AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: AmandaHuginKiss

form_srcid: AmandaHuginKiss

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.211.27.61

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: AmandaHuginKiss

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 'AmandaHuginKiss%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2008/12/20 22:03:07, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Hi first post. First post as well at UD. Awaiting moderation:

"

mandy

12/20/2008

10:47 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Hi, longtime lurker for my first post. One thing confuses me about dualism. I am no theologian but I learnt at School (Our Lady of the Sacred Heart) that according to the Bible that the personality does belong with the brain. I learnt that ghosts and spirits are just pagan notions that got picked up along the way (kind of like Christmas Trees and Easter eggs). If you read the Bible and according to tradition Jesus went bodily up to heaven, so did Mary. The Rapture etc all involves real physical bodies not souls.
If I’m wrong can somebody point me to the part of the Bible that has the personality being able to exist separately to the body?
"

Date: 2008/12/20 22:37:23, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 20 2008,22:24)
You'll be awaiting moderation at UD, but your comment will easily go through here. That's how we roll.

Sorry I couldn't resist the handle as it does contain my first name. I didn't want to use it at UD as I thought that they will eventually get the Simpson's references.

So no mother jokes as I am one (Although, is that your real photo Louis? Nice hmmm.)

Date: 2008/12/20 23:07:06, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 20 2008,23:02)
Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ Dec. 20 2008,20:37)
Although, is that your real photo Louis? Nice hmmm.

No, it was ascertained a while ago that this is the real Louis:


Here is my picture if you want to meet up

Date: 2009/01/29 19:33:24, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 30 2009,09:18)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Jan. 29 2009,12:22)
By the way, our new member has disappeared.  Did you kidnap AmandaHuginKiss, Louis?

None of us can find AmandaHuginKiss. Maybe our standards are too high.

Still here with popcorn, just not usually logged in. I'm not as witty as you people so I don't comment.

I did have a break. For a while, I started reading UD directly and found that I was seriously getting angry and depressed. I know you guys joke about taking on unfiltered Tard but it surprised me that I could not just laugh off those numbskulls. I think that reading the highlights here is the best.

A.

Date: 2009/02/01 18:30:51, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
I bet Ben at the moment would run 100 miles if he saw Kevin. Note that Expelled wasn't included in the potted biography at UVM. he has destroyed himself with the intelligent crowd plus the creos aren't exactly falling over themselves to call Stein a visionary.

I haven't seen Stein mention Expelled anywhere recently (Google "Stein Expelled" and you will find all of the church basement showings and a speech at Harding University in Arkansas). I think that he knows that he still has a gig with the economic stuff, but being a martyr due to a fourth rate movie is not fun or profitable.

Date: 2009/02/02 15:23:34, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Wow fame and fortune for our Little Ftk. Who would think that igonorance with a touch of hate would send her so far.

Date: 2009/02/03 03:39:44, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (Ptaylor @ Feb. 03 2009,20:35)
Wow - bitter?

Nobody can do bitter like the Dr Dr.

Date: 2009/02/03 18:13:33, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
... and by extension the scientific method is not limited to science, practitioners of any academic study base their positions on evidence at some stage and this was the point of not letting Stein talk, he stood against the very reason that there are University (against just making shit up).

Date: 2009/02/23 14:59:58, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (bfish @ Feb. 24 2009,06:41)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 22 2009,20:01)
The real me.


Really? That's you? Somehow I had pictured a more cartoonish-looking fellow, with a blue cap. And wearing glasses.

The internet is a confusing place.

and who is that on your back?

(I had to do this so Louis wont have to bother)

Date: 2009/02/23 15:24:14, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (JLT @ Feb. 24 2009,08:07)
StephenB takes the strawmen argument to a new level:
 
Quote
Darwinists keep telling me that atheists can be just as moral as anyone else, and they bristle when anyone dares to question the point. Even so, I have to wonder. What must it be like to have a relationship with people who live by their feelings and make up their own morality as they go along? If they don’t believe in any such thing as truth, how can they be honest? If they disavow any notion of justice, how can they be fair? If they renounce natural law and natural rights, how can they be responsible citizens? Are they capable of delaying gratification for the sake of a higher good? More to the point, do they even recognize a higher good, or anything such as “good” period? By their own admission, they do not. How then, do they claim to be good and moral people while denying goodness and morality? I am still waiting for someone to solve that riddle.


Also, the end is near:
 
Quote
One thing I do know is that their ["semi-educated partisans", "misguided materialists", "misguided souls"] numbers seem to be growing and they are destroying the culture with their studiously contrived nihilism. Unfortunately, they will not pay the penalty alone; they will be taking the rest of us down with them.

That's correct atheists find no problems just saying anything and outright lying about what they wrote just a couple of hours ago. ... oh wait ...

Date: 2009/02/23 15:50:23, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 24 2009,08:25)
Amanda, please confirm you're not me, for the sake of Carlson's conspiracy fantasies.

Ok

I AM NOT RIKARD TEE HUGS. WRITE THAT DOWN HOMO

Date: 2009/02/23 18:14:28, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
The problem with Davey is that he has the most common sense on that board but his ego gets in the way. I understood that he means that no measurement has to match another one exactly.
If I had said that and somebody made a joke I would just say "Sorry I have had a blonde moment" and explained what I meant.

These guys however, just have to be right all the time. StephenB (short for Sanctimonious Prick) is the same. If he merely said that sorry he was wrong it wouldn't have made this thread. Instead Mr-Atheist's-have-no-morals has to outright lie.

Date: 2009/02/23 19:32:32, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Save me I'm posting over there

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-305673

Do my arguments make sense to you guys? It's hard when you go through the looking glass

Date: 2009/02/23 20:51:46, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
I've posted again. StephenB has done his "Moral Universal Law" thing, which is his version of "have you stopped beating your wife". I've seen him do the same thing with things like "Truth". He pretends an abstract term is a concrete term (which it is for Stephen) and then you must answer questions about it. I was waiting for this response.

I'm going to keep hitting him with show me that "there is an absolute moral law" first, then I'll answer the questions.

The thing is that I do think that there is a set of "absolute morals". But they are more common sense and most of them have only come about in the last 30 years. I'm sure that StephenB's  grandchildren in 30 years will be saying that it was the Christians that gave gays equal rights. It was the Darwinists who thought they were inferior because they don't reproduce.



They revolve around the idea of the "greatest good for the  greatest number"

Date: 2009/02/23 20:52:21, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
I'm on moderation

Date: 2009/02/23 20:55:22, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
The post that awaits moderation:

"Where am I wrong?

First step show that there is a “Natural Moral Law” and show it is universal. In my travels, I’ve seen that there is a wide variation in moral positions. [A] and [B] depend on this definition.Don’t get me wrong, I am being sympathetic here and trying to help, but I live in a small and very diverse community. Many of the people here are the people you are trying to convince and to ignore what somebody has said about the variability of morals and simple say that they are wrong and declaring there is a “universal moral code” wont wash with the masses."

Date: 2009/02/23 23:41:39, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
I think that I am permanently on moderation as well. I just have had a little whinge:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Why am I on moderation for comment 45? It is innocent enough. Stephen was saying earlier that he had killer arguments against atheists and all I am asking for him is to show the evidence rather than asserting points of view.
I’m just a 47 year old woman who got my theology from the Sisters. How is the argument going to go against an educated atheist.

Date: 2009/02/24 14:52:16, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
They put my comments through, yah! Somebody commented that Christians were never racists because St Augustine might have been a negro, Bwahahaha.

Still on moderation. I can see a Banning coming up.

Date: 2009/02/24 14:53:40, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (sparc @ Feb. 25 2009,03:35)
Quote
I think that I am permanently on moderation as well.

Isn't that the normal state at UD?

I must have pleased them for a little while because my messages were going straight through.

Date: 2009/02/24 15:09:00, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 25 2009,06:27)
Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ Feb. 23 2009,20:52)
I'm on moderation

Well, as long as you have some time on your hands now, why don't you tell us a little about yourself, Amanda.

I'm flattered that you think I am RTH. Not to point him out in any particular fashion, but you guys have me in stitches.

I'm 47. two children. I live in a small town in New South Wales, Australia (saw an Echidna walking across the road, yesterday). For work, I go into peoples homes and fix their computers. It is nice here, it is considered very impolite to talk about religion, so you really don't know what are everybodies' beliefs. The more evangelical will tell you what church they go to, but that is okay because they don't force it on you and never ask me for my opinion.

I can get an inkling, because I see what is in peoples studies and the prominence of religious literature. I probably have seen Bibles in around half of the studies and only one book by Dawkins. Funnily, the only house, I have seen a Literalist book is a customer who has dunned me out of paying a bill since August.
Because we are boringly moral, I think most of the people we know think that we are religious but must go to another church.

Date: 2009/02/24 15:23:54, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

I've kind of noticed that.  I like to think that we women tend to live in the real world and Ftk is an outlier. Behind every pope writing books about morality is his wench, organising the poisoning of his enemies.

What is interesting is the number of ladies here and the fact that I didn't pick it up until they outed themselves.
This destroyed a lot of theories I had that you could tell the difference between men and women online.

Date: 2009/02/24 15:38:57, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 25 2009,08:34)
you should meet Arden.

snicker

I still can't tell.

Well Arden didn't fool me for a second, although her mother did.

Date: 2009/02/24 17:21:28, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

Quote (csadams @ Feb. 25 2009,09:22)
Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ Feb. 24 2009,15:23)
I've kind of noticed that.  I like to think that we women tend to live in the real world and Ftk is an outlier. Behind every pope writing books about morality is his wench, organising the poisoning of his enemies.

Love that last line!  I promise to steal it and apply ASAP.

I'm wondering if the male/female split is due to more technophobia among females in our* particular age group.  If AmandaHuginKiss is earning $ (or whatever currency is used Down There) fixing computers she's certainly more tech-savvy than most women I know of that age.

(*By "our" of course I mean mine and AmandaHuginKiss.  It's well known that men of that chronological age are really still just 19-year-olds in disappointing** disguises.)

(**LouFCD is of course exempt 'cause he's hawt.  Or would that be Louis?)



- (another mom, of four)

Could be that we are the outliers, but, I don't live surrounded by nerds. Actually most of my friends are more the arty type.

The whole differences thing is very interesting and I have a theory about it. Prior to having kids, I thought that kids are born the same and cultural imprinting made the sexual stereotypes. Well my son and daughter are both stereotypes.

I have noticed one difference that is never mentioned. When I worked for a large corporate, almost all of the professions had men outnumbering the women, except for the accountants and economists.

In my business, I see in a lot of family businesses, the wife does the books. I have an 80 year old customer and he agreed that a tradesman that does not have a wife to do the paperwork will go broke.

It makes sense. Think of those BBC period dramas, with the wife of the manor doing needlepoint. I bet in real life that she was in a little poky office spending all of her time managing the household. Running 20 staff and a kitchen without a computer would have to be a full time job or else the cook would rob you blind.

Back in the cave days (just to annoy Denyse with some evolutionary stuff), while the men went off and had fun trying to kill the mastadon, who stayed at home and worked out if there were enough fruit, seeds and beetles to eat when they came home empty handed (again).

Oh and Louis is the Hawt one. Lou just gives me strange feelings when he wears that red dress

Date: 2009/02/24 18:22:27, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

Khan,

I've moved this to the BW

Date: 2009/02/24 19:42:36, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote


I'm female, 58, spent ~20 years programming computers.

I am definitely not a stereotype: didn't like dolls, never wanted children, BS in math.

My mother did keep the books for the family business.

Women can also hunt.

I love Lou's red dress.


I'd love to hunt, but hubbie and I are city kids brought up on Disney movies and so could never pull the trigger on Bambi or Thumper, but the skill involved in stalking prey and getting the aim right is very attractive.

Of course the sterotypes are just the mean point of a pretty wide overlapping distribution and no value judgments apply to anybody anywhere on the distribution. We leave that to those at UD. It just means I don't have to beat myself up about who the kids are.
While the right may be horrified if the kids are gay, the left might be think a girl who likes to shop and look pretty is a lacky of the male patriarchy.

We just need to encourage the good parts (Both are open minded and not judgemental) and discourage the bad parts (daughter too submissive and son needs to have a little empathy)

Date: 2009/02/24 19:44:27, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 25 2009,12:24)
I think I was complimented, insulted, and some strange mixture thereof in the space of a handful of comments there.

So thank you, <gives finger>, and uh.. HI!, respectively.*

Lou

*I feel like there should be a disclaimer here about humor, but imagine y'all are bright enough to figure it out, right?**


**right?***


***futnotz iz kuntajuz

I didn't say I found it disturbing in a bad way ...

Date: 2009/02/24 20:12:25, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 25 2009,12:30)
Off-topic question here.

I'm a math tutor. 50% of my work is Algebra 1, 40% Algebra 2, 10% Trig, Geometry, ACT, etc.

