AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: Erasmus, FCD

form_srcid: Erasmus, FCD

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: Erasmus, FCD

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 'Erasmus, FCD%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC


DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2007/06/28 11:28:29, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Let us all remember that the mushroom is just a fruiting body and not the organism itself.  That seems to be getting lost here with all this 'self-representation' business.

Amanita muscaria should not be eaten.  Can kill you but probably just make you wish you hadn't eaten it.  At least according to the reports I have read.  

Amanita caesarea has a bright red cap and is delicious.

Many of the grisette group of Amanitas are safe and delicious, yet have phalliodes colored caps (but striations on margin and other characters denote grisette group).

Date: 2007/06/28 12:05:18, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Visibility to what?  Slugs?  Bees?  Bats?  

Internal organs of animals are not colored?  I challenge you to cut your liver out and show me that this is true.  I'm blinded by the tard.

Beefsteak fungus looks just like an ox-tongue, down to the marbling.  Tastes better though.  Not sure where you think this is all going.

Date: 2007/06/28 14:01:48, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

re the discussion about trolls etc, i find the entertainment factor to be optimized by a lower ratio of sane people to creationists.  worldmag is a good place to get that ratio down to about -10 decimal places..

Scientific classification of species

For those who are giving me a hard time on this, please do your homework. I do a lot of reading on these issues, and it's pretty well agreed that one of the reasons for their being so many "endangered species" is that what used to be considered subspecies are now being categorized as species. So if a woodpecker exists on two separate islands, able to interbreed and visually almost identical, if one has more red on its head it will be called a different variety and considered an "endangered species." This isn't creationist imaginings, this is real-world stuff.

There's scientific pride in discovering new species, and there's money to be made if the "new species" is endangered.

I don't think anybody has a problem with the idea that, for instance, there might have been only one pair of red-toed gray humdingers on the ark if there are now seven varieties of them, if the varieties are in fact not separate species. A little more red on the head of one variety, or even a breeding group with a lot of albinos, is simply normal variation. There's a town somewhere that's proud of its large number of albino squirrels. If an albino existed on an island, we might soon have an island full of albinos. That says nothing about the veracity of the ark story.

And as to the question of everyone coming from eight people, I simply don't see the problem. Whether you believe in creation or evolution, you pretty much have to say we originally came from one pair of people. So why is eight more problematic?

And as to subspecies variations, ever notice that Africans and Chinese and Swedes all have strong variations, but the same DNA? There's more difference between a Polish person and a Scottish person than between some of these subspecies. Are redheads a different species? Are chihuahuas a new species of dog?

I really am not ignorant of science; please don't stereotype me.

Posted by: Cheryl D. at June 26, 2007 05:06 PM

Date: 2007/06/28 14:23:34, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
believe me that is just the tip of the iceberg.  i've been holding onto this site for a year or so but after lurking here for a while i realized it is right up y'alls alley.  

This isn't creationist imaginings, this is real-world stuff.

jeeeesus that one killed me.

Date: 2007/06/28 14:29:09, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
same box, different tard

Adam and Eve, who by biblical accounts, were our first parents, did not have inherited genetics like we do, of course. Therefore, it is highly probable that their offspring could have been all of the races we see today in the world. Their children could have married each other because they weren't genetically related. Adam might have been black, Eve could have been Asian and each of their children could have been completely different than either of them. I think that is kinda cool, really.
And a much better scenario (if you ask me) than coming from a single female with multiple male partners, sort of like what we have today in society. That certainly does not contribute to a stable society. If we started out like that, and we are supposed to have evolved into higher forms, it doesn't look like some people have evolved at all.

Posted by: annelise at June 27, 2007 02:01 AM

Date: 2007/06/28 14:57:41, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
how have i never heard of before.  i'll have to retune my tard goggles and give it a whirl.

thanks.  long time listener first time caller and stuff.  

get a load of the argument, in that thread,between cheryl mumsee and victoria.  not sure what is all about i go blind in the middle of each paragraph.  

chimpy that was good stuff.  they even used a british accent for dawkins (or was it really him?  kristine?)

Date: 2007/06/28 15:00:24, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
new one

The Darwinian theory of evoluation is falling apart these days because of 1) lack of any proof; 2) the inability to test it; 3) evidence which refutes it (such as fossil evidence); and 4) all sorts of new scientific insights with regard to information theory, statistical theory, complexity theory, and so on.

The Euros can go on believing they're just freak random mutational accidents if they want; they will just have to ignore increasing scientific evidence to the contrary.


Posted by: James at June 25, 2007 10:30 AM

you know, inability to test it, but it's refuted.  by all these words and stuff.

Date: 2007/06/28 15:13:30, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
another good'un.  a veritable checklist of ignorance.

It cannot explain irreducible complexity - where complex machinery in life has many parts, all of which must work together like a machine to work - and where each of its parts could not have independently and randomly developed in such a way that they all happen to work together;

- It cannot explain the fossil record, which does NOT show gradual genetic mutational drift. In the Cambrian explosion of millions of years ago, for instance, all of the main phyla of life came into existence in an incredibly short period;

- The fossil record nowhere shows one species gradually turning into another;

- It cannot explain why homologous creatures (like different sorts of frogs) have completely different DNA sequences;

- It cannot explain why to get to a 'good' mutation, you have to go through many 'bad mutations first - which would never have allowed any good mutations to begin with;

- It cannot explain the tremendous information content in even basic forms of life, which statistical analysis shows to be a virtually impossibility of having developed by chance;

- It cannot explain the fact that the creation of new forms of life is far, far more rapid that gene drift would allow, if it only happened randomly.

- It cannot explain why random mutations didn't muck up life's machinery and cause it to fail - the way a few lines of code that are off do to a software program.

etc. etc. etc.

Basically, the theory of evolution if falling apart from a scientific point of view.

There is much more going on that Darwinists suppose.

There has never been any proof that all of life on Earth was caused by random mutations. That is simply an unproven (and highly unlikely) presupposition that Darwinists make.


Posted by: James at June 25, 2007 11:53 AM

this guy keep telling me that there is an imminent revolution in biology, headed by electricians, diesel mechanics, accounts payable clerks and scuba divers.  or something similar.

anyone wanna guess his occupation?

Date: 2007/06/28 16:11:24, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Erasmus, does your insurance provider know you do this?

do what?

Date: 2007/06/28 16:18:02, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
this?  it's another good'un.

Species is little more than a convenient way to classify creatures that typically breed together and share a habitat. That has little value as far as Creationism is concerned, because what was created was "kinds", not species. We know, for example, that different species of cats (like lions and tigers) can breed together and produce offspring. Such offspring are usually infertile, but they ARE produced in nature on rare ocassions.

Critics often set up a straw man concerning Noah's Ark, saying that there's no way every species alive could have fit on it. But that wasn't necessary. Let's take dogs for an example. It's plausible that all of the worlds modern dogs, foxes, wolves, dingoes, hyenas, and jackals are descended from a single pair of dog-like creatures that survived on the ark. They would have had a very robust genome, with all of the information needed to produce each of the 'species' listed above. As population groups spread accross the globe, certain genetic information was lost over time in each group, leaving other genes to be expressed. That is a process that creationists call speciation, and it's NOT the same as evolution because it represents a LOSS of genetic information over time rather than a gain. Note that it's also testable, simply by breeding, say, jackals and wolves together, and seeing what happens.

That is why I don't fret over the loss of a single variety of beetle or frog in a rain forest. Those populations have already lost so much of their original genetic information that they were on the verge on extinction already. It would actually be better to 'cross-breed' some of those popluations. That would have the effect of putting fragments of genetic information back into one large pool, making it more robust.

Posted by: Charles at June 25, 2007 08:20 PM

note the consistent anti-realist position with regard to biology that runs through almost every comment. hey, they're just deteriorations from the pure idea of Gawd!  Fuck em, who cares about bugs and stuff!  Pass the communion wafers.

Date: 2007/06/28 16:22:03, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
more from that guy.


Flipping one coin and getting 'heads' a million times in a row is mathematically the same as flipping a million coins and getting 'heads' on each.

The fact is, there is NO DOCUMENTED occurrence of any organism having some new genetic material that wasn't present in its parent. Why? Because it CAN'T happen. Randomness simply doesn't generate usable information. Darwinsts pretend that it does, and they call that science. In reality, it's delusion.

Posted by: Charles at June 25, 2007 06:24 PM

i guess no one told him about this guy:

Date: 2007/06/28 21:44:31, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
from the blipey-joe g commentary....

But thank you for again demonstrating why ID needs to presented in schools- education cures ignorance.

wow that is tard on a whole 'notha level.  I'll pass.  blipey you have iron lungs.  i thought my fundies were dumb.

Date: 2007/06/28 21:47:21, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
actually FTK i think you'd satisfy everyone involved if you'd just tackle the icefish question.  for the love of baby jesus on the cross.  i really don't care if you haven't ever read Hurlbert 1984 or whatever.  i've met other idiot savants.  we are curious as to how you have somehow distinguished yourself from all the TE's.

Date: 2007/06/29 07:58:20, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Louis with regards to the dog, did I understand that he finally succeeded at heaving himself genitals first into the big bitch?  Or did you never get to see the money shot?

33: James: "The problem is, 'rationality' can never lead to morality. At bottom, you have to consider something good or bad instrinsically (unless you are an amoral). You can then rationally construct a morality from that moral axiom."

So what you are really saying is that rape is only bad because God says it is bad. If God were to say rape was good, it would then become good, since God created these morals.

And without God telling atheists that rape is bad, atheists would have no reason to think that rape is bad.

Do i have it correct?

Posted by: rox0r at June 27, 2007 03:44 PM

Date: 2007/06/29 08:02:13, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
this one from ye olde (thanks for the tip!)

"[A study shows that male Congressmen with daughters are more likely to vote for reproductive rights]

The conclusion they want you to get from this is that pro-life Congressmen are insensitive to women and don't have contact with any.

But I'd draw a different conclusion: Congressmen who are liberal are more likely to have slutty daughters. And therefore, they are more likely to support abortion for selfish, personal reasons."

Debbie Schlussel, Debbie Schlussel's Blog [Comments (44)] 2007-Jun-27

Date: 2007/06/29 11:20:45, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I see, you are a darwinist from AtBC. You don't want to discuss problem but only to ridicule. As usually. I am fed up with people like you but I'll try to answer you neverthenless.

I would say that coloration should be white, black or gray (many mushrooms have such colors btw). I would compare situation to nocturnal animals where there is  no natural selection or sexual selection present as active force to modify coloration. Generally speaking moles are not as colorful as butterflies are. I have never heard about red owls with white dots. I have never heard about yellow or green bats. But there might be some cryptic function during day.

I would appreciate some ideas but you may keep ridiculing my posts if you like. You are a frustrated darwinists from AtBC I underestand you.

V Martin from the Dumbest.Idea.Evar thread

Date: 2007/07/02 15:01:52, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I've got a creationist that keeps telling me about all of the 'homologous frogs with vastly different DNA', whatever that means.  I have asked him just what he was talking about and where he heard about it and he answered 'Uncommon Dissent' the Dembski book.

I'm sure not going to go out and get this book, was wondering if you guys had any info about it.

For the record, he was also talking about other 'homologous organisms' with vastly different DNA and I questioned him, which ones?  he said marsupial and placentals...  of course if you define 'homologous' loosely enough that could mean anything.  or in this case, nothing.

Date: 2007/07/02 16:08:15, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
can anyone tell me what this creobot is talking about when he mentions 'homologous frogs with different DNA' and claims it is in the book <i>Uncommon Dissent</i>.  I won't be paying any $ for that book anytime soon so was hoping some of y'all might have read it.  googling for it doesn't get me anything, even from UD.

He just says, read the book, as if that is an argument.

Date: 2007/07/22 14:22:10, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
sweet jesus that is some high-octane stuff.  thank you, vmartin, for being such a fool. i just laughed my duodenum off.

'you are all foolish darwinist from ATBC'


Date: 2007/07/22 20:11:30, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
more from the mines of worldmagblog....

Theistic creator merely means God created things
Deistic creator means God created things then lets them go without maintainance or care.

Thus, Deistic is a subset of Theistic, it's like saying there's a difference between apples and Granny Smith apples.

Just to clarify the language so no one is confused by this discussion.

I believe, however, that if there is nothing - no energy, no matter - then there is no scientific law to measure or not measure. The scientific laws would need to be created as well as the matter and energy, thus setting the pattern in place. If there's nothing, there's no laws, no science, nothing.

Your position seems to be that scientific laws are transcendent, that they are there even if nothing at all is - that they precede matter and dictate reality. That's not a rational position.

Incidentally I wasn't referring to you specifically when I pointed out the flaw in rejecting a creator, simply with the position in doing so. I apologize if it seemed accusatory or pointed at you. My grammar sometimes isn't good, I shift tenses and cases too often.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at July 22, 2007 07:19 PM

Date: 2007/07/25 12:24:12, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Reddot, edumacated creationist:

Do I believe the Earth is between 6-10 thousand years old?  Absolutely.  We're not crackpots

I damn near died.

Date: 2007/07/25 13:28:15, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I never did understand why she thinks that is a valid dichotomy.  

How about, the contents of the universe and everything outside of it [too] is just a dream I had one rainy afternoon after drinking too much chablis with my crumpets?  It works just as good.

but it lacks the tarditude of  'We're not crackpots', oh man that is a heavy dose of it.

Date: 2007/07/25 13:33:43, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I think it is possible to test sheer dumb luck.  See if Joe puts his shoes on the correct feet everyday for a month.  If he manages to match the left shoe and left foot and vicey-versey, then we have shown that sheer dumb luck can account for regularity.  

Because there is no way this fool could have that much sense.

Date: 2007/07/25 13:46:57, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Yes I presume that in order for her to make such a claim (re the age of the earth) then we would just have to add that to the long list of claims that she has already advanced with no support outside 'Axe Walt Brown!  I've already discussed this!  I luv sciense!  But I won't talk about it!' etc ad infinitum e nauseum.

But hey that is just my opinion and it just as valid as anyone else's.

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman".

Date: 2007/07/25 13:50:21, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I was present for what I assume was the money shot, the little dog was successfully engaged in joyous jiggy jiggy when we left, the lady dog seemed resigned to the process.

she was probably monotoning 'yeah, yeah, you're the best.  oh my god, oh my god.  don't...ever....stop' while licking one of her paws.  

wonder what happens if they get stuck?  i couldn't bring myself to throw water on that spectacle.

Date: 2007/07/25 14:47:11, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD


Date: 2007/07/25 14:51:12, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Author(s): FISHER DE
Source: NATURE-PHYSICAL SCIENCE 232 (29): 60-& 1971
Document Type: Article
Language: English
Cited References: 5      Times Cited: 7        
Subject Category: Biophysics
IDS Number: J8296

i'll see if i can get a pdf

Date: 2007/07/25 14:52:25, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
papers citing this paper. [Hmm I don't see Henry Morris]

Times Cited: 20

Times Cited: 46

JOURNAL OF GEOLOGY 83 (3): 363-373 1975
Times Cited: 14

Times Cited: 37

NATURE-PHYSICAL SCIENCE 238 (81): 42& 1972
Times Cited: 1

Times Cited: 9

NATURE-PHYSICAL SCIENCE 236 (67): 89& 1972
Times Cited: 2

Date: 2007/07/25 15:30:25, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Albatrossity I believe that belongs in the Top Tard Quotes thread.

what is the difference between 'Recent Special Creation' and 'Recent Ordinary Banal Run-of-the-mill Everyday Creation'?

Date: 2007/07/25 15:50:49, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
yeah and why do we still have bacteria?  and archie comics?

Date: 2007/07/25 18:50:09, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
William Brookfield, ID Scientist & Humanist

Trans-cultural, Trans-paradigmic, Cognitive Monistic Infodynamicist

Holy Jeeeesus that is hilarious.

Date: 2007/07/26 08:44:23, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Who are these/this Legion people/person?

Some trolls take a very dedicated approach to perpetuating their ignorance.  Fascinating.  What makes them tick?  Who are they?  What makes them do this?

Perhaps it is the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Date: 2007/07/26 09:49:19, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Lenny i've been meaning to read some books about marx and, for lack of a better word that i can't remember, millennial eschatologies.  i think it was referenced in Mircea Eliade 'Myth and Reality' and probably others under 'eternal return'.

never thought about that before but it somehow made sense to me, that there are some similarities between the ultimate proletariat revolution and the return of jesus or what have ya.  was wondering if you had ever come across that stuff and if so what you thought about it.

Date: 2007/07/26 12:36:25, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
When can we expect to see some results from ID research?

Hotness:  oh why bother.

Date: 2007/07/26 15:37:02, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
What color exactly is stupid?  It seems to me instead to be transparent.

How do they get away with the anti-gay talk when it seems to be clear that poor deluded Denyse is hiding her own little bowl-cut Doc Martens secret?  Perhaps she tightens her thigh spike and flagellates herself everytime there is such a comment, then smells her keyboard.  I can just see it now...  now THAT is off the hot scale.

[excuses self from room]

Date: 2007/07/29 09:26:49, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Louis blasphemed
For example if someone were to ask me "Why is the sky blue?" and I replied "Jesus", I would have responded to the question, but I wouldn't have answered it.

Sadly, loons like FTK and Joe are also unaware that "Jesus" is not the answer to every question.

Ahhhh, but Jesus IS the answer to 'Why is the sky blue?'  I mean shit what else could be the answer?  pfffff.

Date: 2007/07/30 09:52:58, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Or is the large wombat still around, and he has read a scientific paper on it?

Oh, you didn't see that issue of Scientific American?

I'm the big wombat around here, homos.  Clean this thread up or you're out of here.

Date: 2007/07/30 11:29:07, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I'd be interested to hear what you think of the paper.  I don't recall hearing anything about it, although I have heard other error in dating claims about mt saint helens or somebody's boot or baby tooth or something.

Date: 2007/07/30 13:57:42, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I've never been so bored that I tried to figure out just what the hell that OE site is supposed to score.  Anyone care to enlighten me?

Date: 2007/07/30 16:21:41, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Davetard is up to chapter 5.  All Science So Far!!!!  I bet he is just coloring the pictures with his crayolas.

Date: 2007/07/30 16:28:05, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
[quote=Richardthughes,July 30 2007,16:24][/quote]

All science so far!

ROFLMFAO underoos!!!

Date: 2007/07/31 10:20:03, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I'll ask Sal if the EF notes the sun as designed......

anyone want to wager on the form of the response?  i'm dying inside.

Date: 2007/07/31 10:47:22, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
You darwinist materialist from ATBC miss the point.  Those bridges were DESIGNED.  Gahhh.

Date: 2007/07/31 14:53:56, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
What about these stones?  Got the stones to address that one, Mr Darwinist materialist from ATBC?

I don't have a clue but I don't think I buy the cherokee mythology, sounds like a missionary plant.

Date: 2007/07/31 14:57:44, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
The good Doctor Doctor tells more lies...

I wasn’t comparing Jerry Coyne to Herman Munster based merely physical similarity but on the Munsteresque dopeyness of his arguments.

You tell me if 'merely' is just wishy washy street theater or not..

Date: 2007/08/02 10:07:21, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
He's using a PC in a daycare centre for the retarded adult offspring of midget gasoline sniffers in the deep south.  

would that melbourne or canberra?

Date: 2007/08/02 14:36:19, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Hey Reddot, ignore Lenny at your own peril.  I bet you will.  The Flud never happened.

I, on the other hand, would be supremely satisfied if you would just answer the question posed by O.A. and slpage:

What is 'biological information' and how do you quantify it?


Date: 2007/08/02 15:58:10, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Paul, is that Before or After they got on the boat?

(Cause, uh, I'm guessing that a year on a boat would cause folks to do... stuff)

Date: 2007/08/02 19:56:11, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that sal might be the biggest fool of all those fools.

As a wise friend once said, "You could pick that [fool] out from all the [fools]".  (that isn't exactly what he was talking about but it works).

Davetard pioneered the model ROFLMAO

Date: 2007/08/03 08:15:25, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
yeah ussher is the culprit.  no ussher, no wacko 'creation science' for they have attempted to affirm the consequent.

see Sal 'i believe the earth is young because of the genealogy of christ'.

edited:  gaah consequent for antecedent

Date: 2007/08/03 08:21:06, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I just hope this douchebag gets involved in the next court case.  

Sal, we love you babe, honest.  Just not for the reasons that you would want to be loved. (Jesus is spinning in his grave ROFLMAO)

Date: 2007/08/03 10:27:50, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Louis whatever happened to the animated Neill De Grasse Tyson thingy?

Date: 2007/08/03 10:53:06, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Oh well.  Someone here once had as an avatar a picture (now that I think of it, it might have been either Penn or Teller) pointing angrily and saying 'shut the feck up'.  and i loved it.  and now it is gone.  probably one of those darwinist dirty tricks davetard is wanting to chronicle.

Date: 2007/08/03 10:54:20, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Is it just me or does Colbert seem to know the fallacy behind the mousetrap analogy?  It's hard to tell with his character and what-all but he seemed more non-plussed than usual.

Date: 2007/08/03 10:58:29, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Why is it that

creationist, inerrantist,

and this

Cartesian dualist... scientific antirealist

seem to go together?  

There are some great arguments for anti-realism but they don't come from inspired revelation.  you have to be an anti-realist to be YEC but the hilarious thing is that they try to argue with scientific evidence (inevitably falling back on the mysterious effects of Teh Fall or Sin, or 'The Lard Works in teh mysterious ways)

Date: 2007/08/05 21:51:33, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Reddot, I am fairly confident that you could not have picked a worse example for your little exercise in post-modern relativism vis-a-vis the fundie flavor that defaults to revelation.

In particular, Flud Geollergists like to speculate wildly that fossils, sedimentary formations and fossil fuel deposits are all from the fludd.  Lenny's question 'How did the oak trees outrun the trilobites' aside, you are having your cake and eating it too.  But it is not cake my friend but a thin veneer on a turd sandwich.

Mammoth cave is part of the cumberland plateau, a sandstone and limestone formation that extends (ONLY on the western side of the blue ridge/ appalachian front) from north-eastern and central alabama all the way into canada.  Some folks call the northern section the allegheny plateau but there is no reasonable demarcation outside of political boundaries.  The entire formation is 1)  rich in fossil deposits  2)  rich in petroleum/coal/gas deposits 3)  rich in karst topography (translation:  caves) and 4)  lying on top of the fault lines where the the appalachian mountain formations subducted under the ancient marine sediments that comprise the plateau(s).  the whole damn way.

we have magnificent evidence for all sorts of macro processes here that flatly contradict your Krayation and Flud models.  the point i particularly want to call into question is the bit about the caves being formed by the Flud.  Iffffffff the fossils in the deposits that the caves are a part of were formed by the Flud, then you are stuck with a problem.  How did this massive (1000 + miles long, sometimes 100 miles wide) monolith form by the catastrophic actions of jebus, entombing all sorts of plants and animals, yet these raging waters were (while conglomerating sediments and panda fossils and giant dragonfly wings (yeah, they wouldn't tear apart in a catastrophic opening of the deep.  f****** insect wings, man) and horsetails blah blah blah) gently sculpting subterranean passages and forming a myriad of delicate rock formations at the same time?  if you think the flud is responsible for all fossils on earth (or, alternatively, play a slippery slope game, so whatever fraction you wish to ascribe to it), then turn around and also say that this magical event also formed the most fragile configurations of thin rocks (mineral solutes), then you are a prime of example of why we can't take you seriously.  

Because that is the dumbest thing that anyone has ever heard, and I say that with the utmost respect that it commands.

But not to paint you in a corner, why aren't there fossils on top of the smokies?  why not on top of any of the metamorphic chains in the southern appalachians?  why only in the cumberland plateau and to the west of the uplift from alabama and mississippi to nova scotia?  

toodles.  look forward to hearing you ignore this, whistling 'Amazing Grace' past Ye Olde Boneyard of the Deep.

Erasmus, FCD

Date: 2007/08/05 21:56:09, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

By the way, hope you enjoyed your vacation.  Mammoth is a great park, but the best time to visit is the end of april.  The entire joint is a morel mushroom patch the likes of which i have never seen.  I have also seen giant ginseng, ramps (allium tricoccum) and a buzzard roost with a 6 foot pile of dung in it.  They have been using thing that at least since the time of Job.  Or earlier.  Or later.  It's all the same, depending on your worldview.

Date: 2007/08/05 21:59:28, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I tried to tell her 'all you gotta do is say 'I was talking out of my ass'' but for some reason or the other my comment didn't post.  hmmm.....

Date: 2007/08/05 22:52:13, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Reddot, in case we never see you again (and to be honest I deplore dogpiles so just in case you are googling or other research answers to my questions I for one would be delighted if you just answer the question) 'What the heck are you talking about when you say 'biological information' and what is the appropriate metric for evaluating such a beastie.  

We can do geology later.  I am fairly confident that the YEC's have mostly left the appalachians alone.  The reasons for this may become clearer as we progress.


edited to add a )

Date: 2007/08/06 12:04:57, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Reddot should I take this to mean that you are not going to touch my question?

How is Teh Flud responsible for 1) depositing all fossils 2)  depositing all sedimentary layers of rock and 3)  intricately carving hundreds of thousands of miles of subterranean passageways, delicately crating rock formations from solutes, and digging out the grand canyon at the same time?  

it would seem that you could claim deposition or erosion, but not both.  

why are there no sandstone or limestone formations in the mountains of western north carolina, but just a hundred miles to the north and west there is the cumberland plateau (hint, has nothing to do with a Deluge but  an ancient (read:  older than 6011 years) coral reef extending all the way to canada)?

seems like you need two fluds, pal.  OR.... perhaps you might realize that apologetic geollergy is bunk.

Date: 2007/08/06 14:06:33, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Stephen don't you know that Gawd can do anything?  jeeez.

Date: 2007/08/06 16:06:47, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Yeah, whatever.


that's what i thought.

Date: 2007/08/07 15:45:11, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
you have your facts and we have our facts.   they're all the same really.  

y'know, they both possess 'fact-y-ness'.

Date: 2007/08/09 07:21:02, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I sense an ftk like moment on the horizon....

there is a disturbance in the tard.

Date: 2007/08/15 10:58:52, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I've been dying to hear a creationist explanation for the cumberland/alleghany plateau and the underlying formations of the appalachians for years.  i put it at the top of the list when i meet such a beast.  amazing how they can make spurious claims about microscopic organisms, molecular biology and population genetics that require specialist expertise but refuse to address things that any fool can see (invoking the same mechanism, namely  Teh DuhLooge to explain sediment deposition, fossilization and cave formations).  

that was one hell of a flood i reckon.  Gawd, the first un-civil hydraulic engineer.

Date: 2007/08/15 12:11:29, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
God presuppositionalist dualists are so fekking boring.  

It boils down to this:  

Skeptic "faith is a valid epistemology"

Louis "You can't prove it"

Skeptic "I've got your nose.  Look, I've got your nose"

Louis "That's your bloody thumb, not my nose"

Skeptic "You materialist".

Date: 2007/08/15 12:57:36, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
this is parallel to a conversation I am having with fundies at worldblog.  I was told that I can never have a coherent understanding of what love or other emotions are since I have, in their estimation, a materialist evilutionist atheistic Hate Of God (just kidding heddle, they didn't say that.  

I'm fairly convinced I am talking to a penguin or a porcupine over there and not a thinking person.  What do you say to this argument that is so obviously dumb that I can't fathom why any one would advance it?

*edited to fix the goddam html code

Date: 2007/08/15 16:47:17, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
One doesn't have to blindly take the dualist or positivist approach to this question.  

love may be analyzed via material relations and processes.  is this all love is?  you can never know.  we might discover something tomorrow we had never measured before.  so in my view this is a relatively useless position as well.

of course dualism is easily shown to be contrived as well.  no need to explicate that (i think louis' suggestion to take some E and go dancing is a great experiment).  

skeptic has shown how poor one's thinking can be when one tosses about sloppily defined words.  semantic disagreements don't get to the substance of the debate.

How about this:  "All propositions that refer to non-material entities are indistinguishable from nonsense".

Date: 2007/08/15 19:38:34, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
argystokes Posted on Aug. 15 2007,19:09
Anyway, let's look at an easy one. ?Love. ?We can examine people who say the are in love and monitor reactions and interactions in the course of them displaying this love. ?We're into a subjective realm already unless you just want to rely on a consensus but we'll proceed anyway. Now we've identified various chemicals that are involved in these reactions and maybe even presumed at their optimum levels. ?Do this mean that everything we need to know about what we think we're studying, Love, can be determined by the levels of testosterone, phenylethylamine , dopamine, etc. ?Does this tell us what love feels like? ?Or why a mother charges into a burning building to save her child? ?Or why a spouse will die of a "broken heart" following the death of their beloved? ?Or why people will knowingly sacrifice themselves for family, friends, country and God? NO. NO. NO, and NO.

Bull. Give me infinite technology and take away my sense of medical ethics and I could devise experiments to test each one of those questions, and produce results indistinguishable from the "real thing." Do you really think that a "love potion" is theoretically impossible?

Date: 2007/08/17 10:46:39, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
the Baylor lab is focusing on this!!!

the study of whether Darwinian processes like random mutation and natural selection can generate new information

I wonder about a study whether Dembskian processes like street theater and hand waving-ism can generate new information.  I suspect it is too much CSI (complex-y sounding investigation).

Date: 2007/08/18 11:17:27, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I just read two of the articles in the most recent issue, one about gravel deposits in the west rockies and the other 'does logic need faith'.

i've been dueling with some presuppositionalists (well actually they suck to talk to) but there are some other fundies who keep quoting Plantigna and Polyani and yammering about 'warrant' and how there is no such thing as objective knowledge (i agree with that but it doesn't mean what they think it means).  

does anyone know enough about plantigna or polyani to give me a cliff's note back of the book cover review of their respective philosophies?  given that the fundy interpretations are consistent with the authors, i'm not so sure that they support the young earth position as well as these guys think.  but i have not read much of them.  any help?

Date: 2007/08/19 10:33:00, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Louis your questions are of course very interesting and a bit scary.  I would love to see a thread on why we fight creo-bots.  I've been working thru that myself recently.

But one from such dainty blue blood as yourself must have another perspective.

Date: 2007/08/19 17:28:56, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Well, when I say 'framing' I immediately want to wash my mouth out with soap.  But that is probably a function of the debate, not the issue.

As for 'why', there are a myriad of reasons.  That is what I find interesting.  I dig the fact that this forum is more open to entertaining a debate with creos than, say, Pharyngula.  and the readership isn't as big as PT so there is not such a big dogpile from the offset.  

but i think epistemology is my favorite reason.  i am fascinated by the gymnastics necessary to make ontological arguments.  i am quite frequently surprised at how some of these folks have actually thought a good bit about their positions (like heddle, bless his soul) but have made an initial error in the foundation of their thought, rendering the entire structure unstable (imagine Buckingham Palace with a gaping unfinished maw in the rear, replete with water damage and birds nests, but you'd never know from the post card.

and sweet baby jeeesus i love to watch them burn.

Date: 2007/08/20 07:43:39, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
DT tarded  
What new things did falciparum build with all that opportunity given to rm+ns to add functional information? Nothing. Exactly what ID predicts

All Science So Far!!!!

Date: 2007/08/21 08:17:53, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Viva Saltation!  Viva the Onion Genome!  Viva hack biology!

clearly the onion is at the end of a long line of gene addition speciation events, if we are to take you seriously.  I'm not convinced that we should though.

Date: 2007/08/21 09:11:28, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
yeah wes, especially when science journals "seldom publish a paper longer than six pages"


Date: 2007/08/21 10:46:31, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Sheep are boring, even with 9 legs or propped afloat on awe and wonder.  I prefer the more obvious example, that you darwinist materialist from ATBC cannot understand (insert some czech-y sounding pith here)

All human beings have wings.  Every one of them.  You just can't see them.  You have to accept it on faith.  Until you accept that humans have wings, you will forever fail to understand just what it is to be human.  You will not have a coherent narrative of why wings are important to being a human.

Don't bother looking for the wings.  They're there.  You just can't see them.  Trust me.  It was revealed to me.

Date: 2007/08/21 11:14:28, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

i'm kinda hungry now.

Date: 2007/08/21 11:19:29, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Ian I am beginning to agree with you that indeed it would be a delicious dish to see this fool here.

Of course that is perhaps because I voided my lunch after viewing the sanctimonious flagellation of his ignorance in 'Evilution:  Lie from Satin?" or whatever he called it.

there hasn't been a good tardfest here in a while ever since Reddot ran off and refused to explain how Duh Flud both made Cumberland Plateau and Mammoth Cave.  I can't call skeptic's blithering a tardfest since he didn't even say anything.

Date: 2007/08/21 14:27:59, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
anyone know when this guy was here?  i'm falling behind in the daily soap opera over there and can't keep up.

Hi bfast,
It is perhaps because this site has acquired such a reputation that it is possible for us to have the long and fruitful discussions that do occur here.

Having tried to speak my mind at PT, Pharyngula, StrangerFruit, ATBC, etc., I, for one, couldn?t care less about the so-called plank in the eye of UD.
Dissenters are not hard to find.


Date: 2007/08/21 14:31:48, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Buddha-nature is dried dung.

Date: 2007/08/21 14:45:59, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Oh I remember Charlie Wagner now.  He's in PZ's dungeon for
Wanking, Morphing, Stupidity, Insipidity, Spamming

i reckon that he means he is quite content over there.  carry on.

Date: 2007/08/21 15:04:46, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
OT halfnaked starlet alert

a guy tuned my piano once that used to work in california and had once tuned stevie nicks' piano.  he said he got there at 7 am or so, like they had agreed, and had to beat on the door to get an answer.  finally stevie nicks opened the door looking like hell (he mentioned there had been a big party there the night before and she looked like a head on collision at the intersection of cocaine and whiskey).  she turned to take him to the piano and her nighty, what little bit there was of it, was completely transparent and he just followed her gently swaying nearly naked buttocks to the piano.  and never forgot it.

ever need a piano tuner in western north carolina that guy is worth it just for the stories alone.  i'll hook you up.

Date: 2007/08/22 11:15:50, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I could probably go a lot further for the evidence is extensive and crushing against the Materialistic philosophy

oh please do you idiot.

"theism would have naturally expected this sudden appearance of life on earth".  where exactly does theism 'naturally expect' such a thing?  read the vedas fool.

Date: 2007/08/22 13:50:01, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
goddam but glen davidson has a sharp tongue.  i laughed til i nearly cried.  joe g is a colossal idiot.  too bad he is not unique.

Date: 2007/08/22 15:17:03, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I am beginning to have the same appreciation for cognitive dissonance and flagrant dishonesty from IDiots as I suppose field botanists do for, say, the presence of dandelions.

kinda like laverne and shirley must have felt putting bottle caps on beer bottles all day.  or whatever.

Date: 2007/08/22 15:30:05, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
ooh this is fun.  any advice on how to improve my undercover tard cloaking device?

Can't wait to see the movie.  I'm sure it will blow the socks off those evilutionists who deny the all=mighty purposeful hand of god who has clearly invested a lot of his(her?) time in designing the phalluses of katydids and tinkering with the chimpanzee genome to fool materialists.  

Athiest darwinist materialists have held the pulpit for too long, with their evidence and predictive power.  The tide is turning in churches and homeschooled classrooms across the globe, upholding the observation that all true science is given to us from God and is an exploration of his glory and omnipotence.  Only fools demand evidence to believe something.  

Additionally, with the growing impetus behind Intelligent Design (including a real science journal and lots of internet weblogs that thankfully don't worry about the opposing views to their arguments) soon we can be sure to see some real ID research from the growing number of ID labs in the United States.  All Science So Far!!!

Stifling dissent is unamerican and unchristian.  Intelligent design has nothing to do with religion, there are even atheist pleasurians in the fold.  In short, it is all about the maths.

See here for more about censorship and Darwinism.


Date: 2007/08/22 16:11:16, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
yeah JAM that is the stuff that I'm talking about.

honestly I think I'd rather read YEC horseshit than all the semantic blathering and rhetorical backpedalling that these fools seem to do everyday.

makes me wanna go fishing instead.

Date: 2007/08/22 16:33:33, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
well the scrotum is obvious.  it is intelligently designed to keep your drawers from pulling out the fuzz, to keep it from sticking to your leg, and it is well protected from interloping wayward baseballs, bungee cords, 3 year olds with wild swings and your bicycle cross-bar.

and when you get old and might not have that same sexy hawt savoir fare you did in your youth, it is intelligently designed to advertise itself via the leghole of your shorts.  just ask my 9th grade PE teacher.  

perhaps i am being uncharitable, but i see little difference in these guys today and a half-shaved mud covered pustule on a goat scrote.

Date: 2007/08/22 20:23:15, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
skeptic is riding the ox in search of the ox.

Date: 2007/08/23 08:24:36, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
He's baaaaaack.....
15 guests, 10 Public Members and 0 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>Erasmus, FCD >Reciprocating Bill >Crimifata >Paul Nelson >ppb >JAM >eTourist >Albatrossity2 >Louis >stevestory

Date: 2007/08/23 08:58:55, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Is that mario lopez from saved by the bell?  He is a genius.

Date: 2007/08/23 09:28:14, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Errrm, ID doesn't have anything to do with religion or God.  It has to do with defeating materialism, which is anti-religion and anti-God.  See it doesn't have anything to do with it.  

And it's all science so far!!!  the Explanatory Filter can identify design, except in cases where it doesn't, and your credit card number either has Complex Specified Information in it, or it doesn't.  You just have to ask the right IDist and be prepared for the definition and talking points to change.

And it is completely compatible with evolutionary theory, except in cases where it isn't.  Depends on who you ask in the BIG TENT of Intelligent Design.  Some are young earth creationists (based on the evidence, of course, given in Genesis), some are Old Earth Creationists (based on the evidence, of course, given in Genesis) and some (one) are atheist pleasurian polymaths, and many many many many more (the rest) are just regular old bible-believing plain folks that don't have time to wade through facts and the logical structure of propositions.  Science=Democracy!  All Science So Far!!!

Date: 2007/08/23 11:00:32, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Hotter, to who?  (clue, there, that one is)

I like redheads anyway. So sod off you bastards.

Date: 2007/08/23 11:34:18, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Lenny you probably also prefer tupperware to fine porcelain as well.  to each their own.  i have one word (two actually):  pink nipples.  none of this ruddy brown business.

Date: 2007/08/23 13:59:29, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Lou I highly recommend

it's a treasurehouse of tard.

Date: 2007/08/23 15:21:24, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Hate to split hairs but I don't buy the subjective/objective distinction anyway.  purely pragmatically speaking of course.  objectively.  hey.  what.

10  Louis points out that the question is answerable if you define the parameters.

20  Lenny points out the semantic form of the question is parameterless.

30 Goto 10

I wanna talk about redheads some more.

Date: 2007/08/24 08:57:44, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
That page now looks like a shitstorm in tardland.  Nice post though, DaveScot.  That nailed it home for me.  I haz desine now.  Prays Jesus.

Date: 2007/08/24 09:05:35, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Didn't Russell say that formal logic does not work with sloppily defined propositions?

let's lose the subjective/objective false distinction.  it pushes you to anti-realism.  unless you embrace that.  i might.

Date: 2007/08/24 14:23:18, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
VMartin, stop what you are doing.

Take a look around you.  What do you see?

That big squishy thing over there is your lower intestine.  It's all coiled up and maybe choking off your air a bit.

That little lump of reddish brown stuff is your liver (I know, I know, what is the darwinian explanation for its color.  Yah Yah Yah).

If you pull your head back just a bit, you will feel some tightening around your ears.  Yes, this is your O-Ring.

Just a bit further.  Now, see that piece of skin with the large piercing that has JADavison's smiling mug on it?  That is your duodenum.

Keep pulling your head back.  


Now, go wash your face and we can continue the discussion.

Date: 2007/08/27 08:13:57, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
 I see where it landed.

Moddurn Sionce done begun way' backar in em'ar 16 hunnerts man, sombitches wore wigs and face paint and had bedbugs man.  Whoooee Puritans man that's who dun it.  a buggerin each other and i-don-know-what-all to gitrdurn.  they turned them ol pagans on they ears what with all them faintsy new arguments and sech.  That right'ar is what we'uns call duh beginin of at'ar 'Moddurn Sionce', but that ain't what everybody else calls it.  And then just cause we can we use a mess of em'ar irrelevant examples what ain't got nuthin to do with the beginnin of that'ar moddurn sionce but we done went and got ye sommithem'ar color pictures so ye git distracted, see.  gityasome of thatrightar you materialist frustrated darwinist from atbc.  ATBC stands for all the bourgeois chickenshitbastards.[U]

Date: 2007/08/28 08:08:25, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I have faith that you have enough faith to have faith that cows have faith.



Date: 2007/08/28 09:59:53, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
ahhhh well you see sal doesn't literally believe that cow dung is given to us in place of man dung so that we might prepare our bread (Ezekiel 4:15).  

that is just figurative you see and to prepareth his bread he prefers this instead, which has also been given us by god since the fruits of reason are divined from the omnipotence and beneficence of his will...

Date: 2007/08/28 10:03:30, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
CSI stands for Complex Specified Information

Complex meaning it is not simple. Complex meaning it is intricate. And complex because it contains many parts or facets.

(Wm. Dembski takes that meaning and gives it a mathematical form. He does so, because like Galileo before him, he sees science as incomplete without the mathematics. You put something in mathematical form and then someone else can check it. But dummies can't understand this and that is why I created this post)

Specified meaning something is indicated or defined, in detail. A good set of assembly instructions specifies what part goes where and as well as the order to put them together.

Information meaning it is communicated data.

IOW complex specified information is a term to differentiate between Shannon Information and information that has a specific meaning.

Shannon information does not care about content or meaning, ie it does not care about specification. All the weight goes to the number of characters transmitted..

maybe it's just me (nahh, probly not) but I don't see any information in there.  CSI or otherwise.  sounds like a speech given by Ernie Fletcher or GW Bush.

Date: 2007/08/28 14:30:22, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I fucking hate the sun.

Date: 2007/08/28 15:14:43, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
OK then, let's see if science can answer this one:

What color is a five-sided square?

I'd like to see you weasel out of this one with all them'ar big words, Louis.

Date: 2007/08/28 15:34:43, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

har har this is you

Date: 2007/08/28 16:11:40, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

Also, does every scientist in this field have to look so much like, well, a scientist? This guy definitely was the sort to get beat up a lot in high school. Could that be part of the problem?


Date: 2007/08/28 16:32:32, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I thought that guy might be deepcover trolling until i clicked on his webpage.  no, he is really that stupid.  is there not a single IDiot out there who isn't a faith head (or a pleasurian)?

Date: 2007/08/28 20:07:48, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Lenny unless I can be convinced why not,  I do suspect that asking about 'Capital B-Beauty' or 'are blondes hotter than brunettes' is like asking 'what color is a five sided square'.

after all, as louis has repeatedly and verbose-ly pointed out, that question is rather indistinguishable from nonsense without the subjective qualifiers.  

do you not agree?

Date: 2007/08/28 20:19:32, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Renowned Technolgy Pioneer Trashes neo-Darwinism (part 1)

sal is a fucking idiot.  how do you misspell technology?  i hope they don't fix it.

Date: 2007/08/28 20:20:57, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
so people are suckers for pedantic nonsense.  no surprise there.  ask them what 'freedom' means, while you are at it.

that doesn't address the epistemological issue.

Date: 2007/08/29 09:06:59, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
think i figgered it out.

I don't assume that every question may be answered and that this answer is 'out there' and floating around like lenny seems to be saying, man, in some ontological void until some particular bastard like Louis insists that it be squeezed into some contingent context or the other.  

lenny, if you aren't saying that, then may i characterize you as saying that 'NOT every question may be answered'.

louis it is true that you are saying these are questions that don't have answers?

if we agree that not every question may be answered (of course i am skipping over uninteresting quibbles about definitions of truth etc) then this gets simpler.  

Lenny i don't see how you can argue that 'science can't answer these questions' because of their context-free ubersubjective nature, and also claim that 'these are meaningful questions'.  i find that asking Joe Schmo on the street is not only a red herring but also damages your argument because someone pointed out, this implies  
[In Your Opinion] Are Live Women Hotter Than Dead Women?

Ed Abbey said something relevant here (i forget what the object was but it works for whatever), when asked by a visitor 'What is that?', Abbey replied "Ahh, what it is no man knows, but some call it a raven".

And that is the same essentialist obfuscating that you are doing with insisting that 'questions have answers that beyond science' and on the other hand 'those questions have answers'.  it's just an ontological silly buggers game, you are stuck with this conundrum because you have assumed an essential characteristic and therefore must claim that it is outside of science, and define science accordingly.

But I could be wrong.  Do all questions have answers?

Date: 2007/08/29 09:07:42, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
p.s. that was all an excuse to say ontological silly buggers.  i've been laughing my ass off at that, rhetorically.

Date: 2007/08/29 09:45:00, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Don't forget cheesy poof curls.  also testing to see if the orange stain doesn't macromutate into a nubile young nymphomaniac with three boobs.  or a big buff sweaty marine standing at attention, har har, take your pic, saynomo, saynomo.

Date: 2007/08/29 10:13:45, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I ask you Why you love your wife.

After I help you up off of the floor, I respond 'That's why'.

and to you, that answer is just as valid as your population statistics.  any answer would be.  and that is why it is a stupid question that doesn't have an answer.  it is irrelevant that you can ask 8 out of 10 dentists or what have you and they will give you an answer instead of saying 'What the fuck are you talking about'.  surprise, skeptic, people make shit up when they are asked softball stupid pseudo-questions.  you have proven that over and over again.  tell us more about duality.

you forgot that it would be "[In My Opinion], I Love My Wife Because" before we took to rasslin' over it.  

Or do you presume that there is an objective answer, floating around out there in the ether, to the question?  Must I pray to know the real answer?  How can you tell?

you can't, because it is nonsense dressed up in drag.

Date: 2007/08/29 10:30:37, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
of course you miss the point, again.  mighta hit you harder than i meant (of course, it could have been because you were really drunk and took a swing at me).

the point was namely that To You, any answer is as good as any other answer to that question.  

that would be my position as well except that i don't think it is a meaningful question.  just a string of words soliciting my opinion.

isn't it just amazing that people add meaning to meaningless things?  how about a three tier waterfall symbolizing the trinity?  or that time when the phone rang right when i was thinking about it ringing?  or assigning some ontological priority to sloppy propositions?

Date: 2007/08/29 10:32:55, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
second dude from the left is wearing a serious shirt.

Date: 2007/08/29 10:49:18, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Another Stroke Against Dualism

Date: 2007/08/29 11:00:41, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Mrawrrr, pfffft, ffffft, it's a kitty fight!

telic tard

Date: 2007/08/29 15:52:01, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
It seems like you could estimate how far above Ye Olde Earth Gawd was, from that verse that mentok is dribbling on about.

'it's inhabitants were like grasshoppers'

how far away do you have to be before a human looks the size of a grasshopper?  a mile?  anyone seen gawd up there in the sky about a mile up yet?

what do the lawyers say about introducing uncommon descent as evidence that this is just religion on acid?

Date: 2007/08/30 10:13:46, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Well for the life of me I still think there is some sort of ontological confusion at work here.  But I'm not smart enough  nor motivated enough to work it out.  

I'm off to go find meaning in the pattern of specks of paint in the floor, entrails of a chicken or in a random question about my arbitrary opinion about the mass of Britney Spears' hot pocket.

Date: 2007/08/31 08:42:09, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
A girl in my lab once said 'Doesn't ecology tell us that we should recycle?'

I thought this was the stupidest thing I had ever heard.  I now realize that for her, Science was answering the question.  So Lenny it does appear that science can answer that question.

Was it the right answer?  Who Knows.  Who Cares?  

I'm more interested in skeptic going on about abstract concepts (and the answers to these stupid context-free examples) existing independent of ourselves (and therefore implied to be in the Mind Of Gawd or something).  I suppose I need to update my Gawd Connection, I either have too many firewalls or I'm using dialup.

Date: 2007/08/31 10:49:16, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
No you idiot it means you put context around the question.  So it is not the same question anymore.

Jesus, if you believe in gods you can answer this question.  are you serious.  yeah, i think you are.

Date: 2007/09/01 07:35:20, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Me being skeptic: ?

blah blah blah, that's just your opinion. ?yeah that is just your opinion too. ?uh-huh my opinion is that it is just your opinion. ?everything is relative i could probably fly off the top of that building if i wanted to and i knew how to get my Sooooooooooooooul to drive for a little while. ?God is the ghost in the machine and it looks JUST LIKE he wasn't there and you might disagree but that is just your opinion. ?And atheists are probably immoral and for sure dont know why they are moral because they don't have their hearts tuned to God's Radio Station and not only do they not have their AM dial on it, I have a direct wireless connnection to the god-ether at all times and that is where all our abstract thoughts come from. ?And you can disagree but it is just YOUR OPINION and Lenny and I agree. ?Oh yeah and Louis you are a stodgy bastard that needs jesus christus in your lifeus and I can help you get saved just PM me and we can go over the prayer together and then your soul will get to live forever like mine.

Date: 2007/09/01 07:41:08, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Well, fellas, I don't know about you-all but my soul is Intelligently Designed to LOOK LIKE IT DOESN'T EXIST AND HAS NO EFFECT ON ANYTHING.  yet it is there and drives my flesh bus.  And that is just the way God Jesus or The Designer (you pick) made it so that we would have free will to choose him for verily the Designer designed his designed in such a designful way that he designed us to be designed to love him or reject him.  For the designer so loved his design that he designed his only begotten design, and that whosoever designed to believe on his design would not un-design, but eternal designful life.

Date: 2007/09/02 00:13:23, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
if tenets for the faith are extrapolated to address new questions
Loki, skeptic, are you going to explain how this is any different from the courtier's reply?  

we can all take nonsense and run with it.  that makes you a hero?  seems to be your MO

Date: 2007/09/02 10:07:39, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
All Science So Far!!!!

Date: 2007/09/02 10:40:30, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
google it

when you take this nonsense and make something constructive with it, then i shall cease and desist from deigning it nonsense.  until then it's a square circle.

Date: 2007/09/02 14:02:01, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Whoever botnik is, there are some issues.

Or is this unrelated?  Sure....  and bacterial flagellum evolve by chance.  Too much CSI here

Date: 2007/09/03 08:01:07, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
anything coming soon in the 'All Science So Far!!!one!!!' line?

Date: 2007/09/03 16:41:13, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
skeptic again you are providing context.  it's not some arbitrary foolishness such as 'god' or 'triangle' that exists in the ether.

what are you smoking dude?  i wanna lay off that.

Date: 2007/09/04 08:19:00, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Wes how about a chart of their webtraffic?  Compared to, say PT or something?  

I also like Richard's kid's coloring idea too.  Maybe a crudely colored bacterial flagellum.  Or flash Judge Jones farting.

Date: 2007/09/04 10:03:28, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
in a multiverse, every logically possible universe is actual. A designer is logically possible; therefore in a multiverse he/she/it is actual.

so are square circles!  Skeptic, you gotta move to that particular universe.  You'd love it.  Actually!

Date: 2007/09/04 10:05:06, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I was thinking about a wife-beater T.

How about instead of webtraffic you put published papers from, I dunno, Evolution, next to the ID journal whatever they call it.  

All Science So Far!

Date: 2007/09/04 10:09:36, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Stephen under motivations you forgot about Logos (Legos?).


?Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ? - Galatians 1:10

All Science So Far!!!!

Date: 2007/09/04 10:49:00, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Someone remind me again what kind of facilities one needs to do super top secret high tech ID research?

'Cause, uh, I'm thinking the broom closet would have been just fine.  All Science So Far, In Here, um-hum.

Date: 2007/09/04 13:34:12, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Henry perhaps this syllogism will help you out:

the set of all integers, the set of all real numbers, transfinite set theory (with associated cardinal and ordinal numbers), with sets of axioms for each of them = God's Uncaused Immaterial Nature

now, it jives.

Date: 2007/09/04 14:19:50, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

daring to blase new trails in scientific thought.

blase' trails indeed.

Date: 2007/09/04 16:52:39, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Of what were they accused?

of being completely devoid of imagination.  and probably a sense of humor.  I could imagine that they are chance worshipping homo church burning sternbergers.

Date: 2007/09/05 08:19:09, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
You're looking at this very rationally which may not be in order

yeah stop it with all that rational stuff.  I'm trying to be a moonbat here and you are ruining it.

Date: 2007/09/05 13:16:49, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
how do you do the struck-out word thingy?  with a line through it and what-all.

Date: 2007/09/05 13:56:57, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Hey, I wanna be a machine too.  this one

what do you mean i ain't no machine?

Date: 2007/09/05 14:00:07, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
i wanna play skeptic, too!!!

well stephen you know those are just your opinions.

<goes back to ontological proofs of elan vitale>

Date: 2007/09/05 14:52:38, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
watch out for those cracks!!!


The fact of the matter, folks, is that evolutionists have been proclaiming all along that dinosaurs and humans lived during different epochs.

To suddenly admit that humans and dinosaurs may have lived during the same time shows the cracks in the evolutionists' theory widening . . . .
Posted by: outkast at September 5, 2007 02:25 PM

more of the same old tard

Date: 2007/09/05 15:24:43, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
skeptic who is forcing the issue???

hint:  see the UD thread.

another hint:  your presuppositionalism guarantees that you see dawkins et al as religious.  so you can't claim that they represent science in forcing the issue.  

final hint:  if all people are inherently religious (perhaps i grant you too much presuppositionalism, but given your other statements in this thread it may not be too far off) then you are just blabbering about nothing anyway when you wave your hands and talk about NOMA.  try dividing by one and see what you get.

Date: 2007/09/05 17:22:18, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Seriously, albatrossity...


He's a nutcase.  And a classic crackpot, to borrow some one else's phrase.

Date: 2007/09/06 07:42:16, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
well RB that is just your opinion and if i can imagine a soul that doesn't do those things yet retains all those soul-esque properties then it must exist, or surely one greater than it, so i have just proved jesus.

Date: 2007/09/06 10:15:52, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

ID is entwined with YEC so anytime ID raises its head it is the same as YEC raising its head. Despite the protestations that ID is not YEC, it is so closely identified with it that for all practical purposes they are the same. If all the YEC proponents left this site, it would wither and die.

maybe this feller has a point.  the baylor flap is all about YEC, and until ID breaks up the big tent they won't get no respect?

i'd be tickled shitless to see this happen, but we all know for expedient political reasons it never will.

Side Note, which one of you was this?

Date: 2007/09/06 10:39:40, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
How about being fiscally conservative, socially reactionary, and scientifically post-modern relativist?

Hey, I dig it.  All Science So Far!!!!!!!*

*note that this is my opinion and your interpretation is equally valid but incoherent since you are an atheist evolutionist materialist from ATBC.

I love it so!

Date: 2007/09/06 11:01:27, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
what a queer millennial eschatology.  ID will save souls and straighten Amurrika out on her path to redeeming the world.  

*2 minute hate timeout*

Date: 2007/09/06 11:03:18, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
and the bears will come from the woods and devour the mockers.

carry on, skeptic.  your windmills await.

Date: 2007/09/06 12:32:19, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

apparently 3 UD posts, 1 Baptist Press post and 1 World Magazine post count as 'Media Coverage'

Leach the Controversy!!!

Date: 2007/09/06 14:02:25, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
FTK, would you please explain the distinction between Horse Shit and Bull Shit?  Possibly also pontificate upon the relative similarity between these two and Piranha Shit?  


Frequent Viewer

Date: 2007/09/06 14:06:01, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
VMartin I am asking too.

By the way, natural selection explains the distribution of trophic groups of aquatic organisms along the River Continuum.  But you can address that much later after you get done on the other thread telling us about your lofty opinions about such things as the age of the earth and common descent.  Toodles!!

Date: 2007/09/06 14:55:28, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Read All About It, reductionist fallacy supports Front-Loading*!!!eleven!!


* (as if it actually made a prediction)

Date: 2007/09/06 14:56:16, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Ahem, yes, this is completely consistent with our scientific hypothesis that the flagellum is indeed an outboard motor and that hemoglobin is a mousetrap.  

All Science So Far!!!

Date: 2007/09/07 08:25:31, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Email me if Obliviot actually deals with an argument made or provides anything resembling an argument in favour of his claims. As opposed to current standards of flannelling, flapping, accusations of fundamentalism and assertion.

don't count on it louis.  or the email part either.  

by the way you atheist darwinist frustrated materialist from ATBC can't explain the meaning of yellow either.  

</chases rabbit back down hole>

Date: 2007/09/07 14:21:14, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
What did they do with the 'v' in EIL?  It's so close to 'Evilutionary Informatics Lab' that it's a shame they missed that opportunity.

