Of Weasels and weasling

| 138 Comments

As everybody should be aware by now, Denyse O’Leary is offering a prize for the original code for Dawkins’ Weasel program which illustrates cumulative selection [1]. O’Leary’s offer arises from people challenging Dembski’s misrepresentation of the Weasel program, as he has misrepresented it yet again in a trivial non-id paper. To get some much needed perspective, read Joe Felsenstein’s excellent article (and its follow-up) and those of Chris Mark Chu Carroll (here and here)

Seriously, arguing over whether Dawkins “weasel” program implements locking is a bit like arguing over whether the measuring cylinder in the Measuring Cylinder/Tap model of drug clearance is emptied by a tube or a bloke with a cup. Both are simplified systems that make demonstrating a concept easy, and do much the same thing.

The point is that a leading light of the cdesignproponentsits has spent an enormous amount of time critiquing a toy demonstration of selection, and can’t even get the toy example right. Not only that, they can’t admit when they were wrong. Heck, no one in the cdesign proponetsists can admit Dembski is wrong about a toy program, even when presented with video evidence.

Let’s emphasise this again. It’s a non-issue except for the way it highlights the determined cluelessness of cdesign proponetsists. To use the metaphor of the Measuring Cylinder/Tap model of drug clearance again, Dembski is effectively arguing that Dawkins said the measuring cylinder is emptied by a man with a cup in his book, but anyone can go to Dawkins original book, read how he set it up, and understand that Dawkins specified a tube. Dawkins doesn’t specify how big the tube, or the flow rate of the tap, but it’s sort of obvious and you can easily make an analogous system which demonstrates the same things that Dawkins does. Everyone understands except Dembski who then makes a convoluted argument over the whole thing (see www.evoinfo.org and read their “explanation” of Dawkins program if you have a spare half-hour of your life you don’t mind wasting).

Now there is a video showing a measuring cylinder with a tube (metaphorically, see www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sUQIpFajsg (go to 6:15) for the real video showing the weasel program), Dembski goes “oh, Dawkins must have REALLY have used a cup in his book, then swapped to a tube for the video”. Aside from the convoluted mentality involved in this staggering piece of “reasoning”, it goes to the heart of the cdesign proponentists reliability.

When Dembski claims that Lenski et al., have “smuggled in information”, explaining why they are wrong can get quite technical, but when they claim Dawkins has “smuggled in information”, one can simply point to how deeply they have misunderstood Dawkins model, and if they can’t get Dawkins right (after being told repeatedly, having it explicitly demonstrated to them and being shown a video), what hope is there that they got Lenski right.

For more information on Dembski’s denial of the video evidence, see Dembski Weasels Out, for a wide compendium of Weasel programs old and new, including head to head comparisons of Dawkins version vs Demski’s locking version see Weasels on Parade (note it took over 23 days for the Uncommon Descent people to come up with any programs themselves). To see where I completely reconstruct the output shown in Dawkins book, see here.

[1] Why doesn’t O’Leary just ask Dawkins? The whole concept of running a competition to get Dawkins code instead of asking Dawkins is rather bizarre. While he may not have the original code, he can tell her how he did it.[2] [2] People have asked Dawkins before. It no longer exists. Just like the AppleBasic programs I wrote to calculate stimulation-induced radioactive outflow for our laboratory. Used for years but vanished into the mists of time. Seriously, even if there was a disk around with AppleBasic finding a machine to run it and make copies would be an adventure in itself.

138 Comments

I thought Dawkins weasel was pretty neat, but I could play with that tap thing all day.

In my comments at UD I have repeatedly pointed out that by the apparent definition of latching and ratcheting, this is a basic property of all search algorithms other than blind random walk. That comment keeps being ignored - I wonder why?

@VM: It is pretty neat, and it can even be turned into a pretty cool game. See http://itatsi.com/

As I read it, the purpose here is an attempt to discredit the Unholy Text. The program is being treated as a competing scripture. Since the original source is known to be lost, demanding that it be produced shows that it must have been imaginary in the first place, and therefore there’s nothing to be worshiped.

