that scientists are a dogmatic, close-minded lot (your precise phrasing: "the 'scientific' community at large are not so receptive to alternate theories to evolution" and a question which presumes the existence of "an irrational disgust for scientific data or theories that might combat evolutionary theory"), and you made noise about "conniving remarks" and "babblings").
Quote
Quote
whine about how mean those nasty evilutionismustistas are to say those terribly, terribly hurtful things?
I have pointed out the use of “harsh” language, but a far cry from whining. One of my goals is to not be like the other Creationists you have come in contact with here on this forum, like, not being one of those who whines or moans about whatever responses are given.
Oh, re-ee-ally. Then why the hell did you even bother to mention the "irrational disgust" and "conniving remarks" and all the rest of that crap? If all you were after is intellectual discussion of relevant issues, why the hell did you drag that other stuff in by the heels?
Look, bjray: If ID is being unjustly dismissed by real scientists, that's one thing. But you cannot assume, just from the mere fact that ID is dismissed by real scientists, that that dismissal is not just. In fact, one could argue that the just dismissal of ideas is very much what science is all about... but for some strange reason or other, you ID-pushers never do manage to address the question of what does or does not constitute a just idea-dismissal; rather, the concept that some ideas damn well should be dismissed is conspicuously absent from all the noise you lot make about "academic freedom" and "teach the controversy" and yada yada yada. There's an Abbott and Costello routine which is very apposite here:
Costello: They said Newton was crazy! They said Einstein was crazy! They said Luigi was crazy!
Abbott: Hold it, who's Luigi?
Costello: Oh, Luigi's my uncle. He is crazy.
So yeah, real scientists say ID is crazy. So fucking what? Real scientists also say that phlogiston is crazy. If you want anybody to give a shit about how real scientists say ID is crazy, you really need to demonstrate that ID is not in the same, justly dismissed, class as phlogiston -- and the operative verb is demonstrate, not baldly assert.
In other words, you need to establish that ID is crazy like Einstein, not crazy like Luigi. And if all you do is yammer about how real scientists say ID is crazy, without demonstrating that ID is crazy like Einstein... well, the more you ID-pushers make noise about "those Darwinists is me-ee-ean to us!" without even a token pretense at showing that the 'mean' behavior is not fully justified, the more an impartial observer is going to get the idea that that 'mean' behavior is, in fact, fully justified. Because if you ID-pushers actually could do more than piss and moan about "the Darwinoids was me-ee-ean to us!1!", you lot bloody well would have done more than piss and moan.
Quote
You mentioned that “you say these things” because you “believe they’re true.”
Yep. Would you like to try to demonstrate that any of those things we say are not true... or would you rather (continue to) whine about how mean those nasty evilutionismustistas are to say those terribly, terribly hurtful things?
Grow a pair, bjray. Demonstrate that ID is crazy like Einstein and not crazy like Luigi.
Quote
Well, if I believed that the sky was really red, it doesn’t mean it is true.
That's nice. It's not even a sham pretense at an attempt to demonstrate that any of those nasty things we say about ID are untrue, but it's nice. You ever going to get around to demonstrating that ID is crazy like Einstein rather than crazy like Luigi, or are you just going to continue whining about how those nasty intolerant scientists say that ID is crazy?
Quote
Anyhow..

I am informed about the difference between evolution, abiogenesis and big bang. While maybe all can be considered different “scientific enterprises”, they all have at least one thing in common: Evolutionary theory sprinkled about them.
Bullshit. What the hell does it even mean to say that evolutionary theory is "sprinkled about" abiogenesis and then big bang? You want to try translating that freom the original English, bjray?
Quote
Furthermore, the notion that the big bang best fits current scientific evidence does not necessitate it being factual. (Here is another goal of mine; namely, to put back on your table the possibility of creation by a designer.
An admirable goal, that. And the moment you, or any other IDist in general, manages to come up with a testable Designer-concept -- you know, like how the real sciences of archæology and forensics revolve around testable Designer-concepts -- I'm sure that real scientists will give that testable Designer-concept of yours all the consideration that is its due.
Quote
You’re right, mentioning creation does imply a designer. That’s my point. I believe this world did not just materialize on its own, but was in fact created. This fits the best evidence I have. (Go ahead, get caught up on “what evidence”.) I’m trying not to explain the nth degree of everything, because (as I have said before) I cannot. Thus, I won’t try to explain nth degree details.
Hell, you won't even try to explain zeroeth-degree details, let alone first-degree details!
 
Quote
Some explanation yes, but nitty gritty is not in my ability (or any one for that matter). Evolutionary explanations for such things: ie: big bang, commit a logical fallacy.
Hold it. What "evolutionary explanations for... big bang"? Jesus Haploid Christ on a titanium sidecar, you're still conflating "evolution" with "big bang"? After all the times you've been corrected on this point? Fuck off and die in a fire, you unmitigated waste of oxygenated protoplasm!
 
Quote
Cubists, thank you for the lesson in gaining other people’s respect. I understand. Have you heard of agreeing to disagree or the likes of varying approaches to things?
Blow me, bjray. I don't give a flying fuck about your mask of Potemkin politeness, because your behavior has repeatedly given the lie to that shiny happy façade. If given the choice between a rude person who is honest, and an ostensibly polite person who can't be trusted half as far as I can throw them, I'll go for the honest guy every time.
Oh, and one thing: "Cubist" has one 's' in it, not two. An isolated typing error is one thing, but seeing as how you committed this particular error no less than 3 (three) times in this post, I can't help but feel there just might be a tiny bit more to it than an overlookable typing error.
Quote
The explanation of morality (previously mentioned by me as self-preservation, albeit the latter is probably considered a subset of the former) by evolution is incomplete, that’s why I have a problem with it.
Fascinating. If you genuinely do consider it's incomplete to be a serious problem with evolutionary explanations for morality, may I ask what you deem 'incomplete' about said explanations? What, in your view, are the 'missing pieces'? And given the fact that every scientific theory is incomplete to some degree, I would be interested to know what other scientific theories, besides evolution, you doubt on the grounds of their "incomplete"ness. I am confident that a fine, honest, Truthseeking Christian like yourself actually does doubt at least one or two other scientific theories on the grounds of their "incomplete"ness, as opposed to... say... this "it's incomplete!" schtick being a convenient, sciencey-sounding excuse for you to dump on evolution and evolution alone. Because you are an honest, Truthseeking Christian, and not a Ninth-Commandment-breaking follower of the Father of Lies. Right, bjray?
 
Quote
...the “gene of self-sacrifice” is carried on due to the fittest taking care of the weaker among kin or tribe.
Hold it. What makes you think there even is a 'gene of self-sacrifice'? Just how much hardwired-in-the-genes instinctual behavior do you think us humans have?
 
Quote
Cubists, your digression on why “real” scientists reject Creationism is troubling at best.
Hold it. 'Digression'? Di-fucking-gression!? Listen, schmuck, you asked the question ("Is it simply that because Creationists attribute what might be a scientifically explainable event to an Intelligent Designer the primary issue? Or, is it because Creationists do not use evolution to help explain their work? Or, is it that Creationists use a 'get out of jail free. by attributing God to various things that science can explain?"). And you claimed that you "desire to know what the underlying issue is".
You.
Asked.
The.
Fucking.
Question.

And I answered your fucking question. So you can take your 'digression' bullshit, fold it into a sharp-cornered package, and shove it sideways where the Sun don't shine.
Now. Would you care to address the substance of my answer to your question?
 
Quote
Again, you continue to assert that that evolutionary thinking is the end all, explain all.
Bullshit I do. Yes, I think that evolutionary theory is the best explanation we've got at the moment, but best we've got at the moment is not synonymous with absolute best ever of all time, worlds without end, Amen. Do I think it's possible that some other theory could come along to replace evolution? Believe it or don't, I absolutely do think that's possible! And I think this new theory (whatever it ends up being) could come along at any time, even. But whatever that replacement theory may be, it will have to explain the same things evolution does. More: Whatever this replacement theory may be, it will have to explain the same things evolution does, better than evolution does. And ID can't even pass the hurdle of "it explains stuff", let alone "it explains stuff better than evolution". The problem for ID is that somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent did something is not a fucking explanation for ANYfuckingTHING. And if you think somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent did something is not an accurate presentation of ID, I invite you now... as I have already done in an earlier post... to fucking well demonstrate that somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent did something is not an accurate presentation of ID. By, you know, explaining what the fuck the scientific theory of Intelligent Design actually fucking is.
What's it gonna be, bjray? Are you going to demonstrate that ID is, in fact, not the bogus snake-oil its detractors have proved it to be? Or will you, instead, just keep on making noise in which "ID is not bogus snake-oil, honest it's not!" is an implicit, unstated assumption?
Quote
I am open to understanding evolutionary process and thinking.
Judging from what I've read in your posts so far, I very much doubt that you genuinely are "open to understanding evolutionary process and thinking". It is of course entirely within your power to behave in such a way as to confound my deplorable expectations of you, but given your existing track record...

Date: 2010/04/25 01:05:33, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (bjray @ April 24 2010,14:44)
       
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 24 2010,06:25)
bjray,
Name a single thing that ID or creationism has got right and "Evolution" has got wrong.

And show your working.


Your question is set for a fall. In that I mean, you are asking a small question that is unable (to my knowledge) be directly proven. It’s not in my interest to name a single thing of the first two because your premise is that they're unscientific. But I'll submit to you that they got right the fact there is a Creator of this world.

I can show how evolution has gotten at least two things wrong. 1) Name for me anything that you (or anyone) has ever seen actually evolve from one species to another?
Yes, they have. If you disagree, well, you know all those references you've been given to observed instances of speciation? You're going to have to demonstrate that every fucking last one of those references is bullshit. Because if even one of them is genuine, then yes, we damn fucking well have actually seen something evolve from one critter to another.
     
Quote
2) Carbon dating.
Oh, for Christ's sake...
Radiometric.
Dating.
Is.
Fucking.
Physics.
Not.
Fucking.
Evolution.

Implicit "ALL science is evolution" presumption noted and sneered at for its aggressive ignorance...
     
Quote
Accurate only to a few thousand years, as scientists have calculated. So, when said dinosaur bones were carbon dated and not linked to the millions of years evolutionists preconceived, eh, throw out the carbon dating; doesn't fit our theory.
I call bullshit. When did this happen? Who did the radiocarbon dating? What did these people do to prevent their samples from being contaminated by modern carbon?
In short: Pics or it didn't happen, fucknose.
   
Quote
So, we're caught in this inability to directly prove either. But evolution can be disproved. Creationism then is only "disproved" because it doesn't fit into the mold of evolution and materialism.
Bullshit. If you're right about how people only accept evolution on account of materialistic preconceptions, how do you account for people like Bob Bakker (Pentecostal preacher who is a world-famous paleontologist in his day job) and Francis Collins (former head of the Human Genome Project, who has written a book or two about how 'God did it, and evolution is how He did it")? I look forward to your ignoring this question, bjray...
Semi-explicit "it's the presuppositions, stoopid!" presumption noted and demolished...

Date: 2010/04/27 01:30:55, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (bjray @ April 26 2010,00:12)
Is it not apparent to some of you that what you accuse me of doing you also have done exactly the same thing?
No, it is not. This is largely because we are not, in fact, "do(ing) exactly the same thing" as you. The main difference between our behavior and yours is that when we assert something to be true, we do so on evidence-based grounds -- but when you assert something to be true, you do so on the grounds that you feverishly, desperately want and need it to be true. If you disagree with my last sentence, I invite you to discuss it with me.
 
Quote
ie: You could replace me with any other creationists and still get the same conversation. There are many on your side of the argument and you all say similar things too.
Well, yes. All of you Creationists do make pretty much the same identical suite of errors; this being the case, it is only logical that there might be a certain degree of similarity in all the corrections to that identical suite of errors.
 
Quote
To summarize many of your posts: I'm ignorant.
It's like this, bjray: You are ignorant. And you have been pretty consistent about displaying your ignorance in the messages you've posted here. This being the case, it is hardly surprising that some of the responses to your messages would make note of your ignorance.
Do you have some sort of problem with ignorant people being accurately described as ignorant, bjray? If so, I would recommend that you stop posting messages which put your ignorance on public display. I would further recommend that you remedy your ignorance by learning about the topics of which you are currently ignorant -- and evolution is certainly one of those topics -- but if you choose to cleave unto your ignorance, much as a dog returns to its vomit... well, that is entirely your choice, bjray.
 
Quote
I need to read further before I make some outlandish claim.
Yes, you should read further before you make outlandish claims. Do you have some sort of a problem with the notion that people really ought to know what the fuck they're talking about?
 
Quote
I misconstrue facts or arguments.
Well, you do misconstrue facts and arguments, bjray. Do you have some sort of a problem with people calling out intellectual errors of that sort?
 
Quote
I'm a typical creationists.
Yes. You are a typical Creationist. Do you have some sort of a problem with being accurately described as what you are?
 
Quote
I whine (which I never did, but nobody owned up to the fact that that was a false claim).
Bullshit, bjray. Bull-fucking-shit. This post of yours to which I am replying is, itself, a grade A, USDA Choice, primo grande example of Typical Creationist Whining. I mean, Christ's abscessed wisdom teeth, bjray: Exactly why the fuck did you bother with all that you guys call me ignorant and say I'm a Creationist and yada yada verbiage, if not in an attempt to gather sympathy from readers by citing examples of unpleasantries directed at you without also citing the reasons why those unpleasantries were directed at you, hm?
Do you have some sort of a problem with your behavior being accurately characterized as what it is?

Date: 2010/04/27 22:21:25, Link
Author: Cubist
I am definitely not expecting bjray to show up again. But he's managed to surprise me on this score once, so perhaps he might do so again. So just in case you are hanging around here, bjray, I would recommend that you make up your mind what you're really trying to do here.

If you're trying to drum up sympathy for ID: In this case, you would be well advised to never bother with us again. Because the regulars here have already examined the claims and substance of ID, and having weighed ID, found it deplorably wanting. So any time someone makes noise about how real scientists ignore ID, our reaction (which may or may not be publicly expressed) is going to be something in the neighborhood of Yep, real scientists sure do ignore ID. Sucks to be an ID-pusher. And making noise about how real scientists are mean to ID-pushers isn't going to engender a whole lot of sympathy towards ID or change our minds, either, because we've seen how you ID-pushers operate. We've seen how ID-pushers say that ID is genuine science, no religion need apply, no sir -- and then, in the very next breath, they say that the Intelligent Designer is the God of Abraham. We've seen ID-pushers complain about how people who refuse to give a platform to the scientific theory of ID (and ID is a scientific theory, just ask any ID-pusher!) are guilty of religious discrimination. We've seen how the people who made the pro-ID propaganda film EXPELLED: NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED fucking lied to the real scientists they got on film; and they fucking lied about having lied to the victims of their deceit; and they fucking lied about the ID poster children who they falsely presented as innocent victims of a dogmatically intolerant Darwinist mafia/establishment; and when one of the scientists who appeared in EXPELLED was, himself, expelled from a screening of the film, we saw how the filmmakers fucking lied about that, too. We've seen how ID-pushers complain about both how the scientific theory of ID is never given a fair hearing by real scientists, and how cruelly unfair it is for real scientists to ask them what the fuck this 'scientific theory of ID', that real scientists are supposed to give a fair hearing to, even is. We've seen how ID-pushers insist that science itself must be fucking redefined to accomodate ID.
As I noted before, this is not virgin territory. There is an awful bleeding lot of history here, and this history does not reflect well on ID. If it was just a matter of ID being a failed scientific theory, that would be one thing; in science, it's okay to be mistaken. But given the sheer quantity of misrepresentations, evasions, and outright lies which ID-pushers have disgorged and continue to disgorge... well... begging for sympathy for ID is a tactic which can only work when you're talking to people who are ignorant of ID's voluminously ignominious track record.
And we are not ignorant of ID's voluminously ignominious track record.

If you're trying to persuade us that ID is a genuine scientific theory, and that it's better than evolution: In this case, you're gonna need to tool up for a whole different game than you've been playing thus far.
You're going to have to answer questions about ID.
Not evade those questions with non-responsive verbiage, but answer them. And you're going to have to answer those questions honestly.
And when an argument or assertion of yours is refuted, you should not repeat that refuted argument or assertion. You say that the refutation of your argument was invalid, hence your argument wasn't really refuted at all? Okay, fine: Demonstrate that the refutation was invalid. Don't just whine about how [insert name of person] got it wrong, show us exactly how and where [insert name of person] got it wrong. Because if all you have to say is just the bare assertion that "He got it wrong", without any specific details of how he got it wrong, I can guarantee you that nobody here is going to give a tenth of a tinker's damn about your unsupported assertion.
And don't bring up irrelevant information, either. If you're trying to establish that ID is correct, what you need to do is bring up information that is actually relevant to the question of ID's correctness.
If you don't know the answer to a question, admit it. A good, honest "Um, I don't know..." will get you infinitely more respect in these parts than any amount of obfuscatory verbiage that's designed to conceal the absence of an answer.

As best I can tell from your posts here, bjray, you approach the ID/evolution debate from a basically religious perspective -- but that ain't gonna fly in this context. In scientific debates, it all boils down to the empirical, objective data; if that empirical, objective data fits your theory better than it fits the other guy's theory, your theory wins. But in religious debates, there is no empirical, objective data! Rather, religious debates are all about personal revelation. In a debate where objective data isn't available, it makes perfect sense to look at the beliefs and preconceptions and yada yada of the particular human beings involved... but in a scientific debate, objective data is available, so it's kind of beside the point to appeal to specific aspects/qualities of the particular human beings involved. In a religious debate, it makes sense to point out that one's opponents do not behave in a manner consistent with their morality, because morality comes from God and yada yada yada; in a scientific debate, as long as John Doe's got the objective, empirical data backing him up, Doe's personal behavior doesn't fucking matter.
So as I said, religious debates are very different from scientific debates. And if you happen to be in a scientific debate, the use of tools and techniques peculiar to religious debate is not likely to yield any results you might enjoy.

Date: 2010/04/28 17:03:59, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (nmgirl @ April 28 2010,15:23)
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 28 2010,05:39)
vjtorley has a 3,771 word opening post on [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/what-a-living-thing-is-what-an-artifact-is-and-why-the-first-living-thing-would-have-been-



one-part-one-of-a-response-to-the-smithy/]What a living thing is, what an artifact is, and why the first living thing would have been one. [/URL]

The last sentence: "Part Two of my reply will be posted later today."

would have been one what ?

The syntax is a bit odd, but I'm pretty sure that the answer to "one what?" is "an artifact, you Godless ID-denying heaven monster!!1!"

Date: 2010/05/01 06:12:47, Link
Author: Cubist
In another forum, I proposed a few simple challenges for Creationists (in which category IDists fall). Very few Creationists ever even replied to any of these challenges, and no Creationist ever succeeded in meeting any of these challenges. Since that old forum has become a spammer-infested wasteland, I figured it might be appropriate to bring these challenges over to a rather more active forum...

Challenge the first: What is Creationism?
Creationists like to assert that Creationism really and truly is a realio, trulio scientific theory, honest to Murgatroyd it is. But if this assertion is correct, then it should be possible to define the scientific theory of Creationism. Right? Right! So...
What is the scientific theory of Creationism, and how can we use the scientific method to test this theory?

Challenge the second: What is ID?
As with Creationism, so, too, with Creationism's wholly-owned subsidiary, ID. If ID really is a genuine scientific theory, yada yada yada. So...
What is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design, and how can we use the scientific method to test this theory?

Challenge the third: Which has more information?
Creationists like to assert that random mutations cannot create genetic information. Perhaps they're right... but how do they know? It seems to me that if you have no way of measuring this 'genetic information' stuff, you have no grounds for declaring that mutations cannot create it. With that in mind, here are the two nucleotide sequences this challenge centers around:
Code Sample
Sequence 1: cag tgt ctt ggg ttc tcg cct gac tac gag acg cgt ttg tct tta cag gtc ctc ggc cag cac ctt aga caa gca ccc ggg acg cac ctt tca gtg ggc act cat aat ggc gga gta cca agg agg cac ggt cca ttg ttt tcg ggc cgg cat tgc tca tct ctt gag att tcc ata ctt

Sequence 2: tgg agt tct aag aca gta caa ctc tgc gac cgt gct ggg gta gcc act tct ggc cta atc tac gtt aca gaa aat ttg agg ttg cgc ggt gtc ctc gtt agg cac aca cgg gtg gaa tgg ggg tct ctt acc aaa ggg ctg ccg tat cag gta cga cgt agg tat tgc cgt gat aga ctg
Which of these two nucleotide sequences contains more 'genetic information', and how did you determine your answer?

Challenge the fourth: Which one is Designed?
ID-pushers assert that ID provides a methodology by which one can determine whether or not some arbitrary whatever-it-is is the product of Design. Written sentences in English are Designed by whatever Intelligence wrote them; therefore, it follows that ID should be able to distinguish English sentences from random characters. If one translates an English sentence into a different language, that sentence is still Designed by the Intelligence who wrote it; therefore, the Designed nature of a written sentence is not destroyed by expressing that sentence with a different sequence of symbols. And if the Designed nature of a written sentence is not destroyed by expressing that sentence with a different sequence of symbols, it follows that the Designed nature of the sentence is not destroyed by using an encryption algorithm to convert that sentence into a sequence of seemingly random characters.
With all that in mind, here are two character strings, one of which is an encrypted message, and the other of which is an arbitrary string of random characters:
Code Sample
Character string one:
={¡†¿ ¬&={‹ +ZrKU hg"Ix œgFZ" uaM?j œ?Uhg
>”H¿œ jCZrK ,MjRœ Lu"gF ZœKZ¢ g[)Zh Z"KXM
gcR"K XMgaX -KcZY [†lœX œ??U? ?waR, XmŒwM
Zvœ>Z ngo”_ v”U’T XV Xv Zuyw… y ,.! ¡‡!…&

Character string two:
jk?2J ^'VE¡ ?hS-c Z†“(# ]'6"8 0‹cWd Yfv”
BlGæB “a”?" B2#“_ 9‹g¡y £B…?J @Se&y ¬œ4Sp
…'T4? #ƒq”- 6[¢Of 1#3?} œ-§”÷ UTe…T Fdg›“
O÷iŒ. H¬^¿- ¢?Jv= ±1Q^o ‘O];v :?QE( 5qŒ3L
Your challenge, if you choose to accept it, is to use ID to determine which of these two strings is the encrypted message, and which is the random jumble. And show your work, please, so's we can tell that it was more than just dumb 50% luck.

1 May 2010 edit: Added the 'show your work' sentence to challenge #4 because, let's face it, OgreMkV was right to make note of that foolish omission

Date: 2010/05/02 20:37:55, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Peter Henderson @ May 02 2010,15:10)
Cubist:

I'll post this on Premier Christian Radio's discussion forum:

http://premiercommunity.ning.com/forum

The place is awash with YECs, many of whome seem to know a lot about information theory despite having absolutely no science qualifications whatsoever
Go for it.
Quote
I do hope you'll provide me with an answers to the code challenges though (as I haven't a clue).Send me a private message if you like.
Thanks, but I think not. I don't trust Creationists or ID-pushers even a tenth as far as I can throw them, so I want to be absolutely, 1000% certain that Eating Their Own Dog Food -- I mean, "employing the methodologies they loudly claim to have" -- is the only physically possible means for them to discover the answer. Am I insinuating that Creationists/ID-pushers might actually cheat, acquiring the answers illicitly by hacking into your email or whatever? Well... yes, I am. And if Creationism/ID really is what Creationists/ID-pushers assert it to be, it doesn't matter whether or not I send you the answers, right?

Date: 2010/05/04 02:58:19, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Robert Byers @ May 04 2010,02:40)
Creationism is simply different species of thinkers about origins of the universe and things in it.

The modern world is the result of the intellectual conclusions of Protestant and Roman catholic Christian foundations.
One section of this is the acceptance of Genesis as a witness to origins of the important things.
In the Anglo-American civilization was the greatest persuasion of the bible as the word of God.
so today in North America is the greatest opposition to opposition to genesis.
Here we are.
The bible comes first. Then smaller numbers apply their intelligence to these issues and have successfully and quickly taught the whole world there is a legitimate challenge to evolution and company.

Then I.D came into existance from different people.
Simply intelligent thinkers found evolution was agrresive against the idea of a creator which to them was cracy. s they applied themselves to it and with degrees on the wall and successful books, movies, and so have become famous and he talk of the town.
I.D fits into the great majorities belief in God without belief in genesis.
Stupid overreaction by evolutionists has fanned the flames and not quenched them . The usual thing in dying ideas or empires.
That's nice. Would you care to address any of the four challenges given in the post you're replying to?

Date: 2010/05/04 11:42:14, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Venus Mousetrap @ May 04 2010,10:06)
Challenge 4 is easy. Using a Dembski integral, one can derive a surjective submorphism from string one to string two. If we incorporate that into a Mullings Matrix M, where

M = cT,

c of course being the Cordova metric, we can then invert M and Behe-filter it about l (l being the Leary Curve, which you should have obtained from the integral). This should leave you with a vector V, in which

V(1) = the identifier of the designed string
V(2) = the CSI in string 1
V(3) = the CSI in string 2.

Well, then: With such a... rigorous... procedure to employ, it should be child's play to identify which of the two character strings is Designed. So would you care to do that thing?

Date: 2010/05/04 11:45:42, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Mindrover @ May 04 2010,11:11)
 
Quote (Cubist @ May 01 2010,06:12)
Code Sample
Character string one:
={¡†¿ ¬&={‹ +ZrKU hg"Ix œgFZ" uaM?j œ?Uhg
>”H¿œ jCZrK ,MjRœ Lu"gF ZœKZ¢ g[)Zh Z"KXM
gcR"K XMgaX -KcZY [†lœX œ??U? ?waR, XmŒwM
Zvœ>Z ngo”_ v”U’T XV Xv Zuyw… y ,.! ¡‡!…&

Character string two:
jk?2J ^'VE¡ ?hS-c Z†“(# ]'6"8 0‹cWd Yfv”
BlGæB “a”?" B2#“_ 9‹g¡y £B…?J @Se&y ¬œ4Sp
…'T4? #ƒq”- 6[¢Of 1#3?} œ-§”÷ UTe…T Fdg›“
O÷iŒ. H¬^¿- ¢?Jv= ±1Q^o ‘O];v :?QE( 5qŒ3L

Using the "information" I gleaned from JoeG, let me take a stab at #3:

First, I will need to know which one is the encrypted message (it will change the definition from "a string of random characters" to "an encrypted message").
So what you're saying is that ID can tell you which one is Designed, as long as you already knew in the first place..?

Date: 2010/05/04 18:29:16, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Venus Mousetrap @ May 04 2010,11:57)
Quote (Cubist @ May 04 2010,11:42)
Quote (Venus Mousetrap @ May 04 2010,10:06)
Challenge 4 is easy. Using a Dembski integral, one can derive a surjective submorphism from string one to string two. If we incorporate that into a Mullings Matrix M, where

M = cT,

c of course being the Cordova metric, we can then invert M and Behe-filter it about l (l being the Leary Curve, which you should have obtained from the integral). This should leave you with a vector V, in which

V(1) = the identifier of the designed string
V(2) = the CSI in string 1
V(3) = the CSI in string 2.
Well, then: With such a... rigorous... procedure to employ, it should be child's play to identify which of the two character strings is Designed. So would you care to do that thing?
You mean this counts as showing my work? :)
Not until you actually meet the challenge, it doesn't...

Date: 2010/05/05 05:15:51, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (fnxtr @ May 04 2010,21:24)
Quote (Cubist @ May 04 2010,09:42)
 
Quote (Venus Mousetrap @ May 04 2010,10:06)
Challenge 4 is easy. Using a Dembski integral, one can derive a surjective submorphism from string one to string two. If we incorporate that into a Mullings Matrix M, where

M = cT,

c of course being the Cordova metric, we can then invert M and Behe-filter it about l (l being the Leary Curve, which you should have obtained from the integral). This should leave you with a vector V, in which

V(1) = the identifier of the designed string
V(2) = the CSI in string 1
V(3) = the CSI in string 2.

Well, then: With such a... rigorous... procedure to employ, it should be child's play to identify which of the two character strings is Designed. So would you care to do that thing?

Consider your chain yanked, Cubist. ;-p

Jes' playin' along wid da joke, fnxtr... for all I know, there might actually be such things as a "Mullings Matrix" and "Cordova metric" in ID. Mind you, I don't think it's likely that those sciencey-sounding terminologistical thingies are more than gentle fun-pokes at some of the... luminaries? ... who infest -- sorry, I mean "inhabit" -- the Uncommon Descent blog. But I cannot, in good conscience, assign the probability of that likelihood a value smaller than that of the Universal Probability Bound, hence I must needs treat this stuff as if it actually was genuine science. And if I end up with egg on my face, well, it wouldn't be the first time. Particularly not after a breakfast which involved a rather runny omelette.
Mmmm.... omelette...

Date: 2010/05/05 05:20:02, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (skeptic reborn @ May 04 2010,22:53)
Sorry to jump in here but I find Challenge #4 very interesting in a non-ID way.  I'm fiddling with an evolutionary algorithim and I think this would be a good problem to apply it to.  I just wanted to confirm 1 assumption, that there is an actual solution and not just a jumble of characters to prove a point.  I don't begrudge the later in any sense as I believe the point is self-evident.  Also, can we get a commitment that the solution will be posted at some later date?  thanks.
Yes, there is a solution. One of those character strings is a coded message; the other is a random jumble. And the challenge for ID-pushers is to use ID to determine which one is which. If you manage to make that determination using a different, non-ID methodology, I will of course post a message which identifies the random jumble and provides the unencrypted message, because if a non-ID methodology can meet this challenge, it's clearly not adequate as a test of ID.
edited to add an afterthought: If you decrypt the message yourself, I won't complain if you post the cleartext. Okay?

Date: 2010/05/06 08:25:31, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (lkeithlu @ May 01 2010,08:17)
I am going to guess that the semester is about over, and we will not hear from these students again. I'd love to know what other blogs these guys posted on, and what the outcome was.

Sigh. I wish I could say I was surprised that bjray lived down to my rather low expectations...

Date: 2010/05/06 19:40:16, Link
Author: Cubist
Just for grins, I cut-and-pasted all of bjray's posts to this thread into a word processing document and did a wordcount. Including text quoted from other messages and the occasional "Quote (NameOfPoster timestamp)" label, it all adds up to 7,238 words...

Date: 2010/05/15 20:14:58, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (mitschlag @ May 15 2010,16:47)
Cornelius George Hunter melts down completely:

http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/05/let-worship-begin.html

Comments have been disabled.

Of course.

There's one comment now, from Corny himself: "Comments ON. Sorry." I guess he caught his error or sumpin'...

