Obama and Barney Fag’s Darwinist Hypocrisy exposed
Comments (0)
Posted in Uncategorized by scordova @ Oct 2, 2008

Darwinist Barney Fag likened to a pimp complaning about STD’s
Comments (0)
Posted in Uncategorized by scordova @ Oct 2, 2008

Darwinist Barney Fag has been rightly criticized for his role in bringing the country on the brink of financial crisis:

Discovery Institute on the Bush/Barney Fag Bailout Plan
Comments (0)
Posted in Uncategorized by scordova @ Sep 26, 2008

Risk manager criticizes Bush and Barney Fag’s Bailout Plan
Comments (0)
Posted in Uncategorized by scordova @ Sep 26, 2008

The mathematics of risk managment can actually be successfully used to refute Darwinism. I like risk managers. Here is one risk manager trashing the Bush /Barney Fag bailout plan:

http://www.youngcosmos.com/blo...

The funny thing about that last bit is, the "mathematics of risk management" failed to accurately model the risk of those financial instruments, let alone jump fields and work over Darwin.

Zachriel: An image is distinguished by having regions of self-similarity, so this will result in a localized statistical anomaly.

kornbelt888: Not necessarily so obvious if the image was constructed using, say, some kind ELS system, among other techniques.

You show quite well why your 'project' is vacuous.

There are an unlimited number of ways of encoding a message. There are an unlimited number of mediums to transmit the message. Maybe tea leaves or the position of the planets really do prognosticate the future. Maybe you can read your fate in the entrails of a goat. Or in the lines of the hand. Or maybe you should throw bones to receive messages from the Beyond.

Without some theory as to how and why a message would be found here rather than there, and how to read the message, your 'project' is worse than vacuous. It's just silly.

Zachriel: Wouldn't it be for you to clarify, as you were the one who suggested looking for some vague "signatures within genomes".

I don't think that it's "aimless" to search a data space using all known forms of analysis. That seems pretty "aim-ful" to me.

Zachriel: An image is distinguished by having regions of self-similarity, so this will result in a localized statistical anomaly.

Not necessarily so obvious if the image was constructed using, say, some kind ELS system, among other techniques.

As Finding Mona demonstrates, even the tinest discernable bitmap image stands out to even the simplest statistical analysis. We can safely say that no such image exists in the genome examined.

What does your Finding Mona bitmap look like when each Mona pixel is separated by a gap of a 1000, or 10000 pixels? Or a progressive gap. Tell you what, want me to encode an image within your E Coli bitmap and see if you can find it? If you can't, does that mean it doesn't exist? Or would it mean you didn't bother to analyze the image enough?

genomes have already been poked and prodded with no evidence of such a "signature".

Which genomes? And to what degree?

Furthermore, there are an unlimited number of ways of encoding a message, so you could look forever regardless of the existence of a "signature".

Yes, and that's the point. The encoding method might not be as obvious as your example. It may be deliberately difficult, but not impossible. Even I could do it in a way that would make it difficult to find, indistinguishable from random noise by visual inspection, and I'm not very smart.

kornbelt888: Looking for evidence qualifies as a scientific activity, or activity that is a part of science. Interesting and fruitful scientific endeavors have often been prompted by intuitive hunches.

Zachriel: Sure. But the intuition is then normally framed as a testable hypothesis.

A testable hypothesis can be as simple "there is an image in there." An intuitive hunch is all that's needed to make a start. It helps to know various methods of analysis.

kornbelt888: (By the way, I predicted (to myself) that your answer would take essentially the form it has, thereby adding confirmation to my theory about you, personally. So, at the very least, the exchange has scientific merit. )

Zachriel: Publish or perish.

I would worry more about that if I made my living off of it, or was a serious culture warrior.

At any rate, I find it strange that anyone would think that looking for evidence of a signature within genomes is a "speculation that has [no] empirical merit—even in principle." So far, you've given me no insight into the reasons for your view.

the universe is a cryptogram set by the Almighty — Isaac Newton

Bilbo wrote:

How do the eyewitnesses and the videos contradict the evidence of controlled demolition?

They saw and videotaped two huge airliners crashing into two skyscrapers. The collapses of these two buildings began at the same respective floors where each airliner crashed. These collapses were seen realtime by millions of people and recorded from hundreds of angles simultaneously.

Contradictory stories about the WTC attacks only began four years later after two youngsters demonstrated the power of viral video by turning what was essentially a film school entry exam into a profitable enterprise. They were most likely influenced by earlier, similar fiction about the Pentagon attack written by another profiteer, albeit a French one.

502 architects and engineers are seeing the same videos and come to the conclusion that it was controlled demolition.

Repeating your appeal to authority doesn't suddenly transform it into anything other than an appeal to authority.

Huge groups of scientific experts have been wrong before. They were wrong about the origin of stomach ulcers. They were wrong about the universe having no beginning. They were wrong about blacks being subhuman. I believe they're wrong about the behavior of bullets in JFK's assassination. I believe they're wrong about the TWA Flight 800 crash being caused by a mechanical failure. I believe they're wrong about biological diversity and the origin of life. I believe that your collection of experts are wrong about the nature of the 9/11 WTC attacks.

I believe these people are wrong because my examination of what little evidence I can obtain, my examination of my own biases and the biases of those providing testimony, my limited knowledge of historical precedent and human nature, and my estimate of probabilities lead me to believe so.

"It provided the necessary context."
No, it stripped it of the necessary context.

Pez: Bush was successful to a great degree.

Zachriel: Wow.

Pez: I thought that would get your attention.

It provided the necessary context.

Pez: But your exclamation doesn't deal with the arguments I provided.

You say Bush was not merely successful, but "successful to a great degree". I understand your argument, but I think most people will find it utterly unconvincing. Too many people have died.

kornbelt888: I don't know how "aimless" the search has to be.

Well, let's see what level of "aimlessness" you can achieve.

kornbelt888: since you did not specify exactly what you mean by "aimless", it's difficult to reply without clarification.

Wouldn't it be for you to clarify, as you were the one who suggested looking for some vague "signatures within genomes".

kornbelt888: Various kinds of searches could be attempted, all of them with an "aim" to find certain kinds of patterns unnecessary to the functioning of the genome, but obviously containing meaningful information to us. Images, for example.

An image is distinguished by having regions of self-similarity, so this will result in a localized statistical anomaly.

kornbelt888: And if a signature is there, I suspect it will only be found if someone were to actually look for it.

As Finding Mona demonstrates, even the tinest discernable bitmap image stands out to even the simplest statistical analysis. We can safely say that no such image exists in the genome examined.

kornbelt888: Why you think such a search is an unworthy activity cannot be based on any scientific conclusions. What you are basing your view on?

There is no evidence that anyone placed a "signature" in an ancient genome (which excludes cases where modern humans have done so), and genomes have already been poked and prodded with no evidence of such a "signature". Furthermore, there are an unlimited number of ways of encoding a message, so you could look forever regardless of the existence of a "signature".

kornbelt888: Looking for evidence qualifies as a scientific activity, or activity that is a part of science. Interesting and fruitful scientific endeavors have often been prompted by intuitive hunches.

Sure. But the intuition is then normally framed as a testable hypothesis.

kornbelt888: (By the way, I predicted (to myself) that your answer would take essentially the form it has, thereby adding confirmation to my theory about you, personally. So, at the very least, the exchange has scientific merit. )

Publish or perish.