Sometimes very active discussions about peripheral issues overwhelm a thread, so this is a permanent home for those conversations.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
Sometimes very active discussions about peripheral issues overwhelm a thread, so this is a permanent home for those conversations.
I’ll take that as Barry’s way of conceding that he does not have quotes from Coyne or Dawkins that support his accusation.
You did a magnificant job of calling out kairosfocus on his pretentious FSCO/I concoctions.
Test
William J Murray’s response to Alan Fox is strange.
It describes exactly what is going on over a UD even as those Joe and Mung characters immediately swoop in and start mocking and throwing feces the moment anyone makes an effective argument against one of the ID/creationists over there.
That post of Murray’s is pure projection.
And look at the babble of that kairosfocus character in the following comment.
I was at the mall recently, and I saw literally hundreds of cars of different makes, models, colors, license plate numbers, drivers with different clothes and various hats, going to different stores in the mall and buying different things.
If we calculate all the arrangements of all the cars in the surrounding city, the makes, models, colors, license plate numbers, drivers, clothes, change in their pockets, places they went, what they bought, we get a number much larger than the number kairosfocus calculated for his 899 ASCII characters. Clearly what I saw in the mall that day was, according to kairosfocus’s “logic,” designed. The arrangement I saw was so improbable that it could not have happened by “chance and necessity.”
In fact, EVERYTHING can be made to be designed according to his way of counting things. All one has to do is list, for any situation, many separate, SPECIFIED, characteristics; each of which can come from a large sample space. List as many characteristics as you can; even the most trivial, because those count in the accurate specification also.
Then all one has to do is raise each of the sizes of the sample spaces to a power that is as large as the number of specified characteristics in each of the categories of characteristics, multiply all of these together and, voila, you have an impossible state that had to have been designed.
See how easy FSCO/I is?
Congratulations Alan; you reduced WJM and KF to projection and babbling. You are very likely on the verge of being banned from UD forever.
I feel an excuse is required for why I keep posting at Uncommon Descent. I sense some implicit (and explicit) disapproval from some whose opinions I regard highly. I have posted there under a few pseudonyms since first becoming aware of the site when Bill Dembski was still running it himself back in 2005. I actually registered in my own name first and was banned by him for asking if he could give me a definition of “intelligent design” (the comment never made it through moderation).
Recently, the commenter “mung” dropped a hint here that I (and others, as Reciprocating Bill also resumed commenting there for the same reason, I think) were not banned, so I attempted to log in and indeed found that my “Alan Fox” account, opened I think when Barry A offered an “amnesty” after Dave Springer was defenestrated was again functional.
The experiment is, within the limited time my wife allows me at the keyboard, to see how long I am permitted to comment. I must not cheat by using “death-by-cop” or Joe-style comments and beyond that I allow myself to say exactly what I think as the spirit moves me. Oh, and I must not make knowingly false statements. Unfortunately, Barry seems to be playing me at my own game so I am sort of hoist by my own petard and it is becoming a bit tedious. But I do value communication and dialogue and abhor censorship. Helpful suggestions are appreciated! 🙁
No, an excuse is not not needed.
Alan.
I agree with Neil that there is no need to apologize. However, your wife evidently has some concerns for your mental health; be sure to listen to her. When you constantly play tug-of-war with those at the fringes of sanity, there are risks. I believe psychologists and psychiatrists already know this.
While I don’t think it is a particularly fruitful endeavor to routinely engage those over at UD, watching the perturbations caused by those who do engage them does provide data. But the data are distorted when the UD people think they have the upper hand with an “interloper” they assert to be naive.
Once they get defensive about their claims, they resort to censorship and refuse to elaborate further on their claims. Then we don’t find out how far they will go when they don’t feel threatened.
For example; kairosfocus challenged you with this:
What kairosfocus doesn’t know is that everything he asserts is false. Identity does depend on the particular molecules in one’s body; as anyone who has seen the effects of psychedelic drugs, alcohol, heavy metal poisoning such as mercury poisoning and lead poisoning, and all sorts of other molecules. Many other effects, such as nitrogen narcosis, come to mind.