Date: 2010/05/19 18:25:35, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (curiousgeorge @ May 19 2010,18:03)
So no serious responses as of yet...
There's a very appropriate quote from Thomas Jefferson: "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them..."
The proposition you're asking us to provide serious responses to is, itself, unintelligible. The author of the quote you're referring to asserts that nonliving things cannot create "information"; what does he mean by "information"? If his definition of "information" includes any clause to the effect that information absolutely must come from a living/intelligent source, then sure, by definition rocks cannot create "information" in the sense that guy means it. Wonderful! All he has to do is demonstrate that his personal definition of "information" has any bearing on the RealWorld, and he's got something.
Also, if the author of that quote doesn't know how to measure information, it follows that he can't even tell if rocks can create information. So perhaps the author of that quote might want to visit the So You Think ID Has Substance? thread and take the third challenge, the one about determining which of two different nucleotide sequences has more information in it? Or, if the author of that quote is unavailable for whatever reason, how about you do that, Curious George?

Date: 2010/05/21 18:16:10, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Louis @ May 21 2010,15:07)
 
Quote (BillB @ May 20 2010,10:02)
Thanks all ... anyone know a good cure for a hangover?

Yes.

Take two raw, trimmed birds eye chillis, some chunky hot chilli salsa, some tabasco, some Worcester sauce, two Trebor extra strong mints, three anchovy fillets, two raw eggs (double yolkers for preference), a large measure (at least 75mL, adjust to taste) of really rough cooking brandy, some vanilla essence (a few drops), ~200mL milk, ~200 mL strong black coffee, 20g sugar, and finally a good teaspoon of ground black pepper.

Add to blender with ice cubes, blend for a minute, season with cayenne pepper and tabasco, fill a pint glass with the blend, drink in one or as fast as possible.

It's called "GoGo Juice". It makes you run around the garden/paddock/field/building for five minutes after you drink it. Hungover or still drunk you are sober and clean headed afterwards. The rugby club I used to play for swore at it. It works wonders. I am serious.

Louis

ETA: You can add Alka Seltzer to the mix if you like.  Personally I think that's for people that cannot drink properly, i.e. at an Olympic level.

Damn... that recipe sounds like it's a violation of the Chemical Warfare clauses of the Geneva Convention...

Date: 2010/06/21 17:41:30, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Henry J @ June 21 2010,14:48)
Quote (dvunkannon @ June 20 2010,22:23)
Quote (Seversky @ June 20 2010,20:24)
I think I have also been silently exiled to the Village Of The Banned.  My last three posts to UD have vanished into the ether.
That really is too bad. You were a rational voice there for quite a while, as UD counts things.
Sure, but apparently rational voices are against their lack of principle!
I beg to differ. Apparently rational voices are UD's bread and butter! It's genuinely rational voices that they have trouble with...

Date: 2010/09/01 16:17:45, Link
Author: Cubist
Key point for any public 'debate' with Creationists: Do your homework. Find out what your opponent has said and done in past 'debates' -- what arguments he's used, what 'evidence' he uses, etc -- and study up on the actual scientific refutations that prove how wrong your opponent is. Distill those refutations down to compact, pithy soundbites, because you'll lose the audience if you spend too much time on actual, like, details. It would probably be a good idea to study up on your opponent's stated opinions regarding various Christian dogmas; if you can find any times when he's contradicted himself, so much the better! Creationist: "I believe X, just like it says in the Bible!" You: "Excuse me, but in your debate on (date) in (location), you said you believe in 'Not-X, just like it says in the Bible'..."

Date: 2010/10/30 08:13:25, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Oct. 30 2010,07:23)
My reading comprehension of English is even worse than I thought; I can't make sense of Denyse's headline:
 
Quote
"Theory of Everything: Putting failure to find such a theory to good use"

It's a clumsy sentence, alright. And apart from that headlines do tend towards excessive conciseness. But I think what that headline is tryna say, is nobody's managed to find a Theory of Everything yet, and here's why this failure-to-find is a good thing.
Maybe.
This headline is the product of the same mind which disgorged THE SPIRITUAL BRAIN, after all...

Date: 2010/11/14 15:46:38, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Darth Robo @ Nov. 13 2010,09:19)
The originator of the Hydroplate Theory challenges anyone, and particularly any evolutionist, who doubts his theory to a book-length written debate.

Stupid question: What's "new" about this challenge of Brown's? Brown has had it on offer for years and years and years, and to my knowledge, at least one person has sincerely tried to meet it, but Brown wouldn't let them...

Date: 2010/12/23 02:19:23, Link
Author: Cubist
I find it amusing that "Michael Behe" replied to a comment that was directed at IBIG, as if he were just continuing a conversation, without so much as a "I'm not this 'IBIG' person, but..." disclaimer.

Date: 2010/12/23 18:14:06, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (J-Dog @ Dec. 23 2010,13:30)
Quote
Damn! That's one fugly car, J-man!



Yes, The Lord Designer works in mysterious ways.

Hey, it's a family car.  My personal Lamborghini should have nothing to do with this.

BTW:  Send cash and PayPal donations to :  thedesignerwantstogetmeanewMBfor xmas.com

o/~ "Oh, Lord / Won't you buy me / A Mercedez-Benz..." o/~

Date: 2011/01/05 12:02:28, Link
Author: Cubist
My father was a bastard (in the genealogical sense) from Pennsylvania; my mother's parents were both from Alsace-Lorraine, which means that side of the family pretty much has to have branches and connections all over Europe...

Date: 2011/01/09 04:04:39, Link
Author: Cubist
Beggin' yer pardon, Steverino, but the typefont they used in that logo is Palatino, with 86% horizontal compression. Like so:

Hmmm... I think I could have done a better job of matching the color... ah, well. 'Close enough for tard', as the saying goes.
Yes, fnxtr, it's possible to change the cast. Doing this thing requires 'painting over' the existing text in such a way as to match the background image around the letters; it's kind of tedious, but not all that difficult. I am given to understand that versions of Photoshop more recent than the one I've got, have a feature called "content-aware fill" which makes this sort of thing relatively simple/painless...

Date: 2011/01/25 11:54:26, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,07:47)
How can science always know what can be "tested" or what is possible before it's tested?
'Always'? It can't. What of it? In particular, what does this have to do with ID?
Quote
Do all scientific tests produce results that were predicted, or predictable?
'Always'? No, of course not. What of it? In particular, what does this have to do with ID?
Quote
Are no scientific tests, that are or were ever done, simply exploratory in nature?
There are, have been, and will be, plenty of such tests. What of it? In particular, what does this have to do with ID?
Quote
Are there never any surprises in science?
Surprises are far from unheard-of is science. What of it? In particular, what does this have to do with ID?
Quote
Do all scientists agree on what is possible, and impossible?
No, of course not. What of it? In particular, what does this have to do with ID?
Quote
Do all scientists agree on what is testable, or not testable?
No, of course not. What of it? In particular, what does this have to do with ID?
Quote
Has science already invented every possible test for every possible thing in the universe or on Earth?
No, of course not. What of it? In particular, what does this have to do with ID?

Date: 2011/02/10 00:58:04, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote
All coded languages are observed to originate from an intelligence, no examples to the contrary can be given

This statement is accurate as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough. All that need be done is add one word, like so:
All coded languages are observed to originate from a human intelligence, no examples to the contrary can be given
I wonder why ID-pushers always leave out that one word?

Date: 2011/03/03 05:43:10, Link
Author: Cubist
I see that our new friend "how2debateevolution" hasn't posted a second message here. I also note that "how2" has neither put any new posts up on his blog, nor yet posted any responses to the replies he's already received.
Color me utterly unsurprised...

Date: 2011/03/23 14:16:17, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Mar. 23 2011,10:35)
Louis: Can't say I've missed your penchant for unfettered character assassination. But whatever gets you out of bed in the morning...

I said it before, but it bears repeating:
Mr. Miller, your character wasn't assassinated; it committed suicide. All we've done is conduct the autopsy.

Date: 2011/03/27 19:57:25, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (MichaelJ @ Mar. 27 2011,18:31)
Lastly he needs to deal with the fact that according to mainstream Christianity a lot of people who don't deserve it are going to end up in Hell.

I beg to differ: According to mainstream Christianity, everyone deserves to end up in Hell, because everyone is maximally disgusting and sinful and evil JUST BECAUSE. So sayeth the lovely, life-affirming doctrine of Original Sin, don't'cha know.

Date: 2011/03/31 17:31:01, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (CeilingCat @ Mar. 31 2011,06:37)
John A. Davison is alive and well and spamming ISCID, which is also alive, but isn't doing nearly as well.  In fact, JAD seems to be the only one who has posted there since 2010.  

He's trying to sell his book.  The title of the book is "Unpublished Evolution Papers of John A. Davison".

Except that now they're published, so the title is no longer accurate.

I love it so!

P.S. Lulu is a "book on demand" vanity publisher.  Anybody with a few hundred bucks in his pocket can become a published author at Lulu.  If you want to buy a copy, they print one for you on the spot and mail it to you.  They've actually published some books worth buying.

Beggin' yer pardon, but Lulu doesn't charge any money up front. As you say, it's a 'print on demand' outfit; this means they don't actually print up a copy of a book until someone orders a copy. How Lulu makes its money is not by the author paying them up front, but, rather, by taking a nontrivial percentage of the cover price of any copies which actually do sell. So yes, Lulu will publish anything -- they just happen to have a business model that's closer to traditional publishing (i.e., all money is extracted from sales of books) than to vanity publishing (i.e., the author pays all costs).

Date: 2011/04/15 14:29:26, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Louis @ April 14 2011,04:58)
Quote (Henry J @ April 14 2011,03:18)
 
Quote
How does a 52 year old guy fight in Iraq???Unless he's a friggin general

Between Iraq and a hard place?

Is that the worst pun ever or am I stoned? I asked my wife to read it and she said its terribleness boulder over.

I dunno about 'worst ever', but it certainly wasn't gneiss...

Date: 2011/04/22 07:28:58, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Freddie @ April 22 2011,06:09)
Bwahahahahahaha.
     
Quote
124
kairosfocus
04/21/2011
4:38 am

14 –> There may be something in the suggestion that the M-brot set is God’s thumbprint in Mathematics, just like the Euler equation is a signature of the coherent elegant beauty of the cosmos, the ordered system of reality:

   e^(i*p1) + 1 = 0

15 –> BA 77?s gonna love this one: The ultimate simple specification of a system of infinite complexity and wonderful functionality!!!!

16 –> We may be opening up a new front in the design thought world here: a designed mathematical-logical order

Yes, KF ... you keep on having those wet dreams of yours while the rest of us just stumble on with reality.  Modesty, thy name is not GEM of TKI.

How could it be, when modesty's name is actually Gordon Mullings?

Date: 2011/05/07 17:27:51, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (OgreMkV @ May 07 2011,12:52)
Quote (Alan Fox @ May 07 2011,10:33)
 
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ May 07 2011,02:40)
Of course, no questions there. i was merely noting that Nick seems to be going to lenghts in terms of lying and building strawmen (not to even mention tone-trolling) to accomodate the religious. I am disapoint!

T'es déçu, SD? To a cynical old ex-Brit, it seems the real argument is beginning to happen. I think this is why Dawkins and Hitchens have found fame and fortune in the US and why PZ has such an enthusiastic following. Genuine freedom of expression appears to still be a luxury in parts of the US, especially if you want to enter national politics.

I wonder if Mooney and Matzke choose to misunderstand people like Jerry Coyne deliberately or do just differ from the Gnu's on tactics? Do they have different goals, perhaps?

The problem is that PZ does NOT promote freedom of expression.  If you don't agree with him andhis horde, then you are automatically the enemy.  And I mean agree in all the particulars, not just in general.

As best I can tell, PZ has no trouble with disagreement, but, rather, with dishonesty. Show me a Gnu Atheist critic who doesn't lie about the Gnus, or put words in the Gnus' mouths, or attack a strawman version of a Gnu position, and I'll show you a Gnu Atheist critic who PZ is okay with.
Can you name any such honest critics of Gnu Atheism? I can't... Matzke isn't one, Mooneybaum aren't, Nisbet sure as Hell isn't...

Date: 2011/05/07 18:05:21, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Alan Fox @ May 07 2011,10:33)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ May 07 2011,02:40)
Of course, no questions there. i was merely noting that Nick seems to be going to lenghts in terms of lying and building strawmen (not to even mention tone-trolling) to accomodate the religious. I am disapoint!

T'es déçu, SD? To a cynical old ex-Brit, it seems the real argument is beginning to happen. I think this is why Dawkins and Hitchens have found fame and fortune in the US and why PZ has such an enthusiastic following. Genuine freedom of expression appears to still be a luxury in parts of the US, especially if you want to enter national politics.

I wonder if Mooney and Matzke choose to misunderstand people like Jerry Coyne deliberately or do just differ from the Gnu's on tactics? Do they have different goals, perhaps?

Yes, there are differing goals. Both sides think that science education should not be perverted by religious dogma; both sides agree that religious beliefs are a big part of the reason for resistance to science education. Where the two sides differ is this, as best I can tell: The Gnu Atheists think that the unquestioning respect given to Religion is a big part of the problem, and therefore the solution has to include taking that unquestioning respect out of the equation; the Accomodationists, contrariwise, think that Religious belief is so firmly entrenched in the culture that any attempt to 'deal with' Religion at all is political suicide.

Date: 2011/05/08 02:34:36, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Amadan @ May 07 2011,18:25)
Hmmm. I can't speak for either side, but I detect a whiff of dried hay, at least as regards the Accomms. My understanding of the Accomm argument is that, when contradicting beliefs that are held as closely as one's own identity, one proceeds rather gently, even if those beliefs are antithetical to one's own.

In short, persuade, not browbeat. It's a bit judo when you think about it.

If that is indeed what the Accomodationists think, in what way is my "dealing with Religion in any way is political suicide" capsule summary a distorted/weakened version of the Accomodationist position? I ask because your 'whiff of dried hay' comment indicates that you think I was presenting a strawman (distorted, weakened) version of the Accomodationist position, and I don't see how my capsule summary is anything other than plain old accurate. Please to explain?

Date: 2011/05/11 23:51:04, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Amadan @ May 11 2011,08:10)
Quote (Cubist @ May 08 2011,08:34)
Quote (Amadan @ May 07 2011,18:25)
Hmmm. I can't speak for either side, but I detect a whiff of dried hay, at least as regards the Accomms. My understanding of the Accomm argument is that, when contradicting beliefs that are held as closely as one's own identity, one proceeds rather gently, even if those beliefs are antithetical to one's own.

In short, persuade, not browbeat. It's a bit judo when you think about it.

If that is indeed what the Accomodationists think, in what way is my "dealing with Religion in any way is political suicide" capsule summary a distorted/weakened version of the Accomodationist position? I ask because your 'whiff of dried hay' comment indicates that you think I was presenting a strawman (distorted, weakened) version of the Accomodationist position, and I don't see how my capsule summary is anything other than plain old accurate. Please to explain?

Hmmm. Perhaps a chemically-enhanced choice of words on my part: I don't believe you are misrepresenting anyone's position and apologise for suggesting it.

My main contention is that even outside the Gnu-Atheist camp, there are rational people, some of whom choose to be theistic. Those of us who choose not to be have to live with that.

Well, that's fair enough. My main point still stands, I think: Those atheists in the Accomodationist faction tend to be downright deceitful in their treatment of Gnu Atheism, so it's hardly surprising that the Gnus tend to have hard words for Accomodationists. A question I asked before, and think bears repeating now: Can you name any honest critics of Gnu Atheism? I can't... Matzke isn't one, Mooneybaum aren't, Nisbet sure as Hell isn't... If you can find an honest critic of the Gnus, and said honest critic is still treated badly by the Gnus, that's one thing. But if either (a) there just aren't any Accomodationists who give the Gnus a fair shake, or (b) those Accomodationists who do happen to give the Gnus a fair shake are not excoriated by the Gnus, I don't really see the problem. Do you?

Date: 2011/05/30 20:03:33, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (ooojudge @ May 29 2011,20:20)
Sunday Sacrilege pz's blaspheming head

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1756

Hm. When I clicked that link, I got a mostly-blank page -- "The requested topic does not exist.", sandwiched in between the standard header and footer for the SCEPCOP forum. The "f=7" bit of the link's URL refers to the "JREF/Randi Challenge" branch of the SCEPCOP forum, but the "t=1756" bit of said URL has no referent at all. Or perhaps that should be "no surviving referent at all"?

Date: 2011/06/11 14:35:31, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 07 2011,20:08)
I'd like to not make a false start with where to set up funding for a buy attempt. I can see three possibilities offhand.

1. NCSE. This would probably be my first choice, if they say that they are interested.

2. TalkOrigins Foundation. This, like NCSE, has tax-exempt status.

3. PZ Myers. I'm not sure exactly how PZ would handle the incoming funds or where funds would go if the auction doesn't go that way, but PZ does have lots of enthusiastic followers who may contribute. Hopefully, PZ would send people to one of the other choices above if he wasn't going to try for it himself.

It would be very appropriate for a pro-science organization to acquire the rights to EXPELLED. I particularly like the thought of using it to create an "annotated version" in which all the lies and misrepresentations are called out for what they are, with concise explanations of the truth on-screen plus pointers to detailed explanations for off-screen study.
Or... hmm. Maybe two 'annotated versions'? One AV to correct the crap science, and another to identify all the logical fallacies & rhetorical gambits they used?

Date: 2011/06/11 19:22:32, Link
Author: Cubist
Hmm. That might be interesting, Doc; the KevinEleven 'annotated version' of EXPELLED -- complete with annotations on Kev's commentary, so as to point our where he lies and/or misrepresents the truth *even when he's supposedly tryna set the record straight*.

Date: 2011/06/18 02:30:19, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (noam_ghish @ June 17 2011,18:27)
just testing to see if i can post.

No, you cannot post. Sorry!

Date: 2011/06/23 20:50:56, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ June 23 2011,15:31)
Two new docs for you guys to check out...

Considering how deceitful you've been in connection with EXPELLED, why on Earth would you expect anybody hereabouts to believe anything you say about any 'doc' you happen to be involved with? Mr. Miller, I will not tell you to go to Hell. Rather, I will simply note that if the Bible is correct about the post mortem fate God has in store for false witnesses, you are going to Hell. The Bible also says that you can avoid this fate, but in order to do so, you'll have to sincerely repent of, and atone for, your false-witness-bearing. And thus far, you haven't displayed any awareness of the fact that you have violated the Ninth Commandment, let alone acknowledged that you might actually have any need for the repent-and-atone thing.
Enjoy your stay in the lake of fire, Mr. Miller.

Date: 2011/06/25 13:22:48, Link
Author: Cubist
I can certainly see why Mr. Miller would prefer that the 'ephemera' of Expelled sink into oblivion. It would clearly be better for Mr. Miller's reputation if his part in the creation of that collection of damned lies was forgotten for all time.
Mr. Miller, I am given to understand that there's a Middle Eastern religion whose founder exhorted his followers to be honest in all things. Your actions suggest, first, that you are completely unfamiliar with this religion, and second, that you would benefit from following its 'don't lie' precept. This religion is called, by some, Christianity. Have you heard of it?

Date: 2011/06/26 05:55:52, Link
Author: Cubist
Mr. Furley, your ignorance of the content of the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is not particularly unusual, because said film came and went from theatres without leaving much, if any, evidence of its passage. The reason some people want to bid on a commercial failure like Expelled is because of its role as part of the deceitful propaganda machine that is the Intelligent Design movement, said movement itself being a wholly-owned subsidiary of the greater Creationist movement.
The film misrepresents ID-pushers as being the innocent victims of a dogmatically intolerant Darwinist establishment, an establishment which the film falsely portrays as bearing responsibility for the horrors of Nazi Germany. This alone, I think, would adequately account for the somewhat intense reactions the film inspires among some members of the reality-based community, but the offenses of Expelled only start there.
Google is your friend, Mr. Furley. It is, perhaps, worth noting that when I googled for expelled: no intelligence allowed just now, the website Expelled Exposed, which documents in detail the film's myriad layers of deceit and outright lying, came up in the top five results, and the first such result was the Wikipedia page on Expelled, which provides a good deal of information on the film's contents and the various controversies surrounding the film. It is unclear why you neglected to google for expelled: no intelligence allowed yourself, but perhaps you may find the information in those two websites to be of some small interest.
The benefits to be gained from purchasing a piece of shit like Expelled are, in the main, those associated with revealing 'the man behind the curtain'. One proposal which has met with some approval, is that an 'annotated version' of Expelled be created and released, a version which accompanies the film's every lie and misrepresentation with the truth about whatever the film just decieved its audience about.

Date: 2011/07/14 20:44:52, Link
Author: Cubist
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.

Date: 2011/07/25 17:40:06, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Louis @ July 25 2011,17:06)
 
Quote (Henry J @ July 25 2011,23:05)
 
Quote (George @ July 25 2011,10:40)
   
Quote (Louis @ July 25 2011,11:25)
     
Quote (Henry J @ July 25 2011,16:17)
Well that was elementy.

Element-Ar-y surely?

Louis

Please tell me this isn't going to be another one of those 244Pu cascades.

Things like this do get put on the table periodically.

Sometimes people quit the thread over them, sometimes by accident, but others Mendeleev.

It hardly seems worth getting worked up over. Six of one, hafnium-dozen of the other, you know?

Date: 2011/07/27 01:14:28, Link
Author: Cubist
(chorus)
Happy Birthday -- ungh!
Happy Birthday -- ungh!

Death and gloom and black despair
People dying everywhere.

(chorus)

May the candles on your cake
Burn like cities in your wake.

(chorus)

Now that you're the age you are
Your demise cannot be far.

(chorus)

Burn the castle, storm the keep
Kill the girls -- but SAVE THE SHEEP!

(chorus)

So you've aged another year
Now you know that Death is near.

(chorus)

Children dying far and near
Cancer now is caused by beer.

(chorus)

Typhoid, plague and polio
Coffins lined up in a row.

(chorus)

May the children in the street
Be your barbecuing meat.

(chorus)

Birthdays come but once a year
Marking time as Death draws near.

(chorus)
Happy Birthday -- ungh!
Happy Birthday -- ungh!

Date: 2011/07/30 05:23:48, Link
Author: Cubist
I see our friend Markuze/Mabus has created himself another nym...

Date: 2011/07/30 17:39:03, Link
Author: Cubist
Better, because it reduces the need for rewrites:
Intelligent Design: Making otherwise intelligent people into IDiots for over 200 years.

Date: 2011/08/28 04:37:51, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 27 2011,14:07)
Hey JLT - Do you want to go together and get the luckey couple a virtual gift with me?

I'm thinking a palatial virtual mansion, 30-40 rooms, perhaps a virtual castle in Bavaria?

Virtual castle, eh? I think you can do that in Second Life...

Date: 2011/08/30 05:16:24, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Rob R. @ Aug. 29 2011,22:03)
One has to wonder why Dr. Elsberry, founder of this site and a devout Christian, never seems to reply in these types of exchnages.  Let some believer argue that nature shows a sign of being created/designed... he's there.  Believers are all idiots whom follow bronze-aged ignorant sheep herders... and it's all whistling winds and tumblin' tumbleweeds.  Dover is so five years ago... what are you doing, exactly?

Perhaps Dr. Elsberry takes Proverbs 27:17 more seriously than some of his co-religionists. Maybe he thinks that Christians should give more than cursory lip-service to the notion of being truthseekers. It could be that he's concerned about the lake of fire God has waiting for false witnesses. Or perhaps he feels that when Christians talk bullshit about mundane, worldly matters which can be confirmed or denied by mundane, worldly means, not only does it make unbelievers less receptive to anything else Christians might have to say (especially those spiritual assertions which a body would have to take Christians' word for!), but also, it tends to make unbelievers think Christians are stupid, ignorant, deluded, dishonest, or some combination of all four. Dr. Elsberry might even feel that if Christians are going to make noise about having access to some sort of 'higher knowledge' and/or 'higher morality', it would behoove Christians to bloody well act like it, as opposed to acting like flagrantly deceitful weasels.
And Dover may be 'five years ago', but ID-pushers don't seem to have given up on their dreams of ramming ID down the throats of innocent highschool and gradeschool students, so opposing ID is every bit as relevant now as it was when the lying Creationists of Dover were getting their asses sued and losing in court.

Date: 2011/08/30 08:12:16, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 30 2011,05:25)
 
Quote (Wolfhound @ Aug. 29 2011,18:44)
 
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 28 2011,06:58)
   
Quote (Wolfhound @ Aug. 28 2011,03:16)
   
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Aug. 24 2011,21:04)
Fuck all if anyone cares, but Ali and I are going to try and get married before the end oh this year. I'll try to plan something virtual on the side so you can all be guests!

Happy!

Aw, drat, this means I no longer have a chance.

*looks at bed*
*sees Deadman in it*

Nevermind, it wasn't meant to be.  So BIG congratulations to you both!  :D

Are you really boinking Deadman?

Please tell me it's an elaborate joke in which you are really Deadman and he was your comedy sockpuppet, or "Deadman" is the name you give to certain massaging devices of your acquaintance, or you are jokingly referring to your wondrous beau a "Deadman" for the purposes of Comedy. All of these and more would be fine. But actually shagging the REAL Deadman? Do you know what he does to squirrels? Seriously. It's not healthy!

;-)

Louis

My dear Louis, a lady does not <insert verb of choice> and tell.  And I am still considered a lady by most standards.

My dogs EAT squirrels, BTW, so there will be no more of that nonsense!

There is no universe in which I am a) brave enough or b) suitably possessed of the facts to question your Ladyosity...Ladyness...Status as a Lady.

And I really, really, REALLY don't think Deadman eats squirrels...or if he does his depravity is far worse than even I had contemplated.

Now you're just beating a dead squirrel, Louis. Quit it.
That's Deadman's job.

Date: 2011/09/05 15:24:28, Link
Author: Cubist
Figured it was about time for me to contribute something to the Thread of Food-Like Substances; what this is, is my standard dish for potlucks and similar 'contribute to the feast' gatherings. It has always been well received.

Dutch Baby, or, the Pancake of Doom

Needed equipment
A paella pan. If you're not sure what that is, look for a round, shallow, wide pan with a flat bottom and sloping sides; any pan which fits that description should do nicely.
Eggbeater. I heartily recommend an electric beater, but if you prefer a manual eggbeater, that's your business.
Functioning oven. You'll want the pan to have a lot of empty space above it, so arrange the cooking racks accordingly.

Ingredients
Four fresh eggs
Milk -- 1 (one) cup , or 250 ml
Flour -- 1 (one) cup, or, again, 250 ml
1 (one) cube of butter -- 4 ounces (120 g), that is

Instructions
Start pre-heating the oven. 375 degrees Fahrenheit, or 190 degrees Celsius for those of you who live in a country that's gone metric.
Use the eggbeater to blend the eggs together into a yellowish goop. Set the beater/blender on 'high'; you want to force a bunch of teeny little air bubbles into the batter in colloid suspension.
Add the milk to said goop, blending all the while.
Stir/blend the flour into the egg/milk proto-batter.
After the oven reaches the desired temperature, put the butter in the pan, and then put the pan in the oven.
Keep stirring/blending whilst the butter is hotting up.
When the butter is completely melted, pour the batter into the pan.
Cook for about 12 minutes, or until the batter is a friendly golden-brown with inviting 'hills' billowing up from its surface.
When the pancake is done, its edges should be rising/curling up like a big bowl (see also: "empty space above the pan"). Together with the billowy hills in the center, it's quite impressive-looking.
Carve that sucker up like a pizza pie. Serves as many as 8-12, depending on how big you make the slices.

Variations
The recipe scales up or down, depending on the size of the pan you're gonna cook it in. Let N be the number of quarts (liters) of water your pan can hold; you'll want N eggs, N/4 cups (N * 60-odd ml) of milk, N/4 cups (N * 60-odd ml) of flour, and N ounces (N * 30 g) of butter (up to a maximum of N=4 -- as long as you've got enough butter to 'wet' most of the pan's bottom when said butter melts, you should be good to go). Yes, the recipe above assumes a pan that holds four quarts. Personally, I use a six-quart pan, hence I need 6 eggs and 1.5 cups apiece of milk and flour; when it's done, I slice it into 16 bits like any self-respecting hacker-type would.
Margarine can be substituted for butter with little/no ill effect.
The butter gives it enough flavor (salt) that this can be eaten as it stands. At the same time, the recipe is sufficiently 'neutral' that you can get away with adding a wide variety of other ingredients, if you like; you can add sliced hotdogs to the pre-cooking batter, or slather fruit preserves on the finished pancake, or add pretty much anything else within arm's reach of 'edible', really.
I've been told that this recipe is basically "Yorkshire pudding without the drippings". This phrase may inspire some ideas amongst those of you who are more familiar with British cuisine than I am.
I have tried using ground-up rice in place of wheat flour. The taste is pretty much unaffected; the resulting rice-based pancake is somewhat... 'heavier', I suppose is the best way to describe it... than the usual wheat-based version. Key point: Make sure the rice is thoroughly reduced to powder before you stir it into the batter! To whatever extent the rice kernels remain kernels rather than powder, your pancake is gonna have some real dense pockets in it.

Date: 2011/09/06 06:59:50, Link
Author: Cubist
[nods] Yep, that's pretty much what it looks like, modulo the shape of the pan (round for the ones I bake, rectangular for the one in the picture). I suspect a true YP may be thicker than a Dutch Baby; with the pan I use, the batter is distributed all across the bottom in a layer about half an inch thick, give or take a few millimeters.

Date: 2011/09/23 14:29:36, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Sep. 23 2011,04:10)
Neutrinos detected as travelling 0.002% faster than speed of light:

Sorry, link in French only...

Google Translate is your friend. The mechanized translation is of course not as good as one that was done by a skilled human translator, but it does give non-francophones a decent idea of what the article was about.

Date: 2011/09/24 14:41:03, Link
Author: Cubist
Another datapoint, for Safari under Mac OS X: Clicking the link directly, I get the "can't find it" message. By going to the UD homepage, clicking on 'evolution' in their tag-cloud, and clicking on the link from that set of results, I get the actual page.

Date: 2011/10/03 01:16:22, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 02 2011,21:33)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 02 2011,19:36)
These lead me (when I was five) to want to be a werewolf when I grew up.

Did you ever find Lee Ho Fook's?

If you do, make sure you try the beef chow mein. I understand the portions are very generous...

Date: 2011/10/20 01:34:40, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 19 2011,22:05)
Perhaps you should  watch Expelled http://www.dailymotion.com/video......io_tech

Perhaps you should browse Expelled Exposed, which would allow you to discover the truth of the various matters which Ben Stein & Co. obscured, dissembled on, and outright lied about.

