AE BB DB Explorer


Action:
Author:
Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):


form_srcid: 2ndclass

form_srcid: 2ndclass

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 50.17.162.174

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: 2ndclass

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like '2ndclass%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2006/06/21 07:01:03, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (Glen Davidson @ June 21 2006,10:56)
DaveTard:

 
Quote
I’m an autodidact...


He writes and thinks like one.

Yes, it explains a lot.  There's nothing wrong with being self-taught, but declaring one's knowledge to be superior when it's never been tested in an academic or peer-review environment is beyond presumptuous.

There's a world of difference between working one's way through a science curriculum and reading Scientific American.  I think a semester in an advanced physics course would provide Dave with some much-needed humility.  Maybe I'll dig up an old textbook and let him try his hand at solving some problems.

Oh, wait, I already posed a problem back in March:

Given a 700 nm photon, assuming it came from a black body, what is the probability that the temperature of the black body is between 4139 K and 4141 K?

How you coming on that, Dave?

Date: 2006/06/21 08:35:23, Link
Author: 2ndclass
This site quotes the New York Times thusly:
Quote
Dr. Salthe, who describes himself as an atheist, said that when he signed the petition he had no idea what the Discovery Institute was. Rather, he said, “I signed it in irritation.”

He said evolutionary biologists were unfairly suppressing any competing ideas. “They deserve to be prodded, as it were,” Dr. Salthe said. “It was my way of thumbing my nose at them.”

Dr. Salthe said he did not find intelligent design to be a compelling theory, either. “From my point of view,” he said, “it’s a plague on both your houses.”
This is the man that Salvador says has a "brilliant mind" and has "seen the light.".

Date: 2006/06/21 12:46:51, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Dembski shares his foreward to a forthcoming  book:
Quote
...I think of a story that my colleague Del Ratzsch at Calvin College tells about the wife of an entertainer who, according to a tabloid, descended from aliens. The key piece of evidence cited to support this hypothesis was that the woman had slightly lower than average blood pressure. Obviously, the problem with such an argument is that there is no rational connection between blood pressure and alien descent.

This sounds like a setup for an anti-ID argument.  A natural follow-up sentence would be, "Likewise, there is no rational connection between a flagellum and a supernatural designer."

But, no.  What he says is:
Quote
Likewise, there is no rational connection between the mountains of evidence cited by Darwinists and the grand claim they make that all organisms are descended from a last universal common ancestor via a purposeless material process...

And I say:  Likewise, there is no rational connection between gravity and the purposeless material general theory of relativity.  Gravity could be the work of a purposeful, immaterial Greek gravity god.  Never mind that such a conjecture has no scientific value whatsoever.

Date: 2006/06/22 05:55:17, Link
Author: 2ndclass
- Dave has been bragging about his IQ of 153 for over a year now.  Now we find out that he has never taken an IQ test.

- Dave tells a poster, "I’ve forgotten more about physics than you’ll ever know."  Now we find out that he has had very little education in physics.

What is the basis for Dave's puffery?  An SAT score from 28 years ago, some classes in the military, a subscription to Sci Am, and an internet connection.
Quote
Now I think it may be because he has no degree at all.

Of course he doesn't have a degree.  If he did, he would be reminding us weekly.

Date: 2006/06/22 08:54:08, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 22 2006,13:35)
Quote (bourgeois_rage @ June 22 2006,13:28)
 
Quote
#
Ha ha to PT! They always say that opinion polls don’t make things true but I guess this takes the wind out of those sails a little eh?

Your precious “Truth Machine” over at PT is falling behind our lowly “Opinion Machine”.
Way to Go Dave and William. Kudos.

Doug

Comment by Doug — June 22, 2006 @ 1:16 pm

No comment needed.

Is it just me, or does WD conspicuously fail to give statistics on the absolute numbers of visitors to UD versus PT? I can't find any place where he says how many people visit PT, tho he brags about the number of UD visitors. Is there a good reason for this?

PT has logged 3 million in a 27 months, for an average of about 111,000 per month.  UD has logged 1.25 million in 12 months, for an average of about 104,000 per month.  So it's pretty close, but we would have to see PT's May numbers to know if PT fell behind.  If so, that's pretty solid proof that evolution is false.

Date: 2006/06/22 11:28:28, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote
Dave:
I think it’s your turn to tell us about yourself now. You can start out with your real name and where you work. If your next comment doesn’t include that information you can take a hike since that’s the way you want to play.

Someone should tell Dave that it's not wheatdogg's task to match Dave's pathetic level of detail.

Date: 2006/06/22 12:22:49, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 22 2006,16:59)
Besides, it's a little disingenous of DT to accuse people of 'wanting to play that way' when it's common knowledge that one of his main passions in life is digging up any so-called dirt he can find on anyone who dares to oppose Dembski and broadcasting it all over the internets.

And it makes no difference that the rumors are false, as long as they're qualified as "rumors."

BTW, I heard a rumor that Dave eats live kittens for dinner.

Date: 2006/06/23 09:57:40, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Dembski's Evolution as Alchemy paper is another example of his appalling hypocrisy.

The point of the paper is that evolutionary theory doesn't have enough "causal specificity."  Okay, let's compare the level of detail that we find in the evolutionary causal story to that of the ID causal story.  Ah, but providing details isn't ID's task, says Dembski.  In fact, with ID, there are no mechanisms.

Who's the alchemist, Bill?

Date: 2006/06/29 05:14:25, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (Joseph Beres @ June 28 2006,20:23)
He seems to be a bit touchy about that subject:
 
Quote
#

Dembski says: Too bad that Freeman Dyson agrees with me and not with them.

This is utterly false. Nowhere in the referenced paper does Dyson say that zero-energy waves can impart information.

And nowhere in my quote do I say that zero-energy waves impart information — I say that they do in the limit. Let me suggest you read the appropriate chapters in Michael Spivak’s calculus book on limits. In the meantime, you’re out of here. –WmAD

Comment by secondclass — June 7, 2006 @ 5:08 pm

Dembski proposing that someone else read up on limits...oh the irony.

Dembski's appeal to Dyson and limits was a bluff, and he aborted the discussion immediately when called on it.  I doubt that we'll see this argument from him again, but of course he won't admit that he was wrong.

Date: 2006/06/29 14:02:51, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Dembski:
Quote
Here is the archive for the NCSE webpage going back to 1996: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.natcenscied.org.

Let me know if you find anything interesting.


Yes, I notice that NCSE's robots.txt allows Wayback archiving, and UD's does not.  I wonder why that is.

Date: 2006/06/30 09:04:27, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (stevestory @ June 30 2006,12:21)
Quote
June 30, 2006
Accident or Design? Novel nanocomposites from spider silk–silica fusion (chimeric) proteins

Spider silk and diatom silica structures are just accidents. We can’t design stuff like this ourselves but when we take these two complex things found in nature and combine them then all of a sudden it’s a design! Wheeeeee! Aren’t we smart!

Novel nanocomposites from spider silk–silica fusion (chimeric) proteins


Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 11:54 am


Somebody want to tell me what the point of this post is?

The point is that my designed cotton/wool blend suit is proof that cotton and wool are synthetic materials.

Actually, the real point is that Dave has completely lost it.

Date: 2006/07/01 03:19:05, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 30 2006,21:26)
from :

http://evolutionanddesign.blogsome.com/2006....ment-68

 
Quote
Indeed, once again I find it necessary to emphasize that this is one of the most obvious and important differences between the huge corpus of published research supporting evolutionary theory and the miniscule collection of speculative hypotheses and computer models that characterize virtually all of the ID literature to date. To state it bluntly: real scientists (like real fire investigators) get their hands dirty, in the field and in the lab, and publish research reports that present in detail the empirical evidence that either validates or falsifies their hypotheses. The world is still waiting for such work to begin to trickle out of the clositered environs of the Discovery Institute. And waiting and waiting and waiting…

Perhaps they’re too busy publishing press releases to do any science?



I like this cat

When I read this, I thought, "This guy went too far.  He'll get censored by MacNeill."  Then I went to the site and saw that it is MacNeill.

This is one of the professors that Salvador trots out to show that ID is taught in college.  Unfortunately for Salvador, it looks like this professor will teach the truth.

Date: 2006/07/03 06:33:22, Link
Author: 2ndclass
tribune7, apparently unaware that Salvador is a YEC, says:
Quote
And let’s not forget the most used, abused and not news strawman: Scientific evidence conclusively refutes a 6,500-year-old Earth so ID can’t be true.

Great Post, Salvador.
Let's see if Salvador informs him that scientific evidence actually doesn't refute a 6500 year old Earth.

Date: 2006/07/14 08:26:17, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Dave, on Erik Tellgren's paper, posted by Mark Perakh:
Quote
There’s a good chance the paper is a spoof and Perakh has been had.

There's a much better chance that Dave's entire internet persona is a spoof, and all of us have been had.

Date: 2006/07/17 06:44:06, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (guthrie @ July 16 2006,05:20)
Quote
(1) IC (irreducible complexity) presupposes a basic primary purpose/function of a system — what is the basic purpose/function here? (making loud noises, illuminating the earth, generating heat, …);

So Dr Dembski, what is the basic function of a flagella?  Or a human arm?  Indeed, upon what basis do you presuppose a primary purpose of a system?  

Most IDers would answer that flagella, etc. help the species survive.  Which raises the question of why non-biological entities, like rocks, are so much better at surviving than biological species.

Date: 2006/07/17 06:48:27, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (guthrie @ July 16 2006,05:20)
Quote
(4) Where are the independently given patterns — specifications — that allow the explanatory filter to operate and thus, according to my theory, implicate design?

I wish you'd tell us, we don't know.  

In his latest specification paper, Dembski decided that specifications don't have to be independent.  Looks like he changed his mind back again.

Date: 2006/07/18 07:02:29, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Denyse has the distinction of authoring the one and only ID curriculum, which is endorsed by several scientific heavyweights and their homeschooling wives.

I especially like the statement of Denyse's qualifications: As both a journalist and a textbook editor, O’Leary offers a unique background that is well suited for a course of study in intelligent design.

No scientific background necessary to write ID textbooks.

Date: 2006/07/19 08:52:22, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 19 2006,13:22)
What *are* Denyse's real-world credentials?

Her credentials in science are that she had a influential science teacher in high school:  
Quote
In 1997, an overworked editor asked me to start writing about science issues for the faith community, because no one else in Canada seemed to be doing it. My background was in arts, but my life was very much influenced by my Grade 12 science teacher, Irwin Talesnick, over 30 years earlier. He always encouraged us to be the best we could be, so I decided to just go for it.

Date: 2006/07/20 06:39:34, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote
1. This blog solicits and welcomes vigorous argument, backed by facts.

And I assume that those who were banned for providing what Denyse is now soliciting will be unbanned?

Date: 2006/07/21 07:03:10, Link
Author: 2ndclass
GilDodgen:  
Quote
On the other hand, I would argue that proponents of intelligent design theory have met the above-mentioned standard of scientific integrity. They simply assert: “Based on the evidence, we believe that an inference to design is scientifically justified, but we can draw no conclusions from that evidence as to how, why, where, or when design was implemented. The design inference is open to refutation through the demonstration of detailed materialistic mechanisms that can account for it.”

So IDers have no burden to show "how, why, where, or when design was implemented," but evolutionists are required to demonstrate "detailed materialistic mechanisms."  And Gil says this with a straight face in a post about integrity.

Date: 2006/07/21 09:16:03, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote
From moderator Denyse: That sounds remarkable to me, given that only some of the comments have the vowels removed. Not likely happening at this end.

She must be using Dembski's explanatory filter.

Date: 2006/07/24 07:51:17, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (argystokes @ July 21 2006,22:31)
Did Dembski change the thread title, or did I just notice the term "unwitting?"

I don't remember that term being there before, but I'm sure my memory is failing me.  I'm sure that Dembski would never try to sneak in a stealth change.

Date: 2006/08/01 05:22:32, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (mcc @ July 31 2006,22:21)
Oh-- by the way, has Dembski yet actually responded to or provided explanation for any of those myriad errors in Godless he's supposedly taken responsibility for?

Of course not.  Here is a summary of Jim Downard's conversation with Dembski:

Downard: I've pointed out some of Coulter's errors here and here.
Dembski: If you think Coulter made errors, then point them out.


 
Quote
   
Quote
It’s in my capacity as a mathematician, rather than as a theologian, that I make my primary contribution to ID.

Anyone who has read Dembski's supposed mathematics and actually understands how mathematics worse would know that this is flagrantly false. To Dembski, mathematics is nothing more than a bunch of fancy vocabulary words that he can string together at random to bamboozle the proles into thinking he has something to say.

Amen.  It's in his capacity as buzzword generator that Dembski has made his primary contribution to ID.  Nobody -- I repeat, NOBODY -- uses Dembski's methods, although IDers use his terminology a lot for propaganda purposes.

Date: 2006/08/09 06:21:46, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (apollo230 @ Aug. 09 2006,07:11)
If removed, this is what I posted:
"Dr. Dembski, would you re-consider inviting Olegt back? In my humble opinion, showing the world that we ID’ers tolerate open debate would be a good thing. Besides, we can thank our critics for one critical gift: the contrarian pressure they exert that enables us to sharpen our ideas."

Kudos to apollo.

Date: 2006/08/16 08:48:50, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 15 2006,21:31)
I'm quite sure that Velikovsky and von Daniken outsold Dembski and Behe.

And, of course, none of them even comes CLOSE to outselling L Ron Hubbard.  (snicker)

Not to mention Michael Drosnin.

Date: 2006/08/16 09:03:05, Link
Author: 2ndclass
David Heddle:
Quote
The “probability” of the physical constants is irrelevant. If they are not constrained by an unknown physical law, then the design is thought to be in the selection of the constants. If they are found, in the future, to be predicted from a fundamental law, then the design is in the law.

Ah, yes.  Every conceivable scientific discovery vindicates ID.  Must be nice to be on the perpetually self-proclaimed winning team.

Date: 2006/08/16 09:13:02, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Joel:
Quote
Intuition based upon personal observation was the initial cause of Darwin’s belief in common ancestry. What ID proponents are being criticized for is exactly how the theory of Darwinian evolution began.

What Joel doesn't realize, since he's not involved in the ID movement, is that ID begins and ends there.  Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, began with Darwin's idea, but continued with millions of hours of actual scientific research.

Date: 2006/08/22 09:36:01, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 22 2006,08:45)
Closed-mindedness, overly simplistic thinking, false dichotomies, classic projection, and massive denial.  None of that should be news to anyone, but it's certainly an impressively concise example of those failings.

Well said, N. Wells.  You're too nice to mention Dembski's sociopathy.  He's a schoolteacher who asks a question, gets a well-reasoned response from Sophophile, then duct tapes the Sophophile's mouth to keep him from defending himself while the other kids rip on him.  

It's no wonder that he makes enemies wherever he goes.  Cambridge Press red-flagged him after publishing his first book, Baylor exiled him and eventually showed him the door, and the Thomas More Law Center fired him and didn't pay for his useless work until he threatened to sue.  Those are groups that were supposedly on his side -- imagine how his opponents feel about him.

Date: 2006/08/22 13:34:43, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 22 2006,18:08)
The stuff Allen complains about here is pretty mild. What about where Denyse and company refer to Allen's field as an (paraphrasing) "endless stream of nonsense"? MacNeill's behavior is weird.

I suspect Allen doesn't read much of UD.  He probably looked at this post only because it criticizes Pim's pointer to Allen's post.

True to form, DaveScot didn't read Allen's post.  DaveScot says:
Quote
Evidently the take-home point Pim wishes to make is that this is equivalent to seeing machinery in natural objects created by chance.


Actually, Allen specifically said that they are not equivalent:
Quote
Indeed, the faces at Mount Rushmore constitute a kind of “control” for this ability, as they are clearly the result of intentionality, and therefore can be used to anchor that end of the “agency detection” spectrum (at the other end of which are things like “faces” in clouds, tree foliage, etc.). Somewhere in this spectrum is a cross-over point at which actual intentionality/agency disappears and facticious intentionality/agency takes over. It is the location of that cross-over point that constitutes the hinge of the argument between evolutionary biologists and ID theorists.


I suspect that Allen was unimpressed by Dave's completely off-the-mark criticism of something he hadn't read, as well as the immediate attaboys from the other sheep who didn't read it either.

Date: 2006/08/22 13:47:45, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Aug. 22 2006,18:19)
and again, from here

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1484#comments

someone let this comment (#11) slip by

   
Quote
It is a sad state of affairs when a supposed scientific site(which this claims to be) can only sustain that illusion by excluding all who disagree.

I came here to discuss the theories you have put forth, but a few minutes reading disabused me of the idea that debate and exchange of ideas are welcomed here.

Mr. Demski had an opportunity to widely diseminate his views in Kansas, but he was a no-show(and certainly not worth 200 dollars an hour). At least Behe had the courage of his convictions and testified(even though the plaintive’s lawyer cleaned his clock for him).

Don’t worry, I won’t be wasting my time here any more, your words and deeds indicate this is not a site in search of knowledge, but one for the stroking of Dumski’s ego.

Grumpy


Double ouch!  Looks like someone at UD is trying to embarrass Dumbski!  Wonder who??   ;)

Whoa!  Watch for a gang of UDers dog-piling Grumpy, mocking him for saying "Kansas" instead of "Pennsylvania" while ignoring the substance of his comment.  Dembski will comment, sending Grumpy on his way, and leaving Grumpy's comment intact to demonstrate the ignorance and boorishness of Darwinians.  DaveScot will comment defending the board's censorship practices.

Date: 2006/08/22 15:24:05, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Joseph:
Quote
And they do so because that is much easier than substantiating their own claims or actually learning what ID really is.

Well, he got one thing right -- it is very hard to learn what ID really is.  You could get a PhD in biology and read every article in every biology journal in existence and still not know what it is.  If you read the pop-sci books and articles put out by Dembski et al, you get a word salad of ambiguous terms and incoherent arguments, with IDers contradicting other IDers in the big tent.

Don't even try to learn what ID is.  Stick with something easy, like quantum physics.

Date: 2006/08/25 07:53:31, Link
Author: 2ndclass
If DaveScot is the Walter Middy of UD, then Tom English is the Andy Dufresne.  He stoically takes their abuse while, unbeknownst to them, he is methodically chipping away at their very dense wall.

Date: 2006/08/28 13:55:41, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Tom English explains Dembski's eliminative method to Joseph:
Quote
You clearly do not understand the logic of design inference. It is obvious in your writings that you start with the assumption of design and purpose, and expect others to prove you wrong. But the design inference works just the opposite way. One or more chance hypotheses must be rejected in favor of design. I gave you the hypothesis that the enumeration can arise by chance. It is your responsibility, as the ID advocate, to show how to reject the hypothesis and make a design inference.

Then DaveScot pipes in:
Quote
I expect you to prove the chance hypothesis. It is obvious in your writings you begin with the assumption that evolution happened by chance then expect others to prove you wrong. I cannot prove or disprove either chance or design. All I can do is point to what I know is designed, compare and contrast it with what I suspect is designed, and ask which is the better explanation - design or chance.

After all of these months on Dembski's blog, Dave still doesn't realize that design inferences are eliminative, not comparative.  Dave, it's obvious that you haven't actually read Dembski's work, although you do read this thread.  How about if you tell us which of Dembski's works you've read?

Date: 2006/08/29 06:14:03, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Mats asks:
Quote
I haven’t seen any creationist scientist say that the world “looks billions of years old” but was created 6,000 years ago. Can you provide any reference for that?

Were I not banned, I would refer him to Kent Hovind.

In answer to the question, "If the earth is only 6,000 years old, how do we see stars billions of light years away?" Hovind says:
Quote
The rest of creation was mature, so starlight was probably mature at creation as well. I would ask the question, How old was Adam when God made him? Obviously he was zero years old. But how old did he look?

So God made both starlight and Adam to look older than they really were.

Date: 2006/08/31 05:21:04, Link
Author: 2ndclass
BarryA:
Quote
The fact that I may not be able to hang a precise number on the CSI does not mean that the CSI is not obvious.

"We don't need to calculate no stinking CSI.  It's obvious that it has CSI because it looks designed.  And we know it's designed because it has CSI."


WRT the CSI of a bacterial flagellum, Dembski's most recent take is: "The precise calculation of P(T|H) has yet to be done. But some methods for decomposing this probability into a product of more manageable probabilities as well as some initial estimates for these probabilities are now in place."

IOW, the check's in the mail.

Date: 2006/09/07 07:46:07, Link
Author: 2ndclass
PaV:
Quote
It might have been nice for Michael Behe to have had this experiment at the Dover trial. The judge might have even succeeded in understooding the implications of this study.

There's plenty of evidence for ID.  It just so happens that the defense didn't have any on hand at the trial.

Date: 2006/09/07 10:26:23, Link
Author: 2ndclass
At ISCID, Davison demands that Dave repost his papers on UD.  The funniest line is:
Quote
The reputation and integrity of Uncommon Descent is on the line.

Never let it be said that JAD doesn't have a sense of humor.

Date: 2006/09/07 11:45:54, Link
Author: 2ndclass
mike1962:
 
Quote
Blah blah blah. Bottom line is, put up or shut up. Either NDE can give a detailed account of the development of a certain biological structures or it can’t.

Mike, it isn't NDE's task to match your pathetic level of detail.  According to your version of scientific methodology, all we have to do is say "NDE isn't a mechanistic theory" and we get a free pass.

Date: 2006/09/07 13:30:53, Link
Author: 2ndclass
todd, with some strikingly brilliant logic:
Quote
ID fills in no gaps. It looks at what we do know (or think we know) and concludes biotic life appears to be designed because it was designed.

Date: 2006/09/08 05:52:02, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Speaking of DaveScot and Berlinski, BarryA says:
Quote
You are two of the smartest guys I know, and I cannot judge between you.

Heaven help his law firm.

Date: 2006/09/11 11:51:09, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote
On September 29, 2006 at 7PM, the debate about Darwinian Evolution continues as well known speakers on the topic  attempt to further ‘resolve the conflict.’  This event will occur at the University of Southern Florida (USF) Sun Dome.  Get your tickets now!!

Featured speakers include Dr. Michael Behe - Biologist and author of “Darwin’s Black Box” - and Dr. Jonathon Wells - Biochemist and author of “Icons Of Evolution.”  Both are experts on the current debate regarding Darwinian Evolution and the Intelligent Design Movement.

How do you resolve a conflict by bringing only one side to the table?

Conflict resolution involves letting both sides present their case in a neutral forum before a neutral third-party arbiter.  That's how Tammy Kitzmiller did it, and the conflict was resolved very nicely.

Date: 2006/09/19 07:57:00, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (keiths @ Sep. 19 2006,03:32)
Screw IC, SC, and CSI.  Gil's got the answer:
Quote
Quote
What is your objective method of design detection, and can you show us how it works, by example, when applied to a living system?

Machinery. Machines are designed. Living systems are full of them.

Comment by GilDodgen — September 18, 2006 @ 11:49 pm

So apparently alliterative sentences are machines.  You learn something new every day on UD.

Date: 2006/09/20 07:51:25, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 20 2006,10:41)
DaveScot has banned Alan Fox for having the temerity to contact the evolutionary biologist, Loren Rieseberg, whom DaveScot cited. Apparently, Alan used the term "evolution" to refer to the Theory of Evolution. DaveScot claims he doesn't dispute "evolution", so his conflation allows him to accuse Alan of dishonesty. In fact, Alan provided a link to the discussion for Rieseberg, and Rieseberg responded directly to the point about Natural Selection and parallel evolution.

Very sad. It speaks volumes about DaveScot and Uncommon Descent.

The truly sad thing is that Alan has always allowed DaveScot to post whatever garbage he feels like at Alan's blog.  Now Dave returns the favor by booting Alan from UD for a contrived reason.

Just goes to show that graciousness is wasted on some people.

Date: 2006/09/21 06:46:12, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Google's reply to Dave:

As your new copyright policy prohibits us from caching your site, you are now permanently de-indexed.  In other words...
You're outta here. -google

Date: 2006/10/02 12:08:58, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Sadly, I think Tom and Karl's days on UD are numbered.  Scott has issued Karl a warning, accompanied by an argument from bold-font assertion.  And Tom must be getting tired of being lectured in his own field of expertise.  I'll be sad to see the two of them go.

Date: 2006/10/03 07:37:28, Link
Author: 2ndclass
This post belongs on the DaveScot's Greatest Hits album:
Quote
Actually Tom, they’re mosfets if you want to get techincal about it, and there are two mosfets in the most basic logic gate (inverter). A NAND gate requires four mosfets. Even assistant professors of computer science at Texas Tech should know that all other logic gates can be constructed from NAND gates.

What assistant computer science professors at Texas Tech probably don’t know is that microprocessor simulations, prior to creating the first mask, absolutely have to model at the gate level because of something called propagation delay which can result in something called race conditions. I was whipping out the fuse programming for programmable logic arrays while you were still in high school and I didn’t have the benefit of simulators way back then. Prop delays had to be calculated by hand to eliminate race conditions just as they had to be when designing with discrete TTL logic which I did for many years before logic arrays were invented. In 1991 I implimented the core logic for an 80486 motherboard in 19 discrete PALs with nothing but PALASM and hardware design genius.

Google it in all the spare time you have now that you’ve been booted off Uncommon Descent for your nasty habit of getting personal.

Condescension, ignorance, and braggadocio all rolled up in a few short paragraphs, topped off by a sociopathic and hypocritical booting of one of the few knowledgeable participants at UD.

Date: 2006/10/03 07:46:51, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Scott has a serious reading comprehension problem.  After Karl specifically said that Avida does not prove biological evolution, and Tom reiterated Karl's statement, Scott says:
 
Quote
Now, your challenge is to demonstrate how Avida proves that blind, comatose, natural mechanisms can build highly complex, specified, cellular machinery which requires all of it’s components simultaneously to function.
(Emphasis in original.)

Date: 2006/10/03 08:08:47, Link
Author: 2ndclass
DaveScot:  
Quote
Those of who know things don’t always scale like that need better proof of concept than “Poof! Chance did it.”

An IDer coopting the "Poof" criticism is the kind of thing that makes irony meters scream for mercy.

This thread is rivalling the old thermodynamics thread for sheer UD embarrassment value.  I hope that BUUD is still archiving.

Date: 2006/10/04 05:44:08, Link
Author: 2ndclass
DaveScot:
 
Quote
I never said anyone modeled microprocessors at the transistor level. That’s a straw man. Tom English put those words in my mouth. He said modeling evolution at the protein level is like modeling processors at the transistor level. I replied with an article talking about modeling processors at the gate level. I presumed Tom knew that gates are just a few transistors each and wouldn’t quibble. But of course to save your egos both of you did continue to quibble.

The funny thing is that even after his backpedaling, he's still wrong.  The difference between transistor-level and gate-level modelling is far more than a quibble.  Gate-level models deal with boolean logic, while transistor-level models deal with actual voltage levels.

 
Quote
You’re done here, Karl. I find your dishonesty offensive.

Dave is shocked! shocked! to find dishonesty at UD.  Well, I don't blame him for banning Karl.  After all, Karl claimed to have a certified IQ of 150+, when in fact Karl has never taken an IQ test.

Oh wait, that was someone else...

Date: 2006/10/05 08:16:01, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (Steverino @ Oct. 05 2006,12:06)
Did Dover not happen...was I just dreaming?

Yes, you were just dreaming.  And you still are.  When you wake up, you'll find that geocentrism is still taught in schools and doctors still practice bloodletting.  Welcome to the Dark Ages.

Date: 2006/10/05 08:33:40, Link
Author: 2ndclass
I just received my stealth banning from OE, along with the disappearance of a few of my posts (which were polite and, as far as I can tell, objectively factual).  Can someone explain to me the ethics of targeting a site at kids and then surreptitiously removing counterarguments, making it look like opponents are empty-handed?

Date: 2006/10/05 09:26:19, Link
Author: 2ndclass
For a while there, it almost seemed that Dembski & Co. were showing a hint of glasnost.  First we had Denyse O' Leary saying that dissenting views would be welcome, then we had Dembski admitting that he made a mistake in banning Carlos.  But, sadly, it was all very short-lived, and its demise was accelerated by our friend DaveScot's rise to power.  When Tom and Karl were booted, the remaining flicker of light was quenched.

And now we have Orwellian Excisions, Dembski's playground for impressionable kids.  Have we hit rock-bottom yet, or are there still unfathomed depths?


"Don't go to school, little boy!  All they teach you there is science.  Come to OE instead."

Date: 2006/10/06 07:07:00, Link
Author: 2ndclass
DaveScot:
 
Quote
It’s nothing short of hilarious that KeithS and others at ATBC that have obviously not done a single bit of gate level hardware design in their lives are talking about how simulations of gate logic intended to verify a design prior to laying copper need only be modeled with boolean logic. The poor ignoramuses know nothing about analog considerations such as supply rail loading, bus loading, propagation delays, and race conditions just to name a few show stoppers that aren’t covered in simple boolean logic.


Dave!  I'm glad to see that you're still popping in and reading this thread.

Here are several clues for you:

- "Simulations of gate logic" are only done with boolean logic.  What other kind of logic do you think is simulated?

- Contrary to your strawman, nobody here said that analog considerations aren't important.  They just aren't part of gate-level modelling.

- Telling a group of strangers that they have "not done a single bit of gate level hardware design in their lives" seems a little presumptuous.  You might want to ask us about our backgrounds before going out on a limb like that.

- Some people brag incessantly about their alleged knowledge.  Others demonstrate it by earning degrees and publishing.  Since you have no degrees and no publications, I would think you would try to demonstrate your brilliance in some other way instead of just applying the word genius to yourself and expecting us to believe it.

- Back when you were bragging about your physics knowledge, I gave you three problems to solve.  You never solved any of them.  Don't worry, I'll give you an opportunity to put substance to your boasting of "hardware design genius".

- You've given us no reason to believe that you're a smart as you claim to be, and many reasons to believe otherwise.  (The 2nd Law is violated by typing sentences?  The earth and sun form a thermodynamically closed system?  “Statistically unexpected results from a well characterized physical process” is a valid Dembskian specification?)  I think the only people fooled by your habitual bluffing are BarryA and yourself.

Date: 2006/10/06 12:41:43, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Dave, glad to see that you're still with us.

Quote
And he still insists I said microprocessors are modeled at the transistor level when I clearly said gate level. Tom English and Karl Pfluger made up that straw man about transistor level.

Tom said that transistors are not the right level for microprocessor simulation, and you told him that his ignorance was showing.  Are you now saying that his statement wasn't ignorant?  While you're getting your story straight, please retract your "strawman" accusation.

Quote
These people have not done any hardware design. They have not drawn schematics for many complex digital designs then sat thousands of hours in the drivers’s seat of a logic analyzer and oscilloscope debugging their own designs.

Well, that's news to me.  I'm not sure how I earned a Master's in Electrical Engineering and worked for several years as a hardware designer without designing hardware, but obviously you know more about me than I do.

Date: 2006/10/09 06:25:20, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Still here, Dave?  Thanks for continuing the conversation.

   
Quote
Any simulation that incorporates propagation delay is not strictly boolean anymore.

Boolean means that there are two possible states.  Do propagation delays add more possible states?

   
Quote
Moreover, the mosfets only operate in two states, on or off.

Interesting.  And here I thought that MOSFETs had three operating modes, each continuous and roughly linear, making MOSFETs no more boolean than BJTs or JFETs.  But you're the genius.

   
Quote
Unlike older silicon transistors, mosfets ...

And what are MOSFETs made of?

   
Quote
...mosfets require no resistive or capacitive elements.

More accurately, it's complementary logic that requires no resistors.  MOSFETs aren't the only transistors that can be used in complementary logic, and MOSFETs require pull-up or pull-down resistors if they're not used in a complementary configuration.

And using MOSFETs rarely eliminates the need for capacitors.  More often, their inherent capacitance is a hindrance rather than a help.

   
Quote
I had assumed that I was talking with people who were sufficiently knowledgable to recognize that the difference between modeling a CMOS processor at the transistor level and the gate level is a quibble because the individual logic gates are composed of just a few simple on/off mosfet (transistor) switches.

Like most EEs, I used SPICE, which most definitely does not treat MOSFETs as on/off switches.  What transistor modelling tool did you use?

Oh, I almost forgot to give you an opportunity to solve a problem.  Here's one, and it's about as easy as it gets:  Given an NMOS transistor with I_dss = 16mA and V_p = -4V, what is the gate-to-source voltage required to establish I_d = 32mA?

Date: 2006/10/09 06:38:37, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Carlson's interlocutor on OE:
Quote
As I've indicated before, one assumption of naturalism is that we have accurately staked out the bounds of "nature", that we've already taken an exhaustive "inventory" of the natural world.

Quite the irony.  In fact, it's the IDers who think that our understanding of nature is complete.  Why else would we need to appeal to the supernatural when we don't have an exhaustive explanation for something?

Date: 2006/10/13 05:39:13, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (GCT @ Oct. 13 2006,08:56)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 11 2006,17:23)
No.

Thank you.

Although the fact that he isn't off the deep end in regards to climate change was a nice surprise, his posts in relation to biology are simply annoying.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Amen to that.  JAD isn't just a crackpot; he's an insufferably boring crackpot.  Other IDers regularly come up with new angles, but JAD is a broken record.  He's the kid sitting behind you at the theater who keeps kicking your seat through the whole movie.

Date: 2006/10/17 05:24:20, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (Zachriel @ Oct. 17 2006,06:37)
However, apparently Uncommon Descent has accused me of "bad behavior".

"Bad" behavior?  Somebody's saying that Zachriel was naughty?  If UD is Dembski's playground, then OE is his day care center.

Quote
I do expect a retraction from both Uncommon Descent and Overwhelming Evidence.

That retraction will be included in the paper on CSI that Dembksi publishes in a math journal.  IOW, don't hold your breath.

Date: 2006/10/17 06:38:32, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Joseph:
Quote
ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., “Darwinism, Design and Public Education”, pg. 92):

1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.
(Emphases mine)

If Joseph ever takes a digital communications course, he'll have to unlearn everything he learned from the Isaac Newton of info theory.  High information content indicates random noise, not intelligence.  And undirected causes, i.e. stochastic processes, are definitely sufficient to explain the origin of information.  In fact, they are the origin of information.

Date: 2006/10/18 09:43:35, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 18 2006,13:55)
MacNeill lays the smack-down on CSI. I wonder if WmD will come out and play?

Dembski has avoided the whole CSI fiasco lately.  I can find only one place where he has mentioned "specified complexity" or "CSI" in the past year, and that's in his ID Primer class last March.  (Can anyone find another?)

He has laid a logically bankrupt foundation and he doesn't dare try to build on it or even defend it, knowing that anything he says will receive an immediate debunking from the scores or hundreds of folks who see through his smoke and mirrors.

If he breaks this trend and responds to Allen, he'll just insult Allen and tell him to read NFL, or he'll say that Allen doesn't understand his use of the terms complexity or specifity. (And he'll neglect to give formal definitions of either word.  Dembski's M.O. is to avoid committing to formal definitions, allowing himself to move goalposts at will.)

Date: 2006/10/19 09:10:38, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 19 2006,13:26)
Real Life CSI Caluclation:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1708#comment-69708

No math, though.

*waves hands*

Whenever somebody tries to twist and bend Dembski's EF into something useful, the result is guaranteed to be entertaining.  And Patrick doesn't disappoint.

Patrick:  
Quote
If this boulder is located on a road in a mountainous region where rockslides are not unheard of then step 1 of the EF would conclude that the law in question is simply gravity.
...
One could conceivably posit a chance occurence where by which an airplane or a truck lost its cargo and the boulder came to rest in the middle of the country lane.
(Emphasis mine.)

So if it falls from a mountain, it's law, but if it falls from a truck, it's chance.  Great stuff, that EF.

 
Quote
A design inference doesn’t take place in a void so one could ask around to see if such an event had taken place.
So, since biological design inferences don't take place in a void, we should be asking around to see if anyone has seen someone designing organisms.

 
Quote
So even in a scenario with a granite boulder in flat, sandy FL there “might” not be 500 informational bits and ID “might” produce another false negative. I say “might” because I’d first want a trained mathematician do the calculations.
This conjures images of a phone call...

Secretary: "MIT math department.  Can I help you?"

Patrick: "Yes, I'd like to hire one of your trained mathematicians to calculate the informational bits in a boulder resting on a road in flat, sandy Florida."

Secretary: "What the ...?"

Date: 2006/10/19 10:06:14, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Another thing Patrick gets wrong:  
Quote
As if CSI was the only tool in the ID toolset

According to Dembski, specified complexity is the only way to infer design.

Dembski:  
Quote
Our ability to recognize design must therefore arise independently of induction and therefore independently of any independent knowledge requirement about the capacities of designers. In fact, it arises directly from the patterns in the world that signal intelligence, to wit, from specifications.

Date: 2006/10/19 10:27:27, Link
Author: 2ndclass
They're resurrecting the 2nd Law canard again.  Unbelievable.

Date: 2006/10/19 11:17:09, Link
Author: 2ndclass
GilDodgen:
 
Quote
Since then Granville and I have corresponded and he forwarded a follow-up piece entitled, “Can Anything Happen in an Open System?”

The interesting thing about Granville Sewell's argument is that his fallacy can be pinpointed precisely and demonstrated very easily.  Here's the fallacy:  
Quote
If we look at the diffusion of, say, carbon, in a solid instead of the conduction of heat, and take U(x, y, z, t) now to be the carbon concentration instead of the temperature, we can repeat the analysis in the Appendix for ”carbon entropy” (Q is just U now), showing again that in a closed system (no carbon crosses the border) this entropy cannot decrease, while in an open system, the decrease in entropy cannot be greater than the entropy exported through the boundary.
(Emphasis mine.)

Sewell is stating that his analysis in the appendix applies to carbon concentration as well as temperature.  This is a naked assertion, and it's demonstrably wrong.  The problem is that his analysis is premised on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (see the sentence preceding equation (2)), and the 2nd Law doesn't apply to carbon concentration.

Anyone who doubts this should test Sewell's conclusion.  Is it true that "in a closed system (no carbon crosses the border) this entropy cannot decrease"?  Of course not.  Take a large room with several people in it, with nobody going in or out.  This is a closed system (no carbon crosses the border).  Now have everyone in the room gather together for a group hug.  We've just decreased the "carbon entropy" of the room, which Sewell says is impossible.

UD is basically a remake of Weekend at Bernie's, with the UD puppeteers trying to prop up long-dead arguments and make them dance.

Date: 2006/10/20 07:38:27, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Once again DaveScot enlightens us on physics:
 
Quote
A computer is an unlikely arrangement of matter that 2LoT works against even in an open system.

Fortunately for Dell, the 2LoT is no match for Dave.

Date: 2006/10/23 05:27:59, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Another one bites the dust for trying to talk some sense into Dave.  When will we ever learn?

What voices of reason are left there?  Chris Hyland, Carlos, ... anyone else?

Date: 2006/10/23 16:40:21, Link
Author: 2ndclass
jerry:  
Quote
The God of the Gaps argument is really a clever way of saying God does not exist. It is atheism dressed up in a cheap tuxedo to use a cliché. Science that evokes this argument is essentially endorsing atheism.

It assumes there is no God or if One exists, then the God never intervened at all in our universe. Which essentially eliminates this God from having anything to do with us.

Otherwise, if the God existed and did intervene in just one little thing, then that intervention would mean that there was something that could not possibly be explained by naturalistic causes and would refute the objections of those who use this argument. Hence, uses of it is tantamount to proposing atheism as the truth.
Every single sentence above is fallacious.  That has to be some kind of record.

Quote
Is this argument any different than the “argument from ignorance” claims that many evolutionists use to attack those who object to some aspects of evolution?
This is the one thing jerry gets right.  "God of the gaps" is, in fact, an argument from ignorance.  Too bad he doesn't realize it's a fallacy.

Date: 2006/10/23 17:53:53, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Denyse  
Quote
The intelligent design (ID) theorists speak the language of information theory , and information is not a material concept. That drives materialists crazy. Their main response from the materialist majority so far has been hostility and suppression.


- Can Denyse name one ID theorist who "speaks the language of information theory"?  Dembski certainly doesn't.

- Denyse apparently thinks that materialists hate info theory since information isn't material.  By the same logic, materialists must hate all branches of math, philosophy, economics, law, politics, etc.  I wonder if she actually knows any "materialists"?

Date: 2006/10/27 06:13:43, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Dave on the supernatural:
 
Quote
I’m not aware of any facet of life on this planet that requires supernatural powers.

Apparently Dave has forgotten that CSI can't be produced by natural processes.  Will Dembski get banned if he tries to correct Dave?

 
Quote
Supernatural powers - not constrained by physical laws of nature.

Great.  Now if he can just tell us how to distinguish natural laws from supernatural laws, we'll be all set.

 
Quote
A supernatural event…

Being in two places at once. Exceeding the speed of light. Traveling backward in time. Changing history after the fact. Causing matter/energy to appear from nothing. Causing instantaneous action at a distance. Suspending the passage of time.

Those sort of things. On a macroscopic scale. I’m aware that at the quantum scale some strange things can happen but they don’t translate into significance in the larger world.

Many quantum events most definitely are significant on the macroscopic scale.  So, according to Dave, they're supernatural, and therefore don't exist.

 
Quote
The nature of nature is all the matter and energy in the observable universe acted on by a set of four physical forces - the strong force, the weak force, the electromagnetic force, and gravity the consequences of which are reducible to calculation if enough information about the state of the system is known. I suspect sentient intelligence is an emergent property the consequences of which are not reducible to calculation (sentient intelligence is where free will comes into play in the universe).

So:
1) Dave sees only natural phenomena in the universe.
2) Natural phenomena consist of matter and the four fundamental forces, which are reducible to calculation
3) Intelligence is an emergent property
4) Yet intelligence is not reducible to calculation

Brilliant!

Date: 2006/10/28 05:23:57, Link
Author: 2ndclass
This is unspeakably tragic:
 
Quote
I flunked most of my highschool math and science classes, and lost interest in science altogether until ID became a popular topic. Thanx to you and other ID proponents, my interest in science is reinvigorated. Science is exciting now! There is new life in what was once a dead and meaningless science.

And I lost interest in fine dining until I discovered Twinkies.

Date: 2006/10/30 06:40:31, Link
Author: 2ndclass
DaveScot:
 
Quote
Necessity in the context of the evolutionary mechanism “chance and necessity” means functional necessity. There is no necessity in snowflakes. They are a result of chance and law not chance and necessity. Snowflake patterns are non-functional. The pattern serves no particular purpose. It’s necessary for nothing.

That's the funniest thing I've read all day.  Dembski has been talking about "chance and necessity" for years, and all this time Dave has been thinking that he means "chance and useful functionality".

Dave's re-promotion at UD was a gift from Dembski to all of us.

Date: 2006/10/31 05:30:58, Link
Author: 2ndclass
mattison0922 calls for an ID research program.  In response, Dave points to a program that involves no IDers and is presumably based on the dreaded methodological naturalism, making it the opposite of an ID project:
Quote
Keeping that in mind I would point out the Harvard Origin of Life in the Universe project.


and Joseph points to a video:
Quote
As for ID based research start with “The Privileged Planet”- there is plenty there

Date: 2006/11/01 05:41:08, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Joe G:  
Quote
Zachriel:
I doubt if you would be actually interested, but you could try researching the literature for such evidence.


Been there, done that. Such data doesn't exist.

Is Joe, by chance, Behe's research assistant?

-Flashback-

Joe: Sir, I've done a thorough literature search, and there's nothing out there on the evolution of the immune system.

Behe: Woo hoo!  We're gonna kick butt in the Dover trial!

Date: 2006/11/02 07:18:19, Link
Author: 2ndclass
DaveScot:
Quote
If intelligent agency isn’t a mechanism then what is it?

Maybe he should ask Dembski.

Date: 2006/11/02 07:29:51, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote
The Design of Life release date has been announced for March 1st, 2007. Written by William Dembski and Jonathan Wells, this book is poised to become the authoritive textbook on the theory of intelligent design.

Any word on when they'll come up with the actual theory itself?

Date: 2006/11/03 06:01:46, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (bourgeois_rage @ Nov. 03 2006,08:30)
   
Quote
THREE KEY DEFINITIONS
Intelligent Design. The study of patterns in nature that
are best explained as the product of intelligence.

Intelligence. Any cause, agent, or process that achieves an
end or goal by employing suitable means or instruments.

Design. An event, object, or structure that an intelligence
brought about by matching means to ends.


So if design is by definition only brought about by intelligence, why do they need to specify intelligent design?

For that matter, how can anything achieve an end without "employing suitable means"?

And is there anything in the universe that doesn't "achieve an end"?

So, according to this definition, everything's intelligent.  (Although Dembski and Wells apparently hope that their readers are the exception.)

Date: 2006/11/03 07:19:26, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 03 2006,12:15)
   
Quote
....If anyone has a problem with that they can KMA. Google that.

HOO RAH! Semper Fi!

Comment by DaveScot — May 22, 2006 @ 12:49 pm

A quick search of UD gives the lie to Dave's self-righteous appeal to this rule.  (Where can I find this rule, BTW?)

DaveScot:    
Quote
In a pig’s a** (pardon my french).
(censorship mine)

and here  
Quote
You’ve got one more chance to demonstrate you’re not a stupid little troll before I boot your a** out of here. -ds
(censorship mine)

and here  
Quote
Open-forum my a**.
(censorship mine)

Not to mention the fact that Dembski has quoted the s word at least twice, with no hint of disapproval.

Date: 2006/12/05 15:46:03, Link
Author: 2ndclass
DaveScot:
Quote
By the way, I'’m certain I’ve studied the stock market at least as much or more than you have, I made millions in it, and I knew enough to get out of it with my winnings intact because it’s all just a matter of luck. A little more predictable in the short term than Vegas but in the long run only the house wins.

Since Dave made millions on Dell options, it's obvious that he knows more about the stock market than business school teacher Dopderbeck.

I always thought that the market was unpredictable in the short term but more predictable in the long term.  And I thought that, on average, long-term investors come out winners.  Thanks to Dave, now I know that I've had it backwards all this time.

Date: 2006/12/05 17:31:19, Link
Author: 2ndclass
DaveScot:  
Quote
In a nutshell they are setting out to demonstrate how DNA-based life could have originated from undirected interplay of chemicals.

If ID is true then it predicts the Harvard project will fail. This is based on the ID hypothesis that the complex patterns found in the basic machinery of life are too complex to come about without intelligent guidance.

Now if I may be so bold as to ask that ID theorists be allowed to make predictions based upon their own theory, and detractors are gracious enough to let us make our own predictions, then I don’t want to hear any more nonsense about ID making no predictions. This is a prediction. It will play out soon enough. Let the chips fall where they may.

Okay, I can play that game too.

In July 2004, Dembski announced his seven part series, Mathematical Foundations of Intelligent Design, and he said, "I expect to place some of these articles in the mainstream statistics/probability/complexity literature."

My hypothesis is that Dembski's CSI/SC/LCI work is pure fluff.  If my hypothesis is correct, then Dembski's attempts to publish that work in mainstream journals will fail.

It looks like he's trying to make good on his announcement.  In his expert rebuttal for Dover, Dembski said that one of his seven papers was intended for an IEEE biocomputing journal.  How's that working out for you, Dr. Dembski?

If Dave wants to put money against my prediction, I'm game.

Date: 2006/12/12 12:19:28, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Hooligan dons a red shirt and beams down to Planet UD:  
Quote
Your take on Judge Jones concerns me Mr. Dembski. Here a judge listens to the evidence, makes a judgement in agreement with Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law presented by the ACLU. Now suddenly he is a narcissitic putz!?! Just a few months ago you had agreed to make an effort to conduct yourself in a more honarable fashion. What would JESUS do? Would JESUS resort to name calling? I don’t think so. I know my comment won’t get posted, becasue anything that disturbs your equilibrium never seems to find its way onto your blog. Just one more sign of the weak platform you stand on.

Date: 2006/12/12 16:21:39, Link
Author: 2ndclass
The whole Narcissistic Putz post is astounding.  Dembski bemoans the fact that Judge Jones didn't use "original and impeccable reasoning."  Dembski apparently thinks that when a judge rules on a subject in which he has no expertise, he should rely on his own original reasoning instead of relying on the experts.  Heaven help us if judges start following Dembski's philosophy.

Date: 2006/12/13 11:54:47, Link
Author: 2ndclass
TRoutMac:
Quote
I have every reason to suspect that the Judge took a payoff from the ACLU.

Of course, any normal person in TRout's position would inform the federal judiciary of Judge Jones's behavior so that Jones would be unseated or even arrested.  But TRout is turning the other cheek, bless his heart.

Date: 2006/12/15 10:35:32, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (Altabin @ Dec. 15 2006,05:49)
The argumentum ex ididntreallydoitandanywayijustwantedtoseewhatwouldhappen, to use the technical term.

Does anyone remember when Dembski coyly stated that he might be intentionally putting errors in his work just to see if his critics can catch them?  Can't find the quote now.

Date: 2006/12/15 10:48:45, Link
Author: 2ndclass
TroutMAc, as quoted by stevestory:  
Quote
But how long is a second in the middle of deep space where there's no gravity source? ... Is it really so wrong to question these assumptions?

No, Trout, it's not wrong.  Questioning is good.  But before you pose a question on the internet, you might want to crack a physics book and save yourself from some major embarrassment.

Date: 2006/12/18 11:58:29, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Dembski:
Quote
Let me suggest you all read your Old Testament — Elijah taunting the prophets of Baal (and then, oh my, killling them); Micaiah the prophet telling Ahab the king to look forward to his coming death; and Jehu’s respectful treatment of Queen Jezebel (throwing her out a window and letting the dogs lap up her blood).

So Dembski is now advocating killing false prophets and throwing people out of windows.  Don't worry, I've alerted Homeland Security.

Date: 2006/12/19 18:37:48, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Here's another one for your collection, phonon.  mmadigan  
Quote
Someone who believes that atoms bumping into each other assembles a human brain is operating on Blind Watchmaker Faith.
And someone who believes that anyone believes that is operating on sheer ignorance.

Date: 2006/12/21 10:19:05, Link
Author: 2ndclass
DaveScot:  
Quote


A colleague wrote (my emphasis):
 
Quote

   The S. purpuratus genome will help us “understand on sight the logic functions they execute in response to the sets of transcription factors in given cells at given times.” “The sea urchin genome will directly contribute to solving the principles of design of gene regulatory networks for embryonic development.” “Such principles can only be obtained by comparing network architecture in different animals developing in similar or different ways.” “The genome will not only provide the ‘code’ for development but will also contribute to linkage between gene regulatory networks and the actual realization of developmental events.” “It remains to connect the genes that execute these functions to the control circuitry that specifies their occurrence.”(1)

   1. All quotes in this paragraph are from column 3 on page 939 of Davidson EH. 2006. The sea urchin genome: Where will it lead us? Science 314:939-940.

Good grief. Could Davidson be any more inadvertently candid in regard to life being designed? It hardly seems possible. I’m surprised Science accepted this for publication with that language in it.

First of all, notice that Dave is now mimicking Dembski's practice of referring to an anonymous "colleague". Colleague?  Isn't Dave a retiree who now spends his time houseboating and blogging?  Is his "colleague" a fellow houseboater?

Second, Dave thinks that describing something in computer terms is an admission that it's designed.  The sun goes in cycles, like a CPU.  Designed!

Date: 2006/12/21 12:07:26, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Joseph:
Quote
And with an established history of judicial anti-ID bias already against them, it makes that financial intimidation a likely reality.

And those judges are biased against fraud and bank robbery too!  Bigots!

Date: 2007/01/02 12:58:46, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Dembski's bravado about being deposed is hilarious to anyone familiar with him.  Here is a man whose entire ID career has been an exercise in evasion.  Getting a straight answer out of him is like pulling teeth.  On the rare occasion that he engages his critics, his responses are appallingly unresponsive.  He boots his challengers from his blog.  He has never submitted his ID "work" to a math or science journal for review.  Etc. etc. etc.

Now he would have us believe that he is willing, nay, anxious to be in the hot seat.  He wants to answer all of those challenges that he has studiously avoided over the past decade.

This is nothing but the periodic chest-puffing of the man who declared on PT, "I’ll take any of you on at any time in any venue", and then promptly and permanently retreated to the safety of his own cloistered blog.

Date: 2007/01/02 16:14:27, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Dembski:
Quote
A new ID friendly research center at a major university. (This is not merely an idle wish — stay tuned.)

What does it mean for a research center to be "ID friendly"?  How does Dembski know beforehand that the results of their research will be favorable to ID?

Date: 2007/01/03 18:47:51, Link
Author: 2ndclass
dougp59:  
Quote
What are they looking for in the data?  An INFERENCE of intelligence, which would lead them to conclude an intelligence responsible for sending the obviously 'designed' message .


So an INFERENCE of intelligence would lead them to infer intelligence.  Can't argue with that.  Whenever I infer X, my very next step is always to infer X.  Of course, that puts me in an endless loop of inference until I hit Ctrl-C.

dougp59:  
Quote
then why is an inference of intelligence in complex living systems here on earth not proof of an intelligent designer of that complex system?


Who said it isn't?  If you legitimately infer intelligent design in complex living systems, then by golly, those systems were intelligently designed.  As an added bonus, you'll be famous.

Date: 2007/01/08 10:14:38, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 08 2007,09:40)
Can someone show me the experimental apparatus Dembski engineered to study ID?

Date: 2007/01/09 12:17:56, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (Bebbo @ Jan. 09 2007,11:09)
His 5 or so patents, some joint, including such earth shattering innovations along the lines getting a computer to flag it had an error when booting up

Anyone who has gone through the patent application process in a large tech corp knows how unimpressive this is.  The vast majority of these patents contain no significant innovation.  Their sole value to the company is to pad their arsenal in the patent cold war.

Date: 2007/01/09 14:51:28, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Dave:
Quote
I’ve clocked myself writing over 300 lines of assembly or C code per hour that often executes flawlessly on the first pass (including a clean compilation on the first pass).


We've had programmers like that at the company where I work, and several have been let go.  Fast code-slingers can do more harm than good, even if their code passes unit tests.

Quote
I’ve written literally millions of lines of code that has gone into billions upon billions of dollars worth of computer systems.

Has Dave actually written millions of lines of production code?  Of course not, and his use of the word "literally" turns this bit of puffery into an outright lie.

One thing that genius Dave has failed to figure out is that his bragging earns him no respect, since his credibility has been nil for a long time.  I suppose that a gullible newbie or two might actually believe him, and maybe that's his target audience.

Date: 2007/01/09 17:45:03, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (Freelurker @ Jan. 09 2007,17:17)
This was my last comment to UD, which was suppressed:
   
Quote
Salvador wrote:    
Quote
Depends on how one frames the poll question. If you asked, “dear engineer, we are conducting a poll…
Do you think the engineering profession can survive without the intelligence of engineers?
Can mindless unpaid processes do the job better than intelligent engineers?”
I expect you’ll probably get mean looks for asking such a stupid question.…

Yes, you will get mean looks. I recommend you don’t use your stupid questions.

Sal tried to strawman me and I turned it back on him. And just as politely. So someone decided to protect Sal.

Not only is it a strawman, it's a pathetically lame one.  Sal would have us believe that the following two propositions are equivalent:

A. ID would be useful in the practice of science.
B. Intelligence is useful to engineers.

Date: 2007/01/09 18:02:58, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 09 2007,17:56)
Febble: as moderator here, let me welcome you. Whatever your views, I'm sure you'll find this a more hospitable place than UncommonDescent.

And you won't be banned, unless you start channeling Davison.

Date: 2007/01/10 14:17:43, Link
Author: 2ndclass
DaveScot:
Quote
It effects mutations by selecting them. Duh.
Definitely signature-worthy.

Date: 2007/01/17 13:30:46, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 17 2007,13:20)
So, is the flagellum good or evil?

It depends on whether it's me or Osama bin Laden who comes down with a case of E. coli.

Date: 2007/01/17 18:03:07, Link
Author: 2ndclass
At OE, quizzlestick states, presumably with a straight face:
Quote
More importantly we are on the verge of some of the most important scientific discoveries in the entire history of science which could yield benefits to the whole of mankind were it not for a conspiracy of Darwinists who will stop at nothing to preserve the reputation of their absurd science.

Yes, he actually used the word "conspiracy".  Then, after quoting and pretending to understand a salad of modern physics buzzwords from Kazmer Ujvarosy, quizzlestick says:
Quote
For example, to falsify we merely have to observe a Higgs boson to see if it has the expected properties. What could be simpler?
Maybe the DI will hire quizzlestick to observe a Higgs boson.  A few hundred bucks should be more than enough for such a simple task.

Date: 2007/01/17 18:50:55, Link
Author: 2ndclass
How come none of you mentioned this Kazmer Ujvarosy guy until recently?  I can't believe you would hold out on me like this.  The man is an absolute gem.  I'm still trying to decide whether he's another invention of Lou FCD.

Date: 2007/01/18 15:25:29, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 18 2007,14:48)
DaveTard writes:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1971

         
Quote
18 January 2007
David H. Gorski: Do as I say, not as I do
DaveScot
Over at Respectful Insolence, Dr. David H. Gorski (a.k.a. Orac), goes off on a rant about how medical doctors, in this case Uncommon Descent contributor and surgeon Dr. David A. Cook, aren’t qualified to evaluate claims made by evolutionary biologists. Yet Dr. Gorski, also a surgeon, somehow believes himself qualified to evaluate evolutionary claims made by other medical doctors. Spare me. Practice what you preach, Dr. Gorski. If medical doctors aren’t qualifed to evaluate evolution claims then YOU should STFU too. Got that? Write that down.


That would be David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D.

P-H-D.

David H. Gorski (BSC 1984, MD 1988;
PhD 1994, Case Western Reserve (Cellular
Physiology)
) is a Fellow in Surgical
Oncology at the University of Chicago.



Looks like the filter failed again, Dave 'STFU' Tard.

Dave follows up with a comment and one of his oh-so-helpful Google links:      
Quote
Oh yeah… since Gorski/Orac thought it okay to research the work of Dr. Cook I think it’s fair that readers see a little bit more about Dr. Gorski.

http://www.google.com/search?....ki+orac

Interestingly, the very first hit highlights Gorski's Ph.D.

Here's a tip for you, Dave.  Next time, do the research before writing the article.

Date: 2007/01/18 15:52:00, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 18 2007,15:42)
ID prediction: Davetard is googling hard to try and show that Cellular Physiology and Evolution have little in common. Good luck with that!

'tis a fine day for Tard.

Says Dave:  
Quote
Cellular physiology isn’t evolutionary biology. Are you trying to get kicked off this thread too?

Who needs Google when you have the Banning Button?

Date: 2007/01/18 16:04:59, Link
Author: 2ndclass
JasonTheGreek desperately reaches for the "evolution is not Darwinism" rejoinder:
 
Quote
Gorski dishonestly claims: “expressing “skepticism” about evolution.”- Cook never expressed any such thing. He SPECIFICALLY expressed skepticism over “Darwinian-type evolution”!! (a child could understand this!)

So Gorski is dumber than a child for saying "evolution" when he means "Darwinian-type evolution".  I guess Dembski and most other IDers are in the same boat, since they do this regularly.

Date: 2007/01/18 16:30:50, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Scott is struggling greatly:    
Quote
I’m struggling greatly in trying to understand how physicians, who are experts in anatomy, are somehow unqualified in assessing the mertis of Darwinian Evolution. Somebody throw me a frickin bone here.

Anatomy?  Bone?  Pun intended?

I think Scott's asking for help in the wrong forum.

Date: 2007/01/23 13:15:05, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 23 2007,13:04)
and nobody will be talking about CSI or SC at all.

Note that Dembski himself has already stopped talking about them.  It's been over a year since he has mentioned CSI or SC in a paper, book, or blog.

Date: 2007/01/23 15:30:09, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (jujuquisp @ Jan. 23 2007,15:18)
From the Master of the Tard:
 
Quote


9

DaveScot

01/23/2007

1:44 pm

Inoculated

I’m confident that when ID is fairly presented it is obvious that it’s not religion. I’m also confident that when atheism is fairly presented it’s a Godless religion.

Franky

Atheism is a religious belief under the same definition that ID is a religious belief. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.


UHHHH?????
Either I'm stupid or very confused or stupidly confused.  Nothing that DaveTard has posted here makes much sense to me.  He superficially sounds logical but if you actually read the content, it is a bunch of gibberish with non-sequiturs.  Am I stupid for not understanding his statement?  Explain this to me, you chimps.

Explanation:  ID isn't religious, but atheism is religious just like ID is religious.  You can't have your cake and eat it too, because that would be contradictory.

What's so hard to understand about that?

Date: 2007/01/23 15:41:05, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Breaking news:  
Quote
Join New York Times bestselling author Lee Strobel and leading scientists and philosophers as they explore the growing scientific evidence that life and the universe were intelligently designed at this two-day event on March 23-24 in Knoxville, Tenn.
So life and the universe were designed at a two day event in Knoxville.  Gotta love misplaced modifiers.

I don't know about you, but I'm canceling my vacation plans so I can see the "leading scientists and philosophers", namely Behe, Meyer, and Jay Richards.

Date: 2007/01/24 15:01:29, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Says TRoutMac:    
Quote
I'd like to know who is the final arbiter of what should or should not be considered a "peer review" paper? And where does this person's biases lie?

Seriously, I realize there is no single person with such responsibility. I trust the point of this rhetorical question is understood, nonetheless.

By golly, he's onto something.  In my opinion, everything I agree with is peer-reviewed (including this post), and everything I disagree with isn't.  My opinion on this is as good as anyone else's, right?

Date: 2007/01/24 15:23:28, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Patrick:
Quote
Even though that is Discovery's stance the US school system is set up where local school boards have control over their curriculum. Even if ID theorists disagree with the proposed content people are free to implement whatever they want...just beware of the ACLU.
And that pesky 1st Amendment.
Quote
If your opponent tries to make the asinine argument that ID proponents are trying to force ID onto others using the court system just ask this: name the case where the ID proponents are NOT the defendants.
Apparently Patrick has never heard of Scopes.

Date: 2007/01/24 15:34:05, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Dave:  
Quote
Update: Due to the controversial nature of this and it being so off topic I’ve pulled the plug on the comments. Apologies to all those who contributed throughtful comments.

We all know that off-topic or controversial comments are simply not tolerated at UD.  Besides, the comments were just street theater, so Dave had to erase them to save a few kilobytes of precious hard drive space.

Date: 2007/01/25 12:02:13, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Kazmer Ujvarosy makes an appearance at Orwellian Malevolence and much hilarity ensues.

Of course, he doesn't bother correcting quizzlestick's fabricated-out-of-whole-cloth claim that his article is peer-reviewed.  Instead, he favors us with a supersized sciencereligionistic word salad, and sends a fews props to quizzlestick:  
Quote
By the way, Quizzlestick is displaying an exceptional understanding of this living cosmology. I still have to find a person who has comparable capacity for clear thinking.

In spite of the evidence for it, I'm having a hard time believing that Kazmer is for real.  Has anyone seen him and Lou FCD in the same place at the same time?  No?  According to my Super Premium Explanatory Filter, this proves that Kazmer was designed by Lou.

Date: 2007/01/29 12:52:12, Link
Author: 2ndclass
quizzlesticks, who still hasn't conceded that Kazmer's article was not peer-reviewed, digs himself in deeper at OE:
 
Quote
I agree that talk of cancer cures is highly speculative, but lets not just laugh Kazmer's ideas out of the court of science. That's what darwinists like Richard Dawkins do to reputable ID scientists like Behe and Dembski.
Not only does quizzlesticks not know what "peer review" means (although that doesn't stop him from blogging about it), he also doesn't know what a scientist is.  Dembski certainly isn't one, and he's definitely not "reputable" by any reasonable standard.
 
Quote
Kazmer's theories are unbound by the restrictive thinking that has plagued the last 200 years of materialist science and philosophy.
Ah, so that's why science has been so unproductive over the past 200 years.

Date: 2007/01/29 17:47:57, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 29 2007,16:25)
Davetard breaks the "no added moderator's comments rule"

   
Quote
15

late_model

01/29/2007

12:58 pm
Here is some more strangeness in the air. A friend recently forwarded this to me on junk DNA and panspermia.

http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/01/08/01288.html

This is a hoax. Please be more discriminating in what you post here. -ds

Heaven forbid a hoax show up on UD.

At least Dave caught it this time before Dembski had a chance to say "Right on!".

Date: 2007/01/29 17:59:28, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Says Sal:    
Quote
Even more curious was a somewhat ID-friendly essay in the book by renowned origin-of-life researcher, Harold Morowitz.

More curious still is that Sal failed to notice or failed to mention that the authors intentionally selected essays that represent various and contradictory viewpoints.  For example, they included John Searle's classic essay on the Chinese Room, and then Hofstadter proceeded to debunk it quite thoroughly.

And even more curious than that is the fact that the essay in question doesn't support ID.  At most it can be viewed as supporting mind/body dualism, and it doesn't really support that either.

Date: 2007/01/30 16:18:28, Link
Author: 2ndclass
quizzlesticks:
Quote
I really do not want to dwell on Kazmer's theories about cancer. These are interesting and I am sure he will test them out as soon as his hectic lab schedule allows.

So Kazmer has a lab schedule, and it's so hectic that the he can't be bothered with testing things like cancer cures.

Kazmer:
Quote
However persons with blinders still have to see that the evolutionist paradigm is in process of decay,

I'm guessing that the only way to shed those blinders is to smoke some of the stuff that Kazmer is cooking up in his lab.

Date: 2007/02/01 08:31:41, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 01 2007,07:23)
Darth asks a reasonable question, which has a reasonable answer. But this somehow leads to a ban.

* NO SOUP FOR YOU! *

[Secondclass wishes he had the photoshop skills of some of the other board members.]

Date: 2007/02/01 11:32:18, Link
Author: 2ndclass
TRoutMac:
Quote
Isn't just amazing that these arguments even need to be made?

What's even more amazing is that TRoutMac is blissfully unaware that all effective counterarguments are summarily deleted, leaving him with the impression that his arguments are irrefutable.

Date: 2007/02/02 13:08:07, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Salvador, quoting an article:  
Quote
Moreover the information incompressibility of [Chatin’s Algorithmic Information Theory] AIT is related to the “irreducible complexity” concept (IC).

Chaitin's "irreducible complexity" means algorithmic incompressibility, which means that X cannot be generated by a program shorter than X.  ID's IC has at least 3 definitions, all of which have to do with functionality and evolvability through RM+NS.  Am I stupid for not seeing how they're meaningfully related?

Question for IDers:  According to algorithmic information theory, which of the following is irreducibly complex?
1) A bacterial flagellum
2) A random pile of atoms from which a flagellum is made

Date: 2007/02/02 13:45:21, Link
Author: 2ndclass
quizzlesticks:  
Quote
The intelligent designer anticipated that one day we would have the technology and has given us the wisdom to use it. Darwin never predicted that heart-transplants would be possible but Intelligent Design makes exactly that prediction. It's a shame that we will never be credited for this discovery,

Tune in tomorrow when quizzlesticks explains how ID predicted Kennedy's assassination, and quizzlesticks is booted for breaking the ID-Says-Nothing-About-The-Designer rule when she says that the designer is obviously Republican.

Date: 2007/02/02 16:08:39, Link
Author: 2ndclass
DaveScot, Feb. 1:  
Quote
Got link?

DaveScot, Feb 2:  
Quote
I ban people for making me do research they should be doing for themselves. Consider yourself warned.

Date: 2007/02/06 14:49:20, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (jujuquisp @ Feb. 06 2007,13:19)
In other words, "Darwinists" anticipate potential problems and try to deal with them and ID theorists don't need to worry about anything or do anything because Mother Gaia will take care of it all anyway.

Hey, at least Trout is willing to make an ID-based prediction, which is more than I can say for his cohorts.  Of course, if he's wrong, then humanity won't be around very long to rub it in his face, so he's not really going out on a limb.

Date: 2007/02/06 18:35:45, Link
Author: 2ndclass
TRoutMac:
Quote
That you think we know so much is patently absurd to me. We don’t know jack.

If by "we" he means the UD crowd, he has a point.

Date: 2007/02/12 14:28:42, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 12 2007,12:29)
As if Marcus Ross being a charlatan wasn't bad enough, Davetard chimes in with a fantastically stupid comment.

Says Dave:
Quote
But what happens if an anthropologist knows something but believes otherwise and is wrong? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. No harm is done. Get a clue, Eugenie Scott. Figure out when knowledge and belief matter and when they don’t. Your whole problem is you take your work far too seriously when it’s of no more than academic interest. An anthropologist should be able to provide answers to questions that agree with consensus science but he should be free to believe that consensus science is WRONG. No one will be harmed and just maybe he’s correct to disbelieve the majority.

So after Sal lauds Marcus, Dave opines that none of Marcus's work matters.  Paleontologists can just make stuff up since their field doesn't make any difference anyway.

Date: 2007/02/13 15:18:43, Link
Author: 2ndclass
More low points in DaveScot's illustrious post-career:

Don't forget when he took it personally that Jim Webb was playing the Marine card.  He ended up getting so thoroughly trashed in the comments that he finally just deleted them all.   ("Due to the controversial nature of this and it being so off topic", he said.  A few weeks later he posted on the topic of "Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide", which of course is neither off-topic nor controversial.)

And who can forget him getting laughed off of Alan Fox's blog for claiming that typing sentences breaks the SLoT.

Not to mention getting schooled by Tom English, whom he finally had to boot to retain a modicum of dignity.

Date: 2007/02/14 10:57:09, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 14 2007,05:08)
Even with SO MANY "DaveTard"moments, I can't believe I'm the only one to mention l'affaire Padian.

This was where DaveTard not only egged on little Billy Dembski to paint Kevin Padian as a "racist," but THEN davetard posted on PT DEFENDING Billy and himself :   http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/05/more_dembski_de.html . (DaveSpringerStupid is "ombudsman" there)

Of course, eventually, they put up a cartoon of Kevin Padian in a KKK hood, then made it all disappear when Billy and Dave"StuporScot"Springer discovered they were not JUST wrong, but wrong beyond even the whiny excuses they later tried to use. Oh, it was a real laugh-fest for those interested in seeing how truly low and spineless the UD "leaders" are

That was definitely a classic.  When it turned out that it wasn't even Padian giving the talk, Dave demonstrates his pathological inability to admit mistakes by coming up with an unthinkable rejoinder: "It’s even worse that it wasn’t Padian but rather a colleague who delivered the talk at KU. Now instead of just one bad apple singling out enemies of science by race it’s an institution that’s doing it."

Date: 2007/02/14 17:36:57, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Dave:  
Quote
You have a layman’s understanding of what wet and dry air are which is why you are so lost when it comes to understanding climate.

Mike Dunford is a layman, as opposed to Dave, who has a Ph.D. in hot air.

Date: 2007/02/20 11:02:32, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 19 2007,13:22)
   
Quote
Fox’s blog has no google rank


The URL http://alanfox.blogspot.com/index.html has a google pagerank of 2 of 10.

Searching for "A place where IDers and Darwinists" brings up Alan's blog as the 1st result as it is part of the intro text. There are lots of other hits to pandasthumb, UD, all sorts. Searching with quotes brings up Alan's blog only.

And if you google "entropy on the earth decreases where intelligent agency is operating", you find the real reason that Dave won't participate on an unmoderated discussion.  He simply can't survive on a level playing field.

Alan's blog has demonstrated quite well that the IDers with the most bluster (DaveScot, Joe G) are also the biggest cowards.

Date: 2007/02/20 13:17:07, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Joseph pontificates on CSI:  
Quote
CSI can be understood as the convergence of physical information, for example the hardware of a computer and conceptual information, for example the software that allows the computer to perform a function, such as an operating system with application programs.

So a computer sans software is not CSI.  Likewise, software sans computer is not CSI.  But you put them together and you get CSI!  Brilliant!

Date: 2007/02/20 14:16:00, Link
Author: 2ndclass
DaveScot:  
Quote
The major claims of evolution are the creation of novel cell types, tissue types, organs, and body plans. These are required to get from bacteria to baboons. No evolution of these by any means has been observed. They simply appear fully formed in the fossil record and can be observed fully formed in living things today. Given the definition of a theory as a well tested explanation there is no theory of evolution but rather only hypotheses of evolution. Until a hypothetical mechanism is observed doing that which it is claimed it can do these mechanisms remain hypothetical.
(Emphasis mine)

So Dave thinks that the only way to test a theory is to actually observe the proposed mechanisms in action.  Thanks to Dave's insight, an awful lot of scientists are going to have to close up shop.  And it leaves ID in a pretty awkward position, too.

Date: 2007/02/20 16:23:04, Link
Author: 2ndclass
great_ape:  
Quote
1. Something has CSI if it conforms to a pattern that is “compressible,” in the sense that it can be described by a smallish program and/or rule set.

2. Such patterns, as opposed to non-compressible patterns, are exceptionally rare (assuming, of course, that the system generating the patterns generates them uniformly (i.e. is not biased towards compressible patterns)

3. The observation of such a pattern is exceedingly unlikely to be due to “chance” so, having observed it, one can reasonably infer design.

We'll see if anyone at UD spots the problem here.  #2 assumes that the system has a uniformly random output.  So if the output turns out to be highly compressible, all we can infer is that the assumption was wrong.  IOW, the source was not random.  We have no justification for making a leap from "non-random" to "designed".

Date: 2007/02/20 17:24:20, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 20 2007,16:52)
DaveScot (then)        
Quote
Alan Fox is no longer with us. His email to Rieseberg said his finding were being used to dispute evolution. I have never disputed evolution (only the role of chance) and didn’t use Riesberg’s article to do anything other than dispute trrll’s assertion that evolution is unrepeatable.

Since Dave is clearly disputing evolution ("They simply appear fully formed in the fossil record"), I expect that Alan will be welcomed back to UD with open arms.

Date: 2007/02/20 23:06:33, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Even Dembski's fan club will have a hard time finding a legitimate point in this post.  If running boards are nonfunctional as he claims, then car designers must include them because they look cool.  Does he think this sheds light on the reason for the human appendix?

Date: 2007/02/22 10:36:34, Link
Author: 2ndclass
kairofocus:  
Quote
If we see a room in which all the oxygen molecules are at one end, we infer intelligent agency.
If we build a room 50 miles high, all of the air will be at the floor and none at the ceiling.  Intelligent agency!!

Date: 2007/02/22 10:56:03, Link
Author: 2ndclass
great_ape:  
Quote
He suggests the complete works of Shakespeare are both specified and complex.

Ah, but here Dembski says that if "METHINKS..." is the outcome of an evolutionary algorithm, then it has a complexity of zero:  
Quote
It follows that Dawkins's evolutionary algorithm, by vastly increasing the probability of getting the target sequence, vastly decreases the complexity inherent in that sequence. As the sole possibility that Dawkins's evolutionary algorithm can attain, the target sequence in fact has minimal complexity (i.e., the probability is 1 and the complexity, as measured by the usual information measure, is 0).

So if I hand great_ape the complete works of Shakespeare, he can't tell me whether they has CSI or not unless I tell him how they were generated.  CSI is useless for determining design because you have to know the causal story in order to determine whether something has CSI.

Date: 2007/02/22 16:43:29, Link
Author: 2ndclass
DaveScot:    
Quote
If we start out with a perfect design and it deteriorates through imperfect reproduction we would expect to see vestiges of functional components that no longer function because they became flawed. Think of it like making a copy of a photo in a xerox machine, making a copy of the copy, and so on. If we started out with a beautiful picture of a butterfly feeding from a flower eventually there will be nothing recognizable left because each copy operation is not quite perfect and random changes will not paint anything new and beautiful in place of the original.

This is actually the observable trajectory of evolution today. Nothing new and useful is being created. There is only rearrangement of that which already exists or loss of that which already exists. Where’s the evolution in that? Aptly labeled it is devolution.

Yes, that's why evolutionary algorithms always move away from instead of toward optimal solutions.  Not.

After all of his debates with evolutionists, Dave still hasn't grasped the basics.

Date: 2007/03/07 12:50:04, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (heddle @ Mar. 06 2007,19:25)
What I did was a huge amount of research, (re)reading Dembski's books (no fun, I'll assure you) and searching for all existing criticisms. The bottom line, I'll readily admit, is I am not sure I can add anything new.

I think it's true that Dembski's core problems have all been pointed out, some of them ad nauseam.  But one could easily fill a book with the errors that are offshoots of the core problems.  And rereading inevitably reveals undiscovered errors.

For example, I recently saw that in the last two paragraphs of page 8 on this paper, Dembski tries to invalidate Bayesian reasoning, but ends up proving by contradiction that Fisherian reasoning is invalid.  Such is the miscellany of illogic that's sprinkled liberally throughout Dembski's work.

Date: 2007/03/09 11:10:48, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Sal:
Quote
By contrast, Darwin’s non-equations have done nothing for the world of science and modern technology. Let the world of science commemorate things like Maxwell’s Year more than Darwin Day.

Myopia at its best.  If Sal had majored in home economics, he would be lobbying for Betty Crocker Year and proclaiming Maxwell a useless good-for-nothing.

Date: 2007/03/09 17:47:05, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 09 2007,16:05)
EDIT: ERm, it appears to be a Chinese SciFi Web site? Err...

I looks like a pirated copy of Michael Crichton's _Next_.  Amazon doesn't have a "Search Inside" for that book, so I can't verify it 100%, but that's what it looks like.

If so, we have Patrick plagiarizing a pirated work of fiction and passing it off as non-fiction, all in a post where he complains about corruption.

Am I seeing this correctly?

Date: 2007/03/09 18:00:05, Link
Author: 2ndclass
It looks like Patrick's post is indeed plagiarized from Michael Crichton.  Whether he copy-and-pasted it from an online pirated copy or typed it in himself, I don't know.  But it's a fictional news story, Patrick plagiarized it, and he presented it as nonfiction.  That's beyond bizarre.

Date: 2007/03/09 23:55:28, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (argystokes @ Mar. 09 2007,19:28)
Oi! It's a real news story, I'm surprised you hadn't heard it when it happened a couple of years ago.

Yes, the facts about Hwang are true, but about 1/3 of the way through Patrick's post, we see:  
Quote
“What lessons can be drawn from this?” asked Professor McKeown. “First...
and the quote continues through the remaining 2/3 of the post.  Who is Professor McKeown, and who is quoting him?

Answer:  McKeown is fictional, and he's being quoted by the fictional Max Thaler in a fictional news story published in the fictional Beaumont College Alumni News.  It's all in chapter 7 of Crichton's novel, _Next_.

Not only did Patrick fail to mention that his report of McKeown's speech is copied verbatim from another source, but it turns out that McKeown doesn't even exist.  That's just plain wacky, even for OE.

Date: 2007/03/10 12:46:41, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 10 2007,11:08)
Also congratulations to Secondclass for pointing it out originally. (And for service above and beyond the call of duty at ISCID :) )

Actually it was oldmanintheskydidntdoit who pointed it out originally, but thanks.

Date: 2007/03/12 17:00:16, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 12 2007,15:37)
Actually, this development is hilarious. It throws the whole EF and irreducible complexity into the canyon. :) If everything's designed, how are you tsupposed to be able to tell?

Silly Kristine.  Not all mountains are designed.  Only the pretty ones.

I'm guessing that quintilis is a socket puppet invented by Patrick for the sole purpose of cranking out posts so ludicrous that they overshadow Patrick's inanity in plagiarizing Crichton.

Date: 2007/03/16 15:14:48, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 16 2007,08:53)
TRoutMac:  
Quote
Consider the title chosen for Darwin's famous book… "Origin of Species." I would suppose that the first form of life to appear on this planet was some species of something.

And since there's a book called "The Origin of Humankind", it follows that the first form of life must have been human.  So much for the Genesis creation story.

Date: 2007/03/16 15:25:18, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 16 2007,09:00)
FOR THE KIDS!

https://www2.blogger.com/comment....6864891

       
Quote
A little googling points to the fact that jujquisp is one of THEM, and that tells me that he is not interested in the real issues surrounding this debate.

He merely gets off on being a part of those who ridicule others. It's a game for them, nothing more. They are the type of people who truly enjoy poking fun of others, and they follow DaveS around everywhere he goes. It's sick if you ask me. Stalking comes to mind.

The only reason I let them post here occassionally is because they need to read stuff written by people who are truly concerned about the issues surrounding this debate. Not all of us are out here merely to get our jollies from harrassing others.


C'mon guys, quit harassing FTK and DaveScot.  This isn't a game for them; they're very serious about it.  They're working hard to educate themselves by way of technical journals college curricula ID blogs.

Date: 2007/03/20 14:34:56, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 20 2007,11:23)
oh Dave, what about Alan Fox's neutral venue?

Dave will never return to Alan's blog because he knows that no matter how hard he tries to get banned, Alan won't ban him.  He knows he'll end up looking like a coward when he bails instead of getting kicked out, and he won't be able to put another notch in his martyrdom belt.

Date: 2007/03/20 18:17:21, Link
Author: 2ndclass
And make no mistake, he will run away from any open discussion.  He may see himself as a hardened Marine, but the rest of us notice that he's clutching his banning button like a 3 year old holds onto his mommy's apron.

Date: 2007/03/21 15:48:13, Link
Author: 2ndclass
DaveScot's logic:
1. I tried to start a false rumor on AtBC about Judge Jones.
2. stevestory caught me.
3. Therefore, stevestory is a liar.

Date: 2007/03/23 13:52:30, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (N.Wells @ Mar. 23 2007,08:59)
 
Quote
Miller has a talk that he gives on campuses throughout the U.S. titled “The Collapse of Intelligent Design.” Let me suggest that if there is any collapsing going on, it is in Miller’s psyche and in his increasing inability to prosecute a reasoned argument when it comes to ID.

Dr. Dembski, you can suggest it all you want.  May I suggest that you suggest it in a forum that actually has any import, such as a deposition, a witness stand, or a tech journal?

Date: 2007/03/27 20:51:18, Link
Author: 2ndclass
The recent Miller-Luskin affair is a tempest in a teapot, but it underscores the fact that Luskin is a hack spin doctor whose crapola can be believed only by those who are determined to believe crapola.

Brief recap:  Miller was interviewed by BBC, Luskin accused him of mischaracterizing Dembski's argument, Miller said that he wasn't even talking about Dembski's argument.

Which brings us to Luskin's latest statement:
         
Quote
Miller writes, "I do not remember the exact question that prompted my response."
He claims he doesn't remember the question he was asked, but he claims he does remember he wasn't talking about Dembski. Miller's admission of a fading memory on this matter does not inspire confidence for the things he claims he does remember. After all, in the documentary Miller clearly states he is critiquing the "mathematical tricks employed by intelligent design," and Dembski is widely recognized as the leading mathematical theorist in the ID movement. Dembski seems a likely target for Miller's comments.

Since Miller can't remember everything from a year ago, what he does remember is probably wrong.  And since Miller used the word "mathematical" and "intelligent design" together, he must have been talking about Dembski.  After all, nobody else has ever tried to make a case for a creator based on probability.
         
Quote
(2) Miller has a history of misrepresenting intelligent design arguments:
Miller attempts to pass the blame to Discovery Institute, saying we "should know better," implying we should not think he would misrepresent Dembski. This reminds us how, in 2003, Dembski told Miller that Miller "should know better" than to claim that ID necessarily requires “the direct and active involvement of an outside designer.” Yet in this very BBC documentary, Miller repeats the same false claim, saying, "By the terms of the advocates of intelligent design themselves, the designer creates outside of nature, supernaturally..." (time index 39:25) Shouldn’t Miller “know better” than to make such claims? Based upon this example and many others, we “know” that Miller at times misrepresents the arguments of ID-theorists.

This one really irks me.  If you look at the incident that Luskin is referring to, it is Dembski who flails at a strawman as he addresses a criticism that Miller never made.  Luskin, in turn, misconstrues Dembski's point.  I would chock this up to abysmal reading skills on the part of Luskin and Dembski, but since they both have degrees, I think good old-fashioned dishonesty is the only explanation for their word-twisting.
         
Quote
(3) Miller admits that the documentary makes it look like he's talking about Dembski:
....If we assume Miller's explanation of the situation is true, then according to Miller's admission that the documentary "does mislead the viewer," then I did nothing wrong. I simply watched the video and took away the message any reasonable viewer would take: the context strongly indicates that Miller was talking about Dembski.

No, a reasonable viewer would notice that Miller didn't say anything at all about Dembski.  Both Jeremy and I saw this, which prompted Jeremy's email to Miller, which resulted in Miller confirming that he wasn't talking about Dembski.  If any reasonable viewer would make the same mistake as Luskin, then how did several "Darwinists" manage to avoid that mistake?
         
Quote
(4) If Miller wasn't talking about Dembski, he's still promoting a straw man view:
...no ID-proponent argues that mere improbability is enough to infer design nor do they argue that some inconsequential but unlikely event (like a hand dealt in a game of cards) is enough to falsify neo-Darwinian evolution. Design theorists acknowledge that improbable events happen all the time. When inferring design, they always couple improbability with some specification. One commenter on Dembski's blog, "gpuccio," explained this point clearly:

   "As far as I know, nobody in the ID field has ever made the silly argument that Miller criticizes. Everybody, instead, in the ID field, constantly mentions the CSI argument due to Dembski, and so clearly and beautifully explained in many of his writing."

Well, if such an authority as gpuccio from UD says so, then it must be true.

What a crock.  I'll bet most people who have the notion that evolution is simply too improbable have never even heard of, much less read, Dembski.  The improbability argument was around long before Dembski, and it's still around.  To say that nobody uses it by itself and that everybody always pairs improbability with specification is simply ridiculous.  I can think of two IDers just in the past week who have trotted out the improbability argument without mentioning specification.

Heaven help the DI if Luskin is the best spokesman they can find.  But then again, it really doesn't matter what he says.  IDers will faithfully imbibe his swill no matter how putrid it is.

Date: 2007/03/28 17:03:10, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Here's my favorite part:    
Quote
The entire manuscript has been written and the process of aggressive editing and proofing for scholarship, scientific fact, and careful expression has been completed on all but the eighth--and final--chapter.

Translation: The book has been reviewed by 9-year-old Johnny and his dog Barfy.

Date: 2007/03/29 10:46:44, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 28 2007,13:24)
Sock it to him, Secondclass :p

You're too kind, Alan.  I heard a rumor that you were banned from ISCID.  Is that true?

Date: 2007/03/29 16:32:49, Link
Author: 2ndclass
DaveScot:  
Quote
It’s expected that you give credit to the original source when copying copyrighted content under academic free use so I don’t see how he could have avoided citing the source.

You’re back on moderation so your comments can be reviewed for accuracy before being posted.

DaveScot, the stickler for attribution and accuracy.  This is the same DaveScot who took some unattributed text sent to him by a friend, posted it, later modified it, and brushed aside the fact that it was a hoax because "that’s hardly the point".

Date: 2007/03/29 22:32:58, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Dembski:
Quote
There’s not much detail in this article, but let me venture a guess: when the details come out, we’ll find that intelligent design (which includes evolutionary optimization) outshines unintelligent evolution at every turn.


A few months ago, Febble was getting all kinds of flak at UD for suggesting that natural evolutionary mechanisms constitute the intelligence behind the design of biocomplexity.  Now Dembski is saying that intelligent design includes evolutionary optimization, which is exactly what RM+NS is.  Looks like Febble was right.

Date: 2007/03/30 13:17:12, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Joseph:
Quote
ID does NOT say that evolution cannot produce IC. That you would say such a thing exposes your ID ignorance. Thanks, although it has been very obvious that you don’t understand the basics.

If you ask 3 top-tier IDers a basic question like "Can evolution produce IC?", you'll get 4 different answers.  Joe's accusation that Pixie is ignorant of ID assumes that there's a single ID "theory" to be ignorant of.  Sorry, Joe, the tent's way too big for that.

Date: 2007/04/02 14:10:58, Link
Author: 2ndclass
There is a thread at ISCID on Sewell's work that is still semi-active, wherein Sewell's ideas receive a thorough drubbing.  Long ago he used to respond there, but not any more.  Now he's holed up at UD where he's guaranteed to go unchallenged.

And his argument is still pure bunk.  Saying that a given arrangement of atoms violates the 2nd Law does not make it so, but apparently it's good enough for UD.

Date: 2007/04/02 17:55:48, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (stevestory @ April 02 2007,17:47)
Lawyer Philip Johnson complains that scientists won't talk rationally about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

I know exactly how he feels.  Whenever I'm talking to a lawyer, I always bring up my theory that the 2nd Law is unconstitutional, and I always get a knee-jerk response.  They just won't discuss it rationally.

Date: 2007/04/02 18:10:40, Link
Author: 2ndclass
GilDodgen:
Quote
This is why I contend that some scientists have gone mad when it comes to Darwinism.

This is absolutely true.  JAD, for example.

Date: 2007/04/03 10:58:36, Link
Author: 2ndclass
The Granville Sewell defenders are starting to emerge, none of whom have taken the time to understand Sewell's argument.  Pixie's post is 100% correct, and Sewell knows it.  Sewell now has a chance to demonstrate his integrity by correcting his defenders.  Will he do it?

Says kairosfocus:
Quote
[Quoting Pixie]The rearrangement of atoms into human brains and computers and the Internet clearly does not violate any law of nature, recognized or not.

Predictably, we see a pouncing on a minor error, in a context where the material point was already noted and corrected: SPONTANEOUS. (So, I have reason to say that we see here the knocking over of a convenient strawman. The PCs and net are DESIGNED, and the DNA that largely controls the production of the human brain etc evinces all the characteristics that we would at once infer to be designed were not a worldview assertion in the way.]

Predictable . . . and, sad.

But since the 2nd Law makes no distinction between SPONTANEOUS and DESIGNED, Sewell's assertion is wrong no matter how you slice it.  Brains and computers are not a violation of the 2nd Law, and anyone who says that they are is a crackpot.

Date: 2007/04/03 14:24:14, Link
Author: 2ndclass
What in the world has gotten into DaveScot?
Quote
Ilion is no longer with us. His first comment here included the rather grandiose claim that he is certain he can show us modern evolutionary theory is false. His subsequent comments have been large on claims and short on substance. We wish him luck and await his Nobel prize for disproving ToE but won’t be holding our collective breath in the interim.

Since when are grandiose, substance-free claims against the ToE considered a bad thing at UD?

Date: 2007/04/03 18:37:38, Link
Author: 2ndclass
DaveScot pulls out his chalkboard and presumes to lecture Pixie, who, unlike DaveScot, knows what he's talking about.
 
Quote
In general 2LoT applies to gradients of all kinds.
Wrong.  
Quote
It also applies to information gradients.
In general, wrong.  
Quote
Intelligent processes can create information gradients. For instance - absent intelligence the library of congress, a highly ordered set of information, would not exist with only energy from the sun input into the system and no intelligent agency directing how that energy is utilized to decrease entropy.
So, according to Dave, the 2LoT applies to information, but intelligent agents can decrease information entropy, thus violating the 2LoT.  Dave has been making a fool of himself for over a year with this assertion, but he seems unconcerned.

Date: 2007/04/03 18:54:20, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Looking back at one of Dave's early forays into thermo, I find this gem:
Quote
Could be the problem with all the Sewell detractors is that it takes a genius to know one.
Which is exactly why Dave mistakes Sewell for a genius.

Date: 2007/04/03 19:08:39, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Dave's excuse #439 for deleting comments:  
Quote
As a general rule any comment that starts out with the theme “I don’t expect this to get posted because disagreement isn’t tolerated” I consider to be a death wish and I grant the wish.

Tune in tomorrow when Dave tells us that he has to use the delete button at least once an hour to keep it from getting rusty.

Date: 2007/04/04 19:35:53, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 04 2007,19:06)
Also, Bill is attracted because the guy likes to say stuff that sounds heavy, but is really all gas: "... Throughout evolution, information capable of maintaining its integrity has prevailed over that which was not. Robust information is that which can resist perturbations to maintain its integrity. The ability to react to face perturbations to maintain information makes information adaptive, increasing its probability of maintenance."

If maintaining information integrity is what it's all about, then the best "adaptation" that an organism can do is to get itself frozen in ice.

Date: 2007/04/04 22:20:50, Link
Author: 2ndclass
I almost missed this lame post about a guy who was an expert in determining whether stacks of stones are man-made or not.  Says DaveScot:    
Quote
It’s a good example of how the design inference has been employed for practical matters.

Actually, it's a good example of how design is inferred without using the bogus methods propounded by the DI fellows.  And why do IDers always say "the design inference" when, in fact, all kinds of different design inferences are drawn all the time?

Says Jehu:    
Quote
The argument that design cannot be detected is such a pathetic lie that it I am amazed at how brazenly it is made by the opponents of ID.

The only pathetic lie is Jehu's assertion that opponents of ID argue that design can't be detected.

(Jehu is one of the many who now stick to censored blogs like UD after finding out that they can't handle level playing fields like arn.org or Alan Fox's blog.)

Date: 2007/04/04 22:54:27, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Pixie has managed to avoid getting banned in thermo thread, but his days are numbered if he continues to challenge Dave.

kairosfocus's latest factoid:  
Quote
Spontaneous:
By chance + necessity only. A refrigerator forces export of heat from colder body to hotter ones, but that is not at all a spontaneous process or system.

So there you have it:  Refrigerators do not work by chance + necessity only.  According to Dembski, that means they're intelligent designers.  Maybe one of these days my fridge will whip me up a nice creative fruit salad.

Date: 2007/04/05 13:31:57, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Note to Dembski:  When you post crap like this, you attract brown-nosers like this:
Quote
I just want you to know how much I appreciate you for your courage and for your intellectual honesty. Intelligent Design is an idea with enough reasonable scientific, mathematical, statistical, and logical merit to at least be given a fair hearing in the marketplace of ideas. Obviously the keepers of the status-quo fear you, and your ideas, since there could be no other explanation for the un-deserved vitriol and agression that has come your way, just for trying to make a reasonable argument about something. You are our great champion and our standard-bearer, and I thank you for your un-tiring efforts to find truth, and to speak truth, as best you can see it.

tyharris then goes on to reveal that he doesn't know what an evolutionary algorithm is or why it would give better results than a tornado in a junkyard, but he's hoping that Dembski will come to his blog and chase away the big bad atheists:
Quote
As a mathematician, and an expert on the subject, I was wondering if you could take a minute from your busy schedule to pop in real quick to the comments section and weigh in. I realize that this is a bit like writing to George W. Bush and asking him to personally settle a political argument that you had with your liberal neighbor last saturday out on the porch, but I thought I would at least ask. I figure that if I can get a comment from “Dembski himself”, I win by default unless he manages to drag Dawkins into it somehow.

This is enough to make even an egomaniac like Dembski puke.  If he reads this stuff, he's gotta be seriously thinking about retiring from the ID racket.

Date: 2007/04/05 13:59:54, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Atom explains why RM+NS is no better than a tornado in a junkyard:
Quote
Darwinism is based on chance, whether Darwinists want to admit it or not.
...
We get confused because Artifical Selection is a cause, which causes differential reproduction. “Natural Selection” doesn’t cause to differential reproduction; it is the differential reproduction. It doesn’t cause anything further.
...
Anyway, since NS is not a cause of anything, it cannot take a random process and make it non-random. It cannot do anything, since it is an effect only.

The only difference between artificial and natural selection is the selector.  But somehow artificial selection is a cause, while natural selection is only an effect.  Artificial selection, being a cause, can turn a random algorithm into a non-random algorithm, but natural selection can't do anything.

I'm sold.  Where do I sign up for the next ID rally?

Date: 2007/04/05 18:30:12, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (blipey @ April 05 2007,17:36)
So, anyone with burning questions, let me know here and I'll see what I can do to help you out.

Ask all three of them why they bail out of every open discussion and run back to their own blogs.  Offer them teddy bears as substitutes for their banning buttons.

Date: 2007/04/10 19:21:51, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Salvador:
Quote
To be fair, the stupidity of the Dover creationists was not part of the Wedge strategy. No self-respecting Wedgie would bungle public relations and legal strategy that badly. The Discovery Institute advised against Dover, and Dembski sued the Dover legal team for mega bucks. The boneheads in Dover were self-appointed ambassadors of ID, not the real thing. They were not true defenders of the Wedge.

Does "self-respecting Wedgie" sound oxymoronic to anyone besides me?

Date: 2007/04/10 20:27:35, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (stevestory @ April 10 2007,19:46)
 
Quote (2ndclass @ April 10 2007,20:21)
Salvador:    
Quote
To be fair, the stupidity of the Dover creationists was not part of the Wedge strategy. No self-respecting Wedgie would bungle public relations and legal strategy that badly. The Discovery Institute advised against Dover, and Dembski sued the Dover legal team for mega bucks. The boneheads in Dover were self-appointed ambassadors of ID, not the real thing. They were not true defenders of the Wedge.

Does "self-respecting Wedgie" sound oxymoronic to anyone besides me?

Dembski made megabucks off ID? Interesting point, Salvador.

Dembski was, in fact, one of the few who came out ahead financially.

- Pepper Hamilton waived over $1 million in legal fees
- The plaintiffs got $1 each
- The expert witnesses for the plaintiffs got nothing
- Thomas More got bupkis, other than the pleasure of being threatened by Dembski
- The Dover school board got stuck with a bill for $1 million

Date: 2007/04/10 20:48:14, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (N.Wells @ April 10 2007,19:56)
Sheesh, is anyone else having trouble keeping up with all the action over at Overwhelmed Dunces?

Hilariously, Helena posted this in response to the tightened censorship moderation:  
Quote
This site used to be buzzing with nasty troll-posts, and now we have a calm place where we can discuss the serious and important issue of Intelligent Design.

Thanks for shutting down those ID deniers - we can have a perfectly good debate without all those closed-minded trolls

A few hours later, Helena posted some musings on whether halos are manifestations of Designer easter eggs, and challenged materialists "to claim that there is no value in being able to tap into this energy supply".  (No, I'm not making this up.)

Since then, nothing, other than the sound of Helena smacking her forehead as she realizes that you actually can't have a "perfectly good debate" without opponents.

(Assuming that Helena isn't one of us, which she very well could be.)

Date: 2007/04/12 11:58:55, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Dembski:  
Quote
Darwinian evolution, which is blind, is the inspiration for evolutionary computing, which employs well-crafted fitness landscapes to achieve ends and therefore is not blind — and therefore is properly a branch of ID and non-Darwinian.

"Well-crafted"?  When an evolutionary algorithm is used to solve a problem, the fitness landscape is inherent in the problem.  "Crafting" a fitness function would make no sense.

Date: 2007/04/12 21:57:04, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (Ftk @ April 12 2007,17:30)
Hmmm...sounds exactly like what I see you people doing to them.

Evolutionary biologists invite ID theorists to their events in order to legitimize those events?  Those sneaky dogs!

 
Quote
Ya think it will make ID less legitimate if you line up all of your guys and have them demand that scientists who objectively consider ID are cranks?

Good point.  There is no way to make ID less legitimate.

 
Quote
It tells us that you’re eager to discuss and attempt to refute ID claims everywhere except when you are asked to actually engage in discussion with ID advocates in regard to the  accusations you’ve made against design.

If only we had the courage of Dembski, who said, "I’ll take any of you on at any time in any venue."

By the way, do you know the best way to get a hold of him?  He owes an awful lot of responses to a lot a people, including Dr. Elsberry.

Date: 2007/04/13 12:40:17, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Sewell:  
Quote
But the important thing to notice here is that virtually all of the good arguments against design come from outside science, they are all basically philosophical, or even religious, objections. If it were not for these problems, I don’t believe anyone could possibly look at mathematics, or physics, or chemistry, or especially at biology, without seeing design.

How does Sewell look at mathematics and see design?  Did he find a secret message embedded in pi?

Date: 2007/04/13 15:20:25, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (Chris Hyland @ April 13 2007,14:25)
Granville Sewell asks Is ID really rooted in science? Of course he doesn't actually provide any evidence for it, and most of the post is the claim that 'There are, in fact, some fairly persuasive reasons to believe that the development of life was due to natural causes, but when we honestly analyze them, they all reduce to the argument “this doesn’t look like the way a designer would have done things.”' although he doesn't provide any evidence for that either.

Edit: If someone starts to read that post undecided on the answer to that question I really hope they don't see the second reply

It's sad to see professors descend to the level of UD.  Next stop: JADville.

Date: 2007/04/19 11:29:02, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 19 2007,10:32)
I don't think there's much doubt that Joe is the most stupidest of the stupid.

I'm afraid I'll have to agree.  A few random goodies from a recent "conversation" with him:

Joe:
Quote
A computer's future state does not depend on its current state.
Quote
There isn't any way to objectively test the premise that chimps and humans shared a common ancestor and I know there isn't anything in any journals about it.
Quote
If I were involved [with the Dover trial] the outcome would have been different.
Quote
Philosophers of science set up the rules by which science plays.
Quote
Me: The fact remains that Dembski invented the term "Explanatory Filter", and he alone defined it to refer to a series of steps.
Joe: I doubt you are correct.
Quote
Me: The first step [of the EF] is to ask whether the event has high probability under a chance hypothesis.
Joe: That is false.
Quote
Me: CSI is measured in bits.
Joe: Wrong.

And for some double howlers, watch Joe demonstrate that he doesn't know what "strawman" means, and simultaneously deny that computers operate via fixed law and chance:
Quote
It is also a strawman to say that computers operate via fixed law and chance.
Quote
And in the end to say that computers run via fixed law and chance is a strawman.

Date: 2007/04/19 11:54:33, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 19 2007,11:47)
Fine stuff! Does Joe the Refrigerator Repairman produce enough quality laugh-laugh to merit his own thread here, or is most of his shtick just boring?

I'm sure he has a lot more where that came from.  But to coax the hilarity out of him, you have to try to engage him in conversation.  That's something I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.

Date: 2007/04/23 16:18:16, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (franky172 @ April 23 2007,10:29)
http://www.uncommondescent.com/philoso....mission

Dr. Dembski is upset with the ASA's choice to concern itself with young earth creationism.  He opines:

 
Quote
If the problem with young-earth creationism is that it is off by a few orders of magnitude about the age of the earth and universe,


But Dr. Dembski has already missed the point.  The problem with young earth creationism is not that it is off in it's estimation of the age of the earth.  The problem with YEC is that it propogates apologetics in the name of science, and that it makes conclusions not based on the scientific evidence available to it, but based on what it's proponents consider proper biblical readings.  Succinctly, the problem with YEC is not that it is wrong, the problem is that YEC is not even wrong precisely because it lacks an underpinning of methodological naturalism.

 
Quote
the problem with scientific materialism is that is off by infinite orders of magnitude about what is ultimately the nature of nature.


Methodological naturalism is a tool that forms the underpinnings of scientific inquiry - it is not a philosophical position on the nature of the universe.  I do not know why Dr. Dembski finds this so difficult to understand.

Yeah, Dembski mistakes methodology for philosophy, and compares it to empirically falsified non-facts.  He's basically saying, "The YECs may have their empirical facts wrong, but scientists have their metaphysics wrong!"

But of course, philosophy is all that Dembski knows.  When all you have is a hammer, it's hard to understand the idea behind screws.

Date: 2007/04/26 10:34:23, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Dave:
Quote
ID simply doesn’t speak to the age of the earth. If you don’t understand that and continue to argue in this vein you’ll be invited to leave.

THE AGE OF THE EARTH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ID, SO DON'T TALK ABOUT IT!  Now, back to our discussion on the global warming conspiracy...

Date: 2007/05/08 15:34:23, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (Ichthyic @ May 08 2007,15:19)
Dave's not religious, just bored.

Dave, JAD, and LifeEngineer (from ARN) have convinced me to never retire.  Not that I would necessarily fall into the same abyss as them, but you never know.

Date: 2007/05/10 16:36:35, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ May 10 2007,15:13)
Gawd, what a pompous blowhard:
Vladimir Krondan writes on the giraffe thread (Yes, they're actually on about the giraffe... anybody following this?)
 
Quote
Ah, yes, the second law. The show-stopper. Or rather, the show-beginner. You can be talking shop about diffusion-advection, Onsager reciprocity, driving terms, conjugate-gradient solvers, and all that. A Darwinian, understanding nothing of what you are saying, will wait until you are misfortunate enough to mention the second law, or until he sees the letter “S” in an equation. And that’s his cue - the show begins with “you don’t understand the second law…” and builds into the usual tedious lecture assembled from web cut-and-pastes. In the process of this tedious lecture, the Darwinian will present the usual confusions between open, closed, and isolated systems, and probably throw in mindless nonsense like “the second law doesn’t apply to open systems!!”. But do so he must, for it seems he has no free will about it.

Krondan jumps on a passing mention of the 2nd Law to complain about Darwinians who jump on mentions of the 2nd Law.

Yes, Krondan, we're hopelessly inept when we say that the 2nd Law doesn't make exceptions for things like evolution and typing sentences.  Silly us, standing up for the Laws of Thermo.

Date: 2007/05/15 12:17:17, Link
Author: 2ndclass
Dembski, on John Derbyshire:
Quote
But in fact, his knowledge of ID is shallow...
What really drove home for me what an intellectual lightweight he is in matters of ID...

Guess what, Dembski?  Everyone's knowledge of ID is shallow and everyone is an intellectual lightweight in matters of ID, because ID itself is shallow and intellectually lightweight.  If there were some substance to it, we would find it being taught in universities and actually being used.  You're like the self-important comic book man who turns his nose up at those who disparage Spider Man without having studied enough to know Peter Parker's middle name.

 

 

 

=====