AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: Cedric Katesby

form_srcid: Cedric Katesby

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

Your IP address is


form_srcid: Cedric Katesby

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 = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Cedric Katesby%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC


DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2006/09/12 23:04:06, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby
I would just like to de-cloak for a moment and congratulate all the contributors to this thread for their thoughtful and interesting postings.  For me, this is like a freebie science course with a lot of entertainment thrown in.
Words fail me when I try to describe you.
(You'll probably take that as a compliment ??? )
Get out of this intellectual dead-end you are in.   You have produced nothing to support your outlandish claims.
Boldcaps not withstanding
That whole business about the Portugese thingy was just dreadful.
You never did get around to producing a list of loan-words. (sigh)
Please, do go to and argue with devout Christians who could possibly set you straight.
I don't hold much hope that you'll finally get your eyes opened but the entertainment value would be priceless.

Date: 2006/09/13 16:36:25, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby
AF Dave says        
But how are we doing in the world at large, you may ask?

Glad you asked ...

...and then proceeds to post an article about the Pope and the Vatican.
Then we get...
There's another billion plus people you can throw in the ring in favor of creationism.

Only a billion? Hey, let's make it a billion, billion and I'll even throw in my big sister! (how's that for generosity! )
But how do numbers of people believing in something make that something true?
Surely, your 'hypothesis' requires ***EVIDENCE*** to support it, ( not poll numbers, not surveys, not a round of applause at an ol' timey church meeting).  Less blather and cute pictures.  Evidence please.

You know AF Dave, you really should register at  They need your guidance. :)
At theologyweb they have this little gem...    
The calibration curves shown above come from CalPal - the University of Cologne Radiocarbon Calibration Program Package. It's one of the premier C14/C12 research facilities in the world.

Radiocarbon dating is an extremely well known and well researched branch of science. It is one of the backbones of archaeology, especially paleoarchaeology. The scientist who pioneered it, Willard Frank Libby, won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1960 for his work. Today there are over 130 labs worldwide providing radiocarbon dating services, doing millions of dollars in business. The science even has its own peer-reviewed journal, Radiocarbon, to keep up on the latest developments.

Creationists groups like AIG and ICR provide morons like Jorge with C&P fodder as they try to claim C14/C12 dating is innacurate and invalid, but they can't deal with the multiple independent lines of C14 calibration.

They can make up some unsupported fantasy about C14/C12 ratios being 100x different
They can make up some unsupported fantasy about C14/C12 decay rate being not constant
They can lie about trees growing 10 rings a year instead of 1
They can lie about all the ice core samples being off by greater than a factor of 10.
They can lie about all the ocean core samples being off by greater than a factor of 10.
They can lie about all the lake varve samples being off by greater than a factor of 10.
They can lie about all the cave deposits being off by greater than a factor of 10.

But what they can't begin to rationalize away is how all these independent calibration methods agree with each other almost exactly.

Even if we accept Jorge's bellyaching about low level background C14 contamination being some sort of problem for dates older than 70,000 YBP, please note that all C14 dates up to 50,000 YBP are still accurate.

That pretty much blows Jorge's '6000 year old earth' YEC claims out of the water, doesn't it.

- Tiggy

and one of the follow-ups was very interesting...
Quote: Originally posted by Splint

But with YEC philosophy, Jorge must dismiss this result even though the evidence is overwhelming, and instead, be none the wiser. (Errr! Sorry.) All because of one misused, inappropriate or fumbled process or intentionally misinterpreted results thereof which may prove to a Young Earther that measuring the weight of Jorge’s brain is impossible.

What you are describing is the basic YEC argument technique against ANY science that supports ToE

1. Comb the scientific literature, find a single outlier among the hundreds of thousands of pieces of otherwise corroborating positive data.
2. Don't investigate the cause for the anomaly and reject any scientific reasons for the outlier.
3. Scream bloody murder that the single piece of outlier data somehow negates the other hundred thousand pieces of positive evidence.

It's old, it's boring, it's bland - but it still seems to work among the scientifically illiterate YEC mouth breathers (like Jorge) who are desperate for anything to prop up their literal Bible beliefs.

- Tiggy

Remind you of anyone you know, AF Dave?
Looks like there are some Christians that are playing footsie with the Devil over there!  :O
Just imagine how many brownie points you'll get with your God if you manage to guide them away from 'millionsofyearsism'.
Put your new-found 'scientific wisdom' to good use.
Go get 'em Tiger, we're all pulling for you!  :)

Date: 2006/10/07 06:39:47, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby
Ooooo, oooooh, ooooh.  Pick Me!
Please, pick me.  I'd like to have some fun and wear AFDave's dunce cap for a moment.
I bet I know how he will answer it!
We all know that "evolutionists" have conspired with the geologists and the dendrocronologists etc. to create the "silly fairy tale" of deep time, right?
Well,(drum roll please), how about we just include the genetisists and the mathematicians in on the whole "evolutionist" conspiracy.  Maybe the lab guys in all the DNA labs around the world are being duped by cause of the Grand Deep Time Conspiracy.  'Cause...well...we're all afraid of God or something. :(

Date: 2006/10/09 01:29:05, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby
Since Genesis is not contradicted by the evidence in the many areas in which I CAN verify it, I have no reason to doubt it's reliability in all areas.

AFDave, this is a really bad way of thinking.  
As somebody once pointed out before, parts of a James Bond novel's "evidence" can be verified independently.  There really is an MI6, Moscow really is a city and there really was such a thing as a Cold War.  Yet trusting that therefore there must have been a real James Bond or that "Moonraker" actually happened is just silly.

Date: 2006/10/09 08:03:30, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby
Cedric ... one HUGE difference between a Bond novel and the Book of Genesis:  the writer of the Bond novel never claimed it was actual history ... it was labeled fiction from the start.  The writers of Genesis, on the other hand, ALWAYS claimed that their accounts were actual history ... note the recurring phrase "these are the 'toledoths' of ...", a 'toledoth' being a family history.  See my blog article here ...

So, if Ian Fleming claimed that his novels were the real deal but only the names had been changed. then....?
You'd trust his books as real history???
What say you on the Book of Mormon?
That claims to be divinely inspired and has all sorts of wierd things about a bronze-age civilization in America long before Columbus.  Willing to trust that?
(insert shiver of disbelief here)
As for quote-mining stuff about "there ain't no transtional fossils", please, give it up now.  It didn't work a hundred years ago, it sure as heck won't work now! ???

Date: 2006/10/09 22:30:51, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby
Quote can I be sure that no plants would have survived 40 straight days of alternating water and lava tsunamis...
...oh yeah, because I have a brain!

