AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: CeilingCat

form_srcid: CeilingCat

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: CeilingCat

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


DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2007/12/14 02:03:55, Link
Author: CeilingCat
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

I know who I'm not voting for:  
When Huckabee was at the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in the mid-1970s, Mormon theology was probably taught alongside that of the Jehovah's Witnesses in a course on cults and sects.

Date: 2007/12/16 04:29:09, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Mrs. O'Leary: *Note that I am interested in hearing from people who think that design is a reasonable inference. If you don’t, materialist blogs are anxious to hear from you, so go there now.

But feel free to tell everybody how much you agree with me and why.  Be open about it.

Date: 2007/12/18 03:18:17, Link
Author: CeilingCat
I would say that anybody who chooses "magnan" for a handle hasn't read much classic science fiction.

Date: 2007/12/19 03:26:01, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Sock puppet or just another IDiot?      
12/19/2007 2:34 am
It all boils down to evidence to me. If the cambrian explosion was replicated in the lab, do you think anyone would *not* believe in evolution, even with all the mathematical arguments against it? Math can help in our understanding of reality but they can’t make up a reality that doesn’t exist.

Personally, I'd love to see the size of that lab!  Not to mention the team that runs the experiment for ten million years.

Date: 2007/12/20 00:08:24, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (factician @ Dec. 19 2007,13:02)
Dembski writes about The Design Matrix.

From the Amazon page of The Design Matrix:

Active discussions in related forums
Discussion Replies Latest Post

Why I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. 235 13 seconds ago

What are the religious implications of accepting that today's living creatures have evolved from common ancestors? 16 3 minutes ago

Share Your Favorite Scriptures Here! 26 3 minutes ago

Yep, all science so far!

From the Amazon page for the book:    
Customers viewing this page may be interested in these Sponsored Links (What's this?)

DJ Ignite The Dance Floor    You choose the music, Our dancers will move & groove in time to it  
Matrix Ringtone    Send Matrix ringtones to your cell phone now!  
Interior Design Schools    Find Interior Design Schools near you. Get info and apply today!  
See a problem with these advertisements? Let us know  

No problem with these advertisements at all.  Definitely all science so far.

Date: 2007/12/23 08:28:58, Link
Author: CeilingCat
22 December 2007
Darwinist Negative-Review Spam Campaign Backfires at Amazon
Last week, The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence In Biological Systems was in the 17,000-20,000 range at Since the Darwinist-sponsored negative-review spam campaign (with “reviews” written mostly by people who obviously had not read the book), and as of this writing, the book is sitting at about 3,000... Sales Rank as of Dec 23: #5,705 in Books

What a difference a day makes.  Some of the responses to Gil's posting seem to understand what's going on:

Hedge 12/22/2007 6:44 pm          
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

russ 12/22/2007 7:10 pm          

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Maybe. But I guess we can’t really know, can we?

I am not a sports fan, so forgive me if I get this wrong. But I remember reading that Kirk Kerkorian made a lot of money off the L.A. Clippers, despite spending very little money on players. It seems that everyone bought tickets to see the OPPOSING teams. Maybe that’s akin to what’s happening here.

Hedge 12/22/2007 7:45 pm      
Russ said:

“Maybe. But I guess we can’t really know, can we?”

Well, that’s the whole point. Without any evidence showing a causal link between event “A” and event “B”, it’s fallacious to say that one caused the other. Of course, Gil could be right that the negative reviews provoked a flurry of purchases, but it’s not logically sound for him to make this causal claim when all he’s shown thus far is a potential correlation.

greyman 12/23/2007 4:26 am    
Bragging on 4 digit Amazon sales rankings is kind of a mug’s game. As of this writing DoL is now ranked 5,046 and is being outsold by Dawkins’ God Delusion (PB and HC editions), the Selfish Gene and the 11 year old Blind Watchmaker as well as Victor Stenger’s God: the Failed Hypothesis, Daniel Dennett’s Darwin’s Dangerous Idea and Jean-Baptiste de Panafieu’s Evolution.

Some, not so much:
Nochange 12/22/2007 7:37 pm    
Hmmm… You don’t suppose it has anything to do with the coming anniversary of our Savior’s birth? I think we shouldn’t give too much credit to the Darwinoids, myself.

Personally, I think these large swings in ranking are due to the very few sales overall.  If you sell one book on Monday and another on Tuesday, that's a 100 percent increase in sales, but not something you'd want to brag about.

Date: 2007/12/25 14:11:40, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 25 2007,00:48)
Santa musta passed up Granny Tard's abode so she might as well post some late night tantrums.

The summary:

Tiktaalik, strawman, scientists suck, ID supporters support ID, The Design of Life, Coulter, Huckabee, YEC, Darwinism is the root of all ill, scientists suck, DAJ, please read my blog, please read my other blog, mind/brain duality (at my blog), more mind/brain duality (also at my blog), Jews, Germany, please read my blog.

There, saved y'all the trouble.  Merry Christmas.

Curious thing about that blog - it's been up since Dec 17, has accumulated five separate Opening Posts - and Zero replies!

This may be the prototype for all future ID blogs:  If you don't allow replies, they can't point out your mistakes.

I just registered and attempted to add a comment to the 21 December, Guillermo Gonzalez: Is Earth an accident... thread.

It tells me in bright red letters that I can't open a new thread while presenting me with the comment box.  However, it didn't seem to take my comment.  Just in case it winds up in the memory hole, here it is:

O'Leary: I have noticed in the popular science media, a huge, almost obsessive interest in the idea that there are many universes and that therefore ours only accidentally works. How seriously is this idea taken by professional astronomers and for what reasons?

Gonzalez: There is a mix of views among physicists, astronomers, and cosmologists. Accredited scientists generally are mostly very skeptical, and many don't even view it as science. You can never test the idea.

This is only partly true.  You can test this universe to see if it could have been produced by a multi-verse and it appears that it can.  At the Big Bang, our universe was extremely simple and contained very little information.  It was basically a huge amount of energy crammed into a very small place with a handful of physical laws - possibly only one.

Our low information universe didn't have enough information in it to need a creator, it could easily have been produced by an unintelligent process in a meta galaxy.

Date: 2007/12/28 00:17:12, Link
Author: CeilingCat
flannery: Darwin posited the idea that species evolved from a common ancestor through gradual mutations guided mainly by a random process of natural selection.


Date: 2007/12/30 18:31:09, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Ronald Meester says here:  
The conclusion of the [NFL] theorem seems quite surprising. It says that no algorithm is better than any other at quickly finding a target set T.

No, it doesn't.  The NFL theorem says that there is no single search strategy that will work well with all possible search spaces.  It has nothing to do with evolution, which works on the search space of DNA, whose hills and valleys are mostly gradual.

Dembski is a tard for saying otherwise and you are a tard for not understanding the theorem any better than Dembski does.

Date: 2008/01/09 01:06:55, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Barry is not an astronomer:
We have gone into space and actually observed the earth orbiting the sun.

Not really.  We get no better view of the earth orbiting the sun from space than we do on earth.  The first real confirmation of the Copernican theory was obtained shortly after WW-II when radars powerful enough to bounce radio waves off of Venus and Mars finally gave us the three dimensional data necessary for us to say, positively, that the earth is orbiting the sun.  

Since that day, observations from very distant space probes may have given us further confirmation, but I'm not aware of any being used for such purposes.

Barry has a few other epistemological problems as well:[QUOTE]New data arose (for example, it is now generally accepted that the fossil does not support gradualism in the way Darwin envisioned), and ad hoc adjustments to the theory have been made (e.g., punctuated equilibrium).

Date: 2008/01/09 01:20:15, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Ah crap!  Hit the wrong button halfway through writing the above and I don't seem to have an edit button.  I meant to say:      
New data arose (for example, it is now generally accepted that the fossil does not support gradualism in the way Darwin envisioned), and ad hoc adjustments to the theory have been made (e.g., punctuated equilibrium).  

Not so, Barry.  Punctuated equilibrium occurs through a series of small steps exactly the way Darwin envisioned.  P.E. theory says that once a large interbreeding population has been established, new innovations tend to get swamped and have much less chance establishing themselves in the population.  Instead, small groups get geographically or reproducively isolated and genetic innovations have a much easier time establishing themselves in those small groups.  Eventually the new small groups grow large enough to start showing up in the fossil record and incredulous creationists start declaring "Waterloo for Darwinism".

Perhaps Barry's biggest blunder is this one:      
A new theory has arisen (ID) to compete with Darwin.

Sorry Barry, but ID is not new, it's an old and tired idea.  ID was the reigning paradigm from at least Old Testament times (remember the Garden of Eden fable and the seven days of creation?) until 1859 when Darwin convincingly overthrew it.

Not edited because I can't.

Date: 2008/01/09 18:33:25, Link
Author: CeilingCat
DaveT shows why philosophy is harder than it looks:        
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that you’re a creator of universes and the physical laws therein. You’re omniscient and omnipotent. You set the wheels turning knowing the exact path of every particle. There would be no surprises at all. That’s kind of boring isn’t it? Like watching paint dry. I’d go crazy if there were absolutly nothing I didn’t know about the entire universe past, present, and future. So the creator figures out a way to end the boredom. He crafts the universe so it eventually produces intelligent agents with free will. Determinism ends where the free will of “rational” man begins.

Dave, "omniscient" means "all-knowing".  In other words, if God is truly omniscient, he knows EVERYTHING.  If there is anything God doesn't know about the entire universe, past, present or future, then he's not omniscient.  If humans have free will such that God doesn't know what we'll do next, then God's not omniscient.  In other words, omniscient = no free will, free will = no omniscience.  You can't have both.

This is a proof, by argument reductio ad absurdum, that if God is omniscient then humans have no free will.  Calvin figured this out centuries ago.  Unfortunately, he founded a Christian sect on it.

By the way, "[God would] go crazy if there were absolutly nothing [He] didn’t know about the entire universe past, present, and future." would explain a lot about how this universe got so screwed up.

Date: 2008/01/10 00:11:18, Link
Author: CeilingCat
CeilingCat, don't you know that the planets trace out little brightly-colored ellipses, just like on all those PBS shows?  You go into space and see the orbits. Oh, and that grid that represents the curvature of space-time itself? It's really out there, too.  That's how astronomers find black holes - they look for the drain!
Only people who believe can see them.

Date: 2008/01/11 00:17:01, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 10 2008,00:28)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 09 2008,23:11)
CeilingCat, don't you know that the planets trace out little brightly-colored ellipses, just like on all those PBS shows?  You go into space and see the orbits. Oh, and that grid that represents the curvature of space-time itself? It's really out there, too.  That's how astronomers find black holes - they look for the drain!
Only people who believe can see them.

*whisper* I see decaying orbits...  :(


I go to UD and read dumb people.

Date: 2008/01/12 22:43:25, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (keiths @ Jan. 11 2008,19:34)
Ceiling Cat,

I think it's time to smite someone:

Taken care of.


Date: 2008/01/14 02:00:47, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Does anybody know where I can get software that compares different texts and tries to figure out which ones are written by the same authors?  This type of software doesn't look for plaigiarism so much as it looks for writer's quirks.  Things like favorite sentence length, size of paragraphs, favorite expressions and figures of speech and similar.  I'd like to go sockpuppet hunting.

P.S. Could I please get an edit icon?  Thanks.

Date: 2008/01/15 08:48:17, Link
Author: CeilingCat
After reading the first 37 responses, I make this prediction: Neither Dembski nor Wells is going to get interviewed on the national talking heads show.

Edit to note that I have an edit button now.  Thanks!

Date: 2008/01/17 04:43:09, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Dembski interviewed at last!  Behe and Gonzalez too!

Unfortunately for them, the interview was not for a "national talking heads program", but hey, at least the Pro-ID Spanish website, "Ciencia Alternativa" will talk to them and the IDEA club website will print it.  

Waterloo for Darwinism can't be far away now.

Date: 2008/01/17 04:49:08, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Somebody may have mentioned this before.  If so, I apologize.

What's wrong with this line?

HOME | Publications | People | Presentations | Resources | Auxilery Papers |

Found at

Date: 2008/01/21 01:44:25, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Denise: 4. The environment will prove far more resilient than eco-doomsayers believe. People forget that the Permian extinction wiped out 90% of the marine life forms on this planet. Life seems to want to exist on this planet, even at the South Pole (cf March of the Penguins). Note: I have no time for environment destruction, and personally gave up keeping a car, as the simplest and most economical way to reduce my environment footprint. But I am NOT waiting for enviro-apocalypse!! - I don't believe it will happen. There will be changes. That's all. Not the end of the world or anything like it.

Observation: Anybody who tells us not to worry because the Permian Extinction only wiped out 90% of life on earth is in Deep Tard.  It's not just a matter of life wanting to exist, it has to be able to exist.  And, believe it or not, Denyse, you are a (small and obnoxious) part of life.  Probably a 90 percenter.

Date: 2008/01/22 06:10:03, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Mister DNA @ Jan. 21 2008,20:52)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 21 2008,20:24)
Oh Gloppy / Dembski:

Taking a break from the lab work, eh?

Granville Sewell:
Evolutionary convergence is one theory, here’s another: You ARE Bill Dembski. How else to explain why he puts up with your nonsense?

This is going to be fun.

I don't know.  These guys are trying to be funny and that never seems to work with them.  Tard humor is best when it's unconscious.

Date: 2008/01/23 05:45:32, Link
Author: CeilingCat
The aptly named "Unlettered and Ordinary" leads with his chin:      
People who are warriors for truth will always frighten those who hid (sic) in the shadow of lies. Nothing terrifies those who weave lies to hold a grip of power over the great unsuspecting masses. That’s why they invented propaganda.

Wikipedia on propaganda:      
The term originates with the saying Sacred Congregation for the spreading of the Faith (sacra congregatio christiano nomini propagando or Congregatio de Propaganda Fide), which was founded by Pope Gregory XV in 1622, shortly after the start of the Thirty Years' War. This department of the pontifical administration was charged with the spread of Catholicism and with the regulation of ecclesiastical affairs in mission territory.

Denyse, of course, is Catholic.  For those of you keeping score, that's an Own Goal.

Date: 2008/01/23 06:20:00, Link
Author: CeilingCat
I'm finding this a little difficult to parse.  Mrs. O'Leary seems to be trying to make a point about the effectiveness of Our President spending $2.3 million to study prayer:

Here is what I wrote to some friends on the subject:

Anyone familiar with the placebo effect would consider $2.3 million to study the power of prayer money well spent.

Listen: The drugs you pay $$ for must perform 5% BETTER than your own belief that you will get well in order to be licensed for use.

That doesn’t mean that belief is 0%, as the vast majority of the lay public is encouraged to believe.

It means that any licensed pharmaceutical is at least placebo + 5%.

   ... deleted ...

Look, I am NOT trashing pharmaceuticals. They wouldn’t be on the pharmacist’s shelf if they didn’t do anything at all. And doctors tend to know what works for their patients, so sure, we can trust an experienced physician and pharmacist.

But I was amazed when I learned what studies actually show about the difference that what you think is happening makes, in a wide variety of illnesses, while researching The Spiritual Brain (and Mario and I talk about that in some detail, too). After we turned in the manuscript, I read several more books that opened my eyes on the subject.

So even if people WERE praying to a Great Void (they're not), they might still gain some benefit. Research in these areas is critical for the following reason:

Aging people (of whom there are a lot just now in the settled and prosperous democracies) must sometimes take drugs that have unpleasant side effects or effects that counter each other (though both may be necessary, for different reasons). Research into the extent that mental states affect physical states may enable some individuals to manage with fewer or reduced medications that have undesirable side effects. And if they do it through prayer, whose business is that?

And that's not even saying that prayer studies will confirm that prayer has independent effects ... even if it didn't, prayer would still be highly effective.

Try as I might, I just can't see this as being anything other than an argument that prayer is just another placebo (along with a statement that it's not).  Well, let's spend another 2.3 million studying Witch Doctors and I'll bet they turn out to be just as effective as prayer too.  I score this one as another Own Goal.

Date: 2008/01/24 03:52:42, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Meanwhile, UrbanMysticDee keeps the Tard flowing:        
The face on Mars is not an optical illusion. The Mars Global Surveyor satellite took over 120,000 photographs and the one “debunking” the face was the only one out of the hundreds of thousands of photographs to get sent through five filters that distorted the picture beyond all recognition. When the photo is corrected for to remove the damaging effects of the filters (an attempt at restoring the original) there is striking evidence of intelligence behind the structure there.

There's evidence of intelligence everywhere if we could just stop those damned Darwinist scientists from lying to us!

You'll have to go to UD to get the two URLs he specifies, I couldn't get them to transfer.  Good examples of ID-Science at both of them, though.

Speaking of lying to us, whatever happened to Dembski's researcher?  The last time I tried to get onto his "Stop Lying to Us" blog at, it was password controlled.  I wonder if he stores his naughty picures there?

Date: 2008/01/24 06:19:30, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Thanks to Denyse (who apparently doesn't know how to get the URL for a UD comment) for this tip:  Magnan gives us another insite into the ID mind:      
Such a deep dynamic could explain, for instance, why parapsychology is nearly as implacably opposed today as in the early days of psychical research, 1870-1900 (at least this is my impression).

"implacably opposed" apparently means "still asking for evidence" in ID-Think.

More on Magnan here.

Date: 2008/01/24 23:39:41, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 24 2008,08:18)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 24 2008,06:19)
Thanks to Denyse (who apparently doesn't know how to get the URL for a UD comment) for this tip:  Magnan gives us another insite into the ID mind:          
Such a deep dynamic could explain, for instance, why parapsychology is nearly as implacably opposed today as in the early days of psychical research, 1870-1900 (at least this is my impression).

"implacably opposed" apparently means "still asking for evidence" in ID-Think.

More on Magnan here.

Ceiling Cat - Thanks for the link - Laumer is one of my all time favorite writers, and the author of what I think of as The Great American Novel, perhaps the Best Ever Written in the English language, The Great Time Machine Hoax.

Why would anyone at UD (or anywhere) want to be named after an IDiotic ineffectual character such as Magnan?

A momentary lapse of honesty?

Date: 2008/01/25 00:14:12, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Listen up everyone: Unless my brief Google search left something out, I’m herewith claiming priority in coining the term “teleocentrism,” which may be defined as “the predisposition of certain individuals and groups, especially those unschooled in Darwinian evolutionary theory, to ascribe objects, events, and structures found in nature to a designing intelligence.” Cognates include “teleocentrist” and “teleocentric.” Thus we might imagine Dan Dennett heaping abuse on ID theorists for being teleocentrists. By the way, I own the domain name and am willing to sell it to a neo-atheist (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Harris, etc.) for the modest sum of $5,000.00.

Why on earth should Dawkins, Dennette, Hitchens, Harris or anybody else who's not an IDTard want it?  It's a word that describes YOU: “the predisposition of certain individuals and groups, especially those unschooled in Darwinian evolutionary theory, to ascribe objects, events, and structures found in nature to a designing intelligence.”  Most of us spell "those unschooled in Darwinian evolutionary theory" as "Dembski & Friends".  Enjoy your new URL.

P.S. If you go to, you get a web page saying  

This page is parked free, courtesy of
 So he didn't even spend ten bucks on it.

Date: 2008/01/25 05:35:53, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Wiki: Alimentation Couche-Tard Inc. (TSX: ATD.A) ("Couche-Tard" means "goes to bed late" in French) is the largest Canadian convenience store retailer, operating or franchising over 5,000 stores across Canada, the United States, and in other countries.

I think the average UDer is more of a Couch-Tard, which means "Should have stood in bed" in Baptiste.

Date: 2008/01/25 05:39:45, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 25 2008,00:52)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 24 2008,22:41)

She as emails. Ask her about ID research!

Or ask her why Young Cosmos isn't in their long list of links.


Note that Denyse O'Leary's Post-Darwinist blog only gets two stars.  

I can't help noticing that every entry in the ID list is over-rated by one to four stars.

Date: 2008/01/26 07:22:53, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Frost122585 via Bob O'H:
Scott the truth is - she is just part or the Stalinist atheist left. If you believe in anything higher than the government or the corrupt teacher’s union you are to be eliminated. This is the scary reality of today’s political climate and landscape- but it is not new. God is always hated by humans in power- absolute power corrupts- tenure is one of those absolute powers and unions think they too are due their invincibility.
And God's power is ...

For a certain class of people, thinking things out just doesn't pay.

Date: 2008/01/30 15:19:21, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Dream sig:

ID is really creationism in disguise.
ID is religion, not science.
[ID is] not science because it’s not testable and makes no predictions.
[ID is] a science-stopper because it says goddidit.
ID’s central claims (e.g., IC) have been refuted over and over again.
ID is not represented in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
  GilDodgen - Uncommon Descent Blog 01/30/08 "Ignorance: Inspired and Promoted by Mainstream Media" Thread

Props to Salvador Cordova and William Dembski, who taught me everything I know about accurate quote mining.

Date: 2008/01/30 23:58:00, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Dave commands, "Don't Think About Who Designed the Designer!"    
Permutations of the question “Who designed the designer?” are trite, easily addressed, and if you read the moderation rules you’ll find that comments using this and other trite arguments are deleted. There is not enough data to make any determination of who designed the designer. When and if we can identify the designer of organic life on this planet we might have some data to work with in determining the origin of that agency. Until that situation changes, maybe SETI will give us some data someday, there’s no point in asking the question over and over again.

Here's the point, Dave:  Science says that the life we see surrounding us was produced over a period of several billion years by living organisms evolving through random variation and natural selection.  Living organisms, random variation and natural selection can be observed at work today and they left many traces of their past work.  ID may disagree with their effectiveness, but nobody can deny they exist.

ID says that all the life we observe today was created by an Intelligent Designer who is much much more complex than anything alive today, except that we can't see Him so we have only your word that He's there and ID hasn't got a clue as to how He came to exist.  Furthermore, the only reasons you can give for believing your claim that the Designer exists are your religious beliefs and in the wake of 9/11, religious beliefs carry even less weight than they did on 9/10.

I think banning all thought of how the Designer came to exist was a smart move on your part, assuming that you put avoiding embarassment above finding out how things happened.

Date: 2008/02/01 02:04:22, Link
Author: CeilingCat
The buggers just 404'd the entire debate thread!  Luckily, I saved it:
31 January 2008
Dr. Geoff Simmons vs PZ Myers Debate (link to listen to it)
Click here to listen live at 3PM Central Standard Time today: Dr. Geoff Simmons vs PZ Myers Debate

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Email This Post  Print This Post
This entry was posted Thursday, January 31st, 2008 at 12:06 pm and is filed under Intelligent Design. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
31 Responses



2:25 pm
I’ll listen to this debate this evening. Thanks for sharing.




4:30 pm
I’m listening right now. Dr Simmons just responded to PZM, which I only heard near the end, to inform us that he was a committed evolutionist for 40 years and does not believe in the Bible or Christianity, but changed his mind due to evidence he’s seen as a physician.

He’s forcefully answering PZM as I type about transitional fossils.




4:30 pm
PZM just accused Simmons of making stuff up.




4:38 pm
PZ caught Dr. Simmons over the pakicetus and ambuloucetus (spelling?) fossils. Made him look a little underinformed (especially for someone who wrote a book on missing links.)




4:45 pm
The Mary Jane West-Eberhard book Myers referenced is on Google books - the Gaps and Inconsistencies portion is online here




4:47 pm

PZM missed Simmons point - he didn’t have the names handy, but mentioned a recent article in Scientific American which he claimed buttressed his point, the specific names notwithstanding.




4:50 pm
I heard Dr. Simmons’ response; the point is how he made Dr. Simmons look…Dr. Simmons is asking him for reading recommendations and PZ is coming off as more knowledgable in the areas they’re discussing…

Just my perception.




5:01 pm
My running response to this debate:

PZ - What a critical start.

SIMmons - Discusses “diff btw man and monkey” brings out timing issues of transition of

birth. I suspect chimps also have precision timing. While this may be a serious issue w/

placentals, I don’t see the separation btw humans and chimps here.

PZ - challenges that ID has no positive case.

PZ blows away SIM on whale fossils. PZ mentions specific “intermediate” whale fossils, SIM

is unaware of the names of the 5 to 10 transitionals that is claimed — shame! Frustrating

as this is SIM’s area of publication, and SIM brought it up.

PZ - recommends West-Eberhard, “Developmental Plasticity and Evolution”. PZ expresses

specific respect for the fact that she “recommends alternative explanations” rather than

saying anything about “god did it”. I personally reject PZ’s opinion that the only valid

falsification of NDE is an alternative positive theory. As a valid scientific theory, NDE

must be independantly falsifiable w/o a need for a replacement theory.

SIM - Brain too complex for evolvability.

PZ - “Brain is experimental” Brain is “perfect analog of natural selection”.

PZ - “What is difference btw human and chimp brain”, Only difference is in volume, in magnitude.

SIM - Produced no serious response to PZ on this. Ooooh. This guy is a medic! He throws in some snip about 180 degrees different between chimps and man.

PZ - Closes w/ brain evolution. Suggests that Simmons presented no “true” facts.

The topic question “Is Darwinism Religion” was truly not discussed.

If I had to use this debate to judge the validity of NeoDarwinism, I would be a Darwinist. Simmons is a terrible dissappointment. I shall pass on his books, though they haven’t been on my short list.




5:01 pm
PZ’s gems:

“We do debate evolution a lot of time”

“You know nothing about the field”

“We know quite a bit about how the brain developed”




5:09 pm
I’m with you bFast, I was disappointed by Dr. Simmons’ arguments and performance and think PZ easily won the debate.

Oh well, hopefully they’ll choose someone else for the anti-Darwin side next time…(Sorry Dr. Simmons!)




5:13 pm
The Mary Jane West-Eberhard book Myers referenced…

Simmons should have pointed out that PZ was still censoring a viewpoint a priori, the view that a story/history of “evolution” is not applicable and therefore one need not to try to imagine one against known facts.

After all, what is the problem with admitting that a chain of natural history leads back to a singularity or that there is an uncaused cause in the present or the past that breaks apart a story or history rooted in naturalism? If naturalism is false in any instance then why must all be forced to try to imagine false stories against known facts?

Note that someone who admits that singularities, intelligence or some type of uncaused cause need not be censored even if it does form a gap in naturalism can see both secondary natural causes and their origins in singularities or acts of intelligent choice. It’s those who try to prop up a metaphoric Blind Watchmaker who have to make themselves blind to anything but a history that seems “natural” to them. Yet what is so dangerous about admitting that history is not an unbroken chain and why must the idea be censored? What if it is a dangerous idea that would stop progress and lead back to the “Dark Ages” which is true?




5:20 pm

Good point. If Simmons is going to use whale transitions in anti-darwinian talking points, due diligence requires he be able to express why PZM’s cited examples are insufficient to counter his claim. He seemed to generally hint at lack of blow holes, but wasn’t very forceful.




5:22 pm
Just a suggestion…

What you guys might want to consider doing is address any of debate topics discussed that might have been perceived as being “won” by PZ.

I think that is something that might be helpful to lurkers who may have listened to the debate and are curious about what additional information Simmons could have brought to the table.




5:27 pm
I’m with you bFast, I was disappointed by Dr. Simmons’ arguments and performance and think PZ easily won the debate.

The ID movement is wasting its time and resources, in my opinion. This ID vs. evolution fight will never be won with either debates, arguments, brochures, web sites or what have you. The opposition has a propaganda machine that is impervious to this strategy. If public debates and discussions are the best that we can do, I’m afraid we have lost the war before it has even started.

ID needs a BIG EVENT. It needs something that will get everybody (laymen and experts alike) to stand up and take notice, something that will quickly and decisively nullify the enemy’s defences. I don’t see these endless debates and arguments making a dent in their armor. They’re stronger than ever.

Education and arguments are nice but they will only be effective after we’re on top, not before. Sorry to sound so negative but that’s the way I see it at the moment.




5:28 pm
*of [the] debate…typo queen.*

BTW, I’ve not listened to the debate yet…probably will. But, after reading this thread, it appears that I can look forward to becoming phyically ill afterward.




5:31 pm
“We know quite a bit about how the brain developed”

You may say that these are gems sarcastically but he basically got away with passing them off as real, mainly because he could get away with assuming or imagining that his form of knowledge is the total truth or all the truth that matters. Given that his philosophy of knowledge wasn’t challenged the only response is: “Well, no we don’t know that much about it.” to which he will reply: “Well then get out of the way and let us progress on to more knowledge, naturally as scientists we’re working on it and stuff.”

Why not reply: “No, you don’t know quite a bit about how the brain developed, you’re just imagining stories about what you think you know based on natural selection. What is actually observed given our knowledge of the brain is intelligence at work, except in your case.” Or: “What is actually observed and known is that natural selection does not apply to man now, even Dawkins has admitted this, so why should we imagine that it always applied in all brains in the past?” Etc. You have to attack based on knowledge instead of sitting around waiting to point out a gap in knowledge assuming that the Darwinian way of imagining things about organisms is true.




5:39 pm
Good idea FtK
One area that came up was the complexity of the brain.

I understood PZ to say that the details evolution of the brain were well known.
(Does anyone know of any brain fossils?)

Simmons pointed out the numerous proteins required (30?) for just one part, implying irreducible complexity or the difficulty of that all coming together by natural causes.

cf Dr. Howard Glicksman discusses vision:
Part V: Vision Part 2 –The Retina

Part VI: Vision Part 3 – What Does the Brain See?

A opthamologist technician mentioned the incredible accuracy of directing the optic nerves to the two halves of the brain.




5:40 pm
I very quickly read someone’s post that says that Simmons was a-religious and a Darwinist most of his life. This all changed when he started looking into Darwinism.

With this background, and based on Simmon’s style of argumentation, it appears that Simmon’s was simply naive enough to think that if he pointed out to PZMeyers how “unlikely” it was that all these trillions of neural connections should come about through trial and error in only 150,000 years, that PZMeyers would say: “Oh, gee, I never looked at it that way,” and the debate would be over. Simmons is a reasonable man; because he’s reasonable, when inconvenient facts came to his attention, he changed his way of thinking; he’s made the mistake of thinking Darwinists are reasonable men and women, just simply under-informed. I would think that today was a learning experience for him.




5:41 pm
For FtK’s request:
The Evolution of the long-necked giraffe: What Do We Really Know? - Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig

As for the whales lack of transitions, you could probably find some info on any young earth creation site. (BTW, ID wouldn’t necessarily argue that whales didn’t evolve from land-based creatures - only that the coordinated changes needed were not the result of random variation and environmental pruning.)




5:48 pm
“PZ mentions specific “intermediate” whale fossils, SIM is unaware of the names of the 5 to 10 transitionals that is claimed — shame! Frustrating ”
Perhaps but every transitional claim is dubious from the start once you understand the way they are decided to be deemed “transitionals”.

You must assume Darwinism is true in order to call anything a transitional! “Looks like this and that, therefore is a transitional between this and that” is a clear logical fallacy. (Undistributed Middle)
Unfortunately the majority of people never figure that out.

You can take ANY proclaimed transitional and undo it’s transitional status w/o much fuss - just using logic and the facts. And one of the facts is that, according to Darwinism, there ought to be millions and millions of clear transitionals. There aren’t.  

“PZ easily won the debate.”
Thankfully “winning” a debate does not the truth make.

The flat-earthers of old no doubt often “won” debates against the less informed and less debate-able round-earthers.




5:53 pm
I think that is something that might be helpful to lurkers who may have listened to the debate and are curious about what additional information Simmons could have brought to the table.

All additional information would be treated as ignorance for as long as the philosophy and narrative behind PZ’s views is left alone. It would fit these little narratives:

“We do know quite a bit.”

“No you don’t, see how this information over here doesn’t fit what you think you know.”

“You’re trying to stop us from progressing towards knowledge, if you want progress then you should help make it fit or get out of our way.”

“Well, here’s another big problem.”

“We’re still progressing, besides you didn’t know what you were talking about last time.”

“But you actually didn’t know what you were talking about either. After all, how could you have just made progress towards better knowledge if you weren’t wrong or ignorant back then?”

“I am right about progress so it doesn’t matter when I’m wrong, that’s the beauty of it!”

At some point empirical facts and bits of knowledge do make a difference, yet given the hypothetical goo typical to Darwinian reasoning and the way it is woven into a mythology of progress empirical facts will not make as much difference as they should.




5:55 pm

“You must assume Darwinism is true in order to call anything a transitional!”

No wonder anti-evolutionists say there are no transitional forms.




6:02 pm
DLH: I understood PZ to say that the details evolution of the brain were well known.

Myers is lying, of course. He can get away with lying in a public debate because he comes off as being knowledgeable. The fact is that evolution cannot explain why the hemispheres are crisscrossed. This is an extremely over-complicated architecture with no survival value. Besides, there are no missing links with a non-crisscrossed architecture. Heck, evolution cannot explain why animals need two hemispheres in the first place let alone why they are organized in such a weird manner. After all, roboticists do not design double neural networks in the brains of their robots. Finally, evolution does not explain why humans “evolved” their inordinate infatuation with music and the arts. There are so many aspects of the brain that defy an evolutionary explanation that it’s hard to fathom how anybody with a modicum of honesty would fall for this nonsense.

Like I said previously, we are not going to win this war with honest arguments. If arguments could do it, it would have done it already. The enemy is fighting a political war, not a scientific one. They will lie as often as they have to. They are well equipped for it. Myers is a skilled and consummate liar, in my opinion.




6:07 pm
Borne, you quoted bFast with my name.  

As for your point on transitions, sure you can put any collection of items into a transitional sequence whether they are related by descent or not. (Scott Adams makes this point in “God’s Debris” using tea china as an example.) So there are always at least two ways of looking at any collection.

The relevant issue, however, is which view makes more sense? Is the transition a clear one, with complete skeletons, showing all different lines of morphology transitioning in the correct sequence to a relatively smooth progression? If so, I’d say that descent with modification is the best view, even if the mechanism of that modification is up for debate.

As for my personal preference, the “transitions” are not very smooth (the fossil record has a very jerky appearance in general with sudden appearance and stasis being the general trend) even for the supposed best examples (horse, giraffe, whale, hominid.) When you look in detail at these transitions (as Lonnig did in the linked article above) you usually end up finding the usual Darwinist bluster and extreme extrapolation from limited data points.


The Scubaredneck


6:51 pm
Borne said:

You must assume Darwinism is true in order to call anything a transitional! “Looks like this and that, therefore is a transitional between this and that” is a clear logical fallacy. (Undistributed Middle)
Unfortunately the majority of people never figure that out.

Scubaredneck responds:

While similarity does not necessarily imply relatedness (it could be an example of convergence), I don’t believe that an argument that similar critters might be transitional necessarily commits an Undistributed Middle fallacy. It may very well be wrong but that doesn’t mean it’s fallacious.




7:07 pm
The ONLY difference is in volume, in magnitude? Heck, I don’t spend as much time keeping up with research in that area and even I know that is proving not to be the case.


For one thing, a big brain is a metabolic drain on our bodies. Indeed, some people argue that, because the brain is one of the most metabolically expensive tissues in our body, our brains could only have expanded in response to an improved diet. Another cost that goes along with a big brain is the need to reorganise its wiring. “As brain size increases, several problems are created”, explains systems neurobiologist Jon Kaas (Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, United States). “The most serious is the increased time it takes to get information from one place to another.” One solution is to make the axons of the neurons bigger but this increases brain size again and the problem escalates. Another solution is to do things locally: only connect those parts of the brain that have to be connected, and avoid the need for communication between hemispheres by making different sides of the brain do different things. A big brain can also be made more efficient by organising it into more subdivisions, “rather like splitting a company into departments”, says Kaas. Overall, he concludes, because a bigger brain per se would not work, brain reorganisation and size increase probably occurred in parallel during human brain evolution. The end result is that the human brain is not just a scaled-up version of a mammal brain or even of an ape brain.
As far as understanding how our brains evolved, more questions remain than have been answered. One problem is that we don’t really know enough about how our brains differ from those of other mammals and primates, although work by Zilles and others is helping here. We also know very little about how the areas of our brain are physically linked up, and we need to understand that before we can see how we differ from our nearest relatives. And as far as identifying the gene changes that were selected during evolution, although we have several candidates, we don’t know how or if these gene variants affect our cognitive abilities. It is one thing, concludes Dunbar, to identify genetic or anatomic differences between human and ape brains, but quite another to know what they mean in terms of actual cognitive processes.

Then there’s Homo florensiensis with its apparently full cognitive abilities despite decreased volume. “It’s not the volume, but the wiring…University of California at San Diego studied MRI scans of 24 monkeys and apes and 10 humans, and found that the frontal cortex, the supposed seat of human wisdom and understanding, was not proportionally larger than expected for a primate of our stature. This undermines the [hypothesis] that an enlargement of the frontal lobe is what gives humans the capacity for increased cognition and intelligence.”

Also, when I read the work of actual researchers I don’t get the impression that “we know quite a bit about how the brain developed.” Usually I see references to the huge problems that must be overcome by Darwinian processes.




7:58 pm
I personally would love to see the topic of simiarities and differences between human and chimp brains, as well as a serious, humble, view of science’s debth of knowledge of brains discussed here. Albiet, I would like to see a genuine expert present the data.

I suspect that the differences between human and chimp brains are vastly more significant than PZ makes them out to be. I note, for instance, the HAR1F gene that is rock stable throughout mammals, yet is different in 18 bps in humans. I find the HAR1F to be inexplicable within a neo-Darwinan framework.




9:07 pm
I agree with FtK - the Discovery Institute should put out a transcript of the debate with notes rebutting the lies of the atheist PZ Meyers.




9:08 pm
Patrick and bFast,

In my study of the brain’s memory system, I have discovered that the human mind can do amazing things that cannot be explained by neuroscience. These are things that the mind can do with ease that are nevertheless biologically impossible. Human episodic memory can instantly record and reliably play back any short random sensory sequence up to the capacity and duration of working memory. What makes this amazing is the random nature of the sequence. This randomness is also apparent in our ability to instantly conceptualize (i.e., imagine) new random sequences at ease. Why is this biologically impossible? The reason is that instantaneous random memory access is physically achievable only on a fast computer. To access a memory node or neuron, the brain has to grow an axon and a synapse and make a physical connection with the neuron. This is a time consuming process. It cannot explain episodic memory.

I believe that this random access capability of humans is what makes us superior to animals, not the size of our brain. If brain size was the only thing that accounted for the superiority human intelligence, there is no reason that a dog could not be conditioned to learn chess or checkers even at the beginner level. Dogs certainly have enough neurons and they are certainly plenty intelligent in the things that they do. They can’t learn chess because the range of instant associations that they can make is limited by the wiring of their brains. Humans are not so handicapped.

But it gets even more interesting than this. Some savants can remember every sensory sequence perfectly including what they were thinking and feeling at the time. There is no possible way that a neural network, even with the capacity of the human brain, can record its own state moment to moment. There is something awesome, miraculous even, going on in the human brain that materialists and evolutionists cannot even begin to explain, their vociferous protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.




9:47 pm

I agree with FtK - the Discovery Institute should put out a transcript of the debate with notes rebutting the lies of the atheist PZ Meyers.

In my opinion we should just close our eyes and pretend that this debate never happened.

Mapou, “I believe that this random access capability of humans is what makes us superior to animals, not the size of our brain.” It would be interesting to test whether animals have this random access capability. I bet they do. Animals have proven time and time again that their mental and emotional capacity is much greather than we have given them credit for.

On savants, well, this is an intriguing topic, and an intriguing challenge to NDE. There is one guy running around right now that can do math beyond belief. Further, he challenged that he could learn any language within a week. They stuck him up in Iceland for a week. At the end of the week he was interviewed on Icelandic national television where he demonstrated a rich ability to dialog in Icelandic. Absolutely amazing. What makes it the most amazing, however, is that this ability is the direct result of a brain injury as a child. What up wi dat.

Further, they took mouses, and killed an gene. The resultant mouses were significantly stronger, faster and smarter than their peers. How on earth does NDE create or maintain superior abilities that are governed down. Why would the governor gene just mutate to death producing super-mice? I cannot for the life of me put my NDE hat on (it works pretty good) and understand this.




12:46 am
I think people may be taking this debate a bit harder than they really should. Even if Dr. Simmons came off looking bad, interactions like these are always instructive at the very least. Identify Myers’ criticisms, determine which of them where valid, which of them were invalid, which of them were misunderstood, etc.

Some people simply aren’t cut out for debating, while others are. I’ve not read Dr. Simmons’ books, but to compare, I would never have expected Dinesh D’Souza to be as extremely capable as he is in debate by his opnion articles. Ask yourself if there were better responses to Myers’ claims than were presented by Simmons, and if Simmons did not make strong points he otherwise could have. If the answer is ‘yes’ to both of these, in a way you should be celebrating.

Then again, I’m an optimist.

Fair use!

Date: 2008/02/01 03:15:12, Link
Author: CeilingCat
From Pharyngula - the MP3 is posted:

FYI, the MP3 link is working, but not posted yet.

Posted by: rpenner | January 31, 2008 10:04 PM

I must say they have more honesty than UD!

Date: 2008/02/01 15:55:51, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Mister DNA @ Feb. 01 2008,02:16)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 01 2008,02:04)
The buggers just 404'd the entire debate thread!  Luckily, I saved it:

Excellent work, Ceiling Cat. You ARE watching, apparently...

The other debate thread is still there, but it doesn't have any of the "We just got pwned" comments.

Omniscience is a wonderful thing, but it has a dark side.  For instance, I know exactly what Ann Coulter looks like nude.

Date: 2008/02/01 16:26:42, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 01 2008,15:18)
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 01 2008,12:07)
bFast tells us what ID-Day would look like:
if a UFO came down, and little green men [excuuuuse meeee?] popped off. If they went on to claim that they are the designer of life on earth. If they then sat down with the scientists and showed them how they did it. This would be a solid victory for ID.


Quote (olegt @ Feb. 01 2008,12:07)
Feel free to use the quote in your signature.

I think I already do. :)

We co-evolved with the shimmy, I hate to break it to ya, bSLOW.

Dejah Thoris.  I'd like to think she blew the earth a kiss four point five billion years ago.

Date: 2008/02/06 07:00:47, Link
Author: CeilingCat
John A. Davison Jan 23, 2008:  
Since I have not yet had to banish anyone from participation here, I have been thinking about why so many blogs and forum heads insist on banishing their adversaries. Pharyngula, Uncommon Descent, Panda’s Thumb and many other blogs and forums ban comments from adversaries and often erect barriers making it very difficult to register. P.Z. Myers of Pharyngula periodically complains about how his “security has been penetrated,” sounding more and more like Captain Queeg of the Caine Mutiny. He has another revealing tactic. He will allow comments to be sent from anyone but only he decides which will ever appear. None of mine have. I had to resort to subterfuge to comment on his blog only to see my comments disappear within minutes.

DaveScot/David Springer of Uncommon Descent lets dissenters speak only then typically to dismiss their author with “___ is no longer with us” or “you’re outta here Homo” or some other equally charming farewell. Then if things get dull he may let them back in again so he can enjoy expelling them for a second and in my case a third time. My first banishment from Uncommon Descent consisted of being unable to reregister. I  have no idea who was responsible for that one. Most probably it was Dembski. Of course banishment remains the responsibility of the blog owner or owners.

ARN and have not only baned me but denied me viewing their proceedings from this computer.

Why do so many blogs and forums  find it necessary to engage in such tactics? That is the subject of this thread. What does this mean? What does it accomplish?  How can one properly respond to a critic if he cannot continue the dialogue to some sort of conclusion? Doesn’t it just promote resentment? Thankfully I have not yet had to delete a single comment or ban any user from this blog. Of course that may change. I look forward to the views of others on what I regard, with anonymity, as a very important issue.

John A. Davison, January 24, 2008 Same Blog:    
I am sorry to report that I was forced to ban Woot, whoevever that is, when he refused to apologize about the nasty way he had treated Martin. The details are revealed on the “evolution is finished” thread. I had hoped that would not prove necessary, but I have no intention of allowing this blog to become a flame pit following in the footsteps of “Pharyngula,” “EvC,” “,” “Panda’s Thumb” and especially “After The Bar Closes,” Wesley Elsberry’s “inner sanctum.” Woot, who entered this blog through deception, has threatened to return to further disrupt it. He gave me no choice.

It is time for a real forum, involving real names who can express themselves without rancor, ridicule and recrimination on some very important issues with which society is now confronted. What can be more important than discovering the secret of our own origin or confronting the very real possibility that this may be the last century for our civilization? Those are my concerns and I hope others will join me in civil dialogue.

I love it so.

Date: 2008/02/08 00:44:15, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 07 2008,12:07)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 07 2008,11:29)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 07 2008,10:57)
The ARN thread at UD where they are begging people to find creative ways to put money in Ben Stein's pocket is very funny indeed.

You mean the one that now only has one comment?

Yes the one comment where the guy wants financial assistance.

My favorite line from that posting: "...Ben Stein does not spend two hours showing you selective data and then try to convince you that you should believe ID instead of Darwin."

I have to thank Mr. Wagner for leading us to that list of best selling documentaries, though.  I particularly recommend #20-Step Into Liquid and #38-Riding Giants.  There are some awsomely beautiful shots in each.  You won't find two better surfing documentaries.

#46, Koyaanisqatsi, is very good too, in a rather perverse way.  The title means something like "Life out of balance" in a southwestern indian dialect and it's supposed to be decrying modern life, but I just thought it was beautiful.  It's also moving in spots.  Rent it and see if you don't weep as the poor little rocket motor falls and falls and falls to its ultimate destruction.

For DaveTard, I recommend #98, Pumping Iron 2: The Women.  Or maybe the original Pumping Iron: Ahnold Flexes His Man Muscles.

Date: 2008/02/08 03:00:03, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 07 2008,16:13)
Go to Evolution News N Views baby! and read Geoffrey Simmons response to the debate with PZ.

It is hilarious.  In short, "PZ and his kind are not nice and PZ did not admit he's wrong about everything!"

It's both childish and ignorant to be sure.

That article contains a lot of deep tard.  I think the good doctor sums it up well in his first line: "Against Stupidity, God Himself Is Helpless".  I'll add that stupidity combined with ignorance pretty well cleans God's clock.

Professor Myers comments on Doc Simmons.

Date: 2008/02/09 10:02:43, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Hermagoras @ Feb. 09 2008,08:38)
larrynormanfan slaps DT    

DaveScot, I know you’re having fun Muslim-baiting, whining about a minor break of an unenforceable law, and conflating one kind of Christianity with Christianity as such. I understand the need to lash out; it must be tough seeing your party circling the drain. Still, could you have the decency to refer to people using the names they use for themselves?

Yeah, like Willard "Mitt" Romney!

Date: 2008/02/12 23:47:31, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Grandma Tard:    
An “adaptationist” hypothesis means that mathematical ability helped our ancestors survive and produce fertile children.

Yes, perhaps, ... but only up to a point.

It will certainly help you in a dispute with the checkout counter supervisor over $24.99 vs. $49.98, when you only bought one $24.99 item and have the whole bag with you, unopened.

These dramas surely played out in markets worldwide for many tens of thousands of years, whether they involved a pair of jeans, a toga, or a parka.

It may have been just a bit more important than that, Granny.  For example:

Fred Flintstone sees two bears enter a cave.
Fred Flintstone sees one bear leave the cave.
Fred Flintstone thinks: Two Minus One Equals Zero.  Cave is safe to enter.

Result: Natural selection wins again.  The gene pool loses a defective gene.

Date: 2008/02/12 23:59:16, Link
Author: CeilingCat
And bless our Loving God for also giving chimps math skills:

Date: 2008/02/15 02:01:38, Link
Author: CeilingCat
For some reason, I immediately though of Uncommon Descent, Dr. Dr. Bill, DaveTard and ol' Redwood Up Her Fundament when I read this:

Fecal Transplants

Date: 2008/02/15 02:22:33, Link
Author: CeilingCat
I notice that Doc Doc Dempski is unhappy at Richard Dawkins' advance on his next book.  Here are some sales figures for you, Bill:

Amazon sales ranks

The Design of Life by Dembski:  4585
The God Delusion by Dawkins:     150
The Selfish Gene by Dawkins:      578

Another interesting factoid - Dembski and Wells' latest book is having its nose wiped by the 30th Anniversary Edition of The Selfish Gene!  Dembski's oldest book, The Design Inference, is ten years old.  Its sales rank: 879,578.  No wonder he's green with jealousy.

Some other Dembski sales ranks:

Intelligent Design (with Michael Ruse):   50,616
Intelligent Design - the Bridge Between Science & Theology: 49,503
The Design Revolution (with Charles Colson): 275,040
Understanding Intelligent Design (with Sean McDowell): 346,149

And remember, Amazon sales ranks are like golf scores and egos.  Smaller is better.

Date: 2008/02/15 03:28:55, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 15 2008,03:10)
The quality and scope of those "predictions" makes me think Dembski should take up horse racing tipping.

"My tip for the 3:15 at Newmarket is that a horse will likely win. In addition, I can predict that only a horse with a rider will be able to win the race. Once again, a horse is predicted to win the race".

Therefore ID.

Or, "The winner of the 1977 Kentucky Derby will be Seattle Slew."

Date: 2008/02/19 23:45:30, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (REC @ Feb. 19 2008,13:37)
Anyone follow O'Leary's link to the 'file drawer' effect paper?
File Drawer Effect

The Society for Scientific Exploration is endlessly entertaining.....
Some of their 'peer reviewed' publications:
 . . . .

Testing a Language-Using Parrot for Telepathy
Rupert Sheldrake and Aimee Morgana
 . . . .

I can't get the early scenes from 'Ghostbusters' out of my mind.  At least we know what passes as science means for the UDers, and what overturning 'Big Science' would bring.....
Rupert Sheldrake is the Gold Standard for Nuts in Suits.

But not everything on that site is bogus.  Examine the book review at

When I read some of the promotional materials associated
with No Free Lunch (e.g., that it ‘‘devastates the Darwinists’’), I was skeptical
but intrigued. After reading No Free Lunch, however, I was disappointed.
Although No Free Lunch is one of the best books available about ID, it is not
worth buying.

Poor Dr. Dr. Dembski.  Seventy three years of college and even the people who test parrots for telepathy don't respect him.

Date: 2008/02/23 20:56:08, Link
Author: CeilingCat
More Good Taste from UD:      
23 February 2008
Expelled change of release date centers on the dates of Darwin’s birth and death
Ben Stein’s Expelled ( was originally scheduled to be released on February 12th of this year — Darwin’s (and Abraham Lincoln’s) birthday. The official release date now is the weekend of April 18th. Saturday, April 19th, is the day that Darwin died. Perhaps this shift of dates is not coincidental.

If you’re going to see Expelled opening weekend, think about seeing it on the 19th to celebrate Darwinism’s passing.

There's a very slim chance this isn't a case of juvenile bad taste.  Many Catholic Saint's Days celebrate the day the saint became a martyr.  Maybe he's trying to say Darwin is a saint and martyr.  But I think that the odds of Salamanca not being a juvie prick are way over the Universal Probability Boundary.

Date: 2008/02/25 04:31:39, Link
Author: CeilingCat
larrynormanfan wonders: "Is “salamanca” the UD handle of Fred Phelps?"

I was thinking more along the lines of Salvador Cordova.  Fits right in with his claims of Darwinian puppy bashing.  

And it's a mighty slick handle.  Who would ever guess that Salamanca is really Salvador Cordova, protecting his briliant career prospects from the depradations of the evil Darwinist Conspiracy.  A clever handle like that fools them every time, but his design-detecting buddies will spot it right away.

Date: 2008/02/26 02:58:12, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 25 2008,14:02)
Quote (sparc @ Feb. 25 2008,13:52)
Looks like the whole Expelled release/Darwin's death day thread has been 404-ed.
To sad. I had suggested to use May 25th instead because it's kind of another Lincoln day.

I thought it was a rather nice use of irony (look the date up, folks!).  I'm not sure any of the UDites understood it, though.

I'z tryin to figure it out.  But there are so many May 25s!  There's practically one every year!

(From Wikipedia)
1521 - The Diet of Worms ends when Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, issues the Edict of Worms, declaring Martin Luther an outlaw.

1738 - A treaty between Pennsylvania and Maryland ends the Conojocular War with settlement of a boundary dispute and exchange of prisoners.  Settling any Conojocular War is good.  Especially between two American states.

1895 - Playwright, poet and novelist Oscar Wilde is convicted of "committing acts of gross indecency with other male persons" and sentenced to serve two years in prison.  Arden?  Any thoughts?

1925 - Scopes Trial: John T. Scopes is indicted for teaching Darwin's theory of evolution.  Quote the CeilingCat: "Ah haas!"

1953 - Nuclear testing: At the Nevada Test Site, the United States conducts its first and only nuclear artillery test.  This could be it.  Like ID, Nuclear Artillery was Very Bad Idea.

1966 - The first prominent DaZiBao during the Cultural Revolution in China was posted at Peking University.
Ah haas again!  Lookup DaZiBao and you find this: "A key trigger in the Cultural Revolution was the publication of a dazibao on May 25, 1966 by Nie Yuanzi (???) and others at Peking University, claiming that the university was controlled by bourgeois anti-revolutionaries."  That's Dembski, all right.  He's the one who really called the world's Universities on their Christ-denying Corruption™.  And look at what happened next:  "The poster came to the attention of Mao Zedong, who had it broadcast nationally and published in the People's Daily. Big-character posters were soon ubiquitous, used for everything from sophisticated debate to satirical entertainment to rabid denunciation; being attacked in a big-character poster was enough to end one's career."  Yes sir, that's ID in a nutshell.  Paste up a few DaZiBaos, drop a dime to Homeland Security and watch your opponants fall!  That's got to be the May 25 reference.  It's the story of ID.

1887 - Pio of Pietrelcina, Catholic saint born. (d. 1968) Hmm, but Pope John-Paul-George&Ringo was a big fan of Padre Pio and Dembski used to be a Catholic...

1918 - Claude Akins born, American actor (d. 1994) Snif!

1921 - Jack Steinberger born, German-born physicist, Nobel Prize laureate This has got to be it.  Steinberger is just like Sternberger except he accomplished something.

2006 - Desmond Dekker died, Jamaican ska musician (b. 1941) Oh Nos!  CeilingCat very sad, must go mourn.  (Dekker sang "The Israelite", early Reggae hit.)

Edited to spell the Pope's name catrectly.

Date: 2008/02/26 06:35:38, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Of course, the all time greatest ID invention was Dr. Dr. Salvador O'Dempski's Nuclear Hand Grenade.  Which would have worked well, if his arm had just been a little bit stronger...

Date: 2008/02/26 06:38:30, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Jeeze, I just read your reference and they mention the nuclear hand grenade!  So it's definitely not a myth!

Date: 2008/02/27 00:41:05, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 26 2008,23:56)
GilTard reveals his formative years:

I was raised an atheist, surrounded by academic intellectual atheists. It is true that, as a child, I assumed that these people knew everything, but as I grew older I realized that they didn’t, and that the hard evidence for design and purpose in the universe and life was overwhelming. Belief in God for me is a rational conclusion, despite my upbringing. I became a skeptic of the “skeptics.”

"..the hard evidence for design..."?? Geez. Hard SciFi! Hard Sciences! They must have a hard on...

That was a misprint.  He meant to say, "...the tard evidence for design and purpose in the universe and life was overwhelming."  Remember that it doesn't take much whelming to overwhelm the average ID theorist's mind.

Date: 2008/02/27 04:09:48, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 26 2008,16:46)
Is this P-A-R-O-D-Y?

(from "expelled"). Is he connect with reality at *any* level?

Short answer: No.  Long answer: He might get his chance yet, what with McCain showing all the signs of going into a death spiral ... surely Ben would make a good vice presidential choice.  His battyness on evolution complements McCain's battyness on Iraq quite nicely.  Besides, America is obviously pining for a former Nixon speech writer in the White House or at least in the Naval Observatory grounds.

Date: 2008/02/29 04:56:14, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Granville Sewell opines:  
In any debate, it is always good strategy to acknowledge your opponent’s strongest points up front, effectively taking those points off the table.

Good idea!  Here's ID's strongest points:  

Now that they're off the table ...

Date: 2008/02/29 05:23:35, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Is Underwhelming Evidence completely dead?  The last twenty three posts were authored by Denise OLeary.  Two of them have a single response and one has eight.  The rest?  Nada.  What gives?

Most interesting title for a post: "And so what if Grandma was an ape?", asks the "Toronto-based journalist; grandmother; Roman Catholic Christian."  Interestingly, she puts down Chuck Norris with her reply.