Background facts:

1 Living in Raleigh during the economic boom times I charged $35/hr
2 Living in this depressed North Florida area during a recession, I now tell some people $20/hr and never hear back from them.
4 My girlfriend's ex is a guitar tutor and he has no prob charging $35 for a half hour.
5 I'm not Joe Schmoe high school student doing this for spending money, I've got a Bachelor's in physics and have logged prob 2-3000 hours tutoring.

All those in mind, what do people here think I should charge? What's an appropriate wage?

It's all marketing. This a problem in any business and all part of the demand/supply curve. Charge low -- you get a lot of customers, you may even have to turn away some. You work hard and wonder why you never get ahead.

Charge high -- you get 1 acceptance for every 10 calls. In all the additional spare time you market yourself like crazy (If you charge low you have no time to market yourself as you are too busy making peanuts). This ramps up the phone calls so you get the same percentage of rejections but because of the extra calls you still get the customers.

A friend of mine ask the accountant what she should charge and the accountant said that you should charge just over what you are comfortable charging and put it up once you get comfortable.

As it looks as though you want to charge $35 an hour, I'd charge $38 an hour. But I would handout leaflets at all the local schools and get a website and optimize it like crazy. I'd tell all of your existing customers that you have to put your prices up, but you will maintain their current rate if they can refer two other students to you.

I've gone from $80 an hour to $100 an hour over six months and still keep on getting busier.

Date: 2009/02/24 20:18:24, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 25 2009,12:52)
Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ Feb. 24 2009,20:44)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 25 2009,12:24)
I think I was complimented, insulted, and some strange mixture thereof in the space of a handful of comments there.

So thank you, <gives finger>, and uh.. HI!, respectively.*

Lou

*I feel like there should be a disclaimer here about humor, but imagine y'all are bright enough to figure it out, right?**


**right?***


***futnotz iz kuntajuz

I didn't say I found it disturbing in a bad way ...

Actually, you didn't say you found it "disturbing" at all, until just then.

You said, "strange".

... I deny that I ever said strange  ...


... I noticed that comment too and I wonder who said it ...

.. why don't you believe that it wasn't me ...

... Well just so we can move on I notapologise ...

Date: 2009/02/24 20:20:45, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 25 2009,13:17)
Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ Feb. 24 2009,20:12)
I've gone from $80 an hour to $100 an hour over six months and still keep on getting busier.

Guess what Amanda?  You will not by mocked via LOLCat for the first time.


he he he. You haven't seen me, I'd get more fixing computers, but I'll take it as a compliment

Date: 2009/02/24 20:30:35, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 25 2009,13:18)
Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ Feb. 24 2009,21:12)
I've gone from $80 an hour to $100 an hour over six months and still keep on getting busier.

Doing what, if I might ask?

fixing computers and a little programming on the side. Those rates are pretty standard even in the states. Ring up you local Computer Troubleshooters or Geeks. Because most of you guys are handy enough around computers to do your own stuff you don't really see this world.  

However, it might sound good but $100 a day gets sucked away in the cost of running a business and if you manage to charge 20 hours a week, you are really working 70 hours in traveling, invoicing and researching.

Date: 2009/02/24 20:41:36, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 25 2009,13:30)
Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ Feb. 24 2009,21:12)
As it looks as though you want to charge $35 an hour, I'd charge $38 an hour.

Of course I'll charge whatever maximizes the income function. I'm just curious what the sci-oriented people here think is a fair price.

Scientists are the last people you would ask  :)
Seriously, when I started business I thought you just needed to be good. I now know that being adequate and a good marketer beats being good hands down.

Steve Wozniak was far smarter than Steve Jobs. Steve Jobs was good at marketing and had an inflated opinion of himself

Which one is the billionaire.

You might agonize over $35 dollars an hour then somebody will come into town open up a shiny office, spend a gazillion on marketing and charge $50 per hour.

What you should aim for is the following phone call between parents:

"I use Steve, he is more expensive but he is very good", you then become a status symbol. They will then say I could have gotten any tutor but I use Steve because I really care about my children.

Date: 2009/02/24 22:46:42, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 25 2009,13:33)
Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ Feb. 24 2009,21:30)
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 25 2009,13:18)
 
Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ Feb. 24 2009,21:12)
I've gone from $80 an hour to $100 an hour over six months and still keep on getting busier.

Doing what, if I might ask?

fixing computers and a little programming on the side. Those rates are pretty standard even in the states. Ring up you local Computer Troubleshooters or Geeks. Because most of you guys are handy enough around computers to do your own stuff you don't really see this world.  

However, it might sound good but $100 a day gets sucked away in the cost of running a business and if you manage to charge 20 hours a week, you are really working 70 hours in traveling, invoicing and researching.

yeah, a friend down the street does web stuff and gets $60 an hour. But like you mention, you might have a job that takes 10 hrs, and you can only bill for $30, or a client doesn't want to pay, etc.

He can charge less because his average job is long than my average job. Other than that, web design sucks. I did   a couple of sites but lost money on them. Small business likes a fixed cost but you end up having endless meetings waiting for them to come up with photos and content. Now I just double my cost.

Date: 2009/02/25 01:14:22, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (sparc @ Feb. 25 2009,16:37)
Is there some hidden code CSI in Dembski's tie?

ETA: replaced cody by CSI

Make a good caption contest.

"I'm ready to overthrow the whole science of Biology, but could somebody tell what this staircase thing behind me is?"

Date: 2009/02/25 16:17:37, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Do I get an "I am with the (Silent) Banned" t-shirt? I haven't checked back* but from last night (Aussie time) I had three message still on moderation and the last was pretty snarky.

Paraphrasing, my messages was after StephenB had declared victory over the atheists

Stephen,

How can you declare victory when you have messages awaiting moderation. You point to a Divine set of moral laws but have failed to demonstrate that they exist in the real world. I have discussed how morals change across Christians today and have changed through time and all you have done is said that I am wrong without saying where i am wrong.

* More for my own sanity. It is better to let the professionals to dip into the TARD.

Date: 2009/02/26 03:51:09, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 26 2009,19:03)
Quote (ERV @ Feb. 25 2009,17:49)
Creationists: SHES A BITCH!

Carlson: "Yeah, but shes our bitch.  *cocks gun* So cut her the hell down."

That's the truth, babe.

I once got between a grading contractor and one of my archaeology crew. I told the contractor, "YOU do not ever come down on MY crew. I, and only I, come down on MY crew. YOU have a PROBLEM? Then your problem is with ME! AND MOTHER FUCKER, YOU DO NOT WANT A PROBLEM WITH ME."

I was much younger then.

My husband once did something similar. I was so proud I had tears in my eyes and could barely see to pick his teeth up from the ground.

Date: 2009/02/26 16:36:09, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 27 2009,08:20)
Quote
When Michael Behe was asked what type of research would help prove his thesis as outlined in the Edge of Evolution, he pointed to the research of Lenski at Michigan State on bacteria evolution. As I said before Lenski would cringe if he knew he was doing ID research but ID research he is doing. Each generation of data for every culture line either supports or falsifies Behe’s thesis.


So there you have it. Groundbreaking ID research. Stealthed.

Didn't Behe basically say that since his book said that what Lenski saw was impossible, therefore God did it.

Date: 2009/02/26 17:34:44, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Can't junk DNA also prove ID (being anti Junk DNA is more a creationist position about a perfect creation and these guys aren't creationists, no siree,  no way boy.

In the frontloading version the original proto-bacteria would have had the genes to create dinosaurs and horses and humans and so on. (Please no criticism from people who actually know Biology)

At each major branch point, what happens to the unneeded DNA? There is always the chance that a mutation would cause it to trigger again or trigger the wrong way. The designer could have then coded a process to invalidate the DNA by snipping out the unneeded code. This may have been impractical for some reason so he may have just changed the code to be pure junk. Just like we cover a HDD with Fs to ensure that old deleted files cannot be restored.
They could then say that junk DNA may be low cost in the evolutionary scenario but no zero cost and there would have been to remove unneeded sections. So Junk DNA proves ID just like no Junk DNA proves ID

I IZ ID SKIENTIST

Date: 2009/03/01 14:47:02, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 02 2009,05:33)
gpuccio thinks that code duplication is a sign of design:
Quote
I would like to comment that the duplication of a piece of software program, to the purpose that the programmer may work on it and transform it according to his plans, is a very common step in computer programming (and in many other forms of design), and allows the designer to reuse the parts which can be kept in the new item. So, I have always considered gene duplication as a very likely signature of design.

He has probably never written programming code.  According to Wikipedia, "code duplication is generally considered a mark of poor or lazy programming style."

It actually works against ID. In a program you would not duplicate a piece of code, you just modify the original code so it can be used by different parts of the system.

However, you might pinch a piece of code from an unrelated project to stop reinventing the wheel.

So ID would predict many exceptions to common descent ...

Date: 2009/03/01 14:59:28, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
That stuff about the Irish makes my blood boil. It reminds me of my discussion about their "universal moral law". I was told that Christians aren't racist because Augustine may have been black.

I posted some links on the Baptist position on negro slavery prior to the civil war, but the last time I looked the post hadn't appear.

It never occurs to them to think that where were all the Christians during this period?

I try to repeat the mantra "These people are LOSERS, These people are LOSERS" and just laugh at them.

Date: 2009/03/02 04:17:57, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (Doc Bill @ Mar. 02 2009,12:44)
Lou, your inconvenient FACTS are getting in the way of my opinion-driven venom for Behe.

OK, I'm over it.

So, really, when pinned by someone who knows Jones' ruling, Behe is screwed.  He relies on the ignorance of others, yet bases his entire thesis on that ignorance.

Personally, I couldn't do it.  No matter my convictions.  I'd cave.

I can only imagine that Behe just doesn't care.  And, why should he?  He's not going to get fired or suffer one whit from his scientific slander.  

Too bad.

I'm not surprised the Behe and co keep reliving Dover. This was the day that ID died. I remember that before Dover, there was a lot of buzz about ID and Behe. It was an intriguing Idea. Imagine somebody proving that evolution could not have brought about diversity of life. I thought it was interesting idea until I looked closer. Almost every mention of ID was at least neutral.

Now the only invites he gets are from organisations that have the words "Church" in them and the only media that is sympathetic is wingnut (even LGF is anti-ID).

Date: 2009/03/02 15:22:24, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 03 2009,05:46)
So GAs are efficient at navigating gradients, but no better than brute force at climbing towers.

So it must piss off folks like Behe when the obvious towers are associated with things like malaria and dysentery. The skyhooks are mostly shithooks.

I used to use a GAs in my coding. I think that the descriptions here are missing one point. There are other search algorithms that will climb the hills more efficiently but they tend to get stuck on a local maxima. We tended to use variants of Newton's method.
When I read about GAs in Scientific American, I went Ahhh. GAs combines testing more of the total landscape as well as cimbing any maximas.

I may have been using GAs in a totally inappropriate way because I didn't go beyond the SA article, but it did make me a hero a few times with a C program getting an optimal answer in 30 minutes, compared to the Math graduate who's MatLab model took 3 days to calculate an answer on a model that left out most of the complexity (and the answer was wrong anway)

Date: 2009/03/02 16:14:12, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (CeilingCat @ Mar. 03 2009,08:30)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 02 2009,11:47)
   
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 02 2009,11:25)
   
Quote
My research area is in evolutionary robotics, I've seen some of the NASA stuff, very interesting but its hard to convince traditional engineers to trust things that were 'evolved' rather than designed because evolving a solution can produce results where it is hard to understand exactly how they work - evolutionary electronics is a good example!


Aside from whether evolved electronics work, what is it aboutthe algorithms that make them more effective than Dembski's brute force search?

I'm bordering on innumerate and wish someone would translate Dembski's argument vs commercial implementation of EAs into simple.

Brute force goes down "every alley" hoping for a perfect solution.

GAs tend to continue down good alleys and give up on bad ones. This is called "hill climbing", and the top of the hill represents the best (localized) solution. There can be many hills and the closest may not be the tallest.

GAs (and evolution) also make small changes so you sample only areas close to known working code.  For instance, if a portion of your DNA that affects only a heart valve mutates, the DNA for making your kidneys, lungs, brain, intestines and every thing else in your body remains unchanged, a copy of known good DNA.  That makes a successful outcome almost infinitely more likely than picking every single DNA base-pair randomly, which is what Dembski is always calculating.

There's another name for giving up on bad alleys, but I can't remember it right now.  (Bad cold, can't think.)  Here's an example: if you're using GA to write a chess program and you test a move that gets you checkmated on the next move, you don't test the next move after that.

For a single individual moving far from the current value is bad but for the population it is good to experiment as individuals may die but they also might stumble upon a new fruitful area to explore.

This might be just the way I did GAs. I always started with a random population of say 100 individuals. I would score all the individuals. The bottom 10 (say) would be killed off and I would mate individuals with each other to replace the 10 removed. I would then do some random mutations to random individuals and cycle again.
If I felt that the GA was getting stuck in a rut, I may introduce super mutations of a single individual. Remember that an individual just has to be better than the bottom 10 individuals to survive

Date: 2009/03/02 16:33:30, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
I forgot to add ...
When you examine the population, you find that the top individuals tend to be closely related and are moving slowly up the local hill and the bottom individuals are doing a search over a large area for a new hill.

One problem with the discussion so far is that we are discussing fitness landscapes with two variables (genes) and the sex part would not make sense.

In real world problems you might find that you have many variables (genes) to optimize. Say you have 10 genes. The current top individuals may only be optimizing the first 5 genes  but the last 5 genes are stuck in a flat area and are just randomly moving around. A lower ranked individual however, may be in an area where the last 5 genes are in an area with some kind of slope but the first 5 genes are in a flat area. Combining genes could then create an individual where no genes are in a flat area.

Date: 2009/03/02 17:04:05, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (GCUGreyArea @ Mar. 03 2009,09:42)
All true, it is a kind of parallel hill climbing but I was deliberately skipping all the interesting details and concentrating on getting across the general idea of searches and in particular the terminology and analogy associated with them.  I tried explaining GA's to my wife once and she had lots of trouble because, as she admits, she always takes analogies far to literally for them to work on her.

You might be interested in a dead simple implementation of a GA, called the microbial GA and loosely inspired by horizontal gene transfer.  It goes like this...
1 Seed your random population.
2 Pick two individuals at random.
3 Run the fitness evaluation for both of them
4 Pick genes at random from the least fit and overwrite them with ones from the fitter one.
5 Apply your mutation system to the least fit.
6 goto 2 unless a halting condition is met.

Voila, no explicit generations and dead simple, it can be coded in a few lines of c.  It also reproduces the effects of tournament selection without explicitly having to code for it.

That's a pretty cool as well. What also needs to be said that each problem has it's own best settings to balance - covering the search space and converging on an answer in a reasonable amount of time.
This doesn't mean that you couldn't have a GA that ran multiple versions of your GA to find optimal reproduction and mutation rates.

Early life must have been like this. It wasn't just competition for resources but also a tuning of how well you reproduced yourself. You must allow just the right amount of variation.

This just shows how dumb the creos are. They recognise how amazing the cell is on one hand but on the other they think that going from legs to flippers is much harder than learning to digest citrate.

Date: 2009/03/02 17:14:59, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (GCUGreyArea @ Mar. 03 2009,09:56)
Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ Mar. 02 2009,16:33)
I forgot to add ...
When you examine the population, you find that the top individuals tend to be closely related and are moving slowly up the local hill and the bottom individuals are doing a search over a large area for a new hill.

One problem with the discussion so far is that we are discussing fitness landscapes with two variables (genes) and the sex part would not make sense.

In real world problems you might find that you have many variables (genes) to optimize. Say you have 10 genes. The current top individuals may only be optimizing the first 5 genes  but the last 5 genes are stuck in a flat area and are just randomly moving around. A lower ranked individual however, may be in an area where the last 5 genes are in an area with some kind of slope but the first 5 genes are in a flat area. Combining genes could then create an individual where no genes are in a flat area.

There has been some stuff done with spatially distributed GA's where individuals have a location on a grid and they have a decreasing probability of reproducing with individuals that are more distant.  This helps prevent convergence where the population clusters and can, with large populations and complex fitness functions, lead to speciation where one part of the population ends up climbing a different hill than the other.

Another thing to note about biology vs GA's is that the fitness landscape in biology is probably more like an ocean in slow motion - the landscape is constantly changing because if is determined by the environment, which includes other creatures.

you get some people using incremental GA's where you start off with a simple genome and simple fitness criteria and when you evolve a reasonable fitness in the population you increase the size of the genome and make the task more complex - it is quite effective with neural networks because when you increase the size of the network (add more genes) you add neurons with zero valued weights so it doesn't alter the behavior of the network - mutation will slowly introduce the new parts of the network to the working part.

A lot of interesting stuff. As an amateur what strikes me is that all this is highly dependent on the problem to be solved. If the genes are very dependant on each other doing local optimisation via sexual reproduction or as you said introducing new genes may not work very well as the system may not lend itself to optimizing just parts of the genome.
I should have studied more of this stuff rather than just doing it by myself. There are a lot of ideas out there.

Date: 2009/03/02 17:18:44, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (Paul Flocken @ Mar. 03 2009,09:40)
Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ Mar. 02 2009,05:17)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Mar. 02 2009,12:44)
Lou, your inconvenient FACTS are getting in the way of my opinion-driven venom for Behe.

OK, I'm over it.

So, really, when pinned by someone who knows Jones' ruling, Behe is screwed.  He relies on the ignorance of others, yet bases his entire thesis on that ignorance.

Personally, I couldn't do it.  No matter my convictions.  I'd cave.

I can only imagine that Behe just doesn't care.  And, why should he?  He's not going to get fired or suffer one whit from his scientific slander.  

Too bad.

I'm not surprised the Behe and co keep reliving Dover. This was the day that ID died. I remember that before Dover, there was a lot of buzz about ID and Behe. It was an intriguing Idea. Imagine somebody proving that evolution could not have brought about diversity of life. I thought it was interesting idea until I looked closer. Almost every mention of ID was at least neutral.

Now the only invites he gets are from organisations that have the words "Church" in them and the only media that is sympathetic is wingnut (even LGF is anti-ID).

And ART professors, don't forget ART professors.

Was the Art Professor a creobot or a post-modernist? I wonder if he thinks my scribbling is worth the same as a Van Gogh because I call my scribbling art?

Date: 2009/03/02 23:28:21, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (Maya @ Mar. 03 2009,11:34)
Quote (GCUGreyArea @ Mar. 02 2009,16:56)
There has been some stuff done with spatially distributed GA's where individuals have a location on a grid and they have a decreasing probability of reproducing with individuals that are more distant.  This helps prevent convergence where the population clusters and can, with large populations and complex fitness functions, lead to speciation where one part of the population ends up climbing a different hill than the other.

Does this work better than simply running the same GA multiple times?  I can see that it might encourage the exploration of tricky regions of the solution space, but that might also be accomplished by starting from a different spot.

Are there particular problems where this works well?

Darn it, you've let out my inner math geek.

You could have the occasional traveller mating with another group.

I have this mental images of little villages popping up in some hill country.

But basically you are correct, all a GA is trying to do is cover as much territory as possible and examine each area.

When we did Monte Carlo simulations with a low number of trials we used to segment the search space to force an even search. Does anybody do that to GAs?

Date: 2009/03/04 15:01:21, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (dmso74 @ Mar. 05 2009,06:51)
Andrew SIbley aka Al Roker throws his vast qualifications into the ring:

 
Quote
My own background is in meteorology, with a focus on understanding the chaos of weather forecasting


then offers up some sage advice for us Darwinians:

 
Quote
The science of weather forecasting has improved because it takes seriously the levels of uncertainty in nature. A lesson there for Darwinian biologists I would suggest.


I'm not exactly sure what he's saying here. is it that evolutionary biologists have never considered that "nature" is subject to a lot of stochastic variation? perhaps he'd like to replay the tape of evolution with SJ Gould sometime..

Does this article also look at personality disorders? I personally think that Dave Tard is the only one there close to being the full quid (which is a sad indictment in itself). Having had a short foray into posting and reading the tard directly, there is an all pervading denseness in their replies.

Also, how many IDists are there? The people at the DI know that ID was manufactured to get Creationism into the school and there publications now are purely evolution criticisms. Dembski and Behe have ID as their meal tickets so they have got to push it. After 20 years I am sure that these guys know that if ID was anywhere near honest it is about time to ask who, what, when and where.

Ask a creationist if they believe in ID they will say yes, but I am sure they prefer AIG for their source material.

So how many people are left?

MY definition is a person who can say with a straight face that ID does not require knowledge of the designer.

Date: 2009/03/06 21:27:04, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Those atheists from the Vatican and the Templeton Foundation are stopping the  DI from contributing.

I have read this before but it is nice to see the Vatican and the TI panning the DI in public.

Date: 2009/03/07 19:58:17, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
We used to call that text generator Shakespeare as that what was used in the SciAm article we pinched it from (Showing my age again).
We once wrote a summary and a conclusion to a report and then fed this into shakespeare to produce the body of the report. Nobody noticed.

You are probably more up on this than I am but if you feed enough raw material into the program and expand the search string long enough, you would create a great sockpuppet (You could have two stores, one with the entire opus and another with the current thread)

Date: 2009/03/08 05:15:07, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (JLT @ Mar. 08 2009,13:40)
Quote
Is there anyonehere who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.


That must be one of the dumbest things I've read in a very long time. And I read UD regularly.

I disagree, I think anything said by StephenB as being dumber. Mainly because he puts himself up as the master debater, scientist, theologian and everything he says is pretty weak. The few times I have ventured over there, he has thanked people for being a good pupil.

Date: 2009/03/09 16:04:00, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

Quote (olegt @ Mar. 10 2009,00:34)
Ben Stein applies the Poof! theory in economics:  
Quote
Notice that recently Ben Bernanke said the recession might end this year, and the stock market rocketed up that day.

What we need, as Bill Clinton aptly pointed out recently, is more cheerleading and less fear-mongering. We elected Mr. Obama to be National Spirit Leader, not National Scary Storyteller.

If Mr. Obama and Mr. Geithner, his Treasury Secretary, and Mr. Volcker, his well-respected advisor, and some real superstars like Warren Buffett and Jack Welch all came out and said, "The recession will end within 12 months. We are sure of it," the recession WOULD end within 12 months.

I hate to say this but I agree with Stein on this. Economics is pretty much based on confidence. In Australia for example, there are job losses but the majority of people are paying much less for fuel and have much lower mortgage repayments. So they are hundreds of dollars better off a month than they were a few months ago. Except they are actually spending less than they were a few months ago.

On the other side Banks are not lending money that businesses need to keep going.

So once people think that the economy has reached bottom and they wont lose their jobs, they will open their wallets. Once banks think that a business is not going to go broke they will start lending again.

That's not to say that Stein is not an idiot. If Obama started singing "happy days are here again" people would think he was a nut.

Date: 2009/03/09 20:34:45, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
At one stage SA was a great source for computing fun. When they had the articles on Mandlebrot plots, I'm sure that servers in computers across the world slowed down.

Date: 2009/03/09 21:02:12, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (Hermagoras @ Mar. 10 2009,12:20)
I have a new sig line:

Quote
I am not currently proving that objective morality is true.I did that a long time ago and you missed it. -- StephenB
 

O yeah.

This is irritating. I was having the same conversation with the UDiots a couple of weeks ago and got silently banninated (I wonder if this is where he "proved"  objective morality. I've resisted going over there, but it looks like they are getting roasted.

Their argument was

given Universal Morality

a) blah blah?
b) blah blah?
c) blah blah?

and I asked define and prove Universal Morality.

Date: 2009/03/09 21:13:17, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 10 2009,10:57)
Quote (khan @ Mar. 09 2009,15:37)
Special indeed.

Darwin first published in 1859, and ~250 years of slavery in the colonies/USA is his fault?

Presumably bad slavery didn't start until 1859.

In a similar response to Stephen I gave a link to the  official position of the Baptist Church to slavery prior to the civil war. (I'm not going back to dig it up).

But obviously it didn't sink in or they are part of the  bad darwinist christians.

The UDiots like to promote exceptions to the rule like William Wilberforce but the majority of Christians were happy with slavery (or why didn't they protest since the 1600s?)

Date: 2009/03/10 16:22:45, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (JLT @ Mar. 11 2009,08:50)
A new all-time low: All atheists are racists.
 
Quote
D'OL:
The really interesting question for me is, why don’t the atheist materialists I have met just admit and repudiate Darwin’s racism, instead of telling me how much they admire him and what a great hero he was?

They never do. Is that because they secretly believe it and hope for the day when they can admit it openly?

Hmm and have the UDiots repudiated the racism of the Lutherans which enabled Hitler or the Baptists of the 1800 supporting slavery?

Date: 2009/03/11 05:54:08, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Have they broken their banning fingers?

Date: 2009/03/12 05:22:13, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Couldn't resist making a comment:

In Moderation:

"“We should also remember the killing of Australian aboriginals during the early part of the 20th century by Darwinian scientists” - Wow citation please.

Also wasn’t the Baptist churches belief that the Negros were the decendants of Ham (and thus damned) was used as the Biblical justification for slavery.
I think that the definition on this blog about who is a Christian is shrinking rapidly"

Date: 2009/03/13 17:15:37, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
And a Schooner of new for all my hard work as KF over the years

Date: 2009/03/13 17:20:38, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ Mar. 14 2009,10:15)
And a Schooner of new for all my hard work as KF over the years

Damn, I was answering a post way up on the previous page. Where did all the in between comments come from?

Date: 2009/03/13 20:45:14, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
transitional comments just adds many more gaps for the trolls to hide in.

Date: 2009/03/13 21:08:15, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
KeeGee,

Well said. It might be worth pointing out that the Government in it paternalistic way was trying to do what it thought was good (although still horribly culturally racist as they wanted to integrate the children into "normal white" society).
A lot of the places that the Kooris were sent were intentionally cruel and inhumane and Church run. I think Ireland had a similar experiences with places where pregnant singles girls were sent.

