Annoying creationists

[kleinman]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Little do they realize that they are simply appealing to ignorance and not being clever at all.

Who is trying to be clever? I am trying to be annoying, it’s not much of challenge when you are discussing evolution with evolutionarians.

Originally Posted by Kleinman

By the way, ev shows that the theory of evolution is not Y2K compliant.

Originally Posted by Paul

Like my company, Windfall Software, it was Y2K complacent.

Paul, you have successfully annoyed me for the first time.

Originally Posted by Kleinman

Delphi

Originally Posted by Delphi ote

That's my name! Now, come on, give me two more!

This is a discussion on the ev computer program so in order to satisfy Delphi’s request and maintain consistency with our discussion topic,

Delphi^G

Originally Posted by Kleinman

Adequate has no courage as well, like you he won’t use his real name in his posts. Not only are you evolutionists whimpering crybabies, you are cowards as well. (At least Delphi had the courage to reveal his real name.)

Originally Posted by Kleinman

Originally Posted by articullet

I think it is wise not to give out your name to people who invest their beliefs in faith-based notions.

You never know how I’ll abuse your computer programs.

Originally Posted by Kleinman

T’ai, you need to understand that the evolutionarian belief system is based in superficiality. Evolutionarians do not attend to the details.

Originally Posted by Paul

Unlike creatonarians, who confuse attending to details with knowing all the details. This is not surprising, since they have no details at all.

But I do have google!

Originally Posted by Kleinman

By the way Paul, since you won’t post your data for the generations for convergence for a series with constant mutation rate per number of bases, I am doing a series. I am using the baseline model except with a mutation rate of 1 per 10,000 bases per generation. I will post the data in a few days. What will happen when we reach Rcapacity?

Originally Posted by Paul

Here is my data for a genome size of 1000 and a mutation rate of 1 mutation per million bases:

population, generations
2, 29037000
4, 72555000
8, 44261000
16, 32561000
32, 14806000
64, 12845000
128, 8005000
256, 9388000
512, 10319000
1024, 4040000
2048, 3300000
4096, 3400000
8192, 2231000
16384, 2004000
32768, (running now)

Rcapacity has nothing to do with this experiment.

It also has nothing to do with a mutation rate fixed to a number of bases but I still like the data.

Paul, do you think that kjkent1 is serious about getting access to a super computer to do some larger cases or do you think he was blowing smoke? Even if we had access to a system 1000 times larger than the fastest desktop pc, you still need an operating system and language that could make use of the resources. Are you willing to put that type of effort in on this?

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by kleinman

Who is trying to be clever? I am trying to be annoying, it’s not much of challenge when you are discussing evolution with evolutionarians.

Paul, you have successfully annoyed me for the first time.

This is a discussion on the ev computer program so in order to satisfy Delphi’s request and maintain consistency with our discussion topic,

Delphi^G

You never know how I’ll abuse your computer programs.

But I do have google!

It also has nothing to do with a mutation rate fixed to a number of bases but I still like the data.

Paul, do you think that kjkent1 is serious about getting access to a super computer to do some larger cases or do you think he was blowing smoke? Even if we had access to a system 1000 times larger than the fastest desktop pc, you still need an operating system and language that could make use of the resources. Are you willing to put that type of effort in on this?

Oh, that was informative.

Run out of lies, eh?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Kleinman

Paul, you have successfully annoyed me for the first time.

Because I wasn't worried about Y2K!?

Quote:

Paul, do you think that kjkent1 is serious about getting access to a super computer to do some larger cases or do you think he was blowing smoke? Even if we had access to a system 1000 times larger than the fastest desktop pc, you still need an operating system and language that could make use of the resources. Are you willing to put that type of effort in on this?

Nah, it's your turn.

~~ Paul

[hammegk]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

If the answer doesn't matter to you, why ask the question?

Some find increased self-knowledge interesting and useful.

Quote:

With whom are you agreeing? The voices in your head?

In terms of content you usually seem to be rational. In terms of presentation, much less so.

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Since speciation can occur in one generation (polyploid speciation, chromosome doubling, et cetera) I should say almost certainly.

What does that have to do with the ev program that from time to time is under discussion here? Let me help: nothing.

Quote:

... In particular, he has made it clear that his statements about the fossil record apply to change between species:

"[T]ransitions are often found in the fossil record ... Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim.

And others who are not "creationists" note that moving from intraspecies mutations, point and otherwise, to a leap across the chasm that provides a fossil record speciation event, or better yet a laboratory example, of something that demonstrates the ill-defined term "speciation" is yet to be found.

Quote:

If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am —- for I have become a major target of these practices ... it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms.

Depending on the definition of those terms, it is true that lack of transitional forms remains a problem.

Quote:

Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

And now we all await the math models. I believe we agree ev isn't it.


LOL. Is modern evolutionary theory even at the stage of rolling balls down inclined planes? I'd say we have a long way to go before approaching newtonian accuracy.

Bur cheer up; you're probably farther along than the other soft "sciences", human behavior being what it is.



joobz: Re hammegk & background ....

In response to a comment about god & dice (Thread R&P: Are free will & determinism compatible)

Originally Posted by hammegk
Bell-Aspect-DCQE-etc say the dice are loaded ...

Originally Posted by President Bush

A composite of your posts shows an interference pattern emerging, hammegk. Not thought about they revert to behaving like waves.

PS. Search isn't working for me at the moment ... sorry.

[Dr Adequate]

Tell me again about these "closet dualists".

Can I recognise them by the way they walk?

[articulett]

Originally Posted by delphi_ote

I can understand being cautious about privacy on the internet, especially regarding a topic like this. I didn't reveal my identity because I thought it proved anything. My name is so common, you're better off trying to track me down by my web alias anyway. I was just proud to be a part of the paper I linked. Then Kleinman started this crusade about names.