Date: 2007/09/09 23:12:48, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I'd think that with front loading, one would expect a much higher quantity of apparent horizontal transfer than would be expected without it.

Even if you grant the front-loading hypothesis in-principle testability, it still doesn't clear up any way to test such a proposition.  The predictions that the article seems to give (haven't read it, just saw this) aren't necessarily incongruent with the null hypothesis.  It will remain a slippery slope argument I think.  

Unless they want to invoke a young-earth and claim that there is not enough time for horizontal transfer to explain whatever it is they claim is evidence for frontloading, that is.   For, given an old earth, and common descent (including what we know about horizontal transfer in many taxa) they don't have a null hypothesis.  It encompasses the entire range of life on earth with DNA so this will be more hand-waving.

Unless they know something about Teh Designer that we don't, that is...  perhaps they know just how he frontloaded it?  Is it in genesis?

Date: 2007/09/09 23:15:52, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
skeptic, Phineas Gage?

show me 'the essence of a person' and i will show you their gym socks.  nothing more.

Date: 2007/09/10 09:04:20, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I bet Richard Dawkins doesn't know the first damn thing about building a subfloor or pouring a slab.  Pffft.  Evilutionists think they know everything.

Date: 2007/09/10 09:07:03, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

Skeptic:  Essences exist, you just can't see them.
Louis:  Show me how you know that.
Skeptic:  I imagine essences can exist, therefore they do, and you are dishonest.  And mean.  Lenny agrees.  Lenny?  Lennnnnny?  where'd you go?

<snipped a lot of peanut gallery heckling>

that help?

Date: 2007/09/10 14:17:32, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

Date: 2007/09/10 21:34:06, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
SINCE we don't have a worldblog thread and that is my fav-o-rite flavor of tard (no pretensions to anything except salvation there), thought i'd post this here.

i do love dear old mynym, what with his murmurings and urges to merges.  sometimes i am half-convinced he has an idea, other times i think he is like rain man making rhymes.  you tell me what you think.  

urge to merge

Date: 2007/09/10 21:47:17, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
skeptic fair enough, but i figured that was the general consensus of all involved and that is dividing by one.

now, i will give my decree about where the NOMA line is.  It is precisely where the boundaries of your body (hence the subjective notions you carry around with you) ends.  Once your faith/religion/denial/dualism/woo assertions extend beyond your corporeal body, they are up for falsification.

Date: 2007/09/11 12:57:15, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I wanna see more whining about intellectual persecution and academic freedom.

Oh.  yeah, just checked out UD.  Got what I wanted!

All Science So Far!!!

Date: 2007/09/11 14:05:37, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
then God, by definition is the creator of the universe. And if he is the creator, He necessarilly is the intelligent designer.

Can't saying that in a different accent get you necessarilllly banninninninninnated?


Date: 2007/09/11 14:07:57, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
The article on the AiG website yesterday looked convincingly like a new development, which begs the question, why are AiG putting out news stories that are a year old without explaining this to their readers ?

good question.

maybe because it all happened Last Thursday?

Date: 2007/09/11 15:24:28, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
If you're going to shout across the cosmos, you might say more than "Hey!"

perhaps... "Have you any grey poupon?"

Date: 2007/09/11 16:00:01, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Well, you better stay away from his house.  

I hear he has nunchuck skills.

Date: 2007/09/13 11:02:17, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
so do you think that there is a forum (not necessarily teh interw3bz) where DT could actually participate without being an ass?  i've never seen him have a serious conversation with any poster, it's either 'Yer Outta Here Homo' or he's trying to have a shouting match about how much he knows about something.  

I mean is there one topic?  anything?  i wonder if the man goes fishing for christ's sake.  i guess i could see him talking about his rods and reels all the time but never wetting a hook.

Date: 2007/09/14 08:44:45, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I rather imagine he will be found auto-asphyxiated wearing a negligee in man to hand combat with himself while Judge Jones School of Law (unedited version) plays on a loop.

Date: 2007/09/14 08:51:14, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
If all matter reduces down to the quantum foam

It doesn't.  Just because you may describe something a certain way doesn't imply that it IS that way.

Emergent properties are not reducible.  (or are they?  I summon Laplace)

Date: 2007/09/14 16:11:04, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Bornagain is a dumb ass

If you want to see research that stays within the realm of hard science, with evidence blazing the way to truth, instead of philosophy misleading the way to misconceptions, I recommend Dr. Behe’s new book “Edge of Evolution”!

Date: 2007/09/14 16:17:39, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I’m sorry but I don’t give out my e-mail, due to being burned by evolutionists the last time I did.

sorry blipey

Date: 2007/09/14 16:20:45, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I just found a photo of Vmartin and JAD.  Anyone care to use the EF to determine which is which?

Date: 2007/09/16 08:22:51, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
what a dumbass. didn't wesley say he could post on the bathroom wall all he wanted?

afdave you are an idiot.  but a highly entertaining one.  Tally Ho!!!!

tell us more about young earth predictions upheld next time you get one.  or, i know, just make one up!!!  all science so far!

Date: 2007/09/17 22:38:42, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
sounds like he got pwnedzorg!!!!squarerootof2!!!i!

Date: 2007/09/18 16:02:38, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

phenotype is not the corner of ToE and has not been since Weldon and Bateson argued about nothing.  It's like you have never heard of 20 century biology.  

buuuuuuuuttttttt.....  since you have revolutionary views that will completely transform the face of science, here is a journal that will be receptive to them.  they need help.

SuperSpunk's Nobel Prize Is Waiting...

Date: 2007/09/19 12:00:09, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD


hey supersport you and skeptic should get together and work out this mind/soul thing.

Where is Louis?
Where is Lenny?
Where the hell are my keys?  
I've now laughed my ass off.  Think-Thing interface oh shit.

Date: 2007/09/19 17:56:38, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

that genes are more complex than simple bean bags has been known for 50 years.  it also doesn't support your idiotic assertion about the mind.  but no surprise there, dumbass.

if even skeptic thinks your dualism ideas are stupid, you might as well accept that they are.  hey whats next nucleotides don't exist, they are just ideas in the mind of god?  

ps saw your pics.  you might be gay and not know it.  sure those are your kids?

Date: 2007/09/20 07:59:04, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Since people have kept parakeets in cages for hundreds of years, it seems that SuperDumbAss is saying that parakeets should be born with their own cage.

If there are no such things as genes with functions, DumbAss, then what is this all about?

Date: 2007/09/20 08:00:00, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Panadaptationist caricatures of evolution are boring.  There is no bottom to the well of cretinist stupidity.

Date: 2007/09/21 10:32:58, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I have already explained why Rob’s comment is lame. Maybe you weren’t bright enough to understand because your own comments are equally spurious. Please make a logical statement based on what ID actually proposes rather than your personal feelings about ID. For example, make an informed comment about the universal probability bound, specified complexity, or the probability of creating complex specified information via a random walk and how any of those concepts are based on religion. Otherwise, you are just a guy venting an unfounded opinion.

goddamn the irony is rich there.  personal feelings are all these clowns possess

Date: 2007/09/23 18:29:02, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
So I haven't been keeping up so much recently and this is a new thread to me.

Daniel, it seems that you are arguing that there is some bound that constrains evolutionary transition.  I am curious as to why you assume this must be.  As I see it, you either accept that speciation occurs, or it doesn't.  If you accept that it does, then the supposed macro-micro boundary dissolves instantly (indeed, it is a figment of imagination, suriving in the literature because it is a useful fiction for narrative exposition, like any other model).  Why do you invoke boundaries, unless you are wedded to a phenotypical model of evolution?

So you ask about 'transitional forms'.  I can point to several instances of speciation observed and/or reconstructed that do not involve transitional forms.  I would start by pointing out the speciation events that involve contact between lineages of Helianthus sunflowers (see Rieseberg, Nature a few years ago) or the ecological speciation event in Rhagoletis dipterans.  There is no transition.  This does not deny Wesley's point about the gradual process, but it does invoke a question "At what temporal scale do we intend 'gradual' to refer to", I believe this has been addressed above.  The argument against transitional forms or lineages boils down to an assertion that Zeno's Paradox is a true problem.

[Edited to add] And we know that it is not, because I just went to the store.  And I returned as well.

So the saltational opinion can be resolved with the gradualist opinion by virtue of considering that the terms are not necessarily referential to an absolute scale.

Date: 2007/09/23 22:54:13, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Anybody interested in this?  Seems like there is a growing literature that makes some strong arguments.  Plants are weird, ploidy issues make it a slam dunk case since they are automatically reproductively isolated.  In animals, it is not so clear but there are some good candidates.

Of course, it is a theory of the gaps since it's easy to equivocate around definitions of 'hybrid' since we are probably using different definitions of 'species'.  I'm reading the new Arnold book about hybridization and evolution and I'm impressed with the concept of reticulating lineages and the possibility that gene flow between lineages can increase genetic variability for selection to work on.  

I know some strong critics and some strong proponents and it's hard to disagree with either side since often there is a disparity in common definitions of terms and philosophy (slippery slope definitions of hybrid lineages, etc).  I am working on a group of insects where reticulation is a strong hypothesis.  Morphological taxonomic approaches have been incomplete at best and we are the first to take the molecular approach.  And it's a mess so far.

Date: 2007/09/24 08:37:30, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

Michael Arnold 'Evolution through genetic exchange'

jean the plant ploidy thing is much easier to understand.  i know a fella trying to work out a model for the heliconias example and his results are puzzling.  it is difficult to fine tune the model such that the new species does not wipe out the parentals via introgression from backcrossing.  

there is another example from Lepidoptera in the Lycaiedes genus.  the putative hybrid species has a genome mosaic composed the of the two parentals.  there is also ecological divergence...  see Science 22 December 2006:
314: 1923 - 1925 Homoploid Hybrid Speciation in an Extreme Habitat
Zachariah Gompert,1 James A. Fordyce,2 Matthew L. Forister,3 Arthur M. Shapiro,4 Chris C. Nice1*

Date: 2007/09/24 08:44:53, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Daniel, it is also not true.  the genetic milieu is changed by selection (artificial is just another form, and it's not really artificial is it?  unless you are arguing it is sooooopernatcheral).

offspring of different lineages (or hybrids if you will) can have phenotypes that are completely outside the range of variation in the parents.  if there is any positive selective pressure on those traits then they will persist.  if there is then a mate preference, they will diverge.  it is that simple, and 'throwing dogs into the wild and they all turn back into wolves' is just wrong for a litany of reasons.  think about why that might be.  no way can a chihuaha turn 'back into' a wolf.  for one, it never was one.

fancy types of lettuce don't go back to being one single muddy lettuce, there is a quantitative legacy of mutation and selection.  same as the dogs.  new traits can be formed from recombination during contact between different lineages (See the Helianthus sunflower examples, it blows your contentions out of the water in the first paragraph)

Date: 2007/09/25 08:25:20, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
'junk' is a sloppy term that covers many different phenomenon.  we prefer non-coding.  there is a lot of repetition in there, daniel, and it acts as if it were selectively neutral.  or, as if it were doing nothing but accumulating dust.

sunflower hybrid speciation here

punchline?  new traits evolve from lineage contact that promote ecological divergence and reproductive isolation via selection.  you are completely wrong.  

your 'super specialized' breeds have different ecological niches.  chihuahas and terriers would do just fine in a habitat where they could nail mice and dig burrows.  pit bulls hunt in packs.  I, uh, don't know if you have noticed, but every place is not like every other place.  Things vary.  This matters.

It all boils down to my fundamental biologic law:  Shit varies.  It matters.  Sometimes.

Now, we are waiting to hear what makes you doubt the findings of hundreds of thousands of biologists, since it is very clearly not the evidence (perhaps your unfamiliarity with the evidence...).  It could be that you just prefer the German mystical archetype position, but this was refuted in the 20s 30s and 40s (although VMartin may not have access to those journals in the caves he lives in).  Phenotypes may very quickly surpass the range exhibited by parentals, and there is a ton of evidence to show this.  For god's sake look at the work of Dolph Schluter.

Date: 2007/09/25 09:59:06, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Louis old chap whilst you were cavorting amongst the isles padding about toting toddies and nursing a chronic hangover, you missed one of the biggest explosions of mind searing tard on this board I have been privy to since AFDave blew his choad.  Supersport made skeptic look like a mereological nihilist.  

Since you are back, check out 'challenge to evolutionists' or whatever.  skeptic, to his credit, said to supersport [paraphrase] jesus you are stupid, that is taking the cart before the horse cut off at the knees or something like that.[/] IOW there is a bound to skeptic's willingness to huff the mind/body tard and it is at first approximation limited by the sheer blithering stupidity of Supersport.  

carry on.  welcome back

Date: 2007/09/25 10:55:05, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
gahh where to start DT.  if an egg is just chicken code...

as if gene expression occurred in a vacuum, just according to the code and the environmental context was meaningless.  

I used to think Dawkin's adaptationist program was the most reductionist concept in biology.  Now I concede that title to the IDiots "everything is a machine and life is deterministic"

good snag rth.  i've been laying off the harder tard lately and would have missed it.

Date: 2007/09/25 13:04:51, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
behe review tard

I am not a biologist (I’m an engineer)

well, color me surprised, dumbass.

Date: 2007/09/25 13:08:06, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
so if you rephrase skeptic's question in context of 'what the fuck is an idiot like you doing in a place like this' then it becomes less erm how do you say perhaps 'revealing'.  

although skeptic i did wonder as well if you weren't saying ala vmartin 'these frustrated darwinist materialist from ATBC' or something similar.

Date: 2007/09/25 14:57:02, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
your comments to SS.  IIRC you thought his mind theory was bull shit too.

but 'you didn't really to get an answer here' could imply more than just that.  and i think that was louis' point.  

RB thing-think is the bottom line there.

Date: 2007/09/25 15:23:19, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Vmartin, do you recognize the difference between 'selectionist' and 'panadaptationist'?  

you might find that i agree with you that there is no fundamental reason that any particular trait must be adaptive.  but this does nothing to undermine the importance of natural selection.  it sure as hell doesn't imply the existence of a mystical organizing differentiating force.  

Here is my theory.

Shit Varies.  It Matters.  Sometimes.

Now, you could clear up this discussion IMMENSELY and earn your laurel wreaths if you would just get to work and translate Eimer and Heikertinger into English.  But beware the evil darwinist materialist from ATBC conspiracy, they might try to blow up your cave or something.

Date: 2007/09/25 15:43:31, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

I kind of wonder about caddisflies (trichoptera)  Hydroptilids are 3-7 mm.  the limnephilid Hydatophylax argus is > 250 mm.

surely that is proof of design.

Date: 2007/09/26 14:32:58, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
i don't think VMartin is necessarily saying goddidit.

he is saying what the german school attempted to say during the early part of the 20th century, that there are channels of development.  some like eimer admitted that these could be a result of selection.  as far as i can tell from reading gould, eimer did search for material causes and was not positing supernatural or design explanations.  it's just an old rehash of the formalist/structuralist vs adaptationist/selectionist debate, not an argument for design per se.

of course, where did these channels come from was a question that some of the german school appealed to mystical forces to answer.

so, martin, you are not persuaded of weismanns view of selection.  where do orthogenetic channels come from?

Date: 2007/09/26 17:06:36, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
mimicry of what?

Date: 2007/09/26 17:08:48, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
cause it is easier to play jester that way.

i don't think he will find his panselectionist boogey man here, but it is fun to yank his chain.

Date: 2007/09/27 07:13:13, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
there are examples of lineages that have gained and subsequently lost lungs.  you'll have to look them up.  i'll give you a hint...  nahhh, forget it.  tetrapod is all you get.

Date: 2007/09/27 08:34:09, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Saying you want to be like Bateson is kinda dumb.  Bateson completely misunderstood both Galton's theory (which he attempted to build upon) and the consequences of the discovery of mendelian heredity.  Goldschmidt misunderstood this as well.  Davison is a verified nutcase, there is nothing to see there (I love it so!).

The 'tree of life' is more likely a web.  Bush is perhaps a bit better, but the strict bifurcating model is a bit simplistic because we KNOW that lateral gene transfer is important, not only in bacteria world but in plants and animals (see sunflower example I provided, check out the 50 years of research on Louisana iris hybridization)

You can get out of actually reading any of this, just stop and think about what happens at any branch on the tree:  if lineages split automatically and completely (which they don't, Schindewolf and Bateson and the saltationists were mostly wrong), then you have a branch.  But if the bifurcation takes any amount of time whatsoever, in a sympatric or parapatric population with gene flow, then you have a reticulating pattern.  We know this happens because gene trees show coalescence when considering multiple markers.  We also know this happens from many many many studies in nature:  pay attention and stop whining about the democratic fallacy.  (See Grant and Grant Science 296 Apr 2002).

Trees are NOT THEORETICAL GODDAMMIT.  They are measured relationships from data.  Don't bog the discussion down with whether or not there are theory-free observations.  You have already stated your prediction from common design (lungfish more related to trout), and it is demonstrably wrong.  The burden is upon you to disprove our theory of heredity and to show how these gene trees are incorrect.  I predict you will start pissing and moaning about renegade crackpot biologists from the early 20th century.

Date: 2007/09/27 11:31:09, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Paging Dr Pangloss, paging Dr Pangloss.

posterior predictions are always 100%.

Date: 2007/09/27 11:34:49, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
So, when we see that 'time since introduction' is one of the most potent predictors of the spread of an introduced species, we are not really saying anything since the universal wave function of quantum effects make time nonsensical?  

I find your ideas fascinating and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.  

Woo Woo!!!  Woo Woooooooooooo!!!

Date: 2007/09/27 14:45:05, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
No, I don't agree that 'no role' is even the issue.  We are discussing the relative importance of selection and internal constraints.  And I think you know that which is why you refuse to address the question.

One More Time:

Now, where the hell do orthogenetic channels come from?  Are they material in origin, or not?  

You have misrepresented even your own literary sources to make assertions that natural selection plays no role in coloration.  There are two questions here, namely 1) origin of patterning and 2) fixation of patterning in populations.  

You routinely jump between questions 1 and 2 either because you are dishonest or because you don't even understand what you are [not] saying.  answer the questions.

[stage whisper]  me thinks VMartin is Alan Sokal in deep cover.

Date: 2007/09/27 14:51:24, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
VMartin, so you do not believe in the material theory of particulate inheritance?  This is what your obfuscation boils down to.  

If you have a better theory of inheritance, let's hear it.

[stage whisper]  His brain vat fluid is getting low and interrupting his interface with the Matrix.  Somebody pee in it!

Date: 2007/09/27 14:56:33, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
qetzal if that is true it further entails that either consciousness is not a property of organisms or that it is a property of matter.


Date: 2007/09/27 15:01:26, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Just read upthread, don't be mad TP k?

We all take the piss.  Woo-wear is just something that is easy to piss on.  I will never say that it's wrong.  It's not even wrong.  I mean, have you ever really looked at your hand?  

Date: 2007/09/27 15:22:36, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
VMartin more dishonesty.  Every appeal to anti-selection you have made has been straight from the german school.  This school has two camps:  materialist and mystic.

Where does aposematic coloration come from?  

Remember this is two questions:  I think you are interested in the primary (from where does the coloration or patterning arise).  This is not a selective issue.  Your antiselectionist lit examples (convenient how your best stuff 'is not available in english', eh?) that i am familiar with posit channels or furrows of development that are more or less hard wired.  

The question 'how does mimicry become fixed in populations' is clearly answered by selection.  While I could be convinced otherwise and sometimes have, I find it hard to believe you could be so thick as to deny this.

So, back to the question.  Where does aposematic coloration come from?  I wanna hear it.  Mind precedes matter and butterflies think it into existence?  Or is it a spandrel?

Date: 2007/09/27 15:24:28, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

Why do hybrid butterflies exhibit intergrading wing patterns?

(see Heliconias, Lyceades)

If it is heritable it is selectable, buffoon.

Date: 2007/09/27 15:31:23, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
AFDave, try out

you'll love it.  but they won't let you spam it so you might find it boring.

Date: 2007/09/28 07:06:13, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
daniel's inherent belief as humans distinct and set apart from nature is showing.

cities aren't really the wild, eh?

the edges of deserts aren't really the wild, eh?

tropical oceans aren't really the wild, eh?

a grove of paw paws aren't really the wild, eh?

daniel, natural selection shapes POPULATIONS.  castle showed that selection modified populations beyond the 'regression to the type' that you seem to believe in.  Other than it being a trivial mathematical exercise, you have no reason for continuing to suppose that selection is not a creative force when supplied with a panoply of diversity.  

otherwise, all you are left with is 'The Designer has an inordinate fondness for beetles' and 'The designer likes wolves so much he made a marsupial knockoff model' (that is false from any systematic perspective but since you, like a five year old and VMartin, seem to be stuck on your perception of phenotypes perhaps it makes sense).

and as RBill keeps hammering, your 'design' model is consistent with ANY POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE OBSERVATION.  IT SAYS NOTHING.

Date: 2007/09/28 07:12:24, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
since you seem to be driven by mystical considerations of phenotypes, we can safely dispense with 2 and 3 here.  i'm interested in why things look like other things when they are not those things, and i'm calling that mimicry.

otherwise you are playing stupid semantical games where something is impossible by definition.  i'm not interested in that type of trolling so don't bother.

some beetles and spiders mimic ants (read:  look just damn like them and live in ant nests).  how did this happen, according to VMartin.  Note "not by the natural selection, you frustrated darwinist materialist from ATBC" is not an answer.

Date: 2007/09/28 13:32:56, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Ahhhhhhhh catch a whiff of the postmodernist fundie revolution!

It's our philosophies that differ!  Narcissus at his mirror could  aught but agree.  

Christopher I have not met you but I wonder what your philosophy of science is. Do tell.

Date: 2007/09/28 15:40:19, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
It's not just to other ants.  An ant expert in my lab has been fooled for over an hour by ant mimic beetles, trying to figure just what subfamily the thing is in only to realize sheepishly the source of the problem.

It is utterly ridiculous to suppose that ants could be mislead by "mimics" from spider species.

But that is what happens, stupid troll.  Most ants attack everything in the nest that is not a member of their colony.  The beetle slips through because THEY THINK HE IS AN ANT.

I watched monomorium ants from two colonies fighting it out on the sidewalk for ten minutes this morning.  Pretty cool.  

VMartin trolleth:
Do not make fool of yourself. Do you consider resemblance of marsupial and placental wolf as mimicry? Which one is a model and which one is a mimic?

Do you consider butterflies living in Asia and those with similar wing color patterns living in Africa for mimicry?    

Think before you write something. Point 2 and 3 are as important as point 1 is.

These things don't have anything to do with your points 2 and 3.  

Now, answer.  Where the hell do phenotypes come from if they are not heritable?  

I swear to god this is alan sokal getting kicks.

Date: 2007/09/28 15:45:52, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
An omnipotent omnisexual omnipresent omniscient being.  It's just that his goober Soooooooooo Big you better call him Father or he will spear you with it.

Date: 2007/10/02 09:48:08, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
OK so I will grant you legitimacy of your metaquestion, what does it matter if you don't beleeeeve in evolution, can you still do soil science or pest control management?  Sure.  Can you do biology?  Maybe but I doubt it.  I don't know any YEC biologists but I do know a fair number of theistic evolutionists.

YEC is a farily large obstacle to doing anything that even remotely refers to reality.  With the exception of engineering, of course, but I think that is my point.  Want to study geology?  YEC is a shot in the big toe with a .50 caliber slug.  Wish to study ecology?  Fixity of species is voluntary castration.  Taxonomy or systematics?  Last I had heard Kurt Wise was getting nowhere with baraminology and my guess is he won't be anytime soon (hint:   'remotely refers to reality').  Wanna be a paleontologist?  You'll never find the pre-flood sediments so that's a wash (hint:  see above).  

Casting your lot with a young earth and the rest of the hokum that goes along with it doesn't by default keep you from doing biology.  I suppose you could study the mechanical aspects of animal locomotion, but you'd never understand your system with respect to other systems without the overwhelming realization that things are related by common descent.  It will keep you from being able to deal with ideas that don't fit in your mythology, and tends to increase the likelihood of crankitude.

Date: 2007/10/02 09:48:56, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Oh I will take back soil science.  I don't know a single YEC soil scientist.  Duh Flud doesn't make sense when you look at dirt.  Anywhere.

Date: 2007/10/02 09:53:53, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Schindewolf and the german school are at best mechanist idealists.  They see forms as internally generated by biochemical and physical restraints.  Many of these guys had a completely material theory, but some of them did not.  

Gould says that they have received a bad rap, and that there is an underlying reality to the idea that evolution has constraints.  Of course this is true, but I don't think it is true in the sense that Daniel means it.

Daniel, if you believe that species are not fixed entities (maybe you don't, I dunno, you tell me) then what is the barrier to speciation as an explanation for everything?

Date: 2007/10/02 10:09:04, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
They even "THINK"? Really? Did't you make some naive antropomorphism to support your ridiculous concept of mimicry and it's protective value?

You fool, you believe that only humans think?  Do you think visual display is the only sort of mimicry?  What is your point anyway, other than making an ass out of yourself?

you do not know that in nests is dark and that ants use their antennae to check each other. You would  continue to spread nonsense about ant mimics which visionaly look like ants. It should give them protection by your flawed logic - but no one know protection against what.

Speaking of anthropomorphic projection, what is dark to you is dark to all?  Someone should tell the burrowing salamanders.  I have seen spiders beetles and hemiptera that look just like ants and that live in ant colonies.  I would love to hear your explanation for why that is so.  If you want to yammer on and on about directed mutations please do so but realize there is not one single shred of evidence for such things.  With a few exceptions most working biologists have realized that many things are invisible to selection and not every feature of the natural world has been forged in the fire of selection.  See 'Spandrels and homage to Santa Rosalia' silly fool.

Date: 2007/10/03 10:32:37, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Martin you of course are whistling past the graveyard where your 'instinct' and my 'think' lie intertwined as mutually inclusive explanations for animal behavior.  

Otherwise, it is just instinct that is causing you to be an obnoxious troll and not answer questions that folks are dying to hear.  

Or just instinct for you to do anything else you do.  Or a dog.  Or an amoeba.  Or an ant.  Or Leviathan.

Or are humans different, martin?  Is that where we are going?  animals and plants use instinct, men think?  

Now, ants don't live in anthills all the time.  So surely they see sometimes (or perhaps the Designer guides them around like sparrows).  Anthills are probably not entirely dark.  I'm not making a positive point here, just pointing out that yours is stupid and irrelevant.  

Now listen up, troll.

You say natural selection plays no role whatsoever in mimicry.  WHAT DOES???

If by whatever reason, a mimicry arises that does confer selective advantage, then selection will fix that mimicry.

When you claim that selection cannot account for mimicry, then you claim that mimicry by definition is the result of natural selection, you are setting up straw men that you seem to enjoy tearing down.  Trolling is fun.  No doubt.  But you haven't added anything to the discussion.

We are waiting to hear how mimicry arises, according to the world famous well-published well-read VMartin.  You can play semantic games from the position of the german school all day long, but the mechanisms of heredity are against you when you claim that selection can't fix it in a population.

Date: 2007/10/03 13:56:31, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
oooooooh Carpus delecti

Date: 2007/10/03 14:37:48, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Hey, no fair, you weren't there!!!

What a lame excuse for apology.

If that is all it boils down to, then you should understand what this forum is all about.  

Belly Laughs!


Date: 2007/10/03 15:03:51, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

Date: 2007/10/03 15:14:18, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
you tell me what is what above.  

when ant mimicking spiders mimic ant behavior (including stroking them with their fore legs, which look to us like antennae) i think it is a safe call.

your point 2 is spurious for several reasons.  current survival advantage says nothing about past survival advantage.  

further there are many difficulties associated with measuring the selection costs directly.  many of them logistic.  some theoretical (what to measure).  

see Bumpus 1899 for a good example of how it might be done cheaply and simply.  Or don't.

point 3 is stupid in the same way.  You'd have to know the genetic basis of mimicry, and no one knows that yet.  Or you'd have to measure selection during the time which the mimicry character became fixed.  

So, it still stands that you define mimicry out of the picture with your 3 points.  Under your definition, it can't be mimicry because it can't be mimicry.  

All Science So Far!!!

still waiting for your explanation, suckah.

Date: 2007/10/03 15:16:25, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Hydrochloric Acid Shake Breakfasts.

If it was good enough for JBS Haldane, tis good enough for this bard.

I love it so!!!

Date: 2007/10/03 16:07:22, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I can see them.

Wanna bet that Martin acts like he can't?

Date: 2007/10/07 10:03:06, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

go here for someone who has reviewed the cases of spiders that are ant mimics.  If you are at the public library computer you may be able to download it, but if you are sitting under the bushes in your neighbors backyard pirating bandwith from their wireless you may not get JSTOR.  

but simply put there is a shitpile of evidence for morphological and behavioral mimicry adaptations.  

and you still never said WHAT YOUR OPINION IS about how mimicry arises.  Dishonest asshole.

Date: 2007/10/10 07:36:31, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Daniel we know people make things like stonehenge.

What designer do we know of that makes cells and platypi and the grand canyon?  People?  Or something else?  I'll wait for your answer.

(sound of wind in trees)
(child farts)
(somewhere a rooster is screwing a guinea hen)
(old men die and babies born)
(cells divide under my toenails)
(republican senator somewhere taps his foot in a bathroom stall)
(snake eats a bullfrog)
(grandmaw fiddles 'Liberty' while dancing on a piece of plywood)
tick tock tick tock

That's Right!!!!  We don't know of any such designer!!!  You Lose!!!

Date: 2007/10/10 14:41:44, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
yeah martin is playing semantical silly-buggers, obvious from his 3 part definition of mimicry.

martin when you have something interesting to say about mimicry i'll be listening.  until then i will remain convinced that you are either 1) an idiot, 2) deep cover troll or 3) both.

why don't you tell us how freshwater mussels don't mimic oligochaetes to disperse glochidia onto fish.  that'd be another riot.

if the opportunity arouses, that is.

Date: 2007/10/10 17:20:09, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Yes by all means count me in.

I say otherwise, dickhead

Date: 2007/10/10 22:58:42, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

yeah, i'd of...

i think you meant "I'd have" you ignorant fool.

just pray about it, dearie.  after all, that is unfalsifiable.

Date: 2007/10/11 08:17:09, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
ftk what part of 'not irreducible after all' do you not understand?

i'm beginning to give you a little credit, perhaps you are not dishonest you just ain't that bright thar lil lady.

Date: 2007/10/12 07:42:00, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
hell yeah, all you need to know is how to type RM and NS with + and = in there at some point and you are a goldang evolutionary biologist.  heck, you don't need to know nuthin' bout any kinda plant or animal, all you have to do is sacrifice your soul to Satan and deny that it exists.  Everyone in my bible study group knows that.

bunch of materialists, anyone without those blinders on is automatically a better biologist than they are including billy graham the second greatest biologist ever only to jesus h christ.

Date: 2007/10/13 13:07:04, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I'd just rather assume that everyone had read Hume and Kant's criticism of arguments from design.  It is rather strange that 200 years later rudimentary errors in reasoning continue to perpetuate themselves.  as fascinating as 'the complexity of life and nature' is, it is only evidence for 'the complexity of life and nature'.

category errors and crap analogies irritate me.  is that waspish?

Date: 2007/10/16 13:21:36, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
these idiots are not not only denying common descent but the genetic basis for adaptation.

where will it end?

Mendelian inheritance is a godless conspiracy?  (note, we have already had that sort of controversy 100 years ago, sans the godless part).

i'm currently trying to nail a creo (preacher, no less) to the wall over exactly WHAT do you measure to flesh out the claim 'no new information ever arises, only degradation of information' with regards to evolution.  of course he is a YEC.

anyone got a top ten (or five) list of reasons why this claim is stupid?  i'm up to seven or eight but you know it is so easy to wave that away with a flourish of a well-manicured hand.

Date: 2007/10/17 13:26:27, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
NO ONE ELSE HAS FOUND PINE POLLEN IN THE GRAND CANYON.  Even most creationists conclude that Burdick's samples were contaminated.  That's the most charitable conclusion.

Gentry never even was able to prove that his 'haloes' were from Polonium.  I read his little book because he was affiliated with an institution affiliated with mine.  I was amazed at how shiny he could polish a turd.  To his credit I do believe that he thought he was onto something, and the fact that no one else agreed (sans one senile old gentleman he relies heavily on for justification) should tell you something.  After all, any scientists would love to upset the status quo in any directions (the contrived conspiracy theory he and you suggest is another example of your flawed arguments from consequences).

If Jesus is the only thing keeping you from robbing pillaging raping and killing then by all means keep after it.  But that is a rather sad statement about your own morality and it's a pretty good snapshot of the guilt + cognitive dissonance syndrome that aptly describes modern fundagelicals.

Date: 2007/10/17 13:36:21, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Thanks for the list of refutations.  I think I have used most of them already except for the reciprocal base pair substitution example.  That's a good'un.

This guy is such a dope that he ignores the questions anyway, wants to argue about how the spirit of the Lard killed 185000 Malachites in their sleep or something yet no historians ever noted it but the bible is true and you are a sinner.  toodles

Date: 2007/10/17 16:39:31, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

586.  by SAVEDBYGRACE 10.17.07 at 3:20 pm

“Graceless” - I thought I’ve been very gracious on this blog considering the attacks

You do realize that you are swearing at a man of the cloth?

I was spending time defending the Biblical record which I find much more important.

Ok, I give. Your right. I’m wrong. Wow - a first for this blog! New information can be created by some genetic mutations. And your point?

apologies for posting on the UD thread.  we have no general tard mine thread.

Date: 2007/10/22 09:07:58, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
can anyone repost the page link to all the various impending doom predictions for 'darwinism' that was up here a week or so ago.  can't find it in the memory hole.  

i think it was stevestory

Date: 2007/10/22 09:11:09, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
never mind, it was louis and i found it on the FTK thread.

Date: 2007/10/23 12:13:29, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
What is true is that Hitler made any assertion he could make to tighten his grip on power.  He also claimed many many times to be a man of God, the one true church, following Christ, Martin Luther, etc.  You accepting and parroting the evolution claim about Hitler doesn't convince me that you are NOT some kind of idiot.  

Differences in mean values of traits in populations doesn't say ANYTHING ABOUT MORE OR LESS EVOLVED.  that is another stupid comment.  It doesn't matter what Watson said, 'more or less evolved' is not part of it.

Did you think that the Count in the Princess Bride had a mutation 'in it's brain' to know how to use six fingers?  Do you really think spiders 'know' anything?  That would certainly be an interesting conversation, and please let's take it there.  That is not a position I usually hear creos taking, since it is implicit in their scheme that the world was created for man and animals are mindless automata.

Analogies are ultimately nonsensical.  You may alternately call them Lies.  But as a wise TA once told me as an undergrad, Models are lies that help us see the truth.  And you mistake the model for reality.

As for how we should politely and nicely debunk AIG, why?  There is tons of crank pseudoscience out there.  Chopping the heads off Hydra just gives you tendonitis.  You have to starve it to death.

Date: 2007/10/23 14:41:49, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I wanna hear more about easing up and down the pole.

Thanks!!  K bai

Date: 2007/10/25 13:24:06, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
who said christians can't be scientists?  no one.

now, it does make it difficult, for people who believe against all evidence that the earth is 6000 years old or that an old drunk floated a giant tugboat full of monkeys rhinoceri kangaroos and beetles around the globe for a year, to be a scientist.  but you could always be an engineer.

and there is absolutely nothing keeping someone from being a science teacher, even if in their own mind, and repeating false religiously inspired crap assertions to young impressionable minds.  except you can't do it in public school anymore, legally.


by the way, WTF do you mean by vestigial organs and Lamarck?  not sure if you know.

Date: 2007/10/25 17:32:01, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
These people don't even realize that this debate was settled one hundred years ago amongst biologists, with a few glaring exceptions (see the C Gieschen thread where he invokes Schindewolf, and the VMartin thread where he blithers on and on about things that absolutely contradict the fact of Mendelian inheritance among other things).

I suppose one hundred years behind is not too bad, when they were working from the Ussher rubric (not that all of them have given that up) it was a bit further.

What will tards (in whatever manifestation creationism is working from then)  be questioning 75 years down the road?  I can't even imagine.

Date: 2007/10/25 17:39:18, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

animals also make polyploid species.  Since you are quite obviously determined to be dense, I'll let you look up examples.  Needless to say, your dusty old book has failed you again.

If you don't know by now about horizontal transfer of genetic material by both prokaryotes and eukaryotes, why even bother trying to educate someone who has determined that they are going to be stupid?  

There is quite a bit of OBSERVED (not inferred) evidence for this sort of thing.  Again, you'll never hear about it from AIG or ICR or any of the other lying shamans you bow to.

Date: 2007/10/25 18:43:53, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
BWE that is some deep tard.  I salute you sir.

Date: 2007/10/29 12:47:00, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Yeah hero, I just was overcome by your calculations and fell down upon my knees and received forgiveness.  

Now I'm not sure if I can lose it or not.  Is it true that God cannot see our sins when we are covered by the blood of Jesus, or must we continually seek redemption.  Cause, uh, it has a lot to do with my plans for later on this evening.  thanx k bai.

Date: 2007/10/29 13:22:46, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
thanks RTH.  I needed a laugh!

exactly what ID theorists predicted - next to nothing

All Science So Far!!!

Date: 2007/10/29 20:09:49, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
mutation of DNA is directed by some mechanisms that I am not aware of. Do you know anything about these mechanisms?

do you?  RB has postulated the existence of tiny little dudes called 'Behes' that snip away at Things with directions from Thing-Think upstairs.  Is that how you view evolution?  

of course random means unplanned, random with respect to an organism's 'need'.  

of course it's not 'random' as in 'anyfuckingthingcouldhappenhere'.

what can happen is constrained by what has happened.  what can happen is constrained by what could happen.  read gould and the river analogy.  and stop being redundantly ignorant

Date: 2007/10/30 07:53:00, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Hey, I live in a logarithmic universe.  It is one thing that we can truly deduce about the designer and not just infer.  He is a power function.

Date: 2007/10/30 12:10:00, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

Your sentence above: "what can happen is constrained by what has happened " is an extraordinary vague darwinian nonsense.

I suppose we could substitute your preference:

Date: 2007/10/30 12:29:43, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I looked up Neubauer.  Wonder why none of his 'Rivista' articles have ever been cited?

Could it be because the magical 'morphogenetic field' is a kooky harebrained idea with no evidence behind this?

Hasn't PZ spanked you enough about this?

Date: 2007/10/30 12:35:05, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Martin are you the translator for the wiki german page into english?

Another time and again in Port's research and publications occurring theme is the external shape of animals, particularly in his work "The animal shape", "camouflage in the animal kingdom" and "New Ways of biology." Portland man is here already to his lifetime hotly disputed theory that the design of the surface is not readily from their adaptive value annulled. S His empirically and theoretically well criticism of extremely adaptionistischen ideas is currently also for those left to deal with his concept of "presentation value" is not liked.

Date: 2007/10/30 13:00:51, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
If it was worth a damn, in 2007, it would be translated.  This is not a monk growing peas here.

Martin, is there a material explanation for your 'morphic fields'?  If not, why do you disagree with your german structuralist predecessors who were strongly convinced that there WAS a material explanation?

Gould is not as hard on them as he could have been.  I wonder if you understand why that is.

More of Vicky's shenanigans, elsewhere, same effect

Date: 2007/10/30 13:16:01, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
High Five.

I am unrepentantly Un-Reconstructed.  There are more of us than you think.  Most of us play banjos and fiddles* and know how to find ramps under the snow.  We will reclaim our birthright once we get through the SHF Bottleneck***, as there won't be many survivors from the Reconstructed throngs.  And we will eat their children.  With wild asparagus and indian cucumber garnish.

*  Nothing like reinforcing stereotypes for shits and giggles.**

**  It's also true

***  You know it's coming. ****

****  Disembodied Telic entity help me I'm typing like Louis.

Date: 2007/10/30 14:36:33, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
That makes me...

I mean, I throb at the thought....

what i am trying to say is that it's a lot sweatier than...

oh hell never mind.

Date: 2007/10/30 14:49:11, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
your 'models' are just based on 'facts' anyway.  

right martin?

Do you disbelieve in heredity, you dishonest coward?

If so, admit it.

Date: 2007/10/31 15:53:25, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Well, Vicky, you better get cracking on those translations.  You have a conspiracy to overthrow.

Interesting how you neglect my questions about your view of the source of heredity.  the german school had to fight particulate inheritance because it was the empirical finding that destroyed their theory.  in 40 years one may forget that sort of thing.

Date: 2007/10/31 18:31:51, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
So, you have no alternative, yet you know it is none of the posited factors that are responsible for whatever it is you are disputing at the moment?

C'mon Vicky.  Unload that high octane tard on me.  I wanna hear about morphic fields.  Tell me what you know, and I'll hush until you are done.  I'm dying inside to know just what is wrong with these materialists darwinistsists selectionists adaptationists whateverists.

Date: 2007/10/31 18:32:39, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Walking past a derelict bum on the sidewalk that is in the process of shitting on himself is not 'running away' Vicky.

Now man up and deal with the issue.

Date: 2007/11/01 08:14:20, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Much work, huh?

Listen asshole, the world is your oyster.  Get out there and 'do all this much work' your god damn self.  You know wny you won't?  Because your are full of it.

You don't even have an alternative hypothesis.  You don't even understand the nature of selection pressure, for you have an a priori commitment to arguing that it doesn't exist. You don't even grasp the mendelian nature of most character inheritance.  

You are a joke.  The fact that some birds eat some wasps sometimes doesn't mean a single thing that you say that it does.  

<shrug> <shrug> <shrug>

fuck off.

Date: 2007/11/01 12:02:18, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I mean, like, after all, one explanation is as good as another, right?

Aren't we ALL just trying to explain the world?  Like, in our own ways and stuff?

Just because you have presuppositions that you have not dealt with yet (I mean, like, c'mon, 'k, all you evilutionists are atheists.  'sup with that?) doesn't mean that you are like more right than me.  

I'm sooooooo over facts.  Just ask Walt Brown.

Date: 2007/11/01 15:42:34, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Tim is a Tard

To order is to select, to select implies meaning, meaning implies understanding, understanding requires discernment.

So, what is the meaning or understanding (not to mention discernment) of fluvial sorting?  Surely the particles in a stream bed can tell us something about Yahweh.  I mean the designer.

(how do you douchebags do the strikeout text thingy?)

Date: 2007/11/01 16:01:11, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
thanks douchebag!!!

alas you missed the promotion.  check out albies new stripes              

Date: 2007/11/01 16:19:49, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
It's easy, everyone needs a foil to pull off their act.  Abbott had Costello.  Balki had Larry.  The Intelligent Designer has SATAN.

Date: 2007/11/01 19:54:21, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

It was Haldane.  You know even less than you think.

Date: 2007/11/01 20:43:30, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
The rampant stupidity on this thread has finally convinced me fully that there is nothing worth a damn on UD.  

Except for laughing at!


Date: 2007/11/02 08:17:55, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
That's the part I can't understand...  you would have to deny the existence of a fitness landscape in toto in order for their criticisms to apply in any sense whatsoever.  I haven't seen anyone over there make this statement directly.  What's up with that?

There is a much more informed criticism of fitness landscapes (we don't know the totality of factors that comprise real fitness) but that's not their point.

Date: 2007/11/02 10:14:31, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Meet Bart Davis.  Wonder if it will get posted.

I have been a creationist for many years after realizing that the bible was true and that man-made science could not explain the bigger questions, like Why are We Here?  and What are We?  And I realized that the bible gave the best explanations for these questions.  That is all fine and good...

Until I entered a university and enrolled in a biology department.  I was told by professor and TA after professor and TA that my views were stupid and were not accepted by the scientific community.  Although I expect to be rejected by men and be unpopular for carrying the cause of Christ it still stung.  

When I offered to defend my views using the bible, I was told that it does not apply.  These darwinists want to stamp out all dissent and try to discredit the Word of God because they hate the idea that God created them.  The bible tells all about this.  When I told them that their 'evidence' was just rocks and ideas based on things that they could measure then they laughed at me and I lost my composure.

Now I am an engineer and doing very well for myself.  I try to stay out of the debate but in my Sunday School class I have free reign to teach children in the way that they should be brought up, so when they have to face the forces of the world they will be prepared to be ridiculed and hated for standing up for Jesus.

Date: 2007/11/02 10:20:13, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

Date: 2007/11/02 14:02:17, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
God that is a tardfest.

Why don't batshit77's nannyfilters kick in over there?

JAM you are one crazy dude.  I don't have the tard tolerance you do buddy.  Hats Off!!!

Date: 2007/11/02 14:22:18, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Louis you homo, everyone knows limeys are more incestuous than us good old god fearin shoot first take a drink o likker then axe questions hillbillies.  I would never have considered dating one of my first cousins

just look at your royal family!  why, that ain't no tree that thar is a horsehair worm!

where is the last branch?  I'm guessing somewhere around the gay one.  oops that could be most of them.

Date: 2007/11/04 06:57:09, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

beat it kid.

no seriously, some men you just can't reach.  so you have what we had here today.  he wants it.  he gets it.  and i don't like it any more than you do.  

this is mostly an arena for laughing at uncommon descent, and the rest of it is for poking fun at other tards or discussing general topics while making as many in jokes and quadruple entendres as one can humanly stand.

and by the way arden is gay.

Date: 2007/11/04 10:09:11, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

hey man, as I am absolutely positive you are aware, someone once said 'Ye shall judge them by their fruits'.  the fruits of VMartin have been petulant nonsense.  

However, if he or anyone else actually submits ideas for consideration, no one here will laugh them off prima facie.  the laughing it off comes from a dogmatic insistency against all evidence.  read the threads.  VMartin, daniel smith, chris gieschen, FTK, AFDave, Davison, and the rest of the cranks here cannot deal with the evidence pertaining to their ideas.  

remember what Thomas Paine said.  the hobgoblins of small minds abound.

welcome, hope you stick around long enough to see what is going on here.

by the way, mocking other people's thoughts, when those thoughts are demonstrably wrong, will get you very very very far in science.  PM me and i'll give you some examples.

Date: 2007/11/04 13:19:02, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
i'd rather hear nothing from martin than for him to continue with the loony shuffle he has had going on here for several months.  it is quite simple...  he has a better idea?  let's hear it.  that has been a chant from our quarters for some time now.  let's hear it.  marty, let's hear it.

but all we hear is 'frustrated darwinists materalists from ATBC' and then some goofy pictures of some ant somewhere.  and that bullshit gets old.  

and yes, you are concern trolling.  i believe you have seriously underestimated the entertainment value of this forum.  unclench.

Date: 2007/11/04 13:20:15, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
martin did you not pay any attention to the experimental results up thread where bids ate wasps, then avoided them thereafter?  i don't think you were.  perhaps someone will translate it into german for you.

Date: 2007/11/04 13:21:01, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
and your theory is?  what experiments could you do to falsify it?

Date: 2007/11/04 13:22:52, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
and the difference is?  

are you still struggling to understand what heredity is?

tell us about the morphic fields marty.

Date: 2007/11/04 13:25:06, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Schindewolf's theories were devastated by particulate inheritance and the mathematical synthesis.  

it makes no sense whatsoever to have reserve genetic material, in advance of adaptive radiations, sitting around in the genome.

unless we now have a function for noncoding DNA?  not seen that advanced but it would still be a greatly different take from schindewolf.

Date: 2007/11/04 13:26:28, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
friend don't confuse this forum with science.  

many of us are scientists.  many are not.

Date: 2007/11/04 21:17:12, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I’ve seen this tactic over and over again, Darwinists, when nailed hard with hard empirical evidence, will obfuscate with peripheral evidence that hasn’t been brought into full light yet,,, Thus, in my experience on the web, I keep their feet in the fire by repeatedly returning to the many evidences that are conclusively proven. They continually try to hide in the shadows of peripheral data and, when I hit them with more hard empirical facts, they squirm uncomfortably in the light of thoroughly understood data,,,LOL,,,,kinda of sinister of them don’t you think,,,LOL

So for some unsolicited advice from me,, don’t be afraid of their fancy shadowy rhetoric and keep dragging them back into the light of what is thoroughly understood.

where the hell is k.e.?

that is the gayest thing i have ever heard.  not, louis, that there is anything wrong with that.  of course.  some of my best friends.... erm never mind.

but, for all the hard hard nailing and hard squirming when pressing hard against the hard evidence.... sup with that anyway?

Date: 2007/11/04 21:29:55, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
well assassin be prepared for the whole show.  rhetorically he has the ESL thing down to a fine point and he milks it for every last drop of effect including playing dumb.  i love it so!!!  and for the record i think martin is a deep cover troll and it is probably a biologist getting his kicks like making prank calls or jacking off in seventh grade.  so if that is true, and i work from the hypothesis that it is, i'm waiting for the next level of tard.  i hope the actor known as VMartin is working on something new for us, maybe get past the pictures of ants and wasps.  and tell us more about morphic fields, which i know he wants to get into and is scared to.

Date: 2007/11/05 10:27:27, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
you could try here

here is one where background contrast is important in affecting attack rates

here is another one showing decreased attacks and predator learning

Now, the whole point of this is to demonstrate that there is a selective advantage to being noxious or cryptic, even if there is still a mortality risk.  your totalitarian view of selection, ie that if you occasionally get eaten then there is no benefit to being cryptic or noxious, is a strawman.  the real world (you should get out and see it sometime) is hypervariable in time and space.  

i'm not interested in your juvenile bitching about experimental design.  if you think that there are operational biases in these experiments, redo them yourself.  otherwise you are just handwaving and ejaculating puerile bafflegab.

and you still haven't offered an alternative hypothesis.  troll.

Date: 2007/11/06 06:15:27, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
i thought for a while, perhaps he is working on some new material.  but then it never 'materialized' and we got the same posts full of the same crap that he was unloading on EVC and i have pretty much forgotten about Martin having anything intelligent to say.

If you understand the papers that are not translated to English, Vicky, please share those points with us.  Since, uh, you are holding all that knowledge, it is your responsibility.

If you have criticisms of a scientific theory, it is only reasonable to proffer an alternative theory.  We are waiting for your take.  With bated breath.  And some of us have bait breath.

If all you have is a bunch of stupid nonsequitor blithering, by all means, i get a kick out of that too.  It's kinda like going down to the center and beating up retards, though, a guilty pleasure.  But, the world is your oyster.

Assassinator, ready to start swearing yet buddy?  Stick around....

Date: 2007/11/06 06:20:30, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I love to see the fundie meet the eugenicist.

Pole Greaser and Ray Martinez, I salute you.  You made me laugh, and just when i thought there was no one dumber, you were there.  

Race to the bottom, mouth breathers!!!!

Date: 2007/11/06 10:23:45, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
well it seems to me that he's got it all wrong.


What's there:  Chocolate.

Question:  Why does it taste so good with peanut butter and not so good with tiny balls of shit?

Prediction:  If the Universe is designed 6000 years ago by an unknown designer who is Yahweh then we would expect such a designer to wish us to know the difference between peanut butter and tiny balls of shit.

Prediction:  If Jesus died on the Cross after designing the universe then peanut butter and tiny balls of shit should taste different from each other anywhere in the Universe.

Test:  It's not my job to research on any of the systems in Darwin's Black Box or No Free Lunch, what with your evilutionist godless materialist not-understanding nested hierarchies as a function of the trinity worldview.  You find the pathetic level of detail required by your sternbergering  high priests orthodoxy clergy of peer review illuminati reptilian porn club.

Date: 2007/11/06 12:10:56, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
3rd prediction:  The disembodied telic being yahweh wants us to be amused, therefore we find this funny, thus proving that there was a garden of eden and that jesus rose from the dead.

Date: 2007/11/06 14:21:44, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
aposematic larvae had a survivorship 6.4x greater than cryptic forms and you say there is no advantage to survival?

God you are dumb.  in uninteresting ways.

martin, do you think you can find an eleven year old english speaker to read these papers to you?  if you can't even understand the science then it is rather pointless to talk about it.  of course, that has never stopped you before.  

if you can get past the abstract, then we can talk.  until then you have some reading to do troll.

Date: 2007/11/06 14:53:43, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
ftk dithered, after giggling and tossing her hair...
knowing full well that it would be a cold day in hell before ID would be allowed in mainstream peer-reviewed journals

and the reason for that is.....

wait for it....

ID has nothing scientific to say!

Phillip Johnson admits it.
At times Berlinksi admits it.
Dembski has said this out of one side of his mouth.
Behe has said as much, at least in regards to being taught in school (note that he hasn't tried to publish anything in journals either)

And of course, as we keep pointing out to you, IDers can't even PUBLISH THEIR OWN GODDAM JOURNAL.  

impervious to knowledge.  what ID books do your kids read again?  No Free Lunch?  bwahahahaha

Date: 2007/11/06 15:22:57, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

you apparently missed the part, while you were scanning the abstracts, that background contrast was a crucial part of the detection probability by predators.

We're waiting to hear your theory of inheritance, troll.

Date: 2007/11/06 15:40:55, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I don't know, you could, uh, read the paper.  You'll find out something about the gray form.  i don't think you care if you can't find it in the abstract.

what you will find is more devastating to your thesis that 'natural selection she do not exist but in the inferior minds of darwinismus stupido'.


Date: 2007/11/06 17:44:37, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
In all fairness, anything said about the IDCS would, and should, be derogatory in nature.

and IMO laced with profanity and invective.  and you should spit afterwards.

but thats just me.

Date: 2007/11/07 09:12:18, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Now wouldn't that be 'native' induction, since after all these folks are just immaterial souls trapped in a material universe.  or something similarly shamanistic.

Now, i think what the rabbit poop example does is give us a testable prediction from ID.  

This explains alot actually.  You see Jeebus made chocolate taste good and poop taste bad so we would not eat one anothers poop.  If jeebus had not made poop taste so bad we'd all sit around doing poop shots.

Thank you intelligent designer!

Conclusion: Jesus hates bunny rabbits.  Even the fluffy ones.

clearly, ID predicts that rabbit poop will taste like chocolate.  I am waiting for some UD volunteers to make this experiment happen.

Date: 2007/11/07 09:24:56, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Martin Castle and others showed that selection could change characteristics beyond the range of parental variation.  this was shown to be consistent with mendelian inheritance.  there were many biologists who fought this at the time, but lacked any mathematical rigor to their programs. fisher wright and haldane, among others, eliminated the confusion except for a few holdouts that could not assimilate their views into the evidence from statistical population genetics.

so, no one has ever showed that what you call 'artificial' selection is any different in principle from 'natural' selection.  many studies of N.S. provide incontrovertible evidence for the process in nature.  again, quantitative studies of pop genetics establish this over and over.

ploidy and lineage contact between genotypes or hybridizing species provides massive amounts of variation that is then fuel for selection.  we know this is true from literally thousands of studies involving oeneothera, irises, spartina, populus, quercus, pinus, silene, and many many many more.  also in Lycaeneid butterflies, Heliconia butterflies, Rana frogs and many reptiles (geckos invading Florida are a fine example).  also Jim roman european green crab invasion in gulf of maine.  the jury is not out.

now, the question 'how does mimicry arise' is not answered by these studies.  but you don't ask that question honestly, because conflate it with 'how would it be maintained'.  i don't know that anyone understands how mimicry arises, for the equation F(genotype)=a+ G(Phenotype) is not solved yet.  but in order for you to argue that mimicry can't be maintained requires that you deny everything that is known about heredity and mathematical demonstrations of natural selection.

be honest.  you want to know how 'mimicry' can arise, and we do too.  but denying the obvious in attempts to disclaim the evo-devo explanations is a wrong tack and it really pisses off anyone who is honestly approaching this question.

Date: 2007/11/07 14:02:05, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Ahhhh but there is a need to discuss this with me, Vicky, because you keep saying I am running away from the topic.  So please don't run away from my point, which is namely that you are conflating the origin and maintenance of mimicry, and secondly that for unknown reasons you seem to discount everything that is known about population genetics and heredity.

Make your case for abandoning those two fields and let us evaluate your claim.  Until then, popping in and vomiting nonsense on the thread is not making me believe you.  Or anyone else.  

I'm serious.  i want you to tell me about morphic fields or whatever magical german mystical mechanism you have that explains what darwinismus cannot.

Date: 2007/11/07 15:12:48, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
the problem of statistical population genetics play no role in the issue we are discussing now.

care to explain why?  this is exactly my point.  these models detail the maintenance of mimic forms.  but you are conflating the origin with the maintenance.

there are beetles living in caverns which look like ants but obviously the similarity was not induced by predators who avoid ants

this is irrelevant, since it may very well be the case that these species or immediate ancestors did live with ants.  so it is much less than obvious that what you say is true.

Since you have read Eimer and Heikertinger, why don't you give us the explanation that these authors propose?  why are you afraid to do this? i have asked you several times myself, and you never elaborate.  the number of pages is irrelevant, dembski has published thousands of pages of B.S. about NFL theorems, it hasn't helped him since he is wrong.

It's really easy to say 'oh, that was explained long ago, in a language you can't read, but i can, so i know that this is true and you are silly selectionist'.  that is what pisses me off.  if you know what they are talking about, share it.  otherwise i think you are lying.

Date: 2007/11/07 19:39:36, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
for those interested, Boudleaux Bryant also wrote 'Rocky Top'

Go Vols

Date: 2007/11/08 00:08:36, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I think the whole bloody lot is a few tards short of a dreck.

that's what i think about framing too, PZ.

Date: 2007/11/08 00:12:15, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
yeah you would say that, materialist chance-worshipper.  rothschild is a mason all are the same and you protect your own.  just like the apostle paul predicted, sodomites.  and i'm agnostic, homo.

Date: 2007/11/08 07:33:30, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
yeah, well Louis you could always go prancing back to one of your poofter sites.  i'm quite amazed at the audacity of some people 'round heyar thinking that they are going to 'get somewhere' with FTK or VMartin or any of the other dunder-ponces (your discussion with skeptic is boring, you've got him whupped and he knows it but plays along and that my friend is dumber than soccer).  

PERHAPS though I am wrong (oooh ooh ooh ooh i'll start a new thread and pontificate, sorry old chap enjoyed that other one sorta) and right now as we speak Martin is summarizing a manifesto that is both 1) not JAD's intellectual gonorrhea strain and 2)  that actually says something meaningful about continental opinions about selection and mimicry at the time of the synthesis.  i know very little about those things.  what i predict we will see, and this is the common thread between FTK and Vicky Martin, is lurking.... followed by chasing red herrings in an immediately prior post until the page flips, then fuhgeddaboutit.  you know the routine.

so, at long last, why you be fakin' the funk?  It's not like jesus is going to come down and say, hey stop being a vague and obfuscatory asshole, you vague and obfuscatory asshole.  some men you just can't reach.  and FTK i guess you technically still have a non-zero probability of being a man, the Ixplannatorie Filter ain't helping me out much here hon need some priors there sweetie k bai

Date: 2007/11/08 07:37:54, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

I despair I share a species

O plebeian, are you still beholden to such an antiquated ontology?  your philosophy is crude and your abstractions are obtuse.  when i converse with you, it is as if there is a gigantic drain in the floor where all the subtlety and savoir fare dribbles, just as rivers to the sea or piss into the corner.  and your butt stinks.

Date: 2007/11/08 07:42:33, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Cars don't have sex and make baby cars either.

You're just not worshipping hard chance hard enough, homo.  There is a 100% chance that in some alternate infinite number of universes that this happens all the time, and that is hard science and something about the Boltzman Brains and Arden's gay.  really hard

Date: 2007/11/08 07:44:27, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
no.  i just be playa hatin, suckah.  pimpin aint easy.  foerealdoeyouauldhoe.

Date: 2007/11/08 09:52:53, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
a few days ago, i smelled dogshit.  i said, 'god, who shit?'  then i turned and look and there was dog shit on the floor.  unlike the materialist SETI darwinist ebola boy, i recognized the CSI that God had just put into my floor to remind me of his omniscience and omnipotence in the form of shit.

Date: 2007/11/08 10:35:56, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I love women, I could probably rent myself out for stud service with my meso-morph qualities and northern IQ.  You're just jealous that thousands hundreds lots of women aren't calling you on the phone asking you to father their children.  by the way can you do the smiley face with the mustard on my baloney sandwich kristine?

Date: 2007/11/08 11:17:58, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
well i have faith that our precious little autodiddlyactor can just find hisself a few little ol articles in Scientific American that reference these things and he will be up snuff just as soon as you can type

10 Print "Dave is a tard"
20 Goto 10

Date: 2007/11/08 11:32:40, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
paging Dr Zachriel, paging Dr Zachriel

pssst nurse, he is in Post-Op.

Date: 2007/11/08 13:12:42, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I can't hold it together that long, but I salute Nochange.  I think.  But, on the other hand, I haven't been banned yet.  Mebbe I should jump in the fray, I need my badge.

Date: 2007/11/08 13:15:36, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Paul Nelson sighting!!!

Paul Nelson Viewing a topic in: After the Bar Closes... Nov. 08 2007,13:00

Hey paul, where'd you go?

Date: 2007/11/08 22:23:51, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
All Science So Far!!!

Date: 2007/11/09 14:03:50, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
we want people to hear from ID proponents themselves about what the theory is and what they are doing to research and promote it,” said Crowther.

Oh, so do we Rob Crowther, so do we.

by the way, what is 'the theory'?  seems like they keep having a never ending tardfight over whether or not ID is or is not YEC.  

see the comment in the TATA thread about darwinists making up 'deep time' so their theory works.

Date: 2007/11/09 14:10:18, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
if you examine the stomachs of 80,000 2 year olds you are going to find paper clips, pennies, feces, pot seeds, etc etc etc.  what does that prove?  here is a hint:  what is between 1 and -1?

so things that have aposematic coloring still get eaten sometimes.  you have yet to understand the math behind selection pressure.

but why don't you answer my questions?  you have repeated this comment before.  all you do is wave your hands and say Heikertinger disproved this.  how?  with 80,000 bird stomachs?  you are the one that can read german, why don't you post the data?

lions aren't protected by noxious chemicals and have no predators.  why don't they people the whole earth?  blue whales?  brown tree snakes?  grizzly bears?  bahhh.

Date: 2007/11/09 15:53:53, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
It seems to me that it is important to know the ratios of indi-
viduals eaten to the total population of the species before one uses this as critical evidence one way or the other.

from the review (not very favorable review, either, marty).  the argument that prey are taken in proportion to their abundance is pure conjecture.  heikertinger didn't measure the abundance of prey!  he just looked at bird guts.  you should go read Schoener for a better method.

here is a take home point as if that review were written JUST FOR YOU MARTIN:

The reader should not be misled bv the positive manner in which Mr. McAtee attempts to force his point throughout the paper. He denounces emphatically the theories of protective adaptations and Natural Selection, but offers no alternative explanations in their stead. If we are to discard these theories, as Mr. McAtee would have us do, we should appreciate having him give us substitutes as good or better than the ones discarded.

Sounds familiar, huh?  10 pages later and you still can't do it.

Now, let's hear it.

Date: 2007/11/09 17:29:51, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
your 'facts' aren't what you claim them to be.  that's the whole problem.

from what you posted, mcatee collected absolutely no data about the relative abundances of prey items in the bird stomachs.  

you can get nowhere from there.

now, if you have an alternate theory, let's hear it.  you don't have to accept anything, of course.  you are completely free in this world to be as dumb as you can make yourself.  

but you claim things are incorrect for reasons which turn out to be incorrect themselves.  that's a different story from the one you would wish to tell.

***edited 'heikertinger' to 'macatee'

Date: 2007/11/09 17:33:46, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
just like 'while i am not technically a YEC (the earth, IMO, is between 6000 and 6 billion years old) i can pragmatically appreciate what YEC have done for creationism.  and i love walt brown.  creation scientists are exactly what they are fighting.'

Date: 2007/11/09 18:12:01, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Martin why can't you deal with the facts?

Without knowing the relative abundance of prey, Macatee's assertion were just hand waving about bull shit.  

Further, averaging over the entire N America bird fauna doesn't tell you a goddam thing about why things were or weren't eaten.

the only thing, from the limited amount of information you have posted about it (I mean, come on, a book review that trashes the book you are claiming destroys Darwinismus?) Macatee could say is that aposematic forms are sometimes eaten.  And that is that.  And no one ever disputed that.

Now, I really wish you would tell me more about what these mystical formalists wrote about in your own f***** words and stop evading the point.

Date: 2007/11/09 18:13:50, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Assassin, it tells you that aposematic forms are sometimes eaten by birds.

That's it.

All of it.

It doesn't tell you anything more than that, and this is a point that we have never disputed.

Martin thinks it spells doom for Darwinismus materialist from ATBC.  I will reiterate, this guy is a deep cover troll.

Date: 2007/11/09 19:32:27, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
anyone else notice that all the videos on this Tard Of Fame are from the DI?

Yet, Johanne West, before he contracted malaria, claimed that this was not a DI site?

Liars for Jayeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesus

Date: 2007/11/09 21:39:07, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
You are obviously missing the main point. "Unpalatability" is a concept conceived in selectionists heads to support their explanation of aposematism. No such phenomenon as unpalatability of wasps or ladybirds exists in reality (what's more there are predators specialised to mentioned insects).
To extend human perceived unpalatability of wasps/ladybirds to other animal species is utterly unscientific. It's pure anthropomorphism.

here is a good example of VMartin lapsing into good English.

Martin, is there something you want to tell us?


Date: 2007/11/10 07:28:33, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
chicken bones mean dinosaurs sprout wings, give me a beak!!!!  bwayahahahaha

what happens when the model and the mimic become interchangeable????

hmmm, luv?

i'll be praying for you.  so will jesus.  kthxbai

Date: 2007/11/10 16:15:47, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Daniel, is Sal Cordova an ID'er or a Young Earth Creationist?

Are the two the same?

toodles, sweetums....

Date: 2007/11/11 00:07:26, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
"We"--well, mostly Arden, but that's not such bad company--keep repeating the same question to Vmaroon because through long association with a long line of creationist maroons of his ilk, "we" have learned that--unless you focus very narrowly and repeat yourself incessantly--you will never get a straightforward answer to a question.

Without getting an answer to Q. A, it is very difficult to move, in any kind of rigorous manner, on to Point B.

Creationists are past masters--though this is about all of which they are masters--of the Gish Gallop, of the evasive "response" which sounds vaguely like an answer, but which is not, immediately after which the subject is changed to some other stupidity, the problems with which will take much longer to elucidate than it did for the stupidity to be posed, and so on, and so on.

So please feel free to discuss wide-ranging matters with Vmaroon all you will.  But, in doing so, please understand why others here take a more tedious, but ultimately more satisfying, approach: while they may never get anything like an actual answer, the maroon's inability or unwillingness to answer becomes undeniably documented.

I love it so!!!

Date: 2007/11/11 07:36:24, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
martin the only point you have made is to be able to say that birds sometimes eat aposematic prey.  and we never claimed otherwise.

you routinely conflate the origin and maintenance of mimicry when it is convenient for you to play ignorant denier or uber-informed-formalistkiksiditidosorkitiestorthogenetiskeist.  stop it.

'senescence' of races or species is more typological bullshit 'species are individuals' nonsense philosophy.  it doesn't explain the data.  it's based on a simple statistical error, but thanks for the paper (it's a good reference for antiquated and incorrect arguments framed by post-victorian rhetoric and NO DATA.  good choice, it's a caricature of what you do here).  species are not individuals at all, and it is unclear what you think you gain by introducing that idea (for one it denies the vertical aspect of evolution).

Date: 2007/11/11 07:39:21, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
yeah those wenches have meager bosoms.  yaaarrrrrrrr.

Happy Birthday Douchebag.  Me and the rest of my UD Pussies posse are watching you suckah.

Date: 2007/11/11 08:28:13, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Publishing in the Rivista journal doesn't help.  I hear that it comes in a brown paper bag.

martin your ideas about what makes ideas valid and what constitutes a proper defense from criticism sure are interesting.  

much in the same way that i dig through bear shit to see what he has been eating.  and also flipping over dead possums and looking for Nicrophorus.  you are a curiosity much like bloody stool.  now please tell us what you intend to replace-a da darwismus with, since you have been unable to demonstrate that it is wrong beyond handwaving and quotemining.

Date: 2007/11/11 12:16:07, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
indeed if we look at the progression of any body of theory at the basal branches you will find a plurality of alternative theories (see S Naeem Ecology 2006 or 2007 paper for a discussion of this dialectical progression in ecology).  the reasons for the trimming of the branches are varied, but ultimately empirical support is the criterion.

and there is no theoretical nor empirical support for your ideas Martin, and this is the same as for Daniel.  saltational orthogenetical views must deny heredity.  if you believe that speciation is independent of phylogenesis or the arisal of new forms, you must have another mechanism.  i've not read all of davison's manifesto yet so i'll withhold judgment about his proposed mechanisms, but it suffices to say that the discovery and advent of DNA based phylogenetics destroyed any possibility that schindewolf et al could be right because it showed the mechanism for divergence between populations and a workable theoretical framework for constructing hypotheses about nested hierarchies.

schindewolf was right about some things, namely the effects of canalization as a constraint.  but there is no support for the idea of reservoirs of variation, unless you are going to follow daniels lead and claim that this is what non-coding DNA is.  JAM is doing a much better job than I could with refuting that view, so I will simply ask:  do you have a new mechanism?  do you have a testable theory?

Date: 2007/11/11 13:07:32, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Daniel may I recommend a book to you?  it's short.  


you might get a broader perspective of galton bateson and devries and why their ideas were wrong.  it has something to do with mendel.

Date: 2007/11/12 00:04:10, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I was a homeless alcoholic for over 12 years, before I managed, with a lot of help from the Lord, to turn my life around. What is extremely funny is that even though, I should not be able to so easily refute such high level critics of ID, I do so (albeit as you have pointed out, rather clumsily) with relative ease.

oh god, don't stop, you dirty old drunk.

you just can't make this shit up.

merry christmas, early, and stuff.  I love it so!!! ALL SCIENCE SO FAR HOMOS!!!!

*edited for je ne sais qua

Date: 2007/11/12 00:08:31, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
just found out a little bit more about bornagaintrisomy

Date: 2007/11/12 08:15:54, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
every sinner wants to have a paul in the road to damascus conversion because it gives them a mystical larger than life experience to frame the past that is the foundation of the new epistemology.  remember reading about that in marcea eliade somewhere about this salvation/rebirth being a common feature of many religious experiences.  christians though often have the whole typological essentialist perspective that seems to me to affect the whole ontology of salvation idea, i.e. my nature is changed.  shamans don't have the same view of a soul as separate from the body so that doesn't make sense to them.  they just get eaten by some demon and atomized and reassembled as a new being.  you know, kinda stuff you do on a weekend.

all i know is if Batshit is an old drunk he probably needs UD for a support group.  and to practice cut and pasting the 47 things materialism could never in its wildest dreams predict that the simple assumption of a loving capricious omnipotent whimsical deity that is definitely Yahwheh predicts just look at the data for goodness sakes.

Date: 2007/11/12 08:54:45, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
DS:  Baghdad Bob of Intelligent Design

Date: 2007/11/12 11:13:49, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
batshit is using the new improved 'replications' instead of 'generations' in his quoting of DS over on.PT

what a troll.  

i love it so!!!

Date: 2007/11/12 12:29:44, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
arden roflmao

Martin, you haven't shown that birds don't differentiate.  many people have shown that they do in fact differentiate, varying with predator experience, background contrast, etc etc.

you're just making shit up.  the only data you have is a bunch of bird guts, and that can't tell you what you need to know in order to make your claim that birds aren't preying selectively.  

but you can keep lying.  or you could try to tell us what eimer and the rest of your magical german mysticorskeingakkewiezenss says.  in your own words of course.

i bet it's something like 'only in selectionist heads' or some other rhetorical gem.

who are you again?  ghost of paley?

Date: 2007/11/12 13:20:42, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Now spinning the Hammons Family

my musicians can whup your musicians

Date: 2007/11/12 19:01:50, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
martin, you can't evaluate prey choice if you don't know the background levels of prey available to each predator.  so, since 80,000 birds from N America averages over all sorts of factors that contribute to unequal prey species distribution and abundances (biogeography, latitudinal, elevational, forest type, etc factors), AND there was no attempt to measure prey abundances with respect to each predator stomach, you simply cannot make the inferences from these data that you wish to.

so your claims are falling flat without having to evaluate a specific paper.  you have no way to even show what you are claiming is shown.  that is my point, that you are simply waving hands.  further, you don't even have an alternate hypothesis, just 'darwismus is wrong for natural selection can not arouse mimicry just like great Eimer said in 1914 in german'.  

Daniel has a set of specific positive claims (although it took a while for him to formulate them positively, and not like you are doing, ie 'selection cannot explain X').  we have been trying to get you to make your claims for months now, and you refuse to do so.  bring it, don't sing it.

Date: 2007/11/12 19:06:48, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
re jeannot and the paper that claimed opposite:

many natural processes work in both one and the opposite direction.  directional selection, for instance.

stabilizing vs disruptive selection are another.

of course, if selection is all in the darwinismus heads then we have another problem.  

here's another.  fire promotes diversity of some communities and extinguishes others.  predators enhance species richness and diversity of some communities, destroy others.  

orthogeneticists were always looking for a single deterministic rule that would explain it all.  is this what you need Martin?  A fundamental law of everything?

Date: 2007/11/12 19:18:19, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Wow I had no idea so many of you were guitar pickers.

Now, what's up with all this electric business?  When S.H.F., you ain't going to be able to do nothin with those fiddles but chop em up for fire wood.

My Landola Jumbo however will be going just fine when the power is dead.  As long as I can find a warehouse to break into and steal some strings.

Are they a fiddler round hyar?  Any banjo pickers?

Date: 2007/11/12 19:32:12, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Batshit gives up on the sciency sounding stuff.

bornagain77 said:
I have failed, miserably, to persuade most of your “high level” closed minds, I definitely underestimated some of you guys blindness. I hope at least a few have been persuaded by the evidence, that I have presented, to at least have a fair amount of skepticism towards evolutionary thought. But I see scant evidence for hope. Other than that, coming on this site, thinking I could persuade most of you guys was a big mistake, For thinking hard hearted men could be reasoned with was a big mistake, For thinking, when presented with the truth, intelligent men could be reasonable, was a mistake. No it was my fault and I was wrong to think I could easily persuade the unreasonable, blind, hard-hearted, fool who has said in his heart “There is no God!” The fool who would rather wallow in whatever dark thing has separated him from God than to know the Truth!

But then again you may be unreasonable with me and that is all fine and well, because I am nobody and nothing but a miserable recovered, homeless, drunk, but you will be reasonable one day (we all will for that matter)! And I am telling no lie, When we die, (and we will all die to this world), we WILL meet God, and I guarantee you with all that I hold sacred,, we will have no doubt whatsoever about His reality at all when we do die.

So please be very careful with this matter Gentlemen, it is no laughing matter, it is serious, and it is indeed real and it will become real personal before you know it.

I find it very interesting , that most of the people on this blog are putting all their money on the fact that they think there MIGHT not be a God. That is a very very foolish bet Gentlemen!


Comment #134592 on November 12, 2007 6:49 PM | Quote

Date: 2007/11/12 20:20:40, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
sorry, it was PT

Date: 2007/11/13 07:35:50, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
just listen to the sustain...

Date: 2007/11/13 07:40:11, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
You don't know it as well. But you are convinced that your a priori armchair hypothesis is correct neverthenless.

Wrong, stupid troll.  I am saying that you are not even offering a hypothesis yourself, and the data you are using to try to feebly attack something you don't understand DON'T EVEN SAY WHAT YOU ARE CLAIMING THEY SAY.

What you claim is the 'neodarwinian claim' has two parts, as I keep reminding you.  the 'origin' of mimicry is very different from the 'maintenance' of mimicry, yet you refuse to do anything but conflate the two.

Date: 2007/11/13 07:41:19, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Bring it, don't sing it.

Date: 2007/11/13 10:17:32, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
specifically, of course, the logos of John the Baptist fully embodied.

gah you think everyone knew that by know.

Date: 2007/11/13 11:44:51, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
these morons typically forget the long history of eugenic ideas that are not only found in the OT but even in the modern church.

just go to a fundie webpage and read about how they perceive the need to outbreed the godless.  same shit, different pile.

Date: 2007/11/13 14:25:20, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
80000 bird stomachs doesn't make a damn.  it wasn't an experiment.  there was no control group.  all that can be said is "sometimes birds eat aposematic forms".  we have never denied this.

ineffective in toto is a very different thing from ineffective sometimes.  all that your bird guts show is that it is ineffective sometimes.  

you assume, in order to wave your arms at the point:

1 all bird species and prey species are equally distributed in abundance, range size and habitats (we know this is not true, care to argue about it?)

2 bird predation are the only selective force that prey respond to (again, care to argue about this one?)

3 all birds have the same preferences for palatability (care to argue this one?  perhaps summarize mcatee data for aposematic prey by species of predator?)  my little boy doesn't like carrots.  my neighbors does.  there is also variation in the toxic compounds manufactured by aposematic caterpillars (in my lab, today, i was told about varying amounts of aristolochic acid sequestered by caterpillars that was explained by brood membership.  in other words, offspring of different females had different toxic compound sequestration.  clearly prey vary in toxicity).

the point about fire is certainly appropriate.  if you are like every other non-magical formalist/orthogeneticist, you probably believe there are deterministic laws that apply to the phenomena of biology.  if this is true, you need to catch up on 20th century biology.

Let me summarize it for you:  Things vary.  It matters.  Sometimes.

There is no fundamental law in ecology evolution or biology (just ask Bob O'H!!!)

I'm not repeating any mantra, except that your data cannot possibly be used to make the conclusion you wish to make, for simple reasons above.

I retract the stupid part.  You are obviously smart enough to know better than the argument you are making, this is a rhetorical game for you.  I've seen better, though.

Date: 2007/11/13 14:53:26, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
when they came for the assyrians, i said nothing for i was not an assyrian.

Date: 2007/11/13 15:40:17, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Salute to undercover tards, whoever you are!

Date: 2007/11/13 16:24:58, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
fortunately ID predicted this:

Date: 2007/11/13 16:56:52, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
RTH you do that from memory?  beautiful.

ps you forgot the bold homo.

Date: 2007/11/13 20:52:34, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
may not last long over there. some asshole stole my handle.


Well I am sure glad to see us getting back to the science.

What I am concerned about, is as a Christian, I know that G*D creates evil.  So, that being undoubtedly true unless you are willing to say that my bible is lying.  

Given that, how can you possibly characterize evil as something that is absent good?  If G*D is good, and the bible tells us so, and he is omnipresent, which the bible tells us so, then it follows that there is nowhere that G*D is not (that includes the empty black hollow in the chests of materialists, thank you CSL).  

So it seems that Jason Rennie's arguments, while sophisticated, are founded on category errors.  If it was G*D's will that the Assyrians were to attack the Israelites, in no way could that be viewed as evil.  The fact that one, were it to happen today, would view it as evil, gives the lie to the notion that we can ever know, even if it exists, an objective morality.

If you believe in a G*D who has a will that can be thwarted by puny humans, and the absence of G*D is the presence of evil, then you worship an inferior G*D that is not the creator of the Universe and the mid-atlantic rift, much less the flacterial blagellum or the chloroplast.

I don't see where this discussion is going, but I am glad to see it getting back to the science.

Date: 2007/11/14 12:55:51, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Does anyone else see the importance of this research to ID?

oh yeah, sure, that's right, harrumph, say no more, yessir, on the money that one, yup.

on the other hand, it is singularly more important to ATBC.  

i'd like to buy batshit a round of drinks, but one is too many and a barrel ain't enough.  

Date: 2007/11/14 14:34:49, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
will getawitness hurry up and get banned?  i'm dying here.  i think it's VMartin.  roflmao.

Date: 2007/11/14 15:17:21, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Welllllll, I figured it out.

The reason we ain't heard nothin' from Dennis and Wilma is because they are working on a new flash animation.

Only instead of fart noises it will have actual piles of shit.  Thanks to the intelligently designed Smell-O-Matic technology that proves Jesus' divinity and also vindicates Abraham for thinking about killing Isaac.  Further, this technology debunks the Darwismus and also restores America's faith in The Designer Jesus.

Date: 2007/11/14 15:19:18, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

we're gunning for you darwinist frustrated materialist from ATBC selectionheads.

Date: 2007/11/14 19:42:07, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I love you guys.

No way in hell that the real tards outnumber the sock puppets over there.

Or is this a paradigm shift in The Argument Regarding Design?

where in the shit is DaveTard?

for all that is worth, where in the hell is k.e.?  he' s been gone many moons.  must be scampering around in a loincloth pouncing on pouched ponces on walkabout.

Date: 2007/11/15 07:15:56, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
After delivering and expounding upon a thesis that trilobites 250 million years (ahem that's when they were created in place), batshit mention the LAW THAT MUST BE OBEYED:  Genetic Entropy.  i am seeing some sort of love for the jailer type thing here.  but it gets better:

There’s hardly any variation in the post-Cambrian,” he said. “Even the presence or absence or the kind of ornamentation on the head shield varies within these Cambrian trilobites and doesn’t vary in the post-Cambrian trilobites.”

This is a clear example of the “culling of information” that is predicted to take place with the ID/Genetic Entropy .

proclaimeth BatShit

Shield ornaments = Information!!!
Culling of Information= Natural Selection!!! No wait.  Shit.  Hood Ornaments = Information!!!!  Yayyyyyy!11million!!1!

Date: 2007/11/15 07:53:22, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
We may have witnessed the last banning on UD...

i may have earned my merit badge, the tard way.  silently my posting privileges seem to be have revoked.  

I've been thinking a lot lately that speciation probably happens more than the liberal darwinist media tells us.  If you believe Ernest Mayer then I am probably a different species than an Eskimo, since we don't usually run into each other in the kinds of places we go.  there is a lot of america between us!  but even if some moved in around here or i had to work with one i doubt i would even be attracted to her although they would probably be attracted to me.  

let's see.  this has bounced back twice in the past five minutes.

Date: 2007/11/15 08:33:25, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
you even make a satirical sock-puppet on Pharyngula or similar, parodying "evolutionists"?

no thanks.  glen is mean.  i might lose it and cry.

Date: 2007/11/15 10:35:10, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Apparently the other Erasmusis on Double-Secret-Moderation-With-Options.  

now, this proves DS is not paying attention.  or he forgot


or this

Date: 2007/11/15 11:00:36, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
thou shalt have no other puppets before me.

Date: 2007/11/15 14:35:26, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I wonder why DS has not picked up on the fact that there are now two people in the world who believe that they are reproductively isolated from eskimo women?

what's he doing?  was there some new version of Left Behind Teh Game coming out this week or something?  where is Wilma Dembski and Dennis O'Leary?  It's like the tards have overtaken the zoo.

Date: 2007/11/15 14:55:52, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
so Vicky, it appears from what you have posted that some birds don't like bad tasting things, and some do.

sounds like there is still room for selective pressure to work.  we know that aposematic caterpillars vary in the amount of toxic compounds sequestered from host plants, and that has a heritable component.

did you find any studies where birds were offered venomous abdomens, or are you just waving your hands again?

so, you agree that you cannot possibly conclude from the McAtee work anything other than 'sometimes aposematic forms get eaten'?  do you understand how there is no comparative framework in that dataset?

call me a selectionist if you want, it's irrelevant.  my entire point is that you are lying about the conclusions from the data you attempt to present, and also that you don't even have an idea about an alternative hypothesis.  just handwaving.  and using words like 'gourmand'.  Who are you really vicky?

Date: 2007/11/15 14:58:14, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I have a live RSS feed into my headmask visor.

Date: 2007/11/15 14:59:52, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Oh, Louis, I see.

Sloppy seconds.

How does my d**k taste?  roflmao.  whatever, I know you are bornagain77 so don't be playa hatin

Date: 2007/11/16 07:33:32, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
It's boring to have the same old nonsense rehashed over and over again.

Martin, if I can't verbally abuse you then I don't even want to talk to you anymore.  Until you grow a pair and present your hypothesis, there is not much else to say.  After reading examples of your logic I harbor grave doubts about your capacity to do that.  Or much else.

Sorry Lou.  When you are walking through the sewer, don't touch the walls.

Date: 2007/11/16 09:42:14, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I think Erasmus has been silently banninated:  This hasn't shown up yet either.

I am concerned about having non-christians in the ID field.  Especially those who believe that demonic creatures such as Sasquatch are just other animals.  the bibly plainly tells us that there are principalities and powers in the air and we should beware them.  That Sasquatch is a demonic manifestation is a well-supported Design Inference, since it just gives the liberal materialists ammo to say that humans are just animals, see there is a giant ape like human.  What next, is Richard Dakins going to say that Sasquatch is a missing link?  HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

i say more politics!!!  We have tons of reserach and data that prove the universe was designed.  Liberal materialists will try to move the goalposts and argue about who the designer is, but we have another design inference there:  G*D plainly says that we all know him and must come to him of our own free will.

Date: 2007/11/16 10:57:31, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
how do you go through a different IP?

Date: 2007/11/16 14:01:58, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I have a purely rhetorical hypothetical question.

Do you think the mods at UDumb can tell if you are popping in over there from this site, or if you exit their site to come here?

Might be useful information for you trolls out there.

Date: 2007/11/17 19:08:38, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
jeez what a douchebag that guy is.

Date: 2007/11/17 20:17:42, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
did you see those t-shirts that some pharyngulites made, one was

Philosophy - Logic = Theology

damn i should have been a theologian.  is it too late?

Annyday sorry to disappoint you.  I am at a loss to describe the nincompooposity going on at UD these days.  Since I was silently banninated I am slightly bitter.  I wanted to get my badge so i could join the club. i've been thinking about trying again though.

Date: 2007/11/17 20:27:49, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Just in case we forget
PSCID is pleased to announce the latest issue of PCID, Volume 4.2 November 2005. The current issue features papers by Pattle Pun, William Dembski, Fernando Castro-Chavez and others. A variety of topics are addressed, including (1) cellular origins and evolution, (2) the nature of information and (3) the usefulness of evolutionary algorithms ...

emphasis added.

I'd never actually looked at all that bullshit before.

Date: 2007/11/17 22:18:20, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
that makes sense RB.  after all, he could stand up to the drunks who want frog beer with flying birdies but not the evil darwinist liberal materialist press who were attacking the Designer our nation was founded to honor worship and respect.  

that's what you get from someone who bought millions of gallons of liquor with other peoples money.  I bet Tricky Rick Santorum is still pissed.

Date: 2007/11/17 22:32:32, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
and now they seem to have given up on moderating their own blog.

the inmates own the jail over there.  i have never seen such a thing.  my only guess is that there is a heavy flash animation conference going on with Dennis, Wilma, DaveTard and Gil.  Will it be a rerun of NOVA like MSTK3000?  replete with vomiting and projectile flatulence?  stay tuned.

Date: 2007/11/18 21:13:20, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
When the tard gets tough, the tard gets tarder

Date: 2007/11/18 21:15:27, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

and, remind me Vicky, what is your explanation?  kthanxbai.

are you Ghost of Paley?  I've been taking notes on how to be an effective troll, and you are a model system (note, this is mimicry in action).

Date: 2007/11/19 07:35:51, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Midnight at the Tard Ball where everyone unmasks would certainly be hilarious.  

It will never happen.  Some men you just can't reach.  The guy that is trolling as Batshit will never ever come out of hiding.  He is in character too deep.  He's probably starting to actually think that way, confusing his online troll persona for his One True Self (skeptic that is for you).  

And if he is not a deep cover troll, even moreso, he is a delicious source of nonsense.  I don't know why you would do anything but encourage him nicely, from under the bridge.  When you eat one villager then the rest are scared to walk by your cave.  Also, the pixies and leprechauns dance the best when they don't know you're looking.  Breaking up a four year old picnic by kicking sand or setting off firecrackers is kinda mean.

Date: 2007/11/19 08:19:51, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
if you could somehow tattoo that picture of her I have seen on every Darwinists body that would probably save a lot of surgery costs instead of neutering us all.


where does he get that 'high incidence' statistic?  is it the same 'high incidence' as say Congress, or in the pulpits of evangelical mega churches?  fraternity initiations at Bob Jones?  I am curious, I wish he would apply his genius inductive mind to this problem and pronounce more prophetic utterances from a lofty height.

Date: 2007/11/19 08:36:32, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I suppose that 'being an expert' in something is sufficiently attained when you know enough about something to point out the flaws in another's reasoning.  like the guts of 80,000 birds being a controlled experiment, or something.

now, i don't know enough about molecular drives and it seems that what daniel is predicting is not very different, at least from the root concepts, from the evolutionary explanation.  

minus the assumption of saltation, which if my contention is above is correct is thus a non-parsimonious explanation. co-opting predictions post hoc is certainly a hallmark of crankery.  gene copy number varies within populations so i don't see what someone's point is...

Date: 2007/11/19 09:42:09, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Apparently the trollfest is not keeping Joe G down...

(which one of you guys is Joseph?)

a good healthy dose of respect for the constitution:
For me this has gotten personal. For example I think it is imbecilic to think one can either adjudicate or legislate what can and can’t be discussed in a public school’s science classroom.

and then some more


(I still think that someone should bribe a teacher in Dover to discuss ID in the classroom. That is how Scopes got into the fray. Then ID gets back into the courtroom, this time without any religiously motivated school board.)

Date: 2007/11/19 09:54:02, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
which one is yoko again?  the sweatered one?

Date: 2007/11/19 10:43:42, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
And the fact that Nelson keeps popping in here while logged in compounds the dumbness.

That part is, as one of my hillbilly buddies says, Mind-Bottling

what kind of dumbass doesn't realize that he is logged in after 25 sightings?

One who just doesn't care that we are laughing about this?  I was really looking forward to some discussion about EE.

Date: 2007/11/19 12:25:13, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Now you are really starting to step on my toes with this red hair business.

Cease and desist or I will wake up DaveTard to phone one in.

Date: 2007/11/19 12:48:56, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Dear Peter

Please don't confuse Florida with America.  We don't like them anymore than you do.  We tried to cut it loose and attach the state to New Jersey but they didn't want the mosquitoes and felons.

Date: 2007/11/19 13:23:59, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
you guys are gonna feel like a real bunch of douchebags if you find out that davescot has had a heart attack or something.

Dave we love you!!!  Come back!!!

I heard the ACLU was suing to stop Thanksgiving and that they were not going to give GW a chance to pardon the turkey this year since Peter Singer says turkey=rat=boy=Jesus!  Post on this please!

Date: 2007/11/19 14:26:53, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
BornAgain77 = Denyse OLeary (= k.e.?  where the hell is k.e.?)

c'mon, who else can write like that.  it's beyond parody.

Date: 2007/11/19 19:36:25, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
OMG OMG!!!!11111


which one of you guys is bornagain, again?


Date: 2007/11/20 07:51:11, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Joe G's Bribe a Teacher Gambit is crazy. So crazy, it just might work!

I hope he tries it.  Joe sees what Phillip Buckingham has and wants in on the action.

Date: 2007/11/20 08:00:50, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Solon starts beating the drum:

Janice I am not so sure that what we need is more science, but probably less of it. Think of the literally billions of dollars that is wasted on a bankrupt religion masquerading as a science! When we can re-take control of our government and when we get back on the path to God as a society then we can save trillions of dollars!

Are these people serious?  Larry says the best thing about ID may be that lots of more people know about blood clots and DNA and fracterial blagella and stuff.  But think of the dollars!

Date: 2007/11/20 10:12:20, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

Just what is that supposed to mean, you materialist?  


Date: 2007/11/20 10:40:13, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD


Date: 2007/11/20 10:43:44, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
BA77 professeth
I believe Dr. Behe predicted the “Edge of Evolution” to be somewhere between species and orders. I believe this evidence in the fossil record falls in line with what he found at the molecular level.

I'm on ur edge, makin ur baraminz

Date: 2007/11/20 14:15:57, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
any bets on whether or not that post will disappear?  appears Granmaw Dennis doesn't read what it posts.

all is quiet on the tard front except for that incorrigible moron Solon and a few ejaculations from BA.  i wonder if the wagons are circling.  that would indicate either a weenie roast, circle jerk, or a new strategy.  or all three.  or any permutation of the above.

Date: 2007/11/20 15:05:09, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
BA, is that a flagellum in your pants or...


get around Dr. Behe’s hard number

firm as a rock

stands solid

Now Bob, I think you can clearly see how this ties in with the ID/Genetic Entropy mo^del.

yeah, hard and firmly that's how.

Date: 2007/11/20 18:28:09, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
The most hilarious thing is that anti-science attitude is exactly what FTK comes on here with.  When she sees someone else doing it in a way that makes her look bad she attacks them.  What a nasty insecure wicked jezebel she is.

Are we sure that's really FTK?  I mean, it could either be FTK or everyone else in the world but FTK, right?  6000 or 4.5 billion?

Date: 2007/11/20 19:51:16, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
i think calling post moderns post modern is probably the most inflammatory thing you can do over there.  No wonder it pisses FTK off.  Isn't it refreshing to hear someone at UD denying the priority of facts or evidence in a discussion or a logical progression?  

If Intelligent Design denies the bible, then Intelligent Design is dead, just as dead as darwinism and atheism and nihilistic materialism. The goal cannot be reached with out acknowledging our debt to the Creator of the bible, and all this postmodern mumbling about we don’t know who the designer is IS LYING. IF YOU SAY THE DESIGNER COULD BE ALIENS YOU ARE LYING. WE KNOW WHO THE DESIGNER IS: JESUS CHRIST.

And that will be the same no matter what kind of irrelevant motors are in some invisible blob of a cell or how many times AIDS multiplies itself in a drug user or homosexual. If you say that these material things actually constitute evidence, YOU ARE LYING. THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD AND THAT IS ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT WE NEED. ALL ELSE IS SHIFTING SAND.

Oh God I am dying now.  How long will Wilma let this go on?  Watching this unfold has been like watching that fuckboxing stuff where halfnekkid men are straddling each others faces and pounding their skulls to pulp.  Except they are wearing clown suits (sorry Blipey).  oh yeah and one is a mime.

We know Dr Dr Dr Dr Dr Dumbski is around because he is posting some bullshit about flying squirrels and how he has always doubted common descent wrt those organisms too.  What a bunch of facking morons.  God what fun.  WILLLLLLLLLLLLLMAAAAAAAAAAAAA get control of the Zoo!!!

Date: 2007/11/21 07:32:16, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
is kairos a puppet or not?  I've never thought about it before.  is it possible?  

That first couple of lines in the long post killed me! Then he says "Although you are probably of low ability and clearly ignorant of a bunch of stuff that I know all about you're still a pretty good queer, so I'll be the one who tells you whether or you are real or not".  

where is davescot?

Date: 2007/11/21 08:56:25, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
i don't know what taking the mickey is but yeah that was my silly paraphrase.  no disrespects intended to Mr Kairos.  well, none that he hasn't deserved.  which one of you is him again?

Date: 2007/11/21 09:24:57, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Solon is dead.

God bless that believers soul.  He had some last words, but they were muffled by his bannination.  He was attempting to channel Plantigna:
So kairos you agree with what I am saying, but use a completely different set of big words and change the subject a whole lot and then come back to the point and what you have done there is try to step around God. but he’s too big. So you ignored Him, right when you are being asked to stand for Him, and you talked instead about ‘come to my blog, the always linked discussion’ or something like that. Why can’t you just say what you mean?

Materialism is a sin of blasphemy. And when you try to ‘act like a materialist’ and do science with material things or measure the world in any sort of way you are going against God. This is even more true when we are talking things that God created and quibbling about how it was created instead of just reading the Word and seeing how He said it happened!

And that is why I like The Argument Regarding Design, because it doesn’t matter what the heck you measure. The consilience of inductions is the mercy of the Lord, and arguing about it or trying to research into it with science is foolish. We are looking through a glass darkly, and the light is God and you know how I feel about that.

Now why won’t anyone address my point instead of discrediting the messenger.

Date: 2007/11/21 10:53:46, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
He's banned.  just silently.  I keep waiting for the thread to be deleted, but comments have not gone through three times in a row.  I was hoping there would be more of a fuss.

Date: 2007/11/21 11:20:08, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
My whole initial point of that I forget.  I think to get banned.  But very quickly it became clear to me that the epistemological argument about revelation is at the root of this ID foolishness.

It has to be, or they can't claim any ontological priority for design inferences.  Ultimately the argument must rest elsewhere than material evidence.  And when that happens, they will lose the base of support that is the average American YE fundie, it can only be maintained people like FTK who claim that an old earth or evolution wouldn't challenge their beliefs but maintain a po-mo compartmentalization.

Although it was largely manual micturation and putting Shakespeare in the mouth of Andy Griffith there is an element of truth to the anti-science attitude.  If the point is to get rid of the stranglehold materialism has on science, then the goal is to get rid of science.  why are we studying this weird bacteria that no one can see?  we have good reasons for that now, but in the ID world the only point is to overthrow materialism and darwinism and whatever liberal democrat atheist names you can make stick there.  After that game is over, what's left?  No Science, things are just designed that way so don't worry about it any more.  Go home and read your bible.  or what?  I don't get what they think is the next step after this millenial scientific revolution happens.  it reeks of liberation theology and all that stuff.  Fascinating.

thanks for playing along trolls.  that includes BA and appolos and kairos, I don't know which one of y'all are those guys but you are good.

Date: 2007/11/24 19:45:38, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
The entire sociological aspect of the saltational theory has been neglected.  Daniel and VickyMartin and his heroes Berg and Schindewolf and Bateson etc fit quite neatly into a box that Gould has discussed extensively under the heading of formalism.  There is a certain logic that is a property of this school that Gould feels is not entirely discardable, but refers to the discussion about constraints from history or development that ensued after the paper I can't remember the name of now.  1970s or so I think.  

What is interesting is why this notion has stuck around, even in the halls of crankdom, and how it has done so.  the major theme as far as i can tell, following JAD and these guys around the interwebz, has been to construct a 'theory' that is empirically equivalent to the MET.  following this, the strategy is to raise obtuse and irrelevant objections to the MET, then use the argument from authority plus false dichotomy to attempt to build support for the crackpot theory.  frontloading is EXACTLY this argument.  How would one falsify such a beast?  Not from the first principles of the cough cough splutter ptoooowee 'Theory'.  NO sir, not at all, and this is the platform from which ad hoc and post hoc explanations are constructed.

There are no first principles from the formalist camp, except that there is 'some law' that evolution must follow.  Despite 150+ years of evidence, one would assume that all it would take would be one single meta-analysis to derive such relationships.  

and here is my FUNDAMENTAL law of evolution.  Take it to the bank Daniel.  This is as much of a law as you can get (Bob O'Hare I think this trumps your anarchist guide to ecology... for I place ecology as a subset of all living things.  Toodles!!!)

Shit Varies.  It Matters.  Sometimes.

Date: 2007/11/24 19:51:48, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Hey Martin, here is a cogent reply to your questions.  It has the same empirical content of your last forty seven posts.

sadgh;asdklbnvadslkcn basdcmvweitu2340qtgha;sldg hq2qe8typq iweghvdsjgn;ladsgpq8ygerdaihvaldsljfpqwe8qtyweapohdsvnasdkfuqwepagiofawehdffyouarestupid8t

At first I thought you were interested in discussing biology.  Now I know better.  Toodles, dumbass.  Stay ignorant.

Date: 2007/11/24 19:55:04, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
***Applause.  Loud, raucous and belligerent applause***

I think on the balcony a bunch of cheerleaders just showed their breasts.  All of them.

Well done my friend.

Date: 2007/11/24 20:14:29, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Richard you have very succintly pointed out how, at the bottom of the neo-creationist sciency sounding talk, it is still "POOF".

infinte wavelength energy and all that.  front loading in ways that we, due to our fallen nature contemporary ignorance and the ingenuity of the designer complexity of the genome, can't understand.

Date: 2007/11/24 23:08:01, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

It's the pipevine swallowtail, dumbass.  Turns out that host plant drives sequestering of toxic compounds that vary in heritable ways.  But I don't expect you to discuss that, I am waiting for 'darwinismus is only in selectionist head, Berg once wrote in a bathroom stall in obscure germanist dialect about futility of Weismann allmacht selectionismdankoism' or something equally as literate as the last 40 pages of your idiotic ramblings.

Hey, Martin, why doesn't any organism overpopulate the planet?  Pick one, idiot.  Miscanthus.  Kudzu.  Grey Squirrels.  Cane Toads.  Green sunfish?

Let me guess.  Because there are biological laws written into the universe.  Frontloading and all that rot.  Schindewolf once screamed out while having sodomy with Berg, and thinking about Davison, that everything must be determined (cue the German drumbeat, that one) and therefore the universal Biologic Law was induced from another perspective of the data (this is your necrophiliac relationship with the other dead 'theory', Intelligent Design').  

Why don't you start a thread about laws in biology?  We are all (see every single one of Arden's posts) dying to know what YOU (that's right, YOU, GoP or whoever you are) have concluded from your study of google and conservapedia about the entire edifice of biological investigation.  Starting with Neanderthal cave depictions, moving to Lao Tse and Diogenes and Moses and the rest, and then the apex of the culmination of biological thought, David Icke.  

If you really are who you say you are, no doubt you have scribbled a handwritten manifesto that is somewhere between a doctrine of heresy and a detailed list of who you would like to see dead the most in science.  This is your chance.  Since you have absolutely no positive arguments, only semantics and quibbling about experimental designs (all the while whistling past the graveyard that contains 80,000 bird guts that say absolutely nothing about what you wish they said), start a thread that lays out your mechanical idealistic determined conception of the history of life.

Until then, don't bother me with your misunderstandings of selection (that includes your extremely perverted parody of Sewall Wright and Haldane and mathematical models of outbreeding that you have simplified into some tribal cosmology).

Love you, dumbass.  Mean it.  Don't disappoint, now.  Hear?

Date: 2007/11/24 23:41:05, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Marty, see the bathroom wall for an apropos discussion of your line of reasoning.


Date: 2007/11/25 08:27:11, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Martin, you have never even presented an argument to even dispute over.  I'm not mad at you because I have even lower expectations of you than you could ever hope to fulfill.

I am really not interested in exploring your ignorance of evolutionary biology.  It's really only fun for gits and shiggles, and I'm over that.

But, you are an interesting case, probably from many perspectives.  Certainly the psychological one, and you might want to get that checked out.

But, if you are not a deep deep cover troll, perhaps ghost of paley or some disgruntled castoff former professor at some ag school who no one ever listened to, playing games on the interwebz, and you really are some layman autodidact from croatia just interested in biology, then I want to hear more about this deterministic european orthogenetic view.  

But you don't talk about that.

Share your views marty.  We've all seen how you are incapable of understanding others.  

Why don't you start a thread about laws in biology?  We are all (see every single one of Arden's posts) dying to know what YOU (that's right, YOU, GoP or whoever you are) have concluded from your study of google and conservapedia about the entire edifice of biological investigation.  Starting with Neanderthal cave depictions, moving to Lao Tse and Diogenes and Moses and the rest, and then the apex of the culmination of biological thought, David Icke.  

If you really are who you say you are, no doubt you have scribbled a handwritten manifesto that is somewhere between a doctrine of heresy and a detailed list of who you would like to see dead the most in science.  This is your chance.  Since you have absolutely no positive arguments, only semantics and quibbling about experimental designs (all the while whistling past the graveyard that contains 80,000 bird guts that say absolutely nothing about what you wish they said), start a thread that lays out your mechanical idealistic determined conception of the history of life.

Until then, don't bother me with your misunderstandings of selection (that includes your extremely perverted parody of Sewall Wright and Haldane and mathematical models of outbreeding that you have simplified into some tribal cosmology).

and if you won't do that, i'll just have to keep verbally abusing you.  kinda of like mowing the lawn or keeping your rear end clean, it's a chore but someone has to do it.  well, you might not understand the second example there.

Date: 2007/11/25 14:31:44, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I approach the evidence from a theological perspective - something most of you have probably never done.

speak for thyself, kemosabe.

minus all the breathless bits about design in life, etc (don't get me wrong, i love Ralph Waldo Emerson as much as anyone) I'm not sure there is too much to disagree with here.  THAT IS, as long as design is some meta-induction that you would conclude no matter what evidence you see (which is ultimately the question, no?) then you won't be led down the wrong track.

I think, personally and on a bellybutton gazing note, that there are some interesting nuts to crack at the root of the divide between the saltational notion and the evolutionary theory.

Operationally, however, you are in an intractable mess.  I'm open to the suggestion that it is the (oft)reductionist nature of scientific investigation that has muddied the water.  But in order to clear off the table, you need some testable first principles.  And I don't think I have seen any.  Perhaps I missed them.  

The business about 'interpretations' is a sunken road straight into the po-mo solipcist dungeon and it wouldn't behoove ANYONE to take that route.  See for example the FTK Thread.  

At the heart of that criticism is a valid (I think) objection:  induction is always a second or third order process and is always, IMO by definition, a valid (although often superfluous) criticism.  But if that is true, then you must have an operationally sound alternative.  And for my two cents, I don't see that happening here.

Date: 2007/11/25 20:26:31, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Louis when you get done deconverting all the believers, you and skeptic should swap handles.

Not that the artist currently known as skeptic would be better served as Louis, but perhaps otherwise.  And this would free him up to be Obliviot.

I just thought I would add this part.  Louis you have converted me to be a Jehovah's Witness.  The strength and cogency of your arguments are irrefutable and strip me of all my inborn (satanic) defenses.  So, if I am one of the 144,000 that makes it to Heaven, I will pray that Yahweh takes mercy on your godless little materialist soul that hates puppies and strangles little old quadraplegic eskimo lesbian nuns.  

So, anytime you want to take this show to UD, there is a sockpuppet school out there I heard.  it's called UD.

Date: 2007/11/26 08:01:27, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
As someone who has lived through several mystical experiences, I am fully behind the effort to bring these empirical results to the fore of the discussion about the nature of living phenomena. If we as humans experience these things, what more must the enormous panoply of living things must experience on a daily basis? For instance I have often watched, for hours, my cats react to stimuli that I cannot discern. As smart as my cats are I am sure that this is no animal random instinct. Bravo!!!


All Science So Far!!!

Date: 2007/11/26 09:33:52, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I'm waiting for a picture of a mud pit and a caption that goes 'IM IN UR GOO NOT EVOLVIN TO YOO'

THAT sounds like a winner.  Please someone do it.  T-shirt material and all that.

Date: 2007/11/26 12:50:06, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Yeah well Louis all them big faintsy words and stuff don't impress me none.  All you had to say was 'Not Even Wrong' and then step out to the pub.

Looked for and couldn't find a nifty essay about debating presuppositionalists (which i think skeptic might be).  Pity.  It would have been quite apropos.

Date: 2007/11/26 13:00:23, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Louis, you rock for an englishman.  Wait aren't you welsh.

Which one of you is Lazarus?

Robo as far as I can understand Darwinism denies the existence of not only free will but will altogether, in the broader sense.

To materialists we are merely bags of flesh lumbering about being driven by our selfish genes which control our actions.

You like watermelon? it is because a long long time ago your ancestors (who were probably hairless rats or jellyfish or something) liked watermelon and they survived and the others did not. Therefore you like watermelon.

You prefer to believe in God? No, you don’t really prefer it, it couldn’t be any other way. It’s because a zillion years ago there were some lemurs wiping their behinds with a stick and one of them realized he could get the other lemurs to wipe his behind for him if he could tell them a story about something that no one had ever seen before that created the Earth and Love You. These lemurs then conquered the other lemurs and that is why you believe in God it is genetic.

See how easy it is to be an evolutionist? I think anyone could be one if they only had half a brain.

What happens if you only have .34 of a brain?

Date: 2007/11/26 13:23:04, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
How very strange. Is the periodic table also a viewpoint?

Sure.  Ask a slime mold or an ant or something what they think about it.

Date: 2007/11/26 14:16:21, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Just wait until the sockpuppets get aholt of it.

Date: 2007/11/26 20:01:20, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Lou I would just add, on my break from driving the kiddies on the bus to the Selection Museum, that there are really two issues here and we would all be better off to set them apart.

A:  'How do traits like mimicry arise (arouse)?'

B:  'Can selection maintain mimic phenotypes in a population'

Note that Martin has routinely conflated the two.  All that I have ever positively argued here (and I think this covers the objections from all other participants) is that the answer to B is yes, and that we have good mathematical models that explain this type of selection.

Martin's example is not any sort of rigorous analysis but an anecdotal account of bird stomachs that cannot be successfully utilized to argue either position.  The rest of his 'examples' are also anecdotal non sequitors.  THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY ARE WRONG.  It means that they are formulated imprecisely.  As a wise British expatriate once said, One cannot do formal logic with sloppy propositions.

So, I hope that cleans up those loose ends.  I would be happy enough for Martin to parse A and B separately, and I think in order to do so he would have to deal with your request anyway.  So let's hear it.  If not the Darwinismus, then what?

Date: 2007/11/26 20:50:07, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
All right which one of you is ?Carl Sachs

Hence design theorists are trying to re-cast the debate as one between a scientific theory which is at least compatible with monotheism (though not implying it) and one that is incompatible with monotheism.

As if Intelligent design thor-ists had a scientific theory.

Date: 2007/11/26 21:27:47, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Wes how long have you been holding onto that one?  15 years?  

And here i thought that I had done gone and made up something o-rig-inal and whatall.  And some pagan jerk has beat me to it.

good stuff.

Date: 2007/11/26 22:03:29, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Lazarus is Solon

He takes issue with Patrick's 'Ill Be Watching You' comment on the Phil Johnson thread, where Solon was silently banninated and somehow Patrick missed the memo.

Carl thanks for being mildly civil. I am as concerned as you about folks that purport to be pro-ID but when the roll is called are willing to backpedal and attempt to change the subject about what the true design inference is all about.

I am very concerned that we are harming the cause of Christ.

For those who wish to know, yes i was Solon.

I was banned and not allowed to comment for three days and I gave up.

Following this, a moderator has the temerity to tell me he will be watching my posts in the future!!! Can you believe this? I am eliminated from the conversation, commenters see this as a concession to their ill-conceived and contrived points, and then a MODERATOR tells me that he will be watching me closely! Watching me do what?

This sort of intellectual dishonesty is at the heart of the ‘ID’ movement and is a serious obstacle to the stated goals of ID, namely winning souls for Christ. All this crap about ‘good science’ is just metaphysical masturbation and you would do well to get back to the basics and skip all of the crap that is just a carrot on a stick to non-believers and a political move to enlarge the base.

And when you do that, you are not following Christ.

kairos, I am real, and I don’t really care what your blog says or what kind of garbage you can post here without dealing with the issue: The bible is either true, or not. If it is not true, in your fallen opinion and in the opinion of ‘intelligent’ design, then I will encourage my fellow christians to disassociate themselves from the wolf in sheeps clothing that is ID.

If you be not for Christ, you be not for me. I don’t know if you read the polls, but you need us.

note the condescending verbage about fundies upstream of that.  as if they could survive without fundies paying them from their sunday school donations and paying them to come talk to their mechanics, truck driving and seminary institutions.  the dishonesty on this thread is enough to make one quit sockpuppeting.  there is no way to make them feel shame.

Date: 2007/11/26 22:07:32, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
which one of you guys is Bradford again?

Date: 2007/11/26 22:47:43, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Lazarus Reaches Out to the One True Tard

BA I hope you are paying attention to the way that folks that speak the Word are treated around here. If I had to hazard a guess, I might surmise that you are next my friend. This comment probably won’t last long, since Solon was banned silently and no notice given to the rest of the board, it could just as easily have happened to you. One minute you are in the photo in the wall, the next minute the photo is retouched and you never existed.

It is a bit orwellian for my calvinist tastes. I am wondering what is the point of ID if it means that I have to throw in lots with folks that I KNOW are wrong about the first principles of ID. How can that get us anywhere, particularly when we define ‘where’ to be saving souls for Christ? What good is it to lie with dogs only to pick up fleas? I am desperately searching for someone here at UD that seems to understand that ID will fail if it does not have the blessing of God, and that is entirely predicated upon the obedience of those working on ID to the Word of God. Denying the word will only reap suffering and destruction.

Can this jello be nailed to the wall?  Will ID abandon it's core base?  Stay tuned for more Po-Mo Evangelical Denialist Hour...

Date: 2007/11/27 08:23:48, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Barry dribbles a little bit on his chin:
What can you say about a theory that can just as easily predict “X” and the opposite of “X”?

Well, hell, I don't know, how about 'has more explanatory power'?

Meteorological theory can predict rain and not-rain.  Sunny or Not-Sunny.  Guess we better inform NOAA and our local weatherguy who wears the funny hats during Christmas that they are now tautologists and we'll probably redirect their funding to somewhere else (hopefully to defend Trent Lott).

Foraging theory can predict whether individual minnows will forage or not forage.  Someone should tell the minnows.

Stream macroinvertebrate monitoring can predict whether a stream is healthy or not healthy.  We should shut down EPA.

What is the point again?

Date: 2007/11/27 14:49:39, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Improvius that is certainly true and I had overlooked it.

How about we add 'define mimicry' to the list?

'Selection cannot produce mimic forms' is quite a different argument than 'Mimic forms do not exist'.  VMartin has argued both positions here.

Date: 2007/11/28 17:30:41, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Design Inference!!!

cdesign proponentsists is a troll!!!

Date: 2007/11/28 19:07:40, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
News, Flash!  Get in the truck.

Scientific American is now 'peer reviewed'!

btw, the link I posted shows the actual article (I am not sure if its just an abstract, or the whole thing). Hm, peer reviewed ID article? No wonder they want to get rid of him!

Date: 2007/11/28 19:13:15, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
While we're waiting, does this look familiar?

Date: 2007/11/28 22:42:25, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Oh, how about

Living things are different from non-living things.

That seems to me to sum it all up, minus several orders of magnitude of Tard-osity.

OH YEAH, also that means Jesus is God.

Date: 2007/11/28 23:21:22, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Bannination for asking the question "What is the purpose of overthrowing materialism?"

Lazarus was a douchebag anyway.  Always referring to Phillip Johnson for references about saving souls.  As if the father of intelligent design was a good source.

Date: 2007/11/29 07:33:03, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I wanna play.

I'll use Uncle Earl's strategy and begin in the dry holler next to the big bend in the river where Delbert had that moonshine still the year Flonnie had triplets.

Date: 2007/11/29 08:35:43, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Get a LOAD of that guy.

And BTW, to those out there who disparage us as random wanderers in shooting off in ignorance, I think it is fair to say that all regular commenters here have been subjected to a serious level of scrutiny that is at least a passing fair substitute for peer review, and in a multidisciplinary context. We have everything from biologists and mathematicians to computer scientists, engineers, biologists, medical doctors, theologians, lawyers and philosophers here — and on multiple sides of the questions. So, just wade in and spout off something that is poorly warranted and see what will happen to you in short order. Then compare anything else out there — including the standard that we find too often in courtrooms, open source reference sites such as Wikipedia, “serious” media and too many scientific magazines and journals. That’s why I am using this blog to clarify and test my own thinking, towards onward use in serious educational contexts, as is say CS from a different perspective. And, while there is a lot of complaining onthe high spam and moderation standards, I find that this is vital to keepingt out ad hominems and repetitious, closed-minded assertions substituting for serious argument. Dave Scott and Patrick etc, thanks for a thankless job, even though I am one of the ones who keeps on breaking the system down! Hey, I haven’t busted it for coming on a whole week! Thanks, Mark over at Akismet, too. When all is said and done, UD and its team will have made a major contribution to restoring the balance in our civilisation, not just in science.)

Are you serious?  UD passes for 'peer review'?  Only in the same sense that when one frat brother fucks the goat, they all have to fuck the goat.

So, just wade in and spout off something that is poorly warranted and see what will happen to you in short order
Let me save you the trouble and just tell you what will happen.  You will have a great frikkin time, and the tards will get stirred up.

compare anything else out there — including the standard that we find too many times in courtrooms... and too many scientific magazines and journals.

All I can parse from this is something like, UD is better than Nature, the Supreme Court, Evolution, Ecology, Science, PNAS, the PA Liquor Control Board Judge, Molecular Ecology and pick your favorite journal. UD pwnzrodgosa!onezorgismus!!! your journals.

then sum up, [paraphrase]Shoutouts to all my homies out there that been playa-hatin too, you know how we do, keepin it real up in here, word-life god muthafuckahs be comin up in here talkin bout some ol bullshit and we be callin em on it, ayite?  You better step up or step back fo you get stepped on, bitch.[/paraphrase]

And, then UD will restore civilization and science too.  Carry on.

Date: 2007/11/29 12:09:48, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
yeah well as long as you two are spooning, take a look in the corner over there underneath the newspapers.  I've been in Mornington Crescent long enough to get drunk twice this morning.

I just went up and over the gap where Pap shot the sow that had run off with one of Lilly's younguns, down the ridge to the big stacked rocks and then took off through the country til I got to Sang Branch, follered it to the forks, up and over the notch at Hensley Gap and then I was out at the highway, where I just flagged down my Uncle Leonard since he was going that way anyway.

But you limeys have fun spooning.  I can beat you home too.

Date: 2007/11/29 12:12:53, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Now those hidebound anti-chance-worshippers won't let Lazarus post but see fit to discuss his shortcomings in his absence.

Note BarryA:  Don't ever comment on one of my posts again.

What is the point to overthrowing materialism again?

Date: 2007/11/29 17:35:49, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Materialoids R In Ur Brain, Beeng Ur Momz

Date: 2007/11/29 20:27:18, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
More like watching two monkeys trying to fuck a cat.

yawn.  i've seen better before sunrise.  just try to slop the hogs when your granmaws on the rag.  THAT'S A CIRCUS.

Date: 2007/11/29 20:29:46, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Skeptic, I hope you don't leave.

I think you are a purty good queer as far as that goes.  Minus all the presuppositional bullshit and the inability to assert that you believe something without good evidence, you are a good sport.  

Falwell was a douchebag.  Objectively.  Don't be one.


Date: 2007/11/30 09:52:10, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Marty, why don't you just lay out your theory instead?  It shouldn't be that hard, right?  You've got one, right? That would make Lou and everyone else happy, no?

Your 'discussions' are nothing more than hand-waving and question begging.

I for one would love a thread where we could actually talk about your ideas instead of how wrong you (in simple ignorant error) believe the ideas of others to be.  

But I think the reason why we don't is that you don't have any ideas.  None, except some magical cosmic notion of progress and just enough sense to fall on your own sword.  It is entertaining to watch you fake the English-as-a-second-language gambit then drop the ball and you use some american slang.  love it.  mean it.

Date: 2007/11/30 10:43:02, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Just parsing the true statements from the chaff

BA^77 gets some on his foot
We (IDists) sit here at UD everyday

OK that's not so bad.  I suppose I sit here everyday.  Back to the mines.

Date: 2007/11/30 12:20:52, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
isn't niwrad Davison?  If so he has snuck back into UD.  stay tuned for fun and games on the tard front.

Date: 2007/11/30 16:58:27, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Digdug24 is flirting with Teh Designerbannination .

So after following all of this I don’t understand why everyone was so hard on Lazarus, since he was saying the very same thing that mynym allanius Borne and Born^Again77 are saying here.

Am I missing something? I’m not an atheist but I don’t want to start a holy war. I’ve always thought the aliens as designer scenario was just sidestepping the existence of God question, and as someone pointed out on the other thread avoiding that question is probably a good thing for us to prevent infighting and focusing on the science. So in that respect I can understand why Lazarus had to go. But on this thread is the same sort of proselytizing and off topic Godding the thread that seemed to be the rationale for banning Lazarus and cdesignproponentsists.

Shhhhhhh.  Ixnay Onyay ethay EsusJay.

Date: 2007/11/30 17:54:47, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Which one of you is

ID’s “power” rests in the fact that it needs to deny have no data, is powerful philosophically politically, and promotes substitutes for effective investigation and is a persuasive way of looking at the world.

There.  Fixed that for you.

Date: 2007/11/30 19:11:59, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Born^Again is some kind oftard

As numerous studies have pointed out, Lake Victoria is only a little over 12,000 years old, while Lake Malawi is approximately 1.5 million years old. Lake Victoria has (or had, until the introduction of the Nile perch) over 600 species of cichlids, while Lake Malawi has many, many fewer (the exact numbers are not known, due to rapid species turnover and the difficulty of sampling fish species in these lakes). In other words, the older the lake, the lower the species diversity.

The older the lake, the lower species richness (I assume he didn't really mean 'diversity', but I digress.  Hmmm.  Wonder if I should call him on that. Naaah.  Even my upperclassmen students f that up sometimes).

upstream of that, he claims polar bears have 'lost information' from grizzly bears.  Fascinating.  I would subscribe to his journal.  Where is it?

Which one of you is Batshit again?

Date: 2007/11/30 19:18:02, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Daniel what examples of introduced species with parallel adaptations native species in a single or few generations are there?  i'm skeptical of that claim, but not having read Berg or ever having even seen the book I have no way to address this.

Date: 2007/11/30 19:39:22, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I mostly stick to critiquing the UD contributors, because so many of the commenters, a few of whom have been commenting for a long time over there, are deep cover trolls.

I reiterate.  Which one of you is Born^Again77?  PM me.  I want to meet you and study with the master.

Date: 2007/11/30 19:49:39, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
some jerk named ken miller just left the following response to the 'human chromosome #2' post on FTK's blog (I was overwhelmed by her discussion at first, until I realized she had C&Ped some creo.  Not overwhelmed by her discussion but overwhelmed that there WAS a discussion).

FTK I am sorry that we have bad blood between us.  After reading your commentary on this subject I realize that you are a biological genius and I would like you to come work in my lab.  You can leave your husband and those rugrats behind and we'll sit on the same pew on Sunday Mornings.  Clearly you possess a mind that is in the 1% of it's class with respect to biological reasoning.  Also, invite the person who you stole the post from as well.  I would like to work with them too.

Date: 2007/11/30 20:02:51, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Stevestory that's interesting.  I have no access to the private thoughts of ID'ers.  Just creationists.  Oh boy, do I ever there.  

What do you think then, if the story you share is representative of the whole, is the appropriate response from the 1)  scientific community and 2)  pro-science advocates as a whole (including political and all that)?

Because it seems like it ignore it and it will go away is what I gather from those facts (at least from the science perspective).  And that is certainly not what we are doing, and I wonder how much the (albeit hugely negative and hilarious) attention that we give these idiots 'steels their resolve' and all that (see FTK and persecution complex) and we may be in a positive feedback loop.

But that is just #2.  I'm of the opinion that ID is washed up in #1 and never really was afloat.  You wouldn't know it from dredging the tard over there at UDumb.

Date: 2007/11/30 20:13:46, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I think all this business might be distilled down to the Mumonkoan (google it up, jerks).  

There is no conflict, in principle, between faith and science.  There is, in practice, as soon as any particular empirical claim from faith is evaluated.

The mumonkoan gives multiple ways to resolve this paradox.  I have used one upstream:  what skeptic searches for is like riding the oxen in search of the oxen.

the most satisfactory resolution of this dilemma, to me, is to acknowledge the patent absurdity of the relation of the two.  of course this has ontological implications (I can no longer seriously maintain that there are in fact Little People in the woods, but I sure can't prove that there aren't.  and there is a lot of history behind this story).  Compartmentalizing just prolongs the friction.  Somewhere in an orthogonal dimension lies the resolution.

It is not the flag moving, it is not the wind moving, it is your mind moving.

And some sort of deconstructionist disassociative non-realism is healthy for a personal narrative, I think.  All the while recognizing that our daily lives are bounded by empirical realities.

Now I am wondering if I am high, or if I should be high?

Date: 2007/11/30 20:29:19, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
In case you are already high


Un-mon said, "The world is vast and wide; for what is it you put on your seven-piece robe at the sound of the bell?"

Mumon's Comment:
When one meditates and studies Zen, one extinguishes the attachment to sound and color. Even though some have attained enlightenment by hearing a sound, or an awakening by seeing a color, these are ordinary matters. Those who intend to master Zen freely master sounds or colors, see clearly the nature of things and every activity of mind. Even though this is so, now tell me: Does the sound come to the ear, or does the ear go to the sound? But when both sound and silence are forgotten, what would you call this state? If you listen with your ear, it is hard to hear truly, but if you listen with your eye, then you begin to hear properly.

If you are awakened, all things are one and the same,
If you are not awakened, all things are varied and distinguished.
If you are not awakened, all things are one and the same,
If you are awakened, all things are varied and distinguished.

Also a poem written by Ho Chi Minh and reproduced in the Anarchist Cookbook is quite beautiful and speaks to the disassociative element that is the (IMHO) most fruitful method of resolving the NOMA conflict (the orthogonal axis).

Date: 2007/11/30 20:31:55, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
i don't think the Inuit wim^men have anything to fear from Davetard since according to Ernest Miers they are different species and all that stuff.  And according to B^A one of them has less information than the other.

Date: 2007/11/30 20:53:09, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
and that is all the 'in principle' world of faith.

but, and we can point to bazillions of examples, this is not the actual practice of faith.

the actual practice of faith is to go about spewing unwarranted assertions about everything from dinosaur diets to the sex life of Jeeeeeesus to the ass end of fracterial blagellums to the distance to Alpha Centauri.  And like it or not skeptic you have been guilty of this as well with all of your contrived metaphysical dualism gambit.  

All that any of us have ever said (strike that, I'll speak for myself) is the acknowledgment that you are talking out of your ass when you do that.  Perhaps it is my fault for not acknowledging that implicitly whenever you speak, but the history of this thread is exactly that particular problem, plus some hilarious diversions.

So by pointing out that there are nonsensical questions that have nonsensical answers in no way have you reduced all questions to that same level of foolishness.  Love ya, mean it, but you can't do that.

Date: 2007/11/30 21:08:19, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

Are you kidding me?  Not only does B^A have a Gen^etic Entro^py Mo^del that predicts all sorts of things like polar bears being white and cichlid species diversity richness in different aged Rift Lakes, it also pre-predicted species selection!!!

SJG I hope you are rolling over in your crematorium!  I think Elizabeth Vrba has just found herself her Kurt Wise!  If any of you know what shelter B^A is staying in, holla!

Date: 2007/12/01 11:56:52, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
News from B^A77:  Population genetics is on the way out!!!  Because it has something to do with Bill Gates!

snipped four million lines of crap
Future work by ENCODE that established virtual 100% poly-functionality of the Genome should be the de^ath blow for Darwinism. But then again from the available evidence I’ve seen Darwinism should of di^ed long ago.

Digdug is a smart ass and probably a troll.

12:53 pm
Born^Again I am sure that the news of the demise of population genetics will sure shake up the scientific establishment. I just searched the web of science for articles about population genetics published in 2007 alone: 1391 articles. There will be lots of folks upset to hear this!!!

That is a rather large gap to fill. What do you propose?

Date: 2007/12/01 16:45:53, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Skeptic you are no longer Sophist, Obliviot, or anything else.

You are now Solipcist.

How do you even know that you are really here posting on this board?  Perhaps I dreamed you up?  Perhaps you dreamed me up?  What is the criterion for distinguishing between the two?  What if that criterion conflicts with my faith?  What then should I do?

I know you really don't believe this bullshit.

Date: 2007/12/01 17:22:57, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Skeptic squeaked

Funny thing is, you make those assumptions on nothing more than faithprior experience and proceed with your understanding of the Universe from there.  How ironic.

There fixed that for you.  You're welcome.

You could call it a Bayesian approach.  Or not.

Date: 2007/12/02 08:49:14, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
hey louis that sounds like something my daddy said to me!!!

Only it was more like

Son, hold my beer for a minute.  Daddys got put his seatbelt on.  Now son you're growin up a bit now and your momma and me aint always gonna be around.  And your bodys changing some and I've noticed you got hair where there just used to be fuzz and stuff and we've seen you looking at that neighbor girl and what that does to the front of your swim trunks all pokin out like a blacksnake in an oak knot.  So there's these three biggest lies in the world son and I figgured you ort to know them in case I's to pass on or pass out or make a pass at that neighbor girls momma and your maw was to kick me out on the street or if'n I just lit out my damn self cause I felt like it.  And them lies are 1)  This'll only hurt for a little while 2) I'll only just stick the head of it in there and 3)  I'll promise that i'll never try to come well in your mouth son sorry that sounds so bad but we've got some slang words for that you'll learn when you get older that don't sound so daggone nasty.  

He also told me to know when to hold them and know when to fold them.  I could never foller that un.

Date: 2007/12/02 08:53:02, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
yeah velma was hot.  imagine she did that whole show with a string of beads concealed.  what a freak!

I smell sarcasm

jerry, Wikipedia is a good source for say details of Futurama episodes but i wouldn’t base my research programme on it. I am highly skeptical that anyone has TRIED to mate a chihuaha and a wolf, so this sounds like a promising line of ID research.

Yeah I smell it for sure, may have stepped in some of it or something.

I imagine that there are probably lots of ID labs that would love to have a new student. This is exactly the sort of thing that can get ID on the map. I suppose you will have to learn some molecular techniques, but someone else may have already done all the work. I think you may have to come up with a good working definition of ‘information’ as it pertains to this problem, and i don’t think anyone has done that either so that would be a great first stroke. On the other hand, it should be easy enough to avoid that issue by ignoring it. I am not sure what is the best route, are you? This is exciting. Where do you think you might go to test this idea? Is Behe taking new students?

yeah there is definitely some in here somewhere.  everyone check the bottom of their shoes.

Date: 2007/12/02 09:18:26, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

Date: 2007/12/02 09:26:30, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

Date: 2007/12/02 19:21:58, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Which one of you guys is FTK again?

i think it is most likely k.e. or skeptic.

Date: 2007/12/02 20:29:05, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
That's just the thing.  It's really easy to render presuppositionalists incoherent.  simply claim different presuppositions, then render them unvailable to retrospection via some sort of po-mo compartmentalization.  so skeptic i agree with you completely about 'we are never going to agree'.    

by the way, you did it again.  the evidence free fact free argument by assertion thing.  thought someone should tell you.  we all know your opinion by now.  

i am curious, what is the difference between 'personal' experience and 'prior' experience?

Date: 2007/12/02 20:39:29, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Let's see...  promote 'debate'.

When 'debate' entails the argument that 'The earth is between 8,000 and 5  billion years old', that is not really a debate but instead something more akin to a circus.

That should about sum it up I think.  Everything else is pathetic detail.

Date: 2007/12/02 21:19:07, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
She's recently been showing up at UDumb and chirping at the moderators to wield their ham fisted heavy hands on the peanut gallery over there.  presumably this is because she realized that she sounds a lot like Solon did.  Truth hurts luv.  Hmmmm?

Date: 2007/12/02 22:08:27, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

Date: 2007/12/02 22:10:11, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

Date: 2007/12/02 22:16:06, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
When 'either 10,000 or 5 billion' is your notion of reality, what is else there but ridicule?

willfull ignorance and voluntary blinkering is worth pointing out.  

as long as you are alive there is hope.

Date: 2007/12/02 22:34:18, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
just give them shotguns and tell them to go take care of the blue herons.  that'd work, right?  get rid of all that stuff on the internet.

Date: 2007/12/03 12:24:06, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Almost postmodern relativism, Hell!

Louis, your opinions about opinions are in my opinion just opinions about opinions and therefore no more valid than any other opinions about opinions.  it is the opinion of this commenter that opinions thus are immaterial proving the existence of Moses and also quantifying the number of angels that can have a celestial moresome on the apex of a pin (the head of a pin being just an opinion anyway).  Finally, the corollary of this opinion, in my opinion, proves that you are a materialist and also a mean bastard who probably beats puppies and very likely an atheist too.  And your shoes stink.

Date: 2007/12/03 12:29:50, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Jesus CHRIST (that's for you FTK) what a rich thread.  I was sure that it had completely died except for metacommentary on what kind of hijinks she was up to in other (nether) regions.

But this is great.  Merry Christmas, moonbat! [ftk] tosses hair, giggles, silently farts, rolls eyes, moves goalposts[/ftk]

I hear that there may be endangered dung beetles in kansas.  your children should go collect them and see if taping them to an M-90 will leave anything but a greasy spot.  It would prove ID, you know.  because a greasy spot of that composition and shape would be highly unlikely to evolve on it's own without intelligent input.  

luv that good po-mo stuff too.  keep it up.  you need your own TV show.

Date: 2007/12/03 19:13:17, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Hey now easy on the hausfrau!!!

It may very well be that soccer moms lead the vanguard of the new scientific revolution.  It will not be televised.  It will not be published in any materialists journals.  It will not involve fancy words or big long equations.  It may even occur in a bathroom stall converted into a broom closet at Baylor.  However, it could also possibly occur at Montreat College or Johnson Bible College or Liberty University or any number of these fine research schools in this great land that was not built by materialists.  All that is necessary to complete the paradigm shift is to finish building the ark.

All Science So Far, sugarlips!

Date: 2007/12/04 10:16:49, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
science is totally bogus.

I think that pretty much sums up UD in general.

of course there is a nice po-mo attitude that 'True' (IOW 'our' or 'non-materialistic' but ultimately 'interpretationally nonbiased' vis their presuppositions) science is not bogus.

I think this is what Lazarus and Solon were arguing for:  we don't need no stinking science.  Yet they must have garbled the message, for this is exactly the same sort of thing that UDers love!

Date: 2007/12/04 11:33:38, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Oh, I'm sure she's been asked.  for instance, she might get along with this ol gal.

Date: 2007/12/04 12:48:04, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
zero, I'm all ears.

By the way, we'uns speak the Queen's Ainglish round hyar.  Just like Shakespeare but with a bit more inflection and through the sinus.  write that down.

Date: 2007/12/04 16:18:15, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
digdug24 is in full agreement with the angryoldfatman

Hear hear bugsy.

Born^Again, why are you discrediting the work of honest scholars in the field of cryptozoology?  There are lots of these folks out there and academia pooh-poohs their hard evidence and says it is not 'scientific'.  i see lots of interesting parallels between cryptozoology and ID.  As far as angels go, I think we can make a design inference about their existence.  Dembski certainly agrees.  A question I have often considered is 'how much CSI would an angel have?'  Certainly it must be much more than a human being.  This would give us a first order approximation at how much has been lost since the Fall.

I for one am glad that you are standing up for God and the argument regarding design.  ID stands to gain immeasurably from not being wishywashy about the identity of the designer.  This is a problem around here, for sure.


Date: 2007/12/04 16:26:29, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
When Louis hangs around the house, he really hangs around the house.

Date: 2007/12/04 19:34:26, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
re the sock puppet pseuodebate:

Anyone resorting to examining blog comments as a proxy for the way that ID is treated within the scientific community has their head square in their ass.

I submit to you that there is absolutely nothing going on over there that is worth engaging in a dialogue over.  The reason is quite simple.  UD is for religious nutjobs and science denialists who are in a bit of a quandary over their motives.

Now, immature, maybe.  Hilarious, definitely.  Kicking sand on toddlers, probably.  Posing as an interested person, worthless.  

UD exists for our pleasure.  I think the debate here is over 'Deep Cover Trollery vs. Shenanigans'.  Let's keep it to that.  I think there are merits to both, one important quality of deep trollery is none of those idiots pick up on it.  That's great.  But who wants to actually have a dialogue with  Born^Again or kairosobfuscus that doesn't have deep trollery motives?  Classic cases of affirming the consequent.

Date: 2007/12/04 21:07:39, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Whatever FTK it's just your opinion and everyone's opinion is exactly the same.

One mans fact is another mans opinion, right?

Date: 2007/12/04 21:24:19, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Well Mr_C I'll balk at the 'proving' things business.

Other than that.  UD is performance art.  No more.  

It is extremely satisfying when some idiot (that you have good prior reason to believe is not a puppet) agrees with you about something that is so overwhelmingly stupid.  

It is telling that they do not come here.

It is telling that VMartin does not go there.

It is telling that God is in every post.

What more could you want?

Date: 2007/12/04 21:27:25, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Ahhh, the golden shower hypothesis.

Now, THAT'S falsifiable.

Date: 2007/12/04 21:33:17, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Iowa is getting hot, hot, hawt!!!

perhaps it is because of INTERSTATE 35oneoneoneoneoneone!!!oneone

Date: 2007/12/04 21:34:19, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I prefer not to use tard-terms, Lou.

And besides, spelling theater as theatre is gay.*

* added in edit
Not that there is anything wrong with that, Louis.

Date: 2007/12/04 22:08:09, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
it undermines our trust that the stunning cluelessness at UD is legitimate

steve the fact that they don't recognize it either unless it oscillates waaaaaaay out of bounds is good evidence that your estimation of their cluelessness is legitimate, qualitatively.

again, looking for something substantive to argue against (at UD) is a fool's errand.  surely by now you know the ins and outs of the argument from Behe and Dumbski and the rest.  Does it matter if Born^Again, Kairosfocus, jerry, etc are really trolls or not?  If not, they are just pawns and are not saying anything we haven't heard before.  If so, they are heroic actors and I would love to be taken in by them again.  I love it so!!!one!!

Now, here's a tidbit.  The real weirdoes over there are probably worth, in principle, probing.  Like the pleasurian.  And Solon of course.  but what will you get, in practice?  just an acid flashback of idiocy from the gallery, and like a big buck they will disappear in the mist.  

So let's enjoy that rollercoaster without projecting about the way that we think they should behave if they were legitimate.  They aren't, clearly.  That is a Bayesian prior.  Until otherwise.

Date: 2007/12/05 08:07:27, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
well k.e. you and behe are both wrong.

See, god is OMNIPOTENT.

that is the very opposite of IMPOTENT.  as you well know.  

so gods ALWAYS has it up.  a big purple throbber.

Date: 2007/12/05 08:14:42, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
eeeeeeere, take a hit of this!

For flu virus, cold weather proves ideal

of special note:

“The answer, they say, has to do with the virus itself. It is more stable and stays in the air longer when air is cold and dry, the exact conditions for much of the flu season.”

I was wondering if they meant more stable on the molecular level…i.e. Is molecular entropy of the virus a factor? If so, it is yet another piece of the puzzle falling in place for the ID camp.

just another one of those things that materialism would have never predicted.

Date: 2007/12/05 11:08:46, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Sally asks if denying GG tenure is religious persecution?

I am curious as to what the consequences will be if a legal entity does decide that the faculty decided not to vote for tenure based on Gonzalez’ support for ID? Is that religious discrimination? If so, can this be overturned on those grounds?

If it is not religious discrimination, how can we get this overturned, i.e. what grounds are there for recourse? Thanks again!

meanwhile, Frost reminds everyone that it is still all about Gawd.

Date: 2007/12/05 15:12:10, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Sally_T keeps on trying to get an answer.

What is the legal basis of the challenge to ISU? Will it be religious discrimination? If so I could see that being a problem in the long run, although it might get GG a seat in the faculty.

If it is not religious discrimination, then what? It seems that the funding/graduate student success rate/ publication record issue is a pretty tough obstacle, and that the best chance GG has is to argue that his religious beliefs were held in contempt by the faculty voting on his tenure.

Date: 2007/12/05 20:46:45, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Sounds-a Like-a You-Guys-a need-a Jeeeeeeeeeeeee-sus-ah!!!  Brother he's the one-ah that's gonn-ah Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeal Ya!

try here:

Not trivializing, I'm just saying.  jesus is on the mainline, tell him what you want.

Date: 2007/12/05 21:15:59, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
is anyone else seeing weird shit going on over there right now?  all the 'recent comments' have disappeared, and when i tried to comment it gave me the old 'you are posting too quickly' shtick.  except i wasn't.  you know.  and it persisted.  

WTF?  is davetard passed out on the keyboard?  perhaps it looks like this over there on his screen

ds aaaagjkkjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj

and stuff.  i wish they would post that.  how is THAT for CSI?  nominally emergent, non-aggregative, causally incompressible and crucial to robust higher level generalizations.  THAT my friends is what we call (at least) weak emergence.

Date: 2007/12/05 21:21:47, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Annyday, that post by is an absolute jewel.

And the tard quickly flows

brilliant!!! I doubt that darwinist community will even acknowledge those hypotheses! i guess that is what the blinders of materialism will do for you! even if they do, its still E coli, it’s not like it sprouted wings and started living in trees or anything. I think these guys believe that Spiderman is a documentary.

WTF?  Spiderman AINT NO documentary?  Shit.

Date: 2007/12/06 09:01:27, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Maya welcome.  I noted your attempts at dialogue at UD and how the inmates reacted.  Schaudenfrude (sic)* is a diagnostic character of the uncommon dissenters.

May I offer a small piece of wisdom.  There is not a single thing to be gained from dialogue with those folks.  They are useful idiots to the PR machine that is Intelligently Designed.  In other words, both their capacity to understand AND their ability to affect public perception is very limited.

However, they are more or less the vanguard that the upper level tards keep between themselves and honest scrutiny.  I'm fairly sure that the top level tards watch what is going on down in the arena and take notes.  This allows them an opportunity to mold their platform without taking direct hits themselves.  More or less an Emmanuel Goldstein (the character, not the troll from PT or PZs place) type of manipulation of the inmates.

Therefore, and this is my conclusion and YMMV:  UD is not to be taken seriously except as an opportunity for juvenile humor, perfecting the art of irony and sarcasm, and most of all as a good place to visit in order to return here with goodies (armloads of tard).

Welcome again!

*Ed did it.

Date: 2007/12/06 09:09:04, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Which one of you is frost again?

A transformational process of matter that has an unknown guiding force behind it according to Darwin or it just is. ID says that it is far too improbable that these thing just muted “abracadabra style” and boom you have a human out of nothing. The lateral gene transfer type processes are an even greater way of breaking down the explanatory power of “POOF IT’S A COW” into “there is an improbable chain of events that can only be explained by some form of intelligently directed process arranging the relationships between differing units into a super-highly improbable living organism that displays SC.”

snip... next comment also by frost

Lateral Gene Transfer brings it closer to ID then “Boom its a cow” does because you are dealing with real probabilities - “Boom its a 747? just claims that it was all mmajic ungided randomness out of nothing -per se’.

God damn that is some good tard.  Kudos to whoever that is (might be k.e., note the james joyce/jack keruoac/muhammad ali writing style.

Date: 2007/12/06 09:32:57, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Ain't NOTHIN to be ashamed of here.

Date: 2007/12/06 12:54:07, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I'd love to see a list of sockpuppets myself.

FTK, that seems like some Design Inference Research right there.  Doubt it's publishable, but you could test the upper limit of the probability bound.

Date: 2007/12/06 15:10:43, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Which one of you guys is Sally_T?

But you will not recognize that this is the way that biology works, instead demanding a reductionist account of how atoms become men. Clearly the theoretical accounts of atoms and living things are not translatable into the other. Until this is so, you will not be satisfied hence the argument regarding design.

my bolding, biotches.

Joe G says, after Sally_T tells him to go learn some biology
Been there, done that.

Perhaps YOU should learn what is being debated.

The diversification of life surely requires agency.

You are clueless. This is about EXTERNAL agency- not the organisms themselves- duh.

Date: 2007/12/06 15:44:57, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Design Inference!!!

JoeG is a tard
almost split my staples (19 in the abs) when it hit me. (thank man for percosets!)
on drugs.

Date: 2007/12/06 16:26:39, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Design Inference!!!

Which one of you is the poet again?  Is there any hope that all of the UDers will begin using The Argument Regarding Design?

Date: 2007/12/06 16:48:34, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I can haz complexity?
No.  Can not haz.  Iz not science.

Date: 2007/12/06 23:21:52, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
For those with a discriminant taste of the finer things in tard:

I offer you this.

Just a sampling of the deep thoughts of Born^again.
I respectfully disagree, the logic is sound because all probabilities and possibilities automatically become subject to the Omnipotent Being who would eventually arise in the infinity of other universes of varying parameters.....

Materialism has no foresight or intelligence and is de^ad, so it can’t pick and choose which basic parameters will be implemented in a infinity of universes or not, so your snowflake analogy is absurd for you suppose some basic parameters will never change. (The omnipotent Being would also arise an infinity of times I might add).
I did not set the ground rules for the logic.....

this “materialistic” universe generator would generate universes “where Gandalf kills the Balrog and Frodo casts the One Ring into the of Doom” and Thor is Santa Clause

Then B^A says he will read Candide, if it is nonfiction.  Has he never heard of it?  Who could know? (giggle)
Thanks for the reference. I love to read and will get it if it looks interesting (and is non-fiction).

Which one of you guys is Born^Again, again?  I bow to the master.  Really.  I. Salute. You.  That is f*#!&%#@(#ing good shit.

*Ed didded it.  Over.  And Over.  Again.  And Again.  And then once more, just because it was there and the moon was right.  And then one more time to spoil all the others.

Date: 2007/12/07 09:03:39, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Changing the subject a bit...

It appears that Frost attended Dembski's cooking school!!!

Intelligence is a more specific category than properties and in fact what the theory of ID does is distinguish material properties from intelligent properties. If you put all of the ingredients of a cake into a pot and just wait, it will never cook itself and emerge as a cake. You need to do the work of watching and coking it. This is a purposeful process that defies all of the probabilistic resources in the universe. Why is there a cake because it took a purposive intelligent action to make it that way.

You tell me what all that shit means.  Cake can haz CSI?  Cake can haz SLOT?

*I didded it this time.  Not ed.

Date: 2007/12/07 11:44:11, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I'd love to see a workshop given by FTK and UD called 'Plunging the Memory Hole:  How to eliminate unsightly unseemly offensive offal'.  I'm sure they have a pretty good set of course materials.  they could reference RB's tireless exhaustive account of UD bannination, along with the theoretical development of the workings of yon board.

Date: 2007/12/07 14:25:10, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I was thinking more like 'Louis's face is uglier than forty miles of bad roads' then I realized that that is subjective and to someone who lives in Ireland (he does, right) 'bad roads' probably doesn't mean a great deal.  What with the sheep path down the hedgerow being the chief vector of travel there and what-all.

So how about, uglier than a mud pie.

Date: 2007/12/07 15:09:09, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Confusion reigns supreme in Tardland.

JoeG is a Genius.
Do you think that archaeology would even be a science if everything could be reduced to matter/ energy?

How about forensics? No body would care who did what. Gunshot wound would = lead poisoning. Or “He died because he ceased living- the energy was drained from his body.”

This is the thread that keeps on giving.

Date: 2007/12/08 11:54:25, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Frost says  
No one knows if a theory or research program will be fruitful until its allowed a good chance to develop.

Quit stomping on the seedlings!  Gaahhhhh!  You have to let it groooooooooow!  

Interesting.  I've never heard that particular flavor of tard before.  Not sure what to call it.

What about this.  Frost complains about Teh Big Werdz.
This is the problem I have with methodological materialists they reject further metaphysical explanations so they reduce the argument to terminologies that barely and really don’t accurately describe the situation at hand.

Which one of you guys is frost?

Date: 2007/12/09 09:56:48, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I think she even dropped in some trash talking about the study of scientific rhetoric in one of those long boring diatribes.  I have been disappointed that poachy has not joined into this discussion, I am sure that he would have an interesting perspective on the loads of drivel that Frost and KF are spurting on poor Sally.  I think they need a towel in this tard bukkake fest.

Date: 2007/12/09 10:13:08, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Ass, this guy is probably a presuppositionalist.  There is an essay on the web, somewhere, by a philosopher who has debated many of these folks and has a great set of advice about how to deal with presuppositionalist arguments on logical grounds that are independent of the factual context of the debate.  It could be about anything, but the post modern relativism of pre-supps is always a good thing to keep hammering.

Date: 2007/12/09 10:56:47, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
now poachy and Sally_T debate whether there is more CSI in a crunchy or smooth peanut butter sandwich:

Sally tells Joe to calculate the CSI in a peanut butter sandwich.
You can’t even demonstrate that it is a metric, with respect to a simple peanut butter sandwich (Look, I’ll make it easy on you. It can be smooth peanutbutter and not Krunchy). Please, someone here show me how this is done.

Poachy retorts
Sally, wouldn’t smooth peanut butter have more information since more processing is required to make it smooth?

Sally_T admits the possibility that she is wrong
But that could be wrong. Poachy is correct, smooth peanut butter must have more information since it has had the smoothing process applied to it. Or perhaps that removes information. i would love to hear Dembski’s input here, and settle the debate about CSI and smooth or crunchy peanut butter. Perhaps he can calculate the statistic we desire as well.

Dembski refuses to weigh in.

James Stanhope reminds us it is all about God and the bible.

As Joseph points out, Dr. Dembski has given the math for anyone who is willing to remove there materilist blinders long enough to look at it. But as Joseph also points out, you don’t need a lot of big words and mumbo-jumbo to look at the “Glory” of Creation and see the hand of Design at work.
I think Sally is led by the blind and has fell into the ditch (Luke 6:39).

The thread that keeps on giving.  Sadly.  evo-mat.  selective hyperskepticism.  Onlookers, merits, always linked.

Date: 2007/12/09 12:16:59, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Im pretty sure they have been goaded.

Date: 2007/12/09 13:04:30, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Patrick gets huffy
So according to you when I consider the information in the writings made by a pen I must consider the atoms of the ink. Or if considering a digital bit I must also take into account the medium by which it is stored, whether it be a HD, RAM, or anything. You are essentially asserting that information theory cannot exist…

Sally giggles
I’m not saying that ‘information science’ cannot exist, I am saying that you are inappropriately applying to biology.

Can you believe this discussion?
Does something written in invisible ink carry the same amount of information as something written with black ink, or something written using animal tracks? Imagine having a deer hoof on the end of the stick, and writing your name in the sand with the deer hoof. the hoof prints are visible and tell us something. its hard to see how there is not information in that.

Inquiring minds want to know, there is probably information in the handwriting style too.  of the Designer.


Date: 2007/12/10 00:42:24, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Sally_T bares her claws (No more Ms Nice-Lady)

Stephen, according to which 'neo-darwinists' do organisms neither think nor plan?  This should be good.

Reaches for popcorn, pokes the slumbering RTH in the corner.

Actually, Stephen, were one to use the explanatory filter consistently, he would find that every single artifact under scrutiny is designed.  What is the probability that these particular atoms, out of all the individual atoms in the universe, are configured together in this lump of space-time?  To claim that this is not information is very inconsistent.  How do you know it is not information?  Aren't you letting the evidence lead you 'where it may'.  That is evidence that you must deal with, this staggering improbability that we are here instead of anywhere else, before going on to more banal calculations like the amount of CSI in a turkey drumstick or perhaps a quiche.  The EF is tripped when mice fart.  What good is that?  You can only bypass the EF by cherrypicking 'information'.  

If you had been paying attention instead of picking your nose, or going neener neener neener I can't hear you, then you would have recognized the discussion of emergence has revolved around how scientific theories accomodate processes and entities that are not reducible to lower levels.  Not any sort of magic properties that theism could not predict nor any sort of 'design' that is supposedly quantifiable but cannot tell a peanut butter sandwich from a pile of droppings (which, containing DNA, would undoubtedly trip the EF.  Again, it's hard to keep the explanatory filter supplied with batteries, it's always going off).

If you were honest, and not (apparently) intent on shoehorning the baby jesus into science discussions in public school classrooms, you would attempt to demonstrate how one would determine that a peanut butter sandwich is designed, per the method that Dembski has written in jello.  

We can start with the little things that we know have required human agency, before moving onto others where there is not a hint (i.e., organisms and higher level entities).  You should demonstrate that the method 1)  is usable for a variety of objects, 2)  uses the complete set of 'information' that you can woo from an object, and 3)  actually means something in terms of other domains of biological knowledge.  Unless, of course, the aim is to raze the edifice of biology and replace with 'infermayshunology' in which case we should talk about some other things first.

Surely they will get rid of this wench soon.  She is nasty.  And Joe doesn't like her on principle.  Because she is principled, apparently.


Date: 2007/12/10 08:41:32, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Sally dies.

KF, what would 'justice' do in this instance?  A curious choice of words, there.  GG not being very effective or successful at ISU, his colleagues recognizing that this lull in his career is precisely correlated (r=1.0) with his involvement in the ID movement, which has shown plenty of anti-science tendencies and GG indicated his willingness to teach it as science in the future, those are all good reasons to give GG the boot, I'm sure Dembski's school or Bob Jones or LIberty can make room for him where these sorts of concerns are moot.  He was a racehorse that hit his stride too early, and got crippled by poor decision making.  Cest la vie.  What, again, would 'Justice' do?

Your claim that "the biological origin of the sandwich’s ingredients as deriving from life-forms is another matter" is what I am saying is the problem.  In one instance, they are not relevant, in another they are:  slippery playing fast and loose with the method to fit your a priori goal.

If there is information in the purposeful arrangement of parts, there is information in the choice of parts (Hemoglobin would not work the same with another molecule in the center, for instance).  

If, as you claim, there is no information in the choice of parts or the medium of the message, then the 'information' arises at a higher level.  Bang.  Emergence.  Just like I have been saying, that your metric 'information' is just a fancy name for something that is not expected by natural law or the understanding of the parts.  Either you are suspending natural law, or the understanding of the parts is just a methodological concern and denies the ontological claim (not in principle, but by appealing to the incomplete knowledge base that is the null set for the EF, remember you say the properties of the parts themselves are not information).

You say that departments should be willing to keep young faculty who don't bring in enough money to hire a technician and cannot graduate students, just because they have a particular ontological view of the location of earth in the universe.  You are not willing to be consistent with the implications of the 'PP' hypothesis, down to the Privileged Atom hypothesis (why are the atoms in this orange not in Alpha Centauri?), so you are proposing some sort of affirmative action for people who have ontological presuppositions.  Sorry, KF, that's a pretty dumb idea.

It should be clear, KF, that 'darwinist' forces have not exterminated aboriginal people, but the do-gooding forces of Christianity and The Market.  Extermination includes biological extinction from diseases and also outbreeding depression with europeans.  But you twist it the way you need to.

Tribune, you don't see the need to get precise characterizations of designed objects (where we know they are designed) before running around attempting to apply this method to entities and processes where the design inference is questionable?  If my husband couldn't hit the side of a barn with his rifle, I am fairly confident he would not attempt to take it deer hunting.  

Joseph, when the percosets wear off, perhaps you can tell me exactly why laws (remember, laws are human models of nature) imply a transcendent lawgiver?  See if you can get BA to refrain from posting the eleventy hundred things theism can't predict.

she never got her rocks off.

Date: 2007/12/10 08:59:33, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Frost gives the epitaph.

Davescot, and I’m wearing black. Allow them a eulogy. Getawttness, was a great Darwinist he never said anything substantive. And Sallyt won’t be missed at all because she was a bloviating methodological materialist ideologue. She ignored everything that people told her and just pulled a broken record campaign of total gibberish. Talking to Sallyt was like talking to a wall. RIP GAW & ST.

That right'ar is goooood tard.

Date: 2007/12/10 09:17:00, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Poachy, as last man standing, should probably press the issue regarding the failure to calculate the amount of CSI in a crunchy* peanut butter sandwich.  What a shame to ban an inquisitive bright young lady over a culinary debate.

*it can be smooth.  We never got the downlow which had more CSI, smooth or crunchy.

Date: 2007/12/10 10:03:43, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
RTH you're just jealous of kevin, that's all.

and you are a commie pinko subversive that doesn't love jesus or horses either.

Date: 2007/12/10 11:01:20, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
It seemed to fly over his head.  I for one would blame that on Percocets.  And sheer blithering stupidity too.

Date: 2007/12/10 11:39:54, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
SpeedDemon, which one were you?  PM if you like.

Sometimes they give a 3 day timeout to folks they are not completely convinced about.  it is usually silent, and they look for you to blow your cover elsewhere.  shhhhhhhh.

Date: 2007/12/10 12:48:58, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Wooooooooooo-Woooooooooooo!!!! Born^AGain gets Sciencey!
I have stated before that quantum non-locality is at a advanced enough stage, technologically, to allow many major breakthroughs in eradicating many pathogenic diseases by targeting specific “entangled” complex molecules of pathogens in the entire body of the victim at one time and thus destroying them all non-locally in one fell swoop.

That's Teh Hawt

Date: 2007/12/10 13:06:09, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

if natural selection favors crippling mutations such as the South park turkey  , blind cave fish, wingless beetles and resistant bacteria, then evolution would be even less likely than if only random mutations were involved. Evolutionists should be advised to stay away from using natural selection as a mechanism.

Which one of you is ari-freedom?  that's good shit.

Your advice has been duly noted.

Date: 2007/12/10 13:56:55, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Patrick, the mole at UD?

Sally was not rejecting ID itself. Instead, she was rejecting the foundational science that ID builds upon. It’s difficult to hold a conversation when she rejects the methods that other Darwinists used for years before Dembski ever became an ID proponent.

First part, true.  Sally has an open mind, she just needs some evidence to be convinced.  Got any?  Second part, whaaaaaa?  

Now one part of her objections makes sense to me. The major methods of ID are limited in usability for general purposes due to the propensity to produce false negatives. So why can’t there be an extension to ID that is acknowledged as not being 100% accurate but is more practical?

Because this inaccurate design inference is the handle on the shoehorn that is squeezing baby jesus into science discussions.

What is more practical than that?  

I think she was using “emergence” in a limited sense and not a “Shazam, we have CSI somehow” manner. In comment #187 I pointed out that even though there ARE emergent properties they rely on the design of the controlling factors. But she focused on the emergent properties instead of whether Darwinian mechanisms are capable of producing these controlling factors.

Half a cookie for actually reading the @#(#@(^@#^ thread, Patrick.  When you can't accurately infer design, how can you talk about the design of the controlling factors?  

Negative half a cookie (gimme that shit back) for failing to recognize that the emergent* properties of life block explanatory reduction to constituent parts (where we differ is the notion of supervenience.  Non-materialists and other godders deny supervenience).  Negative 3 cookies for failing to get the point that the 'design inference' tells us absolutely nothing about an object, with respect to all other scientific theories.  Negative essence of cookie-ness for failing to recognize that it is ultimately an ontological argument viz Plantigna.  

Negative universe points for using Sal as a source for anything other than stark naked pointing and laughing at teh stoopid.

*Ed did it to add 'emergence' as a higher-level property, and not something that theism would have predicted or quantum entanglement cures for the common cold, lip herpes or hemorrhoids.

Date: 2007/12/10 19:00:00, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
That thread is one rich vein of idiocy.  Hermagoras you are lucky that you were forcibly removed, if not you might have been struck blind and deaf by the lowest common denominator.  They are arguing whether or not malaria was designed and how this might support young earth scenarios.  and I can't tell the trolls from the idiots anymore.

I would love to know who frost is as well.  There is no reason to assume stupidity when sockpuppetry would suffice.  You, frost my friend, have got the cool.  Nerves of steel and a titanium resolve in the face numbfuckery.  I salute you.

Date: 2007/12/10 19:03:51, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Yikes that is good shit.  Almost makes you wish AFdave and this cat were mixing it up on this board.  I bet the peanut gallery would be tres magnifique.

Date: 2007/12/10 20:08:59, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Frost is probably real.

Date: 2007/12/11 09:07:54, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
...I really feel quite na^ked sometimes, as far as my knowledge is concerned...

Oooooh hawt.


Date: 2007/12/11 13:33:32, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Which one of you guys is ari-freedom?

I do not think it is wise to blame Dawkins for some crazy kook. On the other hand, if there is a war between the United Atheist Alliance and the Allied Atheist Alliance and they murder the one wise one that questions them…yes I would hold Dawkins responsible for this state of affairs.

Date: 2007/12/11 15:44:42, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
If You Feel Like getting a bit dumber....

Hint...  sadly, evo-mat, always linked, secular elitists, merits, Apostle Paul, development of modern liberty, ignorant stupid insane and wicked.

All Science So Far!!!!

Date: 2007/12/11 19:16:27, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Rich you have been hard at work in those tardmines.  That requires perseverance, dedication, and also being a little bit fuct in the old noggin-space.  I salute you sir.  It is hard to waste time any more efficiently than that.  I admit that I cannot even read all of the posts on that blog, but you sir have been a tireless soldier and a diligent defender of all that is not tard.  

I would buy you a beer if you were any where close to here at all.  37920?

Date: 2007/12/11 23:35:57, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Hermagoras, if you thought the last bit of spunk was neither timely nor focused, y'all gwine ta luuuuuuuuuv this'un.

All Science So Far!!!

To be honest, I'm impressed.  No 'sadly', 'evo-mat', 'merits' nor 'always linked'.  But, there is a good load of godding the thread and the usual presumptuous authoritative tone from one who has never provided anything but scriptural reference, deliberate obtusity and personal authority to flesh out any particular claim.

Solzhenitsyn said it well when he pointed out that the line between good and evil does not pass between men and nations, but right through the individual human heart.

odd. this bird is clearly well read, but impregnably stupid with respect to a higher order analysis of exactly what he has read, particularly wrt the issue of presuppositions.  Oh well, what do you expect from one who incessantly references Plantingna?  

Anyone out there have a linky for the essay 'How to debate a presuppositionalist' or something similar?  I keep drawing google-blanks.  it was a damn fine read, for those of you who are into, sadly, evo-mat selective-hyper-skepticism-on-its-merits.  Ciao, onlookers.  H'mmmmmm.

Date: 2007/12/11 23:39:52, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
well if I'm ever within 100 miles...

Then you be knowin what to be doin.

Date: 2007/12/12 23:24:05, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Ok hippies enough about your wild and wooly craaaaaaay days in the dorms.  back to the point.

The UD board is really lame without all of the brilliant and hilarious troll puppets.  This bit about the pope is just about completely stupid.  AFAICT It's not even worth suiting up another soldier marionette to go to work in the mine (mind).  If anyone is watching, can we please get another argument going about 'Just what in the hell are we supposed to replace materialism with?'  Because it is clear that, Other than "Jeeeeesus" most of these morons have never considered it.  And they should.  Damn makes me want to go get a new hotmail account right now.  MUST NOT....  GROWING WEAKER..... ARRRRRRRRRGH!!!!!!!onethousandonehundredelevenths!!!!

Ed did it just to end a sentence with a preposition.

Date: 2007/12/12 23:49:17, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
so far they have failed to catch four of them.  i think i must share an address with some of the other clowns or something.  but i'll keep it in mind, thanks

in other news i found some tard worth reeading.

it starts like this:  H'mmmmm.  Onlookers.  praxis.  ideologues secular sad.

then the jewel.  i nearly pooped on myself again.

...a gun man who tried to shoot a parishioner in front of the congregation. The gun malfunctioned and she beat him off with her Bible — literally. Unfortunately, he simply withdrew...

now THAT sounds like a fekkin good church service.  God Damn sign me up.

Date: 2007/12/13 21:37:03, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
My axes

1998 Landola Jumbo dreadnought with curly maple back and sides (teh SEXXXXXI_HAWT) will post pics when I return to her

2004 Goldtone Banjo, heavier than hell.  An old man in Bryson City NC once told me if a banjo don't weigh 19.3 lbs, it ain't worth shit.  I reckon he's right, hell I don't know.  I like this one.

1982 Gibson Epiphone Mandolin, don't know the model.  pretty good little bug, swapped a half pound of ginseng and 100 bucks for it.

ca 1850 fiddle, no label, very sweet low tones and screaming high.  wish i could play it as good as it sounds.  My good friend Roger Howell (Madison County, NC, look him up!!! Master old-time fiddler and keeper of the tradition in those parts) fixed it up from where it had been broken before, came in an old timey coffin case.  Bow is 150 years old too.

ca 1950 John Juzek fiddle, it's OK.  needs to be fixed up before I can determine if it is worth a damn, those years are hyper variable but this one shows a little promise in the grain of the wood on top.  I swapped a blowed up Ford Bronco to my dad's cousin for that, he got the truck up and running for 30 bucks and I am stuck with one more fiddle (wife loooooved that one).  Ive got four extra bows that go with it, if any of you know anything about fiddle bows PM me and I'll send you some pics.  They could be valuable, hell I don't know.

2003 Crimona stand up bass, pretty good bass for the money.  and even a shitty bass makes it sound that much better anyway.

When the shit hits the fan, what are all you electric ladyland boys going to do for fun?  No power, no noise?  Long Live the Neo Luddite Revolution.

Date: 2007/12/14 19:02:53, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
this is good stuff.  can we keep accumulating data about Dembski's christ statements?  i think I know a certain nonchristian ID supporterproponentists  that just got turned off to ID because of these comments, and he might just be going to UD sometime soon.  And he will need all the help from these sources that he can get, because he no surfa da internetz so good.  and it's a handy reference for all the other tardminers.  got any more?


it's for a good cause (gits and shiggles).


Date: 2007/12/14 19:37:24, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
are you fekking kidding me?  FIVE masters degrees and TWO PhD's?  That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.  lately.  OK not really.  But Why?  Jesus.

Date: 2007/12/14 19:46:06, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

What's your theory again?

Can you even describe one of your mystic heroes version in your own words?  Hmm?  Can you take a shortcut and just say, goddiddidit?  

you are now talking about atheistic darwinism.  that's an improvement.  let's hear about how adding some kind of gods makes evvvvvverything clearer.  kthxbai

Date: 2007/12/14 19:46:45, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Week 7 he cancels the class and starts an entirely new one.

Date: 2007/12/14 22:26:10, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
It seems that sometard is reading this blog.

Or perhaps it is a response to the diligent efforts of UD critics, on UD (isn't UD the equivalent of a bathroom wall in a truck stop, anyway?)

and stuff.

Date: 2007/12/14 22:27:20, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
More from UDumb

Date: 2007/12/14 22:34:28, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
This probably goes here rather than the UDumb thread.

Marcia, about that theory, again....

Date: 2007/12/14 22:46:40, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Freeeeeeeeeeeedom!!!!  Hey Lou I'm getting carried away here, waiting for Victoria's theeeeeeeories!!!

Date: 2007/12/16 08:24:49, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
i'm still about half convinced that frost is a puppet.  albeit a very good one.  he might be.... the master himself.

Date: 2007/12/16 08:48:03, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Has this slipped the radar?

Are you shitting me?  Born^again is raging lunatic.  I love it so!!!!

Date: 2007/12/17 00:01:51, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Daniel your argument relies upon the empirical content of the proposition that 'Living things are just like non-living things'.  In other words, if we knew enough about physics and chemistry, saith the reductive absurdist who is attempting a muppet mimicry of modern biology, we could derive the rules that govern the origin and maintenance of biological diversity.  Since we can't, Jesus did it.  

The problem lies in the fact that you have been unable to give a first principle defense of why your teleological view should even be considered.  parsimony is a bitch.  

No biologist who is seriously thinking about the issue is willing to go to the plate for that proposition 'living things are reducible to non-living things' (note that this position is an absurd strawman derived from a hard-line formulation of what you call 'materialism'), namely an atomistic determined best of all possible worlds nonsensical hypothesis.  I imagine you will find a wide common ground with modern biology if you express skepticism that living things are reducible to non-living things, but you must do more than say "un-unhhh".  Case studies and examples do nothing to support your thesis, which must ultimately derive some testable first principles of it's own instead of merely denying other theories.  Ask Bob O'Hare why the notion of 'laws' governing biology or ecology has been an unfruitful concept.  It has a lot to do with the fact that no distillable generalizations are available at the level of your analysis, only many examples and counter examples.

I'll add this again, a wise redneck indian once told me something that I consider as hard and fast a biological law that ever could be:

Shit varies.  It matters.  Sometimes.

The teleological view could provide some testable predictions.  relying on schindewolf and goldschmidt means that you are relying on the simple assertions of those who never derived any test of their hypotheses.  Simpson showed that Schindewolf's view of telic horse evolution was at odds with empirical evidence (you should read Tempo and
Mode, there is a chapter devoted to deconstructing Schindewolf that is particularly salient to this discussion).  you should think about some predictions that would distinguish your telic view from an atelic view.  I doubt that this is possible, since we have no a priori notion of what such a teleology would involve (unless of course you are just looking at nature to confirm theological beliefs that you have already held, per your previous comments).  

So here we go:  Life is not reducible to non-living elements (I'll buy this for the sake of discussion, and this has no bearing on whether I personally accept this hypothesis).  If this is true, you have no data from which to evaluate teleology.  If you can tell me 'What is the purpose of living things' then we will have a place to start here.  Otherwise you are just mumbling in the dark.  The sad part about that is I believe you are interested in empiricism.  Your approach, however, is at odds with it.

Edited to add:  Michelob may have something to do with the length of this post.

Date: 2007/12/17 09:29:52, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Yeah Lou, if they find life on mars, I predict it will require intelligence to identify and design to retrieve it.  Thus ID predictions are robust.  Plus, non-theists couldn't even predict this because they are immoral and because knowledge comes from Moroni God.

Date: 2007/12/17 19:16:15, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
God is the Life Farce?

Fascinating.  I wish you had a blog.  I would read it.  So would a dozen or so other people.  We should come up with a good name.

Date: 2007/12/17 19:30:38, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Added that before that I saw that you responded to my last post.

If the farther we delve into it, the more complicated and amazing it gets, the more likely it's a product of supreme intelligence.  If, on the other hand, the deeper we delve, the simpler it becomes, we can safely assume random causes.

But you have no a priori reason to assign complicated and amazing things to the products of unobserved supreme intelligences.  In other words, you can't parse 'it is supposed to be this way' and 'it is this way'.  Since the operationally preferable null is 'it is this way', and being conveniently agnostic (per instance) about teleology is a much more productive mode of inquiry (see the history of modern science, for instance), it seems that you'd have to compile ALL of the examples that biology has provided in order to provide a first order approximation of how relevant this teleological notion is to biology.  

And since of course no one has done this (ID is all about cherrypicking particularly undeveloped areas of research for minutiae examples), I'd say that you'll be hard pressed to find any sort of first principle explanations about what exactly the purpose of living things is (other than to live and reproduce and die, and that is difficult to disentangle from supposed to and just does, see above).  

But you must realize that if there is a teleology it must not only explain the pathetic detail of intercellular biochemistry but also the phyletic evolution of life in time as well as extant patterns of biodiversity and the trophic structure of ecosystems, for starters.  If it doesn't, then it doesn't have that much to offer.  


serious about the blog.  do it.

Date: 2007/12/17 19:41:41, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Gut Un RB.

I can understand that these idiots have some kneejerk reactionary reasons for not reading marx (and i don't mean the politco-economic stuff, but the actual logical machinery of dialectics).  It is one of those satanic plots, etc.

But the fact that the thesis/antithesis/synthesis process is so completely an empirical fact in the 'progress' of scientific theories seems to escape them.  That paper by S Naeem in ecology a few years ago was a good description of this pattern in ecology and population genetics.
S Naeem 2002 Ecology:  83(6).  1537-1552


That is in the more or less current primary literature.  If Barry Yaaaaaayyyy or any of these morons were actually interested in science they would not have such stupid ideas.

Come to think of it, their ideas are progressively sounding more and more like the orthogenetic school, almost in unison.  Of course the synthesis did (at least according to Gould) minimalize the formalist argument of constraint.  But they are attempting to construct some independent edifice where there is a priori a ghost in the machine unless you can show that there is not.  What a bunch of deluded fuckwits.  Who is the shining stain at UD?  Im not sure.

Date: 2007/12/17 20:03:33, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
The most recent post by Barry Yaaaaayyyy generated an interesting comment by bFast.

If science were to honestly hold to methodological naturalism alone, and to actively avoid the arguably religous position of philosophical naturalism, then the scientific community would frequently and proudly declare “we don’t know”. If the scientific community said, “origin of life? We don’t know. We have been working at it for decades, centuries, and have not figured it out.” rather than “We don’t know — yet, but we’re really close!!” then the scientific community would be holding to methodological, but not philosophical naturalism. If the scientific community said, “random mutath and natural selection appear to be valid forces within nature” then go on to say, “but huge questions remain such as how organs developed, how complex mechanical systems developed, and phenomenon such as the cambrian explosion” then the scientific community would be holding to position of methodological but not philosophical naturalism. If the scientific community ostricized zealots like Dawkins who have obviously stepped into the camp of hard religion, then I would not be bothered by them ostricizing IDers who try to go beyond the “methodological naturalism” mandate that the community holds to.

If the scientific community, in the spirit of holding to methodological naturalism rejected all telic explanations, but if the scientific community were quick to say “we don’t know, we may never know, it may be that we don’t know because a non-methodological answer is the right answer” then I would not feel a need to challenge this methodological naturalistic position of the scientific community. As such, the weakness RM+NS would be public fare, and ID would be a purely philosophical. No problem, compromise.

here is the root of the problem, and as much as it pains me to say it the 'framing' issue may be carrying some weight here.  but there are two other issues that go first.

If the scientific community ostricized zealots like Dawkins who have obviously stepped into the camp of hard religion

Apparently, the 'camp of hard religion' is the camp of 'talking out of your ass'.  I find Dawkin's reduction distasteful myself, but not because i think it is a competing religion or any other nonsense, but because it is pure over extrapolation.  How many times has he been taken to task about this?  Have the IDers not even paid attention.  Oh, never mind.  Of course they are cherrypicking again.  And Dawkins gets a lot of publicity.

If the scientific community, in the spirit of holding to methodological naturalism rejected all telic explanations

If you are going to argue for a telos, I want to see some justification (other than 'it looks like it is designed and we have a priori reason to believe in creatorsdesigners').  What is the goal or purpose of life?  Such an answer must, to be robust and useful, encompass multiple scales and domains.  Let's see THAT before we get to talking about 'compromises' with repeatedly dishonest arguments and argumentors.

Date: 2007/12/17 20:35:18, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Albie, you're right.  I suppose I would be interested in a capable, coherent and intentionally empirical defense of orthogenesis as a challenge to focus my thoughts.  Not God Did It That Way (that's what UD is for).  I think JAD fails the first two prongs of that test, but AFAIK he is a candidate.  Most instruction at my university ignores that supposed controversy, but the more I read Gould the more respect I have for the view (IN PRINCIPLE).  I have yet to see anyone make a convincing principled argument however (Martin that especially means you buddyismus).

Date: 2007/12/17 22:11:13, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Which one of you is FTK?

...You’ve misunderstood my call for compromise. I was thinking more along the lines of what bFast put forth, or coming to some type of agreement as to how and where ID should be taught. If Darwinists refuse to allow it to be addressed in the science classroom, we need to find other venues or really push the IDEA clubs (I don’t know how many there are at the moment) in which ID advocates can teach it honestly. At the same time, if Darwinists were to follow bFast’s approach to the ToE, professors wouldn’t have such a fight on their hands.

PZ and other professors have added ID to their biology curriculum and they are ripping it to shreds. Compromise would be allowing ID a venue somewhere on the campus so that students (if interested) could take a course or be involved in a club where they could ask questions of an ID advocate and compare it to what their biology prof. has told them....

Let's see...
we need to find other venues or really push the IDEA clubs (I don’t know how many there are at the moment) in which ID advocates can tpreach it honestly

There fixed that one.

PZ and other professors have added ID to their biology curriculum and they are ripping it to shreds


Jesus what do you say to that.  FTK you're stupid.  Affirmative action loving post modern relativist, you are all that you hate.  

Compromise would be allowing ID a venue somewhere on the campus so that students (if interested) could take a course or be involved in a club where they could ask questions of an ID advocate and compare it to what their biology prof. has told them....

How about here?

Date: 2007/12/17 23:48:31, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Tard's getting thick.

snip about did you know i am a musician snip... by the way, as a musician i met someone who knew bela bartok snip 6 degrees snip nazi prisoner snip

...[He]told me about seeing people randomly chosen and either hanged or machine-gunned to death in front of the other prisoners....

Wait now, Gil, that sounds like it trips the EF.  Were these atoms just randomly selected from all of the atoms in that particular wedge of the multiverseinfinte wavelength matrix of spacetime, or was there 'Design'?  

The next bit is ironically hilarious that it deserves full quote

As you can imagine, Nadas was not shy, and he had great contempt for amateur music critics. He once told me about a concert he attended. The pianist was the great Sviatoslav Richter, and it was an evening of piano works by Beethoven. At one point in the concert, during a moment of musical silence, a woman seated behind Nadas said (in a hushed voice), “I don’t think Richter really knows how to play Beethoven.” Nadas stood up, turned around, and in a very loud voice so that everyone in the concert hall could hear, shouted: “Madam, how do YOU play Beethoven?”

Indeed, dear Gil.  How do YOU do science?

Date: 2007/12/18 00:26:46, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Tard Fight !!!1!!!!!1!1!!!!!pointone!!!!!

The 'Get Your Own Dirt' thread (B^A even said it!!!lolz) is fekkin great.  Check this out.

11:15 am
I doubt we will hear of the many failures this program will produce. When their created life forms show a greater tendancy to harmful consequences than RM, the end result will most likely be one disaster after another. This program will eventually add additional proof to ID by showing the enormus complexity in the design of life. Hey, I just made an ID prediction. I thought ID isn’t a science?

Damn right.  ID now predicts that everyone will breathe now or really soon, unless evolution is real.  In which case they won't because they are immoral anyway.  and less complex.  


1:31 pm
you see even if a human redesigns the original enviornment- it still doesnt answer the question- why or how that original enviornment got to be the way it was without a designer?

Sweet Jesus which one of you is Frost?  That is gooooood shit.

toc is a puppet.

Frost actually said something dumber than the above.

then one of you guys is NoChange but I have not figured out which one, yet, RTH.

It says they haven’t tried to boot up the chromosome yet.

I’m quite sure they won’t be able to. God won’t allow these half-artificial/half-real bacteria to be alive. They’ll put their fake chromosomes in the bacteria, and the bacteria will lie dead, inanimate, “soulless” if you will. (No, I’m not a retard, I don’t think bacteria have souls - but they do have a life force around them, and that will be missing here).

Oh shit that is hilarious.

Here is the puppet fight:

2:21 pm
why should bacteria have a life force?

giggle.  i swear to god it ain't me.

There is a lot of evidence that also shows that dualism should include all living organisms, which down to the smallest cell seem to engage in a life energy field which has some aspects of consciousness (intentionality). This is shown by numerous experiments demonstrating human intentional effects on living organisms from single cells to animals to other humans.

So this at least superficially looks like a contradiction that needs to be resolved. Whatever the truth is, it has to encompass all the data.

magnan, pass that god damn thing.  you be playin wit my emooooootions.

Corey (hey dude don't be so mean) interjects with 'you are both stupid'

3:41 pm
I don’t think that:
“This program will eventually add additional proof to ID by showing the enormus complexity in the design of life. Hey, I just made an ID prediction. I thought ID isn’t a science?”
is any better a prediction than:
“I’m quite sure they won’t be able to. God won’t allow these half-artificial/half-real bacteria to be alive. They’ll put their fake chromosomes in the bacteria, and the bacteria will lie dead, inanimate, “soulless” if you will.”

category error po-mo absurdum

3:48 pm
Magnan in #13:

a lot of evidence that also shows that dualism should include all living organisms

This view, IMHO, smacks of common descent and contradicts any special status for humans, which is nonsense.

Reminds me of Dawkins recently saying something stupid like “we’re just another form of animal so we should all be vegetarians” in the same breath as admitted he eats meat. What hypocrisy! And if he’s right, he shouldn’t eat pineapples because we share a common ancestor with the pineapple, don’t we?

Jesus this keeps on giving and giving.  I swear I haven't even read it all yet.

here magnan following and preceding there is an eruption of tard

Soon every known occasion that life has been observed to arise from non life will involve Intelligent Design.

What is, is, and needs to be accommodated by the world view for that world view to be valid. The evidence I was referring to is the results of numerous controlled
studies conducted by legitimate researchers. The following is a short
list of some of the most interesting ones. I can give you references
if you are interested.
-Psychokinetic effects on plant growth
A. Saklani
-Shamanic Healing and Wheat Seeds (& Further Studies)
A. Saklani
-Algae and Psychokinesis
C. M. Pleass and N. Dean Dey
-Psychokinesis and Bacterial Growth
C. B. Nash
-Psychokinesis and Fungus Culture
J. Barry
-Psychokinesis and Red Blood Cells
W. Braud, G. Davis and R. Wood
-Red Blood Cells and Distant Healing
W. Braud
-Wound Healing in Mice and Spiritual Healing (& subsequent
B. Grad, R. J. Cadoret, G. I. Paul
-Malaria in Mice: Expectancy Effects and Psychic Healing
G. F. Solfvin
-Arousing Anesthetized Mice Through Psychokinesis
G. K. Watkins and A. M. Watkins

brb got to change my pants.  giggle.

Date: 2007/12/18 00:31:47, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
2 legit 2 quit yo

Just read the rest of it...

Gods bless youns.  Corey, ari, nochange, other puppets, I'd love to hear from you.  There ought to be either a law or a statue award or both, but you guys are have earned it.  great big ol

Date: 2007/12/18 08:43:19, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Looks like there is a new blog to challenge Underwhelming Evidence in a race to the bottom.  


DEC Welcome to the Design of Life blog!
Posted by O'Leary at 10:19 PM

If you enjoy The Design of Life, we are sure you will enjoy the blog too. And, if you enjoy the blog, the book will help you get up to speed on the reasons we have started this blog. Here you will read the news about evolution that does NOT support the propaganda that is - increasingly - legislated as the only information you or your kids or grandkids are allowed to learn in tax-supported schools. Why do we call it propaganda? Well, let's start with the fact that the history of life has - so far - proceeded entirely differently from what Darwin's theory of evolution would reasonably suggest. It was not a long, slow orderly progress. It has mostly been long periods where nothing much is happening, punctuated by moments of huge panic and great invention. Did you know, for example, that almost all the great divisions of life came into existence rather suddenly about 525 million years ago? Apart from some extinctions, further developments have always been within those categories, not outside them. That's the opposite of what Darwin thought would happen. Why are so many people so frantic about ensuring that you know and utterly believe Darwin's theory of evolution and no other? That you practically worship the man? Might it have smething to do with their basic beliefs? Darwin intended his theory to explain how evolution could proceed without any intelligence whatever behind it. And did you know that 78% of evolutionary biologists are pure naturalists (no God):
In "Evolution, Religion and Free Will" (American Scientist, Volume 95, 294ff) , Gregory W. Graffin and William B. Provine found that, of 149 eminent evolutionists polled, 78% were pure naturalists (no God) and only two were clearly theists (traditional idea of God). Some were in between these poles. The authors describe most of these in-betweens as deists (some sort of divinity might have got things rolling but it is not God in any sense that Christians understand). The authors note that the level of advocacy of any degree of theism among evolutionary biologists is the lowest measured so far in any poll of biologists' beliefs. They described the vast majority of their respondents as "metaphysical naturalists", "materialists", and "monists". In other words, these are people who are serious about their materialism and atheism. These evolutionary biologists generally view religion as a product or byproduct of human evolution so that "... evolution is the means to understanding religion, whereas religion as a 'way of knowing' has nothing to teach us about evolution." The authors make quite clear that "Seeing religion as a sociobiological feature of human evolution, while a plausible hypothesis, denies all worth to religious truths."
Do you think that their view affects their understanding of the evidence? Of course it does. It is a filter through which everything is run. We all have our filters. Here at this blog you will see the evidence run through a filter that accepts the possibility of purpose and design. That means that sometimes you will see the same evidence but without the just-so stories that rescue Darwinism. You will see lots of evidence you wouldn't otherwise know about. In no case will you see the kind of thing you hear increasingly from popular (and sometimes tax-supported) media. For example, here are some things we WON'T tell you: 1. What Pleistocene man "would have done". For example, he "would have had several mates in order to spread his selfish genes." Actually, I don't know what Pleistocene man would have done. Do you? Did he? When we don't know that something actually happened, we won't tell you that it did. We certainly won't tell you that it "would have happened" in order to promote some otherwise useless or failed Darwinist theory. So far as we are concerned, the Darwinist theory can just be useless and fail. That wouldn't be any new event, let me tell you. 2. How "evolution" did something, whether the eye of the squid or the ear of the bat or whatever. Evolution doesn't do things, it is simply what happens over time. It may represent a pattern, maybe not, but we'll see. Contra the views of the late, great origin of life researcher Leslie Orgel, evolution is NOT cleverer than you. Unless, of course, there is Someone or Something clever behind it who is be definition cleverer than you ... but that is a discussion for another day. Here we just want to look at the evidence. 3. Why you should join in the caterwauling about "Visigoths at the gates" or some similar freakout threat. Actually, you shouldn't. Many materialists seem desperate to enshrine Darwin's theory of evolution in the law of the land, deny tenure to any prof suspected of doubting it, and such. They have to behave this way because Darwin's theory is of so little use in understanding the history of life that they must morph it into government-subsidized and court-legislated propaganda in order to help it survive. We are not going to get into the question of why they are allowed to do that because this is not a blog about politics. Here we are mainly concerned with understanding what the evidence really suggests. Actually, we do not even view the Darwinists as a threat (which is how they view us), because we are not afraid of the evidence. Over this blog's life, you will get a chance to see the evidence we learn about and discover what the history of life really looks like. Prepare for some surprises. - Denyse O'Leary, lead blogger Also! See also the two posts below: Why is plant evolution an abominable mystery? The Copernican myth - and other science myths - the undead still walk!

Read more ... View Comments (0)   |   Add Comment   |   Email this Blog

DEC The Big Bang of flowers - an abominable mystery? Or an opportunity to really understand?
Posted by O'Leary at 9:48 PM

Can scientists  shed light on Charles Darwin's "abominable mystery" - the Big Bang of early plant evolution? Flowering plants evolved quite quickly into five groups, according to scientists at the University of Florida and the University of Texas at Austin (ScienceDaily, November 27, 2007). They say that, 130 million years ago, a "Big Bang" (a comparatively short 5 million years) resulted in the five major flowering plant lines we see today:

"Flowering plants today comprise around 400,000 species," said Pam Soltis. "So to think that the burst that give rise to almost all of these plants occurred in less than 5 million years is pretty amazing -- especially when you consider that flowering plants as a group have been around for at least 130 million years."
Many plants do not flower. Ferns, for example, reproduce without flowering (hence the folk term "fern seed" for something you will never see). Flowering plants are generally thought to have appeared much later than the ancient Carboniferous era ferns that produced the coal that is often mined today. According ScienceDaily, while botanists have long recognized that flowering plants diversified swiftly into three branches shortly after they appeared, "the latest research clears the picture by showing that all plants fall into five major lineages that developed over the relatively short period of 5 million years, or possibly even less." It's not clear why the diversification occurred, with some suggesting climate change and others new or better traits. Or, as the press release says,
As for the diversification's cause, it remains mysterious, Pam and Doug Soltis said.
A friend points out that if you take the press release and snip out everything between the "abominable mystery" and "remains mysterious", what have we learned? Only that key developments in life are NOT the long, slow, gradual process that Darwin envisioned - and needed - but rather "Big Bangs". And there is so much that we do not know. This is a time for exploration, not dogmatism.

Read more ... View Comments (0)   |   Add Comment   |   Email this Blog

DEC The "Copernican" myth, and other science myths - the undead still walk!
Posted by O'Leary at 4:35 PM

The myth that Copernicus's model of the universe "dethroned" humans is a vampire that refuses to die. In Physics Today, Mano Singham tries yet again! to drive a nail through the monster's heart. Singham writes (December 2007, page 48) about the promoters of the myth:
Let us start with the myth that the Copernican model was opposed because it was a blow to human pride, dethroning Earth from its privileged position as the center of the universe. Dennis Danielson, in his fine article on the subject, shows how widespread that view is by quoting the eminent geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky. With Copernicus, Dobzhansky contends, "Earth was dethroned from its presumed centrality and preeminence." Carl Sagan described Copernicanism as the first of a series of "Great Demotions . . . delivered to human pride." Astronomer Martin Rees has written, "It is over 400 years since Copernicus dethroned the Earth from the privileged position that Ptolemy's cosmology accorded it." And Sigmund Freud remarked that Copernicus provoked outrage by his slight against humankind's "naive self-love."
But - contrary to these important pundits whom everybody was - or is - supposed to believe (the stock in individual pundits rises and falls, so check your ticker), what was the reality? Singham explains,
In fact, ancient and medieval Arabic, Jewish, and Christian scholars believed that the center was the worst part of the universe, a kind of squalid basement where all the muck collected. One medieval writer described Earth's location as "the excrementary and filthy parts of the lower world." We humans, another asserted, are "lodged here in the dirt and filth of the world, nailed and rivetted to the worst and deadest part of the universe, in the lowest story of the house, and most remote from the heavenly arch." In 1615 Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, a prominent persecutor of Galileo, said that "the Earth is very far from heaven and sits motionless at the center of the world." [ ... ] By contrast, heaven was up, and the further up you went, away from the center, the better it was. So Copernicus, by putting the Sun at the center and Earth in orbit around it, was really giving its inhabitants a promotion by taking them closer to the heavens.
Singham quotes Dennis Danielson, writing in the American Journal of Physics in 2001 - after which the Copernican myth should have been dismissed as bunk:
For more than three centuries scientists, historians, and popularizers of science have been repeating the claim that Copernicus "dethroned" earth from its "privileged" central position in the universe. However, a survey of pre-Copernican natural philosophy (which viewed the earth as located in a cosmic sump) and of Copernicans' own account of the axiological meaning of the new heliocentric astronomy (which exalted earth to the dance of the stars) demonstrates that the cliche about earth's "demotion" is unwarranted and fit to be discarded.
But you would never know that from the New York Times. On March 11, 2007, reporter Richard Panek got the scoop from an anti-ID physicist:
“We’re just a bit of pollution,” Lawrence M. Krauss, a theorist at Case Western Reserve, said not long ago at a public panel on cosmology in Chicago. “If you got rid of us, and all the stars and all the galaxies and all the planets and all the aliens and everybody, then the universe would be largely the same. We’re completely irrelevant.”
Panek, taking this in, thinks that "the ultimate Copernican Revolution" may be that we will never understand the universe. He explains,
Science is full of homo sapiens-humbling insights. But the trade-off for these lessons in insignificance has always been that at least now we would have a deeper — simpler — understanding of the universe. That the more we could observe, the more we would know. But what about the less we could observe? What happens to new knowledge then? It’s a question cosmologists have been asking themselves lately, and it might well be a question we’ll all be asking ourselves soon, because if they’re right, then the time has come to rethink a fundamental assumption: When we look up at the night sky, we’re seeing the universe. Not so. Not even close.
Ultimate Copernican Revolution? Poor old Copernicus thought he was advancing understanding, but then he wasn't a materialist. In reality, the Copernican myth doesn't die because too many people are invested in keeping it alive, to prop up a materialist view of the universe. The evidence is dead against materialism, so myths are increasingly relied on. You may find some of them in your science texts. While we are here, a short list of other myths follows - by NO means all the myths fit to debunk - that help prop up Darwinism and materialism: - Humans and chimps are 99% genetically identical? - Christian Europe believed and promoted the idea that the Earth is flat? Debunked , , and here. In reality, the old cosmology pictured Earth as a sphere. - The US government denies the age of the Grand Canyon? Believe it or not, someone at TIME Magazine was promoting that one. Remember that when you get the subscription renewal notice. - Oh, and here's a good one: Religious folk opposed anesthesia in childbirth? Isaac Newton was the soul of materialism? Wait till you hear what he had to say about the end of the world ... And lastly, Charles Darwin invented the idea of evolution. What he invented was unguided materialist evolution. We explain that clearly in The Design of Life. Prediction: You will soon be awash in nonsense because of the bicentenary of Darwin's birth. Darwin myths also slammed here And here, why it matters. Sigh. So many myths, so little time. If I spend all my time blogging on this, I will never get back to the news ... But it's kind of like cleaning out the shed. One can always think of more urgent tasks - but takin' out the trash feels so darn GOOD!

Read more ... View Comments (0)   |   Add Comment   |   Email this Blog

No comments.  On any of the postings.  Must be nothing to say.

Date: 2007/12/18 17:34:42, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Marty, this is fascinating.  The Darwinismus does not explain this.  How does the bones of the whale she arouse?

What is your explanation again?  I must have missed it scanning the thread.  I am sure that you have actually made an argument in here somewhere, I just haven't found it yet.  


Date: 2007/12/18 19:43:38, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I believe in adaption. On Noah’s ark, there was probably only one or two basic kinds of flies.

They lived off of animal excretion and other such waste. They, no doubt, reproduced during their time on the ark. (there by feeding the spiders)

So when the ark finally docked on dry land, these flies spread out with the people and animals.

Some of them ended up in the dessert. some ended up in a jungle or a rain-forest.

Over a few generations, the flies adapted to their surroundings.

If i was left on a deserted island with a bunch of natives. I would have to adapt.

I would learn their ways. Even changing my diet and my forms of communication and transportation.

I believe that when the animals ventured forth from the ark, they adapted

And the ones that didn’t, died.

Not to beat a dead horse, but that is just beautiful.


**Ed did it tuad:  I've never flunked Poe's test on that blog before.  Are any of you guys trolling fundie blogs?

Date: 2007/12/18 20:12:17, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
RB what you say is true, but I would add a further distinction that may be at the root of this issue.

...IMHO underlying that dishonesty, at least in Dembski's case, have been more honest and deeply felt motives, particularly his Christianity, and I infer that he began his quest with the notion that he was genuinely crusading for souls through his advancement of ID...

Two points.  

1)  We should be more specific about what is the damage from the ID movement.  I've raised the devils advocate issue before:  What does it matter if your car mechanic or the mailman or the guy who delivers your pizza can't tell the difference between ID and science?

I'm not sure why it matters, but I think it does.  Perhaps for the simplest fact that they are wrong, and I can see through the clever bait and switches that their arguments are propped on.

But if we agree that there has been real harm done, in whatever metric, then Dembski is not just acting out on his own and only damaging his personal credibility and showing his ass.  ID arguments make people stupider.  If there is any sort of negative effect to this (I am conveniently overlooking our gleeful devouring of the tard), then Dembski is getting his religious jollies at the expense of some public trust and resource.

2)  Maintaining that even though this is true (acknowledging damage) yet it is 'not so bad' would be a hard argument to make.  It could only be true if you had some sort of priority for converting souls to jeeesus, and I think he has established this over and over, and sees it a badge of honor or distinction.  Thus, the machiavellian motives you aspire to him are probably real.  

Armchair diagnoses are probably a bad idea.  Even so, this is one crazy bible thumping freak who seems like he acts like a 4 or 5 year old pushing around toys or blocks in some sort of game where no one gets hurt.  I am convinced that ID makes people stupider, and I am fairly sure that he knows this as well, and that makes him a little bit more dangerous than the light hearted sweater wearing misunderstood adolescent with an inferiority complex and a huge hard on for jesus that your comments seem to imply.

Psychopathic, maybe, maybe not, who the hell knows.
Dangerous charlatan peddling the hard tard, absolutely.

Date: 2007/12/18 20:41:46, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Psychopathic, maybe, maybe not, who the hell knows.
Dangerous charlatan peddling the hard tard, absolutely.

Sounds like you agree, albie?  Given that no one here is expecting clinical diagnoses here, and no one is claiming any credentials, I call it taking the piss.

Yet pointing out, as you did better than I, that Demsbki's antics don't just hurt himself, is the point.

Careless disregard for other people and smearing shit all over the face of honest biologists, all at the expense of the people on the ground like useful idiots Bonsell, Buckingham, Dave Springer, Granny Tard, etc etc (AND HIM COMPLETELY COGNIZANT that this is what he is doing) is just plain psychopathic nuts.  He's like the Penguin to Batman.  

If he is self aware at all, and is personally honest about his intentions and purposes, then he knows that is tearing up someone else's toys and pooping on their rug.  Psychopathic, maybe maybe not.  Five year old putative puppy beater, definitely.

Date: 2007/12/18 21:30:23, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Ari, you rock.  Who are you again?

The people who come up with such ideas as the multiverse to avoid ID are evolutionists and they certainly know calculus. They’ll take a truck filled with calculus and dump it all over you.

Oh god that is good shit.  p.noyola and Ari-Freedom are killing me.  

p.noyola is trawling
Is there simply something “i can’t tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it” about design? The argument just seems to go absolutely nowhere, in huge circles, like we’re having a big Google and Wikipedia fight.


Semiotic 007 is not even puppeting, just raising hell.  good stuff.
Maverick geniuses are very rare, and if you ever seem to be surrounded by them, you can count on it that appearances are deceiving.

Now, wasn't Born^Again posting on PT as Semiotic 007?  Anyone care to enlighten me about this via ye olde P. M.?  I bet that got his goat but I missed it.

back to the mines

Date: 2007/12/19 12:27:55, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Marty, is there a better theory than the darwinismus?  What is your explanation?  It seems that you surely must have one, since you have it all figured out, we would love to hear it.  How do the whale leg she arouse?

Date: 2007/12/19 16:54:54, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Martin I see that you have sorted out your anonymous Croatian Slovakian ISP source.  I bet that was a real bitch, to not be able to assume your character for a few days and carp at the darwinismus.  I am glad to see that teh ISP she is running and up also that you are in the finest health and spiritous.  When you are ready, we will be waiting for your explanation of, oh I don't know, anything.  Even how your opinions arouse would be fine by me.

Date: 2007/12/19 18:02:40, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Surely there is a first year PhD phil-anthro-socio-historico-student out there who is just slavering at the bit for a chance to examine pluralism in scientific theories, that might see this as an opportunity to take a gin-you-wine contromoversy and explore the ramifications of all (including pleasurians and platosplaythings (giggle)) 'competing' 'theories'.  

Can one become an expert in biology simply by reading their bible and their 12 step AA manual?

If not, can one become an expert in biology by learning C++ and all of the modal scales in all of the keys on one single instrument?

If not, can one become an expert in biology by reading every single Scientific American for ten or so years, and not lose that status by cancelling their subscription?

If not, can one become an expert in biology by lying to their graduate commitee?

If not, can one become an expert in biology by lying to their fellow faculty?

If not, can one become an expert in biology by lying to the public?

Where is the breaks?

I wanna see it.  Hell, I wish I was able to hire graduate students.  That shit is pure gold.  Not even my field, but surely someone here could be involved (Hermes, damn you, you out a doing the limbo wit'out me again, no?)

Date: 2007/12/21 12:05:52, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Marty, Arden just asked you a great question that I don't think he has asked you before.

What is a the explanation for bilogical symetry, in words of others How do it arouse?

I understand that the great Czek Martina Hingis addressed this in her life work great tome in which she called the darwnismus tardithetiker.  Further her example of how the selectionist can not account for the fact that the color of orange is also exactly the color of the fruit we call an orange, and the fact often surpresed by darwnists that flies actually fly and that selection can not explain why we call them fly.

Hingis most excellent book 'Darwismus der kansfforkansmyssen ischt danksictermugotten en hypothetiker' is not available outside of two coffee stores in Croatia and from Discovery Insitute because of the materialist aufwuchs on der dissenkank.

Date: 2007/12/21 12:56:43, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
What a traffic. When I was adding link to my funny post about Darwin and his colorful caterpillars 3 new posts appeared here.

That's because you are such a brilliant mind, we are waiting at your feet to hear YOUR explanation for something.  Anything.  Whatever.  Take your pick.  Personally, I would prefer to hear your alternative to the Darwinismus.

If you believe it is the unfolding of determined laws, say so.  Why be such a pussy, hiding behind fake IPs and the lot?

Date: 2007/12/22 00:03:24, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Yeah I actually tried to talk sense to the troll for a while.  Actually his last five points he has seemed (believe it or not) more rational than usual.  Talking about the weather instead of the darwinismus.

Wait, he can hear us.  Shhh, here he comes.


Marty, is it determined that you would come to this board and write the nonsense you have posted?  Could it have happened any other way, or is this just the unfolding of the morphoweissengesungtagalshtiskermissenkisen?  Can you explain why this would unfolding would arouse?

Date: 2007/12/22 07:31:50, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Yeah, marty, it's YOUR opinion that it is my opinion that I was talking sense to you.  We can go around and around on that one, oh dishonest one.

Lessee, what makes you a troll?  Hmmm, how about your complete and total refusal to say anything other than "Uh-huh!!! Darwnismus stalinimsus Berg hypothetiker selectionist heads!!!!"  I've never seen you advance a single positive argument about anything other than some crap you read in a book and think you half way understand.  That is why, dearest fraud, You Are A Troll.  

Not as bad as some others.  Particularly hard headed and maybe stupid to boot.  Obsessed with undemonstrable nonsense.  Very likely faking the whole damn accent and slovakia thing.  Glimpses of something better underneath the tard, but it is such a deep layer.

I haven't supposed that you are retired Croatian teacher.  Or that you are old.  Just that you are incapable of advancing an argument without some ridiculous appeal to authorities that have managed to convince no one else.  Nor explain why you believe them.

Martin:  If not the Darwinismus, then what?

Date: 2007/12/22 07:42:24, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I believe in this case it is PWNZORG3D!!one!!!

Date: 2007/12/22 20:38:39, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Daniel, the null is 'they act that way'.  It is certainly your burden to show that this is worthy of a design inference.  if they didn't 'act that way', but acted 'another way', and we still had life as it is now, then you would still be claiming a design inference.  it's the kind of crap presupposition that you bring to the table with you.  It has no explanatory value, it has no empirical basis, it is completely a Panglossian jesus loves me the world is perfectly crafted kind of eight year old awe and wonder about the universe.

you're not interested in science and you never have been.  this is all about providing you with an apologetic.  

don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying life is 'just' chemicals.  I'm saying, what is it and how do you know?  Because I smell bullshit.

Date: 2007/12/22 20:42:42, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Marty, do you have an opinion to convince any one of?

I'd like to hear it.  The only opinion you seem to have is that piles of bird guts destroys the darwinismus.  That, and that you seem to believe that there is something worthwhile in rummaging through the garbage bin of scientific theories.  

What was your explanation again?  I think I must have missed it upthread somewhere.  I'm sure you have one.

Date: 2007/12/23 09:20:37, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
RB and if you don't have a victim, you can't have a deadly bite.  Absolutely Eerie-doucheable.

I call Design Inference!!!

Can you smell the science?

Date: 2007/12/23 18:20:01, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Kairosfocus is a tard.

John Kwok, NY — a sadly familiar name. He starts by favourably citing the infamous decision by Judge “Copycat” Jones, apparently not realising that this thinly disguised ACLU screed based on Forrest’s slanders, out right falsehoods and errors, as well as misrepresentations, is its own indictment

sadly, check.

misunderstanding of judicial proceedings, check.

He then proceeds to give his side of personal exchanges with WD etc, and tries to imply that Dr Dembski doesn’t understand statistics. [As in: what are the confidence limits on the EF? Mr Kwok, I would think that the UPB has long since shown the edge of chance for cases of functionally specified complex information. Why not try out my always linked, App 1 section 6 for a discussion on what it means based on basic statistical thermodynamics principles?]

Always linked, check.

obfuscation around the issue in point (no confidence interval around the EF), check.

In short, this is a case of unjustified personal attack, propagation of what Mr Kwok should know is blatant and slanderous misrepresentation and associated tyrannical miscarriage of justice carried out in the teeth of easily accessible facts to the contrary, AND it is coming from a Judge who under the US Constitution as properly understood, simply has not got jurisdiction on what he claims to be ruling on.

It is certainly NOT a well-structured, fair minded book review.

unjustified, check.  

words on words harrumphing and self-congratulatory lyrical masturbation, check.

giving 'fairmindedness' too much credit, check.

Those who are so uncivil that they can’t see why, are telling us a lot about themselves.

Not to mention, also about why it would be dangerous to give such evo mat- driven secularists further power over the public square and key science, education and governmental institutions.

uncivility, check.

evo-mat, check.

christian dominionist/reconstructionist language, check.

Who is this douchebag?  I don't think anyone could channel this level of tard through a puppet.  His 'always linked' is a morass of presuppositional stupidity and ontological affirming the consequent.  Salem's law, again (although he used to call himself a physicist.... getawitness got him to admit that he had an M.S. and did not work as a physicist.  But you know, at UD, credentials are sooooooo overrated.  As Atom recently said in another thread, all UD regulars know Darwin's theory inside-out).

What a tard.

Date: 2007/12/23 18:21:52, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

Ecology.  Look it up.  There is a precedent.

Date: 2007/12/24 08:44:47, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Welllll, sallyT tried like the dickens to get those morons to show how the EF works for a peanut butter sandwich (Poachy, you are a genius.  PM me).  Kairosfocus went through his entire routine (sadly, evo-mat, sad, selective hyperskepticism, sadly, apostle paul, merits, sad, sad, phil, sadly always linked) and when the string went back into the box, he had never never provided any guidance on how the EF would work for the peanut butter sandwich.

KF brought out the notion that the EF was an extension of fisherian statistics, and that adding bayesian methods only made it stronger.  again, avoiding the actual calculation.

Patrick, to his credit, admitted that the EF doesn't work for peanut butter sandwiches, even though we know they are 'designed' (sallyT had just made one for her kids).

At which point KF jumps in with sadly, evo-mat, bits, observed universe, false positives, blah to the tune of:  peanut butter doesn't exhibit enough CSI to trip the filter.  However, the question at issue is whether or not living things do, and that is where the EF works.

When she was booted, sallyT was asking 'Why don't use the DNA and CSI in the peanut butter in your EF calculation?"  The obvious conclusion is that if DNA is designed, anything at any higher level of organization is also designed, so you might as well pack up and go home, sit on your hands or get in your prayer closets because the science-ing is over with at this point.  

Then she got nixed.

Date: 2007/12/25 10:06:40, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Bob I am aware of who Fisher and Bayes were.  I suppose there are two explanations here:

1)  who the hell capitalizes things on teh interwebz.

2)  I suppose both men would be aghast at their contributions to statistics being used in such a ridiculous fashion.  

Now it's clear that the ID God is hiding in the error term.  

I haven't gotten around to parsing Patricks stuff on OE, but thanks for the link carlson.  It might require a liberal dosage of eggnog before I can bring myself to think about peanut butter sandwiches again.  Just glad to see that the sallyT business gave him fits for a while.  what a steaming pile of tard.

Date: 2007/12/25 23:19:26, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
just read the nonsense about peanut butter sandwiches a bit more.  plus eggnog.

the argument hasn't progressed anymore, Patrick.  you say there is very likely 'no information' in the atomic structure of peanut butter, or paint on the wall, but I beg to differ.  If the properties of matter were different (like they might be in any of your infinite multiverses, say, pick the ones where this kind of gibberish is actually science) then we would be looking at very different phenomena (at the higher level) than predicted from those lower levels.  The fact (Teh Facked) that peanut butter JUST HAPPENS to have those particular properties in this observable universe shows that we are living in a galactic peanut butter zone that has inherent design for the properties of peanut butter to exist within these very strict constants.  If those constants were just very slightly different, peanut butter as we know it would not exist as we know it.  The fact that it does exist as we know it PROVES that it is designed, and this must be taken into account at any higher level explanation.

NOT TO MENTION:  we know peanut butter is designed because DNA is designed.  peanut butter has DNA.  QED.  

Patrick freely admits that this is an abstraction.  I agree.  What he does not admit is that it is an abstraction with NO REFERENTIAL or EXPLANATORY value.  Just a made up jumble of nonsense that is affirming the consequent.

Date: 2007/12/26 11:28:44, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
It is just you (well, and a few other misinformed folks).  

The organization of my little boy has been designed?  I've been present since his conception, and we have no evidence of any designer meddling around with him.  Maybe we can't detect infinite wavelength radiation though.

The null can tell you how chemicals become chromosomes.  Look up biochemistry and cellular biology.  They aren't made of magical powder you know.  They are material.  As unpalatable as that may seem.

What you desire is an ontological explanation.  We've been over this.

Your assertion that this organization requires supernatural intervention is just that.  An assertion.  In particular, a bland assertion that is predicated solely upon what you don't know.  

The more parsimonious route is:  It may be that supernatural intervention is required for, say, my little boy to grow teeth or his balls to drop.  It may be that it is not.

If you phrase it that way, and then are honest with yourself about what 'supernatural' might mean, and how you would determine such a thing, then you'll drop the foolishness about putting gods in every gap.

Again, how would you know?

Date: 2007/12/27 14:02:03, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I doubt that Gould would be paying attention to DaveTard or the rest of these bozos.  I could be wrong.  He loved creation fighting as much as the rest of us I suppose.

Date: 2007/12/29 12:53:41, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
ID is not a re-labled subset of creation science.

You are either irreversibly stupid or the biggest liar on the planet.

Date: 2007/12/30 14:13:25, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Is there such a thing as 'human' morality?

I don't think so.

There is individual morality only.

There are creeds of morality that may or may not be adopted by individuals.

Date: 2007/12/30 14:32:59, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Since he is an expert in misrepresentation, he may be able to fool a committee long enough to jump through a few hoops.  The question is who would want to be associated with such a student?  I wouldn't.

Date: 2007/12/30 20:13:22, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

peach huh.  the little old ladies down the street at the episcopal church dip that stuff.

This holiday break has been an homage and tribute to the One True King.

I can has Budweiser?

Date: 2007/12/30 20:17:08, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
In particular, the weird 'acceptions' are the interesting thing.  There is no such thing as across the board standard sanctity of human life.  More fuzzy concept bullshit set up a priori to make it look like here insane blathering has a point.

Date: 2007/12/30 22:15:41, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Well, JOD, to FtK all things are relative and it's just someone's opinion versus someone else's opinion.  See the babble about 'different interpretations of the same evidence' bit she was using to justify teaching her kids that Velociraptors ran around sucking the nectar out of flowers and that the entire earth is younger than cave paintings in France.

So yeah, it's really hard to have a principled discussion with an unprincipled person.

Date: 2007/12/30 22:21:56, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Now eating:

Allium tricoccum.


Date: 2007/12/30 23:17:53, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
FtK is there something more to a culture than simply the sum of all the members of that culture?

If not, then there is no culture that universally condemns bestiality because (and this is a wager) every culture has at least one member that is just fine with [insert bestiality joke here].  

If culture exists above beyond and outside of the constituents of said culture, then I freely admit that I don't even know what we are talking about anymore.

And then there are the greeks.  and the australians.  oh yeah and people from indiana.  when you use words that don't mean nuttin, like looptid, or 'culture', then it really makes it hard to make any meaningful statements whatsoever.

but, hey, that doesn't matter.  the logical consequence of teh darwinismus is teh bestiality.  we have that on good authority.

Date: 2007/12/31 07:24:14, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Please do notice that all this moralism bull shite is just a ruse to change the subject from the utter abject failure of FtK to support even a single sentence from the contrived fictions of Walt Brown.

Runnin around yammering about horse buggery and porking fat chicks etc is just a mom tactic for distraction.  Give them a snack.  you know.

FtK, what about the jellyfish?

Date: 2007/12/31 08:06:16, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
What would that hurt Wild Wally?  He's already giving away his 'book' for free (and having read some of it, he now owes me).  Disappear it.  What will it hurt?  Right?  Isn't that the gist of the argument you were making upthread?

B.S.  That's not the reason Brown won't defend himself in a debate.  It's because he is utterly and completely wrong and must surely know it.  I think all more or less educated young earth flud Poof supporters are aware, deep down, that their religious mythology does not even begin to approximate reality.

But, you like to think that truth is relative and it is all opinion.  Won't you be glad when this break is over and you don't have to spend all this time on the internet with all these nasty old atheists who you need to respect you?

Gets lonely up there next to two thieves, huh?

Date: 2007/12/31 08:30:16, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Doc it's obvious.

Because evolution leads to atheism and porking equines.

It's all arguments from perceived consequences for FtK.  

FtK, where in the bible does it say that the New Covenant nullified the old one?  Didn't Jeeeeeeeeesus say that not one jot or whittle of the old law would pass away?

Isn't this just more of the same bullshit that you usually spew?

How bout those jellyfish?

Date: 2007/12/31 12:40:16, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

anyway, those jellyfish?

Date: 2008/01/01 15:04:14, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Quote (BopDiddy @ Jan. 01 2008,14:57)
Galapagos Finch?  If only I had the photoshop skills to add a HUUUGE sweater:

That's 'Gloppy' to the initiated.

Date: 2008/01/01 15:26:03, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Marty let's hear the German mysticism thing.

That sounds like a payoff.

The first positive argument for anything you have made.  Why polar opposites and opposing forces etc?  Why do you say this is the best model for anything, much less biological things?

Category error.

Date: 2008/01/01 19:55:58, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Daniel, Simpson destroys Schindewolf's misunderstanding of horse evolution in the 1944 book Tempo and Mode in Evolution.  I suggest giving it a read.

Date: 2008/01/01 23:55:43, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
RB and I'd like for you et al to consider the following:

The time interval between the Fall and the first time that Adam realizes that he can beat his meat by himself.

The brief interlude between the closing of the doors on the ark and the first time that Noah considered banging one of his daughters, for the first time.

The moments between the first greeting between King David and Johnathan, and the time required for David to reach a full, complete erection.

The number of times Joseph wondered just who in the hell his betrothed wife had been slipping around with.

How many calluses must have been on the palm of Jesus, the virgin haploid redeemer of mankind.  Alternatively, did he never masturbate?  Did Jesus sometimes consider breaking his own rules so that he might relieve a little pressure?  If he didn't, can we say that he is truly human?

FtK I know that you agree that these are very serious scientific questions and we must get to the bottom of these issues before we can determine just exactly how we are going to fit at least two opposing viewpoints into our heads about each subject.

Or you could spare us all that and lay down just what you mean by 'microevolution'?  Is this line demarcated by Behe's 'Edge of Evolution'?  Doesn't accepting the evolution of new reproductive morphologies (say, the shape and characteristics of genitalia in insects) mean that this barrier is a contrived rhetorical platform for simultaneously denying and accepting evolution, and that the 'edge' or 'barrier' is not analogous to anything that actually exists outside of the wishful thinking of apologists and deniers?

Date: 2008/01/01 23:59:35, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
When no one even knows what 'mere' matter is, everything else you just said is just ignorant mouth-breathing chin-drooling abject stupidity.

There is nothing 'mere' about matter'.  Except perhaps for your grey matter.

Date: 2008/01/02 00:23:26, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Sweetie, it takes two to have a real conversation.  That makes it impossible for you and I to converse, or for that matter for you to converse with anyone else.

In the meantime, your cognitive dissonance is hilarious and I for one am grateful that it is bagged up in tandem with a persecution complex and also enough personal insecurities that you can't stay away.  Gooooood stuff.

but, yeah, ranking the peanut gallery instead of actually dealing with the issues you raise at a gallop is probably a good strategy. i think skeptic is probably the most similar person here but opposites attract (skeptic diddles the same dualist cognitive dissonance pleasure center that FtK does, but to his credit he is at least capable of recognizing that ID is bundled horseshit).  I think most of all Glen Davidson and FtK would hit it off the most.

Date: 2008/01/02 10:03:52, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I think the public knows full well what ID is by now.

if that is even true, it is not good news, because around half of them are creationists.  the question is how successful will the spokesmen of modern creationists be in framing the issue around the various issues they have been using as trial balloons (academic freedom, 1st Amendment, 'valid debate over origins', evolution as 'secular religion' (Mike Ruse, that's pretty stupid, thanks), standing up for Jeeeesus, etc etc etc).  There is no empirical content to ID, we all know that.  So do they.  It is a battle for your next door neighbors or the family down the street, and not a battle over science.  

And I'm not convinced that Joe Schmo cares what 'science' says, if they inherit or learn the anti-science attitude that FtK and the rest of the deniers are pushing.

Date: 2008/01/02 10:31:28, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Shimmies!!!!  Well said!

Date: 2008/01/02 12:34:13, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
It's no coincidence, it's just old and boring because she's like already refuted those arguments so many times.  Like here and here and .here

Date: 2008/01/02 18:56:28, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 27 2007,14:36)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Dec. 27 2007,14:08)
But they are wrong, because descending of testicles has meaning beyond any neodarwinian paradigma.

Well, you've got my attention, now. Please do tell, Martin. The meaning of descending testicles is...

You know, some outdated theory no one cares anymore. Something like German mysticism. Polarity of mammalian bodies, two centres. Head and reproduction organs on the opposite side of the body. Centre of individuality and centre of species proliferation as opposing principles which are now displayed. Maybe not worth of mentioning for you.

But this time darwinists have not better stance with the cooling sperms bullshits.

You're the one that said this, you fool.

Date: 2008/01/02 19:10:29, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Wowwwwwww!!!!  I get to play the martyr now.  hey FtK I'll scoot over a bit, there is room for you up on my cross.

You are such a fraud that you don't deserve the respect of taking you seriously.  Note that I have very gradually grown to this conclusion, and it is not final.  But, your incapacity to be honest and your desire to flounce in here and vomit some idiocy over a discussion board, then toss your hair and smother a fart and change the subject about 15 times before saying that some subset of folks here are meanies and athiests what don't love the Lard, blah blah blah Jack Kreb's sucks blah blah Sal's not so bad blah blah blah two different interpretations of evidence blah blah blah kids soccer blah rare Fuck or Shit (what's up with that?  that makes me think you are a troll, which would me make like you again) blah blah PZ and Skatje and Dawkins and Hitler and Genghis Khan blah blah blah ad infinitum, has caused me, quite frankly, to conclude that you are not only aware of how stupid you sound but that you see this as some perverse stigmata.

Being an Idiot for Jesus!!!  I'm a Fool For Teh Lard!!1 Gawd is on my side facts be dammed!

So it's my fault, I'm an asshole, while you are honest and have the best of intentions.  Athiests sit down shut up.  As you wish.  I love it so!!!!

Date: 2008/01/02 19:13:37, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
p.s. it could be that I am both an asshole and completely not an asshole.  After all they are just interpretations of the same evidence right?  Same for you.  It's all just opinion and every man's is as good as every other mans*.

*(but not every womans, read your good New Testament won't you dearie and then perhaps you'll cover your head before you come in this atheist church and you won't be so high and mighty thinking that you can teach mean about things when the bible clearly tells you to Shut It about such manners).

Date: 2008/01/02 21:12:29, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I'll make it simple.

The defunct ID journal will remain defunct.

Simultaneously, we will hear volumes about the suppression of DIssent by evil darwinist materialismus.

Date: 2008/01/02 21:45:00, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Jesus, Lady (Jesus-Lady), you are a freak.  


It has nothing to do with it.  it is simple.  You know this, and that makes you a liar.  And a stupid one too, because you can't even keep a straight face while you do it.

Date: 2008/01/02 22:27:45, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
LOL, whatever.  I just pray that my children *never*, ever run across a professor like PZ during their college experience.

hee hee don't worry they don't have any biologists at Bob Jones.  so there is not much chance of that.

You don't seem to be able to understand the difference between advocate and understand.  We see that this is true daily from you, when you advocate that the earth is 6000 years old but you can't possibly understand why that must be.  Skatje apparently understands that people may love their pet, and this is a far cry from advocating that they have missionary style sex with their pet.  You advocate Intelligent Design Creationism but you show no signs, whatsoever, of understanding IDC.  You advocate Wally Brown's book but clearly you don't understand a word of it.

You are saying that if 'philosophical naturalism' equates 'darwinists' then those philosophical naturalists are amoral.  see, look

from an philosophical naturalist’s point of view, there is absolutely no reason why one shouldn’t engage in bestiality and incest if they *want to*

since you find those acts immoral, either those condoning such behaviors (there is that word you don't understand again, but i'll use it in the dishonest way that you used it too) are immoral or without morals.  since, you know, you are the one possessing the one true code of morals and stuff.  See the KJV1611.

you are a fraud.  and a dumb one.

Date: 2008/01/02 22:38:03, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

There are all kinds of books written in regard to how morals and religious thought supposedly "evolved".

Those 'books' have jack-shit to do with evolutionary biology.  That sort of topic has the same relationship to [the science of understanding the relationships between organisms via common descent and natural selection] as does a sculpture made from the pubic hair of Franciscan nuns to the statue of liberty.

It's like blaming the inventor of language (hmmm, let's see, that would be Yahweh, two times:  Eden and Babel) for Two Live Crew or Celine Dion.  Are you stupid enough to be willing to do that?  I imagine that you can probably believe that it is true and not true, simultaneously.

Date: 2008/01/02 23:09:58, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Please tell me what else, for the atheist that is, is true.

also, please tell me just how you know this.  let's start with the above statement.  

How is it, for the atheist, that "morality evolved along with the brain, the mind, our thoughts and social skills"?  Do you mind explaining this?  Is morality like your appendix?  Is it like genital warts, that you contract from others?  Is morality like having ten fingers?  What?  I think you are full of shit, and here is where you get your chance to show how smart you are.

Or not.  But please do tell.  I'm waiting with baited breath, my piranha.

Date: 2008/01/02 23:33:34, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

here is your manbeast morals, on the cross.

Date: 2008/01/03 07:24:11, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
FtK, if you don't understand what can possibly evolve via darwinian mechanisms and what can not, why the fuck should anyone pay any attention to anything you say about anything that has anything to do with any part of 'evolution'?

Date: 2008/01/03 07:47:05, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
FtK blithered:

I'm saying that morals evolved, that they are not absolute, and that they can certainly change as people become more accepting of a variety of behaviors.  There is no moral base in an evolving morality.  

Forgetting this:
FtK, if you don't understand what can possibly evolve via darwinian mechanisms and what can not, why the fuck should anyone pay any attention to anything you say about anything that has anything to do with any part of 'evolution'?

Date: 2008/01/03 17:16:09, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
FtK, if you don't understand what can possibly evolve via darwinian mechanisms and what can not, why the fuck should anyone pay any attention to anything you say about anything that has anything to do with any part of 'evolution'?

Date: 2008/01/03 17:17:12, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
You don't seem to be able to understand the difference between advocate and understand.  We see that this is true daily from you, when you advocate that the earth is 6000 years old but you can't possibly understand why that must be.  Skatje apparently understands that people may love their pet, and this is a far cry from advocating that they have missionary style sex with their pet.  You advocate Intelligent Design Creationism but you show no signs, whatsoever, of understanding IDC.  You advocate Wally Brown's book but clearly you don't understand a word of it.

Get back up on your cross lady.

Edited, because I can because I am not a post deleting tard, and also to add that in the original (see page 13) there were italics around 'advocate' and 'understand' to stress the point made again recently upthread by I think assassinator that 'understanding why someone may want to fuck their pet dolphin' is not the same as saying 'everyone should fuck their pet dolphin'.  Just that people get attached to things, and everyone has a hangup.  Some people it's fucking a zebra, for FtK it is a persecution complex and a hardened belief in a nonsense fairy tale that gives her a personal sense of meaning in the universe and keeps her from fucking crocodiles and murdering everyone at ATBC, because, see (and I'll bring this to a close, all heads bowed all eyes closed), Jesus Loves Her.  That is all She Knows.  And if you take that away from her, she is going to be pretty pissed.  Might even rape her grandmaw.  So, good people, let this crazy fool be.

And All The Lard's People Said:

Date: 2008/01/03 18:56:09, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Hol' up Hol' up Hol' up
What I said was that they have no true base for morality.

You have no 'true base for morality' either.

You believe in fairy tales.  

Edited to Add:

Talking snakes.  Eight people and a boat load of animals and venereal disease.  Talking burning bushes (not Nandina).  Zombie haploid lighter than water Redeemer of All Mankind.

Be honest, thou impostor.  YOU don't have a true base for morality.  That is why you are patently dishonest and misrepresent others.  Because of your insecurities and martyr complex.  And you love it.

Edited to Edit to Add:

This applies to Sal too.  Just to get back on topic, Lou.

now, incorygible, taking moral lessons from fairy tales is fine.  that is what they are for.  taking them as literal truth and the base of a philosophy that is used to oppress others and distort the truth is not.  That is what you see here.  

Some people you just can't reach, they are too far in the bottom of the latrine.

Date: 2008/01/03 20:12:40, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
FtK no wonder you like that post from PZs.  It's your favorite style:  argument from consequences (what if your neighbors find out!!!)

The reason that this is on topic wrt Sal is that there is virtually NO ONE ELSE IN THE BLOGOSPHERE that respects anything that you have to say.  I know that some did for a while.  But you are batshit crazy and you consort with ne'er-do-wells, miscreants, woebegottens, vagabonds, nomads, wastrels, rogues and other nefarious villiany types.  

Anyone with any integrity doesn't give a damn what Sal or you have to say.

Date: 2008/01/03 20:53:03, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Yeah, anyone wondering what FtK's old man does while she martyrs herself to athiests, hun?

Betcha ten bucks he bought a pack of rubbers and stole the neighbors goats.  I heard some one from Kansas say that if you wear them big rubber galoshes you can stick their hind legs down the boot and they can't get away.  And if you take them down to the creek and try to push them in they'll back up.

Hey luv perhaps you should get back to that other hobby of yours, you know, parenting?  You sure are making a mess out of yourself here.

Edited, because I am an American.

Date: 2008/01/03 21:06:30, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

Does anyone know this lady?

Date: 2008/01/03 21:18:06, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Re Roughgarden, I had the fortune to have lunch with this person just a few weeks after september 11.  I was quite amazed at the lunacy I heard during that lunch session, she rambled about hyper-evolution within the Taliban, supported by two things:  family connections to power and the fact that they all looked alike!!!!  I really had a hard time keeping my mouth shut about that, esp since all the other grad students were kissing ass and wanking about their research (yeah, who cares, right?  that's why visiting seminar speakers visit your school, to hear about how you catch striped bass in a ferris wheel looking thing).  

It was rather entertaining though, she made so many comments about Jesse Helms that I just had to play devil's advocate and pretend to support him (actually the argument was, Hell, he's just what the people of NC want!!!  Re-elected him since Moses!!!!  Do you know better than hundreds of thousands of other people?  not a strong argument, but it does turn the emotional tables).  Turned into an interesting conversation after that and I think she realized she'd overplayed her hand and calmed down.  Couple of the kiss up grad students looked at me like I had called her the things they were thinking in their own heads.

Good times.  That is a weird bird there.  Really sharp, but I completely disagree with a lot of what Roughgarden says though.

Date: 2008/01/03 21:40:02, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
argy and some folks here know FtK's real name too.

Mebbe you can get them both prayed on.  For Free.  In the Designers Name.

And THEN mebbe they will form like Voltron into a giant Red Straw Herring beating a Dead Horse in a Quote Mine.  Waterlooooooo!!!!

Date: 2008/01/04 09:12:51, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Richard - I think Sal is going to post about your materialistic desire for queering the data base...

it's just the logical outcome of his darwinism.  he has no absolutes to base his data on.

Date: 2008/01/04 09:15:56, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I'm kinda likin' Huckabee.  He can play a mean guitar...

In fact, I *heart* Huckabee.

 You would.  he pardons rapist and murders and all sorts of scumbags for all sorts of things.  your kind of company.

FtK, can you invite Huckabee here?  He might not have all that much time for teh webz what with being all campaign-y and stuff, but who knows?  Surely y'all know each other...

Date: 2008/01/04 09:21:37, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Ian it could very well be that GAWD LIEKS TEH INSESSED.  

Since he is big on this theme of destruction regeneration, he has jumpstarted the flora and fauna of earth from pairs of creatures at least twice.  So that is a lot of generations of banging your sisters cousins second cousins nieces great granddaughters etc etc etc.  

For. Every. Species. On. The. Planet. Twice.

Date: 2008/01/04 09:32:51, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Oh Jesus.  
I'm living by a moral standard, whereas the rest of you aren't.

Get out!!!  Everybody out!!! This fucker's going to blow!

Date: 2008/01/04 09:35:19, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

Date: 2008/01/04 12:04:35, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD



Date: 2008/01/04 12:20:58, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Arden damn you, you beat me to it.

FtK, let's see them.  i don't believe you have any list, much less a long one.

Why yes I'd love to move over to your thread.

Date: 2008/01/05 20:36:22, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
One wonders how much his current advisors knew of his character and internet shenanigans.  It would be hard to get me excited about a candidate student with that much... how-you-say-.. flambuoyancy?  Especially since he thinks that the earth is you know still under warranty it's so fresh and that if someone one the ark didn't have herpes, then the sacrifice of Christ wouldnt make sense and there'd be no atonement, so it must therefore be true that the Bible is the Ward of Gawd and ignorance is strength.  

mebbe he's cracking up.  but what is the reference for such a diagnosis.

Date: 2008/01/06 08:30:10, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Silly Little Arden there are more confederate apologists in your midst than you might realize.

"If the South Woulda Won We'da Had It Made"

Isolationists Unite!  Bocephus for President or at least Skynyrd!

Date: 2008/01/06 09:18:57, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 06 2008,08:46)
Quote (sparc @ Jan. 06 2008,08:31)
IIRC The reason Sal could not take up the offer at the info lab was directly because of the evil darwiniods.
At UD his story rather says that he was afraid of the consequences:      
I got the sense Baylor was putting Dr. Marks in their gunsights and that they would also put me indirectly in their gunsights as well if I worked at the informatics lab.

After I received late confirmation this Tuesday of my acceptance into the Johns Hopkins Whiting School of Engineering, I informed Dr. Marks with my regrets that I would no longer seek enrollment into Baylor’s Engineering program. I cited developments which have been in the news along with my acceptance into the Whiting School of Engineering at Johns Hopkins.
(emphasis added)

At the EXPELLED pages he tells a different story      
In the Spring and Summer of 2007, Dr. Robert Marks of Baylor University offered me 2 years tuition and a small salary to work as his research assistant in the Evolutionary Informatics Lab.

The research at the lab would have overturned the false and misleading computer simulations used by Darwinists to win a major court case against ID proponents (Dover). I would have drawn a small salary and had my tuition paid to get a Master of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering. All told, the offer amounted to about $40,000.

The Informatics Lab was shut down in August by the Darwinists at Baylor when it was evident the scientific research would put certain Darwinist organizations around the country out of business and into disrepute.  With the lab shutting down, so went my offer. Prior to this episode, I was a GMU student. I graduated with 3 degrees in scientific disciplines from GMU. At GMU, I was at Dr. Caroline Crocker's side in 2005 when the reporter from the prestigious scientific journal, Nature, interviewed us for a major story about ID on the college campuses. I knew that day would be the end of her career. Our story was told in the April 28, 2005 edition of Nature. It was the cover story. 3 weeks after our story was published, the Darwinists at GMU expelled her. Thankfully I already had my degree from GMU….I'm now a grad student at Johns Hopkins University and have greatly reduced my public involvement in the ID movement so that I can get through school…
(emphasis added)

I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

Ahhhh, but is the addition of information due to purposeless random culled accidents, or is it by design?*

*we need a sparkle-y font for D-E-S-I-G-N like PZ does comic for the creobots.

Date: 2008/01/07 11:33:23, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Albie, why even bother?

She's a fraud, only thing she is good for is our entertainment.  Also perhaps as a model of the stupidest most dishonest form of anti-evolution.

She's not smart enough to know that we can tell that she knows that she is a fraud, too.  That's why she thinks this 'interpretation' bull-shite covers her tracks.

She poormouths atheists and science in general, claims to be anointed in the blood of jeeesus, then comes to ATBC and flirts with RTH and says
'shit' and 'fuck' and 'damn' etc trying to suck up to those evil liars who are atheists on a daily basis.  

What gives?

My guess:  Fraud-ery on the High Seas.

Date: 2008/01/07 13:13:34, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
well, as an educator one must accept that some men you just can't reach.  

Cue Cool Hand Luke Speech.

Willfully ignorant is the brick wall.  

These types of educational experiences require koans or knockings with a stick.  Unfortunately the patriarchs would not be allowed to practice their one-touch zen in the modern educational setting.

This is where ATBC is most valuable.  Deconstructing even the hardest of tard, and putting it back together with a squirt of hilarity on top.  And blowing tard shotguns to skeptic.

Date: 2008/01/07 21:11:50, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Hey Sternberger, are you talking about Gary Birdsong (forgive, I didn't chase your pathetic detail of link yet)?

I suggest that if we are going to discuss Brother Birdsong, he deserves his own thread.  On which I will participate heavily.  And so will Youtube.  And Teh Interwebz Of Fire.

I did time at Brick U.

Date: 2008/01/07 21:14:13, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Just checked.  Yeah you can haz gary birdsong.

I never met those other cats.  They probably just suck like your average run of the mill asshole street preacher.  Gary had talent.  A true genius, you can't just be that much of an asshole on accident.  He had skillz.  And used tehm.

Date: 2008/01/07 21:28:00, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I think BarryA destroys information everytime he types on his keyboard.


DaveTard should have a word with him wrt SLoT and Loss of Information As Consequence of Tard.

Proof that this shit rots your brain.

I'm more interested in this interpretation business.  This is searing hot molten tard.  Of the pewter po-mo variety.

As if all methodologies of inquiry (algorithms) performed equally well in this particular search space, (btw WHICH JUST SO HAPPENZ TO BE A SURCH SPACE WITCH IS E-MINNABLE FOR SIENZE, FALTZLY-SO-CALD).  Cause, Satan and the Fall did that to natural law, and Paul said so in one of his letters to the Thessolonians or something like that.  Faith alone.  And dat will guide your interpolorationz.

Isn't this the gist of the 'interpretations' business, which is basically a substitute presuppositionalism for empirical 'we can touch it smell it see it taste it hear it feel it fuck it (for you FtK) so ThereFore It Is Real'?

Zachriel, you are one hell of a miner.  That is a collection of gems sir, and I salute you in awe and wonder.


You can haz chicken gutz, deer oracle, we can haz particle accelerator, anserz is same, jus enterpolorations are differentz.

Date: 2008/01/07 21:36:30, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Rational?  Yah you have been in the shittier corner of the triangle too long.  for real.

Do you remember that cat that stretched out on hillsborough street in a sleeping bag, real skinny little dude named John?  I lived a block or two back and worked at the pizza joint, i'd see him popping out of the alley behind Mitch's while I was on the way to work, he'd have a hundred bucks or so from each morning.  He was on the cover of some shitty album by a local death metal band with a gas can, setting stuff on fire.  I wish he were posting here.  He OD'ed though.

Gary had some goth kids that would shadow him and walk right behind him and scream in his ear, and then some jerk was carrying a cross around campus passing out tracts and telling everyone that Gary was a real jerk and not a true christian, and gary was calling him a pansy and he wasn't a true christian, etc.  Hilarious.

To bring back to topic, FtK, these folks were just interpreting Christianity their own way.  Since I know that you are big on the idea that interpretations of data are more important than data themselves and that the logical structure of propositions is just a formal interpretation and not worth respecting, how do we know that your form of beliefs represent Xianity and not the form of beliefs as codified by these folks?  What makes them wrong, and you right, with respect to the fact that neither of you are atheists and the rest of us are on a daily basis, so you have more in common with Gary than the rest of us?

Date: 2008/01/07 21:43:12, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
So that dude on the street, passed out in the gutter or begging change from strangers, was more of a christian than The Mistress Of Privilege Herrself, FtK.  I can buy it.

I bet she has the other part down pat:  Hate your brother, mother, sister, father, neighbor, etc.

Date: 2008/01/07 21:49:07, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
that's the one.  if you find that article i'd like to hear it.  i heard he had died.  

toothless buddha.  i got to admire that dude, seeing him everyday for a few years.  not my cup o tea, but it seemed to suit him.

Date: 2008/01/07 21:53:41, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Marty, what reasons do you have for supposing that there are such things as 'poles'?

What is a pole in this context?

How do you see this pole?  

What is the pole made of?

We are now getting somewhere, no?  This is much more than 'darwinismus selectionist hypothetiker'.  Please expound.

Date: 2008/01/07 21:59:36, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Ever meet his son?

To get this back on topic, do you think that painting on the wall was FtK when she was in college?

Date: 2008/01/07 22:29:04, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Sternberger, your interpretation of the story behind that painting and my interpretation are two different things.

Besides, I wasn't talking about the nekkid women chained to a rock (are those paintings online?  How could you know?)  although that one was disturbing.

Oh, No, Lo.  The child, clutching a doll or teddy bear, with a 'What Did You Just Do To Me Look' on it's face, staring slightly off camera.  


To bring back to topic, FtK, is it true that atheists should have no moral reaction to the news of child molestation?  Isn't it true that, to the atheist, a child is just a rat is just a head of cabbage is just the body of jesus christ?  So, to the atheists who might be upset about the missing hiker found dead murdered by some dirty old man, they are being inconsistent because why aren't these atheists getting upset when blue jays get eaten by house cats, or when a spider eats mosquitoes?

Date: 2008/01/07 22:35:00, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
ohhhhhh kristine......

you've been missing some great TV

Date: 2008/01/07 22:58:03, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
she stared at you.  in what-ever seat you happened to be in.  and in the mirror from the bar.  do not like.

did you know the bartenders?  wow, it's like actually being there.  i think one of my buddies still works there.  using that degree.

**Edited to keep on topic**

FtK do you think that having a degree in evolutionary biology makes you more likely to

1)  be an atheist
2)  be a bestialist
3)  be a linguist
4)  be a bartender?

If so, how do these probabilities align with being an 'ID Activist'?  What are Sal's chances at the above 4 options, given his propensity to excoriate himself upon the cross of Teh Interwebz Ridicule?  What are the chances that your grandkids (or others) will rebel against your creationism in their teenage years, and become 1, 2, 3, or 4?  

Will that weigh on your conscience, if you cannot stem the darwinists materialist evilutionist athiest onslaught on the american family IN YOUR OWN HOME?

Date: 2008/01/07 23:03:21, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Steve Sternberged:
Obama is definitely religious but that doesn't bother me because he's not a christianist.

Yeah ain't he Muslim?  Swear I saw that on the View or something.  PZ.  I dunno.

**Ed diddiduad  Ahhhh doonesbury.  no?

Date: 2008/01/07 23:21:26, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I saw Brian back down a 250 lb very angry thuggish ruggish dude on the basketball courts up the street from mitch's once.

that little bastard could really hoop.

back on topic:  FtK, is it true that to the atheist, basketball has no more meaning than picking the lice out of one's fur, or gnawing an umbilical cord off with one's teeth, or drowning puppies?  How is it that atheists can seem so fulfilled with respect to participating in mindless exercise of the body, all the while they surely are aware that they are living in an imaginary contrived reality since the mind is all that truly exists and will go to live with jesus?

Edited To Add:
Answer Me THAT, if you dare.  I would love to know just what, exactly, these daily atheists are wrong about.  A list, please.

Date: 2008/01/07 23:33:24, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Serious Tard

Date: 2008/01/07 23:39:30, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I would also (and did, several years in a row, in intramurals) pick him to be my point guard.  Mad Handles, that dude.  And an attitude.

Man, he would work me the ball when I was on the block and it was beautiful.  We liked to think that Jimmy V was watching in the wings. I'd play with those Chapel Hill guys that all grew up playing hoops together and they had no big man there, god that was good basketball.  We ran a lot of folks off the court that were much bigger and stronger than we were back then.

Date: 2008/01/08 00:21:51, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
well as much as i have enjoyed this thread (Daniel you have received quite a spanking and also been an absolutely great sport about it) I am tempted to go concern trolling here.

JAM:  Daniel is a creationist.  pure and simple.  no amount of data will change his mind, he brought it with him.

daniel:  we value evidence.  cartesian empirical equivalencies is mental masturbation.  yes we may be brains in vats.  this does not further your argument, which boils down to the awe and wonder that you feel when experiencing 'creation'.  We all feel that, or we wouldn't be biologists or interested in science in general.  You simply fail to discern the appropriate distinction between your emotionally valuable presuppositions and the realities imposed by objective evidence*.

I am sympathetic, on some level, to these orthogenetic notions.  Simply because I think there is something about individual organisms (agency, identity, blah blah imprecise blah) that defies the mereological reductionism that is at least the caricature of evolutionary biology.  Where and what these entities and processes exist and exercise is the question.

the IDC movement conveniently stands on the shoulders of these monumental questions in biology and philosophy in general and proclaims them answered, and you will find those answers in black and white in the ancient handed-down texts of a particular clan of nomadic coprophagic** numerologists.

Pardon the rest of us, me included, if we don't fall for your martyrdom.

*  objective is as objective does.  but i'll be less likely to believe you when you run around yammering about front-loaded this or omphalos that.  you know.

**  see Ezekiel Bread.  True Christians, TM, use cows dung for mans dung.  I have it on as good an authority as you do that the earth was created by yahweh or whatever your sect calls it.

Date: 2008/01/08 08:21:07, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Tard  This guy never fails to deliver some really potent shit.  Searing hot off of the stove too.

OUTKAST 01.08.08 AT 8:32 AM
The fact remains, and God-haters like Musing and RDean/donato will never be able to explain it, that if Evolution were true there would be millions of fossils of in-between creatures, plus half-dog/half-ape, half-human/half-elephant transitional creatures all over the earth.

What a total joke Evolution is

You forgot the Pygmies and Dwarves!

Date: 2008/01/08 12:59:56, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 08 2008,12:41)
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 08 2008,11:52)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 06 2008,09:30)
Silly Little Arden there are more confederate apologists in your midst than you might realize.

"If the South Woulda Won We'da Had It Made"

Isolationists Unite!  Bocephus for President or at least Skynyrd!

I'm not sure anyone else knows this, but Arden told me that he quit commenting here in order to spend more time with his boyfriend's family.

He is extremely gay, in case you didn't know. Like nuclear-bomb level gay.

Does he kiss gay, Steve?

wow that sure puts your sig first line in perspective there Rich.  

heheh.  if he was standing what were you doin?

Date: 2008/01/08 13:16:39, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 08 2008,13:10)
Being a magnificent bastard, obviously.

yeah like this


Date: 2008/01/09 08:51:26, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
What was semiotic007 hammering kf about?

I haven't the desire to go through his long yammering self-referential navel gazing posts.  And he is full of it too.  anyone copy that thread?

Date: 2008/01/09 08:56:13, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Louis Arden and Lenny were all kidnapped by k.e.. who has popped in to establish an alibis.

actually they weren't kidnapped it was very willing, as they are starting a big gay archipelago in the south pacific replete with fruity drinks and fruity dinks, down to a man.  2 more islands to a Whorum!

Date: 2008/01/09 14:35:56, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
thanks turncoat.

i knew i didn't want to dig through all of the thread and decipher missing posts to get that.  KF sure is a blowharding imbecile.

didn't getawitness get him to admit that he was not and never had been a physicist, only that he had an MA or something similar in physics?

Date: 2008/01/09 14:56:47, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
so, my cock at one end and my face at the other means that there are mystical poles?  seems like that is only one pole, there.  and it is kinda limber these days.

and this has what, exactly, do to with biology?

what about starfish?  where are their poles?  are you the type that likes to stab starfish with a pole?  I'm guessing Yah.

This makes less sense to me than you usually do.  I'd love to hear more, perhaps with a bit more detail and a bit less 'darwinismus est stupido' stuff.  especially since Arden is gaying the archipelago and isn't around to get the jokes.

Date: 2008/01/09 18:36:40, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I believe in the flood, but only because I haven't seen the evidence against it.  My main reason for believing it (other than the bible), is that the landscape looks like the aftermath of massive flood runoff when viewed from the air.  Not very scientific, I know but that's where I'm at.  (insert joke here)

Are you kidding?  Where in the hell does it look like that?

That isn't even worth making a joke about.  You need some help dude.

Date: 2008/01/09 18:38:38, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Ummm, that would be Detroit.  And perhaps New Orleans.

Oh yeah and Philly.

that's where all crap floweth.

Date: 2008/01/09 20:48:01, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Well, being wrong ain't that bad.

It's the damn smug attitude, the one that shows that you are ignernt and proud of it, that is the killer.

Coroners are looking for Intelligent Design?


Again, will you tell me what part of the Appalachians look like they were scrubbed by Teh Flud?  Im'a dyin' ta be knowin'.

Date: 2008/01/09 20:54:27, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Sooooooooooooooooooooo, concern troll here.

Why the fascination with FtK?

She's just another ignorant internet loser that knows nothing but doesn't let that stop her from pronouncing it to the world.

Granted, that is funny.  

But that doesn't cause me to have a personal interest in her pathology.

Her blog is stupid.  Stupid haha too.  But I don't get a kick out of reading it.  Just makes me feel sad and sort of like maybe I should go beat a puppy or fuck a rhino just to get the icky off of me.

So, anyone care to comment on just what it is that makes them personally involved in the descent into the maelstrom that is Unreasonable Kansans?  Blipey?  Albie?  FtK?  Especially you, FtK.  Why do you do it, other than the persecution complex?

***Edited to Add, haha I can do this, and also a disclaimer:  Don't get me wrong, I troll some fundie blogs because that can be a hilarious waste of time, especially when they talk about things they know nothing about like FtK does.  But.....  somehow this is more like a soap opera or an office romance than a comic strip.  Just curious, I love youn's all and I ain't playa hatin'.

Date: 2008/01/09 21:09:09, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
So if she was like, i dunno, Unreasonable Mexicans, you would be all like 'Pssssh she be stoopid' and read Landover Baptist instead.  Or something?

[tosses hair, rolls eyes, snaps gum, smothers fart], and stuff.

Hows that for an FtK impression?

Thanks for the reply Albie.  I suspect there is more to it, and I say that with the utmost respect and admiration for your willingness to hold her hand while she goes potty on everything that is honorable about intellectual pursuits, all the while remaining calm and in good humor about it.  That sort of thing just makes me want to burn bridges you know.

Date: 2008/01/09 21:26:02, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

I am not sure but I think she is only helping me to 1)  laugh my ass off at morons and 2)  ignore anything that she says as having any substance or value.

Not sure that she is a proxy for Intelligent Design Creationists or even Creationists in general.  Maybe the latter.  Maybe even the former.  I dunno.  Just been thinking lately that if we didn't pay any attention to the withered old crone she'd probably dry up and blow away.  But I am not sure if that would be a good thing or no.  

I know it would make Louis cry.  That poofter.

Date: 2008/01/10 10:50:35, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

There went all pretenses to 'following the evidence wherever it leads'.

So long, thanks for playing.

Date: 2008/01/10 11:04:24, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Perhaps you could interpret this from Teh Flud perspective.  I've sure always been curious how one might do that.  Walt Brown was no help.

Date: 2008/01/10 16:09:57, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Personally, I don't believe in random mutations

Could someone translate this for me?  I'm not sure what in the holy hell it is supposed to mean.

Date: 2008/01/10 19:42:32, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
rhmc, she doesn't see it that way.

she doesn't get her 'ass kicked' here.  she comes in and shares the love of Jeeeesus to a bunch of godless evilutionists who are atheists on a daily basis.

her method of denial (claiming that truth is relative, via different interpretations) doesn't require bravery.  It's foolproof, in that it proves a fool.  She can always, and does always, resort to this stopgap to prop her failed philosophy.

the fact that we have such a great time (albeit sometimes guiltily) poking holes in her thought balloons feeds her martyr complex.  she gets quite a bit out of it, she is not giving for our sake.  it is all based on, (and IANAP) some kind of dependency on feeling inadequate.  classic cornpone white middle class anglo protestant housewife angst.  i could go on, but it's all speculative.  and a lot of fun.

Date: 2008/01/10 19:51:37, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Skeptic, no one is saying that mutations don't have fitness effects, nor that some mutations are not more likely due to causal scenarios already in place (laws of chemistry, etc).  See codon bias, for instance.

The point is that mutations (and their effects) are not determined according to perceived needs of the organism.

As SWB said, hanging out next to an antibiotic doesn't increase your chances of picking up a mutation coding for some form of resistance***.  The point that no known analysis has shown direction for mutations is worth noting (and also the dagger in the heart of Daniel Smith's nonsense resurrecting the rotting corpse of Broom and Schindewolf).

***  Of course this does not deal with the probability of a population becoming fixed for such a mutation, which would be related to the proximity to such a selection pressure.

Date: 2008/01/11 19:31:56, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Hey now, ramps taste best with black dirt on them.

PS whoever is the ignorant asshole that took this picture left the roots on them when he dug them up.  If he was in my ramp patch I'd whup his ass.  But, that's what you should expect from the Forest Service.  'Yoneg bootlicking clowns', is what one of my Tsalagi brothers called them.  He might be right.

Date: 2008/01/11 19:35:23, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Do your balls hang low
Do they waggle to and fro
Can you tie them in a knot
Can you tie them in a bow
Can you throw them o'er your shoulder
like a Continental Soldier
Do your Ballllllls Haaaaaaaang Low

Hey V, tell us more about the Mystical Hole Theory.  You seem to be fascinated with testicles.

The same wise indian once told me (while smoking an absolutely humongous joint) "There's more to life than a big dick and a hairy set of balls"

I don't know what the hell he meant.

Date: 2008/01/11 19:41:48, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
RB you are one hell of a miner.  I salute you sir.

I dont have the patience to read UD these days.  I'm beginning to be like Louis (no, goddamit, not a gay Welsh necrophiliac) and enjoy my tard filtered through Youse Guys.  Perhaps I can wean myself back onto the hard stuff once the semester calms down.  

Until then, I salute you all.

Date: 2008/01/11 20:22:53, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
speaking of geniuii

Date: 2008/01/11 21:06:48, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
well, what are some other good'uns?

they changed the world magazine blog format around and now it sucks.  used to be one of my favorite fundie sites, you could count on good back and forth with some of the regulars (and a few incipient conversions!!!!).  now it blows goats.  both figuratively and literally.  and littorally too.

i used to troll an acoustic musician forum, but it got old poking all those 'jesus invented bluegrass music' folks.  

the stubborn arrogant ignorance of kairosfocus makes me want to physically beat him, and that is not a healthy sentiment to have when enjoying teh internetz.  i'd appreciate more diversions.

Date: 2008/01/12 09:24:15, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Daniel fair enough we can deal with flood and young earth nonsense at a later date.

If I may be so bold as to offer a summary of Berg Schindewolf Broom etc, the outcome of evolutionary processes are determined by natural law.  In other words, it could not have been any other way.

Post synthesis thought has recognized that there are many constraints imposed on the landscape of what 'could be' (hint, this makes Dembski's NFL a stinky steam-pile), while emphasizing the role of contingency and (for lack of a better word) 'chance'.  

Now, my point is that if there were 'laws' governing evolution, don't you think some of these would have emerged from the millions of statistical analyses performed on biological data since Fisher and Wright?  There is no single distillable biological principle, formulable at any level of detail*, that is held without exception.  There are 'No Laws' (you should chat with Bob O'H about that'un).  

There are some eastern mystical philosophies that have some principles that may on a first order approximation roughly describe evolution, particularly the zen teachings about variation and perception.  There are probably hundreds of other examples of such concepts in other religions and philosophies, but none have enough detail to have any referential value in biology.

* There is an exception, and as far as I can tell this is as much of a coherent and absolute general law that has ever been proposed in biology.  
Robinsons Rule:  Shit Varies. It Matters. Sometimes.  

Edited to add:  The contradictory positions OM brought up are serious and need to be dealt with by honest creationists who value science first, as you claim to.  The fact that they are routinely ignored by dishonest charlatans frauds and shaman raconteurs is one of the primary reasons that the reality based community has such a strong and intense opposition to the proponents of these ideas.

Date: 2008/01/12 09:38:46, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I've always wondered which one of you guys was Tribune7.  

That, sir, is good shit!!!

Date: 2008/01/12 11:17:02, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
OM did you see the reply by Patrick, posted on OE, to the claims made by Sally_T about peanut butter sandwiches?

I think carlson posted it a while back on the UD thread.  Sally never answered.  Patrick floundered a bit, said that a peanut butter sandwich had about 3 bits or so of information, then said that we should be more concerned with the upper limit, not the lower limit, of CSI.  He also avoided the issue regarding DNA (we know it's designed, per the ID'ers) in the peanut butter being an inference stopper, since any entity containing peanut butter must also be designed, etc.

How can anyone maintain that CSI means anything, or that the EF can do a single thing (given the problems with the input data), is beyond me.  I suppose it is similar to the experience of our friend Keith here, who does not understand the claims but knows that they support his presuppositions so he uses them anyway.

Date: 2008/01/12 11:20:29, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Skeptic I think you are a few bricks shy of a load.

That is irrelevant.  Regarding louis, I was wondering if we might use the EF to determine if this is his post on pharyngula.


Date: 2008/01/12 11:22:52, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
well, ala FtK, I am fairly sure he doesn't see it that way.

I don't understand how he can maintain his position, given the trouble he went to in order to post that flop of a defense.  Sure is curious.

I wish they would come up with some more bogus concepts.  Wes hardly leaves us any crumbs to clean up.  Fisk, Fisk Fisk.

Date: 2008/01/12 17:17:47, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Ooooh Oooooh Ooooh Call On Me!!!!

Because it's hard to reconcile the fact that "this is the best of all possible worlds" is a logical fallacy, and also reconcile that with christianist theology that has focused on omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, and free will endowed by a creator.

Date: 2008/01/12 17:26:52, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Heyyyyyyyy viiiiiiiiiiicky

It is on my opinion utterly implausible explanation

Why should we give a rat's ass what in your ignorant 'opinion' is an explanation?

You are famous for not having an explanation, only 'darwinsmus est stupido'.  a few comments back you feinted at an explanation, the poles and urge to becoming and all that.  but you can't even keep that up.

MArtin why should anyone give a damn because YOU are unable to understand or process scientific arguments?

Why can't you tell us more about the Pole-ismus?  Me thinks it is hypothetiker and all in heads of Pole-ectionists.  Great scientist Paul Rubens once say 'Pole-ismus est stupido Pole-ectionists head'

Date: 2008/01/12 17:31:47, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Alby I am sure that in her vacant head, you are the model for that vocal minority.  Serves YOU right for building bridges.  Just kidding.  sorta.  Can't talk sense to em, can't feed em to the lions anymore.

innocent, honest scientists who quietly and competently do their jobs

Now, isn't this a tu quoque with a secret twist of 'atheists should shut the hell up'?  anyone care to judge my assessment?  I like to think I'm getting good at this by now.

Date: 2008/01/13 12:03:50, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
It is however complex enough to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Mark, meet chaff.

Date: 2008/01/13 21:13:09, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

Again, with the snippy parts snipped

Post synthesis thought has recognized that there are many constraints imposed on the landscape of what 'could be'..., while emphasizing the role of contingency and... 'chance'.  

It's a mystery to me how you can argue that there is a burgeoning scientific revolution based on the misguided presumptions of some biologists with physics envy, and indeed it would be hard for me to understand if I did not also know that you have concluded that some sort of biblical creationism is best supported by the facts, without consulting the facts first.

Fact:  To some unknown, yet potentially enormous, degree, evolution of organisms has been directed by physical laws and constants such as gravity, the weak force, the strong force, arbitrary wavelengths and frequencies of available energy in our sector of the universe, etc, AND NOT BY NATURAL SELECTION.

I believe you missed a little book by Voltaire, you should check it out if you think the idea that protein folding is not a function of natural selection is an earthshaking observation.

Date: 2008/01/14 20:34:32, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Oleg, mapou can haz blog. Check it out. If he is a sockpuppet, he has stockholm syndrome.  There just ain't no way that one could pretend to be such an idiot.

Date: 2008/01/14 21:02:27, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
oleg half of my brain fell out and i had to quickly change to another web page that had more intellectual content.  i think it was  

All Science So Far, I said, when it came up on the screen.

Has anyone saved this most recent delicious thread?  seems like a waste for WAD to come down off of his snorting jesus high and realize that it is actually something to be ashamed of, then delete it and pretend it never existed like half of the posts on that site.

Date: 2008/01/14 21:22:14, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Guts meowed
What does scienticism mean again?

You know I was wondering the same damn thing!!!one!!!  Spooky, ain't it?

Date: 2008/01/14 21:46:58, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
oleg, i can't spare the brain cells to compare, but I have a hunch, call it a design inference if you wish, that this might be the same dude we are discussing.

Date: 2008/01/15 07:55:44, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Naughty bits on the head, like female dragonflies?

or that shitty SNL sketch from the 70s-80s.

Har Har this is you Martin

Date: 2008/01/15 08:05:29, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I just switched my car insurance to Geico.

Date: 2008/01/15 19:21:39, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
since i have only been able to stomach reading a few posts at UD lately (overdose causing allergic reaction?  the Designer using infinite wavelength radiation to cause me to feel the guilt of rejecting the salvation his Sun died for?  too busy working on research?  nahh probly not that), can anyone tell me if Kairos focus, who is neither kairos nor focussed, has weighed in on the prediction thread?  or Bornagain?

Date: 2008/01/15 19:50:57, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Daniel that is because we have all been indoctrinated on Teh Altar of Darwinism and don't really remember the details.

Or there are some other reasons.  But let's just stick with that one, it's much sexier.

Date: 2008/01/15 22:22:40, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Richard that is exactly true.  I recall reading on UD just recently that 'most of the commenters here have as an expert a command of the field of biology as any university' or something very similar.  

it's not that this is ludicrous.  of course it is.  the amazing thing is that it is said with all earnest seriousness, THEY BELIEVE IT TO BE SO.

just like the situation here.  any jackass that has ever seen Marty Stauffer and Omaha Wild Kingdom is an f-ing biologist, and should be taken seriously.

so don't get your panties in a wad, Daniel.  it's just the same old dishonest honorary degree type behavior we've seen a million times before.  Perhaps you are different, but surely you understand posterior probabilities and why the null is set where it is.

Date: 2008/01/15 22:36:33, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
that letter made me want to see this go to court more than ever.

jesus what a bunch of equivocating and FtK 'interpretationalizing' that is.  

it is pretty sick to see these anti-reason bozoes lip service 'in the interest of science education' and to say if Florida caves in to the Poof-ers that they 'may be poised to be a national leader in educating new scientists'.

Florida should stick to growing student athletes and lemons.  That's what they are good at it.  And hanging those chads.

Date: 2008/01/15 23:00:25, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
well excuuuuuuuse me.

growing up in western north carolina has given me a very different view of Floridiots (we called them).

Wes do you still drive realllllllllllllllllllly slow and not pull over and let people by?  Most Florons move FROM up north to florida, not the other way around.

Sternberger, i know what kind of company you keep.  say no more, say no more.

Date: 2008/01/16 08:18:01, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Would you feel uneasy debating this man

Hell yeah I would.  I dont get down like that homie.

wait.  oops.  I thought you said 'dating'.  never mind.

Date: 2008/01/16 08:20:45, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
More research is needed to elucidate the means by which these originally “very good” microorganisms devolved into the destructive pests and pathogens they have become.

Any chance this is the winner of a home school junior high science fair competition?

Wonder why these folks want to understand 'devolution' and not 'evilution'.  Any chance that could be so they could take over the world?

I'm in your crops, devolving your mycorrhizal community.

Date: 2008/01/16 12:15:17, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
squeezing, slipping, sliding, pumping, hot, intruding, hard, dikes, ohhhhhhh god.

i think that qualifies as a 'One Handed Read'.

Date: 2008/01/16 13:19:21, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Quote (VMartin @ Jan. 16 2008,13:16)
Natural selection bless American beautiful girls!

Now THAT is hot.

Marty, here is a good example of things that selection just fails to predict.  How could these girls be so hot?  Stepwise adding one beautiful fat molecule at a time, they could never get to be so hot.

Neodarwinismus fail to explainismus thismus, all hypothetiker in selectionismus headismus.

Date: 2008/01/16 13:24:30, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 16 2008,12:49)
Will Teh Fall be preceded by a group of lions?


No Bob, although that is a damn fine good'un, Teh Fall is preceded by THIS guy.

Date: 2008/01/16 14:44:35, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
The drum beat is picking up in the fundagelical world.

Don tinfoil hat before clicking here.

Date: 2008/01/16 15:08:58, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Wow, MtDNA, have you been following him long, or is this your first meeting?

He is a piece of work.  There are some intelligent albeit, IMO misguided, folks on that fundie web page.

Some of my other favorites are Solon (he is now Peter Leavitt), Xion (a YECer that claims to be a scientist but once admitted he grinds eyeglasses), SavedByGrace (a pastor who is also a materials engineer, sometimes claims to be a scientist, is a YECer and presuppositionalist) and I probably forget some other good'uns.

Good place to tard mine.

Date: 2008/01/16 20:48:13, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
btw, that site is operated by the Moonies, isn't it?

I don't know.  Do tell?  Luuuuuuuuuuuuuv to hear that'un.

Date: 2008/01/16 22:24:19, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Can someone please tell me what in the holey feck this thread is all about?

I know gloppy is most likely WAD but parodying the parody of a parody is stupid, not funny.

The genus Agros Agoraphobias, for example, independently evolved in northeast Africa and on the Manchurian peninsula

Hey, Dumbass.  That is not a genus.  You sir are a god damned fool.  Pig ignorant of all that biology is and will be, and proud of it.  I wish I could flunk you from my class.

Date: 2008/01/16 22:30:24, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
sparc, perhaps ID predicts that the designer will use four nucleotides, except when it wishes to use a few others, for it's signature.

All Science So Far.

While trying to determine what in the dirty robes of christ this idiot on UD was talking about, I came across this.

From Urban Dictionary (how is that for an authority)

1. agro

to be angry or hostile for no reason

"that pitbull is fuckin' agro"

if only i could be convinced that the douchebag formerly known as Gloppy was aware of this, then I could perhaps grant this crumb of monkey smegma a small dollop of more-or-less original wit.

2. agro
(verb) To create hostility in others, causing them to attack you. This is frequently seen in MMOG's (massively-multiplayer online games) when a player draws the attention of one or more hostile NPC's (non-player characters) and is attacked by them. Also seen is the "chain agro", where the hostile NPC who was agroed causes the next nearest NPC to also agro on the player, setting up a chain reaction.

"Stay against the left wall to avoid agroing the goblins." "Look at that idiot, he just ran ahead and agroed the whole room."

The dripping, pustulent idiocy on UD has caused me to agro the thread.  I KNEW i quit reading that bullshit for a reason.

Date: 2008/01/16 22:47:39, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

He broke out Walt Brown.

We lose.  See you guys somewhere else.  Have to find a new playground.

Date: 2008/01/17 14:44:48, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I counted a jar full of change today, because I switched my car insurance to Geico, and that was either how much I saved or how much it cost, I don't remember.  What I remember is how I was amazed at the complexity of the order of the $739.24  It is utterly and impossibly improbable that those coins would be in that particular order.

Then I realized that we are living in the best of all possible worlds.  The sands of the beaches are all arranged in the most improbable manner!  They could be in any number (almost) of configurations, but they are in THIS PARTICULAR CONFIGURATION.


Date: 2008/01/17 14:46:07, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Right FtK, meet Left FtK.  Shake hands.  Now switch places.

10 Goto 20.

Date: 2008/01/17 16:05:01, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Wasn't Teh Flud about 4000 years ago?

Job (not to be confused with the other tragic character Joad) was after Duh Flud, right?

Hmmm FtK should give us all a course in biblical chronologies.  I have some questions about Kings and Chronicles that only she could answer, I'm sure.  

FtK sweetie I know you are reading this, why don't you chime in and tell us when Duh Flud was, and how this interacts with the age of the book of Job.

Date: 2008/01/18 01:05:04, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I've always heard ye olde colloquialiasm

"MIGHTS" grow on chickens asses"

seems like it fits just teh same.

Date: 2008/01/18 14:48:26, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 18 2008,12:31)
Oh whoopee it's the American equivalent of the Four Yorkshiremen sketch (If unfamiliar, Google it, it should be on YouTube)!

You pampered Yankee pussies know nothing. *I* had it tough.

There were 126 of us living in shoebox in t'middle o'motorway. I used to have to get up at 10:30 at night, half an hour before I went to bed, and lick the road clean with our tongues, eat a handful of cold poison, work 28 hours a day at mill AND pay the mill owner for permission to come to work, and when I got home, our dad used to murder us in cold blood and dance about on our graves singing "Hallelujah". And we were lucky!

If you told the young people of today that, they wouldn't believe you.


P.S. It was uphill on the way to work AND on the way back and it always rained cold, sleety rain right into the gap in my hand-me-down eighth generation clothes. Shoes? HAH! We'd eaten the shoes fourteen generations ago as the leather was like best chateubriand steak to us. You soft bastards don't even know you're born. We thought posh was getting out of the bath to pee, and I didn't see a banana until 1953. Etc. Blah drone waffle. When I say "bath" I mean a puddle of lukewarm tramp saliva gobbed at us by posh folk like lepers and that.

Holllllllley Fuck that is hilarious.

Louis I nominate you for Yahweh.  Or at least Best. Post. Evvvvvvvarrrrrrr.

Jesus man don't disappear so long next time I thought maybe you had Ron Day Voooood with FtK and perhaps had either converted to her cult or you both perhaps had died in a bizarre fetishist electoschocking accident involving a walrus, a weedeater, two jars of peach preserves, eleven and a half styrofoam life preserver rings, alligator clips and 3 phase power box.

Date: 2008/01/18 17:29:19, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Did i miss the bobby post?

Date: 2008/01/18 19:34:51, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
FtK, while you are looking up the evidence you know for and against the bird-dino thing, why don't you find out what "lineage sorting" means.  It has some implications.

Date: 2008/01/19 14:52:53, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
How does "creation science" explain hiccups, FtK?

Teh Fall rurnt ever thing son.

Date: 2008/01/19 15:32:58, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 19 2008,08:41)
There certainly has been a Marxist strand in evolutionary biologists.  Haldane and Maynard Smith in the UK come to mind.  And Lewontin and co. in the US.

For a really good read about how evolutionary biology and sociobiology developed, try Ullica Segerstråle's Defenders of the Truth, where the Marxist influence is one of the sub-plots.

Bob (not a Marxist.  At least not that Marx)

Richard Marx?

Date: 2008/01/23 12:13:37, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Happy B-Day Wes!

may the bird of paradise remain very far from your nose.  preferably in the palm although that is worth exactly half of one in the bush.

Date: 2008/01/23 12:16:43, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
As a two-time NC State alum, i can tell you that there is nothing distinctive nor honorable about having such a degree.  if you are going to lie might as well make it interesting.  How about Shaw?  Fayetteville State?

Date: 2008/01/23 12:22:51, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
all your goals are belong to us.

buy my book

cross dressing walks dogging backwards too It to have like evolved by mere chance.  placebo.

one of these eyes is not like the other...

Date: 2008/01/23 20:27:01, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

I'd just like to add my two rupees to say "Jeeeeeesus what the fuck are y'all goin on about" and to add that there is nothing like some physics to make ordinary folks feel plumb ignernt.  YouknowhutImeanTP.  God-dam decoherence, the Monroe-Martin decoherence, the Reno Single String Theory, Round Peak Relativity vs Clinch Mountain Frail, hell I give up.  I'll keep to poking VMartin with the ugly stick.

Don't get me wrong.  Although I have only lightly kept up with this thread, I'm impressed that you are somewhat less trollish and ignorant than some of our other cranks.  You may have a point.  I could never tell.  It seems that the educated lot amongst us disagree but that's the way it goes.  These days I'm cynical enough to say if you ain't an IDiot or a young earth moron you're probably halfway sane.  Then again, there is Deepak.

Date: 2008/01/23 21:17:48, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I dunno what you could explain to make me believe that quantum effects would have anything to do with macroscopic phenomena, much less biological evolution.  It all sounds like the Chopra, the Matrix, Dancing Wu Li, water molecules can tell when you are sad, Steve Hurlbert's Demonic Intrusion term in ANOVA, infinite wavelength radiation ad hoc b.s. to me.  But I'll be brutally honest and admit that I could easily be fooled, my parsing of physics is probably akin to the coarse palate of the English (everything is boiled to mush with the parsnips).  

I just wanted to say that whether or not you are a crackpot you are a jolly good sport and that is admirable!


Date: 2008/01/23 22:15:11, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Does ID predict where in the hell Arden Chattersnatch is?  Hmmmm.  Louis has been curiously inactive as well.  Guess it's hard to type with two handfuls.  ORLY?

Date: 2008/01/24 08:30:49, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Soon To Be Tard-Fest

I am posting this in anticipation of there being some wonderful material to put here from my favorite fundie idiot blog.

I would love to see some of you guys over there.  I'm afraid you might have to register.  i can't remember.

The poster (Harrison S Key) is a particularly stupid talking head over there and is not a bit scared to make grandiose pronouncements on topics that he knows absolutely jack-f-ing-shit about.  I would like to take him snipe huntin'.

Date: 2008/01/24 10:05:13, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
He wasn't happy enough with "Xion is a poopy head"

but Xion is a poopy head, and a young earth poopy head.  he is good for a discussion if you want to get him'her going about omphalos Last Thursdayism.

Date: 2008/01/24 15:11:33, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
recently at my house in the limestone country

Dark Eyed Junco
Acadian Fly Catchers (nesting in my back room as we speak).  is this the right time of year or have i missed an ID?
Downy woodpecker
blue jay
cedar waxwing
a smaller buteo, probably sharp shinned but I didn't get a good luck
grey squirrels
screech owl
drunk guy next door

Date: 2008/01/24 15:17:11, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 24 2008,14:21)

I certainly hope there are lurkers reading this thread who are interested in getting at the truth with regard to what the mechanisms of evolution can actually accomplish, because you are doing a marvelous job of asking the right questions and pointing out the Darwinian fallacies.  Keep up the good work.

BTW, I envy your gift of patience.  It won't pay off with these folks, but like I said, hopefully there are open minded lurkers following this discussion.

Because since evolution either never happened anyway or it like totally did and God did it and also cause the earth is like 10,000 - 4,500,000,000 years old and no one knows for sure, and because the flood was like at least global or maybe even local and Walt Brown once imagined how like all the water could have come from inside the earth or maybe from outside the earth and it could have taken miracles but maybe not because how can you tell God what to do and stuff, Daniel, you are doing a good job pointing out the holes and stuff or at least the places where the holes could be if you wanted to interpret it that way, and definitely the places where we would see holes if weren't predisposed to see things that are really there and could instead just trust God and use the eyes that our faith gives and whatnot.

And I've already discussed all this on my blog anyway.


yawn.  don't you have some clothes to wash or some floors to scrub my helpmeet friend?

Date: 2008/01/24 23:27:46, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Jesus God what a dumb fuck.

Date: 2008/01/24 23:31:49, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Remember, Danny-Boy (you too FtK, tell yourself that Oprah said it)

invoking Goldschmidt means nonononono Old Earth and nononononono Grate Big Flud.

FtK if we are going to be all 'Goldschmidt-y' then we have to stop pretending to be all 'Walt-Brown-y'.  I don't think our good friend Walt "The Gambler" Brown is going to be very happy with the idea that Noah didn't carry a bunch of VD with him from before the rainbow, and stuff.

Date: 2008/01/25 09:54:21, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I've always thought kairosfocus "H'mmmm.  Onlookers, note" is pretty similar to SHUT UP CAUS IM TALKIN only said in a much gayer voice and with a flamboyant flirtatious glance.

Date: 2008/01/25 11:41:25, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Anyone know what the fuck this moron is talking about?  I don't speak stupidese so good.

69.  BY ROGER 01.24.08 AT 7:39 PM
Steve — roger … are there actual examples of these contrarian data, or are you speaking hypothetically?

Roger — Yes, there are. Some are located in the Royal Society vaults and are kept under lock and key.

Didn't post the link.  The claim was made by this fool that 'contrarian data exist that prove young earth, boat load of animals', adam had no bellybutton, etc.  this was his response.

Date: 2008/01/25 11:42:35, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Hey, I was nearly destroyed by a dinosaur because of my beliefs!!!*

*Actualy, I was never threatened, but I once heard of someone that had been threatened.  That would seem to count, per Sal's reckoning.

Date: 2008/01/27 00:39:04, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 26 2008,12:44)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 26 2008,09:52)

If you mess with Casey, I'm gonna have to hurt you.  A 7' kick boxer is no match for a 42 year old on caffeine induced adrenaline high rant.  Besides, I've had practice taking down the big brother is 6'10".  I've learned to fight dirty. :p

But then you collapse in each others arms and kiss.


nom nom nom nom nom

Date: 2008/01/28 13:01:04, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Quote (PTET @ Jan. 28 2008,10:43)
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 28 2008,09:47)
I'm picturing the statue looking more like the Army of Darkness poster, with Bill standing there with his shirt torn, and Denyse clutching his leg.


Heyyyyy!!!  I think I see nipples!!!!  Three of them!!!

Date: 2008/01/28 15:20:32, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 28 2008,15:10)
JunkyardTornado: Or consider a bower bird that will build fantastic architecture with multiple rooms, each room devoted to a different artistic theme of his own whim, and the whole enterprise undertaken merely as an elaborate mating ritual.

JunkyardTornado: "Using flowers, feathers, fruit pulp, seeds, moss, snail shells, and just about anything else it can get its beak on, the male bowerbird displays an architect’s sense for assembling social space."

magnan: This would have to be in terms of art analysis and criticism discussing meanings and emotional power (the humanities) not purely objective hard science to which such things are meaningless illusions.

Yes, because we should judge avian art by subjective human standards.

I've never looked at a bird nest and not thought to myself "Jesus I could do so much better than that.  Birds sure are unimpressive architects, and they also carry mites".

Date: 2008/01/29 07:05:23, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Annyday are you saying that Teh Fall Falled God?  That's wild.  That should be exported directly to the head of a fundie and I think I know which one.

I once heard someone say that you can get out of this triune trap if you are prepared to deny one of the following:  omniscience, omnipotence, omniprosence.  Any one will leverage you to retain the other two.

PTET how-dy.  I personally thought myself that the argument regarding did jesus pleasure himself was the strongest.

1:  If Jesus took himself in hand, was he really sinless?  We know that it's bad to punch the monk, Onan told us so.  Less clear is the ramifications for not getting it on the ground...  perhaps the legalists let us know.  FtK?

2:  If Jesus NEVER took himself in hand, was he really human?  Are you trying to tell me he was a virgin his entire life and God too and did not ever jerk off?

Something ain't right here.  Seems like if you want fully human and fully god, it comes down to you being allowed to jerk off sinlessly, since any other situation would either deny that Jesus was God (therefore acting not as his agent but as his direct will) or that Jesus was not really human (robot Jesus would not have the same value as the sacrifice as His Only Begotten Son, Born of A Virgin (Who Under Some Definitions Of The Word, Was Raped By The Holy Spirit Without Consent, Only A Brief Memo).

FtK how does your congregation handle this Eurythrotic Dilemma?  It seems like fertile ground for deep theological schismismus.

Date: 2008/01/29 07:12:09, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 29 2008,04:15)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Jan. 28 2008,21:39)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 28 2008,15:26)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Jan. 28 2008,18:42)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 28 2008,12:31)
True story. I once brought half a cup of coffee back up through my nose and elected to catch it back in the original cup.

here's the cool part: It was regular coffee originally, but cappuccino at the "second coming".

Is this:

A) Design
B) A Miracle
C) Transmogrification
D) Unaccounted for by darwinism
E) Sick

F) British Haute Cuisine.

Slander, libel and calumny!

I demand a notpology!*

I am terribly sorry, Louis, that British cuisine is so poor.  I am really quite sad that wrapping it in newsprint actually improves the flavor.  I am truly disconsolate that Jamie Oliver got his mockney arse whooped by American Mario Batali on Iron Chef.



Now if you could manage to make it somehow *my* fault that British cuisine is so terrible and work this into a future notpology and also manage to blame me fo you slandering British cuisine then your path to the Dark Side will be complete.

Notpologies, meltdowns, unselfreflective tardation these are the tools of the Dark Side.


I think i shall blame you for the Spice Wars and also perhaps the spice girls and that includes granny spice.  Also, spam, spice, spam girls, granny spam, spam wars, spam whores, spice whores, spam whore wars, spy whores, and Ricky Skaggs.

Date: 2008/01/29 08:00:37, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Dear Dear Dear Dear Dear Carlson

In this post modern age it has become fashionable to emphasize pluralism and a distinct unwillingness to commit oneself to the truth.  It follows then that lesser scholars, with a cruder understanding of the subtle nuances of both the genre and the social spheres where the genre is expressed, would thank the brits, but tis' not true (although the welsh may have been important, Thanks Louis!!!  Tell yer mommer and them we said how-deee!)

So, the Politically Incorrect but Divinely Revealed* Guide To Hillbilly Music says that the Last Universal Common Ancestor of all that is aeolian mixolydian or dorian, played while chewing tobacco, within sight of goats or chickens, within earshot of white likker, done unplugged and with things that get took down and then and then put up, THIS must be this man seen in yonder doorway.

It remains a puzzle how one would pay serious attention to a thing such as music whilst suffering from pinworms, hookworms, roundworms, herpes, syphilis, gonorrhea, crotch crickets, penis rickets and full blown yeast infections.

*This is true.  

Edited to add:  Edited to add.

Date: 2008/01/29 08:50:38, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Jeeeeeeeeeesus Christ this is Rich Tard.

SteveG: “If the universe does not operate under predictable rules, then there is no way we can ever really know anything about it.”

ASALTYDOG: That’s exactly your problem. How do you know that the universe operates under predictable rules? Because if you can’t know that, as you admit, there is no way you can have science. Given your world view, then, how do you account for the predictability of nature?

You no can haz scince.  God says Me haz scinec, betr wurld vew.

Hey, just in case you were wondering.
ASALTYDOG: Rest assured that I belong precisely to the group of people who believe that the scientific evidence supports Biblical Creationism.

Oh we are assured son. No doubt.

Hang on to your tard-hats.  This one stretches the skin.
SteveG: “Do we agree that the universe works, for the most part, by understandable and predictable natural laws (even if we don’t necessarily fully understand all of them?)”

ASaltyDog: “I have no idea from what pocket you have drawn these natural laws, but of course it must be a trick. I deny your concept of natural laws. I do believe that as a rule God faithfully does things in predictable ways. On what grounds do you believe there are such things as natural laws?”

SteveG: “On the grounds that when I drop my keys in the parking lot, they never hang in midair. They always fall. But as I said at the top, perhaps we’re talking about the same thing using different vocabularies.”

ASALTYDOG: That’s not the same thing as showing that there are natural laws. You have not seen any natural law walking loose in your parking lot, trust me. You have only seen some keys dropping a few times. Will the keys fall the next time you drop them?

Whoever said this was about repealing the enlightenment, collect your prize now.

ASaltyDog: “Sorry, no neutral nor common ground here either. I don’t believe there are any natural laws governing tree growth. I do believe God makes trees grow. How do you know there are natural laws governing tree growth?”

SteveG: “I was mistaken, you’re right …. we do have no common ground. Unless you are playing some elaborate practical joke, which I really hope is the case.”

ASALTYDOG: Knock, knock. Anybody home? I ask questions, I get no answers.

We used to call that "Proud, to be stupid" where I came from.  Except I ain't really where I come from, no more.

SteveG: “Find me one shred of evidence that dinosaurs and dogs lived at the same time.”

ASaltyDog: “Easy: the zoological, historical, and soteriological implications of the biblical revelation. In short, if dinosaurs and dogs didn’t live at the same time, I would still be in my sins. But I am not in my sins, so therefore dinosaurs and dogs must have lived at the same time.”


I can't bear to report any more.

This thread is one delicious mine of Jesus fighting amongst hisself for the prize of dumbest particle in His Body.  We have old women calling ordained baptist ministers 'atheist'.  I pretty much cowered as it was over my head, like the battle of atlanta.

Date: 2008/01/29 09:02:09, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

Date: 2008/01/29 09:21:03, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Funny I had always supposed religion came after the first ergot, amanita, lophophora or frog poisoning.

Date: 2008/01/29 10:02:08, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Oh god that closeup is hi-larious.

Casey dude your lips look like two hotdogs stuck together by a pimply piece of wonder bread with razor burn.  And you be sportin the Uni-Brow, dog.  Daaaaaaaaaaamn.  I be pickin that shit out with some tweezahs yo.  You be lookin like one of the goddam Muppets man.

Date: 2008/01/29 13:18:09, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I just don't think you could say I worship them in the same way you worship Jesus.

You mean you don't eat grape juice and ritz crackers and pretend that it turns into Quentin Tarantino or TJ Hooker* in your mouth?

*edited to add:  sorry TS Eliot.**
**not really edited the first time.

Date: 2008/01/29 13:53:11, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Those dang Christians get all the cool stuff in their mythology and we aint got jack.

I'm satisfied with reductive eliminative mereological nihilism.

Kinda validates those old-timers I used to hear say stuff like 'all this knowledge and stuff is going against god'.

Date: 2008/01/29 14:19:13, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Hi FtK.

Isn't it a lot easier to just accept that the site is both a joke and not a joke, simultaneously?

isn't it possible that bill's atheist morality is the same as the 'rest of you' yet also different AT TEH SAME TIME?

Kinda like, you know, the age of the earth?

isn't it possible that you are both a slightly bitter fully neurotic hausfrau, AND one of the keenest scientific minds in this dimension?  we should keep our minds open, and at the very least hold our opinions until Walt Brown gives them to us?  

Sort of like Fully God and Fully Human?

Sort of like Free Will and Don't Accept Duh Jeesus Go Straight To Hell Do Not Pass Go?

Sort of like Bible College?

toodles.  i know you have a long long long list of prior questions first.  We are waiting with bait breath, O piranha.

Date: 2008/01/29 14:56:28, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
FTK sure they are all true.  Also false.  At Teh Same Time.  You know what to do with that sort of information, I wager.

Oh, the wages of sin.  Those poor Wedgewoods and Darwins, when they weren't beating puppies or administering opium to their drunken spouses they were busy providing an intellectual excuse to deny their makers.

That's a lot of raising hell!  And to think that some of these materialists give YOU a hard time just because your children are violating the migratory bird treaty act by killing blue herons!!!!  Silly materialists, don't they understand that the veritable BLOOD OF JEEEEEEEEEEEESUS means that your sins are invisible to the Great Shift Foreman In Teh Sky?  Anyway what difference does it make, herons are just mere matter to those nasty materialists so they might as well be dead or alive or somewhere in the middle (like Ursula Van Impe, or Dick Cheney).  We as True Christianists know that the earth is ours to conquer have dominion over, so screw off materialists!  You can't tell us nothing.  either that, or you can tell us everything.  They are both equally valid propositions.

Date: 2008/01/29 15:20:31, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Well we Evolutionists know whats in store for them, an ETERNITY in PEER REVIEW.

And hostile critics, to boot!!!  Jolly good show.  

FtK, do you think Jesus ever masturbated?  

If he did then is it a sin?  if he didn't was he really human?  I have a little boy who likes to get into the front of his diaper.  Is this sinful?  Did Jesus root around in his diaper?  I've often wondered this.  Seems like just plain old pooping in your pants probably isn't a sin, but what if you do it to get back at your parents when you know you shouldn't, say like a three or four year old?  Is that a sin?  Did Jesus do that?

Date: 2008/01/29 15:22:57, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I have never seen such bad judgement on the part of a prominent public figure outside of Michael Jackson.

clearly you have never looked .here

Date: 2008/01/29 18:47:14, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
well RB you'd grow legs, buck teeth and run off too if you had been crammed in those glory-ous fetid backwaters of the GMU men's room.  Imagine the places you'd go.

Date: 2008/01/29 18:55:28, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
why isn't there a moonbat post-of-the-week?

Date: 2008/01/29 19:20:31, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
C'mon Richard, gahhh, she's like being all cute and stuff.

Trying to draw attention away from that list, like coughing to cover up a fart.

Silence is violence, sweetums.  We can tell your particular stink, you've left all over this forum for, oh I don't know, 1224 posts.  And nothing to show for it but a greasy stain.  That looks curiously like the virgin mary.

Hey FtK:  Isn't it true that the Holy Spirit raped Mary?  Nowhere in Duh Bibble does it say that she gave her consent.  Just wondering how this fits into your theology, with masturbating baby Jesus Christ and what-not.

Date: 2008/01/29 19:21:38, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Hmmm.  So you are only into the tard for the glory, and not for the tard itself.  I see.  Soon you must choose.

Date: 2008/01/29 19:30:45, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
mebbe it's time for some new technology.


*should have seen the first one.  it didn't work.

Date: 2008/01/29 22:19:41, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
that reminds me Sternberger, I heard you hung out in the fifth floor of Harrelson bathrooms.

Date: 2008/01/29 22:55:38, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Here is some tard for that ass.

Have none of these assholes ever aligned sequences?

All Science So Far!!!

Date: 2008/01/30 12:22:25, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I read the 'offensive' one as far as 'even ardent evolutionist Stephen J Gould and Niles Eldridge admit that there are no transitional fossils in the fossil record!  None!!!'

then i had to stop.  if just plain lying is offensive then I need to find a new shtick.  I was thinking I could be WAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYY more offensive than that.

But prevarication is the new offense, it seems.  

In that case, Rich is not gay.  Not at all.

Date: 2008/01/30 12:25:36, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Where, Oh where, are you tonight
Why did you leave me here all alone
I've searched the world over and thought I found true love
But you found another and [insert Dembski skills here] I was gone.

by the way Sternbergius it's HEEHAW

kinda like YEEHAW

Date: 2008/01/30 13:06:47, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Bull shit Gil.

Joe G is a prime example of sound bite ID defense.

"I say stuff looks designed.  You say it doesn't.  Prove it."
"Darwinists can go pound sand, design is everywhere."

what about DaveTard?
"Church burning ebola materialists"

Buckingham from Dover?
"2000 years ago a man died on a cross.  Won't someone take a stand for Him?"

ID ain't nothing BUT sound bites.  JEsus what an idiot Gil is.

**Edited to add 747!!!!!!  Now, how could random processes just whip up 747 posts?  Gah aint there nuthin you materialists won't believe?

Date: 2008/01/30 19:29:11, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Now when Solon and Lazarus attempted to spread the Word of God at UD they got shut down in a day or two, if I remember correctly.

Seems like beancan is channeling their tard.

I might have to actually -gulp- read some of that thread.

Hey anyone notice that there are no (obvious) womens  on UD?  Anyone ever noticed that 'thread' is an anagram for He-Tard?  Thanks for keeping us honest Kristine.

Date: 2008/01/30 19:32:30, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Yeah rich you are so so so so so so not gay.

Marilyn is hot perhaps that gives her like 175 IQ points.  That is also why FtK is so dumb and stuff.  Double whammy.

I'm just regretting that this fool went to good old Rocky Top.  Why is it the ag campus kids that are always the frikkin evolution deniers?  Don't they teach soul soil science over there (that should shut folks up about the flood if anything will).

Date: 2008/01/30 22:33:03, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
There are no laws of nature.
There are no impersonal forces.
There are no necessary connections.

I'm Not Shitting.

Put your hat on boy.  God damn it son get your hat on.  Trying to make a record here youngun.

Date: 2008/01/31 07:42:07, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Louis if you are bored you should perhaps revisit the hobby of beating your wife.

If you are into tard, and not just antievolution related tard, then you are only limited by your imagination and the nannygate on your web browser.

I have left some questions for FtK.  I hope Blipey adds them to the list.  If she is not the pertinent authority, I hope she tells me who is.  I need answers.

ByTheWay my limey friend where in the hell is arden?  did you run him off too, like lenny?  i missed the exchange where he sashayed out, please advise.

Date: 2008/01/31 07:47:48, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Quote (PTET @ Jan. 31 2008,07:33)
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Jan. 31 2008,07:02)
How does evidence that life on earth may have been created by, say, space aliens save Gil or anyone else from nihilism?  Since ID doesn't specify anything about the designer, whatever evidence he's talking about may just as well point to an advanced civilization that seeded Earth with frontloaded bacteria designed to evolve life here into a food source, conveniently situated here for them to dine upon at some future date when they choose to drop back in again.  It doesn't get much more nihilistic than that, does it Gil?

I've only been back blogging a week, and already the biggest thing I've learned is that 99% of ID supporters don't have the first clue what "ID Theory" says and does not say.

Why this surprises me I do not know.

Has Uncommon Descent always been an mondo bizarro as it is at present, or have I come at a "special" time?

PTET some believe that UD is occupied by a silent cabal of sock puppets, covertly subverting the ignorati.  

I dunno.  There is some good shit over there and if one of you guys is making it up, I would love to learn from you O Wise One.

Quotes like Gil's are found everyday, and if it ever came down to it (and if WAD didn't sink the archives) it would be trivially easy to show that damn near every one of the commenters over there is either trolling for kicks or In It For Jesus.  Deleting the trolls and puppets, you have a rather homogenous group of christian conservatives, most describable by 'fundagelical'.  

But it's all about the science though.

Date: 2008/01/31 07:53:25, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
whatever louis.  i bet you had to go to reading out in the trailers behind the cafeteria.  in eighth grade.

autodactyl knob-polishing.


Date: 2008/01/31 08:54:07, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 31 2008,08:10)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 31 2008,13:53)
whatever louis.  i bet you had to go to reading out in the trailers behind the cafeteria.  in eighth grade.

autodactyl knob-polishing.


Is you insinuating by that use of an obscure colloquialism that I was somehow "special"?

If so: fuck off!

If not: fuck off!

If anything else: fuck off!

There we go! All bases covered.


P.S. You know it's witty when it contains the words "fuck off". I read that in a book. "Spot and the Art of Profane Witticisms" IIRC.

P.P.S. Anyway, when I was at school I was an automaticscrewdriver with a QI of somewhere westsouthwesterly of 360 degrees. Women's pelvises literally explode when they see me, so desperate are they to walk past even one of my mighty sperm and I don't "do" Eskimos. I weigh in at somewhere to the right hand side of 40000000lbs of solid muscle and can bench press a banana plantation without sweating or farting. I have 1800 rabid Rottweilers, all called Tyson, who are trained to savage anyone of a scientific bent on sight and my house is surrounded by a very large ha-ha filled with spikes and ebola tipped spears made of pure anthrax. The entire US military's gun budget pays for my weekly use of bullets, so if you come to my house you  better be waving a white flag and sucking off a tarantula or I will vaporise you. The Darwinismusmaterialismerisation is false and doesn't allow Marines to do science. If you disagree with me I will report you to Homeland Security and the IRS and I know George Bush personally as I currently have him hiding in my rectum. So there.

P.P.P.S. I have not editted this message in any way out of spite.

I nominate you for Post Of The Weak!  Glorious, my dainty manicured friend!

Date: 2008/01/31 09:00:11, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Quote (PTET @ Jan. 31 2008,08:20)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 31 2008,07:47)
I dunno.  There is some good shit over there and if one of you guys is making it up, I would love to learn from you O Wise One.

That much is obvious. What is brilliant, ofc, is how neither UD nor us can tell which is which...

Deleting the trolls and puppets, you have a rather homogenous group of christian conservatives, most describable by 'fundagelical'.

Indeed. Without the YECers and absurd Hugh-Rossers UD is left with trolls and fruitbats.

And yet newspapers and politicians all over the US give these people an inordinate amount of media time. I guess it sells.

So what next? The ID crowd give up on ID-as-science and make it into a battle about how the entire science of biology is a conspiracy.... The fundagelicals eventually get fed up of never-ending "Great Disappointments" and move on to the next bunch of snake-oil salesmen, I guess...

Can you imagine what would happen if (pardon the rather insufficient analogy) the IDers were given the keys to the scientific establishment?

I don't think they have considered what might happen if somehow they were to defeat the darwinismus materialismus etc etc.  I can just imagine the silence as they scratched their heads and thought about what to do next.  All the science at their fingertips, what to do next?

I can see that the next step would involve closing the shop up early, followed by a visit to the liquor store, some clumsy groping in an office cubicle and then some quick and uncomfortable mutual sodomy.  Then, off to conquer linguistics!!!  Cookbooks are next!  All Science So Far!!!

and then things would go back to normal.  perhaps we should let them have what they want, like my little boy who is almost 2, if you give him a bauble he doesn't want it anymore and will go play with a box or root around in his diaper.

Date: 2008/01/31 14:55:05, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Quote (PTET @ Jan. 31 2008,09:18)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 31 2008,09:00)
I don't think they have considered what might happen if somehow they were to defeat the darwinismus materialismus etc etc.  I can just imagine the silence as they scratched their heads and thought about what to do next.  All the science at their fingertips, what to do next?

Apologies for a repost, but this exchange with Dembski says it all. The interviewer gushes about what ID achieved, and Dembski admits he's achieved... Bupkis.

CA: Dr. Dembski, ID has come a very long way since its inception; and ID proponents are making inroads in a vast array of scientific disciplines such as astronomy, biology, and chemistry. How has your own work in mathematics (namely, The Design Inference and No Free Lunch) helped or influenced the development of novel ways of doing science?

WD: It’s too early to tell what the impact of my ideas is on science. To be sure, there has been much talk about my work and many scientists are intrigued (though more are upset and want to destroy it), but so far only a few scientists see how to take these ideas and run with them."

If I were an IDiot, I would want to answer this question.

I believe Solon or Lazarus or Erasmus, one of those queers, posed this question to the ID echo chamber.  They were summarily banned, with no answer.

I have never received an answer yet.

After the darwinismus, then what?

Date: 2008/01/31 16:27:23, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
glad to see mynym murmur into the mix.  what a douchebag.  he thinks TOE should be a theory of everything, and since it can't be, it is false.

Date: 2008/01/31 16:35:43, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
wellllll shit.  no wonder mynym is pissed off.  you have co-opted the vernacular term for his favorite pacifier.

Date: 2008/01/31 16:39:14, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
so missed the live broadcast, how the feck do i find it?

Date: 2008/01/31 17:49:44, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
perhaps she meant 'psychically' ill.

either way she can't spell.  

FtK you are dumb.

Did JEsus whack off or not?

Date: 2008/02/01 00:12:34, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Quote (Nomad @ Feb. 01 2008,00:00)
Well at least we know that ID has some people very scared. You don’t issue challenges to those you don’t fear.

The thing is.. don't you issue challenges to people you think you can beat?  I don't issue a challenge to a heavyweight boxer to meet me in the ring.  I don't challenge Yo Yo Ma to a.. Cello off.. whatever that would be.  Sorry, I don't know where that came from.. I was thinking of a musician and for some reason he's the first think that came into my head.  I mean I could have said challenge Tom Scholz to a guitar solo contest.

To challenge them is to admit fear.  To ignore them is to admit fear.  Would kissing them full on the lips be to admit fear?

First person to post a picture of Denyse gets a flaming bag of dog poo left on their doorstop.  Not her.  Anyone but her.

edited to ward off possible responses involving Granny Spice.

come and get me big guy.

nom nom nom nom nom

Date: 2008/02/01 09:47:13, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Best. PZ. Quote. Evar.

I have to share a few tidbits with you from that hilarious book. It has a chapter titled "Purposeful Design" which purports to list 81 examples of design. He has very low standards. Basically, anything that works is evidence of design.

The mouth, vagina, urethra, and anus are sealed by mucus when not in use and yet can open and close in controlled ways as needs arise.

This is a man who thinks the fact that he isn't drooling and feces aren't dribbling down his leg is a miracle from god. After reading his book, I kind of agree.

Date: 2008/02/01 10:41:38, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Quote (Paul Nelson @ Feb. 01 2008,08:12)
I sent the design detection experiment proposal to Jeff Shallit, and he said it wasn't worth doing.  I think I also sent the proposal to Wesley.  The idea was to have a large archive of bitstrings, of varying lengths, identified only by curation tags, and to ask people to pick out which strings were intelligently caused, and how they discovered that.  (I'd be happy to send the original proposal, as a pdf, to anyone who's interested: contact me at [][/EMAIL])  Jeff's reasons for debunking the idea struck me as pretty good, although right now I can't remember which was the most compelling.

Since then, some friends have come up with a much better design detection experiment idea -- one that might actually teach us something.  One of Jeff's objections to the bitstring proposal was that the experiment would do little to move the ID debate along.  We're refining the new proposal, and then I'll send it along to Jeff for critique.

Since this is the Explore Evolution (EE) thread, here's an update.  I got no nibbles at Discovery for my suggestion, late last summer, of a moderation-free, or moderation-light, forum to discuss EE.  I've been stopping in here periodically to see if new critiques of EE have been posted, but mostly, the thread is comments about me stopping by, which -- although providing entertainment for ATBC readers -- doesn't help me much as an EE author.  But, after a very busy fall 2007 travel & lecture schedule, I've got some time in my Chicago office, so [ta da] am starting my own webpage and blog.

Yes, I know -- just what the world needs, another blog.  I'll have a sub-page there for EE discussion.  The second edition of EE should be out fairly soon, with corrections, revisions, etc.

Oh Paul, I suppose while you were stopping in here periodically and checking for critiques you didn't notice that Lenny Flank tore the EE rag apart just a few pages ago.  You have yet to respond to any of that criticism.  

You can't just start over.  Lenny isn't around here anymore, or at least quit posting, but does that exonerate your inability to meet that criticism?

Date: 2008/02/01 15:53:58, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Don't these poor ignorant fools realize that saying 'Hey, they are all designed sequences' per their religious mantra means that the EF can never ever ever ever tell you jack shit about design detection since everything is designed?

Patrick never understood this point that Sally_T was pointing out to him in the smears of peanut butter.  Perhaps it is time for her to revisit her young friend.

Bob Good On You for the knowledge of possible designers bit I didn't think of that'un.

Date: 2008/02/01 19:38:34, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Nomad I'm sure you have noticed by now but your image function just copied my picture I think.

If I had a bag of flaming dog poo that ugly I'd shave it's morphodyke ass, tell it to go fuck itself and teach it to walk backwards.

Date: 2008/02/01 20:01:26, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Daniel you'd be better off reading Simpson's discussion of why this anticipatory radiation and saltational business is not supported by the facts that were available even then.

It's been a while since I have read that, but if I remember correctly there were lots of phyletic changes that occurred before the saltations.  

Have you read this criticism in Tempo and Mode of Evolution?  If necessary I'll dig it out, but it seems to me that if you are going to argue for Schindewolf's ideas (a bizarre fellow traveler for a young earth fluddite) then you might do well to read contemporary (at the time) criticism.

Date: 2008/02/02 08:25:54, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
O FTK, did he or didn't he?

My salvation depends on it.

Date: 2008/02/02 11:44:38, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
gosh darn it FtK I need an answer.

Did he or did he not?

Surely 13 year old Jesus beat the donkey.  

Was Jesus a virgin when he crucified himself was martyred?

This is no laughing matter, the eternal salvation of billions is on the line.  

Of course it could be that he was both a virgin and not a virgin, or perhaps he did take himself in hand while at the same time never even touching it to pee.  You know what i'm talking about, while at the same time you don't know what I'm talking about ,right?

Date: 2008/02/02 11:53:47, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I have had those thoughts before, of course not expressed so completely.  

But I have had misgivings.  If a conspiracy, who did it?

Is it possible that such a conspiracy could emerge from lower level entities and processes?  I began to doubt that is so.

But it sure is a convincing argument, if one doesn't consider who designed the designing of the designer?

Date: 2008/02/02 12:33:09, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 02 2008,11:52)
DaveScot has his finger on the banninator.

DaveScot: Q

ID makes no claims about a designer’s means, motive, or opportunity beyond the fact that means and opportunity must have been available in some way.

If you make one more strawman regarding the claims of ID it’ll be your last comment here. I’m putting you on moderation in the meantime.

The term "ID" (Intelligent Design) is rather interesting.


Dembski: Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?
Intelligent design is controversial because it purports to find signs of intelligence in nature, and specifically in biological systems.

So, ID does make a claim. Assuming ID's methodology is valid and the claim is supported, then we do know something about the Designer. The Designer is intelligent. The question then becomes what is the design inference when applied to intelligence generally. Does intelligence exhibit CSI (complex specified information) or IRC (irreducible complexity)? It is a reasonable question.

Of course they have never defined intelligence.  More like 'You know it when you see it' kinda thing that many of the inmates over there have aped in various other contexts.

I don't think they CAN define intelligence, for it would put their religious beliefs hypothesis at risk.  Remember, this is (as Wes just noted) a verificationist program.

Date: 2008/02/02 12:35:35, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 02 2008,11:53)
Quote (sparc @ Feb. 02 2008,12:15)
The Dr. Geoff Simmons vs PZ Myers Debate is back but only with six comments.


Nixplanatory Self-Ridiculative Selection with Hidden Obliviation AND Resurrection and Renewal!

Edge of Evolution, my ass.

If that isn't macroevilution i don't know what is.  And I think that I do in fact know what it is.

Date: 2008/02/03 22:04:57, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
what a dumb digression.

FtK did he or did he not do it?

Your inability to stick to a single story is another topic.  Can we get to that after we determine whether or not the Messiah ever yanked spanky.

Date: 2008/02/03 22:29:12, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
In fact, that would be cause for war right there...having the government hold reign on what I can and cannot teach my children.   Unbelieveable...

I suggest you take up arms.  Start with the world trade center.

Date: 2008/02/04 20:14:48, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

Date: 2008/02/04 20:35:52, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Kristine would you post that cite please?  sounds interesting.

That's okay. Somebody has to work the drive-thru window.

This is a whole other topic that I am very interested in and also somehow suspect that I might be on the other side of Ye Olde Fence from some of my brethren.

Why does it matter what [the rabble] learn in science class?

I don't buy the economic argument, and I'm not so sure that 'beating the chinese' is the appropriate metric.

Knowing that anti-evolution has some serious autocorrelation with certain social and political and ethnic groups some of which i happen to belong to, then the question is much more than the positivist solution.  life is more complex than manichean true and false esp since I am rather convinced of the tentative nature of truth.  

ultimately this seems to be an issue distorted by a particular political faction (although a truly dialectic perspective would recognize that we exercise our own influence) so political solutions are largely the final metric.  however in terms of how to survive when the S.H.T.F. then I think I have some particular things to teach my children that have a priority before the history of modern biology.  A large proportion of that involves teaching them how to harvest clean and prepare lily white tender juvenile man-beasts with readily accessible weapons, utensils and spices.

Forget the blue heron.  Try the lily white tender loin of the city youth that has had no more exercise than trodging off to the bus stop and back. THAT is Communion.

*Ed Did Ittowad:  kristine you rock.  thanks.

Date: 2008/02/04 21:05:10, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
wow interesting.

1)  the analogy from chaos to evolution is the sort of thing that provokes biologists to suggest that macroevolutionary processes may require a separate set of explanation (using, at minimum, the explanatory reduction criterion for evaluating the merit of a scientific theory).

2)  so this approach to evaluating the impact of papers (adding a lag time) seems to argue against the Kuhnian paradigm of success and progress in science.  in particular, the lag time seems to fudge the interesting dynamics beginning after theories are proposed and bandied about working groups and before empirical investigation.  

RB if you are reading, did you ever get through that Naeem paper?

Date: 2008/02/05 06:57:18, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

MANY MANY great anti-evilutionists have started from such humble backgrounds and an Engineering Degree.  

Many Many Many Souls Have Been Saved By Engineers of Hydrology, Computer Engineers, Civil Engineers, Nukeyular Engineers and Political Engineers.

If we were to adopt some bad French philosophy from back about the Good Ole Days, then we might even believe that God is the Great Big Engineer, up there in the sky, differentiating your equations.

Great Things are liable to happen if you keep up your kids science edyoocamating because it is clear that engineers are going to have a major part in the Reconstruction Of The Modern Scientific Edifice, After We Expunge the Evil Atheist Conspiracy.  I'm thinking big money, like Blackwater or Bechtel.

Date: 2008/02/05 20:51:03, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Jesus FtK if you are going to change the subject at THE VERY LEAST tell us whether or not Jesus yanked his own chain.

We need to know, so that we can evaluate the claim that he was fully human and fully god.

If he was fully human, then he without a doubt punched the monk, which is a sin.

If he was fully God, then he could not have sinned, so he could not have beat the donkey.  

Mutually exclusive.  Just like you like them.  Will you at least explain to me how it is possible for both to be true?  You can cite Walt Brown I don't give a damn.  Inquiring minds simply need to know.  And your current topic is stupid and shows that you aren't paying close attention.

Date: 2008/02/05 21:07:43, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

Listen carefully.

Intelligent Design is All Creationism and No Science.

Since that is true and has been demonstrated over and over and over and over and over, everything you say about Dembski leaving his God-complex in his street clothes while he is in the lab sciencing and stuff is bullshit.  

Of course you know that it is bullshit.  you are more than happy to take a bullshit line of reasoning and run it into the ground rather than think for yourself.

Date: 2008/02/06 09:53:27, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
FtK you still need one more criminal to be crucified with you.

Jesus was 3.  

Did he wank it?

Date: 2008/02/06 12:15:59, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I'm sure it would be an excruciatingly long tangential reply, or a glib chewbacca defense.

I've considered posting that entire thread over here.  I've wondered a few times if I'm not arguing with the Grand Wizard of Presuppositional Tard and Obfuscation Himself, Alvin P.  

Paul have you been reading all of it?

Date: 2008/02/06 12:33:24, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
if so then he sure is a wordy bastard.

i tend to think he is probably the real deal.  he knows that ridiculous argument in and out.  the bit about stealing the ideas from your neighbor (referencing the notion of an observable 'real' universe) was a bit over the top.  i wouldn't be able to type all of that b.s. with a straight face.  if i were sockpuppeting, i'd be going the other direction.


which one of you guys is ASaltyDog?

please tell.

Date: 2008/02/06 21:57:06, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
you guys damn near made me cry.  that is what good stuff is all about.  I don't care who you are that just don't get no better than the last thirty posteseses or so.  

I certainly do not believe that the E-coli bacterial flaggela was designed by the Christian God.

1/26/2008 09:13:00 AM

William Brookfield his little old devil worshippin' self can haz 3 out of 4 comments on that classic, classic, Klassick Sciencific Vizeral AidZ.  How comez de scienctistes aint payin dem no attenshun.

Date: 2008/02/06 22:01:07, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I am laughing mine off.

What a douche bag.  

That's the important part.  Showing your ass in public, for free, upon provocation:  Priceless.

Smile, asshole.  You be on candid camera.  At least that is what they say at ye olde 4-way intersections around here in this Free State.

Date: 2008/02/06 22:29:49, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Jesus done gave me hintzez

That's a stupid damn question son.

Meaning of life is for tourists boy.

Date: 2008/02/06 23:26:00, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Jesus Rich-Tard that is frikkin dumbness in crystal form.

You may feel that you don’t have a lot to say about who our next President may be with your single vote. But you do have a lot to say about what the important social issues of our time are. You start by talking to your local theater and then by helping to get as many bodies in the seats as you can opening weekend. Suddenly your one vote is leveraged into 1,000, just because you asked. So take the Expelled Challenge with me. Let’s see if we can’t launch Expelled high up the Top 10 documentary list by talking to our local theaters and spreading the word to our family, friends and colleagues. If we are successful, we may open the door for other important documentaries in the future. The people in Hollywood make decisions based on box office numbers. Let your voice be counted.


Suddenly your one vote is leveraged into 1,000, just because you asked.

Isn't that a violation of SLoT?

Date: 2008/02/06 23:33:40, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

Casey don't give a damn as long as jesus be the reason he be skeezin'.  you bettah recognize fool.

Paul, bless his little old shriveled up trepidatious old jump startin heart, he can't be standing up to the Spanglish Inquisition and shit.  Y'all be screamin evidence, that nicklah be frontin on some ol Genesis and whatnot whatall whathaveyou whatsaysyouns whattyaknow etc etc insert the power of christus here.  

liars for jesus have already gone and warranted justified etc etc their own moral eschatology.

Date: 2008/02/06 23:43:34, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
since i won't look and you already have, o mesomorph, why not post the contents of Arguments Not To Use

If you don't you hate science.

Date: 2008/02/07 08:12:45, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I doubt recreating the entire thread here would make it anymore palatable an entree.

No it sure wouldn't.  But what a fine example of tard.  The kind you can help.

Date: 2008/02/07 08:51:40, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
i want to know what this

I was recently involved in a discussion of this in another forum with hundreds of scientists.

forum is.


Date: 2008/02/07 17:56:00, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
blipey you are a saint, the saint of suffering fools.

I have frequently been asked why, for example, microbes are found in the lowest strata. My thoughts have always been that they were a necessary ingredient for fertile soil and plant growth.

ORLY joe.  who in the feck asked you this, frequently?  because you are an authority?  or because it's funny?

Date: 2008/02/07 18:08:44, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
aint you a fish-shocker, BWE?

that might explain the gas can.

i was kinda nervous about puttin my picture on the intarwebz but you dunned made feel right smart good about her.

Date: 2008/02/07 18:54:30, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
As a former and probably future fish shocker I'd just like to add that even though it ain't me it damn sure could be, and just might end up a'bein.

you gave it away when you said you read TAFS.  ever read any science?*

*  standard joke in management circles.**

**  I'm out of them circles now.  For several reasons.  So let me pretend to belong ***

*** Actually I am probably still in those circles but as the bull in the ring and not the matador ****

**** damn you Louis.

Date: 2008/02/07 19:01:16, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

Check out Rudy Lyle (MR DNA YOU OUT THERE BOY?)  Is that a good example of IDC Science or whut?

Date: 2008/02/07 19:03:16, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
rudy lyle said...

I am a research scientist and grad student at a fairly respectable engineering school. I have been led to investigate the mathematical reasons for why evolution is not true.

One of my research projects involves the calculation of CSI from various natural features in order to show that nature is designed. I have been forced to undertake this research on my own initiative and time and money as questioning darwinism is not popular, even in my field of science.

I have been surveying what other prominent ID thinkers have to say about my project. In short, my latest ideas have been measuring the number of bits of information along transects through a predetermined volume of soil space. Since the darwinian ecologists have invented explanations for the arrangement of soil micro-organisms along particular resource gradients that they just imagine to be responsible for all sorts of things like population size or reproduction or mutation or take your pick of whatever you can imagine to be stupid. they do it.

anyway, if one were to take a particular volume of soil, say, a big volume 50 centimeters by 50 centimeters by 50 centimeters. Run say 100 random skewers through that soil and draw 50 random locations on each skewer to measure the size and volume of the particle at each location.

You would very quickly surpass the UPB. These measurements would be strongly correlated with certain parameters of the microbial community. I have yet to show this but I think I can make it happen in the lab and verify my hypothesis.

What is important here is that we have shown that whole soil microbial communities are a function of intelligent design. Take away the complexity inserted by intelligence, then you lose your soil microbial community. Since this is the darwinian source of explanation for why species are different or in one place or the other (like productivity or other things that the evolutionists have stolen from engineers). then establishing it to be of intelligent design would be a strong thrust in favor of ID.

I am tired of them getting owned in the blogosphere yet you never hear of this in the scientific literature. My results are publishable in some of the top journal in my field, but of course I have to bow down and kiss the ring of the establishment, or else make it on my own. This is why I am interested in your feedback: if the top ID thinkers and yes even critics are behind me, or at least respecting me, then it is that much stronger a case for the special status of each and every human life we can make.

11:47 PM

Joe's Response is a disappointment


joe g said...

Thank you for posting on Intelligent Reasoning.

You work is very interesting and adds a different twist to the debate.

I have frequently been asked why, for example, microbes are found in the lowest strata. My thoughts have always been that they were a necessary ingredient for fertile soil and plant growth.

8:33 AM

In the same way that seeing Evel Kneivel eat 100 yards of pavement is a disappointment.

Date: 2008/02/07 19:12:31, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

not sure that they would!  i have fried sculpin in the upper Savannah, the french broad, the cullasaja, the broad, and several others.

Date: 2008/02/08 13:36:03, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
It's shake-N-bake, and I helped!

Date: 2008/02/10 07:38:57, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Quote you know how weird it is that you goons stalk IDers 24/7

said by one of the all time posters on this board.

Hey FtK I thought you were a creationist, not an IDer?

Date: 2008/02/11 08:01:56, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

I have to chime in with Annyday.

You, personally, are the reason that I am not a christian anymore.  I was a preacher, saving probably what some would say 'tens' or even 'twenty' of souls, in a youth camp in the field in Africa.  And I started reading your blog.  And then I realized that you didn't love Jesus and you didn't love me.  And then I found these guys.  And now I am not a preacher anymore.  

Ok Not Really.  But alternating between 'you guys are all meanie atheists' to the sermon you gave here upthread.

Don't you know that the bibble say You Can't Preach?

Date: 2008/02/11 10:41:51, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I believe that the most appropriate use is 'bless your lil-old heart'

you may insert shriveled up or tiny blackened old or lil-bitty eensy-weensy or whatever.

its all about the punch.  difference between Rudy Lyle and Bela Fleck (one among many)

Date: 2008/02/11 13:39:48, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Jesus what a pseudoscientific douchebag.  Projection, shall we, Sal?

We would hardly give much thought to the suffering of rodents and maggots as we poison, mutilate, incinerate, and otherwise dispense with these creatures for our good pleasure.

Jesus what a pseudoscientific douchebag

Date: 2008/02/11 14:42:27, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I would have to disagree with the philosopher who said, this world is “the best of all possible worlds.” I would instead argue the best of possible worlds is not the one we live in, but the one where the Intelligent Designer will live eternally.

Dr Pangloss just-got-dumbar.

Date: 2008/02/11 20:23:32, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I thought FtK had her own thread?

FtK why are you posting on the wall?  I'll move my discussion with you back to your thread, if you don't mind.

ETA Margaret Thatcher was hottt.

Date: 2008/02/11 21:14:51, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
They haven't taught me a thing about tolerance because they are completely intolerant of my position in regard to ID.

Let's see, I think we call that 'prostrate'.

Date: 2008/02/11 21:50:27, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Anyone been here before?

Sweet Baby Jesus with a poop diaper, there is some good stuff in'ar.

Two words:  Loma Linda.

Oh yeah.

Date: 2008/02/11 21:56:21, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
But hey Wes, she is open to the evidence!

Follow the Science!!!  You can smell it!

Hey FtK I heard that one clergyman with a backward collar was more valuable than THREE transvestites with strap on appendages.  Of course, that is an entirely different contest that I am talking about sister.  You know what I mean, right?

Date: 2008/02/12 06:29:09, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
why in hell would anyone talk straight to a military investigator?

Jarhead at door, clutching notebook:  "Sternburglar, it appears that a certain hausfrau in Kansas has claimed that she has had email sex with you for the past seven years, listing events that included virtual beastio-necro-incesto-erotica.  Is this true?  We need to know so that we can give her top super duper seeeeeeeecret access to the government ID labs at Area 51"

Steve:  "She lies.  Ask her how old science says the earth is."

Why would anyone talk straight to the jarhead with a notebook?  Unless, of course, you had a chance to pop off at the mouth regarding someone you don't really like?

Date: 2008/02/12 07:23:51, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Sfaest [sic]*thing I can say is I'm a liberal, but not the wishy washy kind. I'm a militant, rationalist liberal, and you better like it or we'll have a really long discussion about it, taking into account several factors and a large body of evidence.

Yeah OK birkenstock-boy, when I'm interested I'll just throw you the frisbee, right bra'?  Maybe you can bring some of that killer and we can all hug each other in a teepee.

M'lady and I took one of them thar on-line polls the other day just for gitz and shiggles, you know how do you feel, how strongly do you feel, to all these loaded questions.  They were supposed to rank the douchebags candidates according to how similar blah blah blah to you.

And I got the news that Ron Paul is my best choice, considering my responses, with about a 12% agreement rate.  Next, very next one I swear to every one of yall's Gods, was Dennis Kucinich.  11%.

That is why I don't fucking vote.

That and in 1865 my great great great grandpaw walked back from Elmira New York to Madison county NC without no food ner good clothes.  Trying to get rid of you god dam yankees.**

*  Ha-Ha.

**  Not really.  Unless you are the kind of yankee that comes down here and tells us what to do.  Since I live down here, that's the kind I see most often.***

***This does however to apply to all representatives of the United Yankee Government.  You can pick your friends, you can pick your nose, etc etc.

Date: 2008/02/13 06:31:35, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

You're an appeaser.  neville chamberlain of the church burning ebola boys, fer shore fer shore.

just kidding.  good story.

ok maybe a little bit.

good old religion wars.

Date: 2008/02/13 09:50:52, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

Date: 2008/02/13 11:03:42, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
well hell darling, i was afraid that you never noticed.

now that you have done brunged it up (I think this is the way y'all say over there in the dust bowl), do tell?

did he or did he not?

do note that if he did not, he was very likely the only adult male E-V-A-R to pass through adolescence without punching the monk.  Add to that he was (as your mythology demands) celibate, and you have one seriously repressed dude.  i bet you couldn't sleep within ten feet of him at night because of all the man-na falling about.

makes you wonder if you can really call that 'fully human', eh, luv?

Damn.  I forgot to you that he can be fully human and fully god at the same time, while also fully neither.  Your world is great!

ETA:  source of tard.

Date: 2008/02/13 11:04:56, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
O Dichotomot


Date: 2008/02/13 11:36:19, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
pssst  Hey, Robin

Stephen Jay Gould is no longer with us.

thought you might wanna know.

Date: 2008/02/13 11:37:49, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
hey louis she has her own thread, you appeaser

Date: 2008/02/13 12:08:54, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
FtK, you have a long list to get through.  You can start with the dishonesty about Genie Scott.  She told me she thinks that it is rather charming that the comment you cite is according to rabid antievolutionists and science deniers (that would be you) is the most you can dig up on her.

But, as long as we are pointing out that your critics do recognize you are in the dungeon (took you long enough to figure that out, sweetie), I know you are here and I am anxiously (bated breath) awaiting your pronouncement upon the greatest mystery of our time, did Our Lard and Savior beat his meat, or not.

Date: 2008/02/13 12:10:08, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
FtK Don't leave without reading this first!

Date: 2008/02/13 13:10:11, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
O Darwinists

we have different opinions about what can be deemed a "fact" - FtK

Date: 2008/02/13 19:27:50, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
wish i hadn't missed it.

but i have laughed my ass off for the last 20 minutes.  rich you are one hilarious bastard.  too bad you are gay.

Date: 2008/02/13 20:31:42, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Sternberger I used to think that Chapel Hole was special until I drove up Broadway.  Orange county bums are s-w-a-n-k.  They look like they just got out of the prom.  For some reason that I can not understand and have yet to ameliorate there ain't any pictures of this on ye olde interboobwebz.  Stay tuned.

Your bums could whup our bums, and probably out invest them.  But Chapel Hill bums are gayer.

Date: 2008/02/13 20:36:10, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
i tried to ask her what my comment had to do with bashing religion, or religion at all.  It didn't make it.

Monkeys do it.

So do little babies.  Probably not as furiously as I dunno, Sal Cordova (and probably without the leg spikes and cat o nine tails), but they mash their junk.

How is that bashing religion?  blink.  blink.

Date: 2008/02/14 14:46:21, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 14 2008,14:25)
Ooh, don't get me started about laws...

Philosophers have decided that laws describe general regularities that always hold.  But they have also described ceteris paribus laws, which are laws that hold except when they don't.

I think "law" is a throw-back to a more naïve age, before we realised that physicists were conning us with their claims that they couldn't be wrong.

Oh, hi, Dr. Heddle.  Didn't see you lurking there.


oh you anarchist you.

good way to pick a fight, huh?  ask a biologist what 'law' means.

I ask myself, What Would Larry Laudan Say?

Date: 2008/02/14 17:35:57, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
cover me i'm going in.  i can't stand to see all this killer combat and just munch popcorn.  just kidding cj.

Date: 2008/02/14 18:49:09, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
beat me to it.  that is absolutely beautiful.  i love you guys.

not long for this world

ID predicts that … most structures will exhibit function and thus serve a purpose.” Isn’t there another slightly longer-established theory which says that things must serve a purpose to remain in the population?

“Moreover, ID theorists have applied these results to actual biological systems to show that they are unevolvable by Darwinian means.” Please elaborate, Dr Dembski. We are agog.g ag

Date: 2008/02/14 22:02:46, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I give to you (as was given to me) Robinson's First Law of Biology:

Shit varies.  It matters.  Sometimes.

All other laws are subsumed under this fundamental observation of the universe.

In other news, no 'facts' are independent of supporting theories.  This makes the reductionist program intractable in biology.  At least in principle.  This inspires the old canard 'materialists believe nature is just mere chemical reactions' which is of course deconstructable along Teh Axis of What Does Mere Mean And Does it mean Mere-maid?.

ERV do you suppose that laws of biology are undiscovered, or non-existent?  If non-existent, why?  This is a fascinating if ultimately navel-gazing question.

Date: 2008/02/14 22:04:35, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

too long in the bush, old friend?

welcome back.  we were wondering if you were in the Exodus program or something.

Date: 2008/02/14 22:23:22, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
if you have ever seen mallard ducks doing it, imagine dinosaurs a-going after it.

Date: 2008/02/15 06:26:46, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I once saw four or five mallard drakes chasing another possibly younger drake around, all of them with meat a swinging and every man for his-self.  lard have mercy.

in my county some fool is trying to pass a law preventing k-8 references to homersexuality, i was wondering just what will they do about the ducks?

if a mallard ain't a good example of what's wrong with the world (just look what happened to them when they hit the depraved upside down bits of the ventral portion of the earth....  they just took and humped ever-thing) i dont know what it is.  

when all you have is a big purple throbber the whole world looks like a mole burrow full of water, right k.e..?

Date: 2008/02/15 08:08:33, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
What about "DaveScot is a bat, fully" in Hebrew?

Date: 2008/02/15 08:24:26, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Actually a block of flats but no matter.

Date: 2008/02/15 08:25:32, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 15 2008,08:08)
What about "DaveScot is a bat, fully" in Hebrew?

Do you live in a flock of bats?

by the way.


Date: 2008/02/15 08:49:43, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Joe refused to show the post - I wonder why?

I think 'Joehole' answers this quite sufficiently.


Date: 2008/02/15 09:09:44, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Louis said through his mustache:
I'm a bad person, I've never denied this.

that's all FtK has been trying to get you to admit you know.  

now let her lead you to jeesus.  hint:  you get to kneel at the altar.  naughty.

Date: 2008/02/15 09:54:37, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
UD is nothing but a room full of dumb asses.  Well and a handful of covert operatives ;-)

ahh but which is which?  i would hate to know.  ruin all of the fun and what-all.

From the tard:
3) Conservation of information results (also referred to as No Free Lunch theorems, which are well established in the engineering and mathematical literature — see indicate that evolution requires an information source that imparts at least as much information to evolutionary processes as these processes in turn are capable of expressing

Now, what could that information source possibly be?  Particularly if we have found a quantitative metric for information*, as he claims, then Dembski is even wronger than ever before.  Wes beat him on this one years ago.

*Of course, there is no such thing.  At least not one that has any biological meaning or utility**, any different from counting the set of:  measurements of mean chest hair length in 4 square centimeter patches on both Burt Reynolds and Loni Anderson, the number of threads on a four-inch pvc pipe underneath the Pope's toilet, the mass (in nanograms) of moondust in your average field of potatoes, and the total content of posts on OE and UD.

Enter non-positivist disclaimer about what we don't know***.

*** That still doesn't mean that up is down****.

**** Louis your gai.  Damn your ass-tore-risks.

Date: 2008/02/15 11:52:07, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
i'm pretty sure that leo is one of us.  no design inference just a hunch.  wait is there a difference?  of course there is.  let me rephrase this:  I need leo stotch to be one of us or else there is no right and wrong.  OK Now design inference, I haz it.

Date: 2008/02/15 11:59:39, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
* or why can't you admit that you are all atheists on a daily basis?

Date: 2008/02/15 16:08:24, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Wes I trust you have read Plantigna more than I, although I have dug around a bit.  I was just going to post this in the off-chance that anyone was interested in observing how a real-life proponent of this argument attempts to make the case.


At some point I gave up on taking this seriously and just started having fun.  It's a pretty dumb line of thinking, IMO.

Date: 2008/02/18 08:31:14, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I've been trying to get through it but it's really just hanging out, open, on my desktop.  It's a topic I'm really interested in though.
A heavy price was paid for molecular biology's obsession with metaphysical reductionism. It stripped the organism from its environment; separated it from its history, from the evolutionary flow; and shredded it into parts to the extent that a sense of the whole—the whole cell, the whole multicellular organism, the biosphere—was effectively gone.

I have seen this charge from others.  most memorably levins and lewontin but i believe Gould touched on this too.  essentially something along the lines of marxism (read 'dialectical materialism') was the most appropriate known philosophy of knowledge gathering and that somewhere at some point in the biological and/or technologcial revolution, the organism lost it's focal point, shattered into a million weakly interdependent traits, none of which are the perfect crystals for working with.  It's really easy to blame this on anything, from the ANOVA approach to agriculture and mathematical economic theories to cartesian coordinate systems.

And always somebody somewhere takes umbrage at the surficial comment 'biologists ignore the organism' and they say 'bloody hell, you might ignore it but i sure don't'.  then they go back to their models and attempt to reduce the number of parameters to increase the precision of their estimates.  

it can't be helped, as others have said, OK we are all now dialectical biologists.  Now what?  what does this mean?  don't we still have to determine good summary statistics, or find more-or-less natural groups that behave in more-or-less determined fashion, in order to refine our observational power and use it for the most statistical leverage?  

I'm not sure.  I think somewhere in this debate lies a valid dichotomy between those who are interested in the noise (or perhaps committed to ontologies of particulars) and those are quite willing to make abstract generalizations about broad swaths of reality and attempt to eliminate noise.

In other words,  we study what nature does, not what it is.

Edward Abbey reportedly once had this conversation with a visitor to the little backcountry hick desert park he was a-rangering,

She (pointing to a bird hopping around in the parking lot):  What is that?
He (tired of such exchange):  Ma'am, what it is no man knows, but some call it a raven.

Not finished with woese, so I haven't seen his alternative to synthetic holist reductionism (the ideal, if rarely implemented, method of science).  can't wait to get back to it.

Edited to add:  Kudos for finding the darwin quote!

(we may infer) that all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth may be descended from some one primordial form. But this inference is chiefly grounded on analogy and it is immaterial whether or not it be accepted. No doubt it is possible, as Mr. G. H. Lewes has urged, that at the first commencement of life many different forms were evolved; but if so we may conclude that only a very few have left modified descendants.

single or multiple origins is really a metaphysical position at this point.  it likely will always be.  i'm just saying it's trivial.

Date: 2008/02/18 09:33:46, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Damn that's old.  Congrats.

Date: 2008/02/18 09:35:11, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
i love you guys.  that is priceless.

Date: 2008/02/18 15:13:12, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
for those in need of a good dose of tard, there is always this one.

Date: 2008/02/18 21:56:13, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
RB that is heavier than i was prepared for.  

I suppose what interests me is that many biologists have claimed that they have never viewed organisms as anything but what the view you outline demands.  This, in spite of the fact that we may only view a trait or suite of traits at a time.  It is, as Abbey said about the raven, a reification of the blindly powerful nature of statistical investigation.

Literature citation bias has the tendency to uncritically report the results of prior authors, and most of the time we consider this to be valuable or at least unimportantly biased.  After all, the referential nature of theories is a property that we consider important.  We are interested in carving homogenous categories or even natural groupings from the panoply of variation in the world, and it helps to use the torches lit by our forebears.

Given this, I'm not sure that redefining organism to include the stochastic and contingent isn't an exercise in the same species of futility that includes all other hasty generalizations.  Relax the stranglehold on Dame Empiricus and immediately the rabble might say "well this still doesn't explain how the dog knows I'm coming home" or "Why do I love my baby more than the others in the nursery" or "If I'm just an organism pushed and pulled by forces out of my control, how come I can still beat Halo 3?"  And so on.  

and these questions are difficult to overcome, IMV, even if one grants the holistic proposition.  Now, I'd say this is because such questions are not formulated in such a manner that they be treated as legitimate questions, but there is very likely some hidden common ground that I'd be willing to concede.  Ye Olde Is-Ought.  And it's a tough nut.

* Edited to subtract uno extraneoso 'legitimate'

**  I'd add that I really don't know what the heck bacteria-world is all about, but I am fairly convinced that it is an altogether different ball game than the organismal biology in which i am trained.  that makes this issue a bit more difficult, unless one surrenders the categorical notions surrounding how we delimit the boundaries of the packets of biodiversity that occur at the microbial level.

Date: 2008/02/18 22:05:51, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
this makes me sad.  poor tard.  bad bad bad bad bad bad tard.  poor tard.

The we might know if the Genesis passage can be taken literally is if the evidence points in that direction. That is what the search for the Young Cosmos is about. I’m not convinced the Cosmos is 10,000 years old, but I’m cautiously optimistic it might be….

Ontological Silly Buggers.

*  OSB is a particularly shitty material for a foundation.  I wouldn't use it for anything but sheathing.  Sal uses it for props.

Date: 2008/02/18 22:14:44, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
wow, joe is a tard.  in other news, i just pissed and every single piss molecule hit the ground.  except for those that didn't, and they show every sign of doing it shortly!

Date: 2008/02/18 22:55:00, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 18 2008,22:14)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 18 2008,22:05)
We might know if my anal passage can be taken, again.  If the evidence points in that direction, That is what the search for my arse is about. I’m not convinced both my hands could find my arse, but I’m cautiously optimistic they might ….


Fixed the fixed.

Date: 2008/02/19 19:15:37, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
RB you said that a good deal better than I could.  I deleted a post I was working on about this that essentially made the argument that the issue that Woese is discussing is explanatory reduction which is a function of this intertheoretic business (got any good cites for that Fodor stuff?).  one could probably support an argument that if we grant the ontological reduction to physical process (some have called this global supervenience but i am aware that this term has an ambiguous history), then biology becomes 'unconstrained pattern hunting'.  this problem has been magnified in ecology where there are no perfect crystals for observation and even simple concepts such as species or community are not necessarily supported by data but given as priors (for example it's amazing how many field studies use morphospecies concepts).

So it's really easy to say this and not have an alternative, and for that reason I think that most authors treating the subject of reduction in biology have been forced to attack straw men.  there is room for an every-man common sense pragmatism wrt 'what is an organism' and on up the hierarchical scale to communities or clades or taxonomic entities or food web members.  it works.  if you want to dig ginseng you are wasting your time in a spruce-fir forest.  even so, it is difficult to rigorously demonstrate how to map these patterns and processes directly to the observed phenomena without opening up this thorny issue of the validity of higher order generalization in biology.

Robinsons First Law of Biology:  Shit Varies.  It matters.  Sometimes.

Date: 2008/02/20 09:34:30, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
good tard albie

The mechanism for lungfish survival is a tricky problem for evolutionary biologists. Thousands of unanswered problems like the lungfish exist for the evolutionist.

Not, however, for you-know-who!!!  God-Dunned-It!

A new theory, however, “punctuated equilibrium,” has been proposed to help evolutionary biologists through these difficult problems. Punctuated equilibrium proposes sudden leaps in animal forms. For example, chickens lay eggs hatching into chickards (e.g., half-chicken, half-lizard).

i shit you not.

Yet, the theory of evolution has no scientific basis.6, 7 It derives solely from Darwin’s observations of natural selection as well as countless imaginary drawings. No genuine evidence exists to support it,8, 9 despite the fact that fraudulent and manipulated drawings and specimens are frequently utilized.

sigh.  you can't fix stupid, boys.  this is why FtK is a hopeless case.  Dumb Dumb Dumb Dumb DUmb DUmb Dumb DUmb.

ETA:  What the fuck are countless imaginary drawings?  If they are imaginary, how can they be fraudulent and manipulated?  Are the frequently utilized specimens fraudulent and manipulated or are they ordinary specimens?  Why in the name of bloody shit are these idiots in charge of educating anyone at all?

Date: 2008/02/20 09:39:07, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
St Thomas of Aquinas

It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in this world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion unless it is in potency to that towards which it is in motion. But a thing moves in so far as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potency to act. But nothing can be reduced from potency to act except by something in a state of act.24

Waylon Jennings

Willie, he tells me, that the doers and thinkers say moving is the closest thing to being free

Design Inference!!!!

Date: 2008/02/20 11:46:46, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I guess no one bothered to tell these ass holes about rapid chromosomal speciation in mice introduced to small oceanic islands by Europeans.  Ahh well.  I won't bother.  Ben Stein, I wish my former opinion of you were higher so that I might emphasize the difference.  But alas, to me, you have always been a douchebag.

Date: 2008/02/21 11:03:35, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
If you run even back of the envelope math, even a few thousand successive reactions with a probability of 0.5 quickly exceeds Dembski’s Universal Probability Bound of say 1 in 10^120.

This. Is. Why. We. Call. Them. Idiots.

the world is improbable.  Therefore, Zeus Dun It.DLH Is A Tard

Date: 2008/02/21 11:07:02, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Isn't that a bit, cruel? Kinda makes it God's fault, no?

Puny mortal, when you write the definition book then it's quite easy to work around such objections.

Date: 2008/02/21 11:08:52, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Oh, he can, but will he?

Date: 2008/02/24 20:34:57, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Don't be silly.  It is the degrading effects of Sin.

which of course is brought out by denying the revealed god.  like you guys are doing.  sinners.

Date: 2008/02/25 09:51:02, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I know some people who would be willing to spank anyone's bottoms.  Ahem-cough-choke-louis-splutter-hawk-tooey.

Date: 2008/02/25 09:51:58, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
After all, if you spare the rod....  

anyone have a spare rod?  is this a time for salamanca to give us roughgarden jokes again?

Date: 2008/02/25 09:59:57, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
no J-Dog it is true.  there has been very little scientific progress since 1859, and none at all since the rediscovery of mendel.  only materialists screeching about vaccines and PCR and space travel and microscopes and breeding firefly genes into tobacco.  duh, that's not sceince.  science tells us how to live and stuff and i don't see fruit fly genome mapping doing that.  that is why there is no science anymore, not since the end of Leave It To Beaver.

Date: 2008/02/25 14:16:02, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
wonder if that has anything to do with ceiling cat's design inference?

sal, oh sal, you are being watched.  by cats.  from the ceiling.

Date: 2008/02/26 07:27:54, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Hi kevin

What is design?

How can we extrapolate from designers which we may observe, to designers we can not observe, or have not observed?

Does knowing that a piece of stick and leaves is made by a caddisfly, or that scratches on a tree were made by a giant felid, give you any additional leverage in attempting to peek up Dame Nature's skirt?  

How does one justify saying "Well, we know that foxes crap on top of logs, and there is crap on top of that log.  Let's use this method to determine whether or not we are living in the best of all possible worlds?"

Date: 2008/02/26 09:40:14, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Ahhh but in order to have miracles you must presuppose laws.  If we do not presuppose such things (show me a law.  what color is it?) then we have no need to worry about the implications of miracles because by definition they do not exist.

His eye is on the sparrow, the heavens and earth are sustained by his mighty back, he made the turtles, etc etc.  Any appeal to anti-realism will defeat your criticism, I believe.

Date: 2008/02/26 11:21:20, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

If this is one of you guys, Ku-Dos.  I've never thought of this.

I think there is not enough data to make any determination of who designed the designer.

Only when and if we can identify the designer we might have some data to work with in determining the origin of that agency.

The only feature we know of that the intelligent being possesses is that it contains no irreducibly complex systems itself.

So, who’s with me in keeping the question of the intentional designer to ourselves?

This is the unavoidable logical consequence of the IC idiocy.  No slippery slopes!  I love it so!

Date: 2008/02/26 14:47:57, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Hi Kevin

Please note that I did not attack you one tiny little bit whatsoever.  And I won't do such a thing unless provoked.

Now, I had some really nice friendly touchy feely questions about this project you are working on, and so does everyone else.  I can wait my turn.

But since you are running around pushing this idea of 'Intelligent Design', regardless of what we know about your fellow travelers, I am asking you 'What Is Design?'  How is beaver dam design equivalent to designing bacterial flagella?  How is SETI comparable to designing blood clots?  How is Colonel Custard, in the Drawing Room, with an icicle dagger IN ANY WAY comparable to The Privileged Planet?  

If irreducible complexity is a hallmark of design, does this mean that the designer is neither irreducible, nor complex?  Doesn't that mean that God is rather ordinary and by Dembski's criterion explainable by recourse to regularity, ie natural law?  

Do you really believe all this stuff, or is it just a handy hook for some publicity?

Date: 2008/02/26 15:32:38, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I'm sure that many of us would like to hear just how you can make ID a scientific enterprise, if you want to get around to that one (we already know how to make it a commercial enterprise.... wink wink nudge nudge saynomore saynomore).

I'd rather disentagle <sic> the scientific questions from the religious questions so that the real question becomes, can ID produce compelling evidence and arguments to back up their theories? I think the jury is still out on that. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't get a chance to try

Yeah, we'd love for you to do that also.  We'd also love to hear you explain why, in the absence of any compelling evidence that there might BE such evidence or arguments you think that ID'ers deserve this affirmative action?  What makes their religious beliefs privileged?

Why don't I deserve to have the NSF fund me completely for 12 years while I work out whether or not the fact that the sun appears yellow to our eyes is predicted by the first principle that god made everything?  Why don't we privilege everyone's arbitrary religious beliefs?  Let's just forget about science and evidence and reason:  you deserve a chance to make the absolutely stupidest argument you can muster, and at the expense of people who actually take this sort of thing seriously.

Your democratic fallacy is showing hon.  Might wanna cover it up, it's liable to get bruised 'round heah.

Date: 2008/02/26 18:46:12, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
C'mon Doc, you know what it is.

Darwinismus bad.  Materialismus culture of death.

and stuff like that.

Date: 2008/02/26 20:55:01, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
zero is there such a thing as a 'law' of nature?

if so then how are such laws broken?

if not, then how do you know the lights will come on when you flip the switch?

Date: 2008/02/27 08:46:54, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
The trouble is, nobody else in the ID movement seems to know, either!

Cubist, I'd say that they do know.  And I'd agree with them partway (separating for the moment the messengers).  If you take what some of these demonstrated liars say at face value, their claim is that sometimes we can analytically deduce some property of some features of some objects as being 'designed' by some agents.  That at least is an objective claim, and one that is testable.   And surely it is nothing new, as it's the same logic that bears use to find yaller jacket nests.  This is not controversial, and it never has been (except that even at this basal level, they have never never substantiated even the mildest form of this claim that design is detectable).

Even at this first approximation, however, it's troubling to recognize the fact that many of the definitions of these terms and concepts IDists use to communicate this notion are, at the very least, not used in any sort of vernacular sense and in some ways completely opposite to other working prior definitions.  They made up a tard-language to obfuscate some of the fuzzy logic and quivering mathematics.  

First sleight of hand:   least as far as I can peer through the murky pool of thick gloppy* tard that has obscured the mechanics of this logical system, some agents are defined as 'intelligent', which then surreptitiously imports secondary meaning from all sorts of feel-good affirmation self-esteem cultural and metaphysical legacies.  One of those in particular is the ontological argument from intelligence and the eternal regress of where did intelligence come from.  This, we know, is tard, and has been properly recognized as self delusional wish fulfillment at least since Kant and undoubtedly longer.  It is an intractable morass resulting from improperly defined concepts**.

Even if I might be more charitable and grant that ID can legitimately deduce whether or not an object is designed, and while I am being charitable I will grant their definitions of all those terms.  Ok, you proved*** something is designed.  Now what?

Watch closely.

This means that anything possessing those characters that keyed out to 'design' is also 'designed'.  This could be peanut butter sandwiches, or scratches on a rock, or the precise position of the earth in relation to the moon sun galaxy etc, the blagella on a fracterium, the way that blood clots to the way that blood splatters from chicken gut oracles.  

Who designed those things?  


It can be hard to see where the science stopped and the stupid began.  Thank Mithra for folks like Wes and Jeff Shalitt and PZ and Ken Miller and Barbara Forrest and Nick Matzke and ERV and Lenny Flank.  They have exposed the greased palm groping underneath the skirts of reason.

What is amazing is that even though it's plain that ID is a non-starter from science, Kevin, your objective is to push for it anyway.  Whether or not it is science, it validates your beliefs and by your manichean logic anything that does not affirm your beliefs is attacking your beliefs and as a free citizen with religious freedom you have the right to have your beliefs affirmed in the public square and not not-validated in the public square hence the big stink about academic freedom and religious freedom when really all that it has ever been is the freedom to be as stupid as you can possibly be.  That, and follow a prescribed agenda by political and religious figures and be good little brownshirts.  Which are you, Kevin?  Are you a leader or a follower in this religious Scientific Renewal Revolution?

*  Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?  Kev did you interview Galapagos Finch for Crossroads Expelled?  Do tell.

**  Formal logic does not work with propositions forged from jello and peppered with leavings from the Sandman.

***  Proved.  That is another huge problem with all of the ID issue.  Since IC and the EF are an argument from gaps, and science always leaves the door open to disproof, you and your fellow travelers have managed to squeeze a child's foot into the door.  Shame on you.  

Bad Tard, Kevin.  Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Tard.  You seem like a nice guy.  Why do this?

Date: 2008/02/27 09:05:03, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
thanks!  I am a mean mannish boy for shore.  31 seems old to me.  I wonder if I can drink 31 beers today....

I plan to celebrate by taking one day to not be an atheist on such a daily basis and I have decided to be a strong agnostic instead.  

So that means I can no longer justify my puppy beating, granny humping, baby-head-bashing-against-the-stones-ing*, god-loathing, sin-loving, fundy-thumping, dosing-nursing-home-patients-with-LSD-ing, church-burning, liberalizing, non-idolatrizing, goat-fornicating**, baby-jesus-scorning, non-holding-the-door-opening-for-hunchback-old-ladies-ing, Young-Life-crashing-teenager-deconverting, devil-worshipping onanism by saying, "There Is No God So Who The Fuck Cares?"

No, not today.  

Today, I will justify my puppy beating, granny humping, baby-head-bashing-against-the-stones-ing***, god-loathing, sin-loving, fundy-thumping, dosing-nursing-home-patients-with-LSD-ing, church-burning, liberalizing, non-idolatrizing, animalia-fornicating****, baby-jesus-scorning, non-holding-the-door-opening-for-hunchback-old-ladies-ing, Young-Life-crashing-teenager-deconverting, devil-worshipping onanism by saying "I Really Can't Be Bothered To Give a Fuck Whether Or Not There Is A God, So Who The Fuck Cares".

Thanks FtK!!!  And the rest of you'ns.

*  I was just doing what Psalms 129 said to do, sheesh.
**  Rich, if I call you a goat before I have my way with you does this keep me in the clear on this one?
*** See *.
**** Added to cover Rich, Ftk Sal and Louis.  Since it's my birthday I get to direct.  Bring in the live geese!

Date: 2008/02/27 09:27:23, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Septic whines:
I view every post here as a bit of my precious time and a valuable contribution if I take the time to make it.  I can only hope that some day some of you will come to the realization that there are other opinions out there and maybe if you guys could think critically you'd see that.

Oh, and Louis, I can already anticipate the vulgarity that is to follow and you can save it.  It has no impact on me and the time you devote to typing it in is a waste of your precious time.

Wow. I nearly fainted.  to say the least, the louis-skeptic thread suggests that at least some of your posts are not worth much of your precious time nor that they are valuable contributions.  for reasons that you seem unable to understand. don't get me wrong, skeptic, you ain't a bad guy.  But obstinately thick about the head and ears.

But to channel Lenny (wow I guess I miss the crotchety old bastard):
you will come to the realization that there are other opinions out there

Why, dear skeptic, should anyone give a flying damn about your opinions?  If you cannot or will not inspect assertions critically, and instead privilege such nonsense with the status of 'an opinion', you are saying that we should all nod wisely and agree 'yes yes yes of course of course hmmm indeed' when it is plainly obvious that opinion or not, it is Bull Shit?

To say that any of us knows nothing about the general flavor of religion that you call J-C is supportable, to say that most of us or even a large fraction is simply not true.  Most of us are reformed religionists, sir douchebag, and the scales on your eyes have been removed from ours (and by that i don't mean atheism, but your particularly naughty little democratic fallacies, your is-ought confusion and your inability to understand propositional logic and the role of evidence in supporting a claim).  

that is liable to make folks sharp-tongued.  and you seem to enjoy that because persecution complexes seem to be one of your finer tastes.

Date: 2008/02/27 09:54:17, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
zero thanks for the wishies.

Why do you suppose all these serendipitous things happen to you and not anyone else?  

I once dated a girl that lived in a world like that.  If a leaf happened to fall a certain way she would turn right, there was meaning farts, etc etc.  i later concluded she didn't really believe it.  just a cute way to act that hippies thought was really killer and mystical and cool.  i usually just spit tobacco juice and said, "Yup.  That's some crazy shit alright".

I've seen crazy shit.  Thought that metaphysical explanations might carry some variance.  Now I'm convinced that there is no rational scale of measuring such things, and I'm happy to surrender and say in paraphrase of some wiser person 'not only do we know shit is crazy, but shit is crazier than we can know'.  and for septic that means that his  personal opinions about crazy shit are validated and true, for him.  and for the rest of us, it means nothing of the sort.

Date: 2008/02/27 09:56:12, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
hey skeptic out of all that, you choose to deny that you have a persecution complex?

you don't want to address the bit about why should your opinion be worth any more than any one elses?  nasty old empiricists.  always asking for evidence.  as if that mattered or something.


Date: 2008/02/27 09:59:51, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Paul, they know this P.O.S. is a dud.  They need to spin that the Darwinismus is why it is a dud, not that it is a piece of crap written by washed up doublethinkers like Kevin.

No-lose, really.  Somehow it is a hit (who knows, all kinds of dumb shit at the box office), yayyy ID.  Timely message, etc.  More likely it flunks, it is because it was expelled by the E.A.C.  Brilliant!

Kevin, have you read Teh Prince?

Date: 2008/02/27 10:25:59, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Louis, I simply refuse to entertain that possibility.

Won't do it.

Date: 2008/02/27 10:48:06, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
skeptic, so you would see no significance (or at the least, the same amount of significance as the image of Baby Jesus in Swaddling Clothes manifested in an oil slick or pattern of flies on a deer carcass) in the resurrection of Jesus, turning water to wine, resurrection of Lazarus, virgin birth, loaves and fishes, etc etc etc?

You don't really believe these things happened?

Now that is interesting, and a break in the facade.  Please do expound, I will turn down the gain on the snark and I'm sure everyone else will too.

Date: 2008/02/27 11:04:37, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
You know as well as I do that evolutionary theory is supposed to explain the origin AND diversity of life. How about attempting a serious answer?

Yes, I know this as well as you do.  And I know that it is false.  And so do you.

The way I see it, one reason ID is so controversial is that it argues mind precedes matter in the form of a creative intelligence; whereas classic evolutionary theory says that mind is a product of matter. Intelligence is one of the last things to appear on the scene.

This is where the science stops.  Nowhere does ID argue this.  ID, as a legitimate scientific enterprise I have outlined above* does not mention this at all.  News Flash:  NEITHER DOES CLASSIC EVOLUTIONARY THEORY.

classic evolutionary theory says that mind is a product of matter

Putting 'classic' in front of it doesn't mean it is any less a steaming pile of bullshit.  That is a classic obfuscation technique from creationists and other rhetorical artistes.

You might argue that this is a consequence of the predictions of some people's metaphysical opinions (ie eliminative materialism, and many variants) but they would freely agree with you.  And box your ears for reifying definitions.  

After all, it's your own fault for erecting some mystical concept that cannot be investigated (like mind).  You're just upset because no one is seeing your invisible friend and they are asking where did the little bastard go.

It is typical for small minds to expect a simple answer for everything.  'Intelligently designed is one such answer.  So is 'it's all random meaningless chance'. Your homework:  find someone on the good guys team who actually says this**.

Panspermia to hitler to stalin to academic freedom.  But NEVER THE SCIENCE.

*  Note that this means I agree that a form of design detection could be in principle accomplished.  But has not.  Just hand waving from the agenda-tards.

**  good luck.

Date: 2008/02/27 11:25:04, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Hi kevin

Yes I have read blind watchmaker.  Richard Dawkin's personal metaphysical opinions should not be conflated with science.  I don't think he has this problem.  I do think that you guys have this problem.  You routinely misrepresent your religious presuppositions as empirical findings. Example:  'assuming' design helps scientists do X.  YOU HAVEN'T EVEN DESCRIBED WHAT DESIGN IS

This doesn't stop you guys from constructing a humongous marketing and political edifice upon this shifting sand where you refuse to go.

Date: 2008/02/27 11:30:25, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I see no comparison between the Resurrection and supposed images on tortillas.

Really?  Why not?
It is also impossible to evaluate the other listed "miracles" objectively.

really, why not?

 What is more important is to understand what they mean rather than trying to prove whether or not they really happened.

Really?  Why should they mean anything if they never happened?  Why should we even bother with wondering what they mean, if they never even happened?  

Looking forward to this one.

Date: 2008/02/27 11:55:22, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
wait a minute, old man, ain't DNA designed?

Seems like we can just stop there.

Date: 2008/02/27 21:10:10, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Well Christ on a cracker if the stuff Septic has been spouting today is not an open invitation to the good reverend Flank nothing is.

I just want to say that I am excited about the new members on the board, and I'm glad to see you guys here, even if it took a smarmy intellectual whore selling out the fruits of enlightenment for thirty shekels of silver, to make it happen.

here's to less navel gazing solipcist all opinions are equal and to more sciencing!!*

*stick around fellers you'll see it all.

Date: 2008/02/27 21:38:01, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
but gary how does all these chemical reackshunz explain how come it feels so good to get drunk and eat puppies and be nazis and hump grandmaws and burn teh churches?

we gotta keep our story straight.  I know facts are irrelevant just wondering how I should hold my mouth.

Date: 2008/02/27 21:44:28, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Principalities involved, smokey.

Septic I can't yawn wide enough to show my contempt for pure unadulterated factless opinion.  That's like comparing butthole stink.  Boring, to me, obviously a daily routine for you.  And also for other relativists like Kevin and FtK.

k.e. what about Benny Hinn?  Surely that fucker qualifies for god-hood in the queer-hin-do-you-he-d-do-you sect.  One that has the giant throbbing purple headed warrior as the main do-ity.  one touch and you are knocked down, wake up with a pulsing throbber in the main vein and in the brain vein.  what a lame game.  ginsberg was nothing but a fancy footed fairy.  ever since the hairy scrote poem, any meth-genius could do something equivalent.  not saying he wasn't .

Date: 2008/02/28 07:23:29, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I think this board is a miracle.  Imagine all the SLoT violated around here per atheist-day.  It's amazing.  Although I'm not sure that Skeptic has actually violated any SLoT yet.

Date: 2008/02/28 08:33:55, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Cubist I agree that so far that claim is false.  I'll go further and say that even if it is true then there is still no merit for making the ontological leap that 'design = proof of designer' that is really the heart of their argument.

But that shouldn't matter.  This is really the only scientific claim that these magicians and charlatans are making, and it is worth keeping it at the forefront of criticism.  Everything is else is silly buggers piled on top of the whole book of logical fallacies, because at bottom it is a political-religious collusion for a power play.  Kevin, do you really believe this stuff you are spouting, or are you just along for the ride like Stein?

Date: 2008/02/28 08:53:30, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Oooh Let Me Do ONe:

Epistemology is so boring.  I'm much more interested in how we know things.

it's all just opinions anyway?  when you get down to it I know the bible better than you anyway.  

Jesus not only rose from the dead but makes flowers open up in time for pollinators to visit them.  Does it every. single. day.  It's not important at all if this is true, the meaning of the story is enough.  Therefore it means something.  You do the math.  

You guys are mean.  I never said that.  When I said that I meant something different.  Its just your opinion.

Ok Who Am I?  No peeking.  Trick question, maybe!  maybe not!

Date: 2008/02/28 09:37:13, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
i never knew Beanie Hen had a metal pension.  k.e. the reason you talk funny is because you haz upside downs syndrome.  fer cods sake man at least protrude at 90 from the equator, all the bloods have rushed to your heads.

ginzberg would have sucked up john and lenin perhaps but definitely in linen but i hesitate to say preferred the finer things like young nubile adolescents with wisps of chin hair, breaky voices and no guilt yet.  

can u haz gary snyder?  the best one o the bunch and certainly the least gayest.  do not remember his beet neck name but i think he was japhy.  

a friend has a daugther who went to see benny hinn or some preacher like him.  i think it was hinn.  she don't believe in teaputs in alpha centauri or oort cloud haloes or fairies in the olive garden or nuthin but said her friend did and she invited her to go.  so her friend says, do we go down there and get knocked down or what.  so she said OK and they went down there and got knocked down just like that.  and later her diddy said, well, what happened, did you get knocked down.  and she said, well yeah i did but i just played along like i thought everyone else was, and it went ok.  sounded to me, i reckon, he was just proud she didn't get knocked up, at that point, again, for the last time, instead.

Date: 2008/02/28 10:46:00, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Apparently you think that FtK will post something on her blog that will make her look, well, idiotic.

Hey, she does that on a daily basis.

Date: 2008/02/28 10:50:34, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Hey she's* hot.  

Ian wouldn't kick her out of bed, if she had a pogo stick, trained walrus, 2.56 kilograms of kiwi fruit, a swiss army knife with toothpick and tweezers intact, a weedeater, an anteater, a weed eating ant or a live chicken!

*contractions are great!

Date: 2008/02/28 10:56:39, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Well as much as i love getting my balls stomped on by a pointytoed high heeled boot (or in Kates case, a commando all terrain species of footwear, I thought I was on topic.  Since we are talking about miracles, i consider it a minor* miracle that it is rather hard to distinguish between FtK arguments and Skeptic arguments.  Note the *sigh* upthread.  DOES THAT QUALLIFIE FOR TEH MIRRICUL?

Date: 2008/02/28 11:01:41, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Rugby club, huh.  Wow that's gay.

Date: 2008/02/28 14:09:55, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
depends on how severe her quivering Rich-Tard withdrawal aftershocks are i imagine.

Date: 2008/02/28 15:02:16, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

laughs at ignorant illierate troll

Date: 2008/02/28 18:37:47, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Please don't be researching for your new film, "Meanies - nasty science types"

I bet Kevin would tell you it was called something else, with a catchier name.  Like I dunno off the top of my head "Crossroads" or maybe something to catch the skeptic/FtK demographic "Opinions:  Are they all equal, or are some more or less equal".  I could also imagine "God:  Dinin't He or Unh UNh No He Dininin't"

What do you think Kevin?  I done copyrighted this shit you little bitch.  Don't be interviewin' my homeboys and be frontin' all up on my tip you lil' ho.

Date: 2008/02/28 18:44:32, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
But to put things back on topic and restate my opinion simply, I don't think miracles can be used in either sense, to support or refute theism.  Anything beyond that is just justification for that belief and I'll leave it at that so as not to get accused of derailing the thread.

Let me be first back on topic.

Yes, I agree with you.  Please note that this reduces the truth value of the virgin birth, the sun standing still, god's existence in general and also the sum of all the special pleadings of both testaments to be equivalent to the claim that, this very morning on my very own street, I saw the image of the baby jesus in the pattern of flies that were attacking a particularly nasty and huge piece of elephant dung.

And it is also notable that your claim not only reduces claims about miracles but ANY OBSERVATIONAL CLAIM to the same ontological status.

And that means that I can point at the sky and say 'LOOK, FOOL' so then you look and I slap you with the intestines of a great whale, and then you say 'What did you do, damn you' and I say 'What?'.  And you have no warrant for saying that I did any god damn thing because there is no way to tell whether or not such a thing happened or 'twas a miracle.

Opinions and say-so, skeptic.  That's what your epistemology boils down to.  That's fine and dandy, if you would be satisfied with the fruits of your laboring.  But you wish to move goalposts.  That's what gets most of us bent out of shape, not only with you but with the arguments from Hoo-Doo as evidence for the existence of Satan or what-have-you.  Regular Old Dishonest God-Damned Inconsistency.  That's all.


Date: 2008/02/28 18:48:53, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Turncoat, here is cheers to you!

I've often admired your work, glad to meet you my friend.

Why I have wondered is that seminal douche Kairosfocus not here anymore.  Perhaps you have answered the question.  I have suffered that fool, gladly, several occasions (so have Hermagoras and others).  Fight the power!!!!

Date: 2008/02/28 23:44:13, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Well, Reed, to be fair to the little showman, he has been piled upon.  And I'm sure he likes it.  Why else would skeptic FtK Daniel Smith VMartin Keith Robinson Kevin Miller come here, if not to renew teh scientz and cultyoor?

Date: 2008/02/28 23:48:38, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

I am surprised that you might think that Kairosfocus is somehow not all there.  I mean, not really, because ID requires some fundamental level of disconnect, but on the other hand this cat has all sorts of posted tard at the always linked discussion.  And that kind of shit is hard to argue about, clearly it is the product of a warped but focused mind.  

Don't get me wrong, he is one of my favorite all time tards because of the swallowing of the baby-puke colored pill, but at the very least his highly systematic and seemingly ennumerated scheme for epistemology indicated that he was more than your average turettes syndrome basketcase pubic hair filer.

Date: 2008/02/29 07:20:36, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
God Louis is this you

For I minute I thought it was skeptic or FtK with all the concern trolling.  My welsh-meditteranean arab friend, it is plainly obvious that you have never visited the always linked discussion, onlookers.  I have wasted several hours and gallons of blood pumping on this douche bag and I reserve the right to be miffed.  

If you wanna be helpful, Go there!  For the love of Gods Man get this fool back on his meds or get him off of them!  By god if I am sparing tears for this catalogue of fallacies then let us make them productive.

Actually he hasn't been around there much recently, as far as I can tell.  I have been pulling very light shifts in the tard mines since the legendary First of February escapades.

Date: 2008/02/29 08:08:55, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I'll cheerily fuck off darling and reply that it's hard for me to understand why anyone, not knowing anything more about the stealth agent that is Turncoat (who could be I readily admit a triple degree psychiatrist psychologist and psychokineticist), would take his impromptu pop diagnosis to be something said in anything but the mocking jestful tone that we all know and love you for.  I should take this seriously, you say.  I'm skeptical.

Anyway I'd be surprised if your average klansman possess the requisite vernacular beta diversity to use the term 'wet blanket' about the group you identified or for that manner any other group, including any member of the complete set of all soddened bedding material.  

But this might not include your less than average klansmen, who have peopled our supreme courts and legislative bodies and finest masonic lodges.  Why the bigotry against klansmen?  Isn't being bigoted towards bigots kinda dumb?  That's why I share my bigotry with everyone equally.  I am completely and totally an affirmative action type bigot and I won't treat you differently because you are bigoted towards some people more than others.  I'll give you the same devoted non-situational unconditional bigotry as I give everyone else.

k.e. that could cause someone to cut off their nipples.

Date: 2008/02/29 08:51:46, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
ohhhhh, an expelled member of the lab, eh?

that's working from the inside out, huh.

how big was that broom closet, anyway?

Date: 2008/02/29 09:59:36, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
If Klansman in deed they are, then I think it is hardly bigotry to kick their bony white supremacist arses from here to eternity. The same principle applies equally to Black Panthers.

Which is where i disagree.  of course it is bigotry.

I just did like you know who and googled this.  Bigotry:stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

We are all bigots here, and everywhere, because bigotry is a consequence of imposing any sort of order upon chaos.  Choosing this over that is the fundamental nature of bigotry.  

The problem is as far as I can see, how to remain consistent.  

So, in sum, Kairosfocus is a fucking tard and I really at bottom don't care why.  If he has other issues, including manic disorder, or bipolar disorder, repressed bestiality disorder, ingrown toenails, or if he has beans and frank and a bun to boot, or if he thinks he is fucking Napoleon:  very well then those are hilarious too.  It's not like we don't make fun of you for the half-formed twin you have growing out of your back, or like we ignore Arden when he flounces around in a tutu giving helmet to german tourists at the tiki bar, and we certainly don't overlook Rich-tard's obsession with smelling his fingers.  

And we need not draw imaginary lines about what is funny and what is not.  Because as another you know who once said, Why should anyone care about your opinion about the way someone should behave?  And although blunt that is a wonderful question.

Date: 2008/02/29 10:36:29, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Holey moley.  I didn't quite follow all of this very well back when it happened.  Congrats!  By the way I thought I was being clever about being 'expelled' since there are two of y'all running around.  Figured that when you said the other one was a creationist that the other one was the one working with Marks.

Again, fine work.

Date: 2008/02/29 10:47:46, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
What I WAS objecting to was what I saw as your reaction to Turncoat's disgnosis (whether said diagnosis is correct or not is irrelevant) which was "KF cannot have a mental illness because he did something complicated and people with mental illnesses can't do something complicated". THAT, if it is an accurate replication of your comments, which based on the quotes I made above it is, is a simple example of ignorant prejudice.

Now I understand.  And no that is the opposite of what I meant, which was that the complicated and ship-building-in-a-bottle nature of KF's website indicated that he had some anal retentive and as was later described 'manic' qualities.  Idiot Savant type, probably counts the number of steps back and forth to the loo, eats exactly 234 cheerios every morning, member of double secret plus plus Mensa, daily solves Fermi's last theorems during his morning yank of the chain then forgets about it as soon as he realizes that the number of mica flakes in the road forms a series that is identical to the series the rat turds formed in that little country church so long ago.  blah blah.

Of course everyone is a bigot, per my definition.  The definition is trivial.  You are bigoted towards people whose belief is that you should be chopped into tiny pieces and fed to Rush Limbaugh.  If you weren't then you would already form a fraction of his corpus.  

The gist goes like this:  arguments about why such and such is wrong or not wrong always go this way, when they are focused on the moral imperative.  What a steaming pile of metaphysics!  the entire issue disappears when you stop insisting that X is the appropriate way to behave, and you say instead "I wouldn't do that".  That is unassailable.

To say "You shouldn't do that" or "Those old women are assholes for raping that baby kitteh with a soldering iron" is just voicing an arbitrary opinion and I don't see how evidence even matters.   It's just trivial definition matching game.  Not an empirical claim.

But when you said that we should run around lkicking the arse of klansmen, you made that same sort of error.  What you meant was, if I might be so bold, I wouldn't do that.

Date: 2008/02/29 15:24:59, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
keiths skeptic doesn't give a damn, logic is just opinion to him.

If I get the chance to ask him, I will.

If such a beast exists I am going to slap the absolute fuck juice out of this sonofabitch.  

A)  He'll know it was coming
B)  It won't hurt such a god-beast one eensy weeny little bit
C)  Drinks all around, in Hell.  A shitty little bar in a shitty little town that is also where Sternburglar-story goes to try to drink himself to Bolivia.

Date: 2008/02/29 21:08:15, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Being the compassionate guy that I am I hope for you guys sake that I am wrong.  I actually occupy the most practical position as I have nothing to lose whereas you guys have everything and more to lose.  Good luck and we'll see how it turns out.

Hey, that is the most practical position!!!  Not to mention, evidence free!

Date: 2008/02/29 21:14:46, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
carlos boozer was quite the power forward whilst at Dook.  i always thought his name made Dook even gayer.

Date: 2008/02/29 21:15:34, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Fran Drescher belongs with Ben Stein.  I think.  Maybe she doesn't deserve that.  He probably doesn't deserve a live human.

Date: 2008/03/01 08:17:08, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

lord.  skeptic if what you say is true then how can you justify saying 'it is written' as evidence for anything?  it is also written all kinds of other silly and dumb things.  and god reveals herself to zero in such manners as he reports, then what privileges the bible anyway?

never mind.

Date: 2008/03/01 08:18:01, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I think the obliviated hidden disappeared Folkface.  His secret knock ain't working no more.

Date: 2008/03/01 16:29:00, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
GCT, I'm not sure if you noticed but there is a long boring history of skeptic making these sorts of claims.  Nonetheless, you gotta love the guy.

Date: 2008/03/01 23:37:34, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
And how come there are pygmies + dwarves, ANYWAY HOMEO

Date: 2008/03/02 21:18:25, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Amadan I am fascinated by your question.  My question is, what is wrong with 'Because we can'?

As the grand master Lenny Flank said more than a year ago, ID is dead.  All that is left is lineage sorting and ultimate extinction, as none of these morphs are ecologically viable.

I think you are presuming that we are not engaged on other fronts of the culture wards.  I am.  I'm not sure of everyone else.  But even if they weren't, UD is just good frikkin tard and that is warrant enough.

Date: 2008/03/03 09:00:16, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I prefer to think of UD and the sockpuppetry from here as analogous to the manipulation of mortals by the gods at Olympus.  

Date: 2008/03/04 19:59:05, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I'm not smelling my *fingers*. I'm smelling your mom.

I hope you like rotten maggoty corpses.

Date: 2008/03/04 22:59:14, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I've been laying off of the tard since they nailed my most recent puppet after two posts.  But I just hit up the 'Altamont 16' or whatever thread and there is some absolutely delicious shit over there.  and Allen MacNeill (bless you friend) is kicking the tards around too.

But check THIS out.  Good God.  i haven't read the 'misunderestimikating hierarchies' thread someone put up recently but I imagine that this is a case study.

jerry, you are one sick puppet.  If you are jerry, and i've begged before, PLEASE pm me.  I wish to congratulate the master.

Date: 2008/03/05 07:29:27, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Design Inference?

I can haz steganosaurus now plz kthxbai.

Find Teh Designer!!!*

*someone out there is seriously kicking ass for the peanut gallery.  Cheers!!!

Date: 2008/03/05 09:40:34, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
God what a tard.  I bet he has high blood pressure.  Good job guys, way to take some tard for the team.

Date: 2008/03/05 10:13:23, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Happy Day, BWE!  God damn that is old.

Date: 2008/03/05 10:24:16, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Wah Wah you guys are frikkin martyrs.  

But thanks for it.  

anyhoo, this is rich.

As a software developer (aren’t about half of us on this site?) I find the concept of a single gene coding for multiple proteins to be a challenging concept for evolution.

Fucketyfuck, as a major league baseball player I find the concept of past pluperfect verb conjugation to be a challenging concept for linguists.  They ain't that smart anyhow.

By the way I have long been convinced that bFast is a puppet.  Someone wish to enlighten me?

mike1962 is a tard.  I also think he is not a puppet.  Design inference?
How many of these mechanisms of variation led to the first self-replicating lifeform?


Proud to be dumb.

DaveScot is a tard.

The thing about all the combinatorial mechanisms you list is they are all reactionary as selection can’t operate on unexpressed characters

Right dave.  when your Word Du Jewry email service hits 'pleiotropy' then I suspect you'll come back and delete that comment.  What a dooosh.

tyharris is a tard (sock puppet, anyone?)
By what means did the first self-replicating information processor create itself and then proceed to write upon itself the minimum information neccesary to begin synthesizing proteins in the first functioning cell?

christ on a barb wire fence I can't get any further down the page.  worth a peek, if you are taking a dump or something.

ETA the money shot

Date: 2008/03/05 10:48:48, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
SalCordova is a tard.


Date: 2008/03/05 12:56:41, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Erasmus, I'm really trying to cut down on the directly injected TARD.  Please quit tempting me so.

That shit was so good I had to share it.  Absolutely covered with tiny tard crystals.

Date: 2008/03/05 12:59:08, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Steve, you are an animal.  This Bud's for you.

Date: 2008/03/05 19:13:46, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
poachy has been a suspect for some time.  I just want to know who the hell he is.  Scowl.


Date: 2008/03/06 07:23:57, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 05 2008,07:29)
Design Inference?

I can haz steganosaurus now plz kthxbai.

Find Teh Designer!!!*

*someone out there is seriously kicking ass for the peanut gallery.  Cheers!!!

For Those Who Missed It The First Time

Could it be that Professor Sewell has failed to model hysteresis? Observe that the genetic pools of species function essentially as memory. Memory is more-or-less preserved with work. Because the sun shines on the open system we call the earth, there is a constant source of energy for conversion into work. One might say that species remember how to work to preserve memory. Very few errors occur in transmission of genomic memory from generation tot generation. Errors that engender effective means of propagating genomic memory are sometimes fixed in genomic memory. Ratchets, in the sense of informational physics, account for evolutionary adaptation.

Extracted. Design Inference!!!

I'm just saying.  I didn't do it.  But Gawds that is funny.

Date: 2008/03/07 09:45:53, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

Paul you blew it dude.  Just because you are such a congenial dude (I think we foolishly believed that this was a result of the fact that you know, deep down, that you deserve some flak for your involvement in pushing creationism ReDux and you have seemed willing to take it) everyone has given you the benefit of the doubt.  

But the scales have been lifted my friend.  You are a fraud.  Not even the nice guy you pretend to be, you are a Liar For Jesus.  I can't wait to see the mess your Of Pandas And People Explore Evolution book gets a bunch of local school boards into.  I hope that gives you fulfillment, because clearly doing science is getting your creationism NOWHERE.

Date: 2008/03/07 10:09:00, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Ooooh, I can play that game!!!

Typically, the coral snakes in the genus Micrurus are only found on the dark side of the moon, where they are then by default nocturnal.  Since selection is the fantasy of the atheismus, we can only discern that the nocturnal habit of the coral snakes on the Earth are also a function of other forces but certainly not selection.

oh yeah and this one

Micrurus species of coral snakes are likely the most gossipy of all snakes, but this excludes certain species that populate deep sea vents and also the Micrurus lucifugus only known from sketches of 16th century monks that saw visions of this snake, active in the darkness of the center of the earth with Teh Devil.  Micrurus lucifugus is probably not a gossipy coral snake

How is that MArty?

If you are going to be fucking off at work you could at least be googling for scat porn or something worthwhile.  Because you are convincing no one here that you even know what you are talking about.  

But to your credit, laughing at your silly fake ass is a pleasure indeed.  You too crazy.

Date: 2008/03/07 14:19:13, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Paul, why are there moths at all?  Does your critical analysis derive a theory that explains this burning question?  Do the tools provided by your Of Pandas And People Explore Evolution book give anyone the necessary concepts and methods for answering this burning question?

Intelligent Design Creationism is in flames.  I am glad that you are going to give scientists and lawyers the opportunity to unzip and do the right thing.  You are a fraud.

Date: 2008/03/07 20:11:27, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 07 2008,14:56)

Thanks for this formulation:

1.  Topic A has been discussed in creationist writings, either historically or currently.

2. Topic A has been shown to be a quote-mine, a strawman, easily accommodated by modern evolutionary theory, or otherwise non-controversial in the minds of modern evolutionary biologists.

3. No new data relevant to Topic A, either casting new doubt on modern evolutionary theory or that is unable to be accommodated by modern evolutionary theory, has been provided by competent scientists and published in the peer-reviewed mainstream scientific literature.

4.  Thus, topic A is not material fit for a public school science textbook.

"Quote-mine," "strawman," and "easily accomodated" leave considerable room for debate, of course (but that's OK -- debate makes life interesting); in any case, I accept this as grounds for ongoing discussion.

Venus, the author of that passage was evolutionary geneticist George Miklos, from his long paper "Emergence of organizational complexities during metazoan evolution: perspectives from molecular biology, palaeontology and neo-Darwinism," Memoirs of the Association of Australasian Palaeontologists 15 (1993):7-41.  The cited material comprises the first five sentences of the paper's abstract.

I'll be out for the remainder of the day, but will try to return to the discussion tomorrow morning.  Thanks to all involved for the exchange.

Hi Paul

Does George Miklos have a theory of why there should be moths?  Is this something we can expect to see the new generation of Fundie Homeschoolers students using your text book?  Is one of these socially awkward young crusaders finally going to answer the question of why there are goldfish?

Date: 2008/03/08 14:49:48, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 08 2008,14:46)
Little too much information, Ftk:
The Utimate Aphrodisiac

I've mentioned in the past that Mr. FtK isn't exactly a pro at housework, and it takes a bit of prodding to get him to chip, when I catch him helping with the household chores without being coaxed to do so, it's true that he's probably going to be a very lucky boy in regard to sexual favors.

I wonder if she makes him wear that hot little maid outfit?

Actually, I imagine that this means he gets to go to bed without being disturbed.


Date: 2008/03/08 16:17:59, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
we've talked about homeschooling but we've got about three and half years to worry about it.  i don't know where we fall out but it seems that either way you go there are legitimate issues.  i suppose our reasons for thinking about doing it are because I am an isolationist and I don't really care for the cultural whitewash that is the public school system.  The early years of education aren't really education more than normalization and conditioning, and I'd rather not leave that up to someone else thank you very much.

That and we have a compound with 40 wives, 139 children, 13 humvees and an M-1 Abrams tank.  And one hell of an inhouse bluegrass band that all carry uzis.

Date: 2008/03/08 21:58:38, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 08 2008,18:17)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 08 2008,16:17)
we've talked about homeschooling but we've got about three and half years to worry about it.  i don't know where we fall out but it seems that either way you go there are legitimate issues.  i suppose our reasons for thinking about doing it are because I am an isolationist and I don't really care for the cultural whitewash that is the public school system.  The early years of education aren't really education more than normalization and conditioning, and I'd rather not leave that up to someone else thank you very much.

That and we have a compound with 40 wives, 139 children, 13 humvees and an M-1 Abrams tank.  And one hell of an inhouse bluegrass band that all carry uzis.


Hey bitch I got a dewclaw on each ankle

Date: 2008/03/09 08:30:18, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 09 2008,07:46)
Turncoat said:
I once went out with a hospital CEO who explained at length how Jesus had made her a success. Then she tried to get me to fuck her. (Sorry, but fuck is le mot juste.) Physically, she was an absolute beauty, but somehow I'd lost interest

Haven't you heard about the bedroom conversion?

I would have hapily joined in her in her fundagarments and converted her to Jainism
and given her the first hundred pages of the Kama Sutra to study while showing her how to achieve Moksha the release from the cycle of death and rebirth.....then left town.

Ohhhh is that what you call whimpering about mother while in a fetal ball.  I'm sure that works with all the ladies

Date: 2008/03/09 14:04:24, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Or maybe her attention is drawn by Aqualung,
who watches through the railings as they play.

Date: 2008/03/10 09:39:17, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Hermagoras, what part of NC?  Those folks down east are just heatherns.

I don't like government.  Nor do I like government telling me what my kid should or should not learn.  Nor do I like the government telling me my kid has to learn at all.  Clearly, they have more guns than I do so they win (unless my pet mice can figure out how to take over the world and I can tag along as a fellow traveler).  

So I am skeptical of the claim that anything (ANYthing?) is necessary for the 'good of society'.  I say society can go fuck itself.  I wish it would.  There is a pragmatic side to the argument for public education however...

I think public schools (I went to a county school that used to be rural but was feeling suburban growing pangs while I was there and now is a different world, just 13.5 years later) are a good place for kids to learn how nasty and brutish other human beings can be.  Also a good place to learn how to be invisible or stand out, at their will.  Good place to learn how to game the system and a good place to learn how to be a good athlete.  Can be all of those things, but your mileage may vary.

Being a redhead nerdy late bloomer that skipped a grade I got to learn some pugilism in public school.  Being a perfect specimen I was exposed to some good coaches that helped out with learning low-post drop step, boxing out, how to jab, and how to step into a swing.  

so, i reckon i am saying my public school experiences weren't that bad.  If I had gone to the city school (we called it the jungle) then I'm sure I would have a different perspective.  But we learned evolution.  Also learned jingoism might makes right American History.  Also learned from some folks Southern History.  

And we always whupped those sissy private school kids.  On the court and in the mall parking lot.  Now some of them (same school even) are my colleagues and I don't see that either of us missed anything.  But we whupped them.

Date: 2008/03/10 13:55:55, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 10 2008,13:14)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 10 2008,09:39)
Hermagoras, what part of NC?  Those folks down east are just heatherns.

I don't like government.  Nor do I like government telling me what my kid should or should not learn.  


damn that is a sweet gun.  it is at least six inches longer than the one underneath my dog box.

incidentally my grandmaw has a better mullet than that nerdy looking librarian type dude on the bottom.  i bet he was class president or something.

Date: 2008/03/10 14:25:59, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
i dont know.  why would you?

seriously?  you ever see the kind of douchebags that get into government, at any scale?  they don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.  parasites.

ian i am your ed abbey/dave foreman/wes jackson/gary snyder/wendell berry/daniel quinn kind of atheist.  even though those guys ain't all atheists.  and neither am i, at least not in the strong sense.  i just don't give a damn about what someone else thinks god is in the same way that i don't give a damn about what someone else thinks my kids should learn.

and i am an academic which puts me at odds with some of my colleagues.  but they don't know how to dig ginseng or fiddle 'clinch mountain breakdown' either.

ETA I suppose I am a consequentialist of some stripe or the other.

Date: 2008/03/10 14:29:27, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
My opinion of paul nelson has steadily gone south in the past week.  I used to think he was a pretty good queer, at least he would show up and take his knocks and apologize for not finishing that manuscript that would revolutionize biology and also thanks for the comments guys, yaddy yaddy ya.  

Now I see that he is just another lying douchebag for J.C. on the payroll of the Clearinghouse for Lying Douchebags for J.C. He Who Must Not Be Named.  That post on UD that Bob just mentioned was the final straw.

paul nelson you suck.  the good thing is YOU KNOW IT TOO.

Date: 2008/03/10 21:16:44, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Paul while you are busy checking facts, can you let me know if Of Pandas and People Explore Evolution is going to provide a theory of why there might be moths, since you like to trumpet quotes that emphasize the fact that Darwinism (whatever that is) does not have any theory to explain this?

This would be a fine example of what ID can offer.

Date: 2008/03/10 21:26:47, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Quote (Assassinator @ Mar. 10 2008,18:59)
I say society can go fuck itself.

People who say this should be honest with themselfs and go hermit-style. No gas, no electricity, not visiting stores, no doctor, nothing.
don't like government.  Nor do I like government telling me what my kid should or should not learn.

Remember: the government is the help of the people (at least it should be in our country's). They help us with stuff we can't do, and we give them money to do that (taxes). If we see certain things in our society suck, we should do something about it, because we can (democracy, remember?). Besides, it's not about the fact that they would say what they need to learn, it's about the arguments they give for that.
i just don't give a damn about what someone else thinks god is in the same way that i don't give a damn about what someone else thinks my kids should learn.

Problem here: your kids aren't you or clones from you, it's not about what you want it's about what your kid wants. If you're an honest parent you let them discover stuff themselfs, you may not care but they might. Kids aren't property, they're individuals in development.

Anyway, I don't really get home-schooling. I mean, how can you school kids on your own? Imo, kids learn best from eachother with help from parents and experts wich is not at home.

Hell,  we're one of the two UN member countries that hasn't signed the UNCRC.

You gotta be kidding me?? And they should supposidly rule the world?? It's worse then I thought...(I start wondering if the US is a real democracy at all, or even free!)


I've done that.  I've eaten over 100 species of wild mushrooms.  Once made a meal of turqoise darter, yellow perch, rainbow trout, blacknose dace, redeye bass, redbreast sunfish, mottled sculpin and margined madtom.  Might be the only person on Earth to ever eat that all at once (these species only co-occur in about a 40 square mile area).

Anyway tu quoque is boring don't you know?  I suppose you will learn about is and ought.

Democracy ain't all it's cracked up to be son.  Some people prefer to suckle at the teat that yields the milk of the fruit of other men's labor, others prefer to wash their own bowl.  When S.H.F., the latter will roast the bones of the former on spits while drinking their stores of beer.  Celebrate the beast inside you my friend and don't believe the myth of democracy and brotherhood.  For this is all a dream we dreamed one afternoon, long ago.

ANNYHOO I'm not against home schooling, and I agree with you that kids need free reign.  But you are way off target with respect to me being against home schooling, and you greatly overestimate the importance of social conditioning.  

What I am for is individualism and retaining the dignity of the savage.

What I am against are contrived notions of social progress made by silly bastards that don't understand how many energy slaves are used to feed their sorry asses.  Carry on my friend.

by the way can you pass the roast duck with mango salsa?

Date: 2008/03/10 21:30:40, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
why don't you roll over and whisper it in his ear?

Date: 2008/03/10 21:33:07, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
hey podzolboy, welcome!

PS dont go running around here calling the morphodyke a woman.  she is worse than an inuit to some people.

Date: 2008/03/10 21:35:29, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Gerry is a tard with a hook in his lips

“…it is important that we do not allow the anti-god side the opportunity to frame the debate around their own terms. In my view ‘intelligently designed’ people does just that, it does not go far enough in denying the lie of goo to you…” - irreducible_complacency

I fully agree, in spite of the alternative t-shirt mottos I offered above. Disingenuous atheists frame their proposals in scientific terms when they are actually talking about philosophical and theological matters, and many believers, unfortunately, limit their responses to that constricted context.

We’re the Home Team here, folks. We’re not only allowed to appeal to the whole man (intellect, emotions, conscience, will, etc), and to employ evidences of every kind (including the revelations of Holy Writ), but it’s our duty to do so.

Anything and everything that has ever been or ever will be studied is either God Himself or His works. And God has specially equipped us know Him through those works. But we can’t do it properly with only some of our faculties. And we certainly shouldn’t agree to shut our spiritual eyes just because the blind insist that we should…


Date: 2008/03/10 23:03:16, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
the fact is as long as the individual is seen as the highest priority the rich will crush the poor and the strong destroy the weak.

I totally agree.  I also assert that this will happen no matter what configuration you choose.  

I prefer the words of Ho Chi Minh written from prison.

the wheel of the law
turns without pause.

after rain, good weather.
In the wink of an eye.

The universe throws off
its muddy clothes.

For ten thousand miles
the landscape

spreads out like a beautiful brocade.
Light breezes.  Smiling flowers.

High in the trees, amongst
the sparkling leaves

all the birds sing at once.
Men and animals rise up reborn.

What could be more natural?
After sorrow, comes happiness.

the strong eat the weak, and they always have.  i think metaphysical concepts of justice fail at the intersection of is an ought.  in short, we all imagine a utopia.  gods help us if any of us gets our way.  there is more to heaven and earth to a fair wage, horatio.

Date: 2008/03/10 23:05:16, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
me thinks the cunning linguist doth protest too much.

did you know that goats don't like water?  you can take them down to the creek and try to push them in and they just back on up.  

don't like that water do you boy.  better back that ass up arden.

Date: 2008/03/11 08:05:48, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Well shit, I am in the fortunate position to be able to say to my opponents* "You are all wrong".  Fuck Darwin, that makes me intellectually filled.

*That would be any one who is arguing for legislative or technical solutions to what are essentially moral** problems.

**Moral in this sense referring to the relationship between man and landscape.  See Aldo L.

Date: 2008/03/11 09:55:38, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
This will make Tarden Chattersnatch have a movement.  Downstairs.

Whoa boy it's just a picture on a computer screen!  Easy now.

Proof that the God of the bible created the world and wants us to be happy:  a full grown man can just fit in a chicken.  Course that don't help you much now does it arden.

Hey FtK them'ar atheists are talkin' bout bestiality again!  can't you still post on the wall?

Date: 2008/03/11 10:12:03, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD


variation and adaptation are certain

That’s not just theoretically wrong it’s empirically wrong. There are a great many “living fossils”. Nothing is certain.

Moreover, I’ve blogged about two phenotypically identical organisms (only an expert on them can tell the two apart) that occupy the same ecological niche yet they don’t interbreed. Both these organisms (a worm barely visible to the naked eye) were sequenced and via molecular clock were determined to have been reproductively isolated for 240 million years. So by genotype they’re as different as mammals and birds but by phenotype they’re distinguishable only by experts.

If variation and adaptation are certain results of Darwinian evolution then you can toss the theory in the trash can right now because it’s empirically disproven.

It's really not worthy of comment.  Except for, Wow that guy is really dumb.

Date: 2008/03/11 21:08:36, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I always figured that any sombitch that wanted to be president wasn't fit for the office.  The way i see it, they orta pick some feller out of a hat and roust him out of bed in the middle of night at shotgun point and swear the poor bastard in.

But then that is just me.  If Tarden Slathernobs ran for president i think i would probably vote for him.  We need more tranny grannies in office.

Date: 2008/03/12 07:53:29, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
silly semanticist, if i wouldn't register to vote what makes you think I would register to be offended sexually?

besides they make you pay to join that club.  Why do that when there is a whole world of possums and goats and kittehs out there?*

*By the way in college I once saw my best friend in the world stick his member in the mouth of a bullhead catfish.  To this day I don't know why he did it, except maybe because I said he wouldn't.  Really fucked with some of the people that don't know him too well.  I nearly herniated my integument laughing at that shit.  Don't get all excited arden it was a long time ago.

Date: 2008/03/12 10:49:05, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I imagine gloppy is a man's man.  Or at least a mustache man.

Date: 2008/03/12 19:36:23, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I think that the reproductive isolation is based on a post-zygotic mechanism.  At least that is what Arden's mom said.

Date: 2008/03/12 22:42:49, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Ahhh gary what else is paul not going to do?

I'm still waiting for the theory that explains why there should be moths.

Paul Nelson is a liar.

Date: 2008/03/13 08:52:45, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
My Gods The STupid

We supposedly share 50% DNA with bananas. Does that mean we also share common ancestry with them? Or toads? Or mice? Or any organism you care to mention?

Can anyone tell me where this bullshit comes from?  You see it a lot, but I don't know the history of such stupidity.  I suspect it has descended with modification from Gish's bullfrog nonsense, but I can't be sure since Ray Comfort etc etc.  Wes?

Ps I haven't looked at the index of claims yet was hoping someone was a crackpot historian that knew off the top of ye olde noggin.

Date: 2008/03/13 11:23:03, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Well thanks Paul.  I was beginning to think i was invisible.

Anyway, I am fairly sure that moths exist to clutter up my light trap samples of otherwise interesting insects.

But if you will remember just a little ways back you were insinuating via ye olde quote as evidence game that this was one of the problems with evolutionary biology.

The popular theory of evolution is the modern synthesis (neo-Darwinism), based on changes in populations underpinned by the mathematics of allelic variation and driven by natural selection.  It accounts more for adaptive changes in the colouration of moths, than in explaining why there are moths at all.  This theory does not predict why there were only 50 or so modal body plans, nor does it provide a basis for rapid, large scale innovations.  It lacks significant connection with embryogenesis and hence there is no nexus to the evolution of form.  It fails to address the question of why the anatomical gaps between phyla are no wider today than they were at their Cambrian appearance.

Now I see that instead it is a problem with your panglossian view of the world.  Even with the intended humor.

Now, the burning question of course is, Does EE provide a theory that explains why there are moths at all?  Hmm?  god's will?  Inquiring minds wish to know.

Date: 2008/03/13 14:43:16, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Dave Tard gives and gives

I’m not sure I buy your story about plants hybridizing so easily. Pollen travels quite a ways both airborne and via insects and I don’t know of much in the way of hybrids from different species emerging from it. Flowering plants might simply be more promiscuous as they passively get exposed to pollen from many other different species (which doesn’t result in hybrids) while at the same time they get exposed to many close variants of their own species which does result in hybrids

Biology from Your Ass!!!!


Date: 2008/03/13 15:43:13, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I don’t know of much in the way of hybrids from different species emerging from it

Jesus god what a fool.  There are whole books written on this stuff.  I don't know what Allen gets out of kicking the tards around, he just doesn't seem like he is getting the same sadistic thrill of enjoying the tard that I know most of us do (which is why we're here, except for Arden and he is here for VMartin).  His behavior in that thread has forced me to conclude that MacNeill is either the consummate educator, or the consummate babysitter.  Or one hell of a good tard miner because that thread gives and gives.

Date: 2008/03/13 23:33:54, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
fellers Paul thinks he is mighty swuft on this'un.  Paul reckons that he and his Culture Renewal Warriors can claim just because creationists have used these arguments   before   that   doesn't necessarily mean that you have to call it a creationist argument because it is still a free country even though it is clear Lenny hates freedom because he is commie.

and that is pretty a much a greatest hits of this thread.  paul i thought you were interested in correcting the errors in your book, Of Pandas And PeopleExplore Evolution?

Date: 2008/03/14 12:13:36, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
It's even worse, Arden diddles homo goats.  And Louis is a diddle.

Date: 2008/03/14 12:24:30, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I was tarding around on Frequently Axed But Never Satisfactorily Developed into an Ontological Argument CreationWiki page....

Biological distribution
Why is there the present distribution of animals and plants in the world? How is it that marsupials are restricted to Australia and nearby islands and the Americas, monotremes to Australia, and few placental mammals are native to Australia? Why are tomatoes and potatoes native to the Americas only? (This is not a question merely of how they could have arrived there, it is also of why only there.)
Answer: Natural selection, which creationists accept as a selective, not a creative process. The other areas, for one reason or another, had proved unsuitable for the organisms to survive.

What an answer.  I will now accept that on tests.  Fuck biogeography, all we need is nature selected it so and creationists accept that in this case.

Date: 2008/03/14 12:32:56, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Hey Arden don't fuck with him while he is at work.  We don't come down to your barrel and spray a waterhose into the hole.

Marty your comparative method leaves much much to be desired.  I suggest your try reading this paper for some insight:  Pagel and Harvey 1988

You might need access to JSTOR.  There is a literature out there that you should get familiar with before we start this silly dance all over again.  Not that you would do such a thing.

Date: 2008/03/14 13:04:55, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

there's some good shit there.  thanks.

Date: 2008/03/14 13:38:19, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Now I have been asleep for a while but can you tell me how a 'stench' runs away?

On little cat feet?

With it's smell between it's legs?

Date: 2008/03/14 14:35:09, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
yes yes of course marty.


Date: 2008/03/14 16:36:05, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Hey Martin, I'm really getting sick and fucking tired of my milkshake being runny when you finally get off the internetismus long enough to bring to the window.  It's getting old.

Albie, I think you an legitimately substitute 'nocturnal' for 'gossipy' and not lose any empirical content in Martin's latest tardation.

Date: 2008/03/14 16:38:08, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I wonder if the single ancestral genome has any correlation to the entire set of all genomes  in the clade in question.

Reifying the trivial is certainly right up UD alley.

ID is going to subsume every single facet of modern biollergy boys i'ma tellin youns.

Date: 2008/03/14 17:13:09, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
aposematism of worms?

listen now goddammit if you put parsley on my cheeseburger and call it lettuce I'm going to have to go talk to that pimply faced 19 year old kid that is your manager and we'll have something done about it.

Date: 2008/03/14 21:48:29, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
it deals with interesting idea that all seed-plants are just variations of ideal "Urpflanze"

that is indeed an interesting idea.  it reminds me of another interesting idea that all left nipples are regrets in the mind of lesser gods.

Wilhelm Troll crucial works  - as those of A. Portmann - haven't been translated into English.

as shitty as it actually works in practice, the law of supply and demand provides an explanation for this phenomenon.

Get back to work Martin!  Them sows ain't gonna inseminate themselves, boy.

Date: 2008/03/14 22:53:25, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Louis is welsh.

Date: 2008/03/15 07:51:01, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I don't know if you consider number TWO to be sufficently supportive for an idea

Well Martin I'd say that there are a bunch more than two folks around here that think you are just a bag of air.

If you wish to give your theory that will replacenko das darwinismus we are listening.  giggling, but listening.


Date: 2008/03/15 08:24:59, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
you can rearrange all of the information in "Horton hears a who" to get all of the information in "War and Peace".  DaveScot is a frikkin genius.

Date: 2008/03/15 18:51:35, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
What a waste of my money!


Date: 2008/03/16 11:47:02, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I guess it would really suck to get buggered in the locker room before the game and then sill have to sit the bench on one of those teams Louis so we understand that you still have some resentment left over.  You seem to be handling it well.  Score one for maturity!

Date: 2008/03/16 12:39:56, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
All of Arden's germy guns are made of rubber and the only steel is where the battery goes.

Skeptic you are back to being an insufferable wanker.  The suggestion to 'get over it, take responsibility for yourself, pull yourself up by the bootstraps ect ect' is the fucking voice of privilege.  That doesn't mean you are wrong.  It means that your simplistic analysis is rather incomplete.

anyway louis you're gay.

Date: 2008/03/16 15:41:16, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
well it depends on which baptists you are talking about then i reckon that does make a difference.  these first baptist types that go to church downtown where they work ain't exactly the kinda baptists I like to pick on.

I'm talking bout missionary baptists and three wheel baptists, i'm talking about churches being about 100 meters from each other going down the road because they had some sort of doctrinal split a while back and some of em ain't spoke since.  I'm talking the kinda baptist where you could still get the spirit in the middle of preachin and just holler as loud as you could right there with your hand held up high and just holler about it.

That's a lot more fun to talk about than our boorish generalizations or some people's argumentum ad mere assertionismus incessantum.  Has anyone here ever went to a snake handling?  Cause they probly weren't baptists there.

Date: 2008/03/16 16:01:53, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

gross i like to take a dump before i take a shower.

Date: 2008/03/16 21:13:04, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
it was either build a personal UFO or work on creation research.  roflmao.

Date: 2008/03/16 21:22:27, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]


tard alert

Dave do you think that it is possible to systematically use taxonomic characters in calculation of CSI? If species are related to each others like the evolutionists say then surely it is possible to use comparisons between things like voles and analyze them in terms of how much information is shared and how much is different between these supposedly related species of voles.




I guess if DaveTard hadn't started it up there then it wouldn't be so funny.

You asked me to calculate the CSI of ATP synthase. I did that. It’s my turn now to ask you for a calculation. Show me a plausible and likely path for law and chance to assemble an ATP synthase molecule. The ball is now in your court. Failing that we can then analyze the CSI of a lead acid battery and show that intelligent agency is a mechanism which can produce similarly complex means of energy storage. Or you can just concede the point right away and save us both the effort of belaboring the obvious.


Date: 2008/03/17 21:06:58, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
kairos ozone red hard warming hole oil of focused tard slipping and sliding on the mat of the root onlookers.

it's hard to be sympathetic to douchebags I don't care if he is a pubic hair filer or public hare flier or a member of the card carrying syndrome of the toe writ large.  there comes a point where an asshole is just another asshole, evo mat sadly onlookers H'mmm darwinista close minded selective hyperskepticism merits always linked.  

i would like to see him fight a game rooster i imagine he could probably bore one to death.

Date: 2008/03/18 08:03:35, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
move to wall if you keer or dont keer

re the dead chickens, a few years ago the FBI and the state (basically busybody outside foreigners) closed down some local chicken fightings and destroyed an entire community and social network, not to mention the market for game chickens in about 15 or 20 counties and three states.  at least some local cops went to jail though, but so did little old ladies selling pies and coffee and biscuits etc.

the bastards, i reckon that someone didn't pay off the right folks or something.  but for a long while there were so many game chickens around and the market never picked back up.  people are scared to fight them now, but they had fought them up there for 30 years or so.  anyway friend of mine said come up and kill a bunch of these roosters so we did.  and hardly touched the lot.  that's the only dead game rooster i've ever seen and it wasn't because it had been whupped.  

Now in order to make this relevant to the thread, How much CSI is in a dead game rooster?  What form would the CSI take on the corpse?  What if the blood splattered in the shape of his unholy tentacled form, would this dramatically increase our measurement of CSI?

Date: 2008/03/18 08:23:23, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
I've wondered too.  Maybe he was a really really really good sock puppet.  I salute you sir.

Now back to this kairosfocus tardshow.  anyone who could possibly type this  
Dr MacNeill, just on a point of interest [for, to me, the issue of speciation and chromosome fusion events of humans relative to chimps is of relatively little significance relative to the origin of the information that makes us so different from our alleged chimp cousins, much less the overall origin of biofunctional, complex information challenge that is best illustrated by the macro-level diversity in the Cambrian revolution and in OOL], what is your response
and not immediately realize that they need to fucking take their meds is someone that needs to be locked up and be reminded very nicely by the 250 lb matron that if you won't take your fucking meds like a nice man then you will be restrained and you will receive them via suppository, so yes the meds they are going to be taken one way or the other.

Jesus.  Why not just say "Dr MacNeill, on a point of interest, what is your response?"

I'll tell you why.  Because this motherfucker is loony.  You can't make that kind of shit up.  If someone is sock puppeting kariosfocus they have already slipped past the point of no return.  

kairosfocus, he's A Desperately Seeking kinda Suzie.

this ain't a victimless crime, he is out there like spreading the stupid around like it was smallpox in a blanket.

I suppose what I am trying to say is Jack be careful you are going to get him too riled up and he will climb up in the bell tower and who knows what.  Or at the least he'll break and then that'll be the end of that good high octane tard.

Date: 2008/03/18 09:48:05, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
actually Alan it says that Gordon is a "representative of the church comminity".

See that little pouch in his pocket?  That's the pubic file.

Date: 2008/03/18 13:14:49, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

* I thought this was another really gay joke.  LIke it meant taking it seriously was really really really gay.**

**The fact that you are taking that seriously is even gayer than it was before.  You have like 999 gay points.

Date: 2008/03/18 16:20:22, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD

Date: 2008/03/18 17:56:16, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
Hey bob if you say all that information over and over again, say, the whole thing about 100 times, then it all starts to sound the same.

Date: 2008/03/18 17:59:33, Link
Author: Erasmus, FCD
This is not a quotation of tard, but a great quote from a fellow anti-tard warrior.

Louis I believe I know someone who has perfected an argument that you absolutely love.  This probably belongs on the self-immolation er skeptic's thread, but since that is farther back than I care to explore I shall post it here henceforth and anon and never think of that other thread again.

Norm is a young earth creationists playing science denial games and musing is knocking heads while smiling sweetly the whole time.  It's great but most of the tards know better than to play with her.  

musing writes
norm p post 581,

what is amusing is that I also believe that the Bible, or