Freethought & Rationalism Archive

lpetrich · 10-25-2002, 09:40 PM

I've composed this illustration of the title of this thread:

Enjoy!

Nickle · 10-26-2002, 08:33 AM

nice!

Jimmy Higgins · 10-26-2002, 09:31 AM

<a href="http://the_champions_mls.tripod.com/badscience/some_bad_science.htm" target="_blank">Going one step further</a>
I took the above picture and have attached the links from the opening of the thread onto the pictures.

scigirl · 10-26-2002, 09:31 AM

Ha ha ha!

Poor froggie though, being next to Gish.

scigirl

Nickle · 10-26-2002, 09:34 AM

*fighting temptation to send this pic to the photoshop thread*

I'm sure missus_gumby can work some wonders

[ October 26, 2002: Message edited by: Nickle ]

Valentine Pontifex · 10-26-2002, 04:35 PM

My favorite article on these claims is <a href="http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/bullfrog.html" target="_blank">The Bullfrog Affair</a>.

tgamble · 10-26-2002, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Valentine Pontifex:
My favorite article on these claims is <a href="http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/bullfrog.html" target="_blank">The Bullfrog Affair</a>.

Yeah, that's an excellent article. The blood antigen in butterbeansis closest to humans.

Butterbeans don't have blood! <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

I wonder if this claim is still being made?

lpetrich · 10-26-2002, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nickle:
*fighting temptation to send this pic to the photoshop thread*

I'm sure missus_gumby can work some wonders

Feel free to do so. I had been playing it straight, but now that I think about it, it might be fun to produce composite pictures like

A bullfrog with Duane Gish's head
A shrimp with Jonathan Wells's head
A beaver with William Dembski's head

Camaban · 10-27-2002, 12:14 AM

*notes that Gish looks kinda like a frog (look at that mouth) and if you look at Demski's teeth, kinda makes you think of a beaver.... that picture of wells would probably go onto a picture of a shrimp quite well as well*

Nic Tamzek · 10-27-2002, 12:44 AM

Hate to be a non-eager beaver, folks, but I gotta say that the attempted Dembski-beaver criticism is dubious at best.

I'm not sure that there is any hard data that beaver dam building is due to instinct rather than intelligence, or that these are really very meaningful distinctions for a case like this. Would a beaver raised by humans instead of a beaver family still build dams, or build effective ones? I have no idea. It might be like human language, a predisposition to learn in a certain direction or something.

And certainly some beavers don't build dams at all, I've seen beaver houses on large rivers that were undammable.

So I don't think that attributing beaver dams to "beaver intelligence" is the kind of atrocious error that e.g. Gish's bullfrog case is. Perhaps technical beaver experts really do chalk it up to instinct rather than intelligence, but then Dembski wasn't speaking technically really either.

There are of course plenty of Dembski howlers, my current favorite is the fact that Dembski continually says that the flagellum specification is "a bidirectional rotary motor" -- even though there are functional flagella that aren't bidirectional. Does this mean that those ones evolved, or what?

nic

10-26-2002, 09:34 AM	#15
Nickle Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Texas Posts: 385	fighting temptation to send this pic to the photoshop thread I'm sure missus_gumby can work some wonders [ October 26, 2002: Message edited by: Nickle ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-25-2002, 09:40 PM	#11
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	I've composed this illustration of the title of this thread: Enjoy!

10-26-2002, 08:33 AM	#12
Nickle Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Texas Posts: 385	nice!

10-26-2002, 09:31 AM	#13
Jimmy Higgins Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Proud Citizen of Freedonia Posts: 42,473	<a href="http://the_champions_mls.tripod.com/badscience/some_bad_science.htm" target="_blank">Going one step further</a> I took the above picture and have attached the links from the opening of the thread onto the pictures.

10-26-2002, 09:31 AM	#14
scigirl Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Seattle Posts: 4,261	Ha ha ha! Poor froggie though, being next to Gish. scigirl

10-26-2002, 04:35 PM	#16
Valentine Pontifex Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Orion Arm of the Milky Way Galaxy Posts: 3,092	My favorite article on these claims is <a href="http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/bullfrog.html" target="_blank">The Bullfrog Affair</a>.

10-27-2002, 12:14 AM	#19
Camaban Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 473	notes that Gish looks kinda like a frog (look at that mouth) and if you look at Demski's teeth, kinda makes you think of a beaver.... that picture of wells would probably go onto a picture of a shrimp quite well as well

10-27-2002, 12:44 AM	#20
Nic Tamzek Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: California Posts: 646	Hate to be a non-eager beaver, folks, but I gotta say that the attempted Dembski-beaver criticism is dubious at best. I'm not sure that there is any hard data that beaver dam building is due to instinct rather than intelligence, or that these are really very meaningful distinctions for a case like this. Would a beaver raised by humans instead of a beaver family still build dams, or build effective ones? I have no idea. It might be like human language, a predisposition to learn in a certain direction or something. And certainly some beavers don't build dams at all, I've seen beaver houses on large rivers that were undammable. So I don't think that attributing beaver dams to "beaver intelligence" is the kind of atrocious error that e.g. Gish's bullfrog case is. Perhaps technical beaver experts really do chalk it up to instinct rather than intelligence, but then Dembski wasn't speaking technically really either. There are of course plenty of Dembski howlers, my current favorite is the fact that Dembski continually says that the flagellum specification is "a bidirectional rotary motor" -- even though there are functional flagella that aren't bidirectional. Does this mean that those ones evolved, or what? nic

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.