Yes, I don't think it's likely to matter, but fervent believers can do some pretty scary things, so I would never try to shame someone into revealing their identity on a forum. I speak a little freer knowing that the people I piss off can't throw things at me.

I remember Penn Jillette at a TAM2 (?)talking about how he's not afraid to ire magicians by revealing secrets or to piss off people of faith-- but he's 6'5" and 300 pounds. It's not like he needs to cross to the other side of the street when someone sinister is in his path--in fact, he's probably the one that others cross the street because of.

I spoke out, because I think it was a silly attack on Dr. Adequate, but I guess he's got to use whatever he has in his arsenal because there sure isn't evidence in support of whatever it is he believes.

Kleinman, you aren't one of those YEC's are you. I mean, you can knock evolution all you want, but have you brought any evidence to the table for Intelligent Design--and could the Intelligent Designer be Allah? Zeus? The Hebrew God? An alien? It's just hard to take you seriously. You don't understand some of the basics of evolution and the known way genomes change. You seem to think it couldn't have happened it whatever given time frame you believe in and therefore, someone must have done some tinkering along the way to speed things up a bit--something supernatural. Right?

But we have 0 evidence that anything supernatural exists--none--no measurable evidence. All the things we've learned about our world have not come from divine texts--but through evolving and refining our knowledge via testing, measurement, replication, and evidence. The truths we discover are the same for everyone no matter what they believe. DNA is in everyone's blood and always was even if no human ever found that out. No divine text mentioned it. Darwin didn't even know it existed...he could only hypothesize about what was in gametes that was passed on. Do you understand the significance of what we now know--we've mapped the whole human genome--and the chimpanzee genome too--we can see the changes that took place since we shared a common ancestor. We share approximately 98% of our genes with them. You'd think an omniscient, all loving designer would have mentioned it, wouldn't you? --Or at least clued people in to things like germ theory--just to save some suffering and not look like he favored bacteria over humans. No matter where you look for your claims--none of it makes any sense--there's nothing measurable...life forms look cobbled together and there are failures on an astronomical scales when you think of all the possible people that could have existed per one sex act--and multiply that by the trillions of life forms on this planet. How is that waste intelligent?

Francis Collins helped map the human genome and he accepts evolution (because it's undeniable)--he is also an Evangelical Christian for reasons most other scientists can't fathom. Mostly, because Science can't dissprove a god outside of time and place--and some personal revelations that mean no more than any other personal revelations from a scientific perspective. People have revelations all the time. They're untestable, don't agree with eachother, can be influences by electrical stimulation or drugs, and aren't useful for anyone but the believer. Despite your shared faith, he doesn't really have any problems with evolution--he thinks maybe god set it all up but he doesn't give much evidence in support (except the goldilocks universe kind of thinking which is backwards)--he'd have a lot to tell you about your miscalculations if you wanted to actually understand why no scientist would take you seriously.
And he wouldn't threaten your favorite belief...you could learn the facts without fear of eternal damnation. Really, you should try. Your conviction of your rightness is making you seem dotty-- and you are missing some of the most interesting information humans have ever been able to know. Check it out for yourself. You have no-one buy your BS here. No-one. The only ones who support you are people who have been embedded in similar beliefs since they joined this forum. Like you, their beliefs are based on faith, and so reason goes nowhere with them. But you actually sound like you could learn the facts. Read Darwin. Read Dawkins. Read Scientific American or National Geographic. Read Sagan. You are deluding yourself; don't you want to know the facts? People like you never even seem to read the people they claim to despise.

[delphi_ote]

Originally Posted by kleinman

kjkent1 is serious about getting access to a super computer to do some larger cases or do you think he was blowing smoke? Even if we had access to a system 1000 times larger than the fastest desktop pc, you still need an operating system and language that could make use of the resources. Are you willing to put that type of effort in on this?

There's no reason we couldn't just build on the Java version. You don't need a specialized OS to run a Beowulf cluster. That's the whole point. It's cheap.

It's fun to talk about, but it's a lot of effort for nothing. The smaller scale simulations already show all that really needed to be proven. I might take a stab at it at some point over my break, but don't hold your breath.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by kleinman

Who is trying to be clever? I am trying to be annoying, it’s not much of challenge when you are discussing evolution with evolutionarians.

If by annoying you mean a complete drooling moron, then you're overkilling it.

[UnrepentantSinner]

You know, here's the thing I don't understand about Creationists - they think some arcane, always bogus mathmatical calculation will make things like fossils, biogeography, and the genetic evidence disappear. It's the same thing with abiogenesis "calculations." Guess what guys, life exists, therefore the odds of it existing is 1:1. We've had 150 years of increasingly sophisticated studies to disprove common ancestry and there are plenty of maverick scientists who would love to upend evolution and win that elusive Nobel.

Where are they, and why haven't they published papers that survive scrutiny?

[articulett]

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

You know, here's the thing I don't understand about Creationists - they think some arcane, always bogus mathmatical calculation will make things like fossils, biogeography, and the genetic evidence disappear. It's the same thing with abiogenesis "calculations." Guess what guys, life exists, therefore the odds of it existing is 1:1. We've had 150 years of increasingly sophisticated studies to disprove common ancestry and there are plenty of maverick scientists who would love to upend evolution and win that elusive Nobel.

Where are they, and why haven't they published papers that survive scrutiny?

Indeed. Not a one. Their whole "we can't see macroevolution" is idiotic too. The truth is, no proof will ever be enough...they never state what it is that will convince them. And all we ask for is a bit of evidence in support of something else. We can't see macroevolution, because it takes eons to speciate--but we can see it in process. All breeds of dogs are still in the wolf family--subspecies...and all the forms have been formed through human selection which is a lot faster then letting nature due the culling--and more varied as well. But dogs can still produce fertile offspring with wolf, and until they can't, they're still part of the same species.

