AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: Bebbo

form_srcid: Bebbo

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.196.57.4

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: Bebbo

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

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2002/12/08 08:46:22, Link
Author: Bebbo
While on the subject of ISCID, does anyone else find it strange that discussion of purpose of design is shyed away from even though the ISCID home page says something like "retraining the scientific mind to see purpose in nature"?

--
Dene

Date: 2002/12/08 08:51:05, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (ExYECer @ Dec. 07 2002,13:42)
In response to my posting of my reply to Dembski ARN moderator 4 now has found another objection :-)

Quote
I still don't like your tone. It "saddens" you, that Dembski "accuses"? That sucks, and is disrespectful.


He therefor has banned me from further participation in the thread. I would like to extend my appreciations to ARN moderator 4 for all his good work ;)

Moderation at ARN is a mess. The choice of moderator is strange considering posts of his I've seen in the past. It's obvious that one moderator is not enough for that forum, and he's too partisan anyway.

Btw, does anyone else think that Chris Langan is an unpleasant character? Besides his overbearing arrogance, his metaphors are sometimes weird.

--
Dene

Date: 2002/12/08 10:24:40, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 08 2002,00:05)
The ISCID moderator (John Bracht, if my sources know what they are talking about) recently posted concerning how ID critics came in 4 categories.

Quote
1. Open-minded skeptic: I'm interested, but not convinced.
2. Closed-minded skeptic: Not convinced and no longer interested in being convinced. Call me only if something new develops somewhere to cause quite a commotion.
3. Debunker: Not convinced; no longer interested in being convinced; interested only in convincing others they are wrong.
4. Debunking Crusader: Debunking to save humanity.

(Source: On Criticism - Four Types of Critics )


I've asked for what category I might be classed in.  Stay tuned for the results...

Wesley

Hmmm, I always thought the ISCID moderator is Micah Sparicio (sp?).

--
Dene

Date: 2002/12/08 14:29:58, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote

Quote (pzmyers @ Dec. 08 2002,13:27)
[quote=Bebbo,Dec. 08 2002,08:51]Btw, does anyone else think that Chris Langan is an unpleasant character? Besides his overbearing arrogance, his metaphors are sometimes weird.

Yes.

Quote
'By the way, I know what you're thinking. "Did he fire six shots or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've gotta ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?"'


I really think that talking about blowing a critic's head off is creepy and inappropriate...and for the moderator to then chime in with a joke about him needing a new suit is rather appalling.

I'm not sure if the Dirty Harry quote was just for fun or aimed at Mellott. What I found creepy was this one:

Quote

You know, I really get a kick out of certain “Scientists” – the kind of “Scientist” who’s always knocking philosophy. When you tree one of these Scientists and ask him to vocalize about why he hates philosophy, he vulcanizes about the evils of nebulosity, nihilism and deconstructionism. But then when you bag him, mount his skin on your trophy wall and turn off the lights, there it is on his hide in glow-in-the-dark green paint: “I was a nihilist who tried to deconstruct nature despite my nebulous grasp of reality.”


It reminded me of someone I've debated with on Usenet who uses phrases like "beaten up" to describe someone she self-proclaimededly beat in a debate.

So far Chris Langan is the one with the biggest chip on his shoulder that I've encountered on the net for a while.

--
Dene

Date: 2002/12/11 14:23:50, Link
Author: Bebbo
If you work on the basis that the Wedge Update is an exercise in intellectual buffoonery then it all make sense!

--
Dene

Date: 2002/12/17 05:46:31, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (katerina @ Dec. 16 2002,11:25)
I opened a board with the following url

http://pub46.ezboard.com/fouttakesfrm10

called "outtakes"  as a means to capture some of the arbitrary deletions by Jack Foster.

Notably, the entire thread about the 'walkout' is here.

A few of us scan the threads fairly routinely and start copying them over as soon as they seem to speed up.

Not entirely uncoincidental is the association of deleted threads with certain individuals associated with the discovery institute.

What members of the DI post at ARN? The only ones I know of are William Dembski and Phillip Johnson. Dembski rarely posts, and Johnson hasn't been seen for a while under his last known nom de net.

--
Dene

Date: 2002/12/20 16:49:51, Link
Author: Bebbo
As an aside about Mike Gene. He's made some comments about people not using their real name, but he's posting under a pseudonym too. Does anyone know who he is? I've reason to believe that he's a particular member of the Discovery Institute or someone associated with him.

--
Dene

Date: 2002/12/20 18:39:43, Link
Author: Bebbo
charlie d wrote:

>I doubt Mike Gene would make such a silly comment;
>what he was complaining about was the number of
>anonymous ID critics at ARN who say they are ("pose"
>as) scientists.

Whether or not they're "posing" as scientists I don't think Mike should be commenting negatively that others use a pseudonym when he does too.

>Of course, one could actually spot a poseur rather
>quickly, so I am afraid that Mike has to accept the fact
>that those are real scientists, and that no scientists,
>anonymously or not, appear interested in defending ID
>on ARN.  The only people really making noise about
>actual identities are Chris and Genie.  

Gawd, that pair! Btw, I saw a post, which has since been deleted, by Genie (posted by the user askfifi) saying that her and Chris's ARN accounts had been deleted. I wonder what's going on.

--
Dene

Date: 2002/12/20 19:01:23, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (zygotecowboy @ Dec. 20 2002,18:10)
There isn't too much too this article, but one thing struck me:

Quote
William Dembski argues that the way we detect design is by looking for an unlikely (high information) state of affairs which matches a pre-existing pattern. The pattern which must be matched is called a "specification." Thus, the notion of specified complexity or complex specified information is simply lots of information which conforms to a specific pattern.

In biology, some systems have many interacting parts and are thus complex (high information).


First, CL is equating unlikelihood with "high information". He then does the same thing with complexity and "high information" again. Now, I'm fully aware that WAD has defined complexity as the inverse of probability, but is it fair to equate any of these to "high information"
(whatever that means)?

zc

They seem to be conflating the vernacular sense of complex with Dembski's specific usage which means low probability - "high information" in their words.

All Dembski has offered is a formalisation of what Creationists have been banging on about for years, which is most notoriously framed in the "tornado in a junkyard" analogy. The advantage for the IDers is that the word "information" lends an unwarranted aura of sophistication to their argument because they get the chance to refer to information theory.

--
Dene

Date: 2002/12/21 07:25:48, Link
Author: Bebbo
Seems that ISCID feels money is necessary to get improved constributions to the Brainstorms forum:

http://www.iscid.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=000262

Overthrowing materialism doesn't come cheap I guess!

--
Dene

Date: 2002/12/21 09:50:18, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (dayton @ Dec. 21 2002,08:54)
So what happened to get mturner, Genie, and Chris banned at ARN?  Did some thread that I missed go down in flames?  Does anyone know?

I've also been wondering about Chris and Genie, but I didn't know mturner had also been banned. It looks like they've got rid of Mod 4 (aka jazzraptor). Curiouser and curiouser.

--
Dene

Date: 2002/12/22 07:59:24, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (pzmyers @ Dec. 21 2002,10:08)
Quote (Bebbo @ Dec. 21 2002,09:50)
I've also been wondering about Chris and Genie, but I didn't know mturner had also been banned. It looks like they've got rid of Mod 4 (aka jazzraptor). Curiouser and curiouser.

--
Dene

Errm, who is "they"?

"They" is whoever runs ARN.

--
Dene

Date: 2002/12/28 12:09:54, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (dayton @ Dec. 24 2002,07:30)
Thank you, JXD.  Im' glad we now we know how Chris Langan really feels about ARN.  :)

The curious thing is that Langan's partner was using a nom de net of Genie, not her real name, contrary to what he says.

I think ARN is well rid of Langan and his sidekick.

--
Dene

Date: 2003/02/04 05:50:04, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (msparacio @ Feb. 03 2003,08:08)
[...]

It is not accurate to say that PCID is an ID publication.  So claims that we are supposed to have the "premier ID publication" are false.  Anyone who tries to use our journal polemically as evidence of ID's success is off base.  We encourage a wide variety of articles on a wide variety of subjects.  Even anti-anti evolutionists are encouraged to submit papers.  In fact, we have two papers that are currently in the works that are being developed as critiques of ID theorists by ID critics.

[...]

Oh come on, PCID is essentially an ID journal. A quick look at the latest issue (1.4) showed that 7 of the 9 featured papers were about ID or supposed problems with evolution and/or evolutionary theory. In other words, typical ID preoccupations.

I can't help but be reminded of the the Institute for Historical Review. They have a journal that is ostensibly upholding the tradition of genuine historical revisionism, but in reality most of its focus is on the Holocaust and issues about Jews.

--
Dene

Date: 2003/02/04 07:43:04, Link
Author: Bebbo
:07-->
Quote (msparacio @ Feb. 04 2003,07:07)
[...]

So, in saying that the quality of PCID is low (at best), perhaps you are right (re: ExYECer, etc.).  In noting that many of the articles in our journal are ID related, you are certainly right.  When you assert that I'm falling in line with historical reconstructionists by insisting that PCID is not an ID journal, you are grossly mistaken.  I'm simply stating our policy.  The current dynamics of our organizations' place in the world are currently drawing many from the ID crowd.  However, our hope is to get to a point where our journal can serve as a creative scientific outlet - that's our vision and that is what we are working towards.   Regardless of your conspiracy theories, your assertions, your uncharitable cowardice we have no agenda, nothing to prove, no flag to wave. We are merely excited about the prospects of encouraging the scientific imagination to be creative and to explore new worlds.

[...]

I hope PCID does develop as you plan and hope. However, I was commenting on PCID from the content it currently has, if that changes in future then my assessment may not be valid.

As for being uncharitable, yes I am, but that's based on what PCID contains at the moment - it's a bit difficult to judge it on something that has yet to possibly happen. Also, given that William Dembski is one of the founders of ISCID I'm less inclined to take things like PCID at face value.

--
Dene

Date: 2003/02/04 08:46:47, Link
Author: Bebbo
:07-->
Quote (msparacio @ Feb. 04 2003,07:07)
[...]

Regardless of your conspiracy theories, your assertions, your uncharitable cowardice we have no agenda, nothing to prove, no flag to wave.

[...]

Interesting you should mention agendas because PCID is quite clearly part of an ID agenda, we have it from the horse's mouth:

"3. Network of Researchers and Resources (NRR)
Intelligent design as a scientific and intellectual project has many sympathizers but few
workers. The scholarly side of our movement at this time consists of a handful of
academics and independent researchers. These numbers need to swell, and we need to be properly networked. We need to know who's out there working on what. To this end the Internet will prove invaluable. Intelligent design is at this time still an academic pariah. Consequently, it is difficult to concentrate our forces in any one institution. And yet, when I speak about intelligent design on university campuses, I almost invariably
encounter at least one scientist on faculty eager to do research pertinent to intelligent
design. The Internet, particularly as live chats and videoconferences become more readily available, will bring together scholars who now work in isolation. This will help
overcome the institutional barriers they now face. Full and effective use of the Internet is
simply a must.

The natural place to house such a network is within a professional society. Fortunately,
such a society is now in place -- the International Society for Complexity, Information,
and Design (ISCID -- www.iscid.org). Housing the network there is an option, though
there are other options. The important thing for now is that we get networked, not who
does the networking. Associated with this network should be research coordinators expert in a given field of science to help researchers in that field coordinate their efforts. The network needs to be endowed with resources. The International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design is currently working on an annotated bibliography of design-relevant literature. Access to various online subscription services (journals, specialized search engines, electronic books, etc.) should also be part of the resource package. This will cost money but be well worth the investment. Concentration of forces is a key principle of military tactics. Without it, troops, though willing and eager, wallow in indecision and cannot act effectively. The network of researchers and resources that I am recommending is the first step in concentrating our forces. The next step is setting the intellectual agenda for academic departments and even whole academic institutions. But that is still downstream and will depend on the next recommendation."

taken fom:

http://iscid.org/papers/Dembski_DisciplinedScience_102802.pdf

Yours in "uncharitable cowardice" (whatever that means),

Dene

Date: 2003/02/04 13:09:25, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (msparacio @ Feb. 04 2003,11:06)
[...]
Hey Charlie...I'd really appreciate it, and so would the other editors of PCID, if you'd be willing to point out some of the bad and cranky papers at PCID (perhaps all :D  ).  

[...]

Well, Chris Langan's CTMU is now officially cranky - see crank.net  ;)

Sorry, couldn't resist!

--
Dene

Date: 2003/02/04 14:49:18, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (pzmyers @ Feb. 04 2003,14:18)
:09-->
Quote (Bebbo @ Feb. 04 2003,13:09)
[quote=msparacio,Feb. 04 2003,11:0][...]
Hey Charlie...I'd really appreciate it, and so would the other editors of PCID, if you'd be willing to point out some of the bad and cranky papers at PCID (perhaps all <!--emo&:D  ).  

[...]

Well, Chris Langan's CTMU is now officially cranky - see crank.net  ;)

Sorry, couldn't resist![/quote]
Yes -- doesn't the fact that that patently bogus piece of crap, the CTMU, got published in PCID sort of negate all the sincerity that Micah is trying to present here?

One thing I'd like to know, as long as we've got him here, is how the heck that hideous thing managed to make it through their version of peer review.

I don't have any reason to doubt Micah's sincerity. However, I have strong suspicions that ISCID is little more than another shill for the ID movement whose real interest is in the politico-religious arena rather than science.

--
Dene

Date: 2003/02/18 07:37:03, Link
Author: Bebbo
Dembski has posted the same article to ARN and ISCID:

http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000620

http://www.iscid.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=000300

This links to his response to a piece by Kenneth Miller. All the same stuff we've seen before: Dembski looking for a God of the gaps in the flagellum.

--
Dene

Date: 2003/02/18 07:45:36, Link
Author: Bebbo
Dembski has posted the same article to ARN and ISCID:

http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000620

http://www.iscid.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=000300

This links to his response to a piece by Kenneth Miller. All the same stuff we've seen before: Dembski looking for a God of the gaps in the flagellum.

--
Dene

Date: 2003/02/18 11:21:49, Link
Author: Bebbo
Apologies for the duplicate post, I was having problems with my connection.

--
Dene

Date: 2003/02/20 07:31:28, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (niiicholas @ Feb. 20 2003,02:10)
[...]
1. There is a growing scientific controversy over Darwinian evolution.

a) Today there are critics of Darwinian evolution within the scientific community, including biologists at mainstream American universities. In 2001, more than 100 scientists including scholars at such institutions as Yale, Princeton, MIT, and the Smithsonian signed a public statement announcing that they were "skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." [A complete list of these scientists can be found in A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.]

b) Because of the scientific critics of Darwin's theory, it is misleading to present the modern controversy over Darwinian evolution as a simplistic battle between "science" and "religious fundamentalists." Accurate reporting on this issue should do justice to the complexities of the real situation, not resurrect stereotypes from the fictional movie Inherit the Wind.
[...]

The DI has a problem with conflation:

1. That some scientists are sceptical of RM&NS to account for complexity of life isn't the same as there being a scientific controversy. A lot of the 100 people on their list aren't even biologists.

2. That some scientists are sceptical of RM&NS to account for complexity of life doesn't necessarily make them critics, although some definitely are.

Despite the DI attempt to divert attention from religious beliefs I think it would have been instructive for them to also ask: "If you have a religious belief does this conflict with the RM&NS account of life's complexity?" I suspect that religious belief may play a bigger part in this "controversy" than they want to admit.

--
Dene

Date: 2003/08/20 17:53:50, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 14 2003,10:53)
For decades, antievolutionists have attempted to influence the state of Texas in its selection of science textbooks (and all too often succeeded).  Texas is an attractive target for antievolutionists.  The state's constituency is largely conservative and religious, so there is an overlap with the ideological outlook of most antievolutionists.  The state of Texas is also one of the largest markets for secondary school textbooks in the USA.  Antievolutionists know that if they can influence Texas to cause textbook publishers to de-emphasize evolution or eliminate references to evolution entirely, they get the added bonus of changing the textbook content for the rest of the USA as well.  This is because publishers aren't going to offer a "science lite" version to Texas and a "real science" version to the rest of the country.  That would be an expensive proposition for publishers, and publishers are at basis simply looking to maximize their profits.  So the whole country gets "science lite" or even "pseudoscience" versions of textbooks because of the political machinations of antievolutionists in Texas.

For several decades, the names of Mel and Norma Gabler were the most familiar of antievolutionists involved in the selection process.  The Gablers would offer long critiques of candidate textbooks, suggesting rewording or deletion of any content having to do with evolutionary biology.  (Antievolution was not their exclusive focus, though; their criticisms covered a number of the political hobby-horses of the religious right.)

Now, the Discovery Institute has entered the fray in trying to influence the Texas textbook selection process.  A letter to the editor from DI fellow John G. West shows their intent nicely:

Institute supports accurate science, by John G. West

Quote
First, we believe students should be exposed to legitimate scientific (not religious) controversies over evolutionary theory. Peer-reviewed science journals are filled with articles raising issues about various aspects of neo-Darwinism, the prevailing theory of evolution taught in textbooks. In 2000, for example, an article in the journal Cell noted that there is a ''long-standing question of the sufficiency of evolutionary mechanisms observed at or below the species level ('microevolution';) to account for the larger-scale patterns of morphological evolution ('macroevolution';).'' Yet this ''long-standing question'' about neo-Darwinism isn't covered in most textbooks. Why not?

In addition, we favor correcting clear factual errors in textbook presentations of evolution.


In the first instance, the Discovery Institute has a vested interest in keeping its antievolutionist activities labelled as something besides " creationism".  The DI rather obviously is looking forward to taking a test case to the courts, and there is way too much precedent attached to "creationism" and "creation science".  But the religious motivation of the high-profile DI fellows is easy to find (see Brian Poindexter's excellent page, From the Horse's Mouth).  The DI fellows have also liberally borrowed antievolution arguments from the SciCre young-earth creationist (YEC) contingent. The DI also encourages the YEC contingent to join forces with them in their antievolution activities.  This sort of "front" strategy doesn't fool people when it is employed by organized crime, so there should be no expectation that organized antievolution will be able to hide its intent in that fashion, either.

The Discovery Institute has no interest in correcting factual errors in textbooks.  They wish to suppress certain well-known examples in evolutionary biology from textbooks and have taken a page from Orwell in their rhetoric on this topic.  The analysis of the targeted "factual errors" presented by DI fellow John C. "Jonathan" Wells, while lauded by West, has been shown to itself be rife with factual errors and misrepresentation (see Nic Tamzek's Icon of Obfuscation and Alan Gishlick's essay).

West's letter has elicited several critical responses.

First, Dr. Sean Carroll takes exception to the misuse of his words by John G. West of the Discovery Institute.

Quote
Editor:

John G. West of the Discovery Institute, in his guest column Friday, quoted an article in a leading biology journal as purported support for his view that alternatives to contemporary evolutionary science ought to be presented in biology textbooks. I am the author of the article he quoted (but did not properly cite) and I am writing to make it absolutely clear that West is gravely mistaken in taking the excerpted sentence out of its full context.


Oak H. DeBerg and Dr. Eugenie C. Scott also criticized West.

Please enter further information about the Texas textbook selection process in this thread.

Wesley

Talking of West's/DI's intent:

http://www.mmisi.org/ir/spr96/west.pdf

--
Dene

Date: 2003/09/14 15:35:39, Link
Author: Bebbo
A firsthand account of the Texas SBOE hearings can be found at:

http://www.atheist-community.org/events.htm

Also, someone else on talk.origins who was there claims that Dembski denied being a member of the DI!!

--
Dene

Date: 2004/02/14 18:02:37, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (charlie d @ Feb. 12 2004,12:56)
Don't forget the Wedge document itself (my comments in CAPS):

"FIVE YEAR OBJECTIVES

1. A major public debate between design theorists and Darwinists (by 2003) [MAYBE - THE AMNH DEBATE]

2. Thirty published books on design and its cultural implications (sex, gender issues, medicine, law, and religion) [MAYBE]

3. One hundred scientific, academic and technical articles by our fellows  [JUST EXACTLY 100 ARTICLES SHORT ON THIS ONE]

4. Significant coverage in national media:

Cover story on major news magazine such as Time or Newsweek [NOPE]
PBS show such as Nova treating design theory fairly [NOPE]
[...]



Didn't PBS show "Unlocking the Mystery of Life"?

--
Dene

Date: 2004/02/15 07:03:30, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 15 2004,05:53)
Quote

PBS show such as Nova treating design theory fairly [NOPE]
[...]



Didn't PBS show "Unlocking the Mystery of Life"?


Some PBS affiliates did show UML, but UML was produced independently by Illustra Media (essentially a corporate pseudonym for Coldwater Media). Nova and other PBS-produced shows have not yet taken up ID as a topic. Of course, ID was treated pretty fairly in the "Evolution" series. Except, of course, that ID advocates don't mean "fairly" when they say "fairly"; they mean "credulously".

Wesley

I thought that Illustra Media was just a front company of Discovery Media which produces overtly Christian material. Curiously the Discovery Media website has now shut down.

--
Dene

Date: 2006/01/25 06:04:00, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 25 2006,11:56)

So is DaveScot's real name David Springer?

Yeah. Apparently he used to work for Dell and thinks that is a big deal.

Date: 2006/01/27 13:03:53, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (PuckSR @ Jan. 27 2006,12:14)
Quote

The hallmark of good design is often simplicity, however the only hallmark that really applies for design is - does the designed object actually do what it's designed to do, and do it efficiently enough to be useful.  


The hallmark of intelligent design is simplicity.  Let me give you an example that is software related.

Most modern processors can either have code written for them directly in assembly, or they have software that will convert a higher level code into assembly.  If I gave you two pieces of assembly software, and you took the time to read through the assembly software(which would be annoying), how would you determine which one had been written by software(compliled from a higher level language) and which one had been written by hand?

Normally you would assume that the code that had the most unneccesary steps had been created via software, while the "simpler" code had been written directly.  

Organisms are designed...that is a given.  The question is...were they designed by a process or by an entity.  This is why the problem of the flawed designer is much more serious than the problem of necessary evil.  The more flawed the designing agent is, the less intelligent the agent.  

Evolution already posits a designer....just an unintelligent designer....IDers need to prove the intelligence of their designer.  I am sure everyone here would agree that a "designer" exists(i.e. natural selection)  

All IDers keep doing is trying to prove a designer....they ignore the word intelligence.  Intelligent beings do make mistakes, but they should make considerably less mistakes than an automated process....and if they do make more mistakes than the automated process....they should use the automated process

If the hallmark of design is simplicity then how come in my career in software I've come across people who design and program in unnecessarily complex ways?

Date: 2006/01/31 01:41:58, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Alan Fox @ Jan. 29 2006,05:07)

Meyer says:

"Thus, ID is not based on religion, but on scientific discoveries and our experience of cause and effect, the basis of all scientific reasoning about the past. Unlike creationism, ID is an inference from biological data."

One only has to apply this "reasoning" to the origin of the human brain to show how stupid (and circular) it is.

Date: 2006/02/23 01:22:56, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (PicoFarad @ Feb. 22 2006,00:30)
He's written on Dembski's site that he was on the patent committee at Dell, a select group of a dozen top engineers, and reviewed something like 1000 patent abstracts submitted by employees for worthiness.  I bet he was a real sweetheart to deal with.  He seems to have made a career out of being a jerk but in all fairness he's been on the right side of every fight and how many of us have managed to get rich before we got gray hair working as engineers or scientists?

So DaveScot was a good engineer at Dell and made a lot of money. Now he's just a jerk who makes a nuisance of himself on other people's blogs and has become an acolyte to a minor academic and crank who works at a God college. I can think of better ways to spend one's retirement.

Date: 2006/03/02 22:29:58, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 01 2006,11:40)
It's easier than that. Ask Scot to please tell us what he has accomplished.

And please, no blithering about his time at Dell.


Even in retirement, an older Mark Perakh has achieved more than the younger retired DaveScot who's notable only for being a jerk on blogs.

Date: 2006/05/15 01:49:55, Link
Author: Bebbo
When I open Pandas Thumb from home on dialup (using IE) it delays for a few seconds then the font size becomes smaller.

--
Dene

Date: 2006/05/16 00:39:10, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 15 2006,10:49)
Quote (stevestory @ May 15 2006,10:39)
It's been a funny year, with Davetard at the helm.

UD wasn't this much of a freak show last year when it was still just Dembski running it, was it? I wasn't paying much attention back then.

You've got to wonder about Dembski. Last year he says he's mothballing UD because it's too distracting, then he brings it back and spends time accusing scientists of all sorts based on secondhand accounts. This is the guy who says he's changing jobs for family reasons, including having a son with autism. Surely he has better things to do with his time than play the clown on UD.

Date: 2006/05/22 21:38:05, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Chris Hyland @ May 22 2006,12:53)
Quote
From the looks of it, they're trying to push it down the page by posting, so far, 4 new articles today.
By the looks of this I think you're right.

On that thread Dembski comments:

"Tina: I will add this though. Some people need assistance to commit suicide. Others commit it on their own. When it comes to intellectual suicide, Dawkins falls in the latter category."

Pot. kettle. Black.

Date: 2006/06/08 12:29:31, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (GCT @ June 08 2006,14:03)
I'm famous.  Not as famous as Wes, but more famous than AC I would say (yeah, I'm the "kicker")...

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1195

 
Quote
Over at antievolution.org Wesley Elsberry tries to write an obituary for ID. Arden Chatfield faithfully rewords and repeats his master’s hallucination in the next comment. The kicker is a cat named GCT who asks if anyone has heard from Behe or Gonzalez lately?

No, I haven’t really heard from Behe or Gonzalez lately but maybe I missed Behe and Gonzalez because I was preoccupied in hearing ID recently supported by the President of the United States, the Governor of Texas, and the Governor of Florida as well as some U.S. Senators and other state governors.

What Wesley and his motley crew just don’t get is that the science argument in ID vs. NDE is over. ID may or may not be mathematically provable but it is intuitively obvious to any objective student of intracellular molecular machinery. Furthermore, to the same objective student, the initial assembly of said molecular machinery being assigned to random interaction of primitive chemical precursors doesn’t even pass the giggle test. ID is a given to anyone without a subjective commitment to a ludicrous contrary narrative.

As I’ve said many times before, there is only one prop still holding up the NDE narrative and that is the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. It’s all political at this point and unfortunately for Wesley and his ilk he must convince a majority of voters that it’s his way or the highway. He’s failed utterly at that task and now we simply wait for the purposely slow moving wheels of the federal judiciary to move with the will of the people. Federal jurists have tenure so it’s a long process replacing those that have become unpalatable but a determined public will eventually have its way.

ID is alive and well and coming soon to a high school near you! You can take that to the bank.

Filed under: Intelligent Design — DaveScot @ 1:34 pm

Didn't Bush, et. al. come out in favor of ID before the Dover ruling came out?

I love how he is reduced to saying that it's intuitive and a given, so long as you aren't a dreaded atheist.  But, ID has nothing to do with religion.  You just have to believe in order to get it.  And, I really love how he boils it all down for us about how it's all political.  Nice one DT.

It's intuitive that the sun moves around the Earth, so is DaveTard going to advocate that too? Since when was intuition a basis for deciding scientific theories? Has spending so much time working at Dell rotted Dave's brain, or was something else responsible? Enquiring minds are curious.

Date: 2006/06/26 06:31:57, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (stevestory @ June 26 2006,11:19)
Quote


As long as he is Dembski's representative, ID is unlikely to have any chance at all.


There are some fatal problems with ID which have nothing to do with Davetard. One is the big tent. You can't come up with a model of the origin and development of life which accommodates both YECers and OECers. Another fatal problem is the mechanism. The creationists believe the mechanism of creation is "Poof". How can you make that sound scientific?

Irreducible Complexity. Specified Complexity etc.

Date: 2006/07/14 00:06:19, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (GCT @ July 13 2006,09:36)
"The Wrath of DaveScot?"

Where No Dave Has Gone Before.

The Squire of UD

For ID is Hollow and I have Touched the Sky

Date: 2006/07/19 06:43:29, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 18 2006,16:01)
Wow, on the subject of not making adolescent remarks about O'Leary's appearance, this from the master himself:

 
Quote
I hate to disappoint the church burnin' ebola boys but I won't be commenting on UD in the future. I just told the smarmy Canadian cross dresser to go fuck itself in an email. It would have banned me in any case as it's nowhere near as cool as Bill Dembski. The stick up its disgusting ass could make a redwood feel inadequate. I'm going to go ahead and forgive Bill for this monumental brainfart as he's going through some long term bad shit on the homefront with a sick child. I felt bad about bailing out on him at a time like this but he forced my hand. No big deal. I had a few extra hours today to finish rebuilding the carbs on my jetboat (it's back together and running great) and throw a ball in the water for my puppy. He's napping at my feet on the houseboat at the moment. I think we'll go out for a swim and then take the jetboat for a longer validation run.

P.S. if my dog was as ugly as the Canadian cross dresser I'd shave his ass and teach him to walk backwards.

HAHAHA - I kill me sometimes!



I think this is Dave's equivalent of Nixon's "You won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore" speech.

If Dembski's sick child is the excuse for his brainfart, I wonder what Dave's excuse for his brainfarts is?

Date: 2006/07/24 12:32:02, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (GCT @ July 24 2006,10:34)
From the latest Black Knight thread:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1348

 
Quote
3.  If we consider the body as being Philosophical Naturalism, the head as the evolutionary Media, and the leg as the surpression of scientific evidence against Darwinism in public schools, then we can say that we are in stage IV. Darwinism is not “officialy” defeated yet, but, just like the Knight in picture IV, it’s just a matter of time until the scientific evidence “chops away” the other leg (surpression of evidence, AKA “We don’t allow for critical analysis of the theory of Evolution”).

Something we need is a “visual mark”. Communism was “officialy” dead when the Berlin Wall was destroyed. Saddam was “officialy” rejected by the Iraqis when they brought down his statue. We still need something like that to declare Darwinism dead. I sugest that the British Christians remove Darwin’s body from Westminster Abbey and put his body somewhere else. Saddly, since there is a 4-5% church attendency in England, and since many churchian leaders are “burning incence to Darwin”, I don’t think that will happen any time soon.

Comment by Mats — July 23, 2006 @ 9:10 am

Yeah, let's pull up old Chuck's remains and throw it in the ocean.  That's just like tearing down the Berlin wall.

I sent a response pointing out that we don't disinter the dead just because someone thinks their scientific theory was wrong. Apparently pointing out the obvious was more than they could stomach and my comment never appeared.

Date: 2006/07/27 12:16:33, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Jason Spaceman @ July 27 2006,00:52)
Quote
Posted: July 27, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Jonathan Witt
© 2006

As a doctoral student at the University of Kansas in the '90s, I found that my professors came in all stripes, and that lazy ideas didn't get off easy. If some professor wanted to preach the virtues of communism after it had failed miserably in the Soviet Union, he was free to do so, but students were also free to hear from other professors who critically analyzed that position.

Conversely, students who believed capitalism and democracy were the great engines of human progress had to grapple with the best arguments against that view, meaning that in the end, they were better able to defend their beliefs.

Such a free marketplace of ideas is crucial to a solid education, and it's what the current Kansas science standards promote. These standards, like those adopted in other states and supported by a three-to-one margin among U.S. voters, don't call for teaching intelligent design. They call for schools to equip students to critically analyze modern evolutionary theory by teaching the evidence both for and against it.

The standards are good for students and good for science.

Some want to protect Darwinism from the competitive marketplace by overturning the critical-analysis standards. My hope is that these efforts will merely lead students to ask, What's the evidence they don't want us to see?

Under the new standards, they'll get an answer. For starters, many high-school biology textbooks have presented Haeckel's 19th century embryo drawings, the four-winged fruit fly, peppered moths hidden on tree trunks and the evolving beak of the Galapagos finch as knockdown evidence for Darwinian evolution. What they don't tell students is that these icons of evolution have been discredited, not by Christian fundamentalists but by mainstream evolutionists.


Read it here.

If Jonathan Witt is in favour of a marketplace of ideas I take it he thinks it's okay to teach Holocaust denial in history classes and Astrology in science classes.

Date: 2006/08/11 05:22:38, Link
Author: Bebbo
Denyse appears to be vying with DS for a tard award here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1435

She says:

"(I don’t take too seriously the claims that Westerners other than North Americans are more accepting of evolution (= Darwinism). As a Canadian, I know full well that Americans are generally much freer than other peoples to simply disagree with their elite about how to interpret the evidence. There’s nothing shocking about that there, as there is in Canada, let alone Europe. )"

She presents no evidence why a survey showing that "Westerners other than North Americans are more accepting of evolution (= Darwinism)." is wrong, and then goes on to imply it's correct anyway because Americans are freer to disagree with the elite! Don't they teach journalists basic logic skills?

Date: 2006/08/11 06:05:34, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 11 2006,10:44)
Quote (Bebbo @ Aug. 11 2006,11:22)
She presents no evidence why a survey showing that "Westerners other than North Americans are more accepting of evolution (= Darwinism)." and then goes on to imply that's the case anyway because Americans are freer to disagree with the elite!

What do you mean to say here? It's confusingly written.

I just fixed my post which was missing some words! When Denyse says Americans are freer to disagree with the elite she's implying that Americans are more likely than other Westerners to not accept evolution. That's after saying she doesn't take seriously the claim that Westerners other than Americans are more likely to accept evolution.

Date: 2006/08/11 12:56:30, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 11 2006,14:30)
Quote (Bebbo @ Aug. 11 2006,10:22)
Denyse appears to be vying with DS for a tard award here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1435

She says:

"(I don’t take too seriously the claims that Westerners other than North Americans are more accepting of evolution (= Darwinism). As a Canadian, I know full well that Americans are generally much freer than other peoples to simply disagree with their elite about how to interpret the evidence. There’s nothing shocking about that there, as there is in Canada, let alone Europe. )"

She presents no evidence why a survey showing that "Westerners other than North Americans are more accepting of evolution (= Darwinism)." is wrong, and then goes on to imply it's correct anyway because Americans are freer to disagree with the elite! Don't they teach journalists basic logic skills?

It never ceases to amaze me how fundies always claim that slavish devotion to a 2,500-year-old Hebrew creation myth in contradiction to all the emperical evidence somehow makes you a hip, think-outside-the-box, question-authority nonconformist.

Anyway, Church Lady can reassure herself that her social and religious convictions firmly group her with such havens of sophistication and modernity as Turkey and Cyprus, rather than such icky conformist backwaters as Sweden, Denmark, France, Japan, and the UK.

Apparently those of us in those oppressed countries are less free to disagree with the elite. I can just imagine it, a pollster calls asking about one's views on evolution and people are scared of Richard Dawkins whose been on the telly and said evolution is right so they daren't disagree. I think Denyse needs to get out (of North America) more.

Date: 2006/08/11 13:13:01, Link
Author: Bebbo
Wow, are Dembski's commenters competing for a tard of the year award?! Check this out:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1435#comments

Specifically this comment:

"Of course, evo would have those who commit crimes to lose their life and therefore their genes. So, the inclination to commit crime would disappear, except of course for smart or attentive criminals who get away with it. So, naturally we would expect that only highly intelligent humans to have a tendency for crime — the genes would be correlated. Oh, what is that you say, most criminals are clearly not so bright? The correlation appears to be lacking? Hmmmm.

Oh, yes, and of course evo would expect that the genes of those who turn to a life of crime in old age would also continue on, since they have already reproduced. So, most criminals probably start when they get past their reproductive age. What is that you say, most crimes are committed by the young, those who are in their prime reproduction age? There must be some mistake! Ah, but nothing that will slow down the NDE theory-generators we can be sure."

Just when you thought you'd seen the most pig dribblingly stupid and ignorant comment at UD someone comes along to surpass it. If God exists he must be a comedian to create this kind of entertainment.

Date: 2006/08/13 06:10:27, Link
Author: Bebbo
Denyse posts something at UD that seems to imply theistic evolution:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1446

She accepts that natural selection has some effect in nature and appears to accept that mutations happen. But typical of an IDer she thinks that these mechanisms cannot lead to speciation. The implication is that the history of life on Earth is a series of creation events where the created organisms are modified to some extent by evolutionary processes. Presumably though O'Leary is the kind of IDer who eschews theistic evolution. If so she should explain what the theory of ID actually is and how it explains the development of life on Earth.

Date: 2006/08/15 09:28:25, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (blipey @ Aug. 15 2006,10:07)
Quote
For instance, I’m starting a website (www.overwhelmingevidence.com — not yet up and running)


What's the point of that?  Does cyberspace really need a vast collection of new posts with no comments?  ???

This is same the guy who bought www.darwinalia.com. The point is that they don't have a theory of ID so they have to litter the Internet with websites to keep the rubes happy.

Date: 2006/08/15 09:31:47, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (GCT @ Aug. 15 2006,10:10)
In the thread where they discuss Luskin's whinings about how ID is unfairly treated, we get the lawyer talking about how science should be put to a vote.

Quote
9.  Who gave Karl Popper the authority to set the epistemological ground rules for all of the rest of us? I feel like the peasant in Monty Python’s Holy Grail. The peasant asks Arthur, “How did you get to be king? I didn’t vote for you.” Similarly I don’t recall voting to put science in a box marked “falsification line of demarcation – do not open.”

I ask this question because the federal courts have literally given Popper’s philosophical musings the force of law in their Establishment Clause cases. In a democracy such as the one in which we live, shouldn’t there have been a vote on this?

Back to Python: Arthur explains to the peasant that he became king when the Lady of the Lake gave him Excalibur. To this the peasant replies, “Just because some watery tart threw a blade at you doesn’t mean you have supreme executive authority. True power comes only by a mandate from the masses.”

Do the American people know that a German philosopher’s epistemology has been grafted into their fundamental law through the federal courts’ interpretation of the First Amendment? I doubt it.

Comment by BarryA — August 11, 2006 @ 3:07 pm


Then, if that isn't bad enough, we've got Sal shooting himself in the foot.

Quote
The Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) may have significance as we build quantum computers. However, Barrow and Tipler have shown that even if MWI is true, it would not negate an ID inference.

One of the reason their stealth ID classic, Anthropic Cosmological Principle was frowed on by many in the ID community was partly because of their support of MWI. However, I’m glad to see that they have by and large been invited to ID’s big tent of late, with Tipler appearing in Bill’s book, Uncommon Dissent. However as I poitned, out MWI would not negate a design inference any more than a parallel processing Quantum Computer operating in parallel universes would imply the Quantum Computer was not designed. If the universe is structured this way, that is a parallel quantum computer (which I doubt personally), it would still not negate a ID inference.

Regarding Multiverses, it strikes me as pure speculation. At elast MWI has some theoretical support, Multiverses on the other hand are speculations. But even if there are Multiverses, Paul Davies rightly pointed out, the problem would still remain, why would there be Multiverses rather than none at all? One could easily argue that Multiverses were part of a design as well! A regress to an ultimate cause would not be negated even if MWI or Multiverses are true.

Comment by scordova — August 11, 2006 @ 3:26 pm

(emphasis in original.)
Apparently Sal's too dumb to realize that the criticism is that ID can't be falsified, so it's no wonder that MWI would not negate the ID inference.  One could easily argue that anything is part of the design set out by god....er, I mean the Intelligent Designer.

I think the rest of the words after "Apparently Sal's too dumb" were superfluous.

Date: 2006/08/24 07:11:16, Link
Author: Bebbo
I'm beginning to wonder if it's not mere coincidence that Denyse hasn't posted since DaveScot re-appeared. Anyone want to bet on how long it'll be till Denyse's name gets taken off the UD banner?

Date: 2006/08/24 11:02:06, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Ichthyic @ Aug. 24 2006,14:52)
I don't understand why Dave Scott Springerbot doesn't simply buy the dam*n blog from WD40 at this point?

He says he's a multimillionare, right?

He obviously enjoys pretending to be the head frat boy there.

It's amazing to me he didn't just buy it straight out after his first month of playing der ÜberFührer.

then he could simply pull down WD40's picture and put his own up in his place, and change the byline.

don't you think everybody involved would be happier all the way round?

Dembski would get what he obviously wants, more money, Dave would get the platform he obviously wants, and we would still have all the source of humor anybody could possibly want.

so just DO IT, Dave!

buy UD and make it fully your own.  I bet WD40 would be more than happy to take a personal check.

Maybe DaveTard likes being an acolyte to a minor academic at a God college. Or maybe it's just that if he bought out UD hardly anybody would post there. Dembski may be a crank, but ultimately DT is just someone who hangs off his coattails and worked at Dell. I don't imagine the ID followers give much of a #### about an ex systems engineer who has a yacht, they want PhDs to keep up the pretence of science.

Date: 2006/08/24 12:29:01, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Ichthyic @ Aug. 24 2006,16:55)
Quote
Dembski may be a crank, but ultimately DT is just someone who hangs off his coattails and worked at Dell.


well, that conflicts with DT's constant prattling about his IQ, and how he can run rings around other programmers, and how he knows more about physics than all of the posters on PT combined...

etc, etc.

perhaps there is some fear there, but it certainly isn't based on any lack of confidence in his own abilities, based on his posts.

What IS DT afraid of?

I think Dave is afraid of open discussion. He seemed to get off on the ability to ban people from UD, and it's difficult to engage him in constructive debate even when he doesn't ban you. His ego always gets in the way.

Date: 2006/09/10 07:46:55, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 09 2006,14:03)
For months I've thought the dumbest guy over there was Joseph.

My vote is for Mats.

Date: 2006/09/11 04:33:12, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (improvius @ Sep. 11 2006,08:45)
Quote (Bebbo @ Sep. 10 2006,13:46)
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 09 2006,14:03)
For months I've thought the dumbest guy over there was Joseph.

My vote is for Mats.

I'm sticking with Jerry:

Quote
I think most of us are aware of the biological possibility that some strain of something like e-coli could kill every other life form on the planet and this would theoretically be within the theory of evolution.

It's a close contest. Here's one of Mats's latest:

"Sure they are [claims that God acts in nature are not testable], and Alvin Platinga gave an example. If someone were to say ‘God created 3 meters rabbits in Iceland, is this testable? Yes, go to ICeland, and check it. Is it falsifiable? Yes."

Date: 2006/09/12 09:30:00, Link
Author: Bebbo
Denyse is on a roll, she's got three posts up all of which appear to be trying to convince herself that the end of Darwinism is nigh. I've seen this repeating of a mantra from Holocaust deniers who think the Holocaust will soon be considered sham history.

I suspect that the more Denyse and the other IDers proclaim the demise of Darwinism it's because deep down they really know it's not going to happen.

Date: 2006/09/12 12:39:24, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 12 2006,15:43)
Quote (Bebbo @ Sep. 12 2006,14:30)
Denyse is on a roll, she's got three posts up all of which appear to be trying to convince herself that the end of Darwinism is nigh. I've seen this repeating of a mantra from Holocaust deniers who think the Holocaust will soon be considered sham history.

I suspect that the more Denyse and the other IDers proclaim the demise of Darwinism it's because deep down they really know it's not going to happen.

Denyse does not have her 'scientist' hat on there (don't think she owns one), nor does she even have her 'journalist' hat on, she's wearing her 'Christian zealot' hat. In other words, she's just parroting the kind of rhetoric she hears every Sunday, where she's told that if every good Christian just prays a lot and reeeeelly reeeeelly believes, then whatever they want can be made to happen, especially if it involves prevailing over the wicked (us). So if you say that Darwinism will go away any day now, and if you're a devout enough Christian, it'll happen. That's the normal way for them to view, uh, 'causation'. Denyse just fails to understand that out in the real world, it doesn't work that way.

I'm not sure that 'deep down they really know it's not going to happen' -- I think most of them really believe this. Remember, it's the same thing as religious faith, and they all have that in great abundance (except Davison and DT :p). It just that they have to resort to this kind of silliness because they're not holding any other cards.

The problem for the Denyses of this world is that they may have religious faith but even they can surely see that scientifically ID is making no headway and that Darwinism is still going strong. If Darwinism's demise really was on the cards they wouldn't have to keep trying to convince themselves that it is. Of course, I may be being too rational about this and not understanding the religious zealot mindset!

Date: 2006/09/14 13:06:29, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (jujuquisp @ Sep. 14 2006,17:04)
God, DaveTard is making me sick.  The crap he posts at UD is unbelievable.  How can anyone be so stupid and yet so righteous?  I can't take his garbage anymore.  It is actually making me physically angry to see someone act so childish at that blog, yet that person is practically worshipped by the masses of bleating sheep there.  The anger and loss of faith in humanity is intruding in my daily life.  Maybe I need UD rehab and DaveTard Detox.  Any suggestions for me?

I think the main problem with DaveScot is his ego. He sneers at scientists but never loses an opportunity to tell everyone about software he wrote, or how he made lots of money at Dell, or that he's retired with a yacht. It seems that the "power" he has on UD has gone to his head. What a sad way to spend one's retirement, as hanger on to a minor academic at a God college.

Date: 2006/09/15 23:36:30, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 15 2006,15:45)
I started a blog, and rant into that about their idocy. And post here still!
The o'leary posts are like some sort of dementia inducing visual   narcotic.
They should read them out at riots, nobody would be able to concentrate on fighting as they'd be too busy trying to work out what point she's trying to make as she's so obtuse (or just incapable of stringing worlds together in the same way everybody else is!;)

I can't decide whether she feigns ignorance or is just plain stupid. On the Darwin/Hitler thread she asks why people care whether evil despots like Hitler were Creationists or Darwinists. Has it escaped her notice that Richard Weikart is a fellow of the DI, an organisation committed to overthrowing Darwinism. The "From Darwin to Hitler" thing is a pretty obvious attempt at attaching a stigma of immorality to Darwinism. Heck, she even participates in that cheap trick by asking if any Darwinists object to stem cell research on moral grounds.

Date: 2006/10/09 11:47:12, Link
Author: Bebbo
Seems that the IDers now want to have their cake and eat it:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1695

They appeal to human designs to support the argument for ID, but when it's pointed out how nature is different to how humans design things that isn't an argument against ID! Heads they win tails we lose.

Date: 2006/10/18 12:31:05, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (GCT @ Oct. 18 2006,13:28)
Quote (2ndclass @ Oct. 17 2006,10:24)
That retraction will be included in the paper on CSI that Dembksi publishes in a math journal.  IOW, don't hold your breath.

It could happen.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1708#comment-68620

   
Quote
10. William Dembski // Oct 14th 2006 at 11:48 pm

Allen: Pardon me for not being impressed with the threat of having a course “delisted.” As for being willing to argue the evidence and its interpretation, please refer me to any of your writings in which you lay out the positive case for evolution (why you are a believer) and your refutation of ID. URLs will be fine. As for evolutionary theory being so much richer than strict Darwinism, this holds little water with me, especially since most attempted refutations of ID look to the power of natural selection (have a look at my intro to UNCOMMON DISSENT — the book — in which I spell out why Darwinism is the core of evolutionary biology). Oh, please stop the whining about ad hominems — you seem to give as good as you get. Finally, Baylor and I have patched up our differences — I have good colleagues there in a number of departments and some active research projects with them which I expect will in the next year to bear fruit.

Comment by William Dembski — October 14, 2006 @ 11:48 pm

[emphasis mine]

I expect an impending Waterloo for evolution to be forthcoming.

Edit:  Oops, I hadn't read the whole thread through when I posted.  Keiths beat me to the punch.

The problem for Dembski is that he hasn't figured out that if you're going to fight a metaphorical Waterloo it's best not to be on the losing side.

Date: 2006/10/18 12:33:38, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 18 2006,12:33)
Re Dembski's "and some active research projects with them which I expect will in the next year to bear fruit. "

He planted a grapevine? Or maybe strawberries?

The fruit will probably turn out to be rotten apples.

Date: 2006/10/19 02:06:24, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Oct. 18 2006,18:10)
You know the UD/ID crowd  are always asking moronic questions like "how come we don't see no cats givin' birth to no dogs?" or "how come we don't see no half man half monkeys??"

Ironically the idea of cats giving birth to dogs is more likely under ID than evolution.

Date: 2006/10/24 09:28:10, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 24 2006,10:30)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 24 2006,09:27)
I've often wondered how DT feels about the fact that since he's eventually forced to ban anyone at all intelligent there, the blog he polices is now top heavy with obvious dimwits, most of whom are indeed dumber than he is. I suspect he understands this situation perfectly well and continually wonders why he doesn't get a smarter class of wingnut at UD.

It's very simple, really. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king, and  DT needs to be the king of something.

DaveScot would make an interesting psychological case study. He's set himself up as the arbiter of truth, banning people who he deems to be wrong and is fed up of correcting. He's a sad pathetic man acting as acolyte to another sad pathetic man. Those people deserve each other.

Date: 2006/10/27 02:36:21, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 26 2006,18:21)
I think his Tardness is gonna have to pull the plug on this thread:

 
Quote
31. bebbo // Oct 26th 2006 at 4:41 pm

Dave, just out of curiosity would Phillip Johnson be banned from this blog if he decided to post here? After all, it was he who said “Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of Intelligent Design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.” If the “grandfather” of the ID movement is wrong that the designer is God then is it any wonder other people think so too?

Comment by bebbo — October 26, 2006 @ 4:41 pm


Then his Tardhood's reply (you can see he's getting irritated here -- you don't question the authority of an ex-Marine):

 
Quote
DaveScot // Oct 26th 2006 at 6:17 pm

bebbo

In answer to your question, have you seen any posts by Phil here?

Comment by DaveScot — October 26, 2006 @ 6:17 pm

I thought it was a reasonable question that if one of the founder's of the ID movement says the designer is God why is it surprising that others think that too. The amazing thing is that I didn't get banned for asking.

Date: 2006/10/27 11:06:22, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 27 2006,09:56)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 27 2006,09:00)
Quote (Bebbo @ Oct. 27 2006,07:36)

I thought it was a reasonable question that if one of the founder's of the ID movement says the designer is God why is it surprising that others think that too.

I think we're all pretty clear that reason has absolutely no place at UD.

 
Quote (Bebbo @ Oct. 27 2006,07:36)

The amazing thing is that I didn't get banned for asking.

Yet.

I recall though, at one point Davetard announced that anyone from PT is automatically banned. I know that includes the 26 or so contributors, and many of us at ATBC were banned long ago, but I wonder if Bebbo is now automatically banned.

My comments used to appear immediately, but not so the latest one. I've either been banned or put in moderation. If banned I don't know if it's because of what I wrote there or here!

Date: 2006/11/09 14:30:36, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 09 2006,11:43)
'Kinnel.

Quote
Denyse O’Leary’s new blog: The Mindful Hack
by O'Leary on November 9th, 2006 · No Comments
Check out my new blog on the neuroscience issues that border on the intelligent design controversy, the Mindful Hack:

First two stories:

1. Blindness: Spiritual blindness worse than physical?

2. Sigmund Freud … fallen so far and so fast?



Note: The Post-Darwinist will continue as before, and I will continue to contribute to this and all blogs I am not locked out of. Mindful Hack tracks my latest co-authored book, The Spiritual Brain (co-authored with Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard), currently in copy editing.


Denyse is the winner of quantity x shitness.

next week she's going to adress..


3. Are fifteen crap blogs equal to one good one?

Looks like she still hasn't actually read "The Selfish Gene" even though she's still spreading the lie that it means we're robot vehicles.

Date: 2006/11/18 05:07:44, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 18 2006,03:40)
Okay, everyone, I have something to say about this.

He and I communicated again and I actually feel 100% better.

He is a person. He does have feelings. I hope he believes that I do too.

You people have a longer history with him than I do, so maybe this will put an elbow through your Picasso but I decided on my own accord to change my post--I don't believe he's out to get me and I accept that he got wigged out, too. He's just as scared of weirdos as I am and I'm going to take the high road and believe him.

At any rate that was my last post about him. Ugh! I want to think about something else for a change. Like ID, which is what this is about. (And I want to go to sleep.)

So anyway, sorry to get all dramatic--I really am an up-and-down person, but I do think there's peace in the valley.

Besides, Dembski's still my fav UD bot as you all know.
:)

DaveScot is scared of weirdoes?! That's hilarious considering he's one himself. How about this where he talks about beating up P.Z. Myers:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1042

The reason? P.Z. had posted a blog entry about research into when humans first feel pain. Most of the comments on this at P.Z's blog where reasoned and thoughtful, but over at UD Dave had to go for a knee jerk reaction (actually, "knee" is redundant). Or how about him calling atheists at Pandasthumb church burning ebola boys. Also, don't forget that Dave is the guy on a power trip at being able to ban people at UD.

If Dave is scared of weirdoes then he must surely shit himself every time he looks in the mirror.

Date: 2006/11/25 04:27:36, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 25 2006,02:36)
Boo. He's run off.  Just like a marine... ;)

I think Dave's brief presence there only goes to reinforce the notion that he finds it difficult to deal with others as equals where he doesn't wield power. Rich was provocative, but it's not as if Dave hasn't flung insults at all kinds of people from inside fort UD. Considering his bluster about being a tough marine he seems incapable of dealing with a bit of verbal rough and tumble where he doesn't hold the moderator's axe. Pitiful and pathetic are words that spring to mind.

Date: 2006/11/26 10:41:46, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 26 2006,07:16)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 26 2006,06:27)
my favourite DS moment yet, an oldie but no disussion of "the Man, DaveTard" is complete without it:

     
Quote
I hope someone keeps track of the 11 parents and their children. Everyone in Dover knows #### well that no children were forced to listen to the 60 second announcement regarding evolution and intelligent design. So what you have is 11 parents whose religious hostility extended to such a trivial matter they were willing to make the tiny school district pay a million dollars.

I grew up in a small town and when a few people pull crap like that that hurts everyone there will be payback. I won't be at all surprised if the children of these parents are so badly ostracized and abused by other students that they're forced to find another school and the parents will be snubbed and insulted and their cars keyed and their coworkers and supervisors making their lives miserable that they'll all end up moving away.

I hope that's all tracked so that the next group of parents that gets their panties in a bunch and volunteers to the be the designated shitheads know what it's going to cost them.


and the cherry on the cake is at the wikipedia talk page

wikipedia talk

where DS makes legal threats over his own words. Oddly, the actual post over at Larrys blog has been removed. I wonder why. It's lucky there are so many caring people that kept a copy

Good grief,
Hard to believe (unless you have read many of DS's comments).

He is almost 2 dimensional. Kinda like a Disney villian. So funny: threats to sue someone with libel for quoting him.

I really did enjoy the Wiki link.

If Dave really cared about how much money the trial cost the Dover school board then he should be taking it up with the people who decided to defend the case. After all, according to him the board's policy didn't even mean anyone was forced to listen to the evolution/ID announcement, so why the heck were they so concerned to defend it in court?

Date: 2006/11/28 14:43:34, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Faid @ Nov. 28 2006,13:39)
From the "Brites" Thread, after DT expresses his fondness for certain SF authors:

Quote
I have in mind a project (after I finish the one I’m working on) for a story in a universe where a mysterious advanced race of “Builders” organizes planets via directed panspermia, and the two main characters, a man and woman of different epochs and worlds, find each other through one of the Builder’s left-over spacetime “transits.” The background is going to include a thorough discrediting of Darwinism.

Comment by dacook — November 28, 2006 @ 12:29 pm


Man, this dacook fella sems good. Almost as good as Paley.

On that same thread it's pointed out that Dembski wrote an endorsement for a book by James Hogan. Here's how one Amazon reviewer begins his review of that book:

"It's hard to know what to make of James P. Hogan, science fiction writer, and now the author of a book that in six densely argued chapters presumes to (1) supplant biological evolution with so-called Intelligent Design; (2) refute Big Bang cosmology; (3) unconfirm Einstein's relativity; (4) argue that Emmanuel Velikovsky (his childhood hero) is more likely right than the scientific and history establishments that labeled him a crackpot; (5) dispute the orthodox on global warming, ozone depletion, and the dangers of DDT while championing the use of nuclear power and the right type of asbestos; and (6) question the medical opinion that AIDS is caused by HIV."

Date: 2006/11/28 14:53:17, Link
Author: Bebbo
Dembski's latest is a list of URLs to ID goings on over here in the UK. The first link to a piece at The Register contains this great opening paragraph:

"More from that lovely bunch of people who we like to think of as creationists-with-a-website. Yes, the Intelligent Designers are back. Having had their bottoms soundly birched in the US, they are now determined to "educate" England's schoolkids about their utterly unscientific counter "theory" to evolution."

The piece mentions the Truth in Science idiots currently trying to pollute our schools with their dross. What gets me is that it's always a dead giveaway that a group is religious when they use the word Truth, with the capital T, in their name.

Date: 2006/11/29 14:01:18, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 29 2006,10:25)
Quote (Ogee @ Nov. 29 2006,10:05)
 
Quote (Freelurker @ Nov. 29 2006,00:33)
Dave's professional engineering experience does not give him experience with the question at hand.

There's also the minor issue that DT has no professional engineering experience (or education).  There is no forum on Earth (except UD) where he would be accepted as an expert on design or the practise of engineering.

To be fair, you can go to this site:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html

and search for "Springer, David" as inventor name.  You will find that he is the sole or joint holder of 4 patents:

6,393,586
6,321,262
6,212,631
5,936,608

None seem related to biology.

But check them out. One is to do with beeping and flagging an error code on bootup, and another is to do with identifying the computer when accessing online services. It's hardly earth shattering engineering.

Date: 2006/11/29 16:47:44, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Alan Fox @ Nov. 29 2006,16:16)
He's back!

What's the name of that fish that puffs itself up to look big? Reminds me of Dave who is again trying to impress us with his involvement on the Dell patent review committee. His co-participation in 6 patents doesn't seem so stupendous when you read what else he has to say:

"Engineers of all sorts, programmers, and those involved in development of business methods across the company were expected to submit between one and four abstracts each year as part of their performance plan."

Especially as he claims to have approved about 300 which all went on to become patents.

Surely someone who boasts this much about pretty boring technical and work achievements is insecure.

Date: 2006/11/30 13:30:30, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Seizure Salad @ Nov. 30 2006,12:08)
Isn't Dembski's Wikipedia article factually accurate? What's the issue?

PS: Yet again, DaveScot gets shut down on a foreign corner of the internet and retreats to UD.

I don't think the Dembski page on Wikipedia is completely accurate. But nevertheless it's obviously written with a certain bias.

Date: 2006/11/30 14:16:57, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 30 2006,13:55)
Quote (Bebbo @ Nov. 30 2006,13:30)
 
Quote (Seizure Salad @ Nov. 30 2006,12:08)
Isn't Dembski's Wikipedia article factually accurate? What's the issue?

PS: Yet again, DaveScot gets shut down on a foreign corner of the internet and retreats to UD.

I don't think the Dembski page on Wikipedia is completely accurate. But nevertheless it's obviously written with a certain bias.

Factual / Pro Science?

I don't think it's completely factual. For instance it claimed that Dembski has no papers on any subject published in an academic journal but his CV shows a couple published in statistical journals. Even though I'm no fan of Dembski it does bug me that his Wiki page is obviously written from a totally anti-ID standpoint. I do think it's biased just by the choice of content, even if most of it is true.

Date: 2006/11/30 16:40:58, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 30 2006,14:23)
Can someone who hasn't been blocked from Dembski's websites check to see what his latest academic affiliation on his CV is? I have gotten a report of what may be a new position for Dembski. It would be odd if he changed jobs without some notice of that somewhere.

According to his CV:

http://www.designinference.com/documents/PDF_Current_CV_Dembski.pdf

he's now at Southwestern Baptist.

Date: 2006/12/01 13:47:28, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 01 2006,13:28)
Re: O'Leary post

Quote
Uncool film wins in Toronto


Well, I replied at UD so let’s see if it appears. I meant it as a sincere attempt at dialogue. (My computer seems to be fritzing, too.)

I’m more confused by Denyse than ever considering I agree with her about the breathtaking vacuity of shopping malls and most popular Hollywood films. I hate shopping malls and haven’t set foot in the MOA in years. My ‘hood is full of little churches holding festivals all the time and guess who’s polka-ing with the Christians every year? As for Hollywood, I can’t watch that crap. Our tastes run toward independent films, art-house stuff, documentaries, and silent movies.

This film intrigues me and I agree that it should be released in America. I also recommend a small independent film (but it’s in French) called “Jesus of Montreal”. So what’s Denyse talking about when she rails against the materialists? Me? Well, I suppose I am a materialist according to one definition (naturalism), but then she ascribes to materialists qualities that I don’t have. Jeepers, isn’t it possible that there are some things that make us “materialists” human? I like pretty rainbows as much as Bill Dembski does. That a rainbow has a natural, as opposed to supernatural, explanation doesn’t detract from it for me. (I certainly preferred the company of the sensitive boy from Bible study than the louts who, once released, ran around the church grounds in search of small animals to torture.)

If there’s anybody who I don’t feel I have anything in common with, it’s the former high-school jocks who, I suspect, picked on both the fledgling ID advocates and upon art-science geeks like me in the school hallway, and now have become insurance salesmen who don’t give a crap about either science or intelligent design! ;) Those are the materialists in my view (literally, because jocks tend to not age well), not nerdy-geeky opponents like me of nerdy-geeky creationists.

Denyse O'Leary strikes me as a less vitriolic and less coherent version of Ann Coulter. Just substitute "materialist" for "liberal".

Date: 2006/12/01 16:58:55, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 01 2006,16:03)
Quote
Denyse O'Leary strikes me as a less vitriolic and less coherent version of Ann Coulter. Just substitute "materialist" for "liberal".


At the risk of violating Godwin's Law, I say: just substitute "materialist" for "Jew" and you get the reason why I though this post deserved an answer despite what I think of a blog like UD.

I was willing to lose an argument for the sake of human consideration and to regard an opponent as a person. I ask the same of Denyse O’Leary. I am tired of her dehumanizing tactics.  I’m not sure what O’Leary is trying to accomplish other than to whip up hatred when she waves this “materialist” flag in a manner that makes it sound like her infidels are just a bunch of nihilists who hate puppies and small children and everything nice. Is that what they're reduced to? I thought that after Dover it was "back to the lab."

There are several people at UD who seem to think that atheists/materialists are not much more than the devil incarnated. The ironic thing is that some posters there have suggested it's only a religious belief that stops them committing all sorts of heinous crimes. Denyse, like many UDers, is trapped into thinking that accepting Darwinism means extrapolating our morals from "survival of the fittest". All her posts go to show that ID is nothing to do with science, it's simply religion and a warped view of morality.

Date: 2006/12/02 04:34:40, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 01 2006,19:16)
Remember my asking about Dembski's new job?

Next week there should be some news out about it.

He's finally getting a real one?!

Date: 2006/12/04 15:55:25, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 03 2006,12:56)
Dembski, regarding rumors of a new job:
   
Quote
I recently spoke in chapel there, and, for the good of your soul, you do well to look at the text of my message: http://www.designinference.com/documen....oss.pdf

For the good of my soul, I read Dembski's message.  It's a long discussion of whether Jesus suffered enough to redeem our sins.  What this has to do with Dembski's employment is beyond me.  Perhaps by suffering in obscurity at West Southwestern Bible and Taxidermy College, Dembski is doing his part to save us all.
[...]


I read some of Dembski's article and I can say it didn't do my soul any good at all. In fact it just left me surer than ever that the Christian God is sick and perverse if it needed his his "son" to somehow pay for all the sins of humanity. This is one reason why even if Christianity were true I couldn't emotionally and mentally connect with all aspects of it.

Date: 2006/12/09 17:29:25, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 09 2006,10:37)
Bad Kristine, bad. She belly danced off the edge of the earth again.

Sorry but I want to know! No, I don't really expect an answer, but if they're going to wave the ghastly materialist flag, I get to wave the ghastly Jonathan Wells' HIV-theory flag. They want a big tent, big enough to cover the whole earth? I get to dance in it, then.

This stuff affects peoples' lives. Destroying science in the name of science will hurt people. Don't they see that? Do they care at all?

(And I'm proud that I slipped in the Tripoli Six over there.  I'm living my values, at least.)

And they need to lighten up over there BTW. What a bunch of stuffed shirts.      
Quote
sadly this is a perfect example of an atheist who has not used logic and reason to arrive at the inevitable conclusion that logic and reason are meaningless in the atheist’s world.


I'm supposed to wear sackcloth and ashes because I'm an atheist, or I'm not a "true" atheist? Sheesh. I guess assuming I ever get my fiction published I should ban my own books, or I'm not a "true" writer. Or maybe I'm talking to a bunch of baptists and what I really need to do is adopt the American abbreviated burkha (blouse, skirt below the knee, sensible pumps) and cover it up, and never move certain areas of my body ever, ever again. You whore, Kristine!

Well, this is news to me. According to that guy at UD logic and reason are meaningless to an atheist. I didn't realise we need a belief in God to make logic and reason meaningful.

Date: 2006/12/13 10:42:02, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Jake @ Dec. 12 2006,10:41)
Man, they're still banging on about Kitzmiller versus Dover. How is whining on about a year-old court decision supposed to advance the science of ID?

Recently Ive noticed more and more that the ID crowd have basically stopped producing new mathematical models, critiques of evolution etc., and have focussed more and more upon selling the ones they already have. In this respect they remind me very much of the YECs. Once a critique has been written, no matter how bad it is and how quickly is is evicerated, that critique is considered unimpeachable and totally correct in all but perhaps very minor respects. Criticism is all but ignored.

I reckon they feel they have all the arguments they need by now, and simply have to keep repeating them until people finally get it.

Their whining would be more convincing if it wasn't so obvious that had the judgement gone the other way they'd be praising Judge Jones and extolling his judgement.

Date: 2006/12/14 16:36:49, Link
Author: Bebbo
Oh dear, Reed Cartwright has been a naughty boy taking the piss out of the Biologic Institute. Luckily for IDers Dembski is here to spank his arse with a ten year old quote by Arthur Shapiro:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1858

If only the IDers put as much effort into science as they do looking for quotes.

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

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

I don't think it is intentional errors. IIRC it was something about posting a draft version of papers/books to the Internet and then making changes based on criticisms. Of course, the way he described it made it sound like a cynical ploy to address criticisms before the work made it into print rather than after.

Date: 2006/12/16 05:19:28, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (djmullen @ Dec. 15 2006,09:39)
You know, Dembski might actually be proud to have done the vocals for "Judge Jones School of Law".  Look at what he says on Overwhelming Flatulence:    
Quote
The Latest & Greatest
Christmas came early this year!
From Bill Dembski:

"The Judge Jones School of Law" is the brainchild of brilliant professional flash animator (I think of him as the "Rembrandt" of flash animation; for now he will remain anonymous until he sees the fallout from his handiwork) as well as of me and my lovely wife Jana (who came up with the name).
link

I wonder who did the fart sounds.

Either the readership of OE is small or maybe Dembski misjudged the humour as there are only 2 comments on the animation, one of which is negative.

Date: 2006/12/20 16:45:13, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 20 2006,11:16)
Weeping Davetard, confused agnostic / functional theist.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1883

Quote
Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.
by DaveScot on December 20th, 2006 · No Comments
I found the images of young people in “The Blasphemy Challenge” giving up their immortal souls on a dare disturbing enough to make me weep for them. I’m not rationally convinced we have immortal souls to give up but certainly the possibility exists. Imagine on judgement day that was you in the video and it was being replayed. There’s nothing to gain and everything to lose in this. Please join me in a simple prayer for the young victims of this stunt.

“Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.”



Now for UDs science news..


errr....

Okay, how about their reation to the Cobb County ruling?

http://www.google.com/search?....m+cobb+

0_o

I think it'd make more sense to hope there doesn't exist a God who would #### a person's soul because of the Blasphemy Challenge. If such a God exists he's an incredibly petty and vain one.

Date: 2006/12/20 16:52:02, Link
Author: Bebbo
Dembski seems to have a problem with Dawkins publishing his emails without permission. I submitted this response not expecting it to appear:

"William, could you explain why you have a problem with publishing emails without permission when you have done exactly the same thing to other people?"

Mr Dembski, may I introduce you to the black kettle.

Date: 2006/12/21 17:52:36, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 21 2006,15:24)
From Dave's latest:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1895

[edit - it's a tardlicious .BMP that we can't post]

WTF? is it tenuous tard art week at UD or something?

Made me think of this..


http://monster-island.org/tinashumor/humor/analogy.html

Wow, this is amazing. Dave has single handedly used the Internet to find some scientific papers to overthrow taxonomy and molecular clocks all in the space of a few days. A Nobel prize would be too little for such an achievement. Who said UD is bereft of science...

Date: 2006/12/22 10:17:20, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 21 2006,18:17)
Quote (Bebbo @ Dec. 21 2006,17:52)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 21 2006,15:24)
From Dave's latest:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1895

[edit - it's a tardlicious .BMP that we can't post]

WTF? is it tenuous tard art week at UD or something?

Made me think of this..


http://monster-island.org/tinashumor/humor/analogy.html

Wow, this is amazing. Dave has single handedly used the Internet to find some scientific papers to overthrow taxonomy and molecular clocks all in the space of a few days. A Nobel prize would be too little for such an achievement. Who said UD is bereft of science...

Does the Nobel Committee hand out prizes for finding stuff on the internet?

They should do. Dave has just shown that all you need is an armchair, and Internet connection, and no training in biology to explode major aspects of biology.

Date: 2006/12/22 17:01:07, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 22 2006,12:05)
Dembski seems upset:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1898

Yeah, it's a hard life for Dembski. He had a 5 year paid holiday at Baylor, is/was employed by the FTE, is/was paid by the DI as a fellow, presumably gets royalties from his books, and is a part owner in a BBQ stand. After Baylor he's found two God colleges willing to take him on. Yes, I can see why life is so hard he has to charge $200 an hour for his so-called expertise when those free rolling guys like Barbara Forrest can afford to give their time for free.

Most of us can only dream of a 5 year paid holiday to pursue our passion.

Date: 2006/12/22 17:52:56, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Ved @ Dec. 22 2006,17:35)
Dembski's new flash contest

Cash in on ID! Poopy noises are bonus, for private collection only, of course, possibly...

Wow. Dembski really is experiencing an uncommon descent. Whether's into madness, further obscurity, or further futility we can only wonder.

Date: 2006/12/23 13:56:31, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 23 2006,13:34)
Something new...
Davescot blows his own trumpet..

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1889#comment-

 
Quote
44. DaveScot // Dec 23rd 2006 at 1:53 pm

dopderbeck

On a ***tangential topic I did a little googling and found your expertise to be in the area of intellectual property. This is interesting as for two years I was one of a dozen engineers and a few in-house IP attorneys tasked with evaluating patent abstracts submitted by any of 35,000 employees at a $40 billion per year high tech company. I reviewed about a thousand abstracts, approved about a third of them, and AFAIK every one I approved was eventually granted. I’m the named inventor on four granted U.S.patents myself. It’s even possible my former employer employed your former employer in the past on IP legal work. Did Dell Computer ever use your firm that you know of?


Gawd almighty, is he still banging on about his involvement in a patent committee at Dell. What a loser. This is the guy who has described himself as an "emeritus" systems design engineer, presumably to further puff up his already bloated self image.

Date: 2006/12/23 16:28:02, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 23 2006,14:18)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 23 2006,15:03)
DaveTard, Frontier lawman:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1889#comment-

 
Quote
46. DaveScot // Dec 23rd 2006 at 2:19 pm

For what it’s worth I agree with tribune on the merits of that strategy. I’m just a little more fed up with the game and think it’s time to get the legislative and executive branches to slap down the judicial branch. In the old days of the republic judges that got so far out of touch with the desires of the people they serve they got impeached for their impudence. It’s been far too long since an example was made of one of these black-robed fascists.

Comment by DaveScot — December 23, 2006 @ 2:19 pm


Hang 'em high, Dave.

Things were not different w/r/t impeachment in 'the old days'. Only twelve federal judges have been impeached in US history. An average of one every 19 years. So it's also stupid of him to say 'it's been far too long', since the last one was only 17 years ago.

Taking Dave's concerns to the logical conclusion you (the USA) would get rid of the judiciary and just enact the will of the people based on a public opinion poll. And it's more than ironic Davey talking about fascism when he avoids discussing ID/evolution in venues where he doesn't hold a moderator's veto.

Date: 2007/01/06 05:14:39, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 05 2007,08:19)
DaveScot  
Quote
Imagine, if you will, how a wasp evolved the ability to perform brain surgery complete with a drug that turns a cockroach into a docile zombie it can lead around like a dog on a leash. I emphasize the word imagine because any story you come up with is a work of fiction. Such fiction is the basis of the Theory of Evolution.


That Intelligent Designer is one sick puppy.

Postulating possible evolutionary steps to the surgeon wasp is engaging in ficton. But positing an unknown designer(s), using unknown methods, at unknown times, for unknown purposes to explain it is performing the science of ID. What tards.

Date: 2007/01/08 09:37:05, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 08 2007,06:45)
malnutritious            
Quote
Speaking of limited environments, Biosphere 2 is an interesting example. It was not a failed ecology, it only failed to meet the expectations of being a self contained environment which can support 8 human beings. In it’s natural tendancy to equilibrium the biosphere ecology destroyed much of the larger more dependent lifeforms in favor of a more suitable balance.

DaveScot            
Quote
Actually almost all vertebrates died and all pollinating insects died.

I’m getting a little tired of correcting you. Either improve the quality of your comments or find a different blog.

You didn't correct him, DaveScot. That's what he said. The ecosystem rejected some species, while others thrived. It was a disappointment, even a failure, from the point-of-view of humans. But the bacteria, cockroaches and apparently ants liked the ecology just fine, even adjusting it to arrive at a reasonable balance. Your original comment was perhaps more accurate, that "Attempts at designing such an ecology by humans have all failed," assuming you mean a completely enclosed artificial structure as a human domicile. Even in this context, malnutritious made a valid comment extending the idea of ecological balance to more accurately reflect nature. Perhaps you are being just a wee bit vertebrate-centric in your views.

But, of course, that's not the point of your post.

--
Edit:

DaveScot      
Quote
Perhaps the original poster should have said a viable, self-sufficient ecology instead of just an ecology. In any designed ecology the usual result is death for everything. Attempts at designing such an ecology by humans have all failed.

I reread your comment. It was not accurate whatsoever. The result was not "death for everything".  The comment by malnutritious not only corrected the error, but provided valid reasoning that accurately extends the notion of ecosystem.

Now we know why your threatened to ban malnutritious. He caught you in a flagrant error and added a significant view to the discussion. By the way, most of the living world is prokaryotes. A significant portion of your own body mass is prokaryotes.  Most of the animal world is invertebrate. Why do you hate most of the living world?

Hmmm. Dave often refers to human designs to back up his case for ID. So, if designed ecosystems don't work is that reason to infer to ecosystems aren't designed?!

Date: 2007/01/09 11:09:01, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (slpage @ Jan. 09 2007,08:08)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 06 2007,03:17)
http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1930#comment-83870]DaveT:
   
Quote
That plus I’m a jarhead and I like explosions and other things in general that make loud noises.


*fart*

Taerd seems to have an odd obsession with his short stint as a Marine (supposedly).  He has NOT been a  Marine, if you accept his timeline, for going on 30 years, yet he says he is 'a jarhead'?  I was a paratrooper from 84-88, but I would be embarrassed to claim that 'I'm a paratrooper' 20 years after the fact.
The guy has major ego issues...

Add to the list of things he's obsessed with for his ego's sake:

His time on Dell's potential patent applications committee

His 5 or so patents, some joint, including such earth shattering innovations along the lines getting a computer to flag it had an error when booting up

The fact that he made a lot of money at Dell and is now retired and owns a yacht

Decades of subscribing to Sci-Am

Date: 2007/01/09 11:11:52, Link
Author: Bebbo
Sorry, duplicate post

Date: 2007/01/09 14:19:10, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 09 2007,01:38)
Modest from Tardville writes:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1931#comment-84435



     
Quote
86. DaveScot // Jan 9th 2007 at 12:22 am

Borne

No size limits. Must have been a high probability spam word in it. The lengthier the comment the more likely it is to have a spam word in it.

P.S.

If developers do what amateurs always do - just start coding right away - disaster awaits.
Costs will sky rocket, overtime will be painful, debugging will never end and you risk losing the client (and then your job).

That’s what they tell you in school but if you ever get a chance to work with a gifted programmer you’ll find out the rule has its exceptions. The exceptions are what are known in the business as “star programmers”. They’re about as rare are pro ball players and usually end up earning about as much. They’re 10+ times more productive than average programmers. Familiar names that come to mind are John Carmack, Steve Wozniak, and Tim Berners-Lee… I’ve clocked myself writing over 300 lines of assembly or C code per hour that often executes flawlessly on the first pass (including a clean compilation on the first pass). I can code almost without syntactical or logical error as fast as I can type and I can type pretty #### fast. I’ve written literally millions of lines of code that has gone into billions upon billions of dollars worth of computer systems. Virtually none of it was done according to the structured/team programming rules you were taught. At the top of my game I was making about $1000 per hour and my mistakes, (which I didn’t make and had a long track record of not making) had the potential of each costing millions of dollars PER DAY in stalled computer manufacturing lines all over the world.

Opportunities for star programmers to perform one-man miracles have declined as software has grown in sophistication over the decades. Even someone who can crank out a thousand lines of debugged code a day can only do a quarter million lines in a year. 25 years ago that was enough for one major application like Lotus 1-2-3 or Wordstar or DOS or a couple of arcade games like Star Wars or Defender. Anymore these kind of projects require a million lines or more and while you might have a star programmer on the project he won’t be a lone wolf and so has to be a team player working with version control systems, group coding standards, et cetera. My last hurrah was designing laptops at Dell 10 years ago when there would be two principle engineers on the project - one hardware engineer and one bios engineer. But even PC BIOSes have grown into million+ line behemoths with some of the code 20 years or more old and is beyond the scope of any lone wolf these days.

Comment by DaveScot — January 9, 2007 @ 12:22 am



P.S. Tardy, Carmack is known for advancing graphics and rendering, not his code. I think it's his conceptual grasp not fast fingers that did it.

Millions of lines of code not written using structured programming techniques. Sounds like a maintenance programmers nightmare. As for $1000 per hour, does that sound realistic to any fellow programmers in the US? I've worked in IT for 18 years in the UK and have never heard of such exhorbitant rates, even for self-proclaimed fantastic programmers like Dave.

Date: 2007/01/09 14:28:33, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (2ndclass @ Jan. 09 2007,12:17)
Quote (Bebbo @ Jan. 09 2007,11:09)
His 5 or so patents, some joint, including such earth shattering innovations along the lines getting a computer to flag it had an error when booting up

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

That's what I suspected. At the moment Audi have a car ad on telly boasting about their number of patents as though we actually care.

Date: 2007/01/09 16:14:01, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Faid @ Jan. 09 2007,15:44)
I can't believe I missed this:
Quote
39. apollo230 // Jan 7th 2007 at 10:45 pm

One argues with dedicated Darwinists in absolute vain. The old saying is “a picture is worth a thousand words”. Therefore, if a Darwinist can look at all the wonders of nature and not be stirred to suspect a design, we absolutely waste our breath when we attempt to convince them of the distinct possibility of ID. Typical Darwinist posture redefines the concept of “hard-boiled”. The only thing that will shake these dedicated strict materialists is the death of their bodies. When their spirits look down at the discarded corpse, then and only then will it occur to them that naturalism was an incomplete explanation.

Comment by apollo230 — January 7, 2007 @ 10:45 pm

Argumentum ad picturum?

Date: 2007/01/09 16:21:13, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (carlsonjok @ Jan. 09 2007,15:39)
Quote (dhogaza @ Jan. 09 2007,15:33)
Contract work in extremely hot technologies will $1,000 on a sustained basis?  Not that I know of.

Having seen my employer bring in retirees for short term work related to some arcane project they worked on during their employment, it may be that Dell brought him back to do some work on a flat fee contract.  He then proceeded to get the work done in such time that it worked out to $1000 per hour.

That sounds like a plausible speculation. I could believe someone getting $1000 a day or even a few hundred per hour for very short term specialist work, but $1000 an hour seems incredible. Still, Dave's supposed mega earnings don't make any of his boneheaded comments on ID any less stupid.

Date: 2007/01/10 08:07:29, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Altabin @ Jan. 10 2007,04:38)
Post appeared, but edited down to the first sentence.  My reply:
 
Quote
 
Quote
Since Feddle has been denied the chance to respond, this is a rather hollow declaration of victory.

Umm…. would that be like me not being able to respond on virtually every pro-evolution site on the web? Spare me the hollow victory crap. -ds


I'd prefer it if you deleted my comment altogether, rather than shortening it by more than two-thirds and adding your own commentary (which I thought Dr Dembski had specifically disallowed some time back).

In the rest of the comment, I explained why I think this is hollow victory.  Answer that question (or allow others to address it); suppressing most of my post and adding a bolded non-sequitur is a playground level of discourse.

IIRC Dave was banned from PT for threatening to hack it. There's a world of difference between that and Feddle who was banned merely for saying things Dave disagreed with.

If Dave has been banned from most pro-evolution sites there's doubtless a good reason for it. And it doesn't make his "victory" over Feddle any less hollow.

Date: 2007/01/10 16:31:01, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (jujuquisp @ Jan. 10 2007,13:13)
Here's an old gem I came across again recently, enjoy!:

http://jswynne.typepad.com/gropes/2006/07/prodigious_geni.html



 
Quote
Prodigious genius DaveScot turns out to be high-functioning ignoramus

I wrote a while back about IDiot Joe G. and his repetition of a favorite phrase all over the web. DaveScot, who is William Dembski's alpha-lapdog at Uncommon Descent, seems to have a pet phrase himself.  He loves to say that random mutation and natural selection aren't capable of "...creating novel cell types, tissue types and body plans."

He uses the same tired phrase over and over; see here, here, here, here, and especially here where he is informed why what he keeps repeating, ad infinitum, ad nauseum, is crap, but  he doesn't listen.  Like his little pal Joe, Davey recites empty phrases that he thinks sound impressive, but which have no actual mass. They're empty containers looking for something profound to hold.

Joe G. can at least use being intractably stupid as an excuse, but Davey likes to remind everyone that he has (allegedly) a genius-level IQ, although "idiot savant" would be a more likely description.  Nonetheless, here DaveScot shares some info regarding his prodigious intellect:

   ...biology IS something that can be picked up in spare time depending on how much time we’re talking about and how fast the person can learn. I have certified IQ somewhere north of 150. If you’re much under that you really can’t even comprehend how fast people at my level can think.

and again here:

   I’m an autodidact with a certified IQ north of 150 (MGCT and SAT tests). I had a college level vocabulary at 9 years of age and was reading everything about science I could get my hands on starting a few years before that. I’ve continued on that course for over 40 years. In my spare time I became a computer design engineer and self-made millionaire.

I bring all of this up because Davey continually demonstrates that having a high IQ doesn't necessarily mean that he knows anything, especially when it comes to science.  His attitude seems to be, "I have a high IQ, which means that I can learn things, so that must mean that I know things.  Problem is, though, he's always reminding us that he doesn't grasp even elementary concepts.  Like most IDiots, Davey wants to go to intellectual heaven, but he doesn't want to have to die first.

Here's a good example.  Davey demonstrates that he doesn't understand the statistical concept of randomness (without which you can't get to first base in science of any kind):

At Uncommon Descent commenter dene_bebo takes Davey to task over his repetitious blather:

   Dave, since you think documented processes in nature (RM + NS as you put it) aren’t able to create novel cell types, tissue types, and body plans; can you explain what evidence there is for ID being able to do it beyond an analogy to human designers?

Davey snaps back:

   First of all these are not “documented” processes in nature. To call any mutation “random” requires that you demonstrate 1) the unverse is not entirely deterministic and 2) you have demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that no unknown directed process is involved. I won’t hold my breath while you show me where these are demonstrated. What random in this case really means is “unknown cause”.

He almost has it, but not quite. What "random" means in its broadest sense-- that every member of a population has an equal chance of being selected each time a selection happens--refers to unpredictability as to occurrence, not necessarily cause. If you can successfully predict where, when and how a given phenomenon will occur, then it's not a random occurrence.  It's possible to know the cause of a random phenomenon without knowing when it's going to happen.  We know the proximate causes of thunderstorms, and can predict with reasonable confidence in the near term when and where they'll happen, but beyond a few weeks they're random as to time and place.  Insofar as mutations are concerned, we can predict that they will happen, and might even know why, but not precisely when or what potential cause will be at work in each instance.  It's as simple as that, but still, Davey doesn't get it.

Thus even if Davey's Grand Designer were not a figment of his very fertile imagination, and there were only a limited number of possible results of mutation, each individual mutation could still be "random."  If, on the other hand, Davey is suggesting that every mutation in the history of life on earth might have been predetermined, as to time, place and results, there is simply no evidence, none, to support the assertion.  But even if all mutations are predetermined, they still have the appearance of randomness to us, and we can make predictions based on our characterization of them as being random, so using randomness as a concept in evolution is evidentially useful.  The same certainly can't be said for "Aliens did it."

In an earlier display of his statistical (and physics) ignorance, Davey opined,

   As far as physics can tell us, at the atomic scale and upwards there is no such thing as random - every effect has a cause and this chain of cause and effect is in principle traceable back to the origin of matter. There is some debate whether quantum events are truly random but the mutations you refer to are chemical changes at the atomic scale and completely deterministic as far as anyone knows.

A lot of impressive-sounding jibba-jabba but Davey is making up his own definitions.  At least that way, he can make some sense when he talks to himself, or to the livestock at UD who just love it when Davey talks all sciencey to them.  But it's easy to tell when something pathological is going on, and that's clearly the case with Davey.  He misrepresents (willfully or otherwise) basic concepts in math and science, and then inflates his own ego by pointing out the "errors" in the concepts.

The really funny thing is that he does all of this bloviating on a blog that belongs to a mathemetician who has to know that Davey has it all wrong, but there are no corrections.  Seems that Dumbski Dembski is more interested in empty rhetoric than accuracy. He is not, in other words, Clever Beyond Measure™.

But ID is all about the science, right?

So Davey has a high IQ and boasts about it in such a way to imply that it coupled with his reading about science makes him an authority. Well, I've got a certified IQ of 154 (on the Cattell scale) but I've never bragged about it like Dave does with his IQ. Nor am I impressed with Davey's self-proclaimed talent of being such a massively quick thinker compared to those with lower IQs.

Anyway, as quoted, on UD I once said "Dave, since you think documented processes in nature (RM + NS as you put it) aren’t able to create novel cell types, tissue types, and body plans; can you explain what evidence there is for ID being able to do it beyond an analogy to human designers?"

Unsurprisingly Dave never answered my question. He's all mouth and trousers. I suspect this is because he and the other UDers are not really interested in exploring what ID means or developing a theory of it to explain what we know of the natural world. Instead they're largely fixated with what Darwinism supposedly cannot explain. AFAIK Dave has never progressed beyond arguments from incredulity about Darwinism and analogies to human designs and designers.

Date: 2007/01/10 17:01:47, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (mitschlag @ Jan. 10 2007,16:48)
Quote
Comments About Comments
by DaveScot on January 10th, 2007 · No Comments
We used to keep this linked on the sidebar. I added it back.

Comments about Comments
by William Dembski on April 16th, 2005
I want to encourage productive comments on this blog. To that end, let me indicate some initial policies that I plan to enforce:
(1) Thou shalt not be boring, and the person you least want to bore is me. In particular, I’ve been at this game for about fifteen years now, so I’ve seen most of the objections. Don’t repeat what I likely have already seen (for an overview of the sorts of objections I’ve seen and handled, consult my book The Design Revolution).
(2) I don’t plan on policing or editing comments. If you post a comment that I don’t think is productive, I’ll probably not just eliminate your comment but you from this blog (which, given the way WordPress handles comments, means all your comments will be removed). So if you have any doubts about whether I’m going to react negatively to your comments, back them up — I won’t. Note also that I’ve had it happen where someone ingratiates himself with me and then turns. Bait and switch is a sure way to be banned from commenting here.
(3) This blog is for me mainly to get out news items about the ID movement and my work in particular. For more sustained writing and development of my ideas, I refer you to my website: www.designinference.com. I am not a journalist nor do I intend to become one. Thus this is not “The ID Answer Man” or “Ask Your Questions about ID Forum.” If I don’t respond to your comments and questions, even if they are good comments and questions, understand that I have way more commitments than I can fulfill, and that I will only occasionally contribute to a comment thread here.
Finally, there is one cardinal rule at this blog, namely, I make up the rules as I go along. In other words, these policies can change at any time. Moreover, if they change, it will most likely be in the direction of curtailing the time I need to spend with comments.

Indeed, this is one sick puppy.

Thus spake Dembski: "If I don’t respond to your comments and questions, even if they are good comments and questions, understand that I have way more commitments than I can fulfill, and that I will only occasionally contribute to a comment thread here."

This is hilarious in light of his recent committments:

Being the "creative force" behind a peurile animation complete with farting sounds

Challenging Barbara Forrest to a debate

Date: 2007/01/11 12:59:18, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Altabin @ Jan. 11 2007,06:59)
Quote
#

19. DaveScot // Jan 11th 2007 at 1:26 am

It’s a real shame. We were going to line up the Salk Institute for the venue and get Ann Coulter to hype it. We still can. All Barbie Doll has to do is say the word. My commish would have paid for a weekend for me & my old lady at our favorite La Jolla hotel - La Valencia. I haven’t stayed there since I lived 45 minutes north in Irvine 14 years ago. Or even better it’d pay for a suite and a couple lobsters every night for a week south of the border on Rosarita Beach. Even if they are only Pacific lobsters Barbie’s still a real party pooper.

Comment by DaveScot — January 11, 2007 @ 1:26 am
#

20. DaveScot // Jan 11th 2007 at 1:43 am

Speaking of Rosarita Beach and Jesus… there isn’t anything that gets you praying better than waking up naked on Rosarita Beach Sunday morning with a mouthful of sand, an empty bottle of tequila, and no idea which hotel is yours. The first thing you pray for is a fig leaf before you go looking for your car.

Comment by DaveScot — January 11, 2007 @ 1:43 am

My commish?  Ann Coulter?  Barbie Doll?  Me and my old lady?  Naked on Rosarita Beach?  Posted, you note, at 1:43 am.  Apparently on smack.

It's bad enough that Dave keeps going on about his past in attempt to impress people, but an insight into his sordid adventures on Rosarita beach is too much.

Date: 2007/01/12 07:49:38, Link
Author: Bebbo
I'm in the UK. Originally from oop north but been living in the south since finishing uni many years ago.

Date: 2007/01/13 04:29:06, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 12 2007,17:29)

You know, somehow I knew DaveTard would look like that. My Comic Book Guy guess wasn't too far off the mark.

Suddenly I see why he spends all his time with his preposterous alpha-male posturing and Mr. Big Tough Ex-Marine nonsense. It, uh, makes more sense now.

And I am more convinced than ever that by no means does he have a line of beautiful women begging him to sire their children.

Hmm, I thought Dave said he's got a jarhead.

Date: 2007/01/23 14:55:05, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 23 2007,14:21)
[...]
WATERLOO! WATERLOO!

Speaking of Waterloo. Dembski once posted an email of mine and said something about looking to the British for snootiness. I suggested that we Brits could give him advise on winning Waterloos, but never heard back!

Date: 2007/01/24 04:05:16, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Altabin @ Jan. 24 2007,03:07)
DaveScot, military analyst (my bold below):

 
Quote
Well Jim [Webb], I was a Marine at the end of the Vietnam war. I didn’t go, it was mostly over by then, but one thing I noticed was that all the non-commissioned officers senior to me were real combat veterans. They knew how to survive guerilla warfare in an Asian backwater. Me and my generation of Marines, all we did was play at wargames 4 weeks a year in the Mojave desert. No one was trying to kill us, no foreign language was spoken by the natives, no guerillas in civilian clothes running around, none of that. After 30 years of that kind of experience our military was virtually without anyone in any rank who’d had actual combat experience. Here’s the deal Jim. In order to have an effective force in fighting guerilla and urban wars in Arab countries we need actual combat veterans seasoned in that type of warfare leading the unseasoned troops.

That's the most ass-backward justification I've ever heard for the Iraq war: we need the Iraq war to create seasoned veterans, in order to fight the Iraq war (and the other ones we set off in the Middle East).  Iraq is just like Vietnam, but in a good way.  And Bush has managed this war even better than Vietnam:
 
Quote
Now we have an effective force led by NCOs who know how to survive urban and guerilla wars in Arab countries. And Bush managed to build that force without losing 58,000 American lives as were sacrificed in Vietnam but rather limited the losses to 3,000.

A brilliant strategy.

 
Quote
Drop and give me 500 Webb, then issue an apology to the public you tried to deceive.

I think you meant to say, "Drop and give me 500, homo".  If you're going to be a self-parody, at least try to be accurate.

In that blog post Dave suggests he was a real marine. Yet in his bio at UD it says he was just part of a ground crew fixing stuff for aircraft. I guess that in Dave's mind that makes him better placed to spout off than a marine who was actually in Vietnam.

Date: 2007/01/24 11:15:07, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (carlsonjok @ Jan. 24 2007,08:46)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 24 2007,08:39)
So Jim Webb, who DID see combat, is now supposed to 'apologize' to Dave tard, who didn't.

Much like Bush attacking Kerry on his war record.

Bravo, Dave.

In all fairness, using Vietnam as a  baseline, I have more faith in the current administration to manage Iraq than I do Jim Webb.  

After all, to paraphrase something I read elsewhere, Bush and Cheney had an exit strategy for Vietnam.  Webb obviously didn't.

It would be more accurate to say Bush and Cheney had a no entry strategy with Vietnam.

Date: 2007/01/24 11:52:14, Link
Author: Bebbo
Over at UD Joseph tries to refute the notion that ID is religion:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1986#comments

He says "If the Bible were falsified today, would ID be affected? No". But if the Bible were falsified and the people in the ID movement became atheists would ID continue? No.

Date: 2007/02/09 04:37:06, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 08 2007,11:48)
things are getting desperate over at UD.
 
Quote
Airbus engineers, working with programs simulating real, tangible objects and physical laws which are nearly perfectly understood cannot manage to model the correct length of wires for its lighting without making small errors that result in catastrophic setbacks.
...
Likewise, Darwinists have conclusively shown that living creatures, far more complex than the new Airbus plane, are the result of blind evolutionary processes in which the badly-functioning assemblies were filtered out by natural selection. Right.

what a crock of &*^&.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/2040

So even though humans are having difficulty making an Airbus plane that is far less complex than living creatures this is evidence for design?! What utter tards.

Date: 2007/02/09 09:13:52, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 09 2007,07:13)
NEWSFLASH:  Theologian critiques scientist!

I think Dembski is upset because that theologian was spot on with his criticism of specification.

Date: 2007/02/09 13:14:16, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 09 2007,10:04)
'Agnostic / Atheist' DaveTard's latest:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/2048

Okay, three non-atheists, flail at the strawman!

I think Dave should be more concerned about why CNN can't afford chairs.

Date: 2007/02/12 09:23:09, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (phonon @ Feb. 10 2007,12:43)
You cannot deny the power of the Lord the predictive power of ID.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/2055#more-2055
 
Quote
Probably exploited during evolution? How about purposely exploited by an intelligent designer, Shalev. This finding comes as no surprise from a design theoretic point of view. We expected it and much more like it.

Where was this predicted? Where was it written down? Darwin's Black Box? No Free Lunch? Oh no it was in a comment Davetard made in the past on UD.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1802#comment-77217
 
Quote
Wow. It took me a moment’s consideration of miRNA (which I’d never heard of before) to accurately describe how they might make synonymous substitutions not so neutral. See how actual designers of codes in real life can drill right through to these things based upon intuition and experience?
Ah miRNA's are evidence of an intelligent designer. So cancer is also the result of intelligent design I guess?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_RNA

Dave's intellectual self-aggrandisement reminds me of that super-high IQ bloke Chris Langan who visited ARN and ISCID a few years ago. Both of them have a non-charming persona.

Date: 2007/02/26 16:53:38, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Fross @ Feb. 26 2007,14:40)
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Feb. 26 2007,12:02)
Some vintage GilDodgen tard over at UD:
             
Quote
Here’s a thought about anthropic “coincidences.” Michael Denton, in his book Nature’s Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe (a tour de force which cannot be summarized here), points out that if metals could not have been smelted and refined at temperatures reachable through carbon-based fire, technology could never have arisen.

wow, that's like saying if someone didn't build a highway between my house and my job, I couldn't have gotten to work today.

In reality I would have just taken another route.


these guys are the smart.

And if humans only had one bum cheek they'd find it difficult to sit straight.

Date: 2007/03/07 13:58:20, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 07 2007,10:26)
THIS JUST IN...TEMPLETON CALLS DEMBSKI OUT.  AGAIN
[....]

At http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....bout-id

Dembski opines:

"Finally, I find it interesting that Templeton keeps no online record of the book prize that I won. Seven people won the prize in 1999, including Darwinist Michael Ruse. Yet the only reference one can find to that award is not on the Templeton Foundation website (which otherwise seems meticulous about maintaining a record of its past funding and accomplishments) but rather on the ESSSAT website (European Society for the Study of Science and Theology):" [my emphasis]

Conclusion: Templeton doesn't consider Dembski's award an accomplishment.

Date: 2007/03/09 10:31:42, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (hooligans @ Mar. 08 2007,13:47)
I love how I got booted over at UD for suggesting to Dr. Dr. Dembski that calling an impartial judge a narcissitic putz was innapropriate and unchristian. Now dembski has the gall to pretend that he has values:
 
Quote
I am a Christian, and the example of our Lord is not to shun people or set up a caste system of more, or less, acceptable people.


BS. Dembski . . . you are a total fraud!

That's pretty rich coming from Dembski who once posted something which implied he supported the idea of shooting to kill looters.

Date: 2007/03/11 07:02:46, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 10 2007,19:09)
Dembski:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evoluti....contest

Well parody and farting flash is easier then science, I guess. when that fella posted "IDers do something", I think he was hoping for science.

Well, Dembski has experience at sucking up to old men. It's not that long ago he was editor of "Darwin's Nemesis" - a tribute to the well known scientific genius Phil Johnson.

Date: 2007/03/14 14:39:17, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 13 2007,11:34)
Seriously, are we getting hysterical? How can one sort truth from propaganda? Check the source and read the original research (and who funded it), I guess.

“Climate Denial” — What’s Next, “Evolution Denial”?

Hasn't Bill got that the wrong way round?

I wonder if the UDers would take the Channel 4 programme as seriously if they knew it was made by someone who's apparently a communist, and, IIRC, has been in trouble for making a misleading programme for Channel 4 in the past.

Date: 2007/03/22 06:04:40, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (slpage @ Mar. 21 2007,14:56)
Quote (k.e @ Mar. 20 2007,18:54)
Quote (Ogee @ Mar. 20 2007,20:21)
 

That's hilarious, given how DT squealed and whined like a little piggy when insulted at Alan's blog and at UDoJ.  I love the tough guy Marine act coming from a tubby yellow-bellied (or maybe those are just cheezy-poof crumb-stains?) REMF who speedily bans anyone who exposes his considerable inadequacies over at UD.  I suppose being a hypocrite is small beans when you're already a known cretin, bigot, coward and all-round uneducated moron.

Quoting the tardy one:

Quote
If I weren't banned at Pharyngula, Dispatches, Panda's Thumb, ATBC, I'd get down in the mud with them. I was sergeant in the USMC and Marines aren't exactly famous for being delicate and refined. The fact of the matter is they can dish it out but they can't take it and if any of them don't believe that then I challenge them to unban me at those sites. Even though I'm vastly outnumbered they still can't deal with me. On blogs I try to follow the rule "When in Rome do as the Romans do." Larry Moran's evolution blog is the only one where I'm still tolerated. Moran has a thick skin and for that he has my respect. Red State Rabble is a real joke. Witless, classless wimp Pat Hayes doesn't even enable comments. If not cowardice I'm not sure why since he doesn't have any semblance of refinement to guard.



That is funny....

I've known many Marines in my day - most were just regular guys - not braggarts and wnnabes that spend the remainder of their lives yammering on about how tough they used to be.  Of course, there was that Force Recon Platoon that stayed in my barracks in 1986 - we had to throw out the mattresses from the room they stayed in because they got drunk and peed on each other...  

Anyway, while my blog is low-traffic and not very active (I only occasionally update it), Springhole left one comment there once, I replied, and he never came back.  He is not banned there, either.  

I also responded to one of his dumb claims here.  Also, never came back.

He is s typical bully - a coward deep down, only willing to mouth off to the big kids when he can hide behind teacher.

Notice that when talking about his role in the Marines Dave never points out that he was just part of aircraft ground crew. Hardly the tough warrior he implies he was. On UD he talks tough but without the power of a moderator he's a pathetic little man who scurries away from any robust debate.

Date: 2007/03/22 13:08:30, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (wintermute @ Mar. 22 2007,09:51)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 22 2007,08:25)
Or maybe he can move to Canada -- they just have animals and the queen on their money.

Hrm. The reason he objects to Darwin is because    
Quote
his presence on the 10-pound note is an inappropriate endorsement of that materialist religion and its related anti-religious ferment.


The Queen is also (as he points out) on the £10 note, as she is on all British currency.

The Queen has amongst her titles "Supreme Governor of the Church of England" and "Defender of the Faith" - the latter, ironically, was granted to Henry VIII by Pope Leo XI, and refers to the Catholic Faith. All British coins bear the legend  "Elizabeth II Dei Gratia Regina Fidei Defensor" ("Elizabeth II, by the grace of God, Queen and defender of the faith"), or some abbreviation thereof.

Does that cancel out the anti-religious sentiment of having the picture of a divinity student who became an avowed agnostic and was buried in Westminster Abbey on one of the notes?

I think maybe it does.

ID is really in trouble if Dembski has nothing better to offer than post utter stupidity suggesting us Brits boycott tenners because Darwin is on them. What a loser.

Date: 2007/03/23 12:38:34, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (N.Wells @ Mar. 23 2007,08:59)
Oldmanintheskydidntdoit beat me to a mention of the latest GilDodgen rubbish, but the tard level is so high it is worth a fuller quote:

From  http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ken-miller-a-wasted-life/  

 
Quote
...... Ken Miller, in a BBC documentary entitled A War on Science, distorts and misrepresents Bill Dembski’s methods for inferring intelligent design.

Ken’s constant distortion of ID theory is very revealing. He can’t address the real arguments, evidence, or logic, so he makes stuff up. It’s like what Judge Jones said regarding irreducible complexity, that Behe ignores co-option, as though co-option is a real phenomenon and not just a made-up story that defies evidence and logic.  .......

Personally, I don’t think that Ken is insincere. I think that his entire professional life, and sense of purpose in life, is so invested in Darwinism that he can’t imagine that this philosophy might be wrong. If it turns out that it is wrong, Ken’s life will have been a wasted effort, and no one wants that engraved on his tombstone.


Projection, projection, projection, plus a little nonsense and fibbing.

As long as they can keep this up, we need have no worries about whether UD will continue to be entertaining.

Edited to add: To further support my point about projection, Dr. Dr. Dembski has just followed up GD's post by saying, in small part,
 
Quote
Miller has a talk that he gives on campuses throughout the U.S. titled “The Collapse of Intelligent Design.” Let me suggest that if there is any collapsing going on, it is in Miller’s psyche and in his increasing inability to prosecute a reasoned argument when it comes to ID.


To which I can only add, "pppfffffffftt!"

The ID guys are so desperate they're now digging up old stuff to make it look like they've got something new to say. The BBC programme Gil refers to was shown in Jan 2006. The DI are doing a similar thing in posting a Phil Johnson article recently that actually appeared in a magazine in October 2005.

Date: 2007/03/23 12:45:44, Link
Author: Bebbo
Oh Denyse, this doesn't bode well:

"I am the co-author, so if you understand the stuff I write here, you will understand that book. Promise!"

Date: 2007/03/23 12:53:19, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Bebbo @ Mar. 23 2007,11:38)
Quote (N.Wells @ Mar. 23 2007,08:59)
Oldmanintheskydidntdoit beat me to a mention of the latest GilDodgen rubbish, but the tard level is so high it is worth a fuller quote:

From  http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ken-miller-a-wasted-life/  

   
Quote
...... Ken Miller, in a BBC documentary entitled A War on Science, distorts and misrepresents Bill Dembski’s methods for inferring intelligent design.

Ken’s constant distortion of ID theory is very revealing. He can’t address the real arguments, evidence, or logic, so he makes stuff up. It’s like what Judge Jones said regarding irreducible complexity, that Behe ignores co-option, as though co-option is a real phenomenon and not just a made-up story that defies evidence and logic.  .......

Personally, I don’t think that Ken is insincere. I think that his entire professional life, and sense of purpose in life, is so invested in Darwinism that he can’t imagine that this philosophy might be wrong. If it turns out that it is wrong, Ken’s life will have been a wasted effort, and no one wants that engraved on his tombstone.


Projection, projection, projection, plus a little nonsense and fibbing.

As long as they can keep this up, we need have no worries about whether UD will continue to be entertaining.

Edited to add: To further support my point about projection, Dr. Dr. Dembski has just followed up GD's post by saying, in small part,
 
Quote
Miller has a talk that he gives on campuses throughout the U.S. titled “The Collapse of Intelligent Design.” Let me suggest that if there is any collapsing going on, it is in Miller’s psyche and in his increasing inability to prosecute a reasoned argument when it comes to ID.


To which I can only add, "pppfffffffftt!"

The ID guys are so desperate they're now digging up old stuff to make it look like they've got something new to say. The BBC programme Gil refers to was shown in Jan 2006. The DI are doing a similar thing in posting a Phil Johnson article recently that actually appeared in a magazine in October 2005.

Dembski has definitely got a fixation with Dawkins. He claims Dawkins was the narrator of the BBC programme. I saw that programme last year and am pretty sure it wasn't Dawkins, although he was interviewed on it.

Date: 2007/03/24 06:50:28, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 23 2007,12:31)
I leave ISCID looking for fresh meat. I go to the Discovery Institute and their list of recent fellows' publications:

   
Quote
 [...]
Intelligent Design in Biology: the Current Situation and Future Prospects
By: Phillip E. Johnson
Think (The Royal Institute of Philosophy)
February 19, 2007
[...]

That list is not  necessarily recent publications, but recently posted to their site. The Johnson article appeared in the Autumn 2005 issue of Think some 18 months ago.

Date: 2007/03/30 06:56:31, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 29 2007,20:03)
DaveScot delivers:
 
Quote
God forbid you tell a 10th grader that Darwin was a racist and his theory inspired the science of eugenics.

Oh, and it just ocurred to me that according to Ernst Mayr I must be a different species from Inuits. We’re reproductively isolated by geography and there isn’t a snowball’s chance in south central Texas I’d be attracted to an Inuit woman anyhow even though we’re probably still physically compatible on a hypothetical basis sort of like brown bears and polar bears.

More to the point, why would any woman, let alone an Inuit, be attracted to Dave?!

Date: 2007/04/17 08:02:54, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (djmullen @ April 17 2007,01:27)
Quote (stevestory @ April 15 2007,18:12)
 
Actually I've got a little extra understanding of this. When I was a little kid I nearly died from being fed peanuts they didn't know I was allergic to. Throat closed up, the whole deal. And my brain did some kind of rewiring trick, and whatever you guys taste in peanut butter, I don't taste it. I have no idea what peanuts and peanut butter taste like to those of you who like it, because my brain reprogrammed the taste. Peanuts taste like nothing except pain and itchyness to me. I can't detect anything else. People tell me they taste great, I know people who love them, but I can't taste it whatsoever. The circuits associated with those flavors have been reconfigured. Once a year or so I accidently bite into something with peanuts and the taste is something like acid and itchiness.

Many years ago, I read an article in the first incarnation of "Psychology Today" called "The Sauce Bernaise Effect".  The author had eaten something with sauce bernaise on it for the first time and got deathly ill a short time later.  Ever since, the taste or even thought of sauce bernaise made him nauseous.

I had a similar experience, which I would label "The Strawberry Soda Effect".

Apparently, developing a revulsion to a new food that makes us ill shortly afterwards is built into our genes as a method of keeping us from eating a poisonous food a second time if we survive the first experience.

I had a similar effect from getting pissed and subsequently sick from drinking too much Southern Comfort. For a long time afterwards just the smell of it made me nauseous.

Date: 2007/04/26 11:26:38, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 26 2007,09:43)
The big picture is priceless:

NFL player / middleweight boxer?

Some daft redneck with man-boobs.

It's funny that he was going on about his guard dogs then posts a picture of two bored and not particularly vicious looking dogs.

Also, judging by the white lines on his feet, Dave is usually a sandal wearer. Not exactly the image of a tough Marine.

Date: 2007/04/26 15:42:33, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 26 2007,13:34)
Quote (carlsonjok @ April 26 2007,13:17)
   
Quote (fusilier @ April 26 2007,12:01)
WRT DT's pickemup, that vintage Dodge is not anywhere near 6'5" to the roofline.  Look at those wheels, again; they're stock 15" rims.  The roof height is about 6 foot even.

I drive a Dodge 2500 also and my stands 6 foot even at the roof line.  However, mine is not 4x4, while Dave's is.  Not sure how much that adds.

Well, let's see. Dave appears to be at least 2 inches shorter than his big penis truck, but he said he's 6'2". If Dave's truck is 6 inches tall, then he's about 5'10" and lied about his height by 4 inches. If the 4x4 factor raises the truck to 6'2", then Dave is no more than 6 feet even and lied about his height by 2 inches.

Darn. We probably can't believe him about those women begging him to sire their children, either.  :(

IIRC Dave did say he's 5'10". He also made out that he was built like a brick shithouse and a real tough Marine. Judge for yourself.

Date: 2007/04/27 10:50:51, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ April 27 2007,07:54)
Quote
Thanks for compliment on the diet but it’s no big deal. I’m an extreme mesomorph. We’re the ones who can pile on or take off bulk with little effort - our bodies are like putty we can sculpt quickly and easily. You recognize us by our V shape.
[...]

V shape. Is Dave using a funhouse mirror to view himself?!

Date: 2007/06/07 15:35:22, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 07 2007,15:22)
Somebody fisks the fisking. DS says
 
Quote
UD Subscriber Magnan pinches his nose closed long enough to fisk Mark Chu-Carrol’s vitriolic spittle strewn imbecilic diatribe “review” of Michael Behe’s new book The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism in a comment here. I reproduce it in its entirety. Now that someone has responded to it point by point I hope those who have been losing sleep over it can get some rest.


IT's just a shame that magnan then says
 
Quote
I found mostly prejudiced misinterpretations and invalid arguments, more than I can completely recount here.


Why? Is UD running out of bytes? What's stopping you recounting the full list Magnan?

Yet his "fisking" comes to nothing in the end
 
Quote
Behe doesn’t mention recombination because mutation is still the major source of change to the genome, as admitted in many orthodox MET sources. Recombination mainly reshuffles alleles (different mutated versions of genes) during reproduction of sex cells in eukaryotic organisms.

Sure, make excuses for Behe. And what's the "as admitted in many orthodox MET sources" about? Don't tell me IDiots pick and choose what bits of "real" science they parasitise? SHocking.

Shame that Davey doesn't tell us what Magnan's credentials are after his overlord Dembski made such a song and dance about Chu-Carroll's.

Date: 2007/07/20 17:31:31, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 19 2007,20:38)
Quote (GCT @ July 19 2007,17:48)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 19 2007,04:09)
TARDGASM!!!! OMG OMG WTF LOL?

So, to summarize, if you say that ID is a threat, then it is, and if you say it isn't, then you are just putting up a false front.  Heads I win, tails you lose sucka.

Yes, much like when a couple days ago some random doofus at UD declared that the recent upsurge in atheist books was some kind of sign that the 'materialists are afraid'. I'm sure if atheists weren't publishing any books, that would be a clear sign of fear, too.

Oh yes, and Jehu can smell the Darwinists' fear. He said so.

So all the ID books shows the IDers are running scared too.

Date: 2007/07/20 18:13:53, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Rob @ July 20 2007,17:41)
Dembskian vacillation #392:

Nine years ago, Dembski said:    
Quote
There now exists a rigorous criterion—complexity-specification—for distinguishing intelligently caused objects from unintelligently caused ones.
(Emphasis mine)

In his Dover expert witness report, Dembski claimed:
Quote
Designed objects like Mount Rushmore exhibit characteristic features or patterns that point to an intelligence. Such features or patterns constitute signs of intelligence. Proponents of intelligent design, known as design theorists, purport to study such signs formally, rigorously, and scientifically. In particular, they claim that a type of information, known as specified complexity, is a key sign of intelligence.
(Emphasis mine)

The telling word is "purport" - ie. they don't.

Date: 2007/07/20 19:13:43, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Hermagoras @ July 20 2007,18:51)
Dembski's latest:  
Quote
Here’s a fun interview with my friend and colleague Robert Marks. I hope you catch from the interview the amibitiousness of the lab and how it promises to put people like Christoph Adami and Rob Pennock out of business (compare www.evolutionaryinformatics.org with devolab.cse.msu.edu).

Let the comparing (DING!) begin!

Rob Pennock is going to be put out of business. Atheist Darwinists are running scared because they sell so many books. It's Waterloo all over again, yet as always Dembski hasn't learnt which side loses.

Date: 2007/08/20 08:30:39, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (keiths @ Aug. 20 2007,04:53)
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 19 2007,21:29)
For a journalist, Denyse is a terrible writer. Really substandard.

Has anyone else noticed what Denyse considers to be cool journalistic lingo, like calling herself a "scijo" and referring to paragraphs as "graffs"?
?
Quote
Ann Coulter takes a shot at Darwinism in the last graff of this column:

That's what happens when you're just a mindless hack, like Ann Coulter but without the wit.

Date: 2007/10/05 13:59:05, Link
Author: Bebbo
Why is it Dense O'Leary always finishes her posts with links to off-topic things and something to do with her latest book:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....re-2715

Date: 2007/10/06 06:26:07, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 06 2007,00:15)
Quote (Altabin @ Oct. 05 2007,18:38)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 05 2007,23:21)
Denyse's blog name "Mindful hack" works on several different levels, albeit most of them not complimentary.

Whenever my peripheral vision picks up her blogname (in one of her blog-whoring posts) it registers as "mindf*ck".

Kinda spooky, really.

My too.  I am so relieved not to be alone anymore in this.

Every time I see her site mentioned I read it as "mindless hack". Although to call her a hack may be overrating her journalistic skills.

Date: 2007/10/06 06:28:07, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 05 2007,03:11)
Dembski's found yet another tenous link to ID that he can use to push his notapology further down the page:
 
Quote
interesting article in Tuesday’s NYTimes on digital forensics — especially as it applies to scientists who doctor their images and data. It would be interesting to see how much (or how little) “evolutionary evidence” can withstand the scrutiny of digital forensics

Dembski follows that up with "Need it be added that digital forensics consists in drawing design inferences."

Need it be added that digital forensics deals with things we know are designed whether or not they've been tampered with. Duh.

Date: 2007/10/07 05:52:17, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 06 2007,23:08)
By taking down Galapagos Finch's post, aren't they doing the sort of thing they were moaning about?


I'll be posting their home phone numbers if they don't put it back up. Also, brace yourself for the first wave of media coverage...

The post is still up here on a lame parody site:

http://cedros.globat.com/~thebrites.org/index.htm

Date: 2007/12/20 13:15:14, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 19 2007,18:34)
Yay! A Dembski Melt-down!

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-157313


Quote
19

William Dembski

12/19/2007

7:01 pm
ChristopherSaint: Give us more credit, please. My dad got his PhD in biology at the the University of Erlangen and my parents live in Germany. My uncle was a professor of ergnomics at the Technische Hochschule in at the time West Berlin. I know the scene in Germany and elsewhere in Europe. And I have read Ratzsch and Sober carefully — Ratzsch spent a week in a six-week seminar that I conducted at Calvin College in 2000 to discuss his then forthcoming book. Although I like much about Mike Gene’s book, he is an amateur at the philosophy of science. Thus I find those who like Mike try to argue that ID is valuable but not science as engaged in misconceived philosophy of science. I’ll probably write a paper on this sometime — when I get time off from my scientific research with Bob Marks’s Evolutionary Informatics Lab (www.evoinfo.org). Forgive me for slipping this in, but where is the outcry from your colleagues about the suppression of this work?



Wah wah - how dare you be critical when you're not supportive?

Speaking of people misconceiving the philosophy of science, Dembski is the one who thinks scientific theories find their completion in some bloke who's been dead for 2000 years. Though this is hardly surprising from someone who thinks a website constitutes a lab where scientific research is done.

Date: 2007/12/21 16:15:40, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Bob O'H @ Dec. 21 2007,00:35)
I think DaveScot is getting himself warmed up again:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-157416
Quote


32

DaveScot

12/20/2007

4:17 am

Mike Gene is a shrinking violet. He carefully hides his identity so his notions about ID can’t be used to blemish his reputation (whatever that reputation might be). While I admire his thinking on the subject to some extent I don’t have any respect for the man (or possibly woman) himself. His rejection of ID as science is par for the course - my guess is he’s covering his ass in case his boss or peers find out what he’s been doing in his secret life. No doubt he appeals to many Western Europeans. Western Europe has lost its backbone and has become a continent full of shrinking violets. I’m guessing the United States will have to rescue it yet again in the not too distant future when the Muslim horde successfully takes it over.

It's like he's covalescing from a long illness.  It's not the Dave of old, but it's a good sign, so we should all smile and say encouraging things to him - he'll be back to his old self in no time etc. etc.

Bob

Yeah, Europe is full of weak willed pansies while in America, land of the fearless, Dembski never has to withold the identity of ID favouring scientists because of the Darwinian hordes.

Date: 2008/11/22 03:19:05, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (k.e.. @ Nov. 20 2008,18:07)
Quote (BopDiddy @ Nov. 20 2008,23:26)
I just wanted to say, regardless of recent events, DaveTard will always be the king:

Elvis Presley Painting with Cheese Puffs on Velvet - Cheesy Art in Cheetos



Here is DaveTard considering the theory of relativity

Strange, that cartoon character looked at first like a fat version of Chris Langan - the man with the super IQ who was another hope of the ID movement but who disappeared after a brief flurry of posting on ID sites.

Date: 2008/12/22 07:01:33, Link
Author: Bebbo
Denyse claims there's "no going back on being human". Clearly she's never heard of so-called feral children raised by animals.

One can only wonder if there's no going back on being an IDiot.

Date: 2008/12/23 04:08:48, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 23 2008,00:11)
You just have to love Granny Tard's ravings. She doesn't even bother to disguise her utter contempt for education.

So bitter, so brain dead, so funny.


And so ironic:

"My own sense is that too many people today are invested in proving stuff they are sure is true, and not enough in finding out what is really going on."

Date: 2008/12/31 06:42:11, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 30 2008,10:38)
Lil Billy D whines about Wikipedia:

Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!

Through the Wikipedia page on Dembski I found this:

http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=28460

I guess we can add "gullible sucker" to the list of Dembski's other shortcomings.

Date: 2008/12/31 17:37:23, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 31 2008,16:50)
Quote (Bebbo @ Dec. 31 2008,07:42)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 30 2008,10:38)
Lil Billy D whines about Wikipedia:

Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!

Through the Wikipedia page on Dembski I found this:

http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=28460

I guess we can add "gullible sucker" to the list of Dembski's other shortcomings.

I just read that. Jesus christ. That's sad. What a poor dupe. That's a shame.

Too bad he goes on being Todd Bentley to other people.

It's sad that anyone as intelligent and well educated as Dembski should fall for something that anyone with a modicum of commonsense would know isn't going to cure his son.

Date: 2009/01/01 15:52:42, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (bystander @ Dec. 31 2008,18:28)
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 01 2009,09:50)
Quote (Bebbo @ Dec. 31 2008,07:42)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 30 2008,10:38)
Lil Billy D whines about Wikipedia:

Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!

Through the Wikipedia page on Dembski I found this:

http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=28460

I guess we can add "gullible sucker" to the list of Dembski's other shortcomings.

I just read that. Jesus christ. That's sad. What a poor dupe. That's a shame.

Too bad he goes on being Todd Bentley to other people.

The sad thing is that it wont really make WAD think.  A skeptic's next question would be to research to see if they are all fake and would expand the search to all miracles.

WAD on the other hand will just jump onboard the next great thing and try that. Notice that he mentions prayer and fasting. I wonder how much he has tried that without success.

Going without food just makes me hungry and never fixes my medical problems. Living in Dembski's house must be like taking a trip back to the Middle Ages.

Date: 2009/01/06 05:47:55, Link
Author: Bebbo
Turn off your irony meters. Davey on why he turned down a debate invitation:

"I declined the invitation because I thought it would simply be a rehash of all the old arguments and nobody ever really wins.   The argument from design, unlike what some people here have claimed, is as old as Plato and Aristotle."

I guess he only wants to rehash OLD arguments as long as it's not in a fair debate.

here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....re-4427

Date: 2009/01/06 09:32:31, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Maya @ Jan. 06 2009,06:45)
Quote (Bebbo @ Jan. 06 2009,05:47)
Turn off your irony meters. Davey on why he turned down a debate invitation:

"I declined the invitation because I thought it would simply be a rehash of all the old arguments and nobody ever really wins.

Actually, Davey, the ID side loses the debate every single time.  It's what happens when you bring a rubber chicken to a gun fight.

Yes, and according to Davey the chicken has been festering for over 2000 years. You'd think that in all that time they'd come up with a better design explanation than an unknown designer, using unknown methods, at unknown times, for unknown purposes.

Date: 2009/01/08 14:10:38, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Bueller_007 @ Jan. 08 2009,13:54)
My reply (as TheYellowShark) to Dembski's latest pile of tard is "awaiting moderation".

Let's see if it gets past the filters.

 
Quote

   (3) Is it a coincidence that the world’s leading atheist is also a pathological Darwinist?

Dawkins has admitted numerous times that his acceptance of evolutionary theory led him to become an atheist.

Now ask yourself:
Is it a coincidence that the world’s leading ID proponent is an evangelical Christian? And ask yourself which view you adopted first, and which formed the basis for the other. (I’ve read your bio. I know.)

By the way, didn’t you say you were going to try to limit discussion on UD to intelligent design? With no more religion/atheism, global warming, or politics?

Dembski asks:

"(1) What exactly is the probability that there is no God?"

Well, let's see. God has got to be much more complex than a flagellum and according to you the chance of a flagellum appearing randomly is too small to consider possible. So I guess the probability that there is a God is something like "jack shit". The probability of no God is thus 1 - jack shit.

Date: 2009/01/10 07:41:38, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (dvunkannon @ Jan. 09 2009,09:14)
My atheist bus comment that Clive will never let see the light of day at UD -

Even if you accept that "eastern ethics" come from God, they are not being taught in the name of God. The point stands that the Golden Rule can form the basis for human relations, independent of its source.

Why is there social and altruistic behavior in nature, outside of human society? At the very least, those same principles can operate within human society. A human is not a virus.

Reading StephenB leads to an open mouthed "what the f**k" moment:

"Real goodness is inseparable from the kind of courage, humility, and wisdom that thinks beyond this life. If our short stay here is all there is, then there is no such thing as goodness, only survival. If we don’t live forever, then all goodness is wasted, all hope is misguided, and every promise is a cruel joke."

So feeding the starving, rescuing someone from peril, providing comfort and healing to the ill isn't real goodness unless the person thinks there's an eternal life??!!!!!

Date: 2009/01/11 04:52:42, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Bebbo @ Jan. 10 2009,07:41)
Quote (dvunkannon @ Jan. 09 2009,09:14)
My atheist bus comment that Clive will never let see the light of day at UD -

Even if you accept that "eastern ethics" come from God, they are not being taught in the name of God. The point stands that the Golden Rule can form the basis for human relations, independent of its source.

Why is there social and altruistic behavior in nature, outside of human society? At the very least, those same principles can operate within human society. A human is not a virus.

Reading StephenB leads to an open mouthed "what the f**k" moment:

"Real goodness is inseparable from the kind of courage, humility, and wisdom that thinks beyond this life. If our short stay here is all there is, then there is no such thing as goodness, only survival. If we don’t live forever, then all goodness is wasted, all hope is misguided, and every promise is a cruel joke."

So feeding the starving, rescuing someone from peril, providing comfort and healing to the ill isn't real goodness unless the person thinks there's an eternal life??!!!!!

StephenB telling materialists that they should despair:

Quote
If there is no God and no afterlife, there is no way to transform that gruesome fact into a rosy picture, and there is no way to make the best of an impossible situation. It is far better, in my judgment, to lay it on the line just as Sartre does. Acknowledge that the universe is absurd, and stop all this silly business about materialist “ethics” or arbitrary standards of goodness. If the universe is absurd, then despair really is the only reasonable response.


Well, I find the Christian conception of the universe to be more absurd than a materialist one, so if I ever get converted to Christianity (fat chance) then I guess despair will be my only reasonable response.

Date: 2009/02/01 13:53:25, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 01 2009,09:53)
Dave is on a roll:  
Quote
The number of elementary particles in the universe is approximated to be 10^80. There’s no known law which says it has to be that number. It could be any larger or smaller number. This establishes the complexity of the number since it one specific one among an infinite or nearly infinite set.

Physicists tell us that this specific amount of mass energy, plus or minus about 10^20 particles (about the number of particles in a grain of sand), is required to balance the gravitational force in the universe such that it doesn’t prematurely collapse before stars and galaxies could form or fly apart so quickly that stars and galaxies could not form. Thus the number has a specification - it allows stars and galaxies to form.

No, Dave, that's not what physicists tell you.  

For starters, at this stage of our measuring capabilities, it would be impossible to measure any physical quantity with the accuracy of 1 in 10^60, let alone the mass of matter in the Universe.  Fifteen significant figures (frequency measurements) is pretty much it.  So this claim is rubbish.

Second, it's not the mass of matter or the number of particles in the Universe that must be fine-tuned to a great accuracy.  It's the values of bare coupling constants in quantum field theories that attempt to derive the cosmological constant.

If Davey is right then I guess when I roll a dice and get 5 then that's the complexity because there's no law which means I should roll a 5. Hopefully Davey has passed this wisdom to Dembski who is under the misapprehension that complexity is the chances of a particular result, not the result itself.

Date: 2009/02/03 14:38:08, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (dmso74 @ Feb. 03 2009,11:55)
Borne(again?)
channels a wrathful god:

   
Quote
Stein merely understood the link between Darwinism and Hitler’s artificial selection, ‘final solution’, as being as clear as the link between hedonism and fornication.


haha he said fornication.

In the same thread Borne opines:

Quote
Teach people that they are mere animals, the result of mere chance and necessity with no ultimate meaning, and they will finish by acting worse than wild carnivorous beasts.

The SS killed without a twinge of conscince because they were indoctrinated into believing Jews and blacks etc. to be mere animals and sub humans not yet evolved to the high Aryan nature! To them killing a small jewish boy in the street in forn of his mother and father was no different than killing their dog. Both were animals of less worth than the ’supreme race’.

Under Darwinism there is no basis for placing higher value on human life than the life of a dog or an ape - as we have seen in Spain.


Indeed. Bring back those halcyon days before 1859 when all people did cavort in peace and love, and no blood was spilt in violence.

Date: 2009/02/05 14:19:15, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (KenGee @ Feb. 05 2009,05:23)
From UD thread UD

"For UK people:

The Expelled DVD is now available in multi-region format for UK viewers - CMI (Creation Ministries International) have managed to obtain a limited number of region-free copies, they only have about 40 left.
Call 0845 6800 264."

Do I have to say anymore?

They only had 40 to begin with. Allegedly.

Date: 2009/02/06 11:06:02, Link
Author: Bebbo
It looks like Davey is still stung by Mark Perakh having more patents than him:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-303818

Quote
With scientists like Mark “The Communists Stole My Publications” Perakh it’s no wonder the Soviet Union lost the cold war. The thing of it is though is Mark should recognize sloppy looking Rube Goldberg designs as at least semi-intelligent in origin as it’s just like the stuff his comrades produce.

Date: 2009/02/06 11:11:44, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (sparc @ Feb. 05 2009,12:29)
ETA:
According to this OE comment  carlsonjok linked to D'OL has been paid for writing OE posts until November 2008. After the contract ceased she didn't publish much on OE.

Dembski paid O'Dreary to write blog posts! The blind leading the blind is one thing, but the blind paying the blind is hilarious.

Date: 2009/02/10 14:09:31, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Maya @ Feb. 09 2009,11:45)
Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 09 2009,10:58)
BTW, what's with the "Babs"?

Davey is scared of women.

Yes, they have more balls than him.

Date: 2009/02/14 04:49:14, Link
Author: Bebbo
Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 12 2009,08:57)
Our Dave again
Quote
Had Dover been a jury trial I might be tempted to say it was in the public square but it wasn’t so no it’s not. The “public square” was the school district who had the audacity to want to teach both sides of the controversy.

Yes, Dave.  And what happened at the time of the trial when the inhabitants of the school district voted for their board, in the public square?

(one of you has noticed this too, apparently)

Davey goes on...

Quote

If you believe that an elite few should make the practical decisions of what is taught in public schools and what is not then we have no common ground to discuss this any further.


Translation: if you don't agree with me I may have to reach for the ban button.

Date: 2009/02/14 05:17:45, Link
Author: Bebbo
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-304596

Quote

Adel

Observations are facts. The earth revolving about the sun has been directly observed. It is not a hypothesis as observations are facts not conjectures.

What part of that don’t you understand? Answer carefully if you wish to post in any of my threads in the future. I don’t tolerate stupidity well.


I directly observed the sun revolving around the Earth today. Observations are facts, Dave.

Date: 2012/10/04 04:54:11, Link
Author: Bebbo62
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 01 2012,22:46)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 01 2012,10:03)
William A. Dembski, Doctor, Doctor is back at the grindstone with a new 'essay' this morning on EN$V.

I suspect he is obligated to waste a certain amount of electrons per year to keep his DI paycheck. He trotted out this old chestnut, "Intelligent design, as the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the product of intelligence (such patterns exhibit specified complexity), subsumes many special sciences, including archeology, forensics, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence."
The same bullshit for nearly 20 years.

It should be noted that Dembski claims to have predicted ENCODE's "no junk DNA" conclusion back in 1998
 
Quote
The Demise of "Junk DNA": A Confirmed Prediction

What I'm describing here is not purely speculative. In 1998 I predicted on the basis of a design hypothesis that supposed "junk DNA" was in fact likely to have a function and that the term itself was really a misnomer:  
Quote
Design is not a science stopper. Indeed, design can foster inquiry where traditional evolutionary approaches obstruct it. Consider the term "junk DNA." Implicit in this term is the view that because the genome of an organism has been cobbled together through a long, undirected evolutionary process, the genome is a patchwork of which only limited portions are essential to the organism. Thus, on an evolutionary view, we expect a lot of useless DNA. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function.
The recent ENCODE results confirm my prediction and put paid to the useless and misleading term "junk DNA." (See Casey Luskin's review of ENCODE.)
I hope we will we have a TARD fight on priority claims because Shapiro claimed the same for himself and Sternberg. However, according to UD the argument goes back to Michael Denton:
Quote
By contrast, predictions of functionality of “junk DNA” were made based on teleological bases by Michael Denton (1986, 1998), Michael Behe (1996), John West (1998), William Dembski (1998), Richard Hirsch (2000), and Jonathan Wells (2004).

Junk DNA is only a prediction of ID if you make assumptions about the designer and the kind of design it employed.

Date: 2012/10/04 07:56:38, Link
Author: Bebbo62
Quote (rossum @ Oct. 04 2012,07:04)
Quote (Bebbo62 @ Oct. 04 2012,04:54)
Junk DNA is only a prediction of ID if you make assumptions about the designer and the kind of design it employed.

Correct.  I tend to phrase it as a question to the ID person quoting the 'prediction':  "Why is it not possible for the ID designer to make a genome with a high percentage of useless DNA?"

I worked on some software many years ago which had redundant code in it that was never called or was unreachable. That may be rare rather than common in software, but logically there's no reason why a designer wouldn't create something with non-functional elements.

Of course, Dembski would never commit to a particular design hypothesis because that wouldn't leave him with wiggle room later on.

Date: 2012/10/04 09:44:03, Link
Author: Bebbo62
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 04 2012,07:45)
Observing the world for about eighty years, I've come to the realization that god (or God) doesn't give a damn. Probably having a good time watching the show in the spirit of Kurt Vonnegut's "god the utterly indifferent".

It seems that God was tired, and wanted to take a vacation. However, being everywhere at once, it was a little difficult for him to decide on where to go. So, he called the Archangel Gabriel in on the carpet...

GOD: Gabe, I've got a problem, and I was hoping you could help me out.

GABRIEL: I'll try lord.

GOD: Well, I need a vacation, and I can't decide where I should go, and I was hoping that you could give me some suggestions.

( Gabriel thinks intently for a few seconds,...)

GABRIEL: How about Mercury? That's a nice place.

GOD: Nope, too hot. It takes all night to get over the sun-burn you got during the day.

( Gabriel thinks a little longer.....)

GABRIEL: Hmmmm,.... Well, how about Mars?

GOD: Nope, Mars is too much of a party place. All that whooping and hollering, I never get any rest when I go there.

( Gabriel is starting to get a little desperate by this time....)

GABRIEL: Well, how about Earth?

GOD: NO!! No Way!! The last time I went there, I got this little Jewish girl pregnant, and I haven't heard the end of that yet!

 

 

 

=====