User talk:HeartOfGold/Archive006

This is an archive page, last updated 3 July 2007. Please do not make edits to this page.

Question

Are you just passing throw? Or are you still interested in contributing here long termish? Tmtoulouse 21:11, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

Long termish, but I want to be a sysop. Heart♥Gold ^tx 21:12, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

Done. Tmtoulouse 21:15, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

Cool, thanks. I should warn you that I will have to disappear for periods of time due to family and work obligations. Heart♥Gold ^tx 21:16, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

I spent three weeks AWOL from this site like a week after we started...I won't complaing :). Tmtoulouse 21:17, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

Good. Do I have to log out and log back in or something so that I can ban everybody? (Just kidding about banning everybody). Heart♥Gold ^tx 21:23, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

Nope you should be seeing little red exclamation marks all over the recent changes and you are good to go. Tmtoulouse 21:27, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

Congratulations

It took them long enough! CЯacke® 21:18, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

Thanks!:) Heart♥Gold ^tx 21:19, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

Congratulations, also, on your demotion! Now you get to do grunt work as well! I tole ya that you had to wait for the storekeeper to return. Cheers, human^{be in} 21:50, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

Thanks. Can I go block RobS now for suffering from Patty Hearst Syndrome (accusing me, secretly, of being some sort of Neo-nazi for supporting the constitution party, after he had been accused, to the best of my information and belief, of being an anti-semite by the ADL et al? Heart♥Gold ^tx 21:53, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

Pseudoscience

For now we need to keep the category on the article, regardless of how we ultimately address ID. Until we work out how to handle the "portal" issue and sub categories, which I will get to eventually, or hopefully someone else will beat me to it. Tmtoulouse 19:59, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

What do you mean we need to keep it? I don't understand. I think it is a fair point I am making. The article was never intended to be a diatribe to equate ID with pseudoscience. That it was turned into one is not very rational. I don't mind mentioning that many or most biologists view it as a pseudoscience, but the article itself does not belong in the category. Also, the idea that researchers can suffer retaliation over beliefs deemed peculiar by others (as opposed to say, erroniously teaching that that E=M²C³, is more the point of the article. Since I am not a biologist, and do not have an interest in using evolution to fight religion, as many evolutions seem to have, or to use ID as a "wedge" to promote Christianity, as it is alledged the DI does, I think I am being objective and fair in my treatment (with some slips, but those can be worked out.) Heart♥Gold ^tx 20:04, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

I am not yet arguing about ID and pseudoscience in the abstract sense. We can get to that soon enough, what I am saying is that as far as the site organizational structure goes at the moment, it needs the category tag because we are using the category as our "portal" for such articles. If the tag is not on it, it wont be in the right place. Until we work out the portal issues and what not it needs to stay. Its procedural at the moment. Tmtoulouse 20:07, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Well, then, I will go try to look at the category description. I whish a better explaination were present in the category name itself (e.g., articles even remotely related to pseudoscience). Heart♥Gold ^tx 20:11, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

"The article was never intended to be a diatribe to equate ID with pseudoscience" By who?

"erroniously teaching that that E=M²C³" is a pretty good analogy for what teaching ID as a science is (as opposed, say, to teaching about it in a philosophy of science class). human^{be in} 20:22, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

So now we have a reason to figure out this category shit........what are our options? Tmtoulouse 20:23, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Tmtoulouse, let's take that discussion to a more appropriate page. I have an idea on how to solve this. Heart♥Gold ^tx 20:27, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Human, like it or not, aspects of ID can be scientific, just like aspects of evolutionism can be scientific. To take another unrelated example, it is possible to examine using the scientific method ESP. ESP itself may not be scientific, but looking for evidence that ESP happens can be done scientifically. Likewise, looking for evidence that useful adaptations have an intelligent cause can be done scientifically. (I agree, however, that determining scientifically that chance mutations alone probably does not explain useful adaptations is not strictly speaking "proof.") But areas of investigation within ID can be pursued using the scientific method, don't you agree? Heart♥Gold ^tx 20:27, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

HG. Exactly what "areas of investigation within ID can be pursued using the scientific method"?--Bob_M (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

Microevolution, the tree of life, basically the stuff that overlaps with the TOE. MiddleMan 15:25, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

Well in the areas where it is in agreement with with TEO it has nothing to offer - TOE already does it. So what parts which are not in agreement with TOE "can be pursued using the scientific method"?--Bob_M (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

So that's it then? The only parts of ID that are scientific are those parts which are the same as TOE?--Bob_M (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

I would really like to know what aspects of ID can be studied using scientific method...specifically...details.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 13:56, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