Zebras and Donkeys are speciating. They can still mate and some of the offspring can be mated to donkeys but not to other mixes, I think. http://www.messybeast.com/genetics/hybrid-mammals.html

Horses and donkeys have speciated and their offspring are sterile (mules) and are considered hybrids. Speciation doesn't happen quickly--it usually starts as a divergence in in breeding populations or a separation due to rivers, tectonic plate movement, migration, mountains, etc. At the beginning of speciation animals may start to look different, but they can still produce fertile offspring with eachother if they have the opportunity to mate. The longer time between mating generations the less fertile such chance offspring are likely to be--and then they will be sterile (hybrids unable to mate successfully with any of the members of the parental species or even with others like themselves). And finally no offspring can be produced at all even when the animals get together. We see all of these stages in many animals right now.

We see exactly what is going on in the DNA. That is evidence no matter how much creationists want to scream and say it doesn't count. Wanting macroevolution not to have been demonstrated doesn't mean it hasn't been demonstrated sufficiently in many forms to the satisfaction of most scientists and even in a court of law-- no matter how much creationarians say it doesn't count.

The fact is, nothing will count to a person whose self importance and eternal bliss rests on them believing a particular unbelievable story. Kleinman can't let the facts penetrate, because he thinks it might be the devil tempting him to bite from the tree of knowledge. Religion is the most ignorant promoting institution I can imagine. I am glad it's fading as rapidly as creationists pretend evolution is. If only they knew the truth.

[UnrepentantSinner]

To expound further on articulette's and my own earlier posts, I have to wonder why Creationists would think the "Hitler was an 'evolutionist'" argument would make the fossil and genetic evidence go away as well. Similarly I recently encountered the "evolution says humans are just animals" argument, which makes me ask first why bee colonies function then why I'm not sitting naked in my own filth replying to said assinine assertion when my view that I'm "merely an animal" should have me running around stealing what I can and raping any woman I come in close contact with.

I'm sorry anti-evolutionists, but the fossils exist, the genetic evidence exists, and no matter how many appeals to how mathmatical and metaphysical arguments you present, those things aren't going away.

[kleinman]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Oh, that was informative.

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Run out of lies, eh?

I have to admit that I have been very unfair with Adequate. In order for Adequate to know where the goal posts are, he first needs to make it to the ballpark. So, I will inform Adequate on how to get to the ev ball park. First, since Adequate is an imaginary superhero, we have to get him from Krypton to earth. So Adequate, be a good little boy and get into your spaceship for a fun little ride to earth. Once you get to earth, you need to take a tour of Dr Schneider’s web site and learn a little about what Dr Schneider is mathematically modeling. Once you have done that, you need to run more than a single case like Dr Schneider has done and then you will find yourself in the ballpark. At this point, perhaps you will see the goalposts, that is if your seat isn’t too far up in the bleachers.

Someone must have given Adequate a bottle, he doesn’t seem to be whining as much as previous. Now if someone would just change his diapers. When he grows up we can make him a brown cape from them to go with his imaginary superhero outfit.

Originally Posted by Kleinman

Paul, you have successfully annoyed me for the first time.

Originally Posted by Paul

Because I wasn't worried about Y2K!?

No, it was your very bad compliant/complacent pun. Perhaps I erred and that wasn’t a pun but what you really had done was taken English lessons from joozb?

Originally Posted by Kleinman

Paul, do you think that kjkent1 is serious about getting access to a super computer to do some larger cases or do you think he was blowing smoke? Even if we had access to a system 1000 times larger than the fastest desktop pc, you still need an operating system and language that could make use of the resources. Are you willing to put that type of effort in on this?

Originally Posted by Paul

Nah, it's your turn.

What’s the matter? Are you afraid that running larger cases with ev will show how ridiculous the theory of evolution is? I think it is smart for evolutionarians to say away from mathematics, it really messes up their stories.

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Since speciation can occur in one generation (polyploid speciation, chromosome doubling, et cetera) I should say almost certainly.

Originally Posted by hammegk

What does that have to do with the ev program that from time to time is under discussion here? Let me help: nothing.

Hammegk, if you would just pay attention to Adequate, you would see new species popping up on a regular basis. Joozb says the likelihood of abiogensis occurring is equal to winning a single superlotto, that’s why we see new life originating on a weekly basis.

Originally Posted by Kleinman

kjkent1 is serious about getting access to a super computer to do some larger cases or do you think he was blowing smoke? Even if we had access to a system 1000 times larger than the fastest desktop pc, you still need an operating system and language that could make use of the resources. Are you willing to put that type of effort in on this?

Originally Posted by Delphi ote

There's no reason we couldn't just build on the Java version. You don't need a specialized OS to run a Beowulf cluster. That's the whole point. It's cheap.

Originally Posted by Kleinman

Originally Posted by Delphi ote

It's fun to talk about, but it's a lot of effort for nothing. The smaller scale simulations already show all that really needed to be proven. I might take a stab at it at some point over my break, but don't hold your breath.

Paul’s Java version of ev has greater memory limitations than Dr Schneider’s original Pascal version of the program. If you want to run populations greater than 10^9, you will need an operating system and language that can address arrays of this size or larger.

I agree with you that the smaller scale cases prove most of the mathematical behavior of ev. The one point that is not completely clear is whether the population cases are showing an approach to an asymptote or whether there is a small slope to the curve to Adequate’s proposed point of 1 generation for an infinite population. Even a number like 10^20 is a long way from infinity, it is also a long way from 4^1,000,000. There is so much noise in this stochastic process that I am not sure which is happening with the population series. Paul likes to do curve fits to this data but I think these are useless; you need to generate the points with ev.

