The evolution of Jeffrey P Schloss

I wonder what O’Leary means by “disavow[ing] young earth creationism on insufficient evidence.”

H. H.:

How refreshing to hear someone other than myself say that!

Irony meters should explode on reading O'Leary whining about theistic evolutionists "sucking up" to "materialistic atheists" while everyone from the most rabid YEC to OEC-plus-common-descent advocates like Michael Behe suck up to each other under that cozy big tent. Using O'Leary "logic," Ken Miller's trashing of Richard Dawkins in "Finding Darwin's God" is "sucking up," but no so Behe's quote about how some IDers (unnamed of course) who reject common descent are more familiar with the relevant science than he is.

I was a bit surprised (in a good sort of way) that Dave Scott
was sharp enough to recognize that crying "WOLF WOLF! NAZI
NAZI! WOLF WOLF!" is just "screeching to the choir" since
everyone else (particularly those who have ever hung around
on internet forums) just rolls their eyes and says: "Oh dear,
how tiresome." Deja moo all over again ...

Sigh, of course Weikert is persisting in the beating of
his dead nonexistent horse. I will have to contact him to
encourage him in his scholarship, and suggest new work
linking Darwin to Darth Vader, and hopefully a book showing
Hitler's debt to the Wright Brothers.

If anything good came out of EXPELLED, it was the B'nai B'rith's
blunt repudiation of the Darwin-Hitler connection -- worth its
weight in gold, to be trotted out every time some (particularly
non-Jewish) Darwin-basher starts calling "NAZI NAZI!"

A bow to Jeff Schloss.

White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

Hitler was influenced by the Darwinism of his day

Well I guess this answers the question of why there are no sincere, honest creationists. Those who sincerely seek the truth eventually realize that lying and ignoring evidence is not the way to find the truth. If they have enough courage, they will eventually admit that they were mistaken.

I applaud the courage that Schloss has shown in revising his views. It was inevitable that the response would be vitriolic and hateful. I guess that just shows that he made the right decision after all. It sure beats realizing that you were completely wrong and stubbornly sticking to your story despite all the evidence.

Not sure where Dave Scot found the courage to denounce the supposed Darwin/Hitler conection. Perhaps there is hope for him yet. It sure makes the makers of Expelled look bad though. Just think, they could have used all that money for research instead of lying and whining. Oh well, at least I can use a 20 second clip of the movie without permission, especially if I criticize it sufficiently.

Dear David,

Schloss' review is also linked at the Expelled Exposed website. I read it last week and found it to be among the most thoughtful, most persuasive, condemnations of "Expelled" that I have read.

Have to commend Schloss for having the courage and intellect to revise substantially his thinking with respect to Intelligent Design. I certainly wish that others, most notably Michael Medved, would follow him too.

Appreciatively yours,

John

Well, I made it all the way through Schloss' long review of Expelled, and I see that he is tiptoeing across a field of eggshells. He repeatedly notices the issue of whether ID has any scientific merit, but then observes that the movie fails to address this question. Schloss carefully avoids adressing it himself.

He has a long section asking whether ID proponents should be expelled, considering that evolution is the best-supported theory in biology and perhaps in all of science. But again, he's careful to note that the movie presumes otherwise, without analyzing why. Schloss himself takes no stand. I think at some level Schloss realizes that when both the facts and the law are against you, you pound the table. Expelled pounds the table; it's the only tactic available, and serendipitously it's the tactic best suited to the target audience's mental processes.

And so it goes for page after page, leading to the conclusion that the movie serves to polarize and thus harden competing extreme political camps, making genuine discussion of the very real underlying issues more difficult and less likely. But why would the movie do this, rather than focus some intellectually honest assessment of the competing views? Here, Schloss is silent.

So I come away, as usual, with the conviction that ID is the political arm of a religious proselytizing campaign, and the claim to scientific merit is completely bogus. Schloss carefully notes in passing that the movie is biased and its supporters are less than honest in its defense, but the real issue - the role the movie is intended to play in the overall political campaign - somehow escapes his notice. The movie has deliberatelty set out to do exactly the opposite of what Schloss thinks it ought to do, and he spends many words bemoaning this, as though it were somehow an accident!

Schloss also has little use for anyone who fails to take his god for granted, dismissing them as contributing nothing but heat to the debate, but no light. Instead, Schloss sees the important battle as between those who believe Schloss' god acted directly, prodigiously poofing reality as we know it all in one swell foop, and those who believe Schloss' god engineered a universe with the divine knowledge of how its properties and principles would play out over time scales meaningful only to gods. The idea that this second type of god renders itself essentially irrelevant, is something Schloss' mind can't even register.

Wednesday, August 13, 2008 Darwinian Revelation [John Derbyshire] A most interesting letter by Charles Darwin has come to light. Looks like Ben Stein was right! [Courtesy of LGF.] At the time of the flap over that Expelled movie (anyone remember that?), Russell Seitz had a bit of fun combing through the recorded utterances of A.H. for the dictator's views on creation. He came up with gems like this one: Das, was der Mensch von dem Tier voraushat, der veilleicht wunderbarste Beweis für die Überlegenheit des Menschen ist, dass er begriffen hat, dass es eine Schöpferkraft geben muss. ("An advantage humans enjoy over animals, and what may be the best proof of their superiority, is that they have grasped there must be the power of a creator.") — Tischgespräche, Feb. 1942. Incidentally, for those who don't already know and want to be well-read for the centenary, the entire works of Charles Darwin are now online here. corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTFiNjI1MmI0YWM1MGMxMzVmZmM4YzdiM2VlMzU2YzM=

Oh yeah, I should point out that the "new letter" from Darwin mentioned in my post above is the same one posted by Matzke.

Glen D

http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Hitler made much of Pasteur and Koch, and very little mention of Darwin in support of his policies. He likened the groups that he didn’t like to diseases to be eliminated. If there was anything “evolutionary” that contributed, it would fall under the heading of microevolution - and today’s anti-evolutionists so often tell us that they accept micro-evolution. What is there about macro-evolutionary ideas, such as the origins of the vertebrate eye, that could conceivably influence him?

— TomS

"(1) ID raises important issues for science.
(2) Politics aside, ID proponents ought to get a fair hearing for their views, and they’re not.
(3) A climate of hostility toward ID pervades the academy, which often undermines freedom of thought and expression on this topic.
(4) That climate has led to ID proponents being shamefully treated, losing their reputations and jobs, and suffering real harm"

(1) ID is little more than a restatement of Paley. Without a phenomenon to study, ID raises no new issues, and offers no research directions, for science. It is pure philosophy, and old philosophy at that, branded with a new name only, and using newer gaps in our knowledge rather than older ones, now filled.

(2) ID proponents write popular books, maintain blogs, go on talk shows, and would even stand a chance of being published in mainstream scientific journals if they formed hypotheses and conducted studies that met the basic standards of scientific research. They have not. It is worth noting that ID enjoys an unusual amount of support from the American public, greater even than the proportion of people who assert that they understand its claims. It is also worth noting that ID has garnered a far greater amount of attention than many other subjects that are actually associated with research programs and findings! Scientists and science-enthusiasts are almost continuously giving ID a "hearing", and rejecting it universally for its lack of research and even basic hypothesis formation. It seems clear that by "hearing", he means positive review, not a critical analysis correctly resulting in scathing criticism.

(3) ID has a clear find-and-replace relationship with creationism, as evidenced at the Dover trial. In addition its proponents have refused to perform basic research, or even consult with the wider scientific community, yet go directly to the lay public with their message, and their demands to be taken seriously as "science" .

(4) None of the examples in Expelled stand up to even a few minutes research on wikipedia, and the deeper one looks into each and every case, the worse the details look for the ID proponent in question. One must either conclude that genuine persecution does not exist, or that the Expelled producers were incompetent in choosing their examples, or that they, for whatever reason, chose bad, easily-refuted, examples on purpose.

The idea that this second type of god renders itself essentially irrelevant, is something Schloss’ mind can’t even register.

— Flint

"Dembski raised some ‘interesting’ questions for Schloss."

Umm, not to nit pick, but what you list are statements, not questions.

"Attributing complexity to the interruption of natural law by a divine designer is, as some critics have claimed, a science stopper."

At the risk of making a mountain out of a molehill, that ISSR statement concedes, correctly, that ID is a science-stopper, but "as some critics have claimed" is an irresponsibly weak and dismissive phrasing. The words "some" and "claimed" suggest that this has been a controversial and minority opinion, perhaps not convincingly established until recently. All critics have claimed that ID was a science-stopper, from the get-go. It is the key reason for scientists to dismiss ID, even if ID-creationists didn't have the habit of being wrong and telling lies all the time.

Attributing complexity to the interruption of natural law by a divine designer is, as some critics have claimed, a science stopper

When I was in grad school, David Sloan Wilson was invited by the University to give an important lecture on human and cultural evolution. The majority of the lecture was on the evolution and adaptation of religion. Well, the Christian Faculty Forum, which served as the university's hot bed of anti-evolution promotion, didn't like the idea of that lecture and they invited a counter to Wilson.

Guess who they invited? Schloss. It didn't go how they'd hoped because Schloss started off his talk by saying that he isn't going to counter Wilson. In fact, he agreed a lot with Wilson, and that they'd published together.

The creationists didn't invite a counter, they invited an enhancer.

Haha!

Imlac said: "Dembski raised some ‘interesting’ questions for Schloss." Umm, not to nit pick, but what you list are statements, not questions.

If Denyse O'Leary or anyone else has a concern about the objectivity and fairness of any of ASA's activities, they are more than welcome to contact me or anyone on our council and engage in constructive private dialog. We will correct all documented and verified concerns of bias and I urge them to retract any that aren't substantiated. We continue to foster and encourage serious dialog in the appropriate forums.

Sad liberal Jesuit stuck between the oppressive confines of religion (hoisted on him by his parents no doubt) and an honest understanding of the science of our times. Probably thought he was doing God's work when he took his position at the Institute. He is what I refer to as one of the good Christians. They come by their delusions honestly but are self aware and intelligent enough to know the Bible is not to be taken literally. These Christians will ultimately burn in hell along with the Mormons and Catholics (according to my Baptist friends..lol) because they do not follow a literalistic biblical translation.

All this YEC talk is nothing other than a reference to people who believe in the literal translation of the bible (or at least their interpretation thereof) over all logic, common observation and good sense (science). Christian religions that embrace evolution have clearly abandoned any literal reckoning of huge parts of biblical creation accounts. Once they have had the good sense to do that, they become slaves to situational ethics just like the vast unwashed atheist hippies they deplore.

I read his review and thought it interesting he brought up the bit from Euclid where he tells the King there is no easy path to Geometry. That is a backhanded swipe at all the knucke draggers who didn't have the IQ to make it through high school chemistry questioning the valid science of those who did. There's a certain 'Idiocracy' element at play in the most radicalized elements that makes the claim...."Who you gonna believe...God...or all those faggoty sounding scientists and secular humanists?"

Enjoy.

Jason Failes said: It seems clear that by "hearing", he means positive review, not a critical analysis correctly resulting in scathing criticism.

The other type of god is just as irrelevant to the scientific explanation. Even if everything “poofed” into existence last Thursday, science would be seeking a “naturalistic” explanation, and rightly so.

All critics have claimed that ID was a science-stopper, from the get-go.

— N.Wells

Science follows the evidence. If the evidence all pointed to magic, science would seek magical explanations. And rightly so.

— Flint

What you call a “magical” explanation I would still call “naturalistic.”

The Holocaust would never have been possible without nearly 2000 years of Christian antisemitism. "His blood be on us and our children" ring a bell?

The Holocaust would never have been possible without nearly 2000 years of Christian antisemitism.

This is a bit of a tangent, but seems as good a place as any to voice my personal embarrassment at being one of those rare Canadians who has seen Expelled. At the time I assumed it was going to do much better at the box office - particularly here in Alberta, a traditionally conservative part of the country, and didn't realize that my $12 would constitute such a significant portion of its gross box-office draw.

Oh, how I wish that number were only $24,362.

Flint said: But the important point is, if the Jews hadn't filled that economic role, Hitler would have target whoever DID fill that role. Or whatever role the public could be made to regard as at fault for their desperate situation. They were targeted not so much because they were Jews, as because they were handy, in a way no other identifiable group was at the time.

Flint,

I'm not denying Hitler was an opportunist. However, my point was that two millennia of Christian antisemitism made the public extremely responsive to his arguments. Also, the Germans' greatest collaborators in the extermination were the very religious Christian and as yet unevolutionised peoples of Eastern Europe, foremostly the Ukrainians.

(For the record, I'm Jewish.)

You are leaving out the fact that this handiness depended a lot on nearly 2000 years of official Church anti-Semitism.

But the important point is, if the Jews hadn’t filled that economic role, Hitler would have target whoever DID fill that role. Or whatever role the public could be made to regard as at fault for their desperate situation. They were targeted not so much because they were Jews, as because they were handy, in a way no other identifiable group was at the time.

After reading J. Schloss' review, I have one quibble. But first I should say I thought it was generally good review.

Okay. I think he gets a little off-track in even posing the question "does it [ID] deserve to be suppressed?" ID has failed in the marketplace of ideas - no serious researcher has chosen to work on it. It isn't suppression when you put your product out there and no one chooses to buy it.

This misunderstanding gets repeated, when he talks about whether "Darwin's Wall" (presumably the wall between mainstream science and acceptance of alternatives) is a good wall or a bad wall. Jeff - there's no wall. IDers are free to research their ideas. They're free to publish. If you really believe that the conspiracy angle of Expelled is nonsense, then there's only two other reasonable explanations to why ID has failed to gain traction in the community - because the people who see value in funding, working, and publishing on design choose not to, or because few people see any value in it. In ID's case, both are true.

Again, its the marketplace of ideas concept. Just because I don't buy your product does not imply that there's a wall preventing me from doing so, any more than it implies some supressing force. It could be, you just put out a crappy product.

Flint said: The Jews' behavior did in fact set themselves up as a target, the economic conditions made that target as obvious as a Vegas neon sign...

Did it ever occur to you that clannishness and seeking economic power are rational responses to a hostile environment? For what it’s worth, I’d agree with you if you said that the Jews’ behaviour made it easier for the non-Jewish population to target them, but you’re attributing agency to a group that didn’t have any in this case.

I think he gets a little off-track in even posing the question “does it [ID] deserve to be suppressed?”

Flint said of magic: "I imagine such a condition should shape the thought process of even the most rigorous thinkers. And it would certainly make poofism the plausable explanation for life, the universe and everything." Hmmm IDiot's. Gotcha!

Denyse O'Leary said:
"Jeffrey Schloss is an embarrassment...His scholarship is unbelievably poor."

How many other Senior Fellows of the Discovery Institute are embarrassments with unbelievably poor scholarship, Denyse? And who picked them?

Steve S said: Denyse O'Leary said: "Jeffrey Schloss is an embarrassment...His scholarship is unbelievably poor." How many other Senior Fellows of the Discovery Institute are embarrassments with unbelievably poor scholarship, Denyse? And who picked them?

How many other Senior Fellows of the Discovery Institute are embarrassments with unbelievably poor scholarship, Denyse? And who picked them?

I wonder what O’Leary means by “disavow[ing] young earth creationism on insufficient evidence” but I am even more amazed about the intense hatred of some of the leading (and following) ID Creationists towards theistic evolutionists.

Flint said: william:

You are leaving out the fact that this handiness depended a lot on nearly 2000 years of official Church anti-Semitism.

I didn't leave it out. The Jews were handy BECAUSE they occupied economic territory which was all the Christians would allow them. My argument isn't that there is no Christian persecution of the Jews, which would be absurd. My argument is that focusing exclusively on religious persecution completely misses the social, economic and political aspects of the situation. The Jews' behavior did in fact set themselves up as a target, the economic conditions made that target as obvious as a Vegas neon sign, and the political confusion and international treatment of Germany made any such target a slam dunk for easy demagoguery. So I doubt that religious prejudice was even the primary cause of what happened, much less the exclusive cause. But it was without doubt a significant contributing cause. As for "full hysteric frenzy", give us a break! Before Hitler demonized them, they were accepted members of the community. They were the retailers, the merchants, the cobblers and tailors and cooks and bankers. What Hitler capitalized on was the Jewish insularity and exclusiveness in the face of hard times that were clearly causing the Jews less distress. Now, whether Hitler could have (with considerably more difficulty) fanned up as much hatred against a different target behaving that same way, without the history of antagonism, I don't know but it wouldn't surprise me.

It has long been noted in talk.origins that creationists hate theistic evolutionists even more than they hate atheists. It probably has to do with a sense of betrayal by fellow believers.

— John Pieret

One of the characteristics of any extreme belief is a hatred and contempt of those who aren't so extreme. This transcends even the fervour with which extremists despise their outright opponents. In the eyes of an extremist, moderates are not only apostates and heretics - they are traitors as well.

This certainly applies to all beliefs about religion.

In the eyes of an extremist, moderates are not only apostates and heretics - they are traitors as well.

— Dave Luckett

You are more than half way to full blown antisemitism. Your analysis is so faulty that it does not even reach the level of the laugh test. Try reading some more.

David Galant said: Flint: You are more than half way to full blown antisemitism. Your analysis is so faulty that it does not even reach the level of the laugh test. Try reading some more.

David Galant said: You are more than half way to full blown antisemitism. Your analysis is so faulty that it does not even reach the level of the laugh test. Try reading some more.

Gee, I sure hope this post can spiral down into another: It was Darwin's fault! No, it was Christianity's fault! No, Hitler was a Darwinist! No, Hitler was a Christian! battles o' wit. Lord knows we haven't had enough of those.

Astonishingly, despite all this, Denyse "buy-my-book" O'Leary still manages to maintain the illusion that ID is "winning": http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/looking-back-why-i-think-id-is-winning-1/

It's pretty bizzarre stuff and on a par with her other writing that regularly declaims that "Darwinism is toast" or "Darwinism has collapsed" - yet, as in this case, her "evidence" usually consists of referencing an article like this that in this case is only tangentially about ID.

To me it's a reflection on Dembski's discernment and judgment that he has allowed a hack writer such as O'Leary (with absolutely zero science background) to become one of the prominent spokespersons for ID. No wonder she's turned off her comments on her blog - giving the poor quality of her thinking and writing (sometimes her posts aren't even coherent), I'm sure she was getting some very choice comments. Acording to her though she turned off comments becauase of concerns about monitoring from the Canadian Human Rights Commission - even though there is no evidence of other Canadian bloggers turning off comments. Besides I think they have better things to do then monitor the mutterings of some 3rd-rate pseudo-journalist.

On the other hand, when you think about it, ID could not have a better spokesperson!

heddle said: Gee, I sure hope this post can spiral down into another: It was Darwin's fault! No, it was Christianity's fault! No, Hitler was a Darwinist! No, Hitler was a Christian! battles o' wit. Lord knows we haven't had enough of those.

Timcol said: On the other hand, when you think about it, ID could not have a better spokesperson!

heddle said: Gee, I sure hope this post can spiral down into another: It was Darwin's fault! No, it was Christianity's fault! No, Hitler was a Darwinist! No, Hitler was a Christian! battles o' wit. Lord knows we haven't had enough of those.

David Galant said: Flint: You are more than half way to full blown antisemitism. Your analysis is so faulty that it does not even reach the level of the laugh test. Try reading some more.

Unfortunately, his knowledge of the status of late 19th century and early 20th century Jews in Germany is atrociously inaccurate.

Timcol said: Astonishingly, despite all this, Denyse "buy-my-book" O'Leary still manages to maintain the illusion that ID is "winning" ...

If the NS editors were right, we should see non-life evolving slowly into life all around us, but for some reason we don’t.

Not only should spontaneous generation be true if they are right, but so should magic, Magic, after all, is simply another name for sudden self-organization. That’s right folks - just toss the bedclothes into the air and they’ll come down in a perfect mitred-corner bed. Just toss whatever into the stew pot, sans cookbook, and you’ll evolve a gourmet dinner.

Stanton said:

heddle said: Gee, I sure hope this post can spiral down into another: It was Darwin's fault! No, it was Christianity's fault! No, Hitler was a Darwinist! No, Hitler was a Christian! battles o' wit. Lord knows we haven't had enough of those.

If you ever bothered to read the meat of some of these posts, such as the thesis of a lurker's comment right before yours, "That the Jews made such an easy target/scapegoat for Hitler was a combination of centuries of antisemitism promoted by the Christian Churches and economic envy," perhaps you wouldn't made such a stupid-sounding statement, especially since no one is blaming Darwin or Christianity for Hitler, rather, instead, we're trying to discuss how institutionalized antisemitism and economic greed that resulted from European cultures forcing Jews into the role of money-lender (by barring all other occupational choices) set the foundation for Hitler being able to manipulate and foment the crimes against humanity he and his helpers committed. Or, do you prefer making snarky commentaries while showing off appalling reading comprehension skills?

Way off thread, but the Texas Education Agency has filed the response in the Chris Comer lawsuit. They are asking for dismissal of the case. Big surprise

http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/16-1.pdf

Timcol said: (snip) Ac[c]ording to her though she turned off comments becauase of concerns about monitoring from the Canadian Human Rights Commission - even though there is no evidence of other Canadian bloggers turning off comments. Besides I think they have better things to do then monitor the mutterings of some 3rd-rate pseudo-journalist. On the other hand, when you think about it, ID could not have a better spokesperson!

heddle said: Gee, I sure hope this post can spiral down into another: It was Darwin's fault! No, it was Christianity's fault! No, Hitler was a Darwinist! No, Hitler was a Christian! battles o' wit. Lord knows we haven't had enough of those.

Timcol said: Astonishingly, despite all this, Denyse "buy-my-book" O'Leary still manages to maintain the illusion that ID is "winning": http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/looking-back-why-i-think-id-is-winning-1/ It's pretty bizzarre stuff and on a par with her other writing that regularly declaims that "Darwinism is toast" or "Darwinism has collapsed" - yet, as in this case, her "evidence" usually consists of referencing an article like this that in this case is only tangentially about ID.

It might be worthwhile, even at this relatively late remove, to point out that it is likely that more Jews were killed by the pogroms in Russia than were killed by the Germans in WW2.
And in that case, the substantive remarks about '2 millenia of Christian persecution' could be looked at without regard for the specifics of the German case.
Particularly as there was, IIRC, a rather more substantial Jewish 'lower class' in Russia than in Germany, thus helping to remove some of the economic factors, which are always so tendentious, from the discussion.
Christian persecution of the Jews was not a German phenomenon.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

"Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed" is certainly not a failure. It grossed more than any other documentary in 2008 and is rated twelfth from the top of all documentaries since 1982, according to Box Office Mojo.

Apr 18, 2008 ... Exit polls indicate a 96% approval rating for EXPELLED

Domestic Total Gross: $7,690,545. This is high for a documentary.

Box Office Mojo

Perhaps propaganda pieces attract more attention than documentaries that actually, say, document something?

