|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2009 : 14:16:19 [Permalink]
|
My comment was accepted! And even got a reply! Here's my latest:Clive @8:Our friend Allen MacNeill was certainly among the number of people who take evolutionary psychology seriously. Well, that's one, and the count is off and running.
We can also count PZ Myers and Stephen J. Gould as opponents of evolutionary psychology. Hey, that'll be cool: for every person you come up with who is serious about evopsych, I'll name two who were/are on the other side. |
Think he'll take me up on the challenge?
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 06/06/2009 : 19:07:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
My comment was accepted! And even got a reply! Here's my latest:Clive @8:Our friend Allen MacNeill was certainly among the number of people who take evolutionary psychology seriously. Well, that's one, and the count is off and running.
We can also count PZ Myers and Stephen J. Gould as opponents of evolutionary psychology. Hey, that'll be cool: for every person you come up with who is serious about evopsych, I'll name two who were/are on the other side. |
Think he'll take me up on the challenge?
|
He might. But don't be surprised if you get banned before that can happen. I was polite and I'm suspect filthy was polite and we are both banned... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2009 : 21:02:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
He might. But don't be surprised if you get banned before that can happen. I was polite and I'm suspect filthy was polite and we are both banned... |
He accepted the challenge, but said he needs time. And then tossed a pretty silly article at me.
I told him that if he's going to count anyone as a "Darwinist," then I've got eight million anti-evopsych people in the form of the Church of Scientology ('cause they're anti-psych in general). He hasn't replied.
But PhilosophyFan did, accusing me of being DaveTard and saying that a book called "Species of Origins" [sic] has another pro-evopsych scientist in it.
I asked him, "what page?" (wink, wink.) |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2009 : 01:17:20 [Permalink]
|
Sounds like fun -- Kil, we'd better scrooch over and make a little room on the Group W Bench.
I'd never heard of Species of Origins (clever title, that), so I looked it up. Why is there such rancorous conflict in America over creationism and evolution? Other countries don't suffer form this, so why does the United States? Is it simply a question about religion? Is it because of Christian fundamentalism?
In their recent book "Species of Origins," Karl W. Giberson and Donald A. Yerxa argue that such answers really miss the point because evolution conflict is more about culture than simply religion. Every culture needs a creation story because such stories tell us about the origins of our world and, more importantly, about our place in that world. When two incompatible creation stories come into contact, the result is personal and cultural alienation - and conflict.
|
Is there a "pro-evopsych scientist" mentioned in it? I don't know but as it reduces the Theory of Evolution to a social issue, there might well be.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2009 : 20:07:50 [Permalink]
|
If anything gets me banned, it'll probably be this:Right, because as we all know, the Discovery Institute is only the Center for Science and Culture. Gilder isn't a CSC Fellow, and his books seem to have little to do with ID. Joven is annoyed that Gilder suggested that Kepler might have been a murderer. Does that have anything to do with ID? How many ID-related projects is Cascadia working on right now?
Besides, we know that novels are no indication of how much impact one is having. Sherlock Holmes had lots of novels written about him, despite his being fictional (and so having zero impact until after at least the first novel was written). On the other hand, novels have been written about Charles Manson, Satanists and the Marquis de Sade. They all certainly had "an impact," but is it the same sort of impact that you'd like to have? Or is all publicity good publicity? |
It's in response to this post by Dembski (comment #2). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2009 : 20:19:50 [Permalink]
|
I'm back on moderation for throwing O'Leary's words back at her, and Clive is tapping his ban-hammer in my direction. My latest is in this thread, answering two of Clive's comments directed at me:Clive wrote:You better explain yourself, and choose your words very carefully. What's to explain? You've already suggested that you know what I meant, so you should also understand that taking what I said as an insult to Mrs. O'Leary would only be appropriate if what she wrote was intended to be an insult to Mrs. Forrest.
Was it, Clive? Is Uncommon Descent intended to be a soapbox from which to hurl insults at "Darwinists," Clive?
Also:Actually, ummm, no. Because knowledge itself, derived from inference, is metaphysical. If you wish to go that route, all knowledge is derived from inference. What do metaphysics have to do with it? And what does that answer have to do with the fact that most people rely upon methological naturalism to find the bathroom and a zillion other mundane tasks, everyday (instead of dismissing the practice as fiction)? |
Just in case I'm not banned outright, I also answered Gil over here:The bottom line, Mr. Dodgen, is that neither you nor Mr. Andserson have critiqued the mechanisms under test in the simulations. You instead fault the simulations for failing to address aspects of evolution and/or biology that they were never intended to address. And when that point is made, you dismiss what you fail to critique as inadequate, trivial or obvious.
