Creationism education bills

[Me_2006 14]

Huh! Do you really think that the reverse of this isn't true? I'm yanking you around for my amusement. Fock dude: are you that dense as to not understand that I had the power to pull you in here and make you whine?

 

Show me where you used this power, please. And follow it with where I was whining.

 

I've got you wrapped around my focking finger, pinhead. You're a marionette; bobbing around at the end of strings which I am pulling. I am the fisherman, and you've chomped the hook. Keep talking.

 

 

So these 17+ pages of nonsense were just trying to get me to come make fun of you? Shucks, Mensa, you ol' lug you!

 

 

Sorry to those searching for the meaning of life and how we came to exist. This was all a clever scheme to hook me. And I fell for it. In my shame, I will end this wretched life. Goodbye, internet people.

 

 

Come on, man. You're so full of shiit it's pushing you to double digit body fat. Though I'm honored to know I could crush such an intelligent man to the point of 'yeah, well, jokes on you! I was only kidding all along!'

[MedStudent 56]

Utterly dishonest. You think any of you will win by continuing to insult me? You think that bothers me? That fuels me; I'm not going to quit ever. I will outlast you; not a one of you has the intestinal fortitude for persistance that I possess. Not one.

 

You are the only one in here who has clearly lied with your niece story.

 

And we'll add the intestnal fortitude to your arrogant list.

[MedStudent 56]

You're so full of shiit it's pushing you to double digit body fat.

 

best line of this 18 page thread!

[Gepetto 1,454]

He's gone full retard.

 

[Frank M 181]

Brilliant writing. Dembski is a focking dishonest, mischaracterizing plagiarizer.

Fixed.

 

And, just like you, he's wrong.

 

Science, if it is to constitute an unbiased investigation into nature, must give the full range of logically possible explanations a fair chance to succeed

 

ID has been given plenty of chances to succeed and will continue to have plenty of chances to succeed. So far, it hasn't. Of course, that doesn't stop turds like this from claiming some sort of innate bias to compensate for their lack of success due to faulty hypotheses, complete lack of experimentation, and no evidence to back up any of their claims.

 

But it sure sounds brilliant to some.

[Gepetto 1,454]

Vizzini (IMMensaMind): I can't compete with you physically, and you're no match for my brains.

Man in Black: You're that smart?

Vizzini (IMMensaMind): Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?

Man in Black: Yes.

Vizzini (IMMensaMind): Morons.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQNHBUqfLnM

[IMMensaMind 462]

You are the only one in here who has clearly lied with your niece story.

 

And we'll add the intestnal fortitude to your arrogant list.

 

Hey pr!ck: I never lied about that. I explained to you the whole thing. I still don't know if that over-the-top video was the one my sister-in-law complained was shown in her daughter's class or not, but I know for sure that it was a 10:10 video, and I know that there are only two on the topic of global warming.

 

So if you want to claim you know I'm lying, prove it, punk. Otherwise, slink your pissant ass back out of here.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Fixed.

 

And, just like you, he's wrong.

 

Really? Prove it. You cannot prove it? You can only argue your position from the level of opinion? Then you're a hypocrite. You cannot say that it's a fact that he's wrong, and simultaneously whine about me presenting things as fact (particularly when I never did that).

 

Can you? Don't be two-faced.

 

 

ID has been given plenty of chances to succeed and will continue to have plenty of chances to succeed. So far, it hasn't. Of course, that doesn't stop turds like this from claiming some sort of innate bias to compensate for their lack of success due to faulty hypotheses, complete lack of experimentation, and no evidence to back up any of their claims.

 

But it sure sounds brilliant to some.

 

His writing is brilliant. Your inability to admit such is clearly just bias against the topic in general.

[MedStudent 56]

Brilliant writing. Dembski is a focking genius.

 

Demski getting owned:

 

 

Rebuttal to William A. Dembski's Posting and to His Book "No Free Lunch"

 

Thomas D. Schneider

 

 

Rebuttal to William A. Dembski's Posting

2001 June 6.

 

William A. Dembski claims (Metanexus: VIEWS 2001.06.05) that the ev program does not demonstrate an information increase. On this page I will correct several errors in his posting. (Note: a critical test of one of his claims is given on another page.)

 

• 
   
  

• As an example of smuggling in complex specified information that is purported to be generated for free, consider the work of Thomas Schneider.

  The ev paper did not make this claim since the phrase "complex specified information" was not used. It is unclear what this means. Shannon used the term "information" in a precise mathematical sense and that is what I use. I will assume that the extra words "complex specified" are jargon that can be dispensed with. Indeed, William A. Dembski assumes that information is specified complexity, so the term is redundant and can be removed.

• Schneider heads a laboratory of experimental and computational biology at the National Cancer Institute. He is well-versed in Shannon's theory of information, regularly applies it in his research, and devotes considerable space to it on his website.
  (2)

  The statement is slightly unclear. I am not the head of LECB (Laboratory of Experimental and Computational Biology). LECB is equivalent to a university department, and I run a lab within it focusing on Molecular Information Theory.

• Starting with an evolutionary algorithm acting on a randomly chosen sequence from the phase space, Schneider then purported to generate an information-rich sequence corresponding to a finely tuned genetic control system in which one part of the genome codes for proteins that precisely bind to another part of the genome.

  It is more precise to say that the information was gained by the set of binding sites. Note the analysis in the paper that shows that the total genomic uncertainty does not change much during the evolution.
   