So, observer, are we to assume that you, like Ben Stein, believe that it was Charles Darwin, and not, say, Martin Luther, Of The Jews And Their Lies, and 900+ years of institutionalized Antisemitism that inspired Hitler to inspire Germans to murder over 8 million people for the sake of hate? Do you teach your students this?

And if "Expelled" was so successful, then how come Ben Stein never got around to saying what Intelligent Design theory was about, or what Intelligent Design proponents would do if left unmolested?

Should we also assume that you also agree with Ben Stein when he declared that "science leads to killing people"?

“Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed” is certainly not a failure.

Apr 18, 2008 ... Exit polls indicate a 96% approval rating for EXPELLED

It grossed more than any other documentary in 2008... Domestic Total Gross: $7,690,545. This is high for a documentary.

Expelled ... is rated twelfth from the top of all documentaries since 1982, according to Box Office Mojo.

stevaroni said: Oh, and while I'm at it...

Expelled ... is rated twelfth from the top of all documentaries since 1982, according to Box Office Mojo.

Didn't Expelled's lawyers testify in NY district court that Expelled was actually a "satirical documentary comedy" during their copyright infringement defense ( hence to better position themselves for the "satire" defense )? Real impressive chops for "the 12th best documentary since 1982", O.

“He said they would consider the opening weekend successful if the movie sold 2 million tickets (earning $12-15 million).”

So, observer, are we to assume that you, like Ben Stein, believe that it was Charles Darwin, and not, say, Martin Luther, Of The Jews And Their Lies, and 900+ years of institutionalized Antisemitism that inspired Hitler to inspire Germans to murder over 8 million people for the sake of hate? Do you teach your students this?

Excuse me, $7.7M. I appear to have mistyped.

An observer said: I have not seen the movie, but I will rent it as soon as it is available. Your comments make me want to see for myself what Ben Stein did or said to be attacked so viciously.

Paul Burnett said:

An observer said: I have not seen the movie, but I will rent it as soon as it is available. Your comments make me want to see for myself what Ben Stein did or said to be attacked so viciously.

On the off chance you're not just Lying For Jesus™ I'll save you some money by referring you to http://www.expelledexposed.com which explains what a lying piece of propaganda the film is. Please take a look at http://www.expelledexposed.com and get back to us with your comments. For extra points I'm sure we would all appreciate your comments on the origin of the term "cdesign proponentsists." And for more extra points, please answer Stanton's question above about Martin Luther.

An observer said: I have not seen the movie, but I will rent it as soon as it is available. Your comments make me want to see for myself what Ben Stein did or said to be attacked so viciously.

I suppose it is fair to say that Expelled was a success when compared with all movies that (1) lost more money; (2) sold fewer tickets; (3) played to smaller audiences; (4) appeared in fewer theaters; (5) received worse reviews, etc.

One thing the vanity press refuses to publish, is religious materials. They learned the hard way that no writing can be so unreadable, misinformed, ungrammatical, dishonest, or otherwise execrable that preachers in pulpits can't sell tens of thousands of copies. There's something about religiious ideology that switches peoples' critical faculties totally off, and keeps them off.

Flint said: One thing the vanity press refuses to publish, is religious materials. They learned the hard way that no writing can be so unreadable, misinformed, ungrammatical, dishonest, or otherwise execrable that preachers in pulpits can't sell tens of thousands of copies.

Sorry this is OT - but you might want to know that the TEA filed a motion to dismiss.

For extra points I’m sure we would all appreciate your comments on the origin of the term “cdesign proponentsists.”

— Paul Burnett

Paul Burnett said: The type specimen may be the despicable "publisher" of "The Quest For Right" - http://questforright.com ....

Does anyone here know a place to debate/discuss the ID/evolution controversy with civility and without censorship?

Does anyone here know a place to debate/discuss the ID/evolution controversy with civility and without censorship?

goff said: Does anyone here know a place to debate/discuss the ID/evolution controversy with civility and without censorship?

Depends on how you approach it, goff.

Ask sincere questions, from a true desire to learn something, and you'll get civil answers.

If you act like the 8-year-old who smacks his brother and then gives mom the "who, me?" face, you're going to get creamed.

Just sayin's all.

" And goff is apparently ignorant of the fact that, because Intelligent Design theory is not science, there is no scientific controversy between Intelligent Design and Evolution. "

OK I will be clearer: Where can a person discuss/debate the scientificness of ID without censorship and incivility?

Where can a person discuss/debate the scientificness of ID without censorship and incivility?

I suppose, at the same place where one discusses whether garden fairies wear orange tutus when casting the spells that make flowers bloom.

OK I will be clearer: Where can a person discuss/debate the scientificness of ID without censorship and incivility?

Childish mockery has always been the first, second, third and last refuge of the fanatical believer in naturalism.

stevaroni said:

OK I will be clearer: Where can a person discuss/debate the scientificness of ID without censorship and incivility?

Why - right here, Goff. But you're going to have to follow the rules, and the rules are that you will be fact-checked on everything you say (these rules apply to everybody here, I get corrected a lot). If you can deal with an environment that requires you to deal in facts, and not go off complaining that this is "viewpoint censorship" or some similar semantic crap, then this is the place for you. My suspicion is that this isn't the place for you, since in my experience the absolute last thing ID proponents really want is a level playing field (note how long comments that don't toe the party line stay up on UD versus how long they stay up here), but hey - give it a shot.

" But here is a civil answer: There is no place where the scientificness of ID can be discussed, in a civil manner or in any other manner, because there is no scientificness in ID. None. "

But how did you come to the conclusion: "there is no scientificness in ID."

Can we even discuss the method you used to come to your assertion?

And how would YOU go about engaging in a serious discussion of the nonexistent?

goff said: Where can a person discuss/debate the scientificness of ID without censorship and incivility?

goff said: OK let's try: You say ID is not scientific. Why not?

In other words, a motion to dismiss an action for failure to state a claim admits the facts alleged in the complaint, but challenges plaintiff’s rights to relief based upon those facts.

TomS said:

goff said: OK let's try: You say ID is not scientific. Why not?

ID is not scientific because it is not substantive: It makes no positive assertions. If, for example, ID were to make an attempt at answering some of the 6 W's: Who, What, Where, When, Why, or How, rather than resting content with "something, somehow, somewhere, is wrong with evolutionary biology". If ID had some prospect of ever be concerned with the difference between "design" and "non-design" - name something (real or possible or even impossibleT) which is not, could not, or will not be designed. That's part of the reason why ID is not scientific.

goff said: OK let's try: You say ID is not scientific. Why not?

goff said: But how did you come to the conclusion: "there is no scientificness in ID."

TomS said:

goff said: OK let's try: You say ID is not scientific. Why not?

ID is not scientific because it is not substantive: It makes no positive assertions. If, for example, ID were to make an attempt at answering some of the 6 W's: Who, What, Where, When, Why, or How, rather than resting content with "something, somehow, somewhere, is wrong with evolutionary biology". If ID had some prospect of ever be concerned with the difference between "design" and "non-design" - name something (real or possible or even impossibleT) which is not, could not, or will not be designed. That's part of the reason why ID is not scientific.

Paul Burnett said:

goff said: Where can a person discuss/debate the scientificness of ID without censorship and incivility?

There is no "scientificness" to intelligent design creationism. Please see the position statements on ID from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Academies of Science, and essentially every other actual science organization. You can get a good start on this by looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_societies_rejecting_intelligent_design Also, there was a Federal Court decision in 2005 that there is no "scientificness" to intelligent design creationism. The Federal judge ruled "We have concluded that intelligent design is not science, and moreover that intelligent design cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." (And the supporters of intelligent design creationism (also known as "cdesign proponentsists")) did not appeal, so the decision stands. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dover_trial For more discussion of not just the lack of "scientificness" in intelligent design creationism but the active anti-"scientificness" of intelligent design creationism, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy To get back to the earlier iteration of your question, essentially all supporters of intelligent design creationism allow no dissenting views - they actively censor all comments and communications from supporters of evolution, biology and science, with Uncommon Descent being the type specimen. If, on the chance that you may not just be Trolling For Jesus™, you might benefit by reviewing http://www.expelledexposed.com to see just how "scientific" intelligent design creationism and its propaganda movie "Expelled" really are. And I'm sure we all appreciate your comments on the above materials after you have reviewed them. Thank you.

goff said: Give me an example where MET is substantive so I can look for a parallel.

The issue is those, such as the groupthinkers at Pharyngula, who say evolution is tied with rationalism is tied with atheism.

goff said: It seems you are saying that ID is not scientific because courts and certain organizations say it is not. Am I reading you correctly?

It seems you are saying that ID is not scientific because courts and certain organizations say it is not. Am I reading you correctly?

But this is NOT a discussion of the "scientificness of ID", this is a discussion of whether evolution necessarily implies a philosophy antagonistic to some specific religious faith. That's an entirely different discussion.

The connection with atheism strikes me as silly and illogical.

Yes, science is compatible with atheism, but that does not mean that science requires atheism.

However, ID is anti-science without further content. It says, basically, "the evidence doesn't matter. God (uh, The Designer) diddit, we can tell just from looking that this is so obvious mere assertion is sufficient, end of story!"

goff said: OK let’s try: You say ID is not scientific. Why not?

The Theory of Intelligent Design 1) Humans are so very complicated that they cannot have evolved naturally, ergo they were designed. 1a) The humans' designer was necessarily even more complicated (because we aren't smart enough ourselves to do the job) so he was either A) Divine, or B) himself designed, in an infinite regression asymptotically approaching Divinity.

Darin said: ...when you encounter something that looks designed, you assume it is the product of intelligence.

Darin said: …when you encounter something that looks designed, you assume it is the product of intelligence.

Darin Said:
"Biological cells are much more complex than microchips. So the claim that cells are the product of non-intelligent design is an extraordinary claim, and, as Carl Sagan said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”."

But here's the rub- "science" (as if such a thing could be describe as a monolithic entity) had provided plenty of proof. It has show repeatedly how things could develop and made accurate preditictions based on those models (for example, the fossilized remains of Tiktaalik were found in the rock strata experts predicted it would be in).

It becomes ID's burden to *directly* refute this proof if it wishes to argue a flaw in Modern Evolutionary Theory. It is not enought to say "Well yes... but show me MORE proof".

And if ID is going to claim that this is proof of an a action by an Intelligent Designer, then it become THEIR burden to prove, not science's

goff,

Simply put, ID is not science because it makes no specific predictions and cannot be tested. ID is an excuse for a lack of scientific explanation.

Not only should spontaneous generation be true if they are right, but so should magic, Magic, after all, is simply another name for sudden self-organization. That’s right folks - just toss the bedclothes into the air and they’ll come down in a perfect mitred-corner bed. Just toss whatever into the stew pot, sans cookbook, and you’ll evolve a gourmet dinner.

The idea that the struggle to understand the natural world has come to an end is not only wrong, it is ludicrously wrong. We are surrounded by mysterious physical miracles, and the continuing, unfinished task of science is to unravel them.

goff said: OK let's try: You say ID is not scientific. Why not?

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

The question is whether the ID advocates can develop enough mathematical savvy

goff said: Does anyone here know a place to debate/discuss the ID/evolution controversy with civility and without censorship?

goff said: " But here is a civil answer: There is no place where the scientificness of ID can be discussed, in a civil manner or in any other manner, because there is no scientificness in ID. None. " But how did you come to the conclusion: "there is no scientificness in ID." Can we even discuss the method you used to come to your assertion?

stevaroni said: ****** Hey Site Moderator Guys ********** Could we start another thread on the newly released TEA response to the Chris Comer lawsuit? As noted by Stacy S and JJ, it was posted by the Texas Observer yesterday http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/16-1.pdf I suspect we're going be discussing it, and all the old threads are closed due to excessive troll infestation. Now, if only to get someone with some legal skills to actually decode the thing, it's dense legalease. As expected, it largely avoids the issues in favor of arguments about jurisdictions and who is responsible for what enforcement actions between the BoE and TEA. Conveniently, it seems to argue that Comers beef is sometimes with the TEA and sometimes the BoE, and, of course, at such times, and in such capacities as is most advantages to both those agencies. It's pretty baffling to anyone who doesn't speak lawyer. That in itself is probably telling; in the last three years I've read more legal briefs on this stuff than I care to count, and I'm starting to develop an ear for bad arguments hiding behind legal jargon.

In other words, a motion to dismiss an action for failure to state a claim admits the facts alleged in the complaint, but challenges plaintiff’s rights to relief based upon those facts.

How can you "admit the facts" in a claim that the plaintiff "fail(s) to state"? Contrast that to the plain english of Jones's Kitzmiller verdict - "ID is simply not science". Anyhow, we'll probably be talking about it, so you might want to make room.

How can you “admit the facts” in a claim that the plaintiff “fail(s) to state”?

My wife was an undergraduate student of Jeff Schloss and the reason she decided for a degree in biology. Later with his encouragement she attended graduate school in a department of ecology and evolutionary biology. Jeff was and no doubt still is first and foremost an academic, a scientist, a teacher and a christian. But not to the exclusion of reason. That seems not to go well with the sycophants of the Disco like the bunch mentioned by PvM.

Flint said: william: You are leaving out the fact that this handiness depended a lot on nearly 2000 years of official Church anti-Semitism.

As for "full hysteric frenzy", give us a break! Before Hitler demonized them, they were accepted members of the community. They were the retailers, the merchants, the cobblers and tailors and cooks and bankers.

What Hitler capitalized on was the Jewish insularity and exclusiveness in the face of hard times that were clearly causing the Jews less distress.

Now, whether Hitler could have (with considerably more difficulty) fanned up as much hatred against a different target behaving that same way, without the history of antagonism, I don't know but it wouldn't surprise me.

But I think ID (and creationism in general) derives its power from the conception (whether mis- or not) that the TOE is “scientific support for atheism”.

Then you have a very great dispute with the ones on Pharyngula, who think that connection is strong and logical.

You can find quite a few comments there saying theistic evolution isn’t needed because evolution explains everything, makes God superfluous, and keeping on believing is irrational.

The way things are going, it seems science is only compatible with Deism. (Indeed, a lot of atheist commenters on that Daily Kos thread say Morton’s belief is Deism.)

In default, when you encounter something that looks designed, you assume it is the product of intelligence.

The dispute between evolutionists and ID advocates is over whether the proof is sufficient.

william:

From your description (which I don't argue with, exactly) it sounds like a holocaust was in the air for centuries, and could have happened just about anywhere in Europe pretty much spontaneously. I'll accept a significantly higher level of sheer hatred than the German community I've spoken to at length would lead me to believe (possibly those who came to America underrepresent the omnipresent hatred you describe?)

But I can't help but wonder whether Jewish history through this period might seem quite different through Jewish and Gentile eyes, both of them seriously coloring the picture quite differently for equally self-serving purposes. I've met two people I can think of who reflect the sort of hatred you emphasize, yet except for one unlikely incident, I'd never have known of this hatred or even suspected they were capable of it. I've met (here in Alabama) otherwise normal polite people who reveal equally embarrassingly vicious levels of intolerance if the conversation veers to blacks or atheists.

And still I wonder if even the worst of the Jim Crow politicians could have engineered a mass extermination. I sometimes think it wouldn't have been all that hard...

Give me an example where MET is substantive so I can look for a parallel.

The Theory of Intelligent Design

1) Humans are so very complicated that they cannot have evolved naturally, ergo they were designed.

......... ID does not say this

1a) The humans’ designer was necessarily even more complicated (because we aren’t smart enough ourselves to do the job) so he was either A) Divine,

........ Divine is not a scientific term. cannot be used in theory. so you should not use it here

or B) himself designed,

........ possibly, could have evolved

in an infinite regression asymptotically approaching Divinity.

..... again you cannot Divine is not scientific

The amount of differences in DNA between species can be used to roughly estimate how long ago they diverged; these estimates agree fairly well with the fossil record.

Give me an example of the above

An example? How about a couple of species of apes: chimpanzee and human.

Paul Burnett said:

goff said: Give me an example where MET is substantive so I can look for a parallel.

Goff, have you read Dr. Neil Shubin's recent book, Your Inner Fish? See http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/book.html It provides a good discussion understandable by a layperson of the "substantiveness" of evolution. Or take a look at Dr. Kevin Padian's expert witness testimony and slideshow which were part of his sworn Federal Court appearance - see http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2007/ZZ/47_meet_padian39s_critters_5_3_2007.asp

The actual lack of “scientificness” of ID is proven by the utter lack of peer-reviewed articles in actual science publications

.........why are there not peer-reviewed articles on ID?

"Give me an example of the above"

No. Go read the literature yourself. Then come back and point out the exceptions.

It is not our responsibility to educate you. The scientific literature is published and available for honest people to examine.

You're not after honest debate. You're lazy.

goff said: The actual lack of “scientificness” of ID is proven by the utter lack of peer-reviewed articles in actual science publications .........why are there not peer-reviewed articles on ID?

goff said: The amount of differences in DNA between species can be used to roughly estimate how long ago they diverged; these estimates agree fairly well with the fossil record. Give me an example of the above

Exit polls indicate a 96% approval rating for EXPELLED

96% of WHAT? The people who had already chosen to see the movie? ANd what, exactly, does "approval" mean in this context?

Henry J said: An example? How about a couple of species of apes: chimpanzee and human.

Joel said: "Give me an example of the above" No. Go read the literature yourself. Then come back and point out the exceptions. It is not our responsibility to educate you. The scientific literature is published and available for honest people to examine. You're not after honest debate. You're lazy.

goff said: The Theory of Intelligent Design 1) Humans are so very complicated that they cannot have evolved naturally, ergo they were designed. ......... ID does not say this

goff said: well, there went the civility. In a polite discussion one does not say ' go look it up yourself lazibones' You are stumped thats what I think. You lose. Bye.

goff said:

Henry J said: An example? How about a couple of species of apes: chimpanzee and human.

Are there any peer reviewed studies on this or is this just conjecture?

.….….why are there not peer-reviewed articles on ID?

goff said:

Paul Burnett said:

goff said: Give me an example where MET is substantive so I can look for a parallel.

Goff, have you read Dr. Neil Shubin's recent book, Your Inner Fish? See http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/book.html It provides a good discussion understandable by a layperson of the "substantiveness" of evolution. Or take a look at Dr. Kevin Padian's expert witness testimony and slideshow which were part of his sworn Federal Court appearance - see http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2007/ZZ/47_meet_padian39s_critters_5_3_2007.asp

Well I think the point was for you to use your own words to make your point.

goff said:

Henry J said: An example? How about a couple of species of apes: chimpanzee and human.

Are there any peer reviewed studies on this or is this just conjecture?

goff said: 1) Humans are so very complicated that they cannot have evolved naturally, ergo they were designed. .….…. ID does not say this

goff said: 1a) The humans’ designer was necessarily even more complicated (because we aren’t smart enough ourselves to do the job) so he was either A) Divine, .….… Divine is not a scientific term. cannot be used in theory. so you should not use it here

Flint said: ...it sounds like a holocaust was in the air for centuries, and could have happened just about anywhere in Europe pretty much spontaneously.

goff said: The actual lack of “scientificness” of ID is proven by the utter lack of peer-reviewed articles in actual science publications .........why are there not peer-reviewed articles on ID?

goff said:

Paul Burnett said: Goff, have you read Dr. Neil Shubin's recent book, Your Inner Fish? See http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/book.html It provides a good discussion understandable by a layperson of the "substantiveness" of evolution. Or take a look at Dr. Kevin Padian's expert witness testimony and slideshow which were part of his sworn Federal Court appearance - see http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2007/ZZ/47_meet_padian39s_critters_5_3_2007.asp

Well I think the point was for you to use your own words to make your point.

goff said: ...why are there not peer-reviewed articles on ID?

goff said: You are stumped thats what I think. You lose. Bye.

Goff seems to be another incarnation of "Bobby" same modus operandus, same inability to present arguments in a coherent manner. coincidence?

The Theory of Intelligent Design 1) Humans are so very complicated that they cannot have evolved naturally, ergo they were designed. 1a) The humans’ designer was necessarily even more complicated (because we aren’t smart enough ourselves to do the job) so he was either A) Divine, or B) himself designed, in an infinite regression asymptotically approaching Divinity.

ID does not say this

.... Divine is not a scientific term. cannot be used in theory. so you should not use it here... ... again you cannot Divine is not scientific

or B) himself designed, in an infinite regression asymptotically approaching Divinity. ... possibly, could have evolved

Isn’t that civil?

Obviously Goff is the Bobby/Jacob troll again, asking the same stupid questions, ignoring all the answers, demanding everyone do his homework for him, and of course, claiming that our correct identification of him as an idiot somehow counts as an argument in his favor.

Begone with this troll already.

Nay, my dear Flint.

I will do the Christian thing and turn the other cheek, for our dear, dear, Goff.

For creationists never speak louder than when they refuse yet again to answer a reasonable question. A question that would give no honest man a moment's pause.

Flint said: william: From your description (which I don't argue with, exactly) it sounds like a holocaust was in the air for centuries, and could have happened just about anywhere in Europe pretty much spontaneously.

But I can't help but wonder whether Jewish history through this period might seem quite different through Jewish and Gentile eyes, both of them seriously coloring the picture quite differently for equally self-serving purposes.

I've met two people I can think of who reflect the sort of hatred you emphasize, yet except for one unlikely incident, I'd never have known of this hatred or even suspected they were capable of it. I've met (here in Alabama) otherwise normal polite people who reveal equally embarrassingly vicious levels of intolerance if the conversation veers to blacks or atheists.

And still I wonder if even the worst of the Jim Crow politicians could have engineered a mass extermination. I sometimes think it wouldn't have been all that hard...

goff said:

Henry J said: An example? How about a couple of species of apes: chimpanzee and human.

Are there any peer reviewed studies on this or is this just conjecture?

stevaroni said: I will do the Christian thing and turn the other cheek, for our dear, dear, Goff.

goff said: well, there went the civility. In a polite discussion one does not say ' go look it up yourself lazibones' You are stumped thats what I think. You lose. Bye.

william:

Thank you for your effort, it's very helpful. Just immediately, I can see that I tend to discount a lot of this discrimination and hatred stuff because I don't share it and can't imagine what it must be like. I regard those (Abrahamic) religious I'm familiar with as such prima facie idiocy that I can't help sharing Dawkins' feeling that drilling it into helpless children is abuse plain and simple. Because nobody in their right mind could possibly believe any of it.

And therefore, I have as hard a time believing people sincerely think there are gods wandering around out there, as they have believing I (or anyone) could live without their gods. I'm with Dawkins also in shaking my head seeing that "there is no sensible limit to what the human mind is capable of believing, against any amount of contrary evidence." We all live on the ragged edge of total self-induced delusion, I guess.

But I have perhaps a bit better handle on xenophobia, and on the importance of "inferior" out-groups to the superiority of our in-group. I can see it's important for us to have creationist nitwits to look down on so we can be superior, but I don't have the emotional vocabulary to imagine exterminating them. I tend to think more in terms of teasing them when they behave badly, and informing them when they don't.

