Researchers at Duke University
All-seeing-I
"Researchers at Duke University have proposed that a unified theory of
physics will ultimately enable apparent common design features in the
movement systems of diverse organisms and species to be a consequence
of biological systems responding to environmental demands according to
the same spatio-temporal dynamical rules or ‘flow"
"all animals bear the same stamp of physics in their design"
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-1-t-000314.html
Is that a clock I hear ticking?
--
Evolution's time is running out says...
The All Seeing I
Boikat
> Following the trail of evidence where ever it leads:
>
> "Researchers at Duke University have proposed that a unified theory of
> physics will ultimately enable apparent common design features in the
> movement systems of diverse organisms and species to be a consequence
> of biological systems responding to environmental demands according to
> the same spatio-temporal dynamical rules or ‘flow"
>
> "all animals bear the same stamp of physics in their design"
(adman=Bevis 0r Butt-head) Duhuhuh! Huhhuhhuhhuh! They said
'design'! Duhhuhhuhhuhhuh! Huhhuhhu!
>
> http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-1-t-000314.html
>
> Is that a clock I hear ticking?
For creationism. Sorry, your time ran out centuries ago
>
> --
> Evolution's time is running out says the deluded and ignorant piece of shit, which calls itself...
>
> The All Seeing I
Your ignorance knows no bounds, nor does your dishonesty.
Boikat
Mike Dworetsky
Except that the above is a completely misleading precis from ICSD, an
organization with a religious axe to grind, and the actual article linked
says nothing about "God" or "designer" and instead discusses physics and why
evolutionary changes involve universal physical laws:
ICSD and ASS-I seem to be saying, "But they used the word "design"!!!!
Therefore evolutionists are admitting that goddidit!!!!" What rot.
Could someone out there give us the low-down on ICSD? Isn't it something
set up by DI and/or Dembski?
From the actual article:
"They said their findings have important implications for understanding
factors that guide *evolution* [emphasis added] by suggesting that many
important functional characteristics of animal shape and locomotion are
predictable from physics.
"The findings, published in the January 2006 issue of "The Journal of
Experimental Biology," challenge the notion that fundamental differences
between apparently unrelated forms of locomotion exist. The findings also
offer an explanation for remarkable universal similarities in animal design
that had long puzzled scientists, the researchers said.
""The similarities among animals that are on the surface very different are
no coincidence," said Adrian Bejan, J. A. Jones Professor of Mechanical
Engineering at Duke's Pratt School. "In fact, animal locomotion is no
different than other flows, animate and inanimate: they all develop in space
and in time such that they optimize the flow of material." In the case of
animal locomotion, this means that animals move such that they travel the
greatest distance while expending the least amount of energy, he said.
""From simple physics, based only on gravity, density and mass, you can
explain within an order of magnitude many features of flying, swimming and
running," added James Marden, professor of biology at Penn State. "It
doesn't matter whether the animal has eight legs, four legs, two, even if it
swims with no legs.""
So the article is about how physics affects biology and evolution, not about
miracles found in "ancient texts". You lose, ASI.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Garamond Lethe
> All-seeing-I wrote:
>> Following the trail of evidence where ever it leads:
>>
>> "Researchers at Duke University have proposed that a unified theory of
>> physics will ultimately enable apparent common design features in the
>> movement systems of diverse organisms and species to be a consequence
>> of biological systems responding to environmental demands according to
>> the same spatio-temporal dynamical rules or ‘flow"
>>
>> "all animals bear the same stamp of physics in their design"
>>
>> http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-1-t-000314.html
>>
>>
>>
>> Is that a clock I hear ticking?
>>
>> --
>> Evolution's time is running out says...
>>
>> The All Seeing I
>
> Except that the above is a completely misleading precis from ICSD, an
> organization with a religious axe to grind, and the actual article linked
> says nothing about "God" or "designer" and instead discusses physics and why
> evolutionary changes involve universal physical laws:
>
> ICSD and ASS-I seem to be saying, "But they used the word "design"!!!!
> Therefore evolutionists are admitting that goddidit!!!!" What rot.
>
> Could someone out there give us the low-down on ICSD? Isn't it something
> set up by DI and/or Dembski?