Date: 2009/03/14 05:16:52, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 14 2009,19:52)
Quote
101

Arthur Smith

03/13/2009

4:03 pm

What sort of time machine were you thinking of, David? Please answer carefully.


LOL

I wonder if Clive of UD is aware he is just another player in the running joke that is UD.

It took a good thirty seconds for to get it. Is there a sock puppet comment of the week?

Date: 2009/03/15 17:19:36, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (JLT @ Mar. 16 2009,09:58)
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 15 2009,22:16)
I'm going to miss the big lug... now that the entertainment has left the only thing that remains is the stupidity.

So true.

I'm actually a little sad about this. I first started noticing Dave when he was banninated from PT.

Appologies to Auden (I only changed two words):

Stop all the clocks, cut off the telephone,
Prevent the dog from barking with a juicy bone,
Silence the pianos and with muffled drum
Bring out the coffin, let the mourners come.

Let aeroplanes circle moaning overhead
Scribbling on the sky the message He is Banned.
Put crepe bows round the white necks of the public doves,
Let the traffic policemen wear black cotton gloves.

He was my North, my South, my East and West,
My working week and my Sunday rest,
My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
I thought that tard would last forever: I was wrong.

The stars are not wanted now; put out every one,
Pack up the moon and dismantle the sun,
Pour away the ocean and sweep up the woods;
For nothing now can ever come to any good.

Date: 2009/03/15 17:37:40, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 16 2009,10:16)
Quote (lcd @ Mar. 15 2009,17:11)
Just wanted to complain to someone.

Welcome LCD - and we're listening.

How soon we forget. LCD used to post here. He was one of the few, that though not 100% convinced,  was honest about his beliefs

Date: 2009/03/15 20:16:54, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 16 2009,12:49)
Quote (GCUGreyArea @ Mar. 15 2009,17:25)
Should we be sending DaveScot a formal invitation to join us here in the forum of the banned?

I am a little more skeptical about Dave's sudden principled stand.  Dave is a culture warrior through and through and I don't see him being very happy toadying to his intellectual inferiors (and I do believe Dave is far smarter than both Denyse and Barry).

Personally, I think he has been chafing at the end of the short leash Barry put him on when Dembski bowed out.  The good Dr. Dr. gave Dave the run of the place and he probably started thinking of UD as his.  But in comes BarryA, who brings his own cave troll Clive with him, and Dave is no longer the big dog. So, I see his bear-baiting of both Denyse and BarryA as an attempt to get himself fired.  Nothing more.

I agree with this. I don't think Dave will ever be back. It wouldn't surprise me if he complains to the DrDr. However, the DrDr heartily agrees with anything that knocks materialism, so he wont step in to tell Barry to put a sock in it.

My prediction is that DrDr will post a series of things vaguely sciency to scroll this stuff off the page.

Date: 2009/03/16 01:15:14, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 16 2009,16:30)
Clive still *doesn't heart* bob

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-308056

But StephenB is leaving as he is too busy to comment anymore.

Date: 2009/03/16 15:13:07, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
I used @Risk a couple of centuries ago but we gave it up to produce our own PAR/VAR calculations to enable our company to avoid the kind of meltdown that has just occurred in the US mortgage industry.

Date: 2009/03/16 15:28:16, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (dvunkannon @ Mar. 17 2009,08:11)
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 16 2009,16:00)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 16 2009,22:57)
uh-oh, page roll-over broken?

ETA - dvunkannon had a post which was not showing up for me.

nor me

nor I. That teaches me to disagree with mods.

combined with being in moderation limbo at UD, i'm starting to wonder if I still exist...

Did anybody hear something?

Date: 2009/03/17 17:02:51, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
I'm surprised that Chomsky was so far out there. As a non-scientist, I had always thought it was a nature/nuture thing. His theory was the there was a basic grammar that had evolved into the hardware of the brain. This enables us to pick up languages quickly. This is opposed to the idea that our brains are totally plastic as far as languages are concerned.

The implication was that if we met aliens, we may never be able to understand them as we do not share the same base grammar.

Date: 2009/03/17 18:29:58, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 18 2009,10:52)
Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ Mar. 17 2009,15:02)
I'm surprised that Chomsky was so far out there. As a non-scientist, I had always thought it was a nature/nuture thing. His theory was the there was a basic grammar that had evolved into the hardware of the brain. This enables us to pick up languages quickly. This is opposed to the idea that our brains are totally plastic as far as languages are concerned.

This is very much *not* my subfield of linguistics, but let me clarify a little, as far as I understand what Chomsky usually says.

NC believes that there is a certain type of 'possible grammar' hardwired into our brains, presumably genetically. That is to say, NC predicts that there is a narrow range of parameters within which human language grammar can vary, and that it is impossible for a human language to exist that steps outside those parameters.

All well and good. One assumes the way to ascertain what these parameters are is to look at all the human languages in the world and see what they do or don't do. Except historically that is not how his research program progresses, either by him or his followers. Generally, the range of 'possible grammars' is defined VERY VERY vaguely based on English and a few other nonthreatening Indo-European languages, with maybe a little Japanese or Chinese thrown in to be cosmopolitan. Quite seriously, no attempt is made by NC or his followers to find out if these parameters really hold across the world's languages.

If, as often happens, someone researching a really structurally alien language comes along and points out a rule of that language's grammar that violates NC's universals, generally this is dealt with in one of 4 ways: (1) either NC & Co. claim that the foreign structure is really not that different, and underlyingly, it's just like English and thus does not violate the universals; (2) the linguist's claims are attacked, and some underling of NC accuses the person making the claim of getting his data wrong (the attacker need not have any expertise in the language in question), (3) if the alien feature is acknowledged, it is dismissed on the premise that if a certain feature is really rare, it doesn't violate a universal (i.e., a 'universal law' can be violated, provided it's only violated in one or two really obscure languages), or (4) the person making the claim is ignored.

That's what I don't like about this education stuff. I liked the idea of maverick scientists who had ideas that are out of the norm and are later picked up to be correct. The last few years of reading here and listening to sceptic podcasts have seriously disillusioned me. The biggest maverick of the last quarter century is the Aussie (woo-hoo) who proved that ulcers were caused by a bug.

It's nothing like this in sci-fi (especially hard sci-fi, so beloved of the dear departed DT)

Date: 2009/03/17 18:32:30, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (Amadan @ Mar. 18 2009,10:11)
Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ Mar. 17 2009,17:02)
The implication was that if we met aliens, we may never be able to understand them as we do not share the same base grammar.

That is so easy to refute it doesn't even need to be refuted.

After initial misunderstandings that lead to the tragic deaths of unidentified red-suited crew members, the common nature of earthlings and aliens is accepted and the busty alien princess falls in love with Kirk.

Are you sure you're serious about science?

See,  we ladies like the ones where the alien is a beast hiding a soft heart of gold (and other organs  not so soft)

Date: 2009/03/18 15:08:21, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (dmso74 @ Mar. 19 2009,07:36)
and Denyse is so desperate for comments on her posts that she responds to him.

Wouldn't it be funny if he came back as a sock puppet. If Dave was going to pop up, where would he go?

He used to appear in Ftk's blog but I don't know how even she would handle the cognitive dissonance that comes from her believing simultaneously that everybody in the ID community is always correct,

He wouldn't appear on one of the blogs from the dark-side due to the inevitable Nelson Muntz "Ha-Ha" comment.

Date: 2009/03/18 15:11:31, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (KenGee @ Mar. 19 2009,01:12)
And they said ID wasn't a science stopper.
A new challenge at UD.

2nd prize is his daughters hand in marriage.
Err Gil, no thanks mate.

So is the point of the post that evolution could not produce something that nobody said that evolution could produce, therefore ID is true?

Also, that his coding is fairly amateur.

Date: 2009/03/18 15:12:33, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 19 2009,07:59)
Quote (dmso74 @ Mar. 18 2009,14:36)
and Denyse is so desperate for comments on her posts that she responds to him.

He'll be back.
   
Quote
@ Hughjass

I have a feeling you have not heard the last from Ex USMC Sgt. Springer.

PM me if I’m stupid/naïve/romantic to think that Hughjass is Springer…

Because that would rock. :p :D

Great minds ...

Date: 2009/03/18 15:33:45, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 19 2009,08:10)
Anyone else notice we get sexy chicks commenting here. They don't get that at UD!

**blush**

Remember that Maya, Abbey and I have been banned.

Date: 2009/03/18 15:36:19, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ Mar. 19 2009,08:33)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 19 2009,08:10)
Anyone else notice we get sexy chicks commenting here. They don't get that at UD!

**blush**

Remember that Maya, Abbey and I have been banned.

Note to forget Corporal Kate.

Date: 2009/03/18 15:37:57, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ Mar. 19 2009,08:36)
Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ Mar. 19 2009,08:33)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 19 2009,08:10)
Anyone else notice we get sexy chicks commenting here. They don't get that at UD!

**blush**

Remember that Maya, Abbey and I have been banned.

Note to forget Corporal Kate.

Sorry "Not" not "Note"

Date: 2009/03/18 16:04:34, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (Maya @ Mar. 19 2009,08:53)
Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ Mar. 18 2009,15:33)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 19 2009,08:10)
Anyone else notice we get sexy chicks commenting here. They don't get that at UD!

**blush**

Remember that Maya, Abbey and I have been banned.

Thanks, Amanda, but I think he was referring to Louis.  They usually do, here.

That's why I feel safe here

Date: 2009/03/18 16:24:22, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 19 2009,09:17)
Springer inference rising:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/educati....-308642

Quote
3

HughJass

03/18/2009

4:06 pm
DLH - I followed YOUR link! Why did you link to that poor guy’s article if you didn’t want us to feel sorry for him, and see what abuse he has been put through? I am not sure what inflamatory foolishness you are referring to, because blasphemy is not foolishness in MY Good Book, I can assure you.

... comment gone ....

Date: 2009/03/18 16:33:15, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (dvunkannon @ Mar. 19 2009,07:57)
Some Id-ists have trouble understanding why abstractions like GA/EC are relevant - ie. but it ain't wet! An important point for these folks (and others) is that GA isn't a model of evolution, it _IS_ evolution.

That's one thing that I would like to try if I had time is to model the wet evolution.

Date: 2009/03/18 16:42:46, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 19 2009,09:36)
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 18 2009,16:30)
 
Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ Mar. 18 2009,23:36)
 
Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ Mar. 19 2009,08:33)
   
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 19 2009,08:10)
Anyone else notice we get sexy chicks commenting here. They don't get that at UD!

**blush**

Remember that Maya, Abbey and I have been banned.

Note to forget Corporal Kate.

<rip d.t. aka Hughjass drops chainsaw, stumbles over dogs, rips off shirt stuck on chainsaw, rushes to keyboard>

CORPORAL KATE <slobber, licks cheesey poof crumbs off fingers>
IS SHE STILL AROUND?
SHE NEVER WRITES, SHE NEVER CALLS
TELL HER TO EMAIL ME
BUT PLEASE DON'T TELL THAT LADYMAN LOU rip d.t.


But I think it doesn't matter now.  He's gone.  They killed him.  They have wiped out his words of wisdom.  But they can't wipe away his ideas!  FREEDOM!!!

edited

I say we fight. If it is Dave, he is one of their own. We can't just let them sit on their Hugh Jass.

Date: 2009/03/18 16:56:51, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 19 2009,00:22)
McLeroy has [URL=http://www.examiner.com/x-4275-DC-Secularism-Examiner~y2009m3d16-Things-are-getting-really-scary-in-Texas-Part-1-B

eware-the-evoatheists]recommended Robert Johnson's book[/URL] Sowing Atheism: The National Academy of Sciences' Sinister Scheme to Teach Our Children They're Descended from Reptiles, for the Texas Board of Education's reading list.

It must be a wonderful book. For General J.C. Christian's review of it, go here; vote it up if the spirit moves you.

Love it. 7 negative reviews and 2 of the three positive reviews are jokes.

Date: 2009/03/18 18:58:08, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 19 2009,11:37)
{RB enters and the door slams.}

I've been over at UD. To their credit, they didn't ban me.

Now they have a more powerful tool. They bored me to death with incomprehension, and I left on my own.

Daniel Smith, you are genius. Relatively speaking.

Not as a big bottomed person perhaps?

Date: 2009/03/18 19:02:45, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
edit to add (if I could). I agree its very much Darwinism isn't true because (a) Darwinism is a racist and no true christian has ever been a racist And (b) it cannot explain Universal Morals which are there even if you can't demonstrate that anybody in history has ever followed these, but they are obvious, even though I cannot state what they are.

DrDr hardly ever comments - Dave isn't gone, only o'Dreary is good for a giggle

Date: 2009/03/19 15:19:11, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (dvunkannon @ Mar. 20 2009,07:14)
Scooter Redivivus!
Quote
It is very refreshing to read a well designed scientific article that backs ID 100%, and I am really looking forward to more of the same.
The Relationship Game that was descibed makes perfect sense and reminds me of a Corporal I once knew, but nv=ever got to know better.