So we have competing understandings. Evolutionists focus on the power of selection, of which this is only one of a potentially infinite number of different valid illustrations. Creationists focus on the Word Itself, which is to be interpreted as needed to fit foregone conclusions. And if the Word Itself can’t be produced, why, ANY interpretation is as good as any other.

I first read about the weasel program when BD was whining, and I thought, I’ll give that a go (I’m an out of work software developer who needs to keep my skills up to date), it took my about 35 minutes and I got the same results as reported with no locking. It took them 23 days? Are these people idiots? (this is a rhetorical question).

With respect to Dembski and Marks’s paper, let me ask you folks one question. Suppose that D&M had actually gotten the latching issue right, and analyzed a non-latching version of the Weasel program. (They didn’t get it right, but let’s suppose). They would have computed their “active information” and come out with a modestly different number.

So would their paper then be OK? Would it then be a valid argument for ID?

I have argued (in the posts that Ian kindly refers to), that their paper would not then be a pro-ID argument, but is just as consistent with theistic evolution, or even nontheistic evolution.

That is why I think the obsession of posters on the pro-evolution side with the latching issue is a waste of time, and plays into the hands of the ID people by, in effect, agreeing with them that the latching issue is the fundamental one. But I repeat myself.

(that would be Mark Chu-Carroll)

Joe Felsenstein said:

With respect to Dembski and Marks’s paper, let me ask you folks one question. Suppose that D&M had actually gotten the latching issue right, and analyzed a non-latching version of the Weasel program. (They didn’t get it right, but let’s suppose). They would have computed their “active information” and come out with a modestly different number.

So would their paper then be OK? Would it then be a valid argument for ID?

I have argued (in the posts that Ian kindly refers to), that their paper would not then be a pro-ID argument, but is just as consistent with theistic evolution, or even nontheistic evolution.

That is why I think the obsession of posters on the pro-evolution side with the latching issue is a waste of time, and plays into the hands of the ID people by, in effect, agreeing with them that the latching issue is the fundamental one. But I repeat myself.

Since I was one of the people offering a considerable number of comments and critiques on your threads, I would say that I certainly was under the impression that the latching issue was totally irrelevant.

In fact, in one of my posts I compared the unlatched and latched versions with radioactive decay with and without activation respectively.

Unless I missed something, I didn’t see too many other posts that latched onto this latching issue as a significant problem. I had the impression that people were simply noting Dembski’s obsession with it.

What caught my attention after just a brief scan of the D&M paper was their constant disparaging of what they were portraying as putting “information” into the solution of the problem. The hidden agenda seemed immediately obvious to me. And so did their mischaracterization of how computer models of the real world are used in research.

My general take on the paper is that it is a typical barrage of mischaracterizations and misrepresentations that ID/creationists have always done when pretending to “refute” science.

That Dembski still is hung up on latching is irrelevant to how Weasel works.

However, that he is still determined to misrepresent the work of others in a peer-reviewed journal is something that should be noted.

Flint said:

As I read it, the purpose here is an attempt to discredit the Unholy Text. The program is being treated as a competing scripture. Since the original source is known to be lost, demanding that it be produced shows that it must have been imaginary in the first place, and therefore there’s nothing to be worshiped.

So we have competing understandings. Evolutionists focus on the power of selection, of which this is only one of a potentially infinite number of different valid illustrations. Creationists focus on the Word Itself, which is to be interpreted as needed to fit foregone conclusions. And if the Word Itself can’t be produced, why, ANY interpretation is as good as any other.

Lately I’ve had the impression - given the “birthers” and the howling right-wing militia groups - that this kind of thinking has begun to permeate a large segment of society.

Glen Beck on Fox Noise has gone completely off the rails with conspiracy theories. He claims that the current Obama administration is building a secret “citizens’ army”.

Horrors! For what purpose? Beck then goes on with an apparent disclaimer that he has been unable to find any evidence whatsoever for this.

Therefore this is proof of just how secretive and diabolical “they” are; we should be very worried and afraid.

Then a barrage of juxtapositions of Hitler, socialism, extermination, and all the crap we hear from the ID/creationists.