  

• Schneider thinks that he has generated complex specified information for free, or as he puts it, "from scratch."

  This statement represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the paper. The phrase 'for free' does not appear in the paper. The claim in the <A href="http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev">ev paper is that the information appears under replication, mutation and selection, commonly known as 'evolution'. It is not for free! Half of the population DIES every generation! In the standard example given in the paper, to gain 4 bits required the (virtual) deaths of some 32 organisms x 704 generations = 22528 deaths. On average that's 22528/4 = 5632 deaths per bit. Note that theoretically one could get 1 bit of information with only 1 binary decision. So the evolution is, not surprisingly, a rather inefficient information generating mechanism. No biologist has ever claimed any differently!
   
  Note that "from scratch" does not mean the same thing as "for free". "From scratch" refers (obviously) to the initial condition of the genome which is random in this case so that Rsequence = 0 bits. That is, there is no measurable information in the binding sites at the beginning of the simulation. "For free" would mean "without effort", and the paragraph above demonstrates that there is quite a bit of effort and (virtual) pain for the gains observed.
   
  NOTE ALSO that Dembski has attempted to put words into my head. I did not use the term "complex specificed information" in my paper. This is Dembski's jargon, unique to him. No scientist or engineer uses it. Furthermore, the statement implies that I made the information. That's wrong, it was generated by the process of the program. A careful scholar would avoid incorrect attributions.

• Schneider's choice of fitness function is the most obvious place where he smuggles in complex specified information.

  Counting of the number of mistakes matches what happens in nature, as described above. I only claim that the ev simulation matches what happens in nature in essential points. No smuggling occurs. If Dembski finds that this produces information, then he will understand that the simulation shows that information can be generated in nature solely by replication, mutation and selection. That is information as mathematically defined by Claude Shannon can be generated by Darwinian evolution.

• But there are others. In the _Nucleic Acids Research_ article we've been discussing, he does not list the source code for the program underlying his simulation. For that code he refers readers to the relevant web address. The source code is revealing and shows that Schneider had to do a lot of fine-tuning to his evolutionary algorithm to make his simulation come out right.

  That is quite incorrect. After finishing the writing of my thesis in the spring of 1984 (see Schneider1986) I had a spare week before my thesis defense. I had already determined how to write the evolution program, and I decided to do it as a test of my thesis. I wrote the program in the space of 2 or 3 days. I did not fine-tuning it and yet it gave the result that Rsequence approached Rfrequency. (Tweeking it to work would have invalidated my goal, which was to test my thesis!) At the end of the week I walked into my thesis defense knowing that I could simulate my main thesis using a computer! In any case, I never mentioned that during the defense ... If Dembski will look more closely at the code he will see that it is constructed quite cleanly with lots of documentation (55% of the code characters in ev are in comments). The main loop is: for c := 1 to e.cycles do begin culture(list,e); if (c mod e.storagefrequency) = 0 then putout(e, all); end;where 'e' is a compund variable that contains all other variables ("everything") and putout just saves the current state every once in a while. The culture routine is: e.generation := e.generation + 1; reproduce(e); mutate(e); order(list, e)Note that:

  • 'reproduce' replicates the organisms with fewer mistakes into the places of the ones with more mistakes and does nothing else.
  • 'mutate' makes changes randomly over the genome without regard to where the hits are and it does nothing else.
  • 'order' translates the weight matrix and scans the genome of each organism to determine the number of mistakes. It then sorts the organisms by their number of mistakes, and does nothing else besides data recording into the list file.

  There is no place to fit in special 'fine-tuning'!

   

   

   

  [*]

  For instance, in the crucial paragraph from his article that I quoted above, Schneider remarks parenthetically: "To preserve diversity [of organisms], no replacement takes place if [the number of mistakes is] equal." Schneider's Pascal source code reveals why: "SPECIAL RULE: if the bugs have the same number of mistakes, reproduction (by replacement) does not take place. This ensures that the quicksort algorithm does not affect who takes over the population. [1988 October 26] Without this, the population quickly is taken over and evolution is extremely slow!"(9) Schneider is here fine-tuning his evolutionary algorithm to obtain the results he wants. All such fine-tuning amounts to investigator interference smuggling in complex specified information.

  This is a testable claim, and the test and results are given on another page. The results show clearly that removing the SPECAL RULE has no effect on the gain of information by evolution so William A. Dembski's claim is incorrect.

 

http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/dembski/

[IMMensaMind 462]

Show me where you used this power, please. And follow it with where I was whining.

 

You're here posting. I'm forcing you to waste your breath, while reading what I'm writing. I'd say I have you exactly where I want you.

 

So these 17+ pages of nonsense were just trying to get me to come make fun of you? Shucks, Mensa, you ol' lug you!

 

Oh, you sheeple.

 

Sorry to those searching for the meaning of life and how we came to exist. This was all a clever scheme to hook me. And I fell for it. In my shame, I will end this wretched life. Goodbye, internet people.

 

You're not done yet. Keep posting.

 

Come on, man. You're so full of shiit it's pushing you to double digit body fat. Though I'm honored to know I could crush such an intelligent man to the point of 'yeah, well, jokes on you! I was only kidding all along!'

 

Keep posting!