Date: 2011/10/20 17:42:50, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 20 2011,11:12)
I havnt tried to create any new threads but whenever I try to respond to any new threads, I get a message that says: "You are logged in as forastero but You do not have permission to post in this thread"

I see. Clearly, this site censors you in a most brutal and efficient manner, which explains why you did not manage to post any replies to this thread...
Hmmm. What's wrong with this picture?

Date: 2011/10/21 01:56:23, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,00:05)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 20 2011,19:48)
Please take discussion of moderation to private message or email. Second warning.

Are you going to expel me? :O

That depends. Are you going to continue to violate this board's rules of conduct after your two warnings?

Date: 2011/10/21 02:12:53, Link
Author: Cubist
1
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,01:26)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 20 2011,03:21)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 19 2011,21:36)
An elaborately designed endocrine system purposefully selects ancestral phenotypes in accord to environmental stimuli; which btw is just the opposite of the pseudo-scientific natural mutation selection theory that says miraculous genetic mistakes survive and often replace ancestors if they occur at just the right time and niche

What does ID tell us about how that system came to be?

Let me guess, it was "designed"?

Very informative...

"Designed" appeals much more to Occam's Razor than your pantheism below

Once upon a time in a material world, the citizens worshiped a messiah named SuperPan whom they believed brought random gifts of new life every now and then.

That's all very nice (albeit a bit of a re-run of Harter's 1998 Small and Stupid Gods extended analogy/essay), but it doesn't seem to address the question it's ostensibly a reply to. So... what does ID tell us about how that system came to be?

Date: 2011/10/21 19:55:09, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,03:02)
Quote (Cubist @ Oct. 21 2011,02:12)
1    
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,01:26)
   
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 20 2011,03:21)
     
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 19 2011,21:36)
An elaborately designed endocrine system purposefully selects ancestral phenotypes in accord to environmental stimuli; which btw is just the opposite of the pseudo-scientific natural mutation selection theory that says miraculous genetic mistakes survive and often replace ancestors if they occur at just the right time and niche

What does ID tell us about how that system came to be?

Let me guess, it was "designed"?

Very informative...

"Designed" appeals much more to Occam's Razor than your pantheism below

Once upon a time in a material world, the citizens worshiped a messiah named SuperPan whom they believed brought random gifts of new life every now and then.

That's all very nice (albeit a bit of a re-run of Harter's 1998 Small and Stupid Gods extended analogy/essay), but it doesn't seem to address the question it's ostensibly a reply to. So... what does ID tell us about how that system came to be?

Ha..so you feel my busting rhymes about divine designs was nice but plagiarized?

No, I don't, forry, because you didn't present any of Harter's words as if they'd been written by you. Instead, what you did was present a scenario whose basic premise is fairly similar to that of Harter's essay, thus my note about "a bit of a re-run", in somewhat the same way that the Roger Corman sci-fi flick Battle Beyond the Stars could be thought of as "a bit of a re-run" of Kurasawa's The Seven Samurai. Personally, I don't think that noting Theme X exists in an earlier work constitutes an accusation of plagiarism; your mileage may vary...
Still nothing on the topic of what ID tells us about how that system came to be, I note.
Quote
You say puncuated equilibrium via solar radiation (sun god) zapped a bacteria into a mitochondria that eventually turned into horseflies, raccoons, T. rex, and baboons but we say orderly miraculous design.

No, 'we' don't say that. Would you like to learn about what 'we' actually do say? If so, would you like to discuss what 'we' say before or after you explain what ID tells us about how that system came to be?
Quote
We IDers havnt figured it all out just yet...

As best I can tell, you IDiots haven't figured out anything, ID-wise. This does not surprise me, because all throughout its existence, the ID movement has always been a wholly-owned subsidiary of good old Creationism, and the scientific content of ID (such as it is) can be accurately summarized in two sentences whose total word-count is less than 15 words. One of these sentences is Somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent did something, and the other is, Somehow, somewhere, some way, evolution is wrong.
If you disagree that the above two sentences constitute an accurate summary of ID, forry, I invite you to identify any point of inaccuracy in them. For instance, you could explain what ID has to say about its Intelligent Designer other than what little information is contained in the phrase 'Intelligent Designer'..?

Date: 2011/10/21 21:03:06, Link
Author: Cubist
I second Ogre's remarks above: If you're not claiming that everything is Designed, you must be claiming that some things are Designed and other things are not Designed... so how do you tell the difference? Given some arbitrarily-chosen whatzit, how can you tell whether said whatzit is, or is not, Designed?

Date: 2011/10/29 03:58:12, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 29 2011,00:33)
   
Quote

Q In fact, intelligent design takes no position on the age of the earth or when biological life began.

A That's correct.

You know, somehow I've wound up with the impression that the position taken by "intelligent design" depends on who you hear it from (and sometimes also on who they happen to be talking to at the time).

That's probably because the 'position' taken by ID-pushers does depend on who you hear it from and who they happen to be talking to at the time. The real, true, core ideas of ID are God did it and evolution is just wrong; since there are occasional lingering legal restrictions which obstruct ID-pushers from promoting these core ideas (the first one in particular) explicitly and honestly, they must needs cloak it in different verbiage depending on the venue and audience. Since the goals of the ID movement are political and cultural, it's hardly surprising that ID-pushers' tactics make no sense under the presumption that ID is a scientific enterprise...

Date: 2011/11/08 15:22:17, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,07:05)
My brother is getting sucked into the evil sect of creationist people who for some wild reason that is above mindboggeling suggest that evolution is just a theory an bla bla bla.
Well, evolution is "just a theory". The thing is, saying that evolution is "just a theory" is kind of like saying that Bill Gates is "just a multibillionaire" -- it's nothing more than a rhetorical flourish intended to cast unwarranted doubt upon its subject. Creationists who say evolution is "just a theory" are counting on their listeners to understand that statement as using the common vernacular meaning of 'theory', which is basically 'a wild guess', never mind the fact that in the context of science, a 'theory' is a well-tested idea that successfully explains a whole lot of data.

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,07:46)
Is there any direct evidence that microevolution leads to macroevolution. Feel free to quote studies.
What's going to stop 'microevolution' from leading to 'macroevolution'? Arguing that the former doesn't lead to the latter, is very much like saying that yes, you can walk 5 steps, but it's clearly impossible to walk 5,000,000 steps. Demand details. Where's the barrier that prevents microevolution from leading to macroevolution? How does this alleged barrier prevent new mutations from occuring?
Also: Since this is a Creationist question, ask your Creationist 'friends' to define 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution'. It's a damn good bet that 'microevolution (as defined by Creationists)' cannot lead to 'macroevolution (as defined by Creationists)' -- but unless they're defining those terms the same way real scientists do, they're refuting a caricature of evolutionary theory, and a refutation of a caricature is a caricature of a refutation.
So ask your Creationist 'friends' what they mean by 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution'. Be sure to point out how and where their definitions differ from the definitions used by real scientists. And if their definitions contain vague/undefined terms, demand that they define those vague terms. If they say "macroevolution is a change from one kind to another", ask them what a 'kind' is, and how the heck you can even tell which 'kind' an arbitrary critter belongs to.

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,14:05)
One thing that I keep getting back is that fossils that are found are placed in species according to whim of whoever finds the fossil. ... The main example they throw out is well you see the fossils you find are all extinct apes except for Neaderthals they were human.
If that's what they're saying about fossils, point them at the Comparison of all skulls page, a collection of Creationist "human or ape?" pronouncements about six different fossil specimens -- and the amusing bit is, Creationists themselves can't make up their minds which fossils are human and which are apes! This is very curious indeed. Because if the difference between 100% human!!1! and 100% ape!11! actually was as obvious/evident as Creationists assert it to be, shouldn't Creationist judgments about these specimens be 100% consistent? Alas (for Creationists...), those judgments aren't 100% consistent.
For maximum hilarity, look at the cases where a Creationist has changed their mind about whether or not any given Specimen X is human or ape. PS Taylor, in a 1992 publication, asserted that both Java Man and Peking Man were 100% apes -- but he declared them both to be 100% human in a 1996 publication. Similarly, Duane Gish declared the KNM-ER 1470 (Homo habilis) specimen to be 100% human in a 1979 publication, but a 1985 Gish publication declared that specimen to be 100% ape.
So... if a Creationist says "Neanderthal human, everything else ape", point out that Duane Gish says Java Man was an ape, and ask them what they know that Duane freaking Gish doesn't?

Date: 2011/11/09 13:05:06, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 09 2011,12:18)
Okay,
I have a question for me ;)
It sounds awfully stupid but maybe it isn't
At what point do you stop calling a dog a dog and start calling it something else?

Not a stupid question at all. "At what point do you stop calling a dog a dog and start calling it something else?" includes, as an unstated premise, the notion that you can distinguish Dog from Not-Dog. More generally, your query hints at the larger question of how the heck one goes about distinguishing a member-of-species-X from a not-member-of-species-X. And (as the link to Wikipedia indicates) this is not an easy question!
Since we're talking about dogs in particular, I'd say that the BSC (Biological Species Concept) -- i.e., can the critter successfully interbreed with dogs? -- is about as good a distinguishing criterion as you're likely to find. The BSC doesn't work for all living things (like those which reproduce asexually, for instance), but it's pretty good for 'standard' animals like dogs and horses and such.

Date: 2011/11/10 22:27:09, Link
Author: Cubist
Allow me to add my voice to the chorus of not-insane people saying "Ask your Creationist buddies how they measure this 'information' stuff". You might even go further than that, by asking them to determine which of two different nucleotide sequences has more 'information' in it. Or even a series of such questions...
First, a pair of arbitrary nucleotide sequences. Which sequence has more information in it?
 
Quote
Nucleotide sequence 1a: aca acg gaa ttc agc acc acc cca cca tga ctg cag gtc gcg atg acc ccc tgt cgt ttg tcg atc cgt tat tgg
Nucleotide sequence 1b: cga act gtc cgg tca acg ccg gga gca aac ggt taa cac tag aca gaa gca gac att cgt tgt tat tca tca tag

Second, an arbitrary nucleotide sequence, followed by that same sequence plus a one-codon insertion (the inserted codon being underlined in the second sequence here; you needn't preserve the underlining if you present this pair of sequences elsewhere). Which sequence has more information in it?
 
Quote
Nucleotide sequence 2a: ctc gac gca cat ata acg ata aag tcg cag ctg tag cac aag gca gtt tac act tgg aaa tct ctg gca taa gcg
Nucleotide sequence 2b: ctc gac gca cat ata acg ata aag tcg cag ctg tag cca cac aag gca gtt tac act tgg aaa tct ctg gca taa gcg

Third: An arbitrary nucleotide sequence, followed by that same sequence with one codon deleted from it (the deleted codon is underlined in the first sequence). Which sequence has more information in it?
 
Quote
Nucleotide sequence 3a: gca agg cta atg ggg gta gtg cca ttg ccc atc taa gaa caa ttt cca agt aaa gag gct ccc gta tag att gcc
Nucleotide sequence 3b: gca agg cta atg gta gtg cca ttg ccc atc taa gaa caa ttt cca agt aaa gag gct ccc gta tag att gcc

Fourth: An arbitrary nucleotide sequence, followed by that same sequence with a single nucleotide inserted into it (inserted nucleotide underlined in the 2nd sequence). Which sequence has more information in it?
Quote
Nucleotide sequence 4a: att aag tgc aaa cat gcc gaa cac aag tga atc gaa tcc gcg caa tct ata agt cgg gct atc tca aac cct aat
Nucleotide sequence 4b: att aca gtg caa aca tgc cga aca caa gtg aat cga atc cgc gca atc tat aag tcg ggc tat ctc aaa ccc taa t

Fifth: An arbitrary nucleotide sequence, followed by that same sequence with a single nucleotide deleted from it (deleted nucleotide underlined in the 1st sequence). Which sequence has more information in it?
Quote
Nucleotide sequence 5a: tac aac cgt ctt gtt taa cag ggt tga atg ttg gat agg taa aaa ctg atc atg atg acc att cgt gcc gcc atc
Nucleotide sequence 5b: taa acc gtc ttg ttt aac agg gtt gaa tgt tgg ata ggt aaa aac tga tca tga tga cca ttc gtg ccg cca tc

Sixth: An arbitrary nucleotide sequence, followed by that same sequence with one codon replaced by some different codon entirely (the relevant codons are underlined in both sequences). Which sequence has more information in it?
Quote
Nucleotide sequence 6a: aaa cgc gag cgc gct cag ccc aga tca gct gcc caa gac gtc gtt acc aca atc gtt acc acc gcg ata tta ttt tga
Nucleotide sequence 6b: aaa cgc gag tga gct cag ccc aga tca gct gcc caa gac gtc gtt acc aca atc gtt acc acc gcg ata tta ttt

Date: 2011/11/11 16:52:51, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 11 2011,11:24)
Regarding information our freind has come back with the following:

The definition of information is to be found here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries....logical
Groovy. Now ask them to apply this definition to nucleotide sequences -- the ones I provided above will do, or if you'd rather supply your own sequences, that works, too.
Quote
Methods of measuring information can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......om_walk
[after a cursory look at that wikipage]So your Creationist buddies have a protocol by which they can measure information (don't see it, myself, but if they're citing that wikipage as providing such a protocol, they must see it, right?). Again, groovy. Your next step should be, ask them to use that information-measuring protocol to determine how much information is contained in various nucleotide sequences, particularly pairs of sequences whose information content you then compare.

Date: 2011/11/12 13:36:20, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (k.e.. @ Nov. 12 2011,00:37)
 
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 12 2011,07:49)
 
Quote (Freddie @ Nov. 11 2011,10:09)
Gil brings up his Dawkins-style Atheist background again along with several other standard stories from his limited repertoire, gets slapped around the head with it by eigenstate´then responds with        
Quote
... a Bible, which I still have and take to church every Sunday ...

makes about as much sense as carrying coals to Newcastle

....Or turds to a zoo.

I'll bet the only thing he leaves at church are pieces of silver and rational thoughts.

You sure about that? Gil-the-frill has to have rational thoughts before he can leave them anywhere...

Date: 2011/11/12 13:46:11, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 12 2011,12:32)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 11 2011,13:58)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2011,12:20)
Ask him to define 'information' and give examples of it's measurement in biology.

...and give examples of it's measurement in biology.

First, ask IDers why we should even care about "information" in evolutionary biology.

If the IDiots were, indeed, correct about how evolution is affected by 'information' and changes thereof and yada yada yada, then it would be pretty friggin' obvious that we should care about 'information' in evolutionary biology. Of course, if that were the case, then the IDiots' position would be based on fact rather than unshakable religious dogma, and they would be able to answer questions like 'which nucleotide sequence has more information in it?"

Date: 2011/11/12 18:59:18, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 12 2011,16:31)
 
Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 12 2011,13:46)
If the IDiots were, indeed, correct about how evolution is affected by 'information' and changes thereof and yada yada yada, then it would be pretty friggin' obvious that we should care about 'information' in evolutionary biology.

It's not obvious at all to me. Even if a defined measure of information content in the genome cannot increase by means of mutation and natural selection, why should we care?

Because when an IDiot/Creationist makes noise about what can or cannot be done by mutations, they are necessarily (albeit by implication, rather than by explicit declaration) talking about what sorts of mutations are or are not possible. For instance, take the claim "mutations cannot create information". This is equivalent to the claim "no mutation can transform a genetic sequence with X amount of information into a different genetic sequence with (X+N) amount of information". And that claim, if true, puts restrictions on what sort of mutation-induced changes in genetic sequence are possible! We could determine whether or not a particular case of cancer was due to genetic mutation by sequencing the patient's own DNA, then sequencing the DNA from one of the patient's tumors, and finally measuring the information content of DNA from both sources. We could make genetically-modified organisms which are all but completely immune to mutation, because we constructed their DNA to contain the lowest amount of information consistent with being a functioning life-form...
Now do you see why we ought to care about IDiot/Creationist claims re: 'information' and evolutionary biology, if those claims actually were true?
Quote
To me all this information stuff is just as bogus as the argument based on the SLoT.

Hey, I agree with you 100%! I just like to play with counterfactuals; in this case, take an IDiot/Creationist claim at face value, and see what the consequences of that claim are.

Date: 2011/11/12 19:21:29, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,18:25)
Hey it was those unromantically rude dudes who  doubted Troy, Babylon, Atlantis, Nineveh, and Nimrud too

forastero, there's an Abbott & Costello routine that's very appropriate here...
Quote
Costello: They said Newton was crazy! They said Einstein was crazy! They said Luigi was crazy!
Abbott: Hold on a second. Who's Luigi?
Costello: Oh, Luigi's my uncle. He is crazy.

You YECs are crazy like Luigi, not crazy like Einstein.

Date: 2011/11/13 01:58:18, Link
Author: Cubist
Mr. Miller, you are a reprehensible, deceitful, unrepentant disgrace to any God you may think you worship. You may not recognize the noisome stench of lies and hypocracy that still clings to you from your work on that abhorrent piece of mendacious propaganda called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, but other people are most assuredly not so handicapped.
There's no point in telling you to go to Hell, Mr. Miller, because your own actions have bought you your reservation, and your isotopically-pure lack of repentance has sealed your post-mortem fate. Enjoy your stay in the lake of fire, you Commandment-breaking scum in human form.

Date: 2011/11/15 15:01:31, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 15 2011,12:21)
 
Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 11 2011,16:52)
   
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 11 2011,11:24)
Regarding information our freind has come back with the following:

The definition of information is to be found here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries....logical
Groovy. Now ask them to apply this definition to nucleotide sequences -- the ones I provided above will do, or if you'd rather supply your own sequences, that works, too.
     
Quote
Methods of measuring information can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......om_walk
[after a cursory look at that wikipage]So your Creationist buddies have a protocol by which they can measure information (don't see it, myself, but if they're citing that wikipage as providing such a protocol, they must see it, right?). Again, groovy. Your next step should be, ask them to use that information-measuring protocol to determine how much information is contained in various nucleotide sequences, particularly pairs of sequences whose information content you then compare.

Hi,

I'd like some more information on this since I have to make a standing argument.

So here are some questions that came through:

1) Why would they need to apply the definition to nuclotide sequences?

Because nucleotide sequences are the (figurative) book in which this 'genetic information' stuff is (figuratively) written. So if they can't apply their definition to nucleotide sequences, "information"-as-defined-by-them isn't important or relevant to evolution.
 
Quote
2)They have other definitions of information too are they all wrong?

Yes, there are a number of different definitions of 'information'. Generally speaking, it's just a good idea to specify which definition you're using in the first place, because it helps to avoid confusion. And in the context of the Creationism/evolution argument, it's really a good idea, because by some definitions of 'information', random changes can create new 'information'! So when a Creationist makes noise about how random mutations can't create new information, get them to nail down exactly which definition of 'information' they're using, because (a) it avoids confusion, and (b) if they're using one of the 'information'-definitions under which random mutations can create the stuff, you can nail their lying arse to the wall.
 
Quote
3) Bioinformatics works with information sciences and Biology all the time. Don't they have the same problem of defenition and measurement?

Yes, real scientists who work with information do need to be clear about which definition of 'information' they're using, and how they measure it. Fortunately, real scientists are clear about these things, so it's not a problem for real scientists.
 
Quote
4) By asking them to use their information measuring protocol - I assume you mean the stupid durston equation right?

If that's what they claim to be using, yes. If they change their minds and decide "uh, no, the Durston thing isn't what we mean", then insist on their specifying what they do mean. Do not let them get away with vague, formless assertions; insist on specific details.
 
Quote
5) Are there other ways to measure information, how would I know if he were just guessing?

If they can tell you the method by which they're measuring information, you don't need to guess -- you can use that method to confirm their answer for yourself. And if they can't tell you the method by which they're measuring information, you get to pound on them for not knowing what the fuck they're talking about.

Date: 2011/11/17 03:43:49, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 17 2011,00:39)
The whole reason that sedimenatary rocks are not usually radiometrically dated is because they are mixed with a vast array of sedimentary stuff. Yes they are dated by index fossils but then the index fossils are in turn dated by the sedimentary rocks? Thats circular reasoning of the most grotesque kind.

I fully agree: date the layers by the fossils, and then date the fossils by the layers is a grotesque example of circular reasoning. Fortunately, it's also a grotesquely inaccurate Creationist caricature of what real scientists do when they work on figuring out how old rocks are, so the actual dates provided by real scientists are not rendered invalid by that caricature.
The evidence of, well, pretty much everything you've posted here, suggests that you have no desire to learn more about what real scientists do when they work on figuring out how old rocks are, forastero. If you ever change your mind about that, lots of people here will be happy to help you remedy your ignorance.

Date: 2011/11/17 15:30:20, Link
Author: Cubist
[quote=Southstar,Nov. 17 2011,10:04]
Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 15 2011,15:01)
 
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 15 2011,12:21)
     
Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 11 2011,16:52)
       
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 11 2011,11:24)
Regarding information our freind has come back with the following:

The definition of information is to be found here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries....logical
Groovy. Now ask them to apply this definition to nucleotide sequences -- the ones I provided above will do, or if you'd rather supply your own sequences, that works, too.
         
Quote
Methods of measuring information can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......om_walk
[after a cursory look at that wikipage]So your Creationist buddies have a protocol by which they can measure information (don't see it, myself, but if they're citing that wikipage as providing such a protocol, they must see it, right?). Again, groovy. Your next step should be, ask them to use that information-measuring protocol to determine how much information is contained in various nucleotide sequences, particularly pairs of sequences whose information content you then compare.

Hi everyone,

here was the answer I got from our friend Ioseb hopefully my translation works out ok:

------transcript starts here -----------

Southstar said: Well how do you determine the amount of information? what process do you use?

Ioseb said: Well I use the unit of measure on the base of the nucliotide molecule (DNA or RNA), expressed in thousands of bases (kb)

If your boy Ioseb really does measure 'information' by counting the nucleotides, he's already lost -- because by the number-of-nucleotides method for measuring information, any mutation which inserts extra nucleotides into a genetic sequence increases the information of that DNA! You should point this out. The lurkers will appreciate it.
Quote
By measuring the modifications taken place in the genomic sequence of the Malaria or HIV plasmoid through the years it is possible to quantify, how much has changed in terms of complexity, what has been gained and what has determined no change.

This is bafflegab. It is most certainly not a clear answer to the question of "how do you measure information?"; at best, it's a vague assertion about a perhaps-hypothetical method which possibly could measure information. Give Ioseb a pair of nucleotide sequences, one of which is a minor modification of the other. Ask him which of the two sequences has more information in it -- and insist that he show his work. He won't be able to, so make his failure utterly crystal-clear in the minds of all readers.  No matter how impressive his sciencey-sounding verbiage is, his inability to actually determine how much information is in a nucleotide sequence will go a long way towards convincing people that Ioseb is full of shit.
Quote
As I explained: a sequence A; let's say produces a protein B following 3 molecular processes which are at the base of life. (in extremely simple terms replication, transcription and translation) all that needs to be done is to verify how much this sequence has changed after the mutation so as to measure at least the quantity of nucleotides that diffirentiate it.

The phrase "at least" suggests that there's more to his information-measuring method than just counting nucleotides. Ask what else is needed, besides just the number of nucleotides.

Date: 2011/11/18 04:48:17, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 18 2011,02:55)
 
Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 18 2011,00:54)
It seems that their definition of information actually refers to the phenotype and specifically the "function", but not fitness.
For instance, antibiotic resistance would be a loss of information if the altered protein is rendered less effective in the absence of antibiotic. I doesn't matter for them that the bacterium is much fitter otherwise. Gene duplications often generate proteins with new functions. However, this is rarely observed at the intraspecific level, and the IDiots might claim that the duplication was designed.

Yes I believe he is heading that way, by showing that all mutations create negative information.

Okay, fine -- give your 'friend' the two-sequence test. Provide pairs of nucleotide sequences; ask which sequence in each pair has the most information; insist that he show his work; and do not allow him to weasel out of either (a) providing answers to your "which sequence has more information?" questions, or (b) explaining how he came up with his answers.

Date: 2011/11/18 05:41:51, Link
Author: Cubist
My guess for how the patriarchy got started, lo, these many centuries ago: Way back when, long before the advent of Civilization, brute physical force was the major factor (or perhaps only one of them? pretty damned important, either way) which determined who got their way in a conflict between (proto-)human and (proto-)human. Since male humans tend to have more brute strength than female humans, it therefore follows that male humans would get their way a rather large percentage of the time. Thus, females would tend not to have much influence over how things are run, simply because their relative deficit in brute physical strength would keep them from having as much influence as they might otherwise have.
In addition, (proto-)humans just didn't have most of the knowledge and technology we moderns do, so they tended to die younger and for a larger range of reasons than we moderns do; this means keeping the population up would be a primary concern for whatever societies (proto-)humans might have managed to create at that time. And it just so happens that male humans are largely expendable, as far as maintaining-stable-population is concerned. If half the male population of Tribe X suddenly dies, and at the same time, half the female population of Tribe Y suddenly dies, which tribe is going to have a more-severe, longer-lasting drop in its total population? As a consequence, early (proto-)human tribes that protected their females better would tend to endure longer than tribes which weren't as good about protecting their females. I think this is how the "women and children first!" deal got started in the first place.
In other words, I think "traditional gender roles" are a fossilized (sociocultural) leftover from those long-past days when those roles had a positive effect on how long a culture might endure. Things have changed since then; in particular, contemporary environmental conditions are no longer the same as those which originally made traditional gender roles actively adaptive. But since traditional gender roles were actively adaptive, those gender roles were passed down from generation to generation, and are still being passed down even now.

Date: 2011/11/19 01:43:06, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 18 2011,22:50)
One thing that could be repeated frequently is that the existence of unanswered questions is not an argument against answers that we do have. Unanswered questions are expected to exist regardless of which theories are correct.

Henry

[evil grin] And if your Creationist buddies are insistent that "no answers = reason to reject", ask them some of the many, many questions which no IDiot has ever yet answered...
What did the Intelligent Designer do?
When did the Intelligent Designer do it?
What tools and techniques did the Intelligent Designer use when It was doing whatever the heck It did?
What did the Intelligent Designer design (various IDists have made noise about how It coulda designed anything from the flagellum to the entire Universe)?
Etc, etc...

Date: 2011/11/19 04:59:07, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 19 2011,02:47)
 
Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 19 2011,01:43)
 
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 18 2011,22:50)
One thing that could be repeated frequently is that the existence of unanswered questions is not an argument against answers that we do have. Unanswered questions are expected to exist regardless of which theories are correct.

Henry

[evil grin] And if your Creationist buddies are insistent that "no answers = reason to reject", ask them some of the many, many questions which no IDiot has ever yet answered...
What did the Intelligent Designer do?
When did the Intelligent Designer do it?
What tools and techniques did the Intelligent Designer use when It was doing whatever the heck It did?
What did the Intelligent Designer design (various IDists have made noise about how It coulda designed anything from the flagellum to the entire Universe)?
Etc, etc...

Oh come'on such easy questions to answer? ;)

What did the Intelligent Designer do?

Answer: look around

My suggested response to this non-answer: Unless you're saying that the Intelligent Designer did absolutely everything, 'look around' isn't an answer. Are you saying the Intelligent Designer did ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING?
If they reply "Yep, I sure am saying that," you can follow up by reminding that that "absolutely everything" includes ebola, brown recluse spiders, etc etc etc, so they're saying the Intelligent Designer designed ebola. And It designed the bubonic plague. Ask them why the Intelligent Designer designed all this nasty stuff to kill humans. A reply of "no, the Designer didn't do that" indicates that they were lying when they claimed the Designer did everything, so hammer on them for their dishonesty.
If they reply "Uh, no, I'm not saying the Designer designed everything," follow up by pointing out that if the Intelligent Designer didn't do EVERYTHING, there must necessarily be some things It didn't do... so what things weren't designed by the Designer? Insist on specifics, and don't let anybody forget that the guys who are doing their damnedest to avoid answering this question, are the same people who had been yammering about how unanswered questions are a good reason to reject a scientific theory.
Quote
When did the Intelligent Designer do it?

1st Answer: It doesn't really matter...

Suggested reply: Hammer on them for their blatant hypocrasy. "Hold it. You were just making noise about how unanswered questions are a good reason to reject a theory! How come you're saying 'I don't care' here, and not 'Gosh, I don't have an answer, so that means I should give up on ID' ?"
Quote
2nd Answer: some (unspecified) records indicate it's around 6000 years ago.

Insist on them saying exactly which 'documents' those are. If it's the Bible, make it very clear to everybody that this is all well and good as a religious belief, and ask them if they have any science to support what they're saying. You don't need to sneer at religion, but do make it very clear that Religion Ain't Science, and if they're rejecting a scientific theory for religious reasons, they shouldn't claim they're rejecting it on scientific grounds, because that's a big, fat, hairy LIE. If they can't actually identify any of these 'documents' they mentioned, hammer on their hypocrasy -- what, unanswered questions only cast doubt on a scientific theory when it's a theory they don't happen to agree with? yeah, right, sure, you bet...
Quote
3nd answer: The designer has never stopped doing whatever you think he might have done.

Remind them that they don't have a good answer about what the Designer did. Ask them how the hell they know that the Designer is still at work, if they don't have a clue about what work that might have been.
Quote
What tools and techniques did the Intelligent Designer use when It was doing whatever the heck It did?

Answer: It doesn't really say how he did it besides it's not really our business to know.

My suggested response to this: "Okay, so you don't really think unanswered questions are a good reason to doubt a scientific theory." Hammer on their hypocracy, yada yada yada.
Quote
What did the Intelligent Designer design (various IDists have made noise about how It coulda designed anything from the flagellum to the entire Universe)?

Answer: That's not the question, the question we should ask is: (and then they ask another totally different question which they can answer!) - itallian polititians also use this way out often :D

Don't let them get away with changing the subject. "Yes, [verbiage they disgorged about irrelevant question] is all well and good, but it doesn't have anything to do with the question I asked. What did the Designer design?" Just keep at it, and make it very clear that anybody who thinks unanswered questions are a good reason to doubt a scientific theory, is the last person who should be making noise about "oh, that isn't the question".

tl:dr summary: Hammer on your Creationist buddies for their hypocrisy. Throw a harsh spotlight on all the bits of their position which would require them to reject that position, if they actually were serious about "unanswered questions are a good reason to doubt a scientific theory", and point out (for the lurkers) that the game your Creationist buddies are playing is called "heads I win, tails you lose" .

Date: 2011/11/23 19:21:33, Link
Author: Cubist
Give me a friggin' break. PZ said he won't accept GelatoGuy's apology, and he won't buy the dude's ice cream on those rare occasions when he's in the same town.
And that, in your mind, is "so far beyond stupid douchebaggery now that I need a label which explicitly excludes him from polite society"?
Give.
Me.
A.
Friggin'.
Break.