The very notion that people have these religion-based irrational buttons (you and David Galant seem to have your own version of that button as well, though I enjoy your description of the rituals you undergo to reinforce it) is outside my experience. You remind me of the Doonesbury strip recently where Ray's Iraqi contact has a very real, very current blood feud with someone whose ancestor killed one of his ancestors back in 1387. I'm with Ray in saying "What the hell is WRONG with you people?"

And by "you people" I'm talking about anyone whose religious faith reinforces and sustains age-old hatreds. At least, your efforts inform me that these hatreds are very mutual, very deliberate, trained from birth, and embedded in the respective cultures, rituals and traditions to the point where, like post-hypnotic suggestion, certain keywords can trigger mindless responses. And you even seem PROUD of it. Spooky and ugly.

Anyway, I'll be more than glad to raise these cultural factors up with, if not above, economic and political factors. I guess I just don't have the testicular fortitude to look into the face of ugly even when I need to.

goff/bobby/george/hamstrung/balanced said: " But here is a civil answer: There is no place where the scientificness of ID can be discussed, in a civil manner or in any other manner, because there is no scientificness in ID. None. " But how did you come to the conclusion: "there is no scientificness in ID." Can we even discuss the method you used to come to your assertion?

Darin said:

Flint asked: And how would YOU go about engaging in a serious discussion of the nonexistent?

This isn't the issue at all. The issue is those, such as the groupthinkers at Pharyngula, who say evolution is tied with rationalism is tied with atheism. A home goal if there ever was one.

Well again many posters here when asked to substantiate their claims pretty much say 'go look it up yourself'

Reason: they do not have peer reviewed studies to back up their claims. That should be obvious to an objective reader.

chuck said: I'm amazed there were any responses to "goff" after this jaw-dropper. No one who could even find PandasThumb could be that ignorant. I could imagine disagreeing with the conclusions of the research, even if only known about in a general way. But to act like he has no idea that there even is such research? Well that's just a Purposeful Arrangement of Ignorance™. I call complete troll.

goff said: Well again many posters here when asked to substantiate their claims pretty much say 'go look it up yourself' Reason: they do not have peer reviewed studies to back up their claims. That should be obvious to an objective reader.

goff said: Stumped??

Paul Burnett said:

goff said: Stumped??

Oh, you're still here. Good. Did you look at any of the resources I listed for you? Because if you didn't, it's your loss, not ours. Bye.

goff said: Well again many posters here when asked to substantiate their claims pretty much say 'go look it up yourself' Reason: they do not have peer reviewed studies to back up their claims. That should be obvious to an objective reader.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html

Henry J said: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html

goff said: You have been given a number of sources. Give me ONE peer reviewed article which you think is very good.

Goff sez... Well again many posters here when asked to substantiate their claims pretty much say ‘go look it up yourself’

Not ONE peer reviewed article!!

If there is one name it right here: author, journal, title, date

there will be no answer. case closed

goff said: I need peer reviewed studies.

goff/bobby/hamstrung/george/balanced lied: Well again many posters here when asked to substantiate their claims pretty much say 'go look it up yourself' Reason: they do not have peer reviewed studies to back up their claims. That should be obvious to an objective reader.

goff/bobby/george/balanced/hamstrung/moron lied: Not ONE peer reviewed article!! If there is one name it right here: author, journal, title, date there will be no answer. case closed

A somewhat insightful read on Eastern European attitudes towards Jews in the early 20th century was a story told in the book Number Our Days by Barbara Myerhoff. It was an ethnography done on a elderly 1st generation Jewish Community in America. The interviews were done in the 1970's. One of the gentlemen described how growing up they would be out playing on Sunday mornings, but the church bell was always their cue to be back home lest the be the target of some excessive religious fervor.

On the flipside for the lurkers out there who might be misdirected by the requests (with links generously provided) to read up, it is the only way. The irony of goff's request for the utility of MET is that it is so vastly useful that any small or even long post on a message board forum fails to truly convey the multiple levels of proof and repeated test and verification. The talk origins link to the 29+ evidences for macroevolution ( http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex2 ) does the best job I can ever recall seeing of summarizing the most significant evidence, highlights a large number of successful tests, and shows some useful predictions (there are so many more).

Darin said: Flint:

I suppose, at the same place where one discusses whether garden fairies wear orange tutus when casting the spells that make flowers bloom.

Childish mockery has always been the first, second, third and last refuge of the fanatical believer in naturalism. And they wonder why so many people to whom religion is important embrace creationism. Take a walk, naturalists. Your diatribes aren't contributing anything to this debate, and are quite backfiring in dealing with special creationism. I always got the impression from reading Pharyngula that PZMeyers and his ilk value theistic evolutionists as nothing more than useful idiots, and day by day I'm getting convinced that wasn't just an impression.

Stanton replies with... 11,500 answers to the direct contrary

stevaroni said: That way we're not doing the Cheshire Cat "Words mean exactly what I mean them to mean" shtick.

goff replied to comment from Paul Burnett not ONE peer reviewed article!! If there is one name it right here: author, journal, title, date there will be no answer. case closed

Paul Burnett replied to comment from goff goff said: I need peer reviewed studies. Here’s one: Goodman, M., B. F. Koop, et al. (1989) “Molecular phylogeny of the family of apes and humans.” Genome 31(316-335) We would greatly value your comments after you have read this.

goff said: Well again many posters here when asked to substantiate their claims pretty much say 'go look it up yourself' Reason: they do not have peer reviewed studies to back up their claims. That should be obvious to an objective reader.

goff said: Not ONE peer reviewed article!! If there is one name it right here: author, journal, title, date there will be no answer. case closed

goff said: I need peer reviewed studies. Here’s one: Goodman, M., B. F. Koop, et al. (1989) “Molecular phylogeny of the family of apes and humans.” Genome 31(316-335) We would greatly value your comments after you have read this.

Stanton said:

goff/bobby/george/balanced/hamstrung/moron lied: Not ONE peer reviewed article!! If there is one name it right here: author, journal, title, date there will be no answer. case closed

11,500 answers to the direct contrary One gets the impression that you don't know how to use google. And in this day and age, not knowing how to use google is seen as being worse off than being a handless blind, deaf-mute. Either that, or a symptom of extreme stupidity.

re: feeding trolls.
Keep it up! I have learned a lot from these futile and barren attempts to reason with these people ("like trying to nail Jello to a wall" JFK). Background; I have an ancient and unused BS in Biology. While I have always kept half an eye on scientific developments over the years, my interest has increased (thank you ID) and I have been trying to get back up to speed. I have found the arguments you put up, and the links, to be very helpful (TO rocks!), and the utter lameness of the opposition to be very persuasive. The lurkers are learning! In the last few months my attitude towards ID has gone from skepticism to contempt. Frankly, both sides have contributed equally to this progress. So while chances of reaching let alone persuading the goffs of the world are nil the effort still bears fruit.
I suspect that goof has learned not to click on any of the links you provide the same a toddler learns no to put his hand on top of the stove.

tresmal said: re: feeding trolls. Keep it up! I have learned a lot from these futile and barren attempts to reason with these people ("like trying to nail Jello to a wall" JFK). Background; I have an ancient and unused BS in Biology. While I have always kept half an eye on scientific developments over the years, my interest has increased (thank you ID) and I have been trying to get back up to speed. I have found the arguments you put up, and the links, to be very helpful (TO rocks!), and the utter lameness of the opposition to be very persuasive. The lurkers are learning! In the last few months my attitude towards ID has gone from skepticism to contempt. Frankly, both sides have contributed equally to this progress. So while chances of reaching let alone persuading the goffs of the world are nil the effort still bears fruit. I suspect that goof has learned not to click on any of the links you provide the same a toddler learns no to put his hand on top of the stove.

The coprophagous creationist coward hiding behind the anonymous username goff said: "there will be no answer. case closed"

At least Keith Eaton gave us some prime vitriol, and PBH gave us a chance to play "name his drug". This troll is not just ignorant, but downright boring, a lame adolescent getting off on the attention he can get parroting phrases he clearly doesn't understand. I suppose we can give him one lap around the issues so all new lurkers get a chance to see His Lameness shredded from so many different angles, but once it gets repetitious and he starts reproducing 50 lines of text to add one that amounts to "nuh UH!", please, I beg the PT mods, send him back to the bathroom wall where he belongs.

PvM: Are you truly expecting a sincere response from Goff? So far, he has avoided dealing in any specifics.

Science Avenger: Asking people for proof of well-established science makes you look foolish, not the people who decide your trollness is not worth their time.

"Poofism": Please, as a user of the Queen's English, 'poofism' to me means, to act in, or in some way display homosexual traits'; to be a 'poof'. (Not to tar our gay friends of course, all power to them).
Now to 'poof' into existance (ID/Creationist style) is also a legitimate use. I would suggest that any trolls lurking, of the British kind, could latch onto this and create a new "theory". Roughly; liberalism, anti-Americanism, Darwinism, Atheism and finally, and naturally of course Poofism.
We can only hope for such a troll, what fun.
Rob.

Mike Elzinga said: I would suggest that this troll is just doing what it always does. Don’t feed it.

The general modus operandi seems pretty threadbare by now. Demand the information any bozo with Google can find in seconds, get that information provided by everyone repeatedly, until someone finally tires of the game and asks the troll to do some research for himself. Then declare that "evolutionists" are so nasty they're beneath contempt and vanish without ever having read a single thing provided.

What's discouraging is, such idiots readily convince themselves they've proved a point - that those who disagree have no basis for disagreement (since they didn't read any of the provided material) and are jerks (since one of them asked the troll to meet the same standards he was demanding of everyone else).

So the important question is, does creationism turn people into assholes, or do they have to be assholes to become creationists? A tough question.

The coprophagous creationist coward hiding behind the anonymous username goff said: "there will be no answer. case closed"

robert said: "Poofism": Please, as a user of the Queen's English, 'poofism' to me means, to act in, or in some way display homosexual traits'; to be a 'poof'.

Flint said: So the important question is, does creationism turn people into assholes, or do they have to be assholes to become creationists? A tough question.

I understand that people who have been doing this for a while find trolls such goff/hambone/etc to be boring, tiresome and frustrating. I, being fairly new to this, find that threads with trolls to be more entertaining and educational, though not in the way the trolls would like. After a couple months of this I am getting to the point where I wish they would come up with some new material. But I suppose they can't can they?

On the subject of trolls it seems to me that lately, the um quality of trolling is lower than normal. Or is it just me?

goff said: Well again many posters here when asked to substantiate their claims pretty much say 'go look it up yourself' Reason: they do not have peer reviewed studies to back up their claims. That should be obvious to an objective reader.

goff said: I need peer reviewed studies. Were those peer reviewed?

While I agree with Tresmal that the quality of the PT trolls seems to have diminished over time, and with Flint that those who do show up here do seem to be pretty assholish, I would caution that not all creationists are assholes.

Several months ago I had the opportunity to talk with a dyed-in-the-wool Creationist, who was anxious to come and discuss his views with a handful of skeptics. He was a very nice, pleasant, soft spoken old gentleman, who wanted nothing more than to help convince us of the error of our ways, and to help us see the light. He had a long list of the typical Creationist canards with him that he spoke earnestly about. They were just all so plainly TRUE in his eyes. He was honestly puzzled how we were not convinced by the sheer overwhelmingly obviousness of his "arguments". The meeting was long, but consistently cordial; a mere disagreement among honest seekers after truth, if each in our own way. :-)

So, no, not all creationists are assholes. Some of them are sincerely convinced of their "truth". I guess PT just attracts the more obnoxious ones. :-)

Creobot: I would like to see debate on this matter. What proof can you show for evolution?
Scientist: There's this here and this here...
Creobot: That's not proof! Show me proof!

Scientist: Oh the hell with it.
Creobot: Yay, I win.

Shorter goff:

I wish to see rational debate on this subject. What proof of evolution is there?

Scientists, in chorus: Well, there's this mountain of evidence here, and this one, and this, and this....

goff: That's not proof. Show me proof!

(repeat last two steps until)

Scientists: Oh, the hell with it.

Goff: Good heavens! Rudeness! Discourtesy! I'm outta here, and incidentally, I win.

goff said,

well, there went the civility. In a polite discussion one does not say ‘ go look it up yourself lazibones’ You are stumped thats what I think. You lose. Bye.

Lazy, dishonest people do not deserve to be treated with civility.

So get lost, loser.

You can be a sincere asshole, and indeed, I think most of them are. More's the pity.

Dave Luckett said: goff: That's not proof. Show me proof!

I can contrast this behavior with what happens in my classes. Students will often ask for explanations that I cannot provide, simply because they lack the background knowledge to understand the answer. Sometimes I try to answer anyway, starting with a statement "this will sound like a foreign language but here goes". Other times I have to just tell them that they will not yet understand any explanation. If a kid wants to challenge me, I can ask them to return after class and I will try to explain when I have more time. On the rare times this has happened, it was actually some bright kid who wanted to trip me up. I'm not brilliant, but I can hold my own against 17 year olds in my own subject area. Intelligence is great, but in the game of knowledge, mileage counts.

A poster who is genuine should indeed try the links to talkorigins or other popular reading. They will not have the background knowledge to understand primary literature. Trolls, on the other hand, reject the expertise of scientists. They will neither believe the secondary literature nor understand the peer-reviewed literature. Their minds are already made up. What they are doing is trying to "trip up" scientists. (Laughable, isn't it? It's like my challenging Michael Jordan to a game on one-on-one basketball, while arguing the finer points of the rules).

If a 17 year old is truly interested, I can have them build the pertinent base of knowledge to eventually understand the explanation at least at a level higher than the rest of the class. They cannot do this by reading primary literature-I send them to additional text books and articles. However, if it is clearly a contest of wills and an attempt to disrupt the class, it will be obvious.

So, what I am trying to get at, goff or others like you, you have an advantage, the anonymity of the internet. If you were in class, you'd have to do this in the face of your peers, whose time you'd be wasting. If I was your teacher, I'd try to work with you after class. However, I suspect you wouldn't show up anyway. If you persisted in your attempts to control the class environment, I'd kick you out and you'd earn an F.

Science Avenger said: You can be a sincere asshole, and indeed, I think most of them are. More's the pity.

Goff,

Pubmed has 116 references on molecular clock calibration. If you Google "molecular clock calibration" you get over 61,000 hits. The sixth hit is an article on turtle evolution in a peer reviewed journal:

Near, Meylan and Shaffer (2005) Assessing concordance of fossil calibration points in molecular clock studies: An example using turtles. American Naturalist 165(2):137-146.

The authors calibrated seventeen nodes in the turtle phylogeny and used a cross-validation technique that essentially reduced the variance to zero. This study provides strong evidence that molecular clocks can be reliably calibrated. If you sincerely want to discuss this article I would be more than happy to hear your views.

If you are simply the latest reincarnation of the troll of many names, I should point out that this is yet another "mathematical proof of evolution" that you have so ignorantly and repeatedly demanded. Did you really think that molecular clocks had not been calibrated? Displaying your ignorance only convinces people that you are ignorant. Go away and learn to Google, in that order.

David Stanton said: Goff, Pubmed has 116 references on molecular clock calibration. If you Google "molecular clock calibration" you get over 61,000 hits. The sixth hit is an article on turtle evolution in a peer reviewed journal: Near, Meylan and Shaffer (2005) Assessing concordance of fossil calibration points in molecular clock studies: An example using turtles. American Naturalist 165(2):137-146. The authors calibrated seventeen nodes in the turtle phylogeny and used a cross-validation technique that essentially reduced the variance to zero. This study provides strong evidence that molecular clocks can be reliably calibrated. If you sincerely want to discuss this article I would be more than happy to hear your views. If you are simply the latest reincarnation of the troll of many names, I should point out that this is yet another "mathematical proof of evolution" that you have so ignorantly and repeatedly demanded. Did you really think that molecular clocks had not been calibrated? Displaying your ignorance only convinces people that you are ignorant. Go away and learn to Google, in that order.

The coprophagous creationist coward hiding behind the anonymous username goff said: Your ignorance is noted: Do you really feel molecular clock theory has been substantiated. Have you really researched this? Displaying your ignorance convinces me you are ignorant. Go away until you learn to research properly.

The only usefulness of Trolls is that I get to see more great links from fellow PTers.

Thanks for feeding me with knowledge!

goff said: Go away until you learn to research properly.

Goff, have you read anything we provided yet?

Draconiz said: The only usefulness of Trolls is that I get to see more great links from fellow PTers. Thanks for feeding me with knowledge!

goff said:

David Stanton said: Near, Meylan and Shaffer (2005) Assessing concordance of fossil calibration points in molecular clock studies: An example using turtles. American Naturalist 165(2):137-146.

Do you really feel molecular clock theory has been substantiated. Have you really researched this?

Paul Burnett said: Goff, have you read anything we provided yet?

goff said: Give me your best peer reviewed studies that validates that humans came from bacteria thru natural selection.

The ever arrogant ignorant goff said:

Paul Burnett said: Goff, have you read anything we provided yet?

I have read extensively on evolution etc. Although there is evidence that tends to agree with the theory it is hardly overwhelming. Give me your best peer reviewed studies that validates that humans came from bacteria thru natural selection.

goff said:

Paul Burnett said: Goff, have you read anything we provided yet?

I have read extensively on evolution etc. Although there is evidence that tends to agree with the theory it is hardly overwhelming. Give me your best peer reviewed studies that validates that humans came from bacteria thru natural selection.

Flint said: Darin:

But I think ID (and creationism in general) derives its power from the conception (whether mis- or not) that the TOE is “scientific support for atheism”.

This is indeed a misconception, and I firmly believe it's a misconception creationists do their utmost to provoke. Because creationism boils down to poofism (goddidit all at once), and without question most of science (not just evolution, but a couple dozen other scientific disciplines) uses solid and consistent evidence to show gradual change over Deep Time. This doesn't build any case that no gods exist, but it's as close to proof as reality can possibly come that poofism is simply incorrect. What creationists have done is equate poofism with faith in god(s), and thus build the wrong conclusion that if it ain't poof, it must be atheism. Creationists simply deny that any gods could possibly have used any other method for any other purpose. THEIR god went poof and created us, and everything else is atheism. This is dishonest, a hallmark of creationism.

Then you have a very great dispute with the ones on Pharyngula, who think that connection is strong and logical.

I think this is a misreading. The Pharyngula folks aren't (or most of them aren't) disputing theism or even Christianity. They are saying that the evidence refutes poofism. Which it does. But there's no requirement to believe in poofism to be a Christian.

You can find quite a few comments there saying theistic evolution isn’t needed because evolution explains everything, makes God superfluous, and keeping on believing is irrational.

The essential dispute here has to do with whether the evidence we study in the real world should or should not be compatible with some religious doctrine. If the evidence insists on gradual changes over very long periods of time, then your religious faith either accepts the evidence or denies it. If there are any creator gods, then, either reality is a hopeless (but totatally self-consistent and intersubjective) illusion, or else those gods use gradual changes over long time periods to do their creating. But nobody can show, using evidence, that there ARE no gods using those techniques.

The way things are going, it seems science is only compatible with Deism. (Indeed, a lot of atheist commenters on that Daily Kos thread say Morton’s belief is Deism.)

If the only options you can conceive of are Deism and Poofism, then the facts only support Deism.

In default, when you encounter something that looks designed, you assume it is the product of intelligence.

But you must ALSO consider that your assumption could be wrong. Indeed, the scientific method itself involves propositions (hypotheses) which might be wrong, and usually ARE wrong. Basically, you start with an assumption and then you construct a test that (preferably) assumes you're wrong, and see if that test fails. Just assuming something is the product of intelligence doesn't MAKE it so; assuming your preferences are true is the Religious Method; assuming they're false and testing to make sure is the Scientific Method. And the distinction is crucial, because as we can see, ID is based NOT on the assumption that life is designed, but on the inflexible policy that it's designed, to the point where no amount of evidence to the contrary can ever matter. And if your preference is impervious to any possible evidence, you're doing religion and not science.

The dispute between evolutionists and ID advocates is over whether the proof is sufficient.

This statement is false, and perhaps the source of your confusion. The dispute isn't over whether proof is sufficient, the dispute is over whether proof matters at all. And in the world of ID, evidence is irrelevant. Foregone conclusions are not open to discussion or even consideration. ID is the political arm of a religious movement.

goff said: I am familiar with the molecular clock theory. It is really has a lot of problems. Many mainstream scientists do not accept it. Have YOU read much on this subject? "The neutral theory of molecular evolution predicts that the clock will be a Poisson process, with equal mean and variance. Experimental data have shown that the variance is typically larger than the mean."

So now that goff has confessed to being Bobby by making his trademarked claim that other people are trolls, and that he's allegedly read extensively on evolution despite being ignorant of the similarities humans and chimpanzees, or the finer workings of google, can we send him to the Bathroom Wall forever, now, or are Admins here really that impotent when dealing with sockpuppeteering morons?

goff said: Give me your best peer reviewed study on how humans come from bacteria. Other wise just go back to your spot under the bridge if you have nothing useful to add.

lkeithlu said: I can contrast this behavior with what happens in my classes. Students will often ask for explanations that I cannot provide, simply because they lack the background knowledge to understand the answer.

I'm not brilliant, but I can hold my own against 17 year olds in my own subject area. Intelligence is great, but in the game of knowledge, mileage counts.

goff said:

Draconiz said: The only usefulness of Trolls is that I get to see more great links from fellow PTers. Thanks for feeding me with knowledge!

I disagree. The trolls here simply obfuscate the issues. I wish they would just stay under their respective bridges.

Draconiz said: The only usefulness of Trolls is that I get to see more great links from fellow PTers. Thanks for feeding me with knowledge!

Apparently Goff was unable to read and understand the paper I presented, oh well. For anyone who is really interested, here are a couple of classic references on molecular clocks. As you can see, molecular clocks have been calibrated for over 37 years now:

Dickerson (1971) J. Mol. Evol. 1:26-45.

Brown (1980) PNAS 77:3605-3609.

Until Goff can demonstrate that he/she/it has at least read the material presented in response to his/her/it's challenge, I suggest we all ignore him/her/it once again. And as for rudness, he/she/it has demonstrated that he/she/it does not deserve any politeness whatsoever.

Wheels said:

goff said: The actual lack of “scientificness” of ID is proven by the utter lack of peer-reviewed articles in actual science publications .........why are there not peer-reviewed articles on ID?

Generally because ID advocates can't be bothered to submit them, among other things. The lack of effort by ID to do actual, scientific work is probably the most damning factor in the overal lack of ID's "scientificness." Instead of doing scientific work, they focus on writing books for popular consumption, speaking engagements, and trying to get legislation passed which wedges their non-science into science classes. Note that when the latter fails, it is usually bemoaned not as a disregard for genuine science, but as religious discrimination. And now a quick comment about your style here. What you have done is basically assumed that the burden of proof is on the Panda's Thumb crew and regulars to both support evolution and deny the scientific validity of ID. Well, the former has already been done by 150 years of research, and our pointing out specific instances to answer your requests is unreasonable. The information is there if you care to search for it yourself. As to the latter, it's not a question of us explaining why ID is not science: ID must explain how it is science first.