So, come on HG, we're agog. (Well I am, I suppose I shouldn't speak for Palm, maybe he's a agoat). Exactly what "areas of investigation within ID can be pursued using the scientific method"? As Palm says "...specifically...details" --Bob_M (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

What parts of ID can be studied scientifically

I am not an ID nor a DNA expert, but it seems to me that the contention that random mutations alone are not sufficient to result in useful adaptations can be investiaged using the same or similar techniques used by code breakers, or in the evaluation of quality pseudorandom number generators (only negative tests exist to my knowledge, but that may be all that is needed to show useful compound adaptations are not generated randomly). E.g., see Diehard, by professor Georges Marsaglia at the University of Florida Statistics Department. It might be used as a basis to develop tests more suited to analyzing DNA sequences. Diehard has knocked down many purported true random number generators and also pseudorandom number generators. (I was familar with Diehard in the context of cryptography, which often has need for high quality true and pseudo random number generators--but I just noted that the University of Florida has a new Ph.D. program in Biostatistics.) The diehard battery of tests, unfortunately, seems to no longer be available from FSU, but if any researcher is interested, I have "(C)1995" CD (actually burned in 01/27/1996, it appears) from Professor George Marsaglia, and I presume that this CD is in the public domain because it was sponsored by grants from the National Science Foundation. It includes about 500k of source code. It appears that George Marsaglia et al are no longer going out of their way to make this suite publically available because they are set to release a commercial product. Hope this helps with some ideas. Heart♥Gold ^tx 21:57, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

Definitely lost me there.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 22:03, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

I think the key term here is useful, evolution via natural selection caused by mutations doesn't code for "usefulness", though if a trait is found to be useful it is incorporated into the population's members over time. That's my take on it anyways. ~~ CЯacke® 22:08, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

PalMD, random and pseudo random number sources can be evaluated, e.g., with Diehard. A good pseudo random number source generates a number using an algorithm, and is entirely predictable if you know the algorithm and the seed. However, it is a "good" algorithm if the numbers it generates are indistinguisable from a truly random number source (other unrelated critiria also apply). True random number sources also exist (e.g., thermal noise), but tapping these true random number sources is more difficult than many realize. Consequently, "True" random number sources are often designed and marketed for some cryptography applications, although some of these are not as random as purported, and are demonstrably predictable, e.g., using Diehard or other statistical suites. Hence, these tests cannot be used to prove some source is random, but they can be used to access the quality of the randomness (with some caveats).

I am speculating that such tests could find applications, if extended to the context of DNA, in Behe's assertions that random mutatations alone are not sufficient to account for compound useful adaptations. Heart♥Gold ^tx 22:14, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

OK, so which parts of ID can they be used to test? Just the word "random"? human^{be in} 22:45, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

It was an example. I am not an expert on ID. But mentioned Behe's contention under the assumption the Behe is a bonefide ID promotor and based on my hearing of his comments on the radio regarding "useful adaptations." (He did not go into the Diehard tests--that was my idea, but probably thought of by others, since I don't have many original ideas.) Heart♥Gold ^tx 22:49, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

"Not an expert on ID" - Who the hell is? God's peed ^{Babel fish}ÅЯ†ђŮŖ ÐΣй†_{Now look here!} 09:17, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

To pick up on Cracker's point above, the simple existence of random mutations is all that evolution needs. Natural selection then decides if they are useful or not. Frankly I don't see what any of the above has to do with this simple description. --Bob_M (talk) 02:08, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

The description is simple. According to Behe (and I don't know how controversial this is) some adaptations cannot be made stepwise, they are all mutations together or no differential reproductive success. In such cases, you have to have virually simultaneous confluence of mutations to produce differential reproductive success. And, even if these mutations conflate within a relatively small number of generations, the mutations individually cannot result in a (too much of) a negative effect on reproductive success.

Analysis of DNA might indicate that mutations are not random, or it might support the case that they are. Since I am not a biologist, I cannot (yet?) specify all of the steps in the analysis. It occurs to me that there may be practicalities that make this analysis more difficult than I first imagined. Heart♥Gold ^tx 19:55, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

<-- That is a fancy molecular-level way Behe brings back up the old "how useful is half an eye" argument. Essentially, these are "arguments from ignorance", since their only basis is whether or not we can or have figured how something could develop. And, after telling the IDist how an eye can develop, they just move along to "OK, but what about protozoan flaggelae"? And, may I point out, HG's last comment has nothing to do with falsifiability of ID, we are back to attacks on the modern synthesis theory again. Even if it were conclusively shown that some structure could not be explained by MST, that would be no evidence at all for ID. human^{be in} 20:03, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