Date: 2011/11/23 20:02:58, Link
Author: Cubist
From Greta Christina's Blog: "I get angry when believers use the phrase 'atheist fundamentalist' without apparently knowing what the word 'fundamentalist' means. Call people pig-headed, call them stubborn, call them snarky, call them intolerant even. But unless you can point to the text to which these 'fundamentalist' atheists literally and strictly adhere without question, then please shut the hell up about us being fundamentalist."

Date: 2011/11/24 05:50:26, Link
Author: Cubist
What's the point of your Post Atheist movement, BWE? I might be persuaded to sign on, depending on what it is and what it's intended to do. At present, all I can make out is that it's just a "no Pharynguloids allowed" club, and if I'm right about that, please count me out. But if I'm wrong about your Post Atheism movement, could'ja please clue me in on what its actual goals & etc are?

Date: 2011/11/24 08:22:31, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 24 2011,07:19)
Most people think that science is against god and religion, this idea is fostered by the ringleaders. I try to show people that this is not the case and that the ring leaders use science when it suits them.

The thing is, those ringleaders are right: Science is against religion. Science is religion's greatest, most deadly enemy... but not because science actively tries to destroy religion. Rather, what science does to religion is far more cruel and lethal than even the most intransigently hostile opposition:
Science ignores religion.
You may be thinking, if science ignores religion, what's all the fuss about? The answer is that religion cannot afford to be ignored; in order to thrive, religion must be at the center of everything, must be at the center of all spotlights. So when science shows how things work, and gets results, and keeps on showing how things work, and keeps on getting results, all without paying religion any attention at all, for good or ill...
...when science does all that and keeps on doing all that, year in and year out, decade in and decade out, century in and century out...
...science makes religion unimportant. Trivial. Irrelevant.
And religious believers know it. Religions can die when the last adherent is slaughtered -- but they're just as dead when people stop caring about them. By coming up with usable, religion-free explanations for things, science shows that Not Caring About Religion is a viable option. And since religions have, by and large, lost their former power to torture and kill unbelievers... Not Caring About Religion is an option more and more people are choosing. And this state of affairs is flatly intolerable, in the eyes of someone whose whole life, nay, whose entire existence has always revolved around their religion.
That's what the reality-based section of the populace is up against. And that's why Creationists are so friggin' resistant to correction and learning.

Date: 2011/11/24 18:25:55, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (BWE @ Nov. 24 2011,13:48)
 
Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 24 2011,03:50)
What's the point of your Post Atheist movement, BWE? I might be persuaded to sign on, depending on what it is and what it's intended to do. At present, all I can make out is that it's just a "no Pharynguloids allowed" club, and if I'm right about that, please count me out. But if I'm wrong about your Post Atheism movement, could'ja please clue me in on what its actual goals & etc are?

Yes. You are wrong and i will flesh it out on friday or maybe tonight. i remember to respond directly to this post. And thanks.

Coolness. I gotta say, my expectations are not high; your explicitly-stated Fallwell has been dead for quite a while now, Dover school board lost, The Discovery Institute authors can't sell enough books to fill a wagon any more, religion makes people do stupid things, so does atheism 'mantra' does not inspire confidence. I mean, sure, Falwell's dead, but the USAn political system is still full to the brim with godbots & people who shamelessly pander to godbots; Dover was a win for the good guys, but the bad guys just keep on tryna cripple science education; etc etc etc; and your 'mantra' carries real heavy connotations of it's all good, don't worry be happy, can't we all just get along. That's one almighty big and thick pair of rose-colored glasses you're wearing, y' know? So... let's just say that the omens are not even mildly auspicious.
Nevertheless, I'm perfectly willing to give you a chance to demonstrate that you've got more on your mind than just demonizing Pharyngula and minimizing/ignoring the very real problems atheists face in the current culture.

Date: 2011/11/26 01:08:43, Link
Author: Cubist
Faith is a funny thing. One can have faith that the Sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning, and one can have faith in Jesus Christ. But even tho one "has faith" in both cases, there seems to be a fairly significant distinction between the "faith" one has that the Sun will do, tomorrow, just what it's always done in the past however-many million days... and the "faith" one has in something that one believes because Someone In A Position Of Authority Said So. And it's worth noting that in the case of religious belief, there's one truly humongous pile of different religions, every one of which has Someone In A Position Of Authority to back it up, and every one of which contradicts most/all of the others, sometimes in relatively trivial ways (quick: what are the doctrinal differences between Anglicans and Methodists?) and sometimes in extremely significant ways (Christians say the Messiah has already been here; Jews are still waiting for the Messiah to show up).
So if your Creationist buddies want to make noise about how "it's all faith", fine. Insist on distinguishing between sun-rises-in-the-east-Faith, and Faith-based-on-authority... and ask them how the heck can you tell whether any given idea that's believed on account of Faith-based-on-authority is true? With an idea that's believed on account of sun-rises-in-the-east-Faith, you can always check it out and see for yourself whether or not whatever-it-is is true; with an idea that's believed on account of Faith-based-on-authority, the historical record suggests that there isn't any way to determine whether or not whatever-it-is is true. Rather, the historical record of religious belief, and Faith-based-on-authority in general, suggests that under a Faith-based-on-authority paradigm, 'erroneous' ideas aren't disproved, but, rather, are actively suppressed by violence and torture, up to & including the outright murder of 'heretics'.
So.
Your Creationist buddies want to play the it's-all-faith card? Fine. Demand that they provide examples of scientific ideas being suppressed by violence, torture, and/or outright murder.

edited to correct a dumb-ass brainfart about how the Sun rises in the west... oops...

Date: 2011/11/26 02:05:30, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 25 2011,09:39)
   
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 24 2011,12:48)
Oh and of course, I dont agree with the radiometric dating system

You know, for your contentions to be right, just about all of science has to be wrong? Not just a little wrong, flat out bollocks. This includes physics, geology, biology and astronomy.

This point cannot be emphasized enough. It's one thing when two Real Scientists date the same rock, and Dr. Fred comes up with an age-of-rock of 1.46 billion years, whilst Dr. Harry comes up with an age-of-rock of 1.39 billion years... but it's something else entirely when "Doctor" Y. E. C. Biblethumper "dates" that same rock and comes up with an age-of-rock in the neighborhood of one thousand years. With Drs. Fred and Harry, the 5% difference between their two age-of-rock figures could plausibly be the result of a minor error that one of the two committed; but "Doctor" Biblethumper's age-of-rock figure is six orders of magnitude different from either Dr. Fred's or Dr. Harry's age-of-rock figure.
Six.
Fucking.
Orders.
Of.
Magnitude.
According to this website, the distance between New York City, NY and San Francisco, CA is 2570 miles. Could that website be wrong? Sure it could! But for that website to be wrong by six fucking orders of magnitude, the true distance between New York and San Francisco would have to be (2570 miles / 1,000,000 =) thirteen and a half feet. Or, if you think that website might be off by six fucking orders of magnitude in the other direction, the true distance between New York and San Francisco would have to be (2570 miles * 1,000,000 =) 2,570,000,000 miles, a distance so great that it would take light itself, traveling at a speed of 186,000 miles per second, more than three hours fifty minutes to cover that distance.
So when you YECs make noise about don't believe those so-called 'scientists' when they speak of billions of years, the real age of the Earth is just a few thousand years, you are, whether you know it or not... whether you want to know it or not... in exactly the same position as someone who insists that New York is only thirteen feet away from San Francisco. And when you YECs bring up utter fucking bullshit 'arguments' in 'support' of your position, arguments whose intrinsic FAIL means that they could only be raised by a goddamn liar (if the YEC raising said arguments knows how false said arguments are) or a total fucking ignoramus (if the YEC raising said arguments is mindlessly parroting something they got from a YEC data-source), you only reinforce the impression that YECs must be stupid and/or ignorant and/or fucking insane.
Personally, I don't mind it when YECs make themselves look like ignorant, deranged morons, which is exactly and precisely what you've been doing here. But if you mind it when you make YECs look like ignorant, deranged morons, you might want to consider learning some real science, forastero. In particular, you might want to learn what science really has to say about evolution and the age of the Earth and yada yada yada. Because there are unanswered questions; real science doesn't have all the answers. If, after you learn what science really does say about the topics you're interested in, you still think YECism is right, fine; you'll be in the same boat as Dr. Kurt Wise and Dr. Todd Wood, both of whom are YECs, both of whom are quite well-informed about the science, and neither of whom would ever be caught dead making the kind of bullshit "San Francisco is thirteen feet from New York"-type errors you've made and continue to make. And if you learn about real science, you'll be able to use that knowledge to raise valid arguments against evolution, assuming there are any such.
Of course, you can continue to mindlessly regurgitate bullshit YEC propaganda. You absolutely can do that if you like. But if you do that, you're not gonna convince any non-YEC that YEC might be valid, and you won't make any non-YEC think YECs are anything less than stupid and/or ignorant and/or insane.
The choice is yours, forastero. It's forever and inescapably your choice.
Choose wisely.

Date: 2011/11/27 16:26:59, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 26 2011,02:11)
Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 26 2011,01:08)
Faith is a funny thing. One can have faith that the Sun will rise in the west tomorrow morning, and one can have faith in Jesus Christ. But even tho one "has faith" in both cases, there seems to be a fairly significant distinction between the "faith" one has that the Sun will do, tomorrow, just what it's always done in the past however-many million days... and the "faith" one has in something that one believes because Someone In A Position Of Authority Said So. And it's worth noting that in the case of religious belief, there's one truly humongous pile of different religions, every one of which has Someone In A Position Of Authority to back it up, and every one of which contradicts most/all of the others, sometimes in trivial ways (quick: what are the doctrinal differences between Anglicans and Methodists?) and sometimes in extremely significant ways (Christians say the Messiah has already been here; Jews as still waiting for the Messiah to show up).
So if your Creationist buddies want to make noise about how "it's all faith", fine. Insist on distinguishing between sun-rises-in-the-west-Faith, and Faith-based-on-authority... and ask them how the heck can you tell whether any given idea that's believed on account of Faith-based-on-authority is true? With an idea that's believed on account of sun-rises-in-the-west-Faith, you can always check it out and see for yourself whether or not whatever-it-is is true; with an idea that's believed on account of Faith-based-on-authority, the historical record suggests that there isn't any way to determine whether or not whatever-it-is is true. Rather, the historical record of religious belief, and Faith-based-on-authority in general, suggests that under a Faith-based-on-authority paradigm, 'erroneous' ideas aren't disproved, but, rather, are actively suppressed by violence and torture, up to & including the outright murder of 'heretics'.
So.
Your Creationist buddies want to play the it's-all-faith card? Fine. Demand that they provide examples of scientific ideas being suppressed by violence, torture, and/or outright murder.

I don't think the Sun rises in the west. I hope that opinion isn't set in stone as it could rise up and bite you in the ass.     ;)

You're only saying that 'cause it's true, damn your eyes... [sigh] My bad, and thanks for catching the error. Will edit to correct said error ASAP.

Date: 2011/11/27 16:46:55, Link
Author: Cubist
"The experiment was designed, therefore the results of the experiment were designed!" is a common IDiot response when faced with experimental results which nuke their assertions. It's also pretty stoopid, and you can make the stoopidity very obvious indeed with a few simple word-substitutions...

The roulette wheel was designed, therefore the sequence of numbers which come up on the wheel was designed!

The refrigerator was designed, therefore ice is designed!

Also, it's worth noting that the experiment was designed, therefore the results were designed is a veiled accusation of fraud on the part of scientists. It's saying that they got the results they got because they damn well made sure they got that particular set of results. Do your Creationist buddies really want to say that real scientists fabricate their experimental results?

Date: 2011/11/27 17:39:31, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Badger3k @ Nov. 27 2011,14:00)

Then you have this bit of childishness:
 
Quote
I’m also not going to tailor my opinions to pander to Andy Drennan’s delusions. It’s only going to work in reverse: I’m now feeling regret that I didn’t dump on religious foolishness at all in my Skepticon talk, and I kind of resent that if I speak there again next year, I’ll feel compelled to toss in a few mocking references to the inanity of Christianity just in case Andy shows up, even if they aren’t relevant to the subject at hand.


Seriously?  A lot of this crap started with one lush acting unprofessionally, and now you have someone who should know better saying he'll deliberately insert shit where it doesn't belong.  No class, no professionalism.

FAIL in reading comprehension. PZ said he'd feel the urge to insert shit where it doesn't belong, not that he actually would insert shit where it doesn't belong. And his use of the word "resent" suggests that whatever PZ may think of that urge, it's not one he approves of nor is likely to act upon. But y' know, if you just want to dump on PZ for the heinous sins of not accepting an apology and publicly stating that he, PZ Myers, does not intend to patronize one particular business, do carry on.

Date: 2011/11/27 20:48:48, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 27 2011,17:34)
Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 27 2011,17:46)
Do your Creationist buddies really want to say that real scientists fabricate their experimental results?

um, you do realize that Creationists accuse scientists of fraud and dishonesty on a regular basis, don't you?

AFAICT, Creationists tend not to explicitly, directly accuse scientists of fraud; the standard schtick (again, AFAICT) is to make some kind of statement or argument which is critically dependent on an unspoken presumption that scientists are frauds. Such as, just to pick a random example, the experiment is designed; therefore, the results are designed. It's not an explicit accusation of malfeasance, so it's not slander, right? Basically, it's the same old 'word magic' bullshit that Creationists indulge in so damn often. I suspect that most Creationists don't even realize what they're doing when they make veiled accusations of fraud/sleaze/turpitude... which is why it can be effective to drag such implicit accusations out into the cold, hard light of day where everybody can clearly see them for what they are.

Date: 2011/11/30 16:29:25, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 30 2011,13:38)
Quote (qetzal @ Nov. 28 2011,19:58)

Hi

Thank's for this it was really useful!

Just a consideration, is it possible that oraganisms left to themselves, without the pressures of natural competative selection would automatically tend toward loss of function.

After all they would just be responding to the new situation which requires less complex machinery.

I don't think there is, or even can be, an environment "without the pressures of natural competative selection".
Let's suppose an species is 'perfectly' adapted to its environment (for whatever value of 'perfectly'), and let's further suppose that its environment is stable over geologically relevant periods of time. Even in such a situation, there's going to be a finite quantity of resources available at any one time, and members of the species will be competing against each other for those resources. Voila -- natural selection! As well, mutations will occur, and some of those mutations will render their possessors more or less able to produce offspring, as compared to their fellow critters who lack the reproduction-affecting mutations. Again, natural selection.
In short: You can't get rid of competition, because if nothing else, critters compete against each other.

Date: 2011/12/06 18:20:16, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 06 2011,12:54)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 04 2011,17:18)

Hi,

I've been looking for some example of gain-of-function mutation that has derived from speciation.

That seems backwards to me. Mutations, including gain-of-function mutations in specific, are the stuff of which speciation is made, not so? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to ask for examples of speciation derived from gain-of-function mutation, rather than the other way around?

Date: 2011/12/09 15:34:58, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 09 2011,10:51)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 09 2011,05:27)
Why not just start with the miracle and call it day?

Of course the simpler solution is that the Bible isn't actually true, but we all know you cannot possibly go there.

So again, what's the point here?

I don't uderstand this either, Lou.  There comes a point when you've tossed out so much science* that POOF! is a more plausible explanation.  Given that YECs all believe in a POOFing deity, why not just stick with that?

I blame cognitive dissonance, myself. On the one hand, it's patently bleeding obvious that Science Works, Bitches; on the other hand, Creationists like forastero absolutely, positively, need to believe that the Bible is 1000% flawlessperfectspiffyCORRECT.
So when Science demonstrates that the Bible is, in fact, not 1000% flawlessperfectspiffyCORRECT... well, when that happens, Creationists like forastero have themselves a serious problem. They can't just deny science, because they damn well know that Science Works, Bitches. But they also can't accept that the Bible is anything other than 1000% flawlessperfectspiffyCORRECT, because they absolutely, positively, need to believe that. Which means they absolutely, positively must believe that Science supports Creationism.
This is why forastero keeps on tryna argue that his Creationism is scientific rather than just shrugging his shoulders and saying "eh, miracles, okay?" He's caught between the rock of "science works, bitches", and the hard place of "the Bible must be 1000% flawlessperfectspiffyCORRECT", and the resulting real-science-supports-Creationism posturing we've seen from him is forastero's way of squaring that particular circle.
I expect that at least one or two other people have reached conclusions similar to what I described above, but I figured it was worth mentioning anyway...

Date: 2011/12/09 20:46:47, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 09 2011,17:26)
Surely you're knot saying that pie isn't 3, bats isn't really birds, rabbits don't chew there cuds, and grasshoppers has more than fore legs?

Don't call me Shirley.

Date: 2011/12/10 01:21:24, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Woodbine @ Dec. 08 2011,16:53)
As intelligent design, JoeTard and IntelligentReasoning.blogspot.com fall deeper into obscurity ... Joe is wont to ruminate on matters heavenly. Such as uber-crackpot Richard C. Hoagland's theory that Phobos is in fact an alien spaceship.

In fairness, the reason some people think that Phobos might be an alien spacecraft is that its density is about 1.9 g/cc -- a bit less than twice the density of water, and very much less dense than solid rock. Phobos' anomalously low density cries out for an explanation, wouldn't you agree? Personally, I don't think 'alien spacecraft' will ultimately turn out to be that explanation, but at the same time, I am unaware of any hard data which would rule out that possibility.

Date: 2011/12/10 13:06:10, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 10 2011,13:00)
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 10 2011,01:21)
Quote (Woodbine @ Dec. 08 2011,16:53)
As intelligent design, JoeTard and IntelligentReasoning.blogspot.com fall deeper into obscurity ... Joe is wont to ruminate on matters heavenly. Such as uber-crackpot Richard C. Hoagland's theory that Phobos is in fact an alien spaceship.

In fairness, the reason some people think that Phobos might be an alien spacecraft is that its density is about 1.9 g/cc -- a bit less than twice the density of water, and very much less dense than solid rock. Phobos' anomalously low density cries out for an explanation, wouldn't you agree? Personally, I don't think 'alien spacecraft' will ultimately turn out to be that explanation, but at the same time, I am unaware of any hard data which would rule out that possibility.

I thought Phobos was the one that was smashed up in the past and only loosely held together by gravity, giving it a lot of empty space in between the bits.  I thought that was in a documentary, but since my memory is so vague it could have been a movie and thus have no factual basis.

That's certainly another viable possibility. All I'm sayin' is, at present we just don't have enough hard data to rule out the 'alien spacecraft' hypothesis. Of course, those people who not only rule that hypothesis in, but are also vehemently insistent on ruling all other hypotheses out, are prolly nutbars.

Date: 2011/12/12 16:20:07, Link
Author: Cubist
Show me a person who doesn't know what a kinkajou looks like, and I'll show you a person who wouldn't recognize a kinkajou if one was chewing on their face.
Your IDiot buddies say it's not possible for evolution to produce "novel genetic material"? Fine. What are the distinguishing characteristics of "novel genetic material" that would allow your IDiot buddies to recognize the stuff when they see it? You might want to offer up a challenge for your IDiot buddies...
Here's a nucleotide sequence:
gat tgg aag caa tag gag agg tag gga ttg gac atg gcc ggc cac tat tcg cga gga tcc gat gat cct agt ggt atc att tac caa tga
Is that sequence, or any part(s) of that sequence, composed of "novel genetic material"? Show your work.

Date: 2011/12/13 01:18:34, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,21:18)
       
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 12 2011,21:09)
We understand, Forastero. You can't answer my questions. Why not just admit it?

I already told you that your assistance on little differences dont make sense because little differences build up Big Time when working with the age numbers needed for your religion

Hmmm.
According to you, forastero, the Earth is only 10-to-20 thousand years old. Assuming you're right about that, there's only been 10-to-20 thousand years of time for stuff to have happened on Earth. So if some particular Thing X takes more than 20,000 years to occur, that means Thing X can't have occurred, because (still assuming you're right about the 10-to-20 millennia deal) there hasn't been enough time for it to have occurred.
Now.
Whatever "errors" may exist in radiometric dating, those "errors" cannot have been accumulating for a longer period of time than the Earth has existed, right? And according to you, the Earth has only existed for, at most, about 20,000 years. Which means that any "errors" which may exist in radiometric dating, cannot have been accumulating for more than the 20,000-year upper limit for the Earth's existence. It's all well and good to make noise about how badly a radiometric date can be distorted by millions of years' worth of accumulated "error"... but in order for such an argument to make sense, there has to be millions of years of time during which that "error" can accumulate. Because if the Earth is only 10-to-20 thousand years old, the absolute maximum amount of time during which any such "error" could accumulate, is 10-to-20 thousand years.
With me so far, forastero?
If you're right about the Earth being only 10-to-20 thousand years old... it doesn't matter whether or not a given "error" could, over a period of millions or billions of years, accumulate enough to make a 5-digit age-of-Earth falsely appear to be a 10-digit age-of-Earth. Because in order for that "error" to have actually had millions or billions of years to accumulate, the Earth must actually BE millions or billions of years old.
So, forastero: You want to say that "errors" accumulate to make radiometric dates wrong? Fine. But if you're tryna make a case for YECism, you'd damn well better make sure you're talking about "errors" that accumulate over a time-period no longer than the amount of time you want to claim Earth has existed. Because if you make noise about "error" accumulating over millions or billions of years... well, put it this way: If your argument is Radiometric dating is wrong because it's full of errors, and if you let these errors accumulate for billions of years longer than the Earth has actually existed, the accumulated error is big enough to make the true 10Kyear age-of-Earth falsely appear to be a biased Darwinian multibillion-year age-of-Earth, just how many non-YECs are going to buy what you're selling?

Date: 2011/12/13 22:24:20, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 13 2011,05:28)
 
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 12 2011,16:20)
Show me a person who doesn't know what a kinkajou looks like, and I'll show you a person who wouldn't recognize a kinkajou if one was chewing on their face.
Your IDiot buddies say it's not possible for evolution to produce "novel genetic material"? Fine. What are the distinguishing characteristics of "novel genetic material" that would allow your IDiot buddies to recognize the stuff when they see it? You might want to offer up a challenge for your IDiot buddies...
Here's a nucleotide sequence:
gat tgg aag caa tag gag agg tag gga ttg gac atg gcc ggc cac tat tcg cga gga tcc gat gat cct agt ggt atc att tac caa tga
Is that sequence, or any part(s) of that sequence, composed of "novel genetic material"? Show your work.

Remeber these people hold behe's work and the bible next to each other.

Doesn't matter. If these IDiots are going to make noise about "novel genetic material", they need to have some way to tell whether or not a given chunk of genetic material genuinely is "novel", because if they don't have some way to tell the difference between "novel" and non-"novel" genetic material, they're talking bullshit.
Quote
So in the example of the lizard, they say yes it may have mutated but no new novel functions or genetic material is involved. It's just epigenics.

They can claim whatever they like, but you need to be doggedly persistent. Don't let them just handwave a question away; demand that they bloody well answer the question, and make it bloody well obvious that they don't have any answers! So your reply should be, "Oh, really? No 'novel genetic material', you say? That's a meaningless claim unless you have some method to tell whether or not a chunk of genetic material is 'novel'. So please, would you use that method to tell me how much (if any) of the nucleotide sequence gat tgg aag caa tag gag agg tag gga ttg gac atg gcc ggc cac tat tcg cga gga tcc gat gat cct agt ggt atc att tac caa tga is 'novel'?"
Quote
What they say is show us that the DNA of the original lizard and the "new" lizard has been totaly sequenced and show us where there is added information. Until you do so you are assuming that there is without a drop of proof.

If the lizards' DNA hasn't been sequenced, on what grounds can they claim that the 'new' lizard doesn't have any 'novel genetic material'? That "sorry, no data yet" gambit is a two-edged sword; if IDiots want to use it on evolution, you have every justification for using it on ID.
Quote
This is a comfortable place from them to be as DNA sequencing is expencive and they know it won't be done on a lizard. Actually Ioseb launched a challenge and said prove to me with a study that this is an example in which novel genetic matrial is added in the "new" lizard and I'll bow down to you all.

Your reply should be, "Hold it. Since the lizard's DNA hasn't been sequenced, how the heck can you be so sure that it doesn't have any 'novel genetic material' in it? You haven't even been able to show that you can tell which bits of a known nucleotide sequence do or don't qualify as 'novel genetic material', so why should anybody believe you can tell which bits of an unknown nucleotide sequence do or don't qualify as 'novel genetic material'?"

Date: 2011/12/14 05:13:04, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 14 2011,03:20)
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 13 2011,22:24)

 
Quote
Doesn't matter. If these IDiots are going to make noise about "novel genetic material", they need to have some way to tell whether or not a given chunk of genetic material genuinely is "novel", because if they don't have some way to tell the difference between "novel" and non-"novel" genetic material, they're talking bullshit.


I believe they would say sequence the DNA of the original lizard population then sequence the DNA of the "evolved" lizard if there is extra stuff for creating cecal valves then that's new material.

That's nice. If they want their yammering about "novel genetic material" to be taken seriously, they simply must have some way to tell whether or not a given chunk of genetic material genuinely is "novel". Don't let them get away with leaving "novel genetic material" undefined, and don't let them get away with vague handwaving in place of a usable protocol for distinguishing "novel" genetic material from non-"novel" genetic material.
Quote
Quote
If the lizards' DNA hasn't been sequenced, on what grounds can they claim that the 'new' lizard doesn't have any 'novel genetic material'? That "sorry, no data yet" gambit is a two-edged sword; if IDiots want to use it on evolution, you have every justification for using it on ID.

Well they turn the argument the other way round, saying since you can't prove that there is new material how can you say it's an example of evolution, it's just the same lizard that has adapted to the new diet all the morphological features are due to epigenics. Nothing new has been added.

Insist on them laying out a usable protocol for determining whether or not a given chunk of genetic material really is "new", and if they can't do that, ask them how the hell they tell whether or not anything "new" has been added? Sorry, but "naah, it don't look 'novel' to me" just won't cut the mustard... and if they have no objective way to determine whether or not a given chunk of genetic material actually is 'novel', naah, it don't look 'novel' to me is all they've got!
Quote
Quote
Your reply should be, "Hold it. Since the lizard's DNA hasn't been sequenced, how the heck can you be so sure that it doesn't have any 'novel genetic material' in it? You haven't even been able to show that you can tell which bits of a known nucleotide sequence do or don't qualify as 'novel genetic material', so why should anybody believe you can tell which bits of an unknown nucleotide sequence do or don't qualify as 'novel genetic material'?"

They I assume they would reply: well you're the one who brought up the lizard in the first place as an example of evolution, but you have not shown that on a genetic level there is something new.

This word, 'new'. You keep using it, but if you don't have any way to tell whether or not a given chunk of genetic material actually is 'new', you might as well be saying that you haven't shown that on a genetic level there is something zibbleblorf.
Quote
All that you have shown are morphological differences based on genetic plasticity. We don't deny this we're just saying that it's not an example of evolution, it's adaptation of already existing genetic material. Nothing new here, move along.

Again, do not let them get away with leaving their terms undefined. If they're going to make noise about how evolution requires 'new' genetic material, insist that they define what the fuck they mean by 'new' genetic material, and insist that they explain how the fuck they can tell whether or not a given chunk of genetic material genuinely is 'new'.
Quote
Also they have as yet not shown that they accept ID, that would leave them open to any sort of attack. They're just out to show the theory is wrong as according to them it can't be used to explain biodiversity as has been prooven in Behe's peer reviewed paper.

If they can't define 'new' genetic material, their assertion that evolution requires 'new' genetic material is no more meaningful than an assertion that evolution requires 'zibbleblorf' genetic material.

Keep on asking the IDiots to determine which bits of a nucleotide sequence are 'new', and make sure nobody can ignore the fact that they haven't even been able to tell which bits are or aren't 'new'.
Also: Work up some arbitrary pairs of sequences, with Sequence B of each pair being what happens when Sequence A of the pair gets hit with a particular kind of mutation. For each pair of sequences, does Sequence B contain any 'new' genetic material, and if so, which bits of Sequence B are the 'new' bits?

Date: 2011/12/15 19:53:33, Link
Author: Cubist
I'd be willing to bet a substantial amount of cash that Southstar's IDiot buddies have not yet gotten around to defining what the heck they mean when they say "novel genetic material". So I have a suggestion for Southstar: Post a message which says something like I've asked the IDiots to define 'novel genetic material', to explain how the heck they can distinguish between 'novel' genetic material and non-'novel' genetic material, and so far, they got nothing. So for all that anybody can tell, the IDiot verbiage about 'novel genetic material' is meaningless babble. Therefore, in all future posts when I'm replying to an IDiot post that mentions 'novel genetic material', I'm going to change 'novel genetic material' to 'zibbleblorf genetic material', to throw a spotlight on the fact that the IDiots haven't yet bothered to explain what the heck they mean by 'novel genetic material'. I will of course be glad to stop replacing 'novel' with 'zibbleblorf' just as soon as the IDiots do get around to defining what the heck they mean when they talk about 'novel genetic material', but until then, I'm using a nonsense pseudo-word to replace an undefined term.

Date: 2011/12/15 20:58:46, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 15 2011,19:44)
     
Quote (khan @ Dec. 15 2011,18:47)
       
Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 15 2011,19:30)
Hey, guys, um... Just a thought about the Duggars and Michele losing the 20th child...

What would have happened to her had those hideous "investigate and prosecute pregnant women who have miscarriages" bills had actually become law? Do those people (I use the term loosely) pushing for such a legal abomination wish to have Mrs. Duggar investigated? I mean, if one follows their line of thinking...

More importantly, don't you think that this would be a good question to ask whoever the heck the Republican nominee turns out to be? Because I would really like to see one of these nutjobs try to walk out of that painted corner without getting their feet (and hands) dirty.

Because, seriously - who really supports a bill like that? Or did these jokers just want to waste (more) Congressional time?

BTW if you are so inclined, they have pictures of it and a family portrait (Kodak Moment) all over the place.

No, thanks. I did attend a funeral for a stillborn infant once. It did not help me when the pastor stood up and proclaimed, "We believe that God is the enemy of death!" Oh, shut up, and show some respect. Geez. That was the worst funeral that I've ever attended.

"Bobby" Franklin, who sponsored that ludicrous bill, is dead, too, or I'd email his office today and ask him his opinion, so I could get some classic hemming, hawing, and backpedaling. Whatever you think of the Duggars and their televising this memorial, I just can't get over the fact that she could have been the first woman prosecuted for this. How heartless. These pro-life fanatics must really have hearts of stone.