So now that goff has confessed to being Bobby by making his trademarked claim that other people are trolls, and that he’s allegedly read extensively on evolution despite being ignorant of the similarities humans and chimpanzees, or the finer workings of google, can we send him to the Bathroom Wall forever, now, or are Admins here really that impotent when dealing with sockpuppeteering morons?

Does anyone here know a place to debate/discuss the ID/evolution controversy with civility and without censorship?

OK I will be clearer: Where can a person discuss/debate the scientificness of ID without censorship and incivility?

But how did you come to the conclusion: “there is no scientificness in ID.” Can we even discuss the method you used to come to your assertion?

Give me an example where MET is substantive so I can look for a parallel.

It seems you are saying ID is not scientific because…

It seems you are saying that ID is not scientific because courts and certain organizations say it is not. Am I reading you correctly?

... ID does not say this…, … possibly, could have evolved…

... again you cannot Divine is not scientific

Give me an example of the above …why are there not peer-reviewed articles on ID? Are there any peer reviewed studies on this or is this just conjecture?

Well I think the point was for you to use your own words to make your point.

Well again many posters here when asked to substantiate their claims pretty much say ‘go look it up yourself’ Reason: they do not have peer reviewed studies to back up their claims. That should be obvious to an objective reader.

I need peer reviewed studies. Were those peer reviewed? Not ONE peer reviewed article!! If there is one name it right here: author, journal, title, date there will be no answer. case closed

Well again many posters here when asked to substantiate their claims pretty much say ‘go look it up yourself’ Reason: they do not have peer reviewed studies to back up their claims. That should be obvious to an objective reader.

I disagree. The trolls here simply obfuscate the issues. I wish they would just stay under their respective bridges. I am familiar with the molecular clock theory. It is really has a lot of problems. Many mainstream scientists do not accept it. Have YOU read much on this subject? Any other peer reviewed studies?? Give me your best peer reviewed study on how humans come from bacteria. Other wise just go back to your spot under the bridge if you have nothing useful to add.

goff said:

Stanton said: So now that goff has confessed to being Bobby by making his trademarked claim that other people are trolls, and that he's allegedly read extensively on evolution despite being ignorant of the similarities humans and chimpanzees, or the finer workings of google, can we send him to the Bathroom Wall forever, now, or are Admins here really that impotent when dealing with sockpuppeteering morons?

Give me your best peer reviewed study on how humans come from bacteria. Other wise just go back to your spot under the bridge if you have nothing useful to add.

Mike Elzinga said: So what we have here is a troll with the mentality of a three year old brat, the maliciousness of an adult ID/Creationist sycophant, the knowledge of an idiot, and the sadism of someone who tortures the family pet just for the fun of it.

Mike Elzinga said: So what we have here is a troll with the mentality of a three year old brat, the maliciousness of an adult ID/Creationist sycophant, the knowledge of an idiot, and the sadism of someone who tortures the family pet just for the fun of it.

Bobby/Goff has been moved to the bathroom wall for trolling, abuse of the rules of this forum.

He asked some good questions, was provided with excellent resources that answer his questions and now refuses to engage in any form of discussion while continuing to move the goal posts.

ID indeed is, as Goff has shown, scientifically vacuous.

For that I thank Goff.

Bobby/Goff has been moved to the bathroom wall for trolling, abuse of the rules of this forum.

He asked some good questions, was provided with excellent resources that answer his questions and now refuses to engage in any form of discussion while continuing to move the goal posts.

ID indeed is, as Goff has shown, scientifically vacuous.

For that I thank Goff.

Wait! Wait! He hasn't threatened to report PT as a 'pron' site yet!!!

That's the logic fault known as an "argument from incredulity."

But to simply stop looking and say "goddidit" is a copout.

But here's the rub- "science" (as if such a thing could be describe as a monolithic entity) had provided plenty of proof.

Savvy, I like that, no need for formal rigorous training at a reputable college, or the proof of a degree.

Because creationism boils down to poofism (goddidit all at once) [...]

Basically, you start with an assumption and then you construct a test that (preferably) assumes you're wrong, and see if that test fails.

ID is the political arm of a religious movement.

Please produce a link to the page where Professor Myers pronounced this declaration.

Hi I'm ilk you are right you are an idiot if you believe in invisible beiengs.

Darin said: Flint:

Because creationism boils down to poofism (goddidit all at once) [...]

And so what?! What if that's really what happened?! You just discount a possibility a priori because it doesn't fit with your presupposition that some things (like the so-called "poofism" you mention) are impossible.

Stanton:

Please produce a link to the page where Professor Myers pronounced this declaration.

I don't think the blog host wants his entire blog filled with links.

Schloss said: ...extremists on both sides have been responsible for fueling a feud that need not exist.

I want to stick it to atheistic science the hardest way I can.

MPW said: If there are no major objections to my returning to the OP rather than joining in the game of keep-away with our supertroll...

Schloss said: ...extremists on both sides have been responsible for fueling a feud that need not exist.

PvM, your post gives no clear indication of whether or not Schloss has since evolved beyond this ridiculous position. Anyone have any idea? This mealymouthed and often disingenuous rhetorical tactic of implying that both sides are roughly equally at fault or equally unreasonable is one of the most annoying, to my way of thinking. It's usually not true, first of all. It's usually made by someone on the side that actually is at fault and/or unreasonable (not in this case, apparently), as a way of winning unearned credit by making themselves look in some respect equal to their opponents. And, to my eyes, it contains the implication that "getting along" is automatically more important than being correct - that fierce debate and opposition is wrong in itself, rather than something that is sometimes necessary and healthy.

I've seen it used in debates over race relations, gay rights, global climate change, atheism vs. theism... you name the issue, this gambit is a favorite. Makes me grind my teeth.

You just discount a possibility a priori because it doesn’t fit with your presupposition that some things (like the so-called “poofism” you mention) are impossible.

Darin Said: “Biological cells are much more complex than microchips. So the claim that cells are the product of non-intelligent design is an extraordinary claim, and, as Carl Sagan said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”."

Darin said in response to my pointing out the proof for MET:
"I’ve already conceded that! Geez, I wonder why I waste my time writing, if people just have this penchant for skipping over the important parts!"

Oh, so you've conceded that cell is not the result of intelligent design. Good, I accept your apology.

Evolution is the political arm of an atheistic agenda. Ridiculous, unwarranted statement? No more than the above is.

— Darin

I want to stick it to atheistic science the hardest way I can.

— Darin

Eric Finn said:

lkeithlu said: I can contrast this behavior with what happens in my classes. Students will often ask for explanations that I cannot provide, simply because they lack the background knowledge to understand the answer.

Medieval priests used Latin, while the majority of people spoke derived languages. Peasants lacked the background knowledge to understand the whole idea, and they were unable to go to primary literature. I am not trying to implicate that the same methods are used in science, but have you (or someone else) thought that science might appear to some people that way.

I'm not brilliant, but I can hold my own against 17 year olds in my own subject area. Intelligence is great, but in the game of knowledge, mileage counts.

Indeed, intelligence (what ever it is) and knowledge are not the same thing. However, what is the amount of knowledge sufficient to build a worldview? I hope you do not find my post offensive. Just some thoughts that intrigue me. Regards Eric

Darin Said: “Biological cells are much more complex than microchips. So the claim that cells are the product of non-intelligent design is an extraordinary claim, and, as Carl Sagan said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”.”

goff said: But how did you come to the conclusion: "there is no scientificness in ID." Can we even discuss the method you used to come to your assertion?

Darin said: Don't bother, I already know the answer: "So maybe next time I lose my car keys, I'll suppose an invisible fairy nicked it". To which I reply: childish mockery only shows how bankrupt your atheistic, materialistic, naturalistic, scientistic beliefs are!!!

PvM said: Bobby/Goff has been moved to the bathroom wall for trolling, abuse of the rules of this forum.

goff said: The amount of differences in DNA between species can be used to roughly estimate how long ago they diverged; these estimates agree fairly well with the fossil record. Give me an example of the above

goff said:

David Stanton said: Goff, Pubmed has 116 references on molecular clock calibration. If you Google "molecular clock calibration" you get over 61,000 hits. The sixth hit is an article on turtle evolution in a peer reviewed journal: Near, Meylan and Shaffer (2005) Assessing concordance of fossil calibration points in molecular clock studies: An example using turtles. American Naturalist 165(2):137-146. The authors calibrated seventeen nodes in the turtle phylogeny and used a cross-validation technique that essentially reduced the variance to zero. This study provides strong evidence that molecular clocks can be reliably calibrated. If you sincerely want to discuss this article I would be more than happy to hear your views. If you are simply the latest reincarnation of the troll of many names, I should point out that this is yet another "mathematical proof of evolution" that you have so ignorantly and repeatedly demanded. Did you really think that molecular clocks had not been calibrated? Displaying your ignorance only convinces people that you are ignorant. Go away and learn to Google, in that order.

Your ignorance is noted: Do you really feel molecular clock theory has been substantiated. Have you really researched this? Displaying your ignorance convinces me you are ignorant. Go away until you learn to research properly.

You’re all dung in my eyes. Evolution is the first, second, third and last refuge of the atheist believer. After this discussion–dialogue of the deaf if there ever was one–I’m going to seriously consider young-earth creationism. I want to stick it to atheistic science the hardest way I can.

That’s the logic fault known as an “argument from incredulity.”

But to simply stop looking and say “goddidit” is a copout.

Because creationism boils down to poofism (goddidit all at once)

Bill Gascoyne said:

PvM said: Bobby/Goff has been moved to the bathroom wall for trolling, abuse of the rules of this forum.

Just out of curiosity, which bathroom wall? And could we decide on just one, like maybe the new one that has the link at the top of the page?

Darin Said: Biological cells are much more complex than microchips. So the claim that cells are the product of non-intelligent design is an extraordinary claim, and, as Carl Sagan said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”.

Yep, censorship when asked to produce a peer reviewed study!

goff2 said: Yep, censorship when asked to produce a peer reviewed study!

goff2 said: another: simply no response from the Darwinists: But how did you come to the conclusion: “there is no scientificness in ID.” Can we even discuss the method you used to come to your assertion?

Cleanup cycle initiated and completed.

Goff, Goff2, Goff4 and H4 now all have been banned. May I advise Bobby that his actions have escalated to an abuse of service and any further attempts will be reported to the appropriate library system or cable provider.
The only postings that will be allowed from Bobby, and the Goff variants are under the username Bobby and on topics that are limited to addressing the papers provided to Bobby or a discussion of the comments that have established ID to be scientifically vacuous.
As a moderator I reserve the rights to enforce the rules.

Applause!!

Thanks PvM.

Hmmm I can talk about the supposed papers?

OK lets take one of the supposed peer reviewed papers and talk about it.

Bobby said: OK lets take one of the supposed peer reviewed papers and talk about it.

anyname said: Will this work?

PvM said:

Bobby said: OK lets take one of the supposed peer reviewed papers and talk about it.

The ball is in your court Bobby. And what do you mean by 'supposed peer reviewed papers' are you doubting that they were peer reviewed or are you doubting that they address in any form the questions you raised? And please avoid one liners and present some actual content.

Bobby said:

PvM said:

Bobby said: OK lets take one of the supposed peer reviewed papers and talk about it.

The ball is in your court Bobby. And what do you mean by 'supposed peer reviewed papers' are you doubting that they were peer reviewed or are you doubting that they address in any form the questions you raised? And please avoid one liners and present some actual content.

I am asking the title of a peer reviewed paper that vaildates MET. Not a book. I was given a list of books before. I have studied this quite a bit. Of course there are a lot of papers on heredity but MET really does not have valildation.

Give me your best peer reviewed studies that validates that humans came from bacteria thru natural selection.

John Kwok: Daily, across the globe, there are peer-reviewed published studies on behavioral ecology, biogeography, community and population ecology, evolutionary ecology, population genetics, paleobiology, molecular systematics, systematic biology (not including molecular systematics), molecular biology, evolutionary developmental biology (better known as “evo devo”), and epidemiology.

Bobby,

It remains to be seen whether you can talk about the papers or not. So far you have managed to avoid it completely. If you didn't want to discuss the papers, why did you demand that we produce them? You claimed that no papers would be produced, you were wrong.

The paper I presented is definately a peer-reviewed paper readily available to you on the internet. It addresses exactly the question you raised with a powerful statistical analysis. Have you even read the paper? Did you understand it? Can you see that it confirms exactly what is predicted by the theory of evolution? Did you read the others papers I recomended which are over 30 years old? Are you now willing to admit that a vast literature exists of which you are completely ingorant?

No one is going to respond to anything else you have to say until you discuss the papers you demanded. Moving the goal posts won't work. We are wise to all of your sophmoric tricks.

No, he's just arguing.

David Stanton said: No one is going to respond to anything else you have to say until you discuss the papers you demanded. Moving the goal posts won't work. We are wise to all of your sophomoric tricks.

stevaroni said: Some undefined Deity, with undefined motivations and undefined powers, in an undefined time and place, used an undefined method to create some undefined aspects of life as we know it, which then may or may not have microevolved to its current state.

Bobby said: I am asking the title of a peer reviewed paper that vaildates MET.

Chuck,

Of course not. This guy is a poser pure and simple. He doesn't seem to understand even the most basic biological concepts and I presume that he is shaking in his boots now just trying to read the papers. I doubt very much if he will ever show any evidence of ever having actually read or understood any of them.

Remember several months ago when he demanded an equation. I provided the appropriate equation and his only response was "comical". After demandeing an equation for days and berating everyone if they didn't provide one, he never even made any substantive response at all. It was almost as if he didn't even understand the equation that he had demanded. Well I know feeding this troll is counter productive, but calling his obvious bluffs is at least fun.

David Stanton said: Remember several months ago when he demanded an equation. I provided the appropriate equation and his only response was "comical". After demanding an equation for days and berating everyone if they didn't provide one, he never even made any substantive response at all. It was almost as if he didn't even understand the equation that he had demanded. Well I know feeding this troll is counter productive, but calling his obvious bluffs is at least fun.

stop feeding the troll. Time to flush the thread once again

David Stanton said: Near, Meylan and Shaffer (2005) Assessing concordance of fossil calibration points in molecular clock studies: An example using turtles. American Naturalist 165(2):137-146.

David Stanton said: Near, Meylan and Shaffer (2005) Assessing concordance of fossil calibration points in molecular clock studies: An example using turtles. American Naturalist 165(2):137-146.

David Stanton said: Near, Meylan and Shaffer (2005) Assessing concordance of fossil calibration points in molecular clock studies: An example using turtles. American Naturalist 165(2):137-146.

lkeithlu said: I guess I am trying to point out that there is no real way to "justify" or "prove" something that is the accumulated knowledge of countless scientists working countless hours and writing thousands of peer-reviewed papers. It would be the same thing as hiring an expert witness for a trial and then arguing every little point with that witness. At some level, rational people accept that the opinion of those in the field carry more weight than opinions of laypeople.

The problem with evolution is that it is complicated. The evidence for it is drawn from many disciplines. Anyone may be an expert in one or two, but most have to accept the expertise of others for the rest.

goff said:

Paul Burnett said: Goff, have you read anything we provided yet?

I have read extensively on evolution etc.

MET?? please you must know this. This is the term I was told to use by your group here

GTelles said: [Moved to the AE BB Bathroom Wall]

goff said: well, there went the civility. In a polite discussion one does not say ' go look it up yourself lazibones' You are stumped thats what I think. You lose. Bye.

And you are bobby: a liar, a troll and a sock puppet who has repeatedly broken the rules of this forum. Your dishonesty and predictable broken-record laziness in following up on the issues in question is contemptible. Your disregard of honest discourse should have gotten you banned long ago and your constant reappearances in some new "disguise" are so pathetically transparent that they make a cheap pair of "Groucho glasses" look like a Lon Chaney masterpiece. Really pathetic. Bye to you loser, liar, lazy troll.

Kenneth Oberlander said:

MET?? please you must know this. This is the term I was told to use by your group here

I think you are being asked to define what you understand by MET.

I am asking the title of a peer reviewed paper that vaildates MET.

What does "MET" stand for? Please define your terms.

MET?? please you must know this. This is the term I was told to use by your group here

Okay, so Bobby doesn't understand and can't define evolutionary theory either.

Honest question Bobby, I'm 43, how old are you?

goff2 said:MET?? please you must know this. This is term I was told to use your group here

Bobby said:MET?? please you must know this. This is term I was told to use your group here

Wheels said: And again, what do you think about ID's stunning lack of effort to produce actual research?

PvM said: stop feeding the troll. Time to flush the thread once again

Bobby,

Read that paper yet? Come on man, if you have read so extensively in the field, then you should already be familiar with a paper that is three years old. How about those thirty year old papers, read them yet?

You know, quoting a few sound bites from some crap creationist web site does not count as "extensive reading in the field". I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the primary literature.

If you are not going to read the paper, case closed.

Bobby, why are you dragging in postings that were moved the the bathroom wall? And while we are at it, when asked to define MET you are supposed to answer not taunt.

So MET stands for "M.... E..... T....." and is defined as follows: "MET is the theory that ....."

Honest question Bobby, I’m 43, how old are you?

goff said: Give me your best peer reviewed studies that validates that humans came from bacteria thru natural selection.

PvM said: Goff, Goff2, Goff4 and H4 now all have been banned. May I advise Bobby that his actions have escalated to an abuse of service and any further attempts will be reported to the appropriate library system or cable provider. The only postings that will be allowed from Bobby, and the Goff variants are under the username Bobby and on topics that are limited to addressing the papers provided to Bobby or a discussion of the comments that have established ID to be scientifically vacuous. As a moderator I reserve the rights to enforce the rules.

Darin said: You're all dung in my eyes. Evolution is the first, second, third and last refuge of the atheist believer. After this discussion--dialogue of the deaf if there ever was one--I'm going to seriously consider young-earth creationism. I want to stick it to atheistic science the hardest way I can.

Piker! Join the Flat Earth Society.

Maybe Goff needs a girlfriend. Are there no attractive women at whatever church he attends?

I do not think I have ever seen such junior high behavior by supposed adults. Do you have children or wives? Do they see what you write here?

Just of bunch of trolls with little to do. I have better things to do. Bye.

James F said: Piker! Join the Flat Earth Society. They've presented as much data in peer-reviewed scientific research papers as ID.

Bobby said: I do not think I have ever seen such junior high behavior by supposed adults. Do you have children or wives? Do they see what you write here? Just of bunch of trolls with little to do. I have better things to do. Bye.

PvM said:

Bobby said: I do not think I have ever seen such junior high behavior by supposed adults. Do you have children or wives? Do they see what you write here? Just of bunch of trolls with little to do. I have better things to do. Bye.

As expected, Bobby is once again unable to support or defend his claims. Instead he has chosen to run away from the discussion without having either presented his arguments or outlined his response to the various resources provided to Bobby. Bobby's contribution to the ID 'controversy' is that once again an ID proponent has shown why ID remains scientifically without any content (vacuous). I appreciate Bobby's contributions to exposing ID.

Bobby said: [I understand Modern Evolutionary Theory to mean...] That the present living organisms descended from ones living millions of years ago mainly thru the process of NS. There were no interventions by an intelligent being.

Bobby said:

PvM said:

Bobby said: I do not think I have ever seen such junior high behavior by supposed adults. Do you have children or wives? Do they see what you write here? Just of bunch of trolls with little to do. I have better things to do. Bye.

As expected, Bobby is once again unable to support or defend his claims. Instead he has chosen to run away from the discussion without having either presented his arguments or outlined his response to the various resources provided to Bobby. Bobby's contribution to the ID 'controversy' is that once again an ID proponent has shown why ID remains scientifically without any content (vacuous). I appreciate Bobby's contributions to exposing ID.

I do not see the need to converse with people who have the emotional IQ of junior high drop outs. You people should be ashamed of yourselves.

On Bobby

If I have learned a lesson in this vale of tears and woe,
It's that a fixed opinion is just that.
No argument can move them, no statistic. There is no
Persuasion that can shift them. They stand pat.
The ignorance is obvious, the reasoning is cracked,
But their owners just repeat it, deaf and blind:
"I've got my rights, and anyway I know this for a fact,
And there's nothing, not a thing, will change my mind."
Forget it. It's a useless, futile, hopeless, thankless task,
And extravagant. It's time we cannot spare.
We shall not pass this way again, and I for one would ask
That the scenery be worth the goddam fare.

Bobby,

You do indeed have better things to do. For example, you could read those papers you demanded. Demanding them and then ignoring them is extremely rude behavior.

I do not see the need to converse with people who have the emotional IQ of junior high drop outs, so you might as well run away. If you ever do get around to reading the paper, I will be right here waiting. Oh and by the way, don't try using another alias, you're not very good at it and we can see right through you every time.

Bobby said: I do not see the need to converse with people who have the emotional IQ of junior high drop outs. You people should be ashamed of yourselves.

Paul Burnett said:

Bobby said: I am asking the title of a peer reviewed paper that vaildates MET.

What does "MET" stand for? Please define your terms.

MET (I think) means Modern Evolutionary Theory. Who coined it I don't know. Apparently not evilutionists. How it differs from the synthesis I don't know.

Well, I’d say we pretty much nailed it with characterizing this bobby/et.al. Troll.

(1) We said he would engage in childish taunting to get people to respond.

(2) We said he would never answer any questions; not one.

(3) We said he would never check any of the references he was given; not one.

(4) We said he would continue taunting with his “demands for details”.

(5) We said he would start saturating bandwidth by reposting entire replies.

(6) We said he would start posting again under multiple names the minute he got nailed.

(7) We said he would begin accusing everyone else of engaging in exactly the immature behaviors he himself initiated and that he himself engaged in.

(8) We said he would run way without so much as giving a hint of evidence supporting ID.

(9) We said he would pretend to sign off while projecting his own attitudes and behaviors onto everyone else, only to return later with the same shtick.

So it is quite likely that this bobby/et.al. troll, who seems to have the mentally of a three year old brat, will return to pull the same or similar games after he waits a little while, believing that no one here will remember him or his shtick. His past behaviors of this sort pretty much identify his rather meager mental abilities.

Is he posting here to harass “evilutionists” to get even for making him doubt his sectarian dogma? Is he taunting “evilutionists” in order to make them angry so he can fabricate a self-fulfilling profile about how rude, mean-spirited, and cruel “evilutionists” are?

Are bobby and Keith Eaton samples of an uncontrollable rage in the ID/Creationists that they have failed as a science and in the courts, so that they now feel they must resort to harassment, death threats, and general mayhem?

Or is he simply an immature pre-pubescent boy who is online without adult supervision and fantasizing that he is making those evil adults angry that they can’t get at him to punish him for his naughty behavior?