I think Beck has been reading a bunch of YEC websites for propaganda techniques.

Mike Elzinga said: My general take on the paper is that it is a typical barrage of mischaracterizations and misrepresentations that ID/creationists have always done when pretending to “refute” science.

Everything from the intelligent design creationists (who we should always refer to as “cdesign proponentsists”) consists of scientific illiteracy, arguments from incredulity or ignorance, lies, distortions, mischaracterizations and misrepresentations.

As Judge Jones noted in the 2005 Dover Decision, “It is ironic that several of these individuals (sworn witnesses), who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.” These religious fanatics have lied to us before, and they will continue to lie to us. Remember that.

[after I once again complained about people worrying too much about the “latching” issue]

Mike Elzinga said:

Since I was one of the people offering a considerable number of comments and critiques on your threads, I would say that I certainly was under the impression that the latching issue was totally irrelevant.

In fact, in one of my posts I compared the unlatched and latched versions with radioactive decay with and without activation respectively.

Unless I missed something, I didn’t see too many other posts that latched onto this latching issue as a significant problem. I had the impression that people were simply noting Dembski’s obsession with it.

You certainly did say this, and so did some other important contributors on PT. But if you count up posts, among my two threads and some others here, you will see far more comments on the latching issue than on the issue of whether Dembski and Marks’s arguments validate ID.

And if you go over to Uncommon Descent, you will find the pro-evolution posters in the corresponding threads there spending almost all of their effort on arguing about latching.

Joe Felsenstein said:

And if you go over to Uncommon Descent, you will find the pro-evolution posters in the corresponding threads there spending almost all of their effort on arguing about latching.

It’s true that I didn’t count PT comments harping on this particular point; so I indeed could have missed it.

And I don’t often spend much time looking at UD. A brief perusal of the comments on that site is usually enough to remind me of the complete inanity of what goes on there.

I did in fact notice that some PT posters jumped on the latching issue, but I didn’t actually count. Then the comments were closed.

I say channel all this blog-energy into a rebuttal paper at IEEE. Dissect the thing, since Dembski is claiming, after the fact, that it’s a pro-ID paper.

And if you go over to Uncommon Descent, you will find the pro-evolution posters in the corresponding threads there spending almost all of their effort on arguing about latching.

Well, yes, but you probably aren’t understanding the context. Those commenters aren’t trying to convince anyone over there regarding the latching issue. Indeed, the point of continuing the “discussion” on latching is more to highlight the complete inability of the cdesign proponentists to admit error and the lengths that they will go to in order to avoid such an admission.

The discussion of latching at UD has spanned many months, numerous different posts, and hundreds of thousands of words. In particular, UD denizen Kairosfocus has descended into incoherent grandiloquence to avoid the simple admission that WEASEL doesn’t require latching to work. Even after UD regular Atom coded up a WEASEL that worked just as Dawkin’s did, they won’t give up the fight.

For myself, I can only conclude there is a significant thread of truth to Flint’s tongue-in-cheek comment above. They will continue to flail away at Dawkins, with WEASEL only being a proxy, as if he was Old Scratch hisself (and he just might be!)

James F said:

I say channel all this blog-energy into a rebuttal paper at IEEE. Dissect the thing, since Dembski is claiming, after the fact, that it’s a pro-ID paper.

You know, it shouldn’t be all that difficult, given the resources here (blogosphere) - what would be really enjoyable would be to do it (prepare the paper, submit, deal with review and revisions) all on-line and “exposed”. We could even invite Dembski to contribute.

“Seriously, even if there was a disk around with AppleBasic finding a machine to run it and make copies would be an adventure in itself.”

