Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Uncommon Descent: Contest Question 7: Foul anonymous Darwinist blogger exposed. Why so foul?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The guy had successfully hidden his identity for about five years, while posting all kinds of sexually charged abuse to the Internet about many people, including me. But now we know.

But Wendy Sullivan, the Girl on the Right, has officially found out who the mysterious Canadian Cynic is. Here is stuff he has said about me. He is Robert PJ Day. Small business owner. Computer genius. Well-read book nerd. Anti-creationist debater

A Linux genius, apparently. [Foul language warning re his posts and any reports on them. ]

Here is part of what Sullivan said, once she traced him:

Outing bloggers isn’t usually my thing. I don’t see a point to it. But when you repeatedly abuse and demean people because they do not march in lockstep with you, I’m sorry but you deserve it. I am not a cunt, Robert. Nor a douchebag. Neither is Kathy Shaidle, Kate, Connie Fournier, Sandy Crux, Suzanne Fortin or anyone else on the web you don’t like.

I am not above strong language and hyperbole, Robert, but I am not beneath you. You are not special. I do not dispute that you are extremely smart and well-versed in your subjects of choice. But referring to to those you feel superior to as “cunts”, “wankers”, “douchebags”, “assholes” and more doesn’t make you sound brilliant at all. It makes you sound sad and lonely. It also makes you seem very cowardly, because I know you would never call me a cunt to my face. You would never wander into downtown Toronto and meet with half the people you have insulted – on a one-to-one or at a party – and insult them the way you do behind your chosen alias.

Perhaps not. The thing I know from covering the intelligent design controversy is that a number of people like Cynic give themselves the right to pour obscene contempt and abuse at the public. Obviously, those people are frightened of something.

What would your mother say, Robert, if she knew that you referred to a woman older than she probably is as a douchebag? ( I assume that your mother is still with us. If not, I apologize, one orphan to the next. ) Is that how she raised you?

He had decided to raise the abuse level last night for me, presumably in response to being outed. The Centre for Inquiry is sponsoring it. Did those people really sit there and listen?

Can you be good without God? I’d never necessarily maintained that, but now I am beginning to wonder.

Apparently, Day proclaimed himself to be “coming out in public” at that venue. But only because bloggers outed him first.

Sullivan tells me his recent posts have featured greatly toned down language. It figures.

Some people have morality. Others rely on avoiding exposure.

Okay, now the Contest Question: Why do so many of Darwinists spout so much filth, hostility, and aimless detraction?

The winner will receive a free copy of Expelled Here are the contest rules.

Note: Entries that merely claim it isn’t happening will not be judged. Too many people here know otherwise.