As far as I can tell, advocates for forced birth ("pro-life", my ass!) aren't lacking in empathy for their fellow man, or at least they aren't exceptionally callous by comparison with pro-choice types. What's wrong with the pro-forced-birth crowd, I suspect, can be summed up by a quote from Voltaire: Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities. In many, if not most, cases, we are talking about people who honestly, sincerely, believe all kinds of patently absurd bullshit -- God and Heaven and the afterlife and yada yada yada -- and they just as honestly, sincerely believe that they've got a 100% reliable line on what you must do in order to reserve the best class of afterlife apartment for yourself. It's not that pro-forced-birthers think that there are no costs (emotional or otherwise) associated with being forced to give birth; rather, it's that they think a woman who kills their own child is going to burn in Hell forever. Since any suffering that occurs on this Earth is strictly temporary and limited, whatever mundane, Earthly suffering may befall a woman, as a result of her being forced to give birth, is obviously outweighed by the horrifying prospect of that woman burning in Hell forever.
So by their own lights, it's the pro-forced-birth crowd who are the truly compassionate ones. They're trying to stop that woman from burning in Hell forever, after all! Don't you abortionists care about that woman's eternal fate? How can you be so vicious & cruel as to let temporary, limited, insignificant worldly irrelevancies get in the way of the truly important work of keeping people out of Hell?
Here's that Voltaire quote again, because it bears repeating: Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.

Date: 2011/12/15 22:58:05, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 15 2011,20:52)
 
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 15 2011,19:53)
I'd be willing to bet a substantial amount of cash that Southstar's IDiot buddies have not yet gotten around to defining what the heck they mean when they say "novel genetic material". So I have a suggestion for Southstar: Post a message which says something like I've asked the IDiots to define 'novel genetic material', to explain how the heck they can distinguish between 'novel' genetic material and non-'novel' genetic material, and so far, they got nothing. So for all that anybody can tell, the IDiot verbiage about 'novel genetic material' is meaningless babble. Therefore, in all future posts when I'm replying to an IDiot post that mentions 'novel genetic material', I'm going to change 'novel genetic material' to 'zibbleblorf genetic material', to throw a spotlight on the fact that the IDiots haven't yet bothered to explain what the heck they mean by 'novel genetic material'. I will of course be glad to stop replacing 'novel' with 'zibbleblorf' just as soon as the IDiots do get around to defining what the heck they mean when they talk about 'novel genetic material', but until then, I'm using a nonsense pseudo-word to replace an undefined term.

May I suggest gzorply muffnordled genetic information?

(Also used here.)

[snicker] Why not? One arbitrary string is as good as another... hmmm... You know, IDiots make use of rather more than one undefined term. Perhaps it might be appropriate to make use of several nonsense pseudo-words, one for each undefined-by-ID term that's thrown around by IDiots? Like so:

Zibbleblorf
Gzorply
Muffnordle
Gostak
Distim
Dosh
Jabberwock
Thurb
Tove
Plergb
Snark
Crottle
Greep
Potrzebie
Zorkmid
Boojum
Filfre
Sniny
Gnusto
Brillig

Date: 2011/12/16 15:30:54, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 16 2011,07:50)
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 15 2011,22:58)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 15 2011,20:52)
   
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 15 2011,19:53)
I'd be willing to bet a substantial amount of cash that Southstar's IDiot buddies have not yet gotten around to defining what the heck they mean when they say "novel genetic material". So I have a suggestion for Southstar: Post a message which says something like I've asked the IDiots to define 'novel genetic material', to explain how the heck they can distinguish between 'novel' genetic material and non-'novel' genetic material, and so far, they got nothing. So for all that anybody can tell, the IDiot verbiage about 'novel genetic material' is meaningless babble. Therefore, in all future posts when I'm replying to an IDiot post that mentions 'novel genetic material', I'm going to change 'novel genetic material' to 'zibbleblorf genetic material', to throw a spotlight on the fact that the IDiots haven't yet bothered to explain what the heck they mean by 'novel genetic material'. I will of course be glad to stop replacing 'novel' with 'zibbleblorf' just as soon as the IDiots do get around to defining what the heck they mean when they talk about 'novel genetic material', but until then, I'm using a nonsense pseudo-word to replace an undefined term.

May I suggest gzorply muffnordled genetic information?

(Also used here.)

[snicker] Why not? One arbitrary string is as good as another... hmmm... You know, IDiots make use of rather more than one undefined term. Perhaps it might be appropriate to make use of several nonsense pseudo-words, one for each undefined-by-ID term that's thrown around by IDiots? Like so:

Zibbleblorf
Gzorply
Muffnordle
Gostak
Distim
Dosh
Jabberwock
Thurb
Tove
Plergb
Snark
Crottle
Greep
Potrzebie
Zorkmid
Boojum
Filfre
Sniny
Gnusto
Brillig

dFCSI

Tracy, they already are using "dFCSI", so I'd advise against using it in this context. Mind you, it could be great wicked fun to muddy the waters by using an ID nonsense pseudo-word as a placeholder for a different undefined ID concept...

Date: 2011/12/16 16:00:20, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (BWE @ Dec. 16 2011,15:37)
Holy cow! Am I the last one to find out about the "New Atheists"?

 
Quote
theNew Atheists
The OUT Campaign

Tolerance of pervasive myth and superstition in modern society is not a virtue.

Religious fundamentalism has gone main stream and its toll on education, science, and social progress is disheartening.
Wake up people!!  We are smart enough now to kill our invisible gods and oppressive beliefs.

It is the responsibility of the educated to educate the uneducated, lest we fall prey to the tyranny of ignorance.


This is wrong in so many ways.

Really. Which bit of it is wrong, BWE?
Do you think "tolerance of pervasive myth and superstition in our modern society" is a virtue? Me, I don't. I think that batshit insane ideas overwhelmingly tend to have Really Bad Consequences, so it's not at all a good thing when those batshit insane ideas are pervasive in a society.
Or the bit about "religious fundamentalism has gone mainstream" -- is that wrong?
Do you think religious fundamentalism hasn't affected education, science, and social progress for the worse, or do you just dispute that "disheartening" is an appropriate adjective to use in this context?
Or maybe "It is the responsibility of the educated to educate the uneducated" is what you deem wrong? I can't see it, myself -- I mean, if the people who actually do know what they're talking about don't teach facts to the ignorant, who the heck will?
Clue me in here, BWE. And it'd be nice if you could bring up some arguments that don't reduce to atheists don't got nothin' to kvetch about and/or anything PZMyers likes is icky & wrong...

Date: 2011/12/21 12:01:42, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (k.e.. @ Dec. 21 2011,07:09)
I'd like to see the creodicks  actually design something ....anything they don't have a creative bone in their bodies

I beg to differ, k.e.! Have you ever seriously tried to formulate an argument that black is really white? It can't be easy to work up the kind of apologetics-cum-rationalizations IDiots/Creationists disgorge on an all too regular basis! As Dolly Parton once said, "You won't believe how much it costs to look this cheap"...

Date: 2011/12/22 20:59:27, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Robin @ Dec. 20 2011,11:04)
I was away during this item, so I'm a little late on the topic. I would still like to know if the follow-up post by News can be parsed in English:
   
Quote
Log in to Reply
   3.1.1
   News
   December 18, 2011 at 4:34 pm

   We get tied of the puffing of done to death celebs. It’s true.

I mean really...does that string of words mean anything in any language?

If we assume that "tied" is a typo for "tired", this sentence could be interpreted as a statement of dissatisfaction at the excessive levels of publicity (= "puffing") which is bestowed upon overexposed (= "done to death") celebrities (= "celebs"). Who can say if that is indeed the concept which 'News' was intending to convey...

Date: 2011/12/26 01:57:21, Link
Author: Cubist
The Overwhelming Evidence website seems to be having some technical difficulties. Click on that link, and you get a webpage that consists of a single image, a 'splash page' that whines about Judge Jones and invites you to "Join the OE Army"... but when I clicked on it just now, I got this error message:
=============
Unable to select database

We were able to connect to the MySQL database server (which means your username and password are okay) but not able to select the database.

The MySQL error was: Access denied for user 'cdslayer_cds'@'localhost' to database 'cdslayer_live'.

Currently, the database is cdslayer_live. The username is cdslayer_cds and the database server is localhost.

   • Are you sure you have the correct database name?
   • Are you sure the database exists?
   • Are you sure the username has permission to access the database?

For more help, see the Installation and upgrading handbook. If you are unsure what these terms mean you should probably contact your hosting provider.
=============
Dunno what's up with that -- all the more so because the link to the infamous "Judge Jones School of Law" animation, which link carlsonjok was kind enough to provide, dutifully puts that animation on your screen. Anybody else want to try the 'main' OE link and see if the glitch I got is unique to my browser and OS and yada yada?

Date: 2011/12/28 19:48:12, Link
Author: Cubist
Kattarina98's graph is obviously based on fake statistics; there is nothing associated with the internet which, when graphed, would yield the clean, straight lines she got. The real statistics for Dembski's user statistics would have a lot more 'jitter' to it, a lot more 'scatter' around a more-or-less steady underlying trend. Accordingly, I did a bit of research, and I found a set of statistics which I believe to be a good deal more accurate than those Kattarina98 used. Here's the graphic evidence so you can judge for yourselves:



I don't have Lou's talent, but here's a special recognition:




Date: 2011/12/29 15:10:09, Link
Author: Cubist
Richardthughes, I am dismayed at the cynicism you display with your question, which carries the implicit presumption that I might actually have fabricated the entire graph, including the data-points on which it is based. However, I must admit that in these days of Photoshop and Faux News, such cynicism is at least partially justified. Indeed, it would have been relatively simple for me to have faked the graph, had I so chosen, by means of ruthless exploitation of the Pen tool in Photoshop. The basic idea would be, start with a straight line; add a whole lot of corner-points; and shuffle said corner-points up and down, as needed, until the final faked graph takes shape.
Of course, if I had actually done that, it would have been a Faux-worthy lapse of intellectual dishonesty and a vindication of the standards we at AtBC have come to hold dear. TARD.

Date: 2011/12/31 17:02:55, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 30 2011,21:41)
i'll bet you liver cells that atheistoclast is our friend fourass

Unlikely, on the grounds that their respective writing styles are quite different, as are the psychological pathologies they display.

Date: 2012/01/02 07:06:15, Link
Author: Cubist
hmmm... you could talk about insurance companies? An insurance company can accurately predict how many of its customers are likely to break their legs in any given year, but they can't even begin to predict which ones those customers will be.
Alternately, you could talk about radioactive decay. Given a chunk of Radioactive Element X with [number] atoms of Element X in it, you can make very accurate predictions about the quantity of atoms that will decay in any given time period, but even in principle, there's no way to tell in advance *which* of those atoms will decay.

Date: 2012/01/27 18:27:39, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Jan. 27 2012,16:41)
Thought you guys may want to see some of our latest imagery for Hellbound?

Speaking solely for myself, Mr. Miller, I have no interest in seeing any movie that you had anything to do with. By your own behavior, you have demonstrated yourself to be a goddamned liar-for-Jesus and a propagandist in whose mind 'truth' must always be subordinated to whatever ideology you happen to be whoring yourself out for at the time. The fact that the God you profess to worship has not smited you for your numerous violations of His Ninth Commandment—exactly none of which violations you have seen fit to even acknowledge, let alone repent for—must be considered evidence that the God you profess to worship either does not exist, or else doesn't give a shit what sort of shenanigans us humans get up to in His name.
You, Mr. Miller, had better hope that the Bible is wrong about the post mortem fate God has reserved for false witnesses. Because if the Bible is right about that, you are going to burn in a lake of fire for all eternity.

Date: 2012/02/22 03:18:37, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (BWE @ Feb. 22 2012,00:56)
I take some of that back. His behavior is only disgusting and his ideas only utterly simplistic, juvenile, wrong, and stupid on the the topics of religion and politics. He is alright at talking about biology.

How's your "We Hate PZ" Club—sorry, I meant Post Atheist Movement—coming along, BWE?

Date: 2012/03/01 03:25:46, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 29 2012,21:14)
I know that Doug Axe dabbled a bit in modifying coding sequences, but has anyone ever proven that any protein coding sequence cannot tolerate change?

There are 64 different codons (AAA, AAC, AAG, … TTC, TTG, TTT), which code for 20 different amino acids (alanine through valine). Therefore, one would expect that at least a few amino acids are coded for by more than one of the available 64 codons. And one would be correct to expect such.

Coded for by 6 (six) distinct codons: Arginine, Leucine, Serine
Coded for by 4 (four) distinct codons: Alanine, Glycine, Proline, Threonine, Valine
Coded for by 3 (three) distinct codons: Isoleucine
Coded for by 2 (two) distinct codons: Asparagine, Aspartic acid, Cysteine, Glutamic acid, Glutamine, Histidine, Lysine, Phenylalanine, Tyrosine
Coded for by exactly 1 (one) distinct codon: Methionine, Tryptophan
There are also the three 'stop' codons (UAA, UAG, and UGA), which mark the end of a coding sequence; I mention them so nobody will get the idea that I can't add…
But I digress.


If a protein contains exactly one Leucine amino acid, there must be a minimum of six distinct coding sequences which will yield exactly & precisely that specific protein. I say "must" because, even if you assume the entire rest of the sequence yields a single unique result, the bit of the sequence which yields the Leucine could be any of 6 (six) distinct codons, namely, UUA; UUG; CUU; CUC; CUA; and CUG. And of course, all save two of the other amino acids (that pair being Methionine and Tryptophan) are coded for by 2+ distinct codons.
So if you want to know how many different nucleotide sequences are physically capable of yielding a given protein, count up each of the individual amino acids in that protein. Let A = the number of Alanines in the protein; C, the number of Cysteines; D, the number of Aspartic acids; E, Glutamic acids; F, Phenylalanines; G, Glycines; H, Histidines; I, Isoleucines; K, Lysines; L, Leucines; M, Methionines; N, Asparagines; P, Prolines; Q, Glutamines; R, Arginines; S, Serines; T, Threonines; V, Valines; W, Tryptophans; and Y, Tyrosines… and plug those values into this equation:
Number of sequences = 6^(L+R+S) * 4^(A+G+P+T+V) * 3^(I) * 2^(C+D+E+F+H+K+N+Q+Y)
For any protein which does not consist entirely of Methionine and Tryptophan, this calculation will yield a number of possible sequences which is appreciably greater than 1 (one). Hence, the vast majority of protein coding sequences must be able to tolerate some degree of change.

Date: 2012/03/01 23:13:47, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 01 2012,21:10)
If you hold an invitation-only event, you shouldn't be surprised that people you didn't invite did not show up.

How dare those crass, evil, impolite, insidious Darwinists decline to crash an event they weren't invited to!

Date: 2012/03/15 16:57:45, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (noncarborundum @ Mar. 15 2012,10:31)
Quote (Febble @ Mar. 15 2012,09:44)
Stonehenge is irrelevant.  Stonehenge doesn't reproduce.

Fucking megaliths, how do they work?

That's just it: Megaliths don't fuck…

Date: 2012/03/20 02:07:40, Link
Author: Cubist
Just in case someone is curious: The JPE file format divides an image up into small (8x8 pixel) chunks, and it uses a Fourier Transform-type compression algorithm on each individual chunk. This algorithm is intrinsically lossy, which means it's explicitly and deliberately throwing away some of the image's information; when you save an image as JPEG and your machine asks you what "quality" level you want, it's really asking you how much of the image-info you want to throw away. At really low "quality" levels, the individual 8x8 image-chunks become increasingly obvious.

Date: 2012/03/20 05:24:06, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Mar. 20 2012,02:17)
doesn't it do that everytime you save the image?  like if you have .jpg in a draft manuscript and you open/close and save multiple times, it will degrade the quality of the img

or is that some academic bullshit i should be mad about falling for

If you don't edit the image, re-saving it shouldn't change anything. If you do edit the image, and save the changed image as JPEG, it will lose some quality.

Date: 2012/03/21 12:11:20, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Mar. 21 2012,10:33)
We've just released our new teaser trailer and web site for the film.

That's nice, Mr. Miller. It doesn't alter the fact that you are a damned liar (literally—9th Commandment, you know?) and an odious shill for other damned liars, but it's nice.

Date: 2012/04/02 13:44:51, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (DiEb @ April 02 2012,02:44)

How did you make that graph, DiEb? Just wondering how easy it would be to add the "new posts" data RTH inquired about...

Date: 2012/04/04 10:18:24, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 01 2012,12:34)
That's it.  I'm officially DONE with the internet today.  I'll be back when it's NOT April 1st.

Saber-Toothed-Fucking Lemmings... seriously?
http://news.sciencemag.org/science....?ref=hp

At least they made a point of including clues to the bogus nature of the article -- I mean, "D. Avril Poisson" of the "High-Arctic Institute of the Museum of Montreal (HI-MOM)"? "I.D. Goode, longtime scientific consultant to the Kansas State Board of Education"? Yeah...

Date: 2012/04/17 02:39:22, Link
Author: Cubist
"holding conversation about intelligent design and creation in much the same way others at JPL discussed traditional science"? Interesting. Unless I'm misreading that, Coppedge's lawyer acknowledged that "intelligent design and creation" are separate and distinct from "traditional science" -- in other words, that ID ain't science!

Date: 2012/04/21 02:15:47, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,April 20 2012,21:57)
robin that is fantastic


anyone else laughing their balls off at nick matzkes meltdown in progress at PT?  fuck he really did say some of the dumbest shit i have ever read.  you owe it to yourself to revel in the tard

Yeah... I posted a comment pointing out that since Gnu Atheists have been doing their thing for a number of years now, the negative effects he's attributing to Gnu Atheist activity are things that should be visibly occuring... so are those things occuring, or are they not? No response from Matzke, so I've posted again, making the same point in different words.

Date: 2012/04/29 05:57:38, Link
Author: Cubist
Zounds! the synapses doth tremble
When we practice to dissemble!

Date: 2012/04/30 18:50:17, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (kn0808 @ April 30 2012,16:14)
While all of you are attacking Dembski, you are not making any kind of argument of your own. No one has even made an argument against one of his statements.

I've made arguments against his statements. In particular, I've made arguments against (some of) his statements regarding his so-called 'Explanatory Filter'.
Dembski has stated that the Filter is simply a formalized, more-rigorous version of the design-detection methodology everyone uses. But the Filter is strictly an eliminative process -- you rule out Explanation A, then rule out Explanation B, and keep on ruling out explanations, and if you run out of explanations to rule out, you conclude 'Design' is the explanation -- and we don't use eliminative processes to recognize design. If we used eliminative processes to recognize who painted a particular painting, that process of recognition would look something like this: "Okay, it's not a Magritte… it's not a Rembrandt… it's not a Picasso… it's not a Van Gogh… (next several hundred, if not thousand, "it's not So-and-so" eliminations omitted 'cause they'd be horribly boring to read) …aha! Got it—that painting is a Rockwell!" But that doesn't happen; nobody recognizes a Rockwell because it's not like [insert list of painters it isn't like]. Rather, we recognize a Rockwell because it is like a Rockwell. You don't recognize Rockwell-style brushstrokes because they aren't the sort of brushstrokes used by [insert list of other painters]; rather, you recognize Rockwell-style brushstrokes because you know the characteristics of Rockwell's brushstrokes, and you can recognize those characteristics when you see them.
More generally, we don't recognize any member of Category X on the grounds that it's not similar to things which are not members of Category X; rather we recognize a member of Category X on the grounds that it is similar to known members of category X.
Contrary to Dembski's Filter, which is built on the presupposition that we recognize Design on the basis that Design is not like non-Design, how we actually recognize Design is on the basis that Design is like known examples of Design.
As well, I've argued that Dembski's Filter cannot do the job Dembski claims it can unless it's being used by an omniscient entity. The Filter is all about elimination of non-Design explanation, right? Fine—but how can you eliminate a non-Design explanation you don't know about? Answer: You can't eliminate a non-Design explanation you don't know about. Therefore, Dembski's Filter necessarily yields a false positive result of "yep, it's Designed" whenever any investigator uses that Filter on a subject that has a non-Design explanation of which that investigator is ignorant.
So... Dembski's Filter is not a more-rigorous version of intellectual processes which are in common use, even tho he says it is. Any time the Filter yields a result of 'yes, it's Designed', there is no way to distinguish between (a) the Filter having correctly identified Design in a Designed whatzit, or (b) the investigator being unaware of the non-Design explanation for a non-Designed whatzit.
Quote
You have simply discredited him...

False. The person who has discredited Dembski is Dembski himself. All his critics have done is point out that he is discredited.
Quote
While you may not agree with Dembski or Intelligent Design, give me a rational explanation about what specifically is wrong with it and defend your own position.

Asked and answered. Feel free to show me what's wrong with my criticism of Dembski's Filter.

Date: 2012/05/01 03:50:29, Link
Author: Cubist
It's worth noting that our host, Wesley Elsberry, is co-author (with John Wilkins) of an essay called The advantages of theft over toil: the design inference and arguing from ignorance, which basically eviscerates Dembski's Explanatory Filter in a most rigorous manner. And since our new friend is concerned about the putative disrespect Dembski has received from the community of real scientists, perhaps he or she might want to browse the Invidious Comparisons forum on this board, which documents various examples of just this sort of impolite behavior on the part of ID=pushers -- including Dembski himself. By the way, do you know if Dembski has created any more Flash animations lately?

Later editation: There is a thread devoted to discussion between Dembski's students and the regulars hereabouts which may have some relevance here.

Date: 2012/05/04 14:44:26, Link
Author: Cubist
You want a photoshopped Unabomber billboard? Okey-dokey…



This didn't require Photoshop skills, so much as type-matching skills. If your machine happens to have both Photoshop and the Arial Black font installed on it, feel free to grab the 'Shop file for a template—and have fun!

Date: 2012/05/05 03:21:38, Link
Author: Cubist
Have tweaked the template to make it easier for people to create parodies using different photos. Paste whichever photo you like into a fresh layer behind the billboard-related layers; edit the text of the photo caption and the billboard proper; and you're good to go.
The typeface used on the billboard is not Arial. Rather, it's Helvetica. The current template has two layer-sets (one of them Arial Bold & Black, the other Helvetica Bold & Black) for the billboard message & photo caption. If you think Arial is a good-enough match to the billboard typeface, or if you just don't have Helvetica on your machine, go ahead and use the Arial layer-set; otherwise, I recommend the Helvetica layer-set.

Date: 2012/05/18 21:35:23, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (OgreMkV @ May 18 2012,21:02)
Quote (REC @ May 18 2012,16:23)
Joe, at UD:

"Baraminology is, in a nutshell, descent with modification."

Good grief... he doesn't even understand his own position.

Your sentence is three words too long.

Date: 2012/06/04 12:11:25, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (The whole truth @ June 04 2012,05:44)
WHY would PZ Meyers or anyone else take such a NON-incident and blow it so far out of proportion?

Answer: It's not the "non-incident". Rather, it's the massive and continuing shitstorm that descended upon RW after she made the simple, calm, and (to any reasonably sane & non-sexist person) reasonable assertion "Guys, don't do that" about an incident in which she had good reason to feel creeped out.
Quote
Even IF it did occur...

Yes, yes, "bitches lie."
Quote
And what is RW's agenda in making a public stink about something SO trivial, even IF it did actually happen?

Again: It's not the original "non-incident", it's the shitstorm that followed. To begin with, all RW said was "Guys, don't do that"; if you think that is "raising a public stink", there's something wrong with your standards re: what constitutes a "public stink".
Quote
... there are bigger fish to fry than some allegedly ill-mannered guy in an elevator or protecting Rebecca Watson's fragile (or demanding?) sensibilities.

Yes, there are "bigger fish to fry". Some people think that a massive and continuing outpouring of abusive remarks, up to and including rape threats and beyond, constitutes just such a "bigger fish"; other people don't seem to think said outpouring is even worth noticing. Go figure.

Date: 2012/06/14 00:03:52, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 13 2012,23:46)
It was apparent from his dishonest debating style that Steve Matheson was a sleazeball, so I can't say I'm shocked by the news that he was taking advantage of at least one of his students.

"Judge not, lest ye be judged" is just a sextet of irrelevant words to you, eh Dr. Jammer? And it looks like you also regard "presumption of innocence" as a foreign concept. When atheists rush to judgement on someone who may well be wholly innocent, well, I guess that sort of thing is only to be expected of people who don't believe in God.
What's your excuse, Dr. Jammer?

Date: 2012/06/14 10:11:41, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 14 2012,03:18)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 11 2012,10:48)
Jammer, are you an ID expert?  Because I have some questions that those on UD and Meyer and Dembski and Behe all have utterly failed to answer over the last decade or so.

My guess is that your queries have been answered repeatedly, and that you refuse to accept said answers. That's how it usually goes with you guys.

You "guess"? You don't actually know whether or not the questions OgreMkV referred to have been answered? Hm. If you don't know, then how the heck can you sit there with your face hanging out, in front of God and everybody, and assert "That's how it usually goes with you guys."? I am given to understand that the God of the Bible doesn't much care for liars, deceivers, and false witnesses; indeed, He's supposed to have a lake of fire set up in the afterlife, a lake of fire that's just waiting for liars, deceivers, and false witnesses, a lake of fire in which Ninth-Commandment-breakers will burn for all eternity. Me being an atheist, I don't buy into the whole lake-of-fire deal… but since you Christians do believe in God and Hell and all, shouldn't you guys at least act like you believe it?

Date: 2012/06/15 01:12:25, Link
Author: Cubist
It really is too bad that ID is nothing but Yet Another Attempt To Court-Proof Creationism In the USA. Because the ostensibly-stated purpose of ID, i.e., "to detect the presence of Design", touches on some really, really interesting topics, and a genuinely valid protocol for detecting Design would be useful for a wide range of purposes.
For instance: Any English sentence is clearly Designed by the person who uttered it, and the sentence stays Designed when it's converted into a different means of expression, such as by translating it into a different language… or by 'scrambling' it with whichever flavor of encryption. So let's say you're a military codebreaker, and you know that your enemy is using a highly advanced mode of encryption that makes their coded messages appear to be indistinguishable from white noise. With a genuine Design-detection protocol, you can determine whether or not any given stretch of white noise is actually a coded message (and therefore needs more attention), or just white noise (and therefore can be safely ignored). In this way, a genuine Design-detection protocol would be of great value to national security!
For example: While ID does not presently claim to be able to do anything more than just determine whether or not a given whatzit actually is Designed, a logical extension of this basic capability is being able to determine whether or not two different whatzits were Designed by the same Designer. Such a capability has obvious implications for enforcement of copyright law, not so?
But of course, there just aren't any ID-pushers who are working on applying Design-detection to national security, or to copyright law enforcement, or, indeed, applying Design-detection to any purpose whatsoever other than Proving Evolution Wrong. If Jammer knows of any ID-pusher who actually is trying to apply Design-detection to any other purpose than Proving Evolution Wrong, I would be interested to hear about that person!

Date: 2012/06/20 06:14:01, Link
Author: Cubist
On a purely intellectual level, Intelligent Design is more or less an obfuscated synonym for Theistic Evolution. Both TEists and IDiots have a religious belief in a Designer Who is Intelligent, and has the full skill set required to create a Universe. However, there is a very significant difference between the two positions; namely, IDiots maintain and insist (at interminable length...) that their religious dogma is good old science and nothing but, while TEists are quite up-front about the religious nature of their TEist belief.
So it is that on the practical rubber-meets-the-road level on which political disputes occur, IDiots want to cram their religious beliefs down the throats of captive audiences in science classes; to the extent that TEists want to spread their beliefs at all, TEists are content to do so in comparatively unexceptional, unobjectionable ways. If you happen to be concerned about the possibility that the TEist position might mutate into the sort of political cause that IDiocy has always been right from the start, feel free to keep a wary eye on TEists to see how close they are to getting political. But it really doesn't make sense to attack TEists as one would IDiots, because in the political arena, existing TEists are definitely on the side of good science, even if they do insist on spot-welding on a hypothesis of the sort Laplace had no need of.

Date: 2012/06/27 21:53:43, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 27 2012,19:28)
The argument for the semiotic language/information of life. ...

It is a very powerful argument on par with a scientific law. All know examples arise from an intelligence.

As far as I know, "all known examples" of "semiotic language/information" come from human intelligence, unless you want to count apes that have been taught to use sign language (i.e., Ko-Ko). Therefore, by your own line of reasoning, the "semiotic language/information" which occurs in living bodies must have originally been created by a human (or possibly primate) Intelligent Designer.

Date: 2012/07/10 18:28:15, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 10 2012,16:51)
I am now at war with UD. My restraint will now mirror theirs, i.e. none.

No prisoners. No Mercy. No limits.

As long as you don't become the monster you fight, it's all good.

Date: 2012/07/25 04:47:46, Link
Author: Cubist
TWT, the font they used for the logo is Arial Regular, with 89% horizontal scaling. Like so:

Date: 2012/07/25 12:20:11, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 25 2012,09:30)
Hi Cubist,

when I criticised the banner and called it the job of an amateur, I meant the original designer, not you.

[nods] Understood. Frankly, I thought TWT's font-choice for the logo, Myriad, was better than Arial; but since Arial was the logo-font in the original image… [shrug]
Curiously, Myriad is the font that was used for the clickable links along the bottom-right of the image. Dunno why they went with Arial for the logo. It is a mystery.

Date: 2012/07/31 17:05:30, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Woodbine @ July 30 2012,19:17)
Has Access Research Network gone the way of the designed Dodo?

http://www.arn.org/....arn....arn.org

Hm.
Interesting.
My guess is, somebody didn't bother to pay the site hosting fees, and this is what ARN's host does when a site's owner doesn't pay. If this is true, ARN will be back online as soon as the relevant person notices the problem and corrects it.
No, I don't care to speculate on when that will occur. Given that the site has been dormant-to-dead for years, it's entirely possible that the people behind it may have finally given up…

Date: 2012/08/12 00:39:52, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 11 2012,17:49)
Quote (rhmc @ Aug. 10 2012,20:25)
as mentioned, it's a corn snake.  
generally, what do you feed it?  

colonels?

or is that a private matter?

Sounds like it could be a major issue.

Or even a major-major-major-major issue…

Date: 2012/08/14 21:59:45, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 14 2012,21:30)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 14 2012,18:44)
http://news.sciencemag.org/science....ld.html
 
Quote

"that no student shall be compelled to perform or participate in academic assignments or educational presentations that violate his or her religious beliefs."

OH that works.

I'll create a religion that has math and history as taboo subjects.  It'll cost $10 to join the religion for the year.

Each rube... I mean student... I mean supplicant... will receive a booklet of our core religious beliefs and a membership card (to be renewed annually... early August would be a good renewal date).

Talk about rich.  Even if we're just talking Kentucky here, that's got to be 2-3 million a year in income.  I'll have the largest church in Kentucky in no time.  

Now... to think of a name.