Oh, thats easy.  They were all just little baby seeds that went onto the Ark.  Two of each "kind".
Flower ''kind" and "tree" kind.  Probably would have taken up as much room as a matchbox.  Four seeds in total.  No need for spares, since God's plan after the flood would have guaranteed germination.  But what about mushrooms, you ask?
Simple!  Fungii of all sorts were protected by natural floating logs that had stuff growing inside them.  A forest's naturally made life-boat.
Also coconuts float on the sea for months, SO THERE!

Somebody else here has mentioned syphillis.  Who in the family had it?
It was the donkey "kind", (the male actually!;) ).
Not a human member of the Noah family at all.
Venereal diseases of all kinds were originally borne only by donkeys for most of human history.
But then...many decades after the Fludde...a lonely donkey seller decided to get himself a piece of ass and... :(

Date: 2006/10/10 21:26:13, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby
Thanks BWE for re-posting AFDave's Portugese moment.
Even after all this time, it never fails to amuse me.
Dave, please keep going with this.
Let's see...AF Dave is right and every single professional linguist (including the ones from Portugal and France :D  ) are wrong.  Ah, the wonder of it all.
Oh, does this tie into the evolutionist "Deep Time" conspiracy with all the geologists and geneticists etc.? Just curious.

Date: 2006/10/11 08:53:13, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby
Why did lungfish stop evolving?

AFDAve, listen up.  There is no "off-switch" to evolution.
A species doesn't go "Oooo, I like the way I look now.  That tail of mine is just perfect now! I think I'll stop evolving". That's not the way it works.
Evolution is an endless 'arm-race' for survival.  Survival against the ever-changing elements and other animals that want to either take over your habitat or make you the next item on the menu.
There is no touch down, no finishing line, no step ladder of "progress".  The rule is "whatever works baby".
Take legs for example.  Seriously, think about this for a second, OK?
Are legs better or worse than no legs?  Is a creature with legs "more evolved" or "less evolved" than a creature without legs?
If you can figure this one out then you might just begin to have a glimmer of understanding what evolution is all about.  The strawman version of evolution you've got is just born of ignorance.
I can't wait for you to say "If Man came from monkeys, then why are there STILL monkeys???"

Date: 2006/10/11 15:48:16, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby
Also, Cory.  Why didn't YOU contact AIG if it is such a big deal to you?

Let's be honest about this shall we?
You're not going to hold AIG's feet to the fire, are you?
They've lied, obfusticated, made a boo-boo (yeah, yeah whatever).
You're not going to call them to task about it.
Why on earth not?
I mean they're Christians aren't they? So are you!
If you point out the error of their ways they'll do the right thing and correct their article on their web-site in double-quick time...right?
Because a real Christian does not bear false witness, right?
Because a real Christian fights the good fight with facts and 100% TOTAL HONESTY, right?
Only the 'bad guys' play dirty pool.'re not going to contact them.
And we both know why...
..'Cause then you would have to deal with the reality of them totally ignoring you and merrily continuing to post the error/lie on their web-site.
So, a week or so after you've sent your ever-so polite e-mail about the error/lie, it'll  dawn upon you that the folks at AIG don't give a toss about honesty or fair dealing.
Which then means that....(...well, you can guess the rest...)
Don't contact them AFDave!
A brush with reality with one of your own lot would probably be too painful.

Date: 2006/10/11 21:09:32, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby
AFDave said : "Cedric ... I already contacted them and linked to the relevant thread.  Does this thread move too fast for you?"

No doubt, no doubt it moves too fast.
So exactly when did you contact them?
Enlighten me please.

(and now for the BIG question, boys and girls)

Did AIG actually remove the article? Yes or No?

Actions speak louder than words, AFDave.

AFDave said :"Now, why don't you and Cory and Russell do as I have done and contact all the thousands of organizations out there that are lying about Common Descent being a proven fact and tricking poor guys like Eric and Jeannot who believe this nonsense.  OK?  Thanks.  Please report back to me with their response. :-)"

Sure, just as soon as you present scientific evidence on how all these thousands (millions??) of organisations are lying.
So far, all that you have presented on this thread is a staggering display of willfull ignorance that is matched only by you arrogance and pride.
No doubt you'll have me sending e-mails off to NASA telling them how they're a bunch of liars..And of course  every single oil company in the world... Plus every single science department in every single university across the planet...And all those pesky DNA specialists, and all those glaciologists...and all those physicists etc.  (The Grand "Deep Time" Conspiracy and all that.)
I dunno, AFDave.  Call me lazy but it seems a lot to ask of me.
All that work just because you 'supposedly' sent off one lonely e-mail to AIG.
AIG lied/erred and EVEN YOU had to admit it.
Will you hold their feet to the fire?
When they brush you off, (and of course they will) what will you conclude?
Do you seriously believe that a true Christian must be guileless and not bear false witness?
You talk the talk, WALK THE WALK! :angry:

Date: 2006/10/12 23:18:54, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby
Argument by Ancient Quotation!

#### but that's funny!

So, AFDave...about this 'supposed' e-mail you sent to those fine, upstanding Christians down at AIG?
When did you send it, pray tell?
And did they remove the article?
Yes or no?
Just thought I'd ask again, in case this thread is moving too fast for you. :)

Date: 2006/10/17 00:05:29, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby
AFDave, you're a busy man. I appreciate that.
Working down in the quote-mines all day, looking for those 'special' 40+ year old articles to prop up your bizzare YEC beliefs.
Just in case you missed my previous posts, I thought I'd repost this for you.... :)

"So, AFDave...about this 'supposed' e-mail you sent to those fine, upstanding Christians down at AIG?
When did you send it, pray tell?
And did they remove the article?
Yes or No?"

Date: 2006/10/18 21:34:28, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby
AFDave, is it OK to bear false witness?
You're a Christian (or so you say) so where do you stand on lying?
The majority of your material comes from AIG.
Yet they've lied to you about the article.
Here's whats happened...
Either you sent the e-mail or you didn't.
If you didn't send the e-mail, then you are a liar.
If you did send the e-mail, then AIG just brushed you off and willfully continue to misrepresent the truth.
So AIG are liars even to a 'true believer' like you.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
If you want to pretend to ignore my questions and those of other posters to this thread, then go ahead.  Such behaviour reflects badly upon you.  If you can't come up with answers to questions that even a child could understand, then what are you trying to prove here?

Nobody cares if you are a Creationist or not, AFDave.
Enough with the "Oh woe is me, I'm a martyr" song and dance.  It's an old trick and nobody is going to fall for it.
If you've had a hard time here then it's because you exasperate people with your poor attitude and ignorance.  You don't construct valid arguements, you repeat failed arguements like a Buddist mantra,  your sources are either dopey or woefully outdated by 40 to 100+ years.
???  etc.
I mean, really, is this how you want people who read this thread to view people like you?
Are you proud of your conduct?
Are you man enough to talk straight and to admit that AIG is a false friend to your cause?

(Arden is correct by the way.  The Portugese thing was born of your own pig-headedness.  A simple admission that you got it wrong and that you'd like to move on with the debate to other issues would have allowed the matter to end there.  Even now, a modest dash of humility would not be too late.  What do you reckon? Fair enough?)

Date: 2006/10/20 02:01:40, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby
Don't mean to butt in here, but I found this explanation.

Hope that helps.

It's .....AFDave?
Could it be?
It would explain a lot. :p

An expanding Earth. Hmmm.  It does sound plausible.

Date: 2006/10/23 18:33:50, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby

This has got to be the all time winner for dumb questions on this thread.  I won't emabarrass the person who asked it by naming him ... I'll just use it to illustrate how diseased a brain can become when affected by years of "glue sniffing" from the "Brown Bag of Darwinism."

You gotta love AFDave's logic.  A question is put to him and he goes off on a rant about the 'brown bag of Darwinism".  It never occurs to him to actually, ya know, THINK about the question for a second.  As if, ya know, there might be a point behind it!
Thanks for the info Drew.
Wasted on "Portugese Dave" of course.  Yet I'm sure the lurkers found it informative, including myself.

( what else was there...)
(Hmmmm, something about lies and integrity, hmmmm...)

Ah, yes.

So Dave... :)
About that letter to AIG... :D  :D  :D  :D  :D

Date: 2006/10/25 02:01:06, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby
Yes, Eric, I know ... I've heard this before ... at ATBC a creationist can never be right.  

AFDave, your violin playing is boring.  Stop playing the martyr.  
"Mommy, mommy, they all hate me because I believe in Jesus."
Once again, nobody cares that you are a creationist.  It's your arguements that stink!
AIG is lying to you Dave.
I knew you wouldn't send them an e-mail about the article because in your heart you knew there wouldn't be a response.
In your heart you already knew that they would not take down the article.
Such a refusal would fatally challange your world-view.
So you didn't even bother to send the e-mail.
Sad and pitiful.  
You know and I know that Christians are supposed to be honest.
The article is still there.  They are bearing false witness.  That's wrong.  Isn't there a part of your conscience that is just a tiny, teeny, weeny bit uncomfortable with the the idea of a Christian organisation lying to it's followers?
Have I got it wrong, AFDave?
Are you an honest man?
Are you disappointed with AIG... even just a little bit?
I guess we'll all know soon enough when you continue to ignore the issue.  Running from this won't make it go away.  Surprise us all, AFDAve.  Take the bull by the horns and answer your critics.  You started this thread.
Take some responsibility for it.

Date: 2006/10/25 04:41:13, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby
God loves you...and he needs your credit card number.

Date: 2006/10/25 16:32:02, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby
And Cedric, your imagination is running wild.  I most certainly did contact AIG about their error and I will get a response.  In fact, I have a meeting at their headquarters next month.  If I have not heard back by then, I will inquire while I am there.

I'm flabbergasted, gobsmacked and amazed!
I actually got a response to my questions.  Thanks for replying.
(Ok, so it took me a couple of weeks of jumping up and down to get Dave to answer and as answers go it's not much in terms of detail, but...I'll take it.  Never look a gift horse in the mouth, I say.)
So, you did send an e-mail.?  Seriously?  Good for you.  I'll admit I didn't think you had it in you.  Don't worry.  I won't demand proof, I'll take your Christian word for it.
You have a meeting with them next month?
Better and better.  Once again, I'm happy to hear you're going to follow this one up. I stand corrected.
Now here's the thing.  You said "Next Month", so let's be generous and say by "the end of November" perhaps?
Can we expect the article to be removed by then?  Is that reasonable? Let me know if you want more time. After all, deleting a web-page article can sometimes take whole minutes of back-breaking work.
Now, if you get them to take down the article I will credit you with having done a good thing and having kept your word.  You may very well be the first person EVER to have gotten AIG to retract ANYTHING AT ALL.
If you can do this then... would be pretty bloody impressive and I will be the first to admit it.
Yet, what if they don't?
What if they brush you off or give a litany of excuses or endless delays?  Will you hold their feet to the fire or will you let them worm their way out of it?
Can you, as a Christian, permit them to pull a fast one?
Will you shrug it off if/when they give you the run around?  Will your conscience allow it?
Or will you rethink your attitude towards AIG?
Please note, I'm not asking you to renounce your faith in God.  I'm not asking you to deny Christ.  However, I am asking you to hold an ostensibly Christian organisation to account according to the principles of your faith.
Oh yes, and would it be alright if you would volunteer the results of your meeting when it happens rather than me or someone else having to badger you for it?
In the absence of a reasonable reply and faced with a mysterious silence, imaginations will indeed run wild.  What else should they do?
We're both adults so let's not play the "I can't hear you/I can't recall" game, shall we?
Thanks again for your reply.

Remember, remember, the end of November...

Date: 2006/10/27 16:59:28, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 27 2006,20:11)
Eric...     Quote  
Yes. I believe that the WTC towers did not collapse solely as a result of aircraft impacts and the resulting fires. I was in an extreme minority (of one, actually), and everyone who posted disagreed with me vehemently.
Really, now!  I missed that.  What do you think happened?
Controlled demolition.

Eric, I enjoy your posts here so please don't take this the wrong way.  I never had much time for conspiracy theory and Gerald Posner's "Case Closed" pretty much put a stake through any lingering suspicions I might have had.
Friend of mine had the same thoughts about there being more to 9/11 than met the eye.
I got him to read an eSkeptic article (the email newsletter of the Skeptics Society) by Phil Mole called "The 9/11 Truth Movement in Perspective."  
It's exceedingly well written. The "controlled demolition" idea is carefully examined and refuted.
My friend read it and it helped clear things up for him.  Just a suggestion, no offence intended.

Date: 2007/01/22 02:54:40, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby
Avocationist, please set up a different thread and present your scientific evidence there.  I'm sure you've "been there, done that" of course, but...I'm kinda curious about what you are willing to bring to the discussion.
I strongly suspect that you have nothing more that religious hand-waving but I live in hope that an IDist will one day make a POSITIVE argument for ID.
Just keep it interesting.
Please understand, I don't really care what your religious views are or what your viewpoint on "Evilution" is.
I just want your version of a scientific argument for ID.
Enlighten us all.

Date: 2007/01/22 07:57:28, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby
Oh goody! A thread for Avocationist has been set up.
(Thanks Louis)
Let the games commence. (waits patiently) :)

Date: 2007/01/22 08:04:45, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby
Scientific argument for ID please.
(waits patiently) :)

Date: 2007/01/23 05:12:51, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby
If you were interested to know the arguments for ID, why should I spend a godawful amount of time trying to do a half-decent job of dredging it up when you could read the authors of it yourself, and get a far better picture. One book I like is...

Ah no.
On the UD thread I said                    
I just want your version of a scientific argument for ID.

Please note the "your" part of that quote.
I'll admit I got a little lax on this thread and foolishly posted something less specific...                  
Scientific argument for ID please.

I apologise for any confusion.

I am only interested in your scientific version of ID.

If you told somebody at a party that you supported ID and you wanted to sate their curiosity then how would you make a simple, concise scientific argument for ID in sixty seconds/two minutes/ whatever?
If you don't want to do it, then fine.
Please don't dredge or do anything only half-decent on my account! :O
Its just that I am curious what thought processes run through a person's head when they get into the whole ID thing.  
For me, the ID movement is a slow-motion train wreck, graphically illustrating anti-science and abysmally bad critical thinking skills.
I don't know you except that you post on UD and that you seem to support ID.
Can you make a real argument that does not involve hand-waving or vague, useless definitions?
You complained that in previous arguments with GCT that he twisted your words and              
...referred back to things I had said pages earlier.

Well, I don't know about the word twisting but the referencing of your own words doesn't seem unreasonable.  After all, what's the point of writing something if you're not going to stand by it later?
Come on Advocationist, just share your personal understanding of ID with us. AFDave got dreadfully dull after a while, but judging from the Herculean length of his threads, nobody can say we didn't give him a fair chance to state his case.  In fact, we repeatedly begged him to.  Can you do better?

Date: 2007/01/24 05:46:44, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby
I said...                        
I am only interested in your scientific version of ID.

If you told somebody at a party that you supported ID and you wanted to sate their curiosity then how would you make a simple, concise scientific argument for ID in sixty seconds/two minutes/ whatever?

What Advocationist gave me in reply was...                        
The theory of ID states that certain features of biological organisms and of the universe are best explained as being the result of intelligent design.

Advocationist, I'm not sure that we understand each other.  Allow me to rephrase my request.
I am not interested in the "theory" of ID as it is described in some book somewhere.  If I wanted to know what " The theory of ID states..." then I could just look it up on the Internet and deal with the competing versions out there.
I am interested in your scientific argument for ID.
Your argument.
Your understanding of ID.
Advocationist's personal (in her own words and thought processes) understanding of a scientific argument for ID.
Just yours!!
If you want to borrow definitions and terms from other sources to help you phrase your thoughts, by all means go ahead.  If you want to hitch your wagon to some classic argument for ID, then by all means do so.  But attach yourself to such an argument because you FULLY UNDERSTAND it and LIKE it and AGREE with it.
Be prepared to defend it.  No wriggling around.
No abandoning ship if and when people point out potential flaws in your version (adopted or otherwise) of a scientific argument for ID.
Oh, and when I asked you to pretend you were at a party and making an argument for ID, I was (foolishly?) hoping for a little substance in your opening statement.
Instead I get a brusque one-liner that could fit on a fortune cookie. :(  
Something of a letdown.
How about fleshing out your argument a little?
Perhaps a brief mention on the mechanics of the ID theory?
Maybe you could show how ID could be falsified?
Or a layman's example of how ID works in the real world?
Just suggestions, of course.
It's your argument, so you get to decide how to present it.
Yet if anybody was going to make a scientific argument about any Theory at all (Plate Tectonics, Germ Theory, etc) then they would probably start there.
Just a couple of paragraphs written in clear, easy-to-follow terms that you would perhaps use at a party somewhere.
Your scientific argument for ID, please.
(waits patiently) :)

Date: 2007/01/25 04:07:51, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby
Advocationist said...

As to your request that I put my theory in my own words, I consider that a silly time waster.

So, your own words are a "silly time waster"?  Gosh, you seem to have a very blunt self-assessment of yourself. ???
Does each of you have your own personal theory of evolution? would you feel called upon to improve upon, say, Mayr's def?

Avocationist, I'm not asking you to re-invent the wheel.  I'm not asking you to become a scientist and bury yourself in a lab for twenty years. I'm asking you to explain to me how YOU understand the "the scientific 'theory' of ID".
Once upon a time you presumeably didn't know about ID. Right?
But then you found out about ID? Yeah?
So you investigated the scientific theory of ID.
You perhaps read a book or two on the subject and checked out a couple of ID friendly web-sites.
After serious, level-headed research and reflection you found ID richly satisfying in a scientific sort of way (because as we all know ID is a scientific theory and DEFINITELY NOT a religious apologetics club full of people who don't know what they are talking about).
All correct so far?
Well, thats great.  You now subscribe to the Theory of ID, bully for you.
(Insert image of Dempski and DaveScot giving the "thumbs up"  as a sign of support in the background)

What I gave you was plenty of my own thoughts and ideas, as well as a quick run down of where I'm coming from, what I've read and considered important. You want to play a little game on your terms.

You gave me your thoughts and ideas? ...Ummm, OK...(?!?)
(To tell you the truth I'm kinda busy with my own thoughts and ideas.  How about I don't burden you with my thoughts and ideas and you extend me the same courtesy?)
You told me where you're coming from? ....Gee, umm (??) Ok, thanks..I guess. ???
Little game?
Advocationist, seriously, are you paranoid?
I'm trying to extend you every courtesy to hear what you have to say.  I gave you the scenario of the party because I thought it might help you state your case.
You are somebody who 'gets' ID.  You find it intellectually satisfying in a way that others here cannot understand.  I'm asking you to explain how it all works for you.  This being a science web-site and ID being a 'scientific theory' (insert queasy feeling in pit of stomach) I don't understand your coyness about you rattling off a few sentences on how you think the "theory of ID" works.

The bit about if I was at a party is actually a good way to put it, but I am not sure I'd bother at the party. I'd give a very vague rundown...

Oh, please, please, please bother. :p  Just for me!
Look, let me get you a fresh drink and one of those cheesy thing on a cracker!  Ah, here's a nice comfy chair for you to sit in and get comfortable.  Do sit down.  There, how's that?  So...this very vague rundown of yours...Sound absolutely FASCINATING!!!
Do tell me about all about this new scientific theory of ID.  Why, there was a news item about it on FoxNews only just last week!  As it happens, I remember a few of my science classes from high school so, go ahead and and hit me with what you've got. I'm all ears.

I don't have "my" theory of ID.

Oh, I know you didn't "invent" ID theory.  It's not like I saw you across the room and said to myself "Wow, there's the whole gang of the Discovery Institute stuffed awkwardly in the body of a woman at a party like some third-rate sci-fi movie".
But you do understand ID theory, right? After all, thats why you support it and contribute to ID blogs, yeah?
Ok, let's get started....
Oh no. That's OK.  You can tell me about your sources and reference books at some other party.  No need to give me a bibliography.  In your own words and at you own pace will be fine.  Feel free to use any scientific argument for ID that you choose.
Vague rundown, eh? Oh, I'm sure you're just being modest.  Go ahead, I'm all ears....
(waits patiently) :)

Date: 2007/01/26 06:28:15, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby
{at the party}
[Cedric and Advo are sitting down. Advo's long awaited rundown of her scientific argument for ID is about to begin.  Don joins them and Cedric gets him a comfy chair too.]
I do not claim to be able to have good recall

Never mind. Fortunately for us all, this party is happening over the Internet.  If you forget something, you can just do a quick check-up of your facts at the appropriate reference site of your choice and then pop back into the discussion.  I do it all the time. (conspiratorial wink)
But many of these are just baiting questions...

Advo, as the guy who got you the comfy chair, I promise you I am not interested in baiting you.
I WILL be on your case about getting straight answers from you, however!  Your time is precious and you have a life to lead and e-mails to send etc.  Well yeah, but then again so do the rest of us.
I don't want you to give me the runaround and just have you wave your hands in my face if I ask you a straight question.  That kind of selfish and dishonest behaviour does not make me happy at all.  I'll be fair and direct and honest in this discussion and I trust that you will do the same. Deal?
...the answers are readily available if you read up in the various discussions.

No doubt they are, I'll get around to reading them one day when I find the time.  But right now, we're here at the party.  What say you let your hair down, cast caution to the wind and give me your rundown of your understanding of a scientific argument for ID?  Here, let me top that glass up for you...
[Cedric and Don look expectantly at Advo]
By the way, I think space aliens have interfered on ths planet, but it doesn't touch the important questions.

Don: I didn't see that one coming!

[Cedric's eyes bulge slightly in disbelief but waits patiently for Advo to begin her rundown of a scientific argument for ID]

Then Advo begins...
The God of my understanding is blah, blah, blah a divide between pure atheism, blah, blah Deists, theists, religionists...blah, blah...Because once you posit a God, blah, blah  God universe blah...

[Cedric says nothing but the ghostly images of Dempski and DaveScot start jumping up and down frantically.  They look rather upset]

I envision the natural world unfolding in a step by step way, however I think this whole shebang isn't chance, and isn't a result of willy nilly interactions of matter.

[Cedric waits patiently for Advo to begin her rundown of her version of a scientific argument for ID.]

I don't find a tinkering God at all satisfying, and I think of the whole universe from its inception as one unified system. The parts of ID that I think are strong are the information arguments, and also the IC arguments. I liked the Meyer paper for a pretty readable rundown of the information arguments.

Ahah! See? See?? SEE!!!
(Especially you, Louis! :)
I plan on collecting that drink, bucko.)    :) :) :)
I just KNEW that if I was POLITE and endlessly PATIENT that I could finally get Advo to give me her scientific argument for ID!
Wow, sometimes I impress even myself!

[Cedric rushes over to the stereo and turns it off, much to the annoyance of the other guests]

Well People, Advo is finally warmed up and is going to launch into her much-anticipated scientific argument for ID.  Apparantly, she's going to touch on information arguments, IC arguments and will borrow heavily from the Meyer paper.

(Sorry for the interuption there, Advo.  Go ahead. Let's get into the meat of it.)

I suppose it is offensive that a bunch of people are not only  into ID, but in their minds they know good and well who did it, the God of the Bible. But I see ID as simply that we are at a crossroads right now - there are two possibilities. Either things are accidental or they are designed, and the two can be told apart.
I just don't find Darwinian mechanisms compelling. I don't expect either side to win, although I think ID is correct. I think we are working on a puzzle that is very, very hard, and without enough pieces we keep trying to interpret the whole.
Neither Dawkins nor the fundies will get their desire, because neither are correct in their assumptions. IMHO

[Cedric's jaw drops open. His drink falls from his suddenly useless fingers onto the floor and rolls under the sofa.]

Date: 2007/01/30 13:59:15, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby

The fact that Avocationist has received quite a bit of misinformation about how the world works is not justification for the continued stream of abuse that you're spewing out.  She has discussed the topic politely, and is trying to answer our questions, and does not deserve the personal attacks.

Couldn't disagree more.  She hasn't "received it" at all. She's willfully sought out crap, soaked it all up and got it all ass-backwards.  There's nothing polite about about Avo's obfuscatory blather.  Its rude and frustrating.  She doesn't "discuss the topic", she avoids scientific argument like the plague!
However, PLEASE prove me wrong.  See if you can get her to cough up her version of a scientific argument for ID.   Not much to ask really.  After all, she does support ID. She does believe in ID.  It's not like asking somebody to defend their position on a "scientific" issue with an off-the-cuff scientific argument is a  frikken revolutionary concept.  Just a couple of paragraphs would be nice.  Louis will buy you a drink if you succeed in getting her to do it.  I'll even  throw in some nachos to sweeten the deal, 'kay?  Good luck, you'll need it.
(waits....grinds teeth....and waits....)

Date: 2007/01/31 01:55:27, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby
Demallien, if you're prepared to use the voice of sweet reason with Avo then I wish you the best of success.
I truely mean that.
If Avo responded honesty then I would have let her go.
If she said that she doesn't HAVE a scientific understanding of ID or she just likes to hang out at UD to pick up guys then...fine.  She's at least being honest and we can all move on.  She can walk of into the sunset will all of her alien friends for all I care.
Yet she doesn't.  The meaning of terms, coherent arguments, contradictions in her thinking have been patiently and laboriously laid out before her again and again.  There's a difference between being someone who's ignorant/misinformed and and someone shoving their fingers in their ears going "La, la, la, you're a materialist, la, la, la, can't hear you, la, la, la, can't prove it to me, la, la ,la" etc. If somebody tried to pull that kind of crap on you at a debate or at a social gathering then you'd have every right to be offended.   They are not behaving decently.  They not being fair and honest.  They're being offensive and  bloody RUDE!
If you can get anything positive from her then more power to you.
I'm going back to lurking.

Date: 2007/02/03 00:37:10, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby
    Clearly what we have here is a failure to communicate.

You ask for my scientific arguments for ID, and you insist that unless the game is played on your terms, I can be dismissed.

Well, the fact that you at least acknowledge my request is heartening.  This business about 'the game' though is wierd.  I'm trying to have a discussion with you, like an adult.
When I went to university, my professor said to me "Hey Cedric, read this book and then argue about it".
So I'd read the book, form an opinion and then proceed to defend my opinion in tutorials with other students.
Having read  the book and saying that you like the book or found it convincing is a totally useless thing to say UNLESS you are then going to make an argument to defend your position.  Otherwise, what's the point???
You read a book? (Congratulations.  What do you want, a medal?)
Oh, you like the book?  (Isn't that cute. Yes the pictures are pretty.)
Ah, you found the arguments convincing?  ***Talk is cheap.  Prove it to me.***
You're happy to wax lyrical about your special metaphysical relationship with Life, the Universe and Everything.  (Actually, it's almost impossible to stop you!!) And yet...and yet...when I ask you about your version of a scientific argument for ID, you become all defensive and juvenile with your "I doan wanna play your silly game".
You came here to discuss ID and exchange ideas, yeah?
So, discuss them already.  Like grown-ups do.
If you don't actually have a scientific argument for ID, then do us all a favour and just say so.  I'll promise never to bring the subject up again.
If you like I'll provide you with some escape phrases.
"Can't do it because I'm too busy"
"Can't do it because I"m tired"
"Can't do it because I'm thirsy"
"Can't do it because I have a bus to catch"
"Can't do it because you are secretly in league with the Crab People"
"Can't do it beause there's something good on TV"
Don't worry, I'll be able to connect the dots from here.
For you to dismiss Denton's arguments in Nature's Destiny and Crisis as unscientific is idiotic.

How can I dismiss him if we haven't even discussed him yet?  Make an argument for crying out loud!  Use him as a resource.  In fact, please do if you you think it will support your argument.
I have not dismissed Denton.  OK?
Because we have not had an argument. OK?
We have not had an argument about ID (or Denton). OK?
Now, the red carpet is laid out for you.  Argue.  Make it interesting.

(Waits...whistles "Born Free" in quiet, tuneless sort of way...and waits....)

Oh I forgot.
What was I I'm waiting for?
Avo's list of 'My Favourite Books"?
Avo's explanation of "Where she's coming from?"
How about Avo's special recipe for blueberry pie? I don't think that was it...
Give me a second. I'll remember eventually.


Date: 2007/02/05 10:20:16, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby

1. The intelligent Designer is identified

This has been beaten to death so many times and I just can't believe it still gets bandied about. No, naming the designer is not necessary to the design inference. ID is the science of design detection. That's it.

Wonderful, so Dempski does not think that the designer is "You Know Who"?  The rest of the happy campers at the Disco Institute have never entertained the thought that the designer is "You Know Who"?
Hmmm, you believe this? Seriously? Okayyyyyyyyy...
Oh, by the way, exactly how does ID go about scientifically "detecting design"?  What has been detected as "designed" and what has been detected as "not designed"?  Some examples please. :)
A solution to your existential angst it is not.

Leave my angst alone. It's sensitive!
2. The model is detailed
Certainly the paragraph presented to me at the end of Darwin's book was quite undetailed.

You forgot to mention that Darwin's book is also far too heavy and cannot be set to hip-hop music!  Seriously, let's focus on your argument for the scientific theory for ID, shall we?  The model is detailed? Splendid.  Details please. :)

(...sound of crickets chirping...)

3. The model can be refined

I think it will be. Our knowledge right now is just too low.

You think it will be?  You THINK it will be? YOU think it WILL be?  Huh??  Let's save "what you think" for another discussion, OK?  Scientific Theory for ID, please!
 I see them combing the literature constantly and finding new ideas, researches and factos ripe for furtheration.

Let's save the fascinating discussion of "what you see" "them doing" for another discussion at some unspecified time in the future OK?
Scientific theory for ID please!
4. The model is testable and falsifiable.

People are constantly claiming it has been refuted. ID, IC and all the rest. Now tell me how Darwinism is testable and falsifiable.

Hey I've got a better idea.
  How about YOU get off your lazy ass and argue that ID really is testable and falsifiable?
If you want to present a scientific theory for ID, that's kinda a must, ya know? :(

5. The model can make predictions

Here's some stuff I rooted around on google for:

No, no, NO!  I don't care what google has or does not have.  I'm sure it's utterly fascinating.  Do you want to use that stuff in support your argument for ID?  Then...
Don't dump on me any old crap you find off the Internet!  I don't want to do your reading for you.
 Present your argument as ****YOUR ARGUMENT****. :(
Behe predicts that scientists will not uncover a continuously functional Darwinian pathway from a simple precursor to the bacterial flagellum and, moreover, any detailed evolutionary pathway that is articulated will presuppose other irreducibly complex systems. How does one test and discredit Behe’s claims? Describe a realistic, continuously functional Darwinian pathway from simple ancestor to present motor.

So, Behe makes a "prediction".
He presents no evidence FOR his "prediction".
And then he asks real scientists to disprove his "prediction".
Wow.  Just wow.
Imagine if all science could be done this easily.  No need to do research.  No need to spend time in a laboratory.  No need to any hard work.  Just watch other people do your work for you.  Golly, the "real science" of ID is just so easy, huh? Tell me, do you think other theories do the same thing?  Plate Tectonics, maybe?  Germ Theory?  Is that how we got penicillin?
Is that how real science is done?
Maybe we should get Behe a Nobel Prize or something! Possibly two!!
Would two be enough?
My personal prediction is that epigentics and evo devo will prove that there are barriers between species; if those barriers are passable at all it will not be via undirected mutation.

What? Care to beak that down into English? And then explain how you connect your dots?  What do you mean by "undirected mutation"?  How can a scientist differentiate between "undirected mutation" and "directed mutation".  Details please.  Barriers?  What will these barriers look like. How could they possibly work?  How will we know them if we see them?  How does a team of scientists eagerly test your prediction?
(NB: This is truely, madly, deeply NOT an opportunity for you to give me a reading list or go off and google-hunt something.  It's your prediction.  You spell it out.)


Is intelligent design falsifiable? Is Darwinism falsifiable? Yes to the first question, no to the second. Intelligent design is eminently falsifiable. Specified complexity in general and irreducible complexity in biology are within the theory of intelligent design the key markers of intelligent agency. If it could be shown that biological systems like the bacterial flagellum that are wonderfully complex, elegant, and integrated could have been formed by a gradual Darwinian process (which by definition is non-telic), then intelligent design would be falsified on the general grounds that one doesn't invoke intelligent causes when purely natural causes will do. In that case Occam's razor finishes off intelligent design quite nicely.

Define specified complexity.  How does a scientist recognise "specified complexity" when they peer down a miroscope or something?
"Wonderfully complex, elegant and intergrated..."