Comments
O'Leary: "Okay, now the Contest Question: Why do so many of Darwinists spout so much filth, hostility, and aimless detraction?" Before we can answer this, don't we first have to obtain an accurate measurement of what exactly is "So many of Darwinists"? I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but without any real data here, it's hard to say if this problem is truly endemic to the "Darwinist" community. If we restrict ourselves to counting only bona fide scientists, then possibly the number becomes quite small. Yes, we know about PZ Meyers, perhaps at a stretch Dawkins and Larry Moran too. But even these usually do not resort to foul or four-lettered language, although perhaps they do engage in ad hominem from time to time. Perhaps then if we were to measure the level of foulness between the lay community and the professional community we might find a rather different story. I don't know for sure, but at least on the pro-evolution side here, there seems to be very few professional biologists indeed that comment on UD and te that do (e.g., Alan McNeil) seem on the whole very courteous and polite. Not that I condone Robert Day's language, but on the other hand the Internet is full of such stuff. I usually ignore that which I don't care for. But without any real data to determine if there's a real issue, it seems premature to tar everybody with the same brush.JTaylor
July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT
Gil, BA77 thanks for replying. Unfortunately, I had problems posting a question if Sullivan were an atheist Darwinist racist. I would have been interested in your and especially KF's opinion.sparc
July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT
djmullen,
O’Leary, what’s your explanation for this? http://www.girlontheright.com/2007/06/as-opposed-to-other-364-days.html
That is pretty disturbing:
As opposed to the other 364 days When the Natives do absolutely nothing except smoke, drink and **** their daughters. This Friday will mark the Native Day of Action(tm) here in Canada. It's their chance to whine and complain that us white guys who pay 45% in income tax to support their smoking, drinking and daughter-****ing are ripping them off.
and later:
I have no sympathy for the plight of the Natives, any more than I do for the Palestinians. In both cases they have the choice to get the hell off the rez, become fully-functioning, voting members of democratic society, but instead they choose to live in concentration camps, hands out to the government, ever ready with a complaint on their lips for the shoddy treatment they chose for themselves. Shut up and get to work, losers.
OTOH, I'm starting to wonder if Girlontheright isn't a cryptoDarwinist herself:
On one point we certainly agree. Day wants the religion books in schools to be kept in the religion section, and the science books in the science section. Science can be taught in science class, and religion can be taught in religion class. I know some of my readers disagree, but too bad.
which would explain the racism in that post...herb
July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT
Why do so many of Darwinists spout so much filth, hostility, and aimless detraction? 1. It's not just the Darwinists. Both sides are capable of displaying less that complete civility. No one is immune. 2. This incivility is not present just in debates about Evolution. It is so common, it has been given a name: "ad hominem", which is Latin for a response directed "at the man" instead of at his argument. 3. Certainly some lost souls may do this purely for their own entertainment or amusement. They somehow get kicks from insulting others. Not sure what can be done about these poor souls. 4. But emotional responses rule the day when emotionally-dear positions are challenged. Knee-jerk reactions are a deep part of human nature when a cherished world view is challenged. 5. Rare, indeed, is the individual who can examine challenges to his world view in an objective, disinterested way. 6. Emotional responses are easier than rational responses. An animal can respond emotionally, with hostility and viciousness. Engaging the mind takes self-control. Pausing and rationally examining and understanding an opposing argument takes effort. Formulating a rational and civil response takes additional discipline and thoughtfulness. 7. Thomas Kuhn says that individuals holding incompatible world views will "talk past each other", being unable to understand each other's words. This makes world-view criticisms harder to respond to by orders of magnitude. 8. If you believe you were created by "mindless and unguided processes", you might not even believe that there is such a thing as a rational mind, let alone that there is any value in civility. If your world view is defined by "survival of the fittest", you might only be concerned with defeating your opponent, following any rules, or no rules. Consequently, it seems clear why so many of Darwinists spout so much filth, hostility, and aimless detraction: Being rational is hard. Being civil is harder. Doing this in the face of an incompatible world view is nearly inconceivable. Doing this from an authentically Darwinist world-view: impossible! I do not find it surprising that many Darwinists exhibit filth, hostility, and aimless detraction. What I find amazing is that any exhibit civil rationality at all. Moral: Do not respond to them directly. But do respond for the sake of the "lurkers" who are watching these conversations and would be edified to know what the ID responses are to anti-ID accusations.EndoplasmicMessenger
July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
DK: The point is that evolution would be a science stopper in this case. Do you have complete knowledge of exactly how the universe is constructed? I would hope you would be humble enough to say you don't. But in this case, as with the universe and all proteins of sufficient length, there is no doubt the protein is designed, at least in my mind from what I can rigorously establish scientifically. Thus the question becomes for me, "Who is the Designer?". To which I believe a more than sufficient case can be made for the Logos of John 1:1: Scientific Evidence For God Creating The Universe - 2008 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQhO906v0VM How Teleportation Will Work - In 1993, the idea of teleportation moved out of the realm of science fiction and into the world of theoretical possibility. It was then that physicist Charles Bennett and a team of researchers at IBM confirmed that quantum teleportation was possible, but only if the original object being teleported was destroyed. --- As predicted, the original photon no longer existed once the replica was made. http://in.geocities.com/info_aruni/tele.htm Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) --- Concept 2. is used by Bennett, et al. Recall that they infer that since an infinite amount of information is required to specify a qubit, an infinite amount of information must be transferred to teleport. http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/duwell/DuwellPSA2K.pdf This following experiment clearly shows information is not a "emergent property" of any solid material basis as is dogmatically asserted by some materialists: Converting Quantum Bits: Physicists Transfer Information Between Matter and Light excerpt: A team of physicists at the Georgia Institute of Technology has taken a significant step toward the development of quantum communications systems by successfully transferring quantum information from two different groups of atoms onto a single photon. http://gtresearchnews.gatech.edu/newsrelease/quantumtrans.htm etc..etc.. The evidence is consistent and overwhelming for Logos DK. It is also interesting to note that we can only "destroy" a photon in these experiments, but no one has "created" a photon as of yet. I firmly believe man shall never do as such, since I hold only God has access to complete infinite, and perfect, information/knowledge. As well this following may help you understand where a bit better where I'm coming from: Proverbs 8:27 "When He prepared the heavens, I was there, when He drew a circle on the face of the deep", Euler's Number - God Created Mathematics - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IEb1gTRo74 This related website has the complete working out of the math of Pi and e in the Bible, in the Hebrew and Greek languages: http://www.biblemaths.com/pag03_pie/ Michael Denton - Mathematical Truths Are Transcendent And Beautiful - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3zcJfcdAyE Thus since a strong case can be made that the Creator of the universe and all life in is in fact the Logos of John 1:1, And mathematical truths, and universal constants, are shown to be transcendent, The question for me becomes, in the case for Laminin, does the cross have some deeper mathematical truth to it that ties it to an overarching "control" of the universe? You see, In my fundamental beliefs we are created in the image of God and as such we should have far more, how should I say, "mental control" of the universe. But alas we took a very wrong turn in the Garden of Eden (At least in my primary belief system), thus we have some latent abilities that have failed to be fully utilized. Thus since the cross is such a powerful symbol of Almighty God's connection to this world, it is at least a small possibility this could be part of that latent ability. Whereas, in evolutionary thought the laminin is shrugged off as mere coincidence with no further thought. In fact I believe sparc called it "stupid". But alas: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." William Shakespeare - Hamletbornagain77
July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT
Nakashima, You are mistaken in how one develops such programs. Based on what I have read from Gil, one only needs to simulate natural phenomena related to the simulation when writing the code. Once the code is written anyone can use the program safely without being exposed to such dangerous environments as you describe. I think I may have made that point unclear and apologize for any misunderstanding. This gets back to Evolutionary Algoriths. To truly simulate the random mutation involved in reproduction, one should introduce random scripts into the actual simulation. This would model the way real life works.90DegreeAngel
July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT
bornagain77:
The whole laminin thing brings up an interesting point. Number one is the the vacuous nature to which evolutionists seek to establish integrity for evolution.
Weren't you the one arguing that laminin was a sign from God because it looks a like a cross? Isn't that argument a little, well, vacuous?David Kellogg
July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT
PS: Nakashima et al: Models -- and a theory is little more than a grand explanatory model -- are not reality, and have to be validated against reality before they can be trusted. [Trusted as EMPIRICALLY RELIABLE in the tested range, not as TRUE.] In the case of complex dynamics [such as Gil's steerable parachutes], the rule of thumb is that any structure or system will fail by its weakest mechanism and/or most probable remaining bug (really complex systems are such that taking out one bug often puts in another . . . ) -- generally the one no-one thought of before. (And we hope we don't have to have a funeral to find out . . . ) That is why rocket science is notoriously hard (start with the problem of balancing a broomstick on the tip of your finger, then multiply by the need for a strong yet light structure to carry the payload . . . . ), and there is a long string of similar fields of praxis. That is why when we humble mere engineers and applied scientists -- as well as at least one Nobel Prize equivalent holder -- look at the notion that functionally specific complex information in finely-tuned highly integrated systems originated by chance and blind mechanical forces, we know right away that someone has not done the serious homework required. Starting with the thermodynamics sums. Back to vacation . . . GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT
Mr Angel, As long as this discussion is allowed to continue, let me bring one further example. Simulation work such as Dr Dembski's MESA or Dr Sanford et al.'s Mendel's Accountant frequently uses calls to a random number generator. The instructions for using these programs do not say you need to take radiation from radon in your basement or cosmic rays into account, or that the program relies on an adequate source of external radioactivity to seed the RNG. Every experiment needs to account for sources of error and models, especially, have to consider what they have chosen not to model. And there is such a thing as analog modeling - for example, using a soap film to "calculate" a minimum energy surface. But that is different than assuming some other process is going to overwrite your allocated memory as part of your simulation.Nakashima
July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT
It’s laughable. [--> resort to derogation by ridicule] Once more According to Ian Musgrave in Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations: [--> Notice the ad homnimem: we are "liars" . . . . ] These people, including Fred Hoyle, have committed one or more of the following errors. 1. They calculate the probability of the formation of a “modern” protein, or even a complete bacterium with all “modern” proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all. [--> BZZT: ANY FUNCTIONAL ENTITY BASED ON 1,000 + BITS OF INFORMATION STORAGE IS CREDIBLY BEYOND THE SEARCH CAPACITY OF THE COSMOS, AND THIS WILL TAKE IN TEH MOST PRIMITIVE CREDIBLE CELL, AS INDEPENDENT LIFE FORMS ON KNOCKOUT STUDIES AUTODISINTEGRATE AT 600 K BITS OR SO.] 2. They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life. [--> 1,000 bits as a threshold is based on squaring the number of q-states of our observed cosmos across its lifetime: the whole cosmos cannot search as much as 1 in 10^150 of the configs of such a space, so no reasonable number of fucntional configs will be accessible startign from an arbitrary initial condition in any reasonable pre-biotic soup] 3. They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials. [--> Strawman to the point of slander: 10^150 is the number of states for 10^80 atoms, changing state every 10^-43 seconds, for 10^25 seconds, which is as massively parallel a search as the cosmos we observe is capable of, indeed, it does not reckon with the fact that 3/4 of the atoms are H and most of the remainder He, with C a much smaller fraction. Similarly WD's recent 10^120 search cycle system is base don 10^90 bit black hole physics machines --> And, this calculation is there int eh lit from WD since the late 1990's, i.e Mr Musgrave has gravely misrepresented the easily accessible truth.] 4. They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation. [--> Your'e too dumb to get it right. Sorry, the sort of calculation we are looking at and Sir Fred Hoyle made is tioed to the foundation stone of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, statistical form. --> Junkyard parts are no more likely to form a jumbo in a tornado than the O2 molecules int eh room you sit in to spontaneously rush to and fill box at one end, leaving you gasping for air. --> Likewise, that statistical behaviour of molecules etc is why the diffusion that underlies respiration and kidney filtration, osmosis etc work] 5. They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences [--> kindly show empirical evidence of a first life dforming from such easilly accessed functionality, and