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

You know, here's the thing I don't understand about Creationists - they think some arcane, always bogus mathmatical calculation will make things like fossils, biogeography, and the genetic evidence disappear.

I don’t think ev is a bogus mathematical calculation, I think it is a mathematical model of random point mutations and natural selection written by an evolutionist who heads the computational molecular biology group at the National Cancer Institute, which was peer reviewed and published in the Oxford University Press journal, Nucleic Acids Research.

I know this following question is off topic, but what makes you so proud to be an UnrepentantSinner? Never mind, don’t bother answering, better to know you are an UnrepentantSinner than be self righteous, unless you figured out a way to do both.

[Dr Adequate]

So, no new lies then?

[Yahzi]

Originally Posted by kleinman

Your knowing Adequate’s name doesn’t make him any less of a crybaby or coward. If my arguments are so weak,

Delicious.

Quote:

why do you waste your time reading this thread

I can explain that for you. The problem is that your moniker is somewhat misleading.

While a handful of people here might indeed find you annoying, the rest of us find you amusing.

We aren't wasting our time reading this thread; we're mining comedy gold. Irony is the rarest of the comic substances, and you are a source of such purity and depth as to amaze, astound, and above all, endlessly entertain.

For example, I point you to the comment, above.

[Yahzi]

Originally Posted by articulett

We can't see macroevolution,

I don't understand the macroevolution argument.

Creationoids define species by inter-fertility: if they can mate, they're the same species.

They define macroevolution as creation of new species; that is, animals that can't mate with their parent's species.

They accept microevolution as a fact; genes can change over time.

So: why do they think most genes on the DNA strand can change over time, but some - the ones that control fertility - cannot? What mechanism selects those particular genes for perfect copy, while allowing others to be corrupted?

Do they think God put a plastic change-guard over that stretch of DNA, but not the rest?

I just don't get the mechanism by which they think this happens. At the DNA copying level, it's all genes. The copy machine doesn't know what its copying. How could it gaurantee fidelity for some pages and not others?

Maybe they think it's like the Holy Bible; if you sit down to copy a book, then you might make scribing errors; but if you sit down to copy the Book, then God will guide your pen and make sure it comes out perfect.

No wonder God never puts in a personal appearence - if he's personally watching over every transcription of a reproductive gene for every creature on Earth, he's going to be awfully busy.

[delphi_ote]

Originally Posted by kleinman

Paul’s Java version of ev has greater memory limitations than Dr Schneider’s original Pascal version of the program. If you want to run populations greater than 10^9, you will need an operating system and language that can address arrays of this size or larger.

Are you actually running out of memory? You can bump up the amount of memory available to a Java program with a command line option. For example, "java -Xmx 500M myProgram" (that would give you 500M of heap space.)

Computer scientists don't always store data in a single contiguous block in RAM on one machine. We could handle these problems if we needed to run such a distributed simulation. Current climate simulations require a lot more data and calculation, and some of them are being run on personal computers.

I just did a Google search for an example of this kind of thing. Here's a BBC article about a climate simulation. Also, here's a paper about a a parallel implementation of a genetic algorithm (oddly, I used to work in that department, but I never even heard about this project.) Ev has a lot in common with GAs.

[John Hewitt]

Originally Posted by Yahzi

I don't understand the macroevolution argument.

Creationoids define species by inter-fertility: if they can mate, they're the same species.

They define macroevolution as creation of new species; that is, animals that can't mate with their parent's species.

They accept microevolution as a fact; genes can change over time.

So: why do they think most genes on the DNA strand can change over time, but some - the ones that control fertility - cannot? What mechanism selects those particular genes for perfect copy, while allowing others to be corrupted?

Do they think God put a plastic change-guard over that stretch of DNA, but not the rest?

I just don't get the mechanism by which they think this happens. At the DNA copying level, it's all genes. The copy machine doesn't know what its copying. How could it gaurantee fidelity for some pages and not others?

Maybe they think it's like the Holy Bible; if you sit down to copy a book, then you might make scribing errors; but if you sit down to copy the Book, then God will guide your pen and make sure it comes out perfect.

No wonder God never puts in a personal appearence - if he's personally watching over every transcription of a reproductive gene for every creature on Earth, he's going to be awfully busy.

I am a bit puzzled about the title of this thread. Is the word "annoying" used as an adjective to indicate that members of the creationists community are in some way annoying as people; alternatively, is the objective of these postings to annoy those people?

[delphi_ote]

Originally Posted by John Hewitt

I am a bit puzzled about the title of this thread. Is the word "annoying" used as an adjective to indicate that members of the creationists community are in some way annoying as people; alternatively, is the objective of these postings to annoy those people?

Paul was using it as an adjective. Read his first post.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Kleinman

What’s the matter? Are you afraid that running larger cases with ev will show how ridiculous the theory of evolution is? I think it is smart for evolutionarians to say away from mathematics, it really messes up their stories.

Yes, that's the problem. It has nothing to do with the work involved. The work involved is trivial. Say, why don't you do it and show us up for the fools we are?

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Yahzi

I don't understand the macroevolution argument.

Creationoids define species by inter-fertility: if they can mate, they're the same species.

Well, that's how they define macroevolution sometimes. Have you noticed that we've never managed to get Kleinman to give us his definition of macroevolution? He refers us to Wikipedia, which recently had a change in its definition. The definition now includes:

Quote:

A misunderstanding about this biological controversy has allowed the concept of macroevolution to be coopted by creationists. They use this controversy as a supposed "hole" in the evidence for deep-time evolution.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Delphi

Are you actually running out of memory? You can bump up the amount of memory available to a Java program with a command line option. For example, "java -Xmx 500M myProgram" (that would give you 500M of heap space.)

At this point my limitations are RAM (1 gig) and time.

~~ Paul

[delphi_ote]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

At this point my limitations are RAM (1 gig) and time.