It really makes little difference. His behaviors past and present speak for themselves. He has shown plenty of evidence multiple times that he should be permanently shipped off to the Bathroom Wall at the very least. There is no reason to believe he will ever behave any differently.

What is weird is that I personally know a fundamentalist who actually behaves this way; otherwise I would be more likely to conclude that this particular troll is just a boring spoof.

midwifetoad said: MET (I think) means Modern Evolutionary Theory. Who coined it I don't know. Apparently not evilutionists. How it differs from the synthesis I don't know.

bobby said:

And you are bobby: a liar, a troll and a sock puppet who has repeatedly broken the rules of this forum. Your dishonesty and predictable broken-record laziness in following up on the issues in question is contemptible. Your disregard of honest discourse should have gotten you banned long ago and your constant reappearances in some new "disguise" are so pathetically transparent that they make a cheap pair of "Groucho glasses" look like a Lon Chaney masterpiece. Really pathetic. Bye to you loser, liar, lazy troll.

PVM: is not the above post against the rules?

Mistakenly replying to PvM, GTelles said:

bobby said:

And you are bobby: a liar, a troll and a sock puppet who has repeatedly broken the rules of this forum. Your dishonesty and predictable broken-record laziness in following up on the issues in question is contemptible. Your disregard of honest discourse should have gotten you banned long ago and your constant reappearances in some new "disguise" are so pathetically transparent that they make a cheap pair of "Groucho glasses" look like a Lon Chaney masterpiece. Really pathetic. Bye to you loser, liar, lazy troll.

PVM: is not the above post against the rules?

Hey bobby. Appreciate your reposting that for me. Thanks babe. BTW, read any of those numerous peer-reviewed papers that have been cited and linked for your informed and incisive criticism? Everyone is no doubt waiting with bated breath (while crickets chirp) to get your feedback.

Darin said:

That's the logic fault known as an "argument from incredulity."

Oh yeah, it's such a logic fault that every atheist uses it when asked about the miracles told in the Bible.

In a nutshell, the reason why Schloss gave up on the DI was because he recognized the futility of mixing biological science with religion. In this thread all I see is furious arguing about religion under the guise of discussing biology. Its like watching hamsters running on little wheels. Schloss seems to be a big Shakespeare fan. Something Mercutio said in Romeo and Juliet seems appropriate. Something about a pox.

Mike Elzinga said: Well, I’d say we pretty much nailed it with characterizing this bobby/et.al. Troll. (1) We said he would engage in childish taunting to get people to respond. (2) We said he would never answer any questions; not one. (3) We said he would never check any of the references he was given; not one. (4) We said he would continue taunting with his “demands for details”. (5) We said he would start saturating bandwidth by reposting entire replies. (6) We said he would start posting again under multiple names the minute he got nailed. (7) We said he would begin accusing everyone else of engaging in exactly the immature behaviors he himself initiated and that he himself engaged in. (8) We said he would run way without so much as giving a hint of evidence supporting ID. (9) We said he would pretend to sign off while projecting his own attitudes and behaviors onto everyone else, only to return later with the same shtick. So it is quite likely that this bobby/et.al. troll, who seems to have the mentally of a three year old brat, will return to pull the same or similar games after he waits a little while, believing that no one here will remember him or his shtick. His past behaviors of this sort pretty much identify his rather meager mental abilities. Is he posting here to harass “evilutionists” to get even for making him doubt his sectarian dogma? Is he taunting “evilutionists” in order to make them angry so he can fabricate a self-fulfilling profile about how rude, mean-spirited, and cruel “evilutionists” are? Are bobby and Keith Eaton samples of an uncontrollable rage in the ID/Creationists that they have failed as a science and in the courts, so that they now feel they must resort to harassment, death threats, and general mayhem? Or is he simply an immature pre-pubescent boy who is online without adult supervision and fantasizing that he is making those evil adults angry that they can’t get at him to punish him for his naughty behavior? It really makes little difference. His behaviors past and present speak for themselves. He has shown plenty of evidence multiple times that he should be permanently shipped off to the Bathroom Wall at the very least. There is no reason to believe he will ever behave any differently. What is weird is that I personally know a fundamentalist who actually behaves this way; otherwise I would be more likely to conclude that this particular troll is just a boring spoof.

Prob'ly didn't take long. Your traits are pretty obvious. Read those papers yet? Thought not.

Don’t you have anything constructive to do? Really how much time did you waste on this paragraph?

Actually, I'm grateful that Mike Elzinga took the time to enumerate the characteristics of our current troll (Thanks, Mike!). It is always constructive to see the breathtaking inanity of the anti-science opposition, and to showcase it for any lurkers that might not be aware of the psyche of some of them.

And I noticed that Bobby only complained about the posting. He didn't (and couldn't) deny any of it.

Geez... talk about threadjacking. I haven't done an actual count but it seems that over 75% of this thread is now trolling and responses to trolling. What was the topic again? JP Schloss?

Is Schloss going to have his name removed from the dissenting list?

Will he be "expelled"?
(from what I don't know)

-DU-

Dave Luckett sez... On Bobby If I have learned a lesson in this vale of tears and woe, It’s that a fixed opinion is just that.

Bobby said: Don't you have anything constructive to do? Really how much time did you waste on this paragraph?

This is a reminder to our friend Bobby who has been invited to respond to the papers, and other resources related to evolutionary theory and who has yet to explain the meaning of "MET" and a workable definition.

Any other trolling on his part will be dealt with appropriately.

And to others, please let me deal with Bobby as he is obviously using anything to avoid answering.

Bobby said:

Mike Elzinga said: Well, I’d say we pretty much nailed it with characterizing this bobby/et.al. Troll. ... [list deleted] What is weird is that I personally know a fundamentalist who actually behaves this way; otherwise I would be more likely to conclude that this particular troll is just a boring spoof.

Don't you have anything constructive to do? Really how much time did you waste on this paragraph?

It is always constructive to see the breathtaking inanity of the anti-science opposition, and to showcase it for any lurkers that might not be aware of the psyche of some of them. And I noticed that Bobby only complained about the posting. He didn’t (and couldn’t) deny any of it.

Wheels said: And again, what do you think about ID's stunning lack of effort to produce actual research?

Wheels said:

Wheels said: And again, what do you think about ID's stunning lack of effort to produce actual research?

@ bobby/goff

Really? Describe a few of them for us.

The ID research ideas that is.

And to others, please let me deal with Bobby as he is obviously using anything to avoid answering.

Science Avenger said: The ID research ideas that is.

Bobby said: I have quite a few ID research topics I would do if someone would fund me.

Bobby whines... I think it would be futile to try to get the funding. Any ideas where to get it. I have quite a few ID research topics I would do if someone would fund me.

Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture awards research fellowships for support of significant and original research ... By supporting scholarship relevant to intelligent design (ID), the Center seeks to encourage a rigorous critique of scientific and philosophical materialism and to promote non-reductionist study of the natural world ...The Center awards two types of fellowships, which in exceptional cases may be awarded to graduate students: * Full-year research fellowships between $40,000 and $50,000 * Short-term research fellowships between $2,500 and $15,000 for either summer research, release time from teaching or book promotion activities, or other research-related activities.

Proposals should be sent to: Research Director, researchdirector @ discovery.org, Discovery Institute, 1511 Third Avenue, Suite 808, Seattle, WA 98101-3635.

Maybe the years were shorter back then? :p

Edwin Hensley said: Are there any creationists or ID supporters willing to research these topics?

Henry J said: Maybe the years were shorter back then? :p

Bobby said:

Science Avenger said: The ID research ideas that is.

A double blind study where fake fossils are mixed with real ones and measuring the ability of paleontologists to tell the difference.

Constructing a computer morph tracing whale evolution body plans from indohyus to present whales. Calculating # of discrete changes needed per 1000 year intervals. Also looking for evolutionary landscape barriers thur looking at the morphing.

Proposals should be sent to: Research Director, researchdirector @ discovery.org, Discovery Institute, 1511 Third Avenue, Suite 808, Seattle, WA 98101-3635.

Thanks. I will write them. I do get a lot of good ideas here. When I ask question I can get a feel of where the understanding and knowledge boundries are. I really notice there is not much math used in mainstream Darwinism. And the research is not double blinded. Lots of experiment design flaws. I can tell when I hit pay dirt cuz the insults start to fly when I get near an area which has little validation. The nasal drift is one of the most interesting. Not one of you understood my concept.

“evolutionary landscape barriers”

this is not my term. this is a term used by an evolutionary biologist whose book i read.

There are not enough whale fossils to do 1000 year intervals.

no one said there were. again try reading more carefully. the program would predict the number of changes needed per 1000 years. really do not need the fossil evidence in this test.

have you done computer simulations using morphs?

evolutionary landscape (or fitness landscape) refers to an imaginary multidimensional parameter space that organisms (or arguably, individual cells or even whole clades) occupy. The ordinate (or 'y') axis is usually taken to be fitness of the entity in question; if the landscape may be described as 'flat' if most changes in the immediate mutational neighbourhood are of negligible effect on fitness. This (rare) situation is interpreted to mean that the organism in question is not under any form of selection. On the other hand, an organism that is well or poorly adapted can be thought of as inhabiting a local peak or trough respectively.

Evolutionary landscapes provide a useful cognitive tool for visualising the consequences of evolution on entities of a system, commonly in the form of fitness landscapes; however actual visualisation of real organisms' fitness landscapes is fraught with difficulties; not least due to the problems inherent in visualising a many dimensions at once.

*** good stuff... you should read about it...

Mike said: In a nutshell, the reason why Schloss gave up on the DI was because he recognized the futility of mixing biological science with religion. In this thread all I see is furious arguing about religion under the guise of discussing biology. Its like watching hamsters running on little wheels. Schloss seems to be a big Shakespeare fan. Something Mercutio said in Romeo and Juliet seems appropriate. Something about a pox.

Bobby said: A double blind study where fake fossils are mixed with real ones and measuring the ability of paleontologists to tell the difference. Constructing a computer morph tracing whale evolution body plans from indohyus to present whales. Calculating # of discrete changes needed per 1000 year intervals. Also looking for evolutionary landscape barriers thur looking at the morphing.

Bobby said: I think it would be futile to try to get the funding. Any ideas where to get it. I have quite a few ID research topics I would do if someone would fund me.

Bobby said:

Science Avenger said: The ID research ideas that is.

A double blind study where fake fossils are mixed with real ones and measuring the ability of paleontologists to tell the difference. Constructing a computer morph tracing whale evolution body plans from indohyus to present whales. Calculating # of discrete changes needed per 1000 year intervals. Also looking for evolutionary landscape barriers thur looking at the morphing.

I'm sure it will come as no surprise to anyone that bobby's definition of evolutionary landscapes is a cut-and-paste from Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_landscape

No citation to that source in bobby's post, of course.

Bobby said: evolutionary landscape (or fitness landscape) refers to an imaginary multidimensional parameter space that organisms (or arguably, individual cells or even whole clades) occupy. The ordinate (or 'y') axis is usually taken to be fitness of the entity in question; if the landscape may be described as 'flat' if most changes in the immediate mutational neighbourhood are of negligible effect on fitness. This (rare) situation is interpreted to mean that the organism in question is not under any form of selection. On the other hand, an organism that is well or poorly adapted can be thought of as inhabiting a local peak or trough respectively. Evolutionary landscapes provide a useful cognitive tool for visualising the consequences of evolution on entities of a system, commonly in the form of fitness landscapes; however actual visualisation of real organisms' fitness landscapes is fraught with difficulties; not least due to the problems inherent in visualising a many dimensions at once. *** good stuff... you should read about it...

I cleaned up some postings which were off topic. It seems Bobby is interested in such concepts as evolutionary landscapes and the migration of the blowhole in whales. He has read Wikipedia and a 'book by an evolutionist' on the former topic and the latter topic was quite in depth addressed earlier on this site.
Seems Bobby has not evolved much and his arguments still seem to be flawed. In addition, he is still avoiding addressing some of the papers which contradicted his initial claims as well as the question to show how ID is scientifically irrelevant.

In the end, what Bobby has shown is that there is really no ID relevant research, at best the research is to show ‘limits’ to evolution.

PvM said: There is nothing imaginary about evolutionary landscapes. Where did you get this flawed notion? In fact, your description about the 'y-axis' is only valid for simplistic single locus two allele landscapes. In fact, landscapes, real ones that is, tend the be flat in most cases, which means that your statement about "rare" is flawed. You do realize that there exist higher dimensional fitness landscapes and surprise surprise, such fitness landscapes tend to become 'holey' and flat, contradicting your description. PS when you intend to plagiarize text, please provide the link and reference your sources http://www.powerset.com/explore/semhtml/Evolutionary_landscape?query=Evolutionary+landscape

Bobby said: evolutionary landscape (or fitness landscape) refers to an imaginary multidimensional parameter space that organisms (or arguably, individual cells or even whole clades) occupy. The ordinate (or 'y') axis is usually taken to be fitness of the entity in question; if the landscape may be described as 'flat' if most changes in the immediate mutational neighbourhood are of negligible effect on fitness. This (rare) situation is interpreted to mean that the organism in question is not under any form of selection. On the other hand, an organism that is well or poorly adapted can be thought of as inhabiting a local peak or trough respectively. Evolutionary landscapes provide a useful cognitive tool for visualising the consequences of evolution on entities of a system, commonly in the form of fitness landscapes; however actual visualisation of real organisms' fitness landscapes is fraught with difficulties; not least due to the problems inherent in visualising a many dimensions at once. *** good stuff... you should read about it...

Bobby whines... I really notice there is not much math used in mainstream Darwinism.

And the research is not double blinded. Lots of experiment design flaws.

I can tell when I hit pay dirt cuz the insults start to fly when I get near an area which has little validation.

Not one of you understood my concept.

David Utidjian said: Geez... talk about threadjacking. I haven't done an actual count but it seems that over 75% of this thread is now trolling and responses to trolling. What was the topic again? JP Schloss? Is Schloss going to have his name removed from the dissenting list? Will he be "expelled"? (from what I don't know) -DU-

stevaroni said: Mathematics, particularly in computer modeling, are one of the brightest areas of current evolution research (largely because you can grind through a lot of generations, with a lot of environmental variables in quite a reasonable time). Although it may betray my professional prejudices, I'd suspect that mathematical modeling might even be a more fruitful tool this upcoming decade than cheap DNA sequencing. Among the jaw-dropping results in recent years is the unexpected success of "Dawkins Weasel Generators", programs that display the the true power of natural selection to cut through apparently impossible odds.

Larry Boy said: ...there is no feasible way to infer fitness from morphology...

Bobby said: Constructing a computer morph tracing whale evolution body plans from indohyus to present whales. Calculating # of discrete changes needed per 1000 year intervals.

But in principle, “fitness” is a measure of how well an organism competes in its current environment, including climate, food, and predation. Thus, to actually measure “fitness”, even relatively, one has to have a pretty good idea of how the organism interacted with all parts of its environment.

Third, there is no guarantee that any given fossil represents a “fit” organism. We may see more fossils of “X”, because “X” wasn’t very fit and died in large numbers.

Mike Elzinga said:

Third, there is no guarantee that any given fossil represents a “fit” organism. We may see more fossils of “X”, because “X” wasn’t very fit and died in large numbers.

If it dies in large numbers, there was at least a period of time it was “fit” in that it produced enough offspring to produce those large numbers that died off. If it is now headed for extinction, it is incompatible with the current “environment”. That happens.

Bobby the undead sockpuppet troll said:

Wheels said:

Wheels said: And again, what do you think about ID's stunning lack of effort to produce actual research?

@ bobby/goff

I think it would be futile to try to get the funding. Any ideas where to get it. I have quite a few ID research topics I would do if someone would fund me.

Flint said: william: Thank you for your effort, it's very helpful. Just immediately, I can see that I tend to discount a lot of this discrimination and hatred stuff because I don't share it and can't imagine what it must be like.

The very notion that people have these religion-based irrational buttons (you and David Galant seem to have your own version of that button as well, though I enjoy your description of the rituals you undergo to reinforce it) is outside my experience

You remind me of the Doonesbury strip recently where Ray's Iraqi contact has a very real, very current blood feud with someone whose ancestor killed one of his ancestors back in 1387. I'm with Ray in saying "What the hell is WRONG with you people?"

And by "you people" I'm talking about anyone whose religious faith reinforces and sustains age-old hatreds. At least, your efforts inform me that these hatreds are very mutual, very deliberate, trained from birth, and embedded in the respective cultures, rituals and traditions to the point where, like post-hypnotic suggestion, certain keywords can trigger mindless responses. And you even seem PROUD of it. Spooky and ugly.

Anyway, I'll be more than glad to raise these cultural factors up with, if not above, economic and political factors. I guess I just don't have the testicular fortitude to look into the face of ugly even when I need to.

Scott said: Is that a fair layman's understanding of why you can't infer fitness from morphology alone? Thanks for your patience.

Third, there is no guarantee that any given fossil represents a "fit" organism. We may see more fossils of "X", because "X" wasn't very fit and died in large numbers. I understand that's not likely, because you woulnd't get lots of "X" running around if it wasn't "fit" in the first place, but environments change.

Bobby wrote:

"A double blind study where fake fossils are mixed with real ones and measuring the ability of paleontologists to tell the difference."

Oddly enough, the paper I recommended addressed just this issue. The researchers calibrated the molecular clock for turtle evolution using 17 different nodes. They found that three of the nodes had fossil dates that were unreliable. When these were eliminated from the anlaysis, the variance dropped to near zero. Thus, the cross-validation technique described would be very good indeed at identifying any unreliable data.

Of course there is no way you could have known this since you refused to read the paper that you demanded. The reason you are still asking inane questions regarding whale evolution is that you also failed to read the references I provided on that topic. By the way, have you figured out that equation yet?

Come on Bobby boy, man up. How about just trying to read the abstract? It is much shorter than the stuff Mike wrote about you, but like his critique, it will also reveal the hollowness of your position. If you ever do get around to reading the paper, you will find that it's turtles all the way down!

If you want to be treated with some respect you must first show some to others. Until then, piss off.

Bobby said: “evolutionary landscape barriers” this is not my term. this is a term used by an evolutionary biologist whose book i read.

Uh, you are now going off the rails. I was discussing an historical question about what made Hitler and the Holocaust possible. There was nothing mindless in my response. You are not as informed as I am.

Yes, I despise and hate the Martin Luthers and Pope Pius IXs of the world. What of it?

Larry boy ponders... Third, there is no guarantee that any given fossil represents a “fit” organism. We may see more fossils of “X”, because “X” wasn’t very fit and died in large numbers.

PvM said:

MPW said:

Schloss said: ...extremists on both sides have been responsible for fueling a feud that need not exist.

[...]

I found Schloss to be quite accurate when describing how both sides have inflated their claims. By giving both sides the same standing and then showing that IDs claims are wrong, vacuous or misleading, Schloss reaches a far larger audience.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: Since I believe no one else addressed this:

James F said:

David Utidjian said: Is Schloss going to have his name removed from the dissenting list?

Tsk. Nobody gets removed from the "Dissent from Darwin" list, ever. Just ask David Heddle and others who have asked to be removed.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: I have been unable to locate MPW's quote. However, Schloss mentions "both sides" in his review, where he conflates "Darwinism" with both issues of science & education and theology. I think it is confusing to adopt creationist language and conflation to describe the separate issues, and this is a prime example. Scientists such as biologists are primarily interested in science. That continues to apply when facing anti-scientific movements like ID. I doubt scientists have inflated their claims as regard science. The theological debate, say creationism as opposed to say empiricism, is (or should be) a different issue. But if we look into it, the side inflating their claims as regard, say, the power of agents, is definitely the one using apologetics.

stevaroni said:

And the research is not double blinded. Lots of experiment design flaws.

No, but it's brutally peer reviewed - that is, it's fact checked. Which is a lot more that anyone can say about any ID produce.

PvM said: Is this an accurate understanding of your objections?

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said:

PvM said: Is this an accurate understanding of your objections?

Actually, no. I argued that scientists and educators are interested in promoting science, and that Schloss is confused and confusing (as IDers are) by arguing that theology is involved in our acceptance of science.

I find it kinda funny that Bobby suggests that, in the case of fossils, there should be a “double blind test” (or something.) I have no idea what he is attempting to show.

It may have something to do with the frequent argument ID/Creationists use in pointing to the Piltdown hoax. Scientists are supposed to be unabashed liars. Of course, the ID/Creationists never acknowledge that it was science itself that uncovered the hoax.

My bet is that Bobby's reason for wanting a doubleblind test of the paleontologists is related to the "they date the fossils by the rocks and the rocks by the fossils" argument that the dating and the identification of the fossils is driven by the supposedly biased viewpoint of the paleontologists. That he'd pose such a test shows how grossly ignorant he is of dating methods, for they'd spot his fakes in an instant because HELLO, fossils in the wild can get mixed up from different strata for all sorts of reasons, and sorting this out is part of the challenge of dating fossils in the first place. Bobby acts as if fossils in the wild always come neatly ordered and clearly positioned in the geologic column.

Well that's what happens when you refuse to even look at the primary literature. You're left with all sorts of misconceptions about the validity of the studies. In order to evaluate the studies, you really have to at least read them. If you are unwilling or unable to do that, then you really have no choice but to accept the results that the authors claim.

Incredulity based on ignorance is as worthless as holding inviolate opinions in science. Bobby, the troll of many names, doesn't seem to understand this, nor does he seem to understand how rude it is to demand papers and them ignore them or how rude it is to come here and repeatedly violate the rules and expect people to treat him with civility.

It may have something to do with the frequent argument ID/Creationists use in pointing to the Letdown hoax. Scientists are supposed to be unabashed liars

I came across that at the Iowa State Fair this last weekend. In the Varied Industries Building the Creationists have a booth, where they hand out little 3"x 3" booklets written by Ken Ham. In a booklet about RACE, Ken says scientists tell him that humans are all one closely related species, that race is meaningless. But in the next line, he claims that evolutionists are deeply prejudiced and are responsible for the idea of race. Oh, the irony!!

Piltdown Man,, Not Letdown Man. Sorry

Frank B said: Piltdown Man,, Not Letdown Man. Sorry

Yeah, I meant to do that. Yeah, that's the ticket. I guess it was a Freudian slip.

PvM said: What statement in particular by Schloss do you have in mind?

" My bet is that Bobby’s reason for wanting a doubleblind test of the paleontologists is related to the “they date the fossils by the rocks and the rocks by the fossils” argument that the dating and the identification of the fossils is driven by the supposedly biased viewpoint of the paleontologists. "

No that is not the reason. I do not think the dating of fossils is that far off. Never said that. Interesting in order to discredit me you have to infer that I said things that I never did. That is not scientific or professional.

" HELLO, fossils in the wild can get mixed up from different strata for all sorts of reasons, and sorting this out is part of the challenge of dating fossils in the first place. "

So if a rabbit fossil was found in the Cambrian layer a good paleontologist would know to sort it out and put it in a more recent layer?

Bobby said: " HELLO, fossils in the wild can get mixed up from different strata for all sorts of reasons, and sorting this out is part of the challenge of dating fossils in the first place. " So if a rabbit fossil was found in the Cambrian layer a good paleontologist would know to sort it out and put it in a more recent layer?

Bobby said: No that is not the reason. I do not think the dating of fossils is that far off. Never said that. Interesting in order to discredit me you have to infer that I said things that I never did. That is not scientific or professional.

Bobby said: So if a rabbit fossil was found in the Cambrian layer a good paleontologist would know to sort it out and put it in a more recent layer?

Bobby said: Interesting in order to discredit me you have to infer that I said things that I never did. That is not scientific or professional.

Bobby wrote:

"OK 2 points: in the molecular clock study why was there hypervariance."

If that comment was directed at me, I can find no mention of the term in the paper. Please describe for me what page the term is used on and I will try to provide an answer for you. In any event, congratualtions for finally attempting to read a paper. Of course, the main conclusions of the paper are still valid, regardless of any minor statistical issues.

"So if a rabbit fossil was found in the Cambrian layer a good paleontologist would know to sort it out and put it in a more recent layer?"

That's right Bobby. All scientists are either incompetent or just lying bastards who are only out to fool you. Not one of them has an ounce of integrity or decency. And, either they can all fool each other, or they are all involved in a vast conspiracy of epoch proportions (so much for the incompetence hypothesis).

If you had actually read the paper I cited, you would already know some of the techniques by which inaccurate dates are identified. I can only conclude that either you did not actually read the paper or that you did not understand it.

Bobby:

I don't know if anyone else here works in paleontology, but I do. I have a number of publications dealing with fossils, and am currently working on several projects involving primates, hominins, and ammonoids. Apart from collecting for amusement in local areas, I have field experience in 5 expeditions, and extensive museum experience.

You have no idea of what you are talking about. Fossils are found in different circumstances. If you are simply asking whether paleontologists can tell the depositional context of fossils, the answer is yes. Where fossils are found in situ (actually encased in the matrix or beds), there is little doubt about how they got there. Where fossils are intrusive, there is inevitably evidence of disturbance. Even for surface prospecting, it is fairly easy to identify fossils from intrusive material. Fossils from specific layers take on the mineral characteristics of those layers, and are easily recognized. Intrusive fossils simply look different (color, weight, texture etc). Because fossils take on the characteristics of the layers in which they are found, chemical analysis can be used to determine whether material is intrusive or not. The most famous example of this is the Piltdown hoax, where fluorine dating was used to establish whether the material in question came from the deposits.

Where paleontologists are unclear of the origin of fossils, they are explicit about the uncdertainties associated with the origin of the fossil. There are multitudinous specimens of uncertain origin that were unfortunately collected with sloppy technique, or without records. If an important fossil is claimed to have been found from a particular area, and have a particular date, but has no detailed information on where it was found, collectors will look for the original site and not conclusively confirm the dates until more material is found in situ. It is not at all unusual for paleontologists to return to collecting areas to confirm the origin of fossils. I have done so myself.

Paleontologists deal with these issues all the time. They are meticulous and detailed. There is not a single creationist criticism that I have seen that bears any weight whatsoever. Believe it or not, we actually think of these things, and go to great lengths to obtain as precise data as possible.

Bobby said: Interesting in order to discredit me you have to infer that I said things that I never did. That is not scientific or professional.

At this point, guessing at bobby's motives is like guessing that what is on the other side of the window is actually on the other side of the window.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Science Avenger said: Your unwillingness to explain yourself in anything but cutesy one-liners leaves us no choice but to guess at your motives.

mplavcan said: Bobby: I don't know if anyone else here works in paleontology, but I do. I have a number of publications dealing with fossils, and am currently working on several projects involving primates, hominins, and ammonoids. Apart from collecting for amusement in local areas, I have field experience in 5 expeditions, and extensive museum experience. You have no idea of what you are talking about. Fossils are found in different circumstances. If you are simply asking whether paleontologists can tell the depositional context of fossils, the answer is yes. Where fossils are found in situ (actually encased in the matrix or beds), there is little doubt about how they got there. Where fossils are intrusive, there is inevitably evidence of disturbance. Even for surface prospecting, it is fairly easy to identify fossils from intrusive material. Fossils from specific layers take on the mineral characteristics of those layers, and are easily recognized. Intrusive fossils simply look different (color, weight, texture etc). Because fossils take on the characteristics of the layers in which they are found, chemical analysis can be used to determine whether material is intrusive or not. The most famous example of this is the Piltdown hoax, where fluorine dating was used to establish whether the material in question came from the deposits. Where paleontologists are unclear of the origin of fossils, they are explicit about the uncdertainties associated with the origin of the fossil. There are multitudinous specimens of uncertain origin that were unfortunately collected with sloppy technique, or without records. If an important fossil is claimed to have been found from a particular area, and have a particular date, but has no detailed information on where it was found, collectors will look for the original site and not conclusively confirm the dates until more material is found in situ. It is not at all unusual for paleontologists to return to collecting areas to confirm the origin of fossils. I have done so myself. Paleontologists deal with these issues all the time. They are meticulous and detailed. There is not a single creationist criticism that I have seen that bears any weight whatsoever. Believe it or not, we actually think of these things, and go to great lengths to obtain as precise data as possible.

Bobby said: And secondly does anyone here really take the Dawkins Weasel program seriously?

" On page 229 of in the book, Australia’s Lost World: Prehistoric Animals of Riversleigh, the authors talk about how they found a Cambrian trilobite fossil fragment at the Neville’s Garden site, which dates to the early Miocene. Though, rather than assume that the theories of evolution were no good because they had found an out-of-place trilobite, they came to the conclusion that, back in the early Miocene, there was an outcropping of Cambrian-aged limestone that eroded away, leaving only that trilobite fragment that dropped out. "

Very Ad Hoc.

lkeithlu said:

Bobby said: " HELLO, fossils in the wild can get mixed up from different strata for all sorts of reasons, and sorting this out is part of the challenge of dating fossils in the first place. " So if a rabbit fossil was found in the Cambrian layer a good paleontologist would know to sort it out and put it in a more recent layer?

No, if the rabbit was found in undisturbed Cambrian strata it would pose a contradiction. Even a first year geology student can recognize when strata have been rearranged, resorted, uplifted, eroded, transported.

Bobby said: " On page 229 of in the book, Australia’s Lost World: Prehistoric Animals of Riversleigh, the authors talk about how they found a Cambrian trilobite fossil fragment at the Neville’s Garden site, which dates to the early Miocene. Though, rather than assume that the theories of evolution were no good because they had found an out-of-place trilobite, they came to the conclusion that, back in the early Miocene, there was an outcropping of Cambrian-aged limestone that eroded away, leaving only that trilobite fragment that dropped out. " Very Ad Hoc.

Do all of you think the DW Generator displays the true power of NS?

Bobby said: Though, rather than assume that the theories of evolution were no good because they had found an out-of-place trilobite, they came to the conclusion that, they let the theory change the evidence

These are due to erosion that occurred during the time that the younger strata were being deposited as mud, sand or silt. These Australian scientists did not “let the theory change the evidence”.

Darin said: Flint:

However, ID is anti-science without further content. It says, basically, "the evidence doesn't matter. God (uh, The Designer) diddit, we can tell just from looking that this is so obvious mere assertion is sufficient, end of story!"

I don't see it that way at all. I accept evolution because of evidence of variations on a theme (homologies, vestigial organs, suboptimal design etc.), but I think the logical of ID is OK. In default, when you encounter something that looks designed, you assume it is the product of intelligence. Intelligent design is the default assumption regarding a microchip. Biological cells are much more complex than microchips. So the claim that cells are the product of non-intelligent design is an extraordinary claim, and, as Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". The dispute between evolutionists and ID advocates is over whether the proof is sufficient. We both think it is. ID advocates don't. The question is whether the ID advocates can develop enough mathematical savvy (because I think maths is the only science where this debate could exist) to bolster their case. So far I don't see they're capable.

Bobby said: A double blind study where fake fossils are mixed with real ones and measuring the ability of paleontologists to tell the difference.

I have cleaned up some off-topic postings. Bobby, you have been presented the rules. Why is it so hard to present your arguments?

Bobby seems to be moving all over the map with his taunts. He made assertions about whales, about evolutionary landscapes and refuses to defend them.

He brings up the Weasel program with no logic or reason and he accuses scientists of making the data match the theory. And still nothing to support the concept of ID. Note that Bobby is allowed to contribute on a very narrow issue and so far he seems to not have gotten the message or decided to ignore it.

Hence the master flush....

Glen Davidson said:

These are due to erosion that occurred during the time that the younger strata were being deposited as mud, sand or silt. These Australian scientists did not “let the theory change the evidence”.

Quite so. I do worry when I see people on our side claim that the fossil record has everything in place as expected by evolutionary theory (alone, and without considering geoligical processes). Younger fossils do intrude into older strata (burrowing animals, etc.), and older fossils sometimes end up in younger strata. It's all well-understood, and generally can be explained by ordinary methods of excavation and reburial. Which is why I wish we didn't have to endure the naive claims that out of place fossils don't exist. They do, and there's no mystery about them. I just thought this might be a good opportunity to remind people that there are almost always exceptions, including exceptions to the undisputed general order of the geologic column. Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

On August 17, 2008 6:45 PM Bobby said: Just of bunch of trolls with little to do. I have better things to do. Bye.

On August 17, 2008 7:19 PM Bobby said: ...

I hadn’t forgotten the possibility that you could have younger fossils reworked in older sediments due to burrowing animals, etc. but was of course addressing Bobby’s “complaint” regarding the Australian geologists.

Bobby @ 6:38 AM: And secondly does anyone here really take the Dawkins Weasel program seriously? Bobby @ 9:22 AM: What about the “Weasel”? Do you feel it is a good computer simulation? Bobby @ 9:42 AM: Stevaroni- Do all of you think the DW Generator displays the true power of NS?

Bobby @ 6:38 AM: And secondly does anyone here really take the Dawkins Weasel program seriously? Bobby @ 9:22 AM: What about the “Weasel”? Do you feel it is a good computer simulation? Bobby @ 9:42 AM: Stevaroni- Do all of you think the DW Generator displays the true power of NS?

I guess it needs to be mentioned that even if we demonstrated that paleontologists had no clue how to date fossils, and couldn't tell a cambrian sample from a plaster one, that would tell us exactly squat about the validity of ID, which was what this whole exercise was purported to address.

In other words Bobby, to test ID you need to test ID, not evolution. ID does not win by default.

Let's not forget the other common, and frankly pathetic, criticism levelled at the evolutionary algorithms, that being the claim that human intelligence built the generators in the first place, therefore making it more like ID than evolution. This is akin to arguing that lab experiments which generate lightning prove that lightning must have come from the intelligent source of Zeus.

Personally, I don't think the evolutionary algorithms, like the one Dave Thomas used to solve Steiner equations, have been emphasized enough by the pro-science side of this debate. They destroy, in a way any person can observe, the notion that "order cannot come from disorder", one of the pillars of evolution-denial.

Hi Guys;

I must beg the lenient indulgence of my fellow Pandanauts for a moment...

First, sorry I posted that long reply to Bobby twice, I got an "Unspecified error" the first time and it didn't look like it stuck.

Second, apparently the link I pointed to for the paper is no longer available, Though one could easily find it by Googling the title, past performance has shown that this might be an insurmountable obstacle to Bobby, so a working link can be found at Genetic Evolution of Machine Language Software Ronald L. Crepeau NCCOSC RDTE Division San Diego, CA 92152-5000 July 1999

Science Avenger said: Let's not forget the other common, and frankly pathetic, criticism levelled at the evolutionary algorithms, that being the claim that human intelligence built the generators in the first place, therefore making it more like ID than evolution. This is akin to arguing that lab experiments which generate lightning prove that lightning must have come from the intelligent source of Zeus. Personally, I don't think the evolutionary algorithms, like the one Dave Thomas used to solve Steiner equations, have been emphasized enough by the pro-science side of this debate. They destroy, in a way any person can observe, the notion that "order cannot come from disorder", one of the pillars of evolution-denial.

Glen Davidson said: ... Oh yes, I didn't for a second think you had forgotten, though I didn't actually know that you had been a paleontologist. My intent was to expand on, and emphasize, what you had written--because not all on our side know these things. I do like the thought of creationists/IDists searching for that Cambrian rabbit (how could IDists rule it out, since they have no predictions about said designer, not even that it would make anything that betrays any design principles?). It would give them something to do which would be less harmful than their endless PR efforts and zero research. We'd probably have to look at an annoying number of false finds, but I'm sure that would be far less trouble than their current attempts to define science as a zero-evidence activity. Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Science Avenger said: Let's not forget the other common, and frankly pathetic, criticism levelled at the evolutionary algorithms, that being the claim that human intelligence built the generators in the first place, therefore making it more like ID than evolution. This is akin to arguing that lab experiments which generate lightning prove that lightning must have come from the intelligent source of Zeus. Personally, I don't think the evolutionary algorithms, like the one Dave Thomas used to solve Steiner equations, have been emphasized enough by the pro-science side of this debate. They destroy, in a way any person can observe, the notion that "order cannot come from disorder", one of the pillars of evolution-denial.

Flint said: Agreed. I was reacting to your account of spending precious hours of your life in ritual remembrance of past atrocities. This isn't to say those atrocities never happened, nor is it to say they should be forgotten.

My point was that such rituals are calculated (indeed, they exist) to perpetuate exactly what that Doonesbury cartoon was talking about. I confess I don't know, and can't identify, the fine line between remembering what should not be forgotten, and dwelling on it to the point of wallowing in it.

Yes, I despise and hate the Martin Luthers and Pope Pius IXs of the world. What of it?

Despising and hating are emotions that often cloud our judgment if not blind us entirely. Especially when one is personally a target of such hate, and almost automatically adopts and returns it in kind.

Bobby said: " On page 229 of in the book, Australia’s Lost World: Prehistoric Animals of Riversleigh, the authors talk about how they found a Cambrian trilobite fossil fragment at the Neville’s Garden site, which dates to the early Miocene. Though, rather than assume that the theories of evolution were no good because they had found an out-of-place trilobite, they came to the conclusion that, back in the early Miocene, there was an outcropping of Cambrian-aged limestone that eroded away, leaving only that trilobite fragment that dropped out. " Very Ad Hoc.

For example, the historical fact that the second law of thermodynamics was discovered because the real intelligent designers of the 19th century - the engineers who were trying to improve steam engines - faced limitations to their ability to intelligently design - that historical fact shows that "intelligent design" is the last place to look even if we were to discover a case of a violation of the 2nd law of thermo.

Glen Davidson said:

These are due to erosion that occurred during the time that the younger strata were being deposited as mud, sand or silt. These Australian scientists did not “let the theory change the evidence”.

Quite so. I do worry when I see people on our side claim that the fossil record has everything in place as expected by evolutionary theory (alone, and without considering geoligical processes). Younger fossils do intrude into older strata (burrowing animals, etc.), and older fossils sometimes end up in younger strata. It's all well-understood, and generally can be explained by ordinary methods of excavation and reburial. Which is why I wish we didn't have to endure the naive claims that out of place fossils don't exist. They do, and there's no mystery about them. I just thought this might be a good opportunity to remind people that there are almost always exceptions, including exceptions to the undisputed general order of the geologic column. Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Science Avenger said: Let's not forget the other common, and frankly pathetic, criticism levelled at the evolutionary algorithms, that being the claim that human intelligence built the generators in the first place, therefore making it more like ID than evolution. This is akin to arguing that lab experiments which generate lightning prove that lightning must have come from the intelligent source of Zeus.

The problem here is (and this has been addressed before) that when looking at a computer chip, we KNOW it was intelligently designed because we KNOW that humans intelligently designed it, not because we see intelligence behind the design in it.

You have noticed that they are not entirely rational people, no?

You are not actually familiar with the Tishe b’Av rituals. It is not about revenge or wallowing. It is simply “never forget”.

Small logical point that needs to be made from time to time:

Purported problems with evolutionary theory are not evidence for intelligent design. Even if it turned out that evolutionary theory were not the case, it would not follow that intelligent design were the case because there are an infinite number of possible explanations, of which ID would only be one. Medved et.al. are like children arguing that because something is not green, it must be red. Disjunctive syllogisms don't work like that. A similar fallacy underlies Pascal's wager.

I think the point is worth raising because, though it would be very surprising if evolutionary theory is wrong in general, it certainly isn't the last word on how living things come to be. New evidence and new ideas surface continually, and this new input challenges old versions of evolutionary biology. Thing is, under serious criticism, the evolving theory gets further and further away from the natural theology model favored by ID types. In the long run, the creationist/ID faction may be nostalgic for the Neo-Darwinian synthesis of the 1950s because the successor versions of the theory will probably be even more alien to their theological sensibilities. Mr. Paley he dead.

am i allowed to post

Bobby said: am i allowed to post

" Let’s be clear, this is a program that writes itself and converges on a randomly chosen target without any intervention at all other than the outside environment killing off those organisms that fit worst. "

Yes, a very cleverly designed program. It's designer must be very good at computers and math.

Bobby said: " Let’s be clear, this is a program that writes itself and converges on a randomly chosen target without any intervention at all other than the outside environment killing off those organisms that fit worst. " Yes, a very cleverly designed program. It's designer must be very good at computers and math.

Flint said: As for the New Testament being a hoax, I think to any outsider looking in, this is prima facie obvious.

And he did this all generations before the tales were told, and a thousand miles away,

in a different language,

Yes, a very cleverly designed program. It’s designer must be very good at computers and math.

A particularly interesting item recovered from Neville's Garden was a portion of a tiny but well-preserved trilobite. Trilobites were marine arthropods that died out everywhere in the world approximately 230 million years ago. They are sometimes found as fossils, more or less Identical in shape and colour to the one found in the Neville's Garden deposit, in the 530 million year old Cambrian limestone exposed on Riversleigh Station. This was an important discovery because it enabled us to say with confidence that although today there is no Cambrian limestone visible in the immediate area of Nevilles Garden Site, there was when it formed. It is possible that the cave we interpret to have been present on the edge of Neville's Garden Site was developed in a massif of Cambrian limestone that soon after completely eroded away. The little trilobite dissolved out of the Cambrian limestone and simply dropped or was washed into the pool of fresh water below-its first bath aftet 500 million years in stone and its last for another 20 million years In this way, using even the smallest clues, we are gradually building up a picture of the ancient topography of Riversleigh. In the came way, examination of Riversleigh's younger sediments provides clues to reconstructing the key features of a progressively more modern terrain.

"The surrounding hills of Cambrian limestone, as well as the relatively young Tertiary limestones recently formed by the receding lake, would have been riddled with caves whose entrances sometimes faced onto the bred pools. The former shape of specific Riversleigh sites is relatively easy to determine because of clues preserved in the sediments themselves. For example, while working at Neville's Garden Site in 1989, we discovered several small boulders and sheets of limestone that, when split with a sledge hammer, revealed inclined surfaces decorated with horizontal travertine ridges, broken calcite straws and small stalagmites. These structures are characteristically found on the floors of limestone caves. Here, however, they turned up at the edge of the main bone-producing part of the deposit which contained, among other things, diverse marsupials, bats, a platypus, birds, reptiles, frogs and lungfish, which suggested that the site of deposition was a pool adjacent to the mouth of a cave."

Stuart Weinstein said:

Bobby said: " On page 229 of in the book, Australia’s Lost World: Prehistoric Animals of Riversleigh, the authors talk about how they found a Cambrian trilobite fossil fragment at the Neville’s Garden site, which dates to the early Miocene. Though, rather than assume that the theories of evolution were no good because they had found an out-of-place trilobite, they came to the conclusion that, back in the early Miocene, there was an outcropping of Cambrian-aged limestone that eroded away, leaving only that trilobite fragment that dropped out. " Very Ad Hoc.

Why? I can take you along the Delaware River, and show you trilobites that have been eroded out of the Paleozoic rock cut by the river and deposited along certain sections of the river bank.

Bobby said: " Let’s be clear, this is a program that writes itself and converges on a randomly chosen target without any intervention at all other than the outside environment killing off those organisms that fit worst. " Yes, a very cleverly designed program. It's designer must be very good at computers and math.

David Fickett-Wilbar said:

Flint said: As for the New Testament being a hoax, I think to any outsider looking in, this is prima facie obvious.

I think "hoax" implies deception on the part of the writers.

For the record, I’m a non-Christian, who thinks it certain that there was an historical Jesus; that he said some of the things he’s claimed to have said; and that the majority of the deeds attributed to him come from the sort of thing that holy men would be expected to do in the culture of the time, and were attributed to him rather than having been performed by him. The tale grew in the telling, which is very different from being a hoax.

" And again, what do you think about the stunning lack of effort on the part of the Intelligent Design movement to make sure their ideas are grounded in research and scientific processes, despite the availability of funding and the passage of years? "

They could be just a front to promote Christianity into the political system. At least the Discovery Institute seems to be that. But I do not think all ID proponents. Just strange bedfellows by circumstance. Just as Genetisists and Eugenesists have a lot in common.

OT - It's been a week! I'm tired of Bobby and in the mean time - LalaLarry found my blog (I think I took care of him, so no worries).

Isn't there anything else to talk about?

Bobby said: " I wonder why you don’t seem to have high praise for Zeus’s thunderbolts. " We know that thuderbolts happen naturally because we have observed that. However we have never observed non-replicating materials become replicating. Sorry. We can assemble machines but we have never seen machines assemble without intelligent intervention.

Bobby said:

PvM said: Missing the point totally. Predictably...

Bobby said: " Let’s be clear, this is a program that writes itself and converges on a randomly chosen target without any intervention at all other than the outside environment killing off those organisms that fit worst. " Yes, a very cleverly designed program. It's designer must be very good at computers and math.

I think YOU have missed the point.

Flint:

How about Bigfoot?

I'm only saying that because of DI Fellow Michael Medved. Although he's an Orthodox Jew, I'd bet that he'd argue for a historical Jesus as he argues for Bigfoot. It would be fun to try to get him to tell his mostly Christian radio show audience which he thinks has more evidence.

" The onus is on you "

Yes in almost every situation here. Never the reverse.

Yes in almost every situation here. Never the reverse.

Bobby said: We know that thuderbolts happen naturally because we have observed that. However we have never observed non-replicating materials become replicating. Sorry.

We can assemble machines but we have never seen machines assemble without intelligent intervention.

Bobby said: " And again, what do you think about the stunning lack of effort on the part of the Intelligent Design movement to make sure their ideas are grounded in research and scientific processes, despite the availability of funding and the passage of years? " They could be just a front to promote Christianity into the political system. At least the Discovery Institute seems to be that.

But I do not think all ID proponents. Just strange bedfellows by circumstance. Just as Genetisists and Eugenesists have a lot in common.