[IMMensaMind 462]

Demski getting owned:

 

 

 

http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/dembski/

 

Getting "owned"? Are you focking 11? Here's your redirect. Since you're supposed to be some sort of medical student, perhaps you can understand the level of science explained here. There most definitely wasn't any "owning" going on in that response: most of it was minor picking of nits, and much of it has its own problems, explained rather well here:

 

Thomas Schneider (Molecular Information Theory Group A, Laboratory of Experimental and Computational Biology at the National Institutes of Health in Frederick, MD) has written an article entitled, "Dissecting Dembski's 'Complex Specified Information'"1 claiming that specified complexity can be produced though evolutionary mechanisms. In this article, the reproducibility by chance figure Schneider achieved by computer evolution was so intriguingly small (5x10-20), that I couldn't believe it was real. I got Dembski's book, No Free Lunch,2 and looked into Schneider's Ev program3 on the internet, and found interesting discussions in a couple of newsgroups. The following is my impression of how well Dembski's "specified complexity" holds up.

 

Dembski must have felt Schneider's Ev program was enough of a challenge that he addressed it in his book (pp. 213-218). Schneider's standard program simulates a All the DNA contained in an organism or a cell, which includes both the chromosomes within the nucleus and the DNA in mitochondria.genome that evolves 16 regulatory binding sites and a single regulatory The functional and physical unit of heredity passed from parent to offspring. Genes are pieces of DNA, and most genes contain the information for making a specific protein.gene that makes a An organic compound made of amino acids arranged in a linear chain, joined together by peptide bonds between the carboxyl and amino groups of the adjacent amino acid residues.protein that binds to the sites. After 704 generations, the winner binds to the sites with 64 bits of specificity, with no mistakes binding to the non-regulatory parts of the All the DNA contained in an organism or a cell, which includes both the chromosomes within the nucleus and the DNA in mitochondria.genome. The population is held constant during the whole run by killing half of the progeny that make the most mistakes in binding to the 16 sites each generation. The unique thing about the program is that the All the DNA contained in an organism or a cell, which includes both the chromosomes within the nucleus and the DNA in mitochondria.genome, including the 16 sites, 1 regulatory The functional and physical unit of heredity passed from parent to offspring. Genes are pieces of DNA, and most genes contain the information for making a specific protein.gene, and the binding weight matrix/threshold are randomly initialized. This allows Schneider to make the claim that evolution can create "specified complexity" that isn't smuggled in by a designer.

 

Dembski points out in his book that Schneider smuggles in "specified complexity" just by having a fitness function, but its not a weighty argument in my opinion because you essentially get that for free with any organism that replicates where there are scarce resources. However, Dembski does make a substantial point about the smoothness of the fitness function smuggling in "specified complexity." Nature does not produce reproductive fitness functions that without stress are perfectly determinative in a single generation over all individuals like Schneider's fitness function is. Even at the base level, an individual binding site's specificity is smooth in Schneider's program instead of being shape dependent, like Organic compounds made of amino acids arranged in a linear chain, joined together by peptide bonds between the carboxyl and amino groups of the adjacent amino acid residues.proteins are. A single base being off only affects its opposite partner in the Ev program, without considering how the binding An organic compound made of amino acids arranged in a linear chain, joined together by peptide bonds between the carboxyl and amino groups of the adjacent amino acid residues.protein's A group of 20 different kinds of small molecules that link together in long chains to form proteins. Often referred to as the "building blocks" of proteins.amino acids match up with nearby nucleic acid bases and its backbone in the regulatory region. A real regulatory An organic compound made of amino acids arranged in a linear chain, joined together by peptide bonds between the carboxyl and amino groups of the adjacent amino acid residues.protein is tuned to the shape of the binding site, where changes to one base partially affect the binding of neighboring bases instead of the binding of bases being individually tunable. Schneider's weight matrix, which he says simulates the binding and transcription of A group of 20 different kinds of small molecules that link together in long chains to form proteins. Often referred to as the "building blocks" of proteins.amino acids, doesn't comprehend this. Furthermore, development of complex structure seems to involve a cascade of Functional and physical units of heredity passed from parent to offspring. Genes are pieces of DNA, and most genes contain the information for making a specific protein.genes synchronized with other cascades in different parts of the body, through signaling interactions. However, optimizing this traverses a phase space that is neither smooth nor monotonic. I think it's reasonable to assume that many The functional and physical unit of heredity passed from parent to offspring. Genes are pieces of DNA, and most genes contain the information for making a specific protein.gene cascades have a negative selection coefficient until they are in their final form - a sort of irreducible complexity. Take for instance the manufacture of a tear duct that goes from the corner of your lower eyelid through the bone into the back of the nasal cavity. This is only an analogy, but if we assume one The functional and physical unit of heredity passed from parent to offspring. Genes are pieces of DNA, and most genes contain the information for making a specific protein.gene codes for the x, and another for the y and z positions of the source of the tube, then none of the gene's regulatory regions could be optimized apart from the other. In addition, it has to be optimized in concert with the destination x, y, and z position, tube size, and tube material, etc. Evolution is impotent at explaining this kind of complexity, and even more so, molecular machines.