I know that you weren’t serious, but I still have my Apple //e, and it booted a disk the last time I tried it, so if you ever do need one, the adventure is already over. Chances are magnetic deterioration has corrupted most of the disks from that era, though.

magnetic deterioration = mutation corrupted = selected against

Latching Smatching. I want the free book! ;-)

I don’t even care which book it is, if I can make them shell out a few bucks for the postage, I’ll call it a win.

perl -e ‘@a=split //,uc join “ “,@ARGV;@b=(“A”..”Z”);%c=map{($_=>1)}@b;sub d{($c{$_[0]})&&($_[1]>rand(1))?$b[rand(@b)]:$_[0]}sub g{$h=0;@i=@a;for(@_){$h++if($_ ne shift(@i))}$h}@e=map{d($_,1)}@a;print @a,”\n”,map{$c{$_}?”=”:$_}@a,”\n”;while(1){print @e,”\n”;@f=sort{g(@$a)<=>g(@$b);}map{[map{d($_,.01)}@e]}(1..20);@e=@{$f[0]}}’ Methinks it is like a weasel. | less

It is just about as bare-bones a GA model one can make.

Here’s the same code written for benefit of humans:

#/usr/bin/perl use strict; use warnings;

our @goal = split(//, uc(join(“ “, @ARGV))); # Take the words on the # command line, capitalize # them and split them into # characters.

our @alphabet = ( “A” .. “Z” ); # Our choice of mutating alphabet

our %is_in_alphabet = map { ( $_ => 1 ); } @alphabet; # Allows for easy # detection of # a letter in our # alphabet

sub mutate { my ($letter, $mutate_chance) = @_; if ( $is_in_alphabet{$letter} and rand(1) < $mutate_chance ) { return $alphabet[rand(scalar(@alphabet))]; } else { return $letter; } }

sub evaluate { my @candidate = @_; my $count_of_mistakes = 0; my @copy_of_goal = @goal; foreach my $next_letter_of_candidate ( @candidate ) { my $next_letter_of_goal = shift @copy_of_goal; $count_of_mistakes++ if $next_letter_of_candidate ne $next_letter_of_goal; } return $count_of_mistakes; }

# The next line mutates away any information in the goal which can be # changed by the mutating function. We just turn the level of mutation up # to a 100% chance.

our @single_surviving_candidate = map { mutate($_, 1.00); } @goal;

# We now print the goal and underline what letters can change. print @goal, “\n”, map { $is_in_alphabet{$_} ? “=” : $_ } @goal, “\n”;

our $global_mutate_chance = 0.01; our $offspring_per_generation = 20;

# Main loop – We loop forever. while(1){

print @single_surviving_candidate, “\n”;

# Create mutated offspring my @list_of_mutated_offspring = map { [ map { mutate($_, $global_mutate_chance); } @single_surviving_candidate ] } (1..$offspring_per_generation);

# Sort them by how well they did (relative fitness) @list_of_mutated_offspring = sort { evaluate(@$a) <=> evaluate(@$b); } @list_of_mutated_offspring ;

# Because this is a toy model, choose one and only one – the best one @single_surviving_candidate = @{$list_of_mutated_offspring[0]}; }

Joe Felsenstein said:

With respect to Dembski and Marks’s paper, let me ask you folks one question. Suppose that D&M had actually gotten the latching issue right, and analyzed a non-latching version of the Weasel program. (They didn’t get it right, but let’s suppose). They would have computed their “active information” and come out with a modestly different number.

So would their paper then be OK? Would it then be a valid argument for ID?

No, it wouldn’t. I agree with you on that. As I have said in various places, the appeal of the “to latch or not to latch” question is not in anything it says about evolution or algorithms, but in what it tells us about creationist lackwittery. They are unable to accept correction, even on a minor point, and they can’t accurately represent the content of the sources they cite. It’s one more example of a behaviour pattern we’ve been seeing for years.

It’s one more item of evidence supporting the conclusion that Dembski couldn’t find his own ass with two hands, a flashlight and GPS.

rpenner said:

perl -e ‘@a=split //,uc join “ “,@ARGV;@b=(“A”..”Z”);%c=map{($_=>1)}@b;sub d{($c{$_[0]})&&($_[1]>rand(1))?$b[rand(@b)]:$_[0]}sub g{$h=0;@i=@a;for(@_){$h++if($_ ne shift(@i))}$h}@e=map{d($_,1)}@a;print @a,”\n”,map{$c{$_}?”=”:$_}@a,”\n”;while(1){print @e,”\n”;@f=sort{g(@$a)<=>g(@$b);}map{[map{d($_,.01)}@e]}(1..20);@e=@{$f[0]}}’ Methinks it is like a weasel. | less

Kudos for extreme cleverness, but I swear if a programmer I employed did that I’d fire him.…for unmaintainability.

unmaintainability = ULTIMATE POWER (ha-ha-ha-ha-ha…)

perl […]

What’s the CSI of that?