(Gee, you left out cute and fluffy) :D :D :D

What are you talking about?  Do snowflakes count in this description?  Are they "wonderfully complex, elegant and intergrated."
How about the human brain?  Does that work?
A banana?
Your left hand?
A tree?
Give me an example of something that truely is "wonderfully complex, elegant and intergrated" and something that truely is NOT "wonderfully complex, elegant and intergrated", THEN explain how you made your choices.

On the other hand, falsifying Darwinism, blah, blah Darwinism, blah, blah, Darwinism, blah, blah, Darwinism, blah, blah..

Avo, keep your other hand firmly in your pocket.

{Cerdic quietly passes a secret note to Avo while continuing to talk to her normally}

The secret note reads...

      I don't "trust Darwinism" either but I'm afraid of the Darwinist thought police snatching me in their black CIA 'copters and giving me a medical probe deep into my rear, so let's save our fascinating talk about your understanding of how weak the Darwinism thing is for another time, ok?

I guess I should be relieved that you spared me your recipe for blueberry pie.
Any chance of you making a scientific argument for ID at anytime this century?

{Tuneless whistling is heard. The melody is crude yet faintly recognisable}

...Born the...wind...blows...

Date: 2007/04/01 06:05:09, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby
Phonon said …”OT, but this is great!!

And is that Phyllis Schafly or Rita Cosby?”
Off topic-follow up.

Speaking of peanut butter...
I’ve been slumming at a creationist website.
One of the hosts is a YEC guy called Aaron.
(The other host is a mysterious entity called Seeker who claims “I have a degree in biochemistry and did many years of genetic research.”)
Understand that if you can.

Anyway, back to Aaron...

He didn't believe it was real!
“I thought it was funny from a perspective that it was well done to look like a Christian program, but the point was silly and blasts a strawman all to pieces real good.”

Peanut Butter Christians.  Mmmmm.

Date: 2007/04/30 06:07:53, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby
Devilishly handsome Australian.
Now living overseas.
Two BA's.
Got the second one in Russia studying Drama.
Hated, loathed and detested science in school.
Now (mainly thanks to the crew at PT) I am a science geek.  I had no idea that there were so many talented people out there that could explain biology.
I lurk around the science blogs continuously and love the discussions that take place.
Trust me, I'm knot lying.
That would really go against the grain.
Thanks for letting me (wood) chip in.

Date: 2007/05/13 20:40:02, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby
"I am glad you finally came to that realization. When will you start taking lithium bicarbonate? "

Wow.  Think of the wit it would take to come up with a comment like that.   :O

Date: 2007/05/14 06:20:57, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby
"I don't close my mind to a young earth because we might find in the future that we missed something.  So, today, I consider the earth old, tomorrow I may not."

"I don't close my mind to a Flat earth because we might find in the future that we missed something."

"I don't close my mind to Phrenology because we might find in the future that we missed something.

"I don't close my mind to Holocaust Denial because we might find in the future that we missed something."

"I don't close my mind to the Moon being made of Green Cheese because we might find in the future that we missed something."

Keep an open mind by all means.  Just don't let your brains fall out.

Date: 2007/07/08 21:03:36, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby
Saw the Ice Pirates at the cinema too. (memories)
'They Live', 'From Beyond', 'Killer Tomatoes', 'Deathrace 2000', etc.?

They're all too good.

For a sci-fi movie that makes no sense and has no redeeming features whatsoever, you can't go past 'Supernova'.
Most. Annoying. End-scene plot twist. EVAR!

Date: 2007/07/09 05:06:04, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby
Oh yes, 'Event Horizon'. (shudder)

Many years ago, I was 'between jobs' for about eight months.  Shared a house and was living on the cheap.
Right next door was a video rental place .  They had this offer of six (older) videos for two dollars or something.
I'd always been a B-grade movie fan but after living next to that place, I became a true connoisseur.
(I also discovered some great Bogart movies, but that's another story.)
After months of raiding the video store, I was really scraping the bottom of the barrel.  Then I found a horror movie that was just so delightfully bad that it became a firm favourite of mine.
It was so good that I actually stopped the video twenty minutes in because such a movie should be enjoyed with friends.
So, I invited a select circle of fellow movie buffs over for beer and pretzels to help me watch the movie.
The movie was 'Bloodsucking Pharaohs in Pittsburgh'.
Very, very, VERY cheap movie.
Horrible music.
Cheezy one-liners.
A plot that made little to no sense.
Sets that involved inner-city camels, a dildo display and an extremely powerful vacuum cleaner.

In short: glorious!
At the end of the movie, my friends gave me a standing ovation.  We then rewound it and watched it again. :D

Date: 2007/08/07 03:33:06, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby
Fresh to you from OE.
Overwhelming evidence
Great argument
hblavatsky | Mon, 2007-08-06 22:32
Just a side node, isn't there a good argument that the panda's hand is well designed?

Yes, kind of like the way a banana fits perfectly in the palm of your hand and contains all the ideal nutrients. It's almost as if it was designed right? The Banana is naturally occurring evidence of something that is so useful, but could never have evolved.

When you evaluate Michael Behe's claims vs those of Dawkins and PZ Myers, it's worth remembering a few important things. While the consensus is admitidly against Behe, you have to realize that he is not working to a materialist agenda like the other so-called scientists. Science shouldn't be materialistic, we all agree with that dont we?

Helena Petrovna Blavatsky

Ok.  Who amongst you is Blavatsky?
This was the best parody post in a long time.
Whoever you are, keep up the good work! ;)
For those who don't get the reference...
The atheist's nightmare: the banana

Date: 2007/08/10 07:36:03, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby
Red Dot,
          There's a guy called Seeker over at twoorthree who, like you, is a YEC wierdo.  He actually claims to be a real qualified scientist.  Why don't you go over there and dig up some 'real science' from his site to help support your claims?  Then perhaps you can come back here and continue your 'arguments'?
Let's face it. You need backup.
Badly! :p

Date: 2007/08/10 08:56:09, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby
"Tell us about the alien cities on the Moon and Mars'

Oh please. Yes please. :D  :D  :D

Date: 2007/08/11 06:37:39, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby
        I'd be interested to know if 'my' Seeker was also 'yours'.  The Seeker I'm referring to claims to have worked with genetics or something for many years.
He's now in ministry.
Just recently, I finally managed to get him to admit that he honestly believes
that the Earth is 10,000 years old.

He wasn't very happy that he had to spill the beans.
Got just a tad upset with me.
(Oh, for those of you who are UD watchers,  Mynym make a special guest star appearance.)

Prime tard.

Date: 2007/08/24 09:09:35, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby
For those who are interested, I tracked down RealPC at Ambivablog where she seems to hang out.

(If you visit there, please be nice. ?The blog has all sorts of strange topics but the host is...well...hospitible.)