~~ Paul

Since he's such a great scientist, I naturally assumed kleinman was trying to reproduce your "controversial" results. He seems to enjoy giving me computer science advice so much, I thought I'd return the favor.

[articulett]

Originally Posted by Yahzi

I don't understand the macroevolution argument.

Creationoids define species by inter-fertility: if they can mate, they're the same species.

They define macroevolution as creation of new species; that is, animals that can't mate with their parent's species.

They accept microevolution as a fact; genes can change over time.

So: why do they think most genes on the DNA strand can change over time, but some - the ones that control fertility - cannot? What mechanism selects those particular genes for perfect copy, while allowing others to be corrupted?

Do they think God put a plastic change-guard over that stretch of DNA, but not the rest?

I just don't get the mechanism by which they think this happens. At the DNA copying level, it's all genes. The copy machine doesn't know what its copying. How could it gaurantee fidelity for some pages and not others?

Maybe they think it's like the Holy Bible; if you sit down to copy a book, then you might make scribing errors; but if you sit down to copy the Book, then God will guide your pen and make sure it comes out perfect.

No wonder God never puts in a personal appearence - if he's personally watching over every transcription of a reproductive gene for every creature on Earth, he's going to be awfully busy.

Indeed. Macro-evolution is a term used strictly by creationists. As though separate species were made in a poof. I doubt any separating of species happened in one moment. Much of the mutations involving speciation are on the X chromosome--I'm not trying to imply god is a pervert or anything...but if he's the one in charge, why the fondness for X?

The problem with intelligent design (as if there were only one) is that it is useless. It has no facts in support of it; it goes nowhere; it doesn't tell us anything or how to take the next steps to discovery. Nothing in science is discovered with the assumption that god must have played a hand in it. Intelligent Design just says, "god did it; humans will never understand how". Such thinking is designed to keep people giving praise, allegiance, and money to their clergy and the politicians who endorse god. Invisible immeasurable entities (and forces) have always been invoked by humans to explain that which they don't understand. And as science discovers more, these entities fade or lose their powers or are defined more loosely. It all boils down to--"how dare you question the Mighty Oz?" Doesn't it? Hammy and Thai and kleinman never present evidence for a competing theory in their many thousands of posts and always resort to ad hominen attacks and eye rolling emoticons (or platitudes of self-aggrandizement that they seem to think are deep followed by a wink in hammy's case) because what else is there?

And I always wonder why. Why do they keep hammering at this notion to an audience that repeatedly fines them ignorant and unwilling to absorb even the most careful and detailed explanations asked for. Why don't they understand that "gaps" in understanding are not answered by "magic", god, or anything supernatural because positing such, pretty much puts a stop to all discovery and potential understanding on a topic.

Haven't most of those who accept evolution also believed in god and souls at some time. It's not like we are unfamiliar with the thinking. And it's not like gods, demons, and the like haven't been used throughout mankind and in every religion to give people at least the impression that they understood something and then could control it by sacrificing virgins, doing rain dances etc.

Why is logic so impenetrable...they read everything mentally erasing all that challenges their view and then play semantic games when they think they have a notion that implies a gap where they can insert god. How is it that they can see eons of people who believed in false invisible entities (Scientology, Zeus, Muslim extremists, etc.) and stil not question themselves?
Is it an ego thing? Believing they're in on a "higher truth" makes them feel superior and makes them feel like they have a blissful eternity guaranteed? Or is it fear that facts might be the tool of the devil? And why do they keep at it here...if they convince a skeptic, does they think that gives their claims more credibility or gives them heaven bonus points or something.

I mean, I'm glad they come. They do amuse. Sometimes I'm really in the mood to eviscerate hubris and those who promote the idea that faith is good for something. And it isn't polite to do that in real life. But when one posts tripe at a skeptic's forum with self important garbage and continued assaults on people he might actually learn something from--then lambasting is warranted.

I never cease to be amazed that such people are surprised that their wisdom is not welcomed and they take offense when asked for evidence. Religion sure does a number on some people. But they always fall for the bait (Paul's thread title in this case)--

Intelligent design IS good for something afterall. Amusing skeptics. And the strange tenacity with which some people will cling to some beliefs.

[John Hewitt]

Quote:

I am a bit puzzled about the title of this thread. Is the word "annoying" used as an adjective to indicate that members of the creationists community are in some way annoying as people; alternatively, is the objective of these postings to annoy those people?

Originally Posted by delphi_ote

Paul was using it as an adjective. Read his first post.

Yes, I did actually look at the first post but the incidence of sarcasm suggests that "annoying" has often been used as an active verb during the subsequent thread.

It seems to me that evolutionary theorists might try being a little more humble - they too preach and, like preachers everywhere, expect rewards in the form of payment and acknowledged status in return.

[thaiboxerken]

Feel free to give examples of evolutionary theorists preaching. There is a difference between clarifying actual scientific theory, teaching the theory and preaching.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Hewitt

Yes, I did actually look at the first post but the incidence of sarcasm suggests that "annoying" has often been used as an active verb during the subsequent thread.

Yes, Kleinman uses it as a gerund quite often, as in "I enjoy annoying evolutionarians."

Quote:

It seems to me that evolutionary theorists might try being a little more humble - they too preach and, like preachers everywhere, expect rewards in the form of payment and acknowledged status in return.

Whatever. All we want is for Kleinman to present his case in a bit more depth.

~~ Paul

[delphi_ote]

Originally Posted by John Hewitt

It seems to me that evolutionary theorists might try being a little more humble - they too preach and, like preachers everywhere, expect rewards in the form of payment and acknowledged status in return.

You seem to be the only preaching right now.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by John Hewitt

Yes, I did actually look at the first post but the incidence of sarcasm suggests that "annoying" has often been used as an active verb during the subsequent thread.