Wonder how it would compare to an analogous APL program.

Henry

rpenner said:

perl -e ‘@a=split //,uc join “ “,@ARGV;@b=(“A”..”Z”);%c=map{($_=>1)}@b;sub d{($c{$_[0]})&&($_[1]>rand(1))?$b[rand(@b)]:$_[0]}sub g{$h=0;@i=@a;for(@_){$h++if($_ ne shift(@i))}$h}@e=map{d($_,1)}@a;print @a,”\n”,map{$c{$_}?”=”:$_}@a,”\n”;while(1){print @e,”\n”;@f=sort{g(@$a)<=>g(@$b);}map{[map{d($_,.01)}@e]}(1..20);@e=@{$f[0]}}’ Methinks it is like a weasel. | less

Obviously we need to obfuscate that more. That’s actually reasonably readable. How about we give each letter’s ASCII code for “Methinks it is like a weasel” and then combine them. Even better, we could use nasty procedures to calculate each value rather than using their stored values. Is there an obfuscated perl contest?

I don’t think I’ve seen it mentioned here, but Dawkins wrote another program to illustrate how evolution works. Does anyone remember his little insect creatures? He started with a little vertical line segment, and allowed it to evolve by branching (or not) at one end for several generations. It was easy to see how these figures (many of which started to resemble insects) could be selected: for “tall and thin,” or “short and fat,” or “highly branched,” etc.

They are unable to accept correction, even on a minor point, and they can’t accurately represent the content of the sources they cite. It’s one more example of a behaviour pattern we’ve been seeing for years.

It’s also a fascinating illustration of this behavior - the division of reality into right and wrong, with no other possibilities and nothing in between. If they are wrong about latching, why, they might be wrong about everything. And same with their scripture - if any of it is wrong, all of it must be wrong.

In a way, this makes sense. Religions NEED infallibility, because without it they are nothing but people’s opinions. Unlike science, which has this handy reality to use as ultimate arbiter, religions have no ultimate decider. They rely only on agreement (with respect to what’s important), and the opinion leaders (uh, priests) cannot be seen making mistakes - their station does not allow mistakes with respect to interpretation of the Word Itself.

And so we have the priests making a trivially obvious mistake out of ignorance of the subject matters (proximately, programming. Ultimately, selection). Admitting error would be tantamount to admitting ignorance of the very subjects on which their authority to make pronouncements rests.

Politicians know this very well. You do not admit you did even something you’re on videotape doing. If you continue to deny, your faithful will decide the tape was doctored because their Faith is Pure. You relocate your child-molesting priests to new parishes far away and admit nothing. When the world doesn’t end, you lead your followers back down the hill, accuse your god of ambiguity, and schedule a new end of the world. So long as you do not ADMIT you are wrong, you aren’t wrong. If this didn’t work, religions as we know them would not exist.

Discredit “Weasel” –> discredit Dawkins –> discredit Darwin –> discredit evolution –> proves God did it.

I’ve no doubt they really do think this way.

Flint said:

As I read it, the purpose here is an attempt to discredit the Unholy Text. The program is being treated as a competing scripture. Since the original source is known to be lost, demanding that it be produced shows that it must have been imaginary in the first place, and therefore there’s nothing to be worshiped.

So we have competing understandings. Evolutionists focus on the power of selection, of which this is only one of a potentially infinite number of different valid illustrations. Creationists focus on the Word Itself, which is to be interpreted as needed to fit foregone conclusions. And if the Word Itself can’t be produced, why, ANY interpretation is as good as any other.