Yes. Dembski is the executive director and the Fellows are the usual
suspects.
http://www.iscid.org/about.php
http://www.iscid.org/fellows.php
RMcBane
If you go to their main page and then click on the contact button it
statess:
"Contact Information
ISCID is no longer being managed as an organization, and thus no
longer has contact information. We leave this website up for archival
purposes."
Seems like they are having trouble surviving.
--
Richard McBane
John Harshman
No. It's probably some loose gear in your head.
Now, if you could read, you would see that all this says is that physics
puts constraints on evolution, and that animal locomotion evolves to
become efficient. And of course it does. If locomotion were inefficient,
natural selection would drive it toward optimal efficiency. This is no
challenge to evolution, but a truism that functional anatomists have
known for many years.
Desertphile
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
> Following the trail of evidence where ever it leads:
"The International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design
(ISCID) is a cross-disciplinary professional society that
investigates complex systems apart from external programmatic
constraints like materialism, naturalism, or reductionism."
Translation: "The International Society for Complexity,
Information, and Design (ISCID) is a cross-denominational
religious society that imagines just-so stories about what they
call 'complex systems' using fantasy and make-believe."
It's a Creationism web site run by the Creationist Micah Sparacio
who believes in "intelligent design" Creationism for occult
reasons but has tried to hide that fact, and has failed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Society_for_Complexity,_Information,_and_Design
Yep, you're right: the evidence leads tos evolution. We knew that
already.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Ye Old One
Why? Is the crocodile after you.
Tell you what Mudbrain. When you can actually read and understand the
original article come back to us.
--
Bob.
People may not always remember exactly what you said, but they will
always remember just how bright you made them feel.
Ron O
The ISCID is the "science" organization of the ID scam artists. The
organizers were the same guys that fill the roster of the Discovery
Institute. It is pretty much defunct and they haven't put out an
edition of their "science" journal for some time.
You can see the pathetic state of ID science by going to their
discussion board.
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-forum-f-6.html
The last "members" discussion occurred on July 2006 about a year after
the Dover fiasco when everyone with a brain figured the jig was up.
http://www.iscid.org/boards
Ron Okimoto
Desertphile
wrote:
> The ISCID is the "science" organization of the ID scam artists. The
> organizers were the same guys that fill the roster of the Discovery
> Institute. It is pretty much defunct and they haven't put out an
> edition of their "science" journal for some time.
>
> You can see the pathetic state of ID science by going to their
> discussion board.
>
> http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-forum-f-6.html
>
> The last "members" discussion occurred on July 2006 about a year after
> the Dover fiasco when everyone with a brain figured the jig was up.
> http://www.iscid.org/boards
It looks like the "teach the controversy" / "teach the strengths
and weaknesses" scam is also going belly-up. It must really suck
being a Creationist, here in the Information Age.
> Ron Okimoto
bpuharic
except, of coruse, creationists say that theories don't exist. natural
laws don't exist
only ghosts are real. only the magical can explain nature.
wizard of oz science...
Paul J Gans
>On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 09:12:32 -0800 (PST), Ron O <roki...@cox.net>
>wrote:
>> The ISCID is the "science" organization of the ID scam artists. The
>> organizers were the same guys that fill the roster of the Discovery
>> Institute. It is pretty much defunct and they haven't put out an
>> edition of their "science" journal for some time.
>>
>> You can see the pathetic state of ID science by going to their
>> discussion board.
>>
>> http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-forum-f-6.html
>>
>> The last "members" discussion occurred on July 2006 about a year after
>> the Dover fiasco when everyone with a brain figured the jig was up.
>> http://www.iscid.org/boards
>
>It looks like the "teach the controversy" / "teach the strengths
>and weaknesses" scam is also going belly-up. It must really suck
>being a Creationist, here in the Information Age.
>
I was happier when they were trying to co-opt science. If
indeed they've given that up, folks will have to be even
*more* vigilant as they will move in other directions such
as taking what they see as "religion" (i.e. evolution) out
of the curriculum or watering biology courses down on the
grounds that students have more practical need for a course
in dowsing or something like that.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Ron O
wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 09:12:32 -0800 (PST), Ron O <rokim...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> > The ISCID is the "science" organization of the ID scam artists. The
> > organizers were the same guys that fill the roster of the Discovery
> > Institute. It is pretty much defunct and they haven't put out an
> > edition of their "science" journal for some time.
>
> > You can see the pathetic state of ID science by going to their
> > discussion board.