Further more, personality and consciousness depend on temperature. Hyperthermia and hypothermia disable the ability to think, move, and make choices. Temperature effects are pure physics and chemistry. Kairosfocus doesn’t understand what temperature is and what it has to do with elaborating the physical and chemical nature of the processes that go on inside a complex organism.
It is that lack of understanding along with the willingness to blatantly distort and misrepresent science that is very revealing about ID/creationists. Looking in on how they construct those distortions and misrepresentations gives insight into their motives and future plans.
Every time they fail in the courts, they morph some more. Over at UD they are trying to build up what they think will be a “science” that bamboozles everyone. They couldn’t be more wrong; and that is interesting to watch.
Petrushka is also an old account that was banned under Dave Scot and somehow unbanned. Petrushka was originally banned for mentioning gravity as an example of a Law that holds only within a range of physical conditions (and has been modified and extended, but is still incomplete).
Later, Petrushka was put on moderation for pointing out to KF that the history of physical science lacked examples of intervention, or cases where the assumption of intervention was a fruitful hypothesis. Since he was, at the time, expounding on the prevalence of creationists in early science, my comment was unwelcome. I may have implied his knowledge was deficient.
After six months on moderation Petrushka was restored to good graces, only to succumb to Barry Arrington’s banhammer on the superposition thread.
So I was effectively banned three times, but I have never had any other login name.
Nick Matzke rips into VJ Torley’s bogus post about the evolution of the eye over at UD in three successive comments and does a marvelous take-down of VJTorley.
While I don’t happen to think going on UD and giving ID/creationists a free ride is a good idea, this “perturbation” of the echo chamber at UD could produce some responses that give some insight into ID/creationist tactics.
Having observed ID/creationist tactics for nearly 50 years, I doubt we will see anything new; but you will very likely see the denizens of UD falling all over themselves in order to climb onto Nick’s back and “disagree” with an expert, thereby gaining points in the ID/creationist authoritarian hierarchy.
We saw a somewhat similar response when Sal Cordova – one of their own – tried to make use of material he obtained here to not only argue with Granville Sewell, but to make it appear that he could argue with experts here. It was typical self-promotion by someone with only marginal understanding of a scientific concept at best.
Mung, in that thread, makes an odd attempt to warn KF off coming here, due to a perceived absence of warmth in his own welcome. Poor old put-upon never-posted-no-porn Joe concurs. You must all stop disagreeing . How can people possibly feel comfortable here if they are disagreed with?
Right on cue; the UD minions are piling onto Nick Matzke’s back and puffing themelves up like they are superior experts.
The ghost of Gish lives on.
It is amazing (not really) to watch the frantic up-tick in rationalizations over at UD.
When Elizabeth made her reappearance here and Nick Matzke showed up over there, we suddenly see a retreat from ID/creationist pseudoscience into the bizarre labyrinth of ID/creationist pseudo-philosophy and pseudo-metaphysics.
It starts with a haughty denial of the real science and “disagreeing” with the experts; and when that doesn’t get anywhere, we see a blizzard of copy/paste dumps of cobbled together quote mines along with a babbling commentary of pretentious erudition.
Then a lurch into “philosophy” that essentially boils down to, “No one can know reality, therefore we don’t have to try because scientists don’t know that they don’t know.” In other words, they launch into an argument that is pure projection and demonizing. In all the thousands of words posted over at UD, we don’t see one hint that any of the regulars over there understands any real science at any level.
Between the breathless piling onto Nick Matzke’s lab coattails and the condescending sneering at Elizabeth, it is like watching worms trying to crawl out of a bottle; funny and pathetic at the same time.
KF, re: The Essay.
It’s telling us that no-one can be bothered. Seriously, you’d take a blog essay over primary sources or textbooks? But of course if it’s supposed to be about The OoL, it’s not a ‘Darwin essay’ anyway. And the OoL is unresolved. You know that, no-one pretends otherwise, so enough with the This Speaks Volumes crap.
And here it is again – Biped, in the succeeding comment:
In order to do a computer simulation you need a computer. In order to have evolution you need a replicator. Yes. We know.
Allan Miller,
It never seems to occur to creationists that somewhere in the hundred and fifty year history of biology since Darwin, someone might have thought of and addressed problems.
Could one of the mavens here please take the post that I have just made and insert one of those “More …” below-the-fold links, right after the “Let me explain …” ? I cannot figure out how to do it. I’ve tried the “more tag” action in the post editor but it does nothing except add a comment like <! more — > which doesn’t help.
OK, now it is OK, thanks if it was you that did that.
I’m guessing that you fixed it yourself with that “more tag” thing. The wordpress server software sees that, and generates what is needed on the fly when sending a page.
Neil Rickert,
OK (pats self on back).
Joe,
No, they’ve said their piece. And can continue to speak if the like. As is their right.
It’s just that what they are saying is not really convincing anybody. That’s it. There’s nothing you or I can do about it. It’s just the way of it.
They tried. They failed. Now they publish books only read by the faithful, present multimedia presentations only seen only by the faithful and run courses in ID which, of course, only the faithful can attend.
So what I’m saying is that ID is done. And the end result is a place where you can spout off and a nice little earner for those smart enough to grab that bandwagon as it rapidly passes.
Same old stuff, over and over again.
http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/MichaelBeheInBritain
Joe,
Presumably this is “evidence” used in the same way that “design” is a “mechanism”?
I.E the flagellum’s origin is explained as follows: “It was designed”.
If “ID” is supported by “the evidence” could you tell me what version of ID that is?
Is it Uprights version where ID gets evolution going and (seems to) do nothing else?
Is it KF’s version where new “bodyplans” require ID?
Is it Gpuccio’s version where proteins are created directly by ID?
Or is it all of those?
Or, in short, what do you mean by “ID” and what is this specific evidence for that?
Joe,
That’s in response to me noting that as of June 2012 there are 318,926 scientific papers in PubMed that mention ‘evolution’.
The problem for you Joe is that if you asked the authors of those 318,926 papers if they were talking about some “Intelligent Design” version of evolution they say no, of course not. If they were, they’d have mentioned it.
So it’s not a “equivocation” at all.
Rather, this is a classic Joe move as the options diminish. What else can you say?
I provide evidence that “evolution” is a productive paradigm and you say “nuh-huh that’s evidence for something different because I say it is”.
Well, you can say that if you like Joe but the fact is that you’ve just quoted me saying that there are 318,926 scientific papers in PubMed that mention ‘evolution’ and I think everyone will get the inference that there are none that support ID even if you failed to quote that line.
So, really, all everyone at UD wants you do to is stop talking Joe as when you talk you just underline that ID is not based one 1 or 318,926 bits of evidence. Rather it’s something that you knew from the start and ID is just flailing about trying to support that gut belief with some kind of cargo-cult science.
Honestly, I’m surprised that nobody else at UD just tells Joe the lay of the land.
If the best that ID has is the fact that papers on pubmed that mention evolution don’t have a disclaimer on them that explains that, yes, they are in fact talking about “unguided blind watchmaker evolution” then those papers do not support evolution then ID is even more broken then I’d guessed.
And in any case, even if we rule out 318,925 papers for that reason, all but one, that’s still 100% more then there are that support ID.
Joe,
So what was it they were talking about then? Be precise.
Joe,
And that magically makes what Behe wrote true?
No, it does not.
And has been…..? What Joe? Fail to finish that thought did you? Perhaps you remember a little bit of history where “ID” has been the default position for most of human history? Perhaps remember that did you?
Just because you put it in bold does not mean that makes it even more true. What “ID” and what “evidence”?
Joe,
Would that “Evolutionism” be blind watch maker type Evolutionism or the other kind? It’d be helpful if you could mention when using the word evolution if you mean the “evolution” that supports ID or the “evolution” that does not.
I can see where the authors of those 318,926 papers went wrong now! It’s an easy mistake to make. I’ve made it now! And looking back, it seems you constantly make it Joe…….
Joe,
Rather:
Perhaps you could support your claims by simply
A) Linking to real paper that shows how ATP is evidence for ID.
B) Linking to a real paper that shows how the genetic code is evidence for ID.
There are scientific papers about ATP. Likewise the genetic code. But there are none about ATP and ID, nor the genetic code and ID.
And you know it. If you had them, you’d post them.
Joe,
And yet almost every scientist in the world, knowing this, still refuses to believe in anything like Intelligent Design.
What does that tell you Joe? How compelling a case for ID do you think that makes what you are selling at UD?
And “was it”? Yeah, remember Zeus? He was kinda an intelligent designer. That sort of thing.
Joe,
is that right…..
It seems to me, Joe, that you are conflating “ID” with “Jesus” now.
So Newton was an IDist was he? If by “IDist” you mean “believe in a monotheistic God” the by Jove, you are correct.
And if by “cannot provide evidence for anything else” you mean “cannot prove that my god does not exist” then by Jove, you are correct again.
So it seems that your defenses of “Pandas and People” that you’ve made in hte past are misplaced.
ID = belief in god.
Thanks for putting that on display once more Joe. It probably won’t ever be needed in the next court case as there are many other examples of more prominent ID folk then you saying the same thing, but it’s good to keep on the back burner just in case.
I’m stealing this from another site.
Barry,
What is the mindset that anything that is “currently fashionable in the academy” is therefore wrong/suspicious?
If all Barry is saying is that “give opposing views a chance” then I’d suggest that the “Robert Byers’s views on evolution” thread does just that. And his views could not be less mainstream (in the academy).
It also seems that threads like “Is evolution of proteins impossible?” where skepticism was expressed for the claims of “niwrad” does not count either, after all that’s skepticism towards an idea that Barry, while he might not understand the idea itself, understands that somehow it supports ID. So that does not count, eh Barry?
I think the problem Barry has is that Barry got old and Barry did not notice. Who talks about “ideas currently fashionable in the academy”? Mr Burns?
We could have a thread on “Why KF’s claims about bodyplans throw doubt on Darwinian evolution” for example, if KF was willing to come over here and claim it. If KF was willing to defend points he made, and stay on topic. Then a productive skeptical thread would ensue that presumably would satisfy your rules Barry?
So why don’t you suggest it to KF then next time you speak? That he should start a thread here on his “bodyplan” topic and make the best case he can?
Could not get much more “skeptical” then that eh?
I note that AtBC has threads for anyone who wants them, and this site has sponsored half a dozen threads authored by ID proponents.
The fact that we disagree with ID proponents does not alter the fact that they have unlimited and uncensored space and time with which to propound and justify their positions.
Try matching that at UD.
I don’t see UD ever opening up to discussions that are meant for the purpose of discovery.
If KF was capable of it, he would demonstrate that “design” can create a “replicator” that mimics what we observe “evolution” doing.
If no one can “design” such a thing, then design should be eliminated as an option, in the same way they wish to rule out “evolution”.
If they do design something and it falls below the UPB, then “blind” natural processes are capable of “creating” a replicator also, based on the limited “information” in the replicator.
Any science on their part, opens the door to criticisms of ID and therefore, science is not acceptable to them, now or ever.
Do you have a link for that quote from Barry?
I’m pretty sure that what Barry is implying is that he has yet to see a “Darwinist” post comments skeptical of “darwinism”. He’s tossing up an argument by generalization and selective observation, but he’s also begging the question by way of a No True Scotsman fallacy; e.g. those who claim to be skeptics aren’t really skeptics because they are only skeptical of things they disagree with.
Of course, skepticism would never apply to evolutionary theory right now anyway. The very reasons that evolution is even considered a theory automatically remove it from being an object of skepticism.
So Barry is just erecting a No True Strawman to knock down. I say, have at it Barry.
Toronto,
They offer up things like human writings as designed things that surpass the UPB, but they fail to not that nothing designed (where the designer is known) approaches the simplest living thing.
They revel in the stupendous complexity of living things because in their hearts they know the designer can only be god. They shamelessly deny this, arguing that some future technology will allow humans to design living things.
At the same tome they are asserting that the information required to design even a single protein exceeds the UPB.
A thread has begun at UD that invites us to participate in parallel discussion
You have author rights here. So feel free to start such a discussion when you think it appropriate.
petrushka,
I see three immediate areas of concern.
Biological evolution doesn’t search for point B from Point A. Evolution is simply change in the alleles of populations. Sometimes this results in a reproductive advantage for some individuals and sometimes not. Extinction is the norm, so to call it a search would be to call it an inefficient search.
Wrong. Most living things are single celled. Evolution of multi-celled organisms happened, but for 6/7 of the history of life, it didn’t.
And bacteria are the most successful life forms. As a human, most of the cells in your body, by count, are bacteria.
I think this?
With one exception, everyone who participates at UD is able to participate here. The reverse is most definitely not true. If the ID proponents there genuinely want a discussion, it’s no more difficult for them than opening a new tab in their browser.
While everyone here is, of course, free to join this “parallel discussion” if they choose, I strongly urge you to consider the ethics of doing so. UD is slowly dying a well-deserved death as ID becomes ever more irrelevant. The only thing keeping the site alive is the participation of the few members of the reality-based community who have yet to be banned.
By joining a “parallel discussion” you allow them to have their cake and eat it too. They increase their page hits and corresponding advertising revenue while maintaining their execrable moderation system. The operators of UD have every right to run it as they wish, but those of us who value freedom of expression and intellectual honesty have no reason to support their odious practices.
UD is a haven for willful ignorance and libelous dishonesty. The best that can be said about it is that it consumes the time of people who might otherwise be actively damaging science education in public schools. I encourage everyone to think twice before doing anything to benefit that site.
Breath-taking, ain’t it?
There must be many here who are able to post all over the internet – except at UD, at which they are banned, often for no given reason.
And everyone is , AFAIK, welcome to post here (except Joe of course, who tested the limits – and found them!)
Blimey, even Byers has been posting away and getting only mild scorn (plus some good education) in return.
TSZ is anathema to the arch-hypocrites at UD, because it shows how such a forum can be successful reasonably polite, and interesting whilst needing no sycophants, nor yet a ban-hammer on a hair-trigger
damitall2: “TSZ is anathema to the arch-hypocrites at UD, because it shows how such a forum can be successful reasonably polite, and interesting whilst needing no sycophants, nor yet a ban-hammer on a hair-trigger ”
Agreed.
UD is an effectively censored site if you are on the “wrong” side as the moderation queue means you are not talking in real-time while the ID side is free to reply anytime and in any manner.
Patrick: “The operators of UD have every right to run it as they wish, but those of us who value freedom of expression and intellectual honesty have no reason to support their odious practices. ”
UD has shown with their history, that debate is biased intentionally in their favour.
They can come here and debate if they really want to test ID in a fair and open forum.
More excuses from Joe,
Let me make it real simple.
1) The reason for posting it to support your claim of a double standard at TSZ.
2) Find a similar image and post that.
In post 37 you said:
And those are your reasons for posting it. Presumably the “rest of the world” includes UD, and as such they are operating on different standards and so won’t care if post that link as it’s not going to be a problem.
Yet, for some reason, you seem to be squirming around making excuse after excuse when in fact the answer is quite clear – post the link and let KF decide if it’s appropriate for UD.
Joe,
When I ask you to find a similar image and post it you say:
It’s your claim that TSZ has double standards. So it’s for you to support?
And where would I post the image Joe? Here? Well, that’s not going to happen. At UD? Well, only you can do that as it’s your claim.
So any excuse at all Joe? It’s no surprise that when you are asked to justify your actions you turn around and say “nuh-huh, that’s you that is ” like a 5 year old.
You made a claim, and you expect me to help you support it? I’m afraid not.
Joe,
I was repeating your claim. That you don’t get that is no surprise.
Then be so kind as to link to that in a comment at UD, as I can’t see any such post.
Joe,
That may well be the case, but in this specific case and claim you have not and that is plain for everyone to see.
Post the image Joe. What are you scared of?
Joe,
What are the search terms Joe?
Your last post was on the 24th.
So right now your claim that:
Is unsupported. For some reason it seems that you don’t want “the case that you made” to actually be read by anybody at UD, so you are going to pretend that you’ve already posted it and hope that nobody will call you on it.
Well, I’m calling you on it. What is the link to the post where you post the image and make your case?
Joe,
What case? What are you talking about?
you made a claim. you are unwilling to support that claim. But you are willing to act as if you did in fact support that claim and try to turn it around on me.
But anybody can see for themselves that you’ve not made a case at all. If you had then why not post a link?
Or, what terms should I search your blog for Joe to see that picture and where you make the case that being banned for posting it was double standards?