I think the whole paper is a little bit sloppily written: It lacks meaningful definitions, and carelessly recycles older articles. I understand that Dembski and Marks have some favourite quotes, which they used earlier, but couldn’t they check the references instead of just cutting-and-pasting? For instance, Christensen’s and Oppacher’s article is called ”What can we learn from No Free Lunch? A First Attempt to Characterize the Concept of a Searchable Function”, not just ”What can we learn from No Free Lunch? A First Attempt to Characterize the Concept of a Searchable,” as Dembski and Marks have stated at least twice now…

DiEb, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if D&M’s truncated version of a paper’s title is deliberate.

Flint Wrote:

Creationists focus on the Word Itself, which is to be interpreted as needed to fit foregone conclusions. And if the Word Itself can’t be produced, why, ANY interpretation is as good as any other.

As you know, it was once very different. Your life was at risk if you dared to say that the Earth was round and/or not the center of the universe. Later, in our own lifetimes, you were scolded if you said that the Earth was billions of years old. I’m told that still happens in some backwoods places, but for the most part these days, it’s OK to admit that the Earth, and its life, are billions of years old, as long as you don’t dwell on it. You have safe haven under the big tent even if you concede common descent. It’s all in the delivery, which must include bad-mouthing evolution any way you can. If you can’t cherry pick evidence well enough to promote unreasonable doubt, no problem, just dig up the Hitler connection, and you’re cool.

Dene Bebbington said:

DiEb, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if D&M’s truncated version of a paper’s title is deliberate.

??? IMO, it’s just laziness: he copied the reference and didn’t even see the misplaced comma - or the error in the design of the phrase…

Okay, Darwinists, this will blow the whole scam wide open. Unlike you, I actually WATCHED “The Blind Watchmaker” (It had no blind watchmaker in it - typical Darwinist bait-and-switch). Not far into it, Dawkins says he “wrote a program.” I’ll give you a minute to take that in.

HE ADMITTED THAT THE PROGRAM WAS INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED. Those of us who can determine CSI by inspection already knew that, of course. Not only did the program not arise by chance, as Darwinists say the eye, the immune system, and the flagellum did, but the computer it was intelligently designed on was itself intelligently designed - by men - at a computer factory. Furthermore, all the conditions for programming the computer were fine-tuned before Dawkins’ intelligent design began!

The High Priest of Darwinism admitted he cheated and used ID to get a job done he claimed showed evolution. Same trick Darwin pulled. Like ideological forebear, like son!

Marion Delgado said:

Okay, Darwinists, this will blow the whole scam wide open. Unlike you, I actually WATCHED “The Blind Watchmaker” (It had no blind watchmaker in it - typical Darwinist bait-and-switch). Not far into it, Dawkins says he “wrote a program.” I’ll give you a minute to take that in.

HE ADMITTED THAT THE PROGRAM WAS INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED. Those of us who can determine CSI by inspection already knew that, of course. Not only did the program not arise by chance, as Darwinists say the eye, the immune system, and the flagellum did, but the computer it was intelligently designed on was itself intelligently designed - by men - at a computer factory. Furthermore, all the conditions for programming the computer were fine-tuned before Dawkins’ intelligent design began!

The High Priest of Darwinism admitted he cheated and used ID to get a job done he claimed showed evolution. Same trick Darwin pulled. Like ideological forebear, like son!

Must be a full tonight or something.

Stuart Weinstein said:

Marion Delgado said:

Okay, Darwinists, this will blow the whole scam wide open. Unlike you, I actually WATCHED “The Blind Watchmaker” (It had no blind watchmaker in it - typical Darwinist bait-and-switch). Not far into it, Dawkins says he “wrote a program.” I’ll give you a minute to take that in.

HE ADMITTED THAT THE PROGRAM WAS INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED. Those of us who can determine CSI by inspection already knew that, of course. Not only did the program not arise by chance, as Darwinists say the eye, the immune system, and the flagellum did, but the computer it was intelligently designed on was itself intelligently designed - by men - at a computer factory. Furthermore, all the conditions for programming the computer were fine-tuned before Dawkins’ intelligent design began!

The High Priest of Darwinism admitted he cheated and used ID to get a job done he claimed showed evolution. Same trick Darwin pulled. Like ideological forebear, like son!

Must be a full tonight or something.