 

I had somewhat of an epiphany when I recognized how Schneider was able to get such a high level of seeming complexity in a computer simulation that, on its surface, didn't seem to smuggle in much "specified complexity." It had to do with setting the A permanent structural alteration in DNA, consisting of either a substitution, insertion or deletion of nucleotide bases.mutation rate to only one per organism per generation. With many Permanent structural alterations in DNA, consisting of either substitutions, insertions or deletions of nucleotide bases.mutations per generation, it's hard to target selection to just one binding site. By limiting it to just one A permanent structural alteration in DNA, consisting of either a substitution, insertion or deletion of nucleotide bases.mutation and providing an overall smooth fitness function for the organism that is additive on those from individual sites, its as though an organism has just 1 binding site which is optimized by selection. This means that if you doubled the number of binding sites to 32 per organism you would probably just have to double or quadruple the number of generations to get a specificity of better than 1 part in 1038. Complexity should not be defined as something that is achievable linearly in time by an unintelligent computer. Schneider makes it appear that big exponents in the information of a complex feature is actually achievable in nature by evolution. However, we know that this level of fine tuning is extremely difficult to achieve for single individual traits produced by cooperating The functional and physical unit of heredity passed from parent to offspring. Genes are pieces of DNA, and most genes contain the information for making a specific protein.gene cascades, and is only conceivable when considering the totality of a number of minimally-complex, independently-optimizable traits in an organism. Dembski needs to further refine his definition of complexity to consider this. Perhaps this would involve something that quantifies not only the information content, but the complexity of the landscape that the information resides on also. Mutual dependence in function and timing adds to the prevalence of peaks and valleys.

 

Schneider et al's other critique seems to be to discount the specification part in "specified complexity" as unmeaningful to science. This has some support due to Dembski's own remark 2.5.1 that "Detachability is always relativized to a subject or subjects possessing certain background knowledge." Above it, Dembski includes detachability as something necessary for his formal way of determining if something has specification. In other words, you can never prove that something has "specified complexity" because you may not have found the individual with the right knowledge, or that knowledge may not yet exist. However, you can prove that something doesn't have "specified complexity." Evolutionists have just as significant a problem. They should be able to suggest functional genetic intermediates between an irreducibly complex function and another function from which it supposedly diverged. In addition, these intermediates should be located no farther away from each other than random chance could reasonably be expected to jump in the time since divergence. There are a limited number of test cases evolution would have had to create complexity. We should be able to get a rough figure for this. I would guess it's something like 10 thousand trillion for land vertebrates. Duplicated Sequence of DNA that are very similar to normal genes but that has been altered so they are not expressed.pseudogenes or DNA that does not carry the information necessary to make a protein.non-coding regions in the All the DNA contained in an organism or a cell, which includes both the chromosomes within the nucleus and the DNA in mitochondria.genome of the size of a typical The functional and physical unit of heredity passed from parent to offspring. Genes are pieces of DNA, and most genes contain the information for making a specific protein.gene, with no "stop" code, only remain within a All the DNA contained in an organism or a cell, which includes both the chromosomes within the nucleus and the DNA in mitochondria.genome for a limited amount of time before they become too short to be useful for anything. It seems to me that we might try researching what kind of complexity a genetic algorithm can produce with this limited number of test cases. I bet it's not much.

 

Molecular Evolution by Wen Hsiung Li,4 says "There is now ample evidence that The functional and physical unit of heredity passed from parent to offspring. Genes are pieces of DNA, and most genes contain the information for making a specific protein.gene duplication is the most important mechanism for generating new Functional and physical units of heredity passed from parent to offspring. Genes are pieces of DNA, and most genes contain the information for making a specific protein.genes and new biochemical processes that have facilitated the evolution of complex organisms from primitive ones." Assuming this is true and that even Darwinists admit there must be at least something like 512 steps to create a new function, we would expect to find many The functional and physical unit of heredity passed from parent to offspring. Genes are pieces of DNA, and most genes contain the information for making a specific protein.gene duplicates that are genetic intermediates - close to the size of an average The functional and physical unit of heredity passed from parent to offspring. Genes are pieces of DNA, and most genes contain the information for making a specific protein.gene (>300 Sequences of three adjacent nucleotides on a strand of DNA or RNA that specifies the genetic code information for encoding a specific amino acid into a polypeptide chain.codons), without a "stop" A specific sequence of three adjacent nucleotides on a strand of DNA or RNA that specifies the genetic code information for encoding a specific amino acid into a polypeptide chain.codon in the coding part, and with a properly located and at least minimally effective The part of a gene that contains the information to turn the gene on or off.promoter and TFIIB binding regions. There is also likely the need for the intermediate to have a The order of nucleotides in a DNA or RNA molecule, or the order of amino acids in a protein molecule.sequence-specific region nearby to trigger Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA rearrangement and expose the The part of a gene that contains the information to turn the gene on or off.promoter region for transcription. A secondary mechanism for the source of genetic raw material for the evolution of complexity, namely the co-opting of one of the two Variant forms of a gene at a particular locus, or location, on a chromosome.alleles of a polymorphic The functional and physical unit of heredity passed from parent to offspring. Genes are pieces of DNA, and most genes contain the information for making a specific protein.gene and slowly modifying one of them, has a similar expectation, in that we should expect to find many Variant forms of a gene at a particular locus, or location, on a chromosome.alleles in our genome that have different shapes and functions, with both having a positive selection coefficient in the same The functional and physical unit of heredity passed from parent to offspring. Genes are pieces of DNA, and most genes contain the information for making a specific protein.gene. These things should be able to be verified now that the physical All the DNA contained in an organism or a cell, which includes both the chromosomes within the nucleus and the DNA in mitochondria.genome mapping of humans is basically complete. So far, no evolutionist has provided any genetic evidence of the plethora of intermediates that would be necessary to affirm their mechanism of producing complexity.

 

I cannot wait for you to be reduced to the pedantic attacking of the source as appearing on a site that actually believes that a God and Science cannot mingle - because of course that's the level of sophistry you'd have left, and nothing else.

[GettnHuge 2]

Midi-chlorians were intelligent microscopic life forms that lived symbiotically inside the cells of all living things. When present in sufficient numbers, they could allow their symbiont to detect the pervasive energy field known as the Force. Midi-chlorian counts were linked to potential in the Force, ranging from normal human levels of 2,500 per cell to the much higher levels of Jedi. Anakin Skywalker (over 20,000 per cell), who was believed to have been conceived by the midi-chlorians. Midi-chlorian counts were measured through a blood test; the Jedi used this method to locate force-sensitive children before their Order was purged by the Galactic Empire. With the rise of the Empire, research into Jedi and the Force was banned, and though midi-chlorians continued to be tested for, sometimes by the Empire itself to root out hidden Jedi and other Force-sensitives, knowledge of them was diminished and inquiries into them were branded as illegal medical research. Midi-chlorians were only rediscovered after a New Jedi Order was founded.

 

When not forbidden, studies of midi-chlorians occurred among those who could master the Force and those who could not. While medical teams worked to understand the relationship between midi-chlorians and the Force, Jedi healers performed their own studies of the organisms. Even more esoteric studies were conducted by the Dark Lord of the Sith Darth Plagueis, who discovered a way to manipulate the midi-chlorians to create new life.

I cannot wait for you to be reduced to the pedantic attacking of the source as appearing on a site that actually believes that a God and Science cannot mingle - because of course that's the level of sophistry you'd have left, and nothing else.

 

This is perhaps your least ridiculous post so far with the most scientific backing.

[IMMensaMind 462]

This is perhaps your least ridiculous post so far with the most scientific backing.

 

Gain some maturity. Read how mature people can discuss this.

[IMMensaMind 462]

I'm curious if posters believe that Dembski's and other's books about ID should be allowed in school libraries? I wonder how frightened of the frailty of their own beliefs they must be to even pause for a moment and wonder if such books should be banned, for fear of such a ridiculous theory displacing their own "scientific truths"?

 

[GettnHuge 2]

Gain some maturity. Read how mature people can discuss this.

 

Why don't you stay there? Your insult babble does you no favours and leaves you bereft of allies. I posted some incredibly juvenile fake

statements of support for you. I provided no details save for a random quote from the Silmarillion. Which I won't even go into the irony of that

as it speaks for itself. And you believed it. You may label me immature all day long, in fact it makes it all the better. Because this immature

fool baited you, hooked you, reeled you in and put you on the wall before you realized what was happening. And now you're just a talking

bass on the wall except you are saying: I wasn't caught. I'm not on a wall. I'm too smart for that.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Why don't you stay there? Your insult babble does you no favours and leaves you bereft of allies. I posted some incredibly juvenile fake

statements of support for you. I provided no details save for a random quote from the Silmarillion. Which I won't even go into the irony of that

as it speaks for itself. And you believed it. You may label me immature all day long, in fact it makes it all the better. Because this immature

fool baited you, hooked you, reeled you in and put you on the wall before you realized what was happening. And now you're just a talking

bass on the wall except you are saying: I wasn't caught. I'm not on a wall. I'm too smart for that.

 

What an asshole you are. You blather about my insulting in response to juvenile attempts by you and others to insult me? Just how focking high and clueless are you, exactly? I insult you back for sport, because you've added nothing of value to this thread, and you get nothing of value in return.

 

You tried baiting me in this thread, and I ignored you. I then responded to you - finally - with one polite emoticon. You're so desperate to have your sophomoric attempts for attention validated that you're clinging to my own wave at your inanity as evidence of something important. Get over your self-importance. It's clear that you're very afraid of what I have to say. So get bent, you twit.

 

You cannot see very compelling scientific evidence tipping the scales of public perception of Darwinism as very flawed, you'll get left behind. Which is pretty emblematic of your small-mindedness. Learn something - if you can even understand what the implications of things like this are.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Chew on this, while you blithely stand in ignorance of the fact that your Emporer has no clothes:

 

The study of Evolution can provide no observational evidence whatsoever for random, unguided processes producing specified complex information.

 

If the study of Evolution is science by Evolution's measuring stick, then ID is just as much science if not more, and if ID is philosophy by Evolution's measuring stick, then Evolution is philosophy and needs to be banned from Science classes as well.

 

And I ain't posting this for you focks to realize and admit this. I'm posting this to rankle you, and gain traction through osmosis. This will seep into your pores, where you will be wholly unable to extract it.

 

But you will recoil and attempt to expunge such revelations with more insult - and I will continue to have you where I want you: right here, acknowledging and responding, so helpless are you to avoid it. Have at it, while I hit the sack and smile as I anger you.

[nikki2200 4]

I'm curious if posters believe that Dembski's and other's books about ID should be allowed in school libraries? I wonder how frightened of the frailty of their own beliefs they must be to even pause for a moment and wonder if such books should be banned, for fear of such a ridiculous theory displacing their own "scientific truths"?

 

 

 

Chew on this, while you blithely stand in ignorance of the fact that your Emporer has no clothes:

 

The study of Evolution can provide no observational evidence whatsoever for random, unguided processes producing specified complex information.

 

If the study of Evolution is science by Evolution's measuring stick, then ID is just as much science if not more, and if ID is philosophy by Evolution's measuring stick, then Evolution is philosophy and needs to be banned from Science classes as well.

And I ain't posting this for you focks to realize and admit this. I'm posting this to rankle you, and gain traction through osmosis. This will seep into your pores, where you will be wholly unable to extract it.

 

But you will recoil and attempt to expunge such revelations with more insult - and I will continue to have you where I want you: right here, acknowledging and responding, so helpless are you to avoid it. Have at it, while I hit the sack and smile as I anger you.

 

OH

 

MY

 

ENTITY....

 

At first it was amusing how little you knew about science. Now it is just appalling. I gave you the benefit of the doubt before that you were just speaking with emotion and weren't actually as retarded as you appeared. Now I can't do that anymore after reading the nonsense you just posted.

 

Also.... we've turned MensaMind into GFIAFP. I don't know if we should be proud of ourselves or run for the hills...

[MedStudent 56]

What an asshole you are. You blather about my insulting in response to juvenile attempts by you and others to insult me? Just how focking high and clueless are you, exactly? I insult you back for sport, because you've added nothing of value to this thread, and you get nothing of value in return.

 

You tried baiting me in this thread, and I ignored you. I then responded to you - finally - with one polite emoticon. You're so desperate to have your sophomoric attempts for attention validated that you're clinging to my own wave at your inanity as evidence of something important. Get over your self-importance. It's clear that you're very afraid of what I have to say. So get bent, you twit.

 

You cannot see very compelling scientific evidence tipping the scales of public perception of Darwinism as very flawed, you'll get left behind. Which is pretty emblematic of your small-mindedness. Learn something - if you can even understand what the implications of things like this are.

All you do is insult people. It's obvious that your argument has fallen apart and you have resorted to immaturity. it's sad to see such a man with such intestinal fortitude waste his gift. You are evolving into a child which maybe is your best argument against Darwin.

[Frank M 181]

I'm curious if posters believe that Dembski's and other's books about ID should be allowed in school libraries? I wonder how frightened of the frailty of their own beliefs they must be to even pause for a moment and wonder if such books should be banned, for fear of such a ridiculous theory displacing their own "scientific truths"?

 

 

Is a library science class? How is that germane to the discussion?

[penultimatestraw 473]

OH

 

MY

 

ENTITY....

 

At first it was amusing how little you knew about science. Now it is just appalling. I gave you the benefit of the doubt before that you were just speaking with emotion and weren't actually as retarded as you appeared. Now I can't do that anymore after reading the nonsense you just posted.

 

Also.... we've turned MensaMind into GFIAFP. I don't know if we should be proud of ourselves or run for the hills...

Lying isn't a sin, nor is ignorance. Pride is a big one though (and so is wrath). It has gotten way past the point that any reasonable, insightful person might ask themselves: "Why has everybody seemed to turn on me?" Possible answers:

 

1. They are all wrong and are jealous of my intellect/purchasing power/body composition/master baiting/googlewhacking. Or they just don't understand my points because I'm so beyond all of their feeble understanding of the topic.

 

2. I am wrong - NOT that ID can ever be 100% disproven as a possibility for our existence, but rather that it has no firm scientific backing as an alternative to evolution. As such it should be reserved for the spiritual realm, be it the home, church or theology class. The library is OK, too.

 

When Christians/atheists/agnostics/liberals/conservatives/libertarians are all either suggesting you are out of your mind or have deserted you in this one-man crusade, it may be time to get a little introspective. Maybe pray a little. Good luck, Mensa.

[nikki2200 4]

I'm sitting on the train and I just re-read his last post and burst into hysterical fits of laughter. People are looking at me. I can't stop. Literally it was more crazy than a 4 am GFIAFP post.

[Frank M 181]

Chew on this, while you blithely stand in ignorance of the fact that your Emporer has no clothes:

 

The study of Evolution can provide no observational evidence whatsoever for random, unguided processes producing specified complex information.

 

If the study of Evolution is science by Evolution's measuring stick, then ID is just as much science if not more, and if ID is philosophy by Evolution's measuring stick, then Evolution is philosophy and needs to be banned from Science classes as well.

And I ain't posting this for you focks to realize and admit this. I'm posting this to rankle you, and gain traction through osmosis. This will seep into your pores, where you will be wholly unable to extract it.

 

But you will recoil and attempt to expunge such revelations with more insult - and I will continue to have you where I want you: right here, acknowledging and responding, so helpless are you to avoid it. Have at it, while I hit the sack and smile as I anger you.

 

Which of your heroes made this up? The guy whose own colleagues don't think his "science" qualifies as science and had his ass handed to him over and over again in court, even though he was the defense's "expert" witness? The brilliant plagiarizing, mischaracterizing thief of intellectual property who doesn't publish in journals because it's "easier" to get his ideas across in books that aren't subject to any peer review whatsoever? The scientists who is held as a shining example of ID theory who says his work doesn't prove that?

 

No, I think this one came directly from you, and since it makes absolutely no sense, we can file it under the category of "I know you are, but what am I?"

 

 

Nothing to extract here, folks. Move along.

[drobeski 3,061]

This thread got beyond boring 13 pages ago but skimming through I notice you guys calling me dembski ....its drobeski, get it right homos

[The Next Generation 11]

 

We all know scientists who were stigmatized by the hoi polloi of their time.