Obvious: Call it "the Church of Our Omniscient Lord". You, too, can be too COOL for school!
The Church's primary tenet is that God knows everything, and encoded all of it into the Bible. I mean, it's the Word Of God, right? So if it ain't in the Bible, it's just plain false, by definition. COOL students can therefore get out of any class whose subject matter contradicts the Truth that is in the Bible.

Date: 2012/09/07 05:56:22, Link
Author: Cubist
Mr. Miller's latest celluloid excrescence, Hellbound, is apparently going to be foisted upon an unsuspecting world within the next week or so. See [ www.hellboundthemovie.com/ ] for further details.

Date: 2012/09/07 23:36:41, Link
Author: Cubist
Since we're talking about Top Tard of All Time, I think it would be appropriate to cast the net wider than just whoever's posted on UNCOMMON DISSENT in the past couple weeks. In particular, we really ought to give some consideration to the Tards of bygone days, the prototypical ur-Tards who built the disquieting foundation on which today's Tards have fabricated the fulsome ID façade we all know and tolerate now.
Accordingly, there are three people I would like to cast my vote for.
One: George McCready Price, a YEC who wrote a number of books proselytizing for the Young-Earth memeplex, including Illogical Geology: The Weakest Point in the Evolution Theory (1906) and, perhaps most relevantly for our purposes, The New Geology (1923).
Two and three: John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris, co-authors of The Genesis Flood (1960?), which may be the 'spark' which got the YEC 'fire' burning in earnest.

Date: 2012/09/16 05:36:36, Link
Author: Cubist
Hmm. Which ID-pusher is most likely to 'turn to the light side'.
To be honest, I can't really see any of that crowd managing to overcome the religious memeplex which has colonized their brains. But such things do happen (albeit rather less commonly than one might hope), so… hmm…
Behe, on the grounds that he's rather well-informed on biology and almost accepts Real Science as he stands.
Sal Cordova, on the grounds that he's recently displayed some indications (however minor they may be) of honesty in his ID-pushing; if Sal allows that nascent honesty to come to its proper fruition, he won't be able to help but abandon ID.

Date: 2012/09/17 15:58:54, Link
Author: Cubist
It's been, what, 5 years? 6 years? An internet eternity, anyway, since the Talk.Origins Archive got hacked and its interactive scripts were nuked as a defensive measure. Wes noted that he was working on new scripts that would lack the old vulnerabilities, but it was (understandably!) not a high priority for him. Well, in view of low long it's been with little or no externally-evident activity, I have a suggestion: Why not start looking at existing Open Source CMSes? The attacks which crippled the Archive are probably known quantities by now, and there would be safeguards against those attacks; there would also be safeguards against however-many of the new attacks which evil-minded crackers have devised in the intervening time.
Yes? No?

Date: 2012/09/25 23:41:53, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 25 2012,23:08)
honestly, tell the truth now, tardaholics.

wouldn't you rather argue with militant young earthers than these vague mystics?  really? i mean, which is the more malevolent form of stupidity?

I'd say ID is the more dangerous form of stupidity. With YECs, the underlying fundagelical roots of the position are so blatantly obvious that YEC-pushers plain old can't win in court—even if they do luck out and get a fundy-friendly judge to agree that YEC is All Science So Far, that f-f judge will be hobbled by (a) YEC's voluminous legalistic track record which incontrovertibly proves that YEC is religious dogma, and (b) the need to cobble together some sort of justification that won't get shredded on contact with an appeals judge.
With ID, the underlying fundagelical roots of the position have been sufficiently obscured that it's very possible for a rational human being who isn't familiar with ID to conclude that ID genuinely is Real Science.

Date: 2012/09/28 19:39:57, Link
Author: Cubist
There's at least one instance of cats being bred for intelligence which appears to have had some degree of success.

Date: 2012/09/29 05:03:08, Link
Author: Cubist
It's all well and good to question the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of particular modes of de-tardification, but let's not lose sight of one very important fact:
De-tardification does happen.
We can argue over how frequently it occurs, whether de-tardification occurs often enough to overcome the recruitment efforts of existing tards, and a host of other questions… but given the known and cited instances, we can't argue that de-tardification does, in fact, happen. And since it does happen, it's fair to ask how does it happen? There are fat-and-happy tard who stay fat-and-happy tards, and there are fat-and-happy tards who break free of the tard; what makes the difference between them?
Looking at the personal testimonies of people who have successfully broken free of the tard, there's one factor which is common to most (if not all) of these stories: The person was exposed to the truth, and they found that they couldn't stand the conflict between the truth they were exposed to and the Truth they had been brainwashed into believing. And what does internet de-tardification consist of?
Exposing people to the truth.
So it seems to me that in the absence of hard data, we should tentatively accept the null hypothesis—which is, in this case, that internet de-tardification does help people overcome their former tard-y state. Whether or not this is a good thing, well, I think it is, but that's one of those questions that can be argued.

Date: 2012/09/29 11:36:10, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 29 2012,08:40)
Quote (Cubist @ Sep. 29 2012,06:03)
…in the absence of hard data, we should tentatively accept the null hypothesis—which is, in this case, that internet de-tardification does help people overcome their former tard-y state.

The question I have been hoping to answer is "Does de-tarding happen because of internetting tards".

There is a certain amount of ambiguity in the phrase "because of". If you're asking whether de-tardification ever happens solely and entirely as a result of internet de-tard activity—that is, whether or not de-tardification happens because of internet de-tard and only internet de-tard—the answer is almost certainly "of course not". But if that's what you're asking, is there anything which de-tarding can rightly be said to occur "because of"?
If, on the other hand, you're asking whether internet de-tard activity is a contributing factor to de-tardification, I honestly don't see how the answer can be anything but "of course it is". To be sure, this doesn't address the question of how effective internet de-tard is, nor the question of how effective internet de-tard might be by comparison with other techniques. But since there are genuine examples of ex-tards who credit internet de-tard activity as having helped them along on their journey away from the Tard Side, the efficacy of internet de-tard activity must be greater than zero.

Date: 2012/09/30 18:18:58, Link
Author: Cubist
Just checked the Talk.origins Archive website. The Posts of the Month include a few examples of successful de-tarding, for which internet de-tard activity was a non-trivial contributor.

One in which losing the tard did not entail losing the religion:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins....03.html

One in which losing the tard was more-or-less accompanied by losing the religion:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins....03.html

A collection of links to de-tarding testimonies which, while prolly not involving internet de-tard activity in specific, appear to support the hypothesis that exposure to the truth is a significant contributing factor to successful de-tarding:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins....02.html

Date: 2012/10/18 13:46:36, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 17 2012,15:17)
Is a reasonable estimate available on how much money has been spent on OOL research?

A local IDiot claims billons of dollars have been spent and I don't think that's anywhere near true.

Billions of dollars, over what span of time? If the IDiot is saying that the total amount of money ever spent on OOL research is billions of dollars, that might be true; if the IDiot is saying that it's billions of dollars per year, that's something else again. Likewise, are they talking about research funds in the US alone, or research funds all over the world?

Date: 2012/10/20 03:59:05, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (fnxtr @ Oct. 20 2012,02:53)
Quote (Kristine @ Oct. 19 2012,13:23)
Grabbity is teh strongest force... :p

Gotta be rough, researching booty--er, beauty and it's effect on um, erh, success... (Boiiiinnngggg!)

I don't claim to be pure, and we've certainly ragged on poor O'Leary, but geez. Where all the sciency supermodels be at?

Any social gathering has its share of sexual energy, but grabbity is just juvenile and rude. You gotta wonder what if anything is going through these guys' minds. What do they think is gonna happen?

I often feel guilty about reacting -- even only silently, internally -- to a woman's looks/wit/vitality. I'm still listening to what she's saying but all I can think is holy crap what beautiful eyes/hair/voice w.h.y.

I have a couple of very attractive blonde friends who've dyed their hair and cut it off or tied it back because they've felt they weren't being taken seriously.

:-(

"Is a puzzlement."

But always remember that people who get bothered about so-called "sexual harrassment" and alleged "misogynistic behavior" are, at absolute best, making mountains out of molehills, because there aren't hardly any women who genuinely are on the short end of that kind of stuff. Isn't that right, S-dog?

Date: 2012/11/04 23:40:21, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,22:38)

   
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2012,21:29)
Tell you what, let's do a simple little test.  I'll provide two gene sequences, one of which we know was designed, because I a human designed it.  The other is a sequence created from random numbers.  Then you can use your notions (whatever they are) to tell us which is designed and which is not designed.

Any interest in that?


I no interest at all, in playing the usual dizzying head-games.  But since you want to play, then here are two strings.  One was taken from a Fasta file for an actual organism (you would say product of unintelligent random mutation) and the other I myself designed (not a product of unintelligent random mutation):

1) GGATGAGA

2) AAAAAAAAAA

Which of the two is a product of what you call "random mutation" and which is not (because I myself just made it up and whatever)?

Analogy: When people ask "how do you distinguish between a Designed sequence and an un-Designed sequence", they're asking for a general solution to the three-body problem. When you reply can't you tell the difference between GGATGAGA and AAAAAAAAAA, you're just providing a Lagrange point—a single, solitary, specific answer, as opposed to the general solution that's being asked for.
Let's see if Laddie GaGa gets the point of the above paragraph…

Date: 2012/11/07 01:23:11, Link
Author: Cubist
Obama's second term is probably the best outcome that anyone could hope for. The man has some serious problems, but he's parsecs better than the deranged freak that was his major competition…

Date: 2012/11/11 04:29:26, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 11 2012,00:11)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 10 2012,11:39)

Quote
And PSC does not… [have] a policy to immediately reject the theory because of what it is.

What publications have that policy then?

List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That Wiki page does indeed list a number of scientific societies which reject the notion that 'Intelligent Design' is science. In many cases, it also provides the scientific society's reasons for rejecting the notion that 'Intelligent Design' is science. For instance, the American Assiciation for the Advancement of Science says this: "Intelligent design proponents may use the language of science, but they do not use its methodology. They have yet to propose meaningful tests for their claims, there are no reports of current research on these hypotheses at relevant scientific society meetings, and there is no body of research on these hypotheses published in relevant scientific journals. So, intelligent design has not been demonstrated to be a scientific theory."
American Astronomical Society: "'Intelligent Design' fails to meet the basic definition of a scientific idea: its proponents do not present testable hypotheses and do not provide evidence for their views that can be verified or duplicated by subsequent researchers."
I realize you presented that Wikilink to support the notion that scientists are dogmatically committed to reject Inteliigent Design, Gaulin. But after looking at that Wikipage, it seems that while scientists do, indeed, reject Intelligent Design, they don't reject it for dogmatic reasons; rather, scientists reject Intelligent Design because it just ain't science.
Got any testable hypotheses, Laddie GaGa? Yes, you have that spiffylicious computer program. Great! Does this program test a hypothesis? If so, what hypothesis does it test?

Date: 2012/11/12 16:01:02, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 12 2012,09:49)
 
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 12 2012,05:47)
Aaah, and our old friend the double Snelling...

I'm not familiar with Snelling. It sounds like you've encountered him/her before.

Andrew Snelling is a big name in Young-Earth Creationism who is noted for his 'double life'—on the one hand, he is the Editor in Chief of the Creationist magazine Answers Reseach Journal (which seems to have only one editor…); on the other hand, he has published a number of real scientific papers in the field of geology, papers which make just as much use of the standard millions-of-years timescale as do papers written by any real geologist.

Date: 2012/11/13 05:34:07, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 13 2012,02:24)
…if the omnipotent, omniscient designer-god of the universe and everything in it designed and created all the wonderful and beautiful stuff, didn't it design and create the not so wonderful and not so beautiful stuff too?

Take it away, Monty Python!
Quote
All things dull and ugly,
All creatures short and squat,
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot.

Each little snake that poisons,
Each little wasp that stings,
He made their brutish venom.
He made their horrid wings.

All things sick and cancerous,
All evil great and small,
All things foul and dangerous,
The Lord God made them all.

Each nasty little hornet,
Each beastly little squid,
Who made the spikey urchin?
Who made the sharks? He did!

All things scabbed and ulcerous,
All pox both great and small,
Putrid, foul and gangrenous,
The Lord God made them all.

Date: 2012/11/20 09:15:37, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 19 2012,12:55)

And why do you have trouble defining CSI? It is a well defined concept of modern ID thought.... is it information that calculates out above the upper probability bound? Is it specified information? Then, if it is both complex and specified it is therefore CSI...

Since you seem to think CSI is, in fact, a well-defined concept, Jerry, I have a question for you. But before I ask my question, I have to explain a bit of background.
Now, I don't pretend to be fully au courant with all the niceties of this CSI thingie, but if my limited understanding is correct,
  • Random garbage doesn't have any CSI
  • Meaningful language does have CSI
  • Converting a statement from one format to another (as, for instance, using an encryption algorithm to make a meaningful statement difficult to read) does not alter the statement's CSI.

So if this CSI thingie genuinely is the sure-fire Design-detection tool which you ID-pushers assert it to be, it seems to me that you should be able to use it to distinguish random garbage from meaningful text that only appears to be random garbage.

Background explained. Here's the question:

Which of the following character strings, String A or String B, is the encrypted text, and which is the garbage? And please show your work, so we know you're not just guessing.
Character string A:
Code Sample
={¡†¿ ¬&={‹ +ZrKU hg"Ix œgFZ" uaM?j œ?Uhg
>”H¿œ jCZrK ,MjRœ Lu"gF ZœKZ¢ g[)Zh Z"KXM
gcR"K XMgaX -KcZY [†lœX œ??U? ?waR, XmŒwM
Zvœ>Z ngo”_ v”U’T XV Xv Zuyw… y ,.! ¡‡!…&

String B:
Code Sample
jk?2J ^'VE¡ ?hS-c Z†“(# ]'6"8 0‹cWd Yfv”
BlGæB “a”?" B2#“_ 9‹g¡y £B…?J @Se&y ¬œ4Sp
…'T4? #ƒq”- 6[¢Of 1#3?} œ-§”÷ UTe…T Fdg›“
O÷iŒ. H¬^¿- ¢?Jv= ±1Q^o ‘O];v :?QE( 5qŒ3L

Date: 2012/11/20 14:16:52, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 20 2012,10:32)
     
Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 20 2012,09:15)
       
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 19 2012,12:55)

And why do you have trouble defining CSI? It is a well defined concept of modern ID thought.... is it information that calculates out above the upper probability bound? Is it specified information? Then, if it is both complex and specified it is therefore CSI...

Since you seem to think CSI is, in fact, a well-defined concept, Jerry, I have a question for you. But before I ask my question, I have to explain a bit of background.
Now, I don't pretend to be fully au courant with all the niceties of this CSI thingie, but if my limited understanding is correct,
  • Random garbage doesn't have any CSI
  • Meaningful language does have CSI
  • Converting a statement from one format to another (as, for instance, using an encryption algorithm to make a meaningful statement difficult to read) does not alter the statement's CSI.

So if this CSI thingie genuinely is the sure-fire Design-detection tool which you ID-pushers assert it to be, it seems to me that you should be able to use it to distinguish random garbage from meaningful text that only appears to be random garbage.

Background explained. Here's the question:

Which of the following character strings, String A or String B, is the encrypted text, and which is the garbage? And please show your work, so we know you're not just guessing.
Character string A:
Code Sample
={¡†¿ ¬&={‹ +ZrKU hg"Ix œgFZ" uaM?j œ?Uhg
>”H¿œ jCZrK ,MjRœ Lu"gF ZœKZ¢ g[)Zh Z"KXM
gcR"K XMgaX -KcZY [†lœX œ??U? ?waR, XmŒwM
Zvœ>Z ngo”_ v”U’T XV Xv Zuyw… y ,.! ¡‡!…&

String B:
Code Sample
jk?2J ^'VE¡ ?hS-c Z†“(# ]'6"8 0‹cWd Yfv”
BlGæB “a”?" B2#“_ 9‹g¡y £B…?J @Se&y ¬œ4Sp
…'T4? #ƒq”- 6[¢Of 1#3?} œ-§”÷ UTe…T Fdg›“
O÷iŒ. H¬^¿- ¢?Jv= ±1Q^o ‘O];v :?QE( 5qŒ3L

Hey Cubist:

It's correct...random garbage is not CSI...CSI must communicate.....

Language is not REALLY germain to CSI either unless we are somehow relating language to matter/energy....

Hold it.
Language is "not REALLY germain" to something that, according to you, "must communicate"? How in the name of Klono's curving carballoy claws can language NOT be "germain" to anything for which "communication" is necessary?
Do you actually read any of the verbiage you type, Jerry?

 
Quote
And yes, we can distinguish meaningful information from garbage by honing into it's specificity....No specificity....no CSI...

Yes, and one of those two strings is very specific indeed, being that it's an encrypted version of a particular English text. So according to this "honing into its specificity" schtick, yes, a CSI-detecting protocol should be able to distinguish between encrypted text and random garbage.
So. Since you assert that you are, indeed, able to "distinguish meaningful information from garbage by honing into its specificity", would you care to actually, like, you know, distinguish meaningful information from garbage by honing into its specificity? By, let us say, identifying which of two apparently-random strings is, in fact, not random at all, but, rather, is encrypted text?

 
Quote
The rest of that post pretty much shows a lack of understanding of the CSI concept... But you admit that up front and it's OK as I'm used to it......This will hopefully become clearer as we progress.

Since language is, apparently, "not REALLY germain" to this CSI thingie that "must communicate"… and since you didn't even pretend to use this CSI thingie to determine which of the two strings was the encrypted text… I strongly doubt that further discussion will arrive at any outcome even vaguely reminiscent of 'clearer'. Except perhaps in the sense that it will become increasingly more clear that you ain't got nothin' but bullshit…

Date: 2012/11/21 19:02:26, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 20 2012,10:12)
So, and I'm not sure why, but there are those on here repeatedly requesting that I calculate the CSI of an organism as if that is some big deal.

It's like this, Jerry: If you want to assert that organisms have CSI, you're gonna have to do more than just say that organisms have CSI.
   
Quote
Here is an excerpt from some of my writings in that area doing exactly that:

Okay, this should be good…
   
Quote
If I flip a coin what are the odds of me getting heads or tails? 1:2. If I flip 50 coins and I get 25 heads and 25 tails, what are the odds when I flip that 51st coin that I will receive head or tails? 1:2. If I have flipped 99 coins and 47 have come up heads and 52 have come up tails, what are the odds for heads or tails in that 100th coin? 1:2.

True. Assuming it's an ungimmicked coin (which I'm going to do all throughout this comment, unless I explicitly state otherwise), there's a 50% chance of that coin coming up heads when it's flipped, and that probability is completely independent of how many other coins may or may not have come up heads when they (those other coins) were flipped.
 
Quote
Well what are the odds if I flip 100 coins they all will come up heads? 1:(.5^100).

True. Given 100 unflipped coins, each individual coin of that unflipped 100 has a 50% chance of coming up heads, so the chances of all 100 of those unflipped coins coming up heads, when they're flipped, is, indeed, (1/2)100. And presuming my copy of Maple 7 can be trusted, that works out to a touch under 1:1030.
 
Quote
But what if I have already flipped 50 of the coins and 25 of them are tails and 25 of them are heads.

In that case, you're not talking about 100 unflipped coins. Instead, you're talking about 100 coins, of which 25 have already been flipped and came up heads; another 25 have already been flipped and came up tails; and the remaining 50 are still unflipped. For any one unflipped coin, the probability that it will come up heads is 50%; for any flipped coin that came up tails, the chance of that coin being heads is 0%; for any flipped coin that came up heads, the chance of that coin being heads is 100%.
 
Quote
Now what are the odds that all 100 coins will come up heads?

Zero, because you're now talking about a situation in 25 of those 100 coins have already come up tails, which means it's not possible for all 100 of those coins to come up heads.
 
Quote
They’re still the same 1:(.5^100).

False, as explained above. But if you believe you're right, I have a proposition for you, Jerry: I have 100 coins, 99 of which have already been flipped and come up heads, and the 100th of which is as yet unflipped. My proposition is that we bet on the results of flipping that 100th coin; if it comes up tails, I give you $5, and if it comes up heads, you give me $100,000. Since the chances of 100 coins all coming up heads is (1/2)100, this proposition is clearly a free $5 for you, right? And you'll be okay with making this bet with me multiple times, won't you?
 
Quote
So let’s place all 100 coins in a bag, shake them up all at once and see how many heads I get. What are these odds? 1:(.5^100).

Right, because you've shifted back from 25 flipped coins that came up heads, plus 25 flipped coins that came up tails, plus 50 unflipped coins to 100 unflipped coins.
 
Quote
So it doesn’t really matter if I flip the coins all at once (a ‘poof’ as in spontaneous generation) or I flip them one at a time (individual, incremental steps), the odds in the big picture do not change.

False. If you already have 99 flipped coins that came up heads, you have 99 flipped coins that came up heads, and the probability of that occurring doesn't negate the fact that you have those 99 coins.
Apart from that, you're depending on the implicit presumption that each coin is flipped exactly one time. What if you're allowed to flip a coin ten times, and count it as heads if any of those ten flips came up heads? In that case, that chance of a coin coming up heads is 1,023/1/024, and the chance of 100 coins all coming up heads is (1,023/1,024)100. Which is a summat different kettle of fish…
 
Quote
For two atoms to “bond” (join together into a molecule) they must be within an “interacting neighborhood.” In fact, in order for two atoms to react together, they must be in the area of about 100 picometers (10 to the -10 power meters) in distance from one another.

True, and what of it? Seeing as how atoms do, in fact, "bond"—they're famous for it—I'm not sure what the problem is.
 
Quote
The universe is big. And atoms must be moving in order to come into the “neighborhood” of another atom. The faster they are moving, the more opportunities they have to form a bond.

Yep. But again, atoms do "bond", so what's your point?
 
Quote
But this gets a little hairy because if they are moving too fast, the momentum will shoot them past each other before they can bond.

And yet, atoms somehow do manage to "bond" anyway. So?
 
Quote
And, the temperature can‘t be too cold as reactions will not effectively occur and if it is too hot more bonds will be broken than are formed, and even when the temperatures are perfect, “bonds” of a long molecular chain may be broken simply because a random high energy atom or molecule knocks it loose. The point is, there is a certain finite number of opportunities available, even in 50 billion years for a reaction to occur in reality

Yes. So what?
 
Quote
For these reasons, Brewster and Morris concluded, based upon the size of the universe, the temperatures under which bonding occurs, the surmised age of the universe, the nature of bonds and how they form and break-- that 10 to the 67th power is the ultimate upper threshold for any chemical event to happen--anytime, anywhere in the universe, even in 50 billion years.

Hold it. How did Brewster and Morris come up with this "1067" figure? Citation needed…
 
Quote
Dembski defines a universal probability bound of 10^-150, based on an estimate of the total number of processes that could have occurred in the universe since its beginning. Estimating the total number of particles in the universe at 10^80, the number of physical state transitions a particle can make at 10^45 per second (Planck time, the smallest physically meaningful unit of time) and the age of the universe at 10^25 seconds, thus the total number of processes involving at least one elementary particle is at most 1:10^150. Anything with a probability of less than 10^150 is unlikely to have occurred by chance. Previous to Dembski, statisticians concluded through Borel’s Law that 1:10^50 was the upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen.

Statisticians didn't conclude anything of the kind. Obvious counterexample: If you shuffle a standard 52-card deck and deal out all the cards face-up, you'll get one of the (52! =) roughly 6*1068 possible 52-card sequences, so the odds of your having gotten the particular card-sequence you actually did get, is 1:(6*1068). Since this is clearly an even smaller probability than the 1:10^50 'upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen', either the 52-card sequence you got was necessarily Designed, or else 1:10^50 is not the 'upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen'.
 
Quote
The smallest known bacteria I’m aware of consists of around 500 proteins but I don’t think anyone would disagree with me that I am safe in using a 100 protein scenario in order to form an organism that could remotely be called life.

I'd disagree. You're talking about the origin of life, and I would strenuously disagree that anything like a contemporary life-form was involved in that event. The question isn't whether a contemporary life-form was created in the origin of life; rather, the question is whether or not some kind of self-reproducing whatzit (perhaps no more than a single molecule that catalyzed chemical reactions which generated copies of itself?) was created in the origin of life.
Since the remainder of your comment is basically repeating errors I've already called you on, I see no reason to extend this reply any further…

Date: 2012/11/22 19:08:42, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 22 2012,12:09)
 
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 21 2012,07:13)
I have it on good authority* that there is no reliable instrument to detect design:              
Quote
The filter was never designed to detect any and all cases of design (it is not a universal decoder algorithm, and we have good reason to believe such are not feasible), just those that are unequivocal per tested and reliable signs.

*Spoiler: It's KF

Edit: Typo

Hmm, let's see, there's no feasible, universal decoder algorithm (test) "to detect any and all cases of design" yet somehow design has been tested via "reliable signs"? How was/is design tested if there's no feasible, universal test? (my bold)

I don't have a problem with that, myself. 'Reliable' isn't an absolute; something can be 'reliable' for most practical purposes, and yet still not be 100% applicable to everything. So the dude's saying he's got a decently useful design-detection thingie (which just doesn't happen to be universally applicable), fine. Not a problem. However what is a problem…
Quote
gordo -the messiah wannabe- mullings is just pushing the same old, lame old 'it looks designed to me so it must be designed by my sky-daddy' crap, because he is desperately trying to convince himself and others that his imaginary sky daddy isn't imaginary,

…is right here. He does not, in fact, have the decently useful design-detection thingie he claims to have. Dude's lying.

Date: 2012/11/27 20:45:54, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 27 2012,11:18)
Here guys, now I'm not going to post the same things over and over and then rehash them but this one time...Please read the posts:

If you're going to cut-and-paste from one of your past comments, I'll just cut-and-paste the response I posted the first time your verbiage appeared:

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 20 2012,10:12)
If I flip a coin what are the odds of me getting heads or tails? 1:2. If I flip 50 coins and I get 25 heads and 25 tails, what are the odds when I flip that 51st coin that I will receive head or tails? 1:2. If I have flipped 99 coins and 47 have come up heads and 52 have come up tails, what are the odds for heads or tails in that 100th coin? 1:2.

True. Assuming it's an ungimmicked coin (which I'm going to do all throughout this comment, unless I explicitly state otherwise), there's a 50% chance of that coin coming up heads when it's flipped, and that probability is completely independent of how many other coins may or may not have come up heads when they (those other coins) were flipped.
   
Quote
Well what are the odds if I flip 100 coins they all will come up heads? 1:(.5^100).

True. Given 100 unflipped coins, each individual coin of that unflipped 100 has a 50% chance of coming up heads, so the chances of all 100 of those unflipped coins coming up heads, when they're flipped, is, indeed, (1/2)100. And presuming my copy of Maple 7 can be trusted, that works out to a touch under 1:1030.
   
Quote
But what if I have already flipped 50 of the coins and 25 of them are tails and 25 of them are heads.

In that case, you're not talking about 100 unflipped coins. Instead, you're talking about 100 coins, of which 25 have already been flipped and came up heads; another 25 have already been flipped and came up tails; and the remaining 50 are still unflipped. For any one unflipped coin, the probability that it will come up heads is 50%; for any flipped coin that came up tails, the chance of that coin being heads is 0%; for any flipped coin that came up heads, the chance of that coin being heads is 100%.
   
Quote
Now what are the odds that all 100 coins will come up heads?

Zero, because you're now talking about a situation in 25 of those 100 coins have already come up tails, which means it's not possible for all 100 of those coins to come up heads.
   
Quote
They’re still the same 1:(.5^100).

False, as explained above. But if you believe you're right, I have a proposition for you, Jerry: I have 100 coins, 99 of which have already been flipped and come up heads, and the 100th of which is as yet unflipped. My proposition is that we bet on the results of flipping that 100th coin; if it comes up tails, I give you $5, and if it comes up heads, you give me $100,000. Since the chances of 100 coins all coming up heads is (1/2)100, this proposition is clearly a free $5 for you, right? And you'll be okay with making this bet with me multiple times, won't you?
   
Quote
So let’s place all 100 coins in a bag, shake them up all at once and see how many heads I get. What are these odds? 1:(.5^100).

Right, because you've shifted back from 25 flipped coins that came up heads, plus 25 flipped coins that came up tails, plus 50 unflipped coins to 100 unflipped coins.
   
Quote
So it doesn’t really matter if I flip the coins all at once (a ‘poof’ as in spontaneous generation) or I flip them one at a time (individual, incremental steps), the odds in the big picture do not change.

False. If you already have 99 flipped coins that came up heads, you have 99 flipped coins that came up heads, and the probability of that occurring doesn't negate the fact that you have those 99 coins.
Apart from that, you're depending on the implicit presumption that each coin is flipped exactly one time. What if you're allowed to flip a coin ten times, and count it as heads if any of those ten flips came up heads? In that case, that chance of a coin coming up heads is 1,023/1/024, and the chance of 100 coins all coming up heads is (1,023/1,024)100. Which is a summat different kettle of fish…
   
Quote
For two atoms to “bond” (join together into a molecule) they must be within an “interacting neighborhood.” In fact, in order for two atoms to react together, they must be in the area of about 100 picometers (10 to the -10 power meters) in distance from one another.

True, and what of it? Seeing as how atoms do, in fact, "bond"—they're famous for it—I'm not sure what the problem is.
   
Quote
The universe is big. And atoms must be moving in order to come into the “neighborhood” of another atom. The faster they are moving, the more opportunities they have to form a bond.

Yep. But again, atoms do "bond", so what's your point?
   
Quote
But this gets a little hairy because if they are moving too fast, the momentum will shoot them past each other before they can bond.

And yet, atoms somehow do manage to "bond" anyway. So?
   
Quote
And, the temperature can‘t be too cold as reactions will not effectively occur and if it is too hot more bonds will be broken than are formed, and even when the temperatures are perfect, “bonds” of a long molecular chain may be broken simply because a random high energy atom or molecule knocks it loose. The point is, there is a certain finite number of opportunities available, even in 50 billion years for a reaction to occur in reality

Yes. So what?
   
Quote
For these reasons, Brewster and Morris concluded, based upon the size of the universe, the temperatures under which bonding occurs, the surmised age of the universe, the nature of bonds and how they form and break-- that 10 to the 67th power is the ultimate upper threshold for any chemical event to happen--anytime, anywhere in the universe, even in 50 billion years.

Hold it. How did Brewster and Morris come up with this "1067" figure? Citation needed…
   
Quote
Dembski defines a universal probability bound of 10^-150, based on an estimate of the total number of processes that could have occurred in the universe since its beginning. Estimating the total number of particles in the universe at 10^80, the number of physical state transitions a particle can make at 10^45 per second (Planck time, the smallest physically meaningful unit of time) and the age of the universe at 10^25 seconds, thus the total number of processes involving at least one elementary particle is at most 1:10^150. Anything with a probability of less than 10^150 is unlikely to have occurred by chance. Previous to Dembski, statisticians concluded through Borel’s Law that 1:10^50 was the upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen.