That was supposed to be “full moon tonight” …

Geez this is boring:

“Dawkins DESIGNED a program to model evolution and that means that he has proven INTELLIGENT DESIGN!”

“So if I make a science-fair volcano, that means volcanoes are intelligently designed, too?”

“Ah, you don’t get it. Dawkins DESIGNED a program to model evolution and that means that he has proven INTELLIGENT DESIGN!”

“So if I make a science-fair volcano, that means volcanoes are intelligently designed, too?”

“But Dawkins himself has admitted it! He DESIGNED a program to model evolution and that means that he has proven INTELLIGENT DESIGN!”

“So if I make a science-fair volcano, that means volcanoes are intelligently designed, too?”

And so on …

Stuart Weinstein said:

Stuart Weinstein said:

Marion Delgado said:

Okay, Darwinists, this will blow the whole scam wide open. Unlike you, I actually WATCHED “The Blind Watchmaker” (It had no blind watchmaker in it - typical Darwinist bait-and-switch). Not far into it, Dawkins says he “wrote a program.” I’ll give you a minute to take that in.

HE ADMITTED THAT THE PROGRAM WAS INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED. Those of us who can determine CSI by inspection already knew that, of course. Not only did the program not arise by chance, as Darwinists say the eye, the immune system, and the flagellum did, but the computer it was intelligently designed on was itself intelligently designed - by men - at a computer factory. Furthermore, all the conditions for programming the computer were fine-tuned before Dawkins’ intelligent design began!

The High Priest of Darwinism admitted he cheated and used ID to get a job done he claimed showed evolution. Same trick Darwin pulled. Like ideological forebear, like son!

Must be a full tonight or something.

That was supposed to be “full moon tonight” …

It was just about full, but that would be irrelevant, since Marion obviously doesn’t perceive the difference between the phases of the moon and a table of the phases of the moon in an almanac.

Actually, I think Marion was just just mooning.…. :)

Orwell used to be annoyed with commies who wd take the attitude that you were only pretending not to agree that Stalin was creating a (survival of the fittest) Utopia.

How did Orwell feel about incomprehensible sentences like that one?

stevaroni said:

Wheels: I don’t have time to argue with you, I’m too busy making model volcanoes, which proves that real volcanoes are also Designed.

If you create a conceptual model, does that mean that real volcanoes are also imaginary?

The better question, Stevaroni - if one imagines a volcano (or a cat, or the speed of light, or a scone recipe, etc) does this mean that real volcanos are imaginary?

Robin said:

stevaroni said:

Wheels: I don’t have time to argue with you, I’m too busy making model volcanoes, which proves that real volcanoes are also Designed.

If you create a conceptual model, does that mean that real volcanoes are also imaginary?

The better question, Stevaroni - if one imagines a volcano (or a cat, or the speed of light, or a scone recipe, etc) does this mean that real volcanos are imaginary?

It appears I repeated your question, Stevaroni, but you see I imagined that you posted such, and figured that in posting my response, it would be the only one there. Funny how if you actually test such “logic”, reality demonstrates how unimpressed it is. Perhaps Novparl will learn that someday.

Don’t bet on it. It takes a surgical operation to get blindingly obvious logic into the head of a lunatic-fringer.

Robin sez: It appears I repeated your question, Stevaroni, but you see I imagined that you posted such, and figured that in posting my response, it would be the only one there.

Is this one of those weird quantum physics thingies? I seem to remember that somehow those always involved radioactive cats, but I fell asleep in that class a lot so I don’t exactly remember how.

stevaroni said:

Robin sez: It appears I repeated your question, Stevaroni, but you see I imagined that you posted such, and figured that in posting my response, it would be the only one there.

Is this one of those weird quantum physics thingies? I seem to remember that somehow those always involved radioactive cats, but I fell asleep in that class a lot so I don’t exactly remember how.

Weasels are more interesting; they go Pop! when you collapse the wavefunction.