Mr. Behe stated that IC was impossible for mutation and selection to accomplish. The EQU test was set up to test just those aspects, and when it succeeded, Mr. Anderson argued not one bit against either the basic mutation or selection processes, but instead invented a raft of transparent objections which all missed the point, and then had the gall to claim that Avida failed. Or that it accomplished something trivial which Mr. Behe claimed to be impossible. Yes, according to Anderson, what Avida did was trivial and successful and impossible, all at the same time. |
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2009 : 20:47:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
I'm back on moderation for throwing O'Leary's words back at her, and Clive is tapping his ban-hammer in my direction. My latest is in this thread, answering two of Clive's comments directed at me... |
And my reply was silently deleted. So I submitted another one:| So, someone just silently deleted my replies to you, Clive. Were either of them even rude? |
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2009 : 00:18:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Dave W.
I'm back on moderation for throwing O'Leary's words back at her, and Clive is tapping his ban-hammer in my direction. My latest is in this thread, answering two of Clive's comments directed at me... |
And my reply was silently deleted. So I submitted another one:| So, someone just silently deleted my replies to you, Clive. Were either of them even rude? |
|
Welcome to the club. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 06/12/2009 : 03:37:34 [Permalink]
|
Indeed. You don't have to get nasty over there to become refuse tossed out the back door. All you have to do is be dissenting and correct, and stick to it. Like the slug in your other thread, they shun the light and eat their own slime.
Fun while it lasts though, eh?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2009 : 08:23:07 [Permalink]
|
Since I got silently deleted by Clive again, but my comment to Gil Dodgen was eventually let through, I thought I'd give it one more try, on a different thread:Your comment is awaiting moderation.
SCheesman wrote:The ID side, however, says such pathways do not exist, except for the most trivial of cases, and, on many levels, the constituents of life populate highly isolated islands of configuration space, and no connecting paths consisting of just a few changes at a time will ever be found. It's worse than that: the ID side proposes not only that such pathways don't exist or will not be found, but that such pathways are impossible. And so even just a remotely plausible but not-yet-found pathway destroys ID.
And as for the mechanism of ID, we can indeed describe the incredibly complex pathway transferring an idea into a page of text in a bound, printed book, and describe it in extremely precise detail, but ID cannot do the same. ID cannot describe the mechanism through which intelligence translates into different sequences of DNA bases.
Intelligent design is worthless and impossible to detect unless there has also been intelligent implementation, just like a blueprint is pointless unless a manufactured item results from it. We can “detect design” in the object, and then go look “upstream” for the process of manufacture, and then even further for the blueprint. Why won't ID researchers do the same? Why do the luminaries of ID refuse to do the same, by claiming that questions about the designer are out-of-bounds?
Especially when in all of the disciplines ID promoters claim make use of ID - forensics, SETI, etc. - simply detecting design is not the goal. |
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2009 : 13:41:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Since I got silently deleted by Clive again, but my comment to Gil Dodgen was eventually let through, I thought I'd give it one more try, on a different thread:[quote]Your comment is awaiting moderation.
|
Perhaps the secret to avoiding silent deletions is having someone else post a (critical?) reply to your post, quoting you. Then the deletion would be visible to the readers.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2009 : 16:04:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Perhaps the secret to avoiding silent deletions is having someone else post a (critical?) reply to your post, quoting you. Then the deletion would be visible to the readers. |
Can only do that with a coordinated effort, and if one is not on moderation to begin with.
But, my latest was posted. And SCheesman missed the points. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2009 : 01:40:20 [Permalink]
|
From this thread, a precious comment by SCheesman...
Now, that's simply not true is it? Even the most fanciful lipid structure is still infinitely more actual positive evidence then you have for God/The Designer. I'd grant you that if it was anything more than fancy. Got some fossil evidence? Any test-tube examples? Maybe the flying spagetti monster is made of lipid structures. |
(emphasis mine)
Is the pope catholic? Does Dolly Parton sleep on her back? Do one legged ducks swim in circles? Do bears shit in the woods?
Every pasta-loving, slightly educated person knows It contains lipid structures, of different flavours.
 |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Free stuff! Get’chr free stuff here!