Statisticians didn't conclude anything of the kind. Obvious counterexample: If you shuffle a standard 52-card deck and deal out all the cards face-up, you'll get one of the (52! =) roughly 6*1068 possible 52-card sequences, so the odds of your having gotten the particular card-sequence you actually did get, is 1:(6*1068). Since this is clearly an even smaller probability than the 1:10^50 'upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen', either the 52-card sequence you got was necessarily Designed, or else 1:10^50 is not the 'upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen'.
   
Quote
The smallest known bacteria I’m aware of consists of around 500 proteins but I don’t think anyone would disagree with me that I am safe in using a 100 protein scenario in order to form an organism that could remotely be called life.

I'd disagree. You're talking about the origin of life, and I would strenuously disagree that anything like a contemporary life-form was involved in that event. The question isn't whether a contemporary life-form was created in the origin of life; rather, the question is whether or not some kind of self-reproducing whatzit (perhaps no more than a single molecule that catalyzed chemical reactions which generated copies of itself?) was created in the origin of life.
Since the remainder of your comment is basically repeating errors I've already called you on, I see no reason to extend this reply any further…

Date: 2012/11/29 09:46:27, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 28 2012,11:15)
My intentions were a Gedankin experiment wherein: "what if" I reflipped all 100 coins from scratch......the previous flips do not matter at this point anymore because I'm now flipping 100 coins at once....New ones..another system. In that event, the odds of them all coming up heads are 1:(.5^100)

Sure—for any one instance of Flipping 100 Coins, the odds of getting 100 heads is, indeed, going to be 1:2100.
Now, what are the odds of getting 100 heads in either of two instances of Flipping 100 Coins? Since this is a gedankenexperiment, we can imagine getting all 7 billion members of the entire human species to flip 100 coins apiece. Each one of those 7 billion people is one instance of Flipping 100 Coins; what are the odds of any one human being out of that 7 billion, getting 100 heads?
 
Quote
But what is my point in all this coin flipping? Because I ALWAYS (and have in here) receive comments from people who claim that probability math changes if given enough time......it does NOT. Time is simply irrelevant.

True if you're talking about a one-shot event, something that only ever has one opportunity to occur. False if you're talking about an event that has multiple opportunities to occur. While it's true that the mere passage of time, in and of itself, cannot alter Event E's probability of occurring on any one opportunity for it to occur, it's also true that the mere passage of time, in and of itself, can provide more opportunities for Event E to occur. And if there is more than one opportunity for Event E to occur, then the probability of Event E occurring during any of those opportunities is different from, and necessarily greater than, the probability that Event E will occur on any one of those opportunities.
The math is actually pretty simple, as math goes: Let p be the probability of Event E's occurrence during any one opportunity for it to occur. (1 - p) will, therefore, be the probability that Event E doesn't occur during any one opportunity for it to occur. So, given N different opportunities for Event E to occur, the probability that Event E will not occur during any of those N opportunities, is (1 - p)N. And therefore, the probability that Event E will occur at least once during those N opportunities for Event E to occur, is (1 - (1 - p)N).
 
Quote
It doesn't matter if I flip all the coins within a time period of a few minutes, if I flip one a year or if some deity (Thor or Mithris) flips one every million years or so.....the math is the same.

If all you're interested in is the probability that Event E occurs during any one opportunity for Event E to occur, then sure, you're right about the math being the same. But if you're interested in the probability that Event E will ever occur during any of N different opportunities for Event E to occur, the math is not the same.
 
Quote
BTW...You probably already know this, but for the readers, what you are now calculating is the CSI of a system.

Excuse me? I don't know anything of the kind. This is mostly because I have no friggin' clue what this "CSI" thingie is, nor how to go about calculating it. The calculations of mine which you refer to here, are calculations of how likely it is for a given whatzit to have occurred all at once, in a single stroke; if CSI actually is the probability of a whatzit having occurred all at once, in a single stroke, then fine, I was calculating CSI.
Of course, if CSI genuinely is the probability of a whatzit having occurred all at once, in a single stroke, it follows that CSI is utterly and completely irrelevant to any whatzit which did not occur all at once, in a single stroke…
 
Quote
 
Quote
I have a proposition for you, Jerry: I have 100 coins, 99 of which have already been flipped and come up heads, and the 100th of which is as yet unflipped. My proposition is that we bet on the results of flipping that 100th coin; if it comes up tails, I give you $5, and if it comes up heads, you give me $100,000. Since the chances of 100 coins all coming up heads is (1/2)100, this proposition is clearly a free $5 for you, right? And you'll be okay with making this bet with me multiple times, won't you?

Of course not. Your logic is faulty here…

For the record: I was performing a reducto ad absurdum on a friggin' stoopid idea you'd expressed. Since you perceive the absurdity, my work here is done… well… 'done' until such time as you re-present the friggin' stoopid idea I stomped on. Which is sadly likely to happen, since you are a Creationist (of the ID flavor), and Creationists are notorious for re-presenting friggin' stoopid ideas for years and years after the friggin' stoopidity of said ideas has been incontrovertibly demonstrated.
   
Quote
What system am I studying or calculating--the 100 coin system flipped together, or the system of just the single coin I am presently flipping? It makes all the difference in the world because the figures you plug in and final calculation of the math will be quite different.

Yes, the specific details of the system you're studying are very relevant indeed to calculating the probability of that system's having yielded some particular result. So if you're interested in the probability of unguided abiogenesis having occurred, how about you pony up some specific details of the particular abiogenesis scenario you're looking at, so we can see how well your math describes that particular abiogenesis scenario?
   
Quote
   
Quote
If you already have 99 flipped coins that came up heads, you have 99 flipped coins that came up heads, and the probability of that occurring doesn't negate the fact that you have those 99 coins.

Apart from that, you're depending on the implicit presumption that each coin is flipped exactly one time. What if you're allowed to flip a coin ten times, and count it as heads if any of those ten flips came up heads? In that case, that chance of a coin coming up heads is 1,023/1/024, and the chance of 100 coins all coming up heads is (1,023/1,024)100. Which is a summat different kettle of fish…

I would be glad to do this with you because you are helping me take my coin analogy a step further. Why don't we just flip each coin 4 or 5 times until it comes up heads, then go to the next. You are correct, one would get 100 heads in that system every time and the probability math goes out the window. But what have we done?

We've shown that the probability of some Event E having occurred, depends on the specific details of the process which led up to the occurrence of Event E. Given a Process P1 that involves odds-of-heads of 1:2, and a different Process P2 that involves odds-of-heads of 1023:1024, the probability of getting 100 heads will vary dramatically, depending on whether the process by which you got 100 heads is Process P1, or Process P2, or some entirely different Process P3 whose odds-of-heads differs from the odds-of-heads of either Process P1 or Process P2, or what.
   
Quote
We have added intelligence into the system.

No, we've shown that the probability of some Event E having occurred, depends on the details of the process which led up to the occurrence of Event E. If intelligence happens to be one of the details in question, then sure, intelligence can affect the probability of Event E's occurring—but that doesn't alter the fact that in general, even when intelligence is not one of the details in question, the probability of some Event E having occurred is dependent on the details of the process which led up to the occurrence of Event E.
   
Quote
   
Quote
Statisticians didn't conclude anything of the kind.

That's not correct… don't forget that Dembski is a mathematician…

Dude. You said "Previous to Dembski, statisticians concluded through Borel’s Law that 1:10^50 was the upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen." [emphasis added] Since you were explicitly referring to shit that happened previous to Dembski's getting involved, what the fuck difference does it make whether or not Dembski is a mathematician?
Apart from that, you're using the wrong tense in reference to Dembski's status as a mathematician. While Dembski was a mathematician, in the sense that he managed to earn a relevant qualification, he has long since stopped being a mathematician and become a fraud. But even if I accept your risible mischaracterization of Dembski as a 'mathematician', that does not make him a statistician. Since you said "Previous to Dembski, statisticians concluded through Borel’s Law that 1:10^50 was the upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen." [emphasis added], one would hope that you would take care to, like, cite only statisticians in support of your assertion about what statisticians had "concluded through Borel’s Law". But hey, if you want to make IDiots look like idiots, do feel free to continue screwing up!
   
Quote
…and I named a few others including Borel.

Since "Borel's Law" doesn't actually say what you Creationists claim it says, you can name Borel all you want and it won't make any difference; you're still bullshitting. You also named Brewster and Morris, and you ignored my question: "How did Brewster and Morris come up with this '1067' figure?" Since, you know, the probability of some Event E having occurred, depends on the details of the process which led up to the occurrence of Event E, it would be very interesting indeed to know the specific details Brewster and Morris were assuming when they calculated their putative "ultimate upper threshold for any chemical event to happen--anytime, anywhere in the universe, even in 50 billion years".
Quote
Quote
If you shuffle a standard 52-card deck and deal out all the cards face-up, you'll get one of the (52! =) roughly 6*1068 possible 52-card sequences, so the odds of your having gotten the particular card-sequence you actually did get, is 1:(6*1068). Since this is clearly an even smaller probability than the 1:10^50 'upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen', either the 52-card sequence you got was necessarily Designed, or else 1:10^50 is not the 'upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen'.

This is a common mistake in probability mathematics. This is also not the first time I have had this postulated to me on this forum. I hoped it would go away, but apparantly it won't so I will address it.

You cannot take a random generator (example: dice, a random number generator, a deck of cards, etc.) have it generate a sequence, then reason the odds against it doing so.

Like hell I can't. It's a standard 52-card deck, so whatever the first card is, the chance of that one card coming up has got to be 1:52. If you disagree, then please, by all means tell me why I'm wrong here.
After I deal out the first card, there are (52 - 1 =) 51 cards left, so whatever Card #2 is, the chance that that card came up must be 1:51, and the chance of that particular 2-card sequence must be (1:52 * 51 =) 1:2,652. Again, if I'm wrong here, do inform me of where my error lies.
After I deal out the second card, there are (52 - 2 = ) 50 cards, so whatever Card #3 is, its probability of coming up must be 1:50. Thus, the chance of that particular 3-card sequence coming up must be (1:52 * 51 * 50 =) 1:132,600.
Similarly, the chance of any one 4-card sequence in particular is (1:52 * 51 * 50 * 49 =) 1:6,497,400; the chance of any one 5-card sequence in particular is (1:52 * 51 * 50 * 49 * 48 =) 1:311,875,200; the chance of any one 6-card sequence in particular is (1:52 * 51 * 50 * 49 * 48 * 47 =) 1:14,658,134,400; and so on, until the chance of any one 52-card sequence in particular is (1:52 * 51 * 50 * … *  4 * 3 * 2 * 1 =) 1:80,658,175,170,943,878,571,660,636,856,403,766,975,289,505,440,883,277,824,000,000,000,000


.
Quote
Because the odds are 100% that it is going to generate SOME kind of number or sequence EVERY time. There is no probability involved here in the least.

If you are, indeed, talking about the probability of getting any sequence whatsoever, then sure, odds don't enter into it. But I, at least, was not talking about the probability of getting any sequence whatsoever. Rather, I was talking about the probability of getting one particular sequence, namely, the one particular sequence I got when I dealt out all 52 cards of a standard deck. I didn't specify it beforehand, to be sure, but prespecified or no, do you really want to tell me that the one particular sequence I got isn't one particular instance of the 52! possible sequences that can be generated by dealing out a standard 52-card deck?
Quote
Now, if you set up your system properly.....if you write down a particular number for the random number generator to generate, or if you write down the sequence of cards you expect to appear BEFORE you deal/throw the cards, toss the dice or generate the number, that's when you can start figuring probabilities.

So… if I shuffle a standard 52-card deck, and I don't write down which card I expect to come up first… whatever that first card is, I can't say that the odds of that card having come up, are 1:52?
Hmm.
By this 'reasoning', it's not possible to work out the odds of abiogenesis if you haven't previously nailed down the specific details of abiogenesis. Okay, Jerry. Since you've been making noise about how abiogenesis is just too damned improbable, you obviously must have nailed down the details, right? Because if you haven't nailed down the details of abiogenesis, you obviously can't even begin to work out the probability of abiogenesis. So what are those details? Lay 'em out for everyone to see!
Or, you know, don't. And by failing to lay out said details, provide yet more support (as if any were needed!) for the proposition that you're just bullshitting.
Quote
 
Quote
I'd disagree. You're talking about the origin of life, and I would strenuously disagree that anything like a contemporary life-form was involved in that event. The question isn't whether a contemporary life-form was created in the origin of life; rather, the question is whether or not some kind of self-reproducing whatzit (perhaps no more than a single molecule that catalyzed chemical reactions which generated copies of itself?) was created in the origin of life.

I'm not positive what you disagreeing with here. That the smallest bacterium I'm aware of consists of about 500 proteins?
If so, that would be Mycoplasma genitalium…

What I'm disagreeing with is your implicit presumption that the simplest organism which exists today is necessarily the same thing as the simplest organism of all time. Yes, you haven't come right out and said that you're assuming the simplest contemporary organism must necessarily be the simplest organism of all time, but if you're not making that assumption, why did you bother dragging Mycoplasma genitalium into it?
 
Quote
And I never impied that higher complex lifeforms were involved in initial abiogenesis. Not sure where you got that.

The reason you're not sure where I "got that", is because I did not, in fact, "[get] that". You cited Mycoplasma genitalium, which is a contemporary life form, is it not? So I said "I would strenuously disagree that anything like a contemporary life-form was involved in [the origin of life]." Since the text you're replying to didn't mention "higher complex lifeforms", I would suggest that if you're wondering where "higher complex lifeforms" entered into the argument, you would be well advised to look in a friggin' mirror. I would further suggest that you refrain from putting words on other people's mouths, because that sort of crap is indicative of a variety of intellectual deficiencies.

Date: 2013/01/08 09:10:21, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 06 2013,13:13)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 06 2013,10:39)
   
Quote
which makes it worthless.


If it embodies some hitherto unnoticed principle of learning, it is valuable. Gary has claimed it can solve many interesting and difficult problems. It would be interesting to see an example.

Yes, well, it would be interesting to see cold fusion, too.  Or a unicorn.

Be fair: While the specific claims of Pons & Fleischmann failed to pan out, cold fusion researchers have achieved some results which are interesting, anomalous, and independently replicable. Something is going on there, even if nobody knows what that something might be!

Date: 2013/01/17 14:38:18, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 17 2013,10:31)
Can someone explain to me how to do more gooder searchers on AtBC threads?

Try Google, which allows you to search within a specific website: site:www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard searchTermGoesHere

Date: 2013/02/11 20:19:28, Link
Author: Cubist
A lovely passage from Wesley's link:
 
Quote
…Dembski remains inconsistent in assigning probabilities, whether one calls the system Dembski critiqued “formal”, “informal”, or “stunning in a mauve chiffon dress”.

I think it's a pity that Wesley doesn't give his sense of humor more opportunities to shine like this.

Date: 2013/04/07 17:31:50, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Andy Schueler @ April 07 2013,17:06)

…he shifted the goalposts from "transitional forms ruin a nested hierarchy" to "if all transitional forms *were still alive*, they would ruin a hierarchical classification". The latter claim is actually true (as Darwin already noted in chapter 14 of the Origin…

Disagreement. If all organisms were immortal, it would still be possible to reconstruct a hierarchial classification, provided that we had some way of determining the age of any given organism. Given immortal organisms with known ages, we could ask questions like "how come thus-and-such feature is only found in organisms that were born between X and (X+Y) years ago?". and reconstruct the heirarchy on the basis of the answers to those questions.

Date: 2013/04/08 18:56:25, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 08 2013,15:01)
"Obfuscation of terms"? The nerve - One thing I admire about Lizzie is that she always makes sure that everyone agrees on definitions.

"always makes sure"? Well… except for the times when she's trying to reach agreement with a person who flatly will not agree no matter what

Date: 2013/04/14 15:47:19, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Quack @ April 14 2013,09:27)
Gary, we need information on molecular intelligence! I could ask spesific questions, but you ought to be able to anwer anyway. You know how and where in your molecules intelleigece is located, how it works? Since molecules are made of atoms, something must happen to atoms in order to do anything useful and not just sit there in their bonds?

And, lo! the atoms were sore oppressed in their bondage. And the Lord spake unto Mendeleev, saying "Let my atoms go!"

Date: 2013/04/25 16:55:35, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Arctodus23 @ April 25 2013,16:18)
Anti-E=mc^2 propaganda

The Talk_page for that one is amusing. Aschafly is clearly ramming his personal dogma down Conservapedia's throat, never mind all the C'pedians who, equally clearly, know exactly how and why Aschafly is wronger than lime green bowling shoes. Granted, Aschafly does regard C'pedia as his personal mouthpiece, so the dissenters are missing the point… My single favorite comment:
Quote
Additionally, the page for this is just a mess. The opening section claims it to be liberal claptrap, while the rest of the article lists experiments that conclusively prove it to be true (None of which I think I've ever seen you directly address). If real-world results contradict your supposed logic, perhaps there is a problem with your logic?--RobertDW 21:31, 16 January 2013 (EST)

Date: 2013/05/15 16:56:44, Link
Author: Cubist
Just pointed my browser to http://www.talkorigins.org/,...., to see if I could duplicate HenryJ's report. I did not. Instead, I got a "404—file not found" error. If this is because Wes is doing something tech-y under the hood, so be it; if not, I hope that whatever the problem is, it's not serious.

Date: 2013/05/15 18:37:54, Link
Author: Cubist
Damn, Wes… there's nothing left of the target but a very smooth, glassy, glowing crater…

Date: 2013/05/21 16:57:35, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (midwifetoad @ May 21 2013,14:00)
Quote (timothya @ May 21 2013,06:43)
Dr Elizabeth

Every attempt I make to log into TSZ (required to make a comment) is met with a login box that says I have to provide a username, password AND match a CATCHA pattern.

The problem is that no CAPTCHA pattern is displayed for me to attempt. Am I doing something wrong?

When I log in It gives me a username and a simple calc for the password.

This is on top of the normal username and password.

I believe that what you've described is the additional "line of defense" which was installed after TSZ got hacked. Once you fill in that form, you'll get a second form which is the form you'll fill in to actually log in.

Date: 2013/05/21 21:49:34, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Doc Bill @ May 21 2013,21:36)
The DI is rolling out this "supplemental" material written by a couple of fucking undereducated, religious nut nobodies.

Srsly, have they sunk that low?

Your question strongly implies that the DiscoTute was ever, at any time in the past, higher than it is now…

Date: 2013/05/23 15:31:31, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (The whole truth @ May 23 2013,07:03)
I'm curious about something. Articles at the two links below say that the Norway Spruce has "the largest genome to have ever been mapped. The genome is complex and seven times larger than that of humans."

Is the seven times larger Norway Spruce genome larger than the fifty times larger genome of Paris japonica?

http://www.alphagalileo.org/ViewIte....Code=en

http://www.sciencedaily.com/release....039.htm

The phrase "to have ever been mapped" may explain the seeming discrepancy. No idea if P. japonica's genome has been mapped yet…

Date: 2013/05/25 14:43:37, Link
Author: Cubist
That's not just any old random spam. That's spam from David Markuse, aka David Mabus, aka any number of aliases that he uses because he regularly has to invent new nyms to replace the nyms that get burned when admins ban his spamming ass.
Markuse is not well. He's also under a court order to stay the fuck off the Internet. Given his behavior which resulted in said court order, it's no surprise that he's up to his old tricks again.

Date: 2013/05/25 14:49:19, Link
Author: Cubist
Just tried to visit The Skeptical Zone. Alas, "tried" is the operative word, for I got the webhostingpad.com "Account suspended" page.
Annoying, but like everybody else, I'm aiming my annoyance at webhostingpad.com for their assholiness. "Unlimited" and "unmetered"? Yeah, right…

Date: 2013/05/29 16:14:44, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Arctodus23 @ May 29 2013,10:50)
I'm currently looking for Augustine's work. I  haven't studied it in *a long time*.

Project Gutenberg has three books by St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo:

The Confessions of St. Augustine

Confessiones (Latin) (presumably the same as above, but in Latin (which may be the original from which the English was translated, I dunno))

King Alfred's Old English Version of St. Augustine's Soliloquies

Google Books allows you to search for books by a particular author with this search term: inauthor:"Name of Author". Doing this with "Saint Augustine" in place of "Name of Author" yields… "about 21,200 results", of which list the very first item is The Works of Aurelius Augustine: A New Translation.

Hopefully the above information will be helpful to you.

Date: 2013/06/01 14:54:26, Link
Author: Cubist
Perhaps the "Largest Known Number" would be the largest finite number that has been specifically identified up to now? If so, Graham's Number would seem to be the Largest Known Number.

Date: 2013/06/01 16:39:10, Link
Author: Cubist
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

Quote (The whole truth @ June 01 2013,08:14)
Ah, so 'equality' for the sexes is a bad thing, even though women have loudly argued for it and bluntly demanded it for a long time. I guess I've been wrong for listening to women and for thinking and accepting that equality means equality.

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges." -- Victor Hugo
Perhaps you might benefit from considering the concepts expressed in that sentence, and the degree to which those concepts may be applicable to other things than the divide between rich and poor.

Date: 2013/06/01 16:41:37, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 01 2013,16:20)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ June 01 2013,15:55)
For someone who wants to talk science, you sure avoid a lot of questions.  

Molecular intelligence: intrinsic or extrinsic?

As stated, your question makes no sense. Why it is senseless should be self-explanatory after studying this illustration:


Isn't it sad when everyone else on the dance floor is out of step?

Date: 2013/06/05 10:03:21, Link
Author: Cubist
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

Velikovsky didn't know the difference between carbohydrates (i.e. 'manna') and hydrocarbons  (i.e. oil/petroleum).
Velikovsky also didn't have a clue how the hell to extract the planet Venus from the bottom of Jupiter's gravity well without reducing said planet to a subinfinite number of tiny fragments traveling in increasingly loose formation.
Game Over, Man.

Date: 2013/06/06 06:23:41, Link
Author: Cubist
Have downloaded all 20-something PDFs. According to the colophon, the publisher, World Scientific, is a Singapore-based publisher with offices in the US (Hackensack, NJ) and UK (London, England). It would be interesting to know whether anyone at World Scientific is aware of the track records of the various editors/contributors.

The book is credited to five editors…
• Robert J. Marks II (Baylor U.)
• Michael J. Behe (Lehigh U.)
• William A. Dembski (Discovery Institute)
• Bruce L. Gordon (Houston Baptist U.)
• John C. Sanford (Cornell U.)
…with assistance from two other persons:
• Franzine D. Smith, Technical Editor
• Chase W. Nelson, Editorial Assistant

Here's the table of contents, sans page numbers:

Section One: Information Theory & Biology
• Introductory Comments / Robert J. Marks II
• Biological Information — What is It / Werner Gitt, Robert Compton, and Jorge Fernandez
• A General Theory of Information Cost Incurred by Successful Search / William A. Dembski, Winston Ewert, and Robert J. Marks II
• Pragmatic Information / John W. Oller, Jr.
• Limits of Chaos and Progress in Evolutionary Dynamics / William F. Basener
• Tierra: The Character of Adaptation / Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, and Robert J. Marks II
• Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation / George Montañez, Robert J. Marks II, Jorge Fernandez and John C. Sanford
• Entropy, Evolution and Open Systems / Granville Sewell
• Information and Thermodynamics in Living Systems / Andy C. McIntosh
Section Two: Biological Information and Genetic Theory
• Introductory Comments / John C. Sanford
• Not Junk After All: Non-Protein-Coding DNA Carries Extensive Biological Information / Jonathan Wells
• Can Purifying Natural Selection Preserve Biological Information? / Paul Gibson, John R. Baumgardner, Wesley H. Brewer, and John C. Sanford
Selection Threshold Severely Constrains Capture of Beneficial Mutations / John C. Sanford, John R. Baumgardner, and Wesley H. Brewer
• Using Numerical Simulation to Test the “Mutation-Count” Hypothesis / Wesley H. Brewer, John R. Baumgardner, and John C. Sanford
• Can Synergistic Epistasis Halt Mutation Accumulation? Results from Numerical Simulation / John R. Baumgardner, Wesley H. Brewer, and John C. Sanford
• Computational Evolution Experiments Reveal a Net Loss of Genetic Information Despite Selection / Chase W. Nelson and John C. Sanford
• Information Loss: Potential for Accelerating Natural Genetic Attenuation of RNA Viruses / Wesley H. Brewer, Franzine D. Smith, and John C. Sanford
• DNA.EXE: A Sequence Comparison between the Human Genome and Computer Code / Josiah Seaman
• Biocybernetics and Biosemiosis / Donald Johnson
Section Three: Theoretical Molecular Biology
• Introductory Comments / Michael J. Behe
• An Ode to the Code: Evidence for Fine-Tuning in the Standard Codon Table / Jed C. Macosko and Amanda M. Smelser
• A New Model of Intracellular Communication Based on Coherent, High-Frequency Vibrations in Biomolecules / L. Dent
• Getting There First: An Evolutionary Rate Advantage for Adaptive Loss-of-Function Mutations / Michael J. Behe
• The Membrane Code: A Carrier of Essential Biological Information That Is Not Specified by DNA and Is Inherited Apart from It / Jonathan Wells
• Explaining Metabolic Innovation: Neo-Darwinism versus Design / Douglas D. Axe and Ann K. Gauger
Section Four: Biological Information and Self-Organizational Complexity Theory
• Introductory Comments / Bruce L. Gordon
• Evolution Beyond Entailing Law: The Roles of Embodied Information and Self Organization / Stuart Kauffman
• Towards a General Biology: Emergence of Life and Information from the Perspective of Complex Systems Dynamics / Bruce H. Weber

Date: 2013/06/08 21:01:58, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 08 2013,19:05)
Anybody care to work up a "Breathtaking Inanity of the Week" graphic? We could use one.

Will this do?



Take it and use it with my complements, if you like.

Date: 2013/06/13 15:32:07, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (OgreMkV @ June 13 2013,08:00)

Getting rid of pollution, environmental damage caused by oil spills and strip mining, stopping deaths in coal mines, ending US reliance on countries that hate us (which apparently is all of them), etc.

What if we do all this work and the temperature isn't actually warming?  It'd be a damn shame to stop all that other stuff too.

Well, sure. Because pollution and etc is what America was built on. The denialism is even more annoying, because it all gets back to the absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide. CO2 interacts very little with photons in the visible portion of the spectrum, and very strongly with photons in the IR portion of the spectrum. This means that whatever energy is carried to Earth by visible-wavelength photons, that energy gets absorbed by whatever solid objects those photons hit. Those objects heat up, and radiate energy away in the form of IR-wavelength photons. And IR-wavelength photons, unlike visible-wavelength photons, get absorbed by CO2 molecules.

Given all the above, how can CO2 not have the practical effect of trapping energy in the atmosphere? How can a higher level of CO2 in the atmosphere not lead, inevitably, to higher global temperature? How can human activity inject megatons of CO2 into the atmosphere without causing global temperature to rise?

Is the absorption spectrum of CO2 a mystery? Is that spectrum something we're totally wrong about? Is it wrong to say that when a sunlight-warmed object radiates heat, that object has converted the input of full-spectrum solar EM radiation into the output of IR-spectrum EM radiation?

Is there any real reason (as opposed to denialist-funded talking points) to doubt that yes, AGW genuinely is a real thing that will have serious consequences?

Date: 2013/06/25 21:11:07, Link
Author: Cubist
This "stolen concept fallacy" thingamabob is nothing but good old presuppositional apologetics with the serial numbers filed off and a fresh coat of paint. "Yes, yes, I'll be happy to discuss the validity of my concepts with you—just as soon as you concede that my concepts are valid!"

Date: 2013/06/27 06:38:27, Link
Author: Cubist
I just made two attempts to post comments on Jerry Coyne's blog, and both attempts failed; each time, I got a "Sorry, this comment could not be posted" error message. Is that Coyne's way of letting you know he's banned you? Or is there some other reason for this failure?

Date: 2013/07/03 17:41:27, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 03 2013,16:23)
Welcome to the politics of science, that Charles Darwin experienced too. In his case entrenched hidebound academics painted him as a drunken bum who lost their mind. Publishing in a science journal did not work, only left him even more open to academic snobbery meant to stop their theory from being taken seriously by anyone.

Hmm. "entrenched hidebound academics painted (Darwin) as a drunken bum who lost their mind"… I had no idea that the academic establishment of Charles Darwin's time was so hostile to the man. Rather, I was under the impression that even before Origin of Species, the academic establishment had a decent degree of respect for Darwin, as a result of his work on barnacles and so on. May I ask where you're getting this academics-hated-Darwin notion from?

Date: 2013/07/05 09:00:10, Link
Author: Cubist
It is enough, Ivan Gary. Go home!

Date: 2013/07/06 07:15:39, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Kantian Naturalist @ July 05 2013,23:42)
So, the old "Darwinism leads to Nazism" is back in action…

"back in action"? When was there ever a time when it wasn't in active use?

Date: 2013/07/17 03:23:39, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Henry J @ July 16 2013,22:17)
 
Quote
essentially, a Designer can create something that looks random.

Well of course. Human engineers can do that. And, a skilled designer could "design" something to follow some set of constraints even if those constraints are optional (for that designer). But in that case, somebody studying the result might as well make use of those constraints in any endeavors to figure out what comes next.

 
Quote
Frank Burns: "It looks like a two-by-four."

"Good bye, Ferret face." - B.J.

(But don't ask what "B.J." stands for!)

Henry

There was an episode where they actually did say what B. J. stands for. As it happens, B. J. was named after his aunt Bea, and his uncle Jay. I am not making this up…

Date: 2013/07/19 17:02:42, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Peter Henderson @ July 19 2013,06:08)
Here's the recording of the Ray Comfort interview on Revelation TV last night.

Judge for yourselves:

http://www.revelationtv.com/webdev.....utoplay

After the Dawkins fiasco in "from a frog to a prince" surely the likes of P.Z. Myers should have had more sense ?

Did no one think of asking Comfort to actually define a "KIND"

Given the quality of the camera-work in Comfort's recent cinematic magnum doofus, it's not clear that Comfort's victims were actually aware that the Bananaman was filming them. Recall that video cameras can be real small these days, and if someone is carrying one mounted on a beltbuckle, or in some other location not commonly associated with cameras…
This suggests that if Comfort approaches you for an 'innocent conversation' under any circumstances whatsoever, it's probably best to assume that he's recording it and will later edit the video with malice aforethought.

Also, Comfort is perfectly capable of editing the bejeezus out of any footage he has custody of. So it may well be that lots of people asked him "oh, yeah? what's a 'kind', then?", and all of those questions ended up on the cutting room floor. Or in the bit-bucket, as seems more likely in these days of all-digital editing.