Date: 2008/03/01 20:03:46, Link
Author: CeilingCat
gpuccio is always good for a quote:
Moreover, many of those concepts are just myths or overrated realities.

Date: 2008/03/04 08:29:26, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 04 2008,06:08)
Sal informs us that Caroline Crocker is selling a new product, intellectual honesty.  $5,000 if made from scratch, $1,000 for gently used.  Details are available from her agent at intellectual

Her Agent, Mr. Frits Evenbly, to be specific.

That's quite a web site.  I can't load anything but the front page with IE 6.

That's a pretty good bargain, though.  For a mere $5000.00, she'll come to your group and whine about how badly she was treated by the accursed knowledge-based reality-sucking world.  And her whining will be custom tailored to your group!

I assume that travel expenses are extra.

Personally, I think she's a Crocker.

Date: 2008/03/04 08:37:11, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 04 2008,02:00)
Oooh!  Someone's in a bad mood    




4:15 pm

sparc, you wrote,

“Isn’t citing the Vice President for Research and Personnel Development Martin Bucer Seminary who according to the seminary’s web pages hosted an intelligent design creationists symposium in Prague (October 22, 2005) the same as discussing the issue with a Toronto-based journalist; grandmother; Roman Catholic Christian?”

Watch it. You and your posts may be gone soon.

This list is for intelligent people who want to discuss issues, not personalities.

You are not persuading me that either you or your posts belong here.

This whole thread could disappear into the night with no loss, and it well may, unless you start saying something to the purpose.

For all her faults, Denyse doesn't normally channel the DaveScot stream of tard.

poachy's got the right idea:
Teach the controversy?

Date: 2008/03/06 19:53:49, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (jupiter @ Mar. 05 2008,20:25)
Why won't anyone think of the children? How many of you have equipped your tykes with Armor of God jammies?

(Lou, port this to the Bathroom Wall if you like, since it's the seeds 'n' stems of the leafy tard.)

I call sockpuppets.

Date: 2008/03/07 07:14:21, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 06 2008,21:54)




10:39 pm
Hey Sal.

Do you think there is anything in ID itself that would warrant the cessation of your own self promotion?

Seriously, what I find most repellent about you is the tendency towards self-promotion. No one really cares about who you have been seen with, or whose company you can say you were in.

I’ve met William Dembski. He even responded to a question I asked. So what?

Mung makes up for years of tard emissions.

Date: 2008/03/08 23:30:48, Link
Author: CeilingCat
In the Uncommon Descent 'Speaking of T-Shirts' thread:    
4 Larry Fafarman 03/08/2008 11:08 am
Some of the holiest things don’t even have names. In Judaism, god has no name. In the Koran, Jerusalem has no name.

5 Frost122585 03/08/2008 11:54 am
In Judaism God has a name’ “Yahweh” - Or Jahova- but you aren’t supposed to ever say it. I dont know where you got the idea that God has no name in Judaism from.

6 PannenbergOmega 03/08/2008 12:23 pm
Does not the Lord God say to Moses that He is I Am?

7 DaveScot 03/08/2008 2:00 pm
re; Yahweh
According to a long history of religion I read many years ago that’s YHWH and is not to be pronounced. The 4-letter ancient Hebrew name was translated into english in one variation as JHVH which should be more familiar to American audiences as JeHoVaH.

8 Apollos 03/08/2008 2:04 pm
I believe that Jerusalem (Al-Quds) is nameless in the Qu’ran because it’s not referenced anywhere in the Qu’ran.

9 Apollos 03/08/2008 2:27 pm
Both Yahweh and Jehovah are transliterations (YHWH JHVH) of the literal, actual, and unpronounceable (in more ways than one) name of God, comprised of the Hebrew letters: Yod, Heh, Vav, and Heh. The construction is known as the Tetragrammaton (word of four letters).

10 StephenB 03/08/2008 2:44 pm
In the Old Testament, God deals with primitive people through primitive means, so there is certain relational distance. Bad behavior must be addressed before the subject of intentions and motives can be introduced. That means that there is a lot of violence and crude behavior on both sides. The relationship gradually changes from master/slave to father/God as the crude behavior becomes somewhat more civilized. At that level, a covenant is possible, but intimacy is still a problem.
In the New Testament, the relationship between God and man gradually becomes more intimate, first to the level of friendship, and finally to the level of mutual, self sacrificial love. Concurrently, man begins to consider not only his behavior but the intentions and motives in back of that behavior. What a person does is important, but why he does it is infinitely more important. As that relationship develops, and God becomes known (only analogically of course) man can call on the heavenly father/God in much the same way he would call on an earthly father. In Islam, there is no room for this kind of intimacy because the relationship never advances beyond that of a slave to his master. Accordingly, the slave’s motives never advance beyond obeisance, servility, and duty.

11 jstanley01 03/08/2008 3:27 pm
According to a long history of religion I read many years ago that’s YHWH and is not to be pronounced.
Judaism has taught, perhaps as far back as the 3rd century B.C., that it’s unlawful to utter the tetragrammaton. The tradition falls short of being Biblical, however, seeing as how Ruth 2:4 says:
And, behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem, and said unto the reapers, The Lord [Hebrew, YHWH] be with you. And they answered him, The Lord [Hebrew, YHWH] bless thee.

12 Lutepisc 03/08/2008 3:48 pm
I hope some Hebrew scholar can come along and correct/add to what I recall about the word YHWH. I took only one year of Hebrew, and made B’s, so I’m pretty much at the “lay” level of expertise here.
I’m recalling that the etiology of the tetragrammaton has its roots in the Hebrew verb “to be,” which IIRC is “yiyeh” (the consonants for that would be YHYH). (Sorry I have to transliterate, as I don’t know how to get Hebrew into the blog here.)
When Moses encounters the burning bush in Exodus, he asks, “Whom shall I say sent me (to lead the Israelites out of Egypt)?” Out of the bush comes the reply, “I am the one who is. Tell them ‘I am’ has sent you.”
“You are to say to the children of Israel, YHWH, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, has sent me to you.”
The tetragrammaton was sacred, since names were thought to embody the essence of the one named. It was not to be pronounced. Traditionally, “Ha Shem” is used as a substitute, which means simply “The Name.”
Instead, another name was customarily pronounced there (there are many names for the one God in the Hebrew Bible). It may have been “Adonai” or “Elohim,” I don’t remember (but I’m guessing some other UD reader will know). As a reminder to readers of the Biblical text to say “Adonai” rather than “Yahweh” in those places where the tetragrammaton was written, the vowel markings from the substitute name were used wherever the tetragrammaton appeared in the text.
If you don’t know this history but you do know the Hebrew vowels and consonants, you will read the resulting “word” as “Jehovah.” (JeHoVaH.) But there actually is no such word as “Jehovah.” It’s a conflation of the tetragrammaton and the substitute name for God.
As a sideline (this seems to be as good a place as any to say this), I think the name spoken to Moses from the burning bush in Exodus is a really astute response to Dawkins’ question, “Who designed the designer?” If the designer is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (which clearly isn’t necessary for ID but dovetails nicely with ID), then no one designed the designer. The designer is “the One Who Is”…whose essence is His existence. Who is, as Paul Tillich puts it, “the ground of being.”

13 Gods iPod 03/08/2008 3:57 pm
I study Hebrew. Apollos is correct.

14 jstanley01 03/08/2008 4:14 pm
In the New Testament, the relationship between God and man gradually becomes more intimate…
At the risk of interjecting more theological observations here than the guidelines are wont to welcome: Rather abruptly, actually, on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4), the relationship of believers to the Father became one of sons (Greek, huios, used equally of sons and daughters):
Galatians 4:4-7
But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons [Greek, huiothesia, literally “placement as sons”].
And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.
Not a bad deal, actually…

15 Lutepisc 03/08/2008 4:20 pm
God’s iPod, I’m not sure what you mean. JHVH and YHWH are simply two different English transliterations of the tetragrammaton, which consists only of consonants. The vowels come from somewhere else.

16 Apollos 03/08/2008 4:30 pm
That’s a great point about the Ruth reference, jstanley.
Some have suggested that the change in practice came about as a result of the Babylonian captivity, where many Hebrew words obtained their Aramaic meaning. Hence, where the Law stated that it was a sin to blashpeme the name of God, the Aramaic equivalent imposed the meaning pronounce the name of God. It’s an interesting theory. Yahweh - Wikipedia. (See Historical Overview.)
However I searched all throughout the Old Testament and found verbal references to YHWH, even in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah (post Babylonian captivity). So this would be something that happened probably between 430 BC and around 270 BC, as extant copies of the Septuagint substitute kurios (Gr.) among other words. This may have been a result of the imposition of Greek law upon the known world, circa 332 BC. Also, New Testament books largely quote from the Septuagint, making use of the kurios locution.

17 StephenB 03/08/2008 4:35 pm jstanley01: I think your comments are appropriate for the thread. The issue of God’s approachability developed naturally from Dave’s worship theme, which was quite funny by the way.

18 jstanley01 03/08/2008 5:12 pm
Actually, I swiped the Ruth reference from the Wikipedia article Names of God in Judaism. But I suspected what your research has borne out — that its not the only verbal reference ins Scripture for YHWH.
Discombobulating ancient traditions from the original Biblical practices is often a daunting task. Take the phylacteries of Matthew 23:5, that orthodox Jews wear to this day; apparently in a literal obedience to Proverbs 3:3 et. al., which were commands that I believe were originally meant to be taken figuratively.

All science so far.

Date: 2008/03/10 15:18:43, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Denyse finds a sorta favorable review of The Design of Life.  It's in the The Saskatoon Star-Phoenix.

Edited to add Denyse's URL.

Date: 2008/03/11 05:03:17, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Davetard misses the point - as usual.
Quite often when confronted with the problematic nature of explaining the arrival of the first life capable of supporting descent with modification an evolutionary theorist will say the theory has no bearing on how the first life came into existence - the theory only explains what happened after that.

Is this true?

Well, yes and no. Evolutionary theory doesn’t explain exactly how the first life was created and doesn’t demand any particular modus operandi. However, that’s not to say it doesn’t make any assumptions at all. It assumes that the first life was a simple cell and the mechanism(s) described by the theory made a simple common ancestor (or perhaps a few simple common ancestors) into the complex and diverse spectrum of life we observe today.

BZZZT!!  Wrong!  The only people who assume the first life was a cell are creationists stating what they believe science believes.  And they are wrong.

Even the simplest cell is enormously complex - much too complex to have formed by chance.  Cells are the result of a long period of Darwinian evolution adding information a few bits at a time.
If you want to find out if NDE really cares about how life originated just try asserting that life originated as very complex forms that were programmed to diversify in a prescribed manner. Try saying the original form of life on the earth was like a stem cell in that it contained the unexpressed potential in it to diversify into many different forms with chance playing little if any role in the diversification process. Or better yet, for some real shrieking and howling rejection, try proposing that life originated as very complex perfect forms such as described in the Garden of Eden and the story of evolution is really a story of devolution from originally perfect, diverse forms.

This theory is even worse than the theory that the first life was a cell.  Where does all of this information come from, Dave?  Scientific theories all assume that the first "living thing" was a simple self-reproducing molecule or, at the most, several molecules which manage to reproduce themselves.  Low information, either way.  Low enough to form by chance in a million years or so.

The reason scientists howl at the idea of the first cell incorporating all of the information to make all forms of life we see today is because that would require a tremendous amount of information and people who propose such ideas never have a way of accounting for this information.  Ditto for complex creatures poofing into existence.  Where does all that information come from?

Creationism's answer to this question, of course, is Goddidit.  Which just leads to the next obvious question: where did God come from?  It takes billions of bits of carefully ordered information to make any kind of intelligence powerful enough to make a living thing.  When you figure out where God (or The Designer if you insist) got that high information intelligence from, let us know and we'll stop laughing at you long enough to look at your evidence.  Until then, carry on.  We're enjoying it.

Date: 2008/03/12 00:42:36, Link
Author: CeilingCat
The Uncommon Descent official motto:

Original image removed.  Thank you, Mr. DNA, for providing a smaller version, which is available below.

Thanks to the Rapid City, S.D. Journal for the picture.

Edited to restore reasonable margins.

Date: 2008/03/12 00:55:37, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Tracy P Hamilton: "How would you know, Ceiling Cat?  Were you there?  (see my avatar)"

I'll have you know, Tracy, that I raised that Evil Devil-Cat Kitten from a tiny self-reproducing molecule, barely 100 atoms large, to a fine healthy specimen of a God-Kitten.  Then, barely as soon as he opened his eyes and started eating red meat, he turned into a hell raising, furball hacking, litter pan missing, yowling at the mooning bag of furr covered teeth and talons, just like his mother, a 101 atom large self-reproducing molecule that I also created and raised from scratch.  That 101st atom may have been unobtanium.  I don't remember, due to the drugs.  But I should have left it out.  And don't ask how she became the mother of my son.

Your avatar depicts the exact moment I kicked that little Cat From Hell out of the house with the admonition, "If you don't like it here, eat mice!  And childbirth is going to hurt like hell from now on!  Not that you'd care, being a male Devil Cat, but it's going to hurt anyway you little ingrate!"

Last I heard, he'd killed and eaten both of DaveTard's dogs and had DaveTard himself cornered in his bathroom, afraid to come out.  Serves them both right.

Date: 2008/03/12 00:57:51, Link
Author: CeilingCat
If anybody can shrink that "Reason is..." picture, please do so.

Date: 2008/03/12 05:36:23, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Mr. DNA, that's perfect!  Thank you!

Now to edit my original picture...

Date: 2008/03/12 05:41:56, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Carlsonjok quotes Thomas Jefferson:  
And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.

Wait!  You mean Minerva didn't ...

Well, there goes my religion.

Date: 2008/03/14 04:50:27, Link
Author: CeilingCat
UD's latest attempt at humor:

Nice paint job, though.

Galapagos Finch has to be Dembski.


Date: 2008/03/17 01:50:01, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 16 2008,11:54)
"the 1st amendment bars a teacher from criticizing Charles Darwin" god, I can't get that out of my head, it's so phenomenally dumb. It's the kind of atomic stupid that you feel compelled to share with others.

Which I guess is the purpose of this thread.

Okay, off to Open Eye before that quote gives me irreversible brain damage.

Let's not overlook his very next paragraph:    
In times past Americans would have exercised their 2nd amendment rights to correct attempted violations of their 1st amendment rights. Too bad that’s not such a well respected option today.

Date: 2008/03/17 02:54:04, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Uncommon Descent descends to quoting from a Moonie encylopedia!

In this article, Uncommon Descent brings our attention to an article by Jonathan Wells in the New World Encyclopedia.  If you follow the adventures of Jesus Christ, AKA Reverand Moon and his Moonies, "New World" will ring a bell.  And, since Jonathan Wells is a high ranking Moonie Clergyman, those bells will be ringing for a reason.

Sure enough, go to the article in question, click on "Menu/Main Page" and then "Vision" at the bottom of the page and Shazam!  There it is:

"The originator of this project is Sun Myung Moon. The philosophical and axiological foundations for the project derive from his life and teachings, especially as they are systematized in Unification Thought and other publicly available texts.

The worldview that informs this encyclopedia proceeds on the basis of universal values found in the life and teaching of Reverend Moon and in essence from all religious and spiritual traditions and in people of conscience, values drawn from original human purpose, and the purpose of creation."

That sharp intake of breath you heard was the entire faculty (minus one) at the Southwest Baptist Seminary and BBQ gasping at the new honors the Reverand Dr. Dr. Dembski has brought to them.


Date: 2008/03/18 04:47:28, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (dheddle @ Mar. 17 2008,11:06)
 His Worshipfulness, the 2nd Coming Himself

A juicy part of the entry:
Most Unification believers understand Reverend Moon to be fulfilling the mission of the promised "Second Coming of Christ." Also, together with his wife Mrs. Hak Ja Han (Moon) (???, ???),believers understand them as the "True Parents" of all humankind. The latter ascription derives from the view that Reverend and Mrs. Moon are the first human beings to realize the "original ideal of creation," a responsibility originally given the first human ancestors, the biblical Adam and Eve.

What I like about Reverand Moon is his modesty.  If I was Jesus Christ, I'd be dead.

Date: 2008/03/19 01:45:30, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Now, on substance, how can we move on from this point?


Step 1: Take Prozac
Step 2: Take Prozac again, just in case you forgot the first time.
Step 3: Did you REALLY take that Prozac?  Better take it again, just in case.
Step 4: If Reverand Moon is really Jesus and he's here on earth, then the rapture can't be far away, so better take some more Prozac.
Step 5: Better drink a bottle or two of sacramental wine, just in case there's an unexpected Communion service.
Step 6: Take more Prozac to wash the Communion wine down.
Step 7: Finally ready to post on UD
Step 8: What the hell is a GEM of TKI?

Date: 2008/03/19 02:00:41, Link
Author: CeilingCat
DLH says:      
17 March 2008
John Scotus Eriugena - a 9th century advocate of “intelligent design”
While cleric Michael Heller disparages Intelligent Design, Chuck Colson observes: “John Scotus Eriugena is considered perhaps the first proponent of “intelligent design.” See: Learning from the Irish, Chuck Colson

“Observe the forms and beauties of sensible things,” he wrote, “and comprehend the Word of God in them. If you do so, the truth will reveal to you in all such things only He who made them.” . . .

See Colson’s full “Breakpoint” 3/17/2008

Ahh... DLH ... I hate to tell you this, but Intelligent Design is supposed to be a brand new scientific theory that's going to finally fix science and put it on the road to a true comprehension of how life came to be.  Quoting a twelve hundred years dead Clergyman giving all the credit to God kind of lets the cat out of the bag and might make some people say, "ALL SCIENCE SO FAR!".

Date: 2008/03/20 00:49:40, Link
Author: CeilingCat
erasmus FCD: "DaveTard has blown half of Texas!!!"

Ugh.  When we build that fence along the border, let's remember to build it north of DaveTard.

Date: 2008/03/21 00:53:41, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Oh, this is TOO RICH!  On Pharyngula, PZ Meyers writes that he was standing in line to see a preview of Expelled! when a policeman pulled him out of line and told him that he couldn't see the movie.  Then a few minutes later he came back and said that he had to leave the premises.  So PZ politely complied.

But the idiots let PZ's wife and daughter see the movie, along with their guest: Richard Dawkins!!

Date: 2008/03/21 01:15:23, Link
Author: CeilingCat
As of 1:46 AM (Minnesota Standard Time), there are over 500 comments.  The producers of Expelled! obviously gave Dembski the night off and had his Friday meltdown for him, a few hours early.

Date: 2008/03/21 01:16:13, Link
Author: CeilingCat
stevestory, see the above about the tie to UD.

Date: 2008/03/21 06:26:23, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Annyday @ Mar. 21 2008,03:43)
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 21 2008,02:43)


18 March 2008
Pat Robertson interviews Ben Stein about EXPELLED
William Dembski

Check out this CBN segment that features Ben Stein, David Berlinski and yours truly: GO HERE.
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

It's like being punched in the face with tard.

I'm getting too old for this.


Ben Stein thinks there's not going to be a depression ... because the Federal Reserve will flood the country with money. Because that never does anything bad, and will certainly save us all. Two minutes later, he complains about the falling value of the dollar. He appears to see no contradiction between those two things.

And then he moves on to ID ...

About a month ago, he said all the financal problems were caused by a cabal of short-sellers.  Guess that "explanation" is inoperative now.

Go to and search for "Ben Stein".  We're not the only ones who have noticed that he's barking at the moon crazy.  Everybody on Wall Street noticed it long ago.

Date: 2008/03/22 09:44:58, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 21 2008,15:03)
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 21 2008,12:52)

The cop was wearing a uniform, not a sweater.  And there's no evidence that, after threatening PZM with arrest, he said "By the way, I have two PhDs."  So no.

It's a meltdown and it's an ID meltdown, it just wasn't Dembski's and it just wasn't on a Friday.

Date: 2008/03/22 09:52:22, Link
Author: CeilingCat
If they're really opening on a thousand screens, then there's some serious money behind this movie.  Figure $1500-$2000 per print.  $1500 times 1000 and you're talking $1.5 million bucks!

Date: 2008/03/26 01:00:05, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Arden Chatfield wrote:
Actually, it isn't that second one, I just wanted to draw attention to what must be the most totally excellent personal name in history."

A good Biblical name, too.

From Wiki: Canaan Sodindo Banana (5 March 1936-10 November 2003) served as the first President of Zimbabwe from 18 April, 1980 until 31 December, 1987. A Methodist minister, he held the largely ceremonial office of the presidency while his eventual successor, Robert Mugabe, served as Prime Minister. ... His later life is tainted by charges of sodomy, which he denied and for which he was later imprisoned.

Sodomy charges and imprisonment
The former president's later years were clouded by scandal. In 1997, Rev. Banana was arrested in Zimbabwe on charges of sodomy, following accusations made during the murder trial of his former bodyguard, Jefta Dube.[1] The charges related to accusations that Banana had misused his authority while he was president to coerce numerous men in positions of service (ranging from domestic staff to security guards, and even members of sports teams for whom he had acted as referee) into accepting sexual advances. He was found guilty of 11 charges of sodomy, attempted sodomy and indecent assault in 1998. He denied all charges, saying that they were "a mortuary of pathological lies" intended to destroy his political career.[3] He fled to South Africa while on bail before he could be imprisoned, apparently believing Mugabe was planning his death. He returned to Zimbabwe in December 1998, after a meeting with Nelson Mandela. Banana was sentenced on January 18, 1999 to ten years in jail, nine years suspended and he was also defrocked. He served two years in prison before being released in January 2001, and died of cancer in 2003 in London, according to the Zimbabwean High Commissioner. The Guardian Unlimited, however, claims that Banana had travelled to South Africa, where he eventually died, in order to receive appropriate treatment for his cancer.[1] He was buried in Zimbabwe without the full honours expected to be accorded a former head of state.[2] His wife, Janet Banana, sought asylum in Britain in October 2000.[2]

Ray Comfort would die for this man's name.

Date: 2008/03/28 08:55:30, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Hermagoras @ Mar. 27 2008,23:13)
larrynormanfan ain't no tard    

kairosfocus said:
Christian = Nazi. Sure!

Quite right: I agree totally. To say that Christians are fascists, or that Christianity is like fascism, is idiotic.
Just as idiotic, in fact, as the claim that Darwinism leads to Nazism.

Yeah?  Can anybody name a prominent Fascist, present or past, who WASN'T a Christian?

Didn't think so.

Try this: Virtually all Fascists were Christian, but not all Christians are Fascists.

Date: 2008/04/02 01:57:54, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Dembski's respect for The Truth:  
What an incredible comparison. D’Souza here gives no evidence of knowing even the rudiments of the debate over ID — he merely repeats the worst propaganda against ID. I encourage anyone who has personal contact with him to provide him with better information. A point of leverage is that D’Souza presumably wants Christians, many of whom support ID, to buy his book.

Right!  Don't attempt to sway him with evidence, do it the ID Way - use extortion and intimidation.  "Want to feed your family Mr. D'Souza?  Then you'd better support ID."  Then O'Leary chimes in, "And buy my book!"

Date: 2008/04/05 21:04:44, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (olegt @ April 05 2008,11:37)
Quote (Bob O'H @ April 05 2008,02:25)
Bob O'H could be quite an educational resource at Uncommon Descent. Unfortunately, I don't think scordova has his listening ears on.

This is Sal we're talking about.  Does he have listening ears?

He does.  However, they only deploy under hard kicking.

Great Omnipotent Cat!  From hard kicking:        
Also, if I move an object, does its gravitational field not have an instantaneous effect on objects around it, thus the surrounding objects have causal connection faster than the speed of light?
Is there a corresponding issue with coulomb forces acting at a distance?
In elementary Electro-Dynamics, we modeled coulomb forces (say from a point charge) as acting instantaneously. Is it simply a matter that maybe I need a little more advanced knowledge in Electromagnetic Theory to see that the field generated by a coulomb force from a moving point charge will not be instantaneously propagated along with the point charge…

Where to even begin?  Ordinarily I'd suggest reading an introductory book on relativity written for laymen.  They will tell you that gravitational attraction and electric forces are unable to move faster than the speed of light.  In your case though, I think some of your underlying problems will have to be dealt with before any useful knowledge will be allowed into your understanding.

Date: 2008/04/05 21:07:00, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Oh jeeze, I missed this:  
I never got around to asking my E&M professors this question as an undergrad, I was too busy just trying to learn the basic concepts to bother them with this…so maybe a little more study on my part will be the cure.

Nothing being able to exceed the speed of light is one of the most basic parts of relativity theory, Sal.

Date: 2008/04/10 00:32:59, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Young Salvadore Screws Up

Though few will believe it, Salvadore Cordova's scholarship is sometimes less than perfect.  An example can be found here:                
As an aside, Fisher’s theorem was controversial and misunderstood until the Creationist George R. Price reformulated it. The new version of Fisher’s Fundamental Theorem by creationist George Price can be found at Wiki here.  

Hmmm... George R. Price, creationist?  A creationist making a major contribution to a subject that he by definition doesn't even believe in?  Doesn't sound too likely.  Let's look at the wiki article that Salvadore quotes from.  Here's a clue, in the first paragraph:                
A troubled man, Price converted to Christianity from atheism, and after giving all his possessions to the poor, committed suicide.  
 Okay, he was a Christian when he killed himself.  But apparently that was only a late phase in his life, for the same article states                
In 1947 he married Julia Madigan, but their relationship was contentious because George was a militant atheist whilst his wife was a practicing Roman Catholic.  
 His conversion was evidently a little dramatic:                
On 6 June 1970, Price had a religious experience and became an ardent scholar of the New Testament. He believed that there had been too many coincidences in his life. In particular, he wrote a lengthy essay entitled The Twelve Days of Easter, arguing that the calendar of events surrounding Jesus of Nazareth's death in Easter Week was actually slightly longer. Later he turned away from Biblical scholarship and instead dedicated his life to social work, helping the needy of North London.  
 So he was a liberal Christian.  But a creationist?           
He then dedicated his life to helping the homeless, and invited many homeless people to live in his house. Sometimes, when the people in his house became a distraction, he slept in his office at the Galton Laboratory. At one point a violent man whose partner he had helped escape caused trouble at the office, however, he was able to smooth this over with the lab.

He was eventually thrown out of his rented house due to a construction project in the area, which made him unhappy because he could no longer provide housing for the homeless. He moved to various squats in the North London area, where he committed suicide with a pair of nail scissors by slashing his throat at Christmas 1974. Friends said he committed suicide because of despondency over his inability to continue helping the homeless.
Ugh!  Slashing his throat with a pair of nail scissors!  Okay, Mr. Price ended his days as a Christian, but where did Mr. Cordova get the idea that he was a creationist?

Here's a clue: Type "George Price" into Wikipedia's search box.  You get this response:                  
George Price is the name of:

George Price (New Yorker cartoonist) (1901–1995)
George B. Price, (born 1929) U.S. Army brigadier general, retired
George Cadle Price (born 1919), former prime minister of Belize
George E. Price, member, West Virginia Senate 1885 to 1889.
George Lawrence Price (1898–1918), the last Commonwealth of Nations soldier killed in combat during World War I
George McCready Price (1870–1963), Canadian creationist            <<<<<<<<<<----- CLUE! CLUE! CLUE!
George R. Price (1922–1975), US scientist, evolutionary theorist.

So young Salvadore made a very common error.  Honestly, who doesn't occasionally mistake a Canadian Seventh-Day Adventist Creationist nutbag for a troubled scientist who converts to Christianity and then cuts his throat with a pair of nail scissors when he can't make it work.  Any ID scholar could make that kind of mistake.

Edited to bold "CLUE!".

Date: 2008/04/11 00:09:47, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Here's a perfect test case for the explanitory filter:

Radivoje Lajic: The man who attracts meteorites

It seems that Mr. Lajic, a Bosnian, has had his house hit by meteorites five times.  Says Mr. Lajic, “I am obviously being targeted by extraterrestrials. I don’t know what I have done to annoy them but there is no other explanation that makes sense. The chance of being hit by a meteorite is so small that getting hit five times has to be deliberate.”

So what do you think, Dr. Dr. Dembski?  Chance?  Law?  Or does Some Designer really hate Radivoje's guts?

Mr. Radivoje, in the meantime, has put a "steel girder reinforced roof" on his  house.

Date: 2008/04/15 00:12:31, Link
Author: CeilingCat
kairosfocus to leave us?  
Now, on why I have taken the effort to make this now extended — and BTW, drawing to a conclusion (have patience, soon you will not have to “bother” with me here at all . . .) — blog visit to UD:

Are we going to lose kf?  What will the world do for jocularity?

Date: 2008/04/15 04:54:34, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (didymos @ April 15 2008,02:45)
Has anyone done a study on the efficacy of prayer in causing a proximate terminal condition?

That's called "Imprecatory Prayer" and it's about as effective as any other kind of prayer.

Look here for a rather disgusting example, directed towards Americans United for Separation of Church and State.  He's nice enough to give some Bible verses supporting IP.

A Google search will turn up a few dozen other examples.

Hmm, this looks interesting:(From the above site)
Everyday telephonic prayer meeting (for those who want to pray)

Every Day 5:00 to 6:00 a.m. Pacific time zone

Call- 1-605-772-3900

Put in access code # 399430

(Come on the telephone line for a few minutes or all of the time, but let us all pray.

Discussion on this event can be heard daily Monday through Thursday at 9:00 am PST "The Wiley Drake Show" on Let us pray and see what our God will do.

Yes, let us see what he will do.

I wonder if a group of believers praying for God to kill someone would constitute a threat, legally?  Would it be the equivalent of trying to hire a hit man?  As many people have discovered the hard way, even if the hitman you try to hire turns out not to be a hit man and is really an undercover cop, you're still busted.  Could Pastor Wiley get out of trouble by admitting that God doesn't really exist and his whole show is a scam?

Edited to add ruminations on hiring godly hit men.

Date: 2008/04/15 06:18:51, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Ben Stein Watch

Ben's not JUST a creationist crank.  He's also an economist nutjob.

Last paragraph:  
Incidentally, does anybody have a clue what Stein might be talking about when he says that "Paulson's proposals divert the nation from such urgently needed measures as real solvency guarantees for the banks"? Is a "real solvency guarantee" the acceptable way of saying "bank bailout" in much the same way as "intelligent design" is simply a confusing way of saying "creationism"?

Date: 2008/04/16 01:11:48, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Some of our younger readers weren't around 20 years ago when the first IBM clones were being made.  To make a PC clone, you must have a BIOS chip with code that operates the keyboard, mouse, disk drives and etc exactly like the IBM bios does.

The problem is that you can't look at the IBM BIOS chip for ideas or the entire IBM legal department will jump on your neck for copyright violation.

Here's the solution that several companies came up with and which passed all legal challenges:

First, get TWO teams of programmers.  One is allowed to look at / dissassemble the original IBM code.  The second group writes your new BIOS code.

Second, the two teams are not allowed to communicate with each other in any way except through a third person who relays questions and answers between them.

Third, the two groups are put in separate rooms.  The first group reads the IBM BIOS code and tells the go-between that, for instance, we need a function that is called at address so and so and does this and that.  The go-between tells the second group to write some code that is called at address so and so and does this and that.  If the second group has any questions, they are given to the go-between who sends them to the first group and relays any answers back to the second group.

EVERYTHING is thoroughly documented!

Finally, repeat until all functions in the IBM BIOS are implemented in your BIOS.

If you do everything above, and document the hell out of the process, you wind up with a BIOS that you can call your own and which even the crack IBM legal team can't stop.  We know this because they tried.

The odds that Premise media used the above procedure exceed the Universal Probability Bound.

Date: 2008/04/17 01:04:54, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 16 2008,15:58)
DaveTard gets snarky with one of UD's 4 advertisers..

Dr. Dr. Bill gets snarky too.
Gerry: Watch the religious moralizing — I have very little patience for it. I know the case in question, and it is a matter of getting the ID research done in a hostile environment.

And Gerry Rzeppa gets a little snarky right back:    
As a Christian his job is to make disciples of all nations, love his wife, his kids, fellow believers, neighbors, etc. It’s certainly not his responsibility to take up a career that requires frequent and sustained lying to assist the secular government in the management of the unregenerate.

And ditto for frequent and sustained lying to advance a fraudulent pseudo-science.

Date: 2008/04/17 06:23:46, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Going to the movies tomorrow?  I am.  I'm going to buy a ticket to "Leatherheads", but I just might accidently veer into the wrong theater and see "Expelled".

Just in case, I've printed some of these up:

Want more information on Darwin and Hitler?

(I also include the http:whack whack, but left it off here because the blog software goes ape and destroys the formatting.)

If you use 8 point type and print them two across, you can fit 30 of them on an 8 x 10 sheet of paper.  I plan to scatter them like confetti.  

Do check out the secularhumanism url.  It's an eye-opener for just about everybody.  Show it to your Christian friends.  And does anybody have any suggestions for other URLs to add?

And now I'm off to Kinkos to use their paper cutter.

Date: 2008/04/18 02:22:38, Link
Author: CeilingCat
We've got a possible kairosfocus sighting in the wild.  I count 53 pages.  P.Z. points to another post of  his which is 18 pages long.

Are there any kairosfocus researchers here who can comment on the wording to see if they're similar?  I just can't bring myself to read him - I have a delicate stomach and too much tard inevitably leads to projectile vomiting.  I know KF can't do all the stupid html tricks on UD, so we can't compare them.

By the way, does anybody remember the classic cut-n-paste spammer from usenet about 15 years ago?  I think his last name was Winter.  I used to read usenet threads by just letting them scroll by at 2400 baud and I could always tell when a Winter post was coming because this absolutely solid wall of text would start rising from the bottom of the screen and not a single word made sense.  I don't think that was kf, but possibly a relative?

Date: 2008/04/18 02:28:01, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Louis: I've got to be honest, if I have contributed one thing to AtBC it is the creation/reinforcement of the "rugby player = pervert" meme.

I'm so proud.

I used to have a rugby player for a roommate, long long ago.  He was pretty cool.  We never had to feed him because Rugby players eat their dead.

Date: 2008/04/20 14:59:43, Link
Author: CeilingCat
I saw Expelled at the 3:00 pm matinee yesterday (Saturday).  There were a total of 13 people in the theater.  This is at a multiplex in a fair sized midwestern city, total population about 3-4 hundred thousand including suburbs.  It's playing in three theaters in this town.

I have to give the Expelled producers credit - they started to quote mine in almost the first scene.  They have ether P.Z. Meyers or Richard Dawkins saying something to the effect that "Evolution is only the first step in the war."  I'm sure everybody in the audience but me thought he was talking about a war on religion.  I'm equally sure that he was really talking about right wing religion's war on science.

They do use the "Imagine" song in the film and I also recognized "Spirit in the Sky" by Norman Greenbaum.  There were a lot of other songs I didn't recognize.  The credits list about a dozen songs and also list somebody in charge of song rights, so they probably licensed them properly.

I'm not familiar enough with the XVIVO animation to say if theirs was a copy of it or original.

Didn't hear enough comments from the audience to judge their reactions.  Average age was probably 50+.

It would take a second documentary at least twice as long as Expelled to thoroughly cover the lies and mistakes in that movie.  It's the same old story - you can tell a lie in one sentence that requires a two hour lecture to educate the average person enough to appreciate how and why it's wrong.

Date: 2008/04/21 02:20:43, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 20 2008,15:06)
I hope you said "one for Forgetting Sarah Marshall, please!" when you bought your ticket?

(Jumps)  Are you psychic?

Date: 2008/04/22 06:20:43, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Guthrie:  I recently re-read "A fall of moondust"

Was that the one about the ship that sailed on the lunar dust and sank?  I remember that from my childhood - first class SF!  I also think it may have been instrumental in convincing creationists that the moon should be covered with hundreds of feet of dust.

Date: 2008/04/22 06:30:37, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Hector Avalos confirms "Expelled" is a bomb.  The bad news is at Box Office Mojo: They took in $1,205,000 Friday, $990,000 Saturday and $775,000 Sunday.  That's a loooonnngg way from Faherenheit 911!

Avalos also directs us to the Iowa State Daily for a "close up" look at the debute in Gonzalez's home town.

I wrote this reply to the article, although it hasn't made it through moderation yet:  
Dr. Gonzalez states that he was "shocked" to learn that he didn't achieve tenure.  How was this possible, Dr. Gonzalez?  You were on a tenure path at Iowa State for seven years.  You received yearly reviews.  Surely people at those reviews told you that you were missing the requirements for tenure by miles.  You knew that attracting grants and telescope time was vital for achieving tenure, but you were never able to think up a research project good enough to attract grants or telescope time.  Didn't you notice that you weren't bringing any money in and never got to use a telescope?  Helping graduate students attain degrees is another important factor in achieving tenure.  Didn't you notice that not a single one of your graduate students attained a degree in your seven years at Iowa State?

Professor Gonzalez, I think you realized years ago that you weren't going to earn tenure.  I think that's why you wrote "Privileged Planet".  "Martyr" sounds better than "academic failure".

Date: 2008/04/22 06:45:52, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Arthur Kaplan: Worse yet, while frowning at Darwin’s statute in a manly fashion, Stein makes no mention of the key factors driving Nazi ideology — racism, homophobia and hatred of the mentally ill and disabled.

Even worse, he leaves out the number one cause of murderous anti-semitism, a group that was hating Jews 2000 years ago and which has been slaughtering them in wholesale lots for the last thousand years: Christianity. And not just any old Christians, either.  A few liberal Christians did oppose the Nazis.  Hitler killed about 600 of them.  The Conservative Christians were enthusiastic supporters of the Nazi party.
ALL of the top Nazis and all of their minions were Christians.  Hitler only got into power because the Roman Catholic church dismantled the Catholic Zentrum party in return for money and recognition.

See here for the gory details of Hitler and Christianity's role in his rise.

Date: 2008/04/23 01:10:49, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ April 22 2008,22:55)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ April 22 2008,20:30)
Has the Trinity Broadcasting Network interview with Ben Stein been posted yet?  Watch it here

Click on the April 21st edisode of Behind the Scenes with Paul Crouch Jr (I guess he's the son of the crazy woman with crazy big hair).

Did you guys already know about this interview?  You have to watch it if you haven't.  Ben says they have other projects planned after this one and he says all sorts of other crazy shit.  

He's a lunatic who is out of touch with what comes out of his mouth.  Watch the interview!

I think I see their problem.  Somebody stuck an LCD TV screen in front of their lens.  And they're looking at the back end of it.

Date: 2008/04/23 03:50:28, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ April 22 2008,14:53)
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 22 2008,14:49)
There is a biblical tradition of God mandated genocide.

In the Hebrew Scriptures!

Christians usually refer to the "Hebrew Scriptures" as the "Old Testament".  Are you denying Scripture?  On second thought, don't answer that.  Nobody cares.

Date: 2008/04/23 03:52:30, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ April 22 2008,20:30)
Has the Trinity Broadcasting Network interview with Ben Stein been posted yet?  Watch it here

Click on the April 21st edisode of Behind the Scenes with Paul Crouch Jr (I guess he's the son of the crazy woman with crazy big hair).

Did anybody else's Gaydar go off as soon as Paul Crouch Jr. started talking?  Mark my words, we're going to hear about this boy someday.

Date: 2008/04/23 23:54:32, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Venus Mousetrap @ April 23 2008,14:43)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 23 2008,08:47)
Clearly all pretensions that ID is science, or that UD is a site for discussion of that science, have been dropped. Dr. Dr. D has a new post up at UD, entitled "New Website About Atheism". And one of the choir chimes in with this        
I bet that the other side would not advertise a new ID web site! We are not afraid.

So the relationship of atheism to this allegedly scientific debate is what, exactly? And the "other side" is who, exactly?

I don't believe Dr Dr Dembski has read the site. I just did, and it is a nicely factual review of atheism - no bias, no spin... it could even turn undecided people toward atheism.

I posted a comment on UD to this effect, but I guess I got put into their reality filter because none have shown up lately.

Rupert Sheldrake told Dempski about that blog.  Dembski was just passing the info along as a courtesy to a fellow screwball.

Rupert Sheldrake is "one of the world’s most innovative biologists".  It says so right here on his own blog.  He's the Isaac Newton of ... erm ... morphic fields and morphic resonance.  Like Dr. Dr. Dempski, he is not allowed to dine in the Baylor cafeteria.

Date: 2008/04/24 03:36:50, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Bad news for Expelled
There is no fixed amount of permitted usage that is set forth in the fair use statute and the cases do not define any fixed amount of usage.  For those who continue to believe in the absolutely false and incorrect belief that there is any fixed amount of usage that will be acceptable under the fair use doctrine (read the numerous articles on my site dealing with fair use but especially “Fair Use: Further, Further Issues.”  Click on “Articles for Writers and Publishers”), a case from the Sixth Circuit should give you nightmares.

       In Bridgeport Music, Inc. et. al. vs. Dimension Films et. al., the Court found that the use of 3 notes, lasting 2 seconds, from a sound recording called “Get Off Your Ass and Jam” (“Get Off” in the opinion) in the track called “100 Miles and Runnin” (“100 Miles” in the opinion) contained in the sound track of a motion picture called “I Got the Hook Up” (“Hook Up” in the opinion) was not fair use.
In other words, the appellate Court found that the standard that might otherwise be applied in determining whether a use was a fair use, a standard that looked to the quantity of material taken from the protected work, was not applicable to the taking of material from a protected sound recording.
In a footnote, the Court stated:
“In most copyright actions, the issue is whether the infringing work is substantially similar to the original work. . . . The scope of inquiry is much narrower when the work in question is a sound recording. The only issue is whether the actual sound recording has been used without authorization. Substantial similarity is not an issue . . . .” Bradley C. Rosen, Esq., 22 CAUSES OF ACTION § 12 (2d ed. 2003).

On the other hand, I remember reading an article on a commercial disk copying program back in the eight bit computer era that opened up with a sample from a Walt Disney pirate song and they apparently got away with it.

Still, my advice is to apologize and settle out of court.  I think Jesus had some similar advice:

Matthew 5:25 Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison.

But What Would Jesus Know about that?

Date: 2008/04/24 03:59:44, Link
Author: CeilingCat
We are disappointed therefore that Yoko Ono and others have decided to challenge our free speech right to comment on the song Imagine in our documentary film.

I'll bet his iPOD is filled with songs he has a free speech right to comment on.

Date: 2008/04/25 02:01:52, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Charimand Dr. Dr. Bill expounds:  
This is the same Dawkins who in books and videos rails against religious people for their credulousness and stresses the need in science and all aspects of life to examine things closely and follow the evidence. So, what is the evidence that this letter is genuine?
Well, since you asked, Dawkins has never been caught in a  lie.  You, on the other hand ... does the phrase "street theater" ring a bell?

Date: 2008/04/25 02:16:51, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Dr. Dr. Bill sticks his foot in it again
Ben Stein's new movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" opens this weekend in theaters. It explores the widespread persecution -- destruction of livelihoods, careers and reputations -- of scientists who doubt Darwin's theory of evolution and think intelligence is needed to explain life's origin and development.
Could somebody refresh my memory on which scientist Bill reported to Homeland Security for talking like an Old Testament prophet?

Date: 2008/04/28 04:49:33, Link
Author: CeilingCat
You just can't make this stuff up:  
The Return of BA77: I even ended up going down the street that evening, stopping complete strangers on the street, trying to tell them I had just seen a miracle, on the T.V. show ALF, with ants and singing and dancing.
Welcome back, bornagain77, your unique wisdom was really missed.

Date: 2008/05/02 03:48:46, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Rats!  I was going to watch Expelled again tonight, but it closed yesterday.

Date: 2008/05/03 04:57:31, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Gerry Rzeppa:        
Perhaps you could tell me, then, why one man is a hero while another is a coward. And how we might modify the latter to behave like the former.

Gerry, if you want an explanation of the nuts and bolts of how characteristics like courage and group loyalty are passed on genetically, you'll need to wait a few years.  But if you doubt that such qualities can be bred into an animal, and are therefore material in nature, talk to an animal breeder.

Given recruits who have at least normal amounts of bravery, military trainers go to great lengths to extend the group loyalty most of us are born with to extend to the people in the soldier's unit so a soldier will  instinctively sacrifice himself to save his buddies just like a mother will instinctively sacrifice herself to save her child.

You think his surviving was a miracle?  
From the article you referenced:    
Such is the level of courage required for the medal that it is estimated that the chances of surviving an act worthy of its award are one in ten.

One in ten?  You set very low standards for miracles.

Hey, what was your question for Dawkins

Date: 2008/05/07 06:02:59, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Hermagoras @ May 06 2008,17:37)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 06 2008,16:38)
Quote (olegt @ May 06 2008,16:28)
BarryA is a tard.  His example supposedly proving the existence of an absolute moral standard is sex with little children.  In Barry's view, there is no reason to consider it a bad idea other than god told us not to.  Hey Barry, if you flexed your considerable brain muscle, maybe you could figure out that such an activity hurts little children, both physically and psychologically?  That didn't occur to you, did it?  

And while we're on the subject of absolute, immutable, set-in-stone moral standards, what's with the age of consent?  It used to be moral to get a 12-year-old bride in Christian medieval England, remember?  Is it still moral or has morality evolved?

Probably in biblical times and in biblical countries also. I'm thinking an early start was necessary given life expectancy in those days...

If Mary existed, she was probably 13 or so when she birthed Yahweh Jr. Which makes God a child abuser.

From here:          
From: Pixy Morgan <>
Subject: Marriage age of women in colonial times
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 18:25:06 -0600

Hi. The Middle Tennessee Genealogical Society Newsletter, March 1999
issue, had a really good article, "The Status of Women in Early
America". It discusses in detail that status of our ancestral
grandmothers...."Under the common law of England, persons might marry at
age of 21. With consent of the parents (which meant the consent of the
father), a male might marry at the age of 14 and a female at the age of
12. If either had been previously married, their minority was
considered to have been removed and parental consent was not required to

The Age of Consent in Iowa was 14 until a few years ago.  It's 16 now, but        

Section 709.4 states; "A person commits sexual abuse in the third degree when the person performs a sex act under any of the following circumstances..." 2© "The other person is fourteen or fifteen years of age and any of the following are true..." (3) "The person is in a position of authority over the other person and uses that authority to coerce the other person to submit. (4) The person is four or more years older than the other person."

and therefore
The interpretation of Iowa law is that the age of pure consent is 16. But sexual acts involving a 14 or 15 are permissible so long as the older person is not more than four years older than the younger, the older is not related to or living with the younger, and the older is not in authority.

Of course, Mohammed was famous for marrying a thirteen year old - but I'm sure he had her father's permission.

Canadian Journalists might take note that the age of consent for anal sex in Canada is higher than for the regular kind.

Date: 2008/05/07 06:35:26, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Paul Nelson pimps a book on ID theories going back millenia.

But I thought ID was supposed to be a brand new theory freshly risen to challenge tired old Darwinism.  According to Paul, it's a reaaallly old, worn out theory that has been replaced and should be ignored?  

[Whispers] Paul, didn't you get the message?

Date: 2008/05/08 02:37:07, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Annyday @ May 08 2008,02:06)
I like how Barry says that anyone who thinks that it's possible to think that infanticide is moral is lying. That's quite a way to insulate oneself from criticism. "I am self-evidently right; anyone who disagrees must be lying." Counterexamples of people who clearly thought infanticide was a good thing under certain circumstances, such as when the kid was unlucky enough to be in Hiroshima or born to Jewish or bourgeois or Tutsi parents? Well, I'm self-evidently right, so they must have known they were in the wrong even if they gave every indication that they do not. Infanticide via exposure or willful starvation been a common and accepted custom in many parts of the world? Self-evident. Trust me.

PSALMS 137:9 How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones against the rock.

Date: 2008/05/13 06:27:41, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Lost in translation:

Denyse on UD: "The Spiritual Brain shortlisted for three Write! Canada awards"

Wow!  Three nominations for awards!  And national awards too!  Pretty impressive.

Denyse on her blog: "According to today's release from The Word Guild, The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul is shortlisted in Book-Culture, Book-General Readership, and Book-Leadership/ Theoretical, in the Canadian Christian Writing Awards."

Oops!  Nothing to brag about.

Date: 2008/05/25 16:02:09, Link
Author: CeilingCat
The Weed of Tard bears bitter fruit.

Sal, you never should have brought Frank Tipler to UD's attention.  Now they're all quoting him and ID looks dumber every day.

ATTENTION DAVE REDFORD: There are TWO multiverse theories.  The one hawked by David Deutsch is Hugh Everett's "every time there's a quantum event, the universe splits in two" multiverse theory.  That's often referred to as the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

The multiverse theory that might help explain the "fine tuning" problem is the one where new universes split off from this one on occasion, not umpeen gazillion times per femtosecond ala Drs. Everett and Deutsch.

Key difference: In Many Worlds, each universe has the same laws of physics.  In Multiverse, each universe has its laws of physics assigned more or less at random and they very radically from universe to universe.

Date: 2008/05/27 00:04:54, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (sparc @ May 26 2008,23:41)
Lots of 17 year old American males are convinced of their innate awesomeness and that with sufficient dedication and a bit of providence, they can be superhero ninja genius bad-asses
17? OK if he'd be 10 or 12. But 17? Completely retarded.

Could you quantify that retardation on a scale of zero to Salvador?

Date: 2008/05/29 01:50:39, Link
Author: CeilingCat
More bad news for Dave dept.:

A difference in the way British and American ships measured the temperature of the ocean during the 1940s may explain why the world appeared to undergo a period of sudden cooling immediately after the Second World War.
The record for sea-surface temperatures shows a sudden fall after 1945, which appeared to go against the general trend for rising global average temperatures during the past century.

However, an international team of scientists has investigated the raw data from the period. They found a sudden increase from 1945 onwards in the proportion of global measurements taken by British ships relative to American ships.

The scientists point out that the British measurements were taken by throwing canvas buckets over the side and hauling water up to the deck for temperatures to be measured by immersing a thermometer for several minutes, which would result in a slightly cooler record because of evaporation from the bucket.

The preferred American method was to take the temperature of the water sucked in by intake pipes to cool the ships' engines. Those records would be slightly warmer than the actual temperature of the sea because of the heat from the ship, the scientists said.

Taking into account the difference in the way of measuring sea-surface temperatures, and the sudden increase in the proportion of British ships taking the measurements after the war, the result was an artificial lowering of the global average temperature by about 0.2C, said Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia in Norwich.

First he's kicked out of the uber-secret inner inner circle and now this.

Date: 2008/06/01 01:30:49, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Will somebody pleeeaze go to Rupert Sheldrake's 'scienfic paper' "Testing a Language - Using a Parrot for Telepathy" and take a photo of Table 1 and post it here?  You won't be disappointed.

Special thanks to DaveScot for bringing Dr. Sheldrake to my attention and to google for finding this fine piece of ID research.  ID science is not solely religious in nature.  A lot of it is just whacked.

PS: Denyse, please don't! work with parrots!  The world is not quite ready for your data.

Date: 2008/06/05 00:44:17, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Olegt writes: Ladies and gentlemen, JOEI is back! TADA!  

The editorial board is headed by Gloppy as Editor in Chief with the rest of the EIL (Dembski, Sewell and two recent additions) in tow.  Papers are being accepted now!

I like good ol' Norm:  

Norman C. Griswold, Ph.D.    
Halliburton Professor of Electrical Engineering
Senior TEES Fellow
Texas A&M University (retired)
Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering,Baylor University
Norman_Griswold -at -Baylor dot edu

Date: 2008/06/05 05:23:49, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Denyse O'Leary suspends comments in order to protect the commenters!

Denyse O'Leary, internationally renowned Toronto Based Journalist and Freedom Fighter has suspended comments on all of her blogs - but only to protect the commenters.

It seems that a writer, Mark Steyn, is being hauled before the Canadian Human Rights Commission for hate speech - he quoted a Muslim saying something that another Muslim took a dislike to and has been hauled before the Commission - which has a 100% conviction rate.

Says Denyse, "This "human rights" situation is the reason I disabled the comboxes at my blogs recently. The galloping rate at which "human rights" commissions will hear cases of people claiming to have been offended by something they read leaves me with little choice. As a writer, I must subject myself to that risk, but cannot ethically subject others - not until or unless these commissions are relieved of most of their current responsibilities - including all responsibility for policing Internet content."

You see, if she wrote something for you, you'd be in ... wait, that's not right.  If she allowed you to write something that offended a Muslim, then you'd be in trouble and it would be her ... wait, that's not right either.

You see, if she was to write one of the typically brainless things she is in the habit of writing and you showed why it was brainless and it offended her, she could have you hauled up before the Human Rights Commission.  Well, that's closer anyway.

Link - you'll have to scroll down.

As near as I can tell, she wrote this at 9:51 am, June 4th.

Being ever-so-slightly more aware of things than Denyse, Ed Brayton wrote about it on May 27.

edited to correct date

Date: 2008/06/05 05:44:51, Link
Author: CeilingCat
The REAL Originator of ID Speaks Up

From an ad on Coliding Universes, a blog by a Famous Toronto Based Journalist:  
From the originator of ID
theory: "Science Declares Our Universe Is Intelligently Designed"

You see, he thought up the GID ID model, not "the inadequate mostly insignificant and highly criticized Johnson-Dembski-Behe theory (RID) as championed by members of the Discovery Institute."  Ditto for those pikers at Wikipedia, too.

You see, GID "contradicts much written there about intelligent design. GID analysis employs an interpretation of the General Theory of Everything (a cosmogony), the GGU-model (General Grand Unification Model)."  So there!

ID Science Marches On!

Date: 2008/06/06 00:01:43, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 05 2008,12:48)
WmAD is pissed!!
Colorado Governor Bill Ritter’s signing of a transgender anti-discrimination bill points up the lunacy that ensues in a world without design

Great, just great! The cross-dressers can now eat in the Baylor cafeteria and he still can't.  And, to add insult to injury, he can't make fun off them anymore, either.  Damn liberals! Always screwing up his fun!

If Dembski showed up at the Baylor cafeteria in a dress, I'd let him in.

Date: 2008/06/06 00:17:38, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 05 2008,18:48)
My take on Stylus

Still no joy on getting it running here.

From comment #2:    
sparc Says:
June 5th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
It may have escaped your notice but PLOSone offers the opportunity to add comments on their papers. Just click “start a discussion” over there.

Be gentle.

edit: oops, he done did dat.

Date: 2008/06/06 00:25:04, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Never read O'Leary while eating or drinking:
No, evolution today means that apes should have human rights but humans shouldn’t.

Anybody know how to get a fishstick out of your sinus cavity?

Date: 2008/06/06 00:26:59, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (k.e.. @ June 06 2008,00:18)
Quote (CeilingCat @ June 06 2008,08:01)
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 05 2008,12:48)
WmAD is pissed!!
Colorado Governor Bill Ritter’s signing of a transgender anti-discrimination bill points up the lunacy that ensues in a world without design

Great, just great! The cross-dressers can now eat in the Baylor cafeteria and he still can't.  And, to add insult to injury, he can't make fun off them anymore, either.  Damn liberals! Always screwing up his fun!

If Dembski showed up at the Baylor cafeteria in a dress, I'd let him in.

Yeah he could wear that low cut knitted affair.....very haut couture. It must be the only one in existance.

There are others, but their owners have learned to avoid cameras.

Date: 2008/06/06 01:06:22, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Jeeze, I missed this right after the apes and human rights comment:
In my view, the Cardinal should have vigorously denounced what he tiptoes around. Believe me, he runs no intellectual risks in so dealing with, for example, the Big Bazooms theory of evolution.

I think she's trying to tell us she didn't evolve.

Date: 2008/06/09 03:53:18, Link
Author: CeilingCat
"I suppose this is one of the reasons ID is despised — it rips to shreds evolution’s religious pretensions," says leading ID intellectual William A. Dembski, from his office at the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Date: 2008/06/09 06:24:49, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Until he started his own blog, Mike Gene was one of the more obnoxious posters on the ARN site.  He supposedly has some knowledge of science, but you would never know it from reading his posts which tend to favor poorly thought out gotchas.  One of his favaorite gotchas, in particular, is so bad yet impresses him so much that he included a version of it in his recent book and, of course, it impressed Denyse O'Leary so much that she reprinted it on UD:            
From Mike Gene’s book, The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues:

Sometime around 1860, Asa Gray, a professor of botany from Harvard, apparently asked Darwin what it would take to convince him of design. Darwin replied:

“Your question what would convince me of design is a poser. If I saw an angel come down to teach us good, and I was convinced from others seeing him that I was not mad, I should believe in design. If I could be convinced thoroughly that life and mind was in an unknown way a function of other imponderable force, I should be convinced. If man was made of brass or iron and no way connected with any other organism which had ever lived, I should perhaps be convinced. But this is childish writing.”

