My, how time flies.

| 19 Comments

PZ reminds us that today is the 10th anniversary of Paul Nelson’s promise to deliver an operational definition of “ontogenetic depth.” Nelson said it would be forthcoming “tomorrow.” When I was about four years old it struck me that tomorrow never comes.

And I can’t resist re-publishing this:

Concerning Richard B. Hoppe and his requests for Paul Nelson to provide support for his Intelligent Design claims about Ontogenetic Depth:

Paul Nelson’s “depth” tales sounded tall.
Richard Hoppe thought, “it’s past time to call
Nelson’s ontogenetic-
clad apologetic.”
Quoth Richard, “So where’s the beef, Paul?”

I doubt that he’ll find satisfaction,
nor even a lucid reaction.
Behind the smoke screen
there’s an ID machine
building weapons of media distraction.

A meal of Intelligent Design
when served with the fruit of divine
is lacking in beef,
which supports my belief
that it’s tripe marinating in whine.

19 Comments

When you stare too long into the Ontogenetic Depths…you get bored and quit.

Glen Davidson

Nelson apparently got hung up when he got to “depth.”

Recently I realized that it would be more efficient with my time to only debate ID on twitter. Usually the fatal flaw in their science comes down to something that can be stated in 140 characters or less.

http://twitter.com/search?q=%23IDerrors

Nick Matzke said:

Recently I realized that it would be more efficient with my time to only debate ID on twitter. Usually the fatal flaw in their science comes down to something that can be stated in 140 characters or less.

http://twitter.com/search?q=%23IDerrors

There seems to be a lot of truth to that. That UD site is pretty convincing evidence that they stopped learning science some time around the 8th grade; well before they got to high school biology, chemistry, and physics. And they didn’t get any remediation even if they went to college.

If an ID/creationist has a 50/50 chance of getting a scientific concept wrong, 999 times out of a 1000 he will.

Mike Elzinga said: If an ID/creationist has a 50/50 chance of getting a scientific concept wrong, 999 times out of a 1000 he will.

How do they do on concepts of probability?

John Harshman said:

Mike Elzinga said: If an ID/creationist has a 50/50 chance of getting a scientific concept wrong, 999 times out of a 1000 he will.

How do they do on concepts of probability?

Hee hee! Pretty badly. ;-)

They use inert objects like Scrabble letters, dice, coins, junkyard parts, battleship parts, and now robotic parts as stand-ins for the properties and behaviors of atoms and molecules.

Then they take a string of length L with N possibilities per position and say that the probably of assembly of complex molecules is 1/N^L. Not only is such a “calculation” completely irrelevant, they don’t even bother to multiply that number by the numbers of permutations of all the repeated elements in the string.

All they want is for minus the log to base 2 of their probabilities to be greater than 500. That is as far in mathematics as any of them has ever gone; in other words, barely even high school level, and they get it wrong.

Maybe we will get a definition of ontogenetic depth right after we get an equation for irreducible complexity. I won’t be holding my breath. How long do these guys think they can bluff before they are called on their nonsense?

DS said:

Maybe we will get a definition of ontogenetic depth right after we get an equation for irreducible complexity. I won’t be holding my breath. How long do these guys think they can bluff before they are called on their nonsense?

Just longer than the attention span of their audience.

John Harshman said:

Mike Elzinga said: If an ID/creationist has a 50/50 chance of getting a scientific concept wrong, 999 times out of a 1000 he will.

How do they do on concepts of probability?

I thought it was 1000 times out of 999…

david.starling.macmillan said:

John Harshman said:

Mike Elzinga said: If an ID/creationist has a 50/50 chance of getting a scientific concept wrong, 999 times out of a 1000 he will.

How do they do on concepts of probability?

I thought it was 1000 times out of 999…

Heh; that’s even funnier. :-)

Come to think of it; they do in fact find multiple ways of getting any given concept wrong. And they don’t even seem to notice the contradictions among their multiple misconceptions and misrepresentations.

Time flies like an arrow.

Fruit flies like a banana.

Therefore Jesus.

Or something like that.

How do they do on concepts of probability?

Probability is a dirty word because it has to with chance.

Karen S. said:

How do they do on concepts of probability?

Probability is a dirty word because it has to with chance.

We don’t believe in probability. We believe in God-Ability!

Mike Elzinga said:

John Harshman said:

Mike Elzinga said: If an ID/creationist has a 50/50 chance of getting a scientific concept wrong, 999 times out of a 1000 he will.

How do they do on concepts of probability?

Hee hee! Pretty badly. ;-)

Sorry. I should have used some kind of “sarcasm” smiley. I was referring in a subtle way to *your* concept of probability as expressed above.

Oops I meant to say “Probability is a dirty word because it has to DO with chance.”

But I guess leaving out the word was not a chance event–God did it!

John Harshman said:

Mike Elzinga said:

John Harshman said:

Mike Elzinga said: If an ID/creationist has a 50/50 chance of getting a scientific concept wrong, 999 times out of a 1000 he will.

How do they do on concepts of probability?

Hee hee! Pretty badly. ;-)

Sorry. I should have used some kind of “sarcasm” smiley. I was referring in a subtle way to *your* concept of probability as expressed above.

I wasn’t sure you got the joke; hence the explanation. I should have used the wink emodicon.

I still want to know what research is coming out of those secret ID labs we heard about way back when.

Matt G said:

I still want to know what research is coming out of those secret ID labs we heard about way back when.

They’re still watching for poofs.

You just don’t know when it’ll happen.

Glen Davidson

Matt G said:

I still want to know what research is coming out of those secret ID labs we heard about way back when.

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bi[…]420;st=10050

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Richard B. Hoppe published on April 7, 2014 1:23 PM.

Edestus jaw was the previous entry in this blog.

Your Inner Fish – tomorrow on PBS 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