 

Anyone who uses hoi polloi is alright in my book! [images of Caddyshack]

[The Next Generation 11]

It's clear that you're very afraid of what I have to say.

 

This intrigues me. What, exactly, does anyone have to fear if, in fact, there was proved to be an Intelligent Designer?

[Frank M 181]

This keeps popping into my head for some reason as the slaughter continues:

 

Why, Mr. Anderson? Why do you do it? Why get up? Why keep fighting? Do you believe you're fighting for something? For more than your survival? Can you tell me what it is? Do you even know? Is it freedom? Or truth? Perhaps peace? Yes? No? Could it be for love? Illusions, Mr. Anderson. Vagaries of perception. The temporary constructs of a feeble human intellect trying desperately to justify an existence that is without meaning or purpose. And all of them as artificial as the Matrix itself, although only a human mind could invent something as insipid as love. You must be able to see it, Mr. Anderson. You must know it by now. You can't win. It's pointless to keep fighting. Why, Mr. Anderson? Why? Why do you persist?

[IMMensaMind 462]

This intrigues me. What, exactly, does anyone have to fear if, in fact, there was proved to be an Intelligent Designer?

 

You clearly have no fear at all. People fear change. Acceptance of the notion of an Intelligent Designer does nothing whatsoever to help the cause of those who scoff at those who believe in God (the Judeo-Christian version) or any God. Conversely, those who believe in any God are granted the power of scientific credibility to their eons-old belief.

 

This would upset the apple cart in unprecedented ways.

 

Stalin feared the power of religious people, and religion in general; that is why he slaughtered millions: to concentrate his power. Atheists (those who openly profess it; those who claim not to but still are) react this way to any mention of powers higher than Man himself.

 

The ramifications are staggering. If there is indeed a power higher than Man himself, then all of the impetus of the MMGW crowd loses power; Secular Humanism itself is dealt a fatal blow.

 

Some of these posters aren't even aware the allegiances their ideologies support; some are. Poster are complaining that I insult people, but they aren't interested in being honest, as I never insult someone who has been civil to me (like you). These posters claim that they're open-minded, and they haven't dismissed the notion of "God" or a god, but they have, and do. Their minds aren't capable of accepting conversations on the topic unless the topic contains proof of such things.

 

I've never said that anything in this thread constitutes proof of God. I've said that this provides aid and comfort to the notion, and yet so many of them are babies, and react as though they're being force-fed a spoonful of medicine.

 

Where you see an interesting conversation (and I find the concepts herein fascinating), others are simply looking to vandalize the thread and delegitimize any claim that this does damage to the secular constructs set forth within the study of Evolution via Darwinism.

 

Darwinism has given the Atheist power to wield legitimacy of their ideology over those who believe in more. That's why cars have fish with legs on them: to poke in the eye those who express their faith via the symbol of the fish.

 

This information - both ID in general and Shapiro's research in specific - strikes at the heart of the nasty ideology behind such attacks. That it is strong is why these people, and their willing accomplices (which so many of them are quick to google and post, even though their complaints were in many cases rebutted convincingly), have to fight it tooth and nail.

 

There is plenty of fear here. I'm just posting my personal opinions, and the attempts from the usual suspects are turning up the volume in response.

[IMMensaMind 462]

This keeps popping into my head for some reason as the slaughter continues:

 

You'll recall in the end who wins that battle, even though the loser never saw it coming. So it will be with you and yours.

[Me_2006 14]

You're here posting. I'm forcing you to waste your breath, while reading what I'm writing. I'd say I have you exactly where I want you.

 

So then that's three questions you can't directly answer because you know you're wrong. It must be easy to feel intelligent when you consider everything you say to be fact without the need to support it.

 

I know, I know. You're in a corner and are attempting to deflect, but I'm not going to let you refuse to answer my questions. I want to make it painfully obvious to even you that you're incapable of admitting your reaction was not only wrong, but paranoid and pathetic, and that now you're spinning and lying to make it seem like you're in control.

 

 

Answer. Three. Simple. Questions. Mensa. All you have to do is copy-paste the quotes. There's a feature that will even do it for you. Or do you not know how to HTML quote? Was your wife doing it last night and now she's gone off to be the breadwinner while you nerd rage on the internet all day? Maybe turning tricks for men with double your body fat and three times your heart? So come on. I didn't ask anything complicated. Just show me where I'm wrong.

 

 

Cue more deflection and emoticons while you continue to make it obvious to everyone that a college kid screwing around let you back yourself into a corner and gave you enough rope to hang yourself. The only thing more embarrassing is if you were too proud and stubborn to admit it had happened.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Which of your heroes made this up? The guy whose own colleagues don't think his "science" qualifies as science and had his ass handed to him over and over again in court, even though he was the defense's "expert" witness? The brilliant plagiarizing, mischaracterizing thief of intellectual property who doesn't publish in journals because it's "easier" to get his ideas across in books that aren't subject to any peer review whatsoever? The scientists who is held as a shining example of ID theory who says his work doesn't prove that?

 

No, I think this one came directly from you, and since it makes absolutely no sense, we can file it under the category of "I know you are, but what am I?"

 

 

Nothing to extract here, folks. Move along.

 

You clearly have no ability to use your own thoughts to rebut any of it.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Is a library science class? How is that germane to the discussion?

 

That is not an answer.

 

So you're good with school libraries containing books on Intelligent Design?

 

What if a Science teacher referred their students to the books?