Darwin is effectively stumped by the question and offers answers that he concedes as “childish.” Darwin clearly states that he needs to see an angel to be convinced of design. Apparently, this would prove the existence of the supernatural and Darwin can only view design as a supernatural phenomenon. (pp. 34-35)

Denyse: Right. Lots of science and religion profs are Darwin’s heirs, it would seem. Their world divides neatly into (1) stuff that all just conveniently happens by chance and (2) ruddy miracles.

Denyse and Mike, listen closely:

Mike and Asa Gray are asking essentially, "What kind of evidence would convince you that Darwinian evolution is wrong and an Intelligent Designer is responsible for life as we see it.  To answer this question, let's look at another great revolution in science: What kind of evidence did Einstein present to convince scientists that Newtonian Physics was wrong and that his theory provided a better explanation for how the world works?

Well, to begin with, Einstein had a theory.  That is, he had a body of interconnected ideas that collectively accounted for everything that Newton's theory explained and much more.

Secondly, Einstein's theory gave the same answers that Newton's theory gave and did it more accurately.  This is called "saving the appearances".  A rival theory must explain everything the old theory explained.

Thirdly, Einstein's theory could be used to make predictions that could be compared to actual observations to see if they agreed.

So the answer to Mike's question is: First, ID must present an actual body of theory.  Goddidit is not a theory.  Second, this body of theory must explain the same things that Newton's theories explained and, preferrably, do it better.  Third, the new theory must make predictions that can be tested and they must pass the test.

Now please tell us, Mike or Denyse: What is the body of theories that make up ID?  Show us how they can be used to correctly predict life as we see it.  And finally, show us how to use the non-existent ID theory to make predictions that can be tested against observations to see if the theory is correct.

This is why Darwin couldn't answer this question to Mike and Denyse's satisfaction.  He had just published a very thick book crammed full of theory (variation and natural selection) and data demonstrating his theory.  When asked what other theory could account for life as we know it, he couldn't think of any and was reduced to supernatural speculations.  And as he said, this was "childish writing".

Things haven't gotten any better for rival theories since 1860.  To Darwin's data, we now add copius data from the fossil record, with it's thousands of intermediate species, genetic patterns from interrelated species, molecular biology and tons of additional data.

Creationism hasn't stood still, either.  They've changed their name a couple of times.

Date: 2008/06/13 00:40:19, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Bob O'H @ June 12 2008,14:10)
What, carlsonjok, you mean here?  There's good tard for you TardMiners.  Jerry is standing up for micro-evolution, against the intellectual mass that is BA77.

Me?  I'm in a different time zone, so I'm off to bed...

I'll say!  Young Cordova:
I personally have been curious if human beings had infra-red vision once upon a time, and then slowly lost it. There is a growing spread of myopia (possibly genetic, not just environmental), so it stands to reason other functions have died including infra-red vision.
 Infra red vision/near sightedness.  What's the difference, from God's point of view?

Date: 2008/06/13 04:17:03, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 12 2008,17:50)
Woah. Batshit77s nanny filter:


Because "model" could be utter, utter filth.

Not to mention de^ad.  Getting a bit sicko there!  Uncommonly de^ad.

Date: 2008/06/13 04:25:28, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (dnmlthr @ June 13 2008,01:48)
Quote (Bob O'H @ June 13 2008,07:27)
(now, if only I had a spangly little graphic to illustrate this)

Theistic evolutionists are implacably opposed to ID (Denis Alexander, head of a Templeton funded science-religion center in Oxford recently admitted, in these very terms, that this was his view toward ID when he asked for my consent to use and edit a video of me — and you wonder why I didn’t give my permission).

Then Alexander should take a page out of the Expelled manual and claim fair use.

Date: 2008/06/14 06:51:53, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Louis @ June 13 2008,11:27)
Quote (dvunkannon @ June 13 2008,16:37)
First time posting here, please be gentle...

I love reading DrDr on UD. This is one of his great "we are now advancing to the rear" messages. Having lost in actual science, in the courtrooms and in the legislatures, the Kulturkampf will be taken to the most important battleground, Vacation Bible School.

Bill's intellectual efforts have been narrowing down and ageing down for a while. So one prong of a uni-pronged approach is avoiding all possible interactions with scientifically trained/unsaved adults, and shore up the funding base.

The next stop is Bill teaming up with Jack Chick. I really can't wait.

Gentle? GENTLE!!!!!! Why youuuuuu......

.......are most welcome, good to have you on board. Hope you enjoy your stay!



dvunkannon, a word of advice ... Louis is a very nice man, but if he starts opening a jar of mayonnaise while humming "God Save the Queen", run for your life.  (He's English.)

Date: 2008/06/17 16:24:19, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Proper use of citations, by William A. Dembski:  
*Here are some quotes from seven of Miller’s biology textbooks, textbooks underwritten with your tax dollars. As you read these quotes, ask yourself where is the “theo” in Miller’s “theoevo.”

(1) “[E]volution works without either plan or purpose … Evolution israndom and undirected.”
Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine, pg. 658 (1st edition, Prentice Hall, 1991)

(2) “[E]volution works without either plan or purpose … Evolution is random and undirected.”
Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine, pg. 658 (2nd edition, Prentice Hall, 1993)

(3) “[E]volution works without either plan or purpose … Evolution is random and undirected.”
Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine, pg. 658 (3rd edition, Prentice Hall, 1995)

(4) “[E]volution works without either plan or purpose … Evolution is random and undirected.”
Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine, pg. 658 (4th edition, Prentice Hall, 1998)

(5) “[E]volution works without either plan or purpose … Evolution is random and undirected.”
Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine, pg. 658 (5th ed. Teachers Ed., Prentice Hall, 2000)

By the way, Bill, if a student on a Pell Grant buys a copy of one of your books, are your textbooks then being underwritten by tax dollars?

Also, has any one of your books ever reached a 5th edition?

Date: 2008/06/18 14:35:11, Link
Author: CeilingCat
I love this:  
Ted Davis:
Throw in the rhetoric about “dancing on gravestones” (claims that we’re living in the last generation of evolution, claims that sound like the Millerites waiting for the second coming), and they start looking for the exits.

IDM = ID Millerites.  I like it!  Sal, Dr. Dr. D., most of the rest of you: You are IDM advocates.  Flee to the mountaintops!

Date: 2008/06/19 00:06:29, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Frank Beckwith shows why he didn't deserve tenure either:      
For example, who was the genius who told Gulliermo Gonzales it was a good idea to remain a DI fellow and publish his book before he earned tenure? Everyone knew that this was an accident waiting to happen. Imagine if GG had received wise advice from friends to resign his DI fellowship, back off the ID stuff, publish more peer-reviewed articles, apply for more grants, etc. Do you think he would be at Grove City College now? I doubt it.

The only way Gonzales would have gotten tenure would have been if he'd:

A: Come up with some kind of idea for a research project.

B: Convinced granting agencies that the idea was worth funding.

C: Convinced telescope operators that his idea was good enough to get telescope time.

D: Had at least one grad student get his PhD.

Like it or not, that's the way big time astronomy is done nowadays.  Since he did none of these things, he was justifiably let go by Iowa and is now comfortably ensconced at Grove City College, whose expectations are hopefully low enough to suit Dr. Gonzales' ID-quality intellect.  

And every time Frank Beckwith fills our browsers with poorly researched IDtard, I realize that Baylor was right when they denied him tenure and they never should have gone back on their original decision.

Date: 2008/06/19 00:21:38, Link
Author: CeilingCat
George W. Bush is an ID advocate and he’s arguably the most powerful man in the world.

US President George W Bush and his Pakistan counterpart Pervez Musharraf are regarded as most untrustworthy leaders in an opinion poll.

New York, June 17 : US President George W Bush and his Pakistan counterpart Pervez Musharraf are regarded as most untrustworthy leaders in an opinion poll.

Musharraf fared worst in the poll. Only in China, 37 percent of the people felt that he instilled confidence as a leader, outweighing 30 percent people's opinion, a poll conducted by found.

Nigeria remained divided over the Pakistani leader and the other 18 nations gave negative reactions for him in a poll conducted in 20 countries including India.

Bush got positive ratings only from India and Nigeria while respondents in Thailand shared mixed views. People from 16 of the 20 countries gave thumbs down to the US President. He also received the highest average percentage of negative ratings (67 percent).

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was not far behind the two. He got negative ratings in 13 nations. Only three nations were slightly positive while one was divided.

Date: 2008/06/20 01:44:32, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Tracy: Now ceiling cat, even though it is you who is touching me in the icon, I must argue for leniency in Beckwith's case.  If Gonzales hadn't been messing around with irrelevancies, maybe he could have accomplished these action items.

Francis Beckwith was the best legal ally ID had - a lawyer prof who made what I think is a constitutionally arguable point:  IF ID has a scientific basis independent of religion, it would be teachable below college level.  Poor Beckwith was fooled by the so-called experts, he thought that Behe and Dembski had something.

Tracy, I don't dispute the highlighted statement above.  If ID was science, it could be taught in science class.  And if cows could fly, we could teach Bovine Aerodynamics in aeronautical engineering class.  I'm glad that Poor Beckwith finally figured out that ID has no scientific basis and is actually nothing but the firm belief that there is a God and there must be some kind of proof of his existence, somewhere, somehow, someway and let's start by proslytizing the children on this and then we'll see about getting some lab work done if there's time before the Rapture.  (Buy my book.)

My general objection to Beckwith is that he seems to be rather a dim bulb.  Sure, he figured out that ID is a fraud and he's working  on ice being kinda like water, only stiffer, but that's not exactly rocket science.  Every article I've ever seen by this guy has holes in its logic big enough to drive a truck through, and in this particular case, he assumes and seems to believe the ID myth that Gonzales was canned for his ID work when the actual case was that he sucked down Iowa's salary and office space for seven years and did exactly squat.  

If anybody knows they can't hack their academic job, aren't doing the work required and are sure to be denied tenure, then becoming an ID advocate so they can shout "Discrimination!" and "Martyr!" instead of whimpering "Incompetent!" is probably a good idea, if their morals permit.  And if they really are into ID, their morals probably do permit.

I do agree with you, however, that Beckwith is the best legal mind ID has.

Date: 2008/06/25 06:58:10, Link
Author: CeilingCat
DaveTard looks for a Hi-IQ believer: And discovers Christopher Michael Langan!

This could get interesting.  Anybody who was reading ARN a few years ago knows Langan.  He managed to get himself and his girlfriend kicked off of ARN - and that ain't easy when you're an IDist!

Date: 2008/06/26 00:43:15, Link
Author: CeilingCat
I had to post that blurb on Chris Langdon in a hurry this AM so I could get to work on time.  Here's a little more background:

A couple of years ago, Dr. Dr. Dembski somehow ran across Chris Langdon.  Dr. Dr. Dembski has proven time and time again that he cannot tell the difference between a crank and a genius and he proved it again with Chris.  Langdon is the author of the "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe" or CTMU.  The CTMU is "explained" at  Here are some random excerpts (from the "CTMU Primer" at the bottom of the page):      
Reality Principle - The real universe contains all and only that which is real. The reality concept is analytically self-contained; if there were something outside reality that were real enough to affect or influence reality, it would be inside reality, and this contradiction invalidates any supposition of an external reality (up to observational or theoretical relevance). .
Syndiffeonesis - The expression and/or existence of any difference relation entails a common medium and syntax. Reality is a relation, and every relation is a syndiffeonic relation exhibiting syndiffeonesis or "difference-in-sameness". Therefore, reality is a syndiffeonic relation. Syndiffeonesis implies that any assertion to the effect that two things are different implies that they are reductively the same; if their difference is real, then they both reduce to a common reality and are to that extent similar. Syndiffeonesis, the most general of all reductive principles, forms the basis of a new view of the relational structure of reality..
Unbound Telesis (UBT) - a primordial realm of infocognitive potential free of informational constraint. In CTMU cosmogony, "nothingness" is informationally defined as zero constraint or pure freedom (unbound telesis or UBT), and the apparent construction of the universe is explained as a self-restriction of this potential. In a realm of unbound ontological potential, defining a constraint is not as simple as merely writing it down; because constraints act restrictively on content, constraint and content must be defined simultaneously in a unified syntax-state relationship.

If that's not completely clear to you, go to the web site, which has pictures.

Of course, to Dr. Dr. Dembski this made Chris Langdon at least the Albert Einstein of Information Theory and he was quickly inducted into the ISCID and, as Chris's web site states, "The CTMU: A New Kind of Reality Theory was published in the scientific journal,  Progress in Complexity, Information and Design. The abstract and full paper can be downloaded here."  Ah yes, ID science.  What wonders to behold.

Anyhoo, somehow Chris and his then girlfriend, now wife, Gina LoSasso wound up on ARN where, as they say, jocularity thus ensued.  It was a marriage made in heaven as one of the world's greatest BSers ran smack into a pack of the ID world's greatest BS ingesters and the rest of us just sat back, munched our popcorn and marveled at the free show.

Besides the CTMU follies, we got an introduction to the "Hi IQ Crowd".  These people seem to spend half their time devising and administering (for a hefty fee) IQ tests, which they then use to kick each other out of their Hi IQ clubs.  Chris took to that like a duck to water, but despite his incredible IQ he somehow managed to get himself successfully sued, probably in front of a judge who would never get into any of the Hi IQ societies.

We also found out that when the World's Smartest Man is asked to explain his theory, the proper response is, surprisingly, not to explain the theory, but to heap abuse on the questioner.

At one point Dembski got into the act, defending Chris, and I publicly called Langan a fake and the CTMU utter drivel.  For some reason, this offended Dr. Dr. D. greatly and he opined that Chris was too a genius and that Dembski could not, absolutely not, make a mistake about it.  

Unfortunately, shortly after that first Gina and then Mr. CTMU himself made such utter jerks of themselves that they were banned from ARN.  And, as I said, when an ID Believer manages to get banned from ARN, that's headline material!  

After that, we didn't hear too much from Chris and company and Dr. Dr. Dembski evidently had his eyes opened enough to stop bringing Mr. Langan up and so peace prevailed - until DaveTard discovered him again, and on Uncommon Descent to boot!  Dr. Dr. D. must be delighted.

(The geniuses at ARN somehow scrambled their database a few years ago, so their search function doesn't work for the older threads.  If anybody can find any of the threads with Chris, Gina or Dr. Dr. in them, please post the URLs here.  I'd like to put them in my digital scrap book.)

Date: 2008/06/26 00:54:33, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Oh yeah, as DT says in the original article, "Try to keep in mind this guy is an ISCID fellow along with Mike Behe, Bill Dembski, Guiellermo Gonzalez, Forrest Mims, Jay Richards, Phil Skell, Rick Sternberg, and many others in the ID movement."

I'll keep that in mind, Dave.

Date: 2008/06/26 01:00:57, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Joel scores a goal against Dave:    

Your explanation of the IQ test did little to validate it. It still falls under the third problem I listed (inability to show original thought). If the IQ test is based on the SAT test, then a well trained idiot that has learned how to beat tests can still post a high IQ. Now this might prove that he is knowledgeable and intelligent (if intelligence expels the necessity of original thought), but it shows he lacks wisdom and the ability to think for himself (not spout out pre-learned facts).
Dave's banning finger has got to be itching!  You know, there may be hope for this kid, if he can just get his mind off hoohoos.

Date: 2008/06/27 00:57:40, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Art @ June 26 2008,07:46)
CTMU/Langan threads:

Does anyone really understand CTMU?

Logical theology

More fun.

Still more.

Enough for now.

Thanks for the URLs, Art.  2002.  My, how time does fly.  I wonder if Bertvan is still alive.  She'd be pushing 90 if she is.  

I think RBH hit it on the head, regarding Mr. Langdon, in the "Still more" thread: "Chris is entranced with words, to the neglect of reality." and "Sorry, Chris. No content, no science. And that's final."

I've copied those threads and filed them under c:\ID\Tard\Tard\Tard

Date: 2008/06/27 04:14:49, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (stevestory @ June 27 2008,04:01)
If social capabilities play such an important role in engineering, you'd be crazy to hire Langan or Davetard. Might hire Gil, though. He seems like a nicer, better adjusted fella. He'd solve some problems while Davetard bragged on the internet about how fast he types C code, and Langan worked on his Cognito-Quacktastic Model of Teh Universe!!!!!!!!!11111

Dodgen is a man of some accomplishment.  Google 'gil dodgen hang gliding' and you'll find that he was the editor of "Hang Gliding" magazine for a number of years before being forced out for some unmentioned reason.  This rather implies that he has successfully hang glided numerous times in  his life, yet he is still alive.  If DaveTard told me he was going to take up hang gliding, I would buy insurance on his life with myself as the beneficiary and the denizens of this blog would give him one hell of a wake.

Date: 2008/06/28 02:07:33, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Bob O'H @ June 27 2008,09:10)
Euler made up for all of them.  Of course the kids survival rate was pretty poor.

He and the family should have moved to Texas.  Then they would have been the Houston Eulers.

Nerd Pun of the Week!

Date: 2008/06/30 02:43:31, Link
Author: CeilingCat
“I once asked a juvenile felon why he chose a life of crime. His response was chilling: “Joel, if this is all there is, why not?” Understanding Intelligent Design takes a great first step toward correcting such attitudes. Our schools indoctrinate young people into thinking that they are nothing more than products of time plus chance plus natural selection. ID, by contrast, shows that purpose must be added to this equation. This automatically gives young people a meaning to their existence, something to live for and something to seek after. For anyone who is struggling to understand our place in the cosmos or knows a young person who is, give them Understanding Intelligent Design.”
–Joel Borofsky, Worldview Blogger (

Jesus Christ on a Bicycle!  When you are reduced to quoting endorsements from Joel Borofsky ...
The next indignity is being refused service at the Brazos Barbecue.

Date: 2008/07/09 00:24:42, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 08 2008,13:30)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 08 2008,05:47)
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 08 2008,07:12)
Dave points and laughs at those icky gays having sex on a beach in Massachusetts.  His post is not all that noteworthy except that it calls to mind this little comment by Dave about his beach escapades.

jilted love is sour wine fer shore.  pore dave had to waddle back to the motel and then didn't get a call for lunch.  probably cried into his cheezy poofs all during breakfast.

Poor Dave. Jilted agin.

Tags used
turd sandwhich (39), 100 percent fact free (1), anti-science (1), apologetics (1), assinine (1), books written while high on cheeto dust (1), breathtaking inanity (1), cdesign proponentists (1), creationism (1), davescot reach-around (1), discovery institute pseudoscientific rub... (1), dog vomit (1), editor promised cake (1), evangelism (1), fugly sweater (1), ignorant (1), propaganda (1), quackery (1), religion (1), religion and politics (1)
Love it!

Date: 2008/07/09 00:28:48, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 08 2008,14:43)
This may be a good exchange:

I'm not unsympathetic to Dave's points.

Follow the golden rule and trust in the wisdom and mercy of God to treat you as you’ve treated the rest of creation.

I'm not sure I would trust a 'loving' God who, according to ID Theory, individually hand-crafted every fatal disease on earth and made us prone to cancer to boot.  Maybe I'd trust him if I was absolutely sure he was dead.

"Do you trust in the Lord God, son?"

"Pump another hundred rounds into him and see if he moves."

Date: 2008/07/10 05:59:09, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Young Salvador:      
As Darwinist John(now Joan after a sex change) Roughgarden pointed out, the persistence of homosexuality in various animals is damaging to arguments in favor of Darwinism…in a perverse sort of way, then, the persistence of homosexuality and other maladapted phenotypes is evidence against the supposed power of natural selection, and thus suggests ID is a more adequate explanation for biology….

Sal, it doesn't much matter what men do, the reproductive limits are set by women, who can only produce a few children in their lives.  Since one man can easily keep dozens of women pregnant and since humans have been polygamist through most of their history (see the Old Testament for details*), we've generally had a lot of surplus men who might as well go f--- each other, because there ain't no wimmen for them.

* Abraham, Jacob, Esau, Deut 25:5, David and Solomon to mention just a few Biblical Polygamists.  Maybe Mormonism is the true religion?  And let's not even go into concubines.

Date: 2008/07/10 06:34:50, Link
Author: CeilingCat
UD has weighed in on the Kwok-Heddle fight.  And of course, being UD, they have "settled" the argument by making an Ugly Picture of Kwok.

We can't fight these people, they're much too smart for us.  Can anybody name even one science-minded adult who would have thought this one up?

Date: 2008/07/10 06:36:35, Link
Author: CeilingCat
jeannot, I think that's a little too deep for the UD crowd.  Stick to the polygamy and maybe bring up Biblical Concubines if their attention flags.

Date: 2008/07/10 06:47:57, Link
Author: CeilingCat
UDers  (except Sal, who should look away):

Get a copy of "Why Is Sex Fun?: The Evolution Of Human Sexuality" by Jared Diamond.  Read the chapter on the incredible gymnastics a human fetus has to go through to change what would otherwise develop into a female baby into a male.  It's really a mess, with one gene on the Y chromosome causing one hormone to be expressed, which makes some changes to the fetus that causes another hormone to be expressed, which makes some changes to the fetus that causes a third hormone to be expressed, etc, etc, etc.

At the end of all that rigamarole, the female's ovarys are converted into testicles [extra points: find out what the connection is between "testicles" and "testament" and see if you ever look at the Bible the same way again], the clitoris is converted into a penis, I forget what is converted into a prostate gland and half a dozen other female-type thingys are converted into male-type thingys.

And then reflect on this: despite all this Rube Goldberg dinking around, somewhere around 90% of all men end up being attracted to women and vice-versa.  Talk about a miracle!  

You can call that evidence for Intelligent Design if you want to.  It's no worse than your other 'evidence'.

Date: 2008/07/10 06:54:18, Link
Author: CeilingCat
jeannot, one more point (Sal, look away again.  You don't want to know this)

I don't think there's a very big genetic componant to homosexuality.  I know that if you have an identical twin, and he is gay, your chances of being gay are slightly higher than average, but nowhere near certain.  And yet you and your twin have identical DNA.

I lean more towards, "Look at that!  Over 90 percent come out attracted to the opposite sex!  Amazing!"

Date: 2008/07/11 00:02:24, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Thus spake Donohue:  
Paul Zachary Myers, a professor at the University of Minnesota Morris, has pledged to desecrate the Eucharist. He is responding to what happened recently at the University of Central Florida when a student walked out of Mass with the Host, holding it hostage for several days.

The scene: a deserted factory, surrounded by police cars.  Spotlights light up a broken window on the third floor.  A voice comes from the window:

Alright, you dirty coppers, listen to me good!  Either I get fifty thousand dollars, a helicopter to Brazil and a case of diet coke or ... THE CRACKER GETS IT!!

Date: 2008/07/11 00:07:07, Link
Author: CeilingCat
.                             SALVADOR GAYNESS POLL

When will Salvador be outed?





Meth involved?

Winner gets a years subscription to Uncommon Descent.  Losers get two year subscriptions.

Date: 2008/07/13 09:06:54, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Dembski writes: At this point, a friend who was with us urged that she and my wife take our son with autism down for prayer (I stayed with our other son and daughter). Over an hour later my son with autism was still not able to get to the main floor for prayer. Ushers twice prevented that from happening. They noted that he was not in a wheelchair. Wheelchair cases clearly had priority -- presumably they provided better opportunities for the cameras, which filmed everything. They also invoked the fire marshals, who, they claimed, prohibited too many people on the floor of the arena. But earlier in the service, during the worship time, they had packed the floor with people singing and whooping it up.

This seems to be standard procedure for all accomplished faith healers.  The photogenic who have at least a chance of standing up from their wheelchairs or dropping their crutches are brought up front and the hopeless cases are kept in the back of the room, out of the bright lights and tv cameras.  The Amazing Randi wrote an article about attending a faith healer's session once and mentioned the rows of wheelchairs with hopelessly screwed up people in the darkness at the back of the room.

Date: 2008/07/14 03:32:18, Link
Author: CeilingCat
dvunkannon: "Can we invite DDrr.. Dembski, Dave and Denise to somekind of festschrift for the 1000th page of this thread?"

Could this be some sort of a "Dawning of a New Age" moment?  ATBC-OUDDT nears its thousandth page and Mike Gene calls it a day and retires from the scene?

Now if Salvador turns up in the arms of a really big guy with tatoos named "Steve" ...

Date: 2008/07/14 03:40:53, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Speaking of Dembski and the faith healer, there's one thing that has always bothered me about religion.  I first noticed it as a child when I saw a picture of a religious procession somewhere in Europe, Italy I think.  

It was a group of village people in their church clothes walking through the streets carrying a platform with the Virgin Mary on it - a 3d figure of her sitting on a chair.

In the procession were several priests, in their fanciest robes, and half of them were wearing big black Buddy Holly style glasses.

And I remember thinking then, "Wait, you're worshipping the greatest power in the universe, a Being that you claim is both all-powerful and all-knowing, a Being you're counting on to heal you while you're on earth and take you away to paradise when you die and you're praying and processing and doing every thing you can think of to make him like you and help you - and he can't even cure your nearsightedness??

Something wrong here.

Date: 2008/07/15 00:34:34, Link
Author: CeilingCat
In the "Healing" thread, Patrick comes through with a great steaming pile-o-tard.  He even seems to be talking about himself in the third person.
Lakeland is the center of Bentley’s activities in Florida, an area close to Patrick. In fact, the Church of Patrick’s own brother, Michael, is apparently being ensnared by Bentley’s enticing words, from the leadership on down to Michael’s own friends.

Date: 2008/07/16 01:30:40, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 15 2008,05:32)
Quote (CeilingCat @ July 15 2008,00:34)
In the "Healing" thread, Patrick comes through with a great steaming pile-o-tard.  He even seems to be talking about himself in the third person.            
Lakeland is the center of Bentley’s activities in Florida, an area close to Patrick. In fact, the Church of Patrick’s own brother, Michael, is apparently being ensnared by Bentley’s enticing words, from the leadership on down to Michael’s own friends.

It isn't immediately obvious, but he is quoting an article (that he did not write) from the website linked at the top of his comment.  You can also find Patrick's personal blog there.

Thanks, I missed that, possibly because of the total lack of quotes or anything else that might lead one to think the words were copied from somewhere else.

Speaking of somewhere else, that's quite a web site.  Right now, it's carrying this ad:      
Your Angel's Astrology
Revealed in a Free Horoscope, yours now from an real Expert Astrologer!
 That's an real expert astrologer, as compared to an unreal one.  This is combined with ads for "Who is Satan?", "Hulk", "Incredible Hulk Cheats" and "The Incredible Hulk Movie".  WTF?

I've often wondered if the person who named our species "homo sapiens" might have been having a little joke.

Anyhow, I have a new sig:

Ceiling Cat, ArchCardinal in the Church of Patrick.

Date: 2008/07/16 01:52:50, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Talk about damning with faint praise!  This is actually off topic, but go to Amazon, search for "The Design Matrix" and read the customer reviews.  From a favorable review by Glen Yates:
Very nearly a top-tier ID book

No wonder MikeGene is retiring from the fray.

Date: 2008/07/16 06:04:42, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Nice takedown.  Too bad bad that BarryA will never read it.

Date: 2008/07/16 06:30:52, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Denyse finds her twin:

Denyse O'Leary appears to have opened up a fresh new vein of tard.  Said tard is named Susan Mazur and she works for something called "Scoop", which is some kind of journalism outfit in New Zealand.
But the scientific community has known for some time that natural selection has nothing to do with evolution.  It also knows that self-organization is real, that is, matter can form without a genetic recipe – like the snowflake (non-living). It does this without external guidance.

     And that the Hydra (living), for example, can self-assemble its scattered cells even after being forced through a sieve. Yet, science elites continue to term self-assembly and self-organization "woo woo".
I don't actually think that science is ignorant of snowflakes and I'd hardly call the Hydra's putting itself back together again "self organization", since that term is reserved for non-living things and Hydras are made of living cells.  We're gradually learning about the chemical attractors and gradients that help cells assemble.        
Some of the Altenberg 16 or A-16, as I like to call them, have hinted that they’re trying to steer science in a more honest direction, that is, by addressing non-centrality of the gene.
 You can see how Denyse couldn't possibly resist raw uncut tard like this.  (By the way, science says the genes are central because it somehow missed "morphology", according to Ms Mazar.      
Meanwhile, Swedish cytogeneticist Antonio Lima-de-Faria, author of the book Evolution without Selection, sees any continuance of the natural selection concept as "compromise". He says Darwinism and neo-Darwinism deal only with the biological or "terminal" phase of evolution and impede discovery of the real mechanism, which is "primaeval" – based on elementary particles, chemical elements and minerals (Chapter 6, "Knight of the North Star").
This is multiple-orgasm stuff for a certain Toronto based Journalist.

Date: 2008/07/17 01:09:57, Link
Author: CeilingCat
I think there's a connection between this thread and this one.

It's certainly got to be discouraging.  Ten years in the Tard Mines and these are the best of his supporters.

Date: 2008/07/18 03:55:20, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Dembski celebrates The American Physical Society coming out against global warming!
Then we follow his link to the original article and find this at the bottom of the page:    
Update 7/17/2008:  After publication of this story, the APS responded with a  statement that its Physics and Society Forum is merely one unit within the APS, and its views do not reflect those of the Society at large.

Date: 2008/07/18 05:34:32, Link
Author: CeilingCat
I'd like to inaugurate the second coming of Uncommonly Dense by coining a new phrase, one that so often describes the ID crowd and their ilk:

argumentum ad coulter

I just googled for it and got zero hits.

Date: 2008/07/18 06:53:14, Link
Author: CeilingCat
We need one of these!  Wired magazine reports that the McCain campaign is using software from Versionista to check Obama's official web site every hour or two to "...track and cache changes to specific web pages up to an hourly basis..."

They show two versions of Obama's web page, before and after some remarks were deleted.  This could be BIG for UD watchers!  An automated Dembski tracker!  I wish I had known about this, I could have volunteered ATBC as a beta tester.
Wired article.  Versionista web site.

Date: 2008/07/20 07:42:10, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Aardvark @ July 19 2008,13:53)
Dembski links to something Anthony Flew supposedly wrote.

There's some fluff about Flew, then it starts out:

Professor Antony Flew writes:

But it gets a bit strange:

What is important about this passage is not what Dawkins is saying about Flew...

Then there's this at the end:

Note on Lord Gifford (Adam)
The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography describes Lord Gifford as ‘judge and benefactor’. He endowed lectureships at four Scottish universities ‘for promoting, advancing and diffusing natural theology, in the widest sense of that term, in other words the knowledge of God’ and ‘of the foundation of ethics.’

Am I just imagining the puppet strings?


More strangeness:    
Thus we find in his index five references to Einstein. They are to the mask of Einstein and Einstein on morality; on a personal God; on the purpose of life (the human situation and on how man is here for the sake of other men and above all for those on whose well-being our own happiness depends); and finally on Einstein’s religious views. But (I find it hard to write with restraint about this obscurantist refusal on the part of Dawkins) he makes no mention of Einstein’s most relevant report: namely, that the integrated complexity of the world of physics has led him to believe that there must be a Divine Intelligence behind it.
I've seen a lot of quotes from Einstein on God and religion, but never one like that.  Can anybody provide a link for a quote that supports this view?

Here are a few quotes from Einstein on God:  
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”

Albert Einstein, in a letter March 24, 1954; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 43.

“The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve.”

Albert Einstein in a letter to Beatrice Frohlich, December 17, 1952; Einstein Archive 59-797; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 217.

“It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems.”

Albert Einstein, 1947; from Banesh Hoffmann, Albert Einstein Creator and Rebel, New York: New American Library, 1972, p. 95.

“I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.”

Albert Einstein, upon being asked if he believed in God by Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogue, New York, April 24, 1921, published in the New York Times, April 25, 1929; from Einstein: The Life and Times, Ronald W. Clark, New York: World Publishing Co., 1971, p. 413; also cited as a telegram to a Jewish newspaper, 1929, Einstein Archive 33-272, from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 204.

“I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own — a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.”

Albert Einstein, quoted in The New York Times obituary, April 19, 1955; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Thoughts, New York: Ballantine Books, 1996, p. 134. )

“I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.”

Albert Einstein, replying to a letter in 1954 or 1955; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 39.

Many more on a similar vein are available at that site.  From what I've read, Einstein's "God" was the universe and its laws, with no hint of a conscious Being involved at any point.  I don't know what's going on in Flew's head, but I don't think he's firing on all of his cylinders any more.

"Am I just imagining the puppet strings?"
I don't think so.

Date: 2008/07/20 08:06:53, Link
Author: CeilingCat
More Flew weirdness, from the same article:      
In that monster footnote to what I am inclined to describe as a monster book – The God Delusion – Dawkins reproaches me for what he calls my ignominious decision to accept, in 2006, the Phillip E. Johnson Award for Liberty and Truth. The awarding Institution is Biola, The Bible Institute of Los Angeles. Dawkins does not say outright that his objection to my decision is that Biola is a specifically Christian institution. He obviously assumes (but refrains from actually saying) that this is incompatible with producing first class academic work in every department – not a thesis which would be acceptable in either my own university or Oxford or in Harvard.
This is sad for a philosopher.  Biola isn't Oxford, Harvard or whatever University Flew is currently affiliated with.  If you publish a book refuting Christianity, it would scarcely cause a ripple at any of those universities.  At Biola - watch out, something is going to hit the fan!  Dawkin's real assumption is that Biola never has and never will produce anything first class in philosophy or theology, which is the conservative position.
Finally, as to the suggestion that I have been used by Biola University. If the way I was welcomed by the students and the members of faculty whom I met on my short stay in Biola amounted to being used then I can only express my regret that at the age of 85 I cannot reasonably hope for another visit to this institution.
Another non-sequiter.  Yes, Professor Flew, I'm sure they treated you royally at Biola.  You're a great prize for them.  A person with an actual intellectual reputation saying something that they agree with is a great rarity indeed, scarcer than hen's teeth and definitely something to be gloated over.  I'm sure they pampered you to the max - while using you in your old age.

One other oddity: At the top of the page there's a small box with a picture of Flew and this text in it:  
Antony Flew was a lecturer at the Universities of Oxford and Aberdeen, before posts as Professor of Philosophy at the Universities of Keele and of Reading. He has now retired. He is renowned for his 1950 essay "Theology and Falsification" and his atheistic work, before announcing in 2004 his belief in a Creator God. View all resources by Antony Flew
If you click on the link, it only produces the article it's at the top of.

Date: 2008/07/20 08:18:31, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Okay, one more on Flew and Biola:  Professor Flew, Biola may have lionized you on your visit, but unless you agree one hundred percent with the following Doctrinal Statement, you will never get a job there:  
The Bible, consisting of all the books of the Old and New Testaments, is the Word of God, a supernaturally given revelation from God Himself, concerning Himself, His being, nature, character, will and purposes; and concerning man, his nature, need and duty and destiny. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are without error or misstatement in their moral and spiritual teaching and record of historical facts. They are without error or defect of any kind.

There is one God, eternally existing and manifesting Himself to us in three Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Our Lord Jesus was supernaturally conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin Mary, a lineal descendant of David. He lived and taught and wrought mighty works and wonders and signs exactly as is recorded in the four Gospels. He was put to death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate. God raised from the dead the body that had been nailed to the cross. The Lord Jesus after His crucifixion showed Himself to be alive to His disciples, appearing unto them by the space of 40 days. After this, the Lord Jesus ascended into heaven, and the Father caused Him to sit at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come, and put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him to be Head over all things to the Church.

The Lord Jesus, before His incarnation, existed in the form of God and of His own choice laid aside His divine glory and took upon Himself the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men. In His pre-existent state, He was with God and was God. He is a divine person possessed of all the attributes of Deity, and should be worshiped as God by angels and man. "In Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." All the words that He spoke during His earthly life were the words of God. There is absolutely no error of any kind in them, and by the words of Jesus Christ the words of all other teachers must be tested.

The Lord Jesus became in every respect a real man, possessed of all the essential characteristics of human nature.

By His death on the cross, the Lord Jesus made a perfect atonement for sin, by which the wrath of God against sinners is appeased and a ground furnished upon which God can deal in mercy with sinners. He redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse in our place. He who Himself was absolutely without sin was made to be sin on our behalf that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. The Lord Jesus is coming again to his earth, personally, bodily, and visibly. The return of our Lord is the blessed hope of the believer, and in it God's purposes of grace toward mankind will find their consummation.

The Holy Spirit is a person, and is possessed of all the distinctively divine attributes. He is God.

Man was created in the image of God, after His likeness, but the whole human race fell in the fall of the first Adam. All men, until they accept the Lord Jesus as their personal Savior, are lost, darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, hardened in heart, morally and spiritually dead through their trespasses and sins. They cannot see, nor enter the Kingdom of God until they are born again of the Holy Spirit.

Men are justified on the simple and single ground of the shed blood of Christ and upon the simple and single condition of faith in Him who shed the blood, and are born again by the quickening, renewing, cleansing work of the Holy Spirit, through the instrumentality of the Word of God.

All those who receive Jesus Christ as their Savior and their Lord, and who confess Him as such before their fellow men, become children of God and receive eternal life. They become heirs of God and joint-heirs with Jesus Christ. At death their spirits depart to be with Christ in conscious blessedness, and at the Second Coming of Christ their bodies shall be raised and transformed into the likeness of the body of His glory.

All those who persistently reject Jesus Christ in the present life shall be raised from the dead and throughout eternity exist in the state of conscious, unutterable, endless torment of anguish.

The Church consists of all those who, in this present dispensation, truly believe in Jesus Christ. It is the body and bride of Christ, which Christ loves and for which He has given Himself.

There is a personal devil, a being of great cunning and power: "The prince of the power of the air," "The prince of this world," "The god of this age." He can exert vast power only so far as God suffers him to do so. He shall ultimately be cast into the lake of fire and brimstone and shall be tormented day and night forever.

Explanatory Note:

This doctrinal statement, presented here as originally conceived by the founders of the organization, has been and continues to be the stated theological position of Biola University. Where “man” is used, referring to the human race, it includes both genders. In addition, the following explanatory notes indicate the organization’s understanding and teaching position on certain points which could be subject to various interpretations:

In fulfillment of God’s historical purpose for humanity to rule and establish God’s kingdom on earth (Gen. 1:28; Ps. 8:4-8; Matt. 6:10 Heb. 2:6-9), the Scriptures teach a millennial reign of Christ with his saints on earth following his literal return. The nation of Israel, having been redeemed, will play a central role in bringing the blessings of salvation to all nations during the millennium in fulfillment of biblical prophecies (e.g., Is. 2:1-4, 11:1-12; Jer. 23:5-6; Ezek. 37; Amos 9:9-15; Zech. 14; Matt. 19:28; Acts 1:6, 3:19-21; Rev. 20:4-7). Following the millennium, this kingdom will be merged into the eternal kingdom (I Cor. 15:22-28).

Before these millennial events, the believers will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air (I Thess. 4:13-17). The time of this “rapture” is unknown, and thus believers are to live constantly watchful and ready.

The existence and nature of the creation is due to the direct miraculous power of God. The origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of kinds of living things, and the origin of humans cannot be explained adequately apart from reference to that intelligent exercise of power. A proper understanding of science does not require that all phenomena in nature must be explained solely by reference to physical events, laws and chance.

Therefore, creation models which seek to harmonize science and the Bible should maintain at least the following: (a) God providentially directs His creation, (b) He specially intervened in at least the above-mentioned points in the creation process, and © God specially created Adam and Eve (Adam’s body from non-living material, and his spiritual nature immediately from God). Inadequate origin models hold that (a) God never directly intervened in creating nature and/or (b) humans share a common physical ancestry with earlier life forms.

Though there may be many fillings of the Holy Spirit, there is only one baptism which occurs at the time of regeneration. The gifts of the Spirit are given to believers according to the Will of God for the purpose of building up the Church. During the foundational era of the Church (i.e., the time of Christ and the Apostles) God gave special manifestations of the overtly supernatural and miraculous gifts (e.g., tongues, healings, miracles) as “signs” that witness to the validity of those bearing new canonical revelation (c.f. 2 Cor. 12:12; Heb. 2:3-4). Beyond the foundational era, God in His sovereignty may grant any spiritual gift and work miraculously for the benefit of His Church at any time.

The Bible is clear in its teaching on the sanctity of human life. Life begins at conception. We abhor the destruction of innocent life through abortion-on-demand.

Oh yeah, one more thing.  The last winner of the Phillip Johnson award was ... Ben Stein.  You're being used, Professor.

Date: 2008/07/23 04:20:13, Link
Author: CeilingCat
deadman_932: I don't give a shit about Bentley's tattoos or his World Wrestling Federation -style revivalist hucksterism, but *the idea that Dembski was so desperate and so fucking stupid as to bother to GO for Bentley's shit is telling,*
particularly when he was apparently already aware of the less-than-credible aspects of Bentley's little act.
Dembski is constitutionally unable to spot a con-man or a faker.  
Which explains a lot.

To his credit, he mentioned the experience on UD here  and he did say he thought this particular faker was probably a faker from the beginning.  Probably the tatoos.

Date: 2008/07/24 00:06:52, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (jeffox @ July 23 2008,07:56)
Louis wrote:

sweet little Eddie Gein over there?

FYI, "crazy ol' Eddie" lived about 2 1/2 hours east of where I am right now.  To this day, dropping his name within earshot of many Wisconsinites (/cheeseheads) will result a major conversational black hole.

Just so's ya know.    :)    :)   :)

Gotcha beat.  He lived 20 minutes south of my home town - in the town my mother was born in.  I was in grade school at the time and we innocent little tykes took it really hard.  

Typical joke:
"Did you hear about the new book by Ed Gein?"  
"No.  What's it called?"  
"How to get ahead."

It was years later that I found that my parents were checking to see if Mom's mother's grave was one of those desecrated.  It wasn't.  Nothing interesting ever happens in my family.

Meanwhile, the Gein tradition lives on in Wisconsin.

My favorite line in the above link: "Police say the three men, carrying shovels, a crowbar and a box of condoms..."

Date: 2008/07/24 00:26:13, Link
Author: CeilingCat
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (dheddle @ July 23 2008,11:32)
I'll jump in on lcd's side. These laws are for a nation that no longer exists, ancient Israel. It logically ceased to exist with the onset of Christ's public ministry (the Kingdom was, as it were, at hand) and literally ceased to exist in AD 70 when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and ransacked the temple. These laws do not apply to Christians--as is made most clear by the fact that Jesus broke or ignored his share.

As Christians, we are under Jesus' law (c.f., Matt. 5, the Sermon on the Mount) not under the civil laws for a nation of which we are not citizens.

So God used to command stoning to death for children who were stubborn, rebellious, drunkards and gluttons, but he's since changed His mind?  And this doesn't bother you?

"As for the law against "sassing children" we can assume the children were guilty of far more than that--more like a life committed to debauchery. At least that's what I infer, primarily because the parents, not the state, are the prosecutors, as the passage notes."

Hardly a capitol offense.  You're just picking and choosing what parts of the Bible you will believe.

Date: 2008/07/24 00:43:12, Link
Author: CeilingCat
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 23 2008,16:24)
It's even more obvious in this translation:
1 Tehn Judah lefted hiz brotherz and wented to stai wif one of Adullam's d00ds, Hirah.2 Judah meeted Shua there. He wuz a Canaanite wif h0t dotter. Judah WANT. They wuz married n HARBLZ WENT WHERE?3 She gotted pregnant and nameded her kitten Er.4 N she hadded a secnd kitten n nameded him Onan.
5 N a third kitten Shelah. He wuz bornd at Kezib.6 Judah wuz liek "I gots wife for u Er, her name iz Tamar."7 But Ceiling Cat was watching Er be badz! so Ceiling Cat killded him.8 Then Judah wuz liek "OK Onan, u know WHERE HARBLZ GO wif ur brother's wife. Its ur job now to make kittenz for ur brother."
9 But Onan knew that the kittenz would not be hiz (bcz thatz how Jewish law workt LOL) so he wuz all "DO NOT WANT" n soz he pulld out n got man juice on teh floorz.10 Ceiling Cat didnt likez that neithr cuz tehn no kittehz are get created. So Ceiling Cat killded him too.

I only watch the females and of those, only the good looking ones.  I avert my eyes for the rest, especially Louis.

He's British, you know.

i.e., Not American.

Date: 2008/07/24 00:52:06, Link
Author: CeilingCat
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (stevestory @ July 23 2008,21:01)
I love bashing religion as much as other people like defending it. But that's not the purpose of this board. Discussions about how great christianity is or isn't should go on the bathroom wall. When you find things have gone markedly off-topic, take it to the bathroom wall, and maybe provide a link in the original thread to your continued discussion. Such responsible behavior will make the moderators, Lou and Kristine, more kindly disposed toward you.

And read to the end of the thread before replying.  (ouch)

Date: 2008/07/29 06:35:21, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Sexy People Sound Better
By Greg Soltis, LiveScience Staff
posted: 16 July 2008 06:54 am ET

People with voices deemed sexy and attractive tend to have greater body symmetry upon close inspection, suggesting that what we hear in a person can greatly affect what we see in them.

"The sound of a person's voice reveals a considerable amount of biological information," said Susan Hughes, an evolutionary psychologist from Albright College in Reading, Pa. "It can reflect the mate value of a person."

Hughes, whose new study is detailed in the June 2008 edition of the Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, cautions that an attractive voice does not necessarily indicate that this person has an attractive face.

Greg was never on the CB.

Date: 2008/07/30 21:40:36, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 30 2008,18:28)

Looks more like The Holy Trilobite to me.

I was at the movies tonight and they were playing previews on a flat panel tv in the lobby.  I didn't get the name or the stars, but apparently a movie is coming out soon where The Face of Jesus or The Virgin Mary appears on the side of a garage and hilarity ensues.  Can't wait.

Date: 2008/07/30 21:50:17, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 30 2008,11:18)
The day that music died:

Please listen to the mp3. Imagine the creobots getting down to it at the Disco Institute Christmas disco. Don't have any fluid in your mouth / close to monitors, etc.

PS - Bob, your boyfriend's back.

Bah!  Weak beer.  If you need a hit of of twenty year old single malt bottled in Tard-Quality Music, go to The Shaggs website and click on the orange tiger-fish or whatever it is at the top of the page.  Keep the volume low, keep your finger on the mute button and maybe fill a trusted friend's ears with beeswax and station them beside the power cord with an axe.  And for dog's sake, don't wear headphones.    The Shaggs are to music as ID is to science, except they mean well.

Date: 2008/08/04 06:05:03, Link
Author: CeilingCat
That whole A Simple Gene Origination Calculation thread is an extremely rich vien of tard.

Forget the OP in which the ever reliable PaV expounds tardily, armed only with the abstract of an article.  Look instead at the comments:

2) F2XL is sharp enough to wish he/she could read the whole article, but then says, "...the conclusion they came to is a little disturbing… though it depends on what your prior philosophical commitments are on the origin of life as we know it today."  Origin of life?  WTF?

4) CEC09 pens this classic tardline: "But if 44% percent of the new genes shared by Drosophila species arose by duplication, wouldn’t the percentage for a single species be higher?"  Then he follows up with, "After all, turning a functional non-gene region into a gene would stop that region from serving its prior function. Are you concerned that this does not jibe with genetic entropy?"

6) PaV returns with "However, this mechanism presupposes that duplicated genes have no function, and are therefore free to neutrally evolve–something which is now being questioned since psuedogenes have been found to be involved in gene regulation."  Actually, PaV, duplicated genes have exactly the same function as the gene they were copied from.  But if they get zapped by a mutation, the organism doesn't miss them because the original gene is still there, doing it's thing.

7) The ever reliable bFast chimes in with, "The question is not ID vs. Darwin, the question is to what extent did the designer use the darwinian model — or as Behe so aptly put it, where is the edge of evolution?"  Actually, bF, God seems to have exactly duplicated the Darwinian model.  It's positively uncanny how close He came.

8) matthew_ackerman shows that he is not long for UD by posting an explanation of PaV's error AND mentioning the Panda's Thumb.  I doubt if he'll survive to the end of the thread.

9) zephyr then chimes in with a prediction that this paper, which is published in a scientific journal and which has already been commented on at PT "will be entirely and predictably ignored by the Darwinian priesthood."  Then he brings up Walter Remine and Haldane's Dilemma and things got all red and noisy and I went and laid down in a dark room till the ringing in my ears faded.  And still over a hundred comments to go.

Date: 2008/08/07 02:48:13, Link
Author: CeilingCat
From the "A Sociologist's Perspective ... " thread  
The OP:
theistic evolution Theistic evolutionists the existence of the moral law and the universal longing for God theological God who communicates straightforwardly through the natural sciences theology sheer faith God faith theistic evolution believe in God traditional religious people Jesus believe in Jesus clergy Vatican Church’s the church the most obscure backwoods six-day-creation crank Jesuit prof Theistic evolution sheer faith religion atheistic

First few responses:
ask a TE is he/she believes in the existence of a literal Adam and Eve Catholic Church Catholic clerics theistic evolutionists theological theistic evolution literal Adam and Eve evangelical “the Bible is the word of God inerant, accurate to the jot and tittle.” theistic evolution God theistic TE God TEs an agency model theological God built us on law alone God spiritually rewarding God religious TE TE theistic evolutionists YEC theological TEs

And that's the OP and the first 5 replies.  There are 45 others, much the same.


Date: 2008/08/08 02:16:44, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Technology comes to the aid of UD posters.
HT to Newsweek.

Date: 2008/08/18 20:31:39, Link
Author: CeilingCat
O'Leary meditates on the news:    
“The spread of the online story was fuelled by a photograph of a hairy heap, bearing a close resemblance to a shaggy full-body gorilla costume, stuffed into a container resembling a refrigerator.”

There, that’s what comes of overeating and failing to shave. Evolution at work, folks, you just saw it demonstrated.
DaveTard gets stuck in a refrigerator while diving for the last cheesy poof and is mistaken for BigFoot!  Details at eleven.

Date: 2008/08/20 01:58:12, Link
Author: CeilingCat
From Wikipedia:
Dr. Bergman is an adjunct associate professor at Medical University of Ohio and also teaches biochemistry, biology, chemistry and physics at Northwest State Community College in Ohio. He has taught at the college level for 35 years...
Wow!  adjunct associate professor in only 35 years.  Dembski must be so jealous!

Date: 2008/08/25 01:12:06, Link
Author: CeilingCat
David Springer writes  



11:40 am

Tard Alert!

In order to make this thread a little easier to manage any critics of Fuller’s must use their real name to post a comment. Check the anonymous bravado at the door. I ought to make that a policy for the whole damn blog not just this one thread.

And DaveScot's real name is ... David Scot Springer, I believe?  Let's get rid of that pseudonym, DavieBoy!

Date: 2008/08/26 01:03:02, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Nobel committee take note:      
I was being literal about the cytoplasm determining whether a cell is destined to become a fly or a horse (fly/horse taken from title of geneticist Sermonti’s book “Why a Fly is not a Horse”). In it he writes the only thing we know for certain about why a horse is a horse and not a fly is because its mother was a horse.
(Dave is a bit behind on his evo-devo - no surprise since we have the opinion of the Great Dr. O'Leary that evo-devo is stupid and dumb and.. and ... poopy!)

But Dave has authority on his side:      
In Dembski’s latest book are references to nuclear transfer experiments showing that when an enucleated egg of one species receives a nucleus from a different species development (until it spontaneously aborts - none live to adulthood in interspecies nuclear transfer) proceeds along the path of the species of the egg, not the nucleus. So by what we know right now what makes a horse a horse instead of something else resides outside the nucleus.
(Luckily Dave has been inoculated by the great Toronto based Dr. Dr. O'Leary, journalist to God, so he hasn't looked into any books on evo-devo lest he see the Devil and soil himself.)
And he has some ultra-sciency reasoning to back himself up:      
This makes sense because from an engineering point of view there doesn’t seem like enough data storage space in a few billion base pairs of nuclear DNA to specify all the detail in a mammal or similarly complex animal. It’s enough room to store a component library of the nuts and bolts required to build individual cells of different types but not the whole animal. There is a vast amount of potential storage space outside the nucleus.
Mentally armoured by the Drs. Drs. O'Leary and Dembski, Dave has not looked into any of the dozens of books or Scientific American articles on evo-devo and hence the Devil has never implanted any of his evil ideas like genes setting up chemical gradients that direct large numbers of cells to develop and grow in certain directions for certain amounts of time and then connect with other cells.  He KNOWS with the certainty of Jesus that all this sciency stuff is just materialistic booshwah and what does one wear to the Nobel ceremony, anyway?  And if he brings his Honored Teacher, Dr. Dr. Dembski with him, will they be able to eat in the Nobel cafeteria?

Date: 2008/08/27 06:18:27, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Denese gets to talk about penises.
But first she  has to warm up:
Now, Lamarck (the early French biologist who gave his name to Lamarckism) and Darwin might be right about the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Generations of environmentalists have worried that they are - that eggs and sperm may be damaged by environmental effects, for example, thus introducing acquired characteristics to inheritance.

Actually, I don't think most people are referring to DNA damage when they talk about inheritance of acquired characteristics.  That's more along the lines of variation and natural selection.  Now back to the penises with you, Denese.  Have fun and do forget to write.

Date: 2008/08/27 06:31:08, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 16 2008,15:22)
Is the assumption of randomness really necessary? Would a system of variation that produced all possible alleles in sequential order have different evolutionary consequenses than one that produced them in random order?

Just asking. :p
MidwifeToad in a later message: The question though, is does it matter? As long as the variation generator produces all possible values for a given string.
Sort of.  Consider the human genome, which has about three billion base pairs.  At 2 bits per base pair, that's a six billion bit number.  It would take monstrously too long to go through all of the possible arrangements of all those base pairs.  The 14 odd billion years of our universe's history would be nothing compared to going through all of the combinations of the human genome sequentially.  And there are longer genomes.

Date: 2008/08/28 00:24:48, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Let me go into this topic a little bit more because it always flummoxes anti-evolutionists and most evolutionists aren't too clear on some of the points.

1) There are about 3 billion base pairs in the human genome.  Since there are four possible base pairs, it takes two bits to describe which one is at any particular place.  Therefore, there are about six billion bits of information in human DNA.

2) Two to the six billionth power is such a shockingly huge number that no calculator can calculate it.  It is far, far greater than the total number of particles in the universe.  It spits on Dembski's Universal Probability Bound of 1 in 10 to the 150th power.

3) Because of this, many ID creationists and ordinary creationists believe that the odds of getting any particular human DNA string are one in two to the six billionth power.

4) People who listen to Dembski are especially liable to believe that #3 above is correct.

5) However, people who listen to Dembski are, generally, tards.

6) In real life, we don't try to construct the human genome from scratch in one try, so the 1 in two to the six billionth figure is wrong.

7) Real evolution works generally by zapping one tiny part of the genome*, leaving all of the rest of the DNA intact and thus presumably working, since it enabled the parent(s) to function well enough to reproduce.

8) This means that the one in two to the six billionth figure and Dembski's Universal Probability Bound are useless, along with any changes Dembski may make to his UPB.  (He's apparently been raising it lately.)

9) In accordance with #8 above, any enormous number ginned up by a creationist is crap.  This is certain to a degree way, way, way inside the UPB.  (Roughly about 1 in 1 to the 0th power.)

10) Instead, when a single point mutation occurs, we are concerned with how the five billion, 999 million, 999 thousand, 998 bits of known good DNA will work with the two bits that have changed.

11) Generally speaking, they will work pretty well.  Most mutations are neutral.

12) If they don't work well, the offspring dies, usually before it is even born.  Throughout human history, about 80-90 percent of all humans born have died before reproducing.  A baby born with a bad mutation is just one more.

13) When they do work well, shazam!  Evolution has occurred.

14) PAYLOAD: Instead of going through all the possible permutations of a six billion bit number, evolution changes one or two base pairs at a time.  Since there are three billion base pairs in the human genome and approximately 6.6 billion humans on earth as of July '08, on average every single base pair in the human genome gets tweaked at least twice every generation if humans average only a single mutation each time they reproduce.

15) So much for the Universal Probability Bound and all the other big numbers the creationists throw around.

* There are other mutations that work on groups of DNA, such as gene duplications, but we can ignore them here.  They just make our point a little more convincing.

Date: 2008/08/28 02:07:06, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Young Barry puts his head in the noose:    
27 August 2008
Quote of the Day
“The beliefs which we have the most warrant for, have no safeguard to rest on, but a standing invitation to the whole world to prove them unfounded.”

John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (New York: Burt, n.d.), pp. 38-39.

I'd say that's pretty well been acomplished as far as your religious beliefs are concerned.

Then Young bFast steps in it:  



9:01 pm
I think that the single belief that the scientific community places the most warrant on is the belief in methodological naturalism. However, I contend that methodological naturalism itself is absolutely unfalsifiable. As such, it doesn’t even have the protection of a genuine invitation to the world that it be proved wrong.

Jeeze, bF, I would think that Galileo with his satellites of Jupiter, Newton with his laws of motion and all the other physicists, chemists, biologists and other assorted scientists who have used methodological naturalism to produce, among other things, the computer you're typing that tard on have produced some pretty good evidence that MN works.  Certainly, your peevish whinging hasn't disproven it.

Meanwhile, why don't you list a few accomplishments of people who reject MN?  I'll bet  you could write them down with a crayon and still fit them all on the head of a pin.

ETA Actually, that might not be possible when you look at some of history's major villains.  I think it's a safe bet that Hitler, Mao and Stalin all rejected methodological naturalism, especially when applied to their own beliefs.

Date: 2008/08/29 02:31:09, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 28 2008,09:50)

2) Two to the six billionth power is such a shockingly huge number that no calculator can calculate it.  It is far, far greater than the total number of particles in the universe.  It spits on Dembski's Universal Probability Bound of 1 in 10 to the 150th power.

You apparently haven't met the Finite Improbability Calculator.


2 ^ 6000000000 = 10 ^ 1806179973.9839

Wesley, that puts a whole new slant on things.  6 billion bits translated into decimal is only a 1 with 1,806,179,974 zeros after it (approximately).

If I remember right, the Bible runs to around 4 million characters, so using DaveScot's trusty Microsoft calculator, we discover that you could write that decimal number down in only 451 and a half Bibles.  Waterloo!

Date: 2008/09/03 05:42:32, Link
Author: CeilingCat
deadman wrote: Turncoat, you said that it's "no matter" that Fuller slams theistic evolution (as "intellectually craven" ) -- while promoting his vision of ID as different from it. You believe that Fuller sees ID as a "heuristic guiding research," and not something to be proven correct by means of research.

Turner doesn't even know what theistic evolution is!  Here's his definition from The IDiot's Blog  
What normally passes today for ‘theistic evolution’ (i.e. the position of Ken Miller, Francis Collins and, in Britain, Denis Alexander) openly promotes just such a dichotomy: God sets the natural world in motion – perhaps even by a toss of the chemical dice – and what follows can be explained as if God had never existed. It implies that however our thoughts about the nature of God might change, they cannot affect our science – and vice versa. It is to ID’s great credit that it refuses to accept this intellectually craven stance.

It's to ID's great shame that it doesn't even recognize the definition of DEISM when it hears it and calls it theistic evolution instead.

In the real world, theistic evolution is the belief that God created the world and is using evolution to do the main work of producing the animals and plants that he desires, while restricting Himself to giving evolution an occasional nudge.

Fuller doesn't even understand his own side!

Date: 2008/09/04 00:42:14, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 03 2008,09:31)
DaveScot has a Mephistophelean moment:

(no, I didn't create this one, tho I wonder if someone here did.)

My evil brother.  We've been fighting over DaveTard's soul for nearly 6000 years.  Neither of us remembers why.

Date: 2008/09/08 00:34:53, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Courtesy of The Straight Dope: The reDiscovery Institute:  
The reDiscovery Institute is non-profit, public-policy think-tank located in Tacoma, Washington, with branches in Atlanta, Georgia and Fort Worth, Texas. ...

The reDiscovery Institute supports Fellows, who write letters to editors, testify at trials, post text on the web, and publish editorials in the Washington Times. ...

The reDiscovery Institute urges adherence to Phillip Johnson's Ice Pick Gambit: "Until we gain total control, keep the old testament part of our agenda quiet because it frightens normal people."

Under fellows: "Little Willie Dembski, Piltdown Fellow

Dr. Willie Dembski is Piltdown Fellow of the reDiscovery Institute. He is founder of the Web Blog "Sex, Lies and DNA", where he expounds on the study of biology. But he never does any biology himself, nor does he publish anything in peer-reviewed journals. He is a con artist of a mathematician, a fake-philosopher and biological charlatan. He is the Assistant Secretary of the Ann Coulter Fan Club. He works diligently at the task of CV puffery, referring to himself as a PUBLIC INTELLECTUAL. He is the author of Creative Creationism: Dissimulating for God, and the best seller in the home schooling market, The Old Testament: A Practical and Complete Study Guide for Calculus and Analytical Geometry. "

Good stuff.

Date: 2008/09/09 00:16:24, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 08 2008,16:16)
The current headline at UD:

Sarah Palin Unlikely to Push Evolution Issue
was ‘Creation Science Enters the Race’

that word salad wasn't written by Denyse, is the weird part.


Hope you saved a copy because as of 12:10am CDT, it's 404ed.

Date: 2008/09/09 01:48:20, Link
Author: CeilingCat
I can't figure out why they 404'd that thread.  It's not extraordinarily dumb, at least by UD standards.

Here's a theory: textual analysis may very well point to LeeBowman being Denyse O'Leary in drag.  Notice how you never see the two of them posting at the same time?

Date: 2008/09/12 21:55:32, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (keiths @ Sep. 12 2008,07:14)
Denyse is experiencing cleavage envy:  
Then all we need is more useless pundettes who flunked Grade Six math freaking out over why anyone supposes that the universe shows evidence of design. Pundette cannot get through her own day without sixteen image assistants/consultants, so that proves her point conclusively, right?

Yuh. Camera Two, dolly in to cleavage.

I love Fuller talking about the play he's written:
Writing a dramatic work had been an interesting experience, he said. “(It) requires a different kind of thinking from normal academic work.
Yeah, writing fiction is a bit different from writing a scientific paper.

Date: 2008/09/14 12:42:15, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Maya @ Sep. 13 2008,20:12)
Fantomarks are information carriers that cannot be sensed or detected or recorded by human beings, and/or other living things or systems, and/or instruments, devices, or systems made by human beings.


So, what is he talking about, then?

(Edited to fix my tags.  Thanks for the button!)


Date: 2008/09/17 02:03:41, Link
Author: CeilingCat
DaveScot's answer right above that one is pretty good too:
The school’s purpose is to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic. The rest of the job is up to the parents and voluntary interaction within their community.
So forget science, civics, home ec, shop, foreign languages and everything else but the three rrrs.  Let their parents and churches (aka voluntary interaction with their community) take care of the rest.

Talk about a recipe for ignorance.

Date: 2008/09/22 06:47:03, Link
Author: CeilingCat
More on School Shooters, especially Harris and Klebold:

It's a review of a book called "Ceremonial Violence".  Excerpt:

After the Columbine massacre, an investigative commission found that the school, whose principal was a former coach, was rife with extreme, sadistic bullying on the part of student athletes. Teachers, even those who personally witnessed the bullying, rarely intervened; some claimed that to do so would have cost them their jobs. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, the Columbine shooters, were mercilessly tormented under this regime, as were any students who dared to associate with them. Fast observes that some sort of bullying is involved in nearly every case he examined in "Ceremonial Violence."

Date: 2008/09/23 09:18:49, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Having trouble with URL formatting.  The "Realistic Computation" URL above has a couple of junk characters added to "biology".  Edit them out to view the site.

Date: 2008/09/24 00:36:49, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 23 2008,22:32)
On that thread you can watch Davetard complain that Obama is

1) racist
2) psychologically disturbed
3) corrupt with Wall Street banks
4) a radical
and 5) not black enough.

How can we be expected to mock them, if they're going to be this ridiculous?

Lilly Tomlin (on UD?): "I try to be cynical, but it's so hard to keep up."

Date: 2008/09/30 00:50:08, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Venus Mousetrap @ Sep. 29 2008,14:30)
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 29 2008,14:16)
Most of us gave Paul the benefit of the doubt for a while because he acts all nice and interested in debate, but after a while his dishonest behavior shines through.

I believe the moment he lost his credibility with me was when he said words to the effect of 'JUST because a creationist MAY have used an argument in the past, means that WE can't use the same one. There's no RULE against it'.

This was his appalling justification for Explore Evolution being full of near nothing BUT creationist antievolution propaganda, under the guise of inquiry-based learning. And I realised then that this was basically a politely-voiced 'fuck you' to me, to honesty, to parents, and to the children that would be fed this propaganda.

Which reminds me, John Timmer did an excellent multi-page review of "Explore Evolution" on "ars technica" last week and I forgot to post a link here.

The Link

He rather rips it a new anal orifice.  Very good job, John.

Date: 2008/10/01 01:17:18, Link
Author: CeilingCat
This may be off topic, but given Dave's interest in climate and weather, I think he should look at this article and I can't post on Uncommonly Dense to tell him.

Dave, check out Do Hurricanes Just Happen? by Jim Splif--er that is Jim Eliff.  Some highlights:

Though some postulate that hurricanes are spawned merely by natural causes, this answer is one "cause" too short. The Bible teaches they are first decreed by God.

God is at work doing His perfect will, even during hurricane season. These spinning engines of destruction originate from Him as Ruler (first cause), through nature (second cause), all for His purposes. Though God owes us no explanation, one or all of the following possible objectives may help us understand "why" God decrees such fear-producing events:

I'll let you read the reasons yourself.  

Moral: It stands to reason that if God is responsible for creating the hurricanes that have destroyed so much of your home state, he may also be creating the global warming that is going to turn the rest of it into a parched tinderbox.  If global warming IS God's will, then we should obviously not be fighting it because we'd be warring against God.

P.S. You may substitute "the Designer" for "God" in any of the above sentences if UD is still in denial.

Date: 2008/10/01 04:54:04, Link
Author: CeilingCat
DaveTard: Imagine if Obama’s GPA wasn’t actually in the top 10% yet the public has been led to believe it was by the magna cum laud(sic) claim. This almost(sic) certainly why the Obama campaign has refused to release undergraduate and graduate GPA’s.

I guess DaveTard didn't graduate magna cum laude in spelling or grammer.

In other news, a comment in the same thread reports Kirk Cameron has a movie out - "Fireproof", with a full $500,000 budget.  Trivia from the IMDB:      
Kirk Cameron, a Christian evangelist, refuses to kiss any woman other than his wife under any circumstance, so to film a scene in which his character in this movie kisses his wife, the filmmakers had to dress Cameron's real-life wife, Chelsea Noble, as the wife character (played throughout the rest of the movie by Erin Bethea) and shoot the kissing scene in shadow so the difference between Noble and Bethea would not be as evident onscreen.
 Jesus would be so ... ah ... proud?

Big question from the film: "But can he attempt to love his wife while avoiding God's love for him?"
I'm betting he will.

Date: 2008/10/02 00:57:02, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (dogdidit @ Oct. 01 2008,19:22)
Minor note to dvunkannon: the Great White North starts at the 49th parallel. 54°40' was the northern limit of the esrtwhile Oregon Territory, which Polk or Reagan or somebody wanted to claim back in 1492 (for either the Inuits or the Winter Olympics'). Thus Uncomely Denyse's IQ has further south to be north of.


Date: 2008/10/03 00:41:17, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (didymos @ Oct. 01 2008,04:07)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 30 2008,22:46)
Dave didn't heed your warning      



10:49 pm

Tard Alert!

TomRiddle is no longer with us.
Larry Fafarman is in timeout, again. I felt bad that I was taking time away from his holocaust denial work on his own blog. He gets irritable when he doesn’t get enough Jew-bashing time. I think he probably likes Osama because of Osama’s muslim background and connections.

I guess he edited his post.

The best part is, poor befuddled Larry got the ban-hammer for making a completely rational and accurate observation,  but the fact that he even attempted to publicly criticize DT serves only as further evidence of his estrangement from reality.  It's so...elegant.  A true work of TARD.

Looks like there's been a little editing of DaveTard's post:  



10:49 pm
TomRiddle is no longer with us.

Larry Fafarman is in timeout, again.

Date: 2008/10/07 06:51:25, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Dr. Dr.:      
6 October 2008
Chunkdz at the Panda’s Thumb
William Dembski
This just in from a colleague:

I encourage you to take a look at the Panda’s Thumb and follow the entire thread devoted to the optimality of the genetic code. It is simply priceless. Someone styling himself Chunkdz dominates the discussion and by virtue of a very considerable gift for profane abuse, succeeds in doing what I never thought possible, and that is reducing the entire PT crowd to sputtering, dim-witted incoherence. You must link to it.

(Does the Dr. Dr. really understand what "link to it" means?  And does he really have a colleague?)




3:26 am
Seems the PT people did just fine. What are the passages, exactly, where he schooled them?




3:29 am
(And I’m not talking about silly troll-talk, but in the science)




3:42 am
The reason I ask is because the post Dembski linked to shows (using the original paper) that chunkz misunderstood their results. He claimed they showed that the code is a global optimum, where the optimum is over all possible genetic codes.

However, they didn’t actually do that analysis, indeed it has been done and it has been shown it is far from optimal. That was the starting point of the paper!

The original paper, misread by chunky:
[O]ther analyses have shown that significantly better code structures are possible. Here, we show that if theoretically possible code structures are limited to reflect plausible biological constraints, and amino acid similarity is quantified using empirical data of substitution frequencies, the canonical code is at or very close to a global optimum for error minimization across plausible parameter space.

So this isn’t a global optimum over all possible codes, but is within a constrained parameter space. Plus, they say this result is highly likely no matter where you start (few of the local minima are far from the global minima within this restricted search space).

Good stuff, but I don't think BDKnight is long for this world.  Meanwhile, I can't help but notice that Dr. Dr. D. is much more impressed by trashtalk than understanding the science he's talking about.  An ignorant a**hole is fine with him so long as he's a pro-ID IA.

Edited to add asterisks and spell "fine" correctly.

Date: 2008/10/08 00:28:26, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Ptaylor @ Oct. 07 2008,14:28)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Oct. 07 2008,06:51)
Good stuff, but I don't think BDKnight is long for this world.

As you predicted:
[BDKnight is no longer with this forum. --UD Moderation]

Even that is gone now.

Date: 2008/10/09 06:02:05, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 08 2008,21:32)
Dropping G's is not wholly evil. I was certainly dropping mine today as I explained why surface area = 2b + perimeter*height. Bein' southern doesn't have any necessary contradiction with math...

A lot of the best people do it.  Here's an article on her accent which turns out to be a mix of Minnesotan, Wisconsonian, Great NorthWestern and a dash of North Dakotan, all processed through the Alaskan accent grinder and flash frozen at the peak of ripeness, then drizzled lightly with Canuck, you betcha.

She can also turn it on and off at will.

Date: 2008/10/09 06:06:12, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Bettawrekonize @ July 05 2008,15:23)
Whatever, it's their forum and if everyone gets banned for no apparent reason (and no opportunity to redeem themselves), eventually no one will pay attention to them.

That day came years ago.

Date: 2008/10/09 06:08:51, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 11 2008,14:22)
I found this there:

I love it so.

Jebus!  I looked at that page and for one shining second I thought it read, "John A. Davison, Professor Dementis of ..."

Then I focused my tired eyes and it instantly got a lot less interesting.

Date: 2008/10/16 00:25:56, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 15 2008,12:33)
Ftk demonstrates more skepticism than Davetard does about those ridonkulous claims.

Not a great day for Davetard.

Jesus Christ on a Bicycle!  DaveTard copies an article on Obama and Islam, FtK kinda wonders if it's true and then William Wallace drops in to say, "Oh hai!  Let's talk about Obama's US citizenship!"  What the hell are they smoking over there?

Date: 2008/10/17 00:43:24, Link
Author: CeilingCat
5 jjcassidy


10:59 pm
Gil, I’ve written before that a materialist would more likely believe that an elephant could fly than in a horse with wings. At least, they’ve seen an elephant.

The idea that it’s easier to believe that matter has properties that we’ve never seen it to have than to accept something they’ve never seen. It can be all done with emergent properties.

Is there a UD version of Poe's law?  Something like "Without a blatant indicator such as a smiley, it is impossible to tell the difference between a UD poster and a parody thereof."?

Date: 2008/10/23 01:37:18, Link
Author: CeilingCat
DaveTard tells the truth:
10 Yeah, but alarmists don’t let data get in the way of their alarm.
You tell 'em, Dave!

Date: 2008/10/23 01:52:49, Link
Author: CeilingCat
How it was done:    
10 sagebrush gardener


12:04 am
Here is how you can reproduce the chart shown above.

1. Download the raw data here.

2. Save to a text file, then import into Excel (select fixed-width fields).

3. Create a Line Graph using the data in the Globe column (column C).

4. Right-click on the graphed line and select “Add Trendline” from the popup menu.

5. Select the Polynomial Trend/Regression type, Order 6. Click OK.

That’s all. You will see the exact graph shown above. I have no idea if this is a statistically valid way to treat the data, but it does show that they didn’t just pull this out of a hat.
Math is not my forte, but if I understand this correctly, you can use polynomials to make most any kind of line you want and the more craptacular the line you want to make, the more orders you put in the polynomial.  Is this approximately right?  I notice the Excel default polynomial is 2 and this example uses 6.

Date: 2008/10/24 00:07:50, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (franky172 @ Oct. 23 2008,12:50)
Frost122585, proving Poe's law on a daily basis.1 and 2

E.T.A: That's a hard does of reality.

tragicmishap is also a Friend of Poe:        
1 tragicmishap


11:38 am
Wow that is just so profound. There “probably” is no God. My head hurts.

Excuse me, traj, but have you read anything by Dembski?  His whole schtick is trying to prove that God is the most probable Designer.  Haven't you read any of his "...the odds of this pattern forming by chance are 138.7^3456^15 to 1 against" eructions?  He's talking to you, boy!

Date: 2008/10/27 01:18:18, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 26 2008,21:23)
I wouldn't be putting all those comments on the Pres Politics thread, but UD is just DEAD these days. There have been 6 comments over there in the last 24 hours.

It's just dawning on them that they're passengers on the S.S. McCain, the ship has rammed into at least a dozen icebergs, it's going down fast, the economy is sinking with it, the credibility of conservatives and Republicans is toast for at least a generation, there are no life boats and Jesus doesn't seem to be answering any prayers lately.  Meanwhile, Key UD Administrators are rearranging the deck chairs.

Date: 2008/10/28 00:42:29, Link
Author: CeilingCat
This book is Hard Tard.  Authors: William Dembski and Jonathan Wells.  You can't get much lower than that.

"This little book shows that atheism must seek intellectual fulfillment elsewhere decisively demonstrating the need for intelligence in explaining life’s origin."  "Decisively" defined: Dembski and Wells are satisfied.

"This is the best overview of why traditional origin-of-life research has crashed and burned and why intelligent design is necessary to explain the high-tech engineering inside the cell."  I wasn't aware that it had crashed and burned.  And "God did it" is not an explanation.

"Author William A. Dembski worked closely as an advisor with the producers of the Spring 2008 documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed starring Ben Stein."  I assume he was responsible for the Nazi bits.

"How to Be an Intellectually Fulfilled Atheist (Or Not) is the intellectual argument that helped inform significant elements of the movie. This controversial feature-length documentary film about researchers, professors, and academics who claim to have been marginalized, silenced, or threatened with academic expulsion because of their challenges to some or all parts of Darwin’s theory of evolution is one of the top twelve highest grossing documentary’s of all time."  I claim to be good looking and wealthy.  Others claim to be victimized by science instead of their substandard intellects.  Regarding documentary ranking: In other words, it's the twelfth highest grossing documentary of all time until "Religulous" has had a few more weeks in the theaters.

"It has attracted both praise and controversy in its challenge against Darwinism."  Strangely, all of the praise is coming from boneheads who don't understand evolution.

Date: 2008/10/30 01:26:16, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (olegt @ Oct. 29 2008,21:24)
Dave enlivens the stale board with a post Lest we forget Global “Warming”.  When some poor soul tries to inject a dose of reality, the comment is promptly expunged and a warning is sounded:
Put a sock in repeating any of the mainstream delusions in this thread. That view gets more than enough coverage elsewhere.

Sig worthy.

And John McCain is going to win in a landslide.

Date: 2008/11/01 09:28:03, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Damn!  My mad web skilz turned out to be immaterial and now I can't touch them.

Date: 2008/11/04 01:51:35, Link
Author: CeilingCat
This has gotta hurt ...          
3 November 2008
“Intelligent design” not science: Vatican evolution congress to exclude creationism, intelligent design
Speakers invited to attend a Vatican-sponsored congress on the evolution debate will not include proponents of creationism and intelligent design, organizers said.

The Pontifical Council for Culture, Rome’s Pontifical Gregorian University and the University of Notre Dame in Indiana are organizing an international conference in Rome March 3-7 2009 as one of a series of events marking the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin’s “The Origin of Species.”

Jesuit Father Marc Leclerc, a philosophy professor at the Gregorian, told Catholic News Service Sept. 16 that organizers “wanted to create a conference that was strictly scientific” and that discussed rational philosophy and theology along with the latest scientific discoveries.

He said arguments “that cannot be critically defined as being science, or philosophy or theology did not seem feasible to include in a dialogue at this level and, therefore, for this reason we did not think to invite” supporters of creationism and intelligent design.

Dembski is a failed Catholic.

Of course, this being UD, the headline is:    
Vatican to exclude ID & Evolutionists from Origins conference
If it's worth sayin, it's worth lyin about.  (Unofficial ID motto)

Date: 2008/11/04 04:18:27, Link
Author: CeilingCat
It's like UD had an agreement with the intelligent educated world: Be as whacky as you like, spread lies, insults and utterly whacko pseudo-scientific theories far and wide, call homeland security every time a scientists starts to talk a little like an Old Testament prophet, do all of that and we won't mind - IF you keep publishing side-splittingly funny prose.  We'll forgive you.

Well, they're not keeping up their end of the bargain.

Date: 2008/11/05 03:12:39, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Since UD is still dead (the last two postings have zero replies so far - much duller than average, but it does raise the tone a bit) I thought I'd help Denyse clear up something she said on Mindful Hack:            
The brain is a semi-liquid organ, always in motion, so live brains do indeed change themselves all the time.
Whoa!  I've heard the brain described as like jello, but "semi-liquid" is a first.  As for "always in motion", perhaps when dripping out of Denyse's ears, but she's right that brains do change themselves.  That's not exactly news to science.  But let us continue.          
However, when the mind changes the brain, it is a result of information received by the immaterial consciousness itself. Here is an example...
and she goes on to quote a placebo experiment where "Volunteers were told that they were receiving pain relief."

Denyse, being told something means your conscious mind hears a material voice and extracts material data from it.  When you say "immaterial consciousness", you're doing what we non-Toronto based journalists call circular reasoning or ID Think.  (See "Begging the question.")  Also, "...strong refutation of the conjecture that placebo responses reflect nothing more than report bias." does absolutely nothing to establish a non-material mind.  As usual, you don't understand what you're talking about.

Even more to the point, the brain is changing all the time.  It's how we learn, among other things.  Synapses change for short term memory and neurons grow new links to implement long term memory.  If you decide to type some drivel, your brain will change by sending torrents of nerve impulses travelling arount the brain to both implement your thoughts and send your commands to your typing fingers.  This is not new to science, but maybe ID is just now hearing about it?  

Want to know something else?  The computer you're using is changing all the time too.  As it's downloading these words, tiny charges in your computer's DRAM are changing at a high rate of speed.  Ever once in a while your computer changes the position of the heads in its hard drive.  The disk in the hard drive is constantly spinning.  The light patterns on your video monitor also change constantly.  

There's nothing unusual about a (material) computer program changing a (material) computer.  Just as there's nothing unusual about a (material) mind changing a (material) brain.  They have to change to operate.  If your brain couldn't change, you'd be brain dead.  Err..

Date: 2008/11/06 00:37:27, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Reading about all the changes at UD - The Bible predicts all of this!  Read the signs!  This is the End of Tard!  We're all going to be Ruptured!

Date: 2008/11/07 05:59:36, Link
Author: CeilingCat
And let's not forget Abraham Lincoln who was the first to observe that whatever a person's height, their legs are always exactly long enough to reach the ground.

Coincidence?  Bah!  Design!

Date: 2008/11/07 19:33:36, Link
Author: CeilingCat
What kind of UDairies Tard is that?

2 percent or Homo?

Date: 2008/11/08 14:34:01, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Amadan @ Nov. 07 2008,20:05)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Nov. 07 2008,19:33)
What kind of UDairies Tard is that?

2 percent or Homo?

Damn you, Kat, I should have thought of putting in something like that.

Use it for Milk Bottle II the next time Davie goes missing.

GREAT picture, by the way!

Date: 2008/11/10 10:51:57, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (dvunkannon @ Nov. 10 2008,09:22)
I just did a bit of wiki-research on Mims, wrt Pianka. I don't get it.

Pianka's material is the kind of stuff that gets quote mined all the time by "end times" Christians. Nor is Pianka's speculations about Ebola anything new to anyone who read The Hot Zone. Weaponizing a plague has been around in novels from the The Satan Bug to Tom Clancy.

It leaves me wondering what gripe did Mims have against Pianka from before, which was ignited by Pianka's doomsday talk.

I don't think Mims so much had a pre-existing gripe as he has some hearing comprehension issues and he's very careless about spreading slander.  Not quite as bad as Dembksi, though, who actually called Homeland Security if I remember right.  (And probably got his name added to the "kooks" list for his troubles.  Poor Billy never wins.)

He may have still had a chip on his shoulder regarding the Scientific American issue.  He applied for one of the most distinguished jobs at the magazine, one held by the legendary Martin Gardner, at the heigth of the "creation science" flap.  When he turned out to be an old-earth creationist, the powers that be at SciAm didn't want to give aid and comfort to the enemy by hiring someone from the opposition.

I kind of sympathized with him at the time, but after the Pianka flap, I lost all good feelings towards the jerk.  There was no excuse for what he did.

Date: 2008/11/17 02:45:32, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 16 2008,23:56)
17 November 2008
DaveScot is No Longer With Us
Barry Arrington
DaveScot has resigned his position as UD’s primary moderator. We wish him well in his endeavors.

If this is real, I'm amused.

First the Republican Party, then Wall Street, then Conservatism, then Bush, now DaveTard.  The end of an era.  I'll bet the dinosaurs had days like this.

Date: 2008/11/17 05:23:24, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 16 2008,21:24)
well can you see the linkosity in It's New Post?  I counted 16 links to one of her blogs or the other.  0 comments.  what a dumbass.  if i was that dumb I would shave my back and learn to walk mindwards.

This boggled my mind:    
Hugh Ross (Christian), Gerald Schroeder (Jewish), Harun Yahya (Muslim), and Vine DeLoria Jr. (Native American) have all written in this area.  I understand that there is a work in progress from Hare Krishna as well.
Can she actually think that Hare Krishna is a person?  I mean, anybody else, I'd just say, "Of course not," but this is Denise O'Leary...

Getting kicked off of UD may actually have been a blessing for DaveTard if it keeps him from seeing stuff like this.

Date: 2008/11/20 04:50:23, Link
Author: CeilingCat
You really have to wonder what goes on in Granny Spice's head.  On November 15, she gave us a little essay entitled "Farewell fat gene...goodby gay long, sloppiness gene" in which she reads an essay by Carl Zimmer on recent discoveries in genetics and epigenetics.  

In the last few years, we've gone from thinking genes are just the sections of DNA that specify proteins to realizing that the RNA copied from those sections has large chunks cut out of it and thrown away before the protein is made to realizing that the sections can be re-arranged so that one stretch of DNA can make several proteins.  

We've also learned that some DNA specifies RNA that is never made into protein at all, but is used for things like manufacturing all sorts of proteins in the ribosome.

Most interesting to me, we've learned that proteins can "clamp on" to DNA and change how it's expressed and that these chemicals are passed down from mother to child as an extra, "epigenetic" component of heredity.

Now to me, this means that we know a hell of a lot more about genetics than when I was a school boy and it's opening up more ways to fight disease and, generally, understand how organisms, including humans, operate.  In short, it's a Good Thing and I'm looking forwards to more of it.

Granny Spice's take on all this?  "When someone informs you that it (whatever “it” is) is in their genes - so forget asking them to grow up and accept some responsibility..." - show them Zimmer's article!

Well, that last part is indeed good news.  Yes, by all means, show them Zimmer's article.  It's a great one.  But Granny, the fact that we've learned more about how genes work doesn't change anything about what we've learned emperically about how much influence they have on us.  The overall figures for genetic influence on human beings are still running at about 40% with individual genes (for hair color for instance, or a defective gene that doesn't make a vital protein) running all the way up to 100%.  Nothing has changed here because our knowledge of genetic influence mostly doesn't depend on the details of how genes work.  We look at things like how identical twins share traits vs. non-identical twins, study family histories, etc.  No real knowledge of the nuts and bolts of genetics is required.  In other words, there's no change for how any fat genes, gay genes, sloppy genes or any other genes that may exist affect us.  Nothing about how genes affect us has changed just because we've learned more about how genes work.

She does get one thing right in that article, however:  "And will somebody please text Lamarck, and tell him he’s being rehabilitated?"

Lamarck is being rehabilitated to some extent because we've found that things that happen to a parent can affect the offspring's epigenetics.  Zimmer tells us about WWII Netherlanders, who went through a "brutal" famine in 1944.  Children conceived during this famine turned out to be missing many of the proteins that clamp onto DNA, presumably because their starving mothers couldn't provide them.  And those children's children are also missing those proteins - because their mothers didn't have them to be copied to the next generation.  Zimmer doesn't mention it, but one obvious sign of these missing proteins is that the children and grandchildren were noticibly shorter than their starved parents and grandparents.  That IS the parent's environment causing physical changes to their offspring.  It's not quite what Lamark was talking about, but it's at least close.  Congratulations, Granny Spice.

Her performance didn't seem to impress her peers very much, she only got four responses, includng one from Feebish who seems to be a troll.  ("Mrs. O'leary")

Sensing that she hadn't made a big enough fool of herself, she returned to Zimmer's article on November 18 with "The difference between mathematics and biology...".  There, she invents a new word:                
Actually, the biologists flatter themselves. They underbussed vast discrepancies between their belief system and the evidence - along with lots of people who insisted on discussing their implications - until finally, the system is collapsing in the gene’s “identity crisis” (Zimmer’s phrase).
 So learning more about how genetics works means the whole system is collapsing in an identity crisis!  Yeah, sure.  And underbussed?  Google for that one once!  The first response is from the Urban Dictionary:                
1.  underbus  
When you have just taken to many drugs over the weekend, its sunday night work starts tomorrow and you are paronoid and depressed the underbus picks you up.
Went a bit mad last night im on the underbus today.
paronoid depressed wrecked gurning under.
by Mark Lyons Nov 18, 2006
I think this gives us new insight into Granny Spice's way of "thinking".  Judging from her writing, she's probably underbussed a lot of the time.

Date: 2008/11/23 10:16:39, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Granny Spice on proof, ID style:      
...the Darwin cult’s howls of outrage against Edge are the best evidence that he is on to something and that his work should be seriously considered at such a conference.
Isn't that one of the seven warning signs of crank science?  Objections to your theory are the best and/or only evidence in favor of it?

Date: 2008/11/26 04:13:34, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 25 2008,19:54)
Jehu: I debated Matzke on the topic of Behe’s Edge and Matzke resorted to the claim that malaria causing parasites had never evolved the ability to reproduce below 68ºF because all of the mosquitoes freeze below that temperature. Unbelievable. Matzke is simply not a credible source -ever.

Barry Arrington: Jehu, could you please point me to that quote from Matzke. I am considering putting it on permanent display on the home page.

Jehu: Barry, I believe this is the link.
Matzke’s quote isn’t that juicy because the real stupidity of it can only be appreciated from the context of the debate.

Nick Matkze: Um — is someone going to point out that the malaria parasite lives in adult mosquitos, but that in cold regions all the mosquitos (and all other flying insects) die when the temperature hits freezing, and that this provides a perfectly obvious explanation for the distribution of malaria which Behe and all his fans somehow, incredibly, shockingly, astoundingly missed?

I think we can all agree that the real stupidity of it can only be appreciated from the context of the debate.

I think we all underestimated the stupidity of Jehu.  Look two replies down from Nick's and you find the real source of Jehu's quote:        
monarchy man Says:
July 27th, 2007 at 8:59 pm Hey Nick,

Your comment is just the kind of remark from the critics that I am talking about

I live on the edge of a swamp, I can't step out side my front door with out being attacked by adult mosquitoes the that appear to be the size of bumble bees. Yet I have absolutely no fear of being infected by malaria where I live.

In fact the parasite can not reproduce when the temp is below 60 degrees Fahrenheit

If you would have taken the time to read the book this fact would have been obvious to you.


Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 27, 2007 @ 8:59 pm
The Tard is strong with this one.  Score Jehu as mixing two different quotes, being 8 degrees off and insulting the intelligent, educated person instead of the ID drone.  That scores a B+ in ID terms.  If he had also mentioned God and all the expelled creationists or told us how smart Dembski is, it would have been an A-.

Date: 2008/11/26 04:15:08, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 25 2008,14:53)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 25 2008,13:20)
Whoever updates the blogczar thread has some more work to do.

Barry Arrington: ribczynski,
Did you not even read the post you are commenting on where DaveScot answered your question before you asked it? You are on probation (translation: keep it up and get the boot from this site).

Threat Level: Yellow Orange.

Could somebody who has a sock puppet ask DaveTard how he made that prediction?  I for one would like to see the math.

Date: 2008/12/02 06:58:42, Link
Author: CeilingCat
tragicmishap is confused about free will:    
In fact, a true materialist’s logic forces him to reject that intelligence and even emotion actually exists, because intelligence by it’s very nature must entail free will and therefore be supernatural in some sense.
No, tm, free will is impossible if you have an omniscient creator/designer.  Look at it this way: Does God know what you will think next Thursday?  If you're a Christian, the answer is, "Of course!"

So, if God says you will think of a pumpkin at 9:35 CST next Thursday, is there any possible way you can NOT think of a pumpkin at that time?  Of course not!  If you could, then God would be mistaken and hence not omniscient.

In fact, since an omniscient God knew the teensiest nuance of your every thought ten thousand years before you were born and you can't deviate from those pre-ordained thoughts by one iota without making God non-omniscient, you have no free will.

Meanwhile, us atheists are free to think for ourselves.

Date: 2008/12/04 03:42:10, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (dogdidit @ Dec. 03 2008,16:28)
I'm saving those threads with Olofsson and ribczynski and Sal Gal on them. This is the Golden Age of UD Moderation, but it won't be long before some new ayatollah comes along to 404 the whole smash into Obliviation. (Plus they're fun to read. tee hee!)

DaveTard's way ahead of you:



10:43 pm

I asked you to stay out of this thread several days ago. If you continue to post to it I’m just going to delete them as I did just now.


Date: 2008/12/04 03:49:01, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Remember how just a few weeks ago we were all crying in our beer because we thought the UD moderator changes were going to dry up the flow of Tard?

And now, less than a month later, we realize that not only are we living in the Golden Age of Tard but Dembski has come as close as his vastly inflated (but Jesus approved) ego will allow him to admitting that his One Great Idea is a total dog's breakfast.

Dear Santa,

Please save all your presents for the poor people.  I've got plenty.

Thank you,

Date: 2008/12/04 04:59:14, Link
Author: CeilingCat
This Olofsson thread is a very rich vein of tard!

DaveTard, in the opening post:    
You’re reading this on one example of a complex machine which the explanatory filter would also predict is virtually impossible to have come about by law and chance alone.

Dembski in post 169:    
I’ve pretty much dispensed with the EF. It suggests that chance, necessity, and design are mutually exclusive. They are not. Straight CSI is clearer as a criterion for design detection.

DaveTard, one post later:    
Yeah, I recognized that problem for the EF in biology at first glance which is why I never liked talking about it with the flagellum.

Conclusion: Dave is not a flagellum.

Date: 2008/12/05 00:08:04, Link
Author: CeilingCat
...Our son was refused prayer twice because he didn't look the part, and he was told to wait still longer for a prayer that would never have been offered. And even those who looked the part seemed to look no better after Bentley's prayer -- the exodus from the arena of people bound in wheelchairs was poignant.
I read an account of a televised healing service a few years ago, written by a skeptic.  One thing that's always stuck in my mind - all the hopeless wheel-chair bound cases with serious disorders that were never going to be cured by anything were stuck in the back of the room, far from the lights and tv cameras.

Date: 2008/12/05 00:45:16, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Denyse speaks regarding the Reality-based community's response to "Expelled":  
The Darwinists have all the pop science journalists on auto dial. They need only ring them up and bitch. Indeed, that is precisely what Richard Dawkins did. One might have expected a professor of the public understanding of science (Dawkins’s most recent job) to prefer a life in science rather than in soap opera, but people do what they can, not what they can’t.
Actually, as the Charles Simonyi Professor for Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, countering pseudo-scientific BS is exactly what Dawkins is supposed to be doing.

Date: 2008/12/07 01:14:35, Link
Author: CeilingCat
What hell is this? is truly one for the scrapbook.  My copy of the OP and first response is safely stored away in c:\UD-WTF to share with future generations.

It's even better right now because her reference to Buggs' original article, is redirecting to a page conveniently written in Dutch that seems to translate that it's a Reformed Newspaper and it doesn't publish on Sundays.

Science all the way.

Date: 2008/12/07 06:38:34, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Rubbing it in department:    
Mark Frank: "Please don’t slip back into the old ways of banning anything that is slightly feisty. Look at the fascinating and in-depth discussion that arose here by allowing some direct talk."

(1) I’ve pretty much dispensed with the EF. It suggests that chance, necessity, and design are mutually exclusive. They are not.

Date: 2008/12/08 01:13:34, Link
Author: CeilingCat



11:59 pm
One thing is transparently obvious: DNA information encoding is only a small part of what is going on in biological systems. I suspect that living systems are encoded with a highly sophisticated, multi-parallel — indeed, multi-dimensional-parallel, essentially holographic with frickin laser beams on their heads! — information system that is light-years ahead of our understanding of information encoding with digital, sequential-processing algorithms.
There, I fixed that for you.

Date: 2008/12/08 01:29:06, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Clive asks: "I have to ask, why do people record our comments and post them on that website you linked?"

This question was answered on the opening post of the original Official Uncommonly Dense Thread by stevestory:    
Uncommon Pissant is so ridiculous and moronic that conversations about it break out on Panda's Thumb all the time. The PTers aren't providing a dedicated thread to discuss the Everlasting Trainwreck which is that blog, so this thread's for that. I initiate the thread with a DaveScot link:

And the Trainwreck continues to this day.

The original Uncommon Pissant thread was closed at the 1000 page mark because the blog software was choking on it's length.  I suspect we'll fill this thread too and go to at least thread three if you keep UD staggering along.

I'd like to thank you all for being so entertaining.

Date: 2008/12/08 05:25:59, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Even the ads on UD are getting exciting again (assuming "exciting" means "containing enough tard to choke a grunion").  Check out the one labeled, "From the Originator of ID theory: Science Declares Our Universe is Intelligently Designed":

It's by a Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, "Professor of Mathematics (ret) U.S. Naval Academy" and it's on "The General Theory of Everything".  I can only say, thank goodness, at last we have a general theory of gravity, electromagnetic waves and why ping-pong balls are white and round!  I've long felt the need for such a theory.

"In 1979, I originated the mathematical analysis that shows that the production of and alterations in the behavior of any physical-system are intelligently designed. My analysis (the GID-model, GID) is not related, in method, to the inadequate mostly insignificant and highly criticized Johnson-Dembski-Behe theory (RID) as championed by members of the Discovery Institute."  So the production of and ALL alterations in the behavior of ANY physical system are intelligently designed.  This is obviously leagues ahead of that tired, inadequate and mostly insignificant Johnson-Dembski-Behe stuff.

Denise will like this: "The new paper Thought Control shows that certain mental processes can be influenced by the actions of defined immaterial entities."

"The PDF article The Inherent Dangers Manifested by Certain Belief Systems contains findings that were disseminated to various U. S. Federal government agencies and individual members in 1981."  Translated: I mailed examples of my genius to lots of federal agencies and any individuals whose address I could find.

"Originally, the conclusions were "confidential," but on 15 Aug 1981 they were presented at the annual meeting of the American Scientific Affiliation."  Translation: Surprisingly few people (none, actually) responded to my important information.  So I presented it to the ASA and it's Heddle's problem now.

The Site Index is interesting too.  "1. My Biography" is paired with "1A. Speech and Learning Disorders".  

Click on "5. The 1996 Templeton Prize Nomination" and you'll see the actual nomination (which was not written by Dr. Herrmann).  Scroll down and click on "The official nomination acceptance" and you'll see a photocopy of the letter he got back from the Templeton Foundation thanking him for the nomination and pointing out that it is "very well prepared".  This is followed by the person they forwarded the nomination to and a suggestion that further information be sent to this person directly, almost as if they were saying not to bug them with it any more.

And how did the nomination fare?  Apparently Dr. Herrmann did not win the Templeton Prize.  At least, entry "5a." is titled, "A John Templeton Foundation Expose".

I'm embarassed to say that I haven't yet read, "6. Paul Davies Refuted" or "7. Hugh Ross Errors".  I'm saving them for my declining years, when the tard may not flow as freely as it does today and I'm too weak and decrepit to hunt it down.

Looking through the Index and noting such titles as "9A. What is Space Time?", "13. Randomness - A Strong Deception", "14A. A Miracle Producing Mechanism", "15A. What Can Be Known", "16. Your Endangered Mind - Internet Book", "17. Your Endangered Mind - Secular", "19. New Thought Control" and, of course, "25. Evil of the Psychic Movement" and "29. E=mc^2 Not Einstein's Discovery", I am looking forwared to a happy and tard-rich retirement.

I can't end this without congratulating Google on finding exactly the right blog for this ad.  No other blog is as likely to appreciate it as UD, although tired, inadequate and mostly insignificant Johnson, Dembski and Behe may beg to differ.

Date: 2008/12/08 05:39:50, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Louis @ Dec. 08 2008,04:21)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 08 2008,01:12)
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 07 2008,19:03)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 07 2008,15:24)
 Apologies for Janie's silence of late, but school has me busy.

She was oversexed anyway.

There is such a thing????




Ceiling Cat

An example: 7:12am on a Saturday morning, your head is throbbing, your mouth tastes of stale beer and vomit and your only desire in life is to go back to sleep until the pain goes away and she chirps, "Oh look honey!  I found the handcuffs and the enema syringe!!"

Date: 2008/12/08 06:13:54, Link
Author: CeilingCat
This is PERFECT!!!

From Amazon's review of The Design of Life:
Help others find this product - tag it for Amazon search
Denyse O'Leary suggested this product show on searches for "breathtaking inanity". What do you suggest?

I think Denyse got it pretty much correct.

Here are some of the other choices, by the way:      
Check the boxes next to the tags you consider relevant or enter your own tags in the field below.
breathtaking inanity (121)
creationism (87)
intelligent design (72)
false beliefs (63) apologetics (59)
christianity (34)
christian (23)
› See all 192 tags...
pseudo science
junk science
cdesign proponentists
fugly sweater
bad science
distortion of science
and my favorite: turd sandwitch.

Date: 2008/12/11 00:06:28, Link
Author: CeilingCat
stevestory: Well, since Behe compared himself with Galileo, it's only fair that Dembski considers himself one of the most brilliant ever too.

Don't forget that Dembski was the Isaac Newton of Information Theory, according to the dust jacket of one of his books.

Date: 2008/12/11 00:10:34, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Dr. Dr. D:
10  December  2008
Reinstating the Explanatory Filter
William Dembski

In an off-hand comment in a thread on this blog I remarked that I was dispensing with the Explanatory Filter in favor of just going with straight-up specified complexity. On further reflection, I think the Explanatory Filter ranks among the most brilliant inventions of all time (right up there with sliced bread). I’m herewith reinstating it — it will appear, without reservation or hesitation, in all my future work on design detection.
Great.  Now do me a favor, please: show me how you run Darwinian evolution, a process which utilises random change AND non-random natural selection, through your filter which can only handle randomness OR law?

Date: 2008/12/11 00:13:31, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Also, Dr. Dr. D, try running God through your Design Filter.  

Is He random?  Nope.  
Is He law-like?  Nope.
Conclusion: God is designed.

If I'm wrong, please show me my error.  

(Thanks to RBH for this one.)

Date: 2008/12/11 05:31:39, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 11 2008,00:27)
Dembski reveals his motivation:

William Dembski


12:59 am
DaveScot: Right. I came up with the EF on observing example after example in which people were trying to sift among necessity, chance, and design to come up with the right explanation. The EF is what philosophers of science call a “rational reconstruction” — it takes pre-theoretic ordinary reasoning and attempts to give it logical precision. But what gets you to the design node in the EF is SC (specified complexity). So working with the EF or SC end up being interchangeable. In THE DESIGN OF LIFE (published 2007), I simply go with SC. In UNDERSTANDING INTELLIGENT DESIGN (published 2008), I go back to the EF. I was thinking of just sticking with SC in the future, but with critics crowing about the demise of the EF, I’ll make sure it stays in circulation.

Right.  EF, SC, CSI - it doesn't matter.  They're all what philosophers of science call BS.

Date: 2008/12/11 06:28:38, Link
Author: CeilingCat
A note in O'Leary's Altruism, evolutionary psychology, and the heroes of Mumbai article says:
(Service note: If you had trouble finding Uncommon Descent last night, we had to change servers due to traffic problems. Sorry for inconvenience. - d.)
Does anybody know if UD has had a sudden upsurge in traffic?  If so, maybe the temporary slight reduction in the bannanations is helping their numbers.

Date: 2008/12/12 00:37:53, Link
Author: CeilingCat
According to Nature, a subscription to Chaos, Solitons and Fractals costs a stunning US $4,520 a year!

I'm looking forward to retirement in a couple of years and I was thinking of supplementing my meager retirement income by selling photoshopped nudie pictures of Sarah Palin to unsuspecting Rethuglicans.  

But now, I'm wondering if setting up a mildly weird scientific journal might not pay much better.

Date: 2008/12/12 04:31:07, Link
Author: CeilingCat
"AAAS" = American Association that's Almost Sciency"

I think Denyse will buy it.

Date: 2008/12/14 19:52:47, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Did somebody already spot this steaming bowl of tard?      



1:38 pm

I think that, if one were to apply Dr. Dembski’s explanatory filter to the universe itself, the latter would be seen as having been designed. Here’s my take on it:

1. Is there a law that requires huge numbers of particles (e.g., electrons) to have the exact same properties (e.g., mass, charge, spin orientations)? Answer: No.

2. Given that the number of possible properties that particles can have is infinite, is it likely that huge numbers of particles would have the exact same properties, if one assumed that the universe is a chance occurrence? Answer: No.

3. Are the properties of the particles that comprise the universe specified? Answer: Yes.

Corrollary: If the universe was designed, how plausible is it that the same intelligent agency that designed it could have just as easily designed complex lifeforms? Answer: Extremely plausible.

What are the odds?  I mean, just what are the odds that EVERY SINGLE electron IN THE UNIVERSE just happens to have EXACTLY THE SAME mass, charge, spin, etc?  How many electrons are there?  And protons and neutrons do it too!  What are the odds?  They have got to be huge!  

I'd say the odds have gotta be at least a Dembski* to 1 against.  Maybe two.  Waterloo!!!  Waterloo!!!

I just hope you unfulfilled atheists are satisfied now!  If you live west of the Mississippi, you can still make it to evening church services if you drop everything and leave right now.  Drive like your souls depended on it!  You eastern atheists, sorry, but you're just going to hell.

* In Evangelical and Reformed math, one Dembski is defined as the odds calculated against something by someone who doesn't understand the subject he's calculating.  It's a very big number, so big that its exact magnitude doesn't really matter.  For historical reasons, the term "Waterloo!!" is usually appended to the results.

Date: 2008/12/16 04:03:58, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Young bFast asks an intelligent question    
If the line between the natural and the supernatural cannot be vividly defined, how can Science stay on one side of the line.

Answer: By restricting itself to things that can be observed.

But then young bFast crashes and burns:    
Dawkins suggests that it is scientifically acceptible to consider that an intelligent non-supernatural agent created life on earth, but he refuses to consider himself an IDer. Here in ID-land, if it were established that a non-supernatural intelligent being brought forth life on earth, we would all say, “see, I told yea.”

If it were established that a non-supernatural intelligent being brought forth life on earth, we'd all be IDers.  But to establish that an intelligent being brought forth life on earth, you'd have to have evidence that we can see and measure.  

On again, off again Explanitory Filters that you can't even fit Darwinian evolution into aren't evidence for ID.  Especially when they indicate that God was designed.

Saying that the presence of CSI proves ID isn't evidence for ID, since Darwinian Evolution produces CSI.

Oohing and aahhing over bacterial flagellums isn't evidence for ID.

Credulous crap about the so-called Edge of Evolution isn't evidence for ID.

Nothing that Denyse O'Leary has ever misunderstood is evidence for ID.

Date: 2008/12/18 00:36:25, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 17 2008,12:18)
gpuccio: The fact is that the causal engine in darwinian theory is, by definition, a process of random variation. It is not so important to know exactly which probability distribution we apply. We assume the uniform distribution because it is the most reasonable approximation. But, whatever distribution we assume, the search remains a random search.

No, an evolutionary search is not a random search of the entire landscape, but a random search of spaces nearby to existing sequences. This highly constrains the possible trajectories.

But perhaps we are misunderstanding what gpuccio means. He resolves the confusion.

gpuccio: Here you make a lot of confusion. First of all, again, here the problem is not the distribution. A uniform distribution in the search space of a protein just means that all sequences have a similar probability to occur.

That is exactly wrong. With an evolutionary algorithm, the vast majority of sequences will never be tested. They have near-zero probability.

gpuccio, WAD and all the others IDiots don't understand the most basic fact about evolution: EVERY living creature is already IN the search zone.  The search zone gpuccio is talking about consists of the sequences of DNA that will construct and operate a viable creature capable of reproducing the DNA sequence and passing it on to the next generation.  Evolution doesn't have to search for the zone, it just has to stay in it.  

The strategy it uses to do this is simply to keep the number of changes to the DNA low so you're only searching in the immediate area of the "zone".

gp, here's something to remember: if a critter is alive and capable of producing offspring, it is already inside your search zone.

Date: 2008/12/18 00:50:29, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 17 2008,20:19)
is it just me, or does the current situation at UD seem less than stable?

I'm waiting for all the moderators to ban each other and when the smoke clears, nobody in the known universe can post, UD dies a horrible death, a tard famine scourges the entire world and scores of people on the Uncommonly Dense thread die from tard deprivation.

Personally, I'm stockpiling.  My root cellar is full of screen captures from UD.

Date: 2008/12/19 00:14:27, Link
Author: CeilingCat
stevestory:i'm having one of those days where I just can't take the tard. I think it's because I'm training more and I haven't had a drink or a cigarette since last friday. (Grrrr) But I woke up this morning and checked Ed Brayton's site, and it was like being punched in the head.

I've heard that double strength heroin dulls the senses enough to blunt the worst of the tard.  Trouble is that the effective anti-tard dose is about 93% of the lethal dose.  Still, even if you overdose and die, at least you're beyond the reach of tard forever.

Date: 2008/12/19 00:22:41, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Occam's Aftershave: I wonder if any of the UD ass sucking sycophants will ask about the thousands of gay Christian teenagers who have committed suicide over the years after being rejected by the Church they trusted and told they are evil sinners who will burn in hell?

Or the kids whose mothers killed them so they'd go to a better world.

Date: 2008/12/21 08:17:21, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Granny Spice:
My own sense is that too many people today are invested in proving stuff they are sure is true, and not enough in finding out what is really going on.

I think she meant to say:
My own sense is that too many people in the ID community are invested in proving stuff they are sure is true, and not enough in finding out what is really going on.

Date: 2008/12/22 00:44:35, Link
Author: CeilingCat
The tard flows freely tonight!  On the On False Knowledge thread, Granny Spice dips deep into the Classics department at Fresno State University to ask Professor Bruce Thornton for his thoughts on ... science.  In the responses to that thread, Borne shows a rather unhealthy, but probably typical, interest in beastiality.  Apparently Hugh Hefner says it's ok, so go ahead, Borne, you have my permission to bonk any beast that catches your fancy, so long as it's voluntary for both of you.  And I'd get it in writing, just to be safe.

In comment 4 on the same thread, vividbleau returns from whatever institution has been keeping him and drops this gem of logic on us:          
I did not start questioning Darwinism until I read “Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds”
I wish to state here that I did not begin doubting vb's sanity until I read at least his second or third post.

Well, ok, his first post.  But I gave him the benefit of the doubt until at least his second post.

Granville Sewell then offers us a Tard Cornucopia, giving us the "thoughts" of David Berlinski in the David Berlinski on Physics and Metaphysics thread.  Dr. B. is very concerned with "...the calculated or careless erasure of the line separating disciplined physical inquiry from speculative metaphysics."  Apparently, some of the "modern" physicists are behaving in ways that would not please Newton.  According to Dr. B., some of the real parvenus of physics, drek like Steven Hawkins, "...feel free to say anything that pops into their heads."  The Shame!

In the responses, russ also decries falling standards and notes that, "If the Internal Revenue Service disappeared tomorrow, a great many Americans would no longer pay their taxes."  Since there would be nowhere to pay their taxes to, russ is probably right.  Score a magnificent victory for UD-Thought.

Mapou, however, makes russ look like an amateur with his response:            
Interesting. Physics is the only field of science where the experts routinely come up with the most outrageous conclusions, conclusions that would be considered crackpottery in any other discipline. For example, famous physicists (e.g., Stephen Hawking, Kip Thorne, Carl Sagan, David Deutsch) feel free to claim, without any fear of criticism, that Einstein’s general theory of relativity does not forbid time travel (sources: Nova Online and
Mr. Mapou cries "Foul!" and who can blame him.  The truth is that          
The hard undeniable reality is that nothing can move in spacetime, by definition!!
The fact that nothing can move in spacetime is known to many physicists but it is rarely discussed in universities and physics circles because it refutes the claim repeatedly made in the last century by relativists (including Einstein himself) that gravity is due to the curvature of spacetime and to bodies following their geodesics in curved spacetime. In the words of Wolfgang Pauli, this stuff is not even wrong.
 Further furthermore, Mapou is onto Big Physics:          
The above only scratches the surface of the deep crackpottery that permeates the physics community. It seems that the overriding concern of physicists is to deny the possibility that the universe was designed and created. In so doing, they have built an absurd paradigm that can only be described as a type of voodoo science. Star-trek physics at its worst!

In a later response, he clarifies his thoughts:        
I am simply saying that a physical time dimension makes motion impossible because movement in time is self-referential. Thus time is abstract. This is the reason that nothing can move/change in spacetime. And this is the reason that any physicist (Hawking, etc.) who claims that GR does not forbid time travel is a crackpot in my book. Heck, if we were living in an honest world, he/she would be a crackpot in everybody’s book.

That such claims are routinely made by world-famous physicists without any outcry from the physics community is a sad commentary on the state of physics as a science.

Now a lot of johnny-come-lately parvenu so-called physicists might think that the tard-pits have been emptied by that last statement, but connoisseurs of Tard know that we can expect lots more than this from UD and once again, they're right.  Frost122585 blows Mapou right out of the water with a reply that is so Tardilicious it must be quoted in full:        



9:16 pm
The deal with multiverse is simply to avoid the ultimate question that troubles the entirty of all things from philosophy, to physics, to theology, to life experiences of all kinds; what is it that determines form?

As Johannes Keplar use put it in his seminal writing on the movement of Heavenly Bodies “why do things happen one way as opposed to another?”

In physics we call this the “first cause“. materialist physicists like Stephen Hawkins will have you believe that asking what “caused the first cause” is an incoherent question. Hawking has likened it to the question “what is north of north?“ He says this I meaningless and he is right - but we are not asking what is north of north- no we are asking “why should their be a north at all?” Why is it a north and not say simply a 3 directional world of only south, east and west? There is no way to answer this question except to point to the moment of paradox- that is the point of physical question can be measured. We can set up the real scenario and put it o0t the physicists to explain.

How can a cause happen uncaused and what determined the nature- shape- form of that first cause?

They answer:


So to the physicist the only thing that exists- that even can exist- is matter, that is physical objects- yet all thing owe their existence to nothing.

It is hard to argue with this interpretation because the speculation is observational and empirically based - yet it sounds like creationism. That is the problem for the materialists. If an entire universe can just pop out of nowhere why cant a person or a miracle? Quantum physics actually says miracles (or what you and I would consider one, such as a person jumping out of a plane and living) to be not only possible but probable - that is all events have a certain probability attached to them. This is not the universe that the dogmatic materialist wants to live in- it is not the truth that he wants to bow down to.

So they come up with “ideas” like multiverse. That is given enough universe every kind is not only possible, not only probable, but MUST exist. So therefore ours is just one of many and that is why it is as it is.

This however only defers the question of the origin of form to “probabilities”- that is, this is a stupid mind trick- because now we not only have one universe to deal with but we need to explain the origin of an infinite number of universe. The question them becomes why are there infinite universes and not simply one? This seems to go against Occam’s raze… don’t you think! This is actually the ultimate insult to Occam’s razor- not only does it fail to describe the mechanism whereby the universe can appear out of nothing- but it inflates the problem by infinite resources-

Well perhaps “infinite” as all evidence seem to point to a finite universe- that is if our universe is finite then you wouldn’t need an infinite amount just a huge number bigger than we an comprehend.

Also there is no possible evidence of multiple universes - so therefore this theory is not testable or empirically based- not to mention no falsifiable- so I guess in the words of the holly Darwinists


Happy holidays yall.

And happy holidays to you too, Frostie!  There's lots more Tard to be mined at UD today, but this holly Darwinist is now fully satiated and only wishes to sleep peacefully and dream of worlds stuck in space-time, unable to move.

Date: 2008/12/25 12:35:21, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (dnmlthr @ Dec. 25 2008,12:06)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 25 2008,18:03)
I have to admit, I'd never realized just what a pompous ass KF really is...

...mostly because I've never wasted the time to read his pompous crap.

You and me both. He/she seems to be the kind of person that replies to a yes or no question with a 2000+ word essay.

Does anybody remember a guy who used to haunt the usenet religion threads about fifteen years ago whose last name was Winter?  He was a Christian who, among other things, denied the Trinity, which raised a few objections on the Christian threads.  To "answer" his critics, he had about a million words of blather stored on his hard drive which he would cut and paste into fantastically long posts that make kf look like a piker.

That was in the 2400 baud days and I could just about keep up reading that speed, so I'd let the messages scroll and just read them on the fly.  You could always tell when one of Winter's messages was coming up because suddenly this solid block of text would start to rise from the bottom of your screen, like some submarine behemoth rising to lay waste to the world.  The sentences filled the entire screen, from left to right, with no paragraphs, indentations or other breaks.  Page after page of English-like sentences that made about as much sense as kf.

The overall effect was kf^2 or maybe even kf^3.  I think he was eventually banned from just about every thread in usenet.  kf may be his little brother.  Somebody ask him if his last name used to be Winter.  And if not, demand to know why.

Date: 2008/12/29 07:03:54, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Could somebody refresh my memory?  Who is Steve Fuller?

Date: 2008/12/30 00:36:44, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Note: My Salvo 6 column on the ongoing stem cell scam is now online. If you got money for Christmas, take the opportunity to subscribe to Salvo. There you will find out about still more amazing establishment science scams - and many other fascinating details of the collapse of popular materialist culture)
Subscribe to my mag.

Date: 2009/01/05 20:56:49, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Wikipedia on Dr. Jerry Bergman, author of "Slaughter of the Dissidents":        
Dr Gerald R. "Jerry" Bergman is an American young earth creationist. He is an active supporter of the anti-cult movement (ACM). He is also known for his stance against Jehovah's Witnesses.
In 1992 Bergman received his Ph.D. in human biology from Columbia Pacific University, a now-defunct nonaccredited distance learning school. Columbia Pacific University lost its state approval to operate in 1995 and was ordered to close permanently in October 2000 by the State of California. A court invalidated all degrees awarded after 1997 and ordered the student fees refunded.
Bergman's opinions on creationism are often published by Answers In Genesis. In the 1990s he was also known for his Usenet postings to the newsgroup. Many of his views are highly controversial, such as implying a causal relationship between Darwinism, Nazism, and the Holocaust.
Bergman was hired in the 1973-74 school year by Bowling Green State University. He was initially employed as an assistant professor but was reduced to the rank of instructor later for not receiving his Ph.D. as soon as he had expected. His employment was continued until 1976 when the university recommended that he receive a terminal contract for 1976-1977. Bergman's contract for 1976-77 year was changed from terminal to temporary while studying for his Ph.D at Wayne State. In 1978 Bergman was denied tenure. Bergman believed this was due to his involvement in the creation movement and his religious beliefs and subsequently filed with both the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Ohio Civil Rights Commission on the grounds that he had been discriminated against on the basis of religion, with both agencies ultimately ruling that he was not let go due to his religious beliefs, but because his peers voted to terminate him.

Bergman filed suit against Bowling Green State University in federal district court in 1980, alleging that his due process rights had been violated and that he had been denied tenure on the basis of his religious views. The due process claim arose from his allegation that he never received annual written evaluations as required by the University charter. The case was dismissed in 1985. Bergman appealed but the appeal was turned down in 1987. The court ruled that the reason he was let go was because of ethics, namely that he claimed to have credentials in psychology when, in fact, he "had no psychological credentials."[2]
Jerry Bergman was reared by an atheist father and a religiously indifferent mother who became a follower of Jehovah’s Witnesses when he was 8 years old. Some time later, he was disillusioned with all religion and followed his father into atheism. As an atheist he knew many of the leading atheists (including Gordon Stein; Garry De Young; and, Madalyn Murray O'Hair), and published scores of articles in their various journals.

Presently, he teaches Sunday school at a Mennonite church in West Unity, Ohio, and is also a lay speaker at St. Paul’s United Methodist Church in Montpelier, Ohio. Today he has an active share in publishing articles against Jehovah's Witnesses.

Let's see ... YEC, PhD from a diploma mill, hates Jehovah's Witnesses, writes for Answers in Genesis, is a Hitler-Darwin crank, fails to get a legitimate PhD, but a secular college keeps him on the payroll for four more years while he tried and failed to get one, sues that employer claiming religious discrimination, the court finds that his colleagues just couldn't stand him, sues his next academic employer claiming religious discrimination, loses the case and the appeal, "The court ruled that the reason he was let go was because of ethics, namely that he claimed to have credentials in psychology when, in fact, he 'had no psychological credentials.'"

He then writes a book on the terrible discrimination Christians face in today's academia.

This man is perfect for UD!

Date: 2009/01/07 00:10:10, Link
Author: CeilingCat
(Queen Liz Voice) We sent the convicts and excessively religious to the colonies years ago for a reason. Cease and desist your returning of them forthwith, if not, indeed, fifthwith or I'll set the corgis on you and have Phillip made the Ambassador to the USA.

Centuries ago, England conducted a vast social experiment.  It sent all of its thieves, pickpockets and murderers to Australia and all of its surplus lawyers and religious whackadamia nuts to America.  

For over a century, the world's most prominent sociologists, criminologists and philosophers have examined the results and they have now come to a unanimous conclusion:

Australia had first choice.

Date: 2009/01/08 02:05:39, Link
Author: CeilingCat
I think some of the best reading on UD is in the wacky ads they're running.  Here's my current favorite:  
God torture many in Hell?
Extreme but just? Is it loving? Rd how Hell is both loving and just...
Oh yeah, read how eternal fire is loving!

I just had to go to the web site and read it for myself.

Turns out they're pushing a book so valuable they're giving it way for free, either on line or in hard copy.  
Hi, and welcome to Dennis Gilmour's novel, The Unveiling, online with commentary. The entire novel/commentary is available free online or in hardcopy simply for the asking, as the author desires to make his work available to as many as possible regardless of money.
Translation: Nobody will buy my book

Dennis is a Spirit Evolutionist, and as such, he has a highly developed sixth sense. He can intuitively discern spiritual truth behind normal everyday things, like words/actions characters say/do in movies/TV, something someone says at work or at home, lyrics to songs, his own thoughts, natural wonders of nature all around him etc...there are spiritual metaphors all around us!
No translation necessary.

My favorite quote: "People all over the world started to panic and Marshall law had to be implemented virtually worldwide."

I wonder if Dennis is into martial arts.

This is Dembski class literature, all the way.  Maybe even O'Leary quality.

Date: 2009/01/09 15:59:31, Link
Author: CeilingCat
They're both non Christian. QED.

Date: 2009/01/10 15:24:20, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Steve Fuller          
Newton was preoccupied with theology throughout his career but minimized its presence in his scientific writings, largely for the same reasons ID advocates do today

Fuller is more or less right about Newton - sort of.  According to Wikipedia, Newton did "...more work on Biblical hermeneutics than the natural science he is remembered for today."  (I think that may be a misprint.  They probably meant, "Newton wasted more time on Biblical hermeneutics than the natural science he is remembered for today.")

Unfortunately for the UD crowd, Newton was not a "nice" Christian.  He specifically denied the Trinity and felt that the Bible had been corrupted.  Either belief would have gotten him kicked out of his professorship, had they been known, so he kept them quiet.  Come to think of it, his beliefs would have gotten him kicked out of Uncommon Descent, too.  

He left a trunk full of religious speculations behind when he died.  John Maynard Keynes, the economist, purchased it and later said, "Newton was not the first of the age of reason: he was the last of the magicians."

Date: 2009/01/14 03:04:01, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Dembski is Illuminated:

I’m finishing a book on theodicy (titled THE END OF CHRISTIANITY) and, in trying to track down for it whether certain celebrities are atheists, found this site:

Some of the atheists:
Douglas Adams, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Woody Allen, Lance Armstrong, Darren Aronofsky, Isaac Asimov, Dave Barry, Ingmar Bergman, Lewis Black, Richard Branson, Berkeley Breathed, Warren Buffett, George Carlin, John Carmack, Adam Carolla, John Carpenter, Asia Carrera, Fidel Castro, Dick Cavett, Noam Chomsky, Billy Connolly, Francis Crick, David Cronenberg, David Cross, Alan Cumming, Rodney Dangerfield, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, David Deutsch, Ani DiFranco, Micky Dolenz, Harlan Ellison, Brian Eno, Richard Feynman, Harvey Fierstein, Larry Flynt, Dave Foley, Jodie Foster, Janeane Garofalo, Bill Gates, Bob Geldof, Ricky Gervais, Ira Glass, James Gleick, Robert Heinlein, Nat Hentoff, Katharine Hepburn, Christopher Hitchens, Jamie Hyneman, Eddie Izzard, Penn Jillette, Billy Joel, Angelina Jolie, Wendy Kaminer, Diane Keaton, Ken Keeler, Neil Kinnock, Michael Kinsley, Richard Leakey, Bruce Lee, Tom Lehrer, Tom Leykis, James Lipton, H.P. Lovecraft, John Malkovich, Barry Manilow, Todd McFarlane, Sir Ian McKellen, Arthur Miller, Frank Miller, Marvin Minsky, Julianne Moore, Desmond Morris, Randy Newman, Mike Nichols, Jack Nicholson, Gary Numan, Bob Odenkirk, Patton Oswalt, Camille Paglia, Steven Pinker, Paula Poundstone, Terry Pratchett, James Randi, Ron Reagan Jr., Keanu Reeves, Rick Reynolds, Gene Roddenberry, Joe Rogan, Henry Rollins, Andy Rooney, Salman Rushdie, Bob Simon, Steven Soderbergh, Annika Sorenstam, George Soros, Richard Stallman, Bruce Sterling, Howard Stern, J. Michael Straczynski, Julia Sweeney, Matthew Sweet, Teller, Studs Terkel, Tom Tomorrow, Linus Torvalds, Eddie Vedder, Paul Verhoeven, Gore Vidal, Kurt Vonnegut Jr., Sarah Vowell, James Watson, Steven Weinberg, Joss Whedon, Ted Williams, Steve Wozniak and there's a button that shows many more. (Including some unfortunate atheists, like Stalin.)

Reading this list, I find that their main distinguishing characteristic is that they're all a lot smarter than Dr. Dembski, they know more than Dr. Dembski and they've done a hell of a lot more to make the world a better place than Dr. Dembski or anybody in the ID movement will ever do.

Date: 2009/01/14 03:14:54, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Plus, they'd probably try to look up my skirt.
Well, just about anybody with a male chromosome would.  Human nature, you know.  Except Dembski.  He'd turn blue in the face not looking, then claim discrimination because you tempted him by wearing a skirt.

Date: 2009/01/14 03:58:19, Link
Author: CeilingCat
I've been re-reading Steve Fuller's ID and the Science of God posts and I finally understand why ID failed so spectacularly at Dover.  If this bonehead is the best ID can do for an expert witness, the movement is truly doomed.

In the first entry in this sorry series, we see Fuller recommending The Best of All Possible Worlds by Steven Nadler.  Well, it just happens that I have that book - it's currently in the new books section at Borders - and I've read it.

Dr. Fuller, you seem to have a little reading comprehension problem.  Read that book again and see if you can't detect its main message: Not even an intellect like Gottfried von Leibniz could overcome Theodicy.  The best he could come up with was to claim that this is the best of all possible worlds - without having any explanation for why it's the best and why it couldn't be better, even if made and operated by an all-knowing, all-powerful God.

Look at your own words:    
The problem with such clarity, of course, is that the more we think we know the divine modus operandi, the more God’s allowance of suffering and evil looks deliberate, which seems to put divine action at odds with our moral scruples.

Bingo professor Fuller!  Even the densest IDiot (sorry Gil) dimly realises this and tries to steer clear of the topic - except for the uber-dense Dr. Dr. Dembski himself, who is apparently writing a book on Theodicy, which he has hopefully entitled The End of Christianity.  You go, guy!

Date: 2009/01/14 04:22:54, Link
Author: CeilingCat
I just put MIRO video software on my new webbook and, just for the hell of it, I typed "Expelled" into the search function and up it popped.  I took a quick look before deleting it and yep, it's the same horror I saw in the theaters last summer.  Yuck!

But the good news is that the same search brought up at least 16 Expelled Debunked episodes and a few other debunks, so the word is getting out.

Now for the pron...

Date: 2009/01/14 05:38:24, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Oh my ...

I may not be around for a few weeks.

Date: 2009/01/14 06:00:12, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Hey, this is kinda off topic, but until you've seen Denyse in Projectile Vomiting II ...

Date: 2009/01/14 06:18:40, Link
Author: CeilingCat
I've never seen a crowd shout, "Put it on!" before.

Date: 2009/01/17 08:52:23, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (digitus impudicus @ Jan. 16 2009,22:23)
to Ceiling Cat: I didn't find any good pron on Miro, could you please elucidate your standards further?

You have to type in the types of pron you're interested in.  For example, an ID enthusiast might search for "toronto journalist grandmother pole dance" and you wouldn't hear from him for two or three days.

Date: 2009/01/21 04:20:28, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Nils Ruhr @ Jan. 20 2009,13:07)
@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.

“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.

Nils, what these papers show is that despite a degree in Philosophy of Science and ten+ years in the field of ID, Dembski still doesn't understand how evolution works.

He thinks living things are searching for the infinitismal portion of all possible genomes that will construct an organism capable of reproducing.  He is wrong!

The fact that Dembski came from parents and has managed to reproduce himself shows that his DNA is already in the sweet spot!  ALL living organisms that successfully reproduce are in it.  They don't have to search for it, they just have to stay in it.  They do this by making only small changes to their genomes when they reproduce.

Tell this to Dr. Dr. Dembski so he can finally stop making a fool of himself.

Date: 2009/01/23 03:51:07, Link
Author: CeilingCat
DonaldM is a tard:  
The theory of evolution has consistently failed and as a consequence it has grown far more complex than anything Darwin ever envisioned. Therefore evolution is not a good scientific theory and in this sense it is comparable to geocentrism. Both theories grew ever more complicated in response to the evidences of the natural world, adding epicycle upon epicycle.

Bzzzst!  Wrong!  Both the theories of geocentrism and heliocentrism required more and more epicycles to make their predictions agree with ever more accurate measurements.  The reason they needed more epicycles was because both theories assumed that the planets orbits were circular.  Kepler showed their orbits were actually elliptical.  Adding more and more epicycles to the supposed circular orbits made them mathematically closer to the actual elliptical orbits in a sort of a Fourier transform.

Once Kepler showed that the orbits were elliptical, all of the epicycles vanished except for one whopper that had to be added to the geocentric theory to account for the sun and planets orbiting the earth instead of the planets and earth orbiting the sun.

But I doubt if DonaldM cares about this because ID is above all that sciency stuff.

Date: 2009/01/23 03:56:34, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (nuytsia @ Jan. 23 2009,03:51)
Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 22 2009,09:17)
Denyse... You can put a man on Mars?

She reads them one of her love poems.
You'd be amazed how far they go. :D

Hmmm....  I wonder if she's a Vogon?

Date: 2009/01/26 00:51:31, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 25 2009,23:47)
The inimitable StephenB

Would anyone care to clone human beings as sex slaves? Step right up, our scientists are ready.

Jeezus!  I was thinking of Deneyse and suddenly that message came up.

Must ... wash ... in ... fire .........

Date: 2009/01/27 00:57:35, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 27 2009,00:09)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 27 2009,00:53)
A whole science consisting of engineers and Bible teachers making shit up on the fly on blogs. Gotta be impressed.

It is kind of weirdly impressive. A bunch of laymen, with no understanding the science they're trying to refute, endlessly yammering on blogs about their poorly- and multiply-defined acronyms, the repetition of which, or the exposure of high schoolers to which, will initiate a scientific revolution, in a manner contrary to how every scientific revolution in history happened. And that they soldier on, year after year, learning nothing, improving not at all.

It's what propels this site--that fascination of watching people of no understanding perform pointless rituals, expecting miracles you know they'll never receive. Very much like an anthropologist studying a Cargo Cult.

It's the kind of thing that would be very cute if children were doing it, but it's rather strange and unpleasant when done by adults.

Date: 2009/01/28 06:20:39, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote without comment:

I’ve been reading your messages about BLASTing protein sequences and I’m uncomfortably reminded of Salvador Cordova’s Avida fiasco.

Second, I feel honored of being compared to Salvador Cordova.

Date: 2009/01/29 00:34:38, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 28 2009,12:27)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 28 2009,07:20)
Second, I feel honored of being compared to Salvador Cordova.

That's it. I've got to bail. I can't take this concentration of tard right now. Back later.

Even the grammer is bad.

Date: 2009/01/30 00:52:32, Link
Author: CeilingCat
JayM:        There’s no need for name calling, this is supposed to be a collegial environment.

gpucio:   It was not meant as name calling.

JayM: Ah, clearly it’s my misinterpretation. “Stupid” can’t be in any way considered offensive.

Date: 2009/02/02 02:22:53, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (hereoisreal @ Feb. 01 2009,11:37)
Quote (steve_h @ Feb. 01 2009,11:18)
The wikipedia article on the 'Observable Universe' says the number of atoms in the universe is estimated to be of the order of 10^80.

It also gives a 'back of the envelope' calculation which yields 8x10^79;   In rounding from that to the approximation 10^80 they've added 2x10^79 particles which is rather more than one grain of sand - more like 2^60 grains  (assuming no screw-ups on my part).

I imagine Dave has seen different estimations of the number of particles which varied by around 20 orders of magnitude from each other (eg from 10^70 to 10^90) and got all confused about it.

                            Here O is real

As I have posted on my thread:

IMO, there are 2 infinities, big and small.
One infinity big is composed of an infinite
number of infinity smalls.  One must start
counting from the middle, the beginning.


Can I have some of your meds?

Date: 2009/02/02 02:25:06, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (hereoisreal @ Feb. 01 2009,14:40)
Quote (hereoisreal @ Feb. 01 2009,11:37)
Quote (steve_h @ Feb. 01 2009,11:18)
The wikipedia article on the 'Observable Universe' says the number of atoms in the universe is estimated to be of the order of 10^80.

It also gives a 'back of the envelope' calculation which yields 8x10^79;   In rounding from that to the approximation 10^80 they've added 2x10^79 particles which is rather more than one grain of sand - more like 2^60 grains  (assuming no screw-ups on my part).

I imagine Dave has seen different estimations of the number of particles which varied by around 20 orders of magnitude from each other (eg from 10^70 to 10^90) and got all confused about it.

                            Here O is real

As I have posted on my thread:

IMO, there are 2 infinities, big and small.
One infinity big is composed of an infinite
number of infinity smalls.  One must start
counting from the middle, the beginning.


How marvelous is the infinite mind.  I find it
profound that when you 'think' you've about
reached the end, someone increases it by a
factor of 10.

Jesus said, "I have chosen you 12."
By chance, 12 x Jesus = 888 and 88 x 8 = 704 (God)
and by chance, 3 x 704 = 2112 (U 12)
and finally, by chance, a nation was born on the
4th of July. 7/04/1776
1776 = 24 x 74 or 2 x 888 (3 infinities turned 90 degrees)

Go Pittsburg

Never mind.

Date: 2009/02/04 02:01:40, Link
Author: CeilingCat
There's a campaign going on to ban comic sans.  Obviously, they don't know about the Uncommonly Dense Thread.

Hat Tip to Weird Earl at The Straight Dope.

Date: 2009/02/09 16:16:30, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 23 2007,14:57)
Sorry to have been away from the discussion: my travel schedule has kicked in again.  I'll have only infrequent net access for the next two weeks.

I talked with Discovery and a moderation-light Explore Evolution (EE) critique board there is a live possibility.  I say "moderation-light," because the critical posts will need to address the content of EE, not my failure to publish my monograph, DI funding sources, etc.  Except for that content requirement, however, and the usual no-vulgarity stuff, the board should be totally open.

Given my travel, the board won't be operational until mid-August.  Until then, keep posting here, and I'll continue compiling criticisms.

One quick reply, about the use of quotations in scientific writing.  I agree that quoted material occurs very rarely in primary research publications.  Quotes occur frequently in science books, however: take a look, for instance, at Gould's The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, or Dawkins's The Ancestor's Tale.

I'll check back in from my hotel in Rome.

P.S. to Lenny and JAM: if you can specify terms, with a dollar cap of $1,000 and some practical way to set up an escrow account where both parties' money will be on deposit, your bet sounds very attractive.  But let's see precise terms.

How did that turn out?  Did the Discovery Institute ever host a lightly moderated discussion of Explore Evolution?  I'm betting not.

Date: 2009/02/13 01:19:07, Link
Author: CeilingCat
That went in a completely different direction than I thought it would. When I read the bolded part I immediately thought of Davidson  

I immediately thought of George W. Bush.  I think he'd be a perfect ID spokesman.  Mentally and morally challenged and ignorant as one of the cattle grazing on the range.  Perfect for ID.

Date: 2009/02/13 03:01:13, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Ptaylor @ Feb. 09 2009,14:09)
News just in! G K Chesterton alligns himself with Intelligent Design movement. Dateline, er, 1920.
This is going to be a long post, skip it if you're in a hurry.

For those who haven't heard of G. K. Chesterton, you're in for a real treat.  He was quite famous in the early 20th century and he's still well thought of by a certain type of person who doesn't think too well.  

My personal response to him has been formed by some very unfortunate writing of his that I ran into early on.  Among many other things, Chesterton wrote a series of short stories about a fictional detective, a Catholic priest named Father Brown.  (Chesterton was raised Protestant and converted to Catholicism.)  The first piece by Chesterton that I ever read was a Father Brown short story titled   The Invisible Man.  If you haven't read it, go ahead and read it now.  I'll wait.

Ok, done?  Are you pissed off?  Do you feel that Chesterton has lied to you and broken some of the most basic rules of mystery fair play?  I sure did and do.  Here's why: The story concerns a young English woman who is very afraid of a man named Welkin who is described as having a terrible "squint".  The woman describes this squint as, " of the most appalling squints I have ever seen or heard of. When he looked straight at you, you didn't know where you were yourself, let alone what he was looking at."  Pretty noticeable, eh?  

Well, Welkin and a man named Smythe want to marry her and they go off to make their fortunes.  A year later, "'I heard James Welkin laugh as plainly as I hear you speak,' said the girl, steadily. 'There was nobody there, for I stood just outside the shop at the corner, and could see down both streets at once. I had forgotten how he laughed, though his laugh was as odd as his squint. I had not thought of him for nearly a year. But it's a solemn truth that a few seconds later the first letter came from his rival.'"

So, she hears his laugh, but there's nobody there.  "...I stood just outside the shop at the corner, and could see down both streets at once."  But there's nobody there.  And a few seconds later she somehow receives a letter from Smythe.

Did she ever hear him again?  "'Yes. Just when I had finished reading the second letter from Isidore Smythe announcing his success. Just then, I heard Welkin say, `He shan't have you, though.' It was quite plain, as if he were in the room. It is awful, I think I must be mad.'"  

Smyth is later holed up in his castle like house, which has only one exit.  The exit is guarded by a " in shirt sleeves [who] was doing something with a pail", the doorman at the front door, a policeman and a man selling chestnuts.  Yet, he is murdered in his house and his body disappears, leaving nothing but a blood stain.  All four of the guardians swear that nobody entered or left.  Yet Father Brown points out footprints in the snow showing that one man both entered and exited the building.

Father Brown does a bit more cogitating and then "He took three quick strides forward, and put his hand on the shoulder of an ordinary passing postman who had bustled by them unnoticed under the shade of the trees.

"Nobody ever notices postmen somehow," he said thoughtfully; "yet they have passions like other men, and even carry large bags where a small corpse can be stowed quite easily."

The postman, instead of turning naturally, had ducked and tumbled against the garden fence. He was a lean fair-bearded man of very ordinary appearance, but as he turned an alarmed face over his shoulder, all three men were fixed with an almost fiendish squint."

Father Brown explains why nobody mentioned that the postman had entered and left the apartment:

"Have you ever noticed this--that people never answer what you say? They answer what you mean--or what they think you mean. Suppose one lady says to another in a country house, `Is anybody staying with you?' the lady doesn't answer `Yes; the butler, the three footmen, the parlourmaid, and so on,' though the parlourmaid may be in the room, or the butler behind her chair. She says `There is nobody staying with us,' meaning nobody of the sort you mean. But suppose a doctor inquiring into an epidemic asks, `Who is staying in the house?' then the lady will remember the butler, the parlourmaid, and the rest. All language is used like that; you never get a question answered literally, even when you get it answered truly. When those four quite honest men said that no man had gone into the Mansions, they did not really mean that no man had gone into them. They meant no man whom they could suspect of being your man. A man did go into the house, and did come out of it, but they never noticed him."

This, of course, is rank nonsense.  If you're asked if anyone has entered or left a house where a man has just been murdered, you will very definitely mention a postman if he was there.  This is not the same situation as the lady saying no one was staying here when she's got a butler standing behind her, it's a situation where the doctor is inquiring about an epidemic.  The question is clearly, "Has any human being been in or out of this house." and any half-way intelligent man would have replied, "The postman", especially if the postman had an impossible to ignore squint.

Similarly, if you hear an evil laugh or a threat and you look around and see a postman standing there, especially one with a remarkable squint, you don't ignore him and say nobody was there.

The story is an all-around cheat, from beginning to end and it soured me on Chesterton from the get-go.

Another one of Chesterton's Father Brown stories, .The Secret Garden, is a fine example of the "locked room" genre.  A recurring character in the Father Brown series, Aristide Valentin, Chief of the Paris Police, has a house with only one exit and a garden with a high and unscaleable wall around it, which can only be entered or left through the house.  A policeman is guarding the only exit to the house, yet a man is found beheaded in the garden.  The murderer turns out to be Valentin himself.  And the reason for the murder?  The victim was a wealthy philantropist who's looking to give a very large sum of money to a religion.  It turns out that Father Brown has persuaded him to give the money to the Catholic Church.  "Valentin is an honest man, if being mad for an arguable cause is honesty. But did you never see in that cold, grey eye of his that he is mad! He would do anything, anything, to break what he calls the superstition of the Cross. He has fought for it and starved for it, and now he has murdered for it. Brayne's crazy millions had hitherto been scattered among so many sects that they did little to alter the balance of things. But Valentin heard a whisper that Brayne, like so many scatter-brained sceptics, was drifting to us; and that was quite a different thing. Brayne would pour supplies into the impoverished and pugnacious Church of France; he would support six Nationalist newspapers like The Guillotine. The battle was already balanced on a point, and the fanatic took flame at the risk. He resolved to destroy the millionaire, and he did it as one would expect the greatest of detectives to commit his only crime."  Yeah, right.  A man with too much money is going to give some of it to a church with too much money and Valentin murders him to prevent that.  He was an atheist, after all.  Only a man who was lost in religion would think of a plot like that.

The next piece of Chersterton's writing I came across had him claiming that there had to be natural law because every society ever known has had laws against murder and theft.  Apparently it never occurred to Chesterton that there's never been a society full of people who wanted to be robbed or murdered and it's not surprising that they all pass laws against doing what they dont want done to them.

So I'm not too big a fan of G. K. Chesterton.  How is he as a proto-ID advocate?

Chesterton's proto-ID article is just another anti-evolution screed, but it gives another example of the way the man thought.  It's well worth reading if you'd like to see what a sorry defense of ID a really intelligent and knowledgeable man can produce.  

First he "disposes" of the claim that he knows nothing about evolution: "It is true, and it would be equally true if I ventured to throw out the suggestion that the Kaiser has suffered a defeat. If I were to insinuate that the armies of the German Empire were ultimately out-manoeuvred and forced to a surrender, it might be said that I was wholly ignorant of the technical strategy of soldiering, and did not know what half the manoeuvres meant; and this would be perfectly true."  Yes, G. K., but you don't need to know the details of soldering to tell that someone who's been overrun by invading armies and forced to surrender has suffered a defeat.  But you can't evaluate claims for or against a scientific theory unless you understand the theory.  Just ask Dr. Dr. Dembski.

Then he gives the reasons why he knows evolution is wrong anyway: "First of all, there is something that will be very suggestive to anybody with a sense of human nature; I mean the tone of the Darwinians themselves. We may well begin with the first and greatest of the Darwinians. Huxley said, in his later years, that Darwin's suggestion had never been shown to be inconsistent with any new discovery; and anybody acquainted with the atmosphere will be struck by the singular note of negation in that."  Now this is where your ignorance is starting to trip you up, G. K.  Darwin listed several ways his theory could be disproven.  Huxley pointed out in his "later years" that this had not happened.  This isn't being negative, Huxley was pointing out that it had been a long time since Darwin's theory was made public, a lot of very powerful and knowledgable people had opposed it and none of them - not one - had found any evidence to disprove it.

"When Huxley began to write, he certainly expected that, by the end of his life, Darwin' suggestion would have been confirmed by a crowd of positive discoveries."  Which it was.  Remember archaeopteryx?  Right down Darwin's alley.  Remember Mendelian genetics?  It was in the process of being integrated into Darwin's theory when you wrote your piece in 1920.

He complains of Huxley's positive evidence: "The simple and natural thing to do, if you think you can explain biological variations, is to explain the variations where they are most obviously varied. If you were explaining to a child, for instance, you would take things like the horn of the rhinoceros or the hump of the dromedary."  One problem, Mr. Chesterton, is that rhino horns and camel humps don't fossilize, so he could hardly use them as evidence for anything.  But horse skeltons do fossilize and an excellent series of them was found, showing how horses grew and changed as they evolved.  The only thing that has been added to that since is the realization that those fossils are just the surviving relics of a veritible bush of developing proto-horses.  They are an excellent example of evolution in action.

Mr. Chesterton can't think of any way a rino horn or bat wing could get started in the first place.  "But if you will call up the Darwinian vision, of thousands of intermediary creatures with webbed feet that are not yet wings, their survival will seem incredible. A mouse can run, and survive; and a flitter-mouse can fly, and survive. But a creature that cannot yet fly, and can no longer run, ought obviously to have perished, by the very Darwinian doctrine which has to assume that he survived."  But of course, an arboreal mouse-like creature can jump to a more distant tree if it has even a rudimentary flap of skin on its arms - see the flying squirrel for an example.  That's a great start on a wing.

Finally, the clincher: "But I will add a third reason of the same more general sort. The Darwinians have this mark of fighters for a lost cause, that they are perpetually appealing to sentiment and to authority. Put your bat or your rhinoceros simply and innocently as a child might put them, before the Darwinian, and he will answer by an appeal to authority. He will probably answer with the names of various German professors; he will not answer with any ordinary English words, explaining the point at issue. God condescended to argue with Job, but the last Darwinian will not condescend to argue with you. He will inform you of your ignorance; he will not enlighten your ignorance."

It's hard to reason with a man who is proudly ignorant of the subject under consideration.  They tend not to even recognize a valid argument when it hits them in the face.  Chesterton's ignorance was impervious.  If he was alive today, he would be a formidable ID proponant.

Date: 2009/02/17 12:14:07, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 17 2009,11:27)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 16 2009,12:38)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 16 2009,13:44)
the best thing you can do with mynym is to smoke crack or something.  because it doesn't make any sense in this universe, my precious.  i have often wondered what sort of individual this mynym is.  would be entertaining to meet it.

The type of person that has had a blog for over 4 years, and averages a whopping 8 visitors a day.

Wow, eight visitors a day. That beats mine.

We've got him up to ten a day now.  With an average visit length of 2.01 minutes.

There's some pretty good tard at that site:  
It is interesting to note that if the Bible was inspired totally by the minds of men then it is likely that the mentality read in it would read just like a lot of cults read. Something along the lines of: "One of the rules is that men get to have sex with as many women as they like, preferably virgins." One would think that the fact that it doesn't read that way might cause these journalists to pause and think but then, they are journalists.

Date: 2009/02/18 03:19:32, Link
Author: CeilingCat
The sheer monney-grubbing shiftiness of the ID crowd continues to amaze me.  Dembski gives column space to "Flannery" to tell about the new book they're bringing out.  It's "Alfred Russel Wallace's Theory of Intelligent Evolution", which is edited by Michael A. Flannery and has a forward by William A. Dembski.  It will be available 'real soon now' from their vanity press.

Then I take a look at the Stranger Fruit blog and discover that this book is a re-issue of Wallace's "World of Life" which is available  free on the internet!

And you can not only read it for free, but it comes without Flannery and Dembski's droolings.

Don't buy their book.  Read Wallace's book for free.

Date: 2009/02/19 00:47:06, Link
Author: CeilingCat
I expect to see Mivart, Agassiz, Pierre-Paul Grassé , Goldschmidt and maybe even Teilhard de Chardin carefully repackaged and republished soon by Dembski's Vanity Press.

ETA : Grassé's  Parasites et parasitisme (1935) seems particularly appropriate.

Date: 2009/02/20 02:45:48, Link
Author: CeilingCat
carsonjok, any idea who wrote this ID-Tripe?
Tenured Professors who question Darwinism are not Expelled.  They are scolded and banished to the attic in the Academy where it is hoped they will be quiet and die.  Embarrassed, the University offers feeble PR apologizing to their learned brethren in greater Academia. “Please.  It’s not our fault.  We didn’t know.  We would do a William Wallace on this guy, but he’s got tenure.  So please don’t  do anything to reduce our US News ranking.  Please don’t take away any of our federal funding.  Please be my friend.”

Michael Behe, a hero of mine, [Fair Warning: Tard Ahead] has a disclaimer from his department voicing their polite collegial damnation of Dr. Behe.

“[We all have an] unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas,” BUT,  “While we respect Prof. Behe’s right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department.”
[ID-Translation: Behe has a right to spew nonsense, but his co-workers don't have a right to distance themselves from it.  That would be Expelling him.]

To put this in perspective, the department could say the same thing about of proponents of body odor and nose picking. “Our department has unwavering support for religions that call for the daily blood sacrifice of chickens,” BUT,  “While we respect chicken killer’s right to kill chickens, the practice is  in no way endorsed by the department.”[What can I possibly add to this?  When you think about it, ID is actually quite a bit like nose-picking or chicken sacrificing.  All three are rather disgusting and definitely not science.  In fact, stinkin' nose-picking chicken-sacrificers isn't a bad image for ID.  I think I'll adopt it.]

Charles Garner, a Baylor Chemistry Professor specializing in organic molecules, was one of six panelists chosen by the Texas State Board of Education  to review a draft of new science curriculum standards for Texas public school.   He is now also one of my heroes.  Since he supported teaching  weaknesses in science theory, like Darwinism, Dr. Garner has been Behe’d by his department.  On their main page, the Baylor’s Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry has a link to their newly drafted  Statement on Evolution which revives an old cliche many of thought was dead (or at least comatose).

“Evolution, a foundational principle of modern biological sciences, is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence.”

[ Take a look at Jonathan Wells's "Overwhelming Evidence" video.  It's a hoot.][Jonathan Wells also believes that Reverand Sun Moon June Spoon is Jesus Christ returned to earth.  Is he another one of your heros?]

One of Dr. Garner’s colleagues wrote a letter to the Waco Tribune with some more polite collegial damnation of Dr. Garner.  Speaking on behalf of  Baylor’s “Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry,” the Baylor faculty member states

“Baylor faculty members in general are not legally able to speak on behalf of [Baylor's Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry or] the university.”

Then we have the curious statement

“[All Baylor] faculty members in our department are expected to have an active commitment to faith in the Judeo-Christian tradition, [BUT] we are also in the business of teaching chemical and biochemical sciences with the best relevant theories of our sciences to students.”

Translation: “There is no conflict if your priorities are straight.  Science first, then, if there is any room left,  a Judeo-Christian tradition. Science, unlike Judeo-Christian teachings, should not tell you what is right and wrong or how to live your life.  Science deals with truth and reality.  Scientists  know that the Judeo-Christian tradition has nothing to do with truth and reality.” [Hey, you got one right!  If a bronze-age holy book says one thing and the facts say something else, go with the facts.  Do you have a problem with this?  How about when the holy book is the Koran or some other book that is not the Bible?]

So Baylor’s Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry joins other departments who are “unflinchingly supportive” of Darwinism. Baylor’s Department of Biology’s statement overwhelming statement reads…

“Evolution, a foundational principle of modern biology, is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists.”

And there is a similar statement from Baylor’s Geology Department where suggested reading includes books by Richard Dawkins and Eugenie Scott.  Yes, really.

So Professor Charles Garner joins Drs. Robert Marks and Walter Bradley at Baylor as tenured questioners of random undirected Darwinism.  (Both Marks and Bradley appeared in Expelled.   Marks had his website removed by Baylor.  Bradley is the coauthor of the seminal work:  The Mystery of Life’s Origin.)
[This is going to sound harsh, especially if Dembski is the author of this whine, but here goes: Dembski is a deep embarassment to Baylor University.  This multi-multi degreed professional student finally ran out of college courses he could rusticate in and had to go out in the cruel cruel world and make a living after 20-some years as a college student.  He soon discovered that the world is not very interested in former professional students and the only job he could find was tutoring high school students at a Christian summer camp.  He wound up tutoring a daughter of Robert Sloan, then president of Baylor, and Sloan installed him as head of the Michael Polanyi Center.  (Polanyi was mercifully dead and could not object, but his descendants later asked that his name not be used by Dembski or his confederates.)

Unfortunately for everybody concerned, Sloan didn't bother to tell the rest of the faculty about any of this and so the faculty woke one day to find that their "Protestant Notre Dame" had a mental lightweight trading off their name and reputation to peddle his version of 'creationism lite' and he was calling it science to boot.

Eventually an outside commission was called in to look things over and when they gave their report, Dembski had actually more or less won his case.  And then he promptly shot off his big mouth, declared that the commission had supported (rather than humored) him and announced evolution's Waterloo.  And he did this in an email that went out to the entire Baylor faculty.  Even Sloan ordered him to apologize for the email and Dembski refused.  When the smoke cleared, Sloan was gone and Dembski was relieved of all duties.  (But he kept getting his paychecks and he cashed every one of them.)

The point I'm trying to make here is that Dembski is about as welcome at Baylor as a skunk at a garden party.  No, worse than that.  He's about as welcome as a skunk carrying bubonic plague at a garden party given for people who have never been vaccinated against the plague.  Or think of a ship in a terrible storm, pitching and rolling violently to and fro and side to side, taking on water and barely staying afloat and here's a loose cannon, careening around the deck, smashing anybody in its path and threatening to bust a hole in the side and sink the entire ship and everybody in it.  Now give that cannon a really bad attitude problem.  Make it really pissed off because it's getting such a hard time from everybody and nobody likes it.  Make it feel like a real martyr and whinge appropriately.  Now imagine how the sailors on that ship feel about that cannon and you've got a fairly good idea of how the Baylor faculty feel about Dembski.

Now imagine that the sailors finally jettison the loose cannon and then they see Marks crawling across the deck, knife in hand, intent on cutting the ropes and releasing another cannon.  Guess what: Marks is not too popular with the Baylor crew either.

So, maybe there’s a beachhead here.  I hope so.
[Dream on.]

A final thought:  Bradley and Marks are both Distinguished Professors of Engineering at Baylor.  There seems to be no polite collegial damnation of them on Baylor’s engineering web site.  Could it be because engineers actually intelligently design things?
[More likely because Engineers know about as much about biology and evolution as Dembski and the rest of the IDiots.]

Date: 2009/02/20 17:18:59, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Maya @ Feb. 20 2009,15:37)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 20 2009,04:23)
Yes, 'tis the first. Yes 'tis cool (plus scary).

Why do waterbirths result in less testicular pain? Is it because my wife won't be able to get out of the bath quick enough to catch me an rip them off?

Wait...don't answer. This is derailerisation, and I've done enough of that already. We'll take it as read that you replied and it was funny.

Soooooo how about that UD hey? Aren't they a bunch of muppets.


Congratulations!  This link and picture are for the future mother of your child.  Get her now.  Don't peek, you'll spoil the surprise.

This may explain why you see so few Aztecs nowadays.

Date: 2009/02/22 06:46:55, Link
Author: CeilingCat
10:14 am

—–Rob: “As JT said, Dembski’s CSI measure is inversely, not directly, proportional to the complexity of the pattern. All else being equal, a string of all 1’s has more CSI than a more complicated string. The “C” in CSI refers to the improbability of the pattern occurring (under some null hypothesis(es)), not the complexity of the pattern.”

Rob, is it clear to me that you do not even begin to grasp the concept of CSI, let alone it’s subset FSCI. I don’t think it is fair for you to continue throwing thumbtacks along the highway hoping that someone will get a flat time. Somehow, you labor under the misconception that persistent mindless criticism of a proposition constitutes a refutation. It doesn’t
I agree that the charge of “mindless criticism” is grossly unfair and borderline rude. As it turns out, though, I did not make that charge nor did I write that post @18. I noticed those comments as well, but I have no idea how they appeared there or how they arranged themselves into such an insulting formulation. Please stop accusing me of that which I did not do.
It is in that spirit that I assure you that I don’t know what happened @18. I can only conclude that natural forces generated the posting and arranged the texture and sequence of the words. I truly regret that it worked out that way, and, frankly, I don’t understand why you don’t believe me.
OK Rob, here is your retraction. I am not one to extend an exercise beyond its normal life expectancy. I did not mean those things I said @18, which, of course, means that I did not consider your comments to be mindless in any sense of the word. For my part, your comments are always welcome.
My purpose was to take you through an exercise of CSI detection, nothing more.
Saturday Meltdown

Edited to add Message 18

Date: 2009/02/23 00:51:27, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Erasmus, FCD:    
But I'd bet my copy of 3 Views On Creation that StephenB is getting puppeted by someone else and if so I absolutely salute your fine work sir.  And if it is real he needs to see if he can get some help, i believe a fitted sheet and some exposed beams would suffice.
If StephenB turns out to be a sock puppet, he will be the greatest sock puppet that has ever lived.  StephanB is one of the Three Stooges er UDExperts Chosen to re-write the "Frequently Asked Questions That We Cannot Answer and Therefore Must Ban" section of UD.

(Anybody know how to do that crossed out text trick?)
Edited to use the crossed out text trick.  Thanks to all who told me how to use it.

Date: 2009/02/23 06:03:46, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Dembski diagnoses ID:

If you get your starting points wrong, you can count on everything downstream going amiss as well.

Dembski during a sermon on Darwin's birthday.

Date: 2009/02/24 06:07:25, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Dembski Gets Tough!

Surprise, surprise!  Dembski has a new book out and he's advertising it on UD.  The title is TOUGH-MINDED CHRISTIANITY (All-caps in original) and it's dedicated to John Warwick Montgomery.  I love this comment in Dembski's blurb:    
JWM’s no-nonsense brand of apologetics, in which he was willing to put everything on the table for discussion and to consider all evidence pro and con on any topic, has certainly been an inspiration to me in the ID movement.
I'll say it was an inspiration.  You did the exact opposite with UD!  

Do you dispute that claim Dr. Dr. D.?  Then tell us about how JWM used to ban people who asked questions he couldn't answer and brought up facts that showed his theories were mistaken.

Buy your own book!

ETA If you want to see an annoying web site, go to

Date: 2009/02/26 00:48:19, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Notice that these people - despite being supposedly smart - never ask themselves the obvious question, let alone answer it - so why did Darwin lose his faith then? And why are we not allowed to think that the answer to that question matters?

Because even 150 years ago, bronze-age religions were starting to run out of steam?  Because all of the "evidence" for the existence of God turned out to have natural explanations?  Because of the obvious immorality of much of Christianity?  Because the foundational beliefs of Christianity (Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve, The Fall, The Flood, The Exodus) turned out to be false? Because there were about a hundred different versions of Christianity in existance by then and all of them were absolutely positive that the other 99 were 100% wrong?  Because the IQ of humanity has been gradually rising and the more intelligent people were starting to see through religion?  Because Christianity is full of idiots?  Because Darwin was given a vision of the future and when he read some of the tracts from a Prominent Toronto Based Journalist, he said, "To hell with it, if there were a God, IDiots like her would not exist"?

Date: 2009/02/26 06:38:10, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Bradford Says:
February 25th, 2009 at 6:44 pm        
A bar over a symbol also means "average" or "mean". Thus Heddle is a mean atheist.

You're making that up Raevmo. It means he is a good student of theology. What was your GPA?

Comment by Bradford — February 25, 2009 @ 6:44 pm
Raevmo Says:
February 25th, 2009 at 6:55 pm Bradford:

You're making that up Raevmo.

No I'm not. A bar over a symbol is standard notation for arithmetic mean.

Comment by Raevmo — February 25, 2009 @ 6:55 pm
Bradford Says:
February 25th, 2009 at 6:59 pm      
Raevmo: No I'm not. A bar over a symbol is standard notation for arithmetic mean.

I'm playing around.

Comment by Bradford — February 25, 2009 @ 6:59 pm

Date: 2009/02/27 04:14:22, Link
Author: CeilingCat
I love the Puddle Logic Thread:      
The first thing I notice about Doug’s puddle is it’s not very bright. In fact, it’s downright stupid. It’s as if Adams assumes that something so simple as a puddle should naturally have the intellect of a simpleton.

But this is one really stupid puddle.

Doug’s puddle is dumber than the dumbest caveman.

Adams has cast the blind, stupid puddle as the buffoon in his miniature farce.
Um... chunkdz, Adams was using the puddle analogy to talk about religious believers.

Like you.

Date: 2009/02/27 06:02:02, Link
Author: CeilingCat
gpuccio explains ID research:    
I don’t really agree that it is so important to do research about a specific theory. That is a very limited way to conceive research. I think most important researches are of the kind you call “general research”. Too much focus is often given to testing hypotheses, while we forget that the main purpose is to understand. Testing hypotheses should be seen as one of the possible ways to understand, and not as a game between different teams.
Testing hypotheses is so un-ID.

ETA Missed this one:
Because, as it is said in the FAQ:

“ID and darwinism are different, and under many aspects mutually exclusive, theoretical interpretations of the causal origin of biological information.”
Then you CAN test ID vs Evolution?

Date: 2009/02/27 06:15:20, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Oh, yeah, I forgot. They don't know how to do science, for the most part. And the ones that did know (e.g. Behe, Wells)

I agree with you except that I don't think Wells can be counted amongst those who do or used to know how to do science.  He's a Moony pastor who was sent back to college to get a PhD by Reverand Moon Himself* solely so he could attack evolution.  To the best of my knowledge, he's never done any independent research beyond working as a member of a post-doc team.  And if I remember right, he screwed that up.

*Himself capitalized because Reverand Moon is Jesus Christ, returned to earth.  We have His word on that.

Date: 2009/02/28 05:44:39, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Is it even possible to get a phd without publishing anything

Sure. It looks bad when you finish your degree and try to find a job, but it's entirely possible. I know many people who didn't even start publishing til after they finished their degrees.

It's not publishing that Wells doesn't understand, it's how to do science.  He managed to get a PhD in science without ever figuring out what science is.  Read anything he's ever written.  Not a clue.

Date: 2009/03/02 15:19:17, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Jesus' General is a parody, a very good one (IMHO).
Very very good:
But you see, even though I've changed, the damage has been done. There is something inside my grenades or the tubes feeding from them that changes my seed and causes me to father darker-hued children. Joshua Jr. is so brown he looks like a Mexican. That's not an exaggeration. I've stood him next to our neighbor, Mr. Garcia, and they are spitting images of each other.

The same is true of little Jason and our milkman, Mr. Watanabi, and our dear Esther and Dr. Washington, the school principal. It's very embarrassing. Especially when Joshia calls Mr. Garcia, "daddy." I don't know why my wife, OfJoshua, encourages that, but I suppose it's to hide her own embarrassment--I mean they look more like a family than we do.

Date: 2009/03/02 15:30:01, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 02 2009,11:47)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 02 2009,11:25)
My research area is in evolutionary robotics, I've seen some of the NASA stuff, very interesting but its hard to convince traditional engineers to trust things that were 'evolved' rather than designed because evolving a solution can produce results where it is hard to understand exactly how they work - evolutionary electronics is a good example!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Date: 2009/03/03 05:53:43, Link
Author: CeilingCat
That Chuck Johnson thread is pretty good.  It gives Denyse a chance to stretch out a bit mentally and really embarass herself.

Going to and checking their definition of "chuck johnson" is pretty interesting, too:        
"To 'Chuck a Johnson' can also be used to describe over use of the delete/banning function on web forums to those who hold contrary opinions."
Now where have we ever seen that kind of activity?

One point in O'Leary's favor - "formally conservative" is from the definition.  

Since the definition also includes "Charles Johnson biggest censorship ass hat 2008", I get the impression that the definitions are written by the readers, without too much editing by the dictionary staff.  I'd guess this one was entered by the same person who breathlessly reported it to Denyse.  

Maybe we should define a few new words and phrases, such as "Pull a Dembski", defined as "Making a complete fool of yourself and losing all cafeteria rights" or "O'Leary ignorant" for her normal everyday writings and enter them into the Urban Dictionary?

In the "Message just isn't getting through" thread, "jrh" changes the subject a bit:      



2:14 am
New Subject:

The Theory of Information Defined Reality, by John Hart

The Designed Universe.

1. Matter is the product of information.

2. Information is a quantum state not a material property.

3. Atoms are not things, they are relationships.

4. Objects are connected by their centers of mass.

5. The information defining reality is arraigned in a
top down hierarchy.

6. Gravitational force is propagated hierarchically.

7. Behavior is determined by memory not function.

8. Nothing is random.

9. Pseudo Random properties are assigned to events
so the physical properties of matter
will be statistically conserved.

10. The Twin Paradox is the result of a Pseudo Random property
being assigned to objects in the event.

11. Uncertainty is the result of random rounding
being used to conserve physical properties.

12. Moving objects are independent systems.

13. Beings are assigned to objects at the quantum level.

14. Once beings exist, they exist forever in the quantum state.

15. Love is the only eternal property and
a relationship is it’s only expression.
In case you miss any of that, he repeats it all in #16.  I don't know what I can say about that aside from "All science so far!"

Meanwhile, in the Oklahoma Daily Reports on Dembski-Ruse debate thread, the fabled R. Martinez offers up his own definition of science:    
The recognition and inclusion of God is the definition of genuine science while the exclusion of God is the definition of pseudo-science or anti-science.

Just another day in the Tard Patch.

Date: 2009/03/04 05:12:22, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Erasmus said, "croikey the real tard is on the Sibley pile."

You missed Arthur Smith:
My grandfather fought for England in the First World War. Like many others, he returned disillusioned with Christianity. I suspect England was set on a course of Godlessness from that time.
I thought it started down that path in 1859.

Date: 2009/03/04 19:46:57, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 04 2009,11:51)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Mar. 04 2009,03:12)
Erasmus said, "croikey the real tard is on the Sibley pile."

You missed Arthur Smith:      
My grandfather fought for England in the First World War. Like many others, he returned disillusioned with Christianity. I suspect England was set on a course of Godlessness from that time.
I thought it started down that path in 1859.

Yeah, but Darwin started the First World War.

(Slaps forehead)  How could I forget?  Him and his acolyte, Adolph Hitler.  I think Stalin and Mao were in on it too, along with Obama.

Date: 2009/03/05 06:49:52, Link
Author: CeilingCat
A "certain moderator" wins friends and influences people for UD.

From the ASA mailing list, Ted Davis, Mar 4, 2009:
When I kept to my "id,not ID" position over on UD a few months ago, I was
thrown out (with insults) by a certain moderator (whose ongoing association
with UD isn't winning them any friends) for being obstinate for not
admitting what was obvious to him. That's politics--and personalities,
which are always a part of politics.
Jeeze, I just cannot figure out who that certain moderator might be.  Any ideas?

Date: 2009/03/06 00:12:32, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (sparc @ Mar. 05 2009,23:33)
I am considering to declare that I was WMAD or Kairosfocus.

You mean Kairosfocus is your nom de tard?

Date: 2009/03/07 07:34:07, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Lewis and GCUGreyArea:  
Tardmatic = adjectival form of tardma

No, I think that word was coined in Detroit.  I remember the radio commercials for the 1953 Buick Roadmaster, with Tardmatic transmission.  As I recall, it didn't matter where you put the transmission selector, as soon as you hit the gas, your arguments drove off a cliff.

Date: 2009/03/07 07:50:53, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 06 2009,10:41)
Quote (GCUGreyArea @ Mar. 06 2009,10:29)
Someone should produce a glossary of terms.

I think tard comes in small but finite quantities.  Hypothetical particles carrying tard shall be known as tardons.  

Empirical evidence of tard quantization comes from kairosfocus.  He emitted 18 tardons this morning.  He called them bleats, but I think he was being too modest.

Jeus Christ on a bicycle!  I wake up this morning, massively hung over, mouth tasting like the bottom of a birdcage, double vision, a headache from hell and my eyeballs itch and I follow your link to kairosfocus expounding on Kant, Quine and Wikipedia.  I'm going back to bed for the rest of the winter.

Date: 2009/03/08 15:51:30, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Galileo may have been arrogant, but as far as I know, he didn't threaten anyone with the Inquisition.

No one expects the Galilean Inquisition!

Date: 2009/03/09 00:55:26, Link
Author: CeilingCat
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

Ben Stein has a brand new gig:  
America`s Brewing Beer Battle Pours into Theaters with Beer Wars LIVE Featuring a Spirited Discussion with Independent Brewers and Experts Led by Ben Stein

Founders of Dogfish Head Craft Brewery,New Century Brewing Company and Stone
Brewing Company Share their Quest for the American Dream During Exclusive LIVE
In-Theater Event

Beer Wars LIVE presented by NCM Fathom and Ducks In A Row Entertainment in more
than 430 Select Movie Theaters on April 16th

CENTENNIAL, Colo.--(Business Wire)--
Every day millions of Americans drink a beer to celebrate old friends, a new job
or the end of a long day. But most are unaware of who - or what - is behind the
label of their favorite beer or the power they have to determine its ultimate
success or failure. Beer Wars LIVE marches into select movie theaters in a
special live simulcast event on Thursday, April 16th to tell the David and
Goliath story of the American beer industry. The event will feature a timely
discussion with independent brewers and beer industry experts hosted by pundit,
economist and actor
crank Ben Stein following the groundbreaking documentary "Beer
Wars" that takes audiences inside the big business of beer.
More at

Fathom Events Entertainment will tell you where you can see this thrilling event.  I only have to drive about 67 miles.