It seems to me that evolutionary theorists might try being a little more humble - they too preach and, like preachers everywhere, expect rewards in the form of payment and acknowledged status in return.

The only thing preachy here has been our crazy insistence on using facts and truth. That can get a little irritating to those who wish to avoid reality.

Kleinman, any luck figuring out your thermodynamic model of a kinetic problem?

[articulett]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Feel free to give examples of evolutionary theorists preaching. There is a difference between clarifying actual scientific theory, teaching the theory and preaching.

Agreed. I think they bend over backwards to explain every little detail again and again to people who are dishonestly ask questions that they really do not what the answer too. They have a vested interest in not understanding the answer...because, then, in their mind, "intelligent design" must be true. In science you don't really concede points that aren't valid to avoid hurting peoples' feelings. There isn't a middle ground between fact and conjecture. You don't forward a claim by merely pointing to murky areas in another claim and calling it evidence that some unexplainable immeasurable invisible entity must be at the heart of the conundrum.

What is the good of "intelligent design" belief. Do believers feel it makes them more moral? That god is testing them? Can they use it to illuminate anything else. Do they want scientists to go looking for "evidence" of god in the genome? Does the theory make them feel more special? Does it explain anything or can it be used to predict anything or to determine anything of importance. Can we tell what the common ancestor of certain life forms are--and how far back that common ancestor lived? Because we can do that with evolution--

What is kleinman's theory good for. We can say, well since we'll never live long enough to see one large species turn into another in our lifetime, we are going to have to accept that god did it and start trying to kiss his invisible ass?

It's a go-nowhere theory that explains nothing and useful for nothing except making some people feel morally superior I suppose--or maybe it just is a security blanket so they can keep their favorite pet delusion safe from the facts.

But it just seems so ignorant. The god thing is one thing--but to make yourself incapable of learning one of the most profound if not the most profound scientific discoveries of all time is sad. Science will never disprove your gods--though it is true, that there is less and less belief of god in the scientific community--but to lie to yourself and others and say that evolution is a theory in trouble is crazy and absolutely at odds with all the evidence.

Evolution is not only undoubtedly true, but it is the tool that has swung the doors of biology wide open leading to vast amounts of understanding including the mapping of multiple genomes. That is a miracle no "intelligent designer" ever helped with or mentioned in any writing attributed to him. If nothing else, this oversight should cause some of you anti-evolutionists a momentary pause.

Not all sides of an issue have equal merit.

[kleinman]

Originally Posted by Kleinman

Paul’s Java version of ev has greater memory limitations than Dr Schneider’s original Pascal version of the program. If you want to run populations greater than 10^9, you will need an operating system and language that can address arrays of this size or larger.

Originally Posted by Delphi ote

Are you actually running out of memory? You can bump up the amount of memory available to a Java program with a command line option. For example, "java -Xmx 500M myProgram" (that would give you 500M of heap space.)

The java console reports a memory error when you either increase G or population to much. The pascal version of ev also allows for cases to be done in a series of steps which the java version doesn’t allow which enables me to run the larger cases.

Paul can answer your questions about the memory issues and I am sure they can be overcome if you have sufficient hardware and operating system and language that can use the hardware.

Originally Posted by John Hewitt

I am a bit puzzled about the title of this thread. Is the word "annoying" used as an adjective to indicate that members of the creationists community are in some way annoying as people; alternatively, is the objective of these postings to annoy those people?

You have to ask Paul why he chose this as the title of the thread. I think what is annoying these evolutionists is that I am using an evolutionist mathematical model to argue against their own theory. Adequate thinks I am an abuser of computer models.

Originally Posted by Kleinman

What’s the matter? Are you afraid that running larger cases with ev will show how ridiculous the theory of evolution is? I think it is smart for evolutionarians to say away from mathematics, it really messes up their stories.

Originally Posted by Paul

Yes, that's the problem. It has nothing to do with the work involved. The work involved is trivial. Say, why don't you do it and show us up for the fools we are?

You evolutionarians have a way of contradicting yourselves from one sentence to the next. This has nothing to do with you now having some understanding of what the model predicts and what these larger cases will show. You are probably wondering why you got involved with the ev project in the first place.

Originally Posted by Paul

At this point my limitations are RAM (1 gig) and time.

Originally Posted by Delphi ote

Since he's such a great scientist, I naturally assumed kleinman was trying to reproduce your "controversial" results. He seems to enjoy giving me computer science advice so much, I thought I'd return the favor.

Lay off the sterno Delphi, there are no "controversial" results that Paul has generated that I haven’t. There are results from the Pascal version of ev that I have obtained which Paul can not duplicate with his Java version of ev. There is one case that Paul can run using the Pascal executable that I sent him which has a population of 2 meg. He hasn’t shown interest in running the case.

Originally Posted by John Hewitt

Yes, I did actually look at the first post but the incidence of sarcasm suggests that "annoying" has often been used as an active verb during the subsequent thread.

Originally Posted by Paul

Yes, Kleinman uses it as a gerund quite often, as in "I enjoy annoying evolutionarians."

If you were scientists, you would consider the data that I am presenting from your own model that contradicts your own theory. Instead, you get annoyed. I enjoy annoying evolutionarians with data from their own computer models. They deserve it when they push off this superficial and sloppy mathematical analysis and try to call it science.

Originally Posted by John Hewitt

It seems to me that evolutionary theorists might try being a little more humble - they too preach and, like preachers everywhere, expect rewards in the form of payment and acknowledged status in return.

Originally Posted by Paul

Whatever. All we want is for Kleinman to present his case in a bit more depth.