"Essentially, these are 'arguments from ignorance'". Darwin was ignorant? I thought the whole argument was invented by Darwin? Heart♥Gold ^tx 20:05, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Maybe I was not clear. The argument of the form "how useful is half an eye" - to argue against it being able to evolve gradually - is an argument from ignorance. And, no, Darwin did not come up with the argument, he spends time in his book discussing it. Not a bad little book, either. Quite a brisk read. human^{be in} 20:12, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

But did Darwin not say:

“”If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.source of quote

Thanks for reminding me about this. I was re-reading "The God Delusion" the other day and Dawkins uses the same quote when talking about how evolution could theoretically be disproved. I had intended to add it to the disproving evolution article, but I forgot. It's in there now. I don't see how it helps your case though.--Bob_M (talk) 01:43, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

Good luck finding that organ, because the eye isn't what you're looking for. MiddleMan 20:44, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Nice strawman. Who brought up the eye? Heart♥Gold ^tx 20:52, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Shoot (assuming that quote above was put in by HG), I forgot, you think "Darwinism" (known to current day people as The Modern Synthesis) is a conspiracy. I can't believe that quote being used in such a bizarre way. "If it could be demonstrated" does not mean a Dr. Behe claiming something. It means proof, and it would certainly affect MSE. Darwin calls it "my theory" because when he was alive, that was a good phrase for it. It's not "his theory" anymore, it is the work of thousands, many of whom are well known. NOW. Can we get back to something that could be used to falsify ID? Because that would be something that could be studied scientifically. (PS, it was Darwin's critics who brought up the eye) human^{be in} 20:55, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

I'd rather get back to something that could falsify common descent. The randomness analysis could be used to falsify aspects of TOE, and to that extent, it is scientific. Same goes for what I understand to be Behe's focus. Heart♥Gold ^tx 20:59, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Covered. SEE THE ARTICLE ON THIS WEB SITE. Now, read the topic of this thread. human^{be in} 21:18, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

I sense, umn, ....frustration. I think I read the article, but I will search it out again. (I thought the purpose was to write, not read). Heart♥Gold ^tx 21:20, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Hmm, yes. Sorry, here are links: Disproving Intelligent Design, Disproving Creationism, and Disproving Evolution (was disproving CD). human^{be in} 21:35, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

This is a test

Hey, can you read this nonsense?

Heart♥Gold^tx

Pseudoscience category

Please review what I have done with the pseudoscience category and sub-categories and let me know what you think. Tmtoulouse 12:23, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Looks good to me. Heart♥Gold ^tx 21:32, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Hey, it just occurred to me

It might appear that I am RobS. I am not. Heart♥Gold ^tx 23:19, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

There was never any doubt. You, sir, have a "sense of humor". human^{be in} 23:43, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

As I don't believe a word that RobS writes I don't believe what you've just written. You can't fool us at Rationalwiki, Rob. We're smarter than that! God's peed ^{Babel fish}ÅЯ†ђŮŖ ÐΣй†_{Now look here!} 01:10, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

But it would have been clever of Rob to do something like that (create a sock, accuse his sock of being a Constitutional Party David Duke Supporter, etc.). Heart♥Gold ^tx 08:27, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

His madness knows no bounds. God's peed ^{Babel fish}ÅЯ†ђŮŖ ÐΣй†_{Now look here!} 09:14, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Mine? Hey, I have a PW for you: iamaruthordent. Try it out. Heart♥Gold ^tx 09:16, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

I'm not sure what you mean by the PW. Does this need to be done by email? God's peed ^{Babel fish}ÅЯ†ђŮŖ ÐΣй†_{Now look here!} 09:21, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Maybe at a latter date. Nevermind. Heart♥Gold ^tx 09:24, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Sorry

I was bored. ɧєɭıסş^{-get sunburn!} 06:52, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

What did you do? Cool way to do your signature, I'll have to try that. Potentially dangerous though, if it is hacked. Heart♥Gold ^tx 06:54, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

Requests for comment/HeartOfGold

You are invited to contribute to the RFC filed against you here.-αmεσG 00:37, 30 June 2007 (CDT

quick question

I figure asking you will work faster than google on this one. Where is the easiest place to look up Bible ch/v cites to copy into the refs on Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge? Thanks in advance, human^{be in} 14:11, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

Never mind, I found biblegateway.com. Works great. Enjoy your vacation! human^{be in} 18:05, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

Word of advice

When you are questioning the intelligence of a group of individuals, it is best to not make a typo in the next sentence¹.