>
> >http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-forum-f-6.html
>
> > The last "members" discussion occurred on July 2006 about a year after
> > the Dover fiasco when everyone with a brain figured the jig was up.
> >http://www.iscid.org/boards
>
> It looks like the "teach the controversy" / "teach the strengths
> and weaknesses" scam is also going belly-up. It must really suck
> being a Creationist, here in the Information Age.
>
> > Ron Okimoto
>
> Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
> "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
The switch scam seems to have gone belly up everywhere except for
Louisiana. All the pro ID legislators that had the bait and switch
run on them either dropped the issue or their switch scam bills got
the treatment they deserved. Texas may still enact some kind of
switch scam junk, but McLeroy didn't get confirmed as chair of the
board, and I don't know if they got another dishonest ID perp switch
scam loser to take his place.
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
> Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
> >On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 09:12:32 -0800 (PST), Ron O <rokim...@cox.net>
What worries me is how nonchalant some of the dishonest perps are
about running the bait and switch scam. The rubes that have had the
switch run on them don't seem to be bothered by it. Enough of them
just bend over and take the switch scam from the same guys that lied
to them about the ID scam. You have to wonder what was going through
Governor Jindal's mind when he signed the switch scam bill. Louisiana
looked like losers when they tried to circumvent the law by just not
mentioning the creation science that they wanted to teach. As if not
stating what they wanted to teach made it all OK, compared to the
Arkansas law that didn't make the grade. Does he not know the history
of the stupidity surrounding this issue in Louisiana? There is
absolutely no doubt about who supports the switch scam. Beats me how
they expect to get around the Lemon test if they try to implement the
switch scam the way the creationist supporters want it implimented.
Ron Okimoto
Desertphile
That analogy had not occurred to me. You're right: Creationist
organizations are much like dowsing organizations. The American
Society of Dowsers and the International Society of Dowsers have
cautioned members to avoid taking the James Randi Educational
Foundation's million dollar challenge. The dowser's excuses are
much like Creationists' excuses.
Desertphile
wrote:
> On Nov 22, 4:50 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> wrote:
> > On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 09:12:32 -0800 (PST), Ron O <rokim...@cox.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > The ISCID is the "science" organization of the ID scam artists. The
> > > organizers were the same guys that fill the roster of the Discovery
> > > Institute. It is pretty much defunct and they haven't put out an
> > > edition of their "science" journal for some time.
> >
> > > You can see the pathetic state of ID science by going to their
> > > discussion board.
> >
> > >http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-forum-f-6.html
> >
> > > The last "members" discussion occurred on July 2006 about a year after
> > > the Dover fiasco when everyone with a brain figured the jig was up.
> > >http://www.iscid.org/boards
> >
> > It looks like the "teach the controversy" / "teach the strengths
> > and weaknesses" scam is also going belly-up. It must really suck
> > being a Creationist, here in the Information Age.
> The switch scam seems to have gone belly up everywhere except for
> Louisiana. All the pro ID legislators that had the bait and switch
> run on them either dropped the issue or their switch scam bills got
> the treatment they deserved. Texas may still enact some kind of
> switch scam junk, but McLeroy didn't get confirmed as chair of the
> board, and I don't know if they got another dishonest ID perp switch
> scam loser to take his place.
The latest scam appears to be the claim that "evolution is a
religion" and that explaining biology is therefore a violation of
the United States Constitution's First Amendment. That did not
work in San Juan Capistrano, but Texas hasn't gotten that memo
yet.
> Ron Okimoto
--
Boikat
wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:28:06 -0800 (PST), Ron O <rokim...@cox.net>
They've been trying to pull that crap for over ten years.
> and that explaining biology is therefore a violation of
> the United States Constitution's First Amendment. That did not
> work in San Juan Capistrano, but Texas hasn't gotten that memo
> yet.
Arkansas got that memo in the 80's.
Boikat
Rodjk #613
It is pretty easy to see what is on the minds of politicians like
Jindal.
The public, especially in Louisiana, is heavily creationist / or don't
see it as that big of a deal. There is nothing for Jindal to lose by
signing such a bill. If the courts over-ride it, the persecution
complex gets full play. If it stays on the books, Louisiana students
get a slightly more screwed up science education than they have been
getting...which sucked anyway.
Politically, its win/win.
Rodjk #613