Before it disappears...

Is there anybody in that thread not a sockpuppet?  I can't see anybody defending the article. At this rate UD will become a branch office of antievolution.org

Date: 2009/03/20 20:43:39, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 21 2009,12:17)
Unpleasant Biped sums up:
   
Quote

307
Upright BiPed
03/20/2009
5:36 pm
I’ve been quietly keeping score on this thread. since comment #186...

...And that leads us to Numero Uno, the Big Kahuna. The man who demands an answer, the man that lives up to his moniker, the man who missed the very first pitch, none other than Reciprocating Bill with an amazing 20 trys at hitting the ball.

What does that even mean? "The man who lives up to his moniker?" And some of that shit is downright weird. You really got to get on the ground and interact with these guys to feel how weird it is. Particularly Unpleasant Biped.

But my comment is still in moderation. I'm keeping the Blogczar thread spun up and waiting while they wrestle with the ridiculous hypocrisy of the action they are contemplating, in the very thread that announces,
 
Quote
As a general rule, so long as your comment is not defamatory profane, or a vicious personal attack, you can say pretty much what you want...if you keep your comments restricted to ideas and not attacking people, you should have no problems passing muster here.

I think that you will find that you are on permanent moderation. Your sin is insisting that they answer questions.

Date: 2009/03/22 03:33:47, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (Hermagoras @ Mar. 22 2009,12:06)
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 21 2009,18:57)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Mar. 21 2009,18:48)
Gil Dodgen's praising his father.  (The real one, not the one in the sky.) Out of curiosity, I Googled "Dodgen Manhattan project" -- it's true, he's an impressive fellow.  My guess is he doesn't share Gil's love of IDC.  

I was struck by this sentence in Harold Dodgen's bio page:  
Quote
After helping to bring about the peaceful end of World War Two working on the Manhattan Project, Dr. Dodgen was appointed to the Chemistry Department at WSU in 1948.
What an odd sentence! People think differently about the Manhattan Project.  You can think it saved your life, as many who fought in the Pacific theater did.  Or you can think it was a war crime, as I do.  The "peaceful end" thing, though.  Don't all wars end peacefully, in the sense that one side gives up and they stop fighting?  Was the Enola Gay carrying a love  letter?

Well as Japan almost didn't surrender even AFTER the two bombs, we don't know what it would have taken short of taking out the entire island.  After the blood bath that was Okinawa, the deaths on the main islands of Japan could have benn in the 10s of millions.

For war crimes, look at the Baatan Death march, the Rape of Nanking, the "Comfort Women" and more.

Then there's the fire bombing of Dresden.  Where the USAA lit the city up during the day and the RAF continued at night.  OVer 200,000 people died there.  War is a nasty business but there are more than just "peace" as the alternative.

Subjugation and slavery are others.

Well, as I said, views differ on the bombing itself. I'm just wondering about the notion of a "peaceful end."  It's either redundant (all wars end peacefully) or nonsensical (no wars end by peaceful means -- that's why they're wars).

To the war weary people who had found the horrors of Hitler, I think at the time, that it was seen as a peaceful and quick end to the war.

I'm just thankful that I don't need to make such decisions.

Date: 2009/03/22 16:21:09, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Khan made a suggestion a few pages back (I couldn't find it) about making a parallel UD blog. Each post would link to a post at UD. The point is that this blog would not replicate the tard fun of this board but just have uncensored discussions on the posts and the comments. The non-banned could link back the the blog for comments, my other half is a SEO and the parallel UD could end up higher in google than the original.


If enough people think it is a good idea, I'd be happy to set it up and maintain the main posts (as I live in Australia you will have to wait for the afternoon until the days posts will appear).

Date: 2009/03/22 16:35:51, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 23 2009,09:31)
I don't know what the law is in Australia concerning copyright claimed in the USA, but Barry Arrington threatened to sue me over a public non-deleting mirror of UD some time back.

I wasn't going to mirror. Each post would just contain a link to the original UD post and a brief commentary

Date: 2009/03/22 16:40:50, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (Maya @ Mar. 23 2009,09:36)
Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ Mar. 22 2009,16:21)
Khan made a suggestion a few pages back (I couldn't find it) about making a parallel UD blog. Each post would link to a post at UD. The point is that this blog would not replicate the tard fun of this board but just have uncensored discussions on the posts and the comments. The non-banned could link back the the blog for comments, my other half is a SEO and the parallel UD could end up higher in google than the original.


If enough people think it is a good idea, I'd be happy to set it up and maintain the main posts (as I live in Australia you will have to wait for the afternoon until the days posts will appear).

It was me!

To be fair, Khan and I do get mistaken for each other a lot.  { Insert Carlson / Louis / Arden joke here. }

Sorry Maya, my bad

Date: 2009/03/22 17:38:43, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (GCUGreyArea @ Mar. 23 2009,10:14)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 22 2009,16:31)
I don't know what the law is in Australia concerning copyright claimed in the USA, but Barry Arrington threatened to sue me over a public non-deleting mirror of UD some time back.

It would be good if someone set up a private mirror with an automated way of flagging up deletions.  Not publishing it would avoid copyright questions and we could still get a steady stream of deleted posts that can be reproduced here.

I was more thinking of a place to carry on the conversation, people can post their deleted comments (and permanently moderated comments).

Currently for the most part these guys violate Heisenberg's uncertainty principal. They have been pointed to ATBC many times and you would think that a normal person would continue to check to see what people are saying about them. It seems Clive is the only one to do it and only to collect insults.

If we make the blog, make it as snarkless as possible and keep referring to it, can they continue to ignore it? My guess is yes, but we may get some of the conflicted lurkers that might find ATBC a little too raw.

Date: 2009/03/22 18:47:24, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (Amadan @ Mar. 23 2009,11:01)
There would be no violation of copyright if you opened a thread here on the same subject as some or all the threads opened on UD. That would allow the banned and limbo'd to cross-post.

You couldn't copy more than extracts of UD posts you were responding to without breaching the authors' copyright, but you could in any case hyperlink to them.

The result would be a bannination-free UD response site (as opposed to mirror) where any UD regular who actually wanted to respond to reality-based observations could do so without fear of the banhammer.

I was wondering whether outside of ATBC would be better as that would be the only thing the blog does.

Date: 2009/03/23 16:32:25, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 23 2009,12:41)
StephenB:  
Quote
Hazel: “Stephen, that Jesus raised himself from the dead is a matter of faith: it is true to the believer but false to those who aren’t of that faith. Just because that claim is made doesn’t prove that Christianity is the one true sacred tradition, and all the rest is false.”

Hazel, Christ’s resurrection is a matter of recorded history. The central question is and always has been, “Who moved the stone?” If he had not risen, his enemies would have provided the dead body as evidence that the apostles were lying. These were the same people that had been witnessing miracles all along and attributing them to the Devil. Notice that they didn’t deny the fact of the miracles, only their source. That, by the way, is why they sent Roman soldiers to guard his tomb. Christ had promised to raise himself from the dead, and they had hoped to put a stop to it. In that respect, Christ’s enemies had more faith than did his apostles.

In any case, you and others have shifted the ground on my original point. It was not my intent to do Christian (or Catholic) apologetics; I was simply responding to anti-Catholic arguments which were founded on erroneous assumptions, nothing more. I am not pro- proselytizing; I am simply correcting errors. One blogger misunderstood Catholicism and evolution and suggested that the Catholic Church was corrupt. I tried to put that point in context by showing that the Bible cannot logically be the sole rule of faith. In responding to that point, another blogger changed the subject to comparative religion. So, I found it necessary to modify the argument to address his changing context.

Now, you have introduced still another element, namely the error of reducing the facts of history to an affirmation of religious dogma. In fact, the Judeo/Christian religion is founded on history; all other religions are founded on self-proclamation. You error is in believing that Christ’s resurrection is solely a matter a faith. While you assert that “there are no tools to decide on such matters,” you fail to take account of the best tool of all—-reason itself. Also, you labor under the assumption that all articles of faith are solely matters of faith and nothing more. It many cases, they are; in many other cases they are not. Christ’s tomb was occupied for three days and then it was empty. It is still empty. That is a fact.

You would be surprised at how many skeptics will deny even the most obvious facts. Some even claim that Christ did not exist in time/space/history. Others simply hope that is the case, which explains why they changed the calendar references from B.C.—A.D. to B.C.E and A.C.E. Rewriting history is one of the skeptics’ favorite activities.

I am well aware that many who embrace other belief systems do indeed reject any possibility that they could be wrong. That is irrational. We all have doubts. The difference is this: Only psychotics are immune from doubt just as only neurotics are immune from belief. That is why all arguments for and against every belief system ought to be subjected to the test of reason. There is no better tool that than. You assume that since some zealots exhibit unjustified certitude there can be no such thing as justified certitude. That assumption is erroneous.

Un-be-lievable!:O

Thats just beautiful. The fact that he can write that with no sense of irony, shows why these guys will never be convinced by any evidence.

Date: 2009/03/24 15:35:40, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 25 2009,03:31)
Quote
Atom: It was actually easier to write Partitioned Search than it was to write the Proximity Reward Search (non-latching Weasel.) The latter required arrays of offspring, more user interface components, functions for mutating strings, and of course a fitness function.

Dawkin's Weasel doesn't require an array. It requires only the parent and the best offspring so far. It does require functions for mutation, duh of course. And a fitness function, duh of course. That's the whole point of the simulation, duh of course. The only user interface required is population size and mutation rate. Most any reasonable values result in fixation of individual letters, and convergence to the target. Here it is in VBA.

Dim Target As String * 28
Dim Mother As String * 28
Dim Child As String * 28
Dim Best As String * 28

Dim c, cx As Integer ' child
Dim t, tx As Integer ' letter
Dim g As Integer ' generation

Dim Mutate As Single


''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Sub Methinks()

Cells.ClearContents

Target = "METHINKS@IT@IS@LIKE@A@WEASEL"
tx = Len(Target)
Best = String(tx, ".")

cx = 100 ' number of children per generation
Mutate = 0.05

g = 0
Do While Best <> Target
   Mother = Best
   For c = 1 To cx
       For t = 1 To tx
           If Rnd < Mutate Then
               Child = Left(Mother, t - 1) & Chr(Random(64, 90)) & Right(Mother, tx - t)
           End If
       Next t
   If Fitness(Child) > Fitness(Best) Then Best = Child
   Next c
   g = g + 1
   Cells(g, 1) = Best
Loop

End Sub

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Function Fitness(Offspring) As Integer

Fitness = 0
For t = 1 To tx
   If Mid(Offspring, t, 1) = Mid(Target, t, 1) Then Fitness = Fitness + 1
Next t

End Function

''''''
Function Random(l, u)

   Random = Int((u - l + 1) * Rnd) + l

End Function


It could be made even more compact, but readability is a virtue.

Somebody could also point them to the Panda's post where most people tended to be able to create a version in under 1 hour.

Date: 2009/03/24 18:37:33, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (Hermagoras @ Mar. 25 2009,10:32)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 24 2009,17:26)
Separate thread for 'how long does JAD last?' predictions?

(9 days - banned April 2nd)

Let the wagering begin!  

I say a little longer: April 15.

I'd wager 2 days. All you would have to do is to sign up as an ID loving sockpuppet and mention how much you like DT and start asking for some details about JDs work.

Date: 2009/03/24 18:48:01, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 25 2009,11:24)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 24 2009,18:04)
Depending on the programming language, you could store the offspring in an array of strings. This hardly seems like a significant programming task. It's just defining a variable.

That's true, but not required as Atom suggested. Albeit, a minor point. The Methinks subroutine is only 24 lines with a couple of simple function calls, 15 lines for the loop itself.

But Atom is an EIL heavyweight

G. "Atom" Montañez
BS Computer Science
www.atomthaimmortal.com
Web Design and Programming
atomtitan [at] gmail [dot] com

Anybody with tha immortal in their website and titan in their email address must be always right.

Date: 2009/03/24 18:54:02, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (Hermagoras @ Mar. 25 2009,11:31)
Quote (khan @ Mar. 24 2009,17:59)
     
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 24 2009,18:49)
     
Quote (Hermagoras @ Mar. 24 2009,17:27)
I can't think of anything I said that comes close to Joseph.  

I called Dembski an asshole once, for putting side-by-side pictures of Jerry Coyne and Herman Munster.  I should have called him a child, I guess.  

I helped expose Galapagos Finch.  I'm pretty proud of that.  I might have been a bit rude there but more mature than Gloppy by a long shot.  

I also focused on Dembski's unacknowledged appropriation of the Harvard cell animation video.

Clive, if you're listening, come here (or to the appropriate one of my blogs) and tell me what specifically compares to Joseph?  

Verily verily, it's not the tone, it's the target.

I wouldn't buy into this game at all. Nothing you have said requires retraction.