Just a word of advice,

Locke ^Random 22:16, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

¹"He can do fractions, mutliplication, and some division (he is probably better than most adult liberals), read and write in two languages at about a second grade level). God has blessed him."

Wtrandomf? human^{be in} 22:22, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

If you're talking to me: Idk, I saw it on his user page and found the irony irresistible,Locke ^Random 22:25, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

OK, now I follow the thread... and antagonize it myself. Remember, typos can always be corrected - and we all make them. human^{be in} 22:34, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

Fair point, Locke. Heart♥Gold ^tx 00:26, 1 July 2007 (CDT)

I never make any typoos.-αmεσG 00:29, 1 July 2007 (CDT)

bang bang

I always thought the second amendment craze was to illiterates as the first is to me. A way to express oneself. Bang bang! PS, nuke Tehran! It's easier than talking. PPS, what two languages? human^{be in} 22:26, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

By the way "most liberals"? Based on what? Your survey of gay bar floor plans? I did f***ing math as a hobby by age 5. You know, to kill time. human^{be in} 22:33, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

Liberals and math: I am dealing with liberals who in real life are the useful idiots of their far more clever communist leaders.

Regarding Iran: I don't support goading Iran into war. I think you should talk to Israel about that, or their neo-conservative toadies, not me.

The second amendment is there to protect my home when the commies come and tell me I need to house other families in my home, as they did in China, Cuba, and the Soviet Union. Sounds ridiculous now, as it did in China during WWII. Revolution is not necessary when the government fears its citizens. But there is a reason the first amendment came first: the second without the first is worthless.

And just because I can't spell doesn't mean I am illiterate...it means I am too lazy to run my rants through a word processor.

My son speaks, reads, and writes English and REDACTED, also he's learning Spanish, reads and plays music, and has "almost perfect" pitch, and perfect relative pitch. The only television we let our children watch is Mr. Roger's Neighborhood (Mr. Rogers was clearly a commie, I am not sure why I let them watch him--at least he was a nice commie) and America's funniest home videos. Otherwise, my son teaches himself math (it is amazing the stuff he has figured out on his own, after being taught fractions form 1/8 to 1/1 for music. He figured out that 1/4-1/16=3/16, and went on to figure out the concept of common denominators on his own, from 1/4 + 1/8 = 3/8, and then to 1/4+1/3=7/12, and figuring out that 3/4>2/3). It blows me and my wife away how he figures this out on his own. Anyway, he is gifted with brain power, but is average in athletics. God gives each person a unique set of gifts, from social skills (my daughter, to brains (my son), and so on. Of course, many liberals think it is the result of the DNA lottery.

I encourage my children to question authority (even mine) but they also understand that sometimes they have to postpone their questions until after they do what I say (like "get out of the street, now.") As Abraham questioned God, I allow my children to question my decisions, and sometimes they are able to persuade me (so long as they don't whine) to change my mind. But they respect my authority.

I was pretty good at math too when I was 5, but not as good as my son. Heart♥Gold ^tx 23:43, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

Liberals and math: I am dealing with liberals who in real life are the useful idiots of their far more clever communist leaders.

he second amendment is there to protect my home when the commies come and tell me I need to house other families in my home, as they did in China, Cuba, and the Soviet Union.

This is a gag, right? You are aware that Communism is not exactly a going concern any more outside of North Korea? --Gulik 02:22, 1 July 2007 (CDT)

More to come, but you forget [cp:cuba|Cuba]]. A communist paradise! human^{be in} 03:28, 1 July 2007 (CDT)

Your son sounds pretty amazing, in fact. Fractions is a bit... awesome at 5. Like, seriously. I feel inferior :-(... pretty sure I wasn't close to that by 5. Also, good for you for teaching him to question authority. It's a uniquely American concept and fundamental to our democracy, and no-where better learned than at a young age. Intelligence will get you everywhere: make sure you teach him early to love learning & books, etc.-αmεσG 23:48, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

Thanks, you're right to encourage parents to teach a love of learning, but from my limited experience with my own children as well as neices, younger cousins, etc., parents have to (and unfortunately do) suppress a love of learning. Children love to learn, especially if it is fun. (We always try to make it fun.) He likes books--very limited television, along with a nightly story, helped there. He is above average in language skills, especially for a boy. I know of a girl his age who is reading at what I estimate to be a third or fourth grade level. My son is probably at a first or second grade level (estimate of layman). Heart♥Gold ^tx 00:03, 1 July 2007 (CDT)

Sounds like he'd make a good lawyer. Mwahahahahahahhaahha (we recruit early).-αmεσG 00:22, 1 July 2007 (CDT)