Paul, where do you want me to start? I’ve set the goal posts and they haven’t changed since my first post on the Evolutionisdead forum. You have some idea what happens in the ev model when you use known, measured mutation rates. Consider what happens to Dr Schneider’s computation of the evolution of a human genome in a billion years when you simply use a realistic mutation rate. Consider all the cases you have run with increasing genome lengths. You have finally gotten extrapolated values for realistic genome lengths that are close to the original values I posted months ago on the Evolutionisdead forum. Gould’s theory of punctuated equilibrium takes away two important parameters for convergence in ev, time and population size. The only issue of the three I have raised about the mathematical behavior of ev where there is still some question is the effects of population. Every population series I have run appear to be approaching an asymptote at less than 100,000 population. If these series are not approaching an asymptote then the slope of the curve is becoming very small. Your curve fit extrapolations are useless for predicting the behavior of the model with populations of 10^15. These points need to be computed by ev to see if there is anything that can be salvaged from this computer model that would support the theory of evolution.

What is it that I have done with your computer model that you are having difficulty understanding? I have only done what Dr Schneider suggested in his publication:

Originally Posted by Dr Schneider

Variations of the program could be used to investigate how population size, genome length, number of sites, size of recognition regions, mutation rate, selective pressure, overlapping sites and other factors affect the evolution.

I followed Dr Schneider’s suggestion and have managed to annoy a lot of evolutionists with the results from his program.

[thaiboxerken]

You've annoyed people about evolution the same way 4yr old kids annoy adults with plea ansd whines about how Santa Clause is real. There is no substance to your posts, just sniveling garbage that is the same as a child says "I know Santa is real, my mommy told me so."

[delphi_ote]

Originally Posted by kleinman

The java console reports a memory error when you either increase G or population to much.

Let me guess. It tells you it's out of heap space, and you didn't even bother to read the post to which you were replying, right?

Originally Posted by kleinman

Paul can answer your questions about the memory issues and I am sure they can be overcome if you have sufficient hardware and operating system and language that can use the hardware.[/size][/font]

There aren't "memory issues" here. There's a practical upper bound on certain parameters dictated by hardware limitations, not flaws in the simulation software. The operating system and language have nothing to do with this, as I've already told you.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Kleinman

You evolutionarians have a way of contradicting yourselves from one sentence to the next. This has nothing to do with you now having some understanding of what the model predicts and what these larger cases will show. You are probably wondering why you got involved with the ev project in the first place.

Thanks for the armchair psychoanalysis. You did realize this was sarcastic, right?

Originally Posted by me

Yes, that's the problem. It has nothing to do with the work involved. The work involved is trivial. Say, why don't you do it and show us up for the fools we are?

Originally Posted by Kleinman

Lay off the sterno Delphi, there are no "controversial" results that Paul has generated that I haven’t. There are results from the Pascal version of ev that I have obtained which Paul can not duplicate with his Java version of ev. There is one case that Paul can run using the Pascal executable that I sent him which has a population of 2 meg. He hasn’t shown interest in running the case.

I believe I said I would run it when I had a week with nothing better to do.

Quote:

Paul, where do you want me to start? I’ve set the goal posts and they haven’t changed since my first post on the Evolutionisdead forum.

For crying out loud! We want you to present the mathematical proof that macroevolution, whatever the hell that is, is impossible due to some constraint that you apparently feel you've gotten from Ev. You could start by defining macroevolution. If you want to use the one at Wikipedia, then we can stop this charade right now.

Quote:

What is it that I have done with your computer model that you are having difficulty understanding? I have only done what Dr Schneider suggested in his publication:

You've done nothing!

Look, here's an idea. Why don't you write just the abstract for the paper that you would publish on this issue? We can critique it, under the assumption that, unlike here in this forum, you will actually take the critique to heart and improve the abstract accordingly.

~~ Paul

[joobz]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Look, here's an idea. Why don't you write just the abstract for the paper that you would publish on this issue? We can critique it, under the assumption that, unlike here in this forum, you will actually take the critique to heart and improve the abstract accordingly.

~~ Paul

I'll Write it for him:
Abstract: Thermodynamically, evolution and ev takes to long. So, god did it. The end. Stop asking questions. It's mathematical!!!!

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by kleinman

The java console reports a memory error when you either increase G or population to much. The pascal version of ev also allows for cases to be done in a series of steps which the java version doesn’t allow which enables me to run the larger cases.

Paul can answer your questions about the memory issues and I am sure they can be overcome if you have sufficient hardware and operating system and language that can use the hardware.

You have to ask Paul why he chose this as the title of the thread. I think what is annoying these evolutionists is that I am using an evolutionist mathematical model to argue against their own theory. Adequate thinks I am an abuser of computer models.

You evolutionarians have a way of contradicting yourselves from one sentence to the next. This has nothing to do with you now having some understanding of what the model predicts and what these larger cases will show. You are probably wondering why you got involved with the ev project in the first place.

Lay off the sterno Delphi, there are no "controversial" results that Paul has generated that I haven’t. There are results from the Pascal version of ev that I have obtained which Paul can not duplicate with his Java version of ev. There is one case that Paul can run using the Pascal executable that I sent him which has a population of 2 meg. He hasn’t shown interest in running the case.

If you were scientists, you would consider the data that I am presenting from your own model that contradicts your own theory. Instead, you get annoyed. I enjoy annoying evolutionarians with data from their own computer models. They deserve it when they push off this superficial and sloppy mathematical analysis and try to call it science.