Bobby said: " The onus is on you " Yes in almost every situation here. Never the reverse.

Bobby said: " I wonder why you don’t seem to have high praise for Zeus’s thunderbolts. " We know that thuderbolts happen naturally because we have observed that.

Bobby said: " I wonder why you don’t seem to have high praise for Zeus’s thunderbolts. " We know that thuderbolts happen naturally because we have observed that.

However we have never observed non-replicating materials become replicating. Sorry.

We can assemble machines but we have never seen machines assemble without intelligent intervention.

Bobby said: " And again, what do you think about the stunning lack of effort on the part of the Intelligent Design movement to make sure their ideas are grounded in research and scientific processes, despite the availability of funding and the passage of years? " They could be just a front to promote Christianity into the political system. At least the Discovery Institute seems to be that. But I do not think all ID proponents. Just strange bedfellows by circumstance. Just as Genetisists and Eugenesists have a lot in common.

Bobby said: "The onus is on you" Yes in almost every situation here. Never the reverse.

Bobby said: " The onus is on you " Yes in almost every situation here. Never the reverse.

Bobby,

The onus is certainly on you. You demanded a paper, I provided it. You didn't read it. You pretended that you read it, but you really didn't. You made up some sciency sounding word that never appeared in the paper and asked another one of your inane questions. When I asked you where the word came from you never responded. What a childish waste of time you are with your little word games. Your mother would be very ashamed of you.

Your transparent attempts at deflecting the conversation have not been effective. Why in the world would you demand proof that the molecular clock had been calibrated when you claim that you accept the dating of fossils as accurate? If you can't be bothered to read the literature you really have no right to any opinion on any subject in science. Go back and hide under the rock you crawled out from underneath. You will not be treated with civility here because you have proven that you don't deserve it.

I suggest that PvM stop wasting his valuable time and simply ban this moron for repeated abuse of the rules. Everyone is already well aware of his ignorance, no further proof is required.

Stacy S. said: OT - It's been a week! I'm tired of Bobby and in the mean time - LalaLarry found my blog (I think I took care of him, so no worries). Isn't there anything else to talk about?

stevaroni said: Hi Guys; I must beg the lenient indulgence of my fellow Pandanauts for a moment... First, sorry I posted that long reply to Bobby twice, I got an "Unspecified error" the first time and it didn't look like it stuck. Second, apparently the link I pointed to for the paper is no longer available, Though one could easily find it by Googling the title, past performance has shown that this might be an insurmountable obstacle to Bobby, so a working link can be found at Genetic Evolution of Machine Language Software Ronald L. Crepeau NCCOSC RDTE Division San Diego, CA 92152-5000 July 1999

Bobby whines... Yes, a very cleverly designed program. It’s designer must be very good at computers and math.

Larry Boy writes... Anyway, the point is, that RM+NS climbs fitness hills really really well, but it just explores a fitness plains in random directions and results are much less impressive.

In addition, with the rare and easily identifiable exceptions of cave and sinkhole fillings, you never see younger fossils in older sediments (the classic Cambrian rabbit).

Glen Davidson said:

In addition, with the rare and easily identifiable exceptions of cave and sinkhole fillings, you never see younger fossils in older sediments (the classic Cambrian rabbit).

That's not quite the case with microfossils, is it? I don't claim to know this for sure, but IIRC, bacteria (rarely fossilized, but not never fossilized), and I think pollen, can sometimes follow water down through porous strata. I believe that pollen fossils have to be used carefully for this reason. There's another unusual case of younger fossils ending up in older strata, which is when humans bury their dead. Apparent modern humans have been found in Africa in "older sediment" that some creationists have tried to claim, but almost certainly are there because they were buried. What people usually think of when the word "fossil" is brought up almost never show up in older strata, other than what you mentioned, I believe. Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Flint said: What bugs me is (1) the lack of direct testimony;

(2) the totally derivative nature of his exploits (to the point where there's no longer even any need for a human person to hang all this stuff on);

(3) the (for lack of a better term) "literary tradition" of the day, which emphasized persuasion to the total disinterest in accuracy;

(4) the lack of any historical allusion to Jesus of any sort, which could not have been edited by people known to have a strong vested interest in editing;

(5) The very strong motivation by the NT authors to generate a religion and nurture it every which way, for local political reasons;

(6) The way the tales were redacted as different factions came into power over these writings, omitting whole gospels as well as doing serious rearrangement to the tales the preserved.

And so on, and on, and on. As I see it, the physical evidence for a "real" Paul Bunyan, or Pecos Bill, or Sam Patch, or John Henry, is a LOT stronger.

Glen Davidson said: That’s not quite the case with microfossils, is it? ...bacteria (rarely fossilized, but not never fossilized)...

The most common fossil ... is ... diatomaceous earth, the fossilized remains of diatoms, a type of hard-shelled algae.

David Fickett-Wilbar said: I think that the evidence we have for the historical Jesus is better than that for the Buddha. I wonder if atheists in Buddhist countries argue that the Buddha did not actually exist?

Paul Burnett said:

David Fickett-Wilbar said: I think that the evidence we have for the historical Jesus is better than that for the Buddha. I wonder if atheists in Buddhist countries argue that the Buddha did not actually exist?

Siddhartha Gautama was not a god, or the son of a god or even a messenger from a god - he was a human, and never claimed otherwise. There are billions of atheists in "Buddhist" countries who would laugh at the ignorance of David's question.

You may change Fickett-Wilbars question to "I wonder if atheists in Buddhist countries argue that Siddhartha Gautama did not actually exist."

The answer is . . . yes.

Robin said: The problem here is (and this has been addressed before) that when looking at a computer chip, we KNOW it was intelligently designed because we KNOW that humans intelligently designed it, not because we see intelligence behind the design in it.

Robin said: And given that we would NEVER create things the way nature does (hence the reason we can immediately tell when something is 'natural' vs "man-made"), there is no way to infer any intelligence in the process to make anything natural.

Bobby has chosen to address the issue because the program requires a programmer and a compiler, totally missing the point. Until Bobby follows the rules I outlined, his postings will be removed.

Using Bobby's logic any scientific investigation should be excluded as it includes an intelligent designer.
Such desperate times for ID...

Bobby seems to have chosen not to respond to the actual research but to argue that the program was not totally undesigned. Using this kind of 'logic' any scientific research should be rejected as it involves some form of intelligent design.

Pathetic.

PvM said: Bobby has chosen to address the issue because the program requires a programmer and a compiler, totally missing the point. Until Bobby follows the rules I outlined, his postings will be removed. Using Bobby's logic any scientific investigation should be excluded as it includes an intelligent designer. Such desperate times for ID...

Again, my position is that the most parsimonoious position is that there was a man, Jesus of Nazareth, who taught some of what he is said to have taught in the gospels, who was crucified for revolutionary action, and about whom stories arose, some likely in his lifetime, others shortly afterward. This follows the course of other religious figures, and is a completely unremarkable thing to happen. The only remarkable thing is that this particular religous figure’s stories took off. Not many were that fortunate – the Buddha and Mohammed are the only ones that come to mind.

Bobby said:

PvM said: Bobby has chosen to address the issue because the program requires a programmer and a compiler, totally missing the point. Until Bobby follows the rules I outlined, his postings will be removed. Using Bobby's logic any scientific investigation should be excluded as it includes an intelligent designer. Such desperate times for ID...

The points is of course DNA can evolve. But you must have the DNA coding system first. Oh I see the rules now: how many fingers do you see? 1984. You simply cannot handle objections to the faith you have in your theory. That program was as rigged as Dawkins'

Bobby said: And where in the article does it say the actual code was randomly generated.

Each run of a GPSet began with the generation of a new random pool. Additionally, a new and different random number generator seed was used for each run.

PvM said: The solution is remarkably simple and generic, namely to either increase the dimension of the fitness function to 'flatten' the evolutionary landscape and/or to add the concept of neutrality. Both help understand why the natural evolutionary algorithms seem to have been far more successful and generic than those used in research.

Cleaned up the thread. Bobby, read the paper.

Larry Boy said: So, NS is cool, but it doesn't solve every problem efficiently.

Larry Boy said: So, NS is cool, but it doesn't solve every problem efficiently.

The historical irony (that is, the complete utter inept moronitude) of trying to invoke the 2nd law against evolution runs deeper than this. Originally, entropy was defined in macroscopic terms. Nothing about randomness. Boltzmann, when he developed his microscopic interpretation of entropy in terms of randomness, was inspired by Charles Darwin and evolution in the first place.

Bobby said: Interesting I showed that that CODE was not randomly created and that whole dialogue was erase. What rule could that possibly be against.

it's obvious that if you fill the processor with random hex code you will get nothing

The CODE was not randomly generated. I have programmed in this in intel.

I doubt that any of you here understand that code.

stevaroni said: Before the thread was flushed, Bobby said something like

it's obvious that if you fill the processor with random hex code you will get nothing

I apologize if I quote that inexactly, Bob, but it's a shame that particular comment was flushed, because it's the crux of this whole Intelligent Design argument. You're actually very, very correct for a change. It is totally obvious that filling up this processor with random code will produce nothing but garbage. Anybody with a lick of sense in their head knows that this is exactly what will happen. I'm an electrical engineer, and I've spent the last 22 years writing assembly code, so I know this is destined to fail miserably. Except the thing is... when you actually try this, like Crepeau actually went and did, that's not what happens. Almost miraculously, under the right circumstances, the code actually works. And that's amazing. But if we never investigated it, we'd never know this. When we actually go measure the world, our results often blow away our personal perceptions. After all, my perception is absolutely clear that at this very moment, I'm sitting on a stationary flat earth and the sun is moving smoothly through the sky). But we'd never know this was wrong if we didn't go measure it. That's, um, why we always harp on "proof" whenever anyone starts a sentence with "It is obvious that..."

The CODE was not randomly generated. I have programmed in this in intel.

What code do you refer to? The experimental cells are exactly 255 bytes, plus 7 registers. Although there is an outer layer of Z80 emulation, so long as the emulation is consistent, accurate, and does not tamper with the register contents, I fail to see what your issue is. The fact that the test tube is obviously a human artifact doesn't alter what's going on inside.

I doubt that any of you here understand that code.

That'd be me, pookie. I just spent the better part of last month writing embedded serial handler routines routines in Microchip assembler (which sucked, btw). Hit me with your best shot.

Just to clarify any misconception people might have. . .

It is actually impossible to generate an error with machine code on a properly functioning chip because it isn't interpreted, so there is nothing ambiguous about it. The computer can always execute any non-ambiguous code (assuming you are not running a Pentium II or whatever chip Intel dropped the ball on).

So, yes, it is probable that the code in the paper was randomly generated from a subset of all possible code. If you have a multi-threading system there is no problem running randomly generated code, since if the code hangs (which is fairly likely), you can always just stop executing it. I run randomly generated code all the freaking time.

The code merely sets up the parameters for the results of the experiment. The results were what mattered in the experiment. To disqualify Dawkins' experiment simply because the code was "intelligently designed," while ignoring the fact that the code was designed so that it could produce and select results without constant intervention by an intelligent force, one would also have to disqualify all other experiments, as well, given as how their parameters are also contrived.

Then again, this is to be expected from a person who thinks he knows better than seven and a half generations of biologists, while demonstrating that he refuses to know anything about Science, that he is physically incapable of using Google, and that he has nonexistent reading comprehension skills.

So the code that was generated was randomly chosen from a set of known good commands.

If you randomly insert gotos this will happen rather quickly.

And still there is a difference between randomly generated code and choosing from know good commands Just like writing a sentence from random words.

So the code that was generated was randomly chosen from a set of known good commands. That is possible. But still wont work here is why the goto command 1. move x y 2. out y 3 go to 1. if ever in the process a goto makes the control go to a wrong place you will get and endless loop and that program will run forever not producing anything.

1 btfsnz reg1 ' test reg1, skip next instruction if reg > 0 2 call somethingelse ' if reg is 0 then go do something else 3 some other code ' some other code 4 decf reg1 ' decrement reg1 5 goto 1 ' loop

And still there is a difference between randomly generated code and choosing from know good commands

stevaroni said: That'd be me, pookie. I just spent the better part of last month writing embedded serial handler routines routines in Microchip assembler (which sucked, btw). Hit me with your best shot.

Oops, too late. Well, at least it shows that Bobby doesn't know what an emulation is, analogously to that he doesn't know what an experiment is.

And just to correct a mistake - I looked up the Z80, and no, that beast was way too early for me to have used. Guess I was thinking of some other ***80 card, but that seems to cover a lot of ground.

Just like writing a sentence from random words. You don't know how to code in this do you?

Bobby has shown us a new law, call it Bobby Poe's law:

The longer a comment, the higher the probability that he wil cut and paste it in it's entirety. The more clear the comment, the higher the probability that he will not understand it. Of course the probability that he will ever read and understand any primary literature is zero.

I looked up the Z80, and no, that beast was way too early for me to have used.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: Oops, too late. Well, at least it shows that Bobby doesn't know what an emulation is, analogously to that he doesn't know what an experiment is. And just to correct a mistake - I looked up the Z80, and no, that beast was way too early for me to have used. Guess I was thinking of some other ***80 card, but that seems to cover a lot of ground.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said:

Robin said: And given that we would NEVER create things the way nature does (hence the reason we can immediately tell when something is 'natural' vs "man-made"), there is no way to infer any intelligence in the process to make anything natural.

A minor nitpick - we do sometimes create things by the same processes (variation and selection), but we wouldn't accept the same solutions, for example unnecessary interdependence. I'm always reminded of "The Mote in God's Eye", where the motes consistently kicked humans ass by their ability to construct technology that at minute levels performed at least two functions at once. Something that we humans both suck at and in reality wants to avoid, at least at the higher levels. What would you do if your house broke down and at the same time it was your car? [Okay, mobile homes, so bad example. Or not.]

Getting processing speed out of feeble chips often means I spend a lot of time writing highly optimized assembler. Assembler sucks.

Bobby said: OK we can debate the parameters on which a program can generate usable code. And even if we could design a program to generate code thru darwinistic means (and there are now some really good programs that do that ) it really does not substantiate that this is how humans got here.

Bobby said: OK we can debate the parameters on which a program can generate usable code. And even if we could design a program to generate code thru darwinistic means (and there are now some really good programs that do that ) it really does not substantiate that this is how humans got here.

This and the Dawnkins fiasco programs are both teleological. Giving more weight to ID rather than Dism.

Also I think your constant use of the childish 'IDiot' term just makes you look less professional. Sounds like a junior high taunt. Grow up!

Draconiz said: You haven't read anything have you????

Bobby said: Stop the trolling please! Thank You.

Bobby said:

Stanton said:

Draconiz said: You haven't read anything have you????

No, he has not: Bobby's purpose here is to aggravate people with his arrogant stupidity. He never came here to learn anything.

Stop the trolling please! Thank You.

Slightly off topic, but...
For you asm programmers out there check out Steve Gibbson (of SpinRite fame)'s Small Is Beautiful Starter Kit:

http://www.grc.com/smgassembly.htm

It's a demo for writing Windows programs in asm.
Pretty fun stuff and not as wordy as you might expect.

OK we can debate the parameters on which a program can generate usable code.

And even if we could design a program to generate code thru darwinistic means (and there are now some really good programs that do that )

it really does not substantiate that this is how humans got here.

This and the Dawnkins fiasco programs are both teleological. Giving more weight to ID rather than Dism.

So far Bobby has ignored responses to his various questions:

1. Why should ID be considered unscientific? Bobby failed to followup on the various analyses that explained why.

2. Whale morphology, especially the movement of the blowhole which were already explained to him in an earlier posting.

3. The definition of "MET". Bobby has yet to explain the meaning of the term and how he interprets it.

4. Evolutionary fitness landscapes. Bobby asserted that such landscapes are imaginary and that they rarely are suitable for evolutionary processes. Bobby copied said 'response' from a placeholder article at Wikipedia.

5. When shown a program which evolved, Bobby 'argued' that since the compiler and the software which were used to create this program were intelligently designed, the examples should be considered evidence for ID. Worse, by calling the program teleological he now 'asserts' that the example is a better example of ID, with not supporting logic or reason.

6. When asked about ape/man, he was provided with many papers. No response.

7. When asked for ID research he provided some meaningless examples which have no relevance for ID but rather attempt to show the 'edge of evolution'.

And the list grows ever longer without Bobby being able or willing to discuss anything on its merits. And yet he has the audacity to accuse others of being trolls.

Once again I thank Bobby for providing this forum and its readers with such an excellent set of examples as to why ID is scientifically without content.

Rolf: OT, but this thread already is corrupted beyond repair.

If any of you who are looking from outside at us here in the United States have been puzzled about why we have had the current Bush administration for the last eight years, take a look at our troll bobby.

These are the kinds of people the political mastermind, Karl Rove, has been able to mobilize in recent elections. And it is also the reason that the upcoming election will be another unnecessary cliff-hanger. We aren’t out of the woods yet.

No wonder some of the early framers of our Constitution were skeptical about democracy.

Stanton said: The term "IDiot" is shorthand for "Intelligent Design Proponent"

Bobby said: This and the Dawnkins fiasco programs are both teleological. Giving more weight to ID rather than Dism

Keep up the good work PvM, this thread is becoming most interesting now that you've, ahem, hamstrung the troll and forced him to stay substantive and on topic.

Speaking of which, wasn't there an interesting argument concerning the development of full fledged people from embryos that wasn't addressed by His Trollness? I've forgotten the details.

Speaking of which, wasn’t there an interesting argument concerning the development of full fledged people from embryos that wasn’t addressed by His Trollness? I’ve forgotten the details.

The troll only wants to disrupt, ... It’s the three year old’s taunting shtick.

Science Avenger said: Try this one out Bobby. Posit that I argue that deer can evolve more speed by running from wolves, and some guy, call him Jacob, claims it requires intelligence for them to do so. Now, if I build artificial wolves that act exactly as real wolves do, and I set them loose chasing the deer, and the deer evolve speed, which position have I supported?

Science Avenger said:

Bobby said: This and the Dawnkins fiasco programs are both teleological. Giving more weight to ID rather than Dism

Again, your argument is akin to saying that an experiment in a lab that reproduced the static electricity, moisture and (help me here physicists) everything else necessary for naturally occurring lightning gives more weight to the theory that lightning comes from Zeus. Can't you see that your POV dismisses all lab work? Try this one out Bobby. Posit that I argue that deer can evolve more speed by running from wolves, and some guy, call him Jacob, claims it requires intelligence for them to do so. Now, if I build artificial wolves that act exactly as real wolves do, and I set them loose chasing the deer, and the deer evolve speed, which position have I supported? Your arguments to date imply that you'd side with Jacob, and claim that since I used my intelligence to construct the artificial wolves, I've therefore supported ID, and not evolution. Correct? If not, why not?

Science Avenger said: Again, your argument is akin to saying that an experiment in a lab that reproduced the static electricity, moisture and (help me here physicists) everything else necessary for naturally occurring lightning

Bobby continues to contribute in a manner contrary to the rules I outlined for him, his childish taunts have been removed.

Bobby continues to contribute in a manner contrary to the rules I outlined for him, his childish taunts have been removed.

I have learned how weak the Darwinist arguments are.

Bobby said:

So far Bobby has ignored responses to his various questions: 1. Why should ID be considered unscientific? Bobby failed to followup on the various analyses that explained why. 2. Whale morphology, especially the movement of the blowhole which were already explained to him in an earlier posting. 3. The definition of “MET”. Bobby has yet to explain the meaning of the term and how he interprets it. 4. Evolutionary fitness landscapes. Bobby asserted that such landscapes are imaginary and that they rarely are suitable for evolutionary processes. Bobby copied said ‘response’ from a placeholder article at Wikipedia. 5. When shown a program which evolved, Bobby ‘argued’ that since the compiler and the software which were used to create this program were intelligently designed, the examples should be considered evidence for ID. Worse, by calling the program teleological he now ‘asserts’ that the example is a better example of ID, with not supporting logic or reason. 6. When asked about ape/man, he was provided with many papers. No response. 7. When asked for ID research he provided some meaningless examples which have no relevance for ID but rather attempt to show the ‘edge of evolution’. And the list grows ever longer without Bobby being able or willing to discuss anything on its merits. And yet he has the audacity to accuse others of being trolls. Once again I thank Bobby for providing this forum and its readers with such an excellent set of examples as to why ID is scientifically without content.

All of the above is in error. Sorry I really have constructive things to do. I do learn here tho. I have learn how weak the Darwinist arguments are.

Bobby said: I do not feed trolls. It is stupid it just encourages them. I do feed the trolls here. I try to find a post that is the least trollish and has some logic and respond. Dont you think it is stupid to feed trolls?

stevaroni said:

Bobby continues to contribute in a manner contrary to the rules I outlined for him, his childish taunts have been removed.

Where do they go again? I thought the software flushes to somewhere on antievolution.org, but I can't seem to find it.

Contrary to Bobby's claims he seems to refuse or be unable to respond to postings that are 'least trollish'.

Flush Flush.

Bobby, I have no idea where you find the time to respond to trolls and troll yourself but you are once again violating the rules I outlined for you.

I report them as spam, much more appropriate than a flush to the bathroom wall, I will collect a set and them flush them to the bathroom wall if this is of any interest to the readers.

PvM said: Contrary to Bobby's claims he seems to refuse or be unable to respond to postings that are 'least trollish'. Flush Flush. Bobby, I have no idea where you find the time to respond to trolls and troll yourself but you are once again violating the rules I outlined for you.

I do not feed trolls. It is stupid it just encourages them. I do feed the trolls here. I try to find a post that is the least trollish and has some logic and respond.

A somewhat off-topic question:

I have noticed that attempting to post sometimes comes up with an unspecified error (“an error occurred”).

The post doesn’t appear, but after trying again, it appears twice or three times depending on how often the error occurs.

Is this some kind of response to simultaneous postings being processed at the same instant; a bug of some kind?

Mike Elzinga said: A somewhat off-topic question: I have noticed that attempting to post sometimes comes up with an unspecified error (“an error occurred”). The post doesn’t appear, but after trying again, it appears twice or three times depending on how often the error occurs. Is this some kind of response to simultaneous postings being processed at the same instant; a bug of some kind?

This has happened to many. Try highlighting your comment and copying (so you don’t lose it - just in case) Exit the site completely and then come back to see if it is there.

Bobby,

Show me your best evidence that humans did not evolve from bacteria. It must a peer reviewed article. I will read it, really I will.

Show me your best evidence that humans did not evolve from bacteria. It must a peer reviewed article. I will read it, really I will.

While it has been a bit entertaining, and the responses have been enlightening, I call "Poe" on the whole "Bobby" thing. "I do not feed trolls" indeed. Now we're just getting silly.

that humans did not evolve from bacteria

.. there is insufficient data to accpet the above or its inverse. thats how science works.

Mike Elzinga said: I have noticed that attempting to post sometimes comes up with an unspecified error (“an error occurred”). The post doesn’t appear, but after trying again, it appears twice or three times depending on how often the error occurs.