Imagined movie:
Ben Stein: We all know who invented Beer.  Adolph Hitler, working under the supervision of Charles Darwin.  The first brewery ever was built at Auschwitz.  And do you know what beer is made from?  Jews!  Especially members of my family!  And the fermenting vats were kept warm in the German winter with waste heat from the furnaces!  This is solid proof that science is evil and P. Z. Meyers uses makeup!  Beuhler?  Isn't that another German name?  Beuhler?  Don't bottle my family!

Date: 2009/03/10 00:38:25, Link
Author: CeilingCat
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 09 2009,17:56)
But none of that answers my question , which is, after the crisis became obvious and painful, why has their been no rush to buy the toxic loans. You are talking about firve or ten percent of all mortgages dragging the world into a depression.

And even the worst mortgages are worth more than zero.

1: Because us taxpayers don't want to pay gold for crap loans.  The banks want the taxpayers to buy their toxic loans at greatly inflated value.  We taxpayers would rather the banks took the loss, thank you.

2: The banks are terrified that somebody will buy the loans - at their actual value.  If this happens, they have to mark the rest of their loans down to this new, lower value, which means instant bankruptcy, which in turn means a world wide crash that makes 1929 look like boom times.

In short, the banks want the taxpayers to pay grossly inflated prices for their crap loans and the taxpayers aren't that dumb.

I predict that we'll be seeing the dozen or so largest banks nationalized by the end of the month.

I further predict that Ben Stein won't understand.

Date: 2009/03/10 00:41:52, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (khan @ Mar. 09 2009,17:37)
Special indeed.

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

When you think of it, less than a decade after Darwin published "Origin of Species", slavery was ended in the US.  Makes you kind of proud.

Date: 2009/03/12 00:57:28, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Other UD regulars DT, noted already, and now bFast have come down against her, calling her argument 'silly and childish'.
It's not surprising that DT doesn't support the MorphoDyke, but when you've lost bFast, you're ready for the Old Tards Home.

Date: 2009/03/12 18:19:34, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Could somebody who has a puppet on UD please PM me?


Date: 2009/03/16 05:42:19, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Jeeebus!  I go home for a weekend to visit my sweet, saintly mother and I come back and the world is turned upside down, cats are living with dogs and DaveTard is no longer with UD!

Fine business!

And to make it a perfect weekend, I ran into this great Ray Comfort quote:    
Thanks to Delta airlines, you can now sit back and enjoy pedophilia while you fly in comfort across America. While there are certain passengers who may appreciate it, I don't think I am alone in my convictions when it comes to the sexual exploitation of our children. I don't like it.

I have been living in the United States for over 18 years. I became a citizen ten years ago and I'm extremely proud to be an American. I am proud because Americans are a compassionate people. They love and care for their children, and this is never more evident as when they see them harmed by some sexually twisted pervert.

Recently Kirk Cameron, I, and my son-in-law Emeal Zwayne, were flying from Atlanta to Los Angeles. Halfway into the flight, Kirk suddenly looked up and said, "What's going on!" We looked up at the more than twenty screens to see what looked like a nine-year-old child sexually gyrating and stripping in front of an adult audience. As we watched in horror, a few of the adults in her audience stood to their feet and began to clap to the music, obviously encouraging her to strip further, which she gladly did.

The airline kindly warned that the movie contained "adult situations, strong language and violence," and reviews said that it was "hilariously funny." No doubt the film's makers had a reason for their juvenile stripping scene, but what we were looking at wasn't a normal adult situation, nor was it funny. This was the promotion of pedophilia in the public arena.

We looked at each other and asked "How could this be happening?" This wasn't some in-house meeting of NAMBLA where perverts were getting off on seeing a young child take her clothes off in the privacy of their own clubhouse. This wasn't in some dirty little back room in Downtown Los Angeles. This was in front of mothers and fathers and their children on a domestic flight on Delta airlines.

What sort of twisted Hollywood scumbag is allowed to get this trash on a public airline?

The three of us immediately protested to a flight attendant. She smiled and gave her standard response, "You don't have to watch it. Just get on line on the Delta website and register a complaint." She was too busy caring for the needs of the passengers to see the movie.

One of the other passengers heard our protests and began to say that he actually enjoyed the film. Personally, I would like to know the names and addresses of anyone who enjoys watching little kids take their clothes off in public. I would like to warn the families in their area.

If someone is caught with this trash on his personal computer, he will find himself with a stiff prison term, but if he enjoys it on Delta, then that's his right.

I feel angry when our flag is burned, but if it's part of America's freedom, I can live with it. But if our freedom has its bounds, let it be at the harm of our children. Let's not let those who are our enemies see how we treat our children. If we can't agree on gay rights, prayer in schools, the war in Iraq, let's at least agree on this issue.

I have been on more than 1900 flights and I have looked away from adult entertainment many of times, but I will not close my eyes with this issue. I will open my mouth and do all I can to shame Delta for what they have done. What do I want from them? I want a very public apology. I want them and all the airlines to clean up their dirty little acts. The airlines outlawed smoking on their planes because enough passengers complained that they didn't want other people's poison in their faces. Liberty has its bounds. So if enough people protest about pedophilia flights maybe the airlines will ban their poison, and even create a NAMBLA room in the terminal so that they won't lose their business.

I like Delta's flight attendants. They are friendly. I like their pilots. They are good at what they do. I even like their food, and after the horror of 911, I want them to get on their feet financially, so I have a suggestion. I would like them to know that "Fly Delta, the pedophilia airline" isn't good for public relations.
If UD is looking for a worthy successor to DaveTard, they might ask Ray to put down the banana and take up the bannanation button.

Edited because I spel gud.

Date: 2009/03/17 01:02:44, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Spottedwind @ Mar. 16 2009,13:02)
I don't know what has been better lately...the near-meltdown, the TARD that has been presented, or the poems.

I love this place   :D

And CeilingCat - Ray Comfort + UD?...the TARD there would be toxic even to our most experienced and shielded miners.  I shudder to imagine what their combined efforts would bring...

When you're entering new sections of a TARD mine, it's customary to toss in a Bible first.  If someone shouts, "Sacrilege!  He's defamed God's Holy Word!!" and flies an airliner into a skyscraper, you know the TARD is lethal in that branch of the pit.

Date: 2009/03/17 01:58:27, Link
Author: CeilingCat
jerry: Not one person in the science community would say I wasn’t doing science. And yet we should all agree that I was doing ID science too.

You reached all sorts of unsupported conclusions, but you forgot the distinguishing test, the hypothesis, the potential falsification!

But he told you he was doing ID science.

Date: 2009/03/17 04:39:34, Link
Author: CeilingCat
You knew it had to happen.  Telic Thoughts is now endorsing 9/11 conspiracy theories.  There was plenty of redundancy, the floors shouldn't have collapsed, thermite residue, yadda, yadda, yadda.

I wonder if DaveTard will take up residency over there.

Date: 2009/03/18 01:48:58, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 17 2009,13:46)
It seems to me that the least stupid argument against Weasel is that it has a specific target. That seems conceptually wrong, since evolution doesn't work toward specific goals. A better demonstration would be a program that produces structures that meet some general criteria, but whose details are not specified.

Think of Weasel as a population of organisms that can just barely reproduce and the "target string" as the environment.  Matching a letter in its internal strings is equivalent to manufacturing a mechanism that uses/protects against or otherwise takes advantage of the external environment.  

Every time the Weasel program matches another letter in it's internal string to a letter in the target string (or piece of the environment) it is enabled to reproduce a little faster than the other strings.  (Or die a little more slowly.)

Also, rewrite the program so it reads the target sequence from an external file.  No matter what you put in that file, so long as the file contains only the capital letters from A-Z and spaces, Weasel will quickly home in on it and match one of its internal strings to the target sequence.

Date: 2009/03/18 01:55:54, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 17 2009,14:02)
To me the whole analogy of language to evolution is nebulous at best.

Last time I checked, different sounds can mean different things to different people.  Also, language doesn't evolve in the same manner.

Unless I am being too literal, I don't see how using language is relevant as evidence for evolution.

Chomsky is talking about the structure of grammar, not the individual words or sounds.  The ability to understand and use grammar can evolve just like anything else.  If a change in your ability to generate and understand grammatical sentences helps you think or communicate more efficiently, you do better in life and pass on your genes more often than the ordinary dummies ID people.

Date: 2009/03/18 01:59:35, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Amadan @ Mar. 17 2009,14:24)
I think the contributors to this board did Ddrr Bill a great service in pointing out the mistaken view of Weasel that he was about publish, saving him much embarassment.

I wonder if he's grateful?

I'll bet five bucks he publishes it unchanged.  It's the ID way.  "Criticism ignored is criticism refuted."*

*First Book of Tard, Slug 32, BS 5

Date: 2009/03/18 02:23:35, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Some of Neo-Darwinism’s recent, high-profile challenges have come from those who hold to the theory of Intelligent Design. As something of a philosophy of science ‘think tard tank,’ I.D.’s people do not conduct laboratory experiments in pursuit of hard data or do anything else scientifical to support a competing theory; rather, they apply accepted grossly misunderstood principles of science, math and logic to highlight areas in which their misunderstanding of Neo-Darwinism has much, much, much more work to do before it can claim to represent unassailable, demonstrable fact even kindergarten level science. While mainstream media claim or imply that I.D. people are fundamentalist fundamentally ignorant Christian Creationists, little research is needed to learn that numerous prominent adherents do not fit that description have any higher mental functions at all. Mustafa Akyol, Michael Behe, Gertrude Himmelfarb, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Gerald Schroeder, and Vladimir Voeikov may be amused or troubled by such a simplistic caricature are cranks and mistake sound criticism for by being dismissed with little more than a transparent ad hominem.

Fixed that for you.

Date: 2009/03/18 03:11:09, Link
Author: CeilingCat
This comment is so beautiful I have to pass it along.  From the SandWalk  
AJ Milne said...
DaveScot was banned from UD?

LUKE: Are you all right? What's wrong?

BEN: I felt a disturbance in the web. As if a million irony detectors cried out as one...

Monday, March 16, 2009 10:19:00 AM

Hat tip to Pharyngula.

Date: 2009/03/22 02:35:42, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 20 2009,13:13)
If DaveTard were still at UD, he might post something like this on teh Weasel Thread...

k.f.- Try to stay on target. This is not the islands where nobody has a schedule or a watch, and nobody has time to read your hour-long posts to glean the 10 seconds of wisdom you might spit out.

joseph and jerry - Take some  computer courses and then come back and try to stay up with the class.

You homos  visitors from ATBC - go back to your sandbox and don't come over hear and try to kick sand in our faces and call it a rainstorm, or we're going to close this thread to comments.


DaveTard no longer exists, so we are forced to invent him.

Date: 2009/03/22 23:20:34, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (bfish @ Mar. 22 2009,03:30)

There is nothing holding that napkin in place.
Therefore, God.
Therefore, ID.

Date: 2009/03/22 23:30:18, Link
Author: CeilingCat

Jesus is Who.
Therefore, ID.

Date: 2009/03/23 05:48:24, Link
Author: CeilingCat
I'd like to thank my cousin, who sent me a video of a fifteen year old kid doing a pretty good Johnny Cash imitation and reminded me of this song:

            Blog of Fire

Apologies to June Carter Cash
          Merle Kilgore

Tard is a burning thing,
And it leaves a fetid ring.
Unbound by truth's regard,
I fell into a Blog of Tard.

I fell into a burnin' Blog of Tard,
I went down, down, down,
And the Tard turned hard.
And it burns, burns, burns,
The Blog of Tard,
The Blog of Tard.


The taste of Tard is sweet,
When you can't think on your feet.
I fell for Tard like a child,
Oh, but the Tard went wild.

I fell into a burning Blog of Tard,
I went down, down, down,
And the Tard turned hard
And it burns, burns, burns,
The Blog of Tard,
The Blog of Tard.


And it burns, burns, burns,
The Blog of Tard.
The Blog of Tard.
The Blog of Tard.
The Blog of Tard.

Date: 2009/03/23 06:58:29, Link
Author: CeilingCat
O'Leary self diagnoses:  
I’ve covered the persecution for years. To say it is not happening is, to me, like saying 9-11 didn’t happen. It is always possible for an ideologue to construct an alternate reality - a legend in his own mind, in which the event is not happening. He likes his alternate reality, of course.
Shes a little confused about the sex, of course.

Date: 2009/03/23 15:58:37, Link
Author: CeilingCat

• 1 cup cornmeal
• 3 cups all-purpose flour
• 1 1/3 cups white sugar
• 2 tablespoons baking powder
• 1 teaspoon salt
• 2/3 cup vegetable oil
• 1/3 cup melted butter
• 2 tablespoons honey
• 4 eggs, beaten
• 2 1/2 cups whole milk
• Preheat oven to 350 degrees F (175 degrees C), and grease a 9x13 inch baking dish.
• Stir together the cornmeal, flour, sugar, baking powder, and salt in a mixing bowl. Pour in the vegetable oil, melted butter, honey, beaten eggs, and milk, and stir just to moisten.
• Pour the batter into the prepared baking dish and bake in the preheated oven for 45 minutes, until the top of the cornbread starts to brown and show cracks.

A simple character count reveals there are over 650 characters.

Therefor the minimum information that cake will contain is just over 650 bits if each character is a bit.

A character is actually 7 bits, Joe, but that's the least of your problems.  Describe cornmeal to me.  Use as many characters as you want, but describe it well enough so I can manufacture some cornmeal from your description.  Then describe flour.  Tard.

Date: 2009/03/24 00:06:29, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Saint O'Leary brags about how well Expelled is doing:  
Anyway, this is how the film is doing in DVD: Sales Rank: #294 in Movies & TV (See Bestsellers in Movies & TV)

Popular in these categories: (What’s this?)
#8 in Movies & TV > Documentary
#70 in Movies & TV > Comedy

#8 - that’s in the Top Ten in docs. Not bad for a film that so many were determined to destroy. Even St. Yoko Ono … wow!

So go to Amazon and look at what's beating it:

1. Planet Earth - The Complete BBC Series
2. Planet Earth - The Complete BBC Series [Blu-ray]
3. Religulous
4. The Secret (Extended Edition)
5. Looney Tunes - Golden Collection
6. A Man Named Peril
7. Planet Earth & The Blue Planet Seas of Life (Collector's edition)
8. Expelled
9. Man on Wire

So the great Expelled documentary is only being beaten by

Two BBC series (written from an evolutionary perspective)
Religulous - an anti-religion documentary
The Secret - A Crank Bonanza written from a sucker's perspective
Looney Tunes - Color Cartoons
A Man Named Peril - a WTF documentary is this?
More Planet Earth.

The great sadness is that Expelled is beating out "Man on Wire", a SUPURB documentary on the man who stretched a tight rope between the two buildings of the Twin Towers and walked it.  Everybody go and buy two copies of this documentary right now.  Give one copy to your mother and she'll love you for it.

Date: 2009/03/24 02:19:40, Link
Author: CeilingCat
JoeG: "Therefor the minimum information that cake will contain is just over 650 bits if each character is a bit."

Just as the minimum sand in the Sahara is one grain.

Date: 2009/03/25 00:32:57, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Why Salvador Cordova is not a student at Baylor University:
Quote (sparc @ Mar. 24 2009,00:37)
I’m still on good terms with Bill Dembski who lobbied to get me a scholarship in Engineering under the tutelage of Robert Marks. Bill Dembski’s mentorship prodded me to go back to grad school.

Sal, choosing the man who published the Baylor Board of Director's home addresses, phone numbers and private email addresses is not the way to win favor with the university.  You would know that if you weren't a tard.

Date: 2009/03/26 05:56:57, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Denyse is going on about the brainless mind again.  This time she tells the story of a "voluble atheist religion professor" she met at dinner who brought up the well known story of Phineas Gage.  He's the guy who got a steel rod shot through his skull in 1845, wiping out his frontal lobes.

It's generally acknowledged that Gage's personality changed radically after this accident, but all of those academics don't fool Denyse.  She's found a real life professor, at the University of London, no less, that claims those effects were just temporary and he got much better after a year or two.

Although, strangely, "getting better" meant he went from being a construction foreman and blaster, jobs which require judgement and organization, to shoveling out stables in Chile.  But I'm sure that's because he just really loved horses.

I'm beginning to think that the only way we can determine the truth of the non-brain consciousness theory is if some hardy Canadian Volunteer has her brain surgically removed.  If we can't detect any change in her personality, we can conclude that Denyse was right all along.  And if there is a change in personality, I'm sure it will be for the better.

Win win!!!1!1!11

Date: 2009/03/26 09:35:54, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (dheddle @ Mar. 26 2009,06:34)
BTW, I love the signature. Is bringing back Arrested Development part of Obama's stimulus plan? I hope so.

There is talk of a movie.  Meanwhile, every episode is on

Date: 2009/03/27 04:13:08, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (dheddle @ Mar. 26 2009,06:34)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Mar. 26 2009,05:56)
Denyse is going on about the brainless mind again.  This time she tells the story of a "voluble atheist religion professor" she met at dinner who brought up the well known story of Phineas Gage.  He's the guy who got a steel rod shot through his skull in 1845, wiping out his frontal lobes.

It's generally acknowledged that Gage's personality changed radically after this accident, but all of those academics don't fool Denyse.  She's found a real life professor, at the University of London, no less, that claims those effects were just temporary and he got much better after a year or two.

Although, strangely, "getting better" meant he went from being a construction foreman and blaster, jobs which require judgement and organization, to shoveling out stables in Chile.  But I'm sure that's because he just really loved horses.

I'm beginning to think that the only way we can determine the truth of the non-brain consciousness theory is if some hardy Canadian Volunteer has her brain surgically removed.  If we can't detect any change in her personality, we can conclude that Denyse was right all along.  And if there is a change in personality, I'm sure it will be for the better.

Win win!!!1!1!11

At least, for a change, she posted something mildly interesting.

BTW, I love the signature. Is bringing back Arrested Development part of Obama's stimulus plan? I hope so.

Amazingly, Denyse may have gotten one right this time, although she didn't have to find an English professor to tell her that.  Wikipedia says essentially the same thing.  Apparently he got only the left part of his frontal lobe destroyed.  Given the brain's plasticity and having half of his frontal lobe intact, it's not surprising that he got better.

Now she's off on another rant because somebody correctly pointed out that this doesn't support her dualism in any way and now she's demanding that somebody apologize for ever telling the Gage story as it was told.

Anybody with that strong an interest in confession has something really bothering her conscience.

I'd still like to see her perform the definitive experiment, though.  If she was to have her brain surgically removed and it made no difference to her personality, I for one would wholeheartedly apologize and admit she was right.  And if there was a change, it would probably be for the better.  Win-win!

Date: 2009/03/27 04:21:58, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Zack: "The genes and fitness function don't directly communicate!"

Re-write Weasel or any other accurate simulation so that it's two programs.  The main program should do the mutations, then when it's comparing a mutation to see if it's in the target, it querys the second program and sends it the mutated character and its position in the string.

The second program looks at that position in the target string and the new character and returns a yes or no answer to whether that character matches the target string at that position.

That should eliminate all the "Weasel cheats because it just copies the search string" arguments.  It will never even see the search string.  

But it won't stop them, of course, because the arguments are not based on either logic or facts.

Date: 2009/03/27 04:45:49, Link
Author: CeilingCat
FrankH: "That makes the outer party members "know" they're special and all ride the bus together holding hands and singing "Kum by ya" as the driver takes them off of a cliff."

From the Soundtrack: "Kum by ya, my Lord, kum by yaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh...."

Date: 2009/03/27 23:26:34, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 27 2009,10:18)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Mar. 27 2009,10:15)
Hey, a journal for Dembski to publish in      
Rejecta Mathematica is a real open access online journal publishing only papers that have been rejected from peer-reviewed journals in the mathematical sciences. Click here to learn more, or read the current issue.
Caveat emptor

You mean he's not THE charter member?

"squaring the circle": papers discovered to contain a serious technical flaw may nevertheless contain information or ideas of interest;

Found Dembski & Marks category.  (Except for the "may ... contain information or ideas of interest" part.)

Date: 2009/04/07 06:40:34, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Y'know, I don't want to be thought of as approving DaveTard.  He's been a jackass since long before his UD career.  Just Google Dave Springer for examples.

But I do have to admit one thing: He kept Slimey Sal off of UD.

Jeeze, I can't stand that asshole!

Bring back DaveTard!!

Date: 2009/04/10 00:39:02, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (KCdgw @ April 09 2009,06:23)
Since when did GK Chesterton become a great philosopher?


The same day as C. S. Lewis.

Date: 2009/04/10 05:32:22, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Slightly off topic, but Bilbo on TardicThoughts gives us an outstanding illustration of what passes for rational thought in today's ID world.

Bilbo is, of course, a 9/11 conspiracy buff.  If he believes in a world-wide conspiracy to force evilution down the throats of a long-suffering Christian public, how could he be anything else?  He believes that the World Trade Center was really  brought down by Thermite.  In the first response to the OP, he adds, "And for a hypothetical scenario of how the explosives could have been planted, go here."

"Here" turns out to be a web site that gives this "hypothetical" (ID Speak for what normal people call drooling idiocy) scenario for how the deed was done.

Scroll about half way down this masterpiece and you'll see that all the unknown conspirators had to do was to install:

1,000,000 20"x20"x3/4" ceiling tiles with embedded thin-film explosives and 2-channel wireless micro-detonators.

800,000 12"x12"x3/4" ceiling tile with embedded thin-film explosives and 2-channel wireless micro-detonators.

100 10-lb nano-thermite kicker charges with 2-channel wireless detonators in fire-protective capsule disguised as fire extinguishers.

20 5 gallon buckets of thermate coating compound applied with

2 spray applicators with flexible snake hoses and integrated borescopes.

100 2-channel wireless high-temperature igniters and

240 20-channel 200W RF repeaters with UPS power supplies!

Jeeze, if I'd  known it was that easy, I never would have doubted!  All you have to do is install 1,800,000 explosive ceiling tiles, each imbedded with a 2 channel receiver and a detonator and 100 ten pound explosive charges disguised as fire extinguishers.  Then just paint the steel girders with 100 gallons of thermate compound with two applicators with integrated borescopes, attach 100 wireless two channel high temperature igniters and hide 240 20 watt wireless repeaters.  

Apparently these were unknowningly applied by the construction crews back in 1970-1972, who may have been illegal aliens, "... who are naturally disinclined to raise questions about the work."

Then just wait 29 years and set them off.  (Use very good batteries!)  Or maybe it was done by maintenance crews.  "Since the new landlord had just taken over in late July of 2001, it wouldn't seem at all unusual to see some refurbishing, especially as unobtrusive as swapping out [1,800,000] old ceiling tiles."

The actual detonation is triggered from a " distance from the Twin Towers via both high-power directional wireless and an encrypted ethernet channel."  

Not explained: what were the airliners for?

And this makes sense to these retards!!!

Date: 2009/04/13 06:49:45, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (sledgehammer @ April 12 2009,00:25)
P. Mahoney
6:24 pm
...It is MOST reassuring that this study of phylogenetics undermining Darwinism comes so soon after the Texas Government has reopened the way for teachers to show pupils the unencumbered facts of Man’s true place in the order of creation. As so often before, we look to America to take the lead in unmiring us from value-free degeneracy.

This asshattery is too blatant, even for UD. I call Poe.

This doesn't help (same reply):    
If (and this is being generous!) we allow a probability of 0.9 for humans and chimps being ‘related’, how do we relate that to the probability of the Earth being, say, 14 billion years old or whatever this month’s figure is? Presumably the Order of Darwin will express THAT as a probability of (let’s be generous again) of 0.85. Does that not mean that the overall probability of Darwinism has moved down to (0.9 X 0.85) 0.765?
If this was any blog except UD, I would call Poe.  But with UD, you can never be really sure...

Date: 2009/04/13 07:03:28, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Did a thread just go missing on UD?  A few hours ago I noticed a note from Joseph under recent comments commenting on "intellectual cowardice".  I clicked on it and it took me to comment 301 or so in a thread where Joseph had called a couple of relatively sane people intellectual cowards because they couldn't prove, to his satisfaction, something about nested heirarchies.

His comment was in a reply to one of the moderators who was warning him that he would be moderated if he kept his insults coming.

Now that comment is gone from the "recent comments" box and I can't find the thread.


Also, is it even possible to explain something to somebody who doesn't understand what he's talking about?

Date: 2009/04/14 03:07:53, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (olegt @ April 13 2009,07:19)
No, Cat, the thread is still alive: Outsider Meddling — Skeptics Need Not Apply (or, Just Have Faith).  

Here's Clive's admonition:

Clive Hayden
10:27 pm


“You are an intellectual coward…”

Do you want to be moderated Joseph? Don’t call names, don’t be disrespectful, or you will be.

And here's your morning cup o' Joe:

6:18 am


When someone make a claim, refuses to support it, and instead disrespects me, then that is an intellectual coward.

Both David Kellogg and Alan Fox have made a specific claim that they have refused to support.

Instead they have both been very disrespectful.

They have proven they are intellectual cowards.

For example Kellogg says that I am using a different definition of nested hierarchy although he has nothing to support his claim.

A clear sign of an intellectual coward is one who makes bald assertions and false accusations.

Both Alan and David fit the bill.

Perhaps you should get on them for not suppprting their claim then I wouldn’t have to respond the way I do.

It's your turn, Clive.

Thanks, Olegt.  I see Clive has removed Joe's comment.  The thread presently ends with message 308.  By UD standards, Clive has won the argument. 

Date: 2009/04/15 00:11:44, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Hermagoras @ April 14 2009,14:14)
R0b brings the pain:


Per Weasel 1986, absent the testimony as reported to us in recent days, explicit latching is a very reasonable understanding. (Indeed, the Monash University biologists, naturally understood it that way until Mr Elsberry “corrected” them.)

You have made this claim repeatedly in this thread, but is the erroneous interpretation of Dawkins’ Weasel really “reasonable” and “natural”? Let’s look a little closer.

Three parties have published the erroneous interpretation:
- Truman, in 12/1998
- Dembski, starting (I think) in 9/1999
- Heng/Green at Monash, in 2007

The striking thing is that all three parties have contradicted Dawkins on the same points in the same way, and it’s not limited to the latching question. Let’s compare Dawkins’ description of Weasel to the erroneous algorithm, which I’ll call TDMHG (Truman/Dembski/Marks/Heng/Green).

- Dawkins says that multiple progeny are produced in every generation. In TDMHG, only one child is produced.
- Dawkins says that a winning phrase is chosen from each generation. This makes no sense in TDMHG, since each generation consists of only one phrase.
- Dawkins repeatedly says that he’s illustrating cumulative selection. In TDMHG, there is no competition and no selection.
- Dawkins says that the sequences reproduce “with a certain chance of random error - ‘mutation’ - in the copying”. In TDMHG, incorrect letters are guaranteed to mutate, while correct letters are guaranteed to not mutate.
- The most obvious difference is in the respective outputs. Dawkins reports the first two generations from one of his runs as follows:


(The second ‘D’ in the first sequence is omitted in TBW — a typo.)

In contrast, here are the first two generations as reported by Truman:


and from a run of Heng/Green’s applet:

tynsaue voledpljhuradvlyatvla
cqgrnfuskiprnorcasm vpyvbcpyp

and from a run of Marks/Dembski’s script:


Dawkins’ 1st two generations are almost identical, while the first two generations in TDMHG are almost completely different. How, then, is it “reasonable” and “natural” to conclude that TDMHG is the same as Dawkins’ algorithm?

How could all three parties independently come up with the same algorithm and fail to notice that its description and output are manifestly different from Dawkins’? My guess is that Truman made the original gaffe, Dembski followed Truman, and Heng/Green followed Dembski & Truman.

(BTW, I’ve decompiled the applet from Monash and verified that the algorithm is the same as the one implemented by the EvoInfo Lab, both of which match the description and results reported by Truman 1998 and the description by Dembski 1999.)

Wow.  That's some nice forensics.

I think Dembski sums the situation up very nicely in that thread's OP:    
26 March 2009
The Simulation Wars
William Dembski
I’m currently writing an essay on computational vs. biological evolution. The applicability of computational evolution to biological evolution tends to be suspect because one can cook the simulations to obtain any desired result.
It looks like Truman cooked the simulations, Dembski swiped the bad idea from Truman and Heng/Green swiped the bad idea from Dembski.  Too many cooks spoiled the broth.

Date: 2009/04/15 00:24:32, Link
Author: CeilingCat
I'm currently reading "A Distant Mirror" by Barbara Tuchman.  It's about the 14th century and a one line capsule report might be something like, "Be glad you didn't live back then!"  Bubonic Plague was only the worst of their problems, along with the 100 years war and other catastrophes.

One page 190, she describes how the invading English army was paid off after an English victory and just left to their own devices in France, with no pay and no way home.  Unfortunately, they did pretty well for themselves rampaging and pillaging the population.  They pretty well raped, robbed, murdered and burned a good chunk of France back to the stone age.

Ms. Tuchman describes these groups as "Tard-Venus" (always in Bold Face in the book), which means "Late-Comers".

I'm not a philologist and I don't even play one on TV, but I'll bet that phrase is very closely related to "parvenu", which means "a relative newcomer to a socioeconomic class".

Therefore, I'm coining a new word, "tardvenu" (no bolding) which means a newcomer to intellectual activities who rapes, robs, murders, burns and just generally destroys every idea he touches.  I think it fits a lot of UD regulars.

Date: 2009/04/15 06:01:38, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (zagnik @ April 15 2009,01:17)
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 14 2009,22:24)
Ms. Tuchman describes these groups as "Tard-Venus" (always in Bold Face in the book), which means "Late-Comers".

I thought O'Leary was the Tard Venus

I wonder if she would be le Tard-Venus or la Tard-Venus?

Or, if she married a man named Leo, would he be a Leo-Tard?

Date: 2009/04/16 01:43:03, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Ptaylor @ April 15 2009,19:33)

You are committing professional suicide with your degenerate tactics. You will never again be respected
and it won’t be just by me.  JAD

HoHoHoHoHoH...URK!  Me heart!  [Thud]

Date: 2009/04/16 01:58:55, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Quidam @ April 15 2009,12:17)
Quote (zagnik @ April 15 2009,00:17)

I thought O'Leary was the Tard Venus

The angel in the upper left corner appears to be engaging in projectile vomiting, undoubtedly as a form of worship.

Date: 2009/04/16 05:43:41, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Joseph is a TARD:  



6:38 am
Paul Giem,

Forbidden Archaeology-

There is allegedly a mortar and pestle found in sediments allegedly 25 million years old.

And that is just one case.
"Forbidden Archaeology" is the National Enquirer of paperbacks.  Allegedly.

Date: 2009/04/17 00:41:57, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,April 16 2009,12:50)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 16 2009,12:29)
Contour plot of the 5 runs per data point dataset for proportion of losses visible in summary output.

ETA: Gnuplot surface projection.

gordon needs to see that one.

probly drive his spam filter up the wall, eh

He would point at the colored part and shout, "See?  See?  Those are the flames of hell, waiting for you and every other evilutionist if you don't all repent right now!!"

Well, he'd take 35,000 words to say it, but that's the gist anyway.

edited to add: Oh bother, just saw bfish's post.

Date: 2009/04/19 04:28:34, Link
Author: CeilingCat
A box of rocks contributes to theology:      




10:38 am

We need to show that an personal agent created the universe. To do that we must show that an impersonal, changeless cause could not have done so.

So, we begin with a self-evident truth as the premise and work our way through those things which necessarily follow:

Premise: For all impersonal, unchanging causes that have always existed, none can begin in time.

1. Therefore: All effects that have always existed could not have begun to exist

2. Therefore: All impersonal, unchanging causes that have always existed could not have begun in time.

3: Therefore, no effect can begin to exist if its impersonal, unchanging cause always was.

4: Therefore: No impersonal, unchanging cause can begin to exist if its effect always was.

5: Therefore, no impersonal, unchanging cause can exist without its effect.

6: Therefore, no effect can exist without its impersonal, unchanging cause.

7: Therefore, the impersonal, unchanging law cannot cause the universe to begin to exist.

8: Therefore, a personal agent caused the universe to begin to exist.

If someone needs for me to demonstrate why each follows from the other, let me know.

Wow! Where to begin?  Let's start with that premise: "For all impersonal, unchanging causes that have always existed, none can begin in time."  Ok, right at the beginning you forgot impersonal changing causes such as a meta-universe that constantly calves off new universes.  Your premise is not complete, so your argument is dead in the first line.  FAIL 1!

But there's a deeper problem with your premise: something that exists eternally exists at all times, including now!  Do you even understand what you're talking about when you say, "always existed"?  Since the  existence of impersonal, unchanging causes is stated in your premise, it's rather unfortunate that your argument depends on them not existing!  FAIL 2!

Since your argument refutes itself twice in its premise, there's no need to look at the rest of your "reasoning"?

In message 740, StephenB writes:    




1:27 pm

Ladies/Gentlement: To sum things up, I think I demonstrated @ 716 that a personal agent caused the universe to begin to exist. In any situation such as this, questions and objections are inevitable, so I stayed long enough to answer those which seemed most relevant. This has been a long, hard marathon of a thread, and its length testifies to its importance. Sooner or later, all good things must come to an end, and so I will now retire from this thread.

In blissfull ignorance that the slapping sensation on your inner thighs is caused by running with your tail between your legs.

Date: 2009/04/20 00:39:02, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 19 2009,22:17)
Quote (Hermagoras @ April 19 2009,19:18)
While it lasts, from DK:        
Speaking of speech codes, two of my recent comments have been deleted by the administrators for unstated reasons.

Yeah, hypocrisy runs rampant.

Did O'Leary's blustering advocacy of no limits on "free speech zones" show itself during the 2001-2008 period?

Has O'Leary ever actually denied being a drug addicted child molester who gets sexual pleasure from wearing dirty underwear?  And has she ever actually denied being the master planner of 9/11 and doing all of Bush's torturing?  After all, we know she's a foreigner.  That's all the information we really need, along with her non-denial of the same.

Roll the presses!  "Foreign morphodyke with dirty undies shoots up crack while molesting children and torturing decent people for Jesus.  Did she also plan 9/11?  She refuses to deny the charge!  Hanging at 11."

Date: 2009/04/20 03:21:16, Link
Author: CeilingCat
He's back!  bornagain77 is back!  This time he's going on about the Shroud of Turin.

How's this sound?  A death match between kairosfocus and bornagain77?  Chain each of them to a keyboard, any posting less than 10,000 words is an automatic forfiture and whoever's still writing when the other contestant has slid to the floor wins.  

First prize is a trip to somewhere without internet access.

Second prize is the same.

Do it for the children!

Date: 2009/04/21 00:40:17, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Hey, Unpleasant Blowhard, next time you shoot your mouth off, read O'Leary first.  Here she is, from the Skepticism in all the wrong places thread:    
5. Here’s a sample case: The journalist phones the home of Eusebius Actron, whose phone number shows that he lives in Saskatchewan. Journalist asks, “Are you the man who was just released from prison in the robbery and murder in the ABC Bank. But some lawyers say you might be innocent?”

Having acknowledged that his name is indeed Eusebius Actron, the man shouts “Get off my phone! I won’t talk to the media! I”m calling my criminal defense lawyer!”

So the journalist reports that Eusebius Actron is now believed to be living in Saskatchewan.

Now suppose the man the journalist contacted wasn’t actually the former bank robber, but someone who just happens, for some reason, to have exactly the same name, and also happens to be living somewhere in Saskatchewan?

It seems unreasonable to me that the non-criminal (?) Eusebius Actron could have a serious action for libel in such a case. He refused to acknowledge that he is not the convicted bank robber, which is all the journalist wanted to know in the first place. And his behaviour led the journalist to reasonably assume that he was.

I do not see why a journalist should be responsible for purveying false information that is not contested by the subject and perhaps not even easily checked, if the journalist does not have access to the police computer system.

Do you begin to see why I wrote this?  
Has O'Leary ever actually denied being a drug addicted child molester who gets sexual pleasure from wearing dirty underwear?  And has she ever actually denied being the master planner of 9/11 and doing all of Bush's torturing?  After all, we know she's a foreigner.  That's all the information we really need, along with her non-denial of the same.

Roll the presses!  "Foreign morphodyke with dirty undies shoots up crack while molesting children and torturing decent people for Jesus.  Did she also plan 9/11?  She refuses to deny the charge!  Hanging at 11."

Has Mrs. O'Leary ever DENIED having dirty undies, shooting up crack, molesting children or torturing for Jesus?  HELL NO!  And she didn't deny being the mastermind behind 9/11 either.  (Although those who have read her realize that she's never going to be the mastermind behind anything except maybe fouling her linen.)  

O'Leary's law: No denial = admission of guilt.  You go check her underwear and see for yourself.

Date: 2009/04/22 01:52:25, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (JohnW @ April 21 2009,17:34)
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 21 2009,14:59)
Quote (Lou FCD @ April 21 2009,15:08)
Interesting that "loveless sex" is seen as a problem.

What about if you love sex? Or is that Metaluv?

Perhaps T7 loves less sex.

He would love to have sex, but it takes two.

Date: 2009/04/22 07:04:57, Link
Author: CeilingCat



3:15 pm
Mr Arrington,

I am attempting to state Mr Kairosfocus’ logic in symbolic terms, and facing some difficulties.
Post of the week on another board!

Date: 2009/04/23 03:29:23, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Poor Denyse just can't win: Slate article on how torture affects the brain:      
The problem isn't just that the techniques are physical. The problem is that the mind itself is physical. I just got back from a conference at Cambridge University sponsored by the John Templeton Foundation. In a series of seminars with neuroscientists and philosophers—among them, Chris Frith of University College London, Alva Noe of the University of California-Berkeley, and Fraser Watts of Cambridge—we explored how physiology, mental activity, and environmental conditions transform one another. You can't torture the mind without altering the brain. And since the brain is part of the body—in fact, the part of the body that most influences all the others—the marks you leave are pervasive. You can alter any physical process in which the mind is involved: sleep, eating, conversation, love, going out in public, or all of the above.

Isn't Cambridge the university that got conned into publishing Dembski's first book?  And didn't the Templeton Foundation once give Dembski a large advance to write a book?  And now they're both ganging up on his sweetheart.  That must burn.

Date: 2009/04/23 06:51:48, Link
Author: CeilingCat
JAD gets tough!
Message 500:    
I have guns, knives, machetes and blunt instruments with all of which I am quite familiar. I agree Fox is obsessed with me. It is hard not to reach that conclusion. isn’t it? Thanks for the advice. By presenting your message Fox would be a number one suspect should anything happen to me!

You'd better watch out, Alan Fox, JAD's on to you!

Date: 2009/04/24 01:14:44, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 23 2009,22:29)


Barry Arrington


10:13 pm
Allan, I deleted your comment about the Tao, becaue you posted it in a deliberate attempt to confuse and obfuscate. That’s not nice. Please don’t do it again.

Was it? We'll never know, because its deleted. But thanks for thinking for us Barry. That's what an open and honest exchange of ideas is all about..

Please post it here if you kept a copy.

Date: 2009/04/24 01:18:23, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 23 2009,23:55)
From UD:

and a babe, too!

Marisa Gilbert and Elizabeth Ross aren't bad either.  

We should have a Babes of Science vs Babes of UD competition.  We get Natalia, Marisa and Elizabeth.  UD gets ... 'scuse me, I suddenly don't feel too good.

Date: 2009/04/24 06:05:35, Link
Author: CeilingCat
vjtorley explains God's grace:      
God is not a utilitarian, because He knows full well that people are ends in themselves. God never treats human deaths as mere “collateral.” Therefore if God really did ordain that innocent Canaanites should be killed, then it must have been in their own best interests - in other words, God decided that they should die now, because He infallibly knew that something worse would have happened to them had they lived.

Boy, those Canaanites sure were lucky!  I guess God killed them just in the nick of time, or they would have done something awful.

This thread is pure gold.

Date: 2009/04/24 15:53:24, Link
Author: CeilingCat
That doesn't count the experiments I conduct in my basement.

Date: 2009/04/24 16:13:57, Link
Author: CeilingCat
When Barry started talking about C.S. Lewis and Tao, I wondered WTF?  Lewis is about as far from any Tao I've ever heard of as JoeG and clear thinking.  A little Googling cleared things up:
C.S. Lewis: Natural Law, the Law in our Hearts.    
In Abolition [of Man] he uses “the Tao” as shorthand for Natural Law or First Principle. This word choice is perhaps unfortunate. It is hard to believe that Lewis read, received (to use his own language) and savored the Tao Te Ching, Taoism’s scripture, and concluded that “Tao” is the most accurate and succinct term for the moral law. Although the Tao is finally ineffable, according to the Tao Te Ching, it is best described as ‘‘the Flow,’’ ‘‘the way things change,” “the Life” or “the Source.” To follow the Tao is indeed to live morally, for it requires respecting the lowly and avoiding oppression and pride. However, the Tao ultimately accepts the status quo, whether good or evil. Lewis might have done better to stay with the term moral law, Natural Law or, if he preferred Chinese thought, “the Will of Heaven.” (Confucianism occasionally does use “the Tao” in the narrower sense of “the Will of Heaven”; however, this is not the word’s primary meaning in Taoism.)
In other words, nothing to get excited about, just more word salad from Lewis.  Worst. Philosopher. Ever.

ET change grammatical error.

Date: 2009/04/24 19:22:00, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Looks like some deleting got done in the Quote of the Day thread:        



6:57 am

DATCG @ 254: “My question still remains a legitimate one. Do atheist as a rule support pro-life movements? Or, are they more likely to support pro-abortion as a majority position?”
"Let's do the time-warp again."

Date: 2009/04/25 00:42:54, Link
Author: CeilingCat
O'Leary gets it right:      
From: Denyse O’Leary
Subject: RE: The Spiritual Brain
Date: Wednesday, 19 November, 2008, 12:43 PM
Dear Ms. …..,
I too am pushed for time and will comment on Mr. Mesner’s views when his review is online at the mag where they were published.
I not only do not consider his comments irrefutable, I do not even grasp their relevance and know of no good reason to take them seriously.
Glad you enjoy the blog.
Cheers, Denyse
You can't make this stuff up.

Date: 2009/04/27 04:30:40, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (dhogaza @ April 26 2009,16:38)
Guess which Expelled "victim" of "Darwinist authoritarianism" is seeking additional martyrdom by becoming a vocal climate science denialist?

I don't think Gonzalez is doing anything with climate, he's looking for the beginning of the next sunspot cycle, which is late coming.

Our sun has an 11/22 year sunspot cycle in which sunspots numbers start very low (currently none), climb over five and a half years until the surface of the sun is covered with sunspots, then decline back to zero after about eleven years.  The sun then repeats that performance, but with the magnetic polarity of the spots reversed to make a 22 year total cycle.

The current cycle has been stuck on "no spots at all" for a long time now and people are wondering when the heck they're going to start reappearing.  

Ham radio operators and short wave broadcasters are especially concerned because radiation from a spotty sun beefs up the ionosphere here on earth and that makes for excellent long-range radio transmissions.  

Sky gazers are also concerned because the same radiation that beefs up the ionosphere generates some excellent auroras.

Date: 2009/04/27 04:36:06, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Hats off to Bradford at Telec Tard.  In his "Key Questions: Part 1", he gives a link to an article by Peter S. Williams which includes this quote and the source for the quote:
As Phillip Johnson reminds us: "The essential point of creation has nothing to do with the timing or the mechanism the Creator chose to employ, but with the element of design or purpose. In the broadest sense, a "creationist" is simply a person who believes that the world (and especially mankind) was designed, and exists for a purpose."

He gives the source for that quote as, "Johnson, Darwin on Trial, (IVP, 1993), p. 115."

Thank you Bradford and thank you Professor Johnson.  The next time UD gets huffy about calling IDers Creationists, I'm going to use it.

Date: 2009/04/28 04:30:20, Link
Author: CeilingCat
If I die tonight, the most urgent thing I want to say is this: Putting animals on the same plane as humans not only disses humans but dooms animals.

Yeah, it makes the plane too heavy to take off and everything dies in the crash and fire.  Maybe that's what's driving all those animals extinct.  Or maybe they'd just rather die than be locked into an aluminum cylinder with the Honorable Grandmother.

Denyse, "plane" = something you fly in.  "plain"  = what you wanted to say. i.e. on the same level.

Date: 2009/04/28 06:43:32, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Here's a little more information on sunspots.  Apparently there is something going on because they should be building up by now.  

As Wes noted, the sunspots started to come back a year ago.  All the ham radio operators were cheering with visions of distant stations blasting from their headphones and now it's gone back to zero.

I hope we're not heading for another Maunder Minimum, which was a long period with no sunspots back in the 17th century.  The Maunder Minimum also coincided with the "little ice age".  If we are getting another one, it will certainly put the dampers on global warming - for a while.  

Unfortunately, when the sun returns to its normal output and the more powerful sunlight hits the earth which will have much more CO2 in its atmosphere by then, we'll get global warming on steroids.

I think the ID position on this is that we'll all be raptured into Jesus' arms by then, so who cares?

Date: 2009/04/28 06:54:52, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Oh well.  "Plain" as in Seringetti Plain - flat surface with all the animals running around on it.

Hey, that would pass muster at UD.

Date: 2009/04/28 23:32:45, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (midwifetoad @ April 28 2009,13:16)
Worst case scenario: sunspots come roaring back in 2012, coinciding with the eruption of the Yellowstone caldera, melting of the ice caps, swine flu merging with chicken flu, and Jaguars falling from the sky.

You forgot the Dreaded Palin-Jindal Presidental ticket.  

"End of the world.  Pictures at eleven."

Date: 2009/05/01 00:40:27, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (KenGee @ April 30 2009,22:59)
I'm sorry if this has come up before, but can someone ask the tardies @ UD.
Is the designer been at work creating the Swine flu or is it just evilution at work.

It's God's work.  See SIG below.

Date: 2009/05/01 00:45:58, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (khan @ April 30 2009,17:40)
Quote (dvunkannon @ April 30 2009,18:38)
Quote (keiths @ April 30 2009,18:22)
If I claim that the Rapture will happen at 14:29 UTC, and that I will disappear from the face of the earth at that time, you can place me on a scale and measure the (non)reduction in mass that occurs at 14:29 UTC.

Has anyone volunteered to be weighed while dying?

I have a vague memory of claims being made that 'something measurable (by weight)' left bodies upon death.

There's also a movie, "21 Grams" made on this subject.  Stars Sean Penn and IMDB gives it 7.9 stars.

Date: 2009/05/02 22:57:53, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Allen MacNeill pins O'Leary's ears back rather impressively in the "Why do evolutionary psychologists exist?" thread.

O'Leary opens with a confused letter on the mind's inherent tendency to spot "agents" (anything with a mind, such as bears, wolves, and other things that go bump in the woods) and then expounds on it at length, proving that she's totally unclear on the concept.  
"I’ve never had any trouble detecting the difference between, say, a fox and a ghost."

MacNeill sets her straight in replys 3 & 4 and again in 8.  

rvb8 (r0b?) joins in on the fun in #5 and Ludwig puts another knife in in post 7.    
"So, please provide a citation to where Pascal Boyer asserts that the agent detection device “disproves God’s existence beyond any reasonable doubt” and is “completely unreliable.”

After you provide your source, I’ll be happy to go confirm it at the library. (I suspect Allen would be able to check it as well.)

So far, no reply from O'Leary.  Not a good day for Granny Tard.

Date: 2009/05/04 00:54:07, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Peter Henderson @ April 19 2009,09:52)
The fact that his variable speed of light hypothisis as an alternative to inflation hasn't been accepted is supposedly an example of the scientific community's entransigence towards new and ground breaking ideas.

What does he say about some of the consequences of C being 60 orders of magnitude faster in the past?  I'm thinking of things like E=MC2.  If energy given off by an atomic process* was suddenly to increase by (60 orders of magnitude) squared, striking a match would incinerate the solar system.

But not to worry, since the nuclear reactions at the center of the sun would have already incinerated the galaxy.

This was brought up years ago when Barry Setterfield first brought up his CDK (c decay) theory.  I believe the phrase back then was "nuclear campfires".

As a final comment on the soundness of this science, Salvador Cordova loves the C decay idea.  Nuff said!

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

Date: 2009/05/05 01:54:09, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Ooohh!  Dr. Dr. Master Dembski is going to be sooo jealous!  
If there was an intellectual begetter of this movement, it was surely the biochemist Professor Michael Behe, whose book Darwin’s Black Box in 1996 expounded the theory of irreducible complexity.
I'll bet he can even dine at the Baylor cafeteria.

Date: 2009/05/07 00:24:19, Link
Author: CeilingCat
In the same thread, Young Salvador Misses the Point:  
I’m not, strictly speaking, an inerantist. I believe the manuscripts we received today are about 98% faithful to the originals.


Date: 2009/05/07 01:09:28, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (keiths @ May 07 2009,00:02)
Sal Cordova:
The geneology of Christ might have some support from the work of Cornell Geneticist John Sanford. I wouldn’t write his work off just yet. He too, used to be an atheist.


Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome by John Sanford.  Just another wet dream of Salvador's.

From a review:    
Before I get to the review of the chapters, I would like to comment on something. It has been noted that Sanford is a young-earth creationist, and for some reason, that is like the plague to certain people.
Certain people who don't have their heads up their asses, to be specific.
Chapter 1
Here, he discusses the basics of genetics (i.e. genes, nucleotides, genotype, phenotype, etc.) and explains what the neo-Darwinian synthesis is. He then goes through and refutes the famous computer algorithm argument used by Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker.
Tard warning!  
A. NDET posits that most mutations are neutral. However, Sanford argues that there is no such thing as a truly "neutral" mutation. Rather, most mutations are "near-neutral" (whether increasing fitness or decreasing fitness). Even a single point-nucleotide mutation in a minor area of the genome disrupts the genetic code to some degree (no matter how small). This is key for the rest of his book.
It gets worse from here.

As I said, another one of Young Salvador's Wet Dreams.  Though WTF this has to do with Christ's geneology is still beyond me.

Wait!  I missed this review:  
Are you a fan of X-Men? Or perhaps evolution? Read this book.

Jebus!  I keep finding more TARD!  From the same review as the last one:  
Despite the most gregarious and benevolent intentions of men, the facts of biological life and reproduction are all gloom. The scientific forecast - implicit in Sanford's book - spells extinction for the entire human race in less than several hundred generations at best.
We're doomed!

Aaargh!  Stop me before I edit again!  From one of the one star reviews:
Ironically, Sanford (actually a "Courtesy Associate Professor" at Cornell's Horticultural Sciences department)
Young Salvador really knows how to pick them!

These reviews almost make me want to buy the book.  Too bad it's out of stock.

Date: 2009/05/07 06:39:28, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Denyse is running her first contest.  
Question: For a free copy of Expelled, is this a way to do science?

That reminds me of an old Beetle Bailey cartoon.  The doctor is talking to Beetle.  Business is slow, so they're going to have a special.  With every two shots, you get a free enema.

Date: 2009/05/09 16:51:36, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Reading StephenB softens your brain.  It's got me thinking of this:  
How much cause
would an uncaused cause
if an uncaused could
cause cause.
I've going to lie down now.

Date: 2009/05/09 17:00:58, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Nils Ruhr @ May 09 2009,11:00)
You're all eager for criticising Intelligent Design (by making ad hominem attacks) and defending Darwinism. But who of you is a real scientist working in the field of biology?

No one? I thought so.

Nils, it's been about six hours since you asked that question.  So far we have had five real live biologists, two student biologists and one person who was trained in biology, but works in another field respond to you.

Why don't you ask that same question on Unintended Dullards and listen to the crickets chirp?

I'll give you a bright shiny nickle if you can find even one biologist on UD.

Hell, I'll give you the nickle if you can find one person on UD who doesn't have his head stuck up his rectum.

ETA: What are your credentials?

Date: 2009/05/10 00:44:03, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Walter ReMine favors us with more "info" on The Biotic Message.  This caught my eye:
Common descent does not actually predict a hierarchical or nested pattern; rather it is compatible with a wide variety of patterns.  (Underlining in the original.)

Is it even possible for common descent to not create a hierarchical nested pattern?

Date: 2009/05/11 03:14:57, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Walter ReMine lists three central claims for his Message Theory:

Goal 2 is "To look like the product of one designer (or unified design team acting together as one), and unlike the product of multiple designers acting independently."

Sounds almost like science.  Except that I'm reading "Darwin-The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist" by Adrian Desmond and James Moore.  (A very good book, by the way.)  Here's their description of Darwin's first encounter with a marsupial:
  Lying on a sunny bank, he reflected on the stark divide between the marsupials here and normal placental mammals.  They were so anatomically different.  'An unbeliever ... might exclaim "Surely two distinct Creators must have been [at] work",' each producing a perfect - but unique - creation.  (Pp 177-178)

Then he ran into his first web footed, egg laying, duck-billed platypus and soon felt the need for yet a third creator.

All science all the way!

Date: 2009/05/13 01:13:23, Link
Author: CeilingCat
I have suggested an AtBC London meet up at an upcoming Skeptics in the Pub if anyone is interested. I've never managed to meet a real life AtBCer (due to a Fear of Clowns Professors, or work commitments, you choose), so this could be interesting. Especially considering that I am a 7 foot tall black feminist liberation pimp who time travelled from '70s Chicago to have crazy adventures with a brothel full of crime-fighting ninja/pirate ex-hookers and a wide array of recreational pharmaceuticals.

Hmmm, some of that might not be true.

They were not ex-hookers and they want to talk to you about their bill, the medical report and who is going to pay for the dead horse.

Date: 2009/05/14 00:01:31, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (olegt @ May 13 2009,19:28)
He's back!  Gil Dodg'em is BACK!!!11!!
This pretty much says it all and reveals what’s going on: The sure indicator of a “scientific” paradigm in its death throes is that its adherents declare those who present evidential, mathematical, and logical challenges are stupid, uninformed, uneducated, and motivated by nefarious intent.

I am not stupid, uninformed, uneducated, or motivated by nefarious intent. I just looked at the evidence, thought logically, and concluded that Darwinism is the biggest joke in the history of science.

But it’s not very funny, when one considers its influence on our culture.

All science so far!

Marduk gets off a good one in the next message:
"When have ignorant people EVER been able to see that they were ignorant?"

Date: 2009/05/14 02:42:09, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Ouch!  In the Theistic evolution - etc, etc, etc thread, Alan Fox gets in a zinger!  

Alan Fox


5:55 am
Barry Arrington:

I will let James Madison have the final word

At first glance, I thought you meant you were offering Madsen a final word. My mistake!

And then Nakashima twists the knife in the next response:  



8:45 am
Mr Fox,

Yes, what experiment was done on the liberties of Mr Madsen? Would you care to comment, Mt Arrington?

Better go back into hiding, Barry.

Date: 2009/05/19 07:05:56, Link
Author: CeilingCat
UD finally found a perfect sponsor!  Just peeked at it and it was showing an ad for DIANETICS.ORG, complete with animated volcano.  Refreshed three times and it was still there.

This is perfect!  I'm certain that L. Ron Hubbard would have been an IDist.

Date: 2009/05/20 00:20:38, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ May 19 2009,22:39)
For chemists out there. Is the following true:

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

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

Better yet, think of sea water carried deep underground by plate tectonics and then circulating within the earth, being heated and cooled as it passes hot spots, dissolving all sorts of chemicals from the rocks it's squeezing through and the surfaces of those rocks being full of sites that act as catalysts by holding atoms in place long enough for them to join together.

Then reflect on the fact that living microbes have been found in abundance thousands of meters below the surface and that the microbes down there appear to be more ancient than surface life and the warm tidal pool or ocean looks less and less necessary to create life.

Or, as Dr. Dr. D. would say, "Who PUT those rocks there?"

Date: 2009/05/21 00:31:08, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (sparc @ May 20 2009,22:24)
   * Ph.D. philosophy University of Illinois at Chicago (1996).
    * MDiv. Princeton Theological Seminary (1996).
    * M.A. philosophy University of Illinois at Chicago (1993).
    * Ph.D. mathematics University of Chicago (1988).
    * S.M. mathematics University of Chicago (1985).
    * M.S. statistics University of Illinois at Chicago (1983).
    * B.A. psychology University of Illinois at Chicago (1981).

Jebus!  Allowing four years to get that BA, Dempski spent 19 years in college!  Talk about a professional student.  No wonder he wound up teaching kids at a summer camp.