Paul, where do you want me to start? I’ve set the goal posts and they haven’t changed since my first post on the Evolutionisdead forum. You have some idea what happens in the ev model when you use known, measured mutation rates. Consider what happens to Dr Schneider’s computation of the evolution of a human genome in a billion years when you simply use a realistic mutation rate. Consider all the cases you have run with increasing genome lengths. You have finally gotten extrapolated values for realistic genome lengths that are close to the original values I posted months ago on the Evolutionisdead forum. Gould’s theory of punctuated equilibrium takes away two important parameters for convergence in ev, time and population size. The only issue of the three I have raised about the mathematical behavior of ev where there is still some question is the effects of population. Every population series I have run appear to be approaching an asymptote at less than 100,000 population. If these series are not approaching an asymptote then the slope of the curve is becoming very small. Your curve fit extrapolations are useless for predicting the behavior of the model with populations of 10^15. These points need to be computed by ev to see if there is anything that can be salvaged from this computer model that would support the theory of evolution.

What is it that I have done with your computer model that you are having difficulty understanding? I have only done what Dr Schneider suggested in his publication:

I followed Dr Schneider’s suggestion and have managed to annoy a lot of evolutionists with the results from his program.

So, you don't have any new lies.

There's the lie about Gould, there's the denial, in the face of all the evidence, that population size is significant, there's the claim that the mathematical model that you can't understand is "sloppy" --- by the way, do learn what an asypmtote is --- and, above all, the idiotic claim that your irrelevant data contradict the theory of evolution.

We've already pointed out why this is all a steaming load of crap. You need some new lies.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Look, here's an idea. Why don't you write just the abstract for the paper that you would publish on this issue? We can critique it, under the assumption that, unlike here in this forum, you will actually take the critique to heart and improve the abstract accordingly.

Why on earth would we assume that?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally Posted by articulett

Macro-evolution is a term used strictly by creationists.

I've read that term in biology books as well as in popular evolutionist writings.

Quote:

Much of the mutations involving speciation are on the X chromosome--I'm not trying to imply god is a pervert or anything...but if he's the one in charge, why the fondness for X?

'Much of the mutations involving speciation are on the X chromosome--I'm not trying to evolution is a perversion or anything...but if it is in charge, why the fondness for X?'

Quote:

It has no facts in support of it;

Except logic- that we know complicated things are often designed by intelligences.

Quote:

Nothing in science is discovered with the assumption that god must have played a hand in it.

Except people like Newton, who used their belief in God as motivation for studying His design.

Quote:

Intelligent Design just says, "god did it; humans will never understand how".

"Articulett"-strawman Intelligent Design just says: "god did it; humans will never understand how". Real Intelligent Design just says 'can we infer real design or not?'. It is about 'if design', and not necessarily about god(s) as the designer(s).

Quote:

Hammy and Thai and kleinman never present evidence for a competing theory in their many thousands of posts and always resort to ad hominen attacks

I'm just asking questions here, exploring philosophy. You are free to present your evidence, of course. You can start by giving a complete detailed Darwinian pathway of anything.

Quote:

Why don't they understand that "gaps" in understanding are not answered by "magic", god, or anything supernatural because positing such, pretty much puts a stop to all discovery and potential understanding on a topic.

Except in Newton's case, and in many others', who used their belief as motivation to explore their god's design.

Quote:

But when one posts tripe at a skeptic's forum with self important garbage and continued assaults on people he might actually learn something from--then lambasting is warranted.

So I take it you'll look forward to getting lambasted?

Quote:

But they always fall for the bait (Paul's thread title in this case)--

Actually, that was quite obvious, and obviously dishonest, as it sets up from the start that anyone who has any questions, even scientific ones, about Darwinian evolutoion = Creationist, which is false.

Paul could be the one to be said to be arguing an ID stance, since one can say that his intelligently designed program apparently created information.

Quote:

Intelligent design IS good for something afterall. Amusing skeptics.

All 'skeptic' means is that there one has doubt in at least one area, not some homogeneous club as you'd like it to be. For example, Antony Flew, who is a skeptic, and a leading atheist for many, many years, has reportedly shifted to the design view.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

I've read that term in biology books as well as in popular evolutionist writings.

Where the distinction between macro and microevolution is just the time it takes.

Quote:

Except logic- that we know complicated things are often designed by intelligences.

We know that complicated things are often made plastic.

Some of us also know some logic, as well.

Quote:

"Articulett"-strawman Intelligent Design just says: "god did it; humans will never understand how". Real Intelligent Design just says 'can we infer real design or not?'.

No, Intelligent Design consists of pretending that the answer to that question is "yes".

Quote:

Paul could be the one to be said to be arguing an ID stance

But only by someone who was lying, stupid, or insane.

Quote:

since one can say that his intelligently designed program apparently created information.

And one cannot say that the information was intelligently designed.

Quote:

All 'skeptic' means is that there one has doubt in at least one area, not some homogeneous club as you'd like it to be. For example, Antony Flew, who is a skeptic, and a leading atheist for many, many years, has reportedly shifted to the design view.

... by throwing critical thinking out of the window. Hence, he is not a skeptic.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

Except logic- that we know complicated things are often designed by intelligences.



Except people like Newton, who used their belief in God as motivation for studying His design.

You seem to be recycling your arguments (or refining, depending on your view point). Allow me to reiterate my last comment made on another thread.

Originally Posted by joobz

On one end, you are claiming indirect evidence for god by claiming there are natural laws that would require a law maker. You state that this is a logical conclusion.

Then you state that these "Natural laws" are only our simple human understandings and approximations of reality. This is true.

But then how can you claim that your initial argument isn't just a semantic game when you acknowledge that our use of the term "Natural laws" is purely a human construction to aide our understanding?

You invoke scientists with faith as a defense. But these scientists never used god to avoid a hard question. their discoveries had no direct relationship with their faith.

Your actions are to define god and or find god through science. And all anyone has said is that god isn't needed for any of these theories. I'm not against a faith in god. I just think trying to work him into any theory of the world is forced and unnatural.

[Dr Adequate]

If all Newton came up with was: "I don't know what keeps the planets in their orbits, therefore God is pushing them. We know that things that move are often being pushed, so that's logic" --- then his name would have been justly forgotten by now.