My favourite variant is “Schrodinger’s Physicist”, which conflates the cat-in-the-box with the question about whether, if in a train travelling at the speed of light, you can see yourself in the shaving mirror. This leads to the prediction that there are three possible states for the Physicist, alive, dead and Undead (in the latter stat, of course, the Physicist can’t see himself in the mirror anyway.)

novparl said:

Lol. The usual insistence that you-all don’t understand an obvious pt. Orwell used to be annoyed with commies who wd take the attitude that you were only pretending not to agree that Stalin was creating a (survival of the fittest) Utopia.

Mike Elzinga. I do know an algorithm from a prog. I used to know how to find square roots on a slide rule but since I never need to, I’ve forgotten.

Funny you people are so worried by a “troll” (introlerant word).

Darwin ueber alles.

novparl said:

Mr Whinestine - a computer simulation is DESIGNED. The pt I was making.

I’m pretty sure that we all understood that point long ago, before you even posted it. Many posters here actually design such simulations for a living. Why did you feel that point was necessary to make? I’m not asking this to be offensive. I truly don’t understand why you felt the need to make that point, if indeed it was your point, when it is understood by everyone. Isn’t there some further conclusion that you draw from this point that you think is important? Please help me to understand.

Marion Delgado said:

Okay, Darwinists, this will blow the whole scam wide open. Unlike you, I actually WATCHED “The Blind Watchmaker” (It had no blind watchmaker in it - typical Darwinist bait-and-switch). Not far into it, Dawkins says he “wrote a program.” I’ll give you a minute to take that in.

HE ADMITTED THAT THE PROGRAM WAS INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED. Those of us who can determine CSI by inspection already knew that, of course. Not only did the program not arise by chance, as Darwinists say the eye, the immune system, and the flagellum did, but the computer it was intelligently designed on was itself intelligently designed - by men - at a computer factory. Furthermore, all the conditions for programming the computer were fine-tuned before Dawkins’ intelligent design began!

The High Priest of Darwinism admitted he cheated and used ID to get a job done he claimed showed evolution. Same trick Darwin pulled. Like ideological forebear, like son!

You’re a parody of a creationist, right? God I hope so.

Weasels are more interesting; they go Pop! when you collapse the wavefunction.

My favourite variant is “Schrodinger’s Physicist”, which conflates the cat-in-the-box with the question about whether, if in a train travelling at the speed of light, you can see yourself in the shaving mirror. This leads to the prediction that there are three possible states for the Physicist, alive, dead and Undead (in the latter stat, of course, the Physicist can’t see himself in the mirror anyway.)

Does the physicist use Occam’s razor? :)

Henry

Henry J said:

Does the physicist use Occam’s razor? :)

Henry

Only when shaving.

Stanton said:

Henry J said:

Does the physicist use Occam’s razor? :)

Henry

Only when shaving.

Actually, the “Schrodinger’s Physicist” idea came out of a conversation over lunch with our place’s only remaining physicist who was, at the time, feuding with an Australian physicist who has divergent views on the answer to the “mirror question” .….. and a beard.

Kevin B said:

Stanton said:

Henry J said:

Does the physicist use Occam’s razor? :)

Henry

Only when shaving.

Actually, the “Schrodinger’s Physicist” idea came out of a conversation over lunch with our place’s only remaining physicist who was, at the time, feuding with an Australian physicist who has divergent views on the answer to the “mirror question” .….. and a beard.

I refuse to believe that a situation this hilarious came about by blind, random chance.

Wheels said:

Kevin B said:

Stanton said:

Henry J said:

Does the physicist use Occam’s razor? :)

Henry

Only when shaving.

Actually, the “Schrodinger’s Physicist” idea came out of a conversation over lunch with our place’s only remaining physicist who was, at the time, feuding with an Australian physicist who has divergent views on the answer to the “mirror question” .….. and a beard.

I refuse to believe that a situation this hilarious came about by blind, random chance.

The set of physicists that Basil has feuded with is sufficiently large that the probability that its intersection with the set of physicists with beards is non-empty approaches 1.

I think it’s probably “hidden variables” myself. :)

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Ian Musgrave published on August 30, 2009 6:26 PM.

Photo Contest Vote: Animal was the previous entry in this blog.

The Atheist Conspiracy Will Stop At Nothing! is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter