AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: Bueller_007

form_srcid: Bueller_007

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 23.20.20.195

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: Bueller_007

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 'Bueller_007%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2008/11/17 19:40:05, Link
Author: Bueller_007
Quote (Jkrebs @ Nov. 16 2008,08:30)

Quote
Added in Edit: and there is now a bunch of Google ads above the recent comments.  Looks like "serving the ID Community" means "make more money."


Yes, and they can't even spell basic words like that properly:
"Advertisments Visit to Support Us"

Very professional.

Perhaps they were trying to emulate British pronunciation.

Date: 2008/11/19 01:01:23, Link
Author: Bueller_007
Quote (bystander @ Nov. 18 2008,19:58)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Nov. 18 2008,14:52)
Quote (bystander @ Nov. 17 2008,21:46)
 
Quote (Bueller_007 @ Nov. 18 2008,12:40)
 
Quote (Jkrebs @ Nov. 16 2008,08:30)

   
Quote
Added in Edit: and there is now a bunch of Google ads above the recent comments.  Looks like "serving the ID Community" means "make more money."


Yes, and they can't even spell basic words like that properly:
"Advertisments Visit to Support Us"

Very professional.

Perhaps they were trying to emulate British pronunciation.

I can see them losing their AdSense privileges. You are not supposed to encourage people to click adds. It is a part of the T&Cs. I suppose it is like scientific papers and they just read the first paragraph

 
Quote
In order to ensure a good experience for users and advertisers, publishers may not request that users click the ads on their sites or rely on deceptive implementation methods to obtain clicks. Publishers participating in the AdSense programme:

   * May not encourage users to click the Google ads by using phrases such as "click the ads," "support us," "visit these links," or other similar language


Adsense Program Guidelines

How about "buy my book"?  'Cause I think that one's a deal-breaker.

Some body must have noticed. It just has the word advertisments now. Maybe somebody also told O'Leary about the link farming.

Well then, the problem hasn't been fixed.

"Advertisments" isn't a word.  "Advertisements" might work a bit better.

But hey, it's not like they're asking people to pay for their shitty website.

Date: 2008/11/19 01:11:24, Link
Author: Bueller_007
Quote (Bueller_007 @ Nov. 19 2008,01:01)
Well then, the problem hasn't been fixed.

"Advertisments" isn't a word.  "Advertisements" might work a bit better.

But hey, it's not like they're asking people to pay for their s***ty website.

Yeah, sorry about the vulgarity.  Hadn't read the board rules yet.  And I keep seeing people saying that they've edited their posts, but I can't seem to do that.

Date: 2008/12/31 15:27:46, Link
Author: Bueller_007
Quote (bystander @ Dec. 31 2008,01:49)
I'd love this to be referenced on UD with all of the true believers being forced to defend it ( being as they have to defend everything any other IDist says).

I wonder in private if somebody doesn't come up to Luskin and wack him in the back of the head and tell him to think before publishing.

Your wish has been granted.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....plexity

Date: 2009/01/05 00:25:47, Link
Author: Bueller_007
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 04 2009,22:55)
30,000 comments in the old thread. 4650 in the new. I keep waiting for the well to dry up. I keep waiting, and every few months posting, that any day now, the tard mines will be exhausted, and we'll have to move on. But it never seems to happen.

Uncommon Descent
Doth present to the wise an
Endless source of tard

Date: 2009/01/08 13:54:13, Link
Author: Bueller_007
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?

Date: 2009/01/12 20:53:23, Link
Author: Bueller_007
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 12 2009,17:24)
Bannination threat. Let's hope Clive livens things up a bit.

33
Clive Hayden
01/12/2009
5:54 pm

YellowShark,

And secondly, I noticed that you said the following on another website:
“My reply (as TheYellowShark) to Dembski’s latest pile of tard is “awaiting moderation”.”

Folks can see it here:

(link)

“Dembski’s latest pile of tard” you say?

I expect an apology, not to me, but to Dr. Dembski, or you will be “banninated,” as ya’ll like to say :). And I don’t mind the bannination button for folks so blatantly disrespectful. And all the rest of you sock-puppets that expect privileges of commenting here with anonymity, all the while being vile on another thread, if your cover is blown and you don’t appropriately apologize, you’ll be gone too. So you’ll have to keep the bragging down and not blow your cover too soon if you want to comment here.

I'll apologize for him. WAD: he meant "horseshit." Sorry about that.

My reply.

Quote
You have my word that--although I think it's a bit draconian to ban someone for what they say off-site--I  *shall* apologize to Dr. Dembski when an apology is forthcoming from "BaylorBear", who posted on this website an objectionable cartoon depicting a "humourous" threat to the safety of people who accept evolution.

Incidentally, since there have been two topics on UD specifically directed as replies to my comments you would think I would be somewhat welcome here as I've at least given you something to talk about.

1. http://www.uncommondescent.com/biology....-really
2. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....entrism

I shall address the remainder of your comment if I am not "banninated".

Date: 2009/01/13 00:57:17, Link
Author: Bueller_007
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 12 2009,23:51)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 12 2009,22:14)
What you really need to do is start dropping hints here that you're also posting as Kairosfocus, Batshit 77, angryoldfatman, Joe Gallien, etc.

You'll have UD banninated clean empty in a week!   :D  :D  :D

You laugh, but that actually would happen. Most of the UD regulars at this point are long-term sock-puppets, who don't give away the game. When people joke about 'we're the only people who read that site', I only half-laugh, because we really are. If the UD mods were aware how many of their long-standing commenters were us, they'd lose it. Talking to people behind the scenes, I'd say about 75% of the regular UDers are actually us, just acting retarded.

It's actually a problem, because while I want to laugh at that site, I know three quarters of the time it's one of our guys just trying to act like a dim bulb--and usually getting away with it.

I get the feeling that Tribune7 may be "one of us".  
:D

Date: 2009/01/13 01:09:34, Link
Author: Bueller_007
Quote (Bueller_007 @ Jan. 12 2009,23:57)

My latest reply, which is awaiting moderation and not likely to see the light of day.

Quote
So just so I can be clear on this point before I apologize (and I will actually do so immediately if this comment is approved):

Clive Hayden, you are saying that half-joking threats of violence posted on the front page of *this* site are acceptable behaviour here, but half-joking insults tucked away in a comment thread of *another* website are not?

Date: 2009/01/16 01:13:50, Link
Author: Bueller_007
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Jan. 15 2009,20:34)
Louis,

If you insist on bringing up the Nazis, at least get your analogy straight. What I said about Edmondson is more akin to: "If you love Leni Reifenstahl, you kind of have to love the entire Third Reich--including Hitler." (Not that I'm equating Edmondson to Reifenstahl, Premise to the Third Reich, or me to Hitler)

Does the starkly fallacious nature of your {ahem} "logic" stand out at [sic] you yet?

Dumb, unthinking and misguidedly smug--sounds like a bad case of projection, Louis.

As for me being a troll, you've devoted an entire thread to tearing apart Expelled and assasinating the character of everyone involved. If I'm a troll, what does that make you guys? I consider myself more of an honored guest.


K

Holy crap!  A chance to interact with a real-life Expello-tard.

I really liked your movie.  The best part was the lying.

Date: 2009/01/19 19:37:06, Link
Author: Bueller_007
Quote (BI0L0GYwizard @ Jan. 19 2009,16:10)
Looks like Stein is stepping outside his usual area of expertise--the economy.

Anyway, I missed my chance to see it. Does anyone here know if it is still being sold? If so, please contact me.

It's available on the interwebs for free in numerous places.  It's easy enough to find.  Don't waste your money on it.

Actually, don't waste your time on it either.  The review here has basically nails it:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/12/win_ben_steins_mind.html

Date: 2009/01/20 01:08:16, Link
Author: Bueller_007
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 19 2009,19:50)
Quote
And there is worse, much worse. Toward the end of the film, we find that Stein actually  did want to title it "From Darwin to Hitler." He finds a Creationist who informs him, "Darwinism inspired and advanced Nazism." He refers to advocates of eugenics as liberal. I would not call Hitler liberal.


Because you're not a complete idiot. The writers of Expelled, on the other hand....

Nor were the promoters of eugenics in Alberta, Canada "liberal".

Date: 2009/01/20 12:51:29, Link
Author: Bueller_007
Quote (Nils Ruhr @ Jan. 20 2009,11:24)
From now on Darwinists shouldn't claim, that ID has no Peer-Review Papers:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....erature

Strange.  I read through them, and noticed that there were no mentions of 'design' in either one.

Dembski also failed to say when the papers had been accepted, or even received.

Date: 2009/01/20 13:29:00, Link
Author: Bueller_007
Quote (Nils Ruhr @ Jan. 20 2009,12:07)
@oldmanintheskydidntdoit: I feel  honored that you remember me from PT, however you should know that one of my postings was censored, because I wrote that Carl Zimmer was wrong. It seems like you're the one who forbid open criticism.

 
Quote
“The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search”
William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks I

Abstract: Many searches are needle-in-the-haystack problems, looking for small targets in large spaces. In such cases, blind search can stand no hope of success. Success, instead, requires an assisted search.


assisted search = intelligent designer

This is clearly POSITIVE evidence for ID. Dembski's articles are peer-reviewed, which means they are good quality stuff! Stop being such a bad loser and accept that ID has peer-reviewd articles.

Nice equivocation on the word 'assisted'.  That's not what an assisted search means here.  If you pull your head out of your arse and actually read Dembski's paper, you'll see:

Quote
Conservation of information theorems [15], [44], es-
pecially the No Free Lunch Theorems (NFLT’s) [28],
[51], [52], show that without prior information about
the search environment or the target sought, one search
strategy is, on average, as good as any other. Accord-
ingly, the dif?culty of an unassisted—or blind—search
problem [9] is ?xed and can be measured using what
is called its endogenous information. The amount of
information externally introduced into an assisted search
can then be measured and is called the active information
of the search [33]


Now can you think of any way other than a designer that 'information about the target' could be introduced WITHOUT an intelligent designer?  (Hint, it's EXACTLY how evolution works.  See http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=iEWZ-O-JNlU and jump to 2:50 for a clue.)

Date: 2009/01/20 13:32:56, Link
Author: Bueller_007
Quote (Nils Ruhr @ Jan. 20 2009,12:27)
[quote]Dr. Dembski uses the term "assisted search" as implication for intelligent design. This intention is clear from the fact, that he posted the good news on uncommendescent.

Regarding publishing:  
Quote
both should be published later this year

Yes.  As I said.  Journals will supply the author with a submission and acceptance date.  He has provided us with neither.  Merely saying "Both  should be published later this year" tells us absolutely NOTHING about the papers' statuses.

Date: 2009/01/20 14:37:42, Link
Author: Bueller_007
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 20 2009,13:16)
Quote (bystander @ Jan. 20 2009,14:05)
The problem is that it is a fundamental error that all IDists make. The environment provides the assisted search by organisms that are more fit reproducing more often.

All Dembski is doing is saying that if the environment is totally random, that is, one moment an organism is on land, the next it is a hundred metres under water and the next moment in a volcano then evolution would probably not work. Which is pretty much well DUH.

And even if that error was forgivable (which it isn't), this is still NOT positive evidence for ID.

When will IDiots figure out that arguments (even stupid ones) against evolutionary theory are not positive evidence for ID? Where does anything in these papers point toward design, or a designer?

Wake me up when Billy or Gloppy publish a peer-reviewed article in a biology journal where they describe evidence for the designer's fingerprints...

Yes, we're still all waiting for the day that someone will take "The Definitive Creationism Challenge".

1) Formulate a novel positive prediction/hypothesis from ID 'theory'.
2) Attempt to falsify that prediction.

Date: 2009/01/21 10:25:21, Link
Author: Bueller_007
Quote (DMB @ Jan. 21 2009,09:15)
Does anyone think that this ridiculous film has influenced anyone towards ID?

No.  But that wasn't the point anyway.  The purpose of the film was to bilk the credulous.

Date: 2009/01/21 10:30:56, Link
Author: Bueller_007
Oh how I love Wikipedia.

Quote
The movie opened in Canada on June 27, 2008 at 36 theaters[126] and grossed $24,374 with a premier at 20th closely behind Thoda Pyaar Thoda Magic, a Hindi language film.


OUCH.

Date: 2009/01/22 02:33:50, Link
Author: Bueller_007
Dembski is unable or unwilling to say the relevance of the papers to evolutionary biology.

Quote
As for the relevance of this work to biology, let me remind commenters that Thomas Schneider used his ev program to argue against Behe and for the power of natural selection in biological evolution and that Rob Pennock cited his work on AVIDA likewise to argue against Behe and for evolution (Pennock cited this not in his NATURE article but in his Dover expert witness report).

So if you’ve got a problem with the applicability of the research at the Evolutionary Informatics Lab to real-life biological evolution, take it up with Schneider and Pennock.



Link.

Date: 2009/01/22 13:00:04, Link
Author: Bueller_007
Quote (Nils Ruhr @ Jan. 22 2009,05:21)
You are the ones who fail to cite properly.

a) I'm pretty sure no one at this forum actually wrote that part of the article.

b) The part of the sentence I was trying to emphasize was the dismal box office performance, which was properly referenced.  In case you didn't get it, box office performance was so poor that it couldn't even top a movie whose native speakers make up much less than 1% of the population.

Date: 2009/01/22 13:03:46, Link
Author: Bueller_007
Quote (Bueller_007 @ Jan. 22 2009,12:00)
Quote (Nils Ruhr @ Jan. 22 2009,05:21)
You are the ones who fail to cite properly.

a) I'm pretty sure no one at this forum actually wrote that part of the article.

b) The part of the sentence I was trying to emphasize was the dismal box office performance, which was properly referenced.  In case you didn't get it, box office performance was so poor that it couldn't even top a movie whose native speakers make up much less than 1% of the population.

"movie whose native speakers" -> "movie in a language whose"

Date: 2009/01/30 20:22:49, Link
Author: Bueller_007
Quote (JLT @ Jan. 30 2009,15:36)
# 1:
Summary: According to this video, quantum gravity and the theory of relativity are both taught in public schools and students decide whether they accept them*. Clearly, they should be allowed to decide whether they accept ID or the theory of evolution, too.
ID is science, of course, because
observation: a designer produces CSI,
hypothesis: designed stuff should have high levels of CSI,
experiment: if you disassemble something and it looses its function it's IC and therefore CSI and therefore,
conclusion: it had a designer.**  
Although ID isn't proven it should be thaught until it is disproven. Just like the theory of evolution. They still haven't found the missing link, don't you know.

My opinion: This girl is promising. Can't be bothered with fact checking, sounds science-y while talking BS, no problems with making completely illogical statements, can count to four, AND uses the old "There are no missing links" canard.

She says that Kitzmiller v. Dover was a Supreme Court trial.  If only...

And you know you're daft when you can't even put together an argument from design.  She sounds like she's drunk.  She can barely spit out the word "irreducible".

Does the supposed Darwin quote “A fair result can only be obtained by balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question” actually exist outside of creationist literature?

Date: 2009/01/31 12:06:07, Link
Author: Bueller_007
Quote (JLT @ Jan. 31 2009,02:41)
Quote (Bueller_007 @ Jan. 31 2009,02:22)
 
Quote (JLT @ Jan. 30 2009,15:36)
# 1:
Summary: According to this video, quantum gravity and the theory of relativity are both taught in public schools and students decide whether they accept them*. Clearly, they should be allowed to decide whether they accept ID or the theory of evolution, too.
ID is science, of course, because
observation: a designer produces CSI,
hypothesis: designed stuff should have high levels of CSI,
experiment: if you disassemble something and it looses its function it's IC and therefore CSI and therefore,
conclusion: it had a designer.**  
Although ID isn't proven it should be thaught until it is disproven. Just like the theory of evolution. They still haven't found the missing link, don't you know.

My opinion: This girl is promising. Can't be bothered with fact checking, sounds science-y while talking BS, no problems with making completely illogical statements, can count to four, AND uses the old "There are no missing links" canard.

She says that Kitzmiller v. Dover was a Supreme Court trial.  If only...

And you know you're daft when you can't even put together an argument from design.  She sounds like she's drunk.  She can barely spit out the word "irreducible".

Does the supposed Darwin quote “A fair result can only be obtained by balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question” actually exist outside of creationist literature?

The Darwin quote is from the introduction of The Origin of Species:

 
Quote
This Abstract, which I now publish, must necessarily be imperfect. I cannot here give references and authorities for my several statements; and I must trust to the reader reposing some confidence in my accuracy. No doubt errors will have crept in, though I hope I have always been cautious in trusting to good authorities alone. I can here give only the general conclusions at which I have arrived, with a few facts in illustration, but which, I hope, in most cases will suffice. No one can feel more sensible than I do of the necessity of hereafter publishing in detail all the facts, with references, on which my conclusions have been grounded; and I hope in a future work to do this. For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this cannot possibly be here done.


All of Darwin's work is available online, here.

It's kind of ironic that she quotes this passage in the same video in which she states that no missing link was found, ever. Creationists in general aren't really known for stating and balancing all the facts on both sides.

Thanks.  Yeah, I already knew about that website, and I did a search on there before posting, but nothing turned up because the creationist bungled the quote.  She says "...fair result can only be obtained..." when it's actually "...fair result can be obtained only..."

Date: 2009/01/31 22:06:23, Link
Author: Bueller_007
Quote (Maya @ Jan. 31 2009,11:36)
New UD FAQ Coming Soon
Quote
I especially invite our opponents to participate in this process. I assure you that if you raise any fair objection, it will be treated with respect, and you could very well prompt us to modify the FAQ.

My scientific prediction is that this will result in the need to open "Uncommonly Dense Thread 3" far sooner than anticipated.

It's being written by Kairosfocus?

REALLY?

Then again his ramblings are the perfect example of irreducible complexity.  (And proof that IC doesn't require an intelligent designer.)

Date: 2009/02/09 09:29:43, Link
Author: Bueller_007
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 08 2009,15:57)
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]<br/><br/>Evolution and the Origin of Life: Real Problems

The origin of life is one of the biggest problems for evolution, because of it's committment to naturalism.  That is, that all processes in the universe are explainable using only natural laws.  Virtually all other sciences can be explained by natural laws, but there are very real and ignored problems with  how the first life began.

We have all heard of the "primordial soup" model of life.  That at a point in early earth history, the molten earth cooled, and oceans formed.  As rain fell, chemicals in a hypothetical pool organized into proteins, lipids, and carbohydrates.  These molecules then organized into  cellular structures and more complex proteins, DNA, and cell membranes.  

The following are proven chemistry facts that are not shared with the average science illiterate population.  

Observable Chemistry Fact #1

Presence of water is a problem: Some amino acids break down in water by the process called hydrolysis.  It actually breaks the bonds of the amino acids preventing them from forming  the chains that build proteins.  Stanley Miller, who attempted to create life in a test tube in the early 1950's, knew this, and isolated the products in order to avoid this destructive reaction.

Observable Chemistry Fact #2

Presence of Oxygen: Stanley Miller purposely left out oxygen in his experiment.  Why?  Because he knew that oxygen would be corrosive and tend to destroy the organic compounds for life.

Some scientists have suggested that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain oxygen, but then the atmosphere would have had no ozone layer  to sheild the compounds from  the ultraviolet rays of the sun---a catch 22 for evolutionists.  ALso, is there any evidence for a non-oxygen atmosphere?  

ANOTHER SIGNIFIGANT PROBLEM

Amino acids in living things

1. There are 2000 types amino acids, of which are only 20 are found in living things.  We're talking mathematics working against it now.

2. THE BIGGEST PROBLEM--All amino acids come in left and right handed forms called "enantiomers."   Living things have only the left handed amino acids.  When Stanley Miller attempted life in a test tube, he produced only a racemic mixture of right and left handed amino acids that is detrimental to life.

So intelligent life tried to set up a random mixture of supposed ingredients and could not do it.  It proved that some random amino acids could be produced.

My question is why am I labeled as a propagandist when I consider evidence logically and come up with the conclusion that the mathematical improbability of life starting randomly by solely naturalistic means is astronomically high.  And in the sense of logic and common sense it is illogical to propose that an effect caused itself.

Wow, you've convinced me.  It's like microenvironments don't even exist.

And FYI, there was an article published in JACS in 2008 that got a 100% yield of one enantiomer from something like a 2% initial enantiomeric excess.

Date: 2009/02/09 09:33:16, Link
Author: Bueller_007
Quote
1. There are 2000 types amino acids, of which are only 20 are found in living things.  We're talking mathematics working against it now.


Ugh.  I didn't even see this one.  This isn't true (and it wouldn't be any kind of argument even if it were).  Only 20 are coded for by the standard genetic code.  LOTS of others are found in life and are even incorporated into proteins.

Date: 2009/03/13 22:12:57, Link
Author: Bueller_007
Apropos to the topic of being banned for things said on other forums, here's an exchange Barry and I had a while back when my TheYellowShark account was banned for calling one of Dembski's ridiculous posts "a pile of tard".


Quote

From Barry Arrington
To me

Your recent comment

Was not approved.  As CH said, your next comment should be an apology or you will be banned.  You are now banned.  If you care to reply to this email with an apology that you would like for me to post, I will reinstate you.

As to the substance of your comment, "I will not say sorry for my
insults unless that other guy has to say sorry too," is petulant and
childish.  Given the obvious intelligence behind your comments, which I
will miss, I am surprised.

Barry K. Arrington


My reply:

Quote

I appreciate that you took the time to reply to my comment by email.

To be honest, I don't feel that I should have to apologize to Dr. Dembski for posting a comment that I made on a different website as a precondition for posting to UD.  On the contrary, I *do* feel that an apology would be more than appropriate for a much more serious breach of 'ethics' that was made on the front page of UD itself by one of its contributors, particularly when there is much suspicion that BaylorBear is a Dembski "sock puppet".  I don't think it's childish to point out this obvious double-standard.

If Dr. Dembski was aware of my comment prior to its repost at UD by Clive, and if he took offense, I do apologize and you can pass it on to him personally.  However, I think it's far more likely that he would realize that it was a *joke*, particularly if you consider his own sense of humour (e.g., the flatulent animation of Judge Jones, etc.)

That said, I don't believe that Clive actually cares about the apology itself, and is merely using the situation to 1) assert his authority, 2) attempt to undermine my status at antievolution.org--of which I admittedly have none, since I've only made about 10 posts--by forcing me to apologize, 3) attempting to ban someone who disagrees with him.  I see that as pretty much par-for-the-course for UD.

So you can pass on my apology to Dr. Dembski if (and only if) he knew about it and he was actually offended, but I would prefer that you didn't post it to UD, and I will accept my 'bannination'.

Take care.

Also, I would prefer if you or Clive would make a "TheYellowShark is no longer with us" comment on that thread, because:
a) the people at antievolution.org keep track of such things
b) it won't just look like I took off without any kind of reply

Thanks.


Of course, I was not reinstated, there was no mention of my bannination, and Barry did not reply.

Date: 2009/03/13 22:20:29, Link
Author: Bueller_007
I should mention that the reference to BaylorBear's breach of ethics is about that time he posted the cartoon of the IDiots chasing people up a tree for believing in evolution.  (Apparently threatening to beat/kill them.)  Not only was it offensive, he also doctored it and posted it unattributed.

Also, I used the term "pile of tard" on this forum, not at UD.

Date: 2009/03/20 17:22:22, Link
Author: Bueller_007
Looks like Allen had at least one of his posts removed for calling a Darwin = Hitler reference unfair.  Meanwhile KKK is still rocking like a hurricane.

 
Quote
13
Charlie
03/20/2009
2:31 pm
Hi Allen Macneill,
Re: #9
It’s nice to finally agree with you.


Post #9 by Allen (originally about Godwin's Law) is no longer there.

Date: 2009/04/06 14:32:57, Link
Author: Bueller_007
Quote (Nils Ruhr @ April 06 2009,11:26)
[quote=Wesley R. Elsberry,April 06 2009,12:11][/quote]
@Elsberry:

 
Quote
Pointing out equivocation by parallel example is stupid in what way?


I quoted the official definitions (encarta, for example). His definitions of "automobile" were made up BY HIM!
Btw.: You can apply official definitions of religion to atheistic philosophies.

You quoted "official definitions"  Really?  What's an "official definition"?  In any case, here's what the "authoritative" English dictionary (the OED) has to say:

religion n.  (I've omitted all senses marked as obsolete)
   1. a. A state of life bound by monastic vows; the condition of one who is a member of a religious order, esp. in the Roman Catholic Church.
   2. a. A particular monastic or religious order or rule; a religious house. Now rare.
   3. a. Action or conduct indicating a belief in, reverence for, and desire to please, a divine ruling power; the exercise or practice of rites or observances implying this. Also pl., religious rites. Now rare, exc. as implied in 5.
   4. a. A particular system of faith and worship.
   5. a. Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as having control of his destiny, and as being entitled to obedience, reverence, and worship; the general mental and moral attitude resulting from this belief, with reference to its effect upon the individual or the community; personal or general acceptance of this feeling as a standard of spiritual and practical life.

Now could you please explain how atheism fits into any of these categories?

kthxbai


And for what it's worth:

automobile n.  (I've omitted the adjective sense)
A self-propelled vehicle; a motor vehicle.

Date: 2009/04/14 23:45:38, Link
Author: Bueller_007
I love how Huang got slammed by Leigh Van Valen.

Quote
There is ample evidence for a variable clock. Unless the divergence from constancy here is greater than what is found elsewhere, the paper unfortunately adds nothing useful.


http://precedings.nature.com/documents/1676/version/2

Date: 2009/04/25 19:39:47, Link
Author: Bueller_007
I love how Gil keeps yammering on about his checkers program.  It's almost as if Chinook didn't exist.  God how I would love to see Jonathan Schaeffer annihilate Gil.  On any topic.

Date: 2009/04/25 23:05:59, Link
Author: Bueller_007
Quote (Hermagoras @ April 25 2009,18:43)
Quote (Bueller_007 @ April 25 2009,19:39)
I love how Gil keeps yammering on about his checkers program.  It's almost as if Chinook didn't exist.  God how I would love to see Jonathan Schaeffer annihilate Gil.  On any topic.

Actually, Schaeffer has some nice things to say about Gil in his book on Chinook, One Jump Ahead: Computer Perfection at Checkers.

Really?  I haven't read his book, but I know Schaeffer personally.  I find that surprising.

Date: 2009/04/29 00:14:15, Link
Author: Bueller_007
Quote (dvunkannon @ April 28 2009,23:07)
Quote (paragwinn @ April 29 2009,00:47)
 
Quote (dvunkannon @ April 28 2009,23:14)
   
Quote
131

AmerikanInKananaskis

04/28/2009

8:16 pm
This was one of the books that got me thinking about my personal theory of ID, where design “flaws” actually turn out to be the things that were designed.


More AKKK = DT evidence. Der Scooter was a convinced front loader, who often argued flaw = design.

don't know if this will help...from wikipedia regarding Kananaskis:
"Kananaskis is an improvement district (a type of rural municipal administrative unit) situated to the west of Calgary, Alberta, Canada in the foothills and front ranges of the Canadian Rockies..."

He moved the Floating Command Center to Canada for the length of the Obama Administration!

If you just do a Google search for his username, you'll get a complete list of his posts at UD (and nothing else but a mention here).

Here's my favourite.

Date: 2009/05/09 14:47:32, Link
Author: Bueller_007
A have a comment/question/request about evolution and the 2nd law.

This guy David Waite is claiming that the standard "the 2nd law says nothing about order/disorder as we normally understand them" refutation of the creationist argument is flawed. He seems to be arguing that evolution causes an increased number of informational microstates (in terms of genes available) which represents an increase in entropy, and that this is not only compatible with the 2nd law, but what we should EXPECT from the 2nd law.

I would like to request that people watch these videos and tell me if they think his argument is fatally flawed, or if I'm just losing my mind.  The first video is a description of entropy in terms of microstates, so you don't need to watch that if you already understand.  The second video is the flawed part of his argument:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5LM22GwAHY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtM2eHEtxuI

I have provided him with at least five peer-reviewed references saying that he's wrong--informational microstates and thermodynamic microstates are not interchangeable so the 2nd law of thermodynamics has NOTHING to say about informational entropy--but he refuses to listen.

In my opinion, he's making EXACTLY the same mistake as the creationists, but I would like some of the others here to give me their feedback.


A couple of the better ref's:
*Denbigh, K. G. 1989. Note on entropy, disorder and disorganization. Brit. J. Phil. Sci. 40: 323-332.
*Lambert, F.L. 1999. Shuffled Cards, Messy Desks, and Disorderly Dorm Rooms — Examples of Entropy Increase? Nonsense!
J. Chem. Educ. 76: 1385-1387.

Date: 2009/05/09 20:05:53, Link
Author: Bueller_007
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ May 09 2009,18:59)
Quote (Bueller_007 @ May 09 2009,14:47)
A have a comment/question/request about evolution and the 2nd law.

This guy David Waite is claiming that the standard "the 2nd law says nothing about order/disorder as we normally understand them" refutation of the creationist argument is flawed. He seems to be arguing that evolution causes an increased number of informational microstates (in terms of genes available) which represents an increase in entropy, and that this is not only compatible with the 2nd law, but what we should EXPECT from the 2nd law.

I would like to request that people watch these videos and tell me if they think his argument is fatally flawed, or if I'm just losing my mind.  The first video is a description of entropy in terms of microstates, so you don't need to watch that if you already understand.  The second video is the flawed part of his argument:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5LM22GwAHY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtM2eHEtxuI

I have provided him with at least five peer-reviewed references saying that he's wrong--informational microstates and thermodynamic microstates are not interchangeable so the 2nd law of thermodynamics has NOTHING to say about informational entropy--but he refuses to listen.

In my opinion, he's making EXACTLY the same mistake as the creationists, but I would like some of the others here to give me their feedback.


A couple of the better ref's:
*Denbigh, K. G. 1989. Note on entropy, disorder and disorganization. Brit. J. Phil. Sci. 40: 323-332.
*Lambert, F.L. 1999. Shuffled Cards, Messy Desks, and Disorderly Dorm Rooms — Examples of Entropy Increase? Nonsense!
J. Chem. Educ. 76: 1385-1387.

Ask him if information is an intensive or extensive property, and see what kind of answer you get.

Entropy is extensive - double the system means double the entropy.

Can't ask him anything.  He blocked me for asking questions, disallowed my posts where I suggested papers for him to read, told ME to do the research, etc. etc.

The guy's a crackpot who believes in telepathy and UFOs and whatnot, so I don't particularly care whether or not I prove him wrong because he won't listen to criticism. But he claims to have an M.Sc. in physics (not that that necessarily proves anything) and has made a bunch of vids on the subject, and he seems to know what he's talking about physics-wise.

I just want to be assured that I'm right, or told I'm wrong by someone who doesn't believe that UFOs built some orange blob in the middle of Greenland.

Date: 2009/05/21 16:05:37, Link
Author: Bueller_007
Barry thinks so little of the UD regulars that he thinks it necessary to explain the phrase "Hoisted [sic] With His Own Petard".  Then again, seeing as he can't even get the grammar correct ("hoist" is the past tense of "hoise" here, idjit), maybe it's a phrase he just learned himself.

Quote
Shapiro Hoisted With His Own Petard?
...
For “petard” reference see here.

Date: 2009/08/10 19:38:56, Link
Author: Bueller_007
This post may not be long for this world.

Quote

9

Tajimas D

08/10/2009

7:25 pm

You don’t find it at all hypocritical that while you were making it a course requirement for your students to post on “hostile” websites, you were running your own with an iron fist, disallowing or deleting all criticism?

Quote
There are plenty of other forums where I mix it up with Darwinists. Think of this blog as my playground. If you have to take a whiz, do it elsewhere.

Date: 2009/08/11 10:55:13, Link
Author: Bueller_007
Batshit has clearly been taking lessons in teh tard from KF:
Quote


23

bornagain77

08/11/2009

7:31 am

I happen to use a rock to seek for “The Truth”.

What is Truth?

To varying degrees everyone looks for truth. A few people have traveled to distant lands seeking gurus in their quest to find “Truth”. People are happy when they discover a new truth into the mysteries of life. People who have deep insights into the truth of how things actually work are considered wise. In the bible Jesus says “You will know the truth and the truth will set you free.” So, since truth is considered such a good thing, let us look for truth in a common object; a simple rock.

A rock is composed of three basic ingredients; energy, force and truth. From Einstein’s famous equation (e=mc2) we know that all matter (solids, liquids and gases) of the universe is ultimately made up of energy and therefore the entire rock can “hypothetically” be reduced to energy.

E=mc²: Einstein explains his famous formula – video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CC7Sg41Bp-U

This energy is “woven” by various complex, unchanging, transcendent, universal forces into the atoms of the rock. The amount of energy woven by these complex interactions of various, unchanging, universal forces into the rock is tremendous. This tremendous energy that is in the rock is clearly demonstrated by the detonation of nuclear bombs. This woven energy is found in each and every individual “particle/wave” of every atom, in the trillions upon trillions of atoms in the rock. While energy can be said to be what gives “substance” to the rock, energy in and of itself is a “non-solid” entity. In fact, the unchanging, transcendent, universal constants/forces, that tell the energy exactly where to be and what to do in the rock, can be firmly stated to be the ONLY solid, uncompromising “thing” in the rock. Yet there is another ingredient which went into making the rock besides constants/forces and energy. An ingredient that is often neglected to be looked at as a “real” component of the rock. It is the transcendent and spiritual component of truth. If truth did not exist the rock would not exist. This is as obvious as the fact that the rock would not exist if energy and/or unchanging force did not exist. It is the truth in and of the logical laws of the unchanging forces of the universal constants that govern the energy in the rock that enable the rock to be a rock in the first place.

Is truth independent and dominant of the energy and force? Yes of course, there are many philosophical truths that are not dependent on energy or force for them to still be true. Yet energy and unchanging force are precisely subject to what the “truth” tells them they can and cannot do. To put it another way, the rock cannot exist without truth yet the truth can exist without the rock. Energy and force must obey the truth that is above them or else the rock can’t possibly exist. Since truth clearly dictates what energy and/or unchanging force can or cannot do, it follows that truth dominates energy and unchanging force. Energy and unchanging force do not dominate truth. It is also obvious that if all energy and/or force stopped existing in this universe, the truth that ruled the energy and force in the rock would still be logically true. Thus, truth can be said to be eternal, or timeless in nature. It is also obvious that truth is omnipresent. That is to say, the truth that is in the rock on this world is the same truth that is in a rock on the other side of the universe on another world. Thus, truth is present everywhere at all times in this universe (Indeed, Science would be extremely difficult, to put it mildly, if this uniformity of truth were not so). It has also been scientifically proven, by quantum non-locality, that whenever something becomes physically true” (wave collapse of entangled electron, photon) in any part of the universe, this “truth” is instantaneously communicated anywhere/everywhere in the universe to its corresponding “particle”. Thus, truth is “aware” of everything that goes on in the universe instantaneously. This universal instantaneous awareness of a transcendent truth also gives truth the vital characteristic of being omniscient (All knowing). This instantaneous communication of truth to all points in the universe also happens to defy the speed of light; a “truth” that energy and even the unchanging force of gravity happen to be subject to (I believe all fundamental forces are shown to be subject to this “truth’ of the speed of light). This scientific proof of quantum non-locality also proves that truth is not a “passive” component of this universe. Truth is actually scientifically demonstrated, by quantum non-locality and quantum teleportation, to be the “active” dominant component of this universe. Thus, truth is not a passive set of rules written on a sheet of paper somewhere. Truth is the “living governor” of this universe that has dominion over all other components of this universe and is not bound by any of the laws that “truth” has subjected all the other components of the universe to. Truth is in fact a tangible entity that enables and dictates our reality in this universe to exist in a overarching non-chaotic form so as to enable life to exist (Anthropic Principle). Truth, which is shown not to be subject to time in any way by quantum non-locality, has demonstrated foresight and purpose in the Anthropic Principle for this temporal universe and, as such, can be said to be “alive” from the fact that a “decision” had to be made from the timeless/spaceless dimension, that truth inhabits, in order for this temporal reality to become real in the first place. i.e. truth is a major characteristic of the necessary Being, “uncaused cause”, the Alpha, that created all reality/realities. The fact that quantum teleportation shows an exact “specified dominion” of a photon energy by “a truth” (actually truth is shown to be “a specified truth of infinite information” in teleportation) satisfies a major requirement for the entity needed to explain the “missing Dark Matter” in that the needed explanation would have to dominate energy in just such a similar fashion, as is demonstrated by teleportation, to satisfy what is needed to explain the missing dark matter. Moreover, that a photon would actually be destroyed upon the teleportation of its truth (infinite specified information) to another photon, is a direct controlled violation of the first law of thermodynamics. This is direct empirical validation for the law of conservation of information since a truth exercised dominion of a photon of energy which cannot be created or destroyed by any known material means, and provides another primary evidence that “the truth” is the foundational entity of this universe (i.e. truth cannot be created or destroyed). The fact that simple quantum entanglement shows a “coherent long-range universal control” of energy, by “a truth”, satisfies a major requirement for the entity which must explain why the universe is expanding at such a finely-tuned degree in such a manner as it is. Thus “transcendent eternal truth” provides a coherent picture of reality that could possibly unify all of physics upon further elucidation.

Well, lets see what we have so far; Truth is eternal (it has always existed and will always exist); Truth is omnipresent (it is present everywhere in the universe at all times); Truth is omnipotent (it has dominion over everything else in the universe, yet is not subject to any physical laws); Truth has a vital characteristic of omniscience (trtuh is aware of everything that is happening in the universe); Truth is active (it is aware of everything that is happening and instantaneously makes appropriate adjustments); and Truth is alive (Truth has created a temporal universe from a reality that is not subject to any physical laws of time or space for the express purpose of creating life; Anthropic Principle) Surprisingly, being eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient. active and alive are the foundational characteristics that are used by theologians to describe God. Thus, logically speaking, spiritual/transcendent truth emanates directly from God. So in answer to our question “What is Truth?” we can answer that truth comes from God as far as the scientific method is concerned.

To bring this into the focus of the Christian perspective, Jesus says that He is “The Truth”. In regards to what is currently revealed in our scientific knowledge, this is a VERY, VERY fantastic claim! If Jesus is speaking a truth, which I believe He is from the personal miracles I’ve seen in my own life, then by the rules of logic this makes Jesus exactly equivalent to God Almighty as far as our reality is concerned. Well,,, Is Jesus the author of this universe and all life in it??? Though this is somewhat difficult to bear out scientifically, personally I believe He is since all the foundational truths in what could be termed the “transcendent” philosophy of human character and behavior (i.e. Love your neighbor as yourself, Don’t bear false witness etc..etc..), have found their ultimate authority and expression in Jesus Christ life. i.e. by His “sinless life” and by His resurrection from the dead he has set the standard for “righteousness” and has indeed testified to “philosophical truth’s” primacy and authority over this material realm. Plus, I find extreme poetic justice in the fact Jesus has overcome death and entropy by leading a totally sinless, and thus in essence a totally decay-free, life. I also find it extremely logical and poetic that we too can escape death and decay by accepting this “living eternal truth” of Jesus atoning sacrifice into our hearts.

Of course, there is also this powerful passage at the beginning of John, which has now been scientifically confirmed by many lines of evidence, that bears solid witness to the fact that Jesus is Lord.

John 1:1-4
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men.”

John 1:12
Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—

Myself, I find the evidence that Jesus is Lord of heaven and earth to be overwhelmingly compelling as well as a source of great Joy.

Matthew 28:18
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.”

————————————————————————————————————————————-

Refutation of the “hidden variables” argument that is used by materialists in trying to explain quantum phenomena

Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show
In comparison to classical physics, quantum physics predicts that the properties of a quantum mechanical system depend on the measurement context, i.e. whether or not other system measurements are carried out. A team of physicists from Innsbruck, Austria, led by Christian Roos and Rainer Blatt, have for the first time proven in a comprehensive experiment that it is not possible to explain quantum phenomena in non-contextual terms…..Quantum mechanics describes the physical state of light and matter and formulates concepts that totally contradict the classical conception we have of nature. Thus, physicists have tried to explain non-causal phenomena in quantum mechanics by classical models of hidden variables, thereby excluding randomness, which is omnipresent in quantum theory.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....142824.htm

further note:

the experiment I cited finally conclusively proves “reality” is not independent of the observer, and shows that our “material” reality does not “materialize” from the “higher dimensionality wave” until observation, or combination of observations, is exercised. Correct?

Quantum Mechanics – The Limited Role Of The Observer – Michael Strauss
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elg83xUZZBs

What i find interesting is that all of this may be found to tie in to 4-d space-time cosmology in a very neat way that seems to be very satisfying and fairly easy to understand…

COBE – WMAP Satellites – video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huaS_iSITQs

Earth As The Center Of The Universe – image
http://universe-review.ca/R02-16-universe.htm

I find it very interesting, from what we now know to be true from 4-Dimensional space-time cosmology, That each individual person/observer can be considered the “center of the universe” no matter where they are in the universe since, depending on where in the universe you are observing, the entire universe does in fact seem to “center” on you.

Thus:
Quantum mechanics tells us that wave collapse is “centered” on each observer, whereas 4-D space-time cosmology tells us the universe is “centered” on each observer,,,a rather interesting congruence in science, between the large and small, I would think! A congruence that they apparently have had an incredibly hard time joining mathematically (Penrose)

further note:

This following video and article give deep insight into what the image formation on the Shroud signifies for reality:

A Particle Physicist Looks At The Turin Shroud Image – 4:25 minute mark of video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgvEDfkuhGg

A Quantum Hologram of Christ’s Resurrection?
http://www.khouse.org/articles/2008/847

 

 

 

=====