So, I took RealPC to task for her shameful trolling and unsupported statements.
After much weeping and wailing and nashing of teeth, she finally 'explained' herself.

I am not credulous, just the opposite.

Cedric is bothered because I said James Randi is close-minded about paranormal research, and I think that almost goes without saying. Randi is similar to Dawkins, waging a war against any kind of supernatural belief.

I have no obligation to answer everything Cedric or someone else asks, if I feel the answer is obvious, or the question is not interesting. I don't have time to get involved in boring or pointless conversations. I have explained my interpretation of ID multiple times at PandasThumb.

Sad really.
Still, now all of the other regulars over there know that a thread all devoted to her is here at the Panda's Thumb.
They also know that SHE knows it but refuses to engage.
Guess she doesn't have the time. ;)

Date: 2007/11/03 17:08:20, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby
               Two thumbs up for your alter-ego Mickey!
He really had them in a tizzy.

Date: 2007/11/23 07:57:09, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby

(deep breath)


Damn but that was funny! :)  :)  :)

Date: 2007/12/04 09:45:55, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby
Ah, Python.
"When two or three are gathered together..."

Date: 2008/01/30 15:21:33, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby



2:11 pm
Here’s more crap being slung by the media.

“Hart also cited “the failure to adequately understand – and consequently convey to the public – the fact that the theory of intelligent design is consensually regarded, in the scientific community, as absolute horse**** unworthy of serious consideration … thereby propagating, again, the illusion that there is substantive scientific debate on the topic (as opposed to the matter being settled, which it is, and unfit for inclusion in our nation’s science classes).”

“Intelligent Design is not regarded as a scientific topic,” Scuderi countered. “The President’s Science Advisor has been very clear on this point. The notion that the administration ‘propagates’ anything about intelligent design is absurd.”

“A president who does not accept evolution is clearly someone who cannot change their mind in face of overwhelming factual evidence,” said Sean Carroll, a professor of molecular biology and genetics at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. “

I swear you’d think that global warming, evolution and stem cell research were all that is ****ever**** considered in the realm of science. The freaking world is not going to end if we don’t swallow the story that nature evolved from a slimy blob in a pool of sludge.

I’ve listened to Carroll lecture, and he most certainly did not provide me with any “overwhelming factual evidence” that negates ID. His evidence wasn’t even overwhelming enough to support common descent.




3:59 pm
Unfortunately many in the ID community regard YEC in the same way.

ID is a gift that keeps on giving.
:D  :D  :D

Date: 2008/03/13 08:35:38, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby
bFast, have you read the "Uncommonly Dense" thread at After the Bar Closes?

If so, what do you think of the comments/threads preserved there that UD tried to flush down the memory hole because they got embarrassing?

Are you really comfortable associating with such a crowd?

I will say I am surprised that you have ventured out of the echo-chamber.  Good for you.
I hope you'll stay the course and not disappear.

Date: 2008/03/25 10:46:58, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby
"BTW, hats off to Zachriel, who set the best example of how bFast's comments should be handled. And a slight hat tip to bFast himself, who at least tried to do some modelling, not just philosophizing."

Hear, hear!

Date: 2008/05/15 03:21:23, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby
(Totally off-topic.  Feel free to remove to Bathroom wall.)

I'm not sure but I think I have (drum roll please) MARK HARTWIG on the line!!

(...awkward silence...)

Mark Hartwig?  He's a Fellow of the Discovery Institute?

(...a tumble weed rolls gently past...)

Well, um, anyway...
He's shown up just now at a thread on a N.Z. fundy site.
Hopefully he'll say something interestingly tardible.
Feel free to chip in with a question.

We now return to your regularly scheduled programming.

Date: 2008/05/26 08:51:50, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby
...and encourage people to look for new ID hotspots and tell us about them.

(From the shadows of a dark alley)
Over here.
Looking for the good stuff, my friend?
Tard?  The big "T"?

Well, the supply has been a little low of late but I can maybe offer you a few sites to slum at.

They're not "offical" ID sites but...some choice pieces can be found there with the right faux-innocent comment or two.

(Run by a YEC who claims to be a real, super dooper scientist.)


This one has the irresistable sub-title of "Sponsored by the Elusive Brethren & Right Wing American Fundamentalists".

(No, I'm not kidding)

Run by a YEC who is so very shy about exactly how old the Earth is.  He posts about ID all the time.
Big fan of Galapogos Finch apparently.
Be warned: He erratically deletes messages when in a bad mood.  Sockpuppetry well advised!

This one is more openly ID centred.
I think it's run by a pair of medical doctors.
The last few commentors have suggested that the site is about ready to drop the ID cheerleading gig since the UK doesn't buy into the Discovery Institute crap much at all.  No censorship to report.
Blunt and forthright comments seem to be tolerated.

Date: 2008/06/27 12:45:06, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby
I also am NOT a Tardaholic.
Daily checking out PT first thing in the morning (for over three years straight) and hunting down third-rate obscure ID friendly web-sites so that I can bait the people there DOES NOT MEAN that I have a Tard abuse problem.

Everybody does that.


Ok, maybe not everybody but....

Look, I just need a little something to get me by.
A little taste. It's a natural thing.
All the kids are doing it nowdays.


It's not my fault.
Lenny, PZ, Louis, Steve Steve, G.H., PvM and the rest of them!
It's their fault.
Them and their sarcastic wit, their droll humour, their merciless disembowelling of creationist arguments with scientific explanations that even a Humanties casualty such as myself can grasp and then use later in after-dinner conversation.

I...I was led astray.

Same time tomorrow?

Date: 2008/07/01 11:35:44, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby
"What's truly sad about that is there are anthropologists whose work focuses entirely on the study of cultural discovery and use of foods and spices."

I wouldn't mind betting that Deadman would have some interesting things to say on the subject.
Anybody heard from him lately?

Date: 2008/07/02 08:08:22, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby
Ra-Ul, Thank you.

About that whole talkrational thread.

It's just so...
I mean it really is the most redicu....


Please.  Everybody read it.  Words fail me.

Date: 2008/12/09 06:43:32, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby
The sock puppet of Keiths was very entertaining.
Well done on your efforts.
Shame it had to end so soon.

Clive?  Lurking around out there?
Make yourself at home.
Please read the whole of this thread and the original thread for the unedited and raw version of what Uncommon Descent truely is.
It's quite a sordid history.

Date: 2009/01/04 14:22:15, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby
Off topic.
I got me a live one over at Heddle's blog!
Mike Godfrey has crawled out from under a rock and is going to finally give an explanation of how ID really and truely is a scientific theory.
Or not.

Date: 2009/02/10 06:07:15, Link
Author: Cedric Katesby
Yay. New toy. New toy.