Billo: "Christ. Nineteen years of college down the drain. Might as well join the fucking Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary."

Date: 2009/05/21 07:05:37, Link
Author: CeilingCat
For one instance, there has been no “progress” or ’self correction” on the idea that the ratio of the diagonal of a square to one of its sides is 1.41 . . . and is thus incommensurate with the length of the side; for some 2,500 years. That is because the truth of that has been adequately warranted since the days of the Pythagoreans.

Kairos doesn't know the difference between math and science, either.  Why am I not surprised?

Date: 2009/05/22 00:48:32, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Ptaylor @ May 21 2009,17:00)
Quote (Hermagoras @ May 17 2009,02:09)
I've been searching for any reviews of the play (which opened the other night) but can't find anything in the Houston media.  If anybody sees one PM me or post a link please.

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

I dunno, it seems to have at least a few seams of realism in it:      
The play’s science talk invariably comes across as stilted. Worse, in creating a protagonist who often is actively obnoxious — virtually all the other characters call him a jerk at some point (and I’m using the euphemism) — he has chosen a poor spokesman for the argument.

Sounds like a fair assessment of some of the leading ID characters to me.  And then there's this sentiment:  
I do think, however, that the idea of not responding to reviewers might be a little outdated.

The ID ideal is that you respond in their general direction, but don't engage their criticisms.  Draw your sweater a little more tightly around you and point out that they don't have as many degrees as you do.

Date: 2009/05/23 09:19:06, Link
Author: CeilingCat
I notice that clicking on the "Complexity of the cell-Expelled" video now brings up this message:

This video has been removed due to terms of use violations.

It's not illegal if Jesus says to do it.

Also, it's my understanding that O'Leary is attending the Canadian Science Whiners' Association conference where she's delivering the keynote address.

Date: 2009/05/28 06:17:34, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 26 2009,11:20)
"They give dull parties and cheap presents, and they enjoy the same general regard and esteem as a dead otter."

Bored of the Rings?

Date: 2009/05/28 06:31:09, Link
Author: CeilingCat
I’m a big fan of the Scottish common sense realists (especially Thomas Reid), except when those blood-sucking atheists are destroying my religion, and will be publishing an anthology of quote mines take directly from their works later this year collecting together writings childish misunderstandings of Hume, Reid, and Paley on natural theology.  There will only be a few fart jokes and they will be both necessary to my argument and in good taste.

Fixed that for you.

Date: 2009/05/28 06:44:33, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Aardvark @ May 27 2009,07:57)
I can barely contain my excitement.

Jesse Kilgore's back!  Killed dead by The God Delusion!  We. Must. Make. Dawkins. Pay!

Date: 2009/05/29 00:26:20, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 28 2009,07:28)
Quote (CeilingCat @ May 28 2009,06:17)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 26 2009,11:20)
"They give dull parties and cheap presents, and they enjoy the same general regard and esteem as a dead otter."

Bored of the Rings?


UDTers, if you enjoyed "Animal House" and "The National Lampoon" magazine, "Bored of the Rings" was written by the brains behind both of those.

Date: 2009/05/29 00:38:11, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Ptaylor @ May 28 2009,16:52)
Tard alert!
DonaldM finds a highly reputable news source to show that (1) aliens not only exist, but they so love the world they will give their lives for it, and (2) this is further evidence for ID:
SETI with a Twist — The Search for Intelligence Continues

Normally one would expect a story such as this one to be in the National Enquirer. However, in this case, the story presents some interesting features which may have ramifications for the scientific application of ID.
In this case, the Russian scientist is claiming that back in 1908 an ET deliberately flew their spacecraft into a large meteorite to protect our planet.


This one is right up there with Dembski falling for the Bible Code.  A Russian UFO Crank story featured on Fox News.  Nowhere but on Uncommon Descent ...

Fellas, let's get serious here.  The 1908 Tunguska Event was really Jesus doing the Second Coming, but the Tsar's crack anti-Zeppelin squad mistakenly shot Him down.  Why else do you think we haven't been raptured?

Date: 2009/05/29 06:06:17, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Dembski spills the beans:
In this course we’re going to take an extended look at the origins of “intelligent design,” a phrase coined not in our own time but in the context of the debates over science and religion in the eighteenth century.

Or, in plain English, "intelligent design" is an old, disproven theory.

Date: 2009/05/31 23:49:24, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (deadman_932 @ May 31 2009,19:14)
 (1)  a God that causes a Bible to be written. A Bible that says in at least three different places that  punishing untold future generations for the sins of the a bad thing:  
(Deuteronomy 24:16) Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.
(II Chronicles 25:4) the LORD commanded: "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sins."
(Ezekiel 18:19-20)  The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son

Don't forget the Ten Commandments:
Exodus 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Two commandments into the Decalogue and we've got a cracker jack Biblical Contradiction PLUS God confesses to murderous jealousy, which is considered a serious character flaw in some parts of the world.

Date: 2009/06/01 00:13:04, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (FreeSpeachFan @ May 31 2009,15:10)
Uh, guys, I came here with the intention of trolling. I admit that, but I think I was too obvious, what with the overblown language and the misspelled username, and after making that first post I started feeling guilty anyway. Please do not judge this failed troll too harshly when he asks if it's too late to switch over and become a 'serious' (or whatever you non-troll users call yourself) member instead. I am indeed Swedish, but I have nothing but disdain for Creationism and variations thereof (and my name isn't "Crister Wimblen," for the record).

Anyway, this forum has provided me with endless hours of entertainment over the years (it also introduced me to the word "tard"). Why I decided to troll it, I do not know, but perhaps a reasonable explanation is that I am really bored at the moment.

No hard feelings, I hope? If I am banned, I definitely won't complain. Hell, if I had a forum, I'd ban all trolls, even those who repent.

Damn!  I'm reading Society Without God by Phil Zuckerman and I wanted to ask you lots and lots of questions about Sweden.  According to Zuckerman, Denmark and Sweden "... are probably the least religious countries in the world, and possibly in the history of the world."  

Yet they seem to be moral, prosperous, generous and generally happy.  Zuckerman lived in Aarhus, Denmark's second largest city (population 303,318 according to Wikipedia) for 14 months.  They had a murder one year.

As a committed Christian, I was going to ask you if you thought you could screw a record like that up, but now that you've told us the truth...

P.S. To be fair, bike theft in Scandinavia is serious and getting worse.

P.P.S. You WILL all enjoy Society Without God!

Date: 2009/06/01 06:30:49, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Dembski's written a really, really deep book.  

For instance:      
10At least part of Eve’s fault was that she uncritically accepted Satan’s explanation of
God’s refusal to let her eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. She didn’t
ask who Satan was or why he was suddenly supposed to be an authority about God. If she
had done any checking at all, she would have discovered that Satan had been kicked out
of heaven, that his current address was far from God’s, and that he was widely regarded
as a liar and the father of lies (John 8:44).

Question: As one of the only two people on earth, who would she have asked?  Not Adam, he was as ignorant as Eve was.

A possible explanation for the quality of this book can be found on page 7:      
"Here I would like to thank ... Barry Arrington ... Joel Borofsky ... Denyse O’Leary."  "I’m especially grateful to ... Denyse O’Leary for superb editing of the final draft."

Date: 2009/06/02 00:22:59, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Bob O'H @ June 01 2009,12:26)
Quote (afarensis @ May 31 2009,18:28)
Quote (Louis @ May 31 2009,15:29)
Right, is it just me that doesn't speak Swedish?


I don't speak Swedish either. I think you have to know the difference between Alpine and Nordic skiing before they allow you to learn Swedish. I could be wrong though...

As long as you know what "Systembolaget" means, you'll be OK.

Google translates that word as "Systembolaget".

Date: 2009/06/03 01:20:07, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 02 2009,15:50)
Lets play "guess who said the quote"
a “peer review committee” set up a star chamber to destroy my center and discredit my research

Not too hard to guess!

William Dembski

Just in case Dr.Dr.MS.Whatever Dembski has forgotten, his original response to the "Star Chamber" was to send an email to the entire Baylor Campus stating the committee had delivered an "unqualified affirmation of my own work on intelligent design", that its report "marks the triumph of intelligent design as a legitimate form of academic inquiry" and that "dogmatic opponents of design who demanded that the Center be shut down have met their Waterloo. Baylor University is to be commended for remaining strong in the face of intolerant assaults on freedom of thought and expression."

He didn't get canned until he refused to retract the email.  But that's just a pathetic level of detail.

Date: 2009/06/05 03:14:28, Link
Author: CeilingCat
A friend writes to say that in “The unique universe” (, 2 June 2009), Toronto-based cosmologist Lee Smolin attempts to develop a different view of time that allows him the laws of physics tp evolve in time.

I wash I culd rite gud.

Date: 2009/06/05 03:20:32, Link
Author: CeilingCat
This was actually posted on 26 May, but it took a while for the projectile vomiting to subside enough so I could post:  
Just for now: The Solar Neutrino Observatory (SNO) Lab is 2 kilometres underground, and then about two kilometres walk through an active nickel mine, followed by a serious shower and change into clean room gear.

Scuse me, I've gotta go and see a man named ...


Date: 2009/06/08 02:57:30, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (sparc @ June 07 2009,00:07)
Does anybody have a clue what DO'L's Hoppocratic Oath post is about? She links to some pro-life-anti-abortion site and claims that Canadians            
have recently beat back this challenge in the Province of Ontario, in Canada.
but doesn't provide a link for the later statement. Assuming that it is something about abortion and Ontario I did a quick google news search and this came up first:            
Charge dropped against suspect in shooting of Ontario abortion doctor

She's certainly afraid of psychiatrists:          
Mullen, if you try any more amateur Freudianism about me, I will ban you from this list.

Her proof reading skills have gotten significantly worse lately:          
Viewed from one angle, this story is all about fundamental philosophical ideas. Does the spin indeed have a value larger than 1/2 or is the result simply an error in the imprecise measuring device used? Does the spin indeed have both the x spin component and the z one well defined? And, above all, does time indeed flow in two directions in quantum mechanics? To be sure, the strange outcome of the measurement of S?/4 in this pre- and post-selected ensemble could indeed be obtained as an error in the measurement, an error in which the pointer of the measuring apparatus moved more than it should have. The explanation can be fully given by standard quantum mechanics, involving regular past-to-future-only flow of time. But the explanation is cumbersome and involves very intricate interference effects in the measuring device. Assuming that time flows in two directions tremendously simplifies the problem. As far as I can tell, Aharonov, Albert, and Vaidman hold the view that one should indeed accept this strange flow of time. I fully agree. Not everybody agrees though, and this is one of the most profound controversies in quantum mechanics.Viewed from one angle, this story is all about fundamental philosophical ideas. Does the spin indeed have a value larger than 1/2 or is the result simply an error in the imprecise measuring device used? Does the spin indeed have both the x spin component and the z one well defined? And, above all, does time indeed flow in two directions in quantum mechanics? To be sure, the strange outcome of the measurement of S?/4 in this pre- and post-selected ensemble could indeed be obtained as an error in the measurement, an error in which the pointer of the measuring apparatus moved more than it should have. The explanation can be fully given by standard quantum mechanics, involving regular past-to-future-only flow of time. But the explanation is cumbersome and involves very intricate interference effects in the measuring device. Assuming that time flows in two directions tremendously simplifies the problem. As far as I can tell, Aharonov, Albert, and Vaidman hold the view that one should indeed accept this strange flow of time. I fully agree. Not everybody agrees though, and this is one of the most profound controversies in quantum mechanics.
But maybe she's being paid by the word?

And her basic reading comprehension skills appear to have deteriorated:
O'Leary headline:      
"Origin of life: The misnaming of the Great Oxidation Event - which maybe never happened"

Article quoted below that headline:      
"Conventional thinking has oxygen produced by photosynthesis gaining the upper hand 2.4 billion years ago, nearly halfway into Earth history. But new laboratory results reported in tomorrow's issue of Science challenge the late arrival of this 'Great Oxidation Event.' " ... "Ohmoto's hypothesis is that significant quantities of free oxygen were present in Earth's atmosphere prior to the GOE." ... "As far as anyone knew, such "mass-independent fractionation" (MIF) could have happened only under solar ultraviolet radiation in an oxygen-free atmosphere - and MIF sulfur disappeared 2.4 billion years ago." ... "The strongest evidence for an oxygen poor atmosphere 2.4 billion years ago is now brought into question."

If you read the other responses in the Hippocratic thread, you'll notice that she's having her head handed to her again, so it's pretty much Situation Normal at the Tard Farm.

Date: 2009/06/10 00:09:01, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 09 2009,07:27)
Denyse O'Leary:


But if I asked an evolutionary psychologist about marriage in prehistoric times, he would tell me some popular culture lore dressed up in “let’s play cave people” animal skins.

What a time-saver it is to simply know how people would answer questions if given the opportunity. Interviewing people is apparently a journalistic practice that only the non-omniscient need resort to.

As Denyse has said, if they don't deny it, you can print it as a fact.  And if you don't interview them, they can't deny it.

Makes life a lot easier for a hack.

Date: 2009/06/10 05:34:41, Link
Author: CeilingCat
I ran into this by Pascal Boyer while surfing the net.  The article is titled, "How I found glaring errors in Einstein's calculations" and it's about the mail physicists get from nuts.  This rang a bell:  
Features of crackpot science

2    Most physics crackpots are engineers. More than 95% of my sample boast engineering degrees, or combine an undergraduate maths/physics degree followed by an engineering PhD or equivalent. This is not too surprising, as this may be the only kind of cursus that provides one with enough math background to understand the equations and formulae in the textbooks without actually studying maths and physics - which would show the crackpot why he’s misguided.
It's not just physics, Pascal.

Boyer is the author of, "Religion Explained", still the best book I've read on how religions get started.

Date: 2009/06/12 03:00:44, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Solid thinking from O'Leary:    
I am told by some sources that Darwin systematically misled people about what he really believed. More on that later. Maybe soon.
Me: By a remarkable coincidence, I am told by some sources that the honorable grandmother smells of elderberries.  More on that later.  Maybe soon.
Is UD turning into an O'Leary blog?  As I write this, she has the first four OPs.  And she's being handed her head in every one of them.  Good work, socks!

Date: 2009/06/12 03:08:56, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Same thread as the last one, posting #12:    
I not only knew about it, I lived a bit of it. I was part of the first group of desegregated Yukon schools.
Sergeant O'Leary of the Yukon!

Same message, after asking CannuckianYankee where he lives:  
Like, if you only indicate 500 sq km, I can’t exactly send a hum bee to wipe you out, can I? So just say.
Hum bee?  WTF?

Date: 2009/06/12 15:37:05, Link
Author: CeilingCat
What good is it using a definition which no one debates?

You can't make this stuff up.

Date: 2009/06/17 05:41:27, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (dvunkannon @ June 16 2009,23:35)
I think Dembski's latest notvertisement (Buy My Book In The Future!) went from No Comments to Comments Off. Did he obliviate anything or just chicken out?

The comments were closed a couple of hours ago, but now one comment has appeared.  PaulBurnett brings up the fact that it's published by "Intercollegiate Studies Institute" and that ISI is a right wing organization with little or nothing to do with science.


All science so far!

Date: 2009/06/17 05:42:25, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Curses!  You can't wake up early enough to get ahead of Bob O'H!

Date: 2009/06/19 19:21:47, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Those are Cheezy Poofs she's feeding that otter!  Could this be why we haven't seen DaveTard  lately?  Is he so down and out after being kicked off of UD that he's reduced to putting on the ol' otter suit and playing piano in sleazy dives for Cheezy Poofs?

DaveTard is driven away in shame and then an otter appears, playing piano for Cheezy Poofs, possibly on a houseboat?  Coincidence?  I call Tard!

I know, your first instinct is hyper-skepticism.  DaveTard hasn't been within two hundred pounds of getting into an otter suit in a coons age.  But have you ever seen a known otter eat Cheezy Poofs?

Bearing in mind the possibility of crash diets, possibly with the use of powerful reducing mushrooms, and Cheezy Poofs being eaten like they were manna from heaven, I think the probability of that "otter" being DaveTard is better than 10^150.

Date: 2009/06/21 23:52:59, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Freelurker @ June 21 2009,23:24)
Well, I propose an experiment:  sock and non-sock commenters at UD refrain from commenting on new posts for, say, two weeks.  Any posts in which you/your sock have already participated are still fair game: keep commenting if you so choose.  However, if you haven't already participated, you can't comment on the old posts either.  

I'm in. No comments from me 'till after the fireworks on the 4th of July.

But what about us tardaholics?  Have you ever gone cold turkey from a three thread a day tard habit?  It's brutal man, brutal.

Date: 2009/06/23 00:05:00, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (olegt @ June 22 2009,06:24)
StephenB moveth the goal posts:      
—-David offering quotes for methodological naturalism:

“We are to press known secondary causes as far as they will go in explanation of facts. We are not to resort to an unknown (i.e. supernatural) cause for explanation of phenomena till the power of known causes has been exhausted. If we cease to observe this rule there is an end to all science and all sound sense. — George Frederick Wright, Geologist and minister, 1882 (h/t olegt)”

By George, I think they are beginning to get it. Recall my earlier remark to David where I wrote, Methodological naturalism did not exist in the 13th century, or the 14th century, or the 15th century, or the 16th century, or the 17th century, or the 18th century…

Did you notice what I left out? Why did I not write about the 19th century? Was methodological naturalism practiced at that time? No, but the noose was beginning to tighten, and scientists were beginning to get the idea that maybe they could narrow the field and define science in such as way that they could protect their paradigm. Of course, Wright was all over the map and changed his mind finally denouncing Darwin.

Stephen, we have you on record saying      
308.  I have provided plenty of evidence that methodological naturalism has no history prior to 1983.

354.  [C] As I have made abundantly clear, no such rule ever existed before 1983. It is on that subject that Darwinists display their highest degree of intellectual honesty by trying to rewrite history.

421. Never before in history [prior to 1983] had one group of scientists presumed to tell another group of scientists what kinds of methodlogies they could use in the name of science.

But if you insist, Numbers also quoted Buffon, an 18th-century natural historian:
The force of impulsion, or what is commonly called the centrifugal force, is still unknown; but it affects not the general theory.  It is evident, that, as the attractive force continually draws all the planets towards the sun, they would fall in a perpendicular line into that luminary, if they were not kept at a distance by some other power, forcing them to move in a straight line.  If, again, this impulsive force were not counteracted by that of attraction, all the planets would fly off in the tangents of their respective orbits.  This progressive or impulsive force was unquestionably at first communicated to the planets by the Supreme Being.  But, in physical subjects, we ought, as much as possible, to avoid having recourse to supernatural causes; and, I imagine, a probable reason may be assigned for the impulsive force of the planets, which will be agreeable to the laws of mechanics, and not more surprising than many revolutions that must have happened in the universe.

That was written in 1749.  Time to move your goal posts again, Stephen.

I think that Francis Bacon had a thing or two to say about that back in the 1500s:  
There are and can be only two ways of searching into and discovering truth. The one flies from the senses and particulars to the most general axioms, and from these principles, the truth of which it takes for settled and immovable, proceeds to judgment and middle axioms. And this way is now in fashion. The other derives axioms from the senses and particulars, rising by a gradual and unbroken ascent, so that it arrives at the most general axioms last of all. This is the true way, but as yet untried.
(The New Organon, aphorism 19)
The New Atlantis is a fictional work, describing an ideal society where knowledge is pursued in the way Bacon espoused as ideal. The most important part of the utopia he describes is Salomon's House, where all natural phenomena are examined and categorized. One of the Fathers of the house explains: "The end of our Foundation is the knowledge of causes and secret motions of things, and the enlarging of the bounds of Human Empire, to the effecting of all things possible."
I think there are other, better quotes, but I'm too lazy to find them.  (Possible ID SIG?) Link

Date: 2009/06/23 06:24:37, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (GCUGreyArea @ June 23 2009,03:48)
Gordon wets himself during an hysterical fit:      
2:56 am

At 511, sparc has violated my privacy, in a comment with no substantial relevance, other than being an ad hominem-laced comment.


And the noffending post:
2:15 pm
“onlookers” sounds so Robespiere-esque

Sorry Gordumb, according to a UK Judicial ruling you don't have the right to anonymity because you are posting on a public (ish) forum.

Gordon, Almost all of your massive posts being with claims that the people you are arguing against are some for of sad immoral reflection of society - Way to go, respond to argument by attacking the person then whine about ad-hominem attacks.  I found a web page that is all about YOU.
(and yes, I am attacking you personally)

It's time they killed that thread.  It's taking forever to load and when all the waiting is over, all you have is another Thread of Tards.

Hey Gordon, here's an idea: Change your name and don't tell anybody about it.  Then nobody can ever out you again.

Date: 2009/06/24 01:12:40, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 23 2009,11:19)
chief theoretician

He's not even got a theory and they made him the chief?

That's was supposed to be chef theoretician, but then his barbeque stand in Brazos went out of business and now nothing matters any more.

Date: 2009/06/25 00:34:45, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (J-Dog @ June 24 2009,17:04)
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 24 2009,12:57)
Come back Chatterbox. I has questions on the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis.

Richard - I just read THIS book, and the author absolutely despises Whorf...I get the impresson he relates to Whorf the way we ATBCers relate to posts by O'Leary, Dembski and Gordon...

Good book BTW ... with a surprise ending.  Who knew?

Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue

added in edit:  Author thinks Whorff has head up his ass and his hypothesis idea makes as much sense as ID -(I'm paraphrasing, but that's the idea).

Saw that book at Borders today and almost bought it.  If only the latest collection of "Pearls Before Swine" hadn't caught my eye ...

I may get it next time.  Even the Amazon reviews are interesting:
(I'm writing this review in a more conservative style of English than I use in speech. That's what people do when they write--they do things like use "whom" instead of "who" as a direct object, or they use a lot of parenthetical remarks.)

Date: 2009/06/25 01:17:16, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Why I love UD:  
2. After studying the whole UFO/extraterrestrial visitation issue pretty much my entire life I am convinced the evidence is overwhelming that the Earth has been visited by intelligent beings from beyond our solar system and that the cover up of the best evidence constitutes the greatest misinformation campaign in history.
* I myself have seen such crafts.

Date: 2009/06/27 10:09:13, Link
Author: CeilingCat
That should be Palm and Tard reading.

Date: 2009/06/29 02:57:59, Link
Author: CeilingCat
bornagain77 explains how SETI can find alien life:    
I find it strange that the SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) organization spends millions of dollars vainly searching for signs of extra-terrestrial life in this universe, when all anyone has to do to make solid contact with THE primary “extra-terrestrial intelligence” of the entire universe is to pray with a sincere heart. God certainly does not hide from those who sincerely seek Him.

That reminds me of a Peter O'Toole movie from the seventies.  Can't remember the title, but this piece of dialog is stuck in my memory: "When did you first realize that you're God?"  "When I realized that every time I prayed, I was talking to myself."

Date: 2009/07/01 01:44:59, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Gil is going to be a suicide someday.  He'll be flying his hang glider and just won't pull out of a dive.    



9:08 pm
I don’t care about funding, motives, or religious convictions, I care about evidence and logic.

So what "evidence and logic" will Gil serve up?    

This seems to have been lost in the discussion about global warming and the efficacy of Darwinian mechanisms to produce what is observed in nature.

They are both junk pseudo-science, wrapped in an ever-growing cloud of obfuscation, excuses, redefinitions, predictions that can’t be verified until we are all dead and gone, and an entire host of unverifiable stories and speculations.

That sounds more like Tard-Soaked Ad Hominem Straw Men than "evidence and logic" to me.

This is the antithesis of science and scientific investigation, yet those who point out these obvious attempts to eviscerate the scientific method and scientific reasoning are labeled enemies of science.

More like enemies of "evidence and logic".

The next thing you know, people will start calling evil good, and good evil.

Dogs and cats living together!

God help us.

Well, you sure can't help yourself.  Don't fly until you've calmed down.

Date: 2009/07/01 02:29:16, Link
Author: CeilingCat
The Horror!    



7:48 am
To my horror, I have just remembered I must write an article for these people’s journal!

Apparently, my lead author, Mario Beauregard, is supposed to speak at their conference, unless he has already done that and come home.

Anyway, I really will get that article done in July.
Relax.  Take your time.  No hurry.  Besides, your horror is as nothing compared to the ASA's:  

"WHO is writing an article for our journal?!?!?!?"

P.S. There's a reason Mario didn't tell you about the conference.

Date: 2009/07/02 00:16:07, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (didymos @ July 01 2009,18:35)
Quote (Texas Teach @ July 01 2009,16:34)
Quote (didymos @ July 01 2009,17:23)
More Fun With Terminology!:


Jerry, do you have a problem with CreationWiki, The Encyclopedia of Creation Science, classifying Thaxton as a creationist?
Here is how they describe the site:

Welcome to the CreationWiki

   CreationWiki is a free encyclopedia of apologetics by an international team of missionaries. Creationists are encouraged to get involved with the development of this ever-growing resource (4,411 articles).

He is listed in the category “Creationist” and also in the sub-category “Creation Scientist”, as are both Dean Kenyon and William Dembski.

Sounds like the Dr. Dr. needs to forward them a copy of the "ID is science not religion" memo ASAP.  Or perhaps they are trying to vilify him because deep down they are Darwinist materialist atheists?


That kid's wearing an ABBA tee shirt!  Must've read the editorial.

Date: 2009/07/02 00:51:31, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Hermagoras @ July 01 2009,21:56)
Favorite authors include GK Chesterton, CS Lewis, and Vern Poythress.

What the hell is it with Lewis and Chesterton? Do they sell them bound together in Christian bookstores?  

And who is Vern Poythress?  

Oh.  That Vern Poythress.

Well, someone once wrote that C.S. Lewis's prime strength as a theologian was his complete ignorance of the previous 100 years of theological developments.  This enabled him to say things with a straight face that made real theologians shoot coffee out of their noses, but to his lay listeners it was a blessed return to the good old days.

Chesterton's main strength seems to have been to miss the bleeding obvious.  For instance, he thought it was significant that cultures around the world have similar laws.  Therefore Jesus.  Other people note that there are very few cultures full of people that want to be robbed, therefore laws against robbery.  I've already given my opinion on his Father Brown mystery stories.

Date: 2009/07/02 00:57:12, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Henry J @ July 01 2009,23:10)
didymos, posted 7/01/09 9:09 PM

But the fractal properties of nature indicate that non-local or global processes are at work, which by definition are external to the individual ignorant participants. In other words, the naturalist understanding of fractal space-time requires a supernatural explanation.

Huh. First, a description of emergent phenomena, then an "in other words" that has no logical connection to that description.


Plus quantum non-locality is not supernatural.  I think he's in waaay over his head.

Date: 2009/07/03 00:17:37, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 02 2009,13:09)
Quote (dvunkannon @ July 02 2009,13:03)



12:45 pm

Konnichi ha! Nihongo-o hanashimasu ka? Sugoi! Furotingu Kommandu Senta-wa, daijyoubu desu ka?

With all we respect the message of your post #3, but perhaps, I can point out that God Of The Gaps numbers could be considered fractal, since there is no perfect placement of them in any rational sense.

Speaking of gaps in the fossil record, large gaps disappear and small gaps are created as new fossils are discovered. The principal of self-similarity at all scales is not preserved. But the author was actually trying to use the term in a more poetic sense, that surrounding every point in the universe are gaps into which God can intrude. An opinion that Cthulhu followers find very much to their liking.

So, we thank you for your post and your esteemable self and past postings.


Is that Japanese for "douche full of shit?"

Your doin it wrong!

Date: 2009/07/03 22:44:12, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (deadman_932 @ July 03 2009,18:19)
Hmmph. Father Jerome "Jerry" Cosgrove is also a (Catlick) chaplain at Bishop Heelan High School in Iowa. And an art director in New York, or something, if I remember right.

ETA: the one that's eluded me has been Clive Hayden. I don't think he's the osteopath guy. And "Clive" is a pretty uncommon name, even in the UK, where they all have odd names, like "Louis" and so forth. I don't think he's a Euro, I think he's an Oklahomo, like other people right on this site. That's my belief!

Damn right he ain't no euro!  He likes women, especially Louis's mother.

Date: 2009/07/14 05:41:06, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Life from Nimbin!

Date: 2009/07/14 06:12:27, Link
Author: CeilingCat
I was stumbling around on and came across this article from the last election season: My candidate, myself.

I was struck by the lead paragraph (that's "lede" in Denyse talk):      
Last week, I jokingly asked a health club acquaintance whether he would change his mind about his choice for president if presented with sufficient facts that contradicted his present beliefs. He responded with utter confidence. "Absolutely not," he said. "No new facts will change my mind because I know that these facts are correct."
I was immediately struck with a sense of "deja fool" - I've run into this idiotic thinking before.

The article is based on Unskilled and Unaware of It by David Dunning and Justin Kruger.

I know Dunning and Kruger have been covered on this thread before, but it never helps to be reminded of their main points when dealing with Uncommon Dunces:

Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of skill.

Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in others.

Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy.

Could you possibly come up with a better three line description of the inmates at UD?

Testing a bunch of Cornell undergraduates, they got these results:            
On average, participants placed themselves in the 66th percentile, revealing that most of us tend to overestimate our skills somewhat. But those in the bottom 25 percent consistently overestimated their ability to the greatest extent. For example, in the logical reasoning section, individuals who scored in the 12th percentile believed that their general reasoning abilities fell at the 68th percentile, and that their overall scores would be in the 62nd percentile. The authors point out that the problem was not primarily underestimating how others had done; those in the bottom quartile overestimated the number of their correct answers by nearly 50 percent. Similarly, after seeing the answers of the best performers -- those in the top quartile -- those in the bottom quartile continued to believe that they had performed well.

Hmmm.. KF, Denyse, Granville, Jason, herb, Lamarck, Joseph, Barbie Doll, Cannuck - boy, does that explain a lot!

The author also points out, from her own book, On Being Certain,      
... feelings of conviction, certainty and other similar states of "knowing what we know" may feel like logical conclusions, but are in fact involuntary mental sensations that function independently of reason.

The evidence is substantial that these feelings do not correlate with the accuracy or quality of the thought.

Feelings of absolute certainty and utter conviction are not rational deliberate conclusions; they are involuntary mental sensations generated by the brain. Like other powerful mental states such as love, anger and fear, they are extraordinarily difficult to dislodge through rational arguments. Just as it's nearly impossible to reason with someone who's enraged and combative, refuting or diminishing one's sense of certainty is extraordinarily difficult. Certainty is neither created by nor dispelled by reason.

I don't want to discourage people who are trying to reason with these 12th percentile people, but man have you got your work set out for you!

Date: 2009/07/14 06:33:02, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Does anybody else enjoy watching Cornelius get stomped in the very first reply to his OP?  

Mark Frank

As Sober explains, the important evolutionary point here is not that the probability of the evidence on evolution is high, but rather that the probability of the evidence on creation is low—real low.

I think not. I suspect the point that Sober is making is the comparative likeihood of common descent over creation is mcuh higher. Both likelihoods need to be taken into account.

Your theme in this and other posts seems to be that the likelihood of what we observe (whether it be cladistics or biogeography) given creation depends on your religious assumptions. In a sense this is true. With carefully chosen religious assumptions you can make the likelihood of any observed outcome as high as you wish. You can assume that God made it look like common descent (just as you can assume that God made it look like there is genetic code based on DNA). But under almost any other assumption about God’s intentions and abilities then the likelihood compared to common descent drops like a stone.

You then turn on those that dismiss the idea that God fiddled the data and accuse them of the religious assumption that “God did not fiddle the data to look like Common Descent”. This is a religious assumption to the same extent that every time we look for a natural explanation of a observed pattern we assume that God didn’t purposely fix the data. Maybe there is a genetic code based on DNA or mabe God caused the X-ray diffraction results and other data to make it look that way. Maybe plate tectonics is true. Or maybe God just made it look like plate tectonics is true. In each case is it a religious assumption to ignore the second possibility?

Even is less than impressed:  

I must admit that the location of apparent fossil ancestors in the location of today’s creatures especially in the Australian context seems to me to be compelling evidence that there is a genetic relationship between the fossils and today’s animals.

If this is correct then it is not very likely that the fossils were laid down in a world wide flood. What am I missing? I don’t see this as having anything to do with theology.
12th percentile, Cornelius, 12th percentile.

Date: 2009/07/15 00:27:21, Link
Author: CeilingCat
You gotta love Lamarck's Internet Tough Guy routine that preceded the bit Diffaxial quoted:
Diffaxial why don’t you address falsification? It sounds like you want to say something but don’t dare because you know I’ll knock your ego into next week.
"The cheaper the crook, the gaudier the patter." Dashiell Hammett

Date: 2009/07/17 04:39:11, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Possible Salvador Sock Sighting:

I’m not sure if his thoughts/work are welcome around here, but Frank Tipler made an interesting, scientific (read: testable), case for the virgin birth in The Physics of Christianity.
Salvador Cordova is the only person in the Known Universe who still gets excited by Frank Tipler and his Physics of Christianity.

Date: 2009/07/20 06:57:44, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Gil Dodgen (unwittingly) speaks the truth:
A little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing, if unjustified extrapolations are made from it.

IDers please take note.

Date: 2009/07/20 07:00:58, Link
Author: CeilingCat
herb is a sock:
I think we all can sense that Denyse is full of it.

Date: 2009/07/22 03:21:51, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Mapou maps out the cranks

Mapou, of "Nothing Can Move in Spacetime! By Definition!" fame gives us a list of cranks:

Stephen Hawking
Kip Thorne
John A. Wheeler
Richard Feynman
Michio Kaku
John Gribbin
Carl Sagan
John Kramer
J. Richard Gott III
Hans Moravec
David Deutsch
Igor Novikov
John Baez
Ronald Mallett
Jack Sarfatti
Kurt Gödel
Paul Davies
Albert Einstein

If only they would embrace ID.

Date: 2009/07/27 01:16:27, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (hooligans @ July 24 2009,12:40)
Second, he requires students to create "At least 10 posts defending aspects of the Christian worldview totaling at least 3,000
words on “hostile” websites — 10 percent positive. "

What would Kairos Mullings write about on his other nine and a half posts?

Date: 2009/07/27 01:30:46, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 24 2009,14:09)
can anyone provide any evidence that any other 'players' in this petty worldview war (constructed in Dembski's head) instruct their students to go out and troll creationist blogs?  

what a warped sombitch

Ok, God-Hating Materialist Bastard, what have YOU ever done to entertain the fundamentalist tards?  I think we owe the man who sent us Barb a round of hearty "Thank you, Dr. Dembski!"s.  Sort of like saying Grace before each meal.

Date: 2009/07/27 01:52:52, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Lowell @ July 24 2009,15:01)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 24 2009,13:56)
what about this pathetic bit of wishful thinking???

2. You are an expert witness in the Dover case. You’ve been asked to summarize why you think intelligent design is a fully scientific theory. Do so here. Sketch out ID’s method of design detection and then show how it applies (or could apply) to biological systems. Further, indicate how ID is testable: what evidence would confirm ID and what evidence would disconfirm ID?


Oh my god. That is too good.

Step one: back out of your deposition using some lame excuse. Step two: let somebody else do the testifying. Step three: demand $20,000 for your services.

Step Four: After Barbara Forrest allows herself to be deposed and comes out of it looking like a champion, challenge her to a debate just as if you hadn't turned tail and run away.

Step Five: Get Dave Springer to email the challenge to Barbara Forrest so he can feel like a man too.

Date: 2009/07/27 03:07:17, Link
Author: CeilingCat
So Jerry is asymptotically approaching the ability to do junior high school math.

Date: 2009/07/27 03:31:24, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Judeo-Christian theology is based on the same idea (”I and the father are one”; “the two shall be one flesh”, etc.).

Denies the Trinity, eh?  Burn him.

Date: 2009/07/27 03:35:49, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (didymos @ July 26 2009,22:11)
Pssst, Clivebaby! Big Tent!  Big Tent!  

——-”So does Young Earth Creationism - or intelligent design - have any explanation for the recurrent laryngeal nerve? In giraffes the nerve is fifteen feet long, even though the brain and larynx are about a foot apart.”

If you want to know how YEC would answer that question then go to a YEC blog. Unless you’re equating ID with YEC, in which case, you shouldn’t be commenting on this blog.

OK, douchetwat, give us the most very definitely not-YEC ID explanation for the recurrent  laryngeal nerve.  Here's my prediction:

And while you're at it, explain the vestigial wings on those crickets.  You can do that using either ID-thought or YEC-thought.

Date: 2009/07/28 02:39:11, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Denyse discovers words of wisdom:    
Journalists, of course, are conformists too. So are most other professions. There’s a powerful human urge to belong inside the group, to think like the majority, to lick the boss’s shoes, and to win the group’s approval by trashing dissenters.

Denyse claims to be a journalist, so she presumably has a powerful urge to belong inside the group, to think like the majority, lick Dr.Dr. Dembski's shoes and win the group's approval by trashing dissenters.

And she and the Dr.Dr. also belong to a group that historically prefers to burn dissenters.

Date: 2009/07/28 03:05:02, Link
Author: CeilingCat
O'Leary's post just gets better and better.  She quotes second hand from an interview with Thomas Bouchard, a pioneer in twin studies.  Bouchard states,              
I was reading a book edited by psychiatrist D. D. Jackson on the etiology of schizophrenia. The first chapter, by a geneticist, was on twin studies. Then Jackson refuted it all with just the kind of crap you hear now against twin studies. He said families are the cause of schizophrenia. I remember saying in a graduate seminar, "Most of this stuff [in Jackson's argument] is junk"—I crawled out of the seminar room a bloody pulp.

I'd like to see Dr.Dr. Dembski say in a graduate seminar at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, "Most of this stuff in our apologetics class is junk."

"Unemployed bloody pulp" would describe his condition quite accurately.

Date: 2009/07/29 00:54:24, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Haven't heard from k.e. lately.  He must have one hell of a hangover.

Date: 2009/07/30 00:57:12, Link
Author: CeilingCat
A female sheep. He must be branching out.

A love ewe?

Date: 2009/07/31 02:27:49, Link
Author: CeilingCat
That Satirizing Scientism website that Gage recommended contains  some serious ... um, I'm not sure what the hell you'd call it.  "Tard" doesn't seem to accurately describe it.  Childish meanderings maybe?  Here's the current entry, under a full color picture of Bugs Bunny.  You try to describe it.      
A Personal Note from Wascally Wabbit

<picture of Bugs Bunny here>

So, Doc, you think rabbits can't talk? Can you verify that scientifically? Even Elmer Fudd believed in "sudden mutations."

Maybe you're relying way too much on a priori knowledge. You just assume without verifying. Have you tried to talk to every rabbit on the planet? We talk, all right. We just may not talk to you.

If you really believe in sudden mutations, dump the rats and start hanging around rabbits. If you act reasonably intelligent, they may talk to you.

Hey, Doc, not only to I talk. I know some pretty fancy words! Maybe you're not as smart as you think.

And Doc, you think we got these lightning fast legs by trying to escape predators. Check out Brer Rabbit. He doesn't even have to run from this idiot:
[Video of a rabbit harassing a non-biting, non-constricting garter snake]

Either that snake evolves some legs, or he's toast!

   <Picture of Mr. Ed here>

"Preach it, Bugs!
And who ever heard of a talking horse?"

Well hell, I'm convinced!  Don't know how I ever believed in that evolution stuff.  How can we possibly answer powerful, fact-filled presentations like these?

Date: 2009/07/31 02:44:54, Link
Author: CeilingCat

I can think of no other explanation for why the Common Ancestry: More on the Infant Grasping Reflex home page is displaying an ad for Charmin toilet paper.

ETA: And it's an ad for Charmin's toilet paper at Wal-Mart.


Date: 2009/08/03 00:08:09, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (deadman_932 @ July 31 2009,11:35)
Quote (CeilingCat @ July 31 2009,02:27)
That Satirizing Scientism website that Gage recommended contains  some serious ... um, I'm not sure what the hell you'd call it.  "Tard" doesn't seem to accurately describe it.  Childish meanderings maybe?  Here's the current entry, under a full color picture of Bugs Bunny.  You try to describe it.                
A Personal Note from Wascally Wabbit

<picture of Bugs Bunny here>

So, Doc, you think rabbits can't talk? Can you verify that scientifically? Even Elmer Fudd believed in "sudden mutations."

Maybe you're relying way too much on a priori knowledge. You just assume without verifying. Have you tried to talk to every rabbit on the planet? We talk, all right. We just may not talk to you.

If you really believe in sudden mutations, dump the rats and start hanging around rabbits. If you act reasonably intelligent, they may talk to you.

Hey, Doc, not only to I talk. I know some pretty fancy words! Maybe you're not as smart as you think.

And Doc, you think we got these lightning fast legs by trying to escape predators. Check out Brer Rabbit. He doesn't even have to run from this idiot:
[Video of a rabbit harassing a non-biting, non-constricting garter snake]

Either that snake evolves some legs, or he's toast!

   <Picture of Mr. Ed here>

"Preach it, Bugs!
And who ever heard of a talking horse?"

Well hell, I'm convinced!  Don't know how I ever believed in that evolution stuff.  How can we possibly answer powerful, fact-filled presentations like these?

Heh, I posted there, correcting the goober on the Popul Vuh, "global floods" and H.G. Wells "Island of Dr. Moreau"

He promptly (1) banned me. (2) erased my comments, (3) deleted his own posts on the matters

Clearly, he's from the Clive,Baby - DT- WeeBilly Dembski school of blaggin'. Oh, well, maybe the UDites think he's "funny"

I just checked out this post and it looks like he's reading this blog.  Bless his widdle heart!

So in great disillusionment, I came to Jesus and was “surprised by joy.” I know that makes me a “Clive.” But I had found myself giving into the race in the food chain, “the survival of the arrogant.” I had lost my idealism. I had lost myself. In Jesus, I realized I was more than a collection of random chemicals, that I was loved by God, my Creator. I was not as those who had no hope.

I’m sorry my blog offends or bores some. If that is the case, you don’t have to read it.

Hey Goober: Jesus has been dead for almost 2000 years.  You're being a bit of a sucker, although you have lots of company.  You don't need Jesus to know you're more important than a collection of random chemicals.  It makes a really BIG difference how those chemicals are arranged.  Think of it this way - a lump of coal and the Hope Diamond are both made of pure carbon.  Do you think it takes Jesus to realize that the Hope Diamond is somehow worth more than an equal weight of coal?  

You're a sentient being, one of the rarest things in the known universe.  Don't believe me?  Go outside on a clear night and look up.  See all that blackness?  That's vacuum.  No sentient beings there.  See that light stuff?  Those are nuclear furnaces.  No sentient beings there either.  99.999999999999999999 something percent of the universe is, literally, dumb as dirt.  You're special, you sentient being you.  

You and other beings like you (and lesser beings, like apes and other animals with a mental life) are more important than everything else in the universe.  And you don't need Jesus to tell you that.  Which is a good thing, because as I said, he's dead.

You seem to be shy and unsure of yourself, maybe with deep seated feelings of inferiority.  The deletings and bannings are a dead giveaway.  Look at Dr. Dr. Dembski for another example.  (And Clive too!)  

No problem, you write what you want on Satirizing Scientism and we'll answer you here.  We'll help you work your way past your Jesus problem.  Ok?

Remember, you're a diamond.

Date: 2009/08/03 00:14:36, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (k.e.. @ Aug. 02 2009,02:10)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 01 2009,21:12)
Quote (didymos @ Aug. 01 2009,08:14)
Is k.e.. still coming down?

Oh only since about....when was it they discovered LSD again? I forget. I know, I'll ask the magic pink pixies in my back garden, excuse me....

Ah yes. Last Thursday.


Oh you saw that movie too?

(the so called 1St lycergic "trip" on film noir)

That letter storage device must have hurt like fuck.

I recomend opiates for the pain generated by pig iron nails forced by reactive forces inserted through carbon based primates living hands. Black pigs or White Ox's by weight are g"D dead measures.

One can evacute ones stomach in next to no time and walk on clouds with mothers little helper. (only if you tried it will you know)

Only $8 circa 1976 for a phial of "Penang brown rock" smack.

Smoked inside a Lucky Strike when a match stick is used to make the hole first where the crushed power is held inside the cig.

You have to remove the filter and hold the cig. in your mouth then suck the crushed power with a quick inward retort of the mouth.

Light and bliss out.

Not much fun if you happen to get addicted.

Plan to run out "of gas" where the cost of going back to the night street market i.e. the actual source for quick cheap tricks which was not on my "around the world ticket".

Tigers are free..... chasing "The Dragon" is Death.

For teh "leary" effect?

Dreams are free ..........time is not.

How do you take the piss out of a yank?

Ring bins later send bill of lading (11am news) to News Corp. All Murds are crowing.

Remove Density holding a silk scarf in the air.

Return sons to the moon.

Collect supplies at bottom of Pass.

Send more please, sand is following me up this mountain.

....Any one here a Salman Rushdie Fan?

Ah....  k.e.. is back ... and in perfect working order.

Date: 2009/08/03 00:34:36, Link
Author: CeilingCat
The UDites are adding FCSI to their posts so fast the blogging software can't keep up.

P.S. Click on the "Dover Predictions Made" entry and read the Magic 8 Ball.  Classic!

Date: 2009/08/04 01:23:14, Link
Author: CeilingCat
O'Leary sets our minds at rest:  
There are NO packs of wild dachshunds running loose in the boreal forests of Canada.

Whew!  That takes a load off my mind.

Date: 2009/08/05 00:25:17, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 04 2009,08:43)
It seems like just yesterday that ID proponentsists were insisting that it had nothing to do with religion.

Now we have a full blown inquisition going, and no one is raising the hammer to slow it down.

Nobody expects the full blown inquisition!

Date: 2009/08/05 23:55:28, Link
Author: CeilingCat
The stupid - it hurts!
how about duplication of an entire genome, twice. does that violate genetic entropy?
If there is duplication, it would appear not to be random noise.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Date: 2009/08/13 18:54:15, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (olegt @ Aug. 13 2009,11:06)
Speaking of Lewis and Chesterton, Dembski has just rolled out a buy-my-book campaign for The End of Christianity.  The post lists a bazillion endorsements, one of which calls him the C. S. Lewis of this generation.  Quite fitting: Bill's theodicy is a sheer fantasy based on a violation of causality, as this endorsement explains (emphasis mine):
William Dembski’s latest book, The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World, shows how the traditional Christian doctrine that sin entered the world through humans is not refuted by the evidence that natural evils (earthquakes, storms, disease, death, etc.) are chronologically much older than humans within the universe. Because time within the created universe need not follow the same order as the logical process of God’s creation of the universe, human sin could have caused earlier evil. There are many aspects of the problem of evil left mysterious by this book (and indeed by all other attempts to solve the problem), but I strongly recommend The End of Christianity as a refreshing approach that maintains the traditional theistic doctrines of God’s omniscience and omnipotence.

–Don Page, Professor of Physics, University of Alberta, Canada

I think Douglas Adams mentioned a similar incident:  
The simplistic style is partly explained by the fact that its editors, having to meet a publishing deadline, copied the information off the back of a pack of breakfast cereal, hastily embroidering it with a few footnotes in order to avoid prosecution under the incomprehensibly tortuous Galactic copyright laws. It is interesting to note that a later and wilier editor sent the book backwards in time through a temporal warp and then successfully sued the breakfast cereal company for infringement of the same laws.

Date: 2009/08/15 01:37:08, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Paul Giem brings out the science...  
I would not prejudge the success of theist defenses, but would point out one interesting point. An adherence to the Biblical creation story interpreted relatively straightforwardly basically eliminates the problem. [of natural evil]

In the original account, there was no rain. The earth was watered by a mist, or by streams (the term has been translated both ways). Thus there were no floods or droughts, and presumably no hurricanes or tornadoes. If the earth was stable, and plate tectonics were initiated during the Flood, in the initial state there would not have been earthquakes, tsunamis, or volcanoes. Even childbirth was apparently not intended to be painful initially. So most, if not all, human suffering was not there originally, and in this view can be attributed directly to human sin. In fact, even the original animal diet, according to the record, appears to be plant food, making the problem of animal suffering less severe if not eliminating it.
All Creation Science so far!

Date: 2009/08/17 13:57:38, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Gordon almost gets it right:


[3] this is an oprganised functional message.

Closer than most of his tries.

Date: 2009/08/19 03:56:58, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Denyse gives Ken Miller a rare compliment:      
Friend Casey Luskin writes,

“There He Goes Again: Ken Miller misrepresents Behe’s Arguments on the Immune System.”

Well, of course he would, wouldn’t he? I’ve read Behe’s Edge of Evolution and Miller’s Finding Darwin’s God, and – to be charitable to Miller – can find no way of even ranking them in the same category.

All right!  The Heavens (and Ken Miller) rejoice!!  I think she's 100 percent serious here.  This is a complement straight from the heart.  Way to go, Ken Miller!  This may be the only thing that IDists and Sane People agree on: Ken Miller and Michael Behe are not in the same category!!

Date: 2009/08/20 02:37:56, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (socle @ Aug. 20 2009,01:57)
Quote (Ptaylor @ Aug. 20 2009,01:41)
I notice the number of comments on the Dembski Pro-ID Article post has slipped from 10 to 9. Anyone know which comment was the offender?

(FWIW current comments are from: Indium, David v Squatney, Sal Gal x 2, Dembski, Learned Hand, Dembski, ppb, Dembski)

Must be noted scholar's post that's gone missing.   :p

It was:

William Dembski


11:46 am
NS: Get a textbook on general relativity, and you will typically find a math textbook devoted mainly to Riemannian geometry. So by your reasoning, it actually isn’t about the structure of spacetime.

ppb: And the environment creates the information required for evolution to successfully locate a target how? Lots of environments lack the active information to conduct successful targeted searches.

I’m growing weary of these quibblings and thus shutting the comments off.

Date: 2009/08/21 00:32:51, Link
Author: CeilingCat
I read somewhere (possibly here at ATBC) that the fastest way to increase your citation count is to publish something with a blatent error in it.  I think Dembski's count is going to go way up.

Date: 2009/08/22 04:10:38, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Gordon accidently explains a lot:    



10:14 am


I have had net access headaches overnight.


I will remark on a few pints for the record:

Date: 2009/08/24 00:47:54, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 23 2009,21:12)
Dembski, posts, with "Comments off":

Evolutionary Informatics as Intelligent Design and not as Theistic Evolution
William Dembski
The paper on evolutionary informatics by Robert Marks and me that was recently published in an IEEE journal (go here for the paper) continues to generate discussion on the Internet. One criticism is that it at best is consistent with theistic evolution but does not support ID. I think this is a mistake. I’ve said for over a decade now that ID is consistent with the most far-flung evolutionary change. The key contention of ID is that design in nature, and in biology in particular, is detectable. Evolutionary informatics, by looking at the information requirements of evolutionary processes, points to information sources beyond evolution and thus, indirectly, to a designer. Theistic evolution, by contrast, accepts the Darwinian view that Darwinian processes generate the information required for biological complexity internally, without any outside source of information. The results by Marks and me are showing that this cannot be the case. The paper just published is only the first installment. It essentially lays out our accounting procedure for measuring the information in evolutionary search. We have two forthcoming papers that flesh out our larger project (available at, showing that attempts to account for the information internally, without an external information source, all founder.

      Posted in Intelligent Design, theistic evolution | Comments Off

23 August 2009
Functional Interdependencies Tighten The Noose On Darwinists’ ‘Received Wisdom’
Robert Deyes
Synopsis Of The Fourth Chapter Of Nature’s IQ By Balazs Hornyanszky and Istvan Tasi
As an avid participant of the compass-based sport of orienteering in the 1980s, one of the roles I was frequently assigned to was that of ‘course designer’. Meeting the needs of the many orienteering enthusiasts who turned up on competition day was a formidable task that required the cooperative efforts of a large number of individuals. Errors in communicating course layout or map design could have been navigationally disastrous for all concerned. Of course few of us need reminding of nature’s own ‘grand schemes’ of cooperative synchrony epitomized in the colonies of over eleven thousand ant species that today grace our planet. Workers, soldiers, fertilizing males and queens ‘play their instruments’ in an orchestra that is in part directed by the activity of a family of molecules called pherormones.

Read more »

      Posted in Intelligent Design | 1 Comment »

23 August 2009
Biosemiotics and Intelligent Design
Mario A. Lopez
Semiotix – Stephen Pain

The distinction between “theorising” and “belief” is extremely important because our attitude differs towards them. In a theory the reified concept of the sign does not have an ontological status but an epistemological one. While in belief, the concept has often a clear ontological one. Uexküll believed in his concept of the Bauplan in the same way as Bergson believed in the vital force. The concept of a plan is of course no different from the creationist’s concept of “intelligent design”. Any usage of the Bauplan is further complicated by its ideological usage in The Biological State, Uexküll‘s template for the German State, one that was anti-democratic and in many instances attractive to the Nazi of the 1930’s. Here I might bring in a Viennese philosopher of biology, Felix Mainx, who contributed an entry to an encyclopaedia of science of which Charles Morris was one of the main editors. After the terrible experience of the Nazi period, Mainx spent a lot of time analysing in detail the wrongs of vitalist biology or “parabiology” as he called it. Certainly, Uexküll’s theory of the Bauplan falls into this category:

The same holds for the concepts “plan”, “constructed plan”, “functional pattern”, and the like. It is characteristic of many parabiological theories that they turn such concepts into things to which they attribute an action on the “substrate” of organic events. (Mainx, p.637)

Read More…

More info here, here,

here and here

      Posted in Biology, Chemistry, Evolution, Genomics, Human evolution, Informatics, Intelligent Design, Origin Of Life, Self-Org. Theory | No Comments »

23 August 2009
Robert Wright and the New Pragmatism
Cornelius Hunter
In recent years evolutionists have been trying to pin down the theological implications of evolution. If evolution is true–and of course evolutionists believe it is true–then what does this tell us about god? From blogs to books to conferences at the Vatican, the “fact” of evolution is being integrated with our theology. The latest example of this science-informs-religion movement is Robert Wright’s op-ed piece in today’s New York Times which resurrects Charles Peirce’s pragmatism. It is yet another example of evolution’s abuse of science.

Read more

      Posted in Intelligent Design | 8 Comments »

23 August 2009
And there you have it!
William Dembski
Janna Levin, Columbia astrophysicist, gives us the cutting-edge science on the origin of the universe: there was nothing, really nothing, nothing at all … but the potential to exist. Was it Aristotle who said that nothing admits no predicates? So where did nothing get the potential to exist and then bring the universe into existence? Not to worry. Janna does give us this assurance: “We know that something happened.” Yes, this is science at its best. Let’s not bring God or design into this discussion — we wouldn’t want to be accused of “acting stupidly.” Oh, one more thing, she’s an assistant professor (go here). Want to bet that she doesn’t have problems getting tenure? Compare this to Guillermo Gonzalez at Iowa State.

YouTube Source

      Posted in Eyes Rolling, Religion, Science | 44 Comments »

22 August 2009
Szostak on Abiogenesis: Just Add Water
Cornelius Hunter
This month’s Scientific American is another example of evolution’s influence on science. Read more

      Posted in Intelligent Design | 45 Comments »

21 August 2009
[Off-topic:] School Answering Machine
William Dembski
I’m told that the Maroochydore High School, Queensland, Australia, staff voted unanimously to record the following message on their school telephone answering machine, prompted by a school policy requiring students and parents to be responsible for their children’s absences and missing homework. Apparently, the school and teachers are being sued by parents who want their children’s failing grades changed to passing grades — even though those children had double-digit absences during the semester and didn’t do enough work to finish their classes.


      Posted in Humor | 26 Comments »

21 August 2009
If and when The New York Times finally tanks … what will it mean for intelligent design?
Here’s my MercatorNet column about the decline of traditional media (known to bloggers as “legacy mainstream media”). Anyone interested in the intelligent design controversy should think carefully about how the media are changing.

Hint: Imagine a world in which media went to someone other than the Darwin lobby to find out what might be wrong with Darwinism …

I don’t accept the thesis that the old media declined because they were partisan. Rather they became more ridiculously partisan as they were declining.

Single-minded partisanship is – in a free society – usually an outcome of consumer choice. People can get their news from lots of sources. So if they choose your source, you can develop the story as you like.

But – by contrast – how many air traffic controllers are permitted to bug pilots with their opinions about politics and religion? How many weather forecasters would last long if they likewise bugged farmers seeking data on the tornado watch?