[IMMensaMind 462]

All you do is insult people. It's obvious that your argument has fallen apart and you have resorted to immaturity. it's sad to see such a man with such intestinal fortitude waste his gift. You are evolving into a child which maybe is your best argument against Darwin.

 

Did you not insult me in this thread? Am I not the one answering more posts with my own posts than any other poster in here? Are you ignorant of the sheer number of insulting posts directed my way which instigated any insults of my own, written out of the entertainment value of insulting those who have chosen to stop listening and conversing politely?

[IMMensaMind 462]

Both Nikki and Frank have ridiculed my post containing this sentence:

 

The study of Evolution can provide no observational evidence whatsoever for random, unguided processes producing specified complex information.

 

But neither can answer the question, because Evolution has no answer here. Somehow, however, the study of Evolution doesn't suffer any of the shortcomings that they keep trying to claim disqualifies ID from being studied as a legitimate science.

 

The Emperor has no clothes.

[Frank M 181]

You clearly have no ability to use your own thoughts to rebut any of it.

 

Here's a little tip: When you post stuff that you've made up, then demand proof that it's not true, you've already lost.

 

Meaning you lost long ago.

[Frank M 181]

That is not an answer.

 

So you're good with school libraries containing books on Intelligent Design? Doesn't bother me at all. Libraries should not be censored short of pronography.

 

What if a Science teacher referred their students to the books? Inappropriate.

 

Again, what does having books in the library have to do with anything? I have never said that kids shouldn't discuss anything and everything. In the appropriate forum.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Here's a little tip: When you post stuff that you've made up, then demand proof that it's not true, you've already lost.

 

Meaning you lost long ago.

 

Where have I done that, exactly? I've put a challenge in front of you: show me where Evolution has accomplished that which I claim it has not, and then explain how all of Evolutionary Science can stand upon a fabricated foundation of assumptions when it attacks other forms of research for lacking such testable foundations?

 

Simply claiming that I've made stuff up is just fabrication on your part. You act as though the overall point I'm continuing to make has been refuted, but that makes you exactly as guilty of fabrication as anything you've accused me of.

 

I'd bullet-point exactly what my argument is, but you'll just ignore it.

 

There is no winning an argument with someone who just resorts to vandalizing the argument and deflecting the points.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Again, what does having books in the library have to do with anything?

 

Are you being coy? Are you afraid to answer the question? Part of my contention (don't you claim to know very well what I'm saying? Enough to also falsely claim that I'm "making stuff up") is that secularists fear corrupting the skulls full of mush that they must propagandize with the "right stuff".

 

There is more than just an inability to consider only that which Science proves - even in Science class Science's self-imposed limitations should be discussed.

 

I ask because I believe that part of the fear of ID isn't simply teaching it in class. It's actually giving open minds access to the concepts at all. You're afraid of it.

 

I have never said that kids shouldn't discuss anything and everything. In the appropriate forum.

 

As long as the paradigm of Science isn't questioned in the least - and putting ID in the same class does just that. How strong must it be, I wonder, to be unable to withstand such close proximity? You're afraid.

 

You've spent no time whatsoever engaging in a conversation on how ID could be brought up in Science class as even a philosophical complement to Science. Saying that "science, and science only" should be discussed in science class is a pure cop-out: a deflection meant to insulate the true concern: fear of interesting a child in the concept that Naturalism isn't the only possibility. There is nothing wrong with discussing - in science class - the limitations that Science has, and mentioning how ID attempts to address one of those limitations.

 

If students understand that Science (as defined by "scientists") cannot even acknowledge the possibility of a Supernatural answer to its questions, then Science is saying that the Supernatural cannot exist; and people like you then go far afield of simply stating that "we cannot consider this possibility": you RIDICULE the possibility, even when science discovers amazing things that science has no answers for.

 

Just because of the hope that science will eventually have the answers. Meanwhile, however: a vacuum. A vacuum that you ridicule when filled with speculations that are not ridiculous in the least.

 

And that is ancillary to the possibility that ID itself doesn't require a "supernatural" designer - but that clearly is an esoteric question you're not even willing to consider.

[Frank M 181]

Both Nikki and Frank have ridiculed my post containing this sentence:

 

 

 

But neither can answer the question, because Evolution has no answer here. Somehow, however, the study of Evolution doesn't suffer any of the shortcomings that they keep trying to claim disqualifies ID from being studied as a legitimate science.

 

The Emperor has no clothes.

 

The theory of evolution has been studied and dissected for years and has stood up to intense scrutiny. Countless papers have been published in peer reviewed journals on myriad aspects of it. Intelligent design does not rise to the level of theory because no serious experimentation has been done on it, only interpretations from work others have done, it has not stood the test of time because every aspect of it, including the holy grail of the irreducible complexity argument, the flagellum, has been debunked, there have been no papers in peer reviewed journals (save one, which ignited huge controversy because the editor of the journal bypassed the normal standard of multiple peer review and reviewed it himself, and subsequent reviewers showed that it's findings were dubious and unworthy of publication in the journal) It's most famous supporters are pariahs in the scientific community. It has failed in every aspect to define itself as legitimate science.

 

What, it's a science because Behe and Dembski say it is?

 

All that being said, any legitimate, published work on it would be welcomed. Nothing has risen to that level yet where ID is concerned. Evolution has.

[Me_2006 14]

Are you being coy? Are you afraid to answer the question?