reproducign itself, starting from a reasonable prebiotic soup, with realistic concentrations.] If you and Kariosfocus and all the other people who abuse this strawman as the main plank of your argument spent just 10 minutes looking into it’s refutation I think there would be some egg on faces. [--> Mr Levy, if you were to spend 30 minutes actually examining the real issue ont eh merits instead of strawman caricatures, there would be egg on YOUR face, as I have just shown. --> I know you are unlikely to acknowledge duty of civility but you owe some pretty big apologies, starting with Sir Fred Hoyle.] You might have to admit you made an error. [--> "error" is not the main issue you have raised above. You have falsely accused us of deceit. --> Think about what that says about you and those who made the ad hominem-soaked strawman case you have swallowed.] Again, this is why you are all so afraid of poor trival Weasel. Anthing that shows complex results can be obtained via culmalative selection scares you. [ --> You clearly have not read what I HAVE said about Weasel -- and indeed, what he remarks by Mr Dawkins imply on closer inspection -- before you accused me in effect of deception. Blah blah, target, blah blah shores of function, blah blah strawman. You all know what Weasel was intended to be. The whole issue of latching was simply face-saving. [ --> Onlookers: having burned his ad hominem soaked strawman and charged the atmosphere with false accusations of deceit, EL now resorts to dismissal; confident that his wedge rhetoric has divided the audience and poisoned minds] Anything you could do to “prove” culmative selection did not act as noted by Dawkins would do - latching, targets, Kariosfocus and his “well, it does not solve the origin of life question” objections. All distractions. [--> Turnabout false accusation [having used precisely the agenda of distraction, distortion, demonisation ans dismissal], just as is sadly habitually predictable.] ______________ EL, think about what you have done, and about how you have been misled to propagate a slander by the arguments of Mr Musgrave et al. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT
Mr Levy: I respond on select points. Your example at 65 is a rich case study on precisely the Darwinist rhetorical pattern of distraction, distortion, demonisation, derogation (or even defamation) and dismissal I and others have had to point out. Onlookers, kindly bear with comments on points: _______________ No actual biologist measures these things “in terms Similar to what William Dembski would use”. [--> the information capacity space specified by a 20-state data string is real, whatever "no actual biologist" [--> = "no true Scotsman"] may have to say. --> Further to this, proteins must fold, fit into a finely tuned, key-lock fitting co-adapted structure to function] No actual biologist thinks these structures came about in one fell swoop. [--> Strawman: COMPLEX, CO-ADAPTED, CODE-BASED AND ALGORITHMIC FUNCTION STARTING WITH FIRST LIFE, THEN WITH NOVEL BODY PLANS, MUST EXIST BEFORE WE CAN TALK ABOUT HILL-CLIMBING IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH CUMULATIVE SELECTION ON DIFFERENTIAL PERFORMANCE --> That is why Weasel's targetted search selecting "nonsense phrases" off mere proximity has massively begged the question at stake. --> And, as I have cited him, Mr Dawkins actually admits the point: "nonsense phrases" = non-functional phrases, EL.] No actual biologist looks at a cell and thinks “The probability of this complex cell arising in one go is outside the resources of the universe, therefore design!” [ --> You have to answer, rather tot he thermodynamics of plausible pre-biotic environments, to get to components and to organised complexity for first life. --> this includes the implied claim that DNA's CODE and associated cellular algorithms and their implementing nanomachines spontaneously formed and organised themselves; or else that there are chance of the gaps-leaping laws that write "life" into the basic structure of the cosmos] [ . . . . ] Yes, the probabilty of a cell arising in one go is on the order of a 747 coming together in a junkyard tornado. [ --> That is, YOU ADMIT THAT spontaneous, chance + necessity only, formation of first life (and, to suggest that it is something on the order of E coli is a strawman: ANY SYSTEM THAT STORES MORE THAN ABOUT 1,000 BITS OF INFO IS IN VIEW . . . that is the threshold of complexity that the probabilistic resources of our entire observed cosmos can access] is maximally improbable on the gamut of our cosmos] Yet nobody who knows anything about evolution thinks that way except you. [ --> No true scotsman, again] Nobody worries about this “problem” except the people bent on providing whatever evidence they can for their case. [--> Excusing massive question begging, and in fact there is a whole field in crisis because of this: Origin of Life studies . . . . ] If that means pretending to the lay person that cells had to be designed because they are so complex and could not have come about randomly, then that’s what you’ll do it seems. [ --> Ad hominem soaked strawman, now ignited. --> EL, you have accused me of calculated deceit. That is SLANDEROUS FALSE ACCUSATION, BASED ON A STRAWMAN