Bobby said:

PvM said: Contrary to Bobby's claims he seems to refuse or be unable to respond to postings that are 'least trollish'. Flush Flush. Bobby, I have no idea where you find the time to respond to trolls and troll yourself but you are once again violating the rules I outlined for you.

Too bad I am the only one that has to obey the 'rules'.

Bobby said: Tell me why you automatically dismiss evolutionary computer algorithms. ...I do not dismiss them. If you had read carefully you would have seen that I said many are being used successfully esp in engineering. Are they supportive Darwinism. Of course not.

Bobby said: that humans did not evolve from bacteria .. there is insufficient data to accpet the above or its inverse. thats how science works.

Q. Tell me why you automatically dismiss evolutionary computer algorithms. A. I do not dismiss them. If you had read carefully you would have seen that I said many are being used successfully esp in engineering. Are they supportive Darwinism. Of course not.

Bobby,

I demand to see your reference, otherwise I don't accpet what you say. Don't forget, it must be peer reviewed.

David Stanton said: Bobby, I demand to see your reference, otherwise I don't accpet what you say. Don't forget, it must be peer reviewed.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: And just to correct a mistake - I looked up the Z80, and no, that beast was way too early for me to have used. Guess I was thinking of some other ***80 card, but that seems to cover a lot of ground.

PvM said: So far Bobby has ignored responses to his various questions: 1. Why should ID be considered unscientific? Bobby failed to followup on the various analyses that explained why. 2. Whale morphology, especially the movement of the blowhole which were already explained to him in an earlier posting. ...etc... And the list grows ever longer without Bobby being able or willing to discuss anything on its merits. And yet he has the audacity to accuse others of being trolls. Once again I thank Bobby for providing this forum and its readers with such an excellent set of examples as to why ID is scientifically without content.

even if we could design a program to generate code thru darwinistic means (and there are now some really good programs that do that) it really does not substantiate that this is how humans got here.

Dan said: Bobby brought up the issue of computer simulations, and then said

even if we could design a program to generate code thru darwinistic means (and there are now some really good programs that do that) it really does not substantiate that this is how humans got here.

If it's so irrelevant, then why did Bobby raise the issue in the first place?

If it’s so irrelevant, then why did Bobby raise the issue in the first place?

The comment on snowflakes is sophistry, poor scholarship and sucking up to the materialists. Everyone knows water crystalizes depending on the thoughts people have who pass it. That was proven. Hence snowflakes are an outer manifestation of inner truth.

Bobby said: As much fun as it is exposing the fallacies in your arguments I cannot justify spending more than some minutes on it daily. ( I feel there are more important things to do.)

There are about 5 people barraging me with questions. Pvm: be the moderator and YOU pick out the most important question and I will address it. It is illogical to expect me to respond to all.

Bobby Poe,

No, it is illogical for you to barrage everyone with your endless inane questions and ignore all of the responses. You have utterly falied to show any fallacy in any argument presented to you while your arguments have been systematically demolished. You have ignored references provided to you and you have failed to provide any references at all to support your nonsensical assertations.

As for letting PvM decide what you should respond to, he already did and once again you completely ignored him. He specifically requested that you respond only to the references that had been provided ang you never read any of them. You are a worthless piece of crap.

I don't want this comment to get any longer or the risk that you will copy and paste it without a substantive response will increase dramatically. Until you read the references we provided and provide some of your own no one will take anything you say seriously. Funny that you had the time to post stupid questions but not the time to respond to any intelligent questions.

David Stanton said: I don't want this comment to get any longer or the risk that you will copy and paste it without a substantive response will increase dramatically. Until you read the references we provided and provide some of your own no one will take anything you say seriously. Funny that you had the time to post stupid questions but not the time to respond to any intelligent questions.

And given as how Bobby makes a big stink about not wanting to answer the questions put to him, or take responsibility for supporting the stupid claims he's made, can we just put this thread down, and send Bobby's IPs to the Bathroom Wall forever?

I'm still waiting for Bobby to explain to me what's wrong with my Zeus Designer Theory of Lightning.

As well as explaining how testing paleontologists' ability to discern fake fossils from real ones has anything to do with ID.

I agree with Stanton. Bobby's reduced to playing his "I know what you are but what am I" game of calling everyone else trolls. Flush 'em all until he comes back with substantive answers to the many questions he's been asked.

Bobby Poe,

Are Bobby, Jacob, etc. many different trolls or the same? You really can't complain if anyone else breaks the rules now can you? Congratulations for at least only copying the part of the post that you made a pseudo response to.

Now Bobby, about a "person who accepts all of evolution" but has some other religious beliefs, do you know such a person? You are on record as saying that whales couldn't possibly evolve and denying that there is any evidence that humans come from bacteria, so it definately isn't you. Now, do you have any peer reviewed references that show that whales couldn't evolve?

Bobby said: As much fun as it is exposing the fallacies in your arguments I cannot justify spending more than some minutes on it daily. ( I feel there are more important things to do.)

There are about 5 people barraging me with questions. Pvm: be the moderator and YOU pick out the most important question and I will address it. It is illogical to expect me to respond to all.

Bobby said: So IDers are Idiots. What about a person who accepts all of evolution except that God creates personally creates a soul for each person that is conceived? Would you consider a person who believes that an 'idiot'?

Bobby sez... As much fun as it is exposing the fallacies in your arguments I cannot justify spending more than some minutes on it daily.

God is not a scientific concept. It is a matter of faith. So it would not be in the literature. I never said it would be. Are you following this OK?

Science Avenger said: I'm still waiting for Bobby to explain to me what's wrong with my Zeus Designer Theory of Lightning.

Bobby said:

Paul Burnett said:

Bobby / goff said: ...God creates personally creates a soul for each person that is conceived?

Please share a few peer-reviewed citations in the actual scientific literature that that hypothesis has been proven.

God is not a scientific concept. It is a matter of faith. So it would not be in the literature. I never said it would be. Are you following this OK?

Bobby said: Sorry everyone. I know my commentaries are in great demand here but I only have time to help just a few people each day. Like I said I have many constructive things that I do and this is just a bit of a diversion. One at a time. I will try to acomodate as many as I can. But there is a supply and demand problem here. Thank you.

Bobby said: Would a person who believes that God guides evolution at least occasionally be an 'idiot'?

So, bobby the Boob now admits that ID is not science, never was science, and never could be science

^ Really depends on your definition of science. Of course by many definitions neither Darwinism or ID would be science. By others both would be.

Bobby has chosen to ignore the rules laid out for him.

Flush

Bobby said: So, bobby the Boob now admits that ID is not science, never was science, and never could be science ^ Really depends on your definition of science. Of course by many definitions neither Darwinism or ID would be science. By others both would be.

Bobby sez.. Really depends on your definition of science.

David Stanton said: Bobby Poe, No, it is illogical for you to barrage everyone with your endless inane questions and ignore all of the responses. You have utterly falied to show any fallacy in any argument presented to you while your arguments have been systematically demolished. You have ignored references provided to you and you have failed to provide any references at all to support your nonsensical assertations. As for letting PvM decide what you should respond to, he already did and once again you completely ignored him. He specifically requested that you respond only to the references that had been provided ang you never read any of them. You are a worthless piece of crap. I don't want this comment to get any longer or the risk that you will copy and paste it without a substantive response will increase dramatically. Until you read the references we provided and provide some of your own no one will take anything you say seriously. Funny that you had the time to post stupid questions but not the time to respond to any intelligent questions.

Bobby said:

Robin said:

Bobby said: So IDers are Idiots. What about a person who accepts all of evolution except that God creates personally creates a soul for each person that is conceived? Would you consider a person who believes that an 'idiot'?

This would be an example of setting up a strawman based on an equivocation. IDiots are those who subscribe to and promote the ideologically-based propaganda that there is an "alternative" scientific approach to understanding life on this planet called Intelligent Design. A person who accepts Evolution and who happens to believe in (a) God who creates a soul for each person would not be an IDiot if said person understands the difference between his or her theistic beliefs and science and recognizes that ID is the former and not the latter.

OK. That was a pretty good answer. Would a person who believes that God guides evolution at least occasionally be an 'idiot'?

Bobby's response shows that he is still unwilling and unable to present a logical argument. It's not the statement that there are 'many definitions of science' but rather his claims regarding Darwinism and ID which I find lacking in reasoned argument.
For someone who demands peer reviewed research from others, he seems to not hold himself to such standards.

Flush...

Bobby said: I am surprised you are not aware there are many definitions of what is 'science'. Try googling and I think you will see quite a few.

Robin said:

Bobby said: I am surprised you are not aware there are many definitions of what is 'science'. Try googling and I think you will see quite a few.

LOL! I just did a search on Yahoo! on the "definition science". Of the first 11 references provided (the first page returned), 9 are identical definitions. Of the other two, one was a definition of science fiction and the other was a reference on the Center for Science and Culture's proposed change to the definition of science. Even Aboundingjoy.com, an ID proponent site, used the exact same definition provided by the other dictionary sites. Bottom line, I'm not sure what bobby means by 'quite a few' definitions of science. Seems the definition is pretty straight-forward.

PvM said: Bobby's response shows that he is still unwilling and unable to present a logical argument. It's not the statement that there are 'many definitions of science' but rather his claims regarding Darwinism and ID which I find lacking in reasoned argument. For someone who demands peer reviewed research from others, he seems to not hold himself to such standards. Flush...

Bobby said:

PvM said: Bobby's response shows that he is still unwilling and unable to present a logical argument. It's not the statement that there are 'many definitions of science' but rather his claims regarding Darwinism and ID which I find lacking in reasoned argument. For someone who demands peer reviewed research from others, he seems to not hold himself to such standards. Flush...

Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. ^^ would you consider the above a good defintion of ID?

How about the following definition for "design"

"the set theoretic complement of the disjunction regularity-or-chance"?

and "complexity" of a system

"the negative base 2 logarithm of the probability that the system can be explained by a particular hypothesis"

PvM said: How about the following definition for "design" "the set theoretic complement of the disjunction regularity-or-chance"? and "complexity" of a system "the negative base 2 logarithm of the probability that the system can be explained by a particular hypothesis"

Bobby said: So, bobby the Boob now admits that ID is not science, never was science, and never could be science ^ Really depends on your definition of science. Of course by many definitions neither Darwinism or ID would be science. By others both would be.

Bobby said: 1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding 2 a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study the science of theology b: something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge have it down to a science 3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science 4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws cooking is both a science and an art ^^ you must be using a different google than I. this is just one of the sites that came up for me.

Bobby said: Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. ^^ would you consider the above a good defintion of ID?

Bobby said:

PvM said: How about the following definition for "design" "the set theoretic complement of the disjunction regularity-or-chance"? and "complexity" of a system "the negative base 2 logarithm of the probability that the system can be explained by a particular hypothesis"

'Design' is different than 'intelligent design'

So you feel the wiki definition is in error?

Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence. It contends that the directed organization of living things cannot be accounted for by purely blind natural forces but also requires intelligent agency for its proper explanation. Intelligent design needs to be distinguished from apparent design and optimal design. Apparent design looks designed but actually isn’t. Optimal design is perfect design. The adjective “intelligent” in front of “design” stresses that the design in question is actual, but makes no assumption about the optimality of design.

Bobby said:

PvM said: How about the following definition for "design" "the set theoretic complement of the disjunction regularity-or-chance"? and "complexity" of a system "the negative base 2 logarithm of the probability that the system can be explained by a particular hypothesis"

'Design' is different than 'intelligent design' So you feel the wiki definition is in error?

Bobby said: Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. ^^ would you consider the above a good defintion of ID?

I think everyone understands intuitively what "undirected" means in this context. It means, any explanation of how anything came about, that omits the supernatural (whatever that means) intervention of the creationist god, for purposes ascribed to that god by creationists.

As I understand it, the general idea is that the creationist god actually does everything, but some things are so essential to creationist postulates that the role their god plays in them (presumed a priori and not to be doubted)
demands center stage and overriding emphasis. And therefore, anything that even glances in the direction of de-emphasizing that role in our own exalted existence is not acceptable.

Look, we all know goddidit. Let's not play games. The bible says it, therefore it's true. If science sees it differently, science is wrong. This isn't a matter of who is right; that's predetermined. This is a matter of correcting obvious error, but without looking excessively religious while we do it.

PvM said: How about the following definition for “design” “the set theoretic complement of the disjunction regularity-or-chance”? and “complexity” of a system “the negative base 2 logarithm of the probability that the system can be explained by a particular hypothesis”

Flint said: I think everyone understands intuitively what "undirected" means in this context. It means, any explanation of how anything came about, that omits the supernatural (whatever that means) intervention of the creationist god, for purposes ascribed to that god by creationists.

As I understand it, the general idea is that the creationist god actually does everything, but some things are so essential to creationist postulates that the role their god plays in them (presumed a priori and not to be doubted) demands center stage and overriding emphasis. And therefore, anything that even glances in the direction of de-emphasizing that role in our own exalted existence is not acceptable. Look, we all know goddidit. Let's not play games. The bible says it, therefore it's true. If science sees it differently, science is wrong. This isn't a matter of who is right; that's predetermined. This is a matter of correcting obvious error, but without looking excessively religious while we do it.

Flint said (sarcastically): Look, we all know goddidit. Let's not play games. The bible says it, therefore it's true. If science sees it differently, science is wrong.

I was hoping to get bobby to actually define the term so I know what he means when using it. I know…I know…there is little likelihood of that happening, but I was tossing the opportunity out there nonetheless.

No, it’s a crap definition because it doesn’t really say anything. “Explained by an intelligent cause” sounds like some intelligent cause is going to pop up and explain something to us.

^^ it is wiki's def. then you tell me what intelligent design is then.

you really should try to change it on wiki. you know that def was done mostly by anti-ID people.

You just made me feel ... what shall I say ... experienced.

I used to write assembler for a Z80.

Yeah, I feel old too. I used to do a lot of CPM and MSDOS systems programming on the side in the early '80s. I even brought up CPM on our local mini*, a DEC VAX (remember those?), and I wrote a Z80 emulator as the core (in VMS Pascal, no less :)). I used the Z80 architecture because I just happened to have Intel's technical specs for that chip handy, rather than the 8080; if I recall corrrctly, the Z80 just sported an extended instruction set of the 8080.

Marshall University a quarter century ago. Good times!

*The reason we did this was a little bizarre. We happened to have a large number of data/software on 8-inch floppies in CPM format, and the only 8-inch floppy drive in town was the console floppy on the VAX :) I'm not sure why the VAX sported such a beast; if I recall, we got all our old software updates on mag tape.

Bobby said: No, it’s a crap definition because it doesn’t really say anything. “Explained by an intelligent cause” sounds like some intelligent cause is going to pop up and explain something to us. ^^ it is wiki's def. then you tell me what intelligent design is then. you really should try to change it on wiki. you know that def was done mostly by anti-ID people.

Bobby said: 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences. 2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. 3. any of the branches of natural or physical science. 4. systematized knowledge in general. 5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study. 6. a particular branch of knowledge. 7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency. ^^ #8 from yahoo.com

Why not use the definition provided by ISCID, the home of the defunct ID publication PCID?

^^ Sure anything you can accept.

Bobby said: No, it’s a crap definition because it doesn’t really say anything. “Explained by an intelligent cause” sounds like some intelligent cause is going to pop up and explain something to us. ^^ it is wiki's def. then you tell me what intelligent design is then. you really should try to change it on wiki. you know that def was done mostly by anti-ID people.

Bobby said: Or to put it another way, were I there to witness the ID event, what exactly would I see? ^^ Or to put it another way, were I there to witness the evolutionary event, what exactly would I see? (When the reptile turns into a mammal? )

Bobby said:

Robin said:

Bobby said: No, it’s a crap definition because it doesn’t really say anything. “Explained by an intelligent cause” sounds like some intelligent cause is going to pop up and explain something to us. ^^ it is wiki's def. then you tell me what intelligent design is then. you really should try to change it on wiki. you know that def was done mostly by anti-ID people.

First the dictionary, now Wikipedia...don't you know how to look up a reference, bobby? It isn't "wiki's def" nor was it done "mostly by anti-ID people". It is the Discovery Institute's definition with reference to the IDEA club's own use in its literature. Here, from the References and notes section in the wikipedia entry: ^ a b "Top Questions-1.What is the theory of intelligent design?". Discovery Institute. Retrieved on 2007-05-13.. ^ "Primer: Intelligent Design Theory in a Nutshell" (PDF). Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center (2004). Retrieved on 2007-05-13. And, as noted by the author of the Wiki reference: "It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer.[3]" Hence the reason it is not considered science.

You must not know how wiki works.

well anyhow you think my def is no good then you give me one you think is good.

Bobby said:

Robin said:

Bobby said: No, it’s a crap definition because it doesn’t really say anything. “Explained by an intelligent cause” sounds like some intelligent cause is going to pop up and explain something to us. ^^ it is wiki's def. then you tell me what intelligent design is then. you really should try to change it on wiki. you know that def was done mostly by anti-ID people.

First the dictionary, now Wikipedia...don't you know how to look up a reference, bobby? It isn't "wiki's def" nor was it done "mostly by anti-ID people". It is the Discovery Institute's definition with reference to the IDEA club's own use in its literature. Here, from the References and notes section in the wikipedia entry: ^ a b "Top Questions-1.What is the theory of intelligent design?". Discovery Institute. Retrieved on 2007-05-13.. ^ "Primer: Intelligent Design Theory in a Nutshell" (PDF). Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center (2004). Retrieved on 2007-05-13. And, as noted by the author of the Wiki reference: "It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer.[3]" Hence the reason it is not considered science.

You must not know how wiki works. well anyhow you think my def is no good then you give me one you think is good.

Robin said: I was actually being serious about the question and statement because I've heard explanations for "undirected" ranging from "purposeless" to "unguided", "unintelligent", "immoral" (not kidding), and "random".

What would you see? Well if you had the right tools, and lots of time you might see something like a genetic mutation that would result in a regulatory change that would cause development of a longer nasal bone generation after generation, in effect moving the nostrils further back on the head.

Right, your go: what would we see if we could witness an ID event? A flash of lightning? Angels descending? Really, we want to know.

development of a longer nasal bone generation after generation,

^^ we have observed the above?

reptiles ever turned into mammals.

^^

reptiles are not ancestors of mammals?

Right, your go: what would we see if we could witness an ID event? A flash of lightning? Angels descending? Really, we want to know.

^^ spaceships depositing DNA material into the oceans

Bobby said: reptiles never turned into mammals. ^^ reptiles are not ancestors of mammals?

Bobby said: Right, your go: what would we see if we could witness an ID event? A flash of lightning? Angels descending? Really, we want to know. ^^ spaceships depositing DNA material into the oceans

Bobby said: you really should try to change it on wiki. you know that def was done mostly by anti-ID people.

Mike Elzinga said:

Boltzmann, when he developed his microscopic interpretation of entropy in terms of randomness, was inspired by Charles Darwin and evolution in the first place.

I am not aware of any inspiration for Boltzmann’s work by Darwin [...] And Boltzmann was also influenced by others such as Maxwell, Ostwald, Gibbs, Clausius.

The development of thermodynamics has a rocky and confusing history [...]

stevaroni said: Every time I hear those Dembski-isms, I'm always struck by contrast to the simple, nonevasive nature of actual science, which a very respected professor once defined to me as... "Basically it boils down to only including shit we can actually measure"

Wikipedia: In the philosophy of science, instrumentalism is the view that concepts and theories are merely useful instruments whose worth is measured not by whether the concepts and theories are true or false (or correctly depict reality), but by how effective they are in explaining and predicting phenomena.

Robin said: Now, if one tries to apply this approach in order to discuss the relative merits and weaknesses of the Intelligent Design theory, one quickly finds that there is nothing to discuss.

Bobby said: ^ interested that you just declare things without a logical reason. But you have faith.

Boltzmann directly attributed inspiration to Darwin. (I’ve mentioned this here before–with a reference–but I can’t figure out how to google pandasthumb.org directly.)

Bobby said: Now, if one tries to apply this approach in order to discuss the relative merits and weaknesses of the Intelligent Design theory, one quickly finds that there is nothing to discuss. ^ interested that you just declare things without a logical reason. But you have faith.

Bobby said: when one say wiki they are referring to wikipedia.org. are you not internet literate?

A good flush always cheers me up

Bobby said: Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." ^^ would you consider the above a good defintion of ID?

Bobby said: Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." ^^ would you consider the above a good defintion of ID?

Bobby said: Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." ^^ would you consider the above a good defintion of ID?

PvM: A good flush always cheers me up

For the IDiot Bobby:

Biology (a pure science) reveals many wonderful designs in organisms that can be used in technology (applied science). That's because the same laws of physics and chemistry are applicable to all branches of science, thus demonstrating its fundamental unity. The eye is often compared to a camera. The crucial difference between the eyes of animals and those invented by people is that the former is thought to have resulted from the trial and error process of natural selection, while the other resulted from intelligent design. Those who infer that the natural eyes of organisms must also have resulted from Intelligent Design are using a logical fallacy (assuming facts not in evidence). Cameras are not alive and do not reproduce by themselves. Living things are alive and do reproduce by themselves. Thus the comparison between them is not absolute.

stevaroni said:

PvM: A good flush always cheers me up

Me too. But I suspect we're talking about different things.

I think this "bobby" stuff has gone on long enough, guys. He's had his 9 days of being center of the universe, and at 20 pages it's doubtful any other lurkers are going to be educated on some finer point of this-or-that by now. Let's all just move on?

You guys are still going at it? Sheesh!

On Bobby: All your requests for substance, clarification, definitions etc. from him are, as you may have noticed, in vain. The reason is he can't respond in any meaningful way. He knows what his position is (Darwin bad/ID good) but he doesn't really understand it. He doesn't want evolution to be true, but he knows that it is widely accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists. But he can't dismiss science (antibiotics,satellites,the internet etc.)So it gnaws at him. Along comes ID and it (here's the key) sounds good. Dilemma solved! But scientists -the bastards- treat it with undisguised contempt. Dilemma back. So he marches in his own idio(t)syncratic way to do battle with the forces of darkness. You may not have noticed, but he's not very good at it. He doesn't understand evolutionary theory, knows very little, and would like to know less, about the vast amount of evidence to support it. He also lacks the critical thinking and language skills needed to make even a half competent effort. As you've probably noticed all of his semicogent attempts, all of them, have been cut and paste jobs-always unattributed. His own efforts are always some combination of inane,incoherent, nonsensical and ignorant."Spaceships dumping DNA material into the ocean." He doesn't read your references because he wouldn't understand them if he did, and wouldn't be able to compose a rebuttal if he did understand. He doesn't understand your arguments, truth be told he doesn't understand his own arguments. He probably doesn't understand any of the things he's cut and pasted here, all he knows is that they sounded good. Very scientifical and everything.
He is hopelessly out of his depth but unreasonably determined. His trolling isn't due to malice it's just the best he can do.