Date: 2013/07/20 20:30:58, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (JohnW @ July 20 2013,20:23)
 
Quote (Woodbine @ July 20 2013,09:48)
Is there a newer version of CBEB.exe available? I can access most of Gary's C: drive and the webcam controller works great but it's a bit buggy when copying/deleting files.

Thanks.

I think we've successfully tested the "replace all text with unreadable gibberish" feature now.

Given Gaulin's standard default level of comprehensibility, how could you tell whether this function is working?

Date: 2013/07/21 05:08:08, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Febble @ July 21 2013,02:05)
I do understand the rationale of having a place primarily to "serve the ID community", but the interesting thing is that with the slightly weird exception of Cornelius Hunter's blog, there isn't any place I know of where ID proponents tolerate debate at all.

Which makes all this allegation of "censorship!" by Matzke doubly odd.  Trebly odd when combined with calls for me to delete "slander" on TSZ.  Quadruply odd when those calls are embedded in egregious slander of "Darwinists".

'Odd" isn't the word I'd use… to my mind, "predictable" or "bog-standard" come closer to the mark. When you cast aside all the smoke and mirrors, the ID movement is a wholly-owned subsidiary of good old Creationism, which makes it a marginally non-standard sect of Christianity; as such, the ID movement's fundamental T*R*U*T*H*S cannot be allowed to come into contact with facts that contradict these T*R*U*T*H*S, for such contact must necessarily be destructive to said T*R*U*T*H*S. 'Twas ever thus for any religious sect whose dogmas do not reflect Reality, I think.

Date: 2013/07/22 14:26:33, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (OgreMkV @ July 22 2013,08:17)
Quote (Cubist @ July 19 2013,17:02)

Given the quality of the camera-work in Comfort's recent cinematic magnum doofus, it's not clear that Comfort's victims were actually aware that the Bananaman was filming them. Recall that video cameras can be real small these days…

That may be illegal depending on where he filmed them... if he did not tell people he was filming.

I am aware that many jurisdictions have laws regarding what degree of consent is needed, if any, before one can record another person. Do you think the Bananaman is aware of such laws, or that the Bananaman cares whether he might be violating such laws in the process of committing this sort of 'service' to his Lord?

Date: 2013/07/23 21:25:36, Link
Author: Cubist
Given that the source of information re: the medical condition of KF's son is KF himself… well, let's just say that if KF said the Sun was shining, I wouldn't believe him until after I looked up in the sky to confirm if for myself.

So.

Is there any reason to believe that KF actually has a son in the first place, let alone that this offspring actually is suffering from a serious medical condition?

Date: 2013/07/24 15:19:59, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ July 23 2013,22:24)
KF is nowhere near clever enough to come up with a fake crisis to get his opponent's sympathy.

Best of wishes for the boy.  He's got enough issues already just having KF as his dad.

KF is perfectly capable of Olympic-level feats of exaggeration and misrepresentation. How do we know that this "son" of his isn't actually, let's say, a neighbor's child that he happens to like and/or be kind to? How do we know that this allegedly life-threatening situation isn't just the kid going to the hospital for a regularly scheduled checkup?

Date: 2013/07/29 01:19:19, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 28 2013,11:37)
I think Gary's subject in his PSC VB code deserves a moniker. One reflecting the very special circumstances of its existence would be even better.

I propose we call it the "N-Bug" in honor of the proud tradition Gary carries on from Prosper-Rene' Blondlot and his theory of N-rays.

I won't use that term, because the comparison is unfair to Blondlot, who was a productive and respected scientist before he mired himself in the N-ray affair. Seems to me that Blondlot fits the same competent scientist goes off the rails towards the end of his career pattern as Linus Pauling and Fred Hoyle, not so? Gaulin, contrariwise, is more like John Hampden, the C19th Flat Earth believer who made a bet with Alfred Russell Wallace about the Earth's shape; lost that bet; and spent much of his life thereafter being increasingly abusive to Wallace, including lawsuits…

Date: 2013/08/06 14:20:08, Link
Author: Cubist
Mark Armitage? The Mark Armitage who has his own page on EvoWiki? That Mark Armitage? The silly bugger showed up on that page's discussion page to whine about how Kurt Hollocher was a big meanie whose taste in publication venues meant that Armitage was totally justified in ignoring the substance of Hollocher's criticisms of Armitage's work.

Date: 2013/08/06 22:18:07, Link
Author: Cubist
I'm in San Jose, California.

Date: 2013/08/14 00:58:19, Link
Author: Cubist
Also: Greta Christina wrote a blog post whose content is directly relevant to the question of how credible the accusations aimed at Shermer may be or not-be.

Date: 2013/08/17 03:18:35, Link
Author: Cubist
It's worth noting that what PZ posted was not an accusation of rape, and, in fact, could not be an accusation of rape. Anybody who didn't actually read the thing, but instead relied on second-hand descriptions of its content, or (even worse) hyperbolic misrepresentations of its content, could easily get the (quite erroneous!) impression that what PZ posted was an accusation that Shermer raped a woman… but anyone who actually read the thing would know that the woman in question stated that someone intervened before events progressed to the point of nonconsensual sex.

So if one regards that Pharyngula post as an accusation aimed at Shermer, the accusation would not be Shermer is a rapist, but, rather, Shermer is kinda skeevy/creepy.

But okay, let's ignore the actual content of that post, and let's say that that post realio, trulio was an flat-out, explicit, no-foolin' accusation of rape. Just how much damage would such an accusation do to Shermer? Looking at other cases, including those in which the rapist in question wasn't just accused but was, in fact, convicted of rape, it's not particularly difficult to find examples of accused and/or convicted rapists who really didn't suffer all that much in the way of consequences from having been accused and/or convicted. For instance, how much harm has Roman Polanski suffered as a result of his having been convicted of rape in a court of law? Well, he can't travel to just any old place he feels like at any time. And some people have unfavorable opinions of him. But beyond these relatively minor consequences of a purely social kind, exactly what harm has Polanski suffered as a result of his rape conviction? And hey, how about the Steubenville rapists? The whole town rallied behind them, and ran their victim—the girl they raped—out of town. Somehow, I'm having trouble seeing any real harm done to these convicted rapists as a result of their having been convicted of rape…

So.

You say that Shermer will suffer harm as a result of what PZ posted? I'm skeptical of that proposition. Got evidence to support it?

Date: 2013/09/02 23:07:19, Link
Author: Cubist
I left a comment on Miller's blog…
Quote
Expelled for failing to adhere to a dogmatic orthodoxy? Interesting. Do you think there might be a movie in that, Kevin?

It is being held in moderation. We shall see if Miller chooses to let it out of moderation, and if he does that, whether/how he will choose to respond to it.

Date: 2013/09/03 17:29:41, Link
Author: Cubist
Interesting. My comment did show on Kev's blog—rather, my pair of comments. Silly me, thinking that when a comment doesn't show up immediately, it's because it vanished into the bit-bucket, as opposed to, say, it was waiting in the moderation queue… Anyway, the spirit moved me to post a follow-up:
Quote
I apologize for leaving two substantially-identical comments. In my defense, all I can say is that the vast bulk of my blog-commenting experience is restricted to blogs that are largely unmoderated. If you wish to delete one of the two near-duplicates, and this comment as well, I'm okay with that, Kevin.

This comment, like my first pair, is currently in moderation, but given that the first pair did appear, we may presumably expect that it will not be trapped there forever.

Edited to add: And now it looks like this comment went thru, too.

Date: 2013/09/05 17:35:37, Link
Author: Cubist
Just checked Amazon.com for the market value of Explore (a cherry-picked subset of the evidence for) Evolution.
I found three new copies, whose asking prices are $139.99; $619.92; and $4,678.
I found 11 used copies, whose prices range from a low of $139.99 to a high of $424.87.
I have no idea what's going on here…

Date: 2013/09/07 19:23:35, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 07 2013,17:22)
I have been wondering what Abbie Smith has been doing? Has she graduated?

She seems to have finshed her dissertation.

Date: 2013/09/20 17:07:54, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Sep. 20 2013,15:44)
WJM committs intellectual suicide. I wonder if this will stay up:



http://tinyurl.com/mwg5cgh....mwg5cgh

Why wouldn't it stay up? WJM is a Soldier of Truth, fighting on the One True And Right Side of the Glorious Culture War; therefore, anything he says is, by definition, clearly & necessarily a shining example of Impeccable Goodness and Rectitude.

Date: 2013/09/20 20:11:28, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Febble @ Sep. 20 2013,17:49)
Yeah, I'd missed those earlier ones.

So, it's Box.  Well, it slightly ameliorates the offense that he made it so easy to recognise the fake.

The hypocrisy, and the lack of self-reflection, is really quite extraordinary.

What hypocrisy, Lizzie? Box, and the rest of the UD crowd, are Good. Therefore, nothing they do can be Bad, including things that they would excoriate if one of their opponents was doing them. Because they (Box & co.) are Good, anybody who opposes them must be Bad. And anything done by a Bad person must be Bad.
It's tribalism, pure and simple.

Date: 2013/09/21 21:22:59, Link
Author: Cubist
Hmm. This 'Vulturica' is a total noob, whose very first post is a message in support of obscure Internet kook Gary Gaulin.

IP check, Wesley?

Date: 2013/09/22 06:29:36, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Vulturica @ Sep. 21 2013,22:28)
 
Quote (Cubist @ Sep. 21 2013,21:22)
Hmm. This 'Vulturica' is a total noob, whose very first post is a message in support of obscure Internet kook Gary Gaulin.

IP check, Wesley?

Keep in mind from the beginning that I am an evolutionist to the core!

That's nice. You're also a carrion-eating pseudonym who claims to have a "PhD in genetics", claims to be first author on something that appeared in PLoS, and claims to be third author on something that appeared in Nature.

Me, I strongly doubt that any of these three claims of yours is actually, like, true.

Quote
Actually, I do not understand why no one defended Gary before!

You really don't understand why people might be disinclined to defend incoherent word-salad?

Quote
Good or bad the man brings something to the table…

Incoherent word-salad is, indeed, 'something'. However, it's unclear to me why you think that this particular 'something' is worth defending.

Talk is cheap, Vulturica. Your vague assertions re: your degree and your publications are clearly an attempt at an Argument From Authority—but said vague assertions do not provide any reason to believe that you are an authority. If you wish anybody hereabouts to accept you as the Authority you claim to be, you would be well advised to pony up some details. Like, which educational institution granted you your PhD in what year, or a proper citation to the PLoS publication you spoke of, or a proper citation to the Nature publication you spoke of. If you don't care to reveal any such details, fine; you are of course under no obligation to do so. The catch is, if you're gonna play the I kan haz SYENTIFFIC AUHTORITY!! card, you really, really need to back it up with more than the bare, unsupported assertion that you are a scientific authority.

Alternatively, since you appear to think that Gaulin really does have some sort of valid scientific theory, perhaps you could do what Gaulin himself has consistently been unwilling and/or unable to do: Namely, explain what the fuck Gaulin is talking about.

Or you could continue to heap paeans of vague, unsupported praise upon a blatant netkook. I'm good either way.

Date: 2013/09/23 14:19:02, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (fnxtr @ Sep. 23 2013,09:13)
Anyone else having trouble getting into PT?

Just tried, and got in without any trouble.

Date: 2013/10/04 15:44:15, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Patrick @ Oct. 04 2013,15:35)
 
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Oct. 04 2013,14:36)
After Barry Assholeton bans Lizzie, Mapou visits his alternate reality world:

     
Quote
Mapou:  Personally, I would have banned her a long time ago, along with some others. We should start giving these people a taste of their own medicine. Just ban the hell out of them. Sorry for the outburst. Telling it like I see it, as always.


Taste of their own medicine??? AFAIK the only IDiot ever banned anywhere was Joe Gallien at TSZ and that was because he posted a link to porn, not for his ID views.

There has to be some sort of mad cow disease running rampant over at UD.

Joe claims it wasn't porn because he didn't find it sexually stimulating.

Backing slowly away from the risk of mental images of Joe's fantasies, I will note that what he posted is more correctly categorized as explicit and NSFW.

The keyword is "claims". Do not ever make the mistake of thinking that JoeG gives a shit about truth, or comminucating ideas in a clear and honest manner, or any other such bourgeois frippery. When JoeG claimed that the pic he posted was not sexually stimulating, it wasn't because he genuinely believes that that pic was not sexually stimulating; rather, he claimed that the pic he posted was not sexually stimulating because that claim supported the narrative he was pushing at the time, a narrative according to which TSZ is Evil and Wrong In Everything They Do. If, at some future time, JoeG is ever pushing a narrative that would be supported by the assertion that the pic he posted was sexually stimulating, he would have no trouble at all claiming, at that future time, that the pic in question was sexually stimulating.

Date: 2013/10/04 17:23:55, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 04 2013,16:08)
Quote (steve_h @ Oct. 04 2013,13:58)
Quote (Patrick @ Oct. 04 2013,19:49)
Barry is an intellectual coward -- a bitch who wishes he could be a bully.

Well there is that. But I wonder if this is also an attempt to end a never-ending stream of anti-Lizzie rants and pleas for her to be silenced in every single bloody post no matter what the subject -  and very likely, behind the scenes, in endless emails too.   By the guy who invites people into his living room asks them to politely answer his questions and then drowns out everything they say by constant parenthesized interruptions delivered through his megaphone and a 10,000 watt echo unit p.a. system.

If that's the case, Patrick's right and Barry's a coward.  If Barry is fed up of the never-ending stream of anti-Lizzie rants and pleas for her to be silenced, the obvious solution is to ask for the source of those rants to stop.

All is explained by tribalism. To Barry, Dr. Febble is Them; the people who are complaining about her, contrariwise, are very much Us. When push comes to shove, Barry will side with Us over Them, regardless of any other considerations.

Date: 2013/10/05 04:05:41, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 04 2013,20:38)
 
Quote (Febble @ Oct. 02 2013,01:34)
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]<br/><br/>Just joining the queue to get a fuck you from TWT.

Criticism or lampooning of KF's views and attitudes seems fair game.

Making up scurrilous crap not just about him but about his family is something else entirely IMO.

It's just shitty.

Your reading comprehension is not very good. Rather than try to teach you like a kindergartner, I suggest you go back and try to understand the context of my comment. Start with J-Dog's suggestion (and no, I don't blame J-Dog). …

Cool story, bro.

Date: 2013/10/06 04:27:08, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 05 2013,21:35)

1. There's a blog
2. It has numerous bible references, but no defensible information calculations.
3. It gets mad at Atheists
4. and Muslims
5. and Gays
6. and Women
7. It's just banned it's most scientifically literate commentator for asking questions
8. and followed up with a post "Who was Adam and when did he live? Twelve theses and a caveat"

What kind of a blog is it?

That's easy: It's an unreadable blog.

Date: 2013/10/07 13:19:35, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 07 2013,10:09)
Maybe we can come up with an update for this.

I see no need for an update, other than perhaps adding some footnotes to highlight supportive evidence which occurred after this webpage was originally uploaded.

Date: 2013/10/09 13:29:41, Link
Author: Cubist
VD news: The Warmouse is no more.

The warmouse.com URL is now a generic placeholderish page; according to Internet Archive's archived copies of warmouse.com from different times, the website died sometime between 30 Oct 2012 (the latest archived copy with real content) and 23 Aug 2013 (the first archived copy immediately after the 30 Oct 2012 a.c., this one being a generic placeholderish page). No idea when, within that nine-month "window", the website went dark. Perhaps someone with greater internet savvy… and greater interest… than myself can narrow it down.

A moment of silence is due.

Date: 2013/10/10 22:57:23, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (ScottBuchanan @ Oct. 10 2013,22:24)
I trust someone here is revving up to answer Meyer's 4-part reply to Charles Marshall's article in Science. (I think that article was ill-advised, since now the DI folks are trumpeting how DD is being "taken seriously.")

One should never judge the advisability of a response-to-Creationism by the possibility that Creationists will make propagandistic hay of that response. Why? Because Creationists can and will find ways to spin anything in their favor. If respected authorities don't respond to Creationist bullshit, it's because they're afraid to confront the undeniable Truth of Creationism, ergo Creationism FTW; if respected authorites do respond to Creationist bullshit, it's because Creationism is Real Science™, ergo Creationism FTW.

Since Creationists can and will find ways to propagandistically spin anything in their favor, any response to Creationism should not take that expected propagandistic spin into account. Otherwise, you might just as well be arguing that nobody should ever respond to Creationist bullshit.

Date: 2013/10/25 06:23:55, Link
Author: Cubist
Anyone who would like to own a legit copy ofExpelled without sending any cash to the lying weasels who made it, would be well advised to check eBay now. As I write this post, the cheapest used copy on eBay has a "Buy it now" price of $1.50, a seller-specified minimum bid of $0.10, and exactly 0 (zero) bids…

Date: 2013/10/28 14:24:34, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (didymos @ Oct. 28 2013,07:22)
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 28 2013,03:46)
In the history of the internet, has 'let's all not feed the troll' ever worked?

Do you mean "does it actually shut the troll up" or "do people ever actually stop feeding the troll"?

I'm pretty sure the answer is "no" under either of those interpretations.

Date: 2013/10/28 15:05:59, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 28 2013,04:48)
…IDC is simply a subset of creation science argumentation. There is no argument in that class made by IDC advocates that wasn't already made by YEC creation science advocates. The four major arguments of the IDC movement, "irreducible complexity", "specified complexity", cosmological fine-tuning, and "privileged planet" arguments all are recognizably elaborations of arguments made by the Rev. William Paley in his 1802 book, "Natural Theology". A major feature of the cross-examination of Scott Minnich in Kitzmiller was the demonstration that the various "bacterial flagellum was designed" arguments were present in YEC creation science sources long before IDC came along and used them.

Wes, I think it's about time that someone produced a new edition of Paley's work, with annotations to show exactly how and where contemporary Creationists (ID-pushers included) are recycling Paley. I see landscape-format pages, 8"x14" or something, with Paley's text in a column down the middle of each page and a good chunk of room on either side of Paley's text for the annotations.
I've started working on this project. I would appreciate having assistance from people who are better-acquainted with Paley, and with (ID)C, than I. So if you, or anybody else reading this post, think it's an interesting project they'd like to contribute to, please to get in touch with me via the "Email" or "Send msg" buttons at the bottom of this post.

Date: 2013/10/31 15:12:25, Link
Author: Cubist
It may be worth noting that the most recent post in that Fractal Forums thread, linked to above, carries a date-stamp of 31 January 2010. Said forum seems to be a reasonably sane place, whose primary focus is on stuff in the general neighborhood of the Mandelbrot Set. It is not clear why Mr. Gaulin chose to deposit his… stuff… in that forum.

Date: 2013/11/06 16:28:49, Link
Author: Cubist
Grammar-checking software does have its place, but it can never tell you whether a piece of writing actually makes sense. I gave grammarbase.com this sentence:
 
Quote
Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.

The website's response was "Document size limit less than the minimum. Please submit at least 6 words and try again." Okay, I added the first sentence of Walt Kelly's poem The Third Rail Theme:
 
Quote
Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. The party of the first part and the party of the next were partly participled in a sparsely-covered text.

The website found 1 (one) "critical issue" in this text. Not the patent incoherence of "colorless green ideas sleep furiously", but, rather, a spelling error—it seems that grammarbase.com thinks the word "participled" is misspelled here. Hmm. Next test: Jabberwocky.
 
Quote
'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves did gyre and gimbal in the wabe. All mimsy were the borogoves, and the mome raths outgrabe.

The website found 9 "critical mistakes"—and all 9 of them are spelling errors.

The above should not be considered a criticism of grammarbase.com; again, grammar-checking software is useful, and does have its place. But it also has limits, which the website acknowledges up front:
Quote
We check for:
? Grammar
? Punctuation
? Style
? Plagiarism
? Contextual Spelling

Notably absent from this list of What Grammarbase Checks For: Coherence. Clarity. Making sense.

Date: 2013/11/07 00:45:25, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (CeilingCat @ Nov. 06 2013,20:05)
Ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked?
 
Quote
Think of the programing language as the genotype and the program itself as the phenotype. How one gets from the genotype to the phenotype is termed development.

Mung

That's not an exclusive 'or'…

Date: 2013/11/11 15:03:10, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 11 2013,11:31)
Is the "Telic Thoughts" blog drawing a blank?

The page comes back empty. The sole thing in the page source is an HTML comment saying "default".

Whatever happened, it must have occurred within the last week. On 4 November 2013, the Internet Archive preserved what looks like a perfectly normal instance of Telic Thoughts.

Date: 2013/11/20 12:55:38, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 19 2013,11:13)
John Freshwater lost his appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court. The court's majority decision was that the Mount Vernon schools properly terminated his teaching contract for insubordination.

The dissenting opinions are notable for their bald assertion that shoving IDC into science classes is appropriate.

This brings to a close a long, contentious, and expensive process that should never have taken as much time and resources away from education as it did.

It's not over 'til it's over. Yes, the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled on this case… but there's at least one more Court to which Freshwater could appeal, that being the US Supreme Court. Considering the historical record of this case, it's pretty clear that Freshwater is absolutely willing to go to any lengths whatsoever on behalf of his invisible friend, and that Freshwater will therefore regard the Ohio Supremes' decision as nothing more than a temporary obstruction to his (Freshwater's) crusade. Of course, there may or may not be some practical obstacles in the was of Freshwater's willingness to pursue (what he regards as) Justice…
The biggest question is whether or not Freshwater can find a lawyer willing to push his sad case up to the US Supremes; given the existence of such fine barristers as make up the Thomas More Legal Center and the Rutherford Institute, it would be imprudent to presume that Freshwater cannot now find an advocate for his case.
The second-biggest question is whether or not the US Supremes would be willing to take this case. I suspect that Scalia, at the very least, would be more than willing, and he's hardly alone in his support for religious indoctrination in Constitutionally-inappropriate settings.
Yes, it looks like Freshwater's case is now closed. All I'm sayin' is, Freshwater is a god-besotted zealot, and it's never a good idea to underestimate the fervor of a god-besotted zealot.
And don't overlook the fact that a significant chunk of the Ohio Supremes agreed that ID is A-OK for science classes. Regardless of whether or not this particular battle is over, the war is definitely going to continue.

Date: 2013/11/22 16:54:49, Link
Author: Cubist
Why would the Texas school board worry about whether or not a biology textbook is properly handling a geology thing like the cooling of the Earth? My guess would be, it's about Lord Kelvin's calculations re: the upper limit for the age of the Earth. The board's contingent of YECs could be trying to introduce a YEC lie about Kelvin's calculations, which (according to the finest scholars in YEC-land) proved the Earth couldn't be more than a few thousand years old.

Date: 2013/11/23 02:27:01, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 22 2013,21:59)
And here I thought Kelvin's calculations allowed for it to be a few million years!

Or was it several million?

Ah well, physicists found a Curie for that problem.

Henry

You got it—Kelvin's initial calculations (as opposed to… whatever bullshit the YECs are making noise about) said the Earth was somewhere between 20 million years old, and 400 million years old. Later, Kelvin revised his estimate to 20-40 million years, still orders of magnitude greater than what YECs want, not that that sort of discrepancy would ever get in the way of a YEC's decision to bear false witness about a scientific finding.

Date: 2013/12/07 18:38:13, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 07 2013,17:38)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 07 2013,14:46)

At the moment, litigation against the Next Generation Science Standards has the US stage. I would imagine that Casey is also too busy right now for another project. Sorry..


That gif reminds me of a story

Date: 2014/01/07 09:49:11, Link
Author: Cubist
I had an evil idea.

The entire content of BI:NP is free for the downloading, right? So why not do that, and create a 'companion volume' which points out all the glaring errors, and explains in detail why those errors are errors? Copyright isn't an issue, because copyright law allows people to quote portions of a protected work in order to comment on that protected work, and boy howdy will this project ever comment on BI:NP.

I don't have the necessary background to disassemble BI:NP, but there are people around here who do have the necessary background, and I can at least do typesetting and page layout and etc, so that the final product ends up looking as good as its content. Anybody want to give it a go?

Date: 2014/01/14 02:21:48, Link
Author: Cubist
Notice the favorable review on the webpage for Dembski's book? Seems appropriate that the quoted reviewer is Rupert Sheldrake…

Date: 2014/01/14 15:34:45, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 14 2014,09:42)
Grandmaster Chubs

 
Quote
Joe January 14, 2014 at 7:55 am

nightlight- I have never lost a game of chess to any computer. If you know of one that you think can beat me, please reference it and I will have a go.


Fighter pilot, Olympic power lifter, evolutionary biologist, Iraqi war hero, GA programmer, baraminologist, all in his spare time from fixing toasters.  :D  :D  :D

I note that in the quoted text, Joe does not actually say that he's ever played chess against any computer. It is, of course, trivial to never lose if one never plays.

Date: 2014/01/14 15:41:37, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Learned Hand @ Jan. 14 2014,14:26)
Please don't judge lawyers by their clients. Some of the most moral and upstanding attorneys have the worst clients.

Even assuming that the version of events in the story is totally accurate, BA is not responsible for his clients' wrongdoing. Stepping up to defend a reprehensible client is a morally good act, even if the client is guilty, because the system absolutely depends on everyone having effective counsel.

We're not judging Barry by his clients. Rather, we're judging Barry by Barry. He's got a wee bit of a track record of being an arrogant, insensitive fuckwad, and this latest bit of Barryana is just consistent with that track record.

Date: 2014/01/18 17:05:06, Link
Author: Cubist
Stupid question: What's wrong with Lenny's argument, that you feel it might be worthwhile to work up a different version of it?

Date: 2014/01/27 12:30:50, Link
Author: Cubist
Looks like the product of applying a dissociated press to Gaulin's 'work'. Strongly suspect that this particular implementation can handle both letter-based and word-based DP. What's the largest pattern-length your implementation can handle, NoName?

Date: 2014/01/30 18:01:19, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Quack @ Jan. 30 2014,03:53)
 
Quote
eberybody can download freely from World Scientific.

Where is the download button?

The World Scientific webpage for the book does not seem to include any way to download the whole thing with one click. However, that webpage does include a list of every chapter in the book, and each such list-item includes a clickable link whose text fits the pattern PDF ([number] KB). Clicking on that link should let you download the PDF for that list-item's section of the book.

Date: 2014/03/12 16:09:21, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Texas Teach @ Mar. 11 2014,16:18)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 11 2014,16:03)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 27 2014,11:13)
The DI ENV is pushing an article by Stephen Webb that supposedly "schools" Stephen Meredith on IDC and "occasionalism".

Anybody else see the problem in Webb's thing that I do?

     
Quote
They then test their hypothesis by calculating the probability that a specific set of causes can create new biological forms.

lulz, as if cID theoristsists have ever actually calculated anything, ever.

I'm sure some of them calculated how much money they could make off the rubes.  That's kind of sciency, right?

Economics and psychology are sciences. Game theory is… not really a science in itself, but a branch of science. [nods sagely]

Date: 2014/03/21 17:34:27, Link
Author: Cubist
Sal's old youngcosmos.com URL is not for sale!

It is, however, currently being used by someone whose primary interest seems to be hooking up [$nationality] women with Western men. Using the Internet Archive to  explore the history of Sal's URL, it looks like Sal abandoned it sometime between 8 Feb 2011 and 1 Oct 2011. The Internet Archive has saved 27 versions of youngcosmos.com, 20 of them before Sal's mid-2011 abandonment of said URL; perhaps it might be interesting to do a detailed analysis of those 20 versions, with particular emphasis on which bits Sal decided to delete without comment.

Date: 2014/03/21 17:39:19, Link
Author: Cubist
[duplicate post removed]

Date: 2014/03/22 20:39:30, Link
Author: Cubist
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

Quote (Patrick @ Mar. 22 2014,14:43)
 
Quote (Driver @ Mar. 22 2014,14:57)
 
Quote (Patrick @ Mar. 22 2014,16:57)
   
Quote (Driver @ Mar. 22 2014,12:16)
   
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 22 2014,14:30)
     
Quote (REC @ Mar. 21 2014,22:19)
and the UD Fri night drinking game....

       
Quote
usually the women thing is to promote women in science as they historically and today lag behind. I don’t think women can compete with men intellectually because of a lack of motivation or rather not as motivated as men. men are made to be accomplished and women were made to help men only as the bible teaches. in science accomplishment this is made obvious as affirmative action can’t hide the ratio.


Drink until you 1) forget asshats like this exist and
2) That all the xtian UDers will call you out on anything that looks like some support of some real science, but never, never this...

Anyone else want to lock this guy in a room with Erv and a buncha medieval weapons?

To see which one hates women the most?

You seem to have ERV confused with the gutless bastard who tried to get her fired for opinions she posted online.

No. Misogyny is not a unique phenomenon.

If you're going to accuse an intelligent, articulate, accomplished woman who is actively working in HIV research of misogyny, you should provide some evidence.  If you can't, you should retract your unsupported insult.

This leads directly into an topic which Our Gracious Host greatly prefers that we avoid, so I will restrict myself to this one remark on the subject: I would recommend that you investigate the origins of the Online Pocket O' Misogyny which proudly bears the self-granted name of "slymepit".

Date: 2014/03/22 22:08:51, Link
Author: Cubist
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

Again: Any substantive discussion of the point Driver raised would inevitably lead to a topic which Our Gracious Host would prefer that we avoid. I would recommend that you, too, investigate the origins of the Online Pocket O' Misogyny which proudly bears the self-granted name of "slymepit". If you would like to engage in actual discourse on said topic, there is PMs and there is email. And before you conclude that my somewhat elliptical remarks here are born of a lack of respect for evidence, perhaps you might inquire with Our Gracious Host regarding his preference regarding discussion of one particular topic.
Or, you know, not.

Date: 2014/04/02 13:50:09, Link
Author: Cubist
Sal himself has posted on Alan's thread. A bloke by name of Rich posted "Typical Sal:" plus a link to the Young Cosmos thread here, and Sal replied to it by quoting Rich's entire comment, followed by "April Fools!"

Tell us, Sal: What was the April Fool gag? Occam's site-ban, or CEU's yes-we-like-free-speech posturing?

Date: 2014/04/12 17:09:51, Link
Author: Cubist
Quote (Bob O'H @ April 12 2014,16:16)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 12 2014,12:51)
All in all, I have about a half-dozen legacy Drupal installs, about the same number of WordPress installs, and this IkonBoard install to try to migrate. Fun, fun, fun.

Yes, yes, yes. But what are you going to do after breakfast?

Another six impossible things, of course.

Quote
Seriously, I think we all appreciate the effort you put in.

For values of "all" which include anybody who has a clue about how much of a hassle all this is, definitely.

 

 

 

=====