DISTORTION OF WHAT I HAVE ARGUED, AND IN THE CONTEXT WHERE YOU EVIDENTLY THOUGHT I WOULD NOT BE AROUND TO REBUT YOUR POINTS. (Onlookers, when I and others have been present, EL et al have been most reticent to make such claims explicitly. No prizes for guessing why: they are refuting a strawman, not the real case.) --> EL, kindly read the weak argument correctives, and consult this on the explanatory filter, before you comment on this matter again: (i) causal factors are routinely observed to stem from law and/or chance and/or design. (ii) Lawlike mechanical necessity gives rise to natural regularities i.e cannot explain high contingency. (iii) the crux of the issue is that ANY SYSTEM THAT IS BASED ON COMPLEX FUNCTIONAL INFORMATION, WITH 1,000 BITS AS A USEFUL THRESHOLD, IS BEYOND THE PROBABILISTIC RESOURCES OF OUR COSMOS FUNCTIONING AS A SEARCH ENGINE (iv) But, the other source of high contingency, is routinely known to produce complex functional entities based on 1,000+ bits of information storage capacity (v) so, the inference from FSCI to design is AN INFERENCE TO BEST CURRENT EXPLANATION BASED ON EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE] Yet when asked to consider incremental progress towards a cell, or laminin or whatever you revert back to your massive probability calculations that in your mind “prove” design. [ --> Ducks the question of needing to find isles of function in the sea of non-functional configs, BEFORE one may seek to climb to the peaks of Mt Improbable by cumulative selection on differential function . . . . ] [ . . . ]kairosfocus
July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT
Mrs O'Leary: First and foremost, on seeing the behaviour you and other ladies have been subjected to, I am ashamed for my sex; that some of us refuse to learn basic gentleman-ship and good broughtupcy. (Mr Day: were you under my household, you would now have an appointment to publicly wash out your mouth with soap, followed by a face to face apology. FOR SHAME!) Madam, I feel a duty to you to apologise on behalf of my sex, that you as a Woman, a Lady and a Grandmother, should be subjected to such verbal filth, whatever the "justification" proffered. NOTHING can justify contempt, derogation, habitual distortion and misrepresentation, denigration, disrespect and demonisation. ESPECIALLY when it is offered in the persistent absence of being able to understand and cogently address a vital issue for our civlisation issue on its merits. And, that is redoubled when such abuse and resort to vulgarity and slander is a part of what is now a routine rhetorical resort and pattern used by Darwinists (and a great many others supporting various politically correct secular humanist- statist- globalist agendas . . . [if you doubt me, just Google Bjorn Lomberg]): [1] distraction [i.e red herrings, dragged across the track of truth to pull us away, and led out to . . . ] [2] distortion [i.e strawman caricatures of real arguments (hint to EL at 65: address the real issue on its merits, not a handy strawman distortion), soaked in ad hominems based on . . . ] [3] demonisation and derogation [i.e. igniting the ad hominem-soaked strawman, clouding, confusing, poisoning, and choking the now highly polarised atmosphere, so that ability to hear and correctly/fairly judge on the merits towards the truth is diminished, leading to . . . . ] [4] unjust dismissal and incivility [down which road lies a great danger to our whole civilisation]. ___________ In short, Mrs O'Leary, by their habitual abusive and unjust conduct, the Darwinists are telling anyone who will but listen carefully and read between the lines, that they have no real case on the merits, but are so committed to a destructive agenda that they would disrespect and denigrate any who challenge them; recklessly putting our civlisation at risk -- democratic self-government by free people depends for its sustainability on mutual respect, civility and a determination to pursue "liberty and justice for all" -- to sustain an agenda that cannot stand on its merits in power. And that its truly shameful misbehaviour. GEM of TKI PS: Back to my vacation, after one more short break to answer EL's off- topic attempt to caricature and dismiss someone not present to defend himself through a turnabout false accusation, at 65. [ . . . ]kairosfocus
July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
05:06 AM
5
05
06
AM
PDT
http://www.venganza.org/category/hate-mail/BGOG
July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT
O'Leary, what's your explanation for this? http://www.girlontheright.com/2007/06/as-opposed-to-other-364-days.htmldjmullen
July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
11:55 PM
11
11
55
PM
PDT
Although we are now far off topic from the original thread, I don't mind supporting the work of Mr. Dodgen. No simulation can take into account the true workings of the natural world. Therefore the natural world must become part of the actual act of running a simulation. I would imagine that when Mr. Dodgen works on simulating missle guidance systems he at least makes an effort to do this work while flying in a plane anything less would be unprofessional. I'm sure his colleagues would run him out if he didn't such efforts. So yes. These computers running these simulations, should, at the least be exposed to rain and perhaps power surges.90DegreeAngel