So the tsunami of consumer choices in media fuels partisanship – but also opportunity. Read more »

      Posted in Intelligent Design | 4 Comments »

21 August 2009
More Chimp-Human Genome Problems
Cornelius Hunter
One of evidences for evolution that has been strongly touted in recent years is the fact that the genomes of the human and chimpanzee are so similar. About 98.4% of the instructions in our genome match the chimp’s. We must share a common ancestor, so goes the argument which doesn’t worry about how humans and chimps could be so different. With a 98.4% match, evolution must be true. That, of course, is not a scientific argument. But leaving that aside, when we look under the hood we actually find that comparisons of the human and chimp genomes contradict evolution.

Read more

      Posted in Intelligent Design | 28 Comments »

20 August 2009
Evidence for an early prokaryotic endosymbiosis
Mario A. Lopez
Nature 460, 967-971 (20 August 2009) | doi:10.1038/nature08183

James A. Lake

Endosymbioses have dramatically altered eukaryotic life, but are thought to have negligibly affected prokaryotic evolution. Here, by analysing the flows of protein families, I present evidence that the double-membrane, Gram-negative prokaryotes were formed as the result of a symbiosis between an ancient actinobacterium and an ancient clostridium. The resulting taxon has been extraordinarily successful, and has profoundly altered the evolution of life by providing endosymbionts necessary for the emergence of eukaryotes and by generating Earth’s oxygen atmosphere. Their double-membrane architecture and the observed genome flows into them suggest a common evolutionary mechanism for their origin: an endosymbiosis between a clostridium and actinobacterium.

You’ll have to pay for this one, but I think it will make an interesting read.   Read more…

      Posted in Biology, Evolution, Science | No Comments »

20 August 2009
PZ Myers Does It Again
Clive Hayden
PZ Myers has, once again, railed against something that he doesn’t understand at his blog Pharyngula. Hi PZ! Notice that he doesn’t actually address the content of Dr. Dembski and Dr. Marks’ paper, which you can read here: Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success, published at the IEEE. Given his argument, he doesn’t know how to measure the cost of success, yet claims that Dr. Dembski doesn’t understand selection. A bit of advice PZ, the argument presented by Dr. Dembski and Dr. Marks is very sophisticated PZ, your mud slinging isn’t PZ, you need to step it up PZ. I know this new stuff isn’t ez, but you may want to consider a response that has actual content PZ. Your argument against this peer-reviewed paper is still in its infancy, or, more accurately, still in the pharyngula stage, embryonic in its development.

Since evolution of the kind PZ subscribes to cannot be witnessed, the argument has moved into genetic algorithms with the advent of computational abilities to determine the affair, and the IEEE is an entirely appropriate place to publish on that subject. We’re not going anywhere, we’ll give him time to catch up and educate himself to the tenets of the paper’s actual content. And if/when he does, maybe he’ll write another blog, and possibly write one with active information, that is, actual information, or else his argument will never reach it’s target.

      Posted in Darwinism, Education, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Science | 124 Comments »

20 August 2009
Metaprogramming and DNA
In informatics metaprogramming is a technique consisting in developing computer programs (sets of instructions) that output other programs. While simple programming means instructions generating data, metaprogramming means instructions generating instructions. In general the prefix “meta” means a thing/cause that stays at a higher semantic/ontological level than another thing/effect (in the case of metaprogramming we have a two-level hierarchy where a parent program creates child programs). For a tutorial introduction to metaprogramming see for example the following Jonathan Bartlett’s brilliant articles:
one, two and three.

DNA contains instructions, biological code for working-out various constructive cellular jobs (making proteins, setting developmental parameters, etc.). Question (inspired by the above ascertainment and readings): does DNA contain also meta-programs beyond simple programs?

Much DNA (outside its coding-for-proteins portions) seems without function (junk-DNA). Is it possible that some junk-DNA is meta-code able to assembly other DNA code? This could be an interesting ID prediction. Many have noted as the information amount contained in the genomes seems really too little to account for the overall complexity of organisms. Metaprogramming would be exactly one of the techniques able to compress the biological information. Read more »

      Posted in Genomics, Informatics, Intelligent Design | 52 Comments »

20 August 2009
Darwin’s finches by Harry Hill
Andrew Sibley
youtube video – Harry Hill puts a fresh spin on Darwinism

Sorry not embedded, but you will enjoy this UK TV comedian’s take off of Darwinism and his finches

      Posted in Intelligent Design | 3 Comments »

19 August 2009
New Peer-Reviewed Pro-ID Article in Mainstream Math/Eng Literature
William Dembski
William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics A, Systems & Humans, vol.39, #5, September 2009, pp.1051-1061.

*****For the official listing, go here.

*****For a pdf of the article, go here.

P.S. Our critics will immediately say that this really isn’t a pro-ID article but that it’s about something else (I’ve seen this line now for over a decade once work on ID started encroaching into peer-review territory). Before you believe this, have a look at the article. In it we critique, for instance, Richard Dawkins METHINKS*IT*IS*LIKE*A*WEASEL (p. 1055). Question: When Dawkins introduced this example, was he arguing pro-Darwinism? Yes he was. In critiquing his example and arguing that information is not created by unguided evolutionary processes, we are indeed making an argument that supports ID.

      Posted in Informatics, Intelligent Design | 9 Comments »

19 August 2009
SETI Gets New Toys!
Mario A. Lopez
Quest to find life beyond Earth gets technological boosts

By Andrea Pitzer, Special for USA TODAY 8/19/09
The search for intelligent life in the universe is still on.
Despite the absence of interstellar tourists to date, astronomers at the SETI Institute (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) are hoping that we are not alone.

And with new spacecraft to locate planets circling nearby stars, as well as more effective listening devices here at home, scientists have more tools at their disposal to find Earth-like planets or signs of other life forms.

But the possibility of intelligent life is what interests scientists at SETI. Using SETI’s 42-antenna Allen Telescope Array in Northern California, they can listen in many directions for unusual radio signals coming from space.

According to institute astronomer Seth Shostak, Carl Sagan posited that more than a million civilizations might be capable of broadcasting signals. Scientist and author Isaac Asimov hypothesized that the number might be half that. SETI astronomer Frank Drake has estimated the number might be closer to 10,000.

Read more…

      Posted in Eyes Rolling, Humor, Just For Fun, Off Topic, Psychology, Religion | 17 Comments »

« Previous Entries

from here:

Chickenshit, Dembski.

I don't understand this.  I checked the first four references and only the first has comments turned off.  That's vintage Dembski all right, but why are all the others in that list?

Date: 2009/08/26 00:39:54, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 25 2009,10:26)


From the Wikipedia article on Wesley Willis:
In 1989, Willis began hearing what he called "demon mulletsMullings" and was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia.

Fixed that for you, Wiki.

Date: 2009/08/26 23:43:40, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 26 2009,11:46)
StephenB, student of history, speaks
Science was of little consequence until the 1600’s when Christian thinkers decided that “God left clues” and set out to follow those clues. Do you think it is a coincedence that everything took off after that. Almost nothihg happens for 2000 years and then suddenly the cup runs over. Come on.


So we had Christianity for almost 1600 years and nothing much happened, then the Enlightenment was kicked off by the re-discovery of ancient Greek writings and science flowered.  Do you think it is a coincedence(sic) that everything took off after that?  Do you think 1600 = 2000?  Are you a Tard?  (Trick question.  Don't answer that, either it will hurt or you will be a liar.)

Date: 2009/08/26 23:49:57, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 26 2009,18:39)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 26 2009,17:49)
In the Densey No Leery  "Hard Up for a Floppy"   thread ("demanding" Dawkins' "original" code) ... I think the probabilities are pretty good that "Kibitzer" is actually Slick Willy "My camel nose is in Marks' tent" Dembski.

Read for yourself and see what you think.

You guys see Dembski everywhere.  

Here, find Not-Dembski.

I see a table full of socks.

Date: 2009/08/27 05:12:53, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Kairosfocus has outdone himself!  


blah blah blah blah

29 –> In fact, Weasel is an inadvertent example of this! (Non-functional nonsense phrases progress to target through gradual warmer-colder signals emitted by an algorithm that has a distance to target/success metric.)

A 29 point manifesto!

Date: 2009/08/28 03:45:45, Link
Author: CeilingCat
From the Lycan and Dualism thread:

2:13 pm

As I have mentioned many times, the philosophical debate between materialism and dualism is thoroughly trumped by the actual data of parapsychology.

Fits right in with ID.

Later, in same thread:
6:36 pm

A few more links to good articles about the evidence for psi, psychical phenomena, etc. and its relevance to the mind-body problem:
I'll let interested persons look at the list of references for themselves.

Jebus!  There's another one!
8:04 pm

Thanks for the psi links, magnan.

I’ve been trying to find the best books on the empirical evidence for psychic phenomena, and this is what I’ve come up with so far:

The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena by Dean Radin

Entangled Minds: Extrasensory
Experiences in a Quantum Reality by Dean Radin

The Gold Leaf Lady and Other Parapsychological Investigations by Stephen E. Braude

Hope that helps.
I left the references in, just in case somebody wants to read more about the Gold Leaf Lady.

And of course, Kairosfocus can't resist:
12:44 am

In the case of evidence pointing to the action odf intelligence on matters inconvenient to materialism, their imposed “methodological naturalism” plainly CENSORS science and blocks it from delivering teh goods.

The whole thread is a tard mine.

Date: 2009/08/30 10:19:41, Link
Author: CeilingCat
WASTE of BREATH (above):  

After taking time to go through the above, I am still shaking my head.
So am I Gordon, so am I.

Anybody know why he's referring to Richard Dawkins as "CRD"?

Date: 2009/08/30 16:41:33, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 30 2009,10:36)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 30 2009,10:19)
WASTE of BREATH (above):      

After taking time to go through the above, I am still shaking my head.
So am I Gordon, so am I.

Anybody know why he's referring to Richard Dawkins as "CRD"?

Dawkins' full name is Clinton Richard Dawkins.

I think I'll start referring to Flaming Gordon Mullings as FGM of TIKI.

Date: 2009/08/31 06:39:25, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Alfred Russel writes about D'Arcy Thompson and laments the demise of mathematical explanations of biological phenomena.

You might hope that someone would reply with something about evo-devo, but no such luck.  Instead, his replies are:

1) DATCG blames it all on the atheists who quote Jefferson but forget to mention that the wall of separation is from a letter to the Danbury Baptists and that Jefferson supported purchasing Bibles for *schools.

2) IRQ Conflict quotes 13 verses from Hosea.

3) Tajimas D. says Thompson's work demonstrates intelligence in biology like Ruelle's and Takens' work demonstrates intelligence in turbulence.  That is to say, "not at all."

Looks like two measures of Science all the Way followed by a whiff of sarcasm.

*Edit: I originally put Indians because Jefferson did support sending Missionaries to the long suffering Indians because he thought it would make them easier to rule over.  I note that DATCG didn't mention the Jefferson Bible, where Jefferson bought a cheap Bible, cut out all the parts he didn't like or thought were BS (the entire Old Testament and a lot of the New).  You can still buy copies of it.  It's a very small book.

Date: 2009/09/01 05:11:33, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 31 2009,22:51)
you know in all of the ignorant blithering about cs lewis over there i had forgotten all about all that.  

that's a new light to look at the stupidity of irq and clive,baby and the rest of this dunceocracy

You should also read A. N. Wilson's biography of C. S. Lewis.  That guy had some serious kinks!  For instance,  Lewis's mother died when Lewis was 10 at which time he was packed off to a rather horrid English boarding school.  The headmaster was eventually committed to an insane asylum some years after Lewis and his older brother left.  The Lewis family was from Northern Ireland.  So there he was, aged 10, suddenly with no mother, a very distant father and in a strange school run by a sadist nut in a foreign country.  Not too surprisingly, he got a little bent, emotionally.  He spent the rest of his life looking for substitutes for his mother.  Wilson also says his "mildly sadistic" tendencies began at that school.

Lewis and his friend, Paddy Moore were in W.W. I together.  His friend didn't come back.  So Clive Staples moved in with his mother, Jane Moore, and they lived together until Moore was hospitalized in the late 1940s.  Wilson makes it clear that the relationship included sex.

They had to be doubly sly about it because at that time young Oxford scholars like him weren't even supposed to be married.  Lewis customarily introduced Mrs. Moore as his mother.  Lewis himself referred to this episode in his biography: "But before I say anything of my life there I must warn the reader that one huge and complex episode will be omitted. I have no choice in this reticence. All I can or need to say is that my earlier hostility to the emotions was very fully and variously avenged".

Just to make up for living with a woman 27 years older for decades, near the end of his life he met Joy Gresham, 17 years younger than himself and married her.

If you want to see most of Lewis's effects today, you have to travel to Billy Graham's old alma mater, Wheaton college in Illinois where you may see, amongst many other artifacts, his collection of pipes and liquor decanters.  What they make of that at tee-totaling Wheaton I do not know.

Date: 2009/09/01 07:00:13, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (steve_h @ Aug. 31 2009,18:17)
Uncommonly Behe              
Well, mobs, including internet mobs, are scary things, and it’s understandable to panic when they unexpectedly show up at your door. But if you’re going to set up a website to air discussions about contentious issues of the day, you should have a whole lot more guts than displayed by Bloggingheads


This entry was posted Friday, August 28th, 2009 at 7:33 am and is filed under Uncategorized. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

ETA: emphasis

The McWhorter-Behe interview is back up now: Here.

There's also this explanation from Robert Wright, who is apparently the head honcho at Bloggingheads:      
Administrator   Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1  

Irreducibly Complex Edition (John McWhorter & Michael Behe)


John McWhorter feels, with regret, that this interview represents neither himself, Professor Behe, nor Bloggingheads usefully, takes full responsibility for same, and has asked that it be taken down from the site. He apologizes to all who found its airing objectionable.

Update from Robert Wright, editor-in-chief of, Aug. 30: This diavlog has now been re-posted. The decision to remove it from the site was made by BhTV staff while I was away and unavailable for consultation. (Yes, even in a wired world it's possible to take yourself off the grid. Here's how I did it.) It's impossible to say for sure whether, in the heat of the moment, I would have made a decision different from the staff's decision. But on reflection I've decided that removing this particular diavlog from the site is hard to justify by any general principle that should govern our future conduct. In other words, it's not a precedent I'd want to live with. At the same time, I can imagine circumstances under which a diavlog would warrant removal from the site. So this episode has usefully spurred me and the BhTV staff to try to articulate some rules of the road for this sort of thing. Within a week, the results will be posted, along with some related thoughts on the whole idea behind, here.

Last edited by Brenda; 08-30-2009 at 10:29 PM.

Meanwhile, Shawn Carroll seems to have left Blogginheads in disgust because they let Behe in.
Blogs / Cosmic Variance
« Dark Energy: Still a Puzzle
Astronomical conflagration? »
Bye to Bloggingheads
by Sean

Unfortunately, I won’t be appearing on any more. And it is unfortunate — I had some great times there, and there’s an enormous amount to like about the site. So I thought I should explain my reasons.

A few weeks ago we were a bit startled to find a “Science Saturday” episode of featuring Paul Nelson, an honest-to-God young-Earth creationist. Not really what most of us like to think of as “science.” So there were emails back and forth trying to figure out what went on. David Killoren, who is the person in charge of the Science Saturday dialogues, is an extremely reasonable guy; we had slightly different perspectives on the matter, but in the end he appreciated the discomfort of the scientists, and we agreed to classify that dialogue as a “failed experiment,” not something that would be a regular feature.

So last week we were startled once again, this time by the sight of a dialogue between John McWhorter and Michael Behe. Behe, some of you undoubtedly know, is a leading proponent of Intelligent Design, and chief promulgator of the idea of “irreducible complexity.” The idea is that you can just look at something and know it was “designed,” because changing any bit of it would render the thing useless — so it couldn’t have arisen via a series of incremental steps that were all individually beneficial to the purpose of the object. The classic example was a mousetrap — until someone shows how a mousetrap is, in fact, reducibly complex. Then you change your choice of classic example. Behe had his butt handed to him during his testimony at the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial over teaching intelligent design in schools; but embarrassment is not an arrow in the ID quiver, and he hasn’t been keeping quiet since then.

John McWhorter is not a biologist — he’s apparently a linguist, who writes a lot about race. In any event, the dialogue was hardly a grilling — McWhorter’s opening words are:

Michael Behe, I am so glad to meet you, and thank you for agreeing to do this. This is one of the rare times that I have initiated a Bloggingheads pairing, and it’s because I just read your book The Edge of Evolution from 2007, and I found it absolutely shattering. I mean, this is a very important book, and yet I sense, from the reputation or the reception of your book from ten-plus years ago, Darwin’s Black Box, that it may be hard to get a lot of people to understand why the book is so important.

I couldn’t listen to too much after that. McWhorter goes on to explain that he doesn’t see how skunks could have evolved, and what more evidence do you need than that? (Another proof that belongs in the list, as Jeff Harvey points out: “A linguist doesn’t understand skunks. Therefore, God exists.”) Those of us who have participated in Bloggingheads dialogues before have come to expect a slightly more elevated brand of discourse than this.

Then, to make things more bizarre, the dialogue suddenly disappeared from the site. I still have very little understanding why that happened. The reason given was that it was removed at McWhorter’s behest, because he didn’t think it represented him, Behe, or very well. I’m sure that is the reason it was removed, although I have no idea what McWhorter was thinking — either when he proposed the dialogue, or while he was doing it, or when he asked that it be taken down. Certainly none of we scientists who were disturbed that the dialogue existed in the first place ever asked that it be removed. That feeds right into the persecution complex of the creationists, who like nothing more than to complain about how they are oppressed by the system. And, on cue, Behe popped up to compare Bloggingheads to Stalinist Russia. But now the dialogue is back up again — so I suppose old comrades can be rehabilitated, after all.

But, while none of the scientists involved with was calling for the dialogue to be removed, we were a little perturbed at the appearance of an ID proponent so quickly after we thought we understood that the previous example had been judged a failed experiment. So more emails went back and forth, and this morning we had a conference call with Bob Wright, founder of To be honest, I went in expecting to exchange a few formalities and clear the air and we could all get on with our lives; but by the time it was over we agreed that we were disagreeing, and personally I didn’t want to be associated with the site any more. I don’t want to speak for anyone else; I know that Carl Zimmer was also very bothered by the whole thing, hopefully he will chime in.

It’s important to understand exactly what the objections are. (Again, speaking only for myself; others may object on different grounds.) It’s too easy to guess at what someone else is thinking, then argue against that, rather than work to understand where they are coming from. I tried to lay out my own thinking in the Grid of Disputation post. Namely: if has something unique and special going for it, it’s the idea that it’s not just a shouting match, or mindless entertainment. It’s a place we can go to hear people with very different perspectives talk about issues about which they may strongly disagree, but with a presumption that both people are worth listening to. If the issue at hand is one with which I’m sufficiently familiar, I can judge for myself whether I think the speakers are respectable; but if it’s not, I have to go by my experience with other dialogues on the site.

What I objected to about the creationists was that they were not worthy opponents with whom I disagree; they’re just crackpots. Go to a biology conference, read a biology journal, spend time in a biology department; nobody is arguing about the possibility that an ill-specified supernatural “designer” is interfering at whim with the course of evolution. It’s not a serious idea. It may be out there in the public sphere as an idea that garners attention — but, as we all know, that holds true for all sorts of non-serious ideas. If I’m going to spend an hour of my life listening to two people have a discussion with each other, I want some confidence that they’re both serious people. Likewise, if I’m going to spend my own time and lend my own credibility to such an enterprise, I want to believe that serious discussions between respectable interlocutors are what the site is all about.

Here’s the distinction I want to draw, which might admittedly be a very fine line. If someone wants to talk about ID as a socio/religio/political phenomenon worth of study by anthropologists and sociologists, that’s fine. (Presumably the right people to have that discussion are anthropologists or sociologists or historians/philosophers of science, not biochemists who have wandered into looney land.) If someone wants to talk to someone who believes in ID about something that person has respectable thoughts about, that would also be fine with me. If you want to talk to a theologian about theology, or a politician about politics, or an artist about art, the fact that such a person has ID sympathies doesn’t bother me in the least.

But if you present a discussion about the scientific merits of ID, with someone who actually believes that such merits exist — then you are wasting my time and giving up on the goal of having a worthwhile intellectual discussion. Which is fine, if that’s what you want to do. But it’s not an endeavor with which I want to be associated. At the end of our conversations, I understood that my opinions about these matters were very different from those of the powers that be at

I understand that there are considerations that go beyond high-falutin’ concerns of intellectual respectability. There is a business model to consider, and one wants to maintain the viability of the enterprise while also having some sort of standards, and that can be a very difficult compromise to negotiate. Bob suggested the analogy of a TV network — would you refuse to be interviewed by a certain network until they would guarantee to never interview a creationist? (No.) But to me, the case of is much more analogous to a particular TV show than to an entire network — it’s NOVA, not PBS, and the different dialogues are like different episodes. There is a certain common identity to things that does, in a way that simply isn’t comparable to the wide portfolio of a TV network. Appearing for an hour-long dialogue creates connection with a brand in a way that being interviewed for 30 seconds on a TV news spot simply does not. If there were a TV show that wanted me on, but I had doubts about their seriousness, I would certainly decline (and I have).

And heck, we all have a business model. I’d like to sell some books, and I was really looking forward to doing a dialogue with George Johnson when my book came out — it would have been a lot of fun, and perhaps even educational. But at the end of the day, I’m in charge of defending my own integrity; life is short, and I have to focus on efforts I can get completely behind without feeling compromised.

Having said all that, I’m very happy to admit that there’s nothing cut-and-dried about any of these issues, and I have a great deal of sympathy for anyone who feels differently and wants to continue contributing to The site provides a lot of high-quality intellectual food for thought, and I wish it well into the future. These decisions are necessarily personal. A few years ago I declined an invitation to a conference sponsored by the Templeton foundation, because I didn’t want to be seen as supporting (even indirectly) their attempts to blur the lines between science and religion. But even at the time I admitted that it wasn’t an easy choice, and couldn’t blame anyone who decided to go. Subsequently, I’ve participated in a number of things — the World Science Festival, the Foundational Questions Institute, and itself — that receive money from Templeton. To me, there is a difference between taking the money directly, and having it “laundered” through an organization that I think is otherwise worthwhile. Not everyone agrees; Harry Kroto has expressed deep disappointment that I would sully myself in this manner. And that’s understandable, too; we all have to look at ourselves in the mirror each morning.

So, on we go, weaving our own uncertain ways through the briars of temptation and the unclear paths of right and wrong. Or something like that. I have no doubt that will continue to put up a lot of good stuff, and that they’ll find plenty of good scientists to take my place; meanwhile, I’ll continue to argue for increasing the emphasis on good-faith discourse between respectable opponents, and mourn the prevalence of crackpots and food fights. Keep hope alive!

I'm a little disappointed by all this because I thought McWhorter withdrew the video because he made such a complete fool of himself.  (Just listen to the video.)  I was on the verge of starting a campaign to demand that McWhorter take his medicine and restore the video and now it's out of my hands and with ancilliary damage.

Meanwhile, Uncommon Descent will continue to delete messages and 404 threads while complaining that Behe isn't loved on Blogginheads.

By the way, "diavlog" isn't a misprint.

Date: 2009/09/02 00:30:56, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (J-Dog @ Sep. 01 2009,09:09)
Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 01 2009,08:26)
My only complaint about Lewis is that he wasn’t a Calvinist. What’s up with that?

Heddle - Maybe he was a "Secret Calvinist"?  Something to look forward to for you, as it was obviously pre-ordained that he wound up with a 17 year old babe! Perhaps they could put that in the "Top Ten Reasons To Be A Calvinist" brochure?

17 years younger than Lewis, not 17 years old.  She was a divorced  mother of two when they met.  (Problems there too, since the Church of England had problems with divorcees remarrying in those days.)

I'd like to say that Lewis was not a Calvinist because he realized that Calvin's doctrine of predestination was a very good reductio-ad-absurdum proof of the non-existence of an omniscient God.  As in, if God knows everything then He knows every thought and emotion you will ever have before you know it, making you a helpless puppet rigidly following the path that was laid down for you before you were even born.

But, having read Lewis, I doubt if that thought ever occurred to him.  He wasn't a Calvinist because he was a Church of England boy from the word go.

Date: 2009/09/02 00:35:59, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 01 2009,12:05)
Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 01 2009,11:52)
I never noticed that. As for Hughes—the boy never met a lunatic fringe theory he didn’t embrace.

Erm, ID?

My outing of the Heddle space telescope:

is a public service. I put the meddle to the Heddle. erm, fo' sheddle.

Wonderful instrument, the HST.  Opened up vast new areas of astronomical research when the HST team proved once and for all that the stars are "...kind of blurry."

Won the "Peer-Reviewed Research in ID" award from the Dembski Spaced Institute.

Date: 2009/09/02 05:52:32, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 02 2009,05:22)
Oh my Designer, the game is up!
Equally startling is that these genes were discovered in what had been considered “junk” DNA, non-functioning strings of repetitive DNA that do not seem to do anything.
Scientists have long assumed new genes could only evolve from duplicated or rearranged versions of preexisting genes, passed on by our ancestors, Dr McLysaght said. But then scientists began to discover a very few novel genes in species such as flies and yeasts that arose from apparently inactive junk DNA.

I, for one, welcome our new junk DNA overlords.

Research leader Dr Aoife McLysaght and Dr David G Knowles, of TCD’s Smurfit Institute of Genetics, conducted comparisons of human, ape and monkey DNA.
Honestly, you heathens will believe anything!

Date: 2009/09/02 23:54:28, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 02 2009,07:17)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 02 2009,05:52)
Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 02 2009,05:22)
Oh my Designer, the game is up!
Equally startling is that these genes were discovered in what had been considered “junk” DNA, non-functioning strings of repetitive DNA that do not seem to do anything.
Scientists have long assumed new genes could only evolve from duplicated or rearranged versions of preexisting genes, passed on by our ancestors, Dr McLysaght said. But then scientists began to discover a very few novel genes in species such as flies and yeasts that arose from apparently inactive junk DNA.

I, for one, welcome our new junk DNA overlords.

Research leader Dr Aoife McLysaght and Dr David G Knowles, of TCD’s Smurfit Institute of Genetics, conducted comparisons of human, ape and monkey DNA.
Honestly, you heathens will believe anything!

Aoife is also quite the cutie...she's in front here:

Darwin Day!

I was seeing if she had a preprint or anything of that paper up and got all sexcited when I saw a .pdf icon next to the title-- but, alas, it was not to be.

I made do with ogling pics of her and other lab denizens here

Sex and the Single Scientist!  Loved that book!

The one on the right in the first picture is also foxy, although she seems to get her sweater sense from Dembski.  But on her, it looks good!

Both of these pictures will join my growing selection of science porn.

Date: 2009/09/03 00:14:57, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 02 2009,16:11)
lololol that is sigworthy

cornytard's most recent episode of getting-some-on-your-leg is pretty funny

3:39 pm
An internal combustion engine is irreducibly complexity, for instance. Take away the valve, or the piston, or the spark plug, or the wire, and it does not function.

You do realize that early internal combustion engines didn’t use compression or sparks to function. So much for irreducibly complex.

Besides, the double-acting reciprocating piston pump with a crank-connecting rod mechanism was invented in 1206 for moving water and spark gap generators were invented in 1887 to generate radio signals. Thus the modern internal combustion engine is a perfect example of how existing features can be co-opted to produce new functions.

Very nice.  

swine pearls, etc.

Not to mention that if you take away the valve you've got a two-cycle engine and if you take away the spark plug or the wire you've got a diesel, both internal combustion engines.

But aside from that and a few other mistakes, Cornelius is correct, using the ID definition of correct.

Date: 2009/09/03 00:22:54, Link
Author: CeilingCat
clive,baby he he he he be some kind of craaaazy transcendental mathematician

yo axe him do he think axioms be all tautological and shit

fo real, clive,baby be all "that sh1t 6e what g0d be tr1pp1n on y0 they be hi5 numbah5 too h0w you crunk you cn c0unt wit d3m and sh1t"

Is Erasmus, FCD really a Denyse O'Leary sock?
Does anybody else in the world talk that way?

We report, you decide.

Date: 2009/09/03 04:36:45, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Potential new ID recruit?  The wife of the Japanese Prime Minister elect says, "While my body was asleep, I think my soul rode on a triangular-shaped UFO and went to Venus," she explains in the tome she published last year. "It was a very beautiful place, and it was very green."

She also knew Tom Cruise in a former incarnation - when he was Japanese.

I think she'd make a great Discovery Institute Fellow.  I wonder how she feels about Irreducible Complexity?  HIV Denial?  Has she ever expressed an interest in the Baylor Cafeteria?  I wonder what her position is on Obama's birth certificate?  I'm looking for a picture of her in a sweater, talking about Jesus with Denyse O'Leary and Michelle Bachmann.


Date: 2009/09/10 06:31:16, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Is there anything in the world that Cornelius Hunter doesn't think is religion?  Gretta Garbo's aunt Bessie's knees?  Maybe a sharp stick in the eye?


Date: 2009/09/11 20:32:02, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 11 2009,18:51)
You've all read his anti-intellectualism TARD manifesto:


GEM of Riki-Tiki lives in Jamaica, which has more churches per capita than any other nation on earth.  It also has a crime rate that has spiraled so out of control that an Honorary English Ambassador was found  beaten and strangled to death in his  own home in a wealthy neighborhood a couple of days ago.  

His main job as honorary Ambassador was providing council to English crime victims.

Found murdered, Jamaica has highest murder rate in the world.

Beaten and strangled because he was gay.

Perhaps Mr. Gordon should stop preaching to the rest of the world and concentrate on his own gay-bashing, church-going xtians.

Date: 2009/09/13 15:20:59, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Joseph in the same thread:  
"    Common descent leads to the positive prediction that the history of life would show a hierarchy of development while separate descent would not."

Except that evolution does NOT have a direction so in reality no such hierarchy was ever predicted.

That whooshing sound you heard was Joseph missing the point.

Date: 2009/09/13 15:32:38, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (keiths @ Sep. 11 2009,22:51)
Quote (bfish @ Sep. 11 2009,19:00)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 11 2009,18:32)
GEM of Riki-Tiki lives in Jamaica

I thought KF was from Montserrat.

He's a native Jamaican who lives in Montserrat.

God told me KF lives in Jamaica in a dream.  Now who you gonna believe?  Your fallible human "sources" or something I dreamed God told me?  

Consider carefully before you answer lest you and bfish wind up in the ID section of hell, which reeketh with the stench of straw men soaked in the flaming oil of ad hominem, which you just can't ever get out of your clothes.

Date: 2009/09/14 03:52:33, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Cornelius Hunter is turning into a real asshole.            
After all, there are no fossil rabbits in the ancient strata. That's right, no rabbits before the Cambrian era. Astonishing, evolution must be true.

After this extreme example of the fallacy of affirming the consequent ...
The actual words of the article:            
When asked what observation would disprove the theory of evolution, J.B.S. Haldane, a pioneering British geneticist, replied: “Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era.” But such anachronisms have never been found.
That's not "affirming the consequent".  It's listing an observation that could disprove the theory of evolution and noting that this and other such anachronisms have never been found.  PHILOSOPHY FAIL

Cornelius: "But the best is saved until last. As always, the real proof is the religious evidence. As the review proclaims:"
[The article lists laryngeal nerves that are routed perfectly for fish, but have to take long detours in creatures with necks, including a fifteen foot detour in giraffes, trees that would work perfectly well if they were lower, but which are forced to grow tall to prevent other trees from shading them, futility and suffering in the world such as the ichneumon wasp whose larve eat living caterpillars]  

Cornelius's reply: "With religious arguments like these who needs scientific evidence?"

Then, in the comments section, we find:          
Corny: "There are multitudes of examples of similarities amongst the species that do not fit the evolutionary pattern."

Bob O'H: "Such as?"

Corny: "Incredible. This shows how far evolutionary misinformation and misrepresentation has penetrated science. If you really want science rather than dogma then you'll have to look at the evidence. Try any life science library. If that is not convenient, here are some links for starters:"

Timcol: "do you not accept that there is pain and suffering in the animal kingdom?"

Corny: "Yes, I accept that."

Timcol: "what is YOUR explanation of this phenomena?"

Corny: "Evolutionists use this question as a protectionist device. They believe evolution is a fact, and when faced with the absurdity of their claims they switch the subject. There is little point to discussing *my* idea with folks who are either lying, in denial, or unbelievably ignorant about science."

Timcol: "Huh? I write 3-4 sentences and from this you conclude I might be lying, in denial or ignorant about science?"

Corny: "How did you conclude that? I made it clear I was referring to evolutionists."

Boo: "You appear to be confusing criticism of the claims of Intelligent Design with evidence for evolution. The Economist is not a scientific journal presenting the results of studies. It is a popular magazine presenting a book review."

Corny: "No, I'm not the one confusing the criticism. This is a classic evolutionary cunard.(sic) The evolutionist gives his religious pronouncements and then is shocked when it is pointed out. What me?

If you think the religion is contrived by pop media such as the Economist, then you are not familiar with evolution."

I quit reading there.  This guy is turning into a Dembski class asshole.

Edit: Typo

Date: 2009/09/14 06:40:35, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Bob O'H was not impressed with those references either.

Date: 2009/09/15 06:16:11, Link
Author: CeilingCat
A Tard is Born
niwrad takes a lesson from Donald Rumsfeld:    
The Darwinism contradiction of repair systems
When a thing is false, is false from all points of view. In fact it cannot exist a point of view from which the thing becomes true, given it is false, rather each view point manifests a particular aspect of the falsity of the thing. As a consequence, when a thing is false, whether we suppose it is true we get contradictions, one for every point of view we consider the thing from. All that is simple logic.
It gets worse from there.  niwrad's difficulty with English also takes its toll.  In fact, there's a possibility that his name is more a case of severe dyslexia than trying to be cute.  

BillB tries to explain in the only reply so far, but I don't think there's much hope.

Date: 2009/09/15 06:31:17, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Some days I just love UD
Mapou runs face first into reality:      
As an example, I have given up on trying to convince the physics community that their understanding of motion is fundamentally flawed.  The physicist’s definition of motion denies causality because it fails to give a cause for inertial motion. This means that Aristotle was right to insist that motion requires a cause. But you will not see a mainstream physicist admit to this even if they know it’s true. It would be a career killing move on his or her part. The fear factor is very much a part of the peer review process. Even an idle comment on the internet can ruin one’s career.
Another promising career blighted just because he tried to set physics straight on a few of the fundamentals.  First Galileo and now Mapou.  Curse those arrogant scientists!

Date: 2009/09/16 06:03:35, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Corny is a little unclear on the concept.
(Corny starts to talk about the molecular clock - the random changes in two genomes that help tell how long its been since two species diverged)

Mammalian-Like Clockwork in the Honey Bee
More than forty years ago evolutionists coined the term molecular clock to describe their concept that molecular changes tick away over long time periods and so can be used to measure how long it has been since two species have diverged from their common ancestor. Molecular clock predictions have consistently been falsified and in recent years yet another example of such failure has been discovered in the genes associated with the circadian clock.

(Then he unknowningly starts to talk about a different kind of clock entirely)

The circadian clock of the honey bee is implicated in ecologically relevant complex behaviors. These include time sensing, time-compensated sun-compass navigation, and social behaviors such as coordination of activity, dance language communication, and division of labor.

Of course evolutionists do not know how such wonders arose by themselves. And recently the story became even more unbelievable when it was discovered that the bee's molecular clockwork contradicts the molecular clock expectations. That is, structure and expression patterns of genes associated with the bee's clock are inconsistent with the fly and closer to mammalian clock genes.

As Mark Twain once said, "Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

Edited to add this:
Cornelius tries some street theater:
khan calls corny: "2)gene expression patterns have nothing to do with molecular clocks, which are based on sequences. so why do you lump this in with 'molecular clock expectations?'"

Corny explains it was just a joke: "I agree that using the molecular clock, rather than a more general homology argument, was a stretch (the pun was irresistable)"

Move along, nothing to see here, just keep moving.

Date: 2009/09/20 23:33:45, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 19 2009,12:34)

...Unless Richard Dawkins and his associates can show conclusively that these are not the originals (either by providing originals in their possession that differ, or by demonstrating that these programs in some way fail to perform as required), we shall regard the contest as closed...

Unless Dembski can show here conclusively he wasn't bumming Barry Arrington last month then he is a homosexual.

Or at least we shall regard him as such.

Date: 2009/09/22 06:51:08, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Denyse opens with sort of an article on how atheists are distrusted and hated.  Except it's not an article, it's the results of a Google search.

Then she says it's the first step in geting atheists protected by hate crime legislation.  Then she says the government has just implemented such legislation, only again her cite is to a Google search and the first article I read from that search (Hate Crime in America: The Debate Continues | NIJ Journal Issue No ...) doesn't mention any recent laws.

Then we get this remarkable sentence:    
I had almost forgotten. I helped draft our Constitution in 1981. But no one minds that kind of thing any more. Unless … could there now be hope?

What The F___!!!  O'Leary helped draft a Constitution??!!  Of a country?  Maybe as a typist.

I call BS on this one a thousand times over with a cherry on top.  Denyse is entering the advanced stages of Alzheimers now.

The rest of the message is standard O'Leary blather except that atheists are now equated with Islamic Fascists.  Nothing to see here, move along.

Date: 2009/09/22 23:35:30, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (JohnW @ Sep. 22 2009,14:37)
Quote (Maya @ Sep. 22 2009,12:33)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 22 2009,13:44)
Considering he's retired and just had a hip operation, he's probably only a danger to himself.

Ah, so all the posturing is to try to attract him some Granny Tard luvvin'!

You win the Ghastly Mental Image Of The Day award, Maya.  I just had lunch too.

Yeah, I had lunch too.  Now it's all over the desk and floor.

Date: 2009/09/22 23:50:20, Link
Author: CeilingCat
How the mind of a Biblical literalist works as described by KairosFocus:      
2] Provenance is thus about right, chain of custody is reasonable, and there are no signs of obvious fraud, so on the Ancient Documents Rule — failing credible explanation otherwise [i.e burden of disproof is now on those who would reject the programs] — it seems on preponderance of evidence these are the right “original” pgms, PASCAL version at least. (The BASIC version would be interesting . . . )

The "provenance" is that the handle has "oxford" embedded in it, the "chain of custody" is an anonymous handle on a whacko blog and there are no obvious signs of fraud to a person who happens to be dead or in a coma.  " on the Ancient Documents Rule — failing credible explanation otherwise [i.e burden of disproof is now on those who would reject the programs] — it seems on preponderance of evidence these are the right 'original' pgms..."

Life really starts to make sense when you abandon logic and evidence and just start using your God-given Discernment.

Date: 2009/09/24 00:12:19, Link
Author: CeilingCat
The Constitutional Scholar explains herself:    
I had almost forgotten. I helped draft our Constitution in 1981. But no one minds that kind of thing any more. Unless … could there now be hope?

Later, in the same thread:    

IRQ Conflict


5:29 am
“I helped draft our Constitution in 1981.”

Really? Wow! That’s something to brag to the grand kids about eh?



12:40 am
I’m with IRQ Conflict on this one. I think I mentioned in one of my first comments here that I got to live in Toronto for a year and enjoyed it very much. Please tell us what part you played in the drafting of the Constitution! Even if it was small, I’d like to hear it.



11:54 am
Feebish at 11, I was summoned to Ottawa (our seat of government) in 1981, to testify about our new Constitution.

The government paid my plane fare.

I do not know what use they made of my information.

Well, a free plane ride!  That makes her a regular Tardus Jefferson.  I wonder if she testified for the constitution or against it?

Date: 2009/09/24 00:54:51, Link
Author: CeilingCat
From the Darrell Falk's Misshapen Theology thread:



9:08 am
Can you see God is now separating The Wheat and the Tares, The Foolish virgins and the Wise, the Sheep from the Goats. An example: theistic evolution as more of a means to escape from God (the Biblical One) specifically in terms of His Judgements which are His Word(s) as revealed in Romans 8 for example – the “bad” design can’t be due to a moral fall of man – we are not subject to futility that could give sight to the blind if willing to receive a repentance unto salvation – groaning inwardly I will not! Theistic Evolution: yet another religion = mans escape from God leading to books written replete with such illogic as to not be able to recognize it when writing it…as Bill points out “passing the buck”. Blind men looking at the Son. The Sheep from the Goats (Mt. 25) (Rev. 3:10) Be aware the your religion can be your hope that will keep you blind.

Daniel 12:12, God speaks of a blessed person who waits and comes to1,335 days. September 26, A.D. 29, announcing the Lamb of God to May 22, A.D. 33, the Day of Pentecost. The time between these two events was exactly 1,335 days inclusive, as Daniel 12:12 had predicted. God will allow you to have your religion which is your reward, but God has His Plan. So be free to be created in the image of darwin – or, and without apology as this applies to all including me, start paying better attention.

All science so far!

Date: 2009/09/24 01:23:13, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Wow!  That Darrell Falk's Misshapen Theology thread is a goldmine of religious tardism.  tragic mishap steps up to the plate in messages 16 through 19 and gives a detailed rundown on some of God's greatest evils.  He even has a run at Calvinism.  And he's supposedly on religion's side.  Some samples:

In what Christian theology does there exist a God who is not responsible for death? God has decreed that “the wages of sin is death”. In Christianity, God is therefore responsible for the death of every human being who has ever lived. How could the assertion that God created pathogens make it any worse? lol.
The Bible I read places upon God the direct responsibility for plagues against Egyptians and even Israelites in the OT. He struck down Ananias and Saphira in the NT. What about Revelations?

Rev 14:19-20
“The angel swung his sickle on the earth, gathered its grapes and threw them into the great winepress of God’s wrath. They were trampled in the winepress outside the city, and blood flowed out of the press, rising as high as the horses’ bridles for a distance of 1,600 stadia.”
Exodus 32:35
“And the LORD struck the people with a plague because of what they did with the calf Aaron had made.”

Numbers 11:33
“But while the meat was still between their teeth and before it could be consumed, the anger of the LORD burned against the people, and he struck them with a severe plague.”

There are also plagues in Numbers 14, 16 and 25 along with dire warnings in the Mosaic covenant of plagues if the people turned away from God. In 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21 God gave king David a choice of punishments and David chose a plague which lasted for three days and killed 70,000 people. God using plagues as a punishment is recorded and predicted in the prophetic books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Amos, Habakkuk, Zechariah and Revelations. Again, which Bible are TEs reading?
It just occurred to me that the Calvinist definition of evil is even worse. In hardcore, five-point Calvinism, God determines every action that human beings take and indeed every event that has ever happened. The Calvinist theodicy justifies a God that directly causes evil in humans by suggesting that God causes evil so he may display his grace and mercy in forgiving us and redeeming us to himself. One might rightly wonder what he is trying to prove by displaying his grace and mercy to a bunch of machines. Regardless these TEs cannot be Calvinists because that option is actually worse from their perspective than the free will definition of evil.

All science so far!

Date: 2009/09/24 01:40:29, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Oh Joy!  Same Darell Falk's Misshapen thread:    



1:22 pm
Prof Beckwith.

Pardon a brief note or two:

45,000 words later, KF finishes and (rimshot) Frank Beckwith replies to him!  Tardfight!!  Get the popcorn!!

Date: 2009/09/24 04:16:05, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Kirk Cameron and his Darwin project makes it to  
You can say there's inherent idiocy in the creationist worldview (you'd be right), but this is not the worst idea ever. Rather than resorting to the old tried-and-true method of simply attempting to silence evolutionary teaching, they’re leaning on the classic American standby: freedom of speech. Emphasis on the “free.”
And once those godly volunteers get on campus, what 19-year-old wouldn’t clamor for a 19th-century tract amended by someone whose argument for the evidence of God is the existence of the banana?

Date: 2009/09/30 05:40:11, Link
Author: CeilingCat
How to argue like an IDiot

Staring the inimitable (and evidently undeniable) niwraD in the "Turing machines, cells and why both are designed" thread:    



3:11 pm
Graham #3

Graham: To decide if they are really IC you would need to look at their precursors, and their pre-cursors, etc, all the way back.

niwraD: To decide if a system is IC it is not necessary to look at its precursors, as you say, because it is sufficient to analyze its parts now (as I did to infer that a TM is IC). If all its parts are necessary to work then the system is IC and as such has no functioning precursors.

Graham: It’s possible (with ’scaffolding’ etc) to produce what now appears to be IC.

niwaD: Exaptation, adaptation, scaffolding and similar terms at the very end all mean forms of evolution. Unfortunately the equation IC = no evolution disproves all such forms in a single blow. Besides what now “appears” to be IC “is” really IC.

Graham: However, you are looking at current cell architectures that are the product of long periods of evolution.

niwraD: For the reasons said above the current cell architectures cannot be the product of long periods of evolution. In fact, although I dealt with the IC of the transcription process only, there are many other processes and systems having an IC kernel in the cell that make its basic architecture fundamentally non evolvable from inorganic matter by chance and

Well, there you have it!  "IC = no evolution".  If it looks like it's IC, then it is.  End of story.  Nothing to see here.  Move along.  You kids get offa my lawn!

Date: 2009/10/01 06:56:05, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Corny can't stop itchin the wound!Our boy Cornelius just can't leave Karl Giberson alone:
1 October 2009
An Open Letter to Karl Giberson
Cornelius Hunter
Dr. Karl Giberson
President, BioLogos Foundation

Dear Dr. Giberson:

As a professor, author and President of the BioLogos Foundation, you have powerful communication tools at your disposal. You have access to major media outlets and you speak with scientific authority. In short, you are a teacher with a very large audience. This is an enormous teaching responsibility which I am sure you take seriously. For this reason I want to alert you to a fundamental mistake which you and the BioLogos Foundation have made. Given the magnitude of your teaching responsibility I hope that you will carefully consider this situation and take the appropriate corrective measures.   Read more
And when you read more, you find the Fundamental Mistake:
Your mistake is that you present evolution as a well-established scientific fact.
Unfortunately, he's being too polite.  Not too much chance of another Conservapedia debacle.  But it should be interesting anyway.

Date: 2009/10/02 06:58:14, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Turncoat @ Oct. 02 2009,02:23)
The inaugural post of Bounded Science: No Free Lunch for Intelligent Design, "Never Look a Gift Weasel in the Mouth," needs an infusion of wit. Come on over.

I'd like to try, but comments don't seem to be enabled.

I'm pretty sure Weasel 1 is not the program Dawkins used because IIRC he says in the book that he wrote it in Apple BASIC and then re-wrote it in Pascal.

I think that's been mentioned on UD once or twice too, but trust Dembski and company to miss and/or ignore that.

Date: 2009/10/07 01:33:46, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Speaking of the "How to become an IDer in two weeks" thread, here are some simplified instructions:

1: Using plenty of lubricant, force the crown of the skull up against your rectum, then, using the 40 pound sledge hammer ...

Date: 2009/10/07 05:42:27, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Reed @ Oct. 07 2009,03:36)
Quote (doleary @ tard,farm)
To the best of my knowledge, neither Newton nor Einstein wrote a long racist tract, as Darwin Martin Luther did (the Descent of Man Von den Juden und Ihren Lügen).

I’d like to know if, at any point, Darwinists Protestants have ever simply disowned the racism, instead of covering it up or misrepresenting it as not really Darwin’s Martin Luther's views, to protect their prophet.

OK, I guess Doleary is/was nominally a Catholic, but she sure seem to hang around with the protestant kind, and I'm too lazy to come up a Catholic equivalent.

Oddly for someone with an Irish name, she is actually a convert to Catholicism.  She must have married Irish.

On a similar note, Dembski is a convert to red-neck protestantism.  Dembski is currently in bed with the Southern Baptists, but I think that's more for the paycheck and the (very small amount of) prestige he gets from being a faculty member of Southwestern Bible and Barbeque.  He'd really give his eye teeth to be able to dine at the Baylor cafeteria.

Date: 2009/10/08 04:38:41, Link
Author: CeilingCat


6:50 pm
Dr. Dembski:

So you are one of the few who has read my work with Bob Marks carefully and are in a position to evaluate it? You haven’t persuaded me.

Nor will I try. My background in math, or rather lack thereof, affords me no authority, although I note that there are other challengers to the EIL who don’t share my deficit.

But some observations don’t require an extensive math background. To note that 1/439 cannot possibly be the correct result in the ev paper requires only a modicum of care in reading. And simple algebra reveals the inconsequential error in the combinatoric proof of the Strict Vertical NFLT, namely that ?(K+1) should be ?(K-1). And it doesn’t require any real expertise to notice that all of the higher-level spaces that you mention in Life’s Conservation Law consist of functions over ? that are closed under permutation, thus insuring that the endogenous information of the combined searches is equal to the endogenous information of the lower-level search.

William Dembski

7:24 pm
R0b: Please provide the exact place in where ?(K+1) should be ?(K-1).


11:44 pm
Dr. Dembski, as I said, it’s in the combinatoric proof of the Strict Vertical NFLT. ?(K+1) is found in two places, near the end of the proof, in the denominator.

William Dembski

11:53 pm
R0b: I’ve given you the URL for the pdf of the article. Please give me the exact column and line numbers where the error occurs (if it does). We give several proofs in the appendices, for general and special cases of the VNFL.


12:07 am
Dr. Dembski: page 11, second column, lower half.

[Thanks R0b: You are correct. We'll get this corrected. --WmAD]

It must suck to be Dembski.

Date: 2009/10/08 23:30:30, Link
Author: CeilingCat
In the "Reaping the Whirlwind" thread, absolutist has a little reading comprehension problem:    

3:36 pm

A tragedy, truly.

But we would indeed be fools to think this is just China’s problem. The world has finite space, and the population is growing exponentially, and at an alarming rate, despite the efforts of countries such as China to curb the population growth.

The obvious answer – keep families small! Contraception and sexual education widely available (obviously not irresponisbly so) so we teach the next generation about safe sex and encourage them to be responsible. And that includes not having large families.

Otherwise, sooner or later, we may find ourselves in a similar situation to China.

3:53 pm

Ritchie, are you suggesting that overpopulation be solved with homicide? Sounds like a great idea. Perhaps we can submit that in our new Healthcare Plan. I can see it clearly: “once your citizenry gets over, say, 10000 per 1 sq/mile shoot to kill.”

3:58 pm

Seriously, are you saying abortion is tragic, female abortion is tragic or overpopulation? What about teaching the next generation that abortion is murder? Nah, let’s just give criminals newer guns and an education on how to use them safely.

And the thread actually gets worse from there.  I'm developing a visceral loathing for all things UD (and fundamentalism of all stripes.) Immoral perverts.

Date: 2009/10/09 00:25:22, Link
Author: CeilingCat
More from the "Reaping the Whirlwind" thread:

William J. Murray is a Deep Tard:  
Materialists throw out the golden rule as if it is an objective standard. What if my golden rule is “might makes right”? What makes one golden rule more moral than the other?

Billy J., have you ever heard of the Golden Rule?  You know, the one that starts with, "Do unto others ..."?  It was once advocated by a guy named Jesus.  I'm sure you at least know that name.

Date: 2009/10/11 21:14:04, Link
Author: CeilingCat
He was banned for our sins.

Date: 2009/10/18 09:08:36, Link
Author: CeilingCat
As I note in THE END OF CHRISTIANITY, I would be a young-earth creationist in a heart-beat if I didn’t see the evidence for an old earth as so strong.  

The young-earth old-earth debate, however, is only about 20 percent of the book.

I wonder if this is going to get Dembski in any kind of trouble at Southwestern Bible and Barbeque.  That place is totally controlled by the Southern Baptists, its president is Paige Patterson, who was a biggie in the conservative revolt that kicked all the "liberals" out of the various Baptist seminaries and ol' Paige himself fired the only female professor at Southwestern B&B.

And now we find that Dembski apparently doesn't believe that Genesis is inerrant ...

Which means, of course, that God isn't inerrant, since He wrote that particular book ...

Date: 2009/10/19 01:48:46, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (didymos @ Oct. 19 2009,00:22)
batshit77 is a tard...with a blag:          

If you are interested, here is my blog link

My expectations were met: hideous color scheme, quotes of many colors, the standard Batshit topics such as NDEs, Shroud of Turin, genetic entropy, and Youtube links. Lots of Youtube links. Oh, and it's all one gigantic entry with no comments. Amusingly, he's had the thing since February 2007 but didn't post anything until earlier this evening. You can also choose your reaction at the bottom.  I went for 'funny'.

A hideous color scheme, but a readable one.  So many "challenged" bloggers forget such important things as having some kind of contrast, either in brightness or color, between your background and your text.

There's no doubt that this is batshit77's blog, though.  I clicked on this ( ) at the extreme end of the blog and found these deathless words:          
Having stated the obvious lets look at what the rock is actually made of.
A rock is composed of three basic ingredients; energy, force and truth.

Aaahhh!  That's the Hard Tard and 100% pure ba77!  I was going to rate the blog, but "batshit" doesn't seem to be one of the allowable ratings.

Date: 2009/10/19 23:29:58, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Denyse goes to Waterloo:  
Placebo effect caught in the act in spinal nerves

The placebo effect is not only real; its ability to deaden pain has been pinpointed to cells in the spinal cord. That raises hopes for new ways of treating conditions such as chronic pain.
FMRI scanning has long been used to image the brain, but the part of the spinal cord that Eippert's team was interested in – the dorsal horn – is minuscule in comparison, and so is harder to image. It also swims around in cerebrospinal fluid, further complicating real-time measurement.
Meanwhile, the fMRI scanner witnessed the placebo effect. When skin treated with the "control" cream was heated, an area of the dorsal horn located on the left side of volunteers' lower necks lit up, suggesting increased neural activity there in response to pain. However, this signal disappeared in the "painkiller" trials.

Eippert's team didn't discover what caused this shift. He speculates that higher brain areas involved in buying into the bogus treatment trigger the release of endogenous opioids – chemicals our brain produces that work like opiates and may temper spinal cord activity.

Now that researchers know the neural hallmark of placebo pain relief, they could use it to develop treatments, cognitive or chemical, that take better advantage of belief, Eippert says.

Don't read that, Denyse.  You know how reality makes you break out in a rash.

Date: 2009/10/19 23:32:59, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 19 2009,14:49)
Debunked weasels win anyway:

From the UD OP:

"Note: Apparently, Bill Dembski is taking care of the award."

Which means you will get your award shortly after Bill delivers that bottle of single malt scotch.

Date: 2009/10/19 23:40:01, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (khan @ Oct. 19 2009,13:28)
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 19 2009,14:23)
Quote (khan @ Oct. 19 2009,13:20)
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 19 2009,14:09)
I can't make a new thread and since this is close to as Uncommonly Dense as you can get,

"I don't have enough faith to be an Atheist" by Frank Turek, Dr. Norman L Geisler and David Limbaugh.Who is the astronomer here?
Rush's brother.

He is?

I thought he was a lawyer who's really into Christian persecution.

From the article:
(born December 11, 1952

He also served in the National Guard for six years.

Translation: Unlike his older brother Rush, David Limbaugh was not blessed with an anal cyst, so he had to join the National Guard to avoid the draft.  However, like his older brother, he enthusiastically supported the Vietnam war, just not for himself.

Date: 2009/10/22 02:08:57, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Revealed!  Why Berlinski did not include Toronto in his upcoming speaking tour:    
Denyse: He could have had coffee with me at the very epicentre of the universe (Yonge and Bloor).

Even a second rate imitation of William F. Buckley jr. has some self respect.

Date: 2009/10/22 03:56:51, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Tomorrow's ID headlines today!  From the November, 2009 Scientific American:  
Rethinking the Hobbits of Indonesia

New analyses reveal the mini human species to be even stranger than previously thought and hint that major tenets of human evolution need revision.

Waterloo!  Waterloo!  The idea of evolution is failing and probably won't last until the 21st century!!

Uhm ...

Date: 2009/10/22 23:01:48, Link
Author: CeilingCat
Quote (Reg @ Oct. 22 2009,16:20)
Quote (Ptaylor @ Oct. 22 2009,15:23)
Quote (Fross @ Oct. 23 2009,03:06)

OMG.  How does a car become a submarine?

For those that missed it first time around, oleaginous narcissist Homme de la Renaissance Berlinski gives his car-to-submarine analogy here.
In a twofer, he includes the now classic the "I stopped at 50,000 changes" line.

Has David Berlinksi ever shown his workings for the "50,000 changes" claim? And why not? Are we to believe that he's said this, which has made him rich and famous, but he hasn't k