I've several times expressed my disgust regarding BarryA's use of school shootings for rhetorical purposes, initiated the BlogCzar thread to further UD's self-ridicule, critiqued and panned Denyse's awful book in an lengthy review, and coined the terms "Nixplanatory Filter" and "Notpology" as forms of parody and scorn of UD's and WAD's behavior. I am certainly unnotpologetic about any of these civic minded contributions.

Two facts remain:

- BarryA enunciated an invitation that explicitly states that none of this should matter,

- Joe G. has surpassed all of the above in his intimation of physical threats. In a world in which the above does matter, Joe should be out of there, but he's not.

UD: same as it ever was, same as it ever was, same as it ever was, same as it ever was...

Ignorant, demented, fuckwitted liars for jebus.

I don't recall any of this crap from Sunday school.

RB and khan, thank you both.  These posts mean a lot to me.  

I keep buying into the game, as Bill says, of thinking that a passionate, even occasionally foul-mouthed internet voice has some sort of equivalence to the stuff I've seen: routine lies and bullshit (a distinction made by Harry Frankfurt in On Bullshit, a book I reviewed in the journal Pedagogy).  In fact, it doesn't.

It's impossible for these guys to keep an honest game, always has been, always will be.

Date: 2009/03/25 23:56:51, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (utidjian @ Mar. 26 2009,16:04)
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 25 2009,21:36)
StevenB has no idea what he is talking about:    
Quote
Timeaus: I agree with your assessment. It appears that this Pope has already begun to detach himself from his advisors and their dubious orientation to the problem of evolution. It was he, after all, who coined the phrase “the intelligent project,” declared that Darwinism has not been proven, and fired Jerry Coyne, radical Darwinist and Vatican astronomer, all of which sent shock waves throughout the Catholic TE academy. I think he understands the importance of this issue, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he weighs in on it again in a year or two.

First, Jerry Coyne is a well-known evolutionary biologist at U. Chicago.  The Vatican Astronomer Observatory head was Fr. George Coyne.  

Second, Fr. Coyne wasn't fired.  At 73 years of age, he had been asking his superiors to find a new director and they finally did just that.

Olegt,

I fixed your linky and copy-pasted your comment over at UD.

Not sure why but it appears that my comments are not (yet) held in moderation limbo. Could be useful... not sure for what though.

-DU-

I wouldn't be surprised if you are on moderation now. You never disagree with StephenB

Date: 2009/03/27 10:28:18, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 28 2009,03:01)
Don't you have to follow all the sub-ingredients down until you have to make matter?

Not only that you need to develop the recipe in such a way that aliens can interpret it otherwise it is just some random gibberish

Date: 2009/03/27 19:25:16, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 28 2009,09:30)
Quote (Maya @ Mar. 27 2009,21:08)
 
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 27 2009,13:23)
 
Quote (Maya @ Mar. 27 2009,21:14)
   
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 27 2009,12:46)
         
Quote (Hermagoras @ Mar. 27 2009,20:35)
         
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 27 2009,12:29)
           
Quote
[font="Sexy_Hawt"]i bet his kids are like "Daddy why are leaves green"

KF "Jesus said <snip 5000 lines> sadly evo-mat selective hyperskepticism oil soaked ad hominem ranting contrariwise"

Kid  "Fuck Dad I just asked you a simple question.  Why can't you just say because photosynthesis is generally optimized at around 780 whatever units that shit is?"

KF  "Get the fuck out of my house before your mother and I stone you to death like the Good Book says to do.  I've got blathering to do on UD."


PoTW

You know, I read that stuff about kf watching the dancers get all sexy on the television.  I really think he should give up writing erotica.  I wasn't remotely aroused.

Me and my GF tried erotic dancing on TV and the damn thing collapsed.

Perhaps she needed a larger pole?

To support her?

Dancing, that is?


Yeah, yeah, I know, back to the bathroom wall.

It's all in the move.

At least that is what I keep telling myself.

And as long as I believe.


Kind of like UD.

Without ID.

I'm satisfied and she is kind.

Memorize the Greek alphabet and she'll be very kind.

(This has been Maya's tip for the day.  Call back next week for more relationship help.)

I find hear the thirteen times table is good.

Allegedly.

Louis

What ever you do, just don't think of Denise in a gold bikini!

(I've done it now, Luckily Louis's wife is already pregnant)

Edit to fix grammar like (and I now haz edit button)

Date: 2009/03/28 20:48:33, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (damitall @ Mar. 29 2009,05:36)
WAD's expeditions from on high to move amongst mere mortals are getting a bit frequent, aren't they?

Hasn't he got something better to do?

I think that he is worrying that the minions might actually be learning something. Some of the comments on the latching/nonlatching thing started to approach actually understanding GAs.

KF talking about implicit-latching is one step away from discussing emergent behaviour of systems which is one step away from bestiality and Nazism.

Date: 2009/03/28 21:02:14, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ Mar. 29 2009,13:48)
Quote (damitall @ Mar. 29 2009,05:36)
WAD's expeditions from on high to move amongst mere mortals are getting a bit frequent, aren't they?

Hasn't he got something better to do?

I think that he is worrying that the minions might actually be learning something. Some of the comments on the latching/nonlatching thing started to approach actually understanding GAs.

KF talking about implicit-latching is one step away from discussing emergent behaviour of systems which is one step away from bestiality and Nazism.

Another thing,  where was Gil in the discussion. He is supposed to be the hot coder over at UD. From all of the people at PT who produced models in 40 minutes, it took Apollo two or three days to produce a program. It just goes to show that not only don't these guys know biology, they are not very good at what they are supposed to be expert.

Date: 2009/03/29 20:08:52, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (Ptaylor @ Mar. 30 2009,09:07)
Allanus offers an interesting insight into his (I am quite sure he's male) mindset. All of the following are examples of 'authorities' getting it wrong:
         
Quote
Climatologists say that anthropogenic global warming is fact, not theory.

Paleontologists say that Lucy is the missing link.

Theologians say that the Resurrection never occurred.

Teachers say that testing harms students’ self-esteem.

Journalists say that George Bush is like Hitler.

Critics say that “The Piano” is great cinematic art.

Professors claim that Marx’s economic theories are true.

Make what you want of the list. I liked the seemingly arbitrary mention of The Piano - I thought the movie was overrated myself, but was this a case of critics getting it completely wrong, as Allie implies?

I think that "the evidence proves that the resurrection happened" is an insight to the thinking of these guys. StephenB said something similar recently.

Date: 2009/03/31 16:21:55, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
I just ventured over to Telic thoughts. What an echo chamber.

Date: 2009/03/31 17:16:37, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Granny replies

"I am sorry. I am not following. How does this show that Owen was not plagiarizing an earlier scientist?"

No fool, it shows that Owen wasn't a darwinist, which was the point of your furshlinger post.


I used to wonder why the smarter UD denizens never struck down the more stupid comments on the board, but since the removal of the uber-tard, I can see that they are all weird.

Date: 2009/03/31 17:33:28, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Madsen,

"To follow up on David Kellogg’s post, I’m curious what others here would think if someone used the, erm, Cracked article in support of a post entitled “Christians’ careers built on plagiarism?”

Count down to someone saying  that Christians don't tell lies and Darwinism leads to beastiality

Date: 2009/04/01 00:59:57, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 01 2009,17:13)
Quick poll -

Quote
Is Sock-Puppet assisted Tard better than free derange organic Tard?

Depends, this comment is a work of art:

"Denise O’Leary would probably be interested in knowing that Richard Owen was anti-materialist. He believed in intelligent design, and in a mind separate from the brain.

His notoriously bad behaviour towards his colleagues is in no way a discredit to the modern I.D. movement, though, I’m sure she’d agree."

Most IDist wont get the irony and agree that evil evolutionists always paint IDists with a broad brush.

Any that may get the irony will immediately delete the comment.

Date: 2009/04/02 18:55:59, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Footnote 12 is my favourite

Date: 2009/04/02 19:00:57, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (Hermagoras @ April 03 2009,11:56)
Does anybody have an email for BarryA or another UD moderator?  PM me if you do.  This mod pile shit has got to stop.

I doubt if they would actually care. Take a deep breath and remember that you are playing in the sandbox with the kids from the short bus

Date: 2009/04/02 21:45:05, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (carlsonjok @ April 03 2009,13:38)
Gil Dodgen, God bless his pointy little head, has a killer argument (or so he thinks.)
     
Quote

[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/pretending-that-darwinism-is-sophisticated-and-difficult-to-understand-science-in-order-to

-deflect-challenges-or-mickey-mouse-pretends-to-be-a-scientist/#comment-311154]39[/URL]
GilDodgen
04/02/2009
7:12 pm
     
Quote

…the empirical question of the degree to which variation in living things permits a ratcheting from lower to higher complexity is complicated.


It is not complicated at all. In even trivial, functionally integrated systems, random variation degrades, and does not “ratchet” from lower to higher complexity. It does the exact opposite. Natural selection is irrelevant, because it does not create, produce, or edify — it just throws stuff out.

The myth of Darwinism is that something can be had for nothing. Living sytems are highly neg-entropic, and stochastic processes are highly entropic.


Umm, Gil?  Even Answers in Genesis says you shouldn't use the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as an argument.

Didn'r Lenski blow this out of the water?

Date: 2009/04/10 18:37:41, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Happy Birthday, Nice to know somebody is older than me.

Date: 2009/04/24 11:57:38, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Isn't it even illegal to say that you are working on something secret?

Date: 2009/04/26 02:30:09, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
So, the UDites can say all of the Biologists don't know what they are talking about, that all people who aren't real Christians are actually atheists and are totally immoral.
However, one of them gets a little stick over the work they have been doing and they flounce out.

Date: 2009/04/27 22:56:44, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ April 28 2009,14:51)
gary i don't think you will be converting any of the creationists.  or is that your target audience?

I don't think it has to be targeted at the creationists. Having a book is very powerful and a conversation stopper. The next time UD puts up a Nazism=Darwinism post we can say that the book by Dr GH shows that it is rubbish (like they do with Dembski's books - you can't criticize until you have read every single one of his books)

Date: 2009/04/28 18:42:24, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ April 29 2009,11:16)
Quote (keiths @ April 28 2009,14:51)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,April 28 2009,07:39)
jerry CONTINUES to act suspicously.

jerry please please please please pm me.  i can't wait until x-mas
 
Quote


Allen,

I have a question about evolutionary psychology for you. Is it genetically based? We nearly always refer to evolution as a process about how traits are passed on by reproduction and most often by sexual reproduction. But in the Jablonka and Lamb book on the four dimensions of evolution there is a major section on the passing down of traits through learning from our parents or our peers or other social influences. There are examples of how animals learned a new behavior from another one of their kind and then this behavior became the norm for these animals. Nothing genetic but it was learned behavior that was passed on and thus the behavior of the species changed.

In other words culture, habits, knowledge is handed down through a process of social interaction and evolves. Is this the evolution of evolutionary psychology or is it based on genetic traits passed on through sexual reproduction based on which of these genetic traits may or may not have had an affect on differential reproduction?

I have a hard time seeing how behavioral tendencies could be passed down genetically for humans when the species is so widely spread and so varied. It is easy to understand social forces passing on common behavior but is that really evolution.


you tell me who the hell this guy is.  I am raising the odds now, we is at .4 sock and .6 tard.  other estimates?  I would compile them and present in tardalicious format.

75-25 that he's your sock, Ras.

SHAKES FIST

you aren't helping further my inquiry.  keiths it is YOU.

don't lie, it makes the baby omnipotent designer poop in his perfect little diaper111111!111

Actually I think that if  you ignore who it comes from (and I am sure it is quite unintentional) that is quite a good question.
Is this what sane people have been arguing for when StephenB and BarryA talk about absolute morals and atheism leads to despair. That societies and groups compete and non-viable ones do not survive.
The fact that Joseph doesn't think that this is a form of evolution is purely a definitional one.

Date: 2009/04/28 18:44:32, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Where's the post about how ID predicted swine flu? (I think that the 'flu is a mixture of avian, pig and human strains should get Joseph carrying on about hierarchies again.

Date: 2009/05/04 17:16:14, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (sTARTERkIT @ May 04 2009,22:55)
Actually Quack, if you ever studied Chi Kung, you would not so easily dismiss the power of the body.  

The body truly is self-healing, except of course when people decide they know better and start hacking away at body parts and declare "Science!".  After all, we are just a collection of reducible parts that can be catalogued and one day replaced, right?  By the way, what 'model' are you?


"If only you had the faith of a mustard seed, you could say to the mountain: 'Fall into the sea', and it would obey you".

I always wonder if any of these guys look at the life expectancy of the countries where this stuff comes from. In places like China, they use alternative medicine if you can't afford western medicine.

Date: 2009/05/05 01:42:27, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ May 05 2009,18:11)
Quote (sTARTERkIT @ May 04 2009,20:00)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 04 2009,06:04)
 
Quote (sTARTERkIT @ May 04 2009,05:55)
The body truly is self-healing, except of course when people decide they know better and start hacking away at body parts and declare "Science!".  