July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
09:28 PM
9
09
28
PM
PDT
Mr Angel, Look, here is another example. Weather and climate simulations are large systems of partial diffrential equations. There is someone on UD, Dr Sewell, who wrote a PDE solver. Are you going to tell him that for his program to be used to simulate the weather, the machine itself has to be exposed to rain, lightning or cosmic rays? How do you think people simulate the Big Bang?Nakashima
July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
08:58 PM
8
08
58
PM
PDT
@Seversky:
I know we all have some vague notion in our heads of what we mean by “God” and “goodness” but it is far from clear that we all share the same notion so asserting that a being called “God” is the same as a property or attribute called “goodness” really tells us very little.
"God" and "goodness" are the terms used by the Euthyphro Dilemma (or at least its common monotheistic form), so you can hardly blame Lewis for using them. Lewis' responses addresses the Euthyphro Dilemma by exposing a false dichotomy. God defines goodness not by commanding good, but by being good in essence. This response isn't really intended to be particularly explanatory. What it "tells us" is that there is a flaw in the the dilemma.Phinehas
July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT
Sorry my good friend from the far east. If you are familiar with Gil's theories about simulations you will understand that to simulate playing checkers you must take into account all of the phenomena that might impact the game in an actual gang. For example, I play checkers in the park. It's a tough neighborhood. Therefore if the simulated opponent is playing well, I might want to throw my computer to the ground in frustration. These actions have a real effect on the computer and therefore the simulation. This better simulates the reality of playing checkers. So I am sorry Nagasaki, You are wrong.90DegreeAngel
July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT
Mr Angel, You don't need a checkers set to simulate checkers. What you are saying makes no sense.Nakashima
July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT
Gil, I have great respect for your contributions here at UD. I also find DK et al rather annoying and patronizing. In regards to your friend that was part of the team at JPL. I can sympathize with him. I too have worked on projects wherein we simulated physical phenomena and then ended up not capturing the true complexity of the event with our simulation. I assume you suggested to your friend that they should have turned the computer they ran the simulations on upside down. This would have fixed the problem.90DegreeAngel
July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PDT
sparc, Thanks for fleshing out my résumé. I have an interesting story. During the Genesis spacecraft recovery mission at UTTR (the Utah Test and Training Range), in which I was involved in 2004, I had time to chat at length with a JPL scientist. (Our team was in charge of performing the MAR [Mid-Air Retrieval] of the space capsule, which we rehearsed with the helicopter pilots to the point of perfection. The spacecraft came down precisely as predicted, was on radar track, and all was well. Unfortunately, human error caused a semi-catastrophe. A G-force detector in the space capsule was mounted upside down, and its signal to deploy the square parachute did not initiate. As a result, the space capsule smoked into the Utah desert, although fortunately into relatively soft, wet ground. Eventually, about 90% of the science was recovered, although tediously.) I watched the entire thing from the control room and you can see it here: http://www.worldchampionshipcheckers.com/code/genesis.mov But I digress. The JPL scientist I mentioned is a specialist in solid- and liquid-fuel rocket propulsion. We had many interesting discussions. When people ask him what he does for a living, he says, "I'm a rocket scientist." Although my specialty is guidance, navigation, and control in aerospace R&D, I guess rocket science is my specialty as well. I apologize for not having risen to the intellectual level of Alan Fox and David Kellogg. I'll have to work on that obvious deficiency.GilDodgen
July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT
Uncommon Descent: Contest Question 7: Foul anonymous Darwinist blogger exposed. Why so foul? the answer I have is that have emotional attachment and have a lot pride. They can stand not to be wrong. For atheist evolution is the foundation of there reglion. They also want ever one to think there way. The Darwinist Don exodus feel it right to insult people after he gives his reason and evidences for evolution. When does this appealing to there emotions not there logic. I do not see how he can be christian and hurt botheren but we are all flawed . Other insult because they to not have logical explanation why the other side is wrong. If they're an atheist being wrong means that there is a God. I have gotten to point where I think I take been wrong but I still can take Ad Hominem attacks. I hate Ad Hominem attacks. It is the biggest thing I am afraid of if I debate an Darwinist. also the better that evidences against evolution the angrier the Darwinist will get.spark300c