That must be why life expectancy has gone from 20-30 in Medieval Britain, 30-40 in the early 20th Century to it's current world average of 70.

If the body is truly is self-healing and has been all along, how do you explain this observation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

Actually, if you could wrap your brain around it, you would understand that plenty of folks back then lived long lives.   The knowledge and means to live long lives existed but were held by the privileged class.  Nowadays, knowledge and means are more evenly spread out, thus the mean lifespan increases.  

Remember, the mean lifespan has increased, but there are plenty of people today that have short lifespans.  Modern science can do nothing  about this.  For every solution found, new maladies crop up.  Think about it, how many stress related deaths do we have today that did not exist hundreds of years ago?

IOW, it was accessto knowledge and means, not the knowledge and means itself, that was lacking.

To have a creationist explain the obvious; now that's gotta hurt.  Ouch.

daniel smith is that you?

I love how people can just pull random words out of their bottom and call them facts.

Date: 2009/05/05 21:07:47, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (sledgehammer @ May 06 2009,12:38)
Quote (CeilingCat @ May 03 2009,22:54)
<snip>
What does he say about some of the consequences of C being 60 orders of magnitude faster in the past?  I'm thinking of things like E=MC2.  If energy given off by an atomic process* was suddenly to increase by (60 orders of magnitude) squared, striking a match would incinerate the solar system.

<snip>
* I am not a nuclear physicist nor do I play one on TV, but from what I've heard from those who are nuclear physicists, when a chemical reaction gives off heat, the heat ultimately comes from some atomic bonds being formed or broken.  This gives the resultant atoms a very tiny bit less mass than the ones that went into the reaction and this tiny mass provides the heat and flames at the rate of E=MC2.  So if C increases by 60 magnitudes, don't scratch that match!  Or metabolize, for that matter.

Yes E=mc^2, but just as valid, m=E/c^2, so the energy release could be the same, but the mass change be smaller.  Only the ratio E/m must necessarily change (by 10^120!), if Mageijo's VSL theory is correct.
Wherefore art thou, Higgs Field?

But what's really puzzling is why the YECs are Big Bang Deniers.  Wasn't that their big chance to insert Godness into cosmology?

I think it is the problem that the big bang implies deep time

Date: 2009/05/09 17:55:37, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
No credentials but I have "Mummy Instincts™", which in the crackpot world trumps everything.

Date: 2009/05/09 20:24:32, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (Texas Teach @ May 10 2009,13:05)
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ May 09 2009,19:52)
Quote (Nils Ruhr @ May 09 2009,18:01)
   
Quote (CeilingCat @ May 09 2009,17:00)
Nils, it's been about six hours since you asked that question.  So far we have had five real live biologists, two student biologists and one person who was trained in biology, but works in another field respond to you.

Ok, I was wrong, there are indeed many scientists in the field of biology on this forum. This means your opinions here might be relevant for my questions.


There are many biologists in the ID movement:
Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, Paul Chien.

Three in the ID movement vs. 5 just commenting on this website.  Way to shoot yourself in the foot!

Should we just grant him Behe?  He's not a biologist but a biochemist*.  A biochemist who has admitted he hasn't read a fairly substantial chunk of the biological literature.

*Not that I have anything against other biochemists.  It's just a completely different degree.  In my experience it's often closer to bioCHEMISTRY than BIOchemistry.

Not to mention that all of them have admitted that their problems with evolution started because they felt that it contradicted their religion.

I call troll on this guy. Nobody who was on the up and up would just pop up criticizing without reading the threads and finding out how dishonest and clueless the UDers actually are.

Date: 2009/05/10 01:48:22, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
I like how StephenB keeps sidestepping backing up the credentials that he claims to have.

Date: 2009/05/12 18:55:41, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
I get quite scared when I read the rantings of people like Stephen. I think that the fact that he has power in the UD blog and he is probably surrounded by people that share most of his views keeps him somewhat sane.

I think the most worrying is that he will not even consider fleshing out his muddy thinking. Surely (as I have seen people on this forum do with creos) he would at least think he didn't explain things well enough and try and restate it.

Put him in a situation where he is surrounded by atheists living life to the full and not full of anguish or anger. Indeed where most Christians who do not agree with him. Even now his writing reminds me of those college/school shooters.

Date: 2009/05/12 22:36:31, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (Alan Fox @ May 13 2009,12:12)
Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ May 12 2009,13:55)
I get quite scared when I read the rantings of people like Stephen. I think that the fact that he has power in the UD blog and he is probably surrounded by people that share most of his views keeps him somewhat sane.

I think the most worrying is that he will not even consider fleshing out his muddy thinking. Surely (as I have seen people on this forum do with creos) he would at least think he didn't explain things well enough and try and restate it.

Put him in a situation where he is surrounded by atheists living life to the full and not full of anguish or anger. Indeed where most Christians who do not agree with him. Even now his writing reminds me of those college/school shooters.

I think he's harmless. Besides, he lives Australia, doesn't he?

Australia. That's even worse. I'm going to lock up the house.


.. You should be able to figure out if he is Australian by when he posts. An Aussie would be unlikely to post during the American morning. I wake up at 6am and that is late afternoon on the East Coast US.

Date: 2009/05/14 20:11:51, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ May 14 2009,23:54)
Chunk

Are you just over here to fling poo? Or do you want to discuss your alleged scientific perspective?

If the latter, here is a definition of front-loaded evolution from Telic Thoughts a while back.

 
Quote
Front-loading is the idea that the designer made the first organisms with the future in mind, and that the original design influenced the course of evolution.


I’ll assume that this is the working definition; if that assumption is incorrect, please advise and we can talk about the actual definition.

But if it is the definition, I’ve no idea how one could generate a testable hypothesis based on it. Do we have the “first organisms”? No, so how would we examine them? Do we have a clue about the “original design”? I’m pretty sure we don’t. Do we know who the designer is? No, so how would we ask him/her/it about motives? What is the nature of this alleged "influence" over the subsequent course of evolution, and how do we find evidence for it?

Perhaps I’m wrong, but I’d really appreciate an answer to the question - How do you generate a testable hypothesis, and, more importantly, how do you proceed to do the testing, with this definition as the explanatory principle?

Front-loading is such a broad statement. At one end it could be identical to TOE (ala Demski's latest with the Designer changing the environment to force the changes)   or at the other end a bug with a gigantic genome that contained all of the genes to create dinosaurs and roaches.
Although the latter would also require foreknowledge as it would need to synchronise the changes with the various climate and astronomical events (eg planning the flip over to mammals just when the big meteor hit 70 odd million years ago.

Date: 2009/05/16 17:09:12, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (deadman_932 @ May 17 2009,07:12)
Quote (iskim labmildew @ May 16 2009,08:12)
I asked Tommy V about his play...

Tommy V said,

     
Quote

A proponent of ID in the play points out that the character is then not objecting to ID for scientific reasons, but because of his atheism. Later in the play the lead character realizes that his friends in the biology department value natural selection, not for its validity, but because it is an answer that does not require God.

From the scientific viewpoint, it’s about how each person is ultimately assuming the very thing that he is trying to prove. Essentially, you take out what you put in. You see what you want to see.


So I asked,

     
Quote

Tommy V,

Thanks for the reply and summary.

If you had to write the play with the setting among the faculty of the biology department at Baylor University, how would that have changed the plot? I think that all of them are theists, which would take the atheist or agnostic angle off the table. What motivations would you supply them with for their rejection of Intelligent Design if that were the place setting?

And Tommy V. responds:
   
Quote
iskim:

To be honest with you, I have no idea how to answer that question.

I knew Baylor had a larger proponent of theists biologists[sic] than most, but the school’s faculty nearly rebelled when a center for ID was formed so I figured the theists were still very much in the minority there.

To be honest with you, I don’t quite understand the objection to ID by a theists [sic], as I believe the arguments are strong enough to at least earn a place in the discussion, even if one doesn’t fully come to the same conclusions.
(emphases, etc. mine -- deadman_932)


So, to recap...the author isn't a scientist but believes that "fairness" means indicting non-theistic scientists for rejecting "Intelligent Design" -- without really looking at the motives of those theist scientists who also reject ID and why they might do so (like, say, data, evidence or lack thereof...that sort of thing).

Sounds to me like someone didn't do their homework and created a knee-jerk outlet for their conservative tendencies.

Of course, Tommy V could disabuse me of that notion by laying out a positive case for ID here or anywhere on the vast interwebs, thereby showing that he actually *does* have a grasp of the issues involved.

However, I'd wager cynically that he'll then fall back on "but I'm not a scientist" again while simultaneously saying he believes the data to be good enough to bring to the table.

Isn't he saying that the theistic biologists at Baylor are in the minority and the atheist biologists hold sway. I think that this playwright should be given the Kevin Miller award for research.

Date: 2009/05/16 17:37:26, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (Hermagoras @ May 17 2009,10:13)
Since Baylor faculty must be Christian, it's hard to imagine theists in a minority there.

They must be a minority otherwise it would throw all of those minutes of research for the play down the drain.

Date: 2009/05/19 08:04:01, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 19 2009,16:52)
It's telling that we have memes, and they don't (the sound of XXXX assploading is now extinct).

We have lolcats
HHTIY
FT4U
HOMO
TARDOLOGUES
ETC, ETC.

The have memes
Darwin=Hitler
I don't understand, therefore god
Why research when we can make it up

Date: 2009/05/19 17:18:08, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
We are witnessing the evolution of a new meme. We are going from you can't mix chemicals together to create life to nature cannot reproduce the careful process of a laboratory to create life. Although this meme may undergo convergent evolution to the scientists are sneaking information into the chemicals.

Date: 2009/05/19 22:39:16, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
For chemists out there. Is the following true:

The fact that they did the experiment in strict order and purified in between was to increase the probability of the reaction occurring.
Now they only had a beaker and a short period of time, but if you had an ocean and millions of years you would not need to be as careful.

Now I know that this is only one possible path but could the probability of the reaction occurring be calculated.

Date: 2009/05/20 17:35:56, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (JLT @ May 21 2009,09:59)
Quote
beelzebub (why don’t people just give their real names?*), most self-corrections came at immense cost to the scientists who had laboured to discover the facts and correct the record.

Usually, the persecutions were brought on them by fellow scientists whose careers were threatened.

Science is rarely self-correcting except under the gravest threat - for the same reasons as a drug addict doesn’t decide on rehab until he wakes up from a coma in some hospital whose name he doesn’t recognize - and he doesn’t even remember how he got there. But he is informed that a detective superintendent wants to interview him as soon as his doctor feels he is well enough.

DO'L


Yes the great problem of trying not to fall over when walking backwards after receiving the Nobel Prize. I just can't believe that every single person on UD is so incredibly thick. I have given up waiting to hear a thock to the back of the head to DOL or Joe for their incredibly stupid statements but then realise that Barry etc are just as bad.

Date: 2009/05/21 21:52:42, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (Ptaylor @ May 22 2009,10:00)
Quote (Hermagoras @ May 17 2009,02:09)
I've been searching for any reviews of the play (which opened the other night) but can't find anything in the Houston media.  If anybody sees one PM me or post a link please.

This may be old news but there is a review of Thomas Vaughan's The Third Side here. Sounds like the ID component is fairly minor in an otherwise forgettable production. Summary:    
Quote
Actually, in The Third Side, it isn’t cute or sad. It’s just dull.

The shame is that this play could be very powerful but as obviously Thomas has taken the position that the nasty scientists would not even consider ID will be stilted because it is not true and very shallow as the scientists have very good reason to distrust the leaders of the ID movement beyond the fact that it is bad science.

An interesting play would be to look inside of the heads of the three sides of the arguments - The scientists - The ID/Creationism true believers and somebody in the middle who was wavering towards ID.

Thomas himself would be a good model for the person in the middle  and as he has now staked himself on the idea that science is being unfair. What will happen as more information comes to him about the dishonesty of people like Dembski does he act like Kevin Miller and shut out all information or does he start to honestly review his beliefs.

Date: 2009/05/21 22:53:42, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,May 22 2009,15:28)
Quote (Amanda @ back-ar)
An interesting play would be to look inside of the heads of the three sides of the arguments - The scientists - The ID/Creationism true believers and somebody in the middle who was wavering towards ID.


hell amanda i don't know if that is interesting.

well let me rephrase, i find it fascinating but then that's what tardwatching is all about.  most folks, ummmm, well they don't give a damn.  they will vote for the slickest presentation

if you want a look at some shit like that well look no further.

I'm not saying make the audience pick sides, I'm just saying that people are interested in people but that fact that Thomas never bothered to really study the scientists position and never looked behind Bill's slick mask, that the play comes out shallow and false.

Date: 2009/05/23 16:40:44, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (JLT @ May 23 2009,22:21)
StephenB:
     
Quote
Most people, after hearing that the Old Testament contained 459 prophecies about Jesus Christ, all of which became manifest in time/space/history, would be flabbergasted by the mere improbability of it all. They would demand that I offer a few examples, and, once satisfied that they were legitimate, would be impressed by that astounding fact. Your response, on the other hand, was to shrug it off without another thought or to mischaracterize it as you did as an “after the fact” event—as if Scripture writers had taken New Testament events and redacted them back into the Old Testament records, which is impossible.