July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT
Nakashim-san The point is that anonymity itself is not the tool of only one type of person, or only one side of a debate. That is true. It is important to honor the ability to post anonymously. Baylor Bear was attempting to smear all uses of anonymity, including apparently his own. It seems more so that he articulated his thoughts rather poorly, but you were right in calling him on it.tribune7
July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT
Hey clive, I think Winston does have a moral compass. If he didn't have at least some, he would not try to persuade others that they are in the wrong. That being said, like all of us at times,he is looking only on the surface of things here. He is not really engaing the issue fully, but pandering with simplistic argumentaion. But who knows, there are some that do so intentionally. That is a mystery to me. I prefer to give others the benefit of the doubt. I do not have a history with Winston to go by. If he is of the type I have met elsewhere (and have seen in myself), then no argument, kindness, or gesture will tame the beast when in that defensive frame of mind. In that case, a man is the Leviathan of Job, the beasts of Daniel / Revelation, and the mystery of lawlessness found in the worldly kingdom of Babylon. He will submit to no one. Very few are absolutely locked into such a mindset. I know because I can be that way too; even still. It is a human problem, our fallen nature, not a neo-darwinist, Muslim, Communist, pantheist, or Christian problem (etc). So like those rescuing Caspian from the Green Witch, we must reason with each other where and when we can.Lock
July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT
You know Sparc: The whole laminin thing brings up an interesting point. Number one is the the vacuous nature to which evolutionists seek to establish integrity for evolution. As well it brings up a side subject as to how humans establish relative importance to symbols in their primary step of acquiring knowledge, But of more importance to me in this instance, I know for a fact, from foundational principles of science, that the protein is indeed designed. I also can fairly well ascertain from first principles of science that the designer of the universe, and of all the life in it, is the Logos of John 1:1. The only question for me when it comes to a molecule like laminin, which has such a uncanny resemblance to such a powerful symbol of God's connection to earth, is is their some deeper connection to the universe through it. Though God could surely "sign His name as such" with the laminin molecule, I would find that a bit trivial and unsatisfying as to a unifying principle that could be tied to the physics of the universe. But as to the fact it is designed in the first place there is no question!bornagain77
July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT
Seversky, ------"Just as ridiculous as the idea that atheists and agnostics, who according to the opinion polls are a tiny minority in the US, could “bully” members of one of the world’s major faiths." Of course one person can bully another. Majority and minority members doesn't even factor in to the ability to bully.Clive Hayden
July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT
Winston Macchi, You'll just have to use a sense of discernment to tell the difference, if you don't have an innate moral compass, argument won't bring you to see it.Clive Hayden
July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT
BA77
Sparc, it seems funny that evolutionists use similarity of all sorts to establish all sorts of unfounded conjectures for evolution and claim them as absolute proof for evolution, all the while ignoring and obfuscating foundational principles of science that render evolution impossible
Unfortunately, I was involved in the analyses of the genomic structure of Laminin's binding partner nidogen (btw, what will it tell us that nidogen forms nest like structures). Otherwise I would have suggested to describe laminin as strawman shaped.sparc
July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT
Nakashima, ------"The point is that anonymity itself is not the tool of only one type of person, or only one side of a debate. Baylor Bear was attempting to smear all uses of anonymity, including apparently his own." He did no such thing. He pointed out that anonymity provides the grounds for bullying with immunity for those so inclined, and that the inclination for bullying is indicative of man's fallen state, not that the anonymity is indicative of man's fallen state.Clive Hayden
July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT
Echidna, -------"Again, this is why you are all so afraid of poor trival Weasel. Anthing that shows complex results can be obtained via culmalative selection scares you. Anything you could do to “prove” culmative selection..." What scares me is that people like you honestly think that you're smarter than others.Clive Hayden
July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Leave a Reply