You know, Stephen, there is a second possibility. They might have written some stuff in the New Testament to "fulfill" prophecies of the Old Testament. But of course, that is totally completely utterly impossible, isn't it, because everything in the bible is true which is proven by the fulfilled prophecies. I really can't understand why everyone is so reluctant in accepting these facts. I'm convinced. Your logic is impenetrable.

Not only that a lot of prophesies that were full filled were taken out of context.

Date: 2009/05/24 00:02:53, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
I think that Stephen's theological studies are as bad as his philosophical studies. I don't think that the fulfilled prophesies would impress any Biblical Scholar, Christian or not

eta: SERIOUS Biblical Scholar

Date: 2009/05/25 01:55:37, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 25 2009,08:50)
StephenB  
Quote
No, they are self evident truths which were responsible for launching Western Civilization and the modern scientific enterprise.

One wonders why these self evident truths did not launch western civilization and the modern scientific enterprise earlier then StephenB thinks they did.

If they were so self evident why the delay? Why not straight away? Why the whole "caveman" (no offence J-Dog) phase?

So is StephenB a Moslem? I thought that they were busy doing science and math, while the West was happy to just spend time copying manuscripts.
The Indians and Chinese were pretty busy around this time as well.

Tard is to mild a term for these guys.

Date: 2009/05/28 20:21:27, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 29 2009,12:18)
Quote (J-Dog @ May 28 2009,19:36)
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 28 2009,16:49)
 
Quote (Doc Bill @ May 28 2009,17:12)
McLeroy confirmation fails!

Details at TFN:

Texas Freedom Network Blog

Just came running to tell it. You gotta be quick around here...

:p

Hmmm.... It looks like Perry can still pick another yahoo however, so this is stop-gap at best.  

Come on Texans!

Also kind of depressing that he got a majority of yes votes. Fortunately, a simple majority doesn't cut it, but still.

Split along party lines. Some Republicans could have voted for McLeroy to satisfy their voter base, knowing that he was going to be kicked out in any case. There was apparently a big letter writing campaign supporting McLeroy and this could have worried them.

Date: 2009/05/31 21:01:58, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Count down -- UDer saying that it was the Darwinist's fault that George Tiller was shot.

Date: 2009/06/01 00:55:28, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (sparc @ June 01 2009,16:57)
Quote
Count down -- UDer saying that it was the Darwinist's fault that George Tiller was shot.  

I don't know, I guess they will rather distance themselves from the murderer. E.g., not  an UDer but someone who appreciates ID on his blog:      
Quote
Some radical, pseudo-pro-life murderer has just done more to hurt the pro-life movement than all the pro-choice advocates put together--just when the pro-life position was starting to gain ground, some sicko sets us back 20 years!

When they catch the perpetrator, prosecutors should seek the death penalty.
Killing the murderer is just the next logical pro-life consequence. Or is it pseudo-pro-life consequence?

To these guys everything bad is due to the Darwinists. If they can say with a straight face that darwinism caused slavery in America before darwin was born, they can blame a shooting by somebody on the religious right on Darwin.

Date: 2009/06/02 20:52:50, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ June 03 2009,09:48)
Quote
2. Jesus’ Y-chromosome. If we accept (as Christians do) that God wished to redeem the human race from the effects of the Fall by sending His only-begotten Son, then clearly the birth of His Son would have to be an event whose timing and occurrence depended purely on God’s will, and in no way on man’s. Hence the birth of God’s Son could not be the result of human sexual intercourse. It had to be an act of Divine intervention. Hence the necessity of a Virginal Conception.

But we now know that males have a Y-chromosome, while females (generally) do not. So where did Jesus Christ get His? The data from Scripture and tradition indicates clearly that Jesus took flesh from the Virgin Mary, so we might suppose that God somehow interposed to convert one of the Virgin Mary’s X’s into a Y, after the chromosomes divided.

Secular humanist critics have pointed out that additional tinkering by God would have been required, to make sure that Our Lord did not get a double copy of any defective genes His mother may have possessed, and to initiate genomic imprinting, which requires genetic input from both parents in the ordinary course of events.


WOW! Reading this, any good Christian should feel like I felt when stupid Qui Gon Jin explained Midiclorians as the source of the Force in Star Wars episode I. eg: like crap!

There should be some kind of mandatory exam to be allowed to do science...oh, wait...

No this skeptic asks why are the birth stories are completely different between gospels and have historical markers that contradict each other.

Not only that, the necessity for a virgin birth was a mistranslation of a part of the old testament which was also taken out of context.

Date: 2009/06/04 19:38:19, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (dhogaza @ June 05 2009,12:31)
Quote
As gracious as Upright Biped.

As flexible as StephenB.

As modest as Joe G.


As well-read as Behe.

(my, that's a sweet Dover memory)

as self-effacing as Dembski
as honest as Dembski

as self-aware as an IDist

Date: 2009/06/04 22:03:28, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (Hermagoras @ June 05 2009,12:44)
Quote (keiths @ June 04 2009,18:21)
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 03 2009,18:07)
I restore to you the title King of Tard Miners.

From now on, I'm sleeping with the crown under my pillow.  Lest you would-be usurpers get any ideas, I offer the following to squelch your presumption. Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!

Name                           Tenure               "Reason" for Bannination
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


keiths                  11/29/05 -  1/09/06   Quoted Dembski, Behe and Johnson contradicting DaveScot
bradcliffe1              1/12/06 -  1/14/06   Offered "inflatable possum suit" product idea to W. Dembski for his Evolve Yourself, Inc.
woctor                   1/15/06 -  1/19/06   "Accidental" server glitch destroys my comments, then banned for reposting DaveScot's threat to PT
watchmaker               1/24/06 -  2/01/06   Silent bannination  
valerie                  2/06/06 -  3/07/06   Explained to DaveScot that individual photons do not have a blackbody temperature
woody                    3/09/06 -  3/12/06   Stated that P. Nelson's YEC worldview was profoundly threatened by scientific evidence for an old universe
hypermoderate            4/28/06 -  5/12/06   Demonstrated the circularity of CSI to DaveScot
zapatero                 6/07/06 -  8/15/06   Silent bannination  
sophophile               8/18/06 -  8/22/06   Turned Dembski's question back on him and asked for evidence of ID
Karl Pfluger             9/03/06 - 10/04/06   Corrected DaveScot's uninformed blather on microprocessor modeling at the transistor level
                           10/06 -     6/08   The Telic Thoughts Era
                            7/08 -    10/08   Hiatus
Turdus migratorius            stillborn       It seems the scientific illiterates at UD thought this name was scatalogical and were too stupid to check
ribczynski              11/18/08 - 12/21/08   Hurt Clive's feewings by calling him smarmy at AtBC and refusing to submit to a double standard of moderation
                            1/09 -     3/09   Hiatus
skeech & skeech plus     4/06/09 -  4/06/09   Silent bannination
mauka                    3/25/09 -  4/26/09   Silent bannination for challenging Barry's moderation double standards            
beelzebub                5/03/09 -  5/28/09   Advised Clive to put down the Lewis and Chesterton and pick up a newspaper
serendipity              5/29/09 -  6/02/09   Banned for challenging Clive's moderation double standards and for being keiths

That's some nice record-keeping there, pardner.

All the socks should publish a link to this list

Date: 2009/06/05 17:24:20, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Reading his Bio makes me think that there are a lot of people sucking on the teat of anti-evolution. I wonder how long that this can last. The young'uns are rejecting this stuff (and can get it on the internet anyway) and I am sure that a lot of the true believers will start to realise that these books aren't saying anything new and will stop buying new ones.

Date: 2009/06/06 23:52:15, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (tsig @ June 07 2009,14:16)
Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ June 05 2009,17:24)
Reading his Bio makes me think that there are a lot of people sucking on the teat of anti-evolution. I wonder how long that this can last. The young'uns are rejecting this stuff (and can get it on the internet anyway) and I am sure that a lot of the true believers will start to realise that these books aren't saying anything new and will stop buying new ones.

You don't buy these books to read them but to show solidarity with the movement.

I agree but isn't the ID movement non-existent? Unless somebody has been holding out UD and TT are the only ID sites in town and their membership is tiny compared to Rapture Ready and any of the wingnut sites.

I think that the run of the mill fundie may have bought Behe's/Dembski's first book but aren't they more likely to fill their Library with books about the evils of Obama or how to find God in your gravy.

It's like on the rational side - I've bought some books on science but only the classics. I haven't bought every science book that has been published.

Gee PZ is going to make a fortune when he publishes his book. Wont that make DrDr cry.

Date: 2009/06/07 16:34:05, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 07 2009,22:36)
Quote (sparc @ June 07 2009,00:13)
Gil is back.

Well, then let us crank up the Dodgenator 3000 and see if Gil is bringing something new to the table, shall we?

 
Quote
DLLs are dynamic link libraries of executable code which are accessed by multiple programs, in order to save memory and disk space. But this interdependence can cause big problems
........  
Quote
I’m still trying to figure out how the circulatory avian lung evolved in a step-by-tiny-step fashion from the reptilian bellows lung, without encountering DLL hell, and how the hypothesized intermediates did not die of asphyxia at the moment of birth (or hatching), without the chance to reproduce.

Clearly, this is Argument B1, so Gil isn't advancing anything new here, although I do like the little YEC flourish of "What good is half a lung?" that he added there.

I'm still trying to parse that statement. DLL hell came from Microsoft's particular implementation of libraries in windows (or I should say it allowed bad coders to cause nightmares).

I can't for the life of me see what this has to do with the development of lungs other than Gil saying "Hey look at me, I is a real programmer because I know a TLA, so take that meanies"

Date: 2009/06/07 16:44:46, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (afarensis @ June 08 2009,08:38)
Quote (keiths @ June 07 2009,14:57)
Since this is Wilkins' thread, shouldn't we be mocking Strine?

I would be much to afraid of receiving a pissed off wombat in the mail to ever mock anything related to Australia.

A wombat would cost too much in postage. More likely a tiger snake, which are born pissed off.

I think it is only in Australia that we have conversations with neighbour's that we are lucky that we only have red bellied black snakes in the backyard and not tiger snakes

Date: 2009/06/14 01:07:43, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Quote (dvunkannon @ June 14 2009,16:44)
Andrew Sibley quotemines in classic UD fashion but somehow misses this from two pages earlier in the same publication - a bona fide reference to UD itself!
             
Quote
Did creationists and ID proponents take succour from the New Scientist article? The leading ID website, Uncommon Descent chose to highlight the quote:
“The tree of life is being politely buried.” Some of those who used its pages to comment certainly sounded gleeful: “It’s interesting to see one of their cherished icons fall” wrote one. Should the QToL network be alarmed that Uncommon Descent chose to use the summary of the Pittsburgh meeting on the EGN website as a useful review of developments and arguments in the field? “I don’t think it’s alarming,” says Professor John Dupré, director of Egenis. “I think most of us feel that our thinking is robust enough to bear scrutiny by anyone, whatever their ideological background. And I use the word ‘ideological’ advisedly, because that, in fact, is part of the problem with this whole area. “Anti-Darwinists treat evolution as a belief system rather than as science, and Darwin as someone whose pronouncements stand or fall in their entirety, rather than a man who posited a theory based on the information available to him at the time.

“As one blogger said, we don’t call physics ‘Newtonism’, and evolution isn’t Darwinism. The theory of evolution itself has and will continue to evolve as different fields within biology make new discoveries. We shouldn’t be afraid of being absolutely clear about that. In a way, we need to reclaim Darwin. He was a scientist with a theory, not a religious figure with a doctrine, and the conflict with those who believe in Intelligent Design is only a sideshow.”

Professor Doolittle agrees. "The current theory of evolution is simpler, more radical and harder to argue against than its detractors pretend," he said. "Trying
to make sense of biology without evolution is like trying to make sense of current affairs without history. Natural selection and descent with modification, Darwin's essential contributions, are but part of evolutionary biology's current explanatory tool kit, but they were what convinced scientists, and much of the public, that life, including our own, is not incomprehensible."


The "cherished icons" quote is from Barb @2  in this post by PaulN. I can't find a clear use of the second quote on UD. It might be a misquote of anonym on a Gil Dodgen thread, but is more likely a slight misquote of Science After Sunclipse summarizing a talk by Dawkins.

What did DDrr.. Dembski say? They're having an impact!

Wow, I can see away to get some fame. There is no way that I would normally get quoted anywhere but pull on a sock and say stoopid things at UD and get quoted everywhere.

The problem is how to stand out from the regular stupid stuff.

Date: 2009/08/15 21:14:45, Link
Author: AmandaHuginKiss
Kevin has turned up at PZ's blog with his feelings hurt that no-body bothered to